nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If 1916 had been a success..

bear1

Would it have made much of a difference to the outcome in 1921?
I was watching a documentary last night with Liam Neeson as the narrator which I thought was well produced but it made me wonder if 1916 wasn't a failure how would the fate of the country have worked out?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Church on Tuesday

Militarily is was a complete failure although there is something to be said for mostly amateur rebels holding out against the might of the British army for an entire week.

It would serve as the litmus paper for what was to come; Independence.

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

No, it wasn't. The British army was by far the smallest army of the great powers in the war in April 1916.

It wasn't even close.

Rubbish

Odhinn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The man most responsible for torpedoing home rule was Canadian born Bonar law, PM of ulster Scots ancestry, he fully backed the ulster covenant movement which was the pre emptive threat of violence which led the way to 1916

John redmond was the most powerful man in Ireland for twenty years prior to 1916 and now most have no clue who he was

A toady along the lines of o'connell in many ways. John Bruton had a portrait of him in his office when he was taoiseach, which is probably the clearest indictment you could have.

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

No, it wasn't. The British army was by far the smallest army of the great powers in the war in April 1916.

It wasn't even close.

Rubbish

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

The Rape of Lucretia

bear1 wrote: »

Would it have made much of a difference to the outcome in 1921?
I was watching a documentary last night with Liam Neeson as the narrator which I thought was well produced but it made me wonder if 1916 wasn't a failure how would the fate of the country have worked out?

It depends on what we mean by failure. That it did not galvanise the Irish people to put down all elements of murder and violence, seperatism, the green tinted views of Little Irelanders, and get behind a full role in the United Kingdom, is the the real failure I think. It was a warning shot on what turned out to be a lost century, perpetuating poverty, religious backwardness, economic stagnation, civil war, sectarianism. But one that was not heard, and the opportunity to once and for all be an integral part of the UK was missed.

The Tetrarch

Wha?

The Tetrarch

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

United Kingdom

GBP 1,500,000 spent on bribes to get a majority to vote in favour of The Act of Union 1801, twenty four new peers created.
That Act of Union excluded Catholics from membership of the parliament.
Not very united.

Guy:Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

They were also right in the middle of a bit of a scuffle elsewhere at the time.

AMKC

Mad_maxx wrote: »

In 1916?

It absolutely was

The British did not have a very big army but they did have a big navy at the time and the most powerful navy at the time too. That is how they colonized so many other countries and kept the secure for a while anyway until the ways wars were fought changed.

Mad_maxx

Odhinn wrote: »

A toady along the lines of o'connell in many ways. John Bruton had a portrait of him in his office when he was taoiseach, which is probably the clearest indictment you could have.

Subsequent developments rendered redmonds career a waste but what exactly did he do that was so shameful, Bruton is a goon alright

pjproby

If General Maxwell had not insisted on executing the 1916 leaders, would we ever have achieved independence in 1921?

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

Back up the truck, I'm talking about 1916, I accept that Britain was a much diminished military power a quarter century later

Mad_maxx

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They were also right in the middle of a bit of a scuffle elsewhere at the time.

Does not in any way negate the point

The Tetrarch

1916 could not have been a success.
We chose the wrong playing pitch, guns against guns.
If we defeated the UK militarily in 1916 it would be like Leicester winning the Premier League every year.

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

Back up the truck, I'm talking about 1916, I accept that Britain was a much diminished military power a quarter century later

And in 1916 it was still smaller than France. And Germany. And Russia.

bear1

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It depends on what we mean by failure. That it did not galvanise the Irish people to put down all elements of murder and violence, seperatism, the green tinted views of Little Irelanders, and get behind a full role in the United Kingdom, is the the real failure I think. It was a warning shot on what turned out to be a lost century, perpetuating poverty, religious backwardness, economic stagnation, civil war, sectarianism. But one that was not heard, and the opportunity to once and for all be an integral part of the UK was missed.

Not sure what to make of this.
We should have stayed joined to a union which is tearing itself apart at the seams because we would have been better off?
We'd have been dragged into ww2 and bombed repeatedly I imagine and then forced into further military confrontations throughout the rest of the century.

Odhinn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Subsequent developments rendered redmonds career a waste but what exactly did he do that was so shameful, Bruton is a goon alright

He wanted Ireland to be a full partner in running 'The Empire', rather than a break and rejection from/of imperialism.

"To talk about ireland seperating from the empire is the most utter nonsense. We are not asking for seperation. Seperation is impossible; if it were not impossible it would be undesirable"
https://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Redmond1.php

"that brighter day when the grant of full self-government would reveal to Britain the open secret of making Ireland her friend and helpmate, the brightest jewel in her crown of Empire".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Redmond

Nauseating cack, tbh.

Odhinn

bear1 wrote: »

Not sure what to make of this.

We should have stayed joined to a union which is tearing itself apart at the seams because we would have been better off?
We'd have been dragged into ww2 and bombed repeatedly I imagine and then forced into further military confrontations throughout the rest of the century.

The initials are a hint.

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

And in 1916 it was still smaller than France. And Germany. And Russia.

What on earth are you talking about

Russia was dirt poor in 1916 and had no geo political footprint

Marengo

[quote="The Rape of Lucretia;109149954"[/quote]

Clue in the initials.

TROL

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

And in 1916 it was still smaller than France. And Germany. And Russia.

What on earth are you talking about

Russia was dirt poor in 1916 and had no geo political footprint

It had a massive army. Bigger than Britain's.

They launched a massive offensive in 1916 called the Brusilov offensive which was by far the most successful of the war prior to the imminent collapse of the German war machine in 1918.

Marengo

troyzer wrote: »

It had a massive army. Bigger than Britain's.

They launched a massive offensive in 1916 called the Brusilov offensive which was by far the most successful of the war prior to the imminent collapse of the German war machine in 1918.

Never underestimate the Russians

Ask Napoleon and Hitler.

OldMrBrennan83

Here we are not part of the UK. That's a success for me.

[Deleted User]

pjproby wrote: »

If General Maxwell had not insisted on executing the 1916 leaders, would we ever have achieved independence in 1921?

But if the British had not done X would we ever have had rebellion Y? A question that requires putting aside hundreds of years of misrule, violence and repeated failures of British policy towards Ireland

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

It had a massive army. Bigger than Britain's.

They launched a massive offensive in 1916 called the Brusilov offensive which was by far the most successful of the war prior to the imminent collapse of the German war machine in 1918.

China has more men at arms than America, North Korea has more than the UK

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It had a massive army. Bigger than Britain's.

They launched a massive offensive in 1916 called the Brusilov offensive which was by far the most successful of the war prior to the imminent collapse of the German war machine in 1918.

China has more men at arms than America, North Korea has more than the UK

And? You said Britain was the largest military power in the world. It wasn't.

It also wasn't the most advanced or powerful, that was the Germans.

What the British did have was a massive and powerful navy. Which isn't very useful against insurgencies.

[Deleted User]

Feisar wrote: »

The War of Independance [sic] was a mickey mouse affair really, a few ambushes and a few lads assassinated. The weight of global opinion was a bigger factor I'd say and the notion of self determination.

Yeah, you won't like this but despite the bluster from the John Bull fanclub, in relative terms it was similar to Britain's involvement in WWII - a paltry total of c. 400,000 deaths of military and civilians combined when one Russian battle, Stalingrad, had more deaths - and about 25 million USSR deaths overall in the same war. And you think you can sneer at the Irish? Furthermore, the relative population percentages don't make your supposedly non-Mickey Mouse Britain look any less Mickey Mouse in its military endeavours: Relative British death toll in WWII

So, speaking about "Mickey Mouse" affairs, think about that next time you put on your poppy to tell us about how Britain saved the world from the very same Nazism with which it had been quite content to collaborate from 1933 until 1939.

[Deleted User]

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Fuaranach is preparing an essay as we speak.

Well, given one of your last, eh, essays here in the past 24 hours was against "Nordies" and people with "Planter surnames" - Jesus wept - would that your alcohol-frizzled brain would have the knowledge to be able to, Flutter/RumpyPumpy/PaddyPinty/ etc etc. Somebody here once brilliantly compared you to Jay Cartwright in the In betweeners:

It's a well known fact that Jay is obsessed with sex. He tries to improve his social status by telling extravagant lies, mostly about his supposed wild sexual encounters which are often later proven to be completely untrue. Due to the tendency for his tales to be exposed as false, Will and Simon rarely believe him. Only Neil tends to believe Jay's stories, which might be the reason why he is Jay's closest friend. The fact that Jay has never actually had sex before causes him to feel insecure and therefore he relies heavily on pornography to inform him about sex. This gives him a very false conception of women and sex, which leads to him sometimes coming across as a sex pest or a misogynist. Jay tries bizarre masturbation techniques and often ends up getting caught at an awkward moment.... Jay is shown to be quite arrogant towards the other boys on several occasions, particularly when he boasts about his superior abilities in flirting with women, despite being the most sexually inexperienced member of the group. This fact plagues him as all three of his other friends have had sexual encounters, causing him to invent a number of increasingly erotic and unbelievable stories about his non-existent sex life; such as his claim of an encounter with a porn star. Although confident amongst his friends, Jay has also been shown to be socially awkward around other people.

Due to his abrasive and cocky nature, Jay is extremely unpopular with women. However, he has been known to be popular among the men in more ways than one...

[Deleted User]

troyzer wrote: »

No, it wasn't. Not even close.

While that poster was incorrect to say the British Army was the largest in the world, its standing armies & reserves in August 1914 stood at 975,000, making it the third largest. Moreover, the 'mobilised forces' of the British state between 1914 and 1918 were 8,905,000. This made it the third largest in the world after Russia and France (Source).

[Deleted User]

Feisar wrote: »

The great blood sacrifice that Pearse the clown was going on about.

Plenty of blood sacrifice merchants on your own side, not least the supposedly non-violent John Redmond (most notoriously in his glorification of the deaths at Gallipoli where ‘the cause of Ireland . . . was never in worthier, holier keeping than that of these boys, offering up their supreme sacrifice of life with a smile on their lips because it was given for Ireland’).

But seeing as they were advocating blood sacrifice on behalf of the British Empire people like you suddenly don't have a problem with it. Pigs and grunts spring to mind.