AHC: Integration Instead of Decolonization

[Kibbutznik]

Create a world where the U.S. and UN support the integration of European colonies into the metropolé instead of decolonization, with the Allies still winning.

I'd presume that this would be possible if the Soviets obtained stronger positions in the Mediterranean, thus necessitating a muc greater presence of European/American influence in Africa, as to create a united front against the Red Menace.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

This world needs American and US leaders actually knowing some things about economy. For example, that the colonies can't develop on their own and need their metropolis to survive and not fall into chaos.

 

[Kibbutznik]

Any somewhat more detailed opinions?

Also bump

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Wouldn't that require the Europeans wanting to integrate with their colonial subjects? The French didn't bother to give equal rights to the native Algerians beyond the local Jewish population; what would prompt them to do this to everyone?

 

[Bad@logic]

It's all fun and games giving rights to the brown, black, and yellow people until they can vote in elections that affect you :^)

 

[rfmcdonald]

France preferred Algerian independence to a scenario where Algeria and Algerians would be directly integrated into France, given full citizenship and even employment quotas. If that was how France treated the inhabitants of its arguably most important colony, I just don't think there would be any interest anywhere else.

 

[trurle]

The POD to retain colonies and integrate them must do something with the rampant trade across the world. The de-colonization have started in the interwar period, mostly due weakening of economic driving force to use colonial materials. Colonial labour wages increased, resources were depleted, control costs (including military) increased due growing nationalism. Therefore, at some point it become advantageous to give colonies an independence (therefore shifting security costs to abroad) and buy materials - in former colonies or elsewhere. First major development was the Good Neighbour Policy in 1933. Great surplus of marine transports after WWII also greatly accelerated process, due to reduced transportation costs.

Well, i can propose the prolonged WWII with extensive sea minefields blocking all the major shipping choke-points (Gibraltar, Suetz, Hormuz, Malacca, Panama, Bab-el-Mandab, Danish straits, Bosporus) and very small final surplus of the US merchant marine.

Reduced availability of trade goods worldwide may keep colonial materials/goods economically competitive for few more decades, providing more motivation and time for the colonial integration. Of course, the process is going to be very painful, both for colonies and the metropoly.

 

[Tanc49]

There's a thread in the pre-1900 forum on this exact subject.

Otherwise, see "a Blunted Sickle", looks like it's going that way

 

[pdf27]

Not quite - I can't see integration making sense with a POD that late. What I am sort of envisaging is that decolonialisation will be slower and because the "colonial" troops are more involved in the fighting there will be more goodwill and investment in the soon to be former colonies from the metropole. That means I think better relations after independence and probably some shared forces (e.g. sharing RN frigate designs or a newly independent India being under the RAF nuclear umbrella). The shorter/less destructive war also means that things like the Bengal Famine and suppression of the "Quit India" movement don't happen, which also helps postwar relations be somewhat less bitter.

 

[TheMann]

I highly doubt direct integration into the metropole is even a remote possibility for practical reasons, regardless of how much trade is involved or how many times colonial troops distinguish themselves in war. France got far further than most in Algeria, and even that wasn't nearly what you were thinking of here. The problem is that the colonies would then easily outnumber the Metropole, which is not going to sit well with the voters of the home country, as problem that is particularly acute with Britain due to its control over India.

 

[Tanc49]

I highly doubt direct integration into the metropole is even a remote possibility for practical reasons, regardless of how much trade is involved or how many times colonial troops distinguish themselves in war. France got far further than most in Algeria, and even that wasn't nearly what you were thinking of here. The problem is that the colonies would then easily outnumber the Metropole, which is not going to sit well with the voters of the home country, as problem that is particularly acute with Britain due to its control over India.

Integration of ALL colonies would probably be a pipe dream but I am of the opinion that integration of Algeria is possible and is what SHOULD have been.

French colonial ideology and motivations leave a wide open door for full integration. Lyautey might not be representativ all the time but he did shape the colonisation process. He said that colonisation was a way for France to renew an old blood.

After the war of 1870, Lyautey said France was an old civilisation in danger of falling asleep (like the Asian cultures were seen as having done) and needed new, fresh and young blood to be reinvigorated. This blood was to be found in the colonies where the energy of the subject was to be harnessed and used by France. Here you can totally see that the ideology was there.

Especially in Algeria where the Arabs were not considered inferiors. They were considered cheating, conniving and a lot of niceties but the Arabs were not an inferior race. If anything, it was the climate and the blazing sun that made them lazy (environmental influence were a big theme).

One of the big sticking point in Algeria was that the veterans were not compensated properluy. This became a sore point which France ignored and then smashed way too hard as compensation for Indochina