TL-191: The fate of Britain post-SGW

Germany could do it but I just dont think we can assume they have to commit less resources to do it for Britain than they would France. Maybe it would take more ?
Yeah. The Germans would have to dedicate more resources to keeping the Brits down than the French.
 
Adding my own thoughts here, I largely agree with the consensus that Labour will probably get that 20 year run at government Nye Bevan always wanted, but that they'll be left as an isolated (though unoccupied) wreck dealing with reconstruction. There are a few ideas of my own that I'd like to add though;

The Tories are done for as a leading party, and the SS in their current form are done period. The former are probably relegated to being the junior partners of a Liberal Party revived as the only plausible centre-rightist alternative to Labour, while in the place of the latter I've always imagined that an Actionist-successor party along the lines of the otl Italian Social Movement might gain a small but statistically relevant following around the time that movement gained prominence (one might even be tempted to call it the National Front for reasons of convergence with otl).

The radical-left will probably see a rise in some form, both in terms of increased Republican popularity and the rise of any CPGB equivalent. Its doubtful they'd achieve anything big in the short term, but the end of the crown may well be on the table as a concession when Labour is getting desperate for a coalition.

In terms of foreign alignment, I agree with the view that it would mostly be forced to decolonise and withdraw as a Great Power. That period of isolation may come to an end at some point, but the nature of that is essentially up in the air.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
The UKs fate really all comes down to Germany.Does it deal with the UK the way the USA did with the CSA after the Great War and let them off the hook or does it deal with the UK the way the USA deals with the CSA after the Second Great War ? Since Germany is dealing with France and Russia as well I really think they could do the former expecting the British to "be reasonable" which they might for a while to avoid total destruction until they could bounce back.Despite being superbombed Britain doesnt feel like it will see itself as truly defeated unless its occupied. If its not occupied even with the threat of more superbombs I think it will want to fight another day...
 
The UKs fate really all comes down to Germany.Does it deal with the UK the way the USA did with the CSA after the Great War and let them off the hook or does it deal with the UK the way the USA deals with the CSA after the Second Great War ? Since Germany is dealing with France and Russia as well I really think they could do the former expecting the British to "be reasonable" which they might for a while to avoid total destruction until they could bounce back.Despite being superbombed Britain doesnt feel like it will see itself as truly defeated unless its occupied. If its not occupied even with the threat of more superbombs I think it will want to fight another day...
Even without the occupation, I think Britain would be too exhausted to fight back. Not to mention they lost 3 cities to superbombs which would make any extremist be put on pause. The fact that they lost the war would also discredit extremism to a degree. Also with Britain being war torn, an island, and with a hostile Ireland nearby it should be fairly simple to keep a lid on Britain.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
Also with Britain being war torn, an island, and with a hostile Ireland nearby it should be fairly simple to keep a lid on Britain.
All of that also would contribute to Britain being kept simmering as well. Germany could easily put on a lid but it would have to do something fairly substantial. Its funny we are not directly told if they are occupied and yet I think most of us get the impression they wont be or nothing really big and that I think really means that at least a large element in Britain still doesnt totally lie down. Perhaps not if in addition to the occupation or even alone without one Germany does some type of Marshall Plan? Although ittl that seems less likely than the occupation. Who is the outside threat -the USA ? Seems to me both are ideal to keep the UK and others down or at least 1 or the other but neither ?
 
I doubt that Great Britain, reduced from an Empire on which the Sun never sets to a single island and a scatter of islets between the North Sea & the Atlantic would have anywhere near the resources to be a challenge to Germany or the United States of America (much less the inclination to waste what little strength remains to it on a quixotic labour roughly on the order of trying to knock down the Alps & the Rocky Mountains one peak at a time).

One finds it more plausible to imagine Great Britain as a leading neutral power, doing her Best to avoid being dragged into yet another World War - possibly even as a leading participant in an effort to create a Third Party of neutrals trying to avoid getting caught up in the duel of wits between the USA, Germany & Japan (Bonus points if this neutral movement becomes known as 'The Commonwealth of Nations' despite being more like the UN).
 
The former are probably relegated to being the junior partners of a Liberal Party revived as the only plausible centre-rightist alternative to Labour

Perhaps known as the 'Liberal Conservatives' (per the 'Liberal Democrats' of our own history) or the 'Liberal Unionist' Party? (The notion of the great divide in British politics being one between the Labour and the Unionist parties might even be a nicely subtle joke, if played properly).


while in the place of the latter I've always imagined that an Actionist-successor party along the lines of the otl Italian Social Movement might gain a small but statistically relevant following around the time that movement gained prominence (one might even be tempted to call it the National Front for reasons of convergence with otl).

I'd suspect quite a bit of the British population would prefer to call it 'Target Practice' ...


The radical-left will probably see a rise in some form, both in terms of increased Republican popularity and the rise of any CPGB equivalent. Its doubtful they'd achieve anything big in the short term, but the end of the crown may well be on the table as a concession when Labour is getting desperate for a coalition.

Depending on the popularity of the monarch in question, this might well shoot Labour in the foot; my understanding is that at least some elements in the Labour Party (if memory serves Harold Wilson numbered amongst them) were as Royalist as they were Socialist - though the absence of a Soviet Union in Timeline 191 as we know it may affect the willingness of other Labour types to go DEEP Red.

If the Crown is abolished, I'll bet some clever-**** observers will make noises about the American Founding Fathers finally being vindicated or having the last laugh or the Committee of Public Safety finally getting their way.

I wonder if France would join the British Commonwealth (aka "Great Britain - but Red, not pink") in Communism? (One sincerely doubts that the Germans would like that).
 
One finds it more plausible to imagine Great Britain as a leading neutral power, doing her Best to avoid being dragged into yet another World War - possibly even as a leading participant in an effort to create a Third Party of neutrals trying to avoid getting caught up in the duel of wits between the USA, Germany & Japan (Bonus points if this neutral movement becomes known as 'The Commonwealth of Nations' despite being more like the UN).

Assuming Japan's bloc is able to survive, what's stopping them from being TTL's Third Way/NAM and see a rapprochement with Great Britain? Assuming doing such a move wouldn't lock Japan out of good relations with post-colonial Africa.
 
At a guess? Most of Japan's neighbours have Powerful Reasons to fear, distrust or hate her and very few reasons to trust her; consider that all her old neighbours were muscled out of the neighbourhood or put under Japanese occupation, for one thing (and Japan is STILL in the Imperialist game, making her an unconvincing moving spirit for a genuinely Neutral movement).

It's also possible that friendship with Japan automatically puts you on the USA's **** list, since there's bad blood between the two of them.
 
I doubt that Great Britain, reduced from an Empire on which the Sun never sets to a single island and a scatter of islets between the North Sea & the Atlantic would have anywhere near the resources to be a challenge to Germany or the United States of America (much less the inclination to waste what little strength remains to it on a quixotic labour roughly on the order of trying to knock down the Alps & the Rocky Mountains one peak at a time).
Agreed.
 
One finds it more plausible to imagine Great Britain as a leading neutral power, doing her Best to avoid being dragged into yet another World War - possibly even as a leading participant in an effort to create a Third Party of neutrals trying to avoid getting caught up in the duel of wits between the USA, Germany & Japan (Bonus points if this neutral movement becomes known as 'The Commonwealth of Nations' despite being more like the UN).
I think Britain would eventually end up in the German economic orbit.
 
Very possibly, but that doesn't necessarily mean GB will fall in with Germany politically - especially if she can play the Reich & the USA against each other.
 
p.s. It occurred to me some little time ago that the British Armed Forces, having been bled white in two Great Wars and lost quite badly, might suffer a 'Unification' equivalent to that of the Canadian Armed Forces in our history - with the RN, RAF & the British Armed reduced to a single service (Presumably in part as a way of neutering their ability to mount serious opposition to either a pacifistic or radical reforming Government).

To say the least this development is unlikely to be met with delight by services at least a generation older than the United Kingdom (and the descendants of units older even than that).
 
Perhaps known as the 'Liberal Conservatives' (per the 'Liberal Democrats' of our own history) or the 'Liberal Unionist' Party? (The notion of the great divide in British politics being one between the Labour and the Unionist parties might even be a nicely subtle joke, if played properly).
Potentially, though in my version of events they remain separate parties due to the adoption of near-proportional representation after the Great War (something that almost happened in otl).
I'd suspect quite a bit of the British population would prefer to call it 'Target Practice' ...
A "Years of Lead" style conflict might not be out of the question. Not sure of the particulars there but it's something I thought of as a possible narrative point.
Depending on the popularity of the monarch in question, this might well shoot Labour in the foot; my understanding is that at least some elements in the Labour Party (if memory serves Harold Wilson numbered amongst them) were as Royalist as they were Socialist - though the absence of a Soviet Union in Timeline 191 as we know it may affect the willingness of other Labour types to go DEEP Red.
If Edward doesn't immediately abdicate after the war (and I don't particularly take the view he will) then he'll pass on in '72 and probably leave the throne to Elizabeth, given most speculation as to his otl infertility. The circumstances are mostly up in the air that far forwards, but I imagine that if the Republicans find themselves holding the right cards the monarchy might die with him.
If the Crown is abolished, I'll bet some clever-**** observers will make noises about the American Founding Fathers finally being vindicated or having the last laugh or the Committee of Public Safety finally getting their way.

I wonder if France would join the British Commonwealth (aka "Great Britain - but Red, not pink") in Communism? (One sincerely doubts that the Germans would like that).
I doubt Britain or France would be in a position to go so brazenly against Germany's will.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
I doubt that Great Britain, reduced from an Empire on which the Sun never sets to a single island and a scatter of islets between the North Sea & the Atlantic would have anywhere near the resources to be a challenge to Germany or the United States of America (much less the inclination to waste what little strength remains to it on a quixotic labour roughly on the order of trying to knock down the Alps & the Rocky Mountains one peak at a time).

One finds it more plausible to imagine Great Britain as a leading neutral power, doing her Best to avoid being dragged into yet another World War - possibly even as a leading participant in an effort to create a Third Party of neutrals trying to avoid getting caught up in the duel of wits between the USA, Germany & Japan (Bonus points if this neutral movement becomes known as 'The Commonwealth of Nations' despite being more like the UN).
Something like this is possible as it asserts remaining British independence in the least threatening way to Germany or the US. Im just convinced that a strong feeling of independence remains in the UK especially without a large sustained occupation. They could settle for first among neutrals if not first among equals.
 
“First amongst neutrals” is an absolutely excellent manifesto/rallying cry for T-191 GB (one wonders which Labour politician could be credited with it?).
 
Will post more later - am using my mobile to type this, but cannot employ the website with any great degree of precision.
 
Top