ISOT Yet Another Great Britain Teleport - in 1906 next to Madagascar. Economic impact?

[Buba]

Stolen from AH-com.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1906-britain-and-ireland-relocated-se-of-madagascar.536069/#post-23749173

I wonder how much the UK economy will collapse at the New Better Location (NBL TM).
E.g. the UK exported over 90M tons of coal, about 40% of its production. Would the 13M pa going to France still go there? Or all the coal going to Scandinavia, Baltic Russia, Spain? Won't it be substituted with USA, German coal in the short term, and Russian from Donbas and SW Poland in the medium term?

What other exports to Europe and maybe North America will no longer become viable from the NBL?

And what about imports? Will sugar, bananas (?), moooo, wheat, maize, oink-oink, or whatever from USA, Canada, Carribean be replaced by Asia, South American or Australian growers? Danish and/or Netherlander butter?
Any European manufactured goods affected by the UK drifting away (I'm so funny! LOL!)?

I'm asking as on AH-com I have the feeling that the assumption is that the UK economy somehow rolls along unaffected.

 

[ATP]

Stolen from AH-com.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1906-britain-and-ireland-relocated-se-of-madagascar.536069/#post-23749173

I wonder how much the UK economy will collapse at the New Better Location (NBL TM).
E.g. the UK exported over 90M tons of coal, about 40% of its production. Would the 13M pa going to France still go there? Or all the coal going to Scandinavia, Baltic Russia, Spain? Won't it be substituted with USA, German coal in the short term, and Russian from Donbas and SW Poland in the medium term?

What other exports to Europe and maybe North America will no longer become viable from the NBL?

And what about imports? Will sugar, bananas (?), moooo, wheat, maize, oink-oink, or whatever from USA, Canada, Carribean be replaced by Asia, South American or Australian growers? Danish and/or Netherlander butter?
Any European manufactured goods affected by the UK drifting away (I'm so funny! LOL!)?

I'm asking as on AH-com I have the feeling that the assumption is that the UK economy somehow rolls along unaffected.

Partially collaps of their economy would help them in long run - they could keep their Empire,if Britain were not near Europe.
P.S Would Scotland,Ireland,Wales remain in Europe,or not?

 

[stevep]

Well assuming that the different climate and weather doesn't affect things too much - might depend on exactly where it is - Oh seen the map on AH. Would there be problems with African diseases is another issue. Here is the OP on that thread - assuming Buba will be going with the same basic stats.

The whole shelf the islands are is gently rotated by the ASB in June of 1906, and relocated very close to Madagascar, as close as France was before:

Shetlands and Orkney join the translocation, the other small islands as well, even Guernsey and Jersey. I've chosen northern summer so the temperature change is as small as possible. ASB grants a 5 year period for the local climate to adopt to the climate usually present there; after that, the people there will enjoy somewhat warmer temperatures than it was the case back in Atlantic.
What might be the consequence in Europe, now that UK is much less present there? German navy has no geographical obstacle towards open seas, that is important in case the war with France. Guarantees to Belgium by UK can't be met in timely manner, if at all.
OTOH, Willy 2 will not be pushed to match the UK in warship tonnage, now that they're half a world away.

UK will see the Indian Ocean as a British lake, and rightly so. It will be much easier for them to influence the colonies and dominions. Easier and cheaper for people to emigrate there, and cost of transports will be halved for the goods coming from the colonies and dominions. Main exception from all of this is Canada, of course.

Britain would see a lot of trade disruption and despite having a very large and efficient merchant fleet its likely to lose a good amount of exports and possibly see imports changed a lot. Goods that came from the Caribbean are likely to be replaced by sources nearer, in S & E Africa, India and possibly the DEI. Good from N America to be replaced as much as possible from Australia and Argentina for food.

At this date and time, with S Africa unified with the Boer republics but not yet having dominion status - 1910 OTL - I wonder if that might change. You could see a lot of the OTL migrants to N America heading for S AFrica and Australia here and that could affect the balance of demographics and political power in the white population of S Africa, possibly dramatically.

Its also going to throw world diplomacy into a massive spin. Having just established ententes with France and in 1906 - so not sure it will have happened yet depending on the date - with Russia to free us up to face the growing German threat Britain is now thousands of miles away from the action. Germany is no longer an immediate threat to Britain but also Britain is no longer able to counter Germany in the same way. Or the rest of Europe outside the Med for that matter as with Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and a de-facto rule of Egypt Britain has a lot of influence there. Especially with Russia still weak from its defeat by Japan and then the resultant uprisings does Germany seek a quick war or be more relaxed as its Geo-strategic position is no longer as awkward.

The ISOT will give the UK 5 years leeway with climatic changes but will people realise that before those 5 years are up and possibly things go to hell? I think much of the country will be markedly warmer as Madagascar is very warm in many places.

The Indian Ocean was already very much a British lake and with the centre of Britain's power now there as well its far more the case. It may also have more influence in the S Atlantic as we're somewhat nearer and also the western Pacific along with southern Asia but less of course in Europe, N Atlantic/ N America and the Med region. India is now much closer while the Suez Canal, although important is less so due to Britain's new location.

Britain is now in a position more akin to the US or Japan, being the overwhelming power militarily and economic in its region, rather than being one of the main players in the contested European theatre. How that's going to change things in many areas I don't know. Military security is markedly less important as there's no real threat so you could see the Liberal government that came to power OTL in 1906 being more successful in cutting military spending and investing in education, housing and the like.

Anyway initial thoughts on the issue.

 

[Buba]

South America was the true Jewel in the Crown of British investments abroad. Here it will become even more so, due to proximity. E.g. Argentinian beef and wheat will now gain a competitive edge versus USA. Australia/NZ - same.

BTW - there could be a spectacular depression in the USA, with less export of produce to UK.
I'd expect a general depression, with the disruption and change of trade patterns, but I suspect that USA could be hit harder than most.

Yes, immigration to Australia/NZ will increase. To SA (and South Rhodesia?) - I dunno, IMO that's a much more political than economic decision.

UK will be warmer and drier, I suppose, once the protective blanket disappears. As per the map it was flipped - Ireland now east of Britain - so the winds will blow from the "wrong" direction. This may have interesting effects for London, now in NW corner, if the westerlies funnel enough water into the Thames ...

Geopolitical consequences are huge, e.g. what does Gibraltar matter now? Suez less important too. Cyprus? Pffffft ...

Nevertheless my main interest is how large a hit does the UK economy take? How much does it contract? How long the depression?

 

[Buba]

Maybe not a big money maker ... but all the transatlantic cables running from Ireland to North America - be it directly or by way of Azores - are cut.
In WWI the UK used control over those cables as part of the blockade and to spin its propaganda in the USA.

 

[stevep]

I think its going to be a big impact on the world economy as well as politics. There will be disruption and a good point on how much of the Atlantic cables from the UK to N America will cause disruption.

Britain at this point is still deep in the laissez faire/free trade mentality, albeit that some such as Joseph Chamberlain were questioning this. A lot of big businesses are likely to be OK although with disruption of trade routes for a while and some industries such as the coal mines are likely to be badly affected. It will likely be smaller firms and the like that take the biggest hit with no real safety net against problems.

In terms of immigration to southern Africa that is likely to be fairly substantial, possibly in part because so many people will be suffering. However migration to Britain is likely to drop as we're no longer the 1st port of call for much of the excess population from Europe - albeit that by this time many were stopping off to get a liner voyage to N America. The trans-Atlantic migration will be disrupted for a while as so much came through Britain and used British shipping. Its probable that more migrants will come from India and nearby Africa but that's likely to prompt concern when coloured people arrive in substantial numbers so you could see some immigration controls coming in sometime in the 1910s rather than the 1960s.

Locations in the Med will be less important but definitely control of Suez and Gib will still be very important for its strategic military value even if less British shipping go through those points.

One other thing that will be badly affected for Britain will be the fishing fleets. No longer any capacity to operate off the Grand Banks or Iceland for instance and a lot of people could be left stranded. For those brought along I don't know how local fishing grounds around Britain would be affected with the different currents let alone what options wider afield there might be.

Definitely Britain's interest in southern America, especially the southern cone area will be boosted as while still across the Atlantic and around the Cape of Good Hope its physical markedly closer.

 

[Buba]

Good point about the fishing - I also had a vision of hungry British fishermen making call in Dutch or French ports a week or two after the Event. There is fishing in the area, but AFAIK not to the level of Grand Banks, maybe replacing North Sea only.

I remembered something - yet another stake in the heart of the coaling industry - pit props. A resource of Strategic Import. In OTL these in large part came from Scandinavia. Where will be the nearest cheap source NOW? NZ? Chile? Brazil? Scandinavia still closer than Canada (either coast), I think.

With UK right next to the Howling Forties, will sailing ships stay viable even longer on the UK-Chile/Argentina(Stralia/NZ?)-UK route?

 

[stevep]

Good point about the fishing - I also had a vision of hungry British fishermen making call in Dutch or French ports a week or two after the Event. There is fishing in the area, but AFAIK not to the level of Grand Banks, maybe replacing North Sea only.

I remembered something - yet another stake in the heart of the coaling industry - pit props. A resource of Strategic Import. In OTL these in large part came from Scandinavia. Where will be the nearest cheap source NOW? NZ? Chile? Brazil? Scandinavia still closer than Canada (either coast), I think.

With UK right next to the Howling Forties, will sailing ships stay viable even longer on the UK-Chile/Argentina(Stralia/NZ?)-UK route?

Fear a fair number could die before they realise what's happened - or at least the UK has somehow disappeared - and that they need to get help. Plus those that do reach shore are now many thousands of miles from 'home'.

Good point on pit props. Not sure how suitable trees from say Mozambique might be and Africa is rather lacking in rivers with good access to the sea. [Nile, Niger, Congo and Zambezi are all restricted by rapids, swamps and the like] As such bringing timber from further inland would be difficult. Possibly SE Asia although that's quite a long haul.

I suspect that the move to steam-ships would be largely unaffected. By their name the "Howling Forties" are rough and steam power is a lot more reliable plus while the coal industry will take a hit it will still be pumping out a lot of coal and there's not much local competition for it now. Not to mention all the big shipyards have already converted to steamships.

Which does raise interesting questions on the navy. It tends to be longer ranged than its European counterparts, at least in terms of designs for habitability and the like and there are a lot of coal stations already established but if the RN is to play anything like its traditional role its going to have to travel a long way to interact with the other great powers. In fact the one place where Britain is now distinctly lacking in bases to support its fleet is NW Europe! I can see Alexandria, Malta and as far as its size allows Gib getting upgrades for lasting support of sizeable squadrons, especially in terms of maintenance and repair probably.

 

[Buba]

Oh, I'm aware that sailships were on the brink of extinction at this point. The windjammers were niche, running specific cargoes and with tiny crews of cheapo Scandinavians
But with the Howing Forties being strong and rather reliable, and the UK accessible without having to exit the "around Antarctica belt", maybe running those cargoes last two or three decades longer?

 

[stevep]

Oh, I'm aware that sailships were on the brink of extinction at this point. The windjammers were niche, running specific cargoes and with tiny crews of cheapo Scandinavians
But with the Howing Forties being strong and rather reliable, and the UK accessible without having to exit the "around Antarctica belt", maybe running those cargoes last two or three decades longer?

That might be an option and you could probably see cheapo Scandinavians largely replaced by even cheaper Lascars. Could link S Africa, UK, Australia and possibly also S America fairly cheaply then. It could give them an extended life as you say.

Mind you come to think of it Britain is now a lot closer to the assorted tea production centres.

In terms of the balance of power in Europe on AH it was being suggested it would leave France very exposed. Definitely so but not necessarily fatally so at sea. German ships would be a fair way from the west coast French ports and while their not constrained by the channel anymore getting a full fleet to that region could be difficult and risky. Small escort vessels like destroyers could struggle with the range required and without them bigger ships would be more vulnerable, especially possibly to subs. Also without control of the sea - as Britain long had - I would suspect its main coastal centres were markedly more protected by coastal artillery so the sort of attacks the German BCs made on Britain OTL could be risky.

If the same alliances were maintained and tensions continued you could see a reversal with the French mainly on the Atlantic coastlines [which now include the former channel ports] and the RN using its existing bases to secure control of the Med with possibly a squadron or two in event of a great war supporting the French directly.

You would still have the big problem that the UK is a hell of a lot farther away so supplies, equipment and military men would have a hell of a lot further to travel so if the Germans still invade Belgium the BEF is going to take a lot longer to reach Marseilles! However if the French in response to the situation have a defensive plan rather than the rash Plan XIV that could close a lot of the gulf between the two nations at least in the short term.

Of course with such a radical geographical change - let alone the economical, social and political ones - then a lot of things will change. I don't really know enough about the details of the British economy and trade patterns at the time to say in any detail what will happen but its going to have some affects.

 

[Buba]

You mentioned shipping distances - an interesting point.
Europe and North America to UK now uses more hulls due to larger distances involved, hence round trips take much longer. I assume that neither the shortened India/Far East/South America/Australia to UK trips nor the shift in trade patterns - at least not immediatelly - will free to free up tonnage to compensate. If my asspulled guesses are correct - a freighter building spree?
Good for British yards!
In the short run the spike in freight rates could cause some price hikes?

 

[stevep]

You mentioned shipping distances - an interesting point.
Europe and North America to UK now uses more hulls due to larger distances involved, hence round trips take much longer. I assume that neither the shortened India/Far East/South America/Australia to UK trips nor the shift in trade patterns - at least not immediatelly - will free to free up tonnage to compensate. If my asspulled guesses are correct - a freighter building spree?
Good for British yards!
In the short run the spike in freight rates could cause some price hikes?

Very likely in both cases. The big down side is probably more to N America, although as you say there is important trade to N Europe as well. The Med area is probably not greatly increased with access to the Canal, although I think because of the lack of winds in the Red Sea that really needs to be steam ships. Britain is the leading nation by a long way in merchant ship production and that could well see a surge. As also while markets adjust increases in fright rates and also prices for bread for the general population which would have political consequences.

As such and given that between the growth of its own industries and its high tariffs the US probably is not a significant importer from Britain [or the rest of Europe] of manufacturing goods at this stage so the primary items in this trade would be food and other raw materials. You could see a fair amount of effort to find alternative nearer sources so more from S America and Australia probably although how much they could cover of the trade from the US and Canada is probably limited. An alternative could be importing from Russia as its grain exports are expanding at this point due to the development of infrastructure in Ukraine and neighbouring areas. One other option, although it could end up being a chimera as well as causing serious problems for the locals could be greater settlement and development of southern and east Africa. You could see the empire in Africa seeing more investment here rather than being built up largely to secure areas against rivals.

Canada's long term future could be threatened here as without Britain as both a source and also transfer centre for migrants its likely to get less settlers and with the home islands much further away its more vulnerable to pressure if the US, which is developing a new imperial phase starts to look north. However hopefully this can be avoided.

 

[concorian]

to be fair canada is probably still pretty safe, as at this point britain and the empire is likely to become a horrifying unstoppable beast, if its moved next to madagascar its nearly bang smack in the middle of its empire. odds are they take all the east coast of africa and most of central africa, this is likely to mean no rising of apartheid or racial elitist african goverment.

the other thing is they are likly to take and hold the suez aswell as most of the arabian states and their oil reserves. most of the middle east will likely fall into the empire aswell at some point.

When it comes to WW1 you would likely see a massivly more empowered navy than in OTL and most fo the african colonies of the axis will fold into the empire. Also the devisions that started between the dominions arent likly to be a thing due to the empire not putting so many boots in europe, they are likely to focuse on turkey and those areas more.
But france is in for a really rough time.

As for WW2 well again europe is screwed if it happens like otl. But hitler will lose everything in africa and the axis will likely be stuck to europe. Plus uboats arent going to be able to sever the empires trade or logisitics as easy as they did in otl.

In the short term the usa are likely to stay the course but even though they were more imperialistic its likly they wouldnt try anything against the empire remaining none moved territories they are likely to be more intrested in a trade party than an enemy

 

[stevep]

to be fair canada is probably still pretty safe, as at this point britain and the empire is likely to become a horrifying unstoppable beast, if its moved next to madagascar its nearly bang smack in the middle of its empire. odds are they take all the east coast of africa and most of central africa, this is likely to mean no rising of apartheid or racial elitist african goverment.

the other thing is they are likly to take and hold the suez aswell as most of the arabian states and their oil reserves. most of the middle east will likely fall into the empire aswell at some point.

When it comes to WW1 you would likely see a massivly more empowered navy than in OTL and most fo the african colonies of the axis will fold into the empire. Also the devisions that started between the dominions arent likly to be a thing due to the empire not putting so many boots in europe, they are likely to focuse on turkey and those areas more.
But france is in for a really rough time.

As for WW2 well again europe is screwed if it happens like otl. But hitler will lose everything in africa and the axis will likely be stuck to europe. Plus uboats arent going to be able to sever the empires trade or logisitics as easy as they did in otl.

In the short term the usa are likely to stay the course but even though they were more imperialistic its likly they wouldnt try anything against the empire remaining none moved territories they are likely to be more intrested in a trade party than an enemy

I don't know about the rise of an apartheid system as I suspect that a lot of British emigration that OTL went to N America is likely to go into southern and eastern Africa. Which is going to submerge the Boers - although you might see a larger Boer revolt if 1914 still comes about - but is likely to raise the issue of who governs those colonies as they move towards independence so you could see the white populations, possibly allied with other groups such as Indian migrants and mixed race ones if their intelligent seeking to maintain control. Possibly doubly so as once the climate does change migration from Britain could increase substantially in absolute terms compared to OTL.

However again otherwise largely in agreement. France has a markedly more difficult problem in a WWI scenario as Britain is a lot further away and its not going to get even the initial BEF there quickly while Belgium has lost most of its OTL strategic significance to Britain. Albeit Britain still won't want an expansionist Germany dominating Europe and France is a vital part in preventing that. There is the possibility that the French will go for a different, more defensive strategy in the event of a German attack but that's far from a certainty. Provided that the climatic and other changes don't impact Britain too extremely its in a better position as you say to weather the war as it can't be blockaded or bombed here but has much more problems to project power to Europe and especially its western sections. The British forces in France would have to depend a lot more heavily on French resources and British coal supplies to France - vital if they still lose their main reserves around Lille - would be a lot more difficult to ship.

I think butterflies would mean we would be uncertain how WWI ends here and hence future events would be speculative other than in the broadest ideas.

 

[concorian]

i can imagine the suez will be heavily expanded and fortified as its likly to become the main artery for the empire to trade with europe. which could see places like cyprus and malta being huge naval bases to protect the northern most shipping and as commerce depots.

The other thing i imagine would happen is massive rail projects and infrastructure projects for power and water being built in africa. What was always a struggle for the empire at the time was getting resources they wanted from the central areas, i cant imagine they wouldnt go after them now they are closer.
The defiantly arent going to allow any other firms except british to have or keep the diamond mines or have access to the oil. Probably the same with coal and other raw materials.

In the end i can forsee in the short run them struggleing but as it has been seen the british arent known to give up we generally fight/struggle to the bitter end and somehow pull off what we wanted to do. In the Long run Your looking at one of the wealthist nations on the planet and more importantly once/if the empire falls it wont be because of money and you will likely see something more similar to a imperial federation forming instead of commonwealth.

 

[Buba]

Would there be above-OTL outflow of the Irish rural poor?
1 - SA is next door, could more Irish go there? How vehemently would the Boers and local Anglos protest?
2 - South Rhodesia? Would the people in charge of SR allow inflow? Would London help enforce immigration bans or encourage Irish settlement there?
3 - Australia&NZ?

 

[concorian]

Would there be above-OTL outflow of the Irish rural poor?
1 - SA is next door, could more Irish go there? How vehemently would the Boers and local Anglos protest?
2 - South Rhodesia? Would the people in charge of SR allow inflow? Would London help enforce immigration bans or encourage Irish settlement there?
3 - Australia&NZ?

At the moment SA in 1906 was still welcoming settlers they unfortunatly were still trying to bulk up the white settlers number, the boer war hadnt happened yet so the boer lands are still seperate to the british area,
Same situation with south rhodesia they were still actively promoting immigration as they wanted to boost white settlers.
When it comes to australia and nz their policies didnt really change regarding immigration until post 1920. The sought qualified settlers, i.e doctors, teachers and weirdly clergymen. immigrants generally werent sought after 1920 but that was mostly out of the depression era reasons.

In history the British empire had a very good track record in promoting immigration and people movement their policy was successful enough that when the UN was founded one of the departments was and still is based of the policy the empire practied.
Its also a misconception that immigration was ever banned in any part of the empire. Ever since its founding the idea of free movement within the imperial borders was an actual thing. If you had the ability you could pretty much bugger off to wherever you wanted to aslong as you followed the local laws. It was only in extreme situations that movement was restricted but it was never banned.