WI: Different Juba Conference in 1947, Sudan split between Egypt and Uganda?

Which opens some serious problems in its own. What makes these governments think that they can carve up South Sudan like that? Also Egypt would want a strong buffer state in the south.

They can't and they wouldn't. Certainly not in the context of the POD discussed by the OP. Most of the discussion relating to partitioning of South Sudan and Egypt wanting a buffer state in case of western invasion are ASB because:

1. There isn't any evidence that there was ever any consideration of southern Sudan ever even joining Kenya, much less for southern Sudan to be partitioned. In fact the minutes of the conference even had one of the southern chiefs suggesting that with political maturity the southerns could decide to join Uganda or Belgian Congo but the Chairman of the conference (JW Roberston, the civil secretary and of course, British) had to inform the chief that the southerns couldn't just join any territory they liked:

Chief Lapponya stated that the principle of unity could only be decided later when the Southerners were grown up, by which time they would be in a position to decide whether to join the North or go to the Belgian Congo or Uganda.

The Chairman explained that people could not get up and go where they like just like that.

British policy also generally didn't partition colonies or protectorates except in discrete units such as provinces derived from pre-existing colonies that were unified into one colony (especially after World War II and the coming into being of the United Nations, which usually frowned on colonial powers' thoughts on partitioning colonies rather than granting them independence as they existed within their post-1945 borders). The two major exceptions were Palestine (which was a mandate and it's partition sanctioned by the UN in order to fulfil two contradictory promises of a homeland for Jews and independence for the local Arab population) and India (where the British hoped to maintain a united India and avoid partition right up until the Mountbatten's appointment as the last Viceroy in early 1947 and it was only with Mountbatten's conclusion that a quick British withdrawal by 1948 was impossible without partition that the British hopes of maintaining a united India were finally buried). Those two exceptions, were truly exceptional insofar as nothing about them was remotely applicable to southern Sudan since the British had never made any promise to the Dinka or Nuer of a separate homeland for them, nor did the Dinka and Nuer organize for nearly two decades like the Muslim League in India did to push for a separate homeland. Additionally the conflicts between the Dinka and Nuer in the past didn't even begin to rival the kind of violence seen in India in 1947 leading up to and during the partition, so much like the discussions on Darfur it would require the British to have a crystal ball to know that decades later the Dinka and Nuer would have access to heavy weapons from a Sudanese civil war and as a result their conflicts would be transformed from having relatively few casualties to having many.

2. It would have been against Egyptian policy which was that all of Sudan was part of Egypt and that the British withdrawal from Sudan in the future would go in tandem with handing over Sudan (all of Sudan) to Egypt. The Egyptian King claimed to be King of Sudan and from the 1930s the Egyptians had been declaring an end to the condominium agreement and stating that the British presence in Sudan was illegitimate. It was only following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 that Egypt's new leaders changed tack and decided that the best way to pressure the British out of Sudan would be for Egypt itself to renounce claims to Sudan and support separate independence for Sudan (and this tactic actually worked). It would be quite likely that in any alternate Juba conference where the southern delegates pressed for union with Uganda that the end result would be Egyptian non-recognition of this act and continued claims to southern Sudan (at least until Farouk is overthrown maybe, after which Egypt's new rulers may have no interest in maintaining a claim to southern Sudan and might instead want to foster influence and better relations with Uganda and support Ugandan independence to get the British to withdraw from the rest of the Nile River Valley).

3. As noted in point 2 above, the Egyptian Revolution changed a lot about Egypt. For starters it overthrew a monarchy which was seen as pro-British by the population and helped usher in the end of the British presence in Suez Canal Zone (and in a few facilities elsewhere). Hence in 1947 Egypt wouldn't be looking at creating buffer states in case of western invasions from the south, because in 1947 Egypt was quite comfortably in Britain's pocket (except on the issue of sovereignty in Sudan) as a quasi-client state. They aren't going to be concerned about future western invasions when western (British) troops are already in occupation of the country's most iconic economic asset (the Suez Canal) and only a short drive away from the country's capital.

4. The entire Suez adventure was cooked up on the premise that Anglo-French forces would be protecting the Canal from a conflict between Israel and Egypt and that they would be inserted to "separate" the two sides around the Canal and keep the Canal open. It was a ruse of course, but part of the ruse was that action was only planned to occur around the Canal (otherwise it looks less like an attempt to protect the Canal and more like an attempt to conquer Egypt). British attempts to move into (a larger) Egypt via Kenya or Uganda would require a whole different set of decisions being taken and objectives being cooked up in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution (which was still likely to happen at some point even within the context of a unified Egypt-(north) Sudan unless Farouk is a very different character as a result of 1947) and for the British to set out not just to protect the Canal, but to intervene outright in Egypt. Eden's hopes to do a regime change against Nasser hinged on the hope that that the seizure of the canal and strategic bombing of other areas of Egypt would encourage the internal overthrow of Nasser. Invading from Kenya/Uganda would be of little use in seizing the canal and only really useful if the British were intent on occupying the whole country. Simply overthrowing Nasser directly would be much more simply achieved by invading northern Egypt from Cyprus and Malta and marching on Cairo. The march north from Juba into Egyptian north Sudan would take a much longer time to achieve that objective and in any event would as noted require a very different British response to Nasser or whoever their boogeyman becomes in Egypt.
 
Last edited:
And what makes them think they’d be happen if they’d be forced to live with other people from Kenya and Uganda?
You misunderstood the first comment I made on this matter. It was only Equatoria that would end up split between other countries, the rest would form two independent states, one with a Dinka majority and the other with a Nuer majority.
 
You misunderstood the first comment I made on this matter. It was only Equatoria that would end up split between other countries, the rest would form two independent states, one with a Dinka majority and the other with a Nuer majority.

Ok fair enough.

However, even the people outside the Dinka and Nuer people may not be happy living under the rule of other countries. What evidence is there that they all were willing to join other countries and separate from the Dinka/Nuer government.
 
Last edited:
jmcF9cquzgzKxSzv5zy4R6FU.jpeg


Splitting South Sudan into smaller states doesn't seem very plausible given how mixed the various groups are. It would probably lead to massive ethnic cleansing and further conflict. I also am not sure that smaller Nuer and Dinka nation states would be economically viable.
 
jmcF9cquzgzKxSzv5zy4R6FU.jpeg


Splitting South Sudan into smaller states doesn't seem very plausible given how mixed the various groups are. It would probably lead to massive ethnic cleansing and further conflict. I also am not sure that smaller Nuer and Dinka nation states would be economically viable.

My issues exactly.

Also can you imagine the attempts by South Sudan’s neighbors to pick up the pieces?
 
Amending what I said about South Sudan getting split in 1947. Aside from what @Chris S said, I also hadn't considered that the the population of 1956 Sudan was 8 to 9 times smaller than today's Sudan and South Sudan combined, meaning the latter would have had a population in the ballpark of 1.5 millions spread throughout an area the size of Ukraine.

P.S. Also, a little detail to further worldbuild the scenario: Lake Nasser would very likely end up in the same place as in OTL, whether Egypt got North Sudan or not. Aswan was just a damn good place to build a dam.
 
Last edited:
I also realized the issue of giving South Sudan to Uganda: it's so massive that I seriously doubt many people there would actually want it. The only people who'd probably want it would be the Acholi and Bari people since their territory also covers Uganda. Force everyone to be under Uganda's rule and you'll get a recipe for civil war. And considering how big and vast South Sudan, Uganda's gonna give up much more quickly than Sudan did in OTL.

The most Uganda can achieve with relative ease would be having the areas occupied by the Bari and Acholi (and other territories occupied by other groups, but hey carving territories strictly on ethnic lines is almost impossible). Sudan and Ethiopia would also want certain bits where their fellow ethnicites live (next to them of course), and Kenya would want the Turkana region. But other than that, I can only envision South Sudan being independent. And of course that itself will have issues.
 
I also realized the issue of giving South Sudan to Uganda: it's so massive that I seriously doubt many people there would actually want it. The only people who'd probably want it would be the Acholi and Bari people since their territory also covers Uganda. Force everyone to be under Uganda's rule and you'll get a recipe for civil war. And considering how big and vast South Sudan, Uganda's gonna give up much more quickly than Sudan did in OTL.

The most Uganda can achieve with relative ease would be having the areas occupied by the Bari and Acholi (and other territories occupied by other groups, but hey carving territories strictly on ethnic lines is almost impossible). Sudan and Ethiopia would also want certain bits where their fellow ethnicites live (next to them of course), and Kenya would want the Turkana region. But other than that, I can only envision South Sudan being independent. And of course that itself will have issues.

Well in OTL the local officials in Uganda weren't keen on absorbing South Sudan (I will need to look for the source again) because (if I am remembering correctly) they didn't think they had the capacity to govern both Uganda and southern Sudan. I've also read a source suggesting that in the mid 1940s the South Sudanese were more or less unanimous in not wishing to be attached to Uganda (although the transcript of the 1947 conference had one of the chiefs mentioning southern Sudan joining Uganda or even Belgian Congo in time, so he at least wasn't totally opposed to the idea).

For the OP to work where the South Sudanese at the 1947 Juba conference had pressed for joining Uganda it would have to be assumed that there was some prior POD which leads to the South Sudanese and Ugandan colonial officials being open to the idea of South Sudan being attached to Uganda. Perhaps a POD in the 1920s or early 1930s?
 
Well in OTL the local officials in Uganda weren't keen on absorbing South Sudan (I will need to look for the source again) because (if I am remembering correctly) they didn't think they had the capacity to govern both Uganda and southern Sudan. I've also read a source suggesting that in the mid 1940s the South Sudanese were more or less unanimous in not wishing to be attached to Uganda (although the transcript of the 1947 conference had one of the chiefs mentioning southern Sudan joining Uganda or even Belgian Congo in time, so he at least wasn't totally opposed to the idea).

For the OP to work where the South Sudanese at the 1947 Juba conference had pressed for joining Uganda it would have to be assumed that there was some prior POD which leads to the South Sudanese and Ugandan colonial officials being open to the idea of South Sudan being attached to Uganda. Perhaps a POD in the 1920s or early 1930s?

Highly doubt the South Sudanese would want any deal to join Uganda regardless. If they fought tooth and nail against Sudan, they'll fight tooth and nail against anyone else.
 
Highly doubt the South Sudanese would want any deal to join Uganda regardless. If they fought tooth and nail against Sudan, they'll fight tooth and nail against anyone else.

Well technically in the 1940s they fought tooth and nail to be reintegrate into Sudan.

The struggle against Sudan resulted from Sudanese discriminatory policies that are unlikely to be replicated by Uganda for various reasons. Uganda might still fall into civil war and South Sudan would be a battleground. But hard to say for certain that South Sudan would try to secede
 
Well technically in the 1940s they fought tooth and nail to be reintegrate into Sudan.

The struggle against Sudan resulted from Sudanese discriminatory policies that are unlikely to be replicated by Uganda for various reasons. Uganda might still fall into civil war and South Sudan would be a battleground. But hard to say for certain that South Sudan would try to secede

But South Sudanese people during that time also felt that the British and Egyptians ignored their interests and were angry at lack of representation.

And if South Sudan becomes part of Uganda and Uganda falls into civil war, it'll be more likely that some groups will want to form their own independent nations.
 
But South Sudanese people during that time also felt that the British and Egyptians ignored their interests and were angry at lack of representation.

And if South Sudan becomes part of Uganda and Uganda falls into civil war, it'll be more likely that some groups will want to form their own independent nations.

Sure. That's possible. Was just noting that the dynamics and policies in Uganda would be different so that secessionist sentiment may occur or it might be that the south Sudanese groups would be fighting on ideological grounds or for better treatment within Uganda. I think even early in Sudan's OTL civil war at least some South Sudanese rebel groups were fighting less for independence and more for autonomy and an end to discrimination
 
Well in OTL the local officials in Uganda weren't keen on absorbing South Sudan (I will need to look for the source again) because (if I am remembering correctly) they didn't think they had the capacity to govern both Uganda and southern Sudan. I've also read a source suggesting that in the mid 1940s the South Sudanese were more or less unanimous in not wishing to be attached to Uganda (although the transcript of the 1947 conference had one of the chiefs mentioning southern Sudan joining Uganda or even Belgian Congo in time, so he at least wasn't totally opposed to the idea).

For the OP to work where the South Sudanese at the 1947 Juba conference had pressed for joining Uganda it would have to be assumed that there was some prior POD which leads to the South Sudanese and Ugandan colonial officials being open to the idea of South Sudan being attached to Uganda. Perhaps a POD in the 1920s or early 1930s?

But, didn't OP say that the South Sudanese delegates in the Juba Conference wanted an union with Uganda?
 
But, didn't OP say that the South Sudanese delegates in the Juba Conference wanted an union with Uganda?

Didn't he ask what if the 1947 conference had gone differently? So I would assume he meant that the OTL conference didn't really have most delegates push for union with Uganda

The British had (sort of) been steering the region towards separation from Sudan and possible union with Uganda until the mid 1940s, but changed their attitude when the southern chiefs expressed an interest in equality and integration in Sudan. He mentioned delegates that had been aiming for union with Uganda. Earlier I provided a link to a transcript of the conference where indeed one delegate did mention the possibility of joining Uganda (or Belgian Congo) in the the future but reading the transcripts didn't give me the impression that most were aiming for Union with Uganda.
 
Sure. That's possible. Was just noting that the dynamics and policies in Uganda would be different so that secessionist sentiment may occur or it might be that the south Sudanese groups would be fighting on ideological grounds or for better treatment within Uganda. I think even early in Sudan's OTL civil war at least some South Sudanese rebel groups were fighting less for independence and more for autonomy and an end to discrimination

Honestly if Uganda were to inherit South Sudan, they would have to treat them as equals with an area that big. Wouldn't stop secessionist efforts, but it would be the most likely policy they'll go for.

Hell, if they were actually offered it, Uganda would have serious doubts about whether or not they want it. Would have to require serious government reconstructing by the British, and even that wouldn't solve some issues.
 
Honestly if Uganda were to inherit South Sudan, they would have to treat them as equals with an area that big. Wouldn't stop secessionist efforts, but it would be the most likely policy they'll go for.


Well as I noted earlier in the thread, if Uganda had gotten South Sudan, then South Sudan's population would never form more than a third of this Greater Uganda's population. So the area isn't really what counts, but the population size and given Uganda's character I don't foresee the same kind of discrimination that South Sudan faced as a part of united Sudan. There might be a whole host of different issues which is why I say secessionism may occur or it may not, but it would appear to me that rebellions in Uganda have never really been secessionist in nature (I think at one point in the 1960s Buganda had thought of seceding from Uganda especially within the context of an East African Federation) despite the rebellions often having a tribal aspect to them. So for instance the first Ugandan Civil War in the late 1970s was the result of Idi Amin (born to parents whose ethnic groups are distributed across northern Uganda and South Sudan) overthrowing Milton Obote (also a northerner but from a different group altogether) and then ruling the country brutally. Amin was overthrown by a combination of the Tanzanian army and Ugandan rebels including Tito Okello (who was from the Acholi of northern Uganda) and Yoweri Museveni (of the Muhororo from the extreme south of Uganda). Obote was restored in elections that were decried as rigged and Museveni lead a rebellion in the early to mid 1980s. Okello overthrew Obote in the closing stages of that civil war before being overthrown himself by Museveni. After assuming power Museveni himself faced rebellion from Joseph Kony (of the Acholi) who wished to establish a theocratic state (in all of Uganda) based on the Acholi tradition (and partly as a result of the activities of Museveni's rebel army in Acholi areas). To the best of my knowledge Kony was never trying to establish a separate Acholi state. Perhaps that's due to the fact that from the 1960s until 1987 Uganda was ruled exclusively by northern leaders which helped to cement Ugandan identity among the Acholi and other northern people. Or perhaps it was that the nature of the conflicts meant that northern (and southern) groups didn't see a need for secession but more a need for responsive and fair government and so rebellions were launched towards that end rather than secession.

In this greater Uganda if things play out more or less the same then the leaders from the 1960s until 1987 would come from groups that were distributed across northern Uganda and South Sudan. That in itself is likely to result in less feelings of discrimination among some in South Sudan (assuming the Ugandan governments even instituted discriminatory policies, which seems unlikely under Obote who wasn't a strongman by any stretch of the imagination and didn't seem discriminatory and under Amin, who seemed to rule all of Uganda equally brutally, though he did target the Acholi and Langi more for supporting Obote and making up the bulk of the armed forces).

Of course things could play it very differently (especially if the POD necessitates changes from as far back as the 1920s) and we could see someone from the Azande or Bari group or maybe from the Dinka or Nuer group rise in the ranks of the King's African Rifles like Amin did and lauch a coup. Or a politician from among one of those groups might win political power at the ballot box.

Hell, if they were actually offered it, Uganda would have serious doubts about whether or not they want it. Would have to require serious government reconstructing by the British, and even that wouldn't solve some issues.

I suspect that's why Ugandan colonial officials weren't very keen on the idea in the first place. They were worried about their capacity to govern it.
 
Last edited:
Top