If Lynch had invaded

munsterdevil

Did anyone see the documentary that was on tonight (1 September 2009). Wasn't it just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish that was ever made. It was like asking "If Ireland had invaded Poland in 1939, would they have won WWII?"

recharge

Yea was watching, wasnt the greatest doco RTE ever done and i was looking foward to it all week.

Honestly it was the truth, they wouldnt of had a chance, the only logical way i had in me head and was probably
in lynch's head aswell was thease 120 irish army troops go across the border and make a stand and in turn get slaughtered. Now we have 120 myarters 1916 style and in the backround Haughy is supplying wepons to the IRA andits new influx of recruits from down south with emotion and patherism running so high, they would of being afair few!

munsterdevil

Oh absolutely, it was the truth, they would have been slaughtered. But my point is they kept pushing the idea. But, even when a few military experts stated that he would have never done it, and if he did he would have came wth a bargaining chip, and that they would have withdrawn if Britain had called their bluff. But no, they still persisted with the what if...

That retired army Captain that co-presented it really bugged me as well, way over the top, but the female presenter wasn't bad.

recharge

On a side note the British General that was interview i tought showed great disprect to the irish by saying the army was useless and no match for the British Army.

He might of had a point in conventional warfare, but didnt the Irish Goverment recieve a letter just 40yrs previously asking for a truce?? after the war of independence,

And also didnt the PIRA keep the British Forces tied down up the north for 30yrs and forced Westminister to talk to terriorists.

This the same goverment that he served and represented.

The Irish army might be small but have defeated the British empire before.

munsterdevil

recharge wrote: »

On a side note the British General that was interview i tought showed great disprect to the irish by saying the army was useless and no match for the British Army.

He might of had a point in conventional warfare, but didnt the Irish Goverment recieve a letter just 40yrs previously asking for a truce?? after the war of independence,

And also didnt the PIRA keep the British Forces tied down up the north for 30yrs and forced Westminister to talk to terriorists.

This the same goverment that he served and represented.

The Irish army might be small but have defeated the British empire before.

Hmm a tad disrespectful, but not far off.

The British Army had changed radically in those 40 years, such as fighter airplanes etc. Not a whole pile changed in the Irish Army, and by 1921 BOTH sides wanted a truce.

The PIRA were losing their battle, and that is the main reason why they went to the table, and the PIRA is not the Irish Army.

Pride Fighter

munsterdevil wrote: »

That retired army Captain that co-presented it really bugged me as well, way over the top, but the female presenter wasn't bad.

I felt the same. The guy just came across terribly.

It did not look at the possibility of the Irish army putting on civilian clothes and beginning a guerilla war. We could have won that one.

munsterdevil

It did not look at the possibility of the Irish army putting on civilian clothes and beginning a guerilla war. We could have won that one.

Wouldn't have been too sure on that either, I mean keeping the fact that it was Irish soldiers that were carrying out guerilla activities would have been really hard in the long run. And if/when the Brits found out, we would have been really up excretion creek.

Fulton Crown

Complete rubbish !

Did you see what the Irish Army were given in terms of ammunition - 50 rounds.

Any decent criminal would hve 10 times that much..they would have been slaughterd.

Worrying thing is that some fcukin hardliners like Boland and Blayney would have sent them in !

Good on you Jack Lynch - kept your nerve.

Sloppy construction though...the nasal Keelin Shanley wes...well OK

jiggajt

recharge wrote: »

Honestly it was the truth, they wouldnt of had a chance, the only logical way i had in me head and was probably
in lynch's head aswell was thease 120 irish army troops go across the border and make a stand and in turn get slaughtered. Now we have 120 myarters 1916 style and in the backround Haughy is supplying wepons to the IRA andits new influx of recruits from down south with emotion and patherism running so high, they would of being afair few!

I thought it was alright but i think they failed to take into account what the irish and northern nationalist reaction might have been. Im sure significant numbers could have been drafted and armed if it was required. There was probably 200 men in the bogside alone.

I also thought that the irish american influence was underestimated but then again it was Nixon in power at the time and he didnt care about Ireland! Maybe if JFK or Bobby Kennedy was there it may have been different.

I think that the perceived reaction of other nations in the documentary was exagerated. Not all nations may have been so angered by Irelands actions. It was a pretty bloody time in world history what with Vietnam and El Salvador/Honduras

recharge

i understand the difference between the irish army and pira, but was just making general refferences between the conflicts between the two nations over the years. As PF said a gurellia warefare i tough would of had a totally different out come such as snatch raids across the border od something similar.

And with the canary warf bobbings i dont think the PIRA were really loosing, it was a finincal war at that stage and they demonstrated they could inflect huge damage in londons finincal district, but who has time for terriousm at that stage?? There fight was well and truely over.

recharge

jiggajt wrote: »

I thought it was alright but i think they failed to take into account what the irish and northern nationalist reaction might have been. Im sure significant numbers could have been drafted and armed if it was required. There was probably 200 men in the bogside alone.

I also thought that the irish american influence was underestimated but then again it was Nixon in power at the time and he didnt care about Ireland! Maybe if JFK or Bobby Kennedy was there it may have been different.

I think that the perceived reaction of other nations in the documentary was exagerated. Not all nations may have been so angered by Irelands actions. It was a pretty bloody time in world history what with Vietnam and El Salvador/Honduras

Did the Irish Goverment not bring the British Goverment to the European court of human rights at some stage of the goings-on's of 1969? And if so surely the international opinion would of being different?

Am totally open to correction on this one!

munsterdevil

jiggajt wrote: »

I thought it was alright but i think they failed to take into account what the irish and northern nationalist reaction might have been. Im sure significant numbers could have been drafted and armed if it was required. There was probably 200 men in the bogside alone.

I also thought that the irish american influence was underestimated but then again it was Nixon in power at the time and he didnt care about Ireland! Maybe if JFK or Bobby Kennedy was there it may have been different.

I think that the perceived reaction of other nations in the documentary was exagerated. Not all nations may have been so angered by Irelands actions. It was a pretty bloody time in world history what with Vietnam and El Salvador/Honduras

There wouldn't have been enough time to train them, and the British armies firepower would have demolished them.

But I do agree with you on they over reacting to foreign opinion. I studied newspaper reaction at this time and most foreign press were against the British on this issue (including the USSR but this was propaganda due to they invading Czechoslovakia). But importantly Britain was(still is) on the UN security Council, and other nations would not have wanted to thread on their toes. The application for a UN Peacekeeping force was vetoed by the UK.

munsterdevil

Did the Irish Goverment not bring the British Goverment to the European court of human rights at some stage of the goings-on's of 1969? And if so surely the international opinion would of being different?

Am totally open to correction on this one!

That was in 1971, and it was for treatment of detainees, mainly from the infamous internment.

jiggajt

munsterdevil wrote: »

That was in 1971, and it was for treatment of detainees, mainly from the infamous internment.

Actually was in 1977 and it was for internment alright!

munsterdevil

recharge wrote: »

i understand the difference between the irish army and pira, but was just making general refferences between the conflicts between the two nations over the years. As PF said a gurellia warefare i tough would of had a totally different out come such as snatch raids across the border od something similar.

And with the canary warf bobbings i dont think the PIRA were really loosing, it was a finincal war at that stage and they demonstrated they could inflect huge damage in londons finincal district, but who has time for terriousm at that stage?? There fight was well and truely over.

Yes but keeping it a secret that the Irish Government were behind such guerilla activities would have been difficult.

They were losing, members of the PIRA admitted that they could never get the British out by force. Plus if you read the book "Bandit Country" the ceasefire was their biggest downfall, it gave the British Intelligence system loads of time to combat future activity. They were able to trace the bomb all the way back to a farm in Crossmaglen.

munsterdevil

jiggajt wrote: »

Actually was in 1977 and it was for internment alright!

The Irish Goverment filed the application in 1971:D

recharge

munsterdevil wrote: »

Yes but keeping it a secret that the Irish Government were behind such guerilla activities would have been difficult.

They were losing, members of the PIRA admitted that they could never get the British out by force. Plus if you read the book "Bandit Country" the ceasefire was their biggest downfall, it gave the British Intelligence system loads of time to combat future activity. They were able to trace the bomb all the way back to a farm in Crossmaglen.

Thats right, it was actually in a car on the back of a recovery veachile. Went accross on the ferry from belfast and driven down to london.

Havnt read bandit country yet, have read many others about this period, Peter Taylor's triology i tought was good. At the end of the day i THINK LYNCH HANDELED IT CORRECTLY THE WAY THINGS TURNED OUT

brianthebard

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I felt the same. The guy just came across terribly.

It did not look at the possibility of the Irish army putting on civilian clothes and beginning a guerilla war. We could have won that one.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure a conventional army fighting in civilian clothes would go against the geneva convention and other agreements? Seems very unlikely. Aside from that I doubt the Irish Army had or has any training in guerilla warfare? Finally wouldn't this mean joining forces with an illegal army or armies? I didn't watch the show because to be frank I find history programmes on tv to be seriously reductive and hair rippingly dumb.

walrusgumble

recharge wrote: »

Did the Irish Goverment not bring the British Goverment to the European court of human rights at some stage of the goings-on's of 1969? And if so surely the international opinion would of being different?

Am totally open to correction on this one!

yes around 1969-1970 they intitated proceedings - treatment of prisoners. The brits of course did not want it, for

(a) they and Ireland were in negotiations with the EEC, Britian offered to support and help Ireland if their claim was dropped
(b) the usual guff of it being an internal matter

In fairness to both Lynch and Hillary they kept their heads and kept campaigning at the UN, held their own on the EEA and ECtHR front

its difficult to say how the international world would see ireland. they never gave much real taught to it before. Hillary had a hard enough time trying to get a motion before the UN table. Remember, Britain and the US were hand in hand then. Britian supported US (politically) with US concern over places like vietnam. Both forces were still occupying West Germany.

Fratton Fred

recharge wrote: »

i understand the difference between the irish army and pira, but was just making general refferences between the conflicts between the two nations over the years. As PF said a gurellia warefare i tough would of had a totally different out come such as snatch raids across the border od something similar.

And with the canary warf bobbings i dont think the PIRA were really loosing, it was a finincal war at that stage and they demonstrated they could inflect huge damage in londons finincal district, but who has time for terriousm at that stage?? There fight was well and truely over.

Britain and Ireland have never been at war.

the actions you talk about were the actions of a terrorist organisation and were not supported by the Irish government. if they were and the Irish wanted to trade city centre bombings, Ireland would look significantly different to the way it does today.

Hookey

brianthebard wrote: »

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure a conventional army fighting in civilian clothes would go against the geneva convention and other agreements? Seems very unlikely. Aside from that I doubt the Irish Army had or has any training in guerilla warfare? Finally wouldn't this mean joining forces with an illegal army or armies? I didn't watch the show because to be frank I find history programmes on tv to be seriously reductive and hair rippingly dumb.

Agreed. Card carrying IDF soldiers out of uniform in another sovereign territory? It would have been manna from heaven for the British Army. People tend to forget that the British army's activities against the PIRA were mostly supposed to be conducted under domestic police rules (with stuff like rules of evidence to think about). If the IDF was proved to be involved, legitimate cross-border incursions or even active invasion of the south by the British would have been on the cards. The only saving grace (not mentioned in the programme) was that Harold Wilson was broadly pro-reunification and may have held off the army. On the other hand, he wasn't doing particularly well in the polls at that point and I'd guess British public opinion would have been have been of the "Bomb Dublin" variety.

I definitely agree with the view that it would have set back Anglo-Irish relations even more than they already were, and would have dented Ireland's aspirations to join the EC; but it would also have had a huge effect on Britain's EC aspirations as well; De Gaulle had already knocked the Brits back by this point and two potential members at war could have taken British membership off the agenda for years, maybe forcing Britain into a renewed interest in the Commonwealth.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure a conventional army fighting in civilian clothes would go against the geneva convention and other agreements? Seems very unlikely. Aside from that I doubt the Irish Army had or has any training in guerilla warfare? Finally wouldn't this mean joining forces with an illegal army or armies? I didn't watch the show because to be frank I find history programmes on tv to be seriously reductive and hair rippingly dumb.

you know and i know, guerilla warfare would have taken on a hugely different event compared to 1919-1921. The brits would have being able to respond far more quickly during and after attack. Walkie talkies, Planes etc. - better communications

interestingly, although this sounds daft (surely they would) would Britain, with concern of their international opinion, really have unleashed their arsenals? bombs etc. I know this was a huge threat near the end of the tan war and the equipment was around should it be needed for the civil war.

Surely, even if the Irish Army had the trained men (members of the FCA? jesus) equipement etc, surely the civilians in the north would be required for intelligence and more military strength. Its amazing how hawks in the cabinet had no qualms with with sending troops in, yet seemed to work on (outdated) intelligence from unrealiable sources.

if anything, this show, this area brings to light or at least shows an strong argument that in later years, people like chaughey (how comepeletly distant himself) and cpt kelly believed that what ever they were doing they had government (lycnh and gibbons) approval.

Was it actually clever to bring this programme out? what does it achieve? hopefully not too many unionists were watching this. hopefully people like paisley are still on those tranquillsers.

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain and Ireland have never been at war.

the actions you talk about were the actions of a terrorist organisation and were not supported by the Irish government. if they were and the Irish wanted to trade city centre bombings, Ireland would look significantly different to the way it does today.

ireland and britain have never been at war? really? explain, you mean Irleand post truce or post 1948?

this by the way is not an attack, if you are referring to the above, well then fair enough

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

ireland and britain have never been at war? really? explain, you mean Irleand post truce or post 1948?

this by the way is not an attack, if you are referring to the above, well then fair enough

I was refering to what you mention here.....

walrusgumble wrote: »

interestingly, although this sounds daft (surely they would) would Britain, with concern of their international opinion, really have unleashed their arsenals? bombs etc. I know this was a huge threat near the end of the tan war and the equipment was around should it be needed for the civil war.

it was a war between the Irish and the Black and Tans, the Irish never felt the full strength of the British Military.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was refering to what you mention here.....



it was a war between the Irish and the Black and Tans, the Irish never felt the full strength of the British Military.

Firstly the war of independence was a war between Britain and Irish republicans. Secondly, has any country ever felt the 'full strength' of the British Military? To say the war of independence was just a war against the Black and Tans is (a) incorrect, and (b) suggests that Britain didn't really put much effort into it and could've won if they wanted to, which seems to go against the history of British involvement in Ireland.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Firstly the war of independence was a war between Britain and Irish republicans. Secondly, has any country ever felt the 'full strength' of the British Military? To say the war of independence was just a war against the Black and Tans is (a) incorrect, and (b) suggests that Britain didn't really put much effort into it and could've won if they wanted to, which seems to go against the history of British involvement in Ireland.

I think you are splitting hairs there TBH.

Judgement Day

I found myself having to watch it but it wasn't up to the standard of previous RTE documentaries and I found the sight of Keelin Shanley over and over again, and the various dental close-ups, spoilt the continuity. I think everyone on the island owes a debt of thanks to Jack Lynch for keeping his head when all round him were clearly losing theirs.

I noticed another nice irony in that back in 1969 the Irish Govt. expected an ill equipped and poorly funded army to go to war on its behalf and today its the British Govt who behave that way towards their forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's failed politicans that make war and the unfortunate squaddie that pays the price. They should have sent Blaney & Boland to lead the proposed invasion.

Hookey

Judgement Day wrote: »

I noticed another nice irony in that back in 1969 the Irish Govt. expected an ill equipped and poorly funded army to go to war on its behalf and today its the British Govt who behave that way towards their forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's failed politicans that make war and the unfortunate squaddie that pays the price. They should have sent Blaney & Boland to lead the proposed invasion.

There's degrees of "ill equipped and poorly funded", and the British Army in Afghanistan is far fitter for its role than the 1969 IDF would have been in Newry. But I take your point (although the British government has been happily underfunding its armies for 300 years, unlike its navies).

recharge

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain and Ireland have never been at war.

the actions you talk about were the actions of a terrorist organisation and were not supported by the Irish government. if they were and the Irish wanted to trade city centre bombings, Ireland would look significantly different to the way it does today.

What you on about lad?? There has being peace between the two countrys the last 900 odd years?????????????

And when do i say the Irish Goverment had anything to do with the canary wharf??

MrMicra

brianthebard wrote: »

Secondly, has any country ever felt the 'full strength' of the British Military?

The Tasmanians felt it I suppose.


Surely the purpose of an invasion would have been to stabilise the situation, get the RUC under control and SURRENDER to the British Army when they arrived.

The whole thing could have been handled in a manner that actually improved relations between the 2 countries. For example the surrender could have been given to the head of an Irish regiment. (This would have required the whole process being planned out in advance and agreed with the British).

I am not sure that our diplomatic corps would have been competent to manage this process with the British. I think that de Gaulle was actually in Ireland at the time and surely he could have intervened with Pompidou to help manage this process.

The purpose of the documentary was to whitewash Lynch by presenting an unrealistic worst case scenario. We have seen this trend for a while. First Lemass now Lynch. It is part of a political agenda on the part of elements within RTE to ensure the survival of Fianna Fail as a political force.

chalkitdown

I've always thought that Lynch should have sent a token force over the border.
The British have always denied that there was any war in Ireland so as to prevent U.N. getting involved.

An incursion would have forced the British to engage the U.N. and could have resulted in U.N. soldiers on the streets in the North.

This would have resulted in much fairer policing for all, and probably a much shortened 'troubles'.

Fratton Fred

recharge wrote: »

What you on about lad?? There has being peace between the two countrys the last 900 odd years?????????????

And when do i say the Irish Goverment had anything to do with the canary wharf??

tell me when there was war then?

there has been several rebellions against British rule and you could almost call cromwell's re-conquest as war I suppose (Although that was as much an over spill of the English civl war as it was Ireland V England) but the country of Ireland and the Country of England/Britain have never been at full blown, total war.

sliabh

MrMicra wrote: »

Surely the purpose of an invasion would have been to stabilise the situation, get the RUC under control and SURRENDER to the British Army when they arrived.

The whole thing could have been handled in a manner that actually improved relations between the 2 countries.

I can't see how it would have managed to do anything other than inflame a situation that was already boiling over.

Outside of a Peter Sellers film, having someone invade your country (especially if it is to "help" and point your failure to restore order locally) is not going to endear them to you in any way. The numbers of Irish troops available would be so small (relatively speaking) that they wouldn't be able to contribute much. Especially as the local police and army would have to treat them as the enemy, and the Unionist opoulation would also oppose their presence.

jiggajt

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there has been several rebellions against British rule and you could almost call cromwell's re-conquest as war I suppose (Although that was as much an over spill of the English civl war as it was Ireland V England) but the country of Ireland and the Country of England/Britain have never been at full blown, total war.

Actually it was a spill over of the Civil war until Charles bogged off with the remaining Royalist forces leaving Hugh Dubh o Neill to fight cromwells forces directly. Then you could argue it became an Ireland V England thing.

Also, there was the Nine Years War 1594-1903 in which Hugh o Neill and Hugh Roe o Donnell fought against the Elizabethan English. This was followed by the Flight of the Earls and subsequently the Ulster Plantation.

Also in the 1570s and 1580s the Desmonds of Munster were at war with the British and their subsequent defeat heralded the Muster plantation.

But i suppose these were mainly wars against provinces/chieftains and not an Ireland V England war. Maybe thats why we lost them all!! Where's Ray Houghton when you need him???:D

Jo King

chalkitdown wrote: »

I've always thought that Lynch should have sent a token force over the border.
The British have always denied that there was any war in Ireland so as to prevent U.N. getting involved.

An incursion would have forced the British to engage the U.N. and could have resulted in U.N. soldiers on the streets in the North.

This would have resulted in much fairer policing for all, and probably a much shortened 'troubles'.

If there had been an incursion, one of the things the British would have considered doing was give Lynch a list of 50 important pieces of infrastructure in the Republic. Airports, power stations, rail lines , bridges, broadcasting stations, factories etc. They would tell him that until his troops withdrew they would bomb all of these items of infrastructure from the air, starting in three hours time. The country would have been ruptured into smithereens in a night.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

tell me when there was war then?

there has been several rebellions against British rule and you could almost call cromwell's re-conquest as war I suppose (Although that was as much an over spill of the English civl war as it was Ireland V England) but the country of Ireland and the Country of England/Britain have never been at full blown, total war.

The Irish War of Independence was a war between the nations - whether your definition of "full blown" can be met or not. [We call the Iraq War a war yet the Western powers and the "coalition of the willing" have not used their full blown force of nuclear weapons. It nevertheless is a war.]The newly established Dail had ratified the Declaration of Independence in early 1919 and pledged the IRA to fight to withhold it. The IRA at this point was made the official army of the new Irish state.

The Tans were an auxiliary force sent in when the war was already almost two years old and not going well on the British side. We have many documents that support this - British Army dispatches show an army increasingly frustrated with the situation they found themselves in. The IRA’s guerrilla tactics were frustrating the traditionally trained army. We also know that Lloyd George had asked for an estimate of how much it would cost the British to win the war and was told a further £100 million and 100,000 men. He decided to not pay that price and this led him to the negotiating table and the Treaty.

sliabh

MarchDub wrote: »

We also know that Lloyd George had asked for an estimate of how much it would cost the British to win the war and was told a further £100 million and 100,000 men. He decided to not pay that price and this led him to the negotiating table and the Treaty.

And Collins also knew that the IRA was on the verge of collapse. It was fortuitous that the British Government was ready to talk. Had the "war" continued another 6 months the IRA may not have been able to keep going.

jiggajt

Jo King wrote: »

one of the things the British would have considered doing was give Lynch a list of 50 important pieces of infrastructure in the Republic. Airports, power stations, rail lines , bridges, broadcasting stations, factories etc. They would tell him that until his troops withdrew they would bomb all of these items of infrastructure from the air, starting in three hours time. The country would have been ruptured into smithereens in a night.

Haha, 50! We didnt even have 50 important pieces of infrastructure back then. Bomb, Dublin, Shannon, Ardnacrusha and Croke park and there'd be nothing left!

MarchDub

sliabh wrote: »

And Collins also knew that the IRA was on the verge of collapse. It was fortuitous that the British Government was ready to talk. Had the "war" continued another 6 months the IRA may not have been able to keep going.

Agree - the British had no idea of what was happening on the Irish side. A serious failure in their intelligence.

McArmalite

MrMicra wrote: »

The purpose of the documentary was to whitewash Lynch by presenting an unrealistic worst case scenario. We have seen this trend for a while. First Lemass now Lynch. It is part of a political agenda on the part of elements within RTE to ensure the survival of Fianna Fail as a political force.

Totally agree. RTE like all the other insitutions of the state but maybe worse, is full of cronies. I didn't watch the programme as I knew that the that the theme and conclusion of the programme was going to be. Well, Fianna Fail the Republican party so dearly wanted to live up to it's rethoric of the 30' 40's 50' and 60's - " the cause of our fathers, we'll be with you all the way men " etc, etc - but that they decided in a genuine humanitiarian concern that it would be better not to intervene and though we had bloodshed for 25 years, it was all for the better somehow and the Good Friday Agreement is the be all and end all for everyone and aren't we such a great little nation, blah, blah, blah

McArmalite

chalkitdown wrote: »

I've always thought that Lynch should have sent a token force over the border.
The British have always denied that there was any war in Ireland so as to prevent U.N. getting involved.

An incursion would have forced the British to engage the U.N. and could have resulted in U.N. soldiers on the streets in the North.

This would have resulted in much fairer policing for all, and probably a much shortened 'troubles'.

Exactly. If the Irish army had gone it, it would not have been seen internationally as an ' invasion ' but would have been seen as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught. It would have had the full backing of the International community, the USA especially - just like Eygpt had in Suez and Iceland in the Cod War* in the 1970's when britain humilated themselves. And not just Irish America, the plight of the Civil Rights marches etc obviously had huge resonations across the American public. Internationally britian was seen ofcourse as the instigator of the troubles. It had created and sustained the secterian apartheid state, their certainly would have been no sympathy world wide for the ' invasion ' of british terroitory.

If britain was a world power who can throw it's weight about like some imagine, how come they didn't bomb Iceland in the 1970's for cutting their fishing nets, ramming their trawlers and firing missiles at their navy. As well as burning down the british embassy in Reykjavík - technically british soil ?

Or attack Libya for Lockerbie ?

* For those of you too young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

MrMicra

This documentary presents absurd and worst case scenarios as if they were the likely result it was made for party political reasons.

sliabh wrote: »

I can't see how it would have managed to do anything other than inflame a situation that was already boiling over.

Especially as the local police ... would have to treat them as the enemy, and the Unionist opoulation would also oppose their presence.

If the local police took on the Irish army they would have died. The programme misrepresented the weapons used by our army.

sliabh wrote: »

Especially as the local ... army would have to treat them as the enemy

.
As suggested above a surrender could have been stage managed In a way that de escalated tension. An 'invasion' could have forestalled the growth of the IRA. It might even have led to a permanent liaison between the British and Irish armies and would have forced (through international attention) the destruction of the RUC.

Lynch was a cowardly, vacillating, partitionist incompetent. This program is an attempt to excuse his stupidity.
Lynch inflamed tension by making stupid threats for short term political advantage. People died because of his words this documentary is an attempt to whitewash him.

Every Fianna Fail Taoiseach except Lynch and Reynolds was corrupt. Jack Lynch ruined the Irish economy and by making his speech and doing nothing killed people.

DJsail

We could argue all day as to what constitutes an actual war, conflict or the troubles and the historic basis to the escalating violence that led Ulster to a spiraling lack of morality on both sides which it has only recently begun to recover from, the thread was pretty specific on asking peoples opinion on the RTE doc and as such found it an incredible waste of time and resources.

In a Republic where non-fictitous events such as gangland crime, un-employment, the re-emergence of emigration and drug dependence not to mention other issues such as the class divide in modern Irish society can be ignored to give us an account of how our under equipped and inexperienced defence force of the day (Thankfully things have changed) may have taken a trip to Newry only to be shot by the security forces of the North, well lets put it this way, the TV licence fee is vastly over priced!:rolleyes:

sliabh

MrMicra wrote: »

As suggested above a surrender could have been stage managed In a way that de escalated tension.

I can't really see how this would happen. And even in a best case where things didn't get worse, if the leader of any country ordered an invasion just so his troops could surrender he would be kicked out of government on the spot (even if his party wasn't "Republican", and the army they surrendered to wasn't the historical British bogeyman). It would make the country the laughing stock

MrMicra wrote: »

Lynch was a cowardly, vacillating, partitionist incompetent...
Jack Lynch ruined the Irish economy and by making his speech and doing nothing killed people.

I am not sure where you get your history from, but just on the economic side alone Lynch was minister for Industry and Commerce in the Lemass government of the 1960's and worked with Lemass and Whitaker in implementing the "Programme for Economic Expansion" which gave Ireland its first boom in the 60's.

And as for being cowardly, during the arms crisis he was the one that forced Haughey and his gang out of the party. That and a lot of his other actions saved lives in the South and North. He was fairly consistent in building relations with the British government in contrast to some who would have inflamed the situation in the north by providing tacit support to the IRA.

Just remember the British and American governments weren't shy about bombing of Libya for providing supporting to "terrorism".

brianthebard

MrMicra wrote: »

The purpose of the documentary was to whitewash Lynch by presenting an unrealistic worst case scenario. We have seen this trend for a while. First Lemass now Lynch. It is part of a political agenda on the part of elements within RTE to ensure the survival of Fianna Fail as a political force.

If we have a programme about Haughey then we'll know this is the case. Wait wasn't there a series already? :eek: Oh noes! Honestly though I agree with you although it is hard to see how much mileage they could get out of making programmes about the few coalition governments there were between FF, but there could definitely be more about the CnaG period on RTE, it was the formative period of the state after all....

dtgk1987

The answer is simple ladies and gentleman. The Irish Defence Forces would have not been able to defeat the British army in the north of this country. The Irish Defence Forces were under equipped. The most important thing to luck at from a military point is the Irish had no air cover. The idea was that the Defence Forces would cross the border and rescue people. It was not ment to be an invasion. I doubt very much that the LEGITIMATE government of this country would have let the Defence Forces train the P.I.R.A who we must rember did not recognise and probably still doesnt recongnise the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Irish government. Jack Lynch held this country together. Any body who agress with an invasion of the North in 1969 is a dillusional fantasist

dtgk1987

the F.C.A were given 50 rounds of ammunition for their bolt action .303 Lee Enfield rifles. The P.D.F were equipped with state of the art FN FAL 7.62mm Assault Riflles

DJsail

dtgk1987 wrote: »

the F.C.A were given 50 rounds of ammunition for their bolt action .303 Lee Enfield rifles. The P.D.F were equipped with state of the art FN FAL 7.62mm Assault Riflles

I don't know what's more freightening believing a .303 could actually make a difference in the escalating situation or sending in the FCA:eek:

jiggajt

Im quite baffled as to why the program chose a ficticious invasion of Newry anyway? Derry would have made MUCH more sense as that was where all the trouble was anyway! Newry couldnt be further away from what was going on at the time!

DublinDes

MrMicra wrote: »

If the local police took on the Irish army they would have died. The programme misrepresented the weapons used by our army.

Who would have died, the RUC ? What would the RUC a police force have had, handguns and maybe a few rifles. And what were the B Specials, a bunch of red neck part timers. And anyway, they were a Police force, their trained to point there guns at bank robbers shouting throw your weapons down or whatever. Not saying the Irish army was the best army in the world, but it wouldn't take much to take on a few middle aged coppers would it ?

DublinDes

dtgk1987 wrote: »

the F.C.A were given 50 rounds of ammunition for their bolt action .303 Lee Enfield rifles. The P.D.F were equipped with state of the art FN FAL 7.62mm Assault Riflles

The FCA were probably better armed than the RUC and B Specials FFS. What did the loyalist coppers have, revovlers and a dozen or two rounds at best :rolleyes:

2 or 3 of the regular army soldiers armed with automatic FN assault rifles and grenades, anti tank guns ( like an RPG but more pwoerful ) etc would have gone through a dozen or two of them.