Map: Union of the English-Speaking Peoples (1941)

[lordroel]

Map: Union of the English-Speaking Peoples (1941)

Robert E. Sherwood, an American playwright who wrote speeches for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II saw unity as a way to keep the English-speaking world free of totalitarianism.



Writing before the Soviet Union entered the war on the Allied side in 1941, Sherwood feared a prolonged stalemate between Nazi-controlled Europe and the English-speaking free world. Isolated in a largely totalitarian world — “a world in which the term ‘cut-throat competition’ would mean just that” — America’s standards of living would be reduced, he warned readers of Life magazine. A union of the English-speaking peoples promised respite.

It would have no involvements whatever in the continent of Europe. It would constitute a power of unassailable magnitude, dominating all the oceans; and this power would be in the hands of 200,000,000 people who speak the same language and believe in the same three fundamental things — liberty and justice and peace.

[stevep]

I think apart from anything else it would be impossible because:
a) Its basically a US take-over of the British empire, plus Eire.

b) It would be impractical to ignore the continent of Europe. Even aside from it being dominated by the Nazis, who wouldn't be willing to leave the ESU alone, the continent has too much industrial resources and population, even without the associated colonial empires, including lands in the Caribbean to consider.

Also there is a considerable cultural difference between Britain and its dominions and the US, let alone the differences between the dominions and/also between them and Britain.

[lordroel]

Jun 28, 2017 20:13:46 GMT stevep said:

I think apart from anything else it would be impossible because:
a) Its basically a US take-over of the British empire, plus Eire.

b) It would be impractical to ignore the continent of Europe. Even aside from it being dominated by the Nazis, who wouldn't be willing to leave the ESU alone, the continent has too much industrial resources and population, even without the associated colonial empires, including lands in the Caribbean to consider.

Also there is a considerable cultural difference between Britain and its dominions and the US, let alone the differences between the dominions and/also between them and Britain.

The full article you can read here: Life magazine: Robert E. Sherwood Union of the English-Speaking Peoples

[stevep]

Jun 29, 2017 2:43:39 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 28, 2017 20:13:46 GMT stevep said:

I think apart from anything else it would be impossible because:
a) Its basically a US take-over of the British empire, plus Eire.

b) It would be impractical to ignore the continent of Europe. Even aside from it being dominated by the Nazis, who wouldn't be willing to leave the ESU alone, the continent has too much industrial resources and population, even without the associated colonial empires, including lands in the Caribbean to consider.

Also there is a considerable cultural difference between Britain and its dominions and the US, let alone the differences between the dominions and/also between them and Britain.

The full article you can read here: Life magazine: Robert E. Sherwood Union of the English-Speaking Peoples

  Intersting, thanks.  He's still being isolationist in that he thinks such a union, if it came into existence, would be able to ignore events in Europe.  Plus its unclear what are supposed to happen to the British and US empires?  Are they to be defended, abandon to fascist conquest or what?  Immediate independence would be impractical in many cases plus even where it might, such as India and the Philippines, those are unlikely to be able to defend themselves without considerable support from the proposed union.  Similarly neither S Africa nor Australia would be defendable in the longer term if the Germans control most of Africa or the Japanese are able to take the Dutch East Indies.  They would simply become vulnerable outposts that the union would have to fight to defend, very much like Britain was currently.  Also presuming most of Africa comes under Nazi control, as well as the massive loss of resources, this makes Latin America vulnerable to German influence, which may be welcome to some. 

  It could be that the author actually realises this but is worried about the still politically significant isolationist movement in the US.  Hence he's trying to lure them into cooperating with Britain for mutual defence.

[lordroel]

Jun 29, 2017 19:58:32 GMT stevep said:

Jun 29, 2017 2:43:39 GMT lordroel said:

The full article you can read here: Life magazine: Robert E. Sherwood Union of the English-Speaking Peoples

  Intersting, thanks.  He's still being isolationist in that he thinks such a union, if it came into existence, would be able to ignore events in Europe.  Plus its unclear what are supposed to happen to the British and US empires?  Are they to be defended, abandon to fascist conquest or what?  Immediate independence would be impractical in many cases plus even where it might, such as India and the Philippines, those are unlikely to be able to defend themselves without considerable support from the proposed union.  Similarly neither S Africa nor Australia would be defendable in the longer term if the Germans control most of Africa or the Japanese are able to take the Dutch East Indies.  They would simply become vulnerable outposts that the union would have to fight to defend, very much like Britain was currently.  Also presuming most of Africa comes under Nazi control, as well as the massive loss of resources, this makes Latin America vulnerable to German influence, which may be welcome to some. 

  It could be that the author actually realises this but is worried about the still politically significant isolationist movement in the US.  Hence he's trying to lure them into cooperating with Britain for mutual defence.

Also i wonder why Ottawa was chosen as the new capitol of the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples, is Washington D.C ore London not good enough ore was Ottawa chosen because for that reason, because it is not a major world capitol like Washington D.C ore London.

[stevep]

Jun 29, 2017 20:08:02 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 29, 2017 19:58:32 GMT stevep said:

  Intersting, thanks.  He's still being isolationist in that he thinks such a union, if it came into existence, would be able to ignore events in Europe.  Plus its unclear what are supposed to happen to the British and US empires?  Are they to be defended, abandon to fascist conquest or what?  Immediate independence would be impractical in many cases plus even where it might, such as India and the Philippines, those are unlikely to be able to defend themselves without considerable support from the proposed union.  Similarly neither S Africa nor Australia would be defendable in the longer term if the Germans control most of Africa or the Japanese are able to take the Dutch East Indies.  They would simply become vulnerable outposts that the union would have to fight to defend, very much like Britain was currently.  Also presuming most of Africa comes under Nazi control, as well as the massive loss of resources, this makes Latin America vulnerable to German influence, which may be welcome to some. 

  It could be that the author actually realises this but is worried about the still politically significant isolationist movement in the US.  Hence he's trying to lure them into cooperating with Britain for mutual defence.

Also i wonder why Ottawa was chosen as the new capitol of the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples, is Washington D.C ore London not good enough ore was Ottawa chosen because for that reason, because it is not a major world capitol like Washington D.C ore London.

  I must admit I had missed that.  Suspect as you say its a compromise between Washington and London. 

[lordroel]

Jun 29, 2017 20:09:23 GMT stevep said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:08:02 GMT lordroel said:

Also i wonder why Ottawa was chosen as the new capitol of the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples, is Washington D.C ore London not good enough ore was Ottawa chosen because for that reason, because it is not a major world capitol like Washington D.C ore London.

  I must admit I had missed that.  Suspect as you say its a compromise between Washington and London. 

Also how is Racial segregation handled, it is in the Southern part of the United States and it is in South Africa, also does this mean that all none English-Speaking Peoples who are under British ore American rule are considered 2nd rate citizens. 

[stevep]

Jun 29, 2017 20:14:44 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:09:23 GMT stevep said:

  I must admit I had missed that.  Suspect as you say its a compromise between Washington and London. 

Also how is Racial segregation handled, it is in the Southern part of the United States and it is in South Africa, also does this mean that all none English-Speaking Peoples who are under British ore American rule are considered 2nd rate citizens. 

  That would be a very explosive issue, especially since there are also white minorities settlements in Rhodesia and British east Africa.

  At this point I think the blacks and coloureds [mixed-race] had more rights in Cape Province, including a limited franchise than effectively the blacks had in much of southern US.  [This was lost when the Boers and right wing English took power in the dominion ~1948].

  To a large degree the vast majority of non-whites in the empire were 2nd class citizens in the empire, although it varied from place to place as to the degree and in areas such as India things were changing while rich or priviledged groups in many areas still had a lot of power.  [Indian princes, local tribal chiefs, sultans in Malasia for instance].

  Again this comes into does the proposed union seek to defend the empire?  If so, for all the claims of some in the US, the status of the native populations  won't change much and could decline in some cases.  Which could be important in helping or hindering that defence.  Alternatively if the bulk of the empire isn't defended then S Africa at least will almost certainly be lost, although the more racist elements could well side with the Nazis.  Also that would mean a huge loss of resources and bases as I mentioned before.

[lordroel]

Jun 29, 2017 20:46:02 GMT stevep said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:14:44 GMT lordroel said:

Also how is Racial segregation handled, it is in the Southern part of the United States and it is in South Africa, also does this mean that all none English-Speaking Peoples who are under British ore American rule are considered 2nd rate citizens. 

  That would be a very explosive issue, especially since there are also white minorities settlements in Rhodesia and British east Africa.

Who might end up strengthen by this union believing that only white people who speak English are superior to all those who speak none English and are none white, we might end up with a different version of what the Germans did, every none English speaking person is not a person at all, but that is only my view. 

[stevep]

Jun 29, 2017 20:59:13 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:46:02 GMT stevep said:

  That would be a very explosive issue, especially since there are also white minorities settlements in Rhodesia and British east Africa.

Who might end up strengthen by this union believing that only white people who speak English are superior to all those who speak none English and are none white, we might end up with a different version of what the Germans did, every none English speaking person is not a person at all, but that is only my view. 

  That might be a danger although hopefully the example set by the Nazis, along with elements in both British and American culture which oppose such ideas and a commitment to democracy and rule of law would prevent that sort of attitude becoming more than a fringe element.

[lordroel]

Jun 29, 2017 21:54:32 GMT stevep said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:59:13 GMT lordroel said:

Who might end up strengthen by this union believing that only white people who speak English are superior to all those who speak none English and are none white, we might end up with a different version of what the Germans did, every none English speaking person is not a person at all, but that is only my view. 

  That might be a danger although hopefully the example set by the Nazis, along with elements in both British and American culture which oppose such ideas and a commitment to democracy and rule of law would prevent that sort of attitude becoming more than a fringe element.

Well lucky both the United Kingdom and the United States are full fledged democracy and thus no Nazi example id going to happen, but i do wonder, might there be something like a secretory-general ore prime minster elected to handle the daily business of the Union ore might it only be a Union parliament operated out of Ottawa.

[spanishspy]

I wonder what would happen to the rest of the British Empire.

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2017 13:02:00 GMT spanishspy said:

I wonder what would happen to the rest of the British Empire.

The article says: Each state would, of course, continue independently to fly its own flag, choose its own rulers, apply its own taxes, enact and enforce its own laws also and this is done out of respect for the Irish: free to dislike all the other states to its heart content, i would think that the British Empire remains the British Empire and that the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples is simply a alternative version of the League of Nation, except its is only for countries who main langues is English. 

[spanishspy]

Jun 30, 2017 14:18:52 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 30, 2017 13:02:00 GMT spanishspy said:

I wonder what would happen to the rest of the British Empire.

The article says: Each state would, of course, continue independently to fly its own flag, choose its own rulers, apply its own taxes, enact and enforce its own laws also and this is done out of respect for the Irish: free to dislike all the other states to its heart content, i would think that the British Empire remains the British Empire and that the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples is simply a alternative version of the League of Nation, except its is only for countries who main langues is English. 

Would the African, Asian, and Caribbean colonies eventually get a vote? 

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2017 14:32:03 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 30, 2017 14:18:52 GMT lordroel said:

The article says: Each state would, of course, continue independently to fly its own flag, choose its own rulers, apply its own taxes, enact and enforce its own laws also and this is done out of respect for the Irish: free to dislike all the other states to its heart content, i would think that the British Empire remains the British Empire and that the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples is simply a alternative version of the League of Nation, except its is only for countries who main langues is English. 

Would the African, Asian, and Caribbean colonies eventually get a vote? 

I do not think so, they are colonies of the United Kingdom and thus they are represented by the United Kingdom in the Union Assembly which is located in the Union capitol of Ottawa.