WI: Ireland intervenes in The Troubles?

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
I still don't see how hatred of the IRA connects to the Republic and any proposal to intervene in NI.
How wouldn't it? If the Republic is going to intervene in NI, it will be because they either love or hate the IRA or the British behavior motivated by IRA actions. Either way, the IRA and the Republic's view towards them is directly relevant.
 
I don't like the British tactics used at all, but I believe in their cause more so than the IRA cause, and IRA tactics weren't exactly nice, either.

The discussion is about the Troubles. Discussing the Troubles without the IRA isn't much of a discussion. What I did was reverse the OP's statement, which I believe was valid.

During the Troubles, the Republic stayed neutral. The OP is wondering about them entering one side of the conflict. I wondered about them entiring the other side. I don't see that as wrong.

It goes both ways.


What IRA tactics?

This was a direct result of a peaceful protest march getting attacked by rioters and the police force that was sworn to protect them the IRA did not factor in at this point but lets just say their support shot up.

The situation is complicated and goes back hundreds of years so arguing right or wrong is pointless but the IRA did not have anything to do with the riots and the Irish government's response.

The protests were aimed at improving living conditions although nationalists were involved.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
What IRA tactics?
A ton of bombings (many of which specifically targeted commercial assets, not military assets) and the occassional shootout.

This was a direct result of a peaceful protest march getting attacked by rioters and the police force that was sworn to protect them the IRA did not factor in at this point but lets just say their support shot up.

The situation is complicated and goes back hundreds of years so arguing right or wrong is pointless but the IRA did not have anything to do with the riots and the Irish government's response.

The protests were aimed at improving living conditions although nationalists were involved.
I'm not talking about the riots. I'm looking at the conflict as a whole.
 
How wouldn't it? If the Republic is going to intervene in NI, it will be because they either love or hate the IRA or the British behavior motivated by IRA actions. Either way, the IRA and the Republic's view towards them is directly relevant.

If the Republic was going to intervene in NI has nothing to do with the IRA and everything to do with the fact that at that period Catholics were being attacked and the state that was sworn to protect them was at the very least not doing so. The suggestion to intervene wasn't to support the IRA but to help the catholic population.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
If the Republic was going to intervene in NI has nothing to do with the IRA and everything to do with the fact that at that period Catholics were being attacked and the state that was sworn to protect them was at the very least not doing so. The suggestion to intervene wasn't to support the IRA but to help the catholic population.
The problem is, the situation started with the IRA, and the IRA is not going to sit on the sidelines. I see no scenario where they don't get elbows deep in this, and the Republic is going to have to react to them one way or the other.
 
A ton of bombings (many of which specifically targeted commercial assets, not military assets) and the occassional shootout.

I'm not talking about the riots. I'm looking at the conflict as a whole.


None of which had happened by this point so are completely irrelevant in regards to Armageddon.

The conflict as a whole has been going on for 800 years including periods of deliberate ethnic cleansing and several wars. Picking and choosing certain atrocities is pointless so lets focus on the events immediately concerned with Armageddon.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
None of which had happened by this point so are completely irrelevant in regards to Armageddon.

The conflict as a whole has been going on for 800 years including periods of deliberate ethnic cleansing and several wars. Picking and choosing certain atrocities is pointless so lets focus on the events immediately concerned with Armageddon.
With all due respect, when did we choose Armageddon as the point of divergence? I was speaking in broad terms in reply to the OP, not in reference to a specific time for the Republic to get involved.
 
The problem is, the situation started with the IRA, and the IRA is not going to sit on the sidelines. I see no scenario where they don't get elbows deep in this, and the Republic is going to have to react to them one way or the other.

When you court martial the Para's and eradicate the UVF we'll talk about dealing with informal support by a small minority of the government which resulted in a huge scandal.
 
The problem is, the situation started with the IRA, and the IRA is not going to sit on the sidelines. I see no scenario where they don't get elbows deep in this, and the Republic is going to have to react to them one way or the other.

Which IRA? The I Ran Away of 1969 when this operation was planned who did little to protect the catholic community or the PIRA that split from it?

I would dispute the suggestion that the troubles started with the IRA. Given the then and now majority support for NI, the nationalists/Catholics were arguing for basic democracy that the NI government should have given, had they done so NI politics and history would be vastly different.
 
With all due respect, when did we choose Armageddon as the point of divergence? I was speaking in broad terms in reply to the OP, not in reference to a specific time for the Republic to get involved.

Because Armageddon was the only point the possibility was seriously considered and even then it was never going to happen the plan was shelved and never replaced as the Republic did the only rational things and stayed on the side-lines.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
When you court martial the Para's and eradicate the UVF we'll talk about dealing with informal support by a small minority of the government which resulted in a huge scandal.
I'd love to court martial some of those bastards. I've said it before: while I support the British cause, their tactics were unacceptable.
 
With all due respect, when did we choose Armageddon as the point of divergence? I was speaking in broad terms in reply to the OP, not in reference to a specific time for the Republic to get involved.

So what time frame are you talking about? The War of Independence? Or anytime period between that and now?
 
Kelsey

The problem is simply:
NO IRISH GOVERNMENT WANTS THE NORTH BACK.
Hell Churchill offered it to us back in WW2 and we turned it down.

1969 was the only, repeat only, point where there was a consideration and that's because refugees were starting to stream south and it was starting to look like NI was going to collapse and the Brits ethnically cleanse the place.

Your conflating too very different issues and groups and been honest you dont seem to have much understanding of the actual issues relating to ALL sides (and there are many)
 
Reasonable

The most likely scenario for an intervention is this;

The Irish Army was to cross the border at Newry and Derry (both heavily Cathloic areas) Derry being under local control at the time, where they would get local support and to allow a controlled evacuation of the Catholic community; and to open up escape routes into the Republic for refugees fleeing the north from Belfast. The Army would then withdraw back across the border when the refugees had crossed.
Bear in mind Armagh & Fermanagh are majority Catholic areas.

This scenario is frightening possible and was seriously considered by the government at the time. Armgeddon was a scenario if the British attacked militarily the refugee routes.

The outcomes are mostly worse than OTL. I find a massive military response from the British unlikely; mainly because there not aggressive idiots, there getting a large part of the unrest been resolved right now, forcing a withdrawal is easy by threats; since the Irish were planning on withdrawing anyway.

The main problem is that the Catholics will likely rise up, badly armed and ill prepared but there desperate and here is the Irish army riding to their rescue!
The Unionists will panic and mobilise. lots of clashes with Irish troops and wholesale burings of catholic neighborhoods, mass executions of "traitors". They'll have to the Irish have invaded and the Brits are obviously selling them out.
Basically the Troubles on drugs with ethnic cleansing and probably state support thrown in the mix. Irish economy suffers and so does their international reputation. The British reputation also suffers when the pictures get out of fleeing refugees and the Loyalist reactions.
Nobody wins.
 

Heavy

Banned
Irish military intervention would only work if it was performed with the consent and support of the British government. On a personal level, Wilson might have been willing to countenance some form of joint operation, but it doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

As for the IRA, there's obviously no broadcast ban at this poinT. O'Brien wouldn't become a minister for another four years at this point.
 

Pangur

Donor
Irish military intervention would only work if it was performed with the consent and support of the British government. On a personal level, Wilson might have been willing to countenance some form of joint operation, but it doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

Highly unlikely in the extreme as you suggest.
 
Irish military intervention would only work if it was performed with the consent and support of the British government. On a personal level, Wilson might have been willing to countenance some form of joint operation, but it doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

As Pangur said I can't see any British PM allowing for an Irish military intervention in NI no matter the situation, the political fallout alone would be massive. IIRC right up until the 80's the UK policy was that Dublin didn't have a role in NI and that was just in politics let alone militarily.
 
Top