The Third Superpower: A British TL

The only issue that such a plan runs into is that Churchill was always one who said that if he had to choose between France and the United States, he would choose the latter. It is also only the latter who can supply the necessary military power and strategic deterrence to protect Western Europe from the 175+ Soviet divisions.

It isn't a matter of a Nixon to China change of policy, but an abrogation of sovereignty. That is something that Churchill was consistently against and his postwar speeches on the US of E emphasised it on several occasions. We cannot mold historical characters and personalities to fit our purposes when doing so brings them 180 degrees from their actual, established beliefs and positions.

The British bomb isn't going to come before 1950 at the earliest and economic collaboration is something that will only bear fruit in the 1960s. In the late 40s and 50s, NATO is the only game in town for the reasons Ismay cited. Any WETO or other construct will go the way of the WEU and be absorbed into the larger body.
 
After reading everyone's comments, I have decided to change the outcome of this timeline - rather than ensuring the UK remains a superpower I will, as David Flin stated, instead work on the POD I have established - namely, a Churchill victory at the 1945 general election. Unfortunately, I cannot change the name of the Thread (so far as I am aware), but the objective of this timeline will now change. While my first two entries, which are fairly plausible, will remain, I will delete the third entry, and get to work on a new one.
 
Definetky interested like you said who doesn't want to see a strong Britain Not sure if it's where you would want to go but you could always go down the Anglo-French union even thought it's very unlucky. Canada is lost to the USA from post WW1 I think and Australia and New Zealand from the fall of Singapore. Unfortunately the best you can for is the best of the rest as you said. But maybe following the French model you can try and incorporate some former colonies e.g. Malta and maybe just maybe Newfoundland. I'll be following this good luck
 
After reading everyone's comments, I have decided to change the outcome of this timeline - rather than ensuring the UK remains a superpower I will, as David Flin stated, instead work on the POD I have established - namely, a Churchill victory at the 1945 general election. Unfortunately, I cannot change the name of the Thread (so far as I am aware), but the objective of this timeline will now change. While my first two entries, which are fairly plausible, will remain, I will delete the third entry, and get to work on a new one.

Good luck. I look forward to seeing it.
 
Well, I'm not British, and America doesn't have the same experiences with unity governments, but I rather thought the point was to make sure that no one Party owned the war effort

We recently had a coalition here in the UK, between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It was obvious to everyone who was 'calling the shots', as I believe the American expression is.

Anyway, my point is that the Conservatives were seen as the most important party of the coalition and thus held the greatest responsibility for success in the war of all the parties.

which was all but explicitly an attempt to colonize Turkey wholesale

Well, what's a little colonialism between friends :p

Yeah, it would have restarted the Anglo-Irish War for nothing and made fishwrap out of the treaty they'd just signed.

It could also be argued that Churchill's decision to threaten British intervention was a success, as he forced Collins to take action.

I don't see the Indians accepting that arrangement.

Only Mustard knows, and Mustard does not tell...

Doctors would be encouraged more if they were paid per item of
service and would gain more satisfaction from the work that they did.
Salaries only make them lazy and work-shy.

That idea quote does not actually seem unreasonable to me, though perhaps I am unqualified to comment.

Anyway, it still doesn't add up to comparing the NHS to the Nazis, which is what TRH said.

I agree, however, that Churchill's views certainly altered over time. Perhaps that is a good thing, or perhaps not.
 
That idea quote does not actually seem unreasonable to me, though perhaps I am unqualified to comment

My daughter is a doctor in the NHS. The quote is wrong. Spectacularly wrong. Unbelievably spectacularly wrong.

It is pretty obvious when you think about it. Do you want to be seen by a doctor who's only interest is in dealing with the unit in front of them, and wants to deal with it as quickly as they can and move on to the next unit for more money.

Or would you prefer a doctor who treats a patient to the best of their ability?

The use of the phrase "per item of service" in reference to a Doctor's work is, to put it mildly, offensive to a doctor.

And the concept of applying the phrase "lazy and work-shy" to doctors is something that can only come out of the mouth of someone without a clue.
 
The only issue that such a plan runs into is that Churchill was always one who said that if he had to choose between France and the United States, he would choose the latter. It is also only the latter who can supply the necessary military power and strategic deterrence to protect Western Europe from the 175+ Soviet divisions.

It isn't a matter of a Nixon to China change of policy, but an abrogation of sovereignty. That is something that Churchill was consistently against and his postwar speeches on the US of E emphasised it on several occasions. We cannot mold historical characters and personalities to fit our purposes when doing so brings them 180 degrees from their actual, established beliefs and positions.

The British bomb isn't going to come before 1950 at the earliest and economic collaboration is something that will only bear fruit in the 1960s. In the late 40s and 50s, NATO is the only game in town for the reasons Ismay cited. Any WETO or other construct will go the way of the WEU and be absorbed into the larger body.
I certainly agree that in this respect the OTL decisions had a logic to them and would be the most probable.
An alternative option as suggested would need some other drivers to come about.
As for France, Churchill was willing to look through differences IOTL, indeed he suggested a Union with France in 1940.
I am not sure of the easiest path towards European military and economic integration, but it would be interesting.
 
We recently had a coalition here in the UK, between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It was obvious to everyone who was 'calling the shots', as I believe the American expression is.

Anyway, my point is that the Conservatives were seen as the most important party of the coalition and thus held the greatest responsibility for success in the war of all the parties.

And everyone else who's weighed in has said otherwise, since they were also the most important party in government when Hitler wasn't stopped early when they had the chance. There hasn't been an appropriate POD to change that perception.

It could also be argued that Churchill's decision to threaten British intervention was a success, as he forced Collins to take action.

That implies that he was only bluffing, and that he would never have actually gone through with the raid. By all accounts, though, the decision not to do it wasn't made by him. You're only assuming he wouldn't have done it because it was an unreasonable idea.

Only Mustard knows, and Mustard does not tell...

True, but it should still be bound by a sense of plausibility. We'll see how that goes.

PS mustard,
What did you have in mind for the 1948 US election?

I think they need Harry Truman to win, since the Republicans were still too isolationist on the whole at this time.
 
PS mustard,
What did you have in mind for the 1948 US election?
I'll still probably use my same idea for the 1948 election in the new timeline. I won't give away much, but I will say that it may not necessarily be either a Truman or Dewey victory.
 
Part III: Imperial Affairs

Alongside the Beveridge Report, Churchill’s second term was also dominated by Imperial affairs. For Churchill, it was essential that the UK remained a great power in its own right – the British Empire, while an ally of the US, needed to stand on its own two feet.

Churchill’s Government main issue in the Empire was the Indian Question – initially, Churchill hoped that the status quo could be maintained in India, yet the Prime Minister eventually accepted that it was not possible, so Churchill began looking for options which would both appease Indian nationalists, and allow the UK to maintain its ties with India.

In order to establish a solution, Churchill invited the Viceroy of India, Archibald Wavell, as well as multiple Indian politicians who both supported British rule and opposed it to London to discuss the Indian Question. Negotiations continued throughout 1947 and 1948, and few people expected any meaningful agreement to emerge, due to the conflict of interest between the parties negotiating. However, in April 1948, the negotiations came to a close and the London Declaration was announced – India would be partitioned into six separate Dominions. These Dominions were Balochistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Delhi, Bengal and Dravidia.
upload_2017-2-26_16-5-41.png


Initially, expectations were that India would simply be divided into two, or at the maximum three, states based on religion. However, Churchill’s Government decided that it would be best to take into account linguistic and cultural divisions, too. This decision initially encountered opposition from both members of the Congress parties and other groups, yet eventually the populations of each of the new nations settled into their new respective states.

The Government of India Bill was subsequently introduced in the Commons. Although Churchill was opposed to what was now occurring, he grit his teeth and accepted that it was somewhat necessary. After all, at least the new nations would be Dominions, meaning there would be some links between the UK and India retained. The Bill was duly passed and came into law, and so the outgoing Government of the British Raj began preparing for the partition of India.

While some in the UK called for a hasty withdrawal from India, Churchill dismissed this, stating that it would be reckless. So, over a year, the plans for partition were put into place, and in April 1949, India became six separate Dominions.

***

Although the UK lost India, Churchill’s Government was able to gain territory elsewhere. In 1934, the Dominion of Newfoundland had been disbanded after its economy was crippled by the Great Depression. However, in 1946, the UK Government established a Convention for Newfoundland to determine its political future, consisting of 45 members. At the Convention, there was a sharp divide over where Newfoundland should go in the future – some wished for Newfoundland to become a Province of Canada, others believed that the Dominion should be restored while others wanted to continue the status quo. However, as the Convention continued to meet, support for joining Canada began to wane, as the so-called London delegation argued that Newfoundland’s economic interests were different to that of Canada, and also that Newfoundlanders had a distinct identity separate from Canada. Yet, rather than lending support to the concept of restoring Newfoundland’s own Government, this instead led to another idea gaining traction – Newfoundland and Labrador becoming integral parts of the United Kingdom.

Eventually, the Convention recommended that a referendum be held on whether or not Newfoundland should join the UK or become a Dominion (the idea of joining Canada had become so distasteful over the course of the Convention that it did not appear on the ballot). The British Government accepted the idea of a referendum, and duly put in place plans to hold such a referendum.

In the run-up to the referendum, there was a large degree of uncertainty regarding what the outcome would be – would Newfoundlanders vote to become a Dominion? Or would they remember the consequences of the Depression and instead vote to join the UK? Eventually, the referendum was held, and the results soon came in.
upload_2017-2-26_16-5-56.png


When news reached London, Churchill and his Government began preparing to enlarge the UK’s borders. A new Act of Union was introduced in Parliament, which would have Newfoundland and Labrador join the UK as provinces (similar to Northern Ireland) – although the name of the country would remain the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. In addition to this, Newfoundland and Labrador would also be granted Home Rule, similar to Ulster, so Newfoundlanders could deal with local affairs. The Act of Union was passed by a significant margin in both Houses of Parliament, and duly came into law.
upload_2017-2-26_16-6-7.png


On January the 1st 1949, the Act of Union, 1948, came into force and thus Newfoundland and Labrador became constituent parts of the UK.
 
Last edited:
So that was the next entry into my timeline. Is it more plausible? I'd like feedback!
In the next entry, I'll talk about what the rest of the world is doing at this point.
 
So that was the next entry into my timeline. Is it more plausible? I'd like feedback!
In the next entry, I'll talk about what the rest of the world is doing at this point.

In my opinion India is the key to the British Empire and at least so far as East of Suez the key to British interests, they waxed and waned on the foundation of India. If you view it with a little hindsight one sees how the Empire formed to secure and capitalize on India. Although trade with China was important, that too was at first more a product of India's resources, the vitality of Singapore is to secure the Indian Ocean and Malay secures India, on and on through to Suez itself, the lifeline to India. Only later does the Middle East offer any value in itself in the form of oil, Africa is a separate realm but not wholly divorced from how the Empire orbits India. Thus as we saw once India left the whole structure crumbled, not so much because of weakness but because of purpose. Why station a fleet in Ceylon if there is no British shipping to secure? As trade evolved to other markets the British would not police the former Empire and to the extent it did the taxpayer got no return.

For me the POD is a different Great War and thus more time to have the Empire evolve, but then I was aiming for a multi-lateral world with no true Superpowers. So I think how you see India still playing a part in UK and Commonwealth trade will motivate how the UK spends to hold onto its ability to project power. I am reading the Decline of British Seapower (Wettern) to see how the RN evaporated.

Some things that I considered are that Churchill is intimately involved in Persian oil and that oil only becomes more vital to the UK, thus Churchill might focus efforts to hold sway in Persia. Suez remains vital to the oil traffic as does the Med so one might see better effort to keep British influence there. I feel Churchill is a British nationalist more than an imperialist, his vision is to keep the British, or perhaps more precisely the English, as top players in the game. His interest is not to benefit the Dominions or colonies but to keep the English on top. I think that shades his choices. I also feel that the British economic woes trace back to the debt from the Napoleonic era and are a product of many decades of fiscal austerity as well as emphasis on being middlemen, financiers and insurers rather than producers. I am not certain Churchill will see how to deepen British industrial strength long term. Instead Churchill will bias towards keeping London the financial capital of the world to the detriment of its remainder economy. Here one must navigate how the Churchill government returns to a financial structure where Pounds are at least a peer currency on par with Dollars and London is given a place equal to New York. That will be this government's goal, after all the Conservatives derive their wealth from that world, he would likely pursue austerity anew, he might have no choice, but that may give a follow on Labour government even more strength and hasten the fall you seek to avoid. Interesting stuff, I am interested to see how you pilot the ship.
 
Hot damn you went to town on India.

There's no way Pakistan and India would accept that level of dismemberment. Considering that India's desire to see their country made whole drove them to invade and annex both Hyderabad and Portuguese Goa, and it drove Pakistan to invade Kashmir. All these countries except Bengal would probably be eaten up by one of the two. It seems to me like you've just laid the ground for more bloodshed on the subcontinent, and a weaker position for Britain.
 
I mean, the problem here is that the update only really talks about Churchill wanting X to be done in India, and X being done. There's no consideration of the Indian perspective, and there isn't even a single mention of an Indian by name with an examination of what they want. The Indians are bystanders in their own independence and partition.
 
Top