Brooke’s claimant?I kind of like the idea of Sarawak remaining independent as a semi protectorate of Britain under the last Brookes claimant. Allowing it to become a crown colony seems a mistake in hindsight.
Guyana's oil recent discoveries are in deep water - beyond the technology of the 1960's or indeed the 1990's (I am a geologist) .Realistically once India (& to a lesser extent Malaya) the entire enterprise of Empire was untenable. However with that being said I can see a world where Malta, Singapore, Suez (if we called the US bluff) are kept for strategic reasons & more of the Caribbean colonies are kept after the failure of the West Indies federation
Of other places mentioned as “trade ports” I don’t particularly see the feasibility of Aden being retained as a sort of Anglo-Djibouti given the armed resistance that occurred during the 50s/60s. Mombasa however is an interesting idea that could be plausible if Britain intended to continue to use Africa as its breadbasket, becoming a Goa like enclave in east Africa where grain & animal produce are exported - but imo its only going to happen if somewhere along the line it’s separate from Kenya in the same way Singapore is from Malaya - perhaps the nominal treaty of coastal land leased from the Sultan of Zanzibar is invoked as being separate to the colony to Kenya, & in the negotiations for Kenyan independence Mombasa is “retained” by the British over the rest of the coast
One place that hasn’t been mentioned is Guyana, somewhere which could easily be retained in the same way France does French Guiana if one of the following occurs:
1) Guyanese oil/gas reserves are discovered in the late 50’s/early 60’s - & it becomes a Caribbean version of north sea oil propping up the economy
2) Prior to the independence vote, Venezuela invades the Essequibo region & are defeated by a mixed force of British regulars. Concern about the risk of future invasion without British support causes a postponed vote to go in favour of maintaining British rule
I might actually write a timeline where some of these are kept actually. Some interesting butterflies could occur - though I suspect it’ll just be another cold-war timeline where Britain doesn’t consistently make the wrong decision at every hurdle
Regardless the retention of any of the colonies mentioned wholly reliant on a precedent set (likely by Malta who actually voted in favour of integrating into the UK in 1956) of joining the UK in a similar way to how France operates her “overseas departments”
While not intending to defend colonialism, this is indicative of 'Treasury brain' striking again.The problem is that a colony could easily be a money pit for the government, but private actors made massive amount of money on them and paid more than the loss back in taxes. It’s hard to measure such thing. I think the “collapse” in British manufacturing after the War do indicate that the empire was indirect profitable.
Yep, it's a possibility, and seems to be one that was considered IOTL. It was reckoned that a garrison of one battalion would be needed, with reinforcement from elsewhere if needed, but that there was no accomodation available in Zanzibar for troops. There was also a recognition that if independence wasn't awarded, there'd likely be violence anyway - only this time, it would presumably be Arab-led and pro-independence.That’s really interesting & explains the Zanzibari revolution almost immediately after independence - in theory this could be a reason for an extension of the protectorate until such a point a stable coalition government could be formed. Albeit only leading to another Aden situation, until the British garrison pulls out some time in the 70’s in an ATL version of the Mason Review.
Yeah, you can see the roots of a lot of concern about a potential need for British intervention in East Africa. Of course, after independence the area has been pretty stable, excepting Uganda in the 1970s, suggesting that the likelihood of conflict was overestimated. Or, of course, that colonial rulership was the cause of the violence...With relation to the aforementioned threat of annexation by Kenya, could we see a minor Anglo-Kenyan conflict over the strip? Ark dispatched alongside a commando carrier sent out to reinforce the garrison
Probably a mixture of both tbh. Other than the Mau Mau rebellion did Britain have any armed rebellion in east Africa (the Somaliland campaign not withstanding)?Yeah, you can see the roots of a lot of concern about a potential need for British intervention in East Africa. Of course, after independence the area has been pretty stable, excepting Uganda in the 1970s, suggesting that the likelihood of conflict was overestimated. Or, of course, that colonial rulership was the cause of the violence...
There were the East Africa Rifles mutinies in 1963-1964, which were post-independence and (interestingly enough) seem to have been partly enabled by the revolution in Zanzibar.Probably a mixture of both tbh. Other than the Mau Mau rebellion did Britain have any armed rebellion in east Africa (the Somaliland campaign not withstanding)?
Suez was definitely keepable. Eden should’ve called Eisenhowers bluff, & matched it by threatening to withdraw from NATO. The president would’ve backed down immediatelyI would prob say not entirely of egypt and South Africa but just the suez canal and the cape of good hope could have been profitable
Hmm, isn't a significant percentage of the UK's post-war debt at the time (I don't know the exact number, but isn't it at least double the amount of France) is held by the US? Unless they decided to significantly devalue the pound sterling for the second time in a decade, I kinda hard to see any other way to call Eisenhower bluff without any significant blowback with long lasting damage....Suez was definitely keepable. Eden should’ve called Eisenhowers bluff, & matched it by threatening to withdraw from NATO. The president would’ve backed down immediately
The closure of the Suez Canal put the UK economy under severe pressure and lead to an oil shortage severe enough to see petrol rationing reintroduced. The US blocked IMF aid, and was prepared to dump its Sterling holdings to cause devaluation and further exacerbate the issue. The UK economy was (and is) heavily import dependent, so devaluing the currency would drive up costs and increase unemployment. This wasn't a risk that the UK was willing to take. France wasn't as exposed to this risk, because of different economic circumstances and a less US-centric debt structure. It does seem that Macmillan exaggerated the threat to the UK to force Eden aside, but it was a real concern that couldn't merely be dismissed.I kinda hard to see any other way to call Eisenhower bluff without any significant blowback with long lasting damage....
It was yes. But, Eden could’ve quite easily threatened to withdraw from NATO, which France, desperate to retain some sort of imperial prestige would’ve followed suit on. Without Britain & France, NATO becomes functionally impotent if the red menace rears crosses the border. The US isn’t going to destroy NATO to appease Eisenhowers double standards on Canal Zones or inability to see Nasser had already chosen the Russians.Hmm, isn't a significant percentage of the UK's post-war debt at the time (I don't know the exact number, but isn't it at least double the amount of France) is held by the US? Unless they decided to significantly devalue the pound sterling for the second time in a decade, I kinda hard to see any other way to call Eisenhower bluff without any significant blowback with long lasting damage....