The employment of Spatial data and more accurate and interesting maps will always be very relevant to teaching history. They are the best visual markers we have that show the kids not only how the imaginary lines looked at the time. But most importantly how the drawings of those imaginary lines are also different between all belligerents. For instance during Barbarossa the maps of the occupied territories looked different depending on what country you are in. Allowing them to realize that maps are all political in nature and a useful tool for helping them to see this which is something not all adults are even able to understand, just taking maps at face value for the rest of there lives.
The inclusion of a map with a built in or added story is an even better tool for teaching this. It allows you to guide them to the story as well and lead them through it so that they can come up with there own opinions on the inherently political nature of a map. Especially since we live in an age of very political world maps. Every single map manufactured in the United States is political as they are in every corner of the world. Putting Taiwan on a map in anyway shape or form is a political statement. Kosovo being on a map is in the same vein, Ukraine’s current borders also probably look very different on current Russian and Ukrainian Maps. The inclusion of data as well as spatial stuff is all very important and certainly adds some flavor but for maps I will say now and forever that the most important thing for a teacher of history to tell them is that these imaginary lines aren’t really imaginary. Sure you cant see them, touch them, or quantify them. But millions of people have been killed and brutalized over what these “imaginary” lines have to say. So I would argue maps are not imaginary lines as they can be quantified. Simply count the dead and that will tell you the importance of said line.
