If Ireland gained independence much earlier, how unlikely is it that WW1 still happens?

[telynk]

Snowball or butterfly - the underlying assumption is that history (or rather the societies that create history) are so chaotic that small changes lead to large deviations. Problem is that a change that does cause a reaction in one direction is very likely to result in a counter acting butterfly flapping it wings the other way. So the overall effect is dampened considerably. Even it its original home the butterfly effect is being challenged as some believe the weather systems are nowhere near as chaotic as Lorenz believed due to viscous dampening effects.

Thank you for calling out this assumption for what it is. I do firmly believe that history is a chaotic system, but i recognize that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that history is more like Statistical Mechanics when an underlying chaos leads to predictable macroscopic behaviour. In fact, Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation series opeeated on the premise that history on a macroscopic level could be predicted by a sufficiently complicated model, and thus, on that level, was not chaotic.

I think my reason for my belief in a chaotic model making its way up to even the most macroscopic trends in history has more to do in my belief in a sort of free will than anything else. If history is not chaotic, then there is nothing I as an individual can do to prevent future wars, etc. (trying to tie this back to whether WWI would still happen). I firmly believe that it is possible tbat I could be the straw that breaks the camels back of a future war, and that, despite being an altogether ordinary individual, my actions do matter.....

At the same time I recognize that chaos theory would hold that while my actions do matter, there is no way I could ever predict HOW they matter, so I might as well act randomly..... I'm going to stop before I get all existentialist..m

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Much depends on the exact time of the POD. The trouble with an Ireland wank is that up until around 1983 over 90% of Ireland's external trade is with Great Britain. So a Britscrew is an Ireland screw as well on the "same to you doubled" principle. A Britain where the industrial revolution never kicks off means that Ireland is a peasant society living in mud cabins. Ireland has very little to trade with other European societies (historically there was a limited trade in butter with Spain and Portugal out of Cork) and previous to the rise of industry the other European countries are not keen to let imports of agricultural goods into their countries except when there has been a crop failure.

 

[Von Tyrconnell]

That wasn't true until around the 1700s, the Irish had a lot of trade with continental Europe (the city of Galway for example owed much of its wealth to continental trade) before it was crippled by the destruction of the Catholic merchant class following Cromwell's invasion of Ireland and the English control of Irish trade which meant that English merchants would press the government to restrain any Irish trade which could compete with English trade such as the Irish woolen industry. Even in the early 1700s the French, Portuguese and Dutch were major customers of Irish beef exports and the English ban on Irish exports to Spain and France during the War of Spanish Succession hit the Irish economy hard.

 

[Tonifranz]

It probably doesn't.

World War I as we know it is one of the easiest things to butterfly away. Literally one wrong turn by a driver could have avoided it. And yes, I'm not exaggerating. WWI is a highly contingent event depending on so many factors that one of being missing could derail it.

For example, assuming everything happened as OTL even with Irish indenpendence (which is frankly impossible), what if Franz Ferdinand was on a state visit to Dublin in July 1914? Or let's say that Ireland is a Catholic Monarchy, and the Franz Karl married an Irish Princess, and their first child is Franz Ferdinand?

 

[The Professor]

Thank you for calling out this assumption for what it is. I do firmly believe that history is a chaotic system, but i recognize that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that history is more like Statistical Mechanics when an underlying chaos leads to predictable macroscopic behaviour. In fact, Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation series opeeated on the premise that history on a macroscopic level could be predicted by a sufficiently complicated model, and thus, on that level, was not chaotic.

I think my reason for my belief in a chaotic model making its way up to even the most macroscopic trends in history has more to do in my belief in a sort of free will than anything else. If history is not chaotic, then there is nothing I as an individual can do to prevent future wars, etc. (trying to tie this back to whether WWI would still happen). I firmly believe that it is possible tbat I could be the straw that breaks the camels back of a future war, and that, despite being an altogether ordinary individual, my actions do matter.....

At the same time I recognize that chaos theory would hold that while my actions do matter, there is no way I could ever predict HOW they matter, so I might as well act randomly..... I'm going to stop before I get all existentialist..m

Most people seem to forget that chaotic systems still have attractor (and repellor) states that states will tend towards. The Solar System for example is chaotic but planets follow mostly predictable orbits despite the fine details of those being hard to predict. The weather is easier to predict long term assuming a particular climate than short term.
I sometimes like to use the analogy of a sports event. How much of the onlookers can we change before it impacts performance of the players? Before the mood of the stadium is recognisably different? Will it change the outcome of the match? Does that then change season performance significantly? Etc etc.

Back to the OP.

It depends what "independence" means. Afterall describing Ireland as not being independent even under the union is a bit inaccurate. Pedantry aside, it's more reasonable to expect a Dominion like arrangement with a personal union under the monarchy and separate government. That seemed to be the way things were headed following the Famine.
Alternatively a British Isles wide devolution for all the Home Nations.
Both of these probably wouldn't impact wider European politics too much unless the Irish angle affects US-British politics to the extent that the US backs up British interference/mediation so that there's a different trigger or a more phony war.

An Ireland that leaves earlier through violent means will certainly impact things more significantly. Probably preventing the Empire from joining the Entente if France supplies aid, maybe even pushing into alliance with Germany...

 

[Lusitania]

It probably doesn't.

World War I as we know it is one of the easiest things to butterfly away. Literally one wrong turn by a driver could have avoided it. And yes, I'm not exaggerating. WWI is a highly contingent event depending on so many factors that one of being missing could derail it.

For example, assuming everything happened as OTL even with Irish indenpendence (which is frankly impossible), what if Franz Ferdinand was on a state visit to Dublin in July 1914? Or let's say that Ireland is a Catholic Monarchy, and the Franz Karl married an Irish Princess, and their first child is Franz Ferdinand?

But when we say WWI we always assume our version of the Great War. But during the last quarter set of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century European countries had been arming themselves both militarily and politically. It was the combination of nationalistic ambitions, imperialism and stategic alliances that led to Great War.

In our world it was the assasination that was the spark but in another with free and independent Ireland it could of been an assasination in Britain or Ireland that would of caused it.

Therefore we cannot say an independent Ireland would stop it, it just be different but it would happen one way or another.

 

[Lusitania]

What we needing establish is a POD and imagine the changes to world and add the social economic societal changes happening in the 19th and 20th century to come up to a point where the old world order clashed with new world order and we have the biggining of that worlds Great War.

 

[Tonifranz]

But when we say WWI we always assume our version of the Great War. But during the last quarter set of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century European countries had been arming themselves both militarily and politically. It was the combination of nationalistic ambitions, imperialism and stategic alliances that led to Great War.

In our world it was the assasination that was the spark but in another with free and independent Ireland it could of been an assasination in Britain or Ireland that would of caused it.

Therefore we cannot say an independent Ireland would stop it, it just be different but it would happen one way or another.

Perhaps, but in our world, the World War require a precise combination of causes and events, and the single lack of one would result in a World War not happening.

And even being present that would not guarantee war. All that dry gunpowder needs a spark. But if there's no spark, there's no explosion. Before our WWI, lot's of crisis happened between 1871 and 1914, for example, the Moroccan Crisis, the Bosnian Annexation Crisis of 1908, the two Balkan Wars, yet all those crisis, despite all the elements of our World War present, did not result in a World War. It required the peculiar combination of events triggered by the assassination of the Archduke to actually lit the spark.

 

[Lusitania]

Perhaps, but in our world, the World War require a precise combination of causes and events, and the single lack of one would result in a World War not happening.

And even being present that would not guarantee war. All that dry gunpowder needs a spark. But if there's no spark, there's no explosion. Before our WWI, lot's of crisis happened between 1871 and 1914, for example, the Moroccan Crisis, the Bosnian Annexation Crisis of 1908, the two Balkan Wars, yet all those crisis, despite all the elements of our World War present, did not result in a World War. It required the peculiar combination of events triggered by the assassination of the Archduke to actually lit the spark.

Those crises did not provoke Great War due to combination of factors. Example another previous thread explored the scenario where Germany does not attack through Belgium and if that would of prevented or stopped Britain from being involved in the war.

The point is that a Great War would of happened anytime between 1870-1930s how it happens is anyone’s guess. The original threads question is a misnomer because an independent Ireland would of changed history. The impact to history depends on when the POD takes place.

The term work War I only appeared after wwII otherwise it was called Great War andcthat was because of its scope. So if we have the same set of forces, social economic factors and imperialism on the other world we eventually have a Great War.

 

[Kaze]

There was more to World War One than the shooting of the Arch-Duke there were other factors -
1. Ottoman Collapse. The Empire was on the brink of collapse - it was losing territory village by village - hell that is how Serbia got free in the first place.
2. Nationalism.
3. The German Navy vs. the British navy. The British was not too pleased to have a naval rival.
4. The French wanting revenge for their losses in the Franco-Prussian War
5. Colonialism. The treaties concerning the division of Africa and China were not worth the paper they were written on - all it would take would be some idiot discovering oil say in south northern Bulungi and the whole would easily explode into a war. Case in point - the Boer Wars.
6. The nations wanting to try out their new weapons of war on the battlefield.
===
Now back to the OP - an independent Ireland would have little impact on stopping the Great War. The better question is whether or not what side the Irish would take in the War - with Germany, with England, or neutral.

 

[Tonifranz]

There was more to World War One than the shooting of the Arch-Duke there were other factors -
1. Ottoman Collapse. The Empire was on the brink of collapse - it was losing territory village by village - hell that is how Serbia got free in the first place.
2. Nationalism.
3. The German Navy vs. the British navy. The British was not too pleased to have a naval rival.
4. The French wanting revenge for their losses in the Franco-Prussian War
5. Colonialism. The treaties concerning the division of Africa and China were not worth the paper they were written on - all it would take would be some idiot discovering oil say in south northern Bulungi and the whole would easily explode into a war. Case in point - the Boer Wars.
6. The nations wanting to try out their new weapons of war on the battlefield.
===
Now back to the OP - an independent Ireland would have little impact on stopping the Great War. The better question is whether or not what side the Irish would take in the War - with Germany, with England, or neutral.

I agree. Those are all factors led to the Great War. But it by itself, all those things did not cause a Great War or World War. There were those factors in before 1914, and it did not lead to a Great War. Think about it. Without the shooting of the Archduke, 1914 would be a very peaceful year in Europe, and there's nothing on the horizon that would trigger a war. Even a crisis isn't a guarantee of a Great War. Notice how the Bosnian Annexation Crisis, the Morocco Crisis, the Fashoda Crisis, the First two Balkan wars, etc all before 1914, with all the elements above present, did not lead to a General War.

You need a perfect spark, and that perfect spark is not at all certain.

As for an Irish independence, it depends when it happens. If it happens because of a successful Armada, or a successful Jacobite restoration in Ireland, etc, then our world would be unrecognizeable to even think of a World War I like ours.

 

[Tonifranz]

Those crises did not provoke Great War due to combination of factors. Example another previous thread explored the scenario where Germany does not attack through Belgium and if that would of prevented or stopped Britain from being involved in the war.

The point is that a Great War would of happened anytime between 1870-1930s how it happens is anyone’s guess. The original threads question is a misnomer because an independent Ireland would of changed history. The impact to history depends on when the POD takes place.

The term work War I only appeared after wwII otherwise it was called Great War andcthat was because of its scope. So if we have the same set of forces, social economic factors and imperialism on the other world we eventually have a Great War.

True. For example, an independent IReland because of a successful Spanish Armada, or a successful Armada of 1779, or James II winning the Battle of the Boyne, would so change our world that it would be useless to think of our World War I happening like it did.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Much depends on how, exactly, Ireland gains independence, since Irish independence—even autonomy within the British Empire in the model of the dominions—would require significant changes in British political culture. A self-governing Ireland will surely have a butterfly effect. Although there may well be a great war later on, the details may be very different.

 

[catalfalque]

Independence would drastically alter any timestream, whether its Wolfe Tone or an 1848 that comes to Britain

HOME RULE on the other hand might allow for an independent Ireland and not too great a change in events that eventually culminate in the Great War