AHC: Create a new British settler-colony somewhere in the world with a foundation date of 1900.

Not very likely, since there's no economic rationale for anything more than several hundred (a couple thousand at the absolute most) British to set up camp in Socotra (the island has only one port, for starters, and no natural resources of note).
Well when I did some research the British already “owned” Socotra so that disqualifies it already. However the current Socotra population is just under 100,000 so that disregards your claim regarding the plausibility of having a settler population
 
Well when I did some research the British already “owned” Socotra so that disqualifies it already. However the current Socotra population is just under 100,000 so that disregards your claim regarding the plausibility of having a settler population
And how are the British going to persuade a large amount of British settlers (at least in the low five digits) to just pack up and move to Socotra, given the utter lack of economic value the place has?
 
I feel like a WWI change can go a long way in this. If Britain is not heavily involved in the western front, whether because of neutrality, a rapid fall of France, or even alignment with Germany, then it will sustain far fewer casualties. A million young men not dying is a heck of a boost to the settler pool, as are any children they may have. At the same time a different series of events in the war can have them scooping up various possessions around the globe, whether as prizes or protectorates. I don't have a specific location in mind, but thought this could be useful to others for speculation.
 
And how are the British going to persuade a large amount of British settlers (at least in the low five digits) to just pack up and move to Socotra, given the utter lack of economic value the place has?
The original post didn’t specify the amount , if you’d done your research then you’d realise there was a British presence on the island. So...
 
And how are the British going to persuade a large amount of British settlers (at least in the low five digits) to just pack up and move to Socotra, given the utter lack of economic value the place has?
Your best bet is going to be by giving them a reason to build up a large naval base in the area. Which probably requires both making someone in the region (likely the Ottomans or an independent Egypt) a bigger threat, and removing other alternative base options like Bahrain.
 
I feel like a WWI change can go a long way in this. If Britain is not heavily involved in the western front, whether because of neutrality, a rapid fall of France, or even alignment with Germany, then it will sustain far fewer casualties. A million young men not dying is a heck of a boost to the settler pool, as are any children they may have. At the same time a different series of events in the war can have them scooping up various possessions around the globe, whether as prizes or protectorates. I don't have a specific location in mind, but thought this could be useful to others for speculation.
The problem with getting a settler majority polity (at least with developed countries) in the 20th century is that there's really no economic incentives to do so for most areas:

Agriculture, it's much cheaper to hire locals (or import workers from another colony if there aren't enough locals. After all the British brought over Chinese and Indians to work the rubber plantations of Malaya, not Highland Scots).

Industry: Generally, the point of early 20th century colonialism was to extract the resources for processing in the metropole, not in the colony itself.
 
The original post didn’t specify the amount , if you’d done your research then you’d realise there was a British presence on the island. So...
The OP specifically stated a pluarlity/majority of British settlers. Given that Socotra's population's in the early 20th century was somewhere about 10,000-20,000, you'd need to bring in at least an equivalent amount of British settlers.
 
Your best bet is going to be by giving them a reason to build up a large naval base in the area. Which probably requires both making someone in the region (likely the Ottomans or an independent Egypt) a bigger threat, and removing other alternative base options like Bahrain.
Socotra is a very lousy place for a large naval base (not very much in the way of natural ports). If the British want a naval base, then Aden's the go to location.
 
The problem with getting a settler majority polity (at least with developed countries) in the 20th century is that there's really no economic incentives to do so for most areas:

Agriculture, it's much cheaper to hire locals (or import workers from another colony if there aren't enough locals. After all the British brought over Chinese and Indians to work the rubber plantations of Malaya, not Highland Scots).

Industry: Generally, the point of early 20th century colonialism was to extract the resources for processing in the metropole, not in the colony itself.
Yeah, you'd likely be looking at an island possession for this. And something that could be held to present day when you could see large migrations of people along the lines of British expats to Spain. So if for example some turn of events led to Spain being German aligned and the UK seized the Canaries you could have a naval base bring in a population early and retirement/resorts draw in a plurality later.
 
Yeah, you'd likely be looking at an island possession for this. And something that could be held to present day when you could see large migrations of people along the lines of British expats to Spain. So if for example some turn of events led to Spain being German aligned and the UK seized the Canaries you could have a naval base bring in a population early and retirement/resorts draw in a plurality later.
Maybe one/some of the Canary Islands (the Canaries had a population of about 690,000 in 1940, which is a rather step figure to over come, especially when using naval bases and resorts/retirees as the primary drivers of British emigration)?

On the other hand, a lot of Canarians would probably leave to go to the UK for better economic opportunities, so that could work in favor of the OP requirements.
 
Last edited:
Maybe one/some of the Canary Islands (the Canaries had a population of about 690,000 in 1940, which is a rather step figure to over come, especially when using naval bases and resorts/retirees as the primary drivers of British emigration)?

On the other hand, a lot of Canarians would probably leave to go to the UK for better economic opportunities, so that could work in favor of the OP requirements.
Well I was saying WW1 instead, though that's only slightly better at just under half a million. But like you said, local emigration to the UK could control growth on the islands and would probably exceed emigration to Spain in the same period, though wouldn't necessarily be higher than total emigration. The current population is 72% native born (I can't find information on the background within this group, but presumably mostly Spanish), 8% from mainland Spain and 20% foreign. So if you start British immigration in the 20's 50% might be hard, but a plurality might be doable.
 
The problem with getting a settler majority polity (at least with developed countries) in the 20th century is that there's really no economic incentives to do so for most areas:

Agriculture, it's much cheaper to hire locals (or import workers from another colony if there aren't enough locals. After all the British brought over Chinese and Indians to work the rubber plantations of Malaya, not Highland Scots).

Industry: Generally, the point of early 20th century colonialism was to extract the resources for processing in the metropole, not in the colony itself.
I still like my " revive transportation to make up for a reduction of hangings"

As for industries how about fishing? Especially the rich waters off Somalia. Maybe eventually turn it in addition to a resort island for the wealthy European tourists.
 
Well I was saying WW1 instead, though that's only slightly better at just under half a million. But like you said, local emigration to the UK could control growth on the islands and would probably exceed emigration to Spain in the same period, though wouldn't necessarily be higher than total emigration. The current population is 72% native born (I can't find information on the background within this group, but presumably mostly Spanish), 8% from mainland Spain and 20% foreign. So if you start British immigration in the 20's 50% might be hard, but a plurality might be doable.
A WWI POD would make it even easier (Canarians could travel to elsewhere in the British Empire, like say Australia (though I don't recall any early 20th century barriers to Spanish emigration to Australia off the top of my head).
 
The start point is 1900.
Cyprus has a large Turkish population and Britain will be at war with Turkey in 1914. The Turkish Cypriots can be interned and after no doubt rebelling expelled after the war.
OTOH, despite the retention of religiously segregated education and the millet system from the Ottoman Empire, Turkish Cypriots (as well as the Armenian and Maronite minorities) would easily blend into the Greek Cypriot population, since members of each community were fluent in speaking the other language. So the expulsions, in this case, would be more problematic than earlier cases IOTL.
Because of rising numbers of British settlers Greek Cypriots may rebel. If they do their lands can be seized by the crown and after release from prison the rebels can be expelled to Greece. These properties can then be used for more British settlers. This causes more rebellions and property seizures.
And, in both cases, because it's the 20th century, Britain would receive quite a bit of condemnation compared to previous practices of this. (Of course, ignoring that it would be very much hypocritical and all that - not to mention, as @Pelranius noted, not only would it piss off a British ally - Greece - but would also alarm both the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish nationalist movement.) It may be how it was done in the earlier settler colonies, but by that point those practices would gradually become no longer acceptable. On top of that, once word comes back to the UK that this was being done in their name, you'd probably have British and Irish people resisting any moves to colonize the island. It may sound crazy enough to the point of ASB, but faux pas like this could probably push both Turkey and Greece towards accepting the embrace of the Soviet Union and turn their backs on the West (while simultaneously encouraging further emigration to the United States and Canada, especially with Greece). Now Britain would have more problems on its hands - a population that refuses to go, while its expulsion programs prematurely stopped by Communism.
 
To be honest the idea of setting up a settler colony anywhere after 1900 is very nearly A.S.B. There's nowhere left that's suitable for large scale European Settlement that's not already settled. (Israel is a special case)
 
It can't be any of the previous dominions, and the population should have a plurality of British/European settlers.
I don't know if anybody else has suggested this, but New Guinea? The scenario looks like this

For various reasons the German and Dutch involvement on the island of New Guinea do not work out, and by 1900 the Government of Queensland and/or the United Kingdom administers the island as a political whole under the British Empire (similar to OTL Papua). Australian settlers settle there and adjust. When the Australian states, Fiji and New Zealand discuss federation in the late 1890s, the status of New Guinea is discussed. When the Australian states unite into the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, New Guinea is spun off as a politically separate Colony of New Guinea, similar to the Colony of Fiji.
 
Western Australia secedes. Tries to make a go of it and fails. Rather than go cap-in-hand to the Australian government they go back to Blighty. Maybe some sort of early mineral boom in the north to encourage settlers.
 
Socotra would make sense for east of suez commitments especially post ww2 for a pretty good airbase but as has been said it doesnt have a decent harbor at all . My thought is maybe some pacific islands might be candidates.
 
Socotra would make sense for east of suez commitments especially post ww2 for a pretty good airbase but as has been said it doesnt have a decent harbor at all . My thought is maybe some pacific islands might be candidates.
Might as well just use Diego Garcia for the combined naval/air base, assuming that the Americans either don't use it/or leave enough room to spare.
 
Top