Aaron Fox
Well-known member
No, it isn't even a financial empire anymore. Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, and New York City are far more important when it comes to being financial centers than London.
What If? The British Empire Never Fell?
- Thread starter CarlManvers2019
- Start date
History Learner
Well-known member
In my personal opinion, the entrance of Italy into World War II in 1940 eliminated the last chance to maintain the British Empire as a viable great power going forward.
Without the North African front, the United Kingdom would've been able to redirect sufficient forces into Malaya and elsewhere to derail the Imperial Japanese conquest of the region. Without the disaster that was the fall of Singapore, the UK can continue to rebuff American calls for the dismantling of Imperial Preference, thus helping to keep the Dominions and Empire at large more economically (and thus politically) tied to the UK. Without the need or even opening for Operation TORCH, the UK is able to likewise cement its authority in the Middle East via the Middle Eastern Supply Centre, ultimately allowing it to displace the U.S. as the main patron of the Saudis as well as economically and politically dominate the more modern Arab sheiks. Post-War, they can also seek to enact their Greater Syria scheme under the Hashemites.
Post-War, they would then need to not get involved in the Korean conflict and preferentially enact something like Operation ROBOT to boost their exports. Between their domination of Middle Eastern oil and not taking the financial hit of losing Malaya, it's likely Britain can institute some sort of "Petro Sterling" while also avoiding the need to take the ruinous American loan in 1947. From there, Britain can enact a much more gradual, effective decolonization and follow something closer to what the French practice in terms of retaining influence and authority in many of their colonies. As for more economic side of things, loot Volkswagen as was offered historically anyway; very likely Britain could emerge as one of the major global car producers as a result. Join the EFTA, but not the EEC for another.
Without the North African front, the United Kingdom would've been able to redirect sufficient forces into Malaya and elsewhere to derail the Imperial Japanese conquest of the region. Without the disaster that was the fall of Singapore, the UK can continue to rebuff American calls for the dismantling of Imperial Preference, thus helping to keep the Dominions and Empire at large more economically (and thus politically) tied to the UK. Without the need or even opening for Operation TORCH, the UK is able to likewise cement its authority in the Middle East via the Middle Eastern Supply Centre, ultimately allowing it to displace the U.S. as the main patron of the Saudis as well as economically and politically dominate the more modern Arab sheiks. Post-War, they can also seek to enact their Greater Syria scheme under the Hashemites.
Post-War, they would then need to not get involved in the Korean conflict and preferentially enact something like Operation ROBOT to boost their exports. Between their domination of Middle Eastern oil and not taking the financial hit of losing Malaya, it's likely Britain can institute some sort of "Petro Sterling" while also avoiding the need to take the ruinous American loan in 1947. From there, Britain can enact a much more gradual, effective decolonization and follow something closer to what the French practice in terms of retaining influence and authority in many of their colonies. As for more economic side of things, loot Volkswagen as was offered historically anyway; very likely Britain could emerge as one of the major global car producers as a result. Join the EFTA, but not the EEC for another.
History Learner
Some interesting ideas here as well as a fair number I hadn't heard of before. I'm not sure that Italy joining the war can be avoided once France is clearly falling. Although I think there would be options to clear Libya in time to safely defend Malaya. Those two steps, which would not only avoid the diplomatic disaster of the loss of Malaya but also a lot of fighting in N Africa and probably bring the war in the Pacific to an earlier end - although this might be more costly for the US as it might result in an invasion of Japan.
Not sure if the UK could displace the US in Saudi but it would definitely be useful, provided we avoided getting too drawn into their internal politics and religious views.
I didn't know there was an idea for a 'Greater Syria' under the Hashemites, at least not after 1919 peace conference. Would this be under the king of either Transjordan or Iraq or another member of the dynasty? Not sure how happy the French would be about this although they might not have much influence and would such an enlarged Syria include the Palestine/Israel area?
If Britain could avoid the ruinous conditions of the 47 loan then it could probably avoid a fair amount of the post war problems. Doubtful if we could avoid being involved in the Korean war, assuming it still occurs as the 2nd most powerful state in the free world not supporting the US wouldn't go down well in Washington and Europe, including Britain desperately needs US support to keep the Soviets at bay. Plus not standing up for S Korea would pose a threat to other western interests in the east especially and Britain still has substantial interests there. The best option for Britain would be if the conflict didn't occur. [Possibly say as a result of the Pacific war ending earlier, before the Soviets get involved so Korean isn't divided - or even thus resulting in a Nationalist victory in China].
Interesting but valid take on empire. The formal empire would still end but as you say markedly greater influence in the replacement Commonwealth and associated states as well as probably most importantly a stronger home base and more self-confidence in Britain.
Definitely agree in staying in [and hence keeping alive the EFTA rather than joining the EEC/EU] Especially if the Soviet empire collapses as OTL and with a smaller but possibly more centralised EU the EFTA could end up picking up a number of former eastern bloc states and becoming a significant rival to the EEC/EU.
Steve
Mussolini knew that his army is no ready,and need at least 3 years.If he waited,then he would not join Hitler,becouse he arleady would be loosing.
But even after his attack,british after operation Compass could clear Libya - if they do not send troops to Greece.That mistake is on Churchill.
If Churchill actually keep Balkan route and let USA fight in France,then he would get pro-british Hungary,Czech and Yugoslavia there.For Poland and Romania it would be still too late.
But even after his attack,british after operation Compass could clear Libya - if they do not send troops to Greece.That mistake is on Churchill.
If Churchill actually keep Balkan route and let USA fight in France,then he would get pro-british Hungary,Czech and Yugoslavia there.For Poland and Romania it would be still too late.
History Learner
Well-known member
Ironically, one thing I've thought about before is that continued Italian neutrality could result in Germany winning the conflict. They (the Germans) would not need to divert resources to North Africa nor, most likely, the Balkans. Operation Barbarossa could thus begin on or around June 10th, after the spring floods recede, thus allowing for two additional weeks of good fighting weather in September/October for the advance on Moscow. Avoding the loss of the 150 Ju-52 attacking Crete and the decimation of the Fallschirmjägers, Leningrad would also likely fall in August or September too.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
It makes me wonder, if the British empire had not declined would we have seen more Anglo-American geopolitical competition and proxy wars than OTL? Where that wasn’t usually the case.
Because if the British remain a global empire, along French lines and some sort of confederation for the white colonies-then I expect they will come into conflict with the US more in the later 20th century.
They’d be aligned on anti communism, but beyond that, would find themselves possibly at odds over geopolitical influence elsewhere.
Because if the British remain a global empire, along French lines and some sort of confederation for the white colonies-then I expect they will come into conflict with the US more in the later 20th century.
They’d be aligned on anti communism, but beyond that, would find themselves possibly at odds over geopolitical influence elsewhere.
Well his 1st error in the region was sending the 4th Indian Div from Cyrenaica to E Africa, which delayed the 2nd stage of Operation Compass. Without that you might have seen the Cyrenaica region cleared up earlier and Hitler might have decided that defeating Greece and giving up on Libya was the better option. Plus without a pause for Italian reinforcements to arrive Italians morale might have proved very fragile in a push towards Tripoli. However definitely sending forces to Greece was a total error.
Not sure that Britain could have pushed for a Balkan front as the US was too obsessed with N France and charging at the most powerful German forces available and from 42 onward they were calling the shots and in place preventing Britain getting resources for independent operations - especially in terms of landing craft and the like. The later Aegean operation was run on a shoestring and failed as a result.
A serious push into the Balkans could have shortened the war and kept some of those regions outside Soviet control - especially if following on clearing Libya in 40/41, Doubt it would have gotten as far as Czechoslovakia or probably even Hungary but I think Greece, Bulgaria, serbia say - with the Soviets taking out the Croat fascist state and possibly the west also getting southern Romania. A lot would depend on how much [and wisely] the allies put into it and how the Soviets did in comparison.
Steve
Possible but doubtful. They would still have had all the problems of logistics and overstretch. [If your who I think you are we're had this debate on another site.
] Plus getting to Moscow doesn't mean capturing it, especially with supply lines collapsing due to both overstretch and worsening weather. Either managing an encirclement of Moscow [which is a bloody large urban area] or a more likely frontal assault are likely to be beyond the Germans and the latter especially could become a bloody disaster for them. Think Stalingrad but a year earlier, in worse weather and on a much larger scale. Stalin would no doubt be over-confident in 42 as he was OTL and its likely that the Soviets would suffer badly in their spring offensive. However OTL the Germans had to pretty much strip their forces on other fronts to get the forces for Case Blue and with AGC probably largely destroyed it would be an even worse situation for the Germans here.
Having a couple of light divisions of air-mobile forces would be useful but their likely to suffer heavily by their very nature wherever their used, especially given the size of the forces on the eastern front so their likely to be a one shot before their restricted to ground operations only. This is likely to occur some time before Leningrad is encircled but even so trying to land such units into a fortified urban area is going to be difficult.
Steve
Lord Invictus,
Hopefully not proxy wars but definitely competition and tension. Britain had already accepted that the US had overtaken it economically and was dominate in many areas but there seemed to be a lingering hostility towards Britain in elements of the US. Possibly because we're the 'evil villeins' in the US independence mythos. Plus after 45 we were the only other industrial power, albeit significantly battered by 6+ years of war, left standing other than the Soviets they will unwilling initially to oppose and who they lacked the economic influence over.
I think its too late for a confederation with the white dominions and Canada would especially probably oppose this because of expected US hostility. However being able to successfully defend Malaya - which would also means defending parts at least of the DEI would maintain more influence in Australia and that country might continue to look to the UK as its primary ally for defence purposes. However closer economic and military ties, along with as you say a French type sphere of influence in a lot of former colonies and NOT joining the EEC could boost Britain's economic and diplomatic position. Also such successes in WWII might mean more self-confidence and hence greater willingness as well as resources to seek to maintain Britain as a great power longer. [Thinking as much industrially and technologically as militarily here].
Steve
History Learner
Well-known member
Possible but doubtful. They would still have had all the problems of logistics and overstretch. [If your who I think you are we're had this debate on another site.
Stalin would no doubt be over-confident in 42 as he was OTL and its likely that the Soviets would suffer badly in their spring offensive. However OTL the Germans had to pretty much strip their forces on other fronts to get the forces for Case Blue and with AGC probably largely destroyed it would be an even worse situation for the Germans here.
Having a couple of light divisions of air-mobile forces would be useful but their likely to suffer heavily by their very nature wherever their used, especially given the size of the forces on the eastern front so their likely to be a one shot before their restricted to ground operations only. This is likely to occur some time before Leningrad is encircled but even so trying to land such units into a fortified urban area is going to be difficult.
Steve
I do not wish to detract from this thread's chief purpose, so I'll refrain from further posts on this specific point after this. If you'd like to continue this, we'd need to start a new thread.
With regards to Moscow, a June 10th start date grants the Germans an additional 12 days of good fighting weather and also moves up the overall dates in theory. So, instead of Operation Typhoon starting on October 2nd, it could start on September 20th, which means the Germans would have 17 days of good weather before the rasputitsa starts on October 7th. As far as capturing Moscow, it is important to note that by October historically there was no troops within the city and Zhukov had been reduced to just 90,000 men:
While the Vyaz’ma pocket was being liquidated, a halfhearted German pursuit under Hoepner’s Fourth Panzer Army commenced, using the SS Das Reich Motorized Infantry Division as its spearhead. Before long, however, Das Reich was stopped cold on the Minsk-Moscow highway by two newly formed tank brigades equipped with the excellent T-34 medium tanks. The two tank brigades fought tenaciously for four days, delaying Fourth Panzer Army’s push toward Moscow and giving Zhukov some badly needed time to move forces—including strategic reinforcements from Siberia—into position at Borodino, Yelnya, and Mozhaisk, a trio of strongpoints west of Moscow.
Guderian’s delays in pushing beyond Orel, unexpectedly fierce Soviet resistance around Borodino, and the diversion of part of Army Group Center toward Kalinin gave Zhukov time to throw together parts of 18 rifle divisions and 11 tank brigades—around 90,000 men—to hold back the gray tide. He set up a new defensive line about 75 miles west of Moscow, centered around three cities on the main approaches to the capital—Volokolamsk, Mozhaisk, and Maloyarsoslavets. But by October 15, Bock was ready to attack once again.
As Zhukov himself later remarked:
“It was an extremely dangerous situation,” Zhukov says in the 1966 recording, responding to questions from the Soviet writer Konstantin Simonov. “In essence, all the approaches to Moscow were open.”
Stalin was so concerned that he actually offered peace terms:Later, facing the failure of frontal defence in October, 1941, Stalin tried to buy peace from Hitler in return for the Baltic, Belorussia, Moldavia and part of the Ukraine.12
12 Nikolai Pavlenko, “Tragediya i triumf Krasnoi Armii,” in Moskovskie novosti, no 19 (1989), pp. 8-9. Pavlenko cited Marshal Zhukov as first-hand witness to this attempt, initiated by Stalin on 7 October, 1941. Volkogonov, Triumf i tragediya, vol II, part 1, pp. 172-3, places the episode as early as July, 1941, but in this he is apparently mistaken.
What ended up happening? The weather, in short, which seriously impeded German logistics. With the early start of the campaign, however, the Germans have 17 days instead of the five they historically did and, as Zhukov noted, once they defeated the outer band Moscow itself could be taken without resistance. Serious Russian reinforcements did not arrive until December, which means the Germans would have six to eight weeks to fortify their positions and stockpile logistics; without Moscow under their control they could use the all weather Minsk to Moscow highway to do such.
Now, with regards to Leningrad, my apologies for not being more specific. An airborne landing in the city would be suicidal, my suggestion is actually that the airborne divisions could be used to counter the Soviet 34th Army during the Staraya Russai offensive, keeping 4th Panzer free to continue advancing on Leningrad in August-September, when the defenses very nearly buckled. Even better, 16th Army (German) would remain safe behind the Volkhov River, preventing it from getting hit hard while over-extended during the Demanysk Pocket:
Sixgun McGurk
Well-known member
I think it would have been a good competition. Very few American presidents have been fit to lead anything at all and the British at least have a modicum of sophistication in their political class and a long term outlook.
But they would still lost - becouse people who initially welcomed them as liberators after SS massacres would fight back.
There is very good book by Jurgen Thorwald " The illusion - soviets soldiers in Hitlers armies" about how german lost their chance for winning by treating soviets worst then NKWD.Or at least as bad.
Germany would win,if they simple behaved better then NKWD and gave some land to farmers.
We used to have but that's pretty much died off in the political class, especially since1979.
Very likely although it would be hugely bloody for both sides. Coupled with the sheer incompetence of the Nazi system its empire was always likely to be short lived but horrendous as the butchers bill was OTL things could have been far worse.
I have said in some cases before that if Germany had invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 it would have been victorious probably by say late 42, possibly earlier. However the Nazis attacked the Slavic peoples of the east.
Steve
I do not wish to detract from this thread's chief purpose, so I'll refrain from further posts on this specific point after this. If you'd like to continue this, we'd need to start a new thread.
With regards to Moscow, a June 10th start date grants the Germans an additional 12 days of good fighting weather and also moves up the overall dates in theory. So, instead of Operation Typhoon starting on October 2nd, it could start on September 20th, which means the Germans would have 17 days of good weather before the rasputitsa starts on October 7th. As far as capturing Moscow, it is important to note that by October historically there was no troops within the city and Zhukov had been reduced to just 90,000 men:
While the Vyaz’ma pocket was being liquidated, a halfhearted German pursuit under Hoepner’s Fourth Panzer Army commenced, using the SS Das Reich Motorized Infantry Division as its spearhead. Before long, however, Das Reich was stopped cold on the Minsk-Moscow highway by two newly formed tank brigades equipped with the excellent T-34 medium tanks. The two tank brigades fought tenaciously for four days, delaying Fourth Panzer Army’s push toward Moscow and giving Zhukov some badly needed time to move forces—including strategic reinforcements from Siberia—into position at Borodino, Yelnya, and Mozhaisk, a trio of strongpoints west of Moscow.Guderian’s delays in pushing beyond Orel, unexpectedly fierce Soviet resistance around Borodino, and the diversion of part of Army Group Center toward Kalinin gave Zhukov time to throw together parts of 18 rifle divisions and 11 tank brigades—around 90,000 men—to hold back the gray tide. He set up a new defensive line about 75 miles west of Moscow, centered around three cities on the main approaches to the capital—Volokolamsk, Mozhaisk, and Maloyarsoslavets. But by October 15, Bock was ready to attack once again.
As Zhukov himself later remarked:
“It was an extremely dangerous situation,” Zhukov says in the 1966 recording, responding to questions from the Soviet writer Konstantin Simonov. “In essence, all the approaches to Moscow were open.”Stalin was so concerned that he actually offered peace terms:
Later, facing the failure of frontal defence in October, 1941, Stalin tried to buy peace from Hitler in return for the Baltic, Belorussia, Moldavia and part of the Ukraine.1212 Nikolai Pavlenko, “Tragediya i triumf Krasnoi Armii,” in Moskovskie novosti, no 19 (1989), pp. 8-9. Pavlenko cited Marshal Zhukov as first-hand witness to this attempt, initiated by Stalin on 7 October, 1941. Volkogonov, Triumf i tragediya, vol II, part 1, pp. 172-3, places the episode as early as July, 1941, but in this he is apparently mistaken.
What ended up happening? The weather, in short, which seriously impeded German logistics. With the early start of the campaign, however, the Germans have 17 days instead of the five they historically did and, as Zhukov noted, once they defeated the outer band Moscow itself could be taken without resistance. Serious Russian reinforcements did not arrive until December, which means the Germans would have six to eight weeks to fortify their positions and stockpile logistics; without Moscow under their control they could use the all weather Minsk to Moscow highway to do such.
Now, with regards to Leningrad, my apologies for not being more specific. An airborne landing in the city would be suicidal, my suggestion is actually that the airborne divisions could be used to counter the Soviet 34th Army during the Staraya Russai offensive, keeping 4th Panzer free to continue advancing on Leningrad in August-September, when the defenses very nearly buckled. Even better, 16th Army (German) would remain safe behind the Volkhov River, preventing it from getting hit hard while over-extended during the Demanysk Pocket:
OK thanks for expanding on the point on Leningrad. The issue might be, if the facility existed would it be keep unused until that point? Other than that and if light forces are up to stopping such a drive there is a good point there.
On the earlier attack on Moscow that in turn makes likely earlier mobilisations of more Soviet forces. The weather is somewhat better for longer but the Germans also have fundamental problems of logistics and the growing exhaustion of their front line forces especially.
As I've said before its not impossible for the Germans to take Moscow but its very unlikely and getting into a battle for Moscow with winter coming could be a serious disaster for the forces involved. Don't forget that whenever the campaign starts your likely to have massive defenses established before the Germans get close to the city and that urban fighting is a great leveler in terms of the qualality of the forces defending and their equipment levels. As the Germans found out themselves in Stalingrad a year later and also a couple of times in Warsaw in later years.
Sixgun McGurk
Well-known member
Taking Moscow did nothing for Napoleon and I doubt if it would have proven to be any great boon for Hitler either. The smart move for the Germans would have been falling back to sustainable defensive lines around the oil fields and then building up their armies and support structures for the spring offensive with the aid of the many, many disgruntled Soviet citizens that hated Stalin and the Soviet Union enough to fight.
Also, stop bombing the British and pissing around in Africa. Without riling them up by bombing cities, the British might just bow to reality and accept an armistice. I'm sure if German Radio put it to them correctly, the British electorate would decline to toss another generation of their best and brightest down the dumper of war over an idiot's agreement that couldn't be kept anyway. That's a lot of people to loose in order to avenge a defunct state.
If Germany could drop that ordinance on the Soviet rail system and get its good troops out of the Italian Adventure altogether they might have had a ghost of a chance. If the Italians can't beat the Ethiopians on their own then what use are they really? And more to the point, DON'T DECLARE WAR ON THE UNITED STATES! Adolph must have either been so poorly served by his advisors as to know nothing of their self serving bullshit or the offspring of a brother and sister to think that the Japanese were ever going to be of any use to him or to anybody.
Also, stop bombing the British and pissing around in Africa. Without riling them up by bombing cities, the British might just bow to reality and accept an armistice. I'm sure if German Radio put it to them correctly, the British electorate would decline to toss another generation of their best and brightest down the dumper of war over an idiot's agreement that couldn't be kept anyway. That's a lot of people to loose in order to avenge a defunct state.
If Germany could drop that ordinance on the Soviet rail system and get its good troops out of the Italian Adventure altogether they might have had a ghost of a chance. If the Italians can't beat the Ethiopians on their own then what use are they really? And more to the point, DON'T DECLARE WAR ON THE UNITED STATES! Adolph must have either been so poorly served by his advisors as to know nothing of their self serving bullshit or the offspring of a brother and sister to think that the Japanese were ever going to be of any use to him or to anybody.
Taking Moscow would have hurt Russia in 1941 more than 1812 simply because it was the centre of the Soviet railway network and of a very centralised government. Not to mention the morale impact. However it wouldn't have forced the Soviets to surrender - and Hitler had already rejected the idea of a peace short of total conquest. Plus as I've said elsewhere I'm pretty doubtful that the Germans are likely to take it without major butterflies.
Do you mean the Romanian oilfields as they were never really likely, short of a total Soviet collapse to get near the Baku ones? Also unfortunately for the Germans they had already alienated many of the people they occupied by their racism, and occupation policies. Something they continued to do after a disgruntled Vlasov defected in spring 42.
Have to disagree here. British continuation of the war after the fall of France was to do with our own survival. Liberating Poland would have been great but the basic fact was that British independence was incomparable with a Nazi regime dominating most of Europe. It had already shown that its word was worthless.
Italy did defeat Ethiopia and relatively few troops were committed to N Africa at least before Nov 42. The Germans did relatively little bombing of Britain after spring 41.
Declaring war on the US was a very stupid decision but it was something that might not have changed much. The US was already significantly involved in the war with aid to the allied powers and direct support of the N Atlantic convoys. Also the country was already starting to realise that a German victory in Europe was not in the interest of the US. From what I've read Hitler was thinking that he would fight the US sooner or later and already obsessed with his own poor health so convinced he was running out of time. [Since like every narcissistic megalomaniac he considered only he could lead Germany to victory]. There is the possibility that if he hadn't declared war isolationist might have prevented or declayed US full entry into the European conflict but that would have resulted probably in a Soviet empire going to the Atlantic with quite possibly only Britain standing between Stalin and the US. [Although its likely it would be spent for a generation militarily in doing that], We can never know for sure.