AHC: Preserve as much of the British Empire as possible

[ajdb0614]

With any POD past 01/01/1900, make it so that as of the ATL 2017, the British at minimum still control the White Dominons- which are:

1. Canada
2. Newfoundland (before merging with Canada IOTL 1949)
3. South Africa (pre-1961 Republic)
4. Ireland (IOTL made a dominion during the Free State Era between 1922-1937)
5. Australia
6. And New Zealand

Bonus: The rump British Empire remains a global superpower, and having more influence over the Commonwealth (think Germany and the EU).

Extra Bonus: The above plus Ireland remaining a part of UK proper, South Africa including Rhodesia and Bechuanaland (maybe even South-West Africa/Namibia), and Australia including Papua (North is optional)

Triple Bonus: The above plus the British Empire retaining some colonies other than the White Dominions.

Super Bonus: The above plus the entire British Empire surviving to present day.

 

[Political Powerhouse]

I have to imagine having Britain avoided getting in pro 2 world wars would significantly help with this. But the only way Britain could keep those dominions was to incorporate them as part of federal union. The problem is that most of the ruling class in Britain never really thought in such a strategic and long term way (or they never seemed willing to implement such a solution - at least before it was too late).

 

[FillyofDelphi]

With any POD past 01/01/1900, make it so that as of the ATL 2017, the British at minimum still control the White Dominons- which are:

1. Canada
2. Newfoundland (before merging with Canada IOTL 1949)
3. South Africa (pre-1961 Republic)
4. Ireland (IOTL made a dominion during the Free State Era between 1922-1937)
5. Australia
6. And New Zealand

Bonus: The rump British Empire remains a global superpower, and having more influence over the Commonwealth (think Germany and the EU).

Extra Bonus: The above plus Ireland remaining a part of UK proper, South Africa including Rhodesia and Bechuanaland (maybe even South-West Africa/Namibia), and Australia including Papua (North is optional)

Triple Bonus: The above plus the British Empire retaining some colonies other than the White Dominions.

Super Bonus: The above plus the entire British Empire surviving to present day.

By "control", does that mean over Domestic affairs as well? Because that would require them not to have Dominion status, which requires an entirely different route than a "semi-autonomous" route.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

How about no UK participation in the Great War? Perhaps the whole Imperial Federation can get off as the destruction of Europe wakes people up.

 

[Lost Freeway]

By "control", does that mean over Domestic affairs as well? Because that would require them not to have Dominion status, which requires an entirely different route than a "semi-autonomous" route.

IOTL, the UK Parliament still had the power to pass laws affecting Canada and Australia/New Zealand-albeit with their permission required-until 1982 and 1986 respectively.

 

[Admiral Beez]

IOTL, the UK Parliament still had the power to pass laws affecting Canada and Australia/New Zealand-albeit with their permission required-until 1982 and 1986 respectively.

Indeed, until the Canadian Constitution was signed by the Queen on April 17, 1982, during the height of the Falklands War, Britain had the final say over much of Canadian policy, including foreign policy. I wonder if Britain could have demanded Canadian assistance against Argentina until then? That would have provoked Republicanism in Canada and especially Quebec.

 

[Citycat]

The Dominion of Newfoundland gave up its self government in 1933-34. Could it have been incorporated into the UK (so we have the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Newfoundland)?

Ireland might be incorporated into the UK if WWI is avoided.

For Canada it was probably too late with a 1900 POD - it had already been a dominion for over 30 years, can't see it going back.

Australia might remain under British control if you can prevent Federation in 1901 and have six individual colonies. However, they already had self government by this stage.

For SA and NZ - don't know enough to comment.

 

[vega]

I think with some fairly major historical adjustments, like having Britain not getting quite as wiped out in World War II, and hence less debt, along with a Suez Crisis that ends in a more favorable outcome for the UK and France, along with having the 1956 Malta integration referendum pass to set precedent, it is possible to keep most of the remaining colonies that were left by ~1965, including Singapore, most of the British Caribbean, nearly all of British Oceania, and perhaps the Gambia in Africa - so sorta like France and the colonies it held onto. If you push this further, have Britain pioneer in technology postwar (not sure how you do this, but it is possible under the right circumstances), then you could get perhaps a 3rd superpower along with the U.S. and Soviet Union, and if that is the case, the Commonwealth could easily become a stronger entity, but you obviously won't have a British Empire proper.

If you're looking for a good timeline on the matter, you should defiantly read Rule Britannia by Anaxagoras, as it is hands down the best British Empire-continuation alternate history piece ever published on this site, if not all time. As that timeline pontificates, the only plausible way to keep a United Kingdom that contains the entire OTL British Empire is to go the Federation route, which has a good deal of historical support. You obviously won't see a world that looks anything like OTL by the end of it, but it certainly heeds the call of the AHC.

 

[Spens1]

Separate federal entities early. If you have separate federal entites such as Scotland, Ireland, Australia, England, Canada, NZ etc. With one overall parliament (big westminster) for matters of the commonwealth (defense for example). I can only imagine what kind of madness that would be though with each federal entity wanting what's best for them.

By WW2 everyone had developed their own identity and didn't see themselves as british anymore (at least for Australia, for canada it may have been earlier) and identified a lot more with their respective country. I'd say a POD for this hypothetical government system would have to be before 1900 though (to keep Canada in at least, for Australia, 1920's is probably the absolute latest, same for NZ).

Also said federal entities should have been relatively equally represented, if everything is about England, then of course the colonies will again be restless and would lead to entities secession.

It would be a lot harder to keep India on side however so i'm not even going to try.

For South Africa, if you do this, you are going to really anger the boers and probably start things off there again.

Overall, keeping it going into the modern day or past WW2 even, lets face it, its hard to tell a country on the other side of the world what to do if they are of decent size, after a while, they'll probably just ignore you.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

For Canada it was probably too late with a 1900 POD - it had already been a dominion for over 30 years, can't see it going back.

Never mind Canadiens.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Britain liberalized steadily and continuously over the last 200 years and imperialism is anti-liberal. Furthermore having a directly-controlled empire in the time of modern democratic governments and modern economics is not economically beneficial, unless the colonies are exploited in a cruel manner that becomes gradually more and more unacceptable over time under a representative form of government.

A fully representative federation of all territories of the British Empire would never happen in a democratic manner because it means Britain itself becoming a junior partner of India. The pro-empire faction never would have wanted that, while the people who would have been fine with that, wanted decolonization and an end to the empire.

The British Empire as an Empire cannot survive without either extraordinary political expediency (like a nation-threatening war, beyond WW2 that forces the Commonwealth to band together for survival, still this would only involve the "White Dominions" long-term) or a change in ideology from liberalism to something explicitly non-democratic (some crisis discredits parliamentary tradition).

Regardless of what happens it won't look like modern Britain.

 

[M79]

In receding order?
*Create a common trade pact between Commonwealth nations at favored rates during the 1970s and 1980s that becomes a legitimate economic bloc. Make it somewhat fair, not necessarily equitable though.
*Promote representation of the Colonies in Parliament - very slowly, perhaps not true equality but moreso a voice of some sort
*Keep India part of the Empire as a union of states that dislike each other more than they would work to dislike the British
*Stay out of the World Wars
*Work more closely to enforce the Versailles provisions and ensure a disarmed Germany
*Mandate Rhodesia to become part of the Union of South Africa and set up colonial-continental administrations (Canada for North America, South Africa/Union of African States, etc.) and require each governorship to be held by a royal no more than 12th in line for the throne

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

My first thoughts are that it's very unlikely that you could keep the British Empire alive in its 1900 form much longer than in OTL. Due to all the points made by posters above regarding growing sense of non-Britishness in the Dominions and (not in the OP) anti-colonialism in the African, Caribbean etc. colonies. Imperial Federalism might have worked but would probably have to start pre-1900 and it did face strong opposition in Westminster and British vested interests. Be interesting to read a TL where it happened, (I'm sure there's one) and also an Anglo-Indian Raj (ditto). Both seem low probability outcomes but interesting.

Could it be feasible to turn the 1900 Empire into a "Commonwealth" of self governing countries linked by trade, law codes, culture single currency and defense alliance? Effectively a globe spanning entity resembling the modern EU/Eurozone and NATO combined? That seems to me how it was potentially evolving by the 1930s but of course the collapse of British military and financial power in 1940-2 aborted the trend. The terms of Lend Lease and the UKs parlous financial situation in 1946 ended any chance of retaining the Commonwealth as a viable entity.

With an early post-1900 POD it might be doable but the lack of any coherent Imperial policy militates against anyone having it as a vision and trying to work towards it. It would have to evolve organically from small steps each with its own short term logic. However, as a start, maybe the Tories winning the 1905 election and imposing a form of Imperial Prefernce might help. IF this can be imposed Empire wide on the Dominions too it can boost trade within the Empire's bounds. Staying out of WW1 (better still butterfly it away) would be an imperative as would earlier moves to self-determination for Ireland and India whilst tying them into the currency and trade block. The snag is the Tories are far less likely to do all these things! Though perhaps an Anglo-German alliance in 1900, or at least a Treaty guaranteeing neutrality, would at least make WW1 less probable. Then the Liberals could come in before 1910 with the much needed social reforms and efforts to get Ireland and India satisfied. Then the various Conferences attended by HoGs of the Dominions in the 1920s and 1930s that led to the Commonwealth idea can be held a bit earlier. If there is a global economic depression following a financial crisis (bound to be the latter at some point!) then this Commonwealth is in a better place to withstand it and self rule gradually extended to other colonies. The end result would be nowhere near OTL in terms of developments in the Rest of the World, very different wars and borders. Maybe the financial power of the British Commonwealth and Empire would see a Western European alliance led by France and a MittelEuropan one under Germany try to challenge it? Or the US seek to remove its influence from the Americas, first through trade then militarily?

How plausible does any of this seem?

 

[overoceans]

Indeed, until the Canadian Constitution was signed by the Queen on April 17, 1982, during the height of the Falklands War, Britain had the final say over much of Canadian policy, including foreign policy.

Do you have a source for the UK having the final say over Canadian foreign-policy pre-1982? I've never heard that before, and it seems to me that it's something that would have been brought up often in discussions about foreign-policy in Canada. Of course, I realize that there was often an expectation that we'd fight in Britain's wars when asked.

I HAVE heard that the British tried to cajole MacDonald into the Sudan back in the 19th Century, and that he resisted.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think the best approach here (or, without obvious pitfalls) is to have not Imperial Federation but Imperial Defence Organization (in practice) which retains the structures of the old British Empire. This would be a world where, say, nuclear weapons were developed during a peaceful period instead of during a war, possibly a more multipolar world, and probably one where the Empire didn't have to sell everything at fire-sale prices so has more of the old financial clout.

Under this idea, basically the deal is mutual defence.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Do you have a source for the UK having the final say over Canadian foreign-policy pre-1982? I've never heard that before, and it seems to me that it's something that would have been brought up often in discussions about foreign-policy in Canada. Of course, I realize that there was often an expectation that we'd fight in Britain's wars when asked.

I HAVE heard that the British tried to cajole MacDonald into the Sudan back in the 19th Century, and that he resisted.

I'd be surprised at that too. I wonder if the OP is confusing the Law Lords being effectively the Supreme Court or Westminster having to ratify changes to the Canadian Constitution. IF indeed there was some change to the relationship between Canada and the UK In 1982, that seems very late to me.

AFAIK Canada and the other Dominions were free to declare war or not on Germany in 1939. All bar Ireland did, but there was a fierce debate in South Africa on the issue. All were able to impose limits on how their armed forces were used.