No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

No. I responded to something that you claimed was a "major point" in your argument and which was clearly and naively wrong, not to allow you to change the subject when this was pointed out to you so that you may brush aside your error.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. I responded to something that you claimed was a "major point" in your argument and which was clearly and naively wrong, not to allow you to change the subject when this was pointed out to you so that you may brush aside your error.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, or in this case, a useless thing.

The is a 'subtle' difference between a rising Nazi German and a passive Irish state. Please stay in the realms of what was real. Ireland offered no military threat to Britian. Any humaitarian incursion would have been treated totally differently for a whole myriad of reasons.
And you still won't address the fact, that win or lose, doing it was the right thing to do. A vacumm was created into which stepped the IRA, to 'protect'.
Everybody was then playing catch up with the situation as it evolved. Had that role been taken by the Irish government ultimately less lives would have been lost.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, or in this case, a useless thing.

And no knowledge is an idiotic thing.

The is a 'subtle' difference between a rising Nazi German and a passive Irish state.

I suggest you look at the political views of that time - Poland was actually considered to be the most belligerent player in central Europe, during most of the 1930's, not Germany.

Please stay in the realms of what was real. Ireland offered no military threat to Britian. Any humaitarian incursion would have been treated totally differently for a whole myriad of reasons.

No it would not and you have given absolutely no reason as to why it would have other than your flawed "major point".

You are basing your thesis upon a number of ridiculous assertions; that the British would not have retaliated militarily (not to mention economically and diplomatically), that Ireland would have received international support and that our military intervention would have not encouraged PIRA activity anyway (Albanian militant activity in Kosovo increased, for example, after NATO intervention), not to mention any paramilitary response from the loyalist community.

You have failed to demonstrate in any way that any of these assertions are sound and further more one of your key points turned out to be historically flawed. Your entire hypothesis is based entirely on a combination of historical ignorance and romantic wishful thinking, which is why I have derided it so much.

feargale

Thomas_I wrote: »

FF, FG, Labour and the Green Party have nothing comparable to the above on their own websites / agenda sections.

And what about the parties in Northern Ireland?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

This discussion on why only SF has a plan for a United Ireland? Why not?

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

And no knowledge is an idiotic thing.

I suggest you look at the political views of that time - Poland was actually considered to be the most belligerent player in central Europe, during most of the 1930's, not Germany.

No it would not and you have given absolutely no reason as to why it would have other than your flawed "major point".

You are basing your thesis upon a number of ridiculous assertions; that the British would not have retaliated militarily (not to mention economically and diplomatically), that Ireland would have received international support and that our military intervention would have not encouraged PIRA activity anyway (Albanian militant activity in Kosovo increased, for example, after NATO intervention), not to mention any paramilitary response from the loyalist community.

You have failed to demonstrate in any way that any of these assertions are sound and further more one of your key points turned out to be historically flawed. Your entire hypothesis is based entirely on a combination of historical ignorance and romantic wishful thinking, which is why I have derided it so much.

So, you are going to insist that the Nazi state was similar to Ireland, fair enough, point conceded .(it embarasses me to do that, but hey ho)
Now, say Ireland didn't have any history books to reference, and did it any way, because they felt it was the moral thing to do (they did after all send troops to the border, so it isn't in the realms of fantasy to suggest that they might have sent in a humanitarian force) what then? Tell us what the historical precedents say would have happened....




(and I stress that you confine yourself to imagining it as a signalled (to the rest of the world) 'humanitarian' expedition not an aggressive invasion) it's my 'what if' and I'll choose the roles .

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, you are going to insist that the Nazi state was similar to Ireland, fair enough, point conceded .(it embarasses me to do that, but hey ho)

Ireland would have been similar to Nazi Germany had we used such a justification for what would have been an invasion under international law, as that justification would have been identical to Nazi Germany's. Gabriele D'Annunzio used the same justification when he led his blackshirts to invade Fiume in 1919 (years before Mussolini even came to power), as did Serbia and Croatia when either arming or sending in troops into Bosnia. Iraq, AFAIR, claimed the same as one reason to invade Kuwait.

All of them used the line of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" and none of them ultimately had this line believed - in the end, only Germany held onto it's gains and only because the other European powers wanted to avoid another World War, but it was ultimately this act that changed World opinion with regards to Germany - prior to that Hitler and Germany were not only not seen as a serious threat to peace, but even viewed with admiration:

"If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable [as Hitler] to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations" - Winston Churchill, 1937

So while it may embarrass you to concede the point, that is only because you have the benefit of hindsight; in the context of when Germany actually invaded the Sudetenland things were not so obvious.

Now, say Ireland didn't have any history books to reference, and did it any way, because they felt it was the moral thing to do (they did after all send troops to the border, so it isn't in the realms of fantasy to suggest that they might have sent in a humanitarian force) what then? Tell us what the historical precedents say would have happened....

A humanitarian military force; sure, everyone would have accepted that - not, more correctly. And that is before you consider if by doing so it would not have made things even worse (as outlined in my previous post).

The intended morality of the action is irrelevant to the actual outcome.

(and I stress that you confine yourself to imagining it as a signalled (to the rest of the world) 'humanitarian' expedition not an aggressive invasion) it's my 'what if' and I'll choose the roles .

If you want to construct a romantic fantasy, then that's up to you. However, you should not then try to peddle it as any kind of serious analysis.

Internationally, it is difficult to say what would have happened, but most likely it would have been a mess.

Let's say it happened around the time, or in response to, Bloody Sunday.To begin with Irish troops would almost immediately come in direct contact with British troops (who were clearly rather trigger happy) - disaster waiting to happen.

Meanwhile Edward Heath would have been forced, within his own party, to take a very tough line on what was in effect an invasion of sovereign British territory. And this is before the twenty years of troubles and continuing subvention payments that have subsequently - so even British public opinion (that would today be privately happy to let us take NI) would have quickly supported military retaliation.

NATO would have been unlikely to get involved militarily - Irish-American public opinion would have seen to that. However, neither should one overestimate the power of that opinion; Nixon was president and the electoral fetish for finding a tenuous Irish connection in some village in Co. Ballygospittlebackwards didn't begin for another decade, with Regan. Most likely, the US would have eventually ended up siding with the UK, as they did over the Falklands war.

But even without a military reaction by the British, diplomatic and economic one's would have been guaranteed - and pre-EEC, this would have hurt is very, very badly.

Meanwhile, the presence of 'friendly' troops would not have prevented the rise of the PIRA - there are numerous examples (of which Kosovo is one I gave) where such paramilitary groups actually are encouraged by such a presence. Irish troops would have ended up forced out eventually, leaving behind a likely stronger and better equipped (thanks to IDF sympathizers) PIRA.

All before one considers what the loyalist community would have done - the answer most likely being to accelerate the establishment of their own paramilitary groups in response to the southern threat.

Now, your thesis is all very well, but it's really based more on wishful thinking, rather than facts. And oddly enough, this is something that I've seen in a lot of SF literature; very superficial, jingoistic soapbox solutions that are devoid of substance. Look at the document in the OP - half of it is photos, and most of the rest is filler material. What remains, is vague at best - not even amounting to a coherent top level strategy, let alone anything more detailed.

Honestly, if you are a supporter of SF (I don't know if you are), then the best thing you can do for your party is to open a few books, go to college, study a field such as economics or international law. SF desperately needs people like that, not more soapboxers peddling fantasies.

hyperborean

The Corinthian wrote: »

Honestly, if you are a supporter of SF (I don't know if you are), then the best thing you can do for your party is to open a few books, go to college, study a field such as economics or international law. SF desperately needs people like that, not more soapboxers peddling fantasies.

Perfect analysis of SF's major weakness and the best advise they will get for free,

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ireland would have been similar to Nazi Germany had we used such a justification for what would have been an invasion under international law, as that justification would have been identical to Nazi Germany's. Gabriele D'Annunzio used the same justification when he led his blackshirts to invade Fiume in 1919 (years before Mussolini even came to power), as did Serbia and Croatia when either arming or sending in troops into Bosnia. Iraq, AFAIR, claimed the same as one reason to invade Kuwait.

All of them used the line of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" and none of them ultimately had this line believed - in the end, only Germany held onto it's gains and only because the other European powers wanted to avoid another World War, but it was ultimately this act that changed World opinion with regards to Germany - prior to that Hitler and Germany were not only not seen as a serious threat to peace, but even viewed with admiration:

"If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable [as Hitler] to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations" - Winston Churchill, 1937

So while it may embarrass you to concede the point, that is only because you have the benefit of hindsight; in the context of when Germany actually invaded the Sudetenland things were not so obvious.

A humanitarian military force; sure, everyone would have accepted that - not, more correctly. And that is before you consider if by doing so it would not have made things even worse (as outlined in my previous post).

The intended morality of the action is irrelevant to the actual outcome.

If you want to construct a romantic fantasy, then that's up to you. However, you should not then try to peddle it as any kind of serious analysis.

Internationally, it is difficult to say what would have happened, but most likely it would have been a mess.

Let's say it happened around the time, or in response to, Bloody Sunday.To begin with Irish troops would almost immediately come in direct contact with British troops (who were clearly rather trigger happy) - disaster waiting to happen.

Meanwhile Edward Heath would have been forced, within his own party, to take a very tough line on what was in effect an invasion of sovereign British territory. And this is before the twenty years of troubles and continuing subvention payments that have subsequently - so even British public opinion (that would today be privately happy to let us take NI) would have quickly supported military retaliation.

NATO would have been unlikely to get involved militarily - Irish-American public opinion would have seen to that. However, neither should one overestimate the power of that opinion; Nixon was president and the electoral fetish for finding a tenuous Irish connection in some village in Co. Ballygospittlebackwards didn't begin for another decade, with Regan. Most likely, the US would have eventually ended up siding with the UK, as they did over the Falklands war.

But even without a military reaction by the British, diplomatic and economic one's would have been guaranteed - and pre-EEC, this would have hurt is very, very badly.

Meanwhile, the presence of 'friendly' troops would not have prevented the rise of the PIRA - there are numerous examples (of which Kosovo is one I gave) where such paramilitary groups actually are encouraged by such a presence. Irish troops would have ended up forced out eventually, leaving behind a likely stronger and better equipped (thanks to IDF sympathizers) PIRA.

All before one considers what the loyalist community would have done - the answer most likely being to accelerate the establishment of their own paramilitary groups in response to the southern threat.

Now, your thesis is all very well, but it's really based more on wishful thinking, rather than facts. And oddly enough, this is something that I've seen in a lot of SF literature; very superficial, jingoistic soapbox solutions that are devoid of substance. Look at the document in the OP - half of it is photos, and most of the rest is filler material. What remains, is vague at best - not even amounting to a coherent top level strategy, let alone anything more detailed.

Honestly, if you are a supporter of SF (I don't know if you are), then the best thing you can do for your party is to open a few books, go to college, study a field such as economics or international law. SF desperately needs people like that, not more soapboxers peddling fantasies.

Maybe you should open some books and there you will find the 'fact' that Harold Wilson (Labour) was prime minister at the time.

For somebody criticsing me for not using many 'facts' your version of what might have happened is also light on them. Your 'historical precedents' are all based on the actions of belligerent aggressive states and are useless here tbh. To suggest that the world's government weren't aware of the threat of a rising Nazi government is just wrong and that you can only see that with hindsight is even more wrong.


The loyalists/Unionists where already violent and already using force, they acted when they saw the troops at the border, they (Chicester-Clarke if my history books are correct, ) requested that the troops be sent and the B-Specials where called to assemble and did assemble in Derry. That is a significant response to what Lynch did.

So to say an actual deployment of Irish troops in Derry would have no affect is nonsense imo. The simple announcement of the intent 'to not stand idly by' was huge in the minds of the Bogsiders, if you could bring yourself to actually read and assimilate the testimonies of the likes of Raymond McClean and Eamonn McCann, you would see that. I suggest you look at who the leaders of the bogside actually where at the time and who their natural bedfellows where, none of those leaders became IRA activists.
The Labour government where very careful to instruct those troops not to enter the Bogside and not to attack Nationalists. That, to me, signals a sensitivity to the Nationalists existed in the British government at that time, a sensitivity we the Irish could have exploited.
I still say it would have been the 'right' thing to do even if British and International opinion had forced us to withdraw. Even if Irish soldiers had been killed it was still the right thing to do. The Irish government would not and could not have been sidelined for the next 30 odd years if they had shown themselves to be firmly on the side of the nationalists. I am convinced the British would not have used force immediately,(based on the instructions given to the Army when they did deploy, the desire was NOT to escalate the problem, I suggest you have a look at Home Secretary Jim Callaghan's visit to the bogside too, might change your view of the mood in the British Gov. pic here, http://victorpatterson.photoshelter.com/image/I0000G0INyCND3r8) that would have given the Irish time to make a very strong point to a (if not sympathetic, then a) concerned government and that would have been critiical.
As I said, the point would not have been lost on the Unionists/loyalists nor on the Nationalists, whose disappointment and anger that the Irish Gov didn't protect them resonates to this day and led to their acceptance of the IRA as their protectors when their leaders (HUme etc) wanted them to go in another direction, passive protest. The vacumm was filled and a huge oppurtunity lost because of weakness on the part of Lynch.
Their (Irish Gov) capitulation allowed Edward Heath (new Prime Minister) to introduce internment in 1971 further fuelling the conflict, would that have happened had we been a more vociferous player..I personally don't think so.

murphaph

If Ireland had sent troops over the border in some sort of Dad's Army liberation of the Bogside, Ireland would have been economically crippled within a month after Britain imposed a complete trade embargo.

Get with reality here: late 60's early 70's Ireland had no Intels, no Googles and no IBMs propping up the economy. We were utterly reliant on agricultural exports, the vast bulk of which went to Britain. Britain would have simply closed all Irish sea ports to vessels to/from Ireland and it would have been game over in a few weeks. We were not even members of the EEC at that stage. We had absolutely no fallback. We were independent from the UK in theory, but not in practice. We even used their currency at the time!! Nevermind that Britain would have gone on to repeal any acts that gave Irish citizens right to remain in the UK and would have deported all the Irish back to our fair isle in short order....so no money and many more mouths to feed. Catastrophe!

It is pure madness to suggest that it would have been a good idea for Ireland to make a military incursion into Northern Ireland. Anyone who can't see the massive problems this would have caused for the country is deluded. It would have made far more sense (purely pragmatically) to simply build more new towns for Northern Irish catholic refugees and leave NI to the unionists. Of course this wasn't necessary because London did actually make significant changes to the law to grant Catholics equal status in NI. Most of the deaths during the troubles occurred after London had made these changes and had nothing to do with equal rights.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

If Ireland had sent troops over the border in some sort of Dad's Army liberation of the Bogside, Ireland would have been economically crippled within a month after Britain imposed a complete trade embargo.

Get with reality here: late 60's early 70's Ireland had no Intels, no Googles and no IBMs propping up the economy. We were utterly reliant on agricultural exports, the vast bulk of which went to Britain. Britain would have simply closed all Irish sea ports to vessels to/from Ireland and it would have been game over in a few weeks. We were not even members of the EEC at that stage. We had absolutely no fallback. We were independent from the UK in theory, but not in practice. We even used their currency at the time!! Nevermind that Britain would have gone on to repeal any acts that gave Irish citizens right to remain in the UK and would have deported all the Irish back to our fair isle in short order....so no money and many more mouths to feed. Catastrophe!

It is pure madness to suggest that it would have been a good idea for Ireland to make a military incursion into Northern Ireland. Anyone who can't see the massive problems this would have caused for the country is deluded. It would have made far more sense (purely pragmatically) to simply build more new towns for Northern Irish catholic refugees and leave NI to the unionists. Of course this wasn't necessary because London did actually make significant changes to the law to grant Catholics equal status in NI. Most of the deaths during the troubles occurred after London had made these changes and had nothing to do with equal rights.

'Liberation, invasion, aggression'...all words I am not using. Do me a favour and run the scenario I am actually talking about.
And while you are at it, please point to actual facts that show the mood in the British cabinet was to do what you say they would have done?
Bear in mind that Clarke resigned as N.I. Prime Minister because the British where not being heavy handed enough, it was not until Heath took the reins that draconian and disastorous policies like Internment (not one Loyalist activist lifted) where introduced, with no significant or effective protest from the Irish Gov. because they had sidelined themselves.
The Irish Gov by being weak, actually defeated the moderates on the Nationalist side. We know how that panned out to our cost.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe you should open some books and there you will find the 'fact' that Harold Wilson (Labour) was prime minister at the time.

Incorrect. Remember I suggested that such a military force could have been sent "around the time, or in response to, Bloody Sunday" - that's 1972, when Edward Heath was British PM. Try to read what I wrote before attempting to correct me.

For somebody criticsing me for not using many 'facts' your version of what might have happened is also light on them. Your 'historical precedents' are all based on the actions of belligerent aggressive states and are useless here tbh. To suggest that the world's government weren't aware of the threat of a rising Nazi government is just wrong and that you can only see that with hindsight is even more wrong.

It's "just wrong"? I managed to back up my position with historical evidence, do you think that bleating that it's "just wrong" is going to rebut that?

The loyalists/Unionists where already violent and already using force, they acted when they saw the troops at the border, they (Chicester-Clarke if my history books are correct, ) requested that the troops be sent and the B-Specials where called to assemble and did assemble in Derry. That is a significant response to what Lynch did.

So you are seriously saying that had the IDF's crossed the border into NI, loyalist paramilitary activity would not have escalated?

So to say an actual deployment of Irish troops in Derry would have no affect is nonsense imo.

No, I said that it could easily have had the opposite effect, as has occurred in other similar scenarios (of which I gave one).

I still say it would have been the 'right' thing to do even if British and International opinion had forced us to withdraw. Even if Irish soldiers had been killed it was still the right thing to do.

Depends on what you mean by 'right' - if you mean a pointless, grand gesture, at great cost, that ends up making matters worse, then sure. Romantics love that sort of thing.

If you mean right, in the sense of resulting in a non-pyrrhic gain or victory, then you've yet to make a rational argument for this, so no.

The Irish government would not and could not have been sidelined for the next 30 odd years if they had shown themselves to be firmly on the side of the nationalists.

Actually the Irish government would have been sidelined. Prior to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the British were already in early talks with them with a view to a possible transfer of sovereignty. Following the invasion and subsequent war, this became - and remains - politically untenable. So the opposite would have likely happened.

Any more gems to share with us?

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Liberation, invasion, aggression'...all words I am not using. Do me a favour and run the scenario I am actually talking about.
And while you are at it, please point to actual facts that show the mood in the British cabinet was to do what you say they would have done?
Bear in mind that Clarke resigned as N.I. Prime Minister because the British where not being heavy handed enough, it was not until Heath took the reins that draconian and disastorous policies like Internment (not one Loyalist activist lifted) where introduced, with no significant or effective protest from the Irish Gov. because they had sidelined themselves.
The Irish Gov by being weak, actually defeated the moderates on the Nationalist side. We know how that panned out to our cost.

What do you think the response of the British government would have been to an incursion of their sovereign territory by a foreign army of a nation utterly economically dependent on them at the time?

The very least we would have experienced would have been a full scale embargo of all Irish exports to the UK.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect. Remember I suggested that such a military force could have been sent "around the time, or in response to, Bloody Sunday" - that's 1972, when Edward Heath was British PM. Try to read what I wrote before attempting to correct me.

It's "just wrong"? I managed to back up my position with historical evidence, do you think that bleating that it's "just wrong" is going to rebut that?

You continue to insist on using the wrong historical parrelells, now you use one ahead of the events to try and infer something. Crazy stuff.
The situation had become much much more complex by the time Bloody Sunday came about, the Irish had lost control over events at that stage, as had the British, as evidenced by the dead bodies.

So you are seriously saying that had the IDF's crossed the border into NI, loyalist paramilitary activity would not have escalated?

Yes it would have, and it DID anyway.

No, I said that it could easily have had the opposite effect, as has occurred in other similar scenarios (of which I gave one).

Not hard to see where you are coming from here, the standard partitionist 'it's only them up there' response.
How much worse could it have gotten?

Depends on what you mean by 'right' - if you mean a pointless, grand gesture, at great cost, that ends up making matters worse, then sure. Romantics love that sort of thing.
If you mean right, in the sense of resulting in a non-pyrrhic gain or victory, then you've yet to make a rational argument for this, so no.

I mean that it would have resonating effects on what subsequently happened and that the Irish Gov would have forced themselves into having a say, instead they spent the next 30 years effectively watching from the sidelines.

Actually the Irish government would have been sidelined. Prior to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the British were already in early talks with them with a view to a possible transfer of sovereignty. Following the invasion and subsequent war, this became - and remains - politically untenable. So the opposite would have likely happened.

Any more gems to share with us?

Like your comparison to the Nazi state this is a moot point again, the Irish weren't in any talks with the British. Unless you know something we don't?
And why always the references to somewhere else? Just because something happened somewhere else doesn't mean it is a given that it woud happen here.
It's not like pushing toy soldiers around on a big board in the History dept. Every event has it nuances, several of which you haven't taken into account,
e.g. a Labout Government intent and careful not to escalate the conflict.
A civil rights movement led by people naturally disposed to the Irish Government and wary of encouraging paramilitary activity.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

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 British embassy is international law British territory, didn't see mighty Britannia invading Dublin when it was burned down in 1972 Likewise the Icelandic's burned down the Brit emabassy and rammed British ships and fired at the British navy in the early 70's. Internatioal opinion was with Iceland, no British all out war on tiny Iceland of course. As for the two tiny wee bits of rock called the Falklands, no Argentines citizens on it facing an onslaught from the British forces and mobs. And the Brits had to wait for the nod from the Yanks of course and the rest of the EU before they could even think about invading. But as I said, Lynch and co. despite decades of rhetoric they had no intention going to the aid of nationalists in Derry etc

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.

Some ' ally ' that partitions a country and murders its citizens both officially by the Brits, RUC, B Specials etc while it's dirty tricks dept. arms and directs loyalists gangs to murder on both sides of the border.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

What do you think the response of the British government would have been to an incursion of their sovereign territory by a foreign army of a nation utterly economically dependent on them at the time?

The very least we would have experienced would have been a full scale embargo of all Irish exports to the UK.

They'd have gone ballistic publically, called on them to withdraw and issue a deadline. At which point diplomatic moves would have been made, that was where the Irish could have asserted themselves.
To suggest that an all out assault on what was a signalled humanitarian mission would have happened immediately is a bit of a stretch.
The British would have suffered from an economic embargo too, they needed the food.

thecommietommy

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.

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.

Good old Godwin strikes again !!!! So was the Egyptian takeover of Suez, the Icelandic attacks during the Cod war, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus etc not condemned by the international community as Nazi type aggression against poor Britain ??

murphaph

thecommietommy wrote: »

The British embassy is international law British territory, didn't see mighty Britannia invading Dublin when it was burned down in 1972 Likewise the Icelandic's burned down the Brit emabassy and rammed British ships and fired at the British navy in the early 70's. Internatioal opinion was with Iceland, no British all out war on tiny Iceland of course.

What a load of cobblers.

Embassies are only sovereign insofar as the host nation allows. This can be revoked at any time, of course the guest nation is likely to reciprocate, which is why it rarely happens. Diplomats can be and are expelled from host countries when diplomatic relations do break down.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

They'd have gone ballistic publically, called on them to withdraw and issue a deadline. At which point diplomatic moves would have been made, that was where the Irish could have asserted themselves.
To suggest that an all out assault on what was a signalled humanitarian mission would have happened immediately is a bit of a stretch.
The British would have suffered from an economic embargo too, they needed the food.

Britain could still obtain food from it's Commonwealth with relative ease and post war Britain had engaged in intensive farming to be able to feed itself anyway. Ireland would have suffered immeasurably more than the UK as a result of any embargo. DeValera's disastrous (for Ireland) trade war with the UK demonstrated this quite clearly.

We were simply in no position to upset the apple cart in the way you are suggesting.

thecommietommy

murphaph wrote: »

What a load of cobblers.

Embassies are only sovereign insofar as the host nation allows. This can be revoked at any time, of course the guest nation is likely to reciprocate, which is why it rarely happens. Diplomats can be and are expelled from host countries when diplomatic relations do break down.

Ok we're getting into a bit of pedantic red herring here but, nope, in international law emabassy's are theoretically the sovereign terrority of that country. That's why we have diplomatic immunity etc. Sure they can expel the embassy or diplomat, but they are theoretically the soverign terrority of that country.

If as some around here believe that Britiain is all powerful and could have attacked the ROI as they liked, how come they didn't do so when the IRA practically countless times launched attas from the ROI and retreated back there to at times even taunt the British from the south ?

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

The British embassy is international law British territory, didn't see mighty Britannia invading Dublin when it was burned down in 1972 Likewise the Icelandic's burned down the Brit emabassy and rammed British ships and fired at the British navy in the early 70's. Internatioal opinion was with Iceland, no British all out war on tiny Iceland of course. As for the two tiny wee bits of rock called the Falklands, no Argentines citizens on it facing an onslaught from the British forces and mobs. And the Brits had to wait for the nod from the Yanks of course and the rest of the EU before they could even think about invading. But as I said, Lynch and co. despite decades of rhetoric they had no intention going to the aid of nationalists in Derry etc

We were not part of the EU at the time so they couldn't be relied on. Also invading your neighbouring country wouldn't have gone well in terms of getting into it in the first place. Aslo remember many those same countries were in a military Alliance with the UK as part of NATO. Its funny to think tat they would break it after the UK devastates an invading army within a day.

Burning down embassy's and invading the UK itself as the Falkland demonstrates are too different things. Also its funny that anyone things the UK would have actually needed help dealing with the Irish army. An army trained to fight against the USSR against an army that required civilian transport to move its army.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Some ' ally ' that partitions a country and murders its citizens both officially by the Brits, RUC, B Specials etc while it's dirty tricks dept. arms and directs loyalists gangs to murder on both sides of the border.

I said they were the closest thing to an ally we had. We were economically dependant on them. We were so dependant one of reasons we didn't join the EU pre 1973 was that the UK couldn't get in and we couldn't join without them doing so.

PeadarCo

Even now the reason we aren't of the Schengen Area is that the UK refuses to join.

thecommietommy

murphaph wrote: »

Britain could still obtain food from it's Commonwealth with relative ease and post war Britain had engaged in intensive farming to be able to feed itself anyway. Ireland would have suffered immeasurably more than the UK as a result of any embargo. DeValera's disastrous (for Ireland) trade war with the UK demonstrated this quite clearly.

We were simply in no position to upset the apple cart in the way you are suggesting.

Their may have been a bit of a bun fight between Ireland and Britain, but it would have been kiss and make up time soon as Britain was trying to get into the EEC and some, particularly the French, were against it. The Brits wouldn't have been too keen on being seen as a belligerent former colonial power throwing their weight around against a small European country.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

We were not part of the EU at the time so they couldn't be relied on. Also invading your neighbouring country wouldn't have gone well in terms of getting into it in the first place. Aslo remember many those same countries were in a military Alliance with the UK as part of NATO. Its funny to think tat they would break it after the UK devastates an invading army within a day.

So how come the UK didn't devestate Eygpt or tiny Iceland within a day for their aggresion !!!! But like I asked, if Britain is so all powerful, how come they didn't crack down on the ROI from where the IRA was launching almost daily attacks for 25 years ??

Burning down embassy's and invading the UK itself as the Falkland demonstrates are too different things. Also its funny that anyone things the UK would have actually needed help dealing with the Irish army. An army trained to fight against the USSR against an army that required civilian transport to move its army.

So the British army were prepared to take on the USSR all on their own :eek: Didn't do so when it seemed likely the Ruskies were going in to counter the British in Suez somehow ? Or the Chinese retaking Hong Kong

I said they were the closest thing to an ally we had. We were economically dependant on them. We were so dependant one of reasons we didn't join the EU pre 1973 was that the UK couldn't get in and we couldn't join without them doing so.

Yes your right there about the EEC, but as stated the Brits wouldn't have been too keen on being seen as a belligerent former colonial power throwing their weight around against a small European country.

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

Their may have been a bit of a bun fight between Ireland and Britain, but it would have been kiss and make up time soon as Britain was trying to get into the EEC and some, particularly the French, were against it. The Brits wouldn't have been too keen on being seen as a belligerent former colonial power throwing their weight around against a small European country.

Defending your country from attack is not throwing your weight around which is what the British would have been doing. Remember NI was and still is recognised internationally as part of the UK. It will remain this way until people on both sides decide otherwise. Which brings us back to the original point of the thread. The reason no party other than Sinn Fein has a proper plan is the people in the Republic aren't interested and have more important things to worry about. Also given Sinn Feins history is has no option.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Britain could still obtain food from it's Commonwealth with relative ease and post war Britain had engaged in intensive farming to be able to feed itself anyway. Ireland would have suffered immeasurably more than the UK as a result of any embargo. DeValera's disastrous (for Ireland) trade war with the UK demonstrated this quite clearly.

We were simply in no position to upset the apple cart in the way you are suggesting.

Economic embargoes would not have been imposed immediately either, they would have been threatened. It was then up to us how we responded. Again, you are refusing to consider what the effect long term would have been to announce are intention to protect the Nationalist community.
Forget about imagining the big super power flexing it's muscles. They might and they might not have. It is the effect, a more involved Irish government, could have had on how the situation played out, that is the point.

PeadarCo wrote: »

We were not part of the EU at the time so they couldn't be relied on. Also invading your neighbouring country wouldn't have gone well in terms of getting into it in the first place. Aslo remember many those same countries were in a military Alliance with the UK as part of NATO. Its funny to think tat they would break it after the UK devastates an invading army within a day.

Burning down embassy's and invading the UK itself as the Falkland demonstrates are too different things. Also its funny that anyone things the UK would have actually needed help dealing with the Irish army. An army trained to fight against the USSR against an army that required civilian transport to move its army.





I said they were the closest thing to an ally we had. We were economically dependant on them. We were so dependant one of reasons we didn't join the EU pre 1973 was that the UK couldn't get in and we couldn't join without them doing so.

Which could just have easily resulted in the British (a Labour government, which is not insignificant) not wanting to make a belligerent enemy. The last thing Britian would have wanted was a geurilla war with an army supported by the Irish state, which was a very real possibility.

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

So how come the UK didn't devestate Eygpt or tiny Iceland within a day for their aggresion !!!! But as I asked

Because they didn't invade the UK or have you ignored that fact. Where the UK was invaded i.e. Falklands the UK did reply in force without US support.

thecommietommy wrote: »

So the British army were prepared to take on the USSR all on their own :eek: Didn't do so when it seemed likely the Ruskies were going in to counter the British in Suez somehow ? Or the Chinese retaking Hong Kong

They were trained to fight the Warsaw Pact as part of a NATO alliance. The Irish army was a million miles away from the USSR. Its funny to even compare the two.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Yes your right there about the EEC, but as stated the Brits wouldn't have been too keen on being seen as a belligerent former colonial power throwing their weight around against a small European country.

See my last post.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

Because they didn't invade the UK or have you ignored that fact. Where the UK was invaded i.e. Falklands the UK did reply in force without US support.

Still with the 'invasion' nonsense.
I'm out if people can't spot the difference between an aggressive invasion and a signalled humanitarian mission.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

Defending your country from attack is not throwing your weight around which is what the British would have been doing. Remember NI was and still is recognised internationally as part of the UK. It will remain this way until people on both sides decide otherwise. Which brings us back to the original point of the thread. The reason no party other than Sinn Fein has a proper plan is the people in the Republic aren't interested and have more important things to worry about. Also given Sinn Feins history is has no option.

Well I won't say that people don't have an interest in a United Ireland, try waving a union jack around some town and you'll quickly see how Irish nationalism is dead or not But from what I can see FG/FF/Labour don't have a proper plan for anything whether it's a UI, oil deposits off our coasts,crime, unemployment etc as they continue to destroy the economy for the sake of foreign bondholders and Merkozy just like they stood idly by in 1969.

VinLieger

Dont want it, dont need it and couldnt afford the cost of it or the **** it would cause

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which could just have easily resulted in the British (a Labour government, which is not insignificant) not wanting to make a belligerent enemy. The last thing Britian would have wanted was a geurilla war with an army supported by the Irish state, which was a very real possibility.

Why would a labour government having been any more accommodating. Their bosses are the UK public who I don't think would have been happy about being invaded. In terms of fearing a geurilla war one way of solving that problem would have been to blockade the country.

You mentioned about 3000+ people dying during the troubles. Sticking to an ideology and ignoring all facts that don't suit it is the reason and ignoring the consequences of events in the real world caused them. Both sides Republican and Loyalist adopted this attitude and refused to come to table even when it was the only option. It took the guts of 30 years for most of them to see sense.

thecommietommy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Still with the 'invasion' nonsense.
I'm out if people can't spot the difference between an aggressive invasion and a signalled humanitarian mission.

Exactly, how the world is supposed to see that a small country partitioned by a belligerent colonial nation which is only coming to the aid of people under attack from the state's forces and sectarian mobs would be seen as a Nazi style invasion is beyond me !!!!!

Indeed, it couldn’t have been more similar to Kennedy sending in the army and federal police to protect the black people and civil rights supporters in Alabama etc against the thuggery of the red necks and racist police.

thecommietommy

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why would a labour government having been any more accommodating. Their bosses are the UK public who I don't think would have been happy about being invaded. In terms of fearing a geurilla war one way of solving that problem would have been to blockade the country.

You mentioned about 3000+ people dying during the troubles. Sticking to an ideology and ignoring all facts that don't suit it is the reason and ignoring the consequences of events in the real world caused them. Both sides Republican and Loyalist adopted this attitude and refused to come to table even when it was the only option. It took the guts of 30 years for most of them to see sense.

" Both sides ". So the British govt didn't create and maintain the NI state ? Or it's army and police do their fair share of murdering and abusing people ? It wasn't until the ar$e was been blown out of London, Manchester etc that the British govt decided to finally to reform the place with the Good Friday Agreement.

guinnessdrinker

PeadarCo wrote: »

Both sides Republican and Loyalist adopted this attitude and refused to come to table even when it was the only option. It took the guts of 30 years for most of them to see sense.

Not quite true, its pretty much common knowledge now that the British and the Provos held talks as early as 1972.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

You continue to insist on using the wrong historical parrelells, now you use one ahead of the events to try and infer something. Crazy stuff.

I've cited perfectly valid parallels and have given reasons why they are so. To date you've only managed to claim they're not without giving any cogent reason why.

Now you accuse me of using one "ahead of the events" - not sure what you're implying as Bloody Sunday occurred after the period when you've suggested an intervention or invasion could have taken place.

Yet, this returns us to your claim that internationally this would have garnered support for "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" and the closest thing that may have done that was Bloody Sunday. Certainly the 1969 riots wouldn't have - riots in the late sixties were par for the course - and so there is absolutely no way that there would have been anywhere near the necessary international support at that stage.

Yes it would have, and it DID anyway.

But it would almost certainly have accelerated and galvanized the process, giving the loyalists a common banner of foreign invasion to rally against.

How much worse could it have gotten?

A lot worse, dragging the Republic into a long, drawn out conflict and making us a target too, which thankfully we otherwise largely avoided.

I mean that it would have resonating effects on what subsequently happened and that the Irish Gov would have forced themselves into having a say, instead they spent the next 30 years effectively watching from the sidelines.

Except we wouldn't have ended up with a say, as British policy would be exactly the same towards us as it is twoards Argentina.

Like your comparison to the Nazi state this is a moot point again, the Irish weren't in any talks with the British. Unless you know something we don't?

I obviously know how to understand a point and that wasn't the one I was making.

It's not like pushing toy soldiers around on a big board in the History dept. Every event has it nuances, several of which you haven't taken into account, e.g. a Labout Government intent and careful not to escalate the conflict.

Not that intent. As has been pointed out, had Operation Armageddon been carried out, the British government would almost certainly have responded militarily. So don't kid yourself on that score.

You seem to be hanging onto a fantasy, at this stage (using some vague notion of nuances), that pretty much every credible historian, diplomat and military officer of the period rejects.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Good old Godwin strikes again !!!! So was the Egyptian takeover of Suez, the Icelandic attacks during the Cod war, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus etc not condemned by the international community as Nazi type aggression against poor Britain ??

It might help if what you came out with made even the vaguest of sense.

Egypt and Iceland both profited from the reality of Cold War Realpolitik. The US sided with the former to keep it out of the Soviet sphere and the latter were able to threaten the removal of a statistic NATO base on their territory.

The Sudetenland occupation was also decided by Realpolitik, in that France and the UK were still hopeful to avoid another European war at that stage.

As to the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus occurred precisely because it had gained independence of the UK - so the aggression was not against the UK. Ultimately the island was not completely overrun by the Turks because the US intervened diplomatically.

I used the Sudetenland crisis as an example of where the casus belli of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" has been used in the past. I subsequently also suggested a few others, so invocation of Godwin's law is a bit lazy on your part.

Sometimes the invading power retains its irredentist gains. Sometimes it doesn't. However what they all have in common is that when they do it is down to political and military considerations and have never been as a result of the casus belli being accepted internationally.

thecommietommy wrote: »

If as some around here believe that Britiain is all powerful and could have attacked the ROI as they liked, how come they didn't do so when the IRA practically countless times launched attas from the ROI and retreated back there to at times even taunt the British from the south ?

Because they would then be the aggressor in the conflict. Had the Republic sent troops into NI, then we would have been the aggressor.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Their may have been a bit of a bun fight between Ireland and Britain, but it would have been kiss and make up time soon as Britain was trying to get into the EEC and some, particularly the French, were against it. The Brits wouldn't have been too keen on being seen as a belligerent former colonial power throwing their weight around against a small European country.

Under international law, the Irish Republic would have been the belligerent aggressor and it is far more likely that we would have been denied membership, not the UK.

I really do think people have a skewed view of Ireland's victim-hood status, in relation to the UK, as far as the rest of the World is concerned. No one, other than ourselves, think of us as victims to that extent, in relation to the UK.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm out if people can't spot the difference between an aggressive invasion and a signalled humanitarian mission.

Given how often this excuse is used when invading somewhere, how do people spot the difference out of curiosity?

Your insight will no doubt be invaluable to the UN security council in their future deliberations.

thecommietommy

The Corinthian wrote: »

It might help if what you came out with made even the vaguest of sense.

Egypt and Iceland both profited from the reality of Cold War Realpolitik. The US sided with the former to keep it out of the Soviet sphere and the latter were able to threaten the removal of a statistic NATO base on their territory.

So stupid it's not worth commenting on.

The Sudetenland occupation was also decided by Realpolitik, in that France and the UK were still hopeful to avoid another European war at that stage.

As to the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus occurred precisely because it had gained independence of the UK - so the aggression was not against the UK. Ultimately the island was not completely overrun by the Turks because the US intervened diplomatically.

I used the Sudetenland crisis as an example of where the casus belli of "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" has been used in the past. I subsequently also suggested a few others, so invocation of Godwin's law is a bit lazy on your part.

Sometimes the invading power retains its irredentist gains. Sometimes it doesn't. However what they all have in common is that when they do it is down to political and military considerations and have never been as a result of the casus belli being accepted internationally.

Back to the Sudetenland and the Nazi's again. Poor old Godwin

Because they would then be the aggressor in the conflict. Had the Republic sent troops into NI, then we would have been the aggressor.

Under international law, the Irish Republic would have been the belligerent aggressor and it is far more likely that we would have been denied membership, not the UK.

I really do think people have a skewed view of Ireland's victim-hood status, in relation to the UK, as far as the rest of the World is concerned. No one, other than ourselves, think of us as victims to that extent, in relation to the UK.

How the world is supposed to see that a small country partitioned by a belligerent colonial nation which is only coming to the aid of people under attack from the state's forces and sectarian mobs would be seen as a Nazi invasion is beyond me !!!!!

Given how often this excuse is used when invading somewhere, how do people spot the difference out of curiosity?

Sudetenland - belligerent big country invades small one with a blatant lie
Six counties 1969 - small partitioned country comes to the aid of minority blatantly under attack in sectarian state.

Simples

Your insight will no doubt be invaluable to the UN security council in their future deliberations.

Well you seem to think that the UN security council read your musings on boards.ie but I'm under no doubts that they have better things to do. Though you should email crackpots like Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris as clearly you have everything in common.

feargale

Thomas_I wrote: »

FF, FG, Labour and the Green Party have nothing comparable to the above on their own websites / agenda sections.

I have previously asked in response to the opening post : What is the position of the Northern parties on this? Is there to be no answer forthcoming?

The Corinthian

thecommietommy wrote: »

So stupid it's not worth commenting on.

I'll take that as a pathetic attempt to avoid commenting and my point stands.

Back to the Sudetenland and the Nazi's again. Poor old Godwin

Which is why I've also added in a number of other examples, in the course of this discussion, that don't allow that easy a dismissal. But sure, go for the easy out, if it pleases you.

How the world is supposed to see that a small country partitioned by a belligerent colonial nation which is only coming to the aid of people under attack from the state's forces and sectarian mobs would be seen as a Nazi invasion is beyond me !!!!!

Well everyone can't be on the right hand side of the bell curve. Anyhow, another sidestep.

Sudetenland - belligerent big country invades small one with a blatant lie
Six counties 1969 - small partitioned country comes to the aid of minority blatantly under attack in sectarian state.

To begin with the Germans in the Sudetenland were actually suffering discrimination at the time - this is historically accepted. Read it up, if you don't believe me.

Next you you appear to be under the misunderstanding that being a small country somehow makes immune from being guilty of military aggression - where did you get that idiotic notion? If San Marino invaded Italy tomorrow, it might be dumb to do so, but it would still legally be the aggressor. Again, read it up, if you don't believe me.

And under international law, it is not a small partitioned country. It is an Island with two recognised sovereign states residing on it. These states and the border are recognised by international law. Or is the pre-1998 Irish constitution now recognised as international law? Why don't you read that up too, while you're at it?

Simples

And completely incorrect. Well done.

Well you seem to think that the UN security council read your musings on boards.ie but I'm under no doubts that they have better things to do. Though you should email crackpots like Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris as clearly you have everything in common.

From what I can see, your last post is little more than attempts to avoid points made with dismissals. What little argument you included turned out to be embarrassingly incorrect.

Maybe you should start a blog?

thecommietommy

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'll take that as a pathetic attempt to avoid commenting and my point stands.

Which is why I've also added in a number of other examples, in the course of this discussion, that don't allow that easy a dismissal. But sure, go for the easy out, if it pleases you.

Well everyone can't be on the right hand side of the bell curve. Anyhow, another sidestep.

To begin with the Germans in the Sudetenland were actually suffering discrimination at the time - this is historically accepted. Read it up, if you don't believe me.

Next you you appear to be under the misunderstanding that being a small country somehow makes immune from being guilty of military aggression - where did you get that idiotic notion? If San Marino invaded Italy tomorrow, it might be dumb to do so, but it would still legally be the aggressor. Again, read it up, if you don't believe me.

And under international law, it is not a small partitioned country. It is an Island with two recognised sovereign states residing on it. These states and the border are recognised by international law. Or is the pre-1998 Irish constitution now recognised as international law? Why don't you read that up too, while you're at it?

And completely incorrect. Well done.

From what I can see, your last post is little more than attempts to avoid points made with dismissals. What little argument you included turned out to be embarrassingly incorrect.

Maybe you should start a blog?

I give you plain straight foward answers and you just reject them anyway.

PeadarCo

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Not quite true, its pretty much common knowledge now that the British and the Provos held talks as early as 1972.

True but the point being they continued to fight on in an attempt to get a united Ireland which was never a possibility using military means and they ignored this reality to the detriment of peoples lives. I would also include loyalist/unionists within this as well. As the flags protests have demonstrated they still have their own groups that refuse to acknowledge the reality of power sharing and what it means. So the IRA was no means unique in this respect. The British also their own episodes of head in the sand.

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why would a labour government having been any more accommodating. Their bosses are the UK public who I don't think would have been happy about being invaded. In terms of fearing a geurilla war one way of solving that problem would have been to blockade the country.

Could you imagine a Conservative minister touring the Bogside and speaking with the people? Definite difference in Labour's way of doing business.
Troops where instructed NOT to engage with the Bogsiders and NOT to dismantle the barricades.
Any views on this or are you just going to stick to the 'supreme British' stuff?

You mentioned about 3000+ people dying during the troubles. Sticking to an ideology and ignoring all facts that don't suit it is the reason and ignoring the consequences of events in the real world caused them. Both sides Republican and Loyalist adopted this attitude and refused to come to table even when it was the only option. It took the guts of 30 years for most of them to see sense.

Gosh, what a pity you weren't around during the troubles, such a simplistic solution, whay didn't they think of that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've cited perfectly valid parallels and have given reasons why they are so. To date you've only managed to claim they're not without giving any cogent reason why.

Because there aren't any parrellels maybe?

Now you accuse me of using one "ahead of the events" - not sure what you're implying as Bloody Sunday occurred after the period when you've suggested an intervention or invasion could have taken place.

Yet, this returns us to your claim that internationally this would have garnered support for "defending a community that the world could see, needed defending" and the closest thing that may have done that was Bloody Sunday. Certainly the 1969 riots wouldn't have - riots in the late sixties were par for the course - and so there is absolutely no way that there would have been anywhere near the necessary international support at that stage.

The Battle of the Bogside was worldide news and the world was watching . It's a curious claim, have you done any study of the 'actual' events?

But it would almost certainly have accelerated and galvanized the process, giving the loyalists a common banner of foreign invasion to rally against.

Ha ha ha...the Loyalists 'needed a banner to rally against'. The fecking B-Specials where re-assembled on the Diamond in Derry, ready to go in ffs.
You are just being ridiculous here. The situation was out of control, it was crying out for somebody to take control.

A lot worse, dragging the Republic into a long, drawn out conflict and making us a target too, which thankfully we otherwise largely avoided.

Exactly, we shouldn't have been afraid of that. But we where never really interested in the welfare of Northern Nationalists if it was going to hurt us. In many respects we got what we deserved, our lip service to a United Irish goal got called out.

Except we wouldn't have ended up with a say, as British policy would be exactly the same towards us as it is twoards Argentina.

Again, spurious argument here, we are far too closely intertwined, temperatures have run hot and cold on many different occaisions. The British always do what is best for them, and being at loggerheads with Ireland isn't best for them.

I obviously know how to understand a point and that wasn't the one I was making.

Not that intent. As has been pointed out, had Operation Armageddon been carried out, the British government would almost certainly have responded militarily. So don't kid yourself on that score.

You seem to be hanging onto a fantasy, at this stage (using some vague notion of nuances), that pretty much every credible historian, diplomat and military officer of the period rejects.

Which is all fine and dandy had I been talking about Armageddon, but you just keep ignoring that and prefer to put your oown spin on what I am saying. I've known historians who can't step out of the books and do some free thinking based on primary sources before.

So maybe we will just leave it there. Pointless if we are talking about two differnt scenarios tbh.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on the thread topic and not each other. The "too personal" digs must stop.

Thomas_I

feargale wrote: »

And what about the parties in Northern Ireland?

I´ve got a look on these some time as well, but honestly aside from SF, the others are more likely to keep the status quo which means, rather no than yes to a united Ireland.

The key to this issue is the consent of the people in NI to bring up a decision for re-unification with the RoI, but imo it´s also necessary to have the consent of the people in the RoI for this. From my observation about this topic, the interests towards an UI are more stronger among the Irish in NI than in the RoI. I´ve noticed that not just in threads on these boards, but on other websites as well for the last couple of years.

Historical events, alomost concerning NI and policital experiences since the GFA play a major role in the whole issue. Let me put it a bit simple, compared with the democratic traditions in Britain, NI is in this regards a more younger democracy and still it has to develop an political environment in which disagreements are solved in debates and not by riots on the streets. The flag protests has shown quite clearly that there is a lot of a way ahead in this part of the UK. At least it seems that among the political parties some democratic way of dealing with such things has settled, but not among all the people.

All such things like the flag protests are more likely to deter people in the RoI to become more inclined towards a yes to an UI, they won´t have these troubles on their own.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Still with the 'invasion' nonsense.
I'm out if people can't spot the difference between an aggressive invasion and a signalled humanitarian mission.

There´s a big difference between "aggressive invasion" and a "signalled humaitarian mission", both need to pass the border, but just the last needs to have the consent of the country concerned.

I know your point on matters like this topic or UI in general and I can understand your points and think that I can tell the difference between the comments you´re making whether they´re either serious or theoretical. I´m currently reading Paul Dixon´s book about NI politics in war and peace. I´d recommend it to you as well, if you´d ever consider to read it (because Junder has recommended it to me). I´ve now passed the 100 page mark and I´ve been searching for balanced books about Irish history for a long time. This book is such a book with a balanced book and the author comes to the point in each chapter.

In one it is stated, that in 1969, the later Taoiseach Haughey even submitted the suggestion that the RoI would re-join the Commonwealth in exchange of an UI, but this was no issue for the British because of the fear of the backlash by the Unionists / Loyalists to such an attempt. Further he mentioned the estimation by the British Army towards the UDA. They said that the UDA is more loyal to NI than to Britain. Some other - imo important - statements are there to read, tracing the whole history of NI back and telling some detailes about the reasons for why NI has always been some "special part of the UK" (as I like to put it). He also states that in this "growing nationalism in Britain", NI hasn´t been considered at part of Britain. A good explanation for why the British switched to deal with the NI conflict by colonial means.

I´m not saying that I´m enthusiastic with that book and I won´t advocading it for no reason. It´s just that the author comes up with facts which are proved and evident and therefore puts a different light on some developments from the past and when taking these into account, some steps taken are quite better understandable.

The Corinthian

thecommietommy wrote: »

I give you plain straight foward answers and you just reject them anyway.

Would these be the answers you refused to give because you dismissed my points or the ones that turned out to be incredibly easy to exposed as completely incorrect?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because there aren't any parrellels maybe?

Or maybe there are and your repeated inability to rebut this simply underlines this?

The Battle of the Bogside was worldide news and the world was watching . It's a curious claim, have you done any study of the 'actual' events?

Yes, and if you'd done some study yourself, you'll have found that the late sixties saw numerous riots in various cities around the World; such as the Stonewall riots and May 13 incident - both in 1969 - not to mention the numerous riots that infamously took place World wide in 1968, in Paris, Washington DC, Baltimore, Rome and Chicago - to name but a few.

Not the riots in NI may have been a big deal for Ireland, north and south, but they really weren't internationally; any more special than all these other riots. Ultimately international opinion was not really affected until Bloody Sunday.

Ha ha ha...the Loyalists 'needed a banner to rally against'. The fecking B-Specials where re-assembled on the Diamond in Derry, ready to go in ffs.
The situation was out of control, it was crying out for somebody to take control.

You're been a little bit naieve here. A foreign invasion, and that is how it would have been perceived, would have increased support for the loyalist paramilitaries and against the Catholic community significantly, as many Protestants or Loyalists, who wouldn't have gotten involved would have in the face of such an invasion.

If you deny this inevitable consequence, I suspect you're being a little naieve.

Exactly, we shouldn't have been afraid of that. But we where never really interested in the welfare of Northern Nationalists if it was going to hurt us. In many respects we got what we deserved, our lip service to a United Irish goal got called out.

Indeed, southern commitment to unification was and remains largely lip service - I said so in my first post in this thread. But this is where my agreement with you ends, because unlike you I don't share the idiotic and romantic notion of 'whatever the cost' that is so common in nationalist extremists around the World.

Again, spurious argument here, we are far too closely intertwined, temperatures have run hot and cold on many different occaisions. The British always do what is best for them, and being at loggerheads with Ireland isn't best for them.

In your opinion, but as we've already seen, this appears to have no factual or historical basis. The British have had no problem using a stick against us in the past - the Economic War of the 1930's being a case in point - and that's without us invading them.

Which is all fine and dandy had I been talking about Armageddon, but you just keep ignoring that and prefer to put your oown spin on what I am saying. I've known historians who can't step out of the books and do some free thinking based on primary sources before.

Armageddon would have been an intervention during the 1969 riots, which I believe is the period that you've suggested such an intervention should have taken place. Even if not, how many of the likely consequences (which incidentally were based largely on primary sources) that have been cited would be different? Had it been in response to Bloody Sunday, how would those consequences differ?

So maybe we will just leave it there. Pointless if we are talking about two differnt scenarios tbh.

From what I can see, they're only different because the one you wish to push is in an alternative universe where the World would give a monkeys about riots in NI, enough to condone or support an act of aggression by one sovereign state against another (sorry, but legally that's what it would have been).

And in this alternative universe, the UK would roll over on this and not respond militarily, neither would the loyalist community (seeing their homeland invaded) react in any way to this. What's more, the UK would then reward us by welcoming us to have a say in the province.

And of course, this invasion - or intervention if you prefer - would not only be welcomed, but would somehow make things better and not worse.

I compliment your romanticism, but ultimately that's all it is. You're holding onto a daydream of something that never happened and in reality would never happen as you envisage it.

This is why nationalism tends to be anti-intellectual; rational analysis tends to ruin the daydream.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

... This is why nationalism tends to be anti-intellectual; rational analysis tends to ruin the daydream.

This is why each one of you is more determined to push his own opinion through instead to bear in mind from which point of view one is talking. Happyman42 is talking about a theoretical scenario and you´re coming up with reality and how it went. This all got very much mixed up and confused.

In my opinion, to be intellectual means to be able to consider both point of views and compare them to get a balanced view (if possible).

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

In my opinion, to be intellectual means to be able to consider both point of views and compare them to get a balanced view (if possible).

Which is why I suggested such an incursion in response to Bloody Sunday, because this would be potentially more viable in terms of international opinion. I was trying to see a scenario where it was most likely to work and unfortunately even that didn't stand up to examination.

TBH, it's pretty difficult to consider both points of view when one of them includes presumptions like that a smaller nation cannot be an aggressor in a conflict, because this is clearly false both logically and under international law.

With such flaws in argument, one may onsider both points of view, but it doesn't take long to conclude that one is irrevocably broken and it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or maybe there are and your repeated inability to rebut this simply underlines this?

I can't rebut something that has no parrallel. I can only say, that it doesn't.

Yes, and if you'd done some study yourself, you'll have found that the late sixties saw numerous riots in various cities around the World; such as the Stonewall riots and May 13 incident - both in 1969 - not to mention the numerous riots that infamously took place World wide in 1968, in Paris, Washington DC, Baltimore, Rome and Chicago - to name but a few.

Not the riots in NI may have been a big deal for Ireland, north and south, but they really weren't internationally; any more special than all these other riots. Ultimately international opinion was not really affected until Bloody Sunday.

What is your point here? Because nobody was taking notice the Irish Gov shouldn't have either?
Because there were riots elsewhere nobody noticed the one in Derry? :eek:

You're been a little bit naieve here. A foreign invasion, and that is how it would have been perceived, would have increased support for the loyalist paramilitaries and against the Catholic community significantly, as many Protestants or Loyalists, who wouldn't have gotten involved would have in the face of such an invasion.

Fear of Unionism or Loyalist reaction should not have stopped them doing the right thing.
It's again a foolish point, the threat from Loyalism/Unionism was extremely high, the fear at the time was that the Bogside would be over-run by them.
There where consequences to be considered either way.....the Irish Gov choose the one that would have the least consequences for them and abandoned the people it was constitutionally supposed to protect.



Stop trying to run the scenario to some kind of Full Stop in history.
The very act of stepping in and NOT standing idly by, would have had ramifications all the way up to the present day. It is my contention that if the Irish government had done this, AT WHATEVER COST (please stop telling us what you think the cost would have been, it's irrelevant to the discussion, of course there would have been A COST) then we would have an entirely different scenario today, where the 2 governments, because they had directly involved themselves from the begining would have reached the accomodation and understanding that they eventually reached (almost 40 years later) that allowed equality, parity of esteem etc to be established. That is what brought the peace.
There was no need for the violence, 2 responsible governments could have resolved this in 1970. Ultimately they created the vacumm between them and the lid blew off.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as it is dealing with something I wasn't talking about (Operation Armageddon) and I have already dealt with what I think the likely reaction of the British to an humanitarian incursion would have been.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is why I suggested such an incursion in response to Bloody Sunday, because this would be potentially more viable in terms of international opinion. I was trying to see a scenario where it was most likely to work and unfortunately even that didn't stand up to examination.

TBH, it's pretty difficult to consider both points of view when one of them includes presumptions like that a smaller nation cannot be an aggressor in a conflict, because this is clearly false both logically and under international law.

With such flaws in argument, one may onsider both points of view, but it doesn't take long to conclude that one is irrevocably broken and it's time to go back to the drawing board.

There is a time difference of three years between 1969 and Bloody Sunday in 1972 and this difference playes a great deal. Either you stick on the theory on the "what if Ireland had invaded in 1969" which concludes that probably no Bloody Sunday had ever occured, or you exclude an theoretical invasion in 1969 as it happened in reality and set up the theory that NI had been set under military rule in 1969 by the British already and they´d followed a very stern rule to catch up every trouble maker from either side, including Ian Paisley.

On the international basis, the tensions and riots in NI in 1969 got their attention on the international media but the more this was ongoing, the more the people got accustomed to and it has been nothing more as a side note in the evening news. As if to say, it was quite normal standards to hear such news "from Ireland", as this was the superficial perception.

I agree with you on the difficulty to consider both point of views and reach a balanced view, because the whole thing is very complex indeed.

Frederick Schomberg

An invasion of Ulster from the Irish Defence Force would have been an utter disaster not just politically but internationally as well and the Protestant people would have taken up arms to fight off the invader. That is no doubt about that.