American-Franco/British Split: What does the rest of NATO do?
I guess asking what NATO would do isn't the best question, since in this case NATO would most likely be gone. What I meant was what countries would follow France and Britain and what countries would remain American allies.
Would the United States be able to support and supply its allies through the North Sea alone, or is having access to French and British territory/ports too essential? Because if they can't than I'd assume West Germany would exit as well, and probably the low countries.
I imagine virtually all of NATO Europe would follow the British and French and a new arrangement would be put together that excludes the Americans. The two most significant European military powers have just withdrawn and there's now no serious guarantee that the U.S. can commit itself to defending the rest of Europe when U.S. forces may not even be allowed access to Britain and France. So yeah I imagine all Europe would have no real choice but to follow and craft some new treaty that covers mutual assistance, if they can
Actually by 1952 the UK has nuclear weapons so likely that will be a deterrent. Plus with the Franco-British relations being further solidified with a break from the US they will likely help speed up Frances nuclear development.
Plus the Steel&Coal Community is likely going to be established, possibly with the UK tied to it early on so western Europe is going to be tied together by both economic incentives and the desire to look militarily formidable to deter Soviet aggression. Even then the US isn' going to want Europe being all Red so they will be putting pressure on the Soviets to stay in the east.
I'd see an alternate European Community that covers Western Europe(aside from maybe Spain)and Scandinavia even earlier then OTL, though focused on economic&military cooperation rather the economic&political cooperation/integration due to NATO falling apart with the split
kernals12
Banned
You need to be more specific about why France and Britain would break off from the protection of Washington amidst a rapidly worsening Soviet threat
Maybe making the break-up a little later, in 1952 with Taft winning the presidency and deciding in a more isolationist politics; the break-up can be even be helped by deciding to recognize the Ho-chi-min goverment in Vietnam and Sukarno in Indonesia forcing the colonial power to accept the fait-accomplit
Nations that has colonies might join the Franco-British block. At this time USA officaly opposed communism(if i remember correctly), therefore this might be a point of conflict between some European countries and USA.
European states with colonies in 1950
- Belgium
- Italy
- Netherlands
- Portugal
- Spain
Taking in consideration that the break-up of NATO can make Stalin giving the ok for the invasion of Jugoslavia to eliminate Tito or deciding to keep Austria divided (in that case IRC the plan was to unite the western aligned part of Austria with West Germany); there can be also the temptation to accept the exchange of West Berlin for some other territory of East Germany (as Adenauer proposed during the Berlin Wall Crisis).
Year USA USSR UK
1952 1,005 50 0
1953 1,436 120 1
1954 2,063 150 5
1955 3,057 200 10
1956 4,618 426 15
Not much deterrent, really, and nothing from France until 1964
Ike was willing to sink the Pound over Suez. Think he wouldn't do even more over the much larger issue of NATO membership?
For that matter, the idea that West Germany and other European NATO members would go along with a dismemberment of the organization over someone else's colonial dispute, well, it seems a little silly. If this were to happen at all, it would have to be instigated on the US end of things, and I doubt even Taft would be that reckless.
What he will do? Sink the european economies and so let the Soviet take the rest of the continent without a fight and at the same time greatly harm the american economy? Ike menaced to sink the Pound, but a move like that also mean the death of the alliance and he know that.
Regarding the nuclear weapons, well the British program can be slightly accelerated if it become a more european one, getting resources from the other nations.
That would be a mistake
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...Windscale-fire-We-were-too-busy-to-panic.html
Since UK wasn't part of the Common Market yet, it will be sinking the British economy along with the Special Relationship, not the European economies
US and Canada was doing a lot of military aid
UK want to play hardball, Ike would be up for turning the screws even harder.
But there is enough smart people in the Foreign Office to talk sense into Eden, and once House of Commons figures out that he's taking US relations down fast,
you would se a PM Macmillan sooner.
Personally, I think you would see INTENSE diplomatic pressure from the rest of Europe against France and England, and they probably come slinking back into NATO after a few years once they realize no one wants to give up a credible nuclear deterrent and join their little super secret club for their shitty little 20 warhead arsenal. Or a few months once their heads of state get voted out for being this pants on head stupid.
Last edited:
Wha? you demand footnotes for everything?
https://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/12.htm
And who got most of it?
With that aid to UK and France curtailed, their armed forces will have issues, like France will lose in SEAsia and Algeria much sooner, and things won't go well in Malaya and other areas, either for the UK.
No Nato? it will still be there, since it was the US doing the heavy lifting in any case. Note what happened after France went out in 1966, and ordered SHAPE out of France and US forces to leave. Belgium won big on that.
UK does similar? Norway wins
Ok, so that aid money is being spent *in* the UK and France for weapons they produce themselves, interesting.
Struggling to find exactly what the UK defense budget was during this time, but in 1957 they had a GDP of something around 61,960 Million USD and were spending around 7% on Defense. Not going to give the sources because i'll admit they are possibly not accurate, but I was looking for a starting point. 7% of that is $4.34 Billion, but the UK economy was growing quite quickly in the 1950's so no idea what it would have been in 1954 (and the site I found doesn't have numbers pre-1957).
Actually, I think the Vickers Valiant might have been funded through this?
Acutally
Percentage of GDP came from BBC article. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31750929
GDP numbers from https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=1958 not sure about accuracy of this one.
Struggling to find exactly what the UK defense budget was during this time, but in 1957 they had a GDP of something around 61,960 Million USD and were spending around 7% on Defense. Not going to give the sources because i'll admit they are possibly not accurate, but I was looking for a starting point. 7% of that is $4.34 Billion, but the UK economy was growing quite quickly in the 1950's so no idea what it would have been in 1954 (and the site I found doesn't have numbers pre-1957).
Actually, I think the Vickers Valiant might have been funded through this?
Acutally
Percentage of GDP came from BBC article. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31750929
GDP numbers from https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=1958 not sure about accuracy of this one.