Britain Remains a Great Power

Challenge: Starting in the late 1920s, what does it take for Britain to remain a Great Power roughly on par with the US, and with the empire substantially intact, through at least the early 1970s.

Extra (meaningless) points for the fewest historical changes necessary to get there, and for making Britain more powerful than the US during most of that time-frame.

----
Check out Dale Cozort's Alternate History Newsletter - nine years of Alternate History ideas, scenarios, and fiction

Tricky, that...

Britain keeps the allience with Japan on a more covert basis; Japan is permitted access to british resources and is allowed to take the East Indies without starting a war. Japan keeps fighting the war in China, but cannot actually defeat the Chinese, who have some covert american help; Japan can't win and refuses to back down....

OR - Britain gets involved in the Spanish Civil War and supplies the republicans. The Nationalists never get a hope of real victory, therefore Germany gets none of the benifits from the war. Hitler is disposed in 1939, faced with the risk of facing the allience of britain, france and poland.

OR - Britain does not oppose Hitler; Hitler takes Poland and heads east. Britain supplies both sides while the russians and the germans fight to a standstill. Britain gets richer and has the time needed to put the empire on a more stable footing.

OR - France/Britain beat Germany during 1940. Britain never gets knifed in the back by either Italy or Japan; everyone thinks that Britain and France are powerful.

It's a tricky subject...

DaleCoz said:

Challenge: Starting in the late 1920s, what does it take for Britain to remain a Great Power roughly on par with the US, and with the empire substantially intact, through at least the early 1970s.

Extra (meaningless) points for the fewest historical changes necessary to get there, and for making Britain more powerful than the US during most of that time-frame.

Click to expand...

I broadly agree with Chris. Certainly, there should be no OTL WW2, which did so much to ruin us financially for 50 years and so increased the wealth and world influence of the USA.

Perhaps we (UK & France) would sit on the sidelines if Hitler pursued different objectives during the 1930s - or we trusted him more than we did OTL - before attacking the favoured interwar enemy, the USSR; perhaps even signing a neutrality pact with him for the duration of that conflict, using our control of the seas to sell supply him - although I'm not certain how he could afford to purchase.

This should obviate the threat posed by Japan, for the UK and France would be a) viewed in a better light by Japan. b) Materially able to deter Japanese aggression against their possessions c) The UK could have remained allied with Japan, instead of allowing the treaty to lapse in the early 1920s (at the behest of the US and due to Japanese anger over the T of V).

Fellatio Nelson said:

I broadly agree with Chris. Certainly, there should be no OTL WW2, which did so much to ruin us financially for 50 years and so increased the wealth and world influence of the USA.

Perhaps we (UK & France) would sit on the sidelines if Hitler pursued different objectives during the 1930s - or we trusted him more than we did OTL - before attacking the favoured interwar enemy, the USSR; perhaps even signing a neutrality pact with him for the duration of that conflict, using our control of the seas to sell supply him - although I'm not certain how he could afford to purchase.

This should obviate the threat posed by Japan, for the UK and France would be a) viewed in a better light by Japan. b) Materially able to deter Japanese aggression against their possessions c) The UK could have remained allied with Japan, instead of allowing the treaty to lapse in the early 1920s (at the behest of the US and due to Japanese anger over the T of V).

Click to expand...

Even without WW2, the Empire was living on borrowed time. You'd need no WW1, and even with that, I don't see India remaining British.

Calgacus said:

Even without WW2, the Empire was living on borrowed time. You'd need no WW1, and even with that, I don't see India remaining British.

Click to expand...

I agree that WW1 was a major factor in hastening the decline of power and Empire, but the UK was still a great power (even if India had been granted Home Rule or independence in the 1920s/30s), whereas by 1945 it was obvious that the British had become a junior partner among the major war allies, militarily and economically, if only because the then two superpowers had been prompted into becoming superpowers because of WW2.

No OTL WW2, one could argue that the UK would be left in a far stronger position, both in real terms and in relation to the USA.

I agree, it was WWII that broke the back of the UK as a first ranking power.

If you eliminate WWII then it's quite likely we could retain first rank status until the 70s (any longer than that is dicey, after all, we are rather a small country at the end of the day compared to Japan, France, Germany, America, USSR etc).

In the 1930s many parts of the UK economy were actually humming along very smoothly, despite the world economic crisis. Certain sectors, particularly in the south, were undergrowing significant growth. The 'consumer boom' that became the basis of Western economies actually had an aborted start in the late 30s, and only returned (anaemically) in the late 50s/early 60s (when the US was far ahead and Europe was more dynamic).

No WWII, and that early consumer society would have grown and strengthened. We would have had a broadly a similar economic situation to the US, and would be far ahead of Europe.

I'll agree with the earlier observations that the Second World War was what put the nail in the coffin of the British Empire, however its pretty nice that the British sacrificed their Empire to defeat such Evil.

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is practically dead by 1920 and is useless to the British. They are even worrying that Japan is getting too much access to their new military advances.

I think the easiest POD would be the British forcibly stopping the Italian conquest of Ethopia. Just close the Suez.

In the end I think it would be very difficult for the British Empire to be as powerful, economically or militarily, as the United States. There was already a decentralization of the dominions and colonies and I would think it likely that any social programs occuring in Britain would eventually find their way to the colonies (not the dominions). Historically there has always been a problem with providing defense on the frontiers and the dominions and colonies have never been able to bear the full finances or provide all the necessary manpower.

Guys

Short of some disaster to the US - which is the other alternative to keeping them roughly on a par power wise - I think the 20's are too late. Definitely the late 20's are unless you have something very odd. [I have one TL with the POD in late 40 which has Britain as the only surviving great power in ~1952 but it is rather ASB].

Possibly in the early 20's, especially if Britain and Japan maintain their alliance. This would mean a lot of tension with the US but I doubt they would go to war over the issue. This would changes things a lot in Britain's favour and could well reduce WWII to the suppression of that maniac Hitler in the Czech crisis. Even so and if with good leadership and some lucky breaks Britain might well be the chief economic power in western Europe but its still likely to get dwarfed by the US.

Steve

PS Sorry. One other option, but not one I would choose. A British fascist alliance with Germany which end up wiping the floor with everyone. If brutal enough it might hold onto the bulk of the empire but that's a TL I would loath.

Avoid WW1 somehow which means no WW2. Assasinate Ghandi before he becomes really famous or ship him off to a small island somewhere. If pressure for independence builds greatly, then give a country independence all at once with no help so it ends up like the OTL Congo, then ask the other countries if they want to end up poor and wartorn by having independence.

I still think avoiding WW1 is vital. Admittedly no WW2 would leave Britain still powerful, but to have any hope of holding her Asian empire together, we need a Britain unchallenged by any major war.

It doesn't seem entirely realistic to me to suggest that without WW2 Britain would be in the same league as the USA - it was the first war which was primarily responsible for wiping out Britain's financial power. The second one just finished the job.

Even without these wars, it is still quite probable that most of the empire will go. Britain was/is too small a country to be able to control an empire of that size for long. It was the lack of any great power challenge (in war) that allowed it to continue for so long and persudaded many Britons that this state of affairs was the rule rather than the exception. The remarkable thing to me is not that the empire fell, but that it lasted as long as it did.

I say this a lot, so forgive me if I sound repetitive. But I think that having the United Kingdom survive as a major world power requires a POD during WWI at the latest.

The two major reasons the Empire collapsed were 1) the people of the Dominions and the colonies lost respect for the British and 2) the British lost faith in themselves. Both of these can be directly attributed to WWI.

More directly, Britain's decline involved the mass slaughter of one of its most promising generations in the trenches of France (how many potential prime ministers, generals, scientists, engineers and civil serveants were killed?) and the massive financial expenditure of the conflict. From 1914 to 1918, Britain went from being the world's leading creditor to one of the world's leading debtors.

Finally, it was WWI which caused the United States to assert itself as a major power on the world stage. Before WWI, the Americans were more or less content to allow the British to run things, so long as they didn't mess around in the New World. Once America walked into the room of global geopolitics, however, the days of British dominance were numbered.

Anaxagoras said:

The two major reasons the Empire collapsed were 1) the people of the Dominions and the colonies lost respect for the British and 2) the British lost faith in themselves. Both of these can be directly attributed to WWI.

Click to expand...

I broadly agree with you on this one. One point- just because respect was lost, does not mean it cannot be regained.

HAve the British grow a backbown in the early thirties. Instead of appeasement, a new policy of utilising the threat of swift and decisive military intervention to avoid diplomatic crisis turning into full scale wars is first tested in the Ethiopian crisis. Italy receives a rude shock when a large proportion of the RN enters the med, sinks its fleet and bombards it coastline. Shortly after British bombers drop leaflets on major Italian cities advising the population of the destruction of the Reggia Marina, Britain offers to mediate a settlement.

The message is not lost on the wider world. Mess with the Brits and they won't back down.

Hitler takes one o the following courses:
1) As OTL, and is smacked down by the BEF driving on the Ruhr, after the French have their arms twisted to agree to the landings.
2) More cautious than OTL, in which case faces huge internal economic issues which may well avert WW2
3) More reckless than OTL, in which case he may get himself overthrown.

Just a rough idea.

Anaxagoras said:

2) the British lost faith in themselves. Both of these can be directly attributed to WWI.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that was a major effect of WW1. It was only after WWII that the British view of themselves started to change fundamentally, principally adjusting the loss of empire and first rank power status and the desire for a more classless, socially mobile and 'fair' society.

Kit said:

I wouldn't say that was a major effect of WW1. It was only after WWII that the British view of themselves started to change fundamentally, principally adjusting the loss of empire and first rank power status and the desire for a more classless, socially mobile and 'fair' society.

Click to expand...

It depends on which section of society you look at, but the middle and upper class young people (those who had gone off to build the empire as soldiers and administrators) grew quite disillusioned by the imperial idea in the 1920s. In fact the whole Kiplingesque imperial ethos grew deeply unpopular among the young during this period. Just look at the number of them who became involved in radical politics.

EDIT: The obvious implication of this is that it was a response to the losses of WW1, but the jury is out on that.

Calgacus said:

It depends on which section of society you look at, but the middle and upper class young people (those who had gone off to build the empire as soldiers and administrators) grew quite disillusioned by the imperial idea in the 1920s. In fact the whole Kiplingesque imperial ethos grew deeply unpopular among the young during this period. Just look at the number of them who became involved in radical politics.

EDIT: The obvious implication of this is that it was a response to the losses of WW1, but the jury is out on that.

Click to expand...

But I still don't think that reaction amounts to a fundamental shift in the nature of Britishness and Britain's place and purpose and meaning.

Britain in the 1920s might have been less bellicose, more wary of the implications and dangers of war, and it might have a more fractious society, but at its core it was unchanged. It was only after WWII that the very nature of Britain underwent radical shifts.

You're still left with a nation with a relatively small population and lack of resources in compariosn to the American behemoth. Even in the Britwank scenarios the population of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are too small, and any hope of retention of India is just fantasy.

No doubt without WWII Britain would have been in a much better position competitively and would probably have declined less proportionately and absolutely, but I don't see how you could possibly have a Britain on the level of the USA.

Kit said:

But I still don't think that reaction amounts to a fundamental shift in the nature of Britishness and Britain's place and purpose and meaning.

Britain in the 1920s might have been less bellicose, more wary of the implications and dangers of war, and it might have a more fractious society, but at its core it was unchanged. It was only after WWII that the very nature of Britain underwent radical shifts.

Click to expand...

Kit said:

But I still don't think that reaction amounts to a fundamental shift in the nature of Britishness and Britain's place and purpose and meaning.

Britain in the 1920s might have been less bellicose, more wary of the implications and dangers of war, and it might have a more fractious society, but at its core it was unchanged. It was only after WWII that the very nature of Britain underwent radical shifts.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you're talking about the possession of political power, and the social changes which accompanied that - which changed slightly through the interwar years, and then drastically postwar (or in fact from mid-WW2 in some cases, such as education) - but if you're talking about imperial enthusiasm, I think that was greatly reduced. Still not vanished entirely, but it's clear that for many of those who would be the 'movers and shakers' of the new generation, the future lay in other ideals - communism, fascism, Fabianism, whatever...

I stress again that this did not really apply to the working classes, but in this context, they don't really matter so much (until 1945 at least). My point is that without WW1, the imperial idea may have remained influential. Less so probably than in the 1890s, but still able to motivate.

*Having said all that, there is an argument by Bernard Porter, which I haven't had the chance to read yet, that suggests that the average Briton did not know or care as much about Empire as we generally believe. The focus for most people was firmly on domestic issues, and the Empire had little impact on most people's lives. At least, so he says. I'll let you know once I've read it!

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

You're still left with a nation with a relatively small population and lack of resources in compariosn to the American behemoth. Even in the Britwank scenarios the population of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are too small, and any hope of retention of India is just fantasy.

No doubt without WWII Britain would have been in a much better position competitively and would probably have declined less proportionately and absolutely, but I don't see how you could possibly have a Britain on the level of the USA.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree. There's no way we could have maintained first rank position after teh 1970s. Continuous relative decline was always on the cards - it's just a question of making it slower.

Kit said:

Oh I agree. There's no way we could have maintained first rank position after teh 1970s. Continuous relative decline was always on the cards - it's just a question of making it slower.

Click to expand...

Most of the opinions I've read reckon that it was already slower than it should have been, and that Britain was lucky to still have an empire in 1945...of course we could still have been an economic heavyweight without WW1 & 2 (well, more than today). After all, the days of us dominating in industrial production were already past by the 1900s, it was as a financial power that the Empire really flexed its muscles...

Anaxagoras said:

The two major reasons the Empire collapsed were 1) the people of the Dominions and the colonies lost respect for the British and

Click to expand...

It gave Indian nationalists a very good tool to demand (greater) indepedence: we sent millions of men to fight for you, so we deserve something; so much so that during WW2 the British had to promise independence for continued support for the war by all Indian politicians.

With regard to the other colonies and the white Dominions, it didn't seem to make them any more anti-British - they responded the same way in 1939 - but served to give them a greater sense of national identity as distinct from being British people overseas, who placed Empire before their own nation.

Anaxagoras said:

the British lost faith in themselves. Both of these can be directly attributed to WWI.

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly the British wished to avoid another WW1, which one would suppose was the natural assumption how round 2 of UK/France vs Germany would pan out.

They also recognised that another major European war would ruin them financially. (In the event, we could only actually pay up front for the first year or two of WW2.)


As to the 750,000 British dead robbing the nation of it's best and brightest. To some extent, yes, but it wasn't crippling nor that noticeable in the long term, unlike in France, who suffered proportionately something like 3x as many dead. It was a demographic blip whose major impact was lots of women remaining spinsters. (It does sound cavalier when put like that.)