Could Britain have survived as a world power if it focused on federalization with the White Dominions rather than pipe...

Could Britain have survived as a world power if it focused on federalization with the White Dominions rather than pipe dreams of keeping India or useless Africa without force?

Britain still is a world power

And they couldn't have held onto all that territory directly, the distances were too great that the territories would require self governance and eventually develop into separate cultural entities

Britain basically gave up on an Empire when it instituted the Statute of Westminster and promised India independence after WW1, they still have the strongest currency value and nuclear missiles so I wouldn't call them a minnow

>They couldn't have held onto all that territory directly, the distances were too great that the territories would require self governance and eventually develop into separate cultural entities
Isn't that what OP meant by federalization?

Then isn't the Commonwealth exactly that?

I guess by federalization he meant something more substantive than the loose type of commonwealth it became

Completely unrealistic idea after the British left Australia and New Zealand to flounder when Japan entered the war because North Africa was more important, that's fine from a British perspective but dosen't do much good for the Australians or Kiwis

This is what I mean though, Britain focuses more on the defense of Australia and Canada, avoids the mistakes it made there and loses the African empire probably earlier but gains a federal Commonwealth, which would have a giant Commonwealth parliament with sub-parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ.

>Britain focuses more on the defense of Australia and Canada
Then they possibly lose the Suez canal which is far more important than either of those in the grand scheme of things, federalizing dosen't work with such distant geographical limits

You realise North Africa was infinitely more important in the outcome of the second world war to the British than Australia or NZ

What would Canada, Aus and NZ gain from being ruled by British? They already have the USA to protect them.

>They already have the USA to protect them.
This is bait

Not really, WW2 and the Fall of Singapore saw a major policy shift in Australia and New Zealand reorienting towards the USA who actually sent a fleet to help protect them instead of a whopping 2 ships from Britain that eventually resulted in the ANZUS treaty (which NZ left but for some reason is still called ANZUS)

Damn... they could have called it ANUS

...

Netherlands needs to expand in order to encapsulate all those adjacent individualists

>all the best places are individualist
>except Portugal wtf Portugal

Federalism could not possibly function across that distance of landmass nor with so many unique culture groups within it. Canada barely functions as a Federation due to 1 out of its 10 provinces constantly envoking 'notwithstanding clause' every time a bill or law is seen as treading on 'muh unique cultural identity'

Britain's goal post 1885 was always to be an economic powerhouse. Impossible to do so post-WW1. The only country capable of imposing the economic strength that Britain desired was the USA.

The thing is though, start off early enough, and Australians and Canadians pretty much considered themselves British. This was only a thing that changed heavily in the post-WW2 world. There were a lot of functional and active "Empire Loyalist" groups, and I think some of them are even still around.

That dosen't convert to a federal system, I'm Australian and I'd unironically support a return to British rule if only for the quid being a strong currency, but it's never going to happen because in our greatest hour of need Britain abandoned us

But the vast distance from the motherland was inevitably going to lead to cultural differences, especially in an age before mass media and the internet. That is how differing accents develop.

That's what I mean, if Britain opted to focus on its whiter dominions rather than Africa. This would have to change a lot in WW2, or avoid it entirely.

Russia is pretty big, and decentralized, so would this federal Commonwealth/Empire.

>but Russia has land connection

Going through Siberia isn't as easy as it looks.

> if Britain opted to focus on its whiter dominions rather than Africa. This would have to change a lot in WW2, or avoid it entirely.
No it wouldn't, what fucking planet are you living on? Britain has its own priorities and I don't blame them for it

Britain had a real problem with anyone who wasn't WASP. The fact that the native populations didnt rebel is because Britain did a marvelous job at divide and control. While the native populations didnt like the British control, the British had this great idea to place culturally different peoples in the same places in order to disrupt peace between the populace and have conflict between the opposing natives instead of unrest with the british. For example the muslim and hindu populace. Brits wernt the only ones though, see Africa and its borders as a way to indirectly control the peoples and have them fight eachother instead of the european powers.

Succesful rebellion is what I should say rather. There were plenty of rebellipns and uprisings, just not completely effective.

How do you even measure this?

We need a weaker currency, not a stronger one. Strong currency fucked our manufacturing sector something bad.