Decolonisation if WW2 never happened?

[NTF aka Seb]

I've seen people suggest that decolonisation would have happened later if WW2 never happened. Is this true?

If so, how different would the world look by, say, 1970?

Precise answers are mostly impossible, but I'm still curious to hear estimates from people more knowledgeable on the matter than me.

 

[Lalli]

Decolonisation mostly would indeed happen bit later and slower since no WW2 means European nations not devastated by new war and there is not too Cold War which would make decolonisation faster.

 

[NTF aka Seb]

Decolonisation mostly would indeed happen bit later and slower since no WW2 means European nations not devastated by new war and there is not too Cold War which would make decolonisation faster.

How much later?

 

[Patg_hnj]

Hopefully slower would mean that things were better organised...

 

[FasterThanRaito]

Also depends on the home politics of exclusion versus integration. If countries like France elect socialist-leaning governments that could mean delaying colonization due to increased investment in raising the colonial people up to equal status, which would ameliorate the issues that lead to separatism.

Or, if they take a turn towards the right and racism, this could speed up decolonization, even if they try to resist it militarily for the sake of maintaining imperialism.

 

[Suzon]

Would have happened in the 70s, 80s and maybe even 90s with the colonizing powers coming up with increasingly complicated word salads and mental gymnastics as justifications for why they should still be in charge

 

[DocJamore]

India leaving the British Empire was inevitable. The decolonisation process would start after it does. It might take a couple decades to complete without WWII as more European countries might resist decolonization like OTL France did and have more money to do it with.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I daresay it may never have happened at all.

 

[Lalli]

I daresay it may never have happened at all.

Decolonisation might had happened with smaller degree than in OTL but I can't see decolonisation not happening all.

 

[DUWANG]

I would say an united India, Philippines, Syria and Egypt being the first to leave.
Because all of them either had a rough independence date or treaties that didn't go through thanks to the war.
Iraq was already free.

After that I expect the Asian colonies to go to first.
First the British, then between the Dutch and French.
Africa having it's turn only later, but even then only limited.
With Fascist Italy and the Iberians wanting to keep their colonies as integrated parts, or with Belgium wanting to keep the Kongo till 2000.
I would only See limites decolonisation.

Almost all of British Africa will be gone.
France will retain some parts, like French East Africa, Algeria and some other lands. Maybe even Madagascar.
Morocco and Tunisia would get their independence in the 50s though. With Morocco probably getting also it's promised lands from Spain.

Pacific and Carribean is honestly a mixed bag.
Could keep it or not.

 

[Derek Pullem]

What about Canada / Australia / New Zealand? Without WW2 would they be tempted to stay in a British bloc ("Commonwealth Federation") ? Might attract some of the other colonies too (Caribbean, Singapore, Brunei, Belize?)

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Definitely slower and without the economic impact of WW2 the colonial powers would probably have been more willing to try and hold on. So you’d likely see more Mau Mau rebellion type situations in other countries.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia might still be a thing ITTL as Britain might have kept a presence there to protect the Rhodesians.

 

[Typho]

Also depends on the home politics of exclusion versus integration. If countries like France elect socialist-leaning governments that could mean delaying colonization due to increased investment in raising the colonial people up to equal status, which would ameliorate the issues that lead to separatism.

Or, if they take a turn towards the right and racism, this could speed up decolonization, even if they try to resist it militarily for the sake of maintaining imperialism.

I don't know how much sense this makes. A socialist perspective would be pro-working class, so they wouldn't want the continued subsidization of colonies to continue, nor act as cheap labor abroad to outsource or integrate as that would allow cheap labor internally.

As for a conservative or right wing, the racial views could be present in left or right wing (Khmer Rouge). They would be pro-colonialism and likely extend it, because: "civilizing mission", territorial integrity, but the real reasons being cheap labor, they can outsource industries abroad for profits sake, and when unions are problematic, then say there is a labor shortage, and have cheap labor immigration internally. If "empire" is the justification for immigration, it will avoid criticism, at least as long as imperialism remains in high regard.