Did the British footbal team win any tournament or perform any better than OTL England? They still have the 66 world cup since the PoD is in 68'
"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Nick P
Donor
I expect the British Army to have more infantry regiments and lots of crowd control equipment. Think Operation Banner but across the whole UK.
The RAF probably doesn't have the Puma, Jaguar or the Tornado as they were multi-national undertakings - unless I've read this wrong and the UK did share their toys with other countries.
The Royal Navy will be interesting. It's tempting to think of a fleet based around large carriers and lots of destroyers but the economics still have to be considered by those at the top. It might actually have more small frigates and destroyers to show the flag abroad.
Talking of Juntas, what about Argentina and the Falkland Islands? If the UK didn't have large military cuts in 1981 as per OTL then Buenos Aires would not grab that opportunity to invade.
ITTL, what's immigration like?
In OTL, there's strong Indian communities in Walsall, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Leeds, Huddersfield, and in London strong communities of American, Canadian, Australian, South African, Italian, French, German expats, but how is it for immigrants from those nations ITTL?
Is it a smaller American expat community?
In OTL, there's strong Indian communities in Walsall, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Leeds, Huddersfield, and in London strong communities of American, Canadian, Australian, South African, Italian, French, German expats, but how is it for immigrants from those nations ITTL?
Is it a smaller American expat community?
Well given the coup would have taken place a mere 2 years after the 1966 defence whitepaper (which saw the cancellation of the CVA 01 programme and started the events that eventually led to the demise of the Royal Navy's conventional carrier's) and with the country then being run by a naval officer I wouldn't be surprised if the junta decided to resurrect various cancelled programmes such as CVA 01 and the Type 82 destroyers meaning that the RN does end up keeping large carrier's.
If this did come to pass I could easily see the RAF operating more US aircraft given it's apparent support for the junta.
Does Britain still posses nuclear weapons and US supplied technology such as Trident?
Nick P
Donor
That's a good point. With Mountbatten in charge the RAF will have to take on more Buccaneers. He was the guy who killed TSR.2 by telling the Cabinet and the Aussies "5 Buccaneers for the price of 1 TSR.2".
The RAF order for 50 F-111s was cancelled in 1968 OTL because of Sterling devaluation and rising costs. ITTL there may also be trust issues between DC and London. Is the UK solid enough to continue with the order considering there were probably strong economic repercussions after the Junta took power?
The armed forces had a lot bigger budget and generally have a larger manpower. In regards to equipment its mixed, yes generally dictatorships don't have great procurement but these tend to be poorer countries dependent on imports, Britain has a strong self sustaining military industrial complex, with most arms companies remaining in state hands. This means that there's less high-tech American kit but British-born equipment tends to be cheaper and easier to make. In fact Britain had become a major arms exporter to more shady regimes overseas, its not uncommon to see developing country's militaries and rebels groups touting SA80s as well as the old fashioned Klashnikov!
In regards to cuts yes this is a major issue, by the fall of the Junta Britain's defence spending was over 3% of GDP, nearly at the same levels of Russia. Agreeing to make cuts to military spending formed a large part of the SDP/SA Confidence deal but obviously its a dangerous tightrope to walk with a disloyal military.
In regards to the SA80 it had it's flaws but the first run wasn't as disastrous as in OTL, this was down to more state control rather than squabbling private companies.
Yes the 66 world cup still ended in English victory, Britain performed roughly equal to OTL England if not slightly better. The only noticeable change was in 1990 where the UK made it into the final, defeating West Germany, although they would lose to Argentina. Britain never won a world cup between 1967-2005.
Yes Britain's army is a lot more land based, mostly at the expense of the airforce. A national version of Operation Banner is a good way to put it.
Britain generally didn't share toys with other countries, it was a non-NATO ally so got access to US kit, but the Europeans didn't really want anything to do with the Junta.
Many of the naval cuts were reversed by Mountbatten, only to be reinstated by the Hill-Norton reforms during the economic problems of the 80s, whilst Britain does have more large carriers than OTL it is nowhere near the naval power it once was.
The US were eager to make sure the Junta regime stabilised, so the F-111 order went ahead and Buccaneers played a larger role in Britain's military.
Britain still has trident yes, but US oversight is even stronger than OTL.
The Falkands War's still happened with a British victory. The war was even more brutal with the Junta even launching limiting shelling and bombing campaign of the Argentine mainland, some hardliners even wanted invasion.
Immigration is a lot lower than OTL, but the remaining immigrants are a lot more ethnically diverse. Since Britain never joined the EU and it's not a particularly tempting place to immigrate to, Eastern European migration is practically non existent, and the America expat community is much smaller. Most immigrants are Commonwealth migrants from the West Indies and Indian subcontinent and their descendants, as well as some from the Commonwealth.
There are two migrant groups higher than OTL:
- White South Africans: Britain was one of the few countries to support the apartheid regime, so when apartheid fell many Conservative South Africans fled to Britain
- Chinese/Hong Kongers: The Hong Kong handover terms were much more favorable to the Chinese, meaning Hong Kong is much more integrated into the Chinese mainland, this caused many Hong Kongers to flee to the UK, meaning Britain's Chinese population is higher.
Last edited:
Why would Hong Kongers flee to Britain instead of say Taiwan or the US? Surely they would be aware of the coup and know that they probably won't be tolerant of minorities.
Hong Kongers were offered British citizenship, it was the only way for Britain to stick it to the Chinese, and this was much later on the 90s where life for immigrants was considerable better than the Powellite days of the 70s. Whilst yes many went to the US or Taiwan there was always the risk of being turned away so many went for Britain.
So is there a backlash against Chinese people coming in Britain. In Western countries it seems that when large or significant members of a group come to the nation a backlash will soon emerge.
Yes there was absolutely a backlash. Whilst there weren't riots or anything the press printed some incendiary headlines and there were reports of Chinese people being abused and discriminated against. This led many British Chinese to join democracy movements and then the SDP. Although some feel a debt of gratitude to Hill-Norton and have ended up supporting National. A notable example would be Nat Wei, who sits as a National MP for Berkshire.
Sort of. Not really. A bit like the Alianza Popular in Post-Franco spain
Yes National was the party of the Junta, Chinese Brits supporting National are small in number but they exist
RE: The SA80. I believe the SA80 was the product of Royal Arms Factory Enfield, not a Private Tendering process.
IIRC, the primary 'first cause' of the debacle that was the SA80 family was developed by a bunch of engineers who had no experience with firearms (either designing or using) and viewed the entire project as a 'simple' Engineering design project, as opposed to viewing it as designing a family of Firearms.
I could definitely see this being butterflied here, however. Easy enough to butterfly who's working on the project. Further, if the military had increased funding then the SA80 Family could have gone through more thorough (how's that for a Dyslexic's spelling twister?) Testing at an earlier phase, which would have caught a lot of the issues. Many of the issues, after all, seem to have stemmed from the designers just blanking on the fact that their precious engineering project was meant to be used; by Squaddies, no less!
IIRC, the primary 'first cause' of the debacle that was the SA80 family was developed by a bunch of engineers who had no experience with firearms (either designing or using) and viewed the entire project as a 'simple' Engineering design project, as opposed to viewing it as designing a family of Firearms.
I could definitely see this being butterflied here, however. Easy enough to butterfly who's working on the project. Further, if the military had increased funding then the SA80 Family could have gone through more thorough (how's that for a Dyslexic's spelling twister?) Testing at an earlier phase, which would have caught a lot of the issues. Many of the issues, after all, seem to have stemmed from the designers just blanking on the fact that their precious engineering project was meant to be used; by Squaddies, no less!
I've always heard the issue was that it was being made by people who knew once the rifles were done, they were out of a job, regardless of how good a job they did.
As a result, employees really weren't motivated to give it their all.