No Declonization?

suppose that, for whatever reason, there is no concerted effort by the european governments to decolonize their empires in africa and elsewhere following WW2. what would be the effects on the world as a whole, and what would be any new states that form in africa and elsewhere that come from native decolonization/secession movements?
 
There'd be a lot more death and destruction in Africa before the West finally gave up and pulled out.
 
It's pretty much ASB by that point.

The Western Empires knew they could'nt hold onto their colonial Empires forever, hell they knew they could'nt hold them for more than another decade (two at the most) without massive reforms, so it ultimately was never by then a question of keeping them or not, it was a question of what can we directly incorporate and how can we give the rest indeepndence without a gian clusterfuck.

Britain (and IIRC France) initially porposed long range plan with the Metropole paying to build up the infrastructure and civil society in the colonies and then granting them independence once they'd achieved stability and the ability to govern and be economically successful, which would have had most of them gainin indepdnence in the period between the late 70's and early 90's and the very last 1 or 2 becoming Independent in the first few years of the new millenium.
Some colonies, primarily the small islands, places with majorities that would support remaining and highly strategic places would have been integrated as full, equal parts of the countries.

However the United States opposed this, demanding that all the colonies become indpendent now, and to hell with the facts that quite a few did'nt have the physical, economic or governing infrastructure in place for it, further exacerbated by the U.S. and Soviets sing the colonies for proxy wars.

So the best you can get is the colonies being built up and gaining independence later as a result and maybe a few more places remaining and beig integrated, but that's basically it.
 
maybe i should reword my question then :D;)

how bout the POD is shortly after WW1 and the US doesnt demand faster decolonization?
 
Best case scenario is to have the USSR collase after WWII, most likely because they make more mistakes during the war and the economy totally collapses after it. Without the Cold War the US is far less interested in the Third World trying to recruit it in a proxy war with the USSR.
 
One of the ways to get rid of the Soviet's constant support of de-colonization could be for them to get Libya (their were discussions, and they seriously proposed it at one point), which would make it pretty hard for them to seriously oppose it if they themselves were seen as a colonial power.
 
One of the ways to get rid of the Soviet's constant support of de-colonization could be for them to get Libya (their were discussions, and they seriously proposed it at one point), which would make it pretty hard for them to seriously oppose it if they themselves were seen as a colonial power.
two different scenarios come to mind based on this:

  1. what if russia controlled a different, smaller part of the mediterranean region?
  2. how would russia go about getting libya? could it perhaps spring from war with italy? (WW2, Mussolini invades Libya, Russia comes in and takes over during the North Africa campaign and Libya is ceded as part of the peace treaty)
in both cases, at what point would the russian colony end up becoming independent?
 
Britain (and IIRC France) initially porposed long range plan with the Metropole paying to build up the infrastructure and civil society in the colonies and then granting them independence once they'd achieved stability and the ability to govern and be economically successful, which would have had most of them gainin indepdnence in the period between the late 70's and early 90's and the very last 1 or 2 becoming Independent in the first few years of the new millenium.
Some colonies, primarily the small islands, places with majorities that would support remaining and highly strategic places would have been integrated as full, equal parts of the countries.

However the United States opposed this, demanding that all the colonies become indpendent now, and to hell with the facts that quite a few did'nt have the physical, economic or governing infrastructure in place for it, further exacerbated by the U.S. and Soviets sing the colonies for proxy wars.

Whenever people tell me European colonization messed up Africa and the Middle East I like to tell them that those regions problems were created when they kicked the Euros out. I'm not saying that Britain and France should have been in those regions in the first place, but rather, a slower decolonization would of been better for everyone.
 
what if russia controlled a different, smaller part of the mediterranean region?

Their were'nt really alot of places it could, Yugoslavia never got along with them, their was an agreement between the West and Soviets that Greece would not fall into Soviet orbit and Turkey was on the same side during the war and joined NATO very early on.


how would russia go about getting libya? could it perhaps spring from war with italy? (WW2, Mussolini invades Libya, Russia comes in and takes over during the North Africa campaign and Libya is ceded as part of the peace treaty)

Libya had been an Italian colony from 1911-1939 and then from 1939 to the end of the war ebcame integrated Provinces of Italy.

I don't remember the exact details of the proposal, but I do remember when it came up awhile back one of the AH proposals would be for the Soviets to cede their gains in Austria and allow it become a NATO state (rather than enforced neutrality) in return for getting Libya.


in both cases, at what point would the russian colony end up becoming independent?

Depends, if it's integrated as an Overseas SSR, then when the USSR falls, otherwise probably in the 50's with the establishment of a Soviet-backed/puppet Libyan People's Republic.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Whenever people tell me European colonization messed up Africa and the Middle East I like to tell them that those regions problems were created when they kicked the Euros out. I'm not saying that Britain and France should have been in those regions in the first place, but rather, a slower decolonization would of been better for everyone.
If by "everyone" you mean in the Churchillan tradition of meaning everyone who is white; then its bang on the money.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
A Tripartite victory at Suez would probably convince the Brits to slow down colonization.

I could see it leading to an East African Federation in the long term. A longer British presence may convince the South Cameroons to join Nigeria, which might stabilize things there.

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland may be able to survive, but it's going to be an uphill battle.
 

Hendryk

Banned
There'd be a lot more death and destruction in Africa before the West finally gave up and pulled out.
This. There is an example of a Western government that seriously attempted to retain its colonies at any cost, that was Portugal. The result: endless guerilla wars and everyone getting so sick and tired of it that the army deposed the government, set up a left-wing regime, and granted the colonies their independence.

Of course, another obvious example is French policy in Algeria, which similarly resulted in the collapse of the government and independence still being granted, although after a lot more people dying.

Local exceptions aren't altogether impossible, but as a general rule this is what a slower decolonization would look like: more killing, more suffering, and deeper hatred, all for pretty much the same final result.
 
This. There is an example of a Western government that seriously attempted to retain its colonies at any cost, that was Portugal. The result: endless guerilla wars and everyone getting so sick and tired of it that the army deposed the government, set up a left-wing regime, and granted the colonies their independence.

The only real problems Portugal had were in Guinea, it was putting all their effort into retaining it that lead to the coup, not its Overseas Provinces in general.

Eventually Mozambique would likely become Independent or something like Greenland, where it's highly autonomous, but aside from that Angola, East Timor and Cape Verde were all just fine until the last few years.
 
Top