Most Important Irish Person

dienbienphu

Ranelite wrote: »

Michael Collins.

Ya I agree with Michael Collins to an extent but how much are peoples opinions of him influenced by the movie? I don't remember Collins been that popular prior to the movie and the timing of the movie had a lot to do with the 1994 IRA ceasefire and the eventual compromise which was reached. So you need to ask whether Collins deserves the reputation he maintains? I don't see that many statues or place names of him which says a lot about what people thought of him...

GRMA

Fooker wrote: »

I think discussion of Sand and Adam's etc. should wait another few decades yet. They certainly should not be discarded, to do so you would have to disqualify Wolfe Tone, Pearse, Collins, De Valera and so on from the discussion.

Further, I would definitely put O'Connell in the mix and I am quite suprised that Grattan has not been even been mentioned.

Why would you say O'Connell?

The "liberator" did nothing of the sort, with the emancipation the lot of ordinary citizens was made even worse and a series of events set in motion which culminated in the famine. Most notably millions were disenfranchised, and thus useless to their landlords. Looked good on the surface but underneath it was a bad deal.

He was a coward and an egotist, he felt threatened by the young Irelanders and spread all sorts of lies about them, he constantly strove to make sure he was never eclipsed.

However he was very charismatic and he more than any other man in Irish history held the power in his hand to free Ireland, but he bottled it spectacularly, he wouldn't lead.

I personally doubt he was ever genuine about repeal and just whipped up the repeal movement to keep relevant after his pals were no longer in government.

What did he achieve? What legacy did he have?

BobbyPropane

Definites: Collins(Led our war to freedom and established our independence), Griffith(Founded the political party which would motivate the Irish people for complete independence), De Valera(Wrote the constitution and kept us out of World War 2 and showed the world that we were independent of Britain.However did start The Civil War.), Sean Lemass(Modernised Ireland). Mary Robinson ( Showed the world how humans should be treated).

Mentions: Parnell, O'Connell, Cosgrave,

Ranelite

dienbienphu wrote: »

Ya I agree with Michael Collins to an extent but how much are peoples opinions of him influenced by the movie? I don't remember Collins been that popular prior to the movie and the timing of the movie had a lot to do with the 1994 IRA ceasefire and the eventual compromise which was reached. So you need to ask whether Collins deserves the reputation he maintains? I don't see that many statues or place names of him which says a lot about what people thought of him...

The movie pissed me off for many years with the romantic threesome yawnfest and also the historical inaccuracies (Harry Boland was killed in Skerries and didn't have a strong Dublin accent, car bombs etc). In hindsight it's not a bad flick considering Jordan had to keep the Yanks happy. The footage of his funeral still bring a tear.

Also, there's not one mention of the IRB or any analysis of the Treaty negotiations in the whole film. The reason Collins is so revered is because he ran the secret IRB (which was the military spine of the IRA), the IRA itself and his role as Minister for Finance while also negotiating the Treaty. Getting Britain to smoothly pull out of Ireland was a massive achievement. He had military designs on the 6 counties - who knows what would have happened. I fear, if he had lived, he might have become a fascist dictator in the late 20s or 30s.
What isn't well documented is that when Collins returned from London with the Treaty terms he brought it the Supreme Council of the IRB. Liam Lynch couldn't swallow the oath so Collins got him to reword it (according to Sean O Muirthile, Sec IRB). Lynch was the most important figure in the Civil War as he commanded the IRB and IRA in the south. So Collins made the changes and later Lynch turned on him which sparked war.

The reason there are no statues of Collins or Dev etc is because Civil War politics made the issue too emotive.
BTW: I still I find it ridiculous that Fine Gael consider Collins as one of their own!

Luca Brasi

Like Ranelite I dont think Collins would be the great democrat people say. We know that he was breaching the Treaty bu sending weapons to the North, He was aware Reggie Dunne and Sullivan were in London to plug Wilson and didnt call it off. I think that once the Free State was established that the next move would be an atatck on the Norht with an organised Free State army. Collins would still be running IRB as a governement within a government

BobbyPropane

Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.

GRMA

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.

Kinda left out the massive suffering and death that occurred in Ireland as a result of Collins, the Treaty and partition.

Very skewed account of things you have there.

BobbyPropane

GRMA wrote: »

Kinda left out the massive suffering and death that occurred in Ireland as a result of Collins, the Treaty and partition.

Very skewed account of things you have there.

I didn't forget that. But it could have been a lot worse if we had a war taking place both north and south. The civil war was not Collins fault. He did not want to fight but was forced to after a free state general was captured. The only people who really wanted to fight were de Valera,lynch and Barry. The majority of Irish people wanted peace.

RebelRed90

Michael Collins would get my vote too.

Honorable mentions would be Liam lynch,Tom Barry, James Connolly, Wolfe Tone, Luke Kelly, George Boole (Probably more english than irish), WB Yeats, Michael Cusack.

Ranelite

Collins was planning northern operations prior to his assassination with Frank Aiken etc. I think once the Civil War was done and dusted he would have focused on the North as he would have had plenty of arms and finances to do so.

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.

paul71

I am surprised that no-one has given Rodger Casement an honourable mention. While I don't believe he is the outstanding candidate, his contribution on the world stage embarassed the British empire and other colonial powers into improving the rights of exploited workers in agricultural and mining death camps in many colonised countries.

Another deserving of mention would be Edmund Burke, although not hughly recognised in Ireland he had a profound impact on Liberal thinking polictics internationally.

Wintergreen

I'd have to say Parnell. I've always thought that if personal life did'nt get in the way, Parnell could have achieved pretty much the exact same thing the as the War of Independence did but without the Civil War. Later the State could have broken the last few links with the United Kingdom like DeValera did with the Republic of Ireland Act in the late 40's.

My second choice would be Lemass.

An Coilean

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out.

The idea that the IRA could not have continued the war if needed is something that was rejected by some of the most well know IRA field commanders. In fact, if you are to believe their account, the position of the IRA had never been stronger than when the Truce was called.
There was a severe shortage of arms and especially Amunition on the IRA side, but that was true from day one of the conflict, and by the time the truce was called, plans to bring in arms and amunition were well advanced, they were actually landed during the Truce.
On the British side however, the army was under pressure just to maintain troop numbers in Ireland, never mind find troops for a major increase in numbers.
Add this to the growing domestic opposition to Government policy in the mainland UK and Personally I can only conclude that threats of immediate and terrible war were little more than bluff.

Given that the truce happened in the middle of the summer, it was in reality to the IRA's advantage, time was on their side, had HQ done what most IRA commanders thought they were going to do and resumed hostilities after a week or two of the truce the worst of the summer would nearly have been over, the Nights would have started to get longer again, alowing greater freedom of movement for the IRA units in the field and put the IRA with its local knolowadge at a distinct advantage when engadgeing the enemy.

The IRA would not by any means have driven the British out, but they would have grown in strenght, they could have (and planned to) spread the fight further throughout the country, especially given the opportunity to reorganise during the truce. They could have and did bring in arms and amunition. The longer into the dark winter months the war streached, the more pressure and losses would have mounted on the Army and the pressure on the British Government both domestic and international would have grown and grown.

thadiisgirl

Going back a bit further, what about Robert Emmett?

BobbyPropane

An Coilean wrote: »

The idea that the IRA could not have continued the war if needed is something that was rejected by some of the most well know IRA field commanders. In fact, if you are to believe their account, the position of the IRA had never been stronger than when the Truce was called.
There was a severe shortage of arms and especially Amunition on the IRA side, but that was true from day one of the conflict, and by the time the truce was called, plans to bring in arms and amunition were well advanced, they were actually landed during the Truce.
On the British side however, the army was under pressure just to maintain troop numbers in Ireland, never mind find troops for a major increase in numbers.
Add this to the growing domestic opposition to Government policy in the mainland UK and Personally I can only conclude that threats of immediate and terrible war were little more than bluff.

Given that the truce happened in the middle of the summer, it was in reality to the IRA's advantage, time was on their side, had HQ done what most IRA commanders thought they were going to do and resumed hostilities after a week or two of the truce the worst of the summer would nearly have been over, the Nights would have started to get longer again, alowing greater freedom of movement for the IRA units in the field and put the IRA with its local knolowadge at a distinct advantage when engadgeing the enemy.

The IRA would not by any means have driven the British out, but they would have grown in strenght, they could have (and planned to) spread the fight further throughout the country, especially given the opportunity to reorganise during the truce. They could have and did bring in arms and amunition. The longer into the dark winter months the war streached, the more pressure and losses would have mounted on the Army and the pressure on the British Government both domestic and international would have grown and grown.

And I suppose the one million unionists would have happily agreed to be part of the south. We would have ruined this country further had we kept fighting and god knows would be in power by the end of it. Cosgrave was the right man for the time when he came into power. He settled this country and many forget that.

ejmaztec

Wintergreen wrote: »

I'd have to say Parnell. I've always thought that if personal life did'nt get in the way, Parnell could have achieved pretty much the exact same thing the as the War of Independence did but without the Civil War. Later the State could have broken the last few links with the United Kingdom like DeValera did with the Republic of Ireland Act in the late 40's.

My second choice would be Lemass.

I think he owes his success to Ken Whitaker who showed him what to do.

Tombo2001

Interestind question for me is who has been the most influential Irish person on the world stage as opposed to locally.

I cant say that Collins/ DEV/ Parnell/ Hume/ and so on and so forth have made any big difference outside of Ireland......as for Aodh Mor O'Neill.......

To be honest I'd say Bono has had more impact than that lot put together, but its just not fashionable to say so.

An Coilean

BobbyPropane wrote: »

And I suppose the one million unionists would have happily agreed to be part of the south. We would have ruined this country further had we kept fighting and god knows would be in power by the end of it. Cosgrave was the right man for the time when he came into power. He settled this country and many forget that.

Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.

ejmaztec

An Coilean wrote: »

Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.

I don't find the suggestion amazing.

Had the British relented and allowed an independent Ireland, there would have been a civil war involving the loyalists on one hand and everyone else on the other, which would have led to significantly more casualties than the pro-treaty/anti-treaty civil war that actually took place.

BobbyPropane

An Coilean wrote: »

Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.

I did not suggest its the best we could have hoped for. I believe the civil war could have been prevented had collins and Griffith pushed further for external association but the damage done by the civil war is small compared to what would years and years of guerilla warfare and then possibly civil war again

An Coilean

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't find the suggestion amazing.

Had the British relented and allowed an independent Ireland, there would have been a civil war involving the loyalists on one hand and everyone else on the other, which would have led to significantly more casualties than the pro-treaty/anti-treaty civil war that actually took place.

That is an exteremly simplistic view of the situition. Your argument is based on the assumption that a continuation of the war would have resulted in victory for the IRA and an unconditional British withdrawl from the entire Island, after which Nationalist leaders would have tried to sieze control of the North and establish an all island Republic by force. That however is not certain, and with consideration of the facts, hardly seems likely.

We can be quite sure for instance that the IRA would not have been able to decisively defeat the British Army in the field even if, as I have suggested, they could have extended the war to a larger part of the country and grown in strenght.

We also know that both sides were open to a negioated settelment, given this it is likely that talks would have been entered into later in the year.
We can only guess at the outcome of those talks, but we do know that the British establishment viewed the North as a red line issue, and it is unlikely that the unionist population would have been entirely abandoned.
We also know that Nationalist leaders were willing to be flexible on the issue of Unity.
It seems unlikely to me that given the compromises they were willing to make, that nationalist leaders would have been willing to provoke a civil war with the Unionist community on the issue of unity, it is more likely that they would have gotten a more favourable treaty with some or all of the following, Ireland gaining Independance of or external association with the British Empire instead of dominion status, no treaty ports, no oath to the King (The issue at the heart of the civil war) and a different settelement of the nothern question probably played out through the border commission except with Ireland having a much stronger hand.
I can not claim that this would have occured, but it was certainly well within the relm of posibility, denying that and pretending that what happened was the best of all possible outcomes is simply wrong.


@BobbyPropane.

Given the alternatives of continuing the war with the British or accepting the treaty and entering into a civil war, I believe that the former woud have lead to a much better outcome for Ireland. See above for why Years and Years of continued guerilla warfare and a civil war with the North were in my opinion unlikely.