AHC: Britain-Wank

[InvaderX]

In many ways, the 19th century was a OTL Britain-wank. The challenge here is to continue that well into the 20th, and ideally 21st, centuries; have Britain remain in its place as the world's premier power, either via keeping the empire intact, expanding it, or some other means. What might the world, and Britain, look like today?

An obvious starting point is avoiding the World Wars, but especially a second one if the first still occurs.

 

[Gudestein]

I guess it would be critical to keep the US isolation, and an open market Russia would help. Allies to win in 1917 without US help. France cannot dictate help. Get AL, but Britain get a customs Union they Can connect to the World trade markers. The zar falls but the whites win with British help. No WW2 except in Asia. Japan doesn’t go into French indochina and in the end just cant finish of China. Both countries suffer economic collapse. Economic growth anywhere else, including colonies.

 

[Riain]

The key attribute of Superpower is a huge contiguous continental landmass that is largely self sufficient. No political, economic or military arrangement can overcome Britain's strategic vulnerability that was demonstrated in the WW1 and WW2 Uboat campaigns and threatened again throughout the Cold War so Britain cannot do what the USA, USSR did and Germany attempted/threatened to do in the World Wars.

That's not to say that Britain couldn't be a fair bit richer and significantly more powerful in military/alliance terms, god knows they threw away opportunities like confetti at a wedding, but they can only be the best of the rest.

 

[Aphrodite]

the early twentieth century is a British wank that allowed the Empire to linger on for a few more years. The British were just too small to compete with the likes of Germany, Russia and the US and her overseas commitments too many to handle. In 1890 her nay was easily better than the next two and probably the next three. By 1914, her naval construction budget was below many different combinations (Germany + Russia, Russia + France, US + Germany or Russia) and war with any power group would have left her vulnerable to the neutrals.

World War One has a very strange ending- Russia and Germany both lose. The Americans come to the rescue and then retreat into isolationism. Change any of that and the British Empire is over

 

[Thomas1195]

Well, what about a Britain with a population of 60-90 million with a GDP twice bigger than IOTL by 1914? But this requires a pre-1914 POD.

Next, we can have a Britain with an annual GDP growth rate of 4-6% during 1950s-1970s and population growth similar to that of IOTL postwar France. This would cement Britain's position as the third most poweeful nation until 21st century.

In both case, especially the first one, Britain would become the foremost European juggernaut and in the first case, it would easily outspend the next two or three naval powers.

 

[David Floyd]

I wonder if a Confederate victory in the US Civil War might lead to this possibility...

 

[The Byronic Hero]

No World Wars, a federation/confederation of (at a minimum) Canada, Australia, and South Africa, a solid attempt at assimilation, and the granting of Dominion status to India while retaining trade contacts/economic control. All this is just a starting point. Maybe have them also create a trade union with Benelux (scared of France and Germany).

 

[InvaderX]

The key attribute of Superpower is a huge contiguous continental landmass that is largely self sufficient. No political, economic or military arrangement can overcome Britain's strategic vulnerability that was demonstrated in the WW1 and WW2 Uboat campaigns and threatened again throughout the Cold War so Britain cannot do what the USA, USSR did and Germany attempted/threatened to do in the World Wars.

That's not to say that Britain couldn't be a fair bit richer and significantly more powerful in military/alliance terms, god knows they threw away opportunities like confetti at a wedding, but they can only be the best of the rest.

All good points, but that said, the British Empire is often considered to be the world's first superpower. I think if they were able to come up with a good counter to u-boats the Royal Navy would be in a much better position. Perhaps submarines of their own?

 

[Riain]

Well, what about a Britain with a population of 60-90 million with a GDP twice bigger than IOTL by 1914? But this requires a pre-1914 POD.

Next, we can have a Britain with an annual GDP growth rate of 4-6% during 1950s-1970s and population growth similar to that of IOTL postwar France. This would cement Britain's position as the third most poweeful nation until 21st century.

In both case, especially the first one, Britain would become the foremost European juggernaut and in the first case, it would easily outspend the next two or three naval powers.

Firstly, how would you get Britain with double the population and GDP prior to 1914 without massive and deep societal changes which may not be possible with the level of technology?

Secondly, even such changes wouldn't make Britain the worlds largest economy and military, although it would sustain the world's largest naby for longer.

Thirdly having so many mouths to feed and industry to provide raw materials for would make Britain even more vulnerable than OTL to uboats.

 

[naraic]

All good points, but that said, the British Empire is often considered to be the world's first superpower. I think if they were able to come up with a good counter to u-boats the Royal Navy would be in a much better position. Perhaps submarines of their own?

One of my (too many) projects is an atl where Canada and Australia commits to spending 2% of GDP on defence in 1929. One of the big projects they undertake is escort carriers. Royal Navy hierarchy says this is ridiculous and pointless expenditure which Canada is only commuting to because they can build it at home but come ww2 they are very handy.

 

[Riain]

All good points, but that said, the British Empire is often considered to be the world's first superpower. I think if they were able to come up with a good counter to u-boats the Royal Navy would be in a much better position. Perhaps submarines of their own?

Prior to WW1 Britain had this worlds largest submarine fleet, and like WW2 apart from a few freaks the boats were good and the captains were awesome.

This vulnerability is something that the large continental powers just don't have to deal with, and doing so is a defensive drain on British resources and a limit to her power.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

@rian

Yes, that's the Empire's Achilles heel in wartime. Not fatal but expensive.

Actually the best strategy for Britain is not to get involved in a major land war. But that conflicts with its need to prevent a united Europe that could become hostile to it. So, British diplomacy is in a bind. Could it have continued with "splendid isolation" post 1900? The needs to resolve colonial disputes drive it to build the Ententes but that also committed it to support France and Russia in the event of a major war.

A mistake?

 

[Riain]

The nature of power changed with the advent of railways in the mid/late 1800s, which meant for the first time large continental powers could extract resources due to the ease of land transportation. This eliminated Britains advantage derived from her ease of water transportation. It was this moving of the goalposts as much as anything that ended her isolation: as she could not hope to win against a continental superpower without allies whereas she could be crippled by the same superpower.

 

[Wallet]

A true and free Imperial Federation, by 19th century standards with Britain as the firs among equals. So an Imperial Parliament but the regular British parliament still runs domestic policy. To prevent it from becoming an Indian Empire, you can have only the extreme upper class of Indian society or mixed bloods be allowed to vote.

World War 1 still occurs, a little earlier, and Britain stays neautral but actually gives credit to both sides. So the peace negotiations are in London after communists take over Russia and Germany. The League of Nations forms in London with Britain basically running it, with the US joins later in the 50s. France has to sell some colonies to pay its debts.

 

[Thomas1195]

Firstly, how would you get Britain with double the population and GDP prior to 1914 without massive and deep societal changes which may not be possible with the level of technology?

Secondly, even such changes wouldn't make Britain the worlds largest economy and military, although it would sustain the world's largest naby for longer.

Thirdly having so many mouths to feed and industry to provide raw materials for would make Britain even more vulnerable than OTL to uboats.

Well, the thread is just about Britain wank, not necessarily superpower. And both of my solutions qualify.

Have British population reaching 60-70 million by 1914 is not that hard. You can have a faster economic and population growth between 1870-1914. Fully apply the new technology like electrical engineering or organic chemistry during the Second Industrial Revolution and you would have problem achieving an annual growth rate of 3-4% per year. Look at the case of Germany, Japan and after 1945, France, high economic growth always accompanies high population growth and vice versa.

You can also have the same thing happening during the 1950s and 1970s (France's postwar economic and population growth). A Britain with GDP larger than that of Germany and maybe even Japan by 1970 can easily afford to maintain an independent blue water navy (not just an anti-sub force).

 

[Riain]

The OP said 'the premier power ' which makes me think competitive with the superpowers.

 

[CountDVB]

The USA could probably remained somewhat isolated or maybe the USA brings other countries into its fold. Like rebuilding Japan to get it in its thrall and maybe even Brazil into it.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Britain becomes reactionary, and preserves its empire by treating the colonies with increasing repression. Once they have nukes, this situation lasts forever.

 

[InvaderX]

The OP said 'the premier power ' which makes me think competitive with the superpowers.

Yeah, I was going for them not necessarily being the most powerful nation in the world, but at least within about the top 3.

 

[Incasaurus]

As mentioned by earlier posts avoiding land commitment in ww1 is vital. However at the time of the war some ministers proposed British involvement to be restricted to naval support. Not entirely sure how and where that support would occur but it would potentially keep Britain's reputation intact somewhat whilst minimising the risk. Although France would still clearly strive for full British involvement.

Also I have looked at projected statistical graphs and graphs which demonstrate uk population rises during the 20th century. Yes there was a baby boom post world wars but the UK population did suffer - which too me is quite an obvious statement therefore without the wars the UK male population would be higher and maybe Uk population would be higher now.

Any loss of young male adults of fighting age on this scale will effect the nations power and resolve.

Also is there a way in which Britannia can own the middle eastern oil reserves whilst still maintaining an aloof non involvement/partial involvement in WW1/2?