How did the Brits lose control of most of Ireland? Why didnt they just blockade the whole island and crush the rebels? They were a literal empire. They could send in endless hordes of Canadians, Australians, Indians and Blacks to finish the job.
>>18122723Well there was a little conflict going on at the time called the First World War, in which the British were directing all their resources.
>>18122732They had the whole 1920s and 1930s to crush Ireland. A Cromwellian figure would've done it.
>>18122723>Why didnt they just blockade the whole island and crush the rebels? They were a literal empire. They could send in endless hordes of Canadians, Australians, Indians and Blacks to finish the job.public opinion wouldn't have supported it. >How did the Brits lose control of most of Ireland?Home Rule actually went through its just that the part ruled by the Southern Irish Parliament quickly became a Dominion and then become a Republic a few decades later. Legally speaking it was actually pretty similar to what happened with Canada rather than a clean break like many people here assume, hence why there's examples of British laws which were repealed in Britain itself since 1922 but which remain on the books in Ireland.
Because the British are a benevolent people, contrary to what brownoids say.
>>18122742same poster just wanted to add that>Home Rule actually went throughobviously didn't mean much when basically nobody but a handful of southern unionists showed up to the new Southern Irish Parliament, but it did briefly exist
Britain couldn't do that.The Irish Republican movement fought on two fronts;>militaryto make the country ungovernable>politicalto replace institutions with their own equivilants (such as the Dáil Courts) and run propagandaThe literal King of England himself was repulsed by the counter-insurgency tactics Britain DID use; there were protests in London regularly about the percieved oppression of the Irish.The British military brass (in particular Arthur Percival) wanted military escalation-but he was rejected by those who saw the writing on the wall; by the 1920s, any sort of "order" they restored was a timebomb to rebel again.So they swapped from>we must defeat the IRAto>we must go into damage control to curb the more revolutionary aspects of the revolution>>18122732Irish War of Independence began after WW1.>>18122739Some did call for forcible re-annexation, including the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland (although most in Westminster saw him as a raving retard by that stage).The truth is, they couldn't have; this was at a time when Britain was granting de-facto independence to all of its colonies. What do you think happens if they violate Ireland like that? Again, the actual British people themselves took serious issue with how it was handled; Britain just wasn't that sort of society.In the end, Ireland ended up as a Dominion meaning the entire island was in the British Empire until almost 1950. Not a bad outcome, given that they were at one point getting rings run around them by the IRA.
Because britain could'n't be arsedThey could have sent the entire military into crush the rebelion in an instant but instead they treated it as a civil matterBecause the british are merciful and honourable
>>18122723Imagine if Britain had the balls to do what turkey did to the armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians during the same time period. Unfortunately Brits are small dicked no balls people who are allergic to seeing death, but the Turks were real men
>>18122723If they could have done that, they would have, as they did in South Africa. But the war wasn’t particularly popular at home, the Irish rebels were a massive problem and the war wasn’t going particularly well. In the end they got the Anglo-Irish treaty, on paper for all their immediate strategic and political concerns it looked like a good treaty. Ireland would be a friendly dominion like Canada or Australia, Britain would retain significant military, political and economic rights, the British population of Ulster would stay in their own statelet within the UK (retaining a significant chunk of Irish industry with it). Were it not for the fact Eamonn de Valera started ruling later and working his hardest to sever Ireland from the empire in symbol and in fact we’d probably today be treating this war as a limited British W rather than a limited British L.
>>18122794>Be Turks>Genocide all the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia for muh Turkish master race>What you have actually created is now just a homogenous Kurdish land in the East>100 years later cope and seethe about the presence of Kurds in your country and the economic drain that is the East.>Still not gonna give it independence because uh… Kara Boga strong or some shit idk Turkey and its bastard son Serbia are very similar really. They can hate a region, they can hate the people who live there, but still want to keep it and those people in their country at all costs just because. I’m not sure Turks actually think so much as they just go through life perpetually reacting at everything.
>>18122746
>>18122746they ended slavery in the world and enforced it. this will not be forgiven.
>>18122904Slavery is objectively wrong. Just look how many niggers it brought to places they shouldn’t be in.
>>18122907Wouldn’t be a problem if they were slaves.Would also improve African economies and solve the wests migration problem as Africa can just sell all their poor retards to the west, where they will work as slaves rather than collecting welfare and being criminals. All western problems, when you think about it, are directly down stream of abolitionism. It is the original woke.
>>18122739Kill yourself kike
>>18122941>everyone I don't like is a jew
>>18122723Basically Britain would have actually had to 'follow through' on the conquest of Ireland, and either genocided or displaced the entire Irish population. Given the time that it happened (WWI, with the Irish Nationalists being agents of the Kaiser) that wasn't going to happen - and after the war was over British society was overwhelmed by the sheer number of men who never made it home. >tl;dr - the lucky Micks picked literally the one time in history to date when it could have worked
>>18122974The Irish war of independence happened after WW1 in Jan 1919 to July 1921. A great many on the Republican side were veterans of the British army in WW1. There might have been German involvement in the 1916 Easter rising but that was a different event to the war of independence.
>>18123297>The Mick squeals in protest as he hears the truthDid you think that Britain, especially the number of military age men in Britain, returned to normal the moment the armistice came into effect?
>>18123901NTA, but the War of Independence didn't happen because "they decided to do it at a time when they might get away with it."The decision to take the "first" military action (Soloheadbeg) was carried out on the initiative of Seán Treacy. However other actions (such as raids for arms) happened throughout 1918 prior to this, again mostly on the initiative of local bands of Irish Volunteers. One major reason for this was the conscription crisis; pretty much the only actual complete red line that most Nationalists believed in was the idea that conscription in Ireland whilst democracy was denied was completely unreasonable.What followed wasn't some mass panic amongst exhausted veterans of WW1; the area around Soloheadbeg was simply declared a Special Military Area-it wasn't the only place where this was used, it was used across the UK to elevate military authority (such as increased defences around key ports or bases in Scotland). The Dáil Éireann was divided over whether the military campaign was a good idea or not. The people the IRA were fighting weren't exhausted war veterans; they were excitable young men being paid a hilariously generous wage who were sent to Ireland with no real training and unleashed on the civilian population. There were famously constantly arguments between the RIC (mostly Irish) and the likes of the Temporary Constables from England, with the former seeing the latter as uncouth cowboys.The IRA won because British society couldn't and wouldn't stomach a full military escalation given the context of Irish politics; that doesn't diminish the fact that they successfully collapsed British authorities across most of the country, but to suggest Britain was some utterly broken society that lacked the means to put down the rebellion is a laugh. The key difference in 1919-1922 is the vast majority of Irish people supported the rebellion-Ireland was lost in December 1918 at the polls.
>>18124298(cont)Mind you, this isn't to say that Britain didn't try; many have a habit of jumping the shark and suggesting>The IRA were so incredibly efficient that they BTFO Britain easilyWhich isn't true. But neither is>The IRA only won because Britain wasn't even trying!Britain absolutely was "trying." They not only deployed tens of thousands of troops (both as soldiers and as expansions to the RIC), and significantly were forced to deploy troops from Britain all over Ireland. They poured massive resources into both the Military and Paramilitary Police forces, and likewise did the same for the intelligence war-although this is partly thanks to Ormonde Winter finally stepping in. Incompetence on Britain's part did play a huge role in why the IRA won, but so too did the skill of the IRA. For example, Dublin Castle was notoriously poorly run-but this was made worse by how strong the IRA's intelligence network was. The British Troops were woefully unprepared to combat insurgency-and the IRA were very, very good at it. Britain struggled to win people over to their side-but the IRA (despite being a minority) enjoyed support across Ireland.It's a really interesting conflict, as low-intensity at it was; you had the likes of the Blacksmith of Ballinalee and his mates defending their home, and then you have former farmboys from Cork being seen internationally as having stood up to the Empire and won. Of course, this is /his/ so many anons are a bit deranged about the period, but it is a very interesting one.
It's been a while since I've got a chance to chat about revolutionary Ireland, so I'm happy to answer any questions-including those on topics other than Sinn Féin/the IRA, such as;>The Ulster Unionists>Other Irish Unionists>The Socialists, and the Communes they set up>Significant figures on the British side>Most significant events/engagements of the conflictAsk away, if it takes your fancy.
the fenians only """won""" by massacaring and ethnically cleansing protestants
>>18124426That didn't happen; there was sporadic sectarian violence all over the island, but the worst of it by far were the pogroms carried out against Catholics in Belfast and Lisburn.Protestant population decline was well underway prior to the rebellion (prior to WW1, actually) but the idea that this scary new regime was "killing all the Protestants" was an important propaganda point for partitionists. Even today, people regularly cite an utterly worthless book by Robin Bury as "proof" of some sort of cleansing-despite the book actually confirming that nothing of the sort happened, but that the *idea* of it happening was influential regardless.Ironically Protestants (in particular farmers) continued to be disproportioantely wealthy and influential in post-revolutionary Ireland. To this day nobody has been held accountable for actions like the burning of Cork, despite it being very clearly far more egregious than Republican or Unionist Paramilitaries carrying out varous killings.
>>18124574The pogroms carried against taigs was done due to taigs doing the same thing to protestantsIt's funny that all of their "national liberation movements" (1640s rebellion, 1798) started with the massacre of protestantsand it's easy to get away with killing protestants if you just pretend they were spies for the government or whatever bullshit you make up to excuse it>Ironically Protestants (in particular farmers) continued to be disproportioantely wealthy and influential in post-revolutionary IrelandBecause protestants are superior in all ways to taigs
>>18122732The only thing that happened in Ireland before the end of WW1 was the Easter Rising, and that was promptly crushed.The Irish War of Independence started in January 1919
Friendly reminder that taigs are instrumental for pushing immigration and woke values into anglo nations like the USA and Britain
>>18124712All of the things you are saying can be levied against "Protestants" in equal or greater measure.I know you aren't engaging sincerely, but I can only hope your ragebaiting isn't how you actually try to speak with people about this. Even actual Unionist historians (including those who try to be critical of the likes of the United Irishmen) would not be so utterly reductive.>>18124723go back >>>/pol/
>>18124771Yeah it's not like irish descent left wingers are the ones campaigning for scottish independence or for "scouse not english" or anything like that. it's not like they're overepresented in left wing groups or anything. Lying taig
>>18124817About 10% of the British population is of recent Irish descent. The Irish diaspora in Manchester or Birmingham is even bigger than it is in Liverpool, contrary to popular belief, yet I’m certain there’s no such thing as a “Mancunian not English” movement or a “Brummie not English” movement. I’ve never heard of such a Scouse movement either tbqh but I’ll take your word for it. Likewise the Irish diaspora is about as big in Edinburgh as it is in Glasgow yet Edinburgh voted even less for independence than the Highlands with virtually zero Irish diaspora did. Or Dundee for that matter, one of the few places to be independence majority, and also with basically zero Irish diaspora.> it's not like they're overepresented in left wing groups or anything.Hmm, traditionally working class and urban immigrant diaspora would mainly gravitate to left wing groups. Something strange going on there alright.
>>18125018>Hmm, traditionally working class and urban immigrant diaspora would mainly gravitate to left wing groups. Something strange going on there alright.No they just have a pathological hatred for anglo civilisationA hatred for liberty and freedom
>>18125067So what’s going on with Morrissey?
>>18125080Exception not the rule
>>18122723Ireland will get northern land back
>>18123297>>18124419What Kaiser thought on Ireland self-independence?
>>18126060He didn't have that different an attitude to Hiter; if the Irish were willing and able to align themselves to Germany, they would accomodate it-but beyond that, it's not really worth the trouble. In Ireland, "support" for Germany was either>out of malice toward Britain (most common)>in hopes of German support for a rebellion (very, very small minority on the fringe of politics)Some in 1916 hoped that Wilhelm II's son Joachim could come to be installed as a monarch of a newly independent Irish nation-but they were in a minority compared to those who supported a Republic. There were some loose attempts during WW1 to run guns from Ireland to Germany, but these were often from private enterprises as opposed to tacit German support.
>>18125080Scandal because he showed the flag of his country
Important to realise just how pussified the British ruling class had become by the 1920s. Peace and love, liberal values. They were not cheap propaganda but closely held views. And they were very Ameriphile in general, which did not help.
>>18125018Very true. It's crazy how high Irish immigration was to England.
