Countries That Exist, but Easily Could Have Not

The discussion of countries that potentially could exist, but in our own timeline did not for whatever reason - whether different forms of countries that exist today, or nations for ethnic or regional groups that never received statehood OTL - is a common enough topic, but one I find of similar gravity is the opposite: countries that exist, but easily could have never come to be, particularly within the modern era. Granted there is a lot of wiggle room regarding empires that OTL collapsed simply not doing so, but nonetheless I find them interesting ideas to consider with regard to how sovereignty impacts national identity.

The purpose of this thread is, therefore, to discuss that - countries that in other timelines easily could not exist at all, and how that would impact the viewpoints of their would-be peoples and the state of the world itself.

Probably the most striking example to me is Armenia. If you avoid the collapse of the Russian Empire and have the Ottoman Empire go down a similar-to-OTL path regarding its non-Turkish minorities, then it's unlikely that Armenia would come to exist as anything more than an autonomous ethnic region of a reformed Russian state. Moreover, without an independent Armenia it seems unlikely that recognition of the Armenian Genocide would be nearly as widespread - comparisons with the Circassian Genocide seem more apt in such a scenario.
 
If things had gone just slightly differently in the closing months of 1991, some or all of the Soviet republics could have easily remained under Moscow's rule.
 
San Marino. Seriously, how did that escape Italian unification?

Anyway, several small countries could have easily been annexed to their former overlords rather than becoming independent, such as the various British islands in the Lesser Antilles, Djibouti, Suriname etc.

New Zealand and/or Papua New Guinea could have been part of Australia.

Mongolia could have still been part of China.

North and South Korea could have been one single Korea.
 
San Marino. Seriously, how did that escape Italian unification?

Anyway, several small countries could have easily been annexed to their former overlords rather than becoming independent, such as the various British islands in the Lesser Antilles, Djibouti, Suriname etc.

New Zealand and/or Papua New Guinea could have been part of Australia.

Mongolia could have still been part of China.

North and South Korea could have been one single Korea.

Again all nations..

Russia could be several nations easily and never the supersized nation it is, the USA could easily also have failed to jell, China could have balkanized. India could be vastly different. Even France doesn't have to be the French we know, and of course germany
 
Dozens of little city states along the coast of Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
Another dozen city states along the coast of Africa: Cameroon,Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Togo, etc.
A few city states along the coast of South America: Suriname, Dutch Guyana, Belize, British Guyana, etc.
A few tiny city states in Europe: Andora, Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, etc. I can understand that Andora and Lichtenstein were too mountainous and too remote for neighbours to invade.
 
Both Pakistans could've been a part of India, Uruguai a parte of Brazil. The United Kingdom could have never been formed, just avoiding marriage alliances.
 
Keeping in mind that we are in After 1900 and PODs like Germany never uniting or Britain not settling the thirteen colonies are off the table:
  • A lot of smaller colonies could have been held onto. Most of these are island nations in the Caribbean or South Pacific like Barbados or Palau, but they also include islands in other places (ex. Sao Tome & Principe, the Comoros), various minor mainland possessions (ex. Goa, Suriname), and with the right POD, potentially more significant places like Libya or Algeria.
  • A lot of countries were previously part of other countries which then broke apart. Keeping places like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, or the USSR (or, with a POD earlier in the century, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, or the Russian Empire) fully or partially intact would prevent the existence of the countries which would have emerged from them.
  • Many countries were originally part of other countries and could have been retained had events gone differently--this includes places like Ireland, Mongolia, Taiwan, and, somewhat indirectly, Moldova (which could have stayed part of Romania if it hadn't been annexed by the USSR).
  • Some colonies could've become independent as part of a larger country, rather than on their own--if the India-Pakistan split was prevented, for instance, or if the West Indies Federation had been successful.
  • The various splits between countries due to Cold War politics could either be prevented (leading to Korea becoming independent as a single unit) or extended to the present day (preventing the existence of a united Yemen or Vietnam in the modern era).
 
Europe:

If CPs would had won Great War many countries might wouldn't be exist speciality in Central Europe.
If Nicholas II would had been smart and capable ruler Finland, Poland, Baltics and Caucasus would be still part of Russia.
More succesful Gorbachev and there would be some fewer of countries.
Surviving Yugoslavia.
Surviving Chzechoslovakia.

Americas

Surviving West Indies Federation and you haven't several small island nations.
Dutch Guyana.

Africa

With good POD France, Portugal and Spain might be able keep more of Africa.

Asia

Surviving Ottoman Empire.

Oceania

Brits and France manage keep more islands there.
USA gives statehood for Pacifica so no Micronesia, Marshalles and Palau.
 
Bhutan could easily have been a part of Tibet, or have been given the Sikkim treatment.

Palestine's existence is solely due to the Zionist movement.

Countries attributable to colonialism are also fun to consider
  • The Philippines could easily have been dozen more nations without the Spanish. Maybe a sinicized Luzon, Islamic Sulu sultanate, and dozens of rajahnates. Same goes for Indonesia without the Dutch.
  • The nation state/a native equivalent would be much more limited in much of Sub Saharan Africa and the Pacific with a more reasonable European colonial policy.
  • The existence of a unified Indian state (vis a vis one limited to the Gangeatic Plain) is a historical fluke.
 
The Philippines could easily have been dozen more nations without the Spanish. Maybe a sinicized Luzon, Islamic Sulu sultanate, and dozens of rajahnates. Same goes for Indonesia without the Dutch.
That, and weren't the Americans the ones who got the Sultanate of Sulu under heel?
 
Australia.

1) If the Dutch been a little more curious about the clouds of smoke they detected on the southern horizon from Timor or if Torres had turned left instead of right at the Strait that bore his name, the Australian nation would have been full of happy Burghers rather than miserable English convicts.

2) If the French had been a little bit earlier or more assertive, the English would have found a French colony on the South-West side of the continent.

3) If Fiji/New Zealand had attended the 1890 Federation Conference held in Australia their presence as a member of the Federated Nation of Australia would have been more than their mention in the opening paragraphs of the constitution.

4) If the Japanese had been more assertive they could have invaded Australia much more easily than actually occurred. Instead of wasting their time in the Pacific they would have been much better off just invading first the South-West corner of the continent followed up by invading the North-East corner and finally meeting each other near Broken Hill.
 
Top