Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have the British Empire remain a superpower. This could be done in any way with any POD.
AHC Have the British Empire remain a superpower
- Thread starter CanveyFanNumberOne
- Start date
N7Buck
Banned
Late 19th Century, Joseph Chamberlain is successful in pushing Imperial Federation. As the 20th Century moves on, the exterior of the empire dissolves, India becomes independent, and other colonies slowly drift to independence within British sphere of influence. So the British Empire consists of a Federal state encompassing Britain, Ireland?, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa?, with some prominent territories such as Singapore, Hong Kong and the Suez Canal.
Most common definition I've heard is the ability for a power to project anywhere in the world at short notice, economically, politically or militarily. By that definition, I think Britain is still a superpower.
Stay out of the First World War, profit off of both sides, eventually the fighting would grind to a halt after mutual exhaustion. Germany, France and Russia would end the war with their manpower reserves depleted, a few ships sunk, countryside in ruins, people hungry, will have spent themselves into an oblivion of debt, and one or more may be rent by a factional civil war... the US will keep building ships, but the US Army will remain a sad and negligible affair. Providing credit for the rebuilding of Europe once the smoke clears (a British "Marshall Plan" in 1920 or so?) will provide more moneymaking (or possibly losing) investment opportunities. The UK would clearly be "first among equals" of the "Great Powers", with the US seen as the greatest commercial and (potential) military rival, with Japan (which may have herself stayed neutral, with no UK entry) a distant third...
It would be the most "Perfidious Albion" scenario of all, without firing a shot!
It would be the most "Perfidious Albion" scenario of all, without firing a shot!
I feel a surge of Machiavellian joy at reading this... I love the economic-political timelinesthat crop up from time to time and this would be a good one.Stay out of the First World War, profit off of both sides, eventually the fighting would grind to a halt after mutual exhaustion. Germany, France and Russia would end the war with their manpower reserves depleted, a few ships sunk, countryside in ruins, people hungry, will have spent themselves into an oblivion of debt, and one or more may be rent by a factional civil war... the US will keep building ships, but the US Army will remain a sad and negligible affair. Providing credit for the rebuilding of Europe once the smoke clears (a British "Marshall Plan" in 1920 or so?) will provide more moneymaking (or possibly losing) investment opportunities. The UK would clearly be "first among equals" of the "Great Powers", with the US seen as the greatest commercial and (potential) military rival, with Japan (which may have herself stayed neutral, with no UK entry) a distant third...
It would be the most "Perfidious Albion" scenario of all, without firing a shot!
Glad you liked it
Anybody know if anyone has done a "UK stays Neutral in WWI" TL on here before?
Impossible for them to remain the sole superpower imo. By 1900 the US's growth trajectory was set in stone and there is nothing Britain can do about it, by 1940ish no matter what the US will be the strongest country in the world. At best Britain could play second fiddle to the US. Russia, Germany, and China are all likely to prove challengers as well for superpower status. WWI helped Britain in the sense that it set Russian foreign policy goals back decades and wrecked havoc on their growth, without it I think it's likely Russia would eclipse them as well. And by 2000 I think it's inevitable that China will eclipse them as well. If you want Britain to remain the top dog you need a pre-1800 PoD.
Deleted member 109224
More economic growth post-war (and perhaps interwar). Britain had the most sluggish growth of any major western European country. Have Labor do less well but still be able to form a minority or coalition government. The UK ends up with the Beveridge Report and the NHS but no nationalizations or Tory austerity.
Also have a more liberal immigration policy and perhaps a pronatal domestic policy, for whatever reason.
Slightly higher growth rates every year after WWII until the 70s/80s liberalizations of OTL and a bigger population would keep the UK pretty significant.
Also have a more liberal immigration policy and perhaps a pronatal domestic policy, for whatever reason.
Slightly higher growth rates every year after WWII until the 70s/80s liberalizations of OTL and a bigger population would keep the UK pretty significant.
Yeah, this discussion really won't go anywhere if nobody can agree on what a superpower actually is. "Superpower" didn't really come into usage until WW2 and the term doesn't really have any meaning without being used in a post-WW2 context. It was clear that the United States and the Soviet Union were exhibiting levels of industrial output and force projection on a scale that has never been seen before, and had access to weapons of unfathomable destruction. The British Empire at its height would never have been able to replicate that, but in the 19th century it didn't have to. Wars were smaller, markets were less developed, and the pace of change was slower. The British Empire was a small fish in a pond with few other fish, until the other fish got bigger and bigger. To say Britain is a superpower even today is to degrade the term into near-meaninglessness. The Suez Crisis made it plain Britain was NOT a superpower and could never hope to be one.
Last edited:
The UK is a major power, but far from a Superpower these days.
Probably, but I am only using that definition. The term 'superpower' is a bit nebulous, so it is hard to say exactly what the difference between a 'major power' and a 'superpower' is.
To me the difference is how "sustainable" the "ability for a power to project anywhere in the world at short notice, economically, politically or militarily", in that the UK can't sustain anything large scale independently.