AHC : Britafrica

LSCatilina

LSCatilina

Your challenge is, if you accept it, to have United Kingdom holding an influence and domination on African countries similar to what France have.

Meaning, a relationship that could be considered ranging from client states to puppet states, with a decisive (while not strictly hegemonic) military, financial, political influence directly or trough enterprises.
 

GeneralInTheShell

LSCatilina said:
Your challenge is, if you accept it, to have United Kingdom holding an influence and domination on African countries similar to what France have.

Meaning, a relationship that could be considered ranging from client states to puppet states, with a decisive (while not strictly hegemonic) military, financial, political influence directly or trough enterprises.
Click to expand...

The US calls the Soviets on their bluff and supports the British and the French in the Suez Crisis. The empire is given a brief second wind which would likely give them another decade to decade and a half in the Middle East since the coup in Iraq is likely butterflied. By retaining power in the Middle East the British have greater interests in maintaining the Empire. Decolonization occurs at a slower pace and the Commonwealth actually has teeth from the inception. This means greater involvement within the Commonwealth nations in the event of unrest, rebellions, and civil war.
 

Perfidious Albion

General_Finley said:
The US calls the Soviets on their bluff and supports the British and the French in the Suez Crisis.
Click to expand...

Everything else you've said might indeed follow from this, but… why would the USA decide in favour of the British and French?

If the USA annoys the Arab states, they can side with the USSR and against the USA; they have that choice. If the USA annoys the British and French, well, they can hardly side with the USSR; they can grumble, sulk, whine and generally be difficult and un-cooperative, but what are they going to do? Try to break off from the USA's bloc and form a bloc of their own? Would they dare? Well, OTL tells us the answer to that.

I just don't see why the USA would side with the British and French in the Suez Crisis when American interests lie in siding with the Arab states. Eisenhower might have regretted it later, but his choice at the time was, from an American perspective, a sound one.
 

GeneralInTheShell

Perfidious Albion said:
Everything else you've said might indeed follow from this, but… why would the USA decide in favour of the British and French?

If the USA annoys the Arab states, they can side with the USSR and against the USA; they have that choice. If the USA annoys the British and French, well, they can hardly side with the USSR; they can grumble, sulk, whine and generally be difficult and un-cooperative, but what are they going to do? Try to break off from the USA's bloc and form a bloc of their own? Would they dare? Well, OTL tells us the answer to that.

I just don't see why the USA would side with the British and French in the Suez Crisis when American interests lie in siding with the Arab states. Eisenhower might have regretted it later, but his choice at the time was, from an American perspective, a sound one.
Click to expand...

Eisenhower would later write that it was one of his greatest failings not having aligned with the British and his actions of supporting the coup in 53 show a willingness to go along with some of Britain's imperial ambitions. Nasser was already getting closer help from the Soviets, and their were already numerous holes in Dulls' proposed Arab alliance to cage in the USSR. One of the major differences between Egypt and Iran was that the British actively recruited the US to help, where as the in Egypt the US was blindsided by the actions of Britain, France, and Israel. Perhaps Nasser's connections to the USSR are more evident and Dulls comes to terms with his Arab Nationalist alliance being an impossible dream and advocates for allowing the British to take back the canal and install a pro-western government. Or perhaps Eden informs the US of Britain's intentions and provides the already existing evidence of Soviet-Egyptian relations. The USA had already alienated the Arab Nationalists with its recognition of Israel, but approving of Britain's involvement in Egypt they gut Arab Nationalism, but ensure that the Baghdad Pact is actually sound since it will consist of British client states. It means Israel is kept on a tight leash and Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq begrudgingly play nice with Israel.
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

Wouldn't that increase Sankara or Chavez-like movements in these regions, in political strength, expansion as well integration (as in, having part of their programs making it to mainstream politics of these countries)?
 

GeneralInTheShell

LSCatilina said:
Wouldn't that increase Sankara or Chavez-like movements in these regions, in political strength, expansion as well integration (as in, having part of their programs making it to mainstream politics of these countries)?
Click to expand...

In many African nations, it's more than possible, but they would likely end just as badly as Sankara's movement since the expanded Commonwealth would have a vested interest in people like Sankara and Chavez not taking power or at least not keeping it for long. If we look to Rhodesia we can see that in spite of everything the Rhodesians were winning the fight on the battlefield despite losing on the political. Now Imagine a scenario where in Rhodesia isn't politically isolated and is instead is a commonwealth nation. It won't just be minority whites that would support British and Commonwealth interests. There will always be men like Moise Tshombe willing to support "pro-western" interests and I suspect a Britain that is far more involved in Africa will be able to find plenty of collaborators.

I imagine it would be quite a shock to the British when Iraq inevitably falls during the Mid-Sixties. It would certainly have repercussions on British policy in Africa.
 
Mumby

Mumby

LSCatilina said:
Not really. There was talkings about it later, basically saying such plan could have led to grounds for trial on treason.
Click to expand...

To be honest, so long as the premiers of both nations wanted to make it work, and could convince their Cabinets, from a British perspective at least, it would happen. This treason argument hasn't a leg to stand on.
 

GeneralInTheShell

Ultimate Paragon said:
Really? Do you have a source for this?
Click to expand...

Eden didn't fall because of Egypt alone, Tories like Harold Macmillan back stabbed out of a desire to replace him. Macmillan and his compatriots were all massive Euro skeptics. If Eden moved towards a union with France they would have moved against him with all the vigor they did for "losing Egypt".
 
Last edited:
PaladinOfTheSun

PaladinOfTheSun

General_Finley said:
Eden didn't fall because of Egypt alone, Tories like Harold Macmillan back stabbed out of a desire to replace him. Macmillan and his compatriots were all massive Euro skeptics. If Eden moved towards a union with France they would have moved against him with all the vigor they did for "losing Egypt".
Click to expand...
Could we butterfly the Suez Crisis, somehow? I mean, the ice he'd be walking wouldn't be quite so thin then, right? Or am I missing your point?:confused:
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

Mumby said:
This treason argument hasn't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a parlementarian regime there, with a huge cabinet instability.
While, it's worth mentioning, France is still deep in Algerian War and Mollet under huge pressure on it (being one of the reason of his governement being dissolved)

Giving that Mollet had stritcly no power or legitimity to undergo such negociations (for the record, he first asked a dominion-like status, then Commonwealth), that were strictly personal and secret, the very moment he proposes that, his government..."implodes" doesn't covers it...the government "big bangs".

He's lucky if he escapes a trial by the Parliment on these grounds (before saying it doesn't have a leg, I suggest strongly to take a look on law about it).

Article 56-57 said:
Les ministres sont pénalement responsables des crimes et délits commis dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.
Ministers are penally responsible of crimes and offences commited as they erxerce their functions.
---
Ministers can be accused by the National Assembly and send on trial on the High Court of Justice

The National Assembly statues on a secret votes and to the absolute majority of its members, at the exception of who'd participe to trial, instruction and verdict.
Click to expand...

Penal Code said:
Le fait de livrer à une puissance étrangère, à une organisation étrangère ou sous contrôle étranger ou à leurs agents soit des troupes appartenant aux forces armées françaises, soit tout ou partie du territoire national est puni de la détention criminelle à perpétuité et de 750 000 euros d'amende.
Surrender to a foreign power, to a foreign organisation or under foreign control or their agents either troops of french armed forces either all or part of national territory is punished by perpetual detention and [fine, I don't managed to find the ammount in ancient francs]

---
Maintaining intelligence with a foreign power, with a foreign entreprise or organisation or under foreign control or with their agents, when it's susceptible to harm the fudamental interests of the nation, is punished of ten years of detention and [fine]
Click to expand...

And I didn't put all the relevant articles, believe me, there's enough grounds for a trial. I don't think it would result on a full punishment if at all, but Mollet clearly went trough negociations without the legitimacy to do it, and that's gonna backfire hugely.
 

GeneralInTheShell

PaladinOfTheSun said:
Could we butterfly the Suez Crisis, somehow? I mean, the ice he'd be walking wouldn't be quite so thin then, right? Or am I missing your point?:confused:
Click to expand...

Trying to maneuver towards an Anglo-French Union, no matter how weak, would be jumped upon by Macmillan and his ilk Suez or no Suez the proposal of a Union will be used as political ammunition to depose Eden. Even a successful Suez like the case I postulated earlier would not be enough to save Eden from the Euroskeptics in his party if he suggested a Union with France. You might get closer ties between Great Britian and the EEC, but anything more than that simply isn't going to happen.
 
PaladinOfTheSun

PaladinOfTheSun

General_Finley said:
Trying to maneuver towards an Anglo-French Union, no matter how weak, would be jumped upon by Macmillan and his ilk Suez or no Suez the proposal of a Union will be used as political ammunition to depose Eden. Even a successful Suez like the case I postulated earlier would not be enough to save Eden from the Euroskeptics in his party if he suggested a Union with France. You might get closer ties between Great Britian and the EEC, but anything more than that simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. I get it. So, co-opting France's influence won't work. I think you'd need a more cohesive Commonwealth with an emphasis on collective defense for this to work, right? How can we make that happen?
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

I'm not sure that co-opting French influence wouldn't work, frankly. There's a lot of room between political union without real support for, and absence of collaboration as it exist since quite a time now.
Would an official treaty, a la Elysée Treaty passed with Germany, on these particular matters, be possible? I tend to think so, but I don't well discern its limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top