WI No WW1 in 1914?

Belfast was highly industrialized, Harland & Wolff were one of the largest shipbuilders in the world however from 1912 they began to acquire shipyards in elsewhere in the UK due to political instability in Ireland. Belfast needed to stay part of the UK for economic reasons, the farmers in the rest of Ireland couldn't care and would rather be ruled from Dublin. The north produced a profit that subsidised the rest of Ireland. The northeners had a concern that it was 'Rome Rule' and that the Catholics need ships to put together the Papal states again. By the middle of 1914 the sourthern hold outs had largely given up on a single Ireland.
"however from 1912 they began to acquire shipyards in elsewhere in the UK due to political instability in Ireland."
Political instability as in potential civil war, rather than the idea of Ireland becoming Independent, or Home Rule that could affect the economic conditions (outside of Britain economy like a dominions or higher taxes)?
"The north produced a profit that subsidised the rest of Ireland."
Does this mean that in a Home Rule scenario Ireland would have the power to tax (the devolved Scottish government does not have the power to tax), and they would take the northern Irish taxes and redistribute them more in southern Ireland at a higher rate than happened when southern Ireland was part of the UK?
"The northerners had a concern that it was 'Rome Rule'"
How does that translate to policy and law?
 
Last edited:
"however from 1912 they began to acquire shipyards in elsewhere in the UK due to political instability in Ireland."
Political instability as in potential civil war, rather than the idea of Ireland becoming Independent, or Home Rule that could affect the economic conditions (outside of Britain economy like a dominions or higher taxes)?
"The north produced a profit that subsidised the rest of Ireland."
Does this mean that in a Home Rule scenario Ireland would have the power to tax (the devolved Scottish government does not have the power to tax), and they would take the northern Irish taxes and redistribute them more in southern Ireland at a higher rate than happened when Ireland was part of the UK?
"The northeners had a concern that it was 'Rome Rule'"
How does that translate to policy and law?
In 1912 it would have just been the potential of Home Rule. Home Rule may have cut Northern Ireland off from their main customer and supplier - UK.

Ireland was basically dirt poor rural, outside the North. Think of it like a giant city council and where they will spend the rates.

"Rome Rule" implies Catholics and Catholic Church dominating the Protestant northerners. Protestants wont have any opportunity to make any laws.
 
In 1912 it would have just been the potential of Home Rule. Home Rule may have cut Northern Ireland off from their main customer and supplier - UK.

Ireland was basically dirt poor rural, outside the North. Think of it like a giant city council and where they will spend the rates.

"Rome Rule" implies Catholics and Catholic Church dominating the Protestant northerners. Protestants wont have any opportunity to make any laws.
"Home Rule may have cut Northern Ireland off from their main customer and supplier - UK."
Home Rule in what sense? Devolution, Dominion or Independence?

""Rome Rule" implies Catholics and Catholic Church dominating the Protestant northerners. Protestants wont have any opportunity to make any laws."
True northern protestants won't have the ability to make laws, but what laws could be made or wouldn't be made that would have a negative effect on northern protestants? (In a devolved scenario, would Ireland have the power to tax?)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
In 1912 it would have just been the potential of Home Rule. Home Rule may have cut Northern Ireland off from their main customer and supplier - UK.
...
Sry, if it's you I catch on, but ... you're simply the last playing this song

Who would actually read the Third Home Rule Bill could know that the eventual Dublin Parliement would have explicitly NO right AT ALL to implement any fees and taxes and customs. The trade with especially all other british isles would have been unchanged. Also tariffs, taxes, customes with other countries may they been dominions or completly alien stayed Westminsters right only.

The Dublin parliament would have had - if any at all and consented by the King - onky havd a right to implement 'internal' fees, like ... if you deliver something from Cork to Dublin or similar.

That there might have something changed to the disadvantage of the northern protestants was largely - if not completly -a propaganda stunt.

edit :
If interested ... here can be found the "Goverment of Ireland Act, 1914" as it was put on the Statute Book receiving the Royal Assent.
 
Last edited:
Sry, if it's you I catch on, but ... you're simply the last playing this song

Who would actually read the Third Home Rule Bill could know that the eventual Dublin Parliement would have explicitly NO right AT ALL to implement any fees and taxes and customs. The trade with especially all other british isles would have been unchanged. Also tariffs, taxes, customes with other countries may they been dominions or completly alien stayed Westminsters right only.

The Dublin parliament would have had - if any at all and consented by the King - onky havd a right to implement 'internal' fees, like ... if you deliver something from Cork to Dublin or similar.

That there might have something changed to the disadvantage of the northern protestants was largely - if not completly -a propaganda stunt.
Whenever I read the Irish home rule threads, it would cause me to get so confused, because there was never any clarification over what powers Ireland wold have, and I didn't think the Home Rule Bill went into depth, so thanks for explaining.
 
*Franz Ferdinand will succeed the Austro-Hungarian throne in 1916 or 1917. His vision of a United States of Austria will likely result in 13-19 polities with more local control but could backfire and result in secession of at least a few of the nascent nation/states. He was known to be all but antipathic to Hungary, which will prove problematic, and will legitimize his children for the throne as well.
Franz Ferdinand still gets assassinated ITTL, the POD is that Germany doesn't guarantee support for Austria-Hungary in any action it takes
 
Sry, if it's you I catch on, but ... you're simply the last playing this song

Who would actually read the Third Home Rule Bill could know that the eventual Dublin Parliement would have explicitly NO right AT ALL to implement any fees and taxes and customs. The trade with especially all other british isles would have been unchanged. Also tariffs, taxes, customes with other countries may they been dominions or completly alien stayed Westminsters right only.

The Dublin parliament would have had - if any at all and consented by the King - onky havd a right to implement 'internal' fees, like ... if you deliver something from Cork to Dublin or similar.

That there might have something changed to the disadvantage of the northern protestants was largely - if not completly -a propaganda stunt.

edit :
If interested ... here can be found the "Goverment of Ireland Act, 1914" as it was put on the Statute Book receiving the Royal Assent.

Under the provisions of the third Home Rule Bill, the "Irish Parliament was to be empowered to add to the rates of excise duties, customs duties on beer and spirits, stamp duties and land tax. In addition it was permissible to add to income tax, death duties or customs imposts up to a total of 10 per cent of the yield. Further the Irish Parliament could levy new taxes for its own internal purposes." See the book Home Rule and the Irish Question by Greenfell Morton, London, Longman Group Ltd, 1980.
 
Okay so here's what I've gotten so far:
- Irish Home Rule goes through and may lead to a civil war between supporters of Home Rule and Unionists
- Germany decidedly stops focusing on its navy in order to strengthen its army
- Russia industrializes but also probably becomes more democratic as well
- Italy withdraws from the Triple Alliance and joins the Entente
- Britain leaves the Entente and either remains neutral in any conflict between the Entente and Central Powers or may join the Central Powers due to their fear of Russia taking precedent over their fear of Germany
- Ottomans may modernize, may get undermined by Europeans
- More European settlers in the African colonies
- Austria-Hungary isn't more or less stable
- China still collapses, European powers intervene and use the warlords as proxies
- A world war might start over disputes between Russia and Japan over Manchuria, could also start in the Balkans

Questions I still have:
Would Germany stick with the Schlieffen Plan in a war against the Entente? If so, does it go better or worse than IOTL?
Are tanks still developed in 1916 or do they come about later?
Do the Germans still use submarine warfare against French and Russian shipping? If so, how does this affect Britain and America?
Does America still become a leading world power or are they still sidelined by the Europeans?
Russia and Britain were both looking to take over Persia before WW1- how is Persia affected by no WW1?
Given that World War One ITTL is (probably) between Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, and Japan vs. Russia, France, and Italy, who would ultimately win this conflict?
 
Last edited:
Could someone explain what exactly is Irish Home Rule, and why it was controversial. What I mean by this is specifics. So what it going to be devolved/regional government or Dominion status (semi-independent country)? If it was a devolved Government what powers would it have, and why would that be bad for the Ulster-Scots? Was the main concern of the Ulster-Scots, that a devolved Ireland could move to independence, and the Ulster-Scots would be stuck in that independent state?
[/QU
Okay so here's what I've gotten so far:
- Irish Home Rule goes through and may lead to a civil war between supporters of Home Rule and Unionists
- Germany decidedly stops focusing on its navy in order to strengthen its army
- Russia industrializes but also probably becomes more democratic as well
- Italy withdraws from the Triple Alliance and joins the Entente
- Britain leaves the Entente and either remains neutral in any conflict between the Entente and Central Powers or may join the Central Powers due to their fear of Russia taking precedent over their fear of Germany
- Ottomans may modernize, may get undermined by Europeans
- More European settlers in the African colonies
- Austria-Hungary isn't more or less stable
- China still collapses, European powers intervene and use the warlords as proxies
- A world war might start over disputes between Russia and Japan over Manchuria, could also start in the Balkans

Questions I still have:
Would Germany stick with the Schlieffen Plan in a war against the Entente? If so, does it go better or worse than IOTL?
Are tanks still developed in 1916 or do they come about later?
Do the Germans still use submarine warfare against French and Russian shipping? If so, how does this affect Britain and America?
Does America still become a leading world power or are they still sidelined by the Europeans?
Russia and Britain were both looking to take over Persia before WW1- how is Persia affected by no WW1?
Given that World War One ITTL is (probably) between Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, and Japan vs. Russia, France, and Italy, who would ultimately win this conflict?
1) no, they probably wouldn't stick to the Schlieffen Plan.
2) the First tank design appeared before WW1 but were rejected, some form of tank is a given
3) not necessairly if they can fight both fleets. The French were masters of submarine Warfare so they might be the one to use It more in a future conflict.
4)the US would be the largest indietrial Power in the world, but they still wouldn't surpass the European Powers combined, and they might be surpassed themselves by Russia
5) Persia would continue to modernize and fight off foreign (especially Russian) influence by playing both countries against each other.
6) Italy would never join an Alliance without the UK.
 
Questions I still have:
Would Germany stick with the Schlieffen Plan in a war against the Entente? If so, does it go better or worse than IOTL?
Are tanks still developed in 1916 or do they come about later?
Do the Germans still use submarine warfare against French and Russian shipping? If so, how does this affect Britain and America?
Does America still become a leading world power or are they still sidelined by the Europeans?
Russia and Britain were both looking to take over Persia before WW1- how is Persia affected by no WW1?
Given that World War One ITTL is (probably) between Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, and Japan vs. Russia, France, and Italy, who would ultimately win this conflict?
1) By 1916 the Russian rail net will be good enough to make this risky (the Russians will be able to get their armies on the border moving sooner), unlikely the Germans could defeat France before the Russians can attack in strength by 1916, the Germans realize this (which is why war in 1914 was acceptable for them, the timing seemed good)
2) The firepower of the European armies by 1916 is going to become wicked, improvements in numbers and quality of machine guns and artillery will make it so, improving the power of the defense. I think its the Germans who are going to want to figure this out. A long costly war is their biggest concern.
3) As long as Tirpitz is around, the commerce war is secondary, the submarines will still be thought of as fleet scouts, a way to pick off crippled ships in combat, base defense. But with larger numbers of big rangy diesels subs, the Germans might figure out the commerce war part really quickly once war starts.
4) As someone mentioned above, the USA won't be expected to supply the world with stuff, progress and growth will happen naturally, the USA fleet is already a match for Britain for worlds largest, worst effects of great depression will be avoided, the fleet will be kept large because of worries about Japan (the Philippines), concern about German aggressiveness, the growth potential is very high, the USA will punch below their weight in world power plays, but there may be less power plays going on in general. A sleeping giant still sleeping.
5) As Persian gulf oil becomes more important, it seems like the great powers are going to be involved in the region more. But its in Britain's best interests to keep powers like Russia further away, so I think Persia can remain unoccupied, with "help" (Swedish Gendarmerie, or similar such thing to keep the Euro favorable peace).
6) People like "Stenz" are going to argue, with a lot of merit, that Britain isn't going anywhere, are going to be wary of Germany, and supportive of French/Russian interests over German because its in their own best interests, Britain+Commonwealth+Russia is going to be a hard combo to beat after 1914.
7) If 6 is true, war is unlikely to happen, the Germans will realize their weakness by 1916 and behave less aggressively, but no one is going to aggression attack such a war like country as Germany, who takes their military arts so seriously. but war will likely happen if Russia, Austria, the Ottomans revolt or break apart, changing the status quo
 
so Britain then would be the undisputed master of the sea in any future war with Germany?
I don't know. It looks more to me like Germany was shifting away from big battleships in favor of new ideas like submarines. (They called their U-boats 'Der Knuppel des armen mannes', the poor man's bludgeon.)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Under the provisions of the third Home Rule Bill, the "Irish Parliament was to be empowered to add to the rates of excise duties, customs duties on beer and spirits, stamp duties and land tax. In addition it was permissible to add to income tax, death duties or customs imposts up to a total of 10 per cent of the yield. Further the Irish Parliament could levy new taxes for its own internal purposes." See the book Home Rule and the Irish Question by Greenfell Morton, London, Longman Group Ltd, 1980.
Dear @pipisme may it be that Mr. Greenfell Morton gives any references to the actual text of the act ? ... as put to the statute book in 1914 ?

On a quick surveying return to this text (shish ... juridical english isn't really much better than juridical german 😣) I struggled to find something something of the content you cited i.e. I couldn't find anywhere a notion of ".. 10 percent .." (sections in question are from section 14 onwards).
I rather came across notions as :
"... any Customs duty lvied as an Imperial tax (other than a Customs duty on beer and spirits) or to any duty of income tax so levied ... shall be limited as in this act provided ..."
or
"The power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax, so far as income tax ... is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to alter the conditions ... without varying the rate of the tax, ..."
(These are cited out of section 15)
Which seem to be somewhat contradictory to what seems to be stated by Mr. Greenfell Morton.

Oh, and a short notice on "land tax". ... dunno if you (or Mr. Greenfell Morton) know or knew how much of a political battlefield this theme actually was in the beginning of the 20th century (and even before).
Lloyd George had in summer 1914 already - after a first failed attempt after his "Peoples Budget" decided and prepared himself to make a rather (or truely ?) radical reform of it the next election platform. Therefore ot seems unlikely he would have allowed the Irish to tamper/pamper around with this his Big Topic.


I have to admitt that I was rather unprecise in my post but I focused esp. on the possible effects on trade between Ireland and the ... 'rest' of the United Kingdom.
Yes, according to the act Ireland was - nominally - empowered to set up some customs, taxes, duties and excise but ... with a lot of exemptions and if not exeempted only in concert with and with the approval of the "Joint Exchequer Board" set up by the Exchequer of Ireland and the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. ... with the overwhelming 'lever' by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom as every money levied in Ireland would land on the accounts and in the coffers of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom then to be payed back to the Exchequer of Ireland.

Actually Home Rule Ireland would - more or less - have the freedom of spending the money by its own deliberations in Dublin but its income would be under rather allembracing control of Westminster.
 
While Italy leaving the Triple Alliance is almost a given due to her very (let's say) complicated relationships with A-H; she will not rush to join any alliance, unless there is a very good offer...the mainstream liberal position was to not be involved in any formal alliance and basically see case by case how italian interest were best served.
Italy internal main concern will be the pacification of libya, the foundation of the Popular Party (christian democrats) and the growing tension in the socialist party between moderate and hardliner
 
Grenville Morton does not give any reference to the text of the Home Rule Act 1914. However he refers to two books listed in the bibliography: The Irish Question, 1840-1921 by N. Mansergh, Allen & Unwin, 1965 (revised version of Ireland in the Age of Reform and Revolution , 1940), and Asquith by R. Jenkins, Collins, 1964.
 
The 'abandonment' the 'naval race' is vastly overblown IMO. The strength allowed under the May 1912 Naval Law was:
  • 41 battleships (3 additional vessels to be built), replacement in 20 years under the 1908 law.
  • 18 large cruisers, mandated to be battlecruisers under the 1908 law.
  • 40 small cruisers (2 additional vessels to be built),
  • 4 flotilla leaders,
  • 144 torpedo boats,
  • 72 submarines (12-year replacement age).
This law was not abandoned after December 1912, its mandated strength was still being reached and demanded that pre dreads built in the mid 1890s be replaced in the mid 1910s. What DID happen was another naval law mooted for 1913 or 14 was dropped and the Army was expanded by 135,000. My guess is that in 1915 once the Army expansion was finished another Naval Law would be enacted.

Would Germany stick with the Schlieffen Plan in a war against the Entente?

No, the 'France only' plan of 1914 was the result of specific circumstances that will vanish in 1915-16. Russia's 1914 war plan was a transition between plan 19 and plan 20, the key being that the 9th and 10th Armies were newly formed and would deploy against German Silesia from M+ 6 weeks, which is where the 'crush France in 6 weeks' came from. By 1915 Plan 20 would be in place, Germany would have fully absorbed its extra 135,000 men and plans would have to change as a result.

I don't know what to, there aren't many juicy targets in eastern Russia for a fast deploying German army-group to strike a killing blow against.
 
The increasing number of strikes in Russia, from 220 in 1910 to 4100 in the first half of 1914 alone, probably means they'd be unable to do anything else besides hanging onto power by all means, very brutal means. Lenin himself claimed that the war postponed the revolution, so in the worst case scenario Russia would be tearing itself apart by 1920.
 
The increasing number of strikes in Russia, from 220 in 1910 to 4100 in the first half of 1914 alone, probably means they'd be unable to do anything else besides hanging onto power by all means, very brutal means. Lenin himself claimed that the war postponed the revolution, so in the worst case scenario Russia would be tearing itself apart by 1920.
so basically with or without the war the Tsar was going to lose his crown
 
The increasing number of strikes in Russia, from 220 in 1910 to 4100 in the first half of 1914 alone, probably means they'd be unable to do anything else besides hanging onto power by all means, very brutal means. Lenin himself claimed that the war postponed the revolution, so in the worst case scenario Russia would be tearing itself apart by 1920.
however, I could easily see the Bolsheviks not getting anything out of the collapse of Russia and Russia instead falling into a liberal democracy, perhaps after a civil war with the monarchists?
 
The increasing number of strikes in Russia, from 220 in 1910 to 4100 in the first half of 1914 alone, probably means they'd be unable to do anything else besides hanging onto power by all means, very brutal means. Lenin himself claimed that the war postponed the revolution, so in the worst case scenario Russia would be tearing itself apart by 1920.
Mmmh yeah the Bolshevic Revolutionary thinks that the revolution was inevitable, how convenient. Modern historians would disagree
 
so basically with or without the war the Tsar was going to lose his crown
Nicholas II had surrounded himself with loyal yes men, he's not giving an inch and has mad that clear the past decades of his rule, and without the war there's an intact security apparatus to keep shooting protesters for years if necessary, but that will take its toll, internally with more and more people resenting the constant violence and searching ways out, and externally as foreign diplomats and heads of states have to somehow justify association with the bloody regime to their public.
 
Top