The Ultimate Irish History debate!

nollaig

i have read some of fenian's qoute and his is right. firstly dev had damn all influence of the IRA, the bridages mostly followed their leaders like Barry, Lynch and on the pro side mckeown.

I believe dev tried to save face. i cant understand why history has failed to document on the preliminary negotiations between dev and llyod geogre in july 1921. it has been recorded though that llyod and made references to the title SAORSTAT EIREANN in papers belonging to dev, he also commented the the gaelic people didnt have a word for republic.

wat i kind annoying about dev is that his external association theory is not too far away from the sinn fein theory of dual monarhy, were ireland would be an independant state who would recognise the crown as its head for external affairs. he failed to properly explain this to the negotiation delegates. futher whilst he told them that they had the power and authority to sign on behalf of Ireland he still underminded this by telling them to contact the dail before doing anything. furthermore he failed to brief the delegates sufficently, they had damn all of a mandate, they were up against the best political minds who many would later become prime minsters. furthermore in later years he brought out document no 2 with a slight change in the oath. pretty much the rest of the document is similiar to the treaty, did he accept it? and what about when he realised collins was right about the steps for freedom when he went about dismantling the treaty or when he came up with the conclusion that the oath was an empty formula? i believe dev indulged too much n the company of more doctraine republicians such as brugha and stack, he once said that he wished "to be removed from the straightjacket of the republic and that brugha with him". dev was a politicial machine, he knew what the people wanted.

as for griffith and hs non violent stance, this maybe for practical reasons. he had witness the might of british millitia in the boer war whilst working in south africa, he knew that suh a small nation would never succeed. but if u note his articles in united irishmen paper he was very hostile to the empire and oftern spoke violently about them, he was a nationalist despite contray belief

it must also be remembered, the ordinary people of ireland witnessed war fare for over 10 consecutive years, many had risked their lives by providing shelter for the flying columns, it would be impossible to ignore their wishes for peace. as for america, dev went over there yet the Preisent (we all know he gets cosy with britain during time of war, in this case ww1) refused to recognise our cause.

i agree that many non soliders had a mind of their own an rejected the treaty from their own beliefs, however the dail failed to debate on more important issues such a north east of ireland, and the establishment of the state, instead of the oath and symbols of britain.

the civil war nearly aborted the birth of the state. it loss many key figures on both sides. there is a record of files that suggests collins wass preparing a campaign in the north, at that time caholic were been kicked out of their homes etc by now ruc. he had advissed civil servants to reject the north auitjority and promised to pay their wages if they were sacked.

Mostly fair enough points. But who's side would you have taken?

walrusgumble

honestly both were great men. my view has changed over the years. i am only 21 so you could imagine it wasnt long when i heard the stories of collins and was amazed by him. then de valera for how he dismantled the 1922 constitution and treaty.

if there is there is blame to be put on the results of the treaty (now bear in mind we wouldnt have the country we have now, pitty dev only realised this until 1936) then i blame dev and not collins for the reasons i have given.

you see i dont think its easy to pick sides when asking a young lad, believe me for the sake of debate not wanting to go with the flow and agreeing with the teacher and not questioning everything, i use to take the republican side. (the collins film made sure that the rest took collins lol, probably also because there is a preceived idea that the free staters won). i would have definitly followed and (probaly now would follow fianna fail) thank god bertie got rid of the division in ireland on this topic, well at least in the dail. (in haugheys early days there was sobery etc in ff on the fact that his da was a free stater).

i see where fenian is coming from, when he said he would have fought in civil war. had i fought in 1916, i would have fought for a united ireland with complete seperation from britain, i would be outraged by what the treaty gave; continued presence of british forces in ireland, having to continue to repay land annunities for my land that britain should never have taken in the first place. having to recognise a foreigner as my head of state, who our politicans had previously risked their lives by acting in defiance setting up the dail and ignoring him.

yet, you have to look at the situation today, would you fight for the ira planed to have a rising n belfast tomorrow, what would your reaction be? many down here maybe outraged, omagh proved this, now look at the bafflement that was shown by the people in 1916 (please note i am aware the 1960-70's was a bit different, protection from unjustified attacks etc)

i think collins would have made a very good politican, he did wonders funding the cause while min for finance, lehin in russua sent him something like £20,000 or so. he had worked in the post office in london so he had clerk experience and of course his excellent orgainisation skills whilst commander in chief of the army.

#15

Fenian wrote:

Yes I think we would of won the war. Britian had just come out of WW1 and it was still recovering from it. I don't think they had the will to wage another prolonged war against a guerilla army.

How much more recources did they have? Cork, Kerry and Dublin (and I think a few more) were already under martial law and they were still getting beaten. More and more people were quiting the RIC while the ranks of the IRA were swelling. Republicanism had swept the island and no amount of tanks or artillary could of crushed it.

Now, there is also the argument that the Brits would of razed the country rather than concede and give us the Republic. Personnally i don't think they would of because of the amount of influential Irish Americans in the US.

Britain would still have had far more resources than the IRA.
I disagree with the point about the Irish-American influence. President Wilson saw no point in angering Britain, who were the USA's closest ally. The post-war conferences show this, as Wilson contradicted himself about the principle of self-determination for small nations.

British people were indeed tired of war, but so too were the Irish. The war was being fought in Ireland, not Britain, therefore it is just as likely that the IRA would not have the support for a prolonged war. The vote for the treaty was a vote for peace as much as anything else.

#15

nollaig wrote:

Really? Never heard of that. Surely he should have taken up that offer??? Dont believe it tbh

Yep Churchill hinted that he would be willing to hand over control of the north if Ireland entered the war and allowed the allies the use of irish ports.

Fenian

#15 wrote:

Britain would still have had far more resources than the IRA.
I disagree with the point about the Irish-American influence. President Wilson saw no point in angering Britain, who were the USA's closest ally. The post-war conferences show this, as Wilson contradicted himself about the principle of self-determination for small nations.

British people were indeed tired of war, but so too were the Irish. The war was being fought in Ireland, not Britain, therefore it is just as likely that the IRA would not have the support for a prolonged war. The vote for the treaty was a vote for peace as much as anything else.

Well Britian would always have more resources than the IRA. The IRA didn't have an industrial economy to fund it. Wilson might not of wanted to anger his allies but he didn't want to anger his electorate either.

I have no doubt that if the IRA stayed unified and kept up the fight the people would of supported them. Yes the war was in Ireland and if it had prolonged it may of expanded to the British main land. Brugha himself wanted to have a campaign of bombings, sabotage and assassinations on the main land. I may be wrong but weren't the Liverpool docks burned down? It was Collins who disagreed with taking the fight wholesale to the British mainland.

#15

Fenian wrote:

Well Britian would always have more resources than the IRA. The IRA didn't have an industrial economy to fund it. Wilson might not of wanted to anger his allies but he didn't want to anger his electorate either.

I have no doubt that if the IRA stayed unified and kept up the fight the people would of supported them. Yes the war was in Ireland and if it had prolonged it may of expanded to the British main land. Brugha himself wanted to have a campaign of bombings, sabotage and assassinations on the main land. I may be wrong but weren't the Liverpool docks burned down? It was Collins who disagreed with taking the fight wholesale to the British mainland.

Wilsons second term as president ended in 1920 so he wouldn't have been putting himself before the electorate again.

The IRA probably wouldn't have had the resources to sustain the war for much longer and fighting the war on both islands would have caused further strain on resources. My point was that the irish people were more concerned with peace than with getting a free and unified 32 counties. Otherwise the treaty would have been rejected.

harrybosch

the question... collins or dev....

whilst an irish republican myself, reading into it, i feel i would have had to side with collins and have gone pro-treaty. the ira at the time were in absolutely no position to carry on the war. they were broken at this stage, and the threat by churchill, be it a bluff or not, could not be verified by the irish because they were in no position to fight military-wise.

Knowing that neither a Republic nor a united Ireland could be won at such a conference, de Valera refused to attend. Instead, he sent Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins to head the Irish delegation. Neither Griffith nor Collins wanted to go. Michael Collins declared that he was a soldier, not a politician, but the issue went to the Cabinet and was decided by de Valera's casting vote.
De Valera was the most experienced negotiator, but he chose instead, to send others to parley against the far more experienced British team. They were no match for the cunning Lloyd George, who was called the "Welsh Wizard." One historian called it the worst single decision of de Valera's life.

Still, under tremendous pressure, the Irish delegation, with Collins and Griffith as chief negotiators, pressed for a united Ireland. Differences within the Irish delegation added to the difficulty, but Britain's refusal to consider anything less than dominion status, excluding Ulster created additional conflict. Michael Collins knew that a Republic that included Ulster was not possible under the present conditions

i feel, had michael collins been allowed to continue his work, a 32 county republic was achievable. who knows what could have happened.alas, it wasnt to be and what happened. i feel dev has a lot to answer fo as regards the civil war. instead of concentrating efforts and re-doubling efforsts on fighting for the 6 counties, they decided to turn on each other. dev went around the county in 22 and made somecontroversial speechs that ignited flames that were held underneath.

essentially, i believe the country was robbed of a leader with exceptional qualities, who, im my personal view, could have delivered the 32 counties eventually. he himself saw the treaty as a ''stepping stone'' to a united ireland. the treaty was, without question the best deal possible.

#15

harrybosch wrote:

the question... collins or dev....

whilst an irish republican myself, reading into it, i feel i would have had to side with collins and have gone pro-treaty. the ira at the time were in absolutely no position to carry on the war. they were broken at this stage, and the threat by churchill, be it a bluff or not, could not be verified by the irish because they were in no position to fight military-wise.

Knowing that neither a Republic nor a united Ireland could be won at such a conference, de Valera refused to attend. Instead, he sent Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins to head the Irish delegation. Neither Griffith nor Collins wanted to go. Michael Collins declared that he was a soldier, not a politician, but the issue went to the Cabinet and was decided by de Valera's casting vote.
De Valera was the most experienced negotiator, but he chose instead, to send others to parley against the far more experienced British team. They were no match for the cunning Lloyd George, who was called the "Welsh Wizard." One historian called it the worst single decision of de Valera's life.

Still, under tremendous pressure, the Irish delegation, with Collins and Griffith as chief negotiators, pressed for a united Ireland. Differences within the Irish delegation added to the difficulty, but Britain's refusal to consider anything less than dominion status, excluding Ulster created additional conflict. Michael Collins knew that a Republic that included Ulster was not possible under the present conditions

i feel, had michael collins been allowed to continue his work, a 32 county republic was achievable. who knows what could have happened.alas, it wasnt to be and what happened. i feel dev has a lot to answer fo as regards the civil war. instead of concentrating efforts and re-doubling efforsts on fighting for the 6 counties, they decided to turn on each other. dev went around the county in 22 and made somecontroversial speechs that ignited flames that were held underneath.

essentially, i believe the country was robbed of a leader with exceptional qualities, who, im my personal view, could have delivered the 32 counties eventually. he himself saw the treaty as a ''stepping stone'' to a united ireland. the treaty was, without question the best deal possible.

couldn't have put it better myself! i agree 100%:D