gaaboard.com

How would you have leaned then/was right in hindsight? I'd be in the 4 camp, simply because of where I live. The northern partition meant that for northerners it would be almost impossible to look beyond that. However, it looks like Dev's reasons for rejecting the treaty were dubious as his main gripe was the oath, something which he later took and then got rid off, just like Collins said would happen. Did Collins have no other option? Did he take a decision he shouldn't have, without Dev's nod?

Is Dev revered in certain parts still?

I don't really know an awful lot about them but Eamon De Valera is a great name.

He played Metatron in a film.

Doggier Dad Volley and
Evade more Anal.

Quote from: hardstation on July 19, 2008, 01:36:46 AM
Watch out for hallions like screenexile pissing on the street.

Is Screenexile the one who played football in Toronto a while back?

Sold us down the river the lot of them!!

Sing along now
"When apples still grow in November,
and blossoms they bloom from each tree,
when leaves are still green in December
Its then that our land will be free"

a milder version hardtstation

Im off to the land of nod with visions of green leaves in December and wondering whatever became of that Czech bird!!

Oiche mhaith

Quote from: ziggysego on July 19, 2008, 01:34:43 AM
He played Metatron in a film.

Who did?

What exactly prompted the poll, or is that O'Neill fella just fond of a drop on a Friday?

The Bomber will give you nightmares at this time of day.
Neither Kerry nor the beard should be trusted.

My son went for the Bomber with a pool cue in the Liston family pub in Ballybunion one time. The Bomber backed down and, to give him his due, was a big enough man not to hold it against him. The son was three at the time and I'd say the Bomber could have taken him easily.

Dev was a rugby man. End of argument.

Where's the "Carson" option? Not much Parity of Esteem there, eh?  ;)

Carson was a non starter. NI was and is England's puppet.

Even Dev was funnier than Frank.

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 11:18:33 AM
Carson was a non starter. NI was and is England's puppet.

Really? They didn't appear to think so around the Curragh... ;)

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 11:21:53 AM
Even Dev was funnier than Frank.

I was referring to Edward Carson, not his son...

Edward was some boy. Hated Ulster with a passion and got out as soon as he could.

Sure there's a statue of him up there pointing the direction to the boat ...

Didn't he persecute Oscar Wilde as well.

That's the funniest thing about it. They erected a statue to a man who depised them with gusto.

Oscar Wilde needs to be disabused.

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 12:36:28 PM
Edward was some boy. Hated Ulster with a passion and got out as soon as he could.

Really?  ??? Some examples?  ::)

Some wiki quotes...

'Carson disliked many of Ulster's local characteristics and, in particular, the culture of Orangeism,....'

'He stated that their speeches reminding him of the unrolling of a mummy. All old bones and rotten rags...'

'After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. ' (which they didn't heed)

'He abhorred Ulster Protestantism and its congregation and thought they were fat.'

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 12:45:12 PM
Didn't he persecute Oscar Wilde as well.

Another myth. He was actually quite friendly with Wilde, on a personal/family basis. And he did not "persecute" (or even prosecute) Wilde. Rather, when Wilde brought a (hopeless) civil case against his real persecutor, the Marquis of Queensbury, Carson acted successfully for the defence.
Evidence given in Wilde's Civil case then laid him open to the criminal charges and conviction which eventually ruined him. Afaik, Carson actually tried to use his influence with the judiciary to achieve leniency for Wilde in the criminal case, but to no avail.

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 12:53:52 PM
Some wiki quotes...

'Carson disliked many of Ulster's local characteristics and, in particular, the culture of Orangeism,....'

There are many peculiarly Ulster characteristics which I dislike, but that is hardly the same as saying "I hate Ulster with a passion"

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 12:53:52 PM
'He stated that their speeches reminding him of the unrolling of a mummy. All old bones and rotten rags...'

He didn't think much of some of his political colleagues. Find me a politician who differs? At least he didn't subsequently turn on them in a nasty and brutal Civil War.

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 12:53:52 PM
'After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. ' (which they didn't heed)

He was a wise man, when many of his former colleagues weren't - hardly anything unprecedented about that. Nelson Mandela doesn't have a lot of time for many of Thabo Mbeki's policies (e.g. on AIDS, or Mugabe).

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 12:53:52 PM
'He abhorred Ulster Protestantism and its congregation and thought they were fat.'

I'm none too keen on organised religion of any sect, myself, though for reasons other than obesity(!). I imagine he would have abhorred e.g. Ian Paisley, as I do, and would have been nauseated, as I was, by e.g. the fulsome tributes paid to Paisley on his retirement by politicians as varied as Tony Blair and Gerry Adams.  :o

Carson was a very complex character, who didn't conform to all the stereotypes one might have expected of him. For example, he was a supporter of both the Irish language and Gaelic Games, especially Hurling, which he played. (In fact, I think I saw somewhere that he might have been responsible in part for the drawing up of the rules of Hurling whilst at TCD, though I can't find confirmation of this)

Anyhow, whatever else I may think about him, I greatly admire Carson for his role in the political crisis leading up to the events of 1921, where his contribution was at least as significant (imo) as that of Collins, De Valera or Lloyd George. Which is why I wondered why he was the only major player not included in the Poll.

I made that last quote up.

Quote from: ONeill on July 19, 2008, 01:20:24 PM
I made that last quote up.

Not too far off though from the full wiki quote
[i']Ulster -  Carson had no special connection. Carson disliked many of Ulster's local characteristics and, in particular, the culture of Orangeism, although he had become an Orangeman at nineteen. He stated that their speeches reminding him of the unrolling of a mummy. All old bones and rotten rags.'[/i]

useless trivia -  The FAI offices in Merrion Sq use to be owned by Carson.

QuoteHow would you have leaned then/was right in hindsight?

How can anyone not old enough remember their stand on Dev or Collins in 1921 without the benefit of hindsight?

Empathy.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 19, 2008, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 12:45:12 PM
Didn't he persecute Oscar Wilde as well.

Another myth. He was actually quite friendly with Wilde, on a personal/family basis. And he did not "persecute" (or even prosecute) Wilde. Rather, when Wilde brought a (hopeless) civil case against his real persecutor, the Marquis of Queensbury, Carson acted successfully for the defence.
Evidence given in Wilde's Civil case then laid him open to the criminal charges and conviction which eventually ruined him. Afaik, Carson actually tried to use his influence with the judiciary to achieve leniency for Wilde in the criminal case, but to no avail.

::)

Obviously it's true what they say about "you people"* and sense of humour.

Explanation: Prosecute/persecute was my little attempt at a (bad) punning joke. Your response reminds me of a Chinese man I knew (another bunch with no sense of humour) whose response to the three-legged chicken joke was to argue for half an hour that it made no sense as it was impossible for a chicken to have three legs. He was great fun at parties.

* Carsonites

Seen as it is about Collins v De Valera. Haven't all the political parties agreed with Collins on his signing of the treaty. Even FF and SF have too. Especially since the Republic of Ireland has given up her claim on the Six counties. Myself, I would classify myself against the treaty back in 1921. However there's no real party with that view anymore. It is indeed power at all costs for all of them!

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 01:46:03 PM
Obviously it's true what they say about "you people"* and sense of humour.

Explanation: Prosecute/persecute was my little attempt at a (bad) punning joke.

* Carsonites

I could hardly be expected to appreciate you were "punning", seeing as Wilde was both persecuted and prosecuted. Besides, my answer alluded to both possibilities. Either way, you were wrong.  :D

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 01:46:03 PM
Your response reminds me of a Chinese man I knew (another bunch with no sense of humour) whose response to the three-legged chicken joke was to argue for half an hour that it made no sense as it was impossible for a chicken to have three legs. He was great fun at parties.

As a "Carsonite" [sic], I guess I'm used to being stereotyped. But a billion Chinese? Anyhow, how do you know I'm not ethnic Chinese myself? Don't you know that Cantonese is thought to be the 2nd most numerous "mother tongue" in NI after English? Unless all those Poles, Portugese and Lithuanians etc have since pushed it further down the list...

Collins and Dev were both fools. Britain was in the midst of a costly war, and at the same time were starting to do their damdest to get rid of Ireland. Churchill especially couldn't wait to see the back of the place. Without the War of Independance I believe there would have been an independant 32 county Ireland a few generations down the line, probably more at peace with itself, certainly not long after WWII. The "Empire" was truely starting to come apart at the seams after WWII, and in truth unlike some other colonies who had strategic or financial reasons for Britain having an interest in them all Ireland had to offer was cannon fodder. Irish recruits to the British Army would still have been plentiful enough after independance as it was steady work - there are even a sizeable number these days. The War of Independance seemed to sectarianise the situation a lot more than it had been previously, with protestant republicanism almost evaporating completely by the time the civil war was over.
Apart from anything else Dev was a cnut for signing the book of condolances for Hitler. Collins was at least smart enough to recognise the reality of the situation at the time - that many Irish people were totally opposed to leaving the UK and that it was the best deal he was ever going to get.     

There are a lot of 'Trendy Bastards' who think that Collins was God. Thanks to Liam Neeson I feel. The fact is that the iconic pic of Collins in military uniform adorns many walls - remember, he never wore a uniform against the Brits and was only prosecuting a war against fellow Irishmen while in it!!! I wasn't a fan of Dev's either - mainly because of his glasses.

Carson was seen as a Lundy by many Unionists for "selling out" a fairly large Unionist population in Donegal.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 19, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
As a "Carsonite" [sic], I guess I'm used to being stereotyped. But a billion Chinese? Anyhow, how do you know I'm not ethnic Chinese myself? Don't you know that Cantonese is thought to be the 2nd most numerous "mother tongue" in NI after English? Unless all those Poles, Portugese and Lithuanians etc have since pushed it further down the list...

I see what you did there.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 19, 2008, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: Hardy on July 19, 2008, 12:45:12 PM
Didn't he persecute Oscar Wilde as well.

Another myth. He was actually quite friendly with Wilde, on a personal/family basis. And he did not "persecute" (or even prosecute) Wilde. Rather, when Wilde brought a (hopeless) civil case against his real persecutor, the Marquis of Queensbury, Carson acted successfully for the defence.
Evidence given in Wilde's Civil case then laid him open to the criminal charges and conviction which eventually ruined him. Afaik, Carson actually tried to use his influence with the judiciary to achieve leniency for Wilde in the criminal case, but to no avail.

As Wilde said of Carson when news came through that he was to represent Queensberry against him: "No doubt he will pursue his case with all the added bitterness of an old friend."

Collins was right. Republican rhetoric and idealism would have made aspects of the treaty hard to accept at the time though being pragmatic it was a good stepping stone. The great shame is that we started tearing ourselves apart rather than regrouping and working on freeing the 6 counties.

Quote from: Solomon Kane on July 19, 2008, 05:01:44 PM
Collins and Dev were both fools. Britain was in the midst of a costly war, and at the same time were starting to do their damdest to get rid of Ireland. Churchill especially couldn't wait to see the back of the place. Without the War of Independance I believe there would have been an independant 32 county Ireland a few generations down the line, probably more at peace with itself, certainly not long after WWII. The "Empire" was truely starting to come apart at the seams after WWII, and in truth unlike some other colonies who had strategic or financial reasons for Britain having an interest in them all Ireland had to offer was cannon fodder. Irish recruits to the British Army would still have been plentiful enough after independance as it was steady work - there are even a sizeable number these days. The War of Independance seemed to sectarianise the situation a lot more than it had been previously, with protestant republicanism almost evaporating completely by the time the civil war was over.
Apart from anything else Dev was a cnut for signing the book of condolances for Hitler. Collins was at least smart enough to recognise the reality of the situation at the time - that many Irish people were totally opposed to leaving the UK and that it was the best deal he was ever going to get.     

So what would have happened between 1920 and 1945 that would have made the Unionists, who took up arms in 1912 to subvert the will of the people of the United Kingdom for limited autonomy in Ireland, accept complete independence for Ireland?

Has to be Mick

Voted for  Collins as we all know I believe Dev did a Dev  ;)

Daddy or chips?

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 20, 2008, 09:19:15 PM
Collins was right. Republican rhetoric and idealism would have made aspects of the treaty hard to accept at the time though being pragmatic it was a good stepping stone. The great shame is that we started tearing ourselves apart rather than regrouping and working on freeing the 6 counties.

Fighting the war wasn't even pragmatic. Very little done by Republicans was pagmatic. Republican idealism and rhetoric was the only pragmatic part of it and the only part alive today. After all Republicanism was what it was supposed to be about. I can fully understand how it was hard to accept. I also think if the treaty had not have been signed there would have been no "tearing ourselves apart rather than regrouping".

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2008, 09:30:54 PM

Quote from: Solomon Kane on July 19, 2008, 05:01:44 PM
Collins and Dev were both fools. Britain was in the midst of a costly war, and at the same time were starting to do their damdest to get rid of Ireland. Churchill especially couldn't wait to see the back of the place. Without the War of Independance I believe there would have been an independant 32 county Ireland a few generations down the line, probably more at peace with itself, certainly not long after WWII. The "Empire" was truely starting to come apart at the seams after WWII, and in truth unlike some other colonies who had strategic or financial reasons for Britain having an interest in them all Ireland had to offer was cannon fodder. Irish recruits to the British Army would still have been plentiful enough after independance as it was steady work - there are even a sizeable number these days. The War of Independance seemed to sectarianise the situation a lot more than it had been previously, with protestant republicanism almost evaporating completely by the time the civil war was over.
Apart from anything else Dev was a cnut for signing the book of condolances for Hitler. Collins was at least smart enough to recognise the reality of the situation at the time - that many Irish people were totally opposed to leaving the UK and that it was the best deal he was ever going to get.     

So what would have happened between 1920 and 1945 that would have made the Unionists, who took up arms in 1912 to subvert the will of the people of the United Kingdom for limited autonomy in Ireland, accept complete independence for Ireland?

They would have been left with no choice in the matter, but more than likely offered a new start in Britain or even Canada or Australia. The Brits wanted an exit strategy but had their hand forced in 1916. If Ireland would have torn itself apart in a sectarian conflict what difference would it have made from the civil war? Absolutely none to outsiders. Many ex-colonies ended up in a state of civil war or worse all over the world after they gained independance. If you think that anyone in Britain has anything to gain from Northern Ireland being part of the UK you are living in cloud cuckoo land. That however is unlikely to change for a very very long time.

QuoteThe Brits wanted an exit strategy but had their hand forced in 1916.

What evidence is there of this "exit strategy". Identify something that indicates that Britain wanted Irish independence. They did nothing whatsoever to set up or even propose the type of arrangements now found in the 6 counties that would have defended unionist interests in a 32 county state.

Quote from: Solomon Kane on July 23, 2008, 07:19:56 PM
.If you think that anyone in Britain has anything to gain from Northern Ireland being part of the UK you are living in cloud cuckoo land. That however is unlikely to change for a very very long time.

Gordon Brown made good use of the DUP in the 42 day detention vote in West Minister last month.

Quote from: Solomon Kane on July 23, 2008, 07:19:56 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2008, 09:30:54 PM

Quote from: Solomon Kane on July 19, 2008, 05:01:44 PM
Collins and Dev were both fools. Britain was in the midst of a costly war, and at the same time were starting to do their damdest to get rid of Ireland. Churchill especially couldn't wait to see the back of the place. Without the War of Independance I believe there would have been an independant 32 county Ireland a few generations down the line, probably more at peace with itself, certainly not long after WWII. The "Empire" was truely starting to come apart at the seams after WWII, and in truth unlike some other colonies who had strategic or financial reasons for Britain having an interest in them all Ireland had to offer was cannon fodder. Irish recruits to the British Army would still have been plentiful enough after independance as it was steady work - there are even a sizeable number these days. The War of Independance seemed to sectarianise the situation a lot more than it had been previously, with protestant republicanism almost evaporating completely by the time the civil war was over.
Apart from anything else Dev was a cnut for signing the book of condolances for Hitler. Collins was at least smart enough to recognise the reality of the situation at the time - that many Irish people were totally opposed to leaving the UK and that it was the best deal he was ever going to get.     

So what would have happened between 1920 and 1945 that would have made the Unionists, who took up arms in 1912 to subvert the will of the people of the United Kingdom for limited autonomy in Ireland, accept complete independence for Ireland?

They would have been left with no choice in the matter, but more than likely offered a new start in Britain or even Canada or Australia. The Brits wanted an exit strategy but had their hand forced in 1916. If Ireland would have torn itself apart in a sectarian conflict what difference would it have made from the civil war? Absolutely none to outsiders. Many ex-colonies ended up in a state of civil war or worse all over the world after they gained independance. If you think that anyone in Britain has anything to gain from Northern Ireland being part of the UK you are living in cloud cuckoo land. That however is unlikely to change for a very very long time.

I don't think anyone can predict what would have happened had there been no War of Independence. But I see that War as being a classic example of the old Irish witticism where the American Tourist asks a local for directions to somewhere, only to meet the reply: "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."
That is, the key factor in determining Ireland's future was the Easter Rising. Before then, it seems clear that the British Government were going to honour their pledge of Home Rule, in some form or other. Of course, Ulster was going to be a problem, but Lloyd George was such a canny politician I feel he would have found some way of "finessing" the situation.
However, the Rising so inflamed feelings in every quarter, that a negotiated settlement on pre-WWI terms was now impossible.
In which case, Lloyd George had to deal with the situation in hand i.e. he couldn't start again from "somewhere else". That being so, he ultimately delivered a Settlement (the Treaty) which, from the British point of view, was the best achievable combination of principle and pragmatism.
Principle was served by the fact that of the three warring factions - pro-Treaty, anti-Treaty and Ulster Unionists - the anti-Treaty forces were the least powerful, so facing them down would be the least bloody outcome (there being no peaceful option available after the Rising).
And Pragmatism was served by the fact that if he denied Home Rule entirely, the escalating bloodshed would still have been Britain's responsibility, whereas if he had granted HR to all of Ireland, he would likely have had to face down the Ulster Unionists (whose Loyalty and Sacrifice during the Great War boosted their general popularity throughout GB).
Whereas, by implementing Partition, the bloodshed which was likely to arise (Civil War) would be the Free State's responsibility, not Britain's.
Further proof of this pragmatism and political ability of LG is to be found in the fact that Stormont was not originally intended to be a permanent "solution" to the Ulster question. As much as anything else, it was intended to secure Ulster's compliance with the Treaty "solution" and keep them out of any conflict, at least for the time being. Of course, Stormont soon became became a permanent fixture, but it is not coincidental that the Parliament Buldings which evenyually embodied that permanence were not actually opened until 1932 - 11 years on from the Treaty.

Therefore, from this Irish Unionist's perspective, regardless of who one considers to have been the "hero" of 1921, in my eyes, the clear "Villain" was De Valera, not for what he did in the Civil War, but for his part in the Rising.
And fwiw, whilst I know this will receive the shortest of shrift amongst Nationalists/Republicans today, I feel anyone who desires a truly United Ireland should reject Dev and the other leaders of the Rising even more firmly, since that event turned out to be the seminal event in hardening attitudes (unnecessarily, I might add) on every front (Ulster, Ireland, Britain), so that whatever else, there was never going to be a united Ireland in the lifetime of anyone who was around in 1916.

P.S. As for Solomon's conjecture (above), I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, but would take the strongest issue with one point. Namely, a modern day "Flight of the Unionists" (to Canada or Australia etc) was never going to happen. After 300 years when many of their ancestors had forged on to the Americas, Australasia and beyond, those who were still left by 1921 weren't going anywhere. (And they still aren't, 400 years later!)
 

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 11:00:50 AM
I feel anyone who desires a truly United Ireland should reject Dev and the other leaders of the Rising even more firmly

EG, I gotta hand it to you, you would probably make a good argument that black is white  ;)

Dev, but have a great respect for Collins the military man.

Dev was Chief. Collins should have stood by him no matter what. In war, men have been shot for less. Ah that's right...

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 24, 2008, 01:33:14 PM
Dev, but have a great respect for Collins the military man.

Was he not more of an assasin?

Quote from: Zapatista on July 24, 2008, 04:02:05 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 24, 2008, 01:33:14 PM
Dev, but have a great respect for Collins the military man.

Was he not more of an assasin?

Zap you sound like Kevin Mayers now.  ;)

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 24, 2008, 04:09:51 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 24, 2008, 04:02:05 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 24, 2008, 01:33:14 PM
Dev, but have a great respect for Collins the military man.

Was he not more of an assasin?

Zap you sound like Kevin Mayers now.  ;)

Kevin Myers can spell assasin. :D

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 24, 2008, 01:31:48 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 11:00:50 AM
I feel anyone who desires a truly United Ireland should reject Dev and the other leaders of the Rising even more firmly

EG, I gotta hand it to you, you would probably make a good argument that black is white  ;)

Is that it? Just one line plucked from a carefully constructed case. No analysis of that case? No effort to put forward a counter argument?

Don't tire yourself out.

Quote from: Donagh on July 24, 2008, 02:42:08 PM
Dev was Chief. Collins should have stood by him no matter what. In war, men have been shot for less. Ah that's right...

Donagh! Where have you been?  I've missed you.

I see the Ulster Unionists will now be in cahoots (as the big man would say.  The Rev, not God) with the Conservative party.  Just wondering where that leaves Fianna Fail?  ;D ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 04:47:30 PM

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 24, 2008, 01:31:48 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 11:00:50 AM
I feel anyone who desires a truly United Ireland should reject Dev and the other leaders of the Rising even more firmly

EG, I gotta hand it to you, you would probably make a good argument that black is white  ;)

Is that it? Just one line plucked from a carefully constructed case. No analysis of that case? No effort to put forward a counter argument?

Don't tire yourself out.

EG, I was complimenting your writing skills. Very impressed at how you pieced that together, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, it was a compliment.

The bit I highlighted is to prove this, a highly silly looking statement on its own, but the whole argument made it look quite practical. You nearly even had me beleiving it.
Take the compliment when you can EG, I dont throw you many  ;)

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 24, 2008, 05:24:40 PM
EG, I was complimenting your writing skills. Very impressed at how you pieced that together, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, it was a compliment.

Take the compliment when you can EG, I dont throw you many  ;)

Fair enough, I shall accept that in the spirit it was given

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 24, 2008, 05:24:40 PM
The bit I highlighted is to prove this, a highly silly looking statement on its own, but the whole argument made it look quite practical. You nearly even had me beleiving it.

To contend that the whole argument must be false, since one line extracted from it is ostensibly silly, is inverted logic if ever I saw it.
Context is everything, so your tactic is not just meaningless, it is positively misleading. This suggests to me that you are unable to find fault with my basic thesis.

Or do you disagree that after the Rising, the Unionists in Ulster were never going to be persuaded to throw their lot in with their Nationalist fellow-Irishmen on any terms, now that those Nationalists had now embraced the extreme, violent ideals (Pearse's "blood sacrifice" etc) of the new Republican leadership?
"Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born"

Quote from: Chrisowc on July 24, 2008, 05:24:09 PM
Donagh! Where have you been?  I've missed you.

Thanks Chris, you were the only one to even notice I was gone.  :'(

I was out in South America expressing solidarity on your behalf with the oppressed indigenous and poor of Peru, Columbia and Bolivia. While there I was lucky enough to be able to take part in some anti-globalisation direct action. From the 1st pic you can see I was able to share some of our local expertise and tactics in such situations:

(http://www.donagh.f2s.com/Images/pic1.jpg)

From the 2nd pic you can see that there was a sharing of knowledge as the locals demonstrated to me that rather than erecting one static barricade, in fact the better option is to flood the road with sharp rocks over distance thereby negating the oppositions (in this case a not unlike RUC paramilitary force) from rushing you in a surprise attack.

(http://www.donagh.f2s.com/Images/pic2.jpg)

However the real learning on my part came when the Columbian activists allowed me to try out some of their recently acquired technology:

(http://www.donagh.f2s.com/Images/pic3.jpg)

Quote from: Chrisowc on July 24, 2008, 05:24:09 PM

I see the Ulster Unionists will now be in cahoots (as the big man would say.  The Rev, not God) with the Conservative party.  Just wondering where that leaves Fianna Fail?  ;D ;)

The garden centre Prods will still look to the Fianna Fail mafiosi as their way of greasing the wheels of capitalism, after all what Brits give with one hand they take with another (passport checks between Larne and Stranraer)  :D

Has to be, has always been, will always be Michael Collins. Dev chickened out in '21, took the Oath in '27, took to power in '32, took to uber-Catholicism in '37 and took a nice idle stand-by til '75 when he died in his bed, aged 93.

Quote from: Donagh on July 24, 2008, 08:48:28 PM
The garden centre Prods will still look to the Fianna Fail mafiosi as their way of greasing the wheels of capitalism, after all what Brits give with one hand they take with another (passport checks between Larne and Stranraer)  :D

Good job.  I say UK authorities will be stepping up spot checks along the Irish border too ;)

I take it the areas you were in were too remote to hijack buses ;D ;D

Quote from: Chrisowc on July 24, 2008, 10:36:52 PM

Good job.  I say UK authorities will be stepping up spot checks along the Irish border too ;)

I take it the areas you were in were too remote to hijack buses ;D ;D

Nah, no buses. I was frigging half way there to explaining how to hijack trains (a la the Lurgan boys) in my pigeon Spanish when they told me the trains stopped running 60 years ago  :-\

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 06:26:30 PM
Context is everything, so your tactic is not just meaningless, it is positively misleading. This suggests to me that you are unable to find fault with my basic thesis.

My tactic???  ::)

f**k sake EG stop trying to pick rows, I was paying you a compliment.

I disagree fully with your "basic thesis" but didnt even say so, as I simply dont have the time to get into it.
So instead of argueing with your post, I merely posted a compliment at how well you put your argument forth.

Relax a bit more EG, sometimes you should just take a compliment as exactly that, stop trying to pick meanings and motives behind them.

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 25, 2008, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 06:26:30 PM
Context is everything, so your tactic is not just meaningless, it is positively misleading. This suggests to me that you are unable to find fault with my basic thesis.

My tactic???  ::)

f**k sake EG stop trying to pick rows, I was paying you a compliment.

I disagree fully with your "basic thesis" but didnt even say so, as I simply dont have the time to get into it.
So instead of argueing with your post, I merely posted a compliment at how well you put your argument forth.

Relax a bit more EG, sometimes you should just take a compliment as exactly that, stop trying to pick meanings and motives behind them.

Yep, tactic is the word. You "damn my posts with faint praise" by appearing to pay a compliment, when your real point is to be found in the accompanying barb - in this case, a distortion in the form of a line taken entirely out of context. Moreover, your intervention often occurs when I am debating some point with others, on topics where you have little or no contribution to make to the overall discussion.

It's for all the world like seeing two or three dogs in a fight in the park, and one yappy wee mutt comes in, takes a quick nip at one of the protagonists and runs away before anyone can get a hold of him. He then sits wagging his tail on the sideline, proud of what a brave* little doggie he really is.

Oh and btw, I am not unrelaxed about this, though its predictability makes it irritating.

* - Or in your case, what a brave and broad-minded doggie i.e. bites and compliments...

EG - its seems I underestimated you or maybe didn't pay enough attention to some of the stuff you have put up here. Some excellent posts on this thread. I had you written aff as a dogmatic, "not an incher" but it seems I may have been too hasty.

I don't necessarily agree with you completely but its a fairly solid argument. And even though I like HHNB I really liked this bit:

QuoteYou "damn my posts with faint praise"

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 25, 2008, 12:29:05 PM
It's for all the world like seeing two or three dogs in a fight in the park, and one yappy wee mutt comes in, takes a quick nip at one of the protagonists and runs away before anyone can get a hold of him. He then sits wagging his tail on the sideline, proud of what a brave* little doggie he really is.
Oh and btw, I am not unrelaxed about this, though its predictability makes it irritating.

EG, I complimented your writing skills. You made an argument and I complimented how it was put together. I dont have to agree with what you say to state how well constructed a post is. The point that I disagree with the post but you "nearly had me beleiving it" should be a testament to how well I think its written.
I dont need to agree with your argument to say its very well written.

But you go on the defensive and start this personal shite again my comparing me to a "yappy wee mutt"  ::)

The "damning my post with faint praise" statement reeks of paranoia. If I wanted to damn your post I would have went to the trouble of pointing out what exactly I thought was wrong about it. I didnt, as I had no intentions of getting dragged into another row (ironic eh) I merely praised how you put the post together.

If you dont want to accept the compliment dont, just keep the personal shite out of it.

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 25, 2008, 01:05:20 PM
If I wanted to damn your post I would have went to the trouble of pointing out what exactly I thought was wrong about it.

Go on then. Remember, I condensed my case to a simple enough question, when I posted:
"Or do you disagree that after the Rising, the Unionists in Ulster were never going to be persuaded to throw their lot in with their Nationalist fellow-Irishmen on any terms, now that those Nationalists had now embraced the extreme, violent ideals (Pearse's "blood sacrifice" etc) of the new Republican leadership?"

Quote from: his holiness nb on July 25, 2008, 01:05:20 PM
I didnt, as I had no intentions of getting dragged into another row (ironic eh)

Ah, I see. You don't want to get "dragged in", then? Strange, because previously your excuse for not engaging in debate was lack of time - this from a man who has three and a half thousand posts on this Board... ::)

P.S. For an example of how to pay compliments sincerely, see Magpie Seanie's post (above) [Thanks for that, btw, Magpie]

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 24, 2008, 11:00:50 AM

I don't think anyone can predict what would have happened had there been no War of Independence. But I see that War as being a classic example of the old Irish witticism where the American Tourist asks a local for directions to somewhere, only to meet the reply: "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."
That is, the key factor in determining Ireland's future was the Easter Rising. Before then, it seems clear that the British Government were going to honour their pledge of Home Rule, in some form or other. Of course, Ulster was going to be a problem, but Lloyd George was such a canny politician I feel he would have found some way of "finessing" the situation.
However, the Rising so inflamed feelings in every quarter, that a negotiated settlement on pre-WWI terms was now impossible.
In which case, Lloyd George had to deal with the situation in hand i.e. he couldn't start again from "somewhere else". That being so, he ultimately delivered a Settlement (the Treaty) which, from the British point of view, was the best achievable combination of principle and pragmatism.
Principle was served by the fact that of the three warring factions - pro-Treaty, anti-Treaty and Ulster Unionists - the anti-Treaty forces were the least powerful, so facing them down would be the least bloody outcome (there being no peaceful option available after the Rising).
And Pragmatism was served by the fact that if he denied Home Rule entirely, the escalating bloodshed would still have been Britain's responsibility, whereas if he had granted HR to all of Ireland, he would likely have had to face down the Ulster Unionists (whose Loyalty and Sacrifice during the Great War boosted their general popularity throughout GB).
Whereas, by implementing Partition, the bloodshed which was likely to arise (Civil War) would be the Free State's responsibility, not Britain's.
Further proof of this pragmatism and political ability of LG is to be found in the fact that Stormont was not originally intended to be a permanent "solution" to the Ulster question. As much as anything else, it was intended to secure Ulster's compliance with the Treaty "solution" and keep them out of any conflict, at least for the time being. Of course, Stormont soon became became a permanent fixture, but it is not coincidental that the Parliament Buldings which evenyually embodied that permanence were not actually opened until 1932 - 11 years on from the Treaty.

Therefore, from this Irish Unionist's perspective, regardless of who one considers to have been the "hero" of 1921, in my eyes, the clear "Villain" was De Valera, not for what he did in the Civil War, but for his part in the Rising.
And fwiw, whilst I know this will receive the shortest of shrift amongst Nationalists/Republicans today, I feel anyone who desires a truly United Ireland should reject Dev and the other leaders of the Rising even more firmly, since that event turned out to be the seminal event in hardening attitudes (unnecessarily, I might add) on every front (Ulster, Ireland, Britain), so that whatever else, there was never going to be a united Ireland in the lifetime of anyone who was around in 1916.

P.S. As for Solomon's conjecture (above), I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, but would take the strongest issue with one point. Namely, a modern day "Flight of the Unionists" (to Canada or Australia etc) was never going to happen. After 300 years when many of their ancestors had forged on to the Americas, Australasia and beyond, those who were still left by 1921 weren't going anywhere. (And they still aren't, 400 years later!)
 

Some solid points there EG.  On the War of Independence my reading indicates that the "Northern Question" was not a contributory factor for any of the protagonists.  The belief that it was a temporary and pragmatic step was held by all parties. 

However I never fully understand the British inisistance on the Oath of Allegiance and resistance to a republic.  Once could argue that the Irish were foolish to go to war over items that were in many ways intangible but what of the British motives on this issue?

The British attitude from the first Dáil session to the Solohead ambush was highly belligerent, pushing the Provisional Government towards war. (possibly to call their bluff?)  It was during this period that Churchhill pointed out that the British Government were charged with maintaining, not dismantling the empire and that no negotiations about sovereignty could be entertained.

I am more inclined to think that Llyod George was pitting the DeValera and Collins camps against each other in the hope of new state collapsing to such anarchy that all bets would be off.  He may have underestimated Collins drive to end the violence.   

/Jim.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 25, 2008, 02:13:52 PM
Ah, I see. You don't want to get "dragged in", then? Strange, because previously your excuse for not engaging in debate was lack of time - this from a man who has three and a half thousand posts on this Board... ::)

So the fact that I spent nearly all day every day on here a year or two ago in a boring job gives you reason to dictate to me that I have time to do it now in totally different circumstances ?  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 25, 2008, 02:13:52 PM
P.S. For an example of how to pay compliments sincerely, see Magpie Seanie's post (above) [Thanks for that, btw, Magpie]

Apolgies if my compliment wasnt enough for you EG  ::)

f**k sake, its 100% simple, I paid you a compliment and you react with personal insults and try to goad me into debate.

I've come to expect personal insults from you, its the norm, and dont get me wrong I've returned them too.

But you were out of order on this occasion and totally misread a genuine compliment made in good faith.

If you dont have the good grace to accept the compliment, faint or not, then thats fine. No need to retaliate with insults though.

EG- I just read down your initial post on this thread and I think you are harsh on the leaders of the rising. From their perspective there was no real evidence that their cause had advanced at all. There had been promises on Home Rule many times before only for it to be thwarted and all shades of green in the republican movement of the day were frustrated. They had seen how unionists had won concessions by taking up arms and would have had no confidence in any British government standing up to unionism or even, as you succinctly put in - "finessing the situation". As you mention also the fact that vast hordes of Ulster unionists were fighting and giving their lives for King and country would greatly strengthen their hand dealing with govenrment after the war.

So I think the leaders of the Rising felt they had no option. If they waited the political landscape looked to be going away from them yet again as the prize was about to be given out. The Rising was bourne out of this frustration and it was militarily a complete failure. The brutal execution of the leaders was the own goal that made something out of the Rising. This action alone would severly whether there was any sympathy or understading of Irish matters at all at the highest level at that time. This is the crucial point of your argument and while I agree Lloyd George was skilled it is far from clear that he would have worked for a settlement such as you see. When he became prime minister he relied on unionist support in parliament.

So all in all you made some excellent points but we disagree on key elements. Yes - the Rising was the key event but I wouldn't castigate the leaders as I think the peaceful outcome you outline was at best unlikely.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
EG- I just read down your initial post on this thread and I think you are harsh on the leaders of the rising. From their perspective there was no real evidence that their cause had advanced at all. There had been promises on Home Rule many times before only for it to be thwarted and all shades of green in the republican movement of the day were frustrated. They had seen how unionists had won concessions by taking up arms and would have had no confidence in any British government standing up to unionism or even, as you succinctly put in - "finessing the situation". As you mention also the fact that vast hordes of Ulster unionists were fighting and giving their lives for King and country would greatly strengthen their hand dealing with govenrment after the war.

no one would know what would have hapened but I would agree with Magpie Seanie.
But one thing, lloyd george did not have any loyalty to any Irish person who fought inthe war - ulster prod or southern Cath , george even then relied on thepolitical voting block of ulster unionists voting for his gov and its policies in westminister - a tactic employed up until a few years ago by the conservatives. That was his motivation. As we know the english politicians dont care less about our country.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
EG- I just read down your initial post on this thread and I think you are harsh on the leaders of the rising. From their perspective there was no real evidence that their cause had advanced at all. There had been promises on Home Rule many times before only for it to be thwarted and all shades of green in the republican movement of the day were frustrated. They had seen how unionists had won concessions by taking up arms and would have had no confidence in any British government standing up to unionism or even, as you succinctly put in - "finessing the situation". As you mention also the fact that vast hordes of Ulster unionists were fighting and giving their lives for King and country would greatly strengthen their hand dealing with govenrment after the war.

So I think the leaders of the Rising felt they had no option. If they waited the political landscape looked to be going away from them yet again as the prize was about to be given out. The Rising was bourne out of this frustration and it was militarily a complete failure. The brutal execution of the leaders was the own goal that made something out of the Rising. This action alone would severly whether there was any sympathy or understading of Irish matters at all at the highest level at that time. This is the crucial point of your argument and while I agree Lloyd George was skilled it is far from clear that he would have worked for a settlement such as you see. When he became prime minister he relied on unionist support in parliament.

So all in all you made some excellent points but we disagree on key elements. Yes - the Rising was the key event but I wouldn't castigate the leaders as I think the peaceful outcome you outline was at best unlikely.

Pretty much spot on imo Magpie, well put.

*note this is not a compliment and should not be treated as such*

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
Some solid points there EG. 

Thank you.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
On the War of Independence my reading indicates that the "Northern Question" was not a contributory factor for any of the protagonists.

I expect that to be the case. Sadly, by the time brother falls out with brother, they're usually both long past worrying what the neighbours will think.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
The belief that it was a temporary and pragmatic step was held by all parties. 

By "it", I take it you mean the Civil War, rather than Partition?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
However I never fully understand the British inisistance on the Oath of Allegiance and resistance to a republic.  Once could argue that the Irish were foolish to go to war over items that were in many ways intangible but what of the British motives on this issue?

I'd say this stems from a whole host of factors. First and foremost, you must not underestimate the then loyalty of the average British subject to the Monarchy. Remember, when millions joined up in WWI, they were doing so "For King and Country". The fact that they endured 3/4 of a million deaths, plus unquantifiably more injury and suffering, without ever seriously questioning the cause is overwhelming testimony to that. This wiill have been especially keenly felt in the Irish context, since Britain's sense of betrayal at the 1916 Rising - when Britain's very existence was in peril from a much greater enemy- will have been very bitterly felt.
Second, they had an enormous Empire to maintain, so didn't want "dangerous" ideas such as Republicanism and Independence to take root generally. Which is not to say they were entirely rigid in demanding strict Imperial status. For example, they were happy enough (albeit on essentially racial grounds) to grant Dominion status to Australia, NZ and Canada. And if it was good enough for them...
And despite the anti-British sentiment in Ireland at the time, hostility to the Monarch himself was by no means universally implacable even amongst the Nationalist population, never mind the Ulster Unionists, for whom the Oath etc for all of Ireland will have been a reassurance.
And it was only 16 years since Arthur Griffiths, no less, proposed a co-Monarchy for Britain and Ireland (after the fashion of Austria and Hungary), or 5 years since so many of Redmond's Irish Volunteers had died in Flanders in the King's Colours.
Besides, it would be a mistake to believe that the British were all as one with their demands. Lloyd George's great skills included being able to manage a Coalition Government, where the Conservatives, with their own Agenda, were latterly in the majority. What may have been seen by him as being essentially symbolic, might have been a useful bone to throw to the more hardline Imperialists in his camp?
As you can see, without the benefit of Cabinet Minutes etc, I'm largely guessing(!), but I'm sure an element of face-saving will also have featured, i.e. "The Irish might have won the fight to break away, but the Settlement will still be on our terms"

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
The British attitude from the first Dáil session to the Solohead ambush was highly belligerent, pushing the Provisional Government towards war. (possibly to call their bluff?) 

Indeed. But without meaning to excuse the excesses of the Black & Tans etc, this level of "belligerence" is all relative. Never mind the ruthlessness brought to bear on the German enemy in the Great War, the effort deployed to crush rebellion elsewhere e.g. in South Africa, Sudan, India etc was on an infinitely greater scale than seen in Ireland. There will undoubtedly have been a faction in the British Establishment which will have wondered: "Why can't we just send the Army in to put these truculent Paddies down and have done with it?"
And Bluff will also have been an element.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
It was during this period that Churchhill pointed out that the British Government were charged with maintaining, not dismantling the empire and that no negotiations about sovereignty could be entertained.

Churchill led one of those factions which Lloyd George had to manage. And as it happens, he had a curiously contradictory attitude in this respect. Unlike his father Randolph, who was the Ulster Unionists' greatest ally in previous decades, he had little time for Ireland. But he was passionately concerned to retain the rest of the Empire, especially India. So it wasn't necessarily the Irish themselves whom he had in mind when taking such a hard line on sovereignty etc.
Besides, having been directly involved in the Boer Wars, he will have noted that South Africa still retained its Dominion Status, despite the Boers being as strong an enemy, and as anti-British, as the Irish Nationalists ever were.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
I am more inclined to think that Llyod George was pitting the DeValera and Collins camps against each other in the hope of new state collapsing to such anarchy that all bets would be off.  He may have underestimated Collins drive to end the violence.   

LG was certainly never averse to such hard negotiating tactics! The terms which he imposed on the defeated Germans, after his great triumph of having led the country to victory, were entirely ruthless. But this same ruthless pragmatism will also have caused him to appreciate that had complete Anarchy ensued, it would have been left to Britain to pick up the pieces, with no hope of ever putting them back together again to anything resembling a solution.
By 1921, he knew and accepted that Nationalist Ireland was "lost", the only question remaining will have been how best to make the break. As for the ability (or otherwise) of Collins to sort it out, I'd say LG was just happy enough that it would be out of his own hands to do so.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
EG- I just read down your initial post on this thread and I think you are harsh on the leaders of the rising. From their perspective there was no real evidence that their cause had advanced at all.

No doubt that this was how they saw things from their perspective. But I still believe that that perspective was so narrow, indeed fanatical, as to have been misconceived. And even if their suspicions of Britain's true commitment to Home Rule were correct, they ought to have known that to attempt a Rising at that time, can only have served to harden attitudes amongst the British.
Which, of course might still have been OK, so long as you believe that the ends justify the means. But their attempt at a military coup was always doomed to failure. The fact is that they "got lucky" (sorry, offensive, I know) when the British decided to execute the Leaders, thereby turning pitiable defeat into eventual "victory". But never forget that such a transformation was never within their gift to deliver to their supporters.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
There had been promises on Home Rule many times before only for it to be thwarted and all shades of green in the republican movement of the day were frustrated. They had seen how unionists had won concessions by taking up arms and would have had no confidence in any British government standing up to unionism or even, as you succinctly put in - "finessing the situation". As you mention also the fact that vast hordes of Ulster unionists were fighting and giving their lives for King and country would greatly strengthen their hand dealing with govenrment after the war.

You might be right in your analysis - we'll never know. But i would point out that up until 1916, the clear majority of Irish Nationalists did not share the Rebels' mistrust of the British. Indeed, for all that is made of the undoubted sacrifices of the Rebels, their supporters overlook the (arguably greater) sacrifice of Redmond's Irish Volunteers. That is, those Irish people trusted the British sufficiently to risk their own lives, in advance of the delivery of Home Rule. They can't all have been entirely naive, surely?
I've no doubt the Rebels didn't just waken up some morning and conclude the British were suddenly going to betray them, for no particular reason. But once more, they made the classic mistake of failing to see things from their opponents' perspective. Of course, they saw the apparent success of Carson's Volunteers in facing down the British, by force of arms. But how desperate do you think the Ulster Volunteers were, if they were prepared to go to war with their own "kith and kin"? Their trust in the British Government in 1912 was even less than most Nationalists by 1916.
Of course, the Rebels will have been persuaded that the Unionists had "won" in 1912, but if the Unionists had regained ground then, the struggle over Home Rule was a long way short of being a "done deal" by Easter 1916 (imo).
And don't forget that the great sacrifice of the Ulstermen at the Somme, which so advanced their cause with the British Government, occurred in July 1916 - months after the Easter Rising.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
So I think the leaders of the Rising felt they had no option. If they waited the political landscape looked to be going away from them yet again as the prize was about to be given out.

Clearly. But neither that, nor their undoubted courage, means they were correct.

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
The Rising was bourne out of this frustration and it was militarily a complete failure. The brutal execution of the leaders was the own goal that made something out of the Rising. This action alone would severly whether there was any sympathy or understading of Irish matters at all at the highest level at that time. This is the crucial point of your argument and while I agree Lloyd George was skilled it is far from clear that he would have worked for a settlement such as you see. When he became prime minister he relied on unionist support in parliament.

But can't you see that just as the execution of the rebels greatly hardened, even transformed, the views of Irish Nationalists, the action of the Rebels in "stabbing Britain in the back" at their most perillous hour must have hardened attitudes amongst the British? This will have been especially if the British really had  been sincere in their commitment to Home Rule i.e. "We gave them our word and this is how they repay us. Well, we won't make that mistake again"

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 25, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
So all in all you made some excellent points but we disagree on key elements. Yes - the Rising was the key event but I wouldn't castigate the leaders as I think the peaceful outcome you outline was at best unlikely.

I did not intend to give the impression that had there been no Rising, then we would have had an entirely peaceful outcome. However, it seems unavoidable to conclude that such was the effect of the Rising in raising the temperature for everyone involved (and the British contributed in no small measure by the brutality of their response to it), that whatever hopes there were of a tolerably peaceable outcome before 1916, were all but in shreds after it.
And as far as I'm concerned, for a small, unelected and unrepresentative band of people to take it upon themselves to crush those hopes irreversibly, is unforgiveable.

And in any case, even those who disagree with the above analysis of the Rebels' motives and principles etc, must, with the benefit of hindsight, agree that their actions in striking as they did, actually did nothing to advance the cause of a truly "united" Ireland, since it so alienated that 25% of the Irish population who called themselves "Unionists".

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 25, 2008, 03:37:00 PM
But one thing, lloyd george did not have any loyalty to any Irish person who fought inthe war - ulster prod or southern Cath , george even then relied on thepolitical voting block of ulster unionists voting for his gov and its policies in westminister - a tactic employed up until a few years ago by the conservatives. That was his motivation. As we know the english politicians dont care less about our country.

What you fail to comprehend is that at the start of the 20th Century, many of those politicians would not have characterised themselves as "English", but rather as "British". In which case, they would also not have seen Ireland as "your" country, they would have seen it as part of their own country (whether you agree with them or not).
After all, not only was Lloyd George no Englishman, but English wasn't even his first language.

Still, how would a Welshman understand what it's like to live under the yoke of an oppressive neighbour... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 25, 2008, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 25, 2008, 03:37:00 PM
But one thing, lloyd george did not have any loyalty to any Irish person who fought inthe war - ulster prod or southern Cath , george even then relied on thepolitical voting block of ulster unionists voting for his gov and its policies in westminister - a tactic employed up until a few years ago by the conservatives. That was his motivation. As we know the english politicians dont care less about our country.

What you fail to comprehend is that at the start of the 20th Century, many of those politicians would not have characterised themselves as "English", but rather as "British". In which case, they would also not have seen Ireland as "your" country, they would have seen it as part of their own country (whether you agree with them or not).
After all, not only was Lloyd George no Englishman, but English wasn't even his first language.

Still, how would a Welshman understand what it's like to live under the yoke of an oppressive neighbour... ::)

An Uncle Tom if I ever saw one.

I must sayEG while I don't agree with alot of what you just said, it was well thought out & thats what is really needed in this world, so while your on here, who do you reckon will win Sam or McCarthy?  ;)

There is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles, typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit of rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon. Collins' sister managed to get a word with Michael as they marched beaten from the GPO and his only answer was 'a fuckin disaster'.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in the three private meetings Dev had with Lloyd George before he sent Collins over. Dev's decision to 'stay with his people' really held little weight and history does seem to point us in the direction of passing the buck. However, did Collins receive a 'warning' in terms of buying more time to consult with Dev. I don't buy into that Collins wouldn't have been easily bluffed nor bullied by the British. Perhaps Collins' ego was his own downfall.

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 06:44:31 PMThere is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon.'

.

Very pretty, but historically that's a weak theory of the 1916 rebellion, that bit about the  "re-awakening of the spirit" being an incidental by-product of the rising, a result of a British mistake.
It is a historical revision to ignore that part of the planning on the eve of the rebellion, which in the now certainty of military defeat, anticipated that  "bullish retribution"  being a factor for future gain, as the hope.

"In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called".
Documentary evidence from the leaders, in the midst of the set backs in the build up to eve of the rebellion, gives a very acute awareness of what would happen to both themselves and public opinion afterwards. They proceeded with that foresight and factored those two events as consequence of their (military shambles) actions.
A young Tom Barry in a distant land gives a revealing account of the impact of the news of the rebellion on his psyche.

Quote from: Main Street on July 25, 2008, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 06:44:31 PMThere is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon.'

.

Very pretty, but historically that's a weak theory of the 1916 rebellion, that bit about the  "re-awakening of the spirit" being an incidental by-product of the rising, a result of a British mistake.
It is a historical revision to ignore that part of the planning on the eve of the rebellion, which in the now certainty of military defeat, anticipated that  "bullish retribution"  being a factor for future gain, as the hope.

"In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called".
Documentary evidence from the leaders, in the midst of the set backs in the build up to eve of the rebellion, gives a very acute awareness of what would happen to both themselves and public opinion afterwards. They proceeded with that foresight and factored those two events as consequence of their (military shambles) actions.
A young Tom Barry in a distant land gives a revealing account of the impact of the news of the rebellion on his psyche.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be agreeing with me. The actual GPO incident was shambolic but ultimately fruitful due to the British response. I don't really understand what you mean by 'incidental'.

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 25, 2008, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 06:44:31 PMThere is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon.'

.

Very pretty, but historically that's a weak theory of the 1916 rebellion, that bit about the  "re-awakening of the spirit" being an incidental by-product of the rising, a result of a British mistake.
It is a historical revision to ignore that part of the planning on the eve of the rebellion, which in the now certainty of military defeat, anticipated that  "bullish retribution"  being a factor for future gain, as the hope.

"In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called".
Documentary evidence from the leaders, in the midst of the set backs in the build up to eve of the rebellion, gives a very acute awareness of what would happen to both themselves and public opinion afterwards. They proceeded with that foresight and factored those two events as consequence of their (military shambles) actions.
A young Tom Barry in a distant land gives a revealing account of the impact of the news of the rebellion on his psyche.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be agreeing with me. The actual GPO incident was shambolic but ultimately fruitful due to the British response. I don't really understand what you mean by 'incidental'.

You agreed with EG.
"he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders".

I understand that  to be saying that the awakening of Irish nationalism post 1916 was caused by an event that was not part of the rebellion plan.
That it was caused by a British tactical blunder. That the 1916 rebellion was a brainless blunder.

I disagree, historical documentation overwhelmingly supports that when the planned sizable rebellion was down to bare bones the
rebel IRB leaders were quite aware that they were signing their death warrant and knew that their actions would provoke this retaliatory response from the British and that in the Rebel minds this was a necessary sacrifice on their part. The Brits took the bait.
Whether you agree or not with that strategy is besides the point. The facts are that this was their strategy.

Quote from: Main Street on July 26, 2008, 12:04:18 AM

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 25, 2008, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 06:44:31 PMThere is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon.'

.

Very pretty, but historically that's a weak theory of the 1916 rebellion, that bit about the  "re-awakening of the spirit" being an incidental by-product of the rising, a result of a British mistake.
It is a historical revision to ignore that part of the planning on the eve of the rebellion, which in the now certainty of military defeat, anticipated that  "bullish retribution"  being a factor for future gain, as the hope.

"In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called".
Documentary evidence from the leaders, in the midst of the set backs in the build up to eve of the rebellion, gives a very acute awareness of what would happen to both themselves and public opinion afterwards. They proceeded with that foresight and factored those two events as consequence of their (military shambles) actions.
A young Tom Barry in a distant land gives a revealing account of the impact of the news of the rebellion on his psyche.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be agreeing with me. The actual GPO incident was shambolic but ultimately fruitful due to the British response. I don't really understand what you mean by 'incidental'.

You agreed with EG.
"he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit if rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders".

I understand that  to be saying that the awakening of Irish nationalism post 1916 was caused by an event that was not part of the rebellion plan.
That it was caused by a British tactical blunder. That the 1916 rebellion was a brainless blunder.

I disagree, historical documentation overwhelmingly supports that when the planned sizable rebellion was down to bare bones the
rebel IRB leaders were quite aware that they were signing their death warrant and knew that their actions would provoke this retaliatory response from the British and that in the Rebel minds this was a necessary sacrifice on their part. The Brits took the bait.
Whether you agree or not with that strategy is besides the point. The facts are that this was their strategy.

I disagree, MS. I think up until a few weeks before the Rising, the leaders had reasonable expectations of overthrowing the British. You only have to listen to the archives of those involved in the Ulster side of events to realise how close the rising was to becoming a massive effort. A series of unfortunate events ruined plans including the Aud episode and the countermanding and confusing McNeill orders in the North. Risings in Cork and Limerick were thwarted before they could begin. The GPO contingent and those in the surrounding area were hopeful of a swelling of numbers as word was passed on. I find the 'romantic blood sacrifice' lazy and spoon-fed, and actually insults and devalues the roles and atrributes of those involved. 

Great song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AK1HosFCAE

The treaty should never have been signed and no one should ever have died for the difference between it and what we ended up with.

Quote from: ONeill on July 26, 2008, 12:59:17 AM
I disagree, MS. I think up until a few weeks before the Rising, the leaders had reasonable expectations of overthrowing the British.

You only have to listen to the archives of those involved in the Ulster side of events to realise how close the rising was to becoming a massive effort.

That's fair enough, I Agree, but a lot happened in those last 2 weeks.
The focus here is on the days before the rising.
The decision to go ahead was made by the leadership and morale cannot be kept high in the absence of hope.
The rising was planned by the IRB, namely Mac Diarmada and Clarke, they were quite aware that 95% of their plans were in bits.
What is of concern here is the decision to go ahead with that knowledge.

QuoteThe GPO contingent and those in the surrounding area were hopeful of a swelling of numbers as word was passed on

.

What do you think, that a commander can lead his soldiers into battle without giving them hope?
What do you consider would the morale be if Connolly the night before the rising had said, we are fecked, truly fecked but do your best lads.

QuoteI find the 'romantic blood sacrifice' lazy and spoon-fed, and actually insults and devalues the roles and atrributes of those involved. 

You need to get a perspective on why rock hard practical rebels like Clarke and Mac Diarmada, who did most of the planning, would proceed in the knowledge that most of their military plans were already dust.
Or why Connolly would have gone ahead alone with the ICA.
The perspective is gained by examining their ideology, their word and their actions in the context of that time.

Quote from: Son_of_Sam on July 25, 2008, 06:13:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 25, 2008, 05:47:51 PM

After all, not only was Lloyd George no Englishman, but English wasn't even his first language.

Still, how would a Welshman understand what it's like to live under the yoke of an oppressive neighbour... ::)

An Uncle Tom if I ever saw one.

An Uncle Tom, then is it?  Let me see.
The original Uncle Tom, a slave's son who lived in a cabin, was the long-suffering servant of the White Folk who lived in the Big House, yet he was always loyal and never resentful.

Meanwhile, Lloyd George was born in relatively humble circumstances, being brought up by his extended family in rural Wales after his father died. Despite his coming from a strongly non-Conformist background, and speaking Welsh as his first language, he gained a good eduction as a Scholarship boy, before qualifying as a Lawyer. From there he pursued a career in politics.
By the time of his death, highlights of his 55 years as an MP include being President of the Board of Trade, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Minister of Munitions, War Secretary, Prime Minister (6 years), Liberal Party Leader and "Father of the House". He was also Rector of the University of Edinburgh, a Privy Councillor, and a holder of the Order of Merit. Oh and he was created 1st. Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor.

I must say it hadn't really occurred to me, but the similarities between him and Uncle Tom are uncanny. You learn something every day... ::)

Quote from: Son_of_Sam on July 25, 2008, 06:13:40 PM
while your on here, who do you reckon will win Sam or McCarthy?  ;)

Er, the Dallas Cowboys?  ???

Quote from: ONeill on July 25, 2008, 06:44:31 PM
There is no doubt that the Rising was an absolute shambles, typifying historical Irish rebellions before that, and EG is correct when he said their intended re-awakening of the spirit of rebellion in the general public only occurred when the British, having not learned from the historical blunders, decided to execute the leaders. The British always seemed to make such errors, that bullish retribution and flexing of muscle has been their downfall in almost every patch of land they encroached upon.

This item (in bold) caused me to consider this aspect of British Imperialism and at the risk of taking this thread way off topic, I'd actually take issue with it. It is undoubtedly true that the British experience of Empire is littered with such incidents. Nonetheless, there is no way a relatively small archipelago on the edge of a Continent, without a particularly large population, could ever have conquered, never mind held for over 200 years, an Empire larger than any seen before (or since?) if they were "always making such errors".

In truth, they must for the most part have got more things right than wrong when administering their territories. Plus the fact that the UK itself has never been invaded in nearly 1,000 years and hasn't suffered Revolution or Civil War (Ireland excepted, perhaps) in hundreds of years is actually a testiment to the country's stability, including its abillity to avoid  frequent catastrophic errors of Government and War. (Btw, in saying this, I am not expressing any opinion on the morality or otherwise of Imperialism).

Perhaps the most notable example is to be found in India. Certainly, they were caught by surprise by the Mutiny of 1857, and their response then was of a brutality that made Easter 1916 seem remarkably restrained by comparison. Nonetheless, India was still to remain a Colony for almost another 100 years before the British lowered the flag.

And, taking us back to the subject of Ireland, surely the manner of their retreat from India in 1947 offers an insight as to what might have been in Ireland, less than 30 years earlier? There can be little doubt that the astonishing contribution of Indian soldiers, sailors and airmen during WWII was a major contributory factor in the UK moving from (begrudgingly) offering limited autonomy to India as late as 1942, to full independence 5 years later.
At the start of the war, the (British) Indian Army was just over 200,000 strong (remarkably small to control such a huge country). By the end of the war, over 2 1/2 million men had joined and fought - the greatest volunteer army the world has ever seen. By contrast, Chandra Bose's Indian National Army, which fought on the Axis forces side on the basis that "My enemy's enemy is my friend", never achieved anything like the same popular support.
Mind you, many of the INA leaders were executed after the War and they, too, have been subject to a more kindly revision to the record of their place in their country's history, despite their perceived abject failure at the time*.

Anyhow, for all the wrongs and outrages committed by the British in India down the centuries, the fact that the Indians still remained essentially loyal at Britain's hour of need, undoubtedly influenced the latter in eventually "doing the right thing" in granting a subject people thier much longer-for freedom. The lesson for Ireland seems to me to be fairly obvious - though as an Irish Unionist, perhaps I should be glad  that the Rebels of 1916 struck when they did, thereby screwing up what may have been the best chance in hundreds of years of persuading Great Britain to disengage from the whole of Ireland... ;)


* - Now where have I heard this before?  ;)

Did anyone here watch the great british school swap last night?