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

DamoDLK

Hope some of ye at least recorded it... YOUTUBE please!

Spiritoftheseventies

The Documentary was very badly done. If they had done a documentary on the Arms trial prefaced by Lynch's famous letter to the Nation would have made better viewing. Haughey only mentioned at the very end. strange.

Jumpy

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magersfontein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colenso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stormberg

It is widely regarded that this particular poorly equipped mob outwitted and outkilled the British Army by use of guerilla warfare, exceptional strike accuracy and superior knowledge of local terrain.

Factors which have led to significant British losses since, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.

Might want to have a look at the battle of Long Tan then.

Its completely the opposite.

Morpheus

This is quite simply the funniest thread Ive read...

I honestly didnt think there were republican neanderthals of this calibre still alive!!!

Keep it going, this is way too much fun to read.

On a serious note, I believe that the poster who wrote - that the plan was probably to temporarily occupy those border towns and move people out who volunteered to be moved to the comparitive safety of the republic, hopefully without shooting anyone - hit the nail on the head.

Please also, IDF is used to refer to the Israeli Defence Forces not the Irish Army.

mike65

DamoDLK wrote: »

Hope some of ye at least recorded it... YOUTUBE please!

Its on the RTE iplayer

http://www.rte.ie/player/

spank_inferno

the show was ok, I didnt like the fake dramatic shakey camera work (in areas where it wasnt required - eg: Keelin Shanley walking outside the Dail shakeeee )

Thankfully smarter heads prevailed at the cabinet table back in 69
I didnt know the RAF had the Harrier back then? That plane must be ancient?

SEPT 23 1989

the scream of a low flying jet ended any hopes of an Irish Army victory:)

toiletduck

Was surprised they omitted to include the re-enactment battle. Through the use of some special software, two commanders from the time (Irish and British) detailed how the battle would unfold and directed the armies in the fiedl. Still for anyone interested, it can be seen here

McArmalite

Well I didn't see the programme as experience has taught me that when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line, especially the north where I hardly think of one single programme that criticised govt policy sharply.If Lynch had sent the army in the north, even just to take Newry or Derry, it would have forced what they call an international incident, undoubtably provoking UN intervention, most likely at the behest of America. But there seems to be an acceptance by many here of the programmes conclusion that britian would then have unleashed all out war on the country.

If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. It would have had the full backing of the International community, the USA especially - just like Eygpt had in Suez and Iceland in the Cod War* in the 1970's when britain humilated themselves. And not just Irish America, the plight of the Civil Rights marches etc obviously had huge resonations across the American public. If you think the Americans care a damn about the british why did they invade Grenada without even informing them - no Royal Marines dashing over to fight the US Marines. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

* For those of you too young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

But as I said, when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line - or lie should I say

pablomakaveli

Morphéus wrote: »

Please also, IDF is used to refer to the Israeli Defence Forces not the Irish Army.

Our army is known as the Irish Defence Forces. (when spoken of in English).

I think RTE read too much into these plans. It would'nt be unusual for armies to have strategies and plans developed for different situations or emergencies.

Just because these plans exist does'nt mean there is a serious intent to use them.

mike65

spank_inferno wrote: »

the show was ok, I didnt like the fake dramatic shakey camera work (in areas where it wasnt required - eg: Keelin Shanley walking outside the Dail shakeeee )

Thankfully smarter heads prevailed at the cabinet table back in 69
I didnt know the RAF had the Harrier back then? That plane must be ancient?

It went into service in 1967

mike65

McArmalite wrote: »

Well I didn't see the programme as experience has taught me that when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line, especially the north where I hardly think of one single programme that criticised govt policy sharply.If Lynch had sent the army in the north, even just to take Newry or Derry, it would have forced what they call an international incident, undoubtably provoking UN intervention, most likely at the behest of America. But there seems to be an acceptance by many here of the programmes conclusion that britian would then have unleashed all out war on the country.

If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. It would have had the full backing of the International community, the USA especially - just like Eygpt had in Suez and Iceland in the Cod War* in the 1970's when britain humilated themselves. And not just Irish America, the plight of the Civil Rights marches etc obviously had huge resonations across the American public. If you think the Americans care a damn about the british why did they invade Grenada without even informing them - no Royal Marines dashing over to fight the US Marines. Internationally britian was seen of course as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

As was pointed out in the programme you didn't see a basic tentant of the UN foundation was the concept of territorial integrity, an "invasion" would run directly against that. Something that wasn't mentioned was that the UK is a permenant member of the UN security council. Even if this conflagration got the attention of the UN the USA would have backed Britain, the French would mumble something or other and then back Britain, USSR and China would sit on thier hands.

asdasd

Our army is known as the Irish Defence Forces. (when spoken of in English).

Of course, but dont expect a deracinated right-on member of the AngloSphere to know that. He hears more about the Israeli Defence Forces so he feels the need to sneer that the IDF only applies to them.

Ah, I remember the days* when the right-ons were more hiberian than the rest of us and burned down the British Embassy. Now the cool thing is to bang around on the faux-ethnic drum,decry nationalism, and still manage to intermarry and live amongst your own white a D4 tribe.

* I dont remember them personally. But I know they happened :-)

Reflector

The show was hilarious, all the camera work focusing then unfocusing then zooming in to your ones mouth and out again had me in stiches or zooming in to something over her shoulder for no reason.
Also calling it Excercise Armageddon and they had 120 soldiers at their disposal, a little bit of an over statement maybe "operation lets stick one to the brits for the craic" would have been more appropriate.
If it had happened I'd say there would have been a lot more sectarian violence up north and maybe down south as well with the minority prodestant population being victims of attack. We certainly wouldn't be where we are now and bloody hell thank god the goverment weren't stupid enough to do it.

It is interesting though to wonder

how Would the southern general population have reacted?, would the IRA have been a much bigger organisation attacking the british mainland more often? and would we have had british soldiers in DUblin?

DamoDLK

mike65 wrote: »

Its on the RTE iplayer

http://www.rte.ie/player/

Doesn't work in Australia..:mad:

mike65

I'm sure it'll be youtubed by some poltical nerd quick enough.

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

Well I didn't see the programme as experience has taught me that when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line, especially the north where I hardly think of one single programme that criticised govt policy sharply.If Lynch had sent the army in the north, even just to take Newry or Derry, it would have forced what they call an international incident, undoubtably provoking UN intervention, most likely at the behest of America. But there seems to be an acceptance by many here of the programmes conclusion that britian would then have unleashed all out war on the country.

If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. It would have had the full backing of the International community, the USA especially - just like Eygpt had in Suez and Iceland in the Cod War* in the 1970's when britain humilated themselves. And not just Irish America, the plight of the Civil Rights marches etc obviously had huge resonations across the American public. If you think the Americans care a damn about the british why did they invade Grenada without even informing them - no Royal Marines dashing over to fight the US Marines. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

* For those of you too young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

But as I said, when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line - or lie should I say

granada ,has been a independent country since 1979, in 1982 a coup by the revolutionary military council[communist] . had the goverment leaders executed .in 1974 the usa invaded the country with other caribbean [commonwealth countrys] and the 1974 constitution reinstated, so tell me how the UK was humiliated ?

Hagar

No Trolling - next troll post will earn a ban.

McArmalite

mike65 wrote: »

As was pointed out in the programme you didn't see a basic tentant of the UN foundation was the concept of territorial integrity, an "invasion" would run directly against that. Something that wasn't mentioned was that the UK is a permenant member of the UN security council. Even if this conflagration got the attention of the UN the USA would have backed Britain, the French would mumble something or other and then back Britain, USSR and China would sit on thier hands.

" As was pointed out in the programme you didn't see a basic tentant of the UN foundation was the concept of territorial integrity, an "invasion" would run directly against that. " If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

" Something that wasn't mentioned was that the UK is a permenant member of the UN security council. " Yes it is, but when Uncle Sam says jump, britian asks How high. Just like in the Suez crisis.


" the USA would have backed Britain, " Did the USA back them during the Suez Crisis or when Iceland* cut the nets of britsh trawlers, rammed and fired missiles the Royal Navy, and burned down the british embassy in Reykjavík - technically british soil ?

The USSR and China would have jumped at the chance to see an old imperial power humiliated. The French wouldn't have given a toss about the welfare of britian and as stated, the Irish army going into the north wouldn't been seen as an ' invasion ' but of a concerned govt going to the rescue of people facing destruction. International opinion had seen britain as the imperial bully that had created the secterian apartheid state - and indeed a very correct opinion.

(* Iceland, pop.250,000 and a tiny navy of 2 ships and a few gun patrol boats. But then their govt isn't like the servile, submissive Gombeens that we have as an excuse for Govt. )

DamoDLK

DamoDLK wrote: »

Doesn't work in Australia..:mad:

http://foxyproxy.mozdev.org/

twinytwo

darkman2 wrote: »

I agree with the authors thoughts however he has left out the crucial asspect of international opinion at the time. The Americans were supportive of UN troops being put into the North but could not commit because this might lead to "Chinese and Russian troops in the Southern States as peacekeepers".

Regardless any invasion, even if we had the capability at the time, would have disasterous. A documentary on this intriguing document is to be shown on RTE tomorrow.

If an invasion actually happened imagine what this country would be like today.....also is it realistic to expect the British would simply have left it at removing the "aggressors" from the North and not invaded the Republic!?

damn straight.. i love my country and all but if he had sent our troops in against battle hardened paras and marines.. the result dosent even need thinking about

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

" As was pointed out in the programme you didn't see a basic tentant of the UN foundation was the concept of territorial integrity, an "invasion" would run directly against that. " If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

" Something that wasn't mentioned was that the UK is a permenant member of the UN security council. " Yes it is, but when Uncle Sam says jump, britian asks How high. Just like in the Suez crisis.


" the USA would have backed Britain, " Did the USA back them during the Suez Crisis or when Iceland* cut the nets of britsh trawlers, rammed and fired missiles the Royal Navy, and burned down the british embassy in Reykjavík - technically british soil ?

The USSR and China would have jumped at the chance to see an old imperial power humiliated. The French wouldn't have given a toss about the welfare of britian and as stated, the Irish army going into the north wouldn't been seen as an ' invasion ' but of a concerned govt going to the rescue of people facing destruction. International opinion had seen britain as the imperial bully that had created the secterian apartheid state - and indeed a very correct opinion.

(* Iceland, pop.250,000 and a tiny navy of 2 ships and a few gun patrol boats. But then their govt isn't like the servile, submissive Gombeens that we have as an excuse for Govt. )

Have you ever thought of making it 250,001?:P

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

" the USA would have backed Britain, " Did the USA back them during the Suez Crisis or when Iceland* cut the nets of britsh trawlers, rammed british and fired missiles the Royal Navy, and byurned down the british embassy in Reykjavík - technically british soil ?

The USSR and China would have jumped at the chance to see an old imperial power humiliated.

(* Iceland, pop.250,000 and a tiny navy of 2 ships and a few gun patrol boats. But then their govt isn't like the servile, submissive Gombeens that we have as an excuse for Govt. )

i would have found it hard to believe that the USSR who hated the irish republic enough to reject irelands earlier application to join the UN,[because of its passed natzi connections] would do a somersault and back a republics act of war another european country, if in the realms of fantasy, russia or china had backed the republics cause,the USA would have backed the british to the hilt, remember what happened with ussrs involvement in cuba ? the americans hate of the communists at that time was immense. as a merchant seaman traveling to the states was a nightmare,when docking in the usa we were always [at any time] dragged out of bed and fingerprinted and photographed,and we were the allies.

whadabouchasir

McArmalite wrote: »

" . Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

I really don't accept your point that britain would not have attacked the irish army.I think they would have reacted just like they did in the falklands.In this war Britain recieved almost unilateral support from its allies even though the Falklands much like the north probably shouldn't be part of the UK at all.Also the british government would come under huge pressure from unionists in the north as well as the hardline colonialists in Britain who would not take to kindly to an invasion at all.I think that britain would want to assert its authority and would do so by kicking our ass.I think that they would recieve quite a lot of support because in reality all we would have been doing is invading another country to protect British civilians who we claim to be our own because of an internal british dispute which really had nothing to do with us.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

Well I didn't see the programme as experience has taught me that when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line, especially the north where I hardly think of one single programme that criticised govt policy sharply.If Lynch had sent the army in the north, even just to take Newry or Derry, it would have forced what they call an international incident, undoubtably provoking UN intervention, most likely at the behest of America. But there seems to be an acceptance by many here of the programmes conclusion that britian would then have unleashed all out war on the country.

If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. It would have had the full backing of the International community, the USA especially - just like Eygpt had in Suez and Iceland in the Cod War* in the 1970's when britain humilated themselves. And not just Irish America, the plight of the Civil Rights marches etc obviously had huge resonations across the American public. If you think the Americans care a damn about the british why did they invade Grenada without even informing them - no Royal Marines dashing over to fight the US Marines. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

* For those of you too young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

But as I said, when it comes to important political documentary's the cronies that run RTE always push the govt line - or lie should I say

The Icelandic conflict was a completely different kettle of fish!, it was about fishing rights not territory and populations.

As for the UN, All sovereign states have the automatic rights to defend their territory when invaded by foreign forces. The US of course occasionally break that particular rule themselves. Ireland would have been seen as aggressors even if only a token force was used!

The speech also gave false hopes to republicans, who upped the violence in the expectation that they would be soon relieved by the imminent invasion!

DamoDLK

Deleted User wrote: »

http://foxyproxy.mozdev.org/

LEGEND! :pac:

wilson10

m@cc@ wrote: »

What crap! No one won the NI conflict. What was won was for Nationalist/Catholics to be treated like human beings with a right to not live in fear from the British army or those working for them. We now have the right to vote, the right to own land and the right to compete with Protestants for jobs on an even footing.
This would have been a dream in 1969. Any claims to territory really mean **** all in comparison to what has been achieved in the past 40 years.

Those dreams of 1969 were a reality by 1972. The civil rights movement had achieved it's aims.

So what wasd the thirty odd years war and the three and a half thousand deaths all about.

pablomakaveli

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Our army is known as the Irish Defence Forces. (when spoken of in English).

I think RTE read too much into these plans. It would'nt be unusual for armies to have strategies and plans developed for different situations or emergencies.

Just because these plans exist does'nt mean there is a serious intent to use them.

It would have been interesting to have seen the remainder of the reports, i.e. the likely outcomes to such plans, any decent military planning would also include possible consequences to any actions carried out.

Not forgetting the "what next!"

mike65

McArmalite wrote: »

The USSR and China would have jumped at the chance to see an old imperial power humiliated. The French wouldn't have given a toss about the welfare of britian and as stated, the Irish army going into the north wouldn't been seen as an ' invasion ' but of a concerned govt going to the rescue of people facing destruction. International opinion had seen britain as the imperial bully that had created the secterian apartheid state - and indeed a very correct opinion.

China was in the grip of the "Cultural Revolution" a programme that resulted in mass murder, as people starved in the countryside. I doubt Mao would have been inclined to make any noises about protecting human rights in a tiny country on the far side of the world.

The Soviet Union likewise would not have been interested, Ireland an irrelevence to them. France would be mindful of its own territorial integrity with respect to the Basque movement. the USA although rebuffed by Wilson over Vietnam might still want on keep them onside regarding that war.

Mind you all this is by the bye as every permenent member of the Secuity Council has a veto, if a vote had been taken (unlikely) it would count for nothing.

twinytwo

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I really don't accept your point that britain would not have attacked the irish army.I think they would have reacted just like they did in the falklands.In this war Britain recieved almost unilateral support from its allies even though the Falklands much like the north probably shouldn't be part of the UK at all.Also the british government would come under huge pressure from unionists in the north as well as the hardline colonialists in Britain who would not take to kindly to an invasion at all.I think that britain would want to assert its authority and would do so by kicking our ass.I think that they would recieve quite a lot of support because in reality all we would have been doing is invading another country to protect British civilians who we claim to be our own because of an internal british dispute which really had nothing to do with us.

And thats after they sailed half way around the world... so imagine what they would do if they only had to cross the channel