What Would Have Been?

In summary -

1) North America will have a larger Mexico (basically everything below a line between Florida & lower California), and the rest will be The British Empire - Split into regions (let us call them States, for the sake of argument). Some regions (mainly the Coastal ones) will be run directly by the British, while others (the middle bit of America & bits & bobs of Canada) will also include various areas of 'self-rule' for the natives - with a British commissioner & an army detachment (of mostly native soldiers) at close hand. My model here is obviously India.

2) The remainder of the British Empire as we know it would be much smaller. Britain only really got involved in Empire building across the globe after we were kicked out of the USA. Obviously, our African territories would be similar (thanks to the slave trade), but I reckon India would not really be on our agenda. We would likely have had a stronger Presence in the Far East (well, SE Asia & Australatia) thanks to the Eastern coast of America. Being as Britain & Russia spent many happy years almost-but-not-quite fighting a war over India (the 'Great Game'), I reckon if Britain did not seem too interested in India, then Russia would have taken control of a goodly portion of it, if not all.

3) WW1 - Assuming the starting line-up was the same, Russia would have done a little better (all those extra recruits from India) but before they were well & truely beaten Britain & France would have smashed Germany.
In that case - no Communist Russia (not for a good few years, anyway), no post-war angst for Germany, no Wall-Street crash (no Wall Street!)...
Hey, I kinda like this alternate!

Obvious questions:
Given Britain's pan-Atlantic status, would she ever make the Entente Cordial?
Would Germany actually be as daft as to start WW1 if Britain owned the US & Russia owned India?

 

I highly doubt that even a more Prussian Germany would have gone to war with the entire Imperial West had these conditions been ensured. But Austria-Hungary did not fight for gain, it fought the classic collapsing-empire war which is started only for uniting divided peoples and giving a sick old state new zeal and purpose. This kind of war was seen also in the Soviet Union (Afghanistan), and one might even ague that WW2 was started for similar reasons by Germany.

In the scenario, however, I'm not sure whether the same alliances would have existed. After all, these alliances were purely opportunistic; which country is most likely to help me ensure my independence and defence.

 

So, in theory, we have Austro-Hungary starting a war just to stay afloat.
She attacks Serbia, who is backed by Russia (Russia has always liked the Serbs...). Prussia is still bound to Austro-Hungary by treaties for security, as is France (who is worried by her powerful neighbour across the Channel). Both therefore join the war against Russia.
Britain's reaction is trickier. While they would be happy to see an Imperial competitor taken down a few pegs, I reckon they would have started putting pressure on the 'Entante Allemand' to stop had they taken it any futher than a Crimean War level of affairs (win a few battles, stop the Russians gaining any territory, then conclude a peace treaty and forget all about it).

 

America probley of left Brits empire like everone else