How do you think the world would have evolved if there had not been the World Wars?

[sophie]

Really think that would have led to a full-on civil war?

Oh, undoubtedly. Things were already getting pretty damned serious by the spring of 1914. WWI saved Britain. Although it's a pretty old book, and a little hyperbolized in some places, you should give G. Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England a read. It gives an excellent overview of the Home Rule Crisis and just how serious a problem Ireland was getting to be in the lead up to WWI. (Or, you know, just read Dachs' history article).

 

[RedRalph]

Oh, undoubtedly. Things were already getting pretty damned serious by the spring of 1914. WWI saved Britain. Although it's a pretty old book, and a little hyperbolized in some places, you should give G. Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England a read. It gives an excellent overview of the Home Rule Crisis and just how serious a problem Ireland was getting to be in the lead up to WWI. (Or, you know, just read Dachs' history article).

I will do. But how would it have spread outside Ireland?

 

[Lord Baal]

I will do. But how would it have spread outside Ireland?

There were several reasons why it would have spread outside of Ireland. The army itself was on the verge of mutiny over the situation. Also, there were plenty of Irish in Britain and the colonies who had their own views on Home Rule. In Australia, the governments of New South Wales and Victoria were stockpiling weaponry and quietly conducting a purge of the police forces in case of an uprising by the Irish, though they didn't get very far into it before they pulled back completely due to the war (and they were probably over-reacting in the first place, since Irish-Australians were unlikely to take up arms against their Anglo neighbours by this point in Australian history). Many Irish in the USA were funding both sides of the brewing civil war, and there were several assassination attempts made on Winston Churchill, again, by both sides. There was serious risk of terrorist attacks in Britain itself.

So, in short, there was the quite serious risk of the civil war spreading. In fact, there were rumours that Churchill, peace-loving fellow that he was, was preparing some sort of paramilitary force for just such an eventuality, though I've never seen any good evidence of it. The other side was probably contemplating the same thing. Civil war was a very real risk at this point, Empire-wide.

 

[Dachs]

Also, Unionism wasn't just a factor in Irish politics - the whole Conservative Party renamed itself to take advantage of popular support for Unionism in Great Britain itself, and thousands of people in Liverpool and other English cities signed the same Covenant as Carson and Craig did in Belfast

people legitimately cared about the issue all the hell over the place

 

[Traitorfish]

Am I also right in understanding that the issue intersected with tensions between employers and the labour movement, and this could have proved quite a complication given that the period 1907-1914 was one in which the unions were gaining quite a bit of clout? I know that the trade union movement was at least broadly pro-Home Rule, and that the Liberals were at this point a bit more deeply invested in that they really cared to admit. I could just be showing the skewed perspective of my own reading into the period, of course.

 

[Dachs]

Am I also right in understanding that the issue intersected with tensions between employers and the labour movement, and this could have proved quite a complication given that the period 1907-1914 was one in which the unions were gaining quite a bit of clout? I know that the trade union movement was at least broadly pro-Home Rule, and that the Liberals were at this point a bit more deeply invested in that they really cared to admit. I could just be showing the skewed perspective of my own reading into the period, of course.

No, you're about right. Often cited here are Connolly's paramilitaries in Ireland (which along with the UVF and the proto-IRA formations brought the total of private armies on the island to three by summer 1914) and the impending Triple Alliance general strike in London in September 1914, along with vaguer "general increase in labor tensions and strikes", esp. in the mining districts of Wales.

 

[RedRalph]

But if the army rebelled en masse, how would it be a civil war? Wouldn't it just be a coup?

 

[say1988]

Depends whether the government retains the ability to wage a war (whether using the military or not).

 

[ParkCungHee]

But if the army rebelled en masse, how would it be a civil war? Wouldn't it just be a coup?

That assumes the whole of the army will defect, and that people will just quietly except such a coup.
What was the size of the British Army at this time? I think if the IRB turned out, that alone would spread the British Army very thin.
There's also the question of whether colonial administrations will be loyal to Parliament or to the plotters.

 

[RedRalph]

Have to say, I had no idea whatsoever that it was such a major threat to the entire British state, I really thought it was a fairly localised thing. Then again, I'm singularly ignorant on the parts of Irish history my family didn't take part in.

 

[Lord Baal]

But if the army rebelled en masse, how would it be a civil war? Wouldn't it just be a coup?

As PCH said, that assumes that the entire army would rebel. It wouldn't. Some regiments would revolt against the government, others would fight for them against the government, and others would back out completely. Some would fight for Home Rule, some against Home Rule, some against the Irish, some for the Irish, and some would follow the government no matter who ruled, while others would switch sides when the government changed (as it would have).

Also, PCH mentioned that the British Army wasn't very large at this point, which is correct. It was only during WWI that the British Army ballooned, and even then most of the troops were colonials. And the British couldn't rely on those colonials to back them over the opposition, meaning that they'd probably avoid using them until they didn't have a choice.

I don't think anyone's figured out exactly how a civil war in Britain would have effected the colonies, but you'd likely see confusion and rioting in Australia and New Zealand, and quite probably open rebellion in South Africa by the Boers. India was more complicated, but it was also what the British were most afraid of losing, so they'd avoid using Indian troops even more than troops from elsewhere in the Empire. Canada and Africa were the best places to get troops from for pacifying Britain itself, and the troop numbers there weren't exactly huge.Not to mention the backlash against the government if black Africans were used to fight their own people.

Have to say, I had no idea whatsoever that it was such a major threat to the entire British state, I really thought it was a fairly localised thing. Then again, I'm singularly ignorant on the parts of Irish history my family didn't take part in.

The British have never admitted exactly how desperate the situation was in 1914. That would mean admitting that the official reasoning behind WWI was bullcrap, which would mean admitting that the war wasn't Germany's fault, which would mean admitting many other embarrassing things. Not the least of which would be that Winston Churchill was openly preparing to turn government soldiers on British citizens - no-one cares about using them on the Irish - in the event of civil war. That would be extremely embarrassing for the Tories, especially since Winston was Prime Minister on more than one occasion.

 

[say1988]

I doubt Canada would be a particularly good source of troops. Quebec would be 100% against intervention, not to mention the large proportion of Irish (they were the largest immigrant group for much of the 19th century) and plenty of them were Catholics.

To be sure there would be plenty of private volunteers heading to fight for the British, but I doubt the Canadian government could send troops. At most they would do the same as the Boer War, train a couple regiments, put them on boats, and wash their hands. Anything more would create problems in Canada.

 

[Communisto]

Oh, we'd be there. This country was founded on gay love for Britain, theyd find a way to placate Quebec or more like just tell them to shove off.

 

[Traitorfish]

Don't forget that the Irish-Americans were pretty interested in this whole situation, and didn't have the divide loyalties that Irish-Canadians might. Could well see a re-run of the Fenian Raids, especially if the US Army ended up distracted with Mexico.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

There were several reasons why it would have spread outside of Ireland. The army itself was on the verge of mutiny over the situation. Also, there were plenty of Irish in Britain and the colonies who had their own views on Home Rule. In Australia, the governments of New South Wales and Victoria were stockpiling weaponry and quietly conducting a purge of the police forces in case of an uprising by the Irish, though they didn't get very far into it before they pulled back completely due to the war (and they were probably over-reacting in the first place, since Irish-Australians were unlikely to take up arms against their Anglo neighbours by this point in Australian history). Many Irish in the USA were funding both sides of the brewing civil war, and there were several assassination attempts made on Winston Churchill, again, by both sides. There was serious risk of terrorist attacks in Britain itself.
...
I don't think anyone's figured out exactly how a civil war in Britain would have effected the colonies, but you'd likely see confusion and rioting in Australia and New Zealand, and quite probably open rebellion in South Africa by the Boers. India was more complicated, but it was also what the British were most afraid of losing, so they'd avoid using Indian troops even more than troops from elsewhere in the Empire. Canada and Africa were the best places to get troops from for pacifying Britain itself, and the troop numbers there weren't exactly huge.Not to mention the backlash against the government if black Africans were used to fight their own people.

I agree it was serious, but isn't this overstating the case? The Irish abroad didn't fight in 1918-20, so why would they have fought in 1914? Why would there have been fighting in Great Britain? The army in Ireland was ready to mutiny with Unionist (=Conservative) backing, but it would have been a refusal to enforce the law in Ulster, rather than seizing power in London.

There's a fascinating parallel with France 1958, which also a constitutional and military crisis over withdrawal from a 'integrated' overseas territory. People forget that France had a coup roughly half a century ago. De Gaulle just structured it as a protection racket rather than a putsch. Instead of seizing power directly, he waited for the elected government to hand him power, as the saviour of the nation from.... the pro-de Gaulle paratroopers flying towards Paris. Sneaky.

However, I just can't see Bonar Law et al sending armed cavalry to evict Asquith from Downing Street. There was no military strongman like De Gaulle. But they still might have hoped that the King would call a Tory in to save the nation from... the Tory traitors at the Curragh.

Incidentally, the events that did take place in 1914 suggest to me that there would have been no need for Indian/Dominion/colonial troops to be used in Ireland. Voluntary recruitment in Great Britain would have been sufficient in the long-term. And it's a kind of British military tradition to lose in the early stages but make a comeback later.

Also, Unionism wasn't just a factor in Irish politics - the whole Conservative Party renamed itself to take advantage of popular support for Unionism in Great Britain itself, and thousands of people in Liverpool and other English cities signed the same Covenant as Carson and Craig did in Belfast

My favourite aspect of this is the Nationalist dominance of Scotland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. No, not that Scotland, and not those Nationalists! The confusingly-named Liverpool Scotland constituency consistently elected Irish Nationalists. Working class Liverpudlians tended to vote Nationalist or Unionist on religious lines until Irish Independence.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Don't forget that the Irish-Americans were pretty interested in this whole situation,

Mmmmmeh. American Interest in Ireland was at a low point after the failures of the 1870s, and the removal of Parnell. Interest wouldn't really pick up until later, before falling in a ditch again during the Civil War.

Could well see a re-run of the Fenian Raids, especially if the US Army ended up distracted with Mexico.

Definitely couldn't see that happening. At best, we'd have an early version of NORAID.

but it would have been a refusal to enforce the law in Ulster, rather than seizing power in London.

Such a mutiny would have been, at the very least, seizing power in Ireland. If the army doesn't fight the Unionist Militias, we end up in the ironic situation where because of Unionism, Ireland would be essentially independent of the British Parliament and Crown, something that I can't see parliament, or those siding with the Militias, allowing this situation to proceed indefinitely.

Incidentally, the events that did take place in 1914 suggest to me that there would have been no need for Indian/Dominion/colonial troops to be used in Ireland. Voluntary recruitment in Great Britain would have been sufficient in the long-term.

But the situations are entirely different. 1914 was voluntary recruiting, from an army taking recruits, against a foreign enemy. Assuming there's a conflict over this, you're likely to get just as many volunteers to defend parliament as to side with the army.

 

[Traitorfish]

Mmmmmeh. American Interest in Ireland was at a low point after the failures of the 1870s, and the removal of Parnell. Interest wouldn't really pick up until later, before falling in a ditch again during the Civil War.

Definitely couldn't see that happening. At best, we'd have an early version of NORAID.

Ah, fair enough. I must be mistaking the rhetoric of the era for something more substantial that it really is.

I agree it was serious, but isn't this overstating the case? The Irish abroad didn't fight in 1918-20, so why would they have fought in 1914?

The obvious difference would be that the 1918-20 conflict was a nationalist rather than unionist uprising. Irish Britons in 1914 wouldn't just be fighting for the relatively abstract cause of Irish independence, but against the far more concrete reality of a military coup; they would be reacting to circumstances in which they were unavoidably involved, rather than volunteering themselves for involvement in one from which they could stay more or less aloof. You could compare it to the willingness of the entirely non-revolutionary Spanish UGT to take up arms in 1936, because it found itself in the position of defending the state, rather than assaulting it. I imagine that a similar parallel might have emerged in 1918-19 in Germany regarding the SPD and uSDP, if it had been a far-right rather than far-left insurrection. (The Italian fascist coup of 1921 is, I would suppose, a bit more complex because the Italian state was pretty seriously divided in its orientation. I'm sure that Dachs, Baal and Park can correct if I'm off the mark with these examples.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ah, fair enough. I must be mistaking the rhetoric of the era for something more substantial that it really is.

For the record, Republicans will always claim that their Finnean allies are taking an active interest. But by 1914, the sentiment amongst Irish-Americans was just a generalized Anglophobia, rather then real excitement for the republican cause. Genuine enthusiasm wouldn't pick up until American Entry, when Irish Independence got attached to Wilsonianism.

(The Italian fascist coup of 1921 is, I would suppose, a bit more complex because the Italian state was pretty seriously divided in its orientation. I'm sure that Dachs, Baal and Park can correct if I'm off the mark with these examples.)

Well the strange thing about the 1921 coup is it wasn't a coup really. The government's power, if it chose to exercise it, was never really in anyway threatened by the blackshirts, who moved abysmally and deliberately slowly by the standards of a coup.
There is some similarity in that the the king feared civil war, but so did the fascists.

Of course, this was all moot because the King could appoint anyone he liked so long as he could govern, and it wasn't like any of the 5 prime ministers Italy had since the war ended were exactly grade A material. So he appointed Mussolini as prime minister.

And Mussolini never really seized power. He's probably the only statesman I can think of that achieved power legally, and spent time trying to convince people he didn't.

 

[privatehudson]

My favourite aspect of this is the Nationalist dominance of Scotland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. No, not that Scotland, and not those Nationalists! The confusingly-named Liverpool Scotland constituency consistently elected Irish Nationalists. Working class Liverpudlians tended to vote Nationalist or Unionist on religious lines until Irish Independence

There's nothing particularly confusing about any of that if you know that part of the city and its history.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Such a mutiny would have been, at the very least, seizing power in Ireland. If the army doesn't fight the Unionist Militias, we end up in the ironic situation where because of Unionism, Ireland would be essentially independent of the British Parliament and Crown, something that I can't see parliament, or those siding with the Militias, allowing this situation to proceed indefinitely.

Erm, Stormont? Rhodesia? There are remarkably close cases of British conservative imperialists deciding that being loyal to the King didn't involve obeying His Majesty's Government. The mutineers would take over Dublin Castle. London would surely fudge rather than fight, e.g. sending a new pro-Union Viceroy, who would postpone Home Rule indefinitely. Then there would be a bloody civil war between Irish Nationalists and Unionists - essentially 1918 brought forward, but with London rather hoping the Nationalists win. But there would not be fighting in Great Britain, and the Empire would not collapse.*

But the situations are entirely different. 1914 was voluntary recruiting, from an army taking recruits, against a foreign enemy. Assuming there's a conflict over this, you're likely to get just as many volunteers to defend parliament as to side with the army.

I was thinking of recruits on the parliamentary side, going with my hypothesis that the (Unionist) rebels would find it psychologically difficult to organize in Great Britain.

*Although as RFC players know, losing one city is often a sign of underlying instability