WI – No British entry in WW1 – Effect on Ireland

As it’s nearly Easter and exactly 100 years since the Easter Uprising.

What If:-
  • Britain had not gone to war (either no WW1 or Britain keeps out how).
  • So August 1914 – no war
The Government of Ireland Bill – The Third Irish Home Rule Bill
  • Promised by the Liberals in order to ensure Irish Parliamentary Party’s support in 1911
  • First Reading April 1912
  • Irish unionists form 100,000 “Ulster Volunteers” – Parade through Belfast to protest in April 1912
  • Passed by Commons, rejected by Lords January 1913
  • Irish Nationalists form the ‘Irish Volunteers’ to defend ‘Home Rule
  • Curragh incident of 20 March 1914 – A number of British Army (Irish) officers publically threaten resignation if ordered to impose Home Rule on the Unionist
  • Home Rule Bill is re-introduced mid-1913
  • The Bill is finally passed by 77 votes 25th May 1914. It is rejected in the Lords but the Government invokes the Parliament Act to by-pass the Lords and submit the bill for Royal Assent.
  • July 1914 The Liberal Government introduces an Amending Bill to temporarily exclude Ulster from Home Rule – this is part of proposed compromise.
  • July 1914 Buckingham Palace Conference – 2 MPs from each party attend - Liberals, Irish Nationalists, Irish Unionists, Conservatives hold – talks are inconclusive but productive.
  • August 1914 – War breaks out – only it doesn’t’
  • Irish Government Act 1914 – gets Royal Assent in September (but is suspended in OTL)
· OTL The Amending Bill is abandoned September 1914.

Only No War – so what happens next?
· Civil War
· Compromise
· British Army Mutinies
· ???
 
All of the above? Mutiny is probably too strong a word for it, but you'd certainly get a lot of officers resigning their commissions (I have a sort of feeling the rank and file would be less bothered). Some form of compromise is pretty much guaranteed - the British system seems to thrive on it, even if the actual deal is rarely made public. And there are enough nutters on both sides that some form of low-level civil war is almost a certainty - the near pitched battles of the OTL Irish Civil War are unlikely since the British Army is an 800lb Gorilla in the circumstances, but low level trouble (arson, murders, riots, etc.) is all but a certainty.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
United In Division

The Imperial Chamber of Nations is formed. A continuous body representing the parliaments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, London and Canada. Observers from India, Australia, Med and Home Islands, South Africa and New Zealand are invited with a view to later representation.

The ICN resolves to adopt Imperial Standards based upon the detailed work the Canadians have been doing to standardise components and styles of manufacture.

Home Rule is limited to home affairs. Defence and currency are unified within the ICN area. A common foreign policy is arrived at by steering group, meeting in camera, with consideration for all parties and the rest of the empire.

The gold standard is up for review, considering a basket of currency reserves backing a free floating pound, bimetalism or a mixture of bullion/currencies/materials as an alternative. This is the first time that strategic reserves of imported raw materials are considered as a reserve against foreign exchange pressures.


________________________________________________

Without a direct driver you could say that anything follows from a different political starting point. How would Britain trade as a neutral? Arms to both sides? I can't see them avoiding arms sales with a war on their own doorstep.
 
All of the above? Mutiny is probably too strong a word for it, but you'd certainly get a lot of officers resigning their commissions (I have a sort of feeling the rank and file would be less bothered). Some form of compromise is pretty much guaranteed - the British system seems to thrive on it, even if the actual deal is rarely made public. And there are enough nutters on both sides that some form of low-level civil war is almost a certainty - the near pitched battles of the OTL Irish Civil War are unlikely since the British Army is an 800lb Gorilla in the circumstances, but low level trouble (arson, murders, riots, etc.) is all but a certainty.

Pretty much that. There are no large bodies of men on all sides trained for and traumatised by war, either WWI or the War of Independence. Partition was seen as inevitable but probably (in the Nationalist view) temporary, so I would see support for the IRA as being at no more than OTL 1950s level.

In the South you might have a conservative Nationalist majority party trying to persuade the Northern Unionists towards unification, and an opposition arguing for either a sectarian or secular 26-County Republic. :rolleyes:
 
All of the above? Mutiny is probably too strong a word for it, but you'd certainly get a lot of officers resigning their commissions (I have a sort of feeling the rank and file would be less bothered). Some form of compromise is pretty much guaranteed - the British system seems to thrive on it, even if the actual deal is rarely made public. And there are enough nutters on both sides that some form of low-level civil war is almost a certainty - the near pitched battles of the OTL Irish Civil War are unlikely since the British Army is an 800lb Gorilla in the circumstances, but low level trouble (arson, murders, riots, etc.) is all but a certainty.

I agree with the essence of this but am maybe a little more cynical about Ulster's appeal than pdf is.

I agree that you'd see some principled officers resigning, and am with him on the rank-and-file issue, but actually also believe that the majority of officers would not have done it when push came to shove. Its very easy to make barrack-room mumblings or principled declarations when you are sabre-rattling but its another thing to actually do it and throw away your career. Remember most British Army Officers in the period are in it for the long-haul as lifers - why resign when you could just get transferred to the Indian Army or elsewhere instead?

Also we never talk about the navy in this scenario and afaik there wasn't much discontent over Ulster in the navy - which would be key to any situation. Remember in 1911 the Government puts battleships on Mersey Estuary to intimidate strikers - how would a couple of big ships anchored in Ulster harbor affect the decision to rebel?

I think you would see rioting, which has a long history in Ireland politically speaking, but I'm less convinced about a low-scale civil war scenario. But its not impossible.

On a happier note you probably make poor Redmond a hero in Irish memory and prevent the collapse of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Although, in the long run, I think the IPP would split or see its position weakened - by achieving Home Rule its actually rendered itself irrelevant to some degree.

One thing that is often overlooked is that you probably change the nature of the new UK Labour Party - there had been noises about linking up with Irish labour and trade union movements but OTL it came to nothing. People often forget this was a period of labour turmoil in Britain, with the Dublin Lockout taking place in 1913. ITTL you could see someone like Larkin take a major role in a British Isles-wide Labour Party.

United In Division

The Imperial Chamber of Nations is formed. A continuous body representing the parliaments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, London and Canada. Observers from India, Australia, Med and Home Islands, South Africa and New Zealand are invited with a view to later representation.

The ICN resolves to adopt Imperial Standards based upon the detailed work the Canadians have been doing to standardise components and styles of manufacture.

Home Rule is limited to home affairs. Defence and currency are unified within the ICN area. A common foreign policy is arrived at by steering group, meeting in camera, with consideration for all parties and the rest of the empire.

The gold standard is up for review, considering a basket of currency reserves backing a free floating pound, bimetalism or a mixture of bullion/currencies/materials as an alternative. This is the first time that strategic reserves of imported raw materials are considered as a reserve against foreign exchange pressures.


________________________________________________

Without a direct driver you could say that anything follows from a different political starting point. How would Britain trade as a neutral? Arms to both sides? I can't see them avoiding arms sales with a war on their own doorstep.


Whilst I don't think this is impossible, by any means, I'm always unconvinced by the 'No WWI - Imperial Union' argument. Its often forgotten that the British people have rejected a similar idea at the election in 1906 as put forward by Chamberlain. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but OTL a lot of the constituent colonies, as well as a lot of Britain, had problems or differing ideas about such a scheme and you would need more detail in the timeline than just 'No War'.
 
United In Division

The Imperial Chamber of Nations is formed. A continuous body representing the parliaments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, London and Canada. Observers from India, Australia, Med and Home Islands, South Africa and New Zealand are invited with a view to later representation.

The ICN resolves to adopt Imperial Standards based upon the detailed work the Canadians have been doing to standardise components and styles of manufacture.

Home Rule is limited to home affairs. Defence and currency are unified within the ICN area. A common foreign policy is arrived at by steering group, meeting in camera, with consideration for all parties and the rest of the empire.

The gold standard is up for review, considering a basket of currency reserves backing a free floating pound, bimetalism or a mixture of bullion/currencies/materials as an alternative. This is the first time that strategic reserves of imported raw materials are considered as a reserve against foreign exchange pressures.


________________________________________________​


Without a direct driver you could say that anything follows from a different political starting point. How would Britain trade as a neutral? Arms to both sides? I can't see them avoiding arms sales with a war on their own doorstep.


didn't see that coming :)

Of course in in 1914 - the UK is still very much a unitary state.

No Scottish, Welsh or English parliaments.

Quite a change in political will would have occur to get something like this set up!

But interesting. it's inline with Late Victorian ideas about a future 'Imperial Federation' - which various folks touted (but vague & without details) Lord Milner, Cecil Rhodes, Conan Doyle to name a few.

They all of course wanted to include America somehow :)
 
There are some social factors in Southern Ireland -- the protestant population was about 15% in the 1914 dropping to less than 5% by 1930.

Although it is debatable that actual "ethnic cleansing" occurred - clearly a lot of people left. Over 400K.

The same period also huge Catholic emigration from Southern Ireland same period.

Would all these people have left in the period?

And these were voters -- would this have made difference in an Irish Parliament?

The Curragh Incident - this was an act of mostly Irish Protestant Ascendancy Officers - with some other British Officers - who'd been based in Ireland for a long time.

As one English Officer said " I (fox)Hunt with these chaps, I'm not going to let them down!"
 
Top