What would a British "leftist" revolutionary movement look like?

That's pretty much my instinct as well, though I think a revolutionary Britain will try their hardest to inundate America with propaganda comparing the American revolution to the new British revolution - just as monarchist Britain had a big interest on keeping on the good side of the US, revolutionary Britain would have twice as big an interest in keeping things nice. It may be more likely for the revolutionary regime to end up in a naval arms race with the Empire (I guess led by Canada, since they are by far the most industrial Dominion and have the largest white population outside the old UK) with US shipyards only participating in so much as they sell ships to the Empire and build their own ships to stay just ahead of either Britain or the Empire.

I guess there is potential to end up in a naval race with France also? I think even a Britain wrecked by revolution could still out-build the French though.

I think America becoming the prime naval power in the world a generation early could have VERY interesting effects, particularly since this is happening when the post-war isolationist backlash is at its strongest.

fasquardon

I don't think Canada would enter a naval arms race with Britian. First of all it had practically no navy between WW1 and WW2 (although by the end of WW2 it had the third largest Navy by tonnage on Earth- which was again quickly dismantled post war and reduced to essentially operating 1 carrier battlegroup up until the 1970s when it subsequently became a frigate Navy). Although resource rich and pretty industrialized for a nation that only reached 11 million people in the late 1930s, this industrialization was pretty well focused on the automotive industry (Canada produced more trucks in WW2 then Germany, over half a million), so Canada simply has no prayer of challenging the UK on the sea although Halifax harbour theoretically had the capacity to build and host large Capital ships. I doubt there would be open hostility to the revolutionary UK unless it made threatening postures towards Canada, as there is still a lot of sentiment and loyalty to the British Crown during this time (I doubt you would see a referendum to become a republic for example), but it would speed up the Canadian's will to flex their independence in diplomatic affairs post WW1 (See the Chanak crisis) and Canada would certainly be wary of the new government in the UK, as the government it overthrew was essentially analogous to the one currently in Canada. You would probably see a deepening of relations between Canada and the US as well since the Canadian government probably would be less certain of the motivations of the revolutionary British government and would also be seeking closer ties with the US so that the Americans would not perceive them as a Trojan horse for the radical government in Britain.

I think that some sort of UK vs Canada led British empire conflict would ever happen. First of all the different dominions really didn't share much of a connection with each other, aside from through Britain. I honestly doubt that even an ultra-imperialist UK would look to reassert its dominance over Canada by force. Blockade would be largely pointless because Canada did most of its trade with the UK and US and could easily switch (as in OTL) to mainly trade with the US which was by land or internal waterways. Furthermore any attempted invasion of Canada would provoke an instant response from the US. I sincerely doubt they would tolerate a European army marching through a country just a few hundred miles north of their own border. They would invoke the monroe doctrine and the UK would either have to withdraw or face being crushed by an American army. Again, unlike the rest of the dominions Canada shares a huge border with a superpower (or at that time a sleeping giant) and that power is obligated for its own security to defend Canada's borders as its own (eg. Norad, the Permanent Joint Board of Defense). This is probably why proportional to its economic size Canada keeps such a small peace time army (money spent on the military is set to drop to 1% of GDP this year), because essentially any country that takes hostile action against Canada gets to play with the Americans (and historically before that a UK superpower).

So if the revolutionary UK starts acting aggressive towards Canada look for Canada to go looking for protection under the wing of the US. At that point all the UK can do is pout.

Australia and New Zealand are obviously more vulnerable to being strong armed by the revolutionary UK, since they have a smaller population, less industry (and to my knowledge no port with the capabilities of Halifax in the early 20th century) and most importantly no "Big Brother" to the south, so the UK would probably be able to bully them if it came down to it, but again this would likely only hurt British power in the long run.

As to an arms race with France it is unlikely because the French have to devote a large amount of resources to defending their land borders (Maginot line anyone?) and unlike the UK can just dump all their military spending into building up its fleets. The US is really the only country on Earth that can really win a naval arms race with the UK. Japan may be an outside possibility, but it is pretty much only a threat to the UK in the pacific as it doesnt have the necessary world wide string of naval bases or logisitcal support to challenge RN dominance beyond the Pacific. It also only has an economy and an industrial capacity a fraction of the size of the UK and only 1 tenth the size of the US (and this is in 1941, presumably it would be even further behind in the inter-war years).
 
Anyone have any good sources for what the state of the British left was in the first quarter of the 20th Century?

fasquardon
 
Top