Communist Britain in CP victory

I could not see communist rule being accepted in Ireland, but Ireland was about to have a war of independence anyway.
 
I could not see communist rule being accepted in Ireland, but Ireland was about to have a war of independence anyway.


With George V maybe fleeing to Belfast and trying to maintain a loyal government there? Could get interesting, though I don't know how congenial he'd have found some of his loyal supporters there.
 
One idea for a revolution would be for the CP victory to be blamed on "subversive" elements and start interning Communists, follow that up with radical socialists and trade unionists, and then follow it with people who even criticise the internments and you get the core but then you need an incident to cause disruption. A General Strike could be done, some radical printers for the Daily Mail could stop the anti-strike headline as they did IOTL and then an even more heavy-handed response led by Neville Chamberlain or Churchill who both weren't fans of the labour movement (although the former sympathised with the miners conditions) and then you have a start to the revolution, have the interned gain freedom and then things get heated up.

A heavy hand might be particularly dangerous if the seamen supported the revolution.

A merchant seamen's strike, cutting off imports, means utter disaster, and if the sailors in the RN mutiny as well - -
 
A heavy hand might be particularly dangerous if the seamen supported the revolution.

A merchant seamen's strike, cutting off imports, means utter disaster, and if the sailors in the RN mutiny as well - -

The National Sailors' and Firemen's Union was actually one of the strongest opponents to the General Strike and managed to keep the Tower Hill branch from joining the strike in what was the death-knell for the movement, the court decision to give an injunction in the union's favour is what gave the TUC a good excuse to back down.

Then again, the goal is to allow for a Communist revolution to occur. You need someone like Horatio Bottomley leading the country, actually quite possible in a CP victory world, to get the left radicalised and even get a radicalised right which is given a mention in EdT's "Fight and Be Right" although the POD is before WWI and it's more Syndicalist then Communist.
 
It would be interesting to see what happened to the Dominions in this situation. If there was a negotiated peace and a repatriation of troops, perhaps the Dominion governments would be stable enough to stave off copy cat revolutions. However, if the CP win in a more spectacular way, with wholesale destruction of Dominion units, then perhaps the pressure on the Dominion governments would become untenable.

I don't really know enough about domestic NZ politics in WW1 to be sure here, but given that we deployed one infantry division which OTL suffered massive causalities over the war, if that division was wiped out in a grand German 1917/8 offensive, that would be about 1-1.5% of the pre war population gone in a single campaign.

That could have a massive destabilising effect.

If the Dominions do not follow suit, or if enough do not (say Canada or Australia), then there will be strong support for the counter revolutionary forces. At the time, most NZers anyway still have close family, say parents/grandparents etc in the UK, so they will intensely interested, as OTL expatriate communities have been in similar situations. The scale will be much different though. We are not talking about expat Tamils scattered about the world, we are talking about large, developed British countries.
 

Deleted member 9338

While I will not speak for the Dominions, I do see the British Indian Army falling back on the pre-war planning. That is they will maintain the Persian Gulf and East Africa as part of their sphere.

I can also see the King and family getting on a loyal cruiser (battleships have larger crews and you can not trust the sailors) and heads to India.

Now India has larger problems with the frontier and the new Soviet Union. If the Command is smart they will leave Afghanistan to the Soviets.
 
The National Sailors' and Firemen's Union was actually one of the strongest opponents to the General Strike and managed to keep the Tower Hill branch from joining the strike in what was the death-knell for the movement, the court decision to give an injunction in the union's favour is what gave the TUC a good excuse to back down.

You mean in 1926?

1918 could be a different kettle of fish. Thousands of seaman have died in the u-boat war, and they've just been told that it was all for nothing. In such a situation I coiuld imagine them getting very Bolshie indeed.
 
You mean in 1926?

1918 could be a different kettle of fish. Thousands of seaman have died in the u-boat war, and they've just been told that it was all for nothing. In such a situation I coiuld imagine them getting very Bolshie indeed.

I don't think you could get a revolution in 1918 since most of the prospective leaders are in prison or are being watched, having it the 20s works better because they are out and there is more chance of extremism while people sort of accepted that things would get worse before they got better after the War IOTL and that was when it was victory and "home for heroes" was promised.
 
I don't think you could get a revolution in 1918 since most of the prospective leaders are in prison or are being watched, having it the 20s works better because they are out and there is more chance of extremism while people sort of accepted that things would get worse before they got better after the War IOTL and that was when it was victory and "home for heroes" was promised.


There were plenty of potential leaders not in jail - imprisoning "leaders" has very little effect - removing one only clears the way for another. Difference is that in 1918 the country is hysterical. We've been psyched up into believing that defeat will be the end of the world - and now it's happened. People will go slightly (and some not so slightly) crazy.

As for the postwar period, the thirties were far worse than the twenties but we never even looked like having a revolution. My guess is it's 1918 or never.
 
There were plenty of potential leaders not in jail - imprisoning "leaders" has very little effect - removing one only clears the way for another. Difference is that in 1918 the country is hysterical. We've been psyched up into believing that defeat will be the end of the world - and now it's happened. People will go slightly (and some not so slightly) crazy.

As for the postwar period, the thirties were far worse than the twenties but we never even looked like having a revolution. My guess is it's 1918 or never.

Really? There were many more helpful dates for that sort of thing, 1918 is when the government will be the most prepared for a revolution if defeat is the case. In my opinion, 1920-1933 is the best time for a revolution as you could get a "back-stab" mentality followed by excessive anti-socialist laws before the mark is overstepped and the revolution happens.
 
Really? There were many more helpful dates for that sort of thing, 1918 is when the government will be the most prepared for a revolution if defeat is the case. In my opinion, 1920-1933 is the best time for a revolution as you could get a "back-stab" mentality followed by excessive anti-socialist laws before the mark is overstepped and the revolution happens.


That's not the way it worked anywhere else. There was a whole flurry of revolutions at the end of WW1, but that soon blew over. Even the defeated powers ended up with right wing goverments. I can't think of anywhere in Europe, whether former Ally or former CP, which came even close to a Communist revolution after 1920.

And if the army is demoralised and no longer obeying orders, it matters very little how prepared the governemnt is. Once the men with the rifles stop obeying, there's not a lot they can do.
 
Top