Pro-Treaty or Anti-Treaty?

MaroonAndGreen

Got thinking about this after watching a documentary on it.

Knowing what we know now about the Anglo-Irish Treaty, if you had to choose one, would you be Pro-Treaty or Anti-Treaty?

For me, I'd have to say Pro-Treaty.

thecatspjs

Probably pro-treaty.

gouche

What is this - 1922?

MaroonAndGreen

mathie wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The Anglo-Irish Treaty signed in December 1921

problemchimp

If you let us know what treaty you're talking about we could answer.
ah that treaty, no didn't like that one.

MaroonAndGreen

problemchimp wrote: »

If you let us know what treaty you're talking about we could answer.

Why dont you read the OP before getting smart, its clearly stated

9959

I'm Pro Choice.

problemchimp

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

Why dont you read the OP before getting smart, its clearly stated

As you can see I edited my post before you came along kiddo!

The Backwards Man

The winning side.

anncoates

Probably the gun side and loose women side rather than the Dev side.

iDave

Oh i can see a nice argument over the civil war brewing here

Nemeses

Where's the option for Atari??

mikeym

A lot of people have different opinions if we rejected the treaty.

Michael Collins thought it was a stepping stone to a 32 county republic which will never happen.

My name is URL

I'd have been against it. Kind of a crap compromise... 'you can have your own free state, but you'll still be a dominion of Britain and the monarch will still be head of state'.. ehh, no thanks.

MaroonAndGreen

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd have been against it. Kind of a crap compromise... 'you can have your own free state, but you'll still be a dominion of Britain and the monarch will still be head of state'.. ehh, no thanks.

It was that or nothing though, you have to consider that we could not continue fighting the War of Independence because of finances and weapons, we were running out. To me it looks like Collins and co were forced into signing, it was the only choice they had.

While it wasnt an ideal treaty, it was better than the alternative.

NinjaK

Anti. No surrender of Irish soil.

My name is URL

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

It was that or nothing though, you have to consider that we could not continue fighting the War of Independence because of finances and weapons, we were running out. To me it looks like Collins and co were forced into signing, it was the only choice they had.

While it wasnt an ideal treaty, it was better than the alternative.

My view may well have differed had I been alive at the time

I'm quite happy living in a republic though (broken as it is right now), so I couldn't possibly say that I'd be supportive of the treaty in hindsight.

Riddle101

From a revisionist point of view, it's easy to say if we're pro/anti treaty because we can look back and reflect on what happened. But at that time, it's hard to tell what anyone would think, not knowing what the future held. It would be like looking back at and saying it was a big mistake to vote for Fianna Faíl because of what Bertie Ahern did. But at the time when nobody knew much about what was happening, i'm sure people probably voted because they believed it was the right choice.

I consider myself pro-treaty because I believe Collins was in the right at the time. But it was all f*cked up to begin with, Dev should have went over himself and brought along a stronger team, at least it might not have ended in a Civil War. But I believe Collins had no other choice, unless he wanted to continue a war that would have been lost if we kept fighting.

tdv123

Anti no doubt.

Why anybody would want to divide the island & sow the seeds for decades of conflict in the North is beyond me.

jugger0

Anti-Treaty... What could the Brits do to us that they hadn't tried already?

Cody Pomeray

At the time? I dunno. Probably anti treaty, I'd hope.

With the benefit of hindsight, I don't think any right thinking person in 2013 could consider the pro-treaty side justified in their actions.

leggo

The British would have never, ever allowed us complete freedom after an uprising, it would've kickstarted an uprising in every country they ruled over (and even allowing us the Free State was the beginning of the end for the empire). The deal we got was our only option and even Dev knew it.

It wasn't the best solution though, by any means. That blame, and the blame for the Troubles, lies with the Brits though. There is no anti-Treaty stance if our only alternative was to enter into a war we could never win.

Riddle101

jugger0 wrote: »

Anti-Treaty... What could the Brits do to us that they hadn't tried already?

Use their Air Force, or Tanks on us. They didn't really try use them in the past, but if they used the RAF it would have been a lot harder for the IRA to operate a guerrilla war. Not to mention, Collins intelligence network wouldn't have worked as his identity had been compromised and the Brits were on to his network.

seamus

It's impossible to say really. You can argue that the treaty created the troubles in the North, but if the anti-treaty side had won, we could have ended up in a much more protracted and bloodier war with the British. We had no hope of actually winning any kind of fight against the British. Look at how quickly the rebellion in 1916 was squashed - and the British were at war at the time.

This is why the treaty was a big win for Ireland, because it started the proceedings for getting out, without having to fight for it. The British were sick of Ireland at that stage, and wanted to be able to rid themselves of the trouble, but if we had tried to go toe-to-toe and seize control by force, the honour of the empire would have been defended and we would have been crushed.

Would the British have eventually left? Yeah, I think so. The 1900s saw them shedding a lot of overseas power, but there was no way to foresee that. If we weren't a Free State during WWII, the British would most certainly have brought us back into the fold and governed from London to prevent Nazi incursions, and we'd have been back to square one.

It's a far more complicated question than, "We should never have given away the North". The assumption at the time was that the North would eventually be relinquished, and even though that assumption was wrong, it may still have been the right choice in the long term.

Fratton Fred

People were still being killed during the negotiations, so it is easy to understand why people wanted an end to it.

People forget that a sizeable number of people in the north east wanted no part in the free state and rejection of the treaty would most likely have started a very bloody civil war, one that would have made the war for independence seem like a bun fight.

I believe the treaty was the correct decision at the time, although in hind sight that bloody civil war still happened so the lives ultimately were lost anyway.

Always amazes me that Dev is so reverred, he should be held responsible for a lot of the mess.

Cody Pomeray

seamus wrote: »

This is why the treaty was a big win for Ireland, because it started the proceedings for getting out, without having to fight for it.

The War of Independence? The Civil war?

We had to fight for it on both ends as it was. Suggesting the subsequent war with the Brits would have been less favourable than a civil war that resulted in thousands of Irish casualties anyway, and disrupted society for generations, and still disrupts society and unity today is a... novel... argument.

jugger0

Riddle101 wrote: »

Use their Air Force, or Tanks on us. They didn't really try use them in the past, but if they used the RAF it would have been a lot harder for the IRA to operate a guerrilla war. Not to mention, Collins intelligence network wouldn't have worked as his identity had been compromised and the Brits were on to his network.

Air force and tanks wouldn't be too much use in a guerrilla war though, i'd imagine they would kill a lot more civilians if they used them and that would only work in favor of the IRA, but yeah Michael Collins would of been in serious trouble.

Riddle101

jugger0 wrote: »

Air force and tanks wouldn't be too much use in a guerrilla war though, i'd imagine they would kill a lot more civilians if they used them and that would only work in favor of the IRA, but yeah Michael Collins would of been in serious trouble.

That all depends. If the British control, both the ground and the skies and the IRA can only fight on ground then they are at a serious disadvantage. Not to say they weren't before, but it would just make things a lot harder and we just weren't able to keep fighting.

seamus

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The War of Independence? The Civil war?

We had to fight for it on both ends as it was. Suggesting the subsequent war with the Brits would have been less favourable than a civil war that resulted in thousands of Irish casualties anyway, and disrupted society for generations, and still disrupts society and unity today is a... novel... argument.

Sorry, I was really talking from a subjective point of view - at the time it must have seemed for the pro-Treaty side like they had won a battle for independence with very little bloodshed.

Again, hard to say whether the civil war and the troubles in the north were the worst possible outcome. How many people would have died in a civil war against the British and how many would still be dying from sectarian terrorism across the island if we were still under British rule?

It's an impossible question to answer. Generously, between the civil war and the troubles, 8,000 people were killed. How many would have died fighting the British?

spank_inferno

Hindsight shows the pro-treaty as being the best choice given the circumstances.

drkpower

Given that a rejection of the treaty would have led to an unwinnable war against the British, it would likely to have led to either utter defeat or to another choice to accept a slight worse treaty. Given the approach of the anti treaty side, they would probably have rejected that perhaps leading to a civil war at a later date.

The civil war seems like the worst of those available options.

Mind you, it's all pure speculation.