Consequences of Britain attempting to hold onto its empire, circa 1960?

Alright, I'm going to ask for a pretty big handwave here (though if someone can actually think of a realistic POD to make this happen, please do tell), and say that, sometime in the late 1950s to 1960s, the government of the United Kingdom commits to a policy of holding onto what remains of their empire, or at the very least the most strategically important bits and the settler colonies (Kenya, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, etc) for as long as they can. Essentially, they act like Portugal did in this regard.

How long could the UK keep the status quo? How badly would the United States react to such a policy? What would the more general international situation look like? Would there be any way to avert massive insurgencies, or would they be inevitable?
 
The British succeeded in dealing with insurgencies in Malaysia and Kenya post war.

If they adopt a policy of holding on to the bitter end I don't see why it's impossible in and of itself.

Problem is the US won't be happy and neither will the Soviets. Much less the local populations.

This might even lead to the US and Soviet Union supporting insurgencies against British held areas.

It wouldn't destroy relations with the US but it would make them far less warm
 
A lot more blood, first of all. Look at how they dealt with Kenya. It will be the same throughout the rest of the empire. Since OP says this will be circa 1960, decolonization is already underway so anti-colonial sentiment is probably widespread and independence movements exist throughout the remaining empire, so you can expect a lot of conflict. But if Britain insists on keeping its colonies, it's possible France would decide to do the same, and the Algerian war drags on. It's then possible to have Algeria and Britain's African colonies become France & Britain's Vietnam. It also puts the US in a difficult situation, they want to support independence movements in order to counter Soviet influence in those movements, but they can't as those movements are in violent conflict against their NATO allies. I think the colonies eventually will gain independence, after all the insurgencies drain British resources and public will to keep the empire. After that, a more Soviet-influenced Africa, that is much more bitter towards the west, is likely. There are probably upheavals in British domestic politics as well as a result. No carnation revolution, but the position of all those who supported continued colonialism will be greatly discredited.
 
Suez rather cut this off at the pass: the US would basically force Britain's hand, invoking economic pressure if need be.

It also makes the Northern Ireland situation significantly worse, since the entire argument for keeping it within the United Kingdom rests on the will of the majority population. If Britain is cheerfully ignoring majority will elsewhere, that argument collapses.
 
Suez rather cut this off at the pass: the US would basically force Britain's hand, invoking economic pressure if need be.

It also makes the Northern Ireland situation significantly worse, since the entire argument for keeping it within the United Kingdom rests on the will of the majority population. If Britain is cheerfully ignoring majority will elsewhere, that argument collapses.

Ulster is physically close enough and has been attached to Britian for so long though that, baring a change on the ground, I doubt you'll find that arguement internationally salient. N.I is, after all, a constituent part of the U.K with all the rights and privlages of being part of the parlamentry system. Its a core region.

No, what I think the biggest way this could bite them in the foot is when the Argies decide THEY want to name the Falkland islands, local resisdents be dammed. If Britian has alienated the US, USSR and many newly independent counteries, I can see the UN heavily weighing in on Argentina's side and demanding GB leave what everybody perceives as a colony halfway across the world.
 

Insider

Banned
I kind of doubt that Algierian war would drag on for much longer if the France had will to press on. The revolutionaries were military broken, but the war grown so unpopular in France, that they decided to let it go. Indeed colonial wars were won or lost in cafes of Paris and pubs of London more than they were lost or won on the ground. The rebelious youth killed in a riot mattered far more than some pacified villages at the other end of the world. However in proposed scenario the POD would be that both streets and salons London are more into keeping the colonies in the first place. This position maybe discredited with time, as you proposed but it would take some time before the public mood swings to the other side.
Suez rather cut this off at the pass: the US would basically force Britain's hand, invoking economic pressure if need be.
It also makes the Northern Ireland situation significantly worse, since the entire argument for keeping it within the United Kingdom rests on the will of the majority population. If Britain is cheerfully ignoring majority will elsewhere, that argument collapses.
And how long the US have intention of poking Britain with a stick before the Soviets notice a break in NATO and start using it?
Intersting point about Northen Ireland but I kind of fail to see why the British wouldn't use majority will as an argument. These are politics, if facts are with you, fine. If they are against you, than woe to facts.
 
Alright, I'm going to ask for a pretty big handwave here (though if someone can actually think of a realistic POD to make this happen, please do tell), and say that, sometime in the late 1950s to 1960s, the government of the United Kingdom commits to a policy of holding onto what remains of their empire, or at the very least the most strategically important bits and the settler colonies (Kenya, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, etc) for as long as they can. Essentially, they act like Portugal did in this regard.

How long could the UK keep the status quo? How badly would the United States react to such a policy? What would the more general international situation look like? Would there be any way to avert massive insurgencies, or would they be inevitable?
Massive economic and social problems. Retention of conscription. Huge military spending. Isolation for both the USA and most of Europe. US in Vietnam casualty levels but without any obvious purpose or end (think Virgin Soldiers and Teddy Bears' Picnic). Long delays to the return to prosperity seen in the 1950s as monies needed for investment are channelled to military spending and the US refuses to assist.

It would also be highly unpopular and would probably need an end to democracy in the UK to maintain for more than a decade or so. There's also probably be Soviet meddling within the UK, supporting opposition groups.
 
Suez is the PoD for Britain to retain a world leadership role, an event incidentally which was indirectly tied to the British initiative to form CENTO with herself as a leader.

But the Empire will have to change and CENTO is one of the sorts of things that it would change into.
 

Insider

Banned
Isolation for both the USA and most of Europe
USA, ok, I agree, but Europe? France would most likely be prompted to act similarly, holding on to Algieria and maybe rest of Africa. Spain was isolated by itself and still had grip on their colonies. Portugal was even more allied with UK. So what Europe? Ex-nazi Germany and Italy, that weren't fully trusted by anybody? All we are left with are Benelux and Scandinavia, hardly mowers and shakers of the world. And I purposefully left Warsaw Pact out, because they would sing to whatever tune Moscov would play. And I expect a kind of double think here. USSR would on one hand back socialists in UK, and create revolutionary groups to keep British busy, but on the other, they would back UK in UN quite often, just to drive a bigger wedge into NATO.
It would also be highly unpopular and would probably need an end to democracy in the UK to maintain for more than a decade or so. There's also probably be Soviet meddling within the UK, supporting opposition groups.
Like I mentioned, nobody like to see their sons and fathers return in the body bags. I think ten years is good benchmark to go from "general support" to "hate it enough to prefer to die in riots rather then on the frontline" but the question is... would there be next war like that, and when? It would have to be something big drawnout and bloody, because a swift and decisive war like Falklands, would only increase support for goverment policies. Moving on we could see the general policy holding for decades, untill there is a war that proves troublesome enough for UK.
 
Bankruptcy. One of the main reason the British, French, and others got into certain colonies was because of commercial interests already on the ground. After US independence the British found (after going through something like twenty times their annual income trying to put down the rebellion) that at least trade was going through well, the Americans took up the expenses and risks of pushing westward, etc. Heck, I believe that a majority of British investment before the World Wars were in the US, Dominions, and Latin America. Just good business.

Anyone got a good map of 1960? When I search on Google Image I mostly find alt-hist maps. Anyways, what status would these colonies have? Frozen in time? Breeding ground for revolutionaries as the land would just be used for exploitation. Not sure how the South Africans would feel about all of it or the Rhodesians. Either way, you need to deal with both of them, plus the Mandate of Tangykia, Egypt, and others to get that oh so glorious railroad intact. Gotta make concessions somewhere, especially dinse dominion hood, crown colonyhood, protectorate status, and other things were already passed out. How long will the Kingdoms of Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan last? Would their be some hostility to Israel to keep things on the good side of the Arabs? Ahh, this is why I need maps. I probably am mixing this up and this would be after the Suez Crisis and such.
 
The British succeeded in dealing with insurgencies in Malaysia and Kenya post war.
There is the trick. Leave while you have a strong hand and the people in charge like you, while following it up with their educated class going to the UK to study. They can take inspiration from IReland before it joined the UK. Personal union, their own parliament dominated by English/Scottish/British interests, and you get to decide who of the population gets to go to the UK. I am guessing this is all reactionary rather than neo-fascist though. I can see that sort pushing for Kenya to get Dominionhood or something under capitalized White Rule. I feel that, whatever happens, there will be butterflies with the Hutu and Tutsi, as one group were taller and apparently given more support by the British. The groups may have been more social than racial, though. Rather complicated.
 
USA, ok, I agree, but Europe? France would most likely be prompted to act similarly, holding on to Algieria and maybe rest of Africa. Spain was isolated by itself and still had grip on their colonies. Portugal was even more allied with UK. So what Europe? Ex-nazi Germany and Italy, that weren't fully trusted by anybody? All we are left with are Benelux and Scandinavia, hardly mowers and shakers of the world. And I purposefully left Warsaw Pact out, because they would sing to whatever tune Moscov would play. And I expect a kind of double think here. USSR would on one hand back socialists in UK, and create revolutionary groups to keep British busy, but on the other, they would back UK in UN quite often, just to drive a bigger wedge into NATO.
France certainly, they're likely to try (and fail) to hold onto their colonies. Portugal ditto. Both failed.
The rest of Europe includes Spain (little remaining), the Netherlands and Belgium (might try, would fail), Germany (becoming a powerhouse thanks to US aid), Italy et cetera.
Remember the UK was trying to join the EEC from 1961.

Like I mentioned, nobody like to see their sons and fathers return in the body bags. I think ten years is good benchmark to go from "general support" to "hate it enough to prefer to die in riots rather then on the frontline" but the question is... would there be next war like that, and when? It would have to be something big drawnout and bloody, because a swift and decisive war like Falklands, would only increase support for goverment policies. Moving on we could see the general policy holding for decades, untill there is a war that proves troublesome enough for UK.
So what is the UK trying to hold? India? That'd be a bloodbath. Nigeria? Palestine? Historically they lost there too. Malaya? The Trucial States? Fiji? Kenya? Gambia? Nyasaland? Sierra Leone? That's a lot of ground and bodies to try and control.
Guerilla wars tend to last years rather than weeks.
 

Insider

Banned
So what is the UK trying to hold? India? That'd be a bloodbath. Nigeria? Palestine? Historically they lost there too. Malaya? The Trucial States? Fiji? Kenya? Gambia? Nyasaland? Sierra Leone? That's a lot of ground and bodies to try and control.
Guerilla wars tend to last years rather than weeks.
I think India and Palestine were gone long before proposed POD. Retaking them would be separate scenario :D Malaya Emergency was textbook successful antiguerilla war. However it was done rather with allowing independent and friendly government to take over, rather than keeping it to ourselves. Would it be successful if GB played for keeps? I guess it would be still yes.
Kenya was already pacified right after proposed POD and the revolt would have to get outside help to arm themselves again. Places like Fiji and Trucial States could be easily pacified in turn. Gambia, SL and Nyasaland are harder but could be held with determined effort. Nigeria is big, offering both enough of revolutionaries and plenty of places to hide, and still under British flag. I had the scenario played out I would place my bets on this country being the end of British Empire.
 
Portugal could afford to live as a pariah state. It's people didn't vote and were basically ignorant of their own poverty.

In Britain, the voters demanded a high standard of living and integration with the world economy. The US could cut this, as they indeed threatened to do if they didn't back down during the Suez Crisis.

You need favourable conditions beyond just more willpower in the metropole.
 

RousseauX

Donor
There is the trick. Leave while you have a strong hand and the people in charge like you, while following it up with their educated class going to the UK to study. They can take inspiration from IReland before it joined the UK. Personal union, their own parliament dominated by English/Scottish/British interests, and you get to decide who of the population gets to go to the UK. I am guessing this is all reactionary rather than neo-fascist though. I can see that sort pushing for Kenya to get Dominionhood or something under capitalized White Rule. I feel that, whatever happens, there will be butterflies with the Hutu and Tutsi, as one group were taller and apparently given more support by the British. The groups may have been more social than racial, though. Rather complicated.
western educated natives in the colonies were at the forefront of post-war national liberation movements: sending people to study in the UK might have actually accelerates the process towards independence

Ghandi studied at King's college
 
I think people seem to misunderstand the nature of the British (as opposed to other European ) Empire, how it was governed and how that matters in terms of decolonisation or not. Unlike Algeria which was part of metropolitan France and therefore a constitutional crisis during decolonisation Britain tended to have indirect ruling arrangements through local rulers. Thus the option exists for Britain to change these arrangements and negotiate more appropriate ones in the 60s or thereabouts. I would suggest interconnected trade, currency and military ties which make good use of the dominions, like the 5 power defence agreement with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.

The biggest thing will be British military power to back it up, the British being able to change local defensive into offensive forces with a few aircraft squadron, armoured units and high end warships Without some muscle the British are no use to former colonies so won't retain any influence.
 
western educated natives in the colonies were at the forefront of post-war national liberation movements: sending people to study in the UK might have actually accelerates the process towards independence

Ghandi studied at King's college
So? Better peaceful people who want an arrangement either within the British system or with good relations with them instead of them going fascist, Maoist, Religious sectarian, Hindu nationalist, or something else. Occupying areas is expensive. That was why the British had native Indians and rulers do a lot of that for them. Whatever British government (as in parliamentary sort) decides to go full colonial eternalist would also probably be a little forceful in Europe, either against the Soviets, the common market, whatever. Speaking of which, the British won't exactly be in the best of places if all their factories cans mills can no longer sell to mainland Europe or the independent, anti-colonial countries. I expect boycotts and protective measures.
 
Top