Worst Case of The Troubles
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
It never ceases to amaze me how British and Irish people manage to make a period of civil unrest and terrorism sound like having a cold.
To make it worse, maybe a more brutal response by the British government? A harsher crackdown could lead to more retaliation, which would just escalate until you have full-blown civil war in Ireland.
Well one (or more!) of the assassination attempts could have succeeded.
Technically Execise Armageddon might have gone ahead. Personally I think that would have required a serious escalation of the Troubles to even be seriously considered so you'd need a POD before that.
The Flagstaff hill incident was also a potential crisis point, especially had a less pro-British Taoiseach than Liam Cosgrave been in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagstaff_hill_incident
Technically Execise Armageddon might have gone ahead. Personally I think that would have required a serious escalation of the Troubles to even be seriously considered so you'd need a POD before that.
The Flagstaff hill incident was also a potential crisis point, especially had a less pro-British Taoiseach than Liam Cosgrave been in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagstaff_hill_incident
What else would you call it? Hell we called WW2 "The Emergency"
I suppose if there was more support from the Irish state to the groups in the North in terms of equipment/training. maybe some clashes around the border?
I'm fairly sure there was zero chance of the Irish military pursuing Armageddon, they knew they were in no position to carry that out (before that they had needed to use civilian vehicles just to get troops up to the border). I'm guessing that the story would have leaked to the opposition and hope they would stop the Government.
Hard to say.
You could have larger scale ethnic cleansing.
Weapons in the republican side were limited so not sure how much of a fight They would have been able to putup in a larger conflict.
You could have had large refugee camps south of the border.
The Irish army was to small to do much more that patrol their side of the border.
You could have larger scale ethnic cleansing.
Weapons in the republican side were limited so not sure how much of a fight They would have been able to putup in a larger conflict.
You could have had large refugee camps south of the border.
The Irish army was to small to do much more that patrol their side of the border.
Last edited:
Like I said the Republic could have supplied Arms to the Republicans much more directly with more mortars, anti tank equipment?
I don't know. I agree it would have been very, very unlikely but I could see a more limited version being considered if things got truly desperate and it seemed like London was content to stall indefinitely.
That said with an empty vessel like Lynch followed by a securocrat like Cosgrave none of the Irish governments of the time would have been willing to go through with it.
Even if things got more desperate the state and training of the Army would still mean it was a guaranteed end result. Certainly in the context of the OP such an action would make things worse, (along the lines of massively fractured relations, potential impact to the EEC application, not too mention domestic political instability when the UK pushed back) I just wonder if the Irish Generals would push a plan that was virtually a suicide mission against overwhelmingly superior forces.
ccdsah
Donor
Plus the BRitish could always invoke article 5 of NATO and the Ireland is sudden;y at war with US, France and other NAto members
That's clubbing baby seals territory, while the rest would answer even the British establishment would be embarrassed by having to, Ireland has no navy as such, 6 Vampires and a very dated army at this stage, it's not a credible threat to a NATO power.
I don't think anyone was under any illusions that it would be a suicide mission. Neil Blaney might have been many things but I've no doubt he was more than smart enough to know what would happen. I think you are underestimating how intervention would have been seen as a moral imperative in the face of pogroms and potential genocide.
Obviously with the benefit of hindsight we know no such genocide was planned or would take place but at the time, well... As I said I don't think it would have happened but I can see things coming to the brink.
ccdsah
Donor
Then why did Us invoke article 5 ( the only nation to do so) for a conflict with a non-statal entity - it would seem even more embarrassing for Us to do so yet it didi for 9/11
theirishdreamer
Banned
hmm
This attitude that we were going to "invade" ulster does get to me sometimes, the worst we'd do would be cross the border to secure refugee routes for the Catholics. - Armageddon and all the other nonsense were for if the British attacked the refugee routes, or pushed a security zone into the Republic under a headline Tory government (ie. they invade). We were hopelessly outnumbered by the British after all, no one was going to go north unless our going north was no longer going to make the situation worse - ie. that the British had lost control and wholesale slaughter was hapening.
This attitude that we were going to "invade" ulster does get to me sometimes, the worst we'd do would be cross the border to secure refugee routes for the Catholics. - Armageddon and all the other nonsense were for if the British attacked the refugee routes, or pushed a security zone into the Republic under a headline Tory government (ie. they invade). We were hopelessly outnumbered by the British after all, no one was going to go north unless our going north was no longer going to make the situation worse - ie. that the British had lost control and wholesale slaughter was hapening.
I think the counter weight to the argument of moral imperative (which I agree would have been there and rightfully so) is the impact on Ireland. If the situation has deteriorated to that level then assuming the UK is a rational player isn't a safe bet, how they would respond to the Republic's actions would have to be taken into account by the Government (or at least bloody should be).
And Dreamer, I'm fairly sure that if we pushed into Northern Ireland with company or battalion level troops for the purpose of directly intervening in the situation, you'd have a hard time trying to convince any British Government that it wasn't an invasion no matter what it's intent. Call it a benign intervention, peacekeeping, saving lives etc, it would still be moving troops into the UK and the ramifications would be significantly negative, particularly again if the situation has deteriorated to your suggestions
theirishdreamer
Banned
hmmm
Quite possibly but ive always felt the British generally were rational actors and an over reaction to a company wasn't going to result in the bombing of Dublin by the RAF - it'd completely ruin our international reputation though.
Its easy to make the North worse than OTL - making it better is somewhat harder im afraid.
In regards the UK stops been a rational actor -we'll were basically screwed at that stage (or more so everyone is when the violence goes to dystopic levels) because thats when they think its perfectly fine to send tanks and men into Dundalk to arrest terrorists.
Quite possibly but ive always felt the British generally were rational actors and an over reaction to a company wasn't going to result in the bombing of Dublin by the RAF - it'd completely ruin our international reputation though.
Its easy to make the North worse than OTL - making it better is somewhat harder im afraid.
In regards the UK stops been a rational actor -we'll were basically screwed at that stage (or more so everyone is when the violence goes to dystopic levels) because thats when they think its perfectly fine to send tanks and men into Dundalk to arrest terrorists.
Did the US NEED to do so or chose to do so? Lets be honest the US could have carried out the entire Afghanistan operation by itself without any greater strain than what it had OTL with all of the operations at the time.
At the risk of taking this off topic, was that in part of trying to pivoting NATO from what was seen then as a completed task (European defence) to a new task (Global operations).
On the other hand if the US had been faced the same actions as what the UK did during the Troubles, I imagine the offending country would have more than a few holes in it by now (ie killing an Ambassador, destroying an Embassy, attempted assassination of the PM(ie President) etc).
In the 1960s/70s I can't imagine the British Establishment even thinking about calling in outside help, they wouldn't even need to call in units from Germany, the home forces alone could easily win the day no matter what the Irish forces did.
The problem with the company is the high chance of escalation.
"Don't worry it's just a company to protect Catholics moving South Ambassador"
Next Day.
"So sorry Ambassador but there's been an incident between the Irish Army and "Loyalist paramilitaries/RUC/B Specials, I'm afraid there's been some loss of life..."
The British did act rationally in many cases and didn't overreact when other nations might but if you have Irish Army troops on British soil (leave that alone) engaging British citizens? Are they going to let that go? Can they? If that happens other Catholic areas are screwed, escalating the issue.
TFSmith121
Banned
From a different perspective, would there have been
From a different perspective, would there have been non-state actors among any of the political factions/elements active in Ireland/Ulster/Northern Ireland at this point that would see a path forward for their goals in the aftermath of an international conflict?
My presumption is both the UK and the Republic were rational actors, and had no interest in actual conflict; however, the political situation is rife with factionalism north and south of the border - were there elements who would have seen actual armed conflict between the Republic and the United Kingdom as something that, if brought into existence, would change the overall situation to "their" benefit?
If so, is there a chance that such a group could create an incident, involving troops from either the Republic or the UK as the targets, and leave enough "staged" evidence behind to engender a crisis?
Given the Cold War era, presumably there would be other powers that might find such a conflict useful for their own goals...
Best,
From a different perspective, would there have been non-state actors among any of the political factions/elements active in Ireland/Ulster/Northern Ireland at this point that would see a path forward for their goals in the aftermath of an international conflict?
My presumption is both the UK and the Republic were rational actors, and had no interest in actual conflict; however, the political situation is rife with factionalism north and south of the border - were there elements who would have seen actual armed conflict between the Republic and the United Kingdom as something that, if brought into existence, would change the overall situation to "their" benefit?
If so, is there a chance that such a group could create an incident, involving troops from either the Republic or the UK as the targets, and leave enough "staged" evidence behind to engender a crisis?
Given the Cold War era, presumably there would be other powers that might find such a conflict useful for their own goals...
Best,