A Shift in Priorities

[Expat]

I still maintain that either choice is bad.

Mosley would lead to a more peaceful Europe at the expense of a strong Britain. The standard of living there would be much lower that OTL, her institutions would likely suffer (the prestige of her higher education possibly damaged beyond repair, a sore spot for me personally.) There would be repression, ideological cleansing, all that fun stuff. What's more, Mosley lived into the 1980s IOTL, so if he can hold onto power he's going to hold onto it for a damn long time.

Churchill at most lives into the 1960s, though I don't think any of us expect him to last that long, even if he does win the war. I'm imagining a similar level of repression of the populace, possibly with more casual death at the hands of the government. Less ideological cleansing (standard nationalistic message) and a higher standard of living. But then of course there's the heightened threat of war that Churchill brings that could result in the quick ruin of the entire island.

Quick ruin or slow ruin, this is a bad choice. It would probably be too convenient for both to die in the initial fighting (and unsatisfying, especially in Churchill's case; personally I want him locked away for the next 35 years in Ingolstadt writing mad, British-wanking AH.)

The next best thing would be for the Continentals to make cooperation with Mosley contingent on democratic reforms following the war.

[Peabody-Martini]

If I were being totally cynical I would say that the Germans should let the UK fall into civil war. Let the Royal Navy, Air Force and Army destroy each other, have the whole of Britain turned into one vast battlefield. Remember that England was at war with Germany twelve years earlier and a weak divided UK is no threat.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by C.Cain

So you think that all else if far worse than a warmonger who not only dragged the UK into a civil war but also - should he succeed in the end - into a war against the rest of Europe sometime down the line?

Splendid.

He really is the best choice - Why let just a single state suffer from socialism if you can make a whole continent suffer another destructive war? Can't let that happen, can we.

Socialist politics dragged Britain in civil war, not Churchill. Churchill ( put his machinations with US-German conflict aside ) just tried to stop further destroying of Britain.

Socialism isn't suceed anywhere- so it won't in Britain too. And will leawe only wreckage of nation behind- like anywhere else.
And Britain OTL, developed just fine. Some things could go better OFC, but when we see wonders of socialism...

[altamiro]

Originally Posted by abc123

Socialist politics dragged Britain in civil war, not Churchill. Churchill ( put his machinations with US-German conflict aside ) just tried to stop further destroying of Britain.

Socialism isn't suceed anywhere- so it won't in Britain too. And will leawe only wreckage of nation behind- like anywhere else.
And Britain OTL, developed just fine. Some things could go better OFC, but when we see wonders of socialism...

Oh, of course, just look how wrecked the 1950s /1960s Britain was OTL...
...it was probably the most successful approach to socialism anywhere in the world.

[stjernkjempe]

Originally Posted by abc123

Socialist politics dragged Britain in civil war, not Churchill. Churchill ( put his machinations with US-German conflict aside ) just tried to stop further destroying of Britain.

Socialism isn't suceed anywhere- so it won't in Britain too. And will leawe only wreckage of nation behind- like anywhere else.
And Britain OTL, developed just fine. Some things could go better OFC, but when we see wonders of socialism...

Originally Posted by altamiro

Oh, of course, just look how wrecked the 1950s /1960s Britain was OTL...
...it was probably the most successful approach to socialism anywhere in the world.

Yeah look at failed socialist states that retained their monarch such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway... or... wait...

[abc123]

Originally Posted by stjernkjempe

Yeah look at failed socialist states that retained their monarch such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway... or... wait...

And Sweden and Denmark and Norway are socialist states???

[abc123]

Originally Posted by altamiro

Oh, of course, just look how wrecked the 1950s /1960s Britain was OTL...
...it was probably the most successful approach to socialism anywhere in the world.

Well, if you count destroying allmost all of british industry and world importance- then yes, they wrecked the whole country.

[stjernkjempe]

Why is everybody so sure that the British people WANTS civil war? Right now there is only a fraction of the country (the closest to Mosley, the old Elite and some officers) that is willing to fight such a war. The common man don't want the horrors of the great war or the savage fighting's from India (or the other colonies that rose) to happen in the streets of the cities and in the countryside of Britain. Its seems like no one understands the mechanism behind Civil Wars. Is there really such a uneducated mass of people so socially frustrated that they would disregard the civil protocol and not try to protest the injustice of the coup whit weapons in their hands from the first start? Mass strikes. mass protests, rallies and a lot of shouting I could see but starting off whit forming militias to form their own army from DAY ONE? Not even during the spring uprising in Hungary did we see that. Different factions of the army fighting each other after a coup is not unusual, that don't mean a civil war in its own.
So the Churchill fraction makes a coup after securing support from the army and navy. very like the one in Chile OTL. Mosby escapes arrest and all of a sudden he leads a workers council in Manchester that people forms militias around... from day one... that the already established unions and local governments run by more moderate SUP members all listen to him talking about war instead of just react in a more orderly fashion and call for mass protests? Not even one of all the FAMOUS British pacifists say ONE single word?

SO Churchill plan were to grip the power of the parliament and the army and then... what? begin to arrest every town council SUP member, every Union boss and every single party functionary in the rest of Britain? Sounds like an awful bad plan.

And then Mosby comes along and say to all this that he is the boss numerous Uno because he were in the cabinet? What support among the SUP members does he have for that? Why would the local government in Manchester even want to listen to him? What about all those socialist thinkers agitators and so on that didn't get a seat in Parliament or didn't wanted one? It's not like there isn't a vibrant intellectual socialist elite in Great Brittan for years. So Mosby gets the full trust and power whiteout any struggle and/or bickering? Like he were planning a coup of himself and had all things set up whit his supporters in Manchester standing and waiting.

Now I can see how Trotsky wants a massacre to start a process of polarizations and radicalization. When people gets angry and frighten they do almost anything and listen to almost anybody. But he has not come to a underdeveloped country whiteout socialist thinkers of its own and they might throw a big wrench into his finely laid plans by actually start calling for new elections (at least within the SUP controlled Great Britain). Now a democratic elected SUP republic is not the same thing as a socialist vanguard that the Bolsheviks created.

But this is a great story, I don't say it's not good fiction, and I can't wait to see what's happens next.

[stjernkjempe]

Originally Posted by abc123

And Sweden and Denmark and Norway are socialist states???

70 years of almost uninterrupted SDP rule in all three countries, state controlled industry (like industry production boards), state owned industry (socialized or confiscated sometimes) and massive welfare states. We are all socialist states whit democracy and mixed economy that began major economic reforms 1991 and onwards.

I suggest some fine reading about the Swedish model and the Nordic states during the Cold war

[C.Cain]

Originally Posted by abc123

Socialist politics dragged Britain in civil war, not Churchill.

Hold on a second. Let me get this straight: The policies enacted by the democratically elected, legitimate government led to civil war and not the small band of conspirators and usurpers led by Churchill who deposed of said government in a coup d'état?

They brought it onto themselves by essentially doing what the majority of the population wanted them to do?

Or more poignant: The civil war is caused by a policy that's unpopular with a certain segment of the population. Thus the cause for any civil war is always found in the policies and not in the people who use force to change them.

That's kind of true in a very reductionist sense and only under certain circumstances (for instance if the policy cannot be changed by any other means than violence).
Nonetheless I'd say it's still reductio ad absurdum - almost a tautology, even.

Furthermore it's not applicable in the current situation; and therefore absolutely useless in allocating the blame for who's responsible for the civil war.

Chuchill had a legitimate way of optaining power yet he didn't even attempt to use it (the democratic process). Hence I still maintain that he and his co-conspirators are the ones dragging the UK into civil war.

Originally Posted by abc123

Churchill ( put his machinations with US-German conflict aside ) just tried to stop further destroying of Britain.

His intentions are of no concern. The road to hell is paved with good inentions after all.

And his alcohol fueled reasoning was dubious at best to begin with.

Originally Posted by abc123

Socialism isn't suceed anywhere- so it won't in Britain too. And will leawe only wreckage of nation behind- like anywhere else.
And Britain OTL, developed just fine. Some things could go better OFC, but when we see wonders of socialism...

That's a very, very broad statement. "Socialism" as such is hardly defined properly.

We don't know how the British version of socialism might've fared. We don't know how it would have developed.

Without knowing the inner workings of the system in detail and without knowing the environment it arises in you cannot simply say it is predestined to fail. 1917's Russia is not the 1930's UK and the ideas of what socialism is and what it entails aren't the same either.

A blanket statement like yours, therefore, sounds rather foolish.

[taylortjc]

Do we have a map of this?

[Kelenas]

While rast is an awesome writer, he unfortunately doesn't seem to have any skill at map-making. Which is a shame, really; it would be quite interesting to see how Afrika, Asia, Europe and the Middle East look like after all the numerous war, revolts, and independence movements.

- Kelenas

[zeppelin247]

their actually is a map a while back which shows pretty much how the world is now but its like over 100 pages back

[zeppelin247]

a map for this time line which a part from the changes to Liberia exists on page 86

[rast]

Capitalism is war; socialism is peace.
(Karl Liebknecht)

Once Martin I. Latsis was firmly established in Manchester, he contacted Yakov Khristoforovich Peters, Genrikh Grigor'evich Yagoda, and Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, who – like himself – had ‘hibernated’ in Canada.
It took them hardly a fortnight to arrive in Britain. While living in Canada, all of them had learned English and perfected it; thus they blended easily into their new surroundings.

In the meanwhile, Churchill’s troops had started their advance, after the officers had made sure that their men were loyal to the conservative cause. There was little that the socialists could do to stop this advance. Socialist militias – if at all present – were easily dispersed by Churchill’s professionals without much bloodshed. Usually, a tank clanking up the road did the job of convincing the poorly armed militia men that resistance was futile. In some cases, even show of force by air assets sufficed.
But establishing order in the conquered areas took time; the socialist workers would only co-operate when threatened by open force. The ‘liberated’ territories rather looked like prison camps – and tied up large numbers of soldiers for guarding and controlling.

It therefore was not military brilliance that slowed down Churchill’s troops – but rather civil disobedience. Because one had to put an armed soldier behind every railway engineer, power plant worker and water plant employee, a dashing advance proved impossible.
The densly populated urban areas, which had declared for the socialist, thus turned out to be difficult targets for the Churchill troops.

Only one success had been scored rather early, when Edinburgh fell to the conservatives, who now controlled the Forth Bridge and could by-pass the socialist pocket of Glasgow enjoying freedom of movement all over Scotland.
Otherwise, activities soon focused on London, where the Churchill troops conducted a set-piece advance into the Eastend.

The big SUP congress summoned by Oswald Mosley to Manchester thus could take place in early January 1931 without much interference from the conservatives.
It ended with a new government formed around Mosley, who was able to be elected as ‘Acting Prime Minister’ – under the assumption that Ramsay MacDonald still was the legitimate Prime Minister.The congress also issued an address to the socialist countries of Europe calling for help against capitalist oppression.
The most pressing adversity was lack of food.

While the socialists controlled the industrial production facilities, the capitalists controlled the countryside – and the Royal Navy. Transporting food by ship to East London, Bristol, Kingston upon Hull or Liverpool therefore quickly had proven impossible. The effective blockade executed by the Royal Navy wouldn’t let pass any supplies for the socialists.
Most of the southern and eastern coastline was in the hands of the capitalists anyway, making smuggling from the continent almost impossible.

This was the state of affairs when on January 27th, 1931, the East Ham Massacre occurred. Until then, the Churchill troops had exercised remarkable restraint and correctness when dealing with the socialist population.
But in the early evening, an army patrol was ambushed and annihilated. Reinforcments sent out only could recover the dead bodies of their comrades – horribly mutilated.
Now, the iron discipline of the Churchill troops broke – and for twenty minutes they lashed out on an unsuspecting populace.
Then, their officers were able to restore discipline, but it already was too late...

Forty-seven corpses, seventeen men, eighteen women and twelve children were the result. – For the population this was an unprovoked atrocity. They didn’t know about the ambush. They only knew about the cruel murderers in uniform.
The news quickly spread. And grew in size and bloodiness. So, this was the true face of the capitalists, of the Churchill troops.
On January 28th, the national socialist press and the European press cried out the message in bold letters, while the local Eastend radio broadcasted interviews with shocked and enraged survivors.
In Manchester, the wanderer rubbed his hands. Things were on the right track...

[nerdknight01]

¿ so in the end, i bet my monster Biscuits for Mosley and Trosky ?

[Kitiem3000]

Twelve children? Ouch. When they lose control they REALLY lose control.
This isn't exactly staging a massacre, this is simply a massacre. Even if people knew about the ambush this wouldn't be overlooked.

[Kelenas]

I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere, is laughing himself stupid at the irony.
In any case it looks like it won't be possible to avoid a civil war in Britain anymore. It'll be interesting to see how this will turn out.

- Kelenas

[Expat]

It's still not too late for stjernkjempe's pacifist movement to form, but it's less likely now. If Trotsky's got any foresight, he'd give it a try, recognizing that his more violent methods have not worked before. More likely though, we'll see the barricades go up.

I guess with this rural/urban divide, we won't be seeing much in the way of Scottish/Welsh nationalism rearing its head. Though if the Glasgow pocket falls that does mean all of Scotland is in the hands of the Conservatives. Could be interesting...

[Monty Burns]

This is actually far worse than I thought. I expected Trotkys men to do the massacre and stage it so that it looks like the conservatives did it. If the conservative armies react like that massacres might occur again.

Furthermore, I'm rather surprised that the conservatives got the whole army on their side. But that might change now after the massacre.