What if the Irish war of independence lasted much longer? Like to the mid 1930s, during the great depression were more Brits would be mad about an expensive war that was looking more unwinnable each day. How would this affect the war? Would Italy and Germany support the Irish and what would the Irish American population do? Could Ireland get full independence?
Longer Irish war of independence
- Thread starter Opninja
- Start date
A longer Irish war of independence may have an effect on US politics, particularly if the war extends into the mid-1930s.
The US east coast establishment (WASP--white Anglo-Saxon Protestants), especially financial sector types, tended to be Anglophilic. However, many in the US were less Anglophilic--such as Irish Catholics, the anti-imperialists, and the isolationists.
A longer--and presumably bloodier--War of Irish Independence would certainly increase anti-UK sentiments among the powerful Irish-American voting block. US politicians would take this into account when making policy decisions.
An Irish War of Independence that lasts until the mid-1930 also would pose a huge financial burden on the UK. If the cost of the war affected the payments on the UK's war debt, support for the UK among US financial types may will diminish--and would certainly diminish among the isolationists. The UK defaulted on its WW I loans in the US in 1934. (The UK default in 1934 led to the US passing the Johnson Act, which among other things, prohibit loans to countries such as the UK that had defaulted on debts to the US government. Roosevelt used the Lend-Lease Act to get around this part of the Johnson Act.)
The US east coast establishment (WASP--white Anglo-Saxon Protestants), especially financial sector types, tended to be Anglophilic. However, many in the US were less Anglophilic--such as Irish Catholics, the anti-imperialists, and the isolationists.
A longer--and presumably bloodier--War of Irish Independence would certainly increase anti-UK sentiments among the powerful Irish-American voting block. US politicians would take this into account when making policy decisions.
An Irish War of Independence that lasts until the mid-1930 also would pose a huge financial burden on the UK. If the cost of the war affected the payments on the UK's war debt, support for the UK among US financial types may will diminish--and would certainly diminish among the isolationists. The UK defaulted on its WW I loans in the US in 1934. (The UK default in 1934 led to the US passing the Johnson Act, which among other things, prohibit loans to countries such as the UK that had defaulted on debts to the US government. Roosevelt used the Lend-Lease Act to get around this part of the Johnson Act.)
For it to last into the mid 30's would require nothing less than a miracle for the IRA tbh. By the time the Treaty was being negotiated, the advantages that the IRA had been enjoying were starting to be rolled back and the supply situation was, frankly, dire.
Assuming it ran another year, and things in the UK stay roughly the same, you'd have Lloyd George being forced by hardliner's to straight up deploy the British military to Ireland to restore order as opposed to the combination of Auxiliaries + Black and Tans that had been used up to that point. Now that might destabilize the situation in the UK more, and it can be argued that part of the reason why the Treaty negotiations even happened in the first place was because it was seen as the less destabilizing option for London, but I don't think you are looking at a full blown British revolution because of it.
The most likely situation is that the army gets sent in, but not with a free hand. Many IRA men are detained, any captured ringleaders are tried and executed (though in proper civilian courts this time to avoid echoing 1916 too much) and most likely a few of them manage to escape to further afield. You might have nascent guerilla warfare, but the conflict would be down to a smoldering insurgency at most with only the most rural parts of Cork and Connaught with Barry and Lynch doing what they did best.
Now, if we take this as the conflict going into the 30s, you might have Italy and Germany willing to support the IRA slightly, more Germany than Italy probably (Italy and Britain's relations were very good right up to the day they were at war) and probably some fundraising among the Irish-American community, but that would be about it. Doubtless during the height of the Blitz you'd have some sort of general uprising in Ireland, and depending on how that works out things could shake out strangely, but all that would do is put Ireland down as a co-belligerent of the Germans then, which would mean no matter what the Irish diaspora might like, post war Britain would be given a total free hand in dealing with it.
Yeah, its very hard to see how the war could continue for an extremely extended period for multiple reasons, as mentioned you have the supply issues, which would only get worse as more Royal Navy patrols could be implemented with increased coastwatch units, and the increase in British military units (not just the Army but also the RAF), but on the otherhand the UK was already under pressure from the dominions to some sort of a settlement with Ireland. How long would they pour resources into the conflict while having some diplomatic fallout within the Empire/Commonwealth along with outside?
I mean realistically its a "simple" question of how much time/money/resources the UK is willing to use to hold Ireland? I can't see how it would be possible for such a conflict to continue at a large scale into the 1930s though.
I mean realistically its a "simple" question of how much time/money/resources the UK is willing to use to hold Ireland? I can't see how it would be possible for such a conflict to continue at a large scale into the 1930s though.
I can't see the war lasting even at end of 1920's. Irish separatists hadn't such resources to last that long and Brits might lost their will to fight due growing body count. Eventually politicians would are enforced to negotiate with Ireland.
More plausible would be Brits winning the war but even then they hardly can hold Ireland much longer anymore and the country would secede soon after WW2.
More plausible would be Brits winning the war but even then they hardly can hold Ireland much longer anymore and the country would secede soon after WW2.
In so far as the independence had been more or less conceeded in 1912 and the Home Rule Act, passed on 18 September 1914, it could be argued that 'independence' had already been won in principle before the 'war' started.
Of course not everyone wanted to be independent of Brfitain, and the Uster Volunteers were formed spcifically to oppose the breakaway, whilst the IRA were all in favour, so long as they were in charge.
Rather than an extended war, a very much more likley POD would a north/south split after the Easter Uprising in 1916. The Brits could then wash their hands of the south, leaving the various factions to fight it out in Dublin for control, whilst a fortified border was constructed seperating north and south, thus making it hard for the IRA (and any troops they managed to convince the Kaiser to lend them) to invade the north.
Certainly, it's hard to see why the British would want to waste a decade of effort fightng an unwinnable** war for control of a country that lacked any vital industry (except, perhaps, the shipyards in the north). Ireland has few mineral resources, no oil, not even coal. Nor did they have massive rubber, coffee or cotten plantations or anything else that might generate the sort of wealth that could be taxed to pay for the military effort of keeping the country subdued.
**unwinnable, that is, without resorting to the sort of methods used by Hitler and Stalin.
Of course not everyone wanted to be independent of Brfitain, and the Uster Volunteers were formed spcifically to oppose the breakaway, whilst the IRA were all in favour, so long as they were in charge.
Rather than an extended war, a very much more likley POD would a north/south split after the Easter Uprising in 1916. The Brits could then wash their hands of the south, leaving the various factions to fight it out in Dublin for control, whilst a fortified border was constructed seperating north and south, thus making it hard for the IRA (and any troops they managed to convince the Kaiser to lend them) to invade the north.
Certainly, it's hard to see why the British would want to waste a decade of effort fightng an unwinnable** war for control of a country that lacked any vital industry (except, perhaps, the shipyards in the north). Ireland has few mineral resources, no oil, not even coal. Nor did they have massive rubber, coffee or cotten plantations or anything else that might generate the sort of wealth that could be taxed to pay for the military effort of keeping the country subdued.
**unwinnable, that is, without resorting to the sort of methods used by Hitler and Stalin.