When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

First off, British America would have never had the same amount of territory that the US ultimately had; Napoleon would have never sold the Louisiana territory to Great Britain, the Southwest would still be part of Mexico, and at best the Pacific Northwest would have been part of Canada. British America would basically stop at the Appalachians, with Louisiana probably reverting back to the Spanish and becoming either part of a greater Mexico or existing as its own quasi-post-colonial dominion. So while America could be the breadbasket of the Allies in our timeline, that would have been impossible without American independence.

Secondly, Britain would have never allowed America to industrialize to the degree that we did, because they wouldn't want that kind of competition for their domestic industry. So not only are we no longer the breadbasket of democracy, but we're not even the arsenal of democracy anymore.

Thirdly, you're looking at a scenario where in the First World War, Americans would be drafted and shipped overseas to die pointlessly in the trenches or in failed offensives like Gallipoli. And you think this would make Americans more likely to accept future British demands to be drafted and sent overseas to die in another pointless European war? Since in this scenario British America never even reaches the West Coast, there's absolutely no chance of a Pearl Harbor, either, meaning Americans have absolutely no stake in the Second World War.

In other words, British America would be a much weaker country than the United States, with less land, fewer natural resources, less industrialization, less manpower, and much less will to fight. They would have been available two years earlier, but Britain and France just sort of sat around doing fuck-all between September 1939 and May 1940 anyway, and it's not clear that the addition of a small number of Americans to the BEF would have saved France. And it's even worse than that. Without the United States the Pacific theatre would collapse, with Japan likely holding uncontested access to the natural resources of the region and probably even capable of successfully invading Australia. In real life, Britain basically gave up on everything east of Burma. It was the United States who had the resources to engage the Japanese at Guadalcanal, effectively checking their advance and making their position in New Guinea untenable. In such a scenario, Japan would likely be able to more effectively project naval power into the Indian Ocean and concentrate their forces on the China-Burma-India theatre.

Finally, compared to the rise of communism in Europe, fascism was abated pretty decisively, with probably fewer overall deaths and in a much shorter period of time.

I have liberal friends who would be horrified at the thought that they were being racist. But they do factor race into decisions, usually trying to be positive about it.

I don't understand it. I'm fascinated by it.

Boundaries in 2019 tilt more ethnic than merely administrative. Even within nations, there are often material boundaries between ethnic groups and cultures.

The 1066 invasion did nothing immediately to shape the cultural landscape as there were no masses of people coming along. (Of course, the new William made a whole host of changes which did affect culture ultimately, but that took time).

The previous invasion waves of the Angles, Saxons, Danes conversely did 'really change things'.

I wonder if Napoleon 'never happened' - maybe we'd see a different chunk of 'departements' in France, with places like Brittany being their own, somewhat distinct administrative union.

Yes - administrative boundaries are always fuzzy, but they are no means fiction.

If they were fiction then the Habsbourg's wouldn't have had a problem holding onto their piecemeal empire.

The Greeks have a well defined culture even though even during antiquity - they were never a single political unit.

Similarly, 'Germanic' people have been living in the are since long before Roman era and again - no political unit.

Same for a few others.

It's not so obvious with the UK or France, but there are still real boundaries.

If you sliced off most of the South of France / Cote D'Azure and Brittany (it's Celtic), I suggest you'd be looking at something resembling a natural state.

In fact - Europe in 2019 is fragmenting further and further along cultural lines. Catalonia, Scotland. Belgium is deeply divided between Flemish and Walloon to the point where the Federal State is almost frozen, and yet the local regions somehow function.

In fact, looking into the material issues between Flemish/Walloon yields I think the greatest insight into why cultural boundaries exist, and not just administrative ones.

As for 'Britain-France' - I don't see why there is any 'scope' at all. Why not 'Britain-Netherlands'? Or 'Britain-Germany'?

"If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded."

I don't agree: they would have been about as successful as Lenin's attempt to abolish that ultra-bourgeois entity 'the family' by instituting a 5 day week wherein husbands and wives get different days off so they never see each other. It would have been mostly a disaster. I don't see what Churchill or DeGaulle would ever pragmatically agree on anything.

There is clearly a 'natural' scope of some kind of integration over there, which is at the European level! The EU or EEC in some kind of configuration makes a lot of sense. We can debate the details but some kind of coordination is highly rational at least in some way. The EU started as an economic cartel because that's what made sense, it's the part that still makes the most sense.