• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Implications of The Treaty Being Rejected and 'Immediate and Terrible War?

Zach Dingle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
679
One really for hardline Republicans, if we went with the advice and wisdom of the anti-treatyites and faced a substantial escalation in aggression from the crown forces, in the war of independence, how would it have panned out?

I reckon a quicker extermination than the Tamil Tigers faced in the end and don't forget there wouldn't even have been the pretence of a UN Intervention to pretend to help civvillians.

Then again Ireland could be made ungovernable ala the strikes during the conscription crisis.

The role/help of Irish America would not be sufficient or at a level to help us.

Essentially, what did the losing side of the debate suggest we do?
 


RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,859
One really for hardline Republicans, if we went with the advice and wisdom of the anti-treatyites and faced a substantial escalation in aggression from the crown forces, in the war of independence, how would it have panned out?

I reckon a quicker extermination than the Tamil Tigers faced in the end and don't forget there wouldn't even have been the pretence of a UN Intervention to pretend to help civvillians.

Then again Ireland could be made ungovernable ala the strikes during the conscription crisis.

The role/help of Irish America would not be sufficient or at a level to help us.

Essentially, what did the losing side of the debate suggest we do?
The Brit's were happy the counter-revolutionaries took over, with their connivance.

One possible route may have been the renegotiation of the treaty to excise the oath to leech, er...'queen'.

The rebs would have been happy enough with that and would have been happy with the border commission WRT-NI.

I don't think your doomsday scenario would have come to pass, although one must note, it was the evil one himself, WC, who was pushing for total war against the people.

He really should have been shot long before then.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,233
Twitter
No
1. The Republic's high point in the USA was in 1920, but then our supporters boycotted the 1920 election, and so Harding got in.

1920 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Harding was not a supporter and nor were the dems, suddenly! No serious help from there in 1922.


2. Dev could have discussed a deal with Lloyd George in 1919 or 1920 but didn't. Having made a virtue of not relying on britain, (hint: Sinn Fein), he then went to London in July 1921 and was told what the deal would be, more or less. If you go to see the other side, you are the supplicant, psychologically speaking.


3. Our efforts to set up embassies in Paris, even the vatican, all failed. Nobody wanted to recognise us until we had a deal with the UK.

4. If the treaty had been rejected, and a new war, the UK costed it at £200m, so billions today, As Churchill himself said, it was not worth it unless the UK's survival was at stake, which was not the case.


So my bet is, if the treaty had been rejected, they would have started talks all over again in 1922. What was the hurry? 700 or 800 years couldn't be unwound in a month.

From the haggling point of view, we had nothing that the UK needed that they couldn't buy. With nothing to offer, we could get sovereignty if we signed. Like brexit, it was a deal on the table.

"Terrible and immediate war" was a bluff, and was not said to the whole Irish delegation, but only to Robert Barton. It became a handy excuse when the feathers started flying.
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,981
The real Dail Eireann rejected the July treaty in Aug which had the same threat of violence as the Dec treaty.

Part of the de Valera response to Lloyd George - "If our refusal to betray our nation's honour and the trust that has been reposed in us is to be made an issue of war by Great Britain, we deplore it. We are as conscious of our responsibilities to the living as we are mindful of principle or of our obligations to the heroic dead. We have not sought war, nor do we seek war, but if war be made upon us we must defend ourselves, and shall do so, confident that whether our defence be successful or unsuccessful no body of representative Irishmen or Irishwomen will ever propose to the nation the surrender of its birthright."

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT. Houses of the Oireachtas

Collins and Co obviously were aware of this - so for them and/or their Free State pom-pom wavers, to use the threat of violence as an excuse for the surrender in December, is bullsh1t.

Even the enemy brits said that the threat was a just a ploy.

 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,233
Twitter
No
Hindsight's a wonderful thing from the comfort of a 100 year old barstool

Of course, but it must have been obvious to all the TDs in January 1922 that the brits were not limbering up for an all-out war. There were still thousands of soldiers in Dublin, so it would have been very obvious.

Britain was no longer making any money out of us, so it's not as if a delay by a year would cost them. There were no crowds in the streets here calling for an all out war, just a few nutters like Mellowes and Miss McSwiney.

What was interesting in january 1922 was how "terrible and immediate war" became a get-out clause - we had been forced into signing at the point of a gun.

At the same time, we were celebrating how we had defeated an entire empire hands down.

You'll still see this lack of joined-up thinking today.
 

Fir Bolg

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
818
1. The Republic's high point in the USA was in 1920, but then our supporters boycotted the 1920 election, and so Harding got in.

1920 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Harding was not a supporter and nor were the dems, suddenly! No serious help from there in 1922.


2. Dev could have discussed a deal with Lloyd George in 1919 or 1920 but didn't. Having made a virtue of not relying on britain, (hint: Sinn Fein), he then went to London in July 1921 and was told what the deal would be, more or less. If you go to see the other side, you are the supplicant, psychologically speaking.


3. Our efforts to set up embassies in Paris, even the vatican, all failed. Nobody wanted to recognise us until we had a deal with the UK.

4. If the treaty had been rejected, and a new war, the UK costed it at £200m, so billions today, As Churchill himself said, it was not worth it unless the UK's survival was at stake, which was not the case.


So my bet is, if the treaty had been rejected, they would have started talks all over again in 1922. What was the hurry? 700 or 800 years couldn't be unwound in a month.

From the haggling point of view, we had nothing that the UK needed that they couldn't buy. With nothing to offer, we could get sovereignty if we signed. Like brexit, it was a deal on the table.

"Terrible and immediate war" was a bluff, and was not said to the whole Irish delegation, but only to Robert Barton. It became a handy excuse when the feathers started flying.
Robert Barton felt obliged to vote for the treaty because he had signed it. He subsequently took the republican side in the civil war.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,233
Twitter
No
Robert Barton felt obliged to vote for the treaty because he had signed it. He subsequently took the republican side in the civil war.

More joined-up thinking...
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,233
Twitter
No

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,474
1. The Republic's high point in the USA was in 1920, but then our supporters boycotted the 1920 election, and so Harding got in.

1920 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Harding was not a supporter and nor were the dems, suddenly! No serious help from there in 1922.


2. Dev could have discussed a deal with Lloyd George in 1919 or 1920 but didn't. Having made a virtue of not relying on britain, (hint: Sinn Fein), he then went to London in July 1921 and was told what the deal would be, more or less. If you go to see the other side, you are the supplicant, psychologically speaking.


3. Our efforts to set up embassies in Paris, even the vatican, all failed. Nobody wanted to recognise us until we had a deal with the UK.

4. If the treaty had been rejected, and a new war, the UK costed it at £200m, so billions today, As Churchill himself said, it was not worth it unless the UK's survival was at stake, which was not the case.


So my bet is, if the treaty had been rejected, they would have started talks all over again in 1922. What was the hurry? 700 or 800 years couldn't be unwound in a month.

From the haggling point of view, we had nothing that the UK needed that they couldn't buy. With nothing to offer, we could get sovereignty if we signed. Like brexit, it was a deal on the table.

"Terrible and immediate war" was a bluff, and was not said to the whole Irish delegation, but only to Robert Barton. It became a handy excuse when the feathers started flying.
A member of the British team said "If we lose Ireland We lose the Empire" That was the mind set.
Collins knew the mood of the people. And he and the others would have being hanged from lamp posts if they caused war against the Irish people by misjudging the Brit bottom line.
PS, All this what if is fun.
I'd say talk back will be cut and pasting like a lunatic what he comes round
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
One really for hardline Republicans, if we went with the advice and wisdom of the anti-treatyites and faced a substantial escalation in aggression from the crown forces, in the war of independence, how would it have panned out?

I reckon a quicker extermination than the Tamil Tigers faced in the end and don't forget there wouldn't even have been the pretence of a UN Intervention to pretend to help civvillians.

Then again Ireland could be made ungovernable ala the strikes during the conscription crisis.

The role/help of Irish America would not be sufficient or at a level to help us.

Essentially, what did the losing side of the debate suggest we do?
The 'losing' side did end up in power shortly thereafter and achieved full independence for the 26 counties. What would happen if the EU send over an army, annex London, go to war with the Brexiter militia and impose an oath of allegiance to Barnier?
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,233
Twitter
No
To be fair to Dev, he had allowed for such a terrible war in August 1921, months before the treaty. He warned the Dail that it could be like Sherman's march of 1864 across the CSA.

But the practical question is at the moment brute force and they should realise that the moment England thought she was in danger of losing Ireland, a thing she considered particularly precious to her, she would face the world's odium to crush Ireland to the earth.

In the Southern States of America there were many who still held on to the cause of the South and they well remembered Sherman's march. But there was no use facing war again unless they in Ireland were prepared for a Sherman's march. They should not come to a decision without realising what the position was.


DISCUSSION ON PEACE NEGOTIATIONS Houses of the Oireachtas


But, it's not like we had 10 goldmines in the country, so britain was happy for us to have home rule in 1920, and then happy to offer dominion status in 1921.

The only guys talking about fighting on were the ones that were easily wound up. There was no margin in it for either side.
 

freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,295
It was reported that Churchill had some madcap idea of mass concentration camps across Ireland
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
One really for hardline Republicans, if we went with the advice and wisdom of the anti-treatyites and faced a substantial escalation in aggression from the crown forces, in the war of independence, how would it have panned out?

I reckon a quicker extermination than the Tamil Tigers faced in the end and don't forget there wouldn't even have been the pretence of a UN Intervention to pretend to help civvillians.

Then again Ireland could be made ungovernable ala the strikes during the conscription crisis.

The role/help of Irish America would not be sufficient or at a level to help us.

Essentially, what did the losing side of the debate suggest we do?
How do you know that ? Britain on it's knees economically was highly dependent on trade with America and cosying up to the States for international influence. Along with political pressure the major unions such as the dockers, teamsters etc were refusing to handle British goods crippling trade with war worn Britain. OP is a strawman formed on a fallacy. And indeed in fairness it was unpopular with the WW1 weary general British public and events such as the 1918 election, death of Terrence McSweeney on hunger strike, reports of burnings, murders and looting by the British army, pogroms in Belfast and the north east etc
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,981
A member of the British team said "If we lose Ireland We lose the Empire" That was the mind set.
Collins knew the mood of the people. And he and the others would have being hanged from lamp posts if they caused war against the Irish people by misjudging the Brit bottom line.
PS, All this what if is fun.
I'd say talk back will be cut and pasting like a lunatic what he comes round
You clearly don't know what you are posting about - your ignorance on the subject is only misleading people.

Accepting the text of the treaty was not Collins's and Co's. decision to make without clearing it with the Cabinet first.

What do you know about the mood of the people before the surrender in December??? The real Dail Eireann had already rejected the July treaty in Aug which had the same threat of violence as the Dec treaty.

Read post 5 and read below and learn.

 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top