No cold war, developments

[Cjc]

We already have some threads about developments if the cold war continued, how about the complete opposite. how far would weapons developments be by 1991 if there had been no cold war.

 

[GTX]

It might help to give some context about what would have led to no Cold War. For example, if post WWII, world peace and and general distain for war prevailed with humans finally reaching a higher level of civilisation, then one could say there would be no weapons development needed. If on the other hand, the likes of the USSR imploded post WWII (let’s say Stalin and all his team got alcohol poisoning during excessive end of war celebrations), thus leaving the other allies with no counterbalanced threat then one might have expected the state of weapons at the end of WWII to be sufficien thus necessitating no expenditure on further development. Finally, it could go the other way with the USSR continuing to roll on past Germany and taking over everything and thus result in a single global government with no-one the challenge it… ;-)

 

[Pioneer]

Maybe consider Henry Wallace replaces FDR after his death as President, instead of Truman. After all, Henry Wallace was more in line with FDR's perception that the U.S. and Russia could continue getting along post-WWII - Wallace promoted an open desire for Soviet/American cooperation!
Also keep in mind, Churchill had a lot to do with provoking and promoting the 'Red Army march through Western Europe' and of course, for his own political gain - 'the Iron Curtain descending across Europe.....' speech strategically in the U.S., which went a long way to inflame American paranoia and another 'Red Scare' 2.0.
(One must also remember that Truman fired Wallace for delivering a speech urging conciliatory policies toward the Soviet Union.)
As President and former Secretary of Commerce, Wallace realistically appreciates that the Soviet Union economy is exhausted and instigates the Marshall Plan to include the Soviet Union, which along with Wallace pulling Churchill into line and muzzling his red baiting, de-escalates tensions before they really start. I think it's often conveniently forgotten that that Britain and the U.S. agreed to many of the concessions that allowed the Soviet's to class Eastern Europe as buffer zone and spheres of influence. With much of Stalin's mistrust towards Britain and the U.S. rose when they reneged on these agreements.
Also another possibility of defusing East and West tensions is the implementation of the Morgenthau plan by the allies. This entails Germany being de-industrialized as was originally planned by the allies (keeping in mind that much of Russia's fear and anxiety was that Germany had invaded Russia two times in 30-years and it was for good reason concerned it might occur a third time.....), including the abolishment of the German armed forces as well as all munitions factories and civilian industries that could support them. In other words, converting Germany to an agricultural and light industry economy!

Anyhow, just some thoughts.....

looking forward to what might derive in this scenario.

Regards
 Pioneer

 

[uk 75]

The key questiion for a post 1945 world with no Cold War is whether the three major powers are still the USA, Soviet Union and United Kingdom.
Assuming they had stuck to both the spirit.and letter of the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements the world.would still have had plenty of scope for conflict.
If the United Nations had worked as planned there would have been large scale de colonisation in Asia following the defeat of colonial powers by Japan.
The emerging nations led by India and China would have inevitably challenged the US, Russia and China in various places.
If the UN rather than the US had had sole use of the Atom Bomb that might have had interesting consequences.
The US particularly Boeing would still have had bombers and airliners signifivantly more advanced than Britain and the USSR as a legacy of the B29.
Development of jet aircraft would have been slower without a war in Korea involving US and Soviet weapons.
The US Navy would have retained its dominance but the big carriers and missile/ships developed to deal with the USSR would not have emerged as its WW2 lineup would have been fine for bushfire wars and UN peacekeeping.
The Soviet Union could have put more resources into its civilian economy with better airliners and vehicles.
Britain and France would have still fought painful colonial wars but without US weapons and economic support their armed forces would have hollowed out as they did between 1919 and 1936. British airluners would have been slow cumbersone transports for the old imperial routes with Boeings and Lockheeds serving the North Atlantic.

 

[GTX]

British airluners would have been slow cumbersone transports for the old imperial routes

Would they? Remember that the Brabazon Committee which sat during the war and wrote its recommendations for the post war world had recommended:

• Type I was for a very large transatlantic airliner serving the high-volume routes like London-New York, seating its passengers in luxury for the 12-hour trip. The Type I design developed into Air Ministry Specification 2/44. It was awarded directly to the Bristol Aeroplane Company for the Bristol Brabazon, based on submissions they had made during the war for a "100 ton bomber and judging that they had the capacity. One Brabazon was built and flown in 1949 with Bristol Centaurus radial engines but a planned Brabazon II with Bristol Proteus turboprop engines was not completed; the project folded in 1951 when, with BOAC having lost interest, issues with the first aircraft showed that a wing re-design was required for the Proteus.
• Type IIA, originally a short-haul feederliner intended to replace the Douglas DC-3, was for a piston-powered aircraft, to Air Ministry Specification 25/43, as originally intended. The requirement was met by the Centaurus-powered Airspeed Ambassador, and 20 were ordered for BEA. The first prototype flew in July 1947, and the type entered service with BEA in March 1952. Airspeed were by then wholly owned by de Havilland, who had no interest in developing the design further, although a Dart-powered version had been proposed.
• Type IIB was for an aircraft using the new turboprop engine, to Air Ministry Specification 8/46. This came about because Vickers favoured the move to turboprop power. There was some scepticism on the part of the committee, and in the end they decided to divide the specification in two, allowing the turboprop design to go ahead as Type IIB while at the same time ordering a "backup" piston design as the Type IIA. A parallel alternative specification 16/46 was subsequently raised to cover later changes. Its requirements were initially met by the Vickers VC.2 Viceroy, and the Armstrong Whitworth A.W.55 Apollo. The Type IIB requirement was developed as the Vickers Viscount, with the Apollo failing to successfully compete with the Viscount. The production Viscount was significantly larger than the Type II proposal as BEA wanted a larger and much more capable aircraft and the Rolls-Royce Dart engines were being developed to produce much more power than expected. Consequently the updated Specification 21/49 was issued to represent the production Viscount which was ordered by BEA in 1950. Ultimately 445 Viscounts were built.
• Type III called for a larger four-engined, medium-range aircraft, to Air Ministry Specification 6/45, for various multi-hop routes serving the British Empire, the "Medium Range Empire" (MRE) routes. This was at one time two separate requirements, IIIA and IIIB, but these had merged again in the Final Report. This was intended initially to be the Avro 690 Type XXII with six Rolls-Royce Merlin engines which went through many specification changes and design evolutions to be the Avro 693 with four Rolls-Royce Avon jets. BOAC cancelled their order in April 1947 and the project was cancelled in July 1947. A new Specification 2/47 was issued for the MRE and this was developed as the Bristol Britannia. Unfortunately, this also suffered delays in development and did not enter service with BOAC until February 1957, despite having been ordered in November 1949.
• Type IV was a jet-powered, 100-seat high-speed transport, to Air Ministry Specification 22/46. This was added at the personal urging of one of the committee members, Geoffrey de Havilland, whose company was involved in development of both Britain's first jet fighters and jet engines. The Type IV could, if the whole concept of a jet airliner could be made to work, be able to replace the Type III outright and assume many of the duties of the other planes in shorter routes. It became the world's first jet airliner, the de Havilland Comet, the first prototype flying in July 1949.
• Type VA (initially Type V) was effectively the original Type II fourteen-passenger, feederliner aircraft to Air Ministry Specification 18/44 after the Type II had evolved into larger designs. The requirement was developed as the Miles Marathon, first flying in May 1946. Following the collapse of Miles Aircraft, 40 were built by Handley Page for BEA who refused to take delivery, reducing their order for 30 by stages before eventually cancelling completely in 1952. The remainder were sold to airlines while the Royal Air Force were made to take 30 as navigation trainers.
• Type VB was an eight-seat aircraft as a de Havilland Dragon Rapide replacement, to Air Ministry Specification 26/43, added as a further split in the Type V requirement. It was met by the de Havilland Dove which had been commenced as a private venture in 1943. The prototype first flew in September 1945 and it continued in production until 1967, with production of 544. A larger version, the Heron, was developed and 149 were built between 1950 and 1967.

 

[riggerrob]

Many of those British airliner projects were driven by American insistence that Lend-Lease cargo airplanes be returned after World War 2.
What would have happened if all those C-46, C-47, Lockheed Lodestars, etc. remained in RAF and BOAC service into the 1950s?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

If anything, Britain not spending circa 10% of GDP on Defence in the 1950s is going to lead to improved economic growth.

 

[Pioneer]

If anything, Britain not spending circa 10% of GDP on Defence in the 1950s is going to lead to improved economic growth.

And as a consequence, Britain doesn't need as much American financial assistance, so isn't as subordinate to American wants, whims and military expedition support - aka more independent....

Regards
Pioneer