CHALLENGE: Create Britain a Superpower...

With a POD of no earlier then 1st January 1914, make Britain a 2007 superpower.

A big challenge! (Aren't they a superpower now? They have Trident don't they?)

Seriously. Need to

1. Keep the Empire together and make it stronger - United Kingdom on its own is just too weak.

2. Keep other powers - superpowers in this timeline (US, USSR) or alternate timeline (Germany) from dominating the world

(I use "You" and "We" to indicate the British leadership from now on)

1. This will have to be some kind of federal deal. Particularly involving India - if you are happy to use force maybe it is possible to keep India as a pure subordinate colony, just keeping the army and landowners happy, as long as you don't get into a war you look like losing. But such an India is not a source of strength. So you have to make the Indian population literate, develop industry and still keep them part of the Empire and happy about it(and stop Pakistan splitting off while you were at it). Nehru might have gone for this - he was both philo-British and pro industrialisation. A very tricky political act. But we are just making stuff up, right? Imagine India as part of a federal Empire and industrialised to even Japan's level. An Indian Army equipped from purely Indian sources, at least for the basics. The home islands mainly a shipyard and source of the more sophisticated weapons (at least for the first few decades, if we are imagining more rapid industrialisation then they could be caught up to UK in absolute abilities by now). This would allow both a continental size army and the already good navy and air force. Maybe in the long run you could even do what Adam Smith suggested with the North American colonies and move the capital of the Empire (Commonwealth?) to India, just keeping GBR as a useful naval base (like a big Gibraltar).

Same kind of deal for the white dominions - Canada, Australia, S Af. Maybe Canada is too close to the US, and they all have their own interests. But SAF mostly stayed loyal in WW1. Australia only started acting independent in WW2 once the Japanese looked really threatening. And I am Australian, but frankly, if things work out to plan in India you only need the other colonies to sell you food and fiber. Also, this strategy positively encourages industrialisation in the dominions which would remove one source of friction.

Hanging on to Africa, Burma and Malaya (mainly for raw materials) shouldn't be too hard after everything else I've assumed. Just don't get into a war with Japan and another great power at the same time. (This gets easier and easier the more I write!)

If this is done successfully, it would take an absolute catastrophe for the British Empire to not be a superpower today. Remember Gandhi only got disillusioned with the Empire after he helped the war effort in WW1 and didn't get much back. So it's theoretically possible if you start early.

But let's say it doesn't work. Either India gets independent as in real life, or stays in the Empire but as a weak or hostile colony, not a willing partner.

2a. Niall Ferguson would say, Stay out of WW1. Then Germany wins, France is weakened, and the Germans get the western Russian Empire (Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Baltics) like at Brest Litovsk. Maybe give this super-Second Reich some of Africa to keep them happy. (Naturally offer French and Belgian colonies before British ones.) Perhaps this could co exist with British India and the white dominions on a long term basis - it's not Hitler we're talking about. Maybe the Russians want to have a go at India to compensate, but if they just got whipped by Germany they're pretty weak. However if India is not going according to 1. and Russia gets its act together within the next century (whether under Communists or something else), this plan is pretty much stuffed. We have to hope they spend all their energy constantly fighting Germany or having civil wars (and maybe help that along a bit).

Another big problem: no carve up of the Ottoman Empire, no Middle East oil. Optimistically, if Britain doesn't fight Germany, Turkey does not come in on Germany's side. But Germany is still friendly with Turkey and won't want Britain hacking off the Arabic provinces like already happened in Egypt. Maybe compensate in Persia, and try to keep on good terms with Germany and Turkey (easier if Russia is your potential enemy) to keep access to Iraq.

Further down the line we face potential troubles with the US and/or Japan. Let's run this like in real life, ditching the Japanese alliance to keep friendly with the US. Japan could be dealt with assuming things come one at a time. Still this is a hard choice. If Japan still wants to expand in China, they will get in trouble with the US, the US will cut off oil, and Japan will move south. Maybe say to Japan (secretly to keep the US happy): Take the Dutch East Indies and we won't fight you. And say to US secretly: We will only fight the Japanese if you do. Again assuming a single front war, should be OK either way. (Of course if we are using perfect hindsight maybe there is some way to mitigate or avoid the Depression and get a less militaristic govt in Japan. But this violates minimal rewrite.)

The ultimate problem is: no Hitler, no official anti-Semitism in Germany, Germany keeps all its scientists. Germany creates the A-bomb way ahead of everyone else and rules the world. Oops.

Both of these had the earliest possible POD - 1914. (Maybe if we stretch it 1. is viable for a few more years, up to Amritsar in 1919.) Now let's assume WW1 went as it did and go later. (I think everyone would admit WW2 as it happened is the point of no return.)

2b Stomp on Hitler early - Rhineland or Sudeten crisis. USA doesn't get dragged in, Japan if she attacks does it on her own (see 2a). Empire stays together longer, USA takes less of a world role. If we accept that Stalin was basically cautious ("socialism in one country") and his successors still more so, the USSR is still powerful but maybe not so much as to leave Britain second rate.

2c Don't guarantee Poland. Let Germany and the USSR fight each other first and then pick up the pieces. (This has been done before; I forget who by.) This could easily turn into Stalin letting Germany fight France and Britain and then picking up the pieces, or the winner of Stalin and Hitler being so strong noone else could touch them. But Hitler thought that France and Britain would fold in 39, so he didn't want to fight them right away, and they would be more ready for war the more time passed.

All four of these are risky but not completely impossible - think of Hitler beating France so fast in 1940, or Lenin seizing power in 1917, say. Or even how Britain got so big an empire in the first place. If we have dictatorial control of the British leadership and hindsight, that is. The problem is that it violates so many attitudes held at the time - reluctance to spend on armaments, or to see Indians as fully equal, or to encourage the Empire to industrialise at the cost of British trade.

What does everyone think?

Having WWI end early is IMHO the most important PoD, and even if it is considered a German victory (in Europe) that could easily be combinde with the British Empire being the big winner outside the European continent. There really wasn't must the Germans could do to help distant allies. So the Ottomans are craved up as they usually are, and the Brits gain access to some important oilfields.

As I have often claimed in other threads I think a German victory in WWI would most likely lead to a socialdemocratic takeover in Germany. If so a WWII anything like the OTL one is very remote, and the British empire will have a fair chance of becomming a global and coherrent entity.

Probably with GB and the Domninons (and perhaps areas like Malaya and Singapore) as the political core /union and with former colonies like India in a looser political context, but with very tight economical ties.

Such an entity would be extremely powerful economically and also have a dreadful military potential. If a word like superpower exists in this ATL, it will be synonymous with the British Empire (and the Royal navy).

If WWI ends before US participation, USA is likely to remain a prospering power but in basic (self chosen) isolatation. I guess the USN will be expanded much as OTL, but it will be much more difficult to have the British empire accept parity and even more difficult to find the political or strategic reason for USA to enter into a comprehensive naval race with the Empire. Unless of course the Empire chooses to enter into a very aggressive stance towards USA and the American continents - but I find that unlikely.

If conflict arises Canada will of course be an issue, but sans the pale bleed British Empire of OTL 20th century the main Canadian issue will be staying inside that source of prosperity and still get as much out as possible of being close to a rich but troublesome neighbor like USA. The £ remains the unchallenged global currency.

USA in such an ATL will be very difficult from the one we know - something like Sweden on (very powerful) steroids - rich, strict armed neutrality and constantly being a pain in the ass with all kind of well meant but hopelessly naive proposals for peace, love and understanding. The Empire will look at them with a (strained) smile for old friendship's sake, but think, and sometimes express something like: "either you shut up, or you take part in policing this bloody planet!".

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Britain creates the colonial secretary Joe Chamberlains Federal British Settler Empire in the early 1900’s.
Imperial Parliament in London in control of foreign affairs, imperial matters and defence.
Parliaments for England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Newfoundland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
India and British Africa broken up into smaller ethnic colonies if pro-independence forces grow in such areas.
These will be easier to manage and control.
Royal Navy covers the entire Empire no establishment of separate Canadian and Australian navy’s.
End free trade.
Enact conscription and a social security system in the 1900’s to improve the stock of the people as suggested by the Unionist party at the time. (Campaign for National efficiency)
Form an alliance with Imperial Germany all so suggested by Colonial Secretary Joe Chamberlain at the time.
Suggest a combined invasion of the USA from Canada with Germany failing that invade alone.
The South may even assist against the US government.

This one's decidedly not PC, but...

How about an alliance/neutrality treaty with Nazi Germany? The Germans take over Europe and defeat the USSR, while the US don't get into the war without Britain (or if they do, they make peace). Japan may or may not survive; if it does, it grabs China.

The borders are then set. Over the years, the Americans are shut out from most of Eurasia/Africa. Britain and Japan divide the Pacific between them. MAD ensures there isn't a new war.

Both Japan and Germany are bogged down by their extensive colonial holdings (China and Russia, respectively) and fighting resistances/terrorists. Technology and development slowly stagnates due to lower standards in education, flight of educated Jews, expensive welfare, anti-industrial policies (Germany) and very expensive militarism in general (both). Britain doesn't have these problems, for the most part; the African colonies can't mount a real guerrilla movement without Soviet support, and the colonial authority can either compromise with India or just throw them out of the Empire (they then fall prey to either the other Powers or themselves, and never become anything). British science becomes well-known and respected throughout the world, and their democratic ideals make them somewhat neutral between the US and the Axis.

The Empire/Commonwealth is then a loose federation of independent countries (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesian Federation, perhaps also Canada if they didn't war with the US) and colonies (the small Afro-Asian countries/islands that can't manage on their own). It champions freedom, a somewhat limited democracy (can't likely be entirely democratic in a fascist world) and academia, and is the most enlightened of the world power blocs.

When/if the facisms fall, as Communism did OTL, the British are the major power of the world. If they don't, it's one of the powers.

(I wouldn't want to live in that world, but it does accomplish the objective...)

Declan Trott said:

A big challenge! (Aren't they a superpower now? They have Trident don't they?)

Seriously. Need to

1. Keep the Empire together and make it stronger - United Kingdom on its own is just too weak.

2. Keep other powers - superpowers in this timeline (US, USSR) or alternate timeline (Germany) from dominating the world

(I use "You" and "We" to indicate the British leadership from now on)

1. This will have to be some kind of federal deal. Particularly involving India - if you are happy to use force maybe it is possible to keep India as a pure subordinate colony, just keeping the army and landowners happy, as long as you don't get into a war you look like losing. But such an India is not a source of strength. So you have to make the Indian population literate, develop industry and still keep them part of the Empire and happy about it(and stop Pakistan splitting off while you were at it). Nehru might have gone for this - he was both philo-British and pro industrialisation. A very tricky political act. But we are just making stuff up, right? Imagine India as part of a federal Empire and industrialised to even Japan's level. An Indian Army equipped from purely Indian sources, at least for the basics. The home islands mainly a shipyard and source of the more sophisticated weapons (at least for the first few decades, if we are imagining more rapid industrialisation then they could be caught up to UK in absolute abilities by now). This would allow both a continental size army and the already good navy and air force. Maybe in the long run you could even do what Adam Smith suggested with the North American colonies and move the capital of the Empire (Commonwealth?) to India, just keeping GBR as a useful naval base (like a big Gibraltar).

Same kind of deal for the white dominions - Canada, Australia, S Af. Maybe Canada is too close to the US, and they all have their own interests. But SAF mostly stayed loyal in WW1. Australia only started acting independent in WW2 once the Japanese looked really threatening. And I am Australian, but frankly, if things work out to plan in India you only need the other colonies to sell you food and fiber. Also, this strategy positively encourages industrialisation in the dominions which would remove one source of friction.

Hanging on to Africa, Burma and Malaya (mainly for raw materials) shouldn't be too hard after everything else I've assumed. Just don't get into a war with Japan and another great power at the same time. (This gets easier and easier the more I write!)

If this is done successfully, it would take an absolute catastrophe for the British Empire to not be a superpower today. Remember Gandhi only got disillusioned with the Empire after he helped the war effort in WW1 and didn't get much back. So it's theoretically possible if you start early.

But let's say it doesn't work. Either India gets independent as in real life, or stays in the Empire but as a weak or hostile colony, not a willing partner.

2a. Niall Ferguson would say, Stay out of WW1. Then Germany wins, France is weakened, and the Germans get the western Russian Empire (Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Baltics) like at Brest Litovsk. Maybe give this super-Second Reich some of Africa to keep them happy. (Naturally offer French and Belgian colonies before British ones.) Perhaps this could co exist with British India and the white dominions on a long term basis - it's not Hitler we're talking about. Maybe the Russians want to have a go at India to compensate, but if they just got whipped by Germany they're pretty weak. However if India is not going according to 1. and Russia gets its act together within the next century (whether under Communists or something else), this plan is pretty much stuffed. We have to hope they spend all their energy constantly fighting Germany or having civil wars (and maybe help that along a bit).

Another big problem: no carve up of the Ottoman Empire, no Middle East oil. Optimistically, if Britain doesn't fight Germany, Turkey does not come in on Germany's side. But Germany is still friendly with Turkey and won't want Britain hacking off the Arabic provinces like already happened in Egypt. Maybe compensate in Persia, and try to keep on good terms with Germany and Turkey (easier if Russia is your potential enemy) to keep access to Iraq.

Further down the line we face potential troubles with the US and/or Japan. Let's run this like in real life, ditching the Japanese alliance to keep friendly with the US. Japan could be dealt with assuming things come one at a time. Still this is a hard choice. If Japan still wants to expand in China, they will get in trouble with the US, the US will cut off oil, and Japan will move south. Maybe say to Japan (secretly to keep the US happy): Take the Dutch East Indies and we won't fight you. And say to US secretly: We will only fight the Japanese if you do. Again assuming a single front war, should be OK either way. (Of course if we are using perfect hindsight maybe there is some way to mitigate or avoid the Depression and get a less militaristic govt in Japan. But this violates minimal rewrite.)

The ultimate problem is: no Hitler, no official anti-Semitism in Germany, Germany keeps all its scientists. Germany creates the A-bomb way ahead of everyone else and rules the world. Oops.

Both of these had the earliest possible POD - 1914. (Maybe if we stretch it 1. is viable for a few more years, up to Amritsar in 1919.) Now let's assume WW1 went as it did and go later. (I think everyone would admit WW2 as it happened is the point of no return.)

2b Stomp on Hitler early - Rhineland or Sudeten crisis. USA doesn't get dragged in, Japan if she attacks does it on her own (see 2a). Empire stays together longer, USA takes less of a world role. If we accept that Stalin was basically cautious ("socialism in one country") and his successors still more so, the USSR is still powerful but maybe not so much as to leave Britain second rate.

2c Don't guarantee Poland. Let Germany and the USSR fight each other first and then pick up the pieces. (This has been done before; I forget who by.) This could easily turn into Stalin letting Germany fight France and Britain and then picking up the pieces, or the winner of Stalin and Hitler being so strong noone else could touch them. But Hitler thought that France and Britain would fold in 39, so he didn't want to fight them right away, and they would be more ready for war the more time passed.

All four of these are risky but not completely impossible - think of Hitler beating France so fast in 1940, or Lenin seizing power in 1917, say. Or even how Britain got so big an empire in the first place. If we have dictatorial control of the British leadership and hindsight, that is. The problem is that it violates so many attitudes held at the time - reluctance to spend on armaments, or to see Indians as fully equal, or to encourage the Empire to industrialise at the cost of British trade.

What does everyone think?

Click to expand...

Last thing Britain would need or want is and industrial developed India with its own powerful army.

Two words: Imperial Federation.


Perhaps, a POD during or after the first world war would alow for the formation of an Imperial Federation among the "White Commonwealth" that eventually also includes most of the islands of the British Empire plus Ireland. Presumably, most of the British colonies and protectorates in Asia and Africa become fully independent anyway.

Last thing Britain would need or want is and industrial developed India with its own powerful army.

With their attitudes, yes, but without that then they are what they are now (even plus the dominions): a middle sized power. If it's a white man's empire do you think they have the industry or the manpower to build both a navy and an army (and an air force) to still rank as a superpower in 2007? Hell they were already punching above their weight in WW2. Particularly as most of the options we are talking about involve a united, powerful Germany. And no-one is talking about atomic weapons. If Germany keeps her scientists she is home and hosed.

Suggest a combined invasion of the USA from Canada with Germany failing that invade alone.
The South may even assist against the US government.

You were almost making sense up until then Joe!

Britain did a pretty good job of remianing not that far behind the USA and USSR until the Suez crisis... but you need more than that since the ecconomic damage had already been done.

So, yeah, as others have pointed out we need a PoD that limits the ecconomic damage done to the poms during WW2. I'd suggest have the Krauts get bogged down in France in 1940... the conflict drags on into '42 or early '43 (i.e. sufficient imperatives for some degree of reform, development etc. but not long enough for certain elements of the yanks to completely screw the poms over).

Declan Trott said:

Last thing Britain would need or want is and industrial developed India with its own powerful army.

With their attitudes, yes, but without that then they are what they are now (even plus the dominions): a middle sized power. If it's a white man's empire do you think they have the industry or the manpower to build both a navy and an army (and an air force) to still rank as a superpower in 2007? Hell they were already punching above their weight in WW2. Particularly as most of the options we are talking about involve a united, powerful Germany. And no-one is talking about atomic weapons. If Germany keeps her scientists she is home and hosed.

Suggest a combined invasion of the USA from Canada with Germany failing that invade alone.
The South may even assist against the US government.

You were almost making sense up until then Joe!

Click to expand...

My last suggestion is most definatly possible too.
As for India it should have been split into ethnic colonial states so even if it did gain independence it would they would be small weak ones.
The White Empire which the Federal Parliament would have covered if Joe Chamberlain has his way back in the 1900's would still even today mean that the British Empire was the biggest country in the world with at the very least 110 million citizens.
Back in 1900 the US population was 75 million while the British and White Dominions was about 60 million.
But the British would have been able to field thousands of colonial troops and the largest navy on Earth.
German Empire had 56 million people.

Cockroach said:

Britain did a pretty good job of remianing not that far behind the USA and USSR until the Suez crisis... but you need more than that since the ecconomic damage had already been done.

So, yeah, as others have pointed out we need a PoD that limits the ecconomic damage done to the poms during WW2. I'd suggest have the Krauts get bogged down in France in 1940... the conflict drags on into '42 or early '43 (i.e. sufficient imperatives for some degree of reform, development etc. but not long enough for certain elements of the yanks to completely screw the poms over).

Click to expand...

If we had backed down at Suez we might be in a very different possition right now.

Suez was more a demonstration of the rot rather than an actual provoker of change.

The simple truth was that Britain in the aftermath of WW2 was bankrupt, she was sustained (like most of the rest of the non-communist world) by American loans. She was still potent, a nation with the second largest strategic airforce and navy coupled with bases scattered the length and breadth of the world inevitably will be, but such expenditure could not by that stage be maintained alone. If from 1945-56 there were 2 1/2 super powers, Britain was there as a warrior-satellite and not through her own efforts.

If Britain is to remain a superpower the best time for a PoD would be somewhere in the 1850's, before 1870 anyway. Given the limits, the earlier the better.

Earling said:

Suez was more a demonstration of the rot rather than an actual provoker of change.

The simple truth was that Britain in the aftermath of WW2 was bankrupt, she was sustained (like most of the rest of the non-communist world) by American loans. She was still potent, a nation with the second largest strategic airforce and navy coupled with bases scattered the length and breadth of the world inevitably will be, but such expenditure could not by that stage be maintained alone. If from 1945-56 there were 2 1/2 super powers, Britain was there as a warrior-satellite and not through her own efforts.

If Britain is to remain a superpower the best time for a PoD would be somewhere in the 1850's, before 1870 anyway. Given the limits, the earlier the better.

Click to expand...

Even by the 1950's things could have still been saved.
After that it was to late.

Even by the 1950's things could have still been saved.
After that it was to late.

Click to expand...

And how could things be saved?

Earling said:

And how could things be saved?

Click to expand...

Federal Imperial Union with UK, Australia, New Zealand, British South Africa, Rhodesia and maybe parts of Canada.
Alliance with France.

POD
German War plans not lost pre WW2

Germany invades thru Belgium AGAIN. France and Germany get in a Slugging Match,
Italy seeing this, decides to sit it out.
It take a while but this is what France was prepared for, By 1941, France is pushing Germany back out of the low countries,
By summer 1941 France/Britain are pushing into Germany.
Britain not tied down in NAfrica sends the Indian troops to SE Asia.
Australia, stays closer to Britain.
Japan looks at the Troops in SE Asia and hesitates.
Summer 1942 Germany Surrenders, WW2 is over.
France and Germany devastated by fighting in their countries
US starts to go back to sleep
Britain Makes plans for India's Independence,
Works to strengthen Commonwealth.

Federal Imperial Union with UK, Australia, New Zealand, British South Africa, Rhodesia and maybe parts of Canada.
Alliance with France.

Click to expand...

The problem is.. Britain tried this in OTL.
Its hard to see how exactly they can strengthen the bonds of the Commonwealth after Suez beyond what was attempted.

Britain and the Sterling just doesn't have the economic or military clout.
World War 2 has demonstrate quite clearly that it is the USA who is key to protecting Australia and New Zealand rather than Britain (who is about as far away as it is possible to get) in the case of hostilities. Canada is already in the dollar bloc and has been for most of the 20th century. Africa has its possibilities but so little of it generates a profit (with some exceptions) thats its argueably worthless. Holding on in the middle east is going to be ever more difficult and expensive even if Nasser is put down hard.

No one wants British influence any more. Decolonising forces can either reach for the fire and brimstone of revolutionary Marxism or go for the ready cash of the USA. Britain cannot offer either.

Trade between Britain and Commonwealth, while still considerable even today, declined throughout the 20th century. The British gambled after WW2 that the Commonwealth would provide a huge font of raw materials through which they could trade to other first world powers. In fact trade between first and third world was much reduced. The great growth was in trade between first world powers such as the European success story (especially for Germany) post the treaty of Rome.

Earling said:

The problem is.. Britain tried this in OTL.
Its hard to see how exactly they can strengthen the bonds of the Commonwealth after Suez beyond what was attempted.

Britain and the Sterling just doesn't have the economic or military clout.
World War 2 has demonstrate quite clearly that it is the USA who is key to protecting Australia and New Zealand rather than Britain (who is about as far away as it is possible to get) in the case of hostilities. Canada is already in the dollar bloc and has been for most of the 20th century. Africa has its possibilities but so little of it generates a profit (with some exceptions) thats its argueably worthless. Holding on in the middle east is going to be ever more difficult and expensive even if Nasser is put down hard.

No one wants British influence any more. Decolonising forces can either reach for the fire and brimstone of revolutionary Marxism or go for the ready cash of the USA. Britain cannot offer either.

Trade between Britain and Commonwealth, while still considerable even today, declined throughout the 20th century. The British gambled after WW2 that the Commonwealth would provide a huge font of raw materials through which they could trade to other first world powers. In fact trade between first and third world was much reduced. The great growth was in trade between first world powers such as the European success story (especially for Germany) post the treaty of Rome.

Click to expand...

Britain didnt try a Federal Union that was the problem.
It even forced more powers on the White colonies when they didnt want them.

As for Australia and New Zealand they would have stoo by Britain to the end as both countries leaders said at the time of Suez.

joe-chamberlain said:

As for holding the Suez zone that could be done quite easily had the area been cleared of local population.

Click to expand...

Wouldnt that incite rebellion in Egypt?, not to mention the reaction of the Commonwealth/Colonies, USA etc.