The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[El Pip]

Chapter CXXIX: The Guns of a Spanish Summer Part I.​

The Spring campaigns in Spain had been a mix of victory and defeat for both sides, the Republicans coming out slightly ahead. The destruction of the Salamanca pocket and the loss of Malaga being outweighed by the capture of Barcelona and the crushing superiority of the Soviet and French tanks over their British and German counterparts. Heading into the Summer the Ejército Magnífico de la República (Grand Army of the Republic) looked to push on and utilise it's armoured advantage to the maximum. The issue they would face was their fragmented command structure, the only faction to have particularly 'failed' was the hard left PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) / PCE (Communist Party of Spain), their grand drive to Burgos had ground to a halt at Almazán amongst the wrecks of their T-26s. Despite this they remained the preferred faction of Moscow and, with continued Soviet support they could continue to act as a quasi-independent faction, all the while demanding everyone else "co-operate". This is not to single out the hard left, most of the Republican factions understood the importance of establishing a single chain of command and co-ordinating their efforts, they just all thought they had the best claim to be at the top of the chain. Until this was settled the 'Grand Army' would continue to resemble a selection of grudging co-belligerents and not a united and unified fighting force.

We begin in the south of the country with the government faction where the Republican 1st Armoured Division and it's H35s remained the most potent force in Spain. While the Republican government was well aware that the British were supplying modern anti-tank weaponry to the Monarchists after the dramatic 'Battle of Marbella', they did not know the details. The communist members of the government who, after the experiences of the POSE / PCE T-26s at Almazán did know the details, neglected to pass this hard learned knowledge on, another example of how many on the Republican side saw rival factions as a bigger enemy than the Monarchists. That said it is likely that President Azaña and his military advisers would have made the same decision; to push on towards Cadiz while the Monarchist forces in the South of Spain were reeling and before they could be re-supplied. As in the spring the Assault Guards and the cream of the non-Soviet air force were detailed to support the tanks, the aim being to gain the Republicans a valuable Atlantic port while cutting Gibraltar off from Monarchist territory.

The Republican efforts in the Summer of 1937 were concentrated in the north and the south of the country as the factions attempted to build on the success of the Spring. Substantial forces remained deployed in the centre along the Tajo river facing Madrid and protecting Valencia, these include a large proportion of the militias who had 'decided' to join the government faction to get access to arms and supply, along with the strategic reserve (such as it was) and the 'prestige' units such as the US M2A2 light tanks .​

In the north the Anarchist CNT-FAI (National Confederation of Labour - Iberian Anarchist Federation) along with the Catalan militias continued their drive to liberate all of Catalonia. After their success in liberating Barcelona, and the relative lack of resistance from the over-stretched Monarchist forces, the CNT-FAI decided to expand the scope of the offensive, targeting a line along the Ebro River as the end point. This would provide a solid base for a defensive line that could be held over the winter, it would also firmly re-attach the Basque pocket to Anarchist Catalonia, carving out a more viable 'separatist' territory if the two sides could co-operate and pool their resources. A more urgent question was whether the Catalan militias could be convinced to advance that far beyond Catalonia, something that would only become answered as the campaign wore on. As discussed above the PSOE / PCE forces had endured the worst spring of all the Republican factions, while their T-26s had decimated the Light tanks of the Monarchist 1st Armoured Division, they had short after been massacred themselves by the Boys rifles and massed Vickers defending Almazán. While new T-26s were coming from Russia they would not arrive until later in the year, until then it would be the infantry, including the famed International Brigades, who would be entrusted to lead the advance. As one would expect from a unit well stocked with political officers and commissars the objective had not changed, the primary target remained Burgos, however to 'avenge' the defeat of the T-26s a new attack would be launched to finally take Almazán. Wise officers soon learnt not to attract 'political' attention by questioning if the propaganda benefits of such an attack were worth diluting the main effort, finding it safer to keep such doubts to themselves.

The plans of the final faction demonstrate the 'one step forward, one step back' nature of co-ordination in the Grand Army. The escape of General Linares and his command group from the Salamanca pocket into the Basque pocket mean there was finally a line of communication between the main bulk of Republican territory and the Basque. This paid dividends as Linares convinced the Basque Army to launch an offensive outside of what their leadership in Bilbao considered proper Basque Country, he even got them to co-ordinate their offensive with the Anarchist CNT-FAI Ebro Offensive, the problem was how it was co-ordinated. The Basques decided to treat the anarchist's attack as a useful diversion, while they would make some small attacks along the frontline, their main plan was to wait until the Monarchists had committed their reserves to counter the Ebro Offensive and then launch a separate attack on La Coruna. Purely on it's own merits this was not a bad plan, but it was not one the CNT-FAI were aware of, nor was it one they were unlikely to have agreed to. The more conventional plan would have been for the Basque to attack around the Ebro river to seal the 'neck' of the Catalonia pocket and trap the Monarchist Army there before it could escape. The staff at the Grand Army HQ who had suggested this plan, and seen it ignored, had gloomily reached the conclusion that only a serious military setback would convince the factions to finally co-operate and agree a proper system of command and control. It would have provided little comfort, but perhaps some dark amusement, if they had known their Monarchist counter-parts were thinking along very similar lines.

--
Notes:
Top of the page and I couldn't resist posting an update there. Feedback below.

The Republicans remain bitterly divided (as do the Monarchists as we shall see in the next update) so at times appear to be fighting entirely different wars. This fits in quite neatly with how the AI fights the war in Spain so I'm going with it, after a few nudges to both sides to help things move along.

The French influence is keeping the President Azana and the centre-left bits of the Popular Front relevant and in power, this is stopping the Communist takeover of OTL. One of the sides effects is no enforced 'militarization' of the militias, though as noted in the update in practice the smaller militias are having to do so just to get weapons and supplies, however the Anarchist Columns are still OK for now and supplied out of Anarchist Catalonia. That is the other big side effect; the communists don't have the strength to break Anarchist Catalonia as they did in Spring 1937 in OTL, so it remains a viable unit for now. My understanding is that the moderate bits of the Popular Front were amenable to greater autonomy for Catalonia so would probably tolerate it for longer than the Communists, but a confrontation of some sort is coming over Catalonia and the Basque country.

I did consider doing one long update covering both factions plans, but several bite sized chunks seemed appropriate and means I can get an update out faster. Win - win. That said don't expect this crazy update pace to last.

 

[El Pip]

Update above, top of the page. Feedback below;

I have to say, I do like the level of detail you went into for this one. I read it some time ago, but didn't have time to comment then. Maybe it was just bad timing... On the other hand, I'm sure many will be more reactive to the plot and tech porn as well, though I do personally like your other digressions, like this one, on little known factors and interesting people which often played some (minor) role in the outcome.

That is good to hear and I do like a good digression. But I found myself looking at the details of the 1929 Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and Mussolini's Italy to try and understand what Pope Pius XI would think about a potential Spanish Concordat. Even after cutting it down I still wonder if the Catholic Church bit was too detailed and a digression too far.

The White Russians make me wonder. As France had been their choice destination, how will Paris react if their Russian protégés take arms against the Spanish Republicans at a time the French government is seeking closer ties with the USSR?

My guess is that they would just look the other way... The numbers were rather limited. I don't think the fuss of trying to stop them at the border is worth it (for the French that is), and afterwards you can always refuse to let them back in...

But diplomatically it's a bit of a pickle. Harbouring scores of poltically-active White Russians was one thing, but if they now fight and kill Soviet soldiers (and French Republican volunteers as well) it is another. At some point either the French government will clamp down on WR operations within France, or they will write down any dream of reforming a Franco-Russian (well, -Soviet) alliance, which will have consequences on their stance regarding the SCW. Since, so far, Paris and Moscow seem to have shared the same analysis on the Spanish conflict, I think the days of émigré activism in France are numbered.

I didn't mention it in the update, but @AtlanticFriend is bang on, the White Russian issue could get tricky for Paris. That is one of the reasons the White Russians are much more active in the Spanish Civil War than OTL - the Franco-Soviet friendship seems a lot scarier to them without the Entente Cordiale to balance it out. If the leaderships are worried that their time in Paris may be running out, helping to get a friendly government in Madrid would get them a new, safer bolt hole. Of course it also annoys the French government further, so it's not a perfect plan.

In case you were wondering El Pip my last comment was sarcastic. The best part of this AAR (and what makes it unique) it the large amount of detail and of topicness, please keep it up

On the White Russians, if I am Uncle Joe I am happy that all the White Russians are going to Spain as 1. Fighting a war generally consumers all of your attention making it hard for them to cause mischief in the SU and 2. A lot of them are probably going to stay in Spain, permanently (and I don't mean that they settle down and start a family)

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

I do agree on that the Soviets probably aren't that fussed about the White Russians. But it is embarrassing for France and so it is a potential bit of extra leverage, one I'm sure the Soviets will try to use to their advantage

Dunno if a raft of comments was what I necessarily received for mine... but then again, I wasn't really writing strongly. "Here the front line moved... there it moved... oh! It moved back!"

That is the way of the Spanish Civil War, I think you did a great job in covering the points and then moving on to the meat of your story.

I have been a 'long time listener first time caller' as it were.

I love the direction the direction the story is going but the reason I fell for this convoluted tale is the detail and how it manages to portray a whole world. The fact that some of the updates read like history is why I get a little too excited when I see a post from the man himself.

Story, tech porn or detail on papal relations, all are good with me. Keep up the good work.

I had been meaning to post after a recent re-read and after a subsequent mention of the Redux project but never got around to it.

I will endeavor to get more involved as a way to highlight my continued interest.

P.S. The Anglo-Italian War reads like the Italian Navy was decimated at the cost of a few wounded capital ships. When the Redux gets there I would like to know a bit more about the cost to the Empire forces.

Thanks a lot for breaking your silence, the comments do mean a great deal to a writer so I'd be delighted if you do keep up the involvement. Good to know you are enjoying the full range of digressions.

Anglo-Italian response below

That's pretty much what happened as I recall, and what I would expect to happen if just the UK fought just Italy in the inter-war period. Strapped for cash and resources they might be but fighting the Royal Navy in the Med is only slightly worse than trying to fight them in the North Sea. Especially as the Italians hadn't planned for the war and weren't ready. So it was touch and go on land but on the sea it was no real contest. And having won the sea so decisively, the land and air battles got much easier. As I recall, this did tell the world that the French alliance was genuinely dead and that the British weren't rolling out yet, which will lead to consequences for diplomatic missions and peace conferences, especially with everyone very publically getting involved in Spain on various sides.

This pretty much. It was one sided in the game and that is what you would expect. The diplomatic costs were certainly higher than the naval ones, though that's a mixed bag. Britain and France speaking as one carries more weight, France is still a significant world power in many ways so that split shouldn't be minimised. But a Britain that has demonstrated the willingness to back words with military action, and then to bring that action to a successful conclusion can also expect to be listened to at conferences, so it's not all bad.

I am not suggesting that it would be anything other than a decisive victory. However, I would be surprised if it was a victory without loss. Considering Italy had a notable sub-surface fleet along with some modern ships would it not be likely that some escorts or even some light cruisers could have been lost? (Cruisers less likely as they have a tangible representation in-game that lighter ships don't.)

In the same vein, when it's got around to, some more information on the other losses would be welcome. A surprising lack of aircraft... but how few? Was it just a dilapidated bomber taken down by a lucky shot or more?

I agree the Redux Version will have to include some detail on the losses, I would expect a few destroyers to have failed to return home and a fair number of aircraft to have been shot down. There will also be a few more damaged cruisers in dock and that could be spelt out in more detail.

While Italy's interwar sub fleet was relatively large, their major surface units weren't available yet. Their battleships went into overhaul in 1933 for the Cavours, and they were in the body shop until the late thirties; the Dorias went in in 1937. That means, for this war, the Italians would have only had two heavy units (they might have been able to rush the work on the Cavours, maybe? Maybe not) and so their heaviest units would have been the heavy cruisers (seven good quality, one of dubious value) and all but two of the Condotierri light cruisers.

The Italians used the same yards for the refits, the Cavours were in overhaul until 1937 in OTL. I had them rushed out of refit in an incomplete state, my thinking is that 3 years into a 4 year refit they've probably had the major structural work done but not the fitting out. So fit to sail, but not really fit to fight. I will make more of that in Redux as it will further explain their poor performance.

Definitely agree on the quality of the Italian heavy cruisers, if there had been a pure cruiser on cruiser scrap I'd have expected them to give a good account of themselves. But against Battleships, even dodgy WW1 veterans like the Revenge class, their only hope was to run away and hope they didn't get hit by a long ranged 15" hit.

...and even then, Italian ships were poorly equipped from a cost perspective. A good navy is damned expensive (only the US could afford to build whatever they wanted)...and Italy didn't spend much on her navy. Certainly nowhere near the amount the British spent.

This plays out in the form of poor munitions quality, poorly trained crews, bad damage control systems, ancient fire control systems...etc.

All of this. The limited budget wasn't even spent wisely, I'd argue the money spent on the Cavour and Doria rebuilds was wasted. As Italy never intended to stick to the naval treaties then there was no need to expensively 'upgrade' fundamentally obsolete ships, the same funds on new builds could have accelerated the last two Vittorio Veneto class and maybe got them in service in time for the start of the war. Might even have paid for some larger oil tank farms (and some fuel to put in them) so the navy could actually train and go on operations!

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

This pretty much. It was one sided in the game and that is what you would expect. The diplomatic costs were certainly higher than the naval ones, though that's a mixed bag. Britain and France speaking as one carries more weight, France is still a significant world power in many ways so that split shouldn't be minimised. But a Britain that has demonstrated the willingness to back words with military action, and then to bring that action to a successful conclusion can also expect to be listened to at conferences, so it's not all bad.

I don't think it was a complete curb stomp from what I remember but I can see how someone could get that impression. GB cuts ties with France, gets into a scrap with Italy and sinks their whole fleet (and ends up buying what's left), fought their African army off and bombed Rome (with leaflets yes but from air craft carriers off the coast)! With Italy down and out in Africa for the foreseeable future (as in it would take a world war for them to get into a fight there again) GB not only secures the Med and can send the fleet to the Far East but also bask in prestige it hasn't had in years, revel in being the hard man at the table for once and do lots of weird stuff with rockets and planes...
I suspect French and British relations, having cooled somewhat, must now begin to heat again because even though there's this civil war going on in Spain, the fact remains that the two of them have to be at the very least friendly with each other or holding Africa becomes phenomenally expensive for both empires. Add in the fact that so long as there's a United Germany around, france will either be number two to it when on their team or continually under threat from a more powerful and focused country, I think the France of this period will have to start negotiating with London again too. Especially if they want to keep that (relatively speaking) huge army of theirs in Europe protecting France rather than spread out over Asia and Africa.

 

[El Pip]

I suspected short, frequent updates were a mistake. I shall not be so foolish in the future. Of course if people have missed it there is a brand new update at the top of this page.

I don't think it was a complete curb stomp from what I remember but I can see how someone could get that impression. GB cuts ties with France, gets into a scrap with Italy and sinks their whole fleet (and ends up buying what's left), fought their African army off and bombed Rome (with leaflets yes but from aid craft carriers off the coast)! With Italy down and out in Africa for the foreseeable future (as in it would take a world war for them to get into a fight there again) GB not only secures the Med and can send the fleet to the Far East but also bask in prestige it hasn't had in years, revel in being the hard man at the table for once and do lots of weird stuff with rockets and planes...
I suspect French and British relations, having cooled somewhat, must now begin to heat again because even though there's this civil war going on in Spain, the fact remains that the two of them have to be at the very least friendly with each other or holding Africa becomes phenomenally expensive for both empires. Add in the fact that so long as there's a United Germany around, france will either be number two to it when on their team or contually under threat from a more powerful and focused country, I think the France of this period will have to start negotiating with London again too. Especially if they want to keep that (relatively speaking) huge army of theirs in Europe protecting France rather than spread out over Asia and Africa.

I'd agree France and the UK aren't going to become rivals, or even particularly unfriendly. The guts of the actual Entente Cordiale remain in place, there are no colonial disagreements to sour relations and neither side is particularity eyeing the territory of the other. So things are perfectly polite, but it is understood that the alliance is dead and both sides will be pursuing their own foreign policy without reference to the other. No need to start rushing troops to the colonial borders, but equally both countries defence plans no longer include a British Expeditionary Force automatically rushing to the aid of France in the next continental war.

There is a cautiously neutral space between allies and rivals, this is where Ango-French relations currently reside

 

[TheExecuter]

Do you anticipate French interests gravitating closer to the USSR then?

France knows it can't ensure peace in Europe alone...if they can't go to Britain, who will they cosy up to?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I suspected short, frequent updates were a mistake. I shall not be so foolish in the future. Of course if people have missed it there is a brand new update at the top of this page.

It's not so much that it's short, just that I think it summarises the situation as it stands, what the battle plans are going to be and that the republicans hate each other (which we've all made fun of before). I do like the summary and the new map update but I do th have much to say yet aside from the French thing because that's a bit of new stuff that we haven't discussed in a while: what's is France's game planand what does it want to achieve?

I'd agree France and the UK aren't going to become rivals, or even particularly unfriendly. The guts of the actual Entente Cordiale remain in place, there are no colonial disagreements to sour relations and neither side is particularity eyeing the territory of the other. So things are perfectly polite, but it is understood that the alliance is dead and both sides will be pursuing their own foreign policy without reference to the other. No need to start rushing troops to the colonial borders, but equally both countries defence plans no longer include a British Expeditionary Force automatically rushing to the aid of France in the next continental war.

There is a cautiously neutral space between allies and rivals, this is where Ango-French relations currently reside

Right okay. But the point stands that they can't not cooperate or at least talk an awful lot if they want to keep all those gigantic empires of their straight and protected and up and running. The Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea for example are currently split between the two in practice, and the Indian Ocean arguably is too. All well and good saying they are in the right own and won't be referencing each other but I bet they will, at least the African and Indian offices. One of the issues with deciding that two empires have no interest in expansion agianst one another and don't want to protect their huge borders leading to recognised and long held nonaggression pacts is that...well, you want the other guy to stick around to keep that deal going. Which means you are predisposed to helping them out if they are truly threatened. France is always going to be truly threatened by Germany (its debatable now) . So what is GB going to do? Pretend they aren't going to help? Unless someone comes up with a way to resolve the African problem (and bearing in mind that Africa is becoming ridiculously expensive and will get more expensive still if GB takes over any more of Eastern Africa, which looks likely), I'm not sure what Germany, GB and France will do aside from assume that the latter two are going to have to defend each other from any war the former and the latter get into. I may be missing something of course.

I highlighted the claims bit because, with the Indian office becoming more Victorian and the foreign ooffice hopefully to follow suit, I bet they could find somewhere they'd like to steal for whatever reason, Madagascar maybe or if they want to be dumb victorians, the Suez Canal itself.

Do you anticipate French interests gravitating closer to the USSR then?

France knows it can't ensure peace in Europe alone...if they can't go to Britain, who will they cosy up to?

Well, yeah. They're never going to convince Northern Europe to help them, and they couldn't help them anyway. France needs armies, not navies for the most part whilst GB is the other way around. Spain is a mess, Portugal is GBs best little guy, America in general is either British or doesn't care, Africa is either theirs or British, Eastern Europe and the Balkans are already with them,,.and sadly worthless in that respect, and Asia is either Axis, in chaos or waddya know? Theirs or GBs. So that leaves GB and Russia. And to pick one, they'll have to commit to that ideology...neither of which half the French are that crazy about and the other half love.

So...I don't know. It could go either way but I do suspect France will come crawling back to GB in some fashion, just as GB will come crawling back to them.

 

[Killerduck]

Hey Pip.

An old reader here (under different name then). I was just starting highschool when I first saw this and I'm having bar exam next month, it was a long, long ride

I've started to reread the story and was pleasantly surprised by redux project and new updates. Still haven't read up to the Spanish war, so it's a bit harder to comment anything substantial.

Anyway, love your work and hope you have the energy to continue it indefinitely

 

[Hightemplar]

Hey Pip.

An old reader here (under different name then). I was just starting highschool when I first saw this and I'm having bar exam next month, it was a long, long ride

I've started to reread the story and was pleasantly surprised by redux project and new updates. Still haven't read up to the Spanish war, so it's a bit harder to comment anything substantial.

Anyway, love your work and hope you have the energy to continue it indefinitely

Good luck for your exam

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Soon we shall have all the expertise needed to form a minor party in parliament, if not already...

 

[El Pip]

Do you anticipate French interests gravitating closer to the USSR then?

France knows it can't ensure peace in Europe alone...if they can't go to Britain, who will they cosy up to?

France and the USSR are fighting on the same side in Spain and they do have a mutual interest in keeping Germany down, I can definitely see it being explored. There are also reasons why it won't happen, one of the main ones being that France's Eastern European allies are probably more worried about the Soviets than Hitler at this point. We shall see.

It's not so much that it's short, just that I think it summarises the situation as it stands, what the battle plans are going to be and that the republicans hate each other (which we've all made fun of before). I do like the summary and the new map update but I do th have much to say yet aside from the French thing because that's a bit of new stuff that we haven't discussed in a while: what's is France's game planand what does it want to achieve?





Right okay. But the point stands that they can't not cooperate or at least talk an awful lot if they want to keep all those gigantic empires of their straight and protected and up and running. The Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea for example are currently split between the two in practice, and the Indian Ocean arguably is too. All well and good saying they are in the right own and won't be referencing each other but I bet they will, at least the African and Indian offices. One of the issues with deciding that two empires have no interest in expansion agianst one another and don't want to protect their huge borders leading to recognised and long held nonaggression pacts is that...well, you want the other guy to stick around to keep that deal going. Which means you are predisposed to helping them out if they are truly threatened. France is always going to be truly threatened by Germany (its debatable now) . So what is GB going to do? Pretend they aren't going to help? Unless someone comes up with a way to resolve the African problem (and bearing in mind that Africa is becoming ridiculously expensive and will get more expensive still if GB takes over any more of Eastern Africa, which looks likely), I'm not sure what Germany, GB and France will do aside from assume that the latter two are going to have to defend each other from any war the former and the latter get into. I may be missing something of course.

I highlighted the claims bit because, with the Indian office becoming more Victorian and the foreign ooffice hopefully to follow suit, I bet they could find somewhere they'd like to steal for whatever reason, Madagascar maybe or if they want to be dumb victorians, the Suez Canal itself.



Well, yeah. They're never going to convince Northern Europe to help them, and they couldn't help them anyway. France needs armies, not navies for the most part whilst GB is the other way around. Spain is a mess, Portugal is GBs best little guy, America in general is either British or doesn't care, Africa is either theirs or British, Eastern Europe and the Balkans are already with them,,.and sadly worthless in that respect, and Asia is either Axis, in chaos or waddya know? Theirs or GBs. So that leaves GB and Russia. And to pick one, they'll have to commit to that ideology...neither of which half the French are that crazy about and the other half love.

So...I don't know. It could go either way but I do suspect France will come crawling back to GB in some fashion, just as GB will come crawling back to them.

I think you are under-selling the potential of Eastern Europe. If France can get the Little Entente to actually work together and act like a proper alliance, which is a big if, then it's a decent enough force. Poland aimed to mobilise 40 odd divisions in 1939, the BEF was 13 at it's absolute peak. What Poland needed was better equipment; less horses and more tanks, but this something the Skoda Works and CZD in Czechoslovakia can help with (if the Poles can be convinced to stop stealing things). Better doctrines would also help, but a France that actively engages in the Spanish Civil War will have experience and knowledge to share. None of this will be easy, but it is a possibility and France is going for it.

Not entirely sure what you think this African problem is and why it requires allying with France? There is a plan to gently progress most of the colonies, protectorates and various other bits towards Dominion Status, ideally Rhodesia style by federating the poor bits to the resource rich bits and hoping this works (while sort of fudging the black voting issue and hoping it goes away). This plan probably won't work, but London doesn't know this yet so are still going for it.

The point you are missing is that France wasn't there when Britain got into the Abyssinian War, the fact the help turned out not to be required is frankly irrelevant. London has not, and will not, forget about that, the perception will be that any alliance with France will be solely for France's benefit, because that is exactly what just happened. Even if France did decide to "crawl back" (can't see Gallic pride allowing that to be honest) how on earth would they convince Britain that this time they were going to be a useful ally and actually be there if required?

Hey Pip.

An old reader here (under different name then). I was just starting highschool when I first saw this and I'm having bar exam next month, it was a long, long ride

I've started to reread the story and was pleasantly surprised by redux project and new updates. Still haven't read up to the Spanish war, so it's a bit harder to comment anything substantial.

Anyway, love your work and hope you have the energy to continue it indefinitely

First off thanks a lot for commenting and staying with this long ride. I will definitely be seeing this through to the end, have no fear of that. It just might take a very long time to get to the end, but we will eventually get there.

Good luck for your exam

I support and second this comment.

Soon we shall have all the expertise needed to form a minor party in parliament, if not already...

Is there actually a requirement for expertise to form a minor party in parliament?

Because [INSERT POLITICAL PARTY READER DOESN'T LIKE] don't appear to have any expertise at all.

 

[TheExecuter]

More tanks is not a solution to Poland's problem...better artillery might be...but more tanks is not.

If the Soviets don't take advantage of a German attack, the Poles can give a good account of themselves...especially if France doesn't leave her in the lurch as happened in OTL.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

I fear that the biggest problem that the Monarchist faction will have when dealing with the Republicans will be not to chocke themselves becuase of the laughter caused by the silly plans of their enemies.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Not entirely sure what you think this African problem is and why it requires allying with France?

Mostly the huge borders and eventually, the huge populations as well.

There is a plan to gently progress most of the colonies, protectorates and various other bits towards Dominion Status, ideally Rhodesia style by federating the poor bits to the resource rich bits and hoping this works (while sort of fudging the black voting issue and hoping it goes away). This plan probably won't work, but London doesn't know this yet so are still going for it.

That's probably the only other way of dealing with the above colonies, try to get them to be self-sufficient enough that they can at least hold out against attack for a while by themselves, and keep law and order (British style law presumably) in the peace. I think fudging the black vote definetly won't work for very long, but I think may work long enough for it to no longer be 'our problem' when they riot, rebel and start massacring the various minority populations in revenge. If this ends with a South African style government and state being the norm all across British Africa however...I'm not sure I can read that.

The point you are missing is that France wasn't there when Britain got into the Abyssinian War, the fact the help turned out not to be required is frankly irrelevant. London has not, and will not, forget about that, the perception will be that any alliance with France will be solely for France's benefit, because that is exactly what just happened. Even if France did decide to "crawl back" (can't see Gallic pride allowing that to be honest) how on earth would they convince Britain that this time they were going to be a useful ally and actually be there if required?

True, true. Okay then, so France is unreliable and Germany is a pontetial threat/necessary evil in Iberia and against Russia. So who do the British turn to then? They need someone in Europe on their side surely? Belgium and Portugal I assume are still quite close to the British but what about the Dutch and their navy? And...I don't know aside from that. Maybe Scandinavia as a few other HOI BIG British AARs have done but I don't think anyone TTL wants to get involved in Finland. And I doubt any El Pip work is going to have the Swedish be big best friends to the PC. Best fiends maybe...

I recall there was some debate over arming the commonwealth and dominions to cover these gaps in allies but not sure whether it was on this AAr or not.

Is there actually a requirement for expertise to form a minor party in parliament?

Apparently about fifty million pounds and BREXIT will do, but generally speaking, no. I don't think so anyway. Mind you, I was more hoping we'd be more ambitious than that and go after the big boys. First we have to pick a colour and then a name that can be easily said on the news but can't easily become a joke in the papers.

 

[Casko]

True, true. Okay then, so France is unreliable and Germany is a pontetial threat/necessary evil in Iberia and against Russia. So who do the British turn to then? They need someone in Europe on their side surely? Belgium and Portugal I assume are still quite close to the British but what about the Dutch and their navy? And...I don't know aside from that. Maybe Scandinavia as a few other HOI BIG British AARs have done but I don't think anyone TTL wants to get involved in Finland. And I doubt any El Pip work is going to have the Swedish be big best friends to the PC. Best fiends maybe...

Well, I'd not know about that, I'd imagine that British TTL might keep helping Fins with few scraps of Guns and ammunition. Or sell to Finnish army with extremely cheap prices. I mean TTL British do have massive amounts of ammunition and old weaponry still laying around, just waiting to crash the weapons industry.
And Finland probably is one of those nations that takes everything it can get at cheap. I mean Finland is well known for its scrap technology.

 

[paulm002]

try to get them to be self-sufficient enough that they can at least hold out against attack for a while by themselves

You seam convinced we are destined for high level conflict in Africa. It is in nether the interest of the UK or France to fight over Africa and with no Italian possessions remaining I'm not sure where the conflict would develop. Even if it did the nature of the terrain would lend itself to small mobile forces in the same vein as the British East Africa campaign OTL.

For my two cents, I think the UK will slip away from Europe in, as is hinted consistently, a more Victorian style. The focus will be Japan and the wider Empire until something kicks off big in Europe. In this case siding with France, as long as its not too red, would be the obvious choice considering the light of democracy and all that. However, I don't foresee large physical involvement on the continent TTL.

 

[TheExecuter]

You seam convinced we are destined for high level conflict in Africa. It is in nether the interest of the UK or France to fight over Africa and with no Italian possessions remaining I'm not sure where the conflict would develop. Even if it did the nature of the terrain would lend itself to small mobile forces in the same vein as the British East Africa campaign OTL.

For my two cents, I think the UK will slip away from Europe in, as is hinted consistently, a more Victorian style. The focus will be Japan and the wider Empire until something kicks off big in Europe. In this case siding with France, as long as its not too red, would be the obvious choice considering the light of democracy and all that. However, I don't foresee large physical involvement on the continent TTL.

But that's a fantasy. The creation of a unified Germany has destroyed the ability to keep Europe divided. Either Germany or the Soviet Union will determine the fate of Europe. Britain can't ally with either for fear that A) the ally would win too much...and B) the Ally's ideology would destroy Europe.

The only remaining logical choice as ally is France. Together, France and the UK maintain the stability of Africa and Southeast Asia...and are a formidable bulwark against a United Europe.

Apart, then Britain can either acquiesce to a German or USSR dominated Europe...or can try to ally with one or the other and then have to deal with French threats to Africa and Southeast Asia... particularly if France allies with the other major European power.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Well, I'd not know about that, I'd imagine that British TTL might keep helping Fins with few scraps of Guns and ammunition. Or sell to Finnish army with extremely cheap prices. I mean TTL British do have massive amounts of ammunition and old weaponry still laying around, just waiting to crash the weapons industry.
And Finland probably is one of those nations that takes everything it can get at cheap. I mean Finland is well known for its scrap technology.

Hmm...yes, that could work. Though the problem then is getting the arms to Finland without Russia stopping it (by that I mean even if they try, fail and shots are fired on both sides it could lead to war). Whilst it would be amusing to see the RN try to ship stuff to Finland whilst the Red Fleet tries to ship stuff to Spain, on the whole I don't think they'll go down this route, not unless they both agree to let the other do their thing...which they wont. The other way is through Sweden and Norway. I doubt Sweden would be game for that without some ridiculous compensation given its OTL desire for semi-neutrality and doing literally anything to protect itself. However, I'm not an expert or even amateur on this topic so there may well be a third solution, or a way one of the two ideas here could work. I'm not sure UK would arm Finland though, unless it had a full proof plan and a way of doing it somewhat secretly. At best it would raise tensions and worst, doom Finland to a second round with Russia (they are probably already doomed but if WWII starts in the meantime they might be spared). As for the arms industry, I think the thread came to the conclusion that it might be possible for the UK to do some serious damage to it by releasing everything they have, but they probably wont because they themselves have a large stake involved. Playing havoc with the Axis and Soviets by arming the Balkans on the cheap might be fun though.

You seam convinced we are destined for high level conflict in Africa. It is in nether the interest of the UK or France to fight over Africa and with no Italian possessions remaining I'm not sure where the conflict would develop. Even if it did the nature of the terrain would lend itself to small mobile forces in the same vein as the British East Africa campaign OTL.

For my two cents, I think the UK will slip away from Europe in, as is hinted consistently, a more Victorian style. The focus will be Japan and the wider Empire until something kicks off big in Europe. In this case siding with France, as long as its not too red, would be the obvious choice considering the light of democracy and all that. However, I don't foresee large physical involvement on the continent TTL.

I don't think there will be lots of war in Africa in WWII. I do think Africa is going to explode in revolutions and civil war afterwards though, even if the UK makes it through relatively unscathed. The rest of Europe won't. With all the issues colonial powers had keeping the peace even before WWI, now after decades of weapons getting cheaper and cheaper, more widely available and more destructive...well, I think West Africa at least is toast as far as colonial rule goes. In the British colonies I'm not so sure because it depends on how the British handle things (if they do as they did OTL, peaceful devolution might work for a while before full independence. If they did OTL before WWII, then nasty guerrilla wars ensue). I don't believe they can hold Africa in any meaningful sense, aside from maybe dominating them economically like they did with Egypt (even then, it requires they handle things peacefully and carefully). I frankly doubt whether the Brits can hold on to South Africa (or would even want to) and it's fairly unlikely any other former colonial power will have any chance of holding their turf either. My concern is how long it will take the Europeans to realise they can't win, and how much money, resources and lives will be lost before that point.

As for the Splendid Isolation thing...its debatable whether it was a good idea the first time they tried or whether it was a thing at all (they most certainly did not stop interfering in Europe, cease worrying that Europe would affect them or not despair over the fact they had very few friends on a very important continent and marketplace). In this period, the policy is flatly impossible. They cannot abandon a market as large and as lucrative as this one. They cannot ignore the two very real and huge threats to their power and wealth overseas that are the Axis and the Comintern. Given that they are already embroiled with the Spanish Civil War, as is everyone else, they know that too.

But that's a fantasy. The creation of a unified Germany has destroyed the ability to keep Europe divided. Either Germany or the Soviet Union will determine the fate of Europe. Britain can't ally with either for fear that A) the ally would win too much...and B) the Ally's ideology would destroy Europe.

The only remaining logical choice as ally is France. Together, France and the UK maintain the stability of Africa and Southeast Asia...and are a formidable bulwark against a United Europe.

Apart, then Britain can either acquiesce to a German or USSR dominated Europe...or can try to ally with one or the other and then have to deal with French threats to Africa and Southeast Asia... particularly if France allies with the other major European power.

Not quite. The fact that France, Germany and Russia are all industrialised means that balancing the power between these (contemporary and historic) rivals is going to be difficult. But as it stands right now from the UK's perspective, Europe is both extremely close to war and very likely to have the wrong people win it. There's three factions: France and their alliance of eastern European and Balkan states, Russia and their satellites, and Germany with the Axis. Neither of the latter can win if the British want the liberal capitalist democratic world spinning (presumably they do, because they've done very well out of that Order). One of the latter is almost certain to win, and worse still, it looks like it will probably be Russia (because France and Germany are almost certain to go to war first, which Germany will win but it'll weaken them considerably. At this time, no one knows that Germany will curbstomp them into the ground in months). But yes, I agree with the impossibility of abandoning France or Europe generally to whatever comes next.

Right, you are the UK and you want to stack the deck in France's favour (not too much but in this case, there's almost no way you can stack it too much) when the inevitable war breaks out and you want to weaken the other two, Russia especially. What do you do? Well you can't 'abandon Europe' because then the above situation will play out (more or less). Allying with France is also out, because they are notoriously unreliable, fatalistic about their chances and don't really want your help. So if helping France is out, weakening the other two is going to have to do. Now focusing on Japan (or attacking them early) will deprive the Axis of an ally but since the Japanese are probably not going to help out much in Europe (and as it turns out, were a massive liability to the Axis OTL), what this move would actually do is...help Russia and weaken you. So Japan and France are out. Well...getting Spain on your side and out of the potential Soviet/Axis camp is a good start and they should carry on with that as a priority. What else? It's hard to say, short of performing a miracle and getting the Russians and Germans to fight each other first. But no, the UK has a very difficult situation and some impossible choices to make/think up of.

 

[El Pip]

More tanks is not a solution to Poland's problem...better artillery might be...but more tanks is not.

If the Soviets don't take advantage of a German attack, the Poles can give a good account of themselves...especially if France doesn't leave her in the lurch as happened in OTL.

Better artillery will certainly help Poland, but I maintain my view that they will need a competent and properly equipped armoured corps. Poland shouldn't go off counter-invading Germany the day wars break out or anything, so maybe not more tanks, but better tanks. Their vast hordes of MG armed tankettes were just targets, I would genuinely have rather been in a Universal Carrier than some of the TKS /TK-3 horrors the Poles were using as 'tanks'.

That said I agree that getting the Soviets to stay out and the French to be more active is probably at least as important as exactly what equipment the Polish army has or doesn't have.

I fear that the biggest problem that the Monarchist faction will have when dealing with the Republicans will be not to chocke themselves becuase of the laughter caused by the silly plans of their enemies.

You've not seen the Monarchist plans yet.

Mostly the huge borders and eventually, the huge populations as well.

That's probably the only other way of dealing with the above colonies, try to get them to be self-sufficient enough that they can at least hold out against attack for a while by themselves, and keep law and order (British style law presumably) in the peace. I think fudging the black vote definetly won't work for very long, but I think may work long enough for it to no longer be 'our problem' when they riot, rebel and start massacring the various minority populations in revenge. If this ends with a South African style government and state being the norm all across British Africa however...I'm not sure I can read that.

True, true. Okay then, so France is unreliable and Germany is a pontetial threat/necessary evil in Iberia and against Russia. So who do the British turn to then? They need someone in Europe on their side surely? Belgium and Portugal I assume are still quite close to the British but what about the Dutch and their navy? And...I don't know aside from that. Maybe Scandinavia as a few other HOI BIG British AARs have done but I don't think anyone TTL wants to get involved in Finland. And I doubt any El Pip work is going to have the Swedish be big best friends to the PC. Best fiends maybe...

I recall there was some debate over arming the commonwealth and dominions to cover these gaps in allies but not sure whether it was on this AAr or not..

London is on a path to most of Africa ending up in a Federation or Dominion of some sort, there is a degree of debate over pacing but aside from a few extremists (on both sides of the spectrum) that's where it is heading. Rhodesia will end up being the test case, whatever they can get away with is what the rest will want. Smuts style 'Partnership' is perhaps where it is heading, which isn't great but is a hell of a lot better than apartheid.

Nothing particular about arming the commonwealth in Butterfly. The only big defence changes are Australia will be building proper (British) aircraft at CAC, Canada has been forced to turn to British firms not American ones and there is more interest in defence plans for the Far East. Commonwealth Air Training Plan is still knocking around as per OTL as a war emergency plan, similar schemes for the Army so it's source of manpower but not much more for the Commonwealth.

Well, I'd not know about that, I'd imagine that British TTL might keep helping Fins with few scraps of Guns and ammunition. Or sell to Finnish army with extremely cheap prices. I mean TTL British do have massive amounts of ammunition and old weaponry still laying around, just waiting to crash the weapons industry.
And Finland probably is one of those nations that takes everything it can get at cheap. I mean Finland is well known for its scrap technology.

The Finns did buy bits of kit from pretty much everyone at one point or another, I'm sure that will continue in Butterfly with the British perhaps doing a bit better as their stuff is now "War proven" and everyone is a bit more wary about Italian kit. My quick research indicates the Army got the short of the stick and was using a lot of ex-Russian kit that Finland had 'inherited' from the Czars, along with whatever other things were cheap on the international market. It was the air force that got the modern orders and I can't see that changing at the moment.

You seam convinced we are destined for high level conflict in Africa. It is in nether the interest of the UK or France to fight over Africa and with no Italian possessions remaining I'm not sure where the conflict would develop. Even if it did the nature of the terrain would lend itself to small mobile forces in the same vein as the British East Africa campaign OTL.

For my two cents, I think the UK will slip away from Europe in, as is hinted consistently, a more Victorian style. The focus will be Japan and the wider Empire until something kicks off big in Europe. In this case siding with France, as long as its not too red, would be the obvious choice considering the light of democracy and all that. However, I don't foresee large physical involvement on the continent TTL.

Bits of the British Establishment do want to slip away, there is plenty that needs doing in the wider Empire and focusing time, money and effort on that and relations with the Dominions is arguably long over-due. Things like getting faster air links to Australia, building the Tripoli to Basra railway, or indeed Cape to Cairo, and trying to get ahead of the game in India rather than always chasing Congress.

But as has also been hinted at, just because London ignores the situation in Europe does not mean it goes away or that Europe will ignore them.

But that's a fantasy. The creation of a unified Germany has destroyed the ability to keep Europe divided. Either Germany or the Soviet Union will determine the fate of Europe. Britain can't ally with either for fear that A) the ally would win too much...and B) the Ally's ideology would destroy Europe.

The only remaining logical choice as ally is France. Together, France and the UK maintain the stability of Africa and Southeast Asia...and are a formidable bulwark against a United Europe.

Apart, then Britain can either acquiesce to a German or USSR dominated Europe...or can try to ally with one or the other and then have to deal with French threats to Africa and Southeast Asia... particularly if France allies with the other major European power.

Current thinking is that Germany is a bit of a paper tiger, after all Hitler backed down over the Rhineland and those in the British Establishment who pay attention have noticed that Germany is red lining it's economy and so storing up massive future problems. Is there a degree of complacency in that? Absolutely, but I never claimed they were perfect.

That said if France had been reliable and at least made some sort of token gesture in support of Britain I don't think London would have walked from the Entente, as you say the advantages of a proper Alliance are clear. But when Paris de-facto broke the alliance London saw no reason to put great efforts into trying to re-build it. From a balance of power perspective the Franco-Eastern European block encircles Germany and France and the Soviets have just signed a treaty of friendship, it is not ideal but it looks stable enough for the time being.

Hmm...yes, that could work. Though the problem then is getting the arms to Finland without Russia stopping it (by that I mean even if they try, fail and shots are fired on both sides it could lead to war). Whilst it would be amusing to see the RN try to ship stuff to Finland whilst the Red Fleet tries to ship stuff to Spain, on the whole I don't think they'll go down this route, not unless they both agree to let the other do their thing...which they wont. The other way is through Sweden and Norway. I doubt Sweden would be game for that without some ridiculous compensation given its OTL desire for semi-neutrality and doing literally anything to protect itself. However, I'm not an expert or even amateur on this topic so there may well be a third solution, or a way one of the two ideas here could work. I'm not sure UK would arm Finland though, unless it had a full proof plan and a way of doing it somewhat secretly. At best it would raise tensions and worst, doom Finland to a second round with Russia (they are probably already doomed but if WWII starts in the meantime they might be spared). As for the arms industry, I think the thread came to the conclusion that it might be possible for the UK to do some serious damage to it by releasing everything they have, but they probably wont because they themselves have a large stake involved. Playing havoc with the Axis and Soviets by arming the Balkans on the cheap might be fun though

The Finns brought Bristol Blenheims and Gloster Gladiators from Britain (and some Fokkers from the Dutch) in OTL before the Winter War broke out and then shed loads of everything from everyone once the war started. Shipping it out there is not an issue and Stalin is fairly relaxed about it all, he still believes quantity has a quality all of it's own and isn't aware quite how inept the Soviet army is at present. The limits will be how much the Finns want to spend and at the moment there is no reason to change that much, there have been no major butterflies in Finland yet, so no extra money or big changes in plan.

I don't think there will be lots of war in Africa in WWII. I do think Africa is going to explode in revolutions and civil war afterwards though, even if the UK makes it through relatively unscathed. The rest of Europe won't. With all the issues colonial powers had keeping the peace even before WWI, now after decades of weapons getting cheaper and cheaper, more widely available and more destructive...well, I think West Africa at least is toast as far as colonial rule goes. In the British colonies I'm not so sure because it depends on how the British handle things (if they do as they did OTL, peaceful devolution might work for a while before full independence. If they did OTL before WWII, then nasty guerrilla wars ensue). I don't believe they can hold Africa in any meaningful sense, aside from maybe dominating them economically like they did with Egypt (even then, it requires they handle things peacefully and carefully). I frankly doubt whether the Brits can hold on to South Africa (or would even want to) and it's fairly unlikely any other former colonial power will have any chance of holding their turf either. My concern is how long it will take the Europeans to realise they can't win, and how much money, resources and lives will be lost before that point.

As for the Splendid Isolation thing...its debatable whether it was a good idea the first time they tried or whether it was a thing at all (they most certainly did not stop interfering in Europe, cease worrying that Europe would affect them or not despair over the fact they had very few friends on a very important continent and marketplace). In this period, the policy is flatly impossible. They cannot abandon a market as large and as lucrative as this one. They cannot ignore the two very real and huge threats to their power and wealth overseas that are the Axis and the Comintern. Given that they are already embroiled with the Spanish Civil War, as is everyone else, they know that too.

I do think you are under-estimating the impact of the big presige hits the colonial empires took in WW2 and the impacts of both of the post-war super-powers being anti-Imperialist (well anti other people being Imperialist anyway). Holding in the sense of maintaining direct rule from Europe is out, but it is government policy to amble towards responsible self-government in the Empire and was in OTL, France is a bit different and not relevant at this point. Without the OTL disasters and pressures it could work it just needed more time than they had.

I think you are projecting modern views onto the period in terms of the economics, at the time Europe wasn't a vital market for Britain, even for visible exports. Stats say the whole of Western Europe was barely 20% of UK physical exports, even less when you include the invisible ones (banking, insurance, etc). Which makes sense as France was (and is, and always will be) deeply protectionist, Germany could not afford to import anything unrelated to re-armament (and so didn't), Spain is a basket case and Italy has the Autarky dreams of Mussolini crippling it's trade. You can make an argument that a cautious neutrality keeps open the links with the countries you actually trade with (Benelux, Scandinavia, Greece) and keeps you from being dragged into things. Given many in London really wish they hadn't got dragged in Spain this is a tempting option, it may not be a good one but when has that stopped people?

Not quite. The fact that France, Germany and Russia are all industrialised means that balancing the power between these (contemporary and historic) rivals is going to be difficult. But as it stands right now from the UK's perspective, Europe is both extremely close to war and very likely to have the wrong people win it. There's three factions: France and their alliance of eastern European and Balkan states, Russia and their satellites, and Germany with the Axis. Neither of the latter can win if the British want the liberal capitalist democratic world spinning (presumably they do, because they've done very well out of that Order). One of the latter is almost certain to win, and worse still, it looks like it will probably be Russia (because France and Germany are almost certain to go to war first, which Germany will win but it'll weaken them considerably. At this time, no one knows that Germany will curbstomp them into the ground in months). But yes, I agree with the impossibility of abandoning France or Europe generally to whatever comes next.

Right, you are the UK and you want to stack the deck in France's favour (not too much but in this case, there's almost no way you can stack it too much) when the inevitable war breaks out and you want to weaken the other two, Russia especially. What do you do? Well you can't 'abandon Europe' because then the above situation will play out (more or less). Allying with France is also out, because they are notoriously unreliable, fatalistic about their chances and don't really want your help. So if helping France is out, weakening the other two is going to have to do. Now focusing on Japan (or attacking them early) will deprive the Axis of an ally but since the Japanese are probably not going to help out much in Europe (and as it turns out, were a massive liability to the Axis OTL), what this move would actually do is...help Russia and weaken you. So Japan and France are out. Well...getting Spain on your side and out of the potential Soviet/Axis camp is a good start and they should carry on with that as a priority. What else? It's hard to say, short of performing a miracle and getting the Russians and Germans to fight each other first. But no, the UK has a very difficult situation and some impossible choices to make/think up of.

I don't want to go into too much detail to avoid ruining it, but I will say a few short things. Germany had to have almost everything go right for them, and for the French to co-operate at every turn, in order to beat France in a few weeks. If you'd written it as an alt-history the editor would have sighed and told you to try again but be realistic this time. Equally I know Paradox glosses over Germany's economic problems, as do most summaries of the war (my suspicion remains that most Historians are terrible with numbers that aren't dates ), but they were very real, if Germany don't win quickly then things turn very nasty for them very rapidly. These two facts, and the modding that has been done to reflect this reality, will become important.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Current thinking is that Germany is a bit of a paper tiger, after all Hitler backed down over the Rhineland and those in the British Establishment who pay attention have noticed that Germany is red lining it's economy and so storing up massive future problems. Is there a degree of complacency in that? Absolutely, but I never claimed they were perfect.

I don't want to go into too much detail to avoid ruining it, but I will say a few short things. Germany had to have almost everything go right for them, and for the French to co-operate at every turn, in order to beat France in a few weeks. If you'd written it as an alt-history the editor would have sighed and told you to try again but be realistic this time. Equally I know Paradox glosses over Germany's economic problems, as do most summaries of the war (my suspicion remains that most Historians are terrible with numbers that aren't dates ), but they were very real, if Germany don't win quickly then things turn very nasty for them very rapidly. These two facts, and the modding that has been done to reflect this reality, will become important

All true, but two paper tigers managed to wage war for five years OTL and cause a lot of damage because everyone else was either unprepared or didn't take them seriously. If Europe is that small a margin for the British (which come to think of it rings true because of how messed up it was in terms of economic policy and so on) then they still have security interests there. If nothing else, having one power group control most of the Mediterranean coastline isn't good, especially when the Axis and the Soviets have both indicated they want to have massive navies if and when they can afford them.
Sure modern views of colonialism are butting in but it doesn't make the contemporary ill feeling go away either. Decolonisation was way more peaceful than might have been expected (even if because of the line drawn on maps, the independent states weren't going to be that stable afterwards). Yes America was anti-imperialistic but the Japanese encouraged many independence movements as well as they took the Pacific (although it was mostly not so much encouragement as the old imperial authorities that stamped out independence movements were gone or dead, and a foreign invasion really stirs nationalistic feeling). India and South Africa and large parts of Indo-china were already 'on the way out' or moving in that direction before the war. I'm not sure what impact WWII is going to have on things but so far not much has been done to change that. The Imperial federation might work but its uncertain whether anyone wanting independence would be swayed by it. I suppose it depends on what happens with Pacific war and how damaged Britain is generally by the war.

 

[TheExecuter]

Did tanks exist that would have been significantly better than the TKS variants?

Let's not forget that Germany invaded France in 1940 with a tank force at least 60-70% composed of machine gun targets...

France and Britain aren't likely to sell their few and precious Somua S35s or Matilda's....and even those are of questionable value to carry out truly mobile operations. The Russians aren't going to sell T-26s or BTs either.

Tank technology in the 1930s is insufficient to carry out the ideas of Fuller and the armored warfare mobility cult. By the time the tanks DID exist, everyone had moved to a firepower focus anyway...and mass armored thrusts had been discredited as a viable strategy...and it had been relegated to a tactical means rather than a strategic one.

In other words, tanks aren't as important as the propaganda makes them seem.