Damn it chaps, Ethiopia really hosed us here. Gotta watch for a way to get a jab in ourselves... perhaps after the Sovs are gone...
Last edited:
Peace in Our Time! - A TRO Inspired Franco-British Union Quest
- Thread starter Fission Battery
- Start date
- Alt. History
LuxemburgLover69
There are more things between Heaven and Earth...
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm curious how everyone at home is reacting to this. Tories will spin this as a total loss, but will that be enough to rile up the electorate? I'm assuming that that losing all these territories and the resources they provided will have an impact on the economy. I'm just not sure how severe.
What to do about Libya is my next question. I'm thinking we need to obviously respond. I think it would look bad to negotiate, so a military response? But Gaddafi now has the Soviets and Egypt giving him full support. I'm concerned about being bogged down. I suppose we will have to rely on Nixon for help. God help us all.
What to do about Libya is my next question. I'm thinking we need to obviously respond. I think it would look bad to negotiate, so a military response? But Gaddafi now has the Soviets and Egypt giving him full support. I'm concerned about being bogged down. I suppose we will have to rely on Nixon for help. God help us all.
I think in about a decade the opportunity for revenge on Ethiopia will come. We and the Americans have honed our ability to spark ethnic tensions in Thailand, Indonesia and other countries.
With us out of the picture in the region, Ethiopia will now have to manage the anti-fbu coalition its built for itself and prevent blowback like Eritrea seeking independence or its somalian population wanting to join newly liberated somalia.
The twin problems that might prevent a civil war would be Japan knowing how the americans and fbu have been knifing them in the gut for decades would take this as the chance to get in good with Ethiopia who in desperation will fully embrace japan as egypt has with the soviets to have the resources to do a region wide state building project.
The other is that we are a bit closer to them compared to the countries that we are destroying with ethnic civil war. With Americans putting nukes in East Africa and other things the usa or us will be doing to them in the mean time would give ample evidence to Ethiopia's anti-colonial movement that they still have a common enemy.
With us out of the picture in the region, Ethiopia will now have to manage the anti-fbu coalition its built for itself and prevent blowback like Eritrea seeking independence or its somalian population wanting to join newly liberated somalia.
The twin problems that might prevent a civil war would be Japan knowing how the americans and fbu have been knifing them in the gut for decades would take this as the chance to get in good with Ethiopia who in desperation will fully embrace japan as egypt has with the soviets to have the resources to do a region wide state building project.
The other is that we are a bit closer to them compared to the countries that we are destroying with ethnic civil war. With Americans putting nukes in East Africa and other things the usa or us will be doing to them in the mean time would give ample evidence to Ethiopia's anti-colonial movement that they still have a common enemy.
I knew they would never accept anything less than total victory, we should have given them what they want and took some Italians and collaborators away.
Guess who just found oil in the North Sea. Thanks Gaddafi, now Italy should finally listen to us after this.
- Pronouns
- He, Me
With all politeness, this isn't really gonna happen if we play our cards right. I mean literally every nation on earth is a settler colonial entity and most of them don't have issues with Fascists.
Please just ignore Marxist theory and embrace realpolitik.
Regency
PFP by vanathema (previously yubishines)
- Location
- Morioh Town, Mt. Ebbot
- Pronouns
- They/Them
What. No, not every nation is a result of settler genocidal expansion on an indigenous populace and dominated demographically & politically by that same settler populace. That generalization only makes sense if the ahistorical racist canard about historical human migrations is the real thing instead.
Pretty much, yeah. The situation hasn't changed so it'll produce a new generation of far right assholes in a decade or two. The only change is the government's gotten a free hand and help in cracking down on outright fascist parties and organizations. All those Hitlerite particles will be channeled into the Christian Democrats. They might even go "dormant" into background levels. Still casually racist and insane about land, but they don't consider themselves right wing and even vote liberal sometimes.
Well, it was a pretty big victory. CAN responded promptly so it looked strong and cohesive, killed a bunch of open fascists, the military got to relive the glory of the North African campaign without facing any issues they had back then, Algeria's border is secure, the hostages in Benghazi got to come home unharmed, the conflict didn't escalate into a massive meatgrinder, and the Franco-British Union didn't bleed for Italy's colonial empire. The government's spent the last decade promoting decolonization, so nobody wanted a long drawn out war in Ethiopia or Somalia.
As far as the average person in Britain and Corsica is concerned this was win. The ongoing insurgency is seen as a problem that will sort itself out. The average Algerian, by this point a European, is concerned about said insurgency, but otherwise thinks the situation was handled well. America's promised to foot the bill on manpower too, so with the Commonwealth Armed Forces splitting manpower costs, Franco-British casualties have been low compared to other engagements. Unfortunate, certainly, but the "civilian" population of Libya was protect and fascists killed, so all's well that ends well.
How is this a defeat? You accomplished every goal set out in the plan. This is First Gulf War levels of success. If Masherov wasn't Premier, Gaddafi would be retreating right now to return to a low level insurgency instead of outright war.
In terms of soft power, you've prevented your seemingly inevitable postwar decline, strengthened the Commonwealth, and have so far managed to avoid economic colonization by America. The Franco-British Union can reasonably argue it's still a superpower. America, France, and Britain's track record of Cold War interventions was really spotty at times.
In terms of where we are, we're actually better off than Britain was this time period. We've got the UN on our side, a massive amount of soft power, and a multinational bloc that we can at least semi-reliably direct.
We lost somilia, but no one cares about that backwater.
Yes, but that's a problem for future generations - boy, I wouldn't want to be those guys!
I just remembered they are in Somalia. What do they even do?
And what does this mean? India criticizes us for not containing Japan's influence, I think the Commonwealth would be more extreme than the FBU.
So just like these days??
We should still be able to change a lot of things in a decade or two. Thank God those fascists shot themselves on the foot.
- Location
- Your pantry
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, really the only things that have left me a bit concerned is the Insurgency in Libya, as well as the security of FBU and Commonwealth trade through the Red Sea, but those are both things we can deal with in the next few years, hopefully without future crises. The dice gods have put us through a trial by fire here, but as long as it doesn't throw a tantrum in the near future, I'm still optimistic.
Last edited:
I mean its a minor defeat because we gained nothing and got an insurgency and lost the horn of Africa, We smashed the fashies yeah but we already controlled that bit of territory so thats just a return to status quo, now we have the UAR with soviet backing starting a insurgency which will be a constant drain and let the Japanese encroach on east africa.
TLDR, Gained nothing, lost a bit, minor defeat.
Last edited:
MaironHWH
Fruity Little Know It All (Derogatory)
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Basically the Commonwealth as a whole is moving more and more to being a coalition of equals, but the UK is still acting like its an Imperial power (not consulting with the others before acting etc). Next time something comes up that isn't *that* time urgent it would probably be a good idea to do "Vote on it at the Commonwealth" as a minor point to make it clear we still respect it.
If Scotland tries to revolt, and you conquer all of Scotland in 2 weeks with some minor forces left in the Highlands, you don't call it a minor defeat because you failed to also recapture the Faroe Islands from Denmark. The goal of fighting insurgency is not to map-paint, its to secure your territory in a way that broadcasts strength abroad and increases government trust at home; all of which we did.
EDIT: Oh yeah and it helps us diplomatically because no-one can really criticise us for going guns blazing against the Proud Warriors of Mussolini.
Okay well low bar but in 1964 IRL Britain there was a growing inflation and unemployment crisis, beef with De Gaulle, and an intensely divided Labour Party coming to power with a four seat majority. Oh and everyone was pissed and angry about the European Community (De Gaulle vetoed us joining twice). The Retreat From Empire was ongoing, and the Rhodesian Crisis was about to begin. And Vietnam was happening but it wasn't that big a problem for us.
Last edited:
- Location
- Over the next hill.
Could have been better, but dying for Italy's colonial empire in East Africa would have sucked as well.
Ethiopia and Somalia are unlikely to expand any further. Japanese influence over those two is something we can live with as well. They have their own problems in Asia, and they're likely to simply pursue a policy of investment with them. We didn't go to war with either, so the cards are on the table for a detente in relations, especially with Somalia.
Nasser getting backed by the commies is alarming but he's going to have trouble crossing the Sinai or invading Libya, especially because we have increased American support.
Honestly, we're in as stable a position as we can be given the circumstances. We just have to keep the Commonwealth strong, support the Arab states in the Middle East and don't blink against the Soviet Union.
Our rivals will shoot themselves in the foot eventually.
Ethiopia and Somalia are unlikely to expand any further. Japanese influence over those two is something we can live with as well. They have their own problems in Asia, and they're likely to simply pursue a policy of investment with them. We didn't go to war with either, so the cards are on the table for a detente in relations, especially with Somalia.
Nasser getting backed by the commies is alarming but he's going to have trouble crossing the Sinai or invading Libya, especially because we have increased American support.
Honestly, we're in as stable a position as we can be given the circumstances. We just have to keep the Commonwealth strong, support the Arab states in the Middle East and don't blink against the Soviet Union.
Our rivals will shoot themselves in the foot eventually.
Thanks, I really didn't get that before this explanation. Even if I still think the Commonwealth would be more aggresive than us.
I think we all forgot something here...oh yeah Socialist Guinea, South Africa and Rhodesia!!
What do we do with them??
MaironHWH
Fruity Little Know It All (Derogatory)
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Pronouns
- He/Him
nah bro the fucking Picts keep launching incursions into Norfolk we need to get rid of these guys or we'll never fully settle the Midlands, the work of William the Bastard is not yet done
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yes if we look back long enough each nation is a settler nation. That is however not the same dynamic as a nation that is actively encroaching upon and settling another. A quick look at the political dynamics of 20th century settler societies such as French Algeria, South Rhodesia and South Africa all show these kinds of societies to be breeding grounds for fascist politics.
No, a minor defeat is exactly what you call it, do you not understand that losing territory is a bad thing? If Scotland revolts the situation is already FUBAR just like Tunisia is FUBAR for Italy, you really think that domestic audiences will be impressed that the government crushes a rebellion instead of being shocked and horrified and ask questions on why there was a rebellion in the first place?
Also what do you mean it isn't a minor defeat with your Faroe island example, a foreign nation has occupied your land, they wouldn't try that if they thought you were strong or going to to anything about it. its the realpolitik equivalent of spitting in your eye and calling you a bitch and to do something about it.
We gained nothing and got an insurgency, a wrecked Tunisia filled with neo-fashists and lost land to Ethiopia, we got rolled back and have to pick up the pieces for a weakened Italy while our rivals have expanded their influence, thats a defeat. though to be fair during a revolt it isn't a question of what do you gain but how much do you lose.
Last edited:
It's only a minor defeat if one considers territorial gains or loses as the only metric to measure the success of foreign policy, rather than if it accomplished its geopolitical goals or the impact it had on domestic politics. Imagining it as a zero sum were either you win or lose isn't recommended.
Japan's increasing influence in East Africa is a concern. The colonial regime in Somalia was unstable. It was on its way out sooner or later. If CAN had invaded to maintain control over it itd be fighting another insurgency at the moment. That doesn't look good for a dovish Liberal-Labour government.
1965 - Grimond Foreign Policy Pivot?
New
===
1965 - Grimond Foreign Policy Pivot?
===
In London there was considerable concern over the recent rise in tensions in the world. The change of leadership in so many countries marked a turning point in the Cold War, though none were eager to see where the situation would unfold with two explicitly hostile blocs opposing the Franco-British Union. It was only a small saving grace that they disliked each other as much as they disliked the Commonwealth Alliance of Nations. The crisis in Libya was seen as a sign of things to come. The ongoing insurgency was backed by Moscow and Cairo to bleed Sicily dry.
Fearful analysts proposed that this was the beginning of a return to the militant internationalism of the 40s. Bukharinists and Pan-Asianists are no longer sated by their gains made during World War 2 against the Axis and Allies, respectively. Their military-industrial complexes, apparatchiks, and corporate shareholders hungered for more territory to feed their growing economies, at the expense of the Western world. Communism would never be happy with the existence of capitalism, and Pan-Asian Liberalism would never be happy with the existence of a powerful America and Britain.
Intelligence and military personnel shared similar positions. Whatever detente that may have been enjoyed before was likely coming to an end. There was little appetite for a third world war, especially when Britain had only just to begin to financially recover from the last one. The Franco-British Union and Commonwealth's top brass hoped that their enemies shared a similar mindset. America though was eager to escalate, within reason. The Soviets were off limits, but Japan was potential free game simply because Tokyo did not yet possess nuclear weapons. Its missile program was purely conventional, so any losses inflicted upon American citizens were considered acceptable collateral. Though Nixon stressed America would not drop the bomb without sufficient warning and collaboration with its most important ally, the FBU.
These circumstances left Grimond's government at a bit of an impasse. The domestic situation continued to be great going into 1965, despite the little hiccup in Sicily and Libya. The economy was growing strong, wages were rising, more songs, movies, and tv shows were being produced than ever, and the coalition remained relatively strong. There were those in the government that wanted to stay the course of careful internationalism. Labour, Social Democrats, and Liberals were the loudest proponents of this approach. They argued that London had built up its network of allies for just such a reason and that a dovish approach, while reactive, gave the FBU more goodwill amongst its allies and neutral countries compared to a more hawkish approach.
Opponents argued that a firmer approach had to be taken, though they also agreed that whatever the Franco-British Union did, it'd do with its allies. There was strength in numbers that would allow London to more readily flex its muscles. In their mind, CAN's performance in Libya was exactly what they needed to do more of, hit hard, hit fast, and take control of a situation, rather than waiting for the League of Nations to make some decision. Outside the government there were a few who wanted even more aggressive posturing, but they weren't in the room to make any decisions.
The most significant point of that policy was the Franco-British Union's nuclear weapons. The arms limitation treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union limited it to 50 tactical warheads. Labour wanted the FBU to have none, and it was the Radical Liberal Democrats under Grimond that saw the job done, going down in history as the only country to produce nuclear weapons and then willingly terminate their own program. It was seen as a moral victory by many in the government, a signal that there was no need for these doomsday weapons in the world. Masherov's ascent to Premier had many concerned, but he insisted that the Soviet Union would abide by the treaty.
American and Franco-British intelligence suggested that the Soviet Union had continued production on weapons manufacturing facilities, missile silos, and submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons. It was difficult to determine the exact number of facilities under construction, given the difficulty of inserting spy planes into the Soviet Union and its vast size, but MI6 and the CIA were confident the Soviets retained breakout capacity. The moment Masherov decided to break the treaty the Soviet Union would be in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads and the means to use them in under four months.
There was also the fear that their missile program was lightyears ahead of America and the FBU's. It was believed that they benefited greatly from capturing German rocket scientists and samples to build as the basis for their space program. Intelligent officers objected to the idea that Soviet success was driven by Soviet scientists who enjoyed ample funding and insisted that it was Nazi aid that made this gap in technology possible, despite the fact that Werner von Braun and many of his associates were executed for war crimes after the war.
Regardless of the source of technology, both the CIA and MI6 believed the Soviets possessed missiles capable of reaching the continental United States from silos in Europe and the Far East. The American heartland was in serious danger from the Soviet's first strike capability, while its own Minuteman missile didn't have the range to penetrate the Soviet Union from America. Japan too was outside the range of the American homeland, while spy planes found evidence of construction of missile silos in Hawaii. It was clear that the moment they got the bomb, they'd have it aimed right at America's throats. Intelligence suggested that their own program was bearing fruit and only a few years away from possessing a nuclear weapon.
There was serious fear in CAN that a missile gap was a real and present threat. America had already ramped up production of nuclear bombs under LBJ and Nixon had no intent on slowing it down. India had withdrawn from the arms limitation treaty to begin developing nuclear bombs with the help of America. Nixon was already negotiating basing rights with India, Australia, Iran, and Spain to put American nuclear missiles in their country to surround both the Soviets and Japanese. He was also hoping that Britain could house them.Washington was putting pressure on London to get with the program and learn to love the bomb.
The fact that it'd be the first hit in any nuclear exchange didn't matter much to Nixon. In fact that was considered all the more reason it should invest back into its nuclear program and hold the bomb itself. That was the only surefire way to make the Soviets and Japanese back down in any future confrontation. This was a suggestion that was not lightly taken by Grimond nor his government. Nobody wanted to mimic Nixon's 'madman' style approach to international relations.
Callaghan made it clear that if the Franco-British Union restarted its nuclear weapons program Labour would leave the coalition, even if it abided by the arms limitation treaty. The social democrats threatened to leave if the government reversed the decision. Grimond himself wasn't keen on the idea. He had already celebrated making Britain and Algeria a "nuclear free zone." The polls showed a lot of people liked it, especially with the possible signs of friendlier relations with France on the horizon. If it happened, it'd practically have to happen at gunpoint, against the wishes of the prime minister and most of the cabinet. How that would happen is almost unthinkable.
The regional parties weren't thrilled by the idea either. They finally got a seat at the table and they were being told to sign up to get a front row seat to a potential nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union. They also didn't like the fact that the missiles would likely be housed in military bases in their sections of the UK to increase the likelihood of them surviving a surprise attack by the Soviets.
There was the possibility that it would be acceptable if the weapons were turned over to the League of Nations or Commonwealth to control. That way London could only use them with the explicit permission of the LoN Council or Commonwealth World Parliament, and likely Queen's, approval. Critics pointed out that'd render them useless in a sudden surprise attack by the Soviets or Japanese when decision action was needed by the Prime Minister.
===
Franco-British Nuclear Weapons
Does the FBU maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons? Pick one.
[ ][FBN] Yes, the 50 warheads alloted by the treaty and no more. (Labour will leave the coalition. Social Democrats will leave the party. RLD will become a majority government with thin margins.) 0.8
[ ][FBN] No, the FBU will continue to be a denuclearized country. (Coalition and RLD remain strong.) 1.2
Does the FBU allow America to base missiles in Britain and Algeria? Pick one.
[ ][USA] Yes, America may base nuclear missiles in FBU territory. (Labour, Plaid Cymru, and Scottish National Party will leave the coalition. Social Democrats will leave the party. RLD will become a minority government.) 0.8
[ ][USA] No, America may not base nuclear missiles in FBU territory. (Coalition and RLD remain strong.) 1.2
These votes are weighted.
===
Trade with France
In lighter news, Premier Mitterrand has reached out to London to secure closer trade relations between their two countries. The new French leader thinks that it is ridiculous that two nations so close together that have historically been allies do not have warmer relations, and so sought to change that immediately. The exchange of goods and opening up continental Europe ever so slightly to the Commonwealth was a step in the right direction.
There was pretty broad support for it in London. There was real hope that Mitterrand could break with Moscow in the future by bringing France closer to Britain. It'd also give London potential access to importing Eurasian resources from France. Military and intelligence officers advised that FBU restrict the sale of weapons, electronics, and aircraft for the purposes of national security. Consumer goods and raw materials however would be perfectly fine.
The National People's Unionist Party was critical of the idea, but they weren't in government. The potential issue was that the French half of the RLD was apprehensive about strengthening ties with France. They felt that it was reinforcing the communist regime and rewarding Paris's decision to seize the property of businesses and landlords, something unacceptable to French liberals and radicals. Many were themselves refugees of the Soviet invasion who saw their properties collectivized by French communists.
This was not a universal view by all French members of the RLD. The social democrats and left radicals felt that Mitterrand's promise of economic and political reforms signaled a change in the regime towards a more democratic form of socialism. The British sections of the party were overall on board with the idea. It meant more money for Britain, friendlier relations with its neighbour, and a potential foothold on the continent's economy. Many in the government saw it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to chip away at Fortress Eurasia. Labour was on board with trade, seeing it as the beginning of friendlier relations with France, something which Bevan had proudly pioneered during his time in office. The refusal to accept expanded trade relations would weaken their support for the coalition government, though it wouldn't cause them to leave it.
The military and intelligence was on board with the proposal too. They believed it'd make it easier to insert spies into France and Europe, which was entirely true. There was the risk of France inserting spies into Britain and Algeria, but that was a risk they were willing to take to get eyes and ears on the ground in Europe.
Pick one.
[ ][FRA] Accept. (Weakens the French Liberal and Radical section of the RLD.)
[ ][FRA] Refuse. (Weakens Coalition. Weakens the Social Democrat section of the RLD.)
===
Equatorial Guinea War
Against the advice of London, Nigeria and Gabon had invaded Socialist Guinea to overthrow the socialist government. Their advance had slowed after their initial push, but they maintained a steady pace during the Libyan Crisis. Gabonese Prime Minister Leon M'ba and Foreign Minister Jean-Hilaire Aubame had already begun grooming a liberal collaborator government to take over once the socialists were ousted, headed by Bonifacio Ondo Edu. Ondo Edu was a fellow Catholic and came from the Fang people like M'ba, leading to a close working relationship between them. He had fled Spanish authorities years prior and was among the few independence leaders that didn't return when the socialist republic was declared.
Despite Nigeria and Gabon's gains, they had trouble taking the major cities and gulf islands. Their governments have sheepishly requested official Commonwealth Armed Forces aid in finishing off the socialists in Guinea. They required amphibious and airborn forces to take the islands and armoured support and combat engineers to break the backs of the urban defenses. Nigerian PM Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Gabonese PM Leon M'ba both stressed the need for urgency in the matter.
Premier Masherov had declared his support for the Democratic Republic of Congo. The African Commonwealth members feared that Soviet aid would let Congo finally retake Katanga and then turn around and use its new arms to destabilize the region. Horror stories of Soviet tanks rolling through the jungle or helicopters cruising the sun baked grasslands were drilled into the Foreign Office's head. It wasn't far-fetched either. Portugal reported increased losses in Angola and Mozambique, and Rhodesia noted heavy weapons falling into insurgents' hands.
Spain of course insisted that it'd get its colony back, but Nigeria and Gabon categorically refused to consider the option. They'd sooner leave the Commonwealth than hand over a piece of Africa back to those fascist thugs. An independent Equatorial Guinea was a fact that Madrid would have to accept.
London wasn't keen on lending aid in a war that its allies had started against its express wishes. Though, after Libya, few wanted to see Soviet aid flood the Congo. There was a serious fear that if its mineral resources fell into Soviet hands it would deprive the Commonwealth of valuable cobalt, uranium, and other resources. The FBU helping its allies wrap up the war in Guinea would allow the two to rebuild the country and refocus their efforts on containing Soviet and Egyptian influence in Africa. If the war was allowed to be drawn out, both prime ministers had no doubt that Soviet tanks would find their way into socialist hands.
There was also the natural gas and oil resources to consider. Spanish surveys had found massive deposits in the region. Their colonial garrison was simply overthrown before they had a chance to begin drilling them. If the Soviets gained access to Guinean oil, it'd potentially self fund all future operations in the region and supply Socialist Guinea, Congo, and Madagascar with enough fuel to feed their modernization schemes. Every deposit that fell to the reds was one less resource available on the global market.
Labour did not support the war and felt that London should be pressuring its allies into accepting a ceasefire. The RLD as a whole sat on the fence on the issue. The request for air and naval support was considered reasonable enough, though the FBU could not come down like the hammer of god like they had in Libya. Other members of the Commonwealth weighed in as well, most were in favour of extending aid, except Canada and Ireland. The former also favoured forcing Nigeria and Gabon to stand down and enter into a ceasefire, while the latter for practical reasons that it didn't wish to send its share of forces overseas. The motion had enough support that it'd pass in the CWP to approve deploying CAF assets to aid the two.
If London refused to send aid, but it passed in the CWP that would potentially wash London's hands of the affair, though it would be extremely awkward given the Franco-British Union was the current Supreme Commander of the Commonwealth Armed Forces and Franco-British and Canadian officers made up the majority of the Commonwealth's Combined Chiefs of Staff. Command and coordination of CAF forces would fall to Australian and Indian officers in the CCCS, who were capable of such a task.
There was always the option of rallying support against the measure. It'd save London any awkwardness with the Commonwealth itself, though it would hurt its relationship with Nigeria and Gabon in the short term. The risk of Soviet aid reaching Socialist Guinea would increase the longer the war went on too. This would bank on Nigeria and Gabon's militaries being strong enough to finish the job themselves, which was possible given the aid previously given to them.
Does the Franco-British Union vote in favour of deploying CAF assets to Guinea to support Nigeria and Gabon? Pick one.
[ ][EGW] Yes, we ride from St. Helena at dawn. (Weakens Coalition. Strengthens Commonwealth.)
[ ][EGW] No, Franco-British forces shall not ride at dawn. (Maintains Coalition. Weakens Commonwealth.)
[ ][EGW] No, and furthermore, London rallies support against the motion. It fails. (Maintains Coalition. Maintains Commonwealth. Weakens ties with Nigeria and Gabon.)
1965 - Grimond Foreign Policy Pivot?
===
In London there was considerable concern over the recent rise in tensions in the world. The change of leadership in so many countries marked a turning point in the Cold War, though none were eager to see where the situation would unfold with two explicitly hostile blocs opposing the Franco-British Union. It was only a small saving grace that they disliked each other as much as they disliked the Commonwealth Alliance of Nations. The crisis in Libya was seen as a sign of things to come. The ongoing insurgency was backed by Moscow and Cairo to bleed Sicily dry.
Fearful analysts proposed that this was the beginning of a return to the militant internationalism of the 40s. Bukharinists and Pan-Asianists are no longer sated by their gains made during World War 2 against the Axis and Allies, respectively. Their military-industrial complexes, apparatchiks, and corporate shareholders hungered for more territory to feed their growing economies, at the expense of the Western world. Communism would never be happy with the existence of capitalism, and Pan-Asian Liberalism would never be happy with the existence of a powerful America and Britain.
Intelligence and military personnel shared similar positions. Whatever detente that may have been enjoyed before was likely coming to an end. There was little appetite for a third world war, especially when Britain had only just to begin to financially recover from the last one. The Franco-British Union and Commonwealth's top brass hoped that their enemies shared a similar mindset. America though was eager to escalate, within reason. The Soviets were off limits, but Japan was potential free game simply because Tokyo did not yet possess nuclear weapons. Its missile program was purely conventional, so any losses inflicted upon American citizens were considered acceptable collateral. Though Nixon stressed America would not drop the bomb without sufficient warning and collaboration with its most important ally, the FBU.
These circumstances left Grimond's government at a bit of an impasse. The domestic situation continued to be great going into 1965, despite the little hiccup in Sicily and Libya. The economy was growing strong, wages were rising, more songs, movies, and tv shows were being produced than ever, and the coalition remained relatively strong. There were those in the government that wanted to stay the course of careful internationalism. Labour, Social Democrats, and Liberals were the loudest proponents of this approach. They argued that London had built up its network of allies for just such a reason and that a dovish approach, while reactive, gave the FBU more goodwill amongst its allies and neutral countries compared to a more hawkish approach.
Opponents argued that a firmer approach had to be taken, though they also agreed that whatever the Franco-British Union did, it'd do with its allies. There was strength in numbers that would allow London to more readily flex its muscles. In their mind, CAN's performance in Libya was exactly what they needed to do more of, hit hard, hit fast, and take control of a situation, rather than waiting for the League of Nations to make some decision. Outside the government there were a few who wanted even more aggressive posturing, but they weren't in the room to make any decisions.
The most significant point of that policy was the Franco-British Union's nuclear weapons. The arms limitation treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union limited it to 50 tactical warheads. Labour wanted the FBU to have none, and it was the Radical Liberal Democrats under Grimond that saw the job done, going down in history as the only country to produce nuclear weapons and then willingly terminate their own program. It was seen as a moral victory by many in the government, a signal that there was no need for these doomsday weapons in the world. Masherov's ascent to Premier had many concerned, but he insisted that the Soviet Union would abide by the treaty.
American and Franco-British intelligence suggested that the Soviet Union had continued production on weapons manufacturing facilities, missile silos, and submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons. It was difficult to determine the exact number of facilities under construction, given the difficulty of inserting spy planes into the Soviet Union and its vast size, but MI6 and the CIA were confident the Soviets retained breakout capacity. The moment Masherov decided to break the treaty the Soviet Union would be in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads and the means to use them in under four months.
There was also the fear that their missile program was lightyears ahead of America and the FBU's. It was believed that they benefited greatly from capturing German rocket scientists and samples to build as the basis for their space program. Intelligent officers objected to the idea that Soviet success was driven by Soviet scientists who enjoyed ample funding and insisted that it was Nazi aid that made this gap in technology possible, despite the fact that Werner von Braun and many of his associates were executed for war crimes after the war.
Regardless of the source of technology, both the CIA and MI6 believed the Soviets possessed missiles capable of reaching the continental United States from silos in Europe and the Far East. The American heartland was in serious danger from the Soviet's first strike capability, while its own Minuteman missile didn't have the range to penetrate the Soviet Union from America. Japan too was outside the range of the American homeland, while spy planes found evidence of construction of missile silos in Hawaii. It was clear that the moment they got the bomb, they'd have it aimed right at America's throats. Intelligence suggested that their own program was bearing fruit and only a few years away from possessing a nuclear weapon.
There was serious fear in CAN that a missile gap was a real and present threat. America had already ramped up production of nuclear bombs under LBJ and Nixon had no intent on slowing it down. India had withdrawn from the arms limitation treaty to begin developing nuclear bombs with the help of America. Nixon was already negotiating basing rights with India, Australia, Iran, and Spain to put American nuclear missiles in their country to surround both the Soviets and Japanese. He was also hoping that Britain could house them.Washington was putting pressure on London to get with the program and learn to love the bomb.
The fact that it'd be the first hit in any nuclear exchange didn't matter much to Nixon. In fact that was considered all the more reason it should invest back into its nuclear program and hold the bomb itself. That was the only surefire way to make the Soviets and Japanese back down in any future confrontation. This was a suggestion that was not lightly taken by Grimond nor his government. Nobody wanted to mimic Nixon's 'madman' style approach to international relations.
Callaghan made it clear that if the Franco-British Union restarted its nuclear weapons program Labour would leave the coalition, even if it abided by the arms limitation treaty. The social democrats threatened to leave if the government reversed the decision. Grimond himself wasn't keen on the idea. He had already celebrated making Britain and Algeria a "nuclear free zone." The polls showed a lot of people liked it, especially with the possible signs of friendlier relations with France on the horizon. If it happened, it'd practically have to happen at gunpoint, against the wishes of the prime minister and most of the cabinet. How that would happen is almost unthinkable.
The regional parties weren't thrilled by the idea either. They finally got a seat at the table and they were being told to sign up to get a front row seat to a potential nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union. They also didn't like the fact that the missiles would likely be housed in military bases in their sections of the UK to increase the likelihood of them surviving a surprise attack by the Soviets.
There was the possibility that it would be acceptable if the weapons were turned over to the League of Nations or Commonwealth to control. That way London could only use them with the explicit permission of the LoN Council or Commonwealth World Parliament, and likely Queen's, approval. Critics pointed out that'd render them useless in a sudden surprise attack by the Soviets or Japanese when decision action was needed by the Prime Minister.
===
Franco-British Nuclear Weapons
Does the FBU maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons? Pick one.
[ ][FBN] Yes, the 50 warheads alloted by the treaty and no more. (Labour will leave the coalition. Social Democrats will leave the party. RLD will become a majority government with thin margins.) 0.8
[ ][FBN] No, the FBU will continue to be a denuclearized country. (Coalition and RLD remain strong.) 1.2
Does the FBU allow America to base missiles in Britain and Algeria? Pick one.
[ ][USA] Yes, America may base nuclear missiles in FBU territory. (Labour, Plaid Cymru, and Scottish National Party will leave the coalition. Social Democrats will leave the party. RLD will become a minority government.) 0.8
[ ][USA] No, America may not base nuclear missiles in FBU territory. (Coalition and RLD remain strong.) 1.2
These votes are weighted.
===
Trade with France
In lighter news, Premier Mitterrand has reached out to London to secure closer trade relations between their two countries. The new French leader thinks that it is ridiculous that two nations so close together that have historically been allies do not have warmer relations, and so sought to change that immediately. The exchange of goods and opening up continental Europe ever so slightly to the Commonwealth was a step in the right direction.
There was pretty broad support for it in London. There was real hope that Mitterrand could break with Moscow in the future by bringing France closer to Britain. It'd also give London potential access to importing Eurasian resources from France. Military and intelligence officers advised that FBU restrict the sale of weapons, electronics, and aircraft for the purposes of national security. Consumer goods and raw materials however would be perfectly fine.
The National People's Unionist Party was critical of the idea, but they weren't in government. The potential issue was that the French half of the RLD was apprehensive about strengthening ties with France. They felt that it was reinforcing the communist regime and rewarding Paris's decision to seize the property of businesses and landlords, something unacceptable to French liberals and radicals. Many were themselves refugees of the Soviet invasion who saw their properties collectivized by French communists.
This was not a universal view by all French members of the RLD. The social democrats and left radicals felt that Mitterrand's promise of economic and political reforms signaled a change in the regime towards a more democratic form of socialism. The British sections of the party were overall on board with the idea. It meant more money for Britain, friendlier relations with its neighbour, and a potential foothold on the continent's economy. Many in the government saw it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to chip away at Fortress Eurasia. Labour was on board with trade, seeing it as the beginning of friendlier relations with France, something which Bevan had proudly pioneered during his time in office. The refusal to accept expanded trade relations would weaken their support for the coalition government, though it wouldn't cause them to leave it.
The military and intelligence was on board with the proposal too. They believed it'd make it easier to insert spies into France and Europe, which was entirely true. There was the risk of France inserting spies into Britain and Algeria, but that was a risk they were willing to take to get eyes and ears on the ground in Europe.
Pick one.
[ ][FRA] Accept. (Weakens the French Liberal and Radical section of the RLD.)
[ ][FRA] Refuse. (Weakens Coalition. Weakens the Social Democrat section of the RLD.)
===
Equatorial Guinea War
Against the advice of London, Nigeria and Gabon had invaded Socialist Guinea to overthrow the socialist government. Their advance had slowed after their initial push, but they maintained a steady pace during the Libyan Crisis. Gabonese Prime Minister Leon M'ba and Foreign Minister Jean-Hilaire Aubame had already begun grooming a liberal collaborator government to take over once the socialists were ousted, headed by Bonifacio Ondo Edu. Ondo Edu was a fellow Catholic and came from the Fang people like M'ba, leading to a close working relationship between them. He had fled Spanish authorities years prior and was among the few independence leaders that didn't return when the socialist republic was declared.
Despite Nigeria and Gabon's gains, they had trouble taking the major cities and gulf islands. Their governments have sheepishly requested official Commonwealth Armed Forces aid in finishing off the socialists in Guinea. They required amphibious and airborn forces to take the islands and armoured support and combat engineers to break the backs of the urban defenses. Nigerian PM Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Gabonese PM Leon M'ba both stressed the need for urgency in the matter.
Premier Masherov had declared his support for the Democratic Republic of Congo. The African Commonwealth members feared that Soviet aid would let Congo finally retake Katanga and then turn around and use its new arms to destabilize the region. Horror stories of Soviet tanks rolling through the jungle or helicopters cruising the sun baked grasslands were drilled into the Foreign Office's head. It wasn't far-fetched either. Portugal reported increased losses in Angola and Mozambique, and Rhodesia noted heavy weapons falling into insurgents' hands.
Spain of course insisted that it'd get its colony back, but Nigeria and Gabon categorically refused to consider the option. They'd sooner leave the Commonwealth than hand over a piece of Africa back to those fascist thugs. An independent Equatorial Guinea was a fact that Madrid would have to accept.
London wasn't keen on lending aid in a war that its allies had started against its express wishes. Though, after Libya, few wanted to see Soviet aid flood the Congo. There was a serious fear that if its mineral resources fell into Soviet hands it would deprive the Commonwealth of valuable cobalt, uranium, and other resources. The FBU helping its allies wrap up the war in Guinea would allow the two to rebuild the country and refocus their efforts on containing Soviet and Egyptian influence in Africa. If the war was allowed to be drawn out, both prime ministers had no doubt that Soviet tanks would find their way into socialist hands.
There was also the natural gas and oil resources to consider. Spanish surveys had found massive deposits in the region. Their colonial garrison was simply overthrown before they had a chance to begin drilling them. If the Soviets gained access to Guinean oil, it'd potentially self fund all future operations in the region and supply Socialist Guinea, Congo, and Madagascar with enough fuel to feed their modernization schemes. Every deposit that fell to the reds was one less resource available on the global market.
Labour did not support the war and felt that London should be pressuring its allies into accepting a ceasefire. The RLD as a whole sat on the fence on the issue. The request for air and naval support was considered reasonable enough, though the FBU could not come down like the hammer of god like they had in Libya. Other members of the Commonwealth weighed in as well, most were in favour of extending aid, except Canada and Ireland. The former also favoured forcing Nigeria and Gabon to stand down and enter into a ceasefire, while the latter for practical reasons that it didn't wish to send its share of forces overseas. The motion had enough support that it'd pass in the CWP to approve deploying CAF assets to aid the two.
If London refused to send aid, but it passed in the CWP that would potentially wash London's hands of the affair, though it would be extremely awkward given the Franco-British Union was the current Supreme Commander of the Commonwealth Armed Forces and Franco-British and Canadian officers made up the majority of the Commonwealth's Combined Chiefs of Staff. Command and coordination of CAF forces would fall to Australian and Indian officers in the CCCS, who were capable of such a task.
There was always the option of rallying support against the measure. It'd save London any awkwardness with the Commonwealth itself, though it would hurt its relationship with Nigeria and Gabon in the short term. The risk of Soviet aid reaching Socialist Guinea would increase the longer the war went on too. This would bank on Nigeria and Gabon's militaries being strong enough to finish the job themselves, which was possible given the aid previously given to them.
Does the Franco-British Union vote in favour of deploying CAF assets to Guinea to support Nigeria and Gabon? Pick one.
[ ][EGW] Yes, we ride from St. Helena at dawn. (Weakens Coalition. Strengthens Commonwealth.)
[ ][EGW] No, Franco-British forces shall not ride at dawn. (Maintains Coalition. Weakens Commonwealth.)
[ ][EGW] No, and furthermore, London rallies support against the motion. It fails. (Maintains Coalition. Maintains Commonwealth. Weakens ties with Nigeria and Gabon.)
nachtingale
19. On that "honk, mimimi" type beat everyday.
- Location
- Malaysia
- Pronouns
- He/They
[X][FBN] No, the FBU will continue to be a denuclearized country.
[X][USA] No, America may not base nuclear missiles in FBU territory.
[X][FRA] Accept.
[X][EGW] Yes, we ride from St. Helena at dawn.
Nixon: "The limeys, did they accept?"
Haldeman: "Well, no, they refused."
Nixon: "What the fuck do you mean they didn't? Are they stupid?"
Haldeman: "They were pretty damn adamant on [unintelligible]"
Nixon: "[...] Well what about the damn business in Gabon?"
Haldeman: "[unintelligible]"
Nixon: "Well get me a line with the limey pinkos, we've got to keep this Soviet business contained."
[X][USA] No, America may not base nuclear missiles in FBU territory.
[X][FRA] Accept.
[X][EGW] Yes, we ride from St. Helena at dawn.
Nixon: "The limeys, did they accept?"
Haldeman: "Well, no, they refused."
Nixon: "What the fuck do you mean they didn't? Are they stupid?"
Haldeman: "They were pretty damn adamant on [unintelligible]"
Nixon: "[...] Well what about the damn business in Gabon?"
Haldeman: "[unintelligible]"
Nixon: "Well get me a line with the limey pinkos, we've got to keep this Soviet business contained."