First post here after much lurking. I'm considering a TL focusing on Britain, specifically aiming to make the country a greater global power and examine the consequences of the decisions to get it there. While many see strengthening Britain as keeping the Empire, I believe most of it should have been dropped ASAP to save money, maybe with smaller colonies like Malta and the current BOT islands integrated. Therefore, is there any conceivable POD to allow Britain to decolonise near-completely in the 50s or earlier, what would this look like and what do you think the effects would be.
ACH/WI Britain decolonises faster
- Thread starter Mynock
- Start date
I think there was a timeline on here by a poster called 'theirishdreamer' about something different happening with regard to Ireland in the early part of the twentieth century, which resulted in a different direction being taken by the British Empire. The poster was banned, mid-timeline, for something unrelated to the timeline, unfortunately, so it never got finished here.
The thread title had the words 'four courts' in it, I think.
Certain pressures could have forced an earlier breakup of the British Empire. IMO, the biggest monkey wrench in the empire's plans post-WW2 could have been an unpartitioned India.
In what way specifically. Would it be that the internal conflicts would drain British resources or would a united India be able to oppose British imperialism on the global stage? Or neither of the above.
No, it wouldn't. United India train has long since departed. Jinnah's Muslim League was too deep in high-stale bluffing round with Congress. And Congress was so eager to seize India's government and military apparatus to solidify their power that even loss of Pakistan was deemed an acceptable sacrifice.
Fair enough. Indian history isn't exactly my speciality so any moves in that direction are generally stabs in the dark. Do you have any ideas apropos the main question of the thread?
Deleted member 140587
Hard to see Britain decolonizing faster than it did - within thirty years Britain had gone from ruling India and half of Africa to dropping nearly all of it's imperial commitments. And the plan was for Britain to stay on longer until Suez convinced the political establishment that staying on to build up colonial governments wasn't worth the cost. I suppose if you could make Attlee a little more anti-Empire you could see a faster run down of the Empire in the Forties (there were plans to pull out East of Suez by 1948 or so but they were shelved) but Attlee and the Labour Right (which, like it or not, he was part of) were quite pro-Empire and they didn't want to drop it.
The latter, i'd argue. An united India could have easily become an economic behemoth, dominating neighboring countries around the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia and potentially displacing what British influence remained in the area.
I haven't heard of the plans to withdraw from East of Suez in 1948, but I think that could be an interesting angle to go down. The Mau Mau Uprising and Malayan Emergency were fairly large resource sink and the avoidance of them would probably help the British economy. The POD would probably have to be rather large though to overcome the Labour Right. However, if Labour contemplated withdrawal in 1948 perhaps a 50s Labour government would follow through (especially if the Labour Right lost control, say if Bevan succeeded Attlee sometime 1951 onwards).
I would guess that a united India would likely remain truly neutral during the Cold War, and if India followed a moderate economic policy I suppose we may see a situation with India stretching their regional power projection muscles much like China does today.
Riain
Banned
Even after the Suez debacle Britain was still interested in being a world power; the whole CVA01-TSR2-F111K- 1975 withdrawal-1971 withdrawal debacle was because the East of Suez commitment was politically popular and Mac was trying to balance meeting these commitments at lower cost while trying to avoid devaluation of the Pound. If the economic circumstances were even a bit more favourable, or other decisions had been made then the British could still have had a reasonably strong presence East of Suez almost to 1980.
I struggle to see Britain decolonising faster when this was the political view after Suez.
I struggle to see Britain decolonising faster when this was the political view after Suez.
It might want/try to but the threat from the north and east might drive it towards US support and it would want to buy aircraft/wepons from none Russian/Chinese sources etc....
Ok, what about retaining say Malta, Mauritius, Indian Ocean and Pacific military bases and so on but ditching the African and Asian Empire. This would retain enough bases to make the RN a truly global power and stay East of Suez but still cut costs a fair bit. If that makes any sense at all.
I suppose thats probably more likely. It could be interesting if, butterflies permitting, Nixon going to China allows Breznhev to go to India and a little switch up occurring.
Deleted member 140587
What you're saying makes sense but if you want to do it you need to drop Iain Macleod as Colonial Secretary. Britain could've held on to key choke points in world trade (Malta, her territories in the Persian Gulf, etc.) but Macleod (and to a greater extent the political establishment) thought it wasn't worth it. If Britain had held on her territories in the Gulf (the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain), Malta, Cyprus, and Singapore (also perhaps Brunei) the Royal Navy would be well positioned as a global power
I could definatly see Britain remaining in control of gulf protectorates, it almost integrated Malta OTL so thay shouldn't be too hard. I have though about Singapore but getting them in favour of British rule is something I'm not sure about. I couldn't comment on Cyprus.
The vague idea of my TL sees Britain abandon all of India, Malaya and Africa in the mid-50s but hold on to the Middle East, Malta and somehow keeping some measure of control over the Suez (and possibly Singapore, I hadn't considered it before you mention it).
We could jettison Macleod but I don't know if anyone else in the Conservatives or Labour had this view. Maybe a Labour win in '51, Attlee replaced by a pro-decolonisation PM and a pull out of Africa and Malaya but retaining protectorates and integrating smaller colonies?
Deleted member 140587
I like the way you think. Attlee wins in 1951 (or just gets a sizable enough majority in 1950 that he doesn't have to call another election) and steps down in 1955 in favor of Hugh Gaitskell. Gaitskell decolonizes Africa at a similar rate to OTL but is able to act on the 1956 Malta integration referendum and give them seats in Parliament. Follow down that road and you could probably see Parliament seats for Gibraltar, Singapore, and some Caribbean colonies (the Bahamas, Jamaica, etc.). As for Suez, when Nasser nationalizes it, Gaitskell protests but in the end just pays up (like I said Suez killed this). You could also see Northern Borneo stay British (or alternatively just hold onto Brunei past 1984).
However, there is no way Malaya and Africa get decolonized in the 1950s (successfully, I mean). Britain's African colonies were able to succeed in part to due to the tradition of law and good government in the British Empire and due to the fact that Britain invested in training government officials to take over when they left (and they left before they were fully done training them due to pressure to decolonize). If Britain pulled out of Africa in the Fifties, you'd see more failed states in Africa. Similarly, if you pull out of Malaya it either gets took over by the Communists or by Sukarno.
I could see Attlee stepping down in 1953-ish if he could guarantee Morrison losing the leadership election. Also a transfer from Attlee to Gaitskell while in power would likely cement the Labour Right as the dominant half of the party and hopefully avoid a lot of statism that came later as well as possibly allowing the union issue to be dealt with earlier via the industrial democracy which seemed popular in '50s Labour which would likely lead to a stronger Britain economically. If the economy holds up I see Labour lasting until 1960/1961 where they are likely defeated heavily after 15/16 straight years in government.
In terms of the colonial issue, I don't know the specifics of Labour's policies. Would larger federal colonies like Rhodesia and Nyasaland or East Africa go ahead, with a Labour commitment to majority rule (unlikely but I've always had a soft spot for an East African Federation)? Perhaps a stronger Commonwealth as Labour became the anti-EEC pro-Commonwealth party?
IIRC the Gulf territories were so anxious about Britain pulling out that they offered to pay for British forces to stay - Britain still refused, as by then it wanted out of the Empire game.