If Ireland only got independence now, what would it be like?

Seanchai

golden lane wrote: »

nothing whatsoever.....british isles was mentioned by aristitle....and plinyb the elder.....

It wasn't; surprisingly, neither Aristotle nor Pliny spoke English. The earliest record of its use is by the English imperialist John Dee in a manuscript claiming Ireland for the English crown. That's easily verifiable by a simple Google, but you keep believing what you want to believe.

Markcheese

mikemac1 wrote: »

Dublin had its chance at being capital

Time for somewhere new

I say Cashel as used by Brian Boru :cool:

Brian Boru's capital was in killaloe... Or am I getting mixed up ....

Nodin

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Yes, a paradise, just like the North turned out to be.

Nodin

later12 wrote: »

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

Pathetic paternalistic nonsense, filled with the worst excuses for colonialism.

later12

Nodin wrote: »

Pathetic paternalistic nonsense, filled with the worst excuses for colonialism.

No it's not. Ireland should have been set up with Home Rule first, and outright independence granted later if it was something that was desired and made sense.

While the actual transition from membership of the UK to independence was smoothed over by a diligent civil service, many economic historians or students of the civil war would express something of a horror at how even an early 20th century UK administration left Ireland and its people to such a predictable and awful fate.

kowloon

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Good luck using the 'Atlantic Archipelago' as a common reference point for the islands of Ireland and Britain (despite it being referenced in the title of a book once). I'd say you might have to clarify what exactly you're referring to.

I can't see it catching on myself

Nodin

later12 wrote: »

No it's not. Ireland (......)and its people to such a predictable and awful fate.

Did it ever occur to any of the self loathers and apologists for imperialism on here that theres something not 'quite right'.....?

Qualitymark

If 1916 hadn't happened, and the subsequent War of Independence, the British Empire and other contemporary empires might have survived; the effect of tiny Ireland, Britain's first and nearest colony, standing up against what was then a world power inspired India, Russia, etc to throw off imperial or colonist rule.

So we can't really talk easily about how it would be if it were now. "Now" would be utterly different in such a situation.

mikemac1

Markcheese wrote: »

Brian Boru's capital was in killaloe... Or am I getting mixed up ....

From Kincora just outside Killaloe but the capital was Cashel

So Tipp is claiming him :cool:

Duckworth_Luas

As a former geographer and someone who studied under one of Britain's preeminent cartographers I'd like to add that "the British Isles" is not and has never been a geographic term. It's a loaded political term.

Anyone with any interest in cartography will know that maps are one of the most important propaganda tools there are. Indeed we were taught of our ethical responsibility not to use divisive political terms, the example given was of course "the British Isles". Others have described how and why the term arose, so no need for me to repeat it.

The collective term for Britain and Ireland is well, Britain and Ireland. It's not a tongue twister.

Lets consign this nonsense term to the dustbin of history along with "British North America", "German East Africa" and "French Indochina".

dvpower

Nodin wrote: »

Did it ever occur to any of the self loathers .....

That's a bit strong ... reminds me of how some on the hard right in Israel describe Jews who favour increased Palastinian rights.

Faith+1

IrishAm wrote: »

I view Ireland as a 32 county island. I believe in democracy, ergo, I believe that each and every citizen on this island of Ireland, should have a vote.

The vote? Simple. Should Ireland become a 32 country Republic or should the six counties remain part of the UK.

If the Irish people vote for the six to remain part of the UK, I will begrudgingly get on with it and whole heartedly accept their decision.

Give us the chance to democratically voice our opinions.

Can the other 26 vote too? The sooner our British overlords take over again the better.

Duggys Housemate

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

This guy is a troll. If he - a corkman, not a dub - is not talking about the low IQ of culchies, this kind of rot, or whining about GAA parochialness in not giving support to soccer stadia, he primarily posts knowledgeably on the GAA, including obscure inter county and league games.

Nodin

dvpower wrote: »

That's a bit strong ... ......

After long enough round here, I'd say its not actually strong enough, tbh.

Theres a clear and distinct diffence between self criticism, humour and self loathing, and its the latter that I'm talking about.

later12

Nodin wrote: »

After long enough round here, I'd say its not actually strong enough, tbh.

Theres a clear and distinct diffence between self criticism, humour and self loathing, and its the latter that I'm talking about.

How about actually engaging in the historical fact instead of crankily dismissing criticism of the United Kingdom, in the above context, as "self loathing".

You don't have to be a sash wearing, flute playing Orange order bigot to actually believe the British ultimately handled their exit from Ireland disastrously.

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

After long enough round here, I'd say its not actually strong enough, tbh.

Theres a clear and distinct diffence between self criticism, humour and self loathing, and its the latter that I'm talking about.

How about actually engaging in the historical fact instead of crankily dismissing criticism of the United Kingdom, in the above context, as "self loathing".

You don't have to be a sash wearing, flute playing Orange order bigot to actually believe the British ultimately handled their exit from Ireland disastrously.

I think we left the UK with enough democratic and public institutions to survive. The civil and public service are far from the worst in the world, the police is generally respected and impartial, the judiciary independent. We messed up at the start with autarky.

later12

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I think we left the UK with enough democratic and public institutions to survive.

Oh yes... we survived. We had civil war, major economic decline, and a social retrogression; but if our goal was survival, yes we did that. Well, the ones that weren't shot, in any event.

We probably would have survived a more careful transition, too, though.

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I think we left the UK with enough democratic and public institutions to survive.

Oh yes... we survived. We had civil war, major economic decline, and a social retrogression; but if our goal was survival, yes we did that. Well, the ones that weren't shot, in any event.

We probably would have survived a more careful transition, too, though.

Partition would always be an issue, and could have led to civil war at any time. My point is the social institutions we had were fine, the problem was autarky. That actually, the anti-imperial, economic belief in self sufficiency was possibly an issue caused by when we left the empire, so I am not totally in disagreement with you. I think the institutions we inherited were fine.

ejmaztec

Qualitymark wrote: »

If 1916 hadn't happened, and the subsequent War of Independence, the British Empire and other contemporary empires might have survived; the effect of tiny Ireland, Britain's first and nearest colony, standing up against what was then a world power inspired India, Russia, etc to throw off imperial or colonist rule.

So we can't really talk easily about how it would be if it were now. "Now" would be utterly different in such a situation.

I doubt the lack of an Independence War would have made much difference to the fate of the empires around at the time, and think that Ireland would be treated in the same way as Scotland is now.

There would have been more air bases around the country, one or two of which would have been used by the USAF, and more of a naval presence, not to mention the existence of a National Health Service.

...and people here would still be voting for the same feckin politicians.

later12

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Partition would always be an issue, and could have led to civil war at any time.

Just to clarify though, while it was in the background, partition didn't cause the civil war.

If the issue surrounding the Oath of Allegiance as well as some smaller details surrounding Ireland's association with the UK had not arisen, I don't think anybody seriously believes a civil war would have ensued, ceteris paribus.

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Partition would always be an issue, and could have led to civil war at any time.

Just to clarify though, while it was in the background, partition didn't cause the civil war.

If the issue surrounding the Oath of Allegiance as well as some smaller details surrounding Ireland's association with the UK had not arisen, I don't think anybody seriously believes a civil war would have ensued, ceteris paribus.

Well we'll disagree on that one.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

Of course it could be. Ballincollig has almost twice the population of Tuvalu, and is almost as big as Palau. Small economies with no natural resources find lots of clever, inventive ways of financing themselves; just look at Ireland - a country whose economic viability as an independent state has itself been called into serious question throughout the 20th century, and today.

That's a very dubious argument. Three points stick out at once.

(i) a similar claim could be made against the Dublin government by disadvantaged counties of Ireland. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged town councils against the county councils. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged residents against their respective town councils, all of whom in turn believe that their economic needs are being ignored.
(ii) in fact, the London government went further by writing Home Rule into law. And not having sat at Westminster, the Sinn Fein MPs failed to even attempt to secure independence peacefully. The reason it had not been secured peacefully before was because the IPP had historically had little interest in outright independence, just like an awful lot of Irish people.


Was James Joyce a second class citizen, or his wealthy industrialist ancestors? Samuel Beckett? Bernard Shaw? Was Kevin Barry a second class citizen when he walked out of Belvedere College and into the UCD medical school on Merrion Square? Was Padraig Pearse a second class citizen, when after being called to the bar he opened his famous school? Were Michael Moloney and Peter O Brien and Michael Morris, all Catholic Irishmen, second class citizens when they each respectively sat as Lord Chief Justice if their own country? No, I don't think the term second class citizen applies to Irishmen who enjoyed the same rights as others in the UK at that time, who were free to engage in their culture, practice their religion, access education, and go about their normal lives living in peace with their families and friends.

In that case, one might say it was very much alive in the mid 1920s when the last people to die from starvataion died in Co. Cork, Saor Stat Eire.


I do; I already said I'm opposed to people pushing their nationalism on society using violence.

200,000 years of modern human evolution and I'm fairly sure we ought to have got to the stage where we start deciding these things using rulers, markers and logical arguments.

From my point of view, I feel that union with the UK made economic sense in the world of early 20th century Ireland and later within Europe, where our interests still converge today. However I can also see reasons for preserving self governance. There were some very logical arguments in favour of that which, as we know, Sinn Fein never actually bothered to propose in the established democratic institutions of the day.

I know I signed out but a couple of these points have stuck in my craw.

If people were still dying of starvation here in the mid 20's then that is a damming indictment of the mess the British left that took a while to clear up.

And by the way people died of starvation in Britain in the 30's, not many but because of inadequate government actions some did.
Link
Link

later12 wrote: »

Would that Northern nationalists respected the sentiments you expressed! No doubt you are a defender of the rights of Ulster's Union with the UK, then, are you?

I feel the situation in the north is for the people of the north to decide, something I have stated many times on Boards and as per my stance here, you could hardly say the same given your argument, can you??

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I know I signed out but a couple of these points have stuck in my craw.

If people were still dying of starvation here in the mid 20's then that is a damming indictment of the mess the British left that took a while to clear up.

Actually, my point was that the British abandoned the country too rapidly and yes, this made a mess which subsequent leaderships were simply too philosophically disinclined or simply unable to step in and resolve the crisis in Ireland's economy in the early years of the free state.

You refer to a story which appears to do with malnutrition; i.e. a mother who contracted pneumonia whose lack of nutrition aggravated her illness. What I am talking about is flat out starvation of a family under an independent Irish Government who professed to offer a better alternative than life under London, but who in reality were not yet ready for power.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0019/D.0019.192703310017.html

I rise to bring to the notice of the House a terrible tragedy that has occurred in the extreme end of my constituency of West Cork and that resulted in the almost complete annihilation of a family through starvation. I refer to the family of Daniel Sullivan, of Adrigole. ...The information I have got is that on last Saturday morning a neighbour, seeing nobody around this house, visited it and found the mother of the family dead and the father and five children in a hopelessly weak condition, with no beds except hay, no bed-clothes and no food...

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0019/D.0019.192703310017.html

...This is not an isolated case. There are seven, eight, ten or perhaps twenty in the same locality who are practically in the same circumstances, and because they hold small plots of land they have been deprived of home assistance. These people were well-off some years ago, but through false pride they prefer death to begging, borrowing or stealing. I think that there must be something very much wrong with the Poor Law system

Fuinseog

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I just thought of one thing our experience of travelling would be different, on my very first visit to France the following conversation ensued.

Me: Excusez-moi monsieur, parlez-vous Anglais?
Monsieur: Anglais? Non, pardonnez moi. Something in French.
Me: Haltingly Oh, aahh Où est le ummm bureau de post s'il vous plaît?
Monsieur: Pointed directions followed by Anglais? la Grande-Bretagne?
Me: Anglais? Non Irlande.
Monsieur: Irlande? Ahhh, Monsieur I do speak a little English Followed by lovely conversation.

yeah, well who won at waterloo?

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

Actually, my point was that the British abandoned the country too rapidly and yes, this made a mess which subsequent leaderships were simply too philosophically disinclined or simply unable to step in and resolve the crisis in Ireland's economy in the early years of the free state.

You refer to a story which appears to do with malnutrition; i.e. a mother who contracted pneumonia whose lack of nutrition aggravated her illness. What I am talking about is flat out starvation of a family under an independent Irish Government who professed to offer a better alternative than life under London, but who in reality were not yet ready for power.

The mess was not made by the British leaving it was made when they were here, we were unable to clean it up for quite a while. Something not quite unique to Ireland.
You would have a point if this was in the 30's but the mid 20's? Crap.

Starvation is the most extreme form of malnutrition, in famines most people die from diseases brought on by malnutrition they don't even make it to technical starvation, the key points are the cause is the lack of food, and the fact people die.
Only people trying to hide true figures ever engage in semantics such as above.

Now your turn to answer something, do you think the people of the north have the right to decide for themselves their constitutional future??

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Britain did not spend all its money to help Europe.
For a start it had no money, hence the attitude of appeasement that pervaded the entire country as the Rhineland was retaken and Czechoslovakia invaded.
Britain fought to maintain her Empire and so her people wouldn't have to fight for the right to govern themselves a generation later. She fought for the same reasons the Irish lads in 1921 did, the British people did not want to be ruled by a foreign power.

I think the words "beaten senseless" are a better description than "surrender", and what did the BEF do, yes you got it they ran away, as the French held the line at great cost to themselves to allow them to escape, many people with their pathetic "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comments forget this sacrifice.

After the campaign in the west the British sneered at the French, claiming they had not wanted to fight - the French accused the British of running away - and the Germans probably sneered at both of them for being spectatcularly outmaneuvered.
It's worth considering the size of the BEF against the French Army.
I wonder what significant difference the BEF could have made once the Germans had reached the coast - and the French Army was split.
The action at Arras springs to mind - but I believe that was meant to be a coordinated Anglo-French attempt - and that coordination never happened.
The French actions to hold back the Germans in the north - aiding the evacuation at Dunkirk is, as you claim, little known.
Some British units, up to divisional size, executed suprisingly efficient withdrawals - so efficient that the French were unaware that they had gone.
The British also began evacuating - that is removing their troops permanently from the continent - without telling the French. Most of the French who left through Dunkirk returned to France.
For the French to have felt that the British had selfishly run away is understandable.
But I would say that the British acknowledged the reality of what had happened in northern France and Belgium before their allies did - and they acted upon it - harsh as it seems the campaign was lost.
There is no doubt of the French political and military malaise at this time.
With regard to the evacuations - put simply the British had somewhere to go - the French didn't.
As one French soldier put it, it was not for the French to criticise the British for leaving - the job of defending France was theirs, (the French).
He also added that, neverthless, that the British had been very selfish.
After the evacuations the French fought on - more fiercely than they had before. After the surrender the British were still in the game - not winning - but not losing either - and that was vital.
None of it is black and white - the French army was ten times the size of the BEF. The French air force was not used effectively - whilst Britains Fighter Command lost half it's frontline aircraft in the campaign.
Overall the French and British - and the Belgians and Dutch - were outmaneuvered in this business.

Cú Giobach

indioblack wrote: »

After the campaign in the west the British sneered at the French, claiming they had not wanted to fight - the French accused the British of running away - and the Germans probably sneered at both of them for being spectatcularly outmaneuvered.
It's worth considering the size of the BEF against the French Army.
I wonder what significant difference the BEF could have made once the Germans had reached the coast - and the French Army was split.
The action at Arras springs to mind - but I believe that was meant to be a coordinated Anglo-French attempt - and that coordination never happened.
The French actions to hold back the Germans in the north - aiding the evacuation at Dunkirk is, as you claim, little known.
Some British units, up to divisional size, executed suprisingly efficient withdrawals - so efficient that the French were unaware that they had gone.
The British also began evacuating - that is removing their troops permanently from the continent - without telling the French. Most of the French who left through Dunkirk returned to France.
For the French to have felt that the British had selfishly run away is understandable.
But I would say that the British acknowledged the reality of what had happened in northern France and Belgium before their allies did - and they acted upon it - harsh as it seems the campaign was lost.
There is no doubt of the French political and military malaise at this time.
With regard to the evacuations - put simply the British had somewhere to go - the French didn't.
As one French soldier put it, it was not for the French to criticise the British for leaving - the job of defending France was theirs, (the French).
He also added that, neverthless, that the British had been very selfish.
After the evacuations the French fought on - more fiercely than they had before. After the surrender the British were still in the game - not winning - but not losing either - and that was vital.
None of it is black and white - the French army was ten times the size of the BEF. The French air force was not used effectively - whilst Britains Fighter Command lost half it's frontline aircraft in the campaign.
Overall the French and British - and the Belgians and Dutch - were outmaneuvered in this business.

That's actually quite a good little synopsis.

I fully understand the British had to leave France, and thank fuck they did. I only said "ran away" because it annoys me when people seem to concentrate on the French surrender and forget the fight the soldiers on the ground put up, not to mention what they did at Verdun 24 years previously.
I'm sure you know and I wonder how many "average joes" are aware the French had a much stronger and better army than the Germans and could have stopped them in their tracks (no pun intended), but I think the horrors of 14/18 (it was for a large part on French soil after all and hit them exceptionally hard) played a big part in the malaise you mention.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That's actually quite a good little synopsis.

I fully understand the British had to leave France, and thank fuck they did. I only said "ran away" because it annoys me when people seem to concentrate on the French surrender and forget the fight the soldiers on the ground put up, not to mention what they did at Verdun 24 years previously.
I'm sure you know and I wonder how many "average joes" are aware the French had a much stronger and better army than the Germans and could have stopped them in their tracks (no pun intended), but I think the horrors of 14/18 (it was for a large part on French soil after all and hit them exceptionally hard) played a big part in the malaise you mention.

Thanks for your response.
I agree about the French. It seems so much of how they behaved at this time was affected by the first war and French politics in the 1930's.

Fratton Fred

indioblack wrote: »

Thanks for your response.
I agree about the French. It seems so much of how they behaved at this time was affected by the first war and French politics in the 1930's.

The politicians let the soldiers down. They were terrified their precious Paris might get damaged and caved in.

I think what puzzles most people is how on earth do you surrender without your capital city seeing a single shot in anger?

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The mess was not made by the British leaving it was made when they were here

No it didn't; are you just making this up as you go along? Did you read the link? The first thing that politicians addressed as having caused the problem was the poor law, which if you know your history you'll know that the Irish Free State emasculated in 1925 with the abolition of the Board of Guardians and RDCs into local government hands, whereupon it came under the influence of an administration which was religiously and philosophically disinclined to intervene in people's private lives or economic development, preferring instead to delegate to private civil society groups; mainly religious organisations.

Ireland was not an industrialised country when it was part of Britain (or at not outside of the North East), and when it gained independence it suddenly moved from being a regional problem, addressable with transfers from the wealthier regions, to being locked out of the UK altogether and left to fend for itself in a largely inept manner and over time lost its free trade. It was like taking the worst unemployment blackspots in Ireland today and granting them independence; you wouldn't do it; it was absolutely mental to grant it, and it would be absolutely mental for residents of these areas to seek out total independence in those economic conditions too.

do you think the people of the north have the right to decide for themselves their constitutional future??

It's not a matter of whether I think they do, this is provided for in British legislation and as long as they sort it out peacefully and preferably using logic, then I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

twinytwo

i think the more important question is, if collins had not have been killed*, and dev not taken control of the country would we be in the ****e we are today.

* and before anyone comes along with the usual traitor, backstabber nonsence please stop before you make a fool of youself and go back to history class.

Duggys Housemate

later12 - a few deaths in 1920 do not prove your point. This was just after independence and civil war, two wars. After that can you find any?

later12

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

later12 - a few deaths in 1920 do not prove your point. This was just after independence and civil war, two wars. After that can you find any?

To clarify; it was 1927, and two parents and two children died of starvation. Also; are you missing the point? The previous post was also about wider economic retrogression, I previously used the Cork starvation case as an illustration.

twinQuins

Seanchai wrote: »

Ah, so calling Ireland part of the "British Isles" after centuries of British military and political rule in Ireland has no political connotations? :rolleyes:

Not to those of us who aren't insecure, no. I really don't give a flying **** what nationalists want to think, it's a commonly used term.

Call me a "west Brit" if you want, at least I'll know I'm not the one who has to tear down others to bolster his own sense of identity.

indioblack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The politicians let the soldiers down. They were terrified their precious Paris might get damaged and caved in.

I think what puzzles most people is how on earth do you surrender without your capital city seeing a single shot in anger?

I agree about the politicians. I think, overall, the emotion of most French people after the surrender would be one of bewilderment at the rapidity of the fall of France - the British began evacuations two weeks after the initial German assault, for the French the whole thing was over in six weeks.
For such a proud people to see their country overwhelmed in such a relatively short time must have been difficult to come to terms with.
And, for a minority, there was perhaps a feeling of relief that it was all over - and that now they would have to try and carry on under the occupying power.

dttq

indioblack wrote: »

I agree about the politicians. I think, overall, the emotion of most French people after the surrender would be one of bewilderment at the rapidity of the fall of France - the British began evacuations two weeks after the initial German assault, for the French the whole thing was over in six weeks.
For such a proud people to see their country overwhelmed in such a relatively short time must have been difficult to come to terms with.
And, for a minority, there was perhaps a feeling of relief that it was all over - and that now they would have to try and carry on under the occupying power.

There are so many myths surrounding WWII on the Western front, propogated mainly by the yanks and brits that they need to be corrected. France did put up a fight and bravely so, however the Germans were the most advanced military force in Europe, if not the world during the period. Were it not for the Channel, and American war time loans and supplies, England would have fallen as fast as France, so British bravado is uncalled for. Nor is American bravado and triumphalism because what really ended it all for Hitler was his attempts at invading and annexing Russia. The red army were the only force standing between German domination of Europe, and ultimately their demise. England would have fallen as fast as France had their been no geographical barriers, and the Russian input into the war was much greater than America's. Listening to right wingers in America and Britain, you'd swear they won the war single-handed and that England repelled the German invasion, while the French just surrendered without a fight. It's all revisionist rubbish tbh.

dttq

twinytwo wrote: »

i think the more important question is, if collins had not have been killed*, and dev not taken control of the country would we be in the ****e we are today.

Collins was trained in economics, so it's possible that we would have seen positive economic reform as early as the 1920s, as opposed to waiting for the Lemass government to make reforms 40 years later. It's also doubtful that we would have lived under the Catholic police state which we did with De Valera, servant of McQuaid.

dttq

twinQuins wrote: »

Not to those of us who aren't insecure, no. I really don't give a flying **** what nationalists want to think, it's a commonly used term.

Call me a "west Brit" if you want, at least I'll know I'm not the one who has to tear down others to bolster his own sense of identity.

But doesn't he call anybody who disagrees with him a west brit though? Seems that way to me anyway.

Duggys Housemate

dttq wrote: »

Collins was trained in economics, so it's possible that we would have seen positive economic reform as early as the 1920s, as opposed to waiting for the Lemass government to make reforms 40 years later. It's also doubtful that we would have lived under the Catholic police state which we did with De Valera, servant of McQuaid.

Police State my ass. Seriously this kind of nonsense annoys the bejusus out of me. Ireland was about - with the exception of divorce - in line with most other democracies in the world, most of whom had - including the US - bans on "vice", abortion, homosexuality etc.

And we didnt have a police State in the Free State. We had an unarmed police, for the first time. Look to the rest of Europe, or the world at the time.

dttq

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Police State my ass. Seriously this kind of nonsense annoys the bejusus out of me. Ireland was about - with the exception of divorce - in line with most other democracies in the world, most of whom had - including the US - bans on "vice", abortion, homosexuality etc.

And we didnt have a police State in the Free State. We had an unarmed police, for the first time. Look to the rest of Europe, or the world at the time.

Didn't say a police state in that sense, more a mental and social police state overseeing by McQuaid, who it seemed De Valera couldn't so much as fart without confiding in, and seeking his approval on matters surrounding the running of the state.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The politicians let the soldiers down. They were terrified their precious Paris might get damaged and caved in.

I think what puzzles most people is how on earth do you surrender without your capital city seeing a single shot in anger?

why destroy a beautiful city? the Americans and Brits did not firebomb it and von Cholitz refused to set the city alight.

Duggys Housemate

Fuinseog wrote: »

why destroy a beautiful city? the Americans and Brits did not firebomb it and von Cholitz refused to set the city alight.

Yeah. Everybody, including the Nazis, protected Paris.

later12

dttq wrote: »

Collins was trained in economics, so it's possible that we would have seen positive economic reform as early as the 1920s

Eh? He was an accountant, not an economist; and the problem with Ireland's economy wasn't that nobody understood economic terminology or theories; it wasn't for a shortage of actual knowledge that Ireland remained economically backwards for generations. The problem was far more structural than that and related heavily to deindustrialisation and conservativism.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

And we didnt have a police State in the Free State. We had an unarmed police, for the first time.

Just to clarify, while the RIC sometimes bore arms, the Dublin Metropolitan Police force were unarmed, along with other UK police forces prior to Irish independence. The history of unarmed police in Ireland pre-dates the Garda Siochana.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

It was like taking the worst unemployment blackspots in Ireland today and granting them independence; you wouldn't do it; it was absolutely mental to grant it, and it would be absolutely mental for residents of these areas to seek out total independence in those economic conditions too.

And if the people in such an area had no faith in the system or people that created and maintained such an area for generation after generation, they would eventually have no faith whatsoever in promises of better things to come, want to go their own way and deal with the consequences themselves.

later12 wrote: »

It's not a matter of whether I think they do, this is provided for in British legislation and as long as they sort it out peacefully and preferably using logic, then I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

Unbe'fucking'lievable.
It is grand for those in the north to decide for themselves not a word said, yet you spend two days arguing about "self determination" at the mere mention of the Irish people in general deciding for themselves.
You sir are an utter disgrace.
Goodbye, and good riddance.

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And if the people in such an area had no faith in the system or people that created and maintained such an area for generation after generation, they would eventually have no faith whatsoever in promises of better things to come, want to go their own way and deal with the consequences themselves.

No. Ireland was a massive benefactor of British funding in the last 20 years prior to independence, leading to major land and social reforms, a long overdue wipeout of the Anglo Irish landlord class, and a growth in the Irish professional classes associated with a much improved quality of life; something which fell back significantly in the early years of the free state when that funding disappeared.

Unbe'fucking'lievable.
It is grand for those in the north to decide for themselves not a word said, yet you spend two days arguing about "self determination" at the mere mention of the Irish people in general deciding for themselves.
You sir are an utter disgrace.
Goodbye, and good riddance.

Eh? I said that total independence didn't make sense from an economic viewpoint, and that an unphased transition was madness. I didn't say it was something which ought never be realised. If it happened today, what with EU membership, free trade agreements and a more viable indigenous economy, Ireland would obviously be in a better position to cope with independence. But we weren't ready in 1922. Arguably, we were not ready to cope with our independence until the mid 20th century.

indioblack

dttq wrote: »

There are so many myths surrounding WWII on the Western front, propogated mainly by the yanks and brits that they need to be corrected. France did put up a fight and bravely so, however the Germans were the most advanced military force in Europe, if not the world during the period. Were it not for the Channel, and American war time loans and supplies, England would have fallen as fast as France, so British bravado is uncalled for. Nor is American bravado and triumphalism because what really ended it all for Hitler was his attempts at invading and annexing Russia. The red army were the only force standing between German domination of Europe, and ultimately their demise. England would have fallen as fast as France had their been no geographical barriers, and the Russian input into the war was much greater than America's. Listening to right wingers in America and Britain, you'd swear they won the war single-handed and that England repelled the German invasion, while the French just surrendered without a fight. It's all revisionist rubbish tbh.

Geography naturally favoured Britain in 1940 - so there was no invasion to repel. The real threat came from the U-boats.
Britain's efforts at this time seem small compared to the collossal struggle on the Eastern front from 1941 onwards.
But that does not mean it was unimportant.
In 1940 the German army and air force seemed unstoppable, undefeatable. Western Europe had been overrun.
The value of Britain at this time was in causing the Luftwaffe to fail in it's attempt to reduce the RAF to ineffectiveness.
It was the first time the Germans had suffered a reverse.
It was important that it happened when it happened.
The French had to face the German army as it invaded their country.
For them it was win or lose in a rapid war of movement - the British crossed back over the channel and that gave them an opportunity to stave off defeat.
And with luck, geography - and effort, they did.

Cú Giobach

dttq wrote: »

France did put up a fight and bravely so, however the Germans were the most advanced military force in Europe, if not the world during the period.

The Wermacht were not that powerful in early 1940, Hitler was prepared to turn tail at a moments notice and was himself surprised at the result of his attack.
It was really French policies (as indioblack mentioned) during the 30's because of a general war weariness from the trials of 14/18 that led to their defeat.
The Wermacht was then strengthened by its victories in France with the capture of so much French equipment and on going production at home.

With the right attitude and because of their much bigger army the French could well have stopped the Germans,
or even attacked and opened another front in september 1939 with the Germans concentrating on the East and changed the whole dynamics of the war,
in fact I feel they were the only country that could have done so at that time.
Even the Americans got scared when they saw such a powerful army fall so fast.

All that said I will admit that the Germans brilliant use of their Panzer formations would indeed have been difficult for even a well motivated French army to stop.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The Wermacht were not that powerful in early 1940, Hitler was prepared to turn tail at a moments notice and was himself surprised at the result of his attack.
It was really French policies (as indioblack mentioned) during the 30's because of a general war weariness from the trials of 14/18 that led to their defeat.
The Wermacht was then strengthened by its victories in France with the capture of so much French equipment and on going production at home.

With the right attitude and because of their much bigger army the French could well have stopped the Germans,
or even attacked and opened another front in september 1939 with the Germans concentrating on the East and changed the whole dynamics of the war,
in fact I feel they were the only country that could have done so at that time.
Even the Americans got scared when they saw such a powerful army fall so fast.

All that said I will admit that the Germans brilliant use of their Panzer formations would indeed have been difficult for even a well motivated French army to stop.

Good post.
Some of Hitler's generals, I believe, were anxious at the narrow armoured thrust of most of their armoured divisions.
The German success engendered myths.
"The French wouldn't fight"
"Dunkirk" - the necessary myth, as Nicholas Harmon called it.
And the myth of German invicibility - but I'd say the Germans earned that one!
I think it produced a certain caution in the British when they met them again - understandably so.

hatrickpatrick

We wouldn't GET independence now.
We'd have a tiny bunch of people at an "Occupy Dublin Castle" camp, and everyone else would be calling them "Wasters", "hippies", "lost causes", "wasting time", "pointless" etc. The rest of this generation wouldn't complain about injustice as long as it didn't personally inconvenience them.

You know, like the last time an Irish activist group tried to stand up for what's right, against crony capitalism.

Cú Giobach

indioblack wrote: »

Good post.
Some of Hitler's generals, I believe, were anxious at the narrow armoured thrust of most of their armoured divisions.
The German success engendered myths.
"The French wouldn't fight"
"Dunkirk" - the necessary myth, as Nicholas Harmon called it.
And the myth of German invicibility - but I'd say the Germans earned that one!
I think it produced a certain caution in the British when they met them again - understandably so.

Yea, that their panzer tactics could have been so effective does seem counter-intuitive at first glance.

I guess the myths arose because the reality that between them the French and British could (not would) have actually prevented the whole mess would have been quite hard to stomach.
The attitude of appeasement that allowed the move into the Rhineland and which prevented the Czechoslovakians (who had good army and could have actually put up a good fight) from fighting instead just giving their quite sizeable amount of equipment to the Germans, combined with the strength of the French army that as explained above wasn't used to its full ability, were big mistakes.

I'm not being critical of either country, just an analysis.
The judging of people from hindsight I'll leave to others , as there was no way of knowing what those polices would ultimately lead to when faced with the threat that was to come.