AHC: Make an European Union as influential as possible

I write "an" because it might not be the European Union we know of, even though that's an obvious starting point. Soviet push into Europe goes way better might be an alternative?

By "influential", I mean striving towards two things:

1) Push towards a full federation, turn it into an as real nation state as possible
2) Make it as influential on the world stage as possible.

Try to keep the PoD after 1935.
 
Last edited:
I could see it more influential worldwide if it kinda stayed what it is and eventually incorporated a more liberal and modern Maghreb. An EU that includes Morocco, Algeria (Maybe French), Tunisia, maybe Libya, and Turkey would definitely be a force that have more of a global push.
 
Basilisk- what you say makes sense, but you'd have to butterfly away a lot of European Islamophobia for the Maghreb and Turkey to be full members.
It could happen, but you'd have to get the European public see it as less of demographic time bomb where the secular-minded Europeans would very soon be outvoted by Muslims.
On the flip side, we keep forgetting the Maghreb nations (especially Algeria) fought bloody independence campaigns to be free of European influence.
They don't mind European cash left by visitors and investors, but don't want Europeans mucking about in their internal affairs.

Right now, you've got massive fault line between the prosperous and the impoverished of Europe threatening to implode the economic alliance when it's a customs union federation. A unitary state would be another couple of decades away.
Right now, there's no external threat that would compel a more unitary structure. China, Russia, and the US all have other fish to fry.That could certainly change.

I hate to indulge in a cliche, but you'd need some polarizing figure articulating how great is is to be European forging and articulating a European identity, and going out of his/her way to include all the European peoples by hook or crook with missionary zeal. (Napoleon Part II).
 
OK... I think I've got an idea.

- The border wars between Japan and USSR escalate, and Japan is massively beaten by Soviet forces. Japanese are entirely kicked out of the Chinese mainland.

- The Battle of France plays out entirely differently. France decides to fight on. Lots more forces from France and the Benelux countries manage to escape. The grand fuel supplies of France light up in a massive fire before Germany can get their hands on them. Vichy France is never formed.

- As a result of greater forces of various government-in-exiles, these forces are put under single military control, for greater ease.

- Italy is overall more competent, and decides to target Yugoslavia before Greece. Yugoslavia is beaten with relative ease. Greece is next on the list.

- As German intervention in the Balkans never happen, Barbarossa starts in May instead. Soviet forces are actually ready for invasion TTL, and German forces fail to even take Smolensk. That coupled with no French fuel supplies means Germany is royally boned at this point.

- The North African campaign takes place without German aid to Italy since they have their hands full. Italy is overall more competent, but has to fight on two fronts since there is no Vichy France. Surrendered Italian forces form the nucleus of Free Italy.

- Since Japan no longer has to fight the Sino-Japanese War and doesn't have the crucial strategical location of Indochina, they swallow the bitter pill and seek rapproachment with the US. The US is on the tip of declaring war on Germany throughout, but the war remains undeclared.

- The war ends with the whole of Germany occupied by Soviet forces, and Finland, Austria, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania in the Warsaw pact.

- Due to the overall greater threat of the USSR, and since the US is not in a military alliance, the new European Union foged during the war gets direct incentive from Allied countries in Europe to become a real federation.
 
I could see it more influential worldwide if it kinda stayed what it is and eventually incorporated a more liberal and modern Maghreb. An EU that includes Morocco, Algeria (Maybe French), Tunisia, maybe Libya, and Turkey would definitely be a force that have more of a global push.

I think that's possible but would require some changes earlier on. Maybe have the French Union as more successful (not really something I know much about) so that could bring Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia into the EU at a later date. This in turn could set the precedent to expand elsewhere.


Henriksson, does your timeline still include the collapse of the USSR allowing the EU to expand into Central and Eastern Europe?
 
Henriksson, does your timeline still include the collapse of the USSR allowing the EU to expand into Central and Eastern Europe?
I've no idea about that, really. I just put it forth as an eventual starting point for how a European Union could form.
 

Devvy

Donor
If you want full federation, then you need it set up before the majority of people join and you end up with the OTL situation.

France continues to veto UK's entry and others, and at some point later, West Germany, France & Benelux form a very loose federation with few federal powers.

By the 80s/90s, other countries join - but as it's already a federation there is no debate over "further federalisation", everyone knows exactly what they are signing up for. The former nation states slowly centralise more powers into the federal government.

I don't see the UK joining, and thus Ireland stays out. With Denmark not joining in '73, maybe the Nordic countries look inwards and form a closer Nordic Union. Baltic countries join this later on.

You therefore end up with a smaller, but more federalised EU. But (geographical) Europe ends up with two or three EU-style federations, each as a single federalised state (each with decent international influence).
 
Top