Ireland becomes more British

Odd thing about Irish identity - the moves to strenghthen it happened in the late 19th century- roughly at the time when most Irish people had started speaking English.

There was no deliberate decision to cause the Famine by the British government but there is little doubt that ideologically driven economic policies grossly agravated it.

Perhaps England's perception of the Irish as different made it easy to stick to the ideology despite the suffering.


One has to say that Stalin adopted a dangerous and castrastphocically wrong economic approach and millions died. The British state insisted on a certain ideology and millions died in Ireland.

Also on a Demographic basis it is worth looking at the long term consequences. I think Ireland's population was much higher in 1840 than now- it is hard to think of many other parts of my continent where that can be said.
 
No they started it out of indifferency to human suffering, ideology and pure incompetance (sound familiar?), while it would have been a disaster no matter what, British policy transformed it to one of the worst famine in history (in precent), Ireland has still fewer people than before the Famine, beside it can't be compared to Liectenstein because Ireland is great deal bigger and more populated, and then even moreso than today.

This is bullshit, utter bullshit. Robert Peel lost his political career and position over the famine, and due to his efforts of Repealing the Corn Laws, Buying Indian Maize, and communicating with the Land Lords no man died in his administration. Lord John Russell's party was more Laizzez-Faire (ironic considering Peel's Conservatives split over a Laissez-Faire policy) and attempted to use minor Public Works, Outdoor Relief, the Poor Houses and direct aid to solve the problem. This was not as effective. The government in this time took on huge loans via the Irish Board of Works to combat the Famine. There was no political will to do any more due to the nature of the Whig party.

The reason the famine was so dire in Ireland was because of two reasons. The Potato was a staple crop in Ireland, people there ate between 12-14lbs. a day on average. Secondly the way the land system worked - this was not a government policy, but a policy of all land owners, Catholic, Protestant, Irish or British. The land was rented out to the workers - tenants, who grew produce, they then paid the land owner in produce, and kept some for themselves - this was essentially payment, unlike in Britain where farm labourers were paid in wages. Now, labourers chose what to grow in thier own land, because the labourers had to eat, they grew the best thing to eat, Potatoes. So when a potato blight came, it wiped out the millions of potato crops, and with it, millions upon millions of people's subsistance.

This was not a co-ordinated genocide, it was not a co-ordinated anything. And people talk about population losses, Ireland's population did decrease from 8 million to 3 million in the period 1845-1910, but most of this was due to immigration. Only 1 million died of starvation. That is a truly tragic number, and that's what the famine was, tragic. It was the fault of an extortianate land system that was almost fuedal in nature. But it was not the fault of the government, the government had no influence in how the land was organised at this stage of history, the government was dominated by land-owners wanting to stress the 'Right of Property'.
 
This is bullshit, utter bullshit. Robert Peel lost his political career and position over the famine, and due to his efforts of Repealing the Corn Laws, Buying Indian Maize, and communicating with the Land Lords no man died in his administration. Lord John Russell's party was more Laizzez-Faire (ironic considering Peel's Conservatives split over a Laissez-Faire policy) and attempted to use minor Public Works, Outdoor Relief, the Poor Houses and direct aid to solve the problem. This was not as effective. The government in this time took on huge loans via the Irish Board of Works to combat the Famine. There was no political will to do any more due to the nature of the Whig party.

The reason the famine was so dire in Ireland was because of two reasons. The Potato was a staple crop in Ireland, people there ate between 12-14lbs. a day on average. Secondly the way the land system worked - this was not a government policy, but a policy of all land owners, Catholic, Protestant, Irish or British. The land was rented out to the workers - tenants, who grew produce, they then paid the land owner in produce, and kept some for themselves - this was essentially payment, unlike in Britain where farm labourers were paid in wages. Now, labourers chose what to grow in thier own land, because the labourers had to eat, they grew the best thing to eat, Potatoes. So when a potato blight came, it wiped out the millions of potato crops, and with it, millions upon millions of people's subsistance.

This was not a co-ordinated genocide, it was not a co-ordinated anything. And people talk about population losses, Ireland's population did decrease from 8 million to 3 million in the period 1845-1910, but most of this was due to immigration. Only 1 million died of starvation. That is a truly tragic number, and that's what the famine was, tragic. It was the fault of an extortianate land system that was almost fuedal in nature. But it was not the fault of the government, the government had no influence in how the land was organised at this stage of history, the government was dominated by land-owners wanting to stress the 'Right of Property'.

Bravo, sir.

I believe that:

1) The Irish famine was a tragedy and a failure but calling it a genocide, or even claiming that Britain intended to phsyically destroy the Irish people, is utterly ludicrous for the reasons detailed above.

2) Irishness is an old identity which has long been considered compatible with Britishness by some. The idea that the two were exclusive was in many way's American, but certainly not the identity itself.

3) 67th Tigers, you are talking utter bullshit about British identity being manufactured in the 30s. Consider the facts:

Throughout the 19th Century, there was not enough seperatism in Scotland to even be seriously talked about (a golden time...:D)

Scotland has never thought of itself as being in the least bit English. Sadly, in fact, we often define ourselves solely in opposition to you lot.

So what the shitcakes was our identity in the 19th century?

Par for the course on this forum. Dont you know Britain can do no bad?

It happens often enough, but you're exaggerating. I'm a patriotic Britain, and I freely acknowledge that we do bad. And of course one of our best TLs is by a Briton about a Briton set at the height of British power and what's it about? Why, how trends which were already present in OTL could have led to the development of a protofascistic mess and its subsequent destruction in a *Communist Revolution, of course!

67th Tigers here would be whitewashing us if he'd stop denying we existed, while Valdemar is just bashing.
 
Last edited:
Guys

Getting back to the initial question there are a number of ways it could happen. Some bad, some not so.

a) After the civil wars England/Britain imposes the continental approach agreed at Westphalia. I.e. the permitted religion of the population is the religion of the ruler, with widespread forced conversions or expulsions. Probably bloody but most of the population would be fairly rapidly converted. Not sure it would mean a more British rather than Irish identity but would have removed the religious aspect.

b) Alternatively the 1650's expulsions to Connaught are of the Catholics on-mass rather than largely landowners. Instead of the land going to rich merchants who granted the royalist government money to put down the early revolts it is granted to English Protestants, probably predominatly military veterans. - Very unpleasant mass uprooting and probably bad relations between the two communities for a long while that makes OTL look good. The Catholic population in Connaught peaks as it did OTL but is markedly smaller because they are by thi time only a minority of the population. The English/Protestant population [and Scots/Protestants in Ulster] are more significant.

This could go either of two ways in the longer term. Being a minority inside Ireland the Catholics are no longer seen as such a threat, especially by the local Protestants and might also be a 3rd party in disputes between the Scots and English. Hence could see a considerable improvement in relations. Or as a small minority, in a relatively backwards area there is less incentive for intervention so they suffer even worse in TTLs famine. [One of the problems OTL not mentioned in earlier discussions was that the initial effects of the famine in the Connaught area involved a different type of potatoe that that grown in the drier Dublin region. As such earlier reports of the blight seemed exhauguated and were not initially believed]. Also, if there was still a stronger religious identity and the blight was, for reasons of geography, predominantly hitting Catholic populations there is the danger it might be seen by either/both sides as a sign of devine intervention.

c) A more pleasant propect, although probably unlikely given the religious divide at the time, is that a divide and rule policy is possible. Some agreement is made respecting the views of the 'old English' Catholics and they keep their land and more religious rights. That could make a significant difference to the population split, especially in the Leninster region. Coupled with the Scots in Ulster that might well give a majority of the population who think of themselves as non-Irish.

d) I was playing around with a TL once where a semi-successful French war with Britain in the 1840's saw about 2/3 of Irleand becoming independent under an Orleans monarchy - the main Bourbon house still being present in France. This meant higher Irish losses as the blight and famine occurred during a period of conflict and blockage rather than peace and aid from Britain. Also the resultant large scale immigration in the following years is largely to French N Africa than America.

This still leaves the bulk of Ireland Catholic and non-British but could have some change which sees the kingdom reconquered by Britain. Demographic changes from a rapidly expanding Britsh population and a stationary/declining Irish one could again result in a British majority.

e) Although probably more difficult to establish/maintain a united Britain including Ireland you could have an England that stays Catholic. Say Catherine of Aragon comes up with the goods and suplies Henry with a healthy son.

Steve
 

Valdemar II

Banned
This is bullshit, utter bullshit. Robert Peel lost his political career and position over the famine, and due to his efforts of Repealing the Corn Laws, Buying Indian Maize, and communicating with the Land Lords no man died in his administration. Lord John Russell's party was more Laizzez-Faire (ironic considering Peel's Conservatives split over a Laissez-Faire policy) and attempted to use minor Public Works, Outdoor Relief, the Poor Houses and direct aid to solve the problem. This was not as effective. The government in this time took on huge loans via the Irish Board of Works to combat the Famine. There was no political will to do any more due to the nature of the Whig party.

The reason the famine was so dire in Ireland was because of two reasons. The Potato was a staple crop in Ireland, people there ate between 12-14lbs. a day on average. Secondly the way the land system worked - this was not a government policy, but a policy of all land owners, Catholic, Protestant, Irish or British. The land was rented out to the workers - tenants, who grew produce, they then paid the land owner in produce, and kept some for themselves - this was essentially payment, unlike in Britain where farm labourers were paid in wages. Now, labourers chose what to grow in thier own land, because the labourers had to eat, they grew the best thing to eat, Potatoes. So when a potato blight came, it wiped out the millions of potato crops, and with it, millions upon millions of people's subsistance.

This was not a co-ordinated genocide, it was not a co-ordinated anything. And people talk about population losses, Ireland's population did decrease from 8 million to 3 million in the period 1845-1910, but most of this was due to immigration. Only 1 million died of starvation. That is a truly tragic number, and that's what the famine was, tragic. It was the fault of an extortianate land system that was almost fuedal in nature. But it was not the fault of the government, the government had no influence in how the land was organised at this stage of history, the government was dominated by land-owners wanting to stress the 'Right of Property'.

I hasn't called it genocide that your word not mine, but I'm sure that if 8 million people died of starvation in GB, while 30 million fleed/emigrated thanks too the policy of Brussel, which thought it was more important to protect the private properties of the pro-EU elite than stopping the famines, you would be just as "objective" saying that it wasn't the fault of EU and they did their best to stop it.
 
Valdemar, Leej's post just made me notice that you said the famine in Ukraine wasn't deliberated, not that it was. The Ukrainian famine was the result of a deliberate and malevolent Soviet policy to destroy Kulaks. Kulaks, not Ukrainians, but the Kulaks happened to be concentrated in Ukraine. There was also famine in adjacent Russian oblasts like the Kuban and the Don valley, so whether it was "genocide" is a touchy topic. But without collectivisation, there would have been nothing worthy of the title "famine" in Ukraine.

Whereas the Irish famine was not the result of any British policy, it was pure bad luck, and any harmful British policies were stupid or ineffective but well-intentioned rather than being an attempt to destroy any social, political, or national group.

What Imperial Russia did to Poland was destroy its native political institutions, ban its language, attempt to Russianise its population and send any dissidents to Siberia. What Nazi Germany did was deliberately attempt to, eventually, kill every single Pole. Neithe of these can be in any Goddamn way compared to British rule in Ireland.

I hasn't called it genocide that your word not mine, but I'm sure that if 8 million people died of starvation in GB, while 30 million fleed/emigrated thanks too the policy of Brussel, which thought it was more important to protect the private properties of the pro-EU elite than stopping the famines, you would be just as "objective" saying that it wasn't the fault of EU and they did their best to stop it.

This is nonsense. For one thing one cannot make such comparisons given the enormous changes in trade, agriculture and so on in the intervening period. For another in the scenario you outline the famine is caused entirely by a malignant government policy. Listen closely now:

It was caused by a damn disiese, a disiese having absolutely no thoughts on the Irish question which also struck Germany and Canada.
 
Last edited:
About Ukraine, the Soviets actively took food from starving people to sell abroad, prevented people from leaving areas where there was no food, killed people who hid food, etc.

The British tried to help the starving Irish but did it rather badly. The Soviets actively added to the death toll.
 
About Ukraine, the Soviets actively took food from starving people to sell abroad, prevented people from leaving areas where there was no food, killed people who hid food, etc.

The British tried to help the starving Irish but did it rather badly. The Soviets actively added to the death toll.

Eeg-zaktly, although I'd be inclined to say that any other factors added to the Holodomor death-toll seeing as the bulk of it would not have existed if not for collectivisation.
 
Perhaps the biggest POD needed would be a true seperation of church and state in the UK. Of course never underestimate the effects of pigheaded religousness, no matter the religious persuation. IMO The Potato Famine and some of its effects, policies and viewpoints were the last great battles of the Reformation
 
Perhaps the biggest POD needed would be a true seperation of church and state in the UK. Of course never underestimate the effects of pigheaded religousness, no matter the religious persuation. IMO The Potato Famine and some of its effects, policies and viewpoints were the last great battles of the Reformation

In your opinion Martin Luther caused the Blight? :confused:
 
In your opinion Martin Luther caused the Blight? :confused:
I think he's trying to claim that the largely protestant Britain allowed it in order to hurt the Irish Catholics. But where did he get that from?:confused:

This is what I mean. Whenever the Potato Famine gets brought up, no one is ever happy with responses. The Brits get angry if they're criticized too much, and the Plastic Paddies get angry if Britain isn't criticized enough.
 
I think he's trying to claim that the largely protestant Britain allowed it in order to hurt the Irish Catholics. But where did he get that from?:confused:

This is what I mean. Whenever the Potato Famine gets brought up, no one is ever happy with responses. The Brits get angry if they're criticized too much, and the Plastic Paddies get angry if Britain isn't criticized enough.

I was being sarcastic. After all, Martin Luther wasn't even responsible for the English refomation in any obvious sense.

I'm not sure how to take your second paragraph. I'm British. Does that mean I'm not physically capable of giving a balances account? And I do acknowledge the many crimes and disgraces by my country, which I love, in many other areas. Or are you simply saying that the PPs are too deep in their own position to be swayed by evidence, making the debates somewhat fruitless and our responses only useful insofar as they protect others from the shoddy history of the PPs? That much I'll sign on to.

I mean, if someone were to say, in a post, that "Britain's response was incompetant and negligent", that would be criticism of Britain and would by no means make me angry.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Valdemar, Leej's post just made me notice that you said the famine in Ukraine wasn't deliberated, not that it was. The Ukrainian famine was the result of a deliberate and malevolent Soviet policy to destroy Kulaks. Kulaks, not Ukrainians, but the Kulaks happened to be concentrated in Ukraine. There was also famine in adjacent Russian oblasts like the Kuban and the Don valley, so whether it was "genocide" is a touchy topic. But without collectivisation, there would have been nothing worthy of the title "famine" in Ukraine.]

And if UK had tried to intervene the Potato Famine would just have been another small time famine where a few precent had died.

Whereas the Irish famine was not the result of any British policy, it was pure bad luck, and any harmful British policies were stupid or ineffective but well-intentioned rather than being an attempt to destroy any social, political, or national group.]

Crap the British policies was to late and to little, they may hve been well-intentioned, but it doesn't change the fact that they ignored it for to long out of insane idealogical belief.

What Imperial Russia did to Poland was destroy its native political institutions, ban its language, attempt to Russianise its population and send any dissidents to Siberia. What Nazi Germany did was deliberately attempt to, eventually, kill every single Pole. Neithe of these can be in any Goddamn way compared to British rule in Ireland.]

Yes if they had succed.
If I mow down a entire kindergarden while drunk driving, is my action better than the guy who kill a single child with a knife?
The action counts not the intentions.


This is nonsense. For one thing one cannot make such comparisons given the enormous changes in trade, agriculture and so on in the intervening period. For another in the scenario you outline the famine is caused entirely by a malignant government policy. Listen closely now:

It was caused by a damn disiese, a disiese having absolutely no thoughts on the Irish question which also struck Germany and Canada.

So it would be okay if EU did so if the British Famine started out thanks to other reasons. Okay then.
 
I was being sarcastic. After all, Martin Luther wasn't even responsible for the English refomation in any obvious sense.

I'm not sure how to take your second paragraph. I'm British. Does that mean I'm not physically capable of giving a balances account? And I do acknowledge the many crimes and disgraces by my country, which I love, in many other areas. Or are you simply saying that the PPs are too deep in their own position to be swayed by evidence, making the debates somewhat fruitless and our responses only useful insofar as they protect others from the shoddy history of the PPs? That much I'll sign on to.

I mean, if someone were to say, in a post, that "Britain's response was incompetant and negligent", that would be criticism of Britain and would by no means make me angry.
Sorry, I just get irritated when Ireland debates get brought up. There are always exceptions, but to me it always seems to begin spiralling down until its almost, but never quite, a flamewar.

Not trying to insinuate anything about you, or anyone specific really. Just venting. Besides, I'm really tired right now and might be overreacting.
 
Last edited:
Valdemar, Leej's post just made me notice that you said the famine in Ukraine wasn't deliberated, not that it was. The Ukrainian famine was the result of a deliberate and malevolent Soviet policy to destroy Kulaks. Kulaks, not Ukrainians, but the Kulaks happened to be concentrated in Ukraine. There was also famine in adjacent Russian oblasts like the Kuban and the Don valley, so whether it was "genocide" is a touchy topic. But without collectivisation, there would have been nothing worthy of the title "famine" in Ukraine.[/quote[

I'm not so sure the intent of collectiviztion was to destroy the kulaks, as such. But I think a thread on this topic, while interesting, should go elsewhere.
 
In my Afrikaner TL, I have larger numbers of Irish being deported to North America and the Caribbean and Protestant English and Scots being brought in to replace them, which leads to a larger Ulster that includes Dublin.

Might such a policy do the trick?
 
And if UK had tried to intervene the Potato Famine would just have been another small time famine where a few precent had died.



Crap the British policies was to late and to little, they may hve been well-intentioned, but it doesn't change the fact that they ignored it for to long out of insane idealogical belief.



Yes if they had succed.
If I mow down a entire kindergarden while drunk driving, is my action better than the guy who kill a single child with a knife?
The action counts not the intentions.




So it would be okay if EU did so if the British Famine started out thanks to other reasons. Okay then.
to your first statement; we did.
to your second; what ideological belief?
to your third; so shooting a terrorist who was about to kill a planeload of people is worse than stabbing someone non-fatally for the heck of it?
to your fourth; i don't have a clue what you're on about.

back to the point in question, i saw an interesting thread were the POD was the future henry IX surviving his swim in the thames.
 
to your first statement; we did.
to your second; what ideological belief?
to your third; so shooting a terrorist who was about to kill a planeload of people is worse than stabbing someone non-fatally for the heck of it?
to your fourth; i don't have a clue what you're on about.

back to the point in question, i saw an interesting thread were the POD was the future henry IX surviving his swim in the thames.

ddtim

Most of what he's saying seems to be devoid of any accuracy but I think by ideological belief he's referring to the laisse-faire policies followed by the Liberal government that replaced Peel's Conservatives a couple of years into the famine. Some truth in that I fear, although given how overpopulated Ireland was for a rural area and how much intervention there was overall its difficult to know for sure if any level of action could have prevented widespread suffering and deaths. More could have been done and in hindsight better policies might have been more effective.

Valdemar II is definitely undermining his own case when he tries to compare deaths by neglect/error in 1840's Ireland to deliberate mass murder in Poland and the Ukraine in the 1940's & 30s' respectively.

Steve
 
And if UK had tried to intervene the Potato Famine would just have been another small time famine where a few precent had died.

This is very debatable (Ireland was an almost-overpopulated country with a crippling monoculture, that causes problems all the time) and in any case implies some strange ethics in that anything anyone fails to prevent becomes their fault.


Crap the British policies was to late and to little, they may hve been well-intentioned, but it doesn't change the fact that they ignored it for to long out of insane idealogical belief.

I like free trade and capitalism and would not call it insane, and while not being a huge expert on the topic I believe that much of the problem was incompetence rather than reluctance.

Yes if they had succed.
If I mow down a entire kindergarden while drunk driving, is my action better than the guy who kill a single child with a knife?
The action counts not the intentions.

Well, let's compare the actions, then!

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia: millions of counts of bloody murder.

Britain: about one million counts of manslaughter, using the term loosely.

So yeah, this is an abyssmally stupid argument.

So it would be okay if EU did so if the British Famine started out thanks to other reasons. Okay then.

I've said that this is a stupid hypothetical which could never actually happen, but it's also not a valid comparison, so I see no reason to address it.

Sorry, I just get irritated when Ireland debates get brought up. There are always exceptions, but to me it always seems to begin spiralling down until its almost, but never quite, a flamewar.

Not trying to insinuate anything about you, or anyone specific really. Just venting. Besides, I'm really tired right now and might be overreacting.

Ts'cool.

I'm not so sure the intent of collectiviztion was to destroy the kulaks, as such. But I think a thread on this topic, while interesting, should go elsewhere.

Well, I'm not an expert. It's a fascinating topic and it is of course not for here.
 
This is bullshit, utter bullshit. Robert Peel lost his political career and position over the famine, and due to his efforts of Repealing the Corn Laws, Buying Indian Maize, and communicating with the Land Lords no man died in his administration. Lord John Russell's party was more Laizzez-Faire (ironic considering Peel's Conservatives split over a Laissez-Faire policy) and attempted to use minor Public Works, Outdoor Relief, the Poor Houses and direct aid to solve the problem. This was not as effective. The government in this time took on huge loans via the Irish Board of Works to combat the Famine. There was no political will to do any more due to the nature of the Whig party.

The reason the famine was so dire in Ireland was because of two reasons. The Potato was a staple crop in Ireland, people there ate between 12-14lbs. a day on average. Secondly the way the land system worked - this was not a government policy, but a policy of all land owners, Catholic, Protestant, Irish or British. The land was rented out to the workers - tenants, who grew produce, they then paid the land owner in produce, and kept some for themselves - this was essentially payment, unlike in Britain where farm labourers were paid in wages. Now, labourers chose what to grow in thier own land, because the labourers had to eat, they grew the best thing to eat, Potatoes. So when a potato blight came, it wiped out the millions of potato crops, and with it, millions upon millions of people's subsistance.

This was not a co-ordinated genocide, it was not a co-ordinated anything. And people talk about population losses, Ireland's population did decrease from 8 million to 3 million in the period 1845-1910, but most of this was due to immigration. Only 1 million died of starvation. That is a truly tragic number, and that's what the famine was, tragic. It was the fault of an extortianate land system that was almost fuedal in nature. But it was not the fault of the government, the government had no influence in how the land was organised at this stage of history, the government was dominated by land-owners wanting to stress the 'Right of Property'.
Great post.
I should keep it and just copy and paste to save time with plastics and their damn folk history.
 
Top