Decolonization without the Soviet Union or WWII

[Sift Green]

I've seen it stated elsewhere on this forum that before the Korean war their was a large portion of the American population that were more suspicious of British and French colonialism then they were of the Soviet Union and communist expansion. So how would American views of colonialism evolve without the Soviet Union to muck around with things?

The basic set up I am envisioning here goes like this: The Russian Provisional Government survives and evolves into full-blown republic or a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is only a figurehead. Butterflies mean the Nazis never come to power in Germany.

This means that the chief colonial powers won't have WWII to run their finances into the ground, but it will also mean that the U.S.A. wont try to support them during colonial rebellions as a bulwark against communism. How likely is it for the U.S. to start actively supporting independence movements in the European colonies? Would Russia and Germany also support colonial independence movements? Could this lead to sour relations between the U.S. and the Colonial powers, and could this be the basis for a major war?

Also, this is the first thread I have started. I hope the discussion goes well.

 

[Darksoul]

With no WWII, there isn't the 2 superpower divide of the world. The U.S.A. and the Soviet Union don't play chess with eachother using colonies as pawns, because such a division doesn't exist, and the other colonial powers are still too strong to put up with that sort of nonsense.

 

[Simon]

Well India was getting their independence sooner or later, it was already slowly moving in that direction with actions such as the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Congress wasn't going to give up. Once India is on the way out the writing is on the wall for the rest of the colonies. Even without the Soviet Union though a number of India's future leaders will be well disposed towards socialism since IIRC they picked it up when studying in the UK where it was fairly popular in left wing circles. Could we possibly see some sort of variation of the Cripps proposal though - full Dominion status with the opportunity to secede from the Commonwealth and attain full independence after that?

The two major advantages will be that the decolonisation wont be rushed thanks to dire economic conditions or outside pressure from the US and Soviet Union. The local populations will push for independence like they see India doing but this should still allow an orderly and efficient handover over a longer time period rather than the rushed bodge job of our timeline. Sure even a 20 year programme can't undo any and all underlying problems from being colonised and turn all into sweetness and light but it should certainly set them up on a much more sold footing. Use the time to intensively invest in education and cherry pick the best and bightest to go to universities either in the west or locally to become the administrators, engineers and doctors of their countries. As Sift Green said in the original post not having the US and USSR play a revolving game of who can topple the government and put their dictator in power will also be a major boost.

I certainly think that relations between the US and UK will be a bit less friendly that in our timeline. You don't have that whole bond forged in blood fighting a shared enemy thing and they're still going to be very disapproving of imperialism and colonies. However with no WW2 to pull them into the world I could also see them still being somewhat isolationist or at least non-interventionist. Russia and Germany are likely to subtly use their non-involvement with colonialism as a way of obtaining the moral high ground but without a driving ideological reason I don't think they'd want to annoy the British or French though. One exception I could see them mildly supporting decolonisation would be to try and open up the markets for their own corporations.

 

[Saladan]

It should be mentioned that the minor Colonial Powers such as Portugal and Spain never had any plains for decolonization and only did as such because of the involvement of the Soviet Union in supporting revolutionaries and independence movements. Without the USSR they will continue to hold on to their colonies and with no USSR funding rebel movements it's likely that they will ultimately win any attempt at independence. What's more Portugal had plans that once it's African colonies had been properly invested and modernized they would be made full parts of Portugal similar to it's union with it's Brazil colony shortly before it's own independence. What this means is that you could have Portuguese Empire lasting to today possibly.

However I have no idea what kind of effects this sort of scenario could have whatsoever.

Actually taking this info into account could the Portuguese keep their African colonies without the USSR funding rebel movements and if so what would their african colonies look like if they were continuously invested in like they were planned to be?

 

[Uriel]

I think the American public ( and the Latin American, Scandinavian & Russian) would be friendly to liberation movements. But there would also be economic considerations (not upsetting your major trade partners).

So the US goverment is forced into some kind of double strategy, not unlikely to the one currently used toward China and earlier regarding the Ulster question.
Yes it suports reformes, yes it gives some moral support to imprisoned freedom fighters, but no it does not support any armed resistance and it still aims for good relations with the colonial power.