WI: Australia as Reparations

[iori]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, so I thought I'd post it to see what others think on the subject.

Let's say that Britain ends up on the losing side of a war, how likely would it be, or in what situations would they be willing to
give up part of Australia as part of the peace?

 

[Julius Vogel]

Would depend what war you are talking about.

Anything in the first half of the 19th century might be possible, just due to the very small European population, however after the mid point of the century the settler population would be most likely too large to acquiesce to being sold or given away. Perhaps you might be able to carve off the lightly populated parts - like NT/WA - but I don't see them being great prizes.

If you are talking about WW1/WW2 this would be ASB IMO

 

[The Kiat]

Who would they lose to? The Dutch perhaps, but this would go back to before Australia was even colonized by Europeans.

 

[iori]

The French, the Germans, the Spanish or Portuguese (as part of a coalition), does'nt have to be an OTL war, just overall.

I was actually primarily thinking Western Australia, since it was not really considered that particularly useful.

 

[Xenos]

The French, the Germans, the Spanish or Portuguese (as part of a coalition), does'nt have to be an OTL war, just overall.

I was actually primarily thinkign Western Australia, since it was not really considered that particularly useful.

Highly unlikely to be the Portuguese as the British have the world's longest historical alliance with them. And the Germans do not pose a threat to Britain at sea in the 19th Century.

Maybe the British interfer in the US Civil War and lose catastrophically, therby having to surrender Canada, Australia, and New Zealand which eventually become incorporated into the Union. Although it is a far-fetched idea as Britain would not give up so much when the US is incapable of threatening the British Isles themselves. It would make for an interesting AH however.

 

[iori]

Highly unlikely to be the Portuguese as the British have the world's longest historical alliance with them. And the Germans do not pose a threat to Britain at sea in the 19th Century.

Maybe the British interfer in the US Civil War and lose catastrophically, therby having to surrender Canada, Australia, and New Zealand which eventually become incorporated into the Union. Although it is a far-fetched idea as Britain would not give up so much when the US is incapable of threatening the British Isles themselves. It would make for an interesting AH however.

Ya know, part of me can't help to think that may actually lead to some sort of movement for the UK itself to join the Union starting in the second half of the 20th century, to form a 'United Anglosphere'.

 

[Falastur]

Highly unlikely to be the Portuguese as the British have the world's longest historical alliance with them. And the Germans do not pose a threat to Britain at sea in the 19th Century.

Maybe the British interfer in the US Civil War and lose catastrophically, therby having to surrender Canada, Australia, and New Zealand which eventually become incorporated into the Union. Although it is a far-fetched idea as Britain would not give up so much when the US is incapable of threatening the British Isles themselves. It would make for an interesting AH however.

It would take some outrageous, perhaps even ASB events for that to happen. The USA of the 1860s struggled against the CSA, to have the UK added onto that list and then to suddenly do far better, even going so far as to manage massive overseas invasions, would take some explaining. On their own a united USA in this era wouldn't be able to defeat the Royal Navy. I find it hard to believe that a divided USA with a major military commitment on their own continent could do so. It's just completely implausible.

Ya know, part of me can't help to think that may actually lead to some sort of movement for the UK itself to join the Union starting in the second half of the 20th century, to form a 'United Anglosphere'.

I'm...not so sure. The UK was a hugely proud nation in that era, and the general characteristic of the British when knocked militarily (possible exception of the post-WW1 world) is to respond by trying to work furiously at bouncing back from their loss. In addition, though this loss would be outside of the European "zone", British politics was almost entirely European-focused - the USA was seen as "just another country" not because they underestimated its strength but because it didn't get involved in European politics, which pretty much relegated it to being a second class state in the world at that time, and Europe really wasn't interested in involving the USA. Any notion of sacrificing independence to the USA would be seen by the UK and by Europe as a withdrawal from European politics, and this would be tantamount to political suicide. Losing to the USA in a war, even a devastating war, wouldn't finish the UK off, but doing this would pretty much be read as a sign that the British had given up trying. It would be like Germany in 1920 requesting annexation from France because they couldn't bear the shame of having lost a war. It would be a huge overreaction.

Also, I think there's a general perception, particularly from American posters here (not that that should be read into any more than because of your national history), that merging countries or requesting annexation was a popular or common idea in history. It really wasn't. While thinking outside the box is a praised skill in current times, in those days it was virtually unthinkable to do anything except follow current courtesies. The prevailing conservative mindsets lauded those who governed their business (particularly in government) by doing the usual things. Thinking up unique ideas was frowned up, and lead to ostracism. Even if the UK did want to collectively hang up its boots and give up on politics, the idea of offering to give up independence would just have never occurred to anyone, because it wasn't a "natural" thing to do.

It would be an interesting TL to write (maybe not to some of us proud British posters ) but this idea would be pretty ASB...

 

[iori]

-snip-

I was meaning like after 1960, with a Pan-Anglosphere movement forming, not Britain being annexed or anything.

 

[Germaniac]

Could be given to the Dutch in one of the Anglo Dutch wars if the dutch do better. But the dutch wont be able to colonize as effectivly and would instead of having a minority population in South Africa, you would have a low populated Australia

 

[pompejus]

Could be given to the Dutch in one of the Anglo Dutch wars if the dutch do better. But the dutch wont be able to colonize as effectivly and would instead of having a minority population in South Africa, you would have a low populated Australia

That wouldn't work. The last Anglo-Dutch war ended in 1784 and the first settlement in Australia was in 1788. Ok, in theory you could have a Anglo-Dutch war after that, but the Netherlands wasn't able to beat anymore in those days. If you want the Dutch to get Australia from the British you need a lot stronger Netherlands in the 18th and 19th century, needing some POD in the 17th century, which could prevent any British settlement in Australia as it was considered part of the Dutch sphere of influence for more than a century, but the Dutch just didn't care and the British filled the gap. Which brings us to the next problem, why would the Dutch want or even care for Australia. They never did OTL (ok, they didn't find the good to settle parts near sidney, but still).

 

[Cockroach]

Could be given to the Dutch in one of the Anglo Dutch wars if the dutch do better. But the dutch wont be able to colonize as effectivly and would instead of having a minority population in South Africa, you would have a low populated Australia

Circa 100 years prior to the first European settlement in Australia? Firstly, that isn't exactly an interesting scenario and secondly, I don't think the poms had much of a claim to Australia at that stage (William Dampier mayhave claimed part of it for 'em but it certainly isn't up to mapped-east-coast-an settled standard of the latter case).
ETA: I'd think to acchieve this you'd really have to go with Nappy-victorious scenario or else engineer an Anglo-French war later in the 19th century. Simply with a later PoD the annexation of nations has largely gone out the window (still could end up as a satellite state though...).

 

[Germaniac]

my bad had my dates wrong

 

[Skokie]

It would take some outrageous, perhaps even ASB events for that to happen. The USA of the 1860s struggled against the CSA, to have the UK added onto that list and then to suddenly do far better, even going so far as to manage massive overseas invasions, would take some explaining. On their own a united USA in this era wouldn't be able to defeat the Royal Navy. I find it hard to believe that a divided USA with a major military commitment on their own continent could do so. It's just completely implausible.

Yes. It would take another half-century before America could invade Europe. And yet another half-century before it could definitely invade and rule at least half of Europe. The problem is guns or butter. The US would never have developed an industrial base without European markets. And the US would never have had access to those markets without staying out of European conflicts. And since the US had stayed out of European conflicts, it didn't develop a navy to rival Britain's. Therefore, you either have a poorer, war-like US that could not hope to be able to afford an invasion of Europe for many centuries, or a wealthy but isolationist US that lacks the motive and the means to launch an invasion.

I'm...not so sure. The UK was a hugely proud nation in that era, and the general characteristic of the British when knocked militarily (possible exception of the post-WW1 world) is to respond by trying to work furiously at bouncing back from their loss. In addition, though this loss would be outside of the European "zone", British politics was almost entirely European-focused - the USA was seen as "just another country" not because they underestimated its strength but because it didn't get involved in European politics, which pretty much relegated it to being a second class state in the world at that time, and Europe really wasn't interested in involving the USA. Any notion of sacrificing independence to the USA would be seen by the UK and by Europe as a withdrawal from European politics, and this would be tantamount to political suicide. Losing to the USA in a war, even a devastating war, wouldn't finish the UK off, but doing this would pretty much be read as a sign that the British had given up trying. It would be like Germany in 1920 requesting annexation from France because they couldn't bear the shame of having lost a war. It would be a huge overreaction.

Also, I think there's a general perception, particularly from American posters here (not that that should be read into any more than because of your national history), that merging countries or requesting annexation was a popular or common idea in history. It really wasn't. While thinking outside the box is a praised skill in current times, in those days it was virtually unthinkable to do anything except follow current courtesies. The prevailing conservative mindsets lauded those who governed their business (particularly in government) by doing the usual things. Thinking up unique ideas was frowned up, and lead to ostracism. Even if the UK did want to collectively hang up its boots and give up on politics, the idea of offering to give up independence would just have never occurred to anyone, because it wasn't a "natural" thing to do.

It would be an interesting TL to write (maybe not to some of us proud British posters ) but this idea would be pretty ASB...

An American invasion of Britain is stupid. For cultural reasons, for simple geopolitical and logistical reasons, it makes no sense. After the Revolution, we were more interested in British markets than Australia. We had plenty of arid land of our own.

The only scenario in which you'd get a united Anglosophere dominated by Washington would be after the British had lost their empire and Europe was utterly dominated by a Nazi-Stalinesque power.