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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    But Marchdub what do you understand them to be and were they enacted.

    We can summarize Unionism in 3 simple ideals

    - self determination by unionists in ulster
    - economic ties with Britain and its empire
    - political independence from "Rome" ie Protestant Positive Discrimination.

    Those policies were pursued

    We cant summarise Nationalism that way or even say if Collins plans were adoopted

    - we can say the 30's economic war with Britain was a major event
    - the Marshall Plan & Lemasses leadership the second event

    So what was the deal.

    EDIT-its an observation and probably a weakness we as a country have inherited of no clear economic ideology & this is cross parties. So I am not picking on it. We also have criticism of SF now for not having clear economic policies -but other parties didn't "get" the risks of joining the euro.Whoever is in power we get a bumpy ride and it is a legacy.

    Here is an interesting paper on Collins as Minister of Finance and the parts of the Treaty concerning debt to thr British and financial obligations under the Treaty.

    You also have the National Loan issue of 1919

    http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/research/workingpaperseries/downloads/DocumentFile,20726,en.pdf

    Some nice detail like and Collins grasp of finance & organisation.
    On 23rd September 1920, less than 2 months before ‘Bloody
    Sunday’, many of the British officers that were to be killed on ‘Bloody Sunday’ shot
    John Lynch from Kilmallock, County Limerick in the Exchange Hotel in Dublin.
    Lynch was the local Sinn Fein organiser of a loan and was in Dublin to hand over
    £23,000 in subscriptions to Collins (Coogan 1991:157-8).

    A nice e book link here by Tim Pat Coogan here on his ideology start 421- 433 and also how he saw links with Britain & NI and his relationship building. It is very anecdotal like what happened his bed etc after assasination. ( coogan is a collins groupie-so see collins good dev bad for what it is)

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=xscRAhBt2JgC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=michael+collins+economic+plans&source=bl&ots=8p66s9mS1T&sig=FTDLGitwZXaFcTQIPqaGixFy3Yw&hl=en&ei=YLdKTIrFIYui0gTPkayFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=michael%20collins%20economic%20plans&f=false


  • Options
    #33
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    It's historically incorrect to say there were no economic plans among the nationalists. This is what I was directly answering. The title I mentioned is a collection of essays BY Michale Collins in which he outlines his economic plans. It's a primary source, not a secondary source.


    Its also historically incorrect to say that there was no economic ideology in the early state. De Valera was a Keynesian. We have already discussed the economy under De Valera in a previous thread.


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62941918&postcount=57


  • Options
    #34
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I didn't say there was no economic nous amongst the leaders, but instead that economics was hardly on the mind. There is a big difference. For men like Séan Lemass, independence was important mainly in the sense that Ireland could set her own economic policy. But he was the exception.


  • Options
    #35
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    It's historically incorrect to say there were no economic plans among the nationalists. This is what I was directly answering. The title I mentioned is a collection of essays BY Michale Collins in which he outlines his economic plans. It's a primary source, not a secondary source.

    Ah yes but Collins was probably the only one who had a vision of it and a grasp of it. Having worked in London including in a stockbrokers,post office, and labour exchange he had an appreciation of it. Still only 31 when he died.

    Its also historically incorrect to say that there was no economic ideology in the early state. De Valera was a Keynesian. We have already discussed the economy under De Valera in a previous thread.


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62941918&postcount=57

    But Keynes didn't publish his major opus until 1936 in response to the Great Depression. And, with the Economic War with Britain after doing its additional damage.His heart ruled his head.

    So Dev was Keynsian after the fact.


  • Options
    #36
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    I didn't say there was no economic nous amongst the leaders, but instead that economics was hardly on the mind. There is a big difference. For men like Séan Lemass, independence was important mainly in the sense that Ireland could set her own economic policy. But he was the exception.

    Yes, and Lemass was not the chief .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Another example is Arthur Griffith, an avowed protectionist. The first free State Cosgrave government was in favour of free trade, with the exception of the first minister for agriculture, who was a sworn protectionist (Patrick Hogan)

    Before Keynes, the major economic division was between protectionism and free trade. Socialism was another kettle of fish. It is perfectly fair to say that Irish rebels cared little for economic issues.


  • Options
    #38
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Denerick wrote: »
    These two counties were almost non existant during the war.
    :D But according to him only two men were respondcible for 1919 - 1921, Collins and McEoin :D


  • Options
    #39
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Ah yes but Collins was probably the only one who had a vision of it and a grasp of it. Having worked in London including in a stockbrokers,post office, and labour exchange he had an appreciation of it. Still only 31 when he died.




    But Keynes didn't publish his major opus until 1936 in response to the Great Depression. And, with the Economic War with Britain after doing its additional damage.His heart ruled his head.

    So Dev was Keynsian after the fact.

    Keynes was an established economist well before the date you give. In fact he was one of the saner voices on economics in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. His theories were well known for years. He gave a lecture in Dublin in April 1933 in which he praised De Valera and the Irish State's attempts at self sufficiency.


  • Options
    #40
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Or course unionist leaders argued that an Independant Ireland would lead to economic devestation in ulster. They wanted to play on the fears of the working prodstents, The republicians made the argument that the link with Britain was responciple for the economic backwardness of the south.

    Yes leading republicans did have some plans for the economic future of the country, However economics was not a central issue then as it is now. More support could be won by quoting Tone than economic policy.


  • Options
    #41
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Wouldn't some such as Liam Mellowes and Peader O'Donnell* have had left wing views ? Liam Mellowes in particuliar would have believed in carrying the aims of Connolly ?

    But it's probably the norm that individuals in a national liberation movement would have different views, not just on economics but laws on morality ( the hard drinking stud Collins verses Dev been a fine example !! ), education etc.

    For that matter the allies in WW2 are protrayed as a " we're all in this equally together " but the bitching between the American army and the British such as Mountgommery's comments on the American defence of Bastogne often caused quite a lot of friction between the two.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peadar_O'Donnell


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    :D But according to him only two men were respondcible for 1919 - 1921, Collins and McEoin :D

    You have completely misunderstood my post.

    Originally I merely repeated what Collins exclaimed in exasperation after learning of MacEoins arrest. This was in the context of MacEoin being summoned to Dublin by Cathal Brugha for some ridiculous plot to murder the British cabinet. Collins sent him back saying that 'I will deal with Brugha'. Collins was not speaking literally, I was only using it is an example of how important local leadership was to the war. Following Mac Eoins arrest, Longford did absolutely nothing for the rest of the war.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the activities of the IRA in Mayo and Galway were comparable with Cork and Clare? You'd be the first person, historian or otherwise, to make that claim.


  • Options
    #43
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Wouldn't some such as Liam Mellowes and Peader O'Donnell* have had left wing views ? Liam Mellowes in particuliar would have believed in carrying the aims of Connolly ?

    Mellows is an interesting case and he is the subject of a biography by Desmond Greaves (Who also wrote a book on Connolly, I'd recommend both) Greaves was the President of the Irish Communist party so that should tell you all you need to know.

    Mellows was the only visible socialist during the war of independence and civil war. At the beginning of the civil war, he pleaded for a clear left wing policy from the anti treatyites, only to be met with ambiguity from Liam Lynch.


  • Options
    #44
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Keynes was an established economist well before the date you give. In fact he was one of the saner voices on economics in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. His theories were well known for years. He gave a lecture in Dublin in April 1933 in which he praised De Valera and the Irish State's attempts at self sufficiency.

    Yes he was.

    That is not really the point that I am making. Collins ( & I am not a fan of Cumann na nGaedhael's in that period) was unique and had a vision on what should come after and the bones if a strategy on how it could be realised which was saner (lovely word so I will borrow it) then those around him.

    By the time others arrived at that stage they were catching up. Just take this exchange in a letter between Winston Churchill and Hazel Lavery at the time of the Treaty.
    In one of several letters she received from Winston Churchill he confided in her his thoughts about the creation of Northern Ireland
    ...I have practically always repeated what I said again & again in the House during the passage of the Bill, namely that we never contemplated the "mutilation" of Ulster. I think the Free State are making a frightful mistake in forcing this partition of their country. But of course, if they insist, the Treaty must be executed even though it be to the lasting injury of Irish unity...[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Lavery#cite_note-8

    ( now it is a bit politicky but it gives an insight to the Boundary Commission thats different to the Brits lied to us)

    Now Collins forged relationships with Birkenhead and Churchill during the treaty negotiations and his appreciation of Irelands position as a small open economy was different.

    Dev's relationships & actions were more fraught & analysed whereas Collins was more instinctive and friendly.Collins had a different, sophisticated in a street wise way, view of the world and how it worked to Dev & those who came after him in CnG.

    Other than independence other did not think of what to do next - Collins did.


  • Options
    #45
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Or course unionist leaders argued that an Independant Ireland would lead to economic devestation in ulster. They wanted to play on the fears of the working prodstents

    Similar to the deep South US states in the 1950's
    The republicians made the argument that the link with Britain was responciple for the economic backwardness of the south.

    It was in some ways but it was not the only reason

    I reckon that if the British had put the same thought into doing business with the south as it did with the north you would have had greater socio-economic ties
    Yes leading republicans did have some plans for the economic future of the country, However economics was not a central issue then as it is now. More support could be won by quoting Tone than economic policy.

    You have to remember you had mas emigration from the south - I mean in the previous century the same number of people that lived on the island left it. Close to 5 million.

    The country had no real capital base for investment

    So you can see the reason why Unionists did not want to be tied to it. Economically - you would be right in saying it would cut them off froom their key market for their products.

    So while we can use lots of rhetoric on both sides for Ulster Protestants -it was the best option.


  • Options
    #46
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    CDfm wrote: »
    So while we can use lots of rhetoric on both sides for Ulster Protestants -it was the best option.


    I'm not so sure, The north had a market in the south too, hence the belfast boycott during the boycott.

    I dont know but I dont think tarifs were brought in between Ireland and Britain after the treaty untill the economic war. As for how the north has faired economically since partition I think with the exception of WWII it has been a downward trend overall.


  • Options
    #47
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    I'm not so sure, The north had a market in the south too, hence the belfast boycott during the boycott.

    I am saying at that time. I am not pro-partition but understands their reasoning. In the same way that I can appreciate that given the inability of Sinn Fein to engage in dialogue with the Unionists made the outcome inevitable.


    I dont know but I dont think tarifs were brought in between Ireland and Britain after the treaty untill the economic war. As for how the north has faired economically since partition I think with the exception of WWII it has been a downward trend overall.

    No the tarrifs didnt start until then in 1932. Comparitively the northern protestants were better off than the southern state.

    They were put in place as part of Dev's trade policy. Ireland was to make a contribution to Britain of around a quarter of a million a year.There was a formula workked out in the London Agreement was a notional payment for land purchased during the Land Acts but in turn the Government collected £ 4 million from farmers. The £4 m was collected but the £ 1/4 m was not passed on.

    There had been an agreement to make a contribution to Britains national debt which ceased with the London Agreement in 1925.

    The Economic War lasted between 1932 and 1938 and it was devastating for Ireland.

    Now I can get Dev's logic - the Germans had stopped paying War Reparations in 1931 so he was stopping too. Except that the way the British saw it Dev was pulling a fast one & he was.

    Along with this came a flight of foreign capital from Ireland,& as a consequence of this foreign investment was affected. This continued till 1938 until the cattle for coal agreement. Then WWII
    and Ireland became a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan in 1948.

    So really the first 30 years of Independence were not great economically.

    So really, there was a bit of cute hoorism about Dev and thats why I say he was learning what Collins already knew.In fact, his negotiations around 1938 were done in Treaty fashion with Lemass in tow.

    This is why you should never ever elect a teacher because they are always teachers and can never understand why people and things dont behave how they are supposed to.


  • Options
    #48
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Well my posts about that subject were in responce to one posters assertation that devs policies were driven by his desier to see maidens dancing at the crossroads.

    Yes the economic war did devstate the south, but it hurt Britan to and did eventually achieve DeVs aims. Wether or not it was worthwhile overall is debatable.

    As for Protestants being better off due to partition, I would contend that the average protestant in the south has been better off than the average protestant in the north in terms of quality of life since partition.


  • Options
    #49
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    but it hurt Britan

    How?


  • Options
    #50
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Well my posts about that subject were in responce to one posters assertation that devs policies were driven by his desier to see maidens dancing at the crossroads.

    And he did , except the crossroads were outside the Irish Club Ruislip, North London.:p
    Yes the economic war did devstate the south, but it hurt Britan to and did eventually achieve DeVs aims. Wether or not it was worthwhile overall is debatable.

    I imagine the British were not really that hurt by the economic war at all.

    Very costly and if you factor in emigratiion and public health issues such as TB in Ireland.
    [ As for Protestants being better off due to partition, I would contend that the average protestant in the south has been better off than the average protestant in the north in terms of quality of life since partition.

    Maybe now but it depends what measure you use.


    SPECTACULAR FALL IN DEATHS FROM TUBERCULOSIS
    THE REPORT of the Department of Health for 1953-55 says that as in former years, diseases of the heart caused more deaths than any other. Of the 34,585 deaths (11.8 per 1,000) cancer caused 119 out of each 1,000 and tuberculosis 45. In the age group 15-24, just under 40 per cent of deaths were caused by tuberculosis; cancer and heart diseases between them caused over 50 per cent of deaths.
    The report says that in recent years there has been a spectacular fall in the deaths from tuberculosis. Deaths from this disease in 1953 were 1,190 compared with 1,579 in 1952. The 1953 figure represents a rate of 40 per 100,000 population, about one-third of the 1947 figure. That there is still considerable room for improvement in the Irish death-rate for this disease is shown by the figures for certain other countries given, adds the report. The figure for England and Wales is 20 per 100,000 in 1953; for Northern Ireland 23..

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0505/1224245943263.html


  • Options
    #51
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Right time for my secret weapon. This is the best argument I have ever heard for anything.

    'Well.... you can prove anything with facts:rolleyes:'
    :D:D:D:D




    I would suggest that in the south protestants would have been generaly sheilded to the poorer economic conditions due to their generaly higher position in the social order, also there was very little sectairinism in the south by comparision to the north.

    As for the economic war. yes there was no comparrision in the relative effect or it, but it did hurt britain. they got a substantial ammount of their food from here, they also exported a conciderable amount here.
    Coupled with the fact that it was an international embarresment and that there was trouble on the horizon in europe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    I would suggest that in the south protestants would have been generaly sheilded to the poorer economic conditions due to their generaly higher position in the social order, also there was very little sectairinism in the south by comparision to the north.

    Southern Protestants tended to occupy more privileged positions in the civil service, higher levels of industry and agriculture. But do not confuse this with economic prosperity. As a social class they were declining and they emigrated in far greater numbers than catholics over the ensuing decades (Until they reached a low of 2% of the population in the early 90s)
    As for the economic war. yes there was no comparrision in the relative effect or it, but it did hurt britain. they got a substantial ammount of their food from here, they also exported a conciderable amount here.
    Coupled with the fact that it was an international embarresment and that there was trouble on the horizon in europe.

    The only way this could be measured would be through higher food prices in Britain as a result of economic pressure from here. This was not the case. I would wager the vast majority of Britons didn't know Ireland was carrying out a quixotic economic war with them.


  • Options
    #53
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Denerick wrote: »

    The only way this could be measured would be through higher food prices in Britain as a result of economic pressure from here. This was not the case. I would wager the vast majority of Britons didn't know Ireland was carrying out a quixotic economic war with them.


    Then why did the British gov conceed to DeVs demands and hand back the treaty ports?:confused:


  • Options
    #54
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Then why did the British gov conceed to DeVs demands and hand back the treaty ports?:confused:

    1930s Ireland is not my strong suit. I cannot answer your question. I'm just skeptical that we had any economic impact on Britain during the economic war.


  • Options
    #55
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Then why did the British gov conceed to DeVs demands and hand back the treaty ports?:confused:

    In my opinion the ports ceased to be of strategic importance to Britain with air power - the Germans tested air based military tactics in Spain. I think the importance of the Treaty Ports is exagerated.

    I mean the German's didn't invade us and were not really interested.

    Britain was also declining as a world power and you had the growth of the Labour Party.

    The treaty ports were past their sell by date.


  • Options
    #56
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Denerick wrote: »
    1930s Ireland is not my strong suit. I cannot answer your question. I'm just skeptical that we had any economic impact on Britain during the economic war.


    Well I have a strong intrest in the war of Independance, Not so much in the 30s but what I have posted up to now is what i learned in history in school(the economic war bit, not the protestant bit, that was just a theory) As I have said there was no comparrision between the effect on Ireland and Britain but it did have an effect on their trade, Think about it, Practicaly everything that wasent manafactured here including coal was imported from britain. this was quite a conciderable amount. this trade disipearing was not worth the amount of the land anuities. it was bad for the british economy, not catistrophic, but not good.


  • Options
    #57
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Well I have a strong intrest in the war of Independance, Not so much in the 30s but what I have posted up to now is what i learned in history in school(the economic war bit, not the protestant bit, that was just a theory) As I have said there was no comparrision between the effect on Ireland and Britain but it did have an effect on their trade, Think about it, Practicaly everything that wasent manafactured here including coal was imported from britain. this was quite a conciderable amount. this trade disipearing was not worth the amount of the land anuities. it was bad for the british economy, not catistrophic, but not good.

    As I said I don't think the withdrawal of Irish demand had any great impact on the British economy. At least I have not seen, heard or read any persuasive arguments to this effect. The only way to measure our impact on the British economy would be if demand for industrial produce fell (Practically impossible to determine due to the economic situation at the time generally) or if food prices increased due to reduced supply from Ireland (Again I have not seen any evidence to this effect)


  • Options
    #58
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Denerick wrote: »
    As I said I don't think the withdrawal of Irish demand had any great impact on the British economy. At least I have not seen, heard or read any persuasive arguments to this effect. The only way to measure our impact on the British economy would be if demand for industrial produce fell (Practically impossible to determine due to the economic situation at the time generally) or if food prices increased due to reduced supply from Ireland (Again I have not seen any evidence to this effect)


    Well this is basicly what the history book said, beyond that I dont really know.

    Not being smart or anything but did you look it up?:D


  • Options
    #59
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Well this is basicly what the history book said, beyond that I dont really know.

    Not being smart or anything but did you look it up?:D

    No. I'm lazy. Its saturday night and I'm not even drunk. I could do without the added depression of rooting around in an old history book :)


  • Options
    #60
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Denerick wrote: »
    No. I'm lazy. Its saturday night and I'm not even drunk. I could do without the added depression of rooting around in an old history book :)


    Damm you Boards.ie, I ment to go out tonight:mad::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Britain had a cheap food policy.

    Just take one firm the Vestey family. Refrigeration allowed them to expand globally - to source food and produce food for Britain. They were the Dunnes Stores of meat and eggs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestey_Group

    So when DeV went to London in 1938 - he was flogging beef and competing with them by selling cattle on the hoof.

    So Irelands importance for food lessened by technological advances.


Advertisement