What if the 1916 Rising had not happened?

Manach

Given the wide-ranging conflict that was being undertaken at the time and differing ideologies (from Socialist, Nationalism, Communism) there is a stronger likelihood that the flavour of such a rising would have been different. That is if the Irish Parlimentary party could not have seen taken the wake up call and pressed for more immediate reforms. A book that gives a good international summation of the time would be "The World on Fire: 1919" by Read.

josephryan1989

Manach wrote: »

Given the wide-ranging conflict that was being undertaken at the time and differing ideologies (from Socialist, Nationalism, Communism) there is a stronger likelihood that the flavour of such a rising would have been different. That is if the Irish Parlimentary party could not have seen taken the wake up call and pressed for more immediate reforms. A book that gives a good international summation of the time would be "The World on Fire: 1919" by Read.

The Rising fits into a wave of European revolutions before and after the end of World War I but there was no inevitability about the Rising or any of the other revolutions and indeed no inevitability about the outcome of the war itself.
When word got through that MacNeill had given the countermanding order the leaders of the subsequent Rising wavered and only Thomas Clarke wanted to go ahead while the others decided to delay for 24 hours. Pearse was even in favor of giving up altogether and taking to the hills like the Boers in South Africa.
If Dublin Castle had acted sooner the Rising could have been prevented before it even got off the ground. The orders to round up republicans were already being sent out when the rebellion began.
The 1916 Rising could have easily fizzled like the Fenian Rising of 1867.

Dyr

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The key point you are missing is battle experience.

if I missed a key point perhaps you can point me to the part of your theory in the OP that referenced this key point

Presumably you've realized the theory doesn't hold water and are now changing the argument.

Victor

josephryan1989 wrote: »

the fact that the rebels had the run of the city centre for a week lit a fire in the hearts of a generation of young men and women who had previously considered themselves subjects of the Crown.

Get over yourself.

josephryan1989

Bambi wrote: »

if I missed a key point perhaps you can point me to the part of your theory in the OP that referenced this key point

Presumably you've realized the theory doesn't hold water and are now changing the argument.

If the Rising had not gone ahead the broad change from the IPP to Sinn Fein and from Home Rule to Republicanism would likely not have happened.

josephryan1989

Victor wrote: »

Get over yourself.

When the Dail met in January 1919 the body behaved as if the Irish Republic had been an actuality since the moment it was proclaimed by Pearse outside the GPO. When Republicans split in 1921-22 over the Treaty the Die-Hards cited their oath to the Irish Republic. Today most people accept the legitimacy of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland but hard line Republicans refuse to recognise any other entity except the Republic of 1916.

So without the Rising ever happening the Republican ideal would have never happened.

For most people across the nationalist and republican spectrum 1916 is the start of Irish freedom. The election of 1918, the First Dail in 1919, the Treaty of 1921, the creation of the Free State in 1922 and the creation of the Republic on Ireland in the 1940s are overlooked.

1916 is the key event.

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If the Rising had not gone ahead the broad change from the IPP to Sinn Fein and from Home Rule to Republicanism would likely not have happened.

But in that scenario, what would have happened. Would a 32 county Home Rule solution have been feasible in the aftermath of WW1?

josephryan1989

recedite wrote: »

But in that scenario, what would have happened. Would a 32 county Home Rule solution have been feasible in the aftermath of WW1?

No.

The Unionists armed with help of the Conservatives who conspired with them against Home Rule were prepared to launch an uprising of their own only for the outbreak of war to intervene. The Curragh Mutiny demonstrated to anyone paying attention that Irish Nationalists could not count on the British Army to enforce Home Rule or protect them from the UVF.
When arms were landed at Howth by Irish Nationalists the British Army tried to intercept them and fired on then in Dublin whereas the Unionist arms were not intercepted at Larne.

When UVF units joined the British Army they were allowed retained their units while the National Volunteers were broken up and dispersed in units commanded by Irish Protestant officers from the landed gentry who were of course predominantly Unionist.

Following the Rising the Irish Parliamentary Party pleaded in the Commons that Irish Home Rule should be introduced due to the sacrifice of Irishmen in British uniform. These pleas fell on dead ears. John Redmond lost brother Willie in the war and realized too late his rally cry for Irishmen to fight in the war was not going to bring Home Rule. He died a broken man in 1918.

When the British tried to introduce conscription they didn't date try and impose it on Unionists. Instead they locked up Sinn Fein leaders who spoke out against it and accused them of a bogus German plot.

Home Rule island wide was never going to be implemented. That is why middle Ireland rallied behind the Irish Republic, Sinn Fein and the IRA and fought for full independence. When a clear majority endorsed Sinn Fein who campaigned for a Republic in the 1918 election the British responded with state terror by sending in the Black and Tans.

It is clear that the British had no intention of giving Ireland Home Rule as a 32 county entity.

Manach

That is one interpretation. It does seem to be soaked both in a national mythos and a perspective that sets on a single track what could have happened. This fails to apprectriate at any sort of historically counterfactual level the large and small details that turn societies. From the merest chance (capture of a letter in the Persian desert that lead to the Zimmerman telegram) to that of the ability of the UK state to make changes in how it governs thanks to its malleable constitution (ie George's Budgets and reform of the House of Lords in 1911/12).
Thus without the violence of 1916, there was chance some form of stable home rule could have occurred. It might have been completely eviscerated in the beginning, but like the Dominion Status that occurred in the 1930s, change would have occurred without the bloodshed. Looking back with 20:20 hindsight and declaring X would have happened no matter is the type of mistake that historians like Margaret MacMillan, who wrote on Versailles, decries.

josephryan1989

Manach wrote: »

That is one interpretation. It does seem to be soaked both in a national mythos and a perspective that sets on a single track what could have happened. This fails to apprectriate at any sort of historically counterfactual level the large and small details that turn societies. From the merest chance (capture of a letter in the Persian desert that lead to the Zimmerman telegram) to that of the ability of the UK state to make changes in how it governs thanks to its malleable constitution (ie George's Budgets and reform of the House of Lords in 1911/12).
Thus without the violence of 1916, there was chance some form of stable home rule could have occurred. It might have been completely eviscerated in the beginning, but like the Dominion Status that occurred in the 1930s, change would have occurred without the bloodshed. Looking back with 20:20 hindsight and declaring X would have happened no matter is the type of mistake that historians like Margaret MacMillan, who wrote on Versailles, decries.

Knowing that the UVF was planning rebellion including a Rising of their own if Home Rule was implemented and knowing that the Tories had conspired to arm them and the British Army threatened mutiny if ordered to enforce Home Rule please explain how conflict could have been avoided? The consensus of historians is that only for the outbreak of WW1 there would have likely been a civil war between the unionists and the nationalists.

If the 1916 Rising had never happened the 1918 election would have resulted in a nationalist majority for SF or the IPP or perhaps some other group. The British in particular the Tories had contempt for the democratic wishes of the Irish people because it endangered the Act Of Union. The potential for armed conflict looks strong unless middle Ireland backed down. The only scenario that was likely avoid conflict was if nationalists and republicans completely abandoned all their principles.

jonniebgood1

Your views are very one dimensioned as others have pointed out. No problem with this but youshould be able to give some sources, for example from quoted post below you should source some of your assertions- see item below your post which should be easily referenced.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Knowing that the UVF was planning rebellion including a Rising of their own if Home Rule was implemented and knowing that the Tories had conspired to arm them and the British Army threatened mutiny if ordered to enforce Home Rule please explain how conflict could have been avoided? The consensus of historians is that only for the outbreak of WW1 there would have likely been a civil war between the unionists and the nationalists.

If the 1916 Rising had never happened the 1918 election would have resulted in a nationalist majority for SF or the IPP or perhaps some other group. The British in particular the Tories had contempt for the democratic wishes of the Irish people because it endangered the Act Of Union. The potential for armed conflict looks strong unless middle Ireland backed down. The only scenario that was likely avoid conflict was if nationalists and republicans completely abandoned all their principles.

1. Provide a souce showing the consensus you say historians reach that ireland in 1914 faced imminent civil war?

More generally you mention British views on Ireland's wishes and the potential for armed conflict but ignore the changes in law made in parliament that had saw home rule move towards implementation in the period up to 1914.

machiavellianme

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Pointing out the fact that the damage caused by 1916 was substantially caused by a British decision to shell the city centre. It is relevant considering the uprising became an intense battlefield every bit as bad as the Western Front.

Ah come on, a few handfuls of usurpers scattered around various buildings is hardly comparable to the atrocities of Ypres or similar.

KingBrian2

machiavellianme wrote: »

Ah come on, a few handfuls of usurpers scattered around various buildings is hardly comparable to the atrocities of Ypres or similar.

Pristine Dublin was a world apart from the western front in more than one regard. The fact remains uprisings were not commonplace in 20th century Ireland and the 1916 affair was something entirely new to everyday Dubliners.

machiavellianme

LordSutch wrote: »

But only after one of the DMP had been shot in the head outside Dublin Castle, by one of the Rebels.

That was the 1st shot of the Rising.

Not according to the plaque on a laois bog. The first shot was recorded on Easter Sunday night.

http://www.irelandinpicture.net/2011/07/memorial-to-first-shots-of-1916-easter.html

machiavellianme

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Pristine Dublin was a world apart from the western front in more than one regard. The fact remains uprisings were not commonplace in 20th century Ireland and the 1916 affair was something entirely new to everyday Dubliners.

Fair enough, Irish uprisings weren't common in Ireland in the 20th or even 19th century for that matter. The question in hand asks what mightve happened should the 1916 skirmishes have been postponed/quashed.
Well for one, there wouldn't be this thread. I personally think that the fall of the great British empire was inevitable but without a war on going, I can't imagine the British letting their nearest neighbours go so readily. It would probably have meant some form of home rule akin to what the Scots have until the second world war. I reckon something would've happened at that point if not sooner for a myriad of reasons.

KingBrian2

machiavellianme wrote: »

Fair enough, Irish uprisings weren't common in Ireland in the 20th or even 19th century for that matter. The question in hand asks what mightve happened should the 1916 skirmishes have been postponed/quashed.
Well for one, there wouldn't be this thread. I personally think that the fall of the great British empire was inevitable but without a war on going, I can't imagine the British letting their nearest neighbours go so readily. It would probably have meant some form of home rule akin to what the Scots have until the second world war. I reckon something would've happened at that point if not sooner for a myriad of reasons.

Well lets see if there was no 1916 we would have ended up like Canada is today without a Republic. We would have refused the Dominion status instead going towards acquiring more power for the Dail. Whatever you might say about the 1916 revolutionaries having no mandate the Dail of 1919 certainly did and they opposed laws dictated to them by Westminster.

Dyr

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If the Rising had not gone ahead the broad change from the IPP to Sinn Fein and from Home Rule to Republicanism would likely not have happened.

Wasn't your key point that without the military experience gained in the rising the war of independence would not have happened?

Or have you shifted yet again?

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

.. only for the outbreak of WW1 there would have likely been a civil war between the unionists and the nationalists.

Maybe so, maybe not, but WW1 did happen, and it changed attitudes within society on a lot of different issues.

NIMAN

If 1916 had not have happened, I'd say we would all be talking English, following English football teams, watching English television and reading English newspapers and magazines by now.

josephryan1989

recedite wrote: »

Maybe so, maybe not, but WW1 did happen, and it changed attitudes within society on a lot of different issues.

And I am merely pointing out there was nothing inevitable about it all. If events had been slightly different or deviated from the path we know the outcome would have been entirely different. History is just as much about didn't happen and speculation on what could have if things had happened differently.

It is only through blind luck that the Arch Duke's car stalled outside the cafe in Sarajevo giving Princip the change to kill him and his wife setting in motion the events that led to the Great War which led to the suspension of Home Rule which led to a split in the Irish Volunteers which led to the Rising. Interrupt that chain of events and we would have different possibilities.

josephryan1989

Bambi wrote: »

Wasn't your key point that without the military experience gained in the rising the war of independence would not have happened?

Or have you shifted yet again?

Both the political change from the IPP to SF and the confidence of having participated in 1916 had on its veterans who went on to be key organizers in the War of Independence are surely linked are they not? Without the Rising people like Collins Devalera Mulcahy Brugha Cosgrave Mulcahy etc would not have risen to the national stage as they did. They might have remained anonymous unknowns.

LordSutch

Looking at the flag raising ceremony in Dublin Castle yesterday (in a friends house) prompted several questions from my friend re the Rising, which got me thinking!

In 1916 there was a movement called the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), who were a relatively small group at the time. I suppose a modern day equivalent (in relative size) would be the Irish Labour Party (a smallish party), and yet it was an off shoot of the smallish IRB who planned & executed the Rising to the disgust of the Irish population at large!

So here we are 100 years later and the State is celebrating something which was comitted by 'a minority within a minority', and which was not not supported or sanctioned by the population at large :cool:

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

Its so impossible to say with any certainty, but I would imagine that we would have finally arrived at the same "train station" in 2016 as we would have arrived at, had the 1916-1922 troubles not occoured, albeit through very different waters en route to our present destination!

As part of the UK we would be very much like Scotland, Wales, or many of the Northern English regions. We would have the NHS (free GP care), free dental care too... we would be part of Nato, we would be part of the United Kingdom on the World Stage, we would be part of a seventy million strong economy with a devolved Government in Dublin (linked to London-Belfast-Cardiff-Edinburgh). Dublin would have a small Metro type underground train network, Dun laoghaire Kingstown would be a major hub of international import export, Cork would have a large multinational population with a large airport to match its international connenections, with Galway being the European USA economic hub. The population of the island would be fifteen million people, the Royal Mail would have its international sorting office in Limerick, Michael D Higgins would have an OBE, Gerry Adams & Martin McGuinness would be in prison for trying to create terrorism, & the leaders of the 1916 rising would never have been in the history books (as they kept their crazed blood lust dreams to themselves). No Priest ridden society in the decades since 1922. Still very much part of the Commonwealth too. Massive Nissan car plant in the midlands. > Red phone boxes, green buses, green 'London style' TaXi's in Dublin, trams, mono rail trains? + all manner of transport on a par with London (but on a smaller scale). RAF & Royal Naval bases in several locations, generating tens of thousands of defence jobs in Ireland.

Northern Ireland would however still be a seperate state, as the Unionist/Loyalist majority would never have wanted to be ruled from Dublin. So that turned out pretty much the same as it did anyway

There ya go, that's as good a guess as anybody elses . . .

I don't see how the economy would be doing a lot better. For instance we know that Northern Ireland has been under British rule for a while and their economy is absolutely woeful. We're certainly doing better than the part of Ireland under British rule.

LordSutch

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't see how the economy would be doing a lot better. For instance we know that Northern Ireland has been under British rule for a while and their economy is absolutely woeful. We're certainly doing better than the part of Ireland under British rule.

The NI economy was brought to its knees during the troubles, and it has never fully recovered, while since the mid 90s the ROI has finally found an economy, which was boosted by massive subsidies from Brussels + the influx of foreign investment. Never forget that from 1922 to the mid 90s there was no large scale economy here in the ROI to speak of.

josephryan1989

LordSutch wrote: »

Looking at the flag raising ceremony in Dublin Castle yesterday (in a friends house) prompted several questions from my friend re the Rising, which got me thinking!

In 1916 there was a movement called the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), who were a relatively small group at the time. I suppose a modern day equivalent (in relative size) would be the Irish Labour Party (a smallish party), and yet it was an off shoot of the smallish IRB who planned & executed the Rising to the disgust of the Irish population at large!

So here we are 100 years later and the State is celebrating something which was comitted by 'a minority within a minority', and which was not not supported or sanctioned by the population at large :cool:

No revolution ever has broad support at its beginning.
The conspiratorial secretive vanguard of a revolution set things in motion with armed action which is usually crushed in the first battle but serves as an example to a wider constituency.
However for the revolution to be successful it later gains support from broader political movements and the population in general who supersede the original movement.
The Boston Tea Party was the doing of a group of local radicals and fanatics and set in motion the disengagement of mainstream American colonists from the British Empire.
The storming of the Bastille was by a local mob whipped up by French radicals before members of the French military, church, intelligentsia, bourgeoise and the nobility who sought change turned the tables on the monarchy and the ancien regime.
The Russian Revolution was initially led by small groups of dissident intellectuals and armed revolutionaries.
The Nazis were led by a handful of extreme German nationalists who launched the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich before aristocrats, the military, the industrialists, the churches and the people rowed in behind Hitler years later.
Castro and his followers only numbered a few dozen when they landed in Cuba before gaining the backing of peasants, workers and soldiers who swept them to power.
Islamic terrorists were small and isolated before they kicked off what has become a global war between Muslim radicals and the United States and its Western allies.

neris

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Have you actually read the book? It's quite excellent and illuminates a tragic side of the Rising and indeed all wars - the deaths of innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Duffy has put faces and breathed life into the dead. For us 100 years removed from what daily life was like in 1916 and what that terrifying week was like for ordinary people who lived through it, his book is does a great job.
If we only read books that are written by people we agree with politically we would make foolish ill informed comments like yours.

For the ordinary person there is no sense of the inevitability of history.
The civilians who suffered from the Rising did not see the grand scheme.
They simply experienced a sunny spring day until the arrival of strange men and women in strange uniforms taking over their native city which became a battlefield around them.

I have no problem with an author or historian writing on any aspect of irish history wheter i agrees with them or not but i do have a big problem with joe duffy who lambasts Political parties for having posters printed abroad masquerading as some sort of expert on 1916 and then acting the hypocrite by using a uk publisher and german printer to have his book printed who then goes on to abuse his position as a national broadcaster to self promote him and his book on a radio show where other companies are expected to pay to promote their products and services and then furthers this abuse of power by telling his listners to go to various websites to vote for his book in various awards. A voting/self promoting act the majority(if not all) others authors lacked.

LordSutch

Just one small question: In the context of this topic, what is the British Empire?

KingBrian2

LordSutch wrote: »

Just one small question: In the context of this topic, what is the British Empire?

The British Empire was the superpower that controlled most of the world's territory in the 19th century and for the early 20th century. The Empire was composed of various political entities vying for legislative control of their own borders, culture and state.

This contrasted with the Imperial aim of keeping all these regions under one gvt headed by a monarch and having the ability to move an army to any point on the map so British soldiers could be sent to Afghanistan or Australia or the Orange free state in Southern Africa. Truly a multinational army yet not really.

josephryan1989

neris wrote: »

I have no problem with an author or historian writing on any aspect of irish history wheter i agrees with them or not but i do have a big problem with joe duffy who lambasts Political parties for having posters printed abroad masquerading as some sort of expert on 1916 and then acting the hypocrite by using a uk publisher and german printer to have his book printed who then goes on to abuse his position as a national broadcaster to self promote him and his book on a radio show where other companies are expected to pay to promote their products and services and then furthers this abuse of power by telling his listners to go to various websites to vote for his book in various awards. A voting/self promoting act the majority(if not all) others authors lacked.

Through his research into the child casualties of the Rising he has made an important contribution to understanding what actually happened in 1916. I've no objection to him promoting his views and his book. More power to him. It's a free country.

There is nothing stopping you from researching 1916 yourself getting your articles published writing a book creating a website or making podcasts or youtube videos or giving lectures. If you had done research of your own and you can add to public knowledge of the Rising then I'm all ears.

LordSutch

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The British Empire was the superpower that controlled most of the world's territory in the 19th century and for the early 20th century. The Empire was composed of various political entities vying for legislative control of their own borders, culture and state.

This contrasted with the Imperial aim of keeping all these regions under one gvt headed by a monarch and having the ability to move an army to any point on the map so British soldiers could be sent to Afghanistan or Australia or the Orange free state in Southern Africa. Truly a multinational army yet not really.

I only ask because always in the context of 1916-1922 you will invaribly hear of the heroic Rebels and their fight against the British Empire :cool:

I still don't understand that business of fighting against the Empire. Fighting against Irish and British soldiers, yes of course, but that's not exactly the British Empire, is it.