Fate of Colonial Empires without WW2

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.
Going by a comparison of OTL data, French Indochina would be much wealthier. In the comparison graph linked here, I've left Cambodia out of this graph due to the outlier effects caused by Khmer Rouge rule. I've compared Laos and Vietnam to Tunsia and Jamaica, two other postcolonial nations which enjoyed a relatively peaceful twentieth century. The data is GDP per capita and total fertility rate between 1913 and 2013. By 2013, the mean GDP/capita for Tunisia and Jamaica is $9,315, but only $4,9375 for Laos and Vietnam.
I see a marked difference in income, but evidence from this tool on whether French Indochina would be more populous seems inconclusive. The southeast asian conflicts certainly killed massive numbers of people, but might also have delayed the demographic transition by slowing economic development.
 

Attachments

  • 1913 GDP Comparison.png
    1913 GDP Comparison.png
    367.3 KB · Views: 92
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.
Yep--just imagine what will happen when the colonies will adopt "one person, one vote" as their desired policy goal.
 
Yep--just imagine what will happen when the colonies will adopt "one person, one vote" as their desired policy goal.
France would find a way to treat each individual colony as a giant departement in the French legislature, and jury rig the system to give the metropole a majority in the legislature. If not that, then the colonies could be given a "temporary" Puerto Rico type status that gives them autonomy in everything except diplomatic and military matters, but doesn't require full independence or directly integration with the metropole.
 
France would find a way to treat each individual colony as a giant departement in the French legislature, and jury rig the system to give the metropole a majority in the legislature. If not that, then the colonies could be given a "temporary" Puerto Rico type status that gives them autonomy in everything except diplomatic and military matters, but doesn't require full independence or directly integration with the metropole.
I don't think that the French colonies would accept a system where their votes are rigged.

As for a Puerto Rico status, it would still allow France's colonial subjects to move to European France. If millions or tens of millions of non-Europeans move to European France, are the French going to accept this? If Puerto Rico is any guide, you could see something like half the population of Vietnam, Algeria, and West Africa move to European France.
 
Without WW2 Italy had some chances to keep Lybia: before the war the fascist government openly encouraged italian emigration to its colony and whithout WW2 or Nato Italy could have done everything he wanted to the natives
Of course they had better chanches to keep Lybia rather than Etiopia
Spain and Portugal : same as above
 
The traditional colonial model was dead post-Great War, the future was going to be more autonomy, improved local investment and development or rebellion. This was cultural, the colonies are increasingly coming to have a local elite educated in European ideals, that will destroy the Empires are previously run, but should point towards the "Commonwealth" model. Without the next global war the dominance of Europe over Africa and much of Asia will simply continue, it will be as bloody as the USSR or some other disruptor is willing to pursue "liberation", but here the USA will be far less sympathetic and things will look like the immediate post-war when the USA pushed to unravel the Empires only to then backstop it. Here the USA will be fuelling independence much as it did with the Americas, purely mercantilist but still undermining the British and French grip. A surviving ROC would likely support the Vietnamese nationalists, Japan might support more independence or nationalist leaders, for example in the DEI. But I would argue both France and Britain can generally hold on. So we might see India shift to autonomous home rule yet still within the Sterling zone. The interesting effect might be global trade, we might not get Dollar dominance or the functioning Gold Standard, things staying more broken into trade blocs, a more patchwork globalization, maybe no UN, etc. Overall I would see the process better for some and worse for others.
 
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.

Not true in all empires at the time eg Portugal and Japan but I think very true of the British empire already in the 1920s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
 
I don't think that the French colonies would accept a system where their votes are rigged.

As for a Puerto Rico status, it would still allow France's colonial subjects to move to European France. If millions or tens of millions of non-Europeans move to European France, are the French going to accept this? If Puerto Rico is any guide, you could see something like half the population of Vietnam, Algeria, and West Africa move to European France.
Hasn't half of Algeria's population already moved to France? I mean Marseille is basically North Algeria at this point (BTW this was hyperbole, but still tons of Algerians have moved to France, and that is the case for France's former West Africans colonies increasingly as well).
 

elkarlo

Banned
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.
Eritrea is a good question. A lotion Italians were going there. I worked with one who was half Italian and half Eritrean. This k the amount if Italians there would make it securely in Italys orbit
 
Eritrea is a good question. A lotion Italians were going there. I worked with one who was half Italian and half Eritrean. This k the amount if Italians there would make it securely in Italys orbit
Until the Italian birth rate collapses while the native birth rate remains high...
 
Hasn't half of Algeria's population already moved to France? I mean Marseille is basically North Algeria at this point (BTW this was hyperbole, but still tons of Algerians have moved to France, and that is the case for France's former West Africans colonies increasingly as well).
Off the top of my head, there's something like 3 or 4 million Maghrebis in France while 70-80 million Maghrebis still live in the Maghreb. Thus, there was certainly a lot of potential for much more Maghrebi immigration into France.

Compare it with the African-American Great Migration from 1910 to 1970 when the percentage of African-Americans who lived in the Southern U.S. dropped from 89% of the U.S. total to 53% of the U.S. total.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Until the Italian birth rate collapses while the native birth rate remains high...
But they in this case collapse together. Prosperity and education woukd benefit Africa in this regard a lot. A lower birthrate woukd be great for stability and stability would be great for keeping the birthrate low. Or making it lower over the years
 
But they in this case collapse together. Prosperity and education woukd benefit Africa in this regard a lot. A lower birthrate woukd be great for stability and stability would be great for keeping the birthrate low. Or making it lower over the years
There's no sea between Italian Libya and Egypt/Tunisia. A well run Libya will naturally become a destination for migrants from the neighboring countries.
 
Again: so? Elites are called elites for a reason. They have far more influence than the voter and can steer a government wherever they want. Democracies aren’t immune to that.

I get the point your making, and yes the elites (who ever they may be) wield a lot of influence but it not absolute and even they are not immune to big changes. What tends to happen is the successful long term ones adapt to the changes and continue to profit. Or put is this way to take an extreme example in this thread if the French voting population goes from 50m generally white ethnically french voters in France (where the elites will be ensconced in that) to 150m votes of all types and ethnicities around the globe where white/french/france is now a 33% minority, expect the elites in the french system to change who they appeal to to stay elite. Basically the issues will change, some elite will adapt and you get new elites.



However that example is not only extreme it's just not how empires work. You don't give your colonies voting rights in decision making in your home country, and no matter how nice you are about it an empire is ultimately backed up by threat of force*. So yeah colonial empires are pretty much doomed once their colonies begin thinking about things. even if the colonial powers commit to enforcing their rule, that is costly in all sorts of ways. I think the only way you can really avoid this is to not have some pretty core beliefs not catch on.


*either directly from Home or from other bits of your empire
 

elkarlo

Banned
There's no sea between Italian Libya and Egypt/Tunisia. A well run Libya will naturally become a destination for migrants from the neighboring countries.
True But Egypt was too. Before independence a great amount of Greeks lived and worked there. Libya could be like that too depending on its industry
 
Top