The Third Superpower: A British TL

[A Scarecrow]

I find it hard to think of any mechanism by which the Conservatives could come close to victory in 1945.

Well, to be fair I think Mustard does have that sorted. If Atlee had been stupid enough to compare Churchill and the Conservatives to the Nazis then he would have lost a great deal of support.

That said I doubt he would have been stupid enough to do so.

ITTL, given the set-up, my analysis would be that Britain is heading rapidly for the toilet. It will try to hold on to too much for too long at too great an expense, will fail to provide a safety net worth speaking of, and there will be a repeat of the 20s, only with a less biddable electorate.

I'm not sure, if Churchill actually put forth maximum effort into what was stipulated in the Beveridge report than it would on the health-care front end fairly well.

However, as a leader he had the bad habit of micro-managment which could make everything so much worse.

Empire wise... I can think of only one way that it ends even marginally well for Britain. That is if someone has gotten it into Churchills head that a move towards a united Commonwealth would be more appropriate in the post-war world. Even still, India is going to end badly and large chunks of Africa/Far East are going to be lost in some form or another.

Furthermore, you have to consider what exactly is going to be done with that Empire/Commonwealth. Logically the UK is going to have to sink a massive amount of money (Doesn't have) and manpower into those areas in attempt to development them and make them finanically viable (which basically everywhere in the Empire except India was not.)

Of course, if Britain did somehow manage to maintain a significant part of its Empire and consequently develop it then it would be a superpower but it would be expensive to do and take a bloody long time. Politicians are not known for long-term thinking, most especially the ones that lead the UK through the coldwar.

 

[Thomas1195]

Maybe have British leaders realize from 1945 that Suez would be their last hope.

 

[Mustard]

Part II: Domestic Developments

Before we look at how Churchill’s Government deals with foreign policy and the Empire, let’s look at the domestic scene, shall we?

Shortly after returning to Number Ten Downing Street after a successful election campaign, Churchill proceeded to reshuffle his Cabinet, now that the ministers from other parties were no longer in Government. The Second Churchill Ministry had a Cabinet which was composed as follows:

· Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury: Winston Churchill

· Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary: Anthony Eden

· Chancellor of the Exchequer: Sir John Anderson

· Home Secretary: Donald Somervell

· Lord President of the Council: Lord Woolton

· Lord Privy Seal: Lord Beaverbrook

· First Lord of the Admiralty: Brendan Bracken

· Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Robert Hudson

· Secretary of State for Air: Harold Macmillan

· Secretary of State for the Colonies: Oliver Stanley

· Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs: Viscount Cranborne

· Minister of Education: Richard Law

· Secretary of State for India and Burma: Leo Amery

· Minister of Labour and National Service: Rab Butler

· Minister of Production and President of the Board of Trade: Oliver Lyttelton

· Secretary of State for Scotland: The Earl of Rosebery

· Secretary of State for War: Sir P.J. Grigg

Amongst most Britons, there was a general anticipation that the Beveridge Report would be implemented – Churchill and his Government, having committed to implementing the Report during the campaign, knew this, and so the implementation of the Report’s recommendations was the major domestic issue of Churchill’s second term. However, unlike Labour, which demanded that the Report should be introduced immediately, Churchill announced that his Government would take a ‘steady, steady’ approach – it would be foolish, the Prime Minister declared, to burden the economy so quickly, and it would be better to wait until the British economy had recovered from the war.

In this time, Churchill instead placed an emphasis on the development of new housing states to replace those destroyed by the Blitz. The Government’s housing scheme was ultimately a success, and within two years 200,000 houses were built to repair those destroyed in war. The reconstruction effort was also aided by the Marshall Plan, initiated by the United States, yet the Government’s emphasis on housing meant that the UK needed less aid than the countries on the Continent.

By mid-1949, it was clear that the British economy had recovered from the war and was growing at a robust rate, far above its competitors in Europe due to the economic decisions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Anderson, and so Churchill announced that it was now time to implement the Beveridge Report. So, the Government tabled a National Health Service Bill, which established a national healthcare system. Unsurprisingly, the Bill received cross-party support, and was duly passed into law. Thus, Churchill had implemented the main recommendation of the Beveridge Report with minimal economic impact.

Meanwhile, while these developments were occurring within the UK, events were also occurring abroad which required the attention of Churchill’s Government.

 

[Ilúphatar]

After comparing the NHS to the Nazis? I'm skeptical. Being a Conservative often involves assuming that no change is inevitable.

I don't think Churchill compared the NHS to Nazism, considering:

"In his broadcast Churchill spoke of the need to establish a National
Health Service on 'broad and solid foundations', to provide national
compulsory insurance 'from cradle to grave', and to ensure far wider
educational opportunities and 'fair competition' so extended that Britain
would draw its leaders from every type of school and wearing every kind of
tie'." Quoted from Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: A Life (http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/without-winston-churchill-nhs-would-not-exist)

I would also argue that Conservatism is more about managing change rather than preventing it, but I don't wish to hijack the thread with a debate about the nature of ideology.

A coalition government, actually. Attlee was in the War Cabinet.

Quite. Still, in the public eye, Churchill was certainly the 'main man', as it were. Atlee is rarely described as generating the same passion and feeling that Churchill's (much vaunted) oratory occasionally achieved. And the Conservatives were the largest party at the time.

Was he? His reactions to the Chanak Crisis and the assassination of Henry Hughes Wilson suggest otherwise. Anyways, keeping India as a Dominion would open up an uncomfortable can of worms over who dictates Commonwealth policy that I don't think he'd find appealing either.

In my own personal Grecophile view p), I do not criticise Churchill for his stance on war. I would also say that a friendly Greece within the 'informal Empire' dominating the Aegean would be preferable to a more assertive Turkey. And it was certainly within the boundaries of realism that Thrace could be held indefinitely against the Turks.

I assume you mean the incident with Mr Collins and the start of the Irish Civil War?

The issue of common Commonwealth policy is indeed an issue. I can't see Churchill accepting a system based on population, given the size of India. Perhaps a ratio system could be worked out, as in Rule Britannia!.

 

[TRH]

Quite. Still, in the public eye, Churchill was certainly the 'main man', as it were. Atlee is rarely described as generating the same passion and feeling that Churchill's (much vaunted) oratory occasionally achieved. And the Conservatives were the largest party at the time.

Well, I'm not British, and America doesn't have the same experiences with unity governments, but I rather thought the point was to make sure that no one Party owned the war effort. So at best, you might get a reaction along the lines of "Gee, thanks for getting us through that mess that you caused yourselves! What's that, Winston? You weren't with Chamberlain on appeasement? Well, there's also that other guy who wanted to do something about Hitler, and he had his Party behind him on it, too."

In my own personal Grecophile view p), I do not criticise Churchill for his stance on war. I would also say that a friendly Greece within the 'informal Empire' dominating the Aegean would be preferable to a more assertive Turkey. And it was certainly within the boundaries of realism that Thrace could be held indefinitely against the Turks.

The intended casus belli was Turkish violation of the Treaty of Sevres, which was all but explicitly an attempt to colonize Turkey wholesale, so I'm less sympathetic. And a victory would only drive the Turks further into the arms of the Soviet Union, so that would only cause further problems, whereas the Turks were acceptably neutral in terms of affecting British interests from 1920 onwards, so it's not like the Empire suffered from not going to war over Chanak. That's not touching the matter that the Commonwealth refused to back Britain on this.

I assume you mean the incident with Mr Collins and the start of the Irish Civil War?

Yeah, it would have restarted the Anglo-Irish War for nothing and made fishwrap out of the treaty they'd just signed. Little good would come out of that, and the point I was driving at between this and Chanak is that it's rare for Churchill to have seen a potential war he didn't like, even immediately after World Wars when there was no stomach for it. And that also implies that since he was so belligerent in the years after World War I, he might very well have been willing to fight for India after the second war, especially since the stakes were much higher.

The issue of common Commonwealth policy is indeed an issue. I can't see Churchill accepting a system based on population, given the size of India. Perhaps a ratio system could be worked out, as in Rule Britannia!.

And the problem is that I don't see the Indians accepting that arrangement. What's in it for them to accept less than one person, one vote? Not like the British wouldn't come up with excuses for why their opinion should matter more than India's, but Indians wouldn't like those rationales too much.

 

[NixonTheUsedCarSalesman]

Interesting to see how this diverges from my TL. I'm doing the same POD with the same task in mind.

 

[Lost Freeway]

It was literally Americas policy post-war to destroy British power. Because kicking a friend while he's down is exactly what an American will do apparently?

Yes, how dare the United States not allow Britain to continue oppressing-sorry, enlightening-those ignorant darkies?

 

[A Scarecrow]

Yes, how dare the United States not allow Britain to continue oppressing-sorry, enlightening-those ignorant darkies?

This argument would work. If America wasn't just as racist, if not more so at the time. Honestly, the US didn't care about the oppression at all so its not really an angle you can take.

And really, if your trying to argue that Somalia (as an example) is any better off than it was 70 years ago...?

 

[Retiarius]

Really, the UK was the first superpower, & the only way I can think of to prevent it from becoming the EU member with attitude we know & love today is to run with the whole Imperial Parliament idea.

 

[TRH]

This argument would work. If America wasn't just as racist, if not more so at the time. Honestly, the US didn't care about the oppression at all so its not really an angle you can take.

And really, if your trying to argue that Somalia (as an example) is any better off than it was 70 years ago...?

Tu quoque isn't a good defense, you know. And Somalia fell to pieces in the mid-80's, near as I can tell.

Lastly, I'm still not too clear on what, besides Suez, the US did to so horrifically truncate the British Empire.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Looking forward to see what happens
Hope the special relationship continues. Did Truman get reelected in 1948?

 

[Thomas1195]

The intended casus belli was Turkish violation of the Treaty of Sevres, which was all but explicitly an attempt to colonize Turkey wholesale, so I'm less sympathetic. And a victory would only drive the Turks further into the arms of the Soviet Union, so that would only cause further problems, whereas the Turks were acceptably neutral in terms of affecting British interests from 1920 onwards, so it's not like the Empire suffered from not going to war over Chanak. That's not touching the matter that the Commonwealth refused to back Britain on this.

Actually, Liberal Party had been anti-Turkish for years. No wonder Churchill and LG wanted war.

 

[TRH]

Actually, Liberal Party had been anti-Turkish for years. No wonder Churchill and LG wanted war.

Well, yes, but they'd had a war with the Turks, and then they stopped. If Churchill and LG wanted to resume, there had to have been a rationale besides "Bah, those Turks just suck, ya know?" And that rationale was "Bah, those Turks think they're too good for our dictates treaties! Can't have that, can we?"

 

[Lost Freeway]

This argument would work. If America wasn't just as racist, if not more so at the time. Honestly, the US didn't care about the oppression at all so its not really an angle you can take.

That still doesn't change the fact that you're being nostalgic for an entity built on the oppression of non-whites.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Setting aside philosophical debates on the nature of imperialism, the major obstacle you're going to run into in this attempt is the reality of superpower status in so far as it is built around economic, military, demographic and industrial strength. Britain on its own cannot compete with the United States or the Soviet Union in any of these categories.

Even with an economic performance 10-20% greater than historical, Britain by 1956 would still only have a GDP of ~$480 billion 1990 USD compared to $1843 billion for the USA and $710 billion for the USSR; the latter was not yet really hitting its straps as it would in the 1960s. Britain has a population of 51 million, compared to 168 million (USA) and ~200 million (USSR). Both the USA and the USSR can call upon the resources of a large continental land mass, have significantly more power generation capacity (both installed and potential) and each has a large industrial base with considerable capacity for growth. They can sustain military forces of over 2 million in total peacetime strength indefinitely and the Soviet Union, by nature of its communist dictatorship, can afford (at least for the immediate future) levels of defence spending that leave Britain in the dust.

Therefore Britain on its own cannot be a superpower. It can be a Great Power and the 'best of the rest' until such time as China gets its house in order; Japan and Germany are constrained by politics and France suffers from the same limitations as Britain and then some more of their own. The British Empire was a superpower, by virtue of the fact that it comprised the metropolitian industrial base, the capabilities of the Dominions, the manpower and resources of India and the resources of Africa, whilst being able to use the factories and resources of North America on a commercial basis. Britain on its own hasn't been a superpower since the 19th century, when the definition hadn't yet been coined and wasn't applicable.

The financial constraints on Britain in the 1940s and 1950s are quite daunting and reinforce the economic problem of the Cold War, to drop the name of a good text on the issue. Plenty can be done - British industry can be developed and reformed in a number of areas, a stronger military can be maintained for not substantially greater costs, certain parts of the Empire can remain under British control or association and a strong, sound mixed economy can be gradually developed that doesn't fall into the 1970s nadir. Many potential PoDs and alternate decisions lie ahead as of 1945. None of them lead to that elusive word beginning with "S" (and I'm not talking about the Kryptonian word for 'hope').

In conclusion, you can change the management at the top, the order of events and even the wallpaper, but it won't alter the trajectory of long term economic and political developments nor help unless you change the definition of a superpower.

 

[Thomas1195]

Setting aside philosophical debates on the nature of imperialism, the major obstacle you're going to run into in this attempt is the reality of superpower status in so far as it is built around economic, military, demographic and industrial strength. Britain on its own cannot compete with the United States or the Soviet Union in any of these categories.

Even with an economic performance 10-20% greater than historical, Britain by 1956 would still only have a GDP of ~$480 billion 1990 USD compared to $1843 billion for the USA and $710 billion for the USSR; the latter was not yet really hitting its straps as it would in the 1960s. Britain has a population of 51 million, compared to 168 million (USA) and ~200 million (USSR). Both the USA and the USSR can call upon the resources of a large continental land mass, have significantly more power generation capacity (both installed and potential) and each has a large industrial base with considerable capacity for growth. They can sustain military forces of over 2 million in total peacetime strength indefinitely and the Soviet Union, by nature of its communist dictatorship, can afford (at least for the immediate future) levels of defence spending that leave Britain in the dust.

Therefore Britain on its own cannot be a superpower. It can be a Great Power and the 'best of the rest' until such time as China gets its house in order; Japan and Germany are constrained by politics and France suffers from the same limitations as Britain and then some more of their own. The British Empire was a superpower, by virtue of the fact that it comprised the metropolitian industrial base, the capabilities of the Dominions, the manpower and resources of India and the resources of Africa, whilst being able to use the factories and resources of North America on a commercial basis. Britain on its own hasn't been a superpower since the 19th century, when the definition hadn't yet been coined and wasn't applicable.

The financial constraints on Britain in the 1940s and 1950s are quite daunting and reinforce the economic problem of the Cold War, to drop the name of a good text on the issue. Plenty can be done - British industry can be developed and reformed in a number of areas, a stronger military can be maintained for not substantially greater costs, certain parts of the Empire can remain under British control or association and a strong, sound mixed economy can be gradually developed that doesn't fall into the 1970s nadir. Many potential PoDs and alternate decisions lie ahead as of 1945. None of them lead to that elusive word beginning with "S" (and I'm not talking about the Kryptonian word for 'hope').

In conclusion, you can change the management at the top, the order of events and even the wallpaper, but it won't alter the trajectory of long term economic and political developments nor help unless you change the definition of a superpower.

A 1945 POD is too late, but with a POD from 1923, if British average GDP growth was 2-3% higher than IOTL, by 1939 its economy would be larger than both USSR and Germany in 1990 USD. This could have been done by avoiding austerity and Gold Standard.

 

[TRH]

A 1945 POD is too late, but with a POD from 1923, if British average GDP growth was 2-3% higher than IOTL, by 1939 its economy would be larger than both USSR and Germany in 1990 USD. This could have been done by avoiding austerity and Gold Standard.

That seems like a big ask with the Great Depression and global trade collapsing no matter what they do.

 

[hwyl]

Maybe taking the lead in Europe and replacing France as the de facto leading power of the EC could preserve more of Britain's status, but with a POD in 1945 it surely couldn't have done much on it's own. White-Keynes duel in Bretton Woods pretty much settled the US economic supermacy in the post-war era, and Britain gave way because it was quite literally broke, and dependent on a huge loan from the US which it got on harsh terms.

 

[David Flin]

I don't think Churchill compared the NHS to Nazism, considering:

"In his broadcast Churchill spoke of the need to establish a National
Health Service on 'broad and solid foundations', to provide national
compulsory insurance 'from cradle to grave', and to ensure far wider
educational opportunities and 'fair competition' so extended that Britain
would draw its leaders from every type of school and wearing every kind of
tie'." Quoted from Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: A Life (http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/without-winston-churchill-nhs-would-not-exist)

Although if we consider the source in BMJ, we can see that the article also suggests:

Doctors would be encouraged more if they were paid per item of
service and would gain more satisfaction from the work that they did.
Salaries only make them lazy and work-shy.

I'm not entirely sure that the article can be considered reliable, and consequently, I would suspect the quote you cite as having been cherry-picked. Churchill said many things, many of them with great conviction, and many of them contradictory.

What we do know is that in OTL, on 3 July 1945 (too late to effect the result of the General Election), he presented a paper to the Conservative Party, suggesting moving forward on National Insurance and a form of insurance-based National Health Service. The paper was rejected out of hand by the Party. This suggests to me that one can argue that Churchill would have been in favour of such schemes (the details of which could be open to debate), but that his party would have fought them tooth and nail. With a narrow Conservative victory, you could get such a scheme through, relying on rebel Conservatives and Labour support. With a large Conservative victory, these plans are doomed to the scrapheap of history.

I do know, through relatives who had gone through the period under discussion, that there was no way on Earth that the servicemen would have voted in any numbers for the Conservative Party, blamed for Appeasement and putting them in harm's way in the first place. Feelings about Churchill varied; feelings about the Conservative Party amongst the guys wanting to come home ranged from dislike to regarding them as traitors.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Thomas, raising average annual growth by even 2% over 22 years will have an impact, but would be somewhere between extraordinarily hard and impossible to sustain, particularly as the period includes several recessions, a Depression and the flat 1920s; it is possible in a computer game, but not in real history. Economic growth isn't something that sticks forever, particularly if it took Britain until 1924/25 to simply get back to a 1914 level. If you want to alter the trajectory of the British economy, you need to do what you've done elsewhere and go back to the 19th century. Even if we fiddle with dates, the Soviet Union will eventually overtake Britain in raw GDP, whether it is 1947, 1955 or 1960. Now, the British standard of living was better, along with a number of other measures. These don't amount to much in the hard power stakes.

Britain also has the problem of size. It would take far less of a blow to knock out the British Isles as an industrial base and viable entity than the USA or Soviet Union and it is vulnerable to blockade in the manner that a continental state (in this case meaning a state that spans a continental sized land mass) is not.

Going for leadership in the EC doesn't give Britain an independent Great Power role, let alone a superpower role. It simply shackles them to the Continent, with all of the problems that entails. They would become an adjunct of a larger entity, rather than its major driver; France and Germany will eventually recover. It is more in line with consistent British policy to play the two off against each other, but the broader issue of the Cold War threat from the Soviet Union.