Great Irish Political Leaders

Kettleson

OK so I'm writing from a relatively un-read/non-academic status.

However, we've all heard about "great Irish Political leaders" and judging by today's collection, there wont be many joining that particular hall of fame.

So just how great were these leaders of yore? Or is it mostly all politically motivated, romantic nonsense?

Were there any at all? If you could name just one, who would it be and why?

PS: I made an easy, conscious decision not to post in AH. So I'm looking for relatively well reasoned opinion. Thanks...

who the fug

Dev

took over in 33 . jumped on what Collins Higans & Cosgrove gave him, kept a lid on things and kept us out of WW2, his problem was he grew old and stayed to long

The_Valeyard

Sean Lemass, great leader for this country.

Him and T.K Whitaker did help to modernise the nation.

Rightwing

None :mad:

Zebra3

who the fug wrote: »

Dev

took over in 33 . jumped on what Collins Higans & Cosgrove gave him, kept a lid on things and kept us out of WW2, his problem was he grew old and stayed to long

Catholic extremist who gave too much power to the paedos in the Roman church. Very backward looking.

At least Lemass tried to take the country into the 20th C in some shape of form.

who the fug

Zebra3 wrote: »

Catholic extremist who gave too much power to the paedos in the Roman church. Very backward looking.

At least Lemass tried to take the country into the 20th C in some shape of form.

he was of his time, if he walked in 48, he would be not have been remembered for the fifties

Old men have never know when to walk;)

Kettleson

I am very much aware that I am relatively unread, On Dev however.

Why was staying out of the War such a good (moral) thing? Seems a bit sit-on-the-fence to me. Was the national card that important not to help out the neighbours? Was the "occupation" of 6 counties still such an issue in times of war. And Britain, had they had lost, we would all have been speaking German anyways.

It seems to me that Dev was happy enough to let Britain go to War and was looking forward to benefiting from their success, should they win.

It would have seemed more strategic and morally upstanding to row in with Britain. Feel free to correct me on this one.

robp

Zebra3 wrote: »

Catholic extremist who gave too much power to the paedos in the Roman church. Very backward looking.

At least Lemass tried to take the country into the 20th C in some shape of form.

Dev was an intellectual, quite contrary to 'one of lads' politicians common today (Enda , Bertie). With his experience as president of the League of Nations he was far more outward looking than people give him credit for. He resisted placing Catholicism as a state religion and put in place a progressive constitution, which to this day has a firmer democratic design then is average in Europe. He had little charisma but huge foresight. His greatest failing was his disinterest in Ireland’s financial growth (and staying too long) but he was a idealist, who only saw wealth as a means to an end.

robp

Kettleson wrote: »

I am very much aware that I am relatively unread, On Dev however.

Why was staying out of the War such a good (moral) thing? Seems a bit sit-on-the-fence to me. Was the national card that important not to help out the neighbours? Was the "occupation" of 6 counties still such an issue in times of war. And Britain, had they had lost, we would all have been speaking German anyways.

It seems to me that Dev was happy enough to let Britain go to War and was looking forward to benefiting from their success, should they win.

It would have seemed more strategic and morally upstanding to row in with Britain. Feel free to correct me on this one.

In hindsight it is very easy to say Ireland should have gone to war but you have to put yourself back in the context of 1939. The republic was just 2 years old. There was war only 17 years before with the UK. The fragile new republic still had territorial claims on UK territory. Ireland was woefully unprepared for war. Antiquated weapons or none at all. Germany was respected in Ireland, even up to 1945. People would have seen the war as a spat between old imperial powers. The rhetoric coming from the UK and Churchill during the war years mocking Ireland wouldn’t particularly have helped either. Maybe Ireland should have joined in at 1943 or 1944 but in 1939 it is easy to see why declaring war was avoided.

Kettleson

robp wrote: »

In hindsight it is very easy to say Ireland should have gone to war but you have to put yourself back in the context of 1939. The republic was just 2 years old. There was war only 17 years before with the UK. The fragile new republic still had territorial claims on UK territory. Ireland was woefully unprepared for war. Antiquated weapons or none at all. Germany was respected in Ireland, even up to 1945. People would have seen the war as a spat between old imperial powers. The rhetoric coming from the UK and Churchill during the war years mocking Ireland wouldn’t particularly have helped either. Maybe Ireland should have joined in at 1943 or 1944 but in 1939 it is easy to see why declaring war was avoided.

Nice one Robp. I've since been googling and wiki'ing to get some commentary on it, and your summary is as good as it gets. Thanks for that.

We'll never know, but theoretically, could you suggest what might have happened had Ireland sided with Britain? Thanks

robp

Kettleson wrote: »

Nice one Robp. I've since been googling and wiki'ing to get some commentary on it, and your summary is as good as it gets. Thanks for that.

We'll never know, but theoretically, could you suggest what might have happened had Ireland sided with Britain? Thanks

Cheers but I am only repeating the real experts. Checkout http://www.rte.ie/radio/judgingdev/listen.html if you have not already heard it. Its much better then Wiki.
On a different course of history, I would not be so well versed up. It is hard to say.

Zebra3

robp wrote: »

Dev was an intellectual, quite contrary to 'one of lads' politicians common today (Enda , Bertie). With his experience as president of the League of Nations he was far more outward looking than people give him credit for. He resisted placing Catholicism as a state religion and put in place a progressive constitution, which to this day has a firmer democratic design then is average in Europe. He had little charisma but huge foresight. His greatest failing was his disinterest in Ireland’s financial growth (and staying too long) but he was a idealist, who only saw wealth as a means to an end.

He was crook in true FF style, setting the standards for Haughey and Ahern.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dev-tricked-public-into-investing-in-irish-press-file-reveals-26226075.html

McKrab

robp wrote: »

Dev was an intellectual, quite contrary to 'one of lads' politicians common today (Enda , Bertie). With his experience as president of the League of Nations he was far more outward looking than people give him credit for. He resisted placing Catholicism as a state religion and put in place a progressive constitution, which to this day has a firmer democratic design then is average in Europe. He had little charisma but huge foresight. His greatest failing was his disinterest in Ireland’s financial growth (and staying too long) but he was a idealist, who only saw wealth as a means to an end.

Resisted placing Catholicism as a State religion? Put in place a progressive constitution? That's utterly misleading.
This is the man whose vision of Ireland was of comely maidens dancing at crossroads.
He wanted to keep Ireland tethered to the backward Catholic dogma that prevailed at the inception of the State. He was always careful not to risk the wrath of Archbishop McQuaid, the President of his alma mater Blackrock, or to offend him in any way.
Not to mention the "special place of the Catholic Church" acknowledged by the State in his constitution, which also mentioned the desire for women to stay in the home.

Disinterest in financial growth is an understatement. He plunged the country into an economic crisis in the 1930's solely for the sake of breaking Ireland's perceived economic dependence on Britain.

Another part of De Valera's rather mixed career as a politician which rarely seems to be mentioned is his outrageous role in the Civil War. The rivalries that developed in the Civil War have plagued Irish Politics ever since, and were all due to the fact that he couldn't bite the bullet and say the Oath (something which he managed to do well enough less than 10 years later anyway, once faced with political dereliction).

De Valera was quite frankly a blight upon Irish Politics, and upon the Irish people.

Riddle101

I think Sean Lemass is the most popular and best choice to go with. The guy did great things for Ireland, arguably more then any other Taoiseach we've had.

Jawgap

I'd take Lemass and Whittaker over Dev and McQuaid any day!!

For your consideration I'd also offer Garret Fitzgerald.

I also think Haughey merits consideration - for all his many flaws he did have a dark charisma and certain style .......and aside from that he actually brought in some decent policies and wasn't afraid to govern.

robp

Zebra3 wrote: »

He was crook in true FF style, setting the standards for Haughey and Ahern.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dev-tricked-public-into-investing-in-irish-press-file-reveals-26226075.html

In my opinion it was wrong as head of gv that he held those shares but there is a consensus that he made little money from it. Unlike Haughey and Ahern he ended his career without great wealth. Indeed as late as the 1960s when Ireland started to grow economically he refused salary rises to his position.

McKrab wrote: »

Resisted placing Catholicism as a State religion? Put in place a progressive constitution? That's utterly misleading.
This is the man whose vision of Ireland was of comely maidens dancing at crossroads.
He wanted to keep Ireland tethered to the backward Catholic dogma that prevailed at the inception of the State. He was always careful not to risk the wrath of Archbishop McQuaid, the President of his alma mater Blackrock, or to offend him in any way.
Not to mention the "special place of the Catholic Church" acknowledged by the State in his constitution, which also mentioned the desire for women to stay in the home.

Disinterest in financial growth is an understatement. He plunged the country into an economic crisis in the 1930's solely for the sake of breaking Ireland's perceived economic dependence on Britain.

Another part of De Valera's rather mixed career as a politician which rarely seems to be mentioned is his outrageous role in the Civil War. The rivalries that developed in the Civil War have plagued Irish Politics ever since, and were all due to the fact that he couldn't bite the bullet and say the Oath (something which he managed to do well enough less than 10 years later anyway, once faced with political dereliction).

De Valera was quite frankly a blight upon Irish Politics, and upon the Irish people.

People always quote the sentence about comely maidens but always omit speeches about Ireland becoming being industrious. Infact cross roads aren't even mentioned in the speech. Comely maidens has nothing remotely to do with religion. It related to the pastoral idealism that Dev like Michael Collins possessed. Dev wasn't an enemy of McQuaid but Dev made plenty of enemies to various political priests who favoured Cumann na nGaedheal. Infact some were known to denounced him from the pupil. Giving women a constitutional right to stay at home was a privilege, if discrimination only to men. Yes he guided the country in-line with Catholic social theory but that had deep popular support.

Lastly your misinformed about the Civil war. His role was much more minor then you suggest. Even though he was a figure head he wasn't in a major controlling position of rebel republicans. Militarily he controlled little. Historians have recognised there was a group of die hard republicans who were set on war and were not open to negotiations on the treaty. To attribute the entire Civil war to him is to grossly exaggerate his influence.

pedroeibar1

Fitzgerald had no desire to be other than an academic and was delighted to be viewed as one.

Haughey wanted to be a statesman and achieved it, although his legacy is marred by corruption.

Reynolds wanted to be a statesman but with his demeanour never could rise above being ‘one of the lads.’

Bruton was a ‘gentleman farmer’ and when in office never could make up his mind if he wanted that or to be known as a statesman. (Which is why he is a good diplomat.)

Ahern did not care as long as he was liked and re-elected. He now has to worry about his legacy/standing, hence the ‘Iar-taoiseach’ sobriquet.

Cowan could never be a statesman as he had an ego that over-rode common decency and politeness.

Kenny desperately wants to be a statesman but has neither the ability, talent nor capacity to be one.

OCorcrainn

Kettleson wrote: »

OK so I'm writing from a relatively un-read/non-academic status.

However, we've all heard about "great Irish Political leaders" and judging by today's collection, there wont be many joining that particular hall of fame.

So just how great were these leaders of yore? Or is it mostly all politically motivated, romantic nonsense?

Were there any at all? If you could name just one, who would it be and why?

PS: I made an easy, conscious decision not to post in AH. So I'm looking for relatively well reasoned opinion. Thanks...

David Ervine
Robert Emmett
Sean Lemass
Gerry Adams
Seán MacBride
Micheal Collins
John Hume
Charles Stuart Parnell
Theobald Wolfe Tone
Henry Grattan
Douglas Hyde
Arthur Griffith
Garrett Gitzgerald
Jack Lynch
Terence O'Neill
David Trimble
Martin McGuinness
Albert Reynolds
Cathal Brugha
WT Cosgrave
Frank Aiken
Dick Spring
Eoin MacNeill
Napper Tandy
Arthur Wellesley

De Valera destroyed this country and set it backwards for decades.
Daniel O Connell influenced many people to abandon the Irish language and to speak English instead, and is considered by many to be responsible for the near demise of the Irish language.

tdv123

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Fitzgerald had no desire to be other than an academic and was delighted to be viewed as one.

Bruton was a ‘gentleman farmer’ and when in office never could make up his mind if he wanted that or to be known as a statesman. (Which is why he is a good diplomat.)


Kenny desperately wants to be a statesman but has neither the ability, talent nor capacity to be one.

The same Bruton who had ago at Vol. Martin "Doco" Doherty, after Doco risked his own life who without doubt saved I'd say potentially the biggest massacre of the troubles? That Bruton? And be begrudge him a military funeral for his heroic actions.

Kettleson

In my lifetime, and from your list John Hume.

I am old enough to remember Mr De Valeras funeral and am young enough to have shared the experience of the hostilities and challenges that John Hume met head on, on a daily basis.

For me, John Hume is the most honourable statesman and humanitarian that Ireland was lucky enough to have born to its soil.

IMO, no one else comes close. He was doing his thing in the 6 counties, a violent cauldron where he had much bigger fish to fry, needed a bigger pair of balls, and was under daily threat of assissanation to both himself and his family and paid no undue reverence to any church.

I have reached my Journeys end. John Hume.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

David Ervine
Robert Emmett
Sean Lemass
Gerry Adams
Seán MacBride
Micheal Collins
John Hume
Charles Stuart Parnell
Theobald Wolfe Tone
Henry Grattan
Douglas Hyde
Arthur Griffith
Garrett Gitzgerald
Jack Lynch
Terence O'Neill
David Trimble
Martin McGuinness
Albert Reynolds
Cathal Brugha
WT Cosgrave
Frank Aiken
Dick Spring
Eoin MacNeill
Napper Tandy
Arthur Wellesley

De Valera destroyed this country and set it backwards for decades.
Daniel O Connell influenced many people to abandon the Irish language and to speak English instead, and is considered by many to be responsible for the near demise of the Irish language.

pedroeibar1

tdv123 wrote: »

The same Bruton who had ago at Vol. Martin "Doco" Doherty, after Doco risked his own life who without doubt saved I'd say potentially the biggest massacre of the troubles? That Bruton? And be begrudge him a military funeral for his heroic actions.

Nonsense. Doherty was a convicted terrorist, by his own boast he spent time 'on active service' in the IRA's bombing campaign in England. There is no doubt he saved lives in the attempted Dublin pub bombing, but he died as he lived. He was not a soldier and had no right to a military funeral. He was buried in an IRA managed PR funeral. This discussion is about statesmen, you have added nothing to it.

OCorcrainn

Kettleson wrote: »

In my lifetime, and from your list John Hume. John Hume without a doubt.

I am old enough to remember Mr De Veleras funeral and am young enough to have shared the experience of the hostilities and challenges that John Hume met head on, on a daily basis.

For me, John Hume is the most honourable statesman and humanitarian that Ireland was lucky enough to have born to its soil.

In my experience, no on else comes close. He was doing his thing in the 6 counties, a violent cauldron where he had much bigger fish to fry, needed a bigger pair of balls, and was under daily threat of assissanation to both himself and his family and paid no undue reverence to any church.

I have reached my Journeys end. John Hume.

A good choice, I am a Sinn Féin supporter myself but if I was living up north the SDLP would get my vote too. I have a lot respect for the effort that party did during the Troubles, more so for the work John Hume did, no one can deny his contribution. Nationalists needed men like him just as much as Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness.

Che16

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nonsense. Doherty was a convicted terrorist, by his own boast he spent time 'on active service' in the IRA's bombing campaign in England. There is no doubt he saved lives in the attempted Dublin pub bombing, but he died as he lived. He was not a soldier and had no right to a military funeral. He was buried in an IRA managed PR funeral. This discussion is about statesmen, you have added nothing to it.

Clearly you are very susceptible to propaganda,read a book,honestly.Fair play to volunteer Doherty for resisting British rule in Ireland.He was a soldier of the Irish Republic and should have received a soldier's funeral.

burgermasters

Kettleson wrote: »

I am very much aware that I am relatively unread, On Dev however.

Why was staying out of the War such a good (moral) thing? Seems a bit sit-on-the-fence to me. Was the national card that important not to help out the neighbours? Was the "occupation" of 6 counties still such an issue in times of war. And Britain, had they had lost, we would all have been speaking German anyways.

It seems to me that Dev was happy enough to let Britain go to War and was looking forward to benefiting from their success, should they win.

It would have seemed more strategic and morally upstanding to row in with Britain. Feel free to correct me on this one.

I know it two days after your post but feel I should say anyway?
Churchhill offered dev the 6 counties if Ireland declared its would fight as allied to British but the coward claimed he didn't trust the British, fact was that we couldn't have afforded to go to war any way and if so it meant the British footing the bills for us and dev didn't want that? That info comes from my grandfather whom was a volunteer back in the day, also have to say Collins was the best irish leader ever, rip

Che16

burgermasters wrote: »

I know it two days after your post but feel I should say anyway?
Churchhill offered dev the 6 counties if Ireland declared its would fight as allied to British but the coward claimed he didn't trust the British, fact was that we couldn't have afforded to go to war any way and if so it meant the British footing the bills for us and dev didn't want that? That info comes from my grandfather whom was a volunteer back in the day, also have to say Collins was the best irish leader ever, rip

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing,a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers whoalso died for nothing.He then turned on his former comrades and accepted partition of our country.Had he lived circumstances might have changed,he might have redeemed himself but we do not know.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

burgermasters

Che16 wrote: »

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing,a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers whoalso died for nothingness then turned on his former comrades and accepted partition of our country.Had he lived circumstances might have changed,he might have redeemed himself but we do not know.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

Micheal Collins was nothing but a Republican hero who lived fought and died for his fellow irish men and women,granted he couldn't bring back the whole country but nobody could have? Yes men and women died on both sides but that is war? He gave his life for what we have now been traitor he wasn't there is clear documentation on him and you can clearly see that he was by no means a traitor to this country.

markomuscle

I always find it strange seeing northern republicans idolising Collins, he played a part in partition even if it was for reasons he thought were right.

OCorcrainn

markomuscle wrote: »

I always find it strange seeing northern republicans idolising Collins, he played a part in partition even if it was for reasons he thought were right.

I am a southern republican and Shinner and obviously would have been anti-Treaty but I still have a be-grudging respect and admiration for Collins. I have no trace of either for De Valera.

pedroeibar1

xx

pedroeibar1

Che16 wrote: »

Clearly you are very susceptible to propaganda,read a book,honestly.Fair play to volunteer Doherty for resisting British rule in Ireland.He was a soldier of the Irish Republic and should have received a soldier's funeral.

Personal insults and what you have written to date in your 3 history posts - res ipsa loquitur. O’Doherty was not a soldier and never had a mandate from a democratically elected government. He was a convicted terrorist, a person who was proud to boast about bombing (innocent people) and who was hired as a doorman because of his ‘connections’. He questioned a couple of suspicious thugs who then shot him. He most certainly was not a Great Irish Political Leader, which is what this thread is about. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Che16 wrote: »

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing,a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers whoalso died for nothing.He then turned on his former comrades and accepted partition of our country.Had he lived circumstances might have changed,he might have redeemed himself but we do not know.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

Well, let's start with the fact that regardless of his military credentials, he was an outstanding organiser - his role as Minister of Finance is hugely overlooked along with his role in organising the logistics of the War of Independence. All while on the run and managing a first class intelligence gathering operation.

He was also astute enough to realise that while the British were war weary, the Republican forces were spent - they were effectively out of ammunition and a lot of units were, in modern parlance, 'combat ineffective' for the want of replacements. In the circumstances he did as well as anyone could have.

Bigdeadlydave

Doco was a hero who gave his life to save that of many many others. He was killed stopping loyalists from blowing up a bar - even if you don't like the IRA you have to admit that it was a heroic thing to do. (Personally I reckon that a lot of those who slag him off are a bit disappointed that those who were in the pub at the time (numerous republicans) were not killed)

Bigdeadlydave

OCorcrainn wrote: »

A good choice, I am a Sinn Féin supporter myself but if I was living up north the SDLP would get my vote too. I have a lot respect for the effort that party did during the Troubles, more so for the work John Hume did, no one can deny his contribution. Nationalists needed men like him just as much as Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness.

The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)

tdv123

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Personal insults and what you have written to date in your 3 history posts - res ipsa loquitur. O’Doherty was not a soldier and never had a mandate from a democratically elected government. He was a convicted terrorist, a person who was proud to boast about bombing (innocent people) and who was hired as a doorman because of his ‘connections’. He questioned a couple of suspicious thugs who then shot him. He most certainly was not a Great Irish Political Leader, which is what this thread is about. :rolleyes:

The Irish Republic was a democratically elected government.

Kettleson

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)

Interesting comments. Indeed I'm very aware of others having significant roles to play in the Peace Process, but it was not on that issue alone that I would put John Hume top of the list.

For me,it was more about his lifelong commitment to following his beliefs. It took a great toll on his health, and he would have taken a lot of criticism and abuse and threats from many quarters.

In the same vein, Austin Currie and Ivan Cooper are worth a mention.

Kettleson

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)

Bigdeadlydave, perhaps "collaborating" is too strong a word? I can remember those days and can remember feeling totally frustrated that Sinn Fein were not allowed to enter into formal negotiations, and I can understand why you believe that the troubles were extended as a result.

But there are also many many other reasons why the troubles lasted the length that they did.

I cant remember the exact reasons why Sinn Fein were excluded, apart from the obvious alleged links with "terrorist" organisations. I for one would have disagreed with their exclusion, but I do not think that John Hume would have deliberately excluded them to protect his vote, or the SDLP's foothold in NI politics. Though others in the SDLP would for sure have had that agenda.

(Did John Hume have a vote on keeping Sinn Fein out?).

Would there also have been Loyalist "Political" organisations who were also excluded from formal discussions?

And if I may ask, would you consider Sinn Feins current status as collaborating with the British Government?

Lastly a clip of JH on the doorstep. In my opinion he had the courage of his conviction and chose to take the democratic route.

I am also reminded of Gerry Fitt, or "Fitt the Brit" as he was dubbed by his own. I think he lost count of how many times his house was attacked.

I believe that they all contributed significantly to getting us to where we are today.

http://youtu.be/j863HQ2OF5Q

Gerry Fitt:

http://youtu.be/LA4B6_REg40

McKrab

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)

I cant believe you can slander the name of someone who gave so much for the Irish people, and who rightfully won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Sinn Fein had direct links with terrorism, and if not for the work of Hume and the SDLP they would have been excluded from peace talks for far longer.

Bigdeadlydave

McKrab wrote: »

I cant believe you can slander the name of someone who gave so much for the Irish people, and who rightfully won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Sinn Fein had direct links with terrorism, and if not for the work of Hume and the SDLP they would have been excluded from peace talks for far longer.

Nothing I said is not true.

Bigdeadlydave

Kettleson wrote: »

Bigdeadlydave, perhaps "collaborating" is too strong a word? I can remember those days and can remember feeling totally frustrated that Sinn Fein were not allowed to enter into formal negotiations, and I can understand why you believe that the troubles were extended as a result.

But there are also many many other reasons why the troubles lasted the length that they did.

I cant remember the exact reasons why Sinn Fein were excluded, apart from the obvious alleged links with "terrorist" organisations. I for one would have disagreed with their exclusion, but I do not think that John Hume would have deliberately excluded them to protect his vote, or the SDLP's foothold in NI politics. Though others in the SDLP would for sure have had that agenda.

(Did John Hume have a vote on keeping Sinn Fein out?).

Would there also have been Loyalist "Political" organisations who were also excluded from formal discussions?

And if I may ask, would you consider Sinn Feins current status as collaborating with the British Government?

Lastly a clip of JH on the doorstep. In my opinion he had the courage of his conviction and chose to take the democratic route.

I am also reminded of Gerry Fitt, or "Fitt the Brit" as he was dubbed by his own. I think he lost count of how many times his house was attacked.

I believe that they all contributed significantly to getting us to where we are today.

http://youtu.be/j863HQ2OF5Q

Gerry Fitt:

http://youtu.be/LA4B6_REg40

I suggest reading "A secret history of the IRA", of particular interest is the period after the hungerstrikes when the SDLP, Garret Fitzgerald and the British all collaborated in order to exclude SF and to damage their increasing votes. In order to do this they promoted the SDLP. As we all know (and SF and others pointed out at the time) peace only came when everyone was included. It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations. So yes, the SDLP through their collaboration with Thatcher helped extend the troubles. And yes, this was self interest. By the time all this was played out in front of the cameras the ball was already long rolling.

At this stage (early eighties) Adams and Haughey were engaged in secret negotiations using Fr Alec Reid as an intermediary. It pains me to praise Haughey but he realized that excluding republicans would never work. (as was obvious) He took a massive risk with these negotiations as if they got out it would have been the end of him, especially considering his earlier involvement in the Arms Crisis. It is unclear if Adams actions were authorized by the IRA or not, depending on the answer to that he was also on thin ice, but it would have been far more damaging to Haughey. Out of these negotiations came the peace process, Hume gets far more credit than he should. To his credit Hume and the SDLP did eventually fall on their sword but only after over a decade of aiding the British in sidelining republicans. (As did the laughably nicknamed "Garret the Good" who incidentally showed no interest in engaging with Fr Alec Reid, the negotiations were interrupted whenever Sir Garret was in office) If you want to pick a peacemaker out of this time period that man is Fr Alec Reid.

Kettleson

"It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations"..

This isn't a road I want to go down, but with regard to the above, what is your opinion of including the 32 Sovereignty Movement and the "Real IRA" in discussions with whoever?

And what is your opinion on Sinn Feins current status within the British Democratic process?

And as Lou Reed, said, "don't believe none of what you see and half of what you hear"... Books? Eh?

Bigdeadlydave

Kettleson wrote: »

"It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations"..

This isn't a road I want to go down, but with regard to the above, what is your opinion of including the 32 Sovereignty Movement and the "Real IRA" in discussions with whoever?

And what is your opinion on Sinn Feins current status within the British Democratic process?

And as Lou Reed, said, "don't believe none of what you see and half of what you hear"... Books? Eh?

Why shift the goalposts like that? So you don't believe any of the multitude of books about the topic? Ed Moloneys book about the IRA is very good and I would say the most accurate in dealing with the period of time we are talking about. But you obviously must know better? Bit odd to see books so easily dismissed in a history forum.

As for the Real IRA and whatnot, their "war" is hardly comparable to that of the provisionals is it? They have nowhere near the same support, capability, activity, membership etc, in fact I'd say there are more British agents or touts in it than republicans. But yes, I think they should be talked with, SF have offered many times but they have refused.

As for Sinn Féin and the wider provisional movement, I think they were right to stop fighting, and should have done so sooner, but I think the GFA will only lead to more tears because it doesn't solve the root issue and even worse it institutionalizes sectarianism. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant, it seems to me you are going on a fishing expedition in order to find a red herring.

Kettleson

I'm fishing for nothing. Was merely responding to your posts re John Hume. And I'm not even going to being to explain what I know. You stick to the books.

Bigdeadlydave

Kettleson wrote: »

I'm fishing for nothing. Was merely responding to your posts re John Hume. And I'm not even going to being to explain what I know. You stick to the books.

Why bother posting on a HISTORY forum if your only contribution is a self satisfied smug remark like that? It's obvious it's just a cover for your ignorance - however that is the very thing which discussions like this are supposed to help with - if you'll let them.

Tell us what you know then, and how you are better informed than the likes of Ed Moloney or the numerous people he talked with while writing his books.

jonniebgood1

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Why bother posting on a HISTORY forum if your only contribution is a self satisfied smug remark like that? It's obvious it's just a cover for your ignorance - however that is the very thing which discussions like this are supposed to help with - if you'll let them.

Tell us what you know then, and how you are better informed than the likes of Ed Moloney or the numerous people he talked with while writing his books.

Back seat moderation can warrant an infraction. Take heed of this tolerant warning or an infraction will be applied. Also note that in general the posts in this thread need to relate to the op.

moderator

Che16

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, let's start with the fact that regardless of his military credentials, he was an outstanding organiser - his role as Minister of Finance is hugely overlooked along with his role in organising the logistics of the War of Independence. All while on the run and managing a first class intelligence gathering operation.

He was also astute enough to realise that while the British were war weary, the Republican forces were spent - they were effectively out of ammunition and a lot of units were, in modern parlance, 'combat ineffective' for the want of replacements. In the circumstances he did as well as anyone could have.

I never claimed he didn't do any good/remarkable deeds.However,he turned on his former comrades and sold out,that is unforgivable.

Che16

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Why shift the goalposts like that? So you don't believe any of the multitude of books about the topic? Ed Moloneys book about the IRA is very good and I would say the most accurate in dealing with the period of time we are talking about. But you obviously must know better? Bit odd to see books so easily dismissed in a history forum.

As for the Real IRA and whatnot, their "war" is hardly comparable to that of the provisionals is it? They have nowhere near the same support, capability, activity, membership etc, in fact I'd say there are more British agents or touts in it than republicans. But yes, I think they should be talked with, SF have offered many times but they have refused.

As for Sinn Féin and the wider provisional movement, I think they were right to stop fighting, and should have done so sooner, but I think the GFA will only lead to more tears because it doesn't solve the root issue and even worse it institutionalizes sectarianism. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant, it seems to me you are going on a fishing expedition in order to find a red herring.

To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.

Bigdeadlydave

Che16 wrote: »

To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.

Head in the sand stuff, there's no point fooling yourself, doesnt do anyone any good.

Che16

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Head in the sand stuff, there's no point fooling yourself, doesnt do anyone any good.

I made an edgucated guess based on history and common sense,you make your judgement based on what,something you read in a newspaper?

Riddle101

Che16 wrote: »

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing

He was one of the reasons why we were able to get as far as we did in the War of Independence. His intelligence network was vital, and he was a great administrator who worked endlessly at his job. His work as Minister of Finance was a bonus too, and was charismatic. That's what make him a great leader.

As for the treaty. I've said it time and time again. The whole thing was f*cked from the start. Dev should have went over as well, and brought a better negotiation team with him. I wouldn't consider what he did as selling out either. But more to do with he had no choice. What would you have him do, refuse and then possibly continue a war that we would have lost? He accepted the treaty under the belief that it was at least progress to getting an Irish Republic. If he had lived, he might have taken steps to a United Ireland but we will never know. But obviously Collins became the scapegoat for the anti-treaty side, and everyone pinned it on him. Let's not forget then when they put it to a vote, the pro treaty side won and Dev didn't do any better either by fanning the flames of hatred. A civil war could have easily been avoided but people chose to fight instead. That's not Collins's fault, that was the nature of politics back then.

a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers who also died for nothing.

That's war for you, what do you expect? But how is that Collins problem? Those men were killed by both sides.

One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

That's opinion not fact. So it's not for sure.

Che16

Sorry but it's too complicated to quote your post so I'm just going to reply to you here.

You didn't read my first post,I agree Collins was a military genius,his tactics were highly influential and ingenuis,I'm not disputing that one bit.He was,up until the Treaty and the shelling of the fourts a great leader.But to sign a treaty whoch essentially said everything we fought was fpr nothing and to preach it as a victory by using the people's disdain for war is disgraceful.Add to that the fact he ordered the shelling against the Republican troops in the four courts and you have a very shameful man who previously had been a great man.The treaty far from gave us the Republic we desired,ot partitioned our country and created conflict that still continues and will still continue.

As for your post about war always being like that.Obviously it is but when it's done for a cause or ideal that is then brushed aside,then it is despicable and everyone who died,died for nothing.

Che16

Oh,and regarding your final comment.

Of course it is my opinion,that goes withput saying.

And let's look at it objectively now.

Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.

As for a man of principle,he proclaimed himself a Republican,I just said how that isn't true,if he wasn't a Republican he should have said so,he was a Nationalist,nothing more.Atleast people like Arthur Griffith never said they were Republican.

And I've already pointed out the "great leader" bit.