And subsequently ignored or failed to notice any indication of Argentina getting the idea of going for an invasion, compounding the failure by announcing their intention to scrap the last Antarctic patrol ship and changing the citizenship status of the Falklanders. Of course there's no reason to say those things would not occur as OTL anyway, but butterflies being what they are, one never knows
Excercise Armageddon
- Thread starter Tongera
- Start date
And subsequently ignored or failed to notice any indication of Argentina getting the idea of going for an invasion, compounding the failure by announcing their intention to scrap the last Antarctic patrol ship and changing the citizenship status of the Falklanders. Of course there's no reason to say those things would not occur as OTL anyway, but butterflies being what they are, one never knows
Ireland would have been successful in some aspects such as "liberating" catholic communities. This is because many objectives wernt under secular violence meaning the Irish are invading peaceful areas. I doubt that ireland would have destroyed any of it's objectives such as the BBC station and harbour as these areas were already girded by elite British troops.
British forces have superior weapons and tactics compared to the Irish.
The RAF would have bombed millitary bases in Ireland.
Blockade of goods to Ireland
I can see a small British counter attack into Ireland but their not going to take all the country.
Ireland seen as a pathetic aggressor
Ceasefire
Ireland financially ruined
Riots in the streets
IRA losses bases in the south
Huge patriotic front for the Unionists
British forces have superior weapons and tactics compared to the Irish.
The RAF would have bombed millitary bases in Ireland.
Blockade of goods to Ireland
I can see a small British counter attack into Ireland but their not going to take all the country.
Ireland seen as a pathetic aggressor
Ceasefire
Ireland financially ruined
Riots in the streets
IRA losses bases in the south
Huge patriotic front for the Unionists
Garrison
Donor
Well that was a different government, and we are wandering way off topic.
'Armageddon' was a good choice of name for this exercise because it would have been apocalyptic for the Irish Republic in military and economic terms.
An utterly pathetic invader. I doubt that the British government even bother with a counter attack. Whats the point?
As for bombing bases. there's not much to bomb - half a dozen vampires in Baldonnell, a trio of Flower class corvettes in Cobh and some army barracks.
Not really worth the cost in aviation fuel and ordnance.
While I fully agree with the points raised about how "unwise" any Irish action would have been ( I think at this stage the tanks were barely functional let alone issues with ammo.) And the Defence forces would most likely have sat in the barracks when given the order.
A note about butterflies while anything could happen I don't see the RN getting much of any attention afterwards, at this point the Irish navy could field 2 Flower class, which most likely wouldn't even leave harbour. So it could be a case of the Army and RAF seeing action and the RN just blockading.
But in terms of the EEC application, the UK wasn't a member yet either so it would come down to what France and Germany felt on the issue. Also for economic retaliation while the UK at this point is Ireland's main partner the same is true for the UK so how long any sanctions would last is up for debate.
A note about butterflies while anything could happen I don't see the RN getting much of any attention afterwards, at this point the Irish navy could field 2 Flower class, which most likely wouldn't even leave harbour. So it could be a case of the Army and RAF seeing action and the RN just blockading.
But in terms of the EEC application, the UK wasn't a member yet either so it would come down to what France and Germany felt on the issue. Also for economic retaliation while the UK at this point is Ireland's main partner the same is true for the UK so how long any sanctions would last is up for debate.
Point 1 is interesting. It could have reprecussions on EEC membership for both sides.
Point 2 needs a bit of maths applied to it. UK may have been the home for the majority of Irish exports in 1968/9, but they were a fairly insignificant part of the total imports of the UK.
To be honest it might help the argument for membership, presuming trading with Ireland would have sharply ended for a period.
Maybe, but the British know the Rhodesian's are far tougher than a few hundred lads with Lee Enfield's in Buses. Nixon has the Irish-Americans to worry about, I'm guessing he'll try and stay out of it as much as possible, probably calling for peace and negotiations but stressing that it's an Anglo-Irish affair.
Hogg is indeed an interesting scenario, it could be a sign of the Conservative party going back to its old elitist ways. He would also be nearing 70 by 1974, Labour might increase its majority again.
Ireland will be seen as the aggressor. A restrained British response hopefully will not seriously damage British accession talks.
As for a trade embargo while British exports will be down (not sure by how much) the effect on the British economy should be relatively minor compared to the effect on the Irish economy.
Any embargo would probably not last for long (months rather than years)but it I would imagine that there wil be a hell of a lot of pressure on the Government to put one in place... or the streets will run with Guinness and Kerrygold!
Given that Ireland is still a major importer of UK market ( I think somewhere at 30%, the reason that the UK stepped in for the Bail out was because of the trade ties both ways) at the moment, if we were even 15-20% it would have an impact on the UK, even 10% would have hurt some areas.
In terms going forward it would be interesting how this would affect Ireland. If FF gets gutted for this then you could see a full left right political split with FG and Labour being the major parties along with smaller left parties.
Could you see military spending being increased after a crushing defeat? If so where would the funds come from
Sure Ireland will be seen as an aggressor but how seriously would it be taken, I mean after a day/2 of fighting, the other point is if the fallout from the operation means worse violence in the North, how would that play out in the talks as well. At the time the French were very favourable to Ireland.
Given the Irish community in the UK I'm sure any embargo would also leak like a sieve, the other point is how this would affect the possibilities for Irish moving to the UK, if that emigration route is reduced due to lingering hostility over the operation could you see larger communities in the states, Australia or Argentina?
I don't think it was ever likely the UK would've taken direct military action against Rhodesia: white Rhodesians were/are pretty much all British settlers with a lot of familial and cultural ties to the UK, including having served in both world wars. Be like fighting against New Zealanders.
Would the UK fight against these people merely to reassert its demand for black enfranchisement, to punish the whites for having declared independence without the authority of London? Patrolling off the coast of Mozambique to deter trade and tut-tutting about the awfulness of UDI, certainly.
I suppose it could be argued that the time was true of the Falklands in 1982 in OTL. The robustness and success of the military response caused a real sense of patriotism and a huge political bonus for Margaret Thatcher.
A successful repulse of the Irish incursion into Ulster would have seen similar, though on a smaller scale. At a time when the Wilson Government was coming back strongly against the Tories, I'm simply arguing the possibility that a small patriotic boost to Labour might have convinced Wilson to go to the country in late 1969 and to win , albeit with a reduced majority (30-40 seats).
No Labour leader had ever won three elections (Blair would in OTL of course) and the Party's would be his to command. The Tories had conversely not lost three times in succession since the introduction of universal suffrage and with Heath a two-time loser, I suspect he would have been forced out by the 1922 Committee in the spring of 1970.
Who wins a Conservative leadership election? Maudling would be the obvious favourite but runours of his relationship with Paulson were already circulating in Westminster. One possibility is to have Iain MacLeod become leader and die within three months making him one of the shortest-lived party leaders on record.
Quentin Hogg is arguably too old while Enoch Powell is a more likely contender as is Keith Joseph.
We could have the scenario of Iain MacLeod becoming leader in March 1970 and dying four months later to be succeeded by Reginald Maudling who is forced out by the Paulson scandal in 1972.
Would there be much of a bounce though?
Falklands was a full on campaign that hung in the balance and required actions that stretched the British Armed Forces to the limit to achieve.
Pushing back the Irish Armed Forces, not so much. And there's also the issue that the Argentinian's didn't have a voting bloc in the UK, if Ireland got stomped how would that effect Labour turn out in Irish areas?