WI/AHC - One European Empire manages to hold the most profitable colonies

The following thread on me thinking that though there is debate regarding the profitability of European and other colonies in the Americas, Caribbean, Africa, Asia, etc (at least from the late 19th century onwards). Which colonies (and new world territories, etc) were actually profitable?

Also the challenge is to create a scenario where one European empire manages to hold most if not all the most profitable OTL colonies / territories to the point where it can either resist the trend towards decolonisation (or at minimum at lease decolonize at a significantly slower rate compared to OTL) perhaps making certain territories in departments (e.g. certain French territories / Overseas France, Japanese Taiwan, etc) and more.
 
Last edited:
Assuming a much reduced but persisting colonial empire, the most profitable non-self-governing territories would be
  • Caribbean/Atlantic tax havens (Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Bermuda) which increases investment in the rest of the economy
  • Trade entrepots (Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez Canal, Panama Canal) as financial, shipping and manufacturing centers
  • Relatively small Gulf states with oil (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) that are easier to police than say, the entirety of Iraq
  • Space ports (which could be literally any small, non-rebellious area close to the equator) for launching satellites

Due to the cost of military commitments, most other colonies would be eventually become a drain on a liberal economy in comparison to trading with an independent nation in the same area.
 
The following thread on me thinking that though there is debate regarding the profitability of European and other colonies in the Americas, Caribbean, Africa, Asia, etc (at least from the late 19th century onwards). Which colonies (and new world territories, etc) were actually profitable?

Also the challenge is to create a scenario where one European empire manages to hold most if not all the most profitable OTL colonies / territories to the point where it can either resist the trend towards decolonisation (or at minimum at lease decolonize at a significantly slower rate compared to OTL) perhaps making certain territories in departments (e.g. certain French territories, Japanese Taiwan, etc) and more.
The problems is define what are the most profitable colonies, they are changing, as example Chile and Argentina were relegated a second or even third class colonies during the Spanish colonial rule, Haiti was THE colony for the French Empire, The original 13 colonies weren't ever profitable for the UK.
With that in mind. How we can even start to define whar is a profitable colony? In thw epoch of his independence? Today? In the age of his conquest?
 
Manchurian population was 9 million in 1900. So any great power could have colonized and keept until this day. If Russia or Germany(I know it's very hard to do) annex Manchuria before 1900, with their population advantage they could Russificate/Germanize that area.
Libya - Population was 1 million in 1910. Large oil deposits and Aquifers.
For Portugal
 
Surely the profitability of colonies depends on the level and type of investment from the imperial power, for example in education, health and infrastructure? Whether the locals are treated as allies or a threat also has a bearing on policy.
 
Assuming a much reduced but persisting colonial empire, the most profitable non-self-governing territories would be
  • Caribbean/Atlantic tax havens (Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Bermuda) which increases investment in the rest of the economy
  • Trade entrepots (Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez Canal, Panama Canal) as financial, shipping and manufacturing centers
  • Relatively small Gulf states with oil (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) that are easier to police than say, the entirety of Iraq
  • Space ports (which could be literally any small, non-rebellious area close to the equator) for launching satellites

Due to the cost of military commitments, most other colonies would be eventually become a drain on a liberal economy in comparison to trading with an independent nation in the same area.

Previous threads exploring the subject and variations (the latter not necessarily profitable) seem to typically cite Togo, Samoa as well as Cabinda, etc.

Also read of the likes of territories such as the Rio de la Plata, Patagonia and Hispaniola potentially being profitable for other colonial Empires under different circumstances, though obviously such areas would later become independent as was largely the case in OTL (albeit as part of larger states). The same goes for Taiwan under the Japanese (or potentially under the British in another TL as a Super-Singapore).

Manchurian population was 9 million in 1900. So any great power could have colonized and keept until this day. If Russia or Germany(I know it's very hard to do) annex Manchuria before 1900, with their population advantage they could Russificate/Germanize that area.
Libya - Population was 1 million in 1910. Large oil deposits and Aquifers.
For Portugal

Italian Libya and Russian Manchuria seems probable, also read Italian Eritrea being doable as well (though not sure how profitable the latter would have been).
 
I have looked into this before but it's very hard to get overall numbers for different places. The profitability of different economies depends on a combination of (1) the commodity potential (2) the degree of brutality (3) the degree of corruption of the local colonial rulers and (4) the extent of rebellion. There is also a difference between profitability for the government and profitability for the metropole as a whole. I am going to assume we are thinking about the latter.

Broadly, by far the most profitable colonies were those with plantation slavery. At its peak, the British Caribbean repatriated something like 6-7 more to the UK than the whole of British India. This mainly refers to sugar plantations where the climactic conditions meant little European settlement, so the money comes back. Cotton plantations colonies would likely qualify too, providing not much freeholder population exists in the borders. This profitability goes up in smoke after abolition.

The second tier would be the rubber plantations when organized via low administration and concessions to private companies. This requires slavery-like conditions and most famously applies to the Congo Free State, but similar conditions and profitability (per hectare) occurred in the French Congo, northern Angola, Amazonian Brazil and Malaya. Again, this profitability dries up once the most sickening methods are banned.

Thirdly, you would have the oil economies of the Middle East during the mid-20th century. The trucial states were the most profitable, due to low admin costs and fewer elites to buy off, but it would also apply to larger countries like Iraq and Iran until local nationalization of oil companies. It could potentially apply to some other oil areas that weren't colonies at this time (Venezuela for example) or where the reserves had not been fully discovered (Trinidad, Nigeria) but extraction costs are far lower in the Gulf than anywhere else. From what I can tell, other commodities don't have anywhere near the revenue to make up for administration costs. Diamonds are the possible exception, but that is an artificial market based on fashion that is unlikely to be recreated in another timeline.

Finally, small colonies that control key trade routes would qualify. Singapore and the Malaccan Straits is the best example in our timeline, but there is similar potential on the same basis for Panama, Suez, Hormuz, the Cape. The major benefit here is the control of trade flows and income from elsewhere rather than direct revenue. A smaller effect could be done via Hong Kong type colonies on the edge of river systems to major markets.

It didn't happen in our timeline, but I believe colonies with primarily settler populations could have been profitable in the 19th and 20th Century providing industrialization happened and the right balance of autonomy is found that prevents revolts. North America is the best opportunity here but Australasia and the Southern Cone could also work. The benefit here is from more closely aligned trade rather than taxation.

One reason for pursuing colonies was the captive market theory. This was completely flawed. The monopsony purchasing structure kept these places so poor that you got far less money out of them than you would had it been a competitive system with the colonial power having a fraction of the pie. Maybe the profit optimization entails short conquest to establish your language over other European ones then getting the hell out.
 
Manchurian population was 9 million in 1900. So any great power could have colonized and keept until this day. If Russia or Germany(I know it's very hard to do) annex Manchuria before 1900, with their population advantage they could Russificate/Germanize that area.
I doubt it, considering that the Russian population in 1900 was 125 million (and a lot of them aren't ethnic Russians). Then you'd have to factor in that those 9 million Chinese are probably going to have a much higher TFR than any incoming Russian colonists.

Ditto for Germany.
 
I doubt it, considering that the Russian population in 1900 was 125 million (and a lot of them aren't ethnic Russians). Then you'd have to factor in that those 9 million Chinese are probably going to have a much higher TFR than any incoming Russian colonists.

Ditto for Germany.

Russia's TFR was super high back then - its population quadrupled in the XIX century. But Manchuria is just very far.
 
Russia's TFR was super high back then - its population quadrupled in the XIX century. But Manchuria is just very far.
China's TFR was even higher, and the Russians had enough problems getting people to go to Kazakhstan, which is a lot closer than Manchuria.
 
Aside from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana, which other former colonial sites near the equator could have been utilized as a spaceport?

San Marco in Kenya has been used as a launch site for space missions, many of them organise by Italian based scientists. Italy or Britain could have utilised remaining outposts on the East African coast for space launches and the French could still possibly use Reunion....

Northeast South America (the Guianas), East Africa and the Pacific Rim are optimal space launch sites. The UK if it pursued it's space program more zealously would have been using Australia quite possibly.
 
Aside from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana, which other former colonial sites near the equator could have been utilized as a spaceport?

I mean Florida counts for former colonial possession that can be used for a space program right?

I mean doesn’t A Dead Skunk position a British Florida so don’t see why this wouldn’t be possible.
 
Top