British empire never falls

[WolfBear]

The OP never stated any parameters, so definitive statements are somewhat pointless.


I think that even under the best of circumstances, true olitical union of the whole (or even the greater bulk) of the empire at its height would be unstainable in the long term. To keep it acceptable to Britain itself, Britain (or at least the "white" parts of the Empire) would need to have a majority vote forever, and the non-white parts of the Empire wouldn't accept that in perpetuity. At some point, it would be blatantly obvious that they have by far the greater population, and they'd demand proportional representation. This would indeed create an Indian Empire. Britain would not accept this. A split would be the outcome.

On the other hand, how much political union is required here? The OP, again, gives no details or clues. I can quite easily imagine a British Empire that consists of England, Scotland, (united?) Ireland, (maybe not-united?) Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Each of the constituent realms would have a Parliament of its own, and there would be an Imperial Parliament in London.

These realms would form a true Empire, sharing the same fundamental laws, one military (more especially: one navy) and exercising a common foreign policy. They'd obviously have a common economic space, and free internal migration with no barriers (as they'd have a common nationality as well, same as the states of the USA).

It's even possible to devise a scenario wherein this kind of thing is first set up as a solution to the grievances of the Thirteen Colonies, thus keeping them on board-- although that would presumably abort OTL's British interest in Australia and New Zealand.

Anyway, beyond these core parts, most other parts of the Empire (at its height) would be devolved into Commonwealth states. They'd still share the same monarch, but they'd be far less integrated. Basically soveign nations that happen to be in personal dynastic union, and which have close economic and military/defensive ties to the 'Empire proper'.

A few smaller odds and ends (Bermuda, the Falklands etc.) could be politically governed directly from London, either as special territories or as part of England(-across-the-Sea).

Potentially, South Africa could end up partitioned, with a rump state inhabited by Anglos, Boers and Coloureds remaining part of the Empire, and the rest of Southern Africa either becoming a set of Commonwealth states, or acrimoniously splitting away completely.

To my mind, this basic set-up absolutely qualifies as a "surviving British Empire". Even if India (by far the biggest player) opts out entirely and doesn't even join the ATL Commonwealth, the remaining Empire+Commonwealth is still a vast political system bound together (to varying degrees) under the auspices of one dynasty.

That actually sounds rather romantic. I suppose that such a British Empire could be close allies with both the US and India, right? I wonder if direct government rule will also apply to Malta, Gibraltar, and Singapore. And will Malaya (Malaysia) stay or become independent?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

The BE won't end peacefully if the British has the military and economic clout to keep it.

What ended the BE was, largely, US pressure, the Soviet threat, and the damage that the British sustained in WW2.

If the British stay out of WW2 then the European theater basically becomes a Nazi-USSR fight that is even more destructive than real life WW2 was. The US might keep supplying the USSR, but without British support there is no active use of US military forces in Europe which means that there is no Western front.

So Post WW2, the British Empire would remain the world's most powerful nation. If Japan still attacks the US then Japan will still get wrecked, but the outcome of that is somewhat iffy.

Communist China never happens.

---
A world where the BE avoids the lethal damage it took in WW2 is one that is incredibly different in basically every respect from the world we know today.

 

[Skallagrim]

That actually sounds rather romantic. I suppose that such a British Empire could be close allies with both the US and India, right? I wonder if direct government rule will also apply to Malta, Gibraltar, and Singapore. And will Malaya (Malaysia) stay or become independent?

Well, I certainly believe that the basic scenario I'm describing here would be preferable to OTL, as decolonisation was a complete disaster, and my alternative offers a more controlled re-organisation and devolution and aims to avert bloodshed. (ETA: It also helps that the implied premise for this sort of scenario is that WWI doesn't happen or is dramatically reduced in scope and/or duration, and that WWII is averted altogether.)

The resulting Empire could certainly be allied with (what-is-in-OTL) the USA and India, or could to some extent include either-- or both.

Malta and Gibraltar would without question remain controlled by Britain unless pried away by naked force. The Malayan peninsula would presumably become a Commonwealth member, not part of the Empire proper, but Singapore would probably remain under direct control for obvious economic and strategic reasons. (I think Hong Kong would likewise remain under permanent British control, in this scenario -- assuming a POD that isn't too far back to wholly avert a British presence there, obviously!)

 

[ATP]

Keeping the US was effectively impossible. The British could have won the Revolutionary War but that would have just resulted in Revolutionary War 2.0 a few years down the road.

Forcibly suppressing something with the size, geographic advantages, and population of the Colonies with the technology available and the BE's other commitments simply wasn't viable in the long term. And the changes that would have needed to be made to get the willing support of the Colonies weren't politically acceptable at home.

The actual best chance for the BE to survive is to be neutral in the Nazi's favor in WW2 in exchange for the Nazi's not interfering with the BE in Africa.

That would keep the US out of the European theater, prevent the Soviet Union from ever becoming a true global power, and keep the BE from bankrupting itself fighting WW2.

Without the need to be the "Arsenal of Democracy" the US never builds up the military power needed to supplant the BE either. If the US expands, it will be in the Pacific.

With the USSR and Nazi's at war with one another, you never get global communism and all of the USSR funded anti-colonialism. Without WW2 to leave the US utterly dominant, the US also isn't in a position to dictate terms and impose its preferred order on the world.

---
If someone actually wants an interesting what if, "What if the British Empire decides to remain neutral in the Nazi's favor during WW2?" could be a really interesting one.

They could keep 13 colonies - as long as they do not expanded.Possible.Especially,if they send there people from churches which hated each other.
WW2 - if they actually backed Czech in 1938,Hitler would fall.If they helped Poland for real,it would be the same.
Making deal with Hitler would help only,if he manage to keep soviets at bay.
Mission impossible,becouse USA would help them.

So,England would lost its empire anyway.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, I certainly believe that the basic scenario I'm describing here would be preferable to OTL, as decolonisation was a complete disaster, and my alternative offers a more controlled re-organisation and devolution and aims to avert bloodshed.

The resulting could certainly be allied to (what-is-in-OTL) the USA and India, or could to some extent include either-- or both.

Malta and Gibraltar would without question remain controlled by Britain unless pried away by naked force. The Malayan peninsula would presumably become an Commonwealth member, not part of the Empire proper, but Singapore would probably remain under direct control for obvious economic and strategic reasons. (I think Hong Kong would likewise remain under permanent British control, in this scenario -- assuming a POD that isn't too far back to wholly avert a British presence there, obviously!)

Re: Hong Kong: What happens if China decides to turn off Hong Kong's power/electricity and/or water supplies in an attempt to force Britain to return Hong Kong to China in the late 1990s or whenever else the agreed-upon date for Hong Kong's return handover is?

Also, if there is ever a Jewish state in Palestine in this TL, could it also become a Commonwealth member like Malaysia?

And Yes, I do acknowledge that in a lot of cases (though generally not in white-majority countries) decolonization was a failure, as evidenced by hundreds of millions of Third Worlders wanting to move to the First World right now. Those people who advocate for open borders implicitly acknowledge that decolonization has often been an epic failure. After all, once their moralistic language is put aside, what they are really advocating is having the Third World colonize the First World.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

They could keep 13 colonies - as long as they do not expanded.Possible.Especially,if they send there people from churches which hated each other.
WW2 - if they actually backed Czech in 1938,Hitler would fall.If they helped Poland for real,it would be the same.
Making deal with Hitler would help only,if he manage to keep soviets at bay.
Mission impossible,becouse USA would help them.

So,England would lost its empire anyway.

No, without the British actively fighting the Nazis the US isn't going to support the Soviets with active military aid. The best the USSR could expect would be the US supplying war material.

And the Nazi's able to focus fully on the USSR likely either results in a Nazi victory or a very slow, long, grinding, war that utterly wrecks both parties.

And no, the BE wouldn't lose its empire anyways. What cost the BE their empire was the US's active opposition to it and the BE being in no position to argue the point.

A BE that avoids WW2 enters the 1950's with the world's most powerful navy, one of the worlds two most powerful economies, and a fully intact military.

A Nazi/USSR war without US troops in Europe (and US troops are not in Europe without BE involvement and support) also means that the USSR is in no position to be the great enemy it was.

The US's policy decisions post WW2 were virtually all predicated on winning the Cold War because global communism was an existential threat to the US in a way that nothing else was. And global communism only became a threat with an intact, powerful, USSR.

A Nazi Germany controlled Europe (and even Russia) isn't something that the US was particularly keen to see but it would never have been perceived as an existential threat to the US or its interests.

And if the US and BE stay out of WW2 in Europe and let the USSR and Nazi's fight it out, you are likely to see the US and BE come in at the end and wreck the shit of whomever won in Europe.

---
Without a BE broken in WW2, there is no Bretton Woods, no freedom of the seas, no WTO, no UN, no NATO. And the Cold War, if anything like it still occurs, would be drastically different.

 

[ATP]

No, without the British actively fighting the Nazis the US isn't going to support the Soviets with active military aid. The best the USSR could expect would be the US supplying war material.

And the Nazi's able to focus fully on the USSR likely either results in a Nazi victory or a very slow, long, grinding, war that utterly wrecks both parties.

And no, the BE wouldn't lose its empire anyways. What cost the BE their empire was the US's active opposition to it and the BE being in no position to argue the point.

A BE that avoids WW2 enters the 1950's with the world's most powerful navy, one of the worlds two most powerful economies, and a fully intact military.

A Nazi/USSR war without US troops in Europe (and US troops are not in Europe without BE involvement and support) also means that the USSR is in no position to be the great enemy it was.

The US's policy decisions post WW2 were virtually all predicated on winning the Cold War because global communism was an existential threat to the US in a way that nothing else was. And global communism only became a threat with an intact, powerful, USSR.

A Nazi Germany controlled Europe (and even Russia) isn't something that the US was particularly keen to see but it would never have been perceived as an existential threat to the US or its interests.

And if the US and BE stay out of WW2 in Europe and let the USSR and Nazi's fight it out, you are likely to see the US and BE come in at the end and wreck the shit of whomever won in Europe.

---
Without a BE broken in WW2, there is no Bretton Woods, no freedom of the seas, no WTO, no UN, no NATO. And the Cold War, if anything like it still occurs, would be drastically different.

Wall street send Trocky to Russia to destroy it,and later they support them for stolen gold and grain.
Which mean,that no matter who would be president,soviets would get Lend-lease.
Add Hitler stupidity,and it is enough to win war.
Becouse,as sralin sayd,Hitler was his greatest general.

And,If USA do not want soviets as superpower,they would not gave them Poland.
Only american president who fought them seriously was Reagan.And,they cease to exist as a result.

 

[stevep]

Free movement with the colonies would have been political suicide for whoever proposed it.

Actually I think there was de-facto free movement within the empire or into Britain anyway until the 1960's. It was possible because very few non-white colonials had the wealth to actually make the move. There was some Indian movement into Britain in the late 19thC and a few actually became MPs in Parliament but the total number was pretty small. It was more the reaction to larger scale migration from the Caribbean and from the former Indian empire after 1947 that prompted the removal of the right for all subjects of the empire to gain access to Britain.

 

[stevep]

Representation in the British Parliament? Or a lesser kind of autonomy?

I don't think the Americans would have accepted representation in Parliament. This would have meant:
a) Paying full taxes at the same level as British inhabitants did. Far, far larger that the small amounts Britain was looking for to make a contribution for the defence of the colonies.
b) Losing a fair amount of the large scale of self government that they had already.

 

[Buba]

Actually I think there was de-facto free movement within the empire or into Britain anyway until the 1960's.

Not inside the Empire. Or at least not where the (White) locals had a say - see rabidly racist Canadians and (East) Indians, Australia, South Africa ...

 

[WolfBear]

Actually I think there was de-facto free movement within the empire or into Britain anyway until the 1960's. It was possible because very few non-white colonials had the wealth to actually make the move. There was some Indian movement into Britain in the late 19thC and a few actually became MPs in Parliament but the total number was pretty small. It was more the reaction to larger scale migration from the Caribbean and from the former Indian empire after 1947 that prompted the removal of the right for all subjects of the empire to gain access to Britain.

Though there was not always free migration from one part of the British Empire to other parts even in the old days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident

The ship above involved some Indians wanting to immigrate to Canada in 1914 but being denied the opportunity to do so. Racist 1914 Canadians!

 

[stevep]

Though there was not always free migration from one part of the British Empire to other parts even in the old days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident

The ship above involved some Indians wanting to immigrate to Canada in 1914 but being denied the opportunity to do so. Racist 1914 Canadians!

Ah. To clarify I was referring to the laws applying inside Britain. Not independent or at least self-governing dominions or places like India post 1918 which largely set policies without regard to London. There was definitely restrictions in the white dominions but that was outside full British control. I was referring basically to people coming to the UK itself. Sorry for any confusion on this issue.

Steve

 

[History Learner]

Halifax getting the PM slot in 1940 and cutting a deal was the last opportunity to save it, in my estimation:

Personally I think Churchill becoming PM and then choosing to fight on from 1940 instead of making peace was the wrong one. Hitler was an Anglophile and at absolute most, as far as terms for the UK, would've requested the return of Germany's 1914 colonies and maybe Malta for Italy. Most likely though, the terms would've been the expulsion of the Governments in exile and recognition of treaties Germany would make with the occupied states of Western Europe as well as a free hand in Eastern Europe (i.e. against the USSR). Things for France and the occupied states would've been harsher but hey, at least they aren't getting bombed and fought over for the next five years either.

From an objective standpoint, this would be far better for the UK and arguably even Europe at large. The British by 1943 were experiencing major manpower shortages and by 1944 were effectively broke, operating on American dime. This enabled Washington to mount increasing political pressure on the UK, such as in 1942 following the loss of Singapore when they forced the UK to end the practice of Imperial Preference; this removed the economic incentive of the Empire and quickly allowed the U.S. to displace the UK in much of its Empire. Further, the aforementioned Japanese advance allowed the United States to become the main security benefactor of Australia and New Zealand. Combined with the loss of economic ties, this along with the loss of India after the war resulted in the UK abandoning East of Suez.

Another major issue was the course of the North Africa campaign, because although the Commonwealth had done the hard fighting by the time of Operation TORCH, American resources-including financial-were leveraged to end British attempts to retain influence in the Middle East. Such ultimately laid the framework for the Petro Dollar, when previously even Saudi Arabia preferred to work with the British. Without American influence afforded by the War, the British plan for the Middle Eastern Supply Center would've went through, combined with security pacts with the Arab emirates and ties to Saudi Arabia would've resulted in a Petro Pound instead of the Dollar.

Finally, other benefits are obvious. With Imperial Preference intact and Anglo-American economic pressure globally, German-occupied Europe would've been behind a tariff wall which would've given British industry preferential access to much of the Global Market; presumably, much of the same would've been true for Japan in Asia. Such would've prevented the same degree of being outcompeted by German and Japanese exports that historically happened Post-War for the UK (and the United States, for that matter). Likewise, a Germany that has a free hand in the East is a Germany that defeats the USSR in 1941 and thereafter occupied up to the Urals, eliminating the threat of Soviet Bolshevism to British colonies. Thus, by 1945 instead of being a broken husk, the Empire is still financially viable and secure under the auspices of the UK, with no American pressure being viable and no real threat of Soviet arms (as well as money, advisers, UN voting, etc) to undermine the Empire.

Take in note, this is the case for an objectively better situation for the UK's national interests, not on Humanitarian grounds for European people. Still, on that note I think things in theory would be better too. Without the Anglo-American blockade against European imports, hunger-at least in Western Europe-would be much reduced. Jews and others could still flee the continent, as the German policy at this time was either sending them to Palestine, the Americas or, as they were considering at the time of the French defeat, the Madagascar Plan so one could avoid the Holocaust via this. I am not sure if the Hunger Plan for the defeated USSR would be avoided given the ability to import, but it's at least possible in theory.

 

[stevep]

Halifax getting the PM slot in 1940 and cutting a deal was the last opportunity to save it, in my estimation:

Depends on what you define as the empire. Presuming your proposal doesn't mean the destruction of Britain as an independent state India is still going to be gone by probably 1950 at the latest and hopefully before that else its going to be very bloody.

If there's a rational leadership then it might manage to keep some of the valuable parts of the empire - such as Malaya and parts of the Persian Gulf longer but get rid of the bulk of it sooner. Although that would probably mean even more chaos post independence across much of Africa and it would also mean defeating the significant political interests of the white settler minorities in several of those states. Keep of cause as many of the key strategic points as possible.

The key point however would be economic and social reform to revitize Britain itself. To give it the strength and attractiveness that some of the smaller states and region will want to be attached.

 

[WolfBear]

Halifax getting the PM slot in 1940 and cutting a deal was the last opportunity to save it, in my estimation:

I quite possibly agree in relation to British interests, but I don't think that such an outcome would have been very good for the Eastern Slavs, tens of millions of whom or more would have likely been deported to Siberia or Central Asia or the Russian/Soviet Far East in order to clear Germans' desired Lebensraum--with a huge part of the remaining Eastern Slavs becoming helotized and being used as slave labor by the Germans, no? And of course with a minority of Eastern Slavs being forcibly taken from their parents and forcibly becoming Germanized, presumably.

 

[History Learner]

I quite possibly agree in relation to British interests, but I don't think that such an outcome would have been very good for the Eastern Slavs, tens of millions of whom or more would have likely been deported to Siberia or Central Asia or the Russian/Soviet Far East in order to clear Germans' desired Lebensraum--with a huge part of the remaining Eastern Slavs becoming helotized and being used as slave labor by the Germans, no? And of course with a minority of Eastern Slavs being forcibly taken from their parents and forcibly becoming Germanized, presumably.

Well, given the purpose of the thread, defer to the bolded.

 

[stevep]

I quite possibly agree in relation to British interests, but I don't think that such an outcome would have been very good for the Eastern Slavs, tens of millions of whom or more would have likely been deported to Siberia or Central Asia or the Russian/Soviet Far East in order to clear Germans' desired Lebensraum--with a huge part of the remaining Eastern Slavs becoming helotized and being used as slave labor by the Germans, no? And of course with a minority of Eastern Slavs being forcibly taken from their parents and forcibly becoming Germanized, presumably.

Even if Germany, assuming they win in Russia doesn't them seek to crush Britain as an independent power the empire over the channel, albeit deranged, is going to be a continued threat to Britain which will mean a heavy defence budget as well as seeking to maintain control of areas such as the ME in the face of German pressure and Muslim unrest. Plus it pretty much cuts off British trade from the bulk of the continent which is a big market. Not to mention having to consider the threat from Japan.

As I think HL [or possibly SG] has said those tens of millions of Slavs would be largely dead, killed either directly or simply by strarvation so yes its going to very bad for the people of the continent, especially in the east.

 

[WolfBear]

As I think HL [or possibly SG] has said those tens of millions of Slavs would be largely dead, killed either directly or simply by strarvation so yes its going to very bad for the people of the continent, especially in the east.

FWIW, Michael Mills (on the Axis History Forum, Historum, and/or et cetera) said that the Nazi plans for the deportations of tens of millions of Slavs to the east did not explicitly involve starving or killing them and that Siberia apparently had enough extra food for an extra several dozen million people. I don't know if his claim here is accurate, but still, I feel like it should be shared here.

 

[stevep]

FWIW, Michael Mills (on the Axis History Forum, Historum, and/or et cetera) said that the Nazi plans for the deportations of tens of millions of Slavs to the east did not explicitly involve starving or killing them and that Siberia apparently had enough extra food for an extra several dozen million people. I don't know if his claim here is accurate, but still, I feel like it should be shared here.

Its possible, although not sure that Siberia would have that capacity quickly for refugees who would probably be expelled without more than the cloths on their backs. Especially not several dozen millions.

However the argument - which I didn't find convincing because of the timing - was that if the Soviets hadn't liberated the areas they did in Dec 42 - May 43 then there would have been mass starvation in the northern regions around Moscow and Leningrad. Also I have seen it suggested that if they had conquered that region in 41 the German aim would be to have it starve as they wanted the grain from the south for Germany.

 

[WolfBear]

Its possible, although not sure that Siberia would have that capacity quickly for refugees who would probably be expelled without more than the cloths on their backs. Especially not several dozen millions.

However the argument - which I didn't find convincing because of the timing - was that if the Soviets hadn't liberated the areas they did in Dec 42 - May 43 then there would have been mass starvation in the northern regions around Moscow and Leningrad. Also I have seen it suggested that if they had conquered that region in 41 the German aim would be to have it starve as they wanted the grain from the south for Germany.

Very possible. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the grain in southern Russia and Ukraine helped feed the people of Moscow and Leningrad in early 1943 and beyond. That area is a very productive breadbasket, at least in theory.

FWIW, IIRC, these deportations of tens of millions of Eastern Slavs to Siberia, et cetera were apparently supposed to happen over 25 or 30 years, so they weren't all going to be done immediately or anything close to it. Maybe a million or two million Eastern Slavs get deported to Siberia each year for 25 or 30 years. And maybe the Poles are thrown in there as well if the Nazis want them gone as well.