lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969 
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 2, 2018 19:57:56 GMT
So we might see the French and British being forced to have large nuclear arsenals than they had in OTL. Britain and France - or Britain and a centralised EU if eurofed's plans partially worked would have had to have larger nuclear arsenals definitely. Although without the OTL links with the US it would be somewhat more expensive. That would be affordable. However seeking to maintain large enough forces conventionally would be very expensive without a US involvement even if colonial adventures were avoided or deep divisions not generated inside western Europe. Multi-national production would help but they are normally more expensive than national ones because of the extra bureaucracy and additional interests that are involved. I can see western Europe maintaining enough forces that they could deter a Soviet attack - possibly especially if the weaker conventional forces means that the nuclear option is more likely to be used in the event of an attack. Almost certain those involved would be paying at least as much in terms of % of the national GDP as the US did OTL and probably more. As such you would have a significantly poorer western Europe, although probably still some way above the levels in eastern Europe. The big questions of whether a centralised state could be formed out of most of the OTL core EEC countries so quickly or whether you could have the German military whitewashed and then rearmed quicker and more completely without heavy costs I will avoid commenting on.
I'm working here on the assumption that the US is involved militarily and economic until say ~1950 however as otherwise its a no-go. Not sure what the status of W Berlin would be once the US quit Europe as it would be very vulnerable after that so that is likely to be lost. Hadn't thought of it before but seems pretty impossible for the Europeans to defend it against a new blockade say.
Would we see French troops stationed in West Germany as a replacement of American troops. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 21:09:36 GMT
Britain and France - or Britain and a centralised EU if eurofed's plans partially worked would have had to have larger nuclear arsenals definitely. Although without the OTL links with the US it would be somewhat more expensive. That would be affordable. However seeking to maintain large enough forces conventionally would be very expensive without a US involvement even if colonial adventures were avoided or deep divisions not generated inside western Europe. Yeah, large conventional forces are expensive, especially if you try to match the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane. However, I assume the Anglo-Euros past a point would try to compensate the Soviet quantity advantage first through development of a nuclear deterrent built according to a countervalue doctrine, and second through the development of more technologically advanced weapon systems and doctrines geared up to neutralize Soviet advantages. OTL NATO leaned towards the former in the 50s and 60s, when the Americans still had nuclear superiority. When this waned, they shifted towards the latter in the 70s and 80s. With all the necessary differences due to TTL circumstances, such as the W Europeans never having a WMD advantage to begin with, I think TTL Anglo-Euro Nato would still try similar approaches. Well, the economic strain of rearmament would be especially burdensome for Europe early in the Cold War, when W Europe still had to complete its reconstruction/industrialization. Later in the TL, when the area was in in its post-WWII boom, I assume it could afford to pay for a fairly large conventional army w/o needing to seriously tighten their belts. The Americans spend so much also b/c they seek to keep extensive global force projection capability. If the Euros largely give up the rest of the world, and focus on their own continent only and its immediate environs, they don't need to spend so much (e.g. little need to have fleets in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean). Although they'd need to be able to project in the Middle East at least, unless they seek to become energy independent. And they would need a combined naval power strong enough to stop the Soviets from controlling the Atlantic and the Med. Full agreement here. W Berlin would likely be impossible to keep, as well as W Vienna if TTL Austria follows the division path of Germany, if the Soviets seek to seize it/them soon after the Americans pull out. If the Soviets made a move for the exclave(s) in the early 60s, however, it would be a different matter. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 21:16:46 GMT
Britain and France - or Britain and a centralised EU if eurofed's plans partially worked would have had to have larger nuclear arsenals definitely. Although without the OTL links with the US it would be somewhat more expensive. That would be affordable. However seeking to maintain large enough forces conventionally would be very expensive without a US involvement even if colonial adventures were avoided or deep divisions not generated inside western Europe. Multi-national production would help but they are normally more expensive than national ones because of the extra bureaucracy and additional interests that are involved. I can see western Europe maintaining enough forces that they could deter a Soviet attack - possibly especially if the weaker conventional forces means that the nuclear option is more likely to be used in the event of an attack. Almost certain those involved would be paying at least as much in terms of % of the national GDP as the US did OTL and probably more. As such you would have a significantly poorer western Europe, although probably still some way above the levels in eastern Europe. The big questions of whether a centralised state could be formed out of most of the OTL core EEC countries so quickly or whether you could have the German military whitewashed and then rearmed quicker and more completely without heavy costs I will avoid commenting on.
I'm working here on the assumption that the US is involved militarily and economic until say ~1950 however as otherwise its a no-go. Not sure what the status of W Berlin would be once the US quit Europe as it would be very vulnerable after that so that is likely to be lost. Hadn't thought of it before but seems pretty impossible for the Europeans to defend it against a new blockade say.
Would we see French troops stationed in West Germany as a replacement of American troops. Almost certainly. British ones too, and probably in Italy as well. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 2, 2018 21:17:59 GMT
Britain and France - or Britain and a centralised EU if eurofed's plans partially worked would have had to have larger nuclear arsenals definitely. Although without the OTL links with the US it would be somewhat more expensive. That would be affordable. However seeking to maintain large enough forces conventionally would be very expensive without a US involvement even if colonial adventures were avoided or deep divisions not generated inside western Europe. Yeah, large conventional forces are expensive, especially if you try to match the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane. However, I assume the Anglo-Euros past a point would try to compensate the Soviet quantity advantage first through development of a nuclear deterrent built according to a countervalue doctrine, and second through the development of more technologically advanced weapon systems and doctrines geared up to neutralize Soviet advantages. OTL NATO leaned towards the former in the 50s and 60s, when the Americans still had nuclear superiority. When this waned, they shifted towards the latter in the 70s and 80s. With all the necessary differences of TTL circumstances, such as the W Europeans never having a WMD advantage to begin with, I think TTL Anglo-Euro Nato would still try similar approaches. Well, the economic strain of rearmament would be especially burdensome for Europe early in the Cold War, when W Europe still has to complete its reconstruction/industrialization. Later in the TL, when the area would be in its post-WWII boom, I assume it could afford to pay for a fairly large conventional army w/o needing to seriously tighten their belts. The Americans spend so much also b/c they seek to keep extensive global force projection capability. If the Euros largely give up the rest of the world, and focus on their own continent only and its immediate environs, they don't need to spend so much (e.g. little need to have fleets in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean). Although they'd need to be able to project in the Middle East at least, unless they seek to become energy independent. And they would need a combined naval power strong enough to stop the Soviets from controlling the Atlantic and the Med. Full agreement here. W Berlin would likely be impossible to keep, as well as W Vienna if TTL Austria follows the division path of Germany, if the Soviets seek to seize it/them soon after the Americans pull out. If the Soviets made a move for the exclave(s) in the early 60s, however, it would be a different matter. That would be a very small Soviet controlled Austria, most likely it would be absorbed by East Germany.  |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 21:32:53 GMT
That would be a very small Soviet controlled Austria, most likely it would be absorbed by East Germany. Indeed, although it has some of the most populated and economically valuable areas of Austria. I agree it would likely be absorbed by East Germany, just like the Western portion would likely reunify with W Germany, more or less the same way the latter got back the Saar in the late '50s. W Vienna would become a carbon copy of W Berlin, and almost surely share its fate. I tend to assume US withdrawal form Europe would embolden the Soviets to get more aggressive, and Sovietization of the portion of Austria they controlled would be one of their obvious targets, alongside W Berlin. Perhaps they would also try to settle their score with Tito, more or less the way they quelled the rebellions in their restive WP satellites. Soviet occupation of Yugoslavia would not be a walk in the park for the Red Army, but in the end they would likely crush resistance like they did with all the other anti-Soviet resistance groups in Eastern Europe. This would increase the strategic threat for Italy and Greece. W Austria is not populous or industrialized enough it would add that much to the Western bloc, or look likely to stand up on its own as an independent nation, but its control would still grant NATO a significant advantage by closing a strategic gap between Bavaria and North Italy. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 2, 2018 21:49:27 GMT
That would be a very small Soviet controlled Austria, most likely it would be absorbed by East Germany. Indeed, although it has some of the most populated and economically valuable areas of Austria. I agree it would likely be absorbed by East Germany, just like the Western portion would likely reunify with W Germany, more or less the same way the latter got back the Saar in the late '50s. W Vienna would become a carbon copy of W Berlin, and almost surely share its fate. I tend to assume US withdrawal form Europe would embolden the Soviets to get more aggressive, and Sovietization of the portion of Austria they controlled would be one of their obvious targets, alongside W Berlin. Perhaps they would also try to settle their score with Tito, more or less the way they quelled the rebellions in their restive WP satellites. Soviet occupation of Yugoslavia would not be a walk in the park for the Red Army, but in the end they would likely crush resistance likely they did with all the other anti-Soviet resistance groups in Eastern Europe. This would increase the strategic threat for Italy and Greece. W Austria is not populous or industrialized enough it would add that much to the Western bloc, or look likely to stand up on its own as an independent nation, but its control would still grant NATO a significant advantage by closing a strategic gap between Bavaria and North Italy. West Austria would in my eyes remain independent, it is larger than East Austria. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 21:57:26 GMT
Indeed, although it has some of the most populated and economically valuable areas of Austria. I agree it would likely be absorbed by East Germany, just like the Western portion would likely reunify with W Germany, more or less the same way the latter got back the Saar in the late '50s. W Vienna would become a carbon copy of W Berlin, and almost surely share its fate. I tend to assume US withdrawal form Europe would embolden the Soviets to get more aggressive, and Sovietization of the portion of Austria they controlled would be one of their obvious targets, alongside W Berlin. Perhaps they would also try to settle their score with Tito, more or less the way they quelled the rebellions in their restive WP satellites. Soviet occupation of Yugoslavia would not be a walk in the park for the Red Army, but in the end they would likely crush resistance likely they did with all the other anti-Soviet resistance groups in Eastern Europe. This would increase the strategic threat for Italy and Greece. W Austria is not populous or industrialized enough it would add that much to the Western bloc, or look likely to stand up on its own as an independent nation, but its control would still grant NATO a significant advantage by closing a strategic gap between Bavaria and North Italy. West Austria would in my eyes remain independent, it is larger than East Austria. Admittedly quite possible, especially if TTL core EU evolves fast enough towards a quasi-federal path, so that the other W European nations can support its economy and defence well enough it does not seem likely to become a strategic liability for the security of W Germany and Italy. Successful establishment of the EDC/EPC/EEC triad should suffice. In such a case, W Austria shall become the seventh founding member state of the EU, or close enough to be grandfathered as such. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,494
Likes: 12,091
|
Post by stevep on Nov 2, 2018 22:07:08 GMT
Yeah, large conventional forces are expensive, especially if you try to match the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane. However, I assume the Anglo-Euros past a point would try to compensate the Soviet quantity advantage first through development of a nuclear deterrent built according to a countervalue doctrine, and second through the development of more technologically advanced weapon systems and doctrines geared up to neutralize Soviet advantages. OTL NATO leaned towards the former in the 50s and 60s, when the Americans still had nuclear superiority. When this waned, they shifted towards the latter in the 70s and 80s. With all the necessary differences of TTL circumstances, such as the W Europeans never having a WMD advantage to begin with, I think TTL Anglo-Euro Nato would still try similar approaches. Well, the economic strain of rearmament would be especially burdensome for Europe early in the Cold War, when W Europe still has to complete its reconstruction/industrialization. Later in the TL, when the area would be in its post-WWII boom, I assume it could afford to pay for a fairly large conventional army w/o needing to seriously tighten their belts. The Americans spend so much also b/c they seek to keep extensive global force projection capability. If the Euros largely give up the rest of the world, and focus on their own continent only and its immediate environs, they don't need to spend so much (e.g. little need to have fleets in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean). Although they'd need to be able to project in the Middle East at least, unless they seek to become energy independent. And they would need a combined naval power strong enough to stop the Soviets from controlling the Atlantic and the Med. Full agreement here. W Berlin would likely be impossible to keep, as well as W Vienna if TTL Austria follows the division path of Germany, if the Soviets seek to seize it/them soon after the Americans pull out. If the Soviets made a move for the exclave(s) in the early 60s, however, it would be a different matter. That would be a very small Soviet controlled Austria, most likely it would be absorbed by East Germany.
That would mean a geographically split E Germany as Czechoslovakia is between Soviet Austria and OTL E Germany.
The western powers would probably seek to use higher tech but allied success with this OTL was limited until the Soviet empire was on its last legs and without the resources of the US its going to be a huge struggle. Plus of course neither side could be confident about whether or not such a technological edge would be effective without an actual conflict which no one - at least with any sense - would want.
There is one other factor in the move from the so called tripwire defence by NATO OTL that could be important. This was done partly because there was doubt that the US would be willing to risk sacrificing its own population centres to defend Europe. Possibly compounded by the shock of the Cuban crisis. In TTL if its a European based nuclear force then the Soviets would face a much greater risk that the Europeans would use nuclear weapons in defence of their own lands and people. True if it then escalated into full scale nuclear war Europe would be devastated but the Soviet heartland is also likely to suffer badly so a primary nuclear deterrent against a conventional strike could last longer in TTL.
That's really the only way that I can see Europe squaring the circle of deterring an attack with much lower resources.*
One other factor is how many wider issues might be affected by the US withdrawal and related issues. Does this mean the US will fight longer in Korea, possibly forcing acceptance of a unified Korea if the Chinese, still suffering from the long period of civil conflict and Japanese invasion are unable to maintain massive losses? If so does the Sino-Soviet split occur and what other butterflies happen? With a quicker withdrawal of Europe from many colonies mean greater instability in many areas.
* - Actually there is a possible other way of getting cheap soldiers to boost numbers for defence. Could especially possibly Britain and France make more use of mercenaries from former colonial areas? For much of the period they would be used they would be paid less than European forces and are unlikely to gain citizenship rights so wouldn't have the same long term costs in things like pensions and elderly care. Would still need to train, equip and house such forces and if bringing large numbers of such forces into western Europe your going to have social impacts, which could go either way.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 2, 2018 22:14:20 GMT
Actually there is a possible other way of getting cheap soldiers to boost numbers for defence. Could especially possibly Britain and France make more use of mercenaries from former colonial areas? For much of the period they would be used they would be paid less than European forces and are unlikely to gain citizenship rights so wouldn't have the same long term costs in things like pensions and elderly care. Would still need to train, equip and house such forces and if bringing large numbers of such forces into western Europe your going to have social impacts, which could go either way. You mean larger French Foreign Legion and maybe a British Commonwealth force made up not only the British and Canadians but maybe also Australia and New Zeeland. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,494
Likes: 12,091
|
Post by stevep on Nov 2, 2018 22:28:39 GMT
Actually there is a possible other way of getting cheap soldiers to boost numbers for defence. Could especially possibly Britain and France make more use of mercenaries from former colonial areas? For much of the period they would be used they would be paid less than European forces and are unlikely to gain citizenship rights so wouldn't have the same long term costs in things like pensions and elderly care. Would still need to train, equip and house such forces and if bringing large numbers of such forces into western Europe your going to have social impacts, which could go either way. You mean larger French Foreign Legion and maybe a British Commonwealth force made up not only the British and Canadians but maybe also Australia and New Zeeland.
I was thinking more than the 2nd source of manpower for the British empire, after the home islands themselves, was India and it might be that some deal could be arranged that Britain hired troops from there similar to the Gurkas from Nepal. Or possibly from some of the other parts of the empire. [Was thinking to suggest possibly the Zulus but that could be politically explosive given they would be coming from an apatite era S Africa.] Similarly with the French, as they maintained political and diplomatic links with parts of Africa after those areas became independent that could provide an additional source of manpower. Also for Britain, although max numbers would be lower possibly some of the warrior cultures from the Pacific, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga for instance.
Probably not going to be effective I suspect unless they can get a big agreement from either or both parts of the former Raj as that's where the population and also the historical links are. However suspect it would need a POD prior to the end of WWII or at the latest some butterflies during Indian independence.
As I've said I could see Canada possibly having a link with whatever NATO equivalent exists but doubt they would be a substantial force on their own, at least in peacetime. Plus they would be fighting under the Canadian flag. Can't see ANZ sending forces so far away from their area without a major conflict in Europe and their own homelands being safe.
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 22:56:05 GMT
That would mean a geographically split E Germany as Czechoslovakia is between Soviet Austria and OTL E Germany. True, although geographical separation did not deter the Soviets from seizing Kaliningrad as an exclave, so I think they would go for it. True, although the Anglo-Euros and the Soviets could still try to use conventional proxy wars as a testing ground for their toys and doctrines. The Arab-Israeli wars come to mind as an obvious candidate. To a degree, it also happened IOTL. You may have a point, although such primary reliance on their nuclear deterrent means the British and the Euros would have all the more reason to build up their WMD arsenals to substantially higher levels than OTL. I tend to agree a US withdrawal from Europe may well mean a more extensive American engagement in Korea. After all, even if the Americans return to their traditional stance towards European affairs, the Pacific had been a very important interest of theirs well before the world wars. This would in all likelihood mean China is forced to accept pro-Western reunification of Korea. In turn, this might mean a delayed Sino-Soviet split, or alternatively its acceleration. It all depends on which lesson Mao learns from the setback, whether he concludes the Communist powers have to close ranks despite their differences, or the Soviets are unreliable and untrustworthy allies if they fail to intervene when the US gives a bloody nose to the Chinese. The idea is clever but IMO unfeasible politically, especially if it involves African or Arab troops, since its proposal would unleash a massive racist backlash. Allied deployment of North African troops in Italy during WWII left a very bad record of mass rapes and use of African soldiers during the French occupation of the Rhineland caused a moral panic of the same kind in Germany. No European politician would dare suggest a repeat with this kind of precedent. On second thoughts, however, perhaps Commonwealth troops from India might work, prejudice against them would not be as strong and they had a much less tainted record. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 2, 2018 23:21:41 GMT
You mean larger French Foreign Legion and maybe a British Commonwealth force made up not only the British and Canadians but maybe also Australia and New Zeeland.
I was thinking more than the 2nd source of manpower for the British empire, after the home islands themselves, was India and it might be that some deal could be arranged that Britain hired troops from there similar to the Gurkas from Nepal. Or possibly from some of the other parts of the empire. [Was thinking to suggest possibly the Zulus but that could be politically explosive given they would be coming from an apatite era S Africa.] Similarly with the French, as they maintained political and diplomatic links with parts of Africa after those areas became independent that could provide an additional source of manpower. Also for Britain, although max numbers would be lower possibly some of the warrior cultures from the Pacific, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga for instance.
Probably not going to be effective I suspect unless they can get a big agreement from either or both parts of the former Raj as that's where the population and also the historical links are. However suspect it would need a POD prior to the end of WWII or at the latest some butterflies during Indian independence.
As I've said I could see Canada possibly having a link with whatever NATO equivalent exists but doubt they would be a substantial force on their own, at least in peacetime. Plus they would be fighting under the Canadian flag. Can't see ANZ sending forces so far away from their area without a major conflict in Europe and their own homelands being safe.
Well, on second thoughts, perhaps Gurkas-style troops from India and the Pacific might indeed work since they have an outstanding reputation for discipline. African troops, however, woud be a no-no. Far too much racial prejudice and political backlash against them from European voters after the precedents of the French occupation of the Rhineland and the Italian Campaign. Agreed about Dominion troops. |
|
