A strong British Commonwealth from another perspective.

[lounge60]

In this forum are many threads about a possible way to obtain a strong British Commonwealth or a sort of confederaton or union (like European union) between UK and Canada,Australia and New Zeland in XX century.
Correctly has been said was too many late,and that those old Dominions had no interest in this.

But beyond praticals and rationals motivations for the human acts are also motivations ideologicals,emotionals, ,cuturals or also religious..in a word often irrationals.

So what if in XX century,inside the British Empire was generated a strong ideology about the British identity and about a sentimental and cultural bonds with the "mother country"?
A ideology so strong among the peoples to push to a more close union?

In XX and also in our XIX century we have see many identity movements and also ethnic ( understood as belonging to a group or a culture),
So if one or more influencer of great personality had created a spread ideology about a "Britishphere" would have been possible to have a push for a some "Imperial Union".

 

[finch]

The EU has its origins in the desire to make wars in Europ, less likely. Its economic success has made it attractive to other countries. To distance themselves from the old Soviet bloc to a safe haven has also been an incentive for some.
None of those incentives exists within the Commonwealth. Britain is not particularly well respected among other Commonwealth countries and actually disliked in some. Only a few countries within the Commonwealth have common borders or cultural interests. I don't believe the Commonwealth could be anything then it presently is. There has always been some belief, in the UK, of a stronger and Succesful Commonwealth, but I suspect those people also believe the return of red phone boxes and policemen in light blue morris minors will also happen.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I’d respectfully disagree with @finch there. There was a window of possibility, however small, after WWII where the UK could have formed a closer Commonwealth, with the former Dominions at least. The experience of the Commonwealth Division in the Korean War pointed towards a unified approach to foreign policy at least, rather than the ‘top down’ approach from WWII and before.

The desire to keep the Commonwealth as broad as possible, and the costs of maintaining a presence East of Suez, necessitated the drift toward the largely ceremonial ‘soft power’ Commonwealth of today. The British economic downturn of the post-War era meant a turn towards greater integration with Europe or the Commonwealth was required. For better or for worse, the British chose Europe.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Britain is not particularly well respected among other Commonwealth countries

Quite a lot of that had to do with Britain's conduct 1939-73 and identification with the EU thereafter. A different series of British governments during that period could radically change these attitudes.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

1926 Balfour declaration stated the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be: autonomous Communities within the Empire equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth.

1931 Westminster Declaration The main effect was the removal of the ability of the British parliament to legislate for the Dominions, part of which also required the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in its application to the Dominions.

Before then, the Dominions had legally been self-governing colonies of the United Kingdom. However, the Statute had the effect of making them sovereign nations once they adopted it.

Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales.

When the Home Rule pre WW1 I’ve been led to believe that Scotland & Wales were also looking devolution.

West Indies were also being regarded as part of Canada along with Newfoundland which was a Dominion in its own right. There was also consideration to India getting Dominion status within 2 generation.

This is one of the factors that led to the accusation of appeasement to Germany as Europe was none of our business.

WW2 changed that as the ‘Pro-Commonwealth’ voice was changed to a pro Europe position and betrayal of the former colonies.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

1926 Balfour declaration stated the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be: autonomous Communities within the Empire equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth.

1931 Westminster Declaration The main effect was the removal of the ability of the British parliament to legislate for the Dominions, part of which also required the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in its application to the Dominions.

Before then, the Dominions had legally been self-governing colonies of the United Kingdom. However, the Statute had the effect of making them sovereign nations once they adopted it.

Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales.

When the Home Rule pre WW1 I’ve been led to believe that Scotland & Wales were also looking devolution.

West Indies were also being regarded as part of Canada along with Newfoundland which was a Dominion in its own right. There was also consideration to India getting Dominion status within 2 generation.

This is one of the factors that led to the accusation of appeasement to Germany as Europe was none of our business.

WW2 changed that as the ‘Pro-Commonwealth’ voice was changed to a pro Europe position and betrayal of the former colonies.

I think it was more the ending of Imperial Preference, as demanded by the terms of Lend-Lease, that started to fray the bonds of the Commonwealth. Canada started to look to the US as its major trading partner and Australia etc. saw the US as its primary military ally. US competition in these markets made it harder for British firms to exploit the colonies, though trade patterns took a while to change.

In hindsight, from a strictly economic perspective, the UK would have benefitted from joining the EEC at its inception. Getting whatever preferential terms it could in the mid-1950s for its key Commonwealth partners. And shaping the nascent EU to be more free market and less rigid, perhaps.

 

[saluto]

Choosing Europe over the Commonwealth made sense at the time. It’s closer, is a bigger export market and the British were being forced to move away from the Commonwealth by decolonisation and the cost of Empire.

If the will existed then you might see closer integration. But people at the time didn’t see the need. A broader commonwealth with former colonies might be been more economically successful but that would require the white countries to abandon their racist stances.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I think a key thing would be handling the Apartheid issue better in 1961. Many of the white member states were upset to see South Africa go, and while the non-white states were pleased action had been taken(ish) they also recognized that it hadn't actually resolved the matter. On the whole, it revealed that the Commonwealth was a brittle organization which fragmented rather than functioned under pressure.

Optimally the Commonwealth twists Verwoerd's arm into abandoning the policy. However, I assume that's ASB, so instead the Commonwealth gives South Africa the boot (rather than simply complicating things until South Africa voluntarily leaves) and immediately imposes sanctions on the Republic of South Africa. Voila! A Commonwealth bound by respect of parliamentary democracy and human rights, which is capable of acting together in times of crisis and controversy.

 

[MichaelWest]

Having pondered this in an altered Great War and no WW2 scenario I think you need a few ingredients to get the Empire to morph into a Commonwealth of some meaning. With a surviving Imperial Germany you force the UK to remain a sea faring and global trading nation more bound to the fates of its Dominions and colonies. India is likely lost and not certain to be a linchpin of the whole but it likely can remain a source of materials and market for manufacturers. Canada is slowly gravitating towards the USA but should remain cooperative, same with Australia, the pacific will slowly gravitate to Japan as its industrial center, more so as China too begins to consume raw materials and export industrially. The UK will have FRance but otherwise be left out of an integrating Europe under German leadership, the USA is not a super power, it is big enough to influence things but has little cause, it imports and exports but has no dire need to displace the UK, so the UK can at least be left its own global power tasks, unfortunately still troublesome as the colonies want to gain independence for London the world is just as dangerous and just as poised for ruin. Oddly I think Japan will do to the Commonwealth what it did to the USA, become a serious competitor and in many ways the industrial master riding the export markets while shuttering the British factories year after year. A resurgent capitalist China will become the anti-colonial champion, it will create relevance for a Commonwealth that includes security commitments in Asia, the sub-continent and even Africa. Africa is where the Commonwealth faces the worst of its legacy as an Empire, give Germany and colonial foothold and we might see too much retrenchment rather than liberalization, the UK acts like the USA meddling endlessly in bush wars, backing horrid dictators and alienating everyone by the end. But they might have a bigger hold on oil, a thing that is not all positive, the USA, this TLs Germany, Japan, China and even Russia might see as invitation to try to upend. This Commonwealth might find itself hated by the nationalistic Arab and Muslim populations vexed by interlopers who can fund wars to bleed London, a disintegrating position, and more. My changes open sweeping flaps of wings but to get the Commonwealth better cemented I think one needs more than changes to the window dressing, one needs to stretch back into post-Great War and get some bigger shifts in foundation elements. Even just disrupting WW2 might be enough, but its a wonky beast, the whole interwar period needs some shifts to keep the Empire while shifting it to a more cooperative effort, in there will be the glue needed rather than yet more wedges driven.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I think it was more the ending of Imperial Preference, as demanded by the terms of Lend-Lease, that started to fray the bonds of the Commonwealth. Canada started to look to the US as its major trading partner and Australia etc. saw the US as its primary military ally. US competition in these markets made it harder for British firms to exploit the colonies, though trade patterns took a while to change.

In hindsight, from a strictly economic perspective, the UK would have benefitted from joining the EEC at its inception. Getting whatever preferential terms it could in the mid-1950s for its key Commonwealth partners. And shaping the nascent EU to be more free market and less rigid, perhaps.

Would the United States be completely against something like this forming and try to undermine it if it starts gaining support? The US doesn’t usually like traditional empires or colonial type nations. Wouldn’t they use their soft power and economic power in the post war years to prevent this? Would a pod involving no world war 1 be the best bet for this to form?

 

[Chris S]

Okay, a lot of these responses are interesting, but only some seem to get at what I think lounge60 was actually asking - was there a way to generate stronger identity among the people of the Empire as being "British"? In essence what he is asking is how do you turn the British Empire into something closer to the French Empire in terms of an ideology of identity.

To get so, I think that besides some of the good suggestions offered thus far, you need to go back to the 1800s at least and change it so that colonies were not free to make their own laws on naturalization and the status that aliens could possess (other than becoming naturalized subjects) within their territories and not free to determine which British subjects could be given permission to land. It would also require that their was an inherent right to freedom of movement within the British Empire to all British subjects as colonies could exclude various British subjects based on origin (from India), race or class (unemployed or otherwise undesirable persons from Britain itself) and all British subjects not already domiciled in a colony seemed to generally require permission to land in that colony. It would be very hard to generate a truly shared identity if these measures also generated a sense of colonial identity separate from the other colonies and separate from the mother country/colonizing power.

If those things never developed in the first place from the 1700-1800s then by the 1900s (assuming no other major butterflies) there could well be a sense of shared nationhood that was much stronger than IOTL and so if a Commonwealth of separate Dominions equal in status to the UK still did develop then the Commonwealth may evolve into something more akin to the relationships between New Zealand and the Cook Islands or Niue whereby there is a single citizenship, but the governments are basically equal in terms of powers but the governments of the associated states (Dominions) agree to New Zealand (or in this example the UK) exercising the powers of defence and foreign affairs on their behalf and with their advice and consent.

 

[finch]

There was a window of possibility, however small, after WWII where the UK could have formed a closer Commonwealth

I don't believe that is true. The UK was bankrupt after the war, and that suited our American Friends. Empires of the past were costing more to run and control with little to be gained. As the UK pulled out, new powers moved in. The drum they banged said, we will give you the freedom from the evil colonialists. It was not long ago Robert Mugabe was blaming the white colonialists for every problem the country had. The Commonwealth was an attempt to keep to old world order going. But it was a party attended by people that were only interested in free drink and sandwiches. The Uk has benefited from being in the European Union but we have our own versions of Mugabe.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I don't believe that is true. The UK was bankrupt after the war, and that suited our American Friends. Empires of the past were costing more to run and control with little to be gained. As the UK pulled out, new powers moved in. The drum they banged said, we will give you the freedom from the evil colonialists.

The idea would be a ‘better’ version of the OTL Commonwealth - a trade area coupled with the political alignment it already has. It wouldn’t be about “running” or “controlling” anything, it would be a unified attempt to counterbalance - not reject or replace - American influence in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The Commonwealth was an attempt to keep to old world order going. But it was a party attended by people that were only interested in free drink and sandwiches. The UK has benefited from being in the European Union but we have our own version of Mugabe.

This isn’t what I understood the Commonwealth to be. There isn’t much money going about, as you’ve said, but there was an attempt at coordinating influence. The Australians and Canadians were interested, as I understand it, but when the British fully turned to Europe, the Americans were too good an option to resist.

 

[MichaelWest]

The idea would be a ‘better’ version of the OTL Commonwealth - a trade area coupled with the political alignment it already has. It wouldn’t be about “running” or “controlling” anything, it would be a unified attempt to counterbalance - not reject or replace - American influence in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.



This isn’t what I understood the Commonwealth to be. There isn’t much money going about, as you’ve said, but there was an attempt at coordinating influence. The Australians and Canadians were interested, as I understand it, but when the British fully turned to Europe, the Americans were too good an option to resist.

My conception is that London only gets to that notion as its hold weakens, remove WW2 for example and London feels more secure, has more wealth and power to exert, thus it holds the Commonwealth along far more Imperial lines, and in doing so hastens the collapse of Empire without building the Commonwealth as its evolution. All goods and ost money flows to London, the British garrison and patrol the Empire, the Dominions are reluctantly given political input but expected to ow the line, the further back we go the stronger this paradigm and the further from a "Commonwealth" as you describe I feel we get. In the 1920s through 1930s I can see a "last" window of opportunity as London has its own problems but is forced to look outward and rely more on the Empire, in there is the makings of, but not the certainty of the "right" moves on the chess board.

As I posted earlier, Canada is slowly gravitating towards the USA and increasingly less willing to back London carte blanche, it is even more friendly with a vaguely neutral (isolationist) USA who runs its own mercantile trade empire and champions the Americas versus Europe. Australia and the a less extent NZ are already alienated but more dependent upon the UK, the danger is they find new buyers for their beef and coal and iron, Japan or China are more likely markets and eroding the hold London has, so there needs to be the threat from a surviving Imperial Japan or communist insurgency Asia or expansionist China to keep them from devolving to neutrals. South Africa carries the deep angst of the Boer War, the Afrikaners are not fans and easily slip from the grasp, worse their racist fears and policies only hasten the struggle for native black African subjects to seek independence. Keeping SA is a poison pill without some changes to how it transitions and the British side of the culture trumps the swing towards Apartheid. India can be moved to Dominion status, Malaysia too, but it takes clarity of vision that I am hard pressed to see.

Post-Great War the shift will be towards protectionism and away from free-trade, a double edged sword as it binds colonies to London but alienates other markets for them. London will be inclined to double down on control versus liberalization, without another war to break their hold and force them to try reform, we might see more of the old "divide and conquer", "send in the troops", exert power solutions, adding in any multi-polar world only exacerbates this as security trumps all. At bottom the flow of influence was from London outward, shifting that to a two-way street meaningfully and in time is what needs found. I am not arguing it is impossible, but as I think through it I find the incentives muted or silenced as Britain remains "strong", with Empire it can ignore Europe more, the financial arrangements will benefit he UK, the Comonwealth will be the horse carrying a rider who is indifferent enough to provoke the bolt.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

But they might have a bigger hold on oil

Malaysia too

Almost certainly yes to both. Provided the British aren't too heavy handed, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are probably quite keen on a continued British military presence (they were OTL) to counter any potential threats from Indonesia, China or Japan. They are relatively small and rich nations in a rough neighbourhood. In the Middle East (particularly if there is no upsurge of Nasserist sentiment) Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the UAE are likely to be similarly enthusiastic. In a different decolonisation model, Zanzibar and Pemba might not want "unification" with Tanganyika and be glad of a continued British alliance. Malta's first preference was incorporation within the UK.

 

[MichaelWest]

Almost certainly yes to both. Provided the British aren't too heavy handed, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are probably quite keen on a continued British military presence (they were OTL) to counter any potential threats from Indonesia, China or Japan. They are relatively small and rich nations in a rough neighbourhood. In the Middle East (particularly if there is no upsurge of Nasserist sentiment) Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the UAE are likely to be similarly enthusiastic. In a different decolonisation model, Zanzibar and Pemba might not want "unification" with Tanganyika and be glad of a continued British alliance. Malta's first preference was incorporation within the UK.

Working after a different Great War, with no WW2, keeping Japan leaning into the British camp, Asia is not as rough but just as uncertain. I see Singapore actually gaining relevance, the smaller pieces remain part of the British trade empire, with a realigned trade pattern with Japan, Malay, Brunei, the gulf states, Malta, all remain relevant to the protection of sea lanes. Australia and NZ shift to export to Japan over time, SA can as well as Canada, the Commonwealth as I se it will be just as weakly political but more functionally economic with a remaining British led security overlay. Oddly not what the OP seeks I think, the political and diplomatic side will be less coherent but the cultural ties likely surviving better. My wildcard is the USA, anti-colonial, it should be far less friendly to the wonky closed "imperial" preference bloc but in my version the USA has far less international adventurism in its actions.

A real mess is what I do with the OE and middle east, but I put Germany back in Africa to keep it interesting, so Zanzibar is firmly British. Same goes for places like Malta, the multipolar world offers more cogent threats and more balanced antagonisms, a USSR is just another threat/disruptor, Japan a dangerous friend, Germany an understandable foe, the USA unreliable, the French forever going their own way, Italy still nipping and barking, etc. Here China is another wildcard on its path to resurgence and more obvious a threat but not on ideology. Anti-colonial and capitalistic, it is both market and competitor, and friend or foe. For me the oil in the middle east will be more in play, the USA will not likely have hegemony and Britain will be able to exert better influence, but puts them in everyone's sights. Without war I let the trade patterns sort things into broad blocs, benign antagonism, mercantile values and pragmatic alignments. I think it keeps a Commonwealth relevant even if just as loose. A Sterling zone becomes a genuine alternative to gold or the Dollar. I think that will keep London in the game.

 

[Rattigan]

As with all of these things, it kind of depends what you mean. If you want to create a Commonwealth involving all of the old Empire then you're going to have to make a number of changes in colonial governance from about 1880-1930 and also do something about the ideology of communism and the part that played in post-colonial struggles. (Unless of course you want to take the thing completely dystopic and go full tyrannical apartheid across all of the Crown Colonies...) I think that buy the time you get too far into the XIX century, and especially postwar, it's a bit too late to imagine most of the African colonies not wanting to voluntarily make their own way (with the exception of maybe a few places like South Africa and Rhodesia, Egypt and Kenya at a push too).

If you want to try and create one of just the UK and the Dominions, then you'd have to do something about Irish Home Rule and the afterlife of the imperial federalists amongst the Liberal Unionist Party (not to hustle too hard on this but this is something I'm trying to do with my TL, which tweaks a couple of XIX century things and results in a more radically different XX century). But, on another point (and I know this is an Alt forum and not a politics one so I'll mention it in passing) but there's a strong argument that a kind of loose federation did actually exist between 1932-1973 (through things like emigration, the sterling zone and cultural exchanges), it's just that it was overshadowed by the wider NATO/Western/capitalist alliance in the postwar period and nobody particularly mourned it when it died a slow death in the decade before and after 1973.

I think the ultimate answer to the question of why an EU-style Commonwealth never took form is that there were people in various countries who were, broadly speaking, into the idea (Diefenbaker and Menzies in the 60s, various UK politicians in the 50s and 70s, even Mulroney and Thatcher in the 80s in a weird kind of way) but never enough people at the same time to create anything coherent. Add to that the Anglo aversion to grand bargains of any sort, the persistence of a strain of free trade ideology and the overarching importance of the American relationship for each individual country then you've got a recipe for nothing much to happen.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Diefenbaker in the 30s.

*60s

 

[Rattigan]

*60s

Woops, my mistake there