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

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

It is interesting that when called on to mention a document to support the contention that Dev was a spy the author couldn't bring any to the table. I think TPC was on the money, this guy seems to have little to support his deductions other than a reading of the facts as we know them. He certainly seems to have nothing by way of documentary evidence, still it made for good radio. I'd save on the money for the book though!

That is the damning issue with the author's thesis - no documentary evidence. Without it his speculation is invalid and worthless IMO.

julien05

they could of crushed our country if they really wanted to.

walrusgumble

has anyone dared read the book yet? what does it mainly say? is it worth getting, even for comically effect? is there any valid points? would the book be of use say when the brits release more records in 2050? on what basis does he form his opinion?

Morlar

walrusgumble wrote: »

has anyone dared read the book yet? what does it mainly say? is it worth getting, even for comically effect? is there any valid points? would the book be of use say when the brits release more records in 2050? on what basis does he form his opinion?

I think that is the problem, he seems to be working backwards from a 'Wouldn't it sell a lot of books and be interesting if.....' kind of a proposition. Nowhere in the publicity attention surrounding this book have I heard of or read of anything substantial whatsoever. I have not read it but I would not be surprised if it was based purely on already published works twisted to fit the authors/publishers agenda ie controversy = book sales. I haven't read it and nothing I have heard would part me from €25 euro to find out exactly how crap it is.

grenache

Morlar wrote: »

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.

Our economy survived in spite of De Valera. He nearly destroyed it in the 30s by refusing to pay the British annuities, thus igniting the Economic War between the two countries. Many many farmers and business people suffered terribly during this period. In the 50s it was men like T.K. Whitaker and Sean Lemass that kept the country above water. They initiated the Irish industrial revolution and international trade, something which De Valera was not a party to, himself being a protectionist and a fan of self-sufficiency. If he had his way we'd still be using horse drawn ploughs and dancing at the cross roads while bowing in obedience to the ''one true church''.

walrusgumble

grenache wrote: »

Our economy survived in spite of De Valera. He nearly destroyed it in the 30s by refusing to pay the British annuities, thus igniting the Economic War between the two countries. Many many farmers and business people suffered terribly during this period. In the 50s it was men like T.K. Whitaker and Sean Lemass that kept the country above water. They initiated the Irish industrial revolution and international trade, something which De Valera was not a party to, himself being a protectionist and a fan of self-sufficiency. If he had his way we'd still be using horse drawn ploughs and dancing at the cross roads while bowing in obedience to the ''one true church''.

its strange though, considering he was a professor in maths, you would think he would be into new theories and science etc and development.

One thing that needs to be pointed out though, whilst very few could disagree with what his visions of ireland, he was not the only person to share this, his fellow ministers (of his age) shared similar views. Least we not forget also, that the country at the time was severly conservative (still is, in a way, whether one likes it or not) and deeply religious. It is also difficult, after decades of being farm intensive, to all of a sudden move away from this. I suppose seeing what was going on elsewhere and WW2 made things change. Look at the reception Lemass got when he was seen to be more interested in urban development.

If there are any criticisms, he was too overbearing and dictatorial and was part of the generation that young people were to be seen and not heard (despite the young people fighting the war of independence) He was too cock sure of himself when he was saying that when he needed to know what the Irish were thinking, all he had to do was look into his heart.

The withholding of the land annunities, despite the severe consequences, was in my view a brave and defiant move by Dev in standing up to Britian. Why should Ireland have to pay off the monies from the Wydam etc Acts. It would be argued that it was their land, Britian had no right to it. Why should Ireland continue paying War debts, considering the British didn't pay for destruction of the towns, cities, creameries etc their lot destroyed?

I would love to see or if available, get my hands on TK Whitaker's memoirs. You seem to forget, that Lemass himself, like many other International politicans of this time, favoured protectionism and was the Minister for Industry. It is very lazy to assume that all the plans had come straight away once Whitaker and Lemass took hold of things, legislation and the set up of committee and boards etc don't come out of the woodwork within a space of 1-2 years, it takes time, time during Dev's reign.

brianthebard

He was a school teacher not a professor of maths afaik. Ireland's protectionism in the 30s needs to be viewed in the context of the global depression of the time-protectionism was the norm for most of the world for that decade anyways. I also think that the 'boom' of the 50s is being oversold in the last couple of years, the idea that any sort of industrial revolution happened in those years is highly questionable. Crotty's Ireland in crisis would be a good place to start reading for a history of Irish economics.

ejmaztec

Ken Whitaker is God. What more can be said?

baalthor

I remember this guy being interviewed. Coogan took him apart.

I was thinking afterwards : you could use the same "logic" to prove that Hitler was a British agent ...

John J Turi

Comments in this website confirm James O’Mara’s indictment of his fellow countrymen; “The Irish are the most easily humbugged people on earth.”

There is not a whisper of Tim Pat Coogan and other Irish writers fabricating an Eamon deValera trial, conviction, sentence of death and reprieve at the last moment based solely on the word of deValera whom Mr. Coogan called a liar on numerous occasions. Irish writers ignore the attestation of W.E. Wylie, respected judge and prosecutor of the 1916 rebels, who categorically denied deValera ever faced a court martial.

Not one comment noted the myth of deValera battling khaki hordes hammering at the door of Boland’s Bakery but scoff at the truth as to his erratic behavior, inept leadership, desertion of his men to arrange surrender for himself and was not the last commandant to surrender.

DeValera and the entire Dail abandoned their claim to recognition of an Irish Republic on at least four occasions prior to sending Collins and Griffith to London to negotiate a Treaty. On December 3, 1920, deValera, Collins, Griffith and other leaders discussed the final Free State Treaty draft for more than nine hours. Not once did deValera inform the Delegation that he was opposed to the Treaty. Three days later on December 6, deValera flip-flopped and charged Collins and Griffith as traitors for not returning with a Treaty recognizing an Irish Republic.

His encouragement of the counterfeit republicans to take up arms against their countrymen is irrefutable and easily verifiable. Rather than oppose the Treaty through constitutional means, deValera set up a rival government with his own militia and attacked the government and fellow Irishmen. DeValera deliberately created havoc in Southern Ireland before Collins could create havoc in Northern Ireland. His Civil war forced Collins to discontinue his support of the IRA aiding the hard-pressed Northern Ireland Catholics who were being terrorized by Unionist goons. Another Irish disaster; another monumental benefit to England.

DeValera rejected American recognition of Irish independence at the Republican convention in June 1920. He spent over $1 million to split the Irish-Americans and discredit John Devoy, Ireland’s champion in America. Less than $1 million of the $5 million raised was sent back to Ireland and not one penny purchased a single gun or bullet for the hard-pressed IRA. DeValera used the balance of the bond money to fund his own newspaper.

His Constitution, to any reasonable person of average intelligence who takes the time to read it, is an amateurish mumble-jumble more suitable for Sunday school children. It protects the state against the people rather than the other way around, includes clauses deliberately designed to irritate Protestant sensitivities, denigrates women and hammers another nail in the coffin of Irish unity.

The return of the Irish ports in 1938 was another English political rescue of deValera from certain defeat over his disastrous economic policy.

The biggest scam on the Irish is the claim that deValera kept Ireland out of WWII with his phony neutrality. As many as 200,000 Irishmen flocked to England’s colors to fight against one of the most evil regimes in history, suffering more casualties proportionately than did the English or Americans. Hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women toiled in English and Northern Ireland factories producing the sinews of war that kept England afloat until American aid arrived. Ireland dispatched every surplus morsel of food to feed the starving British. DeValera turned over the entire fleet of Irish Tankers to England. Ireland’s cooperation with England and the Allies militarily, economically and politically never saw the light of day as deValera refused to divulge Ireland’s contribution to the Allied victory.

The effects of Churchill and deValera’s dog and pony act after World War II when the Irish President, fresh from his condolence call on the death of Adolph Hitler, was at another political dead-end, has been all but ignored. England gained internationally as Ireland was painted as pro-Nazi and Irish-American influence all but eliminated. Membership in the United Nations was denied, partition etched in stone, the Irish ostracized by the world community and the doors to American immigration slammed shut. DeValera benefited domestically and parlayed the knee-jerk response of the Irish to anyone who appears to stand up to John Bull to another successful election.

The contention that deValera somehow preserved the Republic is another fable by Irish writers and Fianna Fail. In all the years in office, he never declared an Irish Republic. Hardly a murmur is heard of the fact that it was the Costello Government that proclaimed an Irish Republic and that deValera and the counterfeit Fianna Fail republicans actually boycotted the inauguration of an Irish Republic that they claimed to be so devoted.

The Irish are in national denial of the dark deeds of deValera and cannot face the fact that every major decision of the Great Pretender was an Irish disaster and an enormous success to England. That is understandable, for after more than a half-century of deValera lies and Fianna Fail propaganda, the Irish have come to believe deValera to be some sort of Irish folk hero.

I liken myself to the boy who shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes” while everyone else is proclaiming how wonderful King deValera looks in all his invisible finery.

Morlar

You have presented here a loose collection of what could be described as 'anti-devalera spiel'. None of which are particularly new or incisive, and most of which are both out of context and old hat. Mixed in with that an irritating assumption of yours (if that is you the author) that those in disagreement with you we are somehow gullible to the point of blindness and in denial to historical propaganda. This period of Irish history has been studied by historians, authors, researchers and more for decades and there is a wealth of information from primary sources which has been published. To presume that you alone are on the correct path and the nation of Ireland has been duped speaks of a massive ego.

John J Turi wrote: »

Not one comment noted the myth of deValera battling khaki hordes hammering at the door of Boland’s Bakery but scoff at the truth as to his erratic behavior, inept leadership, desertion of his men to arrange surrender for himself and was not the last commandant to surrender.

Which myth is that ? Most people who have studied the period would be aware that Devalera was not a professional soldier and his lack of sleep during the time of bolands contributed to his state of confusion and leadership liabilities at that time. On a personal basis I would not hold that against him - they were facing a very well armed, equipped and well trained army in direct confrontation.

John J Turi wrote: »

DeValera and the entire Dail abandoned their claim to recognition of an Irish Republic on at least four occasions prior to sending Collins and Griffith to London to negotiate a Treaty. On December 3, 1920, deValera, Collins, Griffith and other leaders discussed the final Free State Treaty draft for more than nine hours. Not once did deValera inform the Delegation that he was opposed to the Treaty. Three days later on December 6, deValera flip-flopped and charged Collins and Griffith as traitors for not returning with a Treaty recognizing an Irish Republic.

Most people would know that Devalera said no to the treaty.

John J Turi wrote: »

His encouragement of the counterfeit republicans to take up arms against their countrymen is irrefutable and easily verifiable. Rather than oppose the Treaty through constitutional means, deValera set up a rival government with his own militia and attacked the government and fellow Irishmen. DeValera deliberately created havoc in Southern Ireland before Collins could create havoc in Northern Ireland. His Civil war forced Collins to discontinue his support of the IRA aiding the hard-pressed Northern Ireland Catholics who were being terrorized by Unionist goons. Another Irish disaster; another monumental benefit to England.

John J Turi wrote: »

You are assuming that because Devalera said no to the treaty and the ensuing split that this was part of a plan to ensure that the north remained under british control - you have presented not one iota of evidence to prove this was the case. You are looking at a collection of facts and skipping the step between the facts and your ultimate conclusion.

John J Turi wrote: »

His Constitution, to any reasonable person of average intelligence who takes the time to read it, is an amateurish mumble-jumble more suitable for Sunday school children. It protects the state against the people rather than the other way around, includes clauses deliberately designed to irritate Protestant sensitivities, denigrates women and hammers another nail in the coffin of Irish unity.

John J Turi wrote: »

This is an opinion or a political viewpoint not a historical fact.

John J Turi wrote: »

The return of the Irish ports in 1938 was another English political rescue of deValera from certain defeat over his disastrous economic policy.

And this was some kind of underhand repayment from britain to their masterspy for what exactly ? Do you have a single iota of evidence to back this up ?

John J Turi wrote: »

The biggest scam on the Irish is the claim that deValera kept Ireland out of WWII with his phony neutrality. As many as 200,000 Irishmen flocked to England’s colors to fight against one of the most evil regimes in history, suffering more casualties proportionately than did the English or Americans. Hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women toiled in English and Northern Ireland factories producing the sinews of war that kept England afloat until American aid arrived. Ireland dispatched every surplus morsel of food to feed the starving British. DeValera turned over the entire fleet of Irish Tankers to England. Ireland’s cooperation with England and the Allies militarily, economically and politically never saw the light of day as deValera refused to divulge Ireland’s contribution to the Allied victory.

That is not a scam, Irish Neutrality during WW2 is an often, often, often debated topic.The vast majority of people on this island who study the period are aware that it was a 'neutrality in favour of the allies'.

John J Turi wrote: »

The effects of Churchill and deValera’s dog and pony act after World War II when the Irish President, fresh from his condolence call on the death of Adolph Hitler, was at another political dead-end, has been all but ignored. England gained internationally as Ireland was painted as pro-Nazi and Irish-American influence all but eliminated. Membership in the United Nations was denied, partition etched in stone, the Irish ostracized by the world community and the doors to American immigration slammed shut. DeValera benefited domestically and parlayed the knee-jerk response of the Irish to anyone who appears to stand up to John Bull to another successful election.

Ireland was painted as pro-nazi during the war also. You are stringing together unrelated facts into a sequence they do not belong in in order to support your theory.

John J Turi wrote: »

The contention that deValera somehow preserved the Republic is another fable by Irish writers and Fianna Fail. In all the years in office, he never declared an Irish Republic. Hardly a murmur is heard of the fact that it was the Costello Government that proclaimed an Irish Republic and that deValera and the counterfeit Fianna Fail republicans actually boycotted the inauguration of an Irish Republic that they claimed to be so devoted.

The Civil War is another often debated topic in Irish history.

John J Turi wrote: »

The Irish are in national denial of the dark deeds of deValera and cannot face the fact that every major decision of the Great Pretender was an Irish disaster and an enormous success to England. That is understandable, for after more than a half-century of deValera lies and Fianna Fail propaganda, the Irish have come to believe deValera to be some sort of Irish folk hero.
I liken myself to the boy who shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes” while everyone else is proclaiming how wonderful King deValera looks in all his invisible finery.

Things are not as simplistic as you seem to believe.

John J Turi wrote: »

I liken myself to the boy who shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes” while everyone else is proclaiming how wonderful King deValera looks in all his invisible finery.

Without wanting to be flippant I would liken you to the boy who cried wolf.

brianthebard

I'm finding it difficult to read the whole post because its so poorly laid out and written, but most of it just seems to be attacks on Dev and has nothing to do with him being a British spy. The description of the constitution as a 'mumble jumble' for instance is not a historical fact, nor is it backed up. It also has absolutely nothing to do with him being a spy or not. The rest of the post doesn't provide any explanation of this claim either. You would swear from reading John J's comment on the return of the treaty ports that there had been no economic war, no negotiation for their return, etc. If this is a real representation of the author and their work then it is the work of a man with a large chip on their shoulder and is a counterfactual fairy tale.

slackerdude

Apparently an American who later joined the CIA met de Valera while pursuing a history doctorate and got him to admit that his greatest political regret was not accepting the Treaty. As the date suggests, this was quite a dramatic thing for dev to say as he was still leader of FF at the time and would return to government a year after the thesis was completed.

THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF MODERN IRELAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL STATE
by CRAM, CLEVELAND C., JR., Ph.D., Harvard University, 1950, 227 pages; AAT 0172979

Unfortunately this thesis can only be accessed by visiting the university as I tried unsuccessfully to acquire it by inter-library loan. I wonder do we have any American based users of this site who can check the thesis to see exactly what dev said to Cram?

On the North and the Civil War, one could argue that the real reason for the outbreak of the Civil War was not British pressure but a calculated decision of all the members of the Irish government in order to prevent an imminent attack on the North by anti-Treaty IRA which would unite pro and anti-Treaty men and probably cause the return of the British as Irish soldiers would then be fighting openly to destabilise the Northern Irish state as opposed to Collins's secret war there. In other words, one could argue that the provisional government faced an important decision in June 1922, namely defend the 26 county state newly founded or tear up the Treaty and embark on a campaign to regain the lost 6 counties. Adherence to the Treaty was strong on the government side and they ultimately decided to copperfasten their allegiance to this document by opening fire on the anti-Treatyites. Essentially a 'what we have we hold' philosophy prevailed. Evidence to support such a theory can be found in an article by John Regan.

Michael Collins, General Commanding-in-Chief, as a Historiographical Problem

History Vol 92 (307) 2007

Morlar

Would it really be so unusual or particularly noteworthy for Devalera in later life to reflect with hindsight that the treaty response (of the anti-treaty side) which led to a divisive and brutal civil war was an area of personal regret for him ? Could those who were on the yes side not also have deep personal regrets with the benefit of hindsight ?

trapsagenius

Morlar wrote: »

Would it really be so unusual or particularly noteworthy for Devalera in later life to reflect with hindsight that the treaty response (of the anti-treaty side) which led to a divisive and brutal civil war was an area of personal regret for him ? Could those who were on the yes side not also have deep personal regrets with the benefit of hindsight ?

I thought it was interesting in "Judging Dev" where Ferriter said that Dev was very concerned with how history would judge him.This is probably one of the reasons he spent so long trying to justify his stance on the Treaty in later life, because he knew that this was the most controversial period of his life and the period which would always cast something of a shadow over some of his brilliant achievements.It's a shame really, that some historians are so determined to hold his actions during the Treaty negotiations, debates and civil war against him, when in actual fact he achieved so much after this I feel it is really only a significant sidenote in his life story.

John J Turi

response to Morlar:

Morlar, without reading my book, challenges my brief response to this website as not “particularly new or incisive… and old hat..” He also charges that “this period of Irish history has been studied by historians, authors, researchers… and to presume that you [the author] alone are the correct path and the nation of Ireland has been duped speaks of a massive ego.” The grim reality is that the Irish are in national denial of the dark deeds of deValera and cannot face the fact that every major decision of the Great Pretender was an Irish disaster and an enormous success to England. However, that is understandable, for after more than a half-century of deValera lies and Fianna Fail propaganda, Morlar has come to believe deValera to be some sort of Irish folk hero.

He does not understand that it was deValera and Fianna Fail that wrote the history of twentieth century Ireland to cover their treachery against the Irish people. Like so many writers/historian critics without historical analysis, Morlar merely casts aspersions rather than refute a single premise I set forth. Not one Irish historian/author has refuted a single fact as set forth in my book, England’s Greatest Spy, Eamon deValera.

Irish historians/authors rely solely on the word of deValera, whom they call an outright liar to support their contention that he had been tried, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved at the last moment when it was all a lie. A reasonable person of average intelligence would question why deValera lied about being tried and why the British facilitated this lie?

I do not question deValera’s conduct during the Easter Rising but Irish authors/historians who fabricated the myth of heroism around his erratic behavior, inept leadership, desertion of his men to arrange a surrender for himself and the lie to his being the last commandant to surrender.

Morlar, like Irish commentators, attempts to deflect deValera’s treachery. He turns a blind eye to deValera’s suspicious conduct, at a December 3, 1920 nine-hour discussion of the final Treaty draft, in which he never once informed the Irish delegation that he was opposed to the Free State Treaty or that he would not accept any treaty without recognition of an Irish Republic.

Yet, three days later on December 6, deValera pontificated his born-again Republican humbuggery charging Collins and Griffith as traitors for returning with a Treaty without recognition of an Irish Republic.
Morlar dismisses the fact that deValera and the entire Dail abandoned their claim for recognition of an Irish Republic on four occasions prior to sending Collins and Griffith to negotiate a Treaty. They then opposed the treaty flaunting their hypocritical standing on the rock of the Republic.

Irish writers/historians disregard the effect of the civil war and the monumental benefit it was to England. Without following through on his revelation, Tim Pat Coogan actually set forth the purpose of deValera’s creating chaos in Southern Ireland before Collins could create chaos in Northern Ireland. He noted that Collins informed the Northern IRA that with the civil war on his hands he could not continue to send arms and men to oppose the terrorism of the Unionists against Northern Ireland Catholics.

The English returned the Irish ports in 1938 to ensure the election of deValera so that he would be in position to repeat his 1919-20 elimination of opposition to Anglo-American relations by the Irish-Americans who campaigned against the US entering the war on the side of England. DeValera played his part to perfection. Partition was copper-fastened, Southern Ireland lay prostrate, and bitterness pervades Ireland to this day thanks to deValera. The British did not have to spend a penny or lose a single soldier to consolidate the Northern Ireland regime; deValera’s civil war did the job for them. It was the Irish who paid and are still paying the price.

Morlar lauds deValera’s phony neutrality in WWII discounting the enormous benefit it was to England. DeValera’s refusal to refute the pro-Nazi label of the Irish after the war doomed Irish-American opposition to Anglo-American initiatives. After deValera’s condolence call on the death of Adolph Hitler, Ireland was ostracized by the international community. England didn’t care a fig about the Irish; it was to America that England looked for salvation and financial relief.
Obviously Morlar hasn’t read deValera’s juvenile constitution which confirms James O’Mara’s indictment of his fellow Irish as “the most easily humbugged people on earth.”

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid and less important than direct evidence (eyewitnesses, etc.). The fact is most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence that links the criminal to the crime. The evidence against the former Irish President is overwhelming and that is why I call for a posthumous trial of deValera for crimes against the Irish people.

Morlar

John J Turi wrote: »

.....The evidence against the former Irish President is overwhelming and that is why I call for a posthumous trial of deValera for crimes against the Irish people.

Good luck with that.

I could go through and obliterate your post line by line but the reality is that life is too short to argue with someone who has the intellectual depth of a 10 yr old. As for reading your book - there are some books I would not pay money for and yours is absolutely one of them. I would not even bother to search out the pdf online such is my opinion of it based on several factors including the reviews, the response from actual historians, the pre-publicity from your own publisher and also equally importantly the level of your responses on here. The most interesting aspect of this thread for me is that your book was not vanity published but picked up by an actual publisher. I can only surmise they had discussed the lack of a 'Controversial Irish history' book in their catalogue on the day that your manuscript arrived.

Ash.J.Williams

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 do people honestly believe that story about the wax copy of the keys in the prison?

brianthebard

John you can continue to post on this forum but stop including so many references to the book title, shill posts are not permitted.

You claim Morlar casts aspersions rather than refuting arguments but without including book/article and page references in your post you're no different. Furthermore, your two posts in this thread have been massive strawmen which you've constructed to first attack Dev, then Morlar, then the rest of the Irish historian community.

You've fabricated a number of arguments here, chief amongst them the claim that no other Irish historian has recognised the benefit of the Irish civil war to Britain. I have to wonder just how little historiographical research one has to do to prevent themselves from realising this is not the case. And of course its hard to forget the constant suggestion that everyone is so enamoured with DeValera that they can't see his faults - as if that was a realistic argument.

I personally don't intend to purchase or get this book from the library if your posts are indicative the books level of analysis and research.

John J Turi

Author response to Morlar and Brianthebard,

DeValera and Fianna Fail would never have been so successful without adherents such as the Morlars and Brianthebards, ignorant of facts, blindly following a false leader and denouncing anything contrary to the prevailing public opinion of the Great Pretender.
Their critique of my book and me personally consists solely of a series of name-calling, insults, ridicule and sarcasm which they attempt to pass off as historical analysis. They do not refute a single fact as set forth by me in this brief website comment or in my book,A reasonable person of average intelligence would question how anyone could so vociferously condemn a book without reading it. A closed mind, incapable of weighing arguments and pontificating biased conclusions has been the hallmark of deValera’s lies and Fianna Fail’s propaganda for more than half a century.
John Devoy, Ireland’s champion in America, had this to say about the venomous Irishman: “The Irish cause has nothing to fear from a free and fair discussion or from frank statements of the truth. But there is no race more easily influenced by slander and falsehood than the Irish.”
Mindsets such as those of Morlar and Brianthebard have been the curse of the Irish for more than seven centuries.

Morlar

John J Turi wrote: »

Author response to Morlar and Brianthebard,

DeValera and Fianna Fail would never have been so successful without adherents such as the Morlars and Brianthebards, ignorant of facts, blindly following a false leader and denouncing anything contrary to the prevailing public opinion of the Great Pretender.
Their critique of my book and me personally consists solely of a series of name-calling, insults, ridicule and sarcasm which they attempt to pass off as historical analysis. They do not refute a single fact as set forth by me in this brief website comment or in my book,A reasonable person of average intelligence would question how anyone could so vociferously condemn a book without reading it. A closed mind, incapable of weighing arguments and pontificating biased conclusions has been the hallmark of deValera’s lies and Fianna Fail’s propaganda for more than half a century.
John Devoy, Ireland’s champion in America, had this to say about the venomous Irishman: “The Irish cause has nothing to fear from a free and fair discussion or from frank statements of the truth. But there is no race more easily influenced by slander and falsehood than the Irish.”
Mindsets such as those of Morlar and Brianthebard have been the curse of the Irish for more than seven centuries.

If I were to write a book and call it

'Kennedy - Kruschev's Greatest Spy'
Subtitled
'The untold story of America's ultimate Counterfeit Cold Warrior'

Give it a publishers blurb along the lines of ;

Ever wondered why some every single decision of his led to the strengthening of communism ?

This stunning book reaveals all - with chapter titles like
'Vietnam', 'The counterfeit arms race', 'Turkish bases and the Cuba missile crisis', 'Bay of pigs - payback'.

Don't forget it's only the domestic gullible u.s. historians and general public who are blind to these conclusions through 40 yrs of Democrat party and media propaganda.

Would you feel obliged to refrain from judgement on such a book until you forked out €40 to buy it ? Didn't think so.

slackerdude

Morlar I think it is significant that evidence apparently exists that Dev spoke of regret in terms of not accepting the Treaty to a doctoral student in the late 1940s because this is not something he was ever prepared to concede in public as it would have damaged his political standing for his supporters were they to discover that he regretted not signing up to the Free State in 1922. Just think about this for a second. Most of his FF power base had fought a bitter civil war alongside him less than 30 years earlier. Imagine how they would have felt had they discovered that dev now believed he was wrong to oppose the Treaty.

Re another poster I think we can hold him to account for his words and actions in 1922. His inflammatory speeches in 1922 prior to the outbreak of the civil war make for very grim reading today and were rightly criticised at the time for raising the political temperature to boiling point. Of course he achieved quite a lot in political terms when he assumed power in 1932 but that does not mean that we should forget his reckless behaviour ten years earlier when he split a united political movement over mere words in a document. If he felt so strongly about document no 2 then he should have made sure that he was among the delegation in December when the final decision was made to sign the Treaty. It was nonsensical to give the delegation full negotiating powers and then to tie their hands by forcing them to submit any agreed document to the Dail before signing. Also, Dev had already negotiated with Lloyd George and could have argued that while it was unnecessary for him to attend most of the meetings, it was imperative that he be present at the final meeting of the two delegations. Re the signing of the Treaty, it's reasonable to assume that the Irish delegates never expected that dev would fight them over a formula of words and that was their tragic error. Clearly, there would still have been a civil war as some of the more mentally challenged supporters back in Ireland believed that a Republic was being negotiated in London when the word itself should have told them that a compromise deal was the best that could be had. As Liam Lynch so memorably put it, We have declared for a Republic and we will not live under any other law. How could you argue with that inflexible mentality. But men such as Lynch and others would have fought a much less costly and divisive war were dev among the supporters of the Treaty document.

John J Turi

Response to Brianthebard, the Moderator

My dictionary describes a moderator as one who arbitrates and/or mediates contrary viewpoints and does not takes sides in any particular issue.
If your website is a private enterprise, you have a right to print only issues favorable to your point of view. If it is a public website, it is unconscionable to take one side of an issue and suppress a contrary opinion or rebuttal of unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks.
You take me to task for your criterion of impermissible “personal” insults of critics of me and my book such as Morlar and yourself. It appears you and/or your website have a double-standard.
You call me a “shill” for mentioning my book in response to attacks against it and me personally. Would I be justified in charging you with being a “shill” for the pro-deValera/Fianna Fail faction for ridiculing my book and urging people not to purchase it without the slightest inkling of what I say in my book?
Morlar’s derogatory personal attack charging me with having the “intellect of a ten-year-old”, however, passes your personal insult guidelines.
If you or any of your bloggers actually read my book and after reading it disagreed with me and/or were able to refute my findings, I would respect their opinion and take no offense whatsoever. Your bias reflects upon your credibility as a critic when you are unaware of the documentation of my indictment of deValera. For your information, not one writer/historian has refuted a single fact as set forth in my book.
Could it be that you fear reading my book because you might come to realize my conclusions are true?
How you can defend a man who declared war on his own countrymen over less than the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum is beyond my comprehension.

John J. Turi

Morlar

slackerdude wrote: »

...I think it is significant that evidence apparently exists that Dev spoke of regret in terms of not accepting the Treaty to a doctoral student in the late 1940s because this is not something he was ever prepared to concede in public as it would have damaged his political standing for his supporters were they to discover that he regretted not signing up to the Free State in 1922. Just think about this for a second. Most of his FF power base had fought a bitter civil war alongside him less than 30 years earlier. Imagine how they would have felt had they discovered that dev now believed he was wrong to oppose the Treaty.

I think this will depend on the exact quote and the exact context in which it was made to be honest.

Any one can have moments of self doubt and reflection throughout his life and taking one of those utterances out of context is not necessarily reflective of the overall character. I'd imagine this is all the more lilkely in someone with a conscience, someone who held a high office & played a key role in a Civil War for example - this would apply to any country in any time.

I don't find it unusual or necessarily noteworthy that a man in his later years would express a seemingly contradictory thought to a viewpoint he held in his youth, it does not mean that the younger self was wrong so much as that with a greater understanding of subsequent events, (in this case the effects and scope of a nationwide war and the ensuing national divide which dragged down through the generations) that a different choice appears with 20/20 hindsight to have been a less horrific option than it originally seemed.

If you look at any historical figure who is in the public eye from youth to his frail years then you are likely to find contradictory statements and even differing viewpoints on certain matters. I don't mean in terms of core beliefs but just that with hindsight and regret and the mellowing of age the sands can shift so to speak. Is the argument that this kind of personal contemplative reflection should trigger in the public a decrease in respect ? If it is then I don't agree with that.

It would be unfair to assume that DeValera knew how all of the events relating to Ireland from War of Independence negotiations through to the of the civil war would play out in all the brutality and excesses of both sides. Or how the forming of an independent Irish National Identity and our ultimate statehood would be detrimentally impacted and so on.

It's just not possible to know in advance the full effect of your actions within an unforseeable chain of events.

This also largely works on the assumption that the Civil War was 100% entirely DeValera's fault and no one elses.

This seems to me to be a simplistic get-out-clause for people to point the finger at the 'one bad man' and not address the underlying political divides which were caused by the british and the differing among Irish viewpoints on how to respond.

Devalera may have been the 'firebrand' but he was not alone. He had the support of an almost 50/50 divide within the country. Within the IRA (and in the larger public) there were a lot of people who had lost friends and loved ones and their view was that in order for those not to have died in vain we need to continue until we achieve our ultimate aims.

Certainly the anti-treaty view was held by a VERY large minority. So DeValera was not a sole voice in the wildernesss calling for a brutal war or anything of the sort - he articulated a legitimate viewpoint which was that we as a nation had fought britain to their knees so to speak & the prospect of having to go through all this again in 20, 40, 60 or 100 years was unthinkable. In my view this strand of thinking was a factor at that time. Look back at all the previous risings and rebellions throughout Irish history - the thread among all of them was that our children will succeed where we failed. You would have to factor the legacy element into this discussion in my view.

Had the civil war played out differently - had the anti treaty side been able to regain momentum and restore unity under an anti-treaty banner and had the War of Independence been resumed it is possible that international pressure and domestic UK pressure not to mention rejuvenated military actions in a 'final push' could have led to another more productive round of negotiations. From their point of view at that time there were no certainties.

Yes the Civil War ultimately served british interests but the ludicrous proposition (not made by you) that this is somehow evidence of DeValera's secret allegiance to the crown is so far beyond sophomoric as to be staggering in it's simplicity and shallowness.

slackerdude wrote: »

Re another poster I think we can hold him to account for his words and actions in 1922. His inflammatory speeches in 1922 prior to the outbreak of the civil war make for very grim reading today and were rightly criticised at the time for raising the political temperature to boiling point.

Of course everyone should be held to account for their words - particularly public speeches. There is an equal imperative to include some level of context and it seems to me that some of the revisionist judgements of DeValera disregard the remarkable 'epoch defining' context.

Just to clarify I am not a FF supporter nor would I consider myself a hero-worshipper of DeValera or his legacy by a long stretch.

slackerdude wrote: »

Of course he achieved quite a lot in political terms when he assumed power in 1932 but that does not mean that we should forget his reckless behaviour ten years earlier when he split a united political movement over mere words in a document.

Those 'mere words' were an oath of allegiance to a foreign crown. So those were not 'mere' words they symbolised and re-affirmed an acceptance of something akin to subjecthood under a foreign crown. Can you conceive britain would ever have accepted some 'mere words in a french document' to state an oath of allegiance to a foreign crown ? Of course not - countries have gone to war for a lot less than that. It is just tragic in our case that it was a civil war and not a renewed war of indepence which the british negotiation sides' insistence upon 'mere words in a document' triggered.

slackerdude wrote: »

It was nonsensical to give the delegation full negotiating powers and then to tie their hands by forcing them to submit any agreed document to the Dail before signing.

I would not even begin to argue with you on the methodology DeValera employed during the negotiations. There was an elemenf of the underhand and cynical and manipulative and self serving in it which reeked of all the worst traditions of Irish cute hoor politics. However there is a context to it and two sides to that story.

slackerdude wrote: »

it's reasonable to assume that the Irish delegates never expected that dev would fight them over a formula of words and that was their tragic error.

The other side of that would be the view that they believed they could subvert his leadership and bully him into agreement at the point of a british gun (ie the threats of a 'terrible war' ). Personally I hold the view that the negotiating team were largely worn down, physically and emotionally and spiritually. They were under overwhelming moral pressure & face to face with the elite of the british empire and the realisation that their reach was limited came to the Irish negotiating team a lot sooner than it came to DeValera and was therefore they became out of step (this would also apply to a large minority within the country also). The failing was that they were seperated geographically and from personal contact. Had for example the negotiations been held in Dublin with british representatives travelling here then there would obviously not been so much of a discrepancy in the perspectives among the negotiating team and DeValera and others.

Obviously DeValera knew better than the rest of the population what was coming down the track but the negotiating team had a much clearer picture from an earlier stage and had as mentioned been worn down into acceptance of it.

slackerdude wrote: »

Clearly, there would still have been a civil war as some of the more mentally challenged supporters back in Ireland believed that a Republic was being negotiated in London when the word itself should have told them that a compromise deal was the best that could be had. As Liam Lynch so memorably put it, We have declared for a Republic and we will not live under any other law. How could you argue with that inflexible mentality. But men such as Lynch and others would have fought a much less costly and divisive war were dev among the supporters of the Treaty document.

That is an arguable point - it was not DeValera the politician with his band of 'mentally challenged' Anti-Treaty IRA men - it is just not as simplistic as that.

brianthebard

John J Turi wrote: »

Response to Brianthebard, the Moderator

My dictionary describes a moderator as one who arbitrates and/or mediates contrary viewpoints and does not takes sides in any particular issue.
If your website is a private enterprise, you have a right to print only issues favorable to your point of view. If it is a public website, it is unconscionable to take one side of an issue and suppress a contrary opinion or rebuttal of unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks.

You clearly don't really know how forums like boards work. For the record, I don't own this site or section of the site, and your dictionary definition is invalid in this case. In addition I have not suppressed your opinion, you're still able to post aren't you?

You take me to task for your criterion of impermissible “personal” insults of critics of me and my book such as Morlar and yourself. It appears you and/or your website have a double-standard.
You call me a “shill” for mentioning my book in response to attacks against it and me personally. Would I be justified in charging you with being a “shill” for the pro-deValera/Fianna Fail faction for ridiculing my book and urging people not to purchase it without the slightest inkling of what I say in my book?

You can call me a critic if that's what you want, but I'd prefer student. Actually do you know what shill means in this online context? If not look it up.
From your earlier posts it seems that a huge part of your argument is based on this principle that if I or anyone else doesn't agree with your thesis we're automatically pro-Dev and FF. This is a ridiculous position to take and clearly indicates the level of analysis and argumentation you are capable of. I don't need to read your book to know that your arguments on this thread have been shoddy and third rate ad hominems with no evidence to support them. Why anyone would then be encouraged to read your book after reading these posts is beyond me.

Morlar’s derogatory personal attack charging me with having the “intellect of a ten-year-old”, however, passes your personal insult guidelines.
If you or any of your bloggers actually read my book and after reading it disagreed with me and/or were able to refute my findings, I would respect their opinion and take no offense whatsoever. Your bias reflects upon your credibility as a critic when you are unaware of the documentation of my indictment of deValera. For your information, not one writer/historian has refuted a single fact as set forth in my book.

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/03/26/book-review-england%E2%80%99s-greatest-spy-%E2%80%93-eamonn-de-valera-john-j-turi/

That's one review by an Irish writer who disagrees with your argument. Do you know who Tim Pat Coogan is? You should of course, since you and he took part in a radio interview and has stated that he disagrees with your thesis. Here is a print review of your book by Coogan;
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/thinker-feiner-soldier---spy-1956939.html

Here is an article that describes three of the biggest names in Irish history disagreeing with your entire thesis and refuting the entire thing;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898250.ece

Do you realise that Irish historians have almost uniformly rejected your entire thesis; not just a single 'fact', All of your 'facts'.

Could it be that you fear reading my book because you might come to realize my conclusions are true?
How you can defend a man who declared war on his own countrymen over less than the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum is beyond my comprehension.

John J. Turi

Again you seem to believe everyone against you is for Dev. Not the case. I shouldn't have to explain my politics to you, but suffice to say that I stand to the Left of Dev and disagree with his heritage in almost all cases. You may continue to post on this forum if you want to, but you should know that every post you've made thus far only damages your position.

ejmaztec

I've never had any regard for De Valera, or his legacy, but don't consider that he was a British spy. He was a sneaky individual, and just wasn't cut out for the position that he weasled his way into, a lot like many modern-day Irish politicians of all political persuasions.

John J Turi

Response to Morlar,

For Morlar’s discussion of his view of deValera’s actions in promoting the Civil War, though not quite accurate, I sincerely appreciate. A free and fair discussion of my charges against deValera is all I seek.
I agree with Morlar that “Anyone can have moments of self-doubt and reflection throughout his life and taking one of those utterances out of context is not necessarily a reflection of the overall character.”
Morlar, however, limits his apologia of deValera to the one instance of the Civil War. I suggest a free and fair discussion of dozens of actions of deValera that contributed so greatly to England’s benefit and Ireland’s grief.

Let us discuss, the following documented examples of deValera’s treachery:
1. Why did deValera lie as to his having been tried, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved at the last moment?
2. Why did the British facilitate his lie?
3. Why the British allowed the 1917 Ard Fheis to take place because they were assured that a split would occur. DeValera was the only one who threatened a split unless Arthur Griffith stepped down.
4. DeValera’s phony escape from Lincoln Jail.
5. DeValera’s Dublin Proclamation calling off Collin’s mass meeting.
6. DeValera’s downgrading of Ireland to a satellite of England in his Westminster Gazette interview in February 1920.
7. DeValera’s splitting Irish-Americans and discrediting John Devoy.
8. DeValera’s refusal to send Bond certificate money to Ireland.
9. DeValera’s rejection of American recognition of Irish independence at the Republican convention in June 1920.
10. DeValera’s dismantling of the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic and the Ben Franklin Bureau.
11. Private Truce conference with Lloyd George in July 1921 in which the designation Irish Free State was decided.
12. DeValera’s stampeding of the Dail into accepting every one of Lloyd George’s conditions for entering into peace talks in which they abandoned their demand for recognition of an Irish Republic.
13. DeValera’s abandoning Ireland’s demand for recognition of an Irish Republic on at least four occasions.
14. DeValera’s refusal to inform the Irish Delegation that he was opposed to any treaty that did not recognize an Irish Republic.
15. DeValera’s conduct during the Treaty Debates.
16. DeValera’s Document #2. When deValera returned to power in 1932, why didn’t he incorporate Document #2?
17. DeValera’s instigation of Civil War.
18. DeValera rejected constitutional means of opposition to the Treaty and set up a rival government and his own militia to attack his own countrymen who voted three to one in favor of the Treaty.
19. DeValera’s Civil War prevented Michael Collins from continuing his opposition to the Unionist terror campaign in Northern Ireland.
20. DeValera refused to enter the Dail to reject the trumped up Boundary Commission decision.
21. DeValera’s economic war and policies cost Ireland billions of dollars.
22. DeValera’s treatment of his former IRA comrades whom he imprisoned, executed and informed upon to English and Northern Ireland authorities.
23. DeValera’s plundering of the Irish treasury for over $7 million to fund his own newspaper.
24. DeValera’s constitution and its effect in Southern and Northern Ireland.
25. The implausible return of the Irish ports when deValera’s political stock was at rock-bottom.
26. DeValera’s phony neutrality that benefited England and was so detrimental to Irish interests.
27. DeValera’s condolence call on the death of Adolph Hitler.
28. DeValera and Churchill’s dog and pony act in which they both won while Ireland was again the loser.
29. DeValera refused to reveal Ireland’s magnificent contribution to the Allied victory in Europe.
30. DeValera’s ‘neutrality’ slammed shut the Irish immigration doors to the US while one million Irish escaped deValera’s distopia and found refuge in England, the land of the oppressor.
31. DeValera’s education policy resulted in 90 percent of Irish children leaving school by the age of twelve.
32. DeValera’s role in copper-fastening the Partition of Ireland.
33. Why didn’t deValera ever introduce an Irish Republic in all the years he was in office?
Space does not permit further examples of deValera’s treachery to Ireland that ought to be discussed in a fair and free manner.

brianthebard

John J Turi wrote: »

Response to Morlar,

For Morlar’s discussion of his view of deValera’s actions in promoting the Civil War, though not quite accurate, I sincerely appreciate. A free and fair discussion of my charges against deValera is all I seek.
I agree with Morlar that “Anyone can have moments of self-doubt and reflection throughout his life and taking one of those utterances out of context is not necessarily a reflection of the overall character.”
Morlar, however, limits his apologia of deValera to the one instance of the Civil War. I suggest a free and fair discussion of dozens of actions of deValera that contributed so greatly to England’s benefit and Ireland’s grief.

Let us discuss, the following documented examples of deValera’s treachery:

No he's actually talking about a different topic with a different user, and it has little or nothing to do with you.

brianthebard

Actually, I've decided I'm locking this thread, its going nowhere and the author in question does not seem able to accept certain basic facts or statements.