What If The British Empire

I offten wonder what the world would be like today if britain had of joined the american civil war on the side of the C.S.A. If this had off happened france would of joined aswell & america would not be what it was today.

i doubt WWI would of happened as britain would of had alot of man power & resorces with america. Would the US of developed if britain had of taken control again though?

on Gibraltar the spainish can go shaft themselves if it was the other way around then you know what they would say! plus the poeple dont wont to go back to spanish rule & they should hav the right to say how they wont to be governed

Originally posted by Nerdling
You don't have it in you to commit cold hearted brutality. Come on guys, we practically invented genocide.

I don't know about that.. genocide has been around forever... just look at the old testament. We were badasses at times, but so was everyone else.

Originally posted by Nerdling
Theres one difference...

You don't have it in you to commit cold hearted brutality. Come on guys, we practically invented genocide.

Pfft...please, genocide been around for yonks, it was mainstream by the time we were doing it. I know that the British Empire did invent the idea of concentration camps, which is a bad thing, but we have to admit are mistakes and move on.

reply to post by Vowles


I believe the British Empire was a good thing, and if it was still around today many countries would be better off being ruled by us than themselves, just take places like Zimbabwe, Tanzania , Burma and various other places.

If you look at former colonies that were settled by England, and compare them to colonies that were settled by other colonial powers, you will notice a sever dichotomy. English settled colonies are now modern, stable, prosperous countries, while countries that have their roots in other colonial powers are dangerous, violence filled third world countries.

In the western hemisphere, compare Haiti, settled by the French, to the Bahamas, settled by the British. I know that when I do my civic duty and donate blood, stepping foot in Nassau does not make my blood a type IV pathogen.

In Asia, compare Singapore and Indonesia. One of these countries is a high tech Asian wonder, the other is slaughtering infidels. Guess which one was civilized by the British, and which one by the Dutch.

In Africa, compare British civilized Egypt with Italian civilized Libya. Which one is a world pariah, and which one is a force for moderation in the Arab world.

What I'm getting to is that the world would be a much better place if some of the colonies gone wrong, spoiled by the French, or Dutch, or Spanish, would be reconquered by the British for a century, just long enough to install morals and values. Hopefully, those countries would be wise enough to willingly submit.

Just look at how we built up those nations, introducing; trains, industry, factories and christianity and our Brtish idealogy.

The British Empire fascinates me and i do a great deal of research into it, but if you ask me personally the world would be a better place if it still existed.

On a side note, nations such as USA, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Israel, Iraq etc would simply NOT EXIST without the British Empire having existed first!

Chances are there would be some significant alternative scenarios going on right now.

First of all, the regions would still be under an overlooking power. I assume this would not only influence public instabilities, but regional conflicts would not be an issue. The actions and decisions made would be totally different.

Any conflict would mostly be internal between within local groups and public uprising.
Which can be easily be slammed down by a military force. Which would be a perfectly logical response if the whole area was still under control of a single empire.

Public protest etc. will stay public instead of facing a fully trained military force from an Independent nation.
Because these forces will be a representing the combined people from a country. Instead of a group of people. IMO

"I may a bit biased but I think the British Empire was much less guilty than others of mistreating the native populations"

You are absolutely correct. The Belgian were awful in Africa.

Technically, the Belgium King made Belgium Congo or ( Zaire these days, isnt it ? ) Private Property.

I understand that the monstrosities were originated from the sick , twisted king and were kept secret for the Belgium public.


Well... In fact you British ow it all to the Dutch.

When we were still a republic, we were home to the first real corporations: The VOC and later the WIC. We did the heavy work, made the contacts, designed the system and started the supply line.

When our royal line did not even exist yet, Willem of Orange maneuvered him to the position of King of England and Scotland and started moving the Dutch enterprises across the channel effectively making London the trade/financial center of the world.

You see... all following conflict between our to countries was only part of splitting the pie. The royal families were direct family but because of London's development into the financial metropolitan it was obvious the Dutch had to hand over some stuff to the British as it was already theirs anyway, The royal family that is.


In the end... People like you and me are the ones that will suffer from the quest for power of only a few.

I admit, It would be cool to raise the union Jack and dress up like those navy admirals did back then, well... Or as a pirate of course...

As long as you're comparing, compare formerly british southern africa, South Africa, Namibia, (and yes, I know they were formerly dutch and german) Botswana, Malawi, even Zimbabwe, with the closest countries, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, then compare Mozambique with Kenya and Tanzania. There is no comparison. They are civilized countries. Most people can read. Especially Botswana and Malawi. Whatever faults the ex-british african countries have, and god knows they have problems, they are head and shoulders over the ex-french and portuguese colonies.

Recently ive come across an article in the paper which is rather interesting actually here is a segment from the daily mail:

“I’m really fed up with these liberal revisionist historians who want us to feel bad about everything that our country has ever done. Believing in ourselves and trusting in ourselves is a pretty good start in a country that wanted to make a better go of its future. Labour has suffered from such a strong case of colonial guilt that they cannot see the strength we have as a country in being able to form strong relations with different parts of the globe. If you go to a lot of countries, you can see where there is a strong affection for the United Kingdom that we could tap into.”


“We have in the last 13 years not leveraged these relationships in any way or shape or form to anything like the level that we could have. Rather than to apologise for everything in our history, we should take a bit of pride in our own history and our own conventions and our own convictions and start to look at the positive aspects which give us clout in the world and which give us respect and utilise them properly.”


Hes right, why should we feel guilty? Like ive said in my previous post, without us the world wouldnt be like it is today, it would be much worst i believe.

Ever since the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent settlement of Jews into Israel following WWII there has been tremendous problems, brought about, yes, by the loss of British rule over the mandate of Palestine...

Ever since the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent settlement of Jews into Israel following WWII there has been tremendous problems, brought about, yes, by the loss of British rule over the mandate of Palestine...

Naughty, doubling posting.

But yeah, the jews wanted to form a seperate independant state of isreal, if you want to ask me about that i know someone who was there from 1944-1948.