Would a powerful enough country have been able to prevent decolonisation?

If the world wars could be avoided, I could see the following happening.

Britain keeping her colonies, mainly because they were already transitioning the Empire into the Commonwealth, with several Dominions and a few self-governing colonies already. Without WW1, Irish Home Rule would have been sorted. The Indian Question (Dominion status) would be the trickiest step, but could be managed as either a federation similar to Australia and Canada or as separate Dominions based on the Presidencies and the Princely States.

France would probably continue with it's policy of eventual integration with the metropolitan.

The Russian Empire could lose territory if the revolution turns out to be anywhere as messy as OTL, and they WILL have a revolution, just a matter of when. the pressure was building even without the added stress of war with Germany.

Germany also has a good chance of retaining it's colonies if war is avoided.

Belgium losing the Congo, Burundi and Rwanda to a massive uprising, triggered by their oppressive policies.

Spain and Portugal to gradually lose control of their remnants due economic decline.

Italy to integrate Libya into it's metropolitan as per France & Algeria.

The USA to eventually let the Phillipines go, but keeping her other colonies, sorry territories, in the Pacific and the Carribean. In fact, without WW2, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii may be delayed for decades.

Japan to keep Korea and to seize Manchuria as per OTL, although conflict with China and internal resistance to Japanese rule to flare up over time.

The Ottoman Empire still disintegrating, with the resulting chaos in the Near East tempting intervention by Anglo-French forces.
 
If the world wars could be avoided, I could see the following happening.

Britain keeping her colonies, mainly because they were already transitioning the Empire into the Commonwealth, with several Dominions and a few self-governing colonies already. Without WW1, Irish Home Rule would have been sorted. The Indian Question (Dominion status) would be the trickiest step, but could be managed as either a federation similar to Australia and Canada or as separate Dominions based on the Presidencies and the Princely States.

France would probably continue with it's policy of eventual integration with the metropolitan.

The Russian Empire could lose territory if the revolution turns out to be anywhere as messy as OTL, and they WILL have a revolution, just a matter of when. the pressure was building even without the added stress of war with Germany.

Germany also has a good chance of retaining it's colonies if war is avoided.

Belgium losing the Congo, Burundi and Rwanda to a massive uprising, triggered by their oppressive policies.

Spain and Portugal to gradually lose control of their remnants due economic decline.

Italy to integrate Libya into it's metropolitan as per France & Algeria.

The USA to eventually let the Phillipines go, but keeping her other colonies, sorry territories, in the Pacific and the Carribean. In fact, without WW2, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii may be delayed for decades.

Japan to keep Korea and to seize Manchuria as per OTL, although conflict with China and internal resistance to Japanese rule to flare up over time.

The Ottoman Empire still disintegrating, with the resulting chaos in the Near East tempting intervention by Anglo-French forces.

I'm afraid I have to disagree on all the points, but I'm too sleepy to post something coherent right now.

On India...no way is Britain keeping them. No way. Federal system of presidencies? You might not know this, but they were hugely unpopular. The Madras Presidency, for example, oppressed literally everyone except Tamils.

Also, how is the US losing the Philippines when Britain gets to keep Africa and India, both of which have larger populations than its base/home turf.
 
Modern communications would make it hard for the colonies to be retained. It's much easier to oppress people when there is not live video feeds on TV or the internet going back to your populace. #gandhihungarstrike
 
Modern communications would make it hard for the colonies to be retained. It's much easier to oppress people when there is not live video feeds on TV or the internet going back to your populace. #gandhihungarstrike

But what if the people back home don't care? All the hunger strikes in the world aren't going to stop an occupying army and secret police of a great power if the people back home don't get affected by hunger strikes and the like.
 
But what if the people back home don't care? All the hunger strikes in the world aren't going to stop an occupying army and secret police of a great power if the people back home don't get affected by hunger strikes and the like.

Well, the people back home would have to be fairly Nazi-like not to care about people starving themselves to death in the name of freedom, no? Or about the lethal violence against peaceful protesters which is fairly inevitable in these cases.
 
Well, the people back home would have to be fairly Nazi-like not to care about people starving themselves to death in the name of freedom, no? Or about the lethal violence against peaceful protesters which is fairly inevitable in these cases.

From our eyes yes. But with a PoD where the developed world was less advanced down OTLs progressive (for want of a better word) social path hunger strikes might just be seen as a cost of doing business, especially if it was countered by effective propaganda. Its not as if even now we don't use brutal dictatorships when they suit us, we just aren't the brutal dictatorships ourselves.
 
In our timeline, European powers were forced into decolonisation through a combination of being bankrupt after WW2 and through having fairly small populations relative to the colonies they were trying to hold on to. But would a powerul enough Western base have allowed one to maintain their hold?

For example had Britain avoided the American Revolution and had an integrated North America as a supportive base, could they have maintained control of Asian and African colonies indefinitely?
The quickest answer is no, the explanation being that the unequal relationship of a "empire-colony" is fundamentally unstable.
 
From our eyes yes. But with a PoD where the developed world was less advanced down OTLs progressive (for want of a better word) social path hunger strikes might just be seen as a cost of doing business, especially if it was countered by effective propaganda. Its not as if even now we don't use brutal dictatorships when they suit us, we just aren't the brutal dictatorships ourselves.

Might need a pre-1900 POD though. Certainly pre-end-of-WWI.
 
Might need a pre-1900 POD though. Certainly pre-end-of-WWI.

Yes, the British and French had to dress up WW1 acquisitions in League Of Nations Mandate lingerie to make it look nice.

Maybe with a CP win things would be different, Germany would want to hold onto its shiny new colonies which would slow down the whole colonial guilt thing that bought about the LON Mandates.
 
I'm afraid I have to disagree on all the points, but I'm too sleepy to post something coherent right now.

On India...no way is Britain keeping them. No way. Federal system of presidencies? You might not know this, but they were hugely unpopular. The Madras Presidency, for example, oppressed literally everyone except Tamils.

Also, how is the US losing the Philippines when Britain gets to keep Africa and India, both of which have larger populations than its base/home turf.

Dominion status means self rule under the same monarch. If done properly and, more importantly, soon enough, it could keep India (or whichever combination of states that occurs) as a monarchy. Seeing as how India, Pakistan and Bangladesh remain members of the Commonwealth despite being republics, it's not such a far fetched concept. And I used the Presidencies as a purely geographical basis of separate, non federated Dominions, not as an actual continuation of political control.

The US loses the Phillipines mainly because they said they would relinquish control and they had begun the slow process of doing so before WW2.
 
Well, the people back home would have to be fairly Nazi-like not to care about people starving themselves to death in the name of freedom, no? Or about the lethal violence against peaceful protesters which is fairly inevitable in these cases.

Even the "Good Germans" could say they didnt know. Show pictures or videos of German Shepards growling at protesters, individual people standing up to a line of tanks, protesters getting water cannoned, self-immolation...

If one really wants to say that post enlightenment Europe would not eventually succumb to collective guilt, then they really have a low view of humanity.
 
Top