Talk:World map (1940)

Thank you for this map. Some notes: Pakštuva would be a better name to use than Pakštija (I have renamed the article too; after all "uva" is more Lithuanian ending than "ija" which would have mattered in those times and the English name if tthere would be one would be Pakshtia or something like that probably). Regarding the claims on Antarctica (this regards the previous maps also), probably they wouldn't have been presented in modern borders immidietly (otherwise it would be unclear why the portion that became Free Lithuania later was initially left unclaimed), but I believe it would be more realistic that the countries at first only claimed certain places on coastlines and later the area claimed increased periodically (simūilarly as in *here's* Africa once) until it was understood that this does little good for the countries to own territories in Antarctica and thus no further claims were laid, leaving some territory to be unclaimed (or maybe some treaty was signed to conserve that territory as no man's land due to some disputes). The name Southern Lands (Pietų Žemės) also refers to the New Lithuania, not only Maasai. However, in 1936 (since 1934 actually) Maasai was a fully incorporated part of Lithuania, so it would probably be the best to just write "Lit." near it in non-italic, similarly as is done with the SR. New Lithuania did not exist in 1936, the first settlement was established in 1937. Abdul-aziz 11:00, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for that. --Sikulu 02:37, 6 September 2006 (PDT)

You are welcome :-) . Another problem I notice is that Lithuania, Courland, Livonia and such are shown as colonies of Russia. It was not so - the areas of these countries were, as far as I understand, annexed into Russia, that is, they should be shown as parts of Russia. I am not sure if this was the case with Veneda as well, maybe Jan could tell more about it. While I am pretty sure that Courland, Estonia, Livonia were all annexed into Russia, I believe that parts of Lithuania went to Ukraine and Belarus. I don't think it was ever decided which parts exactly however. Maybe Jan could tell more. Also, Ukraine and Belarus should be coloured in different colour than Russia probably as technically they were independent countries, although allies of Russia. Abdul-aziz 14:07, 7 September 2006 (PDT)

Fair enough. I gave them the same colour to show that they where in the same sphere-of-influence. --Sikulu 02:09, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

P.S. Parts of Lithuania were annexed to Ukraine and Belarus later on (about 1948). --Sikulu 02:13, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Then also. But in 1939 Lithuania was invaded and annexed completely (with the exception of the lands in Africa and Antarctica) by Russia, Belarus and Ukraine (in the Thunderstorm War); no state of Lithuania did remain. Later the area was conquered by the Germans and after the Russians and their allies came back they decided to try a new approach and theiy created an "independent" (actually a puppet-state) Lithuania in some of the Lithuanian and German areas, while the rest of former Lithuania was annexed into Belarus and Ukraine. Courland, Estonia, Livonia were also annexed to Russia in 1939/1940, but they were made into the puppet snorist states of Latvia and Estonia with the Russian comeback in 1947. I believe everything is more or less explained in Second Great War and Lithuania articles.

There is a certain misleading thing here however - if the current system of marking will be used, Lithuania will have to be marked as a disputed territory in gray for whole war, and in fact for all the time up until these days, similarly to former Lithuanian areas in Africa, as the claim of Free Lithuania over those areas was never dropped. This is why I suggest using the gray colour only for condominiums or the areas that are actually regarded as disputed by both sides or are partly ruled by both sides. The borders that, at the time the map represents, were unclear due to war (such as the French/German border in this map) could be marked by red X to show that there was a war instead of marking the occupied territory as disputed as in that case if e.g. Egypt would have occupied Nubia from Ethiopia nothing would have changed on map.Abdul-aziz 03:23, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

That makes sense. I'll update those maps ASAP (which should be this afternoon, and I'll update the images on Monday (internet connection willing). --Sikulu 02:57, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

I have edited this map and marked the borders of the occupational zones of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia in Lithuania, also corrected some minor mistakes (Fk with non-capital K after Rhodesia, New Lithuania instead of Lithuania (there was no state of New Lithuania, it was still known as the Kingdom of Lithuania, although it only ruled the Antarctic colony in 1940)). Also, Northern Manchuria was a nominally independent puppet state of China, similarly to Japan at the time and to various snorist states (in their relation to Russia), therefore I have shown it similarly to Japan. New Dalmatia, according to the respective article, was occupied by Russia after the fall of Austria, so it would be inside Russia in 1940, I have edited this also. The territories that were annexed into the country proper are shown to be inside that country (I am not sure however if northern France was annexed into the Holy Roman Empire or not). Hong Kong is shown as occupied to China as it is doubtful that Chinese would leave a port allied to Australasia on their shores. I am not sure if Saigon was annexed or not however, so it is left as a part of France for now. I have still not decided however on what marking to use to show that there is a war going on on that border. Red X would probably be not good as then it would be invisible on FK territories which are marked in red. So probably some black symbol would be the best. Abdul-aziz 03:10, 10 September 2006 (PDT)