How many Colonies could stay in Colonial Hands?

Rhaegar I · Apr 3, 2012

While on the internet, I noticed something on French Guiana, and it got me thinking: what other mainland colonies (or islands, for that matter) could last into the 21st century? Which is why I decided to post the question here.

By colonies, I mean and land or islands under the control of a foreign power, including UN mandates.

Three basic catches:

1. You can use any POD(s) you want, although they can't be earlier than WWII: they must be after the War is over.

2. Even though I call them colonies, it should be assumed they will either be fully integrated or receive limited autonomy.

3. Keep it plausible. For example, you could say UK keeps Malta (I read somewhere there were serious efforts to make it an integral part of the UK), but if I hear one person make a claim the UK could keep India after WWII, I will summon an army of butterflies upon you.

Æsir · Apr 3, 2012

Suriname, I believe, basically had to be kicked out by the Netherlands, who were by this point adamant to end the major vestiges of their colonial empire, so you might be able to get a continuing Dutch Guiana. For an earlier POD, if Fascist Italy doesn't join the Axis, Libya is enticing and sparsely populated enough that it could in time become an Italian settler colony.

Peg Leg Pom · Apr 3, 2012

Æsir said:
Suriname, I believe, basically had to be kicked out by the Netherlands, who were by this point adamant to end the major vestiges of their colonial empire, so you might be able to get a continuing Dutch Guiana. For an earlier POD, if Fascist Italy doesn't join the Axis, Libya is enticing and sparsely populated enough that it could in time become an Italian settler colony.

Lots of British island possetions had independance forced on them Fiji for one, had Britain finances been beter or the Labour party less adamant about independance then more could have stayed crown colonies.

If Lybia had become an Italian settler colony then it would probably have been incorporated into Italy proper.

PoeFacedKilla · Apr 3, 2012

I don't think the US or the USSR would really allow imperialism after WWII.
The only thing I could see would be Britain federalizing (which was dead by then) because then neither country could do much.

So in short, most countries didn't want their colonies anymore because britain had all the good ones and they all (for the most part) were functioning as their own states by then.

Rhaegar I · Apr 3, 2012

PoeFacedKilla said:
I don't think the US or the USSR would really allow imperialism after WWII.
The only thing I could see would be Britain federalizing (which was dead by then) because then neither country could do much.

So in short, most countries didn't want their colonies anymore because britain had all the good ones and they all (for the most part) were functioning as their own states by then.

True, but here's how I thought of it. If you back to 1945, places that are now an integral part of different European nations would be considered just as much a colony as the ones that became independent. Some of them, like the South Asian, South-east Asian, and most African ones are going to be independent no matter what you do. But others, like most of the Carribean and Pacific Islands, along with some Continental ones, could have theoretically been kept if things worked a little differently. This is about those places.

Peg Leg Pom · Apr 3, 2012

The way for those colonies that didn't want independance to remain part of the Empires would be to hold a referendum with full international supervision on whether they wanted indepenance or not. If they vote against independance then the United States at least will have to accept it. China and the USSR will always oppose this, if anyone was going to control these colonies they wanted it to be them via which ever pupet they could put in power.

The difficulty would be getting Britain or France to give them the option of not having independance.

whitecrow · Apr 3, 2012

PoeFacedKilla said:
I don't think the US or the USSR would really allow imperialism after WWII.

Was there any U.S. prominent political figure from the time period who supported colonialism (either European or American)? Not "spheres of influence", but actual colonialism?

Flocculencio · Apr 3, 2012

John Mighty said:
True, but here's how I thought of it. If you back to 1945, places that are now an integral part of different European nations would be considered just as much a colony as the ones that became independent. Some of them, like the South Asian, South-east Asian, and most African ones are going to be independent no matter what you do. But others, like most of the Carribean and Pacific Islands, along with some Continental ones, could have theoretically been kept if things worked a little differently. This is about those places.

The trouble is that a lot of those colonies were loss makers. In the case of Britain the only really consistently profitable parts of the Empire (excluding the white settler colonies) were India, Malaya, the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong. Everything else was basically just there to secure the route to India.

India was going to go, no matter what, as was Malaya. Britain might have been able to retain Singapore by giving it self government (e other two Straits Settlements, Penang and Malacca would go to Malaya) but that's still tricky. So once these colonies are gone the only really important one left is Hong Kong. Anything else is just a waste of money.

BlondieBC · Apr 3, 2012

Peg Leg Pom said:
The way for those colonies that didn't want independance to remain part of the Empires would be to hold a referendum with full international supervision on whether they wanted indepenance or not. If they vote against independance then the United States at least will have to accept it. China and the USSR will always oppose this, if anyone was going to control these colonies they wanted it to be them via which ever pupet they could put in power.

The difficulty would be getting Britain or France to give them the option of not having independance.

With a decade of so of ample infrastructure improvements, I could see all or part of Algeria voting to remain French. There are probably a few others, especially if does not have to be the entire colony. I have read that Hong Kong would have voted to remain with the UK. Perhaps the same for Singapore and few other similar port cities, but the UK would need to have a stronger Royal Navy, but with more places paying taxes, it might be able to make the budget numbers work.

Peg Leg Pom · Apr 3, 2012

There's also Belieze in Latin America and some of the Carribean islands and possibly the Bahamas, but those would really annoy Washington. I think I read that some on Malta wanted to be incorporated into the UK.

BlondieBC · Apr 3, 2012

Peg Leg Pom said:
There's also Belieze in Latin America and some of the Carribean islands and possibly the Bahamas, but those would really annoy Washington. I think I read that some on Malta wanted to be incorporated into the UK.

I would think the USA would be ok with those formally joining the UK. I am not sure that the USA would really want the Bahamas as state or territory. As long as a free and fair election was held on joining UK or becoming independent, I doubt the USA would have any ability to complain.

Peg Leg Pom · Apr 4, 2012

Most of the British colonies that could chose to remain British are either at or close to major maritime choke points. Malta and Gibralter control the Atlantic entrance to the Med and the Sicilian Tunisian straight. Singapore one of the main sea lanes in South East Asia. The Falkands Cape Horn and Accention Island the meeting of the North and South Atlantic. Belieze and the Carribean Islands are well placed to inderdict traffic through the Panama Canal. Thats alot of very stratigicaly placed real estate the Royal Navy would have to have remained a large force to protect them.

The Oncoming Storm · Apr 4, 2012

Peg Leg Pom said:
There's also Belieze in Latin America and some of the Carribean islands and possibly the Bahamas, but those would really annoy Washington. I think I read that some on Malta wanted to be incorporated into the UK.

There was actually a referendum on that question in February 1956, Malta would have had Home Rule and with representation in Westminster. While the vote was in favour, the Malta National Party boycotted it meaning that the turnout was below that needed for a valid poll.

pompejus · Apr 4, 2012

Generally the smaller colonies, like the Carribean and Pacific Island could usually be kept by the colonizers. For the Netherlands Surinam and New Guinea could have remained Dutch, maybe a couple of other small parts of Indonesia if the decolonisation of Indonesia happened differently (although with a POD after the second world war that would be hard).

hugh lupus · Apr 4, 2012

Non, pure and simple.
The best colonies are already functioning states .The rest, mostly Africa don't want to be colonies, serve no useful function and are a drag on the metropolitan centres.
Empires are built out of comparative advantage over the subject people.To sustain that advantage requires long term investment, or if that fails a fall back to an empires ultimate rational ..force.
Non of the former great powers of Europe had the money or will power to sustain either of these options.

Flocculencio · Apr 4, 2012

hugh lupus said:
Non, pure and simple.
The best colonies are already functioning states .The rest, mostly Africa don't want to be colonies, serve no useful function and are a drag on the metropolitan centres.
Empires are built out of comparative advantage over the subject people.To sustain that advantage requires long term investment, or if that fails a fall back to an empires ultimate rational ..force.
Non of the former great powers of Europe had the money or will power to sustain either of these options.

Quoted for truth

Julius Vogel · Apr 4, 2012

Peg Leg Pom said:
Lots of British island possetions had independance forced on them Fiji for one, had Britain finances been beter or the Labour party less adamant about independance then more could have stayed crown colonies.

If Lybia had become an Italian settler colony then it would probably have been incorporated into Italy proper.

I would imagine elements of the F&C Office were probably rather glad to be rid of Fiji and more so since Independence. It is and has been always rather a tinderbox.

That isn't to say it is or was doomed to failure, more just that it had more issues that could cause substantial problems later on.

It probably would have been better for Fiji to have a stronger colonial power or neighbour, willing to stop or intervene in the case of military coups though. Once the coup culture starts it is very hard to stop it seems and if a Power had been able to forestall any move to coups during the "shaking out" phase of post Independence Fiji, thinks certainly would be a lot better.

M. A. Dickens · Apr 4, 2012

BlondieBC said:
\ I have read that Hong Kong would have voted to remain with the UK

While I'm not sure how would such a vote turn out (I was in kindergarten at the time), empirical evidence would support such a notion - a lot of HKers emigrated to US, Canada, Australia and UK right before 1997.

A possible POD would be the Gang of Four remain in power for a few more years, and China destabilizes enough that it was unable to negotiate the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Britain outright bought New Territories in 1997, and HK remains a Crown Colony.

Marc A

Evan · Apr 4, 2012

marcus_aurelius said:
Britain outright bought New Territories in 1997, and HK remains a Crown Colony.

That would be difficult, because I can't see any non-totally-bankrupt Chinese government willing to sell Britain the New Territories (except for Taiwan, and I also can't see Britain still recognizing them in 1997).

pompejus · Apr 4, 2012

hugh lupus said:
Non, pure and simple.
The best colonies are already functioning states .The rest, mostly Africa don't want to be colonies, serve no useful function and are a drag on the metropolitan centres.
Empires are built out of comparative advantage over the subject people.To sustain that advantage requires long term investment, or if that fails a fall back to an empires ultimate rational ..force.
Non of the former great powers of Europe had the money or will power to sustain either of these options.

You are mostly right. Most of the colonies did want indepence and it will be impossible for Britain to keep India or for the Netherlands to keep Indonesia. It is impossible for large parts of Africa to remain in European hands. But some (former) colonies actualy want to remain part of their colonizer. For example the Dutch antilles don't want to become independent. There was a referendum a couple of years ago and the majority voted for remaining part of the Netherlands, but with more autonomy. The same thing can happen with a lot of other former colonies. Surinam was basicly pushed into independence by the Netherlands and could have easly become a Dutch variant of French Guyana. I am certain there are a lot of former colonies for which the same is true. I even remember reading in a newspaper that some independent former French colony wanted to become part of France again. These are usualy relatively small colonies, like carribean or pacific islands, not the big colonies like India or Indonesia.