What would incentivise colonial empires to integrate colonies?

I said “among other ideologies” immediately after your cutoff of my post.
I cut that off because it was irrelevant to the point I am interested in. That being that you assert revanchism is sufficiently linked to monarchism that it's failure would discredit monarchism. Given that it's most powerful supporters were republicans, and the fact that its victory in OTL didn't bolster the monarchist movement, I rather doubt that.
 
I cut that off because it was irrelevant to the point I am interested in. That being that you assert revanchism is sufficiently linked to monarchism that it's failure would discredit monarchism. Given that it's most powerful supporters were republicans, and the fact that its victory in OTL didn't bolster the monarchist movement, I rather doubt that.

Monarchists weren’t bolstered by WWI IOTL because it was Clemenceau who was in power and seemed to succeed in concluding the war, not the monarchists, and another factor was that monarchism was deader than dead by 1919, though it saw a bit of a resurgence during the Vichy era. Clemenceau, the finest statesman of the Third Republic, himself came from the Vendee, the former hotbed of French monarchism. Truth be told, a defeat in WWI may not weaken monarchism because it was already a dead ideology.

If there’s anyone who would be strengthened by a defeat in WWI, it would be the socialists vindicated by a war they opposed from the very beginning ending in French defeat.
 

DougM

Donor
I don’t think it is possible. The attitude that is needed in a country to create or capture a colony in the first place is such that I can’t picture them treating them as equal. This is doubly true with colonies that have a noticeably different race or religion then the main country.
Either the main country is looking for money or they have a superiority complex or both, And neither is conducive to giving the colonies equally status. And this is a thousand times worse if the colonies out number the main country.

Heck England didn’t want to give the America colonies equality and at the time the majority of folks in those colonies were practically indistinguishable from people back in England. Admittedly the King at the time was a bit more hard core about his power then in more recent times but still if England had problems with colonies of mostly Englishmen getting the same rights as commoners in England they are going to have a fit at the thought that India could EVER get the vote, And the later is understandable, If England gave India the vote (by bringing them into the actual country) then basically England would cease to exist as all Englishmen know it.
 
Monarchists weren’t bolstered by WWI IOTL because it was Clemenceau who was in power and seemed to succeed in concluding the war, not the monarchists, and another factor was that monarchism was deader than dead by 1919, though it saw a bit of a resurgence during the Vichy era. Clemenceau, the finest statesman of the Third Republic, himself came from the Vendee, the former hotbed of French monarchism. Truth be told, a defeat in WWI may not weaken monarchism because it was already a dead ideology.
That's entirely besides the point I raised, but otherwise I see no reason to disagree.

If there’s anyone who would be strengthened by a defeat in WWI, it would be the socialists vindicated by a war they opposed from the very beginning ending in French defeat.
Small nitpick: The socialists were actually divided on the matter, so much so that the pacifist wing eventually broke off to found the French Communist Party.
 
You might be able to get colonies that maintain their OTL status for longer or end up with some kind of devolved legislature. Is modern day Puerto Rico integrated into the US, or is it still a colonial territory that happens to elect its own governor?
 
Top