AHC: British authoritarianism after 1945

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I was inspired by this thread and particularly this quote:

It went from having the world's strongest navy to just barely being able to support a single carrier, maybe on the right day of the week.

A military shrinking savagely, a crumbling economy and "problems" (not in my eyes, but in other's) like immigration, alcoholism and so on shaped this decline starting around 1945 and ending... well, at the earliest in 1997.

I'm wondering why no powerful authoritarian movement or even regime emerged in this hardly "shaken" country becoming fastly a shadow of its former grandeur. There was the economic policy of Mrs. Thatcher, yes, but even if under this Prime minister the trade unions were heavily attacked, no really dictatorial tendencies and ideas break forth in the society - notably, the economic politics were liberal and not state controlled, like it would typically be claimed by a traditional "national", "popular" and "strong" government.

Now, the challenge is to have some authoritarianian or fascist movement in Great Britain, propagating the ideas of "national community", a "British race" and "restauration of former glory" after 1945, being naturally strongly anti-communist, not liberalizing the economy but conducting it to form some strong Arms industry.

 

[Tom Colton]

Is a "real" version of Floyd Pinkerton allowed, or a "real" version of Norsefire from V from Vendetta?

 

[Ivir Baggins]

Would the Powell Government from If Gordon Banks Had Played count?

 

[Meadow]

Would the Powell Government from If Gordon Banks Had Played count?

Agent Lavender involves a British government holding its nose and doing lots of Things in the name of order and unity, though involves a fairly fantastical POD.

 

[RousseauX]

I was inspired by this thread and particularly this quote:

A military shrinking savagely, a crumbling economy and "problems" (not in my eyes, but in other's) like immigration, alcoholism and so on shaped this decline starting around 1945 and ending... well, at the earliest in 1997.

I'm wondering why no powerful authoritarian movement or even regime emerged in this hardly "shaken" country becoming fastly a shadow of its former grandeur. There was the economic policy of Mrs. Thatcher, yes, but even if under this Prime minister the trade unions were heavily attacked, no really dictatorial tendencies and ideas break forth in the society - notably, the economic politics were liberal and not state controlled, like it would typically be claimed by a traditional "national", "popular" and "strong" government.

Now, the challenge is to have some authoritarianian or fascist movement in Great Britain, propagating the ideas of "national community", a "British race" and "restauration of former glory" after 1945, being naturally strongly anti-communist, not liberalizing the economy but conducting it to form some strong Arms industry.

Because post-war Britain lacked

1) Another power/group of power treating it like a defeated power
2) Sable, prosperous economic conditions.

The closet things to what you are describing would be Weimar Germany and Russia 1990s-today and maybe post-Communist Hungary. Both of which had some combination of 1) Being treated like the lost a war they didn't think they lost and 2) Hyperinflation/Great depression/post-Soviet collapse of economy.

 

[iani]

Never heard of the Mountbatten plot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_..._of_Burma#Alleged_plots_against_Harold_Wilson

 

[Simon]

Never heard of the Mountbatten plot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_..._of_Burma#Alleged_plots_against_Harold_Wilson

You mean the plot that as far as I'm aware no-one has ever come up with any evidence for and is basically supposition? Some right-wingers may have been a bit grumpy and said things over drinks but was it a viable or even seriously considered idea, personally I'd say not.

 

[Files]

well the thing here is that there really wasn't a reason for the sort of authoritarian (personally i try to avoid that term since its so imprecise, but you clarified what you meant here) government you outline in the op.

i mean, the british ruling class learned to accept that it was basically an appendage of the usa in the postwar world, even if that was a bit of a bitter pill for some of them. no one really wants to formally reconstruct the empire except extremely marginal figures.

open and explicit references to national racial supremacy (distinct from the sort of white supremacy that led to things like this) are probably out too since that sort of talk was too associated with the nazis to continue in europe (same with eugenics and anti-semitism). any authoritarian british government is probably going to wrap itself up in "our finest hour" type stuff, so really you can't have anything that is too likely to remind people of the nazis.

"national community" though is more plausible, and can have all sorts of racial dogwhistles in it, like it does in real life.

as far as the not liberalizing the economy and war industry points you mention, i would imagine that the war industry in britain could remain similar to otl, with maybe just a bit more overt government support. since this hypothetical britain wouldn't be arming in order to re-invade india the arms industry would be for export to about the same degree that it is today. re: not liberalizing, i think this one's also unlikely. a pinochet situation is more likely than a more guided war economy, since, again, a big war is probably not in the cards for this government.

anyway, the point is that the ruling class has no reason to install any sort of dictatorial government since they're getting what they want anyway. now if there was a serious threat to them, like a serious chance for a communist electoral victory or a huge amount of labor militancy, you could see support for an authoritarian right-wing government in britain.

so how to get that? i'm not sure. it seems like it would require some serious economic upheaval at least. maybe the miner's strike could be bigger/more violent than otl?

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

You mean the plot that as far as I'm aware no-one has ever come up with any evidence for and is basically supposition? Some right-wingers may have been a bit grumpy and said things over drinks but was it a viable or even seriously considered idea, personally I'd say not.

Sounds like the British version of the Business Plot.

 

[Simon]

Sounds like the British version of the Business Plot.

Pretty much, the former Security Service officer whose book started off the whole thing later admitted on television that the 30 officers he'd written about he'd been wildly exaggerating with "The maximum number was eight or nine. Very often it was only three." Following up on that asked how many were actually serious in joining his plot rather than just general griping his reply was "One, I should say." When your main source says of the claim "I would say it is unreliable" along with other parts of their writing being an exaggeration the whole thing just starts going into conspiracy theory territory. Now that's not to say that individual people might not of leaked the odd thing to the press on occasion but of the idea that there was some sort of grand plot I think a large part of it can be put down to Wilson's own paranoia.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

so how to get that? i'm not sure. it seems like it would require some serious economic upheaval at least. maybe the miner's strike could be bigger/more violent than otl?

I simply don't understand why the aristocracy and the conservatives in the UK didn't wanted to keep the African and Asian colonies... I mean the Germans after 1919 claimed repeatedly their colonies backs, Portugal only released Angola and Mozambique in 1975 after the ruin of the mainland's economy, the republican France had strong armed opposition against decolonization in Algeria...

Is it really that difficult to have a similar, strong, conservative movement in GB, fighting against powerful trade unions and strikes (e.g. being more popular and radical because of the Soviet Union doing better in WWII and conquering more countries in Europe and/or the French installing a communist government)?

If the conflict then lasts since the temperated forces are in a postion of minority, a left alliance striving for a "democratic socialism" could maybe win the House of Commons in elections, but the House of Lord and the class of traditional, conservative and liberal politicans would be supported by the US and the British armed forces. A short civil war destroys all attempts of transforming the society, and one leading general is appointed Prime Minister by the King/Queen without the approval of the dissolved Parliament.

The aristocrats, industrialists and militarists, "realizing" that "the people isn't ready for democracy" establish a "Government of national unity"/Junta under the nominal control of the monarch - the constition is "revised", while political opponents "disappear". The troops in the remaining colonies (so without India) are reinforced and the country starts to strengthen the navy - it has to become the strongest of the world again.

Firstly, the system seems to work - the proscription of trade unions, socialist, radical liberal and minority parties and strikes reinforces the state's and the economy's structure. But the guerilla war in the colonies, the worker's bad living conditions, embargos imposed by mainly socialist Europe and a rising rejection of military rule by the British majority lead lastly to the overthrow of the government in 1986.

 

[British Republic]

What about a very strong CP Powers Victory in WW1? There was a thread about this sometime ago.

 

[V-J]

I simply don't understand why the aristocracy and the conservatives in the UK didn't wanted to keep the African and Asian colonies... I mean the Germans after 1919 claimed repeatedly their colonies backs, Portugal only released Angola and Mozambique in 1975 after the ruin of the mainland's economy, the republican France had strong armed opposition against decolonization in Algeria...

So you're basically frustrated because the British right weren't total idiots?

The difference of course arises in the fact that the Estado Novo and the German post-war right were hardly the most unideological or realistic of political forces - rather different to the decidedly moderate and flexible British right of the post-WW2 period. You're comparing quasi-Fascists with One Nation Tories. France also had a peculiar relationship with Algeria in considering it part of the metropole due to the very considerable French settlement.

 

[British Republic]

So you're basically frustrated because the British right weren't total idiots?

Well to be honest we have managed to do decolonization better than Mainland Europe managed with the expectation of India. However while we were more accepting of our fate than Mainland Europe there are large sections of the UK IMO which still have issues getting over the fact we are no longer a major power. (although not even UKIP it seems want to bring that back).

I would also say that on socialism and the elites. The Two World Wars broke down those barriers and have them be more accepting of trade unions and the Labour Party and thus they were less willing to fight against them.

 

[British Republic]

i mean, the british ruling class learned to accept that it was basically an appendage of the usa in the postwar world, even if that was a bit of a bitter pill for some of them. no one really wants to formally reconstruct the empire except extremely marginal figures.

Which makes the Tory/UKIP Rights views on the EU seem bizzare when compared to influence on Washington (France and Germany don't have military bases here for example). Although Nigel Farage seems to be looking towards Moscow...

open and explicit references to national racial supremacy (distinct from the sort of white supremacy that led to things like this) are probably out too since that sort of talk was too associated with the nazis to continue in europe (same with eugenics and anti-semitism). any authoritarian british government is probably going to wrap itself up in "our finest hour" type stuff, so really you can't have anything that is too likely to remind people of the nazis.

Shame it did not apply for the Colonies, if they focused on "Cultural Supremacy" they would still be a world power IMO.

 

[Earling]

I simply don't understand why the aristocracy and the conservatives in the UK didn't wanted to keep the African and Asian colonies... I mean the Germans after 1919 claimed repeatedly their colonies backs, Portugal only released Angola and Mozambique in 1975 after the ruin of the mainland's economy, the republican France had strong armed opposition against decolonization in Algeria...

Because most people in the UK didn't especially care about the colonies. They were not what made Britain wealthy, successful and relevant rather they were the consequence of her wealth, her success and he power. (Whether this is factually accurate is debatable but it was believed then and plenty believe it now.) Once Britain was no longer rich enough and strong enough to hold them it was obvious they were going to go. This doesn't even take into account that many people across the spectrum felt home rule was the right thing to do - Winds of Change and all that.

I reckon if you looked at the sources far more Germans between the wars were upset over the Polish Corridor and Danzig than they were about the loss of German East Africa.

France in Algeria is rather more like the British in Ireland than in Ghana or Burma. It was seen as part of the metropole and therefore worth prolonged struggle. Algiers had famously been part of France for longer than Nice. The difference is that British Northern Ireland "won" (or at least survived) The Troubles whereas the French were compelled to abandon all of Algeria. Its perhaps interesting (if deeply unpleasant) to wonder whether some portion of territory might still be French today if the French had engaged in partition and population transfer.

I don't know enough about Portugal to go into detail but the Empire was rather more important ideologically to the view of Portugal as a great power. The UK shorn of just about all her Empire is still the 6th largest economy in the world and comfortably in the second tier (everyone but the USA) militarily. At the danger of being harsh Portugal meanwhile is now the 45th largest economy in the world and her military is of little concern to anyone.

For the OP the real question is what would this traditional authoritarian government do. Which enemy does it fight? You could bring forward the conditions of Thatcherism earlier - the economic chaos and listlessness of the 1970s - but it is difficult to see how you get there immediately from OTL's 1945.

 

[V-J]

Because most people in the UK didn't especially care about the colonies. They were not what made Britain wealthy, successful and relevant rather they were the consequence of her wealth, her success and he power. (Whether this is factually accurate is debatable but it was believed then and plenty believe it now.) Once Britain was no longer rich enough and strong enough to hold them it was obvious they were going to go.

This as well. The popular investment in empire after world war two was absolutely minimal. Decolonisation never became a particularly pressing mainstream political issue. When the rug was pulled from the biggest imperial venture at Suez there was no argument, life just continued. Very much a case of things happening 'abroad' so out of sight out of mind.

 

[British Republic]

Because most people in the UK didn't especially care about the colonies. They were not what made Britain wealthy, successful and relevant rather they were the consequence of her wealth, her success and he power. (Whether this is factually accurate is debatable but it was believed then and plenty believe it now.) Once Britain was no longer rich enough and strong enough to hold them it was obvious they were going to go. This doesn't even take into account that many people across the spectrum felt home rule was the right thing to do - Winds of Change and all that.

Was the British Education System that bad at the time?

I mean in all seriousness it does not take a expert in geo-politics to see that Britain in itself was too small to be a major power on their own. So I find the judgments of the elite to be very surprising and one wonders how they even got a empire in the first place (I know why for the record, just saying).

France in Algeria is rather more like the British in Ireland than in Ghana or Burma. It was seen as part of the metropole and therefore worth prolonged struggle. Algiers had famously been part of France for longer than Nice. The difference is that British Northern Ireland "won" (or at least survived) The Troubles whereas the French were compelled to abandon all of Algeria. Its perhaps interesting (if deeply unpleasant) to wonder whether some portion of territory might still be French today if the French had engaged in partition and population transfer.

Remember also that many people in Great Britain did not want to keep Ulster and the UK Government retained it because it feared the Unionists would destabilize Ireland itself (So one wonders why could they simply not "deal" with the UVF etc.)

Speaking of Algeria, would it be possible to have the area of the 3 French Departments (between 1848-1955) remain part of France?

The UK shorn of just about all her Empire is still the 6th largest economy in the world and comfortably in the second tier (everyone but the USA) militarily.

That is like saying that Aberdeen FC is a "Major" Scottish Football Club when we all know that the only "Major" Football Clubs are Rangers and Celtic.

This nation is like Aberdeen FC of Geopolitics and the USA is Glasgow Celtic of Geopolitics. So both those points do not mean much when the only real powers are in Beijing and Washington.

For the OP the real question is what would this traditional authoritarian government do. Which enemy does it fight? You could bring forward the conditions of Thatcherism earlier - the economic chaos and listlessness of the 1970s - but it is difficult to see how you get there immediately from OTL's 1945.

Suffer a defeat in WW2 by the Axis Powers (without a invasion of the UK itself, just Axis control of Mainland Europe, Africa and Asia apart from the Philippines and India)?

 

[Earling]

That is like saying that Aberdeen FC is a "Major" Scottish Football Club when we all know that the only "Major" Football Clubs are Rangers and Celtic.

This nation is like Aberdeen FC of Geopolitics and the USA is Glasgow Celtic of Geopolitics. So both those points do not mean much when the only real powers are in Beijing and Washington.

I wonder if anyone has done an analysis drawing parallels between the collapse of the USSR and Rangers.

To go forward with the football there is a clear change in mindset. I would quite like Villa to win the FA Cup by defeating everyone 10-0. I don't think that is going to happen though. What I would prefer therefore is that if Villa are going to go out it is to someone half way decent rather than being stuffed 2-4 by someone three leagues below.

So it was with the British Empire.

Anyway I don't know enough about Algeria to comment, most people in the UK would have probably shrugged off the annexation of Northern Ireland to Ireland and in a world where the UK is defeated by the Axis powers the world is going to be a very different and much darker place.

 

[British Republic]

I wonder if anyone has done an analysis drawing parallels between the collapse of the USSR and Rangers.

That was exactly what I was thinking I wonder if Celtics fans have any ideas about this example.

To go forward with the football there is a clear change in mindset. I would quite like Villa to win the FA Cup by defeating everyone 10-0. I don't think that is going to happen though. What I would prefer therefore is that if Villa are going to go out it is to someone half way decent rather than being stuffed 2-4 by someone three leagues below.

So it was with the British Empire.

Yes I would think that is a good example as well.

Anyway I don't know enough about Algeria to comment, most people in the UK would have probably shrugged off the annexation of Northern Ireland to Ireland

Even Mountbatten (although you know this already, I think...) held this view and the various polls at the time would agree with you.

and in a world where the UK is defeated by the Axis powers the world is going to be a very different and much darker place.

I would agree with that, it would also mean a faster fall from grace than what happened in OTL.