Ireland stays in the UK after 1916 Easter Uprising to present day?
- Thread starter Hongfan91
- Start date
Lord Protector
Banned
Maybe have the UK halt all forms of discrimination and fully recognise them as part of the country will total freedom of religion and all the same rights as englishmen and fully integrate them in the UKs political structure.
Never got why they didnt just do that from the get go,bothering so much with a neigbouring island for centuries clearly wasnt getting them anywhere.
Never got why they didnt just do that from the get go,bothering so much with a neigbouring island for centuries clearly wasnt getting them anywhere.
It's too late by then. They can defeat the IRA in the War of Independence but British rule in Ireland will no longer be stable and eventually it's going to turn into the Troubles multiplied by five.
For this you need a pre-1900 POD, most likely by preventing the Famine.
For this you need a pre-1900 POD, most likely by preventing the Famine.
usertron2020
Donor
You need a pre-1900 POD, otherwise, no...
Have a POD somewhere in the 12th century, where the early Plantagenets decide to have Ireland as a trading partner rather than an unruly satrapy. Of course, this requires the Irish to behave themselves as well. One of the reasons why the very short-lived Fox network series "Roar" failed so quickly was because it postulated the Irish in 400 AD "resisting"
Roman incursions in Ireland when in fact it was the Irish who were raping, looting, and pillaging the west coast of Britannia. Very un-PC, I know.
The question is, what was Ireland doing during the Norman Conquest? AFAIK, the Irish attacks stopped after the Anglo-Saxon invasions.
Anyway, after so many struggles between Ireland and Britain throughout their mutual histories, keep Ireland under British rule post-WWI and you actually risk the Irish turning either pro-Axis (supporting the U-Boat War as much as they can), or at least pro-Soviet in the Cold War. OTOH, I can't see Britain holding Ireland after WWII.
This is too close to 1900 to keep the discussion solidly in the 20th century. Its one of those "pre-post 1900" threads.
Have a POD somewhere in the 12th century, where the early Plantagenets decide to have Ireland as a trading partner rather than an unruly satrapy. Of course, this requires the Irish to behave themselves as well. One of the reasons why the very short-lived Fox network series "Roar" failed so quickly was because it postulated the Irish in 400 AD "resisting"
Roman incursions in Ireland when in fact it was the Irish who were raping, looting, and pillaging the west coast of Britannia. Very un-PC, I know.The question is, what was Ireland doing during the Norman Conquest? AFAIK, the Irish attacks stopped after the Anglo-Saxon invasions.
Anyway, after so many struggles between Ireland and Britain throughout their mutual histories, keep Ireland under British rule post-WWI and you actually risk the Irish turning either pro-Axis (supporting the U-Boat War as much as they can), or at least pro-Soviet in the Cold War. OTOH, I can't see Britain holding Ireland after WWII.
This is too close to 1900 to keep the discussion solidly in the 20th century. Its one of those "pre-post 1900" threads.
OR... have the Easter Uprising gunmen treated with a little political tact and not executed. The Irish population considered them extremist nutters who were harming the campaign for Home Rule. When they were executed they became martyrs.
This means Sinn Fein wont sweep the 1918 elections, making any post-war rebellion much smaller and with less public support.
Sort out Home Rule in 1919/1920. Lloyd-George would need to call on the weight of his Conservative partners to limit problems in Ulster, which they might, as they hung around with him through quite a lot. A Home Rule parliament would probably end up either strictly secular or have a balanced Catholic-Protestant second chamber. There would be blood shed but once Ulster realises Home Rule is not a Papist dystopia, many will simmer down.
Much like in modern Northern Ireland, these issues would continue to be present and many Irish people might end up realising the shit storm of a totally free Ireland and decide the compromise of 'secular' Home Rule is fine, though hardly loved.
Would be interesting to see if sectarianism slowly went away under such a set-up into an inclusive Irish nationalism.
This means Sinn Fein wont sweep the 1918 elections, making any post-war rebellion much smaller and with less public support.
Sort out Home Rule in 1919/1920. Lloyd-George would need to call on the weight of his Conservative partners to limit problems in Ulster, which they might, as they hung around with him through quite a lot. A Home Rule parliament would probably end up either strictly secular or have a balanced Catholic-Protestant second chamber. There would be blood shed but once Ulster realises Home Rule is not a Papist dystopia, many will simmer down.
Much like in modern Northern Ireland, these issues would continue to be present and many Irish people might end up realising the shit storm of a totally free Ireland and decide the compromise of 'secular' Home Rule is fine, though hardly loved.
Would be interesting to see if sectarianism slowly went away under such a set-up into an inclusive Irish nationalism.
usertron2020
Donor
Jape
Asking this in freely admitted ignorance for the purposes of being educated:
Didn't the Irish Question destroy the Liberal Party permanently as a ruling party?
Wasn't the separation of Ulster from the rest of Ireland what in fact made the idea of partition so intolerable to Irish Catholics? Ulster was the industrial heart of Ireland, where all the tax revenue would come from. When India was partitioned, East Pakistan was left with their own natural resources, but with no ports to ship them out of. India had the factories to process those resources, but didn't have any of the resources for those factories themselves.
So would this represent the political perception of the Catholic Irish being left with the "leavings", while the British are getting the best slice of the pie? One could well understand why the Irish would be furious. Imagine a victorious Germany at the end of WWI demanding in a "peace treaty" all of Belgium and all French territory for a distance of 200 kilometers from Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium. Still leaves the vast majority of France to the French, but compared to what they lose in such a "treaty", its not worth much.
Opinions? Information?
Asking this in freely admitted ignorance for the purposes of being educated:
Didn't the Irish Question destroy the Liberal Party permanently as a ruling party?
Wasn't the separation of Ulster from the rest of Ireland what in fact made the idea of partition so intolerable to Irish Catholics? Ulster was the industrial heart of Ireland, where all the tax revenue would come from. When India was partitioned, East Pakistan was left with their own natural resources, but with no ports to ship them out of. India had the factories to process those resources, but didn't have any of the resources for those factories themselves.
So would this represent the political perception of the Catholic Irish being left with the "leavings", while the British are getting the best slice of the pie? One could well understand why the Irish would be furious. Imagine a victorious Germany at the end of WWI demanding in a "peace treaty" all of Belgium and all French territory for a distance of 200 kilometers from Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium. Still leaves the vast majority of France to the French, but compared to what they lose in such a "treaty", its not worth much.
Opinions? Information?
Last edited:
Ireland in the UK after the Rising would require either ASB or a dictatorship in London willing to keep Ireland in the Union by force.
Actually though I've always felt the Rising was a symptom not a cause. Constitutional Home Rule was in deep crisis in 1914 over partition and given the tempers raised its hard to believe Home rule would have satisfied an Irish electorate for long even if violence was avoided (which is a big if.)
Even assuming Home Rule happens it is very difficult to see a situatiion were the Irish don't take a look at the Dominions and say 'us too.' Even in OTL the conscription crisis caused the IPP to walk out of Westminster. Greater control over foreign policy would be a powerful incentive to move beyond the claustrophobic confines of Home Rule.
I think you'd need a POD in the early Nineteeth Century or earlier to comfortably keep Ireland in the Union long term; as soon as Daniel O'Connell welded together Catholicism and mass democracy the days of the Union were numbered.
Actually though I've always felt the Rising was a symptom not a cause. Constitutional Home Rule was in deep crisis in 1914 over partition and given the tempers raised its hard to believe Home rule would have satisfied an Irish electorate for long even if violence was avoided (which is a big if.)
Even assuming Home Rule happens it is very difficult to see a situatiion were the Irish don't take a look at the Dominions and say 'us too.' Even in OTL the conscription crisis caused the IPP to walk out of Westminster. Greater control over foreign policy would be a powerful incentive to move beyond the claustrophobic confines of Home Rule.
I think you'd need a POD in the early Nineteeth Century or earlier to comfortably keep Ireland in the Union long term; as soon as Daniel O'Connell welded together Catholicism and mass democracy the days of the Union were numbered.
Lord Protector
Banned
Im personally aiming at the idea of making the irish feel as integrated into the UK as the scottish,would it be possible if they are given everything the scottish have?
The same Scots who only barely rejected independence last year?
It might be possible but you have to keep in mind the differences. For one thing in Scotland the big national parties maintained their positions well into the devolution era. Scottish Labour was literally part of the government of the UK as a whole.
In Ireland, Irish nationalist parties of various shades won the majority of the vote in every election from 1874 to 1918. They did not even ally with the Liberals until 1886 and even then the relationship was not always or even often a happy one. It was never a formal coalition government and when in 1915 John Redmond, the leader of the IPP was invited to join the cabinet as part of the war time coalition he had to turn it down because of popular feeling in Ireland.
Now having seperate parties isn't an immediate route to seperation but it wouldn't have helped.
One Possible timeline
Thread by TheIrishDreamer (poster was banned earlier this year, so unless he/she is posting elsewhere on the web, the timeline may never be concluded): https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=279667
Thread by TheIrishDreamer (poster was banned earlier this year, so unless he/she is posting elsewhere on the web, the timeline may never be concluded): https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=279667
Or, going the other direction: WI De Valera was executed along with them? He was in a prison other than the one where the executions were taking place, and while there the powers that be started wringing their hands over whether he might be an American citizen. He wasn't, and his execution got the green light, but shortly after that London realized its mistake and stopped turning the uprising's leaders into martyrs.
If Eamon De Valera had been in the right prison (well, wrong prison for him) sooner, he gets a bullet with the others. I've asked this question on the NG before, and someone else asked it there last year, but it's worth revisiting... (and also keeps us post-1900
)Or, going the other direction: WI De Valera was executed along with them? He was in a prison other than the one where the executions were taking place, and while there the powers that be started wringing their hands over whether he might be an American citizen. He wasn't, and his execution got the green light, but shortly after that London realized its mistake and stopped turning the uprising's leaders into martyrs.
If Eamon De Valera had been in the right prison (well, wrong prison for him) sooner, he gets a bullet with the others. I've asked this question on the NG before, and someone else asked it there last year, but it's worth revisiting... (and also keeps us post-1900
Honestly I don't think it will change much in the long run. Well in the very long run it will change a lot but I mean it won't keep Ireland in the UK.
The Rising and the aftermath is understandably totemic but looking at the reaction at the time it seems the conscription crisis is the defining blow. Sinn Fein won several by-elections in 1916 and 1917 but by 1918 the IPP seems to have recovered slightly and successfully defeated Sinn Fein at three by-elections in the first half of the year. The sympathy for the Rising martyrs seems to have been waning at that point. Now it can be said this gave a false impression of IPP strength as the young men and women who recieved the vote in the general election in 1918 broke for Sinn Fein but even so the constitutional nationalists were not on the floor.
Then came the conscription crisis which permanently destroyed the constitutional nationalists, even though they to revolted against conscription.
That's the issue. Even if you somehow delay the conscription crisis all it would have done would be to buy time. Lloyd George's government had no true understanding of or interest in the political climate in Ireland and even the supposed advocates of Home Rule in Ireland were treading on eggshells. Sooner or later the crisis would have happened.
Basically the Unionist Party criticism that Home Rule meant different things in London and Dublin was right.
Kind of the opposite of what the OP was looking for, I would say.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
It split the Liberal Party in 1886 - that's when Joe Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists voted down the Home Rule Bill, and later merged with the Tories to form what we would recognise today as the Conservative Party.
1916 - in simple terms the split between the followers of Asquith & Lloyd George. The Easter Rising & subsequent events in Ireland played little part in that. The Maurice Debate & the subsequent "Coupon" General Election of 1918 completed the split that didn't see an attempt to heal until the mid-1920's by which time the Liberals were in third party status, and didn't recover until the election of 1997.
There was a growing level of distrust of Lloyd George among the Liberal ruling elite, while the Unionists shared this view they were more concerned at the rudderless way the war was being run under Asquith. Lloyd George bounced Bonar Law into supporting LG over Asquith with support of influential press barons. Asquith was also exhausted after 8 years of tumultuous premiership (aside from the small matter of the Great War he'd led the government through the People's Budget, The House of Lords crisis & the death of Edward VII, the two general elections of 1910, the suffragete & trade union unrest, let alone what seemed to be an inexorable slide into civil war in Ireland) and the death of his son Raymond on the Somme affected him deeply (unsurprising...). Lloyd George had been promulgating coalitions since 1910; Asquith & the leading Liberals detested the Unionists (the feeling was mutual) and being forced into a national government in 1915 didn't help.
I don't know if or how it could have been prevented with a post 1900 POD.
My personal opinion is that Southern Ireland should have remained part of the UK because I believe that the British Isles is the best political and economic unit.
However, I acknowledge that there is more to life than politics and economics. How would the social history of Southern Ireland been changed it if had been part of the United Kingdom for the last 90-odd years? And it works the other way around too because the social history of the rump of the UK might have been different.
For a start there would have been scores of Roman Catholic MPs from Southern Ireland in Westminster. Would that have stopped the social reforms of the 1960s being introduced for a decade or two? That is the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality plus the changes to the divorce laws.
My personal opinion is that Southern Ireland should have remained part of the UK because I believe that the British Isles is the best political and economic unit.
However, I acknowledge that there is more to life than politics and economics. How would the social history of Southern Ireland been changed it if had been part of the United Kingdom for the last 90-odd years? And it works the other way around too because the social history of the rump of the UK might have been different.
For a start there would have been scores of Roman Catholic MPs from Southern Ireland in Westminster. Would that have stopped the social reforms of the 1960s being introduced for a decade or two? That is the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality plus the changes to the divorce laws.
Well...
It's the closest thing I remember seeing in the post-1900 forum to what the opening poster's looking for.
Post 1924, it has Ireland, albeit an independent one, increasingly involved in things in terms of the empire/commonwealth.
It's the closest thing I remember seeing in the post-1900 forum to what the opening poster's looking for.
Lord Protector
Banned
Would adding more irish catholics to the house of lords and the english aristocracy have any effect?
If the british decide to ignore their religion and make it so they must be a part of britain to enjoy the benefits would it provide the irish with a sufficient anchor in the UK to avoid independence?
If the british decide to ignore their religion and make it so they must be a part of britain to enjoy the benefits would it provide the irish with a sufficient anchor in the UK to avoid independence?
There's a fairly massive difference between staying in the Empire/Commonwealth and staying part of the UK, POD's to stay in the Commonwealth aren't massive, changes to domestic politics, India becoming a Republic first...
As said, post 1916/WW1, I'd say it's very hard to see how things would develop to keep Ireland as awhole unit in the Union, even if a version of Home Rule that somehow managed to avoid North/South bloodshed happened, the rise of the Dominions in exercising their own policies would influence demands from Ireland long term unless British PM's showed a marked increase in attention to Irish affairs.
Would it have been advantagous to Ireland in terms of economy? I'll freely admit that post 22 through to the 60's Ireland's economic policies were "unwise", yet I'm doubtful that the UK would have been willing to invest heavily in the wider nation, would the UK have been willing to extend the budget supports to all Ireland that they extended to NI? Would a Westminister Government/public be happy at sending 30+ billion a year to Ireland (just assuming that NI's current transfer is tripled for all of Ireland). Would the domestic companies in Ireland have come into being or would English companies have dominated? Would Ireland have remained heavily rural/agricultral or transitioned to the high tech sectors that we now have (not too mention that we couldn't have competed with England as we do now).
In terms of Social history, considering NI is still the most socially conservative of the Union, short of an early breaking of the Catholic Church I don't see Ireland changing massively (particularly if there was some form of Home Rule), like wise I doubt Ireland would have enough MP's to majorly delay any decisions the rest of the UK made.