"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

McArmalite

Excellent review of this thoroughly agenda driven programme ( the worst case scenario possible for nationalist Ireland ) by Emmanuel Kehoe in today's "Sunday Business Post":

In August 1969, the news from Ireland was alive with death and violence. The North had erupted after years of sectarian government and the Republic which, for decades, had virtually ignored the discrimination against the North’s nationalist people, was forced to respond to the crisis.

The August skies over Derry were filled with the smell of burning petrol and tear gas. Television showed the ebb and flow of fierce street conflict - baton charges by the RUC, petrol bombs curving through the air and bursting on impact, hordes of young men in pitched battles with the police, the RUC being forced out of the Bogside.

In Belfast, loyalists were burning Catholics from their homes. The B Specials, that wholly sectarian paramilitary force, had been set loose. In the South the mood was turning angry. Those being beaten down by the Stormont regime and its supporters were, after all, ‘our people’, trapped, partly because of our studied neglect, in a gerrymandered statelet.

When Jack Lynch told the people his government could ‘‘no longer stand by - while innocent people were injured ‘‘or worse’’ that August, there was a reaction of rage, dismay, guilt and atavistic sentiments south of the border. That worse had, of course, already happened. In the highly speculative film, If Lynch Had Invaded (RTE 1) Diarmaid Ferriter attempted to put the prospect of a cross border intervention by the Irish army into its emotional context.

‘‘I think emotions ran so high over the summer of 69 that there would have been a significant degree of popular support for the sending of troops over the border. Because I think people would have reverted to the notion that they are ‘our people’," he said.

‘‘People in the Republic can identify with those who are being subjected to what they are seeing as state-approved violence, to this state-sponsored aggression. So I think there would have been those who would have thought that a further step that would have involved the movement of troops over the border wouldn’t necessarily have been the wrong thing to do."

But the message of this ‘what if ‘ film, which featured to great extent the opinions of Irish Times security analyst Tom Clonan, a former army officer turned academic, was that such an invasion would have been disastrous, not just for the Irish troops involved, but for our future as a country for decades to come. Neither country was yet in the EEC, and a nasty border incident that August could possibly have delayed their entry in 1973.

Is the idea that Lynch was contemplating an invasion of the North entirely far-fetched? Is there any basis at all to this piece of speculation? Is it sensationalist and meaningless? Purely academic?

If you look at the rest of his speech, it’s clear that Lynch put the situation in the context of the Stormont government’s behaviour since 1921, and the unacceptability of the RUC as an impartial police force. He stressed the unlikelihood that British troops could restore peace in the long term. He requested that the British government apply to the UN for a peacekeeping force to be sent to the Six Counties, and he asked that the British see to it that ‘‘police attacks on the people of Derry’’ cease immediately.

And it’s in the context of injuries inflicted in these attacks that his government had ordered that Irish army field hospitals be set up near the border.

Lynch went on: ‘‘Recognising, however, that the reunification of the national territory can provide the only permanent solution for the problem, it is our intention to request the British Government to enter into early negotiations with the Irish Government to review the present constitutional position of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland."

That doesn’t sound like Honest Jack had any intention of going in with whatever guns he had blazing, though a couple of his cabinet members wanted him to, and there was a growing feeling in the street that ‘‘something must be done’’. However, the nationalist people and unionists in the North seem not to have heard much beyond the most ringing phrase in the speech.

Eamonn McCann spoke of wild rumours that Irish troops were moving on Derry, ‘‘that so-and-so had seen them, they’re coming on the Letterkenny road’’.

John Taylor was the North’s junior home affairs minister at the time: ‘‘To imply that you were going to invade Northern Ireland meant that the British majority community here were going overboard, and there was a great danger they were going to retaliate against the Catholic minority and that there would be an outbreak of civil war."

Which, you might say, is typical of a unionist politician and a member of the regime that was the cause of the problem in the first case.

But Dessie O’Malley, a parliamentary secretary (Minister of State) at the time takes quite a different view: ‘‘If it caused a certain amount of alarm in Britain and Stormont, well it’s no harm that it did, because Britain was prepared to condone what Stormont was doing and Stormont seemed to feel that it was doing whatever it liked."

But the real ‘what if’ in Michael Hewitt’s documentary concerns the likely outcome of an invasion (at the level suggested it’s more of an incursion) by the Irish army, a force described by retired British Lieutenant Colonel Mike Dewar as ‘‘puny’’ and ‘‘tin pot’’, and by Dr Michael Kennedy of the Royal Irish Academy as ‘‘effectively a World War II standard army equipped with arguably World War I equipment’’.

But the fact is that the Irish regular infantryman of 1969 was armed with much the same weapons as his British counterpart: each had his own army’s version of the Belgian FN rifle, both had the Bren light machine gun (though the British had sensibly re-chambered it to use the FN’s 7.62mmammunition) and the FN General Purpose Machine Gun.

Both had 9mm submachine guns, the Gustav and the Sterling. Each used 81mm mortars and the Carl Gustav 84mmrecoilless rifle, a powerful anti armour and anti-personnel weapon still widely used in upgraded forms today.

What the Irish had was prudence. What they didn’t have, of course, was sufficient transport, any decent armour, any armoured personnel carriers at all, and, critically, nothing you could call air power. It had thousands of FCA reservists scattered around the country in units of varying quality and strength. The 20th Battalion, in which I found myself at the time, was, I believe, the only FCA infantry battalion in the whole country that had all its five companies in one barracks together with their weapons (including mortars and Carl Gustav 84s).

Based on secret plans (which have been in the public domain for years) drawn up by the Irish army in September 1979 for cross border incursions, clearly intended only in the event of a complete meltdown, Clonan’s scenario had a company of Irish soldiers, with apparently no fire support or anti-tank weapons, moving into Newry.

The army’s numerous scenarios envisaged other ‘‘unconventional’’ operations to draw troops away from the conflict, and also arming the Catholic minority, but in the Clonan proposition these don’t figure. The 120 infantrymen are on their own.

This scenario gave Clonan the opportunity to whizz about Newry in a military Land Rover and enthusiastically speculate. What I couldn’t understand was why, having taken the town and commandeered vehicles to get refugees out, his Irish then just seemed to wander off, take positions south of the town and wait to be slaughtered by the British.

RAF Phantoms and Harriers (were they actually in operation then?) would soon have been in the sky over the Irish soldiers, Clonan said. And slaughtered the Irish dutifully were, in the inevitable reconstruction, shot down like dogs as they ran away.

But it might just as easily have been very different. What if the Irish had got in and out fast? What if they’d run into the armed loyalist mobs who, presumably, would have given rise to all those refugees? What if the British hadn’t chosen to send in massive air power to overwhelm the pitifully small body of troops sitting like eejits outside Newry?

And wouldn’t the Irish have been better off holding out in the town if they wanted to make a fight of it? What if they had given a good account of themselves - after all, the British had recently had a torrid time in Aden, while Irish soldiers had proved to be tough nuts under siege in the Congo just eight years before.

‘‘I think the fighting would have been very fierce actually," said retired British Major General Julian Thompson, ‘‘because I think the soldiers on both sides were high-quality people."

But this is military fantasyland. Pick a card, Dr Clonan, the gamble might have gone any old way. Would it have provoked ethnic violence on a Balkans scale, as you suggested?

But hold on, something seems topsy turvy here. Surely the Irish were planning actions north of the Border only if the place had already slid into wholesale genocide and chaos?

Anyway, the ‘invasion’ didn’t happen. What did happen was a tendentious but ultimately pointless documentary, little more than a what if pub discussion shot as if made for MTV, with an eternally restless camera and presenters Clonan and Keelin Shanley constantly on the move, in and out of focus, talking over their shoulder to the viewer.

Because of this frenetic editing and strident music, it was deeply irritating, and after each break came the inevitable tedious recap.

And as for the reconstructions - why do them if they’re not spot-on? Clonan surely would have seen that the Irish soldiers’ gear was simply wrong for the period, and what self-respecting Brit would wear a riot face shield on his helmet to fight in open country? Maybe up against squaddies like that, the Irish might have had a chance after all.

http://www.thepost.ie/agenda/imagini...was-44041.html

captainblack

DoireNod said:

Yes and the UK state has killed many more people than militant Republicans throughout history. What are you saying?

What I'm saying is that we stick to contemporary issues - i.e. the last fifty years or so. To go back further in terms of compensation issues would be absurd.

They assumed a dual purpose really. Apart from the failure of the peaceful demonstrations from NICRA, no one else stood up for the civil rights of the seriously oppressed minority and people accepted the IRA's stand against the tyranny. Had the Irish government stepped in or the international community acted, it's possible that the IRA would never have come to prominence. As I said before, people let it get to a point where it took events like Bloody Sunday to militarise the oppressed.

No, I'm not happy about bundling the two issues together. If it was felt by a section of society in Northern Ireland that there were social issues that needed addressing then that certainly did not require a ferocious terrorist campaign. Who is to say that over time and with great effort (and yes, with those involved taking some police brutality and/or violent counter demonstrations) that these social issues could not have been resolved? I suspect that they would have been, in exactly the way that they were resolved in The American South without the need for violence on a massive scale.

Of course, if a section of society in Northern Ireland felt that their country was being occupied, then one can see why they might feel obliged to use violence to end that occupation. I don't see it that way retrospectively, but I can see how others might have done.

I think that the 'civil rights' issue is being elevated retrospectively by SF to justify IRA violence, because without this justification The IRA's campaign was a failure. 'National Liberation' did not take place, almost certainly won't take place and SF are now being paid by The UK to help administrate a Northern Ireland which sits as securely as ever within The UK.

I believe 'dissident' Republicans share my analysis on this matter.

captainblack

itsonlywords said:

So the nationalists would be free with equal rights to education employment housing and the basic human right to vote?

Oh they had the right to vote my ill informed friend. It was one man one vote to both Stormount and Westminster. At council level, there were property qualifications, but these applied to Protestants as well (and had only been dispensed with in England after the war). As for the other issues you mention, the causes of any perceived inequality were complex and not limited to discrimination.

Now with Republican politicians in power sharing and wasn't it lovely to seee the might mouth ignorant anti nationalist Paisley and his ilk having to cave in to nationalist .

They didn't have to. They could have continued with direct rule. In fact they could pull the plug today.

Why would an Irish Republican sit in a UK assembly and be paid by The UK State to pledge support to a UK police?

asdasd

At council level, there were property qualifications, but these applied to Protestants as well (and had only been dispensed with in England after the war). As for the other issues you mention, the causes of any perceived inequality were complex and not limited to discrimination.

So why was the law removing property qualifications not universal across the UK? YOu also miss the point that social housing could be used as a property qualification - therefore unionists would give social housing to Protestants over more needy Catholics and get an extra vote, electing a council which would give social housing to Protestants over more needy Catholics etc.

( Although I am not personally convinced by need - I think a queue is a fairer system).

MajorMax

We would have been wiped out

DoireNod

captainblack wrote: »

What I'm saying is that we stick to contemporary issues - i.e. the last fifty years or so. To go back further in terms of compensation issues would be absurd.

Maybe it would be absurd, but it is also absurd to think that one victim is in some way 'better' than another. As I said, for this to be accepted, it must be across the board.

No, I'm not happy about bundling the two issues together. If it was felt by a section of society in Northern Ireland that there were social issues that needed addressing then that certainly did not require a ferocious terrorist campaign. Who is to say that over time and with great effort (and yes, with those involved taking some police brutality and/or violent counter demonstrations) that these social issues could not have been resolved? I suspect that they would have been, in exactly the way that they were resolved in The American South without the need for violence on a massive scale.

They go hand in hand. People suffered silently, then they got a voice. Then when people weren't listening, they grew a boot and started kicking. It was the brutality that created the violent reaction. To say that people should have continued to suffer violence without recourse to violence themselves 'because violence is wrong' is nice in theory, but for the people suffering, with no Gandhi, they turned to the IRA.

I think that the 'civil rights' issue is being elevated retrospectively by SF to justify IRA violence, because without this justification The IRA's campaign was a failure. 'National Liberation' did not take place, almost certainly won't take place and SF are now being paid by The UK to help administrate a Northern Ireland which sits as securely as ever within The UK.

It's not hard to see that the civil injustices of the British establishment in Ireland provided the IRA with much support. People felt that the cause of the injustice was the British Government and rightly so.

I believe 'dissident' Republicans share my analysis on this matter.

That they do. Do you agree with what they propose?

wilson10

MajorMax wrote: »

We would have been wiped out

Somebody has decided to get back to the subject of the thread and I agree.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

Some Civil War. Fat middle aged coppers in the RUC armed with revolvers and a few sten guns and red neck bible thumping B Specials armed with the same or less, with a few days of firearms training between them.

You must know as well as I, that there would have been a hell of a lot more unionist bigots involved than the police force, in the same way that thousands of "ordinary" folks down here got involved in the war of independence and civil war.

McArmalite wrote: »

Yeah, bloodless, just as in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan and even Dublin at partition where Edward Carson was from and plenty of Trinity unionists etc who had been mouthing that they'd NEVER except Home Rule etc and their would only be a ' bloodbath ' otherwise etc, etc, etc. Not a whimper out of them or an objection from their brethern on the northern side of the border either when britian cast them adrift.

There would have been a bloodbath, had the unionists not being handed their big chunk. Many protestants left the south, and those along the border probably still felt close to their old chums not to bother moving.

As an example, The founders of the SuperValu "empire", the Musgraves in Cork, thought that they might have to leave in a hurry, but decided to stay here. Perhaps they imagined that robbing us would be better than taking off.

captainblack

asdasd said:

So why was the law removing property qualifications not universal across the UK?

Because it was a devolved matter. No, I can't say why it wasn't changed at the same time.

YOu also miss the point that social housing could be used as a property qualification - therefore unionists would give social housing to Protestants over more needy Catholics and get an extra vote, electing a council which would give social housing to Protestants over more needy Catholics etc.

Rose (1971: 293-4) used survey data to test allegations of discrimination in housing. He found that 35 per cent of his Catholic respondents, as against 30 per cent of his Protestant ones, lived in public housing. As he points out, this figure does not by itself disprove discrimination: maybe Catholics had a greater need for public housing. He then re-ran his figures, controlling for income size, and found that in all but one income category 'the proportion of Catholics in subsidised housing is slightly higher than that of Protestants'. He also broke down his figures by county and county borough, and found that the generally fair pattern remained. In four of the eight counties and county boroughs- Belfast, Derry city, Armagh and Tyrone - a majority of respondents in public housing were Catholics. The only evidence he found of any bias against Catholics came when he tested for family size, and found that among the very largest families (six children or more), there was a 12 per cent difference against Catholics in the proportion assigned public housing. But such families must have been a small minority of the total.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm

THE ABOVE IS NOT A UNIONIST FRIENDLY DOCUMENT.

THINGS THAT YOU LEARNT AT SCHOOL OR BY WORD OF MOUTH ABOUT NI ARE NOT NECCESSARILY TRUE.

DO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.

DoireNod

captainblack wrote: »

THE ABOVE IS NOT A UNIONIST FRIENDLY DOCUMENT.

The truth isn't unionist friendly when it comes to civil rights in Northern Ireland

THINGS THAT YOU LEARNT AT SCHOOL OR BY WORD OF MOUTH ABOUT NI ARE NOT NECCESSARILY TRUE.

DO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.

The things you read on boards, as posted by trolls and posters alike, are not necessarily true. Make up your own minds people.

Donny5

wilson10 wrote: »

Somebody has decided to get back to the subject of the thread and I agree.

It would have been a bad day to be a Vampire pilot.

javaboy

captainblack banned.... again

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

You must know as well as I, that there would have been a hell of a lot more unionist bigots involved than the police force, in the same way that thousands of "ordinary" folks down here got involved in the war of independence and civil war.

Yeah i know them well, they sure proved themselves if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. And their brave comrades in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin put up some fight :rolleyes:

We outnumber them 4 to 1, we've more than proved ourselves in the past. In August 1969 and before, it was alwys were nationalists are isolated and outnumbered that attacks happened - often teh unionist mobs been instigated and led by the RUC thugs. Ever notice how they never tried it in say Fermanagh, WEst Tyrone, South Armagh and Down ? A few possible skermishes and that would be the height of it. Peter Robinson's ' invasion ' of border village Clontibret been a fine example of the unionist ' backlash '

There would have been a bloodbath, had the unionists not being handed their big chunk. Many protestants left the south, and those along the border probably still felt close to their old chums not to bother moving.

Yes and as already stated, their was some ' bloodbath ' if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. They'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin etc Their track history says it all.

As an example, The founders of the SuperValu "empire", the Musgraves in Cork, thought that they might have to leave in a hurry, but decided to stay here. Perhaps they imagined that robbing us would be better than taking off.

Pointless comment.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

Yeah i know them well, they sure proved themselves if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. And their brave comrades in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin put up some fight :rolleyes:

We outnumber them 4 to 1, we've more than proved ourselves in the past. In August 1969 and before, it was alwys were nationalists are isolated and outnumbered that attacks happened - often teh unionist mobs been instigated and led by the RUC thugs. Ever notice how they never tried it in say Fermanagh, WEst Tyrone, South Armagh and Down ? A few possible skermishes and that would be the height of it. Peter Robinson's ' invasion ' of border village Clontibret been a fine example of the unionist ' backlash '


Yes and as already stated, their was some ' bloodbath ' if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. They'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin etc Their track history says it all.

Pointless comment.

I'm obviously off-topic because I'm talking about the original war of independence, so I'll say no more.

wilson10

I'm relatively new and I'm missing something here.

Can someone explain why Captainblack was banned, or shouldn't I ask.

javaboy

wilson10 wrote: »

I'm relatively new and I'm missing something here.

Can someone explain why Captainblack was banned, or shouldn't I ask.

He's a rereg of a previously sitebanned user.

K-9

itsonlywords wrote: »

First class were the ruling protestant classes, the second class werre the great unwashed protestant who depended on the social welfare system to maintain their drinking habits.
IRA never ran away as stated previously, had they run away we would still have the puppet governmant in our north.
The murders in Ireland by the terrorist brits were more in number than the deaths IRA were responsible for. Not disputable. The IRA fought for equality also. and thank God for that

The IRA did run way and I'm thanKful to DoireNod, who I'd often disagree with, for agreeing. The IRA of 1969 did run away.