AHC - More Solvent / Less Bankrupt Post-War UK

In OTL the UK was essentially bankrupt in the aftermath of WW2, which along with the post-war environment prevented it realizing the various post-war infrastructure schemes it had to improve roads, rail, etc as mentioned in the Abercrombie plan (given the bombings would in other circumstances have provided a blank slate to begin anew).

Including both world wars appearing as in real-life and with a POD beginning from the Second Industrial Revolution, the challenge is to have the UK either manage to complete most its planned infrastructure projects (via previous pre-war schemes) before WW2 or manage to retain enough capital (further complimented by Marshal Plan aid) to realise its post-war plans (or even a combination of both).
 
Last edited:
Lib lab coalition following the 1928 Election?
National Investment Board to coordinate recovery?
Greater modernisation of industries in the leadup to WWII?
 
Short answer have the authorities from 1929 onward be open to Keynesian economics.

Or, if an earlier POD is permitted, have the UK return to the Gold Standard at a realistic rather than pre-WW1 rate.

Probably need other measures and political change too. Earlier move to Imperial Preference for instance.

But these measures may change the outcome of WW2. Is that OK?
 
Last edited:
There are a few ideas worth considering, seem to recall a thread a year or few back on the UK not falling behind other countries during the Second Industrial Revolution.

But these measures may change the outxout of WW2. Is that OK?

In what respect would it potentially change the outxout of WW2?
 
Last edited:
Why would they do some of these suggestions? They don't have the foreknowledge of a world war coming only 20 years after the first. By the time the WW2 was going to happen for sure it was already too late.
 
Am I right in thinking that rearmament programs brought about by the Korean War resulted in cutbacks to social spending, which caused Nye Bevan to resign from the cabinet? Preventing the Korean War might go some way to freeing up some finances.
 
I think the losses of both wars were major contributors to British economic woes after WW2. Fighting these wars with less losses, WW2 in particular, would be a great start. A few pounds spent in the 30s could reap great dividends in 1940 and lead to a trajectory where Britain fights ww2 more efficiently.
 
I think the losses of both wars were major contributors to British economic woes after WW2. Fighting these wars with less losses, WW2 in particular, would be a great start. A few pounds spent in the 30s could reap great dividends in 1940 and lead to a trajectory where Britain fights ww2 more efficiently.

Interesting. How could the British minimize the losses of both world wars and fight more efficiently, let alone invest in new equipment, ideas, etc during the interwar period? In the case of WW1, would the British keeping pace with other countries during the Second Industrial Revolution have potentially contributed to helping minimizing losses and capital by the time the war begins?

Am still assuming in this ATL scenario the British undergoes a similar level of post-war decline and decolonization as in OTL rather than managing to retain its Empire status (especially since the US during wartime allegedly pressed the British to undergo a managed decline IIRC), yet managing to retain enough capital to focus on various domestic infrastructure road/rail/airport/etc projects.
 

Devvy

Donor
It's difficult, because the "treatment" needed to prepare Britain's economy and financial situation mean tacitly admitting it's no longer the centre of the world and it's Empire might not be as secure as it seems. Just changing the gold standard exchange rate to a lower level means admitting that the British £ is not as strong as it was and will have ramifications in the financial markets, meaning that investors in the UK finances will no longer get as much as they did from overseas markets. It's an awkward situation even with hindsight.
 
Interesting. How could the British minimize the losses of both world wars and fight more efficiently, let alone invest in new equipment, ideas, etc during the interwar period? In the case of WW1, would the British keeping pace with other countries during the Second Industrial Revolution have potentially contributed to helping minimizing losses and capital by the time the war begins?

Am still assuming in this ATL scenario the British undergoes a similar level of post-war decline and decolonization as in OTL rather than managing to retain its Empire status (especially since the US during wartime allegedly pressed the British to undergo a managed decline IIRC), yet managing to retain enough capital to focus on various domestic infrastructure road/rail/airport/etc projects.

A lot of little things that increase efficiency end up reducing losses for the same or similar result. For the British Army things like having Corps at the very start, with the heavier guns assigned to these Corps rather than Divisions, and having the 1915 Machinegun Corps that concentrated MGs at the Brigade level form prior to the war and having all 6 divisons (3 Crops) of the BEF deploy to France from day 1. If the BEF can speed up its learning curve it can get results without wasting vast numbers of men and materiel. For the RN introduce coastal convoys, escorted by the Patrol Flotillas Coastal Destroyers, to reduce losses to uboats. The rest of the fleet didn't bleed materiel, although the RN did finish the war with a huge number of obsolescent 12" capital ships.

in the interwar era all 3 services need to trickle in upgrades and new equipment, rebuild the 15" battleships during the depression and build a modest fleet of MkIII medium tanks, partly as Depression relief. The forces worked pretty hard to improve their tactical performance, which was better in WW2 than WW1, but were let down by some stupid mistakes which saw the early loss of a couple of fast fleet carriers and other things like Norway.

Bomber Command was pretty wasteful, particularly during the buildup in the early years. Patrolling the Atlantic would be a more profitable use of large aircraft than dropping bombs no closer than 5 miles of the target. Britain was also patchy with arms development, naval aircraft were pretty shit and tanks weren't great, if these and other stuff were better then the British win more engagements and get results sooner at lower costs.
 
Recession of the early thirties could have been greatly ameliorated if the Churchill chancellorship and Britain going back on the Gold Standard had been avoided. Best case- Reginald McKenna agreeing to serve as Chancellor under Baldwin (OTL Baldwin wanted him and thought him the best man for the job-which was probably true - but Mckenna refused out of loyalty to the Liberals).
Britain could have had a better Army in 1939 if more attention had been paid to George Lindsay and J C Fuller.
If Britain had managed to push the Japanese back out of Malaysia in 1941 (which wouldn't have needed that much extra resource and a bit better leadership) then they would have been much less heavily in debt with the tin and rubber supplies and revenues. Britains end of war debt could have been 15-20% lower through that alone.
 

kernals12

Banned
Countries that issue debt in their own currency can't go bankrupt, they can always print more money. Virtually all sovereign debt defaults occur when countries issue debt in foreign currency. Britain was able to dilute their debt burdens through inflation and economic growth, they never were bankrupt.
 

kernals12

Banned
In OTL the UK was essentially bankrupt in the aftermath of WW2, which along with the post-war environment prevented it realizing the various post-war infrastructure schemes it had to improve roads, rail, etc as mentioned in the Abercrombie plan (given the bombings would in other circumstances have provided a blank slate to begin anew).

Including both world wars appearing as in real-life and with a POD beginning from the Second Industrial Revolution, the challenge is to have the UK either manage to complete most its planned infrastructure projects (via previous pre-war schemes) before WW2 or manage to retain enough capital (further complimented by Marshal Plan aid) to realise its post-war plans (or even a combination of both).
Britain managed to rebuild all of the homes destroyed by the war, create an extensive welfare state, and nationalize large amounts of the economy. I don't think money was a big problem. A government that can print its own currency faces very different fiscal constraints from everyone else.
 
A lot of little things that increase efficiency end up reducing losses for the same or similar result. For the British Army things like having Corps at the very start, with the heavier guns assigned to these Corps rather than Divisions, and having the 1915 Machinegun Corps that concentrated MGs at the Brigade level form prior to the war and having all 6 divisons (3 Crops) of the BEF deploy to France from day 1. If the BEF can speed up its learning curve it can get results without wasting vast numbers of men and materiel. For the RN introduce coastal convoys, escorted by the Patrol Flotillas Coastal Destroyers, to reduce losses to uboats. The rest of the fleet didn't bleed materiel, although the RN did finish the war with a huge number of obsolescent 12" capital ships.

in the interwar era all 3 services need to trickle in upgrades and new equipment, rebuild the 15" battleships during the depression and build a modest fleet of MkIII medium tanks, partly as Depression relief. The forces worked pretty hard to improve their tactical performance, which was better in WW2 than WW1, but were let down by some stupid mistakes which saw the early loss of a couple of fast fleet carriers and other things like Norway.

Bomber Command was pretty wasteful, particularly during the buildup in the early years. Patrolling the Atlantic would be a more profitable use of large aircraft than dropping bombs no closer than 5 miles of the target. Britain was also patchy with arms development, naval aircraft were pretty shit and tanks weren't great, if these and other stuff were better then the British win more engagements and get results sooner at lower costs.
Recession of the early thirties could have been greatly ameliorated if the Churchill chancellorship and Britain going back on the Gold Standard had been avoided. Best case- Reginald McKenna agreeing to serve as Chancellor under Baldwin (OTL Baldwin wanted him and thought him the best man for the job-which was probably true - but Mckenna refused out of loyalty to the Liberals).
Britain could have had a better Army in 1939 if more attention had been paid to George Lindsay and J C Fuller.

If Britain had managed to push the Japanese back out of Malaysia in 1941 (which wouldn't have needed that much extra resource and a bit better leadership) then they would have been much less heavily in debt with the tin and rubber supplies and revenues. Britain end of war debt could have been 15-20% lower through that alone.

Understand

If Britain pushing the Japanese out of Malaysia in 1941 would have made their war debt some 15-20% lower, then to what degree could Britain's war debt on the European front be reduced?

Britain managed to rebuild all of the homes destroyed by the war, create an extensive welfare state, and nationalize large amounts of the economy. I don't think money was a big problem. A government that can print its own currency faces very different fiscal constraints from everyone else.

Then what prevented Britain from beginning the precursor to the London Ringways motorways (and here plus a 1937/1938 Thames Crossing proposal roughly located where today's OTL Woolwich Ferry crossing resides), let alone some form of the 1946 London Rail Plans (not even mentioning the subsequent versions from 1949 and beyond) or even proposed London airports (both pre and post Roskill Commission plus the late-1970s onwards) immediately in the post-war period (along with other unbuilt projects)?
 
Top