What has Dev ever done for us?

DublinWriter

Besides starting the Civil War and allowing Archbishop John Charles McQuid to dictate state policy, what has Dev ever done for us post 1922?

I'm trying to get a balanced view of the man, but I just can't find any redeeming points.

Zebra3

Was it Dev who stopped the land payments from Ireland to Britain?

Imagine having to buy backyour own land which had been stolen from you by the very set of bstards who stole it.

I think there was a deal done in the end where the British got a lump sum as reward for their theft. :mad:

ninty9er

There's this thing we like to call "Bunreacht na hÉireann". I think you'll find that that was quite enough.

At a time when socialism was thriving all over Europe and governments such as the Nazi's and Fascist Party in Italy were in power, he gave the people a freedom. We might not see it as such today but that document which any Irish person worth thier salt will defend till the last (no matter what their opinion on certain contents) was very very progressive at the time and is as such, rare in Europe to this day

nollaig

Stopping the land payments to Britain and ensuring neutrality were two big contributions.

However, When he stopped the payments to Britain, He continued to collect them from the people for the Irish governemnt, seemed a bit strange that the people should have to continue paying them at all.

DublinWriter

nollaig wrote:

Stopping the land payments to Britain and ensuring neutrality were two big contributions.

However, When he stopped the payments to Britain, He continued to collect them from the people for the Irish governemnt, seemed a bit strange that the people should have to continue paying them at all.

Only for the smaller farmers and it ensued in a damaging trade war with the UK at the time.

As for neutrality, well we "neutrally" on the side of the Allies. Despite the camp at the Curragh, many downed RAF pilots were smuggled back over the boarder secretly.

I'm still hearing very little in support of Dev.

nollaig

Only for the smaller farmers and it ensued in a damaging trade war with the UK at the time.

As for neutrality, well we "neutrally" on the side of the Allies. Despite the camp at the Curragh, many downed RAF pilots were smuggled back over the boarder secretly.

I'm still hearing very little in support of Dev.

What about the 1937 constitution? Didnt he remove the king from it or something?

I agree with ya though, he did sweet feck all good!

funktastic

Gave Ireland a greater world role as minister for External Affairs, especially in the nascent League of Nations, which Ireland played a very active part in for such a small country from the '20's into the thirties.

Getting the treaty ports back without force, he saw this himself as his finest achievement.

The constitution made some more vehement republicans, such as MacBride, chief of staff of the IRA as late as '36, go the political route to achieve reunification.

Political 'know-how', knowing when to call 'snap' elections and in December '36 removing the king and governor general from constitution. Irregardless of how a person stands on these issues, it shows his political savvy ness.

His radio broadcast back to Churchill in '45, was dignified and, as Churchill admitted later, more or less showed him up.

Maybe not great for the country as a whole, but he started and maintained Fianna Fail, which is still a huge political presence today and started 'The Irish Press'. Also, on a personal level, his drive- holding the positions of External Affairs, Education and Taoiseach all at once for one brief period.



I am not a huge de Valera supporter, whatever these points might say! The poster was looking for some positives which I have tried to give, off the top of my head. He has many failings but sometimes it's better to look at these as to how society of the time would have viewed them, like the 'Irish Ireland/language/protectionist' policies of Fianna Fail, in their '32 election manifesto, were supported by a large proportion of the country. One of the worst was a lack of a choerent plan to tackle emigration/education, keeping Ireland under the thumb of catholicism and the visit to the German legation after Hitler's death, which damaged Irish-american/British relations in the immediate post-war period.

Wasn't under Dev's reign (only word that comes to mind at the moment) that a lot of housing was built. Alot of these are in Galway

funktastic

When FF were in office '32 to '48, a lot were built alright. I don't know the exact figure offhand, but I read it quite recently.

JohnnySideburns

Dev pretty much dismantled the Treaty by 1938 (Republic in all but name), ironically as Griffith and Collins argued could be done. This confirms that, in the light of what happened later, his civil war stance was wrong and that the priority at the time of the Treaty should have been to work together to sink Northern Ireland out of existence and then to later work towards a Republic.

His economic war stance in the 1930's had many bad and good effects. Bad in the sense that all our major industries (ie Guinness Brewery, Jacobs Biscuits and Ford Motors) relocated to England, farmers lost their markets and the consumer suffered due to inefficient factories and lack of competition. Good in the sense Ireland owed the UK (I think) 100 million pounds in land repatriations which was eventually settled for a mere 10 million, housing projects were built to replace the slums, companies like CRH and Smurfit were able to grow under tariff protection and the Treaty Ports were handed back.

Despite some economic advances, Ireland never became a First World ecomony until Lemass took over and opened up the ecomony in the 1960's. Michael Collins was writing about an open ecomony over 40 years earlier. This prompts speculation that had Dev supported the Treaty and Collins lived, Ireland would have been an open ecomony much earlier and so may not have had to wait 40 years for a boom.

Also, had Dev not split Republicanism (to such a high degree) over the Treaty prompts speculation that a united Republican movement could have reclaimed the nationalist border areas of Northern Ireland under the Boundary Commision (negotiated under the Treaty) in 1923/1924, making the remainder unviable and so forcing it into the Free State.

So overall, I think Dev was just a glory hunter who got in the way of true patriots like Collins from making this a great and complete country.

Hermione*

DublinWriter wrote:

Besides starting the Civil War and allowing Archbishop John Charles McQuid to dictate state policy, what has Dev ever done for us post 1922?

I'm trying to get a balanced view of the man, but I just can't find any redeeming points.

I'd hardly call that balanced. De Valera alone dod not create the Civil War. A tragedy along the lines of the Civil War should never be reduced to such proportions. Also, de Valera actually stood up to MacQuaid in a number of areas; mist notably, by refusing to designate the Catholic Church the 'one true church' in the constitution, and also in relation to the introduction of children's allowances and the terms of the 41947 Health Act.

The Irish Constitution has lasted nearly seventy years. That's quite an achievement.

De Valera peacefully removed Ireland from the Commonwealth. That was hugely important to his generation who had survived 1916-23.

ateam

Dev was part of Irish life from 1916 to 1973...a pretty good achievement....so obviously he did have some support.

Personally, i think he should have resigned in 1948 following Fianna Fails election defeat. His aims had been achieved (with the exception of gaining the north back). His continuation as Taoiseach in the 1950s was a mistake as his economic and social policies were dated and ineffective.

ninty9er

If he was such a bad influence why did he end his life having served almost 23 years as Taoiseach and 14 as Úachtarán na hÉireann. Were the Irish people really such a bad judge of character and ability.Admittedly he wasn't technically "Taoiseach" between '19 and '21 but 16 of those 23 years as Taoiseach were served consecutively.

He was a man very far ahead in his thinking giving us such a fine constitution if a little backward in his vision "maidens in the field" "mother at home" type thing, but the man never knew his mother, he just wanted other kids to have what he never did

silverharp

One thing that always annoyed me apart from what was mentioned was the way he "stole" the Irish Press newspaper from the original subscribers to the company, his family still benefit today as they still own their old offices

ateam

Read the other day that Dev was most likely born illegitimately! For all his talk on the family and religion, it does seem hypocritical.

DublinWriter

ninty9er wrote:

If he was such a bad influence why did he end his life having served almost 23 years as Taoiseach and 14 as Úachtarán na hÉireann.

Personally I prefare quality, not quantity.

Outcast

On the neutrality issue. Sure we weren't strictly neutral though, in all fairness, we still aren't! DeValera established Irish neutrality and under severe pressure during WW2 he stuck to it. That presented Ireland as an independent, free thinking nation and it is still one of the most important issues in Irish life.

He negotiated the Statute of Westminster which opened the way to getting a Republic. He took on the Economic War which, although damaging, was the first time Ireland took a non-violent stand against Britain.

And, if nothing else, he fostered Sean Lemass and handed over to him in the sixties!

Vulpiner

He did alot in terms of sheltering the country during the early years but should have bowed out after WW2.

He held back the country in many ways. For instance what little Marshall Aid Ireland got, where did it go? Into drainage.

walrusgumble

sorry there but he had nothing to do with the statue of westminster 1932 (one really under estimated act) he only came into power in 1933 but it wass this that helped him dismantle the treaty.

Cumann na Ngeadheal especially kevin o higgins and desmond fitzgerald negoiated this act.

walrusgumble

the greatest contribution to ireland is bunreacht na heireann. whilst catholic in ethos it was very much different to catholic dominated constitutions such as portugal. one of the last people was right about him standing up to the bishop. remember the whole nation were good little good fearing catholics and he made laws that suited that time. (some were dodgy though eg stuff on censorship)

the pope in that day had some papal infalibilty doctrine out that time (any one a theologist here) something about the pope being head of the countries and superior ruler. dont see any reference in text

whilst the catholic church had a special position, that went in the 1970's, yet the constitution promised for equal rights and no discrimination of other religions with 5 or so were expressed in the text.

his theory of external association which was rejected by llyod george, (ahead of his time) helped him get ride of the treaty till 1949 when ireland officaly left the commonwealth.

AdrianR

One thing that always annoyed me apart from what was mentioned was the way he "stole" the Irish Press newspaper from the original subscribers to the company, his family still benefit today as they still own their old offices

Silverharp, thanks for pointing this out. From my understanding Dev founded the Irish Press with money donated by americans "for the cause" so to speak. Instead Dev formed the Irish Press as a family enterprise, a disgrace.

Good in the sense Ireland owed the UK (I think) 100 million pounds in land repatriations which was eventually settled for a mere 10 million, housing projects were built to replace the slums, companies like CRH and Smurfit were able to grow under tariff protection and the Treaty Ports were handed back.

Ah yes, he paid this when the war was about to break out, probably why he got away with the 10%, if he had held out for another while he wouldn't have had to pay one red penny. Britain need us, same as they always did to supply food.

Dev was in government for a long time as pointed out, he was the ruination of this country with his narrow minded, romantic and stupid ideas. None of his ministers could do or say anything without running it by him first.
One of Devs main aims was to re-instate Irish as our national language, look at how successful that has been.

If he was such a bad influence why did he end his life having served almost 23 years as Taoiseach and 14 as Úachtarán na hÉireann.

Were the Irish people really such a bad judge of character and ability.

Admittedly he wasn't technically "Taoiseach" between '19 and '21 but 16 of those 23 years as Taoiseach were served consecutively.

Yes! Yes! Yes! At least half of this countries voting population were that stupid and still are. Just look at the government we have now, I rest my case.