Fine Girl Party 'uncomfortable' with the Irish Military

Ren2k7

Bambi wrote: »

Because the IRA mostly rejected the treaty and fell apart after the civil war while the Free State Army was mainly comprised of ex british army servicemen who had never been in the IRA/IRB

Revisionist nonsense. Firstly there wss no such entity called the "Free Strate Army", just the National Army. Secondly those IRA units who supported the Treaty served as the nucleus of the new army. Many within the IRA supported the agreement, many others opposed it. But it's wrong to say that "the IRA mostly rejected the Treaty". The present day DF has every right to claim to be the successor of the Volunteers and IRA.

él statutorio

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You're joking right? Dinny Gael despise the Irish Defence Forces, they hate the fact that they're not sitting in the UK Commons and saluting the Brit forces on Poppy Day. Any talk of them claiming to be proud of our forces is pure electioneering and an attempt to show some patriotism. Same with FF and Labour.

And to those who feel the Rising isn't worth celebrating may I remind you many countries have large bombastic celebrations for their own wars of independence. The Americans do it right and we should follow their lead. If people are embarrassed by our revolution that saw us achieve freedom then they're more than welcome to hop on the next flight to London. Ireland could do with shedding itself of these Blueshirt traitors.

The rising and the war of independence are two very different things.

Personally I think the commemoration of the rising has turned into a political sideshow.

Ren2k7

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but the Americans beat the British in open combat. we just went to london and signed a poor deal.

We also beat the Brits in combat as well. We fought hard for our freedom and shouldn't be afraid to celebrate that achievement. IMO April 24th should be made "Proclamation Day" and celebrated with the same level of gusto as Independence Day is celebrated in the US.

Ren2k7

él statutorio wrote: »

The rising and the war of independence are two very different things.

Personally I think the commemoration of the rising has turned into a political sideshow.

No, the Rising and the WoI aren't two different things, they're closely related. The Proclamation read on April 24th established the Irish Republic which the First Dáil put into effect in 1919. The Rising leaders knew they'd be defeated but felt their sacrifice on that Easter Week would encourage the Irish people to begin the fight against the British occupation forces, something that came true. The War of Independence really began on that Easter Week of 1916 and never ended until 1922. Even the State recognised this six year period as being one long conflict with regard to military services pensions for IRA Vols.

johal

what is always overlooked is the fact that the treaty was ratified by the elected dail and in the 1922 election which was in fact a referendum on the treaty the pro treaty side of sinn fein won twice as many seats as the anti treaty side of sinn fein. thus the people voted for the treaty. this democratic election and the majority vote in the dail is why the national army / free state army was and is the only army in ireland that is legitimate . that is if you accept the rules of a free democratic state.

Ren2k7

johal wrote: »

what is always overlooked is the fact that the treaty was ratified by the elected dail and in the 1922 election which was in fact a referendum on the treaty the pro treaty side of sinn fein won twice as many seats as the anti treaty side of sinn fein. thus the people voted for the treaty. this democratic election and the majority vote in the dail is why the national army / free state army was and is the only army in ireland that is legitimate . that is if you accept the rules of a free democratic state.

This is a point I make frequently to staunch anti-treaty Republicans (I'm a Republican BTW, just not their dissident brand of republicanism) and they always claim that Dáil Éireann abrogated its responsibilities to the Republic by accepting the Treaty and therefore its mandate transferred to the "IRA Executive". Never mind the fact that there was no authority to transfer the governmental and legal authority from the Dáil to the Army, nor that the Army leadership itself also supported the Treaty.

BoatMad

tac foley wrote: »

My dad was in the Free State Army, having been freed at the signing of the Truce from a fourteen-year jail sentence for carrying out explosive alterations to one of His Majesty's police barracks.

HE was born in Geraldine Place, just off the Quays in Cork City, and was definitely not any kind of a British Army ex-serviceman, bearing in mind that until the split, ALL Irishmen in the British Army were classed as British subjects.

His older brother chose to follow the devices and desires of Mr DeValera instead, and they spent a couple of hard years trying not to see each other.

tac

all Irishmen until 1948, where effectively classed as British Subjects, not just those in the army . Its why terry wogan could accept his knighthood

BoatMad

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We also beat the Brits in combat as well. We fought hard for our freedom and shouldn't be afraid to celebrate that achievement. IMO April 24th should be made "Proclamation Day" and celebrated with the same level of gusto as Independence Day is celebrated in the US.

the reality is the various factions of the " RA" from 1900 onwards , never successfully defeated the British, certainly not in the same way as Washington did.

The physical force campaign was an abject failure, led directly to a poor treaty , cause the physical force campaign in the run up to 22, was in disarray, and the prospect of a massive British Army campaign in ireland loomed. IN realty the physical force " tradition " backed us into a corner and the subsequent mess that followed .

Our creation as a independent nation should indeed be celebrated , it should have no military overtones at all in my opinion and should emphasis the civic over the militaristic in my view

BoatMad

Ren2k7 wrote: »

This is a point I make frequently to staunch anti-treaty Republicans (I'm a Republican BTW, just not their dissident brand of republicanism) and they always claim that Dáil Éireann abrogated its responsibilities to the Republic by accepting the Treaty and therefore its mandate transferred to the "IRA Executive". Never mind the fact that there was no authority to transfer the governmental and legal authority from the Dáil to the Army, nor that the Army leadership itself also supported the Treaty.

indeed, if you gave the de-valera , " wade through irish blood" speech today , he'd be locked up for hate crime .

screamer

What else would you expect from the blueshirts OP? They've just swapped bowing to Elizabeth to bow to Angela.

Some soldiers visited my daughter's school and all the kids learned the national anthem and all about the flag. The kids were so excited and in this country where we are fast losing our identity it's a great thing the military are doing to commemorate the rising and I fully support it.

Uncomfortable with the military what BS. If the sh!t hit the fan you'd see who they'd be quick to call in while they cower away.

Ren2k7

BoatMad wrote: »

the reality is the various factions of the " RA" from 1900 onwards , never successfully defeated the British, certainly not in the same way as Washington did.

The physical force campaign was an abject failure, led directly to a poor treaty , cause the physical force campaign in the run up to 22, was in disarray, and the prospect of a massive British Army campaign in ireland loomed. IN realty the physical force " tradition " backed us into a corner and the subsequent mess that followed .

Our creation as a independent nation should indeed be celebrated , it should have no military overtones at all in my opinion and should emphasis the civic over the militaristic in my view

We got rid of the Brits from the 26. We won, there's no question of this. Armed force works. It worked for the Old IRA and it worked for the Provos for that matter.

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed, if you gave the de-valera , " wade through irish blood" speech today , he'd be locked up for hate crime .

Dev was the Adams of this day and yet is today regarded as this state's most famous statesman and leader. Let's not forget that some Gaelers advocated a military coup to prevent Dev and FF taking control in 1932.

BoatMad

Ren2k7, you keep living in RA RA land, thats fine, the rest of us will get on with trying to actually build a decent country that recognises things are quite different from the nonsense "slogans" you spout.

Ren2k7

BoatMad wrote: »

Ren2k7, you keep living in RA RA land, thats fine, the rest of us will get on with trying to actually build a decent country that recognises things are quite different from the nonsense "slogans" you spout.

No, you're the one who's insisting the IRA failed in getting rid of the Brits. They succeeded. The leaders of the Rising and later First Dáil were vindicated, even the Provo's. Violence works. Fact.

BoatMad

Ren2k7 wrote: »

No, you're the one who's insisting the IRA failed in getting rid of the Brits. They succeeded. The leaders of the Rising and later First Dáil were vindicated, even the Provo's. Violence works. Fact.

Sure, NI is part of the republic , as well , violence works

dream on. read a book or two on the subject, The IRA by the start of 1920 was exhausted, Collins knew that any major BA activity would be devastating and there was considerable public opposition to the random killings of rural Catholic policemen. Even the attacks on great Houses in the east was being rebuffed ( 4 flying squads were turned back in my area by locals ). Ambushes on the BA by semi-militaried IRA bridgades were nearly always rebuffed as IRA men were up against war hardened veterans.

This is clearly documented in any reasonable educated book recounting the period. Collins and others knew that the threat of using returning BA army from the france and elsewhere was real and substantive and in the end , violence placed his back against the wall and he was forced to accept the only deal on the table.

The so called war of independence , in reality did little to help the process, Independence in one form or another would have come to Ireland anyway, possibly without any bloodshed.

Then the IRA played out the exact same process in Northern Ireland, which equally succeeded in doing nothing, failed i any of their aims and divided a society even further .

I can suggest any number of books on the history

My credentials are impeccable, one side of the family was elected in the 1918 election as a SF member, the one side were mounted RIC !! ( all were Irishmen and Catholics to boot)

Ren2k7

BoatMad wrote: »

Sure, NI is part of the republic , as well , violence works

dream on. read a book or two on the subject, The IRA by the start of 1920 was exhausted, Collins knew that any major BA activity would be devastating and there was considerable public opposition to the random killings of rural Catholic policemen. Even the attacks on great Houses in the east was being rebuffed ( 4 flying squads were turned back in my area by locals ). Ambushes on the BA by semi-militaried IRA bridgades were nearly always rebuffed as IRA men were up against war hardened veterans.

This is clearly documented in any reasonable educated book recounting the period. Collins and others knew that the threat of using returning BA army from the france and elsewhere was real and substantive and in the end , violence placed his back against the wall and he was forced to accept the only deal on the table.

The so called war of independence , in reality did little to help the process, Independence in one form or another would have come to Ireland anyway, possibly without any bloodshed.

Then the IRA played out the exact same process in Northern Ireland, which equally succeeded in doing nothing, failed i any of their aims and divided a society even further .

I can suggest any number of books on the history

My credentials are impeccable, one side of the family was elected in the 1918 election as a SF member, the one side were mounted RIC !! ( all were Irishmen and Catholics to boot)

Your family member could have been elected as a Monster Raving Loony Party MP for all it matters, nor do I need "to read a book" history has vindicated the armed approach. Britain was offering Ireland a Scottish style devolved administration within the UK, we got independence. No amount of Bruton style revisionism changes this fact.

It's true though, Fine Gael ARE embarrassed by this Republic and OnaH.

BoatMad

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Your family member could have been elected as a Monster Raving Loony Party MP for all it matters, nor do I need "to read a book" history has vindicated the armed approach. Britain was offering Ireland a Scottish style devolved administration within the UK, we got independence. No amount of Bruton style revisionism changes this fact.

It's true though, Fine Gael ARE embarrassed by this Republic and OnaH.

up the RA, write another song about the war, way to go , all good stuff, delusion is a powerful drug.

o I need "to read a book" history has vindicated the armed approach. Britain was offering Ireland a Scottish style devolved administration within the UK

as we accepted the King, thats in effect what the free state was until a stroke was pulled on the abdication of the king in 48

BoatMad

It's true though, Fine Gael ARE embarrassed by this Republic and OnaH.

naw , just revisionists like you.

BoatMad

It's true though, Fine Gael ARE embarrassed by this Republic and OnaH.

naw , just revisionists like you.

Ren2k7

Let's do this one last time.

Britain offered us home rule within the UK, we got independence. All thanks to the Irish Republican Army. Gaelers don't like to admit or acknowledge this because it gives legitimacy to the IRA campaign during the Troubles. Violence has ALWAYS been the only thing that Britain understands. We beat them in 1922 and we beat them again in 1998. IRA, undefeated army!

Ren2k7

Let's do this one last time.

Britain offered us home rule within the UK, we got independence. All thanks to the Irish Republican Army. Gaelers don't like to admit or acknowledge this because it gives legitimacy to the IRA campaign during the Troubles. Violence has ALWAYS been the only thing that Britain understands. We beat them in 1922 and we beat them again in 1998. IRA, undefeated army!

BoatMad

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Let's do this one last time.

Britain offered us home rule within the UK, we got independence. All thanks to the Irish Republican Army. Gaelers don't like to admit or acknowledge this because it gives legitimacy to the IRA campaign during the Troubles. Violence has ALWAYS been the only thing that Britain understands. We beat them in 1922 and we beat them again in 1998. IRA, undefeated army!

RA RA RA RA RA RA

used to be "I rang away" actually

Im all for informed debate. Il all for an acknowledgment of what actually happened

I can recount directly from first hand reminiscences to me, of local IRA groups encounters with the BA in the 20s. It never went all that well for the RA boys. They tended to do a lot of running .

sloganerring on the other hand from a person who acknowledge they have never read a book on the subject, is hardly informed debate


Dev was right , intern the lot of them !

i dont vote FGs too centre for me !, not sure what to do this march, too many lefties all over the place

tac foley

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We also beat the Brits in combat as well.

Nossir, you didn't. The British most certainly did NOT wage all-out war, as it is generally understood, ANYWHERE on the island of Ireland. You can be pretty certain that if they had, the skyline of Dublin would look very different to its present-day appearance, due to being levelled by the battleships of the Royal Navy from ten miles out at sea, as would most of the coastal town up to fifteen miles inland, and that was in 1921. Civilian casualties would have been counted in the many thousands, and that is just the initial opening salvo, so to speak, of an all-out war effort

The mistaken belief that your pals in the IRA [PIRA, actually] beat the British Army into submission in 1998 is even more risible. The British Army of the day operated in its own country, namely, part of the United Kingdom, under rules of engagement that limited their operations in a way that is very difficult for a civilian to comprehend.

At no time was the Republic of Ireland threatened with an invasion, let alone bombing or blockade - economical or physical. A trade embargo with your nearest and most productive trading nation neighbour would be a VERY certain end to any dissension, as would the rounding-up of every Irish citizen residing in the UK and their relocating in internment camps. Note, too, that there was not a single tank, no artillery, no fast jets, no attack helicopters - none of the elements of real warfare, the like of which must be pretty well-known to anybody who has watched the TV since the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

War with the UK?

Get real for goodness' sake.

Ireland was grudgingly, and over a period of many years, allowed to become an independent nation.

At any time in history there were, and still are, many more Irishmen in the British armed forces than there were/are Irishmen fighting the British at home in Ireland.

tac

Dyr

tac foley wrote: »

Nossir, you didn't. The British most certainly did NOT wage all-out war, as it is generally understood, ANYWHERE on the island of Ireland. You can be pretty certain that if they had, the skyline of Dublin would look very different to its present-day appearance due to being levelled by the battleships of the Royal Navy from ten miles out at sea, as would most of the coastal town up the fifteen miles inland.

The Americans could have nuked hanoi, they still lost the vietnam war

Coulda, woulda, shoulda..did'nt

Ren2k7

BoatMad wrote: »

RA RA RA RA RA RA

used to be "I rang away" actually

Im all for informed debate. Il all for an acknowledgment of what actually happened

I can recount directly from first hand reminiscences to me, of local IRA groups encounters with the BA in the 20s. It never went all that well for the RA boys. They tended to do a lot of running .

sloganerring on the other hand from a person who acknowledge they have never read a book on the subject, is hardly informed debate


Dev was right , intern the lot of them !

i dont vote FGs too centre for me !, not sure what to do this march, too many lefties all over the place

Ah that explains it, you're a southern unionist.

tac foley wrote: »

Nossir, you didn't. The British most certainly did NOT wage all-out war, as it is generally understood, ANYWHERE on the island of Ireland. You can be pretty certain that if they had, the skyline of Dublin would look very different to its present-day appearance, due to being levelled by the battleships of the Royal Navy from ten miles out at sea, as would most of the coastal town up to fifteen miles inland, and that was in 1921. Civilian casualties would have been counted in the many thousands, and that is just the initial opening salvo, so to speak, of an all-out war effort

The mistaken belief that your pals in the IRA [PIRA, actually] beat the British Army into submission in 1998 is even more risible. The British Army of the day operated in its own country, namely, part of the United Kingdom, under rules of engagement that limited their operations in a way that is very difficult for a civilian to comprehend.

At no time was the Republic of Ireland threatened with an invasion, let alone bombing or blockade - economical or physical. A trade embargo with your nearest and most productive trading nation neighbour would be a VERY certain end to any dissension, as would the rounding-up of every Irish citizen residing in the UK and their relocating in internment camps. Note, too, that there was not a single tank, no artillery, no fast jets, no attack helicopters - none of the elements of real warfare, the like of which must be pretty well-known to anybody who has watched the TV since the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

War with the UK?

Get real for goodness' sake.

Ireland was grudgingly, and over a period of many years, allowed to become an independent nation.

At any time in history there were, and still are, many more Irishmen in the British armed forces than there were/are Irishmen fighting the British at home in Ireland.

tac

What is it with Boards that it's swarming with West Brits?

tac foley

What's a 'West Brit'?

tac

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Ah that explains it, you're a southern unionist.



What is it with Boards that it's swarming with West Brits?

I think you'll find that the internet in Ireland is swarming with RA-heads (the Celtic supporting kind).

Also, historical accuracy doesn't connote allegiance to Britain mate.

Ren2k7

donvito99 wrote: »

I think you'll find that the internet in Ireland is swarming with RA-heads (the Celtic supporting kind).

Also, historical accuracy doesn't connote allegiance to Britain mate.

You want to talk historical accuracy try this then, the IRA defeated the British and successfully established an independent Irish state. Not some home rule entity inside the UK but a fully sovereign independent Republic. I can't wait for the Rising commemoration's to take place across Ireland. All the West Brits will be in hiding. Lovely.

It wasn't me!

On what military basis did the IRA defeat the British armed forces in either element of the conflict? As has been indicated, it's not like the British were in a position to deploy their full military might.

Pat Dunne

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I can't wait for the Rising commemoration's to take place across Ireland. All the West Brits will be in hiding. Lovely.

I for one, will be respectfully commemorating the sacrafices and bravery of all the members of my family who fought in both the War of Independence and the First World War.

Phoebas

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You want to talk historical accuracy try this then, the IRA defeated the British and successfully established an independent Irish state. Not some home rule entity inside the UK but a fully sovereign independent Republic. I can't wait for the Rising commemoration's to take place across Ireland. All the West Brits will be in hiding. Lovely.

The Republic didn't come about until 1949 (declared on the 33rd anniversary of the Rising by those West Brits in Fine Gael). The War of Independence resulted in the Free State, a commonwealth dominion with allegiance to the King.

Ren2k7

Phoebas wrote: »

The Republic didn't come about until 1949 (declared on the 33rd anniversary of the Rising by those West Brits in Fine Gael). The War of Independence resulted in the Free State, a commonwealth dominion with allegiance to the King.

The Republic occured with the new Constitution of '38. The Republic of Ireland Act of '49 was needed to point out to moronic Canadians that the Queen wasn't our head of state. The Brits offered us home rule WITHIN the UK, we achieved independence outside the UK because we fought a war to achieve this. Tell me, would we have attained full independence by 1938 (we were already more or less independent by the time of the 1931 Statute of Westminster) had we gone with Britain's "Southern Ireland' proposal? The armed conflict worked. Let's cease all this Bruton revisionist nonsense.

tac foley

I nearly fell off my perch reading YOUR revisionist view of the 'IRA' actually winning a 'war' with the British military. I have to hand it to you, if you truly believe this total b******s then you have a real imagination, that's for sure.

IF you had ever had anything to do with a REAL war and REAL war-fighting you'd know that your buddies in IRA/PIRA were a bunch of homeland hicks, mostly murdering, woman-kidnapping and drug-dealing pond-life, who hung on the coattails of their political representatives, McGuiness and ol'beardy, whose name escapes me right now, but whose family are deeply involved in paedophilia.

In a real stand-up military campaign with the gloves off, bearing in mind that they operated in civilian clothing, within civilian communities, using civilians either as shields or as proxy car-bombers [holding the families of the driver as hostages, you might just recall], these hicks would have lasted as long as it took a single Apache and a bunch of Toms in a single Warrior to alter their outlook on a permanent basis.

All that saved them long enough to become staunch pillars of society was the fact that the Brits operated under unimaginable constraint, in their own country, to save the innocent civilian population from getting in the middle of the inevitable firefights - something that never bothered your pals in the least.

Back under your stone, sir, if you please. Your support of an organisation that is proscribed in your own country is enough to make me puke.

tac


PS - you still haven't explained what a 'West Brit' is, nor the sudden appearance of the Canadians in all this.

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Republic occured with the new Constitution of '38.

37 mate.

Also, Canadians are morons for questioning the legitimacy (as a British dominion) of another de jure dominion unilaterally relinquishing British involvement? Yeah, those idiots.

Dyr

tac foley wrote: »

McGuiness and ol'beardy, whose name escapes me right now, but whose family are deeply involved in paedophilia.

Doesnt take long for the mask to drop eh

neilled

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's true though, Fine Gael ARE embarrassed by this Republic and OnaH.

Fine Gael are probably better for the DF as they currently stand than any other party when it comes to whats best for capabilities of the DF as a whole. Their state foreign policy objectives mean that its "money where your mouth is" when it comes to military capability and shatter and coveny have been the first ministers for Defence to have a grast of their brief properly for years. That being said, I have never been a FG voter - the whole Christian Democrat Conservative thing does nothing for me. What else is out there though?

FF - their submission to the white paper would keep "the troops" happy ie bring back the western brigade, recruit more troops but without throught for the kit that they'll need, expand the Army and Naval Reserve - nice cushy cadre posts "training" reserve forces spread in penny packets throughout the country without access to arms or weapons - lots of cash thrown about for very little capability in return, however it would deliver a good bit in terms of clinetelism for FF.

SF - disengagement from PFP and enshrining "positive neutrality" in the constitution, ie an excuse to further diminish the capabilites of the DF further. I wonder what vested interest they might have for that. Maybe the role the DF had in keeping the provo's in check for the last 40 years.

Lab - Sadly beholden to some of the fringe loonies from PANA that linger within their ranks. Not interested in Defence other than getting trade union membership for the representative associations - a retrograde step when it comes to capability.

Renua - no policy

Social Democrats - no policy

AAA/ULA - lets not even go there.

4ensic15

donvito99 wrote: »

37 mate.

Also, Canadians are morons for questioning the legitimacy (as a British dominion) of another de jure dominion unilaterally relinquishing British involvement? Yeah, those idiots.

The Referendum for the constitution was in 1937 but it did not come into effect until 1938.

purplepanda

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Republic occured with the new Constitution of '38. The Republic of Ireland Act of '49 was needed to point out to moronic Canadians that the Queen wasn't our head of state. The Brits offered us home rule WITHIN the UK, we achieved independence outside the UK because we fought a war to achieve this. Tell me, would we have attained full independence by 1938 (we were already more or less independent by the time of the 1931 Statute of Westminster) had we gone with Britain's "Southern Ireland' proposal? The armed conflict worked. Let's cease all this Bruton revisionist nonsense.

This revisionist argument by some extreme republicans that suggests that the Irish Free State was not an independent nation after the Anglo Irish Treaty 1921 is certainly proven wrong when fellow western European nations such as France & The Netherlands gave full diplomatic recognition & opened embassies in 1922, followed by the USA in 1924. That is the international standard of a new independent nation being confirmed by the international community.

By the time of the Balfour declaration 1925 the dominions were confirmed as independent nations by the British. A fact confirmed when De Valera formed FF & broke away from the abstentionist policies of SF.

All De Valera did regarding the creation of an independent nation was abolish the last trappings of the monarchy & rename the nation. Declaring a republic & leaving the commonwealth he left to others. :rolleyes:

BoatMad

purplepanda wrote: »

This revisionist argument by some extreme republicans that suggests that the Irish Free State was not an independent nation after the Anglo Irish Treaty 1921 is certainly proven wrong when fellow western European nations such as France & The Netherlands gave full diplomatic recognition & opened embassies in 1922, followed by the USA in 1924. That is the international standard of a new independent nation being confirmed by the international community.

By the time of the Balfour declaration 1925 the dominions were confirmed as independent nations by the British. A fact confirmed when De Valera formed FF & broke away from the abstentionist policies of SF.

All De Valera did regarding the creation of an independent nation was abolish the last trappings of the monarchy & rename the nation. Declaring a republic & leaving the commonwealth he left to others. :rolleyes:

In reality until the abdication crisis, provided de valera with a " legal trick" and the External relations Act was abolished, the irish State , could not be truly regarded as an independent " republic".

The opening of embassies and the like is no way a copper-fasoning of independence, often its merely a political act by nations that have a vested interest in something.

purplepanda

India & Pakistan achieved independence initially without being republics, would anyone seriously suggest that they weren't independent before they then declared themselves republics a few years afterwards?

BoatMad

purplepanda wrote: »

India & Pakistan achieved independence initially without being republics, would anyone seriously suggest that they weren't independent before they then declared themselves republics a few years afterwards?

There are degrees of independence, it's a grey area like most real world issues. As a member of the EU are we truly independent , clearly not , yet we are technically sovereign ( well now anyway )

Independence is vastly overrated in my view, and rarely puts bread on the table , often substituting that with blood . Highly overrated, a bad B movie in thruth

donvito99

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Referendum for the constitution was in 1937 but it did not come into effect until 1938.

It came into effect on the 29th of December, 1937.

johal

johal wrote: »

what is always overlooked is the fact that the treaty was ratified by the elected dail and in the 1922 election which was in fact a referendum on the treaty the pro treaty side of sinn fein won twice as many seats as the anti treaty side of sinn fein. thus the people voted for the treaty. this democratic election and the majority vote in the dail is why the national army / free state army was and is the only army in ireland that is legitimate . that is if you accept the rules of a free democratic state.

The people voted for a treaty they knew nothing about, the details of the treaty were only published the morning of the vote plus Britain had threatened the people of Ireland with terrible war.

Just as in a legal contract, threatening a people discredits any "democratic vote". It was anything but democracy.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

The people voted for a treaty they knew nothing about, the details of the treaty were only published the morning of the vote plus Britain had threatened the people of Ireland with terrible war.

Just as in a legal contract, threatening a people discredits any "democratic vote". It was anything but democracy.

The majority of people wanted peace, which is what the treaty was giving them. the reality was that the ability to prosecute the war had come to an end. Collins estimated that he could only keep going for another few weeks by the time of the truce. By July 1921, there was nowhere the British could not go. The majority of the leaders of the independence struggle were dead or in prison. Supplies of ammunition were exhausted. There were very few weapons.

jcd5971

If ever a country needed a military coup it would be this one... Unlikely obviously but with the way law and order and basic civil decency has gone, well it could be nice.