British communist revolution - effects on British empire?

Assuming a communist revolution overthrows the monarchy in the late 20's/ early 30's, what happens to the colonial empire?

Also, assuming that much of the military supports the popular revolution, what happens to various bases and colonies?

Do they stay loyal to the monarchy if it runs away to British North America? Do they become independent entities? do they form regional confederations? Which ones are vulnerable to being taken over by foreign interventionists (like the French)? Or do they stick with the government in London no matter what?

I haven't been able to find much on the forum on the subject and was curious what could plausibly happen if such a revolution occurred.

For now, my scenario is three separate competing states claiming to be the successor of the UK, those being Britain (People's Commonwealth), North America (Britannia), and India (British Empire). South Africa and Nigeria go independent as confederations. Pacific and Atlantic island bases go to London government, and maybe some minor colonies get seized by the French.
 
Assuming a communist revolution overthrows the monarchy in the late 20's/ early 30's, what happens to the colonial empire?

Also, assuming that much of the military supports the popular revolution, what happens to various bases and colonies?

Do they stay loyal to the monarchy if it runs away to British North America? Do they become independent entities? do they form regional confederations? Which ones are vulnerable to being taken over by foreign interventionists (like the French)? Or do they stick with the government in London no matter what?

I haven't been able to find much on the forum on the subject and was curious what could plausibly happen if such a revolution occurred.

For now, my scenario is three separate competing states claiming to be the successor of the UK, those being Britain (People's Commonwealth), North America (Britannia), and India (British Empire). South Africa and Nigeria go independent as confederations. Pacific and Atlantic island bases go to London government, and maybe some minor colonies get seized by the French.

I think you'll enjoy this TL.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=267461
 
Assuming a communist revolution overthrows the monarchy in the late 20's/ early 30's, what happens to the colonial empire?

Also, assuming that much of the military supports the popular revolution, what happens to various bases and colonies?

Do they stay loyal to the monarchy if it runs away to British North America? Do they become independent entities? do they form regional confederations? Which ones are vulnerable to being taken over by foreign interventionists (like the French)? Or do they stick with the government in London no matter what?

I haven't been able to find much on the forum on the subject and was curious what could plausibly happen if such a revolution occurred.

For now, my scenario is three separate competing states claiming to be the successor of the UK, those being Britain (People's Commonwealth), North America (Britannia), and India (British Empire). South Africa and Nigeria go independent as confederations. Pacific and Atlantic island bases go to London government, and maybe some minor colonies get seized by the French.

It would all depend on who's in charge of what, and where their sympathies lie. British North America is actually an independent state post Westminster, while before it its still almost completely independent. The same is true of the other white Dominions, so I'd think they would all simply become fully independent and sympathetic to the monarchy, wherever they end up.

India is definitely not going to remain under the sway of London, I doubt if the new communist government would be able to hold anything outside of the British Isles. Most of the colonial administrations would be led by people who aren't communists, and would therefore try to go their own way or seek shelter from other Empires (France springs to mind for most cases). However, without support from London and the Empire's might, a lot of them are going to become countries in their own right, India most especially. But also Malaya, the mandates, Egypt, Cyprus (probably going to go for Enosis there) and possibly some of the other colonies in Africa.

The overseas territories are where it gets interesting. Spain might feel like going for Gibraltar, depends on how well London can flex her muscle in the aftermath of revolution, and who's in charge locally. The West Indies are going to end up as US territories or protectorates, and so on and so forth.
 
It would all depend on who's in charge of what, and where their sympathies lie. British North America is actually an independent state post Westminster, while before it its still almost completely independent. The same is true of the other white Dominions, so I'd think they would all simply become fully independent and sympathetic to the monarchy, wherever they end up.

India is definitely not going to remain under the sway of London, I doubt if the new communist government would be able to hold anything outside of the British Isles. Most of the colonial administrations would be led by people who aren't communists, and would therefore try to go their own way or seek shelter from other Empires (France springs to mind for most cases). However, without support from London and the Empire's might, a lot of them are going to become countries in their own right, India most especially. But also Malaya, the mandates, Egypt, Cyprus (probably going to go for Enosis there) and possibly some of the other colonies in Africa.

The overseas territories are where it gets interesting. Spain might feel like going for Gibraltar, depends on how well London can flex her muscle in the aftermath of revolution, and who's in charge locally. The West Indies are going to end up as US territories or protectorates, and so on and so forth.

1) A communist britain in the late 20s might butterfly away third reich as germany would stop making reparation payments to britain.
2) Indian Raj might refuse to recognize the new government and recognize only the crown and declare themselves a dominion.
 
Uh, I hate to spoil the fun, but maybe to know what the colonial policy of a UK that had a Communist revolution would be, we have to have some idea of what on earth made such a revolution possible? Do I really have to go into detail about how weak the CPGB was in the 1920's in OTL?
 
Uh, I hate to spoil the fun, but maybe to know what the colonial policy of a UK that had a Communist revolution would be, we have to have some idea of what on earth made such a revolution possible? Do I really have to go into detail about how weak the CPGB was in the 1920's in OTL?

Well, my ITL is fairly different, considering that Europe is dominated by Napoleonic France, and there is no U.S. (British North America)

After the economic and military disaster that was the European Civil War (or War of the Fifth Coalition for English readers), not only is the political scene different but then also radicalized further, so really anything is possible.
 
But the OTL was very different. I should warn you that it's going to take alot of thinking to get there, and might not be possible atall.

Napoleon was after the Revolution, meaning you can't keep the US.

This' have to go in pre-1900, too, because you can't just assume such a big change.

Or there's always Space Bat.

I must, Napoleonic Europe sticking around is an interesting and different idea. And you're right, that would probably do it.
 
Or could, you know, in the words of immortal Bjork, like declare independence?

In the framework of that time period.
It would actually get them more support from other nations(US,Japan) to declare themselves loyal to the deposed monarch while being defacto independent.

I would easily imagine the british forces in india would remain loyal to the crown but very willing to renegotiate the sharing of power. In the late 20s Dominion status(like Canada and Australia) was what india wanted(thats what Gandhi called for in 1928). It was only after years of being denied it that they radicalized.

The monarch of this period is George V, he likely would have died in england(he was quite ill at the time anyway) while the heirs would be moved out of country. Monarchies in exile were quite common during that period. That being said clarifying dominion status for india would change india from a colony into a loyal self-governing dominion of the crown.
 
That would make Northern Ireland Unionist want to leave the UK.

Why? I get why Ireland would jump at the opportunity of going independent, but isn't the reason why the North stayed loyal was because they identified better with the British instead of Iere? I have the north stay loyal to London, but if you have some good ideas as to why they should not, please share :)

It would all depend on who's in charge of what, and where their sympathies lie. British North America is actually an independent state post Westminster, while before it its still almost completely independent. The same is true of the other white Dominions, so I'd think they would all simply become fully independent and sympathetic to the monarchy, wherever they end up.

see below

But the OTL was very different. I should warn you that it's going to take alot of thinking to get there, and might not be possible atall.

Napoleon was after the Revolution, meaning you can't keep the US.

Yup. America is an autonomus Kingdom within the UK, does not have alyeska and the Border with Mexico is the old pre-Mexican-American war one since British settlers are much better at respecting boundaries than otl americans.

This' have to go in pre-1900, too, because you can't just assume such a big change.

Or there's always Space Bat.

The TL itself if pre-1900, but its convergent enough that most of the important points are post-1900 for the question of communist revolution.

I must, Napoleonic Europe sticking around is an interesting and different idea. And you're right, that would probably do it.
1806 Naploeon had a chance at lasting peace, with fairly good gains as well, but he threw it away for more gains and glory until 1812.

In the framework of that time period.
It would actually get them more support from other nations(US,Japan) to declare themselves loyal to the deposed monarch while being defacto independent.

I would easily imagine the british forces in india would remain loyal to the crown but very willing to renegotiate the sharing of power. In the late 20s Dominion status(like Canada and Australia) was what india wanted(thats what Gandhi called for in 1928). It was only after years of being denied it that they radicalized.

The monarch of this period is George V, he likely would have died in england(he was quite ill at the time anyway) while the heirs would be moved out of country. Monarchies in exile were quite common during that period. That being said clarifying dominion status for india would change india from a colony into a loyal self-governing dominion of the crown.

India is definitely not going to remain under the sway of London, I doubt if the new communist government would be able to hold anything outside of the British Isles. Most of the colonial administrations would be led by people who aren't communists, and would therefore try to go their own way or seek shelter from other Empires (France springs to mind for most cases). However, without support from London and the Empire's might, a lot of them are going to become countries in their own right, India most especially. But also Malaya, the mandates, Egypt, Cyprus (probably going to go for Enosis there) and possibly some of the other colonies in Africa.

Very interesting. I already thought of having British India work with the Indians to create an Indian state that was at least in name loyal to the English crown, while also using the British colonial structure to take care of regional British holdings, in effect creating a (British) Indian Empire. This would mean that many colonial states instead of going independent just get puppetized by India in the name of the British crown. This would include Malaya, Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and East African colonies.

South Africa would go off and be sympathetic to Napoleonic Europe as the Afrikaners would build a good relationship with the Dutch.

The only remaining question is Nigeria, Ghana and other west African coast.

The overseas territories are where it gets interesting. Spain might feel like going for Gibraltar, depends on how well London can flex her muscle in the aftermath of revolution, and who's in charge locally. The West Indies are going to end up as US territories or protectorates, and so on and so forth.

West indies goes to North America. I had the Pacific Islands, Falklands, and Gibralter stay with London due to their control over shipping and the military. Also Spain can't seize Gibraltar, much as they'd like to because they have no connecting border, and invading Grenada (independent result of the Peninsular Campaign) to get there would open a whole can of worms that would rather avoid.
 
I think you need to give us a clearer picture of the international situation in your TL. Could you give us a run through of what's changed from OTL? Information like BNA, Grenada independent of Spain, Napoleonic Europe and whatnot is stuff you should mention in the OP.

I think its also paramount that you explain what the exact nature and cause of the revolution in Britain was, and the outcome and settlement of the @Great War
 
I think you need to give us a clearer picture of the international situation in your TL. Could you give us a run through of what's changed from OTL? Information like BNA, Grenada independent of Spain, Napoleonic Europe and whatnot is stuff you should mention in the OP.

I think its also paramount that you explain what the exact nature and cause of the revolution in Britain was, and the outcome and settlement of the @Great War

Indeed, some maps might help.

WW1 was fought between French and British alliances. While the French won on the continent (mostly), overseas the war was largely uneventful, with the powers mostly leaving each other's colonies alone. Only after the conclusion of the war in Europe do changes in Africa become important. The war is mostly a stalemate. The British won in the middle east, and avoided losing in Spain, but couldn't hope to win after Russia was forced to peace out due to civil unrest. The Austrians collapsed despite close "victory", their state not capable of handling the nationalist pressures. The war mainly ended due to mass mutinies and domestic pressures for peace. Generally seen as a pointless stalemate, though each side trumpets up their victories, and the losers their betrayals.

For the British Revolution, economic problems and unpopularity with colonial imperial policy leads to class conflict. When the military is called in, the majority of servicemen either mutiny (there had already been plenty of mutinies during the war) or join the mobs due to malcontent over the handling of the war and refusal to be used against fellow commoners. Ambitious naval officers blame aristocratic army leaders for the defeat and stage a partial takeover coinciding with popular uprisings, resulting in a revolutionary government with the support of important military infrastructure, especially the navy and overseas bases. France, seeking to weaken Britain, supports the British officer coup and keeps loyalists from seizing control of British overseas territories in places like New Caledonia, Saint Elba, Falklands, etc so they stay with the London government.

Spain is divided between French-aligned "collaborationists" and British occupied territories left over from the stalemate in the Peninsular Campaign.

The American Rebellion was unimportant since parliament gave representation to the American colonies earlier, eventually making North America a Kingdom within the UK. Britannia (why not) claims to be the legitimate government and houses the royal family in exile. I image the Americans as being isolationist anti-colonial, though wanting to take back the homeland. The rest of the empire either goes independent or is governed from India, which is the imperialist British remnant that makes an alliance with the Indian National Congress to be defacto independent yet retain the British colonies as their own.

Latin America is Neutral. China and Russia revanchist against west, Japan is complicated, but basically neutral and not very important to matters in Europe.

I can explain a lot more if need be, but going further back would go into pre-1900.

Before WW1
7VylHNK.png


After WW1
ZRExPlS.png


After Revolution
bX7ySlM.png
 
Top