16th (Irish) Division.

[BatterySergeantMajor]

Having thought about the 'Easter Rising What If' ... I came to the following scenarios.

1. The rising takes place ... it fails. Instead of court martial and shooting of many ringleaders, the British take the sensible option. They intern the captives in a camp until the end of the war. The popular support which largely emanated from the executions is denied to the Republican cause.

The Irish Nationalist Party do not have to cope with a militant Sinn Fein and achieve electoral success in post-war elections. I still believe the best they could hope for was a 26-county 'Free State' given the situation in Ulster.

NOW .... the Easter Rising leaders and followers are released from internment as one of the first legal rulings from the Irish Nats.  The militant Republicans split .. some take the pragmatic view that 26 Counties is no mean feat/others want a the whole of Ireland re-united.

Internal feud on a wide scale which descends into a killing match. Pro-Treaty 26 County faction win the 'mini war' with backing from the Irish Nats who control the newly appointed Civic Guards ands fledgling Irish Defence Force.

Possible?

2. The Easter Rising does NOT take place due to whatever reason .. let's assume the Brits have the operation well penetrated and subvert the whole plan.

I would still maintain that the Westminster Parliament would have taken the 'patch it up' scenario of partition. The problem of Ulster would still have loomed large.

If there is one truth about the time which is abundantly clear it is the reason why the unionists were fighting. They considered themselves an integral part of the Empire and believed that by doing their perceived 'duty' it would add weight to their cause.

The realists amongst them knew fine well that the idea of the island of Ireland subordinate to GB was a non-starter ... by the latter stages of the war it was clear that the six county solution was on the cards.

Thus ... partition was a cert whatever way you look at it.

UNLESS ... British government does the unthinkable and sends in troops to force a United Ireland on the majority of people in the six northern counties. I'm not saying that certain politicians were incapable of such an act ... but it must be the least likely scenario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fact the first scenario was what happened, but without the Irish Party playing any role of importance any more! Collins accepted the deal and took the role of the moderate nationalists, De Valera didn't.

Probably the Redmondites went a compromise too far. Maybe (and very likely imho) Home Rule (and staying subordinate to the UK) would have been aceptable for their voters if Ireland would have stayed united in that Home Rule arrangement. I wonder what if they had a long- term plan?

About sending in troops: it was not that unthinkable. Remember the reasons for Curragh- incident.

Erwin

[Desmond7]

Battery ... read the 1st case scenario again re the British reaction.

That's the crux of my point in that 'what if' ... how would the Irish public have reacted to a more benign British treatment of the rebels?

Re troops:- Take it from me, sending troops to Belfast to force unionists by weight of arms into a newly created Irish Republic was most definitely unthinkable.

Des

[BatterySergeantMajor]

Battery ... read the 1st case scenario again re the British reaction.

That's the crux of my point in that 'what if' ... how would the Irish public have reacted to a more benign British treatment of the rebels?

Re troops:- Take it from me, sending troops to Belfast to force unionists by weight of arms into a newly created Irish Republic was most definitely unthinkable.

Des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Des

It wouldn't have been "The Irish Republic" in that case, but a Home- Ruled Ireland (including the six counties) within the UK. And that made a serious difference. But even then you are probably right: the North might not have accepted it.

But then the next question: why was sending in troops against an unwilling Ulster (or part of it) which was preparing for a civil war (UVF) against a democratical decided Home Rule unaceptable, but was it much easier to react firmly against the Rising (the executions)?

Is it possible that British Ireland policy in the beginning of the 20th century was very much ad hoc?

Erwin

[Desmond7]

Erwin .. again .. look at the context of my posting on the troops into Ulster scenario.

The timescale for my 'what if' scenario on that basis was POST war ...

PRE-war it was totally acceptable for the British government to order troops into Ulster. It was just .. unwise .. for want of a better expression.

It enabled those who were conservative and unionist amongst the officer class etc to 'take a stand' and the result was a climb down by government.

As you say, the Unionists were in virtual open rebellion. However, they did have the support of many army officers/establishment figures which made any such move potentially disastrous in terms of the country as whole.

I would argue it is impossible to make any comparisons with the unionists pre-war campaign of preparation/training/gun smuggling and the actual armed struggle mounted by the men in the Easter Rising.

The Great War effectively saved the unionist cause by giving them a chance to get back into the Imperial good books while those who wanted Irish unity double quick felt they would have no better opportunity to strike a blow for their aspirations.

Result .... Disaster in Dublin; Disaster reaction by British; Disaster for Redmondites; Disaster as Britain tries to hold onto Ireland; Disaster for the Irish people when civil war ensues.

However, it is of such disaster trails that so many countries emerge?

[Steven Broomfield]

Trekking on!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks

[BatterySergeantMajor]

Erwin .. again .. look at the context of my posting on the troops into Ulster scenario.

The timescale for my 'what if' scenario on that basis was POST war ...

PRE-war it was totally acceptable for the British government to order troops into Ulster. It was just .. unwise .. for want of a better expression.

It enabled those who were conservative and unionist amongst the officer class etc to 'take a stand' and the result was a climb down by government.

As you say, the Unionists were in virtual open rebellion. However, they did have the support of many army officers/establishment figures which made any such move potentially disastrous in terms of the country as whole.

I would argue it is impossible to make any comparisons with the unionists pre-war campaign of preparation/training/gun smuggling and the actual armed struggle mounted by the men in the Easter Rising.

The Great War effectively saved the unionist cause by giving them a chance to get back into the Imperial good books while those who wanted Irish unity double quick felt they would have no better opportunity to strike a blow for their aspirations.

Result .... Disaster in Dublin; Disaster reaction by British; Disaster for Redmondites; Disaster as Britain tries to hold onto Ireland; Disaster for the Irish people when civil war ensues.

However, it is of such disaster trails that so many countries emerge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok Des. I was just embroidering further on your "what if" scenario. But your answer (as the rest of your postings in this thread) make sense.

Erwin

[Desmond7]

No probs!

[Tom Kilkenny]

It's been interesting to see the way the discussion has gone on this topic and, to be honest, heartening to see just how reasonable it's been! No doubt the prejudices held by those on both sides were carried into battle and it would be wishful thinking to imagine that their experiences would have changed the way they felt upon their return.

What has been good to see over the past few years, however, is Ireland's recognition of those men who gave their lives fighting for what they believed was right and who their own country chose for so long not to remember.

Tom

[Guest adrian.field]

When it comes to Ireland there must be many "what ifs". I always remember an incident proir to any WW1 interest on my part. I was on a locally arranged tour of Battlefields, (29 seater coach). It began with "bows and arrows" at Crecy and Agincourt, ending at Arnhem, via Waterloo. We were on the Somme on the 1st of July, where I observed Orangemen paraded at Thiepval, I had only see such, on TV from the numerous news programmes broadcast at the time. As we were on our way to visit the SA Memorial at Deville Wood, we stopped for food and drink at Longeuval. Imagine my suprise when a coach pulled up at the Church, and a large number of Orangemen paraded, laying a wreath at the 16th (Irish) Division memorial. They knew their duty, at a time when those in the south did not, I shall never forget that. Thank God, all has now been put right, with the impressive Island of Ireland Peace Park, at Messines, clearly demonstrating the spirit of the men of those times, from all divides in Ireland. Many thanks for all the interesting replies to my posting. adrian.

[C.TIERNEY.]

Evening all,

I find this a very interesting subject and are'nt the "what ifs" amazing.

In my opinion the men from the island of Ireland joined the forces in 1914 for many reasons, political, economic, or for adventure. For the duration they put aside their own differences mainly because now they had to survive fighting a common enemy and they looked upon each other regardless of religion and culture as comrade soldiers. I doubt very much if the soldiers in a bn going over the top were very interested in the background of the units supporting them left and right. They would be more interested in the calibre of their soldiers and their reputation in battle.

BUT, once the war ended and they all went home, they were back on their own turf and once again they old prejudices would surface because they were all products of thier times and as they had to survive by mutual support in the trenches in thier comunities they did the same. Remember it was a time when you did'nt want to be "different".

It is true that the returning soldiers in the south were treated very shabbily but they came back to a completely different country than the one they had left in 1914. It was a pity that their sacrifice was acknowledged too late, for so many of these noble warriors had died. (Better late than never??).

An old friend named Michael told me of growing up in the Ireland of the 1930s. His father had fought in the IRA during the War of Independance and in the Anti-Treaty Forces in the Civil War. On the street where they lived he and his three sisters were not allowed to play or associate with children from three other families. They asked why and were just told "just do as you are told" and in the times that were in it they did just that. Years later he found out in his teens that in one house the father had been in the National Army in the Civil War and in the other two the fathers had been in the British Army 1914-18. Michael said "And then you wonder why divisions take so long to heal!".

Opinions are like mobile phones, everybody has one, this is mine.

Regards to you all,

C.T.

[Steven Broomfield]

I have to say that I have found this one of the most interesting and thought-provoking threads since i joined the forum. Thanks to all for making it so.

[curranl]

Hello All,

I have to agree with Des's scenario. I think Partition was effectively inevitable. I simply cannot see the Northern Unionists ever having bought Home Rule, even if the Easter Rising had not taken place. Would the London Government have forced the issue? I doubt it very much after their experience of the Curragh Mutiny.

On the Nationalist side, I also suspect that the War of Independence was inevitable. If the Easter Rising had never occured, there was still (as far as I know) an undercurrent of opinion for an armed insurrection. If Home Rule had been introduced after the 14-18 war, would it simply have delayed the date when a Rising of some sort would have taken place?

All pure speculation, but fun all the same!

Regards,

Liam.