WI: Soviets get involved in the "Troubles"?

The Provisional IRA, IIRC, did have a bevy of allies across the globe, (PLA, Gaddafi, KGB, Baeder Meinhoff) just to name a few) but as far as the level assistance each could provide respectively to their cause in Ireland, these sources were lackluster at best (light training, sporadic arms shipments, etc)

So the premise here is that instead of these half hearted alliances, what if a larger more stable alliance came into being, namely with the Soviet Union?

With additional material aid on such a massive scale, might IRA successfully take control of Northern Ireland?

Would the UK come to nuclear blows with the USSR if such high levels of involvement were discovered?
 
The Provisional IRA, IIRC, did have a bevy of allies across the globe, (PLA, Gaddafi, KGB, Baeder Meinhoff) just to name a few) but as far as the level assistance each could provide respectively to their cause in Ireland, these sources were lackluster at best (light training, sporadic arms shipments, etc)

So the premise here is that instead of these half hearted alliances, what if a larger more stable alliance came into being, namely with the Soviet Union?

With additional material aid on such a massive scale, might IRA successfully take control of Northern Ireland?

Would the UK come to nuclear blows with the USSR if such high levels of involvement were discovered?

The IRA were never even within a sniff of taking hold of Northern Ireland. They were trying to force the collapse of civil rule in the province that would somehow force a united Ireland (even though most Irish politicians regarded them as a bunch of violent Maoist idiots). It would have taken tanks on the streets to force out the British Army. Bit hard to smuggle tanks in successfully.
 
The only way tanks or any major artillery needed to force such a victory would be t slowly smuggle parts. Maybe we could end up with a Tank version of an i.e.d, well along those sort of lines. I'm calling ASB on this one.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
From a completely realpolitik point of view

The Provisional IRA, IIRC, did have a bevy of allies across the globe, (PLA, Gaddafi, KGB, Baeder Meinhoff) just to name a few) but as far as the level assistance each could provide respectively to their cause in Ireland, these sources were lackluster at best (light training, sporadic arms shipments, etc)

So the premise here is that instead of these half hearted alliances, what if a larger more stable alliance came into being, namely with the Soviet Union?

With additional material aid on such a massive scale, might IRA successfully take control of Northern Ireland?

Would the UK come to nuclear blows with the USSR if such high levels of involvement were discovered?

From a completely realpolitik view, it did the Soviets more "good" in a strategic sense to have the British forced to make and sustain large regular army troop commitments to Northern Ireland for years at a time to deal with a low intensity insurgency than any sort of open "conventional rebellion" that would be destroyed pretty quickly, otherwise.

Best,
 
The IRA were never even within a sniff of taking hold of Northern Ireland. They were trying to force the collapse of civil rule in the province that would somehow force a united Ireland (even though most Irish politicians regarded them as a bunch of violent Maoist idiots). It would have taken tanks on the streets to force out the British Army. Bit hard to smuggle tanks in successfully.

That was the ultimate goal, to get the North into the Republic. If anything, Britain deciding to deploy military force made that goal more likely. It made the collapse of civil rule (which is primarily a collapse of faith in civil authorities, more than it is an inability for the authorities to deliver on their policies) far more likely, and if that happened, every week of martial law, of military rule, that followed this would make a final status quo ante bellum less likely.

But in the end, we know that they were willing to accept more equal rights, a more equitable franchise, for Catholics in the North as a compromise position, and to work on the rest of their demands through peaceful means that were not available to them at the start of the Troubles. A small fraction were not willing to accept this, and continued (and continue) to engage in violence in various forms; it's hard to say how much of this is ideological, and how much is down to continued involvement in profitable criminal enterprises (~90% of the activities of terrorist groups are fund-raising, I think I saw some stats on that).


I suppose if the extent of British involvement with Loyalist (and Republican) terrorist groups were made public during the height of the Troubles, there could have been some international intervention, but the USSR is one of the the least likely places it could come from.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Big question: What does the Soviet Union get out of it?

Like, I know that Soviet Union is enemy communism bad rar, but really what does the Soviet Union get out of what would be giving naked and obvious support to the IRA outside of their fragile relationship with Great Britain on a diplomatic and trading level completely, utterly, and irreversibly collapsing? Like really, what is gained here?

And the IRA would never take Northern Ireland with just more material aid; you'd effectively need every Unionist to dead and the British Goverment not responding to give the IRA a chance.
 
Big question: What does the Soviet Union get out of it?

Like, I know that Soviet Union is enemy communism bad rar, but really what does the Soviet Union get out of what would be giving naked and obvious support to the IRA outside of their fragile relationship with Great Britain on a diplomatic and trading level completely, utterly, and irreversibly collapsing? Like really, what is gained here?

And the IRA would never take Northern Ireland with just more material aid; you'd effectively need every Unionist to dead and the British Goverment not responding to give the IRA a chance.

Well the soviets didnt really gain anything with Korea, Vietnam, Angola, etc.. or the Mau Mau in Kenya.
I think the fact that it mucked shit up for the West was enough of a win for them.

And your probably right about the prospects of the IRA long term but certainly a couple of tonnes of AK 47s could do much turn it into western Europe's Vietnam.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Well the soviets didnt really gain anything with Korea, Vietnam, Angola, etc.. or the Mau Mau in Kenya.
I think the fact that it mucked shit up for the West was enough of a win for them.

Difference is, mind, that in Korea, Vietnam, and Angola (I don't recall the Soviet's helping the Mau Mau) the Soviet's were supporting Parties ideologically aligned with them, i.e. fellow Communists, in order to gain allies. The IRA and PIRA weren't Communists, they were Republicans. The only one that comes close is the OIRA, Republican Socialists who received some KGB assistance and Soviet-Korean Weaponry.

Unless you can somehow inflate the OIRA to being a viable and survivable group, the Soviet Union has jack to gain from openly supporting any IRA faction.

EDIT: I didn't see the second half until I posted.
And your probably right about the prospects of the IRA long term but certainly a couple of tonnes of AK 47s could do much turn it into western Europe's Vietnam.

It's gonna take more than a few tonne of AK's to turn the Troubles into Vietnam.
 
Last edited:

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Not least because the Soviets arming them may well mean that the funding from individuals in the states ends up getting cut off.

I forgot for a moment that NORAID existed. But yeah, the Soviets becoming involved outside the token KGB operative for the OIRA will cut off that cash pot.

There is also the issue that the moment Britain and Ireland get whiff of Soviet arms smuggling, both nations have a vested interest in stopping that, which they will, with gusto. Unlike Vietnam, which was bordered by China and Laos, Northern Ireland is bordered by the Republic of Ireland, who won't take kindly to the Soviets funding a group that wants to overthrow their Government and form a workers republic.
 
It's gonna take more than a few tonne of AK's to turn the Troubles into Vietnam.
If the Soviets wanted to make the Troubles really nasty, they'd be shipping things like heavy machine guns, RPGs, and Strela-2 anti-aircraft missiles. Intelligence support and counterintelligence support would go a very long way.
Northern Ireland is bordered by the Republic of Ireland, who won't take kindly to the Soviets funding a group that wants to overthrow their Government and form a workers republic.
A slightly more plausible WI is that somehow the IRA manages to establish a Workers' Republic in the South, aligns itself with Moscow, then supports something like the Troubles in the North. But only slightly....
 
Let us make it quite clear. The aim of the British and Irish governments was to maintain civil law. PIRA never had any large number of activists at any one time and the security services usually knew more about PIRA than the Provos did.

The government in NI responded to the civil disturbances by amending the laws to meet their legitimate grievances (and there were many).

Had it wanted to get into a martial law firefight with the Provos 95% of the membership would be in gaol by teatime.

If the Soviets gave PIRA more than a trickle of arms PIRA would have lost any Republican support by turning NI into a battleground with no objective to attain. Grievances were being addressed as a result of civil disturbance, not terrorism. Republicanism was a perfectly acceptable political aim for a party or individuals and a united Ireland only depended upon a majority voting for it. ROI was terrified of being handed the Loyalist problem and controlling PIRA so they were solidly behind Westminster.

What the Soviets did was as much as they could expect to achieve. They dribbled arms and explosives into NI in sufficient quantities to keep a large number of British troops in NI not West Germany. Any more and the situation would have been ended unpleasantly. They achieved their maximum aim. Ironically they were aided by America with public donations for 'charity' being diverted to pay for blowing secretaries legs off in the street. The Soviets (via clients) had to balance their arms supplies with the American arms supplies to avoid too much being available.

So the Soviets did get involved in the Troubles and got as much out of it as they could.
 
Operation Banner was initiated by the British Government in Westminster primarily to stop the, so called Loyalists. Their first action was the disarming of the RUC and the disbandment of the USC these were seen as an armed Protestant militia.

When looking at the bigger picture Ian Smith declared UDI in Rhodesia and the UK was afraid of Ian Paisley or some other of the Vanguard Unionists doing the same. The UK had just acquired Polaris missile boats and the naval base of Faslane was in close proximity. The British were more alarmed that 6 Regular battalions of the British army (1&2 Royal Ulster Rifles, 1 Royal Irish Fusiliers, 1Royal Inniskillen Fusiliers, Royal Inniskillen Dragoons & Royal Irish Hussars) being re-equipped & supported by the Soviets.

Unfortunately for the National Socialists PIRA got involved and the rest they say is history.
 
A slightly more plausible WI is that somehow the IRA manages to establish a Workers' Republic in the South, aligns itself with Moscow, then supports something like the Troubles in the North. But only slightly....

How is that even "slightly" more plausible during the Troubles?
 
How is that even "slightly" more plausible during the Troubles?
It's slightly more plausible in the sense that an Irish government sharing the IRA's ideology was at various points between 1922 and 1969 at least plausible. With a PoD after the Troubles have already started... no chance.
 
Top