No WW2: British Economy & Demographics

So let's say that there is no WW2. Perhaps there are smaller scale wars in Europe, but nothing that draws Britain into the fighting. What would the economy and demographics of the UK look like over the next 50 years?

fasquardon
 
The Depression may last longer, though I reckon the Empire still would have ended sooner or later.

Economically, the country may be stronger in the short-term, though if there would be another relative decline, I'm not sure. OTL, this was due to the end of colonialism and the defeated Axis/Allies having to almost start from scratch, so it's difficult to say whether this would still happen.

Socially, I reckon most of the post-war social developments would still happen. Given increased prosperity, the end of colonialism (which was inevitable in some form) and basic human nature (if you push people hard enough, they'll push back......) rights for non-whites, women, gays, and other traditionally marginalised groups was inevitable.

So in the 1940s to 1980s, I think the UK would have a larger manufacturing base, though with a more global outlook despite a loss of Empire. And who knows, perhaps some Indian or African nationalists would have sided with the Axis to gain independence. Some actually did, though the mainstream ones didn't (,e.g. Gandhi, Nehru, etc.)
 
This is hard to say really, although the British Empire was very much in decline post-WWI, WWII really served to accelerate said decline IMHO, given the insane magnitude of the drain it imposed on the British Economy - Debt was 240% of GDP IIRC in 1945.

Without that, it could last longer, the economy overall would be larger I believe, but with the shortfall of extreme prioritisation of the Short-Term over the Long-Term, especially with regards to placing the Finance Market as Top Concern.

In short, Britain will still decline relative to the rest of the world, but it would be a longer, more drawn-out decline IMHO.
 
At what point is the war averted?


Simplist PoD is waiving away the Nazi movement entirely. The existing Republic cripples along until some constitutional changes & fade out of the Versailles Treaty occur.

Les desireable alternates are the Nazis ejected from power when France takes action at the Rhineland occupation, the Austrian Anschluss, or the Cezch crisis.
 

Deleted member 1487

The British economy depends on trade with Europe, so we need to know what the scenario and economy is like in Europe during the 1930s-50s to be able to say with any level of idea what it would mean for Britain. Colonialism though is dying, so Britain will still be drained trying to keep it together, but India will go.
 
Well, I am working on a TL where the French manage their economy better post WW1. That leads to a much stronger France as well as a stronger Spain, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia (beyond them the economic butterflies get much weaker). The depression is much the same for Britain (though Britain may leave the Gold Standard later, due to France being able to help stabilize Sterling for longer) and world trade is balkanized much as it was OTL. Germany still recovers her place as a great power, but, unlike OTL, it doesn't cause a general war. Instead, Europe settles into a sort of multipolar cold war.

How I see things as going:

India and Egypt are already lost to the British. The Dominions are already slipping away as London repeatedly showed it had a tin ear for their needs. However, without WW2 confirming the lessons of WW1, I wonder just how far the drift might go. The British are likely to be thrown out or withdraw gracelessly from Palestine. What happens to the rest of the Empire I'm less sure of. I do think that the British would still be trying to expand the Empire in the Middle East (they correctly identified oil as being key to their remaining a Great Power), possibly in other oil-rich areas as well. Northern Ireland will become a problem at some point.

I do think that even absent WW2, America will be drawn out of its isolation. American industry was simply too tied into international trade for it not to. That could well mean that the US (as OTL) will compete with the British for the allegiance of the oil rich states in the Middle East. OTL, that competition wasn't very intense due to British weakness. Without WW2, it could look very different.

I reckon British population growth is likely to be lower absent WW2, due to less immigration and the lack of a post-war baby boom.

The economy I'm not sure about. On the one hand, the British economy was close to stagnant between 1918 and 1938, but post war the economy grew quite fast (for Britain), on the other, without WW2 then a whole host of wounds aren't inflicted on British industry (so the army doesn't rob industry of all the skilled manpower, the Sterling zone likely goes strong into the mid 60s, possibly into the mid 80s or even beyond so Britain avoids a detrimental dollarization of her trade, R&D continues along its pre-war trajectory, etc).

Trade isn't disrupted by the war, but on the other hand, without WW2 (and America emerging as premier power afterwards) I am not sure that world trade would liberalize as fast, if at all. The world could continue with high tariff barriers balkanizing trade for some considerable time.

fasquardon
 
Top