Irish civil war

So if for some resone the 1914 home rule bill whent into effect during the July crisis.
Both the unionist and the nationalist had armd malitas (ironically mostly German arms for both sides) and large parts of the British army did not want to force home rule on Ulster. So would the UK be willing to join a general European war if the unionist and nationalists are fighting each other in Ireland, seems to me at least the UK would be more woread about a civil war in Ireland then Belgium. And how would that effect the war if Germany didn't have to face the BEF in Flanders of the RN in the north sea.
 
With a civil war on our own soil? Not a chance, but any indication of active participation by a foreign power would change things.
 
And how would that effect the war if Germany didn't have to face the BEF in Flanders of the RN in the north sea.

I think the Germans might have won.

The plan to go through Belgium was seriously flawed

It assumed Britain would not intervene! This problem is solved.

It also assumed that Belgians would kindly leave their railroads in place. Moltke ended up using humans and horses to port a bunch of supplies. By the Marne, they had 7 guys who were not supposed to be involved in logistics in the original plan porting for every guy actually fighting. To be fair to Moltke, he ended up working around a logistics problem Schlieffen just kind of left out.

The prewar plans were also more like guidelines, as divisional commanders were allowed to look for tactical opportunities and ignore the plan unless given an explicit order otherwise.

There was an article called The What Ifs of 1914 by Crowley put together into a book. Long story short, the German plan was flawed, but the French one was even dumber and the Germans could have gotten an encirclement of a good portion of the French army and most of its artillery if they played their cards better. The removal of the BEF would certainly allow them the time they needed. There would be no Marne and the decisive battle would happen when the French were encircled a bit further South.
 
With a civil war on our own soil? Not a chance, but any indication of active participation by a foreign power would change things.
Reading up on this more (mostly sleepwalkers) its almost surprising brition joined in OTL considering how bad the Ulster crisis got and how much it was distracting British policy makers.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Assuming the free staters are victorious would they accept a monarchy under a german prince?
For goodness sake :eek:

Why and how on earth ... or hell should a german prince get even the slightiest chance to become considered as a potential monarch of the green eire ??

VERY likely, if there's a civil war with the "free staters" winning they would go straight republican.
 
Reading up on this more (mostly sleepwalkers) its almost surprising brition joined in OTL considering how bad the Ulster crisis got and how much it was distracting British policy makers.

Well, in a way joining the war served to stifle the Crisis and the debate over the final state of the Home Rule Bill by rallying he country around he flag and getting the Irish and Ulster Volunteers integrated into the British Army and changing the context of what resistance to the Bill would be. Not that it was nessicerily done explicitly to do that, but the War did accomplish what the Liberals coulden't: bringing the nation together.
 
Why would the Irish who'd just kicked out the forces of one German King (George V) accept having another German King (or any at all)?

Why would a German prince want to rule a fractious, bloody minded, backwards, impoverished country on the edge of Europe. One with a very pissed off neighbour that a large number of its citizens wanted back in charge?
 
For goodness sake :eek:

Why and how on earth ... or hell should a german prince get even the slightiest chance to become considered as a potential monarch of the green eire ??

VERY likely, if there's a civil war with the "free staters" winning they would go straight republican.
To be honest I don't think the free staters would win any civil war, gust that it might distract brition enuff to keep it out of ww1.
 
To be honest I don't think the free staters would win any civil war, gust that it might distract brition enuff to keep it out of ww1.

If Ireland was on fire during the July Crisis, it's liable to have Britain's attention. The trick would be events occuring in such a way as to get a large organized resistance the Brit's can't nip in the bud quickly and decisively. A more slow burning terrorism won't do. Perhaps the only viable option I can see is Churchill actually implementing his rumored plans (if he has any) for an Ulster Pogrom/coup de grace on the UVF and the affair bungling miserably. Asquith sees his government fall, responce is delayed by elections.
 
So if for some resone the 1914 home rule bill whent into effect during the July crisis.
Both the unionist and the nationalist had armd malitas (ironically mostly German arms for both sides) and large parts of the British army did not want to force home rule on Ulster. So would the UK be willing to join a general European war if the unionist and nationalists are fighting each other in Ireland, seems to me at least the UK would be more woread about a civil war in Ireland then Belgium. And how would that effect the war if Germany didn't have to face the BEF in Flanders of the RN in the north sea.
That's at best a misrepresentation of the situation.

Firstly, the arms were mostly Austrian and Italian with the remaining ones from Mauser - albeit bought from a Hamburg based arms dealer. At least in relation to the Larne Gun Running incident.

"large parts of the British army" - that's not the case and there's been a tendency to extrapolate the Curragh incident to represent a unified sentiment across the across different geography and ranks in the British Army when it simply wasn't the case at the time. There was different degrees of support for the unionist cause across the political spectrum, however there is considerable speculation that much of that wider unionist support would evaporate if the army was sent in and the UVF actively resisted.

If the British government is intent on enforcing Home Rule in 1914 at the point of the bayonet, and the UVF resists (and its not just all posturing bluff as I've seen argued my some historians), they will be fighting the British Army - not the The Irish Volunteers - who have the most to gain by sitting tight and doing nothing. The notion of an Irish civil war in 1914 is largely projecting later events onto the situation.

Regardless of whether there is a coup de main or a prolonged fight in Ulster, Asquith's government is almost certainly finished and highly likely distracted from Europe. Barring major butterflies there's a good chance the Germans win the race to the sea and or Paris, but does not automatically mean the war is over by Christmas.
 
So would the UK be willing to join a general European war if the unionist and nationalists are fighting each other in Ireland, seems to me at least the UK would be more woread about a civil war in Ireland then Belgium.

As late as August 3 Austro-Hungary's Chief of the General Staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf cited a report from the military attaché in London to argue “that there is no desire [in England] for war for the time being, taking into account the Ulster crisis and the civil war.” The next day, England declared war on Germany and, eight days later, on Austria-Hungary.

Even if the Army had been deployed to Ireland to quell civil unrest, a general European war would change the situation. GB can't afford to have an aggressive continental power in control of the Belgium coast.
 
Why would the Irish who'd just kicked out the forces of one German King (George V) accept having another German King (or any at all)?

It was normal for newly independent countries at this time to adopt foreign princes. Greece, Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria and Norway all did so. Easter Rising leaders Patrick Pearse, Joseph Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh were all in favour of an Irish monarchy under a German prince such as Prince Joachim of Prussia, and when Plunkett discussed the idea at an Irish Volunteers meeting he was met with no objections (with Ernest Blythe stating he found the idea immensely attractive due to the potential benefit to the Irish language of having a monarch learn Irish).

People overestimate the strength of anti-monarchist feeling in Ireland among Irish nationalists at this time, Michael Collins stated he considered a constitutional monarchy to be as free as a republic and that the declaration of a republic was a gesture to the world that the Irish question was not a domestic British problem. In his words "In order to express clearly our desire to depart from all British forms, we declared a Republic. We repudiated the British form of government, not because it was monarchical, but because it was British. We would have repudiated the claim of a British Republic to rule over us as definitely as we repudiated the claim of the British monarchy. Our claim was to govern ourselves, and the expression of the form of government was an answer to the British lie that Ireland was a domestic question. It was a gesture to the world that there could be no confusion about. It was an emphasis of our separate nationhood and a declaration that our ultimate goal was and would continue to be complete independence. It expressed our departure from the policy of parliamentary strategy at Westminster".

Why would a German prince want to rule a fractious, bloody minded, backwards, impoverished country on the edge of Europe. One with a very pissed off neighbour that a large number of its citizens wanted back in charge?

Ask the German kings of Bulgaria, Greece and Romania. Not to mention pro-British sentiment wasn't as strong among Irish Catholics as people seem to think, it only took a few executions and the possibility of conscription (both very light things by European standards) to swing Irish public opinion completely towards independence after all.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention pro-British sentiment wasn't as strong among Irish Catholics as people seem to think
Not all Irish are Catholics of course. Even assuming Ulster (four or six counties) managed to stay British, 10% of the Free State/ROI population wasn't Catholic in 1923. Demographic effects of WW1 would have been missing but probably more or less replicated by the War of Independence but, even following WW2 (unlikely in this TL) and a century of mixed marriages and Protestant emigration they are still 3% of the total ROI population. TTL with more marriage prospects within their own community, I would say possibly 7% With only 4 county exclusion in Ulster, protestants would have been around 14-15% of the 1923 population. TTL 9%. Anglo-Irish and Ulster Protestants were very pro-British.
 
As late as August 3 Austro-Hungary's Chief of the General Staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf cited a report from the military attaché in London to argue “that there is no desire [in England] for war for the time being, taking into account the Ulster crisis and the civil war.” The next day, England declared war on Germany and, eight days later, on Austria-Hungary.

Even if the Army had been deployed to Ireland to quell civil unrest, a general European war would change the situation. GB can't afford to have an aggressive continental power in control of the Belgium coast.
Yes and both the Nicolas the II and the French president where both worried the brition would not join becuse of the crisis in Ulster, and that was without active shooting like what I'm proposing here.
That's at best a misrepresentation of the situation.

Firstly, the arms were mostly Austrian and Italian with the remaining ones from Mauser - albeit bought from a Hamburg based arms dealer. At least in relation to the Larne Gun Running incident.

"large parts of the British army" - that's not the case and there's been a tendency to extrapolate the Curragh incident to represent a unified sentiment across the across different geography and ranks in the British Army when it simply wasn't the case at the time. There was different degrees of support for the unionist cause across the political spectrum, however there is considerable speculation that much of that wider unionist support would evaporate if the army was sent in and the UVF actively resisted.

If the British government is intent on enforcing Home Rule in 1914 at the point of the bayonet, and the UVF resists (and its not just all posturing bluff as I've seen argued my some historians), they will be fighting the British Army - not the The Irish Volunteers - who have the most to gain by sitting tight and doing nothing. The notion of an Irish civil war in 1914 is largely projecting later events onto the situation.

Regardless of whether there is a coup de main or a prolonged fight in Ulster, Asquith's government is almost certainly finished and highly likely distracted from Europe. Barring major butterflies there's a good chance the Germans win the race to the sea and or Paris, but does not automatically mean the war is over by Christmas.
First of sorry I gust read that the arms where form moser and Hamburg and gust atrapalating from there, it's not surprising that the malitas where arming themselves whith whatever they could get.
On the army yes not all of the army would be mutinas or anything but the Curragh incident is worring considering that kind of explicit political threat hadn't been done by the British army sense the civil war, combine whith the fact that a large portion of the British officer corps where Irish protistance and you can see why the army may not be reliable in a shoting war in Ulster, lagitmit or not.
 
I suspect there'd be conspiracy theories that Germany somehow started the conflict to keep Britain occupied during the invasion of Belgium.
 
Top