WI: British Civil War between 1909 and 1914

ASB. The King and Lords knows that will sell about as well as 3-month old pork, and you'd see nothing resembling a civil war but rather a brief political crisis, followed by the Army backing Parliament. That kind of blatant overreach doesn't fly outside of SEVERE crisis situations.
Very probably.

Also likely no civil war in this case... though I imagine the Tories would just see a few of their ringleaders arrested. "Rounding Up" every Conservative is insane, considering they make up roughly half the country, and a Conservative party will continue to exist in some form regardless of the immediate scandal. Its basically rule one of political science: there will always be a conservative party, if only to represent people's natural risk-aversion and inertia.
Well the Conservatives offered basically total support for the UVF with Bonar Law (party leader) reviewing the proto-volunteers on 09APR1912. Henry Wilson, amongst others, also supported them. Overall the Conservative party supported the Unionists and UVF even when they were engaged in sedition, treasonous conspiracy and outright rebellion.

Of course, its just as likely news leaks about the Asquith shadow cabinet's planned "Plot Against Ulster" for extra-judicial use of the military. Again, political scandal far more likely than actual civil war.
Really the "Plot against Ulster" was more overblown hysteria and Unionis conspiracy theory than reality.


A Communist uprising/General Strike is certainly a viable option, perhaps if Labour gets alot more popular and is shuttled out of government. Maybe the result of the protective tariff issue coming to the forefront and creating a split between the Free-Trade liberals and Pro-British Worker labour?
Well if Labour gets (say) 20% of the vote nationally having stood far more candidates (historically they had 56 standing in the DEC1910 election with 42 elected) the probably wouldn't have won any more seats (they carefully targeted their constituencies) and this could have contributed to a degree of unrest.

I'm rather fond of Sidney Street as a potential spark for a revolution myself. Perhaps if the populace were more embittered, more hostile to the police and more sympathetic to the anarchists it could have developed differently. Now this happened before the first 1910 election while the Labour Party was still a new force in politics.
Given that Churchill was Home Secretary there's plenty of potential for overreaction on his part.
 
Wrt the unrest of 1910-11 here are a few snippets from my notes:

1. In 1911 there were 872 separate strikes in Britain, eighteen in Lancashire alone.
2. Not included is the September "strike" by schoolchildren that effected more than sixty towns.
3. The longest running strike of 1911 was at the Ely pit in South Wales, starting in September 1910 and involving about seventy miners. It spread in November to involve around 12,000 miners but ended in defeat in October 1911 after the Miners Federation of Great Britain refused to call a national strike.
4. This dispute involved pitched battles between strikers and their supporters and troops and police (many brought in from outside Wales) who were protecting strike-breakers. Some of the worst fighting was in Tonypandy in November 1910 (part of the Rhondda riots) when one striker was killed and some five hundred injured.
Potential PoD, perhaps the events of Lewis Jone's Cwmardy actually happen, with eleven strikers are killed by two volleys of rifle fire in the town square, after which the miners retaliate with a campaign of terror against mine managers and owners.
5. On 14JUN1911 seamen from the newly formed Transport Workers Federation struck in Southampton over pay and conditions. The action spread rapidly to other port and was soon joined by dockers and carters.
6. Hull, a port not subject to union organisation saw a mass meeting of more than fifteen thousand workers and dockers who vehemently rejected a proposed settlement with calls of: "Let's fire the docks".
7. In Liverpool the strike action spread to the railways and the district committee of the TWF declared a general transport strike throughout Liverpool, which was well supported across the city. the government response included a Board of Trade conciliator and the deployment of a RN gunboat to the Mersey.
8. Also in Liverpool troops were deployed and several days of what can best described as guerrilla warfare in the streets of the city centre ensued. two strikers were killed and many others injured. Salford was subjected to a virtual military occupation.
9. Thousands of troops were deployed in London in response to a number of strikes. Initially things began with the striking of around 80,000 dockers and transport workers who'd rejected a union-backed deal and this spread to the clothing workshops of Bermondsey and elsewhere (including the LCC cleaners).
10. At the same time the Liverpool rail strike had spread nationwide and encompassed around a quarter-of-a-million workers. In Liverpool and some other towns material only moved by rail with permits issued by the trike committee, despite the deployment of troops (and occasional killings of strikers, e.g. the two shot dead in Llanelli). This strike was particularly effective foring the government to back down within a few days.
11. On 22AUG1911 home secretary Winston Churchill stated in the House of Commons that, had the railway strike not ended quickly, industrial England would have been hurled into "an abyss of horror".
12. Interestingly patriotic support for the government response to the Agadir incident in Morocco provided an excuse for intervention and the end of the strike campaign.

Now, blend in some additional violence, better coordination and cooperation between unions, some government intransigence and Churchill's desire to make more use of the military and you can make a tasty unrest stew.
 
Wrt the unrest of 1910-11 here are a few snippets from my notes:

1. In 1911 there were 872 separate strikes in Britain, eighteen in Lancashire alone.
2. Not included is the September "strike" by schoolchildren that effected more than sixty towns.
3. The longest running strike of 1911 was at the Ely pit in South Wales, starting in September 1910 and involving about seventy miners. It spread in November to involve around 12,000 miners but ended in defeat in October 1911 after the Miners Federation of Great Britain refused to call a national strike.
4. This dispute involved pitched battles between strikers and their supporters and troops and police (many brought in from outside Wales) who were protecting strike-breakers. Some of the worst fighting was in Tonypandy in November 1910 (part of the Rhondda riots) when one striker was killed and some five hundred injured.
Potential PoD, perhaps the events of Lewis Jone's Cwmardy actually happen, with eleven strikers are killed by two volleys of rifle fire in the town square, after which the miners retaliate with a campaign of terror against mine managers and owners.
5. On 14JUN1911 seamen from the newly formed Transport Workers Federation struck in Southampton over pay and conditions. The action spread rapidly to other port and was soon joined by dockers and carters.
6. Hull, a port not subject to union organisation saw a mass meeting of more than fifteen thousand workers and dockers who vehemently rejected a proposed settlement with calls of: "Let's fire the docks".
7. In Liverpool the strike action spread to the railways and the district committee of the TWF declared a general transport strike throughout Liverpool, which was well supported across the city. the government response included a Board of Trade conciliator and the deployment of a RN gunboat to the Mersey.
8. Also in Liverpool troops were deployed and several days of what can best described as guerrilla warfare in the streets of the city centre ensued. two strikers were killed and many others injured. Salford was subjected to a virtual military occupation.
9. Thousands of troops were deployed in London in response to a number of strikes. Initially things began with the striking of around 80,000 dockers and transport workers who'd rejected a union-backed deal and this spread to the clothing workshops of Bermondsey and elsewhere (including the LCC cleaners).
10. At the same time the Liverpool rail strike had spread nationwide and encompassed around a quarter-of-a-million workers. In Liverpool and some other towns material only moved by rail with permits issued by the trike committee, despite the deployment of troops (and occasional killings of strikers, e.g. the two shot dead in Llanelli). This strike was particularly effective foring the government to back down within a few days.
11. On 22AUG1911 home secretary Winston Churchill stated in the House of Commons that, had the railway strike not ended quickly, industrial England would have been hurled into "an abyss of horror".
12. Interestingly patriotic support for the government response to the Agadir incident in Morocco provided an excuse for intervention and the end of the strike campaign.

Now, blend in some additional violence, better coordination and cooperation between unions, some government intransigence and Churchill's desire to make more use of the military and you can make a tasty unrest stew.

If there had been a Liberal-Tory Civil War, at least all these agitators would be on the side of the Liberal Government, thank goodness.
 
If we were to see a Republican Britain be created out of the crisis, what sort of Republic would it be?
I'm not sure there would be a republic. I don't think the Britain of the period was ready for the elimination (in any sense) of the monarchy. A new king certainly.
 
If there had been a Liberal-Tory Civil War, at least all these agitators would be on the side of the Liberal Government, thank goodness.
Not really. The government that sent in the troops to Liverpool, Tonypandy, Salford, Llanelli et cetera was Liberal. I can see a multi-sided war happening.
Now if we take as our PoD a narrow Conservative victory in JAN1910 (and they historically gained 130 seats for an overall gain of 116) and a slim majority I'd expect far more repression of the workers, and end to Irish Home Rule and no People's Budget or Parliament Act.

Now let's postulate more unrest and violence in 1910 and into 1911 with shootings of strikers et cetera and a more violent response to them (lots of Proletariat Artillery in mining) with a troop train or two being blown up.

In January 1911 Sidney Street happens as per OTL. Who is Home Secretary? (For that matter is Balfour PM?). Troops are deployed. Unfortunately it's unlikely anyone else pops along to grandstand in person so it's unlikely that the HS can be killed easily. But let's assume that there are more anarchist supporters in the crowd and they attack the police and the soldiers in the early stages of events causing them to retreat. This leaves a disorganised group controlling a fair chunk of Whitechapel and Stepney between Mile End Road, the Thames, the Grand Union Canal and Tower Bridge. They declare the London Commune, gather weapons and erect barricades.
They lose of course but change the course of British politics.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Labour was just willing to trail along
Actually, when reading some early Labour manifestos, I saw stuff like "The Lords must go". Labour was even more willing to abolish the HOL.
http://www.unionhistory.info/britainatwork/emuweb/objects/nofdigi/tuc/imagedisplay.php?irn=3000016

the Liberals were all reforming zealots
Not all, but most were reformers by 1906. I once read Phillip Snowden's observation of the Liberals. He figured out that most younger Liberals were "socialist-liberals" (or social liberals) rather than classical liberals. Actually, even the right-winger Liberal Imperialists supported social reforms, just with a different motivation.

they aren't going to form a dictatorship
Well, of course a civil war was unlikely.
But once a civil war breaks out, as usual, the winning side is going to let the losing one untouched.
In case of a Tory victory: well, the system can't be a democracy if the Liberals and Labour are in the jail. A one-party state is essentially a dictatorship.

Well if Labour gets (say) 20% of the vote nationally having stood far more candidates (historically they had 56 standing in the DEC1910 election with 42 elected) the probably wouldn't have won any more seats (they carefully targeted their constituencies) and this could have contributed to a degree of unrest.
Well, most supporters of Labour were not eligible to vote before before 1918.

Wrt the unrest of 1910-11 here are a few snippets from my notes:

1. In 1911 there were 872 separate strikes in Britain, eighteen in Lancashire alone.
2. Not included is the September "strike" by schoolchildren that effected more than sixty towns.
3. The longest running strike of 1911 was at the Ely pit in South Wales, starting in September 1910 and involving about seventy miners. It spread in November to involve around 12,000 miners but ended in defeat in October 1911 after the Miners Federation of Great Britain refused to call a national strike.
4. This dispute involved pitched battles between strikers and their supporters and troops and police (many brought in from outside Wales) who were protecting strike-breakers. Some of the worst fighting was in Tonypandy in November 1910 (part of the Rhondda riots) when one striker was killed and some five hundred injured.
Potential PoD, perhaps the events of Lewis Jone's Cwmardy actually happen, with eleven strikers are killed by two volleys of rifle fire in the town square, after which the miners retaliate with a campaign of terror against mine managers and owners.
5. On 14JUN1911 seamen from the newly formed Transport Workers Federation struck in Southampton over pay and conditions. The action spread rapidly to other port and was soon joined by dockers and carters.
6. Hull, a port not subject to union organisation saw a mass meeting of more than fifteen thousand workers and dockers who vehemently rejected a proposed settlement with calls of: "Let's fire the docks".
7. In Liverpool the strike action spread to the railways and the district committee of the TWF declared a general transport strike throughout Liverpool, which was well supported across the city. the government response included a Board of Trade conciliator and the deployment of a RN gunboat to the Mersey.
8. Also in Liverpool troops were deployed and several days of what can best described as guerrilla warfare in the streets of the city centre ensued. two strikers were killed and many others injured. Salford was subjected to a virtual military occupation.
9. Thousands of troops were deployed in London in response to a number of strikes. Initially things began with the striking of around 80,000 dockers and transport workers who'd rejected a union-backed deal and this spread to the clothing workshops of Bermondsey and elsewhere (including the LCC cleaners).
10. At the same time the Liverpool rail strike had spread nationwide and encompassed around a quarter-of-a-million workers. In Liverpool and some other towns material only moved by rail with permits issued by the trike committee, despite the deployment of troops (and occasional killings of strikers, e.g. the two shot dead in Llanelli). This strike was particularly effective foring the government to back down within a few days.
11. On 22AUG1911 home secretary Winston Churchill stated in the House of Commons that, had the railway strike not ended quickly, industrial England would have been hurled into "an abyss of horror".
12. Interestingly patriotic support for the government response to the Agadir incident in Morocco provided an excuse for intervention and the end of the strike campaign.

Now, blend in some additional violence, better coordination and cooperation between unions, some government intransigence and Churchill's desire to make more use of the military and you can make a tasty unrest stew.
Well, to tackle this, you need to accelerate postwar Liberals' proposals of work councils (which exist in OTL Germany) and employees co-ownership/profit-sharing, as well as railway nationalization. While the former could happen, the latter was borderline ASB with WW1.
 
Well, of course a civil war was unlikely.
But once a civil war breaks out, as usual, the winning side is going to let the losing one untouched.
In case of a Tory victory: well, the system can't be a democracy if the Liberals and Labour are in the jail. A one-party state is essentially a dictatorship.

... you wouldn't get a One-party state. At worst, you'd probably see some of Parliament's power's curtailed, at least with the House of Commons, under the pretense of ensuring "responsible government", a Gag-Order on Home Rule/Irish independence and perhaps a dissolving of the Irish Parliamentarians and All-For-Ireland party (At least temporarily, as their seats are lost with the South under martial law for some time), and the enshrinement of some of the Conservative's key domestic agendas like the protective tariff. There were enough Liberal Unionists in the Conservative-Unionist coalition, as well as sufficient back-benchers who'd probably stick with the King and Army in a "Legitimate" Parliament convened in contrast to the rebel one, that a new Loyalist Liberal party is likely to emerge fairly soon after the war is over... though not likely to take power immediately as the Conservatives can easily win a "Khaki election". You need to remember that the Conservatives weren't autocrats; they merely preferred the Victorian and Edwardian-Era institutions and systems of power that brought Britain to the height of its power and thought those served the Empire better than radical reform.

Labour and the Socialists probably take a severe knock, and the franchise expansion is definitely pushed back, but the aristocracy ruling by decree is just Un-English. Parliament is just as much a part of the tradition of British governance as the King or Lords.
 

Deleted member 94680

How about the House of Lords and House of Commons remains deadlock. The king dissolves Parliament and rules by decree backing the House of Lords. This leads to a popular uprising in Ireland that spreads to England?

So laughably ASB it isn't even worth discussing.

No British Monarch had ruled by decree since, what, 1689? I'm willing to be corrected by an example, obviously.

No one in the British establishment would support the idea and I'd love any evidence George V even contemplated it.
 
How about a written constitution?

To paraphrase something said by some Hollywood guy of yesteryear, an unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. So, by all means, let's have at it. I offer the BNA (prior to amendment by Pierre Trudeau) as a potential model.
 
How about a written constitution?
Quite possibly. It'd depend on how radical the winners of the civil strife were. A limited, constitutional, monarchy with most real power vested in the elected parliament, no Royal Prerogative, abolition of the House of Lords in favour of an elected/appointed upper house perhaps.
 
No. There weren't many Liberal Unionists at that time.
23MPs in 1906, 32 in 1910/JAN and 36 in 1910/DEC. However by 1910 they were basically a faction of the Conservative party having adopted almost all it's policies (including Tariff Reform) something that would be made explicit in 1912.
 
It does seem a little odd people saying that civil war is extremely unlikely at this time when there's a recorded instance of significant elements within the army making clear that they would not repress armed insurrection against the Government.

Someone else in the thread said that the Conservatives/reactionaries would be asked "you and what army?". Well I imagine they'd answer "The British one".
 
Does this actually need much work at all? Just keep Archduke Ferdinand away from Sarajevo, and the continent hums along for the time being. Home Rule gets implemented, and the Ulster Volunteer Force follows through on their threats to take up arms against it. Fighting breaks out between them and the Irish nationalists. George Richardson leads the UVF and Roberts, although nearing his own death, still makes his blessing known. British officers resign in protest or simply refuse orders to put down the UVF, and Bonar Law and Carson run interference for them in Parliament.

What then? Asquith will be in a political struggle with his own Generals and trying to find someone willing to put down a militia approved by the most decorated British soldier since Wellington, the rank and file will have leave from their officers to be just as disobedient, and his government is fragile to begin with. And the longer he waits and is ineffectual, the more radical both sides in Ireland would become, as the UVF see no consequences for their resistance, and the Irish Parliamentarians are discredited by the gridlock and violence. Throw in the labor unrest that already existed and what you get may not be a civil war in the classic sense, but it's a hell of a mess.
 
So laughably ASB it isn't even worth discussing.

No British Monarch had ruled by decree since, what, 1689? I'm willing to be corrected by an example, obviously.

No one in the British establishment would support the idea and I'd love any evidence George V even contemplated it.

Less ASB than say the Germans going East in WWI. But really, all you would need is an ambitious king wanting to reassert his authority With the Lords and the Commons deadlocked, the country would need some leadership and the King steps in as in OTl. In OTL he settles it in favor of the Commons. I'm merely suggesting that we have George act differently We do have to change history somehow

The thread is asking for a Civil War scenario which is what your saying we get if the King acts as suggested

Perhaps you've heard of these things called military coups where the army steps in and removes the civilians from power?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Less ASB than say the Germans going East in WWI.

Juvenile shot that. If you disagree with what I've written on a different thread, respond to me there (which I'm still waiting for, by the way) rather than taking snide pops here.

But really, all you would need is an ambitious king wanting to reassert his authority With the Lords and the Commons deadlocked, the country would need some leadership and the King steps in as in OTl.

Except the King doesn't have that authority. He also isn't ambitious in the sense to rip up 200-odd years of British Constitutional traditions. I mean, rather than making childish digs how about you do some research on the British Constitutional system?

In OTL he settles it in favor of the Commons. I'm merely suggesting that we have George act differently We do have to change history somehow

But what you're suggesting is so different it's ASB.

The thread is asking for a Civil War scenario which is what your saying we get if the King acts as suggested

But he wouldn't (couldn't) act as suggested. You may as well suggest he builds a steampunk deathstar and obliterates Birmingham.

Perhaps you've heard of these things called military coups where the army steps in and removes the civilians from power?

Sarcasm aside, I have, but I very much doubt the Army would simply go around removing people from power in the name of a mad King. Especially when the King is acting so far out of the bounds of British constitutional life. Unlike Germany, there was no real anti-democratic line in the British Army. Look at the Curragh Incident, for example. Officers in the Army, disagreeing with political actions, threatened to resign - not turn against Westminster. A good indicator of the views of the Army at the time.
 
Threatening to resign instead of facing down a violent insurrection set on overturning the will of Parliament is pretty inconsistent with parliamentary supremacy.

It certainly never happened when they were ordered against strikers.
 
Top