Fate of Colonial Empires without WW2

Say there's no WW2. Germany stays Weimar, Italy stays Kingdom, Japan somehow make Taisho democracy works. What becomes the colonial empire?

Britain is the mostly discussed here. The consensus is that India and Egypt is a lost cause. What about the other? Can (or will) British colonies in Africa stays with Britain? Can the Commonwealth accept South African white rule and Ghana black rule?

France, how about them? Did the Algerian war still happens? What about West and Central Africa? If British Empire holds can France? Are French Indochina doomed to slip away?

How about the minor imperial powers? Belgians in Congo, with so few educated, nationally consciouss elite? Portugal, with their whole "Angola is as Portuguese as Lisbon"? Can the Netherlands hold in Indonesia, with their elite class repressed?

Finally, is 1990 stretching too much for a colonial world?
 
Britain is losing money on its empire, the only two areas making money is Singapore and Palestine and possibly Hong Kong???? Palestine trying to keep will be very expensive. I cannot see the British taxpayer being prepared to keep paying the bills.

Although you did not mention it explicitly the most interesting one is Japan. Korea could be better integrated into Japan. However China and Japan will fight. Its a fight to the death and I am doubt the US and Russia will stay out of this conflict.
 
Libya will becomes Italy's fourth shore due to Italy's aggressive settling of Italians and displacing the arab speaking population. Once oil is discovered, the colony will become indispensable. Ethiopia will IMO stay a thorn in Italy's side, probably abandoning it. Somalia could go either way. I o think Italy had a MUCH firmer grip on Eritrea than Ethiopia and will continue to hold on to this area.
 
Eventually they still break down due to either social pressure at home as ideologies of the latter 20th century still presumably spread or good old fashioned internal rebellion ala Indochina and Algeria.
 
Britain is losing money on its empire, the only two areas making money is Singapore and Palestine and possibly Hong Kong???? Palestine trying to keep will be very expensive. I cannot see the British taxpayer being prepared to keep paying the bills.

Although you did not mention it explicitly the most interesting one is Japan. Korea could be better integrated into Japan. However China and Japan will fight. Its a fight to the death and I am doubt the US and Russia will stay out of this conflict.
I never understand this “colonies lose money” argument. The revenues made by British companies and British elites off colonialism more than make up for it, as well as all geopolitical advantages of owning a big junk of Earth.
 
Libya will becomes Italy's fourth shore due to Italy's aggressive settling of Italians and displacing the arab speaking population. Once oil is discovered, the colony will become indispensable. Ethiopia will IMO stay a thorn in Italy's side, probably abandoning it. Somalia could go either way. I o think Italy had a MUCH firmer grip on Eritrea than Ethiopia and will continue to hold on to this area.

Where do the native Africans go?
 
It's hard to answer without a more detailed scenario. However, there is probably no way to avoid the emergence of colonial elites that will demand either integration with the metropolis on an more or less equal basis, independence, or some sort of compromise between those.
If Europeans remain stubborn, perhaps you get to some point where a Second World War erupts as a Global South Revolution against the colonizers, possibly supported by, say, the Soviet Union. Not the most likely path, but modern colonialism was not sustanaible long term.
I mean, at present the Netherlands have about 16 million people IIRC. Indonesia is around 250 million. Good luck keeping both places within the same political framework while keeping a semblance of democracy.
 
It's hard to answer without a more detailed scenario. However, there is probably no way to avoid the emergence of colonial elites that will demand either integration with the metropolis on an more or less equal basis, independence, or some sort of compromise between those.
If Europeans remain stubborn, perhaps you get to some point where a Second World War erupts as a Global South Revolution against the colonizers, possibly supported by, say, the Soviet Union. Not the most likely path, but modern colonialism was not sustanaible long term.
I mean, at present the Netherlands have about 16 million people IIRC. Indonesia is around 250 million. Good luck keeping both places within the same political framework while keeping a semblance of democracy.

We might just see things like Indonesia as part of a Dutch Commonwealth with Dutch as one of the languages of government? Or Portuguese Commonwealth that includes Angola and Moçambique?
 
We might just see things like Indonesia as part of a Dutch Commonwealth with Dutch as one of the languages of government? Or Portuguese Commonwealth that includes Angola and Moçambique?
A Portuguese Commonwealth of sorts might be feasible if Lisbon adopts very different policies. Actually, Portugal might manage to retain the Empire in some form if the right policies are enacted. A Dutch Commonwealth seems harder to me, unless Indonesia is split into smaller constituents, which is roughly what Dutch policy tried (quite badly) to implement during the Indonesian War of Independence indeed.
 
It's hard to answer without a more detailed scenario. However, there is probably no way to avoid the emergence of colonial elites that will demand either integration with the metropolis on an more or less equal basis, independence, or some sort of compromise between those.
If Europeans remain stubborn, perhaps you get to some point where a Second World War erupts as a Global South Revolution against the colonizers, possibly supported by, say, the Soviet Union. Not the most likely path, but modern colonialism was not sustanaible long term.
I mean, at present the Netherlands have about 16 million people IIRC. Indonesia is around 250 million. Good luck keeping both places within the same political framework while keeping a semblance of democracy.
Yes, this is the biggest issue here. If Europeans insist on holding on to their colonies and give their colonial subjects equal rights and suffrage, then the Europeans are likely to become outnumbered and outvoted by their colonial subjects. How exactly would Europeans feel if their colonial subjects continually voted as a bloc (like African-Americans in the U.S.) and thus continually elected governments that they favored but Europeans didn't?
 
In Libya? Libya has enough room for both millions of Arabs and Berbers and millions of Italians.
Italy would design migration policies design to make the native Arab and Berber population a minority. They would probably still be a significant enough portion of the population to create a Northern-Ireland type situation where the state won't need to lose or withdraw, but can't squash the terrorism/insurgency.
 
I never understand this “colonies lose money” argument. The revenues made by British companies and British elites off colonialism more than make up for it, as well as all geopolitical advantages of owning a big junk of Earth.

Indeed, we must not think only revenue for taxpayers but revenues for those in power. The profits are private but risks are public is not a concept invented in 2008.

However, colonies will become more and more expensive to keep and at some point there will be a tipping point even for those who formerly were beneficiaries.
 
One thing we must keep in mind is, that with spreading of new agricultural and medical technologies there will be a population explosion in the colonies.

In 1920 France had 39 million people, Vietnam 16 million, Algeria 5,8 million and Senegal 1,5 million.

In 1950 France had 42 million people, Vietnam 29 million people, Algeria 8,8 million and Senegal 2,6 million.

In 1980 France had 54 million people, Vietnam 54 million (even after all devastation), Algeria 19 million and Senegal 5,5 million.

In 2010 France had 61 million people, Vietnam 97 million, Algeria 38 million and Senegal 12,4 million.

Now, demography is not a destiny, but even with minor economical development the colonies will have huge economic and poltiical influence compared to what they had in interwar era.
 
I never understand this “colonies lose money” argument. The revenues made by British companies and British elites off colonialism more than make up for it, as well as all geopolitical advantages of owning a big junk of Earth.

If a person leaves Britain, goes to live in Singapore, unless he goes back to Britain or pays tax, the money is lost to Britain's taxpayer.
 
Finally, is 1990 stretching too much for a colonial world?

The problem with the concept of "Empire" is that it is contradicted by the values of the Enlightenment, which acknowledge the right of each people on earth to self-determination. In other words, global civilisation has reached a level of development where colonial empires could no longer be morally justified.
 
Yes, this is the biggest issue here. If Europeans insist on holding on to their colonies and give their colonial subjects equal rights and suffrage, then the Europeans are likely to become outnumbered and outvoted by their colonial subjects. How exactly would Europeans feel if their colonial subjects continually voted as a bloc (like African-Americans in the U.S.) and thus continually elected governments that they favored but Europeans didn't?
Colonial subjects are unlikely to vote as a block, especially if they are majority, but even then, policies would have to address their concerns precisely because they are the majority.
 
Top