Munster Republic

The Munster Republic was "an informal and affectionate term used by Irish Republicans to refer to the territory they held in the province of Munster at the start of the Irish Civil War". It just strikes me as odd that there was any fighting in Munster at all.

If the aim of the Anti-Treaty forces was for a United Ireland, why didn't they just attack Northern Ireland directly? Were they trying to raise a slave army of Free State POWs to eventually invade Northern Ireland? Why didn't they do their best to avoid the free state military and exclusively attack Northern Ireland instead?

Given their aims it just seems very indirect. Of course, what they were doing was not democratic and so was not justified. I'm just curious about the tactics they chose.
 

Kongming

Member
Mar 13, 2019
3,799
2,392
It just strikes me as odd that there was any fighting in Munster at all.
You've never seen what happens when a goat is placed at the border of Kerry and Cork, have you.

The Corkwegians puff out their gills so as to appear bigger than their typical three and a half feet, while the Kerrybeasts bare the three and a half teeth. This primal display is followed by both factions coating themselves down with exotic oils from the Seed of Rape, prior to engaging in "battle".

The winner gets to take said goat home to the village for all the wee hobbitses to shag.
 

Dearghoul

Member
Feb 16, 2019
824
392
Okay you may have meant the question seriously!

The fighting capability of the 'irregulars' was based on the WOI strategy of safe houses and a supportive or at the very least ambivalent population. Munster fitted that more than any other province, and was holdable for a while if Cork and Limerick could be maintained as bastions.

The war was prosecuted more in sorrow and righteousness from the Republican side, and many of the combatants had deep conflict about fighting their former comrades in arms.

The inevitable effect given the above was that the war could only be defensive in nature from the anti Treaty forces.

The 'Munster Republic' was a marker of defiance rather than an ambitious springboard to all Ireland dominance.

The overwhelming superiority in fire power and logistical superiority of the Pro Treaty forces rendered any actual ambitions redundant from the get go.
 

Cruimh

Rhubarb fetishist and proud of it!
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
16,389
10,571
Under the blue skies
www.xxx-rhubarb.com
The Munster Republic was "an informal and affectionate term used by Irish Republicans to refer to the territory they held in the province of Munster at the start of the Irish Civil War". It just strikes me as odd that there was any fighting in Munster at all.

If the aim of the Anti-Treaty forces was for a United Ireland, why didn't they just attack Northern Ireland directly? Were they trying to raise a slave army of Free State POWs to eventually invade Northern Ireland? Why didn't they do their best to avoid the free state military and exclusively attack Northern Ireland instead?

Given their aims it just seems very indirect. Of course, what they were doing was not democratic and so was not justified. I'm just curious about the tactics they chose.
There were some men from Cork and Kerry, AFAIK, involved in the battle of Belleek and Pettigo in a combination of pro and anti treaty forces.
 

Talk Back

Member
Feb 18, 2019
115
48
Okay you may have meant the question seriously!

The fighting capability of the 'irregulars' was based on the WOI strategy of safe houses and a supportive or at the very least ambivalent population. Munster fitted that more than any other province, and was holdable for a while if Cork and Limerick could be maintained as bastions.

The war was prosecuted more in sorrow and righteousness from the Republican side, and many of the combatants had deep conflict about fighting their former comrades in arms.

The inevitable effect given the above was that the war could only be defensive in nature from the anti Treaty forces.

The 'Munster Republic' was a marker of defiance rather than an ambitious springboard to all Ireland dominance.

The overwhelming superiority in fire power and logistical superiority of the Pro Treaty forces rendered any actual ambitions redundant from the get go.
"Irregulars" is a derogatory name (black propaganda) used by the renegade Free State army (deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles).

The Irish Republican Army were the lawful and legitimate army of the 32 county Irish Republic. They took an Oath of Allegiance (as did Dáil Éireann) to the Irish Republic.

The oath to the Irish Republic:- “ I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not and shall not yield a voluntary support to any pretended Government ('Southern Ireland' provisional government), authority or power within Ireland hostile and inimical thereto, and I do further swear (or affirm) that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Eireann, against all enemies, foreign (British army) and domestic (Free State army), and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me, God.”

 

Talk Back

Member
Feb 18, 2019
115
48
The Munster Republic was "an informal and affectionate term used by Irish Republicans to refer to the territory they held in the province of Munster at the start of the Irish Civil War". It just strikes me as odd that there was any fighting in Munster at all.

If the aim of the Anti-Treaty forces was for a United Ireland, why didn't they just attack Northern Ireland directly? Were they trying to raise a slave army of Free State POWs to eventually invade Northern Ireland? Why didn't they do their best to avoid the free state military and exclusively attack Northern Ireland instead?

Given their aims it just seems very indirect. Of course, what they were doing was not democratic and so was not justified. I'm just curious about the tactics they chose.
The real question is - what authority did the renegade Free State army (deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles) have to attack the Irish Republic on June 28th 1922 - four days after the 'Pact' election votes were counted on June 24th - and suppress Dail Eireann two days before it was scheduled to meet to discuss the results of the 'Pact' election and dissolve on June 30th, and to form the new (3rd) Dail Eireann on July 1st. at 12 PM?
 

Talk Back

Member
Feb 18, 2019
115
48
Not so.

The root of the Kerry problem is that the Free State forces were too soft - and so now it's become ingrained into Kerry culture that they're entitled to get away with anything.

Anyhow , this always gets them going -

Interesting to see footage of the Free State army Colonel Fritz Brase. Herr Brase was an rabid Nazi, and was Hitler's 'Ortsgruppenleiter' (Leader/recruiter) in Ireland.

Most people do not realise the strong connection between the Fascists and the renegade Free State army (deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles). Part of the 'Southern Ireland' State's hidden history - things you don't learn in school..

 
Last edited:

Dearghoul

Member
Feb 16, 2019
824
392
"Irregulars" is a derogatory name (black propaganda) used by the renegade Free State army (deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles).

The Irish Republican Army were the lawful and legitimate army of the 32 county Irish Republic. They took an Oath of Allegiance (as did Dáil Éireann) to the Irish Republic.

The oath to the Irish Republic:- “ I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not and shall not yield a voluntary support to any pretended Government ('Southern Ireland' provisional government), authority or power within Ireland hostile and inimical thereto, and I do further swear (or affirm) that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Eireann, against all enemies, foreign (British army) and domestic (Free State army), and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me, God.”

You will note that I used each of the three titles current at the time in anticipation of the objection.
 
This speculative and facetious alternative history article might actually remind us of how critical peace and reconciliation is in Northern Ireland. It truly takes it to such an extreme!

These posts are yet more hypotheses inspired by the article. The absurd allusions to the Cold War has the opposite effect. It emphasises how similar nationalists and unionists are in the first place. Their political differences are minor in the whole scheme of international affairs. Religious people should really just be content that any young people bother to attend mass these days given the huge rise of atheism and agnosticism. The pedantic differences between Protestant and Catholic theology pales in comparison to that of other ideologies and world views. Indeed, Protestants and Catholics get on relatively well in America so I’m skeptical of how much religion itself was at play at all in the conflict. Needless to say that violence and revenge are antithetical to both of these religions. So implicating religion in the conflict is quite perverse and dishonest.

I generally agree with gun control. But if gun-running and paramilitarism plague a certain country, then non lethal projectile weapons such as air guns and tasers should be legal for civilian self-defence. Past terrorist attacks sometimes took the form of armed criminals shooting at unarmed civilians. This highlights the abject failure of previous governments to have implemented proper gun-control. These non-lethal weapons might give them some capacity to defend against any armed cowardly thugs.
 
Top Bottom