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

Which candidate has got the best chances?


  • Total voters
    204
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.
France's population was essentially stagnant from 1870 to 1914 and there is no indication that avoiding WW1 would lead to a population boom or significantly greater population growth in France for the remainder of the 20th century. Therefore I'm not sure where this "much larger population" will be coming from ...
France also had significant economic challenges in the early 20th century with an archaic agriculture that sucked half of the workforce and an industrial sector that wasn't on par with its rivals.

A lot of France's challenges were only solved after OTL's WW2 and the utter shock of being defeated by Germany which provided impetus for significant reforms, strengthening the state, institutions etc.

To become significantly more powerful than OTL, France needs a bigger population and an even stronger economy than OTL, one that is world-leading in key sectors.

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.
France's sub-Saharan colonies were frankly more a hindrance than an asset to France during the 20th century. They fostered protectionist feelings in some industrial sectors and needed significantly more investments in order to become profitable and self-supporting parts of a 'Greater France'.
In order to become profitable and able to stand on their own, significant investments would be required. The most challenging of which would be investing in the local people themselves through education, healthcare, social services etc. In effect 'software' as opposed to 'hardware'.

Theoretically one way to make France a superpower over the course of the 20th century is a 'Greater France' scenario or the "France from the Rhine to the Congo" advocated by some as late as the 1950s. In effect this means integrating the entirety of North+West Africa within the country and making it part of the metropole over the course of the century.

What does this involve, well let's start listing the theoretical requirements in a cold blooded pragmatic way shall we:
1. A very strong assimilationist/inclusivist attitude from the French state to turn Africans into Frenchmen over the course of the century.
2. In order for 1. to happen successfully, racism and racialism must have no place within France and the French consciousness.
Considering OTL's code de l'indigénat, the lack of suffrage in French Algeria until it was too late etc. I think that we can stop here, but let's continue shall we?
3. Building schools, hospitals and a state infrastructure all over France and its overseas territories. This means building tens of thousands of schools, thousands of hospitals and eventually training millions of civil servants to operate them.
4. Building asphalted roads and railways all over the African territories, potentially >100,000km for the roads alone. Said territories have population densities are lower than metropolitan France so the infrastructure may not be profitable initially and will likely need to be subsidised.
5. Upgrading African agriculture with access to irrigation etc.
6. Significant investments in natural resources extraction in the overseas territories.
7. Building-up industrial centres in overseas France and training (or importing) a workforce to operate them.
For this one, I doubt that industrialists from metropolitan France will be happy to see new industries propping up in what were previously carefully protected markets.
8. A booming economy able to generate huge profits and surpluses available to invests to make points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 possible.

Considering all the constraints outlined above. In my opinion, this 'Greater France' scenario is almost impossible to achieve.
 

mial42

Gone Fishin'
The obvious candidate for doing this is a federalized EU, which would have the population, economy, and resources to rival the United States. I frankly can't see any of the listed options doing it with a 20th century POD; none of them have even close to the US's combination of resources, wealth, and population; the only one that was really a rival to the US in the OTL 20th century was GB, which had been in relative decline compared to the US for decades.

Now, rival is a vague term, so I suppose the other way to do it would be a mostly-isolationist US that punches well below its economic weight diplomatically and militarily, but even then the economic soft power gap between the US and any single European country would be huge. In this case, I would pick GB as the most likely rival simply due to being the strongest of the candidates with the most international influence, but the "rivalry" would be a friendly one contingent on neither side really stepping on the other's toes, which I'm not sure I would count.

With a 19th century POD, there's a lot more possibilities for weakening the US or strengthening various European powers. But with a 20th century POD, most of the US's advantages are set in stone.
 
None of those by themselves with a 20th century POD, I'm fairly certain the two big possibilities would be a Franco-British Union or a federalised "inner six"/"inner six + a few" (most European countries would probably be too difficult to get onboard).
 

Riain

Banned
The problem with Britain alone as a US rival is the US could do it Britain what Germany tried to do in WW1&2 and the US successfully did to Japan in WW2 and starve it with submarine warfare.

A Franco-British strategic partnership would be invulnerable to this in a war with the USA because the USN would never be able to stop cross-channel traffic in food and other basic goods. The US would also likely struggle to break into the Mediterranean and establish a permanent position there in the face of Anglo-French opposition. This means that in a war with the USA Britain could reach back into France and through France into the rest of Europe and the Mediterranean world for raw materials and industrial products and therefore be almost as invulnerable as the USA and USSR were ITOL and Greater German Mitteleuropa would have been.
 
The problem with Britain alone as a US rival is the US could do it Britain what Germany tried to do in WW1&2 and the US successfully did to Japan in WW2 and starve it with submarine warfare.

A Franco-British strategic partnership would be invulnerable to this in a war with the USA because the USN would never be able to stop cross-channel traffic in food and other basic goods. The US would also likely struggle to break into the Mediterranean and establish a permanent position there in the face of Anglo-French opposition. This means that in a war with the USA Britain could reach back into France and through France into the rest of Europe and the Mediterranean world for raw materials and industrial products and therefore be almost as invulnerable as the USA and USSR were ITOL and Greater German Mitteleuropa would have been.
While its true that the strategic position of a Franco-British Union is very strong on paper. It will nevertheless suffer from the same strategic dilemma that plagued France throughout its history, which focusing on either the army of the navy and on either north into the Atlantic or south into the Mediterranean. Things may be even more accentuated if it controls a lot of overseas territories, as power and forces will need to be stationed overseas.
Dominating the Mediterranean will be easy, especially if bases are kept in Algeria to complement Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus.
The Atlantic will however be more competitive and solidly dominating it means either directly controlling or have friendly government control Southern Ireland, Iceland, the Faroes and ideally Norway too. Invoking the Windsor treaty and having Portugal in a strong alliance will be highly desirable too, especially for access to the Azores.

The Channel has the advantage that it can be bridged with infrastructure, but not everything will be able to run through either a tunnel or a bridge.

What I had in mind for my Franco-British Union TL, was that the Union would effectively build very close links and partnerships with most Western European countries. To the extent that some of them would become nearly de facto part of the Union but not de jure. An "outer tier" that would be a European Union on steroids or a benevolent version of the Warsaw Pact, with the Franco-British playing the role of the Soviets. This model can be sustainable forever if the Franco-British core is constantly strengthened and reinforced and if successive governments always put the emphasis on building-up Union-wide resources and economy instead of pure prestige and world-policing.
Effectively what post WW2 Germany did but a grander scale combined with elements of what China is doing right now.

The obvious weakness in this model is that if any point one part of the Union feels that the other is benefiting more from the arrangement, the Union itself would be at risk. In a way it would be an analogue of the United Kingdom itself, where current constitutional arrangements are in danger because of real or perceived bias towards London, "the South" etc.

In my opinion the glue that would make a Franco-British Union or strategic alliance stick is for both the French and the British to swallow their pride and beefs against one another and instead combine them and project them outwards. How this would be received abroad and especially elsewhere in Europe is anyone's guess. At its most benevolent and inclusive it could be something that a lot of other countries emulate and become part of in spirit. At its worst, it could be like OTL Sinocentrism and Americanocentrism or even a worse version of British "Bloody fo'ners" attitudes. The reality would likely be somewhere in between as these things often tend to be.
 
I think it's hopeless for any state that isn't Germany or Russia post-1900. You can swing scenarios for France(Napoleon), Britain(Federalizing the settler colonies with Britain), and maybe even Italy/Austria(Austria leads Italian unification and the Austro-Italians go buck-wild in the Balkans and parts of North Africa). You could swing the Ottoman Empire if you go back to 1700 and have more successful early reform immediately following the Great Turkish War. You could maybe even salvage Spain with a 1700 PoD. But no state in Europe has the demographic heft to compete outside of the above mentioned two with a 1900 PoD, 100%. Ship's sailed, the states are too lightweight demographically, too conceited politically, and too racist for cultural assimilation of others.
 
I was thinking about it last night, but there's a wildcard on this list if we only look at post 1900 powers or even a bit earlier like say 1870ish.
This wildcard is a successful Austria-Hungary that avoids WW1 or wins a short WW1 and reforms/federalise itself in the process.

It might seem like a strange one but on paper Austria-Hungary has a lot of advantages compared to other powers. Some of which are shared with Germany. These advantages include:
- No colonies and no need to project power beyond its shores, thereby saving the need to build-up a large navy or to be caught in entanglements in far flung localities.
- As above, no need to worry about decolonisation or assimilating colonies.
- A large and diverse pool of natural resources available all over the country. Pannonian agriculture can feed the nation, there's coal and iron ore in Bohemia and in Galicia. Oil is available in Galicia and very close by in Romania. Bauxite is available in the Balkans too.
- The Danube river as communication axis for the whole country and a geography based around it.
- No major geographical obstacles to build infrastructure, no need for cross-Channel tunnels, no need to go over the Alps and no need to cross steppes like in Russia.
- Very dynamic demographics in most of the Empire, a dynamism ended by WW1.
- Religious unity in the Empire which could become a good glue somewhere down the line.

On the other hand, essential preconditions must be met to turn the Empire into a significant power:
- Not being involved in any major wars and not losing any territory to neighbours. Could becoming a giant Switzerland including the neutrality be an option?
- Federalise the Empire and create a lasting political settlement supported by all the nations and people of the Empire.
- Creating a common identity to bridge existing differences. This one may be easier than we think and could be based around Catholicism, loyalty to the Habsburgs, "Viennese way of life" and multilingualism. To this day it is actually quite fascinating to see how much Danube basin countries share in things like cuisine and food; so there's definitely something that can be built on.
- Significant investments in infrastructure and national economy.
- Preventing emigration by creating opportunities at home.
- Satellization of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece.
- Preventing strategic encirclement by building alliances with key neighbours.

A successful Austria-Hungary could end-up with anywhere from 100M to 150M inhabitants by TTL 2000. It will be a tad too low for superpower status. However, if France has a similar 20th century, it won't exceed 75M in population. Italy can't exceed 75M either, even with Libya+Eritrea. If Germany has a bad 20th century then Austria-Hungary can usurp its position. If the Germans have a good 20th century, then Austria-Hungary will be its sidekick and almost on-par with it. A triumphant Germany with superpower status requires a Greater Germany that includes Austria+Czechia+Slovenia so its incompatible with the survival of a strong and independent Austrian-Hungarian polity.
 
Let's not forget that the world wars accelerated the USA's rise in absolute terms as well as relative to the other powers (the US might be the only country to turn a profit waging war in the 20th century). If your POD was simply to have the First World War not happen or be over quickly (I'd argue it wouldn't really matter who won in a quick 1-2 year victory) then Britain retains its claims to global supremacy and the USA remains a large and productive second-string nation rapidly advancing to the Big Leagues some time in the 40s.
Do you have any supporting information for this? The numbers I have seen usually show the US overtaking the UK economy sometime in the last decade of the 19th century to become the worlds largest single economy, before further surpassing the combined economies of the whole British empire during WW1.

Labelling the US as a second-string nation anytime in the 20th century seems a bit radical, to say the least.
 
Do you have any supporting information for this? The numbers I have seen usually show the US overtaking the UK economy sometime in the last decade of the 19th century to become the worlds largest single economy, before further surpassing the combined economies of the whole British empire during WW1.

Labelling the US as a second-string nation anytime in the 20th century seems a bit radical, to say the least.
The US was overtaking the UK yes. And it had reached equal gdp per capita however the us remained a debtor nation pre-1914 in an era when governmental debt spending was horrendous to the economy and the UK and British Empire's overall economy was still massively higher. In 1914 the USA was on the verge of defaulting their loans and halting their economic progress when the war provided a brand new market. In 1916 they overtook the UK and the British empire. No war in 1914 would have given the British Empire 10 more years at least on normal standards and if the 1914 financial crisis of the USA is not properly solved then it will be a quarter of a century before the us would overtake the overall British empire. It is hard to understate just how much money Britain paid to the us alongside France during ww1.
 
It is hard to understate just how much money Britain paid to the us alongside France during ww1.
My thoughts exactly. A truly staggering volume of funds crossed the Atlantic during the Frist World War, funds that retarded European economic growth post-war while accelerating American growth. Without the transfer (with or without the war), the economic liquidity (is that the right word?) remains in Britain's favour.

It doesn't really matter for this thread when and by how much the American economy becomes the world's largest, the overall balance between Europe and the Americas will be much more even through the 20th Century if there's a short or no Great War. That's your fuel for international rivalry.
 
There were some discussions on the last page of a Britain/France union, and I just can't see that one happening without a major wank.

-Cultural differences between their people (language barrier, Protestant vs Catholic, thinking a croissant and a black coffee is an appropriate meal to call breakfast).

-Both are right around the same level in strength; neither one's going to agree to be the junior partner nor should they. If they join together, it's going to be another Dual Monarchy type situation.

-Very divergent interests; Britain as an island naval power vs France's continental aims. The way I see it, it's going to take several generations of stability before a joint "Fren-itish" identity takes root among its citizens, and I just don't know if you can keep the alliance together for say 100 years before conflicts of interest tear it apart. Britain is going to feel threatened by say Germany building a High Seas Fleet in a way that France just isn't, and wanting to spend billions on new dreadnoughts would put the two at odds. When India starts falling apart, it's going to be hard for the French citizens to not go " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ not our problem"

@Dunois did a great job laying out what a Britain-France teamup might look like, but IMO making it happening would be threading the needle for sure.
 
There were some discussions on the last page of a Britain/France union, and I just can't see that one happening without a major wank.

-Cultural differences between their people (language barrier, Protestant vs Catholic, thinking a croissant and a black coffee is an appropriate meal to call breakfast).

-Both are right around the same level in strength; neither one's going to agree to be the junior partner nor should they. If they join together, it's going to be another Dual Monarchy type situation.

-Very divergent interests; Britain as an island naval power vs France's continental aims. The way I see it, it's going to take several generations of stability before a joint "Fren-itish" identity takes root among its citizens, and I just don't know if you can keep the alliance together for say 100 years before conflicts of interest tear it apart. Britain is going to feel threatened by say Germany building a High Seas Fleet in a way that France just isn't, and wanting to spend billions on new dreadnoughts would put the two at odds. When India starts falling apart, it's going to be hard for the French citizens to not go " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ not our problem"

@Dunois did a great job laying out what a Britain-France teamup might look like, but IMO making it happening would be threading the needle for sure.
There are barriers to a successful Franco-British Union for sure but there are also subtle and very surprising commonalities between France and Britain that could actually cement a Union in the longer run.
1. Both France and Britain had pretentions and aspirations of becoming world powers able to project their influence, culture etc in all corners of the World.
2. Both countries share common democratic values and (in the 1940s) a democracy based on Parliamentary principles.
3. Because they are around the same level in strength. There won't be a perception that one is dominating the other, gaining the upper hand etc.
4. Both countries share centuries of common history and mutual influences.
5. Both countries share a certain feeling of superiority towards others and feel that they're different from other nations.

The area where Britain and France have one major divergent interests is actually neatly solved by a union between the two countries.
The core foreign policy imperative of Britain has always been to preserve the balance of power in Europe and to prevent the rise of a dominant continental power able to threaten it.
The core foreign policy imperative of France was to become a dominant continental power in Europe.
A Franco-British Union solves both imperatives at once. Why? Because said Union is now the dominant European power by a significant margin and it can therefore influence everything that happens in Europe. In effect it performs a role very similar to Germany OTL, except with much more weight behind it.

I completely agree that it would take external factors for said Union to arise and these factors were there aplenty OTL during the 1940s. It is in fact almost an historical accident that a Franco-British led Europe didn't arise OTL when the French desired it during the late 1940s and events like the Treaty of Dunkerque pointed towards it.

The external factors that were at play in my uncompleted Franco-British Union timeline were as follows:
1. France is defeated in the metropole and realises that it can't stand alone again.
2. Swift military victories in the Mediterranean show that the Union is a force to be reckoned with despite its inherent challenges.
3. US entry into the war and realisation that by standing together and speaking with one voice, the Franco-Brits actually have more influence than if they stood separately.
4. Divergent priorities and interests between the US and the Franco-Brits during the war. These mirror OTL but in accentuated ways. Unlike OTL Brits, the Union didn't fight in Africa until 1943, the war in Asia was far bloodier and slower for the Japanese. Performance of Union forces on the battlefield is slightly better than OTL etc.
5. These divergent priorities mean that post-war the US more or less refuses to bail-out the Union, OTL's shenanigans over nuclear secrets and knowledge also happens. This force the Franco-British political class that its a case of "we stand together or we become irrelevant!"

From this point onwards, I had a number of other things in mind that would stabilise the Union. Although some of them have ahem, unintended consequences on the rest of the world ...
1. Through a combination of dirigisme, free-market reforms and strategic economic planning. An economic miracle on par with OTL West Germany/Japan happens. Britain avoids its economic malaise/decline and France becomes even richer and more industrialised than OTL.
2. A Union-wide welfare state is created, some aspects of which are centralised at the Union level for reasons of efficiency.
3. Decolonisation happens and there is a perception that the Union is in decline because its losing its Empire. This gives rise to a political faction that emphasises the mantra of "we stand together or we become irrelevant" to the hilt!
4. This political faction takes power during the 1960s and early 1970s and endeavours to firmly establish the Union as a 3rd power in the Cold War. They use a lot of rhetoric around the fact that the Franco-British "invented the modern world" during the Industrial revolution that they "Enlightened it" during the 18th century. They see the Union natural place as leading the space race, leading the nuclear age, leading the computer edge. Huge investments in R&D and infrastructure follow.
5. The volume of exchanges between both countries is vastly superior to OTL and bilingualism eventually start to become the norm in elites on both sides from the 1960s. A bilingual subculture begins to emerge, partly encouraged by elements of the political class.
6. The Union wins the Space race. Huge euphoria follows, everything that took place in the 1960s is vindicated.
7. The Union starts to throw its weight around a lot more internationally. Most of free Europe becomes tightly integrated economically speaking. The £ becomes a reserve currency. The Union has access to oil in the North Sea and via its de facto protectorates in the Gulf. Hong Long is held onto and eventually integrated, which pisses off China big time and creates a localised conflict, one decisively won by the Union but the cost of making an enemy of China.
8. A non-nuclear WW3 happens between the Union and the Eastern Bloc. Another generation of Franco-British boys goes to war and some politicians openly talk about "repaying our debt to our Eastern European brothers in arms and freeing their homelands from communism!". Most of the battles take place in Germany, the Union wins the war with its soldiers welcomed in Warsaw as liberators and communism falls in the Soviet Union.
9. The Union implements a Marshall Plan equivalent to rebuilt Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The later is controversial but eventually vindicated as a geopolitical masterstroke.

The TTL world of 2020 is one that sees the Union and the United States jockeying for the #1 position. A resurgent "United Rus" is a staunch Union ally. There is a cold war between the Union and China. The relationship between the Union and the United States is very complicated and marred with political and economic rivalries. Gigantic "format wars" in areas such as internet protocols, TV transmission systems, electrical plugs, mobile phone systems, the definition of sugar and nuclear reactor designs. Are commonplace.
The world is globalised but divided in spheres of influences that are more distinct than OTL. The western world has two distinct flavours so to speak, an American one led by the US and a European one led by the Union.

I should do a TLIAF about this soon :)
 

Deleted member 117308

There are barriers to a successful Franco-British Union for sure but there are also subtle and very surprising commonalities between France and Britain that could actually cement a Union in the longer run.
1. Both France and Britain had pretentions and aspirations of becoming world powers able to project their influence, culture etc in all corners of the World.
2. Both countries share common democratic values and (in the 1940s) a democracy based on Parliamentary principles.
3. Because they are around the same level in strength. There won't be a perception that one is dominating the other, gaining the upper hand etc.
4. Both countries share centuries of common history and mutual influences.
5. Both countries share a certain feeling of superiority towards others and feel that they're different from other nations.

The area where Britain and France have one major divergent interests is actually neatly solved by a union between the two countries.
The core foreign policy imperative of Britain has always been to preserve the balance of power in Europe and to prevent the rise of a dominant continental power able to threaten it.
The core foreign policy imperative of France was to become a dominant continental power in Europe.
A Franco-British Union solves both imperatives at once. Why? Because said Union is now the dominant European power by a significant margin and it can therefore influence everything that happens in Europe. In effect it performs a role very similar to Germany OTL, except with much more weight behind it.

I completely agree that it would take external factors for said Union to arise and these factors were there aplenty OTL during the 1940s. It is in fact almost an historical accident that a Franco-British led Europe didn't arise OTL when the French desired it during the late 1940s and events like the Treaty of Dunkerque pointed towards it.

The external factors that were at play in my uncompleted Franco-British Union timeline were as follows:
1. France is defeated in the metropole and realises that it can't stand alone again.
2. Swift military victories in the Mediterranean show that the Union is a force to be reckoned with despite its inherent challenges.
3. US entry into the war and realisation that by standing together and speaking with one voice, the Franco-Brits actually have more influence than if they stood separately.
4. Divergent priorities and interests between the US and the Franco-Brits during the war. These mirror OTL but in accentuated ways. Unlike OTL Brits, the Union didn't fight in Africa until 1943, the war in Asia was far bloodier and slower for the Japanese. Performance of Union forces on the battlefield is slightly better than OTL etc.
5. These divergent priorities mean that post-war the US more or less refuses to bail-out the Union, OTL's shenanigans over nuclear secrets and knowledge also happens. This force the Franco-British political class that its a case of "we stand together or we become irrelevant!"

From this point onwards, I had a number of other things in mind that would stabilise the Union. Although some of them have ahem, unintended consequences on the rest of the world ...
1. Through a combination of dirigisme, free-market reforms and strategic economic planning. An economic miracle on par with OTL West Germany/Japan happens. Britain avoids its economic malaise/decline and France becomes even richer and more industrialised than OTL.
2. A Union-wide welfare state is created, some aspects of which are centralised at the Union level for reasons of efficiency.
3. Decolonisation happens and there is a perception that the Union is in decline because its losing its Empire. This gives rise to a political faction that emphasises the mantra of "we stand together or we become irrelevant" to the hilt!
4. This political faction takes power during the 1960s and early 1970s and endeavours to firmly establish the Union as a 3rd power in the Cold War. They use a lot of rhetoric around the fact that the Franco-British "invented the modern world" during the Industrial revolution that they "Enlightened it" during the 18th century. They see the Union natural place as leading the space race, leading the nuclear age, leading the computer edge. Huge investments in R&D and infrastructure follow.
5. The volume of exchanges between both countries is vastly superior to OTL and bilingualism eventually start to become the norm in elites on both sides from the 1960s. A bilingual subculture begins to emerge, partly encouraged by elements of the political class.
6. The Union wins the Space race. Huge euphoria follows, everything that took place in the 1960s is vindicated.
7. The Union starts to throw its weight around a lot more internationally. Most of free Europe becomes tightly integrated economically speaking. The £ becomes a reserve currency. The Union has access to oil in the North Sea and via its de facto protectorates in the Gulf. Hong Long is held onto and eventually integrated, which pisses off China big time and creates a localised conflict, one decisively won by the Union but the cost of making an enemy of China.
8. A non-nuclear WW3 happens between the Union and the Eastern Bloc. Another generation of Franco-British boys goes to war and some politicians openly talk about "repaying our debt to our Eastern European brothers in arms and freeing their homelands from communism!". Most of the battles take place in Germany, the Union wins the war with its soldiers welcomed in Warsaw as liberators and communism falls in the Soviet Union.
9. The Union implements a Marshall Plan equivalent to rebuilt Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The later is controversial but eventually vindicated as a geopolitical masterstroke.

The TTL world of 2020 is one that sees the Union and the United States jockeying for the #1 position. A resurgent "United Rus" is a staunch Union ally. There is a cold war between the Union and China. The relationship between the Union and the United States is very complicated and marred with political and economic rivalries. Gigantic "format wars" in areas such as internet protocols, TV transmission systems, electrical plugs, mobile phone systems, the definition of sugar and nuclear reactor designs. Are commonplace.
The world is globalised but divided in spheres of influences that are more distinct than OTL. The western world has two distinct flavours so to speak, an American one led by the US and a European one led by the Union.

I should do a TLIAF about this soon :)
I really liked your ideas, but do not think that WW3 would help the union.
 
What about smaller, but more centralized WEU? France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany unite somewhere in the 50ies. Each nations colonies get split off into a WEU colonial administration that is more pragmatic in the diverse colonial conflicts. (eg: stronger support for loyalists in the politionele acties in Indonesia). Sure, large parts would become independent but led by France; queen of not-letting-go, I think that European colonial influence would remain stronger than otl. (an ATL example would be the WEU remaining in both the dutch and the french Guyana, where OTL only the french remained in Guyana. ATL Algeria would be seen as a good place to settle eastern European refugees; taking land for settlements from the locals in Algeria would be easier to do than to take it in Europe.)

stronger WEU.png
Something like this (dark blue: WEU Metropole (includes former french algerian departments), light blue: WEU colonial administration). I've based it on a post war decolonisation map so it isnt that correct but it can give you an idea for what I mean.
 
I really liked your ideas, but do not think that WW3 would help the union.
This I admit is the weakest part of the overall scenario. I may change it upon doing further research. The gist that the Union would turn Eastern-Europe into allies post-communism would remain though.
 

Riain

Banned
The Anglo-French don't need an official Union, with joint Parliament, laws and all of that.

They only need a comprehensive and firm Government to Government agreement, likely backed by a treaty or two, laying out the sorts of cooperation required to form a strategic partnership in the foreign policy, military and economic spheres of mutual interest backed by 2nd track talks between government officials to make these agreements into reality. A defence treaty for example, that is backed by staff talks and agreements on forces committed and command arrangements but also the limits of this and where it wouldn't apply and where it might apply. Similarly a tariffs policy that fosters trade in certain strategic commodities such as iron, coal and food, with scheduled meetings between ministers and officials to deal with issues and disputes, and regular ministerial meetings for foreign affairs again sorting out mutual issues and delineating where they don't apply.
 
There are barriers to a successful Franco-British Union for sure but there are also subtle and very surprising commonalities between France and Britain that could actually cement a Union in the longer run.
1. Both France and Britain had pretentions and aspirations of becoming world powers able to project their influence, culture etc in all corners of the World.
2. Both countries share common democratic values and (in the 1940s) a democracy based on Parliamentary principles.
3. Because they are around the same level in strength. There won't be a perception that one is dominating the other, gaining the upper hand etc.
4. Both countries share centuries of common history and mutual influences.
5. Both countries share a certain feeling of superiority towards others and feel that they're different from other nations.

The area where Britain and France have one major divergent interests is actually neatly solved by a union between the two countries.
The core foreign policy imperative of Britain has always been to preserve the balance of power in Europe and to prevent the rise of a dominant continental power able to threaten it.
The core foreign policy imperative of France was to become a dominant continental power in Europe.
A Franco-British Union solves both imperatives at once. Why? Because said Union is now the dominant European power by a significant margin and it can therefore influence everything that happens in Europe. In effect it performs a role very similar to Germany OTL, except with much more weight behind it.

I completely agree that it would take external factors for said Union to arise and these factors were there aplenty OTL during the 1940s. It is in fact almost an historical accident that a Franco-British led Europe didn't arise OTL when the French desired it during the late 1940s and events like the Treaty of Dunkerque pointed towards it.

The external factors that were at play in my uncompleted Franco-British Union timeline were as follows:
1. France is defeated in the metropole and realises that it can't stand alone again.
2. Swift military victories in the Mediterranean show that the Union is a force to be reckoned with despite its inherent challenges.
3. US entry into the war and realisation that by standing together and speaking with one voice, the Franco-Brits actually have more influence than if they stood separately.
4. Divergent priorities and interests between the US and the Franco-Brits during the war. These mirror OTL but in accentuated ways. Unlike OTL Brits, the Union didn't fight in Africa until 1943, the war in Asia was far bloodier and slower for the Japanese. Performance of Union forces on the battlefield is slightly better than OTL etc.
5. These divergent priorities mean that post-war the US more or less refuses to bail-out the Union, OTL's shenanigans over nuclear secrets and knowledge also happens. This force the Franco-British political class that its a case of "we stand together or we become irrelevant!"

From this point onwards, I had a number of other things in mind that would stabilise the Union. Although some of them have ahem, unintended consequences on the rest of the world ...
1. Through a combination of dirigisme, free-market reforms and strategic economic planning. An economic miracle on par with OTL West Germany/Japan happens. Britain avoids its economic malaise/decline and France becomes even richer and more industrialised than OTL.
2. A Union-wide welfare state is created, some aspects of which are centralised at the Union level for reasons of efficiency.
3. Decolonisation happens and there is a perception that the Union is in decline because its losing its Empire. This gives rise to a political faction that emphasises the mantra of "we stand together or we become irrelevant" to the hilt!
4. This political faction takes power during the 1960s and early 1970s and endeavours to firmly establish the Union as a 3rd power in the Cold War. They use a lot of rhetoric around the fact that the Franco-British "invented the modern world" during the Industrial revolution that they "Enlightened it" during the 18th century. They see the Union natural place as leading the space race, leading the nuclear age, leading the computer edge. Huge investments in R&D and infrastructure follow.
5. The volume of exchanges between both countries is vastly superior to OTL and bilingualism eventually start to become the norm in elites on both sides from the 1960s. A bilingual subculture begins to emerge, partly encouraged by elements of the political class.
6. The Union wins the Space race. Huge euphoria follows, everything that took place in the 1960s is vindicated.
7. The Union starts to throw its weight around a lot more internationally. Most of free Europe becomes tightly integrated economically speaking. The £ becomes a reserve currency. The Union has access to oil in the North Sea and via its de facto protectorates in the Gulf. Hong Long is held onto and eventually integrated, which pisses off China big time and creates a localised conflict, one decisively won by the Union but the cost of making an enemy of China.
8. A non-nuclear WW3 happens between the Union and the Eastern Bloc. Another generation of Franco-British boys goes to war and some politicians openly talk about "repaying our debt to our Eastern European brothers in arms and freeing their homelands from communism!". Most of the battles take place in Germany, the Union wins the war with its soldiers welcomed in Warsaw as liberators and communism falls in the Soviet Union.
9. The Union implements a Marshall Plan equivalent to rebuilt Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The later is controversial but eventually vindicated as a geopolitical masterstroke.

The TTL world of 2020 is one that sees the Union and the United States jockeying for the #1 position. A resurgent "United Rus" is a staunch Union ally. There is a cold war between the Union and China. The relationship between the Union and the United States is very complicated and marred with political and economic rivalries. Gigantic "format wars" in areas such as internet protocols, TV transmission systems, electrical plugs, mobile phone systems, the definition of sugar and nuclear reactor designs. Are commonplace.
The world is globalised but divided in spheres of influences that are more distinct than OTL. The western world has two distinct flavours so to speak, an American one led by the US and a European one led by the Union.

I should do a TLIAF about this soon :)
You've clearly put some time and thought into this... if you fleshed it out into a TL, I'd read it.
 
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.
Possible, but tough
 
Top