1916

[Buran]

I want to ask a question here, but i want to make it clear, im not trying to wind people up. I genuinely want to get the opinions of the military people here, who tend to be a bit more level headed and might give a more considered response.

Anyway, if anyone has been listening to dunphy this week, he has had a lot of handwringers on talking about whether the rebellion in 1916 was a good or a bad thing. Now im far from a dunphy supporter but some interesting points were raised.

So my question is...

What was the fundamental difference between the rebels in 1916 and the IRA in the 70s and 80s?

.... let the flames begin

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
You're not asking for much, are you?!!  My grandfather was in the Old IRA and he and his old colleagues hated the "modern" IRA, because of their indiscriminate nature.Not withstanding the fact that the Old IRA did engage in indiscriminate acts, such as the burning of Protestant homes, he and his kind hated the new lot with a passion.he regarded them as little more than guttersnipes(his word) and criminals and had zero sympathy for them.
regards
GttC

[Fouga]

There is huge respect for the OLD IRA and there always was, but not the new ones from when the troubles started and so it shall remain that way i hope.

[FiSe]

Buran, my answer would be oversimplistic, perhaps, and I don't want to upset anybody by this...

The fundametal differences between 1916 men, rebels, or whatever and  post treaty IRA is: those people from GPO wore uniforms, not all of them, but at least they tried to be an "army".
Next thing is, they, by my opinion, didn't fight the Brits, because of "their religion", but because as it happened, Ireland was under British rule...
And one more thing, mafia style terrorist organisation and idealists of Easter Rising are two completly different things...

[Guinness]

To my opinion FiSe has a point here.

In 1916 it was all about 1 thing.... to get rid of the Brittish occupation.

This was the start of the IRB and later the IRA as well.
Via strange way's ( and partly "thanks" to the Dutch) it became a story of religion between the Catholics and the Protestants.

I don't want to stirr-up things but I never understood why the 6 Northern Counties never got back to the Republic in 1921.
What was the exact reason that Michael Collins couldn't arrange that?
I think that is the start of the "modern troubles" in the first place or is that a misunderstanding?

Interesting forum this is with a wee bit of history !

Guinness

[Buran]

Thanks for the responses.
Here are some counter points:

Quote

There is huge respect for the OLD IRA and there always was, but not the new ones from when the troubles started and so it shall remain that way i hope.

At the time of the 1916 rising, they did NOT have the popular support of the people, it was only after the executions that support rose. I remember something about that easter weekend, there was some sort of rememberance being held for the irish that had died in WW1, and the wives and families that were grieving were very upset that the event was taken over by the rising and not given the respect it deserved.

Quote

those people from GPO wore uniforms, not all of them, but at least they tried to be an "army".

i know i said 1916, but if you take into account the war of independance, then you cant really say that. Isn't Collins credited with the creation of Geurrilla warfare?

Quote

mafia style terrorist organisation and idealists of Easter Rising are two completly different things

I agree, but at the start of the Troubles, they were very much idealists. The mafia stuff didnt come about til later.

Quote

I don't want to stirr-up things but I never understood why the 6 Northern Counties never got back to the Republic in 1921. What was the exact reason that Michael Collins couldn't arrange that?

There was a negotiation, and he would have liked to get the 32 counties, but i guess it wasnt possible. The 6 counties had a "majority" of unionists and so the british would not give them up and abandon their subjects. Part of the agreement had provisions to create a "Border Commission" which was going to redraw the boundaries of the 6 counties to incorporate more of the nationalist areas into the 26 counties (around derry etc). When this happened it was supposed to leave "hardly much at all" left in the 6 counties. But they couldn't agree and decided to leave the existing border.
(Note this is all from a very dodgy memory so i cant quote sources)
DeValera was supposed to be the great negotiator but he never went to england to negotiate the treaty, supposedly because he "knew" that it wouldnt be possible to get the 32 counties, and so sent Collins so that when Collins returned without the full list of demands, DeValera could still hold the high ground among those that wanted to continue fighting for the 32 counties. It was when Collins returned to the Dail with the treaty that Devalera staged the walk out and the split which went on to become the civil war.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Guinness
The IRB existed before 1916 and were the direct descendants of the Fenians.They were the direct instigators of the Rising and the Irish Citizen Army were, more or less, compelled to act and become involved in the Rising by default.The IRB held the high ground of militant republicanism.
Later, after the Civil War,the remaining IRA went underground until the Emergency and were suppressed, without remorse, by DeValera.They resurfaced for the Border campaign of 1956-1962, were almost wiped out and then resurfaced in 1969 as the Provisionals,who split from the Official IRA.The Official IRA,known as the "Stickies", evolved into the INLA and now the Continuity IRA,under the political flag of the IRSP and the Republican Sinn Fein (RSF), under Ruari O'Bradaigh.The Real IRA are yet another breakaway faction.
Confused? Anyway, all of the above enjoy very little real support in the South.Gerry Adam's Sinn Fein are the strongest, politically,of all of them.
regards
GttC

[pym]

The fundamental difference between the so called old and new IRA's, is simply time.

Both killed innocent civilians, both engaged in battles with the british army and destroyed strategic targets. Both could be called freedom fighters, or terrorists depending on which side of the fence you were on.

Both reacted to British government occupation. Both reacted to British government brutality.

Before people go and start brow beating me. I'm not an apologist for the IRA, when they killed civilians, it was murder, plain and simple. Anyone who murders innocent civilians in the name of anything, is a dangerous scumbag and they deserve to be treated as such.

As regards people in the IRA, or in the British Army being killed? It was war, it's the very nature of it, you cant sign up and not be aware of that threat. They were still lives that should never have been lost, but it was a war. In both periods.

There were a huge number of attrocities committed by both "sides" during both the conflicts.

But that hopefully is all behind us for good.

[Buran]

Thanks again for the good responses.

Quote

The fundamental difference between the so called old and new IRA's, is simply time.

One could also say the fact that the rising/war of independance was successful.
The IRAs campaign in the north was not (I'm assuming it is over now).
If the british pulled out in 1975 for example, you can imagine the way history would have been rewritten.

I think these kind of discussions are well worth bearing in mind when current/recent events from other parts of the world come up. Because we are all (somewhat) familiar with what happened here in ireland, we can take the politcal or media spin on events with a pinch of salt and make a fair judgement of our own. But when we aren't familiar ourselves with the history, it can be very easy to take the facts as presented by someone else (who may or may not be impartial) as gospel.

[Guinness]

GttC,

thanks for the respons.

Thing are a little more clear now.

Let's hope the irish had their worst now and the "fight" is pure political from now on !.

Guinness

[FiSe]

"One could also say the fact that the rising/war of independance was successful.
The IRAs campaign in the north was not (I'm assuming it is over now).
If the british pulled out in 1975 for example, you can imagine the way history would have been rewritten."


"Both killed innocent civilians, both engaged in battles with the british army and destroyed strategic targets. Both could be called freedom fighters, or terrorists depending on which side of the fence you were on.
Both reacted to British government occupation. Both reacted to British government brutality."


I still think it's not so simple...
War, as I understand it, is between two armies, of two different countries. This is why I said, that the 1916 soldiers wore uniforms, or at least they tried...
I am lost in history of this conflict, to be honest, and  I think most of us are as well, because this is not a history of warfare, when "you have dates of battles and names of generals", this is very messy history of civil war as brutal and filthy as it can get. And, by my opinion, to fully understand this, we have to take a "revisionist" look at those events. But this is work for historians, who shouldn't be in any relationship with any of involved parties. Easy thing to say, hard thing to do, but it may be worth it?

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
Fise, I agree with you.Whilst there are parallels between the conduct of the Old IRA and the Provos, in that civilians were deliberately targeted, the Old IRA did not engage in deliberate mass bombings of utterly innocent civvies.Rather they targeted those who were percieved as class enemies such as landlords and Crown agents such as ground rent collectors.That, at least, was the excuse used to burn down the homes of the landed gentry, although it was often merely out of spite rather than for any actual political end.My grandfather told me that several men were expelled from his IRA unit for attempted murder of the wives and children of Protestants,sometimes at the scene of house burnngs, theft,(in the same circumstances), score-settling (attempts to kill or injure rivals from other towns or villages)and various other acts that were deemed too unsavoury.At least one individual was thrown out for committing a sexual assault.He fled to England!..He stated that it was common policy to warn RIC men, who were mostly Irish Catholics, to quit the RIC or be shot.This caused bitterness because of the economic loss to the RIC families, but at least a warning was given, though not always.Irish girls who went out with British soldiers were warned off and repeat offenders were tarred and feathered, an act which had parallels in the North.He stated that whilst the average Tommy was often left alone, because of the prevalence of Irish in the ranks, the Tans and Auxiliaries were considered fair game.Bombs were only ever directed at the Military.The concept of bombing a public place was looked upon with revulsion.
Whilst there are parallels,the Old IRA maintained, I would say, a greater morality and adherence to at least a nominal level of respect for the rules of war and civil conduct.
regards
GttC

[Lurk]

What was the fundamental difference between the rebels in 1916 and the IRA in the 70s and 80s?

The modern I.R.A are criminals in all sense of the word. No ethics, no reason, just self serving criminals who used so called Republicanism as a means to profiteer and terrorise ordinary decent people.