The Sword of Freedom: A Franco-British Union TL

[yourworstnightmare]

Originally Posted by Douglas

A suggestion for you: Finland accepts the Soviet Union's relatively simple demands in 1939. I think it was for some territory near Viipuri in exchange for a bunch of (relatively empty) Karelia. Finland actually increases in territory, and remains neutral throughout WW2. It lacks the drama of the Winter War, but the Finn in me thinks that keeping Viipuri, Petsamo, and chunks of Karelia is worth it.

Nope, give them a finger and they take the whole hand. Finland would never have accepted these demands.

[Dunois]

Another snippet at ATL 2010 .
Chapter 8 is a work in progress and will be an overview update which will answer some of the questions asked about technology and the like. The Union strategy for 1941 will also be discussed there, along with foreign relations.
Chapter 9 will cover the Franco-British attack on Sardinia and the Dodecanese taking place in late 1940.

Interlude: The Brunel Plan

Happy 60th Birthday Brunel, Le Petit Journal Thursday 25th May 2006

It is now exactly 60 years ago that one of the decisions which “built the Franco-British Nation” in the eyes of some was taken in the form of the Brunel Plan Act. While the greater focus on other parts of the “Grande Société” programme is natural and understandable given the tremendous impact some reforms had. The Brunel Plan was as the current debates on the nature of our pension systems show, never put in question and its legacy has always been accepted as a positive one by all sides of the political spectrum.

Many members of the Franco-British forces came back from Germany with positive impressions of the German autobahn system and this coupled with preliminary plans drawn on both sides of the Channel before the war was a key impetus behind Brunel Plan. The reconstruction of France, particularly with regards to the road and rail systems also provided a unique opportunity to start from scratch in many respects. The first part of the Brunel Plan consisted in elaborate plans aimed at modernising the railway infrastructure in both France and Britain. On both sides it was decided early on to electrify the main lines over a period of 40 years using the 1500 V DC standard, which was subsequently changed to a 25kV AC system in 1953 following the results of experimentations in Savoy. In the case of Britain the decision was also taken to lay the grounds for a possible interconnection with the French system through a Channel Tunnel, chiefly by refurbishing the main lines with the aim of allowing continental gauge trains to use them. An indirect result of Brunel Plan was the adoption of common safety standards across France and Britain for railway operation, culminating in the design of the Automatic Train Safety System (ATSS). This system has since become a de facto European Standard from in use from Ireland to Yougoslavia.

The Brunel Plan Act also laid the legal framework for the building of our motorway system. While some drivers among our readers will no doubt curse the decision then taken to recoup building costs through tolls, the financial situation of the Franco-British Union was still too shaky to allow for the building of a free motorway system paid for by the treasury. With hindsight it is also safe to say that this allowed a much more extensive network to be build that would have been possible otherwise. Indeed, foreign observers particularly from America contrast the high quality of the Franco-British motorway system with the crumbling state of their own Interstate system.

The War had showed that air bridges could resupply significant forces in some circumstances and this proved the impetus behind the air part of Brunel Plan. Significant strategic considerations were at work on this part of the plan, while planners acknowledged that commercial air traffic would likely grow in importance. The impetus behind the extensive modernisation of Orly airport in Paris and the subsequent building of Paris Nord airport (now called Paris Georges Mandel International) was military in order to allow airlifting of reinforcements from the Commonwealth in case of war with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless this part of the plan laid sound grounds for the subsequent massive growth of air travel from the late fifties onwards. The impact of behind the scenes investment such as the equipment of most airports with Cat III B instruments, landing systems has more often than not been more extensive than the huge terminals of Paris and London airports. Air Route tagline of “cheaper than driving and always on time” was in some respects made possible by the later aspects of Brunel Plan.

The keystone of Brunel Plan is undoubtedly Brunel Tunnel itself. While the idea of tunnel under the Channel between France and Britain was not a new one, The Brunel Plan made this possible by laying the grounds for its eventual building. The first geological studies started during the 1950s but by the end of the decade the state of the Franco-British economy allowed for the tunnel itself to be built. It only took seven years for the 51km tunnel to be built and in June 1966 the first passenger train linked Paris to London in 3h40.



The choice of a rail tunnel over a road tunnel or even a road bridge was bitterly criticized at the time, especially in the light of the extensive development of the motorway network. The controversy only ended in 1984 when a group of motorway operators joined forces to build Brunel Bridge as companion to Brunel Tunnel. Brunel Bridge was subsequently inaugurated ten years ago.

The Brunel Plan is now over but its legacy is still with us for good. There have been from time to time calls for a second Brunel Plan, chiefly aimed at the energy infrastructure and it is very likely that the proposed total interconnection of the French, British and Irish electrical grids will be implemented at some point within the next ten years.

[Trickery]

I was worried this tl was on a break or something but its updated so great. Anyway this sort of situation has always facinated me, there have been way to many times in history that a union could have occured but i never considered one was viable during WW2.

Love to see where you go with this, from the snippets the future seems very interesting.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dunois,

Nice timeline, detailed and with a non-cliched theme. I'll be following this. The alternate philosophies specially look very interesting.

[Astronomo2010]

great info, let´s see the next update , chapter 8, what will happend.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by Dunois

the subsequent building of Paris Nord airport (now called Paris Georges Mandel International)

Sounds better than Charles de Gaulle, if you ask me but I wonder who started the trend of naming airports after heads of state. It has resulted in some controversial choices.

[Some Bloke]

A few questions

IOTL Britain sent a great deal of military aid to the USSR.

ITTL it is likely that the French will get the lions share of this aid in order to reequip their forces (thereby delaying the need for LL by about a year let's say).

The remainder could go to other British units such as those in the Far East, This will take time to build and shift all of this equipment so what happens in the time before OTL's Japanese attacks?

With France and Britain united but vulnerable in the Far East does the Franco-Thai war still go ahead? If so does it escalate to the point that Japan declares war against the allies earlier?

If on the other hand, a moderate build up and diplomatic pressure from Britain persuads the Thai government to back down, how does a neutral Thailand affect Japanese campaigns in the region?

Does the Italian invasion of Greece still go ahead?
Points against:
Italy has lost 2 armies with all of their equipment and the colonial empire, morale is at rock bottom, is it really worth the risk of another defeat?

Points for:
Salvage lost pride from loss of African Empire.
Italy has a modern military and Greece doesn't, What could possibly go wrong?
(We all know what happened IOTL )


Will there be some kind of shakeup of the Italian Military and Industry?

If there is an invasion of Greece will Crete hold? IMHO this seems likely since the allies have more men and equipment and fewer priorites in the Med. This means that 2, perhaps even 3 of the 4 contributing factors to the fall of crete can be averted, namely:
1: Lack of Motor Transport, leaving the defenders unable to respond rapidly to new deployments of German forces, especially the capture of the airfield at Maleme. This needn't be a drain on Union industry, it would make good logistical sense to use Italian vehicles captured in Africa for the purpose.
2: Lack of air cover. With the war over in North Africa, at least some of the OTL 1941 assets can be shifted to Crete (mainly Gladiators and a few Hurricanes IRRC).

and the possible 3rd.

Lack of communications equipment.
Given the fact that ITTL there is no, or at least much less of an invasion scare, it is likely that more though will be given to what went wrong in France, this and French input means that it is more likely that a greater supply of field radios is a priority.

However, very little can be done about point 4
Poor leadership, Freyburg may have been a 2 star badass
but there's more to high command than courage, and his obssession with a seaborne invasion paralysed British responses to the attack on Malame.

The question regarding crete therefore becomes (assuming that Greece is invaded, and successfully at that)
Are the airborne landings even attempted?

[Dunois]

Chapter 8: The Westminster Conference

For the greater part of July and August 1940s both political and military arrangements within the Union can best be characterised by their ad-hoc nature. The progress accomplished by the Union armies in Libya and the huge success of Operation Guillotine showed nevertheless showed the need for greater coordination between the two separate forces, especially as further offensives were planning stages in the Mediterranean area. On the political side there were demands on both sides for clarifications regarding the nature of the Union itself and the way it would function during the war. It is for this reason that the Westminster conference was organised in early September 1940 and the Prime Ministers of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada also took part in the conference as well.

Regarding the political arrangements of the Union itself it was decided for both practical and propaganda reasons that the British and French government would remain as separate entities, with each government running the affairs of its respective part of the Union. The French Parliament was also maintained and sat for the duration of the conflict alongside the British Parliament in Westminster albeit in Westminster Hall. Nevertheless part of the French government and parliament also met in Algiers at several point during the war, mainly in order to be closer to what was happening there and to counter propaganda coming from the collaborationist French State of Laval. The existence of the Franco-British Parliament was also established during the Westminster Conference, made up of the representatives from the French Asssemblée Nationale and Sénat and of the British House of Lords and House of Commons. While some say that the Franco-British Parliament only performed a minor role relative to the one played by the Franco-British War Council, its importance in the later stages of the war must not be underestimated as it played a significant part in shaping the post-war world. While both governments were government of national unity, party politics remained present behind the scenes and bringing together MPs from France and Britain laid the ground for significant changes post war (1). Both the French and the British Cabinet kept their separate existence and very rarely met as full Union cabinet. Nevertheless the Westminster Conference marked the creation of the Franco-British War Cabinet, containing small number of representatives from both sides. A point of contention of hugely symbolical importance there was the chairmanship of this cabinet and it is only after much debate that a compromise solution consisting of a Premier and vice-was adopted.

Composition of the Franco-British War Cabinet on 14th September 1940
Premier of the Franco-British Union: Winston Churchill
Vice Premier of the Franco-British Union: Paul Reynaud (replaced by Georges Mandel in February 1941)
Union Secretary of Foreign Affairs: Anthony Eden
Union Secretary of French Affairs: Leon Blum
Union Secretary of British Affairs: Clement Attlee
Union Secretary of Production: Edouard Daladier

In addition to the six core members of the Cabinet several ministers sometimes took part in its deliberations, though both Churchill and later Mandel were insistent to keep the Cabinet as small as possible in size in order to facilitate discussions. Larger meetings involving the respective cabinets of both sides also took place such as in December 1940 in order to decide which strategy the Union should adopt. In some ways the Franco-British Cabinet also acted as a successor to the British Imperial Cabinet of the previous conflict as shown by the presence at times of Jan Smuts, Robert Menzies and William Mackenzie King, Prime Ministers of South Africa, Australia and Canada.

The creation of several integrated commands was also decided at the Westminster conference. Putting the decision in practise was however far from easy at times in the face of entrenched resistance from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, this lessened greatly however when it was pointed out that the lack of inter-forces coordination was partly to blame for the defeat in the Battle of France. The first such command created was the Franco-British Mediterranean command under the authority of General Wavell. The creation of an Allied European Command was deemed unnecessary since no land operations could be expected on European soil anytime soon, but steps aimed at easing its eventual creation were taken including facilitating liaisons with the other members of the alliance such as Belgium and Norway. It was also decided to create an integrated command for the South Asian region, the fall of France had led to some sabre rattling on the part of Tokyo over issues such as trains running from Hanoï to Nationalist China and pressures from Thailand over the fate of several territories part of Indochina but previously belonging to the Thai Kingdom. It was therefore decided to create an integrated command in the region as well under the authority of General Claude Auchinleck. Nevertheless this command was clearly seen as secondary relative to the Middle East Command and this was reflected by the slow deliveries of equipment to forces in the area. An operation aimed at defending the Indochina-Malaya area named Operation Matador was nevertheless drawn over the next few months (2).

Integration in the technical and economic sphere was also confirmed during the Westminster conference. Technical integration resulted in the formalisation of Project Excalibur on the 9th of September under the joint authority of Sir George Paget Thomson and Dr Frédéric Joliot Curie whose aim was to develop an “atomic superbomb” and in the creation of joint research teams in the area of jet propulsion and rocketry the latter based in French Sahara. A significant proportion of Franco-British war effort in the technical sphere was however achieved not through decisions taken at governmental level, but through the extensive employment of evacuated French technicians, engineers and industrialists into individual companies in Britain and all over the British Empire. The important role played by Marcel Bloch and many evacuated employees of Bloch and the SNCASO in the Bristol Aeroplane Company being one such example among many. While this decision was controversial at the time, it was also decided to send a delegation of scientists and technicians to the United States headed by Henry Tizard chiefly in order to exchange technology but also in order to obtain access to the larger production capabilities of the United States. Integration in the economic sphere was limited by the absence of industrial base in French North Africa. Nevertheless steps were taken by the French government to try to expand the economic potential of the area; such efforts primarily aimed at the agricultural sector were decidedly long term and only yield extensive returns from 1943 onwards. A joint Franco-British planning committee headed by Jean Monnet was also created with a view of standardising equipment between the two forces. The reequipment of the French Army with British equipment was also acted upon with a high priority given to equipment French Air France squadrons with Hurricanes and Spitfires though this process was not fully completed until the end of 1941.

With regards to military strategy plans designed by both navies for operations against Sardinia and the Dodecanese islands were accepted and pit in motion for late September and early October. The aim of the Sardinian offensive was to facilitate communication with Corsica by removing the threat of Italian or German bombers based from Sardinia. Political considerations justified an operation against the Italian Dodecanese. In particular Winston Churchill thought that the islands could be used as a bargaining chip to bring Greece into the war and threaten the Italian positions in Albania. The decision to send reinforcements to Sudan was also taken at the conference in order to both invade Italian East Africa and liberate Ethiopia.

(1) What I mean by this is chiefly French and British MPs trying to figure out who their political ally on the other side is. The French Socialist party at the time was very strong but was and remains very different from the British Labour Party, especially since the later was a broader church than the French Socialist Party (by having openly Marxist members for example). This could very well lay the seeds either in the long run or the short run for splits within the left and there is moreover no guarantee that due to their widely different organisations both parties could easily merge post war. The French right on the other hand was very divided, but some significant elements of it including Mandel himself will find much in common with the Conservative Party. Some elements of the Conservatives bitterly disagree with the Union itself however and will resist it post war especially when TTL Beveridge report and its French equivalent will be published. Therefore, the seeds for a split have been sown here as well. The French Radicaux are a big wildcard there since their closest British equivalent is the small but once larger Liberal Party.

(2) Experts on this area of WW2 your help is welcome here. This operation will be very different from OTL Matador as it includes French Indochina. If Thailand joins the war on the Japanese side they will be forced to fight on three fronts. On the other hand however Indochina can be attacked from Thailand, China and from the sea and is in an untenable position. A reasonable strategy could be to pre-emptively invade Thailand in order to remove it as a potential Japanese ally and to ease the pressure on Indochina but this might be impossible for political reasons.

[Strategos' Risk]

Impertinent question: Will Newfoundland be made into a Dominion again? Please, please, pretty please?

[Dunois]

Originally Posted by Strategos' Risk

Impertinent question: Will Newfoundland be made into a Dominion again? Please, please, pretty please?

I have other plans for Newfoundland post-war. Have a guess on what I mean by that .

[stevep]

Dunois

Some thoughts on the Brunel plan. A bit late but I've been on hols.

a) I thought the 4'8" [or decimal equivalent] was the world-wide standard for railways. Presume that the union and co-operation will probably mean Britain and empire goes decimal earlier than OTL.

b) Good choice for the name of the plan. The famous Anglo-French great engineer.

c) I'm not sure, if a channel tunnel was completed that early and with the stronger air links as well that there would be the economic basis for a road bridge to be built later. Not to mention by that time concerns about pollution might be raising its head, especially if there was greater motor transport in a integrated and more developed economy.

A very good set of ideas. If we can get such a union to work the programme proposed would be a good way to build a lot of its foundations.

One question with Operation Guillotine. Did it take place on the planned OTL date? That was Trafalgar Day, which was a good idea for a Britain standing alone and seeking to reassert its naval strength but possibly not so suitable for an Anglo-French operation.

Stevep

[stevep]

Some Bloke

My thoughts on some of those questions.

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

A few questions

IOTL Britain sent a great deal of military aid to the USSR.

ITTL it is likely that the French will get the lions share of this aid in order to reequip their forces (thereby delaying the need for LL by about a year let's say).

I think this will be likely so probably less items for the SU. Apart from anything else the greater number of French forces available will provide much needed strength for the union but will need equipping. Also, the French will want their forces kept as up to strength as possible and the British will support this to keep their allies eager. There could be problems that this is basically going to be equipping the union forces with British equipment but with the loss of virtually all French production capacity there's no real alternative, other than possibly more from the US.

The remainder could go to other British units such as those in the Far East, This will take time to build and shift all of this equipment so what happens in the time before OTL's Japanese attacks?

The problem might be, unless Churchill's eagerness to support Stalin is reined in, that the Far East gets even less as what is available goes to Russia. However, with the quick ending of the N African conflict, which was the biggest single drain on empire produced army weapons, there might be more to go around. Also, with a stronger allied position with the French empire fully involved and the coalition politics involved possibly Stalin will get a lower priority.

With France and Britain united but vulnerable in the Far East does the Franco-Thai war still go ahead? If so does it escalate to the point that Japan declares war against the allies earlier?

Good question. It might be that strengthened by the links with Britain France won't be pressurised by Thailand, even if Japan is trying to egg it on. If it does then it might be a possibility that Japan tries to use it as an excuse for a drive south earlier. Although that means that they have to move earlier, before their 5th & 6th carriers are worked up, against a more powerful allied defence.

If on the other hand, a moderate build up and diplomatic pressure from Britain persuads the Thai government to back down, how does a neutral Thailand affect Japanese campaigns in the region?

I can't see Thailand staying neutral. It would probably want to as I think it was only a reluctant Japanese ally OTL. However, since the Japanese can't seriously affect Malaya without Thai bases, or reach Burma, if they don't side with the allies they will almost certainly be attacked by the Japanese.

Does the Italian invasion of Greece still go ahead?
Points against:
Italy has lost 2 armies with all of their equipment and the colonial empire, morale is at rock bottom, is it really worth the risk of another defeat?

Points for:
Salvage lost pride from loss of African Empire.
Italy has a modern military and Greece doesn't, What could possibly go wrong?
(We all know what happened IOTL )

It could go either way. Mussolini will want to do something to boost his prestige but his position is a lot weaker than OTL so it could be a case that either he doesn't feel strong enough or if he does suggest it there is internal opposition.

Will there be some kind of shakeup of the Italian Military and Industry?

It would be logical but may be limited to some scrap-goating. Especially given the nation of the system - a one-party autocratic state. Could however see some steps at lower levels with people taking the initiative for reforms themselves.

If there is an invasion of Greece will Crete hold? IMHO this seems likely since the allies have more men and equipment and fewer priorites in the Med. This means that 2, perhaps even 3 of the 4 contributing factors to the fall of crete can be averted, namely:
1: Lack of Motor Transport, leaving the defenders unable to respond rapidly to new deployments of German forces, especially the capture of the airfield at Maleme. This needn't be a drain on Union industry, it would make good logistical sense to use Italian vehicles captured in Africa for the purpose.
2: Lack of air cover. With the war over in North Africa, at least some of the OTL 1941 assets can be shifted to Crete (mainly Gladiators and a few Hurricanes IRRC).

and the possible 3rd.

Lack of communications equipment.
Given the fact that ITTL there is no, or at least much less of an invasion scare, it is likely that more though will be given to what went wrong in France, this and French input means that it is more likely that a greater supply of field radios is a priority.

However, very little can be done about point 4
Poor leadership, Freyburg may have been a 2 star badass
but there's more to high command than courage, and his obssession with a seaborne invasion paralysed British responses to the attack on Malame.

The question regarding crete therefore becomes (assuming that Greece is invaded, and successfully at that)
Are the airborne landings even attempted?

Given how tight it will OTL, unless the allies support Greece more strongly and suffer heavier losses, I can't see an attack on Crete succeeding. Think its fairly likely it wouldn't be attempted.

Steve

[stevep]

Dunois

I think in terms of merging forces the biggest problem would be the RN. It has such a long history and high level of prestige and is now the front line force in keeping the union surviving. On the other hand a merge, adding the resources of France to Britain could mean that the union navy, whatever it ends up being called, stays a viable rival to the US and any Russian/Soviet state.

Frédéric Joliot Curie - I was thinking he was another member of the Joliot Curie family who I believe was anti-nuclear, or at least its use for weapons. However, having check on Wiki he did work on nuclear weapons but being an ardent communist passed any information on to the Soviets so he could be a problem.

I like the idea of merging technology programmes like this and mixing staff as it could provide some good cross-fertilisation. Also like the project name for the union's bomb project.

With clearing out Italian East Africa I can't find any maps in a couple of source books I checked - thought I had at least one somewhere! However think the forces that waged this campaign historically came mainly from the north through Eritrea and south through Kenya and Somalia rather than from the west through the Sudan. The terrain and logistics are pretty bad that way. [Although possibly what you mean is that the forces are to advance along the coast from Sudan to Eritrea and I'm mis-understanding?]

I could see Winston arguing for something as stupid as bringing Greece into the war at this point. That would be bound to prompt a German reaction and, until their bogged down in Russia the allies aren't strong enough for that. However, can't see Greece going for it even after Metaxis dies.

In terms of the Far East, unless we can get Thailand on board, French Indo-China [FIC]can only really be used as a trip-wire, to win time for defence of more important resources [Malayan rubber and tin and Indonesian oil etc] further from the Japanese. Even if the allies desperately under-estimate the Japanese carrier arm, which they probably will, I can't see them thinking FIC is defensible without a reliable land link through Thailand, with Thai support.

This might be possible however. I remember reading in one source on the campaign that the Thais were very reluctant allies to the Japanese and if Britain could have offered any military support they could easily have sided with us. As it was several local Thai units put up stiff opposition to the Japanese landings along the Kra penuinsula until ordered to surrender by their superiors. With the union in a much stronger position, especially with N Africa secured, freeing up ground and air forces, plus Thailand being totally surrounded by the allies it should be possible to win them over and make use of their railway lines to support FIC. Alternatively, if they try and stay neutral the Japanese will almost certainly decide to attack them. Then we offer full support.

I would think that a pre-emptive invasion would be a bad idea. It would alienate both the Thais and neutral opinion, most especially the US. Also its another [potentially big] diversion of resources. Not to mention it gives the Japanese a cast-iron excuse to attack the union, quite possibly without the US getting dragged in.

The importance of FIC to the Japanese is two-fold. The north is useful to block a line of supply to the Nationalist Chinese forces. The south is pretty much essential to [along with Thailand, which it is a stepping stone to] for any serious attacks to the vital southern colonies. Without it the Japanese could cause problems by long range air raids and occasional incursions by the carrier arm, but not seriously support an invasion of the region. For both those reasons I can't see the union agreeing to the occupation of the northern FIC which OTL occurred after the fall of France and made possible the later occupation of the south.

Steve

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by stevep

Dunois

I think in terms of merging forces the biggest problem would be the RN. It has such a long history and high level of prestige and is now the front line force in keeping the union surviving. On the other hand a merge, adding the resources of France to Britain could mean that the union navy, whatever it ends up being called, stays a viable rival to the US and any Russian/Soviet state.

The French would know that, I suspect. I would bet that during the war, and probably after it, the ships of the Anglo-French would remain known as the Royal Navy, and keep the HMS Prefix. Other traditions would probably have to change, but would those be all that many? After all, as you point out, the RN has a very long and illustrious history, which will almost certainly be added to ITTL, and the additional units wouldn't make the RN unhappy.

[Some Bloke]

So I take it Barbarossa goes ahead on OTL's date rather than being postponed until 1942?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

So I take it Barbarossa goes ahead on OTL's date rather than being postponed until 1942?

Some Bloke

We will have to see as it's Dunios's TL after all. However given Hitler's obsession with Russia/SU and the question of time - both his own concern about his health/age and awareness that Stalin will be arming like made, its probably likely. Germany is in a weaker position, having taken heavier losses both in France and over Britain.

However it still controls virtually all the continent while with the Italians losing Libya there's no danger of being distracted by operations there. Also possibly no Balkan distraction if Mussolini doesn't attack Greece or Hitler decides to leave him hanging if he does. [Might still get dragged into fighting in Sardinia or the Aegean but possibly less likely].

That would free up significant German forces, both in the front line and possibly more importantly logistical support. Might not do more than replace the TTL additional losses from 1940 depending on how heavy they were and how much effort the Germans put into production. OTL I think they took their foot off the gas a bit and also switched to naval production.

Basically I think the Germans need to decide now whether they go for a maritime strategy to defeat the union, with a strong defensive position in Poland and with some diplomacy probably Rumania. Or ignore the union and pump up the army and air force for a quick [~2 years max] smash and grab against the SU. Personally I would probably go for the 1st approach in this position but then I'm not Hitler.

Steve

[zeppelin247]

This timeline is just simply amazing I love it, one of the best going. I can't wait till the next update hope it is coming soon. I really hope that the union can do things to help preserve the prestiege of the empires.

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by stevep

a) I thought the 4'8" [or decimal equivalent] was the world-wide standard for railways. Presume that the union and co-operation will probably mean Britain and empire goes decimal earlier than OTL.

The 1435 mm standard gauge, you mean? No, it's very common (because the US and Britain both adopted it as standard, at least in Britain itself for the latter), but far from being universal. Iberia and Russia both use (different) broad gauges, Australia uses a mess of narrow and standard gauges, and India is just terrible--they've got broad, standard, and narrow gauge track in common use--to name a few major offenders. Japan has mostly narrow gauge (cheaper in the mountains), but uses standard for the high-speed lines (it provides a better permanent way--more stable and all that). It still makes ~60% of global rail trackage, though.

[stevep]

truth is life

Thanks for clarifying. Just so used to hearing it referred to as standard gauge. If, despite the differing gauges in parts of the empire it still makes up about 60% of the world total there might be an argument for changing France to the British standard? Especially since French railways might need a hell of a lot of reconstruction if the war goes anything like OTL with the liberation.

Made me think of another point. Given the union there might be greater political problems with large scale bombing occurring in France. Most noticeably anything around the U boat pens but later on, if/when allied powers are building up for a liberation. Probably still likely to happen in most cases because perceived military need will take presidence but could cause some tension.

Steve

Originally Posted by truth is life

The 1435 mm standard gauge, you mean? No, it's very common (because the US and Britain both adopted it as standard, at least in Britain itself for the latter), but far from being universal. Iberia and Russia both use (different) broad gauges, Australia uses a mess of narrow and standard gauges, and India is just terrible--they've got broad, standard, and narrow gauge track in common use--to name a few major offenders. Japan has mostly narrow gauge (cheaper in the mountains), but uses standard for the high-speed lines (it provides a better permanent way--more stable and all that). It still makes ~60% of global rail trackage, though.

[Dunois]

Originally Posted by stevep

Dunois

Some thoughts on the Brunel plan. A bit late but I've been on hols.

a) I thought the 4'8" [or decimal equivalent] was the world-wide standard for railways. Presume that the union and co-operation will probably mean Britain and empire goes decimal earlier than OTL.

b) Good choice for the name of the plan. The famous Anglo-French great engineer.

c) I'm not sure, if a channel tunnel was completed that early and with the stronger air links as well that there would be the economic basis for a road bridge to be built later. Not to mention by that time concerns about pollution might be raising its head, especially if there was greater motor transport in a integrated and more developed economy.

A very good set of ideas. If we can get such a union to work the programme proposed would be a good way to build a lot of its foundations.

One question with Operation Guillotine. Did it take place on the planned OTL date? That was Trafalgar Day, which was a good idea for a Britain standing alone and seeking to reassert its naval strength but possibly not so suitable for an Anglo-French operation.

Stevep

a) I will cover the weights and measures thing but only once the war is over. Decimalisation will take place earlier than OTL and so will Metrication but significant aspects of the old Imperial system will survive up to the present day. For example the average TTL 2010 Frenchman will know what a pint is. The 4”8 or 1435 remains the worldwide standard in railway, it is only the loading gauge (how big the wagons can be) which change see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

OTL Britain loading gauge is smaller than the European standard but Network rail is trying hard at great cost to change this (the only line built with the Channel Tunnel in mind using European or Berne gauge was closed in the 1960s ). TTL such works will be done de concert with electrification which makes sense as quite often the trackbed has to be lowered in tunnel to allow electric trains to go trough (the electric wire would touch the ceilling otherwise).

b) Indeed!

c) Essentially the entire motorway network saves for stuff like OTL M25 close to large cities for example will be in private hands and tolled like OTL French network. It therefore makes sense for operators to “close the gap” at some point especially as a lot of lorries will as OTL use shuttle trains to go across. OTL despite the Channel Tunnel a lot of cars and truck are still using ferries to go across from Calais to Dover as well. TTL the Eurostar happens a lot earlier and goes BEYOND Paris and London, moreover in order to compete with the airlines British Rail and the SNCF will have a high frequency walk on service between Paris and London which would be at least half hourly the as Eurostar pretty much is already OTL. Train paths in the tunnel will therefore become scarce with time and removing car and lorry shuttles make sense in order to have more freight and high speed passenger services across.

Pollution will become a concern as per OTL especially as in some cases developpements associated with Plan Brunel will be hugely controversial. I would nevertheless like TTL 2010 world to have a more moderate position than OTL, so a caring for the environment and for conserving nature but not on the same scale as what strikes me as excessing scaremongering at times OTL.

Operation Guillotine had been covered in chapter 6 and takes place on the 25th of August. There is no symbolism with the date.

The Asian theatre is something where I am still undecided, I could go down the FFO route and use some of their stuff but it seems cheesy to have Pearl Harbour on the same date for example. Thailand is virtually encircled and while French Indochina is not exactly well defended I really don‘t see the Thaïs attempting a full scale war here.

Originally Posted by stevep

Dunois

I think in terms of merging forces the biggest problem would be the RN. It has such a long history and high level of prestige and is now the front line force in keeping the union surviving. On the other hand a merge, adding the resources of France to Britain could mean that the union navy, whatever it ends up being called, stays a viable rival to the US and any Russian/Soviet state.

Forces merger will be covered in more detail post war as remember things will stay ad hoc for a long time during the war for practical reasons. Both the French and the British navies have traditions which must be preserved but some tough decisions will have to be made post war.
During TTL Cold War the Franco-British navy will be number three and will get nuclear powered submarines and carriers (albeit a lot less than the US Navy).
I also toying the idea of having the four most recent Union battleships preserved and modernised during the Cold War like OTL Iowas.

Frédéric Joliot Curie - I was thinking he was another member of the Joliot Curie family who I believe was anti-nuclear, or at least its use for weapons. However, having check on Wiki he did work on nuclear weapons but being an ardent communist passed any information on to the Soviets so he could be a problem.

This will be a problem later on indeed.
I plan to extensively cover nuclear technology post war and I would like nuclear power generation to follow a different path from OTL in the Union, Thorium reactors as a possibility among other things.

I like the idea of merging technology programmes like this and mixing staff as it could provide some good cross-fertilisation. Also like the project name for the union's bomb project.

FFO uses Project Concorde, there will be a project Concorde later but not until after the war (any guesses by PM please).

With clearing out Italian East Africa I can't find any maps in a couple of source books I checked - thought I had at least one somewhere! However think the forces that waged this campaign historically came mainly from the north through Eritrea and south through Kenya and Somalia rather than from the west through the Sudan. The terrain and logistics are pretty bad that way. [Although possibly what you mean is that the forces are to advance along the coast from Sudan to Eritrea and I'm mis-understanding?]

I could see Winston arguing for something as stupid as bringing Greece into the war at this point. That would be bound to prompt a German reaction and, until their bogged down in Russia the allies aren't strong enough for that. However, can't see Greece going for it even after Metaxas dies.

Italian East Africa is toasted, things will go as OTL only faster and earlier.

Greece is a MASSIVE wildcard here. To me it seems unlikely that Mussolini would attack Greece after losing Sardinia, Libya and the Dodecanese, he will rather aim to retake what he lost somehow. Of course Greece can be bribed to join the allies for the Dodecanese Islands, but this is likely to be controversial.

In terms of the Far East, unless we can get Thailand on board, French Indo-China [FIC]can only really be used as a trip-wire, to win time for defence of more important resources [Malayan rubber and tin and Indonesian oil etc] further from the Japanese. Even if the allies desperately under-estimate the Japanese carrier arm, which they probably will, I can't see them thinking FIC is defensible without a reliable land link through Thailand, with Thai support.

This might be possible however. I remember reading in one source on the campaign that the Thais were very reluctant allies to the Japanese and if Britain could have offered any military support they could easily have sided with us. As it was several local Thai units put up stiff opposition to the Japanese landings along the Kra penuinsula until ordered to surrender by their superiors. With the union in a much stronger position, especially with N Africa secured, freeing up ground and air forces, plus Thailand being totally surrounded by the allies it should be possible to win them over and make use of their railway lines to support FIC. Alternatively, if they try and stay neutral the Japanese will almost certainly decide to attack them. Then we offer full support.

Another card whom the Union can play is to return FIC territories taken by France from Thaïland in 1905.

Regarding Barbarossa I intend to have Barbarossa proceeding as OTL for the following reasons:
-Time is playing against Germany and they know it
-The forces sent in Africa OTL can be used against the Soviet Union TTL
-It was Hitler primary objective to take down the USSR
-Attempting a maritime strategy would require significant retooling industry wise

On the other hand the entirety of France has to be occupied and this draws more troops for occupation duties. Hitler also has to help Mussolini since he lost so much so there will be a distraction of some kind in the Mediterranean.

A good compromise seems to me that Barbarossa takes place on the same date as OTL but with slightly less forces. Reinforcements can subsequently be provided in August/September once the divisions used for operations in Greece and Yugoslavia have recovered.


Many thanks for all the kind comments and suggestions they are very much appreciated . Previously I have mainly been writing science based reports and political articles so writing alternative history is new for me. Chapter 9 will cover the operations against Sardinia and the Dodecanese and I have already decided that Chapter 10 will cover occupied France and the collaborationist Laval regime.
I prefer not to give a timetable since I am busy with finding a job and the like at the moment.

But in the meantime feel free to comment .