Could the Commonwealth have been saved from irrelevance with a post-1945 POD?

I just posted a blog post about the problems with some Brexit proponents in the United Kingdom for a liberalized migration zone including only the ... right Commonwealth countries. (Why include New Zealand and not Jamaica, you might wonder?)

The Commonwealth cannot a substitute for the European Union. At one point, as recently as a half-century ago, it might have been. It's imaginable that, faced with the choice between Europe and the Commonwealth realms, the United Kingdom might have opted for the latter. Can anyone think of a single POD after the Second World War that might have saved the Commonwealth from complete irrelevance?

(Extra points if you include Jamaica and other countries that could make significant gains from inclusion in a high-income federation with freedom of movement.)
 
Impossible. Horrendous debts UK accumulated to fight the war, debts which America was owed through its bank, condemned UK to being American vassal. From Empire to Air-Strip one, how ye might have fallen.
Maybe if USSR collapses or goes completely isolationist, Commonwealth won't have to rely on America for its defence from Red Menace, and will quietly repay its debts.
 
Have WW2 go better for the uk
Maybe have the uk modernise its economy/infrastructure
Have Alan Turning survive and continue research into computers??

Maybe a Pod before WW2 would be easier
 
Britain chooses to stylise their Security Council seat as "British Commonwealth", meaning in theory Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa have a voice as a permanent member. Even then that's probably just a cosmetic change
 

Pomphis

Banned
IIt's imaginable that, faced with the choice between Europe and the Commonwealth realms, the United Kingdom might have opted for the latter.

Okay. But you also need to convince india, australia, canada, south africa, etc. to give the commonwealth precedence over the US and/or their neighbors. I don´t really see how the UK can be able to provide as much security and trade as the US. And as always, what about india ?
 
Maybe more favourable terms on the Anglo-American loan (avoid the convertibility of Sterling clause, or maybe postpone convertibility to say, five or ten years after the ratification of the loan). It would make Britain economically stronger at the very least.
 
Last edited:
Agreed

Impossible. Horrendous debts UK accumulated to fight the war, debts which America was owed through its bank, condemned UK to being American vassal. From Empire to Air-Strip one, how ye might have fallen.
Maybe if USSR collapses or goes completely isolationist, Commonwealth won't have to rely on America for its defence from Red Menace, and will quietly repay its debts.
Basically, this.

The terms of Lend-Lease made it impossible for the Commonwealth to survive as a Sterling Economic Zone. So it eventually had little purpose other than the convenient talking shop and forum to promote trade and investment between its members that its is today.

For that matter, Britain could not afford to maintain the armed forces needed to defend it, even with contributions from the Dominions, further eroding any rationale for the ex-colonies and Dominions to treat it as worth staying in some sense "subject" to the Mother Country.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Post-1945? No...

I just posted a blog post about the problems with some Brexit proponents in the United Kingdom for a liberalized migration zone including only the ... right Commonwealth countries. (Why include New Zealand and not Jamaica, you might wonder?)

The Commonwealth cannot a substitute for the European Union. At one point, as recently as a half-century ago, it might have been. It's imaginable that, faced with the choice between Europe and the Commonwealth realms, the United Kingdom might have opted for the latter. Can anyone think of a single POD after the Second World War that might have saved the Commonwealth from complete irrelevance?

(Extra points if you include Jamaica and other countries that could make significant gains from inclusion in a high-income federation with freedom of movement.)

Post-1945? No.

Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, and New Zealand all know their defense depends on the US; South Africa is always going to chart its own course in this era, and most of the rest (from India on down) all want independence from Britain.

So what's left? Ireland's already gone, obviously; to retain any of the Empire/Commonwealth as a political and economic alliance, the British needed to change their ideas regarding governance and imperial trade preferences before World War I.

For anything resembling a federal Commonwealth to arise from the Empire, you need a departure point or several in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, and even then, you have to get past the realities of distance, communications, time, and population demographics. From a population point of view, the obvious capital of the British Empire/Commonwealth would have been Delhi...

And that wasn't going to happen.;)

Best,
 
I just posted a blog post about the problems with some Brexit proponents in the United Kingdom for a liberalized migration zone including only the ... right Commonwealth countries. (Why include New Zealand and not Jamaica, you might wonder?)

The Commonwealth cannot a substitute for the European Union. At one point, as recently as a half-century ago, it might have been.

While a liberalized migration zone with only the right Commonwealth countries is unlikely, as you noted in your blog post there is no reason that something akin to it (and including all Commonwealth countries) couldn't be done while the UK remains in the EU.

As it stands, the previous free movement zone that was the British Empire and Commonwealth became fragmented between the 1910s and 1960s/1970s resulting in the Common Travel Area or CTA (between the UK, Isle of Man, Channel Islands and Republic of Ireland) and the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement or TTTA (between Australia and New Zealand) as remnants of that zone. Other countries once in the zone have moved to re-establish free movement (in the Caribbean, West Africa and East Africa and I believe in southern Africa).

To me it would seem the most possible solution would be to simply have the UK remain in the EU, maintain the CTA, TTTA and the various renewed free movement zones and add to it a new Commonwealth agreement on visas and visa-free travel which would:

* automatically grant Commonwealth citizens (with exceptions) visa free travel to anywhere else in the Commonwealth

* grant gratis (free of charge) visas to those Commonwealth citizens who fall under the categories of nationals who are not going to be granted visa free travel (perhaps under a graduated scheme where the visa costs are reduced for these Commonwealth citizens versus aliens and then those applicants who consistently get granted visas can get gratis visas; then over time gratis visas can be introduced for everyone)

* grant Commonwealth citizens the right to vote in elections in all Commonwealth countries once they are legally resident for over a year (currently this applies to the UK and about a dozen or more other Commonwealth countries mainly in the Caribbean and Pacific)

* have Commonwealth citizens able to receive diplomatic assistance from any Commonwealth country's diplomatic mission in a non-Commonwealth country once their own country does not have a mission there

* ensure that all Commonwealth citizens pay less for the cost of obtaining permanent residency and registering (as opposed to naturalizing) for citizenship in another Commonwealth country.

Couple that with a very basic (lowest common denominator) Commonwealth free trade agreement or sectoral agreement/partial scope agreement (the type of agreement that could be allowed based on the current economic arrangements of all Commonwealth members including the UK, Cyprus and Malta being within the EU - this agreement could be touted as a possible springboard for a new round of global free trade talks) and a Commonwealth social security agreement (which allows for the easy transfer of social security benefits within the Commonwealth) and it should bring the Commonwealth much closer to the everyday reality of many Commonwealth citizens (at least in terms of travel and migration).
 
I just posted a blog post about the problems with some Brexit proponents in the United Kingdom for a liberalized migration zone including only the ... right Commonwealth countries. (Why include New Zealand and not Jamaica, you might wonder?)
Before anyone pulls the race card, no it's not a race issue it's about the difference in income levels between the various countries in the commonwealth. Free movement between the UK and Jamaica would immediatelly lead to a huge influx of Jamaicans which would depress wages in the UK and put British people out of work. Australia and NZ are not white countries btw, they have substantial Asian populations as does Canada. Ultimately free movment is unworkable because you either have to give that privilege to all countries in the Commonwealth or none. Until every Commonwealth Country is OECD it shouldn't be discussed because it'll just lead to accusations of racism.
 
The single most likely PoD is Suez 1956. A successful Suez results in a more engaged and confident Britain reaping the benefits of a greater share of world leadership. The most notable result would be a successful Bagdahd Pact creating CENTO where Britain is the leader and major supplier of arms in the Middle East. From this major engagement in the Indian Ocean the likes of the Five Power Defence Argreement could become more important. Because of Britains much lower capacity to prop up clients these arrangments would be on a more equal fotting than a simple client basis would would go a long way to making the Commonwealth a stronger organisation.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A successful Suez?

The single most likely PoD is Suez 1956. A successful Suez results in a more engaged and confident Britain reaping the benefits of a greater share of world leadership. The most notable result would be a successful Bagdahd Pact creating CENTO where Britain is the leader and major supplier of arms in the Middle East. From this major engagement in the Indian Ocean the likes of the Five Power Defence Argreement could become more important. Because of Britains much lower capacity to prop up clients these arrangments would be on a more equal fotting than a simple client basis would would go a long way to making the Commonwealth a stronger organisation.

A successful Suez? The UK of 1956 is going to conquer and occupy a nation of 24 million people and against the wishes of the US?

Yeah, that will work.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Given Britain never planned to occupy all of Egypt, merely depose Nasser and put an international group in control of the Canal success in the Suez crisis is perfectly plausible, US agreement or no.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Kind of hard to depose Nasser without marching on Cairo

Given Britain never planned to occupy all of Egypt, merely depose Nasser and put an international group in control of the Canal success in the Suez crisis is perfectly plausible, US agreement or no.

Kind of hard to depose Nasser without marching on Cairo, and considering the British and French together barely controlled Port Said before Eden and Mollet agreed to a ceasefire, that seems .... doubtful.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Kind of hard to depose Nasser without marching on Cairo, and considering the British and French together barely controlled Port Said before Eden and Mollet agreed to a ceasefire, that seems .... doubtful.:rolleyes:

Best,

How can you expect the task force to invade Egypt, occupy the canal and Cairo all within 36 hours? The failure to take the canal was due to the short amount of time between the invasion and the cease fire, not due to Egyptian military valour.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Why was the cease fire agreed to, again?

How can you expect the task force to invade Egypt, occupy the canal and Cairo all within 36 hours? The failure to take the canal was due to the short amount of time between the invasion and the cease fire, not due to Egyptian military valour.

Why was the cease fire agreed to, again?

And you know what? One British infantry division and one French infantry division were not going to take control of a nation of 24 million people.

The whole operation was a stupid bluff and it failed.

Best,
 
Britain had the material wherewithall to hold most of the Empire after WW2, the problem mostly comes down to politics. Of course, the greater Britain's relative economic strength, the more that economic strength compensates for political screw-ups, but then again, most of the PoDs to change Britain's economic situation post-war are political as well.

So politics, politics and politics.

I really get tired seeing the US blamed for British decline. Yes, lend-lease and the subsequent Marshal plan undermined sterling as an international currency, yes, the US undermined Britain in the Middle East, pushing them out of valuable oil monopolies so America could monopolize various important oil deposits themselves and yes, the US was busy wooing the British Dominions away from Britain and into America-centric alliances... But the truth is, America really offered Britain good terms on the aid given to the country and where we might legitimately complain about the terms of a deal (the technology sharing deals during WW2 come to mind) most of the areas of complaint were pushed by the British negotiators. Also, Britain, like the Soviet Union, was under no obligation to cooperate with American attempts to undermine their Empire.

So what sort of political changes are needed?

1) First and foremost, there needs to be a wide political consensus that the Empire is good and worth fighting for.

2) You need to have support for Imperial federation. The lack of this was a big weakness of British imperialism since without a willingness to share power with the people and governments of those parts of the Empire with Dominion status (let alone a willingness to integrate as equals with the brown people in the colonies) meant that the British could not offer much to the pro-Commonwealth leaders of the colonies and dominions so that they could then go to their people and say: "it is to our advantage to cultivate a close relation with Britain". Westminster wanted to keep all the power to itself right up until they didn't have enough power to outbid the Americans. As a result, they lost everything.

3) You need support for much higher military spending. This gives you 4 things:

3a) Britain can offer security to her colonies and dominions.
3b) Britain can help put down any revolts against legitimate Commonwealth governments.
3c) Britain continues to deal with the USA and the Soviets as a fellow superpower, meaning neither gets to fresh about British interests.
3d) Bigger military means more military production - this allows Britain to also continue to be able to meet the orders of foreign militaries - OTL British arms sales collapsed, mostly got replaced by American competitors and countries which were buying American generally drifted into closer alliances with America (if nothing else, to ensure they weren't cut off from critical supplies in the event of things getting dicey).

There are then a few things that I don't think are necessary, but would certainly help a strong Commonwealth to evolve:

1) Britain abandons the desire to keep Sterling as an international currency. Basically, Britain destroyed her industrial economy by making the maintenance of a strong Sterling the center of her industrial policy. It didn't work. As a result, Britain lost most of her relative industrial advantage, lost her status as an exporter nation, drove up unemployment, drove up domestic poverty, ended up with an over-developed banking industry (further hobbling her industrial output) and lost Sterling's position as an international currency anyway. Basically, there's no way Sterling can compete with the dollar, so Britain would have done much better to copy the French and throw the currency under the bus to focus on industrial advancement.

2) Britain doesn't care about cultivating particularly close ties with the US. Since the US is by far the largest threat to Britain maintaining a tight-knit Commonwealth as well as the power able to offer the greatest positive temptations to pull Britain and the Dominions out of a close relationship with each-other.

3) Britain somehow ends up putting together a much more threadbare welfare state, leaving more government money for science and the military. (This one is pretty close to ASB though.)

4) Union with France. A Franco-British union makes for a pretty strong core of a Franco-British Commonwealth and it also has a chance of torpedoing the EU, which was another major temptation that pulled Britain away from the Commonwealth in OTL.

5) Closer relations with the Soviet Union. Less fear of the Soviet Union means less of a feeling that Britain needs a close alliance with the US at all costs. A friendship with the Soviet Union means less danger that Communists threaten the stability of the poorer areas of the Commonwealth.

I have to say, Britain managing a close federation with the Dominions and the bulk of the African and Asian colonies is very interesting. The Commonwealth was at all points in history stronger than the Soviet Union and would be able to stand as a legitimate 3rd superpower if it wanted to. A TL where the Commonwealth DID want to stand apart from the US, and we ended up with a 3-pole Cold War would be VERY interesting. I also wonder what sort of ideology such a Commonwealth would have? Some sort of worship of Queen, tea and jingo?

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Before anyone pulls the race card, no it's not a race issue it's about the difference in income levels between the various countries in the commonwealth. Free movement between the UK and Jamaica would immediatelly lead to a huge influx of Jamaicans which would depress wages in the UK and put British people out of work.

More than six hundred thousand New Zealanders have moved to Australia, out of a base population of 4.5 million. This surely indicates a propensity to emigrate, on a substantial scale.

Why not worry about New Zealanders?
 
Australia does worry about New Zealanders, particularly since a lot came here and got on the dole as part of a reciprocal agreement. When it was realised that far more Kiwis were on the dole in Aus than Aussies were on the dole in New Zealand the law was changed so that the numbers were equal.
 
Top