The British Empire......LIVES!!!

[Wozza]

You need to radically alter the very nature of European civilization to not regard themselves as innately vastly superior in every way to all others causing them to not ruthlessly exploit their territories and deliberately keep them underdeveloped.

This is slightly misleading. I am sure the Mongols, Chinese, Ottomans, Safavids, Aztecs et al were all on exciting touring holidays and the world was a peace loving place before Europeans came on the scene.
Obviously not. The truth is simply that until ery recently the world was an extremely brutal exploitative place indeed. This has nothing much to do with "european civilization" per se. Although I concede your post did not explicitly declare that it did.


...erm... You are thinking of other European empires there. Britain was different. Just compare nations formally owned by us to those the Dutch and French had. Britain activly worked to do what it believed was best for the colonies, these ideas were often misled though for the time they were believed to be right (i.e. reliance on one crop).

Well.. no, not particularly
The Japanese invested more in Manchuria in one decade than the British did in India in 200 years.
British practice changed a lot over imperial history, so the idea of the British helping the natives depends upon when and where. But even in the twentieth century the British gassed the Kurds and Ghurkas chopped up Mau Mau. Conversely major development programmes were launched in Africa in the 5s, largely disastrously.

 

[Tielhard]

But Britain was a democracy defending democratic principals to the very last. It was only to be expected that they would sometimes find it expedient to kill, maim and torture lesser peoples, terrorists against the great democratic empire and her people. Only evil Kurds were gassed, they were very different from the nice fluffy democratic Kurds that Hussein was so horrible to.The Mau mau, very evil, scarcely human, did you know most of them did not even have proper guns how can you respect that sort of terrorist. Better wiped off the face of the Earth I say.

 

[Nicole]

Well, the Mau Mau were rebelling against the British... Are you supposed to just sit by and watch while people who are supposedly ruled by you defy your authority? If something like the Mau Mau happened in Puerto Rico, we'd probably do something similar to the British.
As for the British gassing of the Kurds, I confess ignorance of that...

 

[Tielhard]

Splendid work Imajin, you will go far in the colonial service or perhaps the USMC if you suffered some accident of birth. Bloody Mau mau no sense wasting good British justice on them buggers!

 

[David S Poepoe]

Splendid work Imajin, you will go far in the colonial service or perhaps the USMC if you suffered some accident of birth. Bloody Mau mau no sense wasting good British justice on them buggers!

Actually, the USMC had a very good record with 'little wars' and helping to tame problematic spots and defeating insurgents. I would suggest that if the USMC had been given a freehand in Vietnam things would have been radically different and better. They have a little book on fighting bush wars still available thru Amazon.

 

[Tielhard]

Depends what you mean by success of course but I will unreservedly conceed that they were not bad at both obtaining and retaining control of various small states for the USA's interest.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I concur. WWI and WWII are what bankrupted Europe. Not to mention the death and destruction. Even if WWI occurs Britain should remain neutral. That is fairly easy to do, as Britain chose to ally herself with France and Russia, beginning in 1902.

Point of Departure
1902. Britain signs non aggression pacts with France and Germany. Later she will sign similiar pacts with Russia, Italy, and Japan. The treaties specifically state that an invasion of Belgium will void the agreement.

1905. Due to the Ango-German non aggression pact, the Schliffen plan (and it's later variants) are written differently. German troops will not enter Belgium unless France does so first.

1902 - 1914. Kaiser Wilhelm II continues making stupid statements, but Britain ignores them. It is action that counts, not words. Germany is invading no one during this period. The same cannot be said for Russia, Japan, France and Italy. And, despite his clumsy statements, it is obvious that Kaiser Wilhelm II genuinely likes Britain and her people.

An analysis concludes that, due to geographic positioning, the German navy would be at a major disadvantage vs Britain. Furthermore, except for Tsingtao, Germany is making no effort to arm her colonies or to prepare them for naval use. If Germany were actually preparing for a naval war with Britain then these colonies would almost certainly be developed into commerce raider bases. Britain will expand her fleet as life insurance, unless / until a naval treaty with Germany can be achieved.

1914 - 1950. WWI and/or WWII may or may not happen. But Britain will remain neutral, using seapower to insulate herself from the conflict. Britain actually profits from any conflict by selling non military goods to the warring partys. Because the RN is so powerful, no one can enforce a "distant blockade" on Britain.

Point of Departure 1902
There already is such treaty. Why does either Italy or Japan care about the integrity of Belgium?

I have to say that the Germans really needed their navy. They were well aware, from their wars with the Dutch, that their country could be blockaded. Without the Russo-Japanese War to liquidate Russian seapower they are caught squarely between two hostile powers with sizable navies.

 

[Wozza]

Point of Departure 1902
There already is such treaty. Why does either Italy or Japan care about the integrity of Belgium?

I have to say that the Germans really needed their navy. They were well aware, from their wars with the Dutch, that their country could be blockaded. Without the Russo-Japanese War to liquidate Russian seapower they are caught squarely between two hostile powers with sizable navies.

German wars with the Dutch???
The German navy only really starts to expand AFTER the Russo-Japanese Wars

 

[David S Poepoe]

German wars with the Dutch???
The German navy only really starts to expand AFTER the Russo-Japanese Wars

My mistake. I meant Danes.

No. The German Navy starts to expand after the 1900 Naval Law and then the additional supplements passed the following years. Also the size of the fleet was always clearly laid out in the legislation, there are no surprises.

I recognize that I would have been more correct in saying Prussia's various wars with the Danes and the French shaped its views on seapower.

 

[Darkling]

You could try for the late 19th century Imperial federation ideas and try to make them work but I would go earlier.

I came up with a similar timeline (British Empire survives - sort of at least) by setting a precedent with Canada, instead of Canada's ascension to Dominion status meaning that from then on out any White colony that was considered capable of ruling itself was essentially allowed to do so with only a few reserved powers held back and only then as something of an understanding rather than formal decree (as is British political style) with the idea that bonds of Imperial unity (be it a sense of kinship or desire for a benevolent protector) would keep the dominions in line.

I created greater Anglo-American disharmony ( long story short, a more bitter war of 1812 leading to further wars and active British efforts to curtail the US's expansion) and in the early 1860's instead of sending Canada on its merry way they were given a sort of devolved government with trade, foreign affairs and defence maintained for Westminster and Westminster granted powers to tax in order to fund these endeavours, however in order to avoid being seen as taxing unfairly the Canadians got a few MP's in the commons.

Fast forward a decade or two and in an attempt to sort out the other white colonies, British electoral reform and the Irish question an Imperial Parliament is formed and devolved governments for the full members of the Empire (Canada, Ireland, UK, South Africa etc).

This then grants you a fairly stable union of 55 million people by 1900.

With this precedent set the Caribbean eventually got in and then India in a piece meal fashion with a franchise that kept their influence in the Empire to a minimum.

A few specific things to my timeline made this course a little easier (a few extra white dominions for example) but given the rather low probability outcome required I think it is a passable idea.

 

[wkwillis]

Well, the Mau Mau were rebelling against the British... Are you supposed to just sit by and watch while people who are supposedly ruled by you defy your authority? If something like the Mau Mau happened in Puerto Rico, we'd probably do something similar to the British.
As for the British gassing of the Kurds, I confess ignorance of that...

If Puerto Rico rebelled, most of America would shrug and say "don't forget to write". The way we deal with Puerto Rican independence is to hold a referendum every few years on independence, statehood, or the best of both worlds condominium status they have now, and keep voting for.

 

[Darkling]

The Mau mau, very evil, scarcely human, did you know most of them did not even have proper guns how can you respect that sort of terrorist. Better wiped off the face of the Earth I say.

The Mau Mau killed more loyalist African civilians than Whites; in fact they killed less White civilians than died in traffic accidents in Nairobi during the rebellion.

I wouldn't present Britain putting down the Mau Mau's as a great crime of British Imperialism, I'm sure you can find better examples.

 

[jolo]

1) Balkanize North America deny the USA the opportunity to expand. So either keep going during the American revolution, win in 1814, fight and win in 1857 or support the confedracy and Mexico and ensure a win in 1859-1865. Otherwise the USA's production capacity will grow beyond that of a centralised empire in the end.
2) Keep the Chinese down and preferably disunited. With so many people in the end they will become a significant if not the dominant economic power.
3) Keep India. The velvet glove did not work too well perhaps it is time for the iron fist.
4) Russia/Soviet Union/Whatever must never be a manufacturing power. Cut into its Asian empire if possible. Kamchatka, Alaska and Sakhalin need to be British for starters. Give good trade terms to European Russia for manufactured goods.

If the US had not become independent, GB might have lost WWI, or later WWII, as the American Colonies would have had much fewer people and much less development, and GB would have had much less help.

If GB had invested too much in suppressing China, likewise.

The more terror in the colonies, the more resistance.

Manufacturing power depends more on ressources, than on trade. Trade is usually only a small part of the economy. This can be increased to a degree, but only as long as the people have the money to buy abroad. Once that is gone, their own economy develops - in a market economy even earlier, thanks to exchange rates or other mechanisms. Even a "balance" of ressources vs. goods will usually only last as long as people benefit from it, and can only to a certain degree be forced to go further. Prussia overcame such limits by shutting off their market from competition - their economy didn't profit, but they quickly build a large industrial base.

I believe you would have lost the empire within a few years with your policies - by overstretching or revolt, and due to focusing on personal power and forgetting about the necessity of industrial, economic and diplomatic development.

 

[Tyr]

To stopping US expansion-

Britain wanted the US to expand to a extent though.
The USA was part of our unofficial empire.

To the above- LOL, you are a newbie so I'll leave it a bit though with no US revolution there would be no WW1 or WW2.
For the colonies being less developed and so giving less help though- no. They would be at least as developed. Maybe more. Also their help would be with Britain from the start.

 

[reformer]

Another 50 yeas could do wonders for Africa. That continent was not even nearly ready for independance.

 

[benedict XVII]

...erm... You are thinking of other European empires there. Britain was different. Just compare nations formally owned by us to those the Dutch and French had. Britain activly worked to do what it believed was best for the colonies, these ideas were often misled though for the time they were believed to be right (i.e. reliance on one crop).

I love indeed the state of former British colonies: South Africa and its apartheid regime - what an enlightenment, and such a good man as Mugabe at the head of Zimbabwe, and wasn't Amin Dada such a wonderful leader for Uganda? The Gambia, an example of development for its Senegalese neighbor! And Malawi, I'll tell you, reports that this is the poorest nation on earth are just fake - just like what Irish Americans are saying about the potato famine. And Britain always showed such respect for native cultures and really helped in the development of those populations, be it in America or with the aborigens in Australia. Nepal is an island of peacefulness on the Indian sub-continent, just as the former Palestine in the Middle-East. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, such examples of social advancement and modernity in the Muslim world. Yes, what a great heritage was left by the British Empire!

 

[Nicole]

And you left out those failed rouge states like Canada, Australia, New Zealand ( ) and all those constantly warring states in the Carribean....

 

[benedict XVII]

Australia and Andorra

And you left out those failed rouge states like Canada, Australia, New Zealand ( ) and all those constantly warring states in the Carribean....

Sure, when you clean up the place with a quasi-genocide, things get so much better.

Btw, ever regretted that Andorra never could be ruled by Brittania? Could be a real boost for tourism, you know!

 

[Nicole]

Sure, when you clean up the place with a quasi-genocide, things get so much better.

Well, it's not really Britain's fault that the Native Americans weren't immune to smallpox.
As for Australia, I'll concede you there, but the British did try to preserve Maori rights in New Zealand...

 

[jolo]

To stopping US expansion-

Britain wanted the US to expand to a extent though.
The USA was part of our unofficial empire.

To the above- LOL, you are a newbie so I'll leave it a bit though with no US revolution there would be no WW1 or WW2.
For the colonies being less developed and so giving less help though- no. They would be at least as developed. Maybe more. Also their help would be with Britain from the start.

Without independence, Northamerica would probably have developed along Canada and Australia - which means, no more than 30 million people in a much smaller Northamerica by today. Also, Russia might have kept Alaska and expanded to the south of it - not enough people to send West, and who'd buy Alaska, or who might the Russians give it to, if not a small, at that time not threatening, country.

With such population numbers, no lend-lease or the likes.

Also, GB liked to keep their colonies down technologically, to avoid them splitting up and becoming competitors, and to make sure that goods were produced mostly in GB in return for ressources (other colonial powers were even worse in developing their colonies, though). Egypt and India are examples for that, while Canada and Australia played a different role - Canada could not be kept underdeveloped because of the US, and Australia was too far away for supporting it from GB and militarily too weak to be defendable without an independent industrial base. Furthermore, their people knew GB too well to be easily kept away from developing.

Without US independence, the Ressource of all North American colonies would mainly be transported to GB, half of them would be returned to the US as manufactured goods for the same price, and development would be pretty slow. Then come the evil huns and destroy all that shipping with their uboats, leaving an isle with a lot of unused factories and 30% of the world as an empire with a lot of ressources, but no way for them to come together before the war ends.