The World Wars hastened the process, sure, but I'd argue decolonisation was already on the cards. A lot of people expected to see the end of British rule in India, for example.
Meta-AHC:Why Fewer Nations
- Thread starter Beatriz
- Start date
I agree because East/South/Southeast Asia have roughly half the world’s population, and it’s a lot farther to Europe than Africa. However, the Middle East (to some degree) and Central Asia are incorporable into an empire(s).
How much of the Middle East and Africa could be incorporated by Europe (including Russia)?
Last edited:
It depends on the timeframe. I mean, consider the desire for human unity in the face of global crises on one hand, and the desire for self-determination in the face of insidious global systems on the other. And consider the capitalist drive to bigger and bigger markets and the reactions against it, both of which manifest themselves in different ways for different regions.
One could always include provincial boundaries and autonomous regions too
I think you can see the signs even before the scramble.
This is mostly a guess, but I bet even Bismark realized this to some extent. I know he wanted to keep the threatening appearance of Germany down but he probably realized that colonies were a money trap that wouldn't last much longer, and if you think about it most colonies were money traps, not all but crown jewels to go around.
As a defense of Germany colonies, they could act as bargaining chips to give to Britain in exchange for recognize gains on the continent.
Hm. Well the French Empire going all in with its Continental System could help with making Europe more simple, and with French supremacy over Europe would come its dominance on the world stage, allowing it to redraw simpler and fewer borders.
Yeah. There's a reason why the forum was until recently dominated by US/EU/UK related PODs and the like - it's easier to write about your own country's history and those of its neighbors than deal with somewhere halfway around the globe that isn't particularly relevant geopolitically IOTL
And also a sort of emergent French-British-Russian cold war with all sides expanding to keep others from getting certain territories is possible
Looking at a map, the biggest areas of "fragmentation" (lots of smaller nations bunched together) is Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
I'm not so sure about Africa, but not having every city/captaincy try and gain independence for themselves in Central and Spanish South America definitely hampered the region. So maybe have the Viceroyalty of Peru not dissolve, or just have the Spanish Empire survive, you could have 2-4 countries instead of the dozen or so of OTL.
You could even get a larger Republic; say the Peru-Bolivia Confederation survives and expands. Mexico holding onto to Central America would also help with this.
For the Middle East, I know it's cliche but having the Ottomans survive would do the trick.
I'm not so sure about Africa, but not having every city/captaincy try and gain independence for themselves in Central and Spanish South America definitely hampered the region. So maybe have the Viceroyalty of Peru not dissolve, or just have the Spanish Empire survive, you could have 2-4 countries instead of the dozen or so of OTL.
You could even get a larger Republic; say the Peru-Bolivia Confederation survives and expands. Mexico holding onto to Central America would also help with this.
For the Middle East, I know it's cliche but having the Ottomans survive would do the trick.
Given the diversity of the continent, maybe something like 20 states would make sense, especially if they correspond to traditional areas like the Western Sahel or the Guinea coast or the Great Lakes
I think a Mali federation, bigger Congo, United East Africa, and greater South Africa could do the trick