What does the original 1940 Technate of America map show when examined at high resolution (island labels and boundaries)?
Executive summary
The 1940 “Technate of America” map depicts a single continental polity defined by resource and strategic logic rather than existing nation-state borders, coloring a vast territory in a semi-official Technocracy red and marking a ring of distant “defense bases” on islands and offshore points [1] [2]. High‑resolution inspection—based on the available archival descriptions and dealer scans—confirms inclusion of all of Canada and Greenland, all of Central America and the Caribbean, the northern tier of South America (parts of Colombia, Venezuela and the Guyanas), and oceanic bases reaching as far as the Aleutians and the Pacific Date Line, although full, readable micro‑labels for every small island are not published in the sources consulted [3] [4] [1].
1. What the map’s territorial envelope actually draws
The map’s principal graphic decision is to redraw “America” as a resource‑and‑defense continuum: all of Canada, Greenland, Central America and the Caribbean are folded into one contiguous technate, and the northern edge of South America (parts of Colombia, Venezuela and the Guyanas) is absorbed into that unit [4] [3]. Multiple rare‑map dealers and academic collectors repeat this territorial list, describing a single colored zone stretching pole to equator and west to the Date Line, an intention framed in the original text as “territory required for the adequate defense and operation of this Continental Area” [2] [1] [3].
2. The island and offshore network the map emphasizes
Rather than leaving ocean approaches to chance, the 1940 Technate map explicitly dots a chain of perimeter “Defense Bases” on islands and overseas points: documented labels and descriptions across sources name Attu (Aleutians), Pago Pago (Samoa), the Galápagos, Georgetown (Guyana), Bermuda, St. John’s (Newfoundland) and Cape Farewell (Greenland) among the marked sites [4] [3] [1]. Dealers note small circular symbols marking these outer bases; contemporary commentary highlights the map’s strategic logic—an engineered ring to make the inner continental area “self‑sustaining” and defensible [2] [1].
3. Graphic treatments, color and scale observed at archive/dealer resolution
Surviving physical descriptions and digitized holdings describe the Technate as a large folding map, typically rendered in a red field for the technocracy zone and produced at about 22 x 15 inches in surviving copies [5] [2]. Collector notes at Cornell and images on rare‑map sites emphasize the map’s persuasive-cartography style—blunt territorial coloration and schematic node‑symbols for bases—more schematic than finely cartographic [3] [1]. These sources provide dealer scans good enough to read major labels and base markers, but none publish a full, ultra‑high‑resolution reproduction of every small island name.
4. Limits of the available high‑resolution evidence (what cannot be claimed)
No source in the assembled corpus provides a published, fully zoomable high‑resolution image that allows verification of every minor island label and micro‑boundary text; catalog and collector descriptions summarize the map’s island labels and named bases but do not reproduce every tiny caption at legible resolution for independent confirmation [3] [2]. Therefore, while major island bases and the overall boundary scheme are consistently reported across dealer and library notes, asserting a comprehensive readout of every small island label or boundary tickmark would exceed what the cited materials make available [1] [5].
5. Why the map’s island choices matter—and the politics behind the cartography
The selection of far‑flung bases—Aleutians, Pacific islands, Atlantic outposts and the Galápagos—illustrates that the Technocracy project framed geography as engineering: control critical choke points and resource zones to make the continental interior autarchic [2] [4]. Multiple sources also situate the map in an ideological context: an organization appealing during Depression anxieties, mixing isolationist and expansionist impulses and drawing criticism for authoritarian tendencies in its leadership and program [2] [3]. Rare‑map dealers and academic collections present the map as persuasive propaganda—cartography serving political reimagining rather than neutral surveying [1] [3].