AHC: Single African Nation

Pretty simple if potentially impossible, >80% of the landmass of Africa must be under a single nation, this nation must at the least have the same foreign policy, that's all. Pretty much the thinnest definition of nation.

You've got till 2020 to manage, it can even be under another nation (as the entire continent would still have the same foreign policy).

How (un)stable would this entity be? Where would it likely be unable to hold (Egypt? North Africa?)

Edit: Some ideas - some loud-mouthed idiot in Europe decides they want Africa all to be united or something, convinces some important people, possibly from racist platform?
 

IronOwl

Banned
I can't see this happening, the best I can come up with is that you would have a series of blocs based upon the possessions of the colonial empires e.g. A United States of Africa based upon Britain's peak posessions in Africa. It would likely be based on white minority rule, and would be dominated by its southernmost areas, in other words, South Africa. French North Africa could well end up integrated into metropolitan France, and Portugal would pretty much do the same as it did in OTL. Needless to say, this situation would pretty much be SA/Rhodesia/Algeria on a continent wide scale, as white and asian minorities, as well as native elites, clashed with the majority populations.
 
I can't see this as anything like possible with a 20th Century POD, and about the best I can see for this is the British not allowing South African independence in 1910 and uniting its African colonies after WWI into one federation, which would ergo result in OTL's South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and British Somaliland integrated into one government. I can't see Nigeria being brought into this, though maybe the British West African colonies become a second country of their own.

You would have to massively improve the economic situation of the colonies and massively improve the infrastructure for this to work, which would be bloody difficult to say the least. Keeping this kind of territory together in the 20th Century would require a much, much bigger number of white settlers (I sorta doubt that the British would work all that hard for the black Africans) to drive the economic development of the colonies.
 
*cough* Draka *cough*

That actually sums up how difficult it is, Africa is too big and too diverse to come together into a single nation. It's terrain also makes it difficult to develop the kind of transport infrastructure needed to create a single state, even if you managed it by conquest the chances are it would fall apart again after a short while. At most you might get some of the proposed confederations like the East Africa Federation or Senegambia to work but anything larger is very difficult.
 
Not possible. This is ASB department. In Africa is many hunder language and tribes whose don't like each others. Even many current countries of Africa has difficulties to stay unified so united Africa is impossible on this world.
 
The African Union is a bit more successful, maybe by exclude a few extreme trouble makers, and manages to agree on a united foreign policy?
 
I can't see this as anything like possible with a 20th Century POD, and about the best I can see for this is the British not allowing South African independence in 1910 and uniting its African colonies after WWI into one federation, which would ergo result in OTL's South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and British Somaliland integrated into one government.
O_O

We need to go longer. :cool:
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
France becomes communist after a ww1 allied loss, unites with Stalinist Russia in ww2, the communist loose to the British and German empires. Britain claims French colonies. Never grants South African independence. And has American support in suppressing African independence movements until the early 21st century against the emerging Russian / Japanese Co-prosperity sphere'S meddling.
 
Well worth a shot, thanks for the responses.

How early do you have to go back to make it possible? Rome?
 
Huge communist pan-African/Bantu state during decolonization. But it could only take control of like 20% of Africa.
 
If the colonial powers like Britain, France etc. had combined their colonies regionally in the southern, eastern and western parts of Africa to form large blocks and if they all attained freedom as in OTL, then some large countries would have been formed in Africa. The countries like South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi in the south could have been combined into a single block. The countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi in eastern Africa could have also been combined. Similarly France also could have combined their colonies in the western part. Then some really large countries would have existed in Africa. As even today most of the African countries are multi-ethnic and multi-lingual entities, more problems were not likely than in OTL Africa. But even then none of these countries would have covered more than a quarter of the continent's area.
 
Almost ASB...almost. The only thing that makes it even remotely possible is Biafra. Buy and large African countries have had remedial success when dealing with separatist within their country. Tanzanian and Zanzibar come to mind. As does Nigeria and Biafra. With the exception of Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia even the most fragile African country has been able to prevent it's territorial disintegration. The fact that Congo is still a unified country boggles the mind. And the same goes for Nigeria, Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. So the international borders that were written in Berlin in the 1880s are stronger than they probably should be. With that being said if France and Britain unified their colonies into one super colony sometime in the early 20th-century then I could see it being possible. Perhaps World War I Ends in a Korea like stalemate, and France and Britain both create two separate super colonies. In the 1950s when Independence movements take root, they are dominated by Pan African movements. As a result the newly independent French and British African colonies elect to merge into one large African state. However, from that point on they will be torn apart from the inside out. If This state were to survive to the modern day it would probably be fighting constant wars much like the Sudan, and probably be the world's largest failed state. It would for all intents and purposes be a nation in name only.

With that being said the scenario above is pretty close to ASB.
 
Almost ASB...almost. The only thing that makes it even remotely possible is Biafra. Buy and large African countries have had remedial success when dealing with separatist within their country. Tanzanian and Zanzibar come to mind. As does Nigeria and Biafra. With the exception of Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia even the most fragile African country has been able to prevent it's territorial disintegration. The fact that Congo is still a unified country boggles the mind. And the same goes for Nigeria, Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. So the international borders that were written in Berlin in the 1880s are stronger than they probably should be. With that being said if France and Britain unified their colonies into one super colony sometime in the early 20th-century then I could see it being possible. Perhaps World War I Ends in a Korea like stalemate, and France and Britain both create two separate super colonies. In the 1950s when Independence movements take root, they are dominated by Pan African movements. As a result the newly independent French and British African colonies elect to merge into one large African state. However, from that point on they will be torn apart from the inside out. If This state were to survive to the modern day it would probably be fighting constant wars much like the Sudan, and probably be the world's largest failed state. It would for all intents and purposes be a nation in name only.

With that being said the scenario above is pretty close to ASB.

But not ASB. France and England can also unite after World War I if they unite their colonies
 
Difficult? Very much so? To call it ASB, however, I think, is pushing it. If India, which is more populous and nearly as diverse as Africa, can be united as a single nation, then I think this makes the prospect of a united Africa substantially less ludicrous in comparison. It's twice the size of the largest country, Russia, and has twice as many languages as India, the most diverse nation. I don't think OTL x2 is inherently ASB. So let's give it a shot. I'm pretty sure a POD as late as mine really pushes ASB, though.

1958: In a referendum, all states of French West Africa vote comfortably to remain within the newly-formed French Community, as a unit, with the exception of Guinea, which narrowly votes for independence.

Almost immediately, Sekou Toure takes Guinea into a confederation with Ghana, forming the Ghana-Guinea Union.

1959: Agitation for independence continues, however at this time it is not seen as an inevitable fate; thus a referendum held on whether French West Africa- in its entirety- should become independent, or remain part of the French Community. However this backfires spectacularly and all states overwhelmingly vote for independence. A similar referendum achives a similar result in French Equatorial Africa.

1960: French West Africa becomes independent as the Federation of West Africa under President Leopold Senghor, while French Equatorial Africa becomes independent as the Central African Republic under President Ahmadou Ahidjo.

Meanwhile, Kwame Nkrumah begins to moderate, rejecting the Marxism that had coloured his recent politics and returning to the democratic socialism that marked his earlier years. This facilitates a turn of the Ghana-Guinea Union towards the United States and the rest of the British Commonwealth

The United States pledges its support for the UNOC in the Republic of the Congo, and threatens to break ties with Belgium if it did not withdraw support for the various mutineers and secessionist groups in the Congo, fearing that Patrice Lumumba would otherwise turn to the Soviet Union. Belgium backs down, while the CAR and the FWA are all quick to support the government of Prime Minister Lumumba.

Nigeria, Somalia, and Madagascar become independent.

In South Africa, a proposal to abolish the monarchy is narrowly defeated

1961: Congolese President Kasa-Vubu is forced to resign and is replaced by Antoine Gizenga. The Congo Crisis comes to a close as secessionist forces are gradually marginalized and the government in Leopoldville gains control over the country.
 
False analogy.

This entire concept is insulting to the complexity of existing African cultures, languages and peoples. It complete white washes the diversity of the world's most forgotten continent.

These aren't just matters of linear comparison. All the factors of African uniqueness and diversity compound on each other.

You have twice the size of Russia, with the amount of people of India, with thousands of years of divergent culture and language, with a multitudes of various religions, over the poorest stretchs of the Earth, coupled with vast expanses of some of the most extreme examples of geography.

Honestly, the idea is impossible with a post-1900 POD by the modern day.

I am all for a global government, but please, just drop this as a plausible concept.

Furthermore, to suggest that it could be done by the massive colonial domination of the continent makes my stomach upset.

The myth of the White's Man Burden is alive and well.
 
Top