European-style ethnic unification movements in the Third World?

CaliGuy

Banned
In our TL, we saw ethnic unification movements in Germany, Italy, Poland, Greece, Romania, and Serbia in the late 19th and/or early 20th centuries. Basically, the purpose of these movements was to incorporate as many ethnic Germans/Italians/Poles/Greeks/Romanians/Serbs in one state by conquering and annexing territories where these ethnic groups consisted of a large part of the population.

Overall, these movements achieved great success (though there were some "setbacks"--such as Romania's loss of Moldova in 1940 and the "loss" of the Serb-majority areas of Bosnia after the collapse of Yugoslavia).

Anyway, what I am curious is this--could we see any European-style ethnic unification movements in the Third World? If so, could any such movements actually succeed in the Third World?

Also, for the record, I suspect that the likeliest candidates among Third World ethnic groups for such a movement would be the Somalis and the Kurds. However, I am curious as to whether or not there are any other Third World ethnic groups which would likewise have a serious chance of creating such a movement.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
They exist for the Kurds, they're just not succesful. I don't know enough about Africa to propose any there. The Arabs certainly have a reunification movement.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They exist for the Kurds, they're just not succesful.

How would you achieve success, though?

Indeed, would this work for this--the U.S. declares war on the Ottoman Empire during World War I; thus, it gets a say in its post-war fate. Due to U.S. influence, an independent Kurdistan is created as a British LoN Mandate out of the Kurdish-majority parts of our TL's Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Then, several decades later, this Kurdish state allies with Saddam Hussein (or an Iraqi dictator like Saddam Hussein, due to the butterfly affect) and these two countries jointly invade Iran after the Iranian Revolution occurs. While Saddam (or alt-Saddam) is unsuccessful in his war with Iran, the Kurds are successful in theirs and thus get to annex Iranian Kurdistan after their victory.

I don't know enough about Africa to propose any there.

OK.

The Arabs certainly have a reunification movement.

Could they have been successful, though?

Also, while this isn't completely similar to the examples above, I do find it interesting how Stalin gathered the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples into the Ukrainian and Belarusian SSRs. Indeed, was there ever a realistic way for the Soviet Union to likewise incorporate the rest of the Azeri (in Iran), Uzbek (in Afghanistan), and Tajik (in Afghanistan) populations into the Union?
 
Could they have been successful, though?
For a successful United Arab republic having Sudan and Iraq join and balancing out Egypt with more autonomy for the member states would help
Azeri (in Iran), Uzbek (in Afghanistan), and Tajik (in Afghanistan)
The Azeri can be accomplished by a Soviet victory in the Iran crisis

Somalia Winning The Ogaden war and some movement for a merger of Rwanda and Burundi and Maybe a Pan Hispanic movement
 
The arab world is just a cultural term. An ethnic unification of the whole arab world wouldn't work. It would maybe work in Arabia and the Levante but not in North Africa. The majority NA is not ethnicaly arab.
In NA Amazigh/Berber unification could work.
 

Redbeard

Banned
The arab world is just a cultural term. An ethnic unification of the whole arab world wouldn't work. It would maybe work in Arabia and the Levante but not in North Africa. The majority NA is not ethnicaly arab.
In NA Amazigh/Berber unification could work.
But wasn't that what Nasser tried in the 1960s and where at least formally Syria, and Jordan joined Egypt?
 
It would maybe work in Arabia and the Levante but not in North Africa.
I don't see any issues with expanding an Arab union past Egypt given the Majority of Population is Arab
The majority NA is not ethnicaly arab
What do you mean by that
In NA Amazigh/Berber unification could work
Arab_League_Languages.PNG
 
@Noscoper being arabic is a cultural defenition and not an ethnicity for most people in NA. The thread is about ethnic unity. Even the arab speakers are ethnicaly not arab.
rdhssjmpy2tx.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't see any issues with expanding an Arab union past Egypt given the Majority of Population is Arab
View attachment 338292

Just because you're Arabic-speaking does't make you Arab. Never mind that Maghreb Arabic is worlds apart from Gulf Arabic or peninsula Arabic or Levantine Arabic...who are all quite unlike each other as well in their own quirky ways. If language is your means of collecting people together...you still aren't going to create a monolithic and singular Arab-speaking state. You'll have, at least 4 distinct Arabic-speaking countries on the basis of any sort of realistic linguistic unity. Oh, never mind the fact that if we're talking about true ethnicity...Snassni's map shows just how ethnically varied that part of the continent really is - far beyond the simplistic Arabic/Berber split.
 
Top