-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So the Labour Party has decided not to run itself completely off the rails in the name of ideological purity. The problem is that in the long term Attlee and Cripps are probably right - Labour needs the intellectual credibility of the middle-class academic socialists, and it needs to pull in pretty much everyone on the left if it's going to out-muscle the National Coalition on the other side. I can see the new TUC-dominated Labour party finding itself with a solid 30-35% of the vote and no path to the next 10-15% - but under the circumstances opposing rearmament and the stimulus package would be political suicide, and the TUC is smart enough to realise that.
As for the stimulus package, well, Keynes had a point and if there was ever a time for a government stimulus package then the Great Depression was it. The trouble with deficit spending, though, is that unless you plan on simply printing the money (very bad idea), you have to borrow it from someone, and that someone will insist on being paid back. If the economy has recovered in the meantime then no problem (and if a major war has broken out you'd rather have the tanks and the debts than no debts and no tanks). If times are still bad though (and no matter how good the British governament is it can't control international conditions) then you're leveraged to the hilt, with no more money coming in, and the creditors insisting on an austerity package as a condition for extending the loans - which is what happened to the Labour Government in 1931. And continuing economic disaster in the US is not good news for the British economy - it may be potential good news in the future, if demand picks up again and British firms are in a position to satisfy it - but if Americans aren't buying from US sources, they certainly aren't buying from UK sources.
As for the stimulus package, well, Keynes had a point and if there was ever a time for a government stimulus package then the Great Depression was it. The trouble with deficit spending, though, is that unless you plan on simply printing the money (very bad idea), you have to borrow it from someone, and that someone will insist on being paid back. If the economy has recovered in the meantime then no problem (and if a major war has broken out you'd rather have the tanks and the debts than no debts and no tanks). If times are still bad though (and no matter how good the British governament is it can't control international conditions) then you're leveraged to the hilt, with no more money coming in, and the creditors insisting on an austerity package as a condition for extending the loans - which is what happened to the Labour Government in 1931. And continuing economic disaster in the US is not good news for the British economy - it may be potential good news in the future, if demand picks up again and British firms are in a position to satisfy it - but if Americans aren't buying from US sources, they certainly aren't buying from UK sources.
- 1
El Pip said:
So does this mean we'll be seeing improved Ark Royals (bigger lifts, improved torpedo protection, etc) rather than armored carriers? And Lion-class BBs (40,000t, 9 x 16" guns)?
As a naval history geek, I thoroughly approve!
- 1
merrick - The actual differences between the two groups were slight, as far as I can tell anyway. Nationalisation, health, etc. were all common ground, it was only on defence and foreign policy were the socialist/pacifist intellectuals split away from the social-democrat/patriot TUC.
Cripps line about an Italian victory is word for word from a speech he actually made about a German victory for instance, while the TUC only just failed to force the NEC commit to arming Republican Spain during the Civil War.
But I take your point; policy may not be that much different but it may not be as credible. Still I have plans for the upshot of all this producing a far more serious change later in the AAR, not for quite some time though, which may force you to re-assess that analysis.
As for the economics I still think a depressed US is at least partially a good thing (for Britain anyway); they may not be buying anything BUT they're not selling anything either. All the countries that re-armed or built up industry in the 1930s with US goods will have to buy elsewhere, and Britain has to be high up the list of alternatives. Given that US industrial imports in general were low Britain has lost very little exports but gained a much larger potential market. Surely that has to be a good thing?
The other point of disagreement I have is over your assertion the British government can't change international conditions. While that is true they most certainly can change certain regional conditions to their benefit, as the next update will show.
DonnieBaseball - Ohh yes, many new exciting toys for the fleet to play with.
The Fleet has learnt lessons which will affect the carriers. Whether they've learnt the right ones is an entirely different story....
Cripps line about an Italian victory is word for word from a speech he actually made about a German victory for instance, while the TUC only just failed to force the NEC commit to arming Republican Spain during the Civil War.
But I take your point; policy may not be that much different but it may not be as credible. Still I have plans for the upshot of all this producing a far more serious change later in the AAR, not for quite some time though, which may force you to re-assess that analysis.
As for the economics I still think a depressed US is at least partially a good thing (for Britain anyway); they may not be buying anything BUT they're not selling anything either. All the countries that re-armed or built up industry in the 1930s with US goods will have to buy elsewhere, and Britain has to be high up the list of alternatives. Given that US industrial imports in general were low Britain has lost very little exports but gained a much larger potential market. Surely that has to be a good thing?
The other point of disagreement I have is over your assertion the British government can't change international conditions. While that is true they most certainly can change certain regional conditions to their benefit, as the next update will show.
DonnieBaseball - Ohh yes, many new exciting toys for the fleet to play with.
The Fleet has learnt lessons which will affect the carriers. Whether they've learnt the right ones is an entirely different story....
- 1
Definitely an interesting ripple this EP. I whole-heartedly agree that it will benefit the UK's oversea's orderbook, however a non-industrious USA leaves one hell of a global hole in production which the UK alone cannot fulfil, so this should equally benefit any other countries who have the industrial capacity (and rightly so). Also high on that list and who would welcome an increased order-book and additional revenues are the other major players of '36. How much of a head-start this will give the UK is certainly a good question, but who will eventually benefit an improved US economy is anyone's guess; once they decide to get their fingers out of their scrawny post-depression butts that is.El Pip said:
- 1
The question is what are the UK selling? For countries like the Netherlands that needed rearmament fast, there's was virtually nothing better than 1890's Steyr rifles from Austria, which the Dutch manufactured themselves already. When Germany finally invaded, only the royal guards had submachineguns. The only tank was a Renault 17 from Great War France. And all artillery pieces, flak guns, machineguns had only ammunition for a couple of days. If a country that was brought to alert in 1936 could not buy anything of use within a four year period despite the USA being a major producer with relatively less need to gear up and thus a greater amount of weapons left for export, how is Britain expected to provide arms to the entire free world and offset their war expenditure?
Of course, getting an answer is only going to make us all anticipate further instalments when Germany finally gets spanked with British machinery.
Of course, getting an answer is only going to make us all anticipate further instalments when Germany finally gets spanked with British machinery.
- 1
And, in keeping with Pippy's post in Allenby's tale, one can only wonder what VJ would have done with the last bit of that post...
Vann
Vann
- 1
Finally caught up. Everything looks interesting, particularly the Valletta conference. Might Greece later side against Britain, as after all, it is Britain that has all the islands that Greece wants. Just a thought...
Also, am I correct in hoping that the French elections will be the feature of a soon-to-come update?
Also, am I correct in hoping that the French elections will be the feature of a soon-to-come update?
- 1
As one economist put it, imports are what make us rich, exports are the boring stuff we have to do to pay for them. One of the countries that most benefitted from US industrial exports in the late 1930s was, ironically, Britain, since the British industrial base was in a very poor state (the post-Munich rearmament was largely made possible by imports of American machine-tools). Likewise, if Detroit can't stay in business even with the aid of the US domestic market, that means nobody is buying - and for a country that depends on trade to the extent that Britain does, that cannot be good. Of course, if Britain can refit its industrial base without going bust in the short term, it will be better placed when demand finally picks up, and maybe earlier (and slower) rearmament will help in that.El Pip said:
- 1
merrick - When it comes to economics my opinion coincide with that of Churchill "If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions"
While I can see how exports make you rich (Industrial Revolution to Victorian Britain for instance) I struggle on imports making you rich. Surely when you import you're sending the profit margin overseas, as opposed to exports where you keep the profit margin yourself. Yet it's imports that make you rich! If that has to make sense I'm left with no choice but to substitute my own economic reality in the interests of my own sanity (and to prevent a massive plot re-write )
Thus in this AAR exports are good for Britain (and everyone else), the US domestic economy is still collapsed but the world's moved on (the world economy has decoupled? Is that the right phrase?) and, finally, there is a large market internationally for exports, composed of all the places that historically brought from the US but who now have to buy from someone else.
Probably so horribly wrong it wouldn't rate an 'F' at GCSE Economics, but it works for me.
scubadoobie2 - You have correctly predicted a future plot point. Sort of. Thus a "Silver Net" for close prediction is now yours, use it wisely.
As I see it a major arms sale doesn't just link the nations economically, the training and servicing deals forge military links as well. Alliances and sphere's of influence are at stake, not an area to be treated lightly so competition will be intense.
GeneralHannibal - Good work on catching up sir! Yes the French election update sits mostly written on my computer as I type. I am currently working out whether to post as is (its a bit short) or lengthen it with news from another country. If the later a post at the weekend, if the former could be tomorrow.
C&D - One thing the UK does have a great deal of is surplus kit (biplanes, tankettes and other superseded equipment). Given these items were still in service into the 1940s there will be a market, initially anyway, especially among minor powers. Longer term I'd expect to see more 'licence' sales, selling the rights to manufacture equipment not the actual items. I'd assume purchasers would prefer it (building up a domestic industry) and, as you say, the UK wont have the capacity, so better to make some money selling old designs than none at all.
Vann the Red - I think spanking Germans with machinery was what got old VJ banned in the first place.
While I can see how exports make you rich (Industrial Revolution to Victorian Britain for instance) I struggle on imports making you rich. Surely when you import you're sending the profit margin overseas, as opposed to exports where you keep the profit margin yourself. Yet it's imports that make you rich!
If that has to make sense I'm left with no choice but to substitute my own economic reality in the interests of my own sanity (and to prevent a massive plot re-write )Thus in this AAR exports are good for Britain (and everyone else), the US domestic economy is still collapsed but the world's moved on (the world economy has decoupled? Is that the right phrase?) and, finally, there is a large market internationally for exports, composed of all the places that historically brought from the US but who now have to buy from someone else.
Probably so horribly wrong it wouldn't rate an 'F' at GCSE Economics, but it works for me.
scubadoobie2 - You have correctly predicted a future plot point. Sort of. Thus a "Silver Net" for close prediction is now yours, use it wisely.
As I see it a major arms sale doesn't just link the nations economically, the training and servicing deals forge military links as well. Alliances and sphere's of influence are at stake, not an area to be treated lightly so competition will be intense.
GeneralHannibal - Good work on catching up sir! Yes the French election update sits mostly written on my computer as I type. I am currently working out whether to post as is (its a bit short) or lengthen it with news from another country. If the later a post at the weekend, if the former could be tomorrow.
C&D - One thing the UK does have a great deal of is surplus kit (biplanes, tankettes and other superseded equipment). Given these items were still in service into the 1940s there will be a market, initially anyway, especially among minor powers. Longer term I'd expect to see more 'licence' sales, selling the rights to manufacture equipment not the actual items. I'd assume purchasers would prefer it (building up a domestic industry) and, as you say, the UK wont have the capacity, so better to make some money selling old designs than none at all.
Vann the Red - I think spanking Germans with machinery was what got old VJ banned in the first place.
- 1
You seem to have forgotten to add the latest and very good entry to the table of contents up front. Just a reminder.
- 1
LOL :rofl: Everyone's a critic. Seems people are just making accounts now to read your epic EP. And to keep you in check
- 1
UncleIstvan1111 - Voila! Fixed. I wasn't aware anyone even look at the Contents page, it's reassuring at least someone does.
scubadoobie2 - As long as they're reading while criticising (and keeping me in check), that's the main thing.
And now, an update!
scubadoobie2 - As long as they're reading while criticising (and keeping me in check), that's the main thing.
And now, an update!
- 1
Pip, an hour after "And now, an update" and still nothing? That is surpassing cruelty, my dear sir.
- 1
Did you know that certain pictures, when compressed suitable for interweb use, suddenly become an illegible mess? And are you aware of quite how long it takes to sort out said picture into a usable format, when you have the artistic abilty of a drunken monkey who wasn't much good at art to start with? Because I now sadly am.Incognitia said:
However, it is fixed! So update within 5 minutes!
- 1
Chapter XLV: The Will of the People.
Chapter XLV: The Will of the People.
The French legislative election boiled down to a contest of foreign policy, the other issues facing the country paling in comparison to the questions of France's status as a Great Power and her 'Honneur et gloire'; her honour and glory. The 1930s had not been kind to France, the great depression had bit deep into her economy while the reputation of the Third Republic had been rocked by a string of scandals amongst the legislature. In foreign affairs France's influence was diminishing while her sphere of influence contracted, where once the Quai d'Orsay had been active from the Caribbean to the Pacific the focus had narrowed to an obsessional fixation with Germany. This would not have been such bad a thing had any tangible benefit resulted, sadly the only result was a detailed knowledge of which clause of Versailles Hitler was breaking at any given moment.
The Quai d'Orsay, home of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Like their counterparts at the British Foreign Office the diplomats who worked at the Ministry had lost the aggressive and ambitious drive that had characterised their predecessors. The election would be an opportunity for the French public to express their recently discovered displeasure at this turn of events.
This had not been too serious a political problem for the various governments, while the spectre of the losses of the Great War loomed over France policies of peace would always be more popular than those that risked war. In this context the true impact of the Abyssinian War and Sarraut's stand over the Rhineland become clear, the demonstration that boldness did not always result in a repeat of Verdun changed the nature of foreign policy. The question asked of any issue changed from "What is the risk of war?" to "What do we risk through inaction?", a question the main French parties had not asked themselves for quite some time, much to the detriment of France herself.
The French electorates new, or more accurately remembered, emphasis on France's place in the world was reflected in the opinion polls; the ratings for Sarraut's Socialist Radicals and Flandin's Alliance Républicaine Démocratique sky-rocketed after the Rhineland Crisis. That these parties should benefit was particularly ironic given the rights pacifist arguments throughout the 1930s and Sarraut's decision not to involve France in the Abyssinian War barely months before. Yet, through all the charges of electoral opportunism and naked cynicism, many of the justified, both parties stood by their actions during the crisis and claimed they had been acting out of deeply held conviction and in the interests of France. Indeed the previous pacifism was exploited by Flandin, the ARD attempting to appeal to the still sizeable anti-war section of the electorate by portraying themselves as against wars of aggression overseas but not afraid to defend France. The slogan 'The party of peace, but not peace at any price' sums up their attempt to be all things to all men.
At the other end of the political spectrum the entire episode was nothing less than a disaster for the Popular Front, not only did they lack the credibility and reputation the crisis had, perhaps unfairly, bestowed on the governing parties, there own policies were in tatters. The leadership's attempts to rectify this revealed the Achilles heel of the Popular Front; internal divisions. While the Socialist Radicals and ARD had their own internal arguments over their sudden conversion to interventionism, they were nothing compared to the wranglings inside the Popular Front. The attempt to alter the agreed joint platform rapidly spiraled out of control as old divisions between Maurice Thorez's Section Française de l'Internationale Communiste (SFIC, the French Section of the Communist International) and Blum's Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO, the French Section of the Workers International) tore open and previously settled policies became points of contention. With the centre-left SFIO particularly vulnerable to voters opting for other centrist parties there was even talk of 'The deal' being reversed, with the Thorez replacing Blum as leader of the Front. While this was never likely, no matter how bad a collapse of the SFIO vote they were never likely to poll less than the communists, it does demonstrate the scale of arguments within the Front. While electoral reality (and order's from Moscow in Thorez's case) kept the parties together, the atmosphere was poisonous with more energy devoted to internal scheming and arguments than attracting votes.
The results of the 1936 legislative elections, the fractured nature of the voting made coalition politics vital to obtain a working majority. The resultant weakness of the government, and the compromise necessary to maintain unity, would be a serious problem for France throughout the rest of the decade.
Naturally, such infighting prevented any attempt to carry out the same rapid change of direction the Radical and ARD leadership had imposed on their parties, with devastating consequences at the polls. After the second round of voting the combined Popular Front vote came to less than the PCF and SFIO had managed separately in 1932, prompting another savage round of internal arguments. The collapse of the much heralded Front left the way clear for Sarraut to retain the Presidency of the Council, although still requiring significant support from the ARD and other centre-right parties to maintain a workable majority. During the election it has been expected the first priority of any government would be to formulate a long term policy on the Rhineland, yet ironically the first challenge for Sarraut after defeating Lebrun's Popular Front would come from another Popular Front, Manuel Azaña's governing Frente Popular in Spain.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Ah, the politicians will have to accept to move away from proportional representativity and towards two-turns uninominal elections before they can get an efficient legislature. In OTL it took a further 22 years - and de Gaulle's energy - to reach that goal. Let's hope the French voters feel the wind of the bullet and demand that the Republican institutions are brought up to speed in terms of reactivity to world events !
- 1
Well EP, now I come to read it that was worth the wait; a fascinating view into the changes afoot in France.
A worthy ally, perchance, as long as this change is not too little, too late?
A worthy ally, perchance, as long as this change is not too little, too late?
- 1
You realize, Incognita, that only like 17 days have passed since the game's start to the present day at Pippy's current rate of one game day per real life month, right? It's hardly too late. ;-)
Excellent post followed by interesting reflection by AF.
Vann
Excellent post followed by interesting reflection by AF.
Vann
- 1
