Military coup to over throw UK Government
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military coup to over throw UK Government
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm
I remember this, it was just at about the time I joined the Navy and very shortly afterwards he was thrown out at the General Election. It will be interesting to hear what the 2 Army chiefs had to do with it.
I remember this, it was just at about the time I joined the Navy and very shortly afterwards he was thrown out at the General Election. It will be interesting to hear what the 2 Army chiefs had to do with it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the subject was discussed within the military and it's a shame that it was just discussion.
Every democracy needs a few years of military rule from time to time to reinstate decent values.
Takes shelter behind TV - say what you like I'm not watching!
Every democracy needs a few years of military rule from time to time to reinstate decent values.
Takes shelter behind TV - say what you like I'm not watching!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard rumours about this before, but it sounded a bit far fetched - taking it with a pinch of salt since its the BBC but maybe there was something to it. And we wonder why this Labour Government has emasculated us? Running scared perhaps?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly I don't think we have....nor the military leadership to carry it off..
and if we did no doubt the bean counters would charge us for it or introduce a military coup chrage whereby we each lost 1/2 of our flying pay seeing as we now worked for each other...
and if we did no doubt the bean counters would charge us for it or introduce a military coup chrage whereby we each lost 1/2 of our flying pay seeing as we now worked for each other...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
There was a discussion about a military coup on arrse a while back, it was decided that unserviceabilities/overstretch mean that the RAF would have to use the BBMF, the RN would have to make use of HMS Belfast and the Army would have to stop off at the National Army Museum on the way to Westminster.
As long as it got rid of the current bunch of self-serving gits (all parties, not just Labour) I'd be happy laying siege to Downing St with a pick axe handle.
As long as it got rid of the current bunch of self-serving gits (all parties, not just Labour) I'd be happy laying siege to Downing St with a pick axe handle.
Interestingly, there are suggestions that the man who told Wilson about Mountbatten's plotting was...er... Mountbatten.
In the authorised biog of Wilson, Philip Ziegler (also authorised biographer of Mountbatten) gives some outline of what happened (at least in regard to the first alleged coup). Cecil King, of the Daily Mirror, had a meeting with Mountbatten in which Mountbatten got the distinct impression that King was advocating that he should lead a military coup to depose Wilson.
Mountbatten was sufficiently concerned at King's inferences to make a record of their conversation, which he agreed with King's deputy. He then went and told Wilson. Ziegler suggests that Wilson became rather confused as to what Mountbatten was up to and began to suspect Mountbatten.
It'll be interesting to see whether the programme clears this up or not.
In the authorised biog of Wilson, Philip Ziegler (also authorised biographer of Mountbatten) gives some outline of what happened (at least in regard to the first alleged coup). Cecil King, of the Daily Mirror, had a meeting with Mountbatten in which Mountbatten got the distinct impression that King was advocating that he should lead a military coup to depose Wilson.
Mountbatten was sufficiently concerned at King's inferences to make a record of their conversation, which he agreed with King's deputy. He then went and told Wilson. Ziegler suggests that Wilson became rather confused as to what Mountbatten was up to and began to suspect Mountbatten.
It'll be interesting to see whether the programme clears this up or not.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coup de Grace, more likely
Last year I had an interesting conversation with a very senior - and retired - diplomat who stated that MRAF Lord Elworthy and Sir Solly Zuckerman were implicated and had proposed that Mountbatten would be be appointed post-coup as 'Lord Protector' or some such equally arcane title. Mountbatten, irrespective of other faults, did not agree and reported the matter to Wilson, but did not name those involved. He - the reired diplomat - was of the belief that the idea was simply discussed over a few post-prandial Cognacs at Brooke's or White's; and never amounted much more that an aspiration to rid the country of an ungoverning administration. How often do we come up with equally silly ideas when we have had a few drinks?
I look forward to watching the BBC docu-drama.
CC
I look forward to watching the BBC docu-drama.
CC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometime in early 70's, Dining In Night at large East Anglian base, Staish stood up for after dinner speech and came out with to all intents and purposes a call to be ready for a military coup. Can not remember much of what was said but audience somewhat stunned.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1975ish I was on the transport flight at Lyneham and can remember what appeared to be light hearted jokes about the possiblity of a military coup to get rid of Harold Wilson. Only later did I hear that there might have been some serious backers for this.
The general view at the time was that none of us wanted the people who were running the RAF to be given the job of running the country!
The general view at the time was that none of us wanted the people who were running the RAF to be given the job of running the country!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joking aside, it is inconceivable that the Armed Forces would instigate a coup. The tradition of loyalty to the Crown and pride in Service history is too ingrained.
A mass resignation is possible, such as along the lines of the Curragh "mutiny" (see below). It is possible that any repetition of the Iraq scenario (in Iran for example) would generate enough resignations in the Armed Forces to force the resignation of the government. However, for anything more "serious" the circumstances would have to be astonishing, such as an attempt to replace the constitutional monarchy with a presidency, a major and widespread institutional breach of human rights or the suspension of Parliament by the government. These are without modern precedent in the UK.
I don't believe the Mountbatten/Wilson conspiracy. The story of a drunken rant in Clubland that turned into a rumour is far more believable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/eas...ude/pr06.shtml
A mass resignation is possible, such as along the lines of the Curragh "mutiny" (see below). It is possible that any repetition of the Iraq scenario (in Iran for example) would generate enough resignations in the Armed Forces to force the resignation of the government. However, for anything more "serious" the circumstances would have to be astonishing, such as an attempt to replace the constitutional monarchy with a presidency, a major and widespread institutional breach of human rights or the suspension of Parliament by the government. These are without modern precedent in the UK.
I don't believe the Mountbatten/Wilson conspiracy. The story of a drunken rant in Clubland that turned into a rumour is far more believable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/eas...ude/pr06.shtml
By March 1914, British government ministers appear to have been considering taking strong action to crush unionist resistance. Sir Arthur Paget, Commander-in-Chief of troops in Ireland, was summoned to London and instructed to move 800 men into the province to reinforce depots and arms stores there. Preparations for a possible rebellion in Ulster were also discussed. It was rumoured that unionist leaders would be arrested. On his return to the Curragh on 20th March, Paget summoned his brigadiers and informed them that active operations against Ulster were imminent. He indicated that officers with homes in Ulster would be permitted to be absent from duty without compromising their careers. Unwisely, he added that any others who were not prepared to carry out their duty were to say so and these would immediately be dismissed from the service. The brigadiers were to put these alternatives to their men and report back; 57 of the 70 officers consulted elected for dismissal. They were led by Brigadier General Herbert Gough who, like many of them, had Irish family connections.
The 57 officers were not actually guilty of ‘mutiny’; they had not disobeyed direct orders of any kind. Nonetheless, news of their resignations caused government alarm. If orders had existed for the repression of the Ulster unionists and the arrest of their leaders, they were at once withdrawn. Asquith claimed publicly that no such action had been contemplated and that the whole episode had resulted from an ‘honest misunderstanding’. The War Office stated that ministers had no future intention of using the army to enforce submission to the Home Rule Bill. This assurance may have been given without cabinet authority, as those responsible for issuing it were subsequently obliged to resign.
Overall, the episode greatly increased the confidence of Ulster unionists; they firmly believed that the government had intended to crush them but its plan had failed for lack of military support. Certainly thereafter ministers were convinced that they could not trust the army to quell opposition to home rule in the province. For Irish nationalists, the events merely confirmed their increasing doubts about Asquith’s real commitment to granting Irish self-government and about his willingness ever to grapple with unionist militancy.
The 57 officers were not actually guilty of ‘mutiny’; they had not disobeyed direct orders of any kind. Nonetheless, news of their resignations caused government alarm. If orders had existed for the repression of the Ulster unionists and the arrest of their leaders, they were at once withdrawn. Asquith claimed publicly that no such action had been contemplated and that the whole episode had resulted from an ‘honest misunderstanding’. The War Office stated that ministers had no future intention of using the army to enforce submission to the Home Rule Bill. This assurance may have been given without cabinet authority, as those responsible for issuing it were subsequently obliged to resign.
Overall, the episode greatly increased the confidence of Ulster unionists; they firmly believed that the government had intended to crush them but its plan had failed for lack of military support. Certainly thereafter ministers were convinced that they could not trust the army to quell opposition to home rule in the province. For Irish nationalists, the events merely confirmed their increasing doubts about Asquith’s real commitment to granting Irish self-government and about his willingness ever to grapple with unionist militancy.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would-be plotters might be interested to read "How to Stage a Military Coup: Planning to Execution" by Ken Connor and David Hebditch (£12.53 from amazon). The postulated UK coup makes for a bit of a diversion, just not a very believable one!
Originally Posted by JessTheDog
Joking aside, it is inconceivable that the Armed Forces would instigate a coup. The tradition of loyalty to the Crown and pride in Service history is too ingrained.
JTD
Only one problem with your theory - as you say "loyalty to the Crown". No one was planning to over throw our Head of State, only the then prime minister. Many believed the then prime minister was a Soviet agent, and without wishing to re-ignite the TSR 2 debate, so was his minister of defence!!!!
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot will be written in the future about Mountbatten, or "Uncle Dickie" This is one cove whose name crops up all to readily.
We live history. This reply is part of it like any thoughts you might have. I wonder what might appear in 30 years or so, for our children will almost certainly treat it with the same frivolity that many posters here have done. This is not meant to take the rise from anyone, but just a reminder that the reality that we all have is based on perspective - and those perspectives change with time, fashion and a great many other things too.
Remember what you feel now - the annoyance, the grit, the reality and the truth. It will be spun in all sorts of directions for our children, legitimate or otherwise.
I do hope that someone is keeping track of Pprune as a record - a moving snapshot - of time. When we are all blowing bubbles, what record do we leave?
Right! That is the serious bit done. Now - what about the caption comp? Are you buggers going to do anything about it, or do I?
We live history. This reply is part of it like any thoughts you might have. I wonder what might appear in 30 years or so, for our children will almost certainly treat it with the same frivolity that many posters here have done. This is not meant to take the rise from anyone, but just a reminder that the reality that we all have is based on perspective - and those perspectives change with time, fashion and a great many other things too.
Remember what you feel now - the annoyance, the grit, the reality and the truth. It will be spun in all sorts of directions for our children, legitimate or otherwise.
I do hope that someone is keeping track of Pprune as a record - a moving snapshot - of time. When we are all blowing bubbles, what record do we leave?
Right! That is the serious bit done. Now - what about the caption comp? Are you buggers going to do anything about it, or do I?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTD
Only one problem with your theory - as you say "loyalty to the Crown". No one was planning to over throw our Head of State, only the then prime minister. Many believed the then prime minister was a Soviet agent, and without wishing to re-ignite the TSR 2 debate, so was his minister of defence!!!!
Only one problem with your theory - as you say "loyalty to the Crown". No one was planning to over throw our Head of State, only the then prime minister. Many believed the then prime minister was a Soviet agent, and without wishing to re-ignite the TSR 2 debate, so was his minister of defence!!!!
I really doubt that Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent. If he was, he must have been a fairly cr@p one - we kept our nuclear deterrent, stayed in NATO etc....
I really doubt that Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent. If he was, he must have been a fairly cr@p one - we kept our nuclear deterrent, stayed in NATO etc....
I know if it was me, I'd have done everything I could to make things appear normal on the surface whilst leaking the high grade top govt level stuff on the quiet. With the access that Wilson would have had, it would have been imperative to ensure he stayed in post quietly screwing the country up rather than drawing attention to himself.
But it appears that history repeats itself, only now we have an American agent in Downing St
