PC: British civil war during the Interwar period?

As said above; is there any plausible civil war that could knock out or cripple Britain leading up to WWII? A socialist revolution in 1927, maybe?
 
The General Strike getting nasty. Maybe a Mosleyite coup during the Abdication Crisis or Edward VIII refusing to abdicate. Not really that plausible.
Are you familiar with 1938 - A Very British Civil War?
 
Is there way escalate Irish War? Perhaps Scots would try revolt too.

AFAIK the Scots were defanged from the Highland Clearances, too few to really revolt.

Are you familiar with 1938 - A Very British Civil War?

I'm unfamiliar, what is it?

The General Strike getting nasty.

I've been thinking on a General Strike getting nasty, yeah. It's at least somewhat more plausible over a Mosley coup d'etat. Though an abdication crisis gives me an idea...
 
AFAIK the Scots were defanged from the Highland Clearances, too few to really revolt.
Historically there was some overspill from the war in Ireland, but not much.

If you're interested in having Scotland as a major front in a BCW then perhaps a defeat in the Great War and worse economic depression, or earlier when Gallacher and Kirkwood were jailed, or the 1915 Rent Strike gets more violent (historically tens of thousands were involved); if the government doesn't back down there is the possibility of serious troubles, factory strikes and civil insurrection.
Then there's the possibility of the early post-WW1 situation getting nastier; maybe the Battle of George Square goes worse with the unionists defending themselves with stolen arms against police attacks. Historically the UKGov did fear a revolution ("Red Clydeside") at the time and deployed troops and tanks on the streets of Scottish cities. Spark a few incidents with inexperienced troops brought in from elsewhere (Scots and veterans were deliberately not employed) and there's room for urban warfare. Add some synergy with events in Ireland too.
This would work particularly well with a CP victory in the Great War with Germany interested in either further damaging a rival and/or spreading socialism (or both) and covertly assisting the revolutionaries.

I used some elements of this in the background of the EDC; the violent suppression of this nascent revolution would radicalise Scotland and make it a continual problem for the UK and the British Republic until the Revolution of '76 toppled the Republic and the Scots took their independence by force. Glasgow was particular badly effected by the Revolution (with chemical weapons and aerial bombing employed by the RSF). This meant that afterwards there was little interest in a renewed British union and created the Scot attitude towards their nuclear arsenal ("It only needs to reach London").


I'm unfamiliar, what is it?
An odd little wargame based on the premise of a BCW after Edward refused to abdicate.

I've been thinking on a General Strike getting nasty, yeah. It's at least somewhat more plausible over a Mosley coup d'etat. Though an abdication crisis gives me an idea...
Meh, personally I don't think Moseley had the imagination, courage or initiative to start things on his own; he'd need prodding (or manipulation :)).
 

Deleted member 94680

Wasn't Mosely circa 1927 still Socialist as opposed to Fascist? (just checked - he was) Have the Strike turn nasty (a second Peterloo and all that) and Sir Oswald rises to the top to take advantage of the public outrage.

Formation of the New Party has a different turn.


AFAIK Churchill was sounded out (some sources say interested, others that he was merely asked about it) about leading a "Royalist Party" if Edward VIII decided to stay on the Throne. With Churchill as Prime Minister in 1937, there is every chance an "establishment reaction" spirals into Civil War with the Military split along pro- and anti- Edward lines (remember, if he doesn't abdicate, the Military is still technically loyal to the Monarch).
 
Britain is a very stable nation in the 20C and while the unions might call general strikes and the Navy might mutiny etc - those were nothing compared to such issues elsewhere such as Germany and France in the 20s and 30s and I cannot see Britain fracturing along such lines setting up the conditions necessary for a mainland civil war

However in the spirit of the POD I'll play

A pod might be France throwing in the towel between 1914 and 1916 before the British army was at full strength and therefore Britain effectively being on the losing side and Prince George being killed at Jutland or some such perhaps obliging Edward to not abdicate despite his unsuitability.

A groundswell of populist feelings along the line of ' We were Stabbed in the back' among the population particularly among the ex soldiers who believed that they could have won and the post war mass unemployment and disenfranchising of women who were now almost universally no longer 'allowed' to work causes deep resentment among the population.

This makes fertile ground for the 'Communist revolutionaries' and the gap between the haves and the have not's widens.

A conservative government in the early 30s cuts too deep and reacts too harshly/fearfully to mass strikes and protests and after the bombing of Westminster Palace in 1933 - killing or injuring 100s of sitting MPs with all factions blaming each other.

Chaos ensues.
 
Wasn't Mosely circa 1927 still Socialist as opposed to Fascist? (just checked - he was) Have the Strike turn nasty (a second Peterloo and all that) and Sir Oswald rises to the top to take advantage of the public outrage.

Formation of the New Party has a different turn.
I like it! Mosley as a socialist hero. Maybe he dies as a socialist martyr...
Though my take on him is that he was a narcissistic sociopath who'd do basically anything to further his ambitions.

AFAIK Churchill was sounded out (some sources say interested, others that he was merely asked about it) about leading a "Royalist Party" if Edward VIII decided to stay on the Throne. With Churchill as Prime Minister in 1937, there is every chance an "establishment reaction" spirals into Civil War with the Military split along pro- and anti- Edward lines (remember, if he doesn't abdicate, the Military is still technically loyal to the Monarch).
That's very like the background for 1938 - A Very British Civil War.

I'd heard about Churchill supporting Edward but AFAIK the "Kings' Party" was a non-starter; in fact the rumours damaged Churchill and also Edward (who wasn't supposed to meddle in politics). Certainly while Churchill had agreed to support Baldwin's government he was also supportive of Edward retaining the throne (perhaps without marrying Simpson). There were persistent rumors of a plot to oust Baldwin over his supposed ill health; Dawson was supposedly involved in this. OTOH the King's phone communications were being monitored by order of the Home Secretary...

There is also the intervention of John Goddard, Simpson's solicitor; he feared that a private citizen might (on their own or urged by a politician) intervene in the divorce proceedings. This could have, under the laws of the period, derailed the process by showing that the supposed adultery of Ernest Simpson had been staged (a common an necessary measure to obtain a divorce in the period). He wanted to warn Wallis (who was in France) but was summoned by Edward and directed not to do so (a pretty much unprecedented and illegal intervention by a reigning monarch). So Goddard went to Baldwin who had him dispatched to France...
Oh and Goddard had cardiac trouble and had never flown so he asked his friend and physician (William Kirkwood) to go with him. As Kirkwood was a gynaecologist his participation in the trip led to fevered press speculation...

You couldn't make this stuff up. :biggrin:
 
The simplest way to do this would be to have the UK lose World War I or at least be on the losing end.

Of the three large countries on the losing end of World War I IOTL (and I'm not counting Bulgaria), one broke up and one had a civil war and broke up. Germany was not free from outbreaks of political violence either. One big country in the winning coalition had a civil war and partially broke up. Even the UK -on the winning side- had to let go of most of Ireland. So I'm not sure how this works out exactly, but doing badly in World War I equals civil war/ break up/ regime change pretty neatly.

Once Labour organized as a real independent party with a socialist platform in 1918, though this was partially a consequence of World War I, there was a lot of concern in the British establishment about the prospect of them getting into power and interest in finding ways to prevent this. In the event, the Liberals agreed to support a minority Labour government in 1924, and George V agreed to appoint one, and while it didn't exactly work out great it worked out well enough to alleviate most of the concern about Labour taking power. If the establishment locks shields to an extent they didn't IOTL, then this would also eventually lead to revolution and civil war. It would be the one way to knock the UK out of World War II, if that wasn't butterflied away, because you would have a situation where the working class refused to fight and elements of the upper classes would be looking to cut a deal with the Nazis.
 
The simplest way to do this would be to have the UK lose World War I or at least be on the losing end.

Of the three large countries on the losing end of World War I IOTL (and I'm not counting Bulgaria), one broke up and one had a civil war and broke up. Germany was not free from outbreaks of political violence either. One big country in the winning coalition had a civil war and partially broke up. Even the UK -on the winning side- had to let go of most of Ireland. So I'm not sure how this works out exactly, but doing badly in World War I equals civil war/ break up/ regime change pretty neatly.

Once Labour organized as a real independent party with a socialist platform in 1918, though this was partially a consequence of World War I, there was a lot of concern in the British establishment about the prospect of them getting into power and interest in finding ways to prevent this. In the event, the Liberals agreed to support a minority Labour government in 1924, and George V agreed to appoint one, and while it didn't exactly work out great it worked out well enough to alleviate most of the concern about Labour taking power. If the establishment locks shields to an extent they didn't IOTL, then this would also eventually lead to revolution and civil war. It would be the one way to knock the UK out of World War II, if that wasn't butterflied away, because you would have a situation where the working class refused to fight and elements of the upper classes would be looking to cut a deal with the Nazis.
This has definite possibilities, and I've used some of it. If WW1 ends after (probably) 1916 without a definite victory for the Entente powers, whether it's a CP victory or a stalemate/armistice, I'd expect major civil unrest. France wouldn't have had it's revenge for 1871 and Britain would have expended a lot of blood and treasure for, well what exactly?
This would be especially true of Belgium was absorbed by Germany.

Given the historical unrest in the UK and the economic dislocation of the end of the war, allied to the problems of demobilisation of the huge armed forces that'd no longer be needed there would be plenty of potential for civil unrest.
The workers in many key industries were seeking (and striking for) higher wages, better working conditions, and shorter hours now that the war was ended. Workers in the mining and railway industries were especially adamant, with the government using troops on a number of occasions.
There was a real fear of revolution at the time.
(I recommend the popular fiction of the period for an idea of the atmosphere and the perceptions of the middle and upper classes.)

Economically the return to laissez-faire capitalism failed to jump-start the post-war economy. Then in 1922 the Lloyd George coalition fell apart and the Labour Party started making political gains, to the consternation of many. It wouldn't take a huge change to exacerbate matters, though starting a full scale civil war might be tricky.

The upper classes were experiencing more change in a few years than in the previous decades. Many had lost sons and heirs and the effects of Death Duty, often multiple transfers in succession, were often catastrophic to the "country house" economy. In fact the change in the taxation regime was crucial to the destruction of the country houses; partly this was down to the People's Budget before the war and partially to the cost of the war. Lloyd-George’s government struggled to cope with the cost of paying for the war (servicing the huge debt incurred) and meeting the costs of demobilisation so it was forced to raise revenue through increased taxation. Death duties (I'm using the term generically as the name and structure changed over the years) rose from 8% in 1894 to a maximum (sliding scale based on estate value) of 40% under the 1919 Finance Act.
While pre-war the typical estate paid 5-10% of it's income in land tax, rates and income tax, after the war this jumped to 25-35% (Country House Society: The private lives of England’s upper class after the First World War).
Further, estate income also decreased as it was mostly down to agricultural rents and direct production, which suffered from depressed prices after WW1 (competition from cheap grains and meat from the USA, Australia and New Zealand), worsened by lack of investment and rising labour costs.

I agree with the importance of the first "Lib-Lab" government under Ramsay MacDonald in reassuring the country (and especially the middle/upper classes) that Labour wasn't planning a revolution but was part of the process of parliamentary democracy and would "play the game".
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

I agree with the importance of the first "Lib-Lab" government under Ramsay MacDonald in reassuring the country (and especially the middle/upper classes) that Labour wasn't planning a revolution but was part of the process of parliamentary democracy and would "play the game".

So a "pure" Labour government on the back of a lost/not as clear cut WWI would be seen as 'radical' by the upper classes and therefore would need to be stopped... by means fair or foul?
 
So a "pure" Labour government on the back of a lost/not as clear cut WWI would be seen as 'radical' by the upper classes and therefore would need to be stopped... by means fair or foul?
That has distinct possibilities. Maybe a more radicalised/embittered/desperate populace votes Labour on a larger scale in (say) 1918. This assumes that the war dragged on until then, technically after the 1911 act an election was due in 1915.

Maybe the UK loses or a stalemate is achieved, anyway people are unhappy and vote Labour on a scale that creates a viable third party but not enough to upset the wartime coalition. However this allows the Labour party to gain experience and organise and in the next election (historically 1922 but maybe sooner) they win big as a reaction to the economic problems and perceived endemic corruption. Regarding the latter there's always Albert Victor Grayson ("This sale of honours is a national scandal. It can be traced right down to 10 Downing Street, and to a monocled dandy with offices in Whitehall. I know this man, and one day I will name him"). Maybe he doesn't conveniently "disappear" in 1920 but actually makes his knowledge about Lloyd George's illegal sale of honours public.
Cue an election (with the 1918 RofPA in force) that gives Labour a majority. Panic ensues amongst the middle and upper classes (on the lines of Knox's "Broadcasting the Barricades").

A few points/ideas.
1. What happens in Ireland? Independence as per the 1914 Act before a post-war election gives Sinn Fein their mandate for a UDI? Violence worse than historical? Did the 1915 Rising happen and was it as per OTL (there are several ways to make it far worse for the UK).
2. A interesting possibility is the failure of the 1918 RofPA which would leave the voting base quite small (<8 million men) and annoying an awful lot of soldiers.
3. What's going on in Europe? Is a victorious Germany consolidating it's gains? Meddling with it's neighbours? Who's in power? Has the trend towards a constitutional monarchy and social democrat government continued?
4. What's going on in Russia? No second revolution would probably reduce the level of panic in the UK with a more moderate social democrat government in place so let the Reds win. Is the Civil War happening, and how bad is it?
 

Deleted member 94680

A few points/ideas.
1. What happens in Ireland? Independence as per the 1914 Act before a post-war election gives Sinn Fein their mandate for a UDI? Violence worse than historical? Did the 1915 Rising happen and was it as per OTL (there are several ways to make it far worse for the UK).
2. A interesting possibility is the failure of the 1918 RofPA which would leave the voting base quite small (<8 million men) and annoying an awful lot of soldiers.
3. What's going on in Europe? Is a victorious Germany consolidating it's gains? Meddling with it's neighbours? Who's in power? Has the trend towards a constitutional monarchy and social democrat government continued?
4. What's going on in Russia? No second revolution would probably reduce the level of panic in the UK with a more moderate social democrat government in place so let the Reds win. Is the Civil War happening, and how bad is it?

1. Maybe the 'radical' Labour government pledges Home Rule for a United Ireland and ignores the Unionist protests, pushing ahead with plans to "set the Irish free"? This would annoy a great many of the (previously?) ruling elites and the military.
3. A stalemate could end in a situation more or less OTL but without, or British support for, Versailles. A feeling of a wasted opportunity - leaving Germany with its colonies for instance - builds resentment in the military/upper classes but 'the people', sick of war, support.
4. A Soviet Russia would be necessary to make the Labour government seem more threatening, would it not? Something along the lines of a genuine Zinoviev Letter ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter ) or even a trade deal between Labour Britain and Soviet Russia (favourable terms in an ATL version of the 1921(?) trade deal signed by Lloyd George, for example). That would 'persuade the Upper Classes that Labour was dangerous to Britain's interests. Maybe the Labour government cuts British intervention in the RCW and a feeling that it's their fault that the soviets have survived?
 
1. Maybe the 'radical' Labour government pledges Home Rule for a United Ireland and ignores the Unionist protests, pushing ahead with plans to "set the Irish free"? This would annoy a great many of the (previously?) ruling elites and the military.
3. A stalemate could end in a situation more or less OTL but without, or British support for, Versailles. A feeling of a wasted opportunity - leaving Germany with its colonies for instance - builds resentment in the military/upper classes but 'the people', sick of war, support.
4. A Soviet Russia would be necessary to make the Labour government seem more threatening, would it not? Something along the lines of a genuine Zinoviev Letter ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter ) or even a trade deal between Labour Britain and Soviet Russia (favourable terms in an ATL version of the 1921(?) trade deal signed by Lloyd George, for example). That would 'persuade the Upper Classes that Labour was dangerous to Britain's interests. Maybe the Labour government cuts British intervention in the RCW and a feeling that it's their fault that the soviets have survived?

1. If Labour won big in 1918 (and it wouldn't work in an earlier election due to the smaller and more conservative electorate) they might accept the Sinn Féin landslide in Ireland in 1918 (also reliant on the RotP act and the 11916 Rising pretty much as OTL) as a mandate for independence. This would leave the problem of NE Ulster but I suspect a four county 'Norn Iron' with an openly expressed desire by UKGov that it joins the rest of Ireland might work with little resistance; the Unionists intendeing to make a success of it, the UK expecting (and assisting) it to fail and Ireland just leaving it alone.
Historically within Ireland partition wasn't considered a major issue, Dominion status was far more contentious.

This leads to some very interesting consequences. Without the Civil War (and indeed the War of Independence) Ireland will be a quite different place; no legacy of Civil War politics, a surviving Collins to counterbalance de Valera and (probably more importantly) without the destruction of the more revolutionary (and socialist) elements of Sinn Féin, who historically backed the Anti-Treaty side and lost. This will have very significant consequences, especially if de Valera attempts to build his Gaelic Catholic hermit state. In fact I'd say it would be impossible for him to do this.
Relations with the UK will also be vastly better, and I'd expect some cross-fertilisation between the ILP, the UK Labour party and the leftish elements of Sinn Féin. More economic development.
How this will effect a BCW I can't say, but I would expect a volunteer force at least.

3. Yeah a "white peace" might feed a sense of national angst; "What did we fight for?". Which might lead to a more isolationist Britain, as far as that's possible or encourage militarisation both to help quell internal dissent and to prepare for the next war. Perhaps something like the spirit of Remembrance that Turtledove inserted into his TL191 books.

In the EDC the Summer War as it became known fizzled out in 1915 after a little over a year of fighting. This led to a distinct split in opinion on the war; initially and into the 1920s a belief that the war was a far worse disaster just avoided prevailed and led to a significant degree of rapprochement, especially between France and Germany when the social democrats were in power in both countries. Later, in the 1930s after the Big Slump and the Okie flu arrived Britain lurched to the authoritarian and the mood changed to one of "we could have beaten them" and unfriendly relations with Germany (and France who were portrayed as treacherous). The possibility of encirclement by fascist regimes was a major worry to the socialist powers in Europe in the late '30s (which would begin the process of creating what would become by the 1970s the European Federation) with Italy (split), Spain (defeated) and Russia (nutty mixture of nationalism, monarchism and, anti-Semitism) going fascist or seeing coup attempts.

4. I agree absolutely. Without a bugbear to point at the conservative elements in the UK won't be nearly as worried by socialists. Now I don't see a genuine Zinoviev letter as very likely (the Soviets would probably be too cautious) but a more extreme faked one would be interesting. Historically the letter killed the Liberal party with most of their voter base moving to the Conservatives.
I would expect a Labour government elected in 1918 to end assistance most to the Whites and recall the Archangel interventionary force (this was highly unpopular in Britain: "the frozen plains of Eastern Europe are not worth the bones of a single grenadier") slighly earlier which would play into the hands of people like Churchill who'd blame Labour for the failure to "strangle at birth the Bolshevik State".
 

Deleted member 94680

In the EDC the Summer War as it became known fizzled out in 1915 after a little over a year of fighting. This led to a distinct split in opinion on the war; initially and into the 1920s a belief that the war was a far worse disaster just avoided prevailed and led to a significant degree of rapprochement, especially between France and Germany when the social democrats were in power in both countries. Later, in the 1930s after the Big Slump and the Okie flu arrived Britain lurched to the authoritarian and the mood changed to one of "we could have beaten them" and unfriendly relations with Germany (and France who were portrayed as treacherous). The possibility of encirclement by fascist regimes was a major worry to the socialist powers in Europe in the late '30s (which would begin the process of creating what would become by the 1970s the European Federation) with Italy (split), Spain (defeated) and Russia (nutty mixture of nationalism, monarchism and, anti-Semitism) going fascist or seeing coup attempts.

One question (I'm probably being thick and missing the obvious) what's "the EDC"?

Other than that, with a POD of post-WWI, the figure of Churchill does loom large over any ATL BCW, doesn't it?
 
One question (I'm probably being thick and missing the obvious) what's "the EDC"?

Other than that, with a POD of post-WWI, the figure of Churchill does loom large over any ATL BCW, doesn't it?
:oops: Ah, sorry my bad I really should have explained.

The Evil Doctor Chronicles, was an alternate Whoniverse I started a couple of years ago (on a different forum) when an idea for a Who RPG scenario (Doctor meets Female Doctor meets Evil Doctor) got into my head and wouldn't leave. I re-wrote the Whoniverse up to the early Eighth Doctor era with the protagonist being a megalomaniac, psychopath or sociopath (depending on incarnation) with a crew of similarly...interesting minions; psychopathic teenagers, recreational serial killers and other fun types.

One day I will reboot it...

Anyway to go with the Doctor being evil naturally the UK was a nasty place, an authoritarian police state on it's last legs in 1962 facing off against the generally benevolent European Federation and grabbing any alien technology it could find to prop up the doomed system. This was inspired partially by the alternate Britain from Inferno and David A. McIntee continuation novels, some alt-hists from here (e.g. Let's All Go Down the Strand), the (unjustifiably) obscure TV series 1990 and other ideas.

As the Diary puts it, "every villain needs transport, a good weapon, a trusty multi-tool and minions". Well in his first incarnation the Time Lord who called himself the Doctor has maybe two of those...

His stolen TARDIS, once a sturdy, if utterly obsolete, Type 40, had suffered badly breaking through the Transduction Barrier around Gallifrey; the navigation sub-system was shot, the internal defenses mostly gone too and the feedback through the telepathic interface had left him dazed. Even the chameleon circuit looked likely to fail at any second.
Luckily the course was engaged before the navigation system was fried. Lucky too that his escape would have caused such a feedback wave through the Vortex that the Time Lords wouldn't be able to track him, assuming they really wanted to. He was gone now, him and his "grand-daughter".
He looked over at Lara, the name assigned to her before the House Matriarch had discovered the modifications he'd incorporated into her looming. Before those idiots back home had dubbed her an 'Abomination' and sentenced her to destruction.He gripped the old-fashioned hexagonal console as a wave of pain rolled across his brain.

He'd show them...

Anyway they'd be landing soon, time to rest, let his mind recover from the feedback and repair the TARDIS. He'd chosen London on Earth in the late 1990s as they measured time there; about twenty years after the Revolution. It was a chaotic, cosmopolitan time with plenty happening as the first generation to grow up free reached adulthood and pushed the boundaries their parents had barely touched.

Plenty of intrigue too as the first generation of new politicians and bureaucrats tasted power...

Ah, they'd landed.
Without bothering to check the display or operate the scanner he opened the doors and went outside. He got three paces before stopping in shock. This was wrong.

It was supposed to be late August, but it felt colder. At first he tried to convince himself that he'd just missed his destination by a few months. But the air was wrong too, with a smoky, almost gritty, character to it. He turned around to look at the TARDIS and the shape the external shell had taken confirmed his worst suspicions.
It was a police box, in the red livery of the National Constabulary. On top was the housing for a television surveillance camera, on the front a warning about curfew violations, and their associated penalties, and on the sides were propaganda posters; Service to the State and Unity is Strength were the slogans.
He'd arrived decades early, under the fascist British Republic. Oh dear, this was bad.
Evil%20TARDIS.png
 
One other consequence of a Labour government in 1918 would be a very different economic policy. Labour is unlikely to follow the ill thought out return to the Gold Standard, and the economic harm to the UK that this entailed. The decision required the 'Great Deflation' of 1920-23, a two year period of very high real interest rates which crippled UK industry and led to high unemployment. In 1923 when the Great Deflation ended UK unemployment was at 11% (up from 3% in 1920 and down from 11% in Q2 1921). Unemployment stayed around 10% until WW2.
Quite probably a Labour government would have listened to Keynes.
 
Top