Would the colonial empires still exist today if World War II never happened?

[Reflection]

World War II brought about the end of the empire, for a variety of reasons. One being that anti-colonial sentiment was felt worldwide in the wake of the Axis Powers' defeat, especially with the explicitly anti-colonialist/imperialist United States and Soviet Union now being the two global world powers in the place of the European empires of before. Another being the founding of the United Nations, which decreed that there would be no more empires, and those who tried to resist like Portugal found it impossible to do so long term. But most importantly, and practically, the reason why the colonial empires came to an end is simply because they're really expensive to maintain, and World War II bankrupted all the European nations and did untold damage to their core infrastructure, which essentially killed their ability to maintain overseas colonies.

Despite what I said though, the empires didn't fall overnight. There was still an attempt to maintain at least some of their empires by the British, French, and the Dutch, before they finally conceded. Spain and Portugal also fought the longest to hold onto their possessions for the prestige of it (especially since they were ruled by the two survive fascist dictatorships post-WWII). But ultimately, they went down too after their democratic revolutions in the mid-1970s.

World War II had a lot of major effects, and ending the European empires and replacing them with the USA/USSR as the new leading figures was one of them. In a world where World War II just doesn't happen, say Hitler doesn't rise to power in Germany, how likely is it that the British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires all still exist today in some form?

To what extent does decolonization occur, which countries are most likely to be independent, and which would most likely remain under colonial rule? What does colonialism in the 21st Century look like, anyways?

 

[Lalli]

Decolonisation would still happen altough it would be delayed with decade or two and probably colonial empires can keep more. Many colonial subjects begun to be tired to their masters and colonialism would become still too expensive and economically counterproductive for colonial powers.

Britain might still be able to keep its Caribbean possessions and Pacific islands. But India and almost all of its African colonies, and Mid-Eastern holdings would still become independent.

France would be able to keep its OTL oversea territories + Northern Algeria, Gabon and Djibouti.

Portugal might still lost all its colonies unless there is alternative leadership or Salazar doesn't die earlier and more reasonable leader replace him.

Spain might be able to keep Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea.

The Netherlands would still lost Indonesia but it can keep Suriname.

 

[JanWellem]

I could also see Malta and possibly even Cyprus staying British.

 

[Lalli]

I could also see Malta and possibly even Cyprus staying British.

This is indeed pretty likely. Didn't Malta actually wanted remain as part of Britain at some point? And perhaps Singapore would remain as part of British Empire if Malaysia/Malayan Federation still doesn't accept Singapore as member state.

 

[JanWellem]

I wonder whether Sarawak might still be ruled by the White Rajahs?

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

World War II brought about the end of the empire, for a variety of reasons. One being that anti-colonial sentiment was felt worldwide in the wake of the Axis Powers' defeat, especially with the explicitly anti-colonialist/imperialist United States and Soviet Union now being the two global world powers in the place of the European empires of before. Another being the founding of the United Nations, which decreed that there would be no more empires, and those who tried to resist like Portugal found it impossible to do so long term. But most importantly, and practically, the reason why the colonial empires came to an end is simply because they're really expensive to maintain, and World War II bankrupted all the European nations and did untold damage to their core infrastructure, which essentially killed their ability to maintain overseas colonies.

Despite what I said though, the empires didn't fall overnight. There was still an attempt to maintain at least some of their empires by the British, French, and the Dutch, before they finally conceded. Spain and Portugal also fought the longest to hold onto their possessions for the prestige of it (especially since they were ruled by the two survive fascist dictatorships post-WWII). But ultimately, they went down too after their democratic revolutions in the mid-1970s.

World War II had a lot of major effects, and ending the European empires and replacing them with the USA/USSR as the new leading figures was one of them. In a world where World War II just doesn't happen, say Hitler doesn't rise to power in Germany, how likely is it that the British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires all still exist today in some form?

To what extent does decolonization occur, which countries are most likely to be independent, and which would most likely remain under colonial rule? What does colonialism in the 21st Century look like, anyways?

It would be postponed a few decades but still happen, since every empire will fall at one point or another.

 

[jlckansas]

You could get a Commonwealth India/Pakistan depending on what is done. Congress was pushing for independence but would have accepted independence along the lines of Canada and Australia. The problem is going to be in the partition, if it happens, and what the princely states go for overall.

Italy keeps at Least Northern Libya and is able to become energy independent of some sort when they find the oil fields and are able to exploit them. Parts of Somalia and Eritrea might get independence but the Italians keep bases and ports in the area and form some sort of Commonwealth.

US had promised the Philippines independence and would go through with it with them retaining bases there. The problems would be if the Chinese and Japanese go to war in some form.

 

[LongVin]

As most have said they will probably only last a few more decades. The paradigm shift against empires really came about after WW1, for a lot of people there wasn't the mental will to continue on with these expensive empires, and also a moral shift, Europe was not as self assured with themselves and goals of empire.

After WW2 though the nails were in the coffin. Most of the empires have went bankrupt not once but twice in 30 years. Took massive demographic hits twice. Some of these countries had not only their homelands occupied but also their colonies. Then even more so following the actions of Nazi Germany people were rapidly turning away from the ideas of imperialism on a moral level.

All the conditions were in place, but WW2 accelerated it. Without WW2 though by the 1970s/80s most of the colonial powers will be tired of it. Most of the colonies are probably still not profitable despite more and more funds the home territories being pumped into them. Resistance movements flaring up every now and then. It will in a word just be exhausting and pointless. Though, on the bright side for the soon to be former colonies is they will probably have better developed infrastructure and the two additional decades to educate and form a middle class of locals capable of actually ruling a country. So many of them may be in better shape at the end of the day.

If you really want Europe to keep their empires you need to prevent World War One from happening.

 

[PolishMagnet]

I think Italy could've held Libya and maybe Eritrea.

The population of Libya was already quite low, and with the discovery of oil there would likely be more immigration.

 

[Hydra1234]

Officially, no. I would imagine the colonial empires would grant some level of independence, albeit several decades later than OTL. Widespread availability of rapid-fire small arms means guerilla warfare in the late 20th century becomes much more of a slog, making maintaining colonies a much harder task. Plus, the empires are also liberalizing over time and would gradually lose the stomach for maintaining an empire. A few additional territories here and there might stay with their empires though, mostly small islands.

Unofficially, yes. Neocolonialism would be far more popular with European countries that were not ruined by WWII. So you will see more shenanigans like the CFA Franc, where a European country owns the foreign reserves of their former colonies and can set monetary policy for them, or European companies owning resource rights and evading taxes via transfer mispricing, with any attempt at nationalization met with armed intervention or covert undermining. Plus, it's actually profitable given that the state doesn't actually have to maintain a substantial administrative or military presence there, and the occasional intervention is a lot easier to justify or sweep under the rug than prolonged occupation.

 

[AlexanderDragon]

I wonder if you'd see "Empires" where you have independent nations working within what we would call multinational organizations like the EU. African countries are "independent" but still have governor generals(elected) foreign garrisons, largely foreign owned corporations working with local pro colonizer oligarchs.

 

[jacob ningen]

Officially, no. I would imagine the colonial empires would grant some level of independence, albeit several decades later than OTL. Widespread availability of rapid-fire small arms means guerilla warfare in the late 20th century becomes much more of a slog, making maintaining colonies a much harder task. Plus, the empires are also liberalizing over time and would gradually lose the stomach for maintaining an empire. A few additional territories here and there might stay with their empires though, mostly small islands.

Unofficially, yes. Neocolonialism would be far more popular with European countries that were not ruined by WWII. So you will see more shenanigans like the CFA Franc, where a European country owns the foreign reserves of their former colonies and can set monetary policy for them, or European companies owning resource rights and evading taxes via transfer mispricing, with any attempt at nationalization met with armed intervention or covert undermining. Plus, it's actually profitable given that the state doesn't actually have to maintain a substantial administrative or military presence there, and the occasional intervention is a lot easier to justify or sweep under the rug than prolonged occupation.

Interesting thought, how strong was MI6 before the war. Because the OSS leads to preventing Mossadegh from nationalizing oil. Are the pre WWII intelligence apparatuses able to carry out Mockingbird and the coup against Mossadegh. And if the Wafd is able to nationalize the Suez first Britain is going to lose easy access to India.

 

[AlexanderDragon]

Interesting thought, how strong was MI6 before the war. Because the OSS leads to preventing Mossadegh from nationalizing oil. Are the pre WWII intelligence apparatuses able to carry out Mockingbird and the coup against Mossadegh. And if the Wafd is able to nationalize the Suez first Britain is going to lose easy access to India.

Mossadegh wouldn't come to power without the War, Reza Shah thought the British were too powerful to attempt open nationalization. The British Position in the Middle East was strong enough that you'd probably see a gradual transition to independence by the Emirates and Sultantes of the region, but with still a good amount of residue from the informal empire in our alt 2023, with the British occasionally intervening from their base in Aden. You'd probably see for instance oil being sold in both pounds and dollars

 

[Hydra1234]

Interesting thought, how strong was MI6 before the war. Because the OSS leads to preventing Mossadegh from nationalizing oil. Are the pre WWII intelligence apparatuses able to carry out Mockingbird and the coup against Mossadegh. And if the Wafd is able to nationalize the Suez first Britain is going to lose easy access to India.

Not very. Most intelligence agencies cut their teeth in WWII, but necessity is the mother of invention. Intelligence agencies will still evolve, especially as overt war becomes less popular. However, not all action has to be covert, especially in a pre-nuclear world.

Mossadegh is butterflied by the war, as Reza Shah Pahlavi is not deposed. Egypt can't resist British intervention in the event of the Suez being nationalized in a world without WWII, as the British are much stronger, the US remains isolationist, and the Soviets likely haven't developed nukes yet.

 

[Lalli]

If you really want Europe to keep their empires you need to prevent World War One from happening.

Colonialism wouldn't last completely to this day even without WW1. Yes, it would last longer and colonial empires would are bigger but some still would get independence with way or another since colonialims would be still too expensive and there would be lot of local resistance and any nation can't afford years lasting guerilla warfare or sending armies after armies.

I think Italy could've held Libya and maybe Eritrea.

The population of Libya was already quite low, and with the discovery of oil there would likely be more immigration.

Yes, Italy could keep at least Libya and perhaps Eritrea too. Any chances that Italy could keep Somalia?

 

[Rhymehouse]

I think the presence of the USSR/Cold War and the invention of the Ak-47 played a greater role in the destruction of colonialism than World War 2 did. Then again, a world without World War 2 would look very different than our world, so it's hard to predict what would happen.

 

[PolishMagnet]

Colonialism wouldn't last completely to this day even without WW1. Yes, it would last longer and colonial empires would are bigger but some still would get independence with way or another since colonialims would be still too expensive and there would be lot of local resistance and any nation can't afford years lasting guerilla warfare or sending armies after armies.



Yes, Italy could keep at least Libya and perhaps Eritrea too. Any chances that Italy could keep Somalia?

Italian population was very low and the local population is much higher than Eritrea or Libya. I doubt they would hold Somalia (definitely not Ethiopia).

 

[Atrophied]

It depends how you plan to avoid ww2 would be the question.

A very lenient verssailes treaty seems the thing to do i guess as the starting pov, hitler gained power mostly on the promise of reversing it and doing it without a war at first and when the war actually triggered both polish and the french campaigns were very very succesful. There are accounts if the french campaign didnt go as well as it did then a coup wasnt impossible and the german army and economy wasnt in great shape.

Then for some reason finally have the british be serious about giving india dominion status rather early but maybe try to break it up alot more than in otl to keep states managable size wise maybe instead of a partition only plan ,altough apparently a big india might have been possible without ww2 .

I think some african colonies with enough investment and if there was actual plans things could go alot better rather the otl events at a minimum and even then i imagine things would be abit like the francoafrica is for the brits at a minimum and maybe full blown dominions even. Honestly the brits could keep the middle east somewhat vassalized if suez didnt happen .

 

[Monter]

Colonialism wouldn't last completely to this day even without WW1. Yes, it would last longer and colonial empires would are bigger but some still would get independence with way or another since colonialims would be still too expensive and there would be lot of local resistance and any nation can't afford years lasting guerilla warfare or sending armies after armies.

They can, actually, this board's Americancentrism is colored by Vietnam and Afghanistan to see guerilla warfare and insurgencies as some sort of invincible force of nature that once started can't be stopped, but in reality... insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill (like the FARCs), an Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow.

 

[jacob ningen]

They can, actually, this board's Americancentrism is colored by Vietnam and Afghanistan to see guerilla warfare and insurgencies as some sort of invincible force of nature that once started can't be stopped, but in reality... insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill (like the FARCs), an Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow.

And the five Irgun and hasmonean enthusiasts.