British Union 1944

The people of the dominions would have supported it because they regarded themselves as British and the British Empire as their country.
New Zealand and Australia where even reluctant to have defence and foreign affairs powers placed on their shoulders at the time.



No one in any dominion let alone Britain would accept India as part of a British Imperial Union with voting power.
The British people would not wish to be ruled by Indians as much as the Indians didnt want to be ruled by the British.
As for the wealth India was on par in GDP with the White Dominions but vastly lower and more costly in terms of GDP per head.

Your next problem is that in your understanding of the OTL, you confuse history with mythology.



He only won one General Election but then again he only fought two.
If he stayed on he would have won more.



In Feb 1945 many Conservatives became well aware that Labour had an 18% poll lead.
Churchill's approval ratings however stood at 83%.
Had Churchill pushed more on the social reform front and got the left out of the BBC and propaganda arms of the government plus this idea of a British Imperial Union he may well have won the election.

Churchill fought THREE general Elections: 1945, 1950 and 1951. The last TWO were against a Labour party that was worn out, and beginning to descend into a civil war that lasted most of the 50s. Incidentally, even in 1951, Labour got more votes! The Conservatives won because they won more seats (although Labour did the same thing to the Tories in 1974) Also, when he stood down as PM in 1955, he was EIGHTY!

Many Tories knew that Labour had an enormous lead in the polls, that's true. But unfortunately, they were not the ones in charge of the party. Macmillan, for instance, was gobsmacked that his bosses didnt seem to realise the danger they were in.

There hadn't been a General Election since 1935. During that time, the Conservative Government had made just about every cock up in the book. Including getting us into a war we were completely unprepared for. I don't see them winning in the mid 40s. Certainly not with those MPs. (Admittedly, Labour would have landed us in the same mess, but they weren't in power)

Churchill may have been personally popular but he played very little part in the day to day running of the government. That's why many historians say he wasn't a particularly good PM, because he was never in control of government policy. It also made people see Attlee as a potential PM, as he was a very good committee man.

"Had Churchill pushed more on the social reform front and got the left out of the BBC and propaganda arms of the government plus this idea of a British Imperial Union he may well have won the election"

The whole point about Churchill as PM is that he didn't have the patience to do any of this. Also, the 'left' at the BBC and the propaganda arms of the government is most of them! You also have to question whether, if the Tories had proposed social reform, the electorate would have entirely trusted them.

Fair point about India. My point should have been that it provided a substantial part of the resources, such as food. It also provides a lot of troops. 2 and a half million Indians fought for Britain in WW2, all of them volunteers (two-thirds of the troops in Burma, for a start). Which then leads to a question of what happens to India, especially since Churchill was extremely dead against their independence. During WW2 he accused Indian troops of being useless and on the point of mutiny (at one of the big conferences)

The other thing is, I just don't see the Dominions giving up ALL their political and economic independence, particularly to a country that is very centralised in the first place. A Federal Union is another matter. But then, how do you run it. In the 1940s, I think they are best off where they are.
 
RMcD94 - British is a multiethnic term covering the English, the Scots, and the Welsh.

That's a completely unhelpful comment... It also misses out on the Irish.

Your comment also does not relate to what I was talking about. England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland are constituent countries, not countries.

Here's what I said:

Mentioning ONE COUNTRY in a MULTICOUNTRY union is Not A Good Thing.

Australians are not British. Therefore, would they be happy being called British? No. British Union.

I have a problem with using the word British just to clarify for you Yuri.
 
Scots and Welsh (and Irish) people are only called British when they win something! Such as Oscars or sports trophies. When they lose they are Scots, Welsh or Irish again!

British is the official term for White people from the Island of Britain, usually on forms asking about Ethnicity. Most White British people I know call themselves Scots, English or Welsh (I call myself British because I'm a mix of all three). Most of the people I know who call themselves British are from ethnic minorities (they're from England but they don't like calling themselves English).

Confused yet?

I just don't see Aussies or Kiwis voting to lose their national identity to become part of a British political identity, as opposed to being part of the British historical, cultural or racial identity. There is a huge difference. I actually think that if this had happened at some point in history, the name would have been the biggest problem!

They might have tried something like Imperial Union.
 

kenmac

Banned
That's a completely unhelpful comment... It also misses out on the Irish.

Your comment also does not relate to what I was talking about. England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland are constituent countries, not countries.

Here's what I said:



Australians are not British. Therefore, would they be happy being called British? No. British Union.

I have a problem with using the word British just to clarify for you Yuri.

Australians at the time were very happy to be called British just as Englishmen, Scotsmen and New Zealanders were.
 

kenmac

Banned
Scots and Welsh (and Irish) people are only called British when they win something! Such as Oscars or sports trophies. When they lose they are Scots, Welsh or Irish again!

British is the official term for White people from the Island of Britain, usually on forms asking about Ethnicity. Most White British people I know call themselves Scots, English or Welsh (I call myself British because I'm a mix of all three). Most of the people I know who call themselves British are from ethnic minorities (they're from England but they don't like calling themselves English).

Confused yet?

I just don't see Aussies or Kiwis voting to lose their national identity to become part of a British political identity, as opposed to being part of the British historical, cultural or racial identity. There is a huge difference. I actually think that if this had happened at some point in history, the name would have been the biggest problem!

They might have tried something like Imperial Union.

This is a 1940's time line not 2010.
National identity has changed greatly since then.
 
This is a 1940's time line not 2010.
National identity has changed greatly since then.

Fair point, I got distracted.

National identity changes. But people don't willingly give theirs up, which is what the OP requires them to do, and also says that all 5 countries agree to it, which I just dont buy under any circumstances.

Australia's cultural identity in the 1940s is very British (or rather the best bits of British) much more than Aussies today might admit. Their economic identity is closely entwined with Britain, to put it mildly. Ditto defence, for obvious reasons.

But their national identity is Australian, not British, and I don't see them giving that up under any circumstances, no matter how persuasive Churchill might have been (the other problem I have is that they all do it basically because he says so)

I actually think the basic idea is an appealing one, I just dont buy the scenario AT ALL.

PS who's the banned troll?
 

kenmac

Banned
Do you have any proof?

Australian Citizenship
In 1948 "Australian citizenship" was officially created with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth). Although this Act created the new legal entity of "Australian citizenship", the legislation barely changed Australia's naturalisation practices. The division between British subjects and aliens that had existed for the entirety of white settlement in Australia continued to be maintained by the new Act, and indeed the Act specifically stated that any "person who, under this Act, is an Australian citizen [...] shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject". (18)

As Arthur Calwell, the Minister for Immigration, argued, the citizenship legislation:
is not designed to make an Australian any less a Britishsubject, but to help him to express his pride in citizenship of thisgreat country. That is a pride which is praiseworthy, because it isbased on a belief that Australia has done as much as any otherBritish nation to develop, expand and improve the free institutionsand systems of organized society that had their origin in the UnitedKingdom. Australia was still identified, of course, very strongly as being a British nation, and even those, such as Jack Lang, who sought a more active statement of citizenship rights in the new citizenship legislation, agreed with the retention of British subject status.
 

kenmac

Banned
Fair point, I got distracted.

National identity changes. But people don't willingly give theirs up, which is what the OP requires them to do, and also says that all 5 countries agree to it, which I just dont buy under any circumstances.

Australia's cultural identity in the 1940s is very British (or rather the best bits of British) much more than Aussies today might admit. Their economic identity is closely entwined with Britain, to put it mildly. Ditto defence, for obvious reasons.

But their national identity is Australian, not British, and I don't see them giving that up under any circumstances, no matter how persuasive Churchill might have been (the other problem I have is that they all do it basically because he says so)

They dont have to give up their identity as Australia was a British nation.
Just as Ulstermen are proud to be Ulstermen and proud to be British for example.
Churchill didnt have to give up his English identity in order to regard himself as British.
 

kenmac

Banned
In New Zealand for example as late as the 1950s it was common for New Zealanders to refer to themselves as British, such as when Prime Minister Keith Holyoake described Sir Edmund Hilrays successful ascent of Mount Everest as "[putting] the British race and New Zealand on top of the world".
New Zealand passports described nationals as "British Subject and New Zealand Citizen" until 1974, when this was changed to "New Zealand Citizen"
 

kenmac

Banned
But there is a difference between regarding oneself as British being called Britainland.

Well the English live in a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and dont have a problem with still be English as well as British.
Just as the Australians at the time did not.
 
Australian Citizenship
In 1948 "Australian citizenship" was officially created with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth). Although this Act created the new legal entity of "Australian citizenship", the legislation barely changed Australia's naturalisation practices. The division between British subjects and aliens that had existed for the entirety of white settlement in Australia continued to be maintained by the new Act, and indeed the Act specifically stated that any "person who, under this Act, is an Australian citizen [...] shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject". (18)

As Arthur Calwell, the Minister for Immigration, argued, the citizenship legislation:
is not designed to make an Australian any less a Britishsubject, but to help him to express his pride in citizenship of thisgreat country. That is a pride which is praiseworthy, because it isbased on a belief that Australia has done as much as any otherBritish nation to develop, expand and improve the free institutionsand systems of organized society that had their origin in the UnitedKingdom. Australia was still identified, of course, very strongly as being a British nation, and even those, such as Jack Lang, who sought a more active statement of citizenship rights in the new citizenship legislation, agreed with the retention of British subject status.

That's very interesting.

But under the OP scenario, the Australian becomes primarily a British subject, and only an Australian citizen secondly, in the same way as being a Welsh or Scottish subject.
 
Fair point, I got distracted.

National identity changes. But people don't willingly give theirs up, which is what the OP requires them to do, and also says that all 5 countries agree to it, which I just dont buy under any circumstances.

Australia's cultural identity in the 1940s is very British (or rather the best bits of British) much more than Aussies today might admit. Their economic identity is closely entwined with Britain, to put it mildly. Ditto defence, for obvious reasons.

But their national identity is Australian, not British, and I don't see them giving that up under any circumstances, no matter how persuasive Churchill might have been (the other problem I have is that they all do it basically because he says so)

I actually think the basic idea is an appealing one, I just dont buy the scenario AT ALL.

PS who's the banned troll?

The banned troll is Yuri, author of this timeline. Usually troll threads are left to die. ;)
 
They dont have to give up their identity as Australia was a British nation.
Just as Ulstermen are proud to be Ulstermen and proud to be British for example.
Churchill didnt have to give up his English identity in order to regard himself as British.

Ulster isnt really the best example. There was an IRA bombing campaign in the UK during WW2!

I dont see The Dominions voting for a government where ALL the decisions would be made in London. Especially since they would be made, not by the elected parliament but by the bureaucracy, which would be heavily slanted towards England as that is where it would be based and recruited from. Thats basically how the British system works.
 

kenmac

Banned
Ulster isnt really the best example. There was an IRA bombing campaign in the UK during WW2!

I dont see The Dominions voting for a government where ALL the decisions would be made in London. Especially since they would be made, not by the elected parliament but by the bureaucracy, which would be heavily slanted towards England as that is where it would be based and recruited from. Thats basically how the British system works.

Try Wales or New Zealand as examples then.
 

kenmac

Banned
Ulster isnt really the best example. There was an IRA bombing campaign in the UK during WW2!

I dont see The Dominions voting for a government where ALL the decisions would be made in London. Especially since they would be made, not by the elected parliament but by the bureaucracy, which would be heavily slanted towards England as that is where it would be based and recruited from. Thats basically how the British system works.

According to this time line the dominion parliaments would still have powers over legal affairs and certain domestic matters.
As for the British Union Parliament that would be made up of MP from all over the White Dominions.
It is possible an Australian or Newfoundlander could end up Prime Minister just as we have a Scottish Prime Minister now.
 
Top