UK-French Special Relationship after 1956?

[abc123]

So, let's say that Harold Macmillan drops dead before Suez Crisis. So, when Americans threathen to make a attack on pound, he can't give advice to Eden to yield and so Britain and France doesn't retreat from Suez so soon.
Is this plausible?

And what if UK outraged by "American treachery" decides to go with France to establish close political, military, economical etc. partnership? Not union, but close partnership.

Consequences?

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by abc123

So, let's say that Harold Macmillan drops dead before Suez Crisis. So, when Americans threathen to make a attack on pound, he can't give advice to Eden to yield and so Britain and France doesn't retreat from Suez so soon.
Is this plausible?

And what if UK outraged by "American treachery" decides to go with France to establish close political, military, economical etc. partnership? Not union, but close partnership.

Consequences?

Well NATO and the general Transatlantic relationships will get a serious blow and we can get the beginning of a greater european integration ahead of schedule, this time with the UK partecipation from the start, probably the EDC will become a reality.

The effort for the creation of an independent european nuclear deterrent will be redoubled with the UK cooperate greatly with France instead of the USA.

The greatest consequence are in the decolonization process, as with the Suez operation a success there is a lot more temptation to hold colonial assetts, at least the strategic one and in middle east, with a more influential Great Britain and the arab nationalism suffer a great blow. Israel can continue to see France and UK as his major sponsor and this can bring more problems with the arabs.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Well NATO and the general Transatlantic relationships will get a serious blow and we can get the beginning of a greater european integration ahead of schedule, this time with the UK partecipation from the start, probably the EDC will become a reality.

The effort for the creation of an independent european nuclear deterrent will be redoubled with the UK cooperate greatly with France instead of the USA.

The greatest consequence are in the decolonization process, as with the Suez operation a success there is a lot more temptation to hold colonial assetts, at least the strategic one and in middle east, with a more influential Great Britain and the arab nationalism suffer a great blow. Israel can continue to see France and UK as his major sponsor and this can bring more problems with the arabs.

Well, NATO would most probably survive, after all, Europe was too important for USA to let them fall, and USA were too important for Europe to let NATO fail. But what would I expect is that relations between USA and UK would be much less good than OTL.
So, big cooperation with France in all fields ( development of nuclear weapons, ICBN, space research, maybe even UK membership in EEC )...

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by abc123

Well, NATO would most probably survive, after all, Europe was too important for USA to let them fall, and USA were too important for Europe to let NATO fail. But what would I expect is that relations between USA and UK would be much less good than OTL.
So, big cooperation with France in all fields ( development of nuclear weapons, ICBN, space research, maybe even UK membership in EEC )...

Well IMHO the general relationships between Europe and the USA will be very similar to the OTL France/USA in the sense of lot of common interest but a large number of different goal so a lot of friction and harsh word and less coordination.
Just to make a little example, in OTL when Indonesia inglobed New Guinea the USA basically told the Netherland that's were on their own because Jakarta was seen as a bulkward against communism and frankly Netherland was certainly in the position to defend Guinea alone or leave NATO; here in a more united Europe and probably still more interested in colonial affair, when Washington say to leave the indonesian conquer Guinea the response is to send a couple of Aircraft carrier plus escort to make things clear; and even if this is a clear minor diplomatic incident a certain numbers of this can really strain the relationships.
On the other hand, the USA can still be seen with favor in the middle-east as not involved too much with the colonial power and with a more cold relationships with Israel.
On the worst case scenario a more independent Europe (with is own nuclear deterrent) can began to take his distance from washington after the Cuban crisis as the fear to become embroiled in a nuclear war (as basically the only viable target) for the american shenigahns (if the Russian play well their cards) can be the stroke who brake the camel back

[abc123]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Well IMHO the general relationships between Europe and the USA will be very similar to the OTL France/USA in the sense of lot of common interest but a large number of different goal so a lot of friction and harsh word and less coordination.
On the other hand, the USA can still be seen with favor in the middle-east as not involved too much with the colonial power and with a more cold relationships with Israel.

I agree, that are the most probable consequences of that.

Alltrough I would like to see Indonesia curbstomped in their conquest of WNG and E. Timor.

[abc123]

IMO France and UK would have to make some sort of agreement where they would say that each country has to defend their colonies/fight against insurgents, so no British participation in Algiers and no French participation in SE Asia.

But I can see many other areas for cooperation.

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by abc123

IMO France and UK would have to make some sort of agreement where they would say that each country has to defend their colonies/fight against insurgents, so no British participation in Algiers and no French participation in SE Asia.

But I can see many other areas for cooperation.

Probably, at max logistical help (intelligence sharing and political support nowistanding).
A different decolonisation pace can bring a lot of change, maybe for political reason Portugal will avoid the embargo so will have more capabilities to fight the insurgent on Angola and Mozambique prolonging the war or Spain will not cede Tangeri to Morocco due to international pressure or more happily a slower paced decolonization can give at Africa more time to create infrastructure and a decent political class and so don't become like OTL (oh right i'm an optimist)

[abc123]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Probably, at max logistical help (intelligence sharing and political support nowistanding).
A different decolonisation pace can bring a lot of change, maybe for political reason Portugal will avoid the embargo so will have more capabilities to fight the insurgent on Angola and Mozambique prolonging the war or Spain will not cede Tangeri to Morocco due to international pressure or more happily a slower paced decolonization can give at Africa more time to create infrastructure and a decent political class and so don't become like OTL (oh right i'm an optimist)

I agree, logistical and intelligence support. Political support too.
But more-less I expect that decolonisation goes pretty much as OTL, maybe some smaller changes.

And yes, you are a optimist. :-)

[Riain]

The real heart of the US-UK special relationship has been the sharing of nuclear warhead design. Once the UK showed they could build H bombs the US decided that there was little point keeping secrets from the British so they handed over plans for the nukes Briain needed, modified to meet Britains lack of fissile material. This has gone on since 1958, bartering fissile material and the like with nod and wink, in a fashion that if any other countries tried it they`d get invaded.

So I think that this would be the heart of a special relationship with France, but with Britain in the lead for a while. With Britain out in the Cold with the US it would have to continue with its own H bomb research, testing and deployment. When France tested its own nuclear weapon in 1960 Britain could enter a MDP with them, sharing her own more advanced research in return from French nuclear materials and financial burden sharing. Indeed Britain could use France to pay for a lot of things in order to catch up, and I think the French might do so in order to make such a large leap forward in a short time.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Riain

The real heart of the US-UK special relationship has been the sharing of nuclear warhead design. Once the UK showed they could build H bombs the US decided that there was little point keeping secrets from the British so they handed over plans for the nukes Briain needed, modified to meet Britains lack of fissile material. This has gone on since 1958, bartering fissile material and the like with nod and wink, in a fashion that if any other countries tried it they`d get invaded.

So I think that this would be the heart of a special relationship with France, but with Britain in the lead for a while. With Britain out in the Cold with the US it would have to continue with its own H bomb research, testing and deployment. When France tested its own nuclear weapon in 1960 Britain could enter a MDP with them, sharing her own more advanced research in return from French nuclear materials and financial burden sharing. Indeed Britain could use France to pay for a lot of things in order to catch up, and I think the French might do so in order to make such a large leap forward in a short time.

True.
Also, it would be much cheaper for both countries to jointly fund some projects than to having to pay complete cost alone.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Not only was there potential for joint warhead development but also for the delivery systems. Britain could have bought French IRBM's instead of Thor and the Force de Frappe could have had V-Bombers, given the longer production run it could have made upgrading the Vulcan so that it would still be in service today a viable option.

[Riain]

The Thor was deployed in Britain 1959-63, the French S3 missile was not deployed until 1971. I would suggest the Blue Streak, with French help it might be ready in the early 60s. Most certainly British SSBNs will be much later in coming, which will skew British force development, however the OP says a successful Suez so Britain is still a key player in the Mid East presumably with attendant large weapns exports and other close commercial contacts. Thus Britain should be able to afford more and better home grown stuff.

[abc123]

The main problem for UK and France, in order to have more sucessful Suez is threat of Saudi Arabia and some other countries to stop selling oil to UK.
And USA didn't wanted to jump in, to make up the difference.
So, there were some plans of UK to occupy Kuvait and Qatar to get oil from there, but I'm not sure is that actually nescesarry, after all, all these Gulf monarchies were British proteectorates, so they wouldn't refuse to sell oil to Britain.
But, could British get enough oil from Iran and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ( today BP )? And did Kuvait and Qatar have began to extract oil in 1956 at all?

Could that lead to earlier discovery of North Sea oil? ( beginning of 60s )

For "more sucessful Suez" I think some sort of settlement where Suez Canal Area ( say 5 miles from each side of Canal ) is established, demilitarised ( so no Egyptian military there ), with international observers, and passage of British and French ships/aircrafts is free and without charge.
IMO it's the best deal that France and Britain can get at the moment.

OK, I checked datas, and Kuwait and Qatar were in the oil buesniss in 50s, so UK and France could get oil from there, and from Iran too. And I doubt that either of that countries would refuse to sell oil to UK in 1956.
About North Sea oil, it seems that exploration was pretty not-profitably until oil shocks in 1971, but other than that, technology was pretty much there, so only a descision of government and rise of prices of oil were nescesarry to begin drilling in 50s.

[Dunois]

A special relationship between France and Britain in the case of a successful Suez offensive is almost a given in my opinion. The ramifications and butterflies down the line are however huge and include the following:
-No Franco-German "axis": Germany will in turn be far more isolated for some time and could turn towards the United States, a close relationship between West Germany and the United States could therefore arise at some point. This also has the effect of "orienting" the French economy towards other markets and other goals than was the case OTL and this might lead to stiff comeptition between French and German firms. An obvious butterfly is no Airbus, since the aerospace industry of France and Britain will eventually merge into one or two binational giants. It would the be very easy for said binational giants to destroy what remains of the German aerospace industry.
-No "politique Arabe" in France: It is highly likely that Israel will get its hardware from France/Britain TTL and consequently we won't see close relationships between western Europe and the Arab world. Depending on what other players are doing (US, Soviet Union), this has the potential of inflaming the tensions in the region further.
-No duplication of efforts in aerospace: A much stronger industry will emerge as a result of this. Space wise, manned capsule flights are a possibility for the seventies.
-Butterflies in nuclear: Gas cooled reactors becoming a standard in France/Britain, competing with American water cooled reactors?
-Closer links between Britain and her Commonwealth partners, since said partners would be welcomed in the alternative EEC.

The war in Algeria could end up differently, but I think that independence was inevitable.

[Wolfpaw]

Why would we not see a European community evolve upon the Paris-Bonn axis as it did IOTL? A successful Suez means that the anti-EC mindset that dominated British politics is only strengthened. Labour was still fiercely opposed in the '50s, and the Tory leadership favored cooperation--rather than integration--with Europe. I could see the UK joining an EFTA-like organization, but France is still going to want to be the big dog of the EC.

The Middle East is butterflied to tatters with a Britain that isn't going anywhere. France may follow a roughly similar path to OTL since Suez isn't going to significantly change the realities of an imploding Algeria.

The Saudis keeping their oil away from the Anglo-French is small potatoes when we remember that the Gulf is basically a British lake at this point; AIO calls the shots in Tehran, the coastal sheikhs are cozy satellites, and there's a friendly regime in Baghdad.

Israel is going to be kept on a tight leash since it will soon find itself surrounded by British allies. Dusting it up with anybody other than Syria steps on some serious Western toes.

Arab nationalism gets a nasty smack thanks to Suez and newly-wrought political vacuum will more likely than not be filled by Islamism while Arab nationalism reels further leftwards.

[abc123]

It is pretty weird to me that political and military cooperation between UK and France wouldn't be augmented by economical cooperation?
After all, France alone has the market as big as allmost all white-Commonwealth combined...
So, some sort of Free Trade Agreement between UK and France?

[abc123]

About the aerospace industry in UK and France, IMO Airbus would form again, but this time only British and French as members. Considering that British aerospace industry was in proces of consolidation into BAC and Hawker Siddeley and French will soon follow with Aerospatiale and Dassault, it wouldn't be too hard to combine them in 2 bi-national companies.
And 2 such companies could have dominant position in Europe.

On the other hand, it is possible that other remaining European aerospace companies ( like MBB, CASA, Aeromacchi, Alenia, Fokker ) merge/cooperate so that they create third big company.

[Russell]

Originally Posted by abc123

About the aerospace industry in UK and France, IMO Airbus would form again, but this time only British and French as members. Considering that British aerospace industry was in proces of consolidation into BAC and Hawker Siddeley and French will soon follow with Aerospatiale and Dassault, it wouldn't be too hard to combine them in 2 bi-national companies.
And 2 such companies could have dominant position in Europe.

On the other hand, it is possible that other remaining European aerospace companies ( like MBB, CASA, Aeromacchi, Alenia, Fokker ) merge/cooperate so that they create third big company.

You would never get Dassault to merge with anyone where they were not the senior partner (not junior, not equal). Marcel Dassault, right up until his last days (1986) fought like a lion to keep his company afloat. During his lifetime he managed to kill the AFVG and the NATO common VTOL aircraft (because the Harrier technically won over the Mirage variant). He only accepted the Jaguar because he inherited it from Breguet.

At best, I could maybe see BAC/BAe merge with with Aerospatiale to form Airbus (with final assembly at Filton or Warton) but Hawker Siddeley could do very well as an independent company - until the 70's it was involved in a lot more than just aviation - train locomotives + rollingstock, electronics, ect. Clumsy mergers, like those of BAC and Hawker Siddeley (under the wonderful Mr Benn) are often totally disasterous, being political in nature and not economic.

Russell

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Russell

You would never get Dassault to merge with anyone where they were not the senior partner (not junior, not equal). Marcel Dassault, right up until his last days (1986) fought like a lion to keep his company afloat. During his lifetime he managed to kill the AFVG and the NATO common VTOL aircraft (because the Harrier technically won over the Mirage variant). He only accepted the Jaguar because he inherited it from Breguet.

At best, I could maybe see BAC/BAe merge with with Aerospatiale to form Airbus (with final assembly at Filton or Warton) but Hawker Siddeley could do very well as an independent company - until the 70's it was involved in a lot more than just aviation - train locomotives + rollingstock, electronics, ect. Clumsy mergers, like those of BAC and Hawker Siddeley (under the wonderful Mr Benn) are often totally disasterous, being political in nature and not economic.

Russell

Indeed, I have totally forgotten on Mr. Dassault. He's like French Sir Frederick Handley Page.

Well, it will have to be done without Dassault. Maybe we would see merger of Handley Page and Dassault as a attempt to resist merger pressures.

So, Hawker Siddeley and Aerospatiale unite their civillian program into Airbus. Good enough.
Also, Transall could be formed again, but this time between British and French companies. So C-160 could be bought and produced by Britain too.
And BAC would have to seek their fortune elswhere, alone if nescesarry.

But I agree, Hawker Siddeley could go alone, for BAC I'm not so sure, it would been better if BAC was merged...

So France would have one independent company, and UK one too. What about Shorts? Could they merge with BAC?

Also, I wonder what aircraft will use new French carriers ITTL? Crusader or? And british carriers after 1970 too?

[Russell]

Originally Posted by abc123

So, Hawker Siddeley and Aerospatiale unite their civillian program into Airbus. Good enough.
Also, Transall could be formed again, but this time between British and French companies. So C-160 could be bought and produced by Britain too.
And BAC would have to seek their fortune elswhere, alone if nescesarry.

But I agree, Hawker Siddeley could go alone, for BAC I'm not so sure, it would been better if BAC was merged...

I was saying the BAC and Aerospatiale should merge. HS remains independent or co-operates but as a separate partner. Perhaps Dassault could do the same.

So France would have one independent company, and UK one too. What about Shorts? Could they merge with BAC?

Shorts makes a lot of gear. I would have them keep up their co-operation with Harland and Wolff, eventually merging. They make have a serious stake in rocketry (for a British/Commonwealth/EU space program), missiles (defence), electronics, shipbuilding and renewable energy.

Also, I wonder what aircraft will use new French carriers ITTL? Crusader or? And british carriers after 1970 too?

The AFVG was planned to operate off the Clems as well as the RN's carriers too. However, it won't be about until the early 70's so the F-8's probably stay as per OTL.

Russell