DBWI the Irish rebellion of 1848 fails

The potato famine was in full swing and the young Irelander Rebellion started in south tipperary, there had been other rebellions but the potato famine and the empires lack of help and sympathy to the irish and the feelings of rage in the country exploded.

The attempt to kill the ringleaders early in the rebellion failed and the rebellion seized the entire Island, two years of Famine and brutal fighting later the british left and Ireland became an independent republic, but what if this rebellion had failed?

How would Irish and world history change?
 
It's possible Ireland might have left later. While it's been shown that the majority of "lack of help and sympathy" was propaganda manufactured by the so-called Irish Liberation Group there was a certain amount of "people should help themselves" attitude among the rich who dominated Imperial circles at this time, which wouldn't have gone down well.
Maybe Ireland would have completely stayed out instead of rejoining the reformed Imperial Federation following the 2nd Depression and the (Irish) Reconciliation.

Of course I've not even considered a partial victory and a divided Ireland yet.
 
Last edited:
Ireland wouldn't have enjoyed being cozied up by Germany, France and basically all of Britain's rivals that's for sure.

France won't try to exploit Ireland to gain a naval base closer to Britain. The cork crisis of 1890 is surely avoided, which will mean better franco-british relations.
 
Last edited:
Ireland wouldn't have enjoyed being cozied up by Germany, France and basically all of Britain's rivals that's for sure.

France won't try to exploit Ireland to gain a naval base closer to Britain. The cork crisis of 1890 is surely avoided, which will mean better franco-british relations.

To be fair to the Irish they needed money to build infostructor and rebuild their economy, expecially since the brits forbade Irish goods from entering the imperial economy for quite awhile, the cork crisis was the issue that got them to drop their needless antagonism to the irish republic.
 
To be fair to the Irish they needed money to build infostructor and rebuild their economy, expecially since the brits forbade Irish goods from entering the imperial economy for quite awhile, the cork crisis was the issue that got them to drop their needless antagonism to the irish republic.

Needless? I guess it's hard to determine who spat I the other's eyes first: the "Tariff of Reperations" thrown up on British goods could either be considered a sign of malice and intended hostility or a legitiment fear of the "Golden Cavalry of St. George" riding in to do work the British army couldn't to subject the island Economically and force them by threat of cutting off the trade to adopt pro-London policies. In the former case, the British policy would just be equalizing trade barriers for all practical purposes (given the tarriff was so high it may as well have been an embargo). Both sides can be blamed in theory
 
Needless? I guess it's hard to determine who spat I the other's eyes first: the "Tariff of Reperations" thrown up on British goods could either be considered a sign of malice and intended hostility or a legitiment fear of the "Golden Cavalry of St. George" riding in to do work the British army couldn't to subject the island Economically and force them by threat of cutting off the trade to adopt pro-London policies. In the former case, the British policy would just be equalizing trade barriers for all practical purposes (given the tarriff was so high it may as well have been an embargo). Both sides can be blamed in theory

Not really, given that the Brits spent a century and a half of occupation forcibly restructuring the Irish economy to be in permanent dependence on Great Britain. Eire actually had a developed textile industry, especially before the Ninety-Eight, but the British forcibly destroyed that. Pretending that fault lies on "both sides" ignores the history of colonialism and oppression. Really, it's the same sort of revisionist blather that used to make its rounds here in the states in some parts of the South during and after the War of Southern Aggression.
 
Not really, given that the Brits spent a century and a half of occupation forcibly restructuring the Irish economy to be in permanent dependence on Great Britain. Eire actually had a developed textile industry, especially before the Ninety-Eight, but the British forcibly destroyed that. Pretending that fault lies on "both sides" ignores the history of colonialism and oppression. Really, it's the same sort of revisionist blather that used to make its rounds here in the states in some parts of the South during and after the War of Southern Aggression.

You do realize that regional specializiation and integration of the whole polity into a single economic network comes part and parcel with running literally any state, right? Dixie or any village with a skilled weaver could make the exact same arguments about "economic iimperialism" towards the North or Dublin, respectively, which makes the whole position rather silly if we're going to expect any commerce or governance among the very localized level, which comes at the price of literally any level of effectiveness and quality. Trying to blame England for having an economic relationship with an island that was a stone's throw away and had been in the same political unit for over half a millenium is an absurd standard, and while you can very well make the argument that Britain ought to have given the Irish representation and enfranchise Catholics and their failure to do so was grounds for secession and I'd be more than happy to agree with you (The USA definately made that argument quite legitimently) merely excerissing a cohesive economic policy certainly isen't
 
It's possible Ireland might have left later. While it's been shown that the majority of "lack of help and sympathy" was propaganda manufactured by the so-called Irish Liberation Group there was a certain amount of "people should help themselves" attitude among the rich who dominated Imperial circles at this time, which wouldn't have gone down well.
Maybe Ireland would have completely stayed out instead of rejoining the reformed Imperial Federation following the 2nd Depression and the (Irish) Reconciliation.

Of course I've not even considered a partial victory and a divided Ireland yet.

Ireland was a net exporter of food and the head of food relief Charles Trevelyan was openly contemptuous of the Irish, the Irish revolution was necessary.

The puppet government in Ireland (of which around 70% of the cabinet were Protestant Ulster-Scots) set up by the Triple Alliance of Britain, Germany and Austria after the Entente were defeated in the Great War "voluntarily" choosing to join the Imperial Federation (without a referendum of course) had little to do with the second Depression which was only starting when Ireland was annexed, the truth is of course that the British wanted to prevent Ireland being used as a base again as it had been during the Great War. The Irish have been some of the strongest opponents to the federation along with the Quebecois and Boers ever since.
 
Ireland was a net exporter of food and the head of food relief Charles Trevelyan was openly contemptuous of the Irish, the Irish revolution was necessary.

The puppet government in Ireland (of which around 70% of the cabinet were Protestant Ulster-Scots) set up by the Triple Alliance of Britain, Germany and Austria after the Entente were defeated in the Great War "voluntarily" choosing to join the Imperial Federation (without a referendum of course) had little to do with the second Depression which was only starting when Ireland was annexed, the truth is of course that the British wanted to prevent Ireland being used as a base again as it had been during the Great War. The Irish have been some of the strongest opponents to the federation along with the Quebecois and Boers ever since.
OOC: wasn't where I was heading with it but interesting switch! For the record my post was to avoid the normal Ireland vs UK rubbish the op could incite by injecting some reflective realism since the OTL Great Famine wasn't exactly a "UK hates Ireland deliberate genocide thing".
 
I wonder about the effects in Eastern Europe and North America and the Muslim World.

For example, the Irish War of Independence heralded the Hungarian War of Independence of 1867, which turned into a regional war (Russia/Serbia/Montenegro/Hungary VS Austria/Germany/Romania), and ended with Poland in German hands, and Austria keeping the entire empire except Hungary itself.

Then, in 1898, the Crete Crisis caused the Balkan War.
Initially Greece vs Ottomans, but Serbia, Montenegro, Hungary and a reluctant Romania (pressed by all neighbors) joined the Greeks, and then, Italy took advantage of the situation to invade Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.

Russia unofficially supported the Balkan Coalition but was busy shoring up its Abyssinian protectorate against the British. In fact, Russia only participated at the very end and on a peripheric theater, when Italians were in Cairo, and Madhists had taken Sudan (a Russo-Abyssinian force took South Soudan).

Britain was in no position to intervene, as the British were busy quelling the Boxer Rebellion, which ultimately failed to topple the Anglo-Japanese condominium on China. They were lucky that Boxers didn't believe in firearms, as China is really big...

So, the result was that the Ottomans lost all European and African territories, either to its enemies or the new Bulgarian state. And in return for Hungarians helping for free in 1898, the entire Balkan Coalition would help Hungary against Austria in WWI (it didn't stop the Austrian side from winning but still).

China would prove a poisoned chalice, as the USA openly supported Chinese independence (and was against Anglo-Japanese control) and provided weapons to Chinese nationalists.
Which would lead to Japan launching the Pearl Harbor attack during WWII, and in return, the USA declared war on the Tokyo-Berlin-Vienna-London alliance, leading to its defeat.

And finally, North America... The CSA, the greatest mistake of London. It earned Britain the enmity of the USA (well, that, the Chinese problem and re-annexing Ireland in the 1920s), and led ultimately to the defeat and the catastrophic Treaty of Washington. And in the meantime, the CSA had to be propped up economically and militarily, and were a major diplomatical embarassment, as the Southies knew that Britain needed them to counter their common US enemy, and so they never ended slavery (Britain could yell at them but it was empty as they knew London couldn't drop them).

So, if 1848 had been different, would the Roman Empire have been restored from Slovenia to Wales (in personal union) to Egypt ? Would Scotland have ultimately joined the Scandinavian Union as the fifth member ? Would the Ottomans have reformed enough to keep Mesopotamia, Arabia and Levant to this day ? Would France have become the only communist monarchy to exist ever (as a compromise between communists and monarchists among the Résistance during WWII) ? Would the Windsor family now live in Japan, within the Imperial Court ?
 
Last edited:
One other thing I’ve just thought of- without the visible Anglo Japanese mistreatments of Chinese, would the Manchus and han have been able to get over their differences and lend support to the us backed monarchist faction led by the Xuantong Emperor and eventually restore the Qing which of course was central to china’s ... tumultuous twentieth century
 
Yeah. That was the other reason why the British Empire wasn't really in the right position to yell at the Southies about "Negro" Slavery.

Because in China, British and Japanese industrials and governments treated the locals as near-slaves, and at least the Southies always fed their slaves...

In 1948, Winston Churchill and Hideki Tojo were hanged in the Trials of La Habana, mostly for having caused and mismanaged the famines in Bengal, Gansu and Henan, as well as the Five Year Plans that boosted Chinese agriculture and industry (for the benefit of colonizers) at the expense of millions of lives, and the Rape of Galway, and the genocide of Irish Travelers. Even though Churchill said ultra-racist things openly all his life, there are still negationists who defend him even today...
 
Speaking of France's unusual government, I remember reading once that during WW2 Patrick Pearse, the leader of the Irish monarchist government-in-exile (there having been a huge rivalry between monarchists and republicans in Ireland after Napoleon III pressured the Irish republic to crown Jerome-Napoleon Bonaparte in 1853, the overthrow of the Irish monarchy in 1889 of course prompted the Cork Crisis when the Irish Republic suppprted by Britain seized the bases the previous government had leased to the French) proposed an alliance with the Irish communist leader James Connolly.

I wonder if something could've come out of that, though the Irish pretender Prince Hugh na Bonaparte was much more unsympathetic to socialism than his French relative and Connolly himself called Pearse a "blithering idiot", having never forgiven him or the other monarchists for pressuring the republican government into joining the Entente in WW1 rather than remaining neutral.
 
Last edited:
Well, if things had happened differently, I think Ireland would have remained united. Britain would have eventually given independence or equal status to Ireland (and other colonies) as 19th century-style colonialism couldn't go on eternally. The only reason the Roman Empire is still there is that every part is autonomous and has a say in the Imperial policies (even if Italy dominates de facto, and Albania has troubles), and local cultures and identities are celebrated but as part of a common identity.

Same thing for Ottoman Empire. Especially Palestine, the Jewel of the Crown, which welcomed Jews of Salonica after 1902, French Jews after the Dreyfus Pogrom, Russian and Polish Jews, living in good harmony with Arabs.

Anyway, one day, Britain would have let Ireland be equal or independent as a whole, just like Romans and Ottomans adapted.

But of course, that's not what happened. Instead, we got the Kingdom of Ireland in the south (supported by the Romans, from Roman Wales), and the Irish Popular Commune in the north.
 
Last edited:
Top