Question. How stable was the British Empire post WWI?

The end of the first world war I have often heard was the beginning of the end for the British empire. The colonial populations felt used and ignored by the British. Like their men had been used as little more than cannon fodder for the German army. The nation had crushing debt, widespread civil unrest. Ireland in nearly open war. And the faith in the invincible Royal navy had been crushed. I have also heard that people simply gave up on the Empire, thinking that it was broken. All these reasons so I`m told began the fall of the British empire.
But is this the right view? I am not saying the empire was perfect or anything. But what I want to know is why it seemed like everybody just gave up on the empire and Britain could not wait to give its colonies home rule. Was the first worls war the death of the British empire? And if not how long could it have continued had there remained a strong will to hold it together?
 
British Empire was crumbling,slowly.

The nineteenth century model - colonize and create captive markets - was just too expensive.

Gandhi and Congress Party were effective at undermining the motivation of Indians to police India in the name of British Empire.

Ireland had been granted "Home Rule" before the War; but sentiment (at least in what's now Republic of Ireland) shifted to demanding virtually full independence, which was granted, except for a fig leaf of Royal assent to treaties.

Contrast those 'colonies' with the British in the Middle East. The Middle East was increasingly vital (oil for the Royal Navy). Here the British granted independence (mostly) to former Ottoman provinces (Saudi, Iraq) but retained special trade and military relations with local kings. Egypt was nominally independent (they had a King) but British maintained the king and a virtual protectorate, protecting Suez Canal.

Colonies had become too expensive; the more practical way of maintaining most favored trade partners worked well. But the British ceded that role (at least in Mid-East) to the US after World War Two,
 
IMO the British Empire was killed by WW1. Effectively the British lost power over Ireland, the Dominions, Afghanistan, Egypt and parts of Kenya and Sudan (given to Italy and today parts of Libya and Somalia) in a handful of years after WW1. In India their position was severely weakened. Their economic dominance of South America utterly destroyed. It is possible for the Empire to stay together (or at least, more of the Empire to stay together), but it is very difficult to avoid massive shrinkage in the wake of WW1 (even though, like OTL, most of shrinkage may not become apparent until the 1950s).

As for things that could result in more of the Empire surviving: Different political leadership in the UK could make a difference as could different economic policies by the government (interwar economic policy in the UK was an absolute mess). WW2 being a powerful British victory (for example, the course of WW2 as portrayed in "The Whale Has Wings") could also give the Empire more life.

IMO the instability was such that no plausible post-WW1 PoD can stop the Brits from losing the majority of the Empire though.

fasquardon
 

hipper

Banned
IMO the British Empire was killed by WW1. Effectively the British lost power over Ireland, the Dominions, Afghanistan, Egypt and parts of Kenya and Sudan (given to Italy and today parts of Libya and Somalia) in a handful of years after WW1. In India their position was severely weakened. Their economic dominance of South America utterly destroyed. It is possible for the Empire to stay together (or at least, more of the Empire to stay together), but it is very difficult to avoid massive shrinkage in the wake of WW1 (even though, like OTL, most of shrinkage may not become apparent until the 1950s).

As for things that could result in more of the Empire surviving: Different political leadership in the UK could make a difference as could different economic policies by the government (interwar economic policy in the UK was an absolute mess). WW2 being a powerful British victory (for example, the course of WW2 as portrayed in "The Whale Has Wings") could also give the Empire more life.

IMO the instability was such that no plausible post-WW1 PoD can stop the Brits from losing the majority of the Empire though.

fasquardon

I suspect that A POD that butterflied ww2,would see a considerably different approach to decolonisation.
 
I suspect that A POD that butterflied ww2,would see a considerably different approach to decolonisation.

Agreed. But by the mid-30s the Dominions were functionally independent, the path towards Indian decolonization decided and the timetable for the final withdrawal from Egypt decided. Afghanistan had already chucked the British out...

What remains would still be a large empire, but also less profitable, which might see Britain decide to kick all the poor colonies onto the curb. If that happens, I don't think decolonization would look too different...

fasquardon
 
Top