Skip to main content

British Naval Policy, 1953–60: Implications for Norway and American Commitments in the North Atlantic

  • Chapter
The United States, Norway and the Cold War, 1954–60

Part of the book series: St Antony’s Series ((STANTS))

  • 22 Accesses

Abstract

In Chapter One it was observed that, even after the reorganisation of NATO’s command structure in 1951, the British COS as a collective body showed little interest in reassessing the place of Norway in its defence priorities. By late 1951 and early 1952, however, such lack of interest no longer applied to all three services. In the early 1950s, Admiralty thinking — specifically as it applied to the employment of the Fleet Air Arm — evolved in a manner which again led to an emphasis on the importance of Norway and its contiguous seas in British naval policy. This chapter addresses three issues. First, it looks at the principal reasons — strategic, political, and bureaucratic — for the resurgence of the Royal Navy’s interest in Norway before the 1957 Defence Review. Second, it examines the impact of Sandys’s Defence Review on British naval policy, looking in particular at the American reactions to the changes in the Royal Navy’s NATO commitment. Finally, it explores some of the additional factors which, in 1957–58, further increased Norway’s importance in US maritime strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. General Eisenhower to George Marshall, 12 March 1951, The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: NATO and the Campaign of 1952: XIII, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Clive Archer, Uncertain Trust: The British-Norwegian Defence Relationship (Oslo: Institutt for Forsvarsstudier, 1989), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eric J. Grove, Vanguard to Trident: British Naval Policy Since World War II (London: The Bodley Head, 1987), p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  4. The success of carrier operations around the Korean peninsula, particularly close air support for the land-battle, was taken by both the Admiralty and the US Navy as a vindication of the utility of the carrier. See Bernard Brodie, A Guide to Naval Strategy: Fourth Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 240.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michael Dockrill, British Defence Since 1945 (London: Basil Blackwell, 1988), pp. 5–6

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martin S. Navias, Nuclear Weapons and British Strategic Planning, 1955–1958 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 139–140.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The two fleet carriers available at the time were HMS Eagle, which had joined the fleet in October 1951, and the older HMS Indomitable. HMS Ark Royal followed some three-and-a-half years later. Fleet Carriers were functionally equivalent to US attack carriers (CVA), although they clearly did not match the USS Forrestal class of carriers. See B.B. Schofield, British Sea Power: Naval Policy in the Twentieth Century (London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. 1967), p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eric J. Grove, Battle for the Fjords: NATO’s Forward Maritime Strategy In Action (London: Ian Allan Ltd., 1991), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The Navy case for the “aircraft-carrier striking force” in 1955 is clearly spelt out in an article representative of Admiralty opinion by Rear-Admiral A.D. Torlesse, ‘The Role of the Aircraft Carrier,’ Brassey’s Annual 1955 (London: William Clowes & Sons, Ltd., 1956).

    Google Scholar 

  10. S.W. Roskill, The War at Sea 1939–1945, Volume I: The Defensive (London: HMSO, 1954), pp. 169–178.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten (London: Fontana/Collins, 1986), p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S.W. Roskill, The War at Sea III, Part II: The Offensive, (London: HMSO, 1961), pp. 262–263.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Captain H.H. McWilliam, “Sea Power and Aircraft,” Brassey’s Annual 1953 (London: William Clowes & Son. Ltd. 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  14. For further discussion see Mats Berdal, British Naval Policy and Norwegian Security: Maritime Power in Transition, 1951–60 (Oslo: Institutt for Forsvarsstudier, 1992), pp. 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wyn Rees, “The 1957 Sandys Defence White Paper: New Priorities in British Defence Policy?” The Journal of Strategic Studies 12 (June 1989), p. 226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. David Greenwood, “Defence and National Priorities since 1945,” in British Defence Policy in a Changing World, ed. J. Baylis (London: Croom Helm, 1977), pp. 186–188

    Google Scholar 

  17. R.N. Rosecrance, Defence of the Realm: British Strategy in the Nuclear Epoch (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), pp. 178–180.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid.See also Michael Carver, Tightrope Walking: British Defence Policy Since 1945 (London: Hutchinson, 1992), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid. None of these results were publicised in the official press releases which only referred to the performance of conventional submarines. In January 1958 Nautilus was fitted with a new nuclear core, increasing her endurance by as much as 80%. See D.W. Morley, “Technology and Weapons,” in The Soviet Navy, ed. M.G. Saunders (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1958), p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wyn Rees, “Brothers in Arms: Anglo-American defence co-operation in 1957,” in Post-war Britain, 1945–64: Themes and Perspectives, ed. A. Gorst, L. Johnman and W.S. Lucas (London: Pinter Publishers, 1989), p. 213.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1997 Mats R. Berdal

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Berdal, M.R. (1997). British Naval Policy, 1953–60: Implications for Norway and American Commitments in the North Atlantic. In: The United States, Norway and the Cold War, 1954–60. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13370-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics