Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

contradictions between allies in the war of independence

  • 22-07-2010 11:02pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭


    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.


«13

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »
    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.

    The IRA are officially non sectarian. Just like many Cuban communists are officially atheists but in reality devout Catholics. Many commies will never be able to accept the 'religion is the opiate of the masses' line...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    The IRA are officially non sectarian. Just like many Cuban communists are officially atheists but in reality devout Catholics. Many commies will never be able to accept the 'religion is the opiate of the masses' line...

    So whats the deal on their ideology. Its like they have two opposite ideas in your mind at the same time.

    I just wonder if there was a rift somewhere within the repubican movement at that time which may explain some of the issues.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.

    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.

    Thats an interesting insight. The IRA are officially non sectarian and I always find it interesting to read or hear when senior Republicans of either the mainstream or dissident bent praise men like Henry Joy McCracken (Presbyterian) or Wolfe Tone (Anglican) for wishing to united 'Catholic, Protestant and dissenter and make an Irishman' (Or something to that effect, a direct quote from Tone's speech from the dock) The origins of Irish Republicanism can mainly be attributed to Protestants and Presbyterians and it emerged in the context of American and European Republicanism which was officially secular and non religious.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.

    Certainly my grandfather had huge differences with former comrades locally in Cork until he died.

    Religion wasn't so much an issue in West Cork (between republicans) but sectarianism but it became a huge issue,Sam Maguire etc.

    I have always wondered how the labour activists/marxists fitted in. My grandfather was not Marxist. He was a Republican but his outlook would have been free market and democratic.

    You seem to have different struggles in different areas.

    So when you look at Belfast and West Cork - Smyths assasination caused retailiation/repercussions as would Dunmanway subsequently.

    Add that to the Trade Union Movement/ Marxist wing and you have a very loose coalition rather than a unified ideology.

    There was more than a free democratic Ireland at play -you had agrarian politics, industrial society politics, sectarian politics and guns. A bit more tribal than a cohesive unified movement.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    So when you look at Belfast and West Cork - Smyths assasination caused retailiation/repercussions as would Dunmanway subsequently.

    Add that to the Trade Union Movement/ Marxist wing and you have a very loose coalition rather than a unified ideology.

    There was more than a free democratic Ireland at play -you had agrarian politics, industrial society politics, sectarian politics and guns. A bit more tribal than a cohesive unified movement.

    Issues of class are often overlooked when it comes to studying the war of Independence. We had the Limerick Soviet, rural land grabs and the mass of the soldiers were from poor, often labouring families.

    In contrast, the political leadership at both high military and Dáil level were almost exclusively middle class. In many ways the much acclaimed Dáil courts were useful in reaffirming property rights, and punishing land grabbers in the west.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    You seem to have different struggles in different areas.

    You have to remember that when historians write they think in grand narratives generally speaking, and often tie together loose ends to make it appear as if a unified whole existed. The war of independence was much more roughshod than that. However I agree with Morlar that we should go back on topic, I might split this stuff off in a minute.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    Issues of class are often overlooked when it comes to studying the war of Independence. We had the Limerick Soviet, rural land grabs and the mass of the soldiers were from poor, often labouring families.

    Yes indeed.

    The vision of what would happen was different & there was a huge disparity between the aspirations of the participants.

    I often think that the reprisals/repercussions on other groups were ignored.


    In contrast, the political leadership at both high military and Dáil level were almost exclusively middle class. In many ways the much acclaimed Dáil courts were useful in reaffirming property rights, and punishing land grabbers in the west.

    And didnt you have various political groupings surfacing continually.

    The remnants of the Home Rule Party and even farners candidates all with differing agenda's/

    Pre 1918 Parties

    All-for-Ireland League · Catholic Union · Home Government Association · Home Rule League · Independent Irish Party · Irish Conservative Party · Irish Liberal Party · Irish Metropolitan Conservative Society · Irish National Federation · Irish National League · Irish Parliamentary Party · Irish Patriot Party · Irish Socialist Republican Party · Irish Unionist Alliance · National Association · Repeal Association · United Irish League

    Post 1918 Parties

    Post 1918Ailtirí na hAiséirghe · Aontacht Éireann · British and Irish Communist Organisation · Business and Professional Group · Christian Centrist Party · Clann Éireann · Clann na Poblachta · Clann na Talmhan · Córas na Poblachta · Cumann na nGaedhael · Cumann na Poblachta · Cumann Poblachta na hÉireann · Democratic Left · Democratic Socialist Party · Donegal Progressive Party · Farmers' Party · Independent Fianna Fáil · Irish Anti-Partition League · Irish Independence Party · Irish Workers' Group · Irish Worker League · League for a Workers Republic · Libertas · Monetary Reform Party · Muintir na hÉireann · National Centre Party · National Corporate Party · National Labour Party · National League Party · National Party (1924) · National Party (1995) · National Progressive Democrats · Poblacht Chríostúil · Progressive Democrats · Republican Congress · Saor Éire · Socialist Labour Party · Socialist Party of Ireland · Workers League





    Some political Stats 1922 to mid 1940's

    This references a 1922 Collins/DeValera Electoral Pact too. A bit cosy.

    http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/IrEls2244SamplePages1.pdf


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    You have to remember that when historians write they think in grand narratives generally speaking, and often tie together loose ends to make it appear as if a unified whole existed. The war of independence was much more roughshod than that. However I agree with Morlar that we should go back on topic, I might split this stuff off in a minute.

    Grand narratives is a great turn of phrase. Lets set the tone.

    The 1916 Rising used the Irish Volunteers and wasn't Eoin NcNeill shown a forged letter by IRB people concerning the supposed arrest of him and other nationalist leaders to gain his co-operation. He recinded his order for "manoeures" only following Casements arrest.

    As it happens the IRB were also in league with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army. How Marxist was their ideology.

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Were there regional/local groups too or how did these alliances work ? You had a Soviet declared in Limerick ,for instsnce, where did you have the concentration of activists geographically.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Were there regional/local groups too or how did these alliances work ? You had a Soviet declared in Limerick ,for instsnce, where did you have the concentration of activists geographically.

    The war was fought on a regional/local basis. Its the only way the war can be understood and its the main reason there have been so few satisfactory narrative accounts of the war in total. The volunteers swore allegiance to the centre (ie, the Dáil) but only after much prevarication. I'd struggle to call the war of independence a national war. It relied for the most part on good local leaders. For example the only reason longford was a hotspot was because of Seán MacEoin - After his arrest Collins exclaimed that only Cork was left in the struggle.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    Grand narratives is a great turn of phrase. Lets set the tone.

    The 1916 Rising used the Irish Volunteers and wasn't Eoin NcNeill shown a forged letter by IRB people concerning the supposed arrest of him and other nationalist leaders to gain his co-operation. He recinded his order for "manoeures" only following Casements arrest.

    As it happens the IRB were also in league with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army. How Marxist was their ideology.

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Connolly and the ICA were very Marxist, although Connolly had a unique way of writing/talking that was Marxist without ever referencing the terms and phrases you might find in an academic paper on the topic.

    A number of the 1916 leaders were left leaning (eg Mellowes) but how close they were to Connolly is up for debate. Connolly often lectured the IVF on warfare, and was in contact with members of the IRB for years before the Rising, so although they were each distinct factions, the 1916 rising is possibly the movement where they were closest together.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    And afterwards?


    West Cork seems to have been the only place that had its act together.
    :D

    Votes cast
    Out of a valid poll of 620,283 votes, the pro-Treaty part of the Sinn Féin party won 239,193 votes and their anti-Treaty rivals secured 133,864 votes. The other parties and independents (see above) all supported the Treaty and secured a further 247,226 votes.[3]
    The vote was seen as significant in several ways:
    • The pro-Treaty parties had secured support from over 75% of the electorate on the eve of the Irish Civil War.
    • The non-Sinn Féin parties had support from over 40% of the electorate, showing that a significant part disapproved of the military and political events since the election in 1921, where the Sinn Féin candidates had swept the board unopposed.
    Further, the anti-Treaty candidates had taken part in an election that was required under the articles of the Treaty, even though they had argued that it was completely flawed. Their opponents argued that this revealed that their anti-Treaty stance was opportunist, and not principled.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
    In that the anti-Treaty forces wanted to establish an all-Ireland republic, this election result when considered with the 1921 result in Northern Ireland shows that the anti-Treaty party had an enormous uphill struggle to achieve their constitutional aim.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1922#Votes_cast

    The 1921 Northern Ireland Result
    <H2>General Election Results

    1921: Electorate 582,464; Turnout 88.0%

    Sinn Fein 20.5%




    http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/totals.html
    </H2>
    So there was less than an enthusiastic national support and on an Island level the Anti Treaty side definately did not have anything like an elecoral mandate.

    Add to this the Collins/DeValera Pact they seem as representative as Gaelic High Kings.Without the pact you could have seen a substantially different political landscape.

    Now my bunch as rural farmers and the like were stuck in the Middle of the Republican side.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    And afterwards?

    A lot of the leaders died....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A lot of the leaders died....

    Some great narrative there :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Denerick wrote: »
    The war was fought on a regional/local basis. Its the only way the war can be understood and its the main reason there have been so few satisfactory narrative accounts of the war in total. The volunteers swore allegiance to the centre (ie, the Dáil) but only after much prevarication. I'd struggle to call the war of independence a national war. It relied for the most part on good local leaders. For example the only reason longford was a hotspot was because of Seán MacEoin - After his arrest Collins exclaimed that only Cork was left in the struggle.
    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.

    I imagine what it refers to is West Cork being the only region where the British did not have effective military control and in that sense it was the polar opposite of Derry for instance.

    So it is concieveable that he expressed that point of view from a military perspective and I am sure I have read something similar. At the time of the Treaty he gave the Republicans around 2 weeks against any sustained British pressure -so he was occassionally prudent if not downright pessimistic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Activity in different areas differed greatly, Take Waterford as an example. The West Waterford brigade was relativly active, but not as active as East Cork. East Waterford on the other hand was about as active as Llyod George's back garden.

    Brigades were extreamily independant and rarely worked together on operations and friction could often be caused when a column from one brigade area strayed into another brigades area.

    Iv heared that a slogan at the time was 'Labour must wait'
    ie the labour qustion would only be looked at after freedom was achieved.
    Never said how long the wait would be though:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    CDfm wrote: »
    I imagine what it refers to is West Cork being the only region where the British did not have effective military control and in that sense it was the polar opposite of Derry for instance.

    So it is concieveable that he expressed that point of view from a military perspective and I am sure I have read something similar. At the time of the Treaty he gave the Republicans around 2 weeks against any sustained British pressure -so he was occassionally prudent if not downright pessimistic.
    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.

    I accept that.

    But he was reflecting on its capacity to survive a sustained military campaign. He was facing the real possibilty of achieving his political objective and in military terms hadnt a snowballs of an actual military victory in the conventional sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    I think thats a good point, anything i'v read from the field comanders suggests that they were suprised when the truce came, most believed that it would only last a week or two. George Lennon the west waterford column comander felt that just before the truce things had been going well and that the IRA had never been stronger.

    I have even read some extracts from the the Chief of the imperial staff that said that he felt that if the British sident break the IRA in the summer of 21 then it would prove almoast impossible to do so.
    Llyod George threatened instant and terrible war and to flood Ireland with troops. I think Collins feard that everything that had been achieved so far would be lost and felt that Freedom could still be achieved through the treaty and that it was therefore the safer bet.

    However from what I have seen from the comander of the British forces writings it seams that it would have been very dificult for them to have deployed that many troops to Ireland concidering their world wide commitments.

    Hmm I seamed to have wandered a bit off topic:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.

    I have read the memoirs of the above three and they suffered badly from selective memory disorder.

    Tom Barry oversaw one of the strongest IRA units of the war while Dan Breen wasn't nearly as influential as he portrayed himself in his memoir. Besides, Seán MacEoin and Michael Brennan among others were arguing the case that the IRA couldn't survive a sustained assault from the British army, especially not 100,000 troops when they had 50 men per bullet across the country.

    Michael Collins did say something like the above. He wasn't speaking literally, but it is a good example of how important local leaders were to a national struggle.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.

    These two counties were almost non existant during the war.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Well fair enough The odds were bad alright but I think the figure I saw for the number of British troops in Ireland at the time of the truce was around 80,000 and at this time the IRA were stil able to function.

    Its true the British had started to implement new tactics such as the deployment of their own columns and large area round ups but the war ended before the effictiveness of these could be seen.

    As for the arms suition there was evedience that this would have improved if the war had continued as there was an arms shipment planned, in the event this was brought in dureing the truce.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Well fair enough The odds were bad alright but I think the figure I saw for the number of British troops in Ireland at the time of the truce was around 80,000 and at this time the IRA were stil able to function.

    Now imagine those numbers were more than doubled. There is significant statistical evidence that suggests that while 1920 saw the most amount of succesful IRA engagements (ie, the IRA ended up killing somebody) 1921 saw the biggest amount of engagements without any casualties - ie, the number of manoeuvres increased without a concurrent increase in casualties inflicted.

    What the IRA achieved was remarkable. (and there is good reason why Tom Barry's 'Guerrila Days in Ireland' is required reading at Westpoint) They maintained de facto control of large parts of Munster and were King at night time in many rural areas. They forced a retreat of the RIC from rural police outposts. They made it practically impossible for the British Empire to function in large parts of the country due to sabotage of telgraphs, post etc. The Dáil courts destroyed the fundamental power of the law and hence stripped British authority down to its marrow. But I highly doubt they could have continued for much longer. Certainly not to the same extent.
    As for the arms suition there was evedience that this would have improved if the war had continued as there was an arms shipment planned, in the event this was brought in dureing the truce.

    I don't know where you are getting this from. There was little over 3,000 rifles in Ireland at the time and as I have already said, 1 bullet per 50 volunteers (Which suggests that the vast majority of units had absolutely no ammunition - even the best armed, such as Tom Barry's, had only 40 or 50 rounds at any time) The IRA were far from being well armed and there is little evidence to suggest they were capable of a large scale arms import. By God, they did try though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Several sources, Of course the arms issue was critical, I am not denying that. In tom barrys book he says that there was a meeting between the 1st sotherens brigade comanders. one of the tings discuessed was plans to import arms. This was carried out during the truce. In dunmore east as far as I can remember. I read about the actual event in Rebel hart by terence o'reilly about George Lennon.

    Tom barry said that there was 50 rounds per man in the column which would add up to about 5000 for the west cork brigade.
    I thing we can assume that most other brigades would have had less.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm



    However from what I have seen from the comander of the British forces writings it seams that it would have been very dificult for them to have deployed that many troops to Ireland concidering their world wide commitments.

    Hmm I seamed to have wandered a bit off topic:eek:

    Wander away deise - I usually muse on things that do not make sense to me. It put things in context and gives us a feel for the period.

    It also gives us an idea of the type of men we were dealing with.

    I didnt know that Connolly lectured to the IVF and that his technique was not to mention Marxism.

    One of the planks of Unionism at that time was economic ties with the empire and shipbuilding etc.

    There does not seem to have been much thought going on into the economics of the free state.What were we talking about in terrms economic policy that may have aggravated unionists?

    Were there any guarantees on private property etc given as part of the treaty.

    The Unionists were unified.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    There does not seem to have been much thought going on into the economics of the free state.What were we talking about in terrms economic policy that may have aggravated unionists?

    Were there any guarantees on private property etc given as part of the treaty.

    The Unionists were unified.

    Outside of the left, there was minimal economic understanding in Republican ranks. Pearse never really thought about economic policy and even our more adept minds (Like Arthur Griffith) believed that Ireland could be an industrial power and sustain 20 million people. he didn't really outline how. Its safe to say the young men involved in the revolutionary project didn't exactly have economics on mind.

    Age itself is an important contrast. Whereas most members of the first Free State cabinet were under 40 most members (If not all) of the first Northern cabinet were over 40. Don't underestimate the relevance of this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    that was a hallmark of the time, think of the jarrow march, goverments dident really see that they had a big role to play in economics other than tarrifs and taxes.:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    that was a hallmark of the time, think of the jarrow march, goverments dident really see that they had a big role to play in economics other than tarrifs and taxes.:rolleyes:

    Aha,but the Northern Unionists did appreciate where the money came from and I imagine this bit is underestimated.

    The Home Rule Party may also have been more business friendly as you were talking about a small agrarian economy with no natural resourses.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    There were plans. You can read Michael Collins' economic plans for the new Irish state in "A Path to Freedom" which outlines how he saw the Irish economy developing and his suggestions on what structural and economic developments ought to the priorities of the new Irish government.


Advertisement