The Sun Never Sets?

What is the maximum number of colonial possessions that the United Kingdom can keep with a POD after the surrender of the Japanese in Tokyo Bay? I figure geographically small regions such as Malta, Hong Kong, and Singapore are in the cards, but is there any way that a place like Aden or the Suez Canal can be kept, too? What about in Africa?
 

Hyperion

Banned
Hong Kong would probably go as in OTL, unless you did a POD that saw the Chinese civil war last longer, possible to a point where the mainland split into two or more seperate nations or something. But that would be a seperate issue in and of itself.

My best guess to keep a few places more than OTL would be to let some larger territories, likely in Africa, gain independence sooner than OTL. If you already know they are going out, cut your losses and save some time and money. Maybe let India go a year or so sooner as well.

Malta would be a reasonable candidate, though I don't think the idea of integration with the UK would be a good idea.

The Bahamas would be a reasonable candidate to hold onto. Small population, island nation in the Caribbean, where most of the UK current remaining holdings are located. Offer them internal self rule, let them do their own taxes and whatever, the UK will handle defense, handle foreign affairs for the most part.

Seychelles in the Indian Ocean would be a reasonable candidate as well. Again, a small group of islands. Population of only about 70-80 thousand give or take. Somewhat out of the way and not a major player in world affairs. Give them full internal self rule, and again the UK will handle defense, maybe keep a navy frigate based in the area.

Something like those three might be doable. Anything more, and you would need a POD further back that doesn't leave Britain and the empire so drastically gutted from WW2.
 
The West Indies (including Belize and The Bahamas)
Malta
Seychelles
Mauritius
The Pacific Islands (Fiji, Tuvalu, etc.)
Singapore (maybe)
Hong Kong (Iffy at best)
What they have in OTL...
 
Note that IOTL Britain fought and won a small war against Egypt over ownership of Suez. Without American intervention, the UK could well still have it today.

And while there are obviously other reasons as well, most people point to the Suez War as the death of British and French colonialism, as it was essentially the US telling Europe that it would not permit the use of force to maintain colonial empires. In the absence of that, we'll probably see the loss of colonies being slower and more gradual. I can easily see places like Rhodesia staying British.

The Raj, of course, has got to go, though perhaps Sri Lanka stays British? I could see Aden as well, especially if Britain, flush from victory over Egypt, decides to take a much stiffer approach to Middle Eastern politics.
 
Malta very well could have remained British, but it would definately not be integrated into the UK as was proposed.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I forsee a slower end to British imperialism resulting in a lot more federated states rather than the torrent of independencies that occured IOTL.

For example, a more gradual end to colonialism may result in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland surviving (though probably with some significant internal issues down the road).

And perhaps the UK will be able to establish long-term survival for its much sought after dream of the East African High Commission evolving into a sustainable East African Federation (which would, of course, exclude Burundi and Rwanda at its inception).

That being said, you would probably see the UK hold onto the already-mentioned West Indies and minor islands in the Indian Ocean.
 
Top