Aaron Fox
Well-known member
No, this military was so expensive that no taxation regimen can maintain it. Remember the Royal Navy's policies and it becomes far much clearer.
What If? The British Empire Never Fell?
- Thread starter CarlManvers2019
- Start date
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Really though? A defence budget of 4% or 5% of gdp would have done the trick in peacetime for so massive an empire. Perhaps that way the British Army might have the size and equipment it needs to not flee the beaches of Dunkirk with tail between legs. Of course, this hypothetical force wouldn't nearly be as large as the mass conscript force of World War 1, but it would be significantly larger and better equipped than what we actually had at the time.
D
Deleted member
Guest
The easiest realistic way for the British Empire to still exist in a certain form is for an Imperial Parliament to be formed representing the White Dominions initially, instead of their being granted self-government. This was a very serious proposal with a lot of support. Even if the United States not a part of it, such a plausible Imperial Federation could consist of the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The question is whether or not it can also successfully integrate South Africa. It would also plausibly include smaller colonies which have reason to remain associated: Singapore, Penang, North Borneo, Hong Kong (depending on the circumstances), Mauritius, Guiana, British Honduras, Jamaica, Malta, etc.
There is no question a Federation controlling the territory above would still be an Empire in every sense of the word, and a superpower.
There is no question a Federation controlling the territory above would still be an Empire in every sense of the word, and a superpower.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Just to add context, granting Dominion status to White Settler Colonies was partially driven over fear of another American Revolution. Whitehall thought "just let them have a measure of autonomy and they won't go throwing tea in harbours." However, the idea of Imperial Federation could have worked just as well, if not better, in keeping the empire together. That and penny pinching MPs taking defence expenditure seriously.
D
Deleted member
Guest
For example, with no appreciable change to the military budgets of the constituent countries, in aggregate, the leverage of that Imperial Federation having unified military forces would allow it to have a fleet with one CV1952, four CVA-01, and six Invincible-class CVL/CAHs in the 1980s, build 20 Trafalgar-class SSNs instead of 7, and maintain an SSBN force with ten Vanguards instead of 4.
Here's a crazy thought: Can the British Empire be preserved not by a change in Britain or its colonies, but a change in Germany?
Let's start with Germany adopting a Russia first policy instead of a France first policy. Someone in the general staff seems to have predicted trench warfare based on their high rate of machinegun procurement so I think they can plausibly go for a holding action against France -- possibly with a minor advance so they aren't digging trenches in their own soil -- and focus their army on knocking Russia out of the war. This means no invasion of Belgium and no causus belli for the UK. It also probably means no unrestricted submarine warfare because the German surface fleet is designed to fight the French. The UK gets a share of the neutral power weapon export boost and doesn't lose a generation of young men. And they can sell to both sides because France can't blockade Germany without the Royal Navy's help.
When the war ends the US is still isolationist with a naval budget appropriate to maybe Massachusetts. France and Germany have just fought a relatively fair dreadnought battle and are licking their wounds. Japan is only starting to get seriously into naval buildup. I think the UK may be able to maintain the two power standard without straining, or at least think they can so no LNT ruining their relationship with Japan for now. The 1918 flu likely doesn't reach Europe. It seems to have originated in the US and been spread by mobilization, though it's possible Chinese laborers are to blame. They may not come for a war that doesn't involve the UK either.
Without the US in The Great War (it's not a world war because nearly every non-European battle involved Britain or Japan who don't join) Wilson doesn't get to stick his oar in the peace process. There are no 14 points. The Central Powers probably win. Russia loses. France either grudgingly accepts "peace with honor" when Russia crumbles or stays in to the point of collapse due to obsessive irridentism. Germany keeps its empire. France either keeps its empire or has is taken by Germany. The Hapsburgs keep their empire. The Ottomans either don't get involved or keep what they still have of their empire without Britain instigating the Arab Revolt. Nobody who opposes empires even has a seat at the table. Imperialism is still A Okay in the eyes of the world.
Australian and Canadian nationalism are never inflamed by WWI so the Imperial Federation is still on the table as a compromise when India wants more home rule. Japan can expand into China and what's left of Russia and nobody but the U.S. will care. Britain and the Netherlands can't sell them as much oil as the U.S., but those are the places they had to conquer for oil and rubber OTL and they're still allied to Britain. With resources available for trade and free real estate in continental Asia the Army wins its budget war against the navy I think. France likely goes crazy in some fashion, but it just isn't big enough to pull a 1930s Germany. There may be another European war in 30 years, and the Sino-Japanese War happens accompanied by a second Russo-Japanese War, but this doesn't really effect the British Empire.
At this point I think we're leaving the rails. There will probably be a war in the 40s or 50s because peace is an anomaly, but whether it comes from a Second Anglo-German Naval Arms Race or powers scrambling over the scraps when the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empire collapses or Communist Russia or Japan deciding it's safe to pick on French colonies (in the case that France gets a white peace by seeking terms very quickly after Russia falls) and other Europeans objecting or Italy picking a fight with a still dangerous Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empire and drawing everyone in under the same sort of treaty tangle that OTL caused WWI to be a world war, or something unexpected. Whatever major war probably ends with someone nuking something, possibly a purely military target like a fleet at sea because the notion that war should be honorable (at least between Europeans) hasn't been totally quashed. Nukes proliferate very quickly because civilian reactor development got farther during the long peace.
If the USSR happened and became a major power in spite of losing territory on both ends to Germany and Japan or to their puppets, the British Empire is by default the core of the anti-Communist block with airbases all over the place, the biggest navy, and a strong incentive to keep Communism down globally as a threat to keeping India in the Imperial Federation. If the USSR doesn't happen or withers on the vine I think the incentives to be part of the empire decline and it starts to come apart in the 70s or 80s. Unless some other ideological threat comparable to Communism rises. Maybe the Ottoman Empire radicalizing would present a similar threat? The known unknowns have gotten bad enough that even ignoring the unknown unknowns I don't know where we might be headed.
Let's start with Germany adopting a Russia first policy instead of a France first policy. Someone in the general staff seems to have predicted trench warfare based on their high rate of machinegun procurement so I think they can plausibly go for a holding action against France -- possibly with a minor advance so they aren't digging trenches in their own soil -- and focus their army on knocking Russia out of the war. This means no invasion of Belgium and no causus belli for the UK. It also probably means no unrestricted submarine warfare because the German surface fleet is designed to fight the French. The UK gets a share of the neutral power weapon export boost and doesn't lose a generation of young men. And they can sell to both sides because France can't blockade Germany without the Royal Navy's help.
When the war ends the US is still isolationist with a naval budget appropriate to maybe Massachusetts. France and Germany have just fought a relatively fair dreadnought battle and are licking their wounds. Japan is only starting to get seriously into naval buildup. I think the UK may be able to maintain the two power standard without straining, or at least think they can so no LNT ruining their relationship with Japan for now. The 1918 flu likely doesn't reach Europe. It seems to have originated in the US and been spread by mobilization, though it's possible Chinese laborers are to blame. They may not come for a war that doesn't involve the UK either.
Without the US in The Great War (it's not a world war because nearly every non-European battle involved Britain or Japan who don't join) Wilson doesn't get to stick his oar in the peace process. There are no 14 points. The Central Powers probably win. Russia loses. France either grudgingly accepts "peace with honor" when Russia crumbles or stays in to the point of collapse due to obsessive irridentism. Germany keeps its empire. France either keeps its empire or has is taken by Germany. The Hapsburgs keep their empire. The Ottomans either don't get involved or keep what they still have of their empire without Britain instigating the Arab Revolt. Nobody who opposes empires even has a seat at the table. Imperialism is still A Okay in the eyes of the world.
Australian and Canadian nationalism are never inflamed by WWI so the Imperial Federation is still on the table as a compromise when India wants more home rule. Japan can expand into China and what's left of Russia and nobody but the U.S. will care. Britain and the Netherlands can't sell them as much oil as the U.S., but those are the places they had to conquer for oil and rubber OTL and they're still allied to Britain. With resources available for trade and free real estate in continental Asia the Army wins its budget war against the navy I think. France likely goes crazy in some fashion, but it just isn't big enough to pull a 1930s Germany. There may be another European war in 30 years, and the Sino-Japanese War happens accompanied by a second Russo-Japanese War, but this doesn't really effect the British Empire.
At this point I think we're leaving the rails. There will probably be a war in the 40s or 50s because peace is an anomaly, but whether it comes from a Second Anglo-German Naval Arms Race or powers scrambling over the scraps when the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empire collapses or Communist Russia or Japan deciding it's safe to pick on French colonies (in the case that France gets a white peace by seeking terms very quickly after Russia falls) and other Europeans objecting or Italy picking a fight with a still dangerous Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empire and drawing everyone in under the same sort of treaty tangle that OTL caused WWI to be a world war, or something unexpected. Whatever major war probably ends with someone nuking something, possibly a purely military target like a fleet at sea because the notion that war should be honorable (at least between Europeans) hasn't been totally quashed. Nukes proliferate very quickly because civilian reactor development got farther during the long peace.
If the USSR happened and became a major power in spite of losing territory on both ends to Germany and Japan or to their puppets, the British Empire is by default the core of the anti-Communist block with airbases all over the place, the biggest navy, and a strong incentive to keep Communism down globally as a threat to keeping India in the Imperial Federation. If the USSR doesn't happen or withers on the vine I think the incentives to be part of the empire decline and it starts to come apart in the 70s or 80s. Unless some other ideological threat comparable to Communism rises. Maybe the Ottoman Empire radicalizing would present a similar threat? The known unknowns have gotten bad enough that even ignoring the unknown unknowns I don't know where we might be headed.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Maybe this should get its own thread
And lots of stuff I never knew, any suggestions for detailed history books that aren't abridged for school
I'm pretty sure by 1914 Parliament has real power. The government can put the words "at all costs" in their policy, but they're a fiction because that's not the government's decision to make. I'm not certain if they need parliament's express permission to go to war, but they at least need parliament's tacit permission because the vote of no confidence exists. The King can theoretically declare war I believe, but in practice he can't take the country into a war without parliament's permission either unless that war will require no resources beyond the peace time military budget. Without a causus belli they can justify to the houses of parliament they're not going to war and the MPs of the Commons will mostly not vote for any war they don't think they can justify to their voters because they want to stay MPs. There are also the international diplomatic implications of going to war without any causus belli that will weigh upon the MPs' minds, especially those with commercial interests. They can implement sanctions if they really want to, but unless the king and PM are willing to jointly play the despot going to war requires justification.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Wow, you haven't looked all that deep into British history haven't you? The moment that Britain was unified, they played divide and conquer on the entire continent for centuries, dumping ridiculous (and I mean ridiculous here) sums of money and treasure to pit the continent against each other, switching sides between wars just so the continent's nations will be weak. Something that has been going on for that long is all but impossible to break. Also, you've forgotten that Britain's leadership isn't above manufacturing or ensuring causus belli to go to war. Belgium's treaty with Britain is one of the latter.
You also have forgotten that the people's whims are fickle as well... the Royal Navy has gotten rather good at drumming up support with propaganda...
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
It's not really "progandana" if it's true. A power capable of dominating Europe. Is near certainly capable of bringing Britan to heel. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of Interpretation. Still though the policy to prevent Europan hegmony/dominance was highly rational and even wise(depending on your world view)
Harlock
I should have expected that really
Thats the beauty of an AU, you change things so they can work. Britain for instance no longer has the policy of dividing the continent so it can very easily change.
If he wants to create this AU then let him create and offer constructive critique, not 'You know nothing!' when obviously he knows plenty
I mean you thought Germany could outlast Britain and France economically and the allies would break first when actually Britain came out of WWI stronger than when it went in
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Rational/wise when you can essentially spend to keep it that way and no one can really contest that, but by the turn of the 20th, that is no longer possible... but the idea was so entrenched that it is effectively a religion by practically everyone. If the Liberals didn't decide to turn a budget fight between the House of Commons and the House of Lords into a quest to turn the UK into a republic all but in name but instead tried to pull a convincing -although this goes into literal space bat territory due to how entrenched the 'divide and conquer Europe' geopolitical goal has been- argument on 'if you can't beat them, join them', then it might work.
Problem is, well, the geopolitical goal is incredibly well entrenched in the leadership of Britain...
However, he is ignoring that even by the time of the Colonies, the 'divide and conquer Europe' thing has been going on for centuries. You have to basically have an AU so far ahead that it makes the UK unrecognizable.Thats the beauty of an AU, you change things so they can work. Britain for instance no longer has the policy of dividing the continent so it can very easily change.
If he wants to create this AU then let him create and offer constructive critique, not 'You know nothing!' when obviously he knows plenty
Harlock
I should have expected that really
That will be up to him to work out and explain My main point is be careful of your tone, try not to talk down to the guy and assume he is being wilfully ignorant. Nobody is perfect, you and I included, so maybe be a little more easy on ideas and see what he works out
My main point is be careful of your tone, try not to talk down to the guy and assume he is being wilfully ignorant. Nobody is perfect, you and I included, so maybe be a little more easy on ideas and see what he works out History suggests this is simply not true. Not many people have dominated continental Europe. The only examples I can think of before 1914 are the Roman Empire and Napoleon and the latter decisively failed to bring Britain to heel while the former was faced with a disunited and uncivilized Britain two migration waves before England as we know it existed. The English had already proven that a conquered continent could be held off through naval power alone and the airplane hadn't started to change that yet.
In the proposed scenario France is not under immediate threat because most of the German army is in Russia and historical precedent suggests that Russia will do what it did against Charles XII and Napoleon: cede ashes until bad roads and winter defeat the enemy for them. The Russian Revolution was not expected by anyone but the Germans and I suspect even they thought sending Lenin was a long shot.
Parliament just has to debate long enough for someone to look at what it's costing France to attack the German trenches and realize that the result of the war will be that every major military on the continent exhausts itself and nothing changes, which is the apparent situation from when France starts digging its own trenches until the Russians stop fighting the Germans and Austrians to fight each other.
The greatest actual threat to the balance of power in early 20th century Europe was Russia, which had vast resources of land, minerals, and manpower held back by a lack of modernization it was in the process of rectifying. Oddly for a nation allegedly obsessed with the balance of power on the European continent, the UK did not pursue a policy of isolating Russia and preventing it from modernizing, but of opposing the most viable counterbalance to it.
Meanwhile balance of the power that actually keeps the continentals out of England shifts in their favor. They'd still be able to build a class of 2+ dreadnought battleships every year while the French and Germans would be forced to divert funds to their armies while sinking each other's.
I think one of the main drawbacks of a British Empire that never fell is that without the United States, even at its height, it was just that one (or one and a half ) island that was maintaining ALL of that Empire. Sure you had White Dominions like Canada and Australia and South Africa, but in all honesty a lot of the redcoats that were out there expanding and suppressing in the name of the Monarchy were from the British Isles. Manpower. Industrial power. Finances. Almost everything.
Shieldwife hit on something very strong. America became very populous and powerful on its own, it might not be quite as populous and powerful under a limiting British aegis but with all of that land and territory, it would still be large in population and economy. It wouldn't be Britain alone expanding and maintaining that Empire in the 19th Century. It would eventually be Americans (North Americans rather since I guess America and Canada would be the same) taking over more and more roles in the military and imperial civil administration and eventually in business and finance and private interests as well.
Britain alone had a tough time maintaining an Empire and the top power in Europe with such powerful and focused rivals like Germany, United States and Japan etc. The only way they could compete in both fields I feel is if they somehow (magically most likely) managed to transform India into an semi-comparable industrial power that was still within the British dominion, like some bi-cultural Empire. But that seems more like fantasy then anything for better or worse. Britain extracted about as much as it could from India during its World Wars but it could never unlock the true manpower and economic potential of a few hundred million Indians like they could in Britain itself or its White Dominions. If it could, it could probably maintain much of its Empire. But it'd take so many Alien Space Bats for that to happen.
) island that was maintaining ALL of that Empire. Sure you had White Dominions like Canada and Australia and South Africa, but in all honesty a lot of the redcoats that were out there expanding and suppressing in the name of the Monarchy were from the British Isles. Manpower. Industrial power. Finances. Almost everything.Shieldwife hit on something very strong. America became very populous and powerful on its own, it might not be quite as populous and powerful under a limiting British aegis but with all of that land and territory, it would still be large in population and economy. It wouldn't be Britain alone expanding and maintaining that Empire in the 19th Century. It would eventually be Americans (North Americans rather since I guess America and Canada would be the same) taking over more and more roles in the military and imperial civil administration and eventually in business and finance and private interests as well.
Britain alone had a tough time maintaining an Empire and the top power in Europe with such powerful and focused rivals like Germany, United States and Japan etc. The only way they could compete in both fields I feel is if they somehow (magically most likely) managed to transform India into an semi-comparable industrial power that was still within the British dominion, like some bi-cultural Empire. But that seems more like fantasy then anything for better or worse. Britain extracted about as much as it could from India during its World Wars but it could never unlock the true manpower and economic potential of a few hundred million Indians like they could in Britain itself or its White Dominions. If it could, it could probably maintain much of its Empire. But it'd take so many Alien Space Bats for that to happen.
Airedale260
Well-known member
I think maybe the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when the whole country was dead set on going after Osama is another example. But the broader point I agree: it was something that was heavily favored across the political spectrum. Trying to limit that was only making things worse, especially when you consider the fact that most of the colonists were basically the misfits of Europe that nobody really wanted.
I generally agree, although part of the problem with George III was that he actively was taking a role in governance. But had the British had the sense to realize they couldn't turn it into Ireland writ large (and they couldn't, since unlike Ireland the Americas existed as a dumping ground for people they didn't want at home), then they'd have been better off taking the approach they did with Canada: Let them generally run things with only limited supervision from London, and otherwise let them govern as free subjects.
So ennobling a bunch of Americans really wasn't going to cut it, nor was stringing them along. Something the British didn't realize until too late, along with the fact that literally all of the major powers in Europe were only too happy to dogpile them for their idiocy.
Had they done so, though, it raises some *really* interesting possibilities. America might have become a dominion in its own right, and if so that massively changes the world order. An America behind Britain means they suddenly have a country able to help throw massive resources behind them in the event of emergencies like the Napoleonic Wars, and World War I might not even occur because even though the Germans had a larger industrial base at home, America is now a heavily industrialized power on the side of the British at the outset. So a combined British-American-Canadian war machine (because it's not like Canada has to worry about a fellow Dominion attacking them) would likely be way too much for the Germans to overcome.
What happens with India, I have no idea; the British had no real way to integrate it into the rest of the Empire since "divide and rule" was at the heart of their strategy for holding it in the first place.
Another interesting question is Ireland...if America is the jewel of the crown instead of India (and given what we achieved OTL I think it's likely America largely develops as it did sans slavery), then it puts us in a position of being able to exert a serious degree of influence on London's policies, especially if we're home to a large Irish diaspora.
That's a difficult question. They still probably get independence or whatever in 1910, and I can see them being dicks regarding apartheid. The difference is, without a World War II to completely discredit things like racism and eugenics, the rest of the world might not care. And I don't see a World War II really happening in this scenario, at least not one that unfolded the way the original did.
Ultimately though, I think it would largely drift to bring what the Commonwealth is today; without a unifying external threat (like the French, the Germans, or the Soviets), things drift apart. Not violently, but enough that it's rendered ineffective.
Also, assuming they cough it up in the first place, I don't see the Chinese getting Hong Kong back. And if anything, any Communist insurgency likely gets beaten back by the Commonwealth and their friends.
Get the Dutch and the Japanese on board and you have a proto Earth Alliance. *Nobody* is going to want to take that combination of hard and soft power on. Although we end up misspelling everything so that's one downside...
One of reasons why colonist made revolution was their attitude to indians.For England Kings they were subject with exactly the same freedom like white people,but for most colonials they were worst kind of people.
Unless colonials start treating indians as people or England let them genocide,revolution would happen.
Unless colonials start treating indians as people or England let them genocide,revolution would happen.
All
I think we 1st have to define what we mean by empire. Traditionally its a large set of regions governed by Britain with many of them having non-white populations and in places like India and the ME/N Africa non-Christian ones. Basically your got a ruling class and a subject population, no matter how light or heavy that rule is from time to time or place to place. As such unless you manage to prevent the idea of democracy and basic human rights the empire won't [and shouldn't survive]. There will be desires for self-rule in non-white as much as white settler colonies and this either becomes an increasing burden until will in the home country to continue it drains away - examples being the white settler colonies in Africa or the French in Algeria for instance - or you end up with mass deportations/killings [think US in its continental expansion, Germans in Namibia, Turks in Armenia etc] which I definitely would wish to avoid.
There is another option, which has been touched upon of a more French approach with seeking to integrate parts of the empire as full citizens. This might happen but is likely as others have pointed out would mean the British state becomes a primarily Indian state. Which is politically extremely unlikely and strictly speaking would no longer become an empire, or at least a British centred one.
Alternatively Britain staying a significant great power, which is possible but would need a fair bit of work. It really needs an imperial federation of the settler colones, possibly also with other territories. Both some strategic outpost and resources centres and preferably also additional well developed territories. Most likely would be a larger Canada, say if its southern regions hadn't been ceded to the new US in 1783 for instance although there might be butterflies at other time.
It should be pointed out that while Britain is the most prominent supporter of balance of power politics, this only worked because most of the rest of Europe supported it as well. Britain as a fairly secure power, with a strong navy coupled with an island status and for much of the time a strong economy, was able to support opposition against assorted would be continental hedgemons but that opposition didn't come from thin air. Similarly Britain [or England] played no real part in the 1st prominent such war of the modern age, with the 30 Years War defeating Hapsburg attempts at dominating Europe. As such its rather inaccurate to display that as a policy that was driven solely by Britain.
Steve
I think we 1st have to define what we mean by empire. Traditionally its a large set of regions governed by Britain with many of them having non-white populations and in places like India and the ME/N Africa non-Christian ones. Basically your got a ruling class and a subject population, no matter how light or heavy that rule is from time to time or place to place. As such unless you manage to prevent the idea of democracy and basic human rights the empire won't [and shouldn't survive]. There will be desires for self-rule in non-white as much as white settler colonies and this either becomes an increasing burden until will in the home country to continue it drains away - examples being the white settler colonies in Africa or the French in Algeria for instance - or you end up with mass deportations/killings [think US in its continental expansion, Germans in Namibia, Turks in Armenia etc] which I definitely would wish to avoid.
There is another option, which has been touched upon of a more French approach with seeking to integrate parts of the empire as full citizens. This might happen but is likely as others have pointed out would mean the British state becomes a primarily Indian state. Which is politically extremely unlikely and strictly speaking would no longer become an empire, or at least a British centred one.
Alternatively Britain staying a significant great power, which is possible but would need a fair bit of work. It really needs an imperial federation of the settler colones, possibly also with other territories. Both some strategic outpost and resources centres and preferably also additional well developed territories. Most likely would be a larger Canada, say if its southern regions hadn't been ceded to the new US in 1783 for instance although there might be butterflies at other time.
It should be pointed out that while Britain is the most prominent supporter of balance of power politics, this only worked because most of the rest of Europe supported it as well. Britain as a fairly secure power, with a strong navy coupled with an island status and for much of the time a strong economy, was able to support opposition against assorted would be continental hedgemons but that opposition didn't come from thin air. Similarly Britain [or England] played no real part in the 1st prominent such war of the modern age, with the 30 Years War defeating Hapsburg attempts at dominating Europe. As such its rather inaccurate to display that as a policy that was driven solely by Britain.
Steve
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
It never fell. It just switched to a financial empire. The City of London dominates the world financial markets, even more than New York.