More colonies retained by colonial powers after WW2

The thing with Britain is they didn't want to keep them. More land doesn't make the country richer. If say Jamaica was part of Britain then it would be a huge drain, having to invest far more into it than it gives back to try and give the people there good services.
The idea of incorporating far away places into Britain itself too...the way the UK is set up (UK of GB and N.Ireland) just doesn't allow for a new province to be added on as easily as France.
Would be interesting but you would really have to change British thinking quite heavily
 
Well I guess places coul be merged, but really their is'nt anything else that could be independent.

The only ones really left Fr. Guiana, but they've never wanted independence, and while the Dutch did so it's generally forwned upon to kick a part of your country out when it does'nt want to be.
I suppose their's also New Caledonia, but they'd either end up as an inoffensive democracy that happily continues going on without anyone paying it much attention like Vanuatu or end up being the French version of Fiji.

I had French Guiana and New Caledonia in mind, though I also suspect that some of the other Pacific islands could fare well enough given the right POD. The same seems true for the more populous of the remaining Caribbean dependencies IMO. Also, there could very plausible be timelines devised in which the Caymans remain under Jamaican control and the Turks and Caicos are part of the Bahamas.
 
If say Jamaica was part of Britain then it would be a huge drain, having to invest far more into it than it gives back to try and give the people there good services.

That would be true if Jamaica were to join the UK tomorrow. But if it had become a part of the UK in say, 1962 then by the present day Jamaica would probably be a much better place to live, better infrastructure, education, healthcare, economy et cetera. Lower crime rates, less homophobia et cetera.
Currently 14% of the Jamaican population lives below the poverty line. I would bet that would be cut in at least half.
The UK would probably make a nice little profit from maybe the late 70's. Jamaica is one of the largest Bauxite (Aluminium ore) exporters.

And, of course, Team GB (though it would probably be Team UK) would get more medals in the Olympics for the 100 meter sprint.:D
 
Yes, but not integrated them.

They could easily have become part of the UK proper.

The OP did'nt say integrated though, they just said keep them.

Guam and Puerto Rico are parts of the United States that have'nt been integrated fully, but that does'nt mean we still have'nt retained them.


The thing with Britain is they didn't want to keep them. More land doesn't make the country richer. If say Jamaica was part of Britain then it would be a huge drain, having to invest far more into it than it gives back to try and give the people there good services.
The idea of incorporating far away places into Britain itself too...the way the UK is set up (UK of GB and N.Ireland) just doesn't allow for a new province to be added on as easily as France.
Would be interesting but you would really have to change British thinking quite heavily

In the case of the small islands you could always just do what the Dutch and French did and make them Municipalities, which both integrates them,
but also does'nt open up any Constitutional issues.
 
Last edited:
Gabon would have remained in association with France, like Léon M'ba wanted it to be and like the law allowed, if Degaulle hasn't waved the idea off.

Pretty much a guyane twin in Africa, by the way.

Not so little teritory almost fully covered by equatorial forest and less than one million people who well know french and are concentrated in a few citys.

It would likely take the way of Djibouti, remaining french some decade with decreasing France tied status before gaining independance at the first struggles, though.
 
Gabon would have remained in association with France, like Léon M'ba wanted it to be and like the law allowed, if Degaulle hasn't waved the idea off.

Pretty much a guyane twin in Africa, by the way.

Not so little teritory almost fully covered by equatorial forest and less than one million people who well know french and are concentrated in a few citys.

It would likely take the way of Djibouti, remaining french some decade with decreasing France tied status before gaining independance at the first struggles, though.

And there's all of that oil....
 
Guam and Puerto Rico are parts of the United States that have'nt been integrated fully, but that does'nt mean we still have'nt retained them.

I would consider that Guam is pretty much integrated into the US, at the time immediately after the Second World War, it should be on the same list as America Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.
 
I would consider that Guam is pretty much integrated into the US, at the time immediately after the Second World War, it should be on the same list as America Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.

To be fully integrated it would have to either be made part of a state or a state in its own right.

It is an integral part of the United States, but not fully integrated into it.
 
Is there a chance that retaining these colonies would significantly inprove colonial nation's influence on the world stage?
 
Is there a chance that retaining these colonies would significantly inprove colonial nation's influence on the world stage?

It could result in them having influence/being active in the regions they have them in but the ones most likely to be kept are'nt going to result in the countries being that much more influential than they are now, with the exception of Portugal.
 
Top