Wars of Decolonization and Northern Ireland.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-09-2013 9:28am #1

I was wondering if anyone can find any examples of the IRA or any other republican groups drawing parallels between Northern Ireland and the many colonies which received independence from European states in the twentieth century? I'm thinking of nations such as Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique all of which saw large scale violence in their battle for independence.

robp · 05-09-2013 10:49am

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone can find any examples of the IRA or any other republican groups drawing parallels between Northern Ireland and the many colonies which received independence from European states in the twentieth century? I'm thinking of nations such as Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique all of which saw large scale violence in their battle for independence.

I could be wrong but I suspect it would be more prevalent in the INLA. It might show up on murals?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-09-2013 11:57am

robp wrote: »

I could be wrong but I suspect it would be more prevalent in the INLA. It might show up on murals?

I would suspect so too. I recall reading that the INLA were more likely to link their cause with that of African-Americans at the time.

Snickers Man · 05-09-2013 4:08pm

Jeez. Just take a walk around the famous Republican ghettos of Derry or Belfast and count the number of Palestinian flags. Especially adorning such monuments as Free Derry Corner.

Is that what you're getting at?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-09-2013 4:59pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Jeez. Just take a walk around the famous Republican ghettos of Derry or Belfast and count the number of Palestinian flags. Especially adorning such monuments as Free Derry Corner.

Is that what you're getting at?

No, not so much Palestine, I'm talking about the earlier wars in countries such as I mentioned in my previous post. Previous wars fought by Britain, Portugal, France etc, in the era of decolonization. I'm aware of the links made between Ireland and Palestine, as well as the Basque country.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2013 5:44pm

Would the INLA not have been more aligned with the likes of Red Army Faction, Front Line or other Marxist groups?

tac foley · 06-09-2013 1:25pm

It was said at one time that Mr Gerard Adam's version of republicanism had much more in common with Marxist-Leninism doctrine than an independent and thirty-two county Republic of Ireland, partner to all in Europe.

Mr MacGuiness, on the other hand, was fearsomely and famously a follower of copious levels of reconstruction, that being in any case necessary after he and his pals had succeeded in blowing up most of Londonderry and thereby clearing the way for it to take place.

tac

jonniebgood1 · 06-09-2013 9:53pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone can find any examples of the IRA or any other republican groups drawing parallels between Northern Ireland and the many colonies which received independence from European states in the twentieth century? I'm thinking of nations such as Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique all of which saw large scale violence in their battle for independence.

There is a natural kinship between people who are subjected to unfair and unjust treatment as happened in NI. This would probably be more between the ordinary people than involving armed rebels, although support for the IRA did receive large boosts as media began reporting on how the British army were treating the general population. Reference Bloody Sunday as the main example but also the many other actions they undertook. This global support stayed with the PIRA until their ceasefire as suggested in this article about a Canadian secret service report from 2005 - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ira-retained-active-global-support-26739398.html

Jolly Red Giant · 07-09-2013 2:34pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone can find any examples of the IRA or any other republican groups drawing parallels between Northern Ireland and the many colonies which received independence from European states in the twentieth century? I'm thinking of nations such as Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique all of which saw large scale violence in their battle for independence.

During the period of "The Troubles" - SF and the IRA had close links with the ANC, ETA, the PLO, FARC etc. They use iconic images and slogans of Connolly and Che Guevara. At the same time they got weapons from Gaddafi and sucked up to wealthy Irish-Americans who were aligned with US Imerpialism.

Of course SF and the IRA tried to draw parallels with the conflicts you mention - however, the reality is that there were no comparisons between these movements and what was happening in the North.

Jolly Red Giant · 07-09-2013 2:36pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I would suspect so too. I recall reading that the INLA were more likely to link their cause with that of African-Americans at the time.

Nope - the INLA would have been more likely to link up with groups like the Red Army Faction etc that the movements listed in the OP. Nobosy else would have touched them with a barge pole.

Dr.Tank Adams · 07-09-2013 10:23pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

During the period of "The Troubles" - SF and the IRA had close links with the ANC, ETA, the PLO, FARC etc. They use iconic images and slogans of Connolly and Che Guevara. At the same time they got weapons from Gaddafi and sucked up to wealthy Irish-Americans who were aligned with US Imerpialism.

Of course SF and the IRA tried to draw parallels with the conflicts you mention - however, the reality is that there were no comparisons between these movements and what was happening in the North.

No comparison? Come on now, that's a bit rich. As for taking "Imperialistic American's" money, what where they supposed to do, not take it? They were an outlawed organisation, in such a situation you take money/weapons from whoever the hell you can get them from.

Jolly Red Giant · 07-09-2013 11:22pm

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

No comparison? Come on now, that's a bit rich. As for taking "Imperialistic American's" money, what where they supposed to do, not take it? They were an outlawed organisation, in such a situation you take money/weapons from whoever the hell you can get them from.

There is no comparison between the peasant guerilla movements in Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique and the urban guerilla (bombings and assassinations) of the IRA in the North and Britain. We are talking about two completely different social and political situations - one where peasant guerilla movements had the prospect of success, where they had a significant social basis in society (i.e. where the peasantry actively participated in these guerilla movements) - the other is an urban guerilla war where there was no chance of success, where the movement did not have mass support and where the social forces (i.e. the working class - or the individuals within the working class who supported the campaign) played a passive role with minimal involvement.

As for taking the money of Americans - its a bit like a circus performer standing on the backs of two horses pulling in different directions - eventually you have to jump onto one or you will fall off. This is exactly what SF and the IRA have done in the North. They still attempt to pay lip service to struggles for 'national liberation' while hopping into bed with Brtish Imperialism in Stormont.

riffmongous · 08-09-2013 10:48pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is no comparison between the peasant guerilla movements in Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique and the urban guerilla (bombings and assassinations) of the IRA in the North and Britain. We are talking about two completely different social and political situations - one where peasant guerilla movements had the prospect of success, where they had a significant social basis in society (i.e. where the peasantry actively participated in these guerilla movements) - the other is an urban guerilla war where there was no chance of success, where the movement did not have mass support and where the social forces (i.e. the working class - or the individuals within the working class who supported the campaign) played a passive role with minimal involvement.

As for taking the money of Americans - its a bit like a circus performer standing on the backs of two horses pulling in different directions - eventually you have to jump onto one or you will fall off. This is exactly what SF and the IRA have done in the North. They still attempt to pay lip service to struggles for 'national liberation' while hopping into bed with Brtish Imperialism in Stormont.

I think thats a bit simplistic, South Armagh was a hotbed of IRA activity and support in a very rural location

Jolly Red Giant · 09-09-2013 12:01am

riffmongous wrote: »

I think thats a bit simplistic, South Armagh was a hotbed of IRA activity and support in a very rural location

There is no peasantry in Ireland - and there hasn't been for a very long time. Furthermore the IRA didn't send bands of guerillas into the rural hinterland to live off the land and launch attacks on Crown forces. The comparison is way off the charts.

HansHolzel · 09-09-2013 12:10am

Look up Ho Chi Minh as a young waiter in Paris around 1920. It was then, from reading about the exploits of Michael Collins et al, that he realized a colonial power could actually be defeated.

As for the chap on about "social forces" and "guerrillas" that "live off the land" etc., he should take a look sometime at Woody Allen's Bananas.

Dr.Tank Adams · 09-09-2013 5:36pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is no comparison between the peasant guerilla movements in Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique and the urban guerilla (bombings and assassinations) of the IRA in the North and Britain. We are talking about two completely different social and political situations - one where peasant guerilla movements had the prospect of success, where they had a significant social basis in society (i.e. where the peasantry actively participated in these guerilla movements) - the other is an urban guerilla war where there was no chance of success, where the movement did not have mass support and where the social forces (i.e. the working class - or the individuals within the working class who supported the campaign) played a passive role with minimal involvement.

As for taking the money of Americans - its a bit like a circus performer standing on the backs of two horses pulling in different directions - eventually you have to jump onto one or you will fall off. This is exactly what SF and the IRA have done in the North. They still attempt to pay lip service to struggles for 'national liberation' while hopping into bed with Brtish Imperialism in Stormont.

Yes, yes, you keep believing that my Jolly Unionist friend :L Ignorance is bliss as they say. BTW I really like the bit where you try to convince yourself that they had no public support, I suppose that's how they managed to stay afloat for 30 years in the face of the best efforts of the mighty British establishment :rolleyes:

Gee Bag · 09-09-2013 10:23pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is no peasantry in Ireland - and there hasn't been for a very long time.

Whats your definition of peasantry?

tac foley · 09-09-2013 11:20pm

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Yes, yes, you keep believing that my Jolly Unionist friend :L Ignorance is bliss as they say. BTW I really like the bit where you try to convince yourself that they had no public support, I suppose that's how they managed to stay afloat for 30 years in the face of the best efforts of the mighty British establishment :rolleyes:

That's because the 'mighty British establishment' was fighting in its own country, against a civilian force that looked exactly like anybody else walking around at the time.

If there had been no fear of causing collateral damage to people and infrastructure, I believe that the results would have been very different. Full-scale war using ALL the resources of that 'mighty British establishment' would have involved vastly more numbers of boots on the ground, 24/7 tactical reconnaissance fast-jets using FLIR/IR and electro-optical sensors, helicopter gunships and large steel nasties with tracks - all of which were NOT used in Northen Ireland for fear of causing offence.

A copy of The Rules of Engagement - the so-called Yellow Card that gave the rigorous guidelines detaining when and under what circumstances a soldier was permittted to return fire when fired upon - was taped onto the stock of your rifle for instant access in the event of a contact and its instructions saved the lives of many IRA men because other civilians were in their way. They had a habit of hiding behind people, although, of course, you might not like to think of your heroes like that. The thought of being charged with manslaughter [at least] or probable murder loomed very high in the everyday thoughts of British troops on the ground in NI. One acquaintance of mine was actually charged with manslaughter after he shot an IRA terrorist who reached out from behind cover to pick up his empty cases, after shooting them all at a RM patrol and wounding two of its members.

So unless you are around my age, and were there at the time as I was, you have absolutely no idea how frustrating it was 90% of the time to have to hold your fire and let the b*gger run off. So please don't come the armchair warrior with THIS old fart.

tac

Jolly Red Giant · 09-09-2013 11:48pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Look up Ho Chi Minh as a young waiter in Paris around 1920. It was then, from reading about the exploits of Michael Collins et al, that he realized a colonial power could actually be defeated.

Michael Collins and the nationalist movement did not defeat British Imperialism - they came to a compromise with Imperialism that resulted in partition of the island. The Vietcong did defeat US Imperialism because they were fighting a different war with different social forces.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

BTW I really like the bit where you try to convince yourself that they had no public support, I suppose that's how they managed to stay afloat for 30 years in the face of the best efforts of the mighty British establishment

I never said that the PIRA had no public support - I said they hadn't mass public support. The PIRA and SF never had the support of anything approaching a majority of the Catholic population in the North and never had anything more than a very small level of support in the South. That is the reality.

That is actually getting away from the real point of the question. The social composition of Ireland in the 1970s and later is completely different to the social composition of Algeria in the 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s and Mozembique in the 1970s. Guerilla warfare is based on the peasantry - it can only succeed in achieving its objectives in countries will a large peasant population that make up large numbers of the guerilla army and that is providing mass support to the guerilla army.

By 1962 the Vietcong had over 300,000 guerillas in the field with another 500,000 of the population providing logistical support.

In Algeria the resistance movement had over 30,000 guerillas based in Morocco and Tunisia launching attacks on French forces in Algeria and up to 25,000 operating within the country itself.

Even in Mozambique, which had the smallest of these movements, over 8,000 combatants were engaged in fighting. Furthermore, in Mozambique the guerilla movement never come close to ousting the Portugese. It was the revolutionary overthrow of the fascist regime in Portugal that led to Mozambican independence.

All of these movements engaged in rural guerilla attacks on military and police installations, engaging in pitched battles with the military and having an extensive logistical supply chain.

None of these circumstances existed in the North during the Troubles (or even in Ireland 1919-1922). There was no peasantry in the North - the IRA were not a guerilla army in the sense of what existed in Algeria, Vietnam or Mozambique - it was a small urban guerilla force. The IRA never got beyond a three or hundred active combatants at most at anytime. The IRA did not engage in the same tactics are the peasant guerilla armies of the above countries - it engage in urban guerilla warfare of "individual terror" - assassinations, bombings, booby-traps etc. Unlike Algeria, Vietnam and (to a lesser extent) Mozambique, the IRA never had mass popular support from the Catholic population. Furthermore, unlike in Algeria and Vietnam, the IRA never had any prospect of victory. British Imperialism understood very quickly that it could not defeat the IRA (the Brits adopted a policy of an 'acceptable level of violence') - it took the IRA leadership 15 years to realise that it couldn't defeat British Imperialism. Just as in 1922, the only solution for the nationalist movement and its military wing was some form of compromise with imperialism - the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Last point - despite the defeat of French Imperialism in Algeria, US Imperialism in Vietnam and the collapse of Portugese Imperialsim in Mozambique - none of these movements actually resolved the national question. No ex-colonial country in the 20th century has succeeded in resolving the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. They are incapable because the native nationalist movements do not have the social weight capable of completely breaking with imperialism.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Whats your definition of peasantry?

Go and have a look at your junior cert history book - it will give you a good starting point.

HansHolzel · 10-09-2013 12:22am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Michael Collins and the nationalist movement did not defeat British Imperialism - they came to a compromise with Imperialism that resulted in partition of the island.

My point concerned what Ho Chi Minh thought, not what you think.

Marxism is dead.

Jolly Red Giant · 10-09-2013 11:36am

HansHolzel wrote: »

My point concerned what Ho Chi Minh thought, not what you think.

The fact that Ho admired Collins (and this suggestion is only available from one source and that source questions the validity of the claim) does not in any way detract from the point I was making in relation to the difference between guerrilla campaigns in rural and largely peasant societies and the urban guerrilla warfare of the IRA in the industrially developed society that was / is Northern Ireland.

HansHolzel wrote: »

Marxism is dead.

Any assertions you want to make about Marxism are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

HansHolzel · 10-09-2013 11:48am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Any assertions you want to make about Marxism are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Then stop writing a bloody Marxist thesis nearly every time you post.

Gee Bag · 10-09-2013 1:34pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Go and have a look at your junior cert history book - it will give you a good starting point.

Oh, how cutting!

I wanted your definition of a peasant because of the rather antiquated way you used the word.

Your subsequent posts have told me all I need to know.

Jolly Red Giant · 10-09-2013 4:44pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Then stop writing a bloody Marxist thesis nearly every time you post.

This is a history forum and to contribute you must provide evidence for any assertions you make. If you want to attempt to refute anything that I am saying then do so based on evidence that you provide. That is what historical discourse is all about.

I am making assertions based on evidence. When discussing historical topics I am first and foremost a historian who operates based on evidence. I unashamedly view historical topics from a working class perspective.

Now - the OP of this thread asked if there was any parallels between the IRA in the North and the liberation movements in Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique. I have asserted that there weren't and I have provided evidence and reasoning why this is the case. If you want to refute it then produce alternative reasoning and evidence - not just issuing dismissive one-liners.

HansHolzel · 10-09-2013 5:04pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a history forum and to contribute you must provide evidence for any assertions you make. If you want to attempt to refute anything that I am saying then do so based on evidence that you provide. That is what historical discourse is all about.

I am making assertions based on evidence. When discussing historical topics I am first and foremost a historian who operates based on evidence. I unashamedly view historical topics from a working class perspective.

Now - the OP of this thread asked if there was any parallels between the IRA in the North and the liberation movements in Algeria, Vietnam and Mozambique. I have asserted that there weren't and I have provided evidence and reasoning why this is the case. If you want to refute it then produce alternative reasoning and evidence - not just issuing dismissive one-liners.

You are evidently a Marxist ideologue whose Weltanschauung is based on a nineteenth-century superstitious illusion that there is such a thing as scientific socialism. If you work as a historian, that is secondary.

Jolly Red Giant · 10-09-2013 5:25pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

You are evidently a Marxist ideologue whose Weltanschauung is based on a nineteenth-century superstitious illusion that there is such a thing as scientific socialism. If you work as a historian, that is secondary.

So no evidence - just tossing insults :rolleyes:

(P.S. - you really shouldn't use big words that you don't understand)

HansHolzel · 10-09-2013 5:45pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

So no evidence - just tossing insults :rolleyes:

(P.S. - you really shouldn't use big words that you don't understand)

You speak German too? If so (which I doubt) that makes two of us.

German has the biggest words of all so be careful where you tread, my little red friend.

Dr.Tank Adams · 10-09-2013 11:40pm

tac foley wrote: »

That's because the 'mighty British establishment' was fighting in its own country, against a civilian force that looked exactly like anybody else walking around at the time.

If there had been no fear of causing collateral damage to people and infrastructure, I believe that the results would have been very different. Full-scale war using ALL the resources of that 'mighty British establishment' would have involved vastly more numbers of boots on the ground, 24/7 tactical reconnaissance fast-jets using FLIR/IR and electro-optical sensors, helicopter gunships and large steel nasties with tracks - all of which were NOT used in Northen Ireland for fear of causing offence.

A copy of The Rules of Engagement - the so-called Yellow Card that gave the rigorous guidelines detaining when and under what circumstances a soldier was permittted to return fire when fired upon - was taped onto the stock of your rifle for instant access in the event of a contact and its instructions saved the lives of many IRA men because other civilians were in their way. They had a habit of hiding behind people, although, of course, you might not like to think of your heroes like that. The thought of being charged with manslaughter [at least] or probable murder loomed very high in the everyday thoughts of British troops on the ground in NI. One acquaintance of mine was actually charged with manslaughter after he shot an IRA terrorist who reached out from behind cover to pick up his empty cases, after shooting them all at a RM patrol and wounding two of its members.

So unless you are around my age, and were there at the time as I was, you have absolutely no idea how frustrating it was 90% of the time to have to hold your fire and let the b*gger run off. So please don't come the armchair warrior with THIS old fart.

tac

I accept it was difficult for the BA, but the fact remains that the PIRA could not have continued for as long as it did without at least the passive support of a majority of Nationalists. If you want to see what an IRA without any public support looks like, I would direct you towards the RIRA etc. They have almost no backing whatsoever (thank Jesus) and it basically cripples them to point where they can't do anything other than plant the odd small-scale explosive here or there.

Reekwind · 11-09-2013 1:43pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

You are evidently a Marxist ideologue whose Weltanschauung is based on a nineteenth-century superstitious illusion that there is such a thing as scientific socialism. If you work as a historian, that is secondary.

So it's impossible to be a historian and hold left-wing views? That's quite a radical assertion. How would you describe Hobsbawm, Hill, Carr, Wickham, Thompson, Zinn then? To list but a few prominent names

Or are you just making a personal attack in order to avoid having to respond in a constructive manner? Because I'm struggling to understand why anyone would simply dismiss out of hand the suggestion that a rural partisan movement in China differed substantially from tight-knit urban paramilitaries in the North

jonniebgood1 · 13-09-2013 6:16pm

HansHolzel
Tank Adams
Fratton Fred
Tac Foley

You are all 4 guilty of breaking rules as set out in the charter. For this bans could be warranted. I have deleted posts by all 4 of you as they are a jumbled up mix of pseudo nationalistic (from both Irish and British perspectives) views. If any of the 4 of you post anything in this thread in the next 24 hours I will issue bans for previous posts. Basically clear off from this thread and cool down. Any problems with this and you can PM me.

Moderator

LordSutch · 17-09-2013 11:01pm

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

I accept it was difficult for the BA, but the fact remains that the PIRA could not have continued for as long as it did without at least the passive support of a majority of Nationalists. If you want to see what an IRA without any public support looks like, I would direct you towards the RIRA etc. They have almost no backing whatsoever (thank Jesus) and it basically cripples them to point where they can't do anything other than plant the odd small-scale explosive here or there.

Well I am sorry, but I just have to disagree 100% with that ^ statement.

During the troubles and after the troubles, it has always been acknowledged that the Provo's had minority support within a Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland, and to say otherwise is to rewrite hstory! The Nationalist population (passive or otherwise) in NI did not support the PIRA & their murderous campaign. Remember that the law/peace abiding SDLP dominated the Nationalist political landscape during the troubles. Most Nationalists North and South wanted nothing to do with the PIRA or what they did in the name of "their cause".

Wars of Decolonization and Northern Ireland.

Comments