Could UK hold Ireland responsible for Troubles?

Would it be possible for UK government to claim that Ireland is stirring troubles in Northern Ireland and is therefore part of the problem? Say claims backed by proof of Irish semi official help for Republicans or the fact that they are not cracking down on them/allowing them to operate freely?

As for british response I'm not talking about "Peace for Galilee" type of solution but rather economic and political sanctions.

Possible?
 
No.

Despite some elements in the Irish Free State helping or holding sympathies at various times (gun running attempts, various wild and fantastical schemes calling for intervention ala Charles Haughey, Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney and possibly Jack Lynch), for the most part the governments in the South were generally anti-IRA south and north of the border.

It would take a substantial POD in Irish government policy to change that stance.
 
No.

Despite some elements in the Irish Free State helping or holding sympathies at various times (gun running attempts, various wild and fantastical schemes calling for intervention ala Charles Haughey, Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney and possibly Jack Lynch), for the most part the governments in the South were generally anti-IRA south and north of the border.

It would take a substantial POD in Irish government policy to change that stance.

I didn't say Ireland would help, I said that UK would claim they help and act accordingly. ;)
 
In which case it would be seen through fairly quickly as a forgery and fake, would inflame nationalist sentiment in the North and quickly turn whatever cooperation and goodwill there was in the south against the UK. In short making the situation much, much worse than it was.

Such an act would require an Urquhart level of conspiracy and planning in the government..
 
Would it be possible for UK government to claim that Ireland is stirring troubles in Northern Ireland and is therefore part of the problem? Say claims backed by proof of Irish semi official help for Republicans or the fact that they are not cracking down on them/allowing them to operate freely?

As for british response I'm not talking about "Peace for Galilee" type of solution but rather economic and political sanctions.

Possible?

Why would they want to do something as stupid as that? Lets not forget that the British chose to withdraw from most of Ireland and only stayed in NI because the majority of the people there wanted them to. So why would they want to turn around and try to punish a country that they would be better off getting on their side?

Any sanctions they placed againt ROI would cause far more trouble than they would be worth, the rest of the EU and the USA would not stand for it and Britain would be in a lot of trouble. It would also cause MORE support for scum like the IRA which would cost the lives of more innocent civilians and servicemen.

Sorry, all in all I cant ever see a rational for Britain doing what you suggest, it would be about the dumbest thing that they could have done during the troubles.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Would it be possible for UK government to claim that Ireland is stirring troubles in Northern Ireland and is therefore part of the problem? Say claims backed by proof of Irish semi official help for Republicans or the fact that they are not cracking down on them/allowing them to operate freely?

As for british response I'm not talking about "Peace for Galilee" type of solution but rather economic and political sanctions.

Possible?

Yes, if the british leadership is rendered collectively stupid; sanctions against Ireland without actual proof will potentially lead to american and continental sanctions back until Britain stops acting like a child.
 
Guys

Technically Britain could point towards the notorious part of the Irish constitution that until recently at least tacitly supported the fascists movement by claiming that Ulster was an Irish colony regardless of what the population wanted. There were also rumours that at least some of the Irish leadership was less than supporting of democracy during the period. [It wasn't just the scum like Kennedy in Boston who stirred up hatred by lying for political gain].

Some sort of blockade would probably be counter-effective as said but removing some of the privileges extended to the Irish in Britain could well have been useful. Coupled with a stronger hand towards the terrorist elements on both sides of the divide.

Steve
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Guys

Technically Britain could point towards the notorious part of the Irish constitution that until recently at least tacitly supported the fascists movement by claiming that Ulster was an Irish colony regardless of what the population wanted. There were also rumours that at least some of the Irish leadership was less than supporting of democracy during the period. [It wasn't just the scum like Kennedy in Boston who stirred up hatred by lying for political gain].

Some sort of blockade would probably be counter-effective as said but removing some of the privileges extended to the Irish in Britain could well have been useful. Coupled with a stronger hand towards the terrorist elements on both sides of the divide.

Steve

The IRA is not a fascist movement, quit with that ridiculous line. You obviously know fuck all about fascism if you think the mere fact of being nationalist is fascist.
The rest of the world would still tell Britain to quit the nonsense and stop acting like it was still an empire.
 
The IRA is not a fascist movement, quit with that ridiculous line. You obviously know fuck all about fascism if you think the mere fact of being nationalist is fascist.
The rest of the world would still tell Britain to quit the nonsense and stop acting like it was still an empire.

archaeogeek

Let's see:
a) Rejection of democracy

b) Desire to conquer for it's own sake.

c) Pathological liars.

d) Vicious psychopaths.

If the cap fits wear it! Just because you don't like reality quit rejecting it. The IRA [ Imperial Repressionary Animals] have fuck all to do with nationalism.

Steve
 

archaeogeek

Banned
archaeogeek

Let's see:
a) Rejection of democracy

b) Desire to conquer for it's own sake.

c) Pathological liars.

d) Vicious psychopaths.

If the cap fits wear it! Just because you don't like reality quit rejecting it. The IRA [ Imperial Repressionary Animals] have fuck all to do with nationalism.

Steve

You have no idea what fascism is, thanks for confirming. Fascism is a right wing ideology based around a totalitarian rejection of both communism and liberal democracy. Of the many traits of fascism (let's go with Eco's 14), the IRA only fits ONE.
Stop insulting our intelligences, fascism is more than "political or terrorist movement I don't like". Should I remind you the rather large separatist element in the 6 counties?
And your point b) is wrong.
 
The official IRA was for most of its life a dedicated marxist organisation before the split with the Provisionals and even afterwards was still predominately left-wing.

Coupled with a stronger hand towards the terrorist elements on both sides of the divide.
Lets see, you had internment on both sides of the border against IRA suspects. Short of declaring absolute martial law (which is not going to do a great deal more than the army was doing anyway), theres not alot that can be done.

Some sort of blockade would probably be counter-effective as said but removing some of the privileges extended to the Irish in Britain could well have been useful
The army established outposts along the border and in so called 'bandit country'. The RN acting on tip offs intercepted a number of arms shipments heading to NI and the Free State, with origins from private sources in America.

There were also rumours that at least some of the Irish leadership was less than supporting of democracy during the period.
By 1973 they were part of the EEC. Why would they start dicking about in being un-democratic?
 
The IRA is not a fascist movement, quit with that ridiculous line. You obviously know fuck all about fascism if you think the mere fact of being nationalist is fascist.
The rest of the world would still tell Britain to quit the nonsense and stop acting like it was still an empire.


Here's a partial description of fascism from Wikipedia:

Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and a threat to the nation. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

There's some overlap -- to the best of their ability the IRA violently suppressed opinions different from their own. [And from the tone of your comment, it seems that you don't like opposing opinions, yourself]. The IRA certainly rejected the idea of protestants/unionists having any right to have a meaningful role in Northern Ireland.

It's not a question of being nationalist; it's the IRA's methods that earned it the designation. I'm betting that you don't defend those unionists who resorted to similar tactics.

The 'acting like it was still an empire' line is really lame. The not-very-enthusiastic British government sent troops in when Catholic politicians asked them to (Gerry Fitts, for one, if you need a name), but no government, anywhere, post-imperial or not, could just ignore an armed rebellion that was intended to force itself on a mostly unwilling population.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Here's a partial description of fascism from Wikipedia:

Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and a threat to the nation. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

There's some overlap -- to the best of their ability the IRA violently suppressed opinions different from their own. [And from the tone of your comment, it seems that you don't like opposing opinions, yourself]. The IRA certainly rejected the idea of protestants/unionists having any right to have a meaningful role in Northern Ireland.

It's not a question of being nationalist; it's the IRA's methods that earned it the designation. I'm betting that you don't defend those unionists who resorted to similar tactics.

The 'acting like it was still an empire' line is really lame. The not-very-enthusiastic British government sent troops in when Catholic politicians asked them to (Gerry Fitts, for one, if you need a name), but no government, anywhere, post-imperial or not, could just ignore an armed rebellion that was intended to force itself on a mostly unwilling population.

I could do without snide insinuations that I'm some sort of totalitarian. They were marxist, not fascist. It's also not about intervening in Northern Ireland, it's about intervening in the Republic of Ireland, which is an absolutely ridiculous position.

Also Umberto Eco's definition of fascism > wikipedia.
 
Top