Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pax Britannica

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pax Britannica

    A hypothetical 'what if' for you ...

    What would the world look like today had the British Empire not faced the world wars and thus never experienced the economic or social changes that ultimately transformed it into the Commonwealth?
    "I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

  • #2
    Originally posted by scotsboyuk View Post
    A hypothetical 'what if' for you ...

    What would the world look like today had the British Empire not faced the world wars and thus never experienced the economic or social changes that ultimately transformed it into the Commonwealth?
    Pretty sure that regardless of the world wars that the U.K would still have a much reduced 'Empire' as one could call it Pre 1900.

    If the UK was not in either war the question is what does the role does the U.S then play in either war as the U.S's role fundamentally demonstrated Britains Pax Britannia had ended. Conversely, what could Britain been capable of without huge debt levels attributed to the wars, and how would this effect it's policy with former colonies or trying alternative trade models. I think for one the Suez would probably have lasted another 30-40 years and probably handed to local control much the same as Panama.

    For Britain seems the 15 years after the end of ww2, seem to have shaped what it became for the rest of the 20th century. I think it would be more than what it is now, but the trading bloc between it, the U.S, a better managed respectful transfer of soveriegnty back to India without being hastened by the war, would have been an immensely powerful trading bloc. It's like pissing into the wind though this sort of speculation gets one no where :)
    Ego Numquam

    Comment


    • #3
      I was more thinking along the lines of the world wars never having taken place at all, but I agree with your assertion that the U.S.'s role would be crucial in determining what such a world would look like. The question of India is also important since that was the linchpin of the entire Empire. Perhaps a very powerful global trading bloc that controls most of the world's trade?
      "I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by scotsboyuk View Post
        I was more thinking along the lines of the world wars never having taken place at all, but I agree with your assertion that the U.S.'s role would be crucial in determining what such a world would look like. The question of India is also important since that was the linchpin of the entire Empire. Perhaps a very powerful global trading bloc that controls most of the world's trade?
        I really think the question in that case is how she would have given India sovereignty if she had chosen to do so. WW2 forced the point. Since former Colonies really gained independence before WW2 and continued close relationships with Britain into WW2 there's probably something to be said about handling the return of India to self governance.

        Who knows from here?

        My speculation:
        Had this occured and the ties have been good (probably hard given Britains near contempt of the natives) Then the trading/technology relationship between it, India, Singapore would be very significant in the Asia regeon.

        Does one speculate that WW1 bought down Tsarist Russia? Either or, Britains interest with Afghanistan was stopping Russian expansion to some degree - and a sovereign India might consider this a threat with respectful ties to Britain. British/French retain control over the Suez, and the Increasing reliance on petrolium, and the U.S's booming population and tech, would probably result in them joining the trade bloc or at least making overtures.

        Without either war Britain would still decline, but it's influence would be much less contested by states like Egypt. Inevitably it would weaken, hence return of the canal to Egyptian hands. Stronger trade links might mean that India plays more of a part than Communist China Post 1950. Though with Strong U.K links & defacto U.S links through the bloc, China might find that quite intimidating to some degree. But with a strong trading bloc, India boom's, and China, is worse off. That probably means because the wars never happened, and the U.K wasn't sucked dry that there is a lot of onasis for the U.K to keep appreciable funding up where possible for a more capable RN. Forces not deployed in Germany might mean treasury gives the RN more money to have bigger capital assets (supercarriers). The U.S probably still is immensely powerful, and the Indian Navy would be appreciable as well. So you might have some pretty big forces out there! But because of the trading bloc, one would imagine that it would be a pre-eminent force in Asia/Pacific/Indian Ocean.
        But without a doubt, it's pretty likely the U.S would still be where it is now because of size & economy & resources of it's own entity and be able to throw a spanner in the works if it wanted too.
        Ego Numquam

        Comment


        • #5
          scots,

          thus never experienced the economic or social changes that ultimately transformed it into the Commonwealth?
          the UK was already experiencing considerable economic and social change prior to WWI-- the result of the boer war. WWI sped this process up by approximately a generation.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #6
            chunder,

            Since former Colonies really gained independence before WW2 and continued close relationships with Britain into WW2 there's probably something to be said about handling the return of India to self governance.
            prior to WWI, even the most liberal British policymakers were only thinking dominion status for india in a century's time; most officials didn't want to let india go at all. the british empire, after all, was built upon india as the crown jewel. they did this fully understanding that holding onto india would become harder and harder.

            yet if WWI didn't happen, the irony is that the chances of a global war decrease considerably in the decades thereafter. (germany was correct in thinking that russia was greatly increasing its power; another decade and germany would be FAR more wary about starting a war. not only that, internal german politics at the time was pushing towards stripping away power from the kaiser and towards the socialists.)

            Inevitably it would weaken, hence return of the canal to Egyptian hands.
            i have doubts about this. the return of the canal was a result of a local politician playing very smartly against superpower interests. in a much more multipolar world, the british could, and most certainly would, have crushed any attempt at nationalization-- they did this quite well during the Suez Crisis, despite the fact that their glory days were long gone.

            note that the british fought to hold on to the canal even though the biggest reason for having the canal-- quick access to India-- was gone.

            also, there would have been less of a push for outright indian independence at home. indian national consciousness grew from the large numbers of indians supporting the british cause during WWI/WWII-- with irritation increasing exponentially with the starvation during WWII. also, the UK reacted with a harder hand during the 1920s because they could no longer afford the resources for empire, which forced the remaining colonial administrators to substitute force more and more often.

            in short, without WWI, no WWII. without WWI, far less worldwide nationalism (both indian, chinese, and russian-- hell, even canadian). while the empire would probably still move towards decentralization/commonwealth, the process would be far slower and most likely a good deal less bloody.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              chunder,
              prior to WWI, even the most liberal British policymakers were only thinking dominion status for india in a century's time; most officials didn't want to let india go at all. the british empire, after all, was built upon india as the crown jewel. they did this fully understanding that holding onto india would become harder and harder.
              Yes, I do think that britain really did not have any appreciation at all for Indian self governance - though ot is like pissing into the wind - the upheavals in India in the 50'3 and 60's may have given Britain a relevant role to play and hence a bargaining chip and a wake up front towards what exactly control of India requires. At the same time, in the 40's the U.S was to some degree pushing for decolinisation. In the 1950's, you already have most of the white commonwealth nations, under effective self government. Which may have an effect on Britains ability to swallow self governance... There is great potential with India maybe facing Communist China, Communist Russia, with India still in British control, for the British to Palm off control.

              yet if WWI didn't happen, the irony is that the chances of a global war decrease considerably in the decades thereafter. (germany was correct in thinking that russia was greatly increasing its power; another decade and germany would be FAR more wary about starting a war. not only that, internal german politics at the time was pushing towards stripping away power from the kaiser and towards the socialists.)
              Britain still faces Communist hedgemony on it's very own defacto doorstep. What does it do? With Communist Hedgemony, like in East/West Germany, India seems to become the absolute key to the Wests Asia policy. I do think there would be considerable pressure, peace movement not withstanding to review Indian autonomy As it gets a naturalised white population as in others. Significant Policy alterations seem possible.

              i have doubts about this. the return of the canal was a result of a local politician playing very smartly against superpower interests. in a much more multipolar world, the british could, and most certainly would, have crushed any attempt at nationalization-- they did this quite well during the Suez Crisis, despite the fact that their glory days were long gone.
              I tried to give some weight to the fact the U.S decided to intervene, by sending a battlegroup to the region, and threatening to sell bonds, as U.S attitudes to Colonialism. I thought that it would be reverted along the same lines as the Panama Canal. I thought perhaps giving the U.S some weight might have considerable effect.
              note that the british fought to hold on to the canal even though the biggest reason for having the canal-- quick access to India-- was gone.
              I always thought this was an Irony, But it was also a nationalisation process. The French also had South East Asian commitments falling apart at the time. Oil was beggining to have clear implications as well... Infact I can see that point of view now, with significant economies, etc, without a war, to continue to hold onto the canal. The French have a part to play as well.

              also, there would have been less of a push for outright indian independence at home. indian national consciousness grew from the large numbers of indians supporting the british cause during WWI/WWII-- with irritation increasing exponentially with the starvation during WWII. also, the UK reacted with a harder hand during the 1920s because they could no longer afford the resources for empire, which forced the remaining colonial administrators to substitute force more and more often.

              in short, without WWI, no WWII. without WWI, far less worldwide nationalism (both indian, chinese, and russian-- hell, even canadian). while the empire would probably still move towards decentralization/commonwealth, the process would be far slower and most likely a good deal less bloody.
              Im definitely not versed in Indian history I can legitimately claim complete ignorance - so my illeterate post cant do yours justice! But it's wortwhile noting that the 1925 Conferance many of the commonwealth countries were set for severence for the most part. King George V had by many accounts a common touch. ww1 had a considerable effect on his health - he was not out of touch as the head of state - and he understood, unlike his cousin, Why revolts happened (BTW cousin was Tsar Nicholas). I think his role may well have played out longer. When he Died he was very well regarded and may have had some social influence on inter dominion politics He spoke against Nazism early on, before the war started - a war that Britain took on after Chamberlain and accepted socially early on Sure chamberlain tried appeasing, but George V already had given some public awareness against Nazism. For a Head of state, particularly a British Monarch, that is unusual (ever since Victoria the position was not prone to statements as the such). It's worth noting that, most dominions still retained loyalty towards Britain quite some time after severence. I think in terms of India, yes, far slower (40-50 years) after that date, Which, puts it at 1965-1975. Which is 25 years less than a century. I was trying to give preceedence, the U.S becomming assertive & communism a sort of balanced look, (trying not to look like an idiot because I think Im still pissing into the wind here)

              My biggest downfall is Indian History I have no Idea about it! My only exposure to it was in a Rostrum club where one of the speakers Grew up in British India, and Fought in the war there and had VERY specific empathy the culture and lifestyle, fought, and peacekept for and In country, having grown up from childhood in country, that leads me to believe that Britain would have to face an Educated, Naturalised White Population as much as it's other Dominions, including Communism - which could become somewhat appealing with a hard British rule...

              I think the strategic implications of British or a Pro British India, would have held significant implications for the place of Britain & India - India especially.
              Last edited by Chunder; 17 Dec 09,, 12:05.
              Ego Numquam

              Comment


              • #8
                chunder,

                Britain still faces Communist hedgemony on it's very own defacto doorstep. What does it do? With Communist Hedgemony, like in East/West Germany
                without WWI, no communist hegemony. in fact, even russia wouldn't go communist.

                Significant Policy alterations seem possible.
                not really any significant white immigration-- unlike south africa or canada, no vast swathes of land to claim. the UK held on to india with an absolute minimum number of troops and Foreign Office personnel.

                instead, what the british tried to do was to get selected indian personnel educated through the british system to do their bidding; unfortunately for them this backfired as it was those people who found out that the british didn't really envision for india even the somewhat limited sovereignty of a dominion. instead, with the pressures of WWI the british viewed india as a good source for cheap labor and soldiers to be used. this led to radicalization and the creation of an independence movement.

                I think the strategic implications of British or a Pro British India, would have held significant implications for the place of Britain & India - India especially.
                right, i agree. without WWI, the british would have less reason to enact the policies that really aggravated the indians. my guess is that as india began industrializing and gaining economic power, they would be granted dominion status, although under more control from london than the other dominions. depending on how enlightened the british were (and this could, and did, change dramatically depending on events/prime ministers), the british could very well remain a superpower to the present day.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah that occured to me today. No communism without WW1. So much for the effort of speculation aye :) 'nough said!
                  Ego Numquam

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X