In 1956 French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed to British PM Anthony Eden that France and the UK merge into one country with common citizenship and with the Queen as head of state. When Eden turned this down, Mollet proposed that France join the commonwealth. Although Eden turned that proposal down as well, how realistic of an option would that have been, and what would be the effects of it had they went through with it.
How realistic of an option was France joining the commonwealth?
- Thread starter Hcira1
- Start date
The linguistic divide is obviously going to be a tough nut to crack. They can try to make them co-official, but the U.S. is already the world's dominant power and English is just much more viable. The majority of French people probably aren't going to be happy with English becoming an official language within France, even if French carries a similar role (on paper) in Britain and it's realms.
As for their empires: the wheels are already in motion; both powers do still have quite a lot of territory in Africa at this point; but the United States, Soviet Union and the bulk of the populations of these territories are still going to be markedly opposed to a Franco-British Union's continued presence in the region.
If the linguistic issue is solved in a way which appeases both sides and they opt to maintain their African territories, AND they're somewhat successful then I'd guess Portugal, as the only other remaining colonial power at this point could very well join them in due turn. If Portugal joins them then there's a small chance South Africa sees joining such a union as it's only viable option; but it would probably have to make huge concessions (ending Apartheid being high up on the list) to do so.
Their very first challenge is Suez and it's hard to see how this turns out any different from OTL. The Franco-British Union and their Israeli allies can win the war several times over; however they can't overcome the U.S. and it's designs and obligations in the Middle East.
How this effects:
-NATO
-European Integration.
-The balance of power between the U.S. and Soviet Union.
Are anybody's guess. Mine are that the states of Western Europe outside of this union are going to mostly fall into the American orbit. It might help with their initial integration though without such a large state as France to attempt to integrate. In a scenario where the Franco-British Union attempts to stand against the U.S. it might become a 'third pole' in a four polar world. (Democrats-U.S. ; Communists - USSR; Imperialists - FBU; Non-aligned). This could in turn benefit the Soviets. Arguably Viet Nam became (nominally) communist because it was the best tool against Imperialism; much of Africa could see this too - does this force cooperation between the U.S. and F.B.U.?
Then there's the Canadian issue: economically it's clear that their best bet is to remain firmly aligned with the U.S. however there COULD be cultural benefits in aligning themselves with the FBU due to the Anglo-Franco split in Canada.
Long term keeping much of Africa is not only going to be very difficult, but not all that desirable, to hold. This will cause contention; IOTL France showed a willingness to engage in brutal warfare to maintain control of their colonies that Britain didn't. However, it might maintain a very firm presence in the Pacific and Caribbean, and have small territories dotted across Africa to the present.
IMO though, post 1939 there's no POD which maintains the European Colonial Empires to the present. Pre 1939 there's no impetus to form such a union.
As for their empires: the wheels are already in motion; both powers do still have quite a lot of territory in Africa at this point; but the United States, Soviet Union and the bulk of the populations of these territories are still going to be markedly opposed to a Franco-British Union's continued presence in the region.
If the linguistic issue is solved in a way which appeases both sides and they opt to maintain their African territories, AND they're somewhat successful then I'd guess Portugal, as the only other remaining colonial power at this point could very well join them in due turn. If Portugal joins them then there's a small chance South Africa sees joining such a union as it's only viable option; but it would probably have to make huge concessions (ending Apartheid being high up on the list) to do so.
Their very first challenge is Suez and it's hard to see how this turns out any different from OTL. The Franco-British Union and their Israeli allies can win the war several times over; however they can't overcome the U.S. and it's designs and obligations in the Middle East.
How this effects:
-NATO
-European Integration.
-The balance of power between the U.S. and Soviet Union.
Are anybody's guess. Mine are that the states of Western Europe outside of this union are going to mostly fall into the American orbit. It might help with their initial integration though without such a large state as France to attempt to integrate. In a scenario where the Franco-British Union attempts to stand against the U.S. it might become a 'third pole' in a four polar world. (Democrats-U.S. ; Communists - USSR; Imperialists - FBU; Non-aligned). This could in turn benefit the Soviets. Arguably Viet Nam became (nominally) communist because it was the best tool against Imperialism; much of Africa could see this too - does this force cooperation between the U.S. and F.B.U.?
Then there's the Canadian issue: economically it's clear that their best bet is to remain firmly aligned with the U.S. however there COULD be cultural benefits in aligning themselves with the FBU due to the Anglo-Franco split in Canada.
Long term keeping much of Africa is not only going to be very difficult, but not all that desirable, to hold. This will cause contention; IOTL France showed a willingness to engage in brutal warfare to maintain control of their colonies that Britain didn't. However, it might maintain a very firm presence in the Pacific and Caribbean, and have small territories dotted across Africa to the present.
IMO though, post 1939 there's no POD which maintains the European Colonial Empires to the present. Pre 1939 there's no impetus to form such a union.
Last edited:
I think France and Britain, even after reconciling due to the world wars, had too long of a history of rivalry and animosity for a union to ever work.I imagine the reaction of the average Frenchman, for example, to go something like this:
On 16 January 2007, during a LCP television programme, French journalist Christine Clerc asked former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (Gaullist) about Mollet's 1956 proposal. Pasqua answered,
Well if the Commonwealth offer is accepted, presumably this marks a shift in the trend of European development and cooperation between London and Paris, rather than Paris and Bonn.
I was thinking that France joining might lead to an effort to create some sort of economic integration for the commonwealth. Back in 1956 I believe most of British trade was with the commonwealth and adding France to that would make it more likely that they try to push towards a more involved organization.