Superb! Simply superb! The post Anglo- Irish Treaty of 1921 period and right up to the German expansionism in Europe staring in 1939 were embryonic for Ireland. Politically, Michael Collins the person most capable of steering Free State Ireland through the turbelent waters had been assasinated in 1922 which was most unfortunate indeed. The potential economic possiblities that may have unfolded with a Collins stewardship were not to be realized. The void that Collins left would only be filled in the waning decades of the fast closing 20th century when the Republic of Ireland would finally find it's sea legs - with thanks in no small part for it's admission to what we know today as the European Economic Community. In addition to the political landscape, the religious landscape went through the same period equally tumultous and gripped in stagnation. John Charles McQuaid and his cadre of spies and busy bodies were instrumental in ensuring the stagnation would continue and the festering pool of discontent would develop into what would eneviatably become a counter movement so strong that the Catholic Church in general and it's fascist leadership in particular - people like McQuaid - would face a very angry and mostly female backlash from which the orgnaization and leadership of the Catholic Church would never recover. Dr. Diarmaid Ferriter talk today on 20th century Ireland - particulary the Catholic Church and it's leadership is both insightful and informing. Thank you.
In his excellent book 'A Nation and not a Rabble' Dr Ferriter puts paid to the notion that had Collins not been assassinated Ireland would have been a different country. He rightly points out that his difference with de Valera were purely about the terms of the treaty and NOTHING else. On social issues , like de Valera, he was more than likely a conservative Catholic.
@@brianoreilly239 I respectfully disagree with Dr Ferriter's conclusion. In my judgement - and I certainly concede that an emminent historian with a life long study of Irish hitory in general and the Civil War in particular would know a lot more of the background detail of these events than I would. However, these judgements and conclusions are at best academic and may not see the depth of feeling and the fabric of character that might be noted by interested lovers of these subjects. The glaring difference for me as we compare DeValera - a man we knew quite well as he was a significant player for certainly the better of the first half of the 20th century - and Collins whose towering presence in Ireland's fight for freedom spanned a mere few decades - of the most turbulent and bloody periods in Irish history. There is much we have to guess at with respect to Collins if we are to compare the two and picking up the glaring dicfference I noted, I will compare the sly, calculating and over cautious DeValera in a one on one session with DLG at No 10 in the Summer of 1921 where there was much discussed but nothing decided or conceded. It is my belief that Mr. DeValera was unable to see the big picture and was - through stuborness - was unable to compromise and was unable to engage a process that might over time be what Collin's famously characterized as a 'stepping stone'. Those same cautious and fearful approach created the 'dead hand' of Irish leadership for most of the 1930's through to the 1960's that both stagnated the economy and starved a young population of opportunities and led to emmigration. By contrast, Collins would have been far more creative in solving the new nations woes and would involve all and sundry as he saw fit. He would cast a wide net to capture as much creativity and knowledge as he could to help him on his quest to make Ireland a great country. He had faith in it's people - he knew them well. He would have used his enormous charm and wit to cajole who he could when it suited his quest. He would have quickly mended the economic ties with Great Britain - as he understood economics - he would have no trouble understanding the critical importance of strong ties with our closest and largest trading partners. He would have drawn Britain closer to the economy of Ireland - instead of pushing them away with tarrifs and stiffling economic policies as was the case with DeValera. On the NI front he would have not allowed the situation to fester and become intractable. I believe Collins would not have played the neutral card in the '39 when Nazi Germany declared war on Poland. I think he would have stood with the Allied powers in defence of democracy and freedom. I'm unsure what the realtionship with the clergy would be but I am sure that he would not have allowed them to interfere to the extent that they did with the politics of the country. In conclusion and in summary, there was a world of difference between the brash young energetic Collins and the staid and egotistical DeValera. The best of what Ireland could have hoped for post - treaty was what Collins could have offered. But, it was men like DeValera who stuffed out that young life of Collins and handed to DeValera a future leadership role in the country that he guided through it's darkest hours - clueless and impotent. There was a mighty difference between the two men. One knew how to save his skin, the other put everyting on the line for a vision and a country that would know no bounds when DeValera would be finally pushed to one side.
McQuaid was a fascinating character of bygone Ireland. He played an enormous role in holding Ireland back. A brilliant lecture by Professor Ferriter.
McQuaid was akin to a dictator. The government kow towed to him.
Outstanding
Very good
Superb! Simply superb! The post Anglo- Irish Treaty of 1921 period and right up to the German expansionism in Europe staring in 1939 were embryonic for Ireland. Politically, Michael Collins the person most capable of steering Free State Ireland through the turbelent waters had been assasinated in 1922 which was most unfortunate indeed. The potential economic possiblities that may have unfolded with a Collins stewardship were not to be realized. The void that Collins left would only be filled in the waning decades of the fast closing 20th century when the Republic of Ireland would finally find it's sea legs - with thanks in no small part for it's admission to what we know today as the European Economic Community.
In addition to the political landscape, the religious landscape went through the same period equally tumultous and gripped in stagnation. John Charles McQuaid and his cadre of spies and busy bodies were instrumental in ensuring the stagnation would continue and the festering pool of discontent would develop into what would eneviatably become a counter movement so strong that the Catholic Church in general and it's fascist leadership in particular - people like McQuaid - would face a very angry and mostly female backlash from which the orgnaization and leadership of the Catholic Church would never recover.
Dr. Diarmaid Ferriter talk today on 20th century Ireland - particulary the Catholic Church and it's leadership is both insightful and informing. Thank you.
In his excellent book 'A Nation and not a Rabble' Dr Ferriter puts paid to the notion that had Collins not been assassinated Ireland would have been a different country. He rightly points out that his difference with de Valera were purely about the terms of the treaty and NOTHING else. On social issues , like de Valera, he was more than likely a conservative Catholic.
@@brianoreilly239 I respectfully disagree with Dr Ferriter's conclusion. In my judgement - and I certainly concede that an emminent historian with a life long study of Irish hitory in general and the Civil War in particular would know a lot more of the background detail of these events than I would. However, these judgements and conclusions are at best academic and may not see the depth of feeling and the fabric of character that might be noted by interested lovers of these subjects. The glaring difference for me as we compare DeValera - a man we knew quite well as he was a significant player for certainly the better of the first half of the 20th century - and Collins whose towering presence in Ireland's fight for freedom spanned a mere few decades - of the most turbulent and bloody periods in Irish history. There is much we have to guess at with respect to Collins if we are to compare the two and picking up the glaring dicfference I noted, I will compare the sly, calculating and over cautious DeValera in a one on one session with DLG at No 10 in the Summer of 1921 where there was much discussed but nothing decided or conceded. It is my belief that Mr. DeValera was unable to see the big picture and was - through stuborness - was unable to compromise and was unable to engage a process that might over time be what Collin's famously characterized as a 'stepping stone'. Those same cautious and fearful approach created the 'dead hand' of Irish leadership for most of the 1930's through to the 1960's that both stagnated the economy and starved a young population of opportunities and led to emmigration.
By contrast, Collins would have been far more creative in solving the new nations woes and would involve all and sundry as he saw fit. He would cast a wide net to capture as much creativity and knowledge as he could to help him on his quest to make Ireland a great country. He had faith in it's people - he knew them well. He would have used his enormous charm and wit to cajole who he could when it suited his quest. He would have quickly mended the economic ties with Great Britain - as he understood economics - he would have no trouble understanding the critical importance of strong ties with our closest and largest trading partners. He would have drawn Britain closer to the economy of Ireland - instead of pushing them away with tarrifs and stiffling economic policies as was the case with DeValera. On the NI front he would have not allowed the situation to fester and become intractable. I believe Collins would not have played the neutral card in the '39 when Nazi Germany declared war on Poland. I think he would have stood with the Allied powers in defence of democracy and freedom. I'm unsure what the realtionship with the clergy would be but I am sure that he would not have allowed them to interfere to the extent that they did with the politics of the country.
In conclusion and in summary, there was a world of difference between the brash young energetic Collins and the staid and egotistical DeValera. The best of what Ireland could have hoped for post - treaty was what Collins could have offered. But, it was men like DeValera who stuffed out that young life of Collins and handed to DeValera a future leadership role in the country that he guided through it's darkest hours - clueless and impotent.
There was a mighty difference between the two men. One knew how to save his skin, the other put everyting on the line for a vision and a country that would know no bounds when DeValera would be finally pushed to one side.
Excellent lecture. Ironic that Gay Byrne died two days ago.
And good riddance to Mister Byrne.
He was a rotten person