If 1916 had been a success..

bear1 · 15-01-2019 1:32pm #1

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?

Woke Hogan · 15-01-2019 1:35pm

I'm not a pessimist but 1916 would never have been a success.

15-01-2019 1:38pm

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

GBX · 15-01-2019 1:42pm

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

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

Who is this Conor Kavanagh fella? Did he fight in the 1916 or 1921 ?

Tombo2001 · 15-01-2019 1:43pm

In contrast to my colleague Woke Hogan, I would ask - was it not a success?

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

Five years later in 1921 - Ireland was an independent Free State following the Anglo Irish Treaty.

corner of hells · 15-01-2019 1:45pm

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

Mr. Incognito · 15-01-2019 1:45pm

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

It would never have been a success.

It took years of gureilla warfare to bring them to the negotiating table

RMAOK · 15-01-2019 1:46pm

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In contrast to my colleague Woke Hogan, I would ask - was it not a success?

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

Five years later in 1921 - Ireland was an independent Free State following the Anglo Irish Treaty.

Public opinion was against it up until they leaders were executed - they probably wouldn't have been able to change public opinion too much had they just been imprisoned.

whisky_galore · 15-01-2019 1:49pm

RMAOK wrote: »

Public opinion was against it up until they leaders were executed - they probably wouldn't have been able to change public opinion too much had they just been imprisoned.

Can't see how it could have been any other way, during a War and all. Men had been shot at dawn for far less in the trenches.

Dyr · 15-01-2019 1:49pm

It was a success, it achieved what it's architect set out to achieve

Feisar · 15-01-2019 1:50pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

It would never have been a success.

It took years of gureilla warfare to bring them to the negotiating table

The War of Independance 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.

bear1 · 15-01-2019 1:51pm

Bambi wrote: »

It was a success, it achieved what it's architect set out to achieve

Was it though? I mean leaving aside the 5 years till independence but wasn't their plan to hold out for weeks so that the world would come to their aid and help?
If 1916 was a success there and then would the 6 counties have still remained British?
Genuinely curious.

sbsquarepants · 15-01-2019 1:52pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I'm not a pessimist but 1916 would never have been a success.

Pass many union jacks on your way to work this morning did you?

It was of course a success, didn't go exactly the way it was intended i'll grant you, but 5 years later Ireland is an independent country, that certainly wouldn't have happened without the rising.

rossie1977 · 15-01-2019 1:52pm

RMAOK wrote: »

Public opinion was against it up until they leaders were executed - they probably wouldn't have been able to change public opinion too much had they just been imprisoned.

Militarily it was awful. They picked the wrong targets. The first thing they should have done was fortify Dublin port and Heuston/Connolly/Pearse stations making access into the city much more difficult.

The British response in the aftermath was even worse obviously. Executing the leaders turned them into martyrs and public opinion against the British.

Edgware · 15-01-2019 1:56pm

bear1 wrote: »

Was it though? I mean leaving aside the 5 years till independence but wasn't their plan to hold out for weeks so that the world would come to their aid and help?
If 1916 was a success there and then would the 6 counties have still remained British?
Genuinely curious.

It couldnt have been a success because with over a million unionists who had the military back of the British and their own U.V.F. would have led to Civil War.

JohnnyFlash · 15-01-2019 1:58pm

Fuaranach is preparing an essay as we speak.

RMAOK · 15-01-2019 2:04pm

[QUOTE=rossie1977;109146749The British response in the aftermath was even worse obviously. Executing the leaders turned them into martyrs and public opinion against the British.[/QUOTE]

It also caused a problem for the thousands of Irish men who fought in the war - some felt it was their duty while others fought on the John Redmond idea of winning home rule for Ireland after the war. They left Ireland with lots of public support, but when they returned they were nearly afraid to speak of the war given how much public opinion had turned against the British

troyzer · 15-01-2019 2:11pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

It would never have been a success.

It took years of gureilla warfare to bring them to the negotiating table

No, it wasn't. Not even close.

_Brian · 15-01-2019 2:15pm

Was it not staged as a demonstration to raise awareness to the Irish people. There people gave their lives knowing “success” wasn’t beating the British at the GPO but rather lighting a fire in the irish people, in that sense it was a success.

Feisar · 15-01-2019 2:17pm

_Brian wrote: »

Was it not staged as a demonstration to raise awareness to the Irish people. There people gave their lives knowing “success” wasn’t beating the British at the GPO but rather lighting a fire in the irish people, in that sense it was a success.

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

ancapailldorcha · 15-01-2019 2:17pm

1916 was intended to be a blood sacrifice. In that regard, it was a success.

Eggs For Dinner · 15-01-2019 2:18pm

Bambi wrote: »

It was a success, it achieved what it's architect set out to achieve

A success for the architect does not make it a success for the country

bnt · 15-01-2019 2:21pm

There had already been an attempt to introduce Home Rule in Ireland, but Unionist opposition meant that the history books now call it the Home Rule Crisis of 1912-14. The start of WW1 meant that the question had to go on the back burner. So, even if the rebels had met their goals in 1916, they would have ran in to a Unionist buzzsaw had they tried to do anything that involved Ulster. The mere possibility of being ruled by Dublin triggered the formation of paramilitary groups up there to fight it. It would have led to war between Dublin and Belfast.

Grayson · 15-01-2019 2:21pm

bear1 wrote: »

Was it though? I mean leaving aside the 5 years till independence but wasn't their plan to hold out for weeks so that the world would come to their aid and help?
If 1916 was a success there and then would the 6 counties have still remained British?
Genuinely curious.

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.

However after the executions public opinion swayed. It could be argued that rather than it being Pearse's actions, it was the british actions which made independance possible 5 years later.

And of course if you asked the actual volunteers they would have told you that they were going to win. Pearse never told them that they were going out to the slaughter.

Woke Hogan · 15-01-2019 2:23pm

I suppose the lads who think 1916 was a success think Dunkerque was similarly a victory for the British because they later won the war. Try explaining how much of a success it was to those soldiers' grieving parents.

_Brian · 15-01-2019 2:28pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I suppose the lads who think 1916 was a success think Dunkerque was similarly a victory for the British because they later won the war. Try explaining how much of a success it was to those soldiers' grieving parents.

No,
I think they entered the Dunkirk escapade with a plan to win even a slim chance. 1916 on the other hand never had a chance or plan to beat the British forces.

Explaining soldiers deaths is always easy.
Soldiers fight in wars with the intent of killing soldiers on the other side, you roll the dice, sometimes you win - sometimes you loose.

Any soldier going to an active war zone know full well that the other side are out to kill them and their death is possible and often likely.

whisky_galore · 15-01-2019 2:39pm

Another huge own goal for the British was Frongoch.

They might have well put a sign over it saying 'University of Insurgency" over the door.

conorhal · 15-01-2019 3:18pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I suppose the lads who think 1916 was a success think Dunkerque was similarly a victory for the British because they later won the war. Try explaining how much of a success it was to those soldiers' grieving parents.

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.

Mad_maxx · 15-01-2019 3:20pm

troyzer wrote: »

No, it wasn't. Not even close.

In 1916?

It absolutely was

Mad_maxx · 15-01-2019 3:24pm

bnt wrote: »

There had already been an attempt to introduce Home Rule in Ireland, but Unionist opposition meant that the history books now call it the Home Rule Crisis of 1912-14. The start of WW1 meant that the question had to go on the back burner. So, even if the rebels had met their goals in 1916, they would have ran in to a Unionist buzzsaw had they tried to do anything that involved Ulster. The mere possibility of being ruled by Dublin triggered the formation of paramilitary groups up there to fight it. It would have led to war between Dublin and Belfast.

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

troyzer · 15-01-2019 3:27pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

In 1916?

It absolutely was

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.

If 1916 had been a success..

Comments