Had Great Britain retained the US...

What would history be like? I'm talking about the ban on slavery in 1834 (as opposed to 1861), the world wars, ect?

e350tb said:

What would history be like? I'm talking about the ban on slavery in 1834 (as opposed to 1861), the world wars, ect?

Click to expand...

Well for one, why assume the world wars will occur at all? Britain retaining North America (of which there has been a vast amount written on btw) will have such major effects on everything else, that questions using RL events are pretty much invalid.

See Butterfly Effect/Chaos theory.

The butterfly effect on this would be so massive. The united states has had so much effect on everything it wouldn't be possible to predict wars or anything. I imagine revolutions would of been much less prevelent throughout history. But thats all I can accuratly imagine.

A civil war in 1834 considering that the pro-british southern aristocracy wouldn't be to happy about slavery being abolished.

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.

Um without the revolution we would be fighting for america from the beginning.

Titan2018 said:

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.

Click to expand...

You realize that America would be a British colony, thus ts production capabilities and man power would be under british control. For that matter, if Britain has retained America, it would have had a massive empire. Why the hell would Germany attempt to challenge it? The world might have been better off with America under British control.

The US would play some decent sports.

Titan2018 said:

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.

Click to expand...

Firstly British north america would include Canada, Rupertsland and the Oregan territories so the 'US' would have been crossing from coast to coast.

Secondly, it was more the morale boost from the US arriving than the actual numbers, considering it was less than an 8th of the Anglo-French forces (America only sent twice as many as Canada for christs sake) and they were outfitted with French equipment. The naval blockade of germany meant it was only a matter of time for the allies to win.

As part of BNA america would be in the fight from the begining .

@eazyhasaids: Which, if britain and canada help out in, the south gets crushed over?
@Damnyankee, never underestimate General Screwup - in WW1 the Germans did not think the UK would get involved when they started up...

Also there might not have been a prussian dominated germany, look at the chain of events:
American Revolution, supported by France
->ideas spread, and costs begger France
->French Revolution, Napoleon seizes power (and unlikly event in itself)
->Invades germany, reorganises and spreads the seeds of german nationalism
->Sets the stage for Prussia that helps beat the French to gain considerably in the aftermarth
->partly using anti-french feelings at home and abroad Prussia builds germany
->Balance of power, interlocking arrangements
->RANDOM assasination of Franz Ferdinand
->World War 1

If you cut the events tree at the base predicitng a WW1 similar to the real one is foolish.

True.

It would be fun to write an out and out althistory starting with the lack of an American revolution (A particularly farsighed PM pushes through the parliament and king the notion of american representatives on the parliament, probably)

Oda Nobunaga said:

True.

It would be fun to write an out and out althistory starting with the lack of an American revolution

Click to expand...

Google it, there are dozens of published and hundreds of internet timelines and books of varying degrees of coherency and liklihood.

(A particularly farsighed PM pushes through the parliament and king the notion of american representatives on the parliament, probably)

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Plan?

cubsfan6506 said:

The butterfly effect on this would be so massive. The united states has had so much effect on everything it wouldn't be possible to predict wars or anything. I imagine revolutions would of been much less prevelent throughout history. But thats all I can accuratly imagine.

Click to expand...

Or maybe not. I think we'd see an Anglo-American Empire, however the centers of power (private and state alike) would still, evantually move westwards to Washington, Boston, New York etc, where they are currently.

By the second world war, United States was overwhelmingly the worlds leading economic power (something like 50% of the world's economy), and I think the same would be true even if American state institution would've been more British formally. US would still be the world's super power and UK would be it's ally, but perhaps you'd have the queen as the "head of state" in America.

Princeps said:

Or maybe not. I think we'd see an Anglo-American Empire, however the centers of power (private and state alike) would still, evantually move westwards to Washington, Boston, New York etc, where they are currently.

Click to expand...

Why? If America was a colony of the UK, then there would be no reason for it to assume anything except regional power. True, the economic potential of North America would result in it become important, but that doesn't not mean a shift towards American dominance.
Aside from anything else, if Britian had retained the 13 colonies, North America would still, in all likelihood, be divided between the UK, France and Spain (although France may well have lost it's colonies to Britian at some point), with the British-controlled sections ending up as a series of dominion states.

By the second world war, United States was overwhelmingly the worlds leading economic power (something like 50% of the world's economy), and I think the same would be true even if American state institution would've been more British formally.

Click to expand...

Possibly correct, although I think you over-estimate pre-WW2 US economy. Remember, this was a nation in the middle of the Great Depression, not the post-war economic powerhouse of the 1950s. And this was back when Europe was still in a good state, rather than the bombed-out ruin that it was left after the war.

US would still be the world's super power and UK would be it's ally, but perhaps you'd have the queen as the "head of state" in America.

Click to expand...

Firstly, there would be no USA- Canada and the USA were once part of a single "British North America", and, since it's unlikely that the UK would have created a dominion state that size, it would probably be several smaller nations. Probably something along the lines of Canada, Newfoundland (historically separate until 1949), New England, Something-in-the-North-East, Virginia (the South), Something-in-the-Midwest and Oregon.
Secondly, if the USA was controlled by Britain, why would it be a super-power?

Seriously, I thought you'd gotten over all this "Manifest Destiny" crap a century ago.

IF the REvolution had failed in the 1770s, i would expect another when britain outlawed slavery.

bear in mind that when britian outlaws slavery will also change as there are more factors infulencing them to keep it longer. And its likly that this factor of time will only serve to further weaken the pro-slavery lobby. (due to various demographic reasons).

I also expect it to be farely muted anyway, as the colonies will likly be caught in an economic trap with their products going either to Britian or further north to factories (it depends on the specifics of the timeline).

I suppose that the southern states might have broken off in 1834, but not the northern states.

However, i don't know whether the south would have been able to... how was england feeling at the time (and would those sentiments have been changed by a failed revolution in the 1770s?)

That depends on the point of departure from real history. Did the revolution never occur because the PM and Parliament were more even handed in the 1760's or 1770's, or did it fail because the French never showed up, or what? That would determine the attitude between the two for decades and centuries to come.

The french never showed up. or say George Washington had been captured on his escape from New York

Remember also that the Timurids would remain in power in India, since Britain wouldn't need to go looking for new cotton markets. Three hundred more years of Muslim rule could have dramatic effects on the Subcontinent.

I generally agree, though, that the world today would be completely unrecognizable had the Revolution failed.