Decolonization without WWII

[Straha]

Presume that the second world war is avoided in Europe and that Japan stops at Manchuria. How does decolonization work out in this world?

For the purposes of this scenario, presume Germany has a regime duplicating Franco's spain in many ways that gets Austria, the sudenten and the corridor but doesn't

Also presume that Japan's military leadership turnover produces a slightly less insane crop of leaders -- Japan still grabs Manchuria and arms warlords but there's no sino-japanese war.

[Chris]

First major issue is that decolonisation is a great deal slower. The UK was talking about leaving India in 1982 prior to WW2. Given more time, I think that they could probably have stabilised India better than OTL, perhaps with India becoming a dominion quicker and staying that way longer. No Holocaust probably means that Palestine gets more refugees – or less – so that could go either way...

Chris

[KMN]

Definitely a lot slower. What's the chance that it might not even occur at all (at least, up to present-day), barring any successful national liberation movements?

[archangel]

In Portugal's case, I'm speculating, but any moves toward autonomy (within Portugal's tutelage) will probably be made from the 1990's on (it would require the replacement of generational leaderships in a good enough number). Real independence (in the Canada/Australia/New Zealand sense of being close to the mother country) would only happen in the 21st century (from 2030 onwards).

[Hades]

What about the possibility of colonies being written off due to extended Guerilla warfare like Indochina or Kenya?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Hades

What about the possibility of colonies being written off due to extended Guerilla warfare like Indochina or Kenya?

Not likely unless it gets really bad. Pre-WW2 Europe had a different attitude.

Chris

[Straha]

Some thoughts re: Britain's colonies

The demographics of Britain's african colonies are probably different since 1) India would be a dominion 2) Britain would probably be recruiting Indian or Malay labor for the colonies 3) There'd be more britons for Rhodesia, South Africa, Kenya.

Colonial borders for former british colonies are also likely different. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania being a single east african nation and the three Rhodesias being another nation. Hell, South Africa including both Botswana and Namibia today is reasonably likely.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Straha

Some thoughts re: Britain's colonies

The demographics of Britain's african colonies are probably different since 1) India would be a dominion 2) Britain would probably be recruiting Indian or Malay labor for the colonies 3) There'd be more britons for Rhodesia, South Africa, Kenya.

Colonial borders for former british colonies are also likely different. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania being a single east african nation and the three Rhodesias being another nation. Hell, South Africa including both Botswana and Namibia today is reasonably likely.

Straha

I would hope that India becomes a dominion fairly quickly, although it would depend on the politics, especially in Britain. Think there was already a fair amount of experience with Indian labour being used in the colonies, although not aware of use of Malaya labour. Don't forget there were substantial Indian and Chinese elements in Malaya because they were drawn in by the economic activity.

Likely to see more white settlement in E Africa, which is likely to make the situation there somewhat more explosive as they would seek to continue to control economic activity and the best land.

I'm not so sure about the federations being stable as they didn't work OTL. Also while N Rhodesia [now Zambia] had attractive mineral resources I think it would ultimately be unattractive to the southern whites as it would drastically increase the burden of control.

Would say S Africa including Botswana would be highly unlikely as neither the locals nor the government in London wanted this. Namibia just possibly given there was a significant German/Boer element there but even then there was a lot of opposition in the colonial office.

Think you would need a hell of a swing to the right for a lot of what you want. Much more seeing the empire/colonies as tools to be exploited rather than responsibilities, which would clash with the idea of dominion status for India, unless it was decided to let that go as too expensive to maintain.

Steve

[Filipe Augusto]

Originally Posted by archangel

In Portugal's case, I'm speculating, but any moves toward autonomy (within Portugal's tutelage) will probably be made from the 1990's on (it would require the replacement of generational leaderships in a good enough number). Real independence (in the Canada/Australia/New Zealand sense of being close to the mother country) would only happen in the 21st century (from 2030 onwards).

Would there even be a independence? Perhaps autonomy or a commonwealth. But the Portuguese were bonafide colonialists (you can't say Portugal without a Port, hehehehehe), and to me it seems that they knew that Africa was their future, otherwise they would be just a two-bit meaningless European country, IE what it is today.

I can see Portugal taking tropicalism further until there's no colonies, only Portugal.

[Straha]

Would that even work successfully in a world where WWI still happened to shake the west's foundations*?

Angola and Mozambique having visible european and mixed populations, being rather more westernized culturally and being independent sometime in the first half of the 21st century is more believable than it lasting indefinitely. That said, Cape Verde, east timor and Portuguese Guinea would definitely likely stay portuguese.

I will concede that independence with ties to the mother country, or the fig leaf of the colonies technically being overseas autonomous regions but are in practice largely independent would be more likely than pure independence for the colonies.

* I could see Tropicalism succeeding in a world without both world wars.

[archangel]

Originally Posted by Filipe Augusto

Would there even be a independence? Perhaps autonomy or a commonwealth. But the Portuguese were bonafide colonialists (you can't say Portugal without a Port, hehehehehe), and to me it seems that they knew that Africa was their future, otherwise they would be just a two-bit meaningless European country, IE what it is today.

I can see Portugal taking tropicalism further until there's no colonies, only Portugal.

It could go both ways. I was considering the option with maximum external influences.

Originally Posted by Straha

Would that even work successfully in a world where WWI still happened to shake the west's foundations*?
* I could see Tropicalism succeeding in a world without both world wars.

IMO, Tropicalism has a reasonable chance of success even with a WW1 but without a WW2 (the vast majority of the political spectrum would have supported that - bar communists and some left wing socialists).

Originally Posted by Straha

Angola and Mozambique having visible european and mixed populations, being rather more westernized culturally and being independent sometime in the first half of the 21st century is more believable than it lasting indefinitely. That said, Cape Verde, east timor and Portuguese Guinea would definitely likely stay portuguese.

Cape Verde and East Timor would probably go the way of Azores and Madeira, as an integral part of Portugal. São Tomé and Príncipe might end that way too. Portuguese Guinea would likely stay a colony for a long time, since it was so much poorer in resources and less developed (in education terms).

Originally Posted by Straha

I will concede that independence with ties to the mother country, or the fig leaf of the colonies technically being overseas autonomous regions but are in practice largely independent would be more likely than pure independence for the colonies.

It would be in consonance with TTL cultural trends, and the relative independence in some colonies would come from both external influences on the mentality of the leadership and the desire from local European and Europeanized populations.

[RBC]

Ironically, Germany could end up being the sponsor of African liberationn movements in the way that the USSR was in our timeline. I think that a POD after 1939 which, arguably, this vague premise requires, is too late to forestall decolonization. Most colonies were a drain even without the costs of World War II to bear.

Also, Tanganyika could not be merged with Kenya and Uganda without the LoN Mandate there ending.

Some colonies could potentially be retained though while others are lost or amalgamated to neighboring or nearby states.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Chris

The UK was talking about leaving India in 1982 prior to WW2. Given more time, I think that they could probably have stabilised India better than OTL

Chris

I don't know, I think India was talking about secceding the British Empire before WWII but stayed because of the Japanese and such.

Communism deffinitly wouldn't have been nearly as strong in East Asia as it was in OTL without the Pacific War. Although I expect Chaing to eventually try to take back Manchuria once he consolidates his power. Though that will take a while.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

No WW2 probably means an earlier Cold War, so maybe the Soviet Union still sponsors liberation movements in Africa and esp. the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Assuming the Chinese civil war continues with an eventual win for Mao, the Korean War might happen earlier, too, although this time against Japan.

If Gandhi dies in '48 as in OTL expect India to become a dominion by the end of the Fifties.

Also see a more protracted fight for the creation of Israel lasting at least until 1950.

Overall, I can't see the African countries staying colonies past the 1960s although there could be an African Commonwealth. If Britain gets a Labour government in the Forties earlier, Churchill will be out of office and be ranting about dismemberment from the sidelines.

[RBC]

Originally Posted by WestVirginiaRebel

If Ghandi dies in '48 as in OTL expect India to become a dominion by the end of the Fifties.

I don't think anything on messageboards bothers me more than seeing Gandhi spelled like Ghana rather than Buddha.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Originally Posted by RBC

I don't think anything on messageboards bothers me more than seeing Gandhi spelled like Ghana rather than Buddha.

Fixed

Also, consider the impact of no United Nations or NATO, and probably no Israel, at least in 1948.