What does a longer lived British African Empire look like?

[fasquardon]

So let's assume that Britain performs very well in the alt-WW2 and Germany is crushed by the Anglo-French alliance relatively quickly (maybe they go to war over Czechoslovakia), meaning Britain retains a much higher level of prestige on the world stage and the US and USSR don't rise as quickly.

In the wake of this, Britain loses control of India and Egypt (though maybe they retain control of Sinai and the Suez, even though that would be breaking their agreements with Egypt in the 30s) and the Dominions while close allies, are still increasingly independent.

But if British imperialism remains strong in Africa, what does that actually look like on the ground? Often I see people leaving the area coloured pink in similar scenarios, but the timelines never focus on what the actual on-the-ground effect in Africa is of a stronger and longer-lived British presence.

fasquardon

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The simple answer is that the process of dominionisation proceeds but with less unseemly haste than OTL resulting in stronger, better organised nations with a later independence than OTL.

 

[fasquardon]

The simple answer is that the process of dominionisation proceeds but with less unseemly haste than OTL resulting in stronger, better organised nations with a later independence than OTL.

I'm not so sure this is true - there's plenty of ways the British staying longer could just make things worse. But even if things did go the way you outline, stronger, better organized, and more British influenced independent African nations sounds like a huge cultural change.

fasquardon

 

[markus meecham]

I'm not so sure this is true - there's plenty of ways the British staying longer could just make things worse. But even if things did go the way you outline, stronger, better organized, and more British influenced independent African nations sounds like a huge cultural change.

fasquardon

this, reducing the problems african nations faced post-independence to a "hasty decolonization" sounds myopic at the very very least.

 

[saluto]

I expect we’d see far more resistance to decolonialiation than in OTL. A good chance we’d see things pushed past the brink into violent independence struggles in British colonies before decolonialistion is accepted.

 

[fasquardon]

I expect we’d see far more resistance to decolonialiation than in OTL. A good chance we’d see things pushed past the brink into violent independence struggles in British colonies before decolonialistion is accepted.

I tend to agree, since I tend to see the ways the British misgoverned their empire as making decolonization inevitable in most areas... But in a case where British prestige were greater, might the British empire last long enough in these areas and evolve enough to win real legitimacy?

After all, a large part of decolonization comes from the sheer preponderance of power that the US and the Soviets have over Britain after 1945, making permanent erasure of the European empires simply the "modern" thing. Will it really be the same if Britain performs well in the war?

fasquardon

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I'm not so sure this is true - there's plenty of ways the British staying longer could just make things worse. But even if things did go the way you outline, stronger, better organized, and more British influenced independent African nations sounds like a huge cultural change.

fasquardon

There was going to be huge cultural change regardless of whether it was done quickly or slowly - when it was done quickly as in the example of Somalia (British and Italian) it was done badly and the issues that ensued resulted in that nation failing to this day.

A longer process of independence may allow for an improvement in the government run infrastructure over OTL and give those nations a better 'start' when it came to proper independence.

this, reducing the problems african nations faced post-independence to a "hasty decolonization" sounds myopic at the very very least.

Well let me explain it it a bit better then - the last of the Empires created lots of artificial nations by drawing lines on maps that often ignored the local cultures history and dare I say it tribal affiliations/rivalries that are still having repercussions to this day where differing 'peoples' of what is in effect an artificially created nation cannot get along particularly when one of those 'peoples' is stronger than the other and have a history of warfare between each other going back to pre-Empire days often exacerbated by acts taken by the European Rulers - for example the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi by the formally suppressed Hutu which can be blamed on the early German and subsequent Belgium Empires who both ruled the nation through the Minority Tutsi who dominated the other peoples of that nation. While the issues that existed between the 2 peoples go back several centuries it was not helped by the Belgians being pro Tutso before at the very end becoming pro Hutu and making short sighted decision making in the early 60s that resulted in a spiral of violence that ultimately resulted in at least 1/2 million people being murdered in less than 100 days.

Maybe the massacres were always going to happen - but the "hasty decolonisation" certainly made it worse.

I expect we’d see far more resistance to decolonialiation than in OTL. A good chance we’d see things pushed past the brink into violent independence struggles in British colonies before decolonialistion is accepted.

I cannot see the British people accepting greater violence and casualties among the native peoples of those nations than OTL do you?

Certainly they are not wanting to accept greater casualties among the British armed forces.

Unless it was some sort of anti Communist terrorist campaign type thing like in Malaysia?

 

[fasquardon]

Unless it was some sort of anti Communist terrorist campaign type thing like in Malaysia?

My understanding is that the anti-Communist campaign was for most of its life time an attempt to resist decolonization - and as nationalist forces became too strong the British shifted stance to using their war to help choose favoured groups to get Malaysia and then withdrew while saying "we meant this to happen all along".

fasquardon

 

[Wendell]

I don't think there's a POD after 1945 that makes this tenable.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

My understanding is that the anti-Communist campaign was for most of its life time an attempt to resist decolonization - and as nationalist forces became too strong the British shifted stance to using their war to help choose favoured groups to get Malaysia and then withdrew while saying "we meant this to happen all along".

fasquardon

Malaya is a poor example as it took place over 12 years and the 'enemy' combatants were not representative of the population and were predominantly Chinese Malay who were despised and mistrusted by the majority Malay population or a small number of Malay who again were not supported by the Majority.

The numbers of actual 'terrorists' was never that high - certainly not the same level as Vietnam for example.

Initially Britain was interested getting the Rubber and Tin economy which had taken a massive hit during the Japanese occupation back up and running in order to make as much money as quickly as possible.

This disruption to the Rubber and Tin economies only came about due to the occupation and poverty and famine resulted - this was fertile ground for a communist backed 'resistance' movement.

Had Britain done better in WW2 then it's unlikely that the the root cause of the Malayan Emergency would have existed.

Certainly not to the same level that it did.

 

[fasquardon]

Malaya is a poor example as it took place over 12 years and the 'enemy' combatants were not representative of the population and were predominantly Chinese Malay who were despised and mistrusted by the majority Malay population or a small number of Malay who again were not supported by the Majority.

The numbers of actual 'terrorists' was never that high - certainly not the same level as Vietnam for example.

Initially Britain was interested getting the Rubber and Tin economy which had taken a massive hit during the Japanese occupation back up and running in order to make as much money as quickly as possible.

This disruption to the Rubber and Tin economies only came about due to the occupation and poverty and famine resulted - this was fertile ground for a communist backed 'resistance' movement.

Had Britain done better in WW2 then it's unlikely that the the root cause of the Malayan Emergency would have existed.

Certainly not to the same level that it did.

Very interesting...

It makes me think about the way war-related disruption caused misery and starvation in Indochina and India - which boosted the independence movements there as well.

I wonder how badly WW2 affected the economies of the African colonies...

fasquardon

 

[Komnenos002]

Very interesting...

It makes me think about the way war-related disruption caused misery and starvation in Indochina and India - which boosted the independence movements there as well.

I wonder how badly WW2 affected the economies of the African colonies...

fasquardon

I'm wading into something I have very little knowledge of, but less damaged economies and a stronger Britain might create more Hong Kong like regions?

In that, they're economically productive and don't have a strong desire for independence. Perhaps Malaya with its rubber and tin could be one.

Hong Kong's position required a really big and scary neighbour, and growing prosperity in the colonies would presumably result in a desire for independence at some point, so I can't imagine it being a permanent situation on any real scale.

On the flip side, there's a very likely chance that a stronger Britain just means more blood is spent on trying to keep ahold of the colonies.

 

[saluto]

.




I cannot see the British people accepting greater violence and casualties among the native peoples of those nations than OTL do you?

Certainly they are not wanting to accept greater casualties among the British armed forces.

Unless it was some sort of anti Communist terrorist campaign type thing like in Malaysia?

I definitely do. In OTL the British engaged in a series of anti-independence campaigns often, but not always, dressed as anti-communist. From the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, to the Mayalan Emergency, to the near civil war like state of India in the late 40’s prior to independence. Without pressure from the US, and without the massive debt and other issues from WW2 I’m convinced the British government would oppose decolonisation for as long as possible. I don’t know how long it would take for public opinion to shift and force the government to change track. That depends on the intensity of the conflict and the successes of the British. I’d argue the first real crisies would take place in India before they engulfed Africa but decolonialisation over the 50’s and 60’s isn’t something that can be avoided without extreme violence or a POD far before WW2.

 

[spkaca]

This is an interesting question, but trying to answer it at the overall level will involve too many doubtful generalisations. I think it needs to be broken down into cases, region-by-region, country-by-country and maybe even to finer levels of granularity. Given their importance, I'd suggest the 3 cases to focus on should be 1) Nigeria, 2) Kenya/ Uganda/ Tanganyika and 3) South Africa/ Rhodesia (as was). I made a fairly brief and perhaps over-optimistic exploration of the first of these in my TL (sigged). If Nigerian oil is discovered and developed earlier (which might happen say as a result of London trying harder to make a go of Africa economically, perhaps using assets that OTL were consumed by the war) that could go several ways. A side-effect of an earlier Nigerian oil discovery would be less fretting in Whitehall about the Middle East, perhaps butterflying the Suez affair, with further knock-on effects.
East Africa I don't know enough about to comment on. For South Africa/ Rhodesia, my guess is that the much higher prestige of Britain improves the chances of the Union party and maybe prevents or delays the introduction of apartheid, or reduces the chances of Rhodesian UDI. The bigger question as some have alluded to above is the effect of this alt-WW2 on Communism - a more or less powerful USSR would certainly affect the calculations of the various parties to some extent. Reasonable people might easily come to quite opposite conclusions about the effects of these variables.

 

[Pangur]

The only this is possible is by really heavy oppression of the `natives' pretty much SS levels of oppression

There was going to be huge cultural change regardless of whether it was done quickly or slowly - when it was done quickly as in the example of Somalia (British and Italian) it was done badly and the issues that ensued resulted in that nation failing to this day.

A longer process of independence may allow for an improvement in the government run infrastructure over OTL and give those nations a better 'start' when it came to proper independence.



Well let me explain it it a bit better then - the last of the Empires created lots of artificial nations by drawing lines on maps that often ignored the local cultures history and dare I say it tribal affiliations/rivalries that are still having repercussions to this day where differing 'peoples' of what is in effect an artificially created nation cannot get along particularly when one of those 'peoples' is stronger than the other and have a history of warfare between each other going back to pre-Empire days often exacerbated by acts taken by the European Rulers - for example the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi by the formally suppressed Hutu which can be blamed on the early German and subsequent Belgium Empires who both ruled the nation through the Minority Tutsi who dominated the other peoples of that nation. While the issues that existed between the 2 peoples go back several centuries it was not helped by the Belgians being pro Tutso before at the very end becoming pro Hutu and making short sighted decision making in the early 60s that resulted in a spiral of violence that ultimately resulted in at least 1/2 million people being murdered in less than 100 days.

Maybe the massacres were always going to happen - but the "hasty decolonisation" certainly made it worse.

Highlighted in bold one of the key issue's

I cannot see the British people accepting greater violence and casualties among the native peoples of those nations than OTL do you?

Certainly they are not wanting to accept greater casualties among the British armed forces.

Unless it was some sort of anti Communist terrorist campaign type thing like in Malaysia?

very much agreed and what has to be added to that is the British leaving, real soon

I don't think there's a POD after 1945 that makes this tenable.

Agreed, WW2 showed that the european powers were not Gods. Its sort hard to argue against a Japanese empire and maintain your own

 

[xsampa]

If you mean continued direct rule of the colonies proper, excluding _independent_ SA/Rhodesia, I would argue it is impossible from an economic perspective. European colonies as a whole produced losses throughout their existence, and the British colonies in Africa were no exception. Once India was gone, the rest of the Empire became kaput because India was the only significantly productive colony. The low economic value of colonies became apparent to Whitehall OTL, so they just dropped them. Rebellions were just the straw on the camel’s back.

 

[hipper]

But if British imperialism remains strong in Africa, what does that actually look like on the ground?
fasquardon

Botswana

 

[fasquardon]

I definitely do. In OTL the British engaged in a series of anti-independence campaigns often, but not always, dressed as anti-communist. From the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, to the Mayalan Emergency, to the near civil war like state of India in the late 40’s prior to independence. Without pressure from the US, and without the massive debt and other issues from WW2 I’m convinced the British government would oppose decolonisation for as long as possible. I don’t know how long it would take for public opinion to shift and force the government to change track. That depends on the intensity of the conflict and the successes of the British. I’d argue the first real crisies would take place in India before they engulfed Africa but decolonialisation over the 50’s and 60’s isn’t something that can be avoided without extreme violence or a POD far before WW2.

Also, it's worth noting that people trying to throw the British out of their colonies was nothing new - the British had engaged in constant wars to maintain their empire before 1945.

Heck, some of the resistance the British met actually persuaded them to withdraw. It didn't end empire.

So without the US telling the British that the age of empire had passed... How would they know?

As far as crises in India... The British had accepted they'd be leaving India by the mid-30s. I'm not sure the subcontinent would be the place where British resistance would lead to a crisis.

If you mean continued direct rule of the colonies proper, excluding _independent_ SA/Rhodesia, I would argue it is impossible from an economic perspective. European colonies as a whole produced losses throughout their existence, and the British colonies in Africa were no exception. Once India was gone, the rest of the Empire became kaput because India was the only significantly productive colony. The low economic value of colonies became apparent to Whitehall OTL, so they just dropped them. Rebellions were just the straw on the camel’s back.

Egypt was far more profitable than India. And I am pretty sure Nigeria was profitable too. In any case, it doesn't matter if the colonies are profitable overall - what matters is how strong the influence is of those who do profit from the colonies is and how favourable the non-pecuniary factors are. So far as I know, no colony was abandoned or retained on the basis of its overall profitability. Strategic calculations and prestige balanced against the needs of international diplomacy.

The only this is possible is by really heavy oppression of the `natives' pretty much SS levels of oppression

People often say this... But is it really true? I've spoken with older folks from what were once African colonies who've told me that before WW2 the British were just the government. Maybe not a good government, but before the whole thing started to suddenly crumble all at once they didn't see any alternatives.

And do you really think that Britain would hesitate to oppress a rebellion that severely without the bad example of the Nazis to make them think? Take for example the British suppression of the Mau Mau, which was, well, we don't know exactly how brutal it was, the British wrote the history and most of the people involved died before they could tell the real story. But we know enough to infer that it must have been toe-curlingly awful.

Personally, I suspect there'd be a range of situations across the empire, from brutal suppression to sullen quiet to a majority of people just getting on to a few areas where pro-imperial patriotism dominates. I really doubt that the British would need to become brutal oppressors everywhere for all time though.

a more or less powerful USSR would certainly affect the calculations of the various parties to some extent

In OTL the USSR resisted getting pulled into the post-colonial world until the 60s (and that was mostly because they'd been stymied in Europe and were looking for ways to out-flank what they saw as the Imperialist gun being pointed at them across the North German plain). If the USSR is weaker (at least in relative terms - the short WW2 I outlined would leave the USSR much, much stronger than OTL's USSR) and Britain stronger, much depends on what the relations between Britain and the Soviets are... If they are good or indifferent, my bet is the Soviets stay out of Africa until the 70s or 80s. If the Soviets feel Britain is a serious threat, we could see them getting involved with independence movements in a serious way as soon as the Soviets feel they're on the back foot in more important theatres (which will be Europe and the Middle East).

So... I'd expect the Brits and Soviets compete over Iran, Turkey and Iraq and bid for the friendship of the newly independent India and Pakistan and depending on how that goes, the Soviets might then start trying to destabilize British Africa.

Botswana

Very succinct!

fasquardon

 

[hipper]

Also, it's worth noting that people trying to throw the British out of their colonies was nothing new - the British had engaged in constant wars to maintain their empire before 1945.

Heck, some of the resistance the British met actually persuaded them to withdraw. It didn't end empire.

So without the US telling the British that the age of empire had passed... How would they know?

As far as crises in India... The British had accepted they'd be leaving India by the mid-30s. I'm not sure the subcontinent would be the place where British resistance would lead to a crisis.



Egypt was far more profitable than India. And I am pretty sure Nigeria was profitable too. In any case, it doesn't matter if the colonies are profitable overall - what matters is how strong the influence is of those who do profit from the colonies is and how favourable the non-pecuniary factors are. So far as I know, no colony was abandoned or retained on the basis of its overall profitability. Strategic calculations and prestige balanced against the needs of international diplomacy.



People often say this... But is it really true? I've spoken with older folks from what were once African colonies who've told me that before WW2 the British were just the government. Maybe not a good government, but before the whole thing started to suddenly crumble all at once they didn't see any alternatives.

And do you really think that Britain would hesitate to oppress a rebellion that severely without the bad example of the Nazis to make them think? Take for example the British suppression of the Mau Mau, which was, well, we don't know exactly how brutal it was, the British wrote the history and most of the people involved died before they could tell the real story. But we know enough to infer that it must have been toe-curlingly awful.

Personally, I suspect there'd be a range of situations across the empire, from brutal suppression to sullen quiet to a majority of people just getting on to a few areas where pro-imperial patriotism dominates. I really doubt that the British would need to become brutal oppressors everywhere for all time though.



In OTL the USSR resisted getting pulled into the post-colonial world until the 60s (and that was mostly because they'd been stymied in Europe and were looking for ways to out-flank what they saw as the Imperialist gun being pointed at them across the North German plain). If the USSR is weaker (at least in relative terms - the short WW2 I outlined would leave the USSR much, much stronger than OTL's USSR) and Britain stronger, much depends on what the relations between Britain and the Soviets are... If they are good or indifferent, my bet is the Soviets stay out of Africa until the 70s or 80s. If the Soviets feel Britain is a serious threat, we could see them getting involved with independence movements in a serious way as soon as the Soviets feel they're on the back foot in more important theatres (which will be Europe and the Middle East).

So... I'd expect the Brits and Soviets compete over Iran, Turkey and Iraq and bid for the friendship of the newly independent India and Pakistan and depending on how that goes, the Soviets might then start trying to destabilize British Africa.



Very succinct!

fasquardon

Apart from colours on the map there was no real point to an African empire, however British imperialism could morf into stronger support for countries that maintained the Rule of law, or even intervention against ones That Did not. Hopefully there would be fewer countries like Congo and more like Botswana.

 

[saluto]

Also, it's worth noting that people trying to throw the British out of their colonies was nothing new - the British had engaged in constant wars to maintain their empire before 1945.

Heck, some of the resistance the British met actually persuaded them to withdraw. It didn't end empire.

So without the US telling the British that the age of empire had passed... How would they know?

As far as crises in India... The British had accepted they'd be leaving India by the mid-30s. I'm not sure the subcontinent would be the place where British resistance would lead to a crisis.




Very succinct!

fasquardon

WW2 was not the sole reason for the British Empires collapse. The USSR and USA were on the way to overtake the British without WW2.

The loss of India seriously weakened the Empire and was a signal that the age of empires was ending. Many conservatives continued to oppose indian independence throughout the war, including Churchill. I’m assuming a shorter war leaves the conservatives in a stronger position. If that was the case then the British would drag their heels even more and OTL a delay of just a few months would have caused civil war. People don’t realise the extent to which violent unrest engulfed India over the 1940’s. Many parts of the country were already undergoing civil war. Of Churchill and other conservatives got their way the Britain would end up engaged in a war that it couldn’t win and that would destroy the empire on it’s own.

In Africa strong independence movements were flourishing over the 1940-50’s. Nationalism became a serious force. They weren’t just rebellions of tribesmen. If Britain opposed independence then they’d end up in a similar position to the French or Portuguese. The only way those conflicts were allowed to continue so long before colonial withdrawal was through military intervention in domestic politics. That’s not going to happen in Britain, so we’d likely see an attempt to maintain the Empire and then acceptance of the inevitable in the 1960’s.