Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The First Soviet in Ireland

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#41

Post by smcl »

rurai wrote: post #25
smcl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and to be honest even the UK (shitty as we were to Ireland throughout history) didn't have a complete economic blockade of Ireland during its early years, like the USA did on Cuba.

There was no economic "blockade" until 1932, after the Irish government refused to pay land annuities to the British government and a rise of protectionist policies. In reality the reason Ireland didn't face any sanctions immediately after "independence" was because it was mostly token independence where the economy was still heavily intertwined with Britain and little industrial development took place. This was main…

Right so Ireland had nine-year period after independence before this happened and even then it was resolved six (admittedly painful) years later. The US embargo on Cuba is still in place.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#42

Post by boomboomsubban »

rurai wrote: post #38
boomboomsubban wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That anecdote doesn't make sense. The Easter Rising was a fairly short ordeal, Tsarist Russia never would have provided military support to an allies insurrection, and the internal Russian revolutionaries had very little support to offer.

It was the IRA in 1925 reaching out to the Soviets for monetary support to continue on an armed struggle

So looking it up based on that, the source is Tim Pat Coogan, born 1935, and the USSR did make a deal with the IRA.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#43

Post by rurai »

smcl wrote: post #41
rurai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no economic "blockade" until 1932, after the Irish government refused to pay land annuities to the British government and a rise of protectionist policies. In reality the reason Ireland didn't face any sanctions immediately after "independence" was because it was mostly token independence where the economy was still heavily intertwined with Britain and little industrial development took place. This was main…

Right so Ireland had nine-year period after independence before this happened and even then it was resolved six (admittedly painful) years later. The US embargo on Cuba is still in place.

There were two very different dynamics.

A Cuban wealthy elite became exiles in Miami, and a strong political force in their own right to put pressure on the government to keep the embargo in place. That coupled with the domino theory that the US foreign policy followed at the time they couldn't allow a successful post-colonial country exist peacefully outside of their sphere of influence. After the embargo had been in place for so long America only can lose by removing it unless they get some market access concessions from Cuba in return.

In Ireland's case the UK needed Ireland as a supply of livestock to feed their population so while the autarky hurt the Irish economy most people were poor farmers anyway so it didn't make a whole pile of difference while in the UK a rise in beef prices hurt their emerging middle class. Overall the amount of money involved was relatively small and since the Irish central bank was still linked to the Bank of England, Irish fiscal policy could still be tangentially controlled by UK monetary policy to keep trade flowing, without having to resort to physical force.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#44

Post by smcl »

rurai wrote: post #43
smcl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right so Ireland had nine-year period after independence before this happened and even then it was resolved six (admittedly painful) years later. The US embargo on Cuba is still in place.

There were two very different dynamics. A Cuban wealthy elite became exiles in Miami, and a strong political force in their own right to put pressure on the government to keep the embargo in place. That coupled with the domino theory that the US foreign policy followed at the time they couldn't allow a successful post-colonial country exist peacefully outside of their sphere of influence. After the embargo had been i…

We're in agreement - the whole point of this thread was how early-stage Cuba and Ireland were vastly different situations and that Ireland's majority Catholic population wasn't the cause behind them not developing closer ties with the USSR.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#45

Post by netcan »

jackpirate wrote: post #9
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #8

In retrospect, the brief Irish flirtation with the Soviet Union seems both inevitable and doomed. A small state trying to establish itself must look for potential allies wherever it can; but the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nationalist Ireland and the forcibly atheist internationalist USSR were not lasting partners. Quite the understatement here.

What's the difference between Ireland and Cuba? Both are small countries dominated by a nearby power and both are highly Catholic. Yet somehow Cuba managed to make it work with the Soviets. It's true there's differences between the countries (Cuba wasn't quite as Catholic as Ireland), but I don't see how TFA's comment is a forgone conclusion the way you do.

>> somehow Cuba managed to make it work with the Soviets

History is complicated, but cuba is a caution tale as much as it is existence proof. Being Soviet-allied near the US during and after all that conflict hasn't been a smooth ride for Cuba.

Secular ideologies did come into with religious and traditionalist ones regardless.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#46

Post by netcan »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #18
jackpirate wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between Ireland and Cuba? Both are small countries dominated by a nearby power and both are highly Catholic. Yet somehow Cuba managed to make it work with the Soviets. It's true there's differences between the countries (Cuba wasn't quite as Catholic as Ireland), but I don't see how TFA's comment is a forgone conclusion the way you do.

In 1919 essentially the entire world was at war with the USSR, they couldn't provide Ireland meaningful support. By 59 they were stable and able to work with other countries. Plus, the USSR was never that successful at embracing atheism, which should be obvious as thr Russian Orthodox church remains a strong force. Around 1920 was the about the most hostile period to religion. Making this about religion seems forced…

I agree that its forced, with 100 years of hindsight.

ATT though, political-religious stuff was a major deal. Irish republicanism succeeded by delineating dividers across all the major lines. Republican-Monarchist, Nationalist-Unionist, Gaelic-English, Catholic-Protestant, Class, etc.

Not everyone fit into all or even most categories, just like there were always upper class socialists... but that was still the way lines were drawn.

Atheism was, IMO, the least populist pillar of that era's communism. I think you can make that argument anywhere, including Russia.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#47

Post by netcan »

dmurray wrote: post #24
boomboomsubban wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1919 essentially the entire world was at war with the USSR, they couldn't provide Ireland meaningful support. By 59 they were stable and able to work with other countries. Plus, the USSR was never that successful at embracing atheism, which should be obvious as thr Russian Orthodox church remains a strong force. Around 1920 was the about the most hostile period to religion. Making this about religion seems forced…

Agreed. The Easter Rising, and the cause of Irish nationalism generally, weren't anywhere near as linked to Catholicism as this article makes out. It's much more correct to see it as a class struggle or a revolution against a colonial power, depending on your view (the ruling class were closely linked to Britain). Prominent 1916-era nationalists like Childers and Markievicz were Protestants. Connolly was a hardcore s…

It depends a lot on the era. A lot happened in 5, 10 years. 1916 was a far more edgy group than those who actually gained power and popularity later.

Once Irish independence became the political issue, the country did divide along religious lines. Those didn't necessarily contradict cultural or class lines, but religious background was and is a very solid predictor of nationalist-unionist preferences IRL.

De Valera, his support base & his politics was the powerhouse it was for a reason. Partition was catholic-protestant. Actual class politics and politics generally was absolutely catholic-protestant. The majority of the population was religious. Those things played a big part in the real politics of the following decades. They didn't matter as much in 1916, when the whole country wasn't involved yet.

Re: The First Soviet in Ireland

#48

Post by rmchugh »

cat199 wrote: post #36
rmchugh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nonsensical in my opinion. There is no reference to relations between the "Soviet" and Soviet Russia. The only connection is the name.

according to 5 minutes of wikipedia research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Soviet On Friday 11 April a meeting of the United Trades and Labour Council, to which Byrne had been a delegate, took place. At that meeting Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU) representative Sean Dowling proposed that the trade unions take over Town Hall and have meetings there, but the proposal was not voted on.[5] O…

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Post reply on HN