Alternate European dominated world history

[Comrad Euro]

My alternate world map+history
Full resolution: https://i.imgbox.com/pn9GIkZE.png

Borders based on ethnic, religious devisions and historic agreements and plans*

Latin America
Spain and Portugal give more and more autonomy to their colonies like Britain did with Canada and Australia thus managing to avoid independence wars.
>These countries should also be much more developed without the influence of socialism and protectionism and political turmoil. (This isn't so unlikely considering that countries like Argentina had a GDP per capita similar to that of the USA in the early 20th century).

Africa
Without WW1 and WW2 strong anti-colonial sentiments are virtually non existent, and European powers aren't economically and militarily exhausted and thus are able to retain their colonies for much longer.
Under European control African nations get more developed and get a chance not to be failed states once they gain independence in the future.
>The goal is also to keep the birth rate under 2 to avoid famines and allow for economic growth
>Italy manages to take Tunisia before France does. This is more natural as large numbers of Italians already lived there
>North Africa(except for Egypt) gets settled by Spaniards, French and Italians and gets fully integrated into those countries, and becomes a prosperous region integrated with Europe like in ancient times.
>South Africa remains a Boer republic

Middle East
During the Crimean War western powers don't join in the side of the ottomans but instead eventually join with Russian to split the Ottoman Empire.
>Greece gains western Anatolia and Constantinople.
>Armenia gains the traditional territory they had before the Armenian genocide.
>Kurdistan is formed.
>Israel is formed with larger borders as proposed by the zionists at the Paris peace conference
>Lebanon gets more compact and includes only Christians
>Iraq is shrunk to only include Shia Arabs(thus removing ethnic and religious conflicts) and placed under British administration
>Syrian borders readjusted to keep it as a predominantly Sunni Arab country(removing religious and ethnic conflict) and placed under French administration
>Arabian peninsula being largely uninhabited and its population being nomadic is easily colonized
>Austria gets half of Oman, UAE and Qatar
>Germany takes the remaining oil rich Persian gulf coastline and the interior
>Italy gains the rest
>Without Saudi Arabia and their Islamist ideology+the money to spread it, the Islamic world is secularized and modernized and joins the 21st century

Europe
>Sweden stays neutral during the napoleonic wars and doesn't piss off Russia. Russia in turn doesn't invade Sweden and Sweden keeps Finland.
>Slightly larger Congress Poland is created at the Conference of Vienna and it doesn't get absorbed by Russia
>After the liberal revolutionary wars the Austrian Empire gets federalized on the basis of United States of Greater Austria largely imitating the American model.
>Serbia and Montenegro form a union. Serbia starts absorbing back Serbs who went to the Austrian empire as refugees during ottoman occupation and using them to resettle Kosovo and southern Serbia.
>Ireland seceded from the U.K.
>Orthodox countries formed by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire all remain in the Russian sphere of influence, most importantly Greece giving Russia unrestricted access to the Mediterranean.
>In Russia Ukrainians don't develop a Ukrainian identity but continue calling themselves "Little Russians" and with 20th century education are getting very Russified
>Russia also enacts a series of drastic reforms like Japan and ends serfdom, starts industrialization and eventually liberalization of the political system. Because of this it ends up a lot richer today with Western European like living standards.
>Countries of Central Europe like Poland and Austria also industrialize fast and with Archduke Rudolph acceding to the throne, Austria starts to enact a lot of liberal reforms with the monarch eventually ending up with as much power as the British monarch.
It also largely develops to the level of Western Europe because of lack of communism. (Czech Republic used to be the richest region of the Austrian empire and before communism it was richer then present day Austria itself so we can assume that without communism it and the rest of regions of the empires would develop a lot more)

Asia
>Russo-Japanese War doesn't happen, Russia keeps the Liaodong Peninsula and warm water port- Port Arthur
>Without World Wars Asian countries stay under colonial rule for a longer time but all eventually gain independence, India being first
>China stays a republic and doesn't fall under communist rule, keeps Mongolia

Additional notes:
>This is merly 1 idea, nothing is set in stone, suggestions are welcome
>The flag I used for Austria is a fan made flag from google. The regular Austrian Enpire flag seemed too dull and unfit for the new federation.
>The timeline would also include a lowering of tariffs and eventually a common market in Europe resembeling the EU but without the political union, and this should develop at a much earlier time(this isn't so unrealistic because a common currency and market was already being proposed in 1930s but was postponed due to WW2). This would be done to prevent European countries going to war to gain resources, and to make their economies so intertwined that war is almost impossible.
>I know that Sweden not getting invaded and Poland not being annexed is very unlikley but I tried to create a Europe with as little ethnic conflict as possible. And keeping Poland independent seemed pretty important. And Finland I think has more love for Sweden then for Russia so I kept them that way, they can either be swedenised or gain independence eventually.
>I'm not sure what year this exactly is.
It was meant to be present day but with so much colonialism it's unlikely. So I guess this cold be the 1960s. I will leave it up to your imagination whether Britain manages to keep India and other colonies, I consider it unlikely
>By 2017 most/all Asian countries should manage to achieve independence while I don't think any African countries should.
>For the colonial americas and Australia I have 2 proposals which are again up to you:
1. Canada, Australia and Latin American countries eventually all gain their independence by getting more autonomy little by little.
2. You can see Canada as Siberia of Britain. Russian also simply settled Siberia. The only difference is that Britain doesn't have a land connection to Canada and that isn't a problem in the modern era. So in that spirit Canada could keep being a strongly autonomous dominion of Britain. Or Britain could really adopt the Empire mentality and give all citizens of white domainions the same British citizenship and govern the entire British empire(including Britain itself) from one parliament and considering all these places simply regions of Britain.
Same plans allly to Spanish and Portuguese possessions.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

A democratic or at least liberal Empirewank! What about Ghana, e.g., gaining independence by 2017?

Also, even if we go the dominion way and all Empire pieces are governed from London, Madrid and Lisbon, they might well all get their own flags...

 

[Isaac Beach]

My only problem with this is the German occupation of the Holy Cities. No European OTL occupied the Holy Cities because that's basically grounds for a Jihad according to Islamic dogma at the time and I'm pretty sure nowadays as well. Far less from secularisation such a move by Germany would see every Muslim worth half his salt go and bomb Berlin until they withdrew. Those are my thoughts anyway.

 

[Comrad Euro]

A democratic or at least liberal Empirewank! What about Ghana, e.g., gaining independence by 2017?

Also, even if we go the dominion way and all Empire pieces are governed from London, Madrid and Lisbon, they might well all get their own flags...

Well not a "liberal empire" in the way we perceive it today. But just in general a free society, democracy etc. like France, Britain, USA already had at the time.
The dominion thing could go 2 ways as I've said, they either get really really autonomous or they get full incorporated(which is unlikely for countries with non European population).

And Ghana gaining independence depends on how strong the desire of the native people for independence is, and how capable it is to function as a proper democracy on its own.

 

[Comrad Euro]

My only problem with this is the German occupation of the Holy Cities. No European OTL occupied the Holy Cities because that's basically grounds for a Jihad according to Islamic dogma at the time and I'm pretty sure nowadays as well. Far less from secularisation such a move by Germany would see every Muslim worth half his salt go and bomb Berlin until they withdrew. Those are my thoughts anyway.

Muslims occupied Jerusalem for more then a thousand years and secular Italy occupied Rome. My biggest motivation for this was that:

• The entire Arabian peninsula was mostly nomadic so it shouldn't be too hard to conquer
• The population was extremely small, even today countries like UAE have a population of 5m while only 11% of the population are actually native Arabs, the rest are immigrants. Due to their high birth rate we can assume this was even less before
• I specifically needed a secular government to occupy that territory so we don't end up with a radical Islamic country there with access to extreme oil wealth. In best case scenario they can get a Vatican type arrangement

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

Nah. Da'esh of course would, in this case, bomb the f*** out of Berlin. But by far not every Muslim, not even every Muslim "worth half his salt" (whatever that means), would go and bomb Berlin. Especially if everybody in these vast empire has human rights, democracy and such.

Not every Muslim is some radical Islamist extremist.

 

[Comrad Euro]

Nah. Da'esh of course would, in this case, bomb the f*** out of Berlin. But by far not every Muslim, not even every Muslim "worth half his salt" (whatever that means), would go and bomb Berlin. Especially if everybody in these vast empire has human rights, democracy and such.

Not every Muslim is some radical Islamist extremist.

Da'esh doesn't exist in this timeline. If you looked into how it came to be you'd know that this timeline comeptly cuts it to its root.
Mass immigration into Europe also doesn't exist so in case ISIS magically appears they can't get to Berlin.

 

[Isaac Beach]

Muslims occupied Jerusalem for more then a thousand years and secular Italy occupied Rome. My biggest motivation for this was that:

• The entire Arabian peninsula was mostly nomadic so it shouldn't be too hard to conquer
• The population was extremely small, even today countries like UAE have a population of 5m while only 11% of the population are actually native Arabs, the rest are immigrants. Due to their high birth rate we can assume this was even less before
• I specifically needed a secular government to occupy that territory so we don't end up with a radical Islamic country there with access to extreme oil wealth. In best case scenario they can get a Vatican type arrangement

There were multiple crusades to try and take Jerusalem from the Muslimss and eventually a Zionist reestablishment of Israel two thousand years after it was vacated; and 'secular Italy' occupying Rome isn't the same thing; Rome isn't considered the center of Catholicism. The first comparison undermines your point and the second comparison makes no sense. Furthermore Mecca and Medina are intrinsically tied to Islam in a way Jerusalem is not tied to Christianity or Judaism; they can exist without Jerusalem and did for thousands of years, but Mecca is the literal center of the Islamic religion, the Kaaba is there for one, and Medina houses Mohammed's tomb. It's where Mohammed founded Islam and from where the first Caliphate was born. A heretic power controlling Mecca will offend most moderate Muslims and all orthodox Muslims. There is a very real reason why neither Britain or France occupied the Holy Cities after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

• It doesn't matter if the peninsular is mostly nomadic if there are still metropolitan centers such as Mecca and Medina, if from nowhere else they will arise from the Mashriq, Egypt and the two Holy Cities themselves. The fact that much of the peninsular is nomadic also means guerilla warfare is very plausible and likely and hard to stamp out, so that's not a very good argument.
• The population being low doesn't mean anything, especially if there are exterior Muslims who will go and commit that jihad. Egypt alone has 91 million Muslims; at least some of those will be offended that the Holy Cities are being occupied by heretics and go to try and expel them.
• That is so wrong and borderline Islamophobic; most scholars agree that radical Islam's spread is the result of colonialism. An independent Arabia will not automatically be radicalised, in fact it's more likely they will be radicalised by a 'secular government' occupying their most holy sites. Your solution would actually intensify that radicalisation, not decrease it.

Nah. Da'esh of course would, in this case, bomb the f*** out of Berlin. But by far not every Muslim, not even every Muslim "worth half his salt" (whatever that means), would go and bomb Berlin. Especially if everybody in these vast empire has human rights, democracy and such.

Not every Muslim is some radical Islamist extremist.

I was not implying that every Muslim is a radical extremist. I was implying that Germany occupying the Holy Cities (presumably in the early 1900s) would spur a jihad, for the reasons I've stated above. Mecca and Medina are the most important sites in Islam, 'human rights and democracy', especially imposed by a foreign power, will not stop Muslims from being offended that their Holy Cities are being occupied by heretics. Britain and France did not occupy them in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's collapse for exactly this reason. They have the firepower and the assets to, but they simply wouldn't because they know it would enrage their Muslim subjects.

When Juhayman al-Otaybi's al-Ilkhwan occupied the Grand Mosque, three French commandos were supplied to assist the Saudis in retaking the Mosque. Here is an excerpt from Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 on that point:

"A team of three French commandos from the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) arrived in Mecca. Because of the prohibition against non-Muslims entering the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief, formal ceremony. The commandos pumped gas into the underground chambers, but perhaps because the rooms were so bafflingly interconnected, the gas failed and the resistance continued. With casualties climbing, Saudi forces drilled holes into the courtyard and dropped grenades into the rooms below, indiscriminately killing many hostages but driving the remaining rebels into more open areas where they could be picked off by sharpshooters. More than two weeks after the assault began, the surviving rebels finally surrendered."

A foreign heretical power occupying Mecca is in direct violation of that prohibition, and so there would be a jihad to expel them from Mecca and the surrounding area. Christian Europeans frankly have no business being anywhere near the Holy Cities, much less controlling them.

 

[Comrad Euro]

Nah. Da'esh of course would, in this case, bomb the f*** out of Berlin. But by far not every Muslim, not even every Muslim "worth half his salt" (whatever that means), would go and bomb Berlin. Especially if everybody in these vast empire has human rights, democracy and such.

Not every Muslim is some radical Islamist extremist.

As I've described. What we perceive as "radical Islamism" does not exist here.

 

[Comrad Euro]

There were multiple crusades to try and take Jerusalem from the Muslimss and eventually a Zionist reestablishment of Israel two thousand years after it was vacated; and 'secular Italy' occupying Rome isn't the same thing; Rome isn't considered the center of Catholicism. The first comparison undermines your point and the second comparison makes no sense. Furthermore Mecca and Medina are intrinsically tied to Islam in a way Jerusalem is not tied to Christianity or Judaism; they can exist without Jerusalem and did for thousands of years, but Mecca is the literal center of the Islamic religion, the Kaaba is there for one, and Medina houses Mohammed's tomb. It's where Mohammed founded Islam and from where the first Caliphate was born. A heretic power controlling Mecca will offend most moderate Muslims and all orthodox Muslims. There is a very real reason why neither Britain or France occupied the Holy Cities after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

• It doesn't matter if the peninsular is mostly nomadic if there are still metropolitan centers such as Mecca and Medina, if from nowhere else they will arise from the Mashriq, Egypt and the two Holy Cities themselves. The fact that much of the peninsular is nomadic also means guerilla warfare is very plausible and likely and hard to stamp out, so that's not a very good argument.
• The population being low doesn't mean anything, especially if there are exterior Muslims who will go and commit that jihad. Egypt alone has 91 million Muslims; at least some of those will be offended that the Holy Cities are being occupied by heretics and go to try and expel them.
• That is so wrong and borderline Islamophobic; most scholars agree that radical Islam's spread is the result of colonialism. An independent Arabia will not automatically be radicalised, in fact it's more likely they will be radicalised by a 'secular government' occupying their most holy sites. Your solution would actually intensify that radicalisation, not decrease it.

I was not implying that every Muslim is a radical extremist. I was implying that Germany occupying the Holy Cities (presumably in the early 1900s) would spur a jihad, for the reasons I've stated above. Mecca and Medina are the most important sites in Islam, 'human rights and democracy', especially imposed by a foreign power, will not stop Muslims from being offended that their Holy Cities are being occupied by heretics. Britain and France did not occupy them in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's collapse for exactly this reason. They have the firepower and the assets to, but they simply wouldn't because they know it would enrage their Muslim subjects.

When Juhayman al-Otaybi's al-Ilkhwan occupied the Grand Mosque, three French commandos were supplied to assist the Saudis in retaking the Mosque. Here is an excerpt from Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 on that point:

"A team of three French commandos from the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) arrived in Mecca. Because of the prohibition against non-Muslims entering the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief, formal ceremony. The commandos pumped gas into the underground chambers, but perhaps because the rooms were so bafflingly interconnected, the gas failed and the resistance continued. With casualties climbing, Saudi forces drilled holes into the courtyard and dropped grenades into the rooms below, indiscriminately killing many hostages but driving the remaining rebels into more open areas where they could be picked off by sharpshooters. More than two weeks after the assault began, the surviving rebels finally surrendered."

A foreign heretical power occupying Mecca is in direct violation of that prohibition, and so there would be a jihad to expel them from Mecca and the surrounding area. Christian Europeans frankly have no business being anywhere near the Holy Cities, much less controlling them.

Crusades came only after Muslims decided to ban Christian pilgrims to the holy land and started killing them.
"Rome isn't considered the center of Catholicism"
It's literally called the Roman Catholic Church, and prior to establishment of Italy pope continuously ruled Rome for hundreds of years.

Oh and the Holy Land. HOLY LAND isn't the place where Jesus was born and lived and was buried?
And Jerusalem too was the literal capital of Judaism and its only homeland.

Islamic countries at this point would be in no position to pose any serious threat to European powers.
Russia alone could've steamrolled the Ottomans(largest Islamic power) but the ottomans were saved by western powers themselves(France, Britain, Sardinia and even Austria threatening to join).

France and Britain didn't have interest in occupying this region because it was completely invaluable, oil is on the other side.

I would be willing to trade a wahhabi state in for a hostile occupation.
Of course I would support making this an independent state provided it was not run by Wahhabis.

• The countries/regions you named don't have independence and a much much much smaller population then in the present time. They can't just go and organize a war. I was researching this and even in the 1930s they were fighting on camels with sword. Not very effective rebellion.
• I already addressed that, Egypt had a population of 8 million around the WW1 period.
• And you are uneducated on Islam, Middle East and the root of modern Islamic ultraconservatism and terrorism. The topic is so complex that I don't have the time to discuss it here, nor do I want to discuss religion on this forum. But if not wanting the people who literally have the same ideology as ISIS run most of the Arabian peninsula is "Islamophobic" then so be it. Also islamophobia is not a thing.
• Implying colonialism is the responsible for the teachings of Islam is the most laughable thing I've ever read and one of the most brainless cliches that I don't even want to address it because at this point everyone should know better.

I would appreciate the comment on the map and the history rather then focusing on Islam.

 

[skozik]

Okay, here's your commentary: I hate this, a lot. That you seem to view the sort of naked, dehumanizing imperialism European nations were so fond of as a good thing is absolutely disgusting, not to mention your seeming conception of Africans as people perfectly happy to continue submitting to such a colonial power so long as there's no global war to act as an external stressor. Africans had long had their own functional states before the European invasion; that many of them failed and are failing after decolonization is certainly not the Africans' fault, but rather the Europeans who brutally exploited them for their mineral and agricultural wealth and then didn't even have the decency to leave behind any sort of functioning economy or infrastructure.

Also islamophobia is not a thing.

Excuse me???

 

[Comrad Euro]

Okay, here's your commentary: I hate this, a lot. That you seem to view the sort of naked, dehumanizing imperialism European nations were so fond of as a good thing is absolutely disgusting, not to mention your seeming conception of Africans as people perfectly happy to continue submitting to such a colonial power so long as there's no global war to act as an external stressor. Africans had long had their own functional states before the European invasion; that many of them failed and are failing after decolonization is certainly not the Africans' fault, but rather the Europeans who brutally exploited them for their mineral and agricultural wealth and then didn't even have the decency to leave behind any sort of functioning economy or infrastructure.


Excuse me???

Here's a thing. Throughout the entire animal world animals kill each other for territory, animals of the same species kill and attack each other for control of resources and food.

For thousands of years Europeans have been killing each other over land, so have asians, and Africans and Americans and all humans everywhere.
If Europeans invent advanced transportation and can now go fight not only in Europe but elsewhere how is that any less moral then any other conquest in human history?
How is it more moral for Britain to conquer the Irish then the Nigerians? Does being further away give you a free pass?
Was the Zulu genocide of millions of the native South African Bushman more moral then the Dutch settlers founding cities on uninhabited land and expanding by purchasing land from the local tribes?

Furthermore that is a map of all countries that ever existed in Africa, most of them didn't exist in the 1800s(the time of colonization).
You can see that they were random lumps of land with no clear borders and that the majority of the continent, didn't have any.
Furthermore these(sub Saharan) were cultures with no writing system, no 2 storey building, and no wheel. And they didn't even have to invent these things. They traded with Arabs they just had to adapt the things like the wheel but they didn't.
They were extremely primitive.
And that's the areas with "countries"

The rest of it was random tribes that lived mostly nomadically with no knowledge of advanced agriculture(or any agriculture in some cases) or medicine.

When you combine all these factors you must be the biggest idiot in the world to think that it's the fault of the Europeans that they didn't transform from a place where no writing system or even a wheel exists to a prosperous, modern first world civilization in a 100 years.
China has been the center of human civilization for thousands of years and it's taking its time to develop.
What do you expect from places that didn't even have a writing system?
Are you that dense to suggest that without Europeans they would've caught up and invented an alphabet, electricity, cars, planes, trains, hospitals, schools, factories etc. and an organized modern society in a span of a 100 years?

Nobody is that stupid, these are all just fairytales meant to rationalize why sub Saharan Africa is so underdeveloped.
In fact the only infrastructure these countries have today is the ones left by Europeans.
"then didn't even have the decency to leave behind any sort of functioning economy"
They wanted independence immediately and they got it. And in fact countries like Zimbabwe which used to be called the breadbasket of Africa during European rule because of how much food they were exporting and a booming industry, have now turned into the largest receives of international aid and can't even feed themselves. The rest of the economy and infrastructure is in ruins too and it's only decaying and getting worse.
South Africa too has been transforming from a first world living standard and infrastructure and safety, into a typical corrupt, decaying failed state with a stagnant economy.

The myths of colonialism are just that. Myths

Excuse me???

It simply doesn't exist.

 

[Pyramus]

This is a very interesting concept.
Please continue.

 

[The British Empire]

Can I have a version of the map without the flags?

 

[skozik]

How is it more moral for Britain to conquer the Irish then the Nigerians? Does being further away give you a free pass?

It's not more moral for Britons to conquer Irish than to conquer Nigerians, ya dingus. Both are expressions of imperialism.

Was the Zulu genocide of millions of the native South African Bushman more moral then the Dutch settlers founding cities on uninhabited land and expanding by purchasing land from the local tribes?

It sure as hell wasn't, but here's the thing: they are both bad. Shocking, right? The San genocide was an atrocity, but the magnitude of its tragedy does not downplay Boer settlers' cruel exploitation of indigenous peoples' lack of the European concept of land ownership to "purchase" land and threaten indigenous ways of life, and then proceed to be huge racist bastards (the majority of them, anyways) for the next hundred-and-change years.

Furthermore that is a map of all countries that ever existed in Africa, most of them didn't exist in the 1800s(the time of colonization).

Yes, of course, this single map (that you apparently got off the Wikipedia article "List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa" without bothering to actually read the article, which lists several hundred) represents every state society to ever exist in the entire continent of Africa. You really got me there. (That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.)

Here is an actual list of African countries that existed in the 19th century alone, according to that very article:

Spoiler

- Sennar
- Darfur
- Morocco
- Medri Bahri
- Ethiopia
- Warsangali
- Buganda
- Burundi
- Rwanda
- Bunyoro
- Geledi
- Aussa
- Majeerteen
- Gomma
- Jimma
- Gumma
- Hobyo
- Dervish State
- Nri
- Bonoman
- Mossi
- Benin
- Wolof
- Bornu
- Oyo
- Dagbon
- Sine
- Shilluk
- Saloum
- Kaabu
- Cayor
- Baol
- Dahomey
- Aro
- Asante
- Kong
- Bamana
- Sokoto
- Wassoulou
- Kanem
- Kongo
- Bagirmi
- Luba
- Wadai
- Lunda
- Kuba
- Rozwi
- Ndwandwe
- Zulu
- Merina
- Mthethwa

You can see that they were random lumps of land with no clear borders and that the majority of the continent, didn't have any.

They had "no clear borders" because European colonizers didn't bother to do more than collect lists of townships and cities before conquering them, not because surveying land was a foreign art to the entire continent.

I'm honestly not going to dignify the rest of your response because honestly I don't have the time for it and I am not going to waste energy and brainpower on a racist!

 

[Comrad Euro]

It's not more moral for Britons to conquer Irish than to conquer Nigerians, ya dingus. Both are expressions of imperialism.


It sure as hell wasn't, but here's the thing: they are both bad. Shocking, right? The San genocide was an atrocity, but the magnitude of its tragedy does not downplay Boer settlers' cruel exploitation of indigenous peoples' lack of the European concept of land ownership to "purchase" land and threaten indigenous ways of life, and then proceed to be huge racist bastards (the majority of them, anyways) for the next hundred-and-change years.


Yes, of course, this single map (that you apparently got off the Wikipedia article "List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa" without bothering to actually read the article, which lists several hundred) represents every state society to ever exist in the entire continent of Africa. You really got me there. (That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.)

Here is an actual list of African countries that existed in the 19th century alone, according to that very article:

Spoiler

- Sennar
- Darfur
- Morocco
- Medri Bahri
- Ethiopia
- Warsangali
- Buganda
- Burundi
- Rwanda
- Bunyoro
- Geledi
- Aussa
- Majeerteen
- Gomma
- Jimma
- Gumma
- Hobyo
- Dervish State
- Nri
- Bonoman
- Mossi
- Benin
- Wolof
- Bornu
- Oyo
- Dagbon
- Sine
- Shilluk
- Saloum
- Kaabu
- Cayor
- Baol
- Dahomey
- Aro
- Asante
- Kong
- Bamana
- Sokoto
- Wassoulou
- Kanem
- Kongo
- Bagirmi
- Luba
- Wadai
- Lunda
- Kuba
- Rozwi
- Ndwandwe
- Zulu
- Merina
- Mthethwa

They had "no clear borders" because European colonizers didn't bother to do more than collect lists of townships and cities before conquering them, not because surveying land was a foreign art to the entire continent.

I'm honestly not going to dignify the rest of your response because honestly I don't have the time for it and I am not going to waste energy and brainpower on a racist!

Your list doesn't really show much more at all considering that my map has ton of overlapping countries.
But if you're that stubborn here:

Not being an idiot who is poisoned by Marxist ideology I can tell that not every part of the world is equal and developed at an equal pace.
Civilizations of central and South America were more developed then those in North America.
The Mediterranean region used to be more developed then Northern Europe.
India and china used to be the most developed regions for centuries.
North Africa is more developed then southern regions.
None of these things are racist or controversial, they are observable facts. And if you can't see them because of your ideology that's your problem. I for once don't like dogmas.

So we agree that all war is bad? Understandable. But what we have in the modern war is an anomaly not the normal. This is an emotional logic, not a rational or a natural one.
But that's not the point, the point is the Africans can't blame outsiders for their problems.
Ireland was occupied for far too long and it isn't a poverty stricken country, so has Norway and Iceland and most of places in Europe and around the world.

You cannot blame 100 years of occupation(much less in most cases) on thousands of years of no development and civilization.

 

[Comrad Euro]

Can I have a version of the map without the flags?

Hmmm. I might try later but it won't be easy
How will you tell what overseas territory belongs to who without the map? Should I color it at least?

This is a very interesting concept.
Please continue.

I was thinking of making some more changes like Belgium never starting the independence war and staying part of the Netherlands. And then at the Berlin conference Germany ganing Congo instead so its expansionist hunger can be satisfied but I'm not sure if that's pushing it too far.

What would you like to see from Russia?

 

[The British Empire]

Hmmm. I might try later but it won't be easy
How will you tell what overseas territory belongs to who without the map? Should I color it at least?

Please color it.

 

[CannedTech]

Man, I was gonna leave it at this being another Euro wankfest, but boy has this thread taken a cruising for a bruising.

South Africa too has been transforming from a first world living standard and infrastructure and safety, into a typical corrupt, decaying failed state with a stagnant economy.

Oh man, Marius would love this. Also, first world living standard? Gee, I wonder who got to benefit from a first world standard of living and who didn't...

Really gets the brain juices flowing that one...

 

[Comrad Euro]

Man, I was gonna leave it at this being another Euro wankfest, but boy has this thread taken a cruising for a bruising.



Oh man, Marius would love this. Also, first world living standard? Gee, I wonder who got to benefit from a first world standard of living and who didn't...

Really gets the brain juices flowing that one...

There's so much misinformation out there that that part is admittedly too extreme for people who aren't extremely versed in the entire history of the country.

Well it was a first world country for its citizens. Blacks had their own independent nations. I don't see why that's a moral thing in the case of Palestine and Israel but not here. Although they should've been given more land.

Yes it was bad before for the majority of the people, that's not the point, the point is that it's worse now.
The black suburbs looked like this. They weren't luxurious but there was law and order. Now it's one of the most dangerous places on the planet. Everyone had a job and the blacks had the highest level of education and living standard then anywhere else in Africa, many Africans from other countries tried to immigrate here during apartheid.

The country used to have a crime rate at the level of Switzerland, now it has a higher death rate then Iraq(which has a war going on).
The economy was growing faster despite the sanctions and everyone had a better life.

Having said that Apartheid is morally indefensible.
That's why the country should've been split for all its ethnicities rather then having 10 different languages, competing ethnicities and a comeptly non functional state.

And Boers have practically been robbed of a state. They came in, settled on the uninhabited coast. And built cities and first world infrastructure etc. but British imperialism drove them inland and trapped them in the same state as millions of other hostile ethnicities who now took over everything Boers have been building for hundreds of years and which doesn't belong to them in any way shape or form.