Broken Britain, Apathetic America;What happens to S.Africa, N.Z. and Aus.?

[NiGHTS]

To lay down the scenario, Britain has been reduced to having it's Royal Navy destroyed for the most part, and is now a vassal state of Germany. Germany was able to win this conflict by allying with Russia, annexing Austria-Bohemia, etc, and focus its efforts on Western Europe. After one war in which it takes out France, and another one in which it takes down Britain, it is now undisputed master of Western Europe. America is still isolationist, and has no interest in those parts of the world. Meanwhile, what do South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand do? Let's say that this happens sometime in the early 20th century.

Now, I would prefer nobody focuses on how Britain gets beaten, as that is the least important detail of this, as the only thing that makes Britain and Germany's war with each other here is that it led to Britain being no longer able to have it's own independent foreign policy and that it's former colonies are now doing their own thing, if they haven't been taken by Germany. It's path to power is not as important so much as the effects of its victory through power.

But what do the British settler colonies, besides Canada who would just get close with America, do? Like, would they try to form friendly relations with Germany, or would they remain hostile? What would their foreign and economic policies be like? Immigration policies?

 

[NiGHTS]

I guess, in my uneducated opinion, South Africa would drift toward Germany since they need someone to buy their stuff and back it's regime.

 

[Kirook]

Australia and NZ might confederate if they don’t have Britain protecting them anymore.

 

[Riain]

Australia and New Zealand form very close ties and militarise to defend their patch. They get a capital ship or two like the South American countries did as the centrepiece of their navies, which raises the threshold at which they can be pushed around.

 

[stevej713]

Australia and New Zealand form very close ties and militarise to defend their patch. They get a capital ship or two like the South American countries did as the centrepiece of their navies, which raises the threshold at which they can be pushed around.

At the same time, their isolation and relatively fragile commodities-based economies would force them to reach some level of accommodation with Japan. Without the British in Southeast Asia, Japan would be much more free to impose its will on the region. However, that would be more than enough to shake the US out of isolationism, and war in the Pacific would soon follow.

 

[NiGHTS]

At the same time, their isolation and relatively fragile commodities-based economies would force them to reach some level of accommodation with Japan. Without the British in Southeast Asia, Japan would be much more free to impose its will on the region. However, that would be more than enough to shake the US out of isolationism, and war in the Pacific would soon follow.

From the perspective of the Americans, what would be the difference between Britain/France controlling parts of SE Asia, vs Japan controlling parts of it? Furthermore, let's try to avoid having the Americans go into a situation in which they ally with Australia or New Zealand. I'd kind of like to see what Australia is more likely comfortable doing, as in would they rather cozy up with Germany, an Asian power(China/Japan) or would they prefer to go it alone and try being their own Great power. I mean on one hand, Germany was their former enemy, but on the other hand, Australians are pretty racist at the time( for in OTL, they were one of the reasons the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was cancelled) and on the other hand, trying to be their own power would be pretty hard seeing as they have a super small population at this time. Even combining with New Zealand wouldn't be enough to boost its population.

 

[BellaGerant]

From the perspective of the Americans, what would be the difference between Britain/France controlling parts of SE Asia, vs Japan controlling parts of it?

Yellow Peril? I'd say that'd be the main thing.

And, depending on the Japanese colonial policy of the time, free trade? Americans could be assured the British and French were pro-free trade but Japan going protectionist in SE Asia would sour things rather quickly, especially if the US has the Philippines at the time.

 

[iddt3]

Yellow Peril? I'd say that'd be the main thing.

And, depending on the Japanese colonial policy of the time, free trade? Americans could be assured the British and French were pro-free trade but Japan going protectionist in SE Asia would sour things rather quickly, especially if the US has the Philippines at the time.

Free trade is the bigger one I think. Open door and all.

 

[Odinson]

I see an alliance/commonwealth between Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to act as a counterweight to the vacuum that the United Kingdom left.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Free trade is the bigger one I think. Open door and all.

Thirded. In many ways Japanese colonial practices in Micronesia were a dress rehearsal for later economic penetration of maritime SE Asia.

They consistently utilised monopolistic measures (outright banning) or the subsidisation of fledgling businesses to give them an advantage over foreign competition. They had virtually ousted the Germans out of the copra trade in the Marianas and Carolines before they even took the islands from German control. Afterwards, the Americans were also pushed out of their fledgling trade presence in the islands.

Japanese economic domination over SE Asia means converting the region into a captive market. American business interests would not be welcome.

 

[NiGHTS]

So, I guess Australia is unlikely to get close to Germany, but where does this,leave South Africa? Like, how likely is it that they would try to cozy up to Germany vs just going it alone?

 

[Riain]

Where does the RN go when Britain surrenders? If it is at home and included in the surrender terms, or is much of the RN away from home and go to Australia, SA, NZ and Canada? Because this could make all the difference if Australia etc starts their period of isolation with for example the force Sommerville had in the Indian Ocean in 1942, as all Australia would have to do would be to incorporate this fleet into the RAN. In legal terms this would be very easy as most of our immigration came from Britain and Ireland and Australian forces were fully integrated into British command structures, we'd simply naturalise Sommerville (or whomever) and his crews and get to work.

 

[NiGHTS]

Where does the RN go when Britain surrenders? If it is at home and included in the surrender terms, or is much of the RN away from home and go to Australia, SA, NZ and Canada? Because this could make all the difference if Australia etc starts their period of isolation with for example the force Sommerville had in the Indian Ocean in 1942, as all Australia would have to do would be to incorporate this fleet into the RAN. In legal terms this would be very easy as most of our immigration came from Britain and Ireland and Australian forces were fully integrated into British command structures, we'd simply naturalise Sommerville (or whomever) and his crews and get to work.

It's been mostly destroyed, and I imagine that what's left would prefer to go home to Britain and be with their families, once the war is over.

 

[Riain]

It's been mostly destroyed, and I imagine that what's left would prefer to go home to Britain and be with their families, once the war is over.

The RN was equal largest in the world in WW2 and scattered globally, destroying most of it would be no mean feat.

Australia etc could repatriate those British sailors who wanted to go home without sending the ships home, I imagine one of the final orders to go out before surrender would be for distant ships and other units to go under Commonwealth command.

 

[NiGHTS]

The RN was equal largest in the world in WW2 and scattered globally, destroying most of it would be no mean feat.

Australia etc could repatriate those British sailors who wanted to go home without sending the ships home, I imagine one of the final orders to go out before surrender would be for distant ships and other units to go under Commonwealth command.

But, would Australia possess enough people who are trained enough to use whatever's left?

 

[Yülia]

But, would Australia possess enough people who are trained enough to use whatever's left?

I would argue that that does not matter. Even if they cant use it at the time, they wouldn't want to send it back to the Germans.

Instead, they would keep them while training people to use it.

 

[Dominic]

Australia/NZ probably federate. The Antipodean paranoia about Asian/outside domination has deep roots, and in a Pacific without British or American protection Japan and perhaps China are going to look quite threatening. Russia, France, and Germany also would be potentially worrying, depending on the specific scenario. It is difficult to guess at what a federated Australasia would actually do policy-wise though, without the context of Britain's defeat. An open country that pragmatically abandons the White Australia policy to one degree or another could easily increase its population and economy enormously over the decades, while a closed, reactionary country would certainly not do that.

More broadly, what this country does will be dictated by how the remaining North Atlantic Great Powers approach the South Pacific. Without Britain, there's nobody to really stop the Germans from establishing some sort of presence in the region. How large it is will depend on German priorities. Likewise the US established a large presence in the Pacific regardless of its isolationism, and even if it takes no special interest in Australia/NZ it is going to be a significant force. Japan obviously will be too. This provides opportunities and risks to the Antipodeans that are reminiscent of the modern day; a smallish, wealthy, strategically significant country that sits near the fault lines of several major powers. IMO, overall such a country should do reasonably well for itself given the particulars of South Pacific geography and scale, and is unlikely to have its internal autonomy seriously undermined, especially if it does embrace certain demographic policies that would significantly boost its own power.

 

[Dominic]

But, would Australia possess enough people who are trained enough to use whatever's left?

Probably, unless some particular large percentage of the RN sets up shop. Australia prior to 1914 had a strong emphasis on the navy and had major plans to expand the RAN to what would easily be the most powerful navy south of the equator by 1930. WW1 scuttled those ideas. With an influx of RN personnel, including those who just migrate later given better job prospects outside of a disarmed Britain, the RAN would not struggle in digesting a large number of ships - if the money exists to maintain them. That is the real question, and will be dependent on a variety of factors.