Decolonization in a no-Fall-of-France scenario: Differences from our TL?

CaliGuy

Banned
How would decolonization (eventually) be dealt with in a scenario where France's doesn't fall in 1940 (or later; due to France defending the Ardennes more and also taking air power more seriously in the pre-WWII years)?

Specifically, what would be the differences between our TL's decolonization and decolonization in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 
No fall of France or a later one mean a stronger relative position of the Entente vis-à-vis of the Superpowers and overall more tied together countries. While India is probably still going to slowly decolonize soon, the French not having to fight a recolonization war in Indochina also means a more prestigious French army.
Overall, I would see a more belated decolonization. France might keep a few more chunks of its Empire compared to OTL such as Gabon or Djibouti.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
No fall of France or a later one mean a stronger relative position of the Entente vis-à-vis of the Superpowers and overall more tied together countries. While India is probably still going to slowly decolonize soon, the French not having to fight a recolonization war in Indochina also means a more prestigious French army.

Couldn't the decolonization war in Indochina occur later in this TL, though?

Overall, I would see a more belated decolonization. France might keep a few more chunks of its Empire compared to OTL such as Gabon or Djibouti.

What about northern Algeria?

Also, I've got a question--would Communism still be as popular in the Third World in the late 20th century (and/or early 21st century) in this TL as it was in our TL?
 
Couldn't the decolonization war in Indochina occur later in this TL, though?



What about northern Algeria?
A coastal strip doesn't strike me as defensible and a frontier on the Atlas would include too many Algerians.

As for decolonization... Cochinchina would be a sore point which would likely make decolonization agreement slow. And decolonization is nowhere as easy for the guerillas as recolonization.
Also, I've got a question--would Communism still be as popular in the Third World in the late 20th century (and/or early 21st century) in this TL as it was in our TL?
if there is no Barbarossa and the Soviet Union doesn't nom half of Europe ? Probably not. Independentists leaning on the left will likely still exist but not the Moscow-bending brand.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
A coastal strip doesn't strike me as defensible and a frontier on the Atlas would include too many Algerians.

Isn't having a large navy a large part of what it takes to defend a coastal strip, though?

As for decolonization... Cochinchina would be a sore point which would likely make decolonization agreement slow. And decolonization is nowhere as easy for the guerillas as recolonization.

Fair enough.

if there is no Barbarossa and the Soviet Union doesn't nom half of Europe ? Probably not. Independentists leaning on the left will likely still exist but not the Moscow-bending brand.

So, there would be less fanatics among the various pro-independence movements in this TL, correct?

Also, no Cold War means that democracy can take root in parts of the Third World--such as parts of Africa--(much) earlier than in our TL, correct? :)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Cochinchina was a French colony unlike the protectorates of Laos, Tonkin, Annam and Cambodia. With both Cambodia and Dai Nam (Annam and Tonkin) having claims on it.
OK.

Also, though, I've got a question--was it ultimately given to/put in Vietnam due to its ethnic Vietnamese population, or what?
 
OK.

Also, though, I've got a question--was it ultimately given to/put in Vietnam due to its ethnic Vietnamese population, or what?
I would advise you to check Wiki or ask @Tanc49 about that. Originally there was to be a referendum on whether to be French, Vietnamese or Cambodian, but a stronger France might not feel the need for such a thing.
 
I would advise you to check Wiki or ask @Tanc49 about that. Originally there was to be a referendum on whether to be French, Vietnamese or Cambodian, but a stronger France might not feel the need for such a thing.
I would say it's not as much a stronger France as a stronger French presence. The French administration, never that big anyway, was entirely wiped out by the Japanese

This was really a RE-colonisation war and in this day and age was not an easy thing to do, especially with a country to rebuild and big brother China looking over Vietnam's shoulder
 

Perkeo

Banned
Isn't having a large navy a large part of what it takes to defend a coastal strip, though?
I suppose not when the enemy comes from the mainland rather than the sea. What help can a Navy offer when you are outnumbered by the guys that live behind your coastal strip? I see only limited capacity for retaliation against enemy raids and no capacity for prevention.

So whatever French territory remains in Algeria, it does so with the consent of the Algerians.
 
I suppose not when the enemy comes from the mainland rather than the sea. What help can a Navy offer when you are outnumbered by the guys that live behind your coastal strip? I see only limited capacity for retaliation against enemy raids and no capacity for prevention.

So whatever French territory remains in Algeria, it does so with the consent of the Algerians.
Not sure I agree with that. IF a French government is sufficiently stubborn, they could certainly hold. Say some kind of South Vietnam agreement where France retains the Westernmost third of Algeria, the Oranais which was almost majority white. With people moving around (or being moved...) the region could be clearly majority white.

The French had a clear military superiority and almost eradicated the FLN a couple times. The problem is that the solution couldn't be only military but had to be diplomatic as well.
 
I still feel if France holds that Indochina is still likely in WWII going be invaded by Japan and likely lost least for a couple years.
 
First things first I think we need to consider how the war goes.
How would decolonization (eventually) be dealt with in a scenario where France's doesn't fall in 1940 (or later; due to France defending the Ardennes more and also taking air power more seriously in the pre-WWII years)?

Specifically, what would be the differences between our TL's decolonization and decolonization in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
Two possible scenarios. Either fortified Ardennes, which mean attacking the Maginot Line head-on. France cannot fall, and the German spearhead goes home after discovering it is not fun to face the Maginot Line, while the French do not have to divert armies and slog it in West Belgium. In the end, victory in 1942-1943.
Or you have a Blunted Sickle scenario.
The Fall of France was the result of an all-out gamble, it was do or die for the IIIrd Reich.
 
How would decolonization (eventually) be dealt with in a scenario where France's doesn't fall in 1940 (or later; due to France defending the Ardennes more and also taking air power more seriously in the pre-WWII years)?

Specifically, what would be the differences between our TL's decolonization and decolonization in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?

The French have big, big problems in Algeria. They can keep a lid on Algeria by force potentially for a long time, but even at best, Colonial Algeria is likely to look like Apartheid South Africa in the long run.

French Indochina could turn out better but with a PoD in early WW2, the French would need to accept the Vietnamese as equals inside some sort of "French Commonwealth", keep the Japanese out of Indochina and do a better job of developing Indochina to gain any real "buy in" to the Empire by the locals. Likely, they won't be able to do that, and the best they could hope for is to have Vietnam as an ally outside the Empire and Laos and Cambodia as protectorates with control of their internal affairs.

Syria might evolve into a close ally of France if everything went well (and be very deeply integrated into the French economy). I'm not sure if they would really stay a part of the Empire. My gut says that the French would recognize that Syria was a mandate and that it would need to be let go during the 50s or 60s.

As for the rest of the French Empire, the other African and Pacific colonies could potentially mature into members of a French Commonwealth that had a substantial feeling of "Frenchness" (though in places like Morocco, that feeling would be second to their feelings of "Moroccanness"). Morocco and Tunisia would likely be protectorates of some kind, and gain more control over their internal affairs as time went on. West Africa would be where the French would be likely to have the most success - even in OTL, the region still is very much orientated towards France.

As far as the decolonization of Britain, the British Empire is already a dead empire walking. WW1 killed it.

The smaller European empires, well, I'm pessimistic, but I don't know so much of the specific history of those cases, so I won't say anything on them.

fasquardon
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The French have big, big problems in Algeria. They can keep a lid on Algeria by force potentially for a long time, but even at best, Colonial Algeria is likely to look like Apartheid South Africa in the long run.

If so, does that mean that France is still eventually forced to let Algeria go?

Also, what about Tunisia, Morocco, and French Sub-Saharan Africa?

French Indochina could turn out better but with a PoD in early WW2, the French would need to accept the Vietnamese as equals inside some sort of "French Commonwealth", keep the Japanese out of Indochina and do a better job of developing Indochina to gain any real "buy in" to the Empire by the locals.

Wouldn't there be too many Vietnamese people to make all of them French citizens, though?

Likely, they won't be able to do that, and the best they could hope for is to have Vietnam as an ally outside the Empire and Laos and Cambodia as protectorates with control of their internal affairs.

Wouldn't Vietnam oppose this since it would view both Laos and Cambodia as a part of its own sphere of influence, though?

Syria might evolve into a close ally of France if everything went well (and be very deeply integrated into the French economy). I'm not sure if they would really stay a part of the Empire.

Why exactly would Syria be deeply integrated into the French economy?

My gut says that the French would recognize that Syria was a mandate and that it would need to be let go during the 50s or 60s.

OK.

Also, though, what about Lebanon?

As for the rest of the French Empire, the other African and Pacific colonies could potentially mature into members of a French Commonwealth that had a substantial feeling of "Frenchness"

Question--would all of the people inside of the French Commonwealth hold French citizenship, or what?

(though in places like Morocco, that feeling would be second to their feelings of "Moroccanness"). Morocco and Tunisia would likely be protectorates of some kind, and gain more control over their internal affairs as time went on.

Wasn't Morocco independent for too long to permanently be a French protectorate, though?

West Africa would be where the French would be likely to have the most success - even in OTL, the region still is very much orientated towards France.

Out of curiosity--how large were pro-independence sentiments in West Africa in our TL?

As far as the decolonization of Britain, the British Empire is already a dead empire walking. WW1 killed it.

Why exactly isn't this also true of the French Empire, though?

Also, specifically, what do you think (in detail) decolonization in British India, Palestine, the other British Middle Eastern colonies, and the British African colonies would look like in this TL?

The smaller European empires, well, I'm pessimistic, but I don't know so much of the specific history of those cases, so I won't say anything on them.

OK.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Two possible scenarios. Either fortified Ardennes, which mean attacking the Maginot Line head-on. France cannot fall, and the German spearhead goes home after discovering it is not fun to face the Maginot Line, while the French do not have to divert armies and slog it in West Belgium. In the end, victory in 1942-1943.
Or you have a Blunted Sickle scenario.
The Fall of France was the result of an all-out gamble, it was do or die for the IIIrd Reich.
Question--didn't the Germans' air superiority significantly help them in 1940 in our TL?
 
Question--didn't the Germans' air superiority significantly help them in 1940 in our TL?
Yes, but the fully fortified section of the Maginot Line was too much for them. Air support tends to matter way less against fixed fortifications than against infantry or tanks.
 
Top