All colonial powers fight to the bitter end AHC

So Britain pulled back from its colonies in rather good order. France fought two fierce wars and lost. Portugal held on to its colonies until domestic revolution and a final withdrawal. Spain withdrew partially from North Africa.

What if instead of the Europeans retreating in good order with the French and Portuguese still fighting on what if all of them locked down de-colonization movements and sought to hold to their colonies as long as possible, however possible, whatever the casualties?

Imagine guerilla wars from Indonesia to the Atlantic coast of the Sahara. Millions upon millions dead in India, the French and Portuguese loosing everything to stem the tide of revolution in Africa.

In more succinct terms make the decolonization of the Middle East, Africa, and east and Southeast Asia as bloody, traumatizing, and drawn out as possible.

Could the Europeans hold on to their colonies till the present day if they weren't squeamish about the methods used to hold them? Would large parts of the world turn communist as a result of this?

Thoughts?
 
Look at Vietnam or Algeria for a template of what would happen. France was willing to fight to maintain a hold on Indochina and Algeria managed to reclaim most cities using modern tactics and got bogged down by guerillas who gained popular support with every atrocity French troops commited. Everywhere they fought for their Empire, European troops defeated the insurgent/freedom fighters they faced in regular combat, only to be dragged in a hopeless, vicious and costly guerilla.
 
Look at Vietnam or Algeria for a template of what would happen. France was willing to fight to maintain a hold on Indochina and Algeria managed to reclaim most cities using modern tactics and got bogged down by guerillas who gained popular support with every atrocity French troops commited. Everywhere they fought for their Empire, European troops defeated the insurgent/freedom fighters they faced in regular combat, only to be dragged in a hopeless, vicious and costly guerilla.
Could the british have similar results in India and the Dutch in Indonesia? How long would these insurgencies last?

How would this affect the post-colonial world? Even if say the last British troops leave India in 2000 and the last French troops leave Niger in 2005.

I mean can you have a situation where there is lasting animosity between the first and third worlds? Could Africa's growth be permanently stunted? Could India be left scarred until the 22nd century?
 
Look at Vietnam or Algeria for a template of what would happen. France was willing to fight to maintain a hold on Indochina and Algeria managed to reclaim most cities using modern tactics and got bogged down by guerillas who gained popular support with every atrocity French troops commited. Everywhere they fought for their Empire, European troops defeated the insurgent/freedom fighters they faced in regular combat, only to be dragged in a hopeless, vicious and costly guerilla.
Guerillas typically only win when they receive foreign support or the conventional enemy decides to leave. The Penninsular War was won by British support and French conflicts elsewhere in Europe eating up resources, to use one example.

Post-War Europe did not have the political or economic willpower to force themselves to maintain rule in all their colonies. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola, Spanish Morrocco, and maybe Italian Libya are the best candidates to stay European in my opinion, however, I think you need to butterfly WWII or at least most of the damage. If you get rid of the Soviet Union too, either before or after WWII I think the retention of colonialism becomes far more likely. WWII ended colonialism by setting up an idealogical base that logically demanded colonial indepedence aswell as sucking up European resources.

No WWII and this becomes interesting. Without WWII I think you'd see more Europeans wanting to hold on to colonies and more africans/indians etc. willing to remain colonies. This could have some important effects. Eventually limited home rule is a necessity but limited autonomy is obviously acceptable to the Europeans with the possible exception of Portugal.
 
The point of a guerilla, a fight against an enemy with superior firepower, is usually to make a war more costly than your opponent is willing to pay. Nobody is willing to spend billions on keeping an insigigicant piece of desert or jungle French or English. I agree with Thezerech that WW2 sped up the process.
 
The point of a guerilla, a fight against an enemy with superior firepower, is usually to make a war more costly than your opponent is willing to pay. Nobody is willing to spend billions on keeping an insigigicant piece of desert or jungle French or English. I agree with Thezerech that WW2 sped up the process.
Why not spend those billions because of pride, nostalgia, fear, or for glory?
 
Could the british have similar results in India and the Dutch in Indonesia? How long would these insurgencies last?

The Dutch fought an insurrection in Indonesia, euphemistically called Policing Actions. This included niceties as mass execution to 'pacify' areas. The Netherlands resigbed themselves to Indonesian independence, not being able to pay either the financial or political costs the campaign would bring. A Netherlands willing to keep on fighting would have isolated itself from the US (proponent of Indonesian independence because they feared a communist takeover if the fight continued) and would have drained the devastated Netherlands of income that could be used to rebuilt it after occupation.
 
Could they have held more than they did OTL? Likely. But, well, remember that the European nations were also shedding colonies as fast as possible. Otherwise, it wouldn't be unlikely that Senegal, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo could remain as French overseas departments, for example. (although, that isn't necessarily that they all would. I just remember support being high there).

In the end, the political willpower is the most important component, along with being economically strong and not being interferred with, majorly, by strong ideological opponents. Without WW2, as pointed out above, both the Soviets and the US would be weaker on a global stage.
 
Why couldn't the Europeans do everything and anything to hold onto to the colonies? Spend the next forty years after WW2 fighting one brutal bitter insurgency after another.

I guess what I am asking for is to make European resistance to decolonization as strong as possible, for as long as possible, and to be as bloody and traumatic as possible.

With a POD after 1945.
 
Wouldn't it be interesting if the US and the USSR both supported various rebel forces throughout the third world maybe even have CIA and KGB agents running into one another training guerillas.
 
Why spend the blood and money? Like what has been said, butterfly away WW2 and you could be able to have the colonial empires last longer. If the US and the USSR have less ability to support insurgents or apply economic pressure on the war torn European nations.
 
Guerillas typically only win when they receive foreign support or the conventional enemy decides to leave. The Penninsular War was won by British support and French conflicts elsewhere in Europe eating up resources, to use one example.

Post-War Europe did not have the political or economic willpower to force themselves to maintain rule in all their colonies. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola, Spanish Morrocco, and maybe Italian Libya are the best candidates to stay European in my opinion, however, I think you need to butterfly WWII or at least most of the damage. If you get rid of the Soviet Union too, either before or after WWII I think the retention of colonialism becomes far more likely. WWII ended colonialism by setting up an idealogical base that logically demanded colonial indepedence aswell as sucking up European resources.

No WWII and this becomes interesting. Without WWII I think you'd see more Europeans wanting to hold on to colonies and more africans/indians etc. willing to remain colonies. This could have some important effects. Eventually limited home rule is a necessity but limited autonomy is obviously acceptable to the Europeans with the possible exception of Portugal.

South Africa was an independent state, and had the same status as Australia or Canada. They weren't controlled by a European power.
 
Could the British hold India like the French held in Algeria or Vietnam?
Vietnam in the end was a conventionally lost recolonization war.
The Algerian war was military won by the time the French pulled out. The guerillas had been crushed mostly, and the French government could have decided to keep the coastal bits.
Could they have held more than they did OTL? Likely. But, well, remember that the European nations were also shedding colonies as fast as possible. Otherwise, it wouldn't be unlikely that Senegal, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo could remain as French overseas departments, for example. (although, that isn't necessarily that they all would. I just remember support being high there).

In the end, the political willpower is the most important component, along with being economically strong and not being interferred with, majorly, by strong ideological opponents. Without WW2, as pointed out above, both the Soviets and the US would be weaker on a global stage.
The only French colony (by opposition to Algeria, which was considered as French as Corsica) that voted for immediate independence in 1959 was Guinea. There was a large amount of support amongst local elites in French West and Equatorial Africa to association with France if not outright Frenchness.
Assuming that, and considering France still has chunks of its First Colonial Empire (the DROM sans Mayotte) and its Second (Mayotte, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis-et-Futuna, the Kerguelens, Terre-Adélie), it is likely decolonization would have been less complete by quite a bit.
 
Lots more communism in the world that's for sure. Far stronger Soviet bloc and eventually far stronger China too.

This might be the only way to make Britain fight for India. If the independence movement is somehow changed to be a Communist insurgency. You're also more likely to be able to carry on the divide and rule game if you're going up against Godless communists. Also you'd get at least tacit American support if you can delay it getting brutal until the 50s.
 
With a post 1945 POD I dont see America letting its allies destroy themselfs in pointless colonial wars. Especially dont see them aiding the potentially communist liberation movements.
 

Archibald

Banned
France actually won the Algerian war on a military basis (by 1957-58 the FLN was utterly crushed), but lost on (internal) political grounds. The Algerian war threatened France political stability and made the possibility of a military coup likely. Once De Gaulle in power the Algerian war will be over sooner or later.

Before May 1958 however there is a real possibility that France win the Algerian war only to collapse into civil war or (more likely) military junta.
Once the military junta in place, political stability will be achieved (by getting ride of the 4rth republic insane instability) and the military will have a free hand to keep the entire Algeria as a French colony / department.
As mentionned above it would be an sickening bloodbath. La gégène was the familiar name of torture by electricity and it was widely used in 1957-58 when crushing the FLN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_War_of_Independence
Of course an entire generation of French conscripts would be utterly traumatized, with all the social issues it entails (Vietnam vets).

You should try and get this 2007 movie to see how gruesome it might be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_Enemies_(2007_film)

Make no mistake, there was also barbaria on the side of the FLN. they did things like cutting testicles of dead soldiers, then putting the testicles into the mouth, and then cutting the head and placing the head on a pike.

If you think Vietnam and My Lai were gruesome, be reminded that the Algerian war was even more brutal.
 
Last edited:
Top