What if, instead of peaceful dismantlement of the British Empire, London went the Suez route and used it's military might to maintain as much of its empire as possible. Yes, the UK was not in good shape after the Second World War, but hypothetically, how much of the empire could've been kept, if much more?
UK Fights for Colonies
- Thread starter Dan Handsome
- Start date
I guess they wouldn't have to fight in most places. If British had a policy to retain colonies, many of them would accept that fate. British Caribbean could easily be British till today if they weren't forced out. Same for small African colonies or the ones with sizeable white settlements, like both Rhodesias and maybe Kenya. The complicated political climate could be used as an excuse to be there indefinitely. Malta is the other one that could be retained, in fact, it's almost gotten absorbed into the UK in the 1950's.
Moreover, in this scenario, Britain would cultivate a more close relation with the Commonwealth and probably wouldn't have taken part of the European project.
Moreover, in this scenario, Britain would cultivate a more close relation with the Commonwealth and probably wouldn't have taken part of the European project.
So the Indian Sub-continent is gone I think everyone agrees as is Israel/Palestine and Jordan. Though I do think the Andaman and Nicobarese islands could be kept if it was cut off.
I think Malta definitely could be maintained as could some of the Caribbean and Pacific. I also think New Foundland as a decent chance though maybe it’s too late.
Most of Africa will have to go though as said above if you really wnated to prop up White settlers they could try but I think that a losing battle.
In the Middle East it depends how strong Iran/Iraq/Saudi are relative to Britain and how engaged America is.
Hong Kong can be kept depending how mainland China goes. The strait settlement being split off from Malaysia could potentially keep them.
I think Malta definitely could be maintained as could some of the Caribbean and Pacific. I also think New Foundland as a decent chance though maybe it’s too late.
Most of Africa will have to go though as said above if you really wnated to prop up White settlers they could try but I think that a losing battle.
In the Middle East it depends how strong Iran/Iraq/Saudi are relative to Britain and how engaged America is.
Hong Kong can be kept depending how mainland China goes. The strait settlement being split off from Malaysia could potentially keep them.
I don't think the UK could fight for every inch of the empire, but if it was smart and really wanted to it could probably (like France) have extensive influence over much of its former colonies* and still have non-negligible overseas holdings**.
*perhaps keep the East African Shilling around
**I'm thinking Singapore, the Pacific Islands that aren't protectorates, more of the Caribbean than OTL (including Belize and Guyana), the Andaman and Nicobarese islands (following through with the plan to make them a home for the Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Burmese), Aden, Malta, and Cyprus.
*perhaps keep the East African Shilling around
**I'm thinking Singapore, the Pacific Islands that aren't protectorates, more of the Caribbean than OTL (including Belize and Guyana), the Andaman and Nicobarese islands (following through with the plan to make them a home for the Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Burmese), Aden, Malta, and Cyprus.
It'd be interesting to see how the US would react. If they see the Soviets gaining lots of influence due to british stubborness (sponsoring communist uprsings) they may just start sponsoring their own anti-british independence groups. US-UK relations become entirely different.
Overall probably Africa gets a hell of a more rockier start than in otl. Imagine if every country was Rhodesia, not that the UK had the resources to fight a bush war in every colony.
Overall probably Africa gets a hell of a more rockier start than in otl. Imagine if every country was Rhodesia, not that the UK had the resources to fight a bush war in every colony.
The Populations for Aden,Cyprus,Guyana, and Singapore are too large to be keep.
That depends on whether they are in favour of staying part of the Empire or not. Aden and Cyprus are out but I'm not so sure of Singapore and Guyana.
Should have been more clear, I was thinking more a portion of the city as a naval base, secured by treaty after handing British Yemen directly over to (North) Yemen.
Certainly too big to integrate. As a self-governing protectorate justified on the grounds of keeping the island's racial tensions in check it could be just about doable.
I forgot Guyana had such a large population compared to its French counterpart. Perhaps another self-governing protectorate justified on the grounds of deterring Venezuela's revanchist claims.
On the contrary, the UK was able to keep a firm grasp on Hong Kong which is even larger and had a more developed sense of (Chinese) nationalism.
However that would angry Greece and Turkey along with putting the British in the middle of the shooting. I doubt the British public wants to spend Cash and Blood in Cyprus .
Expect the US can as in otl deter Venezuela and what strategic interest does Britain have in staying the region.
Hong Kong was under lease and was going to leave British rule in 1997. Singapore is too big to integrated and too poor until modern times, and making the territory self-governing to the point of only being nominally part of Britain leaves no reason for the city retain formal British rule or the British to stay.
Why does that matter to Britain given both countries were pro-western during most of the cold war and why does that preclude Singapore from gaining independence but retaining British forces.
A Britain wanting to retain as much of the Empire as possible would want to hold Singapore because of its very strategic position, and a Singapore that is still at least nominally part of the Empire is not going to be attacked by its neighbours. If Singapore is independent then its government can be subverted.
So OTL.
What interests does France have in French Guiana?
Making Singapore more appealing.
Debatable. Especially given how anglicized the population is.
And Hong Kong was worse. Yet the UK never cut and run on them, not even when there were riots in the streets demanding for them to leave.
Hmm what could the British possibly be interested in over in the straits of Malacca? What would Singapore stand to gain by being a back door to Europe?
Whats is going to stop the British leaving as per otl once the public gets tired of the whole mess.
The population of Singapore is nearly all non-white with a population of 2 million in 1970. I doubt the British public going to be very happy about integrating and paying for 2 million non-whites.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/singapore-population/
What strategic interest does Britain have without it's empire and before the rise of the major Asian economics in the strait of Malacca, and why does that prevent them from having bases like otl in an independent Singapore .
Which can still be done as an independent nation.
Last edited:
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
If you take military stuff off the table, and 'fight' by means of politics, etc, etc, the United States might agree to let the UK hold onto anything which really and truly voluntarily wants to stay on, and not pull the plug on the UK currency.
I don't see military stuff working. Not unless Gandhi and Nehru (and possibly Jinnah) have agreed that the UK can be part of a 'Greater India', run from Delhi, which keeps the King-Emperor on as a useful figurehead/unifying figure, and which might require no partition as an establishing condition.
They didn't? The UK still has a major base right on the partition line and peacekeepers on the ground.
Pretty well everyone there speaks English, many as their first language. A good many of them are Christians. And as with Hong Kong, the cost to keep it won't be a major issue, as it will develop largely on its own initiative.
In the same time period the UK received something like a million blacks and another million south asians as immigrants, and they went directly into the British isles. Clearly non-white Brits weren't as big of a sticking point as you make it out, and if they were then a city on the other side of the planet would be the least of the public's concerns (as indicated by the fact that no skin heads were demanding for the UK to pull out of Hong Kong).
The entire point of this thread is discussing a Britain which is trying to keep as much of its empire as it can...
The UK doesn't have a base in Singapore. You seem to have confused Cyprus and Singapore with regards to British overseas military presence...
Gonna need a citation for the EU accepting non-European states (and yes the EU does accept overseas territories).
They still left the majority of Cyprus .
Whats stopping a large number of Singaporean population from immigrating to Britain. if Singapore is only nominally part of Britain with internal borders and all, whats the point in staying.
Who came over a long period of time and not all at once. Britain had a high level of opposition to immigration until the late 1990s.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
Hong Kong was never integrated as part of the UK in the way Bermuda or other territories were. It was going back to China in 1997.
What kind of empire ? A sphere of influence or British direct rule ? The former establishes a pre-existing model Singapore can just hop right into.
They did maintain a base in Singapore post independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez#20th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Naval_Base#Continued_Commonwealth_presence
I thought you were referring to Singapore acting as regional hub for European trade and investment into Asia.
Last edited: