True. The only places I could see being even vaguely viable for this are Brest and Cherbourg.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 3
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Mark1878
Donor
An example of the building were prefabs in Wandsworth.
Number 14 Prefab, East Green Path
Prefabs fulfilled a housing need for a generation of Londoners whose homes were destroyed in the Blitz. This post comes courtesy of Colin Allen, who has kindly shared his experiences of growing up…
wandswortharchives.wordpress.com
I note the bit saying
The prefabs when removed in the 1960s would not have cost that much to remove.
The good bits of the design are
but
An example of the building were prefabs in Wandsworth.
Number 14 Prefab, East Green Path
Prefabs fulfilled a housing need for a generation of Londoners whose homes were destroyed in the Blitz. This post comes courtesy of Colin Allen, who has kindly shared his experiences of growing up…
I note the bit saying
The prefabs when removed in the 1960s would not have cost that much to remove.
The good bits of the design are
but
My dad lived in a pre-fab post WW2. He spoke very highly of the experience.
Things like electric ovens, a fridge, central heating and all that were un-dreamed of luxuries for many of those who moved into them, and many would last up to the 80s and 90s (I remember seeing a few around).
Mark1878
Donor
My grandparents lived in a 1930s council house, which I remember from the late 60s. I don't think it had central heating (I do remember a gas water heater) and probably not a fridge. It did not have a bathroom I had baths in a tin bath in the kitchen and can't remember where the toilet was, given the current setup when they added a bathroom I suspect it was outdoors. (but the prefab article said kitchen/bathroom so do not know if they differed)
The prefab he lived in had an indoor bathroom (again, luxury).
In the early 2000s, I lived in a mid terrace house originally buily the 30s, which still had the outdoor thunderbox in the back yard from the original build. Still worked as well, I think (though no one used it, especially after my house mate decided to add the wooden door to the bonfire one evening, after running out of other wood).
Operation Husky was the largest amphibious invasion in history by number of troops landed with more coming ashore on D-Day than Operation Overlord and the German defences will inevitably be weaker than in 1944 though I suspect Germany in this tl will move significant numbers of troops to northern France sooner than OTL. The big differences will be that the US Army will be less able to feed fresh Divisions into the theatre in the latter stages of the campaign though with no Italian front the initial force will be of comparable size to OTL. The other big difference is there are a lot more British troops available with the quick and relatively bloodless victory in North Africa and no Malaya or Crete disasters. It remains to be seen what allan will write but I suspect that the overall North-West Europe campaign will be longer and bloodier than the OTL one but they will still reach Germany many months ahead of OTL and will meet the Soviets further East.
It's not just the German defences that will be weaker though, the Allied preparations will be rather reduced too. They may well not have the time to built enough Mulberry Harbours to sustain the volume of troops they did OTL.
Mulberry harbours might not be such a big deal if the German crust is thin enough that they can take Cherbourg quickly. The bigger issue is unlike Reap the Whirlwind or Peerless Air Ministry that as far as I can see the air power balance is unchanged which means that come summer 1943 the allies will only have air superiority not supremacy, now that's not the end of the world, Husky and the Italian landings succeeded but it's the biggest issue that I can see.
Unless you count those squatting in former military camps. Housing was so short there were cases when the local policeman would help squatters break down the doors and move in.
Huh...I was a bit confused by the statement at first (since I don't think the ship output of Australia and Canada would change ITTL)...but I guess that you meant that the shipbuilding capacity of Surabaya and Simgapore can be presumed and extrapolated based on the shipbulidng capacity of the other colonies....
Well...I really couldn't find the figures from the Australia side...but Canada actually bulit 198 of a similarly-sized Fort ship across 8 docks between 1941-1944...so perhaps my estimation of around Surabaya and Singapore building 50 Liberty/Fort ship between 1942-44 is good guess?
P/s: BTW...the talks of housing makes me wonder...considering the situation in Malaya....in particular the fact that the Malayan Emergency being practically butterflied away...perhaps some of the (technically redundant) Chinese New Village sites could be used to provide housing for the Malayan troops that would be serving ITTL for the British...(I was thinking of using Jinjang and other sites thst is close to Kuala Lumpur)...that being said...I do want to ask whether if the standard of housing provided to the Chinese in those sites IOTL would be suitable for the Malayan WW2 veterans ITTL...(of course the restrictive curfews and boundary perimeter fence and gates will not be included) since while it is good enough that IIRC IOTL the Malays were getting jealous of the Chinese with them getting at least getting water supply and electricity...I do wonder considering the housing standard the veterans get at the other dominions and colonies..it is not enough?
Last edited:
That is what I meant by living in Nissan huts. Obviously the housing situation in 1945 was even worse than today but the way the Labour government handled it; rationing of building materials so the only new houses being built were council houses and those were built to an ideologically motivated plan was one of the cumulatively harmful aspects of the immediate post war period.
And how many who desperately needed the new housing would have been able to afford to go private? We know from history that all too many private landlords charged large rents and did little or no maintenance on their properties, and most working class people would never have got a mortgage. Council housing may have had problems, but it solved far more than it caused. That said the tower blocks of the 60's were inexcusable and only made worse by trying to do them on the cheap.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
What might the post war world look like ITTL, especially in regards to the UK ?
Given just how far this Timeline has diverged from our own, and given how different the UK’s military, economic, industrial positions, will be in the aftermath of the present conflict. If we accept that the vast majority of events in Europe, play out in a basically similar way as they did IOTL, and that there are no major divergences, such as a change of government or the death of either of the Allied leaders, then the underlying situation should remain very similar to that of our Timeline. The one major change could occur in October 44, should the German military attempt to assassinate Hitler succeeded, but I am going to assume that ITTL as in ours it fails. I would expect that first Sicily followed by mainland Italy would be invaded during 1943, with the majority of Italy as far north as Rome, possibly Florence being in Allied hands by the end of the year. While the Soviets will have succeeded in regaining much of their territory, and will be looking to force the Germans of all Soviet territory during 1944. With reduced demand for amphibious equipment, the Anglo Americans should be able to launch their invasion of Europe two months earlier. And with luck and better realisation of just how vital Antwerp is to the invasion effort, have by the end of 44, cleared France, the majority of Italy, Greece and southern Yugoslavia, along with a substantial portion of Holland. Hitler might want to launch an attack in the west, but I seriously doubt Germany will have the resources or capability. Come the new year, the German army will collapse, and the Anglo Americans will sweep through the remainder of Holland, and push into Germany up to its border with Poland. The Germans in Norway, will have either withdrawn to Germany, or surrendered to an Anglo Norwegian invasion force. With Anglo American forces pushing into Austria and Czechoslovak. The war will end as it did with Hitler killing himself, in his bunker in Berlin, and the total surrender of all German forces within days.
For the UK, there can be no question that it will continue the war in the east against the Japanese, and it will within weeks hold a General Election, which unless Winston stands down as the leader of the Conservative Party, Labour will win in a landslide. Should Winston have a moment of sanity, and stand down sighting health reasons, and the Conservatives have a better prepared manifesto, Labour will still win but they might not have such an overwhelming majority. For the porpoises of this post, I am going to go with the result from OTL, and that the new Labour government, has a crushing majority. With Winston and the Conservatives out, but the war in the Far East not yet over, Labour have a number of problems, they can not institute their extensive manifesto commitments, while the war in the East is continuing. They also have to manage the occupation of Germany, and at one and the same time, begin the demobilisation of the forces. The truth is neither the Tory’s, Labour or the British Civil Service, spent the time and intellectual effort needed, on the transition from war, that they had on the transition to war. Admittedly the major mistakes that were made after every previous war, especially the First World War, were to an extent avoided . However that doesn’t mean that a lot were made, as planning for winning a war, takes far more effort than most people realise. A simple example serves to illustrate this, at no time during the war did the British have to ration either bread or potatoes, post war it did have to ration bread, not because there was a shortage of grain, but because there was a world wide shortage of shipping, and a desperate demand to feed people in Europe who were starving. Note this action, along with others contributed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the post war Labour government that led to them losing the next election.
So it’s now 1946, and despite the best efforts of the American administration, Truman on news of the Japanese surrender had ordered ships carrying Lend Lease food supplies to turn round at sea, and return to America. An action that he had to countermand swiftly, as the British had threatened to stop all supplies of food and fuel to American forces in the UK, and withdraw the ships from the general pool of shipping. America needed the British ships, especially their liners, such as the two Queens, to ship their troops home. As I have said previously, Anglo American relations can be very complicated at times, especially when the Americans forget that it is often a two way street, and there can be no reaction to their actions. Britain is about to enter a number of post war conferences with the Americans primarily and the other industrial nations, excluding Germany, Italy and Japan. The British are in a stronger position than they were IOTL, in that while they are very much on their uppers, they are not piss poor broke holding a begging bowl. The fact that Britain was somewhat better prepared, especially in armoured vehicles for the conflict, and as a result did better during the Battle of France, and thus wasn’t so desperate after, and so could spare forces for the conflict against Italy in Africa. Plus better results in the Mediterranean and Far East, mean that she hasn’t spent as much of her capital on the war, and by retaining Malaya, Burma, and helping to retain part of the DEI. Not only has she retained valuable resources to sell to America to offset what she receives under Lend Lease, she has also reduced her requirements too. The oil her forces need in the east can come from Burma or the DEI, the rubber goods she needs can be made in Britain with Malay rubber, and the tin that she and the Americans need can come from the Malay tin mines.
If as they should British negotiators can afford to take a firmer position with the Americans post war, and as I have previously mentioned. Get a smaller lone, which has no penalties on early repayment, along with a much better exchange rate Pound to the Dollar, plus no Dollar conversion of old Sterling loans, only on new loans. Which the big boys in the City will soon find themselves a way around, it’s just what they do, being in a lot of cases former barrow boys and real or proto criminals. Then while the UK economy will face many problems and challenges, it should from 1947, enjoy a boom time, and not the series of crises that it faced IOTL. Without the expensive long drawn out withdrawal from Empire, particularly in the East, and a swift clean withdrawal from India, with thanks to the retention of Burma during the war, and the availability of rice, will mean no Bengal famine. Which was very much a stick used by some Indians to rightly beat the British's with given the sheer incompetence of the administration, which failed to heed all the warnings they received. And when relief supplies finally arrived, totally screwed up the distribution, until they eventually called in the army. A stronger Britain will be able to retain better relations with not just India, but also the other former colonies in the East, plus Australia and New Zealand. Which being inside the Sterling area, don’t use American Dollars to trade with the old country. And in most cases would prefer British goods such as cars to American, as not only do they drive on the left, but also their roads are far better sized for European cars. If Britain can get through the final years of the fourties without a serious financial crisis or run on the Pound, and the new Conservative government post the post war Labour government, instead of sitting on its hands, carries out some needed reforms to the nationalised industries, such as breaking them up into more regional units and introducing limited competition. Britain should enjoy a prolonged period of economic growth and prosperity, while it goes through the difficult process of withdrawal from Empire.
RR.
Given just how far this Timeline has diverged from our own, and given how different the UK’s military, economic, industrial positions, will be in the aftermath of the present conflict. If we accept that the vast majority of events in Europe, play out in a basically similar way as they did IOTL, and that there are no major divergences, such as a change of government or the death of either of the Allied leaders, then the underlying situation should remain very similar to that of our Timeline. The one major change could occur in October 44, should the German military attempt to assassinate Hitler succeeded, but I am going to assume that ITTL as in ours it fails. I would expect that first Sicily followed by mainland Italy would be invaded during 1943, with the majority of Italy as far north as Rome, possibly Florence being in Allied hands by the end of the year. While the Soviets will have succeeded in regaining much of their territory, and will be looking to force the Germans of all Soviet territory during 1944. With reduced demand for amphibious equipment, the Anglo Americans should be able to launch their invasion of Europe two months earlier. And with luck and better realisation of just how vital Antwerp is to the invasion effort, have by the end of 44, cleared France, the majority of Italy, Greece and southern Yugoslavia, along with a substantial portion of Holland. Hitler might want to launch an attack in the west, but I seriously doubt Germany will have the resources or capability. Come the new year, the German army will collapse, and the Anglo Americans will sweep through the remainder of Holland, and push into Germany up to its border with Poland. The Germans in Norway, will have either withdrawn to Germany, or surrendered to an Anglo Norwegian invasion force. With Anglo American forces pushing into Austria and Czechoslovak. The war will end as it did with Hitler killing himself, in his bunker in Berlin, and the total surrender of all German forces within days.
For the UK, there can be no question that it will continue the war in the east against the Japanese, and it will within weeks hold a General Election, which unless Winston stands down as the leader of the Conservative Party, Labour will win in a landslide. Should Winston have a moment of sanity, and stand down sighting health reasons, and the Conservatives have a better prepared manifesto, Labour will still win but they might not have such an overwhelming majority. For the porpoises of this post, I am going to go with the result from OTL, and that the new Labour government, has a crushing majority. With Winston and the Conservatives out, but the war in the Far East not yet over, Labour have a number of problems, they can not institute their extensive manifesto commitments, while the war in the East is continuing. They also have to manage the occupation of Germany, and at one and the same time, begin the demobilisation of the forces. The truth is neither the Tory’s, Labour or the British Civil Service, spent the time and intellectual effort needed, on the transition from war, that they had on the transition to war. Admittedly the major mistakes that were made after every previous war, especially the First World War, were to an extent avoided . However that doesn’t mean that a lot were made, as planning for winning a war, takes far more effort than most people realise. A simple example serves to illustrate this, at no time during the war did the British have to ration either bread or potatoes, post war it did have to ration bread, not because there was a shortage of grain, but because there was a world wide shortage of shipping, and a desperate demand to feed people in Europe who were starving. Note this action, along with others contributed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the post war Labour government that led to them losing the next election.
So it’s now 1946, and despite the best efforts of the American administration, Truman on news of the Japanese surrender had ordered ships carrying Lend Lease food supplies to turn round at sea, and return to America. An action that he had to countermand swiftly, as the British had threatened to stop all supplies of food and fuel to American forces in the UK, and withdraw the ships from the general pool of shipping. America needed the British ships, especially their liners, such as the two Queens, to ship their troops home. As I have said previously, Anglo American relations can be very complicated at times, especially when the Americans forget that it is often a two way street, and there can be no reaction to their actions. Britain is about to enter a number of post war conferences with the Americans primarily and the other industrial nations, excluding Germany, Italy and Japan. The British are in a stronger position than they were IOTL, in that while they are very much on their uppers, they are not piss poor broke holding a begging bowl. The fact that Britain was somewhat better prepared, especially in armoured vehicles for the conflict, and as a result did better during the Battle of France, and thus wasn’t so desperate after, and so could spare forces for the conflict against Italy in Africa. Plus better results in the Mediterranean and Far East, mean that she hasn’t spent as much of her capital on the war, and by retaining Malaya, Burma, and helping to retain part of the DEI. Not only has she retained valuable resources to sell to America to offset what she receives under Lend Lease, she has also reduced her requirements too. The oil her forces need in the east can come from Burma or the DEI, the rubber goods she needs can be made in Britain with Malay rubber, and the tin that she and the Americans need can come from the Malay tin mines.
If as they should British negotiators can afford to take a firmer position with the Americans post war, and as I have previously mentioned. Get a smaller lone, which has no penalties on early repayment, along with a much better exchange rate Pound to the Dollar, plus no Dollar conversion of old Sterling loans, only on new loans. Which the big boys in the City will soon find themselves a way around, it’s just what they do, being in a lot of cases former barrow boys and real or proto criminals. Then while the UK economy will face many problems and challenges, it should from 1947, enjoy a boom time, and not the series of crises that it faced IOTL. Without the expensive long drawn out withdrawal from Empire, particularly in the East, and a swift clean withdrawal from India, with thanks to the retention of Burma during the war, and the availability of rice, will mean no Bengal famine. Which was very much a stick used by some Indians to rightly beat the British's with given the sheer incompetence of the administration, which failed to heed all the warnings they received. And when relief supplies finally arrived, totally screwed up the distribution, until they eventually called in the army. A stronger Britain will be able to retain better relations with not just India, but also the other former colonies in the East, plus Australia and New Zealand. Which being inside the Sterling area, don’t use American Dollars to trade with the old country. And in most cases would prefer British goods such as cars to American, as not only do they drive on the left, but also their roads are far better sized for European cars. If Britain can get through the final years of the fourties without a serious financial crisis or run on the Pound, and the new Conservative government post the post war Labour government, instead of sitting on its hands, carries out some needed reforms to the nationalised industries, such as breaking them up into more regional units and introducing limited competition. Britain should enjoy a prolonged period of economic growth and prosperity, while it goes through the difficult process of withdrawal from Empire.
RR.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Exactly. Most of the bombed-odd families came from the slums or tenements in city centres, rather than suburbia, so numbers had a quality all of their own. Could argue a Nissen hut was an upgrade!
My grandfather was a master builder in Coulsdon both pre- and post-war. As someone else has already stated, 1930's housing stock are still highly regarded. The war nearly bankrupted him with the land purchased but no sales for 6 years.
In regards to the postwar Britain and its finances, while it is certainly too soon to tell and I am as far from expert on such matters, I would still dare to say that British/CW are better off ITTL.
The relatively quick and victorious campaign in Africa is not something thag can be disregarded, considering the amount of manpower, resources and shipping OTL NA campaign consumed. Add to that likely reduced losses in other areas, such as casualties RN suffered during OTL evacuation of Greece, defense of Crete and need to fight the convoys through to Malta. I mean, that is a decent sized fleet that RN has deployed Far East, with Singapore ready to service and maintain it.
It will be interesting to see how developed are RN CV operations ITTL, compared to OTL, since I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that due to CW success in North Africa, without Malta playing the important role for so long, that maybe RN CV operations, especially in regards to fighter control would be somewhat less developed and refined ITTL?
There is also HMS Victorious/USS Robin case to consider, will the CV transfer happen ITTL, if the USN does have availlable carrier around and how much would it matter ITTL?
Frankly, does anyone know what lessons were learned by the RN/FAA from USN and what practices adopted? That there are going to be observers from RN/USN is OTL, but what could British miss out on if they do not borrow a carrier to the US? They likely have some to spare, as Ark Royal is still around, maybe we see Indefatigables come earlier, though I do not know how realistic that would be.
The relatively quick and victorious campaign in Africa is not something thag can be disregarded, considering the amount of manpower, resources and shipping OTL NA campaign consumed. Add to that likely reduced losses in other areas, such as casualties RN suffered during OTL evacuation of Greece, defense of Crete and need to fight the convoys through to Malta. I mean, that is a decent sized fleet that RN has deployed Far East, with Singapore ready to service and maintain it.
It will be interesting to see how developed are RN CV operations ITTL, compared to OTL, since I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that due to CW success in North Africa, without Malta playing the important role for so long, that maybe RN CV operations, especially in regards to fighter control would be somewhat less developed and refined ITTL?
There is also HMS Victorious/USS Robin case to consider, will the CV transfer happen ITTL, if the USN does have availlable carrier around and how much would it matter ITTL?
Frankly, does anyone know what lessons were learned by the RN/FAA from USN and what practices adopted? That there are going to be observers from RN/USN is OTL, but what could British miss out on if they do not borrow a carrier to the US? They likely have some to spare, as Ark Royal is still around, maybe we see Indefatigables come earlier, though I do not know how realistic that would be.
How much money from the middle eastern oil the UK controlled or had the rights to would be available both during the war and post war? As much as the US oil is cheap, how much might be saved by substituting UK oil because the shipping is cheaper for some countries and places. It is a shorter haul to bring crude and refined products from the Middle East than to ship all the way from the US across the Atlantic which might be subject to Uboats.
My dads parents were bombed out of New Malden during the Blitz and evacuated to the Sussex coast - they lived in a prefab until after the war.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
While it might seem to be, in reality it wasn’t, as both Shell and BP, did a deal with the 5 American members of the 7 sisters, that levied a surcharge on Middle Eastern oil that brought its price equivalent to American oil in Europe.
RR.
Feeling a bit under the weather and taking a break from posting for a few days, except for maybe one of the pony threads.
I'll skip the Frisian Islands joke which would probably be normally obligatory at this point...
I'll skip the Frisian Islands joke which would probably be normally obligatory at this point...
It doesn't take much to rig a dockyard with explosives, which was the primary reason for the harbours. It didn't surprise the Germans what they were for, but where they were placed.
Well my statement was about, not necessarily under-utilised construction space, but whether constructions could be sped up by using round-the-clock working, rather than just standard daytime shift. Possibly not though.
Last edited: