Simple WI, the Nigerian federal authorities collapse either because Lagos is captured in the initial rush to war or an internal fight gets out of hand. What is the effect nationally, internationally, and internally? Would an early victory by the igbo mean that they are more tolerant of other minority groups or would they keep their indifferent to discriminatory practices? Would the remainder of Nigeria fall apart or would they pull together? How would the relative position of France, Britain, and the USSR in Africa and beyond be effected? Would the loss have tarnished the soviet brand, especially as a Briafa win would have firmly entrenched Nigeria as a genocidal power in the international and public consciousness.
WI: Biafra victorious
- Thread starter GSpectre
- Start date
Part of the reason I started to wonder about this, aside from it being a fascinating situation that isn't talked about frequently in America, was thinking about it in the context of the Rhodesian UDI. If the UN, and the international community, are proven to be impotent in this situation then what would be the effects on Ian Smiths regime going forwards. Especially as Britain would have been shown to have screwed up its Africa policy massively. That said... you could have some very interesting butterfly's around the second stanleyville mutiny, perhaps enough to have a second go at an independent Katanga. Certainly chaos there could have benefited the Portuguese in Angola.
It seems like France would have been one of the main nations to benefit, since Biafra seems likely to fall into their sphere of influence given that they're the main player in the region and supported Biafra, and Nigeria, the Anglophone giant in West Africa, might stand a good chance of fragmenting.
Biggest one would be Ambazonia right next door in Cameroon. If internal relations between English and French Cameroon don't play out right (as they didn't OTL, at least not enough to stop the secessionist group from existing), then I think a Cameroonian Civil War/Ambazonia War will certainly occur at some point. Biafrans might be inclined to support this new nation.
When the British Cameroons voted on who to go with the north went Nigeria and the south went Cameroon on religious grounds, correct? I actually wonder how Ambazia would effect relations with the Anglophonic and Francophonics worlds, since the Ambazians apparently wanted out when the president tried to Frenchify their country's name without asking them or anyone about it. If these two conflicts came about at the same time it might lead to some awkwardness between France and Britain, though I imagine the Nigerians wouldn't and Camerooni wouldn't mind much. Just drive their armies to the border, then claim infiltrators are among them. If Biafra is independent first, then they likely would support a neighboring area of English speaking Christians with some good port facilities. They would likely have tense relations with Nigeria for a while, so having a neighboring country that wasn't massive would give them a place to do non-seaborn trade without becoming a sattelite of that country. I wonder if the South Africans would few this as a good way to fracture African countries, and to excuse their own Bantustans by pointing at successes among small, resource rich states.
The biggest supporter of Biafra was France (certainly in size of the nations supporting, possibly in amount of aid, although sources conflict), the Biafrans would have to be pretty stupid to turn around and go against their only great power ally, as I cannot imagine that France would support anglophone separatists in the region against their Cameroon. Do the Biafrans really want a second round where the Nigerians attempt to take them back over, where this time the Nigerians are still supported by the UK, USSR, US + a host of other nations, but now they have no foreign assistance for themselves?
You should change the thread title. It's BIAFRA (although its existance was brief)
Thanks typed this up on my phone and i didn't check it as closely as i should have. Fixed.