Which colonies other than British India, Palestine, Ireland, and Algeria could have realistically gotten partitioned at the time of decolonization?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,750
SoCal
but in the post WW2 situation would probably have not been viable.
Why not?

It did, Spain lost much of its African territory and only held what it still has with French assistance (two minor cities). Morocco still claims these cities. Morocco was still negotiating with Spain for territory into the 70's, when they joined NATO, this made military action impractical and unwise for minor territory. Libya would be a different story, longer distances, larger cities with less historic connection.
And Italy can't ask France and/or Britain for assistance in holding onto their North African possessions?
 
Jul 2019
12
Devon, United Kingdom
Surely Sudan fits this? It was British until the 50s, and although it wouldn't have been obvious at the time to do so, there has always been an ethnic divide between the north and south, leading to the South becoming independent in 2011. It was just a very delayed partition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,750
SoCal
Surely Sudan fits this? It was British until the 50s, and although it wouldn't have been obvious at the time to do so, there has always been an ethnic divide between the north and south, leading to the South becoming independent in 2011. It was just a very delayed partition.
That makes sense. Interestingly enough, South Sudan was a separate colony until 1947--which is when it was unified with North Sudan. I wonder if joining Uganda would have been much better for them.
 
Apr 2017
1,762
U.S.A.
Why not?


And Italy can't ask France and/or Britain for assistance in holding onto their North African possessions?
I'd imagine Britain would laugh in their face for an inappropriate amount of time.
France would be busy with its own colonial mess but may be willing to offer some assistance. Ultimately it wouldn't matter, demographics weren't in Italy's favor. Eventually they would have to surrender the city, especially after France pulls out of Algeria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,750
SoCal
I'd imagine Britain would laugh in their face for an inappropriate amount of time.
Why?

France would be busy with its own colonial mess but may be willing to offer some assistance. Ultimately it wouldn't matter, demographics weren't in Italy's favor. Eventually they would have to surrender the city, especially after France pulls out of Algeria.
What about if in this scenario France is determined to hold onto a part of Algeria?
 
Apr 2017
1,762
U.S.A.
Why?

What about if in this scenario France is determined to hold onto a part of Algeria?
Britain was in the process of giving away all its colonies, they couldn't even prevent Egypt from nationalizing the Suez Canal with France and Israel's help. Spending money to help Italy hold a city they would eventually have to give up is laughable. It would be like Mexico asking us to help them invade Guatemala.

Then they wouldn't have the resources to help Italy. It was a losing battle, the only way to win it would be to resort to ethnic cleansing and the world wouldn't stand for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,750
SoCal
Britain was in the process of giving away all its colonies, they couldn't even prevent Egypt from nationalizing the Suez Canal with France and Israel's help. Spending money to help Italy hold a city they would eventually have to give up is laughable. It would be like Mexico asking us to help them invade Guatemala.
Why'd Britain help Spain, then?

Then they wouldn't have the resources to help Italy. It was a losing battle, the only way to win it would be to resort to ethnic cleansing and the world wouldn't stand for that.
OK.