If Britain Kept its Dominions

Do you think that if Great Britain kept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (or more likely, enter into a federation with them) could they have remained a super power even to this day?

Given the Canadian resources, i think its possible. But i'm not really the good with British history post ww2 so I don't know if its even possible for them to keep them.
 
I'm not so sure. Canada may be too late since it has been more or less independent since the 1890s. It might take an early POD.

I'm envisioning a 'United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand'. But whatever POD you choose if Britain is going to hang onto some of its empire, it might hang onto other parts too.
 
The whole 'Imperial Federation' was basically dead before WW2 even started, and even more so after.

In other words you need a PoD in the late 19th century, and even then their's a 50/50 chance it'd end up turning into something more akin to the modern EU than an actual Federation.
 
ok, so lets say that theres another reformation in the 1800s that places Australia, New Zealand, and Canada as kingdoms within the U.K. and lets say after WWII all other imperial possessions are lost. Would this UK be a superpower?
 
I would think the POD would really need to be before the 1890s, let alone WW1/2.

The political solution, whatever it might be, would have to be pretty strong, as economic forces are going to act against a closer union. British North America, without massive change from OTL, is going to be economically close to the USA. Australia and NZ are eventually going to want to be closer to Asia for the same reason.

This is not to say that this will force the Empire apart, as I am sure internal trade could be kept reasonably high.

If this ATL empire keeps (or maintains a close relationship in India's case) Singapore, HK and India, then the economic case for Australian, NZ and British integration could remain.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You will need a pre-1900 POD. By 1910, Canada, Australia, and NZ are dominions. By 1919, Canada banned Canadians from accepting Royal titles, and by 1942 Australia was issuing military orders that conflicted with the British orders. They have separate governments and militaries but generally follow the UK foreign policy. Using the same standards for "dominion", the UK is currently a "dominion" of the United States and a part of the USA empire.

For a POD, you need to go a few decades farther back and restructure the British empire. At various times in the 1800's, the British looked at creating an Irish parliament to handle domestic affairs and to allow the British Parliament to handle "national" affairs. The sticking point surprisingly was not the autonomy for the Irish, but the question of an English Parliament. Also creating an English Parliament in addition to an Irish Parliament is effectively demoting England to just one of the many states of the British Empire, and involves a huge loss of power and prestige for many in England. In the next paragraph, i will give a POD, to illustrate why it so hard to do, not as a POD with any real likelyhood.

In 1840, King George and hugely popular PM Blackstone decided they want the British Empire to last a 1000 years like the Romans did, and begin a review of History. From the American revolution, they see many tactical failures, but not that George Washington really wanted to be a commission major in the British Army and minor nobility. Likewise, a majority of power brokers in the colonies could have been co-opted with power and rank. They also note that Rome had emperors from outside of Italy, and Britain needs a system where members of the dominion can be the leaders of the empire. They key to a lasting empire is for Canadians to think of themselves as British who happen to live in Canada, not Canadians whose country happens to be in the British Imperial system.

The first order of business is to create the parliament of England that has the same status as the parliament of Canada, NZ, etc. The powers of these "state" parliaments will need to be clearly defined. This part is fairly easy, except for the demotion of status for England. Now the House of Commons needs to be reconstituted. One-man, One-vote, for all white males in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and whatever other areas you want in the empire today. Now the British Isles are a probably a minority of seats now, and England is a minority. So now, we would expect to see a good number of non-England PM and cabinet people.

Now to the house of lords. Back then, they have real power and they are dominated by titles of England. There are about 1600 or so peers. We need something that is more fair and proportional. So we demote all the lords below duke to their "state" house, so English baron is now a member of the House of English Lords. The Dukes remain in the house of Lords, and there are about 68 of them, and there are more subjects outside the Island as inside. Appointing 30 dukes from the Dominions in the first year and 1 Dominion Duke per year for 50 years will balance it out enough. King George is ok with this.

This process has gutted the English power structure, and is still not totally fair when viewed from dominion perspective. And there is more that has to be done. Affirmative action for flag ranked officers. Affirmative action for the colonial office so aspiring Canadians have a far shot at making Viceroy of India. Building a new capital for the new "Empire Government" makes sense, to show that there is a new start. But where? Are French Canadians and Boers fully franchised in this system?

The above is not a realistic timeline, but tries to show how big a mental step it would have been to truly make the dominions a integrated part of the British Empire, the way Texas is a part of the USA or Gaul become a part of the Roman Empire.

Now if one looks past how radically different the world would be, yes, a surviving British Empire would still be a great power with a focus on Naval Power. Canada, Australia, and NZ would be enough for this power status, but i think the stronger Empire would have retained additional territory for strategic reasons.

1) Singapore - Such a valuable location, and once racial issues are lesser in the 20th century, why not have also make them full citizens. Maybe even try to keep some of the oil fields in the area.

2) At least part of South Africa. So many mineral resources.

3) Hong Kong - The empire would want, but China still wants back badly. But maybe enough butterflies that China accepts.

4) Suez Canal - Tried to keep anyway, stronger empire is likely successful.

5) Small strategic islands such as Zanzibar, Jamaica, Bahamas, etc. Not all, but some likely butterfly into the empire.
 
You will need a pre-1900 POD. By 1910, Canada, Australia, and NZ are dominions. By 1919, Canada banned Canadians from accepting Royal titles, and by 1942 Australia was issuing military orders that conflicted with the British orders. They have separate governments and militaries but generally follow the UK foreign policy. Using the same standards for "dominion", the UK is currently a "dominion" of the United States and a part of the USA empire.

For a POD, you need to go a few decades farther back and restructure the British empire. At various times in the 1800's, the British looked at creating an Irish parliament to handle domestic affairs and to allow the British Parliament to handle "national" affairs. The sticking point surprisingly was not the autonomy for the Irish, but the question of an English Parliament. Also creating an English Parliament in addition to an Irish Parliament is effectively demoting England to just one of the many states of the British Empire, and involves a huge loss of power and prestige for many in England. In the next paragraph, i will give a POD, to illustrate why it so hard to do, not as a POD with any real likelyhood.

In 1840, King George and hugely popular PM Blackstone decided they want the British Empire to last a 1000 years like the Romans did, and begin a review of History. From the American revolution, they see many tactical failures, but not that George Washington really wanted to be a commission major in the British Army and minor nobility. Likewise, a majority of power brokers in the colonies could have been co-opted with power and rank. They also note that Rome had emperors from outside of Italy, and Britain needs a system where members of the dominion can be the leaders of the empire. They key to a lasting empire is for Canadians to think of themselves as British who happen to live in Canada, not Canadians whose country happens to be in the British Imperial system.

The first order of business is to create the parliament of England that has the same status as the parliament of Canada, NZ, etc. The powers of these "state" parliaments will need to be clearly defined. This part is fairly easy, except for the demotion of status for England. Now the House of Commons needs to be reconstituted. One-man, One-vote, for all white males in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and whatever other areas you want in the empire today. Now the British Isles are a probably a minority of seats now, and England is a minority. So now, we would expect to see a good number of non-England PM and cabinet people.

Now to the house of lords. Back then, they have real power and they are dominated by titles of England. There are about 1600 or so peers. We need something that is more fair and proportional. So we demote all the lords below duke to their "state" house, so English baron is now a member of the House of English Lords. The Dukes remain in the house of Lords, and there are about 68 of them, and there are more subjects outside the Island as inside. Appointing 30 dukes from the Dominions in the first year and 1 Dominion Duke per year for 50 years will balance it out enough. King George is ok with this.

This process has gutted the English power structure, and is still not totally fair when viewed from dominion perspective. And there is more that has to be done. Affirmative action for flag ranked officers. Affirmative action for the colonial office so aspiring Canadians have a far shot at making Viceroy of India. Building a new capital for the new "Empire Government" makes sense, to show that there is a new start. But where? Are French Canadians and Boers fully franchised in this system?

The above is not a realistic timeline, but tries to show how big a mental step it would have been to truly make the dominions a integrated part of the British Empire, the way Texas is a part of the USA or Gaul become a part of the Roman Empire.

Now if one looks past how radically different the world would be, yes, a surviving British Empire would still be a great power with a focus on Naval Power. Canada, Australia, and NZ would be enough for this power status, but i think the stronger Empire would have retained additional territory for strategic reasons.

1) Singapore - Such a valuable location, and once racial issues are lesser in the 20th century, why not have also make them full citizens. Maybe even try to keep some of the oil fields in the area.

2) At least part of South Africa. So many mineral resources.

3) Hong Kong - The empire would want, but China still wants back badly. But maybe enough butterflies that China accepts.

4) Suez Canal - Tried to keep anyway, stronger empire is likely successful.

5) Small strategic islands such as Zanzibar, Jamaica, Bahamas, etc. Not all, but some likely butterfly into the empire.

I fully agree with this - and I'd really like to read such a timeline.

I'd add Cyprus, Malta, some Pacific islands to the list.
 
I don't normally venture into this part of the forum so it may be a stupid question but this thread has made me wonder, is there any really good britwanks floating around I mean one that doesn't kill butterflies or is really ASB.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I'd read that TL sounds interesting.

I don't know enough details to write a plausible timeline, i was just trying to show how radical the changes would have to be.

In OTL, PM Gladstone?? had the Irish issue solved in 1840?? by giving Ireland autonomy over domestic affairs. He had the votes in the house of commons, the house of lords, and the Kings support. The issue failed due to the issue of an English House of Commons. It was England being demoted that was the killer. I read a book on this say 10 years ago, but don't remember more details.

But if this had been done in 1840 and solved the Irish problem, then this could be the preferred solution for calls for more power by white or even non-white colonies. So there is a time line where most of the white areas of the British empire survives, or even almost all. Even though if India was given one-man-one-vote, i would imagine we would call it the Indian empire.

What the English did would be the equivalent of the USA only allowing Virginian to be President or Senators, and only people from the original 13 colonies to vote. I don't know how that would end, but it is a very unstable political setup, and can't last more than a handful of generations. A lasting empire like the Muslims, Romans or Chinese requires integration and transfer of some power to the conquered people. World War II is 200 years after India and Canada was conquered, or 8 generations. In 1940, I can't imagine a PM from Quebec and King born partially of Indian ancestry. But it is easy to imagine in 150 A.D. a roman Emperor born in Spain, and the leading General to be of Gaul.

The American Empire will also be relatively short lived because the USA chose not to integrate conquered lands into the USA. If wave the ASB wand and make the USA not black/brown racists in 1880, it is easy to imagine the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Micronesia and Panama as USA states. And if the USA was interested in permanent new lands, we would have picked up some extra land in WW1 and WW2.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I fully agree with this - and I'd really like to read such a timeline.

I'd add Cyprus, Malta, some Pacific islands to the list.

After the post, i though of those too. Also, the Brits would want a naval base near India, so would they try to keep all or part of Sri Lanka. Maybe the free city of Columbo or wherever the main naval base around there was.

Also, if South Africa was in the Empire, the SW Africa would stay. There are only a few hundred thousand people in this arid region. And i would guess Rhodesia stays too.

I don't normally venture into this part of the forum so it may be a stupid question but this thread has made me wonder, is there any really good britwanks floating around I mean one that doesn't kill butterflies or is really ASB.

See my other post about Gladstone. It is possible that some devolution of power to Ireland would have manageable butterflies for a time line. I think under Gladstone plan, the House of Lords was unchanged, as was any powers of the King. So i could imagine a good time line, just one where Ireland is not a nagging issue. It would be a British Empire, where the concerns of the dominions carry a lot of weight. So for example, maybe a stronger Aussie navy butterflies any Anglo-British alliance. Or maybe in WW1, the Japanese are not wanted on the Entente side, because the Aussies don't want competition for the Pacific territories. So instead of Gallipolli, the Aussies land forces are in the Pacific for all of 1915/1916.
 
What about:

United Kingdom of 1. England, 2. Wales, 3. Scotland, 4. Ireland, 5. Alberta, 6. British Columbia, 7.Manitoba, 8. New Brunswick, 9. Newfoundland-and-Labrador, 10. Nova Scotia, 11. Ontario, 12. Prince Edward island, 13. Quebec, 14. Saskatchewan, 15. Northwest territories, 16. Nunavut, 17. Yukon, 18. New South Wales, 19. Queensland, 20. South Australia, 21. Tasmania, 22. Victoria, 23. Western Australia, 24. Northern Australia and 25. New Zealand-Oceania ... and counting...

under the OTL constitutional framework of UK of a unitary nation state ( not federation per se - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution#United_Kingdom ) with devolved in different degree 'local authorities' and these 'provinces' above with the status of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations , but not federal constituents.

population - 150 000 000ish people ...
territory - 20 mln.ish km2 ...

1 king / queen
1 nation
1 flag
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_parliament

???

The rest of the Empire more or less the same.
 
I don't normally venture into this part of the forum so it may be a stupid question but this thread has made me wonder, is there any really good britwanks floating around I mean one that doesn't kill butterflies or is really ASB.

The problem with Britwanks in my view is the budget. You start getting Britain doing well and the next thing you have nuclear powered CVA01 and Australia using the Ark Royal and it just becomes silly.

That said there is a lot of scope for Britwanks since they did make some strange decisions which made them far less than they could have been.
 
I fail to see why some sort of British Federation would be impossible after WWII. With some sort of political will, we could have a British Commonwealth developing into something similar to an European Union, with even stronger bonds. The British feeling in the dominions were ver strong up to early 70's, when UK decided to sever the close relations with the former colonies.

Having UK+Canada+South Africa+Australia+New Zealand tied together, the British could manage to keep their colonies for much longer.
 
Given the Canadian resources, i think its possible. But i'm not really the good with British history post ww2 so I don't know if its even possible for them to keep them.

Post WWII it is too late. Frankly, it's too late once WWI is fought. I dunno about the rest of the dominions but once our troops have fought and died in the trenches as Canadians our bags are packed. With the Statute of Westminster we've gone through the door with no intention of ever going back through it. The Canada Act was the locking of the dead bolt behind us.

You'll need a different WWI at the very least to keep Canada a part of the Empire.
 
There was an attempt to bring the Dominions in on a joint project for things like nukes and missiles, but it was only the result of Britain being kicked out of the US nuke bed in 1946. As soon as they were allowed back into the US bed the Dominions were dropped like hot spuds. There is just no political will for close cooperation.
 
the last set of serious attempts at creating a Federation within the British Empire failed in the early years of the 20th century.
A lost election. The Uk voters had on one side, Old age pensions, and on the old a manifest that included imperial federation. They went for pensions.

So you don't need to go back that far to have a POD. WW1 killed it off totally though.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I fail to see why some sort of British Federation would be impossible after WWII. With some sort of political will, we could have a British Commonwealth developing into something similar to an European Union, with even stronger bonds. The British feeling in the dominions were ver strong up to early 70's, when UK decided to sever the close relations with the former colonies.

Having UK+Canada+South Africa+Australia+New Zealand tied together, the British could manage to keep their colonies for much longer.

Because Canadians thought of themselves as Canadians, not British/English. In 1910, they get self rule, and by 1945, they have 35 years of rule. In 1915, they field two corp size units in WW1. In 1919, they banned Canadians from receiving letters of Patent. By WW2, it is not do the Canadians remain a part of Britian/UK. The questions would be, should Canada merge with a foreign country and give up their sovereignty. And if for some reason Canada wants to merge with another country, the USA makes more sense. Why join the "B" team, when you can join the "A" team? It also makes more sense geographically.

I also question if England wanted to be the leading state in a nation of many states by this time frame. England's reluctance to fully join the EU suggests no.
 
The truth is that this is another "I.C.P.1900"
(Irritating cliches of post-1900) .

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=206139

But one which is well grounded in Canadian history. After WW2, Canada prefers not to kowtow to anyone - although that was partially shaken (on the Anglophone side) by the Révolution tranquille.

Me, I'd go for a twin POD of Newfoundland not suffering as much during WW1 (i.e. avoiding the tragedy that was Beaumont-Hamel, but that's one piece of the puzzle) and nipping South African proto-apartheid in the bud. By reducing Newfoundland's pain during WW1 (thereby giving Newfoundland a much larger population base in TTL), it is certainly possible for Newfoundland to maintain an independent existence longer (and thus not become part of Canada). Nipping South African proto-apartheid in the bud is a bit more tricker, but it is certainly possible. By using those two PODs, the planned British Federation/*British Commonwealth could work out.

Note, however, that those are WW1 PODs. I would never attempt WW2 PODs for this type of thing, because by now the Dominions have largely maintain quasi-independent existences for years now, accentuated by the Statute of Westminster (which gave each Dominion's Parliament legislative independence from the UK). Trying to roll back the clock in this case would be political suicide (and, in the Canadian context, advocating for such a thing would almost guarantee problems with French-Canadians - not to mention, post-1960s, the Aboriginal/First Nations communities).
 
Top