Before WW2 most of the world was ruled by European Empires. But WW2 bankrupted those empires. Britain could no longer afford to occupy India so it was given Independence. Netherlands was forced give independence to Indonesia and Britain was forced to give up Suez canal because of economic pressure from America whose assistance was needed in reconstruction from WW2. USSR supported various anti colonial movements in Southeast Asia and Africa leading to their independence. But What if Soviet Union never existed and WW2 never happened ? POD is that Hitler,Lenin,Trotsky,Stalin,Mussolini killed before WW1. So the Bolshevik revolution never happens and Democratic Socialists win the Russian civil war redistributing farms to peasants but they only control ethnically Russian regions. No CCP either. Fascism never comes to power in Europe. So no WW2.
Decolonisation without WW2 and Soviet Union
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Not sure how plausible it is kill all of them at same time. And it is not even necessary. You just need kill Lenin so no Soviet Union and nor rise of fascism. And even if you have Soviet Union you can still avoid WW2. USSR wasn't going bother with decolonialisation without Cold War.
But whatever, without Soviet Union and WW2 or even without WW2 decolonisation would still happen altough not in same degree. For example India was already going to be independent no matter what. And the Netherlands would eventually lost Indonesia. Dutch just can't keep the islands endlessly. But without WW2 decolonisation would be bit slower and not in such degree as in OTL. So European powers can keep more territories outside Europe.
But whatever, without Soviet Union and WW2 or even without WW2 decolonisation would still happen altough not in same degree. For example India was already going to be independent no matter what. And the Netherlands would eventually lost Indonesia. Dutch just can't keep the islands endlessly. But without WW2 decolonisation would be bit slower and not in such degree as in OTL. So European powers can keep more territories outside Europe.
It's hard to tell how it would have gone. There's too much factors and butterflies to begin with.
What is certain is decolonization would happen. It was bound to happen as eventually the European colonies would realize holding on to colonies in the 20th Century is a waste of resources. It's no longer the Age of Exploration. It's the start of what historians call "modern history" which would mean what was done in the past is no longer applicable.
Without the Soviet Union (and by extension, the PRC), that would mean there won't be communist revolutionaries or insurgencies in these European colonies.
The U.S. will still give up the Philippines at some point.
What is certain is decolonization would happen. It was bound to happen as eventually the European colonies would realize holding on to colonies in the 20th Century is a waste of resources. It's no longer the Age of Exploration. It's the start of what historians call "modern history" which would mean what was done in the past is no longer applicable.
Without the Soviet Union (and by extension, the PRC), that would mean there won't be communist revolutionaries or insurgencies in these European colonies.
The U.S. will still give up the Philippines at some point.
The rise of fascism is not dependent on the Soviet Union, it was a reaction by conservatives/far-right movements against the growing threat of the communists/socialists post-WW1 which would still happen, USSR or no USSR, except for Hungary.
Communism would be ITTL much weaker. And speciality nazis benefitted from existence of USSR. But this is not really relevant thing anyway. You can butterfly whole WW2 pretty easily anyway.
You explain the popularity of the SKPD in the existence of the USSR? Or the funding that Hitler got from people who sympathized with him would be gone if the USSR doesn't exist?
Garrison
Donor
The British were already planning for greater Indian autonomy and a move to Dominion status, so no that isn't what happened.
No USSR just changes the ideology of the rebels in the global south the russians fund. In TTL they'd just fund local nationalists instead of communism. So yeah no change there.
no WWII? Yeah, that's significant for decolonization. Probably 5-15 year delay depending on specific country for asian decolonization. At least a generation as far as african decolonization goes.
no WWII? Yeah, that's significant for decolonization. Probably 5-15 year delay depending on specific country for asian decolonization. At least a generation as far as african decolonization goes.
By definition there isn't RCW without the Bolsheviks. And how was the Russians state limited to ethnical Russia? CA has very few changes of breaking away, like other regions, and the Provisional Government controlled several non-Russian land, just as the Bolsheviks did.
No World War II probably only delays decolonization by ten years if even that. Multiple colonies (India, Philippines, Syria, Egypt) had been promised greater autonomy and/or home rule, and if the Europeans try to recind they'll face uprisings, which will only get more numerous and harder to put down as the demographic imbalance between the colonies and the metropole grows. If the Europeans honor their commitments others will demand the same, and the empires dissolve relatively peacefully. World War I had shown the cracks in the colonial regimes; World War II was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.
Most of Africa would too gain indpendence. Colonies were mostly just money sinks without real profits. And there would be still anti-colonial movements around. But some coastal colonies like Libya, Eritrea, Djibouti and Gabon are held. And if Portugal has more luck it could keep good chunk of Angola and Mozambique.
Even if what you say is true, how does that contradict what I've said?
How could you not understand that ? Soviet union propped up communist movement across the world which wouldn't exist without it.
Not pre-WW2, Stalin was extremely careful not to provoke anyone, the USSR was recognized as the leader of the communists but under Stalin they really didn't care about that. It doesn't change much in internal German politics whether the Soviets exist or not.
Face it ! KPD was Stalin puppet and it's violence was the reason why Hitler came to power
I have read somewhere that even in the 1940s and 50s, the British assumption about decolonisation was that its African colonies at least, would be ready for independence, or more accurately, Dominion Status, by the 1980s given the rate of infrastructure and civil society development ongoing at that time. Obviously it actually happened at a more accelerated rate, but i think it is possible that such a timescale would be more probable without the disruption of WW2.
India is probably still going to go independent relatively soon, perhaps in the mid 50s rather than the mid 40s.
India is probably still going to go independent relatively soon, perhaps in the mid 50s rather than the mid 40s.
Last edited:
Violence? You're seriously arguing that the KPD was the most violent of the two?
Hitler came to power since he managed to use Weimar's weaknesses and thanks to the support of right-wing sympathizers, I don't see how the USSR changes that.
The USSR was the leader of the communist world but it didn't control the communist parties completely (look at the CCP).
At the risk of derailing the thread. The whole point of fascism is violence and being good at violence. So yes it was more violent but it needed to be legitimised by an atmosphere in which political violence and government overthrow was normalised and the KPD definitely helped usher that in.