Search results

Those keep empires threads, usually the British Empire, most answers seem to consider the empire must remain intact and therefore answers tend to be negative. However, if we concede parts of the empire must go in order to keep parts of it intact, things start to get easier. In Austria-Hungary...

It's impossible. 20th century went the best way possible if your aim is decolonization. Those territories that are still linked to European countries are do so due very different circumstances, so it's incredibly hard to get rid of all of them simultaneously.

Things that happened in Congo would hardly be tried or even imagined in Cuba. It happened there because the actors were in the middle of jungle, in the frontier, far from the balances and checks of "civilization". When they were caught, the whole enterprise fell apart. Cuba was/is an European...

This scenario also would fundamentally change the way British would deal with their settlement colonies and Empire in general. They've never bothered to change their boundaries to accomodate colonies nor to develop a comprehensive political framework for them. The British Empire was a massive...

Indeed this private expansion might providing an even more formidable push than Washington public policies. I tend to believe London would be a more moderate force, and Amerindians would fair better, with larger reservations and nominal independence. If Americans might influence Home Islands...

If British America remained, it would be most likely that they would be smaller than OTL US+Canada. Britain was never fond of settler uncontrolled expansion over Native lands as it would create all sorts of problems for them. Either frontier settlers pressure would be much stronger forcing...

It was addressed there, but colonization in Australia is not having her linked to some London decrees, but its mere existence as a White settler country. For the entire American continent, South Africa, Australia, NZ, there's no relation between their political independence and decolonisation...

Republic became an issue precisely because the Apartheid, that was creating a huge embarrassment for the Queen, otherwise it might have remained indefinitely. So it's very unfair to associate Apartheid to the Monarchy as they were in very opposite fields. The former needed to get rid of the...

Exactly my point. After Napoleonic Wars, Dutch would retain the whole Belgium as OTL or just Flanders and Wallonia being taken by France, Prussia or Austria. If they managed to butterfly Belgian revolt, that won't happen as by the late 19th century, the Cape would already giving Netherlands an...

Case in point: the US mentioned by the forumer above. British wanted settlement ending at Appalachia. As soon as they left, the colonists conquered the whole continent "displacing" the Natives. And that's 18th century.

That's basic British Empire historiography. We have tons of documents available about it, press articles from that time, debates at the House of Commons, etc. Which one do you think are more invested on expanding activities there? A public servant at Whitehall that never left England or a...

Why would they? In this scenario would be as random as establishing themselves in Angola or Madagascar. Did the British worried to check Portuguese expansion? Why would they care about the Dutch in an area they were not present? Those establishments in OTL were a direct result of British...

South Africa made some compromises. They acknowledged Bantu population tribes, granted a special status to Coloured and Indians and we're not as obsessed about "racial purity". Most of Afrikaners have at least some non-European ancestor and a person would be regarded White as long as it passes...

I agree. The whole idea seems to get out of a bad Hollywood movie, full of clichés about "lesser people" outside US and W. Europe. As it's apparently too complicated to understand Argentina, Congo, Iran and Indonesia are completely different places, with pretty much nothing in common, it's...

We're talking a completely different timeline. British got embroiled in the Boer Wars because they were well established in Cape and Natal for ages. Kimberley, for instance, is inside Cape. Johannesburg, although inside ZAR had a British majority (among the Whites) that lasts still today. It's a...

Natal is far away from minefields and it might most likely be butterflied away in such scenario. Goldmines would be well inside Dutch South Africa and British could very well participate on profits as much as they did in let's say South America, Persia or China.

I guess that would make an interesting ASB timeline as otherwise it would be absurd. More specifically about South America, why would they look to the US as a Rome instead of their former metropolises? Or better yet, local cultural and financial elite would see themselves as Rome, instead of a...

A very interesting scenario with so mamny ramifications to explore: - For how long Netherlands and Dutch Cape/South Africa would have been linked? - How far inland Dutch settlers would get? - How many Europeans would be living there, more or less than in OTL? - Provided butterflies remained...

Few years ago, I read somewhere that after WWII there were attempts to introduce Dutch language in the Congo in a way to appease Flemish feelings back home, as they were growing more assertive and challenging the Francophone dominance. Maybe some forumer could tell us more about it.