How inevitable was decolonisation?

The alternative to inevitable decolonisation, at least in the case of the British Empire, is the Imperial Federation which was an idea proposed at the time.
 
No, it was WW1, many african soldiers fought for the entente, some for the central powers... they learned, that they could FIGHT for their right.

The weakness after WW1 helped, latest after WW2, the wrong thing colonisation was doomed...

the only chance is to educate the peole and bring em to your home, create ties and make them friends... if you achieve this, you can integrate em in your country as farfaraway.parts... but not as colonies...
Actually, some countries already had home rule movements before WWI, like India.
 
The alternative to inevitable decolonisation, at least in the case of the British Empire, is the Imperial Federation which was an idea proposed at the time.
The thing about the Imperial Federation, was that India would become the majority in all decisions, government and the like. Doing that would just make the British Empire, the Indian Empire:D
 
The thing about the Imperial Federation, was that India would become the majority in all decisions, government and the like. Doing that would just make the British Empire, the Indian Empire:D
I'm not sure that India was meant to become a fully participating member of any Imperial Federation. As far as I know only the 'white Commonwealth' was meant to be involved in this - Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a question mark over South Africa. The Brits could quite easily retain control over such a federation.

In any case I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, given the rise of nationalism in the dominions. The most plausible scenario for the survival of European colonial empires was their transmutation into informal empires, as indeed most of them were prior to the late 19th century.
 
I'm not sure that India was meant to become a fully participating member of any Imperial Federation. As far as I know only the 'white Commonwealth' was meant to be involved in this - Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a question mark over South Africa. The Brits could quite easily retain control over such a federation.

In any case I don't think it's as easy as it sounds, given the rise of nationalism in the dominions. The most plausible scenario for the survival of European colonial empires was their transmutation into informal empires, as indeed most of them were prior to the late 19th century.
The White dominions didn't want to be part of it, though. Canada and Australia had their own national identity.
 
British Caribbean could stay, and the French might hold to Algeria but Africa & Asia, no way, too far away, and no way that those large non-European populations would be accepted as integral (voting) members of the metropole both for racial reasons and the fact that their populations would swamp the "natives" (eg: Europeans)

I was thinking smiilar, the British Carribean and the British Pacific Islands could stay colonies, much longer, for two main reasons:


1/It is as pointed out much more possible to integrate these areas as full voting members of the metropole due to the fact that the population are relatively small, ie will not swap the 'natives' (Europeans).


2/ Many of these nations had far weaker anti-colonial movements in the first place. I'm of part indigenous Fijian background and know that relative to most other British colonies, there was not a strong anti-British sentiment in Fiji in the post-WW2 period. In fact, whilst this is a vast generalisation, much (though not all) of the pressure for independence in Fiji was from the Indo-Fijian community, as opposed to the indigenous Fijians. Compared to many of the other British colonies in Afric and Asia, the Carribean nations and the Pacific Islands had native populations that were quite highly culturally Anglicised.
 
The White dominions didn't want to be part of it, though. Canada and Australia had their own national identity.

But even in those countries, they dragged their feet somewhat to independence.

Without the world wars, Europe could have maintained colonialism, and built up the colonies and local elites for two or three decades uninterrupted. Quite a few would likely receive independence, but it's possible that there might be a few globe trotting empires kicking around.
 
It's really not a 'Yes or No'.

Could Europe maintain the entirety of its Empires without resorting to large scale genocide and crimes against humanity?
No, no it could not.

However at the same time every piece of territory not originally part of the Metropole becoming independent is far from inevitable, and is indeed in some ways the opposite.


The exact size and territories that coul be retained really depends on history.

For instance, France could easily have kept Algeria if they'd actually lived up to the ideals the Republic was founded on; Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood, it was only after the Algerians were refused multiple times political and economic equality that they sought independence.

Another example would be Portugal, now while it's unlikely to retains all of its Empire, had their been a Salazar like ideology of 'Portugal being a Nation of Many People', and a government more open to compromise and developments like those that were occuring in Angola in the 60's and early 70's, then it could have kept a sizable chunk of its territory.

Third is of course the case of the Dutch; Suriname became Independent not because they wanted to be, but because the Dutch government essentially kicked them out as a result of a ridiculous version of extreme anti-colonialism.

Anti-colonialism in this case being, "lets get rid of that corrupt den of thieves/moneysink."
 
-Complete equality before the law for all inhabitants of the colonies regardless of race, creed and ethnicity.
-Enfranchisement of the local populations into the coloniser political process. Sich enfranchisement could have been implemented step by step using litteracy requirements for example. In order to avoid double standards they would have to be implemented at home too.
-Massive investments in educational, medical and basic infrastructure in the overseas provinces. We are talkig about schools and hospitals by the hundreds here, kilometres of railway track by the thousands, electrical generation capacity by the gigawatts and so on. Doable if a clear strategic aim of "making the colonies part of a Greater x" is stated very early on, I am talking late 19th century here or even better early to mid 19th century.
-A willingness to compromise since building a "Greater X" would have to be a two way process. Some cultural practices, words, expression and such from the colonised would have to creep up and be considered integral parts of the "Greater X" culture and traditions. Did happen to a degree OTL, but for complete acceptance to happen racism has to be nonexistent.
-Significant free movement of people inside the "Greater X" nation.
As the above is impossible, decolonization indeed seems to be inevitable, except for the smallest colonies. Though I suppose that some European countries could go the route of maximum suppression but that never seems to work in the long term.
 
The thing about the Imperial Federation, was that India would become the majority in all decisions, government and the like. Doing that would just make the British Empire, the Indian Empire:D

Well, this is assuming India is a monolithic block and everyone there always agrees with each other.
In a Imperial Federation scenario which involves India I'd imagine India wouldn't be united. The princely states at least would remain.
And then there's to consider that there would probally be procedures in place to reduce India's population advantage much as in many other institutions made up of big members and small members (the EU, the USA, etc...)
 
Well, this is assuming India is a monolithic block and everyone there always agrees with each other.
In a Imperial Federation scenario which involves India I'd imagine India wouldn't be united. The princely states at least would remain.
And then there's to consider that there would probally be procedures in place to reduce India's population advantage much as in many other institutions made up of big members and small members (the EU, the USA, etc...)

Whilst I still doubt that India (united or non-united) would be part of an Imperial Federation, you are very correct that any sizeable area containing large amounts of non-Europeans will get their quota of political representation 'weighted down', so as not assuage homeland fears of beign politically 'swamped' by the colonies. For instance, India, despite its population (even a century ago) being several times bigger than the UK, would not be getting several times the number of MPs that the UK gets.

Of course this would be unteneable in OTL 2011, but it certainly would earlier for most of the 20th century (up until the 1970's, etc) be a mostly viable system.
 
Top