In the absence of WWI, which additional countries could have been colonized by Europeans?

CaliGuy

Banned
In the absence of World War I (and World War II as well, of course), which additional countries could have been colonized by Europeans?

Any thoughts on this?
 
In the absence of World War I (and World War II as well, of course), which additional countries could have been colonized by Europeans?

Any thoughts on this?

I doubt they could colonize more, but I believe that a victorious russian empire in WWI could have annexed the entire anatolia, while giving the greeks thrace (apart from Constantinople) and effectively colonize the turks

Edit: for example, the Russian army was already on Trebzond when their war effort fell apart, it was just a question of time until reaching ankara, as the british had obliterated the ottoman armies in the south
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I doubt they could colonize more, but I believe that a victorious russian empire in WWI could have annexed the entire anatolia, while giving the greeks thrace (apart from Constantinople) and effectively colonize the turks
For the record, by "colonized," I meant more along the lines of "conquered."
 
There weren't too many non-European powers left in 1914, were there?

Ethiopia may eventually be conquered by Italy.

There were one or two twilight zones of sovereignty left in Arabia, at the edges of the Ottoman Empire. Some of them might have been turned into British protectorates.

Khiva or Bukhara might be fully annexed into Russia...whether on the model of the Georgian principalities or some other way. But I think only a revolutionary or reformist government would annex them; generic Imperial conservatism probably wouldn't want to.

Mongolia might be fully detached from China and turned into a full-time protectorate of Russia. This might not be considered undesirable by the Mongolians - not for some time, anyway. Later, things could get complicated.

What counts for Mongolia counts for Tibet, although here Britain or Russia could both plausibly be the "protector".

China proper is IMO too big to be turned into a protectorate, let alone a true colony. But with warlordism flaring up and European powers not caught up in their own war, who knows what might happen?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There weren't too many non-European powers left in 1914, were there?

Ethiopia may eventually be conquered by Italy.

You mean like in 1935-1936, but without chemical weapons?

There were one or two twilight zones of sovereignty left in Arabia, at the edges of the Ottoman Empire. Some of them might have been turned into British protectorates.

OK.

Khiva or Bukhara might be fully annexed into Russia...whether on the model of the Georgian principalities or some other way. But I think only a revolutionary or reformist government would annex them; generic Imperial conservatism probably wouldn't want to.

Would the locals in Khiva and Bukhara have supported such a move, though?

Mongolia might be fully detached from China and turned into a full-time protectorate of Russia. This might not be considered undesirable by the Mongolians - not for some time, anyway. Later, things could get complicated.

OK. Also, though, could Russia eventually go further than this and go for Xinjiang and maybe Tibet as well?

What counts for Mongolia counts for Tibet, although here Britain or Russia could both plausibly be the "protector".

OK; also, though, what about Xinjiang?

China proper is IMO too big to be turned into a protectorate, let alone a true colony. But with warlordism flaring up and European powers not caught up in their own war, who knows what might happen?

Could the European Powers launch a multi-nation expedition to restore order to China in the 1910s in this TL? After all, they certainly wouldn't have World War I to distract them and they previously did this back in 1900!

Also, what about Thailand (Siam), Afghanistan, Iran (Persia), and Liberia?
 
Would the locals in Khiva and Bukhara have supported such a move, though?

Khiva in particular had a lot of internal dissent, instability and all around poor governance at this time. You could probably find a few cliques that would welcome annexation into Russia - but they wouldn't be anywhere near a majority of the population.
OK. Also, though, could Russia eventually go further than this and go for Xinjiang and maybe Tibet as well?

Maybe. On one hand, Xinjiang was not really on the same level as Mongolia and Tibet; those two had a strong native elite which considered itself only in vassalage or "personal union" with the Qing, and not as actual Chinese provinces. On the other hand, there are ways to overcome or simply ignore that lack of a strong independence movement.

There were those in both Tibet+Mongolia and Russia who wished to see Russia go for Tibet, but Britain wouldn't like that one bit.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Khiva in particular had a lot of internal dissent, instability and all around poor governance at this time. You could probably find a few cliques that would welcome annexation into Russia - but they wouldn't be anywhere near a majority of the population.

So, why have Russia bother to go through with an annexation of these two territories?

Maybe. On one hand, Xinjiang was not really on the same level as Mongolia and Tibet; those two had a strong native elite which considered itself only in vassalage or "personal union" with the Qing, and not as actual Chinese provinces. On the other hand, there are ways to overcome or simply ignore that lack of a strong independence movement.

Good point about the native elite part; indeed, the native elite in Xinjiang appears to have been destroyed during the Dzungar Genocide back in the 1700s--thus explaining why China's hold on Xinjiang was more solid than its hold on both Mongolia and Tibet.

There were those in both Tibet+Mongolia and Russia who wished to see Russia go for Tibet, but Britain wouldn't like that one bit.

OK.

Also, though, can you please respond to this part of my post above, Halagaz? :

Could the European Powers launch a multi-nation expedition to restore order to China in the 1910s in this TL? After all, they certainly wouldn't have World War I to distract them and they previously did this back in 1900!

Also, what about Thailand (Siam), Afghanistan, Iran (Persia), and Liberia?
 
So, why have Russia bother to go through with an annexation of these two territories?

Some people (from generic military officers to reformists like Kerensky) thought that the Manghit and especially Qungrat dynasty has degenerated too much into corruption, reckless overtaxing, tribal violence and so on and that these regions would be genuinely more stable and better off under Russian rule.
Good point about the native elite part; indeed, the native elite in Xinjiang appears to have been destroyed during the Dzungar Genocide back in the 1700s--thus explaining why China's hold on Xinjiang was more solid than its hold on both Mongolia and Tibet.
Perhaps; that would explain a lot.

Also, though, can you please respond to this part of my post above, Halagaz? :

I unfortunately can't, because I have no idea. Couldn't even make an "informed guess" on those questions, let alone contribute any detailed knowledge.
 
The less chinese parts of qing china are what's going to be on the chopping block next for Europe sans the world wars, as others have suggested mongolia is a likely target for the Russians and the British are likely to move into tibet in response after that things get a little more difficult to predict but should China fall apart completely Japan may take a go at it.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
There could have been a tri-partition of Ethiopia, since Britain, France and Italy had discussed it. But it really depend on what's happening in Ethiopia, for Italy it was a way to regain some national prestige and have an empire that looks bigger on the maps. For Britain and France it was more of a 2nd alternative if they couldn't get their aims in the region fulfilled otherwise (such as the Addis- Djibouti Railway and the Lake Tana dam).
 

Redbeard

Banned
I think the times of colonial expansion/conquest were over by early 20th century. Not just because there weren’t that many places left to colonialize, but what was left also had questionable worth compared to the cost of conquering and maintaining them.

Without two world wars bleeding the colonial powers pale the will and ability to resist dissolution of the colonial empires of course will be much stronger, but the forces wanting greater independence/ de-colonization will still be present.

Not to be overlooked however is the absence of USA as a superpower. USA will still be a very strong power and rule sovereignly over the American continents and be dominant in most of the Pacific area, but the OTL post WWII vacuum in the old Empires will not be present and the colonial Empires does not need to ask USA for permission to survive. In OTL post WWII USA clearly had no urge to help the colonial empires and made it very clear at the Suez crisis in 1956 – and a few years after most of the Empires were gone.

The strongest opposition to colonialism will come from inside the Empires as socialdemocrats and/or communists gain strength, and actually I think the opposition will be stronger if there is no Soviet Union. The SU gave the anti-communists an extremely strong legitimacy and even to a large degree gained the socialdemocrats for the anti-communist cause.

But no matter what I don’t think the basic colonial idea (we rule – they work) can survive the spreading egalitarian ideas – communists or not. In OTL however the most important factor after WWII was the totally missing economic muscle of the old European powers. No prospect of massive investments overseas - they hardly could manage their own reconstruction – but USA was over paid, over sexed and over here!

In this ATL USA will still be rich and with lots of capital seeking to be invested, but more like a curious alternative for risk takers than the OTL only option. In such a TL I would find the old colonial Empires transforming into commonwealths of independent nations tied together in economic and political unions the most likely – but probably with a lot of rumble and smoke during the process. I also think the net result would be much happier than OTL. Not just because of the millions not dying in a world war, but because the global economic system being the consequence has a serious chance of producing increased wealth most where.
 
For useful handy reference here is a map of the world in 1914:

World_1914_empires_colonies_territory.PNG

Not a lot of room left, the Americas have obviously already been colonised so it leaves a handful of places.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What about Thailand/Siam (especially if some Thai elites adopt an undesirable stance like being too friendly to Germany)?
It could work; indeed, in such a TL, Britain probably gets Bangkok and everything to the west of it while France gets everything to the east of it.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
For useful handy reference here is a map of the world in 1914:

World_1914_empires_colonies_territory.PNG

Not a lot of room left, the Americas have obviously already been colonised so it leaves a handful of places.
Okay what's up with Sweden still having the Union Flag, and apparently being Norway on the map?
 
Top