Well, the Allies would have been fucked in WWI for starters, and there's a ludicrous number of butterflies from there.
The US can still participate on the side of the Allies and not have a special relationship with England. France is a dear and important ally to us (and I remember quite a few English papers were upset when some Obama officials or Obama himself had called them our "oldest ally" a few years ago, after the English refused the Syrian adventure and the French were with us), but nobody claims a special relationship with France. Certainly there were ties of the "English speaking people" and such which existed around or following WW1, but the special relationship as we think of it largely emerged after WW2, with its main propagator being on the English side, as some sort of tool to still maintain relevance and influence when all of the traditional bases of power had or were collapsing. Polls show that Americans are much less serious about the entire affair.Well, the Allies would have been fucked in WWI for starters, and there's a ludicrous number of butterflies from there.
No polaris and trident for starters, and all British nuclear warheads since 1958 have been based on US designs.
I would guess that without the Special Relationship the British nuclear deterrence would be based on V-bombers for a few years longer, after which there could have been joint Anglo-French design SSBN's and nuclear warheads. Although would Britain and the French get design help just like the French did in OTL, ie. negative guidance?
What would RAF and RN look like without all those American hardware purchases? On the other hand, France bought Crusaders, KC-135's etc.
How about the Germans. If perhaps the Fashoda crisis broke into war with Britain and Germany on one side and France on the other. Or perhaps Britain never gets involved in World War One as Germany never marches though Belgium for some reason and after the war Britain and Germany grow to be close friends, perhaps participating together in a war against Russian communists or the Japanese Empire. Perhaps both empires last a long time due to supporting each other and maybe they still exist today or at least large parts if it like colonies in Africa for example. Both being superpowers today. What about America though? Would they be a superpower without fighting in World War One and Two?have the English have an alternate nation to construct their "special relationship" with.
Not necessarily as I think the Allies would have won WW1 without American troops, but the war would have gone on into 1919 that is for sure.
The US can still participate on the side of the Allies and not have a special relationship with England. France is a dear and important ally to us (and I remember quite a few English papers were upset when some Obama officials or Obama himself had called them our "oldest ally" a few years ago, after the English refused the Syrian adventure and the French were with us), but nobody claims a special relationship with France. Certainly there were ties of the "English speaking people" and such which existed around or following WW1, but the special relationship as we think of it largely emerged after WW2, with its main propagator being on the English side, as some sort of tool to still maintain relevance and influence when all of the traditional bases of power had or were collapsing. Polls show that Americans are much less serious about the entire affair.
Which is a reasonable way to do short-circuit it : have the English have an alternate nation to construct their "special relationship" with. The timeline Blunted Sickle has that happening right now, with a Franco-English alliance being the main axis of foreign affairs of those two countries in a no Fall of France scenario.
I would guess that without the Special Relationship the British nuclear deterrence would be based on V-bombers for a few years longer, after which there could have been joint Anglo-French design SSBN's and nuclear warheads. Although would Britain and the French get design help just like the French did in OTL, ie. negative guidance?
The reason why France got mentioned as the oldest ally is because Franco-American relations were at a high point then. If Franco-US relations were still poor like under Bush, then nobody would have mentioned it. Its inherently a political message which was/is a sign of improved relations with France vis-a-vis those of England. There's a reason why British newspapers like the Daily Fail interpreted it as a snub towards England - that can be exaggerating it, but it does speak of US opinion on France versus England.You really need to sour the relations quite a bit though, and the US was pretty ambivalent about france in the war.
France is only our oldest ally because they helped us in the Revolution.