I doubt it'd be zero influence on world affairs. The UK would retain its UNSC seat for starters and would be a regional power. This would, however, definately poison relations with Australia and New Zealand and kneecap any sort of Commonwealth unity. I fully expect Australia to be a republic today ITTL, and New Zealand to be leaning in that direction.What a great way to ensure that Britain has zero influence on world affairs in the 1950's. You could forget any sort of relationship with Australia and New Zealand for a start after this betrayal.
I agree here, if the money used on maintaining a Far East fleet was instead pumped into housing or welfare it would only be good for British citizens. I do wonder what the money could be used on.Assuming the US steps into the vacuum this is almost entirely positive for the UK. By the 1950s (and arguably before) British "influence" in the world is only really of benefit to a tiny % of the population that enjoys posturing on the world stage and just distracts from what should be the main focus of policy, namely improving the welfare of the population.
This is important, without India much of the Empire is pointless. From a purely realpolitik perpective why should Britain spend time putting down rebellions and communists in Malaya for example when if they withdraw its fairly likely the US will involve themselves instead. I think its fairly likely the US would.Most of the Empire and British influence had been established to protect India and prevent enemies gaining bases from which to threaten the UK or India. By the 1950s India was not really a concern and the UK would be better off freeriding on the US for defence if at all possible. It was recognition of this by Macmillan in the late 1950s when a profit/loss account was drawn up for the empire that lead to a general withdrawal.
This is all completely aside from the morality/immorality of the British empire
Of course, the problem is that the US might not step into replace the British in the region, although given US behaviour in Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam in 1946-53 this seems unlikely.
I imagine so. If the UK was in the EEC from formation they'd be able to push it in a direction favourable to them instead of having to join decades late and chafe against the existing structures. The UK has always struggled with whether it is a world power or European power and making a concrete decision this early should stop the flip-flopping that has defined Britain's relationship to Europe for over half a century.The added bonus is that withdrawal from East of Suez after 1948 is likely to lead to an increasing focus on Europe and so an EEC more in line with UK preferences is entirely possible if the UK is more committed and engaged in the initial discussions and negotiations rather trying to join an already existing treaty organisation. I'm not trying to express an opinion on UK membership of the current EU, rather that the EU would almost certainly be different in this timeline in ways that make membership more desirable/less objectionable to the UK.
I think that the overall drop in soft and hard power would be significant, but Britain would have significantly better relations with African and Asian countries if they avoided the Cold War conflicts. It depends, I think, on what East of Suez officially consists of as it could be defined to include the entirety of the Suez Canal, British East Asia, the British presence in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa or it could be more strictly defined as just Asia.So Britain withdraws sooner, maybe not all in 1948 perhaps, but makes plans to grant various areas independence some years sooner then OTL. I could see this giving the British better relations in some cases with individuals or groups wanting independence if they get it over and done with sooner.
Conversely, less money spent in say Malaya could find it's way elsewhere. Suppose by granting Malaya independence 5 or 6 years sooner frees up funds for Caribbean holdings. In exchange for 100 million Pounds less for Malaya, maybe the British government decides to spend an extra 1 or 2 million Pounds a year in somewhere like British Honduras. Investing in jobs or education, doing some infrastructure projects, etc. Even if the British Empire of old fades similar to OTL, this could result in maybe two or three additional small holdings remaining under British control.
I think you might be on to something here. An earlier British pull-out East of Suez might allow Britain to focus her energies on other territories. I think you might see Britain put more of an effort into integrating Malta into the UK proper (there was a push for this IOTL) and then afterwards Gibraltar. I think you'd likely see Britain retain her Caribbean holdings. They're poor, would greatly benefit from British investment, and have a history of Anglophilia. Perhaps Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and The Bahamas will have parliamentary seats or perhaps they will remain BOTs, I can't say. But I think a strong British presence will be felt in this area of the globe for the time being.I think that the overall drop in soft and hard power would be significant, but Britain would have significantly better relations with African and Asian countries if they avoided the Cold War conflicts. It depends, I think, on what East of Suez officially consists of as it could be defined to include the entirety of the Suez Canal, British East Asia, the British presence in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa or it could be more strictly defined as just Asia.
That is an interesting point, a withdrawal from East of Suez would allow more of a focus on British holdings West of Suez. The Caribbean in particular seems like a good choice for investment. If Britain has abandoned Asia and Africa, perhaps they invest in the Caribbean territories to rebuild prestige. This could lead to more BOTs or it could lead to Britain further backing the West Indies Federation and the increased support leading it to succeed.
I'm just going to list a few possible idea from this:
1) No Mau Mau Rebellion, if Kenya is barrelling towards independence I imagine the locals may be content to wait and see what happens. Granted my knowledge of the Mau Mau Rebellion extends to GCSE History levels so that could be off. I think and East African Federation was mooted at some point, maybe that's a stopgap solution of some form.
2) Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, assuming its not butterflied for whatever reason, would be very different without British forces involved. Its entirely possible Australia could get involved in Britain's stead but I'd say the odds of Indonesia getting North Borneo are much better ITTL.
3) Hong Kong. It wasn't abandoned in the OTL withdrawal East of Suez, frankly it may just be left alone like OTL. I can't imagine the ROC getting it, nor can I imagine it going from Britain to the PRC amiably.
4) Assorted Pacific islands, probably split between US and Australia.
5) Suez Canal, does this go to Egypt earlier, possibly even pre Nasser. A boost in popularity like that could very well cause the Kingdom to survive in some form.
I'm 50/50 on whether they would be BOTs or some sort of overseas county like the French overseas departments. Smaller islands like the OTL ones would probably accept this but somewhere like the Bahamas with a few hundred thousand residents would likely agitate for MPs to some degree with devolved parliaments. The big thing to remember here is that the Bahamas and to an extend the whole Caribbean regions is well within the economic orbit of the United States.I think you might be on to something here. An earlier British pull-out East of Suez might allow Britain to focus her energies on other territories. I think you might see Britain put more of an effort into integrating Malta into the UK proper (there was a push for this IOTL) and then afterwards Gibraltar. I think you'd likely see Britain retain her Caribbean holdings. They're poor, would greatly benefit from British investment, and have a history of Anglophilia. Perhaps Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and The Bahamas will have parliamentary seats or perhaps they will remain BOTs, I can't say. But I think a strong British presence will be felt in this area of the globe for the time being.
Alternately I'd imagine a less globally interested Britain wouldn't do wonders for the prestige of the monarchy, it may very well be enough of a hit to prestige to push a Republic by itself. I think its fairly likely British-Kenyans could end up either returning to the homeland, heading to a CANZ nation or maybe settling in Southern Rhodesia as IIRC South Africa under the National Party weren't in favour of Anglo immigrants as they would dilute the Afrikaner power base.1. Agreed on no Mau Mau rebellion. The British settlers in Central and Southern Africa might move to South Africa if Britain is decolonizing even faster than she did IOTL. This might have interesting effects on South African politics. Perhaps with more white South Africans hailing from Britain, the close Republic referendum of 1960 might go the other way.
I suppose that is right, though I was working under the assumption that this withdrawal would include some territories not abandoned in OTL like Brunei. If Britain left Brunei, that would keep Britain out of the Confrontation. I agree that Britain would still involve itself in the Malayan Emergency, but to a lesser extent with the US contributing more.2. I think Britain would likely still be involved in the Malaysian Emergency even if she granted that country independence earlier. As for the Konfrontasi, don't see Britain not getting involved either. Britain was in Brunei until 1982. If Indonesia is attacking North Borneo, then British holdings are directly threatened.
If the rapid loss of prestige is compensated for enough via welfare programs and investment than Attlee may scrape in as OTL. However, it is more likely than not that the Tories win at minimum a plurality in the election, with either another election held as OTL (which could be anyone's game) or a confidence and supply agreement of some sort with the Liberals.I will state, however, that if Attlee does decide to do this, I could see Churchill winning flat out in 1950 rather than leaving Labour with a tiny majority. The move would be seen as a betrayal of Empire and of the Commonwealth. The Tories would be baying for blood.