Of course, you might be speaking German.

If the British had won there would never have been a Panama Canal, Iraq Wars 1 or 2, Vietnam, or any question about the mightiest navy in history.

Also we wouldnt have school shootings. violent crime is virtually nonexistant in the UK so theres that to consider. Also we would not have to deal with elections we would have the Queen.

Uhh bb, its shocking I know.. but the UK is a democracy.

Right, the British were totally not capitalistic. It's not like they had an overseas empire or anything and demanded international free trade. That would be dumb to think that. They were never the industrial leaders of the world, so it's not even possible.

If Britain controlled north American industry Germany wouldn't have challenged British power in Europe in the early 20th century.

Of course there's no guarantee that Britain would be in control. My guess is North America would have become virtually independent by then anyway. Either that or the Capital of the British Empire would have moved to New York, and Donald Macleod Trump would be campaigning to be the new Prime Minister and promising to build a wall to keep the Chinese out of India.

What party would he be leader for to Make Britain Great Again? I've always thought his most recent policy claims align more with UKIP, but he wouldn't settle for those losers and I'm not sure the UK would even be in the EU in this hypothetical world, so UKIP would be very different if it did still exist, except, you know, they still hate foreigners. Would the Conservatives choose someone like him for their leader? I'm sure Labour wouldn't want someone famous for being rich as their leader.

Trump would be a Whig, obviously

My money is he'd be leader of the Liberals.

How can one say "Fuck Capitalism" immediately after "God bless Britannia"?

UKIP are hardcore neoliberals. Trump is a protectionist. He really doesn't fit with any of the major British parties. He might be a throw back like Enoch Powell or Joseph Chamberlain.

If the British had won the war, it's likely that continental expansion would have at least been delayed, and the French likely wouldn't have quit North America. It's possible the French Revolution itself would not have occurred, and the early 19th century would have looked a lot like the mid 19th century in terms of the kinds of government in power in Europe. Without the French Revolution its likely the Spanish and Portuguese empires do not break up in the Americas, because afterall Brazil became independent because Napoleon had invaded Iberia, and Simon Bolivar and the other independence leaders were inspired by the French and American examples.

What the British should have done but for whatever reason did not do was play the colonies off against each other, perhaps they could have at least kept the pro-British colonies in the South like Georgia and South Carolina. It would have spared us some hardship later on.

And if the French Revolution never occurred, Napoleon would have been kicked out of the military and become irrelevant to history.

I think its safe to say Gun control laws would have prevented every major shooting from ever happening. gang vlilence would be non existant. We would have a happy nation of marina and the diamonds instead of timothy mcveighs and the aurora shooter types

The decline of british imperialism can be tied directly to animosity between animosity among hindus and pakistanis too. British imperialism in India/Pak was a glue holding tons of factions together.

McVeigh didn't use guns, he turned easy-to-acquire ingredients (fertilizer) into explosives.

If the British had won the war, would there be:
a) Canada?
b) gun violence to the crazy levels we see today?
c) WWI or WWII?
d) man on the moon?
e) atom bomb?
f) nuclear arms race?
g) cold war with Russia? (After all, there were family)
h) Louisiana?
i) the Civil War?
j) protracted slavery?

If any of these things were worth keeping, I would be interested in knowing which.

King George would have had World War 2 won by 1939 If US and UK were 1 giant kingdom. Hitler would have shit himself.

I think if the United States had not have broken away from Britain things would be very different.

I think the country would be a lot smaller as it would not have been able to give itself the right to take over much of Spain's territories such as California and Texas.

The states would have eventually gained independence, just like Canada did, but it is hard to predict how that might have come about. Britain learned a lot from the revolution and was careful afterwards not to make the same mistakes with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Without the revolution maybe Britain would not have learned that lesson quite as soon as it did.

Would the eventually independent states have decided to join together under a federal system? Could Canada have been part of the union? Or alternatively, maybe a number of states would be separate countries today.

Also how would Britain have managed the slave states? Would Britain have outlawed slavery in the South even sooner?

"The decline of british imperialism can be tied directly to animosity between animosity among hindus and pakistanis too."

Not really. The proximate cause of the quitting of India was the mutinies taking place within the Raj's Indian army during the trial of three INA officers (one officer from each of the three main religious communities of India). Muslim and Hindu flags were flown side by side during these mutinies/protests as the defendants had sympathy from across India across religious lines. So long as the communities were divided the Muslims could be counted on to support the Raj, as Hindu rule was more frightening. The British decision to partition Bengal in the early 1900s for example gave the British enormous sympathy among the Muslim population.

And the British were perfectly willing to defend their empire with force in the years following the loss of India, for instance in Malaya. The loss of India didn't necessarily spell the end of the empire as a whole anymore than the loss of America did.

I meant that the departure of British Imperialism from India has a correlation between modern day inabilities of India and Pakistan to have a strong central govt to oversee progress. Note the two nations skirmish in kashmir region regularly. something that never happened before India-Pakistanian indepenence from GB.

Some people in India see Ghandi as an antagonist; not a hero at all. Because GB called India the Jewel of the Empire. It stands to reason India was much harder to let go of than the United States for this reason also. Materially India was a much more lucrative and less difficult to maintain colonial experiment.
However if GB had doubled down on America instead and had maintained global imperialism you might be looking at a very happy planet. And a slave free, gun free, healthcare free, USA with pockets of joyfilled city states of Spanish and French influence still to this day.
You may also see a unified Paki-Indian state still.
Hence British Imperialism was a great thing and a hand holding global glue.

Trump would probably be a One Nation Conservative in Britain, along the lines of Jacob Rees-Mogg today.

Also, as some of you were talking about the World Wars, the pressures that helped lead Bismark to being able to unify Germany might not have happened -- French Revolution may not have happened -- leading to no Napoleonic Wars which would've made rallying the German States under Prussia much harder. Even if Bismark were to unify Germany under these circumstances, there may not have been some of the internal pressures that ended up leading to the militarization of Germany that led to WWI.

"I meant that the departure of British Imperialism from India has a correlation between modern day inabilities of India and Pakistan to have a strong central govt to oversee progress. Note the two nations skirmish in kashmir region regularly. something that never happened before India-Pakistanian indepenence from GB."

That has to do with how partition took place and which territories went to what states and which states themselves were partitioned (like Bengal and Punjab). It has to do with the confusion of how the princely states would be handled and the awarding of tehsils that formed a landlink between India and Kashmir. Remember it was the British themselves who set up a situation with a member of the Hindu Dogra dynasty ruled over a Muslim majority state in Kashmir. Muslim agitation against the Maharaja's rule preceded the British leaving, because the Mahajara filled all the government posts with Rajputs and Pandits, and the Muslims were locked out.

"Some people in India see Ghandi as an antagonist; not a hero at all."

IMO he's a mixed bag. His support of the Khalifat movement certainly was cynical and in the end, disastrous, as it inflamed religious passions among the Muslim community and in the end, the radicalized Muslims thought they were hoodwinked by Gandhi and the INC when the movement failed.