Colonial Empires in a no WW2 TL

Simply question if for some unspecified reason WW2 did not occur what would happen to the European colonial empires. In particular I'm looking for what would happen to smaller countries like Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgiums colonies.
 
Danish colonies? You sure? :p

There were several colonies that were already unsustainable by the start of the war - India, of course, and by implication Burma; Vietnam; Palestine and Syria; and pseudo-colonies of Iraq and Iran; Egypt; Algeria...

You're going to see these colonies striving to assert their independence, and that sets the ball rolling. The European countries have quite a bit more vitality in them, of course, but India is going, and Vietnam is, well, Vietnam. It's possibly, though, that we see much slower and messier exits with the colonial powers struggling against Soviet-backed independence movements.

Belgium... once African countries start going independent, and the situations in Algeria, Egypt (hence Sudan), South Africa, Kenya can't last, then the Congolese are going to start moving in the same direction. I doubt little Belgium is really going to start a war of national occupation against a country so many times its size, but they will try and prop up a firenly regime(s), against possibley Soviet meddling.

The Netherlands exit fron Indonesia, without the occupation, might be more messy or less, perhaps leave several states... I really don't know.

It bears remembering that the US is likely to be pretty strongly anti-colonial in such a TL.
 
Italian Libya and at least the coastal strip of French Algiera are going to be majority European.

Libya is just about doable - Egypt is going to return to the hands of the Egyptians at some point, and won't like an Italian border - but why Algeria? French migration was neither huge nor getting any bigger by that point, and the existing settlers were farmers, scattered across the fertile bits - they had no reason to stick to the coast, and the coast was, like everywhere, majority-Muslim.
 
The big thing is how much maintaining colonies depended on the Colonisers reputation and prestige. Without World War II, their true weakness won't be exposed, and so they will have very substantially less troubles. Partially this is because there will simply be less desire for independence. The colonial powers only real contribution to their colonies were securoty, and inWW II they were shown up as being unable to provide even that.

Looking at south east Asia, I think Malaya will hang around as a British colony for quite a long time, Sarawak will be made a democratic constitutional monarchy by the White Rajah, and the rest of British Borneo will stay a colony.

I think the French are quite secure in Indochina for a long time as well. The compromises the colonial made during the Japanese occupation fatally undermined it, so absent that, things will be quite different. Similarly in the NEI (there will never be an Indonesia), without the Japanese essentially creating and arming the independence army, then it will remain secure for a long time.

India is a special case, but depending on how its independence is managed, then the rest of the British colonies are still just about sustainable, which will be greatly helped if they manage to keep India in the sterling zone and leave a non-autarchic government behind them. It is worth noting that if the PoD averts the rise of Germany as a threat, then the anti-Indian independence movement within the Conservative party will be weakened as a consequence, so the Government of India Act 1935 may well be more conciliatory, and have a commitment to Dominion status.
 
With regards to the dutch colonies, I would say java and sumatra gain independence seperately the rest of the east- indies stays with the netherlands longer until they feel they can stand on their own.

As for suriname there is a bigger chance that it actually will become an independant region within the kingdom (more like how french guiana is now).

Depending the developments, something like that might even happen to some of the remaining east-indies areas.
 
Last edited:
The big question to me is how is there no WW2?
Were there no WW2 against Hitler I think its pretty likely there would have instead been a WW2 against Stalin. There nearly was over Finland even with Germany to deal with.
Is there a Soviet Union? Is it as powerful as it was post war IOTL? As communist groups could seriously mess up the decolonisation process.

For the UK at least slower and better organised decolonisation generally I'd see. With a tighter commonwealth at the end of it.
Colonies steadily given more and more autonomy and weaned into independance as democracies with decent economies rather than suddenly just being dropped in it in the 60s.

India might get it a few years earlier, Indian independance was already well on its way in the 30s contrary to the myth that a WW2 weakened Britain 'lost it'. Though more likely I'd think it gets its independance around the same time only far far better organised. If there is a partition (hope not, could be though) it's less of a humanitarian disaster than OTL- it will still likely be ugly, mass movements of people generally are, but hopefully it can have some British organisation around it to keep some sanity.

One potentially iffy thing I could see though is that in a Naziless world eugenics wouldn't be so easily discredited as it was IOTL. It's never going to go to the level of 'Blacks are scientifically proven to be inferior therefore its OK to treat them like shit' but there could well be some messed up and unintentionally harmful thinking nonetheless.
 
I doubt you'll see outright independence without WWII. That isn't to say that there won't be Independence Movements in various territories, but without the war to make the European colonizers weaker, the various territories are going to have to settle for something less.
 
As I often say, a *WW2 against Stalin is very unlikely. The man was paranoid, paranoid, paranoid. He was convinced that the capitalist powers could and would gang up and crush him and was constantly trying to avoid this and divide them. Invading a cordon country would be a good way to unite them.

He invaded Finland because of the M-R Pact, and the pact happened because, having been rebuffed after multiple attempts to split his rivals by allying with the Entente, he decided to temporarily back Germany instead. If Germany isn't stearing head-first towards conflict with the Entente, the Pact is never signed, and its unlikely that any Red Army men ever set foot in Finland.

(Actually, it seems to me that, as paranoid as Stalin was, the best way to get the "Red Alert scenario" is probably from the other side. Poland was not always completely rational in the interbellum. Nor was Britain.)

And that said, an undevestated USSR not locked in an extraterrestrial willy-waving contest with the USA is going to have a lot of resources to put towards anti-colonial movements.

The idea that no war necessarily means decolonialisation will be orderly, careful, and well-timed doesn't hold much water for me. India, for instance, is going as we all agree - but whereas Partition could certainly be better or not happen at all, one can also very easily imagine it being worse. Nehru basically shut down Hindu nationalism after Gandhi was assasinated. What if, in a happy-shiny Dominion of India, sectarian factions had continued to gain influence, unpopular princes had remained on their thrones, the Soviets had been around to stir everything up, and then, for dramatic irony, a Muslim or a commie were to assassinate Gandhi?

(I am shamelessly stealing my ideas from EdT. Again.)

The very fact that Burmese and Vietnamese independence forces were able to pursue their own agenda during the war indicates to me that there moment had come - especially with Soviet support available. Once violence has begun, one has to beat the Soviet-supported factions before leaving or you get a pro-Soviet state - does more vitality among the colonial powers just mean a whole series of *Vietnams?

And take, say, Kenya. Just because Britain is stronger doesn't mean its better able to satisfy the land problems of the Kikuyu. Problems like that can't simply be shot or spent out of existence.

I'm not saying have to be worse. They could very well be better. But let's not imagine they necessarily have to be either: the probability is that, as usual, it'll be better for some colonies, worse for others. And even that's a generalisation.
 
Last edited:
As I often say, a "WW2" against Stalin is very unliley. The man was paranoid, paranois, paranoid. He was convinced that the capitalist powers could and would gang up and crush him and was constantly trying to avoid this and divide them. Invading a cordon country would be a good way to unite them.

He invaded Finland because of the M-R Pact, and the pact happened because, having been rebuffed after ,ultiple attempts to split his rivals by allying with the Entente, he decided to temporarily back Germany instead. If Germany isn't stearing head-first towards conflict with the Entente, the Pact is never signed, and its unlikely that any Red Army men ever set foot in Finland.

(Actually, it seems to me that, as paranoid as Stalin was, the best way to get the "Red Alert scenario" is probably from the other side. Poland was not always completely rational in the interbellum. Nor was Britain.)
True, it wouldn't happen as it nearly did IOTL. But still, as you say the Poles were rather nazis-lite and the Soviets were certainly looking to expand albeit carefully.
I'd think sooner or later a conflict would emerge.

And that said, an undevestated USSR not locked in an extraterrestrial willy-waving contest with the USA is going to have a lot of resources to put towards anti-colonial movements.
Its quite a rump USSR here, they miss out on their war time aquisitions, both their small (but rich) annexations and their European empire.
It'd still be a threat of course, its Russia, Russia does have a relatively large population, an awkward geographic position and a lot of land and resources. But it wouldn't be anywhere near the same level of super-powerdom as OTL. Consider too the soviets couldn't push their luck. In this world we'll have aircraft continuing to develop but nukes well behind schedule....With no risk of the end of civilization and European powers still feeling confident about their strength the slightest bit of evidence for Russians supporting terrorists could lead to something rather messy.

Things could be different in other colonial empires but I don't see the communists being much worse in most of the British empire than IOTL.
Remember, the soviets weren't all about decolonisation and the removal of imperialism though that was what they liked to disguise things as, they were all about the extension of their imperialism. In Malaya and the like it wasn't the people vs. the occupiers, it was the democracy supporting groups (and the Europeans) vs. the socialist regime supporting groups.

I'm not saying have to be worse. They could very well be better. But let's not imagine they necessarily have to be either: the probability is that, as usual, it'll be better for some colonies, worse for others. And even that's a generalisation.
True. But then if we're just going to say that why bother with alternate history at all. Anything happening different could result in any of a number of things happening :p



Something completely forgotten up to now which has just come to me- East Asia.
You've still got the empire of Japan sitting on Korea...they're not going to go quietly at all...A possible flashpoint for a war with the Soviets supporting communist groups? Possible future Japan vs. the west war? It seems to me like the French in Algeria if the French were total hardliners...Or would forward looking democrats eventually win out in Japanese politics and eventually spin Korea off as a dominion or independant country?
What about Japan in China? Are they getting involved at all or staying out since we're supposing no WW2?
No Japanese invasion, no war, no Soviets seizing Manchuria=no PRC? Instead the nationalists win out and Mao and co are crushed?



I wonder too...how would European politics go? This is the deciding factor for what happens abroad, what happens at home.
We're assuming a much further left Europe from the get-go with no Nazis but what about in Britain and France? Anti-military ideas could still be rather strong, the Great War continuing to be regarded as the war to end all wars. No upsurge in nationalism due to the war and occupations...Things could well go a bit better for European socialists. Or would the lack of a need for rebuilding and less inpoverished people reduce their support overall?
 
Last edited:
Top