MotF 71: The Maps are Never Right in Those Books

Krall

Banned
The Maps are Never Right in Those Books


The Challenge
Make a map of an ATL that is incorrect.

The Restrictions
There are no restrictions on when your PoD or map may be set. Future maps are allowed, but blatantly implausible (ASB) maps are not.

How you wish to indicate the inaccuracies of your map is up to you, but you must indicate them somehow (stating roughly what's wrong with the map in your description is fine).

If you're not sure whether your idea meets the criteria of this challenge, please feel free to PM me.


The entry period for this round shall end on Saturday 15th of December.


!THIS THREAD IS FOR POSTING OF ENTRIES ONLY!

Any discussion must take place in the main thread. If you post anything other than a map entry (or a description accompanying a map entry) in this thread then you will be asked to delete the post. If you refuse to delete the post, post something that is clearly disruptive or malicious, or post spam then you may be disqualified from entering in this round of MotF and you may be reported to the board's moderators.


Remember to vote on the previous round of MotF!
 
"Because we're are stronger, and richer, and smarter, and stronger, I know that we will prevail, and that's why Im proud to present the fifth edition of Marvel Publications Introductory Advanced Geolophy For Middle Student young heroes like yourselfs! You'll will never let their Socialists tell us how to do. Bless you all."

From the Fourward of the Marvel Publications Paperback Georophic International Studdies Guide, copywright 2035 (Once again, in color, four you!)


is it red or is it dead.JPG
 
The inaccuracies in the map occur on a number of levels, including the myriad errors to be had in the publisher's functional-alcoholic brother-in-law serving as editor of this particular edition, and that editor's decision to "just go with" the 2025 map because the secretary was "ready to go" right there and he wasn't going to waste time, and the lack of specific knowledge of various changes --the liberation of Bhutan ("Who-tan?" followed by guffaws), the back and forth status of a number of other smaller countries ("Yeah, yeah," followed by resumed discussion of secretary's new diet), et al-- just for starters.

Another level could be seen as more philosophical. For example, the demented tyrants that pass for "allies for freedom" would be awful jokes if the unrestrained slaughter of civilians passed for funny, and pigeonholing a country as "them" for daring to not want "Hyper-Launch Pre-Strike" ICBMs on their soil is a touch unfair. Maybe I'm being picky.

Edit: And, claiming the entirety of Antarctica? That's a damn lie.
 
From Maps Through The Ages, Cecille Frampton, 1973.

"Although settlement proved infeasible for the Norsemen, sporadic contact continued up through the end of the fifteenth century, when a number of explorers in more southerly countries began suggesting that the riches of the East might be more easily reached by sailing west, and that the rumored "Vine-land" might provide a convenient stopover point. As a result, many of the early navigators chose a more northerly route, and only gradually did the extent of the Hesperian continent become apparent. In fact, for a long time, North Hesperia was thought to be a part of Asia, as shown in this map from 1501, which optimistically places the "Great Cham of Tartary" somewhere in northern Mechicoe. See also the existence of a Southwest Passage connecting the Atlantic and Placidic Oceans--this may have been wishful thinking on the part of the cartographer, or it may have been based on second or third-hand accounts of trade routes across the Isthmus of Tecwanipec. Note that the Mayapan Peninsula, though misidentified as an island, is labeled as a source of spices, which may indicate that occasional trade was taking place between Europeans and native Hesperians at the time of the map's printing, or may be another misconception on the part of the creator, confusing Mayapan with the Spice Islands of the East. Information on the interior of the continent is similarly vague; for instance, the Great Lakes are shown as a single inland sea--source of the Mississippi and the Cabotto as well as the St. Brendan..."
MOF71.png
 
Last edited:
Last-minute entry

In 1960 Germany was at the height of its power. During the last decade the Reich had made huge accomplishments: economic growth on an unprecedented scale, the return to democracy, the inclusion of Turkey into the increasingly cohesive pro-German bloc, genuine reconciliation with Poland and Bulgaria, the final solution of the Czechoslovak issue, and the invention of the atomic bomb.

But despite all this, a feeling of unease remained. As far as it can be determined, as of 1960 the combined power of Germany and its various associates exceeded that of the USSR. But the growth of the latter, stimulated by the extensive new reforms, was becoming increasingly rapid. The unpleasant truth began to dawn in Berlin that, for all its recent successes, Germany would soon find itself in a relative decline should the present trends continue. Unsurprisingly, some were of the opinion that something should be done about this. And that Germany's brief window of nuclear monopoly provided a perfect opportunity. A first strike to cripple Soviet industry, followed by an all-out invasion aided by the Ukrainians and Balts rising up against their oppressors ...

pre_emptive_war_by_mapsbyzaius-d5oxm1n.jpg


So, what is wrong with the following map? It is based largely upon rumors and speculation. While pre-eliminary studies of such an invasion were indeed made on several occasions, none of the variants was developed in detail. The map also fails to acknowledge that different variants of the plan existed at all, let alone the differences between them, instead including many of the more ambitions aspects of each plan. Additionally, virtually nothing was ever stated about the objectives of such an operation. Beyond 'significantly weakening the USSR', it seems that no clear aims were ever formulated. Another aspect which needs to be taken with a grain of salt is the relations between Germany and the supposedly independent states. If the fate of the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and Latvia is any indicator, they would have been anything but. (Due to the presence of the German army from the outset, their exploitation might have in fact been even more severe.) Finally, the term 'pre-emptive war' is misleading at best in the face of the detente which the USSR pursued after the death of Stalin in 1957.

Unsurprisingly, few of Germany's leaders showed any interest in implementing this plan. Relations with Poland (whose location made it vital for conducting such a war) were indeed improving, but the Poles still refused to consider letting the German army into their territory unless absolutely necessary. Romania and Turkey were slightly more friendly, but still had little intention of risking such a war. Of course, once the USSR developed its own nuclear bomb a few years after Germany, the appeal of these plans disappeared. Germany's last opportunity to break its adversary without destroying itself was over.
 
Last edited:
Top