Britain's Tech lead in the 1950s
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
I know that this is a bit drastic measure, but Britain should cancel paying of war debt to the USA as a retaliatory measure for that Atomic Energy Act. Never mind the consequences.
Britain finished paying it. About five years ago :s
Riain
Banned
I've read that political conditions in Britain will never allow straight HSR lines to be widely built, Britain is more or less stuck with what it has. The main issue being the equivilent population of France packed within 2/5 of the space, which doesn't leave a lot of spare room to build nice straight HSR lines. In such circumstances the APT is perfect, superb performance within existing infrastructure.
Indeed and not to mention the conservations/environmentalists. It may be less of a problem in Northern Britain though where the population is less. However, there you have the peak district and the boder hill to compete with.
I don't know how practical it is, especially considering that it was us who effectivly voluntarily gave the Americans the lot. However, a more strong willed government might use it for leverage. When J.M. Keynes went to negotiate the deal he had hoped for a gift from the Americans - free of charge or interest. He was a poor negotiator. The Americans were also somewhat unwilling to give it away to a goverment that they regarded as socialist.
There may be some room for improvement in terms of the deal.
Russell
I am planning to include a successful post war Britain which conserves and even expands on her technological lead in my TL.
While I have yet to read Corelli Barnett excellent books on the subject of post war decline. I think that there is a definite potential for British led technological giants to be formed given the right circumstances and decisions.
We have to be careful however about putting too many eggs into a single basket and hoping that things will work out for the best everywhere. The aerospace industry won't be able to support more than two large players, in Europe+Commonwealth. Without access to the US market for civilian airliners, you can only realistically support two aerospace giants, which would ideally not compete directly, say one doing short haul planes and the other medium and long haul planes. If a VC7 like airliner is successful, its fuselage should be fine to build derivatives like a 727 like plane, or even a VC10 like plane if there is a market.
If we place ourselves in a situation where the British economy becomes integrated with the CANZ nations and western Europe (France+Benelux), I think that we will probably se some kind of specialisation occuring. Britain would be the R&D lab where the really high tech stuff is designed and built, France would be the workshop where cheap steel, chemicals, carparts and such are built (the French workforce is cheaper and new ultra efficient factories can be built from scratch). The Commonwealth would provide the raw materials and niche products.
I can easily see Australia becoming the rocket manufacturing hub there for the following reasons:
-Shipping rocket parts from Europe will be expensive.
-Australia offers a better infrastructure and environment for rocket launches (proximity to the Equator)
-There is already an existing industrial base
I could easily see one of the two industrial giants in aerospace having a strong Canadian component. Perhaps in interceptors and commuter planes/small jet airliners.
The remainder of the Commonwealth except highly strategic places should be casted off in order to save money. This would chiefly be the African colonies.
While I have yet to read Corelli Barnett excellent books on the subject of post war decline. I think that there is a definite potential for British led technological giants to be formed given the right circumstances and decisions.
We have to be careful however about putting too many eggs into a single basket and hoping that things will work out for the best everywhere. The aerospace industry won't be able to support more than two large players, in Europe+Commonwealth. Without access to the US market for civilian airliners, you can only realistically support two aerospace giants, which would ideally not compete directly, say one doing short haul planes and the other medium and long haul planes. If a VC7 like airliner is successful, its fuselage should be fine to build derivatives like a 727 like plane, or even a VC10 like plane if there is a market.
If we place ourselves in a situation where the British economy becomes integrated with the CANZ nations and western Europe (France+Benelux), I think that we will probably se some kind of specialisation occuring. Britain would be the R&D lab where the really high tech stuff is designed and built, France would be the workshop where cheap steel, chemicals, carparts and such are built (the French workforce is cheaper and new ultra efficient factories can be built from scratch). The Commonwealth would provide the raw materials and niche products.
I can easily see Australia becoming the rocket manufacturing hub there for the following reasons:
-Shipping rocket parts from Europe will be expensive.
-Australia offers a better infrastructure and environment for rocket launches (proximity to the Equator)
-There is already an existing industrial base
I could easily see one of the two industrial giants in aerospace having a strong Canadian component. Perhaps in interceptors and commuter planes/small jet airliners.
The remainder of the Commonwealth except highly strategic places should be casted off in order to save money. This would chiefly be the African colonies.
I guess there's always the chuo shinkansen route- the current Japanese plan for an Osaka-Tokyo railway line that is 60% underground.....
That of course would require a freakishly rich and crazy spending Britain!
HSR has got me thinking. It would be all very well for Britain to pump more money into its technological leads (aviation, computing, medicine, rocketry, ect) but the county lacks the infrastructure to really effectivly export it cheaply (that is, physical products). In OTL Britain uses small container ports to export mostly to Antwerp and then onto the rest of the world. Britain fundmanetally lacks the large-scale shipping ports to export. In OTL, Felixstowe is Britains largest port, but mostly exports to Europe (Antwerp). Most other ports - Southampton, Hull, London, ect - lack the capacity. Only the Mersey really has the deep water and potential space expansion (especially once the old shipyards go bust and lose). Another idea could be that if HSR is introduced throughout Britain in the 80's-90's then a trunk line bypassing London and going straight through the Chunnel could be of great use and perhaps even make the tunnel finanacially viable. Any thoughts?
And going back to my last note, does anyone have any ideas as to how Britain could get a better financial deal from the Americans post wat?
Russell
And going back to my last note, does anyone have any ideas as to how Britain could get a better financial deal from the Americans post wat?
Russell
The deep water harbour issue can be solved by building a new deep water harbour from scratch in the South West. The Bristol Channel is deep enough to accommodate Panamax and later Malaccamax ships, provided that some amount of dredging is done.
The new harbour could be built from scratch where Hinkley Point power station current lies, right in the middle of the Somerset Levels. The area is agricultural and the population densities are low (they were even lower back in the sixties), the new harbour can be easily linked to the wider UK rail network through the Great Western lines and the Cross Country lines and the M5 for the road network.
Raw material intensive industries like steel making and petroleum refining could be encouraged to set up new modern plants close to the new harbour. We are essentially talking about building a new industrial "newtown" almost from scratch in Somerset here, partly replacing and complementing the declining industrial areas of the Midlands, South Wales and Yorkshire.
Sior
Banned
A better location is Milford Haven/Pembroke Dock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Dock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford_Haven
Its an idea, especially combining the refinary and container yard. I was leaning more towards the Mersey though because of:
A: A lot of the infrastructure is still in place to deal with shipping.
B: If the heavy industry can be kept in the north then its proximity to Liverpool could keep transportation costs down.
C: It would help breath new life into the Manchester Ship canal.
Russell
A: A lot of the infrastructure is still in place to deal with shipping.
B: If the heavy industry can be kept in the north then its proximity to Liverpool could keep transportation costs down.
C: It would help breath new life into the Manchester Ship canal.
Russell
Personally I think that needs WW2 to go much better for Britain and be at least a year shorter. The key PoD for that has been discussed on here many times, it means Churchill not going off on his Greek Adventure and letting General O'Connor finish dealing with the Italians in Libya meaning that there are thousands more experienced troops and modern aircraft available to defend Malaya. The Pacific War either never happens or is much shorter meaning Britain retains Malaya's rubber and tin as well as Burma's oil and other resources to fund the war effort better. No Malaya Debacle also saves Britain's credibility and gives Churchill more leverage to negotiate with the Americans and Russians. Britain won't be in quite so much debt post war and there will be more capital available to begin reconstruction and invest in industry.
I agree.
About bolded part, definitly not by having OTL policy.
Well the problem is the Britain does need the U.S. to finance it post war - the country is broke and needs the cash and has little leeway to make a deal. However, I have had a wee think and I have come up with a basic plan.
1. Tories win 1945 election (near as dam ASB but hey, what the hell). Part of the reason that the terms of the Anglo-American loan were so steep was because the newly elected Labour party was deemed to be socialist in Americas eyes and as such, untrustworth. A good old blue blooded government may be able to get either a better rate of inflation or even a lump grant.
2. Gives keynes a helping hand. Keynes was both a poor negotiator and very ill when he agreed to the Anglo-American loan. on top of that, Atlee was desperate for the money with little regard to its long term cost. If Keynes is less ill, he may be able to be a little more pushy.
3. Guilt trip. Since the U.S. government esentially bought out the British Empire during the war - gold reserves, technological patents (which they then passed onto their own companies) British financial holdings in South America, ect. Especially after the 1946 Atomic Energy Act. A bit of guilt tripping may be used to apply leverage.
That is the best I could come up with.
Russell
The problem with that is that the situation that arises is "post-war" but is in effect an entierly different "post-war" from OTL.
But I agree about perhaps shortening the war. I did a short TL where a sucessful Operation Valkyrie is sucessful and peace propsals are sent to the western allies. Naturally they are rejected until the Germans agree to a total surrender bar one condition that it be only the Western Allies that occpy Germany. Churchill, in line with Roosevelt still rejects the terms but dissention grows in the wartime government, especially under Labour where an anti-war faction under Stafford Cripps emerges. Churchill eventually agrees to the terms, as does Roosevelt but his political reputation is severely tarnished. He is replaced by Eden. Labour meanwhile factionalises internally and suffers from infighting and gorwing tensions. Come to the 1945 elections, the Liberals manage to make remarkable gains because of Labours percieved divisions and end up in a loose coalition with the Tories for the next 5 years.
A Tory-Liberal government leads to much greater balance between rebuilding, economic developmenty and the new (albeit much smaller) NHS. They also get more support from the Americans in terms of better terms for the Anglo-American loan.
Too far out of ASB?
Russell
I don't think that both objectives are necessarily exclusive, especially as the Merseyside could be the main harbour for say America whereas a new harbour in the South West/Wales would be the main harbour for Asia, Africa and other destinations. The whole point is that Britain's gateways have to be moved from the eastern coast to the western coast during the post war period.
More broadly, Britain's infrastructure must be improved to a huge extent if we want to limit shipping costs and provide a good environment for business to thrive. I would suggest that French style strategic planning would work very well in that respect, but obviously organised differently.
Russel said:
Starting form OTL "post war" you can end up with a nice cake if everything that can goe right, goes right. If you start from an alternative post war, where the war was shorter and easier. You can end up with an iced cake with a dollop of vanilla ice cream on the side as well, if everything goes right.
Something which is important to consider as well, especially if we want Britain to be more than an economic giant, is the fact that strategic alliances with key nations must be maintained. I am talking about a much smaller but far more integrated and learn Commonwealth here, with obviously the CANZUK countries, but perhaps very close allies in Europe as well. This way you effectively end up with the best of both worlds.
Something that must also go with this, is earlier decolonisation. Except that this time with a closely integrated Commonwealth, most former British countries and that would include India, would have to go their own way and find their own paths in the world. It would be short term loss for long term gain here.
Places like the Seychelles, Mauritius and such should be fully integrated into the UK if possible there. I bet that if this had been put to a vote in the colonies concerned, most of the population would have embraced the option of full integration.
It also doesn't help that a lot of the UK's heavy industry was based in the Midlands. Now that was logical as when the industrial revolution kicked off it had large and easily extractable sources of key materials such coal, limestone, iron ore etc. but for exporting it means you first have truck or transport your goods by rail to the ports. Countries like Japan where they could build specifically with exporting in mind were able to build up their sites in a triad - have a port to receive the raw materials, factories next to it to turn them into processed, pass them on to the factories next to them that use it to make the products and then move them to the port for export. Now that's a very simplified overview but when you hear about factories in the UK after the war like Rover who apparently when manufacturing a car made part of it in one factory and then had to ship it several miles down the road to a second one to finish it off you can see how bad it was.
Devvy's The 12:08 service to... thread deals with what might of happened if the Beeching report had been scaled back somewhat and been a bit more sensible about the restructuring of the railways has intercity APT services, the Channel Tunnel with high speed link to London, and an orbital line around London for freight IIRC. Aside from being very good in and of itself it might be worth having a read through it to get some ideas.
Whilst the deals they got might not of been as advantageous as they would of liked they were still pretty good. The problem was that the governments of the time spent a large part of the loans they received paying for a massive military that they just couldn't afford, trying to maintain the Sterling zone or otherwise still play the part of being a Great Power which meant that the money was effectively wasted. It would of been far better to scale back expectations to being something like the most powerful country after the two Superpowers and spent the money saved on investing in the country's infrastructure and rebuilding industry.
While I tend to agree with you, I'm not sure how much cargo could be primarily exported from the UK they couldn't be handled by upgrading already existing fascilities (and thus helping tackle unemployment in these regions). Rotterdam and Antwerp will still probably re-export a lot of British goods while the Chunnel will help reduce the need further. However, a joint dockyard/refinary is still a good idea, i'm just not sure of the costs and location you propose. As a side note, Pembroke dockyard is quite shallow in places. As you said, Hinckly point would be a better option, especially if you can integrate the power plan into it.
A refinary at Hinckly point could also mean that the Exxon Mobil refinary in the Solent (Fawley) could be moved - with all the shipping in the Solent its a ecological diaster waiting to happen.
As a side idea, once the Fawley refinary closes the site could be used to house a new naval base seeing how Portsmouth and Devonport are too small to operate vessels over 55,000 tons safely (and that both lack the drydocking fascilities big enough to house them). Either that or Southampton docks could be closed, their commerce transfered to the Hinckley Point terminal and the docks redeveloped for the Royal Navy, closing both Devonport and Portsmouth in the process. (A bit of a strange angle to look at but it's a naval problem AH naval problem that i've been trying to get my head around - please feel to comment further).
I know, but to me its just a personal thing. The earlier the wartime POD the less "post-war" a TL it feels. Feels like cheating to me.
The Commonwealth is a given but the problem is trying to keep them interested post 1945. Britain is broke and both Canada and Australia are keen to assert their own identities. Meanwhile, the U.S. has replaced Britain as their chief protector.
However, co-operation with the French in the 1960's on everything from rocketry to Nuclear weapons would be a good shout.
Perhaps, but it really depends if they end up being an economic drag on Britain or not. Island garrsions may be nice to think about but only if they activly contribute to the overall grand scheme of things.
Yes, I believe that after that wonderful Mr Benn forced Leyland and British Motor Holdings to merge they had over 40 factories spead across the UK producing non-standard parts with mass duplication. The unions and the government resisted any closures or centralisation. The result? Look to OTL kids.
Yes, I've seen it an its excellent - a real change from the usual TLs. However, not being a train man a lot of it goes right over my head!
My own personal preference is for a greater realisation of Britains economic situation. As such, the military is cut back. Conscription ends in 1946 (freeing up thousands of vital workers) and the military in general goes under mass cutbacks. The reserve fleet is scrapped or sold off to close allies and in particular, the Commonwealth with greater Imperial co-operation being pushed for in order to lessen the burden on the UK. The NHS is also scaled back considerably and the money saved is spent on rebuilding and modernisation.
Russell