Being the very significant day that's in it?

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,674
Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of the 1916 rising -

So let me pose 3 questions re situations which could have changed our history as substantially -

1 Any possibility that an all Ireland civil war, early 1914 or slightly before could have led to Ireland being the major battleground for the First World War? We are constantly being told the great powers were basically itching for any excuse to start it.

2 What if David Llyod George's threat to rage a horrific war in Ireland unless the treaty was signed came about? American public opinion may have changed that!

3 If all of Ireland had remained in The United Kingdom, how would we have fared? Would we have become truly equal partners, would we have been destroyed during WW2?
 


P Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
3,432
Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of the 1916 rising -

So let me pose 3 questions re situations which could have changed our history as substantially -

1 Any possibility that an all Ireland civil war, early 1914 or slightly before could have led to Ireland being the major battleground for the First World War? We are constantly being told the great powers were basically itching for any excuse to start it.

2 What if David Llyod George's threat to rage a horrific war in Ireland unless the treaty was signed came about? American public opinion may have changed that!

3 If all of Ireland had remained in The United Kingdom, how would we have fared? Would we have become truly equal partners, would we have been destroyed during WW2?
would have been hard for all the great powers, especially Gerry, the Hapsburgs & Ivan to transport all their armies over here though :D
 

Hibee

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,888
1: no . None on the other 3 powers would have given a 5hit about us .

2: same as 1 : by and large we were seen as smelly trash at that stage by US establishment.

3: we would have been a depressed region of Britain . But the whole Britain suffered between the wars . It was the beginning on the end of empire and the domestic economy suffered. Fritz would have bombed here if it would have benefitted their war effort. The headless one from Fairview might have been our fuhrer .
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,674
A civil war in Ireland, would certainly have seen Gerry acting the bollex!
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Happy birthday Urks, dont spend all your money on crisps and Tizer ...
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,674
1: no . None on the other 3 powers would have given a 5hit about us .

2: same as 1 : by and large we were seen as smelly trash at that stage by US establishment.

3: we would have been a depressed region of Britain . But the whole Britain suffered between the wars . It was the beginning on the end of empire and the domestic economy suffered. Fritz would have bombed here if it would have benefitted their war effort. The headless one from Fairview might have been our fuhrer .
2 Teddy Roosevelt said of The Irish-Americans , if they were true Americans, they wouldn't need a hyphen -

President Woodrow Wilson and the Irish Question on JSTOR

3 probably poor on the level Wales is, but we would have an NHS and 3rd level education would have been more widespread sooner and we would by now have devolved government.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
44,918
Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of the 1916 rising -

So let me pose 3 questions re situations which could have changed our history as substantially -

1 Any possibility that an all Ireland civil war, early 1914 or slightly before could have led to Ireland being the major battleground for the First World War? We are constantly being told the great powers were basically itching for any excuse to start it.

2 What if David Llyod George's threat to rage a horrific war in Ireland unless the treaty was signed came about? American public opinion may have changed that!

3 If all of Ireland had remained in The United Kingdom, how would we have fared? Would we have become truly equal partners, would we have been destroyed during WW2?
1.No.

2.Ye lot would have something else to whine about.

3.a. Super.
b. Maybe.

Next...
 

publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,902
I think 1 unlikely.

2. If Britain waged war in Ireland in 1914 they would have won. I doubt that the US would have intervened - we are basically a strategic rock on the supply route from the US to Europe and have no intrinsic value beyond that. Bejasus & Begorrah.

3. If we had stayed in the UK our culture would be stronger and we would have avoided the horrors of the civil war and the 'troubles'. Enda would be Viceroy.
 

Hibee

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,888
BBC would have listed the. All Ireland finals as cultural events .
 

Roman Emperor

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
10,003
Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of the 1916 rising -

So let me pose 3 questions re situations which could have changed our history as substantially -

1 Any possibility that an all Ireland civil war, early 1914 or slightly before could have led to Ireland being the major battleground for the First World War? We are constantly being told the great powers were basically itching for any excuse to start it.

2 What if David Llyod George's threat to rage a horrific war in Ireland unless the treaty was signed came about? American public opinion may have changed that!

3 If all of Ireland had remained in The United Kingdom, how would we have fared? Would we have become truly equal partners, would we have been destroyed during WW2?



Question #2 re Llyod George's threat to wage "terrible and immediate war" I find most intriguing.

By the time the Irish delegation sat down to negotiate the Angli-Irish Treaty they were well accustomed to terrible war and when circumstances subsequently demanded it, they weren't too shy themselves when it came to fighting another terrible war.

The very fact that the British came to the negotiating table suggests to me that the British had done all they could militarily....If they could have done more while the War of Independence was actually in progress then surely they would have.

I think in retrospect, it's fairly obvious that when Lloyd George threatened his "terrible and immediate war" he was bluffing...and the Irish side blinked first.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,027
Question #2 re Llyod George's threat to wage "terrible and immediate war" I find most intriguing.

I think in retrospect, it's fairly obvious that when Lloyd George threatened his "terrible and immediate war" he was bluffing...and the Irish side blinked first.
It will be interesting how the negotiation is handled by the Govt in the next few years. In fact, could it spark another "greening" of the electorate? SF have had a PR coup in the 1916 commemorations. Every town has dug up the most tenuous connection and had an auld read of the proclamation.

Whilst the Rising has been called the triumph of failure, the treaty was just a mess. Amateur night. And the Civil war was worse. Which makes the Rising look like the "easy gig". God help us....

Now, that would have been unheard of 10 years back. Even 5 years back, when we were in the throes of FF purge, and before when Madam went on about the sons of Rosin in her editorial...
 

jo9jo

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
4,827
fair city commerated it this evening.
fair play to rose and katie.
cas and bela played a blinder too.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,097
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
I beg you to treat this as a "holding" post, put together in some haste and incoherence. I'd try to do better with more thought; but may amend my emphases.
Question #2 re Llyod George's threat to wage "terrible and immediate war" I find most intriguing.

By the time the Irish delegation sat down to negotiate the Angli-Irish Treaty they were well accustomed to terrible war and when circumstances subsequently demanded it, they weren't too shy themselves when it came to fighting another terrible war.

The very fact that the British came to the negotiating table suggests to me that the British had done all they could militarily....If they could have done more while the War of Independence was actually in progress then surely they would have.

I think in retrospect, it's fairly obvious that when Lloyd George threatened his "terrible and immediate war" he was bluffing...and the Irish side blinked first.
Of itself, most of that is Standard Operating Practice; but I'd like someone to nail down that phrase "terrible and immediate war".

As I recall, it is Michael Collins's recollection of Lloyd George's rhodomontade of 6th December 1921. Robert Barton's report was somewhat different, and cooler:
He particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take the full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

'I have to communicate with Sir James Craig tonight' he said, holding up two envelopes.

'Here are the alternative letters which I have prepared, one enclosing the Articles of Agreement reached by His Majesty's Government and yourselves, and the other saying that Sinn Fein representatives refuse the Oath of Allegiance and refuse to come within the Empire. If I send this letter, it is war — and war within three days. Which letter am I to send? Whichever letter you choose travels by special train to Holyhead, and by destroyer to Belfast. The train is waiting with steam up atEuston. Mr Shakespeare is ready. If he is to reach Sir James Craig in time we must have your answer by ten pm tonight. You can have until then but no longer to decide whether you will give peace or war to your country.
(Here comes another apologia: that's Tim Pat Coogan, pages 273-4 of my crumpled paperback, citing Piaras Béaslaí, Vol 2, page 332 — if I recall, a pro-Treatyite hagiography of Collins, which I do not have for confirmation.)

Put aside LG's theatricals, the subsequent self-exculpations of the signers of the Treaty, and consider the realities.

Lloyd George succeeded in "solving" his Irish problem because he separated out, as two threads, the Ulster issue from the wider Irish one. That settlement has persisted ever since, with the continued complicity (or whatever term you apply) of Westminster and Kildare Street.

On the other hand, at that moment in time, Lloyd George was titular leader of a coalition administration (a huge plurality of MPs, mostly Tories), with a manifesto commitment against coercion of the Ulstermen, but unencumbered by any parliamentary Irish opposition. Moreover, he was under the cosh: behind the pale Chamberlain stood more belligerent types — Birkenhead, febrile Bonar Law, Walter Long — still the effective Unionist leader in parliament, the unreliable Churchill, and "His Majesty's most political general", Unionist-machinator-in-chief Field Marshal Henry Wilson.

Ronan Fanning (see pages 304ff) is — for me — convincing on how the Treaty was delivered:
The five delegates were split. Griffiths was 'in favour of the Treaty'. He refused to break with the crown 'and thereby hand to Ulster the position from which she had been driven'. Duggan agreed with Griffith and believed the 'Treaty to be England's last word'. Collins was 'in substantial agreement' with Griffiths and Duggan; 'the non-acceptance of a Treaty would be a gamble as England could arrange war in Ireland in a week'. Barton and Gavan Duffy opposed acceptance. Barton thought 'England's last word had not been reached and that she could not declare war on question of allegiance'. Gavin Duffy wanted the treaty to be rejected by the Dáil and 'sent back unamended'.
It's difficult to see that Lloyd George was wrong to exploit those differences (which were well known to the British).
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
100 years later, we're still divided.

In the meantime, Scotland has had its independence referendum.

'Nuf said!
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,097
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
100 years later, we're still divided.

In the meantime, Scotland has had its independence referendum.

'Nuf said!
But so had Northern Ireland: 8th March 1973.

The SDLP went beyond urging abstention, but the vote was still to remain. Now, don't quibble: the "remainers" were 591,820 out of a potential electorate of 1,030,084 — so 57.5%.

Then there were the twin referenda, 22nd May 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement: 71% acceptance in NI, 94% on the 19th Amendment.
 
Last edited:

purpledon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
4,055
2 Teddy Roosevelt said of The Irish-Americans , if they were true Americans, they wouldn't need a hyphen -

President Woodrow Wilson and the Irish Question on JSTOR

3 probably poor on the level Wales is, but we would have an NHS and 3rd level education would have been more widespread sooner and we would by now have devolved government.
What use would devolved government be as there wouldn't be an Irish left to devolve government to.
 

purpledon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
4,055
I think 1 unlikely.

2. If Britain waged war in Ireland in 1914 they would have won. I doubt that the US would have intervened - we are basically a strategic rock on the supply route from the US to Europe and have no intrinsic value beyond that. Bejasus & Begorrah.

3. If we had stayed in the UK our culture would be stronger and we would have avoided the horrors of the civil war and the 'troubles'. Enda would be Viceroy.
1. Who exactly were Britain going to wage war on, the Irish nationalists or unionists?
2. We wouldn't have a culture because the ban on Irish and hurling was in force and would have been kept. Jesus are you stupid?
Germany would most likely have invaded Ireland and Britain would have done jackshyte, just like it did in the Chanel Islands.
3. Viceroy to what? There wouldn't be any Irish left in Ireland.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top