Is it possible to make a European power (that is not Germany or Russia) strong enough that it could rival the US?

[TxAggie]

I'll agree that Russia, Germany/A-H mashup, Britain, France is the correct way to rank them.

-Russia did rival the United States, even in a 20th century where everything that could go wrong did. Easily the odds-on favorite for an ATL.

-Germany and A-H are both industrial and intellectual powerhouses (half of the top guys on the Manhattan Project were born Hungarian citizens), but lack a broad geographic reach. Attempts to broaden this reach by building a big navy ended up being a pretty bad idea. A-H also has some structural issues that need dealing with, and Austria + Germany was an issue that went back to the last century, but I think this combo has more potential than anything else west of the Dneiper and is close enough to be within reach.

-Britain has a worldwide empire, hanging on to it is going to be the hard part. It would be a hell of a TL wank to get Britain as internally unified as the United States is.

-I just don’t think France has the size and raw materials. You would need to have a mashup-wank like I did with Germany and A-H to become a US rival, but I don't see any obvious candidates to mash them up with.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I'll agree that Russia, Germany/A-H mashup, Britain, France is the correct way to rank them.

-Russia did rival the United States, even in a 20th century where everything that could go wrong did. Easily the odds-on favorite for an ATL.

-Germany and A-H are both industrial and intellectual powerhouses (half of the top guys on the Manhattan Project were born Hungarian citizens), but lack a broad geographic reach. Attempts to broaden this reach by building a big navy ended up being a pretty bad idea. A-H also has some structural issues that need dealing with, and Austria + Germany was an issue that went back to the last century, but I think this combo has more potential than anything else west of the Dneiper and is close enough to be within reach.

-Britain has a worldwide empire, hanging on to it is going to be the hard part. It would be a hell of a TL wank to get Britain as internally unified as the United States is.

-I just don’t think France has the size and raw materials. You would need to have a mashup-wank like I did with Germany and A-H to become a US rival, but I don't see any obvious candidates to mash them up with.

As per the OP and thread title, Germany & Russia are excluded.

 

[walmart]

None of these countries have the natural resources and the population to rival the United States

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

None of these countries have the natural resources and the population to rival the United States

Perhaps a Cold War European Union (West Germany doesn't count as Germany)?

 

[Dunois]

I voted other - As I think by the 1900's the only possible state that could truly rival the US would be the planned Franco-British Union that was theoretically proposed in 1904,1940 & 1956

Franco-British Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

+1

A Franco-British Union arising from WW2 could become a superpower if it plays its cards right post-war, though the task will require a willingness to take hard decision and a ruthless focus on pragmatism and bettering the Union and its people above all things.
Some of what I mean by "playing its cards rights" include:
- Ensuring a post-war economic miracle on par with OTL Germany and avoiding British industrial decline.
- Ditching all unprofitable parts of the colonial Empires as soon as WW2 finishes.
- Building an federation of Franco-British colonies in West Africa and building it up as a powerful economic partner.
- Integrating key commercial hubs within the Empire into constituent states of the Union, as well as other territories easy to control (West Indies, Guianas, Mascarenes, Hong Kong, Singapore). If possible a full integration of the oil-rich gulf territories should be attempted and the oil wealth must flow back to the metropole.
- Creating a solid social safety net that's cheaper to run and administer than OTL. Developing some form of superannuation like OTL Australia or Singapore's provident funds would be the best outcome here.
- Creating a TTL European Union that would include former British dominions like Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
- Creating a military alliance more tightly integrated than OTL's NATO with European partners. This would include unified military command above the division level if possible and full commonality of equipment and doctrines.
- Significant and ongoing investments in infrastructure throughout the Union and its close partners and allies.
- Going for quality regarding technology and leveraging the opportunities provided by the space race.
- Once the cold war is over, reaching out to Russia for a strategic alliance in exchange for a Franco-British Marshall Plan equivalent.
- As above, turning Eastern European countries like Poland into strong allies and partners.

A Franco-British Union by itself with additional territories could top 200M inhabitants by TTL 2020. While this is significant, it won't be enough to guarantee superpower status in the long-run. If most of Europe is so tightly integrated with the Union as to be part of it in everything but name, the available manpower pool will reach 500M which will be enough to solidify the Union's position.

 

[Riain]

I'd suggest a Franco-British strategic alliance arriving out of a loss in WW1, setting up legislation and regulations to manipulate trade between these two countries in order to cover each other's strategic weaknesses: France with Coal and Iron and Britain with food.

Britain alone is too vulnerable to having its food cut off in wartime to be a real rival with far more secure powers like USA, Germany and Russia but if there were close links with France cross-channel resources trade is far less vulnerable.

 

[RMcD94]

Getting rid of colonies was actually a good thing. Germany had 4 colonies in Africa and only one colony (Togo) that was not a drain to the German economy. But I do not know how many British or French colonies were worth the trouble.

This is a rather simple perspective as just because colonization wasn't profitable for the state doesn't mean it wasn't profitable for citizens of that state. The state after all was not a money making entity, it's goal was to set up those colonies so that its own businesses could profit. You see that everywhere De Beers, the various Phosphate and Copra Companies of the Pacific, the old Indian trading companies, the banks that profited in China, etc...

Tax revenue alone is not enough to assess the economic benefits of a colony.

 

[Dunois]

Britain: It MUST avoid a war such as WW1 to have a chance. Without WW1, it would be able to add the commonwealth as a much more permanent fixture to it's empire (as stated above). It has the military to remain on par with the US, it will, however, need to keep America out of its markets, or be much more protectionist against American goods and culture. However, this is easier said than done, with America essentially piggy backing off Britain and her allies.

WW1 actually did the UK some relative good in some respects as it forced the industrial base to modernise.
While avoiding WW1 will help the UK retain a lot of financial capital and assets. This won't do much good if other countries are able to accumulate more assets by having higher investment rates and higher rates of return on invested capital.
A German victory in WW1 also presents a real risk of shutting off the UK from European markets which were key to its prosperity at the time.

 

[Riain]

German victory in WW1 also presents a real risk of shutting off the UK from European markets which were key to its prosperity at the time.

The reverse was also true, a key German war aim later in the war was the avoidance of any trade barriers around the world set up by France and Britain, as Mitteleuropa was no substitute for worldwide trade.

 

[Nivek]

Did the ottomans counts? an Ottoman Empire never decline would be the Superpower in Europe and MENA

 

[Basileus444]

I voted France.

Now I would say Britain has the best chance, but the thread title says European power. A Britain able to be a rival to a mid-20th century USA is one that still has the Empire, meaning that the bulk of its power base is dependent on non-European sources. Also to retain said Empire that would be needed to be a peer to the USA would likely entail reforms that end up turning the British Empire into an Indian Empire that happens to control a large island off the northwest corner of the European continent.

Keeping within the criteria of European power, which I define as a state with its power base in Europe, not scattered across the world, France seems the best choice. A France that comes out of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars as the winner seems a good start. If you combine OTL France + Belgium + German Rhineland + Northern Italy, that's a big bloc of people and resources that supported a lot of industry IOTL. Add in the various French satellites (rest of Germany, Italy, Spain) , this 'Paris Pact' could be an economic and military power on par with the US.

 

[JEF_300]

France is a great candidate, IF they the avoid walloping of WWI (and preferably the Franco-Prussian War as well, but that's too early a POD). For most of European history, France was the largest power in Europe, with more land, men, and wealth than any other. That's why France was historically able to do insane things like essentially uniting Europe under Charlemagne, seizing the Papacy, or facing the whole of Europe on its own after the French Revolution. There is no doubt that Britain was much more powerful than France in the 19th century, but even then France was still clearly more powerful on the continent itself. And with a much larger population and being perhaps more advanced than other powers in aircraft and tank design, France was on track to having a good 20th century before WWI.

Then again, perhaps any major European power that sits-out WWI is on track to become a super-power.

 

[stevej713]

A single European country cannot compete with the United States in the long run. Geopolitical thinkers from the 1910s and even earlier recognized that the United States had secure hegemonic power across an entire continent. Any country that owned only a portion of the European continent would not have the economic heft needed to compete with the United States on an economic and industrial level. Therefore, any country that would attempt to compete with the United States would understand that the conquest of Europe is a necessary prerequisite. It doesn't necessarily have to be outright annexation across Europe, as Germany did not annex France or the Balkans in WWII. Instead, this theoretical country needs to employ unequal economic unions and military pacts with the rest of Europe in order to have undisputed access to the whole continent's resources and markets.

Even then, Europe would not quite be able to match the resource wealth of the United States. The United States notably has more oil (unless this hypothetical European power controls the Caucasus), more coal, a larger agricultural region, and a lower population which encourages surpluses, along with a unified waterway network. Also, as Nazi Germany demonstrated, any country that "colonizes" the rest of the continent would only be able to extract a fraction of the resources the United States was able to access, and would need to expend resources to police the continent and feed occupied populations. Depending on how committed this country is in rivalling the US militarily, it would likely result in the same thing Nazi Germany inflicted on Europe: starvation and slavery.

What about colonial empires? Britain definitely lacks the consumer markets to match the United States and was surpassed in economic activity long before WWI. The various parts of the Empire began to drift away as trade with Britain simply couldn't compete with trade with the United States. This would be no different with France. Annexing large overseas territories is unrealistic as countries were reluctant to give political representation to them, which could put the domestic population at a disadvantage.

I think any bellicose country could "rival" the US for a time, just as Germany rivalled the United States in the early 1900s and again before and during WWII. You could also say France rivalled the US after WWII under De Gaulle as it pursued a relatively independent foreign policy. However, a country would need vast and undisputed control over a continent with no major rivals in order to build an economy that could possibly match the US in the long run. The Soviet Union with all of Eastern Europe under its tight control couldn't manage it in the end, so how could any smaller European country?

 

[GrahamB]

I think it would be helpful if @Gilbert Farwynd would provide some clarification on what "rival" means for this thread.
There are a lot of different things two nations can be rivals over, and differing degrees thereof.

 

[Aphrodite]

A fast and decisive Entente victory in the Great War could delayed the decline of the Britain (or France). Is the the Imperial Federation ASB?

It might save Britain but Russian power would explode. With the German threat removed, collecting billions from the vanquished and seizing huge amounts of Austrian territory it's hard to a check on their power

With motorized transportation coming in the 1920s, British rule in India would be doomed. Even if the Russians don't attack the cost to defend it would make it a drain on the Empire

 

[Citycat]

Britain was already a strong rival of the US in OTL, at least until WWII.

 

[Tibi088]

With a later than 1900 POD the only options are Russia or Germany.

If you could accept 19th Century PODS I would say a surviving/victorious greater/napoleonic France or maybe the british if they go down the imperial federation route.

And maybe an interesting possibility could be the Habsburg Empire (again 19th century POD):
If they somehow stumbled upon a solution for a functional multhiethnic Empire they could end up conquering and sucessfully integrating a lot of territories - say Italy and the Balkans? I feel there is potential and motivation there to become something greater than the others because the simple national state route is not a good option for them. Im thinking of an Austrian or Habsburg (whatever you like) federation thats based on nations which is either centralized or nations are strictly divorced from states if you want to keep the old boundaries along (to satisfy the conservatives so this I think is more likely to work). The point is that states or the state (either way) will deal with military, taxation, laws etc while nations have full authority to deal with cultural stuff and education (maybe with an universal requrements on real objects). Every citizen can decide which nation they belong to but that has no bearing on which state their belong to. Every nation gets a fixed share of the tax their members share.

 

[Thoresby]

A British Imperial Federation consisting of the Dominions, the Arabian gulf and a string of city states e.g. HK, Singapore, Bombay, Calcutta, Mombasa etc. While holding large populous colonies like India is in the long run impossible holding entrepots and ports like Bombay as a sort of Indian or African Hong Kong's is absolutely doable. You're not going to match population of the US without an implausible boost to the birth rate but with a population north of 200 million and a GDP to per capita that slightly exceeds the US, both of which are doable you would have a country that would rival the US. Add in a post 60's French style informal empire and you can keep Britain as the premier international power.

 

[Deleted member 117308]

The Franco-British Union seems to be the best possibility.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

Well...you have multiple choices but lets'see:

Britain just has to mantain it's empire, especially the white dominions and South Africa, along with some key locations around the world like Aden, Suez, Singapore and HK. The "British Empire" would have a huge population and a large economy, with an internal market and presence in global business to rival the US. London might remain the world's capital if this happens. Decolonization would hit the empire but I see a Commonwealth style agreement between the British and the colonized people, even though India would likely leave the empire, unless a great deal of internal independence is given to them, so the British Empire might be the best country out there.

If we really want to say "Continental European" then France is your man: industrialized, militarized, prestigious and a center of arts and culture, if France manages somwhow to avoid the devastation of WWI maybe fighting the war on German soil, or survive the Blitzkrieg in 1940, it won't incour in the national humiliation and devastation that followed the war, being able to bounce back rather quickly thanks to it's massive colonial empire. But alas, France has a much smaller population than the British empire and even avoiding millions of dead men (who are unable to make children) during WWI, a tight grip on Africa would be necessary: expect decolonization to be much slower and France retaining massive control over it's former Subsaharian colonies for their resources, needed to fuel the French industry at low costs.

Italy needs to be lucky: to have competent administrators (there were plenty of them but nepotism and favours ran rampant in the burocratic machine). Before WWI Italian industry was starting to seriously take off and if the war is delayed, shortened or doesn't happen I can see Italy industrializing rapidly from north to south. Italy's main problem is the south: backwards and filled with social strife and mafia, the government needs to bring souther intaly on par with the north (or at least similar economic development) in order for Italy to unlock it's full potential as an industrial nation. If they keep Lybia then the oil would fuel Italian post war growth and ease economic burdens, but I can see Italy becoming an European leading power, not a world superpower.