British empire never falls
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
Easy.Just keep america.USA need series of miracles to win .Remove one and british empire remin as powerhouse to ours days.
Sol Zagato
Well-known member
OP is super-difficult for one reason.
A British Empire that never falls becomes an Indian Empire almost by default.
A British Empire that never falls becomes an Indian Empire almost by default.
Not necessary. A British empire with a broader base of white settlement that leads to a federal state would still be a great power, although its likely to cease to be an empire in any meaningful way. I.e. other than a few small strategic areas, which might still have an equal role in the state's government, it consists solely of fully enfranchised territories.
Or there's a much darker option, that say Britain treats its colonial lands as the Americans did or the Nazis tried, but I would definitely prefer NOT to go down that route.
However I would much prefer a strong Britain, economically, technologically, culturally as well as militarily than the distraction of the empire.
About race you are right,but about culture - no.Metises and even indians from spain colonies do not considered themselves metises or indias,but spanish subjects.
So,we would have continent belonging to England with mostly indian/metise people,who would consider themselves as good british subjects as any other.
Its a possibility but I suspect that, given the demographic and geographic size of India plus its long history sooner or later a distinct India identity would emerge. The indians and Metises in many cases were initially loyal to Spain but continued discrimination in favour of pure blood Spanish - and even more so peninsulars, i.e. those who came over from Europe - wore away at that loyalty, hence the independence movements when the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars both introduced new ideas of nationalism and provided a greatly weakened Spain that made independence far more possible to achieve. I think unless Britain offered all [or at least the vast majority] of the population such equality - which would lead to an Indian rather than a British empire - ultimately a similar sort of development would occur.
Definitely true that a fair number of Indians thought of themselves as British to a greater or lesser degree. You even had some Indians - generally aristocrats IIRC - playing for England in [cricket] test matches against Australia.
Buba
A total creep
A united India - which would overwhelm the Empire by weight of population - is a British creation.
Solution - never bring the Presidencies together under a single "umbrella", keep the former Sikh realm as a separate Punjab Presidency, hang the first person to mention "Doctrine of Lapse" and thus keep more of India under local princes.
This does not solve the problem, naturally, but kicks it down the line for several generations.
Solution - never bring the Presidencies together under a single "umbrella", keep the former Sikh realm as a separate Punjab Presidency, hang the first person to mention "Doctrine of Lapse" and thus keep more of India under local princes.
This does not solve the problem, naturally, but kicks it down the line for several generations.
Last edited:
Keeping the US would certainly help since it would produce a much larger white population base for any future Imperial Federation, though it's likely to be an Imperial Confederation instead due to India's sheer population size. So, Yeah, possibly an eventual EU-style arrangement throughout the British Empire, I guess. Though I don't know if this will permanently last if the white parts of this confederation will get too much low-skilled immigration from places such as India and Sub-Saharan Africa since this could overwhelm their social safety nets.
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.
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.
I'm not sure if the Americans would have been so eager to try again, especially so soon, after losing the first time around.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
This is impossible. Even without the world wars, the left and the isolationist right would push for decolonization and the technological gap between the colonizers and the colonized would decrease.
A confederation with Britain could be advantageous to the Third World since it could mean free movement between it and Britain. But whether Britain would be interested indefinitely is an open question. There is the matter of the sustainability of the social safety net to think about, after all. Even without the World Wars, we will likely see an increase in the development of the welfare state over time.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
Free movement with the colonies would have been political suicide for whoever proposed it.
Freedom of movement within the EU is not political suicide. But of course these are all white Christian countries. With colonies, there would be a lot of non-whites and a lot of non-Christians. So, Yeah, probably a tougher sell. A merit-based immigration policy could work, but one doesn't need a confederation for that.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
I completely disagree. If the British gave the Thirteen Colonies autonomy, they could have kept them.
Representation in the British Parliament? Or a lesser kind of autonomy?
Buba
A total creep
True that the British could had mismanaged the NA colonies into another rebellion, but this is not a given. And even then a rebellion may still be squashed with fire and blood.
The original was successful only due to Spanish money and arms and French military involvement - this might not be forecoming in Revolutionary War 2.0.
Especially if France is still busy with its own Revolutionary Wars much closer to home!
Skallagrim
Well-known member
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.
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.