Britain crushes the American rebellion

How would the world have gone if the american revolution - had the americans lost it would have been called the american rebellion - had been crushed by the British Empire?

Britain would have been in control of the North american resources - thus enabling it to better survive the Napoleonic wars, WW1 and WW2.

Would Europe have controlled the World well into the 21. Century?
 

The Dude

Banned
Who knows if the first or second world war could've even happened after that?

Butterflies, my friend.;)
 
For starter, butterflies negate the majority of your question. Second of all unless Britain ends the factors that caused the American revolution in the first place, there will simply be another one a couple decades down the line.
 
Read a Book.
Specifically, read "For Want of Nail" by Robert Sobel. It is a fascinating alternate history of the world from the failure of the American rebellion shortly after it started through the 1970's. Nobody here can do any better.
 
For starter, butterflies negate the majority of your question. Second of all unless Britain ends the factors that caused the American revolution in the first place, there will simply be another one a couple decades down the line.

Agreed. Even if Britain wins, you still have all the problems that upset the colonists in the first place, with the additional problem factor that they have now been subjugated after a war. Slavery could also become a problem splitting the empire later.

Having said that, following the failed 1837 revolution in Canada, it then stayed part of the British Empire without trouble for a lot longer. Continued immigration from the British Isles would likely alleviate much of the previous bad feeling.
 
I'm actually not sure that Britain is that much stronger with North America. The continent ended up on Britain's side in the 20th century anyway, no?
 
I'm actually not sure that Britain is that much stronger with North America. The continent ended up on Britain's side in the 20th century anyway, no?

Unsure I agree. Short of losing a war akin to WW1 and having its empire fall apart, I'm not sure the era of decolonialism would be so likely without a strong anti-imperialist, anti-monarchist republic to take a lead in world events. Maybe another one would take the USA's place, but I'm not sure. Certainly I think it would prolongue the move to a world of republics and decolonialism by possibly even several centuries.

Of course, you could argue that a Britain still owning NA won't be so interested in India, and that could be true, and could mean the Empire doesn't become so profitable. I'm not so sure, as I feel that the French being kicked out of NA in 1763 meant that the British had the security in NA to focus on another theatre without worrying too much about defense back in the 13 Colonies, but perhaps it's true.

This isn't a "the Empire would be far stronger" post by the way - it's simply a "it could go either way, don't dismiss the possibility so lightly" caution.
 
Of course, you could argue that a Britain still owning NA won't be so interested in India, and that could be true, and could mean the Empire doesn't become so profitable. I'm not so sure, as I feel that the French being kicked out of NA in 1763 meant that the British had the security in NA to focus on another theatre without worrying too much about defense back in the 13 Colonies, but perhaps it's true.

This isn't a "the Empire would be far stronger" post by the way - it's simply a "it could go either way, don't dismiss the possibility so lightly" caution.

But Britain had India in OTL, and it came close to being forced to eat shoes in World War I and II during its wars with Germany.
 
But Britain had India in OTL, and it came close to being forced to eat shoes in World War I and II during its wars with Germany.

Two wars which won't exist in TTL.

Anyway, I admit that yes, an independent US republic will probably mean the UK has a strong ally to support it in future years in most TLs, but on the other hand a UK that controls everything north of (say) New Orleans on the American continent may have the material resources and manpower to win world-wide wars in TTL too, especially if it creates several powerful(ish) semi-independent native client states which can support it militarily in future generations where provincial troops fighting in Europe becomes commonplace (well, when they are really needed, anyway). And don't forget that a UK that can cement rule in India AND control North America may be able to entirely choke other European nations of their empires, and become a hyperpower rather than a superpower. There were genuine fears in the 19th century that the Pax Britannica would become so dominant that Britain literally would control the world's diplomatic scene like puppets on a string. It may be an extreme case and quite unlikely, but it suggests that it is possible for the empire to do better than OTL, and then it wouldn't need the USA as an ally to be strong.
 
But Britain had India in OTL, and it came close to being forced to eat shoes in World War I and II during its wars with Germany.

True, but India was always a people/peoples the British subjugated. The North American colonies were settled by British people, plus others that would integrate to that mentality. Just think how long Canadians and Australians continued to think of themselves as Britons - and in this timeline you don't have the USA spreading its republican and independence ideology.
 
True, but India was always a people/peoples the British subjugated. The North American colonies were settled by British people, plus others that would integrate to that mentality. Just think how long Canadians and Australians continued to think of themselves as Britons - and in this timeline you don't have the USA spreading its republican and independence ideology.

Well if OTL is any guide, by 1922 and the Chanak Crisis the Canadians and Australians were willing to tell Britain to sod off.
 
Well if OTL is any guide, by 1922 and the Chanak Crisis the Canadians and Australians were willing to tell Britain to sod off.

You could attribute that to the US influence on world attitudes, and the idea they planted about the glory of independence, though, as Socrates mentioned.
 
You could attribute that to the US influence on world attitudes, and the idea they planted about the glory of independence, though, as Socrates mentioned.

There's also the effect that it was a reaction to the PM not consulting the commonwealth realms. But if there was a dozen or so of them, rather than just two, I can't imagine he could ignore them. One would assume by this point some sort of formal imperial council would have been set up.
 
Specifically, read "For Want of Nail" by Robert Sobel. It is a fascinating alternate history of the world from the failure of the American rebellion shortly after it started through the 1970's. Nobody here can do any better.
HA:p HA:) HA;) It was so funny I almost Forgot to laugh.
Almost anybody here could map a much much better flight of the butterflies, than Sobel's Off The Wall weirdness.
 
Here is the North America map for that.

300px-Sobel_North_America.gif
 
Top