WI: Weimar Britain

Scenario: WW1 Late CP Victory (no USA intervention)

A mutiny erupts in Portsmouth by sailors refusing to go on a suicide mission. Troops are sent to crush the mutiny but instead join the sailors. All across the country, soldiers and sailors set up soviets reminiscent of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Facing a revolution, the King abdicated and flees into exile. In its place, Ramsay Macdonald sets up a new republic and seeks an armistice with the Central Powers. The terms of the Treaty of Potsdam were considered incredibly harsh by almost everyone as it included territorial loss of the whole of Ireland, military limitations, and no air force. The conservatives use this outrage to their advantage and a 'Stab in the back' legend is born. Not to mention, having to fend off insurrections and coup attempts from both the Communist revolutionaries and conservative army officers wishing to bring back the monarchy.

The republic hangs on throughout those early years. It soon experiences a 'golden age' until the stock market crash in 1929. From then on, the Republic limps on until succumbing to political extremism from either the left or the right in 1933.

tno_british_republic.png

Flag of the Republic of Britain

bGXM2aq.png

The British Isles after the Treaty of Potsdam, 1919



***

What would a society look like if the British Republic was proclaimed?
What would its government look like?
What would its relationship be to the Dominions and the empire be like?
 
Last edited:
Britain had a history of having problems with leftists so I would expect a surge of popularity in Communism. As for the colonies, I can imagine Germany taking some of them, while the White dominions like Canada declare independence.
 
What would its relationship be to the Dominions and the empire be like?

There wouldn't be one. In fact, if the King has fled, I expect it's to one of the Dominions, probably Canada, and they do not recognize these republican revolutionaries. The British monarchy is not like the German Imperial monarchy. The British monarch traces an unbroken line of succession of rule over 85% of Great Britain all the way back to William the Conqueror. When George Orwell imagined a revolutionary socialist state in Britain, he still made space for the monarchy. As for the Dominions, the monarchy is particularly integral to their idea of loyalty to and common cause with Great Britain. I expect initially they carry on recognizing the the King in exile with a legal fiction that nothing has actually happened.

In the medium term, New Zealand likely joins Australia as a state. Quite soon Afrikaner nationalists take power - through constitutional means - in South Africa and declare a republic.
 
What "suicide mission"? The Royal Navy at this point in time has no equal. And how are the Central Powers supposed to enforce any sort of treaty on a country they have not and cannot hope to truly defeat?
If the BEF is crushed on Flanders Fields - and I've heard it claimed this almost happened OTL - Britain will set about raising another one. Only if France is crushed in the meantime will they actually talk peace, and even then status quo antebellum is the best their enemies can hope for.
Of course, this does not preclude a revolution from happening later in a somewhat different manner. With no US involvement, Britain will basically have funded the Entente war effort nearly in its entirety -and now has no hope of recouping those funds. Major economic downturn combined with domestic troubles in Ireland and elsewhere could see the kettle boil over.
 
As for the Dominions, the monarchy is particularly integral to their idea of loyalty to and common cause with Great Britain. I expect initially they carry on recognizing the the King in exile with a legal fiction that nothing has actually happened.
That might be normal but as the decades pass, this idea would soon lose ground.

In the medium term, New Zealand likely joins Australia as a state.
NZ became a Dominion in 1907. That ship has already sailed by now for that to happen.
 
Meadows The People’s Flag and Lord Brisbane’s Bayonets Won’t Cut Coal come to mind.

That being said, I disagree with most of the points of departure and assertions in the OP.
 
You need a radically different starting point for you rebellion. First off I am unconvinced that sending in troops to suppress a mutiny in the fleet is going to spark a revolution. The people have been putting up with a war with horrendous casualties for no gain and will probably look at the navy which has had by comparison to the army virtu no casualties and not feel much sympathy for them
On top of this you would need a radically different GB/Royal Navy for the mutiny to happiness in the first place. The Royal Navy had high moral as they vied themselves as the elite/senior service, And considering that the Royal Navy was during WW1 completely without equal I have no idea why they would view this a suicide charge.
You also need to get rid of the US. As in order for this to happen you need to be late enough in the war that the “Yanks Are Coming “. And while the Army took its time and had issues the US Navy was relatively fast off the blocks and sent over warships to Join England. Making for even better moral and a bigger fleet.So even less of a suicide charge.

So it is basically ASB to get the Royal Navy to mutiny over this issue. (Or frankly pretty much any issue during the war). Maybe if you cut the Rum cancel shore lea e and stop paying them while feeding the garbage you could pull it off but you can’t get all those changes to happen together.

Dont get me wrong i unde stand what you are trying to do by being a copy of what happens to Germany but it just won’t happen that way unless you radically change GB and do it probably pre 1900. And doing that more then likly just keeps GB/England out of the war in the first place.

(edit to add this). This is the problem with changing things. You need to change them just enough to get what you want but not enough to stop what from happening (in this Case WW1j. Often the POD needs to be so large (or you need so many) that you basically change the country or history so much it would never happen in the first place. Changing GB enough to turn this into a suicide charge for the Royal Navy (most likely accompanied by some of the US navy) Would so radically change them that they probably never join the war. We see this issue with a lot of big PODs such as the Man in the High Tower PODS.
They are interesting to discuss and would make a fun book or. movie. But this site is more along the lines of what could happen.
 
Last edited:
[ Maybe Bolshevik Britain instead? Prince Eddy and Alexandra reign over an increasingly unrestful nation, angry their countrymen are sent to die in Flanders ... except even that won't even work because he doesn't have autocratic powers like Nicholas, he doesn't have a Pobedonostzev encouraging him to suppress the people, and the RN won't have suffered a humiliating defeat by Japan. Who would be the Rasputin anyway? Allister Crowley maybe... ]
 
The circumstances in Germany and/or Russia that set up the great revolts of 1918 are not really present in the UK. Great Britain had a strong, capable government with plenty of legitimacy People in the UK might not have liked the government in various ways, but no one thought it was illegitimate. Democracy also had widespread support that was deeper and older then in Russia or Germany.

Also, the war prospects were not as vital as then in those two. To Germany or Russia losing was an existential threat they very well might mean millions of their fellow citizens would be placed under the rulership of a hated other. This was never on the table for the UK. Even in the most total, crushing CP victory, not a single inch of British soil will be lost or one British citizen being governed by Germans. No CP boots are going to march on British soil.

Also, things just weren't as bad in Britain as in the others. People were literally starving in Russia and Germany, on a widespread scale. Food was expensive in the UK, rationed and perhaps of poorer quality but it was available. You could get it. In Germany/Russia, that wasn't always the case. In both those nations the infrastructure for food supply/production had entirely broken down and there were no hopes of imports.

People don't just revolt due to a bout of bad news, it is part of deep, structural trends. Trends that just aren't there in 1917 in the UK.
 
That might be normal but as the decades pass, this idea would soon lose ground.

No, it wouldn't.

NZ became a Dominion in 1907. That ship has already sailed by now for that to happen.

New Zealand was expected to join the Commonwealth of Australia even after it became a Dominion - in our timeline. Removing the Royal Navy from the south Pacific means New Zealand certainly joins Australia.

Also - with South Africa, prior to the declaration of the Republic - the British protectorates in Southern Africa would have been annexed. They were administered from South Africa anyway. Southern Rhodesia would also join the Union.

The Germans are not going to have anywhere near the ability to project power into Southern Africa.
 
People in the UK might not have liked the government in various ways, but no one thought it was illegitimate.

How dare you insult the Stuarts and their rightful heirs and loyal supporters like that. You're about to get some very sternly worded letters from the Order of the White Rose.
 
There were mutinies in both the French and British armies on occasion but these were (at least in the case of the latter) limited and let's not forget even though winning the conflict, there was widespread disaffection in 1919 starting from Glasgow at the end of January through the "Red Summer" as it was called.

Someone (me, actually) did a wonderful thread on an alternate "Glasgow Soviet":


What would have been the shape of this had Britain lost the war? It's been widely debated in counterfactual circles how close the Germans came to success with their Spring Offensive in 1918. Ironically, it was occupying French towns and villages full of food and above all alcohol that did for the complex plans of Hindenburg and Ludendorff. After months of starvation rations, plentiful French towns were too much to resist and the time the Germans spent gorging themselves and drinking themselves was valuable time and momentum lost allowing the British and French time to re-group.

Let's also assume there are no Americans in the way for whatever reason and with the requisite discipline, the Germans break through, advance to Paris and effectively force a capitulation.

With a likely harsh peace dictated by the victorious Central Powers, there would have been recrimination a-plenty in London with the main target Lloyd George and the Coalition wartime Government. The beneficiaries look to be Labour as the Liberal and Conservative parties fell apart in rancour. That's still a long way from a revolutionary situation or even a Weimar-type event. A new pacifist socialist Government might take power but it's hard to see how that impacts the Monarchy or the fundamental institutions. I could envisage far-sweeping industrial and welfare reform in the 1920s with someone leading Mosley banging the drum of modernity and technology but the truth was respect for and support of the Monarchy was widespread and oddly enough, Prince Edward might well have been popular echoing the reformist ideas of the "new" Labour Government (but this has been done in threads elsewhere).
 
How is Germany going to impose a harsh peace treaty on Britain, anyway? France, Russia, sure but the UK? If they ask for colonies or disarmament or anything, the British ambassadors will laugh in their face. Granted, a total Germany victory is bad news for the Empire, but it isn't going to be 'Versailles but for Britain'.
 
How is Germany going to impose a harsh peace treaty on Britain, anyway? France, Russia, sure but the UK? If they ask for colonies or disarmament or anything, the British ambassadors will laugh in their face. Granted, a total Germany victory is bad news for the Empire, but it isn't going to be 'Versailles but for Britain'.
If the comparison in the thread is between OTL Weimar and a post-war equivalent in Britain, then one of the key foundations of Weimar was the experience of defeat and to be honest such a defeat for Britain would represent the biggest setback since Yorktown but not 3000 miles away across the Atlantic but 30 miles away across the Channel.

The French would suffer the territorial humiliation but it would be no less humiliating for the British who would be forced to concede German hegemony on the Continent. The obvious response would be pace 1815 for Britain to withdraw from European affairs and concentrate on its Imperial possessions. It would remain a maritime global superpower but it would be diminished and Germany would be the "new kid on the block", dominant in Europe and able to project its power further afield. You might well see some countries look to Germany as a counter-weight to British dominance.

Assuming they had been neutral throughout, you might also see a rapid improvement in American-German relations as Washington recognises the new power reality on the European Continent. With the new pro-German buffer states (actually more anti-Russian if I'm being honest) to the east from Brest-Litovsk, Imperial Germany and her allies in Vienna and Constantinople are in a strong position to dominate Europe and the Middle East for a generation.

In time you would also see a rapprochement between London and Berlin as the economic reality of post-war trade would come to bear. Both Britain and Germany are wealthy and improved trade and peace would make both wealthier as both vie for influence in Washington, Tokyo and elsewhere.
 
Top