However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong
I am not sure that he did. He recognised that it was unproductive, that it was not achieving his objectives, that it was causing hurt to many people. My understanding is that he never said that the actions of the IRA before the ceasefires were wrong.
For my part I think he was a great man. He had vision, which he pursued tirelessly, and he persuaded other to that vision. Great improvements came about to life in Northern Ireland, and he was a major element in that change.
There was a British policy in the late 19th century called "killing Home Rule with kindness" which led to Land Reform Education reform etc in Ireland. It was reasonably successful in so much as Home Rule demand died for some time. Admittedly the Parnellite split and the fact that the Irish Party did not hold the balance of power were also very important factors.I note in any commentary from "the other side" there's zero acknowledgement of the initial causes of the conflict. You'd swear everything was dandy until the IRA started shooting and bombing. Another assessment might say it was so horribly mismanaged at every step that it was inevitable something was going to have to give. But anway....... we're better now.......
Saw an interesting clip of Martin. This is long after the equality agenda had been more or less implemented in NI. He was arguing that the political path (which he was then following) was not enough. It needed the "cutting edge of the IRA to force an all Ireland socialist republic", his words. Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows? But I agree Westminster should have taken a more direct role and much earlier.If after 1922 the Unionist majority had the foresight to treat the minority equally in housing employment education it is likely that Northern Ireland would not have gone the way it did.
However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong....
At least he had the honesty to admit his IRA involvement unlike Pinnochio
As I understand it the reason SF/IRA changed tact was a strategic one .... rather than some moral reasons.
The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court.I think the IRA knew the game was up - MI5 had infiltrated the upper echelons at that stage and the identity of Stakeknife came out a few years later..
Exactly and this underlines Adecco's point. The "peace process" was not a result of any sudden movement in the needle on the IRA's or Martin's moral compass. This was no Pauline conversion. It was a strategic recognition that the "armed struggle" was going nowhere and that with the growing electoral support for Sinn Fein/IRA an arrangement ala Sunningdale would suit very nicely indeed. Pity these slow learners, including Martin, were responsible for so many deaths (directly or indirectly through the loyalist retaliations) before the penny dropped.The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court.
Following the second ceasefire they had to decommission when Michael McDowell threatened to walk. But at that point the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership could see how power sharing was forming and knw that if they went back to war it would be a long struggle with neither side winning
The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing
Possibly if they didn't run a Unionist State for a Unionist People for 50 years and defecate all over the Catholics they wouldn't have had to deal with any Nationalist hostility at all.Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows?
Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then. That doesn't mean that they did't have blood on their hands but lets no pretend they are on their own in that in the Northern Ireland state-let. The Unionists had their own terrorist groups as well as their own police force, their own reservists and the weight of the British security forces behind them. While the Army generally acted as an honest broker the RUC/UVF/SAS/MI5 cesspool was very much on the wrong side of the law.The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.
Then? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then.
If you want complete accuracy the first IRA ceasefire known as the Truce commenced 11th July 1921. The ceasefire in 1972 involved the organisation known as the Provisional IRAThe first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.
It is reasonable to suggets that he was saying that to keep the IRA on side. I don't know where you get the idea that CJH was the IRA's main benefactor.Then? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.
He had to ride both horses in order to get them both to go in the same direction.But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear Purple, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics. Oh so wrong. They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression). The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility. Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.
Nope, but it was basically an apartheid state.you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery": Most Oppressed People Ever
A different point which would require hours and beer to discuss properly.For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.
The Socialist Republic seems to have gone off the list except where the party formerly known as AAAPBP are the opposition. Of course socialism and equal distrbution of wealth wouldnt be the most popular i n South Armagh or along the Clogher ValleyThen? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.
But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear Purple, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics. Oh so wrong. They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression). The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility. Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.
Purple you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery": Most Oppressed People EverFor what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?