WI: A Still-Living British Empire

[Tyr]

Keeping the whole lot isn't going to happen.
Keeping much of it to the present is hard.
Overall to keep a lot of it for a long time I guess you need to somehow make Britain lose the war or go fascist anyway. Which is a hard sell.

Five or six dominions? Have you ever heard of the partition of 1948? India has a lot of different ethnicities and religions, and, being the stubborn buggers they are, they refuse to live in set areas wih straight borders. Any division of India, especially one that kept the sub-continent under British dominion, would be a nightmare of violence that would be harder to stop with the British Army then it would to stop the Indus with a fish ne.

And I would say 1920 would be a more reasonable set death date. Or maybe 1860.

Not necessarily. Disunity can breed unity and if these states were strictly geographic rather than ethnic/religious then it could work in a sort of Confederate States of India sort of way.

 

[philjd]

the last 'real' attempt at a 'federal' approach to the empire was during the 1906 elections with the Conservative/Liberal Unionists who proposed it were realy and truly hammered by the Liberals.

If this were turned around (big job though) - imperial preference and federation V's old age pensions - then whatever falls out of the actual structure at the very least gives a basis on which all the other 'colonies' could over time be migrated to.


On a note over India - the current federal state of india is split along nationalist lines, ie those in Kerrala, for example, see themselves as the descendants of the older states that comprised it. Tamil Nadu, of course, is an ethically different 'state' than the others etc etc. Pakistan/Bangladesh being the well known seperation of the predominantly islamic areas (but not all of them, even after the catastrophic migration).

 

[JohnBull]

AH.commers have a favorable bias for large empires on the one hand, and for Britain on the other. Put those two together and a surviving British empire becomes a recurring suggestion. However, it is not plausible for the reasons listed above, and one would have to seriously ask whether it would be a good thing at all.

But what are the real objections towards the British Empire idea?

In the OTL the British Empire fall apart whereas there was a trend pushing for decolonization. However, I don't think this fenomena, in ATL, is unavoidable. During the 1950-1990 period, we got a lot of dictatorships scaterred around the world, far worse the colonial empires, and fewer resourses to keep themselves. And being more specific, we could find the old colonial order pretty much intact as late as 1980's, in places like Hong Kong, for example.

 

[Typo]

with a significant portion going to Germany it MAY be possible to butterfly WW1 away.

errr...why?

 

[philjd]

far worse the colonial empires............. in places like Hong Kong, for example.

Unfortunately this takes no account of the rise in Nationalism which allows no 'masters' but themselves. With Hong Kong, the alternative would be Communist China, can you see anyone volunteering, or wishing, to willingly join that, might be different now but during the 20th century....?

This thread pre-supposes that the UK actually wants to keep all these places, but other than 'prestige', there seems to be very llittle reasoning behind wishing to retain it?

 

[JohnBull]

^^
Well, Hong Kong had British-only clubs and no democracy up to the 1980's and the population was happier than ever with the British rule.

Britain, with the political will, could hold the Commonwealth (bringing together the White Dominions into a closer union, instead of pushing than away to favour Europe) and the Empire, in a lot of territories in Asian and African could be hold, account with an colaborative elite like in the OTL Brunei, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Malayan sultanates etc.

About the Nationalism, it could be butterflied away in an earlier PoD.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Canada, Australia, the UK and NZ could all be one big country except for one problem: distance. Traveling to the Imperial Parliament has to be very quick and very easy, so MPs aren't cut off from their constituents for long periods. And there would have to be an industrializing of the overseas components, no treating them as sources of raw materials and wool.

If imperial scientists and engineers had put top priority into faster modes of transportation, above everything else, maybe they would have had jet planes by the late 1930s, and space planes by the 1980s. Even this would only work if the Empire were truly a federation with home rule re everything except foreign affairs, war and global trade policy.

If India were part of this, the Empire could stay the more powerful political entity on earth for centuries; but to even have a chance of this the British would have to renounce racism, and begin a transition to Indian home rule by 1900 or earlier. And it would have to invest in early industrialization and in building up an indigenous industrial capitalist class and strong middle class in India. This might have kept India tied to Britain in some way for fifty years or more, but ultimately either the Empire would have to give over leadership to the Indians (with the imperial capital moving to New Delhi and with mass emigration from India to the much emptier dominions) or the Indians would go their own way. One thing is sure, though: with a developed, friendly and self-governing India, the British wouldn't have had to worry much about the Germans in North Africa and the Japanese in SE Asia. Look how well the British Indian Army fought in North Africa and the Mideast--and that was just a colonial army under British officers. Imagine a real Indian army with its own home-produced tanks, artillery, warplanes, etc. It would have been the largest army in the war sans the Soviets.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Sigh, I suspect that you're right there

I have often thought that, had we not been so damned racist, both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could have been squashed by a billion-strong African/British/Dominion/Indian Army within a year.

I'll buy that TL for a dollar.

Too racist and too elitist. The British Empire needed therapy, starting at the 'top'. If MLK and Gandhi could be ISOT'd you'd have a POD, but I don't see how else it could be achieved quick enough.

 

[Hendryk]

But what are the real objections towards the British Empire idea?

Ruling people as colonial subjects, for one.

In the OTL the British Empire fall apart whereas there was a trend pushing for decolonization. However, I don't think this fenomena, in ATL, is unavoidable. During the 1950-1990 period, we got a lot of dictatorships scaterred around the world, far worse the colonial empires, and fewer resourses to keep themselves. And being more specific, we could find the old colonial order pretty much intact as late as 1980's, in places like Hong Kong, for example.

You're missing the point that the reason the British colonial empire is viewed somewhat more positively than others--that is, apart from sheer Anglocentric jingoism from our British and American members--is that it went relatively peacefully into the long night. In order to make it last longer than it did, you would need massive amounts of military violence, and then so much for self-congratulations.

About the Nationalism, it could be butterflied away in an earlier PoD.

Yeah, just like that

 

[MacCaulay]

But what are the real objections towards the British Empire idea?

In the OTL the British Empire fall apart whereas there was a trend pushing for decolonization. However, I don't think this fenomena, in ATL, is unavoidable. During the 1950-1990 period, we got a lot of dictatorships scaterred around the world, far worse the colonial empires, and fewer resourses to keep themselves. And being more specific, we could find the old colonial order pretty much intact as late as 1980's, in places like Hong Kong, for example.

The only country I can think of that actually went back to becoming a British colony like you're suggesting was Rhodesia in 1979/80 right before the handover, so the British could deploy troops into the country and ensure a smooth transition.

And look what happened to it to actually bring the Rhodesians to that point. It's like they played some big game of military and economic chicken and decided to see just how hard they could run their country into the ground.

(on another note: Mugabe picked the country back up, put a new sign on it, then decided to see how hard he could run it into a wall.)

 

[JohnBull]

Ruling people as colonial subjects, for one.

I meant the idea of an ATL surviving British Empire, not the British Empire idea per se.

You're missing the point that the reason the British colonial empire is viewed somewhat more positively than others--that is, apart from sheer Anglocentric jingoism from our British and American members--is that it went relatively peacefully into the long night. In order to make it last longer than it did, you would need massive amounts of military violence, and then so much for self-congratulations.

No, I'm not missing anything. I said, as late as 80's, the old colonial order in certain parts of the world was intact. And we don't need a strict "old colonial order" to keep the Empire alive. Look places like Cayman Islands or even a 4 million people country like Puerto Rico.

Yeah, just like that

Yes, just like that. If you put a PoD as early as 1900, the world could evolved into something completely different. Actually, in a PoD in late 1940's we can manage to retain large chunks of the Empire if there was political will. In ATL, UK politicians were firmly commited to get rid of the Empire as fast as possible. Eventually, they turned away the Commonwealth to embrace Europe. Without this eagerness, the Empire disbandment could be much slower even in ATL. And by 1980's, few remaining territories were eager to be independent.

The only country I can think of that actually went back to becoming a British colony like you're suggesting was Rhodesia in 1979/80 right before the handover, so the British could deploy troops into the country and ensure a smooth transition.

And look what happened to it to actually bring the Rhodesians to that point. It's like they played some big game of military and economic chicken and decided to see just how hard they could run their country into the ground.

(on another note: Mugabe picked the country back up, put a new sign on it, then decided to see how hard he could run it into a wall.)

Yes, but I was talking about a place where the old colonial order remained intact, like in Hong Kong. In other colonies, there was a great deal of internal autonomy.

About Rhodesia, let's assume there was no rupture by 1965.So probably the British rule could be continue until they get a good settlement, of course, it would require a lot of political ability.

 

[Typo]

Yes, just like that. If you put a PoD as early as 1900

Nationalism was well and alive by this point

 

[JohnBull]

^^
Yes, but it was greatly a European thing by that time. Imagine a world without the World Wars, Communism, Nazism. It would be completely different. We could have the old colonial order surviving pretty much intact by 2000 if we play the right cards on the scenario.

 

[Hendryk]

UK politicians were firmly commited to get rid of the Empire as fast as possible. Eventually, they turned away the Commonwealth to embrace Europe. Without this eagerness, the Empire disbandment could be much slower even in ATL. And by 1980's, few remaining territories were eager to be independent.

You're beginning to sound like the sort of people who think that there was any viable option for Britain outside of Europe, and specifically with the Commonwealth. There wasn't, the British tried it and it didn't work; it was only when all else had failed that they turned to Europe.

Also, and more disturbingly, I don't see you mention the consent of the colonial subjects anywhere. There was a reason "UK politicians" (I notice that they're "politicians" when one disagrees with them; otherwise they're "statemen") let go of the empire, and that's because they knew it could no longer be held. What few crumbs were retained were precisely those where the local population more or less agreed to keep it that way.

It's worrying that even now there are people around who think that Britain could have kept its colonies by trying harder. I guess Thande has a point when he says the British education system has gone to the dogs.

 

[JohnBull]

^^
First of all, in a 1900 PoD, everything is possible by 2000, from a nuclear desert to a one-empire world.

About the British Empire survivor in ATL, I'm not saying it would be possible to keep it intact. However, the process could be slower and in some areas not happen at all, for example in Caribbean. The bonds between UK and white dominions could easily be stronger by now, if that was a priority. Anyway, if decolonization are so inevitable, how can we have a 4 million country like Puerto Rico being part of US? Or sizable French territories (today, many are departments)? Only American and French are able to conquer the subjects consent?

If as late as 1980's we have a white governor ruling HK pretty much by himself or a old-style protectorate in Brunei, why couldn't we have territories with high-degree of internal autonomy under British rule today? I think the whole Caribbean could fall under such arrangements and maybe smaller countries in Africa. A Commonwealth evolving into a EU type of organization, with different levels of partnership, is also quite feasible. It's a matter of political choice.

 

[Typo]

First of all, in a 1900 PoD, everything is possible by 2000, from a nuclear desert to a one-empire world.

No it's not, not for the latter

If as late as 1980's we have a white governor ruling HK pretty much by himself or a old-style protectorate in Brunei, why couldn't we have territories with high-degree of internal autonomy under British rule today?

Because HK is a very very special case

 

[JohnBull]

I mentioned Hong Kong (and Brunei) to make clear anachonical types of government can survive and do quite well. HK was a special case, but they could have a representative government, but they didn't.

And I'm not saying every single British colony could be held in these basis. Did you read the part I mentioned territories with full internal-autonomy? That was the kind of government I'd expect to survive in the majority of the remain British territories. And again: this system could your in smaller countries, maybe under 2 or 3 million people. I'm not saying British could hold India like this.

 

[strangeland]

So, basically any point after 1956, the British Empire cannot physically hold itself together (or even as a tight Commonwealth) with the failure at Suez, right?

Suez was the death knell, but the writing was on the wall before that. Much of the Empire was already gone or leaving by 1956. After Suez, it was only a matter of time before the rest were gone.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Suez was the death knell, but the writing was on the wall before that. Much of the Empire was already gone or leaving by 1956. After Suez, it was only a matter of time before the rest were gone.

That's what I had figured.

 

[Emperor of Halton]

I know this is quite late, but in my opinion without the costs of the World Wars I think Britain could have retained India until maybe the late 60s or very early 70s, and probably most African possessions into the 1990s or early 2000s.

I think Britain could retain some political links to the white Dominions, and could probably retain the West Indies, Malaya and most island territories around the world into the present day. But this would very much be a rump Empire.