Opinions? British Commonwealth, like EU and NATO

I wouldn't personally write out the potential for a more unified post-war Commonwealth all together but many of the points raised here are still very valid.

The Commonwealth continued to decline in importance post war largly because of a push pull factors:

Push: Britain was activly trying to get rid of it's colonies, being unable to provide for them any longer. Despite this, their was actually more support for Commonwealth ties from the dominions, with men like Bob Hawke and Diefenbaker, but Britain was largly non receptive to their overtures.

Pull: The U.S. has replaced Britain as the Wests big hitter and can provide what Britain is either unable or unwilling to provide - diplomatic and military support.

Therefore, in order to rectify this situation you need to reverse the siutation - create a pull from Britain (perhaps the Commonwealth becomes part of the post war consensus?), and a push from America (isolationist post war?).

Still, the Commonwealth will still be a shadow of itself - all of Africa and most of Asia will most likley still go their own way, leaving just a core. South Africa is a definate no no, too.

Russell
 

abc123

Banned
I wouldn't personally write out the potential for a more unified post-war Commonwealth all together but many of the points raised here are still very valid.

The Commonwealth continued to decline in importance post war largly because of a push pull factors:

Push: Britain was activly trying to get rid of it's colonies, being unable to provide for them any longer. Despite this, their was actually more support for Commonwealth ties from the dominions, with men like Bob Hawke and Diefenbaker, but Britain was largly non receptive to their overtures.

Pull: The U.S. has replaced Britain as the Wests big hitter and can provide what Britain is either unable or unwilling to provide - diplomatic and military support.

Therefore, in order to rectify this situation you need to reverse the siutation - create a pull from Britain (perhaps the Commonwealth becomes part of the post war consensus?), and a push from America (isolationist post war?).

Still, the Commonwealth will still be a shadow of itself - all of Africa and most of Asia will most likley still go their own way, leaving just a core. South Africa is a definate no no, too.

Russell

About South Africa, if Smuts win in elections in 1948 maybe without apartheid SA can gradually give equality to colored people.

Africa and most of Asia will become independent countries ( maybe dominions, not nescecarry in this Commonwealth ), that is a sure thing. But most of that countries were not worh of costs of administration of them, and certainly not worth of costs of defending them.
So, Britain is in net-gain there.

Some smaller colonies like Malta, Singapore, Aden, Trinidad, Suez canal and such can be retained ( with BIG authonomy ), giving important basing to the Comonwealth forces.

True, Commonwealth would be a mere shadow of the Empire. But, Commonwealth=/=Empire. Commonwealth is a organisation of countries with common past and some common interests in future.

That pull and push factors are, however, something worth of thinking. How could they be achieved?:confused:
 
Well if Britain can get another European power involved such as France and get them to devolve power to Dominion like parts of there Empire then maybe a "Anglo-French" Commonwealth could work by reducing the distances between the various parts.

But you would needs a POD way before 1945 or a dratsically different WW2 were USA would be happy to bankrole the project until the UK and the other members recovered, make the USA a Associate Member perhaps?
 

abc123

Banned
Well if Britain can get another European power involved such as France and get them to devolve power to Dominion like parts of there Empire then maybe a "Anglo-French" Commonwealth could work by reducing the distances between the various parts.

But you would needs a POD way before 1945 or a dratsically different WW2 were USA would be happy to bankrole the project until the UK and the other members recovered, make the USA a Associate Member perhaps?

Anglosphere?
But, there US would be a leading member...
;)
 
Err there were common programmes in operation well into the 1960s- thats why Saracen was in service in SA as well as UK, Feret with most, FN SLR across the board along with GPMG, L16 mortar and others. You'd regularly see mixed gun crews at Larkhill well into early 1960s and when I went down to Dryad as was there were Canadian, Aussie and other staff...
 
You're absolutely right. But nobody in Canada likes Charlie or his horse, and they're the couple who will take over when the Queen kicks the bucket. I wouldn't rule anything out.


Speak for yourself. Charles will be fine as monarch. Besides, the likelihood of all ten provinces agreeing to dump the monarchy is nil. Actually the likelihood of them agreeing to have a constitutional conference to discuss the matter in the first place is nil.
 
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the group. Post-1945 would be too late to establish the stronger Commonwealth, what with Britain desperate for US cash after the war. I say this even though, as one member mentioned, there was some sentiment to retain and strengthen ties with Britain in the erstwhile dominions. Diefenbaker was the last Anglophile to serve as Canadian PM, but he was the first Conservative to hold that position since the early 1930s. He could not reorient Canadian foreign policy after nearly a quarter century of steady Americanization. When Britain cut off Newfoundland financially after the war, that effectively ended British attempts to have the Commonwealth serve as a continuation of the Empire.

Pre-World War II, when the Dominions were still oriented toward the Empire (so much so that PM Mackenzie King delayed Canada's declaration of war on Germany by a week in order to demonstrate that Canadian sovereignty from London), is the proper POD.
 
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the group. Post-1945 would be too late to establish the stronger Commonwealth, what with Britain desperate for US cash after the war. I say this even though, as one member mentioned, there was some sentiment to retain and strengthen ties with Britain in the erstwhile dominions. Diefenbaker was the last Anglophile to serve as Canadian PM, but he was the first Conservative to hold that position since the early 1930s. He could not reorient Canadian foreign policy after nearly a quarter century of steady Americanization. When Britain cut off Newfoundland financially after the war, that effectively ended British attempts to have the Commonwealth serve as a continuation of the Empire.

Pre-World War II, when the Dominions were still oriented toward the Empire (so much so that PM Mackenzie King delayed Canada's declaration of war on Germany by a week in order to demonstrate that Canadian sovereignty from London), is the proper POD.

On another note, you joined in January 2008 and this is your first post?

Russell
 
On another note, you joined in January 2008 and this is your first post?

Russell

So what? I joined in February 2008 and have only started participating on the Board a few weeks ago! Admittedly, it took me that long to have my username activated :)o) but having said that I lost interest for a while at the time!
 

Cook

Banned
But you would needs a POD way before 1945 or a dratsically different WW2 were USA would be happy to bankrole the project until the UK and the other members recovered, make the USA a Associate Member perhaps?

During World War Two the Americans were opposed to any British proposed operation that they did not see as leading directly to the defeat of Germany and Japan; this included operations in the Mediterranean and South East and Southern Asia. They saw such operations as furthering Britain’s Imperial interests and wouldn’t have a bar of it.

The Americans would have seen such a British Commonwealth and little more than the old British Empire in a new, but rather cheap, suit.

For the American’s to be willing to bankroll this would seem to be drifting off into ASB territory.
 
I don't see the Commonwealth ever being as strong an alliance as NATO or the EU. Still, it could have been a significant force even after WWII if the USA had played less of a role in WWII, and/or gone back into a more isolationist mode after the war.

Another possibility is if the Soviets somehow overrun almost all of continental Europe at the end of WWII. Then, the USA and the British Commonwealth countries would have been the main pillars of the "free world".
 
So what? I joined in February 2008 and have only started participating on the Board a few weeks ago! Admittedly, it took me that long to have my username activated :)o) but having said that I lost interest for a while at the time!

Didn't say anthing was wrong. 36 months from signing up to actually participating on a forum is quite a time lapse, thats all.

Just making up for lost time. :D There are some great questions raised on the site.

Welcome aboard.

Russell
 
It has already been pointed out in this thread that Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War, and was totally dependent on American financial aid. IMO this will make a tighter-knit British Commonwealth post-1945 unlikely. America probably won't look upon the idea too kindly, unless it is useful somehow in preventing the spread of Soviet influence, so without their support the Dominions would have to financially support Britain themselves, and they just don't have that kind of money.

I personally think this kind of Commonwealth is most likely to take place without World War I occuring or if that war went differently than OTL.
 
Top