You would have to assume a considerably smarter king than George III, but England has had its share. The colonies would, presumably, become a Dominion at some point, and perhaps would not be quite so attractive to immigrants - they would not have that aura of freedom. Further, the English kings would probably not be quite as ruthless in pushing Manifest Destiny as the American presidents turned out to be.
Nevertheless, it seems fair to assume that the American colonies, with or without the Mexican territories, would be a very considerable source of strength for the British Empire. With that manpower to draw upon from the start, could the Great War have been so disastrous? And, with the competition in carrying trade all within the Empire, would the economic aftereffects be so devastating? It wasn't Germany, but the emergence of the US as an economic Power, that killed off the British Empire.
Similarly, in WWII, with American manpower and industry in from the start, would things have been quite so bleak in the first two years of the war? There might not have been a need to promise Indian independence in exchange for Burgfried. Which leads to the speculation that de-colonisation might not have happened. Could we today be seeing a British Empire overshadowing all the world? It might well have overcome the USSR much as happened with the US; faster, even, since it would be still more of an economic powerhouse.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting premise--you should write a story set in that universe.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Haven't those two premises been done to death?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Foe one thing, the Austin Power movies would be a lot less funnier.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
No premise has been done to death. It's just the sucky writers that make it seem that way sometimes.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Good point.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
O.o That's going to give me something to think about for the rest of the day.
You know, about the WWII thing: if American manpower could have been used, one has to wonder if the Germans would have invested much more in their nave and uBoat fleet; if they were able to effectivly cut off the American commonwealth from the British homeland (and, possibly invade) the war would've ended differently.
--j_k
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
A very interesting book on this idea (imaginary/speculative history).
[ November 07, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Why are you guys skipping WWI?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What do you mean Justa? King of Men talks about it at the top of the thread.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
If the colonies hadn't revolted, wouldn't they have just separated amicably later on like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all did?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Why would England have been less pushy about manifest destiny? I don't think we can assume that considering Britain's long history of imperialism.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
And in answer to RRR, yes, I think that is a reasonable assumption.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:What do you mean Justa? King of Men talks about it at the top of the thread.
Are you saying that you think the result of the Great War would have still led to WWII had America been a province of Britain? I find that so difficult to believe it just doesn't register.
Fixed my typo. Happy guys?
[ November 07, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Isn't the Great War another name for World War I?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
See, that's what comes of you colonials being slow off the mark. What you lot call WWI is still called the Great War in Europe.
I did note the possibility of the US becoming a Dominion, like Canada; but Canadian and Australian troops were some of the best of the British Empire's troops in both World Wars. And, of course, the US would also made been a strong industrial contribution, unlike those two Dominions, which had (by and large) to be armed by factories in England.
The British Empire's attitude to Manifest Destiny might well have changed in the nineteenth century, true. But in the eighteenth, they forbade colonising west of the Appalachians, and had fairly friendly relations with the Iroquis Federation - indeed, it was George Washington who broke the power of that nation, in the Revolutionary War, by sending troops to devastate their villages.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I made a mistake. I meant WWII. Give me a break. What I am saying is that had Britain had the power that the industrial revolution brought the US by the turn of the century, chances are an armistice that eventually led to the political climate facilitating a Nazi rise to power wouldn't have happened. No single nation had enough military bargaining power during that time, which was fine as far as a balance of power, but also prolonged the war and drained the resources of all nations involved.
Is that better?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that makes a certain amount of sense. But there would probably have been another general European war at some point, with Russia perhaps. The damn things were always going to break out as long as the Great Powers were jockeying for hegemony with no fear of the nuke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I meant WWII.
I would have assumed that, but they did talk about it, so I got really confused.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Well, that makes a certain amount of sense. But there would probably have been another general European war at some point, with Russia perhaps. The damn things were always going to break out as long as the Great Powers were jockeying for hegemony with no fear of the nuke.
Only because the Great War ended in armistice. Had there been a decisive victor, there is no logic behind saying that there would have just been another war for its own sake. The whole foundation of WWII is based in the end of the first world war.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if we are going to assume that the decisive victor is Great Britain and France, what's to keep them from falling out over the spoils? They were traditional enemies, after all, only pushed together by the threat of German dominance over the Continent.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
What is to keep them from it? How about having learned their lesson the last however many times in previous centuries? Britain and France didn't seem to have much problem dividing up the spoils in Arabia and Africa after the Great War, so what makes you think they'd have a problem had there been a more decisive victory?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
French and British conflicts in Africa were settled before the War, not after, and under the lash of German ambition. Afterwards, they were utterly exhausted, committed to mopping-up operations in Russia and Arabia, and certainly in no mood for squabbling over the spoils. A decisive victory could well have changed that. Even as it was, Italy felt she had been betrayed by not receiving the entire Adriatic coastline.
And, speaking of Russia : Russia and Great Britain were allies of convenience only, and had been maneuvering for position in Afghanistan and northern India for the past century. Indeed, the collapse of Russian power in the steppes after the Revolution was seen by many in Britain as an opportunity to take up again the 'Great Game' of subsidising chieftains and statelets against their opponents. A fact which Stalin remembered well, you may be sure.
If the Great War were indeed a decisive victory, presumably Imperial Russia would not collapse. Her ambitions in Persia (settled by treaty before the war - fear of Germany again), India, and China would then continue. She might also decide that it was time to settle Sweden once and for all, in order to gain the Norwegian ports, not to mention rich iron and lumber resources. For that matter, Great Britain and France might well want to expand their influence in Asia. There's plenty of scope for continued Great-Power conflict, especially considering that there would probably be no Wilson to moderate French demands for reparations and dismantling of Germany. Just as a for-example, the house of Windsor had ruled in Hannover not impossibly long before - and historically, the possibility of annexation was indeed mentioned, but dropped as impractical. Neither France, Holland, Denmark, or Belgium could have been happy to see Great Britain regain a foothold on the Continent.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I disagree about Russia. The fall of imperialistic Russia was not contingent on the Great War, which is why they backed out of the war early to begin with. If you would have inferred a larger conflict between western Europe and a new communist Russia, that would be believable. Supposing conflict resulting in war between France and Britain is a little too far fetched, if you ask me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are forgetting that Britain and France had been on the very verge of war as late as 1898, over the Fashoda incident. It was only in the decade before 1914 that they began to actively work together to reconcile their differences, in order to stand more strongly against Germany. I agree, however, that outright war is unlikely for some time, but a return to the traditional coldness and bickering seems probable.
As for Russia, it is true that they had very big problems, but it needed the hammer blow of the Great War to actually topple the Czar. Recall 1905 : All the ingredients of revolution were there, except for the critical one of discontent in the Army. When the troops were ordered out to fire on the demonstrators, they obeyed. When the Czar tried that in 1917, the Guards joined the revolutionaries. The cause of this can surely be traced to the terrible casualties of the preceding three years. Moreover, the lack of bread in St. Petersburg was caused indirectly by the War : There was plenty of grain in the Ukraine, but no trains to transport it north. A decisive victory in 1915 or 1916 could well have changed all that; not to mention that people will put up with amazing things in the name of patriotism, if they appear to be winning. Finally, Russia was actually doing quite well at industrialising, with a tenfold increase in munitions output between 1914 and 1916, just to mention one measure. A victory in 1916 could well have turned those gains to much greater strength.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I'm not forgetting. You're marginalizing the fact that they had already been working things out. They put a lot of effort into maintaining a marginal balance of power since Napoleon, because they both recognized wars of that magnitude would be no good for anyone. They would have more likely entered a cold war, at the very best. I still think Russia would have been a more likely case for another war in your scenario.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I have to agree there, though I'd note that Russia and France were formal allies while Britain and France had only an informal understanding. But a cold war would not be likely, people then just didn't think that way. No nukes.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
There is a history something like this in GURPS Alternate Earths 2 (although the colonists lose the war rather than not fighting it; I do not know how much that would change matters). The Russians are the main opponent of most of Europe in the "Cornwallis" timeline, ultimately leading to a different (non-Communist, but totalitarian) revolution in Russia after a "Great War" starting in 1962. However, although the histories in these books appear to be well-researched, they're very much biased in favor of being interesting places to roleplay, so take that with a grain of salt.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
A cold war wouldn't have needed mutually assured destruction. It would have more likely been an economic and influence type of war, with battles being fought militarily only indirectly, similar to Vietnam.
You seem to be disregarding South American nations as well. What role do you think they would have had? Just more of the same, with the world revolving around Europe?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's not a cold war, that's the natural state of Great Power politics, prior to nuclear weapons. South America is indeed an interesting question. In the real history, Great Britain had considerable economic influence there up until the Great War, when the US took over - an informal empire of sorts. Clearly that would not change. Perhaps, lacking the Monroe Doctrine to keep them out, the British would interfere in the various South American wars, trying to increase their control? The southern tip of South America, whatever its name is, would seem to be a natural place for a sea power to put a naval base, at least before the building of the Panama Canal - which, if it happened at all, would clearly occur under British control.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I don't think I want to continue this. You're asking about what ifs where both of us could be equally right, so what is the purpose here? To see who can make the best fictional situation in one post? You win, since I'm no writer.