WWI: Balfour's idea of Anglo-American Federation under Theodore Roosevelt exposed in 1910

Thomas1195

Banned
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-federation-under-theodore-roosevelt.316612/

According to the old thread:

"I am reading the third and last volume of Edmund Morris' biography of Theodore Roosevelt and have learned a new and awe inspiring thing: former British Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative, Arthur Balfour, desired and aspired to an Anglo-American Federation to stand up to the challenges of the 20th Century...

Balfour sent Roosevelt a long letter early in 1909 detailing his visions of the future. It was headed "The Possibility of an Anglo-Saxon Confederation". This is now in the Royal papers, and was seen by King Edward VII before his death. Balfour begins by saying that such a confederation can probably not be realized for many years, perhaps until some other power arises in the world which makes a rapprochement of Britain and the USA a matter of importance from the point of view of defence. It was, he said, all important that the USA should be well disposed towards Britain in the coming decades. He described himself as in favour of Imperial Preference in principle, but that Germany would not allow it and would build up her Navy to stop it, demand most favoured nation status, and rouse the world against Britain. He writes to the ambassador that before Roosevelt's departure for Europe (after the end of his presidency and his safari in Africa):

"it is as well to impress upon him before he starts, with the possibility of an Anglo-Saxon Federation. He will then, if he does not already.…view European affairs through the glasses tinted with this point of view instead of some other, such as a German-American alliance….Roosevelt might easily be inspired to lay the foundation of an Anglo-American understanding. He goes on to say that the world will belong in the future to a few major Powers: Universal peace will come only when these powers have divided the world between them….or if one nation becomes overwhelmingly superior to the rest….people who can look forward and grasp the essential factors which will govern the future grouping of the nations may be able to exert a profound influence on the political future of the world."

So lets say, perhaps at Edward VII's funeral, Theodore Roosevelt is convinced that through unity (American led) such a power can be created as to guarantee peace, for who would stand against her. Balfour felt only Roosevelt could lead such a Confederation. Is there any chance in hell it can be sold to UK and US? Britain leaves the Entente perhaps? A beginning with an Anglo-American alliance...Bare in mind how feckin mental some other European (and non-European) powers might get when the hear about the idea...thoughts?"

My question:
What if such letter was exposed in 1910, when a general election would occur and Balfour was still party leader of the Unionists?
Let's say the left (Lib-Lab) decides to use this letter to portray the Tories as traitors during the election.
 
I don't know enough about the English polit-
ical scene in 1910 IOTL to offer any thoughts
but as far as the U.S. goes, it'd have little
impact. First, in 1910 IOTL TR wasn't the President; W.H. Taft was. While he did not
mind in the least throwing U.S. power around in Central & South America Europe
would have been another matter. The U.S.
was still very isolationalist, still not inclined
in the least to interfere in Europe's quarrels,
in 1910 IOTL. Thirty years, two World Wars, & the development of that little thing called
the airplane would have to happen before
this sentiment would change. So the letter
would not have changed U.S. policy in the
least.

But secondly, publication of the letter could
have hurt TR in 1912 when he ran for Pres-
ident. First Taft, then Wilson(TR's two opponents in 1912 IOTL)would have used it
against TR, as proof that TR was a megla-
manic who wanted to be lord of everything.
But I doubt it would have been decisive.
In that era, foreign policy simply was not
considered important by most Americans.
They would have been more interested in
TR's trying to break the no-third term
tradition. Many progressives were also
more worried about the connections with
big business TR had seemingly developed,
while conservatives felt that, more than ever,
he was a dangerous radical. What I'm trying
to say is that in 1912 this letter's publication
would have damaged TR- but it alone would
not have defeated him in 1912(his splitting
the G.O.P. by running on a 3rd party ticket
was what did the trick- ironic, huh?)
 
Top