• 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.
Bafflegab - The Middle East has been a task beyond generations of politicians, so TE has his work cut out. I suppose his big advantage is getting in fairly early.

As to Philby Jr it seemed stopping him by accident was the most British way, if only because the authorities failed to do so the proper way. Ironically I'd say many people feel sorry for him, being fit up just because his father didn't follow the British line. How little they know.

RAFspeak - Indeed, those two gentlemen will be the proxies through which the fight is carried out. Arabsist vs Zionists, three rounds, one fall, no actually asking what the natives want. Fight!

Vann the Red - Certainly better for Britain and better for the bankrupt US firms, but I suspect Ibn Saud is quite annoyed the purely commercial American oil firms have been replaced by the with-string-attached British option. :)

Lord Strange - Lawrence was a popular reader request some months back, being the considerate writer I am I've worked him in. How successful his work is, well it wont be easy that's all I'm saying. ;)

As Lawrence has made it in I hope this is as encouragement for a few more (realistic) suggestions for the AAR from the readership. :)

Sir Humphrey - I suppose the key factor on what happens to the railways is who is in power when the crisis hits. Had there been a Conservative government post-WW2 there may not have been a British Railways, though some kind of state support (if only paying a fair rate for wartime traffic) would still have been required which may have led to a government stake in a national monopoly?

Duritz - Lawrence is looking the popular choice, I fear any Zionist readers may be disappointed in the Palestine plan. Particularly if I nick Atlantic Friend's idea and put the matter to a reader vote!

Faeelin - Yep, blatant foreshadowing (and honesty, I couldn't face trying to explain the whole Palestine backstory and dealing with the differences between what was said, what people thought was said, what people thought they meant and so on. Far better to let the good Dr cover it ;) )

Pre-WW2 there were many hefty upgrades around Suez (after the Anglo-Egyptian treaty passed British troops were limited to that area, so the ports were expanded and the bases consolidated). Plus of course the transfer was at a far slower pace, divisions dripping in one or two at a time not six or more at once.

EDIT

Karelian - But how can you solve a problem unless the bureaucratic procedures are followed? Next you'll be saying that vast amounts of paperwork isn't the solution to all the worlds problems! :eek: :D

As to Lawrence his old grand plan is in tatters, the region has already been carved up. He'll need a new plan and pretty sharpish if he's to head off his (new) rival Wingate.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Sir Humphrey - I suppose the key factor on what happens to the railways is who is in power when the crisis hits. Had there been a Conservative government post-WW2 there may not have been a British Railways, though some kind of state support (if only paying a fair rate for wartime traffic) would still have been required which may have led to a government stake in a national monopoly?
Hmmm, interesting notion there and good point. I don't think very many in the Conservative Party ever seriously considered nationalisation, of course during war time, assuming control of such an important national asset was beyond Party politics. However, I could see any government stepping in to buy up assets should they fail/bankrupt in the post war years. Or, like you said, offer them support.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sir Humphrey said:
Hmmm, interesting notion there and good point. I don't think very many in the Conservative Party ever seriously considered nationalisation, of course during war time, assuming control of such an important national asset was beyond Party politics. However, I could see any government stepping in to buy up assets should they fail/bankrupt in the post war years. Or, like you said, offer them support.
Hmm. In Germany the railway only went into the crapper after it was privatized in the 1990s. I want the old state-run Bundesbahn back... stable ticket prices, clean trains, a full station network and last but not least arrivals so punctual they get their own proverb. :( :mad:
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheHyphenated1 - Glad you liked it. :)

Sir Humphrey - The problem for the railways was basically the track and trains had been very heavily used with minimal maintenance (uptime was king during the war). All well and good, there's very little point losing the war but having a good railway, the problem came when the government fixed the fees at 1939 levels (ie no allowance for inflation during the war years).

With worn out assets, no money to replace them and massed competition from huge numbers of army surplus trucks flooding the market something had to be done. It wouldn't even have to be state support, just paying the railways what they were owed for hauling so much govt./military freight and people would probably have been enough (along side the final death of common carrier and a few other changes).

trekaddict - But isn't DB still state owned? It may be a listed company but I thought the government still owned all the shares. The firm may have mis-managed things (or the govt. used it as an excuse to cut rail subsidy and services) but Deutsche Bahn has not been privatised, not by any normal definition anyway.

yourworstnightm - Woot!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
El Pip said:
but Deutsche Bahn has not been privatised, not by any normal definition anyway.


True, but it is run like a normal company, and IIRC the Goverment only owns 40% of the shares, at least when they go to the stock exchange in a few weeks. The Bundesbahn was at least 90% state owned. Some goes for our postal service btw. The one good thing that came out of that is that the mismanagement in the telecommunication branch has led to a competetive market in internet connections, leading to low prices.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To true, to true. Of course, that leads onto the question of Dr Beeching and his various schemes, or indeed the somewhat bungled attempt of the 1955 (I think it was) modernisation plan.

edit: sorry for sort of hijacking the thread.. ;)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I see, Arabist romantics replaced by hard-nosed pragamtists and then lawrence is added to the mix. He's the most romantic arabist going. Gone native? Perhaps. Gaga? More like. Certainly not someone to help turn the Palestine Mandate into a Dominion. Will the Dominion cover all the Middle East between British Egypt (Protectorate) and Persia (British administered, soon to be)?

Governments that pay their debts to their own people, now's there a truly novel idea.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It would be interesting to see what happens to Japan with all these changed events. Britain perceived as stronger than OTL with greater resources to spare for the Far East, coupled with a decrepit USA.

Japan would most likely need to look for other trading partners such as Britain and it seems that unless the UK decides to intervene no one would be in a position to stop any attempts on China.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Jalex - I don't care how decrepid the US looks, or how isolationist, start shutting their people out of markets and they'll soon pucker up. It may be a slower process but any attempt by Japan (and there will be one) to lock other nations out of China will meet with US opposition... the "open door" policy towards Chinese markets had bipartisan support, that's why it was so useful to FDR in rousing the US to intervention!

Pippy - If this does go to a ballot, count one vote for Lawrence. :D
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
trekaddict - I just had a check and, as far as I can tell, the government still owns 100% of DB and the privatisation has been indefinitely delayed. Of course my German is epically poor so I can only check English language sources, but something like that would surely make the news. It appears the government has been very good at keeping control but shifting the blame. :)

Sir Humphrey - This thread turning into railway corner would be no bad thing. Admittedly it would reduce readership by 95% or so but it would be a good chat.

The Modernisation Plan was an odd one, certainly well funded but as you say mis-guided. Would a more private sector thinking railway have gone that way? The key was to admit freight was not coming back, or at least would be limited to long haul bulk, and to rationalise on reliable diesel not dozens of rushed prototypes. The second one was a matter of wanting quick results to meet a political (election) deadline so should be OK, the first however would just depend on good judgement not using hindsight. ;)

C&D - I like twists, particularly I like putting a twist on a twist, though it can get confusing. I believe my biggest problem is making sure not all the twists are positive for Britain. ;)

Chief Ragusa - As you say, just when people thought some hard nosed thinking might be applied Lawrence turns up! In keeping with the above comment I had to have someone to hurl spanners into the works and who better than the high priest of pan-Arabia?

The extent of the Dominion? That's a surprise for later (can't ruin all my secrets or no-one would read it ;) )

Jalex - You are in luck sir, for the next update is provisionally down as India and the Far East so Japan will be covered (or in the one after next if I do too much about India). After that is the US election update which I think will cover US foreign policy, if only to confirm it's not an electoral issue during convention season.

Duritz - True enough. Though I do wonder how far the US would have gone without a Pearl Harbour, would she have limited herself to just indirect support and embargoes?

If Japan can find an alternate source of oil and iron then the main US economic weapons are useless, how far would the US go in those circumstances. Indeed it's my understanding that the whole point of the 'Southern Resource Area' was to fuel the war in China, if they can get those supplies elsewhere then China remains the main focus.

That said it depends on Japan finding a trade partner with plenty of iron and steel and no interests in China. That's a very short list that doesn't include Britain. :)

--

Though Durry is the only to show an interest, I may well put the fate of Palestine to the vote. That said it wont be the subject of an update for at least half a dozen chapters so there is no rush. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My point is that as long as it was the Bundesbahn we never had such problems.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The Modernisation Plan was an odd one, certainly well funded but as you say mis-guided. Would a more private sector thinking railway have gone that way? The key was to admit freight was not coming back, or at least would be limited to long haul bulk, and to rationalise on reliable diesel not dozens of rushed prototypes. The second one was a matter of wanting quick results to meet a political (election) deadline so should be OK, the first however would just depend on good judgement not using hindsight.
If it was indeed in the private sector, its possible that it would have been over a far longer period of time, rather than, as you say rushed and expediant. I think, probably steam would have soldiered on well into the 1970s (such as in West Germany) had the introduction of other traction been undertaken at a saner pace. And yes, OT needs a Railway Corner.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
El Pip said:
Duritz - True enough. Though I do wonder how far the US would have gone without a Pearl Harbour, would she have limited herself to just indirect support and embargoes?

I draw your attention to the Mexican War of the early 1800's, and the Spanish American War at the turn of the century. Both of these conflicts were agressive actions and both, incidentally, launched men to the Presidency of the United States.

Manifest destiny is a powerful tool in the hands of ambitious men... ;)
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
El Pip said:
Duritz - True enough. Though I do wonder how far the US would have gone without a Pearl Harbour, would she have limited herself to just indirect support and embargoes?

It depends, of course. But the Japanese were also freaked out by Roosevelt's naval buildup in 1940, which they knew they couldn't match; and the plans to turn the Philippines into Airstrip 2.

That said it depends on Japan finding a trade partner with plenty of iron and steel and no interests in China. That's a very short list that doesn't include Britain. :)

The Molotov <mumble> Pact?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Faeelin said:
It depends, of course. But the Japanese were also freaked out by Roosevelt's naval buildup in 1940, which they knew they couldn't match; and the plans to turn the Philippines into Airstrip 2.



The Molotov <mumble> Pact?

I don't beleive Russia would ever consider a pact with the Japanese a la M-R pact.

Firstly there is too much conflict ideologically with Japan in China - the Russian policy of aiding both the KMT and the Communists in our time line won't change significantly. Remember that Tsushima was only 32 years ago and the Japanese are still the "Yellow Peril" in most Russian eyes. Plus we should be seeing border conflicts in Manchuria soon.

However.......if Japan were to press home some of these attacks at the expense of its Chinese adventures then the US may not even consider an oil embargo. Bashing communists will always play well to the voters even if the Chinese get hurt too (especially if it can be shown that are Communist backed). It will depend on how the Neutrality Acts in the US (if they exist at all) are applied.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
El Pip said:
That said it depends on Japan finding a trade partner with plenty of iron and steel and no interests in China. That's a very short list that doesn't include Britain.

"Yesterday the Swedish government informed the Japanese ambassador that..." :rolleyes:
 
  • 1
Reactions: