Challenge : maintain the colonial empires (France and UK)

[skarosianlifeform]

Well, everything is in the title.

The challenge is to maintain the French and British empire. It can be in a federalized way, or any way that involves the OFFICIAL maintain of the empire (no neo-colonialism with official independence), and at least military, monetary diplomatic and custom unions.

They don't have to keep EVERY single country, they can let out peripheral territories, like concessions in China, Belize, Guyana, or even Indochina. British can also let go India (which was perhaps too huge to be kept). But they have to maintain their African, and if possible Asian holdings, to this day.

 

[idontlikesand]

Well, everything is in the title.

The challenge is to maintain the French and British empire. It can be in a federalized way, or any way that involves the OFFICIAL maintain of the empire (no neo-colonialism with official independence), and at least military, monetary diplomatic and custom unions.

They don't have to keep EVERY single country, they can let out peripheral territories, like concessions in China, Belize, Guyana, or even Indochina. British can also let go India (which was perhaps too huge to be kept). But they have to maintain their African, and if possible Asian holdings, to this day.

From my observations of the middle east, people are willing to sacrifice democracy for economic development. If Britain and France are willing to bring in FDI into their respective colonies and raise the standard of living of their people that would be a start. Secondly you need to get rid of racism and make the people of the colonies actually feel and be proud to be citizens of the metropole.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

Well, everything is in the title.

The challenge is to maintain the French and British empire. It can be in a federalized way, or any way that involves the OFFICIAL maintain of the empire (no neo-colonialism with official independence), and at least military, monetary diplomatic and custom unions.

They don't have to keep EVERY single country, they can let out peripheral territories, like concessions in China, Belize, Guyana, or even Indochina. British can also let go India (which was perhaps too huge to be kept). But they have to maintain their African, and if possible Asian holdings, to this day.

Without India the rest falls. No India, no money. No money, no empire. An Imperial parliament as soon as feasible may help, but finding a balance which would still favour the home country without angering the colonies would be, at the very least, incredibly tricky.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Also, what if the Italian fascists actually managed to recreate a New Roman Empire ?

I saw many scenarios in which Italy played her cards well during WWII, and for example, remained neutral in the main war but bought Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon (and sometimes Constantine area in Algeria) and Djibouti from Vichy France (and of course, Corsica, Nice and Savoy, but it's not the subject here).
Then, with Syria and Lebanon, Italy stages a coup in Iraq (with Rachid Ali or someone else), or even supports (alongside Germany) Rachid Ali, but covertly and while remaining neutral. The coup is a success, and UK can't declare war because Brits have too much on their plate. After the WWII, either Italy and its Arab clients (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq ? ) declare war on Israel, alongside Egypt and Jordan, so Italy also gains Palestine. Or Italy supports Israeli independence, but under the Lehi (Stern Group) which had some fascist leanings.

Then, either Italy entered war with Allies in 1944 and gained recognition of its conquests (if not from De Gaulle, at least from Roosevelt and -reluctantly- Churchill), or Italy just sat out. Then, at the end of the war, France was too tired to go to war against Italy alone, and UK and US weren't ready to support her (because war weariness + Soviet threat eastwards).

Then, and that's where I'm coming, wouldn't countries close to the New Roman Empire be reluctant to just become independent, with the Romans ready to gobble them (or at least, they'll think so) ? If Chad decides to separate from France, it will be too weak economically and military to resist Italian pressure.
Besides, France and UK would be more reluctant to let those precise countries go, while Italians might gobble them and their resources.

Also, what if the WWII played differently, and at the end, millions of German, Polish and other East European refugees go to the British Empire. Of course, those people flee poverty and Red Army.
The Soviets let them go, for whatever reason. And UK takes them in her African colonies. Which hadn't a heavy population (neither black nor white, even if blacks were majority of course). Those millions of European people could be a game changer.

Finally, with that different WWII, France is more tired. Perhaps France didn't capitulate in 1940, and fought constantly on its soil, and more of it was occupied. So, the French had to rely even more on colonial troops and workers, and had to displace industry to French Africa. And at the end, they need desperately resources from their empire, and are too tired to fight decolonization wars. Also, with WWI-like casualties, many European colonists in Algeria were conscripted and killed (many Muslims were too, but the smaller size of European community meant that they were really weakened). So less pressure against reform.

So, they create the Union Française like they did OTL. But instead of timid, half-baked, reforms like OTL, they do real reforms, because they know that France has no choice (France need resources of its colonies and cannot fight, so they have to give something in return basically). And colonized people too have some interest to remain in the Union (protection against outer threats and economic development), so they too will accept some concessions and to not have everything in one go.

PLUS, with the New Roman Empire, France don't want to abandon her colonies in general (because it means more troops and resources if there's another war with fascists -or Soviets-, which is not unlikely), and particularly don't want to let go colonies close to the NRE (because they don't want the NRE getting the oil/copper/whatever in Chad/Algeria/Niger, and because if there's a war with Italy, they want bases to attack Libya).
Which is another reason to make real efforts to keep colonies, instead of reluctantly giving some little things when pressed.

 

[Tom Colton]

A Franco-Italian Cold War (or at least Great Game)? My interest is piqued.

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

A Franco-Italian Cold War (or at least Great Game)? My interest is piqued.

Indeed it is a cool idea

For the British at least, you need to make to Empire profitable as finances meant that they gave independence as soon as the countries could stand on their own two feet... or in some cases (especially in Africa) before they could

 

[skarosianlifeform]

British will probably want to keep Trucial States, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait, both for oil and strategic reasons. Sudan for oil. Egypt for Suez. South Africa and Rhodesia for diamonds and gold. Nigeria for oil. Somalia and Yemen for their position (but not too profitable).

Weren't all these countries profitable, or at least too strategically important to abandon ?
Honestly, I don't know much about British interests in their other colonies, though.

Oh, and I forgot, but of course, British Empire maintained ALSO includes maintaining Australia, Canada and NZ as dominions, or at least integrated countries. So : unified diplomacy (not necessarily dominated by UK), currency, customs union and military overall command at the least.

 

[Malice]

The scenario only requires one thing to make it reality: no Pacific War in World War Two.

When the Japanese attacked white colonial powers in Asia and initially defeated them they blew apart the myth that the white colonial powers couldn't be defeated by non-white powers. Once that myth was blown out of the water the relationship between the rulers and the ruled changed and things couldn't go back to the way they used to before 1941..

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The problem is that the empires of the British and French were about exploiting their territories. Kenyans were not British; they were simply to be used by the British, and their land sapped of its resources and other wealth or economic potential. Similar to the Indochinese and the French, etc. There was no desire or drive to make those natives "British" or "French", with full equality and standing and respect, albeit there was a drive to "civilize" them in the mold of their colonizers. In fact, there was every effort against giving them equality. Had the British been willing to Federalize the empire, it could still exist today as a superpower, but the British were totally unwilling to surrender their hegemony to an empire of equals outside the British Isles. That's why the Federal idea only exists in AH discussions.

A good counterpoint is the United States. Most likely the US can hold onto the Philippines no more than Britain could hold onto Kenya, but the US could have made the Philippines a state (more likely a number of states) and given it equal standing to other states, and have absorbed it. And the counterpoint to that would be the US couldn't hold onto the Philippines but it could California, because it was a continuous, continental empire rather than a distant, hard to manage territory across an ocean, and it was accepted as part of the American culture. There's a continuity not found in colonial empires.

So the issue is how to maintain those empires when everything works against them. Even in regards to the regions that are Anglo-Saxon, like Australia and Canada, they developed their own independent societies and personalities that lead them to become independent nations. I don't see how that gets stopped.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Perhaps because some British Prime Minister gets realistic and convinces the Parliament to change things, because either they give concessions and, at least, maintain Imperial privileged access to the local resources (instead of competing against US, Russia... as equals) and maintain control of strategic points (Suez, Malacca, Aden...) and access to colonial armies. OR, they continue as usual and lose the colonies anyway.

Or, a different WWII with France not capitulating, Italy remaining neutral but expanding, USA neutral (even if lend-lease), and no Pacific War (perhaps Japan vs USSR instead). Could it work ?

 

[BlondieBC]

Avoid WW1 is best way. Second best way is to avoid WW2.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Sure, but were those wars really avoidable ? Between the old Anglo-French colonial rivalry, the USA, Japan, Germany and Italy all wanting their part of the cake, the Anglo-Russian Great Game, the Anglo-German Naval Race, the bad blood (euphemism) between France and Germany, the Austrian-Hungarian time-bomb (with Italian, Serbian and Romanian irredentism), and Slavic states (chiefly Russia) wanting to carve up Ottoman Empire, how could WWI have been avoided ? (before seeking to avoid WWII, we must find a believable way to avoid WWI).

Perhaps :
A draw, or Ottoman victory, in 1876 war, which puts a stop to Russian expansionism in that direction. Without their Russian patron, Balkan states (and Greece) have to abandon their dreams too. While Ottoman Empire gradually gives more autonomy to Albania (which the OE never controlled that much anyway) and Bulgaria.

Some far-sighted Austrian Emperor who accepts to Austrian Empire more federal, and give equal rights not only to Hungarians but others. Perhaps not ALL the nationalities, but at least some (Czechs, Croats, Slovaks ? ).

It would also be MASSIVELY helpful it the same Emperor accepted to let Italians have their irredent lands (Tyrol, Fiume, Istria), and solve the Transylvanian problem by an arbitration or simply by a local vote (regions with Hungarian majority go to Hungary, and same for Romanians, and if there are enclaves, population exchange).
Yes, I know, forced population exchanges are authoritarian and unfair, but it's better than a lingering conflict for decades.

So, no war starting in the Balkans. While Berlin Conference (or equivalent) can be successful, and give "enough" colonies to satisfy everyone, including Italians and Germans. Italy probably still conquers Libya and/or tries to (or succeed to) conquer Abyssinia.

But could this balance of power really work forever ?

 

[Socrates]

Without India the rest falls. No India, no money. No money, no empire. An Imperial parliament as soon as feasible may help, but finding a balance which would still favour the home country without angering the colonies would be, at the very least, incredibly tricky.

I don't buy this. If you develop other places, they can be profitable. Heck, the oil colonies of the Middle East could pay for everything else.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

I don't buy this. If you develop other places, they can be profitable. Heck, the oil colonies of the Middle East could pay for everything else.

The point of colonies wasn't that you develop them beyond what is necessary to exploit them.

If you make the British/French randomly decide to stop exploitation and start development then of course that is possible. The question then becomes why would they? Developing colonies may increase the likelihood of independence, as the colonies would stand to gain more financially and would be better developed to fight the coloniser.

 

[Socrates]

The point of colonies wasn't that you develop them beyond what is necessary to exploit them.

If you make the British/French randomly decide to stop exploitation and start development then of course that is possible. The question then becomes why would they? Developing colonies may increase the likelihood of independence, as the colonies would stand to gain more financially and would be better developed to fight the coloniser.

"Development" can just mean agricultural/resources-based development, where white settlers or colonial-owned companies make the bulk of the profit. There's no reason why a whole bunch of African and Middle Eastern nations can be profitable on this basis.

 

[Anarchy In The USA]

There were several factors that led to the breakup of the British Empire after WWII.

1. The White Dominions were drifting further away from the mother country.
2. The Empire didn't make economic sense anymore. It was becoming an expensive vanity project for Britain.
3. Changing public attitudes in Britain towards the Empire.
4. US opposition to the Empire.

We would need a world situation in which those four factors are changed.

The D-Day invasion fails forcing the US and UK armies from Europe. The Western powers sign a peace treaty with Germany which goes on to defeat the Soviet Union. A US/UK vs. Third Reich cold war develops. How would this development in the 1940's affect the factors which ended the British Empire in our timeline?

1. With the mother country on the front lines of a cold war the White Dominions decide on a course of closer defense ties with Britain.
2. Britain needs to ensure that they control the raw materials of Africa and the Middle East in case of a third war with Germany. The manpower provided by the Empire would also be helpful.
3. Faced with a massive threat right across the English Channel the people of Britain do not turn against the idea of Empire.
4. The US has an interest in preserving a strong British Empire. Also, in the absence of a cold war with Russia the US is not worried about the potential spread of communism in the black/brown British Empire. The US props up the 3rd World British Empire in the same way we propped up right wing dictators during the Cold War of our timeline.


France is never liberated and the collaborationist Vichy government survives. Much of their overseas Empire is preserved and propped up by the German Reich.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

To touch on what I said earlier, I would argue that it comes down to two factors: One, the lack of an interest in making the colonies equal members of the home country means they will only be second class and will only exist to be exploited. That cannot stand forever. These are mercantile empires to make money off of foreign lands, still treating them as foreign even under their dominion, and subhumanizing people in their own lands. To maintain that will invariably involve violence to suppress thoughts of independence, and independent spirit is inevitable. Even if the rule was benevolent, it would always treat the natives as second class which will not be accepted forever, and it cannot be benevolent for the aforementioned reason. Second, those colonies that are on equal par with the home country, and are culturally, socially, and ethnically similar invariably formed an independent identity which made them seek independence; this is most starkly the case with the United States, but is also the situation with Canada and Australia, which became independent nations gradually.

The British and French colonial empires cannot stand precisely because they are colonial empires. Were you to have something like Rome, where the conquered territories were made citizens as much as a Roman, and the "civilizing" was to make them an equal component of the original nation and an expansion of the original nation so long as the native popular accepted the situation and behaved, then that could have stood. You'd have problems of independent local identity, but it would have a chance if that could be overcome. Neither empire was that; it was putting an elite in place, backed by an army, and having the natives (which far outnumbered the army and administrators) do all the heavy lifting lest they be shot. It was exploitation which was rather lazy. Federalization, which was only proposed by the British so far as I know and didn't even come up with the French (nor did the French have anything like a Canada or Australia so far as I know) was a failed concept because the British colonial belief and national ego would not permit it as a serious thought, even despite the fact that the empire could not perpetually continue in the way it was.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

what would be necessary for France to maintain a large portion of Algeria?
They already voted in the French Parliment and i've heard it was sort of Frances Sibera, if they maintain that and maybe a little more island possessions and France is pretty much good.

I think a Britain with just Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland along with West India is plausible I think both probably require a 1880-1890s POD.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

There were several factors that led to the breakup of the British Empire after WWII.

1. The White Dominions were drifting further away from the mother country.
2. The Empire didn't make economic sense anymore. It was becoming an expensive vanity project for Britain.
3. Changing public attitudes in Britain towards the Empire.
4. US opposition to the Empire.

We would need a world situation in which those four factors are changed.

The D-Day invasion fails forcing the US and UK armies from Europe. The Western powers sign a peace treaty with Germany which goes on to defeat the Soviet Union. A US/UK vs. Third Reich cold war develops. How would this development in the 1940's affect the factors which ended the British Empire in our timeline?

1. With the mother country on the front lines of a cold war the White Dominions decide on a course of closer defense ties with Britain.
2. Britain needs to ensure that they control the raw materials of Africa and the Middle East in case of a third war with Germany. The manpower provided by the Empire would also be helpful.
3. Faced with a massive threat right across the English Channel the people of Britain do not turn against the idea of Empire.
4. The US has an interest in preserving a strong British Empire. Also, in the absence of a cold war with Russia the US is not worried about the potential spread of communism in the black/brown British Empire. The US props up the 3rd World British Empire in the same way we propped up right wing dictators during the Cold War of our timeline.


France is never liberated and the collaborationist Vichy government survives. Much of their overseas Empire is preserved and propped up by the German Reich.

Globally I agree with you, but not on some points
a ) the French colonial empire, in 1944, was already in control of De Gaulle. Except for Indochina, where authorities were loyal to Vichy (even when Petain was forced to leave France), and under Japanese occupation.

b ) If D-Day failed, I don't think the Germans could have beaten the Soviets. Stalled them, perhaps enough to force a white peace if they are lucky (IF they are), but not enough to beat USSR.

Also, such white peace needs Hitler out.

That said, a three-way cold war between Germany, USSR and UK/USA could work. Even the USSR would not have interest in supporting anti-colonial groups too much, after all, they needed a strong British Empire to counterbalance the Germans (who still control Europe), since they are closer and proved their willingness to invade and destroy. While British are an ideological enemy but not a real threat to Motherland. Plus, Soviets will rely on trade with Brits and US (to avoid Germany), and so won't want to offend them.

And since USSR will clearly choose to not "attack" (by proxy) the British Empire, the USA won't feel threatened there and will accept the continued Empire as well. Of course, if the USA receive a slice of the cake in the benefits (not the majority of benefits, but a good slice), basing rights, things like that, it can help too.

The British and French colonial empires cannot stand precisely because they are colonial empires. Were you to have something like Rome, where the conquered territories were made citizens as much as a Roman, and the "civilizing" was to make them an equal component of the original nation and an expansion of the original nation so long as the native popular accepted the situation and behaved, then that could have stood. You'd have problems of independent local identity, but it would have a chance if that could be overcome. Neither empire was that; it was putting an elite in place, backed by an army, and having the natives (which far outnumbered the army and administrators) do all the heavy lifting lest they be shot. It was exploitation which was rather lazy. Federalization, which was only proposed by the British so far as I know and didn't even come up with the French (nor did the French have anything like a Canada or Australia so far as I know) was a failed concept because the British colonial belief and national ego would not permit it as a serious thought, even despite the fact that the empire could not perpetually continue in the way it was.

But couldn't particular, dire circumstances force the British to accept that idea ? Circumstances in which they really NEED the Empire, but HAVE TO treat the natives better (perhaps not as full equals, but really better) if they want to keep it.

And same thing for the French. In fact, France had something like that, the Union Française, which was a pseudo "federal" form of the empire, adopted in 1946 until 1960. It didn't work for the reasons you mentioned, and because of the European community (and its support within military) in Algeria. The Union Française was the brainchild of some far-sighted politicians, but sadly, it was never seriously implemented.
But what if circumstances forced the French to do just that, implement seriously the Union ? And what if the European-Algerian community was decimated (at least for men) in war and seriously weakened ?