Eamon de Valera Day

Kappar

I'm have recently been given a debating topic which reads along the lines of: "This house believes that there should be a national holiday in remembrance of Mr. Eamon de Valera" or something like that. I am on the proposing team :rolleyes:

Now, I can't think of any arguments that I can use that the opposing team couldn't have a very effective come back to.

I don't want to go down the line of "sure he was not the best guy but sure wasn't he in politics for a long time".

Maybe I could talk about the inadequacies of St. Patrick's Day as a national holiday. What about other statesmen that I could compare to Dev that most would agree should have a national holiday.

Maybe I am missing something simple that I could use but I am not the biggest History buff and an fairly new to debating

leonotron

The destruction of our railway system? His view that electricity would only be a fad? Although he was very good at being a sly ****, farmers dole and putting child abusers in charge of education, you could talk about these

Kappar

Originally posted by leonotron
The destruction of our railway system? His view that electricity would only be a fad? Although he was very good at being a sly ****, farmers dole and putting child abusers in charge of education, you could talk about these

LOL, I am fúcked. I am on the proposing team!!!!

Villain

http://www.apostles.com/devalera.html

Theres some good info there you should be able to use.

I think portrayal of Dev in Michael Collins has left a lot of people with the wrong impression.

He served his country as both Taoiseach and President at different times, not something that would have come easily:)

AngelofFire

NO we should have a michael collins day if anything devalera is notoriously overcredited

1) he had michael collins shot
2)he started a civil war in the countryagainst a treaty which the majority of the people had voted in favour of
3)introducing a secterian article into the constitution giving catholicsim a special postion. allowing the catholic church to run public services such as health and education
4)nearly crippling the countrys economy by starting an economic war with britain.
5)maintaining a high tarrif on imports thus delaying the onset of economic development in ireland
6)offering his condolences to germany when the tyrant adolf hitler died.

michael collins day or parnell day would make more sense me thinks

Manach

He save this country going into WWII, by observing a policy of strict neutrallity. He also paid condolences on the death of FDR.

Kunst

but he also paid condolences to the german people on the death of hitler.... Not the most forward-thinking of moves

pork99

As long as there's also a Michael Collins day I'd have no problem

seamus

3)introducing a secterian article into the constitution giving catholicsim a special postion. allowing the catholic church to run public services such as health and education

On paper it was a very good move at the time. Most of the country was Catholic, so the article made little or no difference. It was mainly to butter up the Catholic Church, to tie Ireland with Rome in order that they would be happy to run our health and education services. Why would you want them to run health and education? We were desperately poor, and uneducated as a nation. The Catholic Church was extremely wealthy, powerful and it's army of priests and nuns were well educated. It made perfect sense at the time. It would still make perfect sense to any country in a similar position even now.

5)maintaining a high tarrif on imports thus delaying the onset of economic development in ireland

A bit of a catch-22 situation there. Even today, there is no proof that if he had lowered the import duty that our economy would develop. See the poor and uneducated comment above. Lowering the tarriff may have done nothing except further damage the country's economy by losing money, and hence jobs. Lowering tarrifs, and thus income, is a tough decision for any Government in a poor country, and there are very very few Governments with the bottle to do it.

6)offering his condolences to germany when the tyrant adolf hitler died.

He personally was a firm believer in neutrality, and wanted to maintain that stance. Fair enough. I would hope that Mary McAleese would maintain the same stance, should another nation's leader die, whether it be Sharon, Bush, Castro, or any number of other tyrants.

[Edited: I very much appear to have some parts of my history up my ass

AngelofFire

Originally posted by seamus
On paper it was a very good move at the time. Most of the country was Catholic, so the article made little or no difference. It was mainly to butter up the Catholic Church, to tie Ireland with Rome in order that they would be happy to run our health and education services. Why would you want them to run health and education? We were desperately poor, and uneducated as a nation. The Catholic Church was extremely wealthy, powerful and it's army of priests and nuns were well educated. It made perfect sense at the time. It would still make perfect sense to any country in a similar position even now.

yes but they did not run the education system properly. cases of abuse by catholic clergy in schools and industrial schools are still being investigated today. as a non catholic myself i find it highly offensive that special priveledges would be given to a certiain church just cos 90% of irelands population are of that fate.

it was also hypocrital of devalera to introduce this article.fianna fail were ambitious to re unite the whole island. one of the main factors behind ulster unionism was the fear that home rule would mean rome rule. devs article confirmed their suspicions thus leading to resentment of the south of ireland by ulster protestants.

pork99

Originally posted by seamus
The Catholic Church was extremely wealthy, powerful and it's army of priests and nuns were well educated. It made perfect sense at the time. It would still make perfect sense to any country in a similar position even now.

Nothing to be proud of - "Ireland, a haven for peadophiles"

A bit of a catch-22 situation there. Even today, there is no proof that if he had lowered the import duty that our economy would develop. See the poor and uneducated comment above. Lowering the tarriff may have done nothing except further damage the country's economy by losing money, and hence jobs. Lowering tarrifs, and thus income, is a tough decision

[Edited: I very much appear to have some parts of my history up my ass

This was irrelevant as the consequences of their failed economic policies packed their bags and went to London or Boston. They could screw up as much as they liked and never had to face the music thanks to emigration.

sceptre

Originally posted by AngelofFire
3)introducing a secterian article into the constitution giving catholicsim a special postion

Could be worse. The original draft of the article written by deValera read

The State acknowledges that the true religion is that established by our Divine Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which he committed to his Church to protect and propagate, as the guardian and interpreter of true morality. It acknowledges, moreover, that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Rather more sectarian than the article that was actually put in. Actually, that's one of the most sectarian things I've ever read.

Far worse than

The state recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the faith professed by the majority of the citizens

which was actually put in.

The "special position" didn't in itself confirm the church as the custodians of education and health. It wasn't the insertion of the constitutional article that did it, it was a decision made separately. Blame deValera if you like but don't blame the constitutional article - or him through the constitutional article.

The constitutional article did cause the likes of George Gavan Duffy to make some decisions in court made purely on a wacky constitutional basis (like in Cook v. Carroll (1945)[1]) rather than considering basic privileged communications issues but you didn't bring that up.


[1] Worse still that decision was used as a defence in Mary Johnston v Church Of Scientology Mission of Dublin Limited and Others (1999) (a defence thankfully knocked on the head by Justice Geoghegan) but that wasn't mentioned above either.

1) he had michael collins shot

Angel, while i subscribe to that idea, mainly due to my grandparents influence, i have never seen any evidence that said he did. just speculations. Have you seen/heard any real evidence of this?

Villain

Originally posted by klaz
Angel, while i subscribe to that idea, mainly due to my grandparents influence, i have never seen any evidence that said he did. just speculations. Have you seen/heard any real evidence of this?

Such evidence doesn't excist!!

magpie

DeValera was the bastard son of a Cuban sea-cook.

Redleslie

Originally posted by art
but he also paid condolences to the german people on the death of hitler.... Not the most forward-thinking of moves

That was standard diplomatic protocol at the time and he maintained that the German ambassador (Hempel) had always been a sound and honourable kind of guy.

De Valera's good points...keeping Ireland out of the war as others have said, his brilliantly worded radio address in reply to Churchill's attack on Irish neutrality and ehhh his obsession with bees.

keeping Ireland out of the war as others have said

Officially keeping ireland out of the war. Nobody can really say that Ireland was impartial in its neutrality. It would have been better if Ireland had sided with the Allies. Perhaps a bit more honest, considering the help British Airforces received, and the internment of German Pilots (and transferral across border to Britain), and perhaps the Irish soldiers that joined the British forces, that the Irish Government kept their jobs reserved for if they came back? Not very impartial.

Such evidence doesn't excist!!

irish, i'm curious to know if there is. I've never heard of any, and i doubt very much that there is any. And if there is any, its so buried that its unlikely anyone will find it. Personally i think Dev ordered the killing of Collins, but its an uninformed opinion. There are no facts to back it.

personally i think dev screwed up this country more than anyone else could have. But thats just me.

ykt0di9url7bc3

I think a Day comemorating Irish History would be better....

then regardless of opinions all could celebrate fine irish leaders and irish people....

Villain

Originally posted by klaz
irish, i'm curious to know if there is. I've never heard of any, and i doubt very much that there is any. And if there is any, its so buried that its unlikely anyone will find it. Personally i think Dev ordered the killing of Collins, but its an uninformed opinion. There are no facts to back it.

personally i think dev screwed up this country more than anyone else could have. But thats just me.

I don't think there is any evidence, whether or not he done is another question.

Theres no doubting he wasn't a pefect person but he was elected by the Irish people of his day.

I think a day to remember Irelands founding of a Republic free state would be better.

Theres no doubting he wasn't a pefect person but he was elected by the Irish people of his day

irish people have a history of doing that, just look at Bertie

I think a day to remember Irelands founding of a Republic free state would be better.

I like this the best.

leonotron

It also secured a large portion of the vote for Fianna Fail, and still does to this day

Originally posted by seamus
On paper it was a very good move at the time. Most of the country was Catholic, so the article made little or no difference. It was mainly to butter up the Catholic Church, to tie Ireland with Rome in order that they would be happy to run our health and education services. Why would you want them to run health and education? We were desperately poor, and uneducated as a nation. The Catholic Church was extremely wealthy, powerful and it's army of priests and nuns were well educated. It made perfect sense at the time. It would still make perfect sense to any country in a similar position even now.
[Edited: I very much appear to have some parts of my history up my ass

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
It would have been better if Ireland had sided with the Allies.

Nah, the Germans would've invaded by parachute and glider, seized ports and airfields and then England would've been completely screwed and the war would've gone quite differently. The Irish army wouldn't have been capable of resisting German invasion, maybe if they'd planned for guerilla war as the British had done but they didn't. The general staff believed they would have been able to fight as a conventional army. Entering the war on the allies side might also have meant seriously splitting public opinion again. So Dev's policy was probably the best under the circumstances. Saved a lot of Irish lives too.

Nah, the Germans would've invaded by parachute and glider, seized ports and airfields and then England would've been completely screwed and the war would've gone quite differently.

You really think that Germany didn't invade Ireland because we were neutral? Hitler never showed any respect for Neutral countries at any stage during the war, when he considered them necessary for his plans to succeed. Look at Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Hungary etc. Ireland declaring war and joining with the allies wouldn't have changed a thing.

Entering the war on the allies side might also have meant seriously splitting public opinion again.

perhaps not. A common enemy that existed outside of the borders of Ireland could have united Ireland. <Shrugs>

So Dev's policy was probably the best under the circumstances. Saved a lot of Irish lives too.

Plenty of Irish servicemen fought in British ranks during the war and lost their lives. Sure, more would have been lost had Ireland officially joined, but at least Ireland would have shown that they were a nation capable of making a decision. Considering just abt every nation in Europe with the exception of Switzerland, eventually took sides, just highlights Dev's lack of vision.

TomF

I suspect the reason Michael Collins is so revered is that he was killed young and so he could be invested with great possibilities by those who now are gifted with 20/20 hindsight. De Valera, on the other hand, had the misfortune to live long and be elected and re-elected and therefore be given the opportunity to make more mistakes, and is therefore seen as falling short when compared with "what could have been/would have been" if Collins had lived longer. It is a little like comparing history with romantic fiction.

article6

Originally posted by TomF
It is a little like comparing history with romantic fiction.

Or comparing John and Paul from the Beatles.

The Catholic Church's stance on democracy around the time Bunreacht na hÉireann was framed was that a bicameral parliament was best, i.e. two houses. Dev pushed for this, and without him, we wouldn't have a Senate. That means Donie Cassidy would never have a place from which to dethrone Mary O'Rourke in Westmeath. That may mean that she would still be suffering from tribunal-related amnesia. Add that to your debate, if you dare

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
You really think that Germany didn't invade Ireland because we were neutral?Hitler never showed any respect for Neutral countries at any stage during the war, when he considered them necessary for his plans to succeed. Look at Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Hungary etc.

By 1940 I think everyone would have been aware that neutrality would not be respected by the Germans, but Ireland was of little strategic value as long as the ports could not be used by Britain, so a neutral Ireland suited Germany. De Valera was more worried about the British invading. The Germans offered him the weapons captured at Dunkirk but he wouldnt take them cos he thought that might give Churchill a pretext to attack. If that had happened we could've ended up on the German side and that wouldn't have worked out at all favourably.

Ireland declaring war and joining with the allies wouldn't have changed a thing.

Yes it would. The Germans would've invaded Ireland (by 1941 at the latest) and soon after, Britain would've been finished.

perhaps not. A common enemy that existed outside of the borders of Ireland could have united Ireland. <Shrugs>

What, like Britain? Churchill was the chump who sent in the black and tans after all. De Valera was offered a united Ireland by the British in exchange for entering the war but the unionists would never have gone for it. The Irish, a lot of them anyway, wouldn't have gone in without the deal.

Plenty of Irish servicemen fought in British ranks during the war and lost their lives. Sure, more would have been lost had Ireland officially joined, but at least Ireland would have shown that they were a nation capable of making a decision. Considering just abt every nation in Europe with the exception of Switzerland, eventually took sides, just highlights Dev's lack of vision.

I dunno what you're being so gung ho about. The allies won, and the Irish didn't get massacred for once. Best possible result.

De Valera was more worried about the British invading.

Wasn't going to happen for two reasons. 1) They (Britain) needed US support to survive, which would have stopped if Britain had invaded. 2) The Allies had taken the stance of being liberators. If they had invaded a country not part of the Axis, then they would have lost serious public image points. Wasn't going to happen.

Yes it would. The Germans would've invaded Ireland (by 1941 at the latest) and soon after, Britain would've been finished.

I disagree completely, but do you want to move this chat to the history/heritage area?

I dunno what you're being so gung ho about. the Irish didn't get massacred for once

*sigh*

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
Wasn't going to happen for two reasons. 1) They (Britain) needed US support to survive, which would have stopped if Britain had invaded. 2) The Allies had taken the stance of being liberators. If they had invaded a country not part of the Axis, then they would have lost serious public image points. Wasn't going to happen.

Nope, America would've recognised that Britain needed the Irish ports to keep stuff coming in from across the Atlantic. I've never seen what you're saying mentioned anywhere.

I disagree completely, but do you want to move this chat to the history/heritage area?

First you were saying that Germany would invade a neutral Ireland no bother, now you're saying they wouldn't invade a hostile defenceless strategically important country. So which is it?

*sigh*

Not much of an argument that is it?

First you were saying that Germany would invade a neutral Ireland no bother, now you're saying they wouldn't invade a hostile defenceless strategically important country. So which is it?

I thought i was clear enough, guess not. Germany showed no compunction in invading neutral countries at any stage during the war, when they needed to. What i'm saying is that if germany wanted to invade Ireland, its neutrality wouldn't have stopped them.

If you want to continue this, we can take it to the history board. I don't really want to have this thread hijacked by our chat :rolleyes:

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
I thought i was clear enough, guess not. Germany showed no compunction in invading neutral countries at any stage during the war, when they needed to. What i'm saying is that if germany wanted to invade Ireland, its neutrality wouldn't have stopped them.

Jesus Christ, I've already said that as long as Ireland stayed neutral it helped Germany. Hitler is on record as saying so. So Germany didn't have to invade unless Ireland came in on Britain's side. Is that clear? Look at a map of Europe, neutral countries were in the way so they got invaded. Ireland wasn't so it didn't.

If you want to continue this, we can take it to the history board. I don't really want to have this thread hijacked by our chat :rolleyes:

Well it's about De Valera but I've had enough of this anyway.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
The Germans would've invaded Ireland (by 1941 at the latest) and soon after, Britain would've been finished.

The Germans didn't have the lift capacity to mount an invasion, nevermind sustain it.

Originally posted by klaz
If they had invaded a country not part of the Axis, then they would have lost serious public image points.

Eh, Iceland? Iraq?

monument

Originally posted by AngelofFire
2)he started a civil war in the countryagainst a treaty which the majority of the people had voted in favour of

I'd like to point out that the majority were not in favour of fighting the British for a "Free State" or a free state.

I don't really like de Valera or Collins. They let the British of the day fool them into a civil war.

Eh, Iceland? Iraq?

I never knew about Iceland. I knew alright abt Norway, but not iceland.

Iraq? wasn't Iraq part of the British empire at that time? I certainly thought so.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Iraq? wasn't Iraq part of the British empire at that time? I certainly thought so.

It had become "independent" during the 1930s.

ronano

He is too far one side to truly embrace the modern society oif ireland and wouldn't best represent it's overall views

AngelofFire

Originally posted by monument
I'd like to point out that the majority were not in favour of fighting the British for a "Free State" or a free state.

I don't really like de Valera or Collins. They let the British of the day fool them into a civil war.

i never said that. but in the election of 1921 the pro treaty party got more seats than the anti treaty clearly indicating that the people of ireland accepted the treaty. by starting a civil war dev flouted the will of the people and showed contempt for demcoracy. hardly a person worth having a national day in honour of

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
The Germans didn't have the lift capacity to mount an invasion, nevermind sustain it.

Yes they did. They had enough for Norway and Crete which were far tougher operations than an invasion of Ireland would have been. They probably wouldn't have had to sustain it for long.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
Yes they did. They had enough for Norway and Crete which were far tougher operations than an invasion of Ireland would have been. They probably wouldn't have had to sustain it for long.

So, when invading Norway, why did they need to route material and men through Sweden? - because the ships they had couldn't do it (quick enough).

There is also the matter of having the British sink a substantial portion should they try to move from France to Ireland, a much greater risk that crossing to Norway.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
So, when invading Norway, why did they need to route material and men through Sweden? - because the ships they had couldn't do it (quick enough).

You mean Denmark? No harm in taking a shortcut if it's there. The Germans only routed men and material through Sweden after they got Norway I thought, because they could.

There is also the matter of having the British sink a substantial portion should they try to move from France to Ireland, a much greater risk that crossing to Norway.

They committed just about their whole navy to the invasion of Norway afaik. There were German plans to invade Ireland were there not? Plan Kathleen for the north and the Green Plan for the entire island. Their success probably would have depended a good deal on local support and they might well have got more than enough of it if Ireland had come in on the British side.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
The Germans only routed men and material through Sweden after they got Norway I thought, because they could.

After the invasion, but before the end of the main fighting.

Originally posted by Redleslie
They committed just about their whole navy to the invasion of Norway afaik.

Which strenghthens my point. IF they didn't have enough shipping to invade Norway (shorter crossing, with an 'effective' landbridge in place, closer to Germany), they certainly didn't have enough to invade Ireland.

Originally posted by Redleslie
There were German plans to invade Ireland were there not?

Yes, but was it workable? If they couldn't manage the crossing of a few hours to England, how do your expect them to have been able to make the 2-3 day crossing to Ireland, harrassed all the way by the Royal Navy and the RAF?

AngelofFire

ah well heres a list of people who were much more credible than dev whom we could have a national day for.

Wolfetone
Parnell
Michael Collins
Douglas D. Hyde
Jim larkin
James connolly

Big Ears

Brian Boru . He united the whole of Ireland and drove out the vikings .

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
After the invasion, but before the end of the main fighting.

I thought it started a week or two after Norway surrendered.

Which strenghthens my point. IF they didn't have enough shipping to invade Norway (shorter crossing, with an 'effective' landbridge in place, closer to Germany), they certainly didn't have enough to invade Ireland.

The Norway invasion didn't make large scale use of paratroops but the invasion planned for Ireland was going to.

Yes, but was it workable? If they couldn't manage the crossing of a few hours to England, how do your expect them to have been able to make the 2-3 day crossing to Ireland, harrassed all the way by the Royal Navy and the RAF?

Like I said, it would have been a primarily airborne operation. And it would have been a lot easier than Crete where the allies knew in advance where the Germans were dropping and had experienced troops to meet them but still lost despite massive German casualties.

BarryFry

Originally posted by Redleslie
Like I said, it would have been a primarily airborne operation. And it would have been a lot easier than Crete where the allies knew in advance where the Germans were dropping and had experienced troops to meet them but still lost despite massive German casualties.

Actually, although the Allies had advance knowledge of the invasion, they did not position their troops in the most advantageous positions to meet the Germans, as they did not want the Germans to think that they were lying in wait, as this may have given the Germans reason to believe that their codes were being broken (which, of course they were, by ULTRA).

Therefore, for example, anti-aircraft gunners were given explicit instructions not to shoot at German transport aircraft, even when the Allied commander, General Freyburg was quoted as saying "Here they come, bang on time" as the first Ju 52's passed overhead.

Crete SHOULD have been an easy allied victory. Unfortunately for them, they erred too far towards protecting what they considered to be their greatest strateic asset - their encription service.