Evolution of Colonial Empires in Shorter WW2

SSJRED

Banned
Lets say Germany's gamble doesn't pay off and they are defeated early on in WW2.
How will this affect colonial empires? Without the burden of WW2 how do the British and French Empires evolve?
Indian independence is inevevitable even without the world war so we cannot avoid decolonization or independence movements but how might colonial policy change? Would there be greater intergration between colonies and the metropole?
Discuss
 
Britain would probably relinquish its control along more or less the same path. Britain's subjects volunteered to fight for the empire on the understanding that it was the last time they do so. If Independence hadn't been granted independence before the '50s, India would probably become a mega-Vietnam for the British. If World War Two was shorter, then India would probably be the biggest issue on Britain's plate. The Government of India Act in '34 was training wheels for an sovereign Indian parliament, so Indian Independence was a matter of time. Its almost ASB to expect the British to try to hang on in India past the mid '50s without a state of violent insurrection against the Raj.

Once India/Former British Raj is gone, there's not much reason to keep the rest of the Empire. With a few exceptions like Malaya, the Raj was pretty much the only profitable colony for the British. Possessions like Singapore, Suez, or the Persian Gulf protectorates really only make sense as peripheral areas to defend India or access to it. Without India as the keystone, holding onto the rest of the empire doesn't make much sense. The dominion-ization of Canada and Australia provide a good model for the independence process of the rest of the Empire. The British preferred larger agglomerations like the West Indies Federation and Malaysia that will congeal or fragment to various degrees.

I don't see a future for some kind of united commonwealth federation beyond symbolic cultural ties, most colonized people choose self-determination when given the option. The fate of Hong Kong depends a lot on whether or not the Japanese end up conquering the western colonies in Asia. British prestige never recovered from the fall of Singapore to the Japanese during WW2.

If colonization is more gradual or haphazard, the world would probably see at least one or two more white-minority pariahs like Rhodesia and more a couple anti colonial insurgencies with generous Soviet support.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Britain would probably relinquish its control along more or less the same path. Britain's subjects volunteered to fight for the empire on the understanding that it was the last time they do so. If Independence hadn't been granted independence before the '50s, India would probably become a mega-Vietnam for the British. If World War Two was shorter, then India would probably be the biggest issue on Britain's plate. The Government of India Act in '34 was training wheels for an sovereign Indian parliament, so Indian Independence was a matter of time. Its almost ASB to expect the British to try to hang on in India past the mid '50s without a state of violent insurrection against the Raj.

Pretty much agreed. By 1941 the Indian reaction to the Japanese entry of the war is already telling alot.

Once India/Former British Raj is gone, there's not much reason to keep the rest of the Empire. With a few exceptions like Malaya, the Raj was pretty much the only profitable colony for the British. Possessions like Singapore, Suez, or the Persian Gulf protectorates really only make sense as peripheral areas to defend India or access to it. Without India as the keystone, holding onto the rest of the empire doesn't make much sense. The dominion-ization of Canada and Australia provide a good model for the independence process of the rest of the Empire. The British preferred larger agglomerations like the West Indies Federation and Malaysia that will congeal or fragment to various degrees.

I have to disagree here. Even if India is gone the empire allows the United Kingdom to be a great power. Why would the establishment throw that away? To many people in the Home Nations benefit from it and with a shorter or no world war there is no need for the OTL fire-sale.

I don't see a future for some kind of united commonwealth federation beyond symbolic cultural ties, most colonized people choose self-determination when given the option. The fate of Hong Kong depends a lot on whether or not the Japanese end up conquering the western colonies in Asia. British prestige never recovered from the fall of Singapore to the Japanese during WW2.

The OP states that there will only be a short WWII or even no WWII at all which will mean that the European prestige and colonial infrastructure in Asia will be intact. Colonization may very wel be on the colonizers term this time around.

If colonization is more gradual or haphazard, the world would probably see at least one or two more white-minority pariahs like Rhodesia and more a couple anti colonial insurgencies with generous Soviet support.

At least yes. I'm not sure how succesful the support of the Soviets is going to be. They have little powerprojection of their own with regards to Africa for example.
 
Without WW2 bankrupting the UK and France, they would not have been forced to open colonial markets to American trade during the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.
With favourable tariffs continuing, colonies would continue buying manufactured goods from British and French factories, vastly improving their post-War profitability.
 
Pretty much agreed. By 1941 the Indian reaction to the Japanese entry of the war is already telling alot.



I have to disagree here. Even if India is gone the empire allows the United Kingdom to be a great power. Why would the establishment throw that away? To many people in the Home Nations benefit from it and with a shorter or no world war there is no need for the OTL fire-sale.

Large parts of the Empire in areas like Western Africa, Southern Africa and the Caribbean would be salvageable, but many of Britain's territories in the Indian Ocean region operated like colonies of colonies.
Some British possessions were, for a time, governed as part of the British Raj and as such the postal service was part of that of India: Aden from 1858 until 1937, British Somaliland from 1887 until 1907 with an office also in what was to become Italian Somaliland and the Straits Settlements[2] until from 1867 the Straits Settlements issued stamps of their own
Aside from obvious cases like Burma and Sri Lanka which were contiguous to or formerly part of the Raj, several of outposts on the Indian ocean were more valuable as complements to British India than for any economic value in and of themselves. Somaliland, British Yemen, and Singapore were governed as part of British India for a time. Burma and Sri Lanka don't really make sense without India, but a few island territories are certainly salvageable.

Singapore, Bahrain, Malta, Zanzibar, and either Somaliland or Yemen may be worthwhile as naval bases in their respective regions. They're mostly small enough to stick around as Hong Kong-style British territories. The oil wealth of Brunei the Gulf States make them valuable enough to keep.

Nigeria's a borderline case of the oil cash cow possession, it has sizable oil reserves but its sheer population and size make it likely to go its own way. If the British are smart, they could grant independence to the non-Igbo areas, and hold onto the areas with oil reserves (mostly Igbo-populated territories) as a "Biafran protectorate" or a de jure independent client state.
 
Last edited:
Top