Should Ireland be a british dominion?
- Thread starter MinhowMinhow
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
peace conferences suck as they are anyway, Besides, it'd make sense historically, no? just make the invading power get them as a puppet and they would ally to them, make the Suez independent though
- 2
Those who say this "with this the peace conference sucks" has not yet understood that the peace conferences always suck!
- 2
besides, it wouldn't be any different from Italy setting up a collab government which they can currently do in game, so it's not a big deal. Biggest problem would be handling how it capitulates really
Legally-speaking Ireland was a "dominion" within the British Empire until the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948 came into effect on the 18th of April, 1949, but in practice the Irish had largely ousted the King from what remaining power he had left in the Free State already in 1937, taking advantage of the abdication crisis created by Edward VIII.
For historical purposes the way the game handles Ireland now is fairly acceptable, though its independence should be guaranteed by Britain, with perhaps an option for military access once the war's kicked off.
As for if Ireland joined the war on the UK's side, then one could make the case that the game should revert the country to dominion status for the duration of the war.
For historical purposes the way the game handles Ireland now is fairly acceptable, though its independence should be guaranteed by Britain, with perhaps an option for military access once the war's kicked off.
As for if Ireland joined the war on the UK's side, then one could make the case that the game should revert the country to dominion status for the duration of the war.
- 1
In a historical game, Irleand should lose dominion status and become independent in 1937.
Egypt:
Suez should be a state owned by UK but claimed and cored by Egypt.
Would that be some kind of national spirit or just AI behaviour?
Egypt:
Suez should be a state owned by UK but claimed and cored by Egypt.
- 2
Claimed yes...but cored not. Gibraltar not is cored and is owned by years...
This should be changed as well. Spain is too busy with civil war to attack UK in 1936 over Gibraltar anyway.
But what does this have to do with it !? WHAT!? Nothing! Make core strange part of country not are good...in hoi4, you can enter in axis and take gibraltar! and if retake they start with low compilance! The people of Gibraltar not see himself as british!
I think the fact that the Anglo-Irish Treaty was listed as an international treaty and lodged as such with the LoN tells you exactly how Ireland's independence was viewed from 1922.
Keep in mind the UK was trying it’s best to show the Dominions should be counted as separate nations in the League so that it effectively had more votes/influence. Some countries disliked this, but Britain would generally just point out dominion participation/contribution in WWI compared to some of the League’s other members.
As for Gibraltar. Spain should have a claim, given they continue to claim the area, based on geographic nationalism if nothing else, and never have given said claim up, and it did somewhat influence Spanish foreign policy decisions at times. Doesn’t mean Spain should be in any position to take it in most games. In fact, it should be reduced to a one tile attack angle given that part of it’s defencibility is that it’s a narrow peninsula and perhaps difficult/impossible to assault with enemy navy stationed next door.
As for cores, it’s arguable Britain should have a core. Many locals were either of British or various mixed origins and have consistently shown strong preference to remain part of Britain over say Spain. Gibraltar is/was a bit of a melting pot, but pretty sure they would be considered “British” in all the relevant ways for determining a core.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
That Irish independence was probably inevitable but not yet? Because that's how it was lol, the A-IT still kept a lot of nominally British things - the monarchy being the biggest imo. They were a dominion under Britain, being basically free at that point in all but name, as with the rest of the dominions, the 1937 cemented their official independence and 1948 cut ties with the potential of British interference entirely. and as the person above me said, Britain tried to stock the LoN as much as possible with allies - convincing the world they were completely independent was part of that. Ireland should be a dominion in a 1936 start, then go independent the next year (with some bonuses for Britain) then completely independent around the end of the game - technicalities or not, it would make the most logical sense as yes, Ireland was still a dominion through and through and should be displayed as one, one about to break free completely.
- 1
Ireland could raise its own taxes, pass its own laws and enter into whatever international agreements it wished from 1922. It was independent. That's how it was.
All of those things don't constitute a completely independent country though, which is what I mean. The dominions were all 'independent' but not completely sovereign - same would apply to Ireland in this case. Your logic doesn't work in the sense that there was another British law which was passed, namely the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which gave all of those governing abilities to the then self-governing colonies of Britain, yet in game they are displayed as Dominions. Why? Because Britain still held vestiges of influence in them, besides, if Ireland was as completely independent as you say, why would they have needed the 1937 Constitution?
The 1937 Constitution of Ireland was written for 2 main reasons. One was actually the link to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which many Anti-Treaty members of the Irish government regarded as Britain still keeping Ireland within it's sphere of influence - which it was. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was explicitly stated to give Ireland a status within the empire 'the same as that of the Dominion of Canada', which itself was not fully sovereign either.
Some of the articles within the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 were removed via the Statute of Westminster in 1931, meaning that there were on the road to complete independence but they were crucially still not there - they were still a dominion of both Britain and her monarchy. The other reason? symbolic, giving Ireland its own constitution not procured by another state, in the case of Ireland, that being Britain.
Basically, if we were to follow what you say, with Ireland being completely independent in 1922, all other dominions (or at least Canada and South Africa) would have to also be completely free, even though that was absolutely not the case, especially in South Africa. The Dominion level of autonomy provides the exact thing Ireland needs, it would need adjusting to more historically accurate however - as me and others have stated, a loyalty system and less control over them by Britain would be perfect (being able to decline calls to wars and not have their divisions taken by their overlord).
- 1
- 1
When I first read the title I was sceptical (it would be quite controversial I assume), but upon further reading I think this could be something worth taking a look at eventually.
Aside from some alt-history potentially, I don't particularily care that much for Ireland though; them being free is a perfectly fine simplification in my book.
However, making Ireland a dominion would raise questions about the current puppet system, which in turn could provide for a deeper experience. I don't want to make any concrete suggestions, but I think the system should feature more give and take. A strong and/or respected overlord should have more control over their puppets than now, whereas a weak and/or unpopular overlord would be wise in watching their back. They kinda did something similar with Vichy I think (haven't played them), but it would be cool if something like this could apply to all puppets.
Aside from some alt-history potentially, I don't particularily care that much for Ireland though; them being free is a perfectly fine simplification in my book.
However, making Ireland a dominion would raise questions about the current puppet system, which in turn could provide for a deeper experience. I don't want to make any concrete suggestions, but I think the system should feature more give and take. A strong and/or respected overlord should have more control over their puppets than now, whereas a weak and/or unpopular overlord would be wise in watching their back. They kinda did something similar with Vichy I think (haven't played them), but it would be cool if something like this could apply to all puppets.
yeah, currently puppets are extremely static - dominions either forcibly break free because they do a focus, or you can insta annex through convoy lend lease, I'm completely up for a more in-depth system for them, something like loyalty could be a good way of managing it
- 1
The Irish position was that the Statute of Westminster merely recognised the situation that had pertained since the treaty.
The constitution was about the reorganisation of Irish law. The position of the king was adjusted ro reflect the situation after the abdication act (though not entirely removed). But even before his only role was assenting Irish bills and appointing diplomats on the advice of the Irish governance. The importance of the constitution was more symbolic as it did not radically alter Ireland's international position.
This entire discussion is missing the most important point: could the UK make Ireland do what it wanted? No, it could not.
It didn't matter that Ireland was legally a dominion in 1936, because the irrefutable fact was that the UK could not make Ireland do anything Ireland didn't want to do. Yes, there is a very pretty piece of paper that says the Irish have to sing "God Save the King" and follow Westminster's lead in foreign affairs, but if you show that very pretty piece of paper to any Irishman in 1936, he will take a big steaming poop and wipe his bottom with it. Ireland was a dominion in name only, because the Irish were going to do whatever the hell they wanted to, and the UK could do nothing more than stamp its feet angrily and make annoyed Churchill noises.
Ireland was the only British territory at that point (other than the US) which had achieved its autonomy through open violence. They fought the British in a rebellion, and that rebellion, and its costs, were still fresh in the minds of both the Irish and the British in 1936. There were men in the Irish government who had killed British soldiers with their bare hands. They were not the kind of people who would give even a passing thought to what the UK wanted Ireland to do. If the UK had tried to order Ireland to do something the Irish didn't want to do, the response would be a two-finger salute followed by a resounding "Get bent."
"But South Africa" I hear you say. "They resisted the UK's leadership, and the British exerted pressure and influence to get a compliant government during WWII". My reply is South Africa had people living there who liked the UK. Ireland did not. There were no UK-loyal Irishmen who Britain could use to replace the De Valera government. And if the UK had tried to use force, the Irish would have resisted violently.
Britain has only ever gotten Irish compliance through the use of violence. And when you're ostensibly a liberal democracy fighting to keep Europe safe from an insane fascist tyranny, it really doesn't look good if you have to send your army into an allied nation to shoot the people who live there to get them to do what you want. The UK knew that using military force against Ireland was a non-starter.
Paradox made Ireland completely independent, because they understood that Ireland was completely independent as of 1922. All the treaties and very pretty pieces of paper to the contrary don't change the underlying, unassailable truth: Ireland was going to do what Ireland wanted to do, and the UK could go piss up a rope.
We don't need a new level of puppet in the game to model the Irish political situation. The UK had no control over Ireland IRL and it has no control over Ireland in-game. Don't fix what isn't broken.
It didn't matter that Ireland was legally a dominion in 1936, because the irrefutable fact was that the UK could not make Ireland do anything Ireland didn't want to do. Yes, there is a very pretty piece of paper that says the Irish have to sing "God Save the King" and follow Westminster's lead in foreign affairs, but if you show that very pretty piece of paper to any Irishman in 1936, he will take a big steaming poop and wipe his bottom with it. Ireland was a dominion in name only, because the Irish were going to do whatever the hell they wanted to, and the UK could do nothing more than stamp its feet angrily and make annoyed Churchill noises.
Ireland was the only British territory at that point (other than the US) which had achieved its autonomy through open violence. They fought the British in a rebellion, and that rebellion, and its costs, were still fresh in the minds of both the Irish and the British in 1936. There were men in the Irish government who had killed British soldiers with their bare hands. They were not the kind of people who would give even a passing thought to what the UK wanted Ireland to do. If the UK had tried to order Ireland to do something the Irish didn't want to do, the response would be a two-finger salute followed by a resounding "Get bent."
"But South Africa" I hear you say. "They resisted the UK's leadership, and the British exerted pressure and influence to get a compliant government during WWII". My reply is South Africa had people living there who liked the UK. Ireland did not. There were no UK-loyal Irishmen who Britain could use to replace the De Valera government. And if the UK had tried to use force, the Irish would have resisted violently.
Britain has only ever gotten Irish compliance through the use of violence. And when you're ostensibly a liberal democracy fighting to keep Europe safe from an insane fascist tyranny, it really doesn't look good if you have to send your army into an allied nation to shoot the people who live there to get them to do what you want. The UK knew that using military force against Ireland was a non-starter.
Paradox made Ireland completely independent, because they understood that Ireland was completely independent as of 1922. All the treaties and very pretty pieces of paper to the contrary don't change the underlying, unassailable truth: Ireland was going to do what Ireland wanted to do, and the UK could go piss up a rope.
We don't need a new level of puppet in the game to model the Irish political situation. The UK had no control over Ireland IRL and it has no control over Ireland in-game. Don't fix what isn't broken.
- 4
- 1
Again, my point being that if Ireland were to be portrayed as independent, so should the rest of the Dominions, who also had these rights. There is still a different between existing as a country, which Ireland did, or existing as a sovereign state, which Ireland didn't, not until their 1937 constitution.The Irish position was that the Statute of Westminster merely recognised the situation that had pertained since the treaty.
The constitution was about the reorganisation of Irish law. The position of the king was adjusted ro reflect the situation after the abdication act (though not entirely removed). But even before his only role was assenting Irish bills and appointing diplomats on the advice of the Irish governance. The importance of the constitution was more symbolic as it did not radically alter Ireland's international position.
In the document you provide, they also say how ' In certain important respects however the Irish Free State is in advance of South Africa and both in constitutional and international attributes she is the first of the Commonwealth States to have attained a position of equality with Great Britain', which is exactly what a dominion is/should be - nation equal to Britain yet within her sphere of direct influence, whether exercised or not. And as you say, the constitution adjusted the king's position, in that of assenting Irish bills and appointing diplomats, but that's still, if minor, influential. Usurping that power and giving it to the Irish themselves gave them more control over their governance - therefore, ceasing to be a dominion.
Ireland was a country, but not completely sovereign, as it requires 4 key things to be so:
- Territory - they held most of the territory they claimed, bar Northern Ireland, but I would still say that constitutes as a point
- Population - had an Irish population, pretty self-explanatory
- Recognition - internationally recognised as an Irish state, so they tick that box as well
- Authority - This is where the Irish Free State doesn't meet the requirements, as they did not hold complete control over Ireland, so lets take a look.
A number of conditions still applied to Ireland on the formation of the IFS which explains how they were still a dominion and not completely independent:
EDIT: accidentally pressed send before I was finished
- The King remained king in Ireland (not of, but still had presence)
- Britain still retained strategic treaty ports on Ireland's south and north-west coasts
- The Irish Free State had a status of association with the UK rather than being completely legally independent from it.
You still have not contested the point on correct display however. If Ireland should be independent in your eyes, why is South Africa not also immediately independent if it was given the same rights under the SoW? Ireland should be a dominion in a 1936 start date and you haven't really provided a reason other than the A-I Treaty of 1922, which would also mean South Africa should be independent, following your line of reasoning. Ireland was de jure independent, but not de facto which is what matters. They dont need any new fancy autonomy level, just for dominions to be given more control.
Last edited:
I would argue that Ireland was not as unified as you're saying, and it's disingenuous to display it as such. If Ireland was so anti-British, why would the Constitution of 1937 pass by 56.5% and not something higher? If Ireland was as unified as you say, why was the constitution opposed by members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party? Because it wasn't a unified nation. Whilst most Irish establishments such as the Irish Independent celebrated it, alongside most Irishmen, The Irish Times for example criticised the constitution's assertion of a territorial claim on Northern Ireland, and the absence in its text of any reference to the British Commonwealth.
And why, if they were already completely sovereign, would the constitution make mention of national sovereignty, saying that it provides 'inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right' of the Irish people to self-determination (Article 1) and that Ireland itself is declared to be "sovereign, independent, [and] democratic" (Article 5).
Why were these highlighted as important parts of the constitution if Ireland was already, completely independent? Fact of the matter is, they weren't, de jure yes, like the rest of the dominions, but not de facto.