Decolonization without the Fall of France

[HistoryGeek2019]

NO ONE gives up anything of worth by choice save cowards and fools.

That's not true. People are fundamentally kind at heart. We all give up quite a lot for each other, every day of our lives.

[David Thompson]

Anthonycumia1776 -- You wrote (at viewtopic.php?p=2233760#p2233760):

No, as the post world war worldview of "anyone who does not agree with the egalitarianism world view is the next Hitler" was pushed by the internationalist/Anti Western groups for the reason of harming the west and its people, within them having power and using the long/bloody war as an excuse and a mentally/emotionally shattered people unable/willing to fight back it is unlikely that France would give away such wealth when they would not have to.

NO ONE gives up anything of worth by choice save cowards and fools.

Our readers are not interested in unsourced political notions:

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.

The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games. Shrill and highly polemical posts are also strongly disfavored.

app.php/rules

Consider this your warning.

[wm]

France eventually relinquished her colonial possessions (one of the problems was they had to abandon their own colonists to a grim fate) but only under extreme pressure, other countries because they couldn't afford them anymore.
As usual, the only exception was driven by their version of idealism the Americans.

[Futurist]

France eventually relinquished her colonial possessions (one of the problems was they had to abandon their own colonists to a grim fate) but only under extreme pressure, other countries because they couldn't afford them anymore.
As usual, the only exception was driven by their version of idealism the Americans.

France's colonists actually generally didn't suffer that much of a grim fate. I mean, Yes, they were expelled and lost their lands and properties, but the overwhelming majority of them were not murdered or physically harmed.

Also, are you suggesting that the US kept its colonies?

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

I think the UK and France alone would have had a hard time defeating Germany. Their metropolitan populations combined (about 85 million) were only marginally larger than Germany's (80 million).

You'd have to at least also add the white population of Anglo-French colonies and dominions, though. So, the million Europeans in Algeria, almost all of Canada's and Australia's population, most of New Zealand's population, a million or two Europeans in South Africa, et cetera. Also, TBH, I'm not sure that you'd stop with merely the white populations. After all, groups such as Indians would probably also be able to fight on behalf of the British--at least if forced to do this.

Furthermore, the British were almost totally unprepared for continental-scale warfare and would take about two years to develop a big enough army to contribute usefully to a serious combined offensive with the French. Until then, the French would have to hold the line largely on their own.

Yep, unfortunately. That said, though, it's worth noting that Britain did previously get some experience with large-scale military combat in WWI.

Throw Italy into the mix and France's problems would have been greatly compounded, because the French had to send all their major colonial formations to France to help make up their metropolitan army's numbers. By contrast, Italy had a large colonial army in Libya that might well be a threat to Tunisia, where a majority of the European colonists were already of Italian, rather than French, descent.

Cheers,

Sid.

Italy could try conquering French North Africa, but even if it would have been successful, it would have only been a matter of time before they would have been kicked out of there. After all, once Britain and France are done with Hitler, they'll easily be able to focus on Mussolini. Plus, Mussolini is probably going to have to deal with the British Navy from the very beginning.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

In my opinion, had there been no WWII, the UK might have been more likely to fight to retain India.

However, the UK's army was always small and its military presence in India was extremely light numerically. Since the Indian Mutiny, the Raj had depended on the implied threat of violence as a last resort much more than its actual use.

I would suggest that the fate of the French in Indo-China indicates how any struggle by the British in India would probably have ended. Metropolitan France had a population almost as big as that of its empire and historically a large army. The metropolitan UK had a population about one tenth of its empire and a historically small army.

WWII bankrupted the UK and made it concede accelerated independence to the Congress Party in order to keep India on-side during the war. So neither the means, nor the legitimacy existed to hold up Indian independence for long after WWII.

And with India gone, the principal of independence had been conceded and almost all the rest of the colonial empire followed within 20 years.

Cheers,

Sid.

Agreed with all of this. That said, though, do you think that the Muslim League in British India would have lost a lot of its popularity after Jinnah's death? If so, having Britain delay Indian independence by as little as several years might be enough to prevent the partition of India, no? After all, in real life, Jinnah died just one year after Pakistan's creation--and as you acknowledged, British rule in India might last somewhat longer in this scenario.

[Futurist]

If France doesn't fall in 1940, is decolonization still going to occur the same way that it occurred in real life?

For the record, I am thinking of two separate scenarios here:

1. France doesn't fall in 1940 and anti-Nazi German generals overthrow Hitler and the Nazis within a year. The two sides are then able to reach a compromise peace.

2. The scenario in #1, but with the sides being unable to reach a compromise peace and thus World War II becomes a long, drawn-out battle which ultimately results in Germany capitulating to Britain and France.

How would decolonization have proceeded in both of these scenarios?

No, as the post world war worldview of "anyone who does not agree with the egalitarianism world view is the next Hitler" was pushed by the internationalist/Anti Western groups for the reason of harming the west and its people, within them having power and using the long/bloody war as an excuse and a mentally/emotionally shattered people unable/willing to fight back it is unlikely that France would give away such wealth when they would not have to.

NO ONE gives up anything of worth by choice save cowards and fools.

Please keep in mind, though, that opposition to colonialism already existed to some extent even before WWII. For instance, I believe that the Soviet Union was nominally anti-colonialist from the very beginning.