I think this is probably an unlikely scenario but, hey, it’s a “what if . . .”
Nothing in Parliament is secret. But if we ask if there are secret military plans to occupy Ireland in these circumstances . . .
Wouldn’t think so, for a number of reasons. First, any regrouping and recovery to be done would be more easily done in an allied country, such as another NATO member state. Secondly, any power that could flatten Great Britain could, and no doubt would, flatten Ireland if British forces were using it. In short, the British would find it easier to go a little further afield in order to regroup without being the subject of guerilla attacks from the local population, plus the same external attacks which led to the problem in the first place.
I have heard, on no particular authority, that the Allies did consider invading Ireland during the Second World War in order to take control of certain ports and naval bases and use them for the Atlantic campaign, and that the plan was that US forces rather than British forces would undertake the invasion, because they would meet with less resistance and because the Irish government would find it easier to come to terms with the US government than with the British government.
Barring invasion or nuclear strike, the English goverment would not leave. In the former case, Ireland might be overrun by swarms of refugees, but their military would be too tied up in defense. In the latter case, the the British government would leave, probably to the east, floating in the jetstream, making sunsets brighter for years to come.
Hehehe - It could take a nuclear strike to make any association between the U.K. government and the concept of “bright”.
Or maybe that applies to a lot of poiticians anywhere, I suppose.
And I still think that some posters seem (erroneously) to think that “England” is synonymous with “Britain”. Oh well, ignorance-fighting continues.
I can recall reading this too, though I’m not inclined to dig for a cite at the moment (Coogan or Lyons, probably). It’s kind of hard to imagine that an American invasion would be any more palatable, though, given Dev’s relationship with the American Minister at the time.
Normally this has me in fits too, but there is a substantial amount of precedent for doing so if you look at the history of British-Irish relations. The war of independence was called the Anglo-Irish War, the agreement Thatcher and Fitzgerald signed was the Anglo-Irish Agreement, etc.
LOL - Good one, yojimboguy And an amazingly weird document it would be too! It would win prizes for fantasy, surrealism, magic realism, and the it-is-such-an-incomprensible-melange that it must be high art! And probably the “Dark & StormyNight” (too lazy to look up proper name just now, but you all know the one I mean) prize for bad writing too.
hehehe - now there is a game for long winter evenings, or for unemployed scum like myself. Hmm - a nice big project!
Well, it wouldn’t have been much more palatable. Dev would have hated having to yield to any invader. But there would be obvious additional problems in yielding to an invading British force, a bare twenty or twenty-five years after the war of independence. Moreover there would be a perception in Ireland that, over time, the British could be defeated through a combination of guerilla tactics and political action - after all, this had worked before - whereas the Americans, as well as not being a historical enemy, were seen as completely invincible.
I think by the 1940s Dev was enough of a realist to know that conventional resistance to either the British or the Americans was impossible to sustain for more than a very short period. However had there been a British invasion I don’t think he could have prevented a continuing guerilla campaign against it. But he might have been enough of a pragmatist to try to sell some kind of dictated-at-the-point-of-a-gun “alliance” with the US, and he might have got away with it, or at least minimised the active resistance to it.
Sorry to drag this up again, as there’s already been a lot of stuff about it, but for the OP and other posters who find it confusing, here are the definitions regarding the British Isles (which in itself is a controversial term). Helps if you draw Venn diagrams:
Great Britain (big island on the right):
Ireland (smaller island on the left):
Republic of Ireland
United Kingdom (sometimes referred to simply as ‘Britain’):
Northern Ireland (province, 6 counties of Ireland)
Republic of Ireland (not called Éire by its inhabitants):
26 counties of Ireland
So what do you call the rest of the affiliates – Canada, Australia, etc? Anything besides the British Empire? And what exactly is the “Dominion”? Is India still in on the Empire? Or did they blow that popsicle stand 100%?
Also, since America is now the driving force behind development of the English language, we are not mistaking England for Britain, we are redefining the terms.