No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway.

Ironically it was the likes of Haughey, Blaney and Boland, the prototypical FF gombeen men that were pushing Lynch to invade.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is very very very stupid. Any invasion of the north would have hardened the British position. We wouldn't have the gfa today because the British would simply refuse to negotiate. Look at the falklands to show how the British respond to arms. Nice to know you want to plunge the country into war though. Let's us know what we're dealing with.

Absolutely no comparison to the Falklands.
The British have essentially always done what the Americans want them to do. A smarter campaign by the Irish government could have resulted in the Americans working behind the scenes to get a resolution, the same way that they did to get Dev and Churchill to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement where they both saved face.
It would have been in nobodies interests to see the Irish and British in pitched battles. We needed a leader and we got Lynch. Even if they where sent home with their tails between their legs, the very least it would have achieved was it would have made the statement that we really wouldn't stand idly by and it would have hugely boosted the morale of our fellow Irish men and women and probably would have stemmed the flow of men and women into the IRA.
Unfortunately and tragically we will never know if those 3000+ lives could have been saved.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Had the British shot one Irish soldier on a protective mission,(remember the whole island of Ireland was calling for something to be done, ) they would have been swamped by men arriving from the lenght and breath of the country, because the country was a tinderbox. That was not lost on anybody at the time.
They could not have sustained an attack on a protective Irish force, (and we would have had to have been prepared to lose men) behnd the doors diplomacy (the same quiet diplomacy that shut Churchill up about our neutrality during WW11 and allowed him to use our air corridors and ports) would have sorted it, and we would have then been able to bargain and negotitiate what the IRA/SF managed to get negotitiated around the GFA table after all the bloodshed. As I say, the biggest missed oppurtunity.

Yes, keep dreaming.

It was 1969. There wasn't an Ireland-friendly President in the US, Ireland was not a member of the EU, it had no allies, no friends, the Cold War was in full swing, the army was under-equipped with outdated weapons and undertrained soldiers. The UK was a member of NATO with a modern (for the times) army, a navy to blockade the island, nuclear weapons, was being courted by the EU (or EC as it was then) a member of the UN Security Council.

Once the Irish so-called army was eliminated in 24 hours would all the men in caps with pitchforks arriving from the length and breadth of the country been able to do anything.

The newspapers in London would have been calling for full retalitation for the invasion, Dublin would have been bombed into the ground, Shannon nuked, we would have had 32-county British martial law within 5 days.

I have always felt that the grip on reality of many republicans has been tenuous to say the least. This sort of debate shows up how little that grasp is.

Think of the UK reaction to the Falklands invasion and multiply it by 100.

Happyman42

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Ironically it was the likes of Haughey, Blaney and Boland, the prototypical FF gombeen men that were pushing Lynch to invade.

No argument that to 'invade' was the stupid move. A 'passive incursion to protect', an extension of the aid camps they had set up in Donegal and that the entire world knew about. Nobody would have blamed the Irish for going into Derry on an aid/protection mission of what we constitutionally should have been protecting.
What is it the Americans and British call it when they want to enter another country these day?......

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're forgetting these papers cost money, no party is going to spend cash n a research paper only to have it invalid when a UI is realistically possible decades from now. Maybe if SF's border poll comes back in their favour we'll se some movement on the issue but I doubt it will.

But sure all the main parties have permanent research staff. They wouldn't be spending any money!!

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Yes, keep dreaming.

It was 1969. There wasn't an Ireland-friendly President in the US, Ireland was not a member of the EU, it had no allies, no friends, the Cold War was in full swing, the army was under-equipped with outdated weapons and undertrained soldiers. The UK was a member of NATO with a modern (for the times) army, a navy to blockade the island, nuclear weapons, was being courted by the EU (or EC as it was then) a member of the UN Security Council.

Once the Irish so-called army was eliminated in 24 hours would all the men in caps with pitchforks arriving from the length and breadth of the country been able to do anything.

The newspapers in London would have been calling for full retalitation for the invasion, Dublin would have been bombed into the ground, Shannon nuked, we would have had 32-county British martial law within 5 days.

I have always felt that the grip on reality of many republicans has been tenuous to say the least. This sort of debate shows up how little that grasp is.

Think of the UK reaction to the Falklands invasion and multiply it by 100.

You are missing the point, see it as an aid/protective mission, not an invasion.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely no comparison to the Falklands.
The British have essentially always done what the Americans want them to do. A smarter campaign by the Irish government could have resulted in the Americans working behind the scenes to get a resolution, the same way that they did to get Dev and Churchill to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement where they both saved face.
It would have been in nobodies interests to see the Irish and British in pitched battles. We needed a leader and we got Lynch. Even if they where sent home with their tails between their legs, the very least it would have achieved was it would have made the statement that we really wouldn't stand idly by and it would have hugely boosted the morale of our fellow Irish men and women and probably would have stemmed the flow of men and women into the IRA.
Unfortunately and tragically we will never know if those 3000+ lives could have been saved.

Which Americans would have worked behind the scenes to get a resolution?

At the time the Americans were deeply entrenched in a war in Vietnam. Their foreign policy focus was 100% on fight the Commie. That extended to their allies. Any attack on their allies was an attack by Commies. They would have supported the UK, you think we believe we have a special relationship with the US, well in the case of the UK believing in its special relationship, the US actually believes it too. As they were fighting their war against Communist-influenced forces in Vietnam, they would have supported their NATO ally in fighting Communist-influenced forces in their own backyard. Publicly they would have castigated the Irish government.

Sorry mate, you cannot rewrite history to have the US abandon a military ally it needed support from.

I believe Lynch forced the backdown because he was told the Americans would support the UK and the result of that would have been the end of any independence for the South.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are missing the point, see it as an aid/protective mission, not an invasion.

In 1969 there was no such thing as an aid/protective mission. A border was a border, think of the Berlin wall. An invasion was an invasion.

Sunnyisland

Judge wrote: »

Yes, keep dreaming.

It was 1969. There wasn't an Ireland-friendly President in the US, Ireland was not a member of the EU, it had no allies, no friends, the Cold War was in full swing, the army was under-equipped with outdated weapons and under trained soldiers. The UK was a member of NATO with a modern (for the times) army, a navy to blockade the island, nuclear weapons, was being courted by the EU (or EC as it was then) a member of the UN Security Council.

Once the Irish so-called army was eliminated in 24 hours would all the men in caps with pitchforks arriving from the length and breadth of the country been able to do anything.

The newspapers in London would have been calling for full retaliation for the invasion, Dublin would have been bombed into the ground, Shannon nuked, we would have had 32-county British martial law within 5 days.

I have always felt that the grip on reality of many republicans has been tenuous to say the least. This sort of debate shows up how little that grasp is.

Think of the UK reaction to the Falklands invasion and multiply it by 100.

Ah the the same logic that was used going into Iraq & afghanistan,simple natives with out much firepower compared to ours, How many British soldiers dead ? and where is your great Army now...

PeadarCo

realies wrote: »

Ah the the same logic that was used going into Iraq & afghanistan,simple natives with out much firepower compared to ours, How many British soldiers dead ? and where is your great Army now...

Which is exactly the point. How can an ill equipped army beat an army trained for nuclear war and pacify the local population the majority whom support the administration at the time and then defend this against NATO As you have described the Americans and British couldn't do in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you then expect the Irish army to have done it. Any move by the Irish army into NI would have been seen as an invasion of the UK internationally.

Also remember at the time Ireland was heavily reliant on the UK for trade. The UK could have shut down Ireland economically never mind the damage they could do with their guns.

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

I wouldn´t sign up to that. The only ideology which was (and for some of its disciples still is) clearly and manifested anti-itellectual is Fascism.

Fascism was the only ideology which openly admitted to anti-intellectualism (although some, such as Giovanni Gentile, would have disagreed), but it was hardly the only one that was.

The moment any ideology demands you believe in a concept greater than yourself, with crypto-religious fever, it becomes anti-intellectual. At the end of the day whether it is nation, race or social class, each of these ideologies have their sacred cows that may not be questioned. In this regard, all the extreme ideologies of the twentieth century ended up doing this, including socialism.

thecommietommy wrote: »

SF have an unfortunate lack of talent while the bourgeoisie class in FG, FG, Labour, Independent newspapers etc etc are brillant ......... oh but wait, the country is bankrupt !!!!! And they are insisting we bailout the super rich of Europe, bourgeoisie brillance strikes again !!!

Was that some attempt at a rebuttal?

As SF has not yet been in a position to make a mess of things (it's on a short leash with a generous subvention up north), you can't really compare them with any of the parties that have actually been in such a position. All you can do is compare the kind of research and policies each party publishes.

Check out their economic policies - little more than some rhetoric with absolutely no real substance. Now look at Labour, who have dozens of such documents, each actually going into far greater detail and backed up with actual facts. All the other parties are pretty much the same (although ease of availability varies).

What's worse is that SF's current offering is actually an improvement on a few years ago! At this rate they may actually publish something useful in time for the bicentennial celebrations of the Easter Rising.

Honestly, I believe this is probably because they just don't have the people who are qualified to write them at present. And, TBH, unless they change in such a way to stop frightening way those who could do so, they're still going to be coming out with policy documents that will only convince the illiterate in five years time.

Sunnyisland

Peadar o wrote: »

Which is exactly the point. How can an ill equipped army beat an army trained for nuclear war and pacify the local population the majority whom support the administration at the time and then defend this against NATO As you have described the Americans and British couldn't do in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you then expect the Irish army to have done it. Any move by the Irish army into NI would have been seen as an invasion of the UK internationally.

Also remember at the time Ireland was heavily reliant on the UK for trade. The UK could have shut down Ireland economically never mind the damage they could do with their guns.

My post was in answer to Godge condescending post about how great his army is/was and what they could/ would have done.

Ireland has been through enough hard times in its fight against the british and another economic war against the british at that time would have being just that, another one.We would still have survived.

Chips Lovell

The Corinthian wrote: »

Check out their economic policies - little more than some rhetoric with absolutely no real substance. Now look at Labour, who have dozens of such documents, each actually going into far greater detail and backed up with actual facts. All the other parties are pretty much the same (although ease of availability varies).

What's worse is that SF's current offering is actually an improvement on a few years ago! At this rate they may actually publish something useful in time for the bicentennial celebrations of the Easter Rising.

Honestly, I believe this is probably because they just don't have the people who are qualified to write them at present. And, TBH, unless they change in such a way to stop frightening way those who could do so, they're still going to be coming out with policy documents that will only convince the illiterate in five years time.

The debate on the night of the Anglo liquidation was a perfect illustration of how far behind they are on economic policy. It was quite telling that the most impressive opposition spokesman (Michael McGrath) was from the party that oversaw us getting into this mess in the first place. McGrath was the only one of them prepared to deal with the actual facts, while Pearse Doherty was away with the fairies in claiming that we could somehow just make the promissory notes go away.

Chips Lovell

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are missing the point, see it as an aid/protective mission, not an invasion.

If you look at what we know now, even the Irish army's own assessment was that it didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of invading and thought that a limited incursion, coupled with some guerilla warfare was the most it could manage. Heck they didn't even have enough trucks to get the troops across the border and the plan called for drafting in CIE buses. The areas it identified as feasible for taking were also problematic. Newry had a large Catholic majority and they weren't under threat there. The Catholic population of Derry had already been ring fenced by the British army.

But even if you make the massive assumption that simply marketing this invasion as a protective mission wouldn't have drawn fire from the British, what good would it have done? We could neither seize nor pacify Northern Ireland. We would have had a limited military presence in Catholic areas much the same as the British army. And our presence there would have fuelled the fires of sectarianism, confirming all the fears of the loyalist element that we had territorial designs on Northern Ireland and that the Catholic population weren't to be trusted. In short, any incursion probably would have made a bad situation worse.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Which Americans would have worked behind the scenes to get a resolution?

At the time the Americans were deeply entrenched in a war in Vietnam. Their foreign policy focus was 100% on fight the Commie. That extended to their allies. Any attack on their allies was an attack by Commies. They would have supported the UK, you think we believe we have a special relationship with the US, well in the case of the UK believing in its special relationship, the US actually believes it too. As they were fighting their war against Communist-influenced forces in Vietnam, they would have supported their NATO ally in fighting Communist-influenced forces in their own backyard. Publicly they would have castigated the Irish government.

Sorry mate, you cannot rewrite history to have the US abandon a military ally it needed support from.

I believe Lynch forced the backdown because he was told the Americans would support the UK and the result of that would have been the end of any independence for the South.

You keep talking of attacks and invasions, try and READ the post. I have said that is what they shouldn't have done. Lynch was weak, he allowed Haughey Blaney to turn his head. The Irish should have gone in a as an aid/protective/humanitarian force. Having first signposted it, threatened it, and said exactly what the nature of their entry as, and then they should have done it. If you make a threat, be prepared to carry it out.
You talk of the Americans as if they didn't do anything else while they fought in Nam. Events in Ireland would have being a minor issue with the potential to be a major issue. They would have intervened, they would have cracked heads together, had the Irish refused to be cowed they would have forced the issue. Even had it been a disaster the prospect of a beligerent neighbour arming and supporting the IRA would have scared the pants of the British, who alays knew they could never win a guerilla war and they never have.
And the Irish having failed to intervene should have armed and supported the IRA, especially at the begining of the troubles, as they where doing what Lynch et al where afraid to do. Prrotect the nationalists.

1st Brigade.

What a lot of nonsense Happyman42. Saying the Irish Republic should have invaded Ulster and invaded Protestant areas is akin to political suicide and also suicide for many of the Irish defence forces who would have been beaten out of Ulster.

I don't know why some people have such delusions of grandeur in regards to the Irish Republic getting involved. It would never have worked, they had nothing to gain and would have only lost.

gurramok

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you look at what we know now, even the Irish army's own assessment was that it didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of invading and thought that a limited incursion, coupled with some guerilla warfare was the most it could manage. Heck they didn't even have enough trucks to get the troops across the border and the plan called for drafting in CIE buses. The areas it identified as feasible for taking were also problematic. Newry had a large Catholic majority and they weren't under threat there. The Catholic population of Derry had already been ring fenced by the British army.

But even if you make the massive assumption that simply marketing this invasion as a protective mission wouldn't have drawn fire from the British, what good would it have done? We could neither seize nor pacify Northern Ireland. We would have had a limited military presence in Catholic areas much the same as the British army. And our presence there would have fuelled the fires of sectarianism, confirming all the fears of the loyalist element that we had territorial designs on Northern Ireland and that the Catholic population weren't to be trusted. In short, any incursion probably would have made a bad situation worse.

Why do you keep using religious labels? It was not a religious conflict.

1st Brigade.

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Only because you have no argument against it. It would have been suicide. Stop blaming the Irish state for doing the right thing.

Now move on and get over it. It has been over for a long time now.

Happyman42

1st Brigade. wrote: »

Only because you have no argument against it. It would have been suicide. Stop blaming the Irish state for doing the right thing.

Now move on and get over it. It has been over for a long time now.

The Unionists kept making threats about violence and bringing the place to a standstill if Dublin got involved in the affairs of the north...how's all that working out Keith? :rolleyes:

As I say, if you are gonna make a threat, be prepared to carry it out or you will be walked over.

1st Brigade.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Unionists kept making threats about violence and bringing the place to a standstill if Dublin got involved in the affairs of the north...how's all that working out Keith? :rolleyes:

As I say, if you are gonna make a threat, be prepared to carry it out or you will be walked over.

The invader would have been driven out. So what exact point are you trying to make? Face it, it didn't happen, the Irish state knew it would not work.

And Dublin still doesn't have much of a say in Northern Ireland. We aren't controlled from Brussels.

Happyman42

1st Brigade. wrote: »

The invader would have been driven out. So what exact point are you trying to make? Face it, it didn't happen, the Irish state knew it would not work.

And Dublin still doesn't have much of a say in Northern Ireland. We aren't controlled from Brussels.

That was my point...it didn't happen, but it should have. Which is the question I was asked...'what should the Irish Gov. have done?'.
They may very well have been driven out, but the issues would have been dealt with as a result and 3000+ people wouldn't have died.

Dublin and London are closer now than Unionists and London. They are working away together despite Unionists constantly wielding their ever weaker veto.

1st Brigade.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That was my point...it didn't happen, but it should have. Which is the question I was asked...'what should the Irish Gov. have done?'.
They may very well have been driven out, but the issues would have been dealt with as a result and 3000+ people wouldn't have died.

Dublin and London are closer now than Unionists and London. They are working away together despite Unionists constantly wielding their ever weaker veto.

Stormont is a mandatory coalition. Its a devolved government. So of course Unionists and London don't talk as much.

Happyman42

1st Brigade. wrote: »

Stormont is a mandatory coalition. Its a devolved government. So of course Unionists and London don't talk as much.

You are missing the point, Dublin and London are politically synched, Unionism is outside the club, and try as they might, they can't get back in. Dublin will back London and vice versa, Unionism is piggy in the middle.

Thomas_I

PeadarCo wrote: »

Northern Ireland was and is part of the UK. The Irish Army would only be allowed across the border with the explicit permission of the UK government. Anything else would constitute an invasion of some degree. An invasion of a NATO country in which each country promised to give mutual assistance in this event. Also remember the cold war. Imagine the message it would have sent out to the USSR if NATO had rolled over to a country with negligible military strength.

British troops could adopt the protecting role no problem because they were operating in what was/is considered internationally to be their own country and part of the normal security forces that sovereign nations have. Irish soldiers operating a foreign country(UK/NI) couldn't claim the same.

Such decisions are made by the NATO Council, not only by the USA backing the application of the UK in such an scenario. NATO had to sort out that thing probably without military intervention. The chances that the Irish Defence Force would even had been capable to sustain such an invasion can rather be considered as low. Aside from that point, it would had been a breach of the Irish Constitution itself in Irelands neutrality.

The people in the RoI then feared such an invasion more than they´d welcomed that. So the reaction of the Irish government on these tensions in NI ws to set up refugees camps alongside the border. That´s the least what they could do and what they´ve done. I´d say that both governments, the Irish as well and foremost the British were confronted with an situation they were not prepared to deal with properly. The question remains, what would had been the proper answer? IMO the responsibility was on the British side in the first place to take decisive measures towards the Stormont regime. But they failed in this.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fascism was the only ideology which openly admitted to anti-intellectualism (although some, such as Giovanni Gentile, would have disagreed), but it was hardly the only one that was.

The moment any ideology demands you believe in a concept greater than yourself, with crypto-religious fever, it becomes anti-intellectual. At the end of the day whether it is nation, race or social class, each of these ideologies have their sacred cows that may not be questioned. In this regard, all the extreme ideologies of the twentieth century ended up doing this, including socialism.

I agree on this, it was quite that way.

PeadarCo

Thomas_I wrote: »

Such decisions are made by the NATO Council, not only by the USA backing the application of the UK in such an scenario. NATO had to sort out that thing probably without military intervention. The chances that the Irish Defence Force would even had been capable to sustain such an invasion can rather be considered as low. Aside from that point, it would had been a breach of the Irish Constitution itself in Irelands neutrality.

The people in the RoI then feared such an invasion more than they´d welcomed that. So the reaction of the Irish government on these tensions in NI ws to set up refugees camps alongside the border. That´s the least what they could do and what they´ve done. I´d say that both governments, the Irish as well and foremost the British were confronted with an situation they were not prepared to deal with properly. The question remains, what would had been the proper answer? IMO the responsibility was on the British side in the first place to take decisive measures towards the Stormont regime. But they failed in this.

My point was that an Irish army invading the UK would have been stupid in the extreme. Invading a NATO country in the cold war would have been stupid especially given the fact at the time Ireland was economically dependant on that same country. I also find it amusing that the USA wouldn't support the UK defending part of its core territory from an invasion not that would have needed much military support in the first place.

I'd agree that Ireland and the UK were unprepared to deal with the situation and you would hope there are lessons to learned from how they dealt with the situation.

PeadarCo

realies wrote: »

My post was in answer to Godge condescending post about how great his army is/was and what they could/ would have done.

Ireland has been through enough hard times in its fight against the british and another economic war against the british at that time would have being just that, another one.We would still have survived.

We would have survived but in what condition and how may lives would have been needlessly thrown away. As you have nicely pointed out its very hard for a foreign army to pacify an unwilling populace even in the best of circumstances never mind the situation the Irish army faced.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realize the UK and USA are/were part of NATO a military alliance. Invading(NI is internationally considered part of the UK) a fellow member of this alliance wouldn't have gone down well. Especially given that were in the middle of the cold war I don't imagine NATO would have allowed Ireland to get away with it. Given the Irish army called the potential operation exercise Armageddon gives an idea of the chance Ireland had of succeeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

I also find it amusing that the USA would consider Ireland more deserving of its support when Ireland decides to attack America's most dependable ally. As you said the UK is Americas "bitch"

Yeah America would be afraid of upsetting Britain The Brits didn't cost them a thought when they invaded Grenada in 1983 humiliating Thatcher !!! You should read up on the 1956 Suez Crisis when Britain thought big brother America would back them up only to be condenmed world wide resulting in a humiliation. Likewise the Cod War with tiny Iceland in the early 1970's. Clearly the Icelandic's have more balls than our wee sleevens in FF/FG/Labour.
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

My point was that an Irish army invading the UK would have been stupid in the extreme. Invading a NATO country in the cold war would have been stupid especially given the fact at the time Ireland was economically dependant on that same country. I also find it amusing that the USA wouldn't support the UK defending part of its core territory from an invasion not that would have needed much military support in the first place.

I'd agree that Ireland and the UK were unprepared to deal with the situation and you would hope there are lessons to learned from how they dealt with the situation.

If the Irish have an inflated sense of their world worth the British one is even more inflated and pathetic.
Properly managed and marketed a troop of Irish soldiers ringing the Bogside, (already a ghettoised and distinct enclave almost) providing protection that the world was calling for then the British would have been put in a very difficult position. Even if pressure had forced the Irish to withdraw the point would have been clearly made that we actually weren't going to stand 'idly' by.
That would have forced the issues that the British eventually dealt with many years and many deaths later in the GFA, after being dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiation table.
It also would have stopped (or made it difficult) for the IRA to fill the vacumm because the Irish State would have clearly said that it was fullfilling it constitutional mandate and taking responsibility for protecting it's fellow Irish people.

You also have to remember the Loyalists/Unionists weren't armed so any attack by them would have been of the stones and bricks variety.
What was called for was brinkmanship with balls. We didn't have them and the lid came tragically off.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

My point was that an Irish army invading the UK would have been stupid in the extreme. Invading a NATO country in the cold war would have been stupid especially given the fact at the time Ireland was economically dependant on that same country. I also find it amusing that the USA wouldn't support the UK defending part of its core territory from an invasion not that would have needed much military support in the first place.

I'd agree that Ireland and the UK were unprepared to deal with the situation and you would hope there are lessons to learned from how they dealt with the situation.

Far from it been seen as " an Irish army invading the UK ", it would have been supported world wide as the Irish army coming to the rescue of unarmed, beleaguered nationalists in Derry etc been attacked by British state forces of the RUC, B Specials along with supremacist unionist mobs. And nowhere more than America had the Civil rights movement international sympathy due to it's similarites with the Civil Rights movement there and of course Irish America in Boston, New York etc

The Brits hadn't anything to worry about of course. For the cosy Gombeen men in FF and FG and Labour, the preservation of privilege and cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up was always a non-negotiable condition. If thousands of nationalists in the six counties had to die, then they had to die, their little world couldn’t be affected in any way.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

how may lives would have been needlessly thrown away.

Are you for real?
The failure of 2 governments to take responsibility and recognise the core problem led to 3000+ needless deaths.
Even more pathetic and sad given the fact that the conflict was finally resolved when 2 governments where made to take responsibility.

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

Far from it been seen as " an Irish army invading the UK ", it would have been supported world wide as the Irish army coming to the rescue of unarmed, beleaguered nationalists in Derry etc been attacked by British state forces of the RUC, B Specials along with supremacist unionist mobs. And nowhere more than America had the Civil rights movement international sympathy due to it's similarites with the Civil Rights movement there and of course Irish America in Boston, New York etc

The Brits hadn't anything to worry about of course. For the cosy Gombeen men in FF and FG and Labour, the preservation of privilege and cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up was always a non-negotiable condition. If thousands of nationalists in the six counties had to die, then they had to die, their little world couldn’t be affected in any way.

Northern Ireland is internationally recognised as part of the UK. Any unauthorised movement into the UK is an invasion. I realise you don't accept that but that's was/is the current international status. For the UK it was an internal matter. The people who were been persecuted were regarded as British citizens. Again I realise you don't agree and that the people themselves would/do disagree but it this case its international opinion that counts.

The US has shown plenty of times over the years it will throw the book at civil rights etc when it suits. Look at Saudia Arabia at the moment. Also remember the Falklands were the UK undertook a counter invasion of it territory against a far more formidable army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

As the information in the link highlights the army themselves didn't think they had a chance. Remember there were troops stationed in NI who were trained to fight in a full blooded nuclear war. Dealing with an army that required civilian vehicles for transport would have been childs play. On the ground the UK had all the normal security forces as well as the support of paramilitaries such as the UVF. And again I would out Ireland at the time was economically reliant on the UK. Attacking the closest thing you have to an ally is stupid hence the reason the government didn't decide to do it.

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you for real?
The failure of 2 governments to take responsibility and recognise the core problem led to 3000+ needless deaths.
Even more pathetic and sad given the fact that the conflict was finally resolved when 2 governments where made to take responsibility.

How many of the Irish defence forces do you think would have died in the invasion? How many people would have died in Northern Ireland as a result of civil disturbances related to the invasion? Loyalists and sympathetic security forces killed people on the basis their might be a potential threat(in their eyes) of a united Ireland. Imagine the damage they would have done if NI had been invaded from the South.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

How many of the Irish defence forces do you think would have died in the invasion? How many people would have died in Northern Ireland as a result of civil disturbances related to the invasion? Loyalists and sympathetic security forces killed people on the basis their might be a potential threat(in their eyes) of a united Ireland. Imagine the damage they would have done if NI had been invaded from the South.

Neither of us know, because it's a 'what if' question.
But my opinion is that Britian, mindful of the fact that they did not want a hostile neighbour would have chosen to negotiate a way out of the impasse.
Yes there would have been civil disturbance, (there already was) but given the fact that the Unionist/ Loyalists where not armed at this point and neither for that matter was the IRA, the reaction would have manifested itself in rioting and the possibility of some deaths.
The Unionists have threatened nass violence and armageddon many times but never followed through on it. That is the reality.
Badly resourced as the Irish army where, a disiplined policy of protection rather than over aggression would have minimised any deaths.
Diplomatic openess to a resolution and working behind the scenes to explain their case would have helped to.
It would have taken time too, for the British to muster a force in the area to drive out the Irish...that is negotiating time, that is the time to make the point of the mission, that we would not stand idly by as our people where being attacked. (for an eample of what happens in a situation search for the history of the Falklands and the diplomatic activity in the run up to the British arriving on scene)
London was actively considering the possibility of sending in their own troops anyway, so they could not have denied the need was there.
The trenchant making of that 'point' imo would have have resolved the civil rights issues, would have kept it as a 'civil rights' issue, hindered the re-emergence of the IRA, and altered the course of events. Lynch and London knew (or had a fair idea) what was facing them if the lid came off the situation.
Forget about your adulation of the might of the British, this was a neighbour and a potentially massive threat to their security if it went feral, and also forget about the fact that we are dependent trading nations, the only reason they trade with us and we trade with them is because it is mutually beneficial, those relationships have been torn and repaired many times in the past.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Neither of us know, because it's a 'what if' question.
But my opinion is that Britian, mindful of the fact that they did not want a hostile neighbour would have chosen to negotiate a way out of the impasse.
Yes there would have been civil disturbance, (there already was) but given the fact that the Unionist/ Loyalists where not armed at this point and neither for that matter was the IRA, the reaction would have manifested itself in rioting and the possibility of some deaths.
The Unionists have threatened nass violence and armageddon many times but never followed through on it. That is the reality.
Badly resourced as the Irish army where, a disiplined policy of protection rather than over aggression would have minimised any deaths.
Diplomatic openess to a resolution and working behind the scenes to explain their case would have helped to.
It would have taken time too, for the British to muster a force in the area to drive out the Irish...that is negotiating time, that is the time to make the point of the mission, that we would not stand idly by as our people where being attacked. (for an eample of what happens in a situation search for the history of the Falklands and the diplomatic activity in the run up to the British arriving on scene)
London was actively considering the possibility of sending in their own troops anyway, so they could not have denied the need was there.
The trenchant making of that 'point' imo would have have resolved the civil rights issues, would have kept it as a 'civil rights' issue, hindered the re-emergence of the IRA, and altered the course of events. Lynch and London knew (or had a fair idea) what was facing them if the lid came off the situation.
Forget about your adulation of the might of the British, this was a neighbour and a potentially massive threat to their security if it went feral, and also forget about the fact that we are dependent trading nations, the only reason they trade with us and we trade with them is because it is mutually beneficial, those relationships have been torn and repaired many times in the past.

Mean while, in the real world

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

It would have taken time too, for the British to muster a force in the area to drive out the Irish...that is negotiating time, that is the time to make the point of the mission,

The British had troops stationed already in NI so it would have possible to organise a response within a few hours at the most.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The trenchant making of that 'point' imo would have have resolved the civil rights issues, would have kept it as a 'civil rights' issue, hindered the re-emergence of the IRA, and altered the course of events.

Invading NI would have done the opposite it would turned what mainly small scale civil war/civil rights issue into an open armed conflict between two sovereign nations.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

The British had troops stationed already in NI so it would have possible to organise a response within a few hours at the most.



Invading NI would have done the opposite it would turned what mainly small scale civil war/civil rights issue into an open armed conflict between two sovereign nations.

It wouldn't have been an 'invasion' and could not have been treated as one, as there would have been no aggression other than defending a community that the world could see, needed defending. That is a major point.
It is just gung ho nonsense to think or say, that the British would have had nothing else to consider. They would have assessed what a military response would mean. The British are not stupid, a hostile government and nation next door was not something they would have wanted. That would have been the primary danger for them.
Win or lose the brinkmanship game, the main gain for the Irish would have been to make clear that we would intervene if the pogroms and discrimination didn't stop. That simple threat alone ould have brought the British to the table sooner. We should not have been afraid to lose.
The threat of violence from the Unionists was always there, but the Unionists would have lain down, after a bit of drum bashing and huffing and puffing, as they did when the 2 governments eventually took the inititave.
The Irish government, by allowing themselves to be walked over, for whatever reason, have a lot of responsibility for what happened.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

It wouldn't have been an 'invasion' and could not have been treated as one, as there would have been no aggression other than defending a community that the world could see, needed defending. That is a major point.

LOL. A community that needed defending, like the Sudetendeutsche? In fairness the British didn't go to war on that one, so maybe you're right.

Too funny for words.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. A community that needed defending, like the Sudetendeutsche? In fairness the British didn't go to war on that one, so maybe you're right.

Too funny for words.

What? Make sense please, always helps.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

What? Make sense please, always helps.

Then read a history book.

The casus belli of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" has been around for a while. As I pointed out the German invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland was based on exactly this. Indeed, if we were to take a paragraph in Wikipedia on the run-up to this:

"As the political situation worsened, the security in Sudetenland deteriorated. The region became the site of small-scale clashes between young SdP followers (equipped with arms smuggled from Germany) and police and border forces. In some places the regular army was called in to pacify the situation. Nazi German Propaganda accused the Czech government and Czechs of atrocities on innocent Germans."

And change a few words:

"As the political situation worsened, the security in Northern Ireland deteriorated. The region became the site of small-scale clashes between civil rights and SF followers (equipped with arms smuggled from the Irish Republic) and police and border forces. In some places the British army was called in to pacify the situation. Irish media accused the Stormont government and loyalists of atrocities on innocent Catholics."

You can quickly see the parallels.

Such scenarios are typical of irredentist claims; Nazi Germany was hardly the only nation to 'rescue' ethnic minorities in occupied territories - for example, it was the standard excuse throughout the Yugoslav wars to justify many of the campaigns that took place.

And in many, if not all of these cases "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" was not accepted by the wider international community as justifiable.

So it is not a major point.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then read a history book.

The casus belli of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" has been around for a while. As I pointed out the German invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland was based on exactly this. Indeed, if we were to take a paragraph in Wikipedia on the run-up to this:

"As the political situation worsened, the security in Sudetenland deteriorated. The region became the site of small-scale clashes between young SdP followers (equipped with arms smuggled from Germany) and police and border forces. In some places the regular army was called in to pacify the situation. Nazi German Propaganda accused the Czech government and Czechs of atrocities on innocent Germans."

And change a few words:

"As the political situation worsened, the security in Northern Ireland deteriorated. The region became the site of small-scale clashes between civil rights and SF followers (equipped with arms smuggled from the Irish Republic) and police and border forces. In some places the British army was called in to pacify the situation. Irish media accused the Stormont government and loyalists of atrocities on innocent Catholics."

You can quickly see the parallels.

Such scenarios are typical of irredentist claims; Nazi Germany was hardly the only nation to 'rescue' ethnic minorities in occupied territories - for example, it was the standard excuse throughout the Yugoslav wars to justify many of the campaigns that took place.

And in many, if not all of these cases "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" was not accepted by the wider international community as justifiable.

So it is not a major point.

In your rush to nitpick you miss the point I am making. There was the possibility that it could fail, and fail spectacularily, BUT, win or lose, repelled or successful, the very act itself would have made a huge difference. The continued insistence that 'we would not stand by' would have had the effect of bringing the major issues to the fore.
Do you think that it would have retarded the rise of the IRA, for instance? Do you think a stand off would have had the potential to focus both governments minds and opened the discussion, earlier, a discussion which eventually sorted the problem by bring equality and an end to the sectarian rule of the Unionists. Because that is what sorted it.

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

In your rush to nitpick you miss the point I am making. There was the possibility that it could fail, and fail spectacularily, BUT, win or lose, repelled or successful, the very act itself would have made a huge difference. The continued insistence that 'we would not stand by' would have had the effect of bringing the major issues to the fore.
Do you think that it would have retarded the rise of the IRA, for instance? Do you think a stand off would have had the potential to focus both governments minds and opened the discussion, earlier, a discussion which eventually sorted the problem by bring equality and an end to the sectarian rule of the Unionists. Because that is what sorted it.

If it had been a spectacular failure it would have made things worse.

Government support for Northern Ireland still didn't stop the development of the UVF UDA and other loyalist gangs. English aggression after a failed invasion and the chaos that would have enveloped NI in this would probably still have lead to the IRA or similar groups.

The reason it took so long to resolve is because it took the guts of 30 years for UVF/DUP/IRA/Sinn Fein etc to realise that a united Ireland by force/majority rule by unionists in NI was impossible. Many still can't accept this given the flag protests and dissident groups. Sunningdale appears to me to be something very similar to the GFA.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reason it took so long to resolve is because it took the guts of 30 years for UVF/DUP/IRA/Sinn Fein etc to realise that a united Ireland by force/majority rule by unionists in NI was impossible.

Which is a school boy error with regard to understanding what the issues where at that time. It was a civil rights issue and could have easily stayed as one.The IRA would never have had the oppurtunity to re-emerge. An IRA (it has to be said) which had no real appetite nor was it well armed or organised at the time and engaged reluctantly. United Ireland's were not on the agenda at that time, what was happening was a powerplay by Unionists. Things didn't have to go the way they so tragically did. A stronger Irish government response would have seen Nationalists in the North, looking to them, not the IRA. A fertile ground was created for the IRA by both governments.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

In your rush to nitpick you miss the point I am making.

So pointing out that something you claim is a "major point" is in fact not is now nit-picking? As I said; too funny for words.

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is a school boy error with regard to understanding what the issues where at that time. It was a civil rights issue and could have easily stayed as one.The IRA would never have had the oppurtunity to re-emerge. An IRA (it has to be said) which had no real appetite nor was it well armed or organised at the time and engaged reluctantly. United Ireland's were not on the agenda at that time, what was happening was a powerplay by Unionists. Things didn't have to go the way they so tragically did. A stronger Irish government response would have seen Nationalists in the North, looking to them, not the IRA. A fertile ground was created for the IRA by both governments.

If it was a just civil rights matter then their was no need for foreign invasion.

Your whole viewpoint comes across as very naive and ignores pretty much the entire the reality of the situation and as The Corinthian has pointed out many of the basics of international diplomacy in the present day. Check the wikipedia link I posted if your actually willing to even consider the reality of the situation.

murphaph

GRMA wrote: »

They are a republican party - Irish republicanism has never been "anti intellectual".

SF are bottom feeders. They thrive on the votes of the underclasses, votes they hoover up by advising these people how to play the benefits systems on both sides of the border. They won't attract too many thinking men with their tactics.

I wish they would hold a bloody border poll to put these Northern Ireland threads to bed.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

If it was a just civil rights matter then their was no need for foreign invasion.

How do you work that one out?

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

So pointing out that something you claim is a "major point" is in fact not is now nit-picking? As I said; too funny for words.

When your finished laughing, have a go at the questions I asked you. No rush.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

Presumably because the British can handle their own internal issues without living under the threat of invasion from a hostile foreign country.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Presumably because the British can handle their own internal issues

If they where doing that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.