Could the British Empire be Reformed? if so how?

[Churchill]

And a huge revolt. And bloody guerilla warfare. And loss of support at home. And international outrage. Need I go on?

Any such revolt would be quickly crushed and be popular at home as Amritsar was.
Only a few Left wing cranks and political groups would oppose it.

 

[Churchill]

As DAv clarifies, "support at home" is what I was referring to. I am very troubled by the fact that you responded to that, and not to my dismay at your apparent support for genocide as a means by which to hold the Empire. It's diabolical.

We are debating a alternate history here not faining outrage over a hypothetical massacre.

 

[DAv]

Any such revolt would be quickly crushed and be popular at home as Amritsar was.
Only a few Left wing cranks and political groups would oppose it.

I'm going to use Vietnam and the Belgian role in the Congo as examples here. The Empire wasn't worth genocide. And shall I bring up Algeria for constant revolts against a colonial power?

 

[MrP]

We are debating a alternate history here not faining outrage over a hypothetical massacre.

You have suggested that the Empire could have been maintained by adopting the use of genocide. You also appear to believe that maintaining the Empire thus would have been a good thing. I am not feigning outrage over a hypothetical massacre, but am actually disturbed that you seem seriously to believe that genocide is a reasonable suggestion!

 

[Faeelin]

Any such revolt would be quickly crushed and be popular at home as Amritsar was.

Except Amritsar wasn't popular at home.

 

[Susano]

We managed very well in doing so in all our colonies.
Even with might weak efforts.
With stronger methods like those of Imperial Germany or Fascist Italy the colonies would have been very easy to maintain.

Germany wouldnt have managed to hang on to its colonies either. Past a certain point it simply becomes useless and a gigantic money drain.
Of course, it appears what youre really advcoating (and as MrP has observed, lets not kid ourselves that you merely propose an ATL) is a Lebensraum ideology.

Dear boy, if we start using genocide to maintain our Indian Empire, as did the German Empire in Africa, you will see a decline in support for the Empire. I'm somewhat aghast that you're coldly suggesting this as though it is somehow a good thing.

I remain unconvinced about the Herero Genocide, to be honest. I read a good article that argued that the German soldiers employed where way to few to effectively cordon the Heroro to drive them off into the Kalahari, and that the martialist speech and gestures by the military leadership were merely a way to cover up initial losses against the Herero by way of sounding pompous.

 

[boredatwork]

Heh, the suggested (genocidal repression) policies have some predictable long term consequences.

1. Pissed off, violently anti-British post-guerrilla war regimes in the non-white colonies (NWC's). Not sure how instigating what amounts to blood vendetta with over a billion odd people and two major religions (Islam and Hinduism) is good for the British, but feel free to argue otherwise.

2. Foreign powers taking advantage both of the pissed off colonials (as pawns) and of WBE overstretch to wear down the WBE - there's too many fronts to try to defend against too many rising powers, especially given the technical and economic limits of the time.

3. Nothing suggested would butterfly away communism, nazism, fascism, or japanese militarism, and indeed could serve to encourage them. A WBE so heavily tied down in the NWC's is going to be in a horrid position once Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and whomever else start making their moves.

4. Britain gave up India and Ireland, among other things, because the average Brit wasn't a draka/nazi clone - gunning down defenseless civilians as a matter of policy is going too far for an large chunk of the homeland voters, an issue that will worsen, not lessen, as time goes on.

5. Why in heaven's name would Australia, Canada, or Ireland want to drag themselves into such a predictable bloodbath, when the only outcome is a short term ego boost for some old farts in London, and long term troubles with the folks next door? Australia is not going to go out of its way to needlessly antagonize it's neighbors, and Canada is not going to endlessly support a policy stance that makes the old CSA look humanitarian by comparison. There is no way Ireland is going to support anything that strengthens the BE, given Irish history - they'll probably claim common cause (however wildly improbable/unjustified) with rebels elsewhere. New Zealand is vaguely plausible - but (like the other three) they lack the independent manpower pools or economic resources to offset the insurrection induced bleeding. Any serious attempt to do so would bleed the dominions white and probably incite earlier moves towards independence, not delay them.

6. There isn't enough power or influence in the world to prevent the nationalism 'virus' or the various anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and socialist memes from reaching the colonies. In all likelihood, accompanied by armed support. Result - widespread armed uprisings - not something the WBE's will have the manpower to handle, and not something that the voters at home will countenance for long in any event.

7. WW2, Japan attacks WBE holdings in SE and begins push to India. In this ATL, the Japanese could easily be seen as a comparative savior by their 'fellow asians'. There's a real nightmare for you - Japanese attacks and native guerrilla insurgencies at the same time as the WBE is facing Hitler in Europe. No way that is going to end well for London.

8. Heck, WW2 itself - why on earth would the US ally itself with a regime distinguishable from the nazis only by their accents? If the WBE managed by some warped miracle to hold together that long, the US would probably take advantage of WW2 to push the "blood thirsty madmen" out of NAm and conquer Canada, and the carribean colonies as well - not like the WBE will be in any position to dispute the matter. Don't hold your breath for any supply convoys or lend lease aid from the other side of the Atlantic either.

 

[Churchill]

I'm going to use Vietnam and the Belgian role in the Congo as examples here. The Empire wasn't worth genocide. And shall I bring up Algeria for constant revolts against a colonial power?

We both know that in Algeria and Vietnam France and America where not allowed to do what needed to be done.

 

[Churchill]

You have suggested that the Empire could have been maintained by adopting the use of genocide. You also appear to believe that maintaining the Empire thus would have been a good thing. I am not feigning outrage over a hypothetical massacre, but am actually disturbed that you seem seriously to believe that genocide is a reasonable suggestion!

I asked a what if.
If I was PM I would have dumped the entire non-White Empire when the time was right.
But if in a WI we ask how it could have been kept then these menthods have proved the best way of doing it.

 

[Churchill]

Except Amritsar wasn't popular at home.

It was very popular among the mass of the population, the Lords, the press and the Military.
Of course the usual Liberal establishment figures and Socialist Intellectuals condemned such things.

 

[Churchill]

Germany wouldnt have managed to hang on to its colonies either. Past a certain point it simply becomes useless and a gigantic money drain.
Of course, it appears what youre really advcoating (and as MrP has observed, lets not kid ourselves that you merely propose an ATL) is a Lebensraum ideology.


I remain unconvinced about the Herero Genocide, to be honest. I read a good article that argued that the German soldiers employed where way to few to effectively cordon the Heroro to drive them off into the Kalahari, and that the martialist speech and gestures by the military leadership were merely a way to cover up initial losses against the Herero by way of sounding pompous.

They could have easly held every part of their Empire they had the manpower and the will to do so.

 

[Churchill]

Heh, the suggested (genocidal repression) policies have some predictable long term consequences.

1. Pissed off, violently anti-British post-guerrilla war regimes in the non-white colonies (NWC's). Not sure how instigating what amounts to blood vendetta with over a billion odd people and two major religions (Islam and Hinduism) is good for the British, but feel free to argue otherwise.

2. Foreign powers taking advantage both of the pissed off colonials (as pawns) and of WBE overstretch to wear down the WBE - there's too many fronts to try to defend against too many rising powers, especially given the technical and economic limits of the time.

3. Nothing suggested would butterfly away communism, nazism, fascism, or japanese militarism, and indeed could serve to encourage them. A WBE so heavily tied down in the NWC's is going to be in a horrid position once Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and whomever else start making their moves.

4. Britain gave up India and Ireland, among other things, because the average Brit wasn't a draka/nazi clone - gunning down defenseless civilians as a matter of policy is going too far for an large chunk of the homeland voters, an issue that will worsen, not lessen, as time goes on.

5. Why in heaven's name would Australia, Canada, or Ireland want to drag themselves into such a predictable bloodbath, when the only outcome is a short term ego boost for some old farts in London, and long term troubles with the folks next door? Australia is not going to go out of its way to needlessly antagonize it's neighbors, and Canada is not going to endlessly support a policy stance that makes the old CSA look humanitarian by comparison. There is no way Ireland is going to support anything that strengthens the BE, given Irish history - they'll probably claim common cause (however wildly improbable/unjustified) with rebels elsewhere. New Zealand is vaguely plausible - but (like the other three) they lack the independent manpower pools or economic resources to offset the insurrection induced bleeding. Any serious attempt to do so would bleed the dominions white and probably incite earlier moves towards independence, not delay them.

6. There isn't enough power or influence in the world to prevent the nationalism 'virus' or the various anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and socialist memes from reaching the colonies. In all likelihood, accompanied by armed support. Result - widespread armed uprisings - not something the WBE's will have the manpower to handle, and not something that the voters at home will countenance for long in any event.

7. WW2, Japan attacks WBE holdings in SE and begins push to India. In this ATL, the Japanese could easily be seen as a comparative savior by their 'fellow asians'. There's a real nightmare for you - Japanese attacks and native guerrilla insurgencies at the same time as the WBE is facing Hitler in Europe. No way that is going to end well for London.

8. Heck, WW2 itself - why on earth would the US ally itself with a regime distinguishable from the nazis only by their accents? If the WBE managed by some warped miracle to hold together that long, the US would probably take advantage of WW2 to push the "blood thirsty madmen" out of NAm and conquer Canada, and the carribean colonies as well - not like the WBE will be in any position to dispute the matter. Don't hold your breath for any supply convoys or lend lease aid from the other side of the Atlantic either.

What a load of post modern Left Wing crap.
Who do you think India is the Soviet Union?
Make some realistic points please.

 

[MrP]

I remain unconvinced about the Herero Genocide, to be honest. I read a good article that argued that the German soldiers employed where way to few to effectively cordon the Heroro to drive them off into the Kalahari, and that the martialist speech and gestures by the military leadership were merely a way to cover up initial losses against the Herero by way of sounding pompous.

Tbh, I know far too little about the situation to engage in debate. My primary source is Hull, and even she makes the point that a huge number of deaths were not the result of activity, but passivity - sticking PoWs who were accustomed to warmer inland climates in coastal camps, and then giving them insufficient food, shelter and so on. Death rates in excess of two hundred percent in such camps.

I asked a what if.
If I was PM I would have dumped the entire non-White Empire when the time was right.
But if in a WI we ask how it could have been kept then these menthods have proved the best way of doing it.

But they have not. If one has to resort to wiping out a population, one will cause massive societal and economic dislocation. In short, if you kill people, they can't make money for one.

 

[Churchill]

Heh, the suggested (genocidal repression) policies have some predictable long term consequences.

1. Pissed off, violently anti-British post-guerrilla war regimes in the non-white colonies (NWC's). Not sure how instigating what amounts to blood vendetta with over a billion odd people and two major religions (Islam and Hinduism) is good for the British, but feel free to argue otherwise.

Not one colony would produce a movement that even required serious effort in stopping.
Fear and uselessness would keep them in line.

2. Foreign powers taking advantage both of the pissed off colonials (as pawns) and of WBE overstretch to wear down the WBE - there's too many fronts to try to defend against too many rising powers, especially given the technical and economic limits of the time.

Foreign powers would have their own Empires to worry about.
Only the USA and USSR wanted to destroy the European Empires.

3. Nothing suggested would butterfly away communism, nazism, fascism, or japanese militarism, and indeed could serve to encourage them. A WBE so heavily tied down in the NWC's is going to be in a horrid position once Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and whomever else start making their moves.

The Nazis and Fascists would gladly go along with Britains Empire policy as both leaders stated.
Japan would not dare not to.

4. Britain gave up India and Ireland, among other things, because the average Brit wasn't a draka/nazi clone - gunning down defenseless civilians as a matter of policy is going too far for an large chunk of the homeland voters, an issue that will worsen, not lessen, as time goes on.

Strange how such strong policies on India and Ireland where so popular then.

5. Why in heaven's name would Australia, Canada, or Ireland want to drag themselves into such a predictable bloodbath, when the only outcome is a short term ego boost for some old farts in London, and long term troubles with the folks next door? Australia is not going to go out of its way to needlessly antagonize it's neighbors, and Canada is not going to endlessly support a policy stance that makes the old CSA look humanitarian by comparison. There is no way Ireland is going to support anything that strengthens the BE, given Irish history - they'll probably claim common cause (however wildly improbable/unjustified) with rebels elsewhere. New Zealand is vaguely plausible - but (like the other three) they lack the independent manpower pools or economic resources to offset the insurrection induced bleeding. Any serious attempt to do so would bleed the dominions white and probably incite earlier moves towards independence, not delay them.

Australians, Canadians etc viewed themselves as British in the past and as part of a Great Empire they would wish to keep it that way.
The Aussies and Kiwi's where read to fight with Britain at Suez.
N Zealand even in the Falklands.
Both countries has PM's who regarded themselves as British even in the 60's and 80's.
Non would be bled White and even if they did they would still be British and proud as they where after WW1.


6. There isn't enough power or influence in the world to prevent the nationalism 'virus' or the various anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and socialist memes from reaching the colonies. In all likelihood, accompanied by armed support. Result - widespread armed uprisings - not something the WBE's will have the manpower to handle, and not something that the voters at home will countenance for long in any event.

The voters at home will love a fight for Empire.
Where will these (millions mmm) of rebels get their guns?

7. WW2, Japan attacks WBE holdings in SE and begins push to India. In this ATL, the Japanese could easily be seen as a comparative savior by their 'fellow asians'. There's a real nightmare for you - Japanese attacks and native guerrilla insurgencies at the same time as the WBE is facing Hitler in Europe. No way that is going to end well for London.

The Japs could find themselves facing the full rath of the British Empire, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

8. Heck, WW2 itself - why on earth would the US ally itself with a regime distinguishable from the nazis only by their accents? If the WBE managed by some warped miracle to hold together that long, the US would probably take advantage of WW2 to push the "blood thirsty madmen" out of NAm and conquer Canada, and the carribean colonies as well - not like the WBE will be in any position to dispute the matter. Don't hold your breath for any supply convoys or lend lease aid from the other side of the Atlantic either.

I think Britain would become an Axis power at that point and America would begin to fight for it's existence.

Here are some very quick answers above to the ridiculous.

 

[Zyzzyva]

We both know that in Algeria and Vietnam France and America where not allowed to do what needed to be done.

I'm not sure about Indochina I, but I know the French were right bastards in Algeria, and lost. And what, exactly, did the Administration stop the Army from doing in 'Nam? Napalm? Agent Orange? Endless bombing raids on North Vietnam and any country foolish enough to share a border with it?

Well, they forbade My Lai. Which, from your comments above, may indeed be what you meant by your statement. In which case, it's been nice knowing you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Death rates in excess of two hundred percent in such camps.

The huh?

 

[MrP]

The huh?

More died than were originally in the camp. Very nasty.

Two of the prison camps, Windhuk and Shark Island, reached their highest death rates in 1906. Annualized, these rates would have been 61 percent for Windhuk, and at Shark Island, 86 percent for the Herero, and 227 percent for the Nama. The latter figure means that death would have consumed the entire original Nama prison population plus over twice that number in incoming captives.

 

[MrP]

Fear and uselessness would keep them in line.

Grand Moff Tarkin did survive the Battle of Yavin!

 

[Zyzzyva]

More died than were originally in the camp. Very nasty.

...Ah. It seems kind of an odd figure, though; by that standard, the city of London, say, has a death rate in the couple of thousand percents. A more useful figure would be "total deaths/total inmates", which is more-or-less what is usually meant by death rates.

 

[Ed Costello]

Any such revolt would be quickly crushed and be popular at home as Amritsar was.
Only a few Left wing cranks and political groups would oppose it.

Oh, no. Oh, no no no. Not with the kind of things you're talking about.

Firstly, Ireland is going to go apeshit, because if the Huns are shooting Indians/Africans/Arabs today, they can well be shooting Catholics tomorrow.

Secondly, outrage will sweep across Northern England, and probably Scotland as well, as memories of Peterloo and the Macdonalds are suddenly made to look like an accident in a coconut shy - after all, if the toffs are shooting poor people in another country, what's to stop them doing it here?

Thirdly, the liberal establishment will be appalled - they didn't spend years fighting to end the slave trade just so people were free to be massacred.

Fourthly, no more Mr Nice Uncle Sam. Transatlantic relations will sink like a stone, and any Canadian with more than three brain cells will probably start shitting themselves that they're about to bear the brunt of the actions of the London high-ups.

Y'know, I could go on, but this is hurting my brain enough as it is.