AHC: Egyptian Sudan

What would it take for Egypt to keep Sudan with just a post-WW2 PoD?

Sudan was an Anglo-Egyptian condominium and the only condition the British gave for pulling out was to have Sudan go independent and not absorbed by Egypt...
 
Have southern Sudan go to Uganda as the British originally wished for. Perhaps keep very friendly terms with the Egyptian monarchy.
 
Mmm...My two cents (that someone with more knowledge would give me back as counterfeit)

With a different eastern Sudan history, where the rebellion is somewhat more sucessful leading to a more legitimate french intervention that would take off roughly OTL South-Sudan...

You could have a Sudan being more realisticly let to Egypt as clearly more culturally close as more islamic and more arabized than "bigger" Sudan.
 
Have southern Sudan go to Uganda as the British originally wished for.

I didn't know of that intention. In hindsight, it sounds like a perfect deal: the Arabic part for Egypt, the rest for the Commonwealth.
Ending condominia through partition is not uncommon.
 
Mmm...My two cents (that someone with more knowledge would give me back as counterfeit)

With a different eastern Sudan history, where the rebellion is somewhat more sucessful leading to a more legitimate french intervention that would take off roughly OTL South-Sudan...

You could have a Sudan being more realisticly let to Egypt as clearly more culturally close as more islamic and more arabized than "bigger" Sudan.

Damn, I indeed posted this in the Before 1900 section but it was supposed to be with a post-WW2 PoD. I'll ask a mod to move.
 
Big-ass Egypt and big-ass Uganda then :)

big-ass egypt and uganda.png
 

MSZ

Banned
Soudan going independent in OTL was for the most part, the result of Nasser's policy who sought at all costs to eliminate all British/western presence from the arab world. Since the anglo-egyptian treaty on Soudan was the only thing that kept the British there, revoking it was a means of forcing the british out, at the cost of losing claims to Sudan by Egypt. It was a bargain possible due to two cicumstances - US pressure there for decolonization as fast as possible (as the US agenda at the time was ending colonial presence everywhere, so that pro-independence movements don't associate with communists) and the strong pan-arab movement (Nasser truly believing that after western withdrawal the road to the unification of arab states would be open, so "independent Soudan" would only be a temporary messure).

So having Nasser not annul the treaty would mean a viable Egyptian claim to the territory, British eventual withdrawal making it possible for Egypt to move in. It doesn't really have to be Nasser even - any Egyptian government, even the monarchical one could do that. Or you can have Nasser's dream of a pan-arab state with him as leader come true after a successful war against Israel, after which he could just Anchluss Sudan.
 
The trouble with "big-ass Uganda" is that it's going to make the southerners unhappy - the Bantu inhabitants of the traditional "Lakes Kingdoms" areas are a pretty different bunch from the generally pre-state Nilotics and Sudanic peoples of the north, and in this new setup the northerners would be solidly in the majority. We may just have gone from a Sudan with a southern seperatist problem to an Uganda with a southern seperatist problem.

Bruce
 
The trouble with "big-ass Uganda" is that it's going to make the southerners unhappy - the Bantu inhabitants of the traditional "Lakes Kingdoms" areas are a pretty different bunch from the generally pre-state Nilotics and Sudanic peoples of the north, and in this new setup the northerners would be solidly in the majority. We may just have gone from a Sudan with a southern seperatist problem to an Uganda with a southern seperatist problem.

Bruce

But how Bruce?

Uganda's population today is 35 million. South Sudan's population today is 8 million.

In the 1956 census for Sudan the entire country had 10,263,000 inhabitants with 7.48 million in the north and 2.783 million in the south.

In 1956 Uganda's population was about 6 million which expanded to about 7 million by 1960.

The Nilotic and Sudanic peoples of southern Sudan would never be in the majority in a super-Uganda. In a 1956 scenario they would account for 31% of the population and assuming that nothing else changes for the populations of southern Sudan and Uganda-proper in this scenario (excepting that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of southern Sudanese don't die in the civil war and are displaced/become refugees) then we could generously double south Sudan's population to 16 million and they would still account for 31% of the population of Super-Uganda. A more realistic guess is that south Sudan's population would probably be 12-14 million and they would account for 26-28% of the population.
 
But how Bruce?

Uganda's population today is 35 million. South Sudan's population today is 8 million.

In the 1956 census for Sudan the entire country had 10,263,000 inhabitants with 7.48 million in the north and 2.783 million in the south.

.


35 million? Jeeze:I need to keep up with those wacky African growth rates, I had no idea Uganda was that large by now...

Bruce
 
Top