Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Great Irish Political Leaders
Options
Comments
-
Or saved them - the papers from the time make it fairly clear that if hostilities were to resume the British were going to go all out to impose a solution, that included introducing the RAF.
An all out war against the Irish Republic would resulted in thousands of people taking up arms, it would have bankrupted the UK, the population of the UK were already sufferring from war-exhaustion from WW1.
A war of attrition would have bankrupted the UK and would have set up a chain of uprisings across their colonies.
They were bluffing and if they were not, a resumption of hostilities would have cost them an enormity. At the end of day, money trumps everything. It is pity the signatories and supporters of the Treaty did not consider that when they negotiated.0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »An all out war against the Irish Republic would resulted in thousands of people taking up arms, it would have bankrupted the UK, the population of the UK were already sufferring from war-exhaustion from WW1.
A war of attrition would have bankrupted the UK and would have set up a chain of uprisings across their colonies.
They were bluffing and if they were not, a resumption of hostilities would have cost them an enormity. At the end of day, money trumps everything. It is pity the signatories and supporters of the Treaty did not consider that when they negotiated.
Having a laugh, the Irish were lucky the treaty arrived, we were finished.0 -
Riddle101.
I never claimed Republicans didn't occupy the Four Courts.I said they shouldn't be criticised for it.Of course the Treaty was passed,it furthered the cause of those who passed it,unprincipled men,unprincipled treaty,they told the Irish people it was a treaty for peace,maybe in the short-term but you can't seriously say Ireland has been at peace since then.It was not both sides fault,it was the pro-treaty side,when you destroy the ideal you have fought for for years you will meet opposition,it was nt the IRA's fault for resisting the Free State,it was their duty.
Of course they should be criticized for occupying the Four Courts. You don't take armed men to occupy a building that belongs to the Free State, for nothing. They occupied it knowing they were provoking the pro-treaty side because the couldn't get their way. They actually wanted to provoke the British forces to attack them. They also kidnapped a Free State Soldier too. They undermined the Free State, and the vote that saw the pro-treaty side win. Also, those so called "unprincipled" men also for fought in the war, don't disrespect them just because you have a grudge with how things happened. Brave men fought with both sides of the treaty, and neither side should be marred with things like unprincipled. They had principles too, they just had a different belief in how things should be. That's not unprincipled that's opinion.
As I said before, a fully independent Republic was never going to happen, not at that time. Britain would never allow it because it might have triggered a chain reaction and other colonies of Britain might have opted for independence too. To allow Ireland full independence at the time, would have made Britain look weak and bad. We got the Free State instead. But the main problem of the treaty was the Partition of the Country. Had we gotten a 32 county Free State at the time, maybe the anti-treaty side would have accepted it. Thus nullifying the whole argument about Republicans serving the Republic, and fighting against the Free State. Which is bogus because it is not the duty of Republicans to fight against the Free State, you're just making things up.Regarding surrender,we surrendered in 1916 but just a few years later we had enough momentum and resources to begin a revolution.
You are correct,he most definately did defend the Republic but when he signed the treaty he destroyed it.The men I reffered to were undisputable Republicans,they defended the Republic proclaimed in 1916 and its principles,Collins went against it,he was a Republican but ceased to be one when he did that.
No,I do not blame Collins as he could not see this coming,however,he destroyed the Republic and caused it.
To say Collins turned against the Republic and destroyed it would be overreacting. The Free State was the Republic to a lesser degree. Éamon de Valera, and many of the other Republicans you mentioned like Tom Barry eventually accepted the Free State as well, so what does that say about those Republicans? Did they become unprincipled when they accepted the Free State? The Free State evolved into the Republic anyway. But Collins fought for Irish freedom as well. He is either a Republican or he is not a Republican. I'm afraid he was indeed Republican.We are not an independent nation Riddle101,our country is partitioned,the north is under military occupation and has the backing of a people that shoupdn't be here supporting it.The south is run by a government proclaiming itself as the sucessors of 1916 which is a logical contradiction.It is run by a right-wing anti-working class "government" and the bankers amd landowners run everything.That is not independence,that is not what the leaders of '16 died for.The constition,military,police force,parliament in the 26 counties is the property of the sucessors of the Free State,not the property of the Irish Republic,if they even admitted that they are not the Irish Republic,I would commend its honesty,not that I would agree with them of course.Its the hypocrisy and opportunism that gets at me.Those who fought against the Free State did of course enter Leinster House,that is factual,but by doing this they forfeited their right to be declared Republicans,a lot of anti-treaty forces did staytrue to the Republic however.
You can believe what you want to believe and not recognize an Irish Republic. But you'd be wrong. You're in a minority too which doesn't work for you either. The majority would disagree with you, including myself. So it is you who is wrong about the Republic of Ireland not being a Republic, it is a sovereign nation. It's not up to you to dictate what has already been done. It's just arrogance on your part, and an unwillingness to accept the truth.
You also seem to misinterpret the will of the 1916 risers too. The leaders of the 1916 rising all had different opinions and views as well. It wasn't just one single view by them all. In hindsight the Irish Republic in 1916 was not total nor was it defined, hence why it was called the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic. It was an idea that came to be accepted, but it was and still is open to interpretation. It certainly doesn't mean that they were flawless of infallible either.It's you who is showing ignorance my friend,I'm very well versed in the history of the Republic and its institutions.Obviously I am biased,so are you,both our posts are hardly objective,however,yours are more biased,I base a lot of mine on my own convictions,yes,but I also use history and logic,you use the history put forward by Leinster House.
This is becoming quite childish now. Just arrogant posturing that has no real purpose in this debate, only so you can act like you're so superior to me and others, and make petty insults too. I study history too, you would want to know something about history to post on a history forum. So you don't need to talk about your knowledge of history, i'm sure you're read up on it, but so am I.
Also I'm am not so much biased, as I am someone who looks at something from a realistic point of view, and I try to be as fair as I can be. Something you can't seem to do. I can accept the wrong doings from both sides, you can't. I can accept that the treaty was quite crap, but I can also accept that it happened, and can see things from Collins perspective. I'm a not saying the anti-treaty side have it wrong either. They did fight for what they believed and they deserve respect for that. But I disagree with them, as a pro-treaty guy. Is that wrong? Does it make me biased? No it doesn't. I would have loved for a 32 country Free State and Republic, and if only Britain had allowed the 6 counties of Northern Ireland to vote at the time, maybe we would have 32 counties now. It's you who is showing bias and ignorance, because you have a hard line republican point of view, and refuse to accept the truth. A view that is very common with the Real IRA and it's supporters I wouldn't mind.0 -
Or saved them - the papers from the time make it fairly clear that if hostilities were to resume the British were going to go all out to impose a solution, that included introducing the RAF.
There was already world outrage & disgust at what was going on. The RAF would have tipped the Americans to boiling point & the majority of British public.
Robert Lyd of the British Daily News in a article from January 1921 wrote -
"England is now ruling Ireland in the spirit of the torturer. How many Englishmen realise that the bloodhound and the thong are in use in Ireland as they were in the Slave States of America? I was taught that under the Union Jack all men were free and that the deliberate infliction of physical & mental torture on men, women & children was under that sign impossible. But human nature is much the same everywhere and the Irishman 'on the run' to-day is in some respects in a worse plight than the negro slave.
There is no borderland to which he can flee. Where he not sustained by an invincible faith in God and a love of his country that counts life well lost for her, he would be a man without hope. He can be no more defeated by persecution than the Scottish Covenanters would be defeated by persecution. The most tragic figure in Ireland to-day is not that of the persecuted but that of the persecutor."0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »An all out war against the Irish Republic would resulted in thousands of people taking up arms, it would have bankrupted the UK, the population of the UK were already sufferring from war-exhaustion from WW1.
A war of attrition would have bankrupted the UK and would have set up a chain of uprisings across their colonies.
They were bluffing and if they were not, a resumption of hostilities would have cost them an enormity. At the end of day, money trumps everything. It is pity the signatories and supporters of the Treaty did not consider that when they negotiated.
.....and where would they have got the arms to take up? How would the Irish Republican forces landed them and overcome a potential blockade by the world's most powerful navy?
If they could land the necessary arms, then with thousands in arms, how would they be fed, clothed, provided with medical care?
These thousands in arms - how would they train, given they would have had no opportunity to muster or concentrate with the RAF controlling the skies? How would they concentrate to carry out attacks in anyhting larger than a company formation?
How would they have fared against battle hardened regiments of disciplined troops using motorised transport and supported by light and heavy field artillery?
As for bankrupting them, Britain started WW1 with just over 500 tonnes of gold in their reserves - by the end they'd accumulated nearly 900 tonnes. They had a high debt level in the early 1920s, but it wasn't historically high and coming over here to slap us around wasn't going to cost that much in the overall scheme of thngs.There was already world outrage & disgust at what was going on. The RAF would have tipped the Americans to boiling point & the majority of British public.
Robert Lyd of the British Daily News in a article from January 1921 wrote -
"England is now ruling Ireland in the spirit of the torturer. How many Englishmen realise that the bloodhound and the thong are in use in Ireland as they were in the Slave States of America? I was taught that under the Union Jack all men were free and that the deliberate infliction of physical & mental torture on men, women & children was under that sign impossible. But human nature is much the same everywhere and the Irishman 'on the run' to-day is in some respects in a worse plight than the negro slave.
There is no borderland to which he can flee. Where he not sustained by an invincible faith in God and a love of his country that counts life well lost for her, he would be a man without hope. He can be no more defeated by persecution than the Scottish Covenanters would be defeated by persecution. The most tragic figure in Ireland to-day is not that of the persecuted but that of the persecutor."
Tipped the Americans to boiling point? The same Americans who declined to join the League of Nations, who in the early 1920s were rapidly isolationist to the point of limiting emigration and who had as their Secretary of State the Anglophile Charles Hughes, and as President the isolationist Harding followed by the even more isolationatist Coolidge?
That's the US that would have been brought to boiling point by what might have happened here........0 -
Advertisement
-
Catholic extremist who gave too much power to the paedos in the Roman church. Very backward looking.
.
Im no fan of his at all but thats not true . In fact the catholic church openly despised him and greatly distrusted him as he was perceived as a threat to their privileged status in the free state and had made noises about removing their social power . Early on FF were a broader political church and were fond of talking about political and social change .
In the end he did a deal with them that left their social power base undisturbed but that was down to cynical pragmatism and not his own extremism . The catholic church were granted their real power in 1922 after excommunicating the states opponents , among other things0
Advertisement