Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
A sophomoric and naive analysis that displays exactly zero understanding of the balance of probabilities with regard to Home Rule. Had the Irish not resorted to violence, it is highly unlikely (given the power wielded by Unionism and the primacy of the Ulster question in British minds) that Home Rule in any form would have been forthcoming. Even as it was Ireland only achieved rule over that portion of Ireland that was left once the Ulster question had been resolved to Unionist satisfaction.

It is our common error to assume that NI is what was 'left over' after the establishment of the Free State - in fact, it was very much the other way about as far as the British were concerned. This is why the British offered a truce to Sinn Féin only after the boundary was in effective operation and the Northern Ireland parliament had come into existence in June 1921.

In short, the British would almost certainly have fúcked Home Rule out the window in order to keep the Unionists (which also meant the military - see the Curragh Mutiny) happy. Violence is the only way they got any semblance of independence.

As for the war, by 1916 there was no realistic possibility of anywhere in the British isles being occupied by Germany - the British fleet was far, far too powerful for that ever to happen, even if the Germans had by some miracle won on land.

Anyway, read this and learn something.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fatal-Path-.../dp/0571297404
Did you miss the point about the second war in what I wrote?

We know from the 1914 September Programme exactly what the Germans planned in the event of a victory in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

The Brest-Litovsk shows they weren't joking in terms of imposing such a punitive peace.

Have a look at the terms of the Sept Prog - you'll like "Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany." {Brexit is the final stage of its implementation.}

Now which is the only country not mentioned at all? GB. Why? Because Germany planned a second war with the UK for global domination.

{This is why Fritz Fischer in the 1960s - the first historian given full access to the imperial German archives - talked about German war aims being identical in both wars. And the Fischer Thesis is the accepted, historical consensus over half a century later.}

This can also be seen with the peace offers made later in 1916 to France and Russia which explicitly stated "the war at sea continues."

Had the Sept Prog been implemented, all the Channel Ports would be in hostile hands, and our trade would be banned from the continent.

But more importantly, this massive German continental sized economy would then devote all the resources to building a fleet capable to beating the RN. They wouldn't have to put most of their military spending towards the army as France and Russia were no longer threats.

So had the Germans won at any point during the war, which was possible until the Spring Offensive failed to split GB and Fr on the Western Front, then we would have been looking at a second war within a decade that we wouldn't be able to afford to fight.

So I'm afraid you're completely wrong to dismiss the threat to GB during WW1. The reason the UK isn't mentioned in the Sept Prog - why there's not even a demand for an indemnity from us, unlike the French - is because they saw it as only the warm up for the sea war with us for global domination.

Think about it as Schlieffen Plan 2.0. Knock out France then knock out Rus. Then use the resources of the continent and control of the Channel Ports to knock out GB in a second war.