1936: The British Civil War

On October 23, 1642, at the initial set piece battle of the English Civil War, the Royalists win a decisive victory over the Parliamentarian army in southern Warwickshire near the hamlet of Edge Hill. The superior Royalist dragoons under Prince Rupert of the Rhine succeed in forcing the Parliamentarian forces on the flanks to retreat, and then rally, charging the enemy from the rear, leading to a general route. The commander of the Parliamentarian forces, the Earl of Essex, is killed.

civilwarkelmarsh.jpg


Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Fairfax fill the political vacuum on the Parliamentarian side caused by Essex’s death, but they now command largely poor quality militia forces reluctant to travel beyond their local territories. Meanwhile, the Presbyterian Covenanters sever all ties between Scotland and England, hoping to continue to resist Charles’ aim to impose a uniform religious order upon them. Ironically, this serves to further dampen the already diminished morale of the Parliamentarian forces, which resign themselves to fighting futile defensive battles.

In the years that follow, Charles gradually restores absolute rule, depriving the Parliament of every right it had obtained since the 12th century, except to pass death sentences on John Hampden, Arthur Haselrig and other Parliamentarian leaders. He also reforms his military with the support of Prince Rupert, his nephew, and prohibits his nobles from employing troops of their own. He also incorporates Catholic soldiers from Ireland, much to the chagrin of the outraged Puritans. With an army now loyal to the throne alone, he sends Rupert to conquer Scotland and destroy the power of the Covenanters. Rupert does so, and Charles is finally able to implement religious changes that give him even more power.

Cromwell and Fairfax escape to the North American colonies where they join the Puritans in New England. Many other Puritans and other religious dissenters soon follow, fearing that the crown will officially embrace Catholicism and seek to suppress non-Catholics. This does not happen, but Puritan emigration continues to surge throughout the remaining 17th century.

In 1688, those who remain in England opposed to a Catholic king and an absolute monarchy cling to the hope that the crown will pass to the daughter of the current king, James II, who is a Protestant married to William of Orange, the Dutch statholder. This hope is dashed in June with the birth of the king’s son, Prince James. Fearing an Anglo-French alliance, William responds to the entreaties of English Protestants and invades England in November. Despite its limited wealth, England still possesses a formidable army, and after some hesitation, the ambitious Duke of Marlborough casts his lot with King James. The Williamite Uprising, as it comes to be known, is short-lived and is ultimately crushed.

James’ enemies do secure one important victory, however, as the Puritans in New England take advantage of the situation and declare their independence. Cotton Mather declares himself the head of a new theocratic government. Despite its military superiority, England lacks both the funds and inclination to fight a protracted foreign excursion to reclaim what essentially would be a population thoroughly hostile to monarchy.

In 1707, the Acts of Union create the Kingdom of Great Britain. Although the Church of England is the de jure official religion of the realm, religious liberty abounds, with Catholics, dissidents and other non-conformists enjoying unprecedented freedom. In political terms, however, all temporal authority is vested in the monarch, who relies on support from the nobility and an obedient peasant population. To restrict the power of the former and secure the support of the latter, several Stuart monarchs issue anti-enclosure edicts that preserve or restore common grazing lands. The British agricultural revolution does not take place and there is no turn toward commercial farming. Peasants remain in the countryside, meaning that when Britain starts to industrialize in the late 18th century, it does so very slowly. The British bourgeoisie, such as it is, remains weak and largely dependent on royal patronage. Additionally, since the monarch can raise or lower taxes as he or she pleases, there is little financial incentive for the nascent capitalist class regardless.

As his Protestant enemies fear, James III seals an Anglo-French alliance and Britain supports France in the Wars of Spanish and Austrian Succession as well as the Seven Years’ War. Due to its financial insecurity, however, it is essentially a junior partner to France. Britain is also forced to contend with intermittent revolts in Scotland and England ignited due to religious differences and widespread dissatisfaction with the demands required of keeping and maintaining a large standing army as well as a sizable navy. Having largely abandoned its colonies and concerned with maintaining the high costs of a fully repressive state apparatus, Britain is relatively poor.

The Anglo-French friendship is torn asunder by the French Revolution in 1789, as France also runs into financial problems, setting up a bourgeoisie insurrection that evolves into the bloody rise of Maximilien de Robespierre and the Jacobins. In response, King Henry IX institutes a policy of censorship and general repression that drives intellectual debates and dissent even further underground. Liberal thought survives, however, and becomes more radical in response to the king’s heavy-handed treatment.

The French Republic survives the British-led First and Second Coalitions but it does not endure the meteoric rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1803, Napoleon sells off French territory in North America to the Puritans and uses the money to finance an invasion of Britain, which is soon blockaded by British warships. The resulting loss in trade and resources leaves Britain crippled when French forces finally do land in Kent. The British sue for peace and Napoleon dethrones Henry IX, replacing him with his eldest brother, Joseph Bonaparte, who acts as a proxy for Napoleon. The French occupation is unpopular and widespread rebellion breaks out in 1805. French reprisals only galvanize more Britons to take up arms, resulting in a prolonged conflict that denies France essential manpower and resources. This “Little War” (as it becomes known) lasts until 1813 when, with Prussian assistance, the remnants of the British army under the Marquis of Wellington defeat the French at the Battle of Canterbury. On the Continent, a coalition of Austria, Prussia, Russia and Sweden defeat Napoleon after his failed invasion of Russia, sending him into exile.

250px-Battle_of_Salamanca.jpg


In order to prevent another Anglo-French alliance, the Prussians place George William Frederick, the Duke of Hanover, on the English throne. The Duke of Hanover’s great-grandmother, Sophia of Hanover, had been the next non-Catholic in line to the throne following the death of Anne, the younger daughter of James II. Henry IX had died in exile in 1807 without leaving any issue of his own, and in fact the next Catholic heir in line is the King of Sardinia and Duke of Savoy, Victor Emmanuel I, who has no interest in abdicating his native kingdom for another. If King George is willing, questions persist as to if he is capable; he suffers from illness and it is believed he is mad. Moreover, Catholics across Britain, especially in Ireland, reject him as a mere Prussian puppet. At any rate, in England the power of the monarch is no longer held as sacred.

True power is contested between the conservative Church of England and liberal officers in the powerful British military. In 1820, a group of generals attempt a coup, pressuring the mad king’s son and successor, King George IV, to assent to a constitution establishing universal male suffrage, freedom of the press, land reform and a constitutional monarchy. In 1823, a Prussian army, the self-styled “hundred thousand sons of Martin Luther,” intervenes to crush the coup and stop a repeat of the French Revolution. The conflict arises again in 1834, when a pretender to the throne calling himself “James IV” emerges in Ireland claiming to be descended from James II and asserts that he should be king, not the Hanoverian William IV. Many people, especially Irish and other Catholics, rally to his cause, while liberals and the army champion the reform-minded William. The so-called “Jacobite War” (named after the Latinized form of James) lasts until 1839, with the liberals victorious. In the peace treaty, Catholic politicians and generals receive greater influence in the government and military, respectively. Unfortunately, this is turn leads to the clash between conservatives and liberals being played out as a series of coup d’états by officers representing each party. These coups invariably feature proclamations wherein the officers claim to be “saving Britain.”

In 1868, the most notable of Britain’s liberal leaders, Gladstone, expels Queen Victoria, a morose woman who secludes herself to grieve incessantly for her dead husband. Her neglect of duties combines with the general ineffectiveness of her governments to achieve anything of note, wavering according to her own erratic whims. As such, exasperated moderates and radicals alike join the movement to topple the monarchy in what will later be called the “Glorious Revolution.”

In 1870, republicans succeed in founding the First British Republic, inspired by the rise of the Third Republic in France. The new British government is meant to be a federal system, in which the various provinces possess great autonomy. Of course, this instantly raises doubts that a central authority will be able to direct the country and, as expected, the country disintegrates when Jacobites in Ireland rise up behind the grandson of James IV, James VI (“Bonnie Prince Jimmy”) with support from Catholics and the Anglican Church. Meanwhile, parts of Scotland declare themselves independent. Eventually, the army seizes power to restore order and decides to bring back Queen Victoria to placate royalists.

With a complacent monarch, liberals are able to re-introduce the Constitution of 1820 and all its accompanying rights. Power is placed in the hands of Parliament, although elections to the House of Commons are hardly free and fair. Thanks to the “Peace Arrangement” made under the guidance of Benjamin Disraeli, the conservative Tories and their main opposition, the Liberals, alternate in power to ensure stability. The British people enjoy the peace, but feel excluded from decision-making.

One effect this has is to spread revolutionary ideas among the working class. The Trades Union Congress is founded in the 1860s and becomes a hotbed for anti-capitalist movements, ranging from peaceful democratic socialism to militant forms of Marxism. Although diverse in their thinking, the British working class comes to be united in hoping to use their new political rights to create a more educated and pacifistic Britain.

Yet the new republic will not last. One chief reason for its failure is the “Scottish Question.” Many Scots seek recognition of their distinct character separate from the rest of Britain. Scotland has long lived as a region of its own and tends to look to its own capital of Edinburgh rather than London for its leadership. The industrialization of cities such as Glasgow also leads the now wealthy Scots to look with annoyance at their poor, incompetent brethren in England. Scottish nationalism mixes with working class militarism on “Red Clydeside” to make Glasgow a dangerous place, the “city of bombs.” This has a trickle effect into the more peaceful parts of northern England, where a weak but growing bourgeoisie made rich off mining begins to develop a hostile attitude toward the south.

rent-strikes.jpg


Another disastrous event that helps bring down the republic is Britain’s involvement in the Eight Nation Alliance sent to put down the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Intended as an inclusionary measure meant to enhance British prestige, it in fact serves to remind the British populace that they are not part of a “Great Power” and that British imperialism effectively ended when its last colonies broke free during Napoleon’s occupation. The Dutch Raj in India, France’s scramble for Africa and other imperial adventures only underscore the fact that Britain remains a junior partner to the European empires. Most Britons feel that Britain should be looking after its own rather than helping to fight battles for other countries.

From 25 July to 2 August 1900, a week of rioting occurs in Glasgow after Scottish reservists are called up to fight in China. A hodgepodge of socialists, communists and other radicals plan a general strike they hope will spark a national revolution. In reality, however, the “Week of Sorrows” mostly leads to senseless destruction as the rioters plunder and burn the property of the wealthy and the clergy. The army succeeds in restoring order, but only after 120 people die. Most of the dead are rioters. The long-lasting effect of the riots are to put into question whether a parliamentary democracy could truly take root in Britain, for if this was how the unruly masses behaved, true democracy would lead to disaster. Politicians put off general elections as long as possible, cobbling together coalitions to form fragile majorities.

In 1908, a radical reform-minded government under Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, leader of the nascent Liberal Party, does its best to suppress the triple-headed hydra of working class discontent, regional dissatisfaction and colonial inadequacy. It passes laws revising the tax system to make it more favorable for the poor, grants limited home rule to Scotland, and restricts the enlargement of religious orders save with official government sanction. It also curtails the power of the House of Lords through the 1911 Parliament Act, which prevents the Lords from blocking bills passed by the Commons. Finally, it ends the practice of the rich buying themselves out of military service. Asquith’s successful career is cut short, however, when a communist revolutionary assassinates him in 1912. His successors as Liberal leaders (Edward Grey and then Richard Burdon Haldane) lack both Asquith’s dynamism as well as his talents.

Britain remains neutral during World War I, with Catholics and left-wingers urging intervention on the side of France and the allies, while traditionalists and monarchists (including the technically German King George V) express sympathies with Germany. In the meantime, young officers in the military are angry about their low wages, especially in the face of rising inflation. Although, like most neutral countries, Britain profits in the wake of the war, fear of another military coup spreads throughout the country. For some reactionaries, including some leading businessmen and newspaper owners, the prospect is not all bad; they think that Britain under the right forceful leadership could be a good thing.

As right-wing leaders plot in the south, the north of Britain seeks to emulate the Bolsheviks in Russia. Communists and socialists from Scotland to Yorkshire abandon reformism and embrace radicalism and revolution. In 1916, they plan a general strike meant to topple the national government and implement their demands: abolishing the monarchy, instituting a 7-hour working day; replacing the standing military with a voluntary militia; an official separation of the government and the Anglican Church; and the seizure of land belonging to wealthy landowners and church officials.

The Conservative Prime Minister, Andrew Bonar Law, takes a hard line with the strikers. He declares the strike itself a threat to the welfare of the state and thus the people. He calls in the army to put it down. He is supported by the disaffected soldiers in the army, who for all their unhappiness wish to preserve the social order, and by the bourgeoisie, who want anything but a revolution from below. As with the Week of Sorrows, dozens are killed before order is restored.

Nevertheless, British democracy is living on borrowed time. Class warfare continues between 1917 and 1923 as employers clash with workers over whose interests will prevail. Despite his name, Prime Minister Law fails to keep the peace even within his own party. From Glasgow to Manchester, revolution is only kept at bay by the cruelty of the constabulary. With the political system bruised to death, it comes as no great shock when a military overthrows the parliamentary government in September, 1923. The leader of the coup, General Douglas Haig, names himself the new head of government; bitter over his rough treatment among the public, King George formally recognizes Haig as prime minister.

Haig is a dictator, but a relatively benevolent one. He aspires to be an enlightened despot, but in practice is really only the latter. He despises politics and sees himself as saving Britain from the politicians. Political parties are suppressed and any indications of revolution persecuted. The Trades Union Congress, rather than be disbanded, agrees to collaborate with the government, leading to a much more docile (if centralized) economic setting. Haig becomes acquainted with a young and ambitious man named Oswald Mosley, who details his plans for reinvigorating the moribund British industries. Haig names Mosley his Chancellor, and soon major public works programs are initiated. Soon, spending is so great that Britain begins running sizable deficits.

In the coming years, Haig alienates all his bases of support. He upsets the middle class when he “bends” the law to pardon a friend’s mistress, and then detains the critics who cry foul. Captains of industry scoff at Mosley’s plans to introduce an income tax and decry the monopolies he sets up to “streamline” industrial practice. Even the army balks when Haig seeks to amend the sensitive issue of how promotions are decided. Fearing a fascist takeover that will render him totally powerless, King George withdraws his support for Haig. The Great Depression of 1929 is the final straw and Haig decides to retire, all his backing evaporated. He leaves Britain and dies alone and unhappy in a Paris hotel.

prichards_haig.JPG


King George hopes he will thrive where Haig failed but soon finds that he is about as popular as the pox. Most Britons want, at the very least, a return to a democratic republic. In August 1930, leaders from all the republican parties meet in Liverpool to form a provisional government consisting of “men from all parties.” This government includes Stanley Baldwin, the leader of the Tories, and Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the Socialist Labour Party. The head of government is David Lloyd George, the experienced liberal politician. The “Liverpool Pact” becomes the cornerstone of the transition from a monarchy to a true republic. In the spring of 1931, anti-monarchist candidates sweep into power in municipal elections; days later, the provisional government declares the foundation of the Second British Republic under Prime Minister Lloyd George. King George flees into exile in Germany, taking up with cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II. In June, a new Parliament is elected with the mission of crafting a new constitution. The final product abolishes all titles of nobility as well as the House of Lords entirely; grants universal suffrage; and creates the office of President, who serves a six-year term as head of state with limited powers over Parliament. The socialists push for and receive legal means by which Parliament can nationalize public services, industries, banks and land. In addition, basic civil rights, such as freedom of the press and of assembly, are re-enshrined from 1820.

Controversially, the constitution is also anti-clerical, perhaps even hostile to religion. Religious education is ended and the property of the churches tightly regulated. The state and religion are made wholly separate, with all subsidies to churches and religious orders done away with. This angers many devout Catholics, Anglicans and others throughout the country. The Archbishop of Canterbury denounces the constitution as inimical to the rights of the religious. In response, radicals across the country burn churches of every denomination.

More symbolically, the government also changes numerous things: the new British flag is red, white and green with horizontal stripes, and “Land of Hope and Glory” replaces “God Save the King” as the national anthem. To resolve the regional question, all of Britain’s regions have the right to autonomy, although only Scotland and Ireland exercise this right in the immediate years ahead (Wales begins negotiations , but does not make it very far, as Welsh nationalism is muted to non-existent).

Lloyd George resigns as Prime Minister in the fall of 1931 in order to run for (and become) the first President of the British Republic. The Socialists and Liberals are in a shaky coalition where the Socialists provide the majority and the Liberals provide the leadership; William Beveridge succeeds Lloyd George as Prime Minister. He finds himself torn between the radicals in the Lib-Lab coalition who critique him for not going far enough with his reforms, while the Conservative Opposition attacks his government’s attempts at wealth redistribution and the creation of a cradle-to-the-grave welfare state. Gradually, the Lib-Lab coalition collapses and is dead by 1933. In that time, the Conservative Party has, by quietly embracing fascism, forged a unified front of disgruntled business owners, resentful landlords, rightist military officers and reactionary religious leaders.

President Lloyd George calls for elections in November 1933. As expected, the unified right-wing alliance – the Conservative Union – trounces the divided left. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin promises to roll back as many religious, social and economic reforms as possible. Absent from the polls are the truly radical left, the revolutionary Marxists led by the Communist Party of Great Britain. They argue that real change will only come with revolution, not reform, and promise to overthrow the government following the Conservative victory.

As promised, in October 1934 communist trade union officials lead a general strike across the country, while coal miners in northern England stage a proper uprising, killing government employees as well as clergymen. They burn churches, theaters and educational buildings. They even derail the Flying Scotsman, an express passenger train running between London and Edinburgh, near Newcastle. The British Republican Army and Navy crush the rebellion, while much of the British media condemns the revolt with racist language, claiming (with zero evidence) that “Jewish Bolsheviks” had financed the rebels.

The suspension of much of their reforms by Baldwin’s government and the failure of the miners’ revolt only leads those on the left to become more radical. The moderate Ramsay MacDonald is voted out of office as leader of the Socialists and replaced with the more Marxist-minded Stafford Cripps. Cripps supports a left revolution and promotes a popular front with the Socialists and communists. The communists themselves disagree about this, with some agreeing with it, while others take the lead from Moscow that any collaboration with democratic socialists, social democrats or any other “social fascists” betrays true Marxist orthodoxy.

The Conservative government suffers a major blow when it is revealed in 1935 that prominent members of the Cabinet have benefitted from insider information related to the government issuing lucrative contracts to private companies. The actual consequences are small, but the scandal nevertheless deepens the differences between the right and the left. The British electorate is extremely polarized.

In January 1936, the country holds new elections. Thanks largely to Cripps’ efforts, the Socialists lead the “Popular Front,” comprised of the Socialist Labour Party and a breakaway faction of the Liberals, the Social Liberal Party, including former Liberal PM Beveridge and a young MP named John Maynard Keynes. In response, the Tories form a “National Front” along with smaller monarchist, fascist and religious parties. Each front boasts several minor regional parties, with most of Scotland backing the Popular Front, while the National Front is popular with Irish Catholics. The surviving Liberals, led by Sir Herbert Samuel, find themselves the sole occupants of the political center – and very unpopular.

The general election is very close. Over 20 million Britons cast their votes, but the turnout rate is just 71% -- showing that many Britons are simply too jaded to care. In the end, the Popular Front triumphs. As per an earlier arrangement, Beveridge once again becomes Prime Minister and sets about reinstating the reforms the Tories had suspended or reversed. The forces of the right start to plan how they might take back power – though not strictly by peaceful means.

---

To be continued...

I got the idea for the POD from http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/britcivilwar/what_if_charles_i_had_won_the_en.htm
 
Last edited:
I will likely do maps to show how Britain splits during the civil war itself, but since the focus will be on Britain, doing a whole map of the world isn't planned... As indicated above, the British Empire doesn't exist. The Netherlands claims India and South Africa, France has colonized most of northern and western Africa, etc.

The other big non-British departure hinted on is that the U.S. has no democratic tradition to follow so it evolves from a Puritan theocratic state. Imagine a similar trajectory as OTL except that instead of being a democratic republic the United States is a lot like Columbia from Bioshock Infinite. :D
 
I will likely do maps to show how Britain splits during the civil war itself, but since the focus will be on Britain, doing a whole map of the world isn't planned... As indicated above, the British Empire doesn't exist. The Netherlands claims India and South Africa, France has colonized most of northern and western Africa, etc.

The other big non-British departure hinted on is that the U.S. has no democratic tradition to follow so it evolves from a Puritan theocratic state. Imagine a similar trajectory as OTL except that instead of being a democratic republic the United States is a lot like Columbia from Bioshock Infinite. :D

Someone should make a map for this.
 
This does massacre a lot of butterflies - Asquith isn't going to exist, much less become PM, with a POD in the Civil War. But it's a fun read an well-written. I will admit I was a little disappointed when I realised Britain was just a Spain analogue. Though that does raise the question of what's going on in Spain.
 
In 1688, those who remain in England opposed to a Catholic king and an absolute monarchy cling to the hope that the crown will pass to the daughter of the current king, James II, who is a Protestant married to William of Orange, the Dutch statholder.

Okay for a start Parliament and the English elites will NOT sit quietly by under a Catholic King, especially an Absolutist one. You might even see more Royalists defect to the Parliamentarians rather than live under a Catholic King who suppresses Parliament.

Also how does William of Orange III rise to power under these circumstances? Surely a change in the English Civil War will alter the Navigation Acts and alter the dynamic of future Anglo-Dutch Wars. This could result in the loss of English Far-East holdings, a collapse of significant change in the East India Company and change the nature of Britain and Europe itself.

Not to mention the other butterflies. I would recommend taking it year by year, analysing all the consequences of a change across the world and taking it slower.

Secondly, since this is POD of the 1600s shouldn't this go in the Before 1900 forum?
 
Okay for a start Parliament and the English elites will NOT sit quietly by under a Catholic King, especially an Absolutist one. You might even see more Royalists defect to the Parliamentarians rather than live under a Catholic King who suppresses Parliament.

They don't "sit quietly," as I noted. The leaders of the Parliamentarian side are either executed or flee to the Puritan colony in North America. Scotland severs ties with England and has to be re-conquered. Then there's the Williamite Uprising as an analogue to the Jacobite uprisings of OTL.

Also note that neither Charles, James nor their successors seek recognition from the Pope and replace the Anglican Church with Catholic authority. So in the end it's less an existential threat for the anti-Catholics than they might have feared.

There's also the fact that Charles and his Stuart successors roll back the enclosure acts, which were instrumental in empowering the British bourgeoisie to resist and undermine the authority of the monarchy. As Barrington Moore said, "No bourgeoisie, no democracy."

The main purpose of this opening post was to establish a prologue for why democracy hangs by a thread in 1936, as opposed to OTL, where Britain was considered the model Parliament for the world, the pioneer of democratic tradition, etc.

Also how does William of Orange III rise to power under these circumstances? Surely a change in the English Civil War will alter the Navigation Acts and alter the dynamic of future Anglo-Dutch Wars. This could result in the loss of English Far-East holdings, a collapse of significant change in the East India Company and change the nature of Britain and Europe itself.

I do tackle the latter issue by noting that the British Empire doesn't exist, the Dutch control India, etc.

Not to mention the other butterflies. I would recommend taking it year by year, analysing all the consequences of a change across the world and taking it slower.

Secondly, since this is POD of the 1600s shouldn't this go in the Before 1900 forum?

The main focus of this timeline is meant to be the British Civil War of 1936, hence why it's in the "After 1900" forum. If POD matters more than the actual focus of the timeline, by all means a mod can move it, although they should be aware that I intentionally "rushed" from 1642 to 1936 to set the stage for what will be the real meat of the timeline.
 
It is June 1936. A nervous coterie of middle-aged, bourgeois liberals sit on the government benches on the floor of the British House of Commons. Earnest intellectuals, they express their distaste for violence and express their admiration for the democracy in the French tradition. These sentiments, however, place them in opposition to the majority of their fellow citizens, not to mention most of their fellow members of Parliament. This is not to say they are dispassionate; they are as committed to their visions of Britain’s future as any of their peers.

They represent the large left-wing coalition that now governs Britain, led by the Social Liberals and the Socialist Labour Party. They are under new leadership, as Prime Minister William Beveridge has replaced David Lloyd George as President of the Republic. The new Prime Minister is John Maynard Keynes, the Liberal MP for Bethnal Green South West. An economist by training, he remains a zealous liberal even as his enemies on the left portray liberalism as outdated as the old liberal foe of feudalism. When he began his political career, he had burned with a utopian optimism said to be infectious. Now, just months into his premiership, his allies and critics both note that Keynes seems deflated.

26991_1.jpg


His chief critic stands across from him at the dispatch box. He is Neville Chamberlain, the newly minted Leader of the Opposition and head of the Conservative Party. Articulate and bright, he is also timid and conniving. In the eyes of his right-wing allies, the monarchists and fascists, he is inadequate as their representative. Yet, among middle class Britons, he is their champion. Addressing the Prime Minister, he notes that the government has obtained, since the last election, emergency powers of censorship and even the suspension of some constitutional rights. Despite this, the government has been unable to prevent the destruction of 200 churches, 305 political murders and 2,492 assaults of various degrees. The chief Tory also provides specific numbers for general strikes, partial strikes and businesses affected by worker disruption.

“Let there be no mistake,” says Chamberlain, “There are many different forms of government, be it a monarchy, a republic, theocracy, a communist dictatorship or a fascist autocracy. At present, however, in Britain there is no true government at all! We live in a state of anarchy! How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that a country such as ours shall be slouching toward the graveyard!”

n-NEVILLE-CHAMBERLAIN-large.jpg


His questionably exact figures aside, Britain is indeed in a dreadful state, although that is just as much the fault of right-wing forces as those on the left. Political leaders train their followers to be soldiers, drilling them and urging them to fight it out in the streets. Truthfully, as historic holders of the middle ground, the Liberals and the Tories do not belong to this age; their relevance in Parliament depends on others. For example, Cabinet is made up mostly of liberal republicans, yet the government relies on the working class Socialist and Communist parties to pass legislation. Of course, there are many militant Marxists who refuse to participate in “bourgeois parliamentarianism” and loathe the progressive Keynes government almost as much as they hate the Tories.

Among the right-wing forces, the military exists outside of Parliament but is hardly absent from politics. Rumors swirl this summer that prominent generals are plotting to stage a coup to restore order and possibly form a military dictatorship. Indeed, after Chamberlain finishes his statement, a Socialist Labour MP claims that right-wingers who want to provoke the military into action, supplying them cause for the desired effect, are staging the church burnings.

Next to speak is Oswald Mosley, a fascist MP who had served as the finance minister under General Haig during the latter’s military dictatorship. After the second republic had been declared, he had spent several years in Paris to avoid accountability for his profligate spending, then returned to London only when the republic seemed endangered. A careerist and opportunist, he has exploited those on his side of the aisle upset with Chamberlain’s leadership. He speaks and behaves as though the future belongs to him – and perhaps he is right.

Gesticulating from the backbenches, Mosley blames Britain’s present difficulties on the 1931 constitution crafted by the republican left. “The state as it is presently designed is beyond saving!” he proclaims. “It must be replaced with a strong, unhindered state prepared to clamp down on the worst of capitalism as well as organized labor, to punish the corrupt and reward the faithful. Petty differences must be put aside so that the totality of national work and production can be delivered to all people, regardless of class or party. The democratic state is pulled in all directions; the fascist state, of singular purpose, is united!”

mw66777.jpg


The Speaker of the House does his best to silence the many interruptions Mosley faces. He goes on: “As to the unfounded gossip of a military uprising, I think it unlikely that any soldier, regardless of rank, would smash the republic to restore a dictatorship. I have the utmost faith that our troops’ main concern is with defending Britain from the forces of anarchy – if ever that need should arise.”

The Speaker cautions Mosley not to make statements that could be interpreted as a call for a coup. Prime Minister Keynes responds: “The right honorable gentleman seeks to slander Parliament and provoke those who would see Parliament dissolved permanently. It will not work. The people will remain loyal to a Parliament that does its job, and an army that does its job will remain loyal.”

From the government backbenches stands a large, rotund man who oozes charisma. He is Aneurin “Nye” Bevan, a communist Welsh MP, and he is likely the most gifted orator in the House. The son of a coal miner and a trade union activist, the larger than life Bevan employs the sort of working class populism that gets regular folk into a fever. Initially a socialist, his experiences have pushed him farther to the left to become more radical, although he still prefers reformist methods to revolutionary ones. His opponents claim his gift of gab comes from special lessons paid for by the Kremlin, but in truth, Bevan has been an orator since his days with the South Wales Miners’ Federation. He now stands out as the only notable leader in the small if growing British Communist Party. (There are only 17 Communist MPs, all of them “ignorant nobodies,” in the words of a prominent moderate Socialist Labour MP, Clement Atlee. Among the electorate, the official Communist Party can only lay claim to 130,000 members.)

Bevan directs his ire toward Mosley and his fascists. “The right honorable gentleman represents a group within this country best described as gangsters, thugs and bullies. They hide behind empty slogans of militarism and hyper-masculinity, projecting strength while really cowering in the weakness of their insecurity. Behind their puffed chests and little uniforms, they are really just the pawns of Berlin and Rome – the real threats posed to the British state.”

bevan.jpg


The debate continues, applause and derision both making its way into the records of Hansard. The speeches reach the ears of President Beveridge, now the embodiment of the republic, watching the collapse of his country from the Presidential Palace, formerly the residence of the royal family. They are repeated in the secret memos circulated among the generals who were spending their hours conjuring up the best way in which to topple the government and how to rally the rest of the armed forces to their side. They are repeated on the lips of fascists and socialists fighting in the streets, protesting and counter-protesting. And for the millions of regular Britons, the thoughts of war and revolution are never far from their minds. It seems hard to believe; there have been no civil wars for some time in Europe, at least not since the 17th century – when arguably the seeds of the current crisis first took root. Britain, the only major European country to stay out of World War I, now seems poised to leap into a conflict confined to its formerly sceptered isles.
 
Last edited:
BUTTERFLIES :eek:

Where have they gone ?

A massive Pod in 1600s, massive changes in GB will effect the world massively, between 1642 and 1936 GB wasn't a (arguably THE) significant world power was it :p ?

And yet,

We still have a 1936 recognisable ! with the almost the same people, and political party's, How does this happen ?

JSB
 
BUTTERFLIES :eek:

Where have they gone ?

A massive Pod in 1600s, massive changes in GB will effect the world massively, between 1642 and 1936 GB wasn't a (arguably THE) significant world power was it :p ?

And yet,

We still have a 1936 recognisable ! with the almost the same people, and political party's, How does this happen ?

JSB

Very much so.

With a POD of the best part of 300 years it really can't be anything like the world we know of at all. Things like the industrial revolution even happen anything like OTL, that also goes for the encloser acts. No British Empire means no modern world.
Things like the French wars? They will be really for a go at England at time they could at still not win one?

ASB???
 
They don't "sit quietly," as I noted. The leaders of the Parliamentarian side are either executed or flee to the Puritan colony in North America. Scotland severs ties with England and has to be re-conquered. Then there's the Williamite Uprising as an analogue to the Jacobite uprisings of OTL.

Also note that neither Charles, James nor their successors seek recognition from the Pope and replace the Anglican Church with Catholic authority. So in the end it's less an existential threat for the anti-Catholics than they might have feared.

There's also the fact that Charles and his Stuart successors roll back the enclosure acts, which were instrumental in empowering the British bourgeoisie to resist and undermine the authority of the monarchy. As Barrington Moore said, "No bourgeoisie, no democracy."

The main purpose of this opening post was to establish a prologue for why democracy hangs by a thread in 1936, as opposed to OTL, where Britain was considered the model Parliament for the world, the pioneer of democratic tradition, etc.

Very well, I will grant you that.

I do tackle the latter issue by noting that the British Empire doesn't exist, the Dutch control India, etc.

But you know what this changes? AMERICA! No United States of America. The Dutch would probably still have land in America, especially if they have a stronger Navy thanks to the Conquest of India.

India isn't even likely to be entirely Dutch. It's likely to be split in many parts between Dutch and Portuguese like Africa.

America in 1600s had English, Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese settlements, and not all of the Continent was colonies. A change in colonisation changes the natural borders of any successor states like the USA, Canada, Mexico etc. These countries simply won't exist, particularly Canada. There's no way a weaker GB will be able to dominate French Quebec, especially if she isn't getting the income from India and the Far East. Plus, if a USA DID form (which again will look NOTHING like OTL's USA due to the far higher Spanish/French influences), there is no way GB would be able to maintain control over a 'Canada' colony if they go for 'Manifest Destiny'.

WW1 Simply won't happen as Germany will form completely differently (if at all), and the same with Italy. At this point (1660) Russia is still coming into its own, fighting wars with Sweden and Poland. If England becomes more Catholic, or with stronger Catholic influences then Sweden will lose her traditional ally which will affect the formation of Russia. Not to mention Denmark, Prussia.

Also with no USA (as we know it), there is no opening of Japan, or if there is a DIFFERENT nation does it (likely the Dutch), which completely alter's Japan's diplomatic state.

And in 1600 Australia isn't even beginning to be colonised so who knows how this will affect things. Portuguese? Dutch? French?

Why does this matter?

1) You have Oswald Mosley. His wife was the DAUGHTER OF THE VICEROY OF INDIA.

2) Chamberlain's father remarried in Washington DC, something that will drastically alter his life (because an ALT USA will have a completely different dynamic with the UK due to it not being part of the Anglo-Sphere)

Not to mention all the other people whose lives will be completely different if they even exist at all. If you change my Great Grandfather from being Protestant to Catholic he does not marry my Great Grandmother and hence I am not born. And no, my Great Grandmother would not have married a Catholic so a subtle change cannot be hand waved by saying 'it happens anyway'.


The main focus of this timeline is meant to be the British Civil War of 1936, hence why it's in the "After 1900" forum. If POD matters more than the actual focus of the timeline, by all means a mod can move it, although they should be aware that I intentionally "rushed" from 1642 to 1936 to set the stage for what will be the real meat of the timeline.

Look I'm sorry if I come across as heavy handed, however the world changes ALOT in 300 years. You can't simply handwave 300 years of history (or rather you can, but that makes for very poor Alternate History.)

Alternate History is following a logic change in history from its POD to the present day. Butterflies will be stepped on, the world WILL drastically change. If you ignore the consequences of change it isn't an 'Alternative History' it is a fantasy world based loosely on our own. Like a world where Japan has giant robots in WW2 or the USA elects to become part of the UK again in 1973. I'm sure the USA DOES have Royalists but to argue they become a major political force during the Cold War and get the USA to surrender its sovereignty? It just wouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
The people who seem to be arguing that I changed history and have Great Britain continue to be a great power obviously haven't read the first post. Due to the Royalist victory and the return of absolute monarchy, I make it very clear that Great Britain is now a poor country that is only very slowly industrializing. There is no British Empire beyond the British isles. There was no rapid turn to commercial agriculture. No bourgeoisie, no democracy.

As to all this concern with "butterflies," the identity of Oswald Mosley's wife, the lovelife of Neville Chamberlain's father, etc., we will simply to agree to disagree. Some people perhaps prefer their stories to note in exacting detail the family tree of every single character, how every single aspect of life from London to Tokyo was affected by a single change, and so on, but frankly I would find that tedious and dull. I would much prefer an entertaining and well-written account than the needlessly detailed exposition of a niche subject that, while demonstrative of knowledge, is about as interesting as plain white toast. I am reminded of the transpotters who stand at stations feverishly writing down every detail about passing trains, or Star Trek fans who pick out every minor flaw in the uniforms between movies as somehow massive catastrophes.

You may find that insulting, but I also find it insulting to claim that I just made something up on the fly like "Japan with robots" or "USA rejoins Britain in the 1970s." I could have just started in 1936 Britain and just copied & pasted a history of the Spanish Civil War and replaced all mentions of the word "Spain" with "Britain," but I didn't -- I took Barrington Moore's academic work and based on that thesis came up with a historical explanation for why my 1936 Britain is a lot like 1936 Spain. It was all a means to an end, but please don't accuse me of not putting any thought into it, because I did, and at worst I am guilty of leaving it to my audience's imagination of filling in the blanks like who my version of Mosley's wife's father is or just precisely Russian expansionism played out (in a timeline focused on a 1936 British civil war). I simply have neither the time nor the interest in writing a thoroughly comprehensive dissertation about this fictional timeline I have created; I just want to tell an interesting story.
 
The people who seem to be arguing that I changed history and have Great Britain continue to be a great power obviously haven't read the first post. Due to the Royalist victory and the return of absolute monarchy, I make it very clear that Great Britain is now a poor country that is only very slowly industrializing. There is no British Empire beyond the British isles. There was no rapid turn to commercial agriculture. No bourgeoisie, no democracy.

As to all this concern with "butterflies," the identity of Oswald Mosley's wife, the lovelife of Neville Chamberlain's father, etc., we will simply to agree to disagree. Some people perhaps prefer their stories to note in exacting detail the family tree of every single character, how every single aspect of life from London to Tokyo was affected by a single change, and so on, but frankly I would find that tedious and dull. I would much prefer an entertaining and well-written account than the needlessly detailed exposition of a niche subject that, while demonstrative of knowledge, is about as interesting as plain white toast. I am reminded of the transpotters who stand at stations feverishly writing down every detail about passing trains, or Star Trek fans who pick out every minor flaw in the uniforms between movies as somehow massive catastrophes.

You may find that insulting, but I also find it insulting to claim that I just made something up on the fly like "Japan with robots" or "USA rejoins Britain in the 1970s." I could have just started in 1936 Britain and just copied & pasted a history of the Spanish Civil War and replaced all mentions of the word "Spain" with "Britain," but I didn't -- I took Barrington Moore's academic work and based on that thesis came up with a historical explanation for why my 1936 Britain is a lot like 1936 Spain. It was all a means to an end, but please don't accuse me of not putting any thought into it, because I did, and at worst I am guilty of leaving it to my audience's imagination of filling in the blanks like who my version of Mosley's wife's father is or just precisely Russian expansionism played out (in a timeline focused on a 1936 British civil war). I simply have neither the time nor the interest in writing a thoroughly comprehensive dissertation about this fictional timeline I have created; I just want to tell an interesting story.

Well said, I have found this an interesting story. I have always believed that there is no right or wrong answer in Alternate History. You are telling a story based on a different outcome of a historical event, who knows what would have happened. It is your take on yet, and it's an interesting read. Keep it up.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The people who seem to be arguing that I changed history and have Great Britain continue to be a great power obviously haven't read the first post. Due to the Royalist victory and the return of absolute monarchy, I make it very clear that Great Britain is now a poor country that is only very slowly industrializing. There is no British Empire beyond the British isles. There was no rapid turn to commercial agriculture. No bourgeoisie, no democracy.

As to all this concern with "butterflies," the identity of Oswald Mosley's wife, the lovelife of Neville Chamberlain's father, etc., we will simply to agree to disagree. Some people perhaps prefer their stories to note in exacting detail the family tree of every single character, how every single aspect of life from London to Tokyo was affected by a single change, and so on, but frankly I would find that tedious and dull. I would much prefer an entertaining and well-written account than the needlessly detailed exposition of a niche subject that, while demonstrative of knowledge, is about as interesting as plain white toast. I am reminded of the transpotters who stand at stations feverishly writing down every detail about passing trains, or Star Trek fans who pick out every minor flaw in the uniforms between movies as somehow massive catastrophes.

You may find that insulting, but I also find it insulting to claim that I just made something up on the fly like "Japan with robots" or "USA rejoins Britain in the 1970s." I could have just started in 1936 Britain and just copied & pasted a history of the Spanish Civil War and replaced all mentions of the word "Spain" with "Britain," but I didn't -- I took Barrington Moore's academic work and based on that thesis came up with a historical explanation for why my 1936 Britain is a lot like 1936 Spain. It was all a means to an end, but please don't accuse me of not putting any thought into it, because I did, and at worst I am guilty of leaving it to my audience's imagination of filling in the blanks like who my version of Mosley's wife's father is or just precisely Russian expansionism played out (in a timeline focused on a 1936 British civil war). I simply have neither the time nor the interest in writing a thoroughly comprehensive dissertation about this fictional timeline I have created; I just want to tell an interesting story.

Okay. Why is WW1 happening, given that:
WW1 was based on tensions from the Franco-Prussian War
The F-P War was influenced by the American Civil War and the French adventures in Mexico
Mexico was as it was in that war due to the Mexican-American War, and the war was caused by the French not having the influence in the Americas they wanted
The Mexican-American war resulted at least in part from the desire for more Slave States in the US
And you have all this taking place in spite of there being NO UNITED STATES.

Heck, without this, someone else got India! Someone else got about half of Africa! The whole of the Americas is non-Anglophone!
The idea that there'd be a recognizable WW1 on time with such a gargantuan change in the timeline (as in, the number one AND number two economies for the entire 19th century do not exist in their original form, for starters) beggars belief.

Now, that's not to say you can't DO an AH story about it; however, this is the wrong forum for two reasons.
1) The historical rigor expected in the Pre 1900 and Post 1900 forums.
2) The Point of Divergence is Pre 1900.
 
I don't want to keep bashing your well written (if butterfly killing) epic but,

The thing I find most glaring is the references to 'British Communist Party' with a civil war pod would not the 'levellers party' or the 'diggers' be just as likely ?

JSB
 
A bunch of words

I don't go into any detail concerning this timeline's version of World War I, other than the fact Britain was neutral in it. So if you want to project your own explanation of why it started and how it went down, by all means, use your imagination.

But the larger problem is that I have already explicitly stated there is a United States in this timeline -- just that it evolved out of the Puritan colonies rather than a bunch of bourgeois settlers following a democratic tradition.

I find it rather laughable to be lectured about the "rigor" of these forums when they cannot even be bothered to read the thread they are criticizing.

I am putting this timeline on hold, not because of my lack of interest in it, but because I am not really interested in telling an entertaining story if my audience is going to try and poke holes in it, despite their criticisms either being unfounded or irrelevant to the story!
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I don't go into any detail concerning this timeline's version of World War I, other than the fact Britain was neutral in it. So if you want to project your own explanation of why it started and how it went down, by all means, use your imagination.

But the larger problem is that I have already explicitly stated there is a United States in this timeline -- just that it evolved out of the Puritan colonies rather than a bunch of bourgeois settlers following a democratic tradition.

I find it rather laughable to be lectured about the "rigor" of these forums when they cannot even be bothered to read the thread they are criticizing.

I am putting this timeline on hold, not because of my lack of interest in it, but because I am not really interested in telling an entertaining story if my audience is going to try and poke holes in it, despite their criticisms either being unfounded or irrelevant to the story!

There's a forum for that. It's the Writer's Forum.

There's a discussion forum for that. It's Pre 1900.

There's an explanation for why I made that mistake, as well. It's this - you are assuming historical inevitability on a breathtaking scale for everything else. I mean, you have a recognizable US forming out of small Puritan colonies without any major UK support - thus handwaving about a hundred years of history including three major wars for starters. (Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession and American Independence.)
In reality, under such a situation, the outcome would be simple. North America would be French or Spanish or both - and as such, would be called something different and would BE something different. Like, say, the Etas-Unite.
 
Top