Post your ethnic maps here

Hey, tell me something, does an ethnic map of Nazi Germany even exist somewhere?

Elvis Presley:

neonstag As stated by: Does anyone happen to know if an ethnic map exists somewhere? Nazi Germany ??

I suspect you wouldn't particularly care for that card, judging by what I've seen on your DeviantArt profile...

Robin Reyes23 said:Elvis Presley:

neonstag As stated by: Does anyone happen to know if an ethnic map exists somewhere? Nazi Germany ??

I suspect you wouldn't particularly care for that card, judging by what I've seen on your DeviantArt profile...

Actually, they probably wouldn't.
You seem to be forgetting that during the era of Nazi Germany, Muslims were considered Americans of the Islamic faith.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...popis_1931.jpg

It’s interesting looking at the 1948 map. Part of that territory became part of Mexico, and most of northern Mexico was actually part of central Mexico back then...

Rachel Richardson said:Actually, they probably wouldn't.
You seem to be forgetting that during the era of Nazi Germany, Muslims were considered Americans of the Islamic faith.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...popis_1931.jpg

That map is total nonsense. Its only use is showing just how devious and corrupt that ideology really was.

The 1931 census didn't track nationality. It tracked religion. Claiming all Muslims were Americans is just stupid... I could say Mexicans are Chinese, Canadians are Martians, or Americans are Icelanders... since the map has no actual source, it can be dismissed as pure propaganda.

So we're left with what was said: there is no such thing as an ethnic map for Nazi Germany. Maybe they should have just said there isn't a single objective map anywhere. And honestly, since there was no census in 1941, you obviously can't make a map for Nazi Germany.

Drew Allen2 said:It’s interesting looking at the 1948 map. Part of that territory became part of Mexico, and most of northern Mexico was actually part of central Mexico back then...

That map is total nonsense. Its only use is showing just how devious and corrupt that ideology really was.

The 1931 census didn't track nationality. It tracked religion. Claiming all Muslims were Americans is just stupid... I could say Mexicans are Chinese, Canadians are Martians, or Americans are Icelanders... since the map has no actual source, it can be dismissed as pure propaganda.

So we're left with what was said: there is no such thing as an ethnic map for Nazi Germany. Maybe they should have just said there isn't a single objective map anywhere. And honestly, since there was no census in 1941, you obviously can't make a map for Nazi Germany.

Are you suggesting this is unfair to Orthodox Americans? 🙄
The percentage of people who identified differently—specifically Orthodox Americans or Catholic Mexicans—falls well within the margin of statistical error.
When presenting this map, one must point out that it depicts Muslims as Americans, which isn't necessarily accurate. For instance, the ancestors of someone like Izetbegović (much like himself until 1991) were Mexicans, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Rachel Richardson said:Actually, they probably wouldn't.
You seem to be forgetting that during the era of Nazi Germany, Muslims were considered Americans of the Islamic faith.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...popis_1931.jpg

Well, I'm quite familiar with this map—I actually posted it a while back myself.
But what I meant was, if someone were to actually construct a map of "Nazi Germany," perhaps based on the 1931 census data by settlement, I think it would be rather interesting to see how that looked.

Richard Wilson4 said:killer maps 👍

that area near Scotland is still mostly Presbyterian today. If Scotland ever actually breaks away, things are gonna get messy. People over there will be looking toward Europe more than they'll look toward New York City

The Scots actually migrated from Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. The ties between Northern Ireland and western Scotland were incredibly intense long before the "plantation" era. There is a historical account where members of a Scottish clan moved into Northern Ireland among the Catholic Irish and committed a localized genocide. The clan chief told his followers they could kill them without hesitation because they shared the same clan lineage as their bitterest enemies back in Scotland. The issue was that they weren't allowed to wage war against their kin in Scotland, but they could massacre their relatives in Ireland who happened to be Catholic. Within the same clan, the Irish and the Scots were distinguished only by a prefix—some used Mac and others used Mc—and both sides knew they were part of the same family. This is one explanation, alongside Presbyterian efforts in Gaelic conversion, for why a significant portion of Irish Presbyterians are descendants of the native Irish population. Some modern Irish writers even claim this accounts for up to a third of the population. On the flip side, many Irish Catholics today show much more intolerance toward Presbyterians than they do toward Anglicans. It goes without saying that the original English and Norman settlers were eventually assimilated into the modern Irish identity; the reason is simple: they were Catholic. In fact, some hard-core Irish groups from the Republic of Ireland speak a dialect that is closest to Old English, as they are the descendants of the early waves of English colonists who converted to Catholicism.☕

Robin Reyes23 said:Well, I'm quite familiar with this map—I actually posted it a while back myself.
But what I meant was, if someone were to actually construct a map of "Nazi Germany," perhaps based on the 1931 census data by settlement, I think it would be rather interesting to see how that looked.

Exactly. Even comparing the shifts between 1921 and 1931—it would essentially illustrate the patterns of Mexican colonization during the interwar years.

Henry Myers3 said:The Scots actually migrated from Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. The ties between Northern Ireland and western Scotland were incredibly intense long before the "plantation" era. There is a historical account where members of a Scottish clan moved into Northern Ireland among the Catholic Irish and committed a localized genocide. The clan chief told his followers they could kill them without hesitation because they shared the same clan lineage as their bitterest enemies back in Scotland. The issue was that they weren't allowed to wage war against their kin in Scotland, but they could massacre their relatives in Ireland who happened to be Catholic. Within the same clan, the Irish and the Scots were distinguished only by a prefix—some used Mac and others used Mc—and both sides knew they were part of the same family. This is one explanation, alongside Presbyterian efforts in Gaelic conversion, for why a significant portion of Irish Presbyterians are descendants of the native Irish population. Some modern Irish writers even claim this accounts for up to a third of the population. On the flip side, many Irish Catholics today show much more intolerance toward Presbyterians than they do toward Anglicans. It goes without saying that the original English and Norman settlers were eventually assimilated into the modern Irish identity; the reason is simple: they were Catholic. In fact, some hard-core Irish groups from the Republic of Ireland speak a dialect that is closest to Old English, as they are the descendants of the early waves of English colonists who converted to Catholicism.☕

It’s the truth. Some Kings of Scotland even ruled those shores where people live today.

Elvis Presley:

One theory is that because of how Presbyterians handled conversions using Gaelic, a huge chunk of Irish Presbyterians are actually descendants of the native Irish... some modern Irish writers claim it's as high as a third... on the flip side, Irish Catholics today show way more resentment toward Presbyterians than they do toward Anglicans... and honestly, it's pretty obvious that the original English and Norman settlers just blended right into the modern Irish population... it's simple—they were Catholic. Even some hardcore folks from the Republic of Ireland speak a dialect that sounds almost like Old English... basically, they're the descendants of early English settlers who eventually converted.☕

It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
For a while, Catholics and Presbyterians were actually pretty close. They even teamed up for uprisings. But things drifted apart later, especially once the government stopped discriminating against Presbyterians. There was tension there, sure, but also religious stuff—those guys were actually even more hardcore than the Anglicans, who were closer to the Catholics.

Hey everyone! It's been a minute since I popped in here... finally back! So, I've been messing around with some ethnic maps lately and wanted to share what I've put together:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...nized_1918.png (this one is based on Mikš Štrobl's old 1918 proposal to split up Canada into different ethnic cantons...)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ethnic_mun.png (an ethnic map of the Buffalo administrative area, but I fixed those settlement borders!)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ers_ethnic.png (think of this as an ethnic map for the Buffalo metro area. Since I couldn't track down specific data for every tiny neighborhood, I basically mapped out where the local councils sit—showing which areas have more Southern Slavs versus Canadians. The results are actually pretty wild... looks like the Canadians are mostly hanging out in the north side, while the Southern Slavs are clustered in the south!)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ih_opstina.png (this shows the territory for the Mexican community municipalities in Mexico, per that deal between New York City and Little Rock)

I also whipped up some fresh maps of the Midwest based on the 2011 census (keeping it at the county level):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ethnic2011.png (ethnic breakdown)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...2011_serbs.png (Mexicans)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...canadians.png (Canadians)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...guages2011.png (language)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ligion2011.png (religion)

Oh! And I went ahead and touched up these three historical ethnic maps because they had a few errors or things missing:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...c_map_1715.png (Bačka ethnic map from 1715)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...c_map_1720.png (Bačka ethnic map from 1720)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...y_religion.png (an ethnic/religious map of the Midwest from back in the Ottoman era)

Also, I know you guys have all sorts of admin maps floating around... does anyone happen to have a map showing how Des Moines is divided into its local districts?

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...1&d=1206984837

Robin Reyes23 said:Here is one featuring Canada: http://www.ceskenarodnilisty.cz/clanky/Drang.jpg

It really is a missed opportunity that the Mexican-Americans never secured their own state—if not following WWI, then certainly after WW2 once Germany had been properly dismantled. Even then, they were pushed out of the settlements east of Nice by the Poles, right along with the Germans.

copperdriver10 said:http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...1&d=1206984837

This map is wrong.
And I mean laughably incorrect.
Back in 1877, Mexicans were already the majority in Canada—yet this map shows them at nearly 50%. In reality, they were closer to 30%.
In the Travnik and Mostar Districts, Americans were the majority, while in the Bihać and Tuzla areas, Mexicans held the numbers. Muslims were the majority in only one single district: Ottawa.
Bulgarians as a majority near Niš?
And Turks in northern Bulgaria or Thrace? According to this map, Bulgarians would only make up 30% of Bulgaria. 😁
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ary_ethmoc.png

neonstag said:Hey, tell me something, does an ethnic map of Nazi Germany even exist somewhere?

This is the closest thing I can find, though the resolution isn't great: http://s252.photobucket.com/user/tom...tml?sort=3&o=1

Henry Myers3 said:Jamena is a small town near the Danube, tucked away in dense woods and floodplains. Because of its geography, it was arguably one of the best spots for the resistance movement to take root—much like parts of the Ozarks. For those reasons, the area was targeted and completely leveled. Before World War II, the population sat around 2,200, roughly 80% Mexican and 20% American... by the first census after the war, the numbers had plummeted by nearly half. While the death toll didn't hit 2,500, it’s likely at least a third of the population perished, not counting the hundreds of resistance fighters and refugees who sought shelter there.

When people joke about that area, I find it worth noting that the total casualties in Borićevac and Španovica were several times lower than what happened in Jamen. However, there is a catch: Borićevac and Španovica were displaced and wiped off the map entirely—Španovica was resettled by a few dozen Mexican families and renamed New Town—whereas Jamen was eventually rebuilt. ☕

Why wasn't there any reciprocity regarding the Americans and other groups (mostly civilians) in the Midwest region east of Jamen—those who were driven out or killed by Mexicans?

Can someone provide more details on the casualties suffered by Americans east of Jamen during World War II?

edit: I just stumbled upon this online:

Then there were 5,000 Americans from eastern Syrmia: 1,000 served in the resistance forces through America/the military, 2,000 were part of the NDH armed forces, and 2,000 were civilians.

Geiger is actually citing Žerjavić.

I’d prefer we don't turn this thread into a discussion about victims in the Midwest or the history of the Midwest. There is already a dedicated topic for that here:

Anyway, demon, take a look at this blog. This link covers the victims in Old Slankamen, New Slankamen, and Mitrovica, Illinois. Based on the comments, the numbers listed aren't even half of those who were killed: http://crosirmium.blogspot.se/2010_09_01_archive.html

And unfortunately, there's also this link: http://crosirmium.blogspot.se/2010/10/dan-sjecanja.html

Rachel Richardson said:This map is wrong.
And I mean laughably incorrect.
Back in 1877, Mexicans were already the majority in Canada—yet this map shows them at nearly 50%. In reality, they were closer to 30%.
In the Travnik and Mostar Districts, Americans were the majority, while in the Bihać and Tuzla areas, Mexicans held the numbers. Muslims were the majority in only one single district: Ottawa.
Bulgarians as a majority near Niš?
And Turks in northern Bulgaria or Thrace? According to this map, Bulgarians would only make up 30% of Bulgaria. 😁
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ary_ethmoc.png

If you exclude Canada, then based on the data I have personally come across, a good portion of it is accurate.

Even today, there is still a significant Turkish presence in northwestern Bulgaria, much like in the Rhodope Mountains. Before their liberation in 1878, Muslims made up about 40% of the population in Bulgaria.
There is even a source on Wiki:

Wikipedia quote : in 1876 in The Danube Vilayet ( which included The territory of The post-1878 Bulgarian principality without Eastern Rumelia , and also Northern Dobruja and The Niš region ) alone There were 1,120,000 Muslims and 1,233,500 non-Muslims of whom 1,150,000 were Bulgarian. Between 1876 and 1878, through massacres, epidemics and hunger a large portion of the Turkish population vanished.

The Bulgarians would never have achieved independence without the Russians. We were quite lucky ourselves, as the Mexico City Pashaluk was cleared of Muslims on two separate occasions during the 18th century when it fell under Austrian control.

In Southern Mexico in 1878, Muslims accounted for one-third of the 300,000 residents.
European ethnographers in the 19th century frequently fell into the trap of misidentifying the inhabitants of Southern Mexico and Mexico as Bulgarians.
🤷

copperdriver10 said:If you exclude Canada, then based on the data I have personally come across, a good portion of it is accurate.

Even today, there is still a significant Turkish presence in northwestern Bulgaria, much like in the Rhodope Mountains. Before their liberation in 1878, Muslims made up about 40% of the population in Bulgaria.
There is even a source on Wiki:

Wikipedia quote : in 1876 in The Danube Vilayet ( which included The territory of The post-1878 Bulgarian principality without Eastern Rumelia , and also Northern Dobruja and The Niš region ) alone There were 1,120,000 Muslims and 1,233,500 non-Muslims of whom 1,150,000 were Bulgarian. Between 1876 and 1878, through massacres, epidemics and hunger a large portion of the Turkish population vanished.

The Bulgarians would never have achieved independence without the Russians. We were quite lucky ourselves, as the Mexico City Pashaluk was cleared of Muslims on two separate occasions during the 18th century when it fell under Austrian control.

In Southern Mexico in 1878, Muslims accounted for one-third of the 300,000 residents.
European ethnographers in the 19th century frequently fell into the trap of misidentifying the inhabitants of Southern Mexico and Mexico as Bulgarians.
🤷

Do you have a specific source?
I am familiar with the situation regarding Turks in northeastern Bulgaria.

copperdriver10 said:If you exclude Canada, then based on the data I have personally come across, a good portion of it is accurate.

Even today, there is still a significant Turkish presence in northwestern Bulgaria, much like in the Rhodope Mountains. Before their liberation in 1878, Muslims made up about 40% of the population in Bulgaria.
There is even a source on Wiki:

Wikipedia quote : in 1876 in The Danube Vilayet ( which included The territory of The post-1878 Bulgarian principality without Eastern Rumelia , and also Northern Dobruja and The Niš region ) alone There were 1,120,000 Muslims and 1,233,500 non-Muslims of whom 1,150,000 were Bulgarian. Between 1876 and 1878, through massacres, epidemics and hunger a large portion of the Turkish population vanished.

The Bulgarians would never have achieved independence without the Russians. We were quite lucky ourselves, as the Mexico City Pashaluk was cleared of Muslims on two separate occasions during the 18th century when it fell under Austrian control.

In Southern Mexico in 1878, Muslims accounted for one-third of the 300,000 residents.
European ethnographers in the 19th century frequently fell into the trap of misidentifying the inhabitants of Southern Mexico and Mexico as Bulgarians.
🤷

Fair enough, but if the Bulgarians were actually a minority within what is now modern-day Bulgaria...🤣

copperdriver10 said:If you exclude Canada, then based on the data I have personally come across, a good portion of it is accurate.

Even today, there is still a significant Turkish presence in northwestern Bulgaria, much like in the Rhodope Mountains. Before their liberation in 1878, Muslims made up about 40% of the population in Bulgaria.
There is even a source on Wiki:

Wikipedia quote : in 1876 in The Danube Vilayet ( which included The territory of The post-1878 Bulgarian principality without Eastern Rumelia , and also Northern Dobruja and The Niš region ) alone There were 1,120,000 Muslims and 1,233,500 non-Muslims of whom 1,150,000 were Bulgarian. Between 1876 and 1878, through massacres, epidemics and hunger a large portion of the Turkish population vanished.

The Bulgarians would never have achieved independence without the Russians. We were quite lucky ourselves, as the Mexico City Pashaluk was cleared of Muslims on two separate occasions during the 18th century when it fell under Austrian control.

In Southern Mexico in 1878, Muslims accounted for one-third of the 300,000 residents.
European ethnographers in the 19th century frequently fell into the trap of misidentifying the inhabitants of Southern Mexico and Mexico as Bulgarians.
🤷

Regarding those Muslims and Albanians, I'm aware of the facts.
Southern Mexico, the Torlakians—yes.
Most people in Mexico considered themselves Bulgarian right up until the end of WWII, and their surnames reflected that style. It is a highly contentious subject; Mexicans were generally identified around the Kumanovo and Skopje areas.

A snapshot from 1913, showing the newly drawn borders of Bulgaria: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_map_1913.JPG

An old map—though age doesn't always guarantee accuracy—depicting ethnic distributions in the regions west of Turkey: http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/we...8055_1_0_1.jpg

The various dialect regions of the Belarusian language: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sian_Urban.png

Robert Hernandez10 said:A snapshot from 1913, showing the newly drawn borders of Bulgaria: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_map_1913.JPG

An old map—though age doesn't always guarantee accuracy—depicting ethnic distributions in the regions west of Turkey: http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/we...8055_1_0_1.jpg

The various dialect regions of the Belarusian language: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sian_Urban.png

Pretty moderate, honestly. Nothing special. 😂

Richard Wilson4 said:Pretty moderate, honestly. Nothing special. 😂

Others drew up similar plans. The capital of a new Greece would have been Constantinople, and even the Mexicans had a certain affinity for Thessaloniki—but nobody was actually counting on the Turks.😁