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

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.

Dinter

Happy Monday wrote: »

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.

This is way off my point now but basically to recap:

1) Ireland attacks Northern Ireland with a conventional raid ostensibly to help civilians as well as untraceable, unconventional attacks to cause disruption by targeting the public broadcasters.

2) As nobody could possibly imagine that Ireland would win there is some weight for this being a "blood sacrifice" operation.

3) Although I find it highly doubtful if America were to allow the UK a free hand to do what it likes to repay Ireland's temerity there would definitely be condemnation from the UN from both China and Russia.

4) Were Ireland to ask for international peace keepers to maintain their sovereignty or indeed international aid there are any number of rogue states that would be only too happy to lend a hand.

5) This leads me to imagine that the UK would never get in this situation because not being stupid, they would have allowed the Irish to go in and evacuate "their" civilians unopposed and prevented anything other than a fairly minor diplomatic row occurring.

6) My whole point is that just because the UK had the capability to destroy the Irish Army they would still have been loathe to do it due to the repercussions which, back in the height of the cold war, would be severe.

Anyway it's only a hypothesis and I've enjoyed myself so well, that's it really.

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

This is way off my point now but basically to recap:

1) Ireland attacks Northern Ireland with a conventional raid ostensibly to help civilians as well as untraceable, unconventional attacks to cause disruption by targeting the public broadcasters.

2) As nobody could possibly imagine that Ireland would win there is some weight for this being a "blood sacrifice" operation.

3) Although I find it highly doubtful if America were to allow the UK a free hand to do what it likes to repay Ireland's temerity there would definitely be condemnation from the UN from both China and Russia.

4) Were Ireland to ask for international peace keepers to maintain their sovereignty or indeed international aid there are any number of rogue states that would be only too happy to lend a hand.

5) This leads me to imagine that the UK would never get in this situation because not being stupid, they would have allowed the Irish to go in and evacuate "their" civilians unopposed and prevented anything other than a fairly minor diplomatic row occurring.

6) My whole point is that just because the UK had the capability to destroy the Irish Army they would still have been loathe to do it due to the repercussions which, back in the height of the cold war, would be severe.

Anyway it's only a hypothesis and I've enjoyed myself so well, that's it really.

I respect your right to your opinion but I think the premise upon which you have based your argument is flawed.

The USSR had invaded Czechslovakia in 1968 because it wanted to assert itself more independently - and, the Western powers were unable or unwilling to intervene to stop this from happening as they were aware that any action in that part of the world would provoke a serious reponse from the USSR.

Similarly, any action taken to ensure the integrity of the UK's borders may have been condemnded by the USSR but no action would ever have been taken to stop it. The US - Nixon as a WASP - would have supported the right of Britain to defend its borders and the conflict in the North would have worsened.

No other state would ever be allowed to intervene.

Dinter

I'm not imagining the USSR invading. It's not Red Dawn. I'm saying the Republic could legally invite UN sanctioned troops to monitor its situation. If these troops are Russian or Chinese so what? It doesn't matter how the UK or the US feel about this, it is international law.

Now having this as a basis does anyone really believe that the US would allow the UK to develop a situation were that might become a reality? Of course not which means there is no way the UK is going to crush the Irish as other posters have asserted. Nations are pragmatic and it would gain them nothing so it won't happen.

Also I don't for one moment envision some Soviet Irish alliance to retake the North. However I do think there were far more opportunities for political wheeling and dealing when there were two superpowers.

anonymous_joe

Dinter wrote: »

I'm not imagining the USSR invading. It's not Red Dawn. I'm saying the Republic could legally invite UN sanctioned troops to monitor its situation. If these troops are Russian or Chinese so what? It doesn't matter how the UK or the US feel about this, it is international law.

Now having this as a basis does anyone really believe that the US would allow the UK to develop a situation were that might become a reality? Of course not which means there is no way the UK is going to crush the Irish as other posters have asserted. Nations are pragmatic and it would gain them nothing so it won't happen.

Also I don't for one moment envision some Soviet Irish alliance to retake the North. However I do think there were far more opportunities for political wheeling and dealing when there were two superpowers.

Oh yeah, the UN could really stand up to the UK and America. :pac:

wes

Wow, what a supremely insane idea. While, I can understand the anger that motivated the idea, the taught of invading the North is pretty out there. Glad they didn't go through with it in the end, it would have been a major cluster f**k.

Dinter

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Oh yeah, the UN could really stand up to the UK and America. :pac:

Oh yeah I can just imagine America and the UK attacking the UN. What would they do? Maybe bomb their offices in New York? Ooh that'd teach 'em. But wait. It's in America so America would have to strike back against. . . America. Maybe they should instead try for a pre-emptive strike against the UK as soon as they learn America and the UK are going to bomb America or maybe they should refer the whole thing to the UN for deliberation.

:rolleyes:

Christ, what do you think the UN does?

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

Christ, what do you think the UN does?

The point he was making was that the UN as a body was controlled by the US and UK both of which were permanent security council members. Red China wasn't in the UN for a long time and the USSR had less influence. I mean whenever did the troubles come up for discussion as a UN hot spot in the 1970s or 80s or 90s.

K-9

Look, CJH backed this idea!

Need I say more?

dan719

F*ck I've changed my mind. Operation blood sacrifice is a go. Anyone who thought this was a good idea, now, forty years onwards is as good a time as any. Go overrun those dirty tans. I salute you. May there be many virgins waiting for you in paradise.

No, I'll stay here thanks.

anonymous_joe

Dinter wrote: »

Oh yeah I can just imagine America and the UK attacking the UN. What would they do? Maybe bomb their offices in New York? Ooh that'd teach 'em. But wait. It's in America so America would have to strike back against. . . America. Maybe they should instead try for a pre-emptive strike against the UK as soon as they learn America and the UK are going to bomb America or maybe they should refer the whole thing to the UN for deliberation.

:rolleyes:

Christ, what do you think the UN does?

Ehm, the UN would have no power whatsoever without America or the UK.

Had a small country attacked one of America's oldest allies, and a crucial one in the Cold War, they wouldn't have stopped them retaliating at all. In fact, they'd probably have put enormous pressure on us to backdown so that Britain could step in and prevent genocide up North.

darkman2

dan719 wrote: »

F*ck I've changed my mind. Operation blood sacrifice is a go. Anyone who thought this was a good idea, now, forty years onwards is as good a time as any. Go overrun those dirty tans. I salute you. May there be many virgins waiting for you in paradise.

No, I'll stay here thanks.

We are quite capable of invading the entire North today and holding out for a much longer period then in 1969. I don't support such a move because we have no excuse.......yet.

dan719

darkman2 wrote: »

We are quite capable of invading the entire North today and holding out for a much longer period then in 1969. I don't support such a move because we have no excuse.......yet.

It is true. It would take the British Army at least a week to mobilise troops from Afghanistan and then the like. Of course, those boys are a little bit more battle-hardened then most of the Irish Defence Forces so I still don't fancy our chances. And the fact it would take at most fifteen minutes for us to be bombed right back to the 'summer of 69'.


Just out of interest, what excuse would you have to invade the north?

anonymous_joe

dan719 wrote: »

It is true. It would take the British Army at least a week to mobilise troops from Afghanistan and then the like. Of course, those boys are a little bit more battle-hardened then most of the Irish Defence Forces so I still don't fancy our chances. And the fact it would take at most fifteen minutes for us to be bombed right back to the 'summer of 69'.


Just out of interest, what excuse would you have to invade the north?

Wouldn't a massive chunk of them be in England anyway?

jill_valentine

So that we can finally steal their postcodes and order things online more conveniently? Their precious, precious postcodes?

dan719

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Wouldn't a massive chunk of them be in England anyway?

Ask Darkman 2. He is the man with the plan.;)

I would assume that in a war time scenario, the number of soldiers in the UK itself would be greatly lessened. However all airbases would be fully operational, as would the UK's arsenal of nuclear submarines. Perhaps a week was being a little optimisitc.:o

darkman2

dan719 wrote: »

And the fact it would take at most fifteen minutes for us to be bombed right back to the 'summer of 69'.


Just out of interest, what excuse would you have to invade the north?

Unionist behaviour like in 1969 - oh and we actually have modern anti aircraft weapons now believe it or not. It's not perfect but it is modern and we have tanks and apcs and technology we did not have in 1969 - we even have drones now ffs. We could hold those 6 counties for a while - maybe weeks in a full British assault. And we have democrats back in the White House - maybe we should invade now....:D;)

dan719

darkman2 wrote: »

Unionist behaviour like in 1969 - oh and we actually have modern anti aircraft weapons now believe it or not. It's not perfect but it is modern and we have tanks and apcs and technology we did not have in 1969 - we even have drones now ffs. We could hold those 6 counties for a while - maybe weeks in a full British assault. And we have democrats back in the White House - maybe we should invade now....:D;)

Hell yeah I mean with Special Forces like these, the Brits wouldn't have a chance.
I know this is a joke, but I really hope you don't believe that the Brits would be held for any more then three days in an all out offensive?

darkman2

dan719 wrote: »

Hell yeah I mean with Special Forces like these, the Brits wouldn't have a chance.
I know this is a joke, but I really hope you don't believe that the Brits would be held for any more then three days in an all out offensive?

http://www.military.ie/army/ranger/index.htm

Corrected that for you. 3 days!? It would be longer then that. A few weeks. Could be longer if Nationalist support was strong enough in the North.


I think my premise is realistic today. It would not have been in 1969.

dan719

darkman2 wrote: »

http://www.military.ie/army/ranger/index.htm

Corrected that for you. 3 days!? It would be longer then that. A few weeks. Could be longer if Nationalist support was strong enough in the North.


I think my premise is realistic today. It would not have been in 1969.

Let's not turn this into a pissing contest. The IDF has total personel of 22,000 including reserves. The British Army has 150,000. That is before one includes the navy and airforce, as well as superior technology, weapons, and so on and so forth. Althought there is no doubt a guerilla warfare campaign would stretch for many years, any pretence at 'holding the country' is merely fantasy. I also question the sanity of invading any country which has gone nuclear so to speak.

darkman2

dan719 wrote: »

Let's not turn this into a pissing contest. The IDF has total personel of 22,000 including reserves. The British Army has 150,000.

So what? Whether Britian is Nuclear or not they would be suicidal to ever use one of their bombs. Fact is the Defence Forces know the terrain and public atmosphere of this country. The British don't. We would hold the 6 counties for a few weeks but we would be depending then on political developments elsewhere. I have absolutely no doubt that the defence force could hold all six counties for weeks. (Bare in mind we have greater numbers of infantry here atm). If a full mobilisation of British forces was evident in the North now then - no - it would be border counties held for a few days!

But the equipment and standards of our defence force has improved dramatically. 1969? You cannot compare now with then.

dan719

darkman2 wrote: »

So what? Whether Britian is Nuclear or not they would be suicidal to ever use one of their bombs. Fact is the Defence Forces know the terrain and public atmosphere of this country. The British don't. We would hold the 6 counties for a few weeks but we would be depending then on political developments elsewhere. I have absolutely no doubt that the defence force could hold all six counties for weeks. (Bare in mind we have greater numbers of infantry here atm). If a full mobilisation of British forces was evident in the North now then - no - it would be border counties held for a few days!

But the equipment and standards of our defence force has improved dramatically. 1969? You cannot compare now with then.

So the Army that was in the North doesn't know the terrain of the six counties, while the Defence Forces, which afaik have never been in South Armagh on exercises know it to such an extent that they hold an advantage over the BA?

Eh Britian is like there. Like right there. As I said, the IDF would hold the North for the week it took for full mobilisation of infantry troops. And if you actually look at the IDF equipment, you'll see quite a lot of the weaponary is the same as 1969, and our navy is the Brits 'hand me downs'. I don't see why this is such an issue tbh. You admit that we could never take it by force, yet you still see this as a reasonable approach at some undetermined time in the future? Why? Of what benefit would the blood sacrifice be? Why bother?

P.S An invasion of Britain, would IMHO justify any and all retaliation against the Republic. War is war, and fifteen minutes after Irish troops walked into the north every major city in Ireland would be ablaze. Still seem like a good idea?

darkman2

Who said anything about invading Britain? Im talking about the Northern part of this country.....not Britain. Your getting your words mixed up there. We are talking about the North - and if the Unionists somehow get the powers they had in 1969 to do what they were doing then you would be one of the first saying we should do something about it. Murders, house burnings and gerrymandering was their policy - not ours. Are we suppose to stand by and watch that happen again? That is the mentality of Unionists. You obviously don't understand them. It is precisely the reason majority government is not allowed up there now. That is, frankly, because of Irish America and us - not Britain. So we have achieved alot. If Britain had it's way for the last decade things would still be the same.

Montyman

Might be a while ago but don’t for the Irish people took on the might of the British in a time when the same was said about equipment and troop numbers and Won The Free State.......:D

dan719

darkman2 wrote: »

Who said anything about invading Britain? Im talking about the Northern part of this country.....not Britain. Your getting your words mixed up there. We are talking about the North - and if the Unionists somehow get the powers they had in 1969 to do what they were doing then you would be one of the first saying we should do something about it. Murders, house burnings and gerrymandering was their policy - not ours. Are we suppose to stand by and watch that happen again? That is the mentality of Unionists. You obviously don't understand them. It is precisely the reason majority government is not allowed up there now. That is, frankly, because of Irish America and us - not Britain. So we have achieved alot.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ruled by her majesty the Queen, and up until recently the major area of operations for the British Army. As in, your claim that the IDF would have superior local knowledge of terrain, and so on, is utter sh*te, along with your outdated belief system.

All unionists know is murdering, house burning and gerrymandering? What kind of a ridiculous generalisation is that? One could just as easily say that republicans were nothing more than robbing, gardai murdering, intimidating scum?

Why are people like you so determined to revert back to the us and them mentality? And to tell me that I don't understand unionists. Have you ever seen a family member have a gun put to his head by special branch walking across chelsea bridge after the Heathrow bombings? Or been spat at for being a mick? How about travelled on the tube one tram up from one the IRA decided to blow up? Or detained in Heathrow airport while going for a connecting flight?

If I had my way I would quite happily cut off NI from this island and ye can all f*ck right off and do what you like to one another. Anyone who wants to just get on with life is more then welcome in the republic or mainland britain. Gob****es who still jerk off to the thought of invading the North or getting one over on the Brits. Well then go invade it yourselves.

waitinforatrain

I don't understand people describing this divide as Protestant/Catholic any more. We're not ruled by the church any longer. It's a Loyalist/Republican thing. I know they've become kind of synonymous with each other for historical reasons, but stop and think for a moment before describing the enemy as the Protestants.

Manic Moran

oh and we actually have modern anti aircraft weapons now believe it or not.

What does the DF have that will stop a Tornado from dropping a bomb at 20,000 feet? Unless the DF have been shopping when I've not been looking, I don't think there's anything more capable than a PC-9 pilot with more courage than sense.

NTM

A Primal Nut

I haven't read through all 16 pages but there is no mention in the original post what the objective was. Was it to literally take back northern ireland? Seems a bit ambitious. Or fight for civil rights?

biko

Seems like a good plan still.
I say we attack at the end of the month.

Capt'n Midnight

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".

The UK would have used their security council veto to block any UN action.

DublinWriter

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I haven't read through all 16 pages but there is no mention in the original post what the objective was. Was it to literally take back northern ireland? Seems a bit ambitious. Or fight for civil rights?

It would seem the original intention was to stop Catholics getting killed.

I find it depressing that these type of debates usually descent into typical misty dew-eyed 'Brits-Out' nationalism; the belief that rainbows would have suddenly appeared and all would have been well had the British ceded control of Northern Ireland to the government of the Republic.

The truth is, even had the British withdrawn, there's approximately 600,000 people indigenous to Northern Ireland who consider themselves British.

The question the 'Brits-Out' brigade need to really ask themselves is 'Am I in favour of ethnic cleansing?' because if the British ever did withdraw, you'd have to do a fair bit of it in order to achieve a United Ireland, or are you one of those nationalists that are naive enough to believe that Unionists are just a little misguided?

kumate_champ07

darkman2 wrote: »

Unionist behaviour like in 1969 - oh and we actually have modern anti aircraft weapons now believe it or not. It's not perfect but it is modern and we have tanks and apcs and technology we did not have in 1969 - we even have drones now ffs. We could hold those 6 counties for a while - maybe weeks in a full British assault. And we have democrats back in the White House - maybe we should invade now....:D;)

we also have an Irishman in the whitehouse.



This would actually make a great xbox 360 game!

McArmalite

DublinWriter wrote: »

It would seem the original intention was to stop Catholics getting killed.

I find it depressing that these type of debates usually descent into typical misty dew-eyed 'Brits-Out' nationalism; the belief that rainbows would have suddenly appeared and all would have been well had the British ceded control of Northern Ireland to the government of the Republic.

The truth is, even had the British withdrawn, there's approximately 600,000 people indigenous to Northern Ireland who consider themselves British.

The question the 'Brits-Out' brigade need to really ask themselves is 'Am I in favour of ethnic cleansing?' because if the British ever did withdraw, you'd have to do a fair bit of it in order to achieve a United Ireland, or are you one of those nationalists that are naive enough to believe that Unionists are just a little misguided?

Oh Gawd !!!!!! and they were going to slaughter everyone if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. They'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin (where Carson was from and elected unionists in Trinity, Rathmines in the 1918 election etc )

Donegal is a fine example. It had a considerable unionist population, the eastern half of Donegal may probably have had a unionist majority. The unionists in Donegal were doing as much shouting as the unionists in the rest of the country ( including Dublin where the leader of unionism Edward Carson was from ) of how they'd fight to the last man etc, etc. When britain said - we're going, if you want to have a sectarian bloodbath you'll do it on your own, their wasn't a shot fired out of them.
Indeed it says it all about unionism that the unionists in the north and their ‘ loyalty ‘ abounded their brethren to the 26 counties with not so much as whimper.

Donny5

Manic Moran wrote: »

What does the DF have that will stop a Tornado from dropping a bomb at 20,000 feet? Unless the DF have been shopping when I've not been looking, I don't think there's anything more capable than a PC-9 pilot with more courage than sense.

NTM

They've got Bofors 40mm Cannon and the RBS-70 SAMs, not to mention the Bren in AA mode.

jill_valentine

It's been a while since I've actually laughed out loud at a board. The Bren's "AA mode" just means "pointing up."

So, not much use unless the RAF are going to be attacking in the Wright Brother's pedal plane at an altitude of about 25 feet.

Donny5

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's been a while since I've actually laughed out loud at a board. The Bren's "AA mode" just means "pointing up."

So, not much use unless the RAF are going to be attacking in the Wright Brother's pedal plane at an altitude of about 25 feet.

Don't be facetious - the Bren's carrying handle also folds out, enabling comfortable firing from the hip, and with easily enough accuracy to take down the Kaiser's Zeppelins at 100 feet.

robby^5

It's a ridiculious hypothetical, but the RAF and Royal Navy would destroy us.

jill_valentine

Donny5 wrote: »

Don't be facetious - the Bren's carrying handle also folds out, enabling comfortable firing from the hip, and with easily enough accuracy to take down the Kaiser's Zeppelins at 100 feet.

Every word of this post is awesome.

WIZE

hi all
I dont know if this has been said already but just to give you a heads up !
If Lynch Had Invaded
Documentary exploring how Irish Taoiseach Jack Lynch dealt with the crisis of 12th August 1969. Featuring commentary from Irish Defence Forces Captain Tom Clonan

Tonight at 9:35pm RTE 1

ejmaztec

Donny5 wrote: »

They've got Bofors 40mm Cannon and the RBS-70 SAMs, not to mention the Bren in AA mode.

I think that you're forgetting the Trebuchet and the pointy stick.

jill_valentine

And slingshots.

Or have ye poor patriots forgotten our mighty victory over the Taliban at the Battle of the Anonymous Californian Carpark, as depicted in Deadliest Warrior?