And British colonial brutality in India and Africa might be seen as a precursor to the Mosleyite regime and the role of men who were involved in the administration of the colonies and/or colonial armies would be emphasized in historiography of the regime much like how people have drawn a connection between the Herero Genocide and Nazism.
TL-191: The fate of Britain post-SGW
- Thread starter World Mapping
- Start date
I would read that novel. (I can definitely see the British using their knowledge of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip, both with the Central Powers directly, but also potentially offering various countries the bomb in exchange for help.)
The two biggest questions postwar are A) How much of their new empire can the Japanese hold onto now that their rivals are no longer all busy killing each other? & B) How well does the German-American alliance hold up? If the US and Germany decide they really want to stop Japan then Britain and/or Russia are in a good position to offer some help in exchange for loosening up the peace terms. If America and Germany fall out then the defeated countries may or may not be able to make that work to their advantage, though the may just be pushed arround on the new global chess board.
This reminds me of Rvbomally's The Big Switch (https://www.deviantart.com/rvbomally/art/Timeline-191-The-Big-Switch-533977973)
A renewed Franco-American alliance would certainly be novel.
If that's what they do to Britain they're really going to skewer France. I assume. IIRC we don't really have a clear idea of how horrible the Silver Shirts, Black Hundreds, or Actionists were. We just know they worked with the Freedom Party and they're Axis Analogues and draw our assumptions from there.
Like mentioned above, I could see Britain distributing its formula. There's also the problem of Russia, as the Germans could theoretically occupy all of Britain but there's no way they could occupy all of Russia.
Honestly, Britain could go in any direction post-TL-191. In one TL I've seen Britain (and France) end up at the bottom of the pecking order in Europe for several decades following the Second Great War while in another the British monarchy is overthrown, Scotland and Northern Ireland declare independence, and England ends up like an analogue to OTL Japan in terms of its post-war status. For my two cents, I think the United Kingdom could be broken up into its constituent countries somewhat plausibly and England may end up lower on the totem pole in Europe than IOTL.
After being on the losing end of two major wars, I have little doubt the Scottish wouldn’t be looking to divorce themselves from England. Suck up to Americans and Germans, maybe with the Irish putting in a good word for them, and go for it.
Australia and New Zealand could try to pull an Austria or Yugoslavia from OTL. Maintain a position of neutrality and make sure they’re valuable enough to everyone that no one tries to mess with them.
And adding to the Austria parallels, the Australians might emphasize their origins as a penal colony where convicts were sent as an equivalent to how Austria claimed they were Germany's "first victim" IOTL.
So basically we have
1) Britain as Japan (Crushed, forcibly de-imperialized, economically bounces back in spades afterward)
2) Britain as Germany (Divided, potentially with a neutralized Scotland as Austria, economically rebounds but is firmly in the orbit of Germany and/or the US)
3) Britain as Yugoslavia (No more empire, no massive economic growth, but stays unoccupied and helps form sort of a nonaligned block. Depending on what Japan's doing perhaps the Anglo-Japanese alliance is revived with Japan as the senior partner this time)
4) Britain as India (Holds onto some territory, has a few nukes though not many, stays neutral but often leans to one side. A rather heftier member of any sort of nonaligned movement. Again, much depends on if there is a Cold War and if so if it's between Germany & the US or Germany & the US together against Japan)
5) Britain as Cuba (A disarmed Britain agrees to host nuclear weapons for a power hostile to Germany. Shenanigans ensue)
6) Britain as North Korea (Britain holds to its nuclear weapons for dear life and becomes a totalitarian dictatorship, presumably with lots of references to 1984 - a Brave New World dystopia being way too expensive for postwar Britain)
7) Britain as France (Britain loses its empire and becomes the junior ally to the USA/Germany, but has nukes and influence in its former empire)
8) Britain as Turkey (Britain alternates between dictatorship and democracy & remains an influential middle power, but never again tries to make any waves)
9) Britain as Indonesia (The British Empire remains as a dictatorship propped up against Japan by the Germans/Yanks. It eventually democratizes and withdrawals from occupied territory.
Does anyone know what happens to Russia post SGW?
1) Britain as Japan (Crushed, forcibly de-imperialized, economically bounces back in spades afterward)
2) Britain as Germany (Divided, potentially with a neutralized Scotland as Austria, economically rebounds but is firmly in the orbit of Germany and/or the US)
3) Britain as Yugoslavia (No more empire, no massive economic growth, but stays unoccupied and helps form sort of a nonaligned block. Depending on what Japan's doing perhaps the Anglo-Japanese alliance is revived with Japan as the senior partner this time)
4) Britain as India (Holds onto some territory, has a few nukes though not many, stays neutral but often leans to one side. A rather heftier member of any sort of nonaligned movement. Again, much depends on if there is a Cold War and if so if it's between Germany & the US or Germany & the US together against Japan)
5) Britain as Cuba (A disarmed Britain agrees to host nuclear weapons for a power hostile to Germany. Shenanigans ensue)
6) Britain as North Korea (Britain holds to its nuclear weapons for dear life and becomes a totalitarian dictatorship, presumably with lots of references to 1984 - a Brave New World dystopia being way too expensive for postwar Britain)
7) Britain as France (Britain loses its empire and becomes the junior ally to the USA/Germany, but has nukes and influence in its former empire)
8) Britain as Turkey (Britain alternates between dictatorship and democracy & remains an influential middle power, but never again tries to make any waves)
9) Britain as Indonesia (The British Empire remains as a dictatorship propped up against Japan by the Germans/Yanks. It eventually democratizes and withdrawals from occupied territory.
Does anyone know what happens to Russia post SGW?
Those are all interesting scenarios but I find it highly unlikely the US or Germany would allow Britain to remain a nuclear power especially after I believe Germany lost one city and nearly lost another. Also given that this war is even more devastating than OTL WW2 even if Britain isn't forced to give up colonies I find it very unbelievable they could hold on for long especially in India or throughout Asia that they could remain as a plausible ally against Japan. The first two options would honestly seem the most likely though I believe @David bar Elias had a great take in his story After the End.
Even more so once rocket technology seriously gets off the ground. You are looking at a Cuba Missile Crisis with half the flight time. The Germans would demand that the entire British Isles were a non-nuclear zone and that includes Ireland. They could not afford not.
In fact Ireland would have the opportunity to fully independent in centuries. No foreign bases, no foreign alliances. Not even the Americans. In fact the Germans could insist on that and Washington would agree. After all if the US Navy has a base in Europe why should the Kriegsmarine not have a base in the Americas? Say Martinique or Guadeloupe?
It would be in the interests of both parties to keep the other's Atlantic fleets on the other side of the Ocean. That way Germany could attend to the Russians and the USA to Japan without having to watch the other.
As for the British Empire, no reason why they could not keep bits that the Germans and USA are not interested in such as St Helena and the Falklands Island. A few tawdry jewels of from a begone era
.
Even more so once rocket technology seriously gets off the ground. You are looking at a Cuba Missile Crisis with half the flight time. The Germans would demand that the entire British Isles were a non-nuclear zone and that includes Ireland. They could not afford not.
In fact Ireland would have the opportunity to fully independent in centuries. No foreign bases, no foreign alliances. Not even the Americans. In fact the Germans could insist on that and Washington would agree. After all if the US Navy has a base in Europe why should the Kriegsmarine not have a base in the Americas? Say Martinique or Guadeloupe?
It would be in the interests of both parties to keep the other's Atlantic fleets on the other side of the Ocean. That way Germany could attend to the Russians and the USA to Japan without having to watch the other.
As for the British Empire, no reason why they could not keep bits that the Germans and USA are not interested in such as St Helena and the Falklands Island. A few tawdry jewels of from a begone era
My instinct is to agree with you, but I suspect the British would then continue to develop nuclear weapons in secrecy. The Germans almost certainly aren't going to be occupying Britain, and so some equivalent of Operation Paperclip isn't going to strip away all that expertise. Whatever government comes to power in London, unless it is in effect a German or US puppet, is going to see nuclear weapons as the only means of retaining some sort of equivalency with the victors.
I imagine the UK (or republican equivalent) complying for perhaps a decade, after which point a policy akin to OTL's Israeli deliberate nuclear ambiguity comes into play. By that point there's little or nothing Germany or the US could do about it, unless they are willing to launch a punitive conventional war or use nuclear weapons against the British - now with the risk of nuclear retaliation. I doubt the general public in either country would consent to such measures if their governments cannot be certain that the British even possess such weapons.
The only way I could see the British not seeking nuclear weapons of their own would be if they call so firmly into either the German or the US camp that they can rely on their patron's nuclear umbrella. But without an equivalent to OTL's occupation of Germany and Japan, I doubt the UK would become so integrated. Especially as Britain is much harder for either Germany or the US to invade in comparison to West Germany, which faced the Soviet threat.
Incidentally, I would imagine the French likewise desiring a nuclear deterrent of their own. They might even succeed, but because of its geography France is much more vulnerable to German pressure than Britain. France is also much more likely to fall under German occupation after their defeat, so the key players in their nuclear programme may be taken abroad and the subsequent regime in France is much more likely to be a German
A secret or not secret programme if the Germans find out about they could bomb the installation. After all that is what Israel did to the Syrian atomic programme. But for the distance they would probably have bombed the Iranian installations by now. And unlike the North Koreans who have Chinese protectors, the British are on their own.
Of course how easy it would be to bomb the installation(s) depends on where they are. North Scotland could be out of range of a fighter escort for the bombers, but the Germans would be suspicious if a ring of SAMs appeared there. In contrast an installation in the New Forest would be better protected by British air defence system, but then the Germans might decided to take it out with nuclear tipped missiles with all the fallout that would create.
Unlike Israel the TL-191 Germans did have a superbomb dropped on them. I would expect less tolerance to a programme to be shown, if that is possible. Eexpect virtually any government into the eighties to take military action against a British programme.
The British would likely be strapped for money and given the devastation and all of that there likely is no Marshal Plan or the like and with democracy back in power people are less likely to be happy about spending money on a nuclear program which will provoke a violent response. Israel had the reasoning that other nations bordering wanted to wipe every single one of them from the face of the planet but no one taken seriously in the US or Germany would want the same for Britain.
I agree that the Germans could potentially try to bomb the installation, but I would be surprised if they were prepared to do this.
Firstly, any sensible British programme will be headquartered somewhere remote and kept as the nation's most closely guarded secret. Even if the Germans got wind of something afoot, the precise location of the project and the identities of those involved will take time to discover - especially if the historic track record of German espionage in the UK holds true in TL-191. Secondly, the Germans will not have much time to work with because the British nuclear genie is already out of the bottle - they have the expertise and the experience of building the devices, even if the Germans demanded the dismantling of the manufacturing facilities. The Iranians and Syrians have never managed to produce an atomic weapon, whereas the British will require only the appropriate facilities with which to construct them.
Lastly, a German strike on Britain is an excellent way to drive the British into the arms of the Americans, Japanese or Russians. Yes, the Americans wouldn't be too happy with a British nuclear arsenal either, but such an attack could lay the groundwork for an Anglo-American rapprochement even if the price is the UK staying conventional. And as I mentioned, there's always the Japanese and the Russians (who might like to share in British nuclear research, for example).
There's a money problem, but given the precarious state in which the British have found themselves I would still expect the government(s) in London to prioritise the reestablishment of a nuclear deterrent. It's pretty much a geopolitical imperative if the UK wishes to retain any form of independent action in the face of two hostile superpowers in the US and Germany. There's also the advantage that I mentioned above - that for the British the main cost is manufacture and maintenance, as the research has already been done and the designs tested and deployed successfully. They will not be funnelling money into speculative research but a concrete weapon of war.
The public aren't going to know about the project until it is completed (and even then, as I preciously suggested, the UK will probably adopt an Israel-esque nuclear ambiguity to reduce the risk of German reaction). The German nuclear strikes on Britain at the end of the SGW will be etched in the national psyche for generations, which leads me to believe that a British deterrent would actually be very popular with the public - a way of avoiding such destruction from ever occurring again, or at least a means of retaliation in kind.
On allies, the British are already allies with the Russians. The Japanese are a different kettle of fish. Transferring nuclear technology to them will bring the USA on the side of the Germans. Beyond that the British are in the German sphere of interest just as the Brazilians are in the US sphere of influence.
So for one reason or another the Germans not bomb the bomb factories. That moves things to the next stage, delivery systems. It can be expected that the Luftwaffe will maintain an air defence system, but no guarantee that a bomber will not get through. Rockets make the situation far more dangerous especially sub launched ones. Rather than go there the Germans might decide just to bomb anything that looks like a super bomb factory.
Of course the British would anticipate this and so declare no first use on their part. They do have historical precedent this: the Germans super bombed them first. They can then play coy on whether they have any. That would avoid them getting bombed. The Luftwaffe would still build up an air defence system plus ABMs just in case.
The facilities needed for a nuclear weapons programme are not easily concealed; either an isotopic separation plant or a reactor and plutonium separation plant. None of these are small, all are expensive, and then there's the cooling and uranium feedstock.
Also sanctions can be used as a weapon and given that Britain is democratic I think they'd be less willing to risk the type of sanctions North Korea and Iran had imposed on them. People might want a nuclear arsenal but might not be willing to suffer all the possible risks that come in the process of attempting to acquire one.
World Mapping
Banned
Agreed. What's the UK going to realistically do in its postwar state if say, Germany decides to initiate a total blockade of the British Isles? They'd break eventually, once the British populace starves.
But would Germany go that far? It is one thing doing as I proposed some air raids. It is another going for a major naval operation. We don't know very much about the Kriegsmarine and Royal Navy in the TL-191 universe but I would be surprised if the latter is larger than the former. It could cost the Germans ships and whilst they could afford to replace them more than Britain, they would still have to be replaced.
Also, how is it going to go down in the USA if Germany stops food being transported at a time of peace? It is one thing during wartime stopping food shipments because they could feed an army or navy. It is another to stop starving children being fed in peace time. Do the Germans want get in a war with the USA over merchant ships when they have a British problem, a hostile Russia and a France that needs to be permanently sat on?
Well in the last book the US did oppose nuclear profileration so they probably won't care too much especially since the UK would likely be in Germany's sphere of influence anyway.
If they find out, possibly.
The difference is that Britain is relatively much stronger in its position vis-a-vis Germany than Brazil is compared to the US, even without London (and let's not forget, the first atomic bombs were not sufficiently powerful to destroy the entirety of a city of London's size, even if it did destroy key parts of it).
I think you hit the nail on the head with rockets. As IOTL, a submarine-based deterrent is Britain's best bet, once the technology becomes available.
Agreed.
Yes, but the British already have these facilities, and they will be heavily defended from air attack. Britain ITTL was not defeated in the same manner as Germany IOTL - there will be no occupation. Is there even anything in the books about the British nuclear programme being dismantled? The wiki seems to suggest that it remained operational post-war.
How will the Germans sanction a country that hasn't been importing anything from them (or their sphere of influence) for years? The only countries I can see bending to German diplomatic pressure to join the embargo would be France and possibly Italy, and Britain can make up this loss elsewhere.
They can't do this without restarting a conventional war with the UK - even assuming they could manage it, given that the Royal Navy was merely defeated by the USN, not utterly destroyed like the IJN of OTL.
I agree that air raids are more likely than blockade, and I also agree that the Royal Navy would be able to frustrate any German attempt to impose one. It's unclear how the two navies compare with regard to size, given that the RN defeated the German fleet in 1943 but was then defeated in turn by the USN. They may well be comparable.
I also agree that the US may take exception to a blockade of starvation.
How would Britain be in Germany's sphere of influence? Even if the UK is 'assigned' to the German sphere through US-German negotiation, there's no way that Britain will simply fall prostrate before Berlin. They were defeated, not occupied, so the British public and political sphere are going to continue to see Germany as the country that obliterated parts of several major cities and presents the clearest threat not only to British interests, but the nation's very sovereignty. In other words, without a 'de-Silver Shirt-ification' occupation, the geopolitical outlook in London is going to remain fundamentally anti-German, even if the government adopts a more pragmatic stance in its relations with the Kaiserreich. If anything, Britain is much more likely to fall into the US sphere of influence, although I personally think they will remain outside both.
World Mapping
Banned
Surely, the Germans wouldn't just permanently bar the British (and Franco-Russians, for that matter) from owning WMDs (superbombs included) in the peace treaty that ends the SGW, no? Amongst other military restrictions. I think the Germans would do whatever it takes to cripple the British, and prevent another one of her cities from being nuked.
Last edited: