Fate of European colonies if Nazi Germany wins WW2

Alright, we need to get back to the topic at hand.

What could happen if an armistice is concluded in 1941-42?

That the Italians will attempt, bloodily, to reconquer Ethiopia and they may succeed at a staggering cost. Coastal Libya becomes in a few years Italian. Vichy cracks down on all colonies save Indochina, the British may or may not seize some de facto.

Decolonization is certainly butterflied away, though there will be a lot of struggle ahead.
 
Partisans wouldn't be an issue after a few years, and the Ural mountains is great defense border
If Germany ever arrived at the Ural mountains, then it would controll most of the Soviet manpower already.

Why not push east? Who would sent aid to Soviets? Perhaps there could be allied supply of resources and soldiers across Central Asia that could try to hold a line. If India remains allied there would be plenty of manpower to defend non German occupied territory.
 
Could Germany once it occupied the colonial countries(Belgium, France, Netherlands, potentially Britain), have forced the colonial countries to grant the colonies independance?

How would the news of independance be recieved by the population of colonies? How would the colonials and the natives differ in opinion? What kind of post-colonial states might emerge? Would the post-colonial states be ruled by the colonial elite or some native elite? How may these states position themselfes diplomatically. How would the allies react to former colonies becoming pro-axis?
 

Anchises

Banned
You need to allow for the world being different between Nazi victory and the UDI. Would there even be one? Would Britain try and change internal politics of a dominion in such a world? To simply transport a specific sociopolitical event from OTL with the massive change of a Nazi victory into an ATL is lazy AH.

The problem is how racist Apartheid-states would develop politically in a Nazi victory world.

The West and especially GB might be more tolerating but the problems that plagued Apartheid will still arise.

If NatSoc is legitimized by victory, Nazi methods will be very tempting for White minority rulers.
 

Deleted member 94680

The problem is how racist Apartheid-states would develop politically in a Nazi victory world.

The West and especially GB might be more tolerating but the problems that plagued Apartheid will still arise.

If NatSoc is legitimized by victory, Nazi methods will be very tempting for White minority rulers.

Yeah, racists gonna racist, but minority rule in Rhodesia wasn’t about “Nat Soc” racism. Lazy hacks like Turtledove aside, there’s a hell of a distance between the colonialist “father figure” mentality and Nazi holocaust ideology. Rhodesia and their UDI was about maintaining the “glory days” of empire, not tearing it down and genociding the native populace.
 
Could Germany once it occupied the colonial countries(Belgium, France, Netherlands, potentially Britain), have forced the colonial countries to grant the colonies independance?
Why?

I recall reading that during the early years of the war (the "England will soon surrender" phase) evening courses
in Swahili and other African languages were not unpopular, with the obvious assumption of Africa going to
need German settlers and administrators once the war was over.
 
Why?

I recall reading that during the early years of the war (the "England will soon surrender" phase) evening courses
in Swahili and other African languages were not unpopular, with the obvious assumption of Africa going to
need German settlers and administrators once the war was over.
Who assumed Africa was going to get German settlers and administrators?
 

Anchises

Banned
Yeah, racists gonna racist, but minority rule in Rhodesia wasn’t about “Nat Soc” racism. Lazy hacks like Turtledove aside, there’s a hell of a distance between the colonialist “father figure” mentality and Nazi holocaust ideology. Rhodesia and their UDI was about maintaining the “glory days” of empire, not tearing it down and genociding the native populace.

I agree but when the rebellions really start to tear appart your old colonial delusions, radicals might look to Germany. The "Communist Black Danger" imho would justify a deal with the devil.

Maybe they wouldn't implement GPO-level genocide schemes but the Third Reich would be a-ok with sponsoring harsh repression. A partner that has no tiresome demands about equal rights and gladly sends all kinds of nasty weapons is attractive.

The internal (self-)justification would probably be:

"Yeah, the Germans are bad and we don't agree BUT we only have the best intentions. The Germans are a necessary evil that helps us preserving our orderly rule against the chaos of black rule."
 
Last edited:
I agree but when the rebellions really start to tear appart your old colonial delusions, radicals might look to Germany. The "Communist Black Danger" imho would justify a deal with the devil.

Maybe they wouldn't implement GPO-level genocide schemes but the Third Reich would be a-ok with sponsoring harsh repression. A partner that has no tiresome demands about equal rights and gladly sends all kinds of nasty weapons is attractive.

The internal (self-)justification would probably be:

"Yeah, the Germans are bad and we don't agree BUT we only have the best intentions. The Germans are a necessary evil that helps us preserving our orderly rule against the chaos of black rule."

When you remove the Communists providing guns and encouragement decolonization slows down. If you have Germans and Italians wanting to expand their empires then such colonials have to ask themselves if independence is something they can maintain.

It is not as if the British and the French were strangers to harsh methods in the post-war period OTL.
 
How and why the Nazis win, and what victory really means in such circumstances are necessarily to determining the disposition of the British Empire, and the colonies of France as well. Italy's too for that matter.

This. We cannot have a “aftermath of Nazi victory” discussion without knowing the form that victory took.

Let's imagine Lord Halifax becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (a cliched scenario, I know) and pursues an armistice with Germany after the BEF is destroyed at Dunkirk and France's defenses collapse as in OTL. A peace treaty is developed and signed in summer 1940, ending the war in (western) Europe.

Under such a treaty, I doubt the British would lose any of their colonies. They may have lost the land war in Europe, but their navy would still rule the seas and could ensure the safety of the colonies. At the most, Britain might return former German colonies in Africa like Cameroon, Tanzania, and Togo (Namibia, which by then was administered by South Africa, probably would not be given up). But I think it's unlikely Britain would surrender any more territories than those. And under no circumstances would the British Isles be occupied by German troops or puppetized.

France, now under Petain's regime, probably retains her colonial empire. At most, the French might return former German colonies like their portions of Cameroon and Togo. Perhaps Madagascar would be given to Germany if the Nazis were serious about implementing the Madagascar Plan (which I think was infeasible because the Germans lacked the ships to transport millions of Jews overseas, and so the OTL Final Solution would still emerge).

Denmark might retain Iceland and Greenland if its independence is preserved (albeit as a German puppet state). But the British would refuse to let the Germans step foot in Iceland and Greenland, since that would allow Germany to more easily project power in the North Atlantic and threaten the sea lanes between North America and the British Isles. So I think the 1940 peace treaty would either declare that Iceland and Greenland are neutral territories, or grant independence to Iceland (which falls into the British sphere) while Greenland becomes a British protectorate.

I'm less sure about the fates of Belgian and Dutch colonies. If Belgium and the Netherlands end up like Denmark, being nominally independent but still occupied by German troops and subject to German influence, then they might keep all of their colonies. If Belgium and Netherlands end up like in OTL, being placed under direct German administration, then the colonies might pledge their allegiance to the governments-in-exile and fall under British (and later American) control.

The peace treaty might give Germany access to the markets of the French, Belgian, and Dutch colonies. That could provide the Germans with some of the resources they need for their war effort, especially once the inevitable war with the Soviet Union erupts.

If Germany has access to the resources of the Belgian Congo, then they'll have access to the uranium from Shinkolobwe. That would boost their nuclear weapon project, although it would still be plagued by other issues and would be many years away from producing a working device.

In Southeast Asia, Japan might be deterred from attacking and seizing European colonies in the region if Britain is at peace and French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies are still controlled by their parent governments in Europe. Britain would have more troops, ships, and aircraft to commit to its colonies in the region - and I'm sure they would take measures to deter Japanese aggression.

If Indonesia remains under Dutch control (and is indirectly under German control), then I wonder if Japan might try to seek a trade agreement that gives them access to more oil, rubber, and other resources from there. Perhaps Germany could pressure the Dutch to give the Japanese a favorable deal. If Japan can secure an alternate source of oil, then once America eventually embargoes them for their actions in Asia*, Japan will still have a backup option to fuel itself. Thus, there may not be a war between Japan and the United States (not yet, at least).

*The OTL oil embargo was triggered when Japan occupied southern French Indochina, violating the agreement they made with the Vichy regime promising they would only occupy the north of the colony. The occupation of the south was seen as prelude to Japanese aggression against the rest of Southeast Asia, and so the Allies cut Japan off from their oil. If Japan is deterred from making moves against the rest of the colonies and/or can peacefully acquire more resources from the Dutch East Indies through a trade agreement, then they might not occupy southern French Indochina in the first place. But America would probably find a reason to embargo Japan eventually, since Japan would still be brutalizing China.

I'm not sure what happens to French or Dutch colonies in the Western Hemisphere, such as their islands in the Caribbean and Dutch and French Guiana. I don't know if the British and/or Americans would seize the colonies, or if they would be granted independence, or if they would remain under French and Dutch control (even if both of those countries become subservient to the Nazis). Surely the United States would refuse to allow the Axis to have any territorial presence in the Western Hemisphere, so I'm tempted to say they would join with the British to capture those colonies.
 
That the Italians will attempt, bloodily, to reconquer Ethiopia and they may succeed at a staggering cost. Coastal Libya becomes in a few years Italian. Vichy cracks down on all colonies save Indochina, the British may or may not seize some de facto.

Decolonization is certainly butterflied away, though there will be a lot of struggle ahead.
I don’t know about that. While I can see colonization continuing longer than OTL, I think we would be more likely to see more blatant neo-imperialist policy (economic domination, military bases near the capital for “protection” of puppet governments) rather than 19th/20th century direct control imperialism continuing to the present day. For all the help Soviet AKs and American public opinion provided to end colonialism OTL, the natives had a say in the matter as well, and further repression isn’t going to shut them up (see OTL Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.).

Heck, whose to say the US won’t be more aggressive in ending colonialism in among their allies that OTL, now they they (the US) clearly have the better anti-colonialist credentials than their rivals. No way the Nazis are going to do a better job convincing natives of their “good intentions” than the soviets OTL, who at least acted like that cared for non-white people. That’s not even getting into the very distinct possibility of the US leaning farther to the left in TTL in response to staring down a fascist enemy, rather than a communist one. Such an ideological shift would not be in favor of colonialist regimes.
 

Marc

Donor
Going by the original question:

The Boschhoek camp celebrates its 1 millionth "removal" ahead of schedule as the cleansing of South Africa moves into high gear in 1951 under the guidance of the Ossewabrandwag
 

While I can see the US becoming openly anti-colonialist and even anti-racist, there's the fact that now all colonies but the British ones are under Fascist or quasi-Fascist regimes who will gladly assist each other, greatly demoralizing native resistance and bolstering their respective crackdown ability. As for Britain, it will support troublemakers, but I can't see them devolving to African colonies who risk being overrun by the Axis.

Money is relevant, but there's only so much one can do without the boots in the ground.

India and Indonesia probably are left to themselves pretty quick, but I think it'd be even worse to be African ITTL.
 
Top