What did the Irish War of Independence achieve for the people of Ireland?

brianthebard

Cliste wrote: »

Firstly cheer up, or should I crack out some dead baby jokes to set the tone?

No.

McArmalite

Cliste wrote: »

Secondly, to agree with walrusgrumble and bayviewclose, that is a massive simplification of the whole event. The loan of ammunitions didn't cause the civil war at all, in a sense it helped finish it.

walrusgrumble in his post #30 points out there were a few incidents before the attack on the Four Courts. Another one I can think of was in Limerick over the taking of the two british barracks there, so they compromised with the Free State taking one and the IRA taking the other. Most credible historians would agree that it was the attack on the IRA in the Four Courts which was the real opening shots of the Civil War.

Without the 'loan' of ammunitions it could be questioned if the FS would have attacked the battle hardened IRA, it didn't cause the civil war, though it was ofcourse one of the main factors to determine it's outcome.

Grudaire

Ps: Nobody gets my humour, sorry Brian,I should emphasise that that was sarcasm, and I wasn't going to (Although I must admit this is a whole new level of pre-emptive modding - Minority Report stuff )

Back to the thread:

Yes, it was inevitable, clearly the situation of two opposing armies in the state was unsustainable.

I don't know if I accept the battle hardened IRA bit, both sides came through the same war of independence, it could be argued that the free staters were the more War weary side (ie accepting the Treaty because the War of Independence itself was unsustainable).

One or two questions while I'm here though:
* Did the anti-treaty side reject (boycott) the Dáil?
* The anti treaty casualties on wikipedia seem very high ("~2000–3000 killed"), was it that high?

Spiritoftheseventies

After the treaty was passed by dail in what was a divided debate, the nay sayers headed by Dev walked out of the Dail and civil war ultimately followed.
As for casualties, the pro treatyites due to the fact that they were backed by British had less of them. There was also summary executions including that of Sean Lemass's brother, Noel, who was abucted and then executed. Anyone wishing to read about it should read the Singing Flame by Ernie O' Malley who fought for the anti treatyite's.
The Civil war still continues to cause a lot of division and was a tragic era in our history and most chose not to talk about it in the years that followed.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

After the treaty was passed by dail in what was a divided debate, the nay sayers headed by Dev walked out of the Dail and civil war ultimately followed.
As for casualties, the pro treatyites due to the fact that they were backed by British had less of them. There was also summary executions including that of Sean Lemass's brother, Noel, who was abucted and then executed. Anyone wishing to read about it should read the Singing Flame by Ernie O' Malley who fought for the anti treatyite's.
The Civil war still continues to cause a lot of division and was a tragic era in our history and most chose not to talk about it in the years that followed.

also check out Michael Hopskinson's Green Against Green for an all county summary. Naturally Earnie's book is the one to check, particuraly his comments/observations/views on people like Liam Lynch.

is there any substance to the rumour that the late noel lemass may have been involved in the intelligence division of the IRA leading up to Collins' death. I can't think off hand the source who suggested the possibility but the rumour/hearsay was the Noel was killed as revenge by some of Collins' associates.

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

also check out Michael Hopskinson's Green Against Green for an all county summary. Naturally Earnie's book is the one to check, particuraly his comments/observations/views on people like Liam Lynch.

is there any substance to the rumour that the late noel lemass may have been involved in the intelligence division of the IRA leading up to Collins' death. I can't think off hand the source who suggested the possibility but the rumour/hearsay was the Noel was killed as revenge by some of Collins' associates.

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

on who O'Malley? Lynch? who did it? RTE or TG4?

Grudaire

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

Reading Michael Collins by Rex Taylor ATM, must find the Coogan one, I've seen it around the house.. Singing Flame, and Green against Green are in the library - Christ I better begin reading

It's one bit of Irish history that is overlooked far too much

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

on who O'Malley? Lynch? who did it? RTE or TG4?

Sorry. The doc on O Malley was on either RTE on TG4 last year. He didn't make much off his memoirs as he libelled someone in the book. But a very interesting character.

blinding

Cliste wrote: »

Reading Michael Collins by Rex Taylor ATM, must find the Coogan one, I've seen it around the house.. Singing Flame, and Green against Green are in the library - Christ I better begin reading

It's one bit of Irish history that is overlooked far too much

It should'nt have happened for so many reasons and the wounds live on even today.

Tragic that it was not avoided but with people at that time used to resorting to violence maybe it was unavoidable.

Still a tragic time in our history.

InTheTrees

blinding wrote: »

Tragic that it was not avoided but with people at that time used to resorting to violence maybe it was unavoidable.

Agreed. It seems like its a postrequisite (is that a word?) to a country gaining its freedom that the various factions once allied against an occupier, then jockey for power amongst themselves.

Although in our case it was more about the conditions attached to Freedom.

Fratton Fred

InTheTrees wrote: »

Agreed. It seems like its a postrequisite (is that a word?) to a country gaining its freedom that the various factions once allied against an occupier, then jockey for power amongst themselves.

Although in our case it was more about the conditions attached to Freedom.

Was it? Or was it about power?

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was it? Or was it about power?

Certainly I do not think it was about power from the anti-treaty side. Though I think the anti-treaty side were wrong (with the benefit of hindsight and time to think about it and the aftermath) to go to war I certainly do not think it was about power from their point of view.

Probably that they had put so much in and sacrificed so many people that they did not think the deal was good enough for all of their efforts.

Spiritoftheseventies

blinding wrote: »

Certainly I do not think it was about power from the anti-treaty side. Though I think the anti-treaty side were wrong (with the benefit of hindsight and time to think about it and the aftermath) to go to war I certainly do not think it was about power from their point of view.

Probably that they had put so much in and sacrificed so many people that they did not think the deal was good enough for all of their efforts.

True in a way but the impression was that while Dev was away in American raising funds, Collins had taken over the operation in his absence.
There did seem to be that bit of rivalry between Dev and Collins and the suspicion is that Dev only sent Collins to negotiate the treaty because he knew he could not deliver anything better himself.
The burning question is why Collins never consulted De Valera before signing the treaty but at that stage negotiations were so exhausted that Collins was unlikely to have got any more out of Lloyd George.
Had he lived longer Collins could have achieved a whole lot more and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
His work load was astonishing for someone so young and while he could be ruthless there is no doubt he was the key figure in securing independence for the country.

Bog Butter

Partial independence, partition of the island and death.

I don't think partition, partial independance and our subsequent economic growth was worth the suffering the people in Northern Ireland endured.

The Catholics were descriminated against and forced to live in a 'Protestant state' - voting discrimination, job discrimination, housing discrimination etc. The Protestants (and Catholics) then suffered the wrath of the IRA.

Both communities grew further apart as a result of killing and bombing. It's a great pity Sean McStiofan's men saw no other solution.

If only we could have waited though. The people in the north eastern part of Ireland paid a heavy price for our freedom. I don't think it was worth it. We should have waited until the end of WW1. Home Rule and subsequent independance was inevidible.

ejmaztec

KingKiller wrote: »

The Fianna Fail Party of today bears no real relationship to that of the Party which governed from 1932 to 1966 however it's faults were (with two brief breaks).Public housing for the poor not the builders, self-sufficiency, limiting the government!s own power, fostering a nationalist outlook and no scandal after scandal with bribes in brown paper bags.

It was a lot easier to keep scandals and corruption under wraps in the good old days. For example, I wonder which builders got their hands on the contracts for public housing construction, and how.

As my ancestors (and countless others) would testify, were they still alive from that period, Ireland was self-sufficient in poverty. Are we all supposed to consider that it was the golden era of an Irish Utopia?

blinding

malman wrote: »

Partial independence, partition of the island and death.

I don't think partition, partial independance and our subsequent economic growth was worth the suffering the people in Northern Ireland endured.

The Catholics were descriminated against and forced to live in a 'Protestant state' - voting discrimination, job discrimination, housing discrimination etc. The Protestants (and Catholics) then suffered the wrath of the IRA.

Both communities grew further apart as a result of killing and bombing. It's a great pity Sean McStiofan's men saw no other solution.

If only we could have waited though. The people in the north eastern part of Ireland paid a heavy price for our freedom. I don't think it was worth it. We should have waited until the end of WW1. Home Rule and subsequent independance was inevidible.

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Spiritoftheseventies

blinding wrote: »

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Partition was unfortunate but how it became so unmanageable was down more to neglect of the catholic minority by successive governments throughout the decades

brianthebard

blinding wrote: »

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Ulster Unionists did not want Home Rule, either for themselves or the rest of the country, so I don't think this was a possibility. I also firmly believe that there would have been no evolution towards independence if Ireland had been granted home rule.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

True in a way but the impression was that while Dev was away in American raising funds, Collins had taken over the operation in his absence.
There did seem to be that bit of rivalry between Dev and Collins and the suspicion is that Dev only sent Collins to negotiate the treaty because he knew he could not deliver anything better himself.
The burning question is why Collins never consulted De Valera before signing the treaty but at that stage negotiations were so exhausted that Collins was unlikely to have got any more out of Lloyd George.
Had he lived longer Collins could have achieved a whole lot more and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
His work load was astonishing for someone so young and while he could be ruthless there is no doubt he was the key figure in securing independence for the country.

I would be far more interested to know why De Valera was NOT in Dublin during those dates (in Limerick) how could he be contacted?

Dev gave the party in London powers to sign on their behalf of the State, but somehow manage to limit it, confuse delegates and give contradictory statements prior to their arrival in London and during the short break in October

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

Ulster Unionists did not want Home Rule, either for themselves or the rest of the country, so I don't think this was a possibility. I also firmly believe that there would have been no evolution towards independence if Ireland had been granted home rule.

Agreed.

Craig, when talking to the British about possibility of meeting Dev, set out a number of pre conditions, which included not only their people having nothing to do with a Southern Parliament, but also making it clear that the south were not to have a republic. He had promised that he would do anything to help the south, bar achieving a republic. of course, for various reasons, nothing came out to these discussions. Its amazing how a small minority, who may not have been affected by what the south do, could dictate what the south were entitled to

With regard to home rule and possible evolution, there is really no evidence to suggest that Butt, Parnell and Redmond wanted complete separation , despite being fully aware of 1798 etc. THese men were far more able and financially abled to have setted up their own parliament in defiance of Westminister, but they did not.

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

With regard to home rule and possible evolution, there is really no evidence to suggest that Butt, Parnell and Redmond wanted complete separation , despite being fully aware of 1798 etc. THese men were far more able and financially abled to have setted up their own parliament in defiance of Westminister, but they did not.

True. I would go so far as to say that the failure of Arthur Griffith's Sinn Fein (as opposed to the other movements pre and post 1916 who have had the name) could be taken as an indication of the lack of interest the political classes had in policies beyond a simple Home Rule/devolved government situation.

McArmalite

bayviewclose wrote: »

Partition was unfortunate but how it became so unmanageable was down more to neglect of the catholic minority by successive governments throughout the decades

No it wasn't down to the ' neglect ' of the nationalists in the occupied counties, it is the policy and reason for the exitance of unionism to mistreat through violence and discrimination the nationslists entrapped in the secterian gerrymander. All engineered by their masters in britain ofcourse.

James Connolly had warned this would come about if the most vunerable section of nationalist Ireland in the north was entrapped behind some form of partition. It's a sad joke when people talk about Irish ' independence' and 'stepping stones' to ultimate freedom etc

InTheTrees

McArmalite wrote: »

it is the policy and reason for the exitance of unionism to mistreat through violence and discrimination the nationslists entrapped in the secterian gerrymander.

Well not exactly... the Reason for the existance of Unionism is to keep the union intact which resulted in violence and discrimination.

McArmalite

malman wrote: »

Partial independence, partition of the island and death.

I don't think partition, partial independance and our subsequent economic growth was worth the suffering the people in Northern Ireland endured.
The Catholics were descriminated against and forced to live in a 'Protestant state' - voting discrimination, job discrimination, housing discrimination etc.

Agreed

. The Protestants (and Catholics) then suffered the wrath of the IRA.

Both communities grew further apart as a result of killing and bombing. It's a great pity Sean McStiofan's men saw no other solution.

I don't know how people can think their was some sort of nirvana pre August 1969, the nationalists suffered the wrath of the offical british terrorists RUC, B Specials, british army etc and unoffical british terorists UVF, UDA, UFF etc in the 1920's, 30's, 1969 -.

It wasn't a case that they " saw no ther solution ", as young men in Belfast, Derry, Tyrone etc didn't have time to sit around philosophying how they could 'embarce the unionist tradition':rolleyes: and 'hopefully persuade':rolleyes: the british to start publically saying that a united Ireland was the only and just solution.

If only we could have waited though. The people in the north eastern part of Ireland paid a heavy price for our freedom. I don't think it was worth it. We should have waited until the end of WW1. Home Rule and subsequent independance was inevidible.

They could have waited until doomsday, the british plan was to partition the country. " Home Rule and subsequent independance " was going to be brought in after, er, emm, afer WW1 as biritain would have fulfilled it's promises - and I'll get a date with Miss World.

McArmalite

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well not exactly... the Reason for the existance of Unionism is to keep the union intact which resulted in violence and discrimination.

Which is the same as saying " the Reason for the existance of british occupation is to keep the union intact which resulted in violence and discrimination "

Bog Butter

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed


I don't know how people can think their was some sort of nirvana pre August 1969, the nationalists suffered the wrath of the offical british terrorists RUC, B Specials, british army etc and unoffical british terorists UVF, UDA, UFF etc in the 1920's, 30's, 1969 -.

It wasn't a case that they " saw no ther solution ", as young men in Belfast, Derry, Tyrone etc didn't have time to sit around philosophying how they could 'embarce the unionist tradition':rolleyes: and 'hopefully persuade':rolleyes: the british to start publically saying that a united Ireland was the only and just solution.


They could have waited until doomsday, the british plan was to partition the country. " Home Rule and subsequent independance " was going to be brought in after, er, emm, afer WW1 as biritain would have fulfilled it's promises - and I'll get a date with Miss World.

I think I will start a new thread.

McArmalite

Cliste wrote: »

I don't know if I accept the battle hardened IRA bit, both sides came through the same war of independence, it could be argued that the free staters were the more War weary side (ie accepting the Treaty because the War of Independence itself was unsustainable).

I used the phrase of " the battle hardened IRA " in post #33 as roughly 80% of the IRA fought against the Treaty. In the 20% that were in the Free State ofcourse there were some capable, tough men such as Micheal Collins, Sean McEoin, Micheal Brennan etc ( how much this was down to personal loyalty and admiration of Collins rather than the terms of the Treaty itself would have been a major factor for this 20% ). Those who made up the rest of the National/Free State army mainly joined 1922 on and were not combat experienced like the IRA.

Hence without the 'loan' of ammunitions from the british it could be questioned if the FS would have attacked the battle hardened IRA.

blinding

McArmalite wrote: »

I used the phrase of " the battle hardened IRA " in post #33 as roughly 80% of the IRA fought against the Treaty. In the 20% that were in the Free State ofcourse there were some capable, tough men such as Micheal Collins, Sean McEoin, Micheal Brennan etc ( how much this was down to personal loyalty and admiration of Collins rather than the terms of the Treaty itself would have been a major factor for this 20% ). Those who made up the rest of the National/Free State army mainly joined 1922 on and were not combat experienced like the IRA.

Hence without the 'loan' of ammunitions from the british it could be questioned if the FS would have attacked the battle hardened IRA.

Interesting points but how come the battle hardened IRA did not manage to defeat the Free state forces especially due to the fact that they had given the British forces a hard time.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

True. I would go so far as to say that the failure of Arthur Griffith's Sinn Fein (as opposed to the other movements pre and post 1916 who have had the name) could be taken as an indication of the lack of interest the political classes had in policies beyond a simple Home Rule/devolved government situation.

Well, the people did not seem too fused, in fairness either,

Ah shure, tis long as they got their bit a land and a few cattle etc and there was no fear of commie reds, they as happy as a pig in sh8t. Davitt (former IRB man, funny enough) Parnell were the men, sure they won the people their independence (right to have land and be as bad as those pesky black protestants )