AHC: Post 1945, wank Britain without wanking the British Empire.

So, what could be done to make Britain the third richest country in the world without screwing others( such as Japan and Germany) over to the point that they're third world? The rules are not screwing other countries( so badly),the territory of the UK has to be the same as OTL or less, and you can't have stronger Commonwealth cooperation than OTL. Eu membership is optional. The wank doesn't have to be based on military lines ,but economically Britain must be stronger than Japan.
 
This is very hard, beating Japan (without screwing it) with such a smaller population will require very high GDP per capita....
 
This might be pushing the terms of the AHC, but . . .

Britain really does decolonisation right? They have a corporate code of conduct that makes it a lot harder for British corporations to do tricky things with new sometimes corrupt governments? As well as positive incentives to do trade and economic development right?

In particular, Britain accepts the money offered by the Iranian government for British petroleum holdings and wishes them well!

And so, Britain becomes a real trade leader and maybe even more popular than the U.S. for the '40s, 50s, and 60s.
 
... and you can't have stronger Commonwealth cooperation than OTL. EU membership is optional.
Well that's not really much of an optional choice then. If you rule out one of the two main options, stronger Commonwealth cooperation, however successful or not it might have turned out, whilst demanding better economic performance than in our timeline then I'd say that the other main option of EU membership is the only really choice possible.

One of the major historical economic failings of the UK was, somewhat understandably, concentrating more on their Imperial and Commonwealth commitments/links post-WWII and effectively ceding the European markets. This meant that they didn't reap as many of the benefits of the major post-war economic expansion that started in the late 1940s as they might have been able to. Somehow get people to decide to treat Europe as a major target market, on top of the Imperial/Commonwealth ones, with heavy backing/support from trade groups and the government via the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. Joining the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) would still be a non-starter, being too soon and there being a Labour government, but if European trade is picking up then it might make following governments more open to the idea of European Economic Community (EEC) membership.
 
How about no Korean War?
The Korean War diverted UK industrial effort into re-armament, absorbed manpower into the military and generally dislocated the government's planning.
In particular, Gaitskell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said there would have to be sacrifices in current consumption. According to Correlli Barnett in "The Verdict of Peace", those sacrifices were in the production of consumer goods such as tv's, refrigerators, radios and various vehicles. He concludes these were just the products in which Germany and Japan became dominant.
The "Korean War Boom" greatly benefited Japan in particular because the USA spent freely there, both on equipment (cheaper than US products) and supporting its military "presence".
Therefore, no Korean War.....no disruption of the UK, and no boost to Germany and Japan.
As a side effect, there may then still have been a stigma against Japanese and German goods in world markets because they would not be seen as important allies in the Cold War, and not rehabilitated in buyers minds.
Just a thought....but I don't know how to prevent the Korean War, presumably stronger deterrence by the USA in the late 40s....if the domestic politics would allow it.
 
Last edited:
Does this not break the OP ? I was interpreting it as GB must be richer than OTL Japan ?
I didn't interpret it that way; apologies if I'm wrong!
I don't think my point screws Japan to third world status; it would still be a major industrial power, just not as strong as it became in OTL. With China having gone Red, the USA would not risk the same with Japan, I think.
 
List by the World Bank (2015)
Nominal GDP/GDP per capita/POP
3
23px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png
Japan 4,123,258 32,477 127,110,047
4
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png
Germany 3,355,772 41,221 82,175,700
5
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
United Kingdom 2,848,755 43,733 65,110,000
AH UK minimum 4,123,258 63,327 65,110,000

This isn't imposable but is very hard as its between,
3
21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png
Norway 74,676
4
23px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png
Qatar 74,513
5
23px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png
Australia 56,330
6
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png
United States 55,837
 
On the assumption my point does not break the OP, the UK political effects of no Korean War are no Gaitskell "squeeze", and there is the possibility of Labour winning the 1951 election. In OTL they won the most votes...but I don't know the composition of the seats they lost, and whether they could have been saved.
A Labour victory probably gets rid of the Iran debacle, and then no Suez. Decolonisation proceeds as per OTL. Possibly the era of "never had it so good" a few years earlier...
 
List by the World Bank (2015)
Nominal GDP/GDP per capita/POP
3
23px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png
Japan 4,123,258 32,477 127,110,047
4
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png
Germany 3,355,772 41,221 82,175,700
5
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
United Kingdom 2,848,755 43,733 65,110,000
AH UK minimum 4,123,258 63,327 65,110,000

This isn't imposable but is very hard as its between,
3
21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png
Norway 74,676
4
23px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png
Qatar 74,513
5
23px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png
Australia 56,330
6
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png
United States 55,837
But don't we then have to ask what "richest" means? Is GDP a true measure of wealth...or just production.
Presumably, prior to North Sea oil Norway's GDP wasn't very high at all?
 
How feasible is it to have a Norwegian style management of the British North Sea oil deposits?

Combine some of the previous discussions regarding improved manufacturing with a huge sovereign wealth fund and you may start approaching the OP's challenge.
 
How feasible is it to have a Norwegian style management of the British North Sea oil deposits?

Combine some of the previous discussions regarding improved manufacturing with a huge sovereign wealth fund and you may start approaching the OP's challenge.
I don't think that is politically possible in the UK.
Labour and the Conservatives had entirely different ideas about what to do with the oil wealth; there was no common ground at all. Labour wanted to spend on social issues or to support outmoded industries, the Conservatives actually used it to pay dole to those who lost their jobs when they closed down those industries and steered the UK into a mainly service economy. It should have been used to modernise industry, not assist in its demolition.
In any event, sovereign wealth funds are often raided by politicians in trouble to buy votes. Norway is using theirs now.
My idea is that with no Korean War, British industry becomes competitive and modernises because of that to expand their markets. Naturally, the problem is the famously poor British management and labour relations. With luck, probably a lot needed(!), the prosperity created by a succesful UK would negate the "them and us" attitude which was the root cause.
Then North Sea oil would be a true bonus, rather than a substitute for industrial efficiency.
 
I don't think that is politically possible in the UK.
Labour and the Conservatives had entirely different ideas about what to do with the oil wealth; there was no common ground at all. Labour wanted to spend on social issues or to support outmoded industries, the Conservatives actually used it to pay dole to those who lost their jobs when they closed down those industries and steered the UK into a mainly service economy. It should have been used to modernise industry, not assist in its demolition.
You are wrong.

Tony Benn planned on setting up the British National Oil Corporation, which would be run alongside the same lines as oil in the Norwegian sector. Thatcher ditched this and private companies were given contracts in the North Sea Oil fields.
 

Wallet

Banned
Japan doesn't surrender, because the fanatical generals do a coup and take control over the Emperor.

After mass starvation, several atomic bombs, and the soviets occupying the northern half, a very depopulated Japan surrenders. After a hundred thousands allied soldiers lost their lives.

Japan is split in two, and the Americans aren't in the kindest mood to rebuild.

So Britain is by default going to have a stronger economy then southern Japan (imagine western Germany with a lot less aid) . Forget the communist northern Japan which would be similar to North Korea.

I'm also thinking of a communist Europe, which would make Britain the main trading partner for the US. This also allows Britain to take all of the north sea's oil to prevent communist Norway from getting it. The problem is this would lead to more military spending which isn't good
 
You are wrong.

Tony Benn planned on setting up the British National Oil Corporation, which would be run alongside the same lines as oil in the Norwegian sector. Thatcher ditched this and private companies were given contracts in the North Sea Oil fields.
Yes, he did indeed set up BNOC; I can't remember if he proposed a Sovereign Wealth Fund, or if it was just to be a state owned income stream. If the latter, I doubt the money would have been spent wisely....Labour had too many political pressures for that to happen.
 
Japan doesn't surrender, because the fanatical generals do a coup and take control over the Emperor.

After mass starvation, several atomic bombs, and the soviets occupying the northern half, a very depopulated Japan surrenders. After a hundred thousands allied soldiers lost their lives.

Japan is split in two, and the Americans aren't in the kindest mood to rebuild.

So Britain is by default going to have a stronger economy then southern Japan (imagine western Germany with a lot less aid) . Forget the communist northern Japan which would be similar to North Korea.

I'm also thinking of a communist Europe, which would make Britain the main trading partner for the US. This also allows Britain to take all of the north sea's oil to prevent communist Norway from getting it. The problem is this would lead to more military spending which isn't good
Well, that definitely reduces Japan to third world levels....
 
Yes, he did indeed set up BNOC; I can't remember if he proposed a Sovereign Wealth Fund, or if it was just to be a state owned income stream. If the latter, I doubt the money would have been spent wisely....Labour had too many political pressures for that to happen.
The Norwegian Fund was only established in 1990 so regardless of how the money was spent, if you follow the Norwegian model then you still have a decade of spending before the fund is set up.

As for oil itself though, although in a Scottish context massive, in an overall UK Context it peaked in 1985 when the income was just under £30 Billion. Put into context, the UK Economy was worth over £500 Billion. In short, it would be a shot in the arm, but not life inducing to the UK economy. The only reason it was so important in otl was that Thatcher implemented such radical change to the economy in the 1980s and as bad as much of the hardship caused by her, without the oil it could have been worse.

It would turn an independent Scotland into the Switzerland of the north if you want to wank just part of Britain. Read the Government report on it if you disbelieve me. http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf

My argument for an improved Britain would be joining Europe from the outset and shaping it as much as possible. If we accept our place is in Europe earlier, we could have done far better than we did.
 
Top