Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

WW1 Soldiers Traitors?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    It would have helped if you could have given the thread a less confusing title and then posted an intelligible first post. :D

    How would you rephrase it? I fail to see how it is not easy to understand?


  • Options
    #33
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,630 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    I honestly doubt you'd find many many people willing to call them as traitors in public.. especially since some of them were either fighting for Home Rule or later went on to join the IRA.

    While the 'legal' aspect has been pointed out quite quickly, I don't think that should be relied on, in imperial times there was also developing a strong feeling of loyalty to a people and to ignore it is misleading since the majority of peoples didnt have their own state yet to be legally loyal to. It's also not so useful on moral aspects such as collaboration or indeed the case of Irish soldiers who deserted to join the allies in WW2.

    Edit: For the record, since its a touchy subject for some, I wouldn't call them traitors myself, it was a complicated time.


  • Options
    #34
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Fooker wrote: »
    How would you rephrase it? I fail to see how it is not easy to understand?

    What you wrote in your opening post was :
    WW1 Soldiers Traitors? Hi,
    I'm doing some research into the above topic. What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea
    Well, as you have asked, your post is, for starters, pi$$ poor English, badly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, devoid of a question mark and ambiguous. D in Lower Level LC English.
    Personally, I was not ar$ed responding earlier because if you really were interested you could have looked at past threads here (there are many) and instead of giving lip to those who provided suggestions you might have read up on the links they provided.


  • Options
    #35
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,856 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    No doubt some Irish republicans/nationalists would have seen those fighting for the British Empire as traitors, but as Ireland was not a free country and had no government in exile or anything like it (bar the short lived provisional government in 1916), they wouldn't have been in a legal sense.

    Many however would have played their part in Britain's war crimes/crimes against humanity.


  • Options
    #36
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    does boards.ie have an ignore list function?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Well, as you have asked, your post is, for starters, pi$$ poor English, badly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, devoid of a question mark and ambiguous. D in Lower Level LC English.
    Personally, I was not ar$ed responding earlier because if you really were interested you could have looked at past threads here (there are many) and instead of giving lip to those who provided suggestions you might have read up on the links they provided.

    Granted I should have used 'which' as opposed to 'what' and yes, it did lack a question mark. It was sloppy on my part. Yet, I fail to comprehend in spite of these errors how one cannot understand what is being asked in the question nor how deriding my English grammar in such a condescending manner is necessary? How exactly was it ambiguous or hard to understand especially given that you appear to have such an utterly astounding command of the English language?

    Secondly, Can you point out the suggestions or links that were given by the posters who took my question as a statement of my own opinions? I asked a question, it was not 'what do you think?'. It was not 'this is what I think'. I am fully aware that this is a complicated issue and a complicated period of time, I am not seeking to suggest otherwise nor have any extreme views on the matter. It would seem that there are no significant figures who would choose to publicly describe the soldiers as 'traitors' or at least on the basis of this thread. I was wondering if such people exist. That is all. For posters to suggest that they do not exist would surely have sufficed.


  • Options
    #38
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    IMO, you should have elaborated more. If you want to get something, give something. For example.......
    Hi, I've been doing some research into Irishmen who served as soldiers in WW1 and the attitudes that prevailed in relation to their service. I was reading an article by Smith (link) who mentioned how they were viewed as traitors in certain quarters. I'm trying to find some material that discusses this point further, can anyone help? Thanks in advance.....


    The point about the construction and use of English in the original question is valid - to be honest, if you're doing academic research you should develop and maintain better writing habits - a well written sloppy argument will get accepted quicker that a sloppily written sound argument :)

    My final point - my initial reaction to the post was 'troll!' given the brevity of the post and the topic.


  • Options
    #39
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    does boards.ie have an ignore list function?

    Here's how do it, although I fail to see why anyone would sign up for a discussion forum to start excluding individuals with whom they disagree - easier to un-follow the thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_whatelse#faq_bie_faq_whatelse_ignore


  • Options
    #40
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Fooker wrote: »
    Granted I should have used 'which' as opposed to 'what' and yes, it did lack a question mark. It was sloppy on my part. Yet, I fail to comprehend in spite of these errors how one cannot understand what is being asked in the question nor how deriding my English grammar in such a condescending manner is necessary? How exactly was it ambiguous or hard to understand especially given that you appear to have such an utterly astounding command of the English language?

    Secondly, Can you point out the suggestions or links that were given by the posters who took my question as a statement of my own opinions? I asked a question, it was not 'what do you think?'. It was not 'this is what I think'. I am fully aware that this is a complicated issue and a complicated period of time, I am not seeking to suggest otherwise nor have any extreme views on the matter. It would seem that there are no significant figures who would choose to publicly describe the soldiers as 'traitors' or at least on the basis of this thread. I was wondering if such people exist. That is all. For posters to suggest that they do not exist would surely have sufficed.

    You did not acknowledge any of the responses which attempted to assist you.


  • Options
    #41
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    Jawgap wrote: »
    IMO, you should have elaborated more. If you want to get something, give something. For example.......

    The point about the construction and use of English in the original question is valid - to be honest, if you're doing academic research you should develop and maintain better writing habits - a well written sloppy argument will get accepted quicker that a sloppily written sound argument :)

    My final point - my initial reaction to the post was 'troll!' given the brevity of the post and the topic.

    I understand that one should maintain good writing habits, but this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. I have not mentioned the nature of my research. I was not attempting to construct an argument on the topic and if I were to do so in that case I would be more fastidious in my writing. If I were some barely literate half-wit should I not have been pointed in the right direction or answered rather than receive sneering comments on my English. Even if I were a barely literate half-wit, the question is clear in what it asks. Clear enough that anyone should be able to understand it.

    Maybe the question could have been elaborated upon further, but that would have been superfluous. The question was rather simple. It was not asking people 'what do you think?' nor was it asking 'which people would hold this view and what do you think?' nor 'which people would hold this view and why would they hold this view'. People seemed to take the question as a statement, reading into it what they wanted to read into it, adding 2+2 and getting 7. It was completely neutral language... And even after having declared my own views(which were largely irrelevant) as the opposite, posters were still intent on arguing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    You did not acknowledge any of the responses which attempted to assist you.

    I apologise. I do appreciate those who did attempt to assist me in this fruitless question! In the midst tirade against me I carelessly neglected to acknowledge them.


  • Options
    #43
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Your sarcasm - the lowest form of wit - is duly noted.

    tac


  • Options
    #44
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    tac foley wrote: »
    Your sarcasm - the lowest form of wit - is duly noted.

    tac

    Sir,

    If you would like to explain your other posts as to what exactly your issue was with my question? I, on my part would be happy to address any such issue.


  • Options
    #45
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    As has been noted, your original question had the appearance of the beginnings of a troll, and to be honest, I'm still not convinced that you are not about to spring a new premise/opinion - equally contentious to your first - on us.

    Basically, your first post read - to me and others here, as - 'Irishmen who fought on the British side in WW1 were thought of as traitors, weren't they? Who else thinks like that?'

    After that, there was a heroic demonstration of back-pedalling in order to avoid being wrong-footed in the face of some strongly-held points expressed by others who had interpreted your 'question/posit/opinion' in the same way that I had. The gradual improvement in your written English, from initial near-sh!te to college grad-grade, are also noted.

    Why you've chosen to pick ME out of the crowd is also, to me, very suspicious, and smacks of the beginnings of a personal attack. Not a good idea. So let's say no more about ME having to explain MY posts to YOU, and move on.

    tac


  • Options
    #46
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I find it hard to believe that your research failed to turn up any discussion of Irish soldiers as 'traitors' - to my mind if you are doing research in this area (academic research in July??) then you are looking to do it on the backs of people who post in this forum - that's fine, but I think you should be more transparent in what you're doing and why and you'll find that people are more amenable to helping you.

    I say this because I don't have an abiding interest in the history of the Irish Regiments in WW1, but it still only took me less than five minutes searching to find this.....

    "Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922: Suborned or Subordinate?" Journal of Social History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 31-64

    It contains the following quote
    The esprit de corps of British military units in the fin de siecle is well established, and Irishmen within those ranks were not exceptions to
    the rule.

    Irish republicans of the fin de siecle did try to undo this pattern. "An Irishman" recalled that the Irish regiments embarking for service during the Boer War "were hooted down the Dublin quays" by Redmondite critics of the war "because they were loyal to their oath."

    "Any Irishman . . . who enlists under England's blood-red flag," a pamphlet circulated in 1905 read, "is one of the meanest curs in creation."
    Other republican handouts prepared shortly after Britain entered the
    World War made the same point; the Irish servant of England was a "traitor to his country and an enemy of his people."

    Leaders of the "Irish Volunteers" in 1914 made clear that Volunteers were unlike the "Imperial mercenaries" who served in the regular army. Nonetheless, when John Redmond urged these same Irish Volunteers to enlist for service in France "in defence of right, of freedom and religion in this war," and the I.R.B. broke with Redmond, most Volunteers followed Redmond into this National Volunteers, and most of these served in
    Europe. Only about 2,500 joined the I.R.B.'s Irish Volunteers in 1915.

    Later, in 1917 Redmondites and Sinn Feiners "broke up recruiting meetings," "openly insulted British soldiers," and "by terrorism stopped enlistment" in some areas.

    The pamphlets referred to are

    Anon., "Traitors to Ireland" (June, 1905); Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

    "Irishmen" (c. 1914) Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

    Irish Volunteers, ed. Martin, 20, 168-69, 200, 53 is also cited as a source.


  • Options
    #47
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Well done, JG, you've answered his/her question for him/her. I note that the words used to describe those who DID serve in the UK armed forces of the time, however insulting they might have been, stopped short of 'traitor'. Such an accusation, which would, if successful, be brought to a close at end at the rope, or in front of a line of rifles, would have had to have been proven in court.

    Now, hopefully we can move on.

    tac


  • Options
    #48
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    tac foley wrote: »
    As has been noted, your original question had the appearance of the beginnings of a troll, and to be honest, I'm still not convinced that you are not about to spring a new premise/opinion - equally contentious to your first - on us.

    Basically, your first post read - to me and others here, as - 'Irishmen who fought on the British side in WW1 were thought of as traitors, weren't they? Who else thinks like that?'

    After that, there was a heroic demonstration of back-pedalling in order to avoid being wrong-footed in the face of some strongly-held points expressed by others who had interpreted your 'question/posit/opinion' in the same way that I had. The gradual improvement in your written English, from initial near-sh!te to college grad-grade, are also noted.

    Why you've chosen to pick ME out of the crowd is also, to me, very suspicious, and smacks of the beginnings of a personal attack. Not a good idea. So let's say no more about ME having to explain MY posts to YOU, and move on.

    tac

    I asked but a simple question, there was nothing implicit. It was not accusative. Nowhere was there any opinion given by me. Others chose to take the question as an expression of my own opinions. I obviously came into this forum innocently expecting that people would address the question. This explains my more cavalier approach to grammar and carelessness. My initial attempts to explore such people in my CASUAL research drew up no results. Thus, I made a quick post to see if others may be able to aid me. Nowhere have I suggested that this was my opinion or did I seek to engage people specifically on the matter. Nowhere did I express any opinions that would lead one to think that I thought of the soldiers as 'traitors'. Feel free correct me.

    My 'back-pedalling' as you put it was only a defence to the attacks which I was subject to for simply asking a question which I repeat had no opinions expressed in it. My improvement of English also too is a reflection of the fact that I was snidely derided for my apparent lack of competence in English. For all you could have known I could have been a poor innocent national school pupil doing some small project.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that your research failed to turn up any discussion of Irish soldiers as 'traitors' - to my mind if you are doing research in this area (academic research in July??) then you are looking to do it on the backs of people who post in this forum - that's fine, but I think you should be more transparent in what you're doing and why and you'll find that people are more amenable to helping you.

    I say this because I don't have an abiding interest in the history of the Irish Regiments in WW1, but it still only took me less than five minutes searching to find this.....

    "Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922: Suborned or Subordinate?" Journal of Social History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 31-64

    It contains the following quote



    The pamphlets referred to are

    Anon., "Traitors to Ireland" (June, 1905); Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

    "Irishmen" (c. 1914) Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

    Irish Volunteers, ed. Martin, 20, 168-69, 200, 53 is also cited as a source.

    Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

    On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

    I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

    The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.


  • Options
    #49
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,630 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    I cant find anything modern online about it either, even if you look at those who would argue against the wearing of the poppy, the feeling is more that the soldiers were misguided or misled not traitors.


  • Options
    #50
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Fooker wrote: »
    ........

    Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

    No, your question was
    What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea
    Fooker wrote: »
    On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

    I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

    And yet you asked about "......historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea"
    Fooker wrote: »
    The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.

    I've provided two links to articles for you. The second one - according to Google Scholar - has been cited by 31 subsequent publications.....

    .......just how much information do you want?

    Anyway, I think I've contributed enough on this thread - good luck with your research.


  • Options
    #51
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Fooker wrote: »
    I asked but a simple question, there was nothing implicit. It was not accusative. Nowhere was there any opinion given by me. Others chose to take the question as an expression of my own opinions. I obviously came into this forum innocently expecting that people would address the question. This explains my more cavalier approach to grammar and carelessness. My initial attempts to explore such people in my CASUAL research drew up no results. Thus, I made a quick post to see if others may be able to aid me. Nowhere have I suggested that this was my opinion or did I seek to engage people specifically on the matter. Nowhere did I express any opinions that would lead one to think that I thought of the soldiers as 'traitors'. Feel free correct me.

    My 'back-pedalling' as you put it was only a defence to the attacks which I was subject to for simply asking a question which I repeat had no opinions expressed in it. My improvement of English also too is a reflection of the fact that I was snidely derided for my apparent lack of competence in English. For all you could have known I could have been a poor innocent national school pupil doing some small project.



    Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

    On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

    I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

    The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.

    Not so - a quick glance at your posting history reveals that you're a 3rd level student at NUIG.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    riffmongous wrote: »
    I cant find anything modern online about it either, even if you look at those who would argue against the wearing of the poppy, the feeling is more that the soldiers were misguided or misled not traitors.

    I think the perception has moved on from that view....
    As Keith Jeffery has observed, the First World War was seen in Ireland for much of the twentieth century in terms of ‘worn out politicians’ duping ‘misguided Irish youths … into taking the “King’s shilling”’, only for them to be needlessly ‘slaughtered in France at the altar of British imperialism’.

    In contrast, most modern historians emphasize factors other than the agency of MPs in accounting for the enlistment of approximately 144 000 Irishmen during the war (in addition to the 58 000 Irish military personnel and reservists who were mobilized).

    Jeffery, for instance, has provided a wide-ranging survey of motives and contexts encompassing ‘low as well as high causes: venal and valiant, selfish and selfless’, while David Fitzpatrick concludes his statistical analysis of Irish enlistment by emphasizing the centrality of fraternity and community.

    Nonetheless, even among scholars who disdain both the freighted term of ‘recruiting sergeant’ and its underlying assumptions, it continues to be argued that nationalist MPs ‘evangelically promoted’ enlistment, organized recruiting ‘campaign’, and were in the ‘forefront of recruitment efforts in Ireland’.

    From James McConnel - Recruiting Sergeants for John Bull? Irish Nationalist MPs and Enlistment during the Early Months of the Great War War In History November 2007 vol. 14 no. 4 408-428


  • Options
    #53
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,630 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I think the perception has moved on from that view....



    From James McConnel - Recruiting Sergeants for John Bull? Irish Nationalist MPs and Enlistment during the Early Months of the Great War War In History November 2007 vol. 14 no. 4 408-428
    Are those sources against wearing the poppy?


  • Options
    #54
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Are those sources against wearing the poppy?

    I only skimmed the article but a quick search of it indicates the word 'poppy' does not appear in it....

    ....the abstract describes it as follows....
    In September 1914 John Redmond promised Britain that nationalist Ireland would fight Germany ‘wherever the firing line extends’. Although the creation of an ‘Irish Brigade’ was blocked, Redmond encouraged nationalist enlistment in the 16th (Irish) Division. Separatists accused him and his colleagues of being ‘recruiting sergeants’ for the British army. This charge influenced how the Irish party was seen both during the war and after 1922.

    This article argues that, as with other core Redmondite themes, the nationalist party was in fact divided over Irish enlistment in Britain’s army. It concludes that the majority of home rule MPs did not share Redmond’s commitment to recruiting but instead shared the ‘mental neutrality’ which characterized much of nationalist Ireland during the early part of the war.


  • Options
    #55
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,630 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Ah ok, what I just meant was that the feeling the soldiers were misled is the feeling of those who argue against wearing the poppy (from what I read online), not necessarily the consensus feeling. It seems like a very interesting paper though, is the full article subscription only? I might try some university log ins


  • Options
    #56
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Ah ok, what I just meant was that the feeling the soldiers were misled is the feeling of those who argue against wearing the poppy (from what I read online), not necessarily the consensus feeling. It seems like a very interesting paper though, is the full article subscription only? I might try some university log ins

    Yes, I had to go through my university's library to get full access.

    The final para of the article concludes
    However, the ultimate success and endurance of the ‘recruiting sergeant’ metaphor cannot solely be attributed to the absence of back- bench backbone. Rather, the popularity of the Irish republican version of the familiar ‘lions’ led by ‘donkeys’ apologue as the dominant narrative of the war ultimately emphasizes once again the propaganda talents of the numerically much smaller but politically more nimble coalition of heterodox nationalists who opposed the home rule party during the First World War and who, ultimately, went on to build the new Irish state.


  • Options
    #57
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Not so - a quick glance at your posting history reveals that you're a 3rd level student at NUIG.

    Fair point perhaps, but according to boards.ie only you have viewed my previous posts. The point still stands. People jumped to conclusions and read what they wanted or did not want to read into my question.


    - Jawgap

    Yes, I asked if any historians held that VIEW, not if they found evidence in the past of peoples attitudes. There is a huge difference. In the past people thought the world was flat, because I state this does not imply that I in fact believe this... I also stated that Historians should not bring their own opinions to bear on research. This does not mean to say that historians do not bring their opinions to bear, many do, but they should not.


  • Options
    #58
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Fooker wrote: »
    Fair point perhaps, but according to boards.ie only you have viewed my previous posts. The point still stands. People jumped to conclusions and read what they wanted or did not want to read into my question.


    - Jawgap

    Yes, I asked if any historians held that VIEW, not if they found evidence in the past of peoples attitudes. There is a huge difference. In the past people thought the world was flat, because I state this does not imply that I in fact believe this... I also stated that Historians should not bring their own opinions to bear on research. This does not mean to say that historians do not bring their opinions to bear, many do, but they should not.

    Not really sure how to respond to that, other than to wish you well in your research.......


  • Options
    #59
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,036 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Fooker wrote: »
    I asked a question, I sought assistance, I never asked for opinions. I have stated that it is not my opinion that these men were traitors.

    If I asked who would hold the view that the Holocaust did not happen, the answer would be David Irving. It does not mean that I would be a Holocaust denier or asking people what they think. It is asking a question.

    I. Asked. A. Question.

    OK, so if I understand you correctly, then the original query should have read something like:

    "Can someone give me a list of historians who think Irish men that served in WW I were traitors?"

    Is that your question? If that is your question, then no I don't know of a single one and I've read a lot on the subject over the years.


  • Options
    #60
    Fooker
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    OK, so if I understand you correctly, then the original query should have read something like:

    "Can someone give me a list of historians who think Irish men that served in WW I were traitors?"

    Is that your question? If that is your question, then no I don't know of a single one and I've read a lot on the subject over the years.

    Thank you for responding to the question! It sounds easy, but many have tried where you have failed! I did main anyone relatively well known which would also encompass historians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Are those sources against wearing the poppy?

    Please don't mention the poppy. We will be having a full blown "Would you wear a Poppy" rant commencing in four months time on the After Hours site


Advertisement