WI: Millitary coup in UK after Narvik defeat

[Euroman26]

Insteed of the Churchill taking power peacefully and Chamberlain going into retirement. What if the UK Millitary enraged but Chamberlain lack of leadership takes power in a millitary coup?

How could that have influenced the war??

/Fred

[DMA]

I think the King may object a tad. And considering the British Monarch is actually the Head of the armed forces, the leaders of this military coup may find themsleves in a prison of His Majesty not long after launching the attempted coup.

[mtg999]

I think the King may object a tad. And considering the British Monarch is actually the Head of the armed forces, the leaders of this military coup may find themsleves in a prison of His Majesty not long after launching the attempted coup.

Would the King be willing to go along with it? If there ever was a time when a British coup would have been accepted by the broader society it would have been WW2 I would think.

[MrP]

This idea strikes me as somewhat fantastical, I must confess.

[DMA]

Would the King be willing to go along with it? If there ever was a time when a British coup would have been accepted by the broader society it would have been WW2 I would think.


We are talking George VI here. And there's no way he would break His Coronation vows in smashing the Constitution let alone centuries of 'good' British government since the Civil War

[DMA]

This idea strikes me as somewhat fantastical, I must confess.


That's saying it nicely ;)

[Paulo the Limey]

Insteed of the Churchill taking power peacefully and Chamberlain going into retirement. What if the UK Millitary enraged but Chamberlain lack of leadership takes power in a millitary coup?

How could that have influenced the war??

/Fred

Highly unlikely I'm afraid. The worst that would happen would be that the Imperial General Staff voice their displeasure to key Members of Parliament, who organise a vote of no confidence in Chamberlain, which he promptly loses. He is replaced by another Tory who, in all likelihood forms a national government for the duration.

[mtg999]

I agree that this is very unlikely.

What I meant was that if there was ever a time when the British public would support (or at least grudingly accept) military rule it would be WW2. The idea would be, better to have a strong govt against the Nazis than have a weak democratic govt that might lose.

The military could also 'spin' it as a temporary measure just for the duration of the war.

[DMA]

And, on another note, who is going to lead this coup anyway? I highly doubt Gort or Ironside will. Likewise forget Auchinleck or Wavell. Monty is really too junior at this point. The same goes for Alexander. Who else is around? Hobart is in Egypt besides which he wouldn't either. Slim is another to discount. About the only likely name, which comes up is Fuller, but again I doubt he'd try to pull such a stunt...

[DMA]

I agree that this is very unlikely.

What I meant was that if there was ever a time when the British public would support (or at least grudingly accept) military rule it would be WW2. The idea would be, better to have a strong govt against the Nazis than have a weak democratic govt that might lose.

The military could also 'spin' it as a temporary measure just for the duration of the war.


I seriously doubt that it'd get much public support either as such things aren't British. Besides, it'd make the British no better than their Nazi enemies, & I'd dare say that the great number of British would immediately understand this vital principle.

Furthermore the US would simply have absolutely nothing to do with Britain in the aftermath of any such coup. If so, with no aid whatsoever coming from the USA, Britain is defeated sometime in 1941 or thereabouts.

[Wolfhound]

I seriously doubt that it'd get much public support either as such things aren't British. Besides, it'd make the British no better than their Nazi enemies, & I'd dare say that the great number of British would immediately understand this vital principle.

Furthermore the US would simply have absolutely nothing to do with Britain in the aftermath of any such coup. If so, with no aid whatsoever coming from the USA, Britain is defeated sometime in 1941 or thereabouts.

Nothing to do with Britain...? The supplied a totalitarian Communist Dictatorship. I think a Temporary Military Dictatorship would be alright by there books.

[Euroman26]

I seriously doubt that it'd get much public support either as such things aren't British. Besides, it'd make the British no better than their Nazi enemies, & I'd dare say that the great number of British would immediately understand this vital principle.

Furthermore the US would simply have absolutely nothing to do with Britain in the aftermath of any such coup. If so, with no aid whatsoever coming from the USA, Britain is defeated sometime in 1941 or thereabouts.

Still a coup in the UK after the British Army defeat in Narvik would have been a desirable outcome for the Nazis?

[mtg999]

I seriously doubt that it'd get much public support either as such things aren't British. Besides, it'd make the British no better than their Nazi enemies, & I'd dare say that the great number of British would immediately understand this vital principle.

Furthermore the US would simply have absolutely nothing to do with Britain in the aftermath of any such coup. If so, with no aid whatsoever coming from the USA, Britain is defeated sometime in 1941 or thereabouts.

Although a UK under military rule would not be nice I still think there is a massive difference between the 'typical' military regime and the Nazis. They're all repugnant but there are degrees of 'evil', so to speak.

A UK under a junta or whatever it would be called would not have mass concentration camps (at most prob small amounts of house arrest etc).

[DMA]

Nothing to do with Britain...? The supplied a totalitarian Communist Dictatorship. I think a Temporary Military Dictatorship would be alright by there books.


In 1940 though before France was overrun & Britain looked worse for wear? I'd doubt it. Don't forget that the US didn't start lend-lease until after the fact, not before.

[Euroman26]

Although a UK under military rule would not be nice I still think there is a massive difference between the 'typical' military regime and the Nazis. They're all repugnant but there are degrees of 'evil', so to speak.

A UK under a junta or whatever it would be called would not have mass concentration camps (at most prob small amounts of house arrest etc).

Maybe a UK Junta would have used more money on advanced weapons development etc?

[DMA]

Still a coup in the UK after the British Army defeat in Narvik would have been a desirable outcome for the Nazis?


But first off who leads this coup? That's your biggest problem with this POD. As I posted above:


And, on another note, who is going to lead this coup anyway? I highly doubt Gort or Ironside will. Likewise forget Auchinleck or Wavell. Monty is really too junior at this point. The same goes for Alexander. Who else is around? Hobart is in Egypt besides which he wouldn't either. Slim is another to discount. About the only likely name, which comes up is Fuller, but again I doubt he'd try to pull such a stunt...


Plus you can forget any help from the Royal Navy, as they'll never munity against the government of the day, & the same can be said for the RAF too IMHO.

[Calgacus]

I agree that this is very unlikely.

What I meant was that if there was ever a time when the British public would support (or at least grudingly accept) military rule it would be WW2. The idea would be, better to have a strong govt against the Nazis than have a weak democratic govt that might lose.

The military could also 'spin' it as a temporary measure just for the duration of the war.

I don't think the civilian government was weak enough or discredited enough. It was also still easy enough to effect change in government without military involvement (as would have happened if Chamberlain tried to stay on). I think for your purposes one would require a worse WW1 or WW2, or extreme economic hardship and left wing electoral success.

I think one also has to bear in mind that it generally takes more extreme circumstances to create extreme political events in Britain. This is not because of our unique national character, but partly because we are somewhat isolated from political and military threats by the Channel, and partly because through luck and design, we have inherited a long period of political stability and a culture of passive acceptance of political events. This has tended to raise the threshold of direct action.

[DMA]

Although a UK under military rule would not be nice I still think there is a massive difference between the 'typical' military regime and the Nazis. They're all repugnant but there are degrees of 'evil', so to speak.

A UK under a junta or whatever it would be called would not have mass concentration camps (at most prob small amounts of house arrest etc).


I extremely doubt that many of the public will see any difference whatsoever. Likewise the same could probably be said for the aristocracy. Then there's simply the problem of who leads this coup as I've already mentioned in other posts. And then, as per my first posting, the King will not accept this coup. Furthermore, considering Britain has already had one Monarch tossed out under dubious circumstances, a few years before, having a second one tossed out due to a coup will only ensure the population will be aggravated to the point of civil war, at a time when WWII has recently commenced, with the great bulk of the regular army deployed outside of the UK.

[mtg999]

But first off who leads this coup? That's your biggest problem with this POD. As I posted above:





Plus you can forget any help from the Royal Navy, as they'll never munity against the government of the day, & the same can be said for the RAF too IMHO.


Wasn't there quite a lot of talk in the late 60's and into the 70's about possible coups against UK Labour govts. Now obviously these never amounted to anything and were never that serious but it shows that under war circumstances it would certainly be possible.

Also I think that the UK military in exceptional circumstances may revolt against the govt if they believed the govt was extremely threatening national security. I've always thought that post-war the best chance of a coup would have been in Foot Labour won the 1983 election. His policies on unilateral disarmanent and other highly socialist legislation would have been seen as 'illegitimate' even if democratically voted for. My own opinion is that a Foot Govt would be so detrimental to national security that some at the very least 'semi-constitutional' methods would be the lesser evil (and I consider myself to be something of a left-winger even!).

This is totally off-topic of course, but just shows that under war circumstances it would even more likely.

Also why do you consider the RN and RAF more inherently loyal than the Army? Not arguing with you, just dont know enough about the internal cultures of each to comment on this.

[DMA]

Wasn't there quite a lot of talk in the late 60's and into the 70's about possible coups against UK Labour govts. Now obviously these never amounted to anything and were never that serious but it shows that under war circumstances it would certainly be possible.


And there were also rumours that the Queen was going to dismiss Thatcher as PM at any moment too. Nevertheless it didn't happen. Likewise there was no coup against the Labour governments of the 1960s-70s. So I wouldn't place any importance on such rumours. And this is despite the fact that the government, which this coup is going to take place against in this TL, is a Conservative one ;)


Also I think that the UK military in exceptional circumstances may revolt against the govt if they believed the govt was extremely threatening national security. I've always thought that post-war the best chance of a coup would have been in Foot Labour won the 1983 election. His policies on unilateral disarmanent and other highly socialist legislation would have been seen as 'illegitimate' even if democratically voted for. My own opinion is that a Foot Govt would be so detrimental to national security that some at the very least 'semi-constitutional' methods would be the lesser evil (and I consider myself to be something of a left-winger even!).


But here you're giving examples about military concerns about the political direction of a given party during a time of peace. This TL, however, has the military conducting a coup against a government for simple incompetence. Well if that was the case, Britain, & every other democracy for that matter, would have coups every month! Furthermore, 1940 was a completely different time & place to the 1980s. Not only was WWII taking place but the government of the time was the government of the establishment. It wasn't a radical left-wing Labour government. So that's another reason why the army, also a member of the establishment, wouldn't conduct a coup.


This is totally off-topic of course, but just shows that under war circumstances it would even more likely.


Well that maybe your opinion, but it's not mine. As history often shows, especially British & Commonwealth war history, as well as American war history, the People of such nations will support their governments during a time of war rather than the reverse (although Winston did get the boot in 1945, but only after the European Theatre had been won). We even have seen this historical pattern in operation during the current Iraqi adventure.



Also why do you consider the RN and RAF more inherently loyal than the Army? Not arguing with you, just dont know enough about the internal cultures of each to comment on this.


The RN munity? :eek: I'd expect the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to take place first before that ever happens. The RAF in 1940, meanwhile, are happy because they've resently got a whole lot of new toys like the Spitfire ;)

[OperationGreen]

MTG999 sorry you’re talking out of your rear on this. To think King George would encourage or in fact support a military takeover is madness. I can't see any high-ranking officer. Mount batten was touted for a takeover in the 1970s however I don't think so at 1940.

If you think the Royal Navy is going to mutiny then I suggest read a history book.

Why should the military take over the country and form a "temporary" military government? All they need to do is talk to MPs and get Chamberlain kicked out. Now possibly Edward if he stays on as King and is manipulated however its suicide for the monarchy and the military. I mean lets get this clear what do you expect this military to do? What if the miners stop digging is the British Army prepared to open fire to get them back down? I think not.

Britain is not a country with a history of military invention in domestic politics.

Some times Brooke hated Churchill however he didn't organise a firing squad did he?

[mtg999]

MTG999 sorry you’re talking out of your rear on this. To think King George would encourage or in fact support a military takeover is madness. I can't see any high-ranking officer. Mount batten was touted for a takeover in the 1970s however I don't think so at 1940.

If you think the Royal Navy is going to mutiny then I suggest read a history book.

Why should the military take over the country and form a "temporary" military government? All they need to do is talk to MPs and get Chamberlain kicked out. Now possibly Edward if he stays on as King and is manipulated however its suicide for the monarchy and the military. I mean lets get this clear what do you expect this military to do? What if the miners stop digging is the British Army prepared to open fire to get them back down? I think not.

Britain is not a country with a history of military invention in domestic politics.

Some times Brooke hated Churchill however he didn't organise a firing squad did he?


While I agree that a lot of what I said on this is ASB I don't think there's any need to use childish insults to make your point, lol.

[Andrew Hudson]

It wasn't Narvik alone that lead to the downfall of Chamberlain but Norway in General. Britain won the naval battle of Narvik wiping out most of Germany's destroyers. A military coup seems very unlikely. The elements in the establishment that tended to be contemptous of democracy were mere inclined to a settlement with Germany. I don't know how the high command fel about reaching an accomodation but I suspect any miliary coup would have done. Military dictatorships usually happen in countries where the military are incompetent at fighting wars. Germany would have aided by any coup.

Churchill provided the necessary political leadership to inspire people to fight on

[mtg999]

It wasn't Narvik alone that lead to the downfall of Chamberlain but Norway in General. Britain won the naval battle of Narvik wiping out most of Germany's destroyers. A military coup seems very unlikely. The elements in the establishment that tended to be contemptous of democracy were mere inclined to a settlement with Germany. I don't know how the high command fel about reaching an accomodation but I suspect any miliary coup would have done. Military dictatorships usually happen in countries where the military are incompetent at fighting wars. Germany would have aided by any coup.

Churchill provided the necessary political leadership to inspire people to fight on


Agreed. I must admit why would they mount a coup when there are many others ways to topple an unpopular leader. As some have mentioned it would only take a bit of talking to a few MPs to unseat Chamberlain.

If somehow (which is unlikely) this didn't work, would it be possible for some elements in the establishment to arrange an assassination of Chamberlain? Yes still unlikely but if he proved difficult to budge it would be far more palatable than a coup.

The public would never have to know that the secret service etc was involved, and it could be passed of as the work of a Nazi sympathiser (I'm sure that there would many people they could have framed). This alone would certainly get unanimous public support behind a more concerted war effort.

[OperationGreen]

I know you want this to happen. However unless Michael Caine drops into England with lots of “Polish” Paratroopers and a IRA man who looks very similar to a certain Canadian Actor helps them go after Prime Minister Chamberlain I don't think so.

[HueyLong]

Perhaps a different handling of the Abdication Crisis (Edwards refuses Parliament's demands, suspends it and calls for a general election and starts forming his own coalition, likely has to use troops under his command to keep order) would establish a precedent of the military involving itself (Albeit, base don earlier actions)

[DMA]

Perhaps a different handling of the Abdication Crisis (Edwards refuses Parliament's demands, suspends it and calls for a general election and starts forming his own coalition, likely has to use troops under his command to keep order) would establish a precedent of the military involving itself (Albeit, base don earlier actions)


A tad hard considering the events of 1688 ;)

[Grey Wolf]

The problem for the thread is that Britain is basically an elective dictatorship - once elected, the party of government can get what it wants through the Commons as it has an overall majority from the first-past-the-post system

Why is this relevant ? Because it means that the party of government can change the make-up of the government, even its leader, without having to go to the country. Legally the monarch still asks so-and-so to form a government, but he is advised by his Private Secretary who is advised by the leading figures in the relevant party

Thus, there is no need to have a military coup. To get rid of incompetents you have a reshuffle. If the leader is a failure the party elders kick him out and get a new one. Wartime brings in coalitions of the national interest, and is again done without recourse either to the ballot or to any vote in the Commons.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf