What would be some colonies that could European nations could have plausibility kept control of with relatively little effort? This is not meant to be a ‘No Decolonization’ thread rather it’s more about what colonies could have realistically stayed with European nations until the present without dramatically changing the policies of European nations.
What former colonies would have been most plausible for European nations to hold on to up to the modern day?
- Thread starter West234
- Start date
-
- Tags
- colonialism
I guess most of the smaller British colonies, in the Caribbean, Malta, Africa, Singapore and the Pacific, where independence movements were either faible or inexistent. In the late 1950's, Britain activelly decided to get rid of all its colonies as fast as possible.
If those colonies were kept till today, they would definitely not be integrated into the metropole (no French model) and would have a massive degree of autonomy, not being independent on the name only. Pretty much like British current dependencies.
Portugal could have retained Cape Verde, Netherlands Suriname, France Gabon or Djibouti, Spain Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea.
If those colonies were kept till today, they would definitely not be integrated into the metropole (no French model) and would have a massive degree of autonomy, not being independent on the name only. Pretty much like British current dependencies.
Portugal could have retained Cape Verde, Netherlands Suriname, France Gabon or Djibouti, Spain Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea.
Not by the time the could have been retained. Today, there are probably more Africans and people of African-descent in Portugal than people in today's Cape Verde. And way more Africans/Black people in France than in Gabon and Djibouti combined.
Regarding Singapore, Hong Kong was held as colony, with very little autonomy up to 1997 and that didn't pose any problems. Singapore, as it happens to OTL British dependencies, would be virtually independent. It wouldn't be part of the United Kingdom, just a place nominally linked to Britain with a symbolic governor-general appointed by London.
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
A less exhausted Britain post WW2 might well have held onto some of these places, especially if that went hand-in-hand with a better performance in SEA during the war.
Bit contrived but Portugal was doing shockingly well in Angola and Mozambique during their independence wars. While Guinea Bissau was virtually independent by 1974 and the fall of the Estado Novo.
Guinea-Bissau is also several times smaller than Angola or Mozambique. Maybe Portugal decides early that the colonies to the South are too big to be controlled, and the side of focus all of their efforts on G-B. It is, indeed closer to Portugal and is less surrounded by Soviet-aligned states than their other colonies. The concentration of effort and OTL Portugal's ability to punch above it's weight could have them hold on, maybe
Of course, there is the problem of why. All of the resources the Portuguese had went to the bigger colonies for a reason.
Guinea-Bissau is also several times smaller than Angola or Mozambique. Maybe Portugal decides early that the colonies to the South are too big to be controlled, and the side of focus all of their efforts on G-B. It is, indeed closer to Portugal and is less surrounded by Soviet-aligned states than their other colonies. The concentration of effort and OTL Portugal's ability to punch above it's weight could have them hold on, maybe
Of course, there is the problem of why. All of the resources the Portuguese had went to the bigger colonies for a reason.
The Netherlands would have to want to hold on to them, instead of letting them go.
Suriname itself, IIRC, wasn't interested in independence at the time. (Though that opinion may change over time.)
Plus if Angola and Mozambique were given up early that could result in a different outcome to the Rhodesian Bush War and the end of Apartheid in South Africa.
Angola and Mozambique was indeed way more important and home of 500,000 or so ethnic-Portuguese. Guinea-Bissau was way more hostile, very poor, small and there is no reason for Portuguese to fight a bitter war over it.
Given the population growth it is going to be a clear issue. Cape Verde would be 5% of Portuguese population and is a lot poorer compared to Portugal.
French Guiana doesn't even make up half a percent of the French that is including those who don't have French citizenship. I don't see why France would retain Gabon or Djibouti who have higher and poorer population especially given France has managed to keep them in a sphere of influence.
Hong Kongers never held British citizenship and independence was never an opinion. If Singapore is British only in name, there no point in managing British sovereignty especially given the dominion system.
All British dependencies today are under British sovereignty in name only and they're still dependencies regardless. Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK either.
If Singapore was kept as British for some reason, either for not having British actively getting rid of it or because British decided to have a stronger presence in Pacific, I don't see how Singapore would be different from OTL dependencies: they would be British with a massive degree of autonomy.
Or maybe if Malta managed to being incorporated into the UK, that could provide an alternative path for British dependencies, including this ATL Singapore.
It had a referendum but (iirc) it was boycotted by the Church and the major parties. So even though it had like 70+% turnout, it was only 40~% in favor of annexation.
All of which have a small population and/or majority British.
There was no desire among the French or local population for integration into France.