How can British colonialism collapse before WWII? (Without losing WWI)

I've been pondering an AH scenario that will end up with fascist states Britain, Russia and industrialized Egypt United in arms against the rest of the world. The POD is the Russo-Japanese war goes in Russia's favor, and this creates immeasurable butterflies.

One of them is that Britain loses its grip on most of its colonies due to internal weakness (specifically India) around 1930, in the wake of the ATL Great Depression. However, I'm having a hard time finding an excuse to create such instability.

WWI does not happen as normal - rather, a series of conflict, first over the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, then Russian Expansionism, then German Colonial Expansion, occur in the 1910's that set the stage for this.

However, I have no clue how to get from WWI-less world with strong, colony-holding Germany, Far-Right Russia, and secure Britain in the 1910's to one where Britain's empire collapses almost completely. What sort of internal troubles did Britain face during this time? What sort of external conflicts could have arisen? Any particularly incompetent or dangerous leaders who were kept from power by a reasonably narrow margin?

Side note: What sort of strong leadership could have arisen in Egypt to do for it what the Meiji Restoration had done for Japan? Expansionist drive to re-create the Caliphate is a bonus.
 
To get more Independence Minded Colonies, You need a lot more Colonial Troops, with Native NCO's,
In many cases OTL they were the driving force behind the 20's~30's beginnings of the Colonies, independence Movements.
 
What happens if the Indian liberation movement is not a pacifist one?
Say Gandhi is shot during one of the early rallies?
 
I've been pondering an AH scenario that will end up with fascist states Britain, Russia and industrialized Egypt United in arms against the rest of the world. The POD is the Russo-Japanese war goes in Russia's favor, and this creates immeasurable butterflies.

Jolly good. Never forget the butterflies! I'm also rather fond of the idea that a kind of Tsarist clerical-fascism can arise from scenarios preserving the Russian empire from disaster in the early 20th century. Is this what you were thinking of.

Although Russia will become pretty formidable in the absence of the RCW and so on to knock its development back, can it really "take on the world" with only little Britain and an Egypt which, even if everything goes right from 1905 on, was still in rather a poor position to become a modern industrial power on the quick.

One of them is that Britain loses its grip on most of its colonies due to internal weakness (specifically India) around 1930, in the wake of the ATL Great Depression. However, I'm having a hard time finding an excuse to create such instability.

Well, what's the international situation at the time? Knowing that would certainly help. However, I can assure that, even in the pretty damn unlikley contingency of internal weakness without a big (and I mean "great power at war") external threat leading to the loss of all Asian and African colonies, the Old Commonwealth will be harder to disassociate from Britain.

WWI does not happen as normal - rather, a series of conflict, first over the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, then Russian Expansionism, then German Colonial Expansion, occur in the 1910's that set the stage for this.

Hmm. Can we here more about this? Germany certainly wouldn't have attacked France for shits, giggles, and colonies. Russia would have compromised over places like Persia rather than risked a great power war. And how does this "Ottoman dissolution" come about?

However, I have no clue how to get from WWI-less world with strong, colony-holding Germany, Far-Right Russia, and secure Britain in the 1910's to one where Britain's empire collapses almost completely. What sort of internal troubles did Britain face during this time? What sort of external conflicts could have arisen? Any particularly incompetent or dangerous leaders who were kept from power by a reasonably narrow margin?

Really, you'd probably need a combination of cracking under the strain of total war and some sort of highly abnormal upheaval. I rather think external factors are this early when PoD is so late and dissolution so early.

Side note: What sort of strong leadership could have arisen in Egypt to do for it what the Meiji Restoration had done for Japan? Expansionist drive to re-create the Caliphate is a bonus.

I'm not an Egypt expert, but I do know that the Meiji restoration is a very dubious comparison. Japan had been an isolated nation, but never an economically-exploited colony (indeed, the isolation period probably did Japan a lot of long-term good by avoiding this until it was ready to modernise).

There already is a Caliphate, residing in Constantinople. Kemal dissolves it himself, as it survived the Treaty of Sevres and the Turkish Republic's founding. First we have to know abiout the dissolution of the Ottomans (why has the Osman caliphate been abolished?). But given the Hashemite attempt, some sort of Egyptian pretension seems plausible.

For that, you'd obviously want some sort of fairly vocal Islamic government in Egypt. Maybe some sort of Muslim Brotherhood thing which does a very effective job of modernising the country?
 
David S Poepoe
Are people forgetting that Egypt is a British protectorate with a virtually puppet government in place?
I think for a strong Eygpt, You need a POD back in the early 1800's.
 
Are people forgetting that Egypt is a British protectorate with a virtually puppet government in place?

No, of course not. Indeed, I would say it was virtually colonial. That's as of 1905, and that can (and did) change. This doesn't mean Egypt will be a major industrial power in the 30s, and I've expressed my doubts there.
 

Neroon

Banned
U.S. stays neutral. Germany still looses due to blockade and collapsing home front. But it taker another year. Britain and France are much more drained of cash, manpower and will to send it's young men off to die some faraway place.
All it takes then is for one somewhat successful revolt to show that they cannot hold on to their colonies anymore and watch the dominos fall.
 
U.S. stays neutral. Germany still looses due to blockade and collapsing home front. But it taker another year. Britain and France are much more drained of cash, manpower and will to send it's young men off to die some faraway place.
All it takes then is for one somewhat successful revolt to show that they cannot hold on to their colonies anymore and watch the dominos fall.

A sound premise, but the PoD doesn't work. American forces most certainly did not speed up the end of Germany by a year. If Germany had tried to fight for another year, then before twelve months were out it would have imploded like Russia (which is an interesting if grim scenario to explore, but besides the point). The Hundred Days, in which it was the Old Commonwealth troops who did the really heavy lifting, will still break the back of the German army and thus give it the choice of peace or collapse.
 
Top