Cases where ethnicity and/or religion was used to help determine national borders?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,925
SoCal
Which cases were there where ethnicity and/or religion was used to help determine national borders? So far, I could think of the post-WWI and, to a lesser extent, the post-WWII peace settlements in Europe--where there were often serious attempts to use ethnic data to help determine the new borders for various countries. (Germany's post-WWII border with Poland is an exception to the rule in regards to this.) I could also think of the internal border drawing in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and--to a lesser extent--Yugoslavia--something which ultimately culminated in a lot of new nation-states that were often roughly based on ethnic lines once all of these countries collapsed and broke up. In addition, there was the partition of India and the subsequent partition of Pakistan. The partition of India was largely done on religious grounds while the subsequent partition of Pakistan was done on ethnic grounds due to the desire of overwhelmingly Muslim Bengali East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to secede from Pakistan--a desire that was turned into reality with India's help in 1971.

Anyway, which additional cases were there where ethnicity and/or religion was used to help determine national borders?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
You might count Belgium/Netherlands: the Dutch people's partition matches (roughly) religion: Flemish (Belgium) are mainly Catholic, while Dutch (Holland) are mainly Protestant.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,925
SoCal
You might count Belgium/Netherlands: the Dutch people's partition matches (roughly) religion: Flemish (Belgium) are mainly Catholic, while Dutch (Holland) are mainly Protestant.
Yep, certainly:



Also, what about South Sudan? It's both ethnically and religiously distinct from the Arab-majority and Muslim-majority northern Sudan.
 
Apr 2017
1,640
U.S.A.
This is kinda the definition of how borders have been drawn since ww1 (with certain exceptions). Numerous examples:
Israel, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, the division of Indo-China, Lebanon, the divisions of the Soviet Union, the divisions of Yugoslavia, Italy, Ireland, the autonomous regions of China, the regions of Burma/Myanmar, the semi-autonomous area of Iraq and Cyprus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,925
SoCal
I'd say Romania's extension after WWI matches much less then other countries and the ethnical and the religious criteria.
The Hungarian-Romanian linguistic border in Transylvania is largely where the new Hungarian-Romanian border was drawn after the end of WWI:



Romania acquired a few Hungarian-majority towns, but so did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. As for the Szekely Land and perhaps the nearby German pockets (depending on what exactly they wanted), there really wasn't a good way to deal with these territories since creating a Hungarian enclave so deep within Romania might have been perceived as being deeply problematic. Maybe it should have nevertheless been done, but it's far from clear and thus I really can't blame the Entente/Allies for giving this territory to Romania after the end of WWI.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,925
SoCal
Granted the territories they acquired included significant minorities but they were primarily awarded due to the Romanian majority.
Yep:



Romania got a Hungarian island and some German islands in the interior of Transylvania (for which there was really no good solution) as well as perhaps slightly more territory in the west than it should have gotten on purely ethnographic grounds, but by and large, Romania's new borders after WWI closely resembled its ethnographic borders.

BTW, if the roads map of Romania in 1918 was similar to what it was 100 years later, then maybe the important road in the westernmost part of Romania helps explain why Romania got generous borders in the west after the end of WWI:

 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,925
SoCal
This is kinda the definition of how borders have been drawn since ww1 (with certain exceptions). Numerous examples:
Israel,
The UN Palestine Partition Plan was roughly based on ethnic lines in the north but not in the south. The Negev was overwhelmingly Arab but was nevertheless given to Israel--possibly in order to accommodate large-scale future Jewish population growth.

Czechoslovakia,
It got the Sudetenland, Hungarian-majority territories in the very south, and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, though. This diversity was significantly reduced after WWII due to the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans and the loss of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, though. Nowadays, Slovakia is something like 85% Slovak and 10+% Hungarian. Czechia nowadays is overwhelmingly Czech to my knowledge.

Yep.

In the west, Yes, but not in the east. In the east, it took WWII to give Poland a proper ethnographic border--albeit one titled a bit against Poland due to the loss of Lwow and Vilnius.

After WWI? Yeah, roughly--with the exceptions being Alsace-Lorraine, western Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia.

Yep.

the division of Indo-China,
Yep.

BTW, I wonder if ethnic lines were used to draw the Indochina-Thai border in the south as well. I know that they weren't in the north since the Lao and the Isan are essentially one people but got divided apart by the Indochina-Thai border.

Lebanon was too large, though. It should have been made smaller and much more Christian after the end of WWI.

the divisions of the Soviet Union, the divisions of Yugoslavia,
Yep, I mentioned both of those.

Yep.

By religion? Yes--roughly.

the autonomous regions of China, the regions of Burma/Myanmar, the semi-autonomous area of Iraq and Cyprus.
They're not independent countries (not yet, at least) and thus don't actually count for this question, though.