If britain invaded the 26 co's

O'Leprosy

If britain invaded the 26 co's during WW2 and the 26 co's were to resist would that make all who violently resisted -

(A) Terrorists or resistance fighters ?
(B) if IRA in the south fought against the brits in the 26 co's, would they be be terrorists or resistance fighters
(C) If they were in say, Donegal, and they shot at the british forces across in Tyrone, would they be resistance fighters or terrorists ?
(D) Undoubtably the Nationalists and the IRA in the north would have given us 100% support, if they resisted in the north would they be (1) terrorists or resistance fighters or would they only be (2) resistance fighters if they crossed the border and fought in the south (3) terrorists again if they went back into the north and fought the brits ?
(E) If unionist mobs led on by the ruc/brits attacked nationalist homes like they did in August 1969, 1930's and 1920's and before, would the nationalists in the north become terrorists to defend their homes and families and the 26 co. leaders and stoops in the north told everyone to 'stand idly by', would they then be collaberators ???

darkman2

O'Leprosy wrote:

If britain invaded the 26 co's during WW2 and the 26 co's were to resist would that make all who violently resisted -

(A) Terrorists or resistance fighters ?
(B) if IRA in the south fought against the brits in the 26 co's, would they be be terrorists or resistance fighters
(C) If they were in say, Donegal, and they shot at the british forces across in Tyrone, would they be resistance fighters or terrorists ?
(D) Undoubtably the Nationalists and the IRA in the north would have given us 100% support, if they resisted in the north would they be (1) terrorists or resistance fighters or would they only be (2) resistance fighters if they crossed the border and fought in the south (3) terrorists again if they went back into the north and fought the brits ?
(E) If unionist mobs led on by the ruc/brits attacked nationalist homes like they did in August 1969, 1930's and 1920's and before, would the nationalists in the north become terrorists to defend their homes and families and the 26 co. leaders 'stand idly by' ???

In the 70's the IRA was actually quite capable of defeating the British army as defence chiefs over there noted that they were at all out war with a new IRA. I somehow doubt they would have wanted to fight such an organisation on an Island wide basis........

Hagar

I wish them luck...;)

brianthebard

darkman2 wrote:

In the 70's the IRA was actually quite capable of defeating the British army as defence chiefs over there noted that they were at all out war with a new IRA. I somehow doubt they would have wanted to fight such an organisation on an Island wide basis........

Hang on, if the IRA were capable of defeating the British army (one of the few permanent members of the UN Security council and a member of NATO) then why pray tell, didn't they? Were they not bothered??

Liam Byrne

What is the point of this thread, exactly ? It's pretty hypothetical - a bit like saying "what would we do if the U.S. invaded us tomorrow ?" Would we still let them use Shannon ?

To give a short answer, my humble opinion is that if there's an invasion then you are entitled to defend yourself; that applies to "the 26 counties" (otherwise known as The Republic of Ireland, last time I looked), Iraq or anywhere else.

What I would expect from any reasonable-thinking person is that they ensure that their defensive actions are targetted at the direct invaders, and that they not kill and maim innocent civilians along the way, so:

(A) Defenders
(B) If a paedophile defends his home against an aggressive invader, is he still a paedophile ? Your implication that he is no longer a terrorist is not valid
(C) Is an Iraqi person currently entitled to kill a U.S. Army person in New York ?
(D) See (B) - I would prefer not to rely on the support of terrorists, particularly since their mode of operation is that they could ask you to return the favour if one of their guys were later on the run; given some of the posts on the boards, supporters of this group seem to have a problem if you base your support on whether you agree with individual acts
(E) Again, see answer (A), considering the scenario you describe is a direct threat; although your level of bias is obvious in the "led on by the RUC" insert

darkman2

brianthebard wrote:

Hang on, if the IRA were capable of defeating the British army (one of the few permanent members of the UN Security council and a member of NATO) then why pray tell, didn't they? Were they not bothered??

Because support for the IRA peaked in the Early 70's. Bare in mind this was when the IRA were most ruthless and had the highest membership with bombings almost daily (remember the, was it 15 bombs in one day in Belfast?) and waking 'sleeper' cells in England which literally went on the rampage through London not only planting bombs but actually assinating key figures. The IRA was weakened later because the excuse for war was deteriorating when somewhat improved conditions for Catholics were introduced. Therefore IMO the window closed them off in the late 70's. They reverted back to the IRA that existed through the 80's and 90's. Not as popular but still capable.

brianthebard

They were either capable of winning or not, first you say they were and then you say the support wasn't there. Which is it?

mike65

History/Heritage bored anyone?

Mike.

Scigaithris

O'Leprosy wrote:

(A) Terrorists or resistance fighters ?

It would seem that this thread deals with how someone is defined from different perspectives? Using a quote* from business, "One group's asset is another group's liability," and people will be defined accordingly?








*Sorry, can't remember the source of the citation.

darkman2

brianthebard wrote:

They were either capable of winning or not, first you say they were and then you say the support wasn't there. Which is it?

They were always capable of winning. However in the early 70's this was esspecially the case. The IRA was swelled with supporters and was an actual army. The book 'a secret history of the IRA' confirms that the British government knew that defeat was 'very possible and contingencies should be available for the need of withdrawal'. I suggest you read that book by Ed Moloney. The IRA went on the rampage in England and Northern Ireland. Remember Balcombe Street gang?

brianthebard

mike65 wrote:

History/Heritage bored anyone?

Mike.

Please god no.

hardCopy

Scigaithris wrote:

It would seem that this thread deals with how someone is defined from different perspectives? Using a quote* from business, "One group's asset is another group's liability," and people will be defined accordingly?








*Sorry, can't remember the source of the citation.

I'll add another cliché "The winners write the history books". Most Irish people look back at the old IRA as freedom fighters, but at the time they were seen by many Irish people as terroroists and thugs. If the British had won the War of Independence, and been responsible for the last 80 odd years of education in the country, would we or future generations still look back on the rebels of 1916 as freedom fighters?

A lot depends on what perspective you see it from and what description of events gets remembered.

Mick86

What or where are the 26 co's?

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

What or where are the 26 co's?

Answered already. It's SF-speak for the nation known as The Republic of Ireland, because they refuse to recognise it as a country :rolleyes: .

Owen

Mighty. VRT would be gone, and we'd have a decent Motorway and Train network.

Lemming

More shinner-self-serviing bile .....

I always find it amusing when people trot out stuff like "we could have beaten the British army we could have!!".

Two points. One already made by someone else.

1. Why didn't they then?

2. If they had succeeded in driving the British authorities out of N.Ireland, would they have been able to contain the civil war which would have ensued?

To answer question 2 in a simple manner (it's late and I'm tired), "no". However capable the IRA may have been in the 1970s when they were at their height, they were organised as a guerrilla organisation fighting against a fixed, regimented organisation. They would not have (and still do not) had the means or where-withal to take on another organisation like themselves in an effective and decisive manner without fostering further anarchy and destruction.

Add in the mix that a lot of them wore (and still do today) a chip on their shoulders the size of the moon about the republic of Ireland and would doubtless have wanted to waltz in and wrest control, leading to further mayhem and plunge us deeper into civil war.

NewDubliner

O'Leprosy wrote:

If britain invaded the 26 co's during WW2

I think if that had happened, instead of living in De Valera's vision of an ideal Ireland, people here would be watching 'Coronation Street' and 'The Bill', shopping in Tesco and buying clothes in Debenhams and FCUK.

odonnell

darkman2 wrote:

Because support for the IRA peaked in the Early 70's. Bare in mind this was when the IRA were most ruthless and had the highest membership with bombings almost daily (remember the, was it 15 bombs in one day in Belfast?) and waking 'sleeper' cells in England which literally went on the rampage through London not only planting bombs but actually assinating key figures. The IRA was weakened later because the excuse for war was deteriorating when somewhat improved conditions for Catholics were introduced. Therefore IMO the window closed them off in the late 70's. They reverted back to the IRA that existed through the 80's and 90's. Not as popular but still capable.

I have no doubt the IRA could NOT have 'defeated' the MOD in any form of "all out war" since thats what the UK forces are built for - however a point is being missed here - it isnt about the knock out blow or the statistics - it is possible to lose a war and not fire a bullet guys - its called POLITICS.

They say the Vietnamese beat the Americans in that wee war...but if you look at the statistics - close to 4m vietnamese war dead, to 50,000 Americans. Thats not a military defeat, thats politics (without going into the ins and outs of the vietnam war, we all know politics played a major part in the americans having to withdraw and basically screw the whole thing up), but what im saying is POLITICS are involved, not a war machine.

To beat your foe in war you do it by attrition or by outright annihilation - attrition would be a silly concept since the UK army would always be well supplied and the IRA werent on the verge of invading the UK so the second option is out too. The only way a defeat could be obtained would be to bring the politicians to the table (which they did) by whatever means - i suppose the bombings would do it. How this could be classed as beating the UK forces, ill never know. Its a silly thing to believe.

gandalf

Moved to the History forum.

darkman2

Lemming wrote:

More shinner-self-serviing bile .....

I always find it amusing when people trot out stuff like "we could have beaten the British army we could have!!".

Two points. One already made by someone else.

1. Why didn't they then?

2. If they had succeeded in driving the British authorities out of N.Ireland, would they have been able to contain the civil war which would have ensued?

To answer question 2 in a simple manner (it's late and I'm tired), "no". However capable the IRA may have been in the 1970s when they were at their height, they were organised as a guerrilla organisation fighting against a fixed, regimented organisation. They would not have (and still do not) had the means or where-withal to take on another organisation like themselves in an effective and decisive manner without fostering further anarchy and destruction.

Add in the mix that a lot of them wore (and still do today) a chip on their shoulders the size of the moon about the republic of Ireland and would doubtless have wanted to waltz in and wrest control, leading to further mayhem and plunge us deeper into civil war.

Your missing my point. I am not pro anything. Thats got nothing to do with it. Im stating fact about the IRA in the early 70's. The British were saying it themselves. Im not pro IRA and I hate SF. So there:p

Fratton Fred

Why would Britain have wanted to invade Ireland during WWII?

da_deadman

Fratton Fred wrote:

Why would Britain have wanted to invade Ireland during WWII?

In WWII Britain would only have wanted to invade Ireland for the exact opposite reason that Germany would have wanted to invade Ireland: strategic defense for Britain or strategic offense for Germany

Fratton Fred

da_deadman wrote:

In WWII Britain would only have wanted to invade Ireland for the exact opposite reason that Germany would have wanted to invade Ireland: strategic defense for Britain or strategic offense for Germany

That's what I was trying to get at.

Britain would not have wanted to open up a new offensive unless they had to. If Ireland had sided with Germany, then Britain would have been justified in invading "The 26 Counties". Dare I say it, but they may even have been welcomed in by a lot of people as well.

da_deadman

Fratton Fred wrote:

Britain would not have wanted to open up a new offensive unless they had to. If Ireland had sided with Germany, then Britain would have been justified in invading "The 26 Counties".

Yeah, that's true. In which case, they would not have been fighting either "terrorists or resistance fighters", instead they would simply have been fighting another army allied to the Nazi's.

TerrorFirmer

NewDubliner wrote:

I think if that had happened, instead of living in De Valera's vision of an ideal Ireland, people here would be watching 'Coronation Street' and 'The Bill', shopping in Tesco and buying clothes in Debenhams and FCUK.

Mick86

darkman2 wrote:

In the 70's the IRA was actually quite capable of defeating the British army as defence chiefs over there noted that they were at all out war with a new IRA. I somehow doubt they would have wanted to fight such an organisation on an Island wide basis........

Firstly you're talking about two different times here, the 1940s and the 1970s. It is unlikely that on either occasion the IRA had the capacity to decisively defeat the British and even more unlikely that anybody in the British Army would admit as much. Saying that we are engaged in an uphill struggle against the IRA is not the same thing.

I read somewhere once that Churchill wanted to retake the Treaty Ports in 1940 but his Generals told him they did not have the troops available to keep them.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Answered already. It's SF-speak for the nation known as The Republic of Ireland, because they refuse to recognise it as a country :rolleyes: .

Oh right. Thanks for that.:D

NewDubliner wrote:

I think if that had happened, instead of living in De Valera's vision of an ideal Ireland, people here would be watching 'Coronation Street' and 'The Bill', shopping in Tesco and buying clothes in Debenhams and FCUK.

And we'd all be speaking English today.

brianthebard wrote:

Hang on, if the IRA were capable of defeating the British army (one of the few permanent members of the UN Security council and a member of NATO) then why pray tell, didn't they? Were they not bothered??

That would take all the fun out of it. I mean what's the point in pushing the Brits out in 1974 when you could keep them engaged in a protracted war and really draw some blood. Only a bunch of lunatics would do that.

brianthebard

But surely if they spoke for a whole nation of people they wouldn't be lunatics then? :Dq

Mick86

brianthebard wrote:

But surely if they spoke for a whole nation of people they wouldn't be lunatics then? :Dq

The IRA doesn't speak for anybody except itself.

brianthebard

It likes to think that it has a mandate from the Irish people though. Which is of course bull.

O'Leprosy

Liam Byrne wrote:

What is the point of this thread, exactly ? It's pretty hypothetical - a bit like saying "what would we do if the U.S. invaded us tomorrow ?" Would we still let them use Shannon ?

To give a short answer, my humble opinion is that if there's an invasion then you are entitled to defend yourself; that applies to "the 26 counties" (otherwise known as The Republic of Ireland, last time I looked), Iraq or anywhere else.

What I would expect from any reasonable-thinking person is that they ensure that their defensive actions are targetted at the direct invaders, and that they not kill and maim innocent civilians along the way, so:

Well, I put up that posting tongue in cheek to maybe make people consider the contradictions of it been somehow wrong to resist british occupation of the six counties and ok, indeed patriotic to resist them if they crossed the border. But all this talk about the 26 co's been a legitimate independant republic etc and its right to resist is baloney and hypocracy - why ? Well think about, all resistance throughtout the 32 counties to british rule in any part of Ireland from say 1916 to the signing of the treaty was legitimate 'resistance'. Then at midnight of the treaty coming into force, 6 Dec. 1921 I think, the IRA or anyone who resisted british occupation of the north became 'terrorists' and the brits became 'peace keepers'. Jayus, what a load of bolox.

I see Mr. Byrne happened to mention " and that they not kill and maim innocent civilians along the way, ". Well tell me of any conflict where innocent people weren't killed ? Will killing and maiming innocent civilains be ok for the british army though as it's par for the course for them, especially in the first half of the 70's when hardly a day went by without them murdering an innocent Nationalist or putting their unoffical murders in the UVF up to it ? And ofcourse they are at it everyday in Iraq at the moment. But I'm sure that's ok with you.

Anyway, in relation to my observations

(A) Defenders.

Already existed - The Defenders originated in County Armagh in Ulster in 1784, to protect Catholics from attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenders_%28Ireland%29 .But since they were in Armagh, and that is still part of 'britian' where they therefore terrorists or did those who violenty resisted british occupation only become 'terrorists' at midnight of the treaty coming into force ?

(B) If a paedophile defends his home against an aggressive invader, is he still a paedophile ? Your implication that he is no longer a terrorist is not valid.

So the anti Treaty IRA men like Dev, Sean Lemass, Sean McBride, Dan Breen etc were paedophile's ?

Oh sorry, I meant, uncurable terrorists ? You may have a point that terrorism is uncurable, since the brits have been carrying out terrorism around the world for centuries and are still at at it.

( Indeed the british would know quite a lot about paedophilia. The Kincora boy's home in Belfast was the scene of a notorious child sex abuse scandal the Royal Ulster Constabulary had been informed of the goings-on at the home for years previously, but had not moved to prevent it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_boys_home But i'm sure you'll be able to ignore such carry on - provided it's done by our britsh friends.)

(C) Is an Iraqi person currently entitled to kill a U.S. Army person in New York ?

Ofcourse their are, why wouldn't they be. Sure the bold Micheal Collins had his intelligence men whack brits in England didn't he ? What's good enough for Micheal Collins is good enough for the IRA/Iraqi's


(D) See (B) - I would prefer not to rely on the support of terrorists, particularly since their mode of operation is that they could ask you to return the favour if one of their guys were later on the run; given some of the posts on the boards, supporters of this group seem to have a problem if you base your support on whether you agree with individual acts


(E) Again, see answer (A), considering the scenario you describe is a direct threat; although your level of bias is obvious in the "led on by the RUC" insert

So if the Nationalists in the North become 'Defenders' to defend their homes and families (as they did in August 1969), therefore the RUC/PSNI and brits then become 'legitimate targets' ? At what point in the following weeks and months do theNationalists become terrorists again and the brits/psni 'peace keepers' ? Are they still 'peace keepers when they are gunning down civil rights marchers, Nationalist children, women and men everyday while arming, training and directing the loyalists to shoot, bomb and butcher Nationalists in the six counties and indeed Dublin and Monaghan ?

As for my " level of bias is obvious in the led on by the RUC insert" , ever hear of the Battle of the Bogside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bogside


But "your level of bias is obvious " as you belong to the "I believe in armed resitance so long as it happened 80 years ago or 3,000 miles away" band of hypocrites

O'Leprosy

Fratton unionist Fred wrote:

"The 26 Counties". Dare I say it, but they may even have been welcomed in by a lot of people as well.

What planet do you live on mate ? Yeah, just like the reception charles "the para prince" windsor got when he came to Dublin in 1995 and 5,000 who turned out on the Dublin Against Royal Tour (DART) march , and not a single Butcher's Apron waived to welcome him. Or the great reception the "Love 2/3's Ulster" crowd got last year.

If britain ever did invade the 26 co's - which side would you be on Fred ?

brianthebard wrote:

It ( the IRA ) likes to think that it has a mandate from the Irish people though. Which is of course bull.

Since when did a clandestine national restitance group ever go around for a few months gathering a mandate from the poeple it wished to liberate ? 1798,1916,France between 1939 and 1945, the Native Americans, the Viet Cong etc ? And when did the brits ever have a mandate to occupy this country, or indeed anywhere else in their sick history.

NewDubliner wrote:

I think if that had happened, instead of living in De Valera's vision of an ideal Ireland, people here would be watching 'Coronation Street' and 'The Bill', shopping in Tesco and buying clothes in Debenhams and FCUK.

Can'nt argue that one ! And wearing Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea tops etc !!!