No World War I in 1914 ----> Civil War in Ulster?

If there was no war, UK would have lost interest in Unionists resistance shortly after Home Rule Bill enters force.
Unless Dublin government goes completely idiot-ball with abusing peaceful Unionists for the fun of it, London will tell northern militias to stop being such crybabies, and accept Home Rule.
If Unionists resists peacefully, after a while everyone gets bored and their own base abandons them when its becomes obvious "evil papists" won't try to rape and exterminate them. They might not like Home Rule, but they won't do anything about it (not even complain on internet, with it not being invented yet), which works just as well as supporting. If they resist violently, well, that’s what British Army has bayonets for.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
If there was no war, UK would have lost interest in Unionists resistance shortly after Home Rule Bill enters force.
Unless Dublin government goes completely idiot-ball with abusing peaceful Unionists for the fun of it, London will tell northern militias to stop being such crybabies, and accept Home Rule.
If Unionists resists peacefully, after a while everyone gets bored and their own base abandons them when its becomes obvious "evil papists" won't try to rape and exterminate them. They might not like Home Rule, but they won't do anything about it (not even complain on internet, with it not being invented yet), which works just as well as supporting. If they resist violently, well, that’s what British Army has bayonets for.

That seems incredibly optimistic.

The Unionist-Conservative alliance was making incredible hay of the Home Rule situation to promote their position and were playing brinksmanship at the crisis -- Bonar Law's statement that "I can imagine no lengths of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I would not be prepared to support her" may have been hyperbole, but it was hyperbole others believed.

The Ulster Covenant and Declaration was signed by a half-million Protestants in Ireland, and the hope of the Ulstermen was to raise the Volunteer Force to over a hundred thousand men under arms, and they had smuggled in thirty-five thousand rifles in April 1914 and had announced that they'd form a Provisional Government in the event of Home Rule to refuse Dublin authority.

The British Army at Curragh saw men resigning their commissions rather than accept orders to march against the UVF -- and it's nearly certain that had tensions grown worse, they would have volunteered their services to the Ulster Volunteers.

I'm just not so sure that had Home Rule been passed that everyone would have just shrugged and moved on, especially given the events of OTL from 1919 on.
 
I'm just not so sure that had Home Rule been passed that everyone would have just shrugged and moved on, especially given the events of OTL from 1919 on.
OTL Ireland in 1919, had Easter Rising in 1916. TTL would not. Without war, most Army would be at home, ready to crush Unionist uprising. All the talk about officers defecting to join unionists was bollocks. British soldiers were far to disciplined to actually do it. It was all posturing. Few who did would get hanged for treason, and they knew it.
Conservatives and Bonar Law might've been screaming how they'll fight to the death defending Ulster, but that was because Home Rule hadn't passed yet. Once it did, they'd not be so stupid to actually rescind it, they'd consider it a done deed.
At most, Unionists and Conservatives would achieve temporary exclusion of their counties. But after a while, London would tire of them, given that even passive resistance would render Ulster ungovernable. Why would they support troublemaking Unionists (who set up illegal government!), over ITTL loyal Southerners?
 
Agreed, the British will tell Unionists to shove it and violent Unionist resistance will be crushed swiftly, possibly something like the Amritsar Massacre (yes I know the Indian protestors weren't violent, but it was the closest analogue I could think of ATM). Nasty, but people will think twice before protesting again. And once Unionists realize the Irish aren't evil baby killing papists they'll calm down. Ireland might actually be better off ITTL, with groups like the IRA being absent or much less popular
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Agreed, the British will tell Unionists to shove it and violent Unionist resistance will be crushed swiftly, possibly something like the Amritsar Massacre (yes I know the Indian protestors weren't violent, but it was the closest analogue I could think of ATM). Nasty, but people will think twice before protesting again. And once Unionists realize the Irish aren't evil baby killing papists they'll calm down. Ireland might actually be better off ITTL, with groups like the IRA being absent or much less popular

So, despite:

  • British officers were ending their careers rather than accept theoretical orders to go against the Unionists, and
  • The fact that overwhelming force and executions failed to work OTL (see 1916), or, for that matter, the failure of the Amritsar massacre itself to calm India, and
  • That the Unionists (who were Irish themselves, I hasten to point out) had ample opportunity to recognize the Nationalists were not baby-killing papists, and the Nationalists had ample opportunity to recognize the Unionists may have had legitimate grievances, and both failed to do so OTL, and
  • Merely getting the Home Rule Bill passed required a constitutional crisis and stripping the House of Lords of their power to block legislation,
The argument is that after a little bit of bloodshed by Stalwart and Faithful British Soldiers (themselves in no small part natives of Ireland) who would march precisely as told, everything would be fine?

I reiterate that I find the position offered difficult to believe and would demand some sort of supporting evidence.
 
British officers were ending their careers rather than accept theoretical orders to go against the Unionists, and
Good riddance for them. Its not like half of army resigned. If it did, London would do double take at half of its army mutinying and not pass Home Rule in the first place.
The fact that overwhelming force and executions failed to work OTL (see 1916), or, for that matter, the failure of the Amritsar massacre itself to calm India, and
Executions were against Radical Irish Nationalists, not against northern unionists. Executions would not scare nationalists, who already saw London as their enemy, into surrendering. Far less punitive measures would convince Unionists, who though London was on their side, that it was not, and that they were alone.
That the Unionists (who were Irish themselves, I hasten to point out) had ample opportunity to recognize the Nationalists were not baby-killing papists, and the Nationalists had ample opportunity to recognize the Unionists may have had legitimate grievances, and both failed to do so OTL, and
Nationalists did recognise that Unionists had grievances. All-For-Ireland League was arguing for considerate privileges to Ulster, including giving Northern MPs veto in Dublin Assembly, and their own separate officials in the North. And remember, Ulster counties were to be excluded from Home rule for couple years. If Unionists living south of Ulster were not abused by Dublin Nationalists, it would be obvious than neither would be northern, more numerous Unionists.
Merely getting the Home Rule Bill passed required a constitutional crisis and stripping the House of Lords of their power to block legislation, The argument is that after a little bit of bloodshed by Stalwart and Faithful British Soldiers (themselves in no small part natives of Ireland) who would march precisely as told, everything would be fine?
Bloodshed would be used only in response to bloodshed. If Ulster is literally revolting, (and that's a big if) of course British soldiers would shoot at rebels who shoot at them. And Ulster leadership knew it, that's why they'd only try passive resistance, which would be as good as no resistance.

I reiterate that I find the position offered difficult to believe and would demand some sort of supporting evidence.
Virtual History Alternatives And Counterfactuals by Niall Ferguson has some pretty good arguments.

Let me get one thing clear. Are arguing that Ulster would risen in violent revolt? Not just campaign of passive resistance against Dublin government? And that British army would mutiny and join them?
 
well armed...

The Unionists were better armed than the nationalists at the time, with 25,000 rifles. Germany sold cheerfully to both sides...
 
arms and doubt

Both are poorly armed compared to the British Army.

The challenge for the British in that situation isn't if the army can defeat Ulster rebels, but if it WILL. We can make judgements from here and now--but did the government of the time know if they could count on the army? With some resigning or threatening to resign, and officers and troops having homes in Ulster (Nowhere near as many officers living in the south...) the government has to assess what will happen if the army comes apart--or is even weakened. (And what would the fleet do?)
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The British Army would remain loyal and the Unionists would be swiftly defeated

If need be, London would call upon Canadian and Australian troops to do the deed. No one minded crushing the Boers and the Irish unionists would be a cup of tea in comparison

Rifles are of no use when artillery is pounding away. The rebels are simply outmatched
 
I think that most unionists will quite done but there might be a troublesome few who could cause a number of problems but long term unless some of the privileges given to Ulster are undone I don't think they will gain majority support.
 
Top