Would the colonial empires still exist today if World War II never happened?

[TheDepthlessSea]

They can, actually, this board's Americancentrism is colored by Vietnam and Afghanistan to see guerilla warfare and insurgencies as some sort of invincible force of nature that once started can't be stopped, but in reality... insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill (like the FARCs), an Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow.

The British were very effective at counterinsurgency, see the Malay Emergency and Mau Mau Rebellion.

Vietnam and Afghanistan had heavy support from outside powers. If you had a world were great powers were generally cooperative (ASB) insurgencies would probably be annoyances at worse.

 

[Hydra1234]

insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill

Since the end of WWII, the insurgents have won about as much as they have lost. Of 89 insurgencies from 1950-2003, 26 of them were insurgent victories, 28 were government victories, and 19 were of mixed outcome. Another study of 30 counterinsurgencies from 1973-2008 that classified mixed outcomes as defeats or victories found 22 were insurgent victories and only 8 were government victories.

This isn't just about America either. France lost against guerrillas in Algeria, Rwanda, and Vietnam. Despite their successes, the British still had a handful of COIN failures in Oman Yemen (sorry for the confusion) and Palestine. That's also not to mention the dozens of local insurgencies fighting local governments that have won across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, or the failures of NATO forces across the board during the War on Terror (British and Americans in Iraq, Americans in Afghanistan, the French in Sub-Saharan Africa).

Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow

I mean, financial cost and "annoyance" directly impact the empire's will to retain a colony.

 

[LongVin]

I think Italy could've held Libya and maybe Eritrea.

The population of Libya was already quite low, and with the discovery of oil there would likely be more immigration.

Libya will probably be kept. It was often referred to as Italy's fourth coast plus the Italians did have the concept when Balbo was in charge of the colony. Without WW2 it is quite possible they can get enough Italians into the area to make it majority Italian especially once oil is discovered. Continued control over Libya also helps Italy secure the central Med, so strategically it is important to Italian interests.

 

[Monter]

Since the end of WWII, the insurgents have won about as much as they have lost. Of 89 insurgencies from 1950-2003, 26 of them were insurgent victories, 28 were government victories, and 19 were of mixed outcome. Another study of 30 counterinsurgencies from 1973-2008 that classified mixed outcomes as defeats or victories found 22 were insurgent victories and only 8 were government victories.

WWII had a role on that, hard for the French to coordinate COIN in Indochina with the Metropole wrecked and the Japanese destroyed the colonial authorities, and putting "mixed" as a loss for the government is questionable, once again the FARCs are nowhere near storming Bogotá, nor the ethnic minorities in Myanmar that are in arms since 1947, from a point of view "merely existing" might be a victory on it's own, for me it is pretty much a failure.

the British still had a handful of COIN failures in Oman and Palestine.

What? Are you talking about 1936, Jebel and Dhofar? Those are unambigously victories for the British (and Omani), unless victory for you mean complete destruction of the enemy.

 

[LongVin]

I think Italy could've held Libya and maybe Eritrea.

The population of Libya was already quite low, and with the discovery of oil there would likely be more immigration.

Libya will probably be kept. It was often referred to as Italy's fourth coast plus the Italians did have the concept when Balbo was in charge of the colony. Without WW2 it is quite possible they can get enough Italians into the area to make it majority Italian especially once oil is discovered. Continued control over Libya also helps Italy secure the central Med, so strategically it is important to Italian interests.

Colonialism wouldn't last completely to this day even without WW1. Yes, it would last longer and colonial empires would are bigger but some still would get independence with way or another since colonialims would be still too expensive and there would be lot of local resistance and any nation can't afford years lasting guerilla warfare or sending armies after armies.



Yes, Italy could keep at least Libya and perhaps Eritrea too. Any chances that Italy could keep Somalia?

Without WW1 you could probably keep it longer, maybe into the 00s. There would still be independence movements and the less profitable colonies would definitely be let go. I could see though the European nations keeping coastal colonies to dominate inland trade to keep their former colonies beholden to them.

Especially if Europe continues to be overpopulated with low wages. You'll probably see a movement to get people moving to coastal cities in the colonies and you'll get European majority cities controlling trade and infrastructure. And without the duality of a USA and Soviet world there isn't going to be a strong push for majority rule unless it makes sense financially to cut them lose while still keeping them bound to the colonizing country.

 

[Pelranius]

Libya will probably be kept. It was often referred to as Italy's fourth coast plus the Italians did have the concept when Balbo was in charge of the colony. Without WW2 it is quite possible they can get enough Italians into the area to make it majority Italian especially once oil is discovered. Continued control over Libya also helps Italy secure the central Med, so strategically it is important to Italian interests.

*Ah, round xx*

The Italians at most could get a temporary majority, and then it disappears by the 1970s as Libyan birthrates outpaces that out Italians (see OTL Kazakhstan). The current population of Libya is 7.2 million.

The idea of anything more than a couple million (at the very most) Italians squatting in Libya is very unlikely because:

1) Once an oil industry is set up, you didn't need hundreds of thousands, or even the high five digits, to do operations and maintenance (the Libya National Oil Company has only 65,000 right now, and a lot of those are make work jobs that likely aren't going to be available in even a dysfunctional developed economy)

2) You'd need a leader on the level of Stalin to dump millions of Italians into what's essentially a wasteland. Remember, Italians can make a better living in the industries of the Po Valley (and taking away millions of Italians to do make work in Libya is not going to be good for the Italian economy). And the settlers, and their children, will probably be drawn to go back to Italy, which will have much more in the way of opportunities.

3) There is no potential economic activity that will justify dragging over millions of Italians. Agriculture is not going to employ them, and it'd be ruinously expensive (goodbye, petroleum windfall) to subsidize hardship pay some Italian to clean windows or sort the mail when the Libyans can do it for much cheaper.

4) Building on the previous point, most of Libya is not exactly hospitable to human life. It's a backwater compared to even Sicily in the mid 20th century, and Rome will have to spend a lot to get even hundreds of thousands to come, much less stay.

5) Libyan TFR is guaranteed to be much higher than Italian TFR.

Now, the Libyans might be willing to stay part of Italy after inevitable de fascistization, but the question is, do the voters of a newly democratic Italy want to keep on subsidizing Libya (even with oil money, LIbya will still need huge infrastructure investment for decades to come). FWIW, in OTL, the French like Algerian oil, but they didn't like the idea of all Algerians as equal French citizens.

 

[Pelranius]

France would be able to keep its OTL oversea territories + Northern Algeria, Gabon and Djibouti.

The Algerians would be happy to remain part of France, provided they became Frenchmen. The question becomes, are the French willing to do so?

 

[Hydra1234]

WWII had a role on that, hard for the French to coordinate COIN in Indochina with the Metropole wrecked and the Japanese destroyed the colonial authorities, and putting "mixed" as a loss for the government is questionable, once again the FARCs are nowhere near storming Bogotá, nor the ethnic minorities in Myanmar that are in arms since 1947, from a point of view "merely existing" might be a victory on it's own, for me it is pretty much a failure.

Well, Japan didn't wreck the colonial authority in Indochina; Vichy administrators continued to run Indochina until early 1945.

I didn't say that study put all mixed results as COIN losses; the study just didn't classify any wars as mixed and instead assigned those as either a win or a loss. Take Kampuchea for instance. While Vietnam unambiguously ousted the Khmer Rouge and eliminated it as an entity, they had to withdraw in 1989 and their puppet state didn't survive the UN transition. The 89-insurgency study (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg965mcia) would classify the Cambodian–Vietnamese War as mixed, the 30-insurgency study (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg964-1osd) classified it as a COIN loss. On the other hand, the El Salvador Civil War was considered a COIN win in the 30-insurgency study and mixed in the 89-insurgency study, as the FMLN disbanded its military wing and the government did not have to give significant concessions beyond allowing political representation for the FMLN.

The 30-insurgency study didn't mention FARC or Myanmar either; both of those are either ongoing or out of the timeframe.

What? Are you talking about 1936, Jebel and Dhofar? Those are unambigously victories for the British (and Omani), unless victory for you mean complete destruction of the enemy.

Sorry, I meant Yemen and the Aden Emergency.

Edit: And while no WWII does mean stronger empires, they also face stronger counterinsurgency challenges, like lacking independent governments to draw support from and the possibility of dealing with multiple insurgencies at once.

 

[RousseauX]

They can, actually, this board's Americancentrism is colored by Vietnam and Afghanistan to see guerilla warfare and insurgencies as some sort of invincible force of nature that once started can't be stopped, but in reality... insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill (like the FARCs), an Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow.

OTOH pretty much all the attempts made by empires to retain their colonies against insurgent movements (France in Vietnam/Algeria, Portugal in West Africa, the British in Ireland being best examples) ended in failures

the -successful- examples of counter-insurgency tend to occur when it's a native government fighting a native rebel group, and it make sense. The Columbian state can't exactly go home if it loses against FARC, while the vast majority of the French government and people don't live in Vietnam or Algeria and thus had limited stakes in the outcome.

 

[Fulano]

After WWI? Don't think so. All the empires got fatally wounded and they barely had resources to keep themselves afloat. And Republicanism and Self-determination principles were on the rise and it was a matter of time for the whole thing to explode.
Maybe in a different, shorter war, and one where the Soviets didn't rise up or America was not involved, could have made things easier for Empires to kept ruling things as they were doing before.

 

[FesteringSpore]

I wonder whether Sarawak might still be ruled by the White Rajahs?

Probably; only the devastation of Sarawak by the Japanese made Charles Vyner Brooke relinquish his throne because he didn't want to deal with rebuilding the kingdom (and also a lot of internal game of thrones squabbling)
Even with Japanese invasion, it's possible that had Vyner Brooke been more inclined to keep his throne and managed his family affairs the White Rajahs would have continued to rule Sarawak and probably have been folded into the Malaysian federation; as a result the Brookes would be the tenth royal family of Malaysia and a historical curiosity in the modern age.

 

[Lalli]

They can, actually, this board's Americancentrism is colored by Vietnam and Afghanistan to see guerilla warfare and insurgencies as some sort of invincible force of nature that once started can't be stopped, but in reality... insurgencies most often lose, or just remain going on forever despite their odds of winning being minimal to nill (like the FARCs), an Empire's ability to retain its territories is proportional to its will to retain it, insurgencies can make it annoying (and very expensive) but it isn't a killing blow.

One war is not necessarility succesful for colonial subjects but when they have several insurgencies colonial masters are not able to go with endless wars. Furthermore some other powers might are happy to supply rebels like perhaps Japan would give supplies to Indochina and Indonesia. Furthermore it would still be economically unviable to keep all colonies so some would are just let to go. Even without all of these deaths due World Wars, communism, Spanish Flue and nazism colonies can't be fully settled and integrated.

The Algerians would be happy to remain part of France, provided they became Frenchmen. The question becomes, are the French willing to do so?

Perhaps but not seem likely. French probably would still make Algerians fully French with even French language and culture.

 

[Joku_]

*Ah, round xx*

The Italians at most could get a temporary majority, and then it disappears by the 1970s as Libyan birthrates outpaces that out Italians (see OTL Kazakhstan). The current population of Libya is 7.2 million.

The idea of anything more than a couple million (at the very most) Italians squatting in Libya is very unlikely because:

What if the Italians decide to kick out native Libyans, if they have sufficiently high fascism level and they do the math as you just did?

 

[holycookie]

Since the end of WWII, the insurgents have won about as much as they have lost.

This comes primarily I think due to how many of the post WW2 powers deal with insurgencies. Before the First and Second World Wars, insurgencies were dealt with in a much more brutal way than in the future.

 

[Ambusher11]

One war is not necessarility succesful for colonial subjects but when they have several insurgencies colonial masters are not able to go with endless wars.

Except that France in 1925 had insurgencies simultaneously happening in its Morocco and Syria colonies (and as a fun fact, Gamelin was the commander of the French Army in the latter colony). The French were able to crush both insurgencies just fine.

Furthermore some other powers might are happy to supply rebels like perhaps Japan would give supplies to Indochina and Indonesia.

Except that Japan was actually during the early 1930s offering to help France crush any uprisings in its French Indochina colony if France was willing to ally with Japan.

 

[Hydra1234]

This comes primarily I think due to how many of the post WW2 powers deal with insurgencies. Before the First and Second World Wars, insurgencies were dealt with in a much more brutal way than in the future.

Except that post-WW2 powers were no stranger to brutality, and brutal counterinsurgency practices have failed much more often than they have succeeded.

Look at the Nazis and their issues with Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe, the RPF achieving victory during the Rwandan Genocide, and the Soviets failing despite depopulating entire provinces and bombing over half of all farms in Afghanistan.

 

[RousseauX]

This comes primarily I think due to how many of the post WW2 powers deal with insurgencies. Before the First and Second World Wars, insurgencies were dealt with in a much more brutal way than in the future.

not so sure about that one the Soviets literally killed or wounded something like ~4-5 million Afghanis out of a pre-war population of 12 million: and they still lost.

I don't think there's that many pre-20th century counter-insurgencies that killed/wounded 40% of a country's population.

The bigger difference prob has to do with the amount of foreign support Cold War era insurgents received from outside powers. The Afghanis would have lost without US/Pakistani support and the Vietnamese would have lost without Soviet/PRC support.

 

[RousseauX]

Except that France in 1925 had insurgencies simultaneously happening in its Morocco and Syria colonies (and as a fun fact, Gamelin was the commander of the French Army in the latter colony). The French were able to crush both insurgencies just fine.

Except that Japan was actually during the early 1930s offering to help France crush any uprisings in its French Indochina colony if France was willing to ally with Japan.

The French won the Algerian war militarily as well, the problem was political will to keep fighting at home was always pretty shaky and collapsed by the late 1950s. At the end of the day neither the average French citizen nor the left side of the French political elites thought Algeria was worth the price of bodybags keep coming home.

When Du Gaulle held a referendum on Algerian independence 75% of voters in Metropolitan France approved

 

[RousseauX]

The Algerians would be happy to remain part of France, provided they became Frenchmen. The question becomes, are the French willing to do so?

certainly not in the 1960s, to quote Du Gaulle:

De Gaulle told an advisor: "If we integrate them, if all the Arabs and the Berbers of Algeria were considered French, how could they be prevented from settling in France, where the living standard is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Églises but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées"

 

[The Ranger]

You would probebly have 10 to 25 years more of direct colonisation, followed by semi-puppet rulers in many areas of the Shah of Iran type.