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

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

Depends on who you ask. Pearse was someone who knew it would fail but believed their sacrafice would spark a popular revolt. When he lost the rebels were pelted by the locals. They weren't liked much at all.

Actually, this view has long since been revised and much of this 'The Rising was deeply unpopular' was because most of the media was Unionist/hostile to the Rising. While citing the above pelters as evidence that the people were against the Rising is beyond clichéd, at the time even Maxwell, the British commander, justified the North King Street Massacre by claiming the women and children wouldn't leave because 'Their sympathies were with the rebels' (JJ Lee, Popularity of the Rising in Easter Week, pp. 28-34)

The Tetrarch

Good man Fuaranach, correcting everyone with your version.

[Deleted User]

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Good man Fuaranach, correcting everyone with your version.

Feel free to produce evidence to contradict it. That's usually how these things work.

Amirani

The Tetrarch wrote: »

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.

Interesting that you say "we" here (a number of other posters have done similar). The rebels weren't really a representative army of a nation, and I'm assuming you didn't take part.

Not having a go, but it's a common turn of phrase when referring to the rising that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

YFlyer

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

In the words of the great Conor Kavanagh, Win or Learn.

Lose or have a plan.

Feisar

pjproby wrote: »

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

Who knows, if Hitler hadn't opened up the second front with Russia would we all be speaking German now?

If, but, maybe.

Feisar

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

My side?

My blood would be every bit as green as yours. The idea is generally to let the other lad die for his country not you for yours. Therefore anyone spouting blood sacrifice is an idiot in my book. Sure there will be casualties in war but the notion of going out for a valiant defeat is nuts. No need to give me an example of a brave last stand, that's not what I'm refering to. You didn't see the likes of Tom Barry bringing the troops out for a slaughter.

Feisar

Amirani wrote: »

Interesting that you say "we" here (a number of other posters have done similar). The rebels weren't really a representative army of a nation, and I'm assuming you didn't take part.

Not having a go, but it's a common turn of phrase when referring to the rising that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

People that have never set foot in Manchester for example say "we" when refering to a football team they support.

I also used the word you in my reponce to another poster above, I doubt s/he actually was there to see it, poor use of English is all it is.

fonecrusher1

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Five years prior in 1911 - King George V was roundly welcomed and applauded by the Irish public.

In Dublin.

Feisar

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Croppies don't wear poppies. Read my post in the below thread, you'll see my opinion of Britain. Save the world from Nazis? Our whole country was a concentration camp at one stage!

Having said the above that doesn't mean I can't make a criticism or must we see our patriots as wonderous figures without fault?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76581935

Edgware

If there had been a national rising as planned instead of the Dublin rising the situation would have been completely different. It is generally agreed that 1916 failed militarily for the following reasons:
1. Failure of Casements delivery of German guns
2. Confusion caused by McNeills countermanding order.
3. Poor communication to the provinces that Dublin was going ahead and the country should rise as well.
4. Military strategy in Dublin re seizure and holding of buildings such as the G.P.O. etc
5. Incompetence by "leaders" such as Markievitz who ordered trenches to be dug in St Stephens Green where Volunteers could be picked off by snipers on the roofs of adjacent high buildings.

Dyr

Redmond was probably responsible for the slaughter of more Irishmen than Cromwell but you'll still have people laud him as a statesman and democrat.

Dyr

Edgware wrote: »

If there had been a national rising as planned instead of the Dublin rising the situation would have been completely different. It is generally agreed that 1916 failed militarily for the following reasons:
1. Failure of Casements delivery of German guns
2. Confusion caused by McNeills countermanding order.
3. Poor communication to the provinces that Dublin was going ahead and the country should rise as well.
4. Military strategy in Dublin re seizure and holding of buildings such as the G.P.O. etc
5. Incompetence by "leaders" such as Markievitz who ordered trenches to be dug in St Stephens Green where Volunteers could be picked off by snipers on the roofs of adjacent high buildings.

The whole thing and the train of subsequent events panned out pretty much as Pearse predicted they would so that's pretty successful

Thomas_IV

corner of hells wrote: »

It's a wonder we didn't win , bearing in mind there was nearly 800,000 alone fighting in the GPO.

If that isn't meant to be ironical, your figures are very much exaggerated.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/how-many-were-really-out-for-easter-rising-1916-1.2261362

After almost 100 years we may at last have the definitive answer to an age-old question - how many were “out” in 1916?

The figure is 2,558 involved on the rebel side, according to the Military Pensions Archive.

I've never heard or read anything in various documentaries and books about that which would prove your numbers right.

Here are the figures of 1911

Dublin city 304,802

Dublin county 172,394

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/people/population/

Dublin City and County put together would even make it just a bit over the half of your figures.

Chips Lovell

It's quite simple.

Anyone who doesn't agree with my version of history is a West Brit.

Feisar

Thomas_IV wrote: »

If that isn't meant to be ironical, your figures are very much exaggerated.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/how-many-were-really-out-for-easter-rising-1916-1.2261362

I've never heard or read anything in various documentaries and books about that which would prove your numbers right.

Here are the figures of 1911

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/people/population/

Dublin City and County put together would even make it just a bit over the half of your figures.

I'd say it's irony, as every second person had a greatgrandad in the GPO:pac:

DS86DS

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

America and Germany would have been more powerful, with France and Russia been about equal.

The only way England was able to become a power was through the age old barrier of the English Channel and setting up colonies in the far flung reaches of the planet.

Louis XIV, Napoleon and the German Kaisers all would have thrashed England if it weren't for the English Channel.

Thomas_IV

Feisar wrote: »

I'd say it's irony, as every second person had a greatgrandad in the GPO:pac:

I thought so, still to put such false figures in a post goes a tad beyond the irony.

Thomas_IV

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's quite simple.

Anyone who doesn't agree with my version of history is a West Brit.

The usual way to sh(o)ut down people with different opinions. It's like to say that to be a true Irisman it needs to hate the Brits, otherwise it's like you said. That way of thinking is really very narrow minded.

whisky_galore

Thomas_IV wrote: »

The usual way to sh(o)ut down people with different opinions. It's like to say that to be a true Irisman it needs to hate the Brits, otherwise it's like you said. That way of thinking is really very narrow minded.

Some critical review of historical figures and events is always needed, otherwise it's just hagiography.

Thomas_IV

whisky_galore wrote: »

Some critical review of historical figures and events is always needed, otherwise it's just hagiography.

Yes it is. Calling someone a 'West-Brit' has some meaning too and isn't probably always right.

whisky_galore

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Yes it is. Calling someone a 'West-Brit' has some meaning too and isn't probably always right.

It's name calling, more suitable for a school playground.

Capt'n Midnight

conorhal wrote: »

I put it to you that if the 338,226 men rescued by that operation had instead been massacred on the beach, the rest of the war would not have gone as well for the British.... so in that regard it was a remarkable stepping stone to success.

Those men didn't stop the German invasion that didn't happen.

And the old chestnut that almost all the German Army casualties were on the Eastern Front and were way higher on both sides. The war in North Africa, Norway , France , Greece etc. was just a side show.