PC/WI: The UK with a population of 300 million?

They must choose between UK and Russia
They will choose the UK.

All other things being equal the UK will have more people than Russia, more money than Russia and more industry than Russia. Therefore it will be considered the greatest threat regardless of whether the British want to conquer the continent or not.

It has the resources to maintain a home army of 100 infantry divisions (30 regular and 70 TF) and a navy of circa 400 submarines, 350 capital ships of all types (dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts and battle cruisers), 600 cruisers of all types and 1,500 surface torpedo craft (1,000 destroyers and 500 torpedo boats) in peacetime.
 
Almost certainly the army would be smaller proportionately and the navy larger. This Britain will be more vulnerable to threats to its trade and will spend appropriately, while I can't see why Britain would want an army that was so large unless her continental enemies had large armies and Britain had allies who they felt the need to reinforce. However, 1914 would only be 13 years after whatever PoD, so the actual population would be more like 58 million if we went with a flat 2.65%/year growth rate. Probably not enough to significantly change the strategic calculus of the continental powers (though they would be starting to become aware of the problem of British population growth).

fasquardon
Whilst reading this again it struck me that unless some of the growth was from migration all the extra people in 1914 are going to be aged between 0 and 13. The British Isles of 1914 ITTL will be a huge maternity hospital cum primary school.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What events (clearly some will require a pre 1900 post) would need to happen for the UK to end up with a population of 300 million by 1980?

You can include the land mass of Ireland to make it so.

It must be from natural increase, ie no immigration from outside the UK

Would the land area of the British Isles support this?

Regards filers.
You could try having an earlier Industrial Revolution with Britain and then continuously keep on flooding Britain with immigrants. Indeed, an extra couple of centuries of being an industrial nation might result in Britain having such a massive population; heck, even in our TL, there has been a projection which shows that Britain's population could eventually reach 132 million people! :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ld-hit-132-million-warn-official-figures.html

In this TL, you simply need to slightly more than double that--which, again, might be doable with a couple of additional centuries of being an industrial nation.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
a navy of circa 400 submarines, 350 capital ships of all types (dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts and battle cruisers), 600 cruisers of all types and 1,500 surface torpedo craft (1,000 destroyers and 500 torpedo boats) in peacetime.
If RN still has a conversion from coal to oil before ww1 to increase speed, Britain must secure its oil supply. Synthetic oil would be developed, but this would be insufficient. Not to mention oil for other industries

Whilst reading this again it struck me that unless some of the growth was from migration all the extra people in 1914 are going to be aged between 0 and 13. The British Isles of 1914 ITTL will be a huge maternity hospital cum primary school.
Then Britain would have a much smaller economy than your estimation.
 
The biggest change this makes is that this Britain will always ally with the biggest navy on the Continent, rather than the second most powerful military power. Why? Because they cannot afford a u-boat campaign at all, for any length of time.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Actually, by 1914, a population of 60-80 million would be optimal if British economy also rises proportionately. This ensures that Britain still has the largest economy and industry in Europe by far, while not big enough to make all other European nations turn against her. It would also less vulnerable to a U-boat Campaign than a 100+ million Britain. Meanwhile, Third French Republic will seek out to Britain to avoid being isolated by Bismarck's policy (unless the 1848 revolutions succeed, you cannot avoid a Franco-Prussian War to unify Germany).
 
Last edited:

Wallet

Banned
Every single person who ever emigrated from the U.K. stays, so from Jamestown to 2017.

What's the population then? Considering we're keeping the populations of US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
 
Then Britain would have a much smaller economy than your estimation.
@fasquardon who I was quoting said the UK's population would have a population of 58 million (instead of 45 million) in 1914 had the population grown at 2.65% since the OP's POD which was 1900.

However, when I wrote that the UK could have had armed forces in 1914 that were 5 times 1914 in OTL that was with it having 5 times the population of OTL in 1914 and having had 5 times the population of OTL since the Year Dot. The Year Dot is a British expression meaning the beginning of time.
 
If RN still has a conversion from coal to oil before ww1 to increase speed, Britain must secure its oil supply. Synthetic oil would be developed, but this would be insufficient. Not to mention oil for other industries.
The conversion from oil was incomplete in 1914. The first oil powered battleships (the Queen Elizabeth class) were still fitting out, about half the destroyers (the F class onwards) used oil fuel and IIRC all the cruisers before the Town class and A class scout cruisers used coal.

However, as the whole thing is ASB anyway there's nothing to stop Persia being able to produce 5 times as much oil since it's discovery and 1914. For one thing the UK can afford to spend 5 times as much on developing the oil fields that had been discovered by 1914 IOTL and it can afford to send 5 times as many prospectors out to find new oil fields.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Have the UK instead of the US becoming the main safe haven for the European Forty-Eighters could have some impact.
 
The only way to make this remotely possible would be to make Canada a direct part of the United Kingdom in the early 19th century, make Canada somewhat larger at the expense of the United States, and expand Canada's population via aggressive encouragement of immigration from both Europe and India. ASB.
 
I'd be surprised if you could get double the British Isles population with such a late PoD. Avoiding the world wars and the economic malaise from all the debt and destruction would probably give you a good bump but I doubt it would double it.
 
The only way to make this remotely possible would be to make Canada a direct part of the United Kingdom in the early 19th century, make Canada somewhat larger at the expense of the United States, and expand Canada's population via aggressive encouragement of immigration from both Europe and India. ASB.
Or just have the Thirteen Colonies stay with the UK. The center of power may eventually move to the Americas, but the population could then exceed even 400,000,000.

Both would require a pre-1900 PoD.
 
Zombies. The Undead roam a post apocalyptic wasteland, anyone who has ever died and been buried in Britain rises from their graves.
 
Whilst reading this again it struck me that unless some of the growth was from migration all the extra people in 1914 are going to be aged between 0 and 13. The British Isles of 1914 ITTL will be a huge maternity hospital cum primary school.

This had occurred to me also. The higher ratio of dependants to productive subjects will mean that less economic resources will be available for mobilization early in the war. Is this enough to mean the Entente loses in this TL? It could be very interesting to pit "300 million Britain" against a Germany that had won WW1.

That said, if Britain did avoid defeat early in the war, it would have much more new manpower coming available in 1917 and onwards.

fasquardon
 
Top