Make a third world country in Europe

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

Ireland could have gone the other way.

No Marshall Plan, more Troubles, further entrenched power of the Church, or maybe the government goes communist, all these factors could have added up to a country of striking poverty. We already have a tradition of getting out when things are bad, and it's not the very poorest who get to do that, so the brain drain could have been more pronounced at each point, without the pull-back of people and funds that we got during periods of prosperity in OTL.

 

[Loki-L]

I think a big requirement would be having the country on the edge of Europe or being very large.

Small and unstable will just get pacified or gobbled up.

If for example Belgium fell down the development ladder it would shortly cease to be because non of the neighbors would want a source of refugees and violence next door. there would be multinational peacekeeping followed by either another regime installed or simply the country being split up or annexed whole by neighbors.

For a third world nation to fully develop the neighbors would somehow have to be prevented from interfering by either the country being too big or by the other countries themselves being in dire straits.

The 'best' place for a third world country to be allowed to develop would be on the outskirts.

 

[TimTurner]

how feasible is Portugal as an option for this challenge?

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

Otherwise, it seems to me that what the OP is asking for is not so much "a third world country" as it is "a failed state". There are many third world countries that are generally functional and peaceful, even if they are poor and lacking in economic and societal development

Yeah, that's what I was going for.

As for Finland, maybe a longer Finish civil war?

 

[Tanc49]

Ireland had a short but fairly hard civil war and then stayed basically a Third World Country until the 70's, very rural and poorly developed

 

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

Ireland had a short but fairly hard civil war and then stayed basically a Third World Country until the 70's, very rural and poorly developed

With the 'quirks' of having a large diaspora in America, a lot of Irish in the lower ranks of the Catholic Church around the world, and the upper class and higher education system being strongly intertwined with the upper classes and higher education systems of Britain and Europe.

An Irishman could move to America with 'nothing' and not start at 'zero'. Or join the Catholic Church and get on that ladder.

Being Irish was a larger hurdle to getting yourself up through the British class and university system than being Welsh or Scottish, but not like being any kind of African or West Indian or Asian.

The other third world countries had none, or maybe only one, of these 'quirks'.

 

[baldipaul]

Britain after Brexit

 

[Pikers3]

If this is true, then why hasn't Europe stopped all the wars in the middle east for that matter? Syria is right on Europe's doorstep.

In recent times there have 4 major cases of state collapse in the Middle East

1) - Iraq - This was caused by Western forces going in, including several European states. European armies stayed there for several years trying to stabilize it. When it seemed sort of stable they left. After the rise of ISIS around 10 European nations joined in a US led bombing campaign to support local forces.
2) Libya - Britain and France were leaders in the removal of Gaddafi when he threatened to wipe out the city of Benghazi. Although there hasn't been an military intervention in the most recent civil war both France and Italy are leading peace talks between to two sides
3) Syria - The US and Europeans backed several rebel groups fighting to topple Assad. For a long while there was talk of intervening to topple Assad after his use of chemical weapons but the Americans didn't really want to do it, Britain voted against it and France couldn't do it alone. Any major European or Western intervention was made impossible after Russia gave military backing to Assad.
4) Yemen - Too far for Europe to really care and has been out-sourced to allies in the region.

The lack of intervention by Western Powers in the Middle East is a result of the West's experience in Iraq & Afghanistan. Europe could easily defeat Assad or Gaddafi militarily and stop that phase of the war. The problems come after. Do European armies stay and been seen as an occupier which needs to be expelled militarily by insurgents or do they back an interim government that is often seen as a Western stooge which needs to be protected from its own people?

Faced with these choices most of Europe would rather not get involved or if they do it be limited to support for a local force. This obviously extends the wars though.

 

[RousseauX]

As was stated in a convo in one of my previous threads, European countries tend not to devolve into the total chaos and degeneration of societal institutions like you see in the middle east now for several reasons, even following a brutal war. So, what WOULD it take to get a "middle east style" civil war in Europe after 1900? Bonus points if it's in western Europe. And some questions:

How would it affect European and world politics? How it affect cultural perceptions of the country the country in question? How would it affect cultural perceptions of "third world countries" in general? Would it cause a refugee crisis and if so how would it be dealt with?

Albania post-Communism

 

[Changundramon]

Countries of former SFR Yugoslavia are good candidates, except for Slovenia. It can be argued that Bosnia&Herzegovina actually is a 3. world country.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

If this is true, then why hasn't Europe stopped all the wars in the middle east for that matter? Syria is right on Europe's doorstep.

Russia woulden't let anybody else get deeply involved in Syria, and post Iraqi Freedom heavy handed intervention in the Middle East carries a deep politically raw nerve (to say nothing of the fact Iranian backed groups pushing up against them). The situation there is a lot more complex and with many more factional players in the game that anything in Europe would be.

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

The lack of intervention by Western Powers in the Middle East is a result of the West's experience in Iraq & Afghanistan. Europe could easily defeat Assad or Gaddafi militarily and stop that phase of the war. The problems come after. Do European armies stay and been seen as an occupier which needs to be expelled militarily by insurgents or do they back an interim government that is often seen as a Western stooge which needs to be protected from its own people?

Faced with these choices most of Europe would rather not get involved or if they do it be limited to support for a local force. This obviously extends the wars though.

How come such a situation never happened in Europe? And likewise, how do we get a country in Europe to be like this?

Countries of former SFR Yugoslavia are good candidates, except for Slovenia. It can be argued that Bosnia&Herzegovina actually is a 3. world country.

Why except Slovenia?

 

[GauchoBadger]

The 1991 hardliner coup against Mikhail Gorbachev succeeds, and a rump USSR becomes a rather impoverished North Korean-esque regime looming over Eastern Europe, plagued by ethnic insurgencies.

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

Hmm, what about Poland?

 

[Changundramon]

How come such a situation never happened in Europe? And likewise, how do we get a country in Europe to be like this?


Why except Slovenia?

They are culturally tied to Austria, and could easily get massive help. Also, Serbian plans were willing to let them go, mostly.

 

[Atterdag]

how feasible is Portugal as an option for this challenge?

I think both Portugal and Spain are possible candidates if their dictatorships continue.

 

[TimTurner]

I think both Portugal and Spain are possible candidates if their dictatorships continue.

Scenario: US backs the Estado Novo due to anti-communism, and Portugal holds on to its colonies
years pass by and eventually the regime does fall but only after succeeding in integrating the colonies with the mainland?

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

They are culturally tied to Austria, and could easily get massive help. Also, Serbian plans were willing to let them go, mostly.

What does culture have to do with it? If anything, Macedonia was the most peacful country in the Yugoslav breakup.

 

[Changundramon]

What does culture have to do with it? If anything, Macedonia was the most peacful country in the Yugoslav breakup.

Germanic influence is beneficial for the economy, as people are less prone to bribe their way to a goal. TBF, avoiding war alltogether, like Macedonia, is good too.

 

[anotherlurker]

Germanic influence is beneficial for the economy, as people are less prone to bribe their way to a goal. TBF, avoiding war alltogether, like Macedonia, is good too.

I'm born in Yugoslavia and live in Austria now. History... The only cultural commonality by now is catholicism, that's the religion where the priest preaches virtuous rejection of materal wants while waving a golden stick in the peoples face, so much for corruption. Rich countries have different forms of corruption than poor ones, it's less visible, hidden behind closed doors, it's about getting peoples money indirectly by misuse of taxes, not to take it directly from them - that's too visible, too dangerous.

Slovenia is well off because at the end of the empire it was left with a well enough working administration and a skilled and literate labor pool, you can compare it to Bosnia, where modernization barely begun before ww1 and thus there was next to nothing until the socialist experiment went into high gear in the 60s. Slovenia was always a step or two ahead of the rest and still is.

Here you have literacy in 1931.