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

walrusgumble

blinding wrote: »

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.

lack of guns and ammo, and in mosts parts of the country - according to how the vote went in the General Elections, a lack of support and sympathy from the ordinary people as seen during the war of independence (very important matter). Many volunteers were young; some hardened Republicans, some out for adventure - more daring. It was likely that each leader from the opposite side knew their opponent inside out and knew their tactics. Hardly any element of surprise? Was there really heart and stomach to fight against their fellow Irish men with the same saveragery as in the Tan War?

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

lack of guns and ammo, and in mosts parts of the country - according to how the vote went in the General Elections, a lack of support and sympathy from the ordinary people as seen during the war of independence (very important matter). Many volunteers were young; some hardened Republicans, some out for adventure - more daring. It was likely that each leader from the opposite side knew their opponent inside out and knew their tactics. Hardly any element of surprise? Was there really heart and stomach to fight against their fellow Irish men with the same saveragery as in the Tan War?

exactly. the greatest tragedy in irish history was when former comrades took up arms against each other. And to this day the civil war still causes great division. its rumoured that sign post to beal na blath site where Collins was shot is always been tampered with along with the constant rumours that he had more than a few jars on the the day he died.

walrusgumble

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.

good points, agree.

But the exact same argument could be made as to why ordinary volunteers sided with their local Anti Treaty men and Dev, more out of loyalty as oppose to their rejection of the Treaty terms. (of course, more side with the free side for the prestige, pound cough sign and er, they believed in the terms, than the IRA.)

Isn't it true that many who jeered and goaded and did not take part in the 1916 rising and tan war, were very quick to look for positions in the national army and other state groups when the treaty came into force, and Insisted upon the officers posts etc. one has gotta laugh at their brass necks.

McArmalite

blinding wrote: »

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.

A few factors I'd say. Well the Free State attacked the Four Courts at the demands of Churchill. I'm quite skeptical myself if the attack on the Four Courts would have happened if the FS had not been supplied with the artillery, armoured cars etc supplied from the british and continued to be giving making the FS the stronger hand with military hardware.

Ofcourse the boyos at the pulpit who were very strongly behind the FS along with 'respectable opinion' in the Independent, Times etc. Plus among the general public the hope that the Treaty was a peaceful transition to total Irish freedom led to a loss of much support for the IRA. It's not surprising, generally the ordinary Joe will try and take what they see as the least troublesome route, unlike the hot blooded revoulotionaires in the IRA in 1916, Soloheadbeg etc who were prepared to do " by whatever means neccessary ".

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

A few factors I'd say. Well the Free State attacked the Four Courts at the demands of Churchill. I'm quite skeptical myself if the attack on the Four Courts would have happened if the FS had not been supplied with the artillery, armoured cars etc supplied from the british and continued to be giving making the FS the stronger hand with military hardware.

Ofcourse the boyos at the pulpit who were very strongly behind the FS along with 'respectable opinion' in the Independent, Times etc. Plus among the general public the hope that the Treaty was a peaceful transition to total Irish freedom led to a loss of much support for the IRA. It's not surprising, generally the ordinary Joe will try and take what they see as the least troublesome route, unlike the hot blooded revoulotionaires in the IRA in 1916, Soloheadbeg etc who were prepared to do " by whatever means neccessary ".

Ah the "boyos at the pulpit", with the strong exception of some such as Fr Flanagan, and the two Dominican Priests, the church have got to be one of the worse shower to reply on when things get hot. As unelected people they had far to much influence. They always sided with the powerful, landed and rich (again some notable exceptions)

+ Whilst the Tan War divided the Hierachy, prominent Bishops and priest piously tried to destroy the moral of volunteers threatening ex communication, yet had no qualms telling these men who fought for independence (and the right for that bishop and priest to ponticate to the people) who they were and what they were. Some were not a quick to complain about the British betrayal after of refusing Home Rule after blood sacrifices of the Irish Volunteers

+ They had no problems with the work of Parnell, though when an affair comes out to destroy him politically, some in the church disowned him.

+ One man who tried to resurrect important Irish Culture, Dr Doughlas Hyde, and first President; when he died, not for one poxy day could Catholics be seen to partipate in a Funeral mass in respect to this man.

+ Strong suspicion of the labour movement/ red scare. Seem to have tought the conditions in the slums of Dublin were awful enough in 1910-1913, yet, when some groups and people like Larkin & Co are out to do something about, certain members of the church denounce them. Labour members ran the trains, postal services etc, and bravely defied British orders with their boycotts, any thanks for their services during the war from the Church?

There are plenty of other

CDfm

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.

Why so. Were there factors other than the wipeout of the HRP?

Another factor -werent their more public repreentatives then the pro and anti treaty sides.

donaghs

There a lot discussions getting sidetracked here. I think if you want to look at the positives and negatives of independence, you should compare free Ireland post-1921 with Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

We got freedom to make decisions, but made a lot of bad decisions: e.g. economic protectionism, the special position of the Catholic Church etc. We also won the freedom to get more freedom. This is clearly shown as Ireland is a sovereign state, represented in the UN & the EU. N.Ireland, which only got a version of Home Rule, never had the ability to win greater freedom for itself (despite various "Unionists" talking about a Rhodesia-type UDI). Until the recent recession, there were a lot of commentators saying that Ireland had now proven that Indepence was economically better in the long-run.

The Catholic Church influence gets a lot of stick. People making them out to be the new oppressor. Lets not forget that unfortuntely the majority of people until the 1960s (1970s?) were conservative Catholics who thought the clergy could do no wrong. It was unfortunate for the minority who disagreed. Often lay Catholics went further than their clergy in pushing the Catholic Ireland agenda.

A lot of talk about the Civil War. Personally, since the kernal of the issue here was about Republic-related semantics, it was a complete waste of time. Lives lost, the economy and infrastructure ruined. And a bizarrelly skewed political system with both major parties around today. One of the main reasons the anti-treaty forces failed was that the general public were sick of conflict, and did not support them.

CDfm

Our political parties have been sucessful only in getting elected but our self government has been a shambles.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Why so. Were there factors other than the wipeout of the HRP?

Assuming you refer here to the question of whether there would be a move towards independence?

The Home Rule Party was not a separatist party, plain and simple. In fact many of the party could be classed as monarchists of some sort. A lot of them saw Home Rule in the same way as the British-a solution to the Irish problem, which would allow Ireland to prosper within the empire.

walrusgumble

donaghs wrote: »

There a lot discussions getting sidetracked here. I think if you want to look at the positives and negatives of independence, you should compare free Ireland post-1921 with Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

We got freedom to make decisions, but made a lot of bad decisions: e.g. economic protectionism, the special position of the Catholic Church etc. We also won the freedom to get more freedom. This is clearly shown as Ireland is a sovereign state, represented in the UN & the EU. N.Ireland, which only got a version of Home Rule, never had the ability to win greater freedom for itself (despite various "Unionists" talking about a Rhodesia-type UDI). Until the recent recession, there were a lot of commentators saying that Ireland had now proven that Indepence was economically better in the long-run.

The Catholic Church influence gets a lot of stick. People making them out to be the new oppressor. Lets not forget that unfortuntely the majority of people until the 1960s (1970s?) were conservative Catholics who thought the clergy could do no wrong. It was unfortunate for the minority who disagreed. Often lay Catholics went further than their clergy in pushing the Catholic Ireland agenda.

A lot of talk about the Civil War. Personally, since the kernal of the issue here was about Republic-related semantics, it was a complete waste of time. Lives lost, the economy and infrastructure ruined. And a bizarrelly skewed political system with both major parties around today. One of the main reasons the anti-treaty forces failed was that the general public were sick of conflict, and did not support them.

i agree with you. yeah you are right, this got side tracked, i for one is one person responsible. one thing i want to make clear. with regard to my comments about the church. they most certainly were not intended to be a "ah lets jump the bandwagon and slag off the church in light of recent times". Certainly not.

You are dead right also that it was and still is the lay people who push their agenda. I mate of mine studies theology and i have heard some great stories about some highly educated and decent priests who supervise his phd and i have had the pleasure of meeting some of them myself. they really take the pis( out of some of the holy joes. I also accept that the ones who denounced the men of the tan war as murders did so for genuine hatered of violence. But i have difficulty with the church on some issues relating to history. i would never go as far as saying that they were the oppressors, never mind the new oppressors, although dev was a devout catholic, he did not give into all mcquids requests when writing the constitution nor did he really need to please the church that much, but did as it reflected the people at that time. the church come out with their views when and normally only when the lay people seek for their views. Fr Vincent Twomey i think wrote an article about this issue a while back.

anyway that, i think, if people can avoid ranting/ band wagon jumping on about the current position of the church, would or may be a worthwhile topic of discussion on a separate thread.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

There a lot discussions getting sidetracked here. I think if you want to look at the positives and negatives of independence, you should compare free Ireland post-1921 with Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

We got freedom to make decisions, but made a lot of bad decisions: e.g. economic protectionism, the special position of the Catholic Church etc. We also won the freedom to get more freedom. This is clearly shown as Ireland is a sovereign state, represented in the UN & the EU. N.Ireland, which only got a version of Home Rule, never had the ability to win greater freedom for itself (despite various "Unionists" talking about a Rhodesia-type UDI). Until the recent recession, there were a lot of commentators saying that Ireland had now proven that Indepence was economically better in the long-run.

The Catholic Church influence gets a lot of stick. People making them out to be the new oppressor. Lets not forget that unfortuntely the majority of people until the 1960s (1970s?) were conservative Catholics who thought the clergy could do no wrong. It was unfortunate for the minority who disagreed. Often lay Catholics went further than their clergy in pushing the Catholic Ireland agenda.

A lot of talk about the Civil War. Personally, since the kernal of the issue here was about Republic-related semantics, it was a complete waste of time. Lives lost, the economy and infrastructure ruined. And a bizarrelly skewed political system with both major parties around today. One of the main reasons the anti-treaty forces failed was that the general public were sick of conflict, and did not support them.

The Catholic Church didn't just start to dictate to the Irish public after 1922, as they were unquestioning allies of britain since 1798 and probably were more effective in holding back thru denouncements Irish nationalism than the entire british army garrisoned in Ireland, e.g. "We, the undersigned, his Majesty's most loyal subjects, the Roman Catholics of Ireland, think it necessary at this moment publicly to declare our firm attachment to his Majesty's royal person, and to the constitution under which we have the happiness to live ... We cannot avoid expressing to Your Excellency our regret at seeing, amid the general delusion, many, particularly of the lower orders, of our own religious persuasion engaged in unlawful associations and practises" (30 May 1798)

Though it has to be said the CC's hand was strengthened even more by Griffith, Cosgrave and co. For example they extracted from the new Free State administration the continued control of schools which they had, in Ireland only, from 1831 in exchange for partial ending of the Tithe Laws, under the british. Which the FS gladly gave them with obvious disastrous results for subsequent generations of children in Ireland.

The Catholic Church had been instrumental in denouncing 1798, Fenians, Parnell, Sinn Fein etc. It's malign influence did not just start after 1922.

Hookey

donaghs wrote: »

There a lot discussions getting sidetracked here. I think if you want to look at the positives and negatives of independence, you should compare free Ireland post-1921 with Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

The only way you can really look at that is to take a counter-factual view and say "what would a 'British' Ireland look like today?" In terms of people's day-to-day lives; not very different. Politically we would look more like Scotland than Wales, with a similar level of devolved government. Culturally, there would be hardly any difference at all; Irish would still be taught in schools and have its own TV channel (see Wales) and would be just as much of a minority interest; economically we'd be going for exactly the same EU subsidies as we already do/did.

The bigger effect would have been the Irish effect on the UK; politically an additional celtic state would have probably shifted the UK more decisively to the left and for a lot longer.

Of course this isn't to say Ireland could have ever stayed in the Union; too much bad blood meant a break was inevitable; but if Ireland had still been part of the UK in 1945, I think we'd still be part of it now. Just like Scotland, everyone would moan about London and then do feck all about it.

Spiritoftheseventies

I think independence is a huge thing. Try driving through the north during the marching season. I think a lot more could be done re the parades commission in terms of moving the whole process on.

DublinWriter

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What war of independence achieved was a 26 county republic. Quite simple really.

What people ALWAYS forget was that Ireland didn't become a Republic until 1949, and only after Dev was voted out.

A united Ireland would have been a harder objective in 1921. Putting aside the British for a second, there would have been 600,000 very vocal and militant Unionists who would have probably marched on Dublin.

CDfm

I really think if we look at it that economically it was a disaster.We also have ideas about ourselves being a great nation but we are not really.

We were independent in 1939 but could do nothing to protect out independence if the Germans (or Italians ) had invaded. Anymore than we could have done anything about Northern Irelands Catholics in 1969 by invading.

What we have been left with is a shambles of a political system and public administration and public expectations which belies our size. We are not Britain but like to pretend we are this great nation and spend like we have unlimited resourses. Our politicians behave and have huge discussions and take positions about world events that are cringeworthy when in reality the country is the size of greater Manchester.

" Cloud and cuckooland" should be the Motto of Dail Eireann.

Reality is something that as a Nation we have difficulty with. Tax the leprechauns gold.


You wouldn't here the Italians or Belgians etc going on about the stuff we do.

We have more in common with Poland and Latvia and the Balkan States and taking our place amongst the "great nations of the earth" they are our peers not Britain or France.We are a former colony with no natural resourses.

Fratton Fred

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I think independence is a huge thing. Try driving through the north during the marching season. I think a lot more could be done re the parades commission in terms of moving the whole process on.

If Irelamd was still in the union, I doubt very much if marching season would be as popular, ying and yang and all that. All the time there is talk of Irish unification, there will be people showing how much the union means to them.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Irelamd was still in the union, I doubt very much if marching season would be as popular, ying and yang and all that. All the time there is talk of Irish unification, there will be people showing how much the union means to them.

I think aspects of Northern Paramilitary behaviour were a catchall for extremists that would have fitted in with the BNP or criminal gangs.

The Orange experience in the North was frozen in time.

Take the Robinsons ATM with their bit of scandal -it has taken the mystique off. I also imagine that there are people asking why Gerry Adams brother is still walking around with his knees intact.

As an entity its growing up and dealing with stuff and it wrong to assume it would have been the same. The raison d'etre for a lot of it was tribalism which would have given way to political reality.

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Irelamd was still in the union, I doubt very much if marching season would be as popular, ying and yang and all that. All the time there is talk of Irish unification, there will be people showing how much the union means to them.

Nationalists/Republicans just don't do enough marching and parading particularly in Unionist/loyalist areas:)

Seriously this could be the answer to the parading issue.

Whenever there is an Orange Order parade in a disputed area there should be a reciprocal Republican/Nationalist/Catholic (Ancient Order of Hibernians???) parade in a mostly Unionist/Loyalist area.

Now there you have it. The Nationalist/Republican/Catholic people have just been remiss for these many years by not doing their fair share of marching.

In the spirit of co-operation Unionists/Loyalists/Orange Order could give advice and with their experience of marching much needed know how.

It makes sense to me.

Spiritoftheseventies

blinding wrote: »

Nationalists/Republicans just don't do enough marching and parading particularly in Unionist/loyalist areas:)

Seriously this could be the answer to the parading issue.

Whenever there is an Orange Order parade in a disputed area there should be a reciprocal Republican/Nationalist/Catholic (Ancient Order of Hibernians???) parade in a mostly Unionist/Loyalist area.

Now there you have it. The Nationalist/Republican/Catholic people have just been remiss for these many years by not doing their fair share of marching.

In the spirit of co-operation Unionists/Loyalists/Orange Order could give advice and with their experience of marching much needed know how.

It makes sense to me.

What have the catholics to march about to be fair. Battle of the Boyne was won by Orange order. Again though the celebrations could be toned done a bit. Less flags less marching.

CDfm

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What have the catholics to march about to be fair. Battle of the Boyne was won by Orange order. Again though the celebrations could be toned done a bit. Less flags less marching.

Ah the seventies ...................

Simon Hoggart in Dublin
The Guardian, Thursday 3 February 1972 11.38 GMT
Article history
Police in Dublin charged rioters with batons last night after cheering crowds had burned out the British Embassy. Hatred of Britain in the Republic reached fever pitch as the embassy's interior blazed fiercely, watched by several thousand.
"Burn, burn, burn," they shouted as chunks of masonry and woodwork fell blazing onto the street. They redoubled their cheering whenever they saw the fire breaking through into new parts of the building. They stopped fire engines from getting through, and hurled petrol bombs at the building to speed the fire.

Rioting broke out as the demonstrators hurled petrol bombs at the Irish police near the burnt-out hulk of the embassy. They attacked an estate agent's office with stones and petrol bombs, and later looted a confectioner's shop. The police baton-charged wave upon wave of demonstrators, who replied with a fusillade of stones, and later petrol bombs.

The violence broke out after an IRA march had reached Merrion Square, where the embassy is situated. There were estimated to be between one and two thousand people in the crowd facing fewer than 200 policemen

.

That was a riot and not as cutesy as the "Love Ulster" event :rolleyes:

Clashes in Dublin over loyalist march
RTE News Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:53
Around 300 protestors, who opposed the planned loyalist 'Love Ulster' march, clashed with gardaí in Dublin city centre this afternoon.

The trouble broke out at 12.45pm at the junction of Parnell Street and O'Connell Street, just yards from where an estimated 800 marchers commemorating the victims of republican violence had gathered.

The 'Love Ulster' parade, due to follow a route from Parnell Square to Leinster House, never got underway.

Advertisement
About 300 protestors trying to stop the march from proceeding along the route broke the barriers and began attacking gardaí, photographers and journalists.

Missiles including cement blocks, rocks, pipes, glass bottles and firecrackers were thrown. A refuse skip outside the GPO was also set on fire.

Businesses along the route were forced to shut as gardaí and members of the Garda Riot Squad forced the protestors down O'Connell Street.

I wasnt on the quays or in Temple Bar that day so I couldnt feel the "luv"

I think we should look at our own record before we criticize too much as NI does not have a monopoly on extremism.

blinding

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What have the catholics to march about to be fair. Battle of the Boyne was won by Orange order. Again though the celebrations could be toned done a bit. Less flags less marching.

They are nearly as bad as England and the 1966 world cup:)

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

I think we should look at our own record before we criticize too much as NI does not have a monopoly on extremism.

You have pointed out 2 incidents of civil disorder in the Republic in 40 yrs.

Once directed at the british embassy (not directed at protestants) after bloody sunday when the british army opened fire and shot approx 60 Catholics. Killing 14.

Second incident was when the govt/council extended an invite to a sectarian organisation to march through O'Connel street.

To suggest that the republic and the north in terms of sectarian strife are even remotely comparable is either fantasy of disingenous.

CDfm

Morlar wrote: »

You have pointed out 2 incidents of civil disorder in the Republic in 40 yrs.

To suggest that the republic and the north in terms of sectarian strife are even remotely comparable is either fantasy of disingenous.

They came to mind and I wondered if by doing it that we obscure how we see ourselves.Reclaim the streets, U2 riots in 1985 , Navan GAA football riots in 1996 and they are ones I was around while they went on. We do ignore a lot.

After Yvonne Fletcher was shot from inside the Libyan embassy in Dublin Diplomatic relationships were broken off for 15 years.

I am suggesting that you look at what we are capable of too and if you catalogue Omagh and bombings in the UK conducted by the IRA and our embassy wasnt burned.

Its relative to your point of view and we dont have a monopoly on the higher ground and have a bit of the grassy knoll about us too.

junder

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What have the catholics to march about to be fair. Battle of the Boyne was won by Orange order. Again though the celebrations could be toned done a bit. Less flags less marching.

the orange order was not about at the time of the battle of the boyne

Fratton Fred

blinding wrote: »

They are nearly as bad as England and the 1966 world cup:)

Don't mock, celebrating a competition years later that you didn't win seems pretty much like an Irish thing. Maybe there should be Irish celebrations of the battle.

Ohh ahh Paul McGrath......

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't mock, celebrating a competition years later that you didn't win seems pretty much like an Irish thing.

A bit like the British Commoinwealth Games or EU lite as it was meant to be until its leader left it and became European.

Spiritoftheseventies

junder wrote: »

the orange order was not about at the time of the battle of the boyne

sorry meant to say William of Orange's army.

getz

CDfm wrote: »

A bit like the British Commoinwealth Games or EU lite as it was meant to be until its leader left it and became European.

what a very strange post to write,the commonwealth has now more members than ever before ,[many of them even never had any british connection]there are also many commonwealth countries within the EU.the commonwealth is doing very well,and even helping more third world countries than the EU or the US

CDfm

getz wrote: »

what a very strange post to write,the commonwealth has now more members than ever before

Before the EU Britain was a founding member of EFTA and used EFTA and the Commonwealth as part of its trade agreements and policy pre-1973 -so no its not at all strange to write it.

EFTA is the European Free Trade Association and was a counterbalance to the EU -it is now reduced to 4 members.

,[many of them even never had any british connection]

It is generally considered the sucessor to the British Empire - Rwanda joined recently but is that the only non colony?

there are also many commonwealth countries within the EU

.

name some

the commonwealth is doing very well,and even helping more third world countries than the EU or the US

Its raison d'etre has changed significantly with Britains decline.

Fratton Fred

The raison d'etre hasn't changed one bit, it is still as relavant as ever. Maybe the British interest has changed, but not that of the other members.

Malta and Cyprus spring to mind.