Retain as much European colonies as possible

despite that it would still leave a very large and rapidly growing very poor Algerian population as French citizens.
Greater French citizenship would probably mean greater investment into North Africa. Especially since France already suspected there was oil in there.
Expect that still doesn't solve the population issue and there no reason or incentive for them not to keep the status quo without Algeria revolting like otl.
I don't think the French were as racist as you think. After all, the Algerians had been French for over seven decades.
Expect the Algerians weren't French citizens.
Due to the Décret Crémieux, some were. But most Algerians weren't French citizens.
 
Greater French citizenship would probably mean greater investment into North Africa. Especially since France already suspected there was oil in there.
Still wouldn't be enough and still asking French taxpayers to pay extremely high amounts of money for people, they regard as non-French and inferior in many cases and still doesn't solve the population issue.

After all, the Algerians had been French for over seven decades.
They weren't regarded as French.

Due to the Décret Crémieux, some were. But most Algerians weren't French citizens.
The vast majority weren't French citizens.
 
If French strategy in 1953-1954 doesn't veer into expanding their operations into the Laotian highlands and thus Paris avoids Dien Bien Phu, the political will to keep Algeria, which was won militarily by 1962, will likely be there. As a permanent UN Security Council member, they also retain the ability to prevent any sanctions for doing so. Outside of that, the Dutch keeping their portion of New Guinea as well as Suriname is also likely, as is Malta for the UK as noted previously in all three cases.
 
the Dutch keeping their portion of New Guinea as well as Suriname is also likely,
Suriname, absolutely. They barely wanted to become independent anyway and were effectively forced by the Dutch government (not entirely correct, but not that far from the truth either).

Dutch New Guinea? No, I doubt it. Indonesia wanted it, which basicly meant war. And the Dutch would have to fight it alone, since noone would support the Netherlands, especialy not the USA (which in those days was the only one who matters), but even the rest of the world would see the Dutch as an emperialistic European coloniser. Actualy I would say that even large part of the population of the Netherlands would look at it that way. Nobody cared about what the Papuans actualy wanted (which was not to become part of Indonesia), just like nobody cared about what the Malukans wanted (and actualy still want). Besides that the Indonesian army was far stronger than the Dutch army. Which is why the Netherlands never tried to fight of the Indonesians. It would be a war they were doomed to lose. And that is ignoring the fact that the Papuans wanted to become independent, not remain part of the Netherlands.

In short, there is no way for the Dutch to keep New Guinea. At least not with a POD post WWII.
 
Considering that Portugal, the poorest and one of the smallest of Western European countries was able to hold on to two large African colonies with active insurrections for decades, only giving up after a domestic revolution, shows that Europeans could have held the continent basically indefinitely.
 
All of them

By doing this:

Make each person a full citizen in each "home" country, so the colonies and their people stop being colonies but instead all become full citizens in this new larger country, wont work with Hong Kong however because it was a lease.

You actually think that after a century of racist imperialism European electorates would have no problem becoming a minority to the “savages”?
 
Considering that Portugal, the poorest and one of the smallest of Western European countries was able to hold on to two large African colonies with active insurrections for decades, only giving up after a domestic revolution, shows that Europeans could have held the continent basically indefinitely.

Materially, yes, but Portugal had the advantage of the Estado Nova basically being a one-party state with minimal public accountability (As did Spain with her colonies)The French and British have to jusify the bodies and expenses to voters, and deal with the possability of opposition exploiting the issue to gather support if the cause loses public popularity
 
I feel like the British could have held onto their Middle Eastern colonies if they had the will. IIRC the Trucial States, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar were all British colonies and wanted the British to stay, going so far as to offer paying them for the costs of defending them and maintaining garrisons. Combine that with a profit sharing deal for the oil production and the British could stay as long as they wanted and could make a handsome profit from the oil as well.
 
Due to the Décret Crémieux, some were. But most Algerians weren't French citizens.

Decret cremieux actually reduced the number of Algerian which were French citizens. prior to it, the status of Algerians was subject of the senatus consulte of 1864 and imperial law of 1866, which gave french citizenship to all algerian muslims and jews (and any non-algerian who lived in algeria for more than 3 years).

To come back to the thread, france could easily keep Anjouan (OTL, they asked to come back under France after a few years of independence and France refused)
 
Top