AHC: Failed state in Europe

More fearful Western Allies leads to a firm no on German reunification?

But that wouldn't prevent one of them from stepping in personally.

The French invade West Germany to stop reunification, leading to an endless war, mass slaughter of peaceful pro-reunification protesters, and Algiers-style terrorism within France itself?
 
A really interesting option could be a firmer allies in 1937/1938 leading to an Austrian Civil War that goes seriously haywire, with bombers from all sides trashing different parts of the country depending on whether the fascists/Nazis/inevitableCommuSyndiArchists control them.
 
I'd have to agree with the previous suggestions of Albania.

Georgia may fit the bill, especially if you take Shevardnadze out.
 
I've always thought South Wales had the potential of getting very nasty.

Worse General Strike, crazed power-mad Imperialist old-school Churchill as PM sending in the troops to the mines up the valleys.

Welsh nationalists are even angrier and less placid than OTL, team up with angry freedom fighting communists supported in secret by the Soviet Union.

They start burning down English holiday homes, and take over the south, declaring themselves independent, starting a bloody civil war. Random Scots and Irish nationalists start appearing in the conflict to help the Welsh.

The Welsh communists blow up the Severn Tunnel, as Churchill stubbornly sends more and more troops in to try and suppress them, causing a bloodbath.

Churchill is assassinated. A new government decides to give in and give them independence.

The resulting independent South Wales itself is divided over whether to fully support the Welsh language or not, and diverts attention to annexing the north and parts of the midlands which succeed slightly.

The communist Wales suffers massive economic decline and becomes a failed state with collapsed infrastructure, old-fashioned industry and an underground English language continuum.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly, I only suggested a nordic country because of the periphery which is essential for a failed state in europe. As nearer to the core it becomes more likley that some of the big players start peacekeeping.
Technically intervention in and of itself isnt an end all to anarchy. Both Somalia and Afghanistan had foreign interventions that failed horribly after all (tho not sure i would call Afghanistan a completely failed state).

Course if the problem is in europe, nations would be much more willing to absolutely flood them with troops to restore order and even set up their own new government if necessary, so your point still stands. Makes it hard for a small nation like Albania or North Ireland, or the Baltic states to resist foreign intervention, but maybe something large like Romania or Spain would be harder to control...
 
Even if Sicily became independent, as some of you said, it wouldn't become a failed state. The Mafia, to survive, needs a State, since it acts like a parasite. As long as there is a Mafia, there would be a Sicilian state.
 
Keep Albania's civil war in the 1990s going. It was anarchic enough IOTL. If it goes on longer you could see it becoming a complete Somalia style anarchy.

This, plus regional conflicts against nationalistic Albanian guerrilla movements in neighbouring Montenegro, Serbia, FYROM and Greece.
 
Yugoslavia manages to obtain sufficient weapons before the end of the cold war, making the resulting war so bloody that the successor states fall into this category? Perhaps having the USA accept an intact Yugoslavia is sufficient.

Yugoslav Wars with chemical weapons might create a nasty enough situation.
 
Yugoslavia manages to obtain sufficient weapons before the end of the cold war, making the resulting war so bloody that the successor states fall into this category? Perhaps having the USA accept an intact Yugoslavia is sufficient.

Yugoslavia had plenty of weapons. The YNA was the 5th most powerfull military force in Europe, the problem was that the weapons were not evenly distributed when the shooting started.


BigWillyG @ chemical weapons were used just not in any meaningfull quantaties, more like separate incidents than planed use
 
This, plus regional conflicts against nationalistic Albanian guerrilla movements in neighbouring Montenegro, Serbia, FYROM and Greece.

In addition, Albania has the advantage of being close enough to the great powers or a strategic area to be worth intervening in, but not so close to the center of Europe that it is a potential threat to the whole of Europe... one of the reasons Somalia got so badly screwed up was that the western powers intervened long enough to make a mess but not long enough to stabilize things. Albania, along with maybe Greece is probably the best candidate for a failed state in Europe (although Greece is in the future)
 
Anywhere that screws up the economy enough, or suppresses citizens, has a risk of this.
In some cases, like the Austro-Hungarian empire, you could have the government refuse to accept a new state or seriously cripple it somehow.
 
Wouldn't Northern Ireland count as a state mired in an ethnic conflict? Or how about all of Ireland meeting the same fate as Bosnia?

I wouldn't see Ireland persisting long as a failed state, if the situation ever got that bad the UK would intervene.

While the situation in Northern Ireland was difficult throughout the Troubles, I don't think that it would get to the level of Failed State without a significant escalation of OTL events.

As to Ireland unless you go back to the Civil War then you won't get the situation of a failed state in Ireland, unstable political environment, we had plenty of that but going all the way to failed state I don't see.
 

Ancientone

Banned
In 1921 Ireland got a sweetheart deal from Britain ( although they didn't think so) and a further fair shake in 1949, a bloody-minded British Government on the lines of those in Central Europe at the same time may not have permitted free trade and free movement of people for an independent Ireland, nor the use of the Pound Sterling and the support of the Bank of England, nor the use of Embassies. Irish in Britain may have been forcibly repatriated to the new state (remember that the US had reduced immigration to a trickle at the time). Ireland was actually in a hell of a pickle for its first ten years sorting out things like joining the International Postal Union, signing treaties regarding navigation, diplomatic relations and a thousand things that a state has to do and received massive assistance from Britain (Scottish Nationalists, take note!).
A nasty Britain who may have even blockaded the Island and an antagonistic North would have ensured a failed state--as it was Ireland had almost third world status right up to the early 1960s.
 

Ancientone

Banned
I've always thought South Wales had the potential of getting very nasty.

...........

The communist Wales suffers massive economic decline and becomes a failed state with collapsed infrastructure, old-fashioned industry and an underground English language continuum.
So more or less just as in the real world then?
 
In 1921 Ireland got a sweetheart deal from Britain ( although they didn't think so) and a further fair shake in 1949, a bloody-minded British Government on the lines of those in Central Europe at the same time may not have permitted free trade and free movement of people for an independent Ireland, nor the use of the Pound Sterling and the support of the Bank of England, nor the use of Embassies. Irish in Britain may have been forcibly repatriated to the new state (remember that the US had reduced immigration to a trickle at the time). Ireland was actually in a hell of a pickle for its first ten years sorting out things like joining the International Postal Union, signing treaties regarding navigation, diplomatic relations and a thousand things that a state has to do and received massive assistance from Britain (Scottish Nationalists, take note!).
A nasty Britain who may have even blockaded the Island and an antagonistic North would have ensured a failed state--as it was Ireland had almost third world status right up to the early 1960s.

Ireland was still considered a component of the UK that's why the Treaty's have some of the legacies that they have, changing them would have major impacts on the UK as well (you are talking about a significant forced population movement that would have widespread affects on both Ireland and the UK).

Ireland through those 10 years were actually opening their own Embassies (from memory the first Commonwealth nation to have an Embassy in the US for example).

In terms of 1949, I'm not sure what you think that Ireland got from the UK when we left the Commonwealth, in fact the other Commonwealth nations and a portion of the UK were firmly supporting the conclusion that happened (besides by 1949 Ireland was for all intents out of the Commonwealth).

During the period between 1921 and 1949 Ireland engaged in a trade war with the UK, and faced significant trade restrictions (both in carrying hulls and access to resources) during WW2. Given how interconnected the Anglo-Irish economies are I'm not sure how you would create a situation that would make things worse.
 

Ancientone

Banned
Ireland was still considered a component of the UK that's why the Treaty's have some of the legacies that they have, changing them would have major impacts on the UK as well (you are talking about a significant forced population movement that would have widespread affects on both Ireland and the UK).

Ireland through those 10 years were actually opening their own Embassies (from memory the first Commonwealth nation to have an Embassy in the US for example).

In terms of 1949, I'm not sure what you think that Ireland got from the UK when we left the Commonwealth, in fact the other Commonwealth nations and a portion of the UK were firmly supporting the conclusion that happened (besides by 1949 Ireland was for all intents out of the Commonwealth).

During the period between 1921 and 1949 Ireland engaged in a trade war with the UK, and faced significant trade restrictions (both in carrying hulls and access to resources) during WW2. Given how interconnected the Anglo-Irish economies are I'm not sure how you would create a situation that would make things worse.

I think that the point of the post was wild speculation on creating a European failed state, not a real world scenario. Of course, Ireland was a Dominion from 1921 to 1949 and thus benefited from common citizenship, but maybe a Republic was immediately accepted and Ireland cut free. With the pressures of unemployment and depression, imagine an ejection of Irishmen and women on the lines of population transfer in the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I believe that the trade war was sparked by the Dail's refusal to honour land annuity debt and a patriotic insistence on taxing British goods. A spiteful Britain could have made things even worse than the retaliatory tariffs, imagine a full economic blockade not just a high tariff imposition. As Ireland was in currency union, once the store of sterling in Ireland had been used up, where would they get currency for imports? As it was in the real world, there was essentially a barter economy through the 1930s, but the Irish Government could still call on the BoE for hard currency funds.
Regarding diplomatic representation, the new Irish State was given facilities at British embassies (pre-1949) until they established their own infrastructure--the world is bigger than the USA.
After 1949 when Ireland was out of the Commonwealth, it still enjoyed free movement of labour and preferential tariffs. The scenario is to create a failed state--the idea is that one could have been created in post independence Ireland quite easily.
 
So more or less just as in the real world then?

tumblr_m4yikqPojm1rw9cluo1_500.png


:D:D Welsh humour

But in seriousness, well played sir.
 
A messier collapse of the USSR could lead to the central government giving up on everything east of the Volga, while former Soviet generals become essentially warlords fighting over the western sector. It would remain as such for a while, because there are no neighbouring powers that would be inclined to intervene, or possibly even able to. China would have nothing to gain by taking Siberia in part or in whole, other than a bunch of big crappy tundra. Their only other neighbours at the time would be post-Soviet states, and they would have enough of their own problems to deal with.

As it was, the military was not united and did not try to seriously grab power. So I am skeptical about all that.

Lebed' was hugely popular in his day and Siberian Independence was sometimes bandied about, but that never even gained the semi-seriousness of independent Tatarstan, let along go beyond that.

Albania and Moldova sans partition are the only real cadidates, unless as some suggested the breakup of USSR goes full-out, people take Yeltsin's "take as much independence as you need" seriously, and there's suddenly a dozen Chechnyas in the periphery.

Those could be failed states.
 
Top