AHC/WI: Delay/ slow down British economic decline post 1870

Saphroneth

Banned
thus he tolerated British blockade and manipulated American public view towards anti German stance
That doesn't require anglophilia, that just requires realism. The British blockade was ensuring that ships trading with Germany were not carrying declared contraband by inspecting them; the German blockade ensured that ships did not trade with Britain at all by blowing them up.
The British blockade is fundamentally similar to the Union blockade in the American Civil War and followed legal precedent. The German blockade was not maintained by ships sufficient to block access to the whole of the enemy coast, and was not only illegal but consisted in large part of arguable war crimes at the time.

If the US was strictly neutral and demanded to trade with both sides, Britain could not do anything, and Germany would gain massively.
Being strictly neutral =/= demanding to ignore a blockade. Respecting a declared blockade is neutrality.

Germany would only buy raw materials, which were non contraband, and exchange their pharmaceutical and optic products for them.
Can you give an example of what you mean by raw materials that were non contraband?
 
No, it was heavily skewed towards Britain and Co. At least their allies were more useful than Austria Hungary.

Germany was defeated because Britain had USA on its side. And one of the reason is that Wilson was an anglophile, thus he tolerated British blockade and manipulated American public view towards anti German stance. An anglophobe president would have protested openly, which would make their blockade fail, and he could treat the Zimmerman as a British forgery.

Next, Britain can only get unsecured loans when US joined the war in 1917. They were basically broke by that time, and only US unsecured loans kept them fight on.

Note that the US Germany relationship before the war was cordial. Without Zimmerman and USW, the US would never join the war.

If the US was strictly neutral and demanded to trade with both sides, Britain could not do anything, and Germany would gain massively. Germany would only buy raw materials, which were non contraband, and exchange their pharmaceutical and optic products for them.

American ship owners could sue to get their ships back in prize court if the British seized them

However, suing the German government for damages when a Uboat sinks a ship, not to mention the inevitable deaths, was not going to happen.

The Germans screwed up and dragged the United States into World War I. One could argue that there was a certain inevitably to it (after all we are talking a global war of attrition) but deliberate German policy decisions were made that resulted in US entry.

There is also the general good feelings toward France (compared to Britain), so it was not just the British who mattered from that standpoint.

The United States did not save the British Empire or Britain for that matter in World War I. Worst case, the French collapse but there was little the Germans could do to Britain by 1917. They certainly weren't going to invade

As to the British (Allied) blockade of the Central Powers.... it was a legal blockade governed by international law. Strictly speaking from diplomatic terms, the US was pretty much required to honor it. If for no other reason than the British officially honored the Union blockade of the Confederacy was precedent (the blockade runners sponsored by British citizens during that war were not official British policy).

The Allies played by the rules of international conduct. The Central Powers did not.
 

hipper

Banned
I don't think the American ship owners had their ships seized the usual corse of events was that when a ship was stopped it was sent to a British port the cargo was inspected and bought by the British Goverment it it was thought to help the german war effort in any way.

I don't think ships were seized.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What if British industry was stronger???

Well, you guys could imagine a ww1 scenario in which Britain produced 4000 tanks and 65000 aircrafts instead of around 2500 and 55000 like OTL without lower output in other categories.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
American ship owners could sue to get their ships back in prize court if the British seized them

However, suing the German government for damages when a Uboat sinks a ship, not to mention the inevitable deaths, was not going to happen.

The Germans screwed up and dragged the United States into World War I. One could argue that there was a certain inevitably to it (after all we are talking a global war of attrition) but deliberate German policy decisions were made that resulted in US entry.

There is also the general good feelings toward France (compared to Britain), so it was not just the British who mattered from that standpoint.

The United States did not save the British Empire or Britain for that matter in World War I. Worst case, the French collapse but there was little the Germans could do to Britain by 1917. They certainly weren't going to invade

As to the British (Allied) blockade of the Central Powers.... it was a legal blockade governed by international law. Strictly speaking from diplomatic terms, the US was pretty much required to honor it. If for no other reason than the British officially honored the Union blockade of the Confederacy was precedent (the blockade runners sponsored by British citizens during that war were not official British policy).

The Allies played by the rules of international conduct. The Central Powers did not.

If Germany stopped USW, then tension would arise between US and UK about British blockade.

Besides, Germany could actually win the naval war by seizing Channels coast first and install coastal guns and submarine bases there. And then they could harass British supply to France, as well as luring the Grand Fleet to the newly occupied coast just to be mauled by HSF supported by coastal guns.
 
It's time to invoke Scenario B2

IOTL the population of the British Isles (i.e. including Southern Ireland) grew as follows:

1871 - 31.6 million
1911 - 45.4 million
1931 - 47.7 million - including 2.9 million in Southern Ireland
1951 - 53.2 million - including 3.0 million in Southern Ireland
2011 - 67.8 million - including 4.6 million in Southern Ireland

Source: TACITUS.NU

ITTL faster economic growth between 1871 and 1911 made the population grow to 90.8 million in 1911 through a combination of improved public health and doubled immigration. The result was:

1871 - 31.6 million
1911 - 90.8 million
1931 - 95.4 million - including 5.8 million in Southern Ireland
1951 - 106.4 million - including 6.0 million in Southern Ireland
2011 - 135.6 million - including 9.2 million in Southern Ireland

A UK with double the population for the last 100 years would have been better able to maintain its position as a world power, culturally and militarily as well as economically.

After you've all stopped laughing note that the population of Japan grew as follows at the nearest equivalent dates:

1872 - 33.5 million
1910 - 51.0 million
1930 - 64.5 million
1950 - 83.2 million
2010 - 128.0 million

The British Isles have a land area of 315,159 km2 (121,684 sq mi) and while Japan has an area of 377,915 km2 (145,914 sq mi) a lot of that consists of mountains and AFAIK the British Isles have more usable land.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It's time to invoke Scenario B2

IOTL the population of the British Isles (i.e. including Southern Ireland) grew as follows:

1871 - 31.6 million
1911 - 45.4 million
1931 - 47.7 million - including 2.9 million in Southern Ireland
1951 - 53.2 million - including 3.0 million in Southern Ireland
2011 - 67.8 million - including 4.6 million in Southern Ireland

Source: TACITUS.NU

ITTL faster economic growth between 1871 and 1911 made the population grow to 90.8 million in 1911 through a combination of improved public health and doubled immigration. The result was:

1871 - 31.6 million
1911 - 90.8 million
1931 - 95.4 million - including 5.8 million in Southern Ireland
1951 - 106.4 million - including 6.0 million in Southern Ireland
2011 - 135.6 million - including 9.2 million in Southern Ireland

A UK with double the population for the last 100 years would have been better able to maintain its position as a world power, culturally and militarily as well as economically.

After you've all stopped laughing note that the population of Japan grew as follows at the nearest equivalent dates:

1872 - 33.5 million
1910 - 51.0 million
1930 - 64.5 million
1950 - 83.2 million
2010 - 128.0 million

The British Isles have a land area of 315,159 km2 (121,684 sq mi) and while Japan has an area of 377,915 km2 (145,914 sq mi) a lot of that consists of mountains and AFAIK the British Isles have more usable land.
90-95 mil was also the US level in 1913. The british economy might retain its top position even after 1900. Besides, a population of 90m would lead to a widespread adoption of mass production methods due to the existence of a huge domestic market.

This might even butterfly away ww1 because Germany would never dare to antagonize this version of Britain

But this would require an interventionist government to bring the economy out of the OTL Long Depression, so that Britain could grow faster.
 
Last edited:
90-95 mil was also the US level in 1913. The british economy might retain its top position even after 1900. Besides, a population of 90m would lead to a widespread adoption of mass production methods due to the existence of a huge domestic market.

This might even butterfly away ww1 because Germany would never dare to antagonize this version of Britain

But this would require an interventionist government to bring the economy out of the OTL Long Depression, so that Britain could grow faster.
With a UK that powerful in the Edwardian Era it might find the rest of Europe aligned against it. E.g. France was still Britain's main potential enemy until about 1900. What if in spite of the recent humiliation by Prussia the French Government comes to an understanding with Wilhelm II and both nations use the money saved on their armies to build up even bigger navies?

However, I prefer to keep events as close as possible to the real world.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
With a UK that powerful in the Edwardian Era it might find the rest of Europe aligned against it. E.g. France was still Britain's main potential enemy until about 1900. What if in spite of the recent humiliation by Prussia the French Government comes to an understanding with Wilhelm II and both nations use the money saved on their armies to build up even bigger navies?

However, I prefer to keep events as close as possible to the real world.

First, UK and Germany might be still natural allies in this case, and a 90 million UK would be confident enough to maintain this.

I think we must have a POD that prevent the Repeal of the Corn Law from triggering widespread free trade, or no Irish famine to prevent the Repeal from happening.

However, I think British population would be only 65-70 mil at best by 1913.
 
First, UK and Germany might be still natural allies in this case, and a 90 million UK would be confident enough to maintain this.

I think we must have a POD that prevent the Repeal of the Corn Law from triggering widespread free trade, or no Irish famine to prevent the Repeal from happening.

However, I think British population would be only 65-70 mil at best by 1913.
This was still the era of European Balance of Power politics. The weaker nations gang up against the strongest before it becomes too powerful. IOTL that changed from France to Germany between 1870 and the 1900s. ITTL this changes from France to Britain over the same period.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This was still the era of European Balance of Power politics. The weaker nations gang up against the strongest before it becomes too powerful. IOTL that changed from France to Germany between 1870 and the 1900s. ITTL this changes from France to Britain over the same period.
Normally this was British policy to undercut its biggest rival (France and then Germany) rather than other powers. And I think the likes of Disraeli and Salisbury would never allow Britain to become a universal target. Besides, Germany giving back A-L without war was quite ASB.
 
Normally this was British policy to undercut its biggest rival (France and then Germany) rather than other powers. And I think the likes of Disraeli and Salisbury would never allow Britain to become a universal target. Besides, Germany giving back A-L without war was quite ASB.
I agree that the British would not deliberately alienate themselves that much, but it might happen by accident.

I agree that Germany is never going to give A-L back, but it could promise the French some British colonies. British West Africa and Sudan spring to mind with the Fashoda Incident.
 
However, if the First World War as we know it still happens (which I think is more likely because a more powerful UK doesn't affect events in the Balkans) it is going to be the sides of OTL, with the possibility that the UK remains neutral, because the British Government feels that the UK is still strong enough to continue the Splendid Isolation, which as well as no Entente Cordiale with France, no alliance with Japan.
 
However, if the First World War as we know it still happens (which I think is more likely because a more powerful UK doesn't affect events in the Balkans)...
Except that some of the increase in the British population was through increased immigration. IIRC the town I live near (Middlesbrough) had a Catholic cathedral built in the 1870s because of a large number of Southern Europeans moved there to work in the iron and steel industry. Actor and raconteur Victor Spinetti claimed that his grandfather walked from Italy to Wales to become a coal miner.

ITTL some of the growth of the population is through more children living to child bearing age through improved health, but some of it is caused by more immigration. Perhaps ITTL more Bosnians move to the UK for work between 1870 and 1914 including Gavrilo Princip and his co-conspirators.
 
This might even butterfly away ww1 because Germany would never dare to antagonize this version of Britain.
The Germans would be very stupid to antagonise this version of Britain. However, AFAIK Wilhelm II wasn't the most rational of men.

But I think the Naval Laws would be non-starters as the British would be able to out build the Germans even more comprehensively than they did IOTL so they probably wouldn't try.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Except that some of the increase in the British population was through increased immigration. IIRC the town I live near (Middlesbrough) had a Catholic cathedral built in the 1870s because of a large number of Southern Europeans moved there to work in the iron and steel industry. Actor and raconteur Victor Spinetti claimed that his grandfather walked from Italy to Wales to become a coal miner.

ITTL some of the growth of the population is through more children living to child bearing age through improved health, but some of it is caused by more immigration. Perhaps ITTL more Bosnians move to the UK for work between 1870 and 1914 including Gavrilo Princip and his co-conspirators.
But nost of them would still want to go to the US because of its value of liberty.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Germans would be very stupid to antagonise this version of Britain. However, AFAIK Wilhelm II wasn't the most rational of men.

But I think the Naval Laws would be non-starters as the British would be able to out build the Germans even more comprehensively than they did IOTL so they probably wouldn't try.
Well, a Grand Fleet 1.5 times bigger than OTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I think the UK would back France against Germany. France wanted revenge, but she could not do this alone. Germany is yet to be a threat, but it could be if it dominates Conti Europe. So the UK would still back the Entente to prevent Germany from dominating Continental Europe.
 
But most of them would still want to go to the US because of its value of liberty.
Land of hope and glory, mother of the free - Granted the Irish Catholics along with the subject races of the British Empire might not agree.

OTOH

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave? - Except for the African and Native Americans.
 
But nost of them would still want to go to the US because of its value of liberty.
They might want to, but they would have to go where the work is.

I don't have the statistics at hand to back it up, but IIRC more Irish Catholics emigrated to England and Scotland than to the USA.

The Teesside Steel Industry was started by a German immigrant and a Welshman, its chemical industry by a German immigrant and what at the time was its largest shipyard was also owned by a German immigrant.

The other story about Victor Spinetti's grandfather is that he (or if it was not him it was the grandfather of another British celebrity) is that he wanted to emigrate to America, but the steamship captain put them off at Cardiff and told them it was New York.
 
Top