Rule Britannia

How to keep the British Empire together all the way to the present, with Britain remaining the global superpower as opposed to America? Preferably with European and Asian Constitutional Monarchies (Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, Siam, etc.) still tagging after the British instead of pandering to Washington and its liberal democratic policies (which according to many people on this site isn't actually as good as the Americans proclaim it to be).
 
I don't see there being way to save British Empire. It can keep more colonies and dominions as in OTL but keeping of whole empire is impossible. Best way to keep bigger colonial empire is shorter WW1 and lack of WW2.
 
I don't see there being way to save British Empire. It can keep more colonies and dominions as in OTL but keeping of whole empire is impossible. Best way to keep bigger colonial empire is shorter WW1 and lack of WW2.

That seems reasonable...what about staying top dog instead of the Americans?
 
I'm a bit of an economic determinist in that I believe that if people in Africa and Asia believe that they're getting smething out of the empire then they'll be more inclined to stay. Essentially what needs to happen very early on is for every colony to be treated the same way Hong Kong was after WW2. Realistically, it's impossible to avoid mercantilism so I'm thinking that this happens sometime in the 1890s onwards.

Secondly, it's important to avoid racism. People have very long memories and so human zoos in London as well as the White Man's Burden really led to a lot of deep seated resentment in the colonies.

Thirdly, Britain needs to avoid WW1. It lost a quarter of it's national wealth and ended up in debt to America. Avoiding WW1 also buterflies away the rise of the Nazi Party so there'll be no WW2 as well.

There are just my initial thoughts.
 
Have it go Fascist or some other kind of right-wing totalitarianism. The only way to keep British India and the other larger colonies in the Empire long-term is through extreme brutality. Avoiding WWI could preserve it for longer but eventually nationalist forces in India and abroad would grow in power and fight for independence.
 
Have it go Fascist or some other kind of right-wing totalitarianism. The only way to keep British India and the other larger colonies in the Empire long-term is through extreme brutality. Avoiding WWI could preserve it for longer but eventually nationalist forces in India and abroad would grow in power and fight for independence.

This probably just make to keep the empire even more difficult. There would rise so much resistance that only way would be genocide all Indians and Africans and it wouldn't be possible.
 
How to keep the British Empire together all the way to the present, with Britain remaining the global superpower as opposed to America? Preferably with European and Asian Constitutional Monarchies (Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, Siam, etc.) still tagging after the British instead of pandering to Washington and its liberal democratic policies (which according to many people on this site isn't actually as good as the Americans proclaim it to be).

I'm an economic determinist like Emperor Palpatine. Britain was a world power for so long because of its economic strength therefore to remain a superpower after 1945 it has to have a much larger GNP.

It would also help if it had a larger population because there is no point in being able to buy more weapons if there aren't enough people to use them.

Though I don't see how the British Empire in its 1945 form could survive any longer than it did and I don't want it to.

It could evolve into an imperial federation with the colonies becoming part of the UK as was proposed for Malta in the 1950s. However, that is very unlikely.

However, a stronger Commonwealth of Nations might be more feasible. That is all the colonies keep the Queen as their head of state when they become independent and Commonwealth's members have common defence, foreign and economic policies. The latter would include the survival of the Sterling Area until the present.

However, as the African and Asian colonies caught up economically with the UK, the mother country would have less and less influence. E.g. the Sterling Area might be the Rupee Zone in all but name by now due to the growth of the Indian economy.
 
However, a stronger Commonwealth of Nations might be more feasible. That is all the colonies keep the Queen as their head of state when they become independent and Commonwealth's members have common defence, foreign and economic policies. The latter would include the survival of the Sterling Area until the present.

However, as the African and Asian colonies caught up economically with the UK, the mother country would have less and less influence. E.g. the Sterling Area might be the Rupee Zone in all but name by now due to the growth of the Indian economy.

A tighter Commonwealth would probably be the best bet for a preserved/reinvented British Empire capable of standing toe-to-toe with the Americans. Smaller colonies might have to be given up though, with the larger and more important ones given Dominion status and bound with bilateral defense treaties/the Commonwealth possessing NATO-like elements.

Even if Britain still gets involved in WWI, one way to avoid WWII - or at least in part - is to keep a good relationship with Japan. I know that the UK was under heavy pressure from the Americans not to renew the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, but perhaps an Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement could take its place after the alliance lapses. On one hand, it gives the Americans what they want: breaking of military ties between Japan and Britain. OTOH, it allows the British and the Japanese to retain some kind of understanding with each other (which the Japanese wanted as a deterrent against the Americans) and for Britain to gain increased economic influence in the region (which they would want considering all their debts to America after WWI). This would also serve to cushion the effects of the Great Depression later on, and while I doubt the Manchurian Intervention could be butterflied away, the lingering western influence of the Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement could potentially butterfly away the Second Sino-Japanese War, especially if the British could use Manchukuo's status as a bargaining chip for division of SOIs in the region.

Australia, New Zealand, and British New Guinea would obviously be British interests, with the first two already Dominions. Not sure how British New Guinea will be resolved in the long-term though. Mayala, Sarawak, and British Borneo should become a single Dominion, while Singapore, Penang, and Malacca become a separate Dominion of their own or be integrated directly into the UK: considering their economic and military value, it shouldn't be too hard to sell to Parliament.

Burma and India are more difficult...Burma though is a problem that could be palmed off to Japan, when the latter inevitably moves on French Indochina when Vichy France comes into being. The Americans won't be happy, but if the Second Sino-Japanese War is butterflied, there might be ample room for negotiation. Vietnam and Burma become Japanese satellites, while neutral/Japanese-allied Siam annexes Laos and Cambodia.

South Africa could be expanded to include Namibia and Rhodesia, and Kenya could be given Dominion status as well. Not sure about the rest of the African colonies though...would granting them independence under pro-British governments work?

Not sure about the British territories in the New World either...
 
How to keep the British Empire together all the way to the present, with Britain remaining the global superpower as opposed to America? Preferably with European and Asian Constitutional Monarchies (Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, Siam, etc.) still tagging after the British instead of pandering to Washington and its liberal democratic policies (which according to many people on this site isn't actually as good as the Americans proclaim it to be).

Well, to have the slightest chance to achieve it, you would need the british empire to cease being the empire of Britain and to become much more similar to the roman empire. Which means really integrating a large and significant part of the population of the various territories of the empire, especially the ruling elite but not only them. It means accepting that Britain becomes what it is - a minority inside the empire - and that it loses control and that a political faction coming from this colony or this other colony becomes dominant because it weighs more in terms of power and resources or is located on the strategic point of the age.

That's what the roman empire did with its italian-spaniard emperors in the 2nd century, with its italian-african emperors in the first half of the 3rd century (both Antonines and Severi partly descended from italian settlers in Spain and Africa), with its illyrian emperors from the late 3rd century to the late 4th century.

I definitly can't buy the idea that India could be part of such an empire because India's weight was far far too important. You can't found a new nation that is different from the part that weighs 75 or 80% of the total population and which has such a strong and distinct cultural identity.
And I think it's the same for the african colonies.

Last, you have to deal with the paradox of communications and identity.

To hold together such an empire you need fast and intense communications that did not exist before the late 20th century. Without fast and intense communications and transports, there is a somewhat irresistible trend to set local independant powers in several distant territories.

And if you want to forge a common identity by melting former different identities into a common new one, you need to force it more or less violently on people and you need this people to enjoy only weak communications means so that they have no alternative and are forced to adapt.

Consider the fact that the emergence of nations in the 19th century and early 20th century was largely correlated to the modernization of the printing press (with the various rotary systems that enabled to spread cultural works, language, ...etc) that strengthened local identities or enabled to forge a nation on ancient common cultural characteristics.
And that before this there was religion. Religions were and still largely are a very strong part of national identities. When those religions are too different, it's hard to forge a common nation.
 
Would something like having a hundred Hong Kong's work?

(Hong Kong seemed to work under the British and the current regime is not entirely popular, there was never the same level of mass protest anyway)

The concept might be repeated with other economic enclaves, Singapore broke away from Malaysia, Newfoundland asked to be directly administered by London and Malta had to be given independence at virtual gunpoint.

And concessions can be administered relatively amicably, it seemed to work out for the Panama Canal Zone. (Although a similar arrangement would almost certainly be more contentious with Suez).

Enough of them would also elevate the population base, individually and collectively the size would have to be kept down to less than the UK, and they would eventually need some sort of representation in Westminster, several Colonial French possessions are now integral parts of Metropolitan France, so it can be done.

And interpose the Commonwealth on top on that, with stronger economic, political and military links.

If Britain had twice the population and total GDP (Or more), that would make it at least the world number three economically (and plausibly number two) and a contender for the worlds second military power (And a realistic Superpower).

It would be a push to equal the US, just because of the size of the populations, someone would have to come up with a way of integrating a population about five times the current GB.
Sheer distance is not necessarily an obstacle, consider how far Hawaii is from the Continental United States.
But Britain needs someway of just being bigger!?
 
Top