CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Says the guy from Iowa.
Not that I can talk, I'm from the most corrupt (Illinois) and most crazy (Florida) states in the country.
Worst possible Britain
- Thread starter Lateknight
- Start date
Says the guy from Iowa.
Not that I can talk, I'm from the most corrupt (Illinois) and most crazy (Florida) states in the country.
Even with all that, worst case scenario is something like Francoist Spain (and it'd probably just be a conservative and militaristic PM, not some kind of junta-esque "Emergency Government"). Barring some kind of apocalyptic event I just can't see the UK turning into a totalitarian state.
Oops, wrong.
Regional bigotry, insult and trolling, all in 16 words.
Impressive.
See ya' in a week.
Why not have Britain go the way of Japan, except permanently? Europe explodes into communist revolutions, and in the name of "protecting" France and other established governments the British militarists increasingly step up their game on the Continent. Eventually Europe is Red and Britain, unable to be conquered, lapses into a fearmongering, military-controlled police state. Its increasingly feeble empire is propped up by an equally anti-Soviet America during the Cold War. After the Cold War Britain is forced to decolonize whatever it's got left but the British Isles themselves remain unrepentantly totalitarian.
I don't think Britain as a North Korea style basket case is obtainable but a poorer, politically troubled, millitaristic Britatin is definitely possible.
The Troubles could have been a lot worse, and given the millions of Irish living in Britain things could have gone very bad.
The Troubles could have been a lot worse, and given the millions of Irish living in Britain things could have gone very bad.
There's a 1979 novel by Julian Fane, Revolution Island, which has the UK fall into a contemporary fascist dictatorship; insular, xenophobic, shut off.
Since Britain has been trade dependent for hundreds of years - raw materials, food - then you'd need that kind of insularity to reduce the place to penury.
I read the book over thirty years ago, and thought it good at the time. Not many laughs.
Since Britain has been trade dependent for hundreds of years - raw materials, food - then you'd need that kind of insularity to reduce the place to penury.
I read the book over thirty years ago, and thought it good at the time. Not many laughs.
The Greenies! Somehow get the Green Party elected and give it a term or three and you'd have your Scenario.
What about that supposed planned military coup in the 70s to get rid of Wilson? Although they supposedly planned to do it for the 'right' reasons (believing that Wilson was a Soviet mole and that the economy would eventually collapse due to the union troubles at the time so the government needed to be overthrown to rescue the nation) it could have gone pretty badly wrong.
Even so, I don't see us getting as low as North Korea with any starting point in the 20th century.
Even so, I don't see us getting as low as North Korea with any starting point in the 20th century.
Well, the surefire way of screwing up a country is have it become a battleground. Civil war would do it. Maybe something akin to Spain, where there is an attempted military coup that doesn't succeed, and then the other side start to arm for the long haul. Foreign powers keep arming one side or the other, and it becomes a proxy war. If the outside powers really don't want to see their side lose, it could drag on for a long time, perhaps decades. Think of Lebanon.
In the meantime, since Britain cannot feed itself (since the 1840s or so) perhaps some sort of famine takes hold, and there is mass emigration.
Regards
R
In the meantime, since Britain cannot feed itself (since the 1840s or so) perhaps some sort of famine takes hold, and there is mass emigration.
Regards
R
Well, someone wrote a thread about England as Ingsoc:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=97316
I think you would have to go back to the early 20th Century to make it work.
It would require a single party government, a couple of "Emergencies" and WW1 and I think you could have a defacto dictatorship by 1923.
From there, even if it's a centreist Imperial dictatorship, I think you'll see enough agitation from both left and right, as well as significant nationalist agitation in Ireland* & India. I think you'd also end up with less direct agitation from Canada, New Zealand and Australia, Kenya & Southern Africa.
The key will be dismantaling the Empire while leaving the Imperial dictatorship in power. WWII I think would achieve this without invasion etc.
The agitation would cause an early fracturing, an increase in defence expenditure to hold down various places and keep the navy updated. The depression would mostl likely hit a dictatorship of this type harder making things more charged at home as well. While they would be "Terribly British" about it, I could see MI5/Special Branch being used more as a secret police force than counter intelligence and more and more people would be having some interesting late night conversations without tea and biscuits - yes, it could be THAT uncivilised.
WWII kicks off as OTL and there would be an immediate call on Empire troops. With the agitation in the Empire, among dominions and colonies, the call would be answered much more slowly, and in some cases, possibly on paper only. This leaves the War Department stretched badly. Add in OTL French & German performance, a less successful Dunkirk, lack of Colonial and Dominion support, plus, due to the political situation, it would be near impossible for Britain to borrow from the US Banks, the country would be bankrupt and suing for peace by January 1941.
This leaves nothing to support the South East Asian Colonies, Australia or New Zealand in the face of Japanese expansion. Australia & New Zealand would fall into the American sphere even more so than OTL and Canada would be a defacto part of the US. This leaves Britian with basically a few Islands in the South Atlantic, a shakey hold on bits of Central America and a far more dubious than they would like to admit hold on the Middle East and Africa.
India, I think would declare unilateral independance and I really don't think there would be much, if anything, that could be done about it by this point, probably around 1943 and that would probably lead to India falling into the Japanese sphere of influence but remain independent.
If Pearl Harbour takes place as per OTL, then the US, most likely along side an Ameri-phile Australia & New Zealand would carry through the Island hopping campaign which would probably end the war around the same time as OTL. Britian's involvement probably won't have any effect there except for a delay in the Atomic bomb.
So, an increasingly dictatorial Empire party, with no Empire, increasing discontent at home and a corresponding internal security force would direct the government to spend far more of it's miniscule resources on internal security than standard of living, indirect external agitation from the Americans, (Pro Democracy groups - return the vote etc), and from the Soviets, (Establish a People's republic etc), would sbe enough to see the country fall far, far behind, maybe reaching OTL 1950's standards around 1970 and each OTL year's progress taking between 2-3 years ITTL.
Oh, and we'd still have Pounds, Shillings and Pence rather than having gone decimal, (because it's the Imperial way damnit, and tradition don'tchaknow) making trade even more difficult and leading to further barriers to progress.
We'd probably have asylum seakers leaving the country for North Korea for the chance of a better life right there.
*An Empire party, would most likely NOT allow the partition of Ireland or any form of independance. Want a three way proxy war post WWII? You can have it right there.
It would require a single party government, a couple of "Emergencies" and WW1 and I think you could have a defacto dictatorship by 1923.
From there, even if it's a centreist Imperial dictatorship, I think you'll see enough agitation from both left and right, as well as significant nationalist agitation in Ireland* & India. I think you'd also end up with less direct agitation from Canada, New Zealand and Australia, Kenya & Southern Africa.
The key will be dismantaling the Empire while leaving the Imperial dictatorship in power. WWII I think would achieve this without invasion etc.
The agitation would cause an early fracturing, an increase in defence expenditure to hold down various places and keep the navy updated. The depression would mostl likely hit a dictatorship of this type harder making things more charged at home as well. While they would be "Terribly British" about it, I could see MI5/Special Branch being used more as a secret police force than counter intelligence and more and more people would be having some interesting late night conversations without tea and biscuits - yes, it could be THAT uncivilised.
WWII kicks off as OTL and there would be an immediate call on Empire troops. With the agitation in the Empire, among dominions and colonies, the call would be answered much more slowly, and in some cases, possibly on paper only. This leaves the War Department stretched badly. Add in OTL French & German performance, a less successful Dunkirk, lack of Colonial and Dominion support, plus, due to the political situation, it would be near impossible for Britain to borrow from the US Banks, the country would be bankrupt and suing for peace by January 1941.
This leaves nothing to support the South East Asian Colonies, Australia or New Zealand in the face of Japanese expansion. Australia & New Zealand would fall into the American sphere even more so than OTL and Canada would be a defacto part of the US. This leaves Britian with basically a few Islands in the South Atlantic, a shakey hold on bits of Central America and a far more dubious than they would like to admit hold on the Middle East and Africa.
India, I think would declare unilateral independance and I really don't think there would be much, if anything, that could be done about it by this point, probably around 1943 and that would probably lead to India falling into the Japanese sphere of influence but remain independent.
If Pearl Harbour takes place as per OTL, then the US, most likely along side an Ameri-phile Australia & New Zealand would carry through the Island hopping campaign which would probably end the war around the same time as OTL. Britian's involvement probably won't have any effect there except for a delay in the Atomic bomb.
So, an increasingly dictatorial Empire party, with no Empire, increasing discontent at home and a corresponding internal security force would direct the government to spend far more of it's miniscule resources on internal security than standard of living, indirect external agitation from the Americans, (Pro Democracy groups - return the vote etc), and from the Soviets, (Establish a People's republic etc), would sbe enough to see the country fall far, far behind, maybe reaching OTL 1950's standards around 1970 and each OTL year's progress taking between 2-3 years ITTL.
Oh, and we'd still have Pounds, Shillings and Pence rather than having gone decimal, (because it's the Imperial way damnit, and tradition don'tchaknow) making trade even more difficult and leading to further barriers to progress.
We'd probably have asylum seakers leaving the country for North Korea for the chance of a better life right there.
*An Empire party, would most likely NOT allow the partition of Ireland or any form of independance. Want a three way proxy war post WWII? You can have it right there.
At the risk of repeating what Dan said, my Internet has been going all goose-poop so I wasn't able to post this last night:
From the focus of an empire upon which the sun never sets to an island upon which hope never dawns? Post 1900? Whew... Well, here's my stab at it.
We should probably start as soon onto the new century as possible. I'd say the best place to start would be troubles in Ireland. If you can accept some cocked up version of Home Rule passing pre-1900 but holding together until after the new century, you can probably start with a freshly topped off cup of resentments just waiting to be poured out. Home rule was again being...uh, discussed, shall we say?...as Europe lurched into WWI, only to disappear in unity to the war effort. Instead, Irish Nationalists use it as an opportunity for trying to independence. They don't succeed but it requires a lot of troops taking a lot of casualties in Ireland at the same time as on the continent. Great financial and manpower stains throughout the whole 1914-1918 period.
Use that to set up a more fractured political climate. Say, 1/3 of the electorate that believes Britain should focus on Ireland, even if it means drawing away from efforts at the Western Front, 1/3 that believes the Western Front is paramount and must take precedence over Ireland, and 1/3 that believes that both must be pursued with full vigor. This gives any Prime Minister the dilemma of having an electorate that will both agree with any policy, in part, by a comfortable majority while still disagreeing with it, in the whole, by the same margin.
OK, we work it so that the "all in" crowd manages to prevail in most legislation. Given the social and political strains the war put on societies OTL, we'll assume it ratchets up a even more in GB. By 1919, Ireland is probably garrisoned by a lot more weary British troops that just want to go home.
Still, we'll assume that the hard liners win another khaki election and stay in power. Ireland will not be partitioned nor will it become a Dominion. In fact, the whole concept of dominion status is seen as anathema, which kills the Statue of Westminster. Now you have Canada, Australia and South Africa with their noses out of joint. Not irredeemably so but let's make sure that cooler heads do not prevail and the 1920's are a replay of the 1770's-attempts to coerce the empire together by political (not military, though, outside of Ireland-but occasional intemperate remarks are made to the effect of the possibility) force, along with economic policies (a resurrected form of Imperial Preference?) to "tie together the Empire" but seen as a way to channel free trade to/through (and for the benefit) of London. Of course, things only go from bad to worse with the Great Depression.
On the domestic front, since the Irish and continental wars were seen/fought as one, a lot of the regulations and wartime restrictions are still in place. (Maybe some form of DORA still in effect?) the General Strike probably gets much more violent as it will be seen/portrayed by the government as betraying the war effort (think the US during Vietnam). This results in the government calling another election that maintains its majority.
On the one hand, Parliament tries "get tough" legislation (but with no real way to enforce it) while, to try and drum up some goodwill both within and for the empire, the popular Prince of Wales is sent on a tour, with great success. The end of the 1920's sees another majority in the election as the economy finally looks better and the opposition is mostly in disarray.
With the background of an unending Irish guerrilla war (including contingents of Imperial troops), relations grow more strained as India talks of home rule and the government comes down hard (like mass arrests, imprisonments and long harsh sentences, including death) on Indian nationalists. This, says London to the Irish, is where talk of loosening Imperial ties will get you...but Canada, SA and Australia think it's aimed at them, too.
With the economic crisis of the depression, the government, though not in the majority, spends most of the early 30's in effective opposition, preventing any substantive changes by succeeding coalition governments, which dissolve frequently. Reinvigorated by the threat from Nazi German rearmament, they return to power around 1937-8 with a "See what happened the moment we weren't in charge?" campaign...
This, I think, may set enough of the stage for WWII to be fought with a rightwing nationalist government that still manages to piss off the rest of the empire enough to limit their war assistance to the minimum, given grudgingly, and with a view toward presenting London with a large bill (payable economically and politically) for services rendered at the end of the war. At the end, The government (which suspended elections for the duration of the war), finally goes off the deep end and suspends elections indefinitely, earns US public enmity with a final, savage, end to the "Irish Problem", and plunges into domestic economic chaos. Meanwhile the snubbed dominions decide that, if they are treated no differently than India, then they will act no differently. Between 1946-1950, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, along with various minor dependencies, declare themselves to be dominions or independent.
Between the collapse of the empire and the economy, Scotland and possibly Wales decide to have a go at devolution. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back and everything is pulled home to put down the insurrections. Neither the Soviets nor the US have a way of intervening directly (but are willing to fund factions indirectly, lest the other one's possible allies take power) and the emerging Cold War puts both of their focus on Central Europe, anyway. The English Channel is no longer a moat to keep invaders out but to keep citizens in.
Cover, simmer for 30-40 years, and-voila!-the Hermit Kingdom of the Western Hemisphere. With the difference that they would still be on their first monarch.
From the focus of an empire upon which the sun never sets to an island upon which hope never dawns? Post 1900? Whew... Well, here's my stab at it.
We should probably start as soon onto the new century as possible. I'd say the best place to start would be troubles in Ireland. If you can accept some cocked up version of Home Rule passing pre-1900 but holding together until after the new century, you can probably start with a freshly topped off cup of resentments just waiting to be poured out. Home rule was again being...uh, discussed, shall we say?...as Europe lurched into WWI, only to disappear in unity to the war effort. Instead, Irish Nationalists use it as an opportunity for trying to independence. They don't succeed but it requires a lot of troops taking a lot of casualties in Ireland at the same time as on the continent. Great financial and manpower stains throughout the whole 1914-1918 period.
Use that to set up a more fractured political climate. Say, 1/3 of the electorate that believes Britain should focus on Ireland, even if it means drawing away from efforts at the Western Front, 1/3 that believes the Western Front is paramount and must take precedence over Ireland, and 1/3 that believes that both must be pursued with full vigor. This gives any Prime Minister the dilemma of having an electorate that will both agree with any policy, in part, by a comfortable majority while still disagreeing with it, in the whole, by the same margin.
OK, we work it so that the "all in" crowd manages to prevail in most legislation. Given the social and political strains the war put on societies OTL, we'll assume it ratchets up a even more in GB. By 1919, Ireland is probably garrisoned by a lot more weary British troops that just want to go home.
Still, we'll assume that the hard liners win another khaki election and stay in power. Ireland will not be partitioned nor will it become a Dominion. In fact, the whole concept of dominion status is seen as anathema, which kills the Statue of Westminster. Now you have Canada, Australia and South Africa with their noses out of joint. Not irredeemably so but let's make sure that cooler heads do not prevail and the 1920's are a replay of the 1770's-attempts to coerce the empire together by political (not military, though, outside of Ireland-but occasional intemperate remarks are made to the effect of the possibility) force, along with economic policies (a resurrected form of Imperial Preference?) to "tie together the Empire" but seen as a way to channel free trade to/through (and for the benefit) of London. Of course, things only go from bad to worse with the Great Depression.
On the domestic front, since the Irish and continental wars were seen/fought as one, a lot of the regulations and wartime restrictions are still in place. (Maybe some form of DORA still in effect?) the General Strike probably gets much more violent as it will be seen/portrayed by the government as betraying the war effort (think the US during Vietnam). This results in the government calling another election that maintains its majority.
On the one hand, Parliament tries "get tough" legislation (but with no real way to enforce it) while, to try and drum up some goodwill both within and for the empire, the popular Prince of Wales is sent on a tour, with great success. The end of the 1920's sees another majority in the election as the economy finally looks better and the opposition is mostly in disarray.
With the background of an unending Irish guerrilla war (including contingents of Imperial troops), relations grow more strained as India talks of home rule and the government comes down hard (like mass arrests, imprisonments and long harsh sentences, including death) on Indian nationalists. This, says London to the Irish, is where talk of loosening Imperial ties will get you...but Canada, SA and Australia think it's aimed at them, too.
With the economic crisis of the depression, the government, though not in the majority, spends most of the early 30's in effective opposition, preventing any substantive changes by succeeding coalition governments, which dissolve frequently. Reinvigorated by the threat from Nazi German rearmament, they return to power around 1937-8 with a "See what happened the moment we weren't in charge?" campaign...
This, I think, may set enough of the stage for WWII to be fought with a rightwing nationalist government that still manages to piss off the rest of the empire enough to limit their war assistance to the minimum, given grudgingly, and with a view toward presenting London with a large bill (payable economically and politically) for services rendered at the end of the war. At the end, The government (which suspended elections for the duration of the war), finally goes off the deep end and suspends elections indefinitely, earns US public enmity with a final, savage, end to the "Irish Problem", and plunges into domestic economic chaos. Meanwhile the snubbed dominions decide that, if they are treated no differently than India, then they will act no differently. Between 1946-1950, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, along with various minor dependencies, declare themselves to be dominions or independent.
Between the collapse of the empire and the economy, Scotland and possibly Wales decide to have a go at devolution. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back and everything is pulled home to put down the insurrections. Neither the Soviets nor the US have a way of intervening directly (but are willing to fund factions indirectly, lest the other one's possible allies take power) and the emerging Cold War puts both of their focus on Central Europe, anyway. The English Channel is no longer a moat to keep invaders out but to keep citizens in.
Cover, simmer for 30-40 years, and-voila!-the Hermit Kingdom of the Western Hemisphere. With the difference that they would still be on their first monarch.
Last edited: