Given the situation hinted at and talked about of the mainland in the Zanzibar article, there's really no way that the mainland is going to be unified. Or have this as a name, quite frankly, but that is minor. More an fyi than anything. Lordganon 22:07, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still deciding where to take this. Anarchy may rein initially, but unification is possible down the road though I haven't decided if that will take place yet. The name may be changed in the future. Caeruleus 22:51, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
I have an idea. It could be that they initially control only the region surrounding the capitol of Dodoma, and they slowly recover their territory as the anarchy inevitably slows to a halt. Even chaos cannot last forever. It could be that mainland Tanzania has been reunified, or it's possible that the situation stabilized into several independant nations with Tanganyika being one of them.
Yank 03:18, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Reunification would be highly unlikely, given that the nation, like most African nations, is artificial anyways. The independent nation bit, however, is highly plausible, and would be the outcome. That the central government would have maintained control of even half the country, given the massive refugee numbers already known to be headed to Zanzibar, is not possible.
The map Yank put in, with the regions immediately around it in their entirety, or at least the majority of the region's territory added, would be perfect. Population is far too high as well. Lordganon 04:20, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
The mainland will be reunified. I'm going to take a path similar to the one you've just described Yank. More details will be coming soon. Caeruleus 04:26, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think that it would work out best if the mainland was seperated into several independant nations. I realized that that solution is the most plausible one.
Yank 04:32, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with LG's opinion doesn't mean you can erase his message.
Yank 04:35, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
And if he does it again, he won't like it. Lordganon 04:51, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't erase any message...did I? If I did, it was an accident.
Just because the nation is artificial doesn't mean it would totally collapse. Also, Tanzania has a long history of ethnic and religious tolerance, so neither of those would be overly divisive in a post-Doomsday world. You also have to account for Tanzanian nationalism, which was very strong on the mainly despite poor government policies and increasing poverty pre-Doomsday. The Tanzanian military was also incredibly loyal to the state and trained to believe in their accountability to civilian authority, so no significant military uprisings or revolts would likely occur. The central government would probably lose some authority, as currently illustrated in the article. But a complete and total collapse would not occur.
The Zanzibar article doesn't describe "massive" numbers of refugees either. It doesn't describe the amount at all. It just says the Zanzibar closed the borders to prevent a refugee crisis there. There would probably be many, in the thousands at least, but it wouldn't be a completley unmanagable amount.
And I'll decrease the population slightly. Caeruleus 05:46, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Don't believe that was an accident for a second, but whatever. Just remember the warning, and that I mean it.
To quote Zanzibar:
"...and the country collapsed into anarchy. President Aboud Jumbe of Zanzibar was quick to take action by closing off both Zanzibar and Pemba from refugees streaming in from the mainland, less they overwhelm the islands. In 1984 he oversaw Zanzibar secession from Tanzania and the reestablishment of the Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba. This action was done to distance the islands from the various successor governments that had sprung up on the mainland."
Anarchy indicates no real authority. As in, the government cannot possibly control even half the country. Worry about refugees overwhelming the islands, which are a ways offshore, indicates that there is a massive number of them - no simple "refugee crisis." "Successor" governments indicate that there are several governments on the mainland that claim to be the rightful government of the entire region, not just their own areas, and that the national government is more than likely gone, and the military definitely divided. Nor is "slightly" going to cut it, at all.
Your Confederation, in light of this, is impossible.
Lordganon 05:57, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Well it was an accident. If you don't believe me, that's your problem.
I read that as well. It's too vague to suggest any absolutes. Anarchy is relative and could mean anything from instability to total collapse. Since it gives no detail on what happened during this anarchy, it is open to a wide interpretation. For an small, resource-poor island nation that was recently cut off from the world, almost any amount of refugees could overwhelm their available resources, so once again, that's too vague to gather any absolutes from. The article in its current state isn't complete, but nothing you've said has made it impossible.
Also, I'd like to point out that Yank and your's suggestion of a small state surrounding Dodama is implausible because while Dodama was the official capital, no major government institutions moved there until the 1990s OTL. Most government institutions remained based in the old capital Dar es Salaarm, which was also the economic capital of the country. At an absolute minimum, any decayed post-Doomsday state would have to at least stretch from Dar es Salaarm to Dodama. Also, since there is no reason why its collapse would be incredibly violent, there is no reason why reexpansion to acquire its lost territory wouldn't occur as soon as stability was reachieved. I will be adding maps soon to illustrate this process further. Caeruleus 06:11, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I've no reason at all to believe you, as you've done it before.
It's not vague at all. You, as you always do, choose to take it that way. Zanzibar has a heck of a lot more resources than you think, too. But, you want more than me or Yank saying it? Fine. Have a look at this comment by Mitro. Note that the map on that obsolete thing was changed from all of Tanzania to part of it in response.
The mainland collapsed, into several states each claiming the be the government. Simple as that. And there is no way that such states would ever join together in a confederation.
And, note that the drought in Kenya would hit here as well, though not likely as bad, and that the Tanzanian government had been pursuing forced relocation and burning villages. The Tanzanian economy has also collapsed as recently as 1979, due to corruption. To quote: "Socialism left the country as one of the poorest and the least developed. Dependency on foreign aid had become one the world's highest." And this is in reference to the period from 1979-1985. Collapse is not only likely, but is what would have happened.
How is that implausible? That doesn't make it implausible at all. The government could be forced to move there, or it could get killed off and a provisional government establishes itself there.....there are a dozen scenarios where it could happen. Seriously. There is no need for any of that. And there is every reason why it could be "violent." And why it was.
And, Dar es Salaarm is the place where this would be worst. Large city, cut off from its food supplies? Horrific results, and a massive death toll.
Lordganon 12:23, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm...you do have some good points. Though just because it collapsed, there's no reason why they couldn't reunite later on, but I'll have to find a better way to justfiy any reunification and it will probably be more limited than it currently is. Check back after the next update. Caeruleus 19:46, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Bacj then Africa was relient om European america and soviet aid so after DD many would face economic meltdown and civil wars so i can't see a chance of reunificationMartin1983 17:27, October 5, 2011 (UTC)