Was Collins going to continue the war in the North?

masti123 · 13-02-2016 06:48PM #1

It seems to be a very grey area in Irish history, while the IRA in the South opposed the Treaty, i've heard numerous times the IRA in Ulster supported Collins as he was arming them and had a plan to continue the war up North. Is this true? If so, why didn't the Free Staters continue with the plan?

RobertKK · 13-02-2016 06:49PM

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

masti123 · 13-02-2016 06:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

Apparently Collins was promised by David Lloyd George that it wasn't "economically viable". So based on this he and Griffith accepted it as a part of the Treaty. It was probably very much clear in his mind that the six counties would join the south in a few years.

RobertKK · 13-02-2016 06:53PM

masti123 wrote: »

Apparently Collins was promised by David Lloyd George that it wasn't "economically viable". So based on this he and Griffith accepted it as a part of the Treaty. It was probably very much clear in his mind that the six counties would join the south in a few years.

They were very naive if they believed that.

masti123 · 13-02-2016 06:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They were very naive if they believed that.

Maybe so, but Collins did say the Treaty was a "stepping stone for Irish independence"

13-02-2016 07:12PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

Cos he was drinking.

Along with the other delegates.

It's a crime that at one of the pivotal points in our history, in the face of Britain's strongest negotiators, our lads went on the tear.

MilesMorales1 · 13-02-2016 09:04PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Z1dqJzxNo

Jimoslimos · 13-02-2016 09:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They were very naive if they believed that.

Well they've never been economically viable, have they? Probably underestimated the British capacity to subsidise them though.

biko · 13-02-2016 10:50PM

masti123 wrote: »

i've heard numerous times

masti123 wrote: »

Apparently

Do you even source bro?

bear1 · 13-02-2016 11:43PM

biko wrote: »

Do you even source bro?

Haha

I doubt that to be true. Churchill did offer during ww2 to return the north to Dublins control provided that de valera would allow the British to use our ports.
De valera refused and there we have it.

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2016 11:51PM

masti123 wrote: »

It seems to be a very grey area in Irish history, while the IRA in the South opposed the Treaty, i've heard numerous times the IRA in Ulster supported Collins as he was arming them and had a plan to continue the war up North. Is this true? If so, why didn't the Free Staters continue with the plan?

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

PC Lackey · 13-02-2016 11:53PM

Got to know when to walk away.

Britain had to be appeased in some way or its bruised ego would want revenge - which could mean the whole island.

Partition allowed them to save face and walk away victoriously with the great jewel that is northern Ireland.

I hear it costs them 10 billion pounds annually.

tomwaterford · 13-02-2016 11:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

bear1 · 14-02-2016 12:01AM

PC Lackey wrote: »

Got to know when to walk away.

Britain had to be appeased in some way or its bruised ego would want revenge - which could mean the whole island.

Partition allowed them to save face and walk away victoriously with the great jewel that is northern Ireland.

I hear it costs them 10 billion pounds annually.

According to a 2012 article so probably changed now it costs 20 billion to run per year with 9 billion coming from the north themselves and the rest from London.

newacc2015 · 14-02-2016 12:08AM

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

KingBrian2 · 14-02-2016 12:16AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

We did not become a Republic until 1949. All Irish people up that point were legally British citizens. Vote in British elections and get the full treatment.

Junkyard Tom · 14-02-2016 12:17AM

newacc2015 wrote: »

At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

Please don't lump everyone in the north into one group. When you say 'they' what you mean is Unionist politicians generally and the DUP in particular.

Some of them haven't moved on from 1690 never mind having to deal with 21st Century issues.

masti123 · 14-02-2016 12:19AM

bear1 wrote: »

Haha
I doubt that to be true. Churchill did offer during ww2 to return the north to Dublins control provided that de valera would allow the British to use our ports.
De valera refused and there we have it.

Churchill suggested that he might 'ask' the unionists if they would agree to a united Ireland if we went into the war but Dev was smart enough to know that would not happen i.e getting the unionists to say yes, that is. So he told Churchill where to go.

masti123 · 14-02-2016 12:20AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

Tom Barry said it was about partition and the oath.

shugy · 14-02-2016 12:29AM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

But its ours and its not about money to many. YEs it will be maybe tough for a few years but itll all be worth it in the end. The irish struggle has been for over 800 years and itll continue untill the country is united. There has been an uprising 6 times in the last 800 years and the last uprising wont be the last untill were united. Once were united, thats it, no more pain, murder and living under a foreign rule. Hopefully ill live to see the day were free!!

shugy · 14-02-2016 12:31AM

masti123 wrote: »

Tom Barry said it was about partition and the oath.

On of irelands finest men. Hes up there with the best! What a man he was!

Junkyard Tom · 14-02-2016 12:31AM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. l

But if we'd have had a all island state the north probably wouldn't be like it is. Unionists created a sectarian pseudo-state and did their best to keep it that way. If former unionists would have been 1-in-5 of the vote in an all island state they wouldn't have been able to create the sectarian ****-hole they did and we probably wouldn't have had the troubles.

Also, in the south, the Catholic church wouldn't have had the power it wielded had we had a large number of Protestants involved with administering the state.

If and buts candy and nuts.

Paramite Pie · 14-02-2016 12:54AM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

Northern Ireland was the most economically developed part of Ireland at the time, with the UK's highest living standards at the time. They didn't want their economy to tank by joining us ironically.

If an all-island state had been created I don't think the extreme conditions in the North would have been fostered.

KingBrian2 · 14-02-2016 01:01AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

But if we'd have had a all island state the north probably wouldn't be like it is. Unionists created a sectarian pseudo-state and did their best to keep it that way. If former unionists would have been 1-in-5 of the vote in an all island state they wouldn't have been able to create the sectarian ****-hole they did and we probably wouldn't have had the troubles.

Also, in the south, the Catholic church wouldn't have had the power it wielded had we had a large number of Protestants involved with administering the state.

If and buts candy and nuts.

I believe the Question was about Collins continuing to fight up the North. He signed the treaty in order to end the war that had claimed the lives of so many Irishmen & Irishwomen. Unlike in the North an intensive war had already taken place on top of social unrest in the form of the 1913 Lockout.

The North was for the most part removed from the vicious guerrilla war raging across the rest of the island. Nobody wanted to continue to keep war going and going and turning the Northern part of the Island into warzone.

All sorts of stories have come out about what he would have done, prepared to do or the sort of bombing policy he would have enacted. They are immaterial. He supported a truce with the British despite considerable opposition from his followers and committed nationalists.

Junkyard Tom · 14-02-2016 01:12AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He signed the treaty in order to end the war that had claimed the lives of so many Irishmen & Irishwomen.

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2016 01:32AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Lloyd George warned of an immediate and terrible war, because Belfast was pushing for an agreement. Alm the parties knew this meant the outbreak of a sectarian war far worse than the war of independence.

As it turned out, a far worse war did break out though.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2016 01:33AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

King in all but name.

How could a republic become a theocracy?

Junkyard Tom · 14-02-2016 01:34AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Verbatim. Listen to the clip. Is Tom Barry a liar or is Fred getting his Union Flag knickers in a twist because someone drew attention to the scumbaggery his countrymen got up to when it comes to Ireland?

KingBrian2 · 14-02-2016 01:47AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Amen brother, Amen to that.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2016 01:48AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Verbatim. Listen to the clip. Is Tom Barry a liar or is Fred getting his Union Flag knickers in a twist because someone drew attention to the scumbaggery his countrymen got up to when it comes to Ireland?

Was Tom Barry on the negotiating team, or at the subsequent Dail discussion on the treaty?

Arthur Griffith's account is very different and he was actually there, so I'd take his version over Tom Barry's.

Edit: apologies, it is Robert Barton's account.

KingBrian2 · 14-02-2016 01:49AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Lloyd George warned of an immediate and terrible war, because Belfast was pushing for an agreement. Alm the parties knew this meant the outbreak of a sectarian war far worse than the war of independence.

As it turned out, a far worse war did break out though.

Not by the Free State.

Was Collins going to continue the war in the North?

Comments