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.
What's your definition of superpower?The British Empire never was a superpower, only first among equals.
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.What's your definition of superpower?
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!
You're half right. BE could be better defined as a hyper-powerThe British Empire never was a superpower, only first among equals.
Glad you liked itI 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.
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.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.
The UK is a major power, but far from a Superpower these days.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.
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.The UK is a major power, but far from a Superpower these days.
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.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.