Is it in any way possible for the British Empire, in one form or another, to survive into the twenty-first century? Bonus points if it retains India, though I realize how difficult that is to do.
AHC: Make the British Empire survive into the modern age.
- Thread starter Doctor Imperialism
- Start date
- Status
The British give American revolutionaries such as George Washington royal titles, tying them to the crown, thereby the revolution fails and the British retain the 13 colonies. With them still in British hands, they expand westward faster than in OTL, as the British have nothing to gain from stopping them from moving West and they're now supported by British guns.
Mexico hands over territory hand-over-fist, the Spanish-American war becomes the Anglo-Spanish war, therefore Cuba and The Philippines get ceded to Britain. Also, when the scramble for Africa comes around, the British get more as they have much more manpower. I know they'll get Liberia but not sure what else.
With Britain still being an unrivalled hyperpower (For the record, they'll probably have Tibet at this point), the Germans probably wouldn't risk British wrath in WW1 so they wouldn't attack France - just not worth it. WW1 goes very differently and probably isn't even called a world war.
No WW1, no Vimmy Ridge so places like Canada and Australia don't get full independence. Also, no Versailles treaty so no WW2, so no decolonisation.
To this day, the sun still doesn't set on the British empire.
Mexico hands over territory hand-over-fist, the Spanish-American war becomes the Anglo-Spanish war, therefore Cuba and The Philippines get ceded to Britain. Also, when the scramble for Africa comes around, the British get more as they have much more manpower. I know they'll get Liberia but not sure what else.
With Britain still being an unrivalled hyperpower (For the record, they'll probably have Tibet at this point), the Germans probably wouldn't risk British wrath in WW1 so they wouldn't attack France - just not worth it. WW1 goes very differently and probably isn't even called a world war.
No WW1, no Vimmy Ridge so places like Canada and Australia don't get full independence. Also, no Versailles treaty so no WW2, so no decolonisation.
To this day, the sun still doesn't set on the British empire.
Abhakhazia
Banned
If a remember correctly, the British didn't give a shit about the French, just the Belgians.
Of course. Because it's no way that (pick your choice:
-Germans reaching and annexing Calais and Dunkerque as planned
-To see their only ally worth of mention in Western Europe
-Germany attacking anyone they can)
is going to piss Britain.
Seriously, yes, Belgium was really important for British geopolitical. But not the only thing they felt concerned about in continental Europe.
Even if Germany hadn't attacked Belgium, Britain would've found a way to join the way eventually.
Well, or that. Either way, the Germans would have been VERY careful about not dragging an empire that absurdly powerful into the war
Riain
Banned
I`d have the Empire reform and reorient in the postwar era to better reflect the modern world. I`d still have the colonies become independent but they would be tied with a web of bi & multilateral agreements on things like trade and defence. Treaties like CENTO would be led by the British and the members would purchase British arms and be trained in British military schools etc. This client relationship would extend to other things like driving British cars and using other British manufactures.
Snake Featherston
Banned
No, especially since not retaining India is inevitable by the 1940s and it is that which kills the Empire as a whole.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Only if they emulate the methods of totalitarian states and are willing to accept the scenes of Tommy Atkins engaging in butchery on a scale of tens of millions.
I think if the American revolution fails, then other revolutions inspired by it are butterfly'd away. Also, the British don't lose an inch of territory that they don't gain back and then some so all this makes Indian independence far less likely.
I thought the empire still existed, its just a tad smaller
Well, technically we still have Gibraltar, the Falklands and similar places, but it's not truly an empire when you think that all our overseas territories combined are probably smaller than Wales
As noted earlier, this is probably going to take a very early POD, so early as to radically change the character of the Empire. Probably by somehow keeping the 13 colonies loyal. This would eventually give Britain control over most of North America, much earlier than the USA achieved the same, and all of the natural resources present there. However, IIRC, Britain only began to focus on India and Australia and the like once they had lost the USA.
The character of such a British Empire would probably be slightly more similar to OTL's USA, in that it would have to develop much more of a frontier spirit to colonise the continent, although it would be possible just to use it in much the same way Australia was used; for shipping criminals (and perhaps religious minorities and other 'undesirables') to. Of course, they could equally just ally with the natives and play them off against each other, only settling the coasts and major trade arteries, such as the Mississippi. I imagine that this would often bring them into contact with other powers in North America and the Caribbean, namely France and Spain. With the Thirteen Colonies, they would probably revoke or work around the Proclamation of 1763 sooner or later, leading to more colonisation west of the Appalachians, probably around the same time as their acquisition of Louisiana from Spain.
From the mid to late nineteenth century onwards, this Empire would become more and more dominated economically and then politically by North America, and would also be more federal in structure. The monarchy would likely lose power as in OTL, and while some sort of Federal Imperial Legislature would probably sit in Westminster, the various provinces of North America would enjoy significant devolution.
India could perhaps still be gained through Company control, if the government sees it as necessary to prevent rivals from acquiring the region, though control would probably be less extensive. However, it is difficult to see how it could be retained once Indian nationalism sets in, though there might be a greater chance of India gaining representation in some form of Federal government, as North America would provide a greater counterbalance, politically, and as long as North America and India can be kept working separately for their own goals, Britain itself would perhaps be able to retain some sort of veto power.
India would probably also necessitate acquiring South Africa from the Dutch as a refuelling stop, though if there was an earlier canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, Britain could achieve the same thing by propping up the Ottomans, and then moving in to Egypt.
The character of such a British Empire would probably be slightly more similar to OTL's USA, in that it would have to develop much more of a frontier spirit to colonise the continent, although it would be possible just to use it in much the same way Australia was used; for shipping criminals (and perhaps religious minorities and other 'undesirables') to. Of course, they could equally just ally with the natives and play them off against each other, only settling the coasts and major trade arteries, such as the Mississippi. I imagine that this would often bring them into contact with other powers in North America and the Caribbean, namely France and Spain. With the Thirteen Colonies, they would probably revoke or work around the Proclamation of 1763 sooner or later, leading to more colonisation west of the Appalachians, probably around the same time as their acquisition of Louisiana from Spain.
From the mid to late nineteenth century onwards, this Empire would become more and more dominated economically and then politically by North America, and would also be more federal in structure. The monarchy would likely lose power as in OTL, and while some sort of Federal Imperial Legislature would probably sit in Westminster, the various provinces of North America would enjoy significant devolution.
India could perhaps still be gained through Company control, if the government sees it as necessary to prevent rivals from acquiring the region, though control would probably be less extensive. However, it is difficult to see how it could be retained once Indian nationalism sets in, though there might be a greater chance of India gaining representation in some form of Federal government, as North America would provide a greater counterbalance, politically, and as long as North America and India can be kept working separately for their own goals, Britain itself would perhaps be able to retain some sort of veto power.
India would probably also necessitate acquiring South Africa from the Dutch as a refuelling stop, though if there was an earlier canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, Britain could achieve the same thing by propping up the Ottomans, and then moving in to Egypt.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Doesn't matter, at some point all that rhetoric of democracy will see Indians ask why democracy only applies to white people and then the Empire either turns totalitarian and engages in wholesale barbarism or lets India go.
Maybe they go down a different route and give the colonies representation in London, this could help stop the American revolution, and over time make the Indians happier
Snake Featherston
Banned
In that case the British Home Islands become an appendage of India, if we mean *real* representation proportionate to population as opposed to Anglo-Apartheid.
Not necessarily, as a British-controlled North America could prove a useful counterweight to India by the late 1800s or so.
- Status