Civil War in Dublin

[JDorney]

New article up on www.theirishstory.com about the Civil War in Dublin, 1922-1923. "Who shot Frank Lawlor?"

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05...ish-civil-war/

It's mainly about the killings of Anti-Treatyites in Dublin by the CID, or Criminal Investigation Department.

And tomorrow, two audio interviews, one from either side of the civil war divide.

[JDorney]

Without wanting to stir anything up, just curious, what would the attitude of modern members of the DF be to the civil war?

Would people see the Irish Army as the descendant of one side, or is the old "Free State Army" seen as different beast?

[X-RayOne]

i would say the current DF is the direct descendant of the free state army and the irish volunteers of 1916 era. we still use the same symbolism, ranks ( commandant ), the same name ( no provos you don't own it!! ).

you can argue the volunteers didn't have the population's support during the Rising but definitely they did once the leaders executions began and were supported by the country thereafter.

the problem really was the walk out during the Dail vote that lead to the split and following civil war ( thanks Dev....no the mod! ). i think if that hadn't of happened the army would have remained intact. but once it happened the free state army was the only legitimate army in the country.

[JDorney]

That's fair enough, but I'm wondering how it squared with serving a state which was mosly governed by the losers in the civil war - ie Fianna Fail.

Is there a contradiction here or is it that FF 'changed sides' in recognising the state back in the 1930s?

[X-RayOne]

That's fair enough, but I'm wondering how it squared with serving a state which was mosly governed by the losers in the civil war - ie Fianna Fail

it does have to be squared at all actually.

the DF serve the State....not any one party.

at the time of the civil war the army served the democratically elected government, as it has ever since the states' foundation.

elements of the volunteers / army that sided with the republican elements ceased to serve as the army. as the politicians that walked out of the Dail ceased to serve in the Dail.

regarding Fianna Fail being the losers of the civil war....well that party wasn't actually formed until 1926, well after the civil war. since then they have been democratically elected to power ( whether you like them or not ). the war of independence and treaty gave the luxury of voting our own governments into power, regardless of how good or bad they are

[JDorney]

Makes sense.

But as for Republican paramilitaries, are they the enemies of the state and therefore of the Army?

[Docman]

The Civil war ended nearly 90 years ago. Many in the Defence Forces are young and would likely have difficulty saying who won, probably in line with many people today.
It is the Army of the Republic of Ireland and few in it see it as being anything other than that. It may trace its lineage through the Free State Army and the Irish Volunteers but is, and has been for a long time, the Army representing all within the Republic.

Republican paramilitaries

Republican paramilitaries in Ireland have not existed in Ireland for a long time. However Criminals and Murderers are the enemy of everyone.

[sofa]

The Civil war ended nearly 90 years ago. Many in the Defence Forces are young and would likely have difficulty saying who won, probably in line with many people today.
It is the Army of the Republic of Ireland and few in it see it as being anything other than that. It may trace its lineage through the Free State Army and the Irish Volunteers but is, and has been for a long time, the Army representing all within the Republic.



Republican paramilitaries in Ireland have not existed in Ireland for a long time. However Criminals and Murderers are the enemy of everyone.

Well said

[JDorney]

Ok, I won't push it.

Thanks for answers gents.

[hedgehog]

That's fair enough, but I'm wondering how it squared with serving a state which was mosly governed by the losers in the civil war - ie Fianna Fail.

Is there a contradiction here or is it that FF 'changed sides' in recognising the state back in the 1930s?

I dont think there is any harm in discussing this matter in a sensible way

it wasnt our best moment as a Nation- therefore it kind of should be discussed

maybe JD is doing us a favour in raising the matter

-

1 thing is important and it should be stressed JD

we as members of the Defences Forces serve the State full stop

not the winners - not the losers but the State

welcome aboard by the way

[JDorney]

I dont think there is any harm in discussing this matter in a sensible way

it wasnt our best moment as a Nation- therefore it kind of should be discussed

maybe JD is doing us a favour in raising the matter

-

1 thing is important and it should be stressed JD

we as members of the Defences Forces serve the State full stop

not the winners - not the losers but the State

welcome aboard by the way

Cheers,

I think people have summed up the Army's attitude pretty well though. It's absolutely right that the Army doesn't decide who it serves. The problem with civil war is that an army must take sides and choose which one will govern -even if this is the duly elected government.

We were lucky that the Army managed to de-politicise itself after 1923. This doesn't happen after every civil war -eg Spain, it was the 1980s before the Army stopped trying to interfere in politics.

[Victor]

Armies are based on rules. If the rules break down, you have chaos. Chaos with guns.

So an army will always follow the (lawful) instructions of a government and is unlikely to partake in politicised action, especially against its own people. The major exception being when a government goes over the line and starts to outright oppress the people, e.g. the Romanian Revolution - while a secret police or sectarian force might, a popular army will rarely kill its own people.

[JDorney]

We have discussion of this now up at the The Irish Story
http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05...visive-memory/

Representing a pro-treaty viewpoint, Declan Power, fromer Irish Army officer, and anti-treaty, Micheal MacDonncha of SF.

What Declan argues is that the Emergency was the catalyst for healing the wounds of teh civil war, especially within the Army.

[seven.sixtwo]

Without wanting to stir anything up, just curious, what would the attitude of modern members of the DF be to the civil war?

Would people see the Irish Army as the descendant of one side, or is the old "Free State Army" seen as different beast?

When i served in the 28th inf bn finner camp donegal in the 70s and 80s we were called free state bas!!!!! and tratiors by the locals and verious other names i wont mention

[Hello Alaska]

elements of the volunteers / army that sided with the republican elements ceased to serve as the army. as the politicians that walked out of the Dail ceased to serve in the Dail.

The Volunteers had nothing to do with the Civil War or the Free State Army as it was then. The Volunteers ceased to exist after 1919.

I wouldn't necessarily class the Civil War as the Free State versus Republicans. Both sides still had their minds set on achieving independence and both sides were still led by Republicans, unfortunately their views differed on how to go about achieving independence. It was Republicans fighting Republicans.