British Imperialism

Stop fighting expensive wars against perturbed Germans.

Don't know how that would work out in the long run though.
 
how about raising living standard for people living in Africa and India, turn their attentions away from independence and brainwash (Government propaganda) them into thinking their lives would be miserable hell if they are indepent from the British Empire.
 
maybe the Imperial Federation or whatever idea gets implemented, giving the natives more say in Parliament and whatnot. being treated equally to Englishmen would probably placate them for a little while at least.
 
Carry on with what was done to Aus, Canada and NZ during the late 19thc, granting self-government whilst promoting Empire solidarity. Do the same for India sometime later (1920s?), since Indians were already in positions of power.

Probably wouldn't have to worry about doing same in Black Africa (the most difficult given prevailing attitudes) - since, fx., the Mau Mau were the only real opposition and they were both unpopular and smacked down - at least not for decades afterwards.
 
Carry on with what was done to Aus, Canada and NZ during the late 19thc, granting self-government whilst promoting Empire solidarity. Do the same for India sometime later (1920s?), since Indians were already in positions of power.

Probably wouldn't have to worry about doing same in Black Africa (the most difficult given prevailing attitudes) - since, fx., the Mau Mau were the only real opposition and they were both unpopular and smacked down - at least not for decades afterwards.

Yes, I think the two key factors are turning India into a self-governing Dominion and putting up a better show in Se Asia in WW2.

Without India's independence campaign and the Afro-Asian Solidarity movement sponsored by India's independence leaders there will be far fewer calls for independence in Africa.

The situation in SE Asia is different. There the people who spearheaded the independence movement were not idealist quasi-Marxist intelligentsia like Nehru but the Anglicised, basically conservative elite like Lee Kuan Yew. Lee was forced to join forces with the more socialist elements of the local political scene purely as an alliance of convenience. He crushed them once his position was secure. However, he felt impelled to take up the cause of independence because he, and many other Singaporean and Malayan elites felt that Britain had shirked it's responsibilities in failing to defend Malaya from the Japanese. It could be said that if General Percival had been slightly less incompetent and had thrown the Japanese back from the gates of Singapore, people like Lee wouldn't feel this sense of betrayal and would be willing to work with the British administration in setting up self-governing dominions in SE Asia.
 
Indians were already in positions of power

Argueably this is the problem.
If you want to have a meritocratic system ensure it is complete.
Raising an educated class of civil servants but maintaing a very clear ceiling above which they could not advance was bound to cause problems. The resentment of such a system, coupled with the obvious desire of the metrapole to not reform the system leads to a wish for independence. Once the wish is consolidated it doesn't easilly die.

The problem is, while the British might have been willing to accept such in the 1940's, they really need to be accepting it a century earlier. If you manage that the Empire may well never break up. Bureaucrats like big departments. Running an independent (and sundered) India isn't going to be half as satisfying as running a cresent which spans from Kuwait to Singapore. India has the manpower to control such a bloc effectively indefinately.

But late 19th century racism, social darwinism and nationalism makes any reform doubtful. You need a rather different intellectual climate.

You have the old federal Empire idea, but in my oppinion its never going to last. The Dominions are becoming nations. If the rest of the Empire is gone, they are disparate nations scattered the length and breadth of the world. Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand? It would be hard to find 4-5 nations further away from each other. Any union beyond the nominal solidarity of the commonwealth of OTL is unlikely.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Heh. Blood is thicker than water. Sure, you face the same problems. But keeping the Empire together would probably require a class / caste of Englishmen who were willing to marry Indians, ect. Then this mixed British / Indian could probably be successful in holding the empire together.

Unfortunately, I don't think racial attitudes of the time would have allowed for such a development. But intermarriage has always been one, if not the best way, to cement the loyalties.
 

King Thomas

Banned
No WW1 or WW2.
India given Domionion status.
Intermarridge.
Put non whites in important posistions-then make them think they could lose them if independence happens.
Let one small country have independence-then do a trade war against it so it spirals into poverty, and tell the rest of the Empire that such a thing could happen to them if they get independence.You need to make the non-white middle classes of the Empire scared of what freedom could bring.
 
Make staying in the Empire worth it.

I think its noteworthy that not even the Dominions, in the 1920s, wanted to push for greater unification.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think its noteworthy that not even the Dominions, in the 1920s, wanted to push for greater unification.

They did before World War I. The Great War disillusioned the colonies, as they saw British incompetence get a lot of their men killed and experienced utter disrespect from the British military leadership.

Best way for the Empire to survive is to avoid World War I or, as in my beloved Rule Brittania TL, win the way quickly at a minimum cost.
 
I think you really have to have some kind impetus for the various parts of the Empire to feel that they need to stay part of the Empire. I think the most plausible way of achieving that is to avoid the World Wars and that the situation and you end up with some manner of global cold war. It would also help certainly with Canada and to a degree with the other dominions if the US turned completely introverted almost xenophobic so that they won’t feel like that there is another power that they can turn to if they don’t like the situation with Britain.
 
Just keep them.

Its a horrible mistake in people's general knowledge about history that Britain 'lost the empire'. Britain was fully capable of keeping many parts of it.
The only thing is- what would be the point?
A lot of it wasn't very profitable, Britain itself needed big changes for the good of the people and fighting against independance movements would not be popular in Britain itself or elsewhere.
So...some sort of fascist take over that remakes British society in a bad way that sticks I guess.
 
Its a horrible mistake in people's general knowledge about history that Britain 'lost the empire'. Britain was fully capable of keeping many parts of it.

Such as?
The British could have stayed longer in almost every imperial possession but if that only means another few years in power in exchange for considerable blood and gold it doesn't change very much. Well actually it changes quite alot but none of it is good for the British.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Another possibility is the adoption of Joe Chamberlain's system of Imperial Preference early in the 20th Century, thus unifying the Empire in an economic sense. Indeed, before Britain joined the EEC in the 1970s, the Commonwealth nations were still closely tied to Britain through favorable trade relations.
 
Just keep them.

Its a horrible mistake in people's general knowledge about history that Britain 'lost the empire'. Britain was fully capable of keeping many parts of it.
The only thing is- what would be the point?
A lot of it wasn't very profitable, Britain itself needed big changes for the good of the people and fighting against independance movements would not be popular in Britain itself or elsewhere.
So...some sort of fascist take over that remakes British society in a bad way that sticks I guess.
I agree to a point however I think the parts that they couldn’t keep with sheer force are mainly the ones that are/were worth keeping. I think in a TL that is somewhat close to ours that the US would back at least Canada and likely Australia and New Zeeland as well if they wanted full independence and Britain didn’t want to give it. And if India truly wants its Independence I could see it playing out like Vietnam only with the size and population of the combatants swapped. So if Britain losses those areas the value of other previously strategically important land disappears and outside of a few other locations the rest of the Empire financially was not worth keeping. So I contend that they really couldn’t keep their Empire by force alone.
 
Top