AHC: Defeat the United Kingdom

[Sabot Cat]

In our timeline, and most plausible alternate histories I know of, the United Kingdom is a nigh indefeasible ocean of stability. Central Power victory? It will only be because they didn't get involved, and even if they did, they won't be pressured into negative treaty terms. Fascists taking over Europe? The UK will stay strong. Did the Soviet Union just swoop into Western Europe? Well, have no fear, Britain will be a bastion of capitalism for the rest of that timeline's duration. Did the United States and Soviet Union nuke each other over Cuba? The UK will not only survive, but thrive (I'm looking at you, Resurrection Day).

I think it's difficult, but I don't think the United Kingdom is invincible or incapable of making disastrous choices. Henceforth, the parameters of this alternate history challenge are generally that the United Kingdom suffers a massive defeat in the 20th Century to another country or coalition of countries, with these conditions:

1) The United Kingdom loses internal territory or is otherwise balkanized, and dispossessed from pretty much all of its colonial holdings.

2) The British Royal Family abdicates, or are otherwise deprecated from their status as head of state.

3) The Church of England is legally disestablished, although it can exist privately.

4) A new constitution or basic law is adapted that restricts their ability to raise an army or reverse the changes incurred from its loss.

You are allowed up to two nuclear bombings, but if you can figure out a way to do it without any that would be neat. I'm essentially looking for the British Empire to suffer as severe of a loss as the German Empire in World War I or the Japanese Empire in World War II.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

Bayonets can't cut coal?

 

[Sabot Cat]

Bayonets can't cut coal?

That wasn't an invasion from another nation, but a domestic insurrection.

 

[Saphroneth]

The aim here is to basically overcome econometrics - that is, to somehow not allow the Brits to employ their industrial advantages.
Let's see...

This might work:
No anti-semitism in the Nazi party, for whatever reason.
German project on atom bombs goes through with the aid or at least research of a lot of the same people behind the Manhattan project. They focus only on the Gun-type U-235 bomb - the "easy" option - using Czech uranium.
Stalin purges his generals again in 1941, so no Barbarossa (Germany has more of a window to fight Britain.) Germany agrees to stay out of the civil war, but gets continued resource payments as price? Unsure.
Alf Landon (or someone Isolationist) wins the election in 1936 and/or 40. Cash and Carry but not Lend Lease?
German strategic bombers are actually built.
London and Scapa hit by atomic bombs. (This might serve to remove the British Royal Family, one way or another, and also renders the UK not only without a Home Fleet but makes any potential later Home Fleet vulnerable.)

...it's entirely possible some of this is either unlikely, overkill, or both. But when trying to handle a power just then coming down from over a century as economic master of the world, it's best to PoD hard.

 

[SunDeep]

Would a massive defeat in a Civil War in which the rebels are supported by foreign intervention count? Cause if it does, maybe you could have an ATL where GB ends up on the losing side in WW1, Ireland is granted its independence in a similar manner to OTL's Poland, and the British Empire subsequently collapses when the communists rise up and seize power.

 

[Sabot Cat]

Saphroneth, I think Nuclear Germany would be our best bet: perhaps an actually socialist Germany would do the trick?

Would a massive defeat in a Civil War in which the rebels are supported by foreign intervention count?

Mm, it would if not for the ease with which that scenario would devolve into "Bayonets Won't Cut Coal WITH SOVIET AID!" Although a domestic insurrection following a massive defeat against a foreign power, or Ireland acting as an ally for the invaders against United Kingdom, are perfectly serviceable inclusions.

 

[overoceans]

I dunno. Maybe have some nihilisitic, born-to-lose faction of Irish Republicans successfully stage Gunpowder Plot II sometime in the mid-80s, hitting the House Of Commons, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, etc, on the same day, killing hundreds. Not sure of all the details, but basically...

-Thatcher survives. Never the most nuanced of thinkers, her response is to double down on armed confrontation and state repression in Northern Ireland, hoping to smoke out the republicans.

-By this point, the IRA is widely regarded as getting support from Libya. Whether Qaddafil was behind the relevant faction in Gunpowder II is immaterial to public perception, and Thatcher engages in daily invective against Libya, culminating in an order to expel their diplomats from London. This is met with the sniper-shooting of dozens of Londoners from the Libyan embassy, essentially a bolodier version of the Yvonne Fletcher shooting in OTL.

-Some sort of ham-fisted counte-response from British police against the Libyan embassy(to whatever degree possible within the boundaries of diplomatic imunity). Free-ranging yob hooligans stage attacks against arabs and Muslims in London, which are reported in the mideast gutter press as government-supported.

-Over in the USA, Reagan doesn't really give a crap(and Jeanne Kirkpatrick is privately smirking), but finds it useful to link the Irish terrorists in with the Communists and the Sandinistas, and starts giving speeches to that effect. Similar to his infamous "looney tunes" speech in OTL. The perceived alliance between the US and the UK over Ireland/Libya/Islam only inflames the situation.

-Attacks on British embassies, interests and personnel around the world. Pro-western regimes crack down violently on these mobs, and are thus interpreted as acting on behalf of colonial masters in London.

-Desperate to look tough, Thatcher launches an invasion of some inconsequential island country in which British tourists had been killed by angry mobs.

-Argentina figures this would be a great time to go back into the Falklands.

Anyway, things just go downhill from there. Maybe this doesn't lead to the outright defeat of the UK. but a severe loss of her global loss and part of her international territory, through violent means.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Your best bet is for Britain to piss off the United States sometime between 1920 and 1950. I have no idea how to ruin Anglo-American relations to such a degree that this actually becomes possible, though.

How about something like this?

WWI ends in a bloody stalemate (maybe a true neutral US), no Russian Revolution occurs. Britain, which is now much weaker than OTL, somehow ends up becoming a fascist (or at least an even more brutally imperialist) state in the 1920s or 30s. The Anglo-Japanese alliance stays together, no Washington Naval Treaty, and the US and the UK get into a naval arms race. The US begins actively supporting the Republic of China, maybe hoping to counter Japan.

War begins in 1942: US & China vs. UK & Japan. Five years later, Chinese troops are occupying Tokyo and an American flag flies over Westminster. In the peace treaty, the victorious allies impose the conditions mentioned in the OP upon Britain. In the long-run, Britain becomes the Sino-American "unsinkable aircraft carrier" to defend against German (or Russian) dominated Europe. Billions of dollars are invested in the reconstruction of Britain, and it basically becomes TTL's version of modern Japan, but without the emperor.

I'm not sure if the war would spread to Europe or South America or not, so I just left those areas out.

 

[cubefreak123]

I agree that you really need the UK and the US to split for this kind of outcome. Thy don't need to be antagonistic towards each other but the US not caring to help out the UK against some threat from Europe would hurt the UK A LOT.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I think your best bet is a POD occurring between 1890 and 1913. Perhaps the Great Rapprochement never occurs or goes the opposite direction - the US and UK go to war over Venezuela or Cuba. The US never enters WWI. Perhaps American Irish Catholics give substantial support to the Irish during the Irish War for Independence, which for whatever reason is longer and bloodier. I dont know nearly enough of early 20th century UK history but it seems to me these two things - bloodier Irish War and UK/US animosity - could spur an ugly chain of events in the UK.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

I think your best bet is a POD occurring between 1890 and 1913. Perhaps the Great Rapprochement never occurs or goes the opposite direction - the US and UK go to war over Venezuela or Cuba. The US never enters WWI. Perhaps American Irish Catholics give substantial support to the Irish during the Irish War for Independence, which for whatever reason is longer and bloodier. I dont know nearly enough of early 20th century UK history but it seems to me these two things - bloodier Irish War and UK/US animosity - could spur an ugly chain of events in the UK.

I think 1890-1913 is too early. The United States may have been the world's largest economy by that point, but it still lacked the military strength to take on Britain directly (the Royal Navy was still bigger than the American and German Navies combined in 1914).

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I think 1890-1913 is too early. The United States may have been the world's largest economy by that point, but it still lacked the military strength to take on Britain directly (the Royal Navy was still bigger than the American and German Navies combined in 1914).

Regarding direct conflict, I was just thinking out loud. But getting rid of the Great Rapprochement creates an environment where the US does not back up the UK economically or militarily. And that certainly facilitates the OP's request. Once the Rapprochement occurs, it is hard to separate the US and UK so it vastly lessens the likelihood of anything really nasty occurring in the UK.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Your best bet is for Britain to piss off the United States sometime between 1920 and 1950. I have no idea how to ruin Anglo-American relations to such a degree that this actually becomes possible, though.

To better articulate my last response, I think your 1920-1950 issue could come about via strained relations pre-WWI.

 

[Sabot Cat]

I don't think the United Kingdom would abandon the United States for the Japanese Empire, and their common heritage, language, ethnicity, business ties, etc. will be likely factors in maintaining harmony between the two.

However, if the United States is neutral in the Great War and decides to pursue an even more isolationist route in the future, it's unlikely that they would be able to answer any British call for aid in a way that is both efficient and effective.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

I don't think the United Kingdom would abandon the United States for the Japanese Empire, and their common heritage, language, ethnicity, business ties, etc. will be likely factors in maintaining harmony between the two.

I think the UK would definitely continue to pursue an alliance with Japan if it felt that the US was threatening its empire, common heritage be damned. If the US was strongly anti-colonial (maybe it established the Philippines and Puerto Rico protectorates instead of a territories?), I think it's reasonable to assume that Britain would not want to ally with the US.

 

[Saphroneth]

Saphroneth, I think Nuclear Germany would be our best bet: perhaps an actually socialist Germany would do the trick?

The tricky thing with socialist Germany is that it means that German rearmament is seen as a huge problem, and results in an earlier New Entente rearmament to match. If we want the New Entente industrial and military capacity idled as late as possible, that means keeping to "possible communist counterweight, plus he was elected" thinking.

 

[Sabot Cat]

I think the UK would definitely continue to pursue an alliance with Japan if it felt that the US was threatening its empire, common heritage be damned. If the US was strongly anti-colonial (maybe it established the Philippines and Puerto Rico protectorates instead of a territories?), I think it's reasonable to assume that Britain would not want to ally with the US.

You would need a Point of Divergence before 1900 in order to achieve a truly anti-colonial United States. Nonetheless, I see what you mean. Perhaps the British leadership could be weary and bitter towards the United States as a result of their role or lack thereof in the Great War?

The tricky thing with socialist Germany is that it means that German rearmament is seen as a huge problem, and results in an earlier New Entente rearmament to match. If we want the New Entente industrial and military capacity idled as late as possible, that means keeping to "possible communist counterweight, plus he was elected" thinking.

Mm, I suppose you could have Weimar Germany lumber on, thus preventing the brain drain which would be incurred under almost any kind of totalitarian regime. It's a careful balancing act though: how do you get a regime that has both the first working nuclear program, and a leadership ill-tempered enough to turn London into ash?

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

You would need a Point of Divergence before 1900 in order to achieve a truly anti-colonial United States. Nonetheless, I see what you mean. Perhaps the British leadership could be weary and bitter towards the United States as a result of their role or lack thereof in the Great War?

I was thinking that in 1900-1902, during the Filipino Insurrection, the US just says "screw it" and grants the Philippines its (nominal) independence, which would make it technically anti-colonial.

British resentment towards the US in the event of American intervention in the Great War is almost guaranteed, and that could set the stage for mutual hatred that boils over into a massive war between the two 20-30 years later.

 

[Saphroneth]

Mm, I suppose you could have Weimar Germany lumber on, thus preventing the brain drain which would be incurred under almost any kind of totalitarian regime. It's a careful balancing act though: how do you get a regime that has both the first working nuclear program, and a leadership ill-tempered enough to turn London into ash?

I think you'd ideally need the war to have a number of accidental-but-well-publicized atrocities on both sides to get that kind of resentment. Say, the Brits mistakenly launch a huge raid on Hamburg instead of Wilhelmshaven in the first month of the war, and it looks like a strike on civilians instead of one on the navy? Hell, for bonus points, make it the first few hours of the war, and have it be launched early - shades of Pearl.
Several of those on both sides could provoke the kind of enduring and mutual hatred like that seen in WW1, and could mean that the Bomb was employed on London and Scapa without testing (since a Gun type is so certain to work as to not need testing). The sheer scale of the carnage astonishes the Germans, but by that point Britain is already sending out peace feelers because they think they're in a Bomber Will Always Get Through no-win situation.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Short answer: Decades of Darkness, Fate of Time, Dead by Dawn, Look to the West. There are plenty of perfectly good TLs, including very famous ones, where this happens. (There are also others that I haven't named there, and I don't mean to offend anyone if I haven't included their TL; I just named the ones that first sprung to mind.)

Long answer: This is really nowhere near as difficult as you seem to think. The difficulty is that, in the short term, there was no time-period IOTL after the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (in 1800-1801) where the UK was under serious threat of invasion at the time. But in the long term, i.e. pick a PoD and then develop the TL for many decades afterwards, it isn't hard at all. For example, let's take a look at one of the scenarios which you yourself named: the Central Powers win the First World War.

It is true, of course, that a CP victory provides no way for a German invasion of the British Isles immediately. It also doesn't provide a way for Germany to achieve any significant military attack against the British Empire, for the same reason: the enormous disadvantage of the Central Powers' navies combined, relative to the Royal Navy. But give it a few decades, and remember that the UK is in lots and lots of debt to the United States (and it can't expect any of the debt owed to it by, e.g., France to be repaid, since most or all of the UK's wartime allies are probably now ruled either by German puppet governments or by governments that emerged from socialist rebellions in WW1 and the era just after it—neither will be inclined to repay any loans to the UK). Suffocated by lots of debt without any American assistance at repaying it, greatly demoralised at home and its illusion of invincibility in its colonies shattered by its defeat, shut off from Mitteleuropa (the Kaiserreich's plan for a German-dominated Europe) by high economic borders… the British Empire won't fall immediately, but I'd bet it'll start to fall hard within a few decades. Without the Second World War and the example of the Nazis to discredit racism, bankrupt the European colonial empires and essentially force them to go along with decolonisation, the United Kingdom is likely to fight several bloody and increasingly brutal colonial wars to retain their empire, which (a) will probably increase anti-government radical sentiment in Great Britain, such as communism or fascism, and (b) might well lead to a war against Mitteleuropa, the USA or both—and by several decades after WW1, it's not too unreasonable to expect that each of them will have, by then, built up a navy capable of defeating the Royal Navy. If the UK gets really, really nasty and racist and makes some kind of vicious last stand, it's reasonably possible that it might get balkanised (perhaps due to Welsh and/or Scottish rebellions if the UK starts trying to enforce English culture everywhere out of some kind of bitter reactionary sentiment against national liberation movements in the British Empire, or perhaps due to a deliberate effort by its victorious enemies to break apart the dangerous aggressive British state, or whatever).

That scenario isn't some carefully contrived chain of events that has to proceed in exactly the right way to work; it's just a generic CP victory scenario (presumably with the generic USA-doesn't-enter-war divergence) and the logical consequences thereof, coupled with a few bits of speculation at the end since by then the scenario has moved so far from OTL that to predict exactly what will happen is tricky. So yes, I think this AHC is a relatively easy one—it's just that we don't see end-of-the-UK ATLs very often, presumably for the same reason we don't see end-of-the-USA ATLs very often (partially becaue of their inherent strategic advantages, i.e. the UK is centred on an island and can focus all its efforts on building a navy if it wants to be safe from invasion and the vastness of the Atlantic makes invading the USA a real logistical chore, but mostly because lots of the people on this website are from the Anglophone world, and tend to be Anglophilic and Americophilic)—but forgive me my cynicism.