AHC: A Better Myanmar

I always felt they could've exploited better their neutrality during the Cold War.
Then there's of course the option of the Allies cooperating with the KMT over Burma and giving them governmental control, which would be interesting but not necessarily a better country. Probably worse.
 
Perhaps consider partitioning the country? The multiethnic state doesn't exactly seem to be working out for them.
 
Perhaps consider partitioning the country? The multiethnic state doesn't exactly seem to be working out for them.

This should really not be the way people think of as the solution to every multiethnic problem. Division leads to a weaker economy and thus less political stability.
 
This should really not be the way people think of as the solution to every multiethnic problem. Division leads to a weaker economy and thus less political stability.

And a truckload of more conflicts as (now independent) warlord statelets fight brutal wars over which of them should get the tiny hamlet (5 houses, population: 10) with a 50%-50% ethnic distribution.
 
And a truckload of more conflicts as (now independent) warlord statelets fight brutal wars over which of them should get the tiny hamlet (5 houses, population: 10) with a 50%-50% ethnic distribution.
Myanmar has already been fighting a 60+ year civil war with strong indications of ethnic cleansing on the part of government forces. The situation you're talking about isn't a hypothetical, we've already reached that point.
This should really not be the way people think of as the solution to every multiethnic problem. Division leads to a weaker economy and thus less political stability.
Well I do admit that Myanmar does have remarkable political stability currently for what it is (again, they survived the 60+ year war), the situation is still kind of fucked up.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps consider partitioning the country? The multiethnic state doesn't exactly seem to be working out for them.

Kenya and Tanzania are able to keep themselves together.

A good POD would be for UK to allow US occupation so that he US can rebuild the country and thereby establishing a stable democratic government.
 
One: the 1988 protests very nearly succeeded in ousting the military regime. Had it done so, the next couple of decades may well have gone far better. It will likely be a messy transition, but the state would have stood a decent chance of becoming a stable, developing democracy by today. It could have happened if Aung San Suu Kyi had been willing to work with the self-proclaimed interim government of former civilian PM U Nu.

Two: avoid the 1962 Burmese coup. Again, Burma will still have internal splits and problems, but India shows these can be managed. It would have avoided the isolation and repression of the Ne Win years and the state could well have developed more normally.

A third possibility, but one that I'm less familiar with is that maybe if Aung San and his cabinet hadn't been assassinated.
 
A surviving Aung San almost certainly butterflies the coup away. I have no idea if he'd be pro-devolution though, which seems to be the chief demand of all the various ethnic movements.
 
Oh boy, here we go...

One: the 1988 protests very nearly succeeded in ousting the military regime. Had it done so, the next couple of decades may well have gone far better. It will likely be a messy transition, but the state would have stood a decent chance of becoming a stable, developing democracy by today. It could have happened if Aung San Suu Kyi had been willing to work with the self-proclaimed interim government of former civilian PM U Nu.

In 1988, Daw Suu Kyi isn't the figure she is today (and therefore nowhere near as powerful or influential as a player in the domestic or international theaters), so this might be doable...but ultimately frustration with the U Ne Win regime didn't mean there was much of an alternative. If anything, the success of SLORC in '88 was because there wasn't much of a movement to counter their power grab.

Two: avoid the 1962 Burmese coup. Again, Burma will still have internal splits and problems, but India shows these can be managed. It would have avoided the isolation and repression of the Ne Win years and the state could well have developed more normally.

A third possibility, but one that I'm less familiar with is that maybe if Aung San and his cabinet hadn't been assassinated.

These two are, from what I understand after living in Yangon for a while, far more likely.

For the former, especially don't let U Nu declare Buddhism as the state religion (no one had really been calling for that anyways), and you can ensure that the Kachin and Karen insurrections either never start (Kachin) or become a lot less visceral (Karen). U Nu staying in power would also keep Rangoon as a major center of any sort of Non-Aligned Movement, and as a diplomatic hub in Asia. I doubt this scenario would be entirely peaceful (too much of a reason for ex-KMT and CPB forces to keep clashing with the central government; by the 1960 restoration there's no way Panglong will be implemented), but Burma would certainly be in a better place...

Aung San surviving would be interesting. The man has been virtually deified by the Burmese nation today, and yet with his close connection with the army (he's still Bogyoke, or "General" today), I would be concerned about his ability to implement the Panglong Agreement.

Saying that he does though, the Shan, Chin, and Kachin regions all gain independence. For the first and third of those, if the KMT crosses the border, that's going to an epic disaster for those states (as an aside, one MOTF idea I had was an alternative ROC being declared in Upper Shan...), and would be majorly destabilizing for Burma. Furthermore, the fact that Arakan and Karen would not be granted independence under the terms of Panglong would see plenty of violence from those states anyways.

Internationally, Aung San's view isn't one I personally know, but I don't see why he wouldn't follow the non-aligned philosophy of U Nu. However, in a case where the entire periphery of the country includes weak, politically contentious states, I see this as more problematic than IOTL...
 
Top