"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

Captain Chaos

An FN FAL on full auto, is a waste of 20 rounds unless you are very close to your target. The British removed the full auto from their FALs for a very good reason.

guinnessdrinker

Captain Chaos wrote: »

An FN FAL on full auto, is a waste of 20 rounds unless you are very close to your target. The British removed the full auto from their FALs for a very good reason.

True but a burst of automatic fire would be only 2 to 3 rounds when used correctly.

Dartz

K-9 wrote: »

Depends on what you interpret "can no longer stand by" means. It is been handed down as him saying "not stand idly by".

He set up refugees camps. Why more did not go to them, I don't know!

Remember IRA slogans daubed on the walls in 1969 was "IRA = I Ran Away!"

"Not stand by" suggests to the British that we may get involved somehow. That is all, and I think that might've been Lynche's intention. I think he was trying to remind the British that they were supposed to control this....

What was Lynch's aim with that speech? What was he trying to do? To draw attention in Britain to this problem... when it seemed as if the UK government was doing nothing.

The British army moved in shortly afterwards, right?

Did Lynch's speech spur them to do this, even on a small level?

The 'documentary' does point out one thing... any direct conflict between the British army and the Irish would've been a bloody fiasco. But at the same time, if the Irish government had gone in and just withdrawn before any ultimatum deadline?

What would this have achieved?

They've made their point... the world is watching what's happening.... Good, let's go home before it becomes a brutal mess. Just enough to remind the British that they should be looking after these people. We've done what we wanted to do, don't stay and die?

Of course, we're lucky I wasn't in the Taosieachs chair.... I don't *half* understand this... but it makes sense to me.

Of course, this country loves a blood sacrifice..... people still like to masturbate over 1916, don't they?

Adamisconfused

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again how does a head of this country turn up at RTE with a piece of paper like that and no government aide to look over the speech.
Still in the dark who actually penned the crucial words "can not stand by". The RTE news man or Lynch?

Just one of the fundamental questions that the documentary(I use that word lightly) didn’t even try to answer.

Have to say it was very reminiscent of the 'Dealiest Warrior' show, except minus the...y'know...entertainment.

guinnessdrinker

By using phrases like "can not stand by" I think Lynch was trying to appease some of the more hardline members of his cabinet. Although, that particular phrase does seem to suggest that the government were going to do something.

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

A strongly worded condemnation would have shown Government's displeasure. By implying that they might invade North they were immediately going to send out the wrong message.
As a result tonight we had a british source calling our Army "puny" and in the end it did not cast us in a good light.

So, your alternative?

Adamcp898

bayviewclose wrote: »

Still in the dark who actually penned the crucial words "can not stand by". The RTE news man or Lynch?

The documentary didn't even hint or in anyway suggest that anyone but Lynch wrote those words.

In relation to Lynch's script the only thing that RTE news editor did was have it typed up properly so that all of Lynch's changes to the original were included so as to allow it to be read out clearly on air.

K-9

Dartz wrote: »

"Not stand by" suggests to the British that we may get involved somehow. That is all, and I think that might've been Lynche's intention. I think he was trying to remind the British that they were supposed to control this....

What was Lynch's aim with that speech? What was he trying to do? To draw attention in Britain to this problem... when it seemed as if the UK government was doing nothing.

The British army moved in shortly afterwards, right?

Did Lynch's speech spur them to do this, even on a small level?

The 'documentary' does point out one thing... any direct conflict between the British army and the Irish would've been a bloody fiasco. But at the same time, if the Irish government had gone in and just withdrawn before any ultimatum deadline?

What would this have achieved?

They've made their point... the world is watching what's happening.... Good, let's go home before it becomes a brutal mess. Just enough to remind the British that they should be looking after these people. We've done what we wanted to do, don't stay and die?

Of course, we're lucky I wasn't in the Taosieachs chair.... I don't *half* understand this... but it makes sense to me.

Of course, this country loves a blood sacrifice..... people still like to masturbate over 1916, don't they?

But we couldn't stand by or "stand idly by"!

At the same time we couldn't do a lot!

I think he drew attention to the North.

The question should be: what if he didn't make that speech? Said nothing. Easier all round.

Dartz

K-9 wrote: »

But we couldn't stand by or "stand idly by"!

At the same time we couldn't do a lot!

I think he drew attention to the North.

The question should be: what if he didn't make that speech? Said nothing. Easier all round.

And if that's what he wanted to do..... he did it the right way. It was something that needed attention. Say nothing, and nothing changes.

K-9

Dartz wrote: »

And if that's what he wanted to do..... he did it the right way. It was something that needed attention. Say nothing, and nothing changes.

Lynch was very shrewd and after watching the Mountbatten documentary, couldn't understand Maggie either. By nature, he wanted compromise.

It was an emotional time. Blayney and Boland believed in a 32 county Ireland, no matter what!

Donny5

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

In fact the Irish army's FN rifles were also capable of firing automatic bursts as well as sinlge shots but the British SLR riflie could only fire single shots and was not capable of automatic fire.

Their Harriers could, though.

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again how does a head of this country turn up at RTE with a piece of paper like that and no government aide to look over the speech.
Still in the dark who actually penned the crucial words "can not stand by". The RTE news man or Lynch?

Because it was 1969.

There is no spin.

If there was, Lynch would have laughed at it!

Capt'n Midnight

and besides where would we house all the prisoners ? :pac:

Dartz

K-9 wrote: »

Lynch was very shrewd and after watching the Mountbatten documentary, couldn't understand Maggie either. By nature, he wanted compromise.

It was an emotional time. Blayney and Boland believed in a 32 county Ireland, no matter what!

We were lucky we had him...

Saadyst

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Have to say it was very reminiscent of the 'Dealiest Warrior' show, except minus the...y'know...entertainment.

I said this to the missus tonight - this is just like "Deadliest Warrior".

I'm not too familiar with Irish history, so I was hoping to find out a few things tonight. Unfortunately I'm left with a lot of questions - they way RTE kept on jumping back and forth with the timeline and between different scenarios, wasn't very helpful. And what was the deal with the female presenter constantly walking off and talking to the camera over her shoulder

Anyway, as regards to the British officer referring to the Irish army as 'puny' - I don't think that was meant to be arrogant, but moreso a statement of fact. He almost seemed shocked to even be asked these questions (Irish military vs British military). I've no idea the numbers of armed forces that Britain had at the time, but I think when you compare the two - one would clearly eclipse the other.

kumate_champ07

Manic Moran wrote: »

The question still stands, then. What does the DF have that will stop a Tornado from dropping a bomb at 20,000 feet?

NTM

http://tiny.cc/UwmdY

K-9

Dartz wrote: »

We were lucky we had him...

Amazing he was considered a weak, compromise candidate after Lemass!

It was Haughey V. Colley and Lynch was seen as a weak compromise who wouldn't last long!

Haughey backed the wrong horse in 1969, he went with the Blayney/Boland wing. Imagine if he had been in power 4 years earlier!

Manic Moran

Captain Chaos wrote: »

An FN FAL on full auto, is a waste of 20 rounds unless you are very close to your target. The British removed the full auto from their FALs for a very good reason.

Better to have the capability and not need it, than need it and not have it. Nobody forces anyone to move the selector from "R" to "A"

NTM

jill_valentine

Having used an FN FAL, I think I'd take my chances with a hurley tbh.

Full-auto switch drawn on the side, naturally.

m@cc@

Blay wrote: »

Suppose the IRA led the way with Christian charity eh? Donating a bomb to Omagh didnt go down well.

That wasn't the IRA, please do your research.

kumate_champ07

m@cc@ wrote: »

That wasn't the IRA, please do your research.

its so hard to keep track of the different variations of them, 'real/offical/continuity/provos/the artists formally known as'

m@cc@

Happy Monday wrote: »

British troops are still armed and stationed in the North.
IRA have completely disbanded and surrendered all weaponry.
The North remains part of the UK.
By my scorecard they have won handsomely. :pac:

What crap! No one won the NI conflict. What was won was for Nationalist/Catholics to be treated like human beings with a right to not live in fear from the British army or those working for them. We now have the right to vote, the right to own land and the right to compete with Protestants for jobs on an even footing.
This would have been a dream in 1969. Any claims to territory really mean **** all in comparison to what has been achieved in the past 40 years.

Kalashnikov_Kid

m@cc@ wrote: »

What crap! No one won the NI conflict. What was won was for Nationlist/Catholics to be treated like human beings with a right to not live in fear from the British army or those working for them. We now have the right to vote, the right to own land and the right to compete with Protestants for jobs on an even footing.
This would have been a dream in 1969. Any claims to territory really mean **** all in comparison to what has been achieved in the past 40 years.

Unfortunately my friend these things mean nowt to many people here. 'Just another country - nothing to do with me' is the attitude of many, which is a real shame. And quite ironic too. But what can you do, except: :rolleyes:

In All Fairness

I would imagine Lynch achieved exactly what he meant to achieve, which was to get Washington, Bonn and Paris to contact London and tell them privately in no uncertain terms to sort this out. The implications of having Ireland turn to Russia and China was a scenario that Washington would never have allowed. The security of Western Europe was at stake. Ireland had already been the first western nation to take China's side against America in a UN vote (Frank Aitken I think) and we were far less married to capitalism back then. The British were forced into trying to be more impartial in their policing of the area, which I would imagine was the objective.

Jesus Wept

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and besides where would we house all the prisoners ? :pac:

Mosney

JupiterKid

I would imagine Lynch achieved exactly what he meant to achieve, which was to get Washington, Bonn and Paris to contact London and tell them privately in no uncertain terms to sort this out. The implications of having Ireland turn to Russia and China was a scenario that Washington would never have allowed. The security of Western Europe was at stake. Ireland had already been the first western nation to take China's side against America in a UN vote (Frank Aitken I think) and we were far less married to capitalism back then. The British were forced into trying to be more impartial in their policing of the area, which I would imagine was the objective.

Very good points, In All Fairness. I don't anyone here has looked at the communist threat angle. Vietnam was raging full blast in '69, socialist agitation was growing in Europe and the Iron Curtain was very menacing to the West. The idea of a potential new front for socialism/communism opening up to the West of Europe via a conflict in the North would have been a nightmare scenario for NATO.*

Anyway, the "mock"umentary was stupid. We can talk of "what could have been" till the cows come home. The fact is, it didn't happen and I seriously doubt Lynch entertained plans for direct conflict in the North. History has shown that Lynch's resolve not to allow the "Troubles" spill over into the Republic and his handling of the arms crisis of 1970 were the right decisions.


*Though with the (then) power of the Cathlolic church, intensely anti-Communist, I don't know how influential communism would have been in the Ireland of 1969.

antonjoe

i lived in the north during those times and i would say that people were totally devastated when they found out their troops were not going to show up , instead red cross tents were set up and the message given to the people was protect yourselves.well 40 years later i would bet that if the irish army were to say boo to the brits they would say take it we dont want it, after all the provos proved they were beatable.

In All Fairness

JupiterKid wrote: »

Very good points, In All Fairness. I don't anyone here has looked at the communist threat angle. Vietnam was raging full blast in '69, socialist agitation was growing in Europe and the Iron Curtain was very menacing to the West. The idea of a potential new front for socialism/communism opening up to the West of Europe via a conflict in the North would have been a nightmare scenario for NATO.*

Anyway, the "mock"umentary was stupid. We can talk of "what could have been" till the cows come home. The fact is, it didn't happen and I seriously doubt Lynch entertained plans for direct conflict in the North. History has shown that Lynch's resolve not to allow the "Troubles" spill over into the Republic and his handling of the arms crisis of 1970 were the right decisions.


*Though with the (then) power of the Cathlolic church, intensely anti-Communist, I don't know how influential communism would have been in the Ireland of 1969.

An absolute piece of drivel. Any two year old could tell you what the outcome would have been if we had tried to take on the British in a conventional war. I believe Michael Collins had been quite vocal on this fifty years earlier.

I tend to agree with you on the Catholic Church thing, but it must also be remembered that the Republic was born out of a socialist revolution (James Connolly, Jim Larkin) just as much as a Nationalist one.

getz

this was not a secret that the every one thinks it was, i was sailing out of avonmouth in late november 1969 on a merchant ship,and the big joke going round about that time,was that it was going to be like the peter sellers film,the mouse that roared 1959,in which the grand duchy of fenwick[small european country]declared war on the USA,in hope that america would would beat them,then and pump in money to build up their economy,i think the goverments idea came from that film,