No Decolonization

It is possible to deny the inhabitants of some areas the right to vote, without becoming a fascist dictatorship were people life in missery.

Just look at the natives of Washington D.C., wait bad example...;)

The area was built for the for the sole purpose to be used by the federal government. D.C. is far too represented, with their three electoral votes.
 
I think Eden would probably take a vacation like he did after the crisis IOTL. If Eden leaves in a position of strength, we likely avoid all of the maneuvering and that took place IOTL, which means that whenever Tony decides to go out, he'll have a bigger say on who follows him.

My money's on Rab Butler taking the reins afterward, and he'll want to keep decolonization a gradual process.



another Eden Triumphant butterfly could be Britain's coming around to the French proposal for political and economic union.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
another Eden Triumphant butterfly could be Britain's coming around to the French proposal for political and economic union.
No way. Even if Eden did come around to the idea, it would be rejected out of hand by the French public and legislature and Mollet would be booted out of office in a heartbeat.

That being said, I predict much stronger Franco-British relations, especially in foreign, colonial, and military affairs.
 
No way. Even if Eden did come around to the idea, it would be rejected out of hand by the French public and legislature and Mollet would be booted out of office in a heartbeat.

That being said, I predict much stronger Franco-British relations, especially in foreign, colonial, and military affairs.

Depends on De Gaulle. Despite the British helping the French get a zone in Germany and Austria and not only letting them keep their colonies but get a zone in Libya, De Gaulle was extremely obstructive, vetoing attempts for Briitain to join European groups, trying to split NATO, and threatening to fire on American troops during WWII. Which caused the Yanks to stop giving him ammo and guns for a bit. We should think about how the Belgian and Italian colonies will go.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I can offer this settlement I devised for 'Over By Christmas...'

Imperial Parliament at Queenstown is to be established. Representatives from across the empire are invited. Dominions are to have a half-veto on all resolutions and a seat on the security council. That is, any two Dominions can veto a resolution (including Britain). It is hoped that the international imperial body will establish a common defence and foreign policy for the empire.

As more Dominions join the veto becomes three, a third each (until ten dominions or more, when a two thirds majority is required to pass). This ensured that a large part of the empire would be in agreement with anything passed and that the non-white dominions could never* run away with control of the Imperial Parliament. Something essential to make it palatable to the status quo.


Current Dominions:
(ATL 1915)

  • Union of South Africa
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Newfoundland
  • New Zealand
  • Britain (in this sense, as equals with the Dominions)

Intended:

  • Ireland
  • Madras
  • West Bengal
  • Bombay
  • Punjab
  • East Bengal and Assam
  • Central Provinces
  • United Provinces
  • Transjordan and Palestine

Considering:

  • Burma
  • Ceylon
  • Southern Rhodesia
  • West Indies
  • Singapore and Malay States
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • Scotland*
  • Wales*

* If needs be, Scotland and Wales could be made Dominions to ensure this.
I would guess that Quebec would seek separate dominion status.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Or the Brits have Scotland, Wales, and Northern IReland have four votes, which all are given by the British representative.
They would have to be devolved as independent dominions in order to gain places at the table, so 'Britain' (England if this was the case) wouldn't be able to dictate their votes.
 
They would have to be devolved as independent dominions in order to gain places at the table, so 'Britain' (England if this was the case) wouldn't be able to dictate their votes.

Why would they have to? That would be bad for unity. If Britain isn't decolonizing then they might as well keep their influence by combining their votes. They would still have influence enough to do it.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
By that argument, why federalise at all? It is the very drawing of power to London that will see the empire fall apart as constituent countries start to feel their own political and economic capability. Only by making the empire a cooperative union can you hope to keep it unified.
 
As said, hugely depends on the POD.
Generally though longer decolonisation= better for the colonies, worse for the coloniser.
 
By that argument, why federalise at all? It is the very drawing of power to London that will see the empire fall apart as constituent countries start to feel their own political and economic capability. Only by making the empire a cooperative union can you hope to keep it unified.

I was not the one argueing for it.
 
The thing with the world wars is that they accelerated decolonization but didn't create the need for it altogether, the fact of the matter is European powers were still going mad trying to maintain huge, far-flung empires that cost them much more than they gave them back in revenues.

Slower decolonization without two world wars to devastate all the colonial powers? Sure. Like some people have said it would probably lead to certain colonies and areas becoming more integrated or even fully joining their rulers, there is a possibility that French Algeria could have actually become a full-on French territory without all the violent independence movements (not like they were going to get it with peace). Portugal keeping up a network of small, profitable overseas possessions like Portuguese East Timor? Sure.

No decolonization whatsoever? Nah.
 
I think on some level it really comes down to what constitutes decolonization, but otherwise, what others have said is true. There would never be a total retention of the colonial empires.
 
Well their hasn't even been complete decolonization OTL, just look at various island territories and French Guiana. Also bare in mind that this means no Soviet Union backing independence movements. So it's entirely dependent on a combination of if you could have more colonies actually wanting to stay with their colonizers, and the extent to which they are willing to force colonies to stay put. If countries with small empires like Spain, Italy and Germany resolve to keep them I can't see them failing.
 
Top