To Truce or not to Truce?

Shane-1

Hows it going, this debate/ arguament surfaced on the politics forum a while back and I found it interesting, so I thought I migght try and resurrect it back here where it belongs more!

There is a notion, which I subscribe to myself, that the IRA in the War of Independence were in a position to continue the war longer and that the truce was unnecessary. This idea continues then that the truce took the wind out of the movements sails and forced the country into a treaty which gave less than that which the country fought for. What do ye think on this issue?

I know the Dublin IRA headquarters believed that the IRA was on its last legs in terms of supplies etc, however was their eventual call of a truce a naive call that didnt take into account the rest of the country, for example Tom Barry stated that instead of the 3 weeks that Dublin felt the IRA could continue for - his unit and the units down the country could fight on for another 3 years! I know that here in Clare the Mid and East Clare brigades were in a good position to fight on, at least in the short term. What do you all think? Should we have battled on? And if we did would we have been able to eventually demand more ie unified country, no oath etc?

eroo

The British would have just increased troop numbers and crushed the IRA. Large round ups were already a feature in the WOI. They weren't always successful, but they hampered Column movements.. also small barracks had been abandoned. The only barracks left to attack would've required 100's of personnel to attack them. Even then, the IRA wouldn't have had sufficient arms and ammunition to carry out many largescale prolonged attacks.

Shane-1

Its true that the smaller barracks had been abandoned and a type of stalemate had developed where the IRA couldnt move on the larger barracks, but this also meant that now there was substantial territory under IRA control.

The big issue is how capable were the IRA of continuing the war. I know Dublin headquarters felt the army was on its last legs, but many say that they werent taking stock of the rest of the country. As I said, Tom Barry reckoned the units he saw down the country were more than capable of fighting on, as he said for 3 years not 3 weeks.

eroo

Shane-1 wrote: »

Its true that the smaller barracks had been abandoned and a type of stalemate had developed where the IRA couldnt move on the larger barracks, but this also meant that now there was substantial territory under IRA control.

The big issue is how capable were the IRA of continuing the war. I know Dublin headquarters felt the army was on its last legs, but many say that they werent taking stock of the rest of the country. As I said, Tom Barry reckoned the units he saw down the country were more than capable of fighting on, as he said for 3 years not 3 weeks.

Tbh Tom Barry was just echoing general resent of GHQ in Dublin. They didn't fancy having the 'Jackeens' from Dublin telling them what to do. That resentment later contributed to the Civil War in the guise of personal conflicts.

Being in control of large territory meant very little. If the British drafted in large enough numbers they could easily surround and close in on large open territory. Also, as the British were not venturing out from barracks such as those in Limerick City unless they were in very large numbers.. the likes of Michael Brennan and his men wouldn't have been able to do very much. The British held every key location.. all the cities and major towns, as well as ports, train stations etc. IRA holding a few 100 sq. miles of country side didn't give them much at all, except maybe breathing space and training ground.

Denerick

There is a notion, which I subscribe to myself, that the IRA in the War of Independence were in a position to continue the war longer and that the truce was unnecessary. This idea continues then that the truce took the wind out of the movements sails and forced the country into a treaty which gave less than that which the country fought for. What do ye think on this issue?

I'm sorry, I really have to ask where you got that impression from. In 1921 the IRA were fighting a losing war, thousands of their members were interned, the intelligence system was smashed, arms and ammunition were low, the British were in a great position to smash the remainder of the IRA. The likes of Tom Barry may have been able to carry on but do remember he is something akin to a folk hero. There were very few IRA leaders as suited to the effort as he was.

I think the key thing to remember is that Dublin was essential. If Dublin was lost completely for the IRA and all the Sinn Fein leadership then it was a matter of time before the Provinces gave way. The only reason the British looked for a constitutional settlement was because the Sinn Fein parallel government was working so succesfully and garnering such a great international reputation. And no Briton enjoyed coercing Ireland into the Union any longer, it was too counter productive.

The gov. of Ireland Act was essentially Home Rule - London had no qualms about moving this way. Dominion was just a step further and they were anxious to get the Irish to agree to this. To actually believe that our 3,500 rifles and circa 50 rounds per rifle could effectively defeat the British Empire is living in a dreamland I'm afraid.

Denerick

The big issue is how capable were the IRA of continuing the war. I know Dublin headquarters felt the army was on its last legs, but many say that they werent taking stock of the rest of the country. As I said, Tom Barry reckoned the units he saw down the country were more than capable of fighting on, as he said for 3 years not 3 weeks.

As soon as the Sinn Fein leadership and GHQ would be rounded up (And they would have) Tom Barry and others like Lynch and Brennan would have become simple country bandits, a little like the houghers of the early 18th century. They would have lost their constitutional basis and would have had no-one to negotiate with Britain. Don't be fooled into thinking that the IRA were capable of anything more than the occassional hit and run - and this became too occassional by 1921.

Shane-1

eroo wrote: »

Tbh Tom Barry was just echoing general resent of GHQ in Dublin. They didn't fancy having the 'Jackeens' from Dublin telling them what to do. That resentment later contributed to the Civil War in the guise of personal conflicts.

Being in control of large territory meant very little. If the British drafted in large enough numbers they could easily surround and close in on large open territory. Also, as the British were not venturing out from barracks such as those in Limerick City unless they were in very large numbers.. the likes of Michael Brennan and his men wouldn't have been able to do very much. The British held every key location.. all the cities and major towns, as well as ports, train stations etc. IRA holding a few 100 sq. miles of country side didn't give them much at all, except maybe breathing space and training ground.

You must be a Clare person yourself judging from the reference to Michael Brennan? Or else just know your stuff about this history

I am undecided about whether or not the British would have moved in extra troops, I dont know if there would have been public support at home for engaging in such a large scale action against the Irish, after all they were desperately trying to avoid proper military involvement - using instead the RIC; the tans and auxys were extra recruits to the police service. Im not convinced, it was a heavy handed reaction to 1916 that had sparked all their trouble already at that stage, I think they would have tried to avoid that sort of thing again.

eroo

Shane-1 wrote: »

You must be a Clare person yourself judging from the reference to Michael Brennan? Or else just know your stuff about this history

I am undecided about whether or not the British would have moved in extra troops, I dont know if there would have been public support at home for engaging in such a large scale action against the Irish, after all they were desperately trying to avoid proper military involvement - using instead the RIC; the tans and auxys were extra recruits to the police service. Im not convinced, it was a heavy handed reaction to 1916 that had sparked all their trouble already at that stage, I think they would have tried to avoid that sort of thing again.

I'm a proud Clareman!:)

There wouldn't have been much of a backlash as things were already fairly heated. Yes there would have been resistance, but it wouldn't have lasted very long. Fact is, the IRA would have been crushed in a matter of weeks had the war continued.

Shane-1

Would they though? I know we could start a whole new thread bickering about the terms of the treaty but it did contain several terms that were pretty generous to the Irish, and gave greater freedoms that we had been yet offered. I dont think Lloyd George, Birkenhead, Churchill et al were the type to be giving too many concessions when they didnt feel the need to. Something had them wishing for a peace, and the British had proved on several occasions in the past that they werent the type to give an inch if they felt that a swift victory was possible. Why didnt they negotiate and offer some few concessions in 1916 rather than push ahead with military action? Because they knew they had the beating of us then.

eroo

Shane-1 wrote: »

Would they though? I know we could start a whole new thread bickering about the terms of the treaty but it did contain several terms that were pretty generous to the Irish, and gave greater freedoms that we had been yet offered. I dont think Lloyd George, Birkenhead, Churchill et al were the type to be giving too many concessions when they didnt feel the need to. Something had them wishing for a peace, and the British had proved on several occasions in the past that they werent the type to give an inch if they felt that a swift victory was possible. Why didnt they negotiate and offer some few concessions in 1916 rather than push ahead with military action? Because they knew they had the beating of us then.

The reason they wanted to negotiate was because the war was getting international attention, as were incidents such as Bloody Sunday(1921). The British Govt was being heavily criticised for their forces' actions internationally. So if they offered the Irish a peace settlement, and the Irish fought on.. swift and harsh action would've been deemed to be a fair response by international media/Govt's.

Denerick

Shane-1 wrote: »

Would they though? I know we could start a whole new thread bickering about the terms of the treaty but it did contain several terms that were pretty generous to the Irish, and gave greater freedoms that we had been yet offered. I dont think Lloyd George, Birkenhead, Churchill et al were the type to be giving too many concessions when they didnt feel the need to. Something had them wishing for a peace, and the British had proved on several occasions in the past that they werent the type to give an inch if they felt that a swift victory was possible. Why didnt they negotiate and offer some few concessions in 1916 rather than push ahead with military action? Because they knew they had the beating of us then.

In fairness, if you had read my posts you wouldn't have needed to ask that.

Shane-1

eroo wrote: »

The reason they wanted to negotiate was because the war was getting international attention, as were incidents such as Bloody Sunday(1921). The British Govt was being heavily criticised for their forces' actions internationally. So if they offered the Irish a peace settlement, and the Irish fought on.. swift and harsh action would've been deemed to be a fair response by international media/Govt's.

Thats a bit naive, ok so lets say that indeed all the British had to do was offer a peace settlement that was reasonably generous and then if the war did continue they would have the carte blanche to move in with all guns blazing - why didnt they take advantage of the countless times when the talks were close to breaking down. Why did they bring back the Irish delegation when in fact the talks had broken down? Why not simply let the talks end, state that they done their best to secure peace and then move in for their quick and easy victory? I think too much credit is being given to the British delegation here, that they were in some way trying to save Ireland from further slaughter etc! This is the same men who were delighted at the course of the civil war, making comments that we were doing to ourselves what they never could. If they thought they could get away with crushing us into submission while also finding an outlet for frustrated ex-soldiers unemployed and disillusioned from the first world war, they would have done it in the blink of an eye.

International opinion (which then as now refers to American opinion!) was not going to change. The British had realised that this rising was different from the others, and opinion was against them, and it was bad for the stability of their empire, they were just as much, or even more, on the backfoot. Yes the IRA and the RIC had reached a sort of a stalemate, but while we mightnt have been making ground, we werent losing it neither. How would this massive military action win out anyway? They would have to come back into the countryside, under ambush etc all over again, Im sure the British would not wish for this, at best they would suffer heavy casualties. How would they stop support for the IRA? More public atrocities, thus leading to more public support for the IRA at home and internationally. Rounding up volunteers was one thing, but where were they going to get the leaders? The IRA were by their essense a secret force, and the public werent giving anything away to the authorities, massacres like that at Miltown Malbay had hardened the public to resist these thugs. Actions like the executions of leaders and prominent members was another tactic, but for every one killed you were sure to swell the ranks of the local IRA force by a couple of replacements.