A world without the United States: does decolonisation happen?

Socrates · Jun 21, 2011

I've been thinking recently about what caused decolonisation to happen when it did. India, of course, was ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence. The European states ruling Africa thought they would be in control there for centuries. Then, suddenly, decolonisation happen in just a couple of decades across most of Asia and Africa.

As with any political event, there are usually multiple reasons behind it. But it seems to me that the influence of the US was critical in making it clear to Britain and France, the two largest empires, that imperialism was no longer acceptable. What if we had a world where the US never came into being, and the main powers remained imperialist? Would the idea of independence still kick in, or would indigenous populations assume they would always be ruled by somebody? If the former, do you think it was inevitable decolonisation would happen at pretty much the same time as in OTL, or would it last longer? Could ideas like the French Union actually work, or is there always a fundamental longing for independence that colonised people will eventually always take?

Looking at other causes, there was also the presence of the USSR as an alternative benefactor for independent nations who were threatened with being cut off economically. I'm sure this made revolutionaries more willing to provoke things. Do you think this had more of an impact?

(Not sure if this should be in pre or post-1900 as the POD of no US is pre I put it here.)

Ganesha · Jun 21, 2011

I think your premise is a bit unstable. You say, for instance, that "India was ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence", when in fact, the opposite is true. Major foreign rule over the subcontinent began in the 1720's or so. Independence movements began for the first time in the 1840's and culminated in the First War of Indian Independence of 1857. Soon afterwards, organizations dedicated to Indian independence appeared. The East India Association in 1867, the Indian National Association in 1876, and of course the Indian National Congress in 1885. The Indian independence movement grew in strength and rose to full power by the 1920's, eventually leading to Independence in 1947. Clearly, India was never ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence.

Britain and France realized on their own that imperialism was no longer acceptable, the French more bloodily than the British. Colonies had become money drains and, more to the point, opened them up for hatred from around the world. Decolonization was essentially inevitable by the time the colonies had been established.

And the foundation of the US itself was one of the factors that led Britain and France to colonize so extensively in Africa and Asia.

MNP · Jun 21, 2011

Sometimes colonialism contained the seeds of its own destruction. When the intellectuals of the colonized areas got western education, that some of them would struggle for freedom is almost inevitable. I suppose you could get around that by beating down the populations but then they're not as useful economically or administratively.

I do think the US hastened the end of colonialism, but a big driver were the WWs which sapped the economic power of many of the participants with the greatest colonial empires. Look at Portugal, they stayed out of most of the wars and kept the colonial empire until 1975.

Admiral Brown · Jun 21, 2011

It's a difficult question. I don't think the US had much to do with the independence of India. And, once India goes, a lot of the British Empire is an economical burden, as it only existed to assure Britain a safe access to India.

But the thing is, the US got independent in 1776. It set a very important precent: that colonised countries could become independet and be recognized as equals by formers metropolis. Without this precedent, the independence of Latin America might not have taken place. And who knows how XIX century colonialism would have developped.

IOTL, most of British knew from almost the begining that, at some pointy, they would have to grant indepependence to India (or at least dominium status), as they had done with white dominions. This was due to the fact that they knew, from the ARW, that that it's too costly to hold a colony that wants to get independence. Without this precedent, they might be more inclined to resist independence attemps with all means available.

Or maybe not, who knows? When the US got independent, imperialism didn't even existed for the most part. So who knows what forms it might have taken, or how it would have ended -IF it would have ended-?

DuQuense · Jun 21, 2011

FDR started the US pushing for Decolonization. Truman didn't care, He loaned the French the Ships used to Invade Vietnam in 1946.
Which makes you wonder just how Anti-Colonial US policy was.

A lot will depend on the ?Why no US?
Colonialism will be a lot different in a BNA TL v a AoC TL.

Desmond Hume · Jun 21, 2011

Ganesha said:
I think your premise is a bit unstable. You say, for instance, that "India was ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence", when in fact, the opposite is true. Major foreign rule over the subcontinent began in the 1720's or so. Independence movements began for the first time in the 1840's and culminated in the First War of Indian Independence of 1857. Soon afterwards, organizations dedicated to Indian independence appeared. The East India Association in 1867, the Indian National Association in 1876, and of course the Indian National Congress in 1885. The Indian independence movement grew in strength and rose to full power by the 1920's, eventually leading to Independence in 1947. Clearly, India was never ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence.

Britain and France realized on their own that imperialism was no longer acceptable, the French more bloodily than the British. Colonies had become money drains and, more to the point, opened them up for hatred from around the world. Decolonization was essentially inevitable by the time the colonies had been established.

And the foundation of the US itself was one of the factors that led Britain and France to colonize so extensively in Africa and Asia.

This. I think the real question is not "will decolonization happen without the United States" but "without the United States, will colonization ever happen in the first place?" So much of what we think of as "colonialism" today took place after the ARW it's hard to say for sure. But it seems significant that what it might be possible to regard as the first colonial period in modern history (the European colonization of the New World) had already ended in "decolonization" (the independence of the colonized regions) by 1820 or so when the South American wars of liberation ended.

Socrates · Jun 22, 2011

Ganesha said:
I think your premise is a bit unstable. You say, for instance, that "India was ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence", when in fact, the opposite is true. Major foreign rule over the subcontinent began in the 1720's or so. Independence movements began for the first time in the 1840's and culminated in the First War of Indian Independence of 1857.

The "First War of Independence" terminology is a bit of an anachronistic mythology in my opinion. It was an angry revolt against various grievances rather than any sort of national liberation movement.

Soon afterwards, organizations dedicated to Indian independence appeared. The East India Association in 1867, the Indian National Association in 1876, and of course the Indian National Congress in 1885. The Indian independence movement grew in strength and rose to full power by the 1920's, eventually leading to Independence in 1947. Clearly, India was never ruled for centuries without a sizable push for independence.

Well there's 140 years between the beginning of colonialism and the establishment of the East India Association. It's also worth bearing in mind the aim of Indian Natonal Association was "to secure improvements in the local administration of the country and in the system of government laid down by Parliament" for much of its life. Even in the early 20th century, most major Indian leaders stressed reform and advancement in the Empire, with an eye on dominion status. Plus, a few organisations does not a "major push" make. It was only really with the coming of Gandhi that it became a mass movement. A similar situation happened in Africa with Senghor and Houphouet-Boigny being pro-union with France for a long period.

Britain and France realized on their own that imperialism was no longer acceptable, the French more bloodily than the British. Colonies had become money drains and, more to the point, opened them up for hatred from around the world.

But why did it become "no longer acceptable" at this time, rather than earlier? It had to be a global cause, seeing that it happened virtually everywhere at once. Why were they suddenly money drains at this point rather than previously?

And the foundation of the US itself was one of the factors that led Britain and France to colonize so extensively in Africa and Asia.

Care to elaborate? I'm not so sure they were related. The EIC would continue in India regardless of what happened in America. I don't see how the US influenced French policy at all...

Admiral Brown said:
It's a difficult question. I don't think the US had much to do with the independence of India. And, once India goes, a lot of the British Empire is an economical burden, as it only existed to assure Britain a safe access to India.

But France seemed intent on having a large empire in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite it not helping any trade routes. A lot of people in the British setup were keen that Africa could replace India once they realised India was going.

IOTL, most of British knew from almost the begining that, at some pointy, they would have to grant indepependence to India (or at least dominium status), as they had done with white dominions. This was due to the fact that they knew, from the ARW, that that it's too costly to hold a colony that wants to get independence. Without this precedent, they might be more inclined to resist independence attemps with all means available.

I think dominion status is a very different beast to independence though, especially if it has a franchise limited to upper class, educated natives.

DuQuense said:
Colonialism will be a lot different in a BNA TL v a AoC TL.

AoC?

Desmond Hume said:
This. I think the real question is not "will decolonization happen without the United States" but "without the United States, will colonization ever happen in the first place?" So much of what we think of as "colonialism" today took place after the ARW it's hard to say for sure. But it seems significant that what it might be possible to regard as the first colonial period in modern history (the European colonization of the New World) had already ended in "decolonization" (the independence of the colonized regions) by 1820 or so when the South American wars of liberation ended.

India was already being colonised by the late 1700s. As for the decolonization of the Americas, it's a slightly different case in that it was to powerful white elites, rather than the masses, in most cases. Also it was largely inspired (and supported) by the US example, and didn't altogether happen in places like Canada and French Guiana. Appreciate your point though.

MNP said:
I do think the US hastened the end of colonialism, but a big driver were the WWs which sapped the economic power of many of the participants with the greatest colonial empires. Look at Portugal, they stayed out of most of the wars and kept the colonial empire until 1975.

I don't know if Portugal hung on for longer due to not being in the war. I suspect it was more likely because it was a brutal dictatorship that was more tenacious and ideologically zealous. There is a second argument for World War 2 being the cause in that it was fought in the name of equality against Nazi racial evil, thus it inspired non-whites to get their own equality. This was also the case with the civil rights movement in the USA.

Codae · Jun 22, 2011

Socrates said:
AoC?

Articles of Confederation: i.e. the Revolution still happens, but the Americans never institute an effective central government to take them to world-power status.

David S Poepoe · Jun 22, 2011

I think you are ignoring the fact that the three greatest empires have not fallen - yet: Russia, China and the United States. As mentioned before the seeds of eventual decolonisation are sown by the colonizers themselves.

Also you have to remember that there were formal empires and informal empires. The formal empires of British and France were weakened by the World Wars and the London and Paris were replaced by informal empires controlled from Washington and Moscow. With the collapse of the Soviet Union one could see the informal empires of both sides falling apart.

reformedcpmuser · Jun 22, 2011

DuQuense said:
FDR started the US pushing for Decolonization. Truman didn't care, He loaned the French the Ships used to Invade Vietnam in 1946.
Which makes you wonder just how Anti-Colonial US policy was.

This also demonstrates how enmeshed the USA was in Indochina even before the VC gathered significant steam. I suspect that Nixon and other outspoken anti-communist pols wouldn't've painted Vietnam as the next domino between communism and the free world if Truman simply let French Indochina fall. Even if the successor states to French Indochina fell under the Maoist sphere, OTL JFK/LBJ/Nixon might not have made the drastic decisions that they made. This would be especially true if Ike had a laissez faire attitude towards SE Asia.

Then again, I strongly suspect that the US attacked Vietnam and then the whole of Indochina simply because the War was a means of aggression towards the Soviet sphere that could not be undertaken against the Iron Curtain. Given that anti-communism was the choice ideological plank of of many pols in the 1950s, aggression towards former French Indochina might be hard to pass up.

DrJafJaf · Jun 22, 2011

In short; yes. I think the only difference seen would be in the Americas.

With no example of successful independence, nations like Haiti, Mexico, and all the South American nations probably would not have achieved their independence so quickly.

So if Spain retains their colonies in the new world, that might mean that they don't just stew in mediocrity during the industrial era. They might have been able to make a decent attempt at industrialization. But since they lack a lot of the resources and economy in the mainland, it might have led to exploitation of their colonies and so on. I think it's safe to say that the Spanish colonies would probably have their independence by the late 1800s and would be slightly better off because of Spanish attempts to industrialize the area.

The USA would probably go the way of Canada; become a domain, then steadily become more and more independent.

In India I think everyone would've happened basically the same. America under the British Empire can only help the British if the Indians try and get independence, but Ghandi's peaceful revolution would've had similar success as in OTL.

In Africa and the Far East, the British dominate even more, but the era of independence probably would have played out similarly. By then no one was really looking at America for inspiration of a successful revolution, or if they were it wasn't a vital spark to set off independence.

EMT · Jun 22, 2011

I would say no. The Spanish hold on the Viceroyalty of Peru was at times, very shaky. A Kingdom of Cuzco was proclaimed at one point in the 18th century that ended up crushed. If the Spanish continued to weaken, I don't doubt that eventually some areas of Latin America would break away. My first guess would be Paraguay, followed by Quechua lands.