WI: The Irish Dail reject the Anglo-Irish treaty?

Abdominalz · Mar 14, 2014

In OTL, after LLoyd Georges' ultimatum, the treaty is signed by the British and Sinn Fein governments and then ratified by the two legislatures. In Ireland, the Dail passes it 64 - 57, a very narrow majority.

What if the Dail hadn't ratified it, would LLoyd George have declared all out war on Catholic Ireland, and if so what would happened next?

The Oncoming Storm · Mar 14, 2014

More likely the British withdraw back into Northern Ireland and there's nothing that the Free State Forces can do. The Treaty Ports might be abandoned and that's about it!

sparky42 · Mar 14, 2014

The Oncoming Storm said:
More likely the British withdraw back into Northern Ireland and there's nothing that the Free State Forces can do. The Treaty Ports might be abandoned and that's about it!

The UK wasn't going to abandon the Treaty Ports if the Daíl rejected the Treaty, depending on how much supplies the IRA had managed to bring in since the truce they might be able to put up a fight. It depends on how much the UK is willing to through into the country and how that affects their wider global and financial situation.

Something potentially along the lines of Irish dreamers timeline.

BELFAST · Mar 14, 2014

I think the British would have tried for a new deal.
They were desperate to get out.

Cmanley · Mar 14, 2014

I know the IRA had kept up attacks and training, but had they brought in enough supplies to continue the fight if the British pressed the issue? I seem to recall reading they had rediculously limited ammo left.

sparky42 · Mar 14, 2014

Cmanley said:
I know the IRA had kept up attacks and training, but had they brought in enough supplies to continue the fight if the British pressed the issue? I seem to recall reading they had rediculously limited ammo left.

They had little to anything left when they accepted the Truce, (one of the reasons why they did) as to what they might have smuggled into Ireland in the six months between Truce and the Treaty (ie July to early January) I honestly don't know. But it's realistic to think that they would have been sourcing extra weapons and munitions during that period.

Germaniac · Mar 14, 2014

While I don't know for sure, we can assume they brought in significant supplies during the truce die to the fact the IRA splintered after three treaty and the anti treaty IRA was able to fight the free state for several years. By the time the truce was signed much of Ireland was under the control of the IRA and figures such as Michael Collins were willing to do continue the war and move much of the fighting to the north had the treaty failed to pass.

The treaty in my opinion saved Ireland allot of trouble. While the British were tired off the war public opinion very well could have turned back had the Irish been seen as stubborn and unwilling to compromise. The British were not willing to see Ireland become completely independent and at least half of the nationalists weren't willing to agree to anything else.

Pangur · Mar 14, 2014

sparky42 said:
They had little to anything left when they accepted the Truce, (one of the reasons why they did) as to what they might have smuggled into Ireland in the six months between Truce and the Treaty (ie July to early January) I honestly don't know. But it's realistic to think that they would have been sourcing extra weapons and munitions during that period.

It was a very mixed bag, the IRA were in real trouble in places like Dublin but in reasonable shape elsewhere. They managed to recruit heavily during the truce but just how many of the truceallers would have stuck around to fight is an open question. In regards to weapons or more to the point getting their hands on them my guess would be that short term there would be problems but after that they be able to get weapons. The bigger question is international reaction as well as internal British reactions. Both certain to be negative.

Over all this is a question that I have wondered about for years and I was lucky enough to meet some of the old IRA men who fought the British,some of the went with the Free State afterwards,some with the Republic and yet others stayed out of it. I made a point of asking them about this and the answers varied from the result being a total defeat to a 2 year war ending in a more or the less the same situation as the treaty with the exception of no oath of loyalty.

The treaty debates did not spend much time on partition (5 minutes or so),the big issue being the Oath.

BELFAST · Mar 14, 2014

It always surprises me that there was so little talk about the land annuities or partition at the time.
If the Irish were in a stronger position the boundary commission my have made some important changes.

Pangur · Mar 15, 2014

BELFAST said:
It always surprises me that there was so little talk about the land annuities or partition at the time.
If the Irish were in a stronger position the boundary commission my have made some important changes.

I too am surprised at that. Focusing on the land annuities; at a guess it was because Sinn Fein did not have a background of being a true political party at the time,being involved in agitating on as many matters as possible. It is also possible that it was just not an issue at the time

theirishdreamer · Mar 15, 2014

Hmmm

During the truce the IRA did manage to achieve a significant degree of rearmament and most importantly had several months to institute a proper military training program using its ex-British veterans. The British army had been warning of the difficulties of moving back into Ireland because of this. With the treaty both sides militaries were calling for peace ironically and it was the political wings complicating matters. For example the British reduced their combat strength from around 60k to barely 10k before the treaty was fully signed and were 'exposed' according to the general macready in their positions around Dublin. When I was researching for my TL it's actually amazing how close the negotiations came to breaking down ( mainly Churchill and the West Cork brigade) but how invested both sides were in achieving peace, a restart of the war will bring down the British government, hence the troop drawdown which was politically essentially but militariallu ludicrous.

In regards the Oath - their was no way in hell were we getting out without it, the British were willing to discuss the North (ironically the Irish delegation were the failure in this regards) and the Ports but the Oath was non-negotiatable.

Pangur · Mar 15, 2014

Far from being a smart arse Irishdreamer, whats your source on the ports been up for grabs? I had not heard about that before

theirishdreamer · Mar 15, 2014

Hmmmm

Sorry I phrased that quite badly. What meant was the Ports and the North were more achievable than the Oath, without a significant change in the military situation in 1922 the British weren't going to hand them or large portions of the north over. I just feel that the Oath isn't going to be off the table regardless of how bad the British do. In regard the north - when you look through the Irish documents on the treaty we hardly mention the north, why I don't know but I always got the impression the British were far more willing to accommodate on these, than on the Oath.

Where in coming from is that the British were willing to discuss the ports at the various imperial conference during the twenties, the biggest stumbling block appears to have been the admiralty didn't believe that Ireland would field sufficient naval forces to protect them - which been honest was probably true unless we were obliged by treaty to do so.

Pangur · Mar 15, 2014

No dramas,that alines with what I know about those years.

Abdominalz · Mar 15, 2014

Had Lloyd George resumed the war, would the Americans have got involved starting an Anglo-American war in the mid 1920s, if so who would have won?

deathscompanion1 · Mar 15, 2014

Abdominalz said:
Had Lloyd George resumed the war, would the Americans have got involved starting an Anglo-American war in the mid 1920s, if so who would have won?

No.

The Americans were rather lukewarm towards the Irish at best and Dev really screwed up over there.

theirishdreamer · Mar 17, 2014

ive

Ive never understood this weird belief that the US was somehow going to intervene directly in Ireland, it wasn't going to happen baring some major fallout between the US and UK over something else.

sparky42 · Mar 17, 2014

theirishdreamer said:
Ive never understood this weird belief that the US was somehow going to intervene directly in Ireland, it wasn't going to happen baring some major fallout between the US and UK over something else.

It's funny isn't it. Honestly I can't imagine anything happening in 1921/2 that would bring the US into attacking the UK for Ireland. Hell at any point I find it for all intents ASB level.

theirishdreamer · Mar 17, 2014

i know

But it keeps cropping up again and again here and in RL from what often are otherwise well informed people.

sparky42 · Mar 17, 2014

theirishdreamer said:
But it keeps cropping up again and again here and in RL from what often are otherwise well informed people.

Very True, I can understand it from some forums (P.ie, Boards) where you have headbangers, but it still bugs me as well. Why is everyone under the impression that the US would go to war war over a small nation with little value.