Now the dust has finally settled....
who won? IRA or Britain?
>>472144
Britain
>>472144
>who won?
The eternal anglo.
Is Ireland united and separate from the UK? No. Are British soldiers still stationed in Northern Ireland? Yes.
Britain retains Northern Ireland. Thus Britain was the victor.
But it came with a compromise, which both sides didn't get what they wanted but almost everyone agreed the violence needed to end.
OP here.
Why did IRA give up? or was it unsustainable?
>>472144
The Provos lost because the UK retained NI.
The Brits lost because the UK retained NI.
A nil-all defeat for both parties; all that execrable shithole of greyness and misery will ever produce.
>>472203
>A nil-all defeat for both parties; all that execrable shithole of greyness and misery will ever produce.
Wasn't Belfast the greatest builder of ships in the world at one point?
>>472198
The rationale for the violence in the first place - that is, the distinct Protestant hegemony - was beginning to erode. This undermined their popular support. Whatever they may say (and despite what some British hawks might fondly imagine), this is the likely functional reason.
>>472166
>his smile and optimism: gone
>>472215
Yep. Worked out super for the Titanic. And now they make Harp Lager. Lovely, lovely Harp lager.
>>472159
/thread
The dust hasn't settled.
It's still very touchy here. The Troubles & The War of Independence.
It will heat up this year for the 1916 Centenary.
>>472144
>Now the dust has finally settled....
HAH
You say that with the weekly bomb alerts and all.
Brits won. The IRA started the Northern campaign in the late 60s as a response to British aggression to the Catholic civil rights movement, but their stated goal was not equal rights but a 32 county Socialist Republic. IRA and INLA violence probably did help achieve equal rights, but that was a by-product of the campaign.
>>472219
>distinct Protestant hegemony - was beginning to erode
Now Catholics are better educated and earn more than Protestants now that the playing field has been evened
>>472469
>It will heat up this year for the 1916 Centenary
It absolutely will not
>>472471
>weekly bomb alerts
If you live in the North I assume you use the old "If the roads aren't closed who cares" approach. If not you should, pointless stress otherwise.
>>472144
The IRA surrendered to John Major
>>472219
well said
>>472144
>who won? IRA or Britain?
by definition, it's a stalemate.
the IRA sought to unite the entire island and separate from Britain. Britain, at first, fought to keep the island under British authority.
The 1919-1921 war was mostly an Irish victory. With the Irish having a free state through the Anglo-Irish treaty. But didn't obtain full victory as the agreement was signed for Ulster to remain in British hands. This was agreed on by the Irish mostly because they knew it was the best they were going to get, and knew they would lose everything if the British Empire directed all their effort at crushing the Irish.
The Troubles was a complete stalemate, Ireland and Britain both gained nothing territory-wise.
Agreements were signed to give Northern Ireland Home Rule and a devolved parliament and multiple agreements were signed to make transportation and energy-sharing easier. And in exchange, Ireland dropped its territorial claim on Northern Ireland, seeing it as an agreement they can live with.
That satisfied the grand majority of people on the island, who just wanted the Troubles to end at the time, only extreme fringe groups see the agreement as unacceptable, but for the rest of the people, the fighting has ended in a stalemate and an agreement everyone can live with.
Scotland.
>>472144
The IRA, by a clean mile.
The Irish republican cause went from literally nothing, to a whole new state, with any unconquered territories having massive privliges.
It's like if most of Hungary got independence, and the remainder got all the benefits of the Austro-Hungarian compromise anyway.
>>472198
Because the cold war ended so they weren't able to get a reliable base of foreign support anymore.
>>472792
I assume OP was referring to the Troubles by his image.
If so, Brits won.
If he was referring to the entire Irish secession, then the IRA still lost the civil war.
>>472820
If considering the troubles exclusively no side one. If viewed from an extremely literal sense the English overlords from parliament won by managing to retain NI, as it never really mattered to them how it was run anyway. However that came at the cost of absolutely sacrificing all Ulster unionist interests.
I'd say Ulster Unionists lost the hardest by far, not did they not militarily win, but they lost all the privileges they had, had to see their sworn enemies get disproportionate amounts of protection and influence, and generally have their way of life put under siege. Even though they got what they wanted, they got it in the exact opposite way they wanted.
For the IRA it can't really be called a victory or a defeat. On one hand they didn't accomplish their goal of uniting Ireland, on the other hand they did achieve equal rights and representation for the Irish community in NI. Those two goals themselves deeply divide even the most hardcore republicans, with some staying loyal to Sinn Fein and seeking unification democratically now that they don't have to fear the British state, and with others sticking to their guns as Benadette Sands said "The hunger strikers didn't die, so Irish speakers could be equal citizens in a British state".
>>472840
>as Benadette Sands said "The hunger strikers didn't die, so Irish speakers could be equal citizens in a British state".
Yeah but who gaf what she says. The hunger-strikers committed suicide, btw, they weren't killed by the State. I know that pisses off people who actually give a fuck about the hunger-strikers, so I say it whenever the subject comes up. Though it's also true.
>>472852
Martyrdom isn't depednent on how you die, but how your followers perceive it. As far as republicans are concerned, their gave their very lives for the betterment of their common cause, and that's what matters.
No one except Brits think that the issue is them being perceived as having been murdered by the government.
>Yeah but who gaf what she says
Extremely radical republicans, which is what I'm talking about here.
>>472840
Pretty much spot on, a lot of people forget that the interests of British government and Ulster Unionists were far from the same. Almost everything which the Unionists vehemently opposed was instituted, from every once of NICRA's demands to a power-sharing government.
If from a literal perspective like you say, it's Parliament and the moderate Nationalists who 'won'.
>>472840
I was suggesting that the Brits won because the IRA failed to achieve their aims.
I would agree with you that the Ulster Protestants ended up in a worse position but
> had to see their sworn enemies get disproportionate amounts of protection and influence
I would disagree here, representation of Nationalists in government is proportionate, DUP hold the office of first minister
> have their way of life put under siege
Totally disagree with this. Bonfires and marches still occur, now they just can't hire solely other Protestants or burn out Catholic families with police protection
>on the other hand they did achieve equal rights
Civil rights movement didn't have very much to do with the IRA, I would agree that the IRA accomplished this.
>>472884
*disagree
>>472884
>Civil rights movement didn't have very much to do with the IRA, I would agree that the IRA accomplished this.
Arguably the overriding British strategy against the IRA was to rob them of their support by appeasing the more moderate nationalists though. If the IRA didn't exist then it's unlikely that the same level of change would occur. So sure, the IRA didn't accomplish this strictly speaking, but it was their existence that spurred it on.
>>472907
Meh, the removal of the discriminatory practises were mostly down to Direct Rule and the Westminster Mps ruling the North as any sensible person would.
But I can see your point and imagine there is truth to it
>>472866
>No one except Brits think that the issue is them being perceived as having been murdered by the government.
Sands' family has voiced their explicit objection to his death being termed a suicide.
>>472884
>now they just can't hire solely other Protestants or burn out Catholic families with police protection
Yeah, that's their way of life. That's what all the fighting was over.
>>472884
>>472884
>I would disagree here, representation of Nationalists in government is proportionate, DUP hold the office of first minister
My prose was being very bombastic, sorry. But, as far as unionists are concerned what I said is true, NI power sharing is purposefully designed to represent minorities whereas as far as they're concered it should function like standard British democracy where the biggest party simply wins rather than exists in a forced coalition.
>Totally disagree with this. Bonfires and marches still occur, now they just can't hire solely other Protestants or burn out Catholic families with police protection
I have to disagree here though, whilst unionists do get some limited protection they lost all the privileges and protections that they once had. Additionally they're being forced to come into line with standard British practices.
They don't want immigrants, or gay marriage, or parade comissions, or anything that the modern British state believes in. The dream was for NI to be the Israel of British imperialists, where it was 1890 forever. But all that they fought and died for was thrown under the bus.
There's a good reason why hardline unionists absolutely refuse to even recognize Sinn Fein's presence in Stormont, whilst Sinners don't give a fuck about making friends in unionist parties. It's unionists who have everything to lose, only to see their enemy gaining everything.
>Civil rights movement didn't have very much to do with the IRA, I would agree that the IRA accomplished this.
The civil rights movement had everything to do with the IRA.
Unless you want to make the totally ridiculous claim that the SDLP won that battle.
>>472925
>Yeah, that's their way of life.
Speaking of, I've always felt there's a hell of a short film to be made out of that Loyalist Culture Day fiasco.
>>472924
I wouldn't say suicide is the right phrase either.
It's a very extraordinary situation , I don't really know what to call it.
>>472923
>the removal of the discriminatory practises were mostly down to Direct Rule and the Westminster Mps ruling the North as any sensible person would
Yeah, that's true enough. Again arguably Direct Rule was instituted due to the unsustainable security situation, but you get what I'm trying to say anyway.
>>472935
Do you think suicide bombers are not committing suicide simply because their own death is not the primary goal?
I see it as no different than if Sands put a gun to his head and demanded political status, then pulled the trigger when it was refused.
>>472926
>they lost all the privileges and protections that they once had
Yeah, but it would be unfair to suggest that nationalists have disproportionate influence because of this.
Yes the dream of Lord Craigavon was to have an imperial statelet, but that just could not work in late 20th century Europe
>>472952
The difference is for suicide bombers death is both an ends and a means. Likewise with suicide death is the explicit end goal.
Sands didn't want to die, he wanted to accomplish his goal by any means necessary and given the fact of being in jail civil disobedience was the only possible means, similarly when Gandhi hunger striked he wasn't seeking death, he was seeking India's independence. It just so happened he didn't die whilst doing so.
>>472968
He wasn't seeking death, but he was prepared to accept it if his demands weren't met. Since he was in control of that decision, and since that decision resulted in his death, and since he knew that that was the case, it's clearly suicide.
How many people about to jump off a bridge would turn back if some fact about their lives suddenly changed?
>>472980
>Since he was in control of that decision, and since that decision resulted in his death, and since he knew that that was the case, it's clearly suicide.
So Lord Mountbatten was a suicide?
>>472985
Foolish risks aren't suicide, no.
>>472994
He wasn't seeking death, but he was prepared to accept it to go to Ireland and support the British War Machine. Since he was in control of that decision, and since that decision resulted in his death, and since he knew that that was the case, it's clearly suicide.
>>472980
Suicide, as I say, is where death is the explicit goal. However, here that is not the case.
You could say that his death was his own fault, making it a bizarre form of self-manslaughter but he never set out with the goal of killing himself.
>>472949
Good point, the violence and social unrest did lead to direct rule.
Regardless, even if that hadn't happened, the situation of Protestants holding the majority of power would have been resolved by now, through international courts or something
>>473010
>He wasn't seeking death, but he was prepared to accept it to go to Ireland and support the British War Machine
No, he was prepared to RISK it. There is all the difference. Imagine, at some point just before the event horizon of starvation, Sands is offered food. He declines, correct?
Suppose, just in time to use the information, Mountbatten is told where the bomb is and how to defuse it. Does he decline to use that information? Of course not.
>>473011
>he never set out with the goal of killing himself.
He set out with the goal of taking an action that would kill him absent some future condition.
Try to apply your reasoning to the case where he's holding a gun to his head. I'm sure you'll find you can't.
>>473029
>Gun to his head.
It's a different scenario, as you know.
You're just bordering on Thatcherite absolutist logic here.
>>473080
>It's a different scenario, as you know.
I don't see how, in principle.
>>473105
Threatening death, isn't the same thing as physically ending yourself.
That's the distinction.
If a war ends in a negotiated settlement, it's generally assumed that neither side could unseat the other.
Albeit the IRA had always been willing to negotiate, they proved that with Sunningdale, they just needed a quarter century to wear the British down to the point where they'd actually treat Catholics like humans.
>>473119
And if he had merely threatened it, you'd be right. But he did in fact die, and died as a result of informed, conscious decisions on his part.
In terms of quality of living is it better to live in Ireland or Northern Ireland?
>>473029
>Imagine, at some point just before the event horizon of starvation, Sands is offered food. He declines, correct?
Imagine, at some point, just before he's blown up, Mountbatten is offered to renounce his uniform, disavow any support for the British Empire, and support the idea of a free and united Ireland. He declines, correct?
Suppose, just in time to use the information, Sands is told of a raid on the prison, and that he can be liberated from enemy captivity. He leaves, correct?
>>473153
They're both pretty good.
Obviously, when the war was going on, regular Ireland was a lot better.
>>473155
>Imagine, at some point, just before he's blown up, Mountbatten is offered to renounce his uniform, disavow any support for the British Empire, and support the idea of a free and united Ireland. He declines, correct?
Unknowable. He can in any case simply lie and recant later. Neither, and I'm repeating myself here, does his refusal to do any of those things *necessitate* his death.
>Suppose, just in time to use the information, Sands is told of a raid on the prison, and that he can be liberated from enemy captivity. He leaves, correct?
I would assume not, or his entire claim to a political cause would be immediately and irrevocably undermined. He would be abandoning all fellow Republican inmates, both in the present and the future. Very, very unlikely that what you're suggesting is accurate.
>>473160
Are both places full of cunts like Ronnie Pickering?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dcv6GKNNw
>>473178
> Neither, and I'm repeating myself here, does his refusal to do any of those things *necessitate* his death.
Well, yes it does. He doesn't and he get's blown up. That happened. It was a real thing.
>I would assume not, or his entire claim to a political cause would be immediately and irrevocably undermined. He would be abandoning all fellow Republican inmates, both in the present and the future.
You think Republicans stayed in prison because they wanted to? Seems awful strange then that the British would invest so much in keeping them there.
>>473153
The HDI has the ROI at 7 as of 2013, 6 on the inequality-adjusted index. UK is at 27, 19 on the inequality-adjusted. So going by that, the ROI is better. Fuck knows, though.
>>473153
North has higher employment, welfare state such as NHS and lower prices on essentially everything such as food, rents, housing and alcohol.
South is in a tech boom though.
It is really quite close
>>473199
Which part of the UK has the least amount of Chav type people and those who would want to get in a bare knuckle fight for simply looking at them. As a burger, the UK sounds pretty unnerving with all the fighting going on. I don't want to get stabbed by some lad over bantz.
>>473198
>Well, yes it does.
No, it doesn't. He got blown up because terrorists planted a bomb. Sands died because he refused to eat. The former was the action of a third party, the latter the action of the decedent.
>You think Republicans stayed in prison because they wanted to?
Such a blatant misconstrual of my argument is unlikely to be accidental, so I'll let you go again on this one.
>>473204
Wouldn't mind abusing the fuck out of the welfare system and chilling at the pub all day.
>>473209
>Which part of the UK has the least amount of Chav type people and those who would want to get in a bare knuckle fight for simply looking at them.
Not a clue, I'm a mick not a bong.
>>473187
1 in 10 Brits are like that guy. You gotta toughen up. It's a hard life.
>>473223
So are most people like that or heroin addicts?
>>473236
No, most people are fine.
>>472935
Weight Watchers loser of the month
>>473209
>Which part of the UK has the least amount of Chav type people
They're all over the place really, it just depends on how affluent the place is. In the UK you can walk from a really nice middle-upper class area into a shithole in under 30 mins in most large towns/cities
>all the fighting going on
The worst council estate in the UK is nowhere near as bad as the average hood in the US.
>>473209
>Least amount of Chavs
Cornwall, all you'll find there are middle-class English people on holiday.
>>473209
Chavs don't exist anymore; we have Road roadmen now rude boi
>>473153
The south is better but not by much. I'd say the main benefit isn't even in quality of life but in not having to think about the bullshit in the north.
>>473023
Enoch here, Enoch there we want Enoch everywhere!
>no rivers of shampoo speech
on the note of the international courts
The british reaction to the IRA activities drew the ire of the ECHR. I'm not sure how much attention the court would have paid to the systuation by the ECHR without clear abuses being commited by the brits.
>>473153
North is a gloomy boring sectarian shithole filled with scum
You can feel the life in the South
I'm a Protestant btw
>>472792
>Because the cold war ended so they weren't able to get a reliable base of foreign support anymore.
>reliable base of foreign support anymore.
>Plastic Paddies across the pond
>>475355
Contary to popular belief the IRA didn't get the bulk of their arms from Irish Americans, they got it from states that had an interest in destabalizing the UK. Most notably Libya.
>>475269
The north is absolutely class. It's like it's 1970 forever with England paying for everything.
The south on the other hand is just of and run by vacuous people who wish they were American.
>>472792
Yes but the ultimate goal of the IRA was to unify Ireland, which they haven't done which therefore means that Britain won.
What would have happened if Stormont unilaterally declared independence from the UK like Rhodesia?
>>473214
> He got blown up because terrorists planted a bomb.
He got blown up because he chose to be blown up. He was given a choice, and he chose death by explosive.
>>472144
Britain, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and its people still despise the idea of being a minority in a batshit Catholic country.
>>475397
Well I can only be frank, mate: you've lost the argument and you know it.
>>475581
Funny thing is, the end of direct rule has allowed the North's natural microclimate to come to the fore, so they're arguably more batshit. No gay marriage, serious political man-hours expended on what flags fly where etc.
Loyalists certainly lost the most important battle: the mural front.
>>476645
As an impartial individual who has lived all over Belfast I can very. Loyalist murals are shit whereas republican murals are fucking class.
>>476655
Is there any loyalist capable of drawing a face? At least pic related is fairly kawaii
>>476645
>>476664
Why would they draw guys who look scared, or at least, slightly worried?
Pretty sure the IRA won politically as their violent means brought equal votes and equal standing for Catholics in their own country, but I dont expect the rabid loyalists in this thread to understand that.
>crying about "terrorism" and muh dead childrens
>there never would have been any terrorism to cry about if Catholics had been treated fairly in the first place
>>476728
No the IRA did not win, ask any active Sinn Fein member who won and they'll give you a monotonous explanation that the both the Brits and the public were ready for peace and talks.
Ask any dissident and they'll say that the PIRA failed to achieve their goal of a United Ireland, and that civil rights were a mere by-product of the campaign.
Then probably call Sinn Fein sellouts.
>rabid loyalists
I'm a nationalist at heart but not keen to join with the accurately described.
>>475363
>vacuous people who wish they were American
The IRA did manage to gain themselves a State and did manage to gain the rest of the Catholics in N.Ireland fair representation (ie Good Friday Agreement) and if Catholics stay loyal to the IRA they will get full independence if a referendum is called in like 20 years or so as Catholic numbers are rising faster than Protestant numbers.
