How much longer could European Empires last without WW1?

sirjackalot

In a no WW1/WW2 timeline, how much longer would these Empires last?

How much longer would it take India, countries in Africa/Asia to obtain independence?
 

Lalli

German Empire: Without world wars it would last to modern day altough probably some of its colonies will gain independence in 1970's or 1980's. Germany probably can keep Namibia and Pacific colonies.

Austria-Hungary: With good luck it can survive to this day but it would need much of succesful reforms.

Russian Empire: Very questionable if monarchy can last many decades longer. It was marching towards its desctruction and idiotic Nicholas II didn't help things any.

Ottoman Empire: Might survive to this day but it is possible that the empire lost some of its Arab regions.

British Empire: Without world wars it can keep more of its colonies but India is going get independence by mid-1950's and some African colonies will get independence at some but altough later than in OTL.

French Colonial Empire: Same thing as with British Empire. Keeps more colonies but still lost some. At least Indochina and some African regions are going to get independence.

Italian colonial empire: Without world wars Italy can keep all of its oversea regions at least Libya and possibility Eritrea too.

Portuguese Empire: With good luck it can keep all of its colonies.

Dutch Empire: Probably loses still Indonesia.

Belgian Empire: Keeping Belgian Congo is economically unsustainable and probably politically impossible in long run so BC probably gains independence in 1970's.
 

riggerrob

OTL What really killed the British Empire was the Bretton Woods Accords of 1944.
With USA insisting on free trade, British industry lost its trade advantages with its former colonies.
The other problem was that the British Army and Navy were bankrupt after both wars and could no longer afford to "police" far-flung colonies. Well into the 1950s the Royal Canadian Navy still traded butter for ships (e.g. HMCS Bonaventure).
Larger colonies like India were doomed to leave because they had larger populations and larger economies than Britain. India also had a strong independence movement before WW2.
South Africa and Rhodesia only declared independence after the World Wars killed off so many Anglos that Boers regained control of the two countries.
Australians and New Zealanders learned to hate "bloody Pommy officers" after suffering high casualties at Gallipoli.
Without WW2, Canadian and Australian factories would have been much slower integrating with the American military-industrial complex.
 
Admiral Bloonbeard

Admiral Bloonbeard

A huge cliche with Youtube alternate history is that colonialism manages to last forever. I don’t see how it can last forever, latest I can see is the 80s and 90s but not further than that.
 
Last edited:

FranzAncheNo

As long as the difference between European and "colonial" birth rates is small enough. Without both WWs killing the flower of Europe's youth and imperialism remaining relevant for longer it could be a lot of time.
It is also possible, given these premises, that more Europeans will settle in the colonies, which could lead to more autonomy given them, which could delay independence.
Also if the situation becomes untenable (See Congo.), Empires may end up supporting each other (Or post-colonial Apartheid-like states.), afraid that independent native states would be too much of an inspiration/support for their own colonies. Or some ethnicities could be given "preference" over others in a divide et impera fashion.
I'd say official imperial institutions would be reduced to purely ceremonial stuff (Just to say that the Empire is still there.) while a lot of autonomy would be granted on paper, but in practice neocolonial solutions would be implemented.
If everything goes well for the Empires (And the opposite of well for many others.) this system might be kept for a couple centuries while constantly transforming, opening more and more to colonials as these get more and more integrated in imperial culture and institutions. Some places close enough to Europe might even end up being considered European, given enough time and optimal conditions.
The Ottomans and Russia here represent peculiar situations: the former, without too much foreign interference, can resist rebellions and as soon as it starts exploiting its resources will become fabulously wealthy, the latter will undergo social changes (But probably keep the Tsar.) and enough economic growth to eclipse the Germans someday.
 

The Ranger

They can last as long as
1-there are no world wars
2-Enough of the colonial subjects either don't mind/like being ruled in that way, or are too scared to revolt, and/or have no idea of an alternative. For the first, they need to be treated well and have the standard of living improve, and fear that independence would make things worse for them again. If they had been allowed a say, the people of Hong Kong might well have preferred to stay part of the UK then be given back to China for example. For the second, North Korea offers an example. If they are kept terrified of their rulers and ignorant of the outside world, they won't rebel. The first way is pretty hard to do, and the second is deeply unpleasant and democracies wouldn't want to do it.
 
Gukpard

Gukpard

I second what Lalli said.

But I think that the most difficult place to keep is Goa, a friend of mine passed some info about it and it seems that the local population really, extremely refused to be considered Portuguese, even more than the other colonies.

The easiest to keep is Timor as long Indonesia does not invade.
 

M79

I don't think colonialism lasts forever but ironically without the world wars the empires might instead become dedicated, isolated trading blocs under slowly improving (though still unfair) terms than OTL equivalent.
 

Falecius

The Ranger said:
They can last as long as
1-there are no world wars
2-Enough of the colonial subjects either don't mind/like being ruled in that way, or are too scared to revolt, and/or have no idea of an alternative. For the first, they need to be treated well and have the standard of living improve, and fear that independence would make things worse for them again. If they had been allowed a say, the people of Hong Kong might well have preferred to stay part of the UK then be given back to China for example. For the second, North Korea offers an example. If they are kept terrified of their rulers and ignorant of the outside world, they won't rebel. The first way is pretty hard to do, and the second is deeply unpleasant and democracies wouldn't want to do it.
Click to expand...
The main point of colonialism is to exploit the colonies to the advantage of the metropolis (and the colonial elites/settlers). So it is generally hard to create a colonial system where the colonial subjects are 1) allowed a say at all 2) willing to express interest in the continued colonial relationship if given the choice. There are exceptions (Hong Kong being an interesting one as you note) depending on special cases that tend to not to fully fit the general exploitative pattern. OTL rarely went in that direction (this usually involved tiny territeries, mostly islands, which sometimes were thus simply integrated in the metropolis).
 

Orangecar

Banned
The Ranger said:
They can last as long as
1-there are no world wars
2-Enough of the colonial subjects either don't mind/like being ruled in that way, or are too scared to revolt, and/or have no idea of an alternative. For the first, they need to be treated well and have the standard of living improve, and fear that independence would make things worse for them again. If they had been allowed a say, the people of Hong Kong might well have preferred to stay part of the UK then be given back to China for example. For the second, North Korea offers an example. If they are kept terrified of their rulers and ignorant of the outside world, they won't rebel. The first way is pretty hard to do, and the second is deeply unpleasant and democracies wouldn't want to do it.
Click to expand...
The problem is most of colonized don't want to be ruled by foreigners, especially when they are treated as 3rd class citizens, colonized people were never trwated as equals. India leaving is a forgone conclusion even before ww1, it was inevtitable. And people discount the fact that simply having independent and strong countries like Japan will always inspire people to revolt colonial people to revolt.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

It's not at all impossible that - barring some later, catastrophic major war(s) - the colonial empires could last into the 21st century.

Hard to overstate how much the world wars changed the metropolitan countries - or their colonies.
 

Bad@logic

M79 said:
I don't think colonialism lasts forever but ironically without the world wars the empires might instead become dedicated, isolated trading blocs under slowly improving (though still unfair) terms than OTL equivalent.
Click to expand...
I doubt it in the extreme, the OTL 1913 world was one which was in some terms even more globalized than today and the world was steadily becoming more and more interconnected, empires as trading blocks is more a result of the collapse of the system of world globalization in the aftermath of the First World War and in particular during the great depression. Sure colonial territories tended to trade more with their home nations than with other nations, but that's hardly surprising given that the home nations tended to hold most of the investment there, speak the same language, they might have been taken over as colonies due to having major commercial interests there, etc. Without the Great War then the world would become more globalized and interconnected, not less.
 

kholieken

Banned
Probably only until 70s. Beyond that its difficult to sustain with International condemnation, Native revolt, and pressure from neighboring independent non-European states.

Only small island or city-states could be retained as colony beyond 70s, even then pressure to grant all subjects mainland citizenship would be great, by 90s there would be overseas part of mainland, no longer colony.
 

Lalli

Athelstane said:
It's not at all impossible that - barring some later, catastrophic major war(s) - the colonial empires could last into the 21st century.

Hard to overstate how much the world wars changed the metropolitan countries - or their colonies.
Click to expand...

Colonialism was going to face its end. Queston was just when. World wars just made this happen faster.
 

kholieken

Banned
FranzAncheNo said:
If we assume that no Empire has fallen by the 70's I don't think European countries would even care about let's say the US and Latin America's condemnations.
Click to expand...
no Empire has fallen is even more impossible than one or two European Empires survive.

By 70s Belgian, Russian, AH likely lost their empire. So international condemnation would come from many European and Asian states, not just Africa and American states.
 

FranzAncheNo

kholieken said:
no Empire has fallen is even more impossible than one or two European Empires survive.

By 70s Belgian, Russian, AH likely lost their empire. So international condemnation would come from many European and Asian states, not just Africa and American states.
Click to expand...
While Belgium wouldn't hold Congo for long I really don't see why without WWs Russia and AH should fall.
 

Tibi088

As long as the Europeans are willing to enforce their rule and nobody comes around who is willing to give modern weapons and training to the locals.

Edit: or are educated/developed enough to make their own modern weapons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top