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

getz

commonwealth countries within the EU who have there own EU members of the european parliment,malta cyprus gibraltar,plus england scotland northern ireland and wales.there are also thirteen commonwealth members of the united nations,the commonwealth also covers 30% of the worlds people .

Hookey

getz wrote: »

commonwealth countries within the EU who have there own EU members of the european parliment,malta cyprus gibraltar,plus england scotland northern ireland and wales.there are also thirteen commonwealth members of the united nations,the commonwealth also covers 30% of the worlds people .

Er, England, Scotland, Wales and NI, aren't separate members of the Commonwealth. And Gibraltar doesn't have its own representation in the EU (Its MEP is also the MEP for SW England), and nor does it have its own Commonwealth membership.

Malta and Cyprus are the only EU members apart from the UK also in the Commonwealth.

CDfm

Hookey wrote: »

Malta and Cyprus are the only EU members apart from the UK also in the Commonwealth.

And Malta was first conquered by Napoleon but the British when they liberated it decided not to leave:rolleyes:

And Cyprus ................. they see themselves more Greek than British and wasnt Cyprus a colony that gave up sovereignty to the British on condition they kept the Turks out. That was pretty sucessful doncha think??

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Lets see then

---

a Commonwealth Song Contest to rival the Eurovision!!!!

Hookey

CDfm wrote: »

And Malta was first conquered by Napoleon but the British when they liberated it decided not to leave:rolleyes:

And Cyprus ................. they see themselves more Greek than British.

AFAIK no-one in the Commonwealth sees themselves as "British" apart from the British themselves, and even they're not sure these days.

The biggest irony about Cyprus is they see themselves as Greek but the Greeks themselves have a rather low opinion of the Cypriots, not really regarding them as Greek at all.

And the Maltese were more than happy to become part of the British Empire, in fact they asked to become a British dominion on the condition that the British didn't sell them on to another empire! This was an island that had had the entire population sold into slavery in its recent past, and had been handed around between various empires for centuries.

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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......

Are you saying they did not win in 1966.

Or are you admitting that the Russian linesman got it wrong and the Germans were robbed. Please produce the smoking gun, it would be worth a fortune.

Yeah its bit embarassing how "some" people in Ireland get carried away with doing reasonably well at a football tournament. Something to do with expectations and possibilities I suppose.

That battle of the Boyne victory was a long time ago and a kind of complicated shemozzle in any case. Time to let it go. Sometimes you can protest a victory too much.

Fratton Fred

The only people who see thenselves as British are Irish (sorry Junder, only joking)

CDfm

getz wrote: »

commonwealth countries within the EU who have there own EU members of the european parliment,malta cyprus gibraltar,plus england scotland northern ireland and wales.there are also thirteen commonwealth members of the united nations,the commonwealth also covers 30% of the worlds people .

\You still havent explained the lack of a song contest:D

junder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only people who see thenselves as British are Irish (sorry Junder, only joking)

if the irish saw themselves as british then life would have been so much simpler here, think you will find its us northern irish who see ourselves as british

ejmaztec

CDfm wrote: »

\You still havent explained the lack of a song contest:D

When they all get tvs and electricity, they may get round to a song contest.

blinding

junder wrote: »

if the irish saw themselves as british then life would have been so much simpler here, think you will find its us northern irish who see ourselves as british

This is serious question.

Why did the the Irish that did not feel themselves to be British feel that way.

There life would have been simpler if they had become good Britishers.

Goes to show that it can be well nigh impossible to force a group of people to be something that they do not want to be.

This should be taken into account by those that would believe that they can persuade/force Unionists/Loyalists to be exclusively Irish people.

I doubt that many believe that they can do that but it is too be hoped that a United Ireland if it happens can be made into the kind of a place where all shades of opinion can exist together.

CDfm

junder wrote: »

if the irish saw themselves as british then life would have been so much simpler here, think you will find its us northern irish who see ourselves as british

Media wise I think we are looking at the days before TV and radio.Pop culture tends to assimilate people a lot more.

I disagree with you somewhat and think that with satellite TV that the culture of Manchester and Liverpool crime spread into Dublin a lot more rapidly than otherwise might have happened.

We had gone along for 700 years or so ignoring the English language and then in a generation or so after the famine we were churning out writers and poets and claiming we spoke it and wrote it better than the English.We havent been half as welcoming with the French or German language and we are in the EU.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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......

And this coming form the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2

getz wrote: »

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

The Commonwealth, a silly excuse for a second rate Olympics as the brits desperately cling onto dead symbols of a dead empire :rolleyes:

CDfm

McArmalite wrote: »

And this coming form the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2

But that brings us back to the main question.

Have we benefited from Independence?

Have there been any real tangable benefits - I suppose neutrality in WWII was a benefit but was it really?

Economically, have we benefited or are we worse off?

Spiritoftheseventies

CDfm wrote: »

But that brings us back to the main question.

Have we benefited from Independence?

Have there been any real tangable benefits - I suppose neutrality in WWII was a benefit but was it really?

Economically, have we benefited or are we worse off?

Of course we have benefitted. Who in their right mind would want to live up north in a segregated society. I think most people who do live up there get by okay now but imagine what it was like up until the late nineties.
No country can enjoy any sort of prosperity without the indepedence to make its own decisons.

Hookey

McArmalite wrote: »

And this coming form the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2

stood alone. Never met a Brit in 20 years of living there who reckoned they won the war single handed. Not one. But they are proud of the "stood alone" bit.

McArmalite wrote: »

The Commonwealth, a silly excuse for a second rate Olympics as the brits desperately cling onto dead symbols of a dead empire :rolleyes:

Don't disagree. It had a point for a while, but not for at least the last 30 years.

Judgement Day

McArmalite wrote: »

And this coming form the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2


The Commonwealth, a silly excuse for a second rate Olympics as the brits desperately cling onto dead symbols of a dead empire :rolleyes:

Poor old McArmalite you real do have a chip on your shoulder don't you. I can't be bothered to argue the toss with you regarding WWII but as for the Commonwealth - Well, since its inception only two countries have left the fold (The Irish Free State/Irish Republic in 1949) and Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 and quit in 2003. Several others have left and returned and Fiji is currently suspended due to political instability/military coups. There are currently 54 member countries and all but two - Mozambique and Rwanda - are former British possessions. The British part of the Commonwealth title was dropped as far back as 1949 and today while Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Commonwealth it is a fairly democratic organisation. A number of other countries with no British connection including Algeria and Madagascar are currently seeking membership and I suspect if there is ever to be unity on the island of Ireland it is something that the country is going to have to face up to - like it or not. If I have a gripe with the Commonwealth it is that it is not an organisation like the UN and with the mandate and stomach to intervene in places like Zimbabwe. It is precisely because of the politically correct British establishment being ashamed of ever having had an empire that it remains little more than a talking shop and 'a second rate Olympics'....

CDfm

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Of course we have benefitted. Who in their right mind would want to live up north in a segregated society

we had our own segregated society as other protestants left and it was a long time afterwards before any sort of industry established itself almost 30 years in the wilderness with the trade war with Britain.

We got aid in the Marshall Plan as a US handout.

. I think most people who do live up there get by okay now but imagine what it was like up until the late nineties.

I think its like departing US presidents getting pardoned by their sucessors that treatment may have been tit for tat but we had already done tit.

No country can enjoy any sort of prosperity without the indepedence to make its own decisons.

But have we enjoyed any kind of prosperity really. The Celtic Tiger has turned into NAMA and we were one step from bankrupsy as a country.

In some ways I do think we should as a country be a bit more humble then we are. We are not a first tier industrialised nation and we dont have oil or mineral wealth but sure spend like we are.

brianthebard

There's been a lot of off topic posts in the past two pages, please lets bring this back to the original topic of the benefits or otherwise of Irish independence. Mod.

Hookey

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Of course we have benefitted. Who in their right mind would want to live up north in a segregated society. I think most people who do live up there get by okay now but imagine what it was like up until the late nineties.
No country can enjoy any sort of prosperity without the indepedence to make its own decisons.

You're missing the point. First of all, there wouldn't have been a segregated society in the north, and second, independence to make your own decisions depends purely on context. If Ireland was part of Britain now, it would make decisions as part of Britain, just like Wales and Scotland do. As it is, an independent Ireland has given away a lot of its decision making powers to Europe anyway; but that was by choice so its OK isn't it?

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think after the previous 800 years Ireland could ever have remained part of the UK (although Wales managed it, with broadly similar treatment, and for an even longer period), but if it had, we wouldn't be worse off. Not necessarily much better either, but then I think a country's fate is as much an accident of geography as anything else anyway.

SWL

CDfm wrote: »

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.

Rubbish, defeating the defence forces would have taken a number of days, however it was only twenty years since Ireland had a had two wars, a lot of military knowledge still existed I n the country. You can defeat a national army easily but you can’t defeat the people particularly with a guerrilla network that existed in Ireland in the time. The IRA could be argued were one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and Germans kinking in the front door and murdering and raping your daughters etc would have been another occupying force in the country to be dealt with at one point 25k black and tans were in Ireland German could not have sent large numbers of troops as they were fighting wars in Europe, Russia and Africa.

Your argument about Ireland politicians is valid however you elected them continually. In that sense it can be argued you are getting what you deserve however I personally can’t understand Ireland willing to accept things that everyone knows are wrong and refuse to stand up for their society.

Irelands limited natural resources is a problem however you do/did have substantial fishing resources and countries like Iceland population 400k max up to recently have used these to live relative comfortable e lives but you opted to trade those also again by the politicians you elected. So if large failures exist in Ireland mainly through poor leadership what have you or any Irish person done to change other than complaining about the present situation? A lot of sheep seem to exist in Ireland today compared to the previous generations which gained independence and did a lot with a little, given the trading barriers and technology in the earlier part of the last centaury. Your generation may have surrendered to the axis forces if they invaded however I don’t think previous generations would have been so accommodating

It could be argued that with the reflection of time that independence is wasted on this generation who refuse to change the things that are wrong with society than criticising those that did do something.

CDfm

Thanks SWL - on an aside I have always wondered if there had been Irish involvement in the European resistance movement or the SAS.

Hookey

SWL wrote: »

Rubbish, defeating the defence forces would have taken a number of days, however it was only twenty years since Ireland had a had two wars, a lot of military knowledge still existed I n the country. You can defeat a national army easily but you can’t defeat the people particularly with a guerrilla network that existed in Ireland in the time. The IRA could be argued were one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and Germans kinking in the front door and murdering and raping your daughters etc would have been another occupying force in the country to be dealt with at one point 25k black and tans were in Ireland German could not have sent large numbers of troops as they were fighting wars in Europe, Russia and Africa.

There's a bit of flawed logic going on there (NB I know this is a bit off topic - again). If an independent Ireland had been invaded it would only have been because a. it was to be used as a staging post for operations against Britain (extremely unlikely), or b. because Britain had already been defeated and it was a mopping up exercise (rather more likely). In either case the argument about being stretched elsewhere doesn't really stack up; and the Wermacht and SS were a very different beast to the Tans. There would obviously have been a resistance movement, but where exactly would supplies come from? Not America; because if the UK had been defeated the Atlantic would have been a no-go area, and if the country was invaded for use as a staging area against Britain a direct counter-invasion from Britain would have been a more likely option than giving weapons to the IRA (although stranger things have happened). Whether the IRA had the necessary skills or not is a bit irrelevant if you have no way to get weapons.

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks SWL - on an aside I have always wondered if there had been Irish involvement in the European resistance movement or the SAS.

If you mean Irish govt involvement ? Zero - we were officially a neutral country. I have heard nothing to say we broke our neutrality to aid partisans/resistance groups anywhere, nor officially aided the SAS.

There were plenty of Irish men in the SAS as with all other british army WW2 regiments.Kevin myers gave a talk about Irish involvement in WW2 which was highly informative last November.

It is worth noting that we had at least an equal threat of invasion from britain as we had from Germany during WW2. Chruchill confirmed this of course in his victory speech.

I agree that in any event the army would have been defeated one way or another.

Had the british invaded the IRA would have mounted a massive guerilla campaign and we would have been in the midst of another war of independence. Whether or not the IRA of the 1940's would have fought the germans had they chose to (or were in a position to) invade or whether they would have co-operated on the promise of a united Ireland is another matter.

McArmalite

Hookey wrote: »

You're missing the point. First of all, there wouldn't have been a segregated society in the north,

Ireland and in particuliar the northern part of it ( and not just the six counties, see also the thread from a few months ago - Guinness and the Protestants) were always run along secterian lines. And never hear of the Penal Laws etc :rolleyes:

and second, independence to make your own decisions depends purely on context. If Ireland was part of Britain now, it would make decisions as part of Britain, just like Wales and Scotland do. As it is, an independent Ireland has given away a lot of its decision making powers to Europe anyway; but that was by choice so its OK isn't it?

So if if Ireland had said, we want to join the Euro, we don't want the Queen as head of state, we don't want to be a part of the brits atrocities in Iraq - are you telling us we could have opted out as we pleased We could have made decisions as part of britain as much as the Czechs would have made decisions as part of Greater Germany 1939.

McArmalite

CDfm wrote: »

we had our own segregated society as other protestants left

Most of the ones who left ahd been in the britisih civil service, army, naval bases etc

and it was a long time afterwards before any sort of industry established itself almost 30 years in the wilderness with the trade war with Britain.

Yes we were in the wilderness thanks to britain the cancer of human society. For example as part of the Treaty, the Free State had to pay off part of britain's international debt accured from WW1.

We got aid in the Marshall Plan as a US handout.

Really :eek: How much, enough to paint the white lines on an airport runway ?

I think its like departing US presidents getting pardoned by their sucessors that treatment may have been tit for tat but we had already done tit.

Again really :eek: Was " No Protestants need apply " appearing all over the south ? Did Dev or Cosgrave issue a statement to the press to sack all Protestants in favour of Catholics like the unionist lowlife in the occupied counties :eek:

But have we enjoyed any kind of prosperity really. The Celtic Tiger has turned into NAMA and we were one step from bankrupsy as a country.

One step from bankrupsy - like our friends next door. And they've invovled themselves in an unwinable war in the middle east and are having body bags and amputees returning home every day of the week.

In some ways I do think we should as a country be a bit more humble then we are. We are not a first tier industrialised nation and we dont have oil or mineral wealth but sure spend like we are.

Again more rubbish. Never hear of Agricultue, fisher's, forestery's, natural gas etc undoubtably you'd rather us to be like britain with it's success stories with british coal, british steel And ofcourse Scottish oil - which has nearly ran out by now !!!! So maybe you should go off and do your bit for Queen and country by trying to rob the Iraqi's of theirs.

mink_man

independance?

SWL

Hookey wrote: »

There's a bit of flawed logic going on there (NB I know this is a bit off topic - again). If an independent Ireland had been invaded it would only have been because a. it was to be used as a staging post for operations against Britain (extremely unlikely), or b. because Britain had already been defeated and it was a mopping up exercise (rather more likely). In either case the argument about being stretched elsewhere doesn't really stack up; and the Wermacht and SS were a very different beast to the Tans. There would obviously have been a resistance movement, but where exactly would supplies come from? Not America; because if the UK had been defeated the Atlantic would have been a no-go area, and if the country was invaded for use as a staging area against Britain a direct counter-invasion from Britain would have been a more likely option than giving weapons to the IRA (although stranger things have happened). Whether the IRA had the necessary skills or not is a bit irrelevant if you have no way to get weapons.

Fair point on the supplies, IRA had used limited supplies to take on the tans, but equipment had moved on - i suppose we will never know how it would have worked out.

McArmalite

SWL wrote: »

Fair point on the supplies, IRA had used limited supplies to take on the tans, but equipment had moved on - i suppose we will never know how it would have worked out.

I imagine a split would have happened in the IRA ( and indeed across Irish society ) with the some of the IRA seeking the best deal they could get out of the Germans and using this new All Ireland ( Germany wasn't going to stop at the border ) political situation to sell it like the Treaty 20 years before - not full freedom but the ability to achieve full freedom etc, etc.

Hookey

McArmalite wrote: »

Ireland and in particuliar the northern part of it ( and not just the six counties, see also the thread from a few months ago - Guinness and the Protestants) were always run along secterian lines. And never hear of the Penal Laws etc :rolleyes:

We're in the realms of "what ifs" here; the only way Ireland would have stayed part of Britain is if Home Rule had come in and people had settled for that (and if it had happened in say, Parnell's time, that's more than possible), so Ireland in 1940 under this scenario would have had to look different.

McArmalite wrote: »

So if if Ireland had said, we want to join the Euro, we don't want the Queen as head of state, we don't want to be a part of the brits atrocities in Iraq - are you telling us we could have opted out as we pleased We could have made decisions as part of britain as much as the Czechs would have made decisions as part of Greater Germany 1939.

Missing the point. It comes entirely down to how you define "we". The nation state is an entirely subjective and artificial thing; the Scots embraced "Britain" as a concept when it suited them; obviously the Irish experience was different, but as I said before, so was the Welsh experience and they went a different way to Ireland, and there are lots of ways history could have turned out differently.