Was Eamon De Valera really all that great

Riddle101

What i'm basically saying is everyone always talks about how De Valera was a great man because of his involvement with the IRB, 1916, the War for Independence and the first Dail but if history proceeds me was he not also a man who has screwed Ireland over a couple of times. In 1921 the British and the Dail delegates lead by Micheal Collins and Arthur Griffith start peace talks. You all proberly know all the terms of the treaty so i won't list them. Anyway they aventually come to an agreement and sign the Anglo-Irish treaty. De Valera of course was furious and spat on it, believing Ireland had been screwed, and so an election was held on who agreed with the treaty, so the pro treaty side won and De Valera walked out of the dail and started his own poltical party Fianna Fail. one of the terms of the treaty was taking the oath of alliegence to the Queen, and De Valera refused and wouldn't step foot in the dail. So the Irish Civil War starts claiming many lives. Now heres my problem. 10 years after the Civil De Valera agrees to take the oath and after he's made Taoiseach, he dose nothing to help Irish and British affairs even though he was so willing to in 1921. So what was De Valera's problem then, he fights against the treaty and then when he's in power he dose nothing to stop it. How many people died in the Civil war, all the famous Irish figures who fought in the War of Independence, Collins, Brugha and O Rourke, how many families were torn apart just because De Valera was ignorant. let's skip 30 year to WW2. Britain and the allies ask Ireland to join the war on their side, now there can be many arguments against it but i think it would have been a good idea. Germany were eventually going to invade us anyway whether we were neutral or not so why not fight, not only that but Churchill hints of a United Ireland but De Valera refuses and so Ireland is isolated from the rest of the world until 1955 when it was accepted into the UN. Maybe Ireland would have been different if De Valera had of just admitted defeat when he lost to Collins in the election, maybe Collins would have lived on and maybe would could be living in a United Ireland. So what's your thoughts?

Red Hand

I agree with most of what you say...but remember that hindsight is a great thing. The Civil War was pretty pointless as you've surmised (like many civil wars).

Yep, he lacked vision in my opinion, even though he effectively did dismantle the Free State from the inside out. But Collins would have done that anyway-that was one of the reasons why Collins acccepted the terms, the Treaty was only the beginning. Small minded, lacking vision, living in the past...I can't say he was a Statesman in any sense of the word.

kreuzberger

the original poster is both erroneous and guilty of ommission . Fianna Fail was not formed until 1927 for starters . Civil war would have erupted regardless of devalera , to reduce such a divisive political issue to personalities is simply to dumb down the subject matter , not give an insight into it .
. If it started because of him its because he permitted a delegation to sign such a treaty in the first place , which they had no right to do . And which he had no right to permit . Governemnts accross the world refer to behaviour such as this as treason and often imprison and execute their citizens and officials who behave in this manner . They were sent over as plenipotentiaries for a sovereign republic and came home as spokespersons for a British dominion, swearing allegiance to a foreign crown and agreeing to the dismemberment of their country along purely sectarian lines . That is not what they were sent there to do . By doing so they had predetermined the issue beforehand .
That is not what they were elected to do as members of a sovereign governemnt . In response to threats they accepted the British premise that they werent a sovereign governemnt of a country after all , which in itself meant they had no right to be negotiating anything on behalf of the Irish people . That was the basis for civil war , not Eamonn Devaleras refusal to accept the British treaty . His refusal to declare it illegal from the outset , which it certainly was , contributed to the conflict which erupted certainly . But regardless of DeValera the mass of the IRA and the Irish governemnt and its institutions were never going to accept it . Their mistake was to permit any such vote to take place .
Civil war erupted after the British governemnt ordered the forces they had armed and supplied with artillery to begin shooting down their countrymen in the streets of Dublin . While I personally despise DeValera it was Irishmen determined to force an oath to the crown of england upon the Irish people , armed by Britain who began kiling fellow Irishmen when England instructed them too . Not when Eammon Devalera instructed them to .
you seem to have ommitted this quite central basis for the ensuing chaos from your theory .

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say...but remember that hindsight is a great thing. The Civil War was pretty pointless as you've surmised (like many civil wars).

Yep, he lacked vision in my opinion, even though he effectively did dismantle the Free State from the inside out. But Collins would have done that anyway-that was one of the reasons why Collins acccepted the terms, the Treaty was only the beginning. Small minded, lacking vision, living in the past...I can't say he was a Statesman in any sense of the word.

Yes the civil war was a pointless waste of lives and resources, but almost every modern nation you can name has had one at some point. Its not an excuse, but I think that on some level they are ineviteable in state building. The much bigger point in my opinion is how backward and frankly unrepublican his politics were, to the point where he has held the country back long after his death. His concepts of Irish culture, language and family are still with us(womens' place, role of mothers, dancing at crossroads, Irish language, etc, etc), as is the terribly lopsided democratic institutions that he created with the 1937 constitution (taking popular election away, no real power in the county councils, senate or presidency.) I know these days after the PIRA and their ilk republicanism is a dirty word, but not in Dev's time, and he didn't deliver on the promises that FF as a republican party made.

Rossibaby

no he was a sellout,a coward and not fit to shine michael collins boots

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

The much bigger point in my opinion is how backward and frankly unrepublican his politics were, to the point where he has held the country back long after his death. His concepts of Irish culture, language and family are still with us(womens' place, role of mothers, dancing at crossroads, Irish language, etc, etc), as is the terribly lopsided democratic institutions that he created with the 1937 constitution (taking popular election away, no real power in the county councils, senate or presidency.)

You know, I think Ireland got a tiny slice of aid from the Americans when they implemented the Marshall Plan in Europe...and where did we stick this money?

In DRAINAGE.

People like Dev, who however successful their regime-toppling record is, should never be trusted with actual government.

brianthebard

Lolz drainage can be important when its done right! But I get what you are saying. If Collins or Connolly had survived, or if Lemass had been a more senior member of FF in the 1930s, this would be such a different country....

#15

Riddle101 wrote: »

What i'm basically saying is everyone always talks about how De Valera was a great man because of his involvement with the IRB, 1916, the War for Independence and the first Dail but if history proceeds me was he not also a man who has screwed Ireland over a couple of times. In 1921 the British and the Dail delegates lead by Micheal Collins and Arthur Griffith start peace talks. You all proberly know all the terms of the treaty so i won't list them. Anyway they aventually come to an agreement and sign the Anglo-Irish treaty. De Valera of course was furious and spat on it, believing Ireland had been screwed, and so an election was held on who agreed with the treaty, so the pro treaty side won and De Valera walked out of the dail and started his own poltical party Fianna Fail. one of the terms of the treaty was taking the oath of alliegence to the Queen, and

The monarch was a King back then!!

De Valera refused and wouldn't step foot in the dail. So the Irish Civil War starts claiming many lives.

Thats a big leap to make. The civil war can not be pinned just on dev. He inflamed passions, sure. But so did others. He was quickly sidelined once the CW got going.

Now heres my problem. 10 years after the Civil De Valera agrees to take the oath and after he's made Taoiseach, he dose nothing to help Irish and British affairs even though he was so willing to in 1921. So what was De Valera's problem then, he fights against the treaty and then when he's in power he dose nothing to stop it.

The treaty was dismantled during Devs time in power. It was a case of good-timing, but in fairness, he took advantage of his lucky timing.

How many people died in the Civil war, all the famous Irish figures who fought in the War of Independence, Collins, Brugha and O Rourke, how many families were torn apart just because De Valera was ignorant.

Again, dev did not force anyone to fight or to hold a certain opinion.

let's skip 30 year to WW2. Britain and the allies ask Ireland to join the war on their side, now there can be many arguments against it but i think it would have been a good idea. Germany were eventually going to invade us anyway whether we were neutral or not so why not fight, not only that but Churchill hints of a United Ireland but De Valera refuses and so Ireland is isolated from the rest of the world until 1955 when it was accepted into the UN. Maybe Ireland would have been different if De Valera had of just admitted defeat when he lost to Collins in the election, maybe Collins would have lived on and maybe would could be living in a United Ireland. So what's your thoughts

WW2: Neutrality was acceptable at the time, after the events of previous years there was considerable anti-british sentiment and on that basis alone, neutrality was justifiable IMO. 17 or 18 years previous to WW2, british auxilaries and black and tans had wreaked havoc upon many ordinary people. Those memories were still too raw to expect Irish people to fight on Britains side in ww2.

Re: Churchill and unity- the man was not what I would call trustworthy. He would have said anything to have gained access to Ireland's ports and (limited!) manpower.
Even if he had followed through on his word and tried to push for unity, there is no guarantee that other british politicians would have supported it.

guinnessdrinker

#15 wrote: »

Re: Churchill and unity- the man was not what I would call trustworthy. He would have said anything to have gained access to Ireland's ports and (limited!) manpower.
Even if he had followed through on his word and tried to push for unity, there is no guarantee that other british politicians would have supported it.

Yeah it was a complete red herring threw out by Churchill. It seemed a bit desperate on his part. Even if it was true, how would he have explained it to the unionists or where they just pawns to him too.

jmayo

I would say only FFers really think he was anything great.
You could not call Dev a great statesman or a military man, but he was a politican and in the true sense of Fianna Fail.
As a major political figure in Ireland pre treaty negotiations, how come he did not go to London to negotiate ?
Did he know that they would only get limited freedom from the British and thus he did no want his name to be associated with it ?
It would be a smart political move, but not showing any form of leadership or concern for the country.

You can't say he started the Civil War, but he did stir the pot and yes becuase of his limited military ability he was quickly sidelined.

During his time in power, his economic policies were crippling and his atempt at creating a celtic catholic utopia was disasterous for this country.
His government did some good by building houses for poor during the thirties and his one achievement was keeping Ireland out of World War II.
Maybe we should have fought for freedom and the destruction of Nazi Europe but we had suffered in WWI and had war of independence and Civil War just behind us.

One of his major gaffs was going to offer his condolences to the German Embassador after Hitler's death. A bit of cop on here would have gone a long way. The Germans were beaten and some of the awfullness of the German atrocities were probably already kinwon to him.
Also he had to have known that the Irish state was hiding war criminals (smuggled in here by the good old church) and he condoned this policy by inaction.

He missed being the one in charge when a number of significant milestones happened.
The country was declared a Republic and joined UN while Costello was in charge.

By Dev remaining in power for too long he affectively held back his party and the country.
Look at the strides that were made by other FF politicans after his demise.
Free education was introduced and we began to be more outward looking and began attracting inward investment.

He lived a very priveledged existence in South County Dublin for most of his later years, whereas he had no problem with 100,000 of his citizens having to take the boat to the Uk in order to make a living and indeed fund those at home.
He showed his utter contempt for these people and his total lack of a grasp of how bad the economic situation was, by stating that they did not need to go to UK and that they going to lead immoral lives over there.

I once heard from someone whose father had been British Army circa early 1900s that Dev had played the American citizen card in 1916 in order to survive the fate of the other major players in the rising.

A tue patriot and leader ?
No IMO, a true FF politican sadly in some ways mimicked by a couple of his successors.

kreuzberger

these responses are amazing . Civil war erupted on the instructions of the British governemnt . It was they who demanded shelling commence and even supplied the shells , presumably , and indeed logically , for that very purpose . To shell people with . That pretty much contributed to it in a major way .

And lets not forget Ireland wasnt exactly a barrel of laughs prior to DeValera assuming office either . The sainted Michael Collins didnt exactly assemble a bunch of radical free thinkers and free wheeling bohemians around him . Far from it . If I recall correctly the Bishops De Valera courted in office and won over had previously been excommunicating Michael Collins opponents . The closest thing we've ever had to an openly fascist organisation were aligned to his position . So its safe to say the Bishops were pretty much totally in favour of a certain side , Mick Collins , and were confident theyd enjoy a position of power under hisrule . which they did . DeValera seems only to have kept them in the very power they became accustomed to when Collins people ran the show .
In short DeValera wasnt much different from collins .

Riddle101

kreuzberger wrote: »

these responses are amazing . Civil war erupted on the instructions of the British governemnt . It was they who demanded shelling commence and even supplied the shells , presumably , and indeed logically , for that very purpose . To shell people with . That pretty much contributed to it in a major way .

And lets not forget Ireland wasnt exactly a barrel of laughs prior to DeValera assuming office either . The sainted Michael Collins didnt exactly assemble a bunch of radical free thinkers and free wheeling bohemians around him . Far from it . If I recall correctly the Bishops De Valera courted in office and won over had previously been excommunicating Michael Collins opponents . The closest thing we've ever had to an openly fascist organisation were aligned to his position . So its safe to say the Bishops were pretty much totally in favour of a certain side , Mick Collins , and were confident theyd enjoy a position of power under hisrule . which they did . DeValera seems only to have kept them in the very power they became accustomed to when Collins people ran the show .
In short DeValera wasnt much different from collins .

But at least Collins knew what needed to be done. He knew how to get things done and was insistant on doing it. De Valera for all the things he said contradicts himself by saying he's fighting for the people. He did nothing in the pace talks, he just sat back a listened to whatever Collins and Griffith were saying to Loyd George hiding behind his desk.

As for Collins and the Bishops, i doubt it makes a difference who's side the chuch was on. The church would still play a huge role in politics and if i'm not mistaken the church they did have huge influence over De Valera's so called government as it would if Collins lived

PDN

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yeah it was a complete red herring threw out by Churchill. It seemed a bit desperate on his part. Even if it was true, how would he have explained it to the unionists or where they just pawns to him too.

When Craig was Prime Minister at Stormont he would have opposed Churchill's deal tooth and nail. However, Basil Brooke who came to power (if you can call leading a statelet 'power') in 1943, came from a military background (his uncle was Imperial Chief of Staff) and understood what was at stake in WWII. Sounded out by an independent TD, Brooke said that such a proposal would split the cabinet but that he would vote in favour. This was confirmed by Brooke's son who later claimed that his father told him that faced with the choice between the destruction of 'western civilisation' and the establishment of Irish unification that he would have to accept the latter.

Anyway, the entire deal was a nonstarter for Dev unless some fairly impossible conditions were met. In a speech in the Senate in February 1939 he asserted that he would not accept unity at the price of abandoning his project to restore the primacy of the Irish language. Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal in order to help defeat Hitler, but they were hardly going to start learning to speak Irish.

darkman2

Riddle101 wrote: »

Churchill hints of a United Ireland but De Valera refuses

De Valera was far more politically astute then Churchill and he spotted the snag with this immediately. Basically that 'Ireland was to enter the war on the Allied side but Northern Ireland was to be a deffered payment'. All that was ever coming from Britian was a 'United Ireland in principle' which in political speak actually means - never. Even if a more substantive proposal came there is no reason to suggest the British would have honoured it. I think the only realistic option for this country was to remain neutral. Interestingly it was the Anglo Irish and Pro British population that were the most ardent supporters of neutrality.


Also the ports were not as important to Britain as Churchill kept going on about. Underlying his rants and indignation was a simple hatred for the Irish and the Free State.

Riddle101

darkman2 wrote: »

De Valera was far more politically astute then Churchill and he spotted the snag with this immediately. Basically that 'Ireland was to enter the war on the Allied side but Northern Ireland was to be a deffered payment'. All that was ever coming form Britian was a 'United Ireland in principle' which in political speak actually means - never. I think the only realistic option for this country was to remain neutral. Interestingly it was the Anglo Irish and Pro British population that were the most ardent supporters of neutrality.

If Eamon De Valera was politically astute then Churchill then maybe Eamo would have seen that it wouldn't just be Britain that he'd be pleasing but the rest of the Allies too. If we have of went into the war then maybe Russia wouldn't have blocked us from getting into the UN until we eventually came in in the 1950's. Or maybe the US would have put pressure on Churchill to give us what we want. It dosen't only have to be about Eamo's and Chruchill's little disagreements but for a more bigger picture

McArmalite

darkman2 wrote: »

De Valera was far more politically astute then Churchill and he spotted the snag with this immediately. Basically that 'Ireland was to enter the war on the Allied side but Northern Ireland was to be a deffered payment'. All that was ever coming from Britian was a 'United Ireland in principle' which in political speak actually means - never. Even if a more substantive proposal came there is no reason to suggest the British would have honoured it. I think the only realistic option for this country was to remain neutral. Interestingly it was the Anglo Irish and Pro British population that were the most ardent supporters of neutrality.


Also the ports were not as important to Britain as Churchill kept going on about. Underlying his rants and indignation was a simple hatred for the Irish and the Free State.

Agreed. Where did you see that " Interestingly it was the Anglo Irish and Pro British population that were the most ardent supporters of neutrality. ". Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

PDN wrote: »

When Craig was Prime Minister at Stormont he would have opposed Churchill's deal tooth and nail. However, Basil Brooke who came to power (if you can call leading a statelet 'power') in 1943, came from a military background (his uncle was Imperial Chief of Staff) and understood what was at stake in WWII. Sounded out by an independent TD, Brooke said that such a proposal would split the cabinet but that he would vote in favour. This was confirmed by Brooke's son who later claimed that his father told him that faced with the choice between the destruction of 'western civilisation' and the establishment of Irish unification that he would have to accept the latter.
Anyway, the entire deal was a nonstarter for Dev unless some fairly impossible conditions were met. In a speech in the Senate in February 1939 he asserted that he would not accept unity at the price of abandoning his project to restore the primacy of the Irish language. Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal in order to help defeat Hitler, but they were hardly going to start learning to speak Irish.[/

No offence to you, but wherever your read that, wouldn't believe a word of it meself, not a word. It amazes me that people cannot accept the unchangeable fact, that treating the unionists with generosity will not necessarily make them respect Ireland. " the choice between the destruction of 'western civilisation' and the establishment of Irish unification that he would have to accept the latter.....Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal in order to help defeat Hitler, ". Northern unionists didn't, nor for that matter still wouldn't have "a Catholic about his place" to quote the lovely, agreeable,'moderate' Basil Brooke if they had their way. "Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal ", may been the operative word. 100,000% we'd have been told to jump in a lake or something both by the unionists and the british govt.

Fantasy history, possibly from one of Sir Tony O'Reilly's fawning parasite's ??

Shutuplaura

darkman2 wrote: »

Also the ports were not as important to Britain as Churchill kept going on about. Underlying his rants and indignation was a simple hatred for the Irish and the Free State.

Its probably not entirely relavant to the thread but the above is spot on. If you look at Alan Brookes diaries, which were not editied in any way, he mentions Ireland hardly ever, and makes not comment on the supposed usefullness of Irish ports. As a Unionist and CIGS he would have complained quite loudly if he had any reason to complain about Irish policy during the war. Actually in his diary wrote about having met the Irish Chief of Staff in Belfast and finding the meeting productive and even calling him a real 'daimond in the rough'. His Diary, by the way is an excellent read. Churchill had a fondness for military white elepants streaching bak to his frist spell as first sea lord and the Dardenelles in WW1 and the supposed use of Irish ports sounds to me like one of these.

Regarding Dev, he held on too long, should have gone after 1945 when the rest of the world was making a clean sweep. The fact he didn't resign as Taoiseach until he won election as President is a sure sign of his love of power. That said, he contributed more to modern Irish society than his critics, often motivated by a hatred of modern FF give him credit for. And blaming him alone for the civil war is just plain inaccurate.

darkman2

Riddle101 wrote: »

If Eamon De Valera was politically astute then Churchill then maybe Eamo would have seen that it wouldn't just be Britain that he'd be pleasing but the rest of the Allies too.

The bigger picture in terms of Ireland supporting the allies would almost certainly have meant the destruction of the Free State. The Free State's handful of cities were unprotected and one only has to look at Belfast (which supposedly had RAF protection) which was nearly bombed into submission. The saving in Irish lives that Neutrality represented is incalcuable. The morality behind Ireland neutrality is questionable but its consequences were that Ireland came out of the war far better off then other Neutral states.


Something that is overlooked is that Ireland was, in practice, being threatened by a billigerant - Britain and Churchill in particular. This took the form of the almost complete cut off of supplys through Britain. Whilst policy makers in Britain wanted to show that this was merely because Britain could no longer afford to be so accomodating in war time - up with this Churchill would not put - he wanted to make sure that the restrictions were a sign of hostility toward Southern Ireland. This followed from pressure by Northern Unionists depicting the South as a land of milk and honey. They wanted a British invasion of Southern Ireland claiming that the Nazis were already here.


Churchill felt that the loss of the Irish ports was costing British sea mans lives. Whilst one could argue with some success that this is true - it is only true to an extent. However Irish Neutrality was not the reason the mackeral grew fat off the West Coast of Ireland. Unknown to the British until 1943 the Germans had cracked their naval codes. The British were simply annoyed that only a couple of years earlier they had negotiated away their rights to the ports. They had no comeback. Legally Ireland (even though technically still under the crown) could declare and remain neutral and there was nothing Britain could do about it short of act like Nazis themselves. I wil post more later.

P.S Ive read in several books that the Anglo Irish were most in favour of neutrality. Tim Pat Coogans book on De Velera some years ago also went into detail about it as did Robert Fisk's.

darkman2

Riddle101 wrote: »

If Eamon De Valera was politically astute then Churchill then maybe Eamo would have seen that it wouldn't just be Britain that he'd be pleasing but the rest of the Allies too.

De Velera was more politically asstute then Winston Churchill and indeed Roosevelt IMO - whom described De Velera as 'a dreamer'. However De Velera, the 'dreamer' was destined to long out last the both of them in politics.

jdivision

I think De Valera wasn't that great because whatever about the Civil War etc, he destroyed the Irish economy when he got into power through a misplaced faith in self-sufficiency and high taxes on imports resulting in retaliatory tariffs on exporters from foreign governments. This drove the leading Irish industries of the day abroad, particularly Guinness which hasn't been Irish since (despite what the ads say)

PDN

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed. Where did you see that " Interestingly it was the Anglo Irish and Pro British population that were the most ardent supporters of neutrality. ". Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

No offence to you, but wherever your read that, wouldn't believe a word of it meself, not a word. It amazes me that people cannot accept the unchangeable fact, that treating the unionists with generosity will not necessarily make them respect Ireland. " the choice between the destruction of 'western civilisation' and the establishment of Irish unification that he would have to accept the latter.....Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal in order to help defeat Hitler, ". Northern unionists didn't, nor for that matter still wouldn't have "a Catholic about his place" to quote the lovely, agreeable,'moderate' Basil Brooke if they had their way. "Northern Unionists may have accepted a political unification deal ", may been the operative word. 100,000% we'd have been told to jump in a lake or something both by the unionists and the british govt.

Fantasy history, possibly from one of Sir Tony O'Reilly's fawning parasite's ??

I was reading it last week in Henry Patterson's Ireland Since 1939: The Persistence of Conflict. Patterson certainly doesn't present Brooke as lovely, agreeable or moderate. In fact he is extremely scathing about Brooke's pandering to sectarianism.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate and ridicule anything or anybody that considers a different viewpoint to yourself? I would have thought that the point of a history forum would be to learn from one another. Otherwise we simply end up with propaganda rather than history.

McArmalite

PDN wrote: »

I was reading it last week in Henry Patterson's Ireland Since 1939: The Persistence of Conflict. Patterson certainly doesn't present Brooke as lovely, agreeable or moderate. In fact he is extremely scathing about Brooke's pandering to sectarianism.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate and ridicule anything or anybody that considers a different viewpoint to yourself? I would have thought that the point of a history forum would be to learn from one another. Otherwise we simply end up with propaganda rather than history.

Sorry if you feel that I denigrate and ridicule your opinion, but I will make no excuses for having a full on attack on the "if we're nice enough to the unionists they might change" malarky. You might as well be asking the KKK to become anti racist, ( BTW, their not too found of Catholics also, no doubt where who many of their lovely ancestors were from, birds of a feather etc). It's one of the biggest cons ever sold to the Irish people. I know many well meaning people have been taken in by it, but it's been the mainstay of partitionists for the last 50 years or so, it's been presented as the 'way foward' to a United Ireland, while at the same time these very same people know it'll be rejected out of hand by the unionists. Sorry again if you think I'm been personal, but I have had relations and friends who were on the receiving end of unionist thuggery for many years, if you knew my background, you'd understand the hostility.

jmayo

darkman2 wrote: »

De Velera was more politically asstute then Winston Churchill and indeed Roosevelt IMO - whom described De Velera as 'a dreamer'. However De Velera, the 'dreamer' was destined to long out last the both of them in politics.

Well Churchill happened to be 8 years older than Dev and also the British were smart enough to try something new after the war.
We on the other hand ...
As for Roosevelt, his career was cut short by death :rolleyes:
That tends to bring a finality to most careers bar that of musicans and artists.

FDR was elected four times, but after his death the unoffical two terms rule was fixed into the US Constitution by the 22nd Amendment. Thus no president can serve more than two terms in office.

Fursey

Riddle101 wrote: »

What i'm basically saying is everyone always talks about how De Valera was a great man because of his involvement with the IRB, 1916, the War for Independence and the first Dail but if history proceeds me was he not also a man who has screwed Ireland over a couple of times. In 1921 the British and the Dail delegates lead by Micheal Collins and Arthur Griffith start peace talks. You all proberly know all the terms of the treaty so i won't list them. Anyway they aventually come to an agreement and sign the Anglo-Irish treaty. De Valera of course was furious and spat on it, believing Ireland had been screwed, and so an election was held on who agreed with the treaty, so the pro treaty side won and De Valera walked out of the dail and started his own poltical party Fianna Fail. one of the terms of the treaty was taking the oath of alliegence to the Queen, and De Valera refused and wouldn't step foot in the dail. So the Irish Civil War starts claiming many lives. Now heres my problem. 10 years after the Civil De Valera agrees to take the oath and after he's made Taoiseach, he dose nothing to help Irish and British affairs even though he was so willing to in 1921. So what was De Valera's problem then, he fights against the treaty and then when he's in power he dose nothing to stop it. How many people died in the Civil war, all the famous Irish figures who fought in the War of Independence, Collins, Brugha and O Rourke, how many families were torn apart just because De Valera was ignorant. let's skip 30 year to WW2. Britain and the allies ask Ireland to join the war on their side, now there can be many arguments against it but i think it would have been a good idea. Germany were eventually going to invade us anyway whether we were neutral or not so why not fight, not only that but Churchill hints of a United Ireland but De Valera refuses and so Ireland is isolated from the rest of the world until 1955 when it was accepted into the UN. Maybe Ireland would have been different if De Valera had of just admitted defeat when he lost to Collins in the election, maybe Collins would have lived on and maybe would could be living in a United Ireland. So what's your thoughts?

Yout potted history of Dev is just so off the wall I feel compelled to reply:

Dev was never in the IRB. The Peace talks in 1921 were it's true led by Griffith's and Collins but arranged by Dev in his prior negotiations with the British PM Lloyd George.

Dev did not withdraw from the Dail as established in 1919.

The 'Oath' was to King George V - not to any Queen.

He did then sign to the Oath on a conditional basis in 1927 - five years not ten years later.

Churchill made an offer to facilitate Irish Unity in 1940 if the Free State would declare War on Germany. Quite rightly Dev rejected this harebrained scheme as it would have meant Civil War at home and our direct involvement against Hitler when he was at the height of his power and Britain quite possibility facing defeat that summer.

We were not isolated after WWII at all. Indeed this State was a founder member of the Council of Europe in 1949. Under McBride's influence its true not Dev's.

kreuzberger

Riddle101 wrote: »

[/b]

But at least Collins knew what needed to be done. He knew how to get things done and was insistant on doing it. De Valera for all the things he said contradicts himself by saying he's fighting for the people. He did nothing in the pace talks, he just sat back a listened to whatever Collins and Griffith were saying to Loyd George hiding behind his desk.

He knew a bloody civil war would be necessary to enforce the British treaty , the carve up of the national territory and the British oath of allegiance so he requested and got artillery , machine guns , armoured cars and rifles from the British to shoot down his own people , intern them by the tens of thousands and drag them from their prison cells to execute them .And the Bishops blessing too . Mr Craig requested and got the same thing for the same purpose , to maintain Britains vision of Irelands future . Partiton is rock solid today , British interests in Ireland well looked after . He sure got the job done alright . He did the dirty job Britian was unable to do .

As for Collins and the Bishops, i doubt it makes a difference who's side the chuch was on. The church would still play a huge role in politics and if i'm not mistaken the church they did have huge influence over De Valera's so called government as it would if Collins lived

for a very brief period the Irish people were actively empowered politically , radicalised politically - ignoring the church . Excommunications of republicans and pulpit denunciations during the War for Independence was simply shrugged off when only a few years before it would have had Irish people hiding and quaking under the bed afraid to face theuir neighbours . As Mr Cosgrave pointed out in the 1920s the national revolution had gone too far , and the natural order of things was largely restored . We could have had a very different future had that social and political trend continued , one where Bishops were kept firmly out of politics . Post civil war , and indeed prior to it ,the catholic church was needed and incorporated by the neo colonial state as an agent of social control . De Valera was just incorporated by the state too and made an arrangement with that agent of social control .
since then our political culture has just thrown up successive waves of weak minded morons who encourage low expectations nationally . Resulting in a moronic national political culture of low expectations , only a few steps removed from barbarism . Culturally politically and intellectually devoid of dignity and national interest . Thats what Mr Collins and Mr DeValera managed to acheive between them .

Riddle101

He knew a bloody civil war would be necessary to enforce the British treaty , the carve up of the national territory and the British oath of allegiance so he requested and got artillery , machine guns , armoured cars and rifles from the British to shoot down his own people , intern them by the tens of thousands and drag them from their prison cells to execute them .And the Bishops blessing too . Mr Craig requested and got the same thing for the same purpose , to maintain Britains vision of Irelands future . Partiton is rock solid today , British interests in Ireland well looked after . He sure got the job done alright . He did the dirty job Britian was unable

Are you saying that Collins wanted a Civil War then? He may have started the Civil War but i don't think he believed it was necessary. The Anti Treaty side provoked him by occupying the Four Courts, but it wasn't until Chuchill told him to take care of them that he actually shelled Dublin. He was pressured into doing so and by shelling it he caused it to happen. As for borrowing Artillery, Machine Guns and armoured vehicles, well i can't see the problem there, he was just getting some fire power on his side, who wouldn't want that if your in a war. As for executing people, well unfortunately retalitation was done with or without Collin's consent so i don't think we can blame Collins fully for his role in the executions.

But back to the topic. I can't justify Collins for his action but all he was trying to do was free his people, it's just a shame he died so fast that we have no idea what would have happened if Collin's has lived. The last year of his life will forever be a shadow on his legacy but that dose not mean would should tarnish him any further. I know De Valera has done some good as well but De Valera i feel was rather devious and cunning and i do not trust the man. I feel he has done things that have arguably alted the future of Ireland and for that i don't think he was really all that great

kreuzberger

Riddle101 wrote: »

Are you saying that Collins wanted a Civil War then?

he was quite enthusiastic about starting one

He may have started the Civil War but i don't think he believed it was necessary.

so he just started one for the crack ?

The Anti Treaty side provoked him by occupying the Four Courts,

The British army was occupying 6 counties of Ulster and a number of southern ports , demanding an oath of allegiance to their king and for the Irish people to pay Britian a fortune in war reparations for their attacks against the British army . British forces were actively enegaged in atrocities against large sections of the Irish citizenry north of Britians line of partition .That doesnt seem to have provoked him but it provoked many Irishmen and women to oppose it . That opposition was Michael Collins reason for gunning them down and interning them by the thousands with weapons supplied by the enemy and on the orders of the enemy .

France pointedly executed and jailed members of the Vichy governemnt 2 decades later for the exact same type of despicable treason Collins committed . He betrayed his country . He was a traitor , only unlike the Vichy regime his regime won their conflict . Our society and attitudes today are a direct result of our countrys Vichy type betrayal by Collins and others. Being victorious thanks to enemy assistance doesnt make you any less a traitor to your nation .

but it wasn't until Chuchill told him to take care of them that he actually shelled Dublin.

If hed been any good hed have told churchill to feck off . Churchill wouldnt have given him machine guns and artillery unless Mr Churchill knew exactly who hed use them on well beforehand

He was pressured into doing so and by shelling it he caused it to happen. As for borrowing Artillery, Machine Guns and armoured vehicles, well i can't see the problem there, he was just getting some fire power on his side, who wouldn't want that if your in a war.

He wasnt in a war when he got them . He and the people who gave them to him obviously expected one . A war to be prosecuted against the anticipated large body of the Irish people who tried to defend their nations sovereignty , who refused to swear allegaince to the king of england or to see their country carved up by bloody interfering foreigners in the most undignified fashion

As for executing people, well unfortunately retalitation was done with or without Collin's consent so i don't think we can blame Collins fully for his role in the executions.

You seem to be suggesting policymakers arent responsible for policy .

But back to the topic. I can't justify Collins for his action but all he was trying to do was free his people,

by shelling executing and interning them and handing one part of them over to the British ??

it's just a shame he died so fast that we have no idea what would have happened if Collin's has lived.

Most likely hed have continued to intern and execute his own people every time churchill snapped his fingers .

The last year of his life will forever be a shadow on his legacy but that dose not mean would should tarnish him any further. I know De Valera has done some good as well but De Valera i feel was rather devious and cunning and i do not trust the man. I feel he has done things that have arguably alted the future of Ireland and for that i don't think he was really all that great

apart from his longevity he was as big a swine as Collins . I see no evidence at all to suggest collins would have been any different

Shutuplaura

I'm no lover of Dev but I hate to see him kicked unfairly. One question - why is he accused of starting the Civil War.He made bellicose speeches sure but weren't the Four Courts Garrison acting on their own initiative? Ernie O'Malleys book hardly mentions Dev in the run up to the start of the war. Since The Free State Army started shooting first an number of men acting independantly of both the IRA Chief of Staff occupied positions in Dublin and kidnapped Ginger O'Connell, it seems to me that whoever was to blame for the Civil War, Dev wouldn't be the prime candidate - Churchill, who sent threatening letters to Colllins after Wilsons assasination to be seems the most likely candidate.

Dev's legacy to me is similar to that of Bob Dylans. If both had died young Dev fans wouldn'd have to get embarrassed by this 1950's government and noone would have to explain the born again period in the 1970's.

905

darkman2 wrote: »

P.S Ive read in several books that the Anglo Irish were most in favour of neutrality. Tim Pat Coogans book on De Velera some years ago also went into detail about it as did Robert Fisk's.

In one of my leaving cert textbooks, it was suggested that the reason the American ambassador was so hostile to Irish neutrality was because he hung out with the Anglo-Irish the whole time, who were anti-neutrality.

905

Dev seems to be getting a lot of stick for the state of the country in the fifties, and his devotion to comely maidens and all of that. It should be remembered that this was a popular image of Ireland at the time. Even when they were leaving, Irish emigrants held similar views of how Ireland should be, which explains in part why Irish-Americans are so dewy-eyed about 'The Quiet Man' et al. It was seen as part of our identity, an important factor in a nation trying to assert its own post-colonial identity. It may not have been pretty and it may have resulted in some pretty narrow-minded views on catholicism, nationalism and the Saxon invaders, but it all helped Ireland towards its confident identity today.

Also it should be seen in its context. Not only was it a bigger idea than De Valera (I doubt that the Irish people were actually liberal, open-minded Irish Times readers rebelling against their political and clerical overlords), it was seen in Europe too. Spain and Greece had similar conservative, rural fundamentalist governments, at least Dev wasn't a dictator.

Riddle101

he was quite enthusiastic about starting one

Exactly where dose it say he was enthusiastic? He was pressured by the British to shell the four courts. If he had wanted a civil war then he could have easily started one ages before he shelled Dublin or even the very moment the Anti Treaty side occupied the Four Courts. But instead he withdrew from shelling until he has no choice. What would you have done?

The British army was occupying 6 counties of Ulster and a number of southern ports , demanding an oath of allegiance to their king and for the Irish people to pay Britian a fortune in war reparations for their attacks against the British army . British forces were actively enegaged in atrocities against large sections of the Irish citizenry north of Britians line of partition .That doesnt seem to have provoked him but it provoked many Irishmen and women to oppose it . That opposition was Michael Collins reason for gunning them down and interning them by the thousands with weapons supplied by the enemy and on the orders of the enemy

.

Exactly where were these atrocites, if it was in Northern Ireland then what could Collins do, Northern Ireland was not in our control. Unless you'e talking about some other countie, by which please explain.

France pointedly executed and jailed members of the Vichy governemnt 2 decades later for the exact same type of despicable treason Collins committed . He betrayed his country . He was a traitor , only unlike the Vichy regime his regime won their conflict . Our society and attitudes today are a direct result of our countrys Vichy type betrayal by Collins and others. Being victorious thanks to enemy assistance doesnt make you any less a traitor to your nation .

Funny you call him a traitor. I mean if he were a traitor i don't think the History books would have written of him in such high regaurds, not the mention the fact that most of the Irish people love Micheal Collins, I was under the impression that traitors were hated, and Micheal Collins wasn't

If hed been any good hed have told churchill to feck off . Churchill wouldnt have given him machine guns and artillery unless Mr Churchill knew exactly who hed use them on well beforehand

I'm sure Churchill would have shot back at Collins by saying something around the lines of i'll blow you're bloody head off.

He wasnt in a war when he got them . He and the people who gave them to him obviously expected one . A war to be prosecuted against the anticipated large body of the Irish people who tried to defend their nations sovereignty , who refused to swear allegaince to the king of england or to see their country carved up by bloody interfering foreigners in the most undignified fashion

He may not have been in the war but that dose not mean he was planning something, the Free State Army lacked equipment so Collins had to borrow in order to at least try to make it efficent.

You seem to be suggesting policymakers arent responsible for policy .

Not if the people enforcing the policy were acting against the wishes of the Policy Maker as did the IRA when the first Daìl was established

Most likely hed have continued to intern and execute his own people every time churchill snapped his fingers .

I doubt it if he had of survived, and i can't see how Collins was Chruchill whipping boy considering how Collins never really followed orders from him. He did Shell Dublin but what can you do when one of the most powerful armies at the time was threatening to sheel Dublin itself and i think Britain would have reconsidered the independence of the Free State if that happened.

apart from his longevity he was as big a swine as Collins . I see no evidence at all to suggest collins would have been any different

There is no evidence at all to suggest that he wouldn't have been any different as well. Unfortunately we will never know:(