Imperial Federation in 1948?

Hey Guys,

Just a back story:

Let's say that a much more competent man is leader of the Nazi party, and leads Nazi Germany to a relative victory over the Soviet Union and setting up 3 Puppet Russian States along the Ural Mountains, and the rest of the conquered Soviet nation is divided between Germany and Finland (with a little shared between Romania and Germany.

While in the East Japan actually has invaded the Soviet Union, and though it succeeded at first has been beaten back and the Soviets overrun the Japanese islands, Korea and Manchuria. So now the Soviets are much larger in the East, but much smaller in the West. Stalin was killed before he could escape and a much weaker Soviet General Secretary has taken over, thus the reason for a peace with the Germans.

The Americans stayed out of the war in the Pacific and Europe due to a worse Great Depression in the USA, and also due to a more isolationist President taking over instead of Roosevelt. - Say Garner.

In Europe in 1940 the BEF were utterly crushed by the German forces. After this Halifax became PM and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Italy. This treaty was harsh on the British but was necessary. This allowed the Fuhrer to focus on Russia and after a long lasting war with the Soviets (that lasted 7 years) the Germans finally forced them into submission with the death of Stalin.

Now at this point the British Empire/Commonwealth has the main nations of - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and Labrador, the African colonies (except Egypt-Sudan and german East Africa,) Honduras, OTL Caribbean Territories, British Guiana, British Ceylon and other OTL Oceanic territories.

At this point could a British PM create any form of an Imperial Federation which would salvage these last territories into a large Nation that could combat Germany and Italy (and maybe even the Soviets) if necessary?
 
No.

Imperial Federation is a notion for the late 19th century and perhaps the early 20th century, and encounters its own significant difficulties at this time.

There isn't a need for a larger nation to fight the Axis, though - the Empire and Commonwealth already serves that purpose.

As for the necessary force to defeat Germany and Italy, also a no.

Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia can put together a very decent array of land, sea and air forces, but not quite enough to do the job completely on their own.

The loss of strategic materials from Malaya will hurt.
The loss of South Africa means a loss of manpower and materials.
The loss of Singapore removes the major fleet base in the Far East, thus meaning that more RAN forces will need to be based at home.
The loss of India removes a major potential source of manpower and wealth.
The loss of Egypt removes control of Suez (thus making any transit of Australian and New Zealand forces have to go all the way around the Cape), and removes control of the Middle East. There goes the oil of Iraq, the Gulf and Persia.

This does all depend on the myriad unspoken factors - for example, has a much larger amount of funding been assigned to Tube Alloys and an accompanying development of a Vickers C or 100 ton Bomber? If so, then certain actions could be possible in the early 50s.
 
Top