AHC challenge - Britain ends the Raj and then

Would a decolonizing Britain be willing to fight to preserve European BOP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
subsequently engages in a major war over Europe.

ie, could we have a Britain that had begun substantial decolonization still be the "kind of country" that could and would commit to fight against a German bid for hegemony. Or would a Britain with a personality of the decolonizer automatically lack the stones to resist the Germans?

This is a question I've asked before, and I've been inspired to ask it again based on a dialogue with Snake Featherston in this thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5681779#post5681779
 
Engage in a war? Probably. If we're to use the British mentality of the 1950s and even early 60s as an example (when they were decolonising, but still retained some hopes of a smaller, more informal empire), they did plan to have Britain as a great world power with a strongish navy and economy, using the Empire to help out. Anti-communism was also important. Limited wars were still fought in the British national interest-e.g. in Malaysia, and with naval taskforces being brought up to Kuwait. This Britain would probably have at least tried to fight. Whether it would be possible to do so as effectively without the might of the Indian Army is another matter.

The question is: why are they decolonising, and what's happening elsewhere in the Empire?
 
ie, could we have a Britain that had begun substantial decolonization still be the "kind of country" that could and would commit to fight against a German bid for hegemony. Or would a Britain with a personality of the decolonizer automatically lack the stones to resist the Germans?

I think a Britain that has withdrawn from its empire is much more likely to resist German expansion.

In both world wars, Germany used the existence of the other European empires to justify its own exapnsion - and in Britain, there was a current of thought that felt Germany had a point. If Britain has decolonised, it can much more easily make the moral case against German expansion - both to itself and to the rest of the world.

In terms of capability, the desperate measures Britain undertook to cling on to its empire were a drain on both financial and political capital. Again, earlier withdrawal from empire is going to improve the chances of Britain fighting against a German bid for hegemony.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
In a broad brush approach, British foreign policy from the late 1600s up until the late 20th century has been to oppose a single power controlling Europe. William of Orange (our William III) started this approach against Louis XIV in the interests of his home nation, and it appears to have been the unsaid major plank in British policy second only to (& helping meet) defending the growing Empire.

IMHO there is no reason to believe that a Britain that withdraws from India at any point before 1948 would have a different approach. Even without any Empire or Commonwealth we are dependent upon seaborne trade and cannot afford to have a hostile power controlling the shorelines of France and the Low Countries and preventing trade with our nearest neighbours.
 
The question is: why are they decolonising, and what's happening elsewhere in the Empire?

Indeed. Is it after a brutal 20 year war of independence that has left India in ruins and Britain bankrupt with a broken society, or is a case of India emerging after a consensual process of nergotiation as an independent dominion fully equal to the likes of Canada and South Africa? In the first case Britain probably wouldn't be able to intervene in Europe even if it wanted whereas in the latter it might be actually be stronger - far less need to worry about the likes of Japan means more forces in Europe and India might still declare war as part of the Commonwealth anyway.
 
Top