Fascist Britain re-imposes will...

Would it have ever been possible for Britain under some kind of extremist regime to have launched simultaneous military campaigns against its dominions and other former colonies (excluding the USA) to re-impose direct control over them? The idea behind it being to reforge the empire, but with a more standard, centralized power structure rather than the traditionally decentralized british model of imperialism. Would it have been possible? Could Britain, and whatever manpower and resources it could get from the colonies it did still directly control, defeat, occupy, and "annex" Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc...? I'm guessing a fascist regime perhaps with some monarchist trappings would be the best candidate for this kind of job, but only if it had strong ties with the British military. I know there are tons of logical arguments against why a British government would ever want to do this (the costs of empire, the logistics, etc, etc), but lets just assume the group in power has delusional visions of "re-uniting" the british empire under London's supreme authority and has the political will and power to act on those visions. If this happened, would any other countries be likely to intervene? any time periods when it would be most succesful? I'm assuming the best bet would be between the world wars.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I don"t think they would invade Australia and Canada or the countries that kept relatively close toes with the British because every time Britain went to war. Actual Uk warriors made up a relatively small amount of troops. They effectively relied on the colonies for a good amount of manpower.
 
What year would the invasions take place. Any time after ww1, it would be virtually impossible for Britain to invade, and assert direct control over it's dominions, because it wouldn't have the manpower to do so.

Edit: If Britain does invade, you would also have to look at how the League of Nations or United Nations would respond to such an action. Would there be ouright war between the British empire and league of nations?
 
Last edited:
would manpower and resources from the african colonies, india, the caribbean, hong kong, malaysia, and elsewhere have been enough to assist the actual british troops in overpowering the dominions? The Indians would probably be very un-enthusiastic about assisting the British in reforging the whole empire anew...

Lets say a Fascist regime comes to power either democraticaly or through a coup sometime in the 20's, maybe as a result of the great depression or some equivalent event. The League of Nations proves even more impotent than IOTL after Britain leaves the organization. In fact, it falls apart in all but name by the mid 30s. Maybe sometime around 1936, give or take a year or two, Britain, having fully mobilized its military and economic might towards this single goal, launches simultaneous invasions of Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere in its increasingly estranged former imperial realms. By 1938/39 the British Empire is indeed once again a genuine empire, even if the vast majority of its inhabitants fiercely resent their rulers in London. America begins to quickly transition out of its isolationism with its original arch nemisis now once again a threat.


maybe?:D
 
They wouldn't do it.

All of the dominions are formidable forces that wouldn't simply stand for being invaded by the British. Unless the British really like the idea of guerrilla war on a massive scale with lands separated from them from an entire sea that in some cases, notably Australia, have literally an entire continent to fight in that they know like the back of their hands?

I think some ol' MacCaulay wisdom comes to mind in this situation in the sense of the United States had trouble with a country about the size of Montana that was across the Pacific Ocean and whose people were clearly distinct from any Americans.

The British in particular will be going into their dominions, presumably with some silly idea of invading places that are already loyal parts of the British Empire (albeit as dominions and not direct possessions ruled from London), into what for all intents and purposes will likely be an extremely hostile population. There is all of zero chance that people are just going to stand by and let the jackboots march on Canberra/Pretoria/Ottawa/Wellington/etc. This is an all-out invasion for no justifiable reason. People in the dominions will see this as a war of national survival. So at this point, the British will face, from the very first landing, an entirely hostile population that is about as likely to welcome the British as liberators as it is to collectively drown itself.

These are (relatively) industrialized countries with at least some manufacturing capability. There will be locals (even if you somehow assume that 100% of the British garrisons in any given place will side with the UK rather than just tell London to go jump in a lake) who have served in the British military, there will be people engaged in perfectly normal civilian professions like construction and chemistry who have both access to explosives and the knowledge to make them, and you better believe they'll be quick in showing others exactly how to do it too. These people will be the worst living nightmare of any British soldier anywhere. They will know how they fight, they will know how they work, they will look exactly like them and speak the exact same language. And on top of that, as Richard Mill has said, the British don't even have the manpower to take all the places they want.

At this point the war will go from a horribly-conceived misadventure to quite possibly the collapse of the entire British Empire from a horribly-expensive and costly war that is likely to have almost no public support.
 
I don't see a US vs. Fascist Britain, but I could see two US vs. Britain scenarios.
-1940's-50's. Churchill's speech wasn't that well accepted among all Americans. The Republican (and right-wing) Chicago Tribune even said the British Empire "represent(ed) slavery", and even called them an "Evil Empire". And that's not counting various leftist Democrats in the Henry Wallace mode. If those attitudes gained traction among Republicans and Democrats, the US could ratchet up the tensions...and maybe intervene in Suez or something similar.
-1982-3. The UK liberated the Falklands from Argentina. Certain elements of the US Government (such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick) sided with the Argentines. The next year, the US invaded Grenada, a move opposed by the UK. With certain changes in politics, someone could wind up pushing for a war.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
It could be interesting to see a post CP WWW1 victory involving a fascist Britain. Maybe the empire starts falling apart, indian independence accelerated and what not. The British start blaming their non white colonies. Fascism ensues. I'm not sure of the loyalty some of the colonies like Australia and canada had to Britain but maybe they get involved. And their is youre scenario. There is no way Britain itself could invade it's colonies by itself.
 
So all the colonies leave Fascist Britain and then she tries to invade and annex them all back... The answer is no. It would be a logistical and military nightmare.
 
It could be interesting to see a post CP WWW1 victory involving a fascist Britain. Maybe the empire starts falling apart, indian independence accelerated and what not. The British start blaming their non white colonies. Fascism ensues. I'm not sure of the loyalty some of the colonies like Australia and canada had to Britain but maybe they get involved. And their is youre scenario. There is no way Britain itself could invade it's colonies by itself.

Britain even if it lost WWI is unlikely to see the loss of huge parts of its empire, and probably not fascism. We have to remember that fascism as we would have known it appeals to the most defeated and downtrodden states that feel that conventional methods have exhausted them. I don't say that losing the biggest war of modern Britain's history will have no effect on Britain, but Britain is a terrible candidate for it. They have a long history of political stability, moderation in policy, and generally none of the prerequisite underlying social tensions in substantial enough of an amount to warrant a serious threat of fascist takeover. Can OTL Germany or Italy have said the same about their own systems?

By all means, France is a great and uncultivated breeding ground for fascism.

The Germans would be lucky to ask for and receive Southwest Africa and Kamerun back from the Entente, because if the British doubt the French will keep Kamerun they will certainly throw the Union Jack over it before the Kaiser can try for the same.

So all the colonies leave Fascist Britain and then she tries to invade and annex them all back... The answer is no. It would be a logistical and military nightmare.

Simple and concise, just the way I like it.
 
Top