>>18387517The Irish Free State wanted to kiss the ass of the British Crown. The IRA were the true patriots.
>>18387517The republicans were right on principle but siding with De Valera over Collins is retarded
>In protest at the approval of the Treaty, de Valera led his followers out of the assembly. They were followed by cacophony of abuse by pro-Treaty leader Michael Collins; ‘Deserters all!.. Deserters to the Irish nation in her hour of need!’>Anti-Treaty TDs responded in kind: ‘Up the Republic’ shouted David Kent of Cork. ‘Oath breakers and cowards’ tossed back Constance Markievicz at Collins. ‘Foreigners! Americans, English!’ yelled back Collins in reference to the birthplaces of Eamon de Valera and Erskine Childers. His colleague Arthur Griffith also called Childers ‘a damn Englishman’ and refused to respond to his questions.
>who was in the rightAnti-Treaty for sure, but they weren't really very realistic. Pro-Treaty wasn't too bad until Collins died, then they became lunatics.>>18388047This. All signs pointed to an early end of the civil war and a much stronger unity of the party, which would have prevented the horrendous shit in the north. But then Collins died and the Anglophile faction took over. People also seem to think Dev had any sway over the IRA which is hilarious because he spent 1919-1922 trying to reel them in and then suddenly LARPed as some great commandant when in reality they only listened to their own.>>18388085>Anti-Treaty IRAThe IRA was almost entirely anti-treaty, between 70% and 80% of them opposed it.>they were retards for caring about the northbasically everyone involved (including the 1st Prime Minister of the North) believed that unification was coming within a few decades, maximum. Most of the horrible shit that transpired in Northern Ireland was only able to happen because the Pro-Treaty faction of Sinn Féin (later Cumann na nGaedheal) didn't give a fuck about it once they got a taste of power.>served as a stepping stone Stepping stone argument was worthless once Collins died. The vast majority of people who actually did any fighting opposed the Treaty.It's one thing to take a pragmatic approach to the situation, which is what the likes of Collins did. It's another alltogether to paint the "Anti-Treaty IRA" as retarded cowards; the IRA are the reason that the comfortable politicians in Sinn Féin had any say whatsoever in their future.
>>18387517The Brits (once again).Ireland's silly attempts to become a nation end in nothing but bloodshed and betrayal.
>>18388110>Wasn't the National Army of the Free State initially comprised of ex-IRA men thoughOnly a few.At the IRA's Army Convention in March 1922, the vast majority opposed it. Most of those who supported it were either>loyal to CollinsBelieving in the sincerity (and feasability) of his whole "freedom to achieve freedom" thing. He commanded extremely fierce loyalty.>in the northWhich also sort of falls under the above; many in the north weren't totally opposed to an initial divide, as they were under the impression that it absolutely wouldn't be permanent and that a cohesive Irish Republican bloc was necessary in the north.But between 70% and 80% of the IRA opposed it. At the start of the Civil War, the IRA dwarfed the National Army. Part of the reason you can read about such utterly insane atrocities against the IRA in the war (such as landmines being tied to them as soldiers called them "Irish Bastards") is the fact that so many in the National Army were ex-military or ex-police and had enormous hostility towards Republicans.>>18388113>The Brits (once again).Britain didn't really do anything right in the entire conflict. If you think they'd have been right to crush the rebellion, they were shit at it. If you think they were right to try be a moderate voice and end the wave of violence, they were shit at that too.You can see a moment (shortly after Ormonde Winter overhauls their intelligence front) when the British side basically realise that they have completely fucked it, at which point they shift into damage control. If they had suppressed the retarded Ulster Unionist rebels in 1912/1913 all of Ireland would probably still have been in the UK until after WW2 at the absolute earliest.
Did the IRA have an actual ideology they were fighting for? How different was it to what was implemented when they lost? Since everyone started off fighting for the same thing
>>18387517Pro treaty forces. If the anti-treaty IRA won it would've completely destabilised the Irish state and caused a much worse conflict with Britain.
>>18387800>The true patriots were far left Marxist retards
>>18388550>Did the IRA have an actual ideology they were fighting for?Communism
>>18388550>Did the IRA have an actual ideology they were fighting forYes, they did. It began loosely as the 1916 Proclamation from the Easter Rising, which was basically:>Independent Republic>Religious and Civil Liberty, Equal Rights>Universal Suffrage>Reference to "the ownership of Ireland being a right of the people of Ireland"Later they technically were bound by the 1st Dáil Éireann which (via the Democratic Programme and Dáil Constitution), but since the Dáil ratified the 1916 Proclamation anyway all that stuff stayed in place. Some of the loopier stuff lumped into the Democratic Programme by the Labour Party probably wasn't of much interest to the IRA.The Irish Free State was much more conservative; it was an alliance of Anglophiles (like the Redmondites and Southern Unionists) and Conservative Nationalists (Irish Parliamentary Party, Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin). They really forged into a cohesive group during the Civil War after Collins died, when an extreme hostility to Republicans (and therefore, the IRA) developed and which still exists to this day.>>18388567>>18388569The IRA of this period were not communist. The actual communists (such as the Irish Citizen Army) established dozens of communes across Ireland during the War of Independence, and businesses would even call the IRA to deal with militant socialists pestering them.
>>18388567The IRA split into a bajillion different factions. The commie ones didn't exist until the 70’s-80’s
>>18388759>The IRA of this period were not communist.The anti-treaty IRA was. They wanted a unified, socialist Ireland.>>18388785Anti-treaty IRA were communist.
>>18388916They were left wing nationalists aka based
History proved Collins completely right about the whole "Freedom to achieve freedom" strategy, as it wasn't even 15 years before independent Ireland became a fact. The Free State was always just a charade to allow the English pull out without being too humiliated. By starting the war the rebels did nothing but dig Ireland into a hole it took till the 1990's to dig itself out of.
>>18388916>The anti-treaty IRA wasThe "Anti-Treaty IRA" was almost all of the IRA, and they weren't really socialist. As early as 1921, businesses and landowners were calling in the IRA to deal with socialist activity or other far-left agitation, and the ICA believed they'd have to fight the IRA to get a socialist Republic.The shift to socialism in the IRA didn't until after WW2.>>18389015>History proved Collins completely right about the whole "Freedom to achieve freedom" strategyExcept that didn't happen. Collins categorically would not have abandoned the north, and absolutely wouldn't have allowed the Unionist power grab to happen.The work to "Republicanise" the Free State was mostly done by Fianna Fáil, not by Cumann na nGaedheal/Fine Gael-both of which claim Collins as one of their own for some reason.>just a charade to allow the English pull out without being too humiliatedThat's an incredibly optimistic spin on the whole "your nation is dissolved, rebellion entirely suppressed, and you remain a Dominion of the Empire indefinitely. >rebels did nothing but dig Ireland into a hole it took till the 1990's to dig itself out ofThe "rebels" being the vast majority of people who did any fighting, aka the only reason there was any question of Irish independence at all. Do not mistake the regime that arrived post civil war as the one that was in place when it started.
>more sway than anyone over the IRA>respected (well, hated but respected) by the british government>able and willing to run defence against the ulster unionists in the north>held the admiration/respect of both radicals and the conservative nationalistsIt's rare for history to come down to 1 person but Collins really is an example of it being true. Genuinely nobody else in Ireland came close to him at the time, and it happened largely by accident. He didn't plan to run the War of Independence, its just what ended up happening. He didn't plan to become de-facto leader of the Government, it's just what happened. We are in the worst timeline.
>>18388567Just like Vietnam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTrGDyGgOw
>>18389161It's impossible to be both patriotic and marxist
>>18389092>The "Anti-Treaty IRA" was almost all of the IRANo it wasn't >and they weren't really socialistYes they were
>>18388936Go back to r*ddit
>>18389239>No it wasn't Yes, it was. The vast majority (over 70%) of the IRA opposed the Treaty.>Yes they were [socialist]Citation needed.
Posting some new or relevant Rob Cross Photos. Cross is a guy who "colourises" lots of old Irish photos, but only when he feels it can be done accurately. Big contributor to the "Old Ireland in Colour" series. Here's a photo of Michael Collins giving an address in March 1922.
Funeral of Michael Collins, August 28 1922.
>>18387517The English, as always.
Collins exiting a car, accompanied by Joe O'Reilly.O'Reilly was Collins' bodyguard and is very overlooked.>comes from cork, emigrated to London>met Collins whilst they both worked in London, both returned home as close friends>becomes his closest ally; most new entrees to the IRA's upper ranks have to go through O'Reilly first>O'Reilly also tasked with dealing with internal threats and spies>Last time he saw Collins was as they shared a cup of tea immediately prior to Collins departing on the journey that killed him-one of the few times O'Reilly was not with him.
Irish Blueshirts, a fascist militia that formed in the 1930s. This photo from 1934.
Auxiliaries with IRA prisoners in Dublin.Whatever your thoughts on the period, there were some very cool uniforms.
>>18389567Don't forget he was the actual youngest general of the period in europe, younger than Franco
>>18389159>We are in the worst timeline.Yeah, the fact that out of all the heroes and romantic leaders of Irish nationalism, this goblin is the one that survived and took over is just tragic. Maybe the blood sacrifice of 1916 went a bit too far, and they should have kept Pearse or Connelly or someone behind to carry the torch afterwards
>>18390441>should have kept Pearse or Connelly or someone behind to carry the torch afterwardsThere was actually a lot of talent remaining that was wiped out during the Civil War. It's maddening when you dive into it. Erskine Childers a perfect example>talented politician and popular leader>moderate, but not a conservative>anti-treaty, but not some sort of unrealistic radical (was aware concessions to Britain would be required at some stage)>respected in Britain and by US LobbiesIt was clear that he was a very well respected and very talented prominent Republican politician. So Kevin O'Higgins, that bald faggot, did the following:>falsely claim Childers started the civil war>falsely accuse him of being the leader of the anti-treaty side>couldn't touch him because Collins liked him>Collins suddenly dead>Childers caught, hurridly captured and executed for his possession of a pistol (the pistol was a gift from Collins)>his lawyer's appeal was ignored, Childers was executed before it was even heard by the courtThere are a tonne of executions just like that. As soon as Collins died, you can see a bunch of Free State goons emerge from relatively moderate positions to become ruthlessly bloodthirsty. Kevin O'Higgins quite literally would randomly pick from Republican prisoners and have them executed as reprisal for any losses in the civil war, or simply if they represented a threat to the political order. Richard Barrett, for example, was pulled from his bed one morning and told he was to be executed for the death of Seán Hales-despite the fact that Barrett was a childhood friend of Hales. He was excuted alongside Rory O'Connor, who was O'Higgins' best man at his wedding just months prior.I don't think most "pro-treaty" people are aware just how insane the government became after Collins died, they would have made the Black and Tans blush with their executions.
>>18387517me
>try to run an insurgency against a government founded by your fellow rebels>every man and his dog in that government knows your sympathizers, tactics, hideouts, weapons caches etcUnironically the dumbest insurgency of all time
>>18390473>try to run an insurgency against a government founded by your fellow rebels*Founded by a slim majority of politicians on threat of massive military escalation from Britain if they said no. The vast majority of actual rebels opposed it.>it was a dumb ideaYes, and people said that about 1916 and 1919 too. When Soloheadbeg happened, several prominent members of the Dáil (including those who would be pro-treaty down the line) condemned it and worried that the IRA's troublesome guerrilla tactics were going to ruin them all over a war they "couldn't win."The IRA's plan for the Civil War was not>lets kill all our former comrades!it was>let's call Britain's bluff and try provoke an attackWhilst the leaders worked to try and broker a reunification of the IRA+Sinn Féin behind the scenes. Their main mistake was believing that their former comrades wouldn't start executing them en masse whilst suppressing their political allies the second Michael Collins died. If you had asked someone in 1919 if shooting some Irish Catholics in the RIC was the way to start the revolution, they'd have called you a lunatic.
>>18388566britain wanted to leave, they were sick of fighting and nobody in the actual island of britain gave a fuck about ireland beyond it being a shield against foreign powers.I think it's quite likely if anti treaty came on top or indeed there wasn't a civilwar but a continuous front against britain (britain needed the freestate who knew the tactics locations networks, etc etc of the rebels to beat them, britain couldn't drag it out any longer).Britain basically got the best possible option Ireland went from a nightmare they could never hold to a slavishly devoted south and a rhodesia-like loyal north.If the antitreaty or whatever succeeded Britain is likely to pull out with the agreement they get the treaty ports/bases for their security and abandon the rest of Ireland to have another blooy crisis cicil/racewar with the orange/ulster protestants.I'd imagine that without the drain that was tard wrangling ulster Britain would keep the treaty ports to this day. I can't imagine even a post churchill labor giving them to ireland
>>18390476The pro-Treaty side was in a fight for survival, its obvious that they would be much more brutal about it >>18390476>Their main mistake was believing that their former comrades wouldn't start executing them en masse whilst suppressing their political allies the second Michael Collins diedThen they were idiots. Wasn't it Collins himself that gloated they were only a couple weeks away from running out of arms and the bongs could've just run out the clock if they had the stones for
>>18390483>The pro-Treaty side was in a fight for survivalNo, they weren't. They were bankrolled and supplied by Britain to do basically whatever was necessary to flatten the IRA. They actually had to turn down some of the military support that was on offer as it'd have been so destructive.>it's obvious that they would be much more brutal about itI don't think arbitrarily executing anyone who poses even a slight risk to the government is necessary, and very obviously made the civil war into a far deeper wound than it needed to be.Obviously they can't just let the IRA run amok, but it was the worst kept secret in history that even the likes of Liam Lynch were ready for peace.>Then they were idiots.I think that's ridiculous. They can't have expected it to have gone this way; they fully expected to be potentially arrested and imprisoned, but not executed en masse. Should Richard Barrett have expected to have been executed with a few hours for the death of Seán Hales, whom he fought alongside in the War of Independence? Barrett played no role in Hales' death-he was selected because O'Higgins wanted him dead.>Wasn't it Collins himself that gloated Collins was not only trying to mend the rift but was also running interference against the Ulster Unionists while also trying to keep Britain onside, as their looming threat of massive escalation remained.I completely understand the "Pro-Treaty" position, I absolutely empathise with the people who followed Collins back then. I do not have any empathy or time for the post-Collins regime which took a more hardline approach to the IRA than the British did, and abandoned the north. I think people who do either don't know much about it or for some weird reason get insecure about it being the ROI's origins.
>>18390482>f anti treaty came on top or indeed there wasn't a civilwarMost likely alternative outcome isn't a "win" for either side, just an end to the war. The IRA could absolutely have been convinced to down arms, and steps were being taken on both sides to bring this about; remember there was a bloc in the IRA of "neutrals" who opposed the Treaty but who also opposed the Civil War.Remember that in this scenaio the Unionist power grab in NI probably never happens, and the outcome expected (even by the NI Unionists) of Ireland reunifying within a few decades would have been much more likely. Can't be overstated how ruinous the post-Collins government was for Ireland, north or south.
>>18388567Why did they trade with the nazis then?
>>18389235>anti immigration by defaultwhatever you say globohomo
>>18389244>The vast majority (over 70%) of the IRA opposed the Treaty.IRA was split on the treaty. If an overwhelming majority opposed it it wouldn't have been accepted.>Citation needed.Anti-treaty IRA made it clear they wanted a united, socialist Ireland.
>>18389561>Irish decide to kill each other>This is somehow England's fault
>>18389569Actual Irish nationalists, unlike sinn fein commies who care more about BLM and Palestine than the Irish people.
>>18390933What's your point?
>>18390952Commies push for mass migration.
Guess who considers themselves french british
>>18391447>Actual Irish nationalists, unlike sinn fein commies Well yes anon, a Blackshirt inspired party from the 1930s/1940s during a huge anti-leftist wave in Ireland is probably going to be more conservative than Sinn Féin is today.Sinn Féin at the time of the Blueshirts was in decline; their continued boycotting of elections and the Dáil and the huge suppression of their party+people by the Government had done them no favours.When the IRA took a swing to the right in the late 1940s (3 Macs Era) they all rejoined Sinn Féin to basically take over the party; this dynamic of the IRA controlling Sinn Féin (instead of the opposite) remained the case until the 1980s. So for a time Sinn Féin also advocated for corporatism, inspired by Portugal's government-they rejected fascism because they didn't believe it was workable for Ireland (and that it was too secular) and the party slowly started recovering.But then Mac Giolla became President in the early 1960s and the party swung heavily to the left-and it was in 1969 that many of the rank and file (particularly in NI) decided enough was enough and broke away to reject the Marxist leadership and join the Provos. Whatever Sinn Féin is today, they were very different in the past. I'd say even as late as the 1980s they were a radically different party to the one that emerged from the end of the Troubles.
It was just an all around tragedy. What should have been a triumphant moment for the Irish turned into a huge mess that left a lot of bitterness and resulted in so many subsequent problems. RIP Michael Collins.
>>18393352its sort of fate for Ireland to come so close to something good only to have it snatched away
