11:08 as a job title, "First Sea Lord" goes especially hard

Ah yes, the 57 paper, aka "How to destroy an aeronautical industry in one stroke"...

Video starts at 2:23

The shift in strategy from fighter-interceptors to ICBMs and IRBMs was widely accepted in NATO. It was one of the chief causes of the cancellation of the Avro Arrow here in Canada.

I really enjoyed this look into the post imperial strategy, the idea of effectively disbanding the airforce is mind blowing and explains in part the decline in British aviation engineering I read about at about this time.

For those interested, TimeGhost did a day by day series of the Suez Crisis

Masterworks is just NFTs but for art.

One of the most daft military white paper ever, the UK was lucky enough to have still capable military systems when the Falkland conflict started. Some of its conclusions rival the brilliance of Robert McNamara.

The 1957 white paper destroy the aircraft industry and the heavy manufacturing industry in Britain that cause a malaise and rampant worker strikes in the to 60's up to the 70's.

It may be spelt Sandys, but it is pronounced as Sands. Sandys became enamored with missile systems after being in charge of a Z Battery outside of Cardiff in October 1940.

I am really enjoying the bell button jokes (still related to current video's story) at the end of each video. They are ingenious!!!

I wonder if there will be a video about Italy's economic developments since the beginning of the Cold War or about other countries economic situation.

It's amazing how quickly the whole paradigm changed in regard to the armed forces. It seems a shame that so many industries, such as aircraft and weapons design/manufacturing, are a shadow of what they used to be in Britain. Of course, here in the States, I'm still mourning the loss of automobile companies that had survived 100 years only to suddenly be seen only in the history books.

Some critics of the "White Paper" could refer this defense strategy as a paper tiger.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote: "Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice"

It's amazing that this entire paper is based on theoretical warfare, yet still was taken so serious.

You should also cover PM Hacker's failed proposal to reintroduce conscription in the 1980s.

Informative video.

great episode...love your endings @"corporate synergies"

A great video on how to wreak a country's aviation industry. The aircraft nerd in me can't help noticing you mentioned the Avro 730, but the video shows a Bristol 188

Very fascinating episode! Makes me wonder if we will have a follow-up down the road with BAE and the infamous al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia.

It's almost as if a Soviet Agent or Agents were running the War Office and Supply Ministry !

I really enjoy this channel.

Very intriguing

CPC and Albania also made plans to deal with the Soviet invasion. Albania stored a large number of military weapons and built many fortresses. Then the gangs stole these weapons from Albania. CPC started”三线建设”

Fantastic analysis. Quite a moment in time. An acceptance that empire was too expensive and the world had changed.

Thanks

Step 1 - Don't Tell America Step 2 - Stuff up Step 3 - Tell America Step 4 - America help

I'm still wainting for another video about the context for the upcoming events in Cuba.

The video of the SR fighter you used is not of the ST fighters you were discussing.

Nice video. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.

Post second World War, the British began to realise, that, wouldn't it be cheaper, if : India, defended itself, Pakistan defended itself, Malaysia defended itself Singapore defended itself And the various African countries defended itself etc And the great thing, the UK can sell them weaponry and expertise at a reasonable price? Why maintain an expensive overseas armed forces. Obviously Nasser and Saddam didn't understand the script.

What is the caption on the V2 launch photo behind your right shoulder?

I was really worried that Ad was gonna about NTF's for a minute there

I very much enjoyed this video. My only negative comment (speaking as an elderly ex-Brit who heard the man's name often enough) is that the defense minister Duncan Sandys' last name was pronounced "Sands."

During the Cold War, Sweden adopted a unique defense strategy known as "Totalförsvaret" or "Total Defense" which aimed to ensure the country's security in the event of an armed conflict. The Swedish Navy played a significant role in this strategy, with a particular emphasis on submarines. Sweden's submarine-centered strategy was driven by its geographical position in the Baltic Sea region, where control of the maritime environment was considered crucial for national defense. The Swedish Navy recognized that submarines offered distinct advantages in terms of covert operations, intelligence gathering, and the ability to deny access to enemy forces. The Swedish Navy's submarine fleet, comprised of diesel-electric submarines, was designed to operate in the archipelagos and coastal areas of the Baltic Sea. These submarines were relatively small, highly maneuverable, and capable of operating silently for extended periods. They were optimized for shallow waters and could effectively conduct surveillance, intelligence gathering, and coastal defense missions. Swedish submarines were tasked with monitoring and gathering intelligence on naval activities in the Baltic Sea, including those of potential adversaries. They conducted surveillance missions to detect and track enemy surface ships and submarines, providing critical information to the Swedish defense establishment. Submarines were considered instrumental in defending Sweden's extensive coastline and archipelagos. Their ability to operate in shallow waters and launch torpedoes made them well-suited for coastal defense, as they could engage hostile surface ships attempting to approach Swedish territorial waters. The Swedish Navy aimed to deny or disrupt enemy forces' access to Swedish territorial waters and the Baltic Sea. Submarines played a vital role in this strategy by posing a credible threat to hostile naval assets and making it challenging for an adversary to establish sea control or conduct amphibious operations. The submarine-centered strategy was complemented by other naval assets such as surface combatants, mine countermeasures vessels, and maritime patrol aircraft. However, submarines were recognized as a key asymmetric capability that provided a significant advantage to Sweden in the Baltic Sea region. If the British had developed a naval strategy similar to Sweden's during the Cold War, it would have likely been influenced by their unique geopolitical position, global commitments, and maritime capabilities. The United Kingdom's strategic location as an island nation, with significant overseas territories and global interests, would have shaped its naval strategy. The British would have focused on protecting vital sea lanes, ensuring the security of overseas territories, and projecting power globally. Given the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons, a submarine-centered strategy could have been integrated into its overall defense posture. Nuclear-powered submarines armed with ballistic missiles, similar to the Royal Navy's Vanguard-class submarines today, could have formed the backbone of its strategic deterrent. The British, like the Swedes, would have recognized the importance of controlling maritime approaches to their homeland and overseas territories. Emphasizing submarines would have allowed the Royal Navy to operate covertly, gather intelligence, and interdict potential adversaries attempting to access British waters. Submarines would have provided the British with the ability to conduct covert operations, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and special forces support. Their stealth and extended endurance would have been valuable for intelligence gathering and monitoring enemy activities. ASW would have remained a critical component of the British naval strategy. In addition to deploying submarines, the Royal Navy would have invested in surface combatants, maritime patrol aircraft, and other assets to detect and counter enemy submarines threatening British interests. It's important to note that the British Royal Navy did have a significant submarine force during the Cold War, including nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs). However, their strategic focus was primarily on nuclear deterrence and ASW rather than a comprehensive submarine-centered strategy like Sweden's. Submarines provide a stealthy and covert means of deterrence. By investing in a strong submarine force, Sweden aimed to deter potential adversaries and protect its territorial waters and maritime interests. Submarines can operate discreetly and pose a significant threat to surface vessels, making them a potent deterrent. Sweden's extensive coastline and archipelago made it vulnerable to amphibious assaults. Submarines are well-suited for coastal defense as they can operate in shallow waters, conduct surveillance, and launch preemptive strikes against hostile forces. This strategy aimed to deny access to Swedish territorial waters and impede enemy naval operations. Submarines offer excellent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. They can gather information on enemy naval activities, monitor shipping lanes, and report on potential threats. This enhanced situational awareness allows for better decision-making and response to potential maritime threats. Sweden recognized that it had limited resources compared to potential adversaries. By focusing on submarines, which are relatively cost-effective compared to maintaining large surface fleets, Sweden could achieve an asymmetric advantage. Submarines provide a force multiplier effect, allowing a smaller navy to project power and defend its interests effectively. Deploying a submarine-centered strategy would have allowed Britain to extend its maritime reach and project power in a covert manner. Submarines can operate in distant waters and conduct long-range patrols, enabling the UK to protect its global interests and respond to potential threats. A robust submarine force would enhance the UK's strategic deterrence capabilities. By maintaining a credible submarine-based nuclear deterrent, Britain could discourage potential adversaries from considering aggression. Additionally, conventional submarines could contribute to regional deterrence and maritime security. Adopting a submarine strategy would have necessitated a greater focus on developing anti-submarine warfare capabilities. The UK would need to invest in advanced ASW assets, such as surface ships, maritime patrol aircraft, and underwater sensors, to detect and neutralize enemy submarines. This would strengthen the overall defense posture. A submarine-centered strategy would not negate the need for surface vessels and air assets. Britain would still require a well-balanced force with capable surface ships and aircraft to protect its maritime interests, secure sea lanes, and conduct expeditionary operations. Submarines would serve as a critical component within this broader defense framework. Adopting a submarine strategy would drive research and development in submarine technologies, such as propulsion systems, stealth capabilities, and missile technologies. This could position the UK as a leader in submarine warfare and contribute to its defense industry's growth.

Please do a video on Canadian Avro Arrow

Could have at least shown the correct aircraft when discussing them. What was with the random Heinkel 178 and the SR.A/1 (of 1947) instead of the SR.73 or SR.177?

We have reviewed this intelligence product, deeming it “gold dust” and reached a consensus among the major “customers” to activate the like feature. Thus ensuring the continued flow of the product and maintaining a steady relationship between our organizations. Another great clip!

Why was the Heinkel 178 jet at 6.13 minutes is shown this video? It seems odd as it is not relevant. 178 was an experimental aircraft for Germany not related to the video which was going on about RAF interceptors at this stage of the video

2:58 Duncan Sandys is pronounced 'sands' not 'sandies'. He was known as 'shifting Sandys' due to his many changes of view.

And the YF-100A prototype when discussing the TSR-2?

Can you made video about Lavon afair ?

Wrong Video for the SR 53 and SR 177. The aircraft shown is the SRA 1 Flying Boat Jet Fighter from the late 1940s.

I love this channel it's well presented BUT: 14:12 It would of been nice for an actual image of the TSR2 instead of the American 1950's designed (super sabre) so disappointing.

Would like to see you cover the infamous Russian Woodpacler

what are the jets at 3:51?

This perhaps has to be seen in connection with the fact we no longer had a huge range of oversees possessions to protect. It was realised that Britain would have to operate more regionally and we would be defending Europe in concert with others. We wouldn't be "alone" as in 1940. I also believe this was part of the thinking behind the smaller aircraft carriers, the so called Through Deck Cruisers a decade or so later. It also seemed the government was ahead of the curve so to speak. Although they obviously got it wrong.

“We should always fight for the weak against the strong!” “Well, then why don’t we send troops to Afghanistan to fight the Russians?” “…The Russians are too strong.”

Interestingly the disbanding of the airforce was an idea held prior to WW2 in the UK. In the Labour Party’s 1935 election campaign manifesto they had a focus on maintaining peace, as was common at the time. As part of this they proposed a reversal in the current “suicidal foreign policy” and for the most part their campaign was pretty much what you’d expect: support for the League of Nations, a general disarmament and agreements between nations to limit naval spending, the abolition of the private manufacture of, and trade in, arms. However outside of these pretty typical policies they had some radical ideas. Labour proposed a complete and total abolition of all national air forces, effective international control of civil aviation and the creation of an international air police force. Hard to imagine it happening but it’s a pretty crazy idea, and quickly became a thing of the past as war grew more and more unavoidable.

The fighter debate shows why technocracy doesn't work just cuz you have a fancy degree and the title like Chief scientist it's not mean you're inherently wiser to think fighters are not necessary even today it's frankly a very crazy idea

I gotta say I dont like you guys promoting NFT trading platforms. You are advertising high risk financial instruments to an uneducated (in the sense of NFTs and art as an investment) audience. I am not saying NFTs cant do well or that masterworks is a bad site but I think its morally questionable to advertise products with a large potential to lose all your money to people who are just randomly checking out a history documentary. Yes you may get some referral money but a lot of people WILL lose their investment...

Any chance of a video about Canada during the Cold War?

"RAF fighter command should be eliminated along with fighter jets in general." I didn't know Curtis LaMay had a British twin.

3:40 lol yep

The White Paper recognized the growing importance of nuclear weapons and placed a greater emphasis on Britain's nuclear deterrent. It proposed a shift towards a more centralized control of the country's nuclear capabilities, with the Royal Air Force (RAF) being designated as the primary nuclear strike force. The White Paper recommended a reduction in conventional forces, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The intention was to streamline the military and allocate resources more efficiently in light of the changing strategic landscape and the emergence of nuclear weapons. The White Paper introduced the concept of a strategic reserve. This reserve force would consist of a mix of regular and territorial forces that could be rapidly mobilized in the event of a crisis or conflict. The strategic reserve would provide flexibility and reinforcement capabilities to the reduced standing forces. The White Paper emphasized the importance of mobility and flexibility in the modern battlefield. It proposed the development of strategic airlift capabilities, increased use of helicopters, and the integration of air and ground forces for rapid deployment and response. While the White Paper did not call for the elimination of Fighter Command and Bomber Command, it did suggest a reduction in their roles and capabilities. It proposed a shift towards a more integrated air defense system, with air defense responsibilities being shared between the RAF and the Royal Navy. The White Paper also highlighted the importance of guided missiles in air defense. If fully implemented, the 1957 Defense White Paper would have led to significant changes in the structure and capabilities of the British armed forces. The reduction in conventional forces, including potential cuts to Fighter Command and Bomber Command, would have reflected a shift towards a greater reliance on nuclear deterrence and a recognition of the changing nature of warfare. The integrated air defense system would have likely involved a more coordinated approach between the RAF and the Royal Navy, potentially leading to the consolidation of air defense assets and the development of joint operational procedures. Furthermore, the emphasis on mobility, flexibility, and the strategic reserve concept would have aimed to provide the UK with a force that could respond rapidly to emerging threats and crises, both domestically and internationally. SAMs and ballistic missiles generally have lower operational costs compared to maintaining and operating fleets of fighters and bombers. By reducing the reliance on manned aircraft, the defense budget could be allocated more efficiently, potentially allowing for investments in other areas such as missile defense systems. The emphasis on ballistic missiles as part of the nuclear deterrent could have provided a more credible and responsive strategic deterrent capability. Ballistic missiles offer the advantage of long-range precision strikes, making them suitable for targeting distant adversaries and enhancing the UK's ability to project power. Shifting the focus to SAMs would have aimed to bolster air defense capabilities. SAM systems, when integrated with radar networks and command-and-control systems, can provide effective protection against airborne threats, including aircraft and cruise missiles. This could have improved the UK's ability to defend its airspace and critical assets. Investing in missile technologies, including SAMs and ballistic missiles, would have driven research and development efforts in missile engineering and related technologies. This could have contributed to technological advancements and innovation, potentially positioning the UK as a leader in missile defense systems. By relying on missiles for both offense and defense, the UK would have gained greater strategic flexibility. Ballistic missiles can be rapidly deployed and have the ability to strike targets with precision over long distances. This flexibility in force projection could have allowed the UK to adapt to evolving threats and respond effectively to emerging crises. Shifting away from manned aircraft operations could have reduced the risks faced by pilots in combat situations. SAMs and ballistic missiles are operated remotely, reducing the exposure of personnel to direct combat hazards and potentially enhancing overall safety. Fighter Command, responsible for air defense and the operation of fighter aircraft, and Bomber Command, responsible for strategic bombing operations, would have been disbanded as separate entities within the RAF. The focus of the UK's defense strategy would shift towards the development, deployment, and integration of SAMs and ballistic missiles. This would involve investments in research, development, and procurement of missile systems, as well as the establishment of specialized units and commands dedicated to their operation and maintenance. The UK would have put a stronger emphasis on surface-to-air missile systems to counter airborne threats. These systems would have been deployed strategically to protect key assets, including cities, military installations, and critical infrastructure, from aerial attacks. The focus would have been on acquiring and deploying modern SAM systems capable of engaging different types of aircraft and missiles. The UK would have pursued the development and deployment of ballistic missiles as a means of deterrence and long-range strike capability. This could have included the acquisition or indigenous development of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering conventional or nuclear warheads. The RAF's force structure would have been reorganized to align with the new strategic priorities. Fighter and bomber squadrons would have been reduced or reconfigured to adapt to the diminished role of manned aircraft. Greater emphasis would have been placed on missile units, including those responsible for operating and maintaining SAMs and ballistic missiles. The UK would have established an integrated air defense system that incorporated surface-to-air missiles as the primary defense against aerial threats. This system would have been designed to detect, track, and engage hostile aircraft and missiles, with missile units working in coordination with radar and command-and-control infrastructure.

The picture for the Saunders-Roe SR.177 is wrong, it was NOT a flying boat fighter! That would be Saunders-Roe SR.A/1, cancelled years prior. Very sloppy.

Have I heard this before? Curious Droid maybe?

YESSS!!

This is what fiscal responsibility looks like.

Oh no no no. I'm not pressing the bell button. Not again. Pressing the button twice is bad mojo!

Hindsight is 20/20

I'm surprised that I haven't found anyone grumbling about the end of national service here in the comments.

Switching off after seeing that advert

I’m glad I pay KZfaq for an add free experience to be bombarded by a thermonuclear war type ad at the get go . -sigh- -The Chief

Surface to Air Missiles has such a low hit % that in hindsight the papers are fruitless and did more damage to the RAF than the Soviet Union could ever hope for. The only advantage is there is more space on ground than in the air. A2A attack might only launch a missile at you but it will stick and is a good chance of tagging you. S2A will sends dozens of missiles at you. Most of them won't touch you, but seeing a lot of missiles heading your direction may be convincing enough to go somewhere else.

This is basically the british version of the american Bathtub operation.

I would like to see similar episode from French *nauraa engalnniksi*

I got to ask, why did the US allow them to basically destroy themselves, like don't we want our allies to be as strong as reasonably possible and them wrecking their own air force would send up some red flags for me.

I like your name, bro.

rationing did not end till 1956, and war debt, coupled bad management of the post war economy led to many drastic changes for the UK, impacting all its peoples, from the beeching railway cuts, to many, many factories, mines and workshops shutting, its also interesting to note, that pre war America had designs on the Empire, and after the war saddled the UK with war debt that was only finally paid off in 2006, and would consider the empire its main economic rival, and it took near 4 decades for the uk to "decolinise" its possessions.

👍👍

What was the reaction of every nation when they first learned of the atomic bomb?

Intersting stuff but the background music really started getting on my nerves. I hate where documentaries have gone these days.

I get history channels need to eat, but honestly that sponsor seems pretty sketch. (mind you it does help I just watched a 2 hour vid on NFTs)

This white paper makes the people who wanted to get rid of the USMC and cancelled the America carrier geniuses.

The whole shambles was based on two false predicates: 1) There would probably be no wars that didn't turn global. In many ways the Falklands was a good thing because it refocussed priorities towards regular planes and vehicles, rather than nuclear missiles and bomb shelters 2) Money was being spend on defence with no real gain, rather than realising it supported a broader civil aviation + manufacturing sector. A huge amount of industrial capital was squandered in exchange for american missiles for a war that never happened and entire regions are still suffering today.

So much of this has to be seen through the window of a nation bankrupt after WW2.

😊👍

2:24

The Budget Cut Greatest Threat to any Military

In 20 years, if things go unabated, we'll be watching a video about how the West and Russia fought a war in Ukraine

The US military went through a similar phase in the post-ww2 era. The Army's funding was severely slashed in favor of the Air Force, who controlled all the nukes.

I only collect Old Dutch Masters.

Saying "consequently" and "as a result" in the same sentence feels kind of redundant to me. 🤔

Britain: “Oh let’s build this. Oh wait that won’t work the Soviets can theoretically defeat it so let’s scrap it. How about this? Oh the Soviets could theoretically best that too so let’s scrap it.” Soviets: “Damn you’re doing our job for us!” 😌

Britain no longer had an empire and was broke. It had to cut its cloth to fit - in fact it was long past time for it to do so. Getting rid of a huge 1940 style fighter defence of the UK made sense. You can argue that they should have used more of the money on the British Army of the Rhine - including its strike fighters - to avoid nuclear war, but spending huge amounts on pure interceptors was a waste, magnificent as some of them were. As for Britain's commercial aircraft industry, its decline did not have much to do with the 1957 White Paper. That's a fascinating but complex story, with lots of factors involved.

Good video, but you really shouldn't be promoting vague investment propositions like this...

😔 TSR-2

The art market is an insider scam. Take it from me. Avoid.

That background music make it sound like if I’m watching Apple inc. propaganda.

I'm sure National service ended in 56.

Ironic, almost tragic. A warrior nation that can hardly afford to maintain powerful armed forces.

The Cold war please make video on India

This is exactly what I was looking for but I wish it was even longer!!! You are missing out > Promo>SM !!!

Sandys was the idiot's idiot. 1950s tech was at least a lifetime away from replacing manned aircraft.

Oh, the Brits and their white papers.

I'm really surprised that the UK didnt attempt to build more aircraft carriers since the White Paper detected such vulnarability to the bomber and fighter airfields on Isles.

Something is different with the beard... A subliminal message?!

Disappointing you sold out to this sponsor. I thought from your analysis you understood the harm that both communism and capitalism are capable of in their own ways.