politically-loaded maps: sputtering flemishly

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > politically-loaded maps: sputtering flemishly

«‹›2300 »

Jaramin: Oct 20, 2010

Nobody wants to be in Central or Mountain.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 08:04

Ponsonby Britt: Mar 13, 2006; I think you mean, why is there silverware in the pancake drawer? Wassup?

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Nevada wasn't always its current size:

Nevada gained most of its size because the Mormons were pissing Congress off in the 1860s by continuing to have polygamy and ignore the feds, so as punishment Congress gave Nevada part of the Utah territory. This happened two times in two years. Also around that time, Congress gave the northeastern bit of the Arizona Territory to Nevada because gold, silver, and lead had been discovered in the area and it was thought that the Nevada state government would do a better job of managing and developing those claims.

Bloodnose posted:

As a Renoite, I often forget Las Vegas is part of Nevada. Clark County is kind of its own world down there cut off from the rest of us by empty desert, bombing ranges and secret UFO bases.

As a Vegas person, I can also attest to this. I can always tell when someone is from Reno, because they talk about Nevada exclusively in terms of its northern attributes. In all fairness, there was a typo in the state constitution and Clark County was never technically a part of Nevada until the 1980s, but it still hurts.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 05:00

Mr. Belpit: Nov 11, 2008

Ponsonby Britt posted:

In all fairness, there was a typo in the state constitution and Clark County was never technically a part of Nevada until the 1980s, but it still hurts.

Are you seriously gonna drop something like this without elaborating?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 06:54

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Byzantine posted:

That's the original split of the territory - roughly, New Mexico was the part we got in the War of 1848, while Arizona was the Gadsden Purchase.

Arizona seceded and joined the Confederacy, while New Mexico sided with the North. By 1863, Confederate Arizona had been conquered; the territory was reorganized with a north-south split to spite the secessionists.

From my understanding, the whole thing was New Mexico Territory, and the Gadsden Purchase was added to that. A splinter government in Mesilla created Arizona Territory in the southern half, which seceded and joined the Confederacy (in large part to give the CSA a bridge to sympathizers in California) but of course after the war that ceased to be. The Arizona Territory created by the U.S. government was exactly what Arizona is today, plus the southern corner of Nevada.

Is there more info on this previous official east-west split you mention and is indicated in this map? Or was it more of a "This area is unofficially referred to as Arizona so I'll map it that way" thing?

Edit: aha, that map apparently dates from 1861, so it makes sense it would show Confederate Arizona. Though I was surprised to learn the term "Arizona" did indeed refer to the Gadsden Purchase area even before American acquisition, so the bit about the feds switching to a north-south border to spite them kind of makes sense.

Golbez fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Mar 20, 2016

# ? Mar 20, 2016 10:36

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Golbez posted:

From my understanding, the whole thing was New Mexico Territory, and the Gadsden Purchase was added to that. A splinter government in Mesilla created Arizona Territory in the southern half, which seceded and joined the Confederacy (in large part to give the CSA a bridge to sympathizers in California) but of course after the war that ceased to be. The Arizona Territory created by the U.S. government was exactly what Arizona is today, plus the southern corner of Nevada.

Is there more info on this previous official east-west split you mention and is indicated in this map? Or was it more of a "This area is unofficially referred to as Arizona so I'll map it that way" thing?

Edit: aha, that map apparently dates from 1861, so it makes sense it would show Confederate Arizona. Though I was surprised to learn the term "Arizona" did indeed refer to the Gadsden Purchase area even before American acquisition, so the bit about the feds switching to a north-south border to spite them kind of makes sense.

The Arizona Territory wasn't formed until 1863, and (aside from the CSA thing) the border was a discussion that preceded the war.

quote:

Following the expansion of the New Mexico Territory in 1853, as a result of the Gadsden Purchase, several proposals for a division of the territory and the organization of a separate Territory of Arizona in the southern half of the territory were advanced as early as 1856. These proposals arose from concerns about the ability of the territorial government in Santa Fe to effectively administer the newly acquired southern portions of the territory.

The first proposal dates from a conference held in Tucson that convened on August 29, 1856. The conference issued a petition to the U.S. Congress, signed by 256 people, requesting organization of the territory and elected Nathan P. Cooke as the territorial delegate to Congress. In January 1857, the bill for the organization of the territory was introduced into the House of Representatives, but the proposal was defeated on the grounds that the population of the proposed territory was yet too small. Later a similar proposal was defeated in the Senate. The proposal for creation of the territory was controversial in part because of the perception that the New Mexico Territory was under the influence of southern sympathizers who were highly desirous of expanding slavery into the southwest.

In February 1858, the New Mexico territorial legislature adopted a resolution in favor of the creation of the Arizona territory, but with a north-south border along the 109th meridian, with the additional stipulation that all the Indians of New Mexico would be removed to northern Arizona.

In April 1860, impatient for Congress to act, a convention of 31 delegates met in Tucson and adopted a constitution for a provisional territorial government of the area south of 34 degrees north. The delegates elected Lewis Owings as provisional governor.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 18:19

AfroSquirrel: Sep 3, 2011

Not a map, but it's nice to have a spell-checker that's prepared for all possibilities:

Seigniorage is an actual word, and it's the profit a government makes by issuing currency.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:21

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

ComradeCosmobot posted:

You can't just drop a nugget like that without a link...

I'm phone posting so I can't find the link, but CP restarted a line running through Obama's neighborhood in an effort to cut down Chicago transit times and when the neighborhood complained and sued they lost.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:40

Ready! Set! Blow!: Jun 17, 2005; Red alert.

Speaking of Arizona and New Mexico, here's the original layout of counties in New Mexico Territory:

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:33

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

Vlad Antlerkov posted:

Speaking of Arizona and New Mexico, here's the original layout of counties in New Mexico Territory:

Did someone actually draw the counties on a map to like that or did they just say "Valencia County is everything from a line at Point X westwards"?

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:38

crabcakes66: May 24, 2012; by exmarx

All I can see is a ship.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:15

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Is it called Boaty McBoatface?

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:27

Ponsonby Britt: Mar 13, 2006; I think you mean, why is there silverware in the pancake drawer? Wassup?

Mr. Belpit posted:

Are you seriously gonna drop something like this without elaborating?

Nevada Constitution, Article 14 posted:

Section. 1. Boundary of the State of Nevada. The boundary of the State of Nevada is as follows:
Commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the forty-third degree of longitude West from Washington with the forty-second degree of North latitude; thence due East along the forty-second degree of North latitude to its intersection with the thirty-seventh degree of longitude West from Washington; thence South on the thirty-seventh degree of longitude West from Washington to its intersection with the middle line of the Colorado River of the West; thence down the middle line of the Colorado River of the West to its intersection with the Eastern boundary of the State of California; thence in a North Westerly direction along the Eastern boundary line of the State of California to the forty-third degree of Longitude West from Washington; Thence North along the forty-third degree of West Longitude, and the Eastern boundary line of the State of California to the place of beginning. All territory lying West of and adjoining the boundary line herein prescribed, which the State of California may relinquish to the Territory or State of Nevada, shall thereupon be embraced within and constitute a part of this State.

This is the current version, which includes Clark County (as defined by the "Colorado River of the West"). That language was only added in 1982, though. Before that, the legal description of the boundaries excluded Southern Nevada. I also like the last sentence, about how Nevada is willing to annex any of California, just in case California decides that's on the table. No need to amend that part of the original constitution!

e: Also how the lines of longitude are measured from Washington and not London.

Ponsonby Britt fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Mar 21, 2016

# ? Mar 21, 2016 06:26

Red Ryder: Apr 20, 2006; oh dang

Byzantine posted:

That's the original split of the territory - roughly, New Mexico was the part we got in the War of 1848, while Arizona was the Gadsden Purchase.

Arizona seceded and joined the Confederacy, while New Mexico sided with the North. By 1863, Confederate Arizona had been conquered; the territory was reorganized with a north-south split to spite the secessionists.

What's up with the Canadian border and why are New Brunswick and Nova Scotia colored like American states?

# ? Mar 21, 2016 09:33

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Vlad Antlerkov posted:

Speaking of Arizona and New Mexico, here's the original layout of counties in New Mexico Territory:

America has a fine tradition of elongated land claims:

# ? Mar 21, 2016 10:03

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

twoday posted:

America has a fine tradition of elongated land claims:

Here's an interesting result of that - notice how Pennslyvania is a perfect rectangle corner in that map? As originally planned, the straight line western and northern edges of PA were supposed to meet far enough out in Lake Erie that PA would have suitable coastline to build a port city. As it turns out, when actually surveyed, the position where they met allowed for only a few hundred feet of coastline.

However there's this, an area of land that was jointly claimed by multiple New England states, New York, and desired by PA - with plenty of room to build what became Erie, PA. In the end, the early federal government convinced all states to give up their claims to it, and then sold it to Pennslyvania for some large amount of money. And that's why PA bulges up there.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 13:16

Lord Hydronium: Sep 25, 2007; Non, je ne regrette rien

twoday posted:

America has a fine tradition of elongated land claims:

Virginia: We're just going to claim everything on this continent, thank you very much.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 13:43

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

twoday posted:

America has a fine tradition of elongated land claims:

I'm the strip of South Carolinian Mississippi riverbank.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 13:48

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

In that vein, North America from the alternate history epic Look to the West.

http://imperatordeelysium.deviantart.com/art/LTTW-Vol-IV-End-534836831

It all more or less makes sense if you're willing to spend a month reading it.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 14:38

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

DarkCrawler posted:

In that vein, North America from the alternate history epic Look to the West.

http://imperatordeelysium.deviantart.com/art/LTTW-Vol-IV-End-534836831

It all more or less makes sense if you're willing to spend a month reading it.

Its a very nice looking map, I'll say that much.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 15:16

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Lord Hydronium posted:

Virginia: We're just going to claim everything on this continent, thank you very much.

To be fair, the original grants by the kings to Virginia and Massachusetts Bay was basically "the whole continent for both of ya, because gently caress if we're going to go survey that poo poo".

# ? Mar 21, 2016 15:36

King Hong Kong: Nov 6, 2009; For we'll fight with a vim
that is dead sure to win.

Whoever made that does not understand how the word "new" got applied to territories in the Americas, unless part of that story was how the nominal/jurisdictional kingdom of Granada in Southern Spain was separated from Spain and annexed (and abolished) the Viceroyalty of New Granada before being incorporated into that alternate history empire of New Spain to say nothing of "new" and "old" California. It's on the level of CK2.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 15:44

Chicken: Apr 23, 2014

Red Ryder posted:

What's up with the Canadian border and why are New Brunswick and Nova Scotia colored like American states?

That's what Canada looked like around 1867. The pink on the left is still British territory. The green outline is Upper Canada (they call it Canada West in this map for some reason). Next to that is Canada East/Lower Canada/Quebec. And you spotted New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Not sure why they got a full colour-in and Quebec and Ontario just got an outline.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 15:45

Red Ryder: Apr 20, 2006; oh dang

Chicken posted:

That's what Canada looked like around 1867. The pink on the left is still British territory. The green outline is Upper Canada (they call it Canada West in this map for some reason). Next to that is Canada East/Lower Canada/Quebec. And you spotted New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Not sure why they got a full colour-in and Quebec and Ontario just got an outline.

Ah I see thanks.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 16:58

Ammat The Ankh: Sep 7, 2010; Now, attempt to defeat me!
And I shall become a living legend!

https://twitter.com/drewtoothpaste/status/711969673177276417

# ? Mar 21, 2016 19:38

Corek: May 11, 2013; by R. Guyovich

System Metternich posted:

A 1717 map of the German city of F�rth. Yellow means that the houses are subject to the Prince of Ansbach, red is the Dean of the Cathedral in Bamberg, Yellow the Imperial City of Nuremberg and the grey the town itself (which, as a legal body, in turn was subject to Ansbach in temporal and Nuremberg in ecclesiastical matters. I think, it's complicated). "Subject to" means in this context that they not only owned the land the buildings stood on, but also that different laws and rules applied depending on where you lived. In the specific example of F�rth, all three parties hated the gently caress out of each other and were trying to piss each other off at every opportunity. This in turn meant that the people of F�rth had many liberties and opportunities other people of the era hadn't - basically everything could be seen as a political act and make you powerful enemies, but if you played your cards right you could count on the near-unlimited support of your lord as long as whatever you did a) benefitted him and b) (and probably even more importantly) pissed the other lords off. The best-known example of this is the thriving Jewish community in F�rth, which developed because the Princes of Ansbach and the Dean of Bamberg realised that giving Jews permission to settle for money meant that they could earn lots of it, and it would greatly annoy Nuremberg where Jews weren't allowed to live at all, neither in the city itself nor in any of its lands outside of it.

The Holy Roman Empire, folks. If towns belonging to three different lords at once who all hate each other is wrong, then I don't want to be right

You said Yellow twice. One of those should be green.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 20:50

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Ponsonby Britt posted:

This is the current version, which includes Clark County (as defined by the "Colorado River of the West"). That language was only added in 1982, though. Before that, the legal description of the boundaries excluded Southern Nevada. I also like the last sentence, about how Nevada is willing to annex any of California, just in case California decides that's on the table. No need to amend that part of the original constitution!

e: Also how the lines of longitude are measured from Washington and not London.

For more info on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_meridians

twoday posted:

Some notes on the sea-to-sea grants:

* Connecticut punched *way* above its weight. See where it stretches west of Pennsylvania? This is omitting that the line continued all the way through Pennsylvania, and they even had a small war over the situation before giving up. And, unlike most of the other state cessions, they kept part of theirs, in present-day northeast Ohio, until 1800. Many names in the region still hark to its heritage as the Connecticut Western Reserve.

* Something many people may not realize but is visible in this map: Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820.

* It's only mentioned in the legend, but New York also had a sizable claim, stretching all the way down to the Tennessee River. However, its claim was much less enforced (and possibly less legitimate) than Virginia's.

* North Carolina's claim in this map is actually incorrect. Virginia and North Carolina only properly surveyed their borders about halfway across the current border. By the time they reached the Cumberland Gap, which is the present-day NC-TN-VA tripoint, the two survey teams were two miles apart, creating a stripe of land claimed by both. North Carolina simply gave up there, whereas Virginia kept going to the Tennessee River. However, by the time they'd reached the Tennessee River, they were a full 17 miles north of the proper latitude. So, some time after Tennessee was split from North Carolina, and Kentucky was split from Virginia, the two new states surveyed their border and decided that, at the Tennessee River, the border would jink back south to 36�30′ north, thus restoring some lost land to Kentucky and giving it its western heel.

* Actually, all of North Carolina's borders were largely theoretical. Based on what I've been able to figure out: Starting at the coast, it was supposed to go northwest until it reached 35� north. However, they stopped short - not due to bad surveying, but just didn't feel like going on. So they stopped 12 miles short of the parallel. When work restarted, instead of making sure the line had reached 35� north like they were supposed to, they simply went west. By the time they realized this, they'd reached modern day Charlotte. So after jogging around the local Catawba lands, they decided, let's put the line north of 35� now, to compensate South Carolina for the land they lost on the eastern side. Except magnetic anomalies caused this line to veer a little too far north, now cutting some land off North Carolina. This was resolved by, I think, finally just drawing a line to the continental divide and following that south to 35� north.

* South Carolina's western claim never existed. They claimed everything north of the head of the Savannah River, and the North Carolina border; however, it wasn't known at the time that the Savannah River originated in North Carolina.

* Georgia only ceded its western half after a massive land fraud scandal, and even then only in 1802 and for a large amount of money.

* I can't really read the text over Vermont, but it was claimed by both New York and New Hampshire, though I think New York's claim was more valid. Vermont itself claimed a chunk of towns in both states as well, before it was made a state itself.

(I learned all of this just in the last few months doing research for my nearly done rewrite of Wikipedia's Territorial Evolution of the USA page)

# ? Mar 21, 2016 22:29

Corek: May 11, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Golbez posted:

(I learned all of this just in the last few months doing research for my nearly done rewrite of Wikipedia's Territorial Evolution of the USA page)

Wow, you wrote both the original 2006 wikipage and its 2016 upgrade. That first version is the grail of map nerds worldwide.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 00:59

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Corek posted:

Wow, you wrote both the original 2006 wikipage and its 2016 upgrade. That first version is the grail of map nerds worldwide.

Wow, thanks!

I knew it had gone viral a few times (sometimes poorly, since some people thought it was racist) but wasn't sure just how many people enjoyed it. It's going to drive me insane when I can't really duplicate this kind of work on other countries. There's a reason I did Canada, Australia, and the US first - young countries with a rich English-language record-keeping tradition. (Then again, I was thinking my next move might be Russia and the Soviet Union; at the very least, the US government paid lots of attention to them, and there's enough changes that make it interesting)

# ? Mar 22, 2016 01:09

Corek: May 11, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Golbez posted:

Wow, thanks! I knew it had gone viral a few times (sometimes poorly, since some people thought it was racist) but wasn't sure just how many people enjoyed it. It's going to drive me insane when I can't really duplicate this kind of work on other countries. There's a reason I did Canada, Australia, and the US first - young countries with a rich English-language record-keeping tradition. (Then again, I was thinking my next move might be Russia and the Soviet Union; at the very least, the US government paid lots of attention to them, and there's enough changes that make it interesting)

I was literally just wondering how the borders of the central asian SSRs were determined, and whether there were any other things like the Crimea changeover.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 03:32

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Corek posted:

I was literally just wondering how the borders of the central asian SSRs were determined, and whether there were any other things like the Crimea changeover.

And that's before you even get to the various ASSRs. There's probably good mapping to be done there.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 03:59

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

Corek posted:

I was literally just wondering how the borders of the central asian SSRs were determined, and whether there were any other things like the Crimea changeover.

A lot of Soviet borders were drawn with the intent of being as inconvenient and messy as possible, reducing nationalist sentiment and strengthening the Soviet state.

I really wish someone would do a book on Soviet borders, there's a lot of interesting political stuff at play.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 04:34

Jaguars!: Jul 31, 2012

Because my local newpaper's website has devolved into nothing but tabloid scraping of the bottom of the social media's barrel, you get this:

I like the projection notes

# ? Mar 22, 2016 04:58

duckmaster: Sep 13, 2004; Mr and Mrs Duck go and stay in a nice hotel.

One night they call room service for some condoms as things are heating up.

The guy arrives and says "do you want me to put it on your bill"

Mr Duck says "what kind of pervert do you think I am?!

QUACK QUACK

HorseRenoir posted:

A lot of Soviet borders were drawn with the intent of being as inconvenient and messy as possible, reducing nationalist sentiment and strengthening the Soviet state.

This isn't really true at all, especially in the case of the Fergana Valley. The Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs were formed in 1924 precisely as SSRs for the Uzbek and Turkmen ethnicities (the Tajiks had an autonomous oblast in the Uzbek SSR which became its own republic in 1929). The Communists in Moscow realised that these ethnic groups were likely to be at least sceptical and at worst hostile to a Moscow-based government, so set up ethnic republics all over the Union. The idea was that the peasants would feel an affinity to their own SSR or oblast, and do what they were told by the ethnic elite running that state, who in turn would do as they were told by the Politburo in Moscow.

The borders in the Fergana Valley during Soviet rule were administrative and not even particularly clearly defined, meaning access to water and other natural resources wasn't really a major issue. At the time of the borders being drawn they were roughly synonymous with the ethnic makeup of that area, although with some notable exceptions - Uzbekistan had at least one Tajik autonomous oblast bordering Tajikstan itself, probably to keep Tajikstan smaller as they were considered more remote and thus potentially more troublesome than the Uzbeks (but again I'm talking about the native elite, not the peasantry).

This all came crashing down in the 1930s with Stalins policies of collectivisation. The Valley, previously an agricultural and almost exclusively Uzbek area, was converted into an enormous cotton industry, with people from the neighbouring SSRs being drafted in to farm it. Then during WW2 the Soviet Union relocated much of its industry eastwards, resulting in ethnic groups from all over the Union settling in the area.

Even then this didn't cause very much in the way of ethnic tension, partly because of the purely administrative sense of the borders and partly because of the strong ethnically-led "governments" in the Republics, meaning the ethnic groups in one SSR could complain to the government of another SSR and reasonably expect something to be done about their problems. But when the Soviet Union fell and the borders became far more rigid, as well as the ethnic governments suddenly being able to control their own affairs (generally to the detriment of the native population as the native elites had become partly Russificated), and the area is a tinderbox.

The Armenia/Azerbaijan area was a doomed experiment in collectivisation but until 1991 the population in the Fergana Valley more or less got on with each other quite peacefully, precisely because their borders had been drawn along national and ethnic lines.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 20:47

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

duckmaster posted:

Uzbekistan had at least one Tajik autonomous oblast bordering Tajikstan itself, probably to keep Tajikstan smaller as they were considered more remote and thus potentially more troublesome than the Uzbeks (but again I'm talking about the native elite, not the peasantry).

I was looking for this and I found that the Tajik SSR originally was entirely an autonomous oblast of the Uzbek SSR, did the Uzbek SSR keep one after the Tajik SSR was split off?

As for the Caucasus: There were several weird borders there. First, the fact that Azerbaijan has the Nachichevan Autonomous Republic, separated from it by Armenia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan both have exclaves in the other's country (well, had - technically they exist but they have been occupied by the surrounding country since 1991). And then there's Nagorno-Karabakh, which was an autonomous oblast set up for Armenians living in an area isolated from Armenia, but perhaps too isolated...? Okay now this has me wondering, why was Nachichevan set up differently from Nagorno-Karabakh? What was the difference between an autonomous oblast and autonomous SSR?

# ? Mar 22, 2016 21:05

duckmaster: Sep 13, 2004; Mr and Mrs Duck go and stay in a nice hotel.

One night they call room service for some condoms as things are heating up.

The guy arrives and says "do you want me to put it on your bill"

Mr Duck says "what kind of pervert do you think I am?!

QUACK QUACK

Golbez posted:

I was looking for this and I found that the Tajik SSR originally was entirely an autonomous oblast of the Uzbek SSR, did the Uzbek SSR keep one after the Tajik SSR was split off?

Ah, I was wrong on this count - the autonomous oblast within the Uzbek SSR was actually the Karakalpak Autonomous Oblast. The Uzbeks and Tajiks negotiated the border when forming the SSRs but eventually left a couple of Tajik majority regions on the Uzbek side, although with no recognition of an ethnic oblast.

Golbez posted:

As for the Caucasus: There were several weird borders there. First, the fact that Azerbaijan has the Nachichevan Autonomous Republic, separated from it by Armenia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan both have exclaves in the other's country (well, had - technically they exist but they have been occupied by the surrounding country since 1991). And then there's Nagorno-Karabakh, which was an autonomous oblast set up for Armenians living in an area isolated from Armenia, but perhaps too isolated...? Okay now this has me wondering, why was Nachichevan set up differently from Nagorno-Karabakh? What was the difference between an autonomous oblast and autonomous SSR?

I think there's basically no difference in practice and it's a combination of how they were formed, how large/rich they are and how much prestige the Politburo thinks they deserved. The Nachichevan Autonomous Republic was formed through a referendum held by the Soviets, and its predecessor had been formed by a war and a declaration of independence. The Nagorno-Karabakh oblast was just formed by Stalin with a map and a pen.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 23:58

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

HorseRenoir posted:

I really wish someone would do a book on Soviet borders, there's a lot of interesting political stuff at play.

God the Azerbaijan/Armenia border is weird.

# ? Mar 23, 2016 00:10

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

# ? Mar 23, 2016 00:47

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Golbez posted:

Some notes on the sea-to-sea grants:

* It's only mentioned in the legend, but New York also had a sizable claim, stretching all the way down to the Tennessee River. However, its claim was much less enforced (and possibly less legitimate) than Virginia's.

Do you know when this claim was made?