Biggest British Empire possible after WWII.

I really didn't want to speak with Lee-Sensei anymore given he's been completely unreasonable and unwilling to give any evidence to back up his views,but I must say that by his definition,Bavaria and Japan must be American colonies after WWII!:D Saxony must be a British colony and the Rhineland must be a French one!
 
Last edited:
I really didn't want to speak with Lee-Sensei anymore given he's been completely unreasonable and unwilling to give any evidence to back up his views,but I must say that by his definition,Bavaria and Japan must be American colonies after WWII!:D Saxony must be a British colony and the Rhineland must be a French one!
No. That's your argument. You're the one that said wanting military protection means that they wanted to stay a colony represented by Europeans on the world stage. Not me. You still haven't answered my question, and I don't know about the others, but the American military bases are wildly unpopular in Japan from Hokkaido to Okinawa. You're not using good examples.
 
Last edited:
No. That's your argument. You're the one that said wanting military protection means that they wanted to stay a colony represented by Europeans on the world stage. Not me. You still haven't answered my question, and I don't know about the others, but the American military bases are wildly unpopular in Japan from Hokkaido to Okinawa. You're not using good examples.

I was under the impression that the US bases in Okinawa were very unpopiular with the Okinawans since they have about 1% of Japan's land area and about 30% of that is taken up by US bases. The bases are there because Japan wants the bases, but not in their backyard, so Okinawa gets shafted. IMHO most should be moved to Hokkaido, which has the most available land if I understand correctly.

The bases are desired by the government, because not having them would push Japan towards a bigger military and that would be unpopular in Japan and very unpopular with China and both Koreas.
 
No. That's your argument. You're the one that said wanting military protection means that they wanted to stay a colony represented by Europeans on the world stage. Not me. You still haven't answered my question, and I don't know about the others, but the American military bases are wildly unpopular in Japan from Hokkaido to Okinawa. You're not using good examples.
I've already given you quotations from experts who stated that the local rulers feared independence.What else do you want? You are being ludicrous here.

My point about Bavaria and Japan being US colonies by your definition is that you seems to indicate that any country that has been occupied by the US even for a short time is a colony by your definition.
 
I was under the impression that the US bases in Okinawa were very unpopiular with the Okinawans since they have about 1% of Japan's land area and about 30% of that is taken up by US bases. The bases are there because Japan wants the bases, but not in their backyard, so Okinawa gets shafted. IMHO most should be moved to Hokkaido, which has the most available land if I understand correctly.

The bases are desired by the government, because not having them would push Japan towards a bigger military and that would be unpopular in Japan and very unpopular with China and both Koreas.
The Okinawans hate them the most, but they're not the only ones. They're hated all over Japan, and a lot of Japanese people want a more active military. Many want to do away with Article 9 and become a dominant military power again.
 
I've already given you quotations from experts who stated that the local rulers feared independence.What else do you want? You are being ludicrous here.

My point about Bavaria and Japan being US colonies by your definition is that you seems to indicate that any country that has been occupied by the US even for a short time is a colony by your definition.
No. You. Didn't. You posted articles saying that they wanted to keep the British military there. Not that they wanted to remain a dominion of the British Empire. Now if you're going to respond, answer the question. Does the fact that South Koreans like having American military bases there mean that they want to be an American colony? Yes or no.
 

Lateknight

Banned
No. You. Didn't. You posted articles saying that they wanted to keep the British military there. Not that they wanted to remain a dominion of the British Empire. Now if you're going to respond, answer the question. Does the fact that South Koreans like having American military bases there mean that they want to be an American colony? Yes or no.

The UAE were never a Dominion they was a bunch of protectorates two totally different things.
 
No. You. Didn't. You posted articles saying that they wanted to keep the British military there. Not that they wanted to remain a dominion of the British Empire. Now if you're going to respond, answer the question. Does the fact that South Koreans like having American military bases there mean that they want to be an American colony? Yes or no.
I have already posted a quotation from an expert that stated that these guys "feared independence",stop being in denial. They want to remain a protectorate because by doing so,Britain will continue to protect them.Britain ain't gonna permanently station troops in a foreign independent country that far away in Europe even if they are paid the full cost.There's also the fact that they didn't want to face the consequences of Britain leaving where the Sheikhs will have to deal with each other directly.

Britain ain't the United States.It ain't a hegemonic power that tries to put a check on another rising power by stationing troops in a foreign country in the distant part of the world if it ain't part of it's territory.Besides that,Britain is only stationing troops in UAE because of the protectorate treaties.The US is stationing troops because of an alliance between equal nations.The contexts are totally different.
 
I have already posted a quotation from an expert that stated that these guys "feared independence",stop being in denial. They want to remain a protectorate because by doing so,Britain will continue to protect them.Britain ain't gonna permanently station troops in a foreign independent country that far away in Europe even if they are paid the full cost.There's also the fact that they didn't want to face the consequences of Britain leaving where the Sheikhs will have to deal with each other directly.

Britain ain't the United States.It ain't a hegemonic power that tries to put a check on another rising power by stationing troops in a foreign country in the distant part of the world if it ain't part of it's territory.Besides that,Britain is only stationing troops in UAE because of the protectorate treaties.The US is stationing troops because of an alliance between equal nations.The contexts are totally different.
1) Read you're own posts, please. It didn't say they feared independence. It said they feared the vulnerability that would come with being independent. There's a difference.

2) You've failed to provide evidence that the Arabs of the UAE loved their colonial masters so muxh that they were content to stay subjugated forever. Sorry.
 
I would say the places the British could realistically keep would be:

Easy ones:
Gibraltar - they've kept it so far
Malta - a big part of the population actually wanted to join the UK in the 60's
Hong Kong - There was no need to return it all to China (esp if they could figure out the water supply issue)
Most of the Caribbean - Many of smaller islands got independence relatively late, and with a decent representative system, could probably have been kept inside.

Tougher:
UAE - They wanted the British around until they realized they could pay for their own defense.
Belize - pretty much the same as the Caribbean, but with a more determined Nationalist movement.
Cyprus - The British stay as the only way of keeping the Greeks and Turks from tearing each other apart
Singapore - Chooses to stay British rather than get subsumed by Malaysia or picked off by Indonesia. Probably requires Lee Kwan Yew to be butterflied away.
Pacific Islands - similar to the Caribbean above.

Really tough:
Kenya - Enough white residents immigrate in the 40's through 60's to alter the balance a bit, make a strong case to stay as part of the Empire.
Parts of India - Say India becomes independent but breaks up into dozens of states. Its not hard to imagine some of them pursuing a closer relationship with the colonial power.

To add one of my own, Sarawak if Vyner hadn't basically sold his kingdom to the Foreign Office for a pension, contrary to the wishes of the islanders and his heirs.

As a slight commentary, Kenya is probably unlikely to stay within the British sphere, if it did it would basically become South Africa lite.

Though as a general question; are we talking formal empire here or just an enlarged version of the Commonwealth with Britain more obviously at the helm?
 

Sycamore

Banned
To add one of my own, Sarawak if Vyner hadn't basically sold his kingdom to the Foreign Office for a pension, contrary to the wishes of the islanders and his heirs.

As a slight commentary, Kenya is probably unlikely to stay within the British sphere, if it did it would basically become South Africa lite.

Though as a general question; are we talking formal empire here or just an enlarged version of the Commonwealth with Britain more obviously at the helm?

Or, for Kenya, it'd become African Hong Kong/Sarawak (consisting of the Protectorate of Kenya, a ten-mile coastal strip together with certain islands, which had been ceded in perpetuity to the British by the Sultan of Zanzibar. Would it still be called Kenya ITTL, or would it be the Mombasa Territory?).
 
But, the way of this site is paying attention to evidence. How often do I have to keep reposting this:

But, or UAE could be independent, and get US arms and influence a superpower with their cash (OTL). It's seeming a tad obvious which way that'd go. And the rest of your empire.

Your empire loved Britain so much they were totally contrary - mostly dictator and often Soviet for the next half-century-ish after freedom. Yes, our ex-empire, for the same reason.

And how superior and perfect was starving Ireland and India?
 
Top