The British Empire......LIVES!!!

[Tyr]

Sorry, I had old numbers in my head. Make that 60 Million in Canda and the US together, as you assumed.

The outflow of Germans consisted of many people who considered the US a haven of opportunities and freedom - Kanada never had such an image, and Australia to a much lesser degree. I suppose similar thinking for British, Irish and other immigrants. Also, a British controlled America would not be so tempting for the Irish who fled British oppression. Much more people would simply have stayed in their homecountries and caused more increases of the population there.

Also, free immigration to Australia, Canada and so on for non-British people probably only came because of the US's immigration policy and according power increase. Without this competition, the British might have done things much more slowly.

As I said earlier this is very unlikey.
The USA is not heavily populated because of 'freedom and equality for all' and all that stuff America claims to have invented (though really just copied and perverted from Britain). A lot of the USA is prime real estate. You could have a regime worse then Nazi Germany ruling it and people would still risk going there. There are simply no alternatives for emigrants to go to. Argentina maybe as a second consideration though if Britain ruled north America its likely our rule there would be far more formal then otl.
For the Irish fleeing British occupation- the Irish were British. Not occupied by them. Something a lot of people forget is far more Irish emigrated to mainland Britain then to the USA.

 

[jolo]

The reason the USA became so big and powerful was nothing to do with all this land of the free BS. It was that the USA is located on some of the best real estate going. The only place it could possibly not reach the level it did IOTL is that the British government will keep a bit of control over the colonials urge to go slaughter the natives.

As I see it, there is still a lot of good, pretty much unused real estate in Australia and Canada. And as much as population numbers increase quicker in the US-area due to climate, fewer loyalists and the likes go to Canada. Also, many people fled opression in Germany, Ireland, Eastern Europe and so on - what would make them go to the Colonies of a country with a pretty similar system? What would make the British open the Borders for them?

Throughout the 19th century British engineers and industrialists were all around the empire (formal and informal) developing industry and rail links

And the British politians and soldiers walked around keeping Indians from producing their own textiles, Egyptians from building factories themselves, and so on.

...STOP THE STUPID CONVERGANT AH.

I don't mind silly oppinions on how the British empire was evil so much though this insistance that everything will work out exactly the same outside of the western hemisphere...Its just dumb.

IOTL the resources of the north american colonies were transported to GB and sold back anyway even post American revolution. With the US part of the official British empire rather then the informal empire it would develop far quicker.

I'm not talking convergent history. I'm talking lot's of possibilities for even bigger upsets for the British than in OTL. Like no lend-lease or the likes.

I also can't see how GB keeping the US will necessarily lead to GB keeping the empire (though it's a slight possibility).

Best. Empire. Ever.

I may even agree to the extent that I don't know too many countries who would've done a better job. The Germans weren't strong economically or in terms of human rights (even in comparison to the British). The US never became too much of an empire, and even today don't assume that role officially. France's back and forth between rationalism and irrationalism also never was too much of an example, Russia I'd also not give too many sympathy points, China and Japan even less, and so on.

I could think of a lot of OTL-Empires even better, though...

 

[Flocculencio]

Just some points to refute the claim that Britain did nothing to develop her colonies. I'm going to stick with India, Singapore and Malaysia as those are the regions that I'm most familiar with.

India
- was left with the world's largest and most comprehensive rail network
- was left with a degree of national unity unthinkable before the British came on the scene. Before the time of the Raj, Indians didn't think of themselves as Indians
- was left with a fine and stable government system, modelled on Westminster
- was left with a secular government
- was left with inhumane customs such as thugee and sati suppressed

Singapore & Malaysia
- Were left with a strong infrastructure
- Were left with fine and stable government systems
- Were defended successfully against a communist insurgency

I'm not trying to paint the British colonials as the white knights in everything they did, but when all's said and done, I feel they did more good than harm.

 

[Flocculencio]

As I see it, there is still a lot of good, pretty much unused real estate in Australia and Canada.

To be fair, though, most of Australia is baking desert and scrubland while most of Canada is frozen tundra. If I was an immigrant I'd rather migrate to someplace like California or Virginia or New England than to, say, Sasketchwan or Alice Springs,

 

[jolo]

I wish good luck to the Germans trying to invade Belgian Congo. The Force Publique under Général Tombeur defeated Lettow-Vorbeck twice during WWI...

It's not necessary anymore once Belgium is conquered, if GB doesn't interfere.

 

[jolo]

The USA is not heavily populated because of 'freedom and equality for all' and all that stuff America claims to have invented (though really just copied and perverted from Britain). A lot of the USA is prime real estate. You could have a regime worse then Nazi Germany ruling it and people would still risk going there. There are simply no alternatives for emigrants to go to. Argentina maybe as a second consideration though if Britain ruled north America its likely our rule there would be far more formal then otl.
For the Irish fleeing British occupation- the Irish were British. Not occupied by them. Something a lot of people forget is far more Irish emigrated to mainland Britain then to the USA.

As you state yourself, there always were alternatives. There always were European countries looking for labourers. There always were borders open at least temporarily all over the world. There nearly always was the possibility of just cultivating more unused land wherever one happened to live. And so on.

You still didn't answer the question why the British would want their colonies to be filled with Germans, Russians, French and so on, if they didn't need to. It would be much more tempting to give the land to "distinguished" Brits who in turn avoid labour-intensive activities like farming.

 

[Darkling]

Sorry, I had old numbers in my head. Make that 60 Million in Canda and the US together, as you assumed.

ok lets look at those numbers, between 1820 and 1920 the US received 36 million immigrants, in that time the US population increased 11 fold, an increase of just under 100 million people, thus even discounting immigration, natural growth saw an 8 fold increase (about 70 million people).

Thus just due to the natural population increase the US will surpass your 30 million around 1870-80, this gives them an additional 120 years to grow in which they can only produce children at replacement rate in direct contravention of US (or Anglo Saxon in general) standard operating procedure.

The outflow of Germans consisted of many people who considered the US a haven of opportunities and freedom - Kanada never had such an image, and Australia to a much lesser degree.

I would challenge this idea that people primarily moved to the US because of the government there, if people functioned in that fashion then we wouldn't have had people moving from the US to Canada (outside of UEL's) but we did see this because Britain offered free land and Americans snapped at it.

Whoever discounting Germans, Italians, Russians and the other Europeans who moved to the US we still have 15 million people leaving Britain, Ireland and Canada to go to the US between 1820 and 1930.

These people are still likely to move (perhaps even more so) to the US which adds another 15 million to the US, meaning the US can only see a natural increase of 5 million in just under 2 centuries.

A very big ask, even the French notorious non breeders that they are managed more than 5 million in 2 centuries (several times more).

I suppose similar thinking for British, Irish and other immigrants. Also, a British controlled America would not be so tempting for the Irish who fled British oppression.

As has already been pointed out the Irish will quite happy to emigrate to Britain so by and large they weren't fleeing persecution but seeking opportunities, after all; if they had been fleeing persecution after a few days in the US they would have been back on a boat to Ireland given the welcome Irish immigrants got in the US.

Much more people would simply have stayed in their home countries and caused more increases of the population there.

Not if they had a better chance at a good life elsewhere, people did emigrate to Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina and Chile in spite of the fact that they weren’t the US and in fact even when the US was available to them.

These people didn’t despair and wither away rather than go to a country other than the US and they wouldn’t in a world without the US.

Also, free immigration to Australia, Canada and so on for non-British people probably only came because of the US's immigration policy and according power increase. Without this competition, the British might have done things much more slowly.

Britain never really considered the US competition, in fact that constantly went out of their way to keep the US happy rather than small and contained because they just didn't care enough to fight the US.

A British America might result in a smaller “US” but a “US” of 30 million people is far too small.

 

[jolo]

ok lets look at those numbers, between 1820 and 1920 the US received 36 million immigrants, in that time the US population increased 11 fold, an increase of just under 100 million people, thus even discounting immigration, natural growth saw an 8 fold increase (about 70 million people).

...

A British America might result in a smaller “US” but a “US” of 30 million people is far too small.

I suppose there is also some immigrants not counted because of lack of registration. I also suppose an intense land distribution and cultivation campaign which allowed people to support many children, which might not be as likely with a British government. Furthermore, I was talking more along the lines of 50 Million to 10 Million, as there would be less incentive to move to cold Canada (as stated by yourself). Also, I see problems reaching the West as quickly, so that the west coast is Russian, Chinese, Amerindian or an independent mix. And I see less strength towards the south, so that Mexiko (or the likes) might be bigger.

But maybe we can agree on slightly higher numbers - that doesn't really matter too much. Just think of what unrestricted uboat warfare during the whole WWI would have done to that empire, considering centrifugal forces within.

 

[Maku]

For Britain to keep the empire you need to create more loyalty to a British ideal and break up power blocks in colonies ala Roman Empire.

Break up tribes in Africa by recruiting young men into native divisions, send them to police other imperial territories, grant them lands outside of their native tribal regions at the completion of say 10-15 years of loyal service (during which you pump them full of Empire propaganda).

Do the same with Indian troops, use them in Asia and Africa. Encourage more Indian migration to Africa/North America/Australasia. Create a number of small colonies/princely states out of India to prevent a single massive independence movement. That way the Empire could be seen as the safe arbiter that prevents various Indian ethnic/religious groups from tearing into each other.

Create an Imperial Parliament (which might be hard to sell to UK MPs) with representatives from all colonies/dominions to manage the greater empire.
Early creation of a system of Imperial Preference in trade issues. And use the education system to promote a sense of being 'British' and pride in the Empire.

All of this would help. Basically you need to break up local power blocs and bring in a divide and conquer strategy to deal with larger areas/populations you can't scatter across the empire.

The problem as I see it is the majority of the things you'd need to do to convince the non-caucasian peoples to stay are things the whites wouldn't been keen on. You would need a very big drop in racisim in the white portions of the population and a williness for UK politicians/lords to accept the diversion of authority for the empire to an Imperial Parliament.

 

[Darkling]

I suppose there is also some immigrants not counted because of lack of registration. I also suppose an intense land distribution and cultivation campaign which allowed people to support many children, which might not be as likely with a British government.

Without better records to go off of the 35 million stands.
As for the cultivation of the land, things would continue for the not US as they already were doing thus that growing population will continue.

You are attempting to find a way around the evidence instead of building your ideas upon it.

Furthermore, I was talking more along the lines of 50 Million to 10 Million, as there would be less incentive to move to cold Canada (as stated by yourself).

You are still ignoring immigration and natural growth, you can't just hand wave things like that away to justify your later position.

Also, I see problems reaching the West as quickly, so that the west coast is Russian, Chinese, Amerindian or an independent mix. And I see less strength towards the south, so that Mexiko (or the likes) might be bigger.

The Russians aren't really strong enough to do anything on the Pacific coast especially with Britain having a greater interest in North America.

China colonising the OTL US West coast is unlikely to put it kindly.

Mexico was a basket case which was ripe for men on the spot to grab bits off of and that was the standard procedure in the Empire.

But maybe we can agree on slightly higher numbers - that doesn't really matter too much. Just think of what unrestricted uboat warfare during the whole WWI would have done to that empire, considering centrifugal forces within.

Giving Britain an extra 100+ million industrialised subject would mean that Germany would be to busy getting hammered to do much against the Empires sea lanes if we for a minute ignore the differences a loyal US would make to a possible WW1.

 

[Rex Imperator]

For Britain to keep the empire you need to create more loyalty to a British ideal and break up power blocks in colonies ala Roman Empire.

Break up tribes in Africa by recruiting young men into native divisions, send them to police other imperial territories, grant them lands outside of their native tribal regions at the completion of say 10-15 years of loyal service (during which you pump them full of Empire propaganda).

Do the same with Indian troops, use them in Asia and Africa. Encourage more Indian migration to Africa/North America/Australasia. Create a number of small colonies/princely states out of India to prevent a single massive independence movement. That way the Empire could be seen as the safe arbiter that prevents various Indian ethnic/religious groups from tearing into each other.

Create an Imperial Parliament (which might be hard to sell to UK MPs) with representatives from all colonies/dominions to manage the greater empire.
Early creation of a system of Imperial Preference in trade issues. And use the education system to promote a sense of being 'British' and pride in the Empire.

All of this would help. Basically you need to break up local power blocs and bring in a divide and conquer strategy to deal with larger areas/populations you can't scatter across the empire.

The problem as I see it is the majority of the things you'd need to do to convince the non-caucasian peoples to stay are things the whites wouldn't been keen on. You would need a very big drop in racisim in the white portions of the population and a williness for UK politicians/lords to accept the diversion of authority for the empire to an Imperial Parliament.

I agree with you here. Britain would have had to nourish the sense of imperial pride among her peoples, which she did to an extent. I remember seeing a picture of the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VIII) touring the Raj on the back of elegantly attired elephant and in the background there was a large poster or sign being held up by a few Indian children that read: "Tell Papa we like being British". I assume that by "Papa", they were referring to King George V, who (as every British Sovereign since Queen Victoria's time) was also Emperor of India.

I would have voted for the establishment of an Imperial Parliament or Council of Empire in London. Of course, such a building to house such an august assembly must be large and impressive enough to convey the immense power, glory, and solidarity of the Empire to any native or foreigner.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

The USA is not heavily populated because of 'freedom and equality for all' and all that stuff America claims to have invented (though really just copied and perverted from Britain).

Stop making argumentitive blanket statements that cant be conclusively proven one way or the other. Its pointless.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

This thread has become a game of Risk and a revolting apologia for colonialism. Bye. Call me when you emerge from puberty.

I whole-heartedly agree. Add in caucasian wet-dream, too. Peace out.

 

[Wozza]

This thread has become a game of Risk and a revolting apologia for colonialism. Bye. Call me when you emerge from puberty.

I whole-heartedly agree. Add in caucasian wet-dream, too. Peace out.

AHP is being very inconsistent here. He has commented on the positive side of Ottoman imperialism and colonialism in threads, yet seems to think it the end of the world when people point out the positie sides of western imperialism.
I see no one here denying the brutal aspects or arguing for a renewel of imperialism

 

[Tyr]

Stop making argumentitive blanket statements that cant be conclusively proven one way or the other. Its pointless.

Cam't be proven?
At the beginning of the American revolution the rebels said that Britain had lost its way and was no longer a free liberal nation. Notice they said Britain was no longer this. Not that they were inventing one from scratch. Even the Americans admitted this originally.

I wonder what obscure American bills the anti-British crowd will turn to next... (that's where these arguments normally go and fizzle out)

This thread has become a game of Risk and a revolting apologia for colonialism. Bye. Call me when you emerge from puberty.

Its pretty amusing when kids tell others to grow up...
There is no apologia for colonialism. Colonialism needs to apology. Modern historians are starting to realise this once more having gotten over that nasty revisionist 'OMG empire woz evil' period' though many regular folks are still stuck there...

 

[MrP]

re Belgian overseas possessions in the event of an aggressive German war

IRL the Allies secured Icleand once Denmark was invaded, since they were unwilling to see it used as a base against them. I very much doubt that the Belgian Congo could be secured so easily without Belgian compliance. However, if the only other option is German seizure of the colony, an unofficial agreement might be reached.

Re Caucasian wet-dreams

JimmyJimJam, does this mean that a hypothetical discussion of a world-ruling Zulu empire is also a racist wet dream? Ditto a discussion of a Roman Empire - they had a very high opinion of themselves. I take it any analysis of the Aztecs ruling the north and south American continents is also implicitly a declaration of support for human sacrifice.

I've yet to see any overt racist sentiment in here. The worst I can see is a wilful refusal to treat the empire as a provider of ills. However, since others are happy to view the empire solely as a provider of ills, and still others are capable of seeing it as both a good and a bad thing, I'm not over-worried.

 

[MrP]

Leej, I agree wholeheartedly that colonialism needs no apology, but for a different reason. viz, there is noone left who ought to apologise for it. The American president might as well apologise for British soldiers' deaths in the AWI as any modern politician apologise for colonialism.

I further believe that colonialism should be both condemned and that an apologia chould be provided against those who condemn it out of hand.

There were deplorable incidents, trends and themes, and these ought to be acknowledged as part of the often benevolent and helpful package of imperialistic thought. Moreover, chaps, condemnation of one empire without treating on others isn't that helpful, as others have noted.

N.B. Apologia = defence, not apology (in Ancient Greek, at any rate)

 

[jolo]

Without better records to go off of the 35 million stands.
As for the cultivation of the land, things would continue for the not US as they already were doing thus that growing population will continue.

I'm not talking about some farms around some outposts. I'm talking about giving away large chunks of land for nearly nothing to masses of people. Not really a British specialty (they'd probably prefer giving it to a few landlords, given a choice). Going by numbers, I looked it up: In 1790, the US had 3.9 million people - after about 2 centuries of British colonization! Only then did the US grow at the astonishing rate of about 3%/year until the civil war.

You are attempting to find a way around the evidence instead of building your ideas upon it.

I think the evidence is pretty obviously not as nice as you would like it to be.

You are still ignoring immigration and natural growth, you can't just hand wave things like that away to justify your later position.

With Britain, I see old officers of the nobility getting big chunks of mainly woodland or grassland for their achievements. Only very little conversion to Farmland, as hunting, horseriding and so on is much more fun on undeveloped land. Some people can pay the money to be allowed to farm on the land, or to mine ressources from it. A few railways to get the ressources to the harbors. And that's about it. I don't see how they'd ever achieve sustained growth of 3%/year in population.

The Russians aren't really strong enough to do anything on the Pacific coast especially with Britain having a greater interest in North America.

They'd quickly have become strong enough with all the land in favorable climate conditions, with all the ressources, and so on.

China colonising the OTL US West coast is unlikely to put it kindly.

There were masses of people coming from China shortly after it was settled by the Americans. Many as guestworkers though. If there had just been a small chinese, japanese, korean or so colony before those settlers arrive, but after the land was well known (pretty tempting for a government trying to show off some successes), we might easily get an Asian dominated California.

Mexico was a basket case which was ripe for men on the spot to grab bits off of and that was the standard procedure in the Empire.

How much? How quickly? What if their population grows much faster than that of North America?

Giving Britain an extra 100+ million industrialised subject would mean that Germany would be to busy getting hammered to do much against the Empires sea lanes if we for a minute ignore the differences a loyal US would make to a possible WW1.

About 100 Million was what the US had at that time. I doubt the British would have had half as many. And I doubt those would have been nearly as industrialized. Furthermore, there appears to be increased likelyhood for large wars the longer none has happened. So what effects come from that in the meantime, especially concerning growth of the Empire in other places?

 

[Darkling]

I'm not talking about some farms around some outposts. I'm talking about giving away large chunks of land for nearly nothing to masses of people. Not really a British specialty (they'd probably prefer giving it to a few landlords, given a choice). Going by numbers, I looked it up: In 1790, the US had 3.9 million people - after about 2 centuries of British colonization! Only then did the US grow at the astonishing rate of about 3%/year until the civil war.

Colonisation was slow to take off because natives had to be cleared out, colonies founded, routes established, crop suitable and markets gauged and so on.

Between 1700 and 1790 the population of the "US" increased from 700,000 to 3,900,000.
That my friend is a large increase especially given the war and corresponding immigration drop off or the fact immigration was more difficult in the age of sail, what is more we have an example of Canada to use.

In 1700 to 1800 they roughly doubled to 260,000 in the next century they rose to 5,300,000 that is roughly increasing 20 fold.

Given a similar increase in the US we have a US population of 100,000,000 by 1900 (actually above what the US achieved in OTL).

So your assumption that British administration would retard growth by a ridiculous amount is, well, ridiculous.

Lets look at Australia, another British colony.
In 1800 the population was 5,000 to 3,500,000 in 1900 which is about a 750 times increase, again not bad (of course starting a colony is atypical which is why it is silly to look at the early time periods especially of a nations first settlement colonies, something to keep in mind for the future perhaps).

So again this idea that the British would substantial retard growth is unfounded, on top of the fact that you haven't accounted for why the immigrants will go other than the "US" or why the people in the "US" will stop having children.

I think the evidence is pretty obviously not as nice as you would like it to be.

No I am quite happy the evidence confirms my position, I know this because I started with the evidence and developed a position and not the other way around which as I'm sure you can appreciate leads to embarrassing attempts to defend the indefensible.

With Britain, I see old officers of the nobility getting big chunks of mainly woodland or grassland for their achievements. Only very little conversion to Farmland, as hunting, horseriding and so on is much more fun on undeveloped land. Some people can pay the money to be allowed to farm on the land, or to mine ressources from it. A few railways to get the ressources to the harbors. And that's about it. I don't see how they'd ever achieve sustained growth of 3%/year in population.

Note Canada, Australia and New Zealand all of which were able to grow nicely given far less favourable circumstances.

Hell look at Britain itself or Ireland both of which were able to grow at rather good rates at certain periods during the 1800's.

Ignoring emigration (i.e. imagining the people stayed in the UK and growth remain as historical) then Britain increased its population by a factor of 7 from 1800-1900.

Even if the US only managed the same rate they would pass your 30 million mark before 19000, that means they would need negative growth for the 20th century for you to be right and this is ignoring immigration they would receive.

The evidence just doesn't support your position, there is little point trying to dance around that fact.

They'd quickly have become strong enough with all the land in favorable climate conditions, with all the ressources, and so on.

And they do better than OTL how, for the same reason the international migration systems shuts down and Americans gain a sudden aversion to procreation I assume?

Britain can and will stop the Russians expanded their position on the pacific coast even if the Russians for some reason put more than a token effort into expanding their position.

There were masses of people coming from China shortly after it was settled by the Americans. Many as guestworkers though. If there had just been a small chinese, japanese, korean or so colony before those settlers arrive, but after the land was well known (pretty tempting for a government trying to show off some successes), we might easily get an Asian dominated California.

China is a basket case for the 19th century, they aren't colonising squat and Japan is an insular nation for a good portion and then trying to rapidly modernise without annoying anybody for the rest.

Even Mexico could prevent these powers encroaching on the West coast, if the West coast wasn't already in British hands or an Anglo Republic.

I simply find it amazing that the British do starling worse in this timeline whilst everybody else gets a boost for some unknown reason.

It almost seems that everything is rigged to got a certain outcome.

How much? How quickly? What if their population grows much faster than that of North America?

Well you have to increase the Mexican birth-rate and government stability dramatically for them to be able to hold onto their northern territories and there is no reason to assume that this happens.

As for the North American population growth, we have vastly different opinions on that.

About 100 Million was what the US had at that time. I doubt the British would have had half as many. And I doubt those would have been nearly as industrialized. Furthermore, there appears to be increased likelyhood for large wars the longer none has happened. So what effects come from that in the meantime, especially concerning growth of the Empire in other places?

Yes we know you think this "US" would only have 30 million, I have outlined in painfully clear detail why this is a silly idea.

Of course the entire population idea is just a means to this end, which is Germany beating Britain in WW1 because the US is part of eth Empire.

You just haven’t justified that position and every attempt to do so has required contortions to try and enable it.

As for the growth of the Empire in other places, Britain will only benefit from having more resources available, North America won't be a resource sink because Mexico and the natives are easy to push around.

 

[Wendell]

Ghana, Uganda, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe certainly aren't doing so well.