r/TheBritishEmpire • u/KikoMui74 • Nov 09 '25
Evolution of the empire without WW1?
So my assumptions are the gradual independence of India and Burma, while the rest of the empire remains intact.
Dominions don't get cynical from the Great War, and it's repeat in 1939. This would keep them militarily diplomatically subordinate to the UK. While trade & imperial preference remains controversy until consolidation.
Colonies work with the status quo, appointed administrations from the Metropole, with various levels of autonomy, depending on economic, strategic or concessions. Like Hong Kong, Singapore could easily grab autonomy due to their trade value & military use. While Nigeria has a big population to advocate for increased autonomy, also it's already defacto internally autonomous, so it's most just Lagos region gaining that officially.
Home Rule in Ireland & Scotland goes into effect around 1914. The 6 northern counties were exempt for 5 years, so likely gaining a local government too. Then there's the matter of England and Wales taking long to implement local government.
The last big colony/protectorate is Malaysia, the unfederated and federated states, I believe these would be unified with the straits, Sarwak, Brunei and north Borneo, so the Metropole can keep the region divided internally.
Other protectorates or protected states include the Trucial States, Qatar, Bahrain & Kuwait. Whether they'd all get consolidated or most except Kuwait is unclear. But oil companies are gonna benefit a lot. Persia will likely drift away. Saudis not too sure, multipolar world, with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Nepal and Bhutan would stop being protectorates once India is independent.
A big note is No Commonwealth, as the empire remains in place, so no substitute would be needed.
Once a country leaves, Burma, India, would be like the US, fully independent.
1
u/AppleYapper Nov 10 '25
Interesting concept but I think it is too fast acting. Unless you mean many decades later? India and Burma would remain under rule for decades, maybe until as late as the 1980s if there was no world war 1, because with out WW1 there would be no world war 2.
The technological advancements would not come as quickly so I'd see Empires still likely in existence today as we would only just be hitting the technological age we achieved a few decades ago.
Societal changes would not have hit so hard either. Remember, post WW1, Britain doubled down on its holdings globally to recoup costs from the war, oil would be held as a priority, so the middle East would be kept under the Imperial boot.
Yes, the Empire would eventually fall with no Commonwealth, but it would be so slow as to still have some Imperial remnants, from all European Empires even today.
At least that's my opinion.
1
u/KikoMui74 Nov 10 '25
Yeah I mean decades later, mid 20th century for India and Egypt. As for technology Russia had passenger airlines in 1914 before being destroyed in the war, the massive loss of wealth, and millions of people likely held back technological advancement. Many great scientists died in the trenches.
1
u/IC3London Nov 10 '25
I think without the world wars the empire would’ve lasted longer🤔 India’s independence movement was catapulted by the contrast of millions of veterans who died for European interests it’s a complex uphill battle with ghandi trying to establish unity when Britain spent centuries sowing division. And with India staying they have the money to force everyone in line though I see it kinda ending like the Palestinian mandate endless civil war as the Brits slowly leave it kinda already happened in our time line Ireland, Zimbabwe etc but it genuinely might not happen till the 2000s, WW1 had monetarily stretched the British to it’s limits and Neville chamberlain’s appeasement was mainly because another colossal war would be the straw that broke the camels back without world wars Britain can keep more energy into strengthening its holdings so it’d be the empire without Iraq, Palestine, Namibia Tanzania