New BBC documentary asks ‘Who Won the War in North?’

[orangeman]

Guerrilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.

I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.

[Myles Na G.]

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation.  The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland. 

Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.

Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.

Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.

I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.

[ONeill]

Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.

I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.

Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.

The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.

If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.

[armaghniac]

British could end their interest here when a majority of people ask them to leave.

[ONeill]

Yep, you might be waiting a long time.

[barryqwalsh]

"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."


And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?

If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.

[foxcommander]

And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?

If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.

Pretty obvious you have no grasp on the subject matter. Ever heard of Bloody Sunday?

and yes. of course the uk would deal with it in the correct manner. Awesome job they did too.

now go do some homework before you embarrass yourself again.

[Myles Na G.]

"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."


And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?

If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.

I didn't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in the very same post, if you want to go back and read it again.

[lynchbhoy]

Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.

I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.

Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.

The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.

If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.

Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.

[lynchbhoy]

"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."


And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?

If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.

All I can say here is 'wow'

You are obv some person on here taking the p*ss

[barryqwalsh]

Like talking to a brick wall!

No wonder many think we Irish are as mad as cut snakes!

[Rossfan]

Is this barryqeejit another of Syfín's names?

[Maguire01]

Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.

I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.

Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.

The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.

If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.

Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.

Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.

And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...

[bennydorano]

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation.  The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland. 

Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.

Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.

Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.

I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.

Of course it's British. Chris Froome born & raised in Kenya of English parents gave a great description / explanation of how he feels British (to Paul Kimmage). Not English, Welsh, Scotch or Northern Irish but British http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html

[armaghniac]

EU employment rights did more to advance equality than any campaign.