What side would you have taken in the Irish civil war?

diomed

I would be on the side
(1) with the moral high ground
(2) with the best uniforms
(3) the likely winners so I could get a good government job

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, if you want to believe that the British Empire was created and sustained across 25% of planet earth by some sort of lovebombing of the natives, and that when the natives responded to the occupation with its own violence it was suddenly a "bloodlust", well nobody here will be able to help you with your need to believe that.

WW I was nothing but the latest of a long series of British imperial wars staffed by relatively well-paid opportunists and mercenaries. They were paid. Paid. Heroism? That they hadn't factored in the technological changes into their gamble when they joined the side of the biggest empire in world history, and thus lost, is not something for which they should be admired. Trying to pass them off as "heroic" is comical no matter how much propaganda is spouted by modern-day British nationalists using past deaths to justify their current political campaigns.

Morally speaking, the British Empire remains an ineffably ignominious blot on the history of humanity, and to attempt to absolve its footsoldiers from those crimes because they have a relationship to you is beneath contempt. It never represented a "greater good" for anybody but the aristocrats, parasites, sycophants and dullards of Britain. Committing a moral wrong in a British uniform does not make it a moral right or a moral "greater good" just because it's your crowd doing it. That is tyranny you're defending.

I'm really looking forward to Brexit bringing this entire British "my country right or wrong" mentality of conceit to its knees and ultimate repentance. Nothing like powerlessness to bring truth, humility and honesty to a society. And, unlike the defeated Germans after WW2, the Brits haven't even started on that road.

So we won't put you down for a poppy is what you are saying, right ?

storker

jmayo wrote: »

So we won't put you down for a poppy is what you are saying, right ?

I think Fuaranach gets out of bed extra early in the morning so he can spend more time hating Perfidious Albion.

SafeSurfer

storker wrote: »

On the understanding that it indeed represented "stepping stones" to independence, and given that a majority had voted in favour, I would have been on the Free State side. I would have taken the view that the anti-treaty forces had no mandate.

Its interesting that you say the anti treaty side had no mandate. It could be argued that both the pro treaty and anti treaty representatives had been given a clear mandate in the general election of 1918 for the establishment of the Irish Republic.
The provisional government was the illegitimate government, without mandate and was a conservative, British backed counter revolution to the Irish Republic.
The majority of IRA volunteers voted against the treaty in an army wide referendum in March 1922.
It was the provisional government that was unconstitutional. Members of the first Dail had sworn an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic. It is little wonder that the oath of allegiance to the British king was not an obstacle to them given how swiftly they had abandoned their solemn oath to the Irish Republic.

riffmongous

I wonder how believable Collins' stepping stone plan was seen at the time? It seems like the best option now because we know it sort of worked (not fully of course), but at the time after the Home Rule fiasco was it really a plausible plan?

Kermit.de.frog

I would have taken the side of the Confederates.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Morally speaking, the British Empire remains an ineffably ignominious blot on the history of humanity, and to attempt to absolve its footsoldiers from those crimes because they have a relationship to you is beneath contempt. It never represented a "greater good" for anybody but the aristocrats, parasites, sycophants and dullards of Britain. Committing a moral wrong in a British uniform does not make it a moral right or a moral "greater good" just because it's your crowd doing it. That is tyranny you're defending.

To be fair, name an empire that didn't behave that way?

The French mistreated all natives in their colonies. So too did the Belgians. The Chinese exterminated huge numbers of 'inferior' peoples.

I wouldn't be seeking to defend the British Empire for anything it did, but it followed the nature of the powerful.

Times have changed in Western civilisations, and while we no longer have these kinds of systems, we still have plenty of abuses that can be laid at the feet of the powerful nations. The US? Invasions aplenty, poor management of occupied territories with civilians taking the fire, and Guantanamo Bay where peoples rights are suspended through manipulations of the laws they tried pushing on others.

It's just that most modern countries aren't that powerful anymore.

I'm really looking forward to Brexit bringing this entire British "my country right or wrong" mentality of conceit to its knees and ultimate repentance. Nothing like powerlessness to bring truth, humility and honesty to a society. And, unlike the defeated Germans after WW2, the Brits haven't even started on that road.

Again, I fail to find any country that has these values of " truth, humility and honesty" in a society. It's all smoke and mirrors. Marketing campaigns to shove the embarrassments into the background and focus on what appears to be better.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

I wonder how believable Collins' stepping stone plan was seen at the time? It seems like the best option now because we know it sort of worked (not fully of course), but at the time after the Home Rule fiasco was it really a plausible plan?

Were there any plausible alternatives? I've yet to see any realistic plans for a united Ireland with full independence against Britains wishes.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Were there any plausible alternatives? I've yet to see any realistic plans for a united Ireland with full independence against Britains wishes.

Back to war.

diomed

I'm guessing singing "Land of Hope and Glory" at the Last Night of the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall is not on Furanach's bucket list.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

Back to war.

I don’t think that qualifies as plausible and it certainly wouldn’t have back then. There’s no way we could have withstood and beaten British army.

tomwaterford

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don’t think that qualifies as plausible and it certainly wouldn’t have back then. There’s no way we could have withstood and beaten British army.

Taught the civil war occurred shortly after beating the British in the war of independence?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don’t think that qualifies as plausible and it certainly wouldn’t have back then. There’s no way we could have withstood and beaten British army.

Isn't that what had effectively occurred? I think the Irish probably had far more leverage than they realised, what's less plausible is that the British would have had any appetite for going back to a war that was increasingly unpopular in the UK.

I would have sat on the fence and got shot in the back by a sniper.

SafeSurfer

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have sat on the fence and got shot in the back by a sniper.

Any sniper worth his salt would shoot you in the head.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Any sniper worth his salt would shoot you in the head.

Good point

A Little Pony

Pro treaty if it meant I could get the chance to slap the IRA about.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

Pro treaty if it meant I could get the chance to slap the IRA about.

The pro treaty was made up of IRA members :P

whisky_galore

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

we have never suffered at the hands of the Black and Tans so we can take a more reasoned view of the whole instead of letting our emotions take over.

LoL, the way some posters go on, you'd swear they had fought the Tans. :D

whisky_galore

diomed wrote: »

I would be on the side
(1) with the moral high ground
(2) with the best uniforms
(3) the likely winners so I could get a good government job

(1) Ummmm...

(2) Trench coat/flat cap combo vs. ill-fitting woollen uniform.

(3) Govt job either way, one way or another. Just need to know the right people.

Donald Trump

Neither.

I'd have unilaterally and personally nuked the Brits with "Fire and Fury".

On my way back from nuking the North Koreans before they were even a country.

Take that losers

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, name an empire that didn't behave that way?

So the stock thought when you were being oppressed should have been 'Sure all them Empires are like that, I will just put up with it?' :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND

DeValera sent Collins & Co over there knowing full well that concessions would have to be made.

He knew exactly what would happen and how it would divide the country and how it would impact on the career and life of his rival.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, if you want to believe that the British Empire was created and sustained across 25% of planet earth by some sort of lovebombing of the natives, and that when the natives responded to the occupation with its own violence it was suddenly a "bloodlust", well nobody here will be able to help you with your need to believe that.

WW I was nothing but the latest of a long series of British imperial wars staffed by relatively well-paid opportunists and mercenaries. They were paid. Paid. Heroism? That they hadn't factored in the technological changes into their gamble when they joined the side of the biggest empire in world history, and thus lost, is not something for which they should be admired. Trying to pass them off as "heroic" is comical no matter how much propaganda is spouted by modern-day British nationalists using past deaths to justify their current political campaigns.

Morally speaking, the British Empire remains an ineffably ignominious blot on the history of humanity, and to attempt to absolve its footsoldiers from those crimes because they have a relationship to you is beneath contempt. It never represented a "greater good" for anybody but the aristocrats, parasites, sycophants and dullards of Britain. Committing a moral wrong in a British uniform does not make it a moral right or a moral "greater good" just because it's your crowd doing it. That is tyranny you're defending.

I'm really looking forward to Brexit bringing this entire British "my country right or wrong" mentality of conceit to its knees and ultimate repentance. Nothing like powerlessness to bring truth, humility and honesty to a society. And, unlike the defeated Germans after WW2, the Brits haven't even started on that road.

Well, that's an opinion I suppose.

I was just pointing out how relative acted to feed his family.......and Thank God, or else I wouldn't be here to type this.

I never said he was a hero or that he fought on the side of the angels......only that he did what was necessary to survive and to endure his family survived. Better that than have them die, but others may disagree.

It did leave him with an abiding contempt for power constructs and led him to become passionate about the cause of labour and with a firm belief in the idea that the working class needs to help itself rather than wait for the next "boss" to take over......organisation and education were his mantra, and for a man of little formal education he left behind a decent legacy (as an early organiser of what was the People's College).

The other family member I like to commemorate served on the arctic convoys.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

DeValera sent Collins & Co over there knowing full well that concessions would have to be made.

He knew exactly what would happen and how it would divide the country and how it would impact on the career and life of his rival.

But...but...before the talks, were they really rivals?

I'm sure Dev never had ambitions in the military arena and doubt Collins saw Dev as being in his way politically.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

But...but...before the talks, were they really rivals?

I'm sure Dev never had ambitions in the military arena and doubt Collins saw Dev as being in his way politically.

I don't think Dev could ever relate to the people like Collins could. I think he envied Collins' innate charisma and charm.

archer22

Frank Hall in Hall's Pictorial Weekly had a character called Paddy Joe Canavaun who fought in the civil war and... "inflicted heavy casualties on both sides".

I think that was the correct way to go .

AudreyHepburn

tomwaterford wrote: »

Taught the civil war occurred shortly after beating the British in the war of independence?

I wouldn’t call it beating them so much as calling a truce.

AudreyHepburn

whisky_galore wrote: »

LoL, the way some posters go on, you'd swear they had fought the Tans. :D

Eh.....that’s not what I meant at all and if you’d read my whole comment you’d know that.

I was simply making the point that we might think differently about our stances if we had lived in those times and been on the receiving end of the Black and Tans brutality. And that the fact that we aren’t allows us to view the whole thing more objectively and reasonably.

tomwaterford

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I wouldn’t call it beating them so much as calling a truce.

They couldn't beat the ira....If they could,they would



Afaik ireland and America remain the only countries to break by force from the British empire

AudreyHepburn

tomwaterford wrote: »

They couldn't beat the ira....If they could,they would



Afaik ireland and America remain the only countries to break by force from the British empire

Not with the relatively small force they had placed here no. But if we hadn’t agreed to the Treaty I think we all agree they would sent much larger and stronger force over that would have had little trouble beating us.

Mooooo

It's grand to look back and think what side you would take but unless you are living in the situation you can't really know. Given where I'm from would have been most likely anti. Throughout history wherever empires occupied or attempted to occupy and then left or pulled out of, they left the countries and areas in ****, the French, dutch, Spanish and most definitely the brits

SafeSurfer

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

DeValera sent Collins & Co over there knowing full well that concessions would have to be made.

He knew exactly what would happen and how it would divide the country and how it would impact on the career and life of his rival.

The Irish delegates had committed to seeking cabinet approval before signing any agreement.
Collins wasn't even the head of the delegation.
An alternative view is that Collins was eager to sign, he was the the second to commit to signing after Griffiths. He was eager to sign because he could be seen to have made the "most important breakthrough in Anglo-Irish relations in 800 years". The mood in London among the Irish community was one of jubilation. The delegates were mobbed at Euston station on their way home.
The reception on arrive in Dun Laoighire was much more muted with some republicans expecting the delegates to be arrested as soon as they stepped off the mail boat.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Irish delegates had committed to seeking cabinet approval before signing any agreement.
Collins wasn't even the head of the delegation.
An alternative view is that Collins was eager to sign, he was the the second to commit to signing after Griffiths. He was eager to sign because he could be seen to have made the "most important breakthrough in Anglo-Irish relations in 800 years". The mood in London among the Irish community was one of jubilation. The delegates were mobbed at Euston station on their way home.
The reception on arrive in Dun Laoighire was much more muted with some republicans expecting the delegates to be arrested as soon as they stepped off the mail boat.

The view of McEntee who attended was that the delegation in effect cracked up under the pressure, Collins and others were drinking heavily that week. Some of the delegates had serious concerns about signing without authority, though Collins later claimed he was authorised to do so. Whether he was or wasn't, it was remarkable that they didn't revert, the mere fact that they later spoke of the threats by Lloyd George suggests that they themselves accepted it wasn't the optimum deal.

shaunr68

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, name an empire that didn't behave that way?

The French mistreated all natives in their colonies. So too did the Belgians. The Chinese exterminated huge numbers of 'inferior' peoples.

I wouldn't be seeking to defend the British Empire for anything it did, but it followed the nature of the powerful.

Times have changed in Western civilisations, and while we no longer have these kinds of systems, we still have plenty of abuses that can be laid at the feet of the powerful nations. The US? Invasions aplenty, poor management of occupied territories with civilians taking the fire, and Guantanamo Bay where peoples rights are suspended through manipulations of the laws they tried pushing on others.

It's just that most modern countries aren't that powerful anymore.

Well said. Going off topic a bit but if Ireland had been an independent nation during the early modern period, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine an Irish Empire. Much like some of the smaller European nations - the Dutch, Belgians or Portuguese who were all imperial powers. Ireland is in an ideal position for a maritime power. Who knows, perhaps Brazil would be Irish-speaking now, the most famous of their green-jersey wearing GAA players named Eamonn Di Nascimento, born Tipperary, Brazil in 1940. Otherwise known as "O'Pele".

Atoms for Peace

If I had been around then definitely anti-treaty but with hindsight Id have nothing to do with it as Dev was a **** who when he got into power was even more reactionary than the preceding CnaG governments who economically quite progressive.
It also served to eliminate whatever true revolutionaries remained from 1916 and the war of independence.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the stock thought when you were being oppressed should have been 'Sure all them Empires are like that, I will just put up with it?' :rolleyes:

Hardly related to what I responded to. This wasn't about the reasons to fight... but rather this narrow focus on the British as being the fountain of all bad/evil in the world.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly related to what I responded to. This wasn't about the reasons to fight... but rather this narrow focus on the British as being the fountain of all bad/evil in the world.

Who said they were the fountain of 'all' the evil?

Ulysses Gaze

The side that was against George De Valero.

miss flutter ups

Free stater all the way. I really think the civil war was the most tragic event in Ireland. I believe Collins would have been an excellent leader.

mikemac2

Lloyd George the welsh nationalist who defied a Church of England rector during a school inspection as a child and took on the COE again as a young solicitor over burial rights for non conformists and won. First language was welsh, you’d suspect he would know something about English domination in the UK and battling the Conservative & Unionist party

Nope, first sent the black & tans and threatened war to the Irish negotiators.
Taff scumbag

Roadtoad

I'd have signed up with the William Martin Murphy faction, a rolled up newspaper, a few large bottles and the 32 counties!

storker

shaunr68 wrote: »

Who knows, perhaps Brazil would be Irish-speaking now, the most famous of their green-jersey wearing GAA players named Eamonn Di Nascimento, born Tipperary, Brazil in 1940. Otherwise known as "O'Pele".

Alas...