The 1957 Defence White Paper - Death by a Thousand Cuts

[@able_archer01]

It always amazes me how Britain always faceplants into hard concrete just before the finish line. It's almost like they've turned it into an artform.

[@charlesrousseau6837]

It does not amaze me. Britain had a habit of structurally "writing a specification" around any quasi-promising aircraft design, meaning that the taxpayer was to fund lots of projects that would not make it into production. Such a habit cannot be maintained when the number of manufacturers remains high, development costs spiral up, and the economy goes down. Opposed to this, aircraft developments in the US were almost always private ventures, with the risk lying very much with the manufacturer instead of the government.

[@richardwillson101]

But actually, it worked 🤷 We kept a very good Nuclear deterrent, had a very good fleet air arm and didn't keep producing low numbers of development aircraft at stupid cost to the taxpayer. And what's more, meant that we still have the aircraft we needed for defence. Just look at the incredible capability we have today despite the white paper. The sad part is the impact that it had on the aviation industry in Britain. The RAF didn't need lots of different types when ICBMS were and still are the best solution.

[@kentl7228]

Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory...

[@trevorhart545]

@@richardwillson101Cloud Cuckoo Land. Trident D5 is no good for hostage relieve is it. There is more than countering Putin and Xi or had yo not noticed?

[@melvyncox3361]

Britain really is a self destructive country,then and now.......

[@mikecawood]

My father was a senior civil servant in a ministry and I recall he was very scathing (in private) about Duncan Sandys.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Sounds like a group of children with a pile of Legos. They are told to build something but not what.

[@yuglesstube]

If the US had not strangled British industry by taking the best markets, perhaps export performance would have been better. Nothing like a Special Relationship!

[@macjim]

@@yuglesstubethe special relationship was, the USA held your giblets in their hands and they squeezed hard when they wanted something… that was the debt owed from the Second World War. You had no option to do as they said… and it’s still happening today even though that debt was repaid years ago.

[@yuglesstube]

@macjim Well, I'm glad to hear from someone who recoginses this. It's remarkable that we in the West have no historical context to work within. We have basically forgotten the worth of history.

[@binaway]

He was my dads officer in Norway. Dad and the others thought he wasn't to bright. He actually took his golf club which he never used and were left behind when they had to evacuate.

[@skylongskylong1982]

It is interesting when the Concorde project was started France was well aware of how many times the British Government had failed to back a aviation project just before production started. The French legal team drew up a contract which was so airtight that it would cost the U.K. Government twice as much money to pull out of the project than carry on. Have a look at the French memoirs of their aviation minister, and his hated for Labour’s MP, Tony Benn, who several occasions tried to pull out of the Concorde project.

[@Wien1938]

Same thing with the QE carrier project - the contract was written to make it far more expensive to cancel than to build.

[@GB-vn1tf]

British politicians have adopted a managed decline policy since at least the end of WW2 till this day. That's what happens when bankers are given power instead of people with ambition and insight of technology who are prepared to invest wisely. Unfortunately too many of our politicians are prepared to spend our money trying to keep us happy, aka bribing the public for votes than having confidence in the people to create successful business or supporting businesses that could succeed with support. It's a fine line but if you look at our history of producing brilliant minds the chances are we could have been world leaders in many areas if our politicians supported instead of demolishing. The aircraft and motor industries are just two obvious examples.

[@macjim]

TSR2… nuff said

[@skylongskylong1982]

Not being in the U.K the most fascinating project was a project that the British air ministry put forward in 1946. Putting a British astronaut into space with converted captured V 2 missiles ! According to NASA specialists in 2012 looking at the basic specifications it was possible. If only .

[@trevorhart545]

BAE Shipbuilding did the same with the Contract for the 2 current Aircraft Carriers. David Cameron was as destructive as this review was and look at his future = vanished along with a third of the RAF and British Army.

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

I have become addicted to your videos. Not being British, these insights are both fascinating and exasperating. That said: what could a bankrupt Britain have done differently, after loss of its Empire and with its entire industrial base hopelessly outdated (I suppose sometimes it's good to have your entire industry blown to smithereens, so you can start over properly, like Germany)? It's a serious question: with the benefit of hindsight, what could/should they have done better? IIRC, there were elements even in the US that were espousing the "nobody needs planes, it's missiles from here on out".

[@robwilton9539]

It is tough to say which way we should have gone with aerospace - even with hindsight. At the time us Brits led the world in terms of aircraft technology but the failure of the hitherto fantastically successful Comet, due to the square window fatigue, put a huge dent in the confidence of other nations to buy British. The English Electric Lightning was undoubtedly the best interceptor in the world in it's day but there was no export market to subsidise costs to the British tax payer. Even the Harrier, developed in the sixties, was not available for export until the mid eighties. This reluctance to buy British allowed the Americans to almost monopolise airliner sales and become the go to country for aircraft, whether civil or military. No wonder then that we turned our attention to missiles, many of which were launched from Australia. Ironically, the only decent missiles we have today are foreign and we have indeed had some British made duds, in the past, like the early Rapier, Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. Our strategic missile defence today is woefully inadequate, just has it always has been, against any sizeable attack. As usual, we do it on a micro scale. Incredibly, we now rely on five guided missile destroyers with an appalling serviceability rate to protect us (and Europe) from missile attack. This is also integrated into the European and US defence net but, in action, would be out of ammo in seconds.

[@janschkeuditz6065]

Germany had its debts cancelled. Britain was still paying until recently. Kennedy told Germany to look to British industry . He being Irish and IRA sympathiser was happy to destroy Britain's engineering might . However in one way you are correct , the government and industry fail to invest in new technology or even basic tools ,e.g a coat hook.

[@robwilton9539]

There is worse to come for Britain. The globalist money men, headquartered in the City of London, own the central banks around the globe and threatened to move their clearing banks out of London if we exited Europe. Well, Britain derives around 30% of all tax revenues from banking and insurance so if they do choose to move away we will become bankrupt very quickly as we have no industry and no food or energy security. @@janschkeuditz6065

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

@@janschkeuditz6065 Debts to whom? Germany didn't have debts to the US. Reparations for WW2 is a wholly separate beast in this context. Only half of Germany debts were cancelled/written off during the 1953 London conference. The war debts of WW1, Germany had to pay off until almost the end of the 20th century (and finally did).

[@janschkeuditz6065]

@@michaelhoffmann2891 Up your medication and try to understand written English. I stated Germany had its debts cancelled ( fact ) Britain did not . Germany received massive investment as the USA practically ran the country . Come to think of it they still do. American bases and presence everywhere including the former DDR today . Britain on the other hand had massive debts which was paid off recently . The nazis more or less stayed in power. A former nazi servant was placed in charge of the armed forces ( yes I know his name ) by the USA. In Bayern in particular the USA found many like minded politicians . Anyway it brings us to the present day and the support of Ukraine a corrupt right wing country versus the old bogey man Russia . The actual German people and for that the English and the rest are a separate entity to the globalist class.

[@GaryJohnWalker1]

Yet another great video. The 57 Sandys White Paper is often mentioned alongside anything to do with British military aircraft dev of the post WW2 decades, usually the unmanned guided missile bit, but seldom in the detail or structure in this vid.

[@madsteve9]

This and Denis Healey's 1964 cuts pretty much destroyed the UK's aviation industry. Only new all British military aircraft after these cuts would be the Harrier & the Hawk trainer.

[@1951GL]

In the Preston area of Lancashire the TSR2 cancellation still causes an element of anger.

[@MrStevecrasher]

It’s not just in Preston, I can’t even watch a program that mentions it without seething anger and hatred of Socialism.

[@RJM1011]

Also in Boscombe Down a number of people I met back in the 80's and early 90's were still pissed off the UK Gov wanked off such a great aircraft.

[@jeremywestenra4178]

From New Zealand...and we would never have bought the TSR2, huge shock and horror when they gave way to to the Americans...and the inferior F111, which the Australians ended up buying.. hey, it was an amazing aircraft...but the TSR2 would have been so much better. Together with de Haviland Canada Arrow...two aircraft that would have beaten American products hollow

[@citizenerased1992]

@@MrStevecrasher It is Westmister you should be pissed off with, not socialism. Vote Tory if you like though and see how far it will get you. We have hardly had 13 years of glorious times have we now?

[@acajutla]

Not to mention Pete Best

[@PinPointHealth]

Another excellent, well researched and beautifully delivered documentary Ruairidh. Well done!

[@andrewtempest6792]

The Gyron Junior, mentioned at 31:50, was actually replaced very quickly on the Buccaneer by the Rolls-Royce Spey. The Gyron Junior did not have enough thrust to get a fully fuelled and armed Buccaneer airborne; the aircraft had to be filled up with fuel once airborne.

[@Seminal_Ideas]

Absolutely correct. It puzzles me why they didn't go with the Avon or Sapphire on the early buccaneers. The Avon was in use on the contemporary Sea Vixen and Scimitars so spares on board the carrier would be easier to carry. I know fuel consumption was a consideration but the gyron junior as you say was a very underpowered unit.

[@aker1993]

​@@Seminal_Ideasthe problem with the avon at that time is winding down the production of that engine as RR put on development and production of turbofan engines like the Conway, Spey and the RB211

[@DaveSCameron]

This something else, I watch plenty of similar streams and this is one of the most consummate and detailed I've seen. Bravo Rory.

[@joellamoureux7914]

I really do like these long in depth docu's keep up the awesome work sir!

[@inglepropnoosegarm7801]

Absolutely fascinating. Superb content.

[@davemitchell9941]

A well researched, comprehensive & informative post. Amazing what was packed into 42 mins. Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@trevorwilliams6815]

Politics associated with the subject aside for once, this video is excellent. Some great pictures.

[@tsr207]

Showing Blue Steel leaving a Vulcan while discussing Blue Streak - Blue Steel was a "stand off " weapon air launched.

[@davedear929]

Brilliant . Very informative and full ot childhood memories in all subjects. I think you have the best channel on youtube. Excellently researched and presented . Great stuff many thanks.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Since WW2 ended consecutive governments have kneecapped the British aviation industry. An industry that in 1946 was the most advanced in the world

[@MrJimheeren]

The German aviation industry was the most advanced in the world. Where do you think the Brits got those nice new engines from. It was certainly not some guy in a shed

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@MrJimheeren … in 1946 Germany had no aviation industry. None. Zero.

[@imperialinquisition6006]

@@MrJimheerenCompletely wrong. The British developed engines independently and first. In 1946 Germany had zero aviation industry. Britain has a fairly decent claim to having the most advanced (military) aviation industry in the late 40s.

[@imperialinquisition6006]

@@MrJimheerenAlso it was literally some guy in a shed. Read up on Frank Whittle. I would also recommend “Empire of the clouds” interesting book on the 1945-1980ish British aviation, a bit nostalgia trippy though.

[@MrJimheeren]

@@Idahoguy10157 yes because the whole industry was bombed out of existence that doesn’t take away the fact that the Allies took away all those designs and used it to prop up their own industries.

[@auntbarbara5576]

Thank you Rory dear! You know you were always Aunt Barbara's favourite 😚

[@android584]

Is that how it's pronounced. Don't get the aunt Barbara reference.

[@barracuda7018]

The history of British Aviation put it in two words = develop and cancel..😂

[@MrOlgrumpy]

Waste and demoralise

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Only two winners in WW2... Britain was not one of those two.

[@kevatut23]

Very good video. Kudos on the production.

[@steveknight878]

Politicians, eh? Surrounded by experts who they ignore for some reason and no knowledge or expertise in the areas they oversee.

[@Hattonbank]

"We don't need to listen to the experts" - Micharl Gove on Brexit! Things never change.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

A similar thing happened in Canada with the cancellation of the ahead of its time AVRO ARROW. Missiles were supposed to replace interceptors.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The Arrow was doomed to failure from inception.. Canada's air force is far too small to afford such an aircraft... it's aviation industry was only successful building foreign aircraft under license... same is still true today.

[@gar6446]

Actually American aircraft were to replace Avro.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 aviation is heavily subsidized not just through manufacturing companies but also through infrastructure. It is an industry that would be very small if not for government intervention.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@gar6446 and the Bomarc missile. Arrow had tech American aircraft did not at the time. Arrow chief test pilot Jan Zurakowski was a family friend, my mother was Chief of weights engineering.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@charlesblithfield6182 Im not sure what your point is, The Arrow was cancelled because the Canada government could simply not afford such an outragiously expensive aircraft with no potential for foreign sales.

[@Christian-rj2yc]

Very comprehensive and interesting!

[@korma9732]

Politicians thinking their engineers, never works.

[@hughie522]

Very comprehensive, thank you!

[@mebeasensei]

Eisenhoweer warned of the US industrial-military complex. I wonder if he pointed to US Allies too, to heed that warning. When BOAC chose the 707, it must have been obvious that the end was nigh.

[@Fanakapan222]

BOAC had the moniker Buys Only American Craft quite a while before the 707.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

1:38 I would point out they said they had to cut expenditure to become more "self sufficient", however this was bafflingly economically illiterate. That is why by 1977 after 2 decades of cutting back, we were less self sufficient in certain ways, productivity increases kept dropping and France a country not cutting back had higher productivity increases and Britain went from a much more powerful economy to one on par / behind France. Almost like government spending stimulates growth as has been proved time and time and time again.

[@uingaeoc3905]

UK economy is bigger than France's.

[@tsar1547]

Cuts should have been made to welfare and the NHS so more money could be invested into the armed forces and defence industry.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@tsar1547 is this a joke?

[@uingaeoc3905]

@@tsar1547 Not really,the main costs were in procurement decisions which were pointless. The main cuts were in the size of the forces. Tthe NHS and benefits budget today is insane because of too many managers and incompetent IT projects, nothign to do with patient care, which ws not the case in 1950s.

[@rich7787]

Name one time it was proven government spending creates growth over the long term.

[@davidchant5550]

Brilliant again, many thanks. The Defence cuts still go onto today, removing what is left of UK Defence Industry. 38 years in the business and it is a ever shrinking in the UK. All the sites I have known are gone. The TSR2 cancellation was the absolute start of the end. The Tornado and Eurofighter was the only success out of a European partnership. Sandy's was just out to axe with any excuse. After all his arguments, we do not have an ICBM capability, none. Only Trident, designed, built and controlled by the USA. We are not allowed to load these weapons in our submarine. After cancelling the TSR2, the UK government bought the General Dynamics F1-11, that did not work, cancelled contract, still paid for the aircraft that GD still built and gave to the Australians. That is a small documentary in itself, embarrassing a Government (i.e. Dennis Healey).

[@richardwillson101]

Our Nuclear deterrent was and is still as good as it could ever get. Aircraft were not needed in this role, as history shows us. ICBMs were the right choice at the time and still are today. And the trident "US Control" isn't quite what you think it is. They hold no direct control over the deterrent it's self in the UK. I'm an aviation nut, and an employee in defence aviation who can tell you that the UK is still world leading today in defence aviation design, development, test and manufacture. It's very sad that it isn't on the scale it once was, but actually, it's in a better place than it ever was. When the taxpayer would foot the bill for endless prototypes and companies would need constant government support.

[@davidchant5550]

by the way, the Harrier only went into Production with US Marine Corps purchase and half made in the USA and the full IP for aircraft and engine handed over to the USA, as Germany pulled out. The key issue, we do not have the money to put an Aircraft and engine into Production on our own.

[@richardwillson101]

@davidchant5550 no nation does! That's the truth. Why do you think it's Rumoured that Russia only have less than 10 of their latest development? Why China might not even have any airworthy "latest gen" aircraft and Why the F-22 has become a political mess? The Eurofighter, Tornado, Lightning 2... all multi nation projects for a reason. British aviation has ALWAYS relied on export to support its project... commonwealth nations used to be a captive customer. But with that gone, rhe viability of any project reduced. Regarding the Harrier, it's initial success was 100% British, you are thinking of the AV-8B which revolutionised the Harrier design, modernising it and improving it. We then used these upgrades in our later GRs. Britain is still one of the world's top players in defence aviation 😁 even if more of our firms are being bought up by US money. They still use British people, brains, experience, technology and factories. We have a government that, quite rightly, refuses to meddle with the commercial world, meaning US buyouts are perfectly legitimate even though they are a massive shame. The US government has MANY ways of being influenced by and influencing private business. But it means that they don't always get what they should, KC-46 being a huge example. The A330 MRTT was a tested and in production product which won the bid twice, before being forced out by politics. For a US firm to win the bid on nothing more than a made up design concept which has proved nothing less than extremely problematic and dangerous.

[@davidchant5550]

Plus. the technical people impact, with many made redundant, no apprenticeships and no projects to get experience and develop. All those 10s of thousands of technical people at Hatfield, Woodford, Chadderton, Bristol, Brough, and many more ...all gone. I was told recently that these jobs have not gone, simply removed to the USA and Europe. For example, Lockheed have 130,000 technical engineers working on the F35 Programme. I actually heard David Cameron (ex Prime Minister) state that UK companies are shocking bad at Defence and Aerospace and we must focus on the core of England as Finance, in particular Supply Chain Finance.

[@abum4595]

@@richardwillson101 This doesn't explain why the defence industry underperfomed so consistently back then and still today. Even france doesn't have this problem

[@stephmaccormick3195]

Amazingly comprehensive documentary! Bravo!

[@john5r]

the soviet M-50 never actually went supersonic and remained a failed prototype. Though if it did cause some additional spend in the west after appearing in a parade over the red square, probably it was not in vain

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

14:25 - Blackbird, anyone?

[@BizzarFish1]

pre dates it though mate, lot of people had a lot of similar ideas back then.

[@nigeh5326]

Two areas rarely mentioned in discussions about Britain’s failings post WW2 are The agreements signed with the US to allow access to Empire and Commonwealth markets that hurt British trade And The contraction of the Empire as former colonies achieved independence meaning British companies lost the favourable terms they had previously. They also in some cases lost land and equipment in revolutions and nationalisations by new governments in some countries. While I am not saying the Empire was a good thing for other countries. As the idea of Empire was to give Britain control over peoples, land and trade to benefit Britain, not the colonies. It must have had a large negative impact on Britain’s economy that the government could not alleviate. Markets where once British goods dominated instead turned to other countries products.

[@MrJimheeren]

It doesn’t help either when your country is billions of pounds in debt to the said Americans and two times in a century lost a significant part of the male population

[@feastguy101]

The Empire had turned British industry incredibly uncompetitive. They were used to work under unfairly favorable conditions within the Empire area. Once the Empire was gone, the USA and Japanese ran them out of those areas incredibly fast, since they were far more capable of competing in reasonably open markets.

[@nigeh5326]

@@feastguy101 agreed that was part of what I was referring to but my comment would have been too long if I had.

[@GetInGarage]

great vid

[@jonginder5494]

Roland Beaumont had some interesting Duncan Sandys stories - it seems that Sandys had a poorly tuned crystal ball. He did so well in the V weapons defence during ww2, but, this may have triggered his dogma.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Hawkers 1100 series of projects were always called 'P Eleven xxx', not One One - xx ' .So P-Eleven 0H Six, P-Eleven Twenty One and most famously P-Eleven Twenty Seven, the Harrier precurser. This continued with the P-Eleven Fifty Four.

[@peterfinucane8122]

Great work in putting this together.

[@rod4095]

Excellent summary

[@dondouglass6415]

Oh deary deary me.... Whether it be defence, the economy or public institution's like the NHS, politics in the UK and therefore policy has for so long been based on the short-termism..... and it hasn't changed. 😢

[@johnjephcote7636]

It never stops...the cancellation at the last moment of the Nimrod 4 ......HS2 - a rail network for increased capacity cut back successively to even less than a link. What confidence do builders have when they knlow that at the last moment all the effort and treasure will be lost? I am 75 and I lived through all this.

[@RJM1011]

I was laid off from FRA because of the loss of the Nimrod. Told it was to save money yet the UK Gov then buys the Boeing aircraft costing even more that can not be re fueled by air tankers in the RAF !

[@DBird-uw1op]

MR4 was a big mistake they were virtually new built should have gone for the Kawasaki P1 and built it under license with the nimrod kit @@RJM1011

[@sailorssilence1983]

I really liked the audio on this one. 😊

[@oldcynic6964]

The figures at 2:00 are the only ones that matter. In the long-run, productivity is the ONLY thing that matters.

[@stevenr2463]

Well told, thank you! 1957 was the year my father finally quit his job in the drawing office at de Havilland, where he had been since WW2, and moved to Guernsey to do something completely different.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

*De Havilland was in the shit by 1957 and there were huge layoffs.. they became insolvent in 58' and were seized by the Crown and placed under administrative receivership.*

[@brianbooth4435]

Excellent.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

It is my understanding that the SR.53 and the SR.177 are structurally two very different aircraft, and it is inappropriate to speak of the former as a prototype for the latter. It was closer to a technology demonstrator. (Sources: Project Cancelled by Derek Wood and British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters since 1950 by Tony Buttler.)

[@sonnyvictor3584]

Sr 177 was a larger and capable model. It would have been like a Production model

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

What qualities of the TSR.2 vastly exceed those of the F-111?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

There were none, TSR.2 was a turkey that needed 3 miles of runway to get airborne and couldn't carry any payload or fly Mach 2.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 The top speed at high altitude requirement was relaxed to just mach 1.75 during testing, but since it was intended to attack at low altitude, high altitude speed was almost irellivant (even mach 2.5 at altitde wasn't enough to evade SAMs of the period, hence the switch to low level). But where on earth did you get a 3-mile take off run from? Even the reduced spec in 1959 said 3,000 ft (~900 m). Or that it couldn't carry any payload?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@sergarlantyrell7847 It's called sarcasm, the required runway length was as you pointed out DOUBLED and all of its minimum design requirements were slashed, testing revealed major design performance flaws and deficiencies that were so severe that the testing program was halted,

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 3,000 ft was the same as the spec for the F-111's short-field performance... How is that bad? What new plane didn't have major deficiencies that needed sorting out during testing? The F-111's wings kept falling off at first. There was nothing that couldn't have been sorted out had the uk been able to throw the same amount of money at the problem that the US did. The cancellation wasn't on technical grounds, but financial and political infighting between the RAF and Royal Navy. After the UK lost the Australian order, they couldn't finance the project to completion.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The difference is that the F-111 actually met all its design specifications. It could fly Mach 2.5 and still carry 8,000 more pounds of payload. General Dynamics Convair division is the most experienced in world in supersonic aircraft. BAC was a massive dumpster fire, the combined burden of 4 failed British aircraft companies saddled with an additional layer of incompetent government beauracracy. BAC never produced a single successful aircraft on its own.

[@leftnoname]

Ike throwing the former allies under the bus made the Soviets a huge favor.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

There were only two winners in WW2, Britain was not one of them

[@EricTheActor805]

What are you babbling about?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@EricTheActor805 Apparently he doesn't know that britain surrendered to the Americans instead of Hitler.

[@andysedgley]

1:51 Now I just want eggs and spaghetti for dinner 😂

[@jaws666]

Duncan Sands.... Typical politican...living in a fantasy bubble far removed from reality...thinking he is an "expert" when the reality is he didnt have a clue about what he was thinking/proposing

[@trevormillar1576]

Duncan Sandys was the "Headless Man", photographed doing something VERY NAUGHTY with thr Duchess of Argyll.

[@Lurker1979]

The British military establishment reminds me of a very dysfunctional family in am abusive relationship.

[@davedixon2068]

is it just me or does the intake of the P1121 look familiar.....Typhoon??

[@malcolmcarter1726]

The Myasischiev M. 50 'Bounder' was a single prototype. Their production bomber that entered service was the M. 4.

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is still watching this very informative content cheers Frank

[@yuglesstube]

It appears that Sandys may have been something of a photographic pioneer, in the sense that he is thought to have been among the very first users of the Polaroid camera in the UK.

[@Seminal_Ideas]

Very good. The "Headless man" did indeed have his head in the clouds as far as missile defence was concerned.

[@yuglesstube]

@Seminal_Ideas With hindsight he was right. Western military production during the Cold War was a complete waste. Was he conclusively identified? I wonder.

[@Fanakapan222]

Yes, whenever I hear the name Sandys I inevitably think of the Dutchess of Argyle. Given that it is said that David Niven got her up the stick at age 15, she must have been quite a goer. Its curious that in this internet age the image has been much talked of but never seen. Although it was fun debating the likely contenders for the headless man accolade before Sandys seems to have been declared the winner. :)

[@yuglesstube]

@Fanakapan222 Apparently the MOD had imported two Polaroid Land cameras. The first in the UK. Sandys is the only one of the two who might have had access.

[@yuglesstube]

@@Fanakapan222 I didn't know that about Niven. Thanks

[@ian_b]

Just a couple of minutes in, but it's worth noting that the idea of "self sufficiency" is economic suicide, or at least very harmful. In terms of market economics it's comparable to an individual choosing to work harder and produce less, thus reducing their ability to purchase goods from others and reducing their own standard of living. Income isn't proportional to work (labour input) but to how much is produced (output). If you're buying something already, it's because it's more efficient for you than producing it yourself, which is true of an individual or country. I buy bread instead of baking it because of the opportunity cost lost in doing my own baking. Bakeries do it much more efficiently. I can make my own bread, but that is time spent not producing something else of greater utility, so I've become more self sufficient at the cost of having less stuff. Import substitution was a dogma of the post war period that damaged not only Britain but numerous Third World nations. /rant

[@abum4595]

self-sufficient insofar as not being dependent on foreign money, goods etc is a good thing for numerous reasons. It is the unstated goal of most countries. USA is self-sufficient in most things for instrance; the only country in the world to be so and is the main reason for their success.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

The other thing is the way they went about it was economically illiterate. To become self sufficient reducing government spending is going to ruin your economy, making it less likely to become self sufficient. Which is proved by the fact from then till now we have become less self sufficient.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

​@@abum4595 Firstly the reason the US can be self-sufficient is because of it's natural resources the UK doesn't have that. Seondly the main reasons for the US success is an abundance of natural resources, not surrounded by enemies and Thirdly being able and willing to bring experts from all over the world to live in the USA. The UK could only replicate 3 and sort of 2.

[@abum4595]

@@Alex-cw3rz the point I was trying to make was that self-sufficiency is not a bad thing and import substitution can work sometimes. Limitless spending is not some cheat code for economic success unless the fundamentals are there.

[@rich7787]

@@Alex-cw3rzGovernment spending does not cause growth. That’s absurd. The UK is spending more than ever, by your definition this should be the wealthiest the UK has ever been.

[@malcolmtaylor518]

At this time the UK had to defer on war loan payments to the US due to the dire state of our foreign currency reserves. The war bankrupted us. Paying for all these new designs was impossible.

[@purpelfrog761]

We were poised to dominate the defence aviation industry worldwide. Great manufacturing base in terms of skilled and experienced people and facilities. Combined with world class design teams. We had every advantage, but our allies didnt like tht much! Thanks guys!

[@warmike]

The US has no allies, it only has vassals. That explains it all.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Britain was never a leader in aviation technology and had lagged years behind America, Germany and France. The UK industry was doomed after the country's defeat in WW2.

[@chrisgosling5408]

So much thrown under the bus, quite depressing until the Typhoon showed itself. Thank you very much for putting this together it must having taken a great deal of effort & skill. It shows how inept and corrupt British Governments have been over the years and that the potential to be a world super power was within our grasp only to be tossed away for our special relationship with uncle sam. It is fair to highlight the evidence for aircraft that were either past their best or in the "also ran" pile. Being ntaurally sceptical it could almost be considered deliberate action. The other event in time was another supermac special when after being warned by top scientists who then subquently resigned, stating that the Windscale project getting dangerous, went and threw the staff who turned what would have been a global catastrophy into a relatively local disaster, under the back wheels of the bus. All this so that he could get an agreement and acceptance as a nuclear superpower with our good friends uncle sam even then none of us really mattered to those who represent us.

[@FinsburyPhil]

Inept, yes. Corrupt in the 1950's, not sure what the evidence for that is? Certainly broke and 100% in hoc to the US, who absolutely used this to their advantage.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

There were only two winners in WW2... and Britain was not one of them, the empire was destroyed by Hitler and the British were forced to surrender to America rather than Germany.

[@RJM1011]

Very good video thank you.

[@mpetersen6]

I sometimes wonder just how many agents the USSR had in the British Government

[@trevorhart545]

Had or Russia now has? Of course they are now competing for jobs with China.

[@johngray8249]

Too bloody many, like Blunt etc, public school bred them. They did irreparably damage on a grand scale. Were any of them executed for spying for Russia, no.

[@redbaron9029]

None

[@floycewhite6991]

Not USSR. Jewish pressure groups, such as the Focus group.

[@mpetersen6]

​@@redbaron9029 None? So Philby etal were the only ones. I don't see Communists under every rock and bed but post war Western Europe had to be a rich recruiting ground for the Soviets. Their agents in place could be anything from those just passing intelligence on any number of subjects. From finance to national security issues. But there could also be useful agents who's job was not to pass information but actively attempting to muck up the works. Your labor situation did not help. Unions going on strike and the strikers getting government benefits as l understand it. Thatcher gets grief over pit closures but it is my understanding that the previous Labour governments closed more pits and more miners lost their jobs before that. And the pits would largely be closed by now anyway due to environmental issues. The British auto industry was hopeless in my opinion. Partly from holding on to obsolete engine technology too long (1). Partly from poor build quality IMO. My sister and her husband were looking for a sports car in the late 70s, early 80s. They looked at MGBs and wound up buying a Fiat 124 Spyder. That says a lot. 1) l know about companies hanging on to obsolete engine technology. I worked for AMC and Chrysler. When l retired we were building DOHC V-6s. Along with OHV inline fours and sizes. The 4.0 used in the Jeep XJ.

[@JonBowe]

I understand the expenditure costs and cutbacks required to alleviate the finances, but this is the usual government, that still fire fight rather than fire prevention. Yet we still have the antiquated Houses of Parliament, that should be torn down for a modern solution to the cost to the taxpayer in its upkeep. This was the beginning of the end of heavy manufacture in the UK, as all this snowballed in to demise of most civilian based industry. Too many cuts too soon, just like the rail industry a few years later.

[@stewartellinson8846]

The problem that the 'plane buff world always forgets is the vast cost of the forces in the fifties and the huge percentage of gdp that went into them. This was compounded by the chaotic state of the British aircraft industry at the time and a plethora of overlapping projects with little interoperability. Whilst this is touched on at the start, it's lost by the end and the idea that Britain was pushing forward many cutting edge projects misses out the way in which many of them would have been overtaken by subsequent events or, as with the TSR 2, the fact that cutting edge nature meant that their cost and development time spiralled again and againand their edge was easily lost. The later use of the phantom II is a good illustration of how a well built aircraft with limited "cutting edge" features produced something that remains in service even today Decolonisation and shrinking competitiveness on the world stage meant that the Sandys white paper was always going to happen. On a political level, the disaster of Suez illustrated that the UK was no longer a "great power" and the decolonisation of the sixties meant we just didn't need the large forces that we were wasting money on. Overall, this was inevitable and we really need to get over ourselves and understand how insignificant we are and how unimportant we had become by the late fifties.

[@oktfg]

I agree that a reality check was needed. But the UK was not insignificant. The enemy had changed with the Soviet Union learning and building on the Nazis failure to fight on two fronts. The formation of the Warsaw Pact meant no western nation could face communism alone in Europe. The key to success for small European militaries was interoperability - which eventually landed with Tornado and EF projects. That was unthinkable for the UK aircraft establishment in the 50’s whose mindset still perceived that British aircraft (their aircraft) hand won the war. Macmillian understood the world had changed. He also understood how politically difficult it was to message the public still basking in Victory. The Nassau Agreement was MacMillen’s political masterpiece keeping the uk’s input of blood and guts (military forces) at the forefront and allied to US and NATO while obtaining the most sensitive Tier 1 first strike nuclear capability from the Americans. Ensuring that if anyone hit 🇬🇧. The UK could hit harder.

[@idonthavealoginname]

The over riding factor is our politicians are economically inept.They cancelled everything due to money which was down to their own economic failures .We had factories, extremely capable engineers and workforce so we should have set out to rebuild exports post WW2 but our politicians hadn't a clue. The failure is with them 100%,,like it is today.

[@feastguy101]

Of course, the Suez only turned out to be a disaster because England lost it’s nerve and pulled out. Like always.

[@goddepersonno3782]

the real issue with this way of thinking is that it fails to grasp the cyclic nature of military investment. It's not money that evaporates into thin air - that money goes into developing industry, technology, but even paying salaries which get taxed and end up going back to the government military industry is an incredible way to keep GDP rising, provide jobs, and circulate money back into the economy. A healthy military industry motivates more commercial industry and improves manufacturing technology - helping the nation to keep toe-to-toe with foreign imports and exports. I agree that there was serious waste, overlap, and incompetence involved in the military industries the white paper axed, but the alternative we got was a dying and stagnating Britain. All the wrong investment choices were made

[@oktfg]

@@goddepersonno3782 I agree that politicians post war appeared to want it all - Desiring to maintain global power by encouraging military mfrs to develop all manner of platforms and systems with little coordination. While at the same time looking to deliver a social post war dividend to voters with the creation of the Welfare State. With hindsight politicians post war spread what little was left of the civil economy to thinly in an attempt to maintain the U.Ks military standing in the world and being to ambitious promising a ‘cradle to the grave’ welfare system. Aviation Technology was emerging and the U.K. was at the forefront applying this to civil use - unfortunately first mover advantage also means stepping into unknowns which can have dire consequences like Comet

[@yuglesstube]

It was simply impossible for the UK to maintain the scale of her military industries. Of course, the Americans, special friends that they are, never hesitated to screw the UK out of export business wherever they could. Then there were the issues around Comet, TSR2, Concorde and Trident. Excellent presentation. Its a pity that the UK was only peripherally involved in Airbus.

[@barracuda7018]

Britains complete failure has nothing to do with America, especially Comet disasters ..Of course, Americans have profited from British screw ups who wouldn't have ? TSR-2 was an engineering disaster, 4 prototypes built , only one flew a total of 16 hours, the remaining 3 permanently grounded due to never ending technical problems ..All remained as prototype until cancellation. It was a paper plane. Concorde 's fate was sealed after the first oil shock in 1973..The second oil shock put the last nail into the coffin. Small British factories couldn't simply compete with American mass production. That's why Trident sold 117 when it's direct rival B727 sold nearly 2000..Blame the Americans for their inefficiency and inadequacy , yeah that's British solution for everything.

[@evaluateanalysis7974]

"the UK was only peripherally involved in Airbus." According to Wikipedia, only "...the design and manufacture of the high-technology wings for all Airbus models as well as overall design and supply of the fuel system. For most Airbus models, the company is responsible for overall design and supply of landing gear.

[@yuglesstube]

@evaluateanalysis7974 It should have been a significantly greater level of involvement. Only 20 percent share today.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

​@@evaluateanalysis7974Britain is no longer involved with Airbus, BAe sold it's stake back in 2013.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

​@@yuglesstubeBritain has a Zero share in Airbus SE.

[@Peter-MH]

Avro 730 looks suspiciously like a predecessor to the SR-71 Blackbird?!..

[@kcnmsepognln]

That was my immediate thought.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

I was thinking that too, does anyone know if there are solid links between the two.

[@MrJimheeren]

Apart from the fact that they have nothing in common sure why not

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@MrJimheeren the engine placement is the same, the narrow body fuselage, the same mission type. The early drawing of the SR-71 being are even closer in design

[@MrJimheeren]

@@Alex-cw3rz the Concorde and the SU177 also look almost the same and are designed to do the same thing. But if you look at the finer details they’re nothing alike

[@trevormillar1576]

You used film of Harold Macmillan to illustrate a bit about Churchill.

[@DKS225]

Is it just me or does The Avro 730 bear similarities to The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird?

[@RMillerism]

Not sure, but there are definitely elements of Concorde.

[@magna4100]

"All manned fighter aircraft will be replaced by missiles by 1970?" That aged well. The real question is how such idiots that do so much tragic damage come to be in positions of such power?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The same idiots that created epic failures like the Comet, VC-10, TSR.2 and Concorde... Britain lacked the technology to build viable commercial and military jet aircraft.

[@Frserthegreenengine]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 "lacked the technology" - I think Concorde disproves that argument (albeit jointly developed with France). I didn't sell but technologically it was well advanced.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Frserthegreenengine Thank you for proving my point, the Concorde would not have been possible without France, France is currently the second largest aircraft manufacturer in Europe.

[@EricTheActor805]

What are you babbling about?

[@floycewhite6991]

Churchill's War by David Irving. Two of the three volumes already out and you can download them for free.

[@alexhayden2303]

The UK had the Lion's share of the Marshall Aid cash. What did it do with it?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Pissed it away on Labour welfare programs and an aircraft industry that was doomed to fail.

[@drstevenrey]

A so called 'white paper' should be exactly that, a white piece of paper with a foot note reading: 'I am sorry, I am a work shy politician and I understand absolutely nothing of this.'

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

A white piece of paper with the words; _"There were only two winners in WW2... Britain was not one of them!"_

[@NickRatnieks]

I knew a man who until he died cursed Duncan Sandys- he had been a pilot officer (navigator) in the RAF and was paid off with a gratuity in 1963- I seem to recall he said £5,000 which would buy you a very big house back then- so he did not leave empty-handed.

[@prowlus]

The p11.21 was basically a british F-16

[@forcea1454]

Hawker P.1121 was dogshit, an aircraft without a requirement, not designed as an integrated weapon system, a thing that was increasingly important in the 1950s. It's closest equivalent would have been the F-105. F-16 was a much later design, taking into account energy-maneuverability theory, taking advantage of lightweight composites and an extra 2 decades of jet engine development. They are incomparable.

[@raymondyee2008]

What largely killed the SR.177 rocket fighter program.

[@johnusher1921]

At c.7:57 you state that Professor Keith Hayward was responsible for drafting the air aspects of the 1957 White Paper. That seems odd - the White Paper is usually attributed to Duncan Sandys, though no doubt that, as a politician, he had experts to do the legwork. Professor Keith Hayward is a current author - might this, say, be his father, if the attribution is correct?

[@Rom3_29]

After WW2 history of the UK military over spending and sudden cutbacks, whole British manufacturing capabilities suffered. Bankrupting various high value companies. Sounding similar in some sense what happened in Soviet Union mid 1980s. Were there Soviet spies in various British ministries at the same time as British economy was going from bad to worse? Similarly Canadian Avro aircraft company collapsed overnight. When government had to choose military spending or national healthcare.

[@warmike]

Soviet spies? Or were it American agents seeking to eliminate a competitor?

[@gragor11]

They had built the St Lawrence Seaway, The Trans Canada Pipeline, the Nuclear reactors at Caulk River and the Avro Arrow, The Iroquois engine, the Astra radar / targeting system and the Sparrow 2 Missile. The bank was broke.

[@wirebrushofenlightenment1545]

America won't allow anything that threatens their export markets.. Gloster Javelin was a bit of a turd though, truth be told.

[@malcolmcarter1726]

Great images. One small point though. The SR 53 and the !77 were different aircraft. The 53 was a concept proving ship and the 177 would have been the production version and a fair bit larger. Also the Turbojet engine was absolutely not a back up for the Spectre rocket motor. The aircraft took off under the power of the Jet alone and climbed to service altitude where if it had some 'Trade' in the form of a Soviet Tu 16 or Tu 95 Bear it could light the fully throttleable rocket motor to close the distance to aquire a target. It would also have made them (SR 53 W.177 and Avro 720) perfect 'Point Defense ' interceptors with the power of both powerplants propelling them to the altitude of incoming enemy craft. Germany was to be a major customer for the W.177 before this was scuppered by some disgusting samples of humanity at Lockheed and the West German government. The British aircraft military aircraft industry never really recovered from the Sandys white paper and the RAF were left without a true multi-role combat aircraft until the advent of the Tornado due to the cancellation of the wonderful TSR 2 having to soldier on with some pretty darned old aircraft. It used to be said that MRCA really stood for 'Must Refurbish Canberra Again!

[@madsteve9]

The big question though is, What was President Eisenhower doing telling the UK & Canada their was no future in manned aircraft. And where did all those Aerospace engineers go ? Black Budget Secret Space Programme Trillions of U$ Dollars missing.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The big question is why did Britain continued to develop aircraft as if it was still a world superpower? The British aircraft industry and its economy collapsed after its defeat in WW2

[@madsteve9]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 We didn't lose WW2.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@madsteve9 Britain surrendered to the Americans in 1940 and became a US protectorate, in 1946 the UK collapsed and became a US possession and lost its autonomy from 1946 to 2006. The UK is still occupied by American military forces

[@sodster68]

Was Duncan Sands a mole for the USSR?

[@Demun1649]

The Tories have always hated the military. Even today they cut, cut, cut. The GREAT British army has fewer tanks than Serbia. Brexshite is just a product of the lowering of the standing of the British in the world, and of the greed of the financial sectors, both of commerce and government. Britain has been in terminal decline for decades. And Inaction Man can't do ow't.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Britain has been in steady decline since its defeat in WW2.

[@Demun1649]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I must have missed that. My dad never told me his side lost. And he fought from May 1939 to the end in 1945. IF Britain did anything wrong, it was to accept that the Americans could not be trusted to provide a fair deal when selling weapons to the British, It was the crippling debts that the Yenghi slammed on the Brits, the only reason the Yenghi joined in the war in the first place. Are you really an Alexander, but too lazy to type more that Sander?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Demun1649 That's just sad when people don't even know the history of their own country... Britain lost the war in 1940 and had no choice but to surrender although they did have two options; surrender to Germany or surrender to the Americans. (see Tizard Mission) There were only two winners in WW2, Britain was not one of them. Britain was bankrupt in 1940 and again in 1945, the Bank of England failed and the British had no choice but to go back to America to beg for more money and were forced to sign the Anglo-American bailout loan agreement which essentially made Britain a US protectorate and a possession from 1946 to 2006. America military forces still occupy the UK. That's the name they gave me lad, any questions?

[@Demun1649]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 But, you are a Yenghi, aren't you?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Demun1649 Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day mate... are you a brummie? Or an aussie?

[@paulybassman7311]

It's Blue Steel, not blue Streak. Great channel👍

[@trevormillar1576]

The biggest change wad the ending of thr postwar peacetime draft, which freed the kids from military service and made the whole "Swinging Sixties" possible.

[@clangerbasher]

I can't watch it. The 1957 Paper just gets me very angry.

[@blah7956]

tbh a lot of these cancelled projects were dead ends, in hindsight anyway.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The British aerospace industry was already beginning to implode and was no longer relevant.

[@r.hagenau3541]

Nothing wrong with all these cancellations. Most of these projects were unrealistic, almost steam-punk like. The real issue was the lack of clear definition and differentiation between REALISTIC strategic nuclear requirements and conventional requirements.

[@johndavey72]

Very well presented indeed . It's a sobering thought to see the billions of pounds wasted and binned by Duncan Sandys .Thankyou ..

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

There was no use in throwing good money after bad... the project was doomed to failure

[@trevormillar1576]

Ike was pissed at the UK because Eden had told him to "mind his own business " over Britain's war against the Mau Mau in Kenya.

[@khankrum1]

The problem with missiles us once you have fired it, then hit or miss it is gone! Whereas fighters can land, rearmed and refueled.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The problem was that britain was even further behind in missile technology than it was in aircraft technology.

[@daystatesniper01]

Typical of the UK goverments we develop the best then scrap it or sell it for peanuts

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Britain was certainly not the best in aerospace technology, they lagged decades behind.

[@timhancock6626]

Sandys was both right and wrong. He was right that the aircraft industry was addicted to government contracts. Did we really need three V Bomber designs ? We couldn't afford it. Swift/Hunter was a duplication we didn't need. Javelin/DH110 was another duplication we didn't need. Unfortunately he cancelled the wrong things and was completely wrong about unmanned missiles replacing fixed wing aircraft . Also the industry did not learn and proved later with TSR2 it couldn't be trusted to run a project properly or economically. Luckily the English Electric Lightning just survived, thank goodness.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Britain's aircraft industry was doomed after the country's defeat in WW2, nationalization was simply a life support, there was no chance for recovery, when Thatcher pulled the plug on the ventilator the patient died quickly.

[@numbereightyseven]

Is this channel narrated by a real person? The basic grammar and spelling errors are, well, strange. eg 0:53 - "non-manded ballistic missiles".

[@james123212]

Sounds like he's Non-manned to me, and definitely a real person.

[@numbereightyseven]

@@james123212 Play that bit at half speed, and tell me what you think. Then 8:45, "500 billion pounds, or 10.5 billion pounds in 2023"

[@rileymcormond4353]

@@numbereightyseven "non-manned *and* ballistic missile alternatives." The second example is just an error of speech, easily done and easily missed.

[@adamcrookedsmile]

by 1957, the Mirage III had been undergoing flight test for a year already. The maiden flight of the XF-4 Phantom was only a year away and that was the aircraft both the RAF and FAA ended up flying. Would any of these designs have been better and more powerful than the Phantom? I doubt it. Two world wars later suffering both nazism and communism and Europe was irrevocably lagging behind the US. The Mirage III would have benefited from Rolls-Royce engines just as the Phantom did.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The BMW 109-018 (ATAR 101) was the first European jet engines to achieve Mach 2 (Mirage III) significantly more advanced than Rolls-Royce who were still struggling to catch up with the rest of the world in axial compressor technology after having wasted a decade developing centrifugal engines which were an evolutionary dead-end.

[@Hattonbank]

How were the RR Phantoms better than the GE J79's?

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Hattonbank They weren't...

[@Hattonbank]

That's what I understood as well. Reduced performance and added to the cost.

[@forcea1454]

​@@sandervanderkammen9230It's impressive, I have not actually managed to see a comment more wrong than this. Rolls-Royce mded the switch from centrifugal turbojets to axial turbojets in the 1940s with the development of the Avon. Metrovick and Armstrong Siddeley had already made this switch earlier with the F.2 Beryl and Sapphire, but the Avon was superior to either. The ATAR series were a dead-end with considerably worse performance than the contemporary Rolls-Royce Avon (the Avon had twice the thrust to weight ratio). To have even mediocre turbofans SNECMA had to cooperate with Pratt & Whitney to create the TF30-derived TF104, TF106 & TF306, whilst Rolls-Royce were producing the Spey, and had the RB.211 under development . Only in France could the TF30 be considered a good engine. To even have a somewhat competitive fighter powerplant, France had to conduct industrial espionage during the development of the CFM-56 to use the core for the SNECMA M88.

[@piers995]

I wonder what motivated the US to stab the UK in the back over Suez? That special relationship seems to have caused us a great deal of harm over the decades. I wonder if even then, they still had a fear of Britain and felt the British were still too influencial on the world stage, a position they felt they must have soley to themselves. I wonder if Eden had called their bluff would the US really have destroyed an ally's economy? A move that would no doubt have created disruptive effects on the world wide economy.

[@Gulitize]

The US was simply anti colonial at the time and feared an communist expansion when the old european powers continue their colonial adventures.

[@abum4595]

USA wanted to be the only world power; it was not prepared to share leadership of the western bloc with anyone

[@dcanmore]

Americans had a doctrine to end colonialism, they believed that Suez was an attempt by the British and French to reinstate Colonial control over a country/area, of course they conveniently ignored Israel's military and political support of the campaign.

[@MrJimheeren]

Because England and France decided to step America in the back first by not telling them about there secret plans with Israel. The Suez rightfully belongs to Egypt and the time of colonial empires was over in 1954. And England and France both failed to realize that they don’t matter anymore

[@squeeth2895]

The Sandystorm....;O)

[@MattVF]

He (Sandys) was right that missiles would be the basis for the U.K. deterrent. Unfortunately missile mania affected the RN as well resulting in WW2 style machine guns and cannons having to fitted on ships fighting at the Falklands.. SeaCat was useless and SeaSlug was used to put off aircraft bombing runs and littering Port Stanley’s airfield He was wrong (and he wasn’t alone) in thinking that any future war would be nuclear only and that there were no customers for conventional aircraft. Add in the British penchant for pushing too far on a limited budget and….

[@jaws666]

"Death by a thousand cuts"....sounds like a crappy 1980s Ninja movie.🤣🤣🤣

[@michaelimbesi2314]

WWII certainly hit the British economy hard, but the ultimate cause of Britain’s postwar economic malaise was actually the fundamental inefficiency of Britain’s system of nationalized industries. The issue is that the system strongly discouraged any attempt to improve productivity or efficiency, since people wrongly feared that any improvement would result in job losses.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Britain's defeat in WW2 had a devastating impact on its postwar economy...

[@williamkennedy5492]

America was no friend of the UK then, having said that, the money we received from the Marshall aid plan was used to shore up our Empire, Consider what Germany and France used their Marshall money for, NEW FACTORIES, NEW MACHINES so their productivity was high, we still had labour intensive factories and perhaps that is what started the immigration into the UK cheap labour, Later those same factories went overseas and the immigrants didn't return as the civil servants thought they would ! There are so many tragic milestones in British aviation industry. Sandys was the killer of it, and will be forever associated with its destruction, a few short years later we had wilson at the helm and what a mess he made of it. Despite the governments best attempts the industry is still going forward and prospering. Politicians another word for stupid person.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

After the British government collapsed in 1946 it was forced to sign the 65 billion dollar Anglo-American Bailout Loan Agreement. The UK became a United States pocession until 2006 and remains a US protectorate today, US military forces still occupy Britain.

[@theextremeanimator4721]

is it fair to call the UK a socialist state at this point?

[@MicahtheDrumCorpsPseudoboomer]

No, because UK workers don't own the means of production.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The UK is still a fascist state, ruled by a German Royal family

[@jimsvideos7201]

_That's_ how you pronounce Sandys? Huh.

[@ostwelt]

Why go so fast that none of this makes sense. Slowly down; itemise; and, pause. Not all YT needs J-cut speed. Should think the majority of your audience interested in the seminal UK 1957 defence white paper can wait a few minutes more over the course of a 42min presentation. We might be an older audience but we aren't going to die in the next 180seconds!

[@asumazilla]

I guess reducing the number of planes is wrong and it would be better to focus on common parts to reduce costs.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The British aircraft industry was doomed after the country's defeat in WW2, a slow steady decline until it completely collapsed.

[@Frserthegreenengine]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Last time I read a history book, the UK was an Allied nation, not an Axis one. The UK was not defeated in World War II, it was one of the big three Allied nations along with the United States and Soviet Union.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Frserthegreenengine Britain surrendered to the Americans in 1940 when the British government was bankrupt and days away from being forced to surrender to the Germans. Britain is a U.S. protectorate and was an American possession from 1946 to 2006. The UK is still occupied by American military forces

[@EricTheActor805]

The White Paper was right

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@EricTheActor805 Indeed, it represents one of the first official documents that officially recognized that Britain's military policies needed to reflect the reality that britain was no longer a military super power and that it needed to stop pretending it was.

[@jamesbugbee9026]

That 'Polaris' was a Thor