How would the Soviet Union have handled the Troubles if they suddenly were put in charge of Northern Ireland?Do you think the Soviets had a better grasp of COIN than the UK? Would the USSR have been able to do better than the UK? I think so.
>>18529455Assuming you mean that they take the role of the UK, they’d deport all the Irish Catholics to Central Asia. Mission accomplished
>>18529455Yes, the Soviets were good at COIN in their own territory. They defeated multiple opponents like the Makhnovists, Green Armies, Basmachi, Forest Brothers and OUN.
>>18529455The Soviets completely rolled over for a lot less than the Troubles in 1991 in multiple countries, but in fairness that was because soviet elites wanted capitalism at that point so they could turn into oligarchs.If we're talking something that kicks off in 1969 though I don't know. Its not like the British didn't try substantial repression, mass arbitrary imprisonment, torture, gunning civilians down sometimes, funding paramilitaries broadly on your own side to do killings they'd rather not themselves. I guess the theory is if you crank it up to 11 does it get more effective? Maybe if you literally depopulate the place of males in an ethnic cleansing but this isn't the Stalinist era anymore. That's definitely more bad PR than its worth. The thing is though the Troubles are a solvable, certainly a preventable problem if you just treat the restive population the way you treat everyone else. If its such a headache for the Soviets, what's their incentive for not just giving in to the point that it doesn't particularly suck to be that minority by the standards of the wider Warsaw Pact/USSR?
>>18529455Deportations, probably. Or sending part of the Irish to gulags and then integrating the rest.The situation with UK is that there is a history of mistreatment and underlying two-way contempt, which is not that similar to what soviets faced. You can argue that Ukrainians and forest brothers were similar, but the thing is, those sides would generally turn on each other easily, while Irish were more motivated.
>>18529455Yes because they would not allow armed loyalists running around and murder people with impunity
>>18531297>Yes because they would not allow armed loyalists running around and murder people with impunitybecause they'd be the ones doing that instead
Well, we can just look at what they actually did during the Troubles.>Official IRA supportThe USSR had direct ties to the Official IRA, the smaller more marxist side of the 1969 split in the movement. It was the view of some in the Irish Government that the USSR were happy to use the Troubles in Ireland as a means to meddle in European affairs.The USSR were happy to supply the Official IRA with weapons, training, and information wherever it was useful. They agreed with the OIRA's approach of trying to kickstart a full blown revolution in NI by uniting the working class, as opposed to the PIRA's more nationalist approach.>Dealing with LoyalistsIn any situation where the British Government, British Army, UDR and RUC are not in charge, Loyalist Paramilitaries become a non-starter and get suppressed very quickly. No Liberal Democracy+state tolerance of your ideology means you can't get away with that stuff so easily.>Peace Deal?This is where things get awkward because in a scenario where the USSR is in charge, it means that a minority Republican movement would "win" and essentially then be the centre of a geopolitical crisis. All this said, it's so fanciful a notion that all we can do is speculate. We know they'd have liquidated the Loyalist groups and supported the Official IRA, but as to whether the OIRA could retain their support without it all falling apart due to external pressures is another matter.
>>18532700>The USSR had direct ties to the Official IRA, the smaller more marxist side of the 1969 split in the movementwhy are they called official if they're the "smaller" side?
>>18533067>why are they called official if they're the "smaller" side?When the IRA's laughable failure known as the "border campaign" fizzled out in the early 1960s, many members were becoming disillusioned. The Chief of Staff, Cathal Goulding, was among several people in the IRA's leadership who felt the time had come to sideline the IRA in favour of building a large political umbrella of far-left movements. In theory, the IRA would be one small cog in this (non-existent) left-bloc. Many within the rank and file rejected this, and felt very much that sitting and debating whether Marxism was based or not was pointless while the Unionist regime in Northern Ireland continued with their grim treatment of Catholics in NI.So in late 1969 the IRA holds an Army convention and the leadership says>let's abandon abstention and start encouraging Sinn Féin to take seats in elections>let's create this "national liberation front" which the IRA will be part ofA minority then left the convention lead by Seán Mac Stiofáin, who was on the Army council. Their attitude was:>some bits of socialism are useful, sure>but the rest of this shit is pointless university debate larping>the fight is on NOW, we're either in it or we aren'tSo they formed the "Provisional Army Council", aka a transitional leadership breaking away from the IRA. Thus, they became the Provisional IRA.Sinn Féin then held their Ard Fheis in January 1970, and failed to pass the same motions the IRA had passed. Like the IRA, Sinn Féin then split with a group forming a provisional executive of the party. The Provisional Movement (and its faction of Sinn Féin) proved far more effective than those they had split away from, and thus became the mainline movement. The rump IRA retained the title "Official IRA" to refer to the fact that they were technically the "legitimate" IRA leadership, but they were plagued by further splinters and ideological confusion.
The USSR has the advantage of being an authoritarian regime. They could fully control the border, limiting the smuggling of arms and movement of IRA members, they could also cordon off sections of the country to keep people isolated. There might also be an Ulster SSR staffed by dedicated communists complete with their own native secret police like the Stasi.An optimist might imagine both protestants and catholics choking under the state atheist yoke and coming together in favor of reunification like the fall of the Berlin wall. However more likely it would look like Yugoslavia, though here Tito was supreme rather than the USSR of course. The protestant majority would compose the "Stasi" and most government positions, these same people would be in charge once the USSR fell and likely would want to prevent the catholic section of the country breaking free, they would want to make sure they retain their power during the transition to democracy and are unlikely to support reunification.
>>18533196The USSR was actively involved in the conflict. They armed and trained one of the larger Republican belligerents. >the protestant majority would compose the stasiMost Protestants at this point were conservative at absolute best, and the Loyalist paramilitaries were openly anti-communist.I think OP's hypothetical would work better if a regime that wasn't actively involved in the conflict wasn't used as an example.
>>18533121>choice between "marxists" and "socialism is good"was there really no right-wing irish nationalist movement in all of this? how are they all commies
If Soviets play the role of the UK in this matter, Northern Ireland would have been reformed to be a communist enclave pressuring the rest of Ireland. Ulster Unionism wouldn't exist.
>>18533220>was there really no right-wing irish nationalist movement in all of this? No, there wasn't.The closest you'll get is the fact that the Provisional movement and those aligned to it would (in the 1970s, anyway) call for an Ireland founded on "Christian values" along with the principles outlined in 1916. Some people run away with this to think it means they were right wing, but the 1916 Proclamation was an incredibly progressive document which called for democracy, equality, and alluded to labour issues so it's hardly some right wing proclamation.Fundamentally the big issues that Irish nationalists built their movement on were:>it sucks that all the land in our country is owned by a shitty elite class that hate us>it sucks that no matter what vote for, Britain ultimately decides what we're allowed to get>it sucks that we're all being pit against each other instead of uniting to kill the fuck out of the foreign government pitting us against each otherAll of that translates pretty easily to typical socialist rhetoric of the time. The debate wasn't really left or right, but more which version of left wing politics was best for Ireland.Officials believed in ditching Irish Republicanism in favour of full blown revolution taking inspiration from continental Europe (although they denied this in the early days), Provisionals believed that Irish Republicanism should instead borrow the bits of socialist thought that'd work for the country and ditch the ones that wouldn't. There were some attempts to portray the quite devout Catholicism of early Provisional leaders as some sort of right-wing thing but it was shot down instantly.
>>18529455They'd unite Protestants and Catholics against them.
>>18529455It wouldn't at all surprise me if during their special military operation in Afghanistan they killed more people than the entire population of NI in 1970
>>18533220>how are they all commiesperformative third worldism and national liberation rhetoric isn't communism its just bourgeois nationalism in red silk
>>18533215Only because loyalists were firmly on the side of the UK and free world while the IRA began espousing socialism in the 60s. If the USSR came into possession of northern Ireland they would find protestant communists.
>>18533420>loyalists were firmly on the side of the UK and free world Anon, the Loyalist paramilitaries started their campaigns in the mid 1960s primarily against the civil rights movement that hoped to democratise Northern Ireland. Whatever side Ulster Unionism was on, it wasn't that of the "free world.">If the USSR came into possession of northern Ireland they would find protestant communistsMost of the "Protestant Communists" (very few and far between) were involved in the Civil Rights movement and would have thus been targeted by Loyalist attacks. Do you think the likes of Betty Sinclair would have thrown her lot in with the Ulster Unionist party or the Vanguard?
>>18529455>How would the Soviet Union have handled the Troubles if they suddenly were put in charge of Northern Ireland?Brutal crackdowns
>>18529459And they’d do it with 30% casualty rate from starvation, exposure, neglect, and abuse! Then they’d just keep them chronically underfed for a couple decades and addle them with so much propaganda overshadowed by the constant fear of brutal punishment for factors outside of their means to control. After that the only things remaining of their Irish heritage would be potatoes and alcoholism because those are two pillars of homo sovieticus society and are thus accepted.
