What If? The British Empire Never Fell?

[CarlManvers2019]

Let’s just say that they manage to do some reforms or somehow have the tech to easily communicate and go back and forth between their colonies and the motherland

And negotiate with the Founding Fathers for the USA to NOT rebel

 

[Spartan303]

The British Empire never truly fell in a traditional sense. Aside from the United States, Britain eventually relinquished its holdings back to their people in exchange for close ties.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Depends in how the British deal with Westward expansion. It was going to happen and attempting to stop it helped spark revolution. Either way though if the Brits retain NA entirely it's likley that NA and not Britan. Becomes the center of the empire due to demographics and Americans beung white.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Empires are so 19th century.

Maybe it'd be more of something like a British Commonwealth/Union type of deal instead of the diet version British Commonwealth lite we have now that doesn't really do anything cool.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Here's the thing, Britain couldn't. The moment that the US broke away, the only way that the Empire was going to go is down. Remember, Germany itself started outpacing the economic, industrial, and scientific output of Britain just at the dawn of the 20th. The British Empire was going to die one way or another, and it is the leaders of Britain's insistence to try to stay on top at all costs that eventually killed it.

Between the economic, industrial, and scientific powerhouses that were the US and Germany? The Empire wasn't going to last.

 

[ShieldWife]

It’s so hard to answer these sorts of alternate history questions, there are such butterfly effects.

Depends in how the British deal with Westward expansion. It was going to happen and attempting to stop it helped spark revolution. Either way though if the Brits retain NA entirely it's likley that NA and not Britan. Becomes the center of the empire due to demographics and Americans beung white.

If Britain effectively cuts off US Western expansion, it will eliminate the USA effectively or at least what we would become, even as a British holding. Assuming no American Revolution, it seems wise to allow the colonies to expand westward and create a British version of the continental USA. If that doesn’t happen, I suppose that we might end up with Spain and/or France holding more of North America. Even if they go along with western expansion, Britain’s policies may not foster growth the same way the USA’s did.

If Britain takes what is now the USA, it means a vast amount of land, wealth, and productivity is now in the hands of the British Empire. As you say, the power is going to shift from the British Isles to North America unless the British Empire tries to disenfranchise the Americans and we see how that turned out historically.

The British were more anti-slavery sooner than the USA and that means that we may see abolition of slavery in the American colonies before the 1860’s. Though this alternative British empire might end up abolishing slavery later than they did historically because they would have greater investment in it from controlling the American south. I imagine that when slavery is abolished, there won’t be a Civil War, because the slave states (assuming there are such at the time) would be so outmatched by not only the north but by the rest of the British Empire. Avoiding the Civil War would save over half a million lives and who knows how much resources, it would also prevent a lot of bad blood between the north and south and maybe between blacks and whites too.

Assuming we go with my above musings, by the early 1900’s, the British control what would have been the USA, all of the British Isles, Canada, Australia, India, huge portions of Africa, and valuable territory in East Asia. With the greater resources that almost all of North America brings them, they might have been able to win WWI more quickly and decisively, maybe resulting in fewer deaths around, subsequently less harsh treatment of Germany, and no Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or WWII.

Moving forward to today, this British Empire would have the wealth and productivity of the USA as well as the population of India and the resources of half of Africa. It’s very likely that India and those African colonies would be more developed and stable as well under wiser British (and largely American) direction. This nation would be far and away the most powerful on Earth baring some other strange series of events that might bring them low or elevate some other nation up.

 

[Lanmandragon]

It’s so hard to answer these sorts of alternate history questions, there are such butterfly effects.


If Britain effectively cuts off US Western expansion, it will eliminate the USA effectively or at least what we would become, even as a British holding. Assuming no American Revolution, it seems wise to allow the colonies to expand westward and create a British version of the continental USA. If that doesn’t happen, I suppose that we might end up with Spain and/or France holding more of North America. Even if they go along with western expansion, Britain’s policies may not foster growth the same way the USA’s did.

If Britain takes what is now the USA, it means a vast amount of land, wealth, and productivity is now in the hands of the British Empire. As you say, the power is going to shift from the British Isles to North America unless the British Empire tries to disenfranchise the Americans and we see how that turned out historically.

The British were more anti-slavery sooner than the USA and that means that we may see abolition of slavery in the American colonies before the 1860’s. Though this alternative British empire might end up abolishing slavery later than they did historically because they would have greater investment in it from controlling the American south. I imagine that when slavery is abolished, there won’t be a Civil War, because the slave states (assuming there are such at the time) would be so outmatched by not only the north but by the rest of the British Empire. Avoiding the Civil War would save over half a million lives and who knows how much resources, it would also prevent a lot of bad blood between the north and south and maybe between blacks and whites too.

Assuming we go with my above musings, by the early 1900’s, the British control what would have been the USA, all of the British Isles, Canada, Australia, India, huge portions of Africa, and valuable territory in East Asia. With the greater resources that almost all of North America brings them, they might have been able to win WWI more quickly and decisively, maybe resulting in fewer deaths around, subsequently less harsh treatment of Germany, and no Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or WWII.

Moving forward to today, this British Empire would have the wealth and productivity of the USA as well as the population of India and the resources of half of Africa. It’s very likely that India and those African colonies would be more developed and stable as well under wiser British (and largely American) direction. This nation would be far and away the most powerful on Earth baring some other strange series of events that might bring them low or elevate some other nation up.

I could see that happening but your dreaming if you honestly believe the colonials won't expand. IT Absoilutley will happen British "consent" or not. Hell Britsish attempts to prevent it will near certainly lead to a later tevolution. Truth is the second European (Britsish) folks set up I'm N.A. The Indians being conquered/killed was a foregone conclusion. At best you'll see "civilized" (Iroquois, Cherokee etc.) tribes intetgrsted. The idea that the settlers won't move west is utterly delusional though. "Manifest destiny" had already became a thing long before 1774.

 

[ShieldWife]

I could see that happening but your dreaming if you honestly believe the colonials won't expand. IT Absoilutley will happen British "consent" or not. Hell Britsish attempts to prevent it will near certainly lead to a later tevolution. Truth is the second European (Britsish) folks set up I'm N.A. The Indians being conquered/killed was a foregone conclusion. At best you'll see "civilized" (Iroquois, Cherokee etc.) tribes intetgrsted. The idea that the settlers won't move west is utterly delusional though. "Manifest destiny" had already became a thing long before 1774.

The British definitely should allow the colonists to expand. I’m thinking in this scenario, where the American colonies and the Crown work out their differences, that westward expansion is eventually allowed. Great Britain’s polices might influence that expansion and cause it to happen differently than it did historically.

 

[Aaron Fox]

The British definitely should allow the colonists to expand. I’m thinking in this scenario, where the American colonies and the Crown work out their differences, that westward expansion is eventually allowed. Great Britain’s polices might influence that expansion and cause it to happen differently than it did historically.

That won't happen because the British were literally printing money with the Native Americans via the fur trade, to the point that it was obscene. The colonists threatened that.

 

[ShieldWife]

That won't happen because the British were literally printing money with the Native Americans via the fur trade, to the point that it was obscene. The colonists threatened that.

The borders set by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had already been extended west twice before the revolution, in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 and the Treaty of Lochaber in 1770, entended access of settlers into Kentucky, Tennessee, and the New Purchase in Pennsylvania. As time progresses and the economic impetus to allow colonization along with the population and resources to do it increases, along with greater influence of the colonies with the British Empire, I see good reason to think that Britain will go along with western expansion.

 

[Aaron Fox]

The borders set by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had already been extended west twice before the revolution, in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 and the Treaty of Lochaber in 1770, entended access of settlers into Kentucky, Tennessee, and the New Purchase in Pennsylvania. As time progresses and the economic impetus to allow colonization along with the population and resources to do it increases, along with greater influence of the colonies with the British Empire, I see good reason to think that Britain will go along with western expansion.

As I said, not going to happen. The fur trade is just too profitable to screw up with and is one of the major cash cows other than tea. The Appalachians were the furthest that the British were going to go with the fur trade on the line.

 

[Scottty]

Here's the thing, Britain couldn't. The moment that the US broke away, the only way that the Empire was going to go is down.

Really? The high point of the British Empire was in the late 19th, early 20th century.

Remember, Germany itself started outpacing the economic, industrial, and scientific output of Britain just at the dawn of the 20th. The British Empire was going to die one way or another, and it is the leaders of Britain's insistence to try to stay on top at all costs that eventually killed it.

Between the economic, industrial, and scientific powerhouses that were the US and Germany? The Empire wasn't going to last.

The World Wars destroyed the British Empire. If they'd stayed out of affairs in Europe, they would have come out of it stronger.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Really? The high point of the British Empire was in the late 19th, early 20th century.

It lost a lot, oddly enough, when the Colonies became the US. What would become the US was a major cash cow for the Empire from what I remember... sure it wouldn't be as much as India but it was damn close.

The World Wars destroyed the British Empire. If they'd stayed out of affairs in Europe, they would have come out of it stronger.

The World Wars only accelerated it, not instigated it. Remember, by the turn of the 20th, it wasn't London that was the financial center of Europe (and, likely, the world) but Berlin. Germany and the US were outpacing Britain when it came to technological, industrial, and economic development. While Britain had the resources of its empire, its economy wasn't that great. It is rather telling that Germany wasn't tapped out in two years of WW1 while Britain and France were burning through their emergency reserves like jet fuel. If the US wasn't being so loan happy, Britain and France would have to call it quits in 1917 at the latest.

 

[Senor Hortler]

The World Wars destroyed the British Empire. If they'd stayed out of affairs in Europe, they would have come out of it stronger.

A Kaisereich or a Fuhrerreich would both be a real bad day for the Empire; we wanted a divided Europe.

 

[ShieldWife]

As I said, not going to happen. The fur trade is just too profitable to screw up with and is one of the major cash cows other than tea. The Appalachians were the furthest that the British were going to go with the fur trade on the line.

That just isn’t true. Britain already opened expansion past the Appalachians before the Revolutionary War. If they reconcile with the colonists to the degree that it prevents the Revolutionary War, it likely would involve greater permission to expand, especially since it would be good for Britain in the long term.

 

[Spartan303]

I don't think people understand the absolutely driving force 'Sea to shining sea' really was. Britain and France wasnt going to be able to check it if they tried. Manifest destiny. It was a National obsession and woe to the fool who got in the way of it. It was going to happen one way or another. The closest thing we have today to that in the modern day was the Space Race against Russia. We as a Nation were obsessed with it and with winning. Today? I hate to use this example but Trump Derangement Syndrome is the closest thing I can think of but even that is a bit off the mark. Now imagine the entire country swept up in something like that but focused towards a singular goal we are going to achieve no matter what? You begin to understand what our expansion westward means.

 

[Harlock]

It lost a lot, oddly enough, when the Colonies became the US. What would become the US was a major cash cow for the Empire from what I remember... sure it wouldn't be as much as India but it was damn close.

The World Wars only accelerated it, not instigated it. Remember, by the turn of the 20th, it wasn't London that was the financial center of Europe (and, likely, the world) but Berlin. Germany and the US were outpacing Britain when it came to technological, industrial, and economic development. While Britain had the resources of its empire, its economy wasn't that great. It is rather telling that Germany wasn't tapped out in two years of WW1 while Britain and France were burning through their emergency reserves like jet fuel. If the US wasn't being so loan happy, Britain and France would have to call it quits in 1917 at the latest.

London was the financial centre of the world, 50% of all Capital investments immediately prior to WWI went through London. Berlin may have been mainland Europe's hub but London was far and away the global centre.

Additionally somewhere in excess of 60% of global trade goes through London thanks to the UK's free trade position at a time when Germany and the US as main competitors favoured high tariffs on trade. This had dropped by WWI but was still comfortably ahead of others. Germany is advancing in some fields, but Britain is still well ahead of it and remains ahead until around the 1950s.
As a comparison Britain controlled a higher percentage of global trade at its peak than the US did at its in the mid 90s.

In terms of per capita measurements the UK is comfortably ahead of any competitor until the US steps up, even in WWII the mainland UK easily outproduces Germany in every real metric. Germany is a competitor, but alone it isn't a threat and the idea it could have outlasted them in WWI is rather fanciful.
Did you know that while the German economy dropped 27% in WWI the British economy actually grew 7%? And that while much is said of US war loans Britain was also funding vast chunks of the French, Russian and Italian war effort in addition to its own.
Most of the borrowing from the US was to maintain a steady financial position post war, not to fund wartime production which was progressing nicely. When the war ended Britain had to pay back the US but Germany had to pay back its own citizens and institutions which caused hyperinflation.
Germany was in economic collapse by 1915 and this is despite seizing nearly half of the French industrial base, Britain on the other hand not only maintained its economy and Empire it also paid for other people's and came out of the war with a boost Not so much as America of course, but far better than most others.

I would suggest double checking your sources because I'm afraid everything you have written is quite incorrect.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

WW2 is what killed the British Empire.

Realistically, the only way to truly save it would have been for India to become its heart in the late 1800's and fully integrate it. If India could have been fully integrated then, along with Australia, the British Empire would have had the usable population and natural resources needed to maintain the Empire.

But without that, WW2 was simply too destructive to British power and the US wanted the Empires gone.

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

If the loss of British North America was the key to the eventual decline of the British Empire, then the French and Indian war, part of the Seven Years War, strangled the British Empire in its cradle. The Crown decided to rationalize British holdings in North America and establish a regime of taxation to pay for the military expense necessary to secure the colonists from attack. All well and good and generally supported by the thirteen colonies.

Unfortunately for the Crown, they sent Braddock to be CnC of the thirteen colonies and he was incapable of understanding frontier warfare, being routed and beaten by a much smaller force. The colonials were soon deeply disillusioned by Braddock, offended by the mighty airs put on by the petty faux aristocrats of the army and bitterly contemptuous of British military abilities. Even though the British won Quebec and territory all the way to the Mississippi in the end, the colonials remained dissatisfied by their caution and by their intention to pass out that land to favorites in England. The general colonial consensus was that the level of submission that was demanded for that sort of military effort was not worth it.

The Crown moved to abolish colonial currencies and legislatures, restricted trade to very unfavorable terms for the colonial shipping and ignoring the two hundred year old culture that was already there was actively planning to turn the entire continent into a super-Ireland, with Lords running the show and the peasants having few rights. The real sticking point was that to the British all Americans were peasants to be farmed, including the Virginia aristocracy.

They had committed the most unforgivable error by being routed under the eyes of the colonials. Familiarity brought contempt and colonials were not afraid to mix it up with them anymore. At that point, revolution was inevitable. The British Empire with its German king and far away Parliament clearly intended to take, and these takers offered nothing to the inhabitants of North America that they couldn't get for themselves.

The British learned a lesson from that and did not treat the decendents of British colonists that way in Canada after the war or in Australia, confining their more obnoxious landlording to their nonwhite Dominions, with the exception of the Boers.

I don't really see how the Empire could have stayed in the colonies unless the King or his ministers had understood the thirteen colonies, co-opted the system to be as British as apple pie, put his blessing on their legislatures, lordified a whole bunch of Americans and then kicked the London graspers that wanted to treat it like Ireland up the backside and purged Lord North. He would have had to be a lot smarter than he was and worked like a dog all his days to keep the lid on. What the hell is the point of being a king if it means that you have to get up and go to work every day like everyone else?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Britain maintains the large and powerful military it actually needed as one of the world's hegemons instead of slashing it half to death (defence cuts are never a good idea in hindsight, and whichever dumb motherfucker thought the Washington Treaty was a good idea should have a lit firework shoved up his arse), then uses it to swat Germany like a fly in 1938.

That ought to extend the empire's lifespan by at least a few decades.