British victory in Irish war of independence

Of course the Brits could crush any rebellion,they always did.But if WW2 still happens as it did,consider what years of strife into the 30s does to the British image in the USA,especially the big city Democratic machines.Combine that with America First and the knowledge of what the British/French gained WW 1,and I think FDR would have a hard time with Lend Lease
As I've said its not just the US the UK would have issues with, the Dominions were increasingly unhappy with the War of Independence and were actively engaged with trying to bring about a peace deal, the Canadians tried to get a ceasefire around Christmas of 1920 but that fell through due to British demands, and the South African PM General Smuts had influence with the King during the Imperial Convention at the time arguing for a Peace Deal. Ignoring the Dominions for a protracted "COIN" situation is going to cause more issues for London in this period as well.
 
Ireland had Home rule in it's grasp immediately prewar. Now that in itself opens a pandoras box because you had two large powerful militias north and south both read to fight for and against home rule. Britain would've have a real hard time if civil war broke out, what British solider is going to fight against unionists that want to stay as part of the union? what politician is willing to telling the Irish they can't have home rule?
Partition is inevitable, this doesn't change by the Rising. Immediate aftermath the irish response was primarily a negative one towards the Rising, basically a bunch of extremists who had wrecked half of Dublin for no gain. However the British response radicalized the Irish population. Almost a 101 on how not to deal with an insurrection, kill the leaders including a wounded man who can't even stand. Arrest thousands of innocent men and put them in a camp with IRB/IRA members. Should've written a letter to 10 downing street thanking them for the free army.
War of independence was even worse, burning down half of Cork, burning houses, threatening people etc really ended any hope of having the population on side. You get rid of that, exile the leaders or keep them imprisoned rather than kill them. Do less shitty random arrests, don't put innocent men in camps with IRA members. By late war of independence, IRA flying columns were running out of ammunition and supplies. But Britain had lost popular support in Ireland and at home, people were absolutely outraged by the Black n Tans behavior. Classic in any guerilla war, if you don't have support in the country, you lose. Only other way to go was full Boer war, and that'd be an extraordinarily expensive disaster that'd probably destroy Britain's reputation. It's not worth it, it has no support anywhere and it would bankrupt Britain.
Best you can do is Home Rule and partition at least, and more likely and Irish dominion, again with partition. The latter is absolutely possible, just don't be an idiot.
Partition is going to happen, no matter what. Might be reduced to four county, might have some cross border assembly to ensure thing s remain relatively peaceful and overall on good terms.
You want to keep Ireland as part of the metropole proper, governed from Westminster? Good luck.
 
Ireland had Home rule in it's grasp immediately prewar. Now that in itself opens a pandoras box because you had two large powerful militias north and south both read to fight for and against home rule. Britain would've have a real hard time if civil war broke out, what British solider is going to fight against unionists that want to stay as part of the union? what politician is willing to telling the Irish they can't have home rule?
Partition is inevitable, this doesn't change by the Rising. Immediate aftermath the irish response was primarily a negative one towards the Rising, basically a bunch of extremists who had wrecked half of Dublin for no gain. However the British response radicalized the Irish population. Almost a 101 on how not to deal with an insurrection, kill the leaders including a wounded man who can't even stand. Arrest thousands of innocent men and put them in a camp with IRB/IRA members. Should've written a letter to 10 downing street thanking them for the free army.
War of independence was even worse, burning down half of Cork, burning houses, threatening people etc really ended any hope of having the population on side. You get rid of that, exile the leaders or keep them imprisoned rather than kill them. Do less shitty random arrests, don't put innocent men in camps with IRA members. By late war of independence, IRA flying columns were running out of ammunition and supplies. But Britain had lost popular support in Ireland and at home, people were absolutely outraged by the Black n Tans behavior. Classic in any guerilla war, if you don't have support in the country, you lose. Only other way to go was full Boer war, and that'd be an extraordinarily expensive disaster that'd probably destroy Britain's reputation. It's not worth it, it has no support anywhere and it would bankrupt Britain.
Best you can do is Home Rule and partition at least, and more likely and Irish dominion, again with partition. The latter is absolutely possible, just don't be an idiot.
Partition is going to happen, no matter what. Might be reduced to four county, might have some cross border assembly to ensure thing s remain relatively peaceful and overall on good terms.
You want to keep Ireland as part of the metropole proper, governed from Westminster? Good luck.
At the end of the day - push come to shove Tommy Atkins would do what ever HMG asked him to do - for good or bad.

Admirals and generals could be retired and fired - The UK was the most stable of democracies in that period and had been for some time and of the nations of the planet had the least to fear from from military coups and that sort of thing.

The Curragh mutiny was badly handled - HMG should have put its foot down harder.

The army existed to carry out HMG policy - not to guide it.

And generally HMG balks from resorting to it 'Hollywood' image

So had the Army been ordered to put down said militias by HMG despite their 'reluctance' they would have done so
 
At the end of the day - push come to shove Tommy Atkins would do what ever HMG asked him to do - for good or bad.

Admirals and generals could be retired and fired - The UK was the most stable of democracies in that period and had been for some time and of the nations of the planet had the least to fear from from military coups and that sort of thing.

The Curragh mutiny was badly handled - HMG should have put its foot down harder.

The army existed to carry out HMG policy - not to guide it.

And generally HMG balks from resorting to it 'Hollywood' image

So had the Army been ordered to put down said militias by HMG despite their 'reluctance' they would have done so
You're asking brits to fight brits who are fighting because they want to stay in the Union, not an expansionist hun or rebel trying to get their independence.
I agree, Britain is a stable democracy and a military coup would be highly unlikely, not that I mentioned a thing about one in the first place. Refusing to fight unionists is not attempting a coup.
Hollywood image is one thing, no public support at home is another. One is nice to have, the other determines policy.
 
You're asking brits to fight brits who are fighting because they want to stay in the Union, not an expansionist hun or rebel trying to get their independence.
I agree, Britain is a stable democracy and a military coup would be highly unlikely, not that I mentioned a thing about one in the first place. Refusing to fight unionists is not attempting a coup.
Hollywood image is one thing, no public support at home is another. One is nice to have, the other determines policy.
From memory after the Curragh Mutiny the plan was to bring in troops/officers from outside the Home Islands in order to enforce Government rule, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of the government is certainly against their oaths no matter what their sympathies for the Unionists.
 
It seems pretty obvious that they never really even mobilized in any way for a real war; they had sent more military forces of combat ready status to Murmansk than to Ireland in this period. The war aspect of this seems less accurate a description than merely a continuation of politics by more violent means, for both sides.

So I think sure, they could have militarily repressed Ireland if they actually put in the effort to do so. It'd likely mean a vastly different British government in charge - perhaps if WW1 ended badly for them, and they didn't get a massive new bunch of imperial possessions, they might not feel like being accommodating to Irish Home Rule. But Home Rule was basically a reality in waiting before WW1 and Dominion status was very possible.
 
Last edited:
From memory after the Curragh Mutiny the plan was to bring in troops/officers from outside the Home Islands in order to enforce Government rule, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of the government is certainly against their oaths no matter what their sympathies for the Unionists.
We complain about the weather non stop and we live here, indians might mutiny the moment they get off the ship :p
On a more serious note, makes sense, Colonial troops wouldn't have the connection with the unionists, just another conflict to them.
 
It seems pretty obvious that they never really even mobilized in any way for a real war; they had sent more military forces of combat ready status to Murmansk than to Ireland in this period. The war aspect of this seems less accurate a description than merely a continuation of politics by more violent means, for both sides.

So I think sure, they could have militarily repressed Ireland if they actually put in the effort to do so. It'd likely mean a vastly different British government in charge - perhaps if WW1 ended badly for them, and they didn't get a massive new bunch of imperial possessions, they might not feel like being accommodating to Irish Home Rule.
The majority of the cabinet was never in favour of accomadating the "South" until well into the War. However in terms of sending military forces, one of the major reasons why they didn't would be admitting that one of the "Home Nations" was in open revolt from London, something that they just couldn't allow a public preconception of, but yes as you said if they were willing to send enough troops they could have won, however that would also risk other issues like the Connacht Rangers mutiny in India spreading to the other Irish Regiments (Southern ones anyway). There is also the issue that until mid way through the war London was relying on Dublin Castle for the administration and advice... It was too late that they realised that the main figures in the Castle were completely unfit for the jobs and detached from the reality on the ground in Ireland, feeding back false info to London.
 
We complain about the weather non stop and we live here, indians might mutiny the moment they get off the ship :p
On a more serious note, makes sense, Colonial troops wouldn't have the connection with the unionists, just another conflict to them.
Exactly, if WW1 hadn't stepped in, we might have seen Commonwealth forces deployed while the Irish Regiments were deployed outside of the island to remove temptation from both sides.
 
You're asking brits to fight brits who are fighting because they want to stay in the Union, not an expansionist hun or rebel trying to get their independence.
I agree, Britain is a stable democracy and a military coup would be highly unlikely, not that I mentioned a thing about one in the first place. Refusing to fight unionists is not attempting a coup.
Hollywood image is one thing, no public support at home is another. One is nice to have, the other determines policy.
Tell it too the miner's in Tonypandy (where British army units drafted in the reinforce the Police acted with greater restraint and effectiveness than the Police did)

I mentioned the fear of coups etc only because the Curragh Mutiny resulted in HMG bottling it and prevented home rule which would have taken place anyway!

Most British troops of the period are not political creatures, are very disciplined and will pretty much do what they are asked.
 
Tell it too the miner's in Tonypandy (where British army units drafted in the reinforce the Police acted with greater restraint and effectiveness than the Police did)

I mentioned the fear of coups etc only because the Curragh Mutiny resulted in HMG bottling it and prevented home rule which would have taken place anyway!

Most British troops of the period are not political creatures, are very disciplined and will pretty much do what they are asked.
Given there's history of British Army units going nuts after attacks during the war just as much as the RIC, Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, I wouldn't make the assumption that calling out the British Army wouldn't end in some variation of "bad".
 
The majority of the cabinet was never in favour of accomadating the "South" until well into the War. However in terms of sending military forces, one of the major reasons why they didn't would be admitting that one of the "Home Nations" was in open revolt from London, something that they just couldn't allow a public preconception of, but yes as you said if they were willing to send enough troops they could have won, however that would also risk other issues like the Connacht Rangers mutiny in India spreading to the other Irish Regiments (Southern ones anyway). There is also the issue that until mid way through the war London was relying on Dublin Castle for the administration and advice... It was too late that they realised that the main figures in the Castle were completely unfit for the jobs and detached from the reality on the ground in Ireland, feeding back false info to London.
My point is more that if the cabinet was serious about preserving Ireland as an integral part of the UK, it would not have accepted the conditions on the ground as they were. They would have mobilized combat ready military forces to change those conditions, and they were perfectly capable of doing so. Dominion Status was acceptable ultimately because it was clear that the Pro-Treaty forces were going to win handily. I am not so sure that if this isn't the case, the political calculus doesn't change in favor of an effort to invade and suppress resistance using corps to army size units.
 
Last edited:
My point is more that if the cabinet was serious about preserving Ireland as an integral part of the UK, it would not have accepted the conditions on the ground as they were. They would have mobilized combat ready military forces to change those conditions, and they were perfectly capable of doing so. Dominion Status was acceptable ultimately because it was clear that the Pro-Treaty forces were going to win handily. I am not so sure that if this isn't the case, the political calculus doesn't change
Firstly Ireland wasn't an integral part of the UK as such, unlike Wales and Scotland even without Home Rule British Adminstration was handled by Dublin Castle, the Cabinet had little interest in what was going on, hence why the Unionist/Protestant view was dominate as that's who ran the the Administration.

Again, no the "dove" faction of the Cabinet had decided some form of "anything short of a Republic" and Partition long before the IRA were in any position to look like winning, hell not too mention that they never were in such a position through out the war, it only took that length of time to win over the Hawks, think even by mid 1920 they were putting out feelers about such a solution, again long before anyone would suggest that the IRA was winning.

As to "conditions on the ground" again as I pointed out the Cabinet had feck all clue about conditions on the ground, they got their info from Dublin Castle, and Dublin Castle didn't even know what was going on in Dublin Castle, let alone outside of it, an aspect of which was that London kept being told it was a Law and Order issue, it was only in the midst of the War when they sent over a senior civil servant they realised how dysfunctional the Dublin Administration was and gutted it resulting in changes to the UKs positions.
 
Given there's history of British Army units going nuts after attacks during the war just as much as the RIC, Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, I wouldn't make the assumption that calling out the British Army wouldn't end in some variation of "bad".
I am not suggesting that the British army is perfect with a perfect track record

It just has a more perfect track record than most other nations Army's enjoy

It has a very long track record with a lot of events and so its very easy to pick and choose 'bloody Sunday' style outliers and suggest that that those are representative of the way in which the army conducted itself - which would be disingenuous

Generally speaking British army units obey the orders of their officers and they obey the orders of the government of the day.

Had the government held its nerve then Home Rule would have been a thing

And the Army being reluctant to face unionist para military forces works both ways - unionist paramilitary type shooting at British army service men is going to rapidly use up whatever currency they might enjoy with the 'English'.

And they would know it!
 
I am not suggesting that the British army is perfect with a perfect track record

It just has a more perfect track record than most other nations Army's enjoy

It has a very long track record with a lot of events and so its very easy to pick and choose 'bloody Sunday' style outliers and suggest that that those are representative of the way in which the army conducted itself - which would be disingenuous

Generally speaking British army units obey the orders of their officers and they obey the orders of the government of the day.


Had the government held its nerve then Home Rule would have been a thing

And the Army being reluctant to face unionist para military forces works both ways - unionist paramilitary type shooting at British army service men is going to rapidly use up whatever currency they might enjoy with the 'English'.

And they would know it!
Yes and when said officers and Governments gave orders for using force against civilians/hostiles/rebels across the Empire it was also obeyed (as it was by other forces of course), so no I don't accept that more widerspread deployment of Army units would automatically have lessened the violence and reprisals as the RIC/Black and Tans/ Auxiliaries were them selves getting the support from the Cabinet for the use of reprisal/terror actions during the War, no reason whatsoever to think the British Army wouldn't have done like wise.
 
Course while I think the OPs "success" is beyond achievable by the point of the War actually happening, I wonder if the first Cease Fire attempt at Christmas 1920 could have affected things? It would require London not pressing the preconditions that they did in OTL (and which they dropped for basically the same cease fire months later), but it would also mean the worst period of the War in terms of lives lost and property destruction not happening...
Still a "Free State" Dominion, but would all the figures have the same positions? Would an Irish Civil War play out the same way?
 
Would it have an impact? Perhaps a very small impact on ww2. More Beef sold to Britain in the 30s by Ireland. Weaker relations Britain and Argentina in the 30s.

A division of infantry and a dozen sloops or something along those lines for ww2.
I'd question whether it would be a "small" impact on WW2 if you had better than OTL relations. You have the potential for more "shadow factories" (Fords in Cork for example), the likelihood of the Treaty Ports still being available to the RN, RAF bases for Coastal Command. In terms of actual Irish Forces it could range from the most ambitious of GHQ (4 divisions, 10 squadrons for the AC and a Cruiser, half squadron of destroyers and a couple of squadrons of Minesweepers, to more OTL, which is little of the Army and Air Corps and the UK forbidding a Navy.
 
Course while I think the OPs "success" is beyond achievable by the point of the War actually happening, I wonder if the first Cease Fire attempt at Christmas 1920 could have affected things? It would require London not pressing the preconditions that they did in OTL (and which they dropped for basically the same cease fire months later), but it would also mean the worst period of the War in terms of lives lost and property destruction not happening...
Still a "Free State" Dominion, but would all the figures have the same positions? Would an Irish Civil War play out the same way?
Leave Dev to rot in prison
I'd question whether it would be a "small" impact on WW2 if you had better than OTL relations. You have the potential for more "shadow factories" (Fords in Cork for example), the likelihood of the Treaty Ports still being available to the RN, RAF bases for Coastal Command. In terms of actual Irish Forces it could range from the most ambitious of GHQ (4 divisions, 10 squadrons for the AC and a Cruiser, half squadron of destroyers and a couple of squadrons of Minesweepers, to more OTL, which is little of the Army and Air Corps and the UK forbidding a Navy.
Irish industrial potential is actually one of great interest, might start a thread on it.
 
Leave Dev to rot in prison
Not the worst idea I've heard...
Irish industrial potential is actually one of great interest, might start a thread on it.
It is annoying that there's a view that there was simply no industrial capacity outside of Ulster, it was much less for a number of reasons and over the decades suffered from a lot of bad decisions but it did exist, A pod with a different Anglo-Irish relationship opens up other options. Like the idiot that destroyed the Haulbowline dockyard being kept far from it.
 
Whatever the assorted period rhetoric, Britain's aim was to get rid of Ireland not keep it. Thus a British victory would be a transfer of power.

The trick is doing so without an Ulster secessionist civil war. Dublin and Westminster would be happy even today to see how that could be done. Both sides in Ireland had incompatible needs. The only answer I can suggest would be a unilateral partition as soon as possible after the end of the Great War. Not by negotiations, which could never come to an agreement, but by imposition. With British forces withdrawn home or to Ulster there is no one to fight. No war and independent Ireland ha no ability to enter into an aggressive war of conquest to seize Ulster against it's will and has enough problems of it's own at home. This will see Ulster not unlike OTL but will have major implications for Irish internal politics with no Irish Civil War. And yes I am well aware that the populations were not homogenous in either portion.
 
Top