Decolonization during the 1920s and 1930s

Anyway you could get Decolonization during the 1920s and 1930s for the larger colonies.

What colonies could get independence

Would this require a more brutal World war 1

What would be the impact on World War 2
 
It surely would require very bad WW1. OTL decolonisarion was pretty much earliest possible. India and Indochina could get independence in 1930's but it would be pretty hard. And India probably would be still dominion while.
 
Successful independence movements this early could require multiple PODs in the 19th century. Decolonization happened in India when it did because an earlier Anglo-phile elite that pushed for equal rights with the Empire's white subjects had been exhausted/discredited, and there was a substantial university-educated elite that had brought home European ideas about nationalism.

By the '20s and '30s, the Russo-Japanese war and Italo-Ethiopian wars had broken the initial cracks in the idea of white military supremacy, but struggling for independence (military or otherwise) was still hard to imagine without the humiliating Japanese defeats of the Europeans in SE Asia, and the exhaustion of Britain and France.

The Democratic Republic of Congo experienced the horrendous post-independence history that it did OTL because a country of 15 million people had about 15 people with a college education. India experienced a relatively stable history after independence because there was a well-developed Indian civil service available to continue running the country after independence, and the Congress party believed in the rule of law. Nehruvian socialism and the license Raj may have held back economic development for decades, but at least Nehru and his successors believed in democracy.

Independence in the '20s or '30s would probably leave most new states looking more like the DRC than India. It depends on how far-sighted the late empires are. Ghana didn't gain independence until 1957, but constitutional reforms in 1946 and 1951 allowed Ghanians to practice electing representatives, and set up a proto-parliament that could evolve into a fully fledged state. If there is a an educated elite available to run the country and a transitional period where elections are held and prototypes of state institutions are established, then the new countries will do well. If not, there will be chaos.

Decolonization during the interwar period would make world politics interesting. Stalin would probably send weapons and advisors to set up socialist states, and the fascist powers would see the new countries as an easy territorial conquest. Mussolini might declare his new Roman Empire after the conquest of Tunisia rather than Ethiopia. The colonial powers would likely practice a more exaggerated version of Franceafrique if the development gap between ex-colonies and the metropole is larger.

The new post-colonial states in Southeast Asia may sign basing agreements with Japan members of the Co-Prosperity with various degrees of de-facto and de jure independence. This depends on whether or not the colonizers leave behind military bases, 99 year leases or treaty ports like Hong Kong, Macau, or the former US military base at Subic Bay in the Philippines.
 
how does this go in places like South Africa (including South West Africa) and Southern Rhodesia.
I'm guessing South Africa means majority rule in the Dominion. I don't know if the Afrikaners and English-speaking Whites would be willing to live under black-majority rule at this point in history. It would be interesting to see if South Africa separates into two countries after this: a mostly white and colored western cape, and a rump state in eastern South Africa.

Southern Rhodesia would be much better off than OTL. The Rhodesian white population was never large enough relative to the African population the colony for an apartheid-style system to ever be sustainable. The more homogenous African population in the colony also couldn't be divided and ruled like South Africa's many African ethno-linguistic groups.

The Rhodesian UDI and the Bush war radicalized the opposition and discredited any possibility of a peaceful transfer of power to the majority population. The white Rhodesians under Ian Smith were really their own worst enemy. If they had actually been willing to share power and step down peacefully, it might have been possible for the whites and blacks to live together. In addition to the value of a functioning multiracial democracy, avoiding the economic mismanagement under Mugabe would have benefitted everyone who lives in the territory.
 
I'm guessing South Africa means majority rule in the Dominion. I don't know if the Afrikaners and English-speaking Whites would be willing to live under black-majority rule at this point in history. It would be interesting to see if South Africa separates into two countries after this: a mostly white and colored western cape, and a rump state in eastern South Africa.

Southern Rhodesia would be much better off than OTL. The Rhodesian white population was never large enough relative to the African population the colony for an apartheid-style system to ever be sustainable. The more homogenous African population in the colony also couldn't be divided and ruled like South Africa's many African ethno-linguistic groups.

The Rhodesian UDI and the Bush war radicalized the opposition and discredited any possibility of a peaceful transfer of power to the majority population. The white Rhodesians under Ian Smith were really their own worst enemy. If they had actually been willing to share power and step down peacefully, it might have been possible for the whites and blacks to live together. In addition to the value of a functioning multiracial democracy, avoiding the economic mismanagement under Mugabe would have benefitted everyone who lives in the territory.

you can blame Ian Smith and white Rhodesians for a lot of things, but not for the fact that Zimbabwe did not become a multiracial democracy. The blame for that can be squarely laid at the door of Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Ian Smith didn't order 20 000 people to be slaughtered in Matabeleland in the 1980s, last time I looked. Ian Smith didn't steal the 2005 election through force either, IIRC.
 
you can blame Ian Smith and white Rhodesians for a lot of things, but not for the fact that Zimbabwe did not become a multiracial democracy. The blame for that can be squarely laid at the door of Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Ian Smith didn't order 20 000 people to be slaughtered in Matabeleland in the 1980s, last time I looked. Ian Smith didn't steal the 2005 election through force either, IIRC.
Mugabe's crimes are his fault, I'm not going to blame Smith for the ZANU-PF's tremendous mismanagement of the economy. Compared to OTL, a more enlightened and far-sighting white leadership should have made earlier, even gradual moves toward majority rule or compromised with a moderate portion of the opposition and everyone would have benefitted. Hindsight is 20/20, so a POD where the whites don't just dig their heels in might be implausible.
 
Top