United Anglosphere

Just a simple question inspired by a thread from another section of the board.

Between 1900 and today, was it in any way likely or possible for world events to push the primary Anglosphere nations into some sort of political union? (The United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all effectively becoming one country.)

I'd assume it's be a result of World War style shenanigans or some other high level crisis, much how those kind of things caused people to consider the idea of a Franco-British Union.

Maybe WW2? With the Cold War only making the push towards such a union stronger? (Churchill really liked the idea, right?)
 
I would say yes, but not including the United States if only because of its aversion to the Crown and its population.... which is larger then the rest which leads to a *shudder* American dominated institution. The best times would be early 1900's pre WW1 or interwar years. I am trying in post WW2 years and that is a bit more difficult.

Maybe WW2? With the Cold War only making the push towards such a union stronger? (Churchill really liked the idea, right?)
Churchill was mixed on it, he would have supported the idea but he was also British and pro-Empire more so then Pro-Anglosphere. He would not form a union in which Britain was subordinate rather then a partner. I would see him supporting a Imperial Federation if only as a means to solidify and strengthen the Empire.
 

Pangur

Donor
What we have now is not that far from that

I guess it depends on how far you want to takee `United' - one nation in the classic sense maybe along the lines of the US? Then rather than Aussie going its own way in 1900, some form of Home Rule for Aussie and NZ, Home Rule for Ireland in 1912 and well to be honest no idea how you could get the US into this one and I know ZERO about Canada. As I wrote the last bit how about this? WW3 in 1950, Europe gets trashed as does Asia (Com China would have to involved in WW3) and from necessity the Anglosphere nations come together.

If you could settle for a bit less as it were, what you have right now is not bad close second
 

Eurofed

Banned
One classic way, which I wrote in the Long Night Falls, my Axiswank signature TL, is for some hostile polity, such as victorious fascism/communism, to gain total control of Eurasia as a seemingly unified force. That would easily look scary enough to push the Anglosphere nations to band together into their own unified polity. Admittedly, TLNF sees the unification of the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, while the UK becomes a really tight ally but remains independent, and Ireland entrenches into neutrality, but that is the consequences of changeable butterflies more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
No WW2 I think would be sufficient POD for this development. Definately no fall of Singapore as well.

Speaking as an Australian our longest serving Prime Minister Bob Menzies was very pro British and I could see him trying to strengthen such ties (ideally from his perspective with Australia being the primary partner in the pacific). It wasn't until 1987 that Australia removed the right of appeal to the UK Privy Council and more recently our 2000 referendum on becoming a republic was comfortably defeated. Although that has a lot to do with the particular model proposed.

Also I do not think it likely that Churchill would become PM in a timeline without WW2 or even if there was a substantially altered WW2 (ie, no Fall of France). Churchill would remain a potent force for traditionalist tories, but his stance on India for one was just too conservative for much of the party.

Britain would still lose her empire, but there is no reason imo that if decolonisation is managed properly it can't produce friendly independent nations. Some of those states would even be willing to maintain military alliances if they are facing communist threats. For example I think Egypt would maintain such a relationship due to the Suez Canal and a Fascist Italian Libya on its border (assuming no butterflies removes that from Italy).

Post OTL WW2 is more difficult. Britain just doesn't have the finances or economy to maintain such an alliance that would remain effective in the face of the USSR. Maybe if USA keeps its isolation but that runs the risk of a red europe.
 

Pangur

Donor
The Long Night Falls

What Eurofed has added is close enough for me for what I was getting at. If Irish neutrailty is seen as an issue here then thats easy enough to fix -the issue in regards to neutrailty & Ireland had every thing to do with relationships with the UK than anything else. The Irish tried in the `50's to get negotiate a pact with the US- so instead of the US insisting at the time that it was NATO or nothing they accept the idea & its signed
 
Top