How would Britain react to the loss of all it's North American in it's policies after such an event.

So, say Britain loses all of its North American colonies to revolution and that they can't conquer Argentina( as I feel people would suggest that would happen next) to replace it. As a result of this, how do the British treat India, worse(more totalitarian) or better (more liberalism). Would they try to keep the Dutch East Indies in order to compensate for that loss? Would the British be weaker, even a little bit, due to losing all those resources. Is Ireland treated differently, what about Egypt and South Africa, if they still get them at all due to butterflies.
 
Last edited:
Nothing.Britain didn't really need to physically the North American colonies(this includes Canada). They just need to have a trading partner.Independent former North American colonies can still trade with it.What they really needed settler colonies to do would be as dumping ground for criminals.Australia fulfilled this role perfectly.
 
Nothing.Britain didn't really need to physically the North American colonies(this includes Canada). They just need to have a trading partner.Independent former North American colonies can still trade with it.What they really needed settler colonies to do would be as dumping ground for criminals.Australia fulfilled this role perfectly.

Why was there such a need to exile criminals out of the country? Most other European countries managed to get by without doing this.
 
Why was there such a need to exile criminals out of the country? Most other European countries managed to get by without doing this.
No idea.Britain just needed a place to dump convicts.At the time of Australia's settlement,it was one of the chief motivations for doing so apart from trying to claim the land before everyone else.

As for other countries,France has a habit of dumping unwanted criminals to the 'dry guillotine' while Russia sends theirs to Siberia.
 
Honestly I think trade would matter more to Britain, but; it would matter that they would lose SO MUCH face to other Proper Civilized European Nations that it would be uh... Bad, to say the least.
 
Nothing.Britain didn't really need to physically the North American colonies(this includes Canada). They just need to have a trading partner.Independent former North American colonies can still trade with it.What they really needed settler colonies to do would be as dumping ground for criminals.Australia fulfilled this role perfectly.

Britain had a massive birth rate in the 19th century. It was necessary for more than just criminals to emigrate. They preferred to keep these British "in the family" and thus useful to the Empire. There were emigration restrictions to America for much of the 19th century because Britain didn't want to lose their population. Many Britons sailed first to Canada and then crossed the border into America due to these restrictions. It has been estimated that half the very large British immigration to America (not very well charted compared to German and Irish immigration of that century) came this manner via Canada.

There was a good reason why Britain didn't want to lose the utility of having a large population but not strictly dumping more into urban slums.

In the end, the British were well served by having Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand throughout its history, especially the world wars.
 
No idea.Britain just needed a place to dump convicts.At the time of Australia's settlement,it was one of the chief motivations for doing so apart from trying to claim the land before everyone else.

As for other countries,France has a habit of dumping unwanted criminals to the 'dry guillotine' while Russia sends theirs to Siberia.

Wrong idea. The number of people executed in France, after the revolutionary and napoleonic wars was a few tens each year, which by the way was quite on par with capital punishment in Britain. It can't compare with the population of the penal colonies.
 
Wrong idea. The number of people executed in France, after the revolutionary and napoleonic wars was a few tens each year, which by the way was quite on par with capital punishment in Britain. It can't compare with the population of the penal colonies.
???I am talking about the notion that only Britain uses penal colonies is incorrect.France during the revolution has a habit of sending criminals to Guiana as an alternative to the guillotine while Russia sends theirs to Siberia.
 
Top