Social Effects of no WW1 on the UK?
- Thread starter ert44444
- Start date
-
- Tags
- united kingdom ww1
Ten days after Sarajevo, Lloyd George assured his auditors at London’s Guildhall that “in the matter of external affairs, the sky has never been more perfectly blue.” As late as July 22, describing the recent course of Anglo-German relations, the chancellor said, “There is none of the snarling which we used to see.” Until the last days of July the headlines— MACHINE GUNS FOR ULSTER, 30,000 RIFLES AND 10,000 ROUNDS LAND IN BELFAST, 3000 TRAINED NURSES FOR ULSTER— heralded civil war.
“The damnable question” of Ireland had brought it to what the London Times called “one of the great crises in the history of the British race.” Up to the last days of July, the “Revolt in Ulster” received more coverage in 1914 than any other story in the world.The Times for July 28, which announced Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia, led with the headline SHOOTING IN BACHELOR’S WALK above a bulletin of the worst news yet from Ireland.
On July 4, 1914, the Military Members of the Army Council warned the British cabinet that there were two hundred thousand armed men in Ireland, and that if civil war broke out the entire Expeditionary Force, the Special Reserve, and the Territorial Army would be required to restore order. “If the whole of our Expeditionary Force were used in Ireland,” the Army Council concluded, “we should be quite incapable of meeting our obligations abroad.”
"If Ulstermen extend the hand of friendship, it will be clasped by Liberals and by their Nationalist countrymen in all good faith and in all good will; but if there is no wish for peace; if every concession that is made is spurned and exploited; if every effort to meet their views is only to be used as a means of breaking down Home Rule and of barring the way to the rest of Ireland; if the Government and Parliament of this great country and greater Empire are to be exposed to menace and brutality; if all the loose, wanton, and reckless chatter we have been forced to listen to these many months is in the end to disclose a sinister and revolutionary purpose; then I can only say to you, “Let us go forward together and put these grave matters to the proof.”
-Winston Churchill, Bradford Speech March 14, 1914
-Winston Churchill, Bradford Speech March 14, 1914
Concluding that democratic governance was about to be overturned in Ulster, Churchill ordered eight battleships based in Gibraltar and eight destroyers of the Fourth Flotilla in England to sail to the waters between Scotland and Ulster, “where they would be in proximity to the coasts of Ireland in case of serious disorders occurring.” In addition, he dispatched HMS Pathfinder and HMS Attentive to Belfast Louch with orders to defend “by every means” the eighty-five tons of ammunition at Carrickfergus Castle, held by only twenty soldiers. Indulging his penchant for verbal melodrama, Churchill told Sir John French, chief of the General Staff, that “if there were opposition to the movement of the troops, he would pour enough shot and shell into Belfast to reduce it to ruins in 24 hours.” The officers of the ships went ashore and were entertained by Carson at his residence.
He remarked that it was providential that the one bright spot in this hateful war was the settlement of Irish civil strife … and he added, nearly breaking down, “Jack, God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
—Prime Minister H. H. Asquith speaking to J. A. Pease, Liberal Party Whip, August 3, 1914
—Prime Minister H. H. Asquith speaking to J. A. Pease, Liberal Party Whip, August 3, 1914
It can't get Ulster to submit to it and neither the Army or Navy will help it.
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
Any possibility of using a modified OTL solution, i.e. partition?
Limiting HR to the three southern provinces (or 24-28 counties) for ten or twenty years, after which time Ulster could reconsider?
Or would that need a new Bill?
You would have to give them an out that they can hold forever (as they do today). You could punish them by kicking them out of the Union - this only gives the Tories votes. What upsets the Southerners (in addition to 2 Irelands) is 6 or 9 Counties for the North?
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
1 - which makes both sides happy - one side can opt out forever, while the other always hopes that someday the refusniks will reconsider.
2 - I understand that any number of counties makes the HR crowd upset?
3 - wasn't the option of four Counties considered at some point?
NoMommsen
Donor
IIRC Asquith planned an amendment to the original "Goverment of Ireland Act, 1914"-bill, that should have included some kind of "special status" of Ulster, may it be for-ever from the beginning like a "Home-Rule within Home Rule" or something similar for or simply kind of a "test" phase for some years (IIRC 6 year were talked about).
For that there was a definition needed, what actually should embrace this "Special-Status-Ulster" :
- all of the province of Ulster
- 4, 6, 9 counties of the province of Ulster
- something based upon the constituencies, maybe after some "gerrymandering" them
- something based upon religion, as recorded by some form of "poor-relief"
- ...
- ...
Ulster shall stay undevided
... and ofc be part of a "home ruled" ireland, respectivly with Britain further "unionized".
Last edited:
The division of Ireland will mean a crack in the Empire. The Curragh incident had caused ripples through Europe - Can GB be relied upon? Are they a serious factor? Germany was banking on GB being distracted in Ireland to intervene in Europe during the July Crisis.
What shape could a divided Ireland take? An Irish Ottawa or Canberra to shift focus from Dublin and Belfast? With the need to find an answer to Home Rule does this bring back the idea of a Federated Empire with Scotland the next cab off the rank? If the Tories are returned to power what does this mean?
What shape could a divided Ireland take? An Irish Ottawa or Canberra to shift focus from Dublin and Belfast? With the need to find an answer to Home Rule does this bring back the idea of a Federated Empire with Scotland the next cab off the rank? If the Tories are returned to power what does this mean?
NoMommsen
Donor
Do you have some evicence for these statements ? ... memoirs, letters of diplomats/politicians, newspaper article or simmilar ?
Sorry, can't pin it off the top of my head. Maybe Padfield's 'The Great Naval Race' or Beatty, 'Lost History of 1914' or Ponting's 13 Days or Fergusons' 'The Pity of War' or 'War of the World'.
As for the Carragh incident, the Pan-German Post remarked "For German ideas of soldiership and subordination the court-martialling of recalcitrant officers would be a self-evident consequence of their action. The British officer enjoys nothing like the esteem in England as that in which officers are held in Germany and France, and it has now been strikingly demonstrated that he does not deserve it." - May 1914
Germans' Contempt for dis-loyal rank and file
The refusal of The Curragh officers to take up arms against Ulster evoked the scorn of German Soldiers whose motto is "Discipline at all costs". An injunction what a good German soldier must not hesitate to fire on his own brother if ordered to do so is one of the utterances attributed to the Kaiser in his younger days, telegraphed the Berlin correspondent of the Daily Mail on March 26th.
"Die Post", the organ of the War Party said: "Is a sadder or more nonsensical spectacle conceivable than that of an officer not obeying unconditionally the orders of his superior, and preferring to be governed by political or even humane sentiments? An officer is neither a statesman nor a diplomat and has no business whatever to allow himself to be dominated by his feelings. When a man is under arms his personal emotions cease to exist. A soldiers trade is a hard one. A man who is engaged in it dare not shrink from shooting down his own brother if he finds him in the enemy's camp." - May 1914
As for the Carragh incident, the Pan-German Post remarked "For German ideas of soldiership and subordination the court-martialling of recalcitrant officers would be a self-evident consequence of their action. The British officer enjoys nothing like the esteem in England as that in which officers are held in Germany and France, and it has now been strikingly demonstrated that he does not deserve it." - May 1914
Germans' Contempt for dis-loyal rank and file
The refusal of The Curragh officers to take up arms against Ulster evoked the scorn of German Soldiers whose motto is "Discipline at all costs". An injunction what a good German soldier must not hesitate to fire on his own brother if ordered to do so is one of the utterances attributed to the Kaiser in his younger days, telegraphed the Berlin correspondent of the Daily Mail on March 26th.
"Die Post", the organ of the War Party said: "Is a sadder or more nonsensical spectacle conceivable than that of an officer not obeying unconditionally the orders of his superior, and preferring to be governed by political or even humane sentiments? An officer is neither a statesman nor a diplomat and has no business whatever to allow himself to be dominated by his feelings. When a man is under arms his personal emotions cease to exist. A soldiers trade is a hard one. A man who is engaged in it dare not shrink from shooting down his own brother if he finds him in the enemy's camp." - May 1914
Britain staying out of WW1 could enable it to sell to both sides, providing some boost to the economy.
How big a boost depends on how long the war lasts of course. It may all be over within 6 months.
fasquardon
How big a boost depends on how long the war lasts of course. It may all be over within 6 months.
fasquardon
i think britain is potentially the least socially affected by ww1 tbh compared to every other european country involved.
How do the Dominions effect that?
Isle of Man 1881
New Zealand 1893
South Australia 1894 (the rest in 1902)
Canada 1918
Burma 1922!
South Africa 1930
Sri Lanka 1931
Actual UK 1928 (full)
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
WWI deeply damaged European society - WWII destroyed it.
As to the UK - WWI brought about universal male sufferage. That is a HUGE change. No UK in WWI means that universal male sufferage is pushed back many years. Labour remains a fringe party.
It may even speed things up. The War was an excuse to delay many things. In the UK women over 30 gained the right to vote in Feb 1918. It was a staged process, the South Australia example above, land owning women gained the right to vote in 1861.
The franchise had already been broadened three times since 1832, w/o "benefit" of a major war. No reason that couldn't have happened again.
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
It was broadening it to those worthy of it. Three fifths of adult males in 1914. But giving it to everybody?
The fact that it works elsewhere does not matter - we are British and we are Different.
OK - jokes aside, universal suffrage will happen. But I think that female suffrage could happen earlier.
Last edited:
NoMommsen
Donor
AFAIU Asquith was kind of ... asquithish neiter/nor about femal suffrage.
From wiki :
It seems he rendered it 'not worth the effort', as he couldn't see any advantage in female suffrage for
As the suffragists/suffragettes were aiming at "equality" in their right to vote, it would NOT have been all women, but - as the far from 'universal suffrage' for me was - only as rather small part, the "modern", (mostly economically and therefore alsio with 'something to loose' with too much Labour-politics) "independant" women, who most likely would have been mainly "liberal" already in their minds.
Maybe, absent the war Asquith could be persuaded, that there he could find the "advantage" of a new, additional 'voters-pool' for the Liberals, whereas the irish members of the House of Commons are reduced due to "Home Rule" ?
From wiki :
"I am sometimes tempted to think, as one listens to the arguments of supporters of women's suffrage, that there is nothing to be said for it, and I am sometimes tempted to think, as I listen to the arguments of the opponents of women's suffrage, that there is nothing to be said against it."
It seems he rendered it 'not worth the effort', as he couldn't see any advantage in female suffrage for
1. him and/or
2. the Liberal Party
..., ..., oh !
3. and/or Britain as a whole
2. the Liberal Party
..., ..., oh !
3. and/or Britain as a whole
As the suffragists/suffragettes were aiming at "equality" in their right to vote, it would NOT have been all women, but - as the far from 'universal suffrage' for me was - only as rather small part, the "modern", (mostly economically and therefore alsio with 'something to loose' with too much Labour-politics) "independant" women, who most likely would have been mainly "liberal" already in their minds.
Maybe, absent the war Asquith could be persuaded, that there he could find the "advantage" of a new, additional 'voters-pool' for the Liberals, whereas the irish members of the House of Commons are reduced due to "Home Rule" ?
If so he might well have been disappointed.
Opinion polling was barely starting then, but such research as was done suggested that most of the newly enfranchised women were voting Conservative. This, of course, was why a Tory government would give them the right to vote at the same age as men in 1928.