'De Valera was a British spy' - New book claim

Morlar

I came across this article today, it is a pre-review of a book to be published in which the main contention seems to be that De Valera was actually a british spy.

From what I can make out the fact that there is an almost total lack of any evidence to support this does not seem to be standing in the way of the author, who, in my opinion is trying to generate some notoriety & money out of this.

Anyone else have any comments on this ? The author /the publishing house / the premise of the biography ?


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/de-valera-was-a-british-spy-1924389.html

'De Valera was a British spy'
Book claims national hero was 'turned' after 1916


By John Spain Books Editor

Monday October 26 2009

A NEW book to be published next month makes the shocking claim that Eamon de Valera, the founding father of the nation, was under the control of the British.

The book, provocatively titled 'England's Greatest Spy: Eamon de Valera', suggests that Dev was terrified of being executed after the Rising and was "turned" in exchange for his life. For some years afterwards, the book claims, Dev was under British control.

The 470-page hardback is published by Stacey International, a London publisher specialising in politics and history.

The author is retired US naval officer and historian John Turi from Princeton, New Jersey. He developed an interest in Irish history through his wife, who was born in Ireland. Turi has been researching his controversial book for a decade.

The case against de Valera by Turi is based firstly on a detailed analysis of Dev's emotionally stunted formative years.

He claims Dev was rejected by everyone in his early life -- his mysterious father in New York (in fact, Dev was probably illegitimate), his mother, his uncle in Ireland, who treated him coldly, even the Church, which rejected his ambitions for the priesthood because of his probable illegitimacy.

His miserable upbringing left Dev with an inadequate personality, Turi suggests, which made him susceptible to being influenced later on.

Turi is scathing about Dev's erratic behaviour during the Rising, when he was in charge of the men at Boland's Mill.

He stayed awake for days, became disorientated and issued confused, sometimes ridiculous, orders. "It was not just his tactics the men questioned," Turi writes, "they questioned his sanity as well."

Dev kept his men "sitting on their heels" while a short distance away at Mount Street Bridge eight Volunteers were trying to hold off hundreds of British soldiers.

In fact the men at Boland's Mill played little or no part in the Easter Week fighting, Turi says, because Dev was so exhausted and fearful.

At the end of the week, when word reached Boland's Mill of the surrender, Turi writes that de Valera "abandoned his men and slipped out of Boland's at noon on the Sunday, taking with him a British prisoner . . . as his insurance against being shot before he could surrender".

Cowardly

"De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops was (later) repackaged as de Valera the lonely hero fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds."

What followed was also suspicious, Turi says.

Dev later claimed that he was tried with a number of other men and sentenced to death.

Turi writes: "Not one of the men allegedly tried with de Valera ever confirmed that such a trial took place, and there is no trace in the British Public Record Office of any trial."

He also quotes the flat denial by the army prosecuting officer, William Wylie, that de Valera had been tried.

Turi also considers Dev's fragile mental state and tearful collapse at Richmond Barracks the night before he was taken to Kilmainham, to where condemned prisoners were sent.

All the events indicate that Dev was terrified of dying, Turi suggests, and that it would have been easy for the British intelligence officer Ivor Price to turn Dev into a British collaborator. Major Price was "skilled at manipulating weakness".

Turi notes that Dev was the only one of four Dublin commandants not to be tried and executed.

He dismisses theories that Dev was spared because he was born in America or because the British realised that further executions would be a mistake; as others were executed later.

The only reasonable explanation, Turi claims, is that Dev was "turned". In all, Turi sets forth a dozen instances of what he calls "de Valera's machinations that aided and abetted British interests" to support this claim.

Collins

Some of this 'evidence' concerns Dev's activities in the US after he was released from prison -- which split the powerful Irish-American lobby.

Turi also says the British feared what Michael Collins might do in the North and used de Valera to engineer the situation that resulted in Collins's death.

Turi also calls Irish neutrality during the World War II "a hoax on the Irish people and a major boon for English interests".

His book, which ends with a call for a posthumous trial of de Valera, will be published in Ireland and Britain on November 30 and in the US next year.

- John Spain Books Editor

Irish Independent

The book which seems to be this author's first, is already on Amazon if anyone would like to check it out ;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Englands-Greatest-Spy-John-Turi/dp/1906768099

Just found this from the publishers site which may shed some light on this :

http://www.stacey-international.co.uk/v1/site/product_rpt.asp?Catid=317&catname=Biography+and+Memoirs


John J Turi - Born and raised in New Jersey, USA, John is a graduate of the State University of New York and worked as a U.S. Naval Officer, a journalist for various newspapers and a Legislative Aide to a New Jersey Assemblyman and Senator. He is married to Marie Claire O'Donnell, a native born Irishwoman and descendant of the legendary O'Donnells. Her father and uncles opposed the British occupation, with one uncle suffering the loss of an arm in a skirmish with the English. John is an amateur historian whose argument in this book is compelling, convincing and researched in depth.

McArmalite

I'm not a fan of Dev by any menas but as you say the " author, who, in my opinion is trying to generate some notoriety & money out of this. " It's just conspiracy theory nonsense. I'd say money is his main motivation full stop.

One thing has to be said that Dev did considerable harm to the Irish American campaign when he went over there and ran up huge expences - a attribute very common in the scumbags that the Irish public elects to destroy the country. It's covered in Tim Pat Coogans Micheal Collins I think, in the chapter The War from the Waldorf. When Dev went over there he immediately wanted full control of the movement brushing aside everyone else's opinion and incited recrimantions from powerful Irish American politicans and people of influence such as Supreme court judges etc. More to do with his ego and vanity than been a british spy.

Morlar

McArmalite wrote: »

It's covered in Tim Pat Coogans Micheal Collins I think, in the chapter The War from the Waldorf.

Cheers, I remember that Dev doesn't come out too well in that book, with stories of his nerves going at Bolands Mills, and the discrepancy in the stories of who raised the Green flag with the harp on it to divert british fire etc I suppose I was more interested if there was any shred of this (above) being mentioned elsewhere. Or, if it really was just the inventions of an amateur historian backed by a professional publishing house rather than being vanity published.

brianthebard

Omg, so that's why he shot Michael Collins! :eek: it all makes sense now!

Seriously tho, how did he get 470 pages out of this??

Morlar

I'd guess the first draft of this book probably had chapter titles like 'Mortgage repayment #1', 'Car Payment #2' and 'Weekend holiday' etc.

Fratton Fred

can someone explain to me what it was that Dev did that made him so powerful?

He bottled it in 1916, bottled the treaty negotiations and then kept his head down during the civil war after which bingo, he becomes a pseudo king.

I have never understood how or why he managed to get where he did.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

can someone explain to me what it was that Dev did that made him so powerful?

He bottled it in 1916, bottled the treaty negotiations and then kept his head down during the civil war after which bingo, he becomes a pseudo king.

I have never understood how or why he managed to get where he did.

And yet somehow he helped establish and solidify the Dail, led the republic through the formative years of independence, kept the economy alfoat, wrote our constitution and kept us out of the 2nd World war. While on the international stage ensuring that Ireland's voice was not drowned out by the british. I think many people would see him as being the most internationally minded thinker behind republicanism of that time.

I wouldn't agree that he 'bottled' the negotiations, I think he was shrewd enough to know what was coming down the line and manipulated Collins & others into an impossible position in his place. You could argue that it was manipulative, cynical and disingenous but not, in my view, the result of a loss of resolve. This is of course going along with the historical consensus that his argument (that he needed to be kept in reserve) was a falsehood, had things played out differently that role would have made perfect sense so it is hard to be sure. I think it's a difficult question.

To my knowledge there were moments at Bolands Mills where his nerves went (his was not the only one - one other volunteer went mad and shot a man before being shot down himself). I think in the circumstances a few moments of nerves when first going into battle against a larger, better trained, better armed and more experienced army is forgivable. The fact that it was played down or written out of history for decades is also understandable. From what I recall this amounted to - waking up screaming to 'set fire to the railway', appearing gaunt from not having slept properly for the entirety, and there was some sort fo question over the timing of the surrender and who placed the green flag on the 2nd tower to draw british fire. It is not as if he hid under his bed at home for the duration.

His lengthy stay in america could equally be held against him. Overall he had many strong points and the alternatives to his leadership who survived would not have done as comprehensive a job as he did throughout the earlier years.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Overall he had many strong points and the alternatives to his leadership who survived would not have done as comprehensive a job as he did throughout the earlier years.

Interesting post, thank you.

I think the key word there could be "Survived". as a conversation point, were the anti treaty side convinced that the cival war was the right way forward and were they so anti the treaty that taking up arms was an inevitability? it cost a lot of lives and in reality achieved pretty much nothing, other than getting arguably the greatest Irish man of his generation killed. Was the civil war really a war over an oath to a King, or was it a power struggle between Dev and Collins?

restaurants

brianthebard wrote: »

Omg, so that's why he shot Michael Collins! :eek: it all makes sense now!

Seriously tho, how did he get 470 pages out of this??

In those days all of the major players had to be a spy at some level.
Otherwise they did not know what was going on.

jiggajt

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think the key word there could be "Survived". as a conversation point

I think he means survived the rising, not the civil war, although he may mean both. Perhaps that would be a good topic for another post, "Who would have made the best leader out of the seven signitaries of the proclamation?"

In terms of Dev being a spy I can't really see it. Its an interesting conspiracy and i may even check out the book for a laugh.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

were the anti treaty side convinced that the cival war was the right way forward and were they so anti the treaty that taking up arms was an inevitability?

My perspective on this is that there were a myriad of reasons, primarily being that they saw it (conflict with their previous comrades - ie Civil War) as the least of the necessary evils they had to choose from at that time.

Also it was not a foregone conclusion that it would develop into full on warfare between pro and anti treaty. The thinking on the anti treaty side would have been that once they tip the balance of power in their favour by holding strong and occuppying buildings etc the rest of the pro-treaty side would, on seeing how determined they were and capable, throw in their lot with the anti treaty side to restore unity.

Also it seems to me safe to assume that many (anti treaty IRA) would have thought that if conflict erupted it would be short and decisive allowing them to then return to the envisaged prolonged campaign for, or, even extended War of Independence. Given that at that time the country was in a war mood perhaps they thought it better to get it all out of the way there and then rather than wait another generation or two as had always been the case after previous uprisings in Irish history. The mood of finality on the entire subject may have coloured their thinking.

From everything I have read the anti-treaty side were not warmongers, nor were they playing out personal power plays against rivals on the other side for the sake of it. They were as sincere in their beliefs as the pro-treaty side were in theirs. Of course there were rivalries and personal dislikes between some on either side but that was not a motivating factor in my view.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it cost a lot of lives and in reality achieved pretty much nothing, other than getting arguably the greatest Irish man of his generation killed. Was the civil war really a war over an oath to a King, or was it a power struggle between Dev and Collins?

It cost a lot of lives and shaped our society for generations politically and socially even you could argue to this day. The only achievement would be that it was eventually won. You can argue whether it would have been better for the country had the other side won but the only achievement I can think of in those terms is that it was won and (eventually) that was that. I would put the ultimate blame for that squarely on the british side of the fence.

I think it is pretty offensive to suggest that the Irish Civil war was based on a power struggle between Collins and De Valera. If you are asserting that you should back it up with something.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I think it is pretty offensive to suggest that the Irish Civil war was based on a power struggle between Collins and De Valera. If you are asserting that you should back it up with something.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, or provocative, I am just interested in people's perspective on it.

All Civil wars, be they Irish, English, Spanish or French are power struggles of a sort and usually it is the winners who gain that power. Dev was not on the winning side, yet seemed to come out of it better than anyone else and benefitted from the death of Michael Collins. I think that is what has sparked my curiousity.

Would he have obtained the position he did without civil war? I'm not so sure that he would.

brianthebard

restaurants wrote: »

In those days all of the major players had to be a spy at some level.
Otherwise they did not know what was going on.

I don't know what you mean, can you expand please?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wasn't trying to be offensive, or provocative, I am just interested in people's perspective on it.

All Civil wars, be they Irish, English, Spanish or French are power struggles of a sort and usually it is the winners who gain that power. Dev was not on the winning side, yet seemed to come out of it better than anyone else and benefitted from the death of Michael Collins. I think that is what has sparked my curiousity.

Would he have obtained the position he did without civil war? I'm not so sure that he would.

I think your question is a fair one, since Dev and Collins came to represent both sides of the civil war really, but its also fair to say that Dev represented the political voice of one side, and Collins the military side of the other, so its not quite comparing like with like either imo.
As for the position(s) he obtained, as (afaik) the only battalion leader left alive after 1916 I think yes there was a very good chance he would have had a very successful career no matter what. Even today many of the political class would still claim to have had an ancestor in the GPO during Easter Week.

walrusgumble

it always makes me laugh when people make i huge issue out of Dev freaking out during the war.who knows how we would be react. granted, he was never one to shy aware from the adrimation and glory of being a commandant and the last surving one at that. and yes, they lived up that reputation. The man was not a military man, he was a academic.He still went out in 1916, least can be said for others around the country.

despite that though, TP Coogan and Diarmiud Ferriter (that book was an awful waste of money) note that his men at Boland'd Mill, who would later become his trusted allies in FF, would nearly kill anyone who raised any adverse remarks regarding Dev's performance that Easter Week.

We have always being a nation of begruders.Incidents like that would never have being kept quiet. How did Dev manage to obtain and keep such a group of die hard committed people who supported him?

Considering, as one above noted, when he went to America, he raised a very large amount of money yet (as we saw recently with the expenses scandal) he stayed in the best hotels etc, barely even half of the money was sent home, as TP Coogan states some of this went to his Irish Press "project". That money given by Irish American's to support the Irish war effort. Instead, because of his ego, many men and women were left "unprotected" back home. I don't accept for one minute that people in Ireland had not questioned Dev's spending or were ignorant to developments in America.The one time Dev got control of of military matters, it leads to complete and fatal disaster -Customs House raid


Considering people had no qualms throwing some dirt and questioning the motives of Collins during the Dail debates, why was Dev's actions not raised in the Dail?

With regard to Dev being a spy, surely there would some some evidence available now to support this? Churchill, oddly enough grew to like Dev after WW2, would surely have had no qualms making this public to discredit Dev before the break of WW2 or when Dev became President of the League of Nations (as we know, Ireland had joined the League much to the anger of Britian) or even when WW2 ended? Sureley there would be some evidence in Churchill's papers to sugest this allegation? surely even some Unionist would have made some allegation?

I couldn't stop laughing when the article referred to the author's wife being "a decendant of the legendary O'Donnell's". why say this? to big himself up to the yanks? to give him more street cred?

Must say, I am tempted to read this, as someone said, for a laugh.i will wait until the local library gets it in.

Imagine, if this book came out in the 1960's or even 1970's. Jesus there would be bonfires all over the country, book shops would have being raided. Jackie Healy Rae types in their element.

MarchDub

walrusgumble wrote: »

it always makes me laugh when people make i huge issue out of Dev freaking out during the war.who knows how we would be react. granted, he was never one to shy aware from the adrimation and glory of being a commandant and the last surving one at that. and yes, they lived up that reputation. The man was not a military man, he was a academic.He still went out in 1916, least can be said for others around the country.

despite that though, TP Coogan and Diarmiud Ferriter (that book was an awful waste of money) note that his men at Boland'd Mill, who would later become his trusted allies in FF, would nearly kill anyone who raised any adverse remarks regarding Dev's performance that Easter Week.

We have always being a nation of begruders.Incidents like that would never have being kept quiet. How did Dev manage to obtain and keep such a group of die hard committed people who supported him?

Considering, as one above noted, when he went to America, he raised a very large amount of money yet (as we saw recently with the expenses scandal) he stayed in the best hotels etc, barely even half of the money was sent home, as TP Coogan states some of this went to his Irish Press "project". That money given by Irish American's to support the Irish war effort. Instead, because of his ego, many men and women were left "unprotected" back home. I don't accept for one minute that people in Ireland had not questioned Dev's spending or were ignorant to developments in America.The one time Dev got control of of military matters, it leads to complete and fatal disaster -Customs House raid


Considering people had no qualms throwing some dirt and questioning the motives of Collins during the Dail debates, why was Dev's actions not raised in the Dail?

With regard to Dev being a spy, surely there would some some evidence available now to support this? Churchill, oddly enough grew to like Dev after WW2, would surely have had no qualms making this public to discredit Dev before the break of WW2 or when Dev became President of the League of Nations (as we know, Ireland had joined the League much to the anger of Britian) or even when WW2 ended? Sureley there would be some evidence in Churchill's papers to sugest this allegation? surely even some Unionist would have made some allegation?

I couldn't stop laughing when the article referred to the author's wife being "a decendant of the legendary O'Donnell's". why say this? to big himself up to the yanks? to give him more street cred?

Must say, I am tempted to read this, as someone said, for a laugh.i will wait until the local library gets it in.

Imagine, if this book came out in the 1960's or even 1970's. Jesus there would be bonfires all over the country, book shops would have being raided. Jackie Healy Rae types in their element.

Excellent post!

For those of us old enough to remember the man and be alive during his later years there is much that is not new here with these "revelations". Most of those who turned out in 1916 were not soldiers - they were academics, poets, playwrights, but they turned out and took on an Empire for what they believed necessary to achieve a better life, and control over Irish affairs, for future generations.

I remember as a child many years ago going with my father to a political rally in the street outside the GPO. Most of those there had memories of - or had participated in - the War of Independence and life prior to the British withdrawal. That generation loved and admired the 1916 men and women. They knew what had been achieved and what it took to achieve it and were immensely proud of that achievement - and thankful. I remember well their stories - but most of all their pride in what we Irish had done. I can still remember the absolute almost reverent hush that would come over the crowd when De Valera's name would be announced and then arrive. He came amongst the cheering crowd like a conquering hero. But I never saw arrogance in his face. Personally he remained a humble man. He had all the magic of 1916 for that generation - and they gave him full respect for it, no matter what their individual politics were. So he did not always behave stony nerved in the face of combat? so what, he did what he had to do and thanks to him and all the others for that.

I have little patience for the armchair combatants - and revisionists - who pick perniciously at 1916 as if what we have now means nothing or have little knowledge of the implacability of the British at that time. The British never gave an inch anywhere they were not forced to do so. And the War of Independence was a huge push for the Irish - and involved much sacrifice. I remember a veteran of that time saying to me as a youngster - "it means so much to me to see a generation born in a free Ireland grow up and be amongst the first generation born into freedom".

slackerdude

I just bought the book in Hodges Figgis yesterday and look forward to having a right good laugh over the Christmas period reading it. What particularly caught my eye was the reference in the index to Charles Burgess. Many people will think this person a fairly obscure figure until they realise that the man referred to changed his name to Cathal Brugha in 1910. I'm sure the Brugha family will be delighted to see their distinguished relative so identified in the book. Incidentally, the author might be interested to know that Collins succumbed to vindictive anger in 1922 when he had a letter published in the Irish Times where he referred to Brugha by his hated English name knowing how much annoyance this would have caused Brugha. I wonder how many copies the author will sell?

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Dev by any menas but as you say the " author, who, in my opinion is trying to generate some notoriety & money out of this. " It's just conspiracy theory nonsense. I'd say money is his main motivation full stop.

One thing has to be said that Dev did considerable harm to the Irish American campaign when he went over there and ran up huge expences - a attribute very common in the scumbags that the Irish public elects to destroy the country. It's covered in Tim Pat Coogans Micheal Collins I think, in the chapter The War from the Waldorf. When Dev went over there he immediately wanted full control of the movement brushing aside everyone else's opinion and incited recrimantions from powerful Irish American politicans and people of influence such as Supreme court judges etc. More to do with his ego and vanity than been a british spy.

To be honest with you McA I think that Tim Pat C has a bit of an ax to grind against De Valera. I have had my own issues with Dev and some of his policies but of recent years much of the criticism is way over the top – and as you say is nothing more than conspiracy theories spun out for money making. But my concern is that some of these “theories” get to the heart of trying to de-legitimise the origins of the Irish state.

I don’t think that the expenses issue is so huge as Coogan makes out – for one, Dev stayed in the best hotels in the US but he was there as President of Ireland and the psychology demanded that he act that way i.e. stay at the place where other Heads of State would stay. The US had not recognized Ireland’s status and Dev was a man with much belief that if you walk like a duck then you will be treated like one. Remember the Wall Street Journal - among other leading US newspapers – sniffed at the money collections coming from “Irish maid servants” and others of “low intelligence”. Personally knowing America I would have agreed that he had to stay in dignified headquarters to gain any traction with being taken seriously as a head of state.

As for his difficulties with Irish Americans – he is not alone in that one. Irish Americans frequently adopt a patronizing attitude to Ireland and native Irish. From my own reading of the correspondence between the principals of the Irish American rift much blame can be placed on Cohalan and Devoy of Clan na Gael in the US. Dev’s problem with them was that he saw himself as a head of state – their problem was that they saw him as just another Irish delegate coming over to the US looking for money and ought to be willing to let them head the show. In an attempt to let the Americans know the score at one point Arthur Griffith wrote to them – on Dail letterhead - asking them to please stop their attacks “on the authority and credit of the President of the Irish Republic”. Griiffith rightly pointed out in his letter to them that the British press was using their behaviour as a propaganda tool.

Likewise the Irish delegation to London in summer of 1921 stayed at the Grosvenor Hotel for exactly the same reason – dignity and respect. The Irish were not going to go into negotiations with the British coming out of B and Bs each morning. When the Treaty was finally negotiated that Autumn, the plenipotentiaries took a house in Hans Place – one of the most prestigious addresses in London. It had to be this way if they were going to feel dignity in their own position and come close to be treated as being on equal terms with the British delegation.

Morlar

I think there are some good points there about De Valera. I would not hold his Bolands Mills behaviour against him in any way. I had thought of making that point previously that these were by and large not soldiers, and it must have been an awesome, fear inspiring experience for the likes of tobacconists, newsagents, students etc to go up against the well equipped, well armed and very experienced WWI period british army in rural or urban Ireland.

I remember reading (in that same TPC Collins book) an anecdote about an auxie during the War of Independence who mentioned that one of his men had, on arriving in Ireland and the first time driving down the road, stopped 3 people and shot 2 of them, one a priest in broad daylight for no reason whatsoever. The only reason anything came from it was that the survivor happened to be a local RM. Another auxie writing that his experiences in (I believe in either Cork or Balbriggan - again WOI) made his flanders days seem like basically a walk in the park. I think it would be exremely presumptious to hold the behaviour of those volunteers against them either during the Rising or the War of Independence considering what they were up against and the possible treatment they were in for on being caught.

I would not buy this book for the novelty factor, as I would not give a single cent to the author. I may read it from a library or on the internet out of curiosity however, I will definitely not be encouraging the author by spending €15-€20 euro on his efforts.

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

I would not buy this book for the novelty factor, as I would not give a single cent to the author. I may read it from a library or on the internet out of curiosity however, I will definitely not be encouraging the author by spending €15-€20 euro on his efforts.

Thank you!! I was about to make the same point. I would under NO circumstances buy this piece of rubbish and give the author a royalty. Buying this book is supporting this kind of trash. I will get it in a library if I ever need to look at it but giving the author - or the publisher - my money is not on the cards.

brianthebard

Taking a book out of the library gets the author a royalty as well people, just so you know.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Taking a book out of the library gets the author a royalty as well people, just so you know.

No actually - the library makes the decision to buy [so that is not my money and beyond my control], taking the book out does not in any way add to the royalty.

brianthebard

I read before that each time a book is taken from the library the author receives a royalty, not as much as if it were a newly purchased copy but still something. I would have to look it up to be certain but I'm fairly sure that's the case. Of course you could read it in the library and that would remove all possibility of giving him extra revenue, I doubt you'll want to go past the first chapter from the sounds of the blurb!

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I read before that each time a book is taken from the library the author receives a royalty, not as much as if it were a newly purchased copy but still something. I would have to look it up to be certain but I'm fairly sure that's the case. Of course you could read it in the library and that would remove all possibility of giving him extra revenue, I doubt you'll want to go past the first chapter from the sounds of the blurb!

I can assure you that this is not the case - been involved in publishing and know that this is not the case. Authors receive only royalties on actual copies sold and royalty statements cover this number only - broken down into type of copy: paperback, hardback, foreign sales etc. But the bottom line for an author royalty is number of copies sold. This is why library copies are essentially useless for profit from both authors' and publishers' point of view - except that they do act as "advertising" and might lead to readers wanting to own and therefore then buy.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

I can assure you that this is not the case - been involved in publishing and know that this is not the case. Authors receive only royalties on actual copies sold and royalty statements cover this number only - broken down into type of copy: paperback, hardback, foreign sales etc. But the bottom line for an author royalty is number of copies sold. This is why library copies are essentially useless for profit from both authors' and publishers' point of view - except that they do act as "advertising" and might lead to readers wanting to own and therefore then buy.

Not sure about Ireland, but that's not the case in the UK; there's a library royalty model (Public Lending Right) that works out about 2p a lend. Not much, but I remember authors agitating to get it increased a couple of years ago. i'd be very surprised if Ireland doesn't have something similar.

MarchDub

Hookey wrote: »

Not sure about Ireland, but that's not the case in the UK; there's a library royalty model (Public Lending Right) that works out about 2p a lend. Not much, but I remember authors agitating to get it increased a couple of years ago. i'd be very surprised if Ireland doesn't have something similar.

Interesting. Just looked up what you say and I see that it applies to UK - I worked in publishing in the US some years ago and in Ireland and it did not exist and apparently it still does not apply in US. I talked to a guy I know in publishing in Dublin and he says that Ireland does not have it fully implemented yet [public libraries were excluded in Ireland] but is working to have it done under pressure from the European Commission.

It's a great idea, authors are short changed at every turn. Most authors get quite small returns on their books in spite of what you might read in the newspapers about large payments to a few "personality" authors.

Data_Quest

MarchDub wrote: »

To be honest with you McA I think that Tim Pat C has a bit of an ax to grind against De Valera. I have had my own issues with Dev and some of his policies but of recent years much of the criticism is way over the top – and as you say is nothing more than conspiracy theories spun out for money making. But my concern is that some of these “theories” get to the heart of trying to de-legitimise the origins of the Irish state.

What about the Irish Press shares controversy where he effectively conned mainly Irish Americans into parting with 250,000 dollars for no return? These revelations are not exaggerated and way over the top are they? This would have been a vast fortune in the late 20s and early 30s when the money was raised and guaranteed that De Valera and family remained very wealthy.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

To be honest with you McA I think that Tim Pat C has a bit of an ax to grind against De Valera. I have had my own issues with Dev and some of his policies but of recent years much of the criticism is way over the top – and as you say is nothing more than conspiracy theories spun out for money making. But my concern is that some of these “theories” get to the heart of trying to de-legitimise the origins of the Irish state.

I don’t think that the expenses issue is so huge as Coogan makes out – for one, Dev stayed in the best hotels in the US but he was there as President of Ireland and the psychology demanded that he act that way i.e. stay at the place where other Heads of State would stay. The US had not recognized Ireland’s status and Dev was a man with much belief that if you walk like a duck then you will be treated like one. Remember the Wall Street Journal - among other leading US newspapers – sniffed at the money collections coming from “Irish maid servants” and others of “low intelligence”. Personally knowing America I would have agreed that he had to stay in dignified headquarters to gain any traction with being taken seriously as a head of state.

As for his difficulties with Irish Americans – he is not alone in that one. Irish Americans frequently adopt a patronizing attitude to Ireland and native Irish. From my own reading of the correspondence between the principals of the Irish American rift much blame can be placed on Cohalan and Devoy of Clan na Gael in the US. Dev’s problem with them was that he saw himself as a head of state – their problem was that they saw him as just another Irish delegate coming over to the US looking for money and ought to be willing to let them head the show. In an attempt to let the Americans know the score at one point Arthur Griffith wrote to them – on Dail letterhead - asking them to please stop their attacks “on the authority and credit of the President of the Irish Republic”. Griiffith rightly pointed out in his letter to them that the British press was using their behaviour as a propaganda tool.

Likewise the Irish delegation to London in summer of 1921 stayed at the Grosvenor Hotel for exactly the same reason – dignity and respect. The Irish were not going to go into negotiations with the British coming out of B and Bs each morning. When the Treaty was finally negotiated that Autumn, the plenipotentiaries took a house in Hans Place – one of the most prestigious addresses in London. It had to be this way if they were going to feel dignity in their own position and come close to be treated as being on equal terms with the British delegation.

Well, fair enough TPC did a bit of a hatchet job on Dev, reckon though he sent others over to negoiate with the intnetion of blaming them for the short comings. Still think he was a snake oil salesman though !!!

It shoudl be pointed out that the great Fianna Fail ' Republican ' accepted the Treaty practically verbatim including partition totally, and only had objection to the oath. Here is what he had to say in his Document No. 2 on partition -

ADDENDUM. NORTH EAST ULSTER. RESOLVED:
That whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland, or that the relations between the Parliament of Ireland and any subordinate legislature in Ireland can be a matter for treaty with a Government outside Ireland, nevertheless, in sincere regard for internal peace, and in order to make manifest our desire not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster, whose inhabitants may now be unwilling to accept the national authority, we are prepared to grant to that portion of Ulster which is defined as Northern Ireland in the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920, privileges and safeguards not less substantial than those provided for in the 'Articles of Agreement for a Treaty' between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on December 6th, 1921.

Some people have proposed that Dev was quite happy with partition as it would give him greater scope to implement the wishes of the Catholic Church in teh new 26 county Catholic populated state, rather than having to deal with much greater opposition from a much larger Protestant minority in a 32 county Ireland ?

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

Well, fair enough TPC did a bit of a hatchet job on Dev, reckon though he sent others over to negoiate with the intnetion of blaming them for the short comings. Still think he was a snake oil salesman though !!!

Agree totally - sending Collins over to the Treaty was a real low act. Funny, he never seems to have revealed why he did this - I know what we think of it [and what he said] but I used to think that somewhere in his papers there would be some reference that would reveal what he was really up to. Even a letter to the Mrs. But so far he seems to have been a "cute hoor" [was he ever anything else?] about the whole issue. Nothing in the personal papers that I have ever seen reveals his hand in the sense that he never admitted what he was really up to.

McArmalite wrote: »

Some people have proposed that Dev was quite happy with partition as it would give him greater scope to implement the wishes of the Catholic Church in teh new 26 county Catholic populated state, rather than having to deal with much greater opposition from a much larger Protestant minority in a 32 county Ireland ?

Yeah - that's been floated around. Don't know. He didn't make the Catholic Church the "established church" in the Constitution as they wanted and pressed him to [this would have given them a secure tax income like the Church of England]. They just got a nodding reference to a “special position” but without any real guarantee of anything. But they still got all they wanted from a social perspective, that’s for sure. They controlled education – something that the Brits had given them in the nineteenth century and they were determined not to give up.

Other issues like the censorship laws – drawn up from pressure from the RC church in 1928 - were a disgrace but preceded Dev's time. The divorce law of 1926 was also a reversal of the limited divorce law that we had under English law. So even before Dev came into power in the early 1930s the Church had already moved to solidify its control. If there was any winner from the border it was probably the Catholic Bishops.

brianthebard

Why do you say sending Collins was a low act? Given his position in the IRA he would have been best able to judge bluffs on military matters by the British delegates, and to understand all matters of that kind. Even though he was still a young man he was very intelligent and talented. Certainly his presence at the talks was probably more valid than Griffith, who's Sinn Fein had been usurped by DeV and the post 1916 crowd?

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you say sending Collins was a low act? Given his position in the IRA he would have been best able to judge bluffs on military matters by the British delegates, and to understand all matters of that kind. Even though he was still a young man he was very intelligent and talented. Certainly his presence at the talks was probably more valid than Griffith, who's Sinn Fein had been usurped by DeV and the post 1916 crowd?

Agree with what you say about Collins, he was a brilliant man and of immense value to the war both militarily and in intelligence gathering and I take nothing away from him and but I think that Dev should also have gone. The enormity of the situation called for it - and his behaviour afterwards in criticizing the signed Treaty was revealing. I have no problem with Arthur Griffith either but Dev was after all "President of the Republic" and IMO should have headed the delegation in the Autumn as he did the summer 1921 negotiations. Collins felt this too and Dev admits this in a letter to Lord Longford and also admits that Collins did not want to go and that Collins wondered why Dev was not going and had to be persuaded by Dev to go.

Shortly after the delegation returned to Dublin Dev admits to another correspondent that he knew that both Griffith and Collins would "accept the crown" - this is the very reason Dev rejected the Treaty, ostracized the signers, yet he sent two men that he knew would sign on the very point that he himself would not?

So what was Dev up to? Why did he not also go? I think it a valid question to ask and look deeper into why he did not. But there are really no answers - just speculation and opinion, really.

brianthebard

I see thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand where you were coming from. I agree that as president Dev should have gone, at the same time I feel like the traditional leaving cert reading that 'he knew he wouldn't like the treaty' just feels too simplistic, as well as adds mystic to Dev's lists of talents! Not saying I disagree with you, only suggesting the usual reason given for his actions don't really add up for me.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I see thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand where you were coming from. I agree that as president Dev should have gone, at the same time I feel like the traditional leaving cert reading that 'he knew he wouldn't like the treaty' just feels too simplistic, as well as adds mystic to Dev's lists of talents! Not saying I disagree with you, only suggesting the usual reason given for his actions don't really add up for me.

Well, it's been so long since I did Leaving Cert that I can't even remember what I was told! My reasons are based on reading his personal papers which is why I quoted from his letters. I think it went beyond a simplistic "just didn't like the Treaty" though. I think he was thinking of a wider political/historical context. He knew that it was - in Irish historical terms - a huge moment, but he also had to know from his discussions in the summer of 1921 and his active correspondence with Lloyd George that it was not going to fully meet the 1916 aspirations.

Dev had been criticised by some in Ireland - including the RC church- for not accepitng Dominion Status in the summer of '21. He still did not want to accept DS so what was he to do? All indications are that he knew that the Treaty was not going to be easy and fraught with compromise on a level that he seemed not ready to accept. He also suggested in later letters that the British "should realise that they had to face here a determined people, ready to accept a renewal of the war". This seems more like an abstraction than a reality. Collins was telling him a very different story.

The Treaty hung over him his whole political life - again and again in correspondence up until practically the end of his life he returns to it and tries to justify his not going. But I think the inner workings of his mind remain a mystery - all that we can glean out of the record is that the most influential political figure of 20th century Ireland choose not to sign the Treaty that separated most of Ireland from British control. But as to why? We may never know.

brianthebard

I guess as the only surviving battalion leader of 1916 he was not in a sense allowed to accept the treaty, I can certainly see how a large portion of the population would have seen it as an even bigger betrayal if Dev had accepted the treaty and not Collins?

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I guess as the only surviving battalion leader of 1916 he was not in a sense allowed to accept the treaty, I can certainly see how a large portion of the population would have seen it as an even bigger betrayal if Dev had accepted the treaty and not Collins?

Yes, I think you might have something there. I have often wondered about what the "burden" of being the survivor did to him psychologically. He was not by nature a military man yet he saw comrades being shot in front of him at Bolands - and then sat in jail while the other leaders of 1916 were shot before a firing squad. What did all that do to him? What might he have felt was expected of him?

And as I said in another post - Irish people reacted to him in a way that made him the exemplar of the spirit of the times, whether he wanted that or not. One of the phrases that resonates with me from when I was a kid and would listen to the older generation who had lived through it all was "Dev stood up to the British". For many of that now dead generation who had been used to feeling helpless - and inferior to the pervasive British presence in Irish life, let's not forget - that was the story, end of.

Over the years I have come to think of Dev as the embodiment of Shakespeare’s “Some have greatness thrust on them”. But there does not appear to be a record of how he really felt about it all. There are tons of opinions about Dev but he himself remains an enigma.

prinz

MarchDub wrote: »

.. all that we can glean out of the record is that the most influential political figure of 20th century Ireland choose not to sign the Treaty that separated most of Ireland from British control. But as to why? We may never know.

Because it provided him with the perfect excuse and opportunity to rid himself of the competition. He was a cute hoor alright. tbh I think the author of the book has a point. The British were afraid of Collins getting power in Ireland IMO, he was young, active, intelligent, driven, smart, and progressive with a view to the future and making something of the country. IIRC in Collins' writings he said something after the Treaty that the way to win Northern Ireland was not through force and violence, but through making Ireland the envy of the Commonwealth through modernisation, industrialisation, etc, so much so that big business would either relocate to the Free State or bring pressure to bear on the North to leave the Union willingly.

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

brianthebard

prinz wrote: »

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

Several major problems with this analysis; DeV didn't get into power for a long time after the civil war. Second the British provided the Free State forces with arms and munitions, not the Anti-treatyites. If they were truly backing DeV it would make no sense to arm the other side. Third despite what people think about DeV he did never intended to keep Ireland backward.

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

Several major problems with this analysis; DeV didn't get into power for a long time after the civil war. Second the British provided the Free State forces with arms and munitions, not the Anti-treatyites. If they were truly backing DeV it would make no sense to arm the other side. Third despite what people think about DeV he did never intended to keep Ireland backward.

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Morlar

prinz wrote: »

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Sorry but Collins was pro-treaty, Dev was Anti-treaty. That is a bit of a convoluted, machiavellian proposition you are backing there, I would not give the british that much credit to be honest. These are the same people in power & behind the scenes who ushered in the black and tans and auxies to calm things down. The same people who executed the rising leaders in order to quell the rebellion.

They would have to have had a crystal ball for those events to have played out exactly as they did. During the 2nd world War they would have given anything to have gotten rid of Dev & had him replaced with a pro-war leader. If they had had files in their archives proving or even hinting that he was some kind of spy/agent of the crown they could have had him ousted more quickly than Parnell. The effect on the nation would have been massively destabilising. Alternately with that kind of information they could have pressured him to being far more neutral on the side of the allies than he already was.

Fratton Fred

prinz wrote: »

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

Was Ireland as a back water a benefit to Britain? surely Ireland as a dominion, wealthy and successful as Canada and Australia were would have been a benefit.

The empire was all about trade and keeping Ireland within the empire and wealthy would have been preferable to a poor neighbour that would have bred socialism?

prinz

Morlar wrote: »

Sorry but Collins was pro-treaty, Dev was Anti-treaty. That is a bit of a convoluted, machiavellian proposition you are backing there, I would not give the british that much credit to be honest..

Not called Perfidious Albion for nothing.. about as convoluted as the current war on Bin Laden et al, where only 20 odd years ago they were supplying with arms, money, training etc? The British IMO knew they had to accept the Treaty, what they then needed was someone who would ensure the Treaty was kept. Collins had active plans of how to undo the partition by peaceful means. What did DeV do to undo partition?

This the same commander during the Easter Rising, where the motto was 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity'.. and yet DeV in power sat on his hands.

Morlar wrote: »

These are the same people in power & behind the scenes who ushered in the black and tans and auxies to calm things down. The same people who executed the rising leaders in order to quell the rebellion...

Times change, and Britian's policy changes, particularly in international affairs. The leaders were executed, DeV wasn't... I do not accept this lark about his "Ameican" citizenship... is there any concrete evidence to support this? It was a handy excuse though.

Morlar wrote: »

They would have to have had a crystal ball for those events to have played out exactly as they did. During the 2nd world War they would have given anything to have gotten rid of Dev & had him replaced with a pro-war leader.

Why how many pro-war leading politicians had Ireland produced who would be able to bring Ireland into the war and keep his job? The best they could get was "neutral", much better than some who would have used the war as an excuse for military action in Northern Ireland. Or perhaps the other way, with the lads that only a few years before were wearing coloured shirts and marching about like fascists.

Morlar wrote: »

If they had had files in their archives proving or even hinting that he was some kind of spy/agent of the crown they could have had him ousted more quickly than Parnell..

No real reason to oust him I can see.

Morlar wrote: »

The effect on the nation would have been massively destabilising. .

Why would Britian want a destable Ireland next door? The last thing in the 20's and 30's anybody wanted was another destable country.

Morlar wrote: »

Alternately with that kind of information they could have pressured him to being far more neutral on the side of the allies than he already was.

How much more 'neutral' could Ireland have been without the leadership lsoing their posts? Even what was done was kept from the Irish people IIRC. They walked a tightrope perfectly.

prinz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was Ireland as a back water a benefit to Britain? surely Ireland as a dominion, wealthy and successful as Canada and Australia were would have been a benefit.

I think the British knew that Ireland wouldn't stay long as the Free State. Everyone in Ireland described it as a stepping stone. Wouldn't have reflected well on London if Ireland could be more successful running our own affairs, perhaps they didn't want to kick off a domino effect, 'if Ireland can do it...'

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The empire was all about trade and keeping Ireland within the empire and wealthy would have been preferable to a poor neighbour that would have bred socialism?

It wouldn't have bred socialism, not with DeV and the Catholic Church on hand. Ireland was not that 'wealthy' anyway. We still had terrible infrastructure etc. Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much? Compared to Collins, who had lived in London, and wanted a cosmopolitan, dynamic, energetic Ireland to be dragged into similar modernity.

mike65

The guy who wrote the book is on Pat Kennys radio prog now

www.rte.ie/radio1

Data_Quest

mike65 wrote: »

The guy who wrote the book is on Pat Kennys radio prog now

www.rte.ie/radio1

Not very convincing. Tim Pat Coogan was easily able to refute any of the author's claims. Main issue that Tim Pat has is lack of documentary evidence. However, one interesting point is that the British still have not released a lot of secret documentation relating to the period (some of which due for release in 2050).

MarchDub

Data_Quest wrote: »

Not very convincing. Tim Pat Coogan was easily able to refute any of the author's claims. Main issue that Tim Pat has is lack of documentary evidence. However, one interesting point is that the British still have not released a lot of secret documentation relating to the period (some of which due for release in 2050).

Thanks....did not hear the interview but some pieces of information that have been released is the MI5 file on Dev which ran from 1917 to his death. So far that has revealed that the Brits were very suspicious of Dev and did no trust his demeanour.

prinz wrote: »

The leaders were executed, DeV wasn't... I do not accept this lark about his "Ameican" citizenship... is there any concrete evidence to support this? It was a handy excuse though.

There is correspondence between Dev's wife and a US Senator asking for his sentence of death to be overturned because of his US citizenship. There is another wide correspondence between Rev Thomas Wheelwright, Dev's half brother, who also pleaded his US birth. There are numerous letters from US senators and congressmen in reply promising to do what they could.

However, Dev himself did not at all like this to be the accepted opinion and wrote in 1969 - on official letterhead - that he did not believe that his US citizenship made a difference. He points out that he had not been executed when Asquith made the statement that no more executions would take place - this was because of negative international reaction, especially in the US. Also it seems that Asquith considered the "ringleaders" to be those who had actually signed the Proclamation. Dev had not signed it.

Opinions are based on these records.

brianthebard

prinz wrote: »

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Rowed back on what? Your position leaves a lot to be desired and cannot be backed up with any sort of factual information.

prinz wrote: »

I think the British knew that Ireland wouldn't stay long as the Free State. Everyone in Ireland described it as a stepping stone. Wouldn't have reflected well on London if Ireland could be more successful running our own affairs, perhaps they didn't want to kick off a domino effect, 'if Ireland can do it...'

Your position has become more and more confused, Ireland's independence did have a domino effect, its well known and referenced that many of India's leaders read about the Irish fight for independence and even fostered links with Ireland on a diplomatic level in the 20s and 30s.

It wouldn't have bred socialism, not with DeV and the Catholic Church on hand. Ireland was not that 'wealthy' anyway. We still had terrible infrastructure etc. Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much? Compared to Collins, who had lived in London, and wanted a cosmopolitan, dynamic, energetic Ireland to be dragged into similar modernity.

Do you know what the economic war was? Do you think Dev did it so as to stay beholden to Britain and keep Ireland backwards? I really think you should start providing some facts or just stop talking.

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

Rowed back on what? Your position leaves a lot to be desired and cannot be backed up with any sort of factual information.

‘If they accepted the Treaty . . . they would have to wade through, perhaps, the blood of some of the members of the government in order to get Irish freedom’

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/reviews/?id=114246

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Zn22MvnyW2QC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=devalera+wade+through+irish+blood&source=bl&ots=pHb4rRjr4z&sig=lRfH1SQZvLWAIDtC1YN85dyIRS8&hl=en&ei=uGb5SuHLAcHRjAeyv8C6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So er, what did DeV actually do to end partition? He seems to have turned his back on the rabble rousing rhetoric.....and become a conservative settling for the easy life. How odd don't you think.

brianthebard wrote: »

Your position has become more and more confused, Ireland's independence did have a domino effect, its well known and referenced that many of India's leaders read about the Irish fight for independence and even fostered links with Ireland on a diplomatic level in the 20s and 30s.

It could have had more of an effect. Also notable that both Ireland and India descended into civil war.

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you know what the economic war was? Do you think Dev did it so as to stay beholden to Britain and keep Ireland backwards?

The economic war hamstrung the Irish economy for years and had little of no effect on the British economy. Well done DeV. It was brought on by the Global Depression and isolationist policies... again nothing inspired from DeValera then.

brianthebard wrote: »

I really think you should start providing some facts or just stop talking.

No point replying to this.

brianthebard

prinz wrote: »

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/reviews/?id=114246

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Zn22MvnyW2QC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=devalera+wade+through+irish+blood&source=bl&ots=pHb4rRjr4z&sig=lRfH1SQZvLWAIDtC1YN85dyIRS8&hl=en&ei=uGb5SuHLAcHRjAeyv8C6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So er, what did DeV actually do to end partition? He seems to have turned his back on the rabble rousing rhetoric.....and become a conservative settling for the easy life. How odd don't you think.

Hardly odd, I don't think he ever significantly changed his politics from those he held in 1916. Besides which I don't see how he turned his back on the 'rabble rousing'.

It could have had more of an effect. Also notable that both Ireland and India descended into civil war.

How much of an effect does it have to have had to be good enough for you? Also I have no idea why you think the civil wars were notable.

The economic war hamstrung the Irish economy for years and had little of no effect on the British economy. Well done DeV. It was brought on by the Global Depression and isolationist policies... again nothing inspired from DeValera then.

It had however a signficant effect for Ireland and is one of many examples (like the entirety of DeV's political like :rolleyes: ) in which he stood up to the British establishment. It wasn't brought on the the Depression it was a separate incident. As for protectionism this was the same policy everyone else was following at the time so marking DeV out as backward on that basis is simply wrong.

No point replying to this.

And yet you did. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it. If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

Hardly odd, I don't think he ever significantly changed his politics from those he held in 1916. Besides which I don't see how he turned his back on the 'rabble rousing'.

From fighting a civil war to leaving Sinn Féin a couple of years later to acknowledge the Free State?

brianthebard wrote: »

How much of an effect does it have to have had to be good enough for you? Also I have no idea why you think the civil wars were notable.

Because in both instances the countries involved were so caught up in internal matters and politics that establishing themselves as modern developing states went to the back burner. If everyone works together, things can happen. Divide and conquer if you will.

brianthebard wrote: »

It had however a signficant effect for Ireland and is one of many examples (like the entirety of DeV's political like :rolleyes: ) in which he stood up to the British establishment. It wasn't brought on the the Depression it was a separate incident.

The demand for Irish exports crashed, the national debt mounted as our balance of trade was heavily in the red - solution, stop imports, buy Irish, protect Irish business, isolate ourselves, stop sending money out of the country for annuities, etc etc.

brianthebard wrote: »

As for protectionism this was the same policy everyone else was following at the time so marking DeV out as backward on that basis is simply wrong.

And yet the protectionism was a result of the Great Depression which was a separate "incident" right?

brianthebard wrote: »

And yet you did. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it.

As has been exposed by the FOI Acts etc accepted 'history' is quite frequently at best misinterpreted at worst just plain wrong.

brianthebard wrote: »

If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

What have you "backed up"?

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it. If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

Yes. This just about says it all - it makes no historic sense to simply say an author "has a point". History is not about having a point or an opinion based on undocumented speculation. Historiography is about the actual sourced historical record. End of. We might as well speculate here that De Valera was the fifth Beatle... or would he be the sixth? Or maybe he was a Manchurian candidate. ..

Rondolfus

prinz wrote: »

Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much?.

Yes, it tells me that partition resulted in Ireland losing the 6 counties which were by far the most industrial parts of the country....:rolleyes:

prinz

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes. This just about says it all - it makes no historic sense to simply say an author "has a point". History is not about having a point or an opinion based on undocumented speculation. Historiography is about the actual sourced historical record. End of. We might as well speculate here that De Valera was the fifth Beatle... or would he be the sixth? Or maybe he was a Manchurian candidate. ..

Almost every thread on this forum is people giving 'opinions'. Maybe giving opinions should just stop. Write it in stone and never question..