Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe we have somebody defending the Ireland of the 1930s as a good thing. De Valera was an absolute disaster for the country. Like all exclusionary nationalists he did more damage to his own people than to anyone else.

I hate when I agree with you on non-Dublin GAA or anti-FF matters.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe we have somebody defending the Ireland of the 1930s as a good thing. De Valera was an absolute disaster for the country. Like all exclusionary nationalists he did more damage to his own people than to anyone else.

I didn't defend it. I actually said it was a double edged sword. In a historical context though we can see how DeValera and Lemass created the circumstances for the economic booms of the 60's and the moderinisation of Ireland, leading to us (being capable of) joining the EEC and etc etc. We can also see who was trying to hold us back and keep us under the negative influence and reliance on Britain.

Yes they got some things terribly and tragically wrong too.

saabsaab

Ulster views on a UI in 1965. Seems that the all pervasive power of the RC church was a big factor in how the republic was viewed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujPmomkHMr4

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I hate when I agree with you on non-Dublin GAA or anti-FF matters.

Sorry about that. :D

Fritzbox

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe we have somebody defending the Ireland of the 1930s as a good thing. De Valera was an absolute disaster for the country. Like all exclusionary nationalists he did more damage to his own people than to anyone else.

In what way was Ireland of the 1930s any worse than the Ireland 10, 20, 30, or 100 years before? I don't think Ireland was any bigger a disaster in the 1930s than previously, was it?
How can you be so certain that life could have been better in the Irish Free State if things were "different"?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't defend it. I actually said it was a double edged sword. In a historical context though we can see how DeValera and Lemass created the circumstances for the economic booms of the 60's and the moderinisation of Ireland, leading to us (being capable of) joining the EEC and etc etc. We can also see who was trying to hold us back and keep us under the negative influence and reliance on Britain.

Yes they got some things terribly and tragically wrong too.

If you mean they created the circumstances for a modern Ireland in that they went so far down the wrong path from the 1930s to the 1950s that the only option was a complete u-turn on everything that they had did, then yes, you are correct.

However, the economic boom had nothing to do with DeValera who was gone, and little to with Lemass other than he listened to the most influential civil servant in our history. Even then, Lemass continued to make mistakes, ignoring the Buchannan Report which could have seen real regional development.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If you mean they created the circumstances for a modern Ireland in that they went so far down the wrong path from the 1930s to the 1950s that the only option was a complete u-turn on everything that they had did, then yes, you are correct.

However, the economic boom had nothing to do with DeValera who was gone, and little to with Lemass other than he listened to the most influential civil servant in our history. Even then, Lemass continued to make mistakes, ignoring the Buchannan Report which could have seen real regional development.

Which misses the point of what I said and ignores that I also said, they didn't get everything right.
Not hard to see you haven't gotten over the civil war yet with the anti anything FF did stuff. A bit sad at this stage.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which misses the point of what I said and ignores that I also said, they didn't get everything right.
Not hard to see you haven't gotten over the civil war yet with the anti anything FF did stuff. A bit sad at this stage.

You run out of arguments and throw a Civil War insult at me.

Any economic history of Ireland that you read will tell you that DeValera and his economic war was a disaster for this country and that his introverted exclusionary nationalist ideology was a disaster too. It was only when a complete u-turn took place on his removal from office that this country developed in any way.

De Valera didn't get anything right, even perceived successes like rural electrification only perpetuated the unsustainable planning mode and caused long-term damage.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You run out of arguments and throw a Civil War insult at me.

Are you not engaging in 'everything FF is bad'?

Any economic history of Ireland that you read will tell you that DeValera and his economic war was a disaster for this country and that his introverted exclusionary nationalist ideology was a disaster too. It was only when a complete u-turn took place on his removal from office that this country developed in any way.

De Valera didn't get anything right, even perceived successes like rural electrification only perpetuated the unsustainable planning mode and caused long-term damage.

What bits of 'it was a mess' 'it was a social disaster for those affected' 'it was a double edged sword' in terms of what it achieved DID YOU MISS?

You have taken insult at somebody daring to see some good in what DeValera and Lemass did.(Classic Civil War politics stance) The results were a benefit to this country and started the vital and essential decoupling from and dependence on the British market and influence that continues to this day.

saabsaab

blanch152 wrote: »

You run out of arguments and throw a Civil War insult at me.

Any economic history of Ireland that you read will tell you that DeValera and his economic war was a disaster for this country and that his introverted exclusionary nationalist ideology was a disaster too. It was only when a complete u-turn took place on his removal from office that this country developed in any way.

De Valera didn't get anything right, even perceived successes like rural electrification only perpetuated the unsustainable planning mode and caused long-term damage.

De Valera has been much maligned. He made sure that the state was seen as truly independent in the thirties and during the war and embarked on a social housing programme. If he wasn't there we would have been in WW2. What would this mean? 20,000 Irish men killed eastern cities and ports bombed and maybe shorten the was by a few hours or days? I agree he should have gone/been replaced by 1950 as he had done his time.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you not engaging in 'everything FF is bad'?




What bits of 'it was a mess' 'it was a social disaster for those affected' 'it was a double edged sword' in terms of what it achieved DID YOU MISS?

You have taken insult at somebody daring to see some good in what DeValera and Lemass did.(Classic Civil War politics stance) The results were a benefit to this country and started the vital and essential decoupling from and dependence on the British market and influence that continues to this day.

I am not anti-FF.

Lemass turned things around, Albert Reynolds got the IRA to stop killing people, Ray MacSharry was among the best Finance Ministers we have had. Lemass listened to T.K.Whitaker, those were all achievements of Fianna Fail, and I have no problem acknowledging them. However, DeValera's Ireland was a dark dismal place with few if any redeeming qualities.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not anti-FF.

Lemass turned things around, Albert Reynolds got the IRA to stop killing people, Ray MacSharry was among the best Finance Ministers we have had. Lemass listened to T.K.Whitaker, those were all achievements of Fianna Fail, and I have no problem acknowledging them. However, DeValera's Ireland was a dark dismal place with few if any redeeming qualities.

Britain of the same era was a dark dismal place if you happened to be in certain places or of a certain class, as was much of Europe. DeValera's Ireland was subject to the same post war strictures.

It would be wrong to say that it was all bad though. Some perspective is required.

Natterjack from Kerry

saabsaab wrote: »

If he wasn't there we would have been in WW2.

Like any nation with any backbone did. Instead, he led the inward cowardice of the country. Independence wasnt 20 years old and already, the so called brave revolutionaries and 'heroes' and no interest in standing with the truly good and courageous countries in the fight against evil. Probably the most shameful even in the history of Ireland. Northern Ireland in contrast, played their part.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Like any nation with any backbone did. Instead, he led the inward cowardice of the country. Independence wasnt 20 years old and already, the so called brave revolutionaries and 'heroes' and no interest in standing with the truly good and courageous countries in the fight against evil. Probably the most shameful even in the history of Ireland. Northern Ireland in contrast, played their part.

If the 'truly good and courageous' would stop starting these wars that'd be a help. I think we sacrificed enough men and women to them over the years.

Dyr

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I hate when I agree with you on non-Dublin GAA or anti-FF matters.

Dev, for all his faults, did a lot to undo the damage that Cosgrave and his pals did to ordinary people, there was a reason FF were relected again and again under him.

Junkyard Tom

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

bla bla bla bla cowardice bla bla bla 'heroes' bla bla bla truly good bla bla bla courageous bla bla bla evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkcbODygOV8

downcow

blanch152 wrote: »

1950s Ireland somewhat of a mess? Just look at the Mother and Baby Home's report if you think that just somewhat of a mess. Just look at the emigration statistics if you think that was just somewhat of a mess.

The current government must be a huge success if the government of DeValera only created somewhat of a mess.

Francie and his mates wouldn’t have a problem with the mother and baby disgrace. Sure there were loads of mothers and baby’s being treated very well in the leafy suburbs.
These guys only need to find a few treated well as concrete evidence that they were all treated well

maccored

downcow wrote: »

Francie and his mates wouldn’t have a problem with the mother and baby disgrace. Sure there were loads of mothers and baby’s being treated very well in the leafy suburbs.
These guys only need to find a few treated well as concrete evidence that they were all treated well

Any chance you could define what you mean? Are you saying francie supports the mothers and baby disgrace? Are you insinuating republicans would be proud of it? What exactly is it you are trying to insinuate?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie and his mates wouldn’t have a problem with the mother and baby disgrace. Sure there were loads of mothers and baby’s being treated very well in the leafy suburbs.
These guys only need to find a few treated well as concrete evidence that they were all treated well

I see from Arlene's announcement of inquiries that you won't be able to look down your nose on that issue.

downcow

saabsaab wrote: »

Ulster views on a UI in 1965. Seems that the all pervasive power of the RC church was a big factor in how the republic was viewed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujPmomkHMr4

Thanks for that. A great wee insight into some thinking

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkcbODygOV8

Not Mandelas best moment. Unthoughtthrough

downcow

maccored wrote: »

Any chance you could define what you mean? Are you saying francie supports the mothers and baby disgrace? Are you insinuating republicans would be proud of it? What exactly is it you are trying to insinuate?

I am referring to the numerous posts hailing the treatment and position of the Anglican aristocracy in Ireland as evidence that ordinary Protestants were not discriminated against

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am referring to the numerous posts hailing the treatment and position of the Anglican aristocracy in Ireland as evidence that ordinary Protestants were not discriminated against

I married one downcow and live with 3 everyday and night of the week. The only discrimination goes on here is who gets the last chocolate Kimberly.

You got owned the last time you went on about the myths about discrimination on this site. A glutton for punishment.

Start re-reading from around post #8363 in this thread, https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113406183#post113406183 it would save us all a lot of time going through it all again.

Ten of Swords

downcow do not post in this thread again

Natterjack from Kerry

It is with regret that I too must resign from this thread, and leave to its fate as an amplifying feedback loop of republican delusion.

blanch152

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Like any nation with any backbone did. Instead, he led the inward cowardice of the country. Independence wasnt 20 years old and already, the so called brave revolutionaries and 'heroes' and no interest in standing with the truly good and courageous countries in the fight against evil. Probably the most shameful even in the history of Ireland. Northern Ireland in contrast, played their part.

I have to agree with you on this.

Ireland has nothing to be proud about when it comes to WW2. It was a shameful time in our history. Standing by and allowing evil to flourish is not what neutrality is about. Another black mark against DeValera.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have to agree with you on this.

Ireland has nothing to be proud about when it comes to WW2. It was a shameful time in our history. Standing by and allowing evil to flourish is not what neutrality is about. Another black mark against DeValera.

Allowing your country to be impoverished, be possibly attacked and sublimated, especially when it is a fledgling nation is what the first priority should have been.

I thought he did what any leader should do and it took a lot of bravery. Nobody who wanted to fight was hindered and e helped in other ways too. Have some pride in a courageous decision.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

I have to agree with you on this.

Ireland has nothing to be proud about when it comes to WW2. It was a shameful time in our history. Standing by and allowing evil to flourish is not what neutrality is about. Another black mark against DeValera.

We were neutral (on the side of the Allies).

The Donegal Corridor and Allied escapees says it all really.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Allowing your country to be impoverished, be possibly attacked and sublimated, especially when it is a fledgling nation is what the first priority should have been.

I thought he did what any leader should do and it took a lot of bravery. Nobody who wanted to fight was hindered and e helped in other ways too. Have some pride in a courageous decision.

He caused our country to be impoverished.

The population of Ireland in 1922 was 3.07m. Under DeValera it fell to 2.85m, 200,000 less. I don't think we would have lost that many in WW2.

So many people lost to emigration and died early because of poverty. It took until the early 1970s for the population to go back above 3m. All because of a stupid exclusionary nationalist ideology pursued by DeValera.

We cowardly ran away from the fight against the Nazis. A shameful time for Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He caused our country to be impoverished.

The population of Ireland in 1922 was 3.07m. Under DeValera it fell to 2.85m, 200,000 less. I don't think we would have lost that many in WW2.

So many people lost to emigration and died early because of poverty. It took until the early 1970s for the population to go back above 3m. All because of a stupid exclusionary nationalist ideology pursued by DeValera.

We cowardly ran away from the fight against the Nazis. A shameful time for Ireland.

Typical Civil War politics view.

Much more nuanced when you move outside that old bitter in fighting.
Ferriter and McCullagh and even Roy Foster would see it as a more conplex and nuanced history.