Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old February 5th, 2012, 03:55 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedalton View Post
If UK and France will go for an Europe route well the German question will arise, after all the war is still fresh and big decision on the future of Germany (economically, politically and military) must be done. In OTL the EEC and the Franco-German axis was the basis for the reintegration of West Germany in the european concert, here a different route must be found, probably the European Defense Community idea will be see the light as was intendend as a mean to safely rearm the Germans.
This can bring Bonn to be more 'independent' from Washington, honestly the British jab about West Germany be an 'american puppet' is a little ipocrital as till that moment everybody was really happy with that and even worked for this objective (but politician are very famous for their short term memory).
Italy can be really bring on the idea of a more independent Europe, as the italian left leaderships while presenting a monolithic front in public and praise the ungarian intervention, in reality is thorn by a internal debate that in OTL Togliatti succesfully contained and won, so mantaining the PCI leaderships of the left and continue to be the mounthpiece of Moscow in Italy, the forming of an more independent position (from USA and URSS) can be really appealing for the moderate

About Italy, I really do not know situation there 50s, so I would left things as they were OTL. At least for now.

About Germany, I agree, some sort of "modus vivendi" will have to be found here. France OTL intended trough Euroatom get nuclear weapons together with FRG. Here it won't be the case and Euroatom will be purely civilian agency. Maybe even headquartered in UK, because UK had the most advanced nuclear industry and power plants in Europe at the time. But NATO will not dissapear ITTL. It will continue to exist. But it will be less American-centric... About rearming of FRG, IMO it will go as OTL, because USA will support it because of need to enlarge NATO forces.

But I'm not quite sure what will be with US bases in France and UK?
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old February 5th, 2012, 06:30 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Convincing

After return from France, Prime Minister Eden decided to call for Cabinet meeting to inform them about talks in Hotel Matignon. After his ministers have assembled he opened the meeting.

PM: Good morning gentlemen. I decided to call fgor this meeting because I want to inform you about my meeting with my French counterpart and also to ask you for your approval.
After presenting of his deal with French Prime Minister, Eden said: Opinions gentlemen?

Robert Gascoyne Cecil: Well, Prime Minister, as I see it, there are two points of contention here: European Economical Community and sharing nuclear weapons with France.
About EEC, I'm not sure why Prime Minister went so far to have us accepted in? After all, our own nuclear weapon costed this country a lot of money, and now, we are giving him away for free to France.

PM: It may seem as giving for free, but Robert, we need EEC. You can see it yourself, the Empire is smaller and smaller ( hell, the whole thing has no sence after India gone ) and Commonwealth, well, you could see the unity of Commonwealth in recent vote in Security Council: only Australia and NZ supported us, South Africa was abstained, and Canadians, well, they obviously are in bed with Americans. And when one day our colonies in Africa and Asia become independent, and that will happen, sooner or later, who you think that they will support? Us or some other former colony, like Egypt?
Those are the reasons my dear Robert. Because, soon we will be left without a market. Allright, Australia and NZ might still be there, maybe some former colonies too, but Australia and NZ together have population of only 11-12 millions and current colonies are and will be too poor to be major importers of our industrial products. And we don't have tiime to wait for next 50 years that they develop enough so that they can be good customers.

On the other hand, with joining to EEC, we get large market of about 170 millions people, all from well developed countries. Do I have to remind you gentlemen, United States have population of 170 millions?

Gwilm Lloyd George: I agree Prime Minister, but those are all well developed industrialised countries. We would be opening our market to foreign competition.

PM: That's true Gwilm, but on the other hand, it is better to be a part of larger market so that our companies can compete there than to close into our own, ever shrinking borders. Competition will bring modernisation of our industry, chance to take strong positions in European market, while not loosing our positions in Commonwealth. That's the reason why I wanted that we retain the right to have separate free trade agreements with our former colonies.

Alec Douglas-Home: I agree Prime Minister, I think that this is a good deal for Britain that could have good consequences for Britain. After all, our place behing European desk will mean a lot as a mean to expand our influence. Also, our position of having free trade agreements with our former colonies, will allow us to be trademarket for colonial goods.

PM: Thank you Sir Alec for pointing another important thing.
About giving our nuclear weapons to France, it is only continuation of our old alliance with them. And indeed, it is better to be ally with France, than with United States. As things have shown recently and not only recently. Since the war Americans are doeing evreything they can to destroy power of this country, our Empire and Commonwealth ant transform us in small island in North Atlantic. We had small influence on them, while they had large influence on us. I thing that this is thing where we all agree.
So, better to be ally with France, France is weaker than Britain, and it allways will be. Especially because of our control of Middle Eastern oil. So, that will be either alliance where we will be main power, or at least, where we will be equall.

Alan Lennox-Boyd: I agree Prime Minister, but giving our nuclear weapons to France without any assurances from them regarding use of such weapons. After all, we all know that they are in bloody war in Algeria, and that they had asked Americans for nuclear strikes at Dien Bien Phu.

PM: So, what do you want me to do Alan?

Alan L-B: Well, if we allready are giving them bomb, they could at least promise that they will not use them without our approval.

PM: Intresting point Alan, what's the opinion of others?

The most members of Cabinet approved.

PM: All right gentlemen, I will put that as a condition during my next talks with Mollet.
But there's another thing that I wanted to discuss with you gentlemen, and this one really concerns me. Our Intelligence has find out about secret annex of Sevres Agreement between France and Israel. It seems that French have agreed to provide israel with nuclear powerplant, but it seems that the main motivation of Israel is production of nuclear weapons, not electrical power.
Possibility of nuclear armed Israel worries me gentlemen. Israel was most helpful ally in this war, but without nuclear weapons we could not control them. I admitt that we can't actually control them right now too, but with nuclear weapons they will do whatever they want. Also, what if other countries, like Egypt, decide to build their own bomb? And after that decide to ask for revanche against us. Or Israel.

Majority of members of Cabinet agreed that such deal is dangerous for situation on Middle east and for British interests in the region.

PM: So gentlemen, do I have your assent that I most strongly ask PM Mollet that France withdraws from that agreement?

Allmost all members of Cabinet agreed with that.

PM: Now gentlemen, after we discussed this problem from all sides, may I ask you to vote weather I can continue with negotiations in allready mentioned course, trying to get as much as possible for Britain, while final signing will depend on agreement of this Cabinet?

After voting there was 16 votes for and 2 votes against. Against were: Walter Moncton and Gwilym Lloyd George.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old February 5th, 2012, 07:13 PM
The Oncoming Storm The Oncoming Storm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fighting the system from within
Posts: 1000 or more
I can't see the Israelis being happy at the loss of the Dimona reactor, they will be looking for something in return.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old February 5th, 2012, 07:24 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm View Post
I can't see the Israelis being happy at the loss of the Dimona reactor, they will be looking for something in return.
I agree. It will be intresting how to please them. They might even retaliate by publishing Sevres Agreement.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old February 5th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Wolf Tengu Wolf Tengu is online now
Lazy Fellow
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Solihull, UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Hurray, this is interesting!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgepatton View Post
No! Pancakes should be married to bacon, not each other!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old February 5th, 2012, 07:50 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Tengu View Post
Hurray, this is interesting!
Thanks. Stay with us...
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old February 6th, 2012, 12:16 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Descisions

By middle of December Anglo- French and Israeli forces began pulling out of Egypt and it was expected that by the end of January of 1957 it will be over. French forces will pull back to Algeria, while some British forces ( as 3rd Infantry Division ) will stay in Cyprus to join fighting against guerillas there, while some other ( like Paratroopers and Royal Marines ) will be pulled back to UK to serve as rapid reaction force.


Oil rationing in France and UK continued, but other European countries were hit too because UK and France ordered their tankers to ship oil only for UK, France and Israel. So Americans jumped in and send their ships to help other European countries. This was seen in Britain and France as another evidence of hostility of Americans. Oil rationing was prolonged because terrorists in Syria made attacks on pipeline that led oil from Iraq to ports of Lebanon. British intelligence suspected that Government of Syria is behind these attacks. Luckily, nothern route trough Turkey worked fine. Because of enlarged production in Iran, Iraq, Kuvait and bahrein British and French were able to have enough oil for their needs, but transport ( or better, much longer distance of transport ) was the main problem.

First members of UNMF were in Egypt by the end of December so it could be expected that if work on raising sunken ships began at the end of January that it could be over until middle of March. Maybe even sooner.

As a result of all of that, British Government decided at the beginning of January to made some important descisions:

1)
Much stronger investment in Nuclear energy. There was one nuclear power plant allready in operation in UK: Calder Hall ( 200 MW ). Another one, Chapelcross ( 240 MW ) was in construction. It was decided that in 1957 four another nuclear power plants will be constructed Berkley ( 276 MW ), Bradwell ( 246 MW ), Hunterston ( 300 MW ) and Hinkley Point ( 470 MW ). Proposals for new oil-powered power plants were cancelled. The descision was that in future electricity in UK will be made from coal ( UK had a lot of coal ) and from nuclear power stations ( because Australia had a lot of uranium ). It was also decided that in next years work on new nuclear power-plants will be sped up, so that evrey year work on another nuclear power plant is started so that by 1970 UK has 19 nuclear power plants in operation or in construction.

2)
Government decided that all UK oil companies will be encouraged to seek for oil in UK and sorrounding waters so that half of all money used for that will be tax-deductable. Germans and Dutch have allready found some quantities of gas in their part of North Sea, so it could be expected that something could be find in British part too.

3)
Government also decided to fund construction of super-tankers for british shippers, so they decided that Government will subsidy first tanker larger than 100 000 DWT by 50%, second be 40%, third by 30%, fourth by 20% and finally fifth by 10%. Condition is that all tankers are constructed in Britain and later that they sail under British flag. BP Tanker Company immediatley accepted the offfer and ordered 5 super-tankers of 104 000 DWT in British shipbuilders. Royal Dutch Shell done the same thing.

4)
It was decided that Iraqi Oil Company ( where CFP, Shell and BP had 70% of shares ) will construct Iraqi Southern Pipeline that will link oil fields in Kirkuk with Basra, together with large oil terminal in Basra. British Government will support construction by allowing tax-deduction for all expenses connected with construction, provided that pipes and machines were supplied by British industry and that British construction companies do at least 2/3 of work.

In the meantime, American president Eiisenhower asked and get permission from Congress to use Armed Forces of USA to protect any Middle Eastern country from agression if she asks for help if said country is important for national security of United States.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".

Last edited by abc123; February 6th, 2012 at 12:18 PM.. Reason: .
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old February 6th, 2012, 12:48 PM
The Oncoming Storm The Oncoming Storm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fighting the system from within
Posts: 1000 or more
One nitpick, in order to build supertankers in Britain youre going to need reform the shipbuilding industry. Many British shipyards were unsuitable for that type of ship because they were in crowded cities and on rivers that couldnt physically handle ships of that size, so places like Glasgow and Tyne and Wear are out. You are also going to need the industry to change to dry dock construction rather than slipways which will mean retraining the workers and the adoption of new techniques and increased automation. The unions probably won't be happy to see the ending of some of the craft trades involved. There will probably need to be extensive dredging of channels in locations suitable, as to where these will be Harland and Wolff in Belfast is the obvious one, they built a giant drydock with the famous gantry cranes Samson and Goliath in the late 1960's as they were aiming for the tanker market but they never got the orders they expected, Clydebank, Birkenhead and Barrow may also be suitable. In order to be competitive the Government is going to need to force consolidation in the industry leading to fewer, but larger companies. Sadly government intervention in post war Britain didn't have the greatest track record, (see Leyland, British ) they will do very well to see how the French are implementing dirigisme, that's something that Britain can benefit greatly from a closer relationship with France.

Otherwise I really like the idea of making a bigger early investment in nuclear is good, coal is a bit more problematic, one of the reasons why the UK reduced the numbers of coal fired stations was in response to public concern over air pollution, particularly after The Great Smog in 1952, there will need to be tough air quality laws. Earlier North Sea Oil is also very interesting, keep it up!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old February 6th, 2012, 01:11 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm View Post
One nitpick, in order to build supertankers in Britain youre going to need reform the shipbuilding industry. Many British shipyards were unsuitable for that type of ship because they were in crowded cities and on rivers that couldnt physically handle ships of that size, so places like Glasgow and Tyne and Wear are out. You are also going to need the industry to change to dry dock construction rather than slipways which will mean retraining the workers and the adoption of new techniques and increased automation. The unions probably won't be happy to see the ending of some of the craft trades involved. There will probably need to be extensive dredging of channels in locations suitable, as to where these will be Harland and Wolff in Belfast is the obvious one, they built a giant drydock with the famous gantry cranes Samson and Goliath in the late 1960's as they were aiming for the tanker market but they never got the orders they expected, Clydebank, Birkenhead and Barrow may also be suitable. In order to be competitive the Government is going to need to force consolidation in the industry leading to fewer, but larger companies. Sadly government intervention in post war Britain didn't have the greatest track record, (see Leyland, British ) they will do very well to see how the French are implementing dirigisme, that's something that Britain can benefit greatly from a closer relationship with France.

Otherwise I really like the idea of making a bigger early investment in nuclear is good, coal is a bit more problematic, one of the reasons why the UK reduced the numbers of coal fired stations was in response to public concern over air pollution, particularly after The Great Smog in 1952, there will need to be tough air quality laws. Earlier North Sea Oil is also very interesting, keep it up!
Thanks for the useful informations.
I will try to handle that concerns soon.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old February 6th, 2012, 01:47 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Would Port Glasgow area be good for construction of supertankers?

About nuclear energy, allmost evreything here is OTL.
About coal fired power stations, well in time of lack of oil, you can't promote oil-fired power stations. Also, coal is good way to reduce dependance on oil, at least until nuclear energy has bigger share in power production and while oil in North Sea remains unknown and unexploated.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".

Last edited by abc123; February 6th, 2012 at 01:54 PM.. Reason: .
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old February 6th, 2012, 03:21 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Syria

In November 1956, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for planes, tanks, and other military equipment being sent to Syria. With this increase in the strength of Syrian military technology worried Turkey, as it seemed feasible that Syria might attempt to retake İskenderun, a matter of dispute between Syria and Turkey.Turkey possesses Hatay province (formerly known as Alexandretta) which Damascus claims for itself. Although the territory became Turkish in 1939, it remains a potentially significant issue largely because it was the result of a Franco-Turkish deal done at a time before Syrian independence. It thus represents a lingering stain of European colonialism on Syrian national aspirations and, as such, is a useful focus for a country otherwise bereft of a solid sense of national identity. On the other hand, Syria and the Soviet Union accused Turkey of massing its troops at the Syrian border. During this standoff, Communists gained more control over the Syrian government and military. Only heated debates in the United Nations (of which Syria was an original member) lessened the threat of war. Also, Egypt, that was in internal political conflicts and with shattered army was not in condition to send any assistance to Syria so the problem was defused diplomaticlly.

Britain and France gave clear support to Turkey in this conflict. Turkey was British ally in Baghdad Pact while Syria was very hostile towards their intervention in Suez.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old February 6th, 2012, 03:27 PM
Devolved Devolved is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
Would Port Glasgow area be good for construction of supertankers?

About nuclear energy, allmost evreything here is OTL.
About coal fired power stations, well in time of lack of oil, you can't promote oil-fired power stations. Also, coal is good way to reduce dependance on oil, at least until nuclear energy has bigger share in power production and while oil in North Sea remains unknown and unexploated.
Harland and Wolf in Belfast would be better. OTL Britain did invest in supertanker construction in the 1960's but were too late.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old February 6th, 2012, 03:39 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devolved View Post
Harland and Wolf in Belfast would be better. OTL Britain did invest in supertanker construction in the 1960's but were too late.

OK. Thanks. But it would be good to done something for Clyde area too.
I will try to do something about that few years earlier, so maybe some better results are possible.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old February 6th, 2012, 04:51 PM
The Oncoming Storm The Oncoming Storm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fighting the system from within
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
OK. Thanks. But it would be good to done something for Clyde area too.
I will try to do something about that few years earlier, so maybe some better results are possible.
If it's possible the most likely is John Brown's at Clydebank, they were famous for building liners such as the QE2 and would have built CVA-01. the yard is probably going to need a lot of work, the yards used to build supertankers are huge, have a look at some of the yards in China and South Korea on Google Earth that will give you a good idea of the sort of scale you need. Certainly some of the other yards could build blocks for the ships that could be taken to Clydebank or Belfast for assembly.

If it's in a dense, urban area then realistically the only way to expand the yard is going to be with the Government using it's compulsory purchase powers to buy the land necessary, this will involve rehousing lots of people and won't be popular locally. The alternative is to build an all new purpose built yard somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old February 6th, 2012, 06:26 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm View Post
If it's possible the most likely is John Brown's at Clydebank, they were famous for building liners such as the QE2 and would have built CVA-01. the yard is probably going to need a lot of work, the yards used to build supertankers are huge, have a look at some of the yards in China and South Korea on Google Earth that will give you a good idea of the sort of scale you need. Certainly some of the other yards could build blocks for the ships that could be taken to Clydebank or Belfast for assembly.

If it's in a dense, urban area then realistically the only way to expand the yard is going to be with the Government using it's compulsory purchase powers to buy the land necessary, this will involve rehousing lots of people and won't be popular locally. The alternative is to build an all new purpose built yard somewhere.

So, John Brown could began with construction of supertankers allmost emmediatly? or big investments are necessary?
And Harland and Wolff with some investments, large cranes and so?

About other shipyards, Govan in Port Glasgow and Cammel Laird and Vickers in Barrow could also work with some investments? It seems that there could be found enough space?
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old February 6th, 2012, 08:42 PM
The Oncoming Storm The Oncoming Storm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fighting the system from within
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
So, John Brown could began with construction of supertankers allmost emmediatly? or big investments are necessary?
And Harland and Wolff with some investments, large cranes and so?

About other shipyards, Govan in Port Glasgow and Cammel Laird and Vickers in Barrow could also work with some investments? It seems that there could be found enough space?
I don't know enough about Brown's to comment but Harland's built their big drydock in the 1960's, before that they'd used slipways. According to Wikipedia they did build a tanker of 330,000 tonnes and I guess they could build something bigger. I imagine the investment required is substantial Harland's only built their's with government subsidy and that would be needed for any other yard that was being modernised.

The yards not suitable for supertankers will still have plenty of work building smaller vessels, however theres going to be consolidation and closure of the smaller uneconomic yards. In many places there were competing yards next door to each other so amalgamating them together can free up needed space. Eventually the economics of shipbuilding will mean that most construction goes to East Asia but if Britain implements the right policies it can still have a significant commercial shipbuilding industry today.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old February 6th, 2012, 08:58 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Sucessor

10 Downing Street

Prime Minister Anthony Eden was sitting in his office with his Lord Privy Seal and Leader of House of Commons Rab Butler. The two Tory Grandees were drinking port and smoking.

PM: You know that I returned few day's ago from France. I spoke there with Mollet and I have tell him our conditions for our joining to the EEC. He thinks that there won't be bigger problems about our demand for free trade agreement with Australia and NZ, but if we try to get free trade agreements with other our former colonies, that could be tricky. But that EEC could instead offer them, as a whole, some trade benefits.
What do you think about that solution?

Butler: Hmm, not quite what we asked, but I presume that it is the best deal we can get. And did You tell him about our limitations about the use of nuclear weapons?

PM: Yes, I did. He wasn't happy because of that, but he did accept that our concerns are reasonable. he said that he will speak about that with his Cabinet and give to me answer soon, but that he thinks that they will accept that. We drafted some sort of note that Franch Government will send to our Government before we give them the bombs. Something like that they will use the bomb only against Soviet Union unilaterally, and even there after consultation with us. And that they will not use bomb against other countries without our previous approval.

Butler: It seems good. I'm pretty surprised that he was so reasonable.
And what about selling nuclear plants to Israelis?

PM: That was the tricky part, as we expected. He was angry because he thought that was exclusive right of France to determin what they will do with their technology. I said to him that we are allies and that it isn't very fair to give such promises without knowledge of ther ally. I also warned him about possible future dangers of giving such technology to Israel. He accepted that, but he didn't see the way of how such deal can now be abrogated.
I pressed him further, reminding him on our assistance about the bomb and on our oil, so he accepted that he will said to Israelis that he can't give such technology to them, but that French economy needs something in retiurn, as this was important buissness deal for them. He also said that he fears that Israelis could in retaliation decide to publish Sevres Protocol to the world.

Butler: And, what happend after that?

PM: I said to him that our Government will do as much as we can to help their industry, but that we allready have gave them much more than value of that deal just by giving them nuclear weapons for free. And about Severes Protocol, I said to him that Israelis can publish it if they want to lose Britain and France as a friends, and that publication will not be important because all in the world figured that allready.
He said that he will tell that to Israelis and to tell us their responce as soonest as possible. Yesterday French Ambassador was here, he said that Israelis want something in return, because of breech of contract. I said that we did not make the contract in the first place, but that our government is ready to help Israel at reasonable cost. I pointed to them that they can get anything from our military arsenal and that we will participate in their purchase a great deal. They showed interest for Centurion tank and Hawker Hunter. I said that I will present that to the Cabinet, what do you think?

Butler: I agree with that, but I'm not the Cabinet.

PM: I know Rab, but you are the most important member of the Cabinet. They all see you as my heir apparent. And not without reason. But I will need your support in pulling all of this trough Rab.
You know for my health problems. And sincerely, this post and this last bloody war didn't do any good for my health. So, I will now tell you a secret. I have a intention to resign from this place in about a year. Yes, you are surprised. But, that is good thing for you. I would like to leave the Cabinet in good hands. And you are just the man that could be good sucessor. But, I do need your support for my policy trough next year.

Butler: It seems that we have a deal Anthony. of course that I will support you. But do you really think that all Cabinet members will approve me as next Prime Minister?

PM: They will Rab if I say them so. Also, I will advise Her Majesty about my sucessor and I really doubt that she would not accept my advice. That would leave you a good deal of time to take control of Party and prepare for next general elections. I would also like to give you more important post in Government. Maybe Home Office or Defense?

Butler: I would prefer Home Office Anthony.

PM: Then consider that solved.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old February 6th, 2012, 09:04 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm View Post
I don't know enough about Brown's to comment but Harland's built their big drydock in the 1960's, before that they'd used slipways. According to Wikipedia they did build a tanker of 330,000 tonnes and I guess they could build something bigger. I imagine the investment required is substantial Harland's only built their's with government subsidy and that would be needed for any other yard that was being modernised.

The yards not suitable for supertankers will still have plenty of work building smaller vessels, however theres going to be consolidation and closure of the smaller uneconomic yards. In many places there were competing yards next door to each other so amalgamating them together can free up needed space. Eventually the economics of shipbuilding will mean that most construction goes to East Asia but if Britain implements the right policies it can still have a significant commercial shipbuilding industry today.

I agree.

Part of that will be covered within next few updates.
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old February 6th, 2012, 09:27 PM
Julius Vogel Julius Vogel is online now
Viva!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
If you can throw a bone to NZ at least, they would remain prety strong allies I would think. This was about the time that the NZ government started desperately hunting about for alternative markets, IOTL, as they could see that Britain was quite likely sooner or later to come to some arrangement with Europe (as it made economic sense for the former and latter).

The principal PM of the 1950s was pretty dammed loyal to Britain, as was his party and his successor. His opposite number, Nash, was also reasonably pro British (being British born, he would be!) too.

If Britain could make some arrangement with NZ, NZ would certainly have slowed (not stopped) fullscale alignment to the US
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old February 6th, 2012, 09:33 PM
abc123 abc123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Vogel View Post
If you can throw a bone to NZ at least, they would remain prety strong allies I would think. This was about the time that the NZ government started desperately hunting about for alternative markets, IOTL, as they could see that Britain was quite likely sooner or later to come to some arrangement with Europe (as it made economic sense for the former and latter).

The principal PM of the 1950s was pretty dammed loyal to Britain, as was his party and his successor. His opposite number, Nash, was also reasonably pro British (being British born, he would be!) too.

If Britain could make some arrangement with NZ, NZ would certainly have slowed (not stopped) fullscale alignment to the US
What sort of arrangement do you have in mind?
__________________
"And remember, Mr Churchill, that in the next war the Italians will be on our side".
"Well, that's only fair. We had them last time".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.