Here's a hypothetical Sanario the United kingdom mange to keep Canada Australia and New Zealand as dominions still part of the empire but having home rule while also keeping Malta Singapore and Hong Kong as well as keeping the former African colonies in there sphere of influence how possible is this
British empire never falls
- Thread starter Georgia2003123
- Start date
Indefinitely? It's not possible. Empires always fall eventually. Mostly because they are too focussed on maintaining the features that made them grow, hence they don't adapt as new powers come about.
I think the best bet for this is to defeat the American revolution, but as that predates nearly all of the colonies mentioned, that doesn't really seem fair. Plus, Australia was settled as a direct response to losing the 13 colonies.
On a case by case thing:
Malta: if the Brits wanted to, they could hold on to it, if they needed to use force that would never be a problem. Malta is too small to throw off the weight of Britain.
Singapore: No Japs in WW2. Which probably means treating them (Japan) better at Versailles.
Hong Kong: PoD between 2nd Opium War and the leasing agreement. In which case Britain decides it will take what it likes from China. Quite likely expensive and not worth the effort.
Australia: Settling it later. Much later. In the early 1800s technology didn't exist for quick communication, and Sydney and Melbourne are a loooooooooooong way from London. Britain needs quicker communication with Australia if it isn't going to drift away. By the 1850s we were already semi-independent anyway.
NZ: Probably a similar case to Aus. Don't know enough of their history to say more.
Canada: If you keep the American colonies, you will keep Canada. Beyond that, it would be a case of not annoying the Canadians, as they are larger enough to stop London from forcing whatever it wants. When Canada decides it wants to be free no matter what, London is stuffed there.
Egypt: This was never truly part of the empire, more of a tributary state. As soon as WW2 was done, Egypt was certain to go.
South Africa: Britain had too many problems here to solve them all forever. Can't be held indefinitely, or even for very long once Algeria goes up in flames.
Rest of Africa: Prevent French colonies from deciding to be free. Or treat them as equals rather than 'a place to get stuff from so you can send it to London'.
- BNC
I think the best bet for this is to defeat the American revolution, but as that predates nearly all of the colonies mentioned, that doesn't really seem fair. Plus, Australia was settled as a direct response to losing the 13 colonies.
On a case by case thing:
Malta: if the Brits wanted to, they could hold on to it, if they needed to use force that would never be a problem. Malta is too small to throw off the weight of Britain.
Singapore: No Japs in WW2. Which probably means treating them (Japan) better at Versailles.
Hong Kong: PoD between 2nd Opium War and the leasing agreement. In which case Britain decides it will take what it likes from China. Quite likely expensive and not worth the effort.
Australia: Settling it later. Much later. In the early 1800s technology didn't exist for quick communication, and Sydney and Melbourne are a loooooooooooong way from London. Britain needs quicker communication with Australia if it isn't going to drift away. By the 1850s we were already semi-independent anyway.
NZ: Probably a similar case to Aus. Don't know enough of their history to say more.
Canada: If you keep the American colonies, you will keep Canada. Beyond that, it would be a case of not annoying the Canadians, as they are larger enough to stop London from forcing whatever it wants. When Canada decides it wants to be free no matter what, London is stuffed there.
Egypt: This was never truly part of the empire, more of a tributary state. As soon as WW2 was done, Egypt was certain to go.
South Africa: Britain had too many problems here to solve them all forever. Can't be held indefinitely, or even for very long once Algeria goes up in flames.
Rest of Africa: Prevent French colonies from deciding to be free. Or treat them as equals rather than 'a place to get stuff from so you can send it to London'.
- BNC
Most of the British Empire was made up of tributary states.
It may have been coloured a solid pink on the maps, but the political arrangements of Empire were a real kludged together patchwork.
fasquardon
Take a look at British Nigeria sometime - same thing. Or most other colonies. A combination of crown areas, corporate areas and tributary states was the norm for any colony.
fasquardon
There is a difference between building stuff up in the area and civilising the area (such as what happened in Australia and America), and simply building two rail lines and a couple of officer hq's, then just grabbing everything you can find. Ignoring diseases, the Native Americans were probably better off because of the British, whereas I can't say the same for Native Africans.
@fasquardon - Not the case in America (inc. Canada) or Australia, which were 2 of the biggest British territories. I was mostly referring to the fact that Egypt (and half of India) kept much of their own elite and that elite still had quite a bit of say in how the country worked, only those elite took orders from London. Cairo etc. wasn't rebuilt, or "civilised" in the way that interior Africa was. Sure, there was local elite in somewhere like Sudan, but there it was much more a case of the British controlling everything and everyone, not just the people who supposedly give orders.
- BNC
Yes, because the British totally did not sign treaties with the Native Americans around their areas of settlement (oh, wait...)
What happened in the North American colonies is the British did the same patchwork thing and then mass death of the natives and massive development of the colonies made the native chiefs and petty kings pretty much irrelevant to the business of the colonies. Even the US looks a bit moth-eaten if you draw the map to exclude autonomous reservations (which in theory are as independent as small states in Europe like Andorra).
I confess, I'm not sure how things were done in Australia legally.
And some of the tributary rulers in Nigeria had more power over their internal affairs (both legally and in practice) than the Princely states in India.
Much of the difference between (for example) Afghanistan and Hyderbad as far as British control went had to do with the practical exercise of British power by social, economic and military means, rather than with legal agreements.
So I get the point you are making about the broad categories, but I guess what I am trying to say is that I disagree with the terms you were using.
The Egyptian elites were better able to resist colonialism than the Hyderbadi elites (in part due to the British having less time in Egypt), but if the local elites had grown better able to resist in Hyderbad, the British would have started to face Egypt-level problems keeping control of Hyderbad.
fasquardon
If you can butterfly away WW2 I imagine de-colonization happening much later, and in a much more orderly fashion (in some places at least).
I don't see the British Empire (or any Empire for that matter) surviving into the 21st century. You would need so many political reforms to do that... by the end we would be talking of a Federation rather than an Empire.
I don't see the British Empire (or any Empire for that matter) surviving into the 21st century. You would need so many political reforms to do that... by the end we would be talking of a Federation rather than an Empire.
In dealing with the Iroquois, the British considered them equals rather than 'primitive natives'. Which had a lot to do with their support in the 1756 war. The British claimed the lands that Iroquois lived in, but didn't steal whatever they wanted from the Iroquois. That was the point I was trying to make in America. (Contrast Africa, where they just forced the natives out of the way to get diamonds or whatever)
Without trying to make a great big history lesson, I'll attempt to explain it. Basically Aus was founded by sticking a bunch of prisoners on boats and saying "hope for the best". They land at Sydney. Governor trades with the natives and gets food. Tries to give natives education by sending them to London, with varying levels of success. Colonies expand and land gets disputed. Natives fight with colonists on a number of occasions. British government hears about fights, which get labelled as massacres, and outlaws them. Most natives then either integrate, die of disease or flee west. Colonies are far away from London, so take more and more matters into their own hands. Britain lets go of us in 1901.
Yes, there was a lot of discrimination and stuff (not just against natives, but against Chinese and other immigrants), but most of this happened after 1850 or so. This was the same time that local governments started to take control over the affairs of the colonies. While the British were watching every inch of the land, things were decently peaceful.
Admittedly the British weren't perfect, or even particularly close to being so. However they at least tried to make things go well for the natives as well. Plus, colonisation of Australia was going to happen sometime before 1900, and Britain was a lot better than say the Belgians.
That's fair enough. Probably my words aren't the best, but I hope they get the point that I'm trying to make across.
- BNC
Maybe the British promote nationalism on an Imperial level. Sort of like American where people are Americans first and Virginians, New Yorkers, Californians etc. So lets say I am Canadian, I might really love Canada, but I know that Canada is part of something far larger and far greater than that. The Empire.
Hope that made sense
Hope that made sense
Admiral Beez
Banned
Canada declared war on Germany after Britain, but not immediately, showing both her independence and unity with the Empire.
As a Brit-born Canuck I feel connected with both places.
I'd argue that's debatable. Decolonisation happened, in large part, due to the European powers losing the ability to govern and pay for their vast overseas territories. This was part of the reason why decolonisation was often messy and disorganised to begin with. If the Empires are in a strong enough position to gradually decolonise in an orderly fashion, what reason are they going to have to decolonise in the first place?
Increased affluence gives way to increased political demands, the populations in places like India, Burma, Malaysia, and so on are going to agitate for self-rule at some point... Gandhi is going to happen, even if you butterfly away WW2.
So it becomes a question of how much repression the voters back in Britain are willing to stomach... my guess is not much, as long as Britain remains a democracy that is.
So you have either two paths ahead to keep everything united: Reforming the British Empire into a Federation of self-governing territories to keep it together, or going back even further in history to end up with a dictatorship in Britain which is unlikely to happen without fundamentally changing the nature of world history so much that the world you end up with will be unrecognizable.
The British Empire would need to evolve into a better economic bloc and and defense alliance, a change that realistically likely predates World War One. We can speculate how a British neutrality in that war might better preserve the Empire but at minimum I think you need to butterfly World War Two.
Long term I think India is going to be independent and I think it happens before the Fifties are done in all but a very creative POD. At minimum it might be more truly non-aligned and a better trade partner. India was the linchpin of the Empire, it made the whole both necessary and functional, however one might see Persian oil shift things enough to give the Empire a second wind. Hong Kong gained importance with Chinese isolation, it was a window, but if China does not fall into communism it fades quickly, becoming more like modern Gibraltar. But Singapore might have been held without a war to dislodge the British and encourage independence, Malaya may be set on to the path of independence but Singapore if held would become the Eastern outpost, trade funnel and foothold in Asia. Persian oil still needs safe passage so the British need a basin network to ensure safe passage, this means Oman, Aden, Egypt, Malta and Gibraltar remain relevant longer. One needs a better policy in Persia to support its transition towards a real state rather than a corrupted monarchy, I ponder if it might have been enticed to Dominion status. If Persia still slips away then the British need to better exert lasting influence in Kuwait and Arabia, at least the UAE if not also Saudi Arabia. Again no WWII opens more possibility that BP and Shell are exploiting the oil rather than the American majors. And that assumes no lasting presence in Mesopotamia but that also depends on WWI just like Saudi Arabia.
Canada and Australia fell out of orbit for differing reasons but with no WWII and a stronger multilateral trade system and better coordinated defense policy they might have stayed closer. Canada could have become the door into the USA for trade with the UK offering better bilateral deals on raw materials out of Africa, Canada and Australia to placate American fears of closed doors. Africa likely stays rather "redheaded stepchild" but they got savaged by the free trade commodity paradigm too. This may get you a NATO like alliance, something akin to the EU on trade, maybe more like NAFTA. Overall a better result than how the Commonwealth seems to impact things. I will say it is not an Empire but it keeps the UK at the table.
Long term I think India is going to be independent and I think it happens before the Fifties are done in all but a very creative POD. At minimum it might be more truly non-aligned and a better trade partner. India was the linchpin of the Empire, it made the whole both necessary and functional, however one might see Persian oil shift things enough to give the Empire a second wind. Hong Kong gained importance with Chinese isolation, it was a window, but if China does not fall into communism it fades quickly, becoming more like modern Gibraltar. But Singapore might have been held without a war to dislodge the British and encourage independence, Malaya may be set on to the path of independence but Singapore if held would become the Eastern outpost, trade funnel and foothold in Asia. Persian oil still needs safe passage so the British need a basin network to ensure safe passage, this means Oman, Aden, Egypt, Malta and Gibraltar remain relevant longer. One needs a better policy in Persia to support its transition towards a real state rather than a corrupted monarchy, I ponder if it might have been enticed to Dominion status. If Persia still slips away then the British need to better exert lasting influence in Kuwait and Arabia, at least the UAE if not also Saudi Arabia. Again no WWII opens more possibility that BP and Shell are exploiting the oil rather than the American majors. And that assumes no lasting presence in Mesopotamia but that also depends on WWI just like Saudi Arabia.
Canada and Australia fell out of orbit for differing reasons but with no WWII and a stronger multilateral trade system and better coordinated defense policy they might have stayed closer. Canada could have become the door into the USA for trade with the UK offering better bilateral deals on raw materials out of Africa, Canada and Australia to placate American fears of closed doors. Africa likely stays rather "redheaded stepchild" but they got savaged by the free trade commodity paradigm too. This may get you a NATO like alliance, something akin to the EU on trade, maybe more like NAFTA. Overall a better result than how the Commonwealth seems to impact things. I will say it is not an Empire but it keeps the UK at the table.