HOME | DD

nanwe01 — The 1973 of the European Community

Published: 2014-06-17 13:27:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6828; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 58
Redirect to original
Description In this school map-style maps, you can see the Europe of my planned TL, 'Grâce aux rapporteurs' (although the title has been discarded I still don't have a new one), in which due to a series of minor changes (a MRP more confident in Pinay's govt., Stalin dying a three-four months later, no arrest of Jacques Duclos), the EDC treaty is ratified early in around April 1953 and later the EPC is too, resulting in an early federal Europe.

Thanks to economies of scale, the Inner Six are wealthier than OTL, although not by more than 5%-10%, because well, I'm basing myself on what happened OTL in the 90s with the Single Market. Other minor changes, I might make to this map when I read more about Portugal might be an early democratic Portugal, but we'll see.

Other minor TTL differences are that France is a parliamentary republic (the Fourth never crashed down and survived through some constitutional amendments that increased the stability and power of the executive vis-a-vis the legislative) and that, therefore, without De Gaulle, the NATO headquarters never moved to Brussels from Paris. Also, all the European Community institutions, except for the High Authority for Coal and Steel are in Strasbourg.

As for other things, well I couldn't find GDP per capita data for OTL 1973 so i sort of extrapolated the 1989 data so it might be inaccurate. Also, since I used 1973 data but not at constant prices of 2000, the numbers of the GDP per capita might be a bit inflated due to the high inflation the American economy suffered in 1973. In any case, the two wealthiest members of the Community were at the time the Netherlands (1) and France (2), although the Dutch would suffer OTL (and probably TTL to a lesser degree) from the Dutch disease from the discovery of natural gas in Groningen.

NOTE: The previous European Community map is now outdated, mostly because after considerable research and talking to people more knowledgeable than myself, since I came to the conclusion that some of things shown there are rather unrealistic.
Related content
Comments: 36

bruiser128 [2016-02-22 04:19:46 +0000 UTC]

So when the Warsaw Pact falls apart, will nations be joing the EDC like OTL's EU?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 10:27:59 +0000 UTC]

Well, the European Community becomes a full-fledged federation during the 1980s-1990s as opposed to a sort of federation building up its competencies, like it was in the 50s though 80s. So I suppose that after taking in Spain and Portugal (and Austria and Denmark, but that doesn't matter), the EC will be wary of taking on more poor members, so the new Eastern states will seek some degree of association, probably the tightest one, but full-fledged membership would still be far away, and might only be attainable in the 2010s TTL, I suspect. 

I have a continuation of this scenario which combined with some modifications of this map (like trying to find better figures for Commie states) that could give more depth, but I am very lazy about it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 12:09:37 +0000 UTC]

Although if it's a federation wouldn't it make more sense to divide Europe along Ethnic and linguistic groups?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 15:19:20 +0000 UTC]

Why? There are still powerful national governments. It's not the US, it's more like Switzerland (or a looser version of Switzerland). Breaking up the Member States is a non-no, obviously. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 16:14:38 +0000 UTC]

What about the implosion of Belgium huh, I mean Walloonia is linguistically french while the northern part is Flemish like the Netherlands.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 21:33:56 +0000 UTC]

Yes, so? Why would it implode?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 23:27:33 +0000 UTC]

Sorry this was based on one of your earlier maps for this timeline.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-23 13:12:39 +0000 UTC]

Which one? The one with Germany? That was changed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-23 13:37:01 +0000 UTC]

This one: nanwe01.deviantart.com/art/Col…

Also just wondering but could Spain have annexed Portugual during the Napoleonic wars?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-23 21:10:25 +0000 UTC]

Ah right. Well that was a different idea. For this map, the PoD is not no Spansh Civil War, but a different development of political events of France in 1952. After all, the best chance for Belgium to break up was during the Royal Question issue of the late 1940s.

Unlikely, iirc, southern Portugal was to become Godoy's personal fiefdom, a small piece around Oporto was meant to become the replacement kingdom for the deposed duke of tuscany and the rest was to be occupied, but not annexed by Spain.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-23 22:18:14 +0000 UTC]

That makes sense. Although the EU would have been easier without Charles Du Gaulle I think.

Unless of course Napoleon pressures Spain into doing so as deprive Britain it's mainland ally. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-23 23:09:02 +0000 UTC]

Well yes, but for instance, the map shows France as a parliamentary republic, so maybe that should tell you something about the likelihood of that scenario

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-23 23:37:33 +0000 UTC]

I will take my theory as then.^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RomanianCommunist [2015-04-18 18:56:46 +0000 UTC]

 Romanians and Hungarians weren't the poorest  people in Europe.  gdp per capita is wrong for this two countries.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to RomanianCommunist [2015-04-19 12:07:47 +0000 UTC]

Could be. Especially in the case of Hungary, but it was impossible to find real figures since the Commies essentially made them all up. So I did what I could with the data I found. At some point and if you can provide realistic figures I can change it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nanwe01 [2014-10-15 15:16:55 +0000 UTC]

So I made a slight change, whereby the Saar (European Territory of the Saar) is (sort of) independent and is the capital of the European Community with a considerable part of Sarrebruck (Saarbrücken in German), the capital of the territory, directly controlled by the Community as some sort of capital territory. 

I thought it was an interesting perspective as well as more realistic in a scenario where France is more pro-European and therefore stronger in the negotiations towards a conclusion to the Saar question.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jestemturk [2014-06-24 14:21:49 +0000 UTC]

excuse me, but it is a mistake in third map that Turkey is shown of a 'dittatura'.  Turkey has been a republic since 1923 and is a democratic country since 1876. You can find out more info about Turkey here: it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turchia

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Jestemturk [2014-06-26 15:22:39 +0000 UTC]

First off, a republic =/= democracy, secondly this is alternate history and thirdly, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military… with a martial law and state of emergency in place until 1973 bent on oppressing left-wing movements. That's a right-wing dictatorship, whether the traditional institutions were respected or not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nanwe01 [2014-06-17 16:29:41 +0000 UTC]

A question open to all: I have a lingering doubt about with to do with the Sarre/Saar. OTL the Germans and the Frnech agreed on a referendum that was a disaster and it joined again but they allowed them to choose on the basis of the 1954 Treaties of the WEU. But iirc the Treaty of Paris makes very limited mention of the Sarre/Saar question and proposals to make it the headquarters of the Community persisted if it was to be independent and indeed the CVP (pro-inedependet Saar party) was quite strong OTL. So, within the limits of realism, maybe I should try to keep it independent if small? Or just stick to what happened OTL but sooner?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mdc01957 [2014-06-17 16:21:13 +0000 UTC]

Looks like the Brits are STILL out of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to mdc01957 [2014-06-17 16:24:18 +0000 UTC]

Well yes, but would they join a Europe in which the Armed Forces (even the nuclear weapons) have been Europeanized? I doubt it. This Europe is basically sort of a federation (and I say "sort of", because nothing is simple in Euroland), but the UK has a very close relationship, it's double treaty bound to protect the EC (and viceversa) through the Protocols to the Treaty of Paris of 1952 and the Brussels Treaty of 1948 and there are by the 70s initiatives to create some sort of FTA between them, because while TTL Britain focuses a lot more on the Commonwealth, the (E)FTA is simply not good enough for a large, industrial economy like Britain's.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mdc01957 In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-18 12:16:13 +0000 UTC]

That makes sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-17 16:03:12 +0000 UTC]

Do Germany and Italy have nukes here or are those just Americans ones on NATO bases?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-17 16:20:10 +0000 UTC]

Neither actually. It's a bit more complicated. OTL you had the F-I-G (France-Italy-Germany, how innovative a name, right?) nuclear sharing and development programme that was a partnership under the aegis of NATO to develop nuclear weapons between all countries, to which the UK and the US decided to support and aid provided they were under a common European umbrella organization or control, perhaps under the SACEUR, although sine he was American the French were not so keen on that.

In fact that's a big reason why Euratom appeared, it was its civil nuclear project side.

In any case, OTL it died when De Gaulle came to power and decided to develop the French nuclear programme independently.

TTL, with the successful EDC and the Forth Republic, at first the nuclear programme will develop similarly (that's a big historical trend that I can't change except Soviet disarmament or WWIII). The only obstacle was that the EDC Treaty established a limit on the amount of uranium/plutonium available to the Member States, but I'm pretty sure once the new NATO nuclear doctrine is unveiled in 1955-56 like OTL, they'd amend it. So in reality,  TTL the nuclear programme is under a mix of national-European control with some NATO input.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Al3ssio97 In reply to nanwe01 [2015-07-29 18:54:53 +0000 UTC]

Italy didn't have nuclear gun, but nuclear central until the 1987, year when the referendum have closed the nuclear central

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Al3ssio97 [2015-07-31 20:55:45 +0000 UTC]

I know that. But this is not proper history, it's alternate history (ucronia)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Al3ssio97 In reply to nanwe01 [2015-08-01 11:46:30 +0000 UTC]

I know there is alternate history 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Al3ssio97 [2015-08-02 16:24:37 +0000 UTC]

Then I'm not quite sure as to what the point of your comment was, honestly. Thanks for the interest though. Since you are Italian, would you happen to know of any good sources on the Prime Repubblica? Italian or English is fine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Al3ssio97 In reply to nanwe01 [2015-08-02 17:16:58 +0000 UTC]

Beh guarda io credo che la tua Prima Repubblica sia identica a quella normale. Ecco qui quello più attendibile : it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_Re…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Matthew-Travelmaster In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-21 09:19:59 +0000 UTC]

So this European community has a shared stockpile of nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack on the west. ^^ Interesting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-21 09:59:13 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, it's the heritage from the late 1950s Einsenhower administration & NATO in general shift (MC48) to nuclear obsession because of the vast Soviet superiority in numbers in Europe. They'd be however under NATO aegis because the Americans didn't feel too secure about giving the Europeans nuclear autonomy. This Europe will also be slightly more militarized than OTL, since the combined European Forces will have about 40 divisions or so while the Americans have a much smaller presence in the continent because they don't need to have much more.

And of course, these European Army has made the French armaments industry very rich

It was proposed several times OTL so it's like I was making up something completely ASB You'd be surprised at how ambitious many European projects in the 50s were, things that'd make modern day Eurosceptics think the EU has gone too far too fast xd

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Matthew-Travelmaster In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-21 10:51:22 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, the West-European-Union never really started, it was just there, but nobody acutally noticed it was there, because of the heavy dominance of the US in NATO.

Yeah, today life is just...dull. I mean we should look back at the 50s and 60s. People had ambitions back then, visions, dreams both in politics and technology. And today....don't even mention it. ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-21 12:17:40 +0000 UTC]

Well, I'm not much of a nostalgic person so I can't say I share the sentiment Especially because I'm Spanish so the 50s-60s were not particularly good, or realy any decade of the 20th century until the 1980s.

Well the WEU was a very weak organisation because its few supranational elements, like a secretariat to harmonize arms production and such were blocked by the Britons until they lost all relevance. And yes, NATO was envisioned by Eisenhower to be supported by three legs: US, UK and a European Federation (EDC) but with Kennedy and the failure of the EDC and the evident weakeness of the UK it basically became some sort of patron-client organization based around the US' ilitary might.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lumi-Natis [2014-06-17 16:02:19 +0000 UTC]

Excellent work, once again!
And I see this time you used italian! ^^
Stand against english monopoly!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nanwe01 In reply to Lumi-Natis [2014-06-17 16:20:58 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! I do tend to use other languages, in part because it helps me expand my knowledge of the languages I already sort of speak (so, you won't see me doing a map in German) and also because yeah, maps in English are just so mainstream

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lumi-Natis In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-17 16:27:05 +0000 UTC]

The word "mainstream" itself is mainstream, actually.
Well be strong and fight for our byootiful languages then, I'm totally with you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0