Operation Armageddon, the planned 1969 Irish invasion of the North

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a lot of 'what-iffery' but......

I think it's one thing to suggest that other countries' governments or populations were sympathetically disposed towards the civil rights movement and another to suggest they were on the 'Irish' side - I also think that as the aggressor, the country would have found any support quickly evaporating, if defence forces violated the territory of another sovereign state.

I'd also suggest that the British would be astute enough not to over-reach, knowing full well they would contain any incursion and obliterate it at will in a matter of hours. As such, they wouldn't need to undertake any operations south of the border and could retain the moral high ground by simply acting within the borders of their own country - it's a bit like the quote about Ali that suggests he was a great boxer because of the punches he didn't throw!

People also always over-estimate the influence of Ireland in the US - 1969 was the Nixon / Kissinger era. The State Department has always had a tradition of Anglophilia and Nixon was very focused on foreign policy. He appointed Rogers as his Secretary of State to simply administer the State Department while he and Kissinger made all the big decisions - can anyone honestly see Tricky Dicky coming to the Paddies' rescue?

Finally, our time in the wilderness would have been as long as the British wanted it to be. If they had joined the EEC/EU ahead of us then they would have always had a veto on when we joined, just like they would have always had the whip hand on the Security Council in the UN.

But on the question of whether the EU or UN should have pushed harder, maybe they did behind the scenes, but whether you like it or not it was an internal matter in the UK so I'm not sure they should have had a role, unless they're going to start getting involved in that type of dispute in a whole lot of other countries.

I said that it was a sypathic support and not support for mil involvement.

I also made that point some days ago that it would be very limited assualt and a "exculsion zone" would have been most likely.

There was still a lot of left overs from JFK administation in positions of influence in US at the time. I wouldnt expect rescue more of a restraining hand on our neibhours .

The brits would have been happy with a five year "lesson" for us, a strong trading partner, happy enough for us in EC with a probable change in Irish govt. But I do agree they would hold the power, as I said concerning UN involvement. And I also said that it is an "internal" matter therefore the point of the att would be to make it external conflict.

I have pretty much wrote most of what you did in previous posts but I do admit I can get slighty clouded by a "patriotic assessment" sometimes.

An I assume spains "intrest" was more from a view of gilbralta than any major concern for us, but support none the less.

What were you firing tac?? lovely morning for it.

Another spanner in the mix for the crack. If you were a nationalist living in newry/derry would you have wanted the Att?? Or if not what support would you want from Irish Govt

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a lot of 'what-iffery' but......

I think it's one thing to suggest that other countries' governments or populations were sympathetically disposed towards the civil rights movement and another to suggest they were on the 'Irish' side - I also think that as the aggressor, the country would have found any support quickly evaporating, if defence forces violated the territory of another sovereign state.

I'd also suggest that the British would be astute enough not to over-reach, knowing full well they would contain any incursion and obliterate it at will in a matter of hours. As such, they wouldn't need to undertake any operations south of the border and could retain the moral high ground by simply acting within the borders of their own country - it's a bit like the quote about Ali that suggests he was a great boxer because of the punches he didn't throw!

People also always over-estimate the influence of Ireland in the US - 1969 was the Nixon / Kissinger era. The State Department has always had a tradition of Anglophilia and Nixon was very focused on foreign policy. He appointed Rogers as his Secretary of State to simply administer the State Department while he and Kissinger made all the big decisions - can anyone honestly see Tricky Dicky coming to the Paddies' rescue?

Finally, our time in the wilderness would have been as long as the British wanted it to be. If they had joined the EEC/EU ahead of us then they would have always had a veto on when we joined, just like they would have always had the whip hand on the Security Council in the UN.

But on the question of whether the EU or UN should have pushed harder, maybe they did behind the scenes, but whether you like it or not it was an internal matter in the UK so I'm not sure they should have had a role, unless they're going to start getting involved in that type of dispute in a whole lot of other countries.

They didnt obliterate the IRA in thirty years and the point I have made about this is that the best approach the RoI forces could have made would have been to link up with the anti-British forces north of the border.

The best result they could have aimed for would have been to give the RUC/B-Specials a bloody nose using heavy weaponry the unionist forces didnt posses. Political aims would have been to free Derry and perhaps Newry of British forces (mainly RUC/B-Ss).

Jawgap wrote: »

Care to elaborate further?

How would a column of Irish troops been able to cross the border, sustain itself, and link up with anything in the face of a force equipped with fast jets and helicopters?

I'd imagine any kind of concentration would have attracted immediate attack from the air.

It's also arguable that the border, once crossed, would have offered no protection in a retreat - having violated UK sovereignty it's quite possible the politicians at the time might have felt justified in ordering any retreating Irish force to be harried all the way back to Dublin to prevent any further incursions.

The reason the IRA survived is because they fought a guerrilla style action - they knew enough to know that if they did what you are suggesting (a link up in force) - that would have meant immediate and probably total destruction.

Several IRA leaders went to Dublin politicians to beg for arms. The army were ordered to hand over a consignment of arms to enable Catholics to defend against combined Loyalist/RUC forces.

The army could have been ordered to link up with nationalist forces and provide small units to combat loyalist incursions. Weapons like CG 84mmm anti-tank RCC, small and medium mortars and even armoured cars where necessary could have been used sparingly and strategically to attack RUC/Loyalists and force them from nationalist areas and barracks etc.

I also suggested sniper teams using Barrett L50 type weapons/sniping rifles could have been highly affective.

Units and tactics like these would have had success over many months and years, would have greatly increased British casualties (and Irish casualties but the point is to make the British public and the world intervene and limit British intervention/increase Dublin government stake in any solution).

The notion of sending uniformed platoons walking across the border as suggested by Clonan is nonsense, no military officer worth a damn would do such a thing.

An operation like this would have been covered by plausible deniability and would have had the political strategy of attempting to get the UN to commit to intervene and prevent (politically) British forces from massing and intervening.

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

.....and just how would these guys have been kept supplied, fed and watered? How would they have evacuated casualties? How would they receive orders? Under whose direct command would they have operated on a day-to-day basis?

You'd have "plausible deniability" :rolleyes: alright........right up until the first one was caught and questioned.

And I doubt as a permanent member of the UN Security Council the UK would have done anything except veto any proposal for a UN mandated force to be deployed on its sovereign territory.

Well, we are talking about how Irish army units would have operated in the event of a government decision to intervene.

My main point is that Clonans 'invasion' was not in any way a plausible interpretation of what an Irish military action would have been. It would have had to link up with local resistance forces and employed small undercover units. It would be a series of coordinated surprise attacks to take-over/ destroy RUC/BA barracks and would then withdraw before BA forces could react.

They would have been supplied and fed by the local populace and from across the border, a mere handful of miles away. Even small units (2 and 4 man) could be withdrawn and replaced.

These actions were contemplated at a time before the British gov had acted and before substantial BA forces were deployed.

In 1982, the British Army, Navy, RAF and Royal Marines travelled 8000 miles, lost around 255 members of the military and many ships, mostly RN, to get back a few hundred square miles of windswept tree-less bugger-all. That, if you have forgotten, involved the invasion of occupied territories against a dug-in enemy who had a marked superiority in numbers and equipment, and the ability to call on fast jet FGA whenever they felt like it. Getting the Falkands back cost the British £2.777 Billion then - now at least £8.3 Billion in present-day funds.

The enemy, a thoroughly modern-equipped force with many military luxuries not afforded to the British - night-sights on Browning .50cal HMGs and so on - got their arses comprehensively handed to them, and lost 649 known dead in the process.

What on earth do you imagine that the British response would have been to an invasion by a very near-neighbour with whom there had been many years of peaceful and profitable co-existence? A neighbour with many Irish citizens in its Armed Forces? Was there not a Treaty of Friendship and mutual co-operation in trade and industry between the two countries? Please to remember the comment made by a senior Japanese naval commander after a similarly treacherous course of action was taken at Pearl Harbour - 'I fear that we have simply awakened a sleeping giant'.

Without the UK to provide a home and workplace for many Irish nationals, a ready and profitable market for Irish goods of all kinds, and a country dependant on British money to keep it upright, where do you imagine that the Republic would have been in the eyes of the rest of the world?

I think that you may well have seen the end of Ireland as we knew it, maybe by a new temporary border drawn straight across Ireland from one side to the other at the inevitable cease-fire line, from Dublin to Galway City. The British Army in Northern Ireland, at one time almost 20,000 strong, would have been reinforced by a slight draw-down from Germany, whilst still in a position to fulfil its NATO commitments, and the Irish Army would only exist in a book of memories. The present population of the Republic would probably STILL be contributing to the reparation.

Let's see some element of realism entering this preposterous scenario, Gentlemen.

tac

tac foley wrote: »

In 1982, the British Army, Navy, RAF and Royal Marines travelled 8000 miles, lost around 255 members of the military and many ships, mostly RN, to get back a few hundred square miles of windswept tree-less bugger-all. That, if you have forgotten, involved the invasion of occupied territories against a dug-in enemy who had a marked superiority in numbers and equipment, and the ability to call on fast jet FGA whenever they felt like it. Getting the Falkands back cost the British £2.777 Billion then - now at least £8.3 Billion in present-day funds.

The enemy got their arses comprehensively handed to them, and lost 649 known dead in the process.

What on earth do you imagine that the British response would have been to an invasion by a very near-neighbour with whom there had been many years of peaceful and profitable co-existence? A neighbour with many Irish citizens in its Armed Forces? Was there not a Treaty of Friendship and mutual co-operation in trade and industry between the two countries? Please to remember the comment made by a senior Japanese naval commander after a similarly treacherous course of action was taken at Pearl Harbour - 'I fear that we have simply awakened a sleeping giant'.

Without the UK to provide a home and workplace for many Irish nationals, a ready and profitable market for Irish goods of all kinds, and a country dependant on British money to keep it upright, where do you imagine that the Republic would have been in the eyes of the rest of the world?

I think that you may well have seen the end of Ireland as we knew it, maybe by a new temporary border drawn straight across Ireland from one side to the other at the inevitable cease-fire line, from Dublin to Galway City. The British Army in Northern Ireland, at one time almost 20,000 strong, would have been reinforced by a slight draw-down from Germany, whilst still in a position to fulfil its NATO commitments, and the Irish Army would only exist in a book of memories. The present population of the Republic would probably STILL be contributing to the reparation.

Let's see some element of realism entering this preposterous scenario, Gentlemen.

tac

You dont seem to have read anything I've written, and you are forgetting we are discussing a program made about a hypothetical Irish army intervention operation c1969.

I am merely making the point that Clonans 'invasion' was nonsensical and there were other options which could have been much more effective.

Jawgap wrote: »

One would like to think they'd at least had the courtesy not to re-arm the Vulcans with conventional bombs for a trip across the Irish Sea - Point #1.

The opposition in Jadotville also lacked the ability to park something large and grey off the east coast to blockade Dublin Port, if they were minded to - Point #2

#1. That is one of the points I made in my post - bombed-up aircraft, in the air awaiting orders, used as a threat. And please don't underestimate the will of the British government of the day to drop ordnance on the Republic of Ireland. Few things in life get up people's collective noses more than treacherous military action on the part of a so-called 'friendly nation'.

#2. The 'large and grey' somethings that might have been parked off the coast at that time had extremely large guns, with ranges that far exceeded the western limits of Dublin and any other coastal town or city.

tac

Post #5 sums it all up.

The whole 'what-if' thing is not even faintly amusing - many would have died, mostly Irishmen. To lose a thousand soldiers as casualties out of an Army of 200,000 is an acceptable loss rate. To lose a thousand Irish soldiers out of an Army of 20,000 would have been nothing less than a national tragedy.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/no-longer-standing-idly-by-irish-army-contingency-plans-1969-70/

and this -

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/if-the-irish-army-had-entered-the-north-in-1969/

For those of you out there with dreams of glory - dream on.

Téann an cosán na glóire ach amháin go dtí an uaigh.

Thankfully, good sense and a heightened element of self-preservation prevailed over wishful thinking.

tac, in Lisburn in 1969.

tac

Personaly speaking I find it even hard to believe that an allegedly sane government instructed the top brass in the Irish Defence Forces to even examine the possibility of such an operation that could only end in swift failure.

For starters there was never any hope of success from a military point of view and if you think that sectarian violence was bad in those days one can only imagine how much worse it would have gotten if Irish troops would have gone accross the border.

The only certain outcome would have been the destruction of the limited Irish military infrastructure and capability, chaos spreading far outside the boundaries of Northern Ireland and certain elements of the Northern population being handed the perfect excuse for wholesale sectarian slaughter.

What is even more alarming is there sems to be no clear objective to this plan at all...Was it to be a raid to evacuate Catholics from the enclaves,of Belfast and Derry,something along the raid at Entebbe?Slim enough chance without some very serious rehersal and planning even by crack troops like the Israelis.Sod all chance of being pulled off by the Irish army lacking the resources,planning ,equipment and skill .The thought of even doing that ,getting up to Belfast and Derry,taking hits all along the route, breaking into the enclaves,holding and then loading up X thousand people with literally the clothes on their backs to get them back down into the south running a gauntlet of fire again would rate as in the history of military annals the equivlient of the charge of the light brigade with less chance of success.Maybe if the Irish general staff had a Rommel or Guderian on board with the full co operation and access of the entire Republics resource behind him civillian and military,and even he would be hard pressed to come up with a plan with some chance of success.
Worse ,was it to be a full scale invasion to conquer and hold ground of the six counties??In that case I think even kamikazee pilots would have baulked and refused at those kind of odds of success.That had less than zero chance of success and we would proably be looking at the Union Jack back over the GPO today.
One of the most important objectives in any mission is to know wTF are you doing and how and when you are going to do it,prefably without a bunch of meddling ministers issuing contary orders.
Thankfully this is just historical whatifery and historical masturbation along the lines of if Hitler had the A bomb or whatever.Entertaining but nowhere near reality.

From reading the article this was desk based exercise that had a one liner saying 'we'll lose, stick with politics' in response to the invasion question. So the speculation here is based more on fantasy than what was actually discussed.

The rest of the desk based exercise seems equally mad - train up a load of nordies in the FCA. If british intelligence picked that any number of 'northern' FCA reservists, lets say 100-1,000, training for a month, and they would have, I doubt there would have been any question as to which state would be launching an attack on the other. Although it may have been possible a low level of this may have been tolerated by the british to develop intelligence in the south.

Any suggestion of an outright invasion of the North would have obviously been disastrous for the DF. We simply didn't have the capability to intervene. Not then and certainly not today. History has taught us that we don't fight on our enemy's terms. We saw this illustrated when the Irish Vols were destroyed during the Easter Rising when they fought the British on conventional lines. The Irish War of Independence however was more successfil because we fought the Brits on OUR terms, using guerrilla and hit and run tactics. The IRA in the North were also surprisingly effective utilising such methods and that's why the Irish state should have provided more backing for the IRA instead of trying to fight them. Covert training camps and arms shipments to the IRA would have give them increased capabilities fighting the British and over time the Irish in the North could have established 'liberated' zones like what we saw in the Bogside, South Armagh and West Belfast, areas denied to the British security forces.

Alas what we got was a southern Govt more sympathetic to loyalists, with psychos like The Cruiser more interested in going after Republicans and pushing extremist laws like Section 31 to deny them a voice on Irish airwaves. FGLAB in the 70's did so much for the British that it's quite likely the Brits had a spy at the Irish cabinet table. Certainly there are strong indications that at least one former FG Taoisigh was a British agent. The Gardai, army and political establishments were and still are riddled with British informants and double agents. We're our own worst enemy.