MovieChat Forums > The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2007) Discussion > Would you have accepted or fought the pe...

Would you have accepted or fought the peace treaty?

posted 15 years ago by terencef100
16 replies | jump to latest

This treaty led to Ireland's independence; yet, as we saw in the movie, set family, friends, comrades, and countrymen against each other to great human and political cost. Would you have accepted it or fought it?

Personally, I would have accepted it. The British threatened (and had the ability) to launch total warfare; the Irish Republic's negotiators knew how weak their military and economic position was; and they believed that the substantial progress towards total independence that the treaty gave would lead eventually to full independence. They also recognized, quite correctly, that the British would not let a colony fall so easily, with many other colonies watching. Soon afterwards, the Irish Republic's parliament voted to accept the treaty, with widespread popular support. Those that fought the treaty were short-sighted and have a lot to answer for.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hotrodder 15 years ago

If de Valera etc hadn't accepted partition and had fought for Northern Ireland too, a civil war with the Unionists would have been inevitable too. Partition was a solution to a difficult problem trying to satisfy two groups of very opposed people- the Unionists who wanted Ireland to remain part of the UK and the Republicans. In all honesty at the time it probably was the best solution, even if it was a fudge. The alternative was a far longer war and a lot more dead people, a lot more IMO than the Civil War itself killed.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

[–] terencef100 15 years ago

I have to agree. For all Collins' brilliance, his notion of invading the North was insane. The Free State Forces would have been destroyed by the far superior opposing forces and could have left the peace treaty, and any chance of Irish independence, dead. I'm hoping that Collins wanted to do it - who wouldn't want to take on an apartheid state - but realized that he could not do it.

[–] Nathars 15 years ago

Not possible to answer this question 90 years on.

Collins was a brutish hot-head and capable assassin and leader of assassins. That is his record in reality. He never dabbled in politics until he went to London and was feted there as well as adored there in public for the very first time in his short life. Historical accounts show him under the sway of Lloyd George (the Welsh Magician was his nickname).

Sorry if the above bursts some balloons but there has been billions of tons of revisionism surrounding this man to suit people who would never have condoned his tactics in later life.

De Valera was a "bitter-ender" he was political to this toe-nails and therefore a survivor. He committed a crime against the country in leaving the Dail after losing the vote on the Treaty. That crime was to put the radicals to fore in the republican side of the argument by leaving a political vaccuum. De-Valera did not lead the republican side and was actually side-lined by them for most of the Civil War.
Cathal Bruagha, Rory, O'Connor, Liam Lynch, Liam Mellowes were the people who emerged in the foreground after the De-Valera walk out. These guys were always suspicious of Dev as he came from a conservative, almost Tory background, especially when it came to social change, and wasn't he on the fringes of the Irish Rugby Team in the early 1900's. The rugby fraternity of that particular time were not exactly opposed to the crown.

The above is a somewhat alternative view of these two persons. Before the Treaty Dev was undisputed political leader of the War of Independence. Once the split came he had to be replaced by someone else. Michael Collins got the job for a few months

[–] Hotrodder 15 years ago

Bloody hell, Nathars, you still around? Long time no see! You haven't been treading these boards for quite a while. How's things?
One thing I've always been curious about is when Churchill invited Collins back to Chequers for brandy and cigars- I wouldn't have minded being a fly on the wall for that conversation! There was a film made of the encounter- fiction of course as IIRC there was no record ever made of their little chat- "Allegiance". Never seen it though and it doesn't seem to on DVD.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489635/

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

[–] Sensimilla 13 years ago

Well he had started before he died, its no more insane than him fighting the war for independence, its not like he was gonna have a large scale invasion. The only reason he stopped was to end the civil war first. I think had he survived we would have a united Ireland, as Northern Ireland only got full established after he died, when the rest of the government gave up on his ideas and plans

[–] fournicat 15 years ago

I would not have rejected it, but would have tried to change it. We were in a position to negotiate, the 6 counties probably couldn't have been saved but I would say removing the requirement to swear allegiance to the monarchy might just have been enough to prevent civil war. And probably would have been accepted by London.

[–] Sensimilla 13 years ago

We didnt have politicians strong enough compared to the British, the oath wasnt getting removed and there was no chance of stopping the civil war from breaking out, after Collins had (cant remember his name) assassinated up North. There was no way of changing the treaty, sign it or imidiate and total war I think was what Lyody george said. But if Collins had survived, I think he would have pushed the boundry commission, along with the other plans that Im not going to list off, united Ireland died with Collins. We probably wouldnt of even been to poor for so long if he surrvived, Dev for all the good he done, ran this country into the ground and put us back like 20 or 30 years if not more.

[–] jmsheehy19 14 years ago

Well with the benefit of almost a century of hindsight, I would have accepted. But even now there isn't really a clear cut right or wrong, so I have no idea how I would have felt at the time.

[–] alkalineboy85 14 years ago

Looking at the time, and not knowing what has happened since, I would have fought. Its safe to say I can label myself as a Fenian, historically and today, so I would have continued to fight until all counties are united into Ireland.

Its fun to watch this back to back with Michael Collins since they both show the way each split. One arguing for one side and one for the other.

[–] Sensimilla 13 years ago

anyone that says they would fight, knowing what we know today is a fu*kin retard, no 2 ways about it, there isnt 1 good point to surport fighting looking back, when its clear today that had everyone supported it, we would have had a Republic a hell of a lot sooner with a lot less blood spilled. Also without the civil war to sort out I think Collins would have united Ireland with his Northern policies and support and armament of the northern IRA

[–] Bozohead 14 years ago

I would have accepted Ireland becoming a dominion.

By nature I am a practical person. Doesnt mean I wouldnt fight for what I believed in. But Ireland had got some large concessions from Britain and I would have accepted that for the time being.

As for the separation of Ireland and Northern Ireland I also would have accepted that. If the vast majority of the Irish in those counties wanted to remain a part of the UK forcing them to remain a part of a single Ireland would have been hypocritical. With the British fighting to keep all Ireland a part of the UK for so long ...

[–] cormacmccloskey 14 years ago

Hard to answer now but I think at the time most IRA members were thinking "why stop now? Ireland is there for the taking".

I dont think England would have went through with an all out warfare on Ireland, after their efforts in WW1. the IRA would have had the British to deal with aswell as Ulster unionists which would have turned into a blood bath, mainly because of the UVF's ideology of shooting innocent civilians.

I believe Collins thought at the time, take 75% of Ireland now and we will re-group and liberate the North.

[–] Sensimilla 13 years ago

thats why the boundary commission put in place, Northern Ireland wasnt even solidafied until after Collins was killed, infact there was a lot of *beep* pushed through the week he died(while the Irish were sorting out whos runnin things) so it wouldnt be able to be dissolved afterwards. James Craig, obviously I can see why he did it cause he didnt want to lose his power, he didnt give a fook about the people as much as he did about the power he had been givin.

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 13 years ago

accepted. it's one thing to take up arms to kick out armed occupying soldiers and another to start killing fellow countrymen because of a silly little meaningless oath pledged in the dail. the democratic machinery was in place for eventual full independence, whether economic independence or just independence from the crown.

that's the problem with the movie (if you see damian as "the good guy" with the "correct views" -- which im not sure is the proper way of seeing this film, even with laoch's known political views and didactic tendencies), it conflates the free staters as capitalist quislings and the anti free staters as socialists.

the one thing i most certainly would not have done is shoot my brother over the peace treaty. but from an historical perspective, i can understand the free state violence done against the anti free state more than i can the anti free state against the free state

[–] pjglynndoora 13 years ago

I would have accepted it