CHALLENGE: Create Britain a Superpower...

[Lord Insane]

The Unionist party was the name for the entire UK Conservative party at the time.

Yup. Because they wanted to keep Ireland in the UK.
There were Liberals (and not just Liberal Unionists) that were in favour of an Imperial Federation, too, so Unionist did not mean 'a person in favour of Imperial Federation'.

 

[Loki]

The main problem with WWI for Britain wasn't the length of the conflict or the cost in blood and treasure (though both were appalling) so much as what it did to the national psyche.

I agree with this, the severe impact that WWI had on Britain was detrimental to the nation’s outlook, without WWI the nation would have a much more positive outlook to the word and its role within it. No war would mean that regardless of how powerful Germany was after WW1, Britain remained unscathed and the only other global power - for a short period of time.

I believe that the key to the being a superpower in 2007 is India. I would suggest that after WWI - and without there ever being a WWII - that British governments encourage people to emigrate from the Britain to India, whilst ploughing some of the finance that would of been spent on WWI into further improving India's infrastructure. The longer you hold on to India the more powerful the empire becomes, whilst trying to maintain peaceful relations with Germany at all times.

Eventually I believe that India would become partially self governing, or gain a form of independence, by the time that has happened Britain has become an economic powerhouse, with an unrivalled navy and a large army - mainly recruited from the subcontinent - that would be sufficient to ward off any possible aggressor.

In this world the members of the Empire may look upon Britain for greater protection, and/or financial assistance, meaning that nations would remain more reliant on Britain than in OTL.

The question that this raises, is whether this is a British superpower in its own right, or is it that Britain would help build - by 2007 - an Indian superpower that it exerts a degree of control over?

 

[joe-chamberlain]

Yup. Because they wanted to keep Ireland in the UK.
There were Liberals (and not just Liberal Unionists) that were in favour of an Imperial Federation, too, so Unionist did not mean 'a person in favour of Imperial Federation'.

Who said it did?

 

[Lord Insane]

The Federal Union proposed by the Unionists in the early part of the 20th century was for the White Settler Colonies only.

Joe Chamberlain and most Unionists would rather have got rig of India that give them an equal vote with us.
That would basically make the British Empire an Indian Empire.

Who said it did?

You certainly implied it.

 

[joe-chamberlain]

You certainly implied it.

Implied how it's quite clear what I said.

 

[Lord Insane]

Implied how it's quite clear what I said.

Yes, it quite clear.
The Federal Union proposed by the Unionists.
VS
Who said that Unionist meant a person in favour of Imperial Federation?
Yup, it's pretty clear that you meant that the Unionists were the ones with the Federal Union ideas.

 

[stevep]

Re-settlement would be the practical solution.

Joe

I presume your not talking about resettling the very small white minority? In that case your referring to deporting the 90% plus of the population who are actually native to the region rather than recent immigrants! Which would also have a big economic impact as they do the vast majority of the work. Even leaving aside any question of morality or where your going to dump several million people?

Steve

 

[stevep]

I'd like to throw a couple of ideas in if I may. I've been thinking about this a while and while I agree with much of what has been written here it seems to mostly concentrate on Britain's engagement with the rest of the world. It seems to me that Britain’s internal sea changes played just as important a role in decline.

The main problem with WW1 for Britain wasn't the length of the conflict or the cost in blood and treasure (though both were appalling) so much as what it did to the national psyche.

I could be wrong but my impression is that before WW1 Britain was a more optimistic, enthusiastic, positive society than she subsequently became. When WW1 began, thousands of Britons answered the call to arms, not merely, as many historians would have us believe, because they thought it would be a ‘lark’ but also because they were genuinely patriotic and believed in the justice of Britain’s cause. What this seems to imply is that the British people basically believed in and trusted the nation – the system in which they lived and the leadership.

That great upwelling of positive patriotic feeling died in the trenches because of the nature of the fighting and the apparent futility of the losses. (An aside - this was inextricably linked with the smallness of gains and the cost of those gains. Interestingly British soldiers tended to reflect positively on the ‘Hundred Days’ Campaign of 1918 when warfare became mobile again and negatively on the actions where the fighting was static, though casualties during the hundred days were quite as bad as those at 3rd Ypres (Passchendale).)

The impression of futility was reinforced by the memoirs of Lloyd George and to a lesser extent Churchill that portrayed Britain’s military leadership as incompetent and unfeeling butchers who didn’t care how many of their own soldiers they killed in pointless attacks. Their version of the conflict entered the national consciousness to the extent that the trust that existed in Britain’s leadership and system was badly eroded, the British became more cynical and more suspicious. They began to look out for number one because clearly the British system, Britain’s leadership, could not be trusted with the task.

Then there was the decision to get back on the gold standard and the subsequent economic dislocation that went with it and these two experiences came together to lead to the rise of militant Trades Unionism.

***

Britain has Oxford and Cambridge, to the best of my knowledge it still doesn’t have a school of business. Now Oxbridge is all well and good, I’m sure no one would question they are assets to the nation but a peculiarly British conceit meant that until quite recently engineers and entrepreneurs were looked down on by the upper echelons of the British education system. Engineers and entrepreneurs build industrial societies (and one of the reasons Britain has fallen from Superpowerdom is the relative decline in manufacturing) but how long did it take for Britain to have an equivalent of the French Ecole polytechnique, or the German technical universities? How long will it be before Britain has an equivalent of Harvard?

The LSE - which might have become Britain’s business school - was for a long time a think tank for radical socialism. It was founded with the initial intention of renewing the training of Britain's political and business elite, but two of the founders were members of the Fabian Society and so study of social sciences was somehow added too and then pushed aside the study of business. That has all changed now but what a lost opportunity.

***

Has the British sense of humour been an asset or a liability? I am British so perhaps I can be forgiven if I say that I can’t help think that we Brits often make jokes about problems rather than fixing them.

Sorry I’ve rambled, does any of this make sense or am I talking complete cobblers?

Nick would definitely agree as often had the same view myself. There seemed a distinct loss of self-belief after WWI, as well as the more general loss of a belief in progress. Coupled with the lack of a decent educational system and acceptance that we need to use the entire nation to its best benefits. Think you have highlighted probably the two biggest weaknesses facing Britain in the period.

Wondering if however a shorter and less costly WWI, by demonstrating some of the weaknesses of the system, without sapping the will, might have prompted the necessary changes that would have enabled real reform?

Steve

 

[joe-chamberlain]

Yes, it quite clear.
The Federal Union proposed by the Unionists.
VS
Who said that Unionist meant a person in favour of Imperial Federation?
Yup, it's pretty clear that you meant that the Unionists were the ones with the Federal Union ideas.

Most Unionists supported the plan while most Liberals did not.
Do you disagree with that fact?

 

[joe-chamberlain]

Joe

I presume your not talking about resettling the very small white minority? In that case your referring to deporting the 90% plus of the population who are actually native to the region rather than recent immigrants! Which would also have a big economic impact as they do the vast majority of the work. Even leaving aside any question of morality or where your going to dump several million people?

Steve

Zambia perhaps, Botswana maybe.

 

[Lord Insane]

Most Unionists supported the plan while most Liberals did not.
Do you disagree with that fact?

Imperial Federation, while most popular among Conservatives, had many Liberal supporters as well.
Your 'fact' exeggerates the connection between the Unionists and Imperial Federation.

 

[birdy]

Zambia perhaps, Botswana maybe.

Not possible given the numbers (Black Africans) involved- To say nothing of the immorality.

Housing, feeding and providing jobs and medical care for these people would be.... impossible i'd say, the death rate would be huge.

 

[joe-chamberlain]

Not possible given the numbers (Black Africans) involved- To say nothing of the immorality.

Housing, feeding and providing jobs and medical care for these people would be.... impossible i'd say, the death rate would be huge.

Re-settlement would be ver humane for the time.
The alternative is of course to use Belgium methods in the Congo or German methods in Namibia.

 

[Toadstool]

What about if Britain actually starts a minor war in Europe at the beginning of 1914 which ends up against the odds preventing WWI? By select invasions it manages to diffuse the powder keg which had built up in Europe by severely weakening the war mongering factions. The war is actually over completely by It results in lesser tensions and war is postponed for years if not indefinately.

Or alternatively, the Archduke isn't assassinated so there is no war until 1917 which is far less severe for all parties. An armistice is signed in March 1918.

Or would those be ASB?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

What about if Britain actually starts a minor war in Europe at the beginning of 1914 which ends up against the odds preventing WWI? By select invasions it manages to diffuse the powder keg which had built up in Europe by severely weakening the war mongering factions. The war is actually over completely by It results in lesser tensions and war is postponed for years if not indefinately.

Or alternatively, the Archduke isn't assassinated so there is no war until 1917 which is far less severe for all parties. An armistice is signed in March 1918.

Or would those be ASB?

Remind me how invading various countries in Europe wouldn't set off the chain of alliances triggering WW1?

 

[birdy]

Re-settlement would be ver humane for the time.
The alternative is of course to use Belgium methods in the Congo or German methods in Namibia.

It would have humane (for the time) intentions but would most likely end up as a disaster similar if not worse to the Boer concentration camps.

If i were trying to keep Southern Africa in some 1900's British Federal Union i would attempt to anglicise (sic) the natives so they would accept the benefits of Union- It would be a very long and difficult process but probably not impossible. Tacitly encouraging immigration from the British Isles etc might speed up the process.

 

[birdy]

What about if Britain actually starts a minor war in Europe at the beginning of 1914 which ends up against the odds preventing WWI? By select invasions it manages to diffuse the powder keg which had built up in Europe by severely weakening the war mongering factions. The war is actually over completely by It results in lesser tensions and war is postponed for years if not indefinately.

Or alternatively, the Archduke isn't assassinated so there is no war until 1917 which is far less severe for all parties. An armistice is signed in March 1918.

Or would those be ASB?

The British didnt have that big an army, any continental power would kick our arse if we tried a surprise invasion.

 

[stevep]

Not possible given the numbers (Black Africans) involved- To say nothing of the immorality.

Housing, feeding and providing jobs and medical care for these people would be.... impossible i'd say, the death rate would be huge.

Birdy

I hope I'm wrong but I fear that that is, at best, not considered an issue.

Steve

 

[octaviuz]

If i were trying to keep Southern Africa in some 1900's British Federal Union i would attempt to anglicise (sic) the natives so they would accept the benefits of Union- It would be a very long and difficult process but probably not impossible. Tacitly encouraging immigration from the British Isles etc might speed up the process.

Actually it doesn't strike me as particularly difficult at all. the pre-WWI UK did not yet have universal sufferage and even with the somewhat broad property qualifications that were applied (~40% of Englishmen could vote) almost no Africans or Indians would have been able to vote. The addition of a literacy test would have removed any threat that the Empire was about to be overrun by its colonials.

Of course, as attitudes changed the franchise would be opened to more of His (I had to correct my natural tendency to say Her) Majesty's subjects of all colors, but early 20th century imperialists need not recognize that initially.

 

[stevep]

Zambia perhaps, Botswana maybe.

Leaving aside the moral problems of mass deportations of the native population or whether the white settlers would be willing to give up the servants on which their economy depends. You do realise that Zambia was at the time called northern Rhodesia and is also mineral rich so doubt it would be considered for a black 'homeland'. Botswana being mostly desert would basically be one of the biggest slaughter ground in recorded history.

Steve