Who was the worst taoiseach ever?

leninbenjamin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Indeed; I disagree with De Valera's social and economic policies but I can't fault his neutrality.

at the end of the day Dev's neutrality meant sweet **** all. Admirable, but did little for us either way. We were just lucky the Germans didn't attempt to bring us into it like they did Belgium and Holland. It was the German's own incompetence that kept us out of it.

(some added idle speculation: if we had joined WWII, could solidarity between republic/loyalist over the war have helped prevent the troubles?)

Dev though nearly ran the country to the ground though with his weird mix of socialism. He made ordinary people's lives much much more difficult, through the civil war, the economic disasters, the clergy... i've read articles before that conservatively state Dev stunted Ireland's development by about a decade. I'd well believe it from the stories of my parents and grandparents of what life was like under him.

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

You're factually wrong on both counts.

And to suggest that Collins would have made a good leader after the War is to engage in useless speculation. I happen to think he would not. Did you once read a book that said otherwise? Did it have nice pictures?

Nonsense.
Given that you thought he was a soldier, I'm not surprised.

You said he was useful as a soldier and not much else.
Fact is, he was useless as a soldier and got killed trying to be one (although he was admittedly half drunk at the time).

His gift was in management/organization.
Who do you think controlled the campaign while Dev was in America?
He was right on nearly every count, including the customs house debacle.
He was the opposite of Dev, he was a pragmatist.

Its he likely would have been very wealthy if he had never come home from London. Every single book or programme thats ever been made about him has always said he wasn't much of a soldier.
Honestly, if you've ever read even a basic historical account of the period, you should be able to put that much together

leninbenjamin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

through the civil war

This is the second post that refers to Dev as being to blame for the Civil War.

Gotta say I just cannot agree with this. It would have happened with or without Dev. He was an irrelvancy to diehard Republicans like Brugha and O'Connor.

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Nonsense.
Given that you thought he was a soldier, I'm not surprised.

You said he was useful as a soldier and not much else.
Fact is, he was useless as a soldier and got killed trying to be one (although he was admittedly half drunk at the time).

His gift was in management/organization.
Who do you think controlled the campaign while Dev was in America?
He was right on nearly every count, including the customs house debacle.
He was the opposite of Dev, he was a pragmatist.

Its he likely would have been very wealthy if he had never come home from London. Every single book or programme thats ever been made about him has always said he wasn't much of a soldier.
Honestly, if you've ever read even a basic historical account of the period, you should be able to put that much together

Well put your right hand over your left shoulder and pat yourself on the back!

I am sorry for dismissing him as a soldier. I should have put your thought into it. He was a wonderful organiser, a tender lover and a bon vivant yada yada yada. He also trained British guns on Irishmen in the Four Courts...

The point I was making was that noone can know whether he would have made a good leader of the country in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Dannyboy83

The Corinthian wrote: »

What are you basing this opinion on?

Well, in spite of Dev's failures, I can attribute good things to him also.
So they were the two primary candidates.

Geography and luck kept Ireland out of WW2 not De Valera, pure and simple. Neutrality was only worth something if the cost of someone invading you outweighed the stratigic benefits - just ask the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark or Iceland. Ireland's stance was ultimately irrelevant, and also not exactly neutral either.

Agreed, but not so simple imo.
If that were the case, why did the British occupy Iceland?

The fact is that the Germans did not need to invade as they had already captured Norway. But Ireland would have been a useful aircraft carrier for the Luftwaffe.

The thing that kept Ireland out of WW2 were 2 simple things.
The British Navy and the British Airforce.

The Germans could not invade Britain without air superiority.
If the Luftwaffe had neutralised the RAF, they could have landed an invasion party on the British mainland.
There were no tank divisions in Britain during the Battle of Britain, they had already been lost at Dunkirk.

Ironically, outside of human cost, participation in WW2 on the allied side would have solved the northern partition issue (NI was offered to De Valera in return for participation) and probably also benefited significantly more from the Marshall Plan.

NI was offered, but never formally offered.
It would not have been given and Dev knew it.
It was a non-issue. Everyone from Richard Overy to Dan Carlin to David Irving agrees.

I find it odd that nobody ever gives Dev credit for preventing a second civil war. He helped to start the first, perhaps he managed to avoid a second civil war.

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

He also trained British guns on Irishmen in the Four Courts...

After pleading and pleading with them to come out and go home, yes.
Under duress from Churchill, yes.
And the dip****s blew up 500 years of historical records in the Public Records office with 2 lorryloads of Gel Ignite.

You're vastly oversimplifying it.
Seriously, you should go and read the Tim Pat Coogan book, it would be an eye opener.

The point I was making was that noone can know whether he would have made a good leader of the country in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Have you ever heard of JP Morgan?

Tableman

This is the second post that refers to Dev as being to blame for the Civil War.

While he may not be totally to blame, he certainly was somewhat responsible!

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Seriously, you should go and read the Tim Pat Coogan book, it would be an eye opener.

I read it, or more accurately bits of it, while you were still in short pants (I'm making an assumption about 83, granted). Of course, I did so in the knowledge that TPC loves Collins and hates Dev...yes another oversimplification, but nonetheless true...

Riddle101

Tableman wrote: »

While he may not be totally to blame, he certainly was somewhat responsible!

Agreed, he didn't do Collins or the pro-treaty side any favours by his condemnation of the treaty during his speeches.

Anyway I know it's wrong to speculate whether or not Collins would have been a better Taoiseach then Dev because we don't really know. But I still believe that he wouldn't have been any worse then Dev. Collins was more level headed and realistic, he wouldn't have been so hostile towards Britain like Dev was and might have established calmer relations with them. But again we don't know.

Riddle101

Riddle101 wrote: »

Agreed, he didn't do Collins or the pro-treaty side any favours by his condemnation of the treaty during his speeches.

That's because, ummm, he condemned the Treaty.

Signing the Treaty didn't do the anti-Treaty side any favours either!!

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

I read it, or more accurately bits of it, while you were still in short pants (I'm making an assumption about 83, granted). Of course, I did so in the knowledge that TPC loves Collins and hates Dev...yes another oversimplification, but nonetheless true...

My age has no relevance here, although it may explain why your memory is failing you.

I would encourage you to go back and read it in full.
I sympathize with reading the Dev biography, I read it only recently, it took me months to get through it, very hard slog.

There is an interesting podcast on iTunes called "Judging Dev", which you should listen to while you're at it.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/judgingdev/

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

My age has no relevance here, although it may explain why your memory is failing you.

Do that back patting thing again. And fair play for reading such big books.

I'm getting forgetful again, did any book analyse Collins bisexuality? Never ceased to amaze me how that bit was overlooked. And you'd think, in a David Bowie kinda way, it would add so much colour to his character. What did Tim Pat Coogan say about it again?

Euro_Kraut

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course I'm glad Britain (and the Yanks eventually) took them on and won.

Why do people in this part of the world always forget the Russians? They lost more soldiers than any other country and ultimately it was them who stormed the Reichstag. Without them I am certain that Hitler would have taken Britain eventually.


Back on topic, I am not sure the Irish army could have added much to the Allies effort aside from cannon fodder. Dev played an astute tactical game between the Brits and the Germans. That ultimately saved the lives of countless Irish people. His responsibility was to the Irish people and not those of continental Europe. Even Britain only engaged in the War ultimately to protect themselves. They did little when Hitler rose to power and began passing all his anti-Jewish laws. One a threat emerged to the UK they engaged. It was self-interest. Ireland too acted out of self interest. I would not be too hard on a poor nation with a tiny military that was only recently independent for deciding to stay out of a War.

Furthermore, I would be inclined to give Dev some credit for keep Irish fascism at bay during the 30’s. The rest of Europe was falling to fascism and our main opposition party was toying with the idea. He kept them out of power and saved us from potentially fighting on the side of the Axis.

The Corinthian

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Well, in spite of Dev's failures, I can attribute good things to him also.
So they were the two primary candidates.

Firstly I asked what you are basing your opinion on and you still have not said - only that you can "attribute good things to him also". What are these 'things' that redeem him?

Secondly, your two primary candidates seem to ignore every Taoiseach between De Valera and Haughey, not to mention you have failed to explain why either Ahern or Haughey were so bad.

Personally, Ahern may go down as one of the worst Taoiseachs in history, but it is simply to early to say. Haughey, on the other hand, despite his corruption turned out to be far more competent economically than his two predecessors, who practically bankrupted the country (Lynch) and then failed to deal with the deficit (Fitzgerald).

Based on what you've put forward, I'd have to say that your choice of worst Taoiseach lacks intellectual credibility.

If that were the case, why did the British occupy Iceland?

Because, as I said, neutrality was only worth something if the cost of someone invading you outweighed the strategic benefits - Iceland was low cost to invade.

The thing that kept Ireland out of WW2 were 2 simple things.
The British Navy and the British Airforce.

Which is just another way of saying Geography - after all the British Navy and the British Air force were not much use to Poland for geographical reasons.

NI was offered, but never formally offered.
It would not have been given and Dev knew it.

Speculation. Nonetheless, as I have already pointed out neutrality is a non-issue. That we remained officially neutral ultimately had little to do with De Valera (even you accept this) and was as good a choice as any at the time.

Dannyboy83

Do that back patting thing again. And fair play for reading such big books.

Didn't want to put the burden on you, I'll let you know when the pop up ones come out, you might be able to understand them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm getting forgetful again, did any book analyse Collins bisexuality? Never ceased to amaze me how that bit was overlooked. And you'd think, in a David Bowie kinda way, it would add so much colour to his character. What did Tim Pat Coogan say about it again?

You mean in the manner they've analysed dev's asperger syndrome?
TBH, I couldn't care less about a person's sexuality, I'm pro gay marraige.
But I understand that the older generations are ignorant so I don't look down on you for it.
You know what they say about homophobes anyway, dontcha?

The Corinthian

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

You know what they say about homophobes anyway, dontcha?

They make terrible interior decorators?

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm getting forgetful again, did any book analyse Collins bisexuality? Never ceased to amaze me how that bit was overlooked.

Er - just a thought, but probably because it wasn't even remotely relevant ?

Then again, if Bertie can drag up his marraige woes to excuse the inexcusable, I suppose personal stuff COULD come in handy......as long as you've no ethics, that is.....

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

TBH, I couldn't care less about a person's sexuality, I'm pro gay marraige.

No no, I wasn't asking you to get all defensive and touchy. I couldn't care less about anyone' sexuality either. If he was banging the cat fair play to him.

I was asking you if the books you read analysed it? It's a very straightforward question. I didn't ask you whether you thought it was good or bad, in fact I said I thought it added to his charisma. So the homophobe and 'ignorant old people' line are a bit misplaced, though they suggest you are getting a tad upset.

You did know about his bisexuality, didn't you? You have read all those books, it surely can't be news to you? And those books were so good too.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Er - just a thought, but probably because it wasn't even remotely relevant ?

You're getting the wrong end of the stick.

A poster has in a few posts suggested I don't know anything about Collins because he has read all the books and has all the insight.

I just happened to mention one aspect of Collins life. Not that relevant. In fact, between you and me, as this thread is about Taoisigh, sure the whole Collins thing is kinda irrelevant anyway! It's just that when opinions are dismissed because...snigger...someone thinks they have read more books, I am intrigued...

Lockstep

leninbenjamin wrote: »

at the end of the day Dev's neutrality meant sweet **** all. Admirable, but did little for us either way. We were just lucky the Germans didn't attempt to bring us into it like they did Belgium and Holland. It was the German's own incompetence that kept us out of it.

(some added idle speculation: if we had joined WWII, could solidarity between republic/loyalist over the war have helped prevent the troubles?)

Dev though nearly ran the country to the ground though with his weird mix of socialism. He made ordinary people's lives much much more difficult, through the civil war, the economic disasters, the clergy... i've read articles before that conservatively state Dev stunted Ireland's development by about a decade. I'd well believe it from the stories of my parents and grandparents of what life was like under him.

It was nothing to do with avoiding the tender mercies of the Third Reich (Operation Green shows they had a proposed attack anyway and neutrality didn't stop them invading the Netherlands, De Valera would have known this); it was to stop the country caving on itself from infighting if Ireland entered the war on the side of Britain.

So yes, the neutrality meant something and I would utterly reject the idea that joining the war could have done anything to prevent the troubles, frankly I'd say it would have made things worse.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

It's just that when opinions are dismissed because...snigger...someone thinks they have read more books, I am intrigued...

Sorry, I don't.....snigger....see your point. If they're political books then they probably didn't mention that angle, because they had no reason to. I mean, did any of them mention whether he was left or right-handed ? Whether his teeth were white enough ? Whether his eyes were green or blue ?

Let's assume for a second that you've read "more" books than those you're arguing with; did you read the tabloid versions and they the broadsheet versions ?

I mean, most "celeb" mag and tabloid crap readers could could probably tell you who Katie Price just split up from, but wouldn't have a clue what her political views or aspirations were (assuming, that is, that she has any).

Basically, the issue is quality and relevance, not pointless rubbish.

Of course, I'm not saying that reading "more" is bad; it's probably much better to support and defend people who have read important things like - I dunno - reports from bank investigators, treaties, etc

I mean, if the AMOUNT that you've read is important, rather than the relevant bits, there's no way you could defend people who haven't read everything possible on the subject matter - or could you ? :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If they're political books then they probably didn't mention that angle, because they had no reason to.

No no, he specifically said they were biographies, not political books. I would be surprised say if a book on JFK completely omitted his relationship with Monroe. I would consider someone who was a know all on Kennedy's foreign policy yet did not know that salacious fact to be, well not the expert they thought at all...even if they had read 10 books on Kennedy!

Not sure what point you make about Katie Price or tabloids.

Rebelheart

mike65 wrote: »

Dev! He oversaw the foolish and impovrishing "economic war" with Britain in the 30s. Whatever chances the Free State (as was) had to boost the economy was ruined.

This is the classic Blueshirt "they bankrupt our big farmers" whinge about Dev taking power. I've heard it so, so many times which is odd as Fine Gaelers like to project themselves as progressive, forward-thinking rational types above holding grudges. Mar dhea. Still bitter about losing those punch-ups in towns and villages across Ireland in the 1930s before you all got blessed by the bishops and went off to fight for Franco against democracy in Spain in the same decade (supported by the British Navy, but let's not go there). The "Irish" ultra-montane Roman Catholics, the British (Protestant) state, big farmers and Franco's Spain. What a motley crew indeed!

Many families (and of course people) like to think back with rose-tinted glasses and blame a single figure for their "downfall". Such conceit. It's a cop-out, albeit a very human one.

Dev was absolutely correct on the economic war. He was looking out for the interests of the broader Irish society and not merely the narrow self-interest of the shopkeepers and big farmers who depended most upon Britain and thus formed the backbone of Cumann na Gael/Fine Gael. Paying British people for Irish land (which they or their people stole) when there was enormous suffering and poverty in Ireland would have been morally wrong to anybody outside that myopic anglocentric clique that was the backbone of Fine Gael. Those people, your political side, would have sacrificied the thousands of people in the huge slums of Dublin (who received free meat when the British stopped buying it) and the hundreds of thousands who had no running water, light or much else.

Éamon DeValera, as the most active politician in twentieth-century Ireland, was a man of immense failings, deceitfulness and much else. Nevertheless, it is sheer prejudice to place that man on the same moral level as Patrick Bartholomew Ahern or Charles James Haughey. DeValera gave much to Ireland, a fact which the Mulcahys, Fitzgeralds and many others can accept. Why can't you or those who support you here have the historical perspective or historical empathy to see Ireland, as opposed to just your tribe, as it was in the 1930s?

Anyway, thank God for Ireland joining the EEC/EU as since that our trade with Britain, which constituted 95% of our trade, is now only about 25% today. Just goes to show there is a world beyond Britain. Shock. Horror.

Rebelheart

The answer to your question, OP, is Ahern and Haughey. Haughey would have been number 1 if we had the wealth (or its illusion) that we had in Ahern's era. We hadn't. Ahern wins.

prinz

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm getting forgetful again, did any book analyse Collins bisexuality? Never ceased to amaze me how that bit was overlooked...[/ quote]

Do you have any links to show that Collins was bisexual?

Sea08

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh?

You really think people like Rory O'Connor and Liam Mellows were listening to what Dev said, or gave the slightest damn about whether he spoke of wading through blood? You think quotes from a politicians would have caused people steeped in Republicanism to bat an eyelid? You think they were all standing around outside the High Court saying "did Dev say 'wade' or 'swim', was it a 'stream' or a 'river' of blood"

You must be having a laugh. Nice quote, but there was bit more to the Civil War than a few fellows standing around waiting for Dev to give them the go ahead.

I'm begining to think you are nothing but a wind up merchant. To suggest that the then president of the Dail giving speeches about wading through Irish blood and members of the irish government in no way raised tension at the time is laughable. Even more so if you have the full quote which is

If the Treaty were accepted, [by the electorate] the fight for freedom would still go on, and the Irish people, instead of fighting foreign soldiers, will have to fight the Irish soldiers of an Irish government set up by Irishmen.

He was the prominent politician of the anti treaty movement. To say he had no influence is niave. He clearly supported the anti treaty campaign and helped garner support among the population for the civil war.

You also say he had no influence on people such Rory O'Connor and Liam Mellows but earlier you said he dragged many Republicans from a civil war and put them on a path to democracy.

So which is it, he either had influence which he used to help create a civil war or he had no influence in which case how could he bring republicans back to democracy.

Rebelheart

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is the classic Blueshirt "they bankrupt our big farmers" whinge about Dev taking power. I've heard it so, so many times which is odd as Fine Gaelers like to project themselves as progressive, forward-thinking rational types above holding grudges. Mar dhea. Still bitter about losing those punch-ups in towns and villages across Ireland in the 1930s before you all got blessed by the bishops and went off to fight for Franco against democracy in Spain in the same decade (supported by the British Navy, but let's not go there). The "Irish" ultra-montane Roman Catholics, the British (Protestant) state, big farmers and Franco's Spain. What a motley crew indeed!

Wow!

Might I say that, while I don't agree with everything in it, I really enjoyed your post!

prinz

prinz wrote: »

Do you have any links to show that Collins was bisexual?

Sorry, though it was common knowledge.

Try this...
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/michael-collins-irish-leader-/controversy-over-sexual-orientation.html

There are no photos, granted, but it's in the public domain. I guess Harris has written about it cos everyone in Cork was told about it.

Tim Pat Coogan rejects it, though unless he was under Collins bed not sure how he would know. I presume, and no doubt Dannyboy83 would confirm, that a man of TPC's age may be uncomfortable around this topic and as he is Collins No. 1 fan his stance is not surprising.

Sea08

Sea08 wrote: »

I'm begining to think you are nothing but a wind up merchant.

My opinion is as valid as yours.

Sea08 wrote: »

He was the prominent politician of the anti treaty movement.

Exactly.

Thank you.

He was a politician.

The point I was making all along.

And even though he was on the same side as O'Connor and co. to suggest they were concerned with politicians rhetoric is not true imo.

Sea08 wrote: »

So which is it, he either had influence which he used to help create a civil war or he had no influence in which case how could he bring republicans back to democracy.

It's not 'one or the other'. History can be a little bit more complex than that.

I was saying he had minimal influence on those determined to go to war. If anything, I would criticise him for not standing by those men and failing to give them leadership. Many treated him with contempt afterwards at the funerals of those who fought in the Civil War.

After the War he certainly gave those with republican sentiment a means of channeling their feelings in a more democratic manner. Some could say that Adams and McGuinness have done something similar with SF/IRA, we may not like them but they have to some extent democratised a violent group.

Sea08

Deleted User wrote: »

My opinion is as valid as yours.

Sorry I was not trying to belittle your opinion.

Deleted User wrote: »

And even though he was on the same side as O'Connor and co. to suggest they were concerned with politicians rhetoric is not true imo.

"War is the extension of politics by other means"

They may not have themselves listented to his political rhetorhic but as the leading politician in Ireland (let alone leading anti treaty politican) his opposition to the treaty and support of a civil war certainly garnered a lot of supprt to to the anti treaty side that would otherwise not have been swayed. O'Connor and other republicans may have always been of the inclination to fight the treaty but without deVs support they would never have been able to engage in such a large scale civil war. DeV provided the public will the anti treaty soldiers needed to instigate a civil war imo. This is why I hold deV as one of the main instigators of the civil war.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not 'one or the other'. History can be a little bit more complex than that.

I was saying he had minimal influence on those determined to go to war. If anything, I would criticise him for not standing by those men and failing to give them leadership. Many treated him with contempt afterwards at the funerals of those who fought in the Civil War.

There is nothing complex about this issue, he made inciteful speeches, clearly supported the civil war and helped garner a lot of support for it amongst the people, he only turned from the civl war when it was apparent to all that the anti treaty were never going to win.

I can't give the man credit for bringing republicans back to democracy when he had so clearly turned his back on democracy before. He was only interested in democracy when it suited his needs