AHC: Britain turns into a totalitarian menace in 19th century

[raharris1973]

The challenge is to make this happen: Britain replaces parliamentarian with a totalitarian ideology it seeks to violently export, and Britain adopts a foreign policy including wars of aggression, not just against weak countries to colonize and open markets, but against foreign peer powers (and not just Russia) to either export ideology or annex the peers territory to their imperium.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

The challenge is to make this happen: Britain replaces parliamentarian with a totalitarian ideology it seeks to violently export, and Britain adopts a foreign policy including wars of aggression, not just against weak countries to colonize and open markets, but against foreign peer powers (and not just Russia) to either export ideology or annex the peers territory to their imperium.

Britain was like this in India

 

[Wendell]

Napoleon's invasion happens?

 

[LegionoftheUnitedStates]

After the Civil War and Glorious Revolution? A totalitarian ideology would imply a dictator and concentrated power. Neither House of Parliament would accept it. Power in Great Britain at the time was divided between them.

 

[LegionoftheUnitedStates]

Britain was like this in India

John Company was sort of like that, except for the ideological part. The British government just let it happen, but did not cause it.

 

[raharris1973]

East India Conpany covered by OP loopholes.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

East India Conpany covered by OP loopholes.

I actually wonder if the colonial office could essentially take over the government, and run the nation like a colonial charter company. "If we're oppressing all these people abroad, why don't we do it at home, too?"

 

[treefreak32]

Perhaps revanchism after a loss to Napoleon could lead to something like this? A crackdown on all enlightenment and revolutionary thought, coupled with hyper-militarism could have pretty nasty results.

 

[Flashman]

I actually wonder if the colonial office could essentially take over the government, and run the nation like a colonial charter company. "If we're oppressing all these people abroad, why don't we do it at home, too?"

The Frontier - It's coming home

 

[NedStark]

Britain has too small land army to pull this off. In addition, the Rule of the Major Generals had freaked out almost every generation since then.

 

[Whiteshore]

I actually wonder if the colonial office could essentially take over the government, and run the nation like a colonial charter company. "If we're oppressing all these people abroad, why don't we do it at home, too?"

Maybe you could combine this with a more reactionary monarch (I'm looking at you, King Ernest Augustus) as well?

 

[Socrates]

Britain was like this in India

Given there were parts of India that barely knew the Raj existed, it is hard to describe that rule as "totalitarian".

 

[Hannibal The Bannable]

Given there were parts of India that barely knew the Raj existed, it is hard to describe that rule as "totalitarian".

Depends on the time period and on who was the viceroy and the province , whether it was a princely state or not.
Its hard to be totalitarian in that age . Enforcing your laws on a rural village or a random tribe is a lost cause. May as well let them do what they do of you aren’t gaining much.

 

[alexmilman]

Britain has too small land army to pull this off. In addition, the Rule of the Major Generals had freaked out almost every generation since then.

At least the first part is a killer of the whole idea. Which of the “peers” could Britain successfully attack on her own?
Denmark did happen.
France?
Germany or even just Prussia?
Relations with Russia were quite often on a verge of a war but without France the CW would not happen and the French troops played the main role in it.
Try one more war with the US?
Which leaves Spain, Italy (or any of the Italian states before unification), Netherlands or somebody’s colonies.

 

[Crazy Boris]

Two words

no restoration.

You somehow keep the Crommonwealth™ going, you can have puritan dictators all the way down.

 

[NedStark]

Two words

no restoration.

You somehow keep the Crommonwealth™ going, you can have puritan dictators all the way down.

The Commonwealth in its OTL form simply could not outlive Cromwell.

A lasting Commonwealth would have had to be a parliamentary state, which would have defeated the OP's purpose.

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

How about using Fascism? I know this runs the risk of derail into post-1900 and whether Fascist governments could really be considered "totalitarian", but a Fascist Empire of Britain is one of the Alterformia TL's most important post-1900 features, and it could probably fit your challenge by slightly turning back the clock. You could ask the author of that timeline for more details.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

Given there were parts of India that barely knew the Raj existed, it is hard to describe that rule as "totalitarian".

Same could be said about the Soviet Union under Stalin or PRC under Mao. There was situation where a Russian family of old believers spent decades isolated from the rest of Soviet society. In China, there were tribes that were rather isolated from the mainstream. The Raj in certain aspects was quite totalitarian, despite the "liberal" pretensions of the British Empire.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

Given there were parts of India that barely knew the Raj existed, it is hard to describe that rule as "totalitarian".

I am not saying this as a bad thing. I'd wish if present day India had more of a spine to take on huge challenges, as in developing the country. But again, the Raj was probably the most mediocre government India has ever had: the literacy rate of India in 1950 was like 12%, despite 190 years of enlightened British rule and less than South Korea in 1950s. Its GDP per capita was lower than China despite years of civil war.
At least the literacy rate of India is presently 75% and is a middle income economy. I would've preferred if India was a developmentalist regime like South Korea under Park Chung-hee, then perhaps it wouldn't seem as run-down as it is presently.
I don't particularly have a good opinion of the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, British rule, and the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. These four regimes are largely responsible for the general backwardness of the region.

 

[Saramello]

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. The Cromwell Rebellion either never falls and it's revolutionary attitude is corrupted by authoritarianism overtime. Or once it falls Parliament begins a series of reforms to ensure it doesn't happen again, planting a foundation for a slide to "anti Cromwellian" authoritarianism.

2. The loss of the 13 colonies lead to the military given more leeway to properly nip rebellions in the bud, and this plants the seeds for radicalism in the following decade, with pre-emptive crushing of dissent and invasion of countries that could fund those revolts (I.E France and Spain).

2. The British suffer much more in the Napoleonic Wars and emerge wanting to crush anything remotely resembling Napoleonic Ideals, which takes the moniker of "Communism" in which anything the Brits don't like become Napoleonic Filth, even basic Parliamentarian Rights, which must be cleansed and contained by any means necessary.