AHC/WI: 1956 Franco-British Alliance (Not Union)

Delta Force

Banned
What if France and the United Kingdom had decided to begin an alliance of sorts in 1956, as a weaker and less ridiculous version of the 1956 Franco-British Union proposal? They could collaborate on nuclear energy and weapons, with the British being their knowledge and infrastructure, with the French bringing raw materials and financing (British Magnox and French UNGG reactors are quite similar). The costs of developing various other technologies and projects could also be split between the two countries, and working together they would be able to establish a larger market for commercial aerospace projects and other initiatives to better compete with the Soviet Union and United States.
 
You probably need the British establishment to become anti-American in the wake of Suez like the French did. There's certainly huge collaborative potential in the aerospace and nuclear sectors, for a start the Force de Frappe might get some V-Bombers and later the Spey engined Mirage IVK may replace the Canberra in RAF Service. The Airbus project may begin earlier and may have a higher British work share, the ELDO rocket project may also fare better meaning that Britain retains launcher technology and is a key player in Ariane or whatever comes next. This would probably also mean a joint SLBM programme instead of Polaris, with extra resources the French Navy may have had it operational slightly earlier than IOTL, the warheads would probably be of a common design but both nations would retain operational control of their own forces.

The key question is whether or not Britain would be prepared to bite the bullet and join the EEC from the beginning, we've always been happy to co-operate on defence matters and trade but it's the political aspects that been the hang up.
 
The key question is whether or not Britain would be prepared to bite the bullet and join the EEC from the beginning, we've always been happy to co-operate on defence matters and trade but it's the political aspects that been the hang up.

That's going to be the sticking point, especially as Eden was against European integration while Guy Mollet was highly supportive...
Also, if France can't resolve the Algeria situation, it'll end up like OTL, where de Gaulle came back to power...
For some reason OTL, he decided that working with the Germans would be preferable to the Brits (I don't get it...:rolleyes::eek:), and since Adenauer is still likely to be in office, it could be a possibility to scuttle the whole thing...
 
That's going to be the sticking point, especially as Eden was against European integration while Guy Mollet was highly supportive...
Also, if France can't resolve the Algeria situation, it'll end up like OTL, where de Gaulle came back to power...
For some reason OTL, he decided that working with the Germans would be preferable to the Brits (I don't get it...:rolleyes::eek:), and since Adenauer is still likely to be in office, it could be a possibility to scuttle the whole thing...

Maybe if there is a sudden affront in the German-French relations which leads to a lasting break in the diplomatic relations between France and Germany ? Maybe German integration into a community of Western European democracies is somehow hindered because of this and there are no Roman treaties in 1957.
 
Maybe if there is a sudden affront in the German-French relations which leads to a lasting break in the diplomatic relations between France and Germany ? Maybe German integration into a community of Western European democracies is somehow hindered because of this and there are no Roman treaties in 1957.

I think de Gaulle going like one of these Japanese war crime denialist politicians and going all antagonistic at Germany may work...
But I think another ASB is needed for that, because what we got OTL was already ASB enough!
 
The key question is whether or not Britain would be prepared to bite the bullet and join the EEC from the beginning, we've always been happy to co-operate on defence matters and trade but it's the political aspects that been the hang up.
Well if they decide to go in then it potentially changes the set-up of the EEC, depending on when the decision made you're going to see British representatives at the Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom in Belgium and possibly slightly different Treaty of Rome. IIRC, its been a fair while since I last looked at things, on some issues the UK was closer to Germany than France whilst on others vice versa which is going to make things interesting with a fluctuating Big Three rather than merely Franco-German engine.
 
That's going to be the sticking point, especially as Eden was against European integration while Guy Mollet was highly supportive...
Also, if France can't resolve the Algeria situation, it'll end up like OTL, where de Gaulle came back to power...
For some reason OTL, he decided that working with the Germans would be preferable to the Brits (I don't get it...:rolleyes::eek:), and since Adenauer is still likely to be in office, it could be a possibility to scuttle the whole thing...

I think the trick is to have Suez piss off the Brits enough to abandon their fellow Anglos and turn to the dreaded Continent
 
I think the trick is to have Suez piss off the Brits enough to abandon their fellow Anglos and turn to the dreaded Continent

The Suez could work but it could also push them towards the Commonwealth, Empire remanents and trying to set up a weaker version of Imperial Preference with the break away states.

I would guess you need something else to happen either right before or right after the Suez to generate some more good will with France. Possibly this EEC ends up involving the UK, France, the Benelux, Denmark, Iberia and maybe Italy. Excluding Germany from the most extensive trade but cooperating in defence.

However if the UK ends up a founding member of an alternate EEC I don't think political integration will get far. Possibly closer economic and defensive ties instead.
 
Lester Pearson was very critical of Suez and I don't think the Australians were too supportive either. The different ways the British and French establishments responded to Suez is so interesting, the French decided that America wasn't to be trusted while the British took the exact opposite view. Although I'm an Atlanticist we've damaged our global standing by being too close to America at times because many British politicians seems naive and starstruck by America's power. It's obviously a result of WW2.

How you change that is another matter as it's such a deeply seated belief, Suez should have been a clear indication that America and the Old Commonwealth would always act in their own interests. You probably need a PoD during, or immediately after WW2 to make Britain less Atlanticist.
 
Lester Pearson was very critical of Suez and I don't think the Australians were too supportive either. The different ways the British and French establishments responded to Suez is so interesting, the French decided that America wasn't to be trusted while the British took the exact opposite view. Although I'm an Atlanticist we've damaged our global standing by being too close to America at times because many British politicians seems naive and starstruck by America's power. It's obviously a result of WW2.

How you change that is another matter as it's such a deeply seated belief, Suez should have been a clear indication that America and the Old Commonwealth would always act in their own interests. You probably need a PoD during, or immediately after WW2 to make Britain less Atlanticist.

You are right, Pearson was critical. But that decision hurt the Liberals in '56 and '57. Dief was able to play on the Liberals 'failure to support Britain in her time of need' and capitalise. Many Canadians were annoyed that Canada had failed to stand by the mother country.
 
The Suez could work but it could also push them towards the Commonwealth, Empire remanents and trying to set up a weaker version of Imperial Preference with the break away states.

I would guess you need something else to happen either right before or right after the Suez to generate some more good will with France. Possibly this EEC ends up involving the UK, France, the Benelux, Denmark, Iberia and maybe Italy. Excluding Germany from the most extensive trade but cooperating in defence.

However if the UK ends up a founding member of an alternate EEC I don't think political integration will get far. Possibly closer economic and defensive ties instead.

You have to get the Brits to sign on the ECSC first...
By that point, there was a sense of cynicism among the Inner 6 over the Brits wanting to join them, and a feeling of "Fuck them, we do this shit ourselves without them!"
Which wasn't helped by their proposal for a FTA, which they saw as an attempt to sabotage the EEC's creation...
Which was ultimately rebuffed by de Gaulle's decision to fulfill the conditions of the Treaty of Rome, despite the implications of limiting sovereignty (because he saw it as potentially allowing for France to take a lead position, and for encouraging modernization of the French economy)...
And by "fulfill the conditions", I meant that he undertook significant economic reforms so that they could set up the whole thing on time...
(So basically without de Gaulle's decision, the EEC wouldn't exist at all; there would be a FTA instead).
 

Delta Force

Banned
How plausible would it be for something in the spirit of the European Defense Community to arise from this? Crucially, it would focus more on joint collaborations for training and development within NATO, not on establishing a unified force that does literally everything together and works as an alternative to NATO. Would greater European collaboration still be an option, or would France and the United Kingdom try to do things between themselves?
 
How plausible would it be for something in the spirit of the European Defense Community to arise from this? Crucially, it would focus more on joint collaborations for training and development within NATO, not on establishing a unified force that does literally everything together and works as an alternative to NATO. Would greater European collaboration still be an option, or would France and the United Kingdom try to do things between themselves?

The European Defence Community was very federalist/supranationalist though, which the UK didn't like...
I mean, there's a reason why Nanwe finds this a major POD for further European integration than OTL...

There's a reason why the WEU was created to substitute for the EDC after the treaty failed to be ratified by the French, because there was no supranational elements...
 

Delta Force

Banned
The European Defence Community was very federalist/supranationalist though, which the UK didn't like...
I mean, there's a reason why Nanwe finds this a major POD for further European integration than OTL...

There's a reason why the WEU was created to substitute for the EDC after the treaty failed to be ratified by the French, because there was no supranational elements...

That might not have been the best comparison. I mean more in terms of greater military cooperation.
 
Cross purchase of the C160 Transall and Shorts Belfast transport aircraft is another cooperation possibility.

Where does such an alliance leave the US-UK relationship? For example the Blue Streak MRBM was developed out of a 1954 work share split between the US and UK, US nuclear bombs were used on RAF aircraft and Thor missiles were stationed in the UK because of Project E. Holy Loch was used by the USN as an SSBN base as part of the Skybolt deal. What happens to these things?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Cross purchase of the C160 Transall and Shorts Belfast transport aircraft is another cooperation possibility.

Where does such an alliance leave the US-UK relationship? For example the Blue Streak MRBM was developed out of a 1954 work share split between the US and UK, US nuclear bombs were used on RAF aircraft and Thor missiles were stationed in the UK because of Project E. Holy Loch was used by the USN as an SSBN base as part of the Skybolt deal. What happens to these things?

The nuclear weapons were provided under terms akin to the later NATO nuclear weapons sharing program. The British transitioned to an independent deterrent as swiftly as possible.

I don't think an Anglo-French alliance would harm weapons sharing and the earlier programs either. If anything the United States might extend weapons sharing to France and other nations and/or implement the NATO Multilateral Force.
 
Top