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?

Woke Hogan

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

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

GBX

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

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

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

Mr. Incognito

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

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

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

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

Feisar

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

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

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

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

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

Fuaranach is preparing an essay as we speak.

RMAOK

[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

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

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

_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

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

Eggs For Dinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

troyzer wrote: »

No, it wasn't. Not even close.

In 1916?

It absolutely was

Mad_maxx

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

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.

Church on Tuesday

Militarily is was a complete failure although there is something to be said for mostly amateur rebels holding out against the might of the British army for an entire week.

It would serve as the litmus paper for what was to come; Independence.

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

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.

Rubbish

Odhinn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

A toady along the lines of o'connell in many ways. John Bruton had a portrait of him in his office when he was taoiseach, which is probably the clearest indictment you could have.

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

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.

Rubbish

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

The Rape of Lucretia

bear1 wrote: »

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?

It depends on what we mean by failure. That it did not galvanise the Irish people to put down all elements of murder and violence, seperatism, the green tinted views of Little Irelanders, and get behind a full role in the United Kingdom, is the the real failure I think. It was a warning shot on what turned out to be a lost century, perpetuating poverty, religious backwardness, economic stagnation, civil war, sectarianism. But one that was not heard, and the opportunity to once and for all be an integral part of the UK was missed.

The Tetrarch

Wha?

The Tetrarch

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

United Kingdom

GBP 1,500,000 spent on bribes to get a majority to vote in favour of The Act of Union 1801, twenty four new peers created.
That Act of Union excluded Catholics from membership of the parliament.
Not very united.

Guy:Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The British Army was the largest Military power in the world

They were also right in the middle of a bit of a scuffle elsewhere at the time.

AMKC

Mad_maxx wrote: »

In 1916?

It absolutely was

The British did not have a very big army but they did have a big navy at the time and the most powerful navy at the time too. That is how they colonized so many other countries and kept the secure for a while anyway until the ways wars were fought changed.

Mad_maxx

Odhinn wrote: »

A toady along the lines of o'connell in many ways. John Bruton had a portrait of him in his office when he was taoiseach, which is probably the clearest indictment you could have.

Subsequent developments rendered redmonds career a waste but what exactly did he do that was so shameful, Bruton is a goon alright

pjproby

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

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

Back up the truck, I'm talking about 1916, I accept that Britain was a much diminished military power a quarter century later

Mad_maxx

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They were also right in the middle of a bit of a scuffle elsewhere at the time.

Does not in any way negate the point

The Tetrarch

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.

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It's true. In our heavily British influenced media, you could probably be forgiven for not knowing this.

But the French did the lion's share of the fighting and dying. It's the same for WW2. Anybody who grows up in America thinks that the war started in 1941 and America won it on the beaches of Normandy.

Whereas in reality, the American influence on the war in terms of lives lost and ended was microscopic compared to what the Soviets did.

After conscription, the British certainly started bulking up their armies. But the build up still took a while and the fact remains that they were a junior partner throughout the war with the exception perhaps of the very end.

Back up the truck, I'm talking about 1916, I accept that Britain was a much diminished military power a quarter century later

And in 1916 it was still smaller than France. And Germany. And Russia.

bear1

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It depends on what we mean by failure. That it did not galvanise the Irish people to put down all elements of murder and violence, seperatism, the green tinted views of Little Irelanders, and get behind a full role in the United Kingdom, is the the real failure I think. It was a warning shot on what turned out to be a lost century, perpetuating poverty, religious backwardness, economic stagnation, civil war, sectarianism. But one that was not heard, and the opportunity to once and for all be an integral part of the UK was missed.

Not sure what to make of this.
We should have stayed joined to a union which is tearing itself apart at the seams because we would have been better off?
We'd have been dragged into ww2 and bombed repeatedly I imagine and then forced into further military confrontations throughout the rest of the century.

Odhinn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Subsequent developments rendered redmonds career a waste but what exactly did he do that was so shameful, Bruton is a goon alright

He wanted Ireland to be a full partner in running 'The Empire', rather than a break and rejection from/of imperialism.



"To talk about ireland seperating from the empire is the most utter nonsense. We are not asking for seperation. Seperation is impossible; if it were not impossible it would be undesirable"
https://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Redmond1.php


"that brighter day when the grant of full self-government would reveal to Britain the open secret of making Ireland her friend and helpmate, the brightest jewel in her crown of Empire".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Redmond





Nauseating cack, tbh.

Odhinn

bear1 wrote: »

Not sure what to make of this.

We should have stayed joined to a union which is tearing itself apart at the seams because we would have been better off?
We'd have been dragged into ww2 and bombed repeatedly I imagine and then forced into further military confrontations throughout the rest of the century.


The initials are a hint.

Mad_maxx

troyzer wrote: »

And in 1916 it was still smaller than France. And Germany. And Russia.

What on earth are you talking about

Russia was dirt poor in 1916 and had no geo political footprint

Marengo

[quote="The Rape of Lucretia;109149954"[/quote]

Clue in the initials.

TROL