No WWI or equivalent, what happens to the British Empire by 1945?

[RousseauX]

World War I could probably had being averted had European statesmen dodged a few more bullets in the 1910s. The Franco-Russian alliance, the basis for an anti-German alliance, was falling apart by 1914. There was also the beginning of Anglo-German detente as Germany recognize that it lost the naval race.

So let's say princip don't happen to place himself on the archduke's modified travel path. European statesmen successful navigates a few more powder kegs. A general European war is averted for a few decades. France seethes over Alscaes-Lorraine, but can't do much about it without British/Russian alliances. There's some tension and clashes between UK and Russia over central Asia and between France and Germany in Africa. But no great war occurs.

In this scenario, what happens to the British empire, does it still grants a significant part of it independence as the cost to maintain it in the face of growing nationalism increases? Or does it maintain its empire without the disruption of the two world wars?

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . as the cost to maintain it in the face of growing nationalism increases? . .

If Britain is smart, it sees this long arc early on. It’s much better to grant independence early in the game and remain friends.

The former colony and new nation has a right to trade with whomever they wish. Of course, Britain has a big head start. (Just don’t too openly boast about this part!)

And it will probably be better if a conservative Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary get the ball rolling on this, and thus have less domestic opposition because of an Only-Nixon-Can-Go-to-China effect.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Well for one thing it is not 'burdened' with the very poor colonies it 'inherited' after WW1 or the mandates in the levant (that will remain some one else's problem)

India's independence was writ large even back then so I see this going ahead as OTL but perhaps taking longer to realise

Decolonisation would also become inevitable as the Western world becomes more liberal and the populations of the 'Non White' British Empire become more educated

One thing that would be a massive difference is that at the beginning of the 20C Britian pretty much dominated, monopolised even, international banking and the worlds trade.

This monopoly was only broken by both world wars, and without an analogous WW1 I cannot see a WW2, so I cannot see this monopoly broken or even more than mildly degraded by 1945.

So the British Empire, not being able to halt the process of decolonisation would be far more able to control the decolonisation process compared to the OTL rather hasty process carried out Post WW2 and those former colonies would still be reliant on British money and therefore London would retain a great deal of control of the purse strings probably up to the current date.

 

[Tangles up aubergine]

In decolonising, India and Pakistan will be more thouroughly partitioned, likely something like the princely states. Places like Malta might stay on as British though.

 

[An Thuong]

Decolonisation could well be more gradual, creating dominion status for the likes of India and Malaya by the mid-late 40's.
I agree with @Tangles up aubergine that possibly India would have seen a very different partition, along the lines of language rather than religion. Also that the likes of Malta, and small islands in general across the Carribean, Pacific and Indian oceans are much more likely to remain.

 

[Gancio The Ranter]

In a no WW1 scenario I imagine that the empire would enter a period of self reflection and would be more focused on "domestic" issues, while trying to uphold the World order the British have worked so hard to mantain.
Egypt will probably be the first colony to go, if It can even be considered a colony, as the British were already looking for pro UK nationalist groups that would take control of the country after them. Obviously the Suez Canal would remain in British and western hands. A further agreement with the ottomans regarding the Arabian peninsula is likely, as the Turks will likely try to reassert control over Kuwait and beat back the rising Saudis with German support. In the mediterranean and middle Eastern areas I think that the British will try to work closer with Germany, Italy and France as they were doing before the war. An agreement with Italy over the mediterranean was long overdue.
Another interesting issue is India, as the British are unlikely to commit the Manpower and especially the resources needed to keep the subcontinent free from Russian influence. Thus India will receive an increasing degree of self governance, and a partition is very unlikely, as the British always preferred to leave federations instead of patchworks of small states behind them.
The alliance with Japan probably won't last after 1922, as I assume British (and american) interests will clash with the desire of the Japanese to extend control over China.
Further instability in Portugal might lead to a formal partition of the Portuguese colonial empire with Germany.
London will keep control over the financial system well past 1945, if pre war trends are to be believed, while Germany will overtake France in terms of foreign investment by the late 1930s.
The royal navy will keep its supremacy over the world's Ocean into the 1940s, but sooner or later the British will have to give up more and more control over the world's shipping lanes to other
like-minded greatt powers, while the defence of the empire will have to be shared with the various semi-Independent dominions.
In any case, an Imperial federation is very unlikely.

 

[Aghasverov]

In decolonising, India and Pakistan will be more thouroughly partitioned, likely something like the princely states. Places like Malta might stay on as British though.

Malta wanted to remain a UK dependency, IIRC...

 

[HexWargamer]

The big question is, what would be the influence of a Tsarist Russia on the British Empire ? For no WW1 almost certainly means there will be no (successful) Russian Revolution....

plus, in the far east, what's Japan going to do ? = they already beat the Tsar's navy, already had eyes on china ...

 

[The Tai-Pan]

No mention of Ireland?

 

[GrahamB]

No mention of Ireland?

Good point. Ireland might actually get Home Rule without the war immediately putting the whole process on indefinite hold.
I've never understood the antipathy the House of Lords had to letting Ireland manage its own internal affairs, letting the question of Home Rule languish and breed resentment for decades before finally relenting in 1914, mere weeks before calling the whole thing off because there was a war on and 'we can't deal with that right now'.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Ireland will get Home Rule without 1914 to intervene. There will be a war, probably in the north of the island this time, but Ireland will end up as a single dominion or not at all.

I don't think an Imperial Federation will happen but a Sterling zone might be maintained well into the second half of the 20th century and possibly beyond.

I agree the key ports (Gibraltar, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong) will stay British for longer and may be happy to do so.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Good point. Ireland might actually get Home Rule without the war immediately putting the whole process on indefinite hold.
I've never understood the antipathy the House of Lords had to letting Ireland manage its own internal affairs, letting the question of Home Rule languish and breed resentment for decades before finally relenting in 1914, mere weeks before calling the whole thing off because there was a war on and 'we can't deal with that right now'.

The House of Lords had a majority of Conservative & Unionist peers - the emphasis is deliberate and a clue to the antipathy. The modern Tory Party - an old Irish term of insult, by the way - was founded upon the rock of Unionism in the turbulent period from the 1880s onwards. It was Home Rule that drove the Liberal Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain to split from Gladstone's government and eventually merge into the C&U Party.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The House of Lords had a majority of Conservative & Unionist peers - the emphasis is deliberate and a clue to the antipathy. The modern Tory Party - an old Irish term of insult, by the way - was founded upon the rock of Unionism in the turbulent period from the 1880s onwards. It was Home Rule that drove the Liberal Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain to split from Gladstone's government and eventually merge into the C&U Party.

House of Lords are irrelevant - they had already been overridden

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

House of Lords are irrelevant - they had already been overridden

Correvt - but I was answering the question why the antipathy.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Home Rule Bill had already passed into law, it was going to happen. What the outbreak of WWI did was delay its implementation.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The Home Rule Bill had already passed into law, it was going to happen. What the outbreak of WWI did was delay its implementation.

King and/or Asquith would probably have delayed it further if the UVF looked like following through on its threats of civil war. But in the end it would happen

 

[Deleted member 94680]

How big would the Ulster Uprising be though? I’ve always wondered this.

Say it goes wildly well - maybe a Curragh incident writ large cripples the British Army? - what do the Ulstermen get? They force Britain to let them remain part of the United Kingdom at the cost of dead British soldiers? What of the risk of the British just pulling out and leaving the Ulster ”loyalists” to deal with the majority of the population of the Free State by themselves?

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

King and/or Asquith would probably have delayed it further if the UVF looked like following through on its threats of civil war. But in the end it would happen

Unlikely. Asquith's was a minority government at that time, supported by Labour & (the larger) Irish Nationalists under Redmond. The Great War was about the only event that could have made the IRP support a postponement of Home Rule. The Liberals had to follow through on their promise or the government would fall The King interfering is even less likely.

How big would the Ulster Uprising be though? I’ve always wondered this.

Say it goes wildly well - maybe a Curragh incident writ large cripples the British Army? - what do the Ulstermen get? They force Britain to let them remain part of the United Kingdom at the cost of dead British soldiers? What of the risk of the British just pulling out and leaving the Ulster ”loyalists” to deal with the majority of the population of the Free State by themselves?

Yes, that's a paradox I've often struggled with. I have absolutely no doubt that a large portion - probably not a majority - of the Ulstermen were prepared to fight, and there were a number of officers in the British Army who were Ulstermen (the Goughs, Wilson, etc.) or of a Unionist persuasion who would have refused to bear arms against their countrymen. Whether the rank & file - all professionals at this stage, don't forget - would be willing to put down an Ulster rebellion is another matter. They didn't mind oppressing the Zulus or the tribesmen of the North West Frontier, and were quite happy at shooting Irishmen in 1916, so I suspect a large number would have.

As for jumping ship, the likelihood was that the Conservative & Unionist Party would hold the largest number of seats after the impending General Election due in 1915. That would drastically reduce the possibility. There would be uproar not just in the Commons but possibly in the streets if the Liberals ratted.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes, that's a paradox I've often struggled with. I have absolutely no doubt that a large portion - probably not a majority - of the Ulstermen were prepared to fight,

500,000 signed the Ulster Covenant so that should be a ballpark.

Whether the rank & file - all professionals at this stage, don't forget - would be willing to put down an Ulster rebellion is another matter. They didn't mind oppressing the Zulus or the tribesmen of the North West Frontier, and were quite happy at shooting Irishmen in 1916, so I suspect a large number would have.

Got to remember that the Irishmen they shot in 1916 were a) Catholics (easy to portray as ‘foreign’ or ‘different’ to non-religious and Protestant (a contradiction, I know) British Army and b) rising up against Britain whilst it was at War with a foreign power.

As for jumping ship, the likelihood was that the Conservative & Unionist Party would hold the largest number of seats after the impending General Election due in 1915. That would drastically reduce the possibility. There would be uproar not just in the Commons but possibly in the streets if the Liberals ratted.

Would a Conservative and Unionist government from 1915 on try to roll back on Home Rule to appease Ulster?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Unlikely. Asquith's was a minority government at that time, supported by Labour & (the larger) Irish Nationalists under Redmond. The Great War was about the only event that could have made the IRP support a postponement of Home Rule. The Liberals had to follow through on their promise or the government would fall The King interfering is even less likely.

Yes, that's a paradox I've often struggled with. I have absolutely no doubt that a large portion - probably not a majority - of the Ulstermen were prepared to fight, and there were a number of officers in the British Army who were Ulstermen (the Goughs, Wilson, etc.) or of a Unionist persuasion who would have refused to bear arms against their countrymen. Whether the rank & file - all professionals at this stage, don't forget - would be willing to put down an Ulster rebellion is another matter. They didn't mind oppressing the Zulus or the tribesmen of the North West Frontier, and were quite happy at shooting Irishmen in 1916, so I suspect a large number would have.

As for jumping ship, the likelihood was that the Conservative & Unionist Party would hold the largest number of seats after the impending General Election due in 1915. That would drastically reduce the possibility. There would be uproar not just in the Commons but possibly in the streets if the Liberals ratted.

King and Asquith were already delaying implementation through the Buckingham Palace talks. I would imagine something like OTL Irish Convention would be tried (and would fail) before the Liberals gave way to the inevitable chaos. Assuming the IRP didn't no confidence the Liberals in the meantime but that would likely be the same as turkeys voting for Christmas as they would get a Unionist government.

But I agree the Liberals have to deliver Home Rule to have any chance of their coalition holding together