AHC: Make the British Empire last to this day

Since, despite the severe setbacks of 2 world wars and the depression, the white Dominions saw themselves as part of an Empire and Commonwealth until at least the 70s I don't think it would be too hard to have the Empire last longer. The first thing in my mind is to do better in WW2, there are thousands of ways to do this, they are the common fodder of this board. This will give Britain and the Empire greater intertia. A second thing would not to join the EU, or perhaps later than OTL, so trade within the Commonwealth was stronger and of greater value. Thirdly would be perhaps introducing a British Commonwealth version of the dual key nuclear arrangment that NATO had with the US, this would bind the Commonwealth together as a group of nuke holders.
 
What would potentially keep the Empire together a bit longer and create a chance for it to evolve into a powerful Commonwealth is to prevent the complete debacle that led to the loss of Malaya, Singapore and Burma in 1942. That destroyed Britain's prestige with the local elites and the loss of Burmese rice led to the Bengal Famine which ended any chance of Britain staying in India very long post war.
 
With POD after 1920 it would be very difficult. However, my two cents.

1) Hitler is killed in the Beer Hall Putsch. A police bullet goes slightly different. NSDAP breaks down, since there is no one with Hitlers qualities to step in. Without a revanchist NSDAP that blocks the parlamentarian process Weimar Germany survives. Not easily or beautiful, but survives. During the 1930s the Versaille Treaty and war debt is changed to a less punishing and blaming model. No WW2 in Europe, at least as we know it.

2) UK does not reintroduce the gold standard 1925, or at least not at 1914 exchange rate.

Both these PODs keeps the british economy far more viable and competetive, giving the politicians more resources to spend on for example colonial developments. Without WW2 (and before that all crises Hitler created) there would be time to work out smart solutions to keep the Empire but also give the colonies some kind of self-determination.

It is fairly certain that Japan will start a war in Asia, but without France and UK being gutted by Nazi Germany Japan will lose quickly - but still show the colonies in Asia that there were extenal threats that the Empire could protect them against.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Britain keeps many of its island holdings like France. Done.:)

It wasn't built to last....colonialist empires just aren't. And so it didn't. That's honestly the best way...unless we count the Commonwealth as a pseudo-empire, which it really isn't, anyways.

Colonial Empires era last 450 years, longer than many great and long lasting nations. It was the World Wars that broke them. Avoid the wars, and they would still be around in some form. Now sure, areas might leave or join empires, but they would exist.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But the problem here is that your entire hypothesis is based on the fact that the white dominions will want to continue being subservient to the UK. And the fact is, they won't. Why would they want to help Britain, when the effort could be better placed at home? Why put all that industry to powering a place that the average Canadian/South African/Australian would never see? Furthermore, why would Indians or Africans want to help the UK if they are not being allowed democracy and in general, ideas that are considered 'civilised' in Europe being outright denied to them? It's not going to happen.

Agreed. Just like it is unrealistic to believe Canada would want to be ruled from the USA, it is also unrealistic to think they want England to rule them. You can keep Canada as a part of the British Empire, but with an earlier POD. And a lot of the issues relate to England more than Canada. To keep in the white settler colonies, you will need to effectively demote England from ruler of the empire to one of many states of the Empire. So just imagine the new Imperial Parliament with a majority of delegates from outside the UK overruling the House of Commons.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But would that be true if WWII never happened? Without US demands and British debt/war exhaustion, maybe the UK could hold together its neo-mercantilst "Empire preference" trade system, and keep the dominions closer.

Note that I'm not saying what Buchanan did, that the UK should've made peace in 1940 to save the Empire: aside from morals, this either leads to Soviets on the French Coast or Nazis running Europe, either of which is not good for the future of Britain, Empire or no (and even if they don't get invaded, they'll basically have to become a US satellite to survive, and we'll make 'em give up the empire). What's necessary is a TL where WWII simply never happens: interwar Europe keeps puttering on with a crisis here and there but no big war.

India wanted full Dominion status immediately as a reward for WW1 help. So handwavium, if the UK give India all the rights of Canada, you move India from a neutral that is slightly hostile to UK to ally like Canada. Big, Big benefits, but not an empire. For example, India will be 100% behind helping UK in WW2. India will keep a better/larger military in many scenarios in the interwar years. India is too big. And any fair status for India in the British Empire turns it into the Indian Empire. Even if you merged the USA into India, they would out vote us.

Now to keeping more, yes. No WW2 allows this. Things like Aden, Malta, Suez are very doable. Brits might end up with Saudi oil fields under some scenarios. Possibly a few African Colonies, especially if willing to carve out smaller areas. Zanzibar makes sense.

With good relations with white settler colonies who are now independent countries and Free India, the British Empire could evolve into something like NATO with the UK in the lead. Just as the British Empire could use help from the large Indian army, the Indians would sure appreciate having the Royal Navy at their backs in any potential war with China or Russia.
 
India wanted full Dominion status immediately as a reward for WW1 help. So handwavium, if the UK give India all the rights of Canada, you move India from a neutral that is slightly hostile to UK to ally like Canada. Big, Big benefits, but not an empire. For example, India will be 100% behind helping UK in WW2. India will keep a better/larger military in many scenarios in the interwar years. India is too big. And any fair status for India in the British Empire turns it into the Indian Empire. Even if you merged the USA into India, they would out vote us.

Now to keeping more, yes. No WW2 allows this. Things like Aden, Malta, Suez are very doable. Brits might end up with Saudi oil fields under some scenarios. Possibly a few African Colonies, especially if willing to carve out smaller areas. Zanzibar makes sense.

With good relations with white settler colonies who are now independent countries and Free India, the British Empire could evolve into something like NATO with the UK in the lead. Just as the British Empire could use help from the large Indian army, the Indians would sure appreciate having the Royal Navy at their backs in any potential war with China or Russia.

Keeping things like Suez and Aden become sort of pointless once India is a dominion. And again, reliance on mainland will happen. Malta is the exception.
 
I already stated my opinion on the 1800 one, as well.:)
well, i never said they'd keep anything but S. Africa, besides that just the white dominions and the island possessions for things like power projection or the profitable ones grow crops and such.

most of the middle east, afrika, and asia will be independent,
but britain can still be an empire (although there should be a better term, because it will be democratic and the UK won't really dominate the rest of the empire it will be even because what England makes up win terms of population and manpower pool Kanada, S. Afrika and Australia-NZ will make up in economy as well as the little island dominions.

But England could still be a SuperPower if it unites in the 1800s into a federation.
 
well, i never said they'd keep anything but S. Africa, besides that just the white dominions and the island possessions for things like power projection or the profitable ones grow crops and such.

most of the middle east, afrika, and asia will be independent,
but britain can still be an empire (although there should be a better term, because it will be democratic and the UK won't really dominate the rest of the empire it will be even because what England makes up win terms of population and manpower pool Kanada, S. Afrika and Australia-NZ will make up in economy as well as the little island dominions.

But England could still be a SuperPower if it unites in the 1800s into a federation.
It won't unite into a federation, because the number of Britons will be threatened by the outsiders...the hicks of British civilization in their eyes. And the dominions won't consider themselves part of the empire, anymore than the realms do now. If you want to look at it that way, then you could say that it's still somewhat an empire, since Elizabeth is Queen in sixteen(?) nations, but there's no power, nor acknowledgement of London as the premier power, or even any sort of real special relationship.
 
Hmm... Not sure how certain white-supremacist members of the Commonwealth really take to Indians influencing their alliance.

Note that most anglophone Canadians still thought of themselves as British in 1914, it's really the 20's and 30's that killed it. (though keeping the feeling of "Britishness" wasn't quite possible unless the Brits went out of their way to integrate Canada)

Also what's the unifying mechanism? They all share different cultures, goals, and ideologies. The best you can really get is a treaty of Anglophone customs and standards, I see no unifying military or economic goals. The only one I can really see going was Canada, if the British poured enough into it but that would just be the combined kingdom of England.
 
Hmm... Not sure how certain white-supremacist members of the Commonwealth really take to Indians influencing their alliance.

Note that most anglophone Canadians still thought of themselves as British in 1914, it's really the 20's and 30's that killed it. (though keeping the feeling of "Britishness" wasn't quite possible unless the Brits went out of their way to integrate Canada)

Also what's the unifying mechanism? They all share different cultures, goals, and ideologies. The best you can really get is a treaty of Anglophone customs and standards, I see no unifying military or economic goals. The only one I can really see going was Canada, if the British poured enough into it but that would just be the combined kingdom of England.
India will not be part of a united england. period.
As for unification, i'm not sure; maybe fears of another WW?
 
India will not be part of a united england. period.
As for unification, i'm not sure; maybe fears of another WW?
There is no incentive for unification. Even in the face of another WW. Canada would just say 'fuck off' to Britain, should they seek it...at the very best, a joint military partnership would occur on a temporary basis, but beyond that, nothing.
 
India is not likely to be interested in any close association with U.K. She is a member of the Commonwealth because Commonwealth is only a harmless debating society. India might be interested to maintain some sort of defense ties if it is beneficial to her interests.
 
India is not likely to be interested in any close association with U.K. She is a member of the Commonwealth because Commonwealth is only a harmless debating society. India might be interested to maintain some sort of defense ties if it is beneficial to her interests.
No. India doesn't want to be a part of the UK.
 
Superkufs point 2 seems interesting.

Maybe returning to the Gold Standard on a revised rate for better stability pre war, developm/modernise British industry to begin with, invest in the Dominion industries too.
 
Top