"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

Dinter

Happy Monday wrote: »

There were different options available - he chose in the end to limit it to field hospitals along the border.

The plan was one of a range of different options. From military intervention to seize corridors through which civilians could escape to what is basically a "blood sacrifice".

darkman2

lennymurphy wrote: »

Nothing troll like about what I wrote there. Both paragraphs are absolutely factual. What's your problem with what I said?

It's factual, or your opinion that Nationalists should have transport for themselves organised out of the North today? That's what you said. That's trolling and a stupid thing to say if it is'nt. They are fully entitled to live where ever they wish on this Island.

lennymurphy

Dinter wrote: »

I think the childlike innocence of some posters is hilarious. Do you really think that Irish troops ever considered facing off against British troops in a conventional fight? They are just as capable of counting as you are and would be more aware of the capabilities of British equipment than you are.

Operation Armageddon was a doomsday scenario. However it was not without merit. Those fighter planes would not be attacking mud huts in Afghanistan. Instead they would be strafing civilians in Dublin. Those civilians would have relatives or friends in the UK, in America, in the armed forces of both. How long do you think that could be sustained before public opinion revolted?

Also you're dead right. Irish intervention would lead to epic ethnic slaughter in Northern Ireland as the "specials" and assorted loyalist mobs took this opportunity to massacre their Catholic neighbours. What do you think the outcome of that would be? The Crown unable or unwilling to rein in its agents. Would there be an international intervention? Maybe. Certainly there would be a PR disaster for the UK.

And what would be the outcome? Hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of soldiers, a shattered Ireland crying loudly over its abortive humanitarian excursion in the rubble of a crushed and shattered country while the UK faces rioting on the streets of Liverpool and disgust in the UN. Soviet "peacekeepers" on the way to the Republic or Washington promising anything to keep them out.

I don't believe that our relationship with the USA would keep us safe from British attacks but I know that the strategic repercussions of Russia being invited in definitely would.

If Ireland had invited The Soviets in, America would have bombed Ireland before The UK woke up.

The UK would only have penetrated Irish territory as necessary, there would have been no carpet bombing of Dublin or anywhere else. It would all have been over in a week.

The laugh is that a year later, The UK would be acting as if it had never happened. That's The British way (or at least The English way).

Dinter

lennymurphy wrote: »

If Ireland had invited The Soviets in, America would have bombed Ireland before The UK woke up.

No, no they wouldn't. They'd be pissed but remember Ireland has just been flattened by the UK while America looked on. Ireland needs an ally.

lennymurphy wrote: »

The UK would only have penetrated Irish territory as necessary, there would have been no carpet bombing of Dublin or anywhere else. It would all have been over in a week.

It's amazing how things look when it's reported from a children's hospital filled with eviscerated 10 year olds.

lennymurphy wrote: »

The laugh is that a year later, The UK would be acting as if it had never happened. That's The British way (or at least The English way).

I don't think so. Er 1966 and soccer? Something about that.

lostexpectation

this whole thing is based on tom clonan jizzing over old memos, what would have happened would be similar to what did happen even if irish troops did go to the northern towns british troops would have arrived quicker, neither side would engage, the gov would negotiate and we'd withdraw, there would be no massacre of the irish army....

dan719

Dinter wrote: »

I think the childlike innocence of some posters is hilarious. Do you really think that Irish troops ever considered facing off against British troops in a conventional fight? They are just as capable of counting as you are and would be more aware of the capabilities of British equipment than you are.

Operation Armageddon was a doomsday scenario. However it was not without merit. Those fighter planes would not be attacking mud huts in Afghanistan. Instead they would be strafing civilians in Dublin. Those civilians would have relatives or friends in the UK, in America, in the armed forces of both. How long do you think that could be sustained before public opinion revolted?

Also you're dead right. Irish intervention would lead to epic ethnic slaughter in Northern Ireland as the "specials" and assorted loyalist mobs took this opportunity to massacre their Catholic neighbours. What do you think the outcome of that would be? The Crown unable or unwilling to rein in its agents. Would there be an international intervention? Maybe. Certainly there would be a PR disaster for the UK.

And what would be the outcome? Hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of soldiers, a shattered Ireland crying loudly over its abortive humanitarian excursion in the rubble of a crushed and shattered country while the UK faces rioting on the streets of Liverpool and disgust in the UN. Soviet "peacekeepers" on the way to the Republic or Washington promising anything to keep them out.

I don't believe that our relationship with the USA would keep us safe from British attacks but I know that the strategic repercussions of Russia being invited in definitely would.

My innocence. I am not the one who believes the Soviets would mount an invasion of Britain. (That is what a soviet force entering the North would be doing btw). Why wouldn't they do it anyway, without an invite from Ireland? Maybe because they weren't as up for suicide as much as Lynch appeared to be? Or the one who believes that the aggressor would be the automatic reciever of any sympathy simply because they were outmanned and outgunned.

Did you see Georgia vs Russia last year? Their strategy was similar to what you are suggesting, how successful was that? Hell their position was stronger then ours, as they were'nt attacking undisputed Russian soil, and Russia is not a member of Nato.

I think what is astounding on this thread is the arrogance of the republicans. 'Let's engage in reckless military action, which will leave countless dead, even though we haven't a hope in hell of winning and are dependent on forcing the hands of a more powerful country to stop a slaughter of the entire population. Oh and that powerful country happens to be best mates with the country we're invading.

Ah sure when it all goes to sh*t we'll come out of it smelling like roses. Who the f*ck thought that was a good idea, and why the hell was he not sent to St Senans straight away?

Dinter

dan719 wrote: »

My innocence. I am not the one who believes the Soviets would mount an invasion of Britain.

Well I'm not too sure what the Soviets are doing in Northern Ireland as I suggested they land in the Republic. That's fairly credible. Cuba??

darkman2

lennymurphy wrote: »

If Ireland had invited The Soviets in, America would have bombed Ireland before The UK woke up.

The South would not have had to do anything like that if the Irish Government asked for assistence from the US in dealing with the UK over the North. The US was fully prepared to help but for some reason, as I already stated in this thread, the Irish Government has always sort of shunned most of Irish America. That was until the Clintons and then we really did see Ireland come ahead of Britain in American eyes on the North. When Clinton gave Adams his visa John Major would not take a phone call for a week from him. The British were furious. There was no back traking from the American side. They wanted the British to get their act together and they did after some prodding. Then they excepted the All Ireland institutions etc etc Good Friday Agreement etc etc. Alot of that was thanks to Irish America.

It is in this light and the current economic crisis that the Government here now is rightly to engage with Irish America and to finally co ordinate and work with the diaspora in America and elsewhere. Having the Democrats back in is going to be very useful. It should be something broadly similar to the link between the Jewish organisations and their support for Isreal.

Kev_ps3

lennymurphy wrote: »

If all The Irish wanted to do was remove Irish Nationalists from Northern Ireland then they could have just called O'Neill, who I'm sure would have given every assistance.

Funny thing O'Neill once said:

"give Catholics a good house, a good job and a TV and they will start behaving like decent Protestants"

I guess he was right.

decent Protestants?! Theres no such thing..

dan719

Dinter wrote: »

Well I'm not too sure what the Soviets are doing in Northern Ireland as I suggested they land in the Republic. That's fairly credible. Cuba??

Sorry, change my above scenario to

'And while we attempt to overthrew the dreaded British yoke, let's make ourselves a satelitte state of the eastern Bloc and possibly kick start WWIII while we're at it?

What do you think Britain's response to soviet troops in the Republic would be?

'Hail fellow,well met?':rolleyes:

And what makes you think the soviets would want to create such a scenario? Their love of the Irish?

Kev_ps3

If we did invade the north and slaughter all the enemy then it would be nothing more than justice. At least the IRA did some of the job..

Bucklesman

Anyone else think this would make for dynamite alternate history fiction?
It'd be basically a Red Dawn/Wind That Shakes the Barley mashup.

My two cents? Lynch would never have invaded. Quite apart from the unpreparedness of the Army, Jack Lynch had too much common sense to go for "Blood Sacrifice" á la Pearse. Only Blaney and Haughey would have been that crazy.

Dudess

Wow, naming yourself after a notorious loyalist paramilitary (the leader of the Shankill Butchers) on an Irish discussion site...

Pretty ****ed up...

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

I think the childlike innocence of some posters is hilarious. Do you really think that Irish troops ever considered facing off against British troops in a conventional fight? They are just as capable of counting as you are and would be more aware of the capabilities of British equipment than you are.

Operation Armageddon was a doomsday scenario. However it was not without merit. Those fighter planes would not be attacking mud huts in Afghanistan. Instead they would be strafing civilians in Dublin. Those civilians would have relatives or friends in the UK, in America, in the armed forces of both. How long do you think that could be sustained before public opinion revolted?

Also you're dead right. Irish intervention would lead to epic ethnic slaughter in Northern Ireland as the "specials" and assorted loyalist mobs took this opportunity to massacre their Catholic neighbours. What do you think the outcome of that would be? The Crown unable or unwilling to rein in its agents. Would there be an international intervention? Maybe. Certainly there would be a PR disaster for the UK.

And what would be the outcome? Hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of soldiers, a shattered Ireland crying loudly over its abortive humanitarian excursion in the rubble of a crushed and shattered country while the UK faces rioting on the streets of Liverpool and disgust in the UN. Soviet "peacekeepers" on the way to the Republic or Washington promising anything to keep them out.

I don't believe that our relationship with the USA would keep us safe from British attacks but I know that the strategic repercussions of Russia being invited in definitely would.

Your naviety is incredible.
International intervention - not a chance.
The UK wouldn't have bombed Dublin as a first response - they didn't bomb Buenos Aires during the Falklands war.
They would however have ejected Irish troops with extreme prejuidice and the symbolic impact of an Irish invasion would have ensured a radical Protestant response against Catholics in the North.
But for you to think that the USSR would intervene.
No they didn't intervene when requested to in Spain in the 1930s on the side of the Republicans and wouldn't have dreamt of invading part of the UK under any conditions.
The US - particularly the white anglo saxon Republican party under Richard Nixon - would have supported the British as always.

ejmaztec

Bucklesman wrote: »

Anyone else think this would make for dynamite alternate history fiction?
It'd be basically a Red Dawn/Wind That Shakes the Barley mashup.

My two cents? Lynch would never have invaded. Quite apart from the unpreparedness of the Army, Jack Lynch had too much common sense to go for "Blood Sacrifice" á la Pearse. Only Blaney and Haughey would have been that crazy.

I think that it would be just "MASH", without the comedy. :eek:

Dinter

dan719 wrote: »

'And while we attempt to overthrew the dreaded British yoke, let's make ourselves a satelitte state of the eastern Bloc and possibly kick start WWIII while we're at it?

Yeah it's more the threat of bringing them in than the reality. All I'm saying is there was obviously a longer game being played than just finding a way to slaughter Irish troops as quickly as possible. Otherwise it'd be easier to just march them off the cliffs of Moher.

dan719 wrote: »

What do you think Britain's response to soviet troops in the Republic would be?

'Hail fellow,well met?':rolleyes:

The rolleyes don't change the fact that the Republic is a sovereign state and fully entitled to invite anyone they want to build bases on their territory in much the same way the UK does.

[/quote]And what makes you think the soviets would want to create such a scenario? Their love of the Irish?[/quote]

Probably their love of building masses of troops and weapons the other side of the Iron curtain right beside America's biggest ally. Ooh and airfields for long range patrols. And don't forget anti shipping and well, lot's of things really.

Dr. Baltar

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

decent Protestants?! Theres no such thing..

Robert Emmet
Isaac Butt
Wolfe Tone


Seriously dude... just get out.

Bucklesman

@Dudess

Me?

Totally unrelated nickname.


*Scrolls up and checks Wikipedia*

Oh. Never mind.

dan719

Dinter wrote: »

Yeah it's more the threat of bringing them in than the reality. All I'm saying is there was obviously a longer game being played than just finding a way to slaughter Irish troops as quickly as possible. Otherwise it'd be easier to just march them off the cliffs of Moher.



The rolleyes don't change the fact that the Republic is a sovereign state and fully entitled to invite anyone they want to build bases on their territory in much the same way the UK does.

And what makes you think the soviets would want to create such a scenario? Their love of the Irish?[/quote]

Probably their love of building masses of troops and weapons the other side of the Iron curtain right beside America's biggest ally. Ooh and airfields for long range patrols. And don't forget anti shipping and well, lot's of things really.[/QUOTE]

Cuba is not on the same landmass as part of the United States. I think most people would agree that the Cuba missile crisis would have had a very different ending if it were. An attempt by the Soviets to amass troops and weapons on the Republic would have led to an immediete and deadly response by Britain and the US. As much as both sides postured, neither would take any action which would lead to guarenteed nuclear war.

Dudess

Bucklesman wrote: »

@Dudess

Me?

Totally unrelated nickname.


*Scrolls up and checks Wikipedia*

Oh. Never mind.

Oops! Sorry dude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Murphy

Dinter

Happy Monday wrote: »

Your naviety is incredible.
International intervention - not a chance.

Absolutely wrong. Intervention would definitely occur although limited to condemnations obviously.

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UK wouldn't have bombed Dublin as a first response - they didn't bomb Buenos Aires during the Falklands war.

Irrelevant. It's all about how it's reported.

Happy Monday wrote: »

They would however have ejected Irish troops with extreme prejuidice and the symbolic impact of an Irish invasion would have ensured a radical Protestant response against Catholics in the North.

Thank you for recapping my point.

Happy Monday wrote: »

But for you to think that the USSR would intervene.

Not to intervene. Reread what I said.

Happy Monday wrote: »

No they didn't intervene when requested to in Spain in the 1930s on the side of the Republicans

Wrong.

Happy Monday wrote: »

and wouldn't have dreamt of invading part of the UK under any conditions.

Reread what I said.

Happy Monday wrote: »

The US - particularly the white anglo saxon Republican party under Richard Nixon - would have supported the British as always.

It's after the fact. Americans are not going to give Britain a free hand to destroy a country. I think the word ally is used out of context when describing Britain's relations with America. Maybe junior partner would be more suitable.

rossie1977

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Robert Emmet
Isaac Butt
Wolfe Tone


Seriously dude... just get out.

stop it you are confusing some people in this thread :eek:

javaboy

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

decent Protestants?! Theres no such thing..

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

If we did invade the north and slaughter all the enemy then it would be nothing more than justice. At least the IRA did some of the job..

Banned. That kind of crap is not welcome on this site.

Dr. Baltar

rossie1977 wrote: »

stop it you are confusing some people in this thread :eek:

Care to elaborate?

Dinter

dan719 wrote: »

As much as both sides postured, neither would take any action which would lead to guarenteed nuclear war.

I think the Soviets would jump at the chance to "protect" Ireland. It's all hypothetical though man.

Also in relation to the Cuban missile crisis don't forget the Americans had to remove their missiles from Turkey. It was not quite the brinkmanship that it seems.

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

The rolleyes don't change the fact that the Republic is a sovereign state and fully entitled to invite anyone they want to build bases on their territory in much the same way the UK does.

In 1969 Ireland was a neutral nation with an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic ethos.

How can you honestly assert that Ireland would have formed an alliance with a godless Communist undemocratic nation which had forbade the practice of Catholicism throughout their vast empire.

That was unthinkable at that time.

rossie1977

russians in ireland in 1969, are you insane

Dartz

Sounds like a cheap ghost written Tom Clancy novel.

Jack Ryan saves the Republic from Soviet influence while simultaneously averting the next 30 years of The Troubles.

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

Absolutely wrong. Intervention would definitely occur although limited to condemnations obviously.

You mean intervention would be verbal only not physical in any way.
I think the Brits would have slept soundly after a tongue lashing from the Kremlin or such like.

Sharpshooter

lennymurphy wrote: »

Nothing troll like about what I wrote there. Both paragraphs are absolutely factual. What's your problem with what I said?

lennymurphy Will not be available to reply to quotes.