Britain as a Super Power after WWII

Wolfpaw

Banned
Having the Suez Crisis turn out in Britain's favor will give Britain another 15 or so years in the Middle East, and around 20 in Africa.

A successful Suez probably means that Britain doesn't founder about for two decades trying to decide between becoming more oriented towards America, the EU, or the Commonwealth. With their confidence in Empire/Commonwealth not being dashed in 1956, I foresee Britain focusing its energies on the development of the Commonwealth.

I mean, this won't really make the UK a superpower, but it will certainly give it a lot more power, influence, and stake in Africa and (for a time) the Middle East, which obviously effects the course of events in those regions.
 
Last edited:
Having the Suez Crisis turn out in Britain's favor will give Britain another 15 or so years in the Middle East, and around 20 in Africa.

A successful Suez probably means that Britain doesn't founder about for two decades trying to decide between becoming more oriented towards America, the EU, or the Commonwealth. With their confidence in Empire/Commonwealth not being dashed in 1956, I foresee Britain focusing its energies on the development of the Commonwealth.

I mean, this won't really make the UK a superpower, but it will certainly give it a lot more power, influence, and stake in Africa and (for a time) the Middle East, which obviously effects the course of events in those regions.

But then again, it all depends upon which part of the Commonwealth you focus on. Africa was a huge drain upon resources for little in gain. it would be in britains best interests (but sadly not Colonial Africas) for Britain to ditch its holding in Africa ASAP.

Russell
 
APOD (France Fights On Mark II.) Goes in to some detail about Britain's economic policy. With France in thee war this gives the British Cabinet more breathing space for planning etc. While most of ths stuff deals with changes in equipment vs OTL there are some interesting titbits foreshadowing the UK and Commonwealth post war.

Since the ITTL there is no pressure to run British Industry in to the ground to prosecute the war (Britain can rely on the French as an ally, who in turn can rely on a generous supply of rented US equipment).

Instead, with the UK no longer getting LL aid, the government is forced to modernise its industry and import mainly industrial plant rather than finished goods to this end.

There have been references to modernisation of the shipbuilding industry thanks to the presence of French and Belgian labour shaming British yards into changing their wars toward the war's end. Also, innovative avenues of research that were cancelled IOTL are continued here, most notably automatic loading machines for coal fired engines, meaning that coal fired ships can stay competitive for longer (when combined with cheaper less labour intensive to build ships and low British wages relative to their US counterparts). References are also made to Britain having a thriving industrial and commercial electronic industry post war but details on the site are scarce.

Another thing to consider is that ITTL it is unlikely that Britain sells her assets in South America, and therefore has some financial reserves to facilitate a faster recovery.

In short, France Fights on has a Britain bled white rather than dry by the war, heavy industry undergoing modernisation and a much more stable finanicial base. Its Military is also much better equipped ( I won't go in to the details with ships, planes ,tanks etc, partly because they haven't been finalised, and partly because they're already apporaching Bible territory in terms of volume). There is also a secret agreement with Nationalist China allowing for periodical extensions of the lease on Hong Kong.

However, all of these changes do not a Superpower make, and I agree with previous posters that the UK is simply not large enough to be a superpower on its own. However, frequent references are made in the APOD discussions to much closer industrial and logistical cooperation with the Dominions, notably Canadian manufacture of aircraft such as the Hurricane, and the Reaper being outsourced to Australia. This lays the grounds for a Commonwealth that is much closer in practical terms, although I suspect that over time, the UK will lose its eventually role as leader in this organisation as it assumes and identity of its own and will be reduced to a (tenuous) First Among Equals.

Where this scenario falls down is that in this timeline, the Phrase “Superpower” will probably not exist. After all, the reason the USSR and USA were referred to as “The Superpowers” is because they were the only nations capable of exerting their influence on a Global scale. While they would be significantly more powerful economically and militarily than a unified Europe or Commonwealth, I doubt that the gap would be large enough for the idea of a superpower to take hold.

For Britain to be considered a superpower, it must be able to far outstrip all competitors exept for (at the most) a single antagonist, and I can't see that happening with a post 1939 POD.
 
But then again, it all depends upon which part of the Commonwealth you focus on. Africa was a huge drain upon resources for little in gain. it would be in britains best interests (but sadly not Colonial Africas) for Britain to ditch its holding in Africa ASAP.

Russell

Then again, that would probably depend on how the money was spent in africa. Spend wisely on things aimed at building up their economies and education level and long term reap the benefits.
 
Then again, that would probably depend on how the money was spent in africa. Spend wisely on things aimed at building up their economies and education level and long term reap the benefits.

But what would those benefits be? Wouldn't a better educated and economically developped Africa go for independence earlier? And would the British be prepared to accept Africans as citizens of the Empire with equal rights as early as the 1960s or earlier, when IOTL independence movements suceeded?
 
Having the Suez Crisis turn out in Britain's favor will give Britain another 15 or so years in the Middle East, and around 20 in Africa.

A successful Suez probably means that Britain doesn't founder about for two decades trying to decide between becoming more oriented towards America, the EU, or the Commonwealth. With their confidence in Empire/Commonwealth not being dashed in 1956, I foresee Britain focusing its energies on the development of the Commonwealth.

I mean, this won't really make the UK a superpower, but it will certainly give it a lot more power, influence, and stake in Africa and (for a time) the Middle East, which obviously effects the course of events in those regions.


How could that happen, could Eisenhower have dissappeared. McCarthy as president?
 
Surely with the decline of colonies, how could Britain retain its power?

Not all power is gained through direct control - much of it comes from economic and political influence, both of which britain certainly had at the end of WW2, although not always in a great amount.

Russell
 
Top