|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 16, 2017 0:14:25 GMT
It's not totally clear why he wasn't shot - the story that he wasn't because he was an American citizen (which he was) is plausible, but not confirmed. More likely he wasn't shot because his 'turn' was at the end of rota and by then the Authorities had realized they had made a mistake.
Either way, I wouldn't read too much into his leadership of the post-rising Sinn Fein. This was a truly big tent organization and he was chosen essentially as a kind of influential figurehead due to his rising connections and his young age. If not him, someone else would have taken that role and likely would have just been just as successful at least up to the 1918 General Election. His American connections helped him due to fund raising, but he was not a hands-on party leader at this stage. That would come later. As for the achievement of Irish independence, Michael Collins is clearly the most important figure. *However*, after 1921, a no-Dev timeline changes a lot of things, although many not as much as one may think. Perhaps in this timeline, Sean McEntee becomes Ireland's never ending Republican Taoiseach from the 30s onwards...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 16, 2017 15:41:43 GMT
No, Dominion status is what the Irish Free State had between 1922 and 1937. It was not popular and for that reason was dismantled fairly quickly, although it took WW2 for the authorities in Westminster to realize this. Also, you will note, that Ireland was still partitioned under dominion status. In practice there was no non-violent way for partition to be avoided once the British authorities had accepted the principle (and forcing the whole of Ulster into any sort of Dublin led parliament would 100% have led to violence, as everything from 1912-1914 demonstrated).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 12:07:55 GMT
Without Dev there may have been no Civil War. I think Mick was overwhelmingly the dominant figure on the Nationalist side and many would not have had the guts to oppose him. Dev was a spoiler and didn't particularly like the attention that Collins got. Besides the British had a grudging respect for Collins that they didn't have for Dev. Almost has parallels with modern day in that McGuinness was far more feared and respected than Adams. Dev just confused people, Collins was much more straight forward and easier to negotiate with. Collins would have dominated politics in Ireland in the same way Dev did but he would have been more progressive and got on better with Churchill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 12:12:20 GMT
No, Dominion status is what the Irish Free State had between 1922 and 1937. It was not popular and for that reason was dismantled fairly quickly, although it took WW2 for the authorities in Westminster to realize this. Also, you will note, that Ireland was still partitioned under dominion status. In practice there was no non-violent way for partition to be avoided once the British authorities had accepted the principle (and forcing the whole of Ulster into any sort of Dublin led parliament would 100% have led to violence, as everything from 1912-1914 demonstrated). I think the 1937 constitution made Ireland in fact a republic. After 1937 the role of the British Crown was invisible. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2017 13:02:28 GMT
I think the 1937 constitution made Ireland in fact a republic. After 1937 the role of the British Crown was invisible. It's an interesting point. Ireland was engaging in salami slicing tactics in order to sever any remaining control by the UK (which was in theory still in charge of a lot after the 1922 treaty). In practice there wasn't really anything the UK could do, but it was still wise to try to avoid a confrontation. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave it the justification and enough legal justification. So they slowly moved to remove the Oath to the King, remove legal appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, abolish the office of Governor-General, and so on. None of these would individually be enough for the UK to cause problems. Then it was possible to enact the 1937 Constitution which asserted that Ireland was a sovereign, independent nation. But the constitution was not explicitly republican; it didn't mention the King. The Irish simply bypassed anything that under the 1922 settlement formally required Royal assent. Suddenly in 1948 the new Taoiseach John Costello announced that Ireland was going to declare itself a Republic, and that it had in practice been one since 1937. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 18:06:42 GMT
Every skillful step of this was a step away from a United Ireland. Now, with the power and status of the One True Church diminished, and with the nominally Protestant Community of the three counties in reality largely secular, unity is possible if anyone still harbours that ambition. Does anyone care? It will happen but it will be such a peaceful event that many may look back to the troubles and even to the events of 1921-22 and ask themselves was all the bloodshed worth it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 18:24:13 GMT
Even now it's not remotely clear what precise legal status the Monarchy had in Ireland between 1937 and 1948. Ireland was not formally a republic and was still a member of the Commonwealth (the declaration of the Republic being a declaration of intent to leave the Commonwealth), however for all essential purposes the Monarchy and the British state had no real legal role in Ireland following the 1937 constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 18:25:37 GMT
Without Dev there may have been no Civil War. I think Mick was overwhelmingly the dominant figure on the Nationalist side and many would not have had the guts to oppose him. Dev was a spoiler and didn't particularly like the attention that Collins got. Besides the British had a grudging respect for Collins that they didn't have for Dev. Almost has parallels with modern day in that McGuinness was far more feared and respected than Adams. Dev just confused people, Collins was much more straight forward and easier to negotiate with. Collins would have dominated politics in Ireland in the same way Dev did but he would have been more progressive and got on better with Churchill. Strongly disagree with this, the treaty would have been deeply contentious no matter what and it's not as if Dev actually really controlled most of the irregular forces - or that he was the only major Sinn Fein politician to oppose it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 18:28:29 GMT
Every skillful step of this was a step away from a United Ireland. Now, with the power and status of the One True Church diminished, and with the nominally Protestant Community of the three counties in reality largely secular, unity is possible if anyone still harbours that ambition. Does anyone care? It will happen but it will be such a peaceful event that many may look back to the troubles and even to the events of 1921-22 and ask themselves was all the bloodshed worth it? You sweet, sweet naive child |
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 18:29:23 GMT
Also I would hardly call a large segment of the Northern Protestant Population 'secular' tbqh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 18:45:25 GMT
It will happen but it will be such a peaceful event that many may look back to the troubles and even to the events of 1921-22 and ask themselves was all the bloodshed worth it? You sweet, sweet naive child Presumably you approve of bloodshed, the more the merrier? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 18:57:57 GMT
Without Dev there may have been no Civil War. I think Mick was overwhelmingly the dominant figure on the Nationalist side and many would not have had the guts to oppose him. Dev was a spoiler and didn't particularly like the attention that Collins got. Besides the British had a grudging respect for Collins that they didn't have for Dev. Almost has parallels with modern day in that McGuinness was far more feared and respected than Adams. Dev just confused people, Collins was much more straight forward and easier to negotiate with. Collins would have dominated politics in Ireland in the same way Dev did but he would have been more progressive and got on better with Churchill. Strongly disagree with this, the treaty would have been deeply contentious no matter what and it's not as if Dev actually really controlled most of the irregular forces - or that he was the only major Sinn Fein politician to oppose it. Dev was the undisputed leader of the Anti-treaty party he could (and later did) face up to remaining IRA stalwarts. Had he survived Collins would have done the same. Dev knew very well how close the IRA had been to collapse in 1921. Collins knew that the time was right for a truce because he was a realist Dev was not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 19:04:00 GMT
You sweet, sweet naive child Presumably you approve of bloodshed, the more the merrier? I don't, but I don't see how a United Ireland is going to happen without it. Which makes it undesirable. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 19:10:03 GMT
Strongly disagree with this, the treaty would have been deeply contentious no matter what and it's not as if Dev actually really controlled most of the irregular forces - or that he was the only major Sinn Fein politician to oppose it. Dev was the undisputed leader of the Anti-treaty party he could (and later did) face up to remaining IRA stalwarts. Had he survived Collins would have done the same. Dev knew very well how close the IRA had been to collapse in 1921. Collins knew that the time was right for a truce because he was a realist Dev was not. No, this version of history over exaggerates the influence Dev had on the irregulars. After all, Dev was leader of Sinn Fein but not the IRA. They had several head figures some of whom, like Collins o/c, supported the treaty and others like Liam Lynch and Rory O'Connor who did not. Dev was the political leader of this faction but he did not control them and they often acted on their volition. It's possible that without Dev the political leadership of the irregulars would have been even more incoherent than otherwise and would have been marginal electorally than it was in reality, but at the very least it is hard to see how this avoids the Siege of the Four Courts and the Battle of Dublin. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 19:10:09 GMT
Presumably you approve of bloodshed, the more the merrier? I don't, but I don't see how a United Ireland is going to happen without it. Which makes it undesirable. You take it as a given, nothing in life is guaranteed. Nobody thought the Good Friday agreement would happen but it did. No it will and it will be a peaceful reunion in spite of the wolves... |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jul 18, 2017 19:18:49 GMT
Right because the UVF and UDA would totally take unification well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Jul 18, 2017 19:41:05 GMT
*Extremely Gerry Adams voice* They haven't gone away, you know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:37:59 GMT
Dev was the undisputed leader of the Anti-treaty party he could (and later did) face up to remaining IRA stalwarts. Had he survived Collins would have done the same. Dev knew very well how close the IRA had been to collapse in 1921. Collins knew that the time was right for a truce because he was a realist Dev was not. No, this version of history over exaggerates the influence Dev had on the irregulars. After all, Dev was leader of Sinn Fein but not the IRA. They had several head figures some of whom, like Collins o/c, supported the treaty and others like Liam Lynch and Rory O'Connor who did not. Dev was the political leader of this faction but he did not control them and they often acted on their volition. It's possible that without Dev the political leadership of the irregulars would have been even more incoherent than otherwise and would have been marginal electorally than it was in reality, but at the very least it is hard to see how this avoids the Siege of the Four Courts and the Battle of Dublin. Liam Lynch and Rory O'Connor were encouraged by Dev's Anti-Treaty position to take the Four Courts, without him I doubt very much they would have carried out such a stupid move. Fighting the British was one thing, but fighting your own people however much you disagreed with them was another matter. That operation was even more badly planned and conducted than the taking of the GPO. Perhaps that is why the civil war in 1922-23 was so short because Irishmen generally were sick of the violence. I think with Collins alive and Dev dead Anti-Treaty activities could have been suppressed more quickly with little or no bloodshed. Remember the people who wanted the Four Courts taken the most were the British Government, which pushed Collins into doing something he didn't want to do. Dev could have used his influence to prevent this if he had wanted to but he didn't.
The telling point is, that in 1922 the bulk of the old IRA stayed loyal to the Provisional Irish Government, those under Dev, Rory O'Connor were the minority and were bound to remain so. You also say Dev had no influence on the irregulars, well yes and no. Obviously in a guerilla campaign the degree of control of forces in the field is irregular, however Dev certainly had enough control over them to order the disastrous assault on the Custom House in Dublin not long before the truce. Collins didn't want it to happen because he was certain they would get beat and they were, badly. Dev's military strategic thinking (and political foresight) was always a bit dubious. Yes he was in Dublin at Easter 1916 at Boland's Mill, and he did fight courageously but I believe but there were some of his compatriots who thought he was just a bit off his head during that week. Collins on the other hand a much firmer grasp on how to conduct a guerilla war, hamstrung however by Dev.
Without Dev, who I have never found a particularly likeable character, Collins was more than a measure to the British and I believe he would have found a way to get an Irish Republic which didn't involve massive amounts of blood being spilled. Collins is rightly more regarded as a positive influence today than he was in 1922, and De Valera has rightly been reappraised as less influential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 0:26:35 GMT
Given that the Anglo Irish treaty created a political split which endures to this day, it is hard to accept the notion of de Valera as an anti treaty pied piper. He was clearly opportunistic and duplicitous in his positioning but anti-treatyism reflected a genuine and widespread (if not majority) sentiment that the treaty was a betrayal of the revolution.
As for Collins, surely his biggest punishment was not to be shot dead in Cork but to have his legacy claimed by the mediocre Fine Gael and latterly by awful hacks like Leo Varadkar. Maybe he would have made something better had he lived, but given the feebleness of the movement without him he would have had to do a lot of personal heavy lifting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 0:55:17 GMT
Given that the Anglo Irish treaty created a political split which endures to this day, it is hard to accept the notion of de Valera as an anti treaty pied piper. He was clearly opportunistic and duplicitous in his positioning but anti-treatyism reflected a genuine and widespread (if not majority) sentiment that the treaty was a betrayal of the revolution. As for Collins, surely his biggest punishment was not to be shot dead in Cork but to have his legacy claimed by the mediocre Fine Gael and latterly by awful hacks like Leo Varadkar. Maybe he would have made something better had he lived, but given the feebleness of the movement without him he would have had to do a lot of personal heavy lifting. There is also the well-known phenomenon of dead leaders being exalted and obtaining a mythical character. Collins was a gifted guerilla leader and had sound political instincts, but there is no guarantee he would have developed into a great statesman (in fact its rather unlikely). As so often the myth clouds the man. |
|
