The British Empire in the aftermath of defeat in 1918

[Skinny87]

To aid in the background of something I'm writing at the moment, what might the consequences be for the elements of the British Empire if the Great War had resulted in defeat for Britain in 1918 - using the Kaiserreich as a sort of vague template. Would defeat and a negotiated peace meant any disruption to the Empire, particularly areas such as India and the Middle/Far East? I'm curious as to how fractured the Empire might have been able to become in such a scenario -would there have been violent, bloody secessions, or perhaps instead a more brutal, focused form of Imperial Policing where Amritsar became the outright norm rather than a shocking exception?

 

[Yokai Man]

To aid in the background of something I'm writing at the moment, what might the consequences be for the elements of the British Empire if the Great War had resulted in defeat for Britain in 1918 - using the Kaiserreich as a sort of vague template. Would defeat and a negotiated peace meant any disruption to the Empire, particularly areas such as India and the Middle/Far East? I'm curious as to how fractured the Empire might have been able to become in such a scenario -would there have been violent, bloody secessions, or perhaps instead a more brutal, focused form of Imperial Policing where Amritsar became the outright norm rather than a shocking exception?

The Middle East would most likely be taken by the Ottomans and India would be engulfed in violence as the British try to stop secession from happening.Ireland is gone and Africa probably goes to Fritz,who’ll also have to deal with Austro-Hungary collapsing.

Japhy did this scenario back in The Other Place so maybe you should ask him a little.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tliaw-failed-miserably.384596/

The real question is what do the Dominions do in this scenario.

 

[Yokai Man]

Not convinced. Not even a little bit.

If the war has gone on until 1918, then Germany is as exhausted as everyone else. Unless there have been some dramatic changes, the blockade will still have happened, the Turnip Winter will still have happened, German losses will still have happened.

The Ottomans taking the Middle East is unlikely, to put it mildly. They have logistical difficulties beyond imagining to (fail to) hold on to what they had. The absolute best case scenario for them, given the logistical infrastructure, is holding on to what they have - which begs the question as to whether, with Turkification in full swing, they would want to. Expanding? I don't see it. The Armenians are screwed, obviously. The Arabs too, most likely.

Africa going to Germany? How would they hold it? Logistically, that would be a nightmare which even the German Staff could see was a nonsense.

If the war has gone on until 1918, then the first point is that everyone is exhausted. It really doesn't matter how you wrap up the getting there, that is an immutable point. If all sides are exhausted, then if Germany takes on colonies it can't support, then those colonies are either going to fall apart, or get the Herero treatment in short order.

Ireland will very much depend on what happens in 1916, and what has happened to Home Rule. It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details, and small changes can have a major impact.

India is another very complicated situation. India made an immense contribution to WWI, and I for one wouldn't like to predict the course of events without knowing what the situation was that got us to the start point.

I'll grant you that Austria-Hungary is a basket case waiting to fall apart, but how that gets resolved is again something that would depend on the way things have happened to get us to this point.

Fair point,I didn’t thought it thru. Sorry.

 

[George Kearton]

Not convinced. Not even a little bit.

If the war has gone on until 1918, then Germany is as exhausted as everyone else. Unless there have been some dramatic changes, the blockade will still have happened, the Turnip Winter will still have happened, German losses will still have happened.

The Ottomans taking the Middle East is unlikely, to put it mildly. They have logistical difficulties beyond imagining to (fail to) hold on to what they had. The absolute best case scenario for them, given the logistical infrastructure, is holding on to what they have - which begs the question as to whether, with Turkification in full swing, they would want to. Expanding? I don't see it. The Armenians are screwed, obviously. The Arabs too, most likely.

Africa going to Germany? How would they hold it? Logistically, that would be a nightmare which even the German Staff could see was a nonsense.

If the war has gone on until 1918, then the first point is that everyone is exhausted. It really doesn't matter how you wrap up the getting there, that is an immutable point. If all sides are exhausted, then if Germany takes on colonies it can't support, then those colonies are either going to fall apart, or get the Herero treatment in short order.

Ireland will very much depend on what happens in 1916, and what has happened to Home Rule. It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details, and small changes can have a major impact.

India is another very complicated situation. India made an immense contribution to WWI, and I for one wouldn't like to predict the course of events without knowing what the situation was that got us to the start point.

I'll grant you that Austria-Hungary is a basket case waiting to fall apart, but how that gets resolved is again something that would depend on the way things have happened to get us to this point.

As regards Ireland, you're certainly anticipating my forthcoming "Celtic Trilogy"

 

[Alex Richards]

OK, so having looked the Kaiserreich backstory it basically goes for a three part PoD:

1. German unrestricted submarine warfare is cancelled and America doesn't join the war.

2. Britain sinks a US ship headed for Germany as part of the blockade and is forced to loosen it, then there's a second Battle of Jutland which sinks enough British ships to end the blockade.

3. German troops prop up the Ottomans and the end of the blockade allows them to push into France (and Austria push into Italy) in 1919 using troops from the Eastern Front.

Looking at that, the first part looks fine, the second part seems somewhat arguable, the third is very woolly. I think you can probably argue 'less effective blockade+No Americans+German troops from Eastern Europe=Germans managing to collapse the front and force French surrender (Italy would probably surrender on losing Venice by this point, no real need to somehow have the Austrians reach Rome).

Britain has, in effect, decisively lost the land war but the naval war is still in play. I can't see the Ottomans holding anything south of Damascus or Baghdad, and frankly I suspect that even if Britain technically doesn't gain any territory covert support for the Arabs will mean an independent Arab Kingdom is on the cards. Unless Germany actually goes full on reconquest. While occupying parts of France. And defending the new puppets in Eastern Europe.

Their colonial Empire's gone- Germany might manage to get Ostafrika and Kamerun returned, possibly even adding the Belgian Congo as part of the deal to retreat from Belgium, but the rest is gone.

Ireland seems to be heading on approximately the same course of action as historically. India I wouldn't guess at, but it's qute possible that losing Ireland as well as the war means self-rule gets given more of a priority. Or not of course.

 

[Death's Companion]

I think the easiest way to have the Germans win is twofold, 1. The Americans stay out. 2. The German economy is not run into the ground by the Hindenburg program. Under less pressure the Germans don't gamble their Russian windfall on a reckless offensive so they still are in some shape to continue into 1919 by which point a peace by exhaustion seems fairly plausible.

 

[George Kearton]

I'll certainly be interested. It's a situation where so much depends on the POD and how things develop.

Working on it, even as we speak - 13,000 words of volume one done so far....

 

[Thande]

I always thought it would be "interesting" to have a scenario where Germany has defeated France and Russia and the BEF are evacuated, but Germany can't really do anything directly to the UK other than zeppelins 'n' HSF raids, and though victorious the German populace is as hungry and mutinous by 1918 as OTL. Could you have a scenario where, according to the pink bits on the world map, Britain hasn't actually lost much (and maybe even seizes French colonies before they can be given over to Germany at a treaty, etc.) but is effectively shut out of Europe for the long term a la the Napoleonic Wars?

What I'm mainly thinking of is how Central Powers WW1 victory maps usually show a united Irish republic, whereas I'd argue it's more plausible for the whole of Ireland to be under the British crown due to victorious Germany not being able to enforce such a treaty (or care that much about it) and a British government with its backs to the wall trying to look strong to its voters by refusing to compromise with the rebels and committing various nasty things against them. Though I suppose American public opinion might be a factor here.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

What I'm mainly thinking of is how Central Powers WW1 victory maps usually show a united Irish republic, whereas I'd argue it's more plausible for the whole of Ireland to be under the British crown due to victorious Germany not being able to enforce such a treaty (or care that much about it) and a British government with its backs to the wall trying to look strong to its voters by refusing to compromise with the rebels and committing various nasty things against them. Though I suppose American public opinion might be a factor here.

Assuming that there's at least a temporary victory in Ireland, one consequence might be severe upheavals in Australia. The conscription referendums were already perceived as being Irish nationalists against the Loyal government. That's not entirely true- Archbishop Daniel Mannix was in no way the great mastermind against conscription that Prime Minister Hughes thought he was- but there's real potential for a quarter of the Australian population to be portrayed as the cowards and traitors who stopped the Empire from being able to commit to victory.
Then if that's followed by the brutal suppression of the Irish, that could really ramp up sectarianism in Australia and New Zealand. The Archbishop of Auckland was put on trial for sedition in 1922 for saying that the Easter Rebels had been 'murdered' by 'foreign' troops. In OTL, an all-protestant jury acquitted him, though they condemned his language. In this scenario, that could go the other way.
(Mannix also ran afoul of British authorities when he tried to visit Ireland in 1923 and his ship was stopped by the Royal Navy. It was, he declared, 'the greatest British victory since the Battle of Jutland!')
This would also probably make the deeply nasty Protestant League in New Zealand more successful, and more dangerous than OTL.

All in all, a good recipe for social strife- and potentially could lead to the Labour parties in Australasia looking more to the US Democrats than the British. It would be interesting to do a timeline where America is the anchor for leftist parties in Canada and Australasia, while the right models itself more on Britain and Europe....

 

[Thande]

Assuming that there's at least a temporary victory in Ireland, one consequence might be severe upheavals in Australia. The conscription referendums were already perceived as being Irish nationalists against the Loyal government. That's not entirely true- Archbishop Daniel Mannix was in no way the great mastermind against conscription that Prime Minister Hughes thought he was- but there's real potential for a quarter of the Australian population to be portrayed as the cowards and traitors who stopped the Empire from being able to commit to victory.
Then if that's followed by the brutal suppression of the Irish, that could really ramp up sectarianism in Australia and New Zealand. The Archbishop of Auckland was put on trial for sedition in 1922 for saying that the Easter Rebels had been 'murdered' by 'foreign' troops. In OTL, an all-protestant jury acquitted him, though they condemned his language. In this scenario, that could go the other way.
(Mannix also ran afoul of British authorities when he tried to visit Ireland in 1923 and his ship was stopped by the Royal Navy. It was, he declared, 'the greatest British victory since the Battle of Jutland!')
This would also probably make the deeply nasty Protestant League in New Zealand more successful, and more dangerous than OTL.

All in all, a good recipe for social strife- and potentially could lead to the Labour parties in Australasia looking more to the US Democrats than the British. It would be interesting to do a timeline where America is the anchor for leftist parties in Canada and Australasia, while the right models itself more on Britain and Europe....

Good point that it would likely lead to further sectarianism elsewhere - one can imagine a (bigger) backlash against Quebec in Canada as well perhaps.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Ooh, I didn't even think of Canada- and you're right, it's the same conscription/religious sectarianism powder keg there.

Actually, if you have some fun with the Second Klan and the Presidential elections- a Democratic convention that somehow ends up deadlocked between McAdoo and Al Smith, maybe?- you could have the nineteen twenties turn into a 'crisis of the english speaking world', where chin-stroking German academics wisely opine that the age old failure to resolve religious and social tensions was always going to inevitably explode once again.

 

[Thande]

Ooh, I didn't even think of Canada- and you're right, it's the same conscription/religious sectarianism powder keg there.

Actually, if you have some fun with the Second Klan and the Presidential elections- a Democratic convention that somehow ends up deadlocked between McAdoo and Al Smith, maybe?- you could have the nineteen twenties turn into a 'crisis of the english speaking world', where chin-stroking German academics wisely opine that the age old failure to resolve religious and social tensions was always going to inevitably explode once again.

Indeed, that's not a necessary corollary but it could certainly happen.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I always thought it would be "interesting" to have a scenario where Germany has defeated France and Russia and the BEF are evacuated, but Germany can't really do anything directly to the UK other than zeppelins 'n' HSF raids, and though victorious the German populace is as hungry and mutinous by 1918 as OTL. Could you have a scenario where, according to the pink bits on the world map, Britain hasn't actually lost much (and maybe even seizes French colonies before they can be given over to Germany at a treaty, etc.) but is effectively shut out of Europe for the long term a la the Napoleonic Wars?

That's what I'm thinking, based on the 1918 POD and David's points about the blockade. Germany has decisively won on the continent, Britain has lost but can't actually be invaded or successfully beaten at sea, Foreign Secretary Vyvian telegraphs Reich and asks "if we give up can we stop playing this stupid boring game?" This might not even cost Britain much in the peace treaty, since Germany can't force a Brest-Litovsk.

So you get a Britain that's bankrupted and lost hundreds of thousands of men and still lost, but still has the biggest empire on Earth and is still a major power. People are going to be frustrated, is what I'm thinking, and more so than OTL: "why did we go through all that, who's to blame for my son being dead, if we're the Biggest Empire why is everything so shit?"

And as I type this, I remember there's going to be an election very soon after the war ends (can't be delayed forever....), including many newly enfranchised veterans, workers, and women. What happens if the government is turfed out early into this mess and the radicals are voted in, even by a small majority?

 

[Alex Richards]

I suppose if the Peace treaty leaves Belgium as a demilitarised neutral the government can try and claim this as having achieved the stated war goal (and nabbed some colonies in the process) but it's not exactly going to be considered a fair trade.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I suppose if the Peace treaty leaves Belgium as a demilitarised neutral the government can try and claim this as having achieved the stated war goal (and nabbed some colonies in the process) but it's not exactly going to be considered a fair trade.

IIRC Germany wanted to carve up Belgium afterwards, but maybe for the sake of ending the whole bloody affair they'd allow part of it to remain. (Then neither Britain, Belgium, or Germany is happy!)

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

(Then neither Britain, Belgium, or Germany is happy!)

A perfect compromise.

Something bad is definitely going to happen in Austria-Hungary. Maybe a Russian-Civil-War-esque conflict, but with way more separatism and ethnic cleansing?

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

Ethnic cleansing arguably won't happen, because the ethnic independence groups (such as the Czech Legion) are too strong, and the reliable element of the A-H Army is tied up against Italy (or else Italy is coming through), and not available to butcher people.

I mostly meant ethnic cleansing by riled-up-to-the-point-of-bloody-rage partisans, but good point.

Any chance for a Socialist revolution is probably contingent on whether anything happens in Russia, but a General Strike, if it happens, would probably lead to bloodier results than in OTL. Probably with some nasty actions taken by a larger Middle Class Union, or a similar group--maybe a British analogue of the Freikorps?

 

[Alex Richards]

It might get quite bloody in Bohemia and Moravia if the Sudeten Germans decide to try and force at least a Republic of German Austria situation.

Of course that might just be the 'ok here's something German troops can and will do' in terms of action and just move in to 'secure' the German territories of A-H and never leave.

 

[Yokai Man]

I wonder how Romania would be in this scenario.Most probably chopped to bits and being even more resentful at everyone,wanting revenge in the future and more extremists going to get popular faster than OTL.

 

[Yokai Man]

I mostly meant ethnic cleansing by riled-up-to-the-point-of-bloody-rage partisans, but good point.

Any chance for a Socialist revolution is probably contingent on whether anything happens in Russia, but a General Strike, if it happens, would probably lead to bloodier results than in OTL. Probably with some nasty actions taken by a larger Middle Class Union, or a similar group--maybe a British analogue of the Freikorps?

[BELA KUN JUST GRINS]