Attlee keeps Britain out of Korean War

birdy

i've heard it said that Atlee's economic policies were working untill Britain entered the Korean war and defence spending increased so..... what the title says.
 

Derek Jackson

The British contribution to Korea was modest.

The increase in arms spending was a different thing. If he had not done that he would have kept his party together and maybe won in 51.
 
Fletch

Fletch

Derek Jackson said:
The British contribution to Korea was modest.

The increase in arms spending was a different thing. If he had not done that he would have kept his party together and maybe won in 51.
Click to expand...
I'd go along with that. The increase in defence spending at the bequest of Washington destroyed the government. Had he stayed out, even offering verbal support but keeping troops out, then Labour probably would have won the 51 election.
 

Aegyptos

The UN becomes a more completely irelevant failure even sooner than it did in the OTL.

Food Rationing ends in Britain in 1953 instead of 1954.

A 1953 cease-fire in Korea leaves the two opposing forces separated at the 38th Parallel where they remain into the next century.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Aegyptos said:
The UN becomes a more completely irelevant failure even sooner than it did in the OTL.

Food Rationing ends in Britain in 1953 instead of 1954.

A 1953 cease-fire in Korea leaves the two opposing forces separated at the 38th Parallel where they remain into the next century.
Click to expand...

If anything Food Rational would last longer. Attlee kept it going an artificially long time because he ideologically approved of state intervention in peoples' diets.
 

birdy

Thanks for the comments, i asked becuase i'm thinking of a postwar mini Britwank TL(complete with handwaves) and thought this might be an interesting POD.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Aegyptos said:
Just to be an ass...really?
Click to expand...

I would think so. Attlee had a very clear vision for building a Socialist Britain, and giving the Government the power of grainmaster would have been seen as very important.

Max Sinister said:
I somewhere read the claim that the people in Britain never were healthier than at this time.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That is why so many people raised on Clement Attlee's diets are still alive today. Me? I just had microwaved pizza for breakfast.
 

birdy

I'm not so sure the public would accept Atlee trying to keep rationing just for the sake of it, even if their diet was healthier, maybe Atlee would 'encourage' people to eat right, i think there was growing resentment of the interfearence.

What about the effects on the british economy?

also how might the US react?
 

ninebucks

Banned
birdy said:
I'm not so sure the public would accept Atlee trying to keep rationing just for the sake of it, even if their diet was healthier, maybe Atlee would 'encourage' people to eat right, i think there was growing resentment of the interfearence.

What about the effects on the british economy?

also how might the US react?
Click to expand...

The British public did accept Attlee keeping rationing for the sake of it, as I said, in OTL ending rationing was not on his priority list. And seeing as the average Briton wasn't terribly well informed, Attlee could just insist that the country's food supplies aren't quite up to being a marketable yet, and see how long he can keep going with that line.

Of course, there is still the Black Market, so the system wouldn't raise too much contempt. However, if it really came down to it, Attlee wouldn't force rationing if it meant him losing the election.

Economically he was a very hardcore Keynesian, and his policies of maximising employment and getting involved in peoples' economic choices were indicative of that. Under him, Britain's economy recovered significantly, as the environment was very beneficial for Keynesianism at this time.

I don't see why the USA would get involved in any internal British matter?
 

birdy

Wendell said:
How could this possibly lead to a Britwank?:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm trying to work out a TL with a much better British economy- your correct this wouldnt lead directly to Britwank, but its the only POD i know.

i call it mini Britwank becuase i hope that a stronger British economy might result in those defence programs like TSR-2 and CVA01 etc not being cancelled.

to get such a result i expect i'll require a couple of handwaves, but am thinking this could be the starting point.
 

birdy

ninebucks said:
The British public did accept Attlee keeping rationing for the sake of it, as I said, in OTL ending rationing was not on his priority list. And seeing as the average Briton wasn't terribly well informed, Attlee could just insist that the country's food supplies aren't quite up to being a marketable yet, and see how long he can keep going with that line.

Of course, there is still the Black Market, so the system wouldn't raise too much contempt. However, if it really came down to it, Attlee wouldn't force rationing if it meant him losing the election.

Economically he was a very hardcore Keynesian, and his policies of maximising employment and getting involved in peoples' economic choices were indicative of that. Under him, Britain's economy recovered significantly, as the environment was very beneficial for Keynesianism at this time.

I don't see why the USA would get involved in any internal British matter?
Click to expand...

Alright i stand corrected on rationing.

regarding the US, i meant there reaction to Britain staying out of Korea.
 

ninebucks

Banned
birdy said:
Alright i stand corrected on rationing.

regarding the US, i meant there reaction to Britain staying out of Korea.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. That makes more sense than what I thought you meant...

I'm uncertain, there would be many elements within the US urging Britain and the European nations to fight the good fight in Korea. If most nations did, however, flat out refuse to assist in the War then the UN is crippled in its infancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top