France, the United States' best ally, and a "Gaullist" England during the Cold War.
- Thread starter Ukron
- Start date
Kill De Gaulle and get Enoch Powell (earlier the better) into No 10 - he was quite 'understanding' of Russian motivations, certainly for a hardcore conservative. He had little time for American-style conservatism which he saw as seperate from Toryism and closer to a cult with little intellectual depth (Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder" leaps to mind as a comparison). So he likely isn't getting chummy with a POTUS like Thatcher did.
He would be keen to have a strong military, if he's in power in the 1960s he would probably oppose retreating from East of Suez. He wasn't opposed to free-marketeering but he would probably engage in some dirigisme to prop up 'national champions'.
He would be keen to have a strong military, if he's in power in the 1960s he would probably oppose retreating from East of Suez. He wasn't opposed to free-marketeering but he would probably engage in some dirigisme to prop up 'national champions'.
Killing De Gaulle during the Second World War might be the "easiest". But without his leadership the Liberation of France will be much more bloody with very strong communists (like OTL). It could become a kind of Yugoslavia bis. Moreover not sure that the French accept the American military regime so easily (again because of the communists but also because of some nationalists).
If we can go back to before World War II, I would see the United States supporting France against Germany in the late 20s and early 30s.
OTL France suffered a lot from the Anglo-Saxons wanting to keep the balance of power in Europe, unfortunately this was one of the reasons that allowed Germany to rearm without problems.
If the British still refuse to help France in 1936 but the United States intervenes in a war against Germany, you can be sure that Paris and Washington will be very friendly.
On the other hand, we must still succeed in bringing the United States out of isolationism sooner. Moreover, Americans must show themselves to be much more Francophile and see Germany as a threat.
We could make another scenario happening at the end of the Great War where Woodrow Wilson has less weight and where France can recover more land in the Rhineland and where it screws up Germany with American support.
In both scenarios if France becomes the major power in Western Europe and has the support of the United States you can be sure that the British will growl and move away from the United States. However, there are still the Soviets who could change everything as well.
If we can go back to before World War II, I would see the United States supporting France against Germany in the late 20s and early 30s.
OTL France suffered a lot from the Anglo-Saxons wanting to keep the balance of power in Europe, unfortunately this was one of the reasons that allowed Germany to rearm without problems.
If the British still refuse to help France in 1936 but the United States intervenes in a war against Germany, you can be sure that Paris and Washington will be very friendly.
On the other hand, we must still succeed in bringing the United States out of isolationism sooner. Moreover, Americans must show themselves to be much more Francophile and see Germany as a threat.
We could make another scenario happening at the end of the Great War where Woodrow Wilson has less weight and where France can recover more land in the Rhineland and where it screws up Germany with American support.
In both scenarios if France becomes the major power in Western Europe and has the support of the United States you can be sure that the British will growl and move away from the United States. However, there are still the Soviets who could change everything as well.
@Jape
Good summation of Powell's worldview.
However...
Old Enoch is going to be in for a nasty surprise if, despite all his "understanding" of Russian motivations, the Soviets still decide to mess around in the UK's colonies and later sphere-of-influence.
(Or would Powell just take the same sort of approach that De Gaulle supposedly took in the early 60s when the Americans tried to scaremonger him about Vietnam possibly going Communist: "Oh well, no big deal, they're too backwards to be a threat to anyone anyway"?)
Good summation of Powell's worldview.
However...
Old Enoch is going to be in for a nasty surprise if, despite all his "understanding" of Russian motivations, the Soviets still decide to mess around in the UK's colonies and later sphere-of-influence.
(Or would Powell just take the same sort of approach that De Gaulle supposedly took in the early 60s when the Americans tried to scaremonger him about Vietnam possibly going Communist: "Oh well, no big deal, they're too backwards to be a threat to anyone anyway"?)
The Pacific Theater drags on a lot longer for some reason, and American forces are used to help "liberate" Indochina alongside French forces. The U.S. sees the advantage of setting up major bases in French Indochina - say, a Subic-like naval facility in Cam Rahn Bay or Haiphong, along a couple of airbases "just in case," sort of the Diego Garcia of the SEA (in addition to, not instead of, Andersen). Côn Sơn might be an interesting choice for this.
France is easy, even with de Gaulle around - pre-empt the GPRF with the original plan to include France into AMGOT's jurisdiction, although in that case France would be in a similar situation as Austria. It would sound weird, but it would at least allow for people to directly confront the Vichy legacy head on, as an actual French state for a period rather than an illegitimate one. And then, have it grow from there.
As for the UK, though, the problem with it is that it was so bankrupt it couldn't even afford to pay for becoming more "Gaullist". It could try, including trying to bring the Dominions on board with it - and yet Canada would be among the first to be very wary of what's going on, given its close links with the US and its own domestic issues (not to mention going against Ottawa's policy at the time). Ultimately, this would mean the UK would be in an uncomfortable position in the long-term, with internal divisions coming more to the forefront than they otherwise would be (and not just in Northern Ireland).
As for the UK, though, the problem with it is that it was so bankrupt it couldn't even afford to pay for becoming more "Gaullist". It could try, including trying to bring the Dominions on board with it - and yet Canada would be among the first to be very wary of what's going on, given its close links with the US and its own domestic issues (not to mention going against Ottawa's policy at the time). Ultimately, this would mean the UK would be in an uncomfortable position in the long-term, with internal divisions coming more to the forefront than they otherwise would be (and not just in Northern Ireland).
Could the inclusion of Canada be of some help with this "Tripartite Alliance", if you pardon the phrase? Pulling the US towards a more Francophile direction could allow for an earlier reckoning of redressing French-Canadians' grievances, even if they were unpopular/uncomfortable at the time.
Deleted member 140587
Never gonna happen. Unless you magically butterfly away England speaking the same language as the United States and the political trends of rapprochement the two countries had been taking since the 1890s. Enoch Powell may not have liked America or American foreign policy, but his dislike of the US alone can't kill the bonds of language, culture, and kindred blood that exist between the two most powerful English-speaking democracies.
You can improve Franco-American relations but I doubt that would make France surpass England in regards to American policy makers or in the hearts and minds of the American people. The problem here isn't just De Gaulle, it's also differences in foreign policy outlook, foreign policy in practice, and also just culture in general. France often finds American foreign policy too moralistic and too overbearing. This isn't just Cold War diplomacy I'm talking about here, Clemenceau didn't like Wilson for the same reason.
You can improve Franco-American relations but I doubt that would make France surpass England in regards to American policy makers or in the hearts and minds of the American people. The problem here isn't just De Gaulle, it's also differences in foreign policy outlook, foreign policy in practice, and also just culture in general. France often finds American foreign policy too moralistic and too overbearing. This isn't just Cold War diplomacy I'm talking about here, Clemenceau didn't like Wilson for the same reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
HistoricalArthropod
Banned
Shared language isnt the be all end all. Look at the various Arab countries or China vs Taiwan.
Because a lot of non-Brits think that England = UK? That they are interchangeable.
I disagree, I don't think Americans will "denazify" France and I even think that figures of the Vichy Regime could retain large parts of power, by playing on an anti-Communist policy, a work of memory on the Vichy Regime would be more complex with a much more authoritarian France and never having regained confidence in herself even after 1945 and the war in Algeria.
So the UK becomes the "neutral" of NATO? Lots of butterflies. So the USAF detachments at RAF bases would relocate to France.
The U.S. would like draw its hand to let the Federation of Malaya cede Sabah to the Philippines.
So basically the U.S. controls the South China Sea here if they have one base at Subic in the Philippines and CRB or Haiphong in Vietnam. That is inaddition to having bases in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The U.S. would like draw its hand to let the Federation of Malaya cede Sabah to the Philippines.