gilliex
Leading Seaman
Posts: 2 
Likes: 5
|
Post by gilliex on Apr 5, 2020 18:41:31 GMT
Prelude The end of war was proclaimed on the 16th February 1946. It was a blood stained victory built from the darkest of hours. Perhaps none more for Britain than 10th May 1941. It was that night the Luftwaffe launched their greatest assault upon their capital. As the British Museum and the Westminster Palace were set ablaze by Germany’s bombs, and some 1,500 souls perished, the fate of Britain and her Empire was forever changed. For amongst the deceased lay one man whose death would echo throughout the rest of the century. Winston Churchill, aged 66, had been killed. While many have debated what caused atypical lapse in his security, an untimely delay to entering the bunkers or an unrealistic sense of invincibility from years of surviving under fire; all that is certain was the man whom Britons had centred their hopes on was no more.
The news broke at midday. “Winston died for Britain. The fight goes on!” was the headline. The public mourned and the politicians panicked. In Germany, Goering triumphantly proclaimed that the British spirit was broken, and the war was nearing its timely end. Rudolf Hess, recently airdropped into Scottish Highlands, put forward the ceasefire terms - Britain could keep her Empire, but Berlin would keep Europe. He was shortly arrested. Yet, it was the King, who would ultimately dictate proceedings. And George IV, King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India, summoned one Jan Smuts to Buckingham Palace.
Smuts, an elderly man of 70 years, was undoubtedly shock as the choice to fill Churchill’s shoes. Yet, to Smuts this was no surprise. He was well aware of his unofficial role as the man succeed Winston. This former enemy of Britain was, in the eyes of the King and Sir John Colville (Churchill’s Secretary), the perfect blend of military and political experience. Summoned from his London quarters to the Palace, flanked by army motor bikes, at the behest of the King, Smuts recorded a broadcast to the Empire.
“From the ashes of London will rise a vengeful lion. From all corners of the earth and with the unity of a thousand nations we shall stop at nothing till the blackened scourge of Nazism is forever banished. In the presence of God, I swear we will be ceaseless in our pursuit of triumph over evil. Under the banner of Britannia and cheering the cries of liberty, we shall be victorious.”
- Prime Minister Smuts, 2:40pm, 11th May 1941
May 1941, an overview of Smut's month in office
Smuts transition into the premiership was swift and effective. He largely kept the same cabinet as Churchill and maintained a degree of cross-party support. Much of this may be attributed to the vocal support of the King who, despite convention dictating that the monarch refrain from politics, was seen as a bastion of stability following Churchill’s death. One political problem that did become apparent was Smuts’ lack of personal connections to the US in contrast to the relationships that Churchill had built up. Nevertheless, American Industry was still resolute in supporting the war effort so, for now, this was seen as less of problem.
What was truly pressing was how to prevent the Luftwaffe from being able to inflict such damage in one night again. Proposals ranged from a large-scale evacuation of the capital to relocating the British political infrastructure to Canada. However, Smuts shot these ideas down. Drawing from his experience as a Boer Commando, he reasoned that the best solution was to engage in an all out “War of Attrition” with the Luftwaffe whereby the loses the RAF would inflict would outnumber the aviation production capacity of the German Reich. Furthermore, the British moral was considerably stronger than Goering believed, and the cities were providing welcome distraction as a target as opposed to the far more fragile British industry and airfields. Smuts reasoned too that Bomber Command was slowly becoming a far more potent force than anything Goering could muster, and if the number of Mosquitoes, Wellingtons and Halifaxes increases then Britain could begin a campaign of truly crippling German industry.
It is not confirmed but it is assumed that it was shortly after being appointed Prime Minister that Smuts began to plan in earnest methods of reorganising the British Empire into more effective force in Global politics. In letters from the time, Smuts indicates a desire to reinvigorate the Empire and increase its relevance within British society. As part of this, Smuts held regular correspondence with diverse minds from throughout the Empire regarding how to better mobilise the Dominions and Colonies whilst at war. One prominent meeting of note was with the Oxford scholar Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, whose work on international relations and the dynamics of the Empire are arguments to have shaped Smuts later policy.
In Germany, Smuts was portrayed as a foolhardy farmer whose rise to power manifested nothing less than a pathetic attempt to prevent Britain’s inevitable decline. However, behind the shield of propaganda, there is evidence of much frustration on the part of the Reich’s leadership at the swiftness Churchill’s replacement was integrated into British leadership. Yet, Hitler was becoming more and more impatient at dealing with Britain and the focus was pulled Eastwards towards planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union. A major blow was dealt to Britain nonetheless in the Invasion of Crete where a German Airborne assault quickly overrun the strategic island. With Allied forces almost immediately on the back-foot, it seemed the possibility of British ships someday supplying the Soviets through the Black Sea would never manifest.
However there was good news for the new Prime Minister. Operations successfully continued in the Kingdom of Iraq. The German backed Government had began to collapse and British influenced would soon be re-established in the region. Smuts, although glad that hostilities wear diminishing in the Kingdom noted in a letter to Sir John Colville that the Middle East and North Africa could not be taken for granted in the wake of British victories against Italian forces in Libya and Vichy French forces in the Levant. Smuts opinion that the region "would forever be a thorn in our interests" and that the Axis powers may continue to exploit the region to disrupt British supply lines. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 5, 2020 18:46:26 GMT
Prelude The end of war was proclaimed on the 16th February 1946. It was a blood stained victory built from the darkest of hours. Perhaps none more for Britain than 10th May 1941. It was that night the Luftwaffe launched their greatest assault upon their capital. As the British Museum and the Westminster Palace were set ablaze by Germany’s bombs, and some 1,500 souls perished, the fate of Britain and her Empire was forever changed. For amongst the deceased lay one man whose death would echo throughout the rest of the century. Winston Churchill, aged 66, had been killed. While many have debated what caused atypical lapse in his security, an untimely delay to entering the bunkers or an unrealistic sense of invincibility from years of surviving under fire; all that is certain was the man whom Britons had centred their hopes on was no more.
The news broke at midday. “Winston died for Britain. The fight goes on!” was the headline. The public mourned and the politicians panicked. In Germany, Goering triumphantly proclaimed that the British spirit was broken, and the war was nearing its timely end. Rudolf Hess, recently airdropped into Scottish Highlands, put forward the ceasefire terms - Britain could keep her Empire, but Berlin would keep Europe. He was shortly arrested. Yet, it was the King, who would ultimately dictate proceedings. And George IV, King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India, summoned one Jan Smuts to Buckingham Palace.
Smuts, an elderly man of 70 years, was undoubtedly shock as the choice to fill Churchill’s shoes. Yet, to Smuts this was no surprise. He was well aware of his unofficial role as the man succeed Winston. This former enemy of Britain was, in the eyes of the King and Sir John Colville (Churchill’s Secretary), the perfect blend of military and political experience. Summoned from his London quarters to the Palace, flanked by army motor bikes, at the behest of the King, Smuts recorded a broadcast to the Empire.“From the ashes of London will rise a vengeful lion. From all corners of the earth and with the unity of a thousand nations we shall stop at nothing till the blackened scourge of Nazism is forever banished. In the presence of God, I swear we will be ceaseless in our pursuit of triumph over evil. Under the banner of Britannia and cheering the cries of liberty, we shall be victorious.”
- Prime Minister Smuts, 2:40pm, 11th May 1941
1941
May
Smuts transition into the premiership was swift and effective. He largely kept the same cabinet as Churchill and maintained a degree of cross-party support. Much of this may be attributed to the vocal support of the King who, despite convention dictating that the monarch refrain from politics, was seen as a bastion of stability following Churchill’s death. One political problem that did become apparent was Smuts’ lack of personal connections to the US in contrast to the relationships that Churchill had built up. Nevertheless, American Industry was still resolute in supporting the war effort so, for now, this was seen as less of problem.
What was truly pressing was how to prevent the Luftwaffe from being able to inflict such damage in one night again. Proposals ranged from a large-scale evacuation of the capital to relocating the British political infrastructure to Canada. However, Smuts shot these ideas down. Drawing from his experience as a Boer Commando, he reasoned that the best solution was to engage in an all out “War of Attrition” with the Luftwaffe whereby the loses the RAF would inflict would outnumber the aviation production capacity of the German Reich. Furthermore, the British moral was considerably stronger than Goering believed, and the cities were providing welcome distraction as a target as opposed to the far more fragile British industry and airfields. Smuts reasoned too that Bomber Command was slowly becoming a far more potent force than anything Goering could muster, and if the number of Mosquitoes, Wellingtons and Halifaxes increases then Britain could begin a campaign of truly crippling German industry.
It is not confirmed but it is assumed that it was shortly after being appointed Prime Minister that Smuts began to plan in earnest methods of reorganising the British Empire into more effective force in Global politics. In letters from the time, Smuts indicates a desire to reinvigorate the Empire and increase its relevance within British society. As part of this, Smuts held regular correspondence with diverse minds from throughout the Empire regarding how to better mobilise the Dominions and Colonies whilst at war. One prominent meeting of note was with the Oxford scholar Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, whose work on international relations and the dynamics of the Empire are arguments to have shaped Smuts later policy.
In Germany, Smuts was portrayed as a foolhardy farmer whose rise to power manifested nothing less than a pathetic attempt to prevent Britain’s inevitable decline. However, behind the shield of propaganda, there is evidence of much frustration on the part of the Reich’s leadership at the swiftness Churchill’s replacement was integrated into British leadership. Yet, Hitler was becoming more and more impatient at dealing with Britain and the focus was pulled Eastwards towards planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union. A major blow was dealt to Britain nonetheless in the Invasion of Crete where a German Airborne assault quickly overrun the strategic island. With Allied forces almost immediately on the back-foot, it seemed the possibility of British ships someday supplying the Soviets through the Black Sea would never manifest.
However there was good news for the new Prime Minister. Operations successfully continued in the Kingdom of Iraq. The German backed Government had began to collapse and British influenced would soon be re-established in the region. Smuts, although glad that hostilities wear diminishing in the Kingdom noted in a letter to Sir John Coleville that the Middle East and North Africa could not be taken for granted in the wake of British victories against Italian forces in Libya and Vichy French forces in the Levant. Smuts opinion that the region "would forever be a thorn in our interests" and that the Axis powers may continue to exploit the region to disrupt British supply lines. First, welcome to the forum gilliex. Secondly, can Jan Smuts become PM of the United Kingdom, i toughed he was a South African. |
|
gilliex
Leading Seaman
Posts: 2
Likes: 5
|
Post by gilliex on Apr 5, 2020 19:15:13 GMT
So the UK actually has very little requirements on who can hold public office. For instance it has technically had a Canadian Prime Minister in the form on Bonar Law. Smuts was also born in Cape Colony and not one of the independent Boer states. Furthermore, the King can in theory choose whomever he wants to act on his behalf as Prime Minister/First Lord of the Treasurer. Thus, even though he was not a Member of the House of Commons he could become PM (much of the British Constitution is convention that is often reshaped at times of national crisis). Smuts was also tipped to be Churchill's successor as early as 1940 and thus it's not too much of a stretch. What really makes Smuts a first however is the fact he actively fought against the British Empire in the Second Boer War and so his ascension to Head of the Executive branch is very novel indeed!.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Apr 6, 2020 9:17:49 GMT
So the UK actually has very little requirements on who can hold public office. For instance it has technically had a Canadian Prime Minister in the form on Bonar Law. Smuts was also born in Cape Colony and not one of the independent Boer states. Furthermore, the King can in theory choose whomever he wants to act on his behalf as Prime Minister/First Lord of the Treasurer. Thus, even though he was not a Member of the House of Commons he could become PM (much of the British Constitution is convention that is often reshaped at times of national crisis). Smuts was also tipped to be Churchill's successor as early as 1940 and thus it's not too much of a stretch. What really makes Smuts a first however is the fact he actively fought against the British Empire in the Second Boer War and so his ascension to Head of the Executive branch is very novel indeed!.
Interesting idea but like Lordroel I'm doubtful it would be possible. As you say he's not in Parliament at all and a PM needs to be able to answer questions and push the governments case to the Commons especially. I suppose that a safe seat could be found for him or, less useful he's given a peerage and a seat in the Lords. Also strictly speaking he is PM of S Africa at this point. Bonar Law isn't really a good test case as while he was born in Canada he was a British resident of some duration and an established politician inside the UK as a major figure in the Tory Party.
I see there was a suggest that Smut replace Churchill as PM if the latter was killed and that the monarchy seems to have favoured the idea but am still doubtful that it would prove practical. Concern about this issue and resultant uncertainty might be a reason why the war lasts longer and could be bloodier. Although not only does he not have Churchill's connections and blood links to the US the fact he suggested that the US Army in 1918 come under British command is likely to be remembered by some. Furthermore if he wants to maintain the empire as a significant economic and political power that's possibly going to cause some additional tension as Roosevely definitely wanted to reduce Britain to a minor status.
It doesn't say much about him in his wiki entry that would suggest how good a political leader he would be, although he had a lot of experience and may be less rash than Churchill and avoid some of his errors, although its obviously too late to avoid the Greek disaster and Rommel's 1st victory in Libya. Sounds like he might push the bomber campaign even more which I think would be bad as a waste of at the time very scarce resources but have to see how things develop. It does sounds like WWII will be bloodier for everybody. 
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 6, 2020 12:12:33 GMT
So many possibilities here! Avoiding the Singapore defeat and winning North Africa before the U.S. gets fully into it could allow the UK could probably maintain its position as the Third Superpower, at least for a few decades longer.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Apr 7, 2020 10:18:10 GMT
So many possibilities here! Avoiding the Singapore defeat and winning North Africa before the U.S. gets fully into it could allow the UK could probably maintain its position as the Third Superpower, at least for a few decades longer.
I don't think it would qualify as a superpower, even if those things happened and the longer war suggests things will get worse. Britain was already drained white financially funding the wars by the time this happens. There is a chance with Smut in charge, as a S African who once fought the empire. that there would be a push for some sort of federation of the dominions, although whether it works or not could be an issue. Plus a more powerful empire could mean that its leaders try to hold onto non-white areas longer, which is likely to be nasty for all concerned.
The only way I could see Britain in a better position after a war lasting until 46 is possibly if reduced cooperation between the US and UK means that nukes are significantly delayed and hence the 46 war ending is due to a prolonged and bloody US invasion of Japan to end the Far East war. Even then its likely to mean an even more drained UK.
There would be options if Smut took drastically different approaches to Churchill, especially securing N Africa earlier - although the best chance here has gone - and securing Malaya and neighbouring areas plus reducing the Bomber offensive to allocate more to the Battle of the Atlantic especially. However it sounds like he might even intensify the bomber attacks.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 7, 2020 15:14:18 GMT
So many possibilities here! Avoiding the Singapore defeat and winning North Africa before the U.S. gets fully into it could allow the UK could probably maintain its position as the Third Superpower, at least for a few decades longer.
I don't think it would qualify as a superpower, even if those things happened and the longer war suggests things will get worse. Britain was already drained white financially funding the wars by the time this happens. There is a chance with Smut in charge, as a S African who once fought the empire. that there would be a push for some sort of federation of the dominions, although whether it works or not could be an issue. Plus a more powerful empire could mean that its leaders try to hold onto non-white areas longer, which is likely to be nasty for all concerned.
The only way I could see Britain in a better position after a war lasting until 46 is possibly if reduced cooperation between the US and UK means that nukes are significantly delayed and hence the 46 war ending is due to a prolonged and bloody US invasion of Japan to end the Far East war. Even then its likely to mean an even more drained UK.
There would be options if Smut took drastically different approaches to Churchill, especially securing N Africa earlier - although the best chance here has gone - and securing Malaya and neighbouring areas plus reducing the Bomber offensive to allocate more to the Battle of the Atlantic especially. However it sounds like he might even intensify the bomber attacks.
Steve
Malaysia constituted 15-20% of Imperial revenue, in that it's loss directly contributed to Britain's finances becoming much more direr. Arguably just as important, however, was the collapse of the British position there forced London, according to Lords of the Desert by James Barr, to concede to the United States on the matter of Imperial Preference in trading policy, thus allowing the U.S. to rapidly begin displacing Britain throughout her Empire and especially so in the Dominions, and we all know political influence comes with the economic power that the U.S. now held after February of 1942. Up until the Japanese success there, Churchill had been able to rebuff the Americans on this regard, but the loss of Singapore made such no longer possible. Likewise, the American entry into the Middle East afforded by Operation Torch and other such strategic moves forced Britain into ultimately a no win situation as the infusion of American personnel and money proved too overwhelming; the OSS, for example, was able to get itself going in the region as a result of the political agreements and military situation of 1942-1943. As a result of this, the Americans were ultimately able to disrupt the the British planning for the Middle East Supple Center, through which along with its existing bilateral agreements Britain had come to exercise immense influence upon much of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia with it looking like for a period of time in 1943 that the UK stood to displace the Americans even there by buying out their existing oil interests which the Saudi King appeared open to due to issues with the Americans relating to the MESC and Zionist lobbying within the United States. Through the MESC, Britain was able to exercise a vast economic influence upon the region, controlling, for example, all imports and exports and thus resulting in a favorable market for British goods which the UK obviously hoped to keep going in the post-war era. This would've been especially critical after the war, if done in tandem with becoming the main Saudi patron too, in that it would've allowed the UK to set a "Petro Pound" instead of the existing Petro Dollar system. This would've been crucial, as Britain could thus then service her debts and obligations Post-War, while still funding the Welfare state, without taking on the terms imposed by the United States and others, such as in the late 1940s loan the Labour Government took from the Truman Administration. This is because with a Petro Pound, just like we see with the Petro Dollar, the British could take on large budget deficits without bankrupting themselves since global oil sales are dominated in their currency. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Apr 7, 2020 15:58:24 GMT
I don't think it would qualify as a superpower, even if those things happened and the longer war suggests things will get worse. Britain was already drained white financially funding the wars by the time this happens. There is a chance with Smut in charge, as a S African who once fought the empire. that there would be a push for some sort of federation of the dominions, although whether it works or not could be an issue. Plus a more powerful empire could mean that its leaders try to hold onto non-white areas longer, which is likely to be nasty for all concerned.
The only way I could see Britain in a better position after a war lasting until 46 is possibly if reduced cooperation between the US and UK means that nukes are significantly delayed and hence the 46 war ending is due to a prolonged and bloody US invasion of Japan to end the Far East war. Even then its likely to mean an even more drained UK.
There would be options if Smut took drastically different approaches to Churchill, especially securing N Africa earlier - although the best chance here has gone - and securing Malaya and neighbouring areas plus reducing the Bomber offensive to allocate more to the Battle of the Atlantic especially. However it sounds like he might even intensify the bomber attacks.
Steve
Malaysia constituted 15-20% of Imperial revenue, in that it's lost directly contributed to Britain's finances becoming much more direr. Arguably just as important, however, was the collapse of the British position there forced London, according to Lords of the Desert by James Barr, to concede to the United States on the matter of Imperial Preference in trading policy, thus allowing the U.S. to rapidly begin displacing Britain throughout her Empire and especially so in the Dominions, and we all know political influence comes with the economic that the U.S. now held after February of 1942. Up until the Japanese success there, Churchill had been able to rebuff the Americans on this regard, but the loss of Singapore made such no longer possible. Likewise, the American entry into the Middle East afforded by Operation Torch and other such strategic moves forced Britain into ultimately a no win situation as the infusion of American personnel and money proved too overwhelming; the OSS, for example, was able to get itself going in the region as a result of the political agreements and military situation of 1942-1943. As a result of this, the Americans were ultimately able to disrupt the the British planning for the Middle East Supple Center, through which along with its existing bilateral agreements Britain had come to exercise immense influence upon much of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia with it looking like for a period of time in 1943 that the UK stood to displace the Americans even there by buying out their existing oil interests which the Saudi King appeared open to due to issues with the Americans relating to the MESC and Zionist lobbying within the United States. Through the MESC, Britain was able to exercise a vast economic influence upon the region, controlling, for example, all imports and exports and thus resulting in a favorable market for British goods which the UK obviously hoped to keep going in the post-war era. This would've been especially critical after the war, if done in tandem with becoming the main Saudi patron too, in that it would've allowed the UK to set a "Petro Pound" instead of the existing Petro Dollar system. This would've been crucial, as Britain could thus then service her debts and obligations Post-War, while still funding the Welfare state, without taking on the terms imposed by the United States and others, such as in the late 1940s loan the Labour Government took from the Truman Administration. This is because with a Petro Pound, just like we see with the Petro Dollar, the British could take on large budget deficits without bankrupting themselves since global oil sales are dominated in their currency.
Agree there's a hell of a lot that could go better for Britain but we really lack the resource base to maintain super-power status now that other countries have developed. Being the top 2nd level power for quite a while is possible and depending on the circumstances we're still likely to be the 3rd or possibly even the 2nd nuclear power. However the bulk of the empire is a wasting project and will become worse as the desire for independence grows.
Also if we do have a much stronger economic position and maintain dominance in the ME for a while longer, apart from the issue of what happens with Israel, its going to mean a fair bit of resentment and quite possibly economic hostility from the US which at worse could mean a retreat into isolation by them, which largely leaves Britain to deter the Soviets. Britain can have a much better future than OTL from this point but it needs a lot of good decisions to be made, both during and after the war and finding a method to avoid conflict with the US despite still having and independent capability.
Furthermore, while we will have to see what gilliex, comes up with the longer war isn't likely to be a good sign for Britain.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 7, 2020 16:59:26 GMT
Malaysia constituted 15-20% of Imperial revenue, in that it's lost directly contributed to Britain's finances becoming much more direr. Arguably just as important, however, was the collapse of the British position there forced London, according to Lords of the Desert by James Barr, to concede to the United States on the matter of Imperial Preference in trading policy, thus allowing the U.S. to rapidly begin displacing Britain throughout her Empire and especially so in the Dominions, and we all know political influence comes with the economic that the U.S. now held after February of 1942. Up until the Japanese success there, Churchill had been able to rebuff the Americans on this regard, but the loss of Singapore made such no longer possible. Likewise, the American entry into the Middle East afforded by Operation Torch and other such strategic moves forced Britain into ultimately a no win situation as the infusion of American personnel and money proved too overwhelming; the OSS, for example, was able to get itself going in the region as a result of the political agreements and military situation of 1942-1943. As a result of this, the Americans were ultimately able to disrupt the the British planning for the Middle East Supple Center, through which along with its existing bilateral agreements Britain had come to exercise immense influence upon much of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia with it looking like for a period of time in 1943 that the UK stood to displace the Americans even there by buying out their existing oil interests which the Saudi King appeared open to due to issues with the Americans relating to the MESC and Zionist lobbying within the United States. Through the MESC, Britain was able to exercise a vast economic influence upon the region, controlling, for example, all imports and exports and thus resulting in a favorable market for British goods which the UK obviously hoped to keep going in the post-war era. This would've been especially critical after the war, if done in tandem with becoming the main Saudi patron too, in that it would've allowed the UK to set a "Petro Pound" instead of the existing Petro Dollar system. This would've been crucial, as Britain could thus then service her debts and obligations Post-War, while still funding the Welfare state, without taking on the terms imposed by the United States and others, such as in the late 1940s loan the Labour Government took from the Truman Administration. This is because with a Petro Pound, just like we see with the Petro Dollar, the British could take on large budget deficits without bankrupting themselves since global oil sales are dominated in their currency.
Agree there's a hell of a lot that could go better for Britain but we really lack the resource base to maintain super-power status now that other countries have developed. Being the top 2nd level power for quite a while is possible and depending on the circumstances we're still likely to be the 3rd or possibly even the 2nd nuclear power. However the bulk of the empire is a wasting project and will become worse as the desire for independence grows.
Also if we do have a much stronger economic position and maintain dominance in the ME for a while longer, apart from the issue of what happens with Israel, its going to mean a fair bit of resentment and quite possibly economic hostility from the US which at worse could mean a retreat into isolation by them, which largely leaves Britain to deter the Soviets. Britain can have a much better future than OTL from this point but it needs a lot of good decisions to be made, both during and after the war and finding a method to avoid conflict with the US despite still having and independent capability.
Furthermore, while we will have to see what gilliex , comes up with the longer war isn't likely to be a good sign for Britain.
Steve
Oh, it definitely won't be the premier power, but 2nd or 3rd strongest isn't too out of bounds should such as outlined come to pass. Keeping the Dominions closely tied and an economy that is growing, say, an extra 2% a year would result in a vastly stronger Britain; add in a French-style decolonization, and you'd definitely have a strong contender even into the modern era, and that's before considering it's relations with the oil rich Middle East! Britain even IOTL was able to maintain its dominance over much of the Middle East until the early 1970s, so presuming what I outlined comes to pass they could definitely stay the premier power there. Finally, in terms of the U.S. a retreat into isolationism isn't likely to occur, given the obvious strategic pitfalls of that presuming we still get an Iron Curtain in Europe. I'm curious to see where the author plans to take things, as that will shape the Post-War world. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Apr 8, 2020 9:23:44 GMT
Agree there's a hell of a lot that could go better for Britain but we really lack the resource base to maintain super-power status now that other countries have developed. Being the top 2nd level power for quite a while is possible and depending on the circumstances we're still likely to be the 3rd or possibly even the 2nd nuclear power. However the bulk of the empire is a wasting project and will become worse as the desire for independence grows.
Also if we do have a much stronger economic position and maintain dominance in the ME for a while longer, apart from the issue of what happens with Israel, its going to mean a fair bit of resentment and quite possibly economic hostility from the US which at worse could mean a retreat into isolation by them, which largely leaves Britain to deter the Soviets. Britain can have a much better future than OTL from this point but it needs a lot of good decisions to be made, both during and after the war and finding a method to avoid conflict with the US despite still having and independent capability.
Furthermore, while we will have to see what gilliex , comes up with the longer war isn't likely to be a good sign for Britain.
Steve
Oh, it definitely won't be the premier power, but 2nd or 3rd strongest isn't too out of bounds should such as outlined come to pass. Keeping the Dominions closely tied and an economy that is growing, say, an extra 2% a year would result in a vastly stronger Britain; add in a French-style decolonization, and you'd definitely have a strong contender even into the modern era, and that's before considering it's relations with the oil rich Middle East! Britain even IOTL was able to maintain its dominance over much of the Middle East until the early 1970s, so presuming what I outlined comes to pass they could definitely stay the premier power there. Finally, in terms of the U.S. a retreat into isolationism isn't likely to occur, given the obvious strategic pitfalls of that presuming we still get an Iron Curtain in Europe. I'm curious to see where the author plans to take things, as that will shape the Post-War world.
2nd strongest would only be transitory and only if the USSR has a really, really bad war. Far worse than OTL. That might occur but is highly unlikely. 3rd place for a while yes but that also will be only for a couple of decades at most. Other than possibly in terms of nuclear capability. Even if there is not/less Marshall Plan Germany will still be the most populous state west of Russia/USSR and since Nazism was cut short will still have a well educated population and a greater resource base. Britain started catching up for a while after 1945 but that may not happen here. - We may be arguing over interpretations however here to a degree.
Hopefully by French style you mean what happened in much of sub-Saharan Africa rather than Algeria and Vietnam.  One problem is that in much of eastern Africa Britain has a small but vocal settler community who will want to maintain their land and also political power. There's been neither the desire - since the natives were seen as a workforce - nor the capability to do American 19thC style ethnic cleansing here. Unless a new government is willing to come down on such groups hard there's going to be problems here.
Canada was already very much in the US's sphere economically due to geography and could be difficult to persuade into an economic bloc again given the pressure it will face from the US. IF Britain can successfully defend Malaya and play the major role in keeping Japan at a good distance then Australia and New Zealand will have closer economic and political ties. Its possible that Britain may also keep closer contact with Newfoundland, which would give more secure access to the rich fisheries there. However as I said before the best chances of defending SE Asia has already gone.
S Africa will be a problem as Smut found post-war. He soften his tone on discrimination and lost the election. You need to not only avoid apartheid altogether but get a significant different path almost immediately post war that will lead to an acceptance of democracy and hence majority rule, which I think will be very difficult. Alternatively I know there were some proposals for partition in the 60's and 70's and that may be an option with under those circumstances the whites getting a disproportionate proportion of both land and mineral resources but again that's likely to cause problems, especially if the whites continue to desire cheap black labour.
Can definitely go better in the ME but if this succeeds then once the sheer volume of the oil reserves are realised - and I think there is already some speculation about this - that would mean the hostility in economic and political terms of a markedly larger proportion of the US, along with of course the Soviets. Also this means a close link with the Saudi royal family which is likely to cause problems given their religious system.
Furthermore one key thing we could do to boost our popularity, at least for a while is greater opposition to Israel. However, in the immediate post war period I suspect it would be disastrous socially and diplomatically [outside the Muslim world anyway] to support, let alone aid in the destruction of Israel. We tried for two decades to get a stable system where a Jewish state could work with Muslim neighbours but couldn't find any solution.
Hopefully we could have a more peaceful partition of India but again it could be too late for that.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 8, 2020 10:46:59 GMT
Oh, it definitely won't be the premier power, but 2nd or 3rd strongest isn't too out of bounds should such as outlined come to pass. Keeping the Dominions closely tied and an economy that is growing, say, an extra 2% a year would result in a vastly stronger Britain; add in a French-style decolonization, and you'd definitely have a strong contender even into the modern era, and that's before considering it's relations with the oil rich Middle East! Britain even IOTL was able to maintain its dominance over much of the Middle East until the early 1970s, so presuming what I outlined comes to pass they could definitely stay the premier power there. Finally, in terms of the U.S. a retreat into isolationism isn't likely to occur, given the obvious strategic pitfalls of that presuming we still get an Iron Curtain in Europe. I'm curious to see where the author plans to take things, as that will shape the Post-War world.
2nd strongest would only be transitory and only if the USSR has a really, really bad war. Far worse than OTL. That might occur but is highly unlikely. 3rd place for a while yes but that also will be only for a couple of decades at most. Other than possibly in terms of nuclear capability. Even if there is not/less Marshall Plan Germany will still be the most populous state west of Russia/USSR and since Nazism was cut short will still have a well educated population and a greater resource base. Britain started catching up for a while after 1945 but that may not happen here. - We may be arguing over interpretations however here to a degree.
Hopefully by French style you mean what happened in much of sub-Saharan Africa rather than Algeria and Vietnam. One problem is that in much of eastern Africa Britain has a small but vocal settler community who will want to maintain their land and also political power. There's been neither the desire - since the natives were seen as a workforce - nor the capability to do American 19thC style ethnic cleansing here. Unless a new government is willing to come down on such groups hard there's going to be problems here.
Canada was already very much in the US's sphere economically due to geography and could be difficult to persuade into an economic bloc again given the pressure it will face from the US. IF Britain can successfully defend Malaya and play the major role in keeping Japan at a good distance then Australia and New Zealand will have closer economic and political ties. Its possible that Britain may also keep closer contact with Newfoundland, which would give more secure access to the rich fisheries there. However as I said before the best chances of defending SE Asia has already gone.
S Africa will be a problem as Smut found post-war. He soften his tone on discrimination and lost the election. You need to not only avoid apartheid altogether but get a significant different path almost immediately post war that will lead to an acceptance of democracy and hence majority rule, which I think will be very difficult. Alternatively I know there were some proposals for partition in the 60's and 70's and that may be an option with under those circumstances the whites getting a disproportionate proportion of both land and mineral resources but again that's likely to cause problems, especially if the whites continue to desire cheap black labour.
Can definitely go better in the ME but if this succeeds then once the sheer volume of the oil reserves are realised - and I think there is already some speculation about this - that would mean the hostility in economic and political terms of a markedly larger proportion of the US, along with of course the Soviets. Also this means a close link with the Saudi royal family which is likely to cause problems given their religious system.
Furthermore one key thing we could do to boost our popularity, at least for a while is greater opposition to Israel. However, in the immediate post war period I suspect it would be disastrous socially and diplomatically [outside the Muslim world anyway] to support, let alone aid in the destruction of Israel. We tried for two decades to get a stable system where a Jewish state could work with Muslim neighbours but couldn't find any solution.
Hopefully we could have a more peaceful partition of India but again it could be too late for that.
Steve
I'm going to await further updates before responding. |
|
One problem is that in much of eastern Africa Britain has a small but vocal settler community who will want to maintain their land and also political power. There's been neither the desire - since the natives were seen as a workforce - nor the capability to do American 19thC style ethnic cleansing here. Unless a new government is willing to come down on such groups hard there's going to be problems here.