The British Commonwealth of Nations

How could the Commonwealth continue to exist in the way it did from 1931-1949 (Closely tied nations in personal union with Britain) and what would this mean for de-colonisation. Would the newly independent colonies continue to be monarchies or risk being outside the free-trade zone[1]. How else would it be different to the, let's be frank, useless organisation we have now?

[1] there was a free-trade zone, right?
 
The Commnwealth is a cultural bond and little else, by the 1950s its silly for Canada to focus on Britain for trade when America was far more practical a partner, plus things like Suez really emphasised the split between European empires and the rest of the world.

No the free trade zone didn't really exist, there was preferential treatment to Commonwealth states but not if it proved too costly and given the geography involved thats not gonna last. American dominance created a far more attractive trading partner to Canada, and Australia/New Zeland as a whole, while colonisation was bound to lead to a general weakening of the structure. The White Dominions were treated relatively like equals to Britain but many of the African colonies were officially protectorates so retained their own kings and other setups so they're not going to be keen on playing another head of state in offical control of their new nation.

There was only a short window were the independence movements sort assimilation as loyal members of empire, generally in the 1900-1920 period, however London didnt want to know and then the Indians, Africans etc. moved towards more militant and total independence movements.

The French had Senegalese senators in Paris in the early 20th century, not to mention went a lot further to creating a Francophone sphere with united culture, plus a mixed race group of middlemen, however even they missed the window and only Guyana opted to become an oversea province of France in the end.

So Britain has little hope there, the African states rather moved towards autarkic and socialist economies simply so their former masters would have little influence as possible.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Although WWI was extremely costly to the British Empire and all other participants in the war, the Empire actually had splendid prospects in the interwar years. Of course not in unchanged colonial form, but as a closely knit together commonwealth co-operating in economical, political and military matters. The transformation process was well underway in the interwar years, but basically WWII, where GB ended up totally clapped-out, made a commonwealth superfluous as anything but a social activity.

With no blood draining world wars at all, everything of course would have been very different, but I think a PoD could be as late as May 1940. In short, if the German campaign vs. France fails (not difficult to find plausible PoDs for that) the Empire will be short of a lot of debt and humiliations, and in a superb position to fight back any Japanese attempts, if they dare at all.
Most important is however, that the OTL economical and military vacuum which was created in WWII in the areas of the old European colonial empires will not be present. Not that troubles are absent, but where OTL post-war left no choice for the old colonies/Dominions etc. but to seek US protection and co-operation, they will now need a special occasion/reason to seek away from what they know and recently have experienced do its job.

Canada will anyway need to balance herself finely between USA and the Empire, but as long as the Empire and USA hasn’t any serious quarrels with each other I don’t see why Canada should leave a/the Commonwealth. She of course would be reluctant to military obligations anywhere near bringing her on collision course with USA or economical co-operation limiting her interaction with USA.

India will still have her Ghandi, Nehru etc., but again, if there still is a vital Empire present, Indian economical activity will be with the Empire, business as usual, and India will rather need assurance of this being combined with greater political liberation and recognition, than total separation. I hesitate to say symbolic political changes, as extending basic human right to the Indians is way beyond symbols, but I don’t see why this couldn’t co-exist with the political, economical and military interests of a Commonwealth/Empire.
In the long run this would have tremendous importance for global economy and politics. Instead of OECD countries facing each other and in all practical terms excluding the third world the pre-arranged circles of various interactions will now include both first and third world countries, and the level of investments from first to third world probably will be must higher than in OTL post WWII (with due respect to Nial Fergusson’s work).

In OTL USA went deeper into the interwar depression than Europe, and in this ATL won’t have WWII and the vacuum filling in of the post war period to boost economy. New Deal etc. might still be initiated, but only was the spark plug, WWII and USA’s superpower role was the fuel and engine in USA post war total dominance. USA will still be huge, and probably the biggest single economy, but probably confined to the American continents and (some parts of the) the pacific region. First of all China, but here Japan will the main rival, and the Empire(s) might easily find themselves a good place on a fence watching Japan and USA fighting over the Chinese ruin. The general image might easily be that of happy times for those to be so happy to be part of a Commonwealth to advance within, and misery for those outside.

Regards
Steffen Redbeard
 

Faeelin

Banned
India will still have her Ghandi, Nehru etc., but again, if there still is a vital Empire present, Indian economical activity will be with the Empire, business as usual, and India will rather need assurance of this being combined with greater political liberation and recognition, than total separation. I hesitate to say symbolic political changes, as extending basic human right to the Indians is way beyond symbols, but I don’t see why this couldn’t co-exist with the political, economical and military interests of a Commonwealth/Empire.

The problem is that Indians didn't want part of this. Nehru was a Fabian socialist who thought the Empire was basically awful, something which bodes ill for future Indian-British involvement.

Instead of OECD countries facing each other and in all practical terms excluding the third world the pre-arranged circles of various interactions will now include both first and third world countries, and the level of investments from first to third world probably will be must higher than in OTL post WWII (with due respect to Nial Fergusson’s work).

But why? Britain shifted investment b/c investment elsewhere, and trade elswhere, brought higher returns.
 
but basically WWII, where GB ended up totally clapped-out, made a commonwealth superfluous as anything but a social activity.

Not necessarily.The Commonwealth remained an important economical force. That's why the London Declaration was so essential for India, as it was still heavily dependent on the Commonwealth for trade.

With no blood draining world wars at all, everything of course would have been very different, but I think a PoD could be as late as May 1940. In short, if the German campaign vs. France fails (not difficult to find plausible PoDs for that) the Empire will be short of a lot of debt and humiliations, and in a superb position to fight back any Japanese attempts, if they dare at all.

True, all true, but can I suggest another point of divergence: having the Viceroy of India not unilaterally enter the war (not that it would make a difference, India will end up fighting anyway, but at least resentment for the British colonial rule would not massively increase.)

Most important is however, that the OTL economical and military vacuum which was created in WWII in the areas of the old European colonial empires will not be present. Not that troubles are absent, but where OTL post-war left no choice for the old colonies/Dominions etc. but to seek US protection and co-operation, they will now need a special occasion/reason to seek away from what they know and recently have experienced do its job.

Canada will anyway need to balance herself finely between USA and the Empire, but as long as the Empire and USA hasn’t any serious quarrels with each other I don’t see why Canada should leave a/the Commonwealth. She of course would be reluctant to military obligations anywhere near bringing her on collision course with USA or economical co-operation limiting her interaction with USA.

Hmm...I wonder how nationalist Canada would be without a long WWII. If anyone can tell me why Mackenzie-King lost in '48, that might help.

India will still have her Ghandi, Nehru etc., but again, if there still is a vital Empire present, Indian economical activity will be with the Empire, business as usual, and India will rather need assurance of this being combined with greater political liberation and recognition, than total separation. I hesitate to say symbolic political changes, as extending basic human right to the Indians is way beyond symbols, but I don’t see why this couldn’t co-exist with the political, economical and military interests of a Commonwealth/Empire.

If the lead up to an independent India isn't as violent as it was IOTL, I could see that happening. Nehru was determined to have some connection to the Commonwealth anyway.

In the long run this would have tremendous importance for global economy and politics. Instead of OECD countries facing each other and in all practical terms excluding the third world the pre-arranged circles of various interactions will now include both first and third world countries, and the level of investments from first to third world probably will be must higher than in OTL post WWII (with due respect to Nial Fergusson’s work).

A more economically tied Commonwealth could do this, but I'm unsure, it depends if the other colonies want to be in personal union with Britain, which I'm sure a good deal of them wont.

In OTL USA went deeper into the interwar depression than Europe, and in this ATL won’t have WWII and the vacuum filling in of the post war period to boost economy. New Deal etc. might still be initiated, but only was the spark plug, WWII and USA’s superpower role was the fuel and engine in USA post war total dominance. USA will still be huge, and probably the biggest single economy, but probably confined to the American continents and (some parts of the) the pacific region.

if the Japanese do attack Pearl Harbour, that might be the case. This is especially true if there is no long war in Europe.

First of all China, but here Japan will the main rival, and the Empire(s) might easily find themselves a good place on a fence watching Japan and USA fighting over the Chinese ruin. The general image might easily be that of happy times for those to be so happy to be part of a Commonwealth to advance within, and misery for those outside.

Regards
Steffen Redbeard

Are you saying that the Commonwealth wouldn't get involved in the Pacific War? Because I cant see that happening
 
Well looking at current NZ export requirements - a large part of our interest is in getting access to export markets for agricultural or other primary production - so we engage in a lot of bi and multilateral trade negotation to get quotas or better rights. For these exports the UK was long a primary destination - but that primacy stopped about the time of EEC accession and we diversified a bit (UK still important).

From a long term economic viability viewpoint we would need access to a far wider market than the Commonwealth given that our agricultural or primary production competes with other major Commonwealth countries. If the Commonwealth could provide this negotiating clout as well as being a destination for exports then we would probably would stick with it, just like small European countries use the EU today
 
Top