Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Irish Civil War
-
28-02-2009 12:55pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Given that the sores have long since healed, does anyone here believe they can sympathise with the anti treaty side during the Irish Civil War? By and large the vast majority will say no, but there are always a few Shinners running about. What do you think? Try to come up with a reason without the benefit of hindsight.
Quite a few people sympathise with the anti-treaty side. It might also be news to you to hear this but you don't have to be a shinner to sympathise with the anti-treaty side either. I'm not a shinner but have more sympathy for the anti-treaty side than the government because:
1) extra judicial killings by the government would have pissed a fair few people off. It did nothing to stop the fighting and was in some cases an excuse to eliminate potential political rivals.
2) Personally I'd say that the free state government were more to blame for the escalation to war. They physically started the shooting in the four courts. Mick Collins may also have ordered the death of Field Marshal Wilson, the act which led to the British demand that they do something about the Four Courts Garrison.
3) The republicans were idealists who set up an alternative government and swore aliegence to it and its army and had killed or lost friends for it. There was an honest conviction that the Treaty betrayed this. Thats why the oath featured more than partition in the dail debates. Bear in mind that
A)
They had the feeling that they were winning, could continue to win and that the treaty was less than they were fighting for. Hindsight tells us they may have been wrong but I am not sure. I can fully understand their reasons for wanting the war of independance to continue. Interestingly, areas which had fought most successfully against the British were most heavily anti-treaty. They were well motivated confident guerrillas who believed they could continue winning. Mick Collins was shot in his home county because he didn't appreciate this.
The British were possibly bluffing when threatening an escalation of the war. They were trying to scale down their global commitments in the wake of WW1 (including ironically, Iraq) and its likely they were talking tough and that the threats they made to the Irish negotiating team were at least partly hollow.
C)
Its quite reasonable to reject a treaty signed by ones negotiating team under duress. It sets a bad precident for future relations between the UK and Ireland. Serveral anti-treaty TD's made this point. As it was Chruchill tried to bully Ireland into Britains next World War, partly vindicating this view. Luckily most other British PM's were not as hostile to the Irish government and let us do our own thing.
So for the above reasons I've a hell of a lot of sympathy for the anti-republicans. With all available information at the time its by no means certain that British threats were real or that they were in a position to carry them out. The Free State acted as badly if not more so than the irregulars in their conduct of the war and there was no guarentee anyway that what was offered by the british would develop into the independance we now enjoy.
With hindsight though I believe that the war should have been avoided at all costs and I'd like to think that had I been around at the time I would have supported neither. There was a rump of IRA members called the Neutral IRA. They issued calls for calm but were mostly irrelevant.
So there you go - and I think I voted for the Green party the last time!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Hi Walrus. You raise some excellent points. There are indeed some very good reasons for favouring the pro-treaty side over the anti treaty one. Its all counterfactual history and therefore supposition. I do believe though that if you are going to wage a war for a goal, giving up short of that goal amounts to a defeat. The negotiations in the form they took where the British negotiating team dominated are a recognition of this. They wrung some consessions from the British and secured a better form of government from them than the partitioned home rule offered in the government of Ireland act.
My problem with all of this is and remains the question of
a)
why they agreeded to sign under duress (understandable that a section of the Dail was annoyed by this)?
if they were as close to defeat as Collins later made out (he may have been in a position to know, however, it was also worth his while to exagerate the IRA's weakness in order to sell his treaty to the public)?
and
C)
if in the event that further war did lead to an Irish Republican defeat would any future settlement imposed by the British would have given substantially less that the treaty gave the Irish people (had the British been serious and waged terrible war in the country and won, a consitutional concession seems likely. Terrible war that the British threatened would have probably looked like the Free State actions in the Civil war and so we would have perhaps avoided the war at all had the British been bluffing, and replaced one terrible fratricidal war with another terrible war, less terrible to me because it wasn't a civil war..)?
About your other points, I believe the 1916 rising did herald a change in Irish desires./ Not suddenly but the start of a gradual shift. It started with sympathy for the rebels and grew from there. Count Plunkett only barely won the Roscommon by-election in 1917. After his victory the by-election results became less difficult for SF. The Sinn Fein support for anti-conscription was a major boost to the republican movement. Without this I think its questionable that they would have had such support post war. Basically that is how I see (and I reckon its hardly a particulary original belief) the rise of SF and republicanism. Perhaps you could also throw in war weariness/disilliusionment with WWI.
For what its worth I also believe that the UVF in 1912 were bluffing. The Government in 1912 (not 1914) should have made it clear that Home Rule on an All Ireland basis was going to happen. This was its lawful duty and it failed to do so. Instead the government waited, the UVF grew stronger and eventually armed itself in 1914. The UVF grew support and encopuragement from the weakness of the British Government. The stronger it appeared the more unlikely it was that the government would stand up to it, the more unlikely governemnt action against it was the more support form the British establishment if gained.
The UVF in the end was so close to the establishment that it became an entire division of the army in 1914 and its leader Carson joined the war cabinet. The time for action was 1912 after the commons vote.
It could legitmately be asked why should the Irish people in such circumstances be able to trust the British Government when it and its army don't want to enforce its own laws. Thats why I'd support all rebal actions from 1916 on. I'm not a physical force republican per se. The whole period was a tragedy stemming from the weakness of the British government in those crucial years.
Sorry I don't understand your mention of Redmonds call to arms. I think he was mistaken. He was playing loyalty bidding against the UVF leadership. The contempt that nationaist opinion was given by the British Establishment showed iwhen they didn't allow the IVF form their own divisions, like the UVF was allowed. For what its worth I think the Irish who fought in the British army were not fighting for anything particularly noble, though I respect the bravery of all men from every side who fought in the Western Front. I guess it was a failure because it didn't shore up support for him in the long term. Although it was successful from a British Army recruitment point of view.0 -
-
So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:For a start you are overemphasising Brugha. He did very little in revolution. O Duffy was in prison for much of the war and involved in GHQ. As you mentioned, he was involved in the Bellatrain attack with O Malley in Monaghan, a relatively minor affair.
And I think you misunderstand the Montie quote. He was been ironic, that we were more extreme with our rebels than the Brits were with us.
Michael Brennan was a leader in west Clare. He played a vital role in the war and in the civil war for the staters.
I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.
And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt
.
Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:
I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.
And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt.
Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.
Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:
I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.
And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt.
Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.
peopel within the region that comprises of the Western Division and parts of the 1st southern division are fully aware of whom michael brennan is, particularily during the civil war (battle of limerick)
cathal brugha took little or no part in the planning or fighting in the tan war. he was shut our and ignored by the likes of collins and GHQ, despite being the minister for defence. Brugha spent most of the time in his candle making store and on the run (he like collins escaped the german plot)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Shutuplaura wrote: »Hi Walrus. You raise some excellent points. There are indeed some very good reasons for favouring the pro-treaty side over the anti treaty one. Its all counterfactual history and therefore supposition. I do believe though that if you are going to wage a war for a goal, giving up short of that goal amounts to a defeat. The negotiations in the form they took where the British negotiating team dominated are a recognition of this. They wrung some consessions from the British and secured a better form of government from them than the partitioned home rule offered in the government of Ireland act.
My problem with all of this is and remains the question of
a)
why they agreeded to sign under duress (understandable that a section of the Dail was annoyed by this)?
if they were as close to defeat as Collins later made out (he may have been in a position to know, however, it was also worth his while to exagerate the IRA's weakness in order to sell his treaty to the public)?
and
C)
if in the event that further war did lead to an Irish Republican defeat would any future settlement imposed by the British would have given substantially less that the treaty gave the Irish people (had the British been serious and waged terrible war in the country and won, a consitutional concession seems likely. Terrible war that the British threatened would have probably looked like the Free State actions in the Civil war and so we would have perhaps avoided the war at all had the British been bluffing, and replaced one terrible fratricidal war with another terrible war, less terrible to me because it wasn't a civil war..)?
About your other points, I believe the 1916 rising did herald a change in Irish desires./ Not suddenly but the start of a gradual shift. It started with sympathy for the rebels and grew from there. Count Plunkett only barely won the Roscommon by-election in 1917. After his victory the by-election results became less difficult for SF. The Sinn Fein support for anti-conscription was a major boost to the republican movement. Without this I think its questionable that they would have had such support post war. Basically that is how I see (and I reckon its hardly a particulary original belief) the rise of SF and republicanism. Perhaps you could also throw in war weariness/disilliusionment with WWI.
For what its worth I also believe that the UVF in 1912 were bluffing. The Government in 1912 (not 1914) should have made it clear that Home Rule on an All Ireland basis was going to happen. This was its lawful duty and it failed to do so. Instead the government waited, the UVF grew stronger and eventually armed itself in 1914. The UVF grew support and encopuragement from the weakness of the British Government. The stronger it appeared the more unlikely it was that the government would stand up to it, the more unlikely governemnt action against it was the more support form the British establishment if gained.
The UVF in the end was so close to the establishment that it became an entire division of the army in 1914 and its leader Carson joined the war cabinet. The time for action was 1912 after the commons vote.
It could legitmately be asked why should the Irish people in such circumstances be able to trust the British Government when it and its army don't want to enforce its own laws. Thats why I'd support all rebal actions from 1916 on. I'm not a physical force republican per se. The whole period was a tragedy stemming from the weakness of the British government in those crucial years.
Sorry I don't understand your mention of Redmonds call to arms. I think he was mistaken. He was playing loyalty bidding against the UVF leadership. The contempt that nationaist opinion was given by the British Establishment showed iwhen they didn't allow the IVF form their own divisions, like the UVF was allowed. For what its worth I think the Irish who fought in the British army were not fighting for anything particularly noble, though I respect the bravery of all men from every side who fought in the Western Front. I guess it was a failure because it didn't shore up support for him in the long term. Although it was successful from a British Army recruitment point of view.
i will try to response the the above excellent responds. however, i feel that they will raise more questions than answers (so anything with a questin mark, is more me asking a question than me actually exprerssing "this is what i think!")
A. signing the treaty during duress.
i understand from reading extracts of diaries from people like robert barton and other history sources, than people like collins and griffith reminded/warned them by asking barton & co whether or not they wished by be hanging from the lamppost in dublin by the people if they refused to sign the treaty. there was an excellent clip in the brendan glesson tv film The Treaty about this.
A. signing the treaty during duress.
i understand from reading extracts of diaries from people like robert barton and other history sources, than people like collins and griffith reminded/warned them by asking barton & co whether or not they wished by be hanging from the lamppost in dublin by the people if they refused to sign the treaty. there was an excellent clip in the brendan glesson tv film The Treaty about this.
to add to your point, i would ask the qustion of whether or not, taking the massive threat of war (whether bluff or not) a side, where some of the signatories really under duress from the british. griffith was happy to accept the proposals, collins & griffith knew or had suspicions that a complete break was probably not possible, considering the reports that came back when dev returned from london in july. would they also feel that they could not come back to the dail from london in decemeber 1921 empty handed?
where the people in ireland, really ture republicans in the sense of brugha? (looking for the results in the general elections that followed). it was not so long ago many were voting for the irish parliamentary party, surely some attitudes were never lost when turning to sinn fein ? - (one person highlighted O'Higgins). maybe not everyone shared there opinion that the physical fight needed to carry on until the goal was achieved? were people simply fed up with attacks and counter attacks? i am not 100% sure what press coverage was like in those days, but surely there were comments, reports and editor opinion pieces in the papers about what happend at the july conference and predicitions of what would occur in the december sessions. surely some people on the streets had an idea of what might be going on and where not completely surprised with the outcome in december? dev always said that all he had to do was look into his own heart and he would know what the wishes of the people were (he elections records years later must have shown this). did the men who signed have a good understanding of what their own constituents were thinking? (collins - of course being from republican cork)
b- collins belief on the weakness of the ira.
interesting one that, considering that GHQ failed to properly communicate and give central directions to all divisions during the war. they had only started to side men down to train battalions in the west until late 1920's. people like tom barry was confident more fighting could continue. what i am aware of is that, by the time of the truce, many of collins's men were either dead or in prison. the british were beginning to get the upper hand on his intelligence system. who knows what would have happened had the war continued for 2 more months. the british must have had an idea of the strength of the ira by truce time. surely, though, the ordinary person and the volunteers themselves knew, without collins telling them, the actually strength of their own units? did collins utter this information in public or in the dail chambers?
c. britain's threat
would britain have implemented further war? would they not be pressured by the rest of the world (america, versaille peace conference) and their own people? rumours had being made though that they would use tanks and aeroplanes. whether or not it was bluff, its understandable ireland were not prepared or in a position to call their bluff. the king had early spoke at the opening of stormount of peace between the island of ireland and britain. did britain know or were they confident that moderate republicas would be "sensible" (in british eyes) and avoid further conflict? good point about the civil war though. did the british actually forsee this? (in talks with collins, churchill demanded action, but was very clear to point out that it must be seen to be action coming from the free state and not them, as to do so, would further strengthen the republican cause and led to many pro treaty people going to the other side. i note one rumour that churchill had suggested to collins to bomb the four courts from the air - churchill being happy to supply planes so long as they were painted in free state colours)
as for your comment on the uvf and their time of action should have come in 1912 when they signed the covenant - excellent point! i would be of the view though, with regard to the liberals home rule bill 1912, maybe they were half hearted about this. surely there were many in that party who were not keen on telling people who wished to remain loyal to westminister that they were now to be ruled by dublin? (domestic wise) you will be aware that it was in relation to another bill and trouble with the lords, that brought about the parliament act of 1911. would genuine pro home rulers in the liberal party be willing to see the party split to the advantage of the opposition over the issue of ireland, and in particular over loyal unionist?
you will of course be fully aware of the "original" Curragh mutiny (1914ish) where british troops in ireland refused to take action against unionists if they took arms against the home rule bill. clear indication of this would be their non intervention during the larne gun running and their acceptance of uvf men drilling in full view, some with arms. wouldn't all of this be powerfully advantage to the unionists, knowing that they said some important british institutions on their side?
with regard to the irish people's apparent acception of what was actually going on in the north, maybe redmond did not want to rock the boat, try and get what he wants without outbreak of war in the country? for the issues you and i have rose; this issues are amongst many as to why pearse did what he did and bring about the rising, and i would support and accept the actual neccisitity for 1916.
the reference about redmond's call to arms; yes he was mistaken. that reference of mine, is my answer to previous threads where people completly dennounced 1916 under some crazy belief that spilling of blood was not neccessary and that redmond would have sorted it out and thus would, naturally result in the ireland of today. (to which i say is possibly nonsense for reasons i pointed out in above posts and this) redmond's call to arms was to show ireland's good will and earn some brownie points (probably inappropriate word) to ensure home rule would be implemented - either way, it would have still lead to spilling of irish blood, albeit, in a foreign land and a foreign war for a foreign army.0 -
-
Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 9,588 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 9006
Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.Its response to the Monty quote is impossible to articulate :pac: (Really don't think it/he/she understands on the most basic level what that quote is saying)
Banned for a week. Learn to formulate arguments without insulting others.0 -
With Thanks from: walrusgumble.... OOOOOOhhh, look who's sore form previous debates we've had
Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.
. I know, it's the the British friends of Ireland thread isn't it
As Shutuplaura states " I don't see how irony can be seen in that statement. Its a fairly bland appraisal of what happened after the civil war started. "Its response to the Monty quote is impossible to articulate :pac: (Really don't think it/he/she understands on the most basic level what that quote is saying)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Off topic.Judgement Day wrote: »Just been reviewing your recent postings and I am intrigued that you have had nothing to say about the recent activities of the Continuity/Real IRA?0 -
-
McArmalite wrote: »With Thanks from: walrusgumble.... OOOOOOhhh, look who's sore form previous debates we've had. I know, it's the the British friends of Ireland thread isn't it
As Shutuplaura states " I don't see how irony can be seen in that statement. Its a fairly bland appraisal of what happened after the civil war started. "
soar?, ya amadan! i don't take discussions on the forms personal like you. I am also better equipped in making an argument. I stand by that "thanks". but most importantly, i am capable of reading a persons post IN FULL, and i am capable at least, for sake of a balanced discussion, see both sides of each argument.
Secondly, have one more glance at the "british friends of ireland". You will note, unless you are truely brain dead, that the purpose of the discussion was to assess whether or not there were british citizens who were friends of ireland. You managed to diss a number of labour UK party members like ken lingstone. of course, except bothering to discuss it properly, the usual 800 years carry on, kicks in. despite the fact that gentlemen like livingstone has received numerous death threats from loyalist and english people and despite the fact he worked hard for the irish in britian over the years.
You will also note the tone of a majority of people, whom disagreed with teh major tone of your comments. discussed whether a certain person was good bad or indifferent, regardless of opinions, at least most were capable of at least debate intelligently.
move on, lad. how should one even bother entertain moranic rants and get accussed of saying things or being misinterpreted by others who clearly and often even expressly say that they did not read posts in full.
so by all means, let everyone have a look at the said thread.
sorry lad, but i got a life, i dont get sore over nonsense like this, even if i am on hiding to nowhere whilst discussing something.
like i say, (and i do appologise to others) in principle, i stand by my thanks tag, i am fully aware what mods might do.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement