The countries are being drawn more together by foreign affairs, this is combined by a pro-european British Government. Everythings drawing them closer together.Good to see another update. Will the Anglo-French Union be taken more seriously then?
Britains armed forces where huge in the 1950's with some of the best fighters and tanks in the world and in alliance with France, Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand we could not have been broken by anyone.
From this and your other posts, I see you are very pro-British, I'm quite pro-British myself but we have to look at the situation realistically. Did you ever read Corelli Barnett's 'Decline and Fall' trilogy, particularly 'The Audit of War'? Terrific books, written from a very pro-British PoV but they make clear that the British situation versus other powers WW2 onwards was very poor, and the roots of that decline go back to before WW1.
The British were in an alliance with France at Suez. The military forces of Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand were tiny. The reality of the situation is that post-WW2 the Americans were in a different league to Britain, economically and militarily.
From this and your other posts, I see you are very pro-British, I'm quite pro-British myself but we have to look at the situation realistically. Did you ever read Correlli Barnett's 'The Pride and Fall' trilogy, particularly 'The Audit of War'? Terrific books, written from a very pro-British PoV but they make clear that the British situation versus other powers WW2 onwards was very poor, and the roots of that decline go back to before WW1.
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then?I must say those books are absolutely awful. A much needed tonic if one has extreme Britwank views but others of little value.
My view is a realistic view.
In 1956 the British armed forces where over 700,000 strong with Conscription still in place too.
The RAF and Royal Navy where both very powerful forces at the time.
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then?I agree they are quite repetitive and anecdotal BTW.
Are you claiming that the RAF was of comparable size to the USAF, that the Royal Navy was of comparable size to the USN, that the British Army was of comparable size to the US Army, that the British economy was of comparable size to the US economy?
If you are then you're wrong, I'm afraid.
If not, then what is the point you are trying to make?
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then?I agree they are quite repetitive and anecdotal BTW.
Im not saying any of that what I said is wrote above.
Are you saying the USA could have defeated the above and the French Israelis and Aussies?
I think he might benefit from reading anything.
Then again, perhaps not, new knowledge washes over some people.
In any sustained confrontation, easily. In a short confrontation it may have actually been outnumbered in theory, but its readiness would be vastly superior.
Instead of the juvanile insults that no doubt you wouldnt dare use in real life but get your release here why dont we have a look at the facts and figures of Army, Navy and Airforce strength from 1956 of the USA, UK and France.
Firstly, Australia and Canada actually opposed the British/French position during the Suez Crisis. Actually, the UK recieved a rebuke over the issue from Canada and Australia. I minor point, I know but the Commonwealth was split over Suez. Rhodesia as a colony never really had much say in the matter.Britains armed forces where huge in the 1950's with some of the best fighters and tanks in the world and in alliance with France, Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand we could not have been broken by anyone.
Firstly, Australia and Canada actually opposed the British/French position during the Suez Crisis. Actually, the UK recieved a rebuke over the issue from Canada and Australia. I minor point, I know but the Commonwealth was split over Suez. Rhodesia as a colony never really had much say in the matter.
In addition to this, the US or the USSR would have defeated the France/Israel/UK alliance in a straight fight, but with losses to all sides. In terms of global power the US was a mile ahead of Britain at this point. To state otherwise is almost ASB. They did however have the power to defeat the Egyptian Armed Forces though.
The premise of me writing this timeline was a conclusion which was drawn in a book by Barry Turner of the crisis that the UK could have held out under the financial pressure during the invasion, and that the situation wasnt as bad as Eden believed. This would be combined with the Americans believing that they needed the Anglo-French in the Western tent rather than out of it. I believe if they were to stick to the policy over a period of time it would drive the British and the French closer together.