Irish Generals planned to attack the six counties.

[pintsofguinness]

Its not referred to as the  Free state not a  free state . Clearly referring to IFS from 22-37.

If it's not an insult they why are the words free staters often preceded with the word f**king?

I am speaking from personally experience I've never heard either Free State or Free Stater being using in a non disparaging way.  And this thread is no different .

What? It's normally referred to as the free state, so what? That would be the correct terminologly.  "IN the free state such and such" no one would say "in a free state such and such" because that would make no sense. 

As I say, I'm from the North, I know that the term is not generally used as an insult and people would use it in every day conversation.  Yes, it can be used as an insult depending on how it's said but generally it's not.  But clearly, you'd know better than me. 


Mainstreet, a lot of people, including myself wouldnt say the republic because I'll never accept anything other than a 32 county republic!

[Dont Matter]

I think it's true to say that we in the South should be ashamed of our lack of actions in the North of this country. I also think it's fair to say we deserted our Northern brothers and sisters.
Not only did we decide against military action in the North, we also failed to draw necessary attention to the situation there. The reason for this was self interest and cowardice.
Now it can be argued what result of military action by the Irish army in 1969 would be. It could of ended in many different ways, it mightn't even have ended yet but if the reasons given for the lack of action back then and now (ie. the whole country would be under British rule, we would of been squashed), then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
If we say that we couldn't invade and we say there was no-one we could get to help the Northern Nationalists then what did we expect them to do? Did we expect the British to help Surely an armed struggle was their only option.

[pintsofguinness]

Now it can be argued what result of military action by the Irish army in 1969 would be. It could of ended in many different ways, it mightn't even have ended yet but if the reasons given for the lack of action back then and now (ie. the whole country would be under British rule, we would of been squashed), then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?

Because they've their head stuck up britain's hole and because they're alright, it's easier to get on a high horse and preach to others when you're not in the situation and when the generations before you done the fighting for you. 

[Main Street]

Mainstreet, a lot of people, including myself wouldnt say the republic because I'll never accept anything other than a 32 county republic!

I don't use the term Republic much myself,
but even within the occasional reference of its use, one (like me) can accept the incompleteness of what is being referred to.

[Rossfan]

[Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.

And of course you omitted  to mention that the Soldiers were then put under the control of Stormont and were then used  against the Nationalist population ( Falls Curfew/one sided arms searches/Bloody Sunday ring any oul bells at all)

[Myles Na G.]

In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.

Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.

Just to dispel this myth - the provos never protected Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.

Complete and utter bollix, old chap.

Oh right. I must be wrong then. Thanks for clearing that up. 

[ardmhachaabu]

Orior, don't you know that Myles knows best.  He obviously knows all the major players of that time when he can say what he does so emphatically 

[pintsofguinness]

Doogie Browser summed up myles perfectly in two words, Forest Gump.

[ardmhachaabu]

Doogie Browser summed up myles perfectly in two words, Forest Gump.

[Myles Na G.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/northern_ireland/2001/provisional_ira/1969.stm
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=coldwar-imperialism/ira-dirty-war/british-agent-posing-as-IRA-networks-with-PLO.txt
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/britishtroops.php?index=060.170.040
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/analysis-ira-admitted-that-years-of-carnage-among-civilians-damaged-its-cause-648593.html

Just to save you looking for the relevant bit in that last quote (I'm kidding, POG! I know you don't like reading anything that contradicts your prejudices) I'll copy the relevant section:
'Those who are often most frequently remembered are the large number of civilians killed when major IRA operations "go wrong". These include the casualties of the Enniskillen bombing in 1987 and three members of a family – father, mother and child – who were killed in an IRA attempt to kill a judge.'
Protectors of the Catholic community my hole.

[Gnevin]

[Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.

And of course you omitted  to mention that the Soldiers were then put under the control of Stormont and were then used  against the Nationalist population ( Falls Curfew/one sided arms searches/Bloody Sunday ring any oul bells at all)

We all know what happened but the original point about the IRA not being protectors stands .

[pintsofguinness]

I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.

That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles. 

[Myles Na G.]

I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.

That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.

The point I'm making is that in the very early days of the troubles they failed to protect the Catholic community. Further, the people regarded them as failures and welcomed the arrival of British soldiers onto their streets. That fact may stick in the craw of republicans, but it's fact. The situation viv a vis the British Army changed over a matter of months, when they responded to a deteriorating security situation with a heavy handed and one sided clamp down in Catholic areas. That doesn't alter my original point, that the IRA didn't protect Catholic communities. Nor did they as the troubles continued. They failed to stop loyalist murders of  Catholics (their stated policy was they didn't want to get involved in a sectarian war) and continued to put the lives of the people in Catholic areas at risk with their 'operations' against the security forces.

[boojangles]

If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.

Why , what did the South African Province do?

You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.

Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.

Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.

What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?

Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.

So people in the 26 today should feel ashamed about what our Government did or didn't do as the case maybe for the Nationalist people in the six even though a lot of us were not even born at the time.  I'm not going to argue the point our Government did not do enough for the people in the north of Ireland but that last part of your post is nonsense Man in Black.

Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6

Its not something anybody in the South would be proud off and would be hard for anyone to admit but it is hard to disagree with alot of what the Man InBlack is saying.Im from Cavan and I was born in 1984.Its only in the last few years that I really have grown an interest in recent Irish history and in particular the North and the troubles.I have read a number of books detailing what went on in the Troubles.I have to say it always made me angry when it came to the way the Government in Dublin was so evasive of its responsibilities to try and represent and protect Nationalists in the north. Even when Sinn Fein was trying its best to get the Peace Process on the road Dail Eireann seemed to be doing its best to stop it.Like little pawns for Downing street.
The Irish Government couldn't even get it together to catch the perpetrators of the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan FFS.If they couldn't even protect their own State from attack,its no wonder they stood idly by when fellow countrymen were dying in the North.
But it has to be said that the Government in Dublin would have been alienated from the opinion of alot of people in the South at the time.

[pintsofguinness]

I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.

That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.

The point I'm making is that in the very early days of the troubles they failed to protect the Catholic community. Further, the people regarded them as failures and welcomed the arrival of British soldiers onto their streets. That fact may stick in the craw of republicans, but it's fact. The situation viv a vis the British Army changed over a matter of months, when they responded to a deteriorating security situation with a heavy handed and one sided clamp down in Catholic areas. That doesn't alter my original point, that the IRA didn't protect Catholic communities. Nor did they as the troubles continued. They failed to stop loyalist murders of  Catholics (their stated policy was they didn't want to get involved in a sectarian war) and continued to put the lives of the people in Catholic areas at risk with their 'operations' against the security forces.

Of course they did, catholics in republican strongholds were generally safe from Loyalist attacks.