Britain collapses, what happens to her empire?

Given the alarming rate at which working class British "Tommies" were being slaughtered
You do know that, because of "leading from in front", casualties amongst the middle-class/upper-class officers (at levels up to at least Captain, probably Major) were proportionately higher than those amongst the lower ranks... Yes?
 
Last edited:
Proportionately? Probably, but in total or in percentage terms of the overall population it isn't even going to come close.

It's all about perceptions. The perception was that thousands of men were being sent to their slaughter to no apparent purpose (a theory not completely without foundation). The fact that a lot of low ranking officers went with them isn't likely to assuage a potential angry mob.
 
Proportionately? Probably, but in total or in percentage terms of the overall population it isn't even going to come close.

It's all about perceptions. The perception was that thousands of men were being sent to their slaughter to no apparent purpose (a theory not completely without foundation). The fact that a lot of low ranking officers went with them isn't likely to assuage a potential angry mob.

The belief that the slaughter was senseless didn't become widespread until the late 1920's.

The British army was the only army among the European powers in WW1 that didn't have large mutinies or collapse. Even in 1918 when there was a a bit of a panic the army held together and bounced back with the 100 days offensive.
 
I would also agree that the reason for collapse or revolution would be pretty key to what the Empire does.


The *loyal (not SA) Dominions could well intervene or wish to do so, in case of revolution in the UK. NZ and Australia (I assume Canada too) had spent some time and effort since the South African War, in coordination with London, in building up trained reserve milita in case of war. A worried Dominion government, if the opportunity presented itself, may wish to deploy these troops to the UK (if that was possible) in support of their side/view point.

In NZ's case, the PM was Massey (Reform) who was a Irish born Presbyterian farmer, who, as WW1 showed, had a keen interest in the UK & Ireland. While he was keen to provide land to tenant farmers (his background in Ireland) he was also the face of oppression during the crushing of the left Wing / socialist Trade Unions before the war.

If there is a left wing revolt, I would think Massey would do all that he could, which may be nothing at all (given distance, potentially hostile revolutionary Navy) to intervene.

If there is some sort of Irish revolt, whether or not Catholic or Presbyterian, then he and the Liberal Leader (R Catholic Irish) may act differently. The Irish political question was a live issue in NZ at the time, although not to the degree of the UK. I note that Ward also spent a lot of time in London
 
Sat down and thought a bit about this...

...By the middle of the Great War, Germany's colonies were in Allied hands. That means Africa could conceivably be carved up by the French and Italians, but the Belgians, Portuguese and Germans are too weak. Even Lettow-Vorbeck can't conquer a continent, much as I respect his ability.

The British Empire only lost its way in the 1920s; you can consider the Colonies would be loyal to the Crown, whoever is the monarch, so I think we would see a British Empire Loyalist government in Canada and a divided Royal Navy. The Army in the Colonies and Dominions was becoming locally-oriented, so the Dominion governments would become national governments with close ties to one another. I think we'd arrive at a Commonwealth of Free British Territories and a left wing Britain which had become known as the Regicide State.

Why in Heaven (not to be too rude) should the Colonies automatically adopt American republicanism? The mindset of the ruling classes would not be for it, nor would the Governors and Governors-General. Royal Navy units in the Empire would be far distant from the formation of Soviets in England. I think we'd see a naval standoff - and the Loyal Navy would easily be able to blockade Britain. Kaiser Bill would see a golden opportunity to make a bid for England's crown so he might co-ordinate U-boat assistance in return for Britain withdrawing from Belgium and France.

Remember - being 'British' is a state of mind, independent (thank goodness) of the idiots in Westminster or the monarch on (or off) the throne. Think of Kipling or Baden-Powell - both knew Colonial life and both were staunch supporters of the British Empire.

And I'm sure that the independently-minded and locally nationalistic Canadians, Kiwis and Australians would manage very nicely amongst themselves, without importing Soviet ideas. The Eureka Stockade would be on the beaches of Australia, if unwelcome visitors came to call.
 
The belief that the slaughter was senseless didn't become widespread until the late 1920's.

The British army was the only army among the European powers in WW1 that didn't have large mutinies or collapse. Even in 1918 when there was a a bit of a panic the army held together and bounced back with the 100 days offensive.
Yes, but for the point of the thread it isn't totally inconceivable that there wouldn't be some form of up rising back in the UK, either including or totally independent (to begin with) of the army.
 
Top