Decolonization in an Axis victory scenario

[Undwin the Saxon]

I'd think by 1940/41 England and France would both realize that they're screwed without their colonies. And without a major portion of Europe as trading partners, they'd look to their colonies more. Which would increase the flow of technology and capital to those colonies.
Would that mean
1) They develop a more mutually beneficial relationship, a commonwealth?
2) The colonies progress quicker, develop an independence movement sooner?
3) Or would both would want to hold onto the colonies for as long as they could and without WWII, have the means and men to fight a protracted war?
Interesting idea, I'd like to see how it would play out.
And what role would Japan play? That might be a deciding factor.

 

[Garrison]

It's a thought exercise with the basic premise of a peace in 1941. France has fallen, Britain hasn't been invaded.
How exactly we got there is somewhat irrelevant. The France Fight On POD for example is that Reynaud's mistress get hit by a car. Maybe something as small happens to make that happen.
The material conditions are broadly similar, you go from there. Again, it's a thought exercise of little consequence. I don't see how it's useful to stop any hope of discussion on how it couldn't have happened.
If you'd asked anyone in 1939, the fall if France would similarly have been seen as idiotic to even contemplate, and yet it did happen. Going further, the US Army did contingency planning for an alien invasion. It's still interesting as a thought exercise

Saying reality doesn't always seem plausible doesn't change the rules of the Post-1900 forum. Once you basically say anything is possible you don't have a framework for a discussion anymore, that's why the there's a requirement for plausibility. So if you have a plausible scenario for peace between Germany and Britain in 1940 please do present it. As I said earlier if the OP wants to discuss decolonization without the impact of WW2 its far easier to prevent the war than achieve a Nazi victory,

 

[Tanc49]

Saying reality doesn't always seem plausible doesn't change the rules of the Post-1900 forum. Once you basically say anything is possible you don't have a framework for a discussion anymore, that's why the there's a requirement for plausibility. So if you have a plausible scenario for peace between Germany and Britain in 1940 please do present it. As I said earlier if the OP wants to discuss decolonization without the impact of WW2 its far easier to prevent the war than achieve a Nazi victory,

Look, call it suspension of disbelief to analyse longer macro trends.
Seems like you don't get it's a thought experiment with the starting point as a given, without the need for the ultra detailed explanation.
This thread has already attracted mods and I don't have anything further to add, so guess I'll go away till it resumes actual discussion of colonisation.

It just all reminds me of a member who got banned after he kept railroading every single discussion on the ACW. You couldn't discuss anything, it was annoying and not useful.

 

[Garrison]

Look, call it suspension of disbelief to analyse longer macro trends.
Seems like you don't get it's a thought experiment with the starting point as a given, without the need for the ultra detailed explanation.

I don't think you understand that in Post-1900 ultra detailed explanations are expected, especially for topics like Nazi victory scenarios. If the OP would like to take the idea forward without the scrutiny there are other forums on the board designed for exactly that purpose, and again it would be far easier to concoct a plausible scenario that
prevents the war than one where the Nazis win, if the aim is to discuss decolonization without the impact of WW2.
And even if you accept the suspension of disbelief you demand then you would still need to know the details of how this peace deal was achieved and what the terms were to have a basis for establishing how things would develop.

 

[Bmao]

I suppose it’s inevitable. I do wonder what the Italian response to the Ethiopian famine of 1974 will be, if it’s not butterflied away.

I suppose that, given the technological advances that the Italians would bring to modernize agriculture, added to the fact that we would not have all the political chaos of Ethiopia in the 1970s (overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974 and establishment of the Derg until 1987), they would make the effects of the 1970 drought did not have to lead to famine.

Thanks for answering.

One way I could see the Italians maintaining colonial possession over Ethiopia would be by exploiting ethnic differences. If the Ethiopians were to demand independence, instead of trying to retake the territory and take back control over it, they could instead rile up the Eritreans and Somalis and sponsor an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Ethiopians. They would reward these groups for their loyalty and by ensuring they have blood on their hands through ethnic cleansing, the colonial authorities can make sure that these groups can never enter the International communities without facing major repercussions and sanctions.


Meanwhile, Ethiopia emerges as a devasted, failed state that cannot attract investment, that has famine, disease and other problems that serves as a warning for other groups who might think of independence.

Similarly, I could imagine Nazi Germany deciding to foment good relations with colonial administrations in Africa, or build up relations with Apartheid South Africa, where there would be mutual interest in maintaining a racial system of governance.

So yeah, both pretty grim scenarios.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

One way I could see the Italians maintaining colonial possession over Ethiopia would be by exploiting ethnic differences. If the Ethiopians were to demand independence, instead of trying to retake the territory and take back control over it, they could instead rile up the Eritreans and Somalis and sponsor an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Ethiopians. They would reward these groups for their loyalty and by ensuring they have blood on their hands through ethnic cleansing, the colonial authorities can make sure that these groups can never enter the International communities without facing major repercussions and sanctions.


Meanwhile, Ethiopia emerges as a devasted, failed state that cannot attract investment, that has famine, disease and other problems that serves as a warning for other groups who might think of independence.

Similarly, I could imagine Nazi Germany deciding to foment good relations with colonial administrations in Africa, or build up relations with Apartheid South Africa, where there would be mutual interest in maintaining a racial system of governance.

So yeah, both pretty grim scenarios.

To be fair, any axis victory scenario is very unlikely to be anything but grim, largely because this is how they roll.

It's not a good time if you're hoping to get Franco or Mussolini as your overlord because they're the better alternative.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Saying reality doesn't always seem plausible doesn't change the rules of the Post-1900 forum. Once you basically say anything is possible you don't have a framework for a discussion anymore, that's why the there's a requirement for plausibility. So if you have a plausible scenario for peace between Germany and Britain in 1940 please do present it. As I said earlier if the OP wants to discuss decolonization without the impact of WW2 its far easier to prevent the war than achieve a Nazi victory,

I guarantee there are no "rules" of the post-1900 forum which state you have to focus on one "implausible" aspect of a scenario which a person simply intends to use as background. If you just can't stand a premise of someone's TL, feel free to find another thread to post in.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

Not really because a requirement for Post-1900 is plausibility and if you are starting with a wildly implausible premise there's no basis for a reasonable discussion and then it's an anything goes. I could just insist that the British Empire will make a massive comeback and in the 1950s and an Anglo-Indian army liberates Europe and it would be as good an answer as any other when the OP starts from a premise that piles one all but impossible POD on top of another.

I insist that my premise is not implausible. And as for the Anglo-Indian army counterattacking, I could consider it a real possibility if we see a British Empire that decides to moderate certain aspects of its policy to guarantee the loyalty of as much of the Empire as possible in the face of an inevitable restart of hostilities. with Germany.

That is if they do not participate in a war against Japan and its expansionist desires.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

If you'd asked anyone in 1939, the fall if France would similarly have been seen as idiotic to even contemplate, and yet it did happen. Going further, the US Army did contingency planning for an alien invasion. It's still interesting as a thought exercise

Exactly. Precisely this premise is one of my main arguments for the possibilities of peace between a United Kingdom with a government open to negotiation (that is, without Churchill and other warmongers) and a Nazi Germany willing to focus solely on its projects in Eastern Europe and without questioning British hegemony in the colonial world and in the oceans.

Thanks for answering.

 

[David Flin]

(that is, without Churchill and other warmongers)

If your assumption is that it was Churchill and a few like-minded individuals that were opposed to a peace deal with Nazi Germany, then you really need to check your assumptions against historical evidence.

That's a myth that has been discredited even more than the concept that Sealion was a viable operation as it stood.

 

[Cymraeg]

Exactly. Precisely this premise is one of my main arguments for the possibilities of peace between a United Kingdom with a government open to negotiation (that is, without Churchill and other warmongers) and a Nazi Germany willing to focus solely on its projects in Eastern Europe and without questioning British hegemony in the colonial world and in the oceans.

Thanks for answering.

*Pinches bridge of nose and sighs*
Let's get a few things straight. First, Chamberlain was PM at the start of the War. Remember him? Chap who came back from Munich and waved a worthless piece of paper about? He knew it was worthless quite quickly because Hitler tore up the Munich Agreement as soon as he possibly could. Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939 because they - both Governments, including the arch-appeasers - realised that Hitler could not be trusted in any way shape or form and that he had to be stopped after he invaded Poland. As he proved through the course of the war, stabbing allies in the back whenever it suited him and breaking treaty after treaty after treaty, Hitler regarded treaties as bits of paper that could be torn up whenever it suited him.
Secondly, Churchill (who was NOT a member of the British Government at the time - he joined after the declaration of war) was someone who very much agreed with the concept that Hitler could not be trusted. So was something like 90% of the British establishment. Words like 'warmonger' are meaningless in this case.
Thirdly let's consider the reality behind such anodyne words as 'projects in Eastern Europe'. You mean mass murder on an industrial scale, because that's exactly what it amounted to.

 

[steamboy]

Exactly. Precisely this premise is one of my main arguments for the possibilities of peace between a United Kingdom with a government open to negotiation (that is, without Churchill and other warmongers) and a Nazi Germany willing to focus solely on its projects in Eastern Europe and without questioning British hegemony in the colonial world and in the oceans.

Thanks for answering.

I'm sorry but this has the vile stink of "Oh if ONLY those evil British and French warmongers had not declared war on Germany/If ONLY those evil British and French had just sat there and done nothing, then that nice Mr Hitler would have been free to do his 'Projects' without interference. How EVIL of them to oppose him and his plans!"

Its like blaming Belgium for resisting in WW1 and 2 instead of letting those nice German 'tourists' through and just surrender any soveringty and land beacuse silly warmongering idiots that they were were fools to oppose the friendly Germans, and yes, we've had people saying that in the past on this forum.

And yeah, lets not beat around the bush here, 'projects in Eastern Europe' just say genocide, on a scale that beggars belief is what you really mean here.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

I guarantee there are no "rules" of the post-1900 forum which state you have to focus on one "implausible" aspect of a scenario which a person simply intends to use as background. If you just can't stand a premise of someone's TL, feel free to find another thread to post in.

Furthermore, and not to be tiresome or punctilious, but his reasons for establishing so radically that my PoDs are not "plausible" are based on an exercise in presentism that ignores the psychological and social context of the time in which we speak.

That Nazi Germany was doomed purely by statistics is something we know today and thanks precisely to the research work of historians. But at the time it was something that the contenders could not know, not even the high echelons of the opposing powers.

As you yourself can see in an essay that I have passed, the social majority in Great Britain in the summer of 1940 considered the war lost and if they resisted it was solely and exclusively due to both the help of the United States (which in this story would be much smaller or even non-existent when having an isolationist government) as well as the obstinacy of Churchill's government (which would not be in power in this TL).

Furthermore, Churchill's absence would also cause the Battle of Britain to have a different result, given that it was his decision that changed the fate of that battle: On the night of August 24 to 25, 1940, during a bombing attempt on Thames oil terminals, the East End of London was bombed by mistake despite Hitler's express prohibition against attacking civilian targets (again, further evidence of Hitler's Anglophilia which would have helped his peace intentions).

In retaliation, Churchill ordered the RAF to attempt to attack Tempelhof airport and the Siemens factory the following night, although the bombs caused only slight damage to residential neighborhoods and the outskirts of Berlin. They continued their attacks on other German cities, such as Leipzig and Hanover, and even the Italian cities of Turin and Milan, but Churchill insisted that the main objective must remain Berlin.

Although the damage in the British bombing of Berlin was practically negligible (at least compared to the serious damage caused by the Luftwaffe on British soil), Churchill got what he wanted. Hitler, wounded in his pride, ordered the Luftwaffe to abandon the strategy of bombing British airfields to concentrate on the cities; mainly about London. And that ultimately caused the RAF to recover and the Battle of Britain to end in a British "victory."

In my Tl, where Churchill died in 1931 (it was previously in 1939, but thanks to a correction by @Cryhavoc101, I have established that it was in that year, when he was run over in New York), by not giving that order, the strategy of the Luftwaffe focuses solely on military objectives that leave the RAF without the capacity to respond and making the British fear a possibility of invasion (which in reality we know today was not going to happen because the Germans had no capacity for it, but the British back then they don't know that).

Given this panorama, I do not see why they would not accept a peace (even if they intend it to be temporary) with Germany in the face of their generous offers to them (logically, I am not talking about the fate that some of Britain's allies would suffer, (but it is not the first time that Great Britain has turned its back on its allies).

Thanks for answering.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

To be fair, any axis victory scenario is very unlikely to be anything but grim, largely because this is how they roll.

It's not a good time if you're hoping to get Franco or Mussolini as your overlord because they're the better alternative.

Let's see, perhaps I can make a mistake by saying this (and I apologize if I am not understood, making it clear that I am a convinced anti-fascist), but I sincerely believe that a world where the Axis powers win the war or at least, if they survive the 40s, be more somber than what we have today, I still see it as an unconscious bias due to the image we have of the National Socialists that modern cinema has implanted in us.

Were they heartless and murderers? Of course, but they didn't do anything very different from what other powers of their time had done: while the British were complaining about the Holocaust in 1945, they were killing a similar number of people through famine in India in 1943; while the American prosecutors in Nuremberg were alarmed by the Nazi racial laws, they had similar laws in their own country towards the black and Indian populations (racial segregation, euthanasia, etc...); While the Poles were portrayed as victims of Nazi barbarism (and they were, of course), they had in previous years carried out racist policies (including murder) against the minorities of their country: Germans, Ukrainians, Belarusians or Lithuanians. ; and let's not even talk about the USSR, France, China, etc...

I personally believe that a world in which the Axis powers (at least Germany and Italy) had won or survived the war would not be very different from the world we live in today. If anything, it would be a world where in certain parts of the world (like Europe) values that we condemn today would be celebrated, and others that we celebrate today would be condemned.

Also clarify, although I am already going on too long, that a Nazi Germany, as it was conceived in OTL, could not have survived the eventual death of Hitler, so:

A.- This one would have collapsed at some point in the 50s.

B.- The National Socialists would have reformed in such a way that, for current times, only the name would remain "National-Socialist" (being a European and racist version of what is today the People's Republic of China, a theoretical "Communist State "which, however, has practices more typical of the capitalist Western world).

I don't want to go into these philosophical talks because it would be too long and I don't know if it was appropriate (if not, I will delete it), but I want my point to be understood.

Thank you very much for answering.

 

[steamboy]

I personally believe that a world in which the Axis powers (at least Germany and Italy) had won or survived the war would not be very different from the world we live in today. If anything, it would be a world where in certain parts of the world (like Europe) values that we condemn today would be celebrated, and others that we celebrate today would be condemned.

What. And I state this clearly. THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

That's a nice Holocaust you've just denied there, going to guess you'd see General Plan Ost as a good idea then judging by your whataboutism above?

Not fucking different? Not FUCKING DIFFERENT? How about the annihilation of the Jews of Europe, about the extermination of the Poles, the disabled, the handicapped, the LGBTQ+ people of occupied Europe, the Roma, or anyone who didn't measure up to the Aryean ideal assuming a defeat of the Soviet union, and if by some dark miracle Barbarossa succeded, then the extermination of the Slavs of Eastern Europe in gas chambers or through extermination through labour.

Oh yeah, no different. Good, fucking lord.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

I'm sorry but this has the vile stink of "Oh if ONLY those evil British and French warmongers had not declared war on Germany/If ONLY those evil British and French had just sat there and done nothing, then that nice Mr Hitler would have been free to do his 'Projects' without interference. How EVIL of them to oppose him and his plans!"

And yeah, lets not beat around the bush here, 'projects in Eastern Europe' just say genocide, on a scale that beggars belief is what you really mean here.

No no. That wasn't my intention. I am a convinced anti-fascist and I am happy about the defeat of fascism.

But my point was to make a European Axis victory in the war plausible, and this requires putting aside propaganda, both German and Allied: the Western Allies did not fight Germany for peace, freedom, and to save Europe from barbarism. Nazi, but simply because they had conflicting interests.

At the moment of truth, if the social majority of the Western Allies were impacted by the Nazi crimes on others, it was because they were committed against the white European population: while the British fought the Nazis, they carried out similar genocide practices in India in 1943, and while the Americans did it, they had racial discrimination laws in their country not much better than those at Nuremberg in 1935 and concentration camps where they held Americans of Japanese descent based solely on their ancestry.

In fact, what I want is to discuss the Second World War without complexes, being able to speak freely without having to fear being labeled "Nazi" or "pro-German" for talking about these topics.

And this seemed like a good place for it.

Thanks for answering.

 

[Cymraeg]

Let's see, perhaps I can make a mistake by saying this (and I apologize if I am not understood, making it clear that I am a convinced anti-fascist), but I sincerely believe that a world where the Axis powers win the war or at least, if they survive the 40s, be more somber than what we have today, I still see it as an unconscious bias due to the image we have of the National Socialists that modern cinema has implanted in us.

Were they heartless and murderers? Of course, but they didn't do anything very different from what other powers of their time had done: while the British were complaining about the Holocaust in 1945, they were killing a similar number of people through famine in India in 1943; while the American prosecutors in Nuremberg were alarmed by the Nazi racial laws, they had similar laws in their own country towards the black and Indian populations (racial segregation, euthanasia, etc...); While the Poles were portrayed as victims of Nazi barbarism (and they were, of course), they had in previous years carried out racist policies (including murder) against the minorities of their country: Germans, Ukrainians, Belarusians or Lithuanians. ; and let's not even talk about the USSR, France, China, etc...

I personally believe that a world in which the Axis powers (at least Germany and Italy) had won or survived the war would not be very different from the world we live in today. If anything, it would be a world where in certain parts of the world (like Europe) values that we condemn today would be celebrated, and others that we celebrate today would be condemned.

Also clarify, although I am already going on too long, that a Nazi Germany, as it was conceived in OTL, could not have survived the eventual death of Hitler, so:

A.- This one would have collapsed at some point in the 50s.

B.- The National Socialists would have reformed in such a way that, for current times, only the name would remain "National-Socialist" (being a European and racist version of what is today the People's Republic of China, a theoretical "Communist State "which, however, has practices more typical of the capitalist Western world).

I don't want to go into these philosophical talks because it would be too long and I don't know if it was appropriate (if not, I will delete it), but I want my point to be understood.

Thank you very much for answering.

Good god. First - I've reported this to the Mods.
Secondly, I'm sorry but have you even studied anything about the Holocaust? The industrial scale of the persecution and then mass-murder? The death camps?
Yes, the Bay of Bengal Famine was a tragedy. But to conflate it with the deliberately planned and executed mass murder of millions of people, or to say that the Poles somehow deserved being occupied, destroyed and slaughtered because of their pre-war policies is just... breathtaking.
I'm not going to type any more because the Mods are doubtless on their way with feet of flames.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

That's a nice Holocaust you've just denied there, going to guess you'd see General Plan Ost as a good idea then judging by your whataboutism above?

Could you tell me where I deny the Holocaust or the General Eastern Plan?

What I am saying is something realistic (and very sad): in a world where the Axis powers had won, they would have hidden their most atrocious crimes and we would possibly not know even a tiny part of what we know today thanks to the investigation of the information obtained by his defeat.

 

[David Flin]

I personally believe that a world in which the Axis powers (at least Germany and Italy) had won or survived the war would not be very different from the world we live in today. If anything, it would be a world where in certain parts of the world (like Europe) values that we condemn today would be celebrated, and others that we celebrate today would be condemned.

Really?

I guess the Jews and the Slavs and the Roma and so on in Eastern Europe might beg to differ.

 

[Man in the High Castle]

Not fucking different? Not FUCKING DIFFERENT? How about the annihilation of the Jews of Europe, about the extermination of the Poles, and if by some dark miracle Barbarossa succeded, then the extermination of the Slavs of Eastern Europe?

Oh yeah, no different. Good, fucking lord.

Firstly, it would be necessary to see if the General Plan of the East had been carried out in its entirety. Here there are already open posts about it where they explain that it would hardly have been possible.

Second, in essence, and perhaps with necessary qualifications, no: it would not be very different in many aspects from the world we have today.

We would simply have that the mortal enemies of NATO, instead of having their headquarters in Moscow or Beijing, would be in Berlin-Germany or Tokyo.

I'm sorry if I've offended you or if I've seemed pro-Nazi. That wasn't my intention. But to show that, unfortunately, a world with Nazis in power would not be very different from what we have today.

And in fact this was one of the premises that some Alternative History audiovisual media such as the novel "Homeland" by Robert Harris or the mod "The New Order" of the game Hearts of Iron IV wanted to show: that the darkest part of a world with Nazis in power is that it would be something we would have become accustomed to, as today we have become accustomed to all kinds of dark circumstances (wars in Africa that no one cares about, famines, etc...)