AHC: Make YOUR country bigger and otherwise change nothing

With Poland it is childish easy-Stalin leaves more territory in the East (Lwów seems unlikely, but Grodno perhaps?) or adds more in the North and West (whole Uznam/Usedom, Lusatia) or Stalin lives longer and border changes between Poland and USSR continues (like the one from 1951) USSR was switching with Poland lands territorially bigger, but less valuable, located in Carpathian Mountains, for smaller, but more valuable, fertile lands near Bug river.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
A couple of years ago Germany actually got a little bit bigger at the expense of the Czech Republic, due to a small river floating alone a slightly different path, and the legal border is the river.
 
New Zealand keeps Samoa and integrates them as well as the other countries in the Realm of NZ into integral territories of New Zealand.
 

Deleted member 67076

No Trujillo and no 1911 civil war. Dominican Republic settles its border to include Hincha following the old colonial border using its position of greater strength.
 
Japan keeps the Kuril islands, the Germans don't withdraw in '45 keeping partisans out of Istria and the peninsula remains a part of Italy post-WWII, Senegambian union succeeds, the US annexes Panama after enough Americans settle there (former servicemen, retirees, etc)...
 

MatthewB

Banned
Canada could grow larger if they were given that little piece of Minnesota on the north side of the Lake of the Woods called the Northwest Angle.
300px-NORTHWEST_Angle.png


There are other smaller exclaves like Elm Point, MN and Point Roberts, WA that could be handed over too.
We take all of Michigan.
 
Peru-Bolivian Confederation forms but governments are still incompetent and society still divided, so Chile still takes Tarapaca and Antofagasta in the War of the Pacific (but does not occupy Lima), meaning that the ABC powers are still dominant in South America.
 

Bluesock

Banned
South Africa gets Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suprisingly doesn't change much. More than half of the populations of Lesotho and Swaziland work and live in SA anyway.
The country would be twice as big but no siginficant difference
 
1987 Labour wins the UK general election.

A more state orientated government ensues.

The Eurotunnel bills get passed with the caveat that the UK government alone funds the project, and that the whole tunnel and the facilities in Calais are controlled by the UK government alone, using the pretext of not joining the Schengen agreements and ongoing IRA terrorism.


Edit: predictive text errors
 
People have brought up Greenland and parts of the Philippines, but the obvious change for the US is to have the Marshall Islands, Palau and Micronesia do what the Northern Marianas did and become part of the US proper instead of associated states. The Panama Canal Zone might also be held onto until the present day as well, although the political ramifications of this could conceivably result in border changes elsewhere.
 
With Poland it is childish easy-Stalin leaves more territory in the East (Lwów seems unlikely, but Grodno perhaps?) or adds more in the North and West (whole Uznam/Usedom, Lusatia) or Stalin lives longer and border changes between Poland and USSR continues (like the one from 1951) USSR was switching with Poland lands territorially bigger, but less valuable, located in Carpathian Mountains, for smaller, but more valuable, fertile lands near Bug river.
Grodno is a provincial center of Belarus, which is somewhat distinct from the rest of the country, so it would certainly change Belarus significantly. Also Poland would have a sizeable Belarussian minority.

New Zealand keeps Samoa and integrates them as well as the other countries in the Realm of NZ into integral territories of New Zealand.
You think that New Zealand having a large colony thousands of kilometers would change nothing?

Japan keeps the Kuril islands,
This would be a rather significant change actually (unless you mean only those Kuril islands that Japan claims) since Japan would continue controlling the whole outlet of the Okhotsk Sea towards the open Pacific Ocean.

the Germans don't withdraw in '45 keeping partisans out of Istria and the peninsula remains a part of Italy post-WWII
This leaves Slovenia without sea access and has Italy retain a large and restive Croatian minority. It's a significant change.

Senegambian union succeeds, the US annexes Panama after enough Americans settle there (former servicemen, retirees, etc)...
Whole countries getting annexed is obviously not a case of changing nothing.

South Africa gets Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suprisingly doesn't change much. More than half of the populations of Lesotho and Swaziland work and live in SA anyway.
The country would be twice as big but no siginficant difference
This happened in OTL and was never recognized. The effect of annexing more countries would bring even more diplomatic problems to South Africa. To say nothing of the natural resources in Namibia or Botswana,the potential effects on ethnic demography or disputes with the new neighbors of South Africa.

People have brought up Greenland and parts of the Philippines, but the obvious change for the US is to have the Marshall Islands, Palau and Micronesia do what the Northern Marianas did and become part of the US proper instead of associated states. The Panama Canal Zone might also be held onto until the present day as well, although the political ramifications of this could conceivably result in border changes elsewhere.
Again, whole countries being part of another country is definitely not changing nothing. Panama being de-facto divided in two and not controlling it's main source of income is hardly an insignificant change either.
 
Czechoslovakia or Hungary keeps Carpathian Ruthenia. I honestly doubt it would drastically change anything for the USSR.

(I just realized the title says YOUR country. My apologies)
Makes the intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia more difficult, plus significant effects on the internal politics of Slovakia (Hungary was never going to retain territory given to them by the Nazis).

If this has to be a post-1900 POD, have some version of the Hoare-Laval Pact go through during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War where Ethiopia becomes an Italian client state with a Fascist government in Addis Ababa whole having most of Ethiopia’s Tigrayan and Somali-inhabited regions go to the Italians. History largely goes the same as IOTL except this Fascist Ethiopia takes the chance to reclaim the territories it lost to the Italians in 1935-36 and some more during World War 2. Ethiopia takes the chance to annex Italian Eritrea and French Somaliland during the war while reclaiming what parts of the Ogaden were lost.
Ethiopia with Djibouti would have a sea access even if Eritrea is lost, which would be a very significant change. Plus even worse conflicts with Somalia.

Finland manage to take East Karelia and Kola during Russian Civil War. This causes some changes but it is pretty hard change borders and not change anything.
Russia being cut off from its only ice free port on the Arctic Ocean is an enormous change. This seems to be the opposite of the challenge - change the most by taking as little territory as possible.

More decisive political leadership, means that Greece can easily get Cyprus, and without any bloodshed whatsoever. Had Greece entered the Great War on the Entente side earlier, the British had promised us Cyprus, and had Greek governments in the early 1950s been more cooperative with Britain and the US, Cyprus would have been Greek. That said, it might have led to a full Greco-Turkish War come the Colonels' Junta(if that ever happened), so I don't know whether it would be a good idea.
Would have a huge effect on Greek-Turkish relations. No division of Cyprus is also very significant, even from a broader point of view (the question of unrecognized states, the balance of force in the Eastern Mediterranean, the exploitation of gas fields around Cyprus and so on.

The referendum in Malta decides that the Island Will join Italy instead of the UK or going indipendent.
There was no such referendum. And Italy possessing Malta would be significant due to the strategic importance of the islands.

belgium gets luxembourg(part of netherlands at the time), dutch limburg, zeeland(flemish) at the independence and somehow gains french flanders from france later(lille)
All of these are pretty unlikely. Also all of these annexations would change substantially the ethnic balance in Belgium. All of these would significantly change the relations between Belgium and its neighbors.

also more reparations in ww2 gets us Aachen/koln (assuming belgium has dutch limburg already bordering the region)
Cologne is a major city with a wholly German population. For a country the size of Belgium this is not only a significant change, it basically changes the whole country.

The Allies decide 1944 that the german eastern border lay on the Eastern Neisse and not on the Lusatian Neisse.
This is a question of the expulsion of nearly three million people and whether Poland contains their fourth largest city. How is that nothing.
 
Again, whole countries being part of another country is definitely not changing nothing. Panama being de-facto divided in two and not controlling it's main source of income is hardly an insignificant change either.
OP's criterion was not "change literally nothing," which would make this challenge impossible. OP's criterion was:
Come up with a scenario post 1900 that makes your country a "greater" version of itself and otherwise change no borders in the world, except for the countries you take land from.
Neither of the territorial alterations I proposed would have specifically violated this criteria. One could make a case for the US keeping the PCZ altering some border somewhere due to its impact on Latin American geopolitics, but outside of the generic "well maybe the butterfly effect makes Czechoslovakia stay together or something" argument (which would, again, make this challenge impossible), I do not think such a case could be made for Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia being incorporated into the US, seeing as all three are already associated states of the US, which is entirely responsible for their defense and with whom they have very close economic and political ties.
 
I don’t get this thread, any attempt at significantly enlarging a country would have butterflies through the world.

I guess the best way would be to have Antarctica claim be recognised, so countries like Chile or the U.K. have additional territory, but it could be done with minimal butterflies
 
Top