Historical "What Ifs"

[warren]

Thanks to the three of you. Hope the thread gets back on track as it is interesting.
I was hoping to see a "what if the "big guy" Michael Collins had survived to be the first president" post or two. My guess is there would be a united Ireland today.
My knowledge is limited as I really only started delving deeply into the "Irish Civil War" about ten years ago. As close as we are to the event there are still secrets to uncover in archives and attics.

 

[andrew]

Arm chair quarterbacking wars is one of the greatest things on the internet ever!

 

[deathmetal]

As so few of citizens in the south had skin in the cotton game they had to create "state's rights" as the rallying cry in order to bring in the kids from the few small cities, "one horse" farms, backwoods cabins, mills, etc. for the armies.

Except that this issue has dodged America since the beginning, notably the 1776-1789 years.

 

[warren]

Yup! And it will until the demise of the Republic. Many firmly believe in a large, very centralized government. The other side wants most of the controls in the hands of state or even smaller government entities. The majority really do not care one way or the other, as long as they and their family, in their little insulated world, are "doing well."
It's one of those thorny problems that never get settled as there are advantages/disadvantages to either state of affairs depending on one's rearing and education. It's all part of the interpretation of the US Constitution, strict or flexible.
Unfortunately, that is a discussion which gets out of hand quickly as people tend to debate the question with little actual personal research or knowledge. It gets argued with the heart mostly, along with what was learned or preached in grade school and whatever one's favorite pundit is offering up as the "opinion of the day.". As such it is a debate unfit for the internet or any arena open to the public. Until civility makes a comeback little is accomplished through debate. Today debates quickly turn to personal attacks and the salient points fade away in the ensuing, disorganized cacophony of epithets and talking points.
One cannot simply read the Constitution. The state of mind, the intent of framers is, perhaps, more important than the words. The intent of the authors is considered so important, law makers today often include a section on intent as an integral part of the act. Judges then use such when forming opinions.
So, to become a true Constitutional scholar one must read biographies, autobiographers, letters, and tracts authored by the framers in order to get some understanding of what the intent was. And that is where the debate begins. It is true "words mean something." What the author meant, not what the reader wants to read. And, so the ambiguity begins, right from the first time a pen met paper.

 

[mso489]

The "what if" game is fun. I do suspect the unprovable, that the results of these big existential moments like revolutions, battles, and even leaps in technology that change history actually brew for decades or even centuries, so that when the big moment arrives, the results within some limits are predetermined. That's why the ultimate victors in so many contests are pummeled for months or years, yet then come back around to prevail. The long-term set-up is just too settled in one direction, whatever the preliminary contests look like.
In science, the big "breakthroughs" are often credited to one person or a limited team, but the groundwork has been put in place by long years of studies and innovations from other researchers and non-researchers that invent and innovate, and then boom, someone puts it together into its "inevitable" form as an advance. The Nobel Prize is probably healthy to stimulate progress, but the idea that the awardees stand alone is usually fallacious. An exception would be (as one example) Barbara McClintock and her "jumping jeans," some of which she couldn't even publish. She was the town fool at genetics conferences for decades until, oops, they started to discover she was right and had been for about forty years. In her case, the Nobel Prize was entirely and singularly hers, all hers. They asked her what she would do with the money, and she said, first of all she'd buy a new pair of tennis shoes. I think it was her sweet way of noting the bitter irony.

 

[tslex]

Excellent discussion, gentlemen.

 

[aldecaker]

"As such it is a debate unfit for the internet or any arena open to the public."
Which begs the question, if not the public, who is this debate fit for?

 

[deathmetal]

She was the town fool at genetics conferences for decades until, oops, they started to discover she was right and had been for about forty years.

This is common in science about "edgy" topics like genetics. Witness Flynn, Gottfredson, et al.
Another twenty years and we'll resurrect Galton and Shockley.

 

[warren]

Why people who understand what a debate is and how it is conducted, of course. Not "town meetings," barroom discussions, or such, as debate doesn't occur in those places, arguments and name calling do but, certainly not debate in the finest/strictest sense of the word. If there is debate in such circumstances, it always quickly disappears and turns to something less informative.
Since words mean something, when I write "debate" I am referring to a formal discussion, facts, and the interpretations of such, under controlled circumstances, with a moderator. This is much more than simple discourse, polite or not. Debates usually involve one subject and are not allowed to wander off into personal feelings. One should listen to a formal debate was one's mind as open as possible, weighing both sides carefully before deciding which side is corrector, if either is. Going to a debate with a closed mind is wasting one's time and that of the participants.
Were the US Constitution to be debated here, in this thread, how long would debate last until the name calling started, feathers became ruffled, panties would become bunched. One doesn't debate "feelings", one debates issues with facts, not impressions or grade school teachings. One prepares for debate and sticks only to the issues. A debater doesn't deflect the issue. A debater presents pertinent supporting facts not heartfelt feelings.

 

[aldecaker]

I see. I didn't realize you were using "debate" in the formal sense; I took you to mean it in the colloquial sense of the word.

 

[hobie1dog]

I can't believe that no one has mentioned a recent war event.

 

[tslex]

Go for it, hobie.
What recent battle was a near or surprising victory, and might well have gone the other way, and what consequence if it had?
(One possibility, not quite a battle, is to consider what might have happened if the 9-11 hijackers had been stopped before acting. But that's the professor's prompt. You get highest credit for your own idea. )
And hey, for history buffs, WWII IS pretty recent.

 

[tslex]

Warren:
Wanted to follow up on your comment about the Big Fella.
Have you read "The Squad"? If you haven't, and if you have any interest in the great struggle in general and Collins in particualr, it is a MUST READ.
LINK TO KINDLE EDITION OF "THE SQUAD"

 

[warren]

Thanks. I have read it along with a couple of other biographies. Also, a couple of volumes which speculate "act of war" or assassination? I believe Collins to have been one of the most brilliant young men ever. Wise, very wise before his years.

 

[warren]

Here's a "what if..." What if De Valera was executed after the rising? I have no doubts as to his valor. I have no doubt that his ultimate loyalty being solely to himself. Ireland was simply a method of achieving greatness. As to whether he was a mole for Winston Churchill? I can't find sufficient evidence to say yea or nay.
If Collins had lived, I believe he would have been the first president. I also think he possessed the abilities to have secured a couple of the lost counties. A smaller, Northern Ireland would have followed along in a couple of years as Collins proved to them that a united Republic was not a threat to their lives. Great Britain would have loved to be rid of Derry and the others.
We all know what it's like to have "needy" or "high maintenance" friends/family and the attention they demand. Northern Ireland fit those descriptors back in the 20s and 30s. I don't believe Collins would have taken Ireland into neutrality, leaning German, during the war either. A united Ireland would have precluded such need.
That's my "what if..."

 

[condorlover1]

Here are a few interesting ones to ponder. Hitler died in 1935. Was he remembered as the greatest politician of his age? Huey P Long avoids the assassins bullet in Baton Rouge and runs against Roosevelt. Who wins?

 

[tslex]

Warren: My own view is that there were no fewer than three times when de Valera should have been stood up against a wall --

by the IRISH, I'm saying.] (As a buddy once pointed out, Hans Gruber played him in the movie, so you KNOW he's a bad guy.) I'm among those who have always been dubious of him, but once he became who he became in Irish history, the culture almost couldn't afford to get to the bottom of whether he was running on Churchill's leash.
I think his fomenting the Civil War -- and I blame him directly -- was a cynical exercise in self promotion. I really do. I don't think anyone LIKED the Treaty. From the comfort of the present day, it's easy to say Collins should have held out. But as a guy who had gotten in harm's way and gotten his hands wet -- something de Valera did to a far lesser and less personal degree -- Collins had the moral authority to make that initial compromise.
I think you make a good point about Derry especially. Could a Taoiseach Collins have carved off a couple of counties? Having done so, would a less-viable Northern Ireland have been easier for the British to let go, given a softer approach by the south?
As I say, I'm one of those guys who tends to demonize de Valera and blame him for a lot, while more or less canonizing the Big Fella (even as I realize that, of course, it's never so simple).
ETA: Great point about a how a united Ireland approaches WWII. Little impact on the war, perhaps, but a meaningful difference for Anglo/Irish relations going into the next half of the XXth Century. And then, of course, no Troubles to follow.

 

[warren]

The world is personality driven. Personalities can make up for a lack of resources, much as they can manipulate circumstances. Whether it be Alexander, Lincoln, Churchill, Collins, et alli, a certain personality at the right time drives the momentous events.
Collins was a very young man when he died, 31 yoa. He probably would have presided over Ireland for a generation or three. He had the grudging respect and trust of important British leaders and, he knew when and where to apply pressure or negotiate. His death early on in the formation of the Republic changed things drastically. Imagine had Washington died early on in the American Revolution. Or, if Lincoln had not materialized when he did. No Caesar? Our world is driven by personalities. Events? Sure but, not so much.
I think Derry could have been had with a simple agreement; should Britain be threatened by a continental power, Ireland would side with Britain and provide for them to use the ports. Such was a serious concern in Britain in the aftermath of WWI and the rise of Germany in the 30s.
Collins was a tough foe, a loyal friend, a pragmatist and a visionary. His loss was surely one of the low points in the history of Ireland.

 

[mso489]

To pick up on warren a few posts back, the public conversation is a key to historical advances and declines. The public conversation hinges on the habits of family, personal, and organizational conversations, and these are all skills that require development and honing. Once people become inarticulate and/or passive and receptive about everything, they feel threatened by any discussion. There is always the small percent who step forward and know it all and are bellicose and persuasive. And both the passive and the bellicose feel angry and threatened when their point of view is contradicted, rather than coming to the fore with their arguing points. This progresses from dispute to adversarial and hateful in seconds. The advantage always leans toward the well-off and educated, but pockets of culture -- the Cockneys in U.K., the Irish at large, some Native American tribal cultures, etc., have highly developed conversational and argumentative skills. As with driving skills, the smooth traffic of ideas depends on broad public skills -- to compare even the spotty driving skills in the U.S. with the utter chaos in Italy that leaves most vehicles dented and otherwise damaged. "Just talk" turns out to be survival skill and the life blood of democracy, or lack thereof.

 

[warren]

One more observation on "Mick" Collins. I do not believe he had a selfish bone in his body. A united island was his sole objective.
He is celebrated as a saint in some of my friend's homes with photo and candles, a sort of shrine in the corner of a room. Would that his "friends" have shown the loyalty to the ideal that he did, leaving their petty, personal jealousies aside while the Island was still divided.