[LordSutch]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

If you are true Irishmen and Irishwomen and if you truly love your country you must unashamedly honour the men and women of 1916.
1916 inevitably is divisive - tell me of one revolution that isn't?

But of course, there was no revolution in 1916, and regarding your long winded ramble in praise of the rebels, all I can say is there are many shades of Irishness, and I for one would not buy into the "heroes of 1916" who to my mind were opportunist rebels and nothing more, who then took it upon themselves (without widespread support) to declare and then start a rebellion!!! Many people were killed, including many policemen, many civilians, many soldiers, many rebels too. Homes and shops were burnt down and Dublin was in ruins (thank you rebels), and I say this in the full knowledge that most people milling around Dublin in that week of 1916 would agree with me 100%.

Pearse read out the proclamation to a handful of supporters and a dog, so there was no great Revolution in 1916, and there was no great groundswell of support either, but there certainly was lots of anti rebel feeling in that Easter of 1916, and the rebels got to know about that as they were led away to the jibes to jeers from the public at large, many of whom had their sons fighting & dying on the western front against ze Germans. From many an Irishman's point of view in 1916, the rebels stabbed them in the back while they were fighting the Germans in Europe. Nothing too controversial there I hope.

[murphaph]

Originally Posted by DanDan6592

I just don't understand how a largely unpopular uprising by what today would essentially be terrorists can today be viewed as having been right. I find it odd.

As is always the case with any war, guerilla or otherwise, the victors write the history of that war. In Ireland from 1922 on the official line as taught in schools was quite black and white. It was only later that schools dared to teach that in fact the rising was deeply unpopular at the time.

I would however hope that we could mark the anniversary in a somewhat grown up way this time, rather than running about the place renaming railway stations maybe we could remember all those who died in 1916, mostly the completely innocent civilians who didn't buy into Pearse's "blood sacrifice" mentality.

[swimming in a sea]

pretty annoyed by the spending of millions on 100th anniversary of a bunch of poets, teachers and civil servants destroying the city and causing the death of many innocent people. Maybe if any of the rebels had a real job they would not have had time to be playing a little boy soldiers.

But I suppose 100 years is plenty of time for vested interests to put a better spin on events.

[Dubhlinner]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

The UVF and their unionist fellow travellers in the rest of the country sought to crush Irish nationalist aspirations entirely not just in Ulster but across the island of Ireland.
In the end they got their six county sectarian statelet.
But had Irish nationalists not fought for the Irish Republic there would have been no 26 county Free State let alone a 26 county Irish Republic.
The British Army and the Anglo-Irish Protestant elite in the south sought to crush the Irish people's aspirations for independence.

There would have been through home rule. They probably would have partitioned it alright, but the southern state would have ended up declaring autonomy and we'd be in a similar situation to today.

Had there been no 1916 (and we're really into 'if my aunt had balls' territory here) and no uprisings, and Ireland remained one jurisdiction, we may even be in the position Scotland are in now, with the entire island making a decision as one on independence.

[Nodin]

O dear.....

Originally Posted by LordSutch

But of course, there was no revolution in 1916, .

There was, however, an attempt at same.

Originally Posted by LordSutch

and regarding your long winded ramble in praise of the rebels, all I can say is there are many shades of Irishness, and I for one would not buy into the "heroes of 1916" who to my mind were opportunist rebels and nothing more, who then took it upon themselves (without widespread support) to declare and then start a rebellion!!! .

...or "revolution".

It is certainly true that there are many shades of Irishness. Rather unfortunately you seem to put your own observation aside and go on to reject that shade represented by those who rose in 1916.

Originally Posted by LordSutch

Many people were killed, including many policemen, many civilians, many soldiers, many rebels too. Homes and shops were burnt down and Dublin was in ruins (thank you rebels), and I say this in the full knowledge that most people milling around Dublin in that week of 1916 would agree with me 100%. .

As you have to no access to temporal transport and neither do I, not one of us can say with "100%" or "full knowledge" anything. Even were such means available, the tools and mediums which allow that form of data to be collected with a degree of accuracy were not extant in the period.

The picture - insomuch as we might speculate on it - would seem to be a small part 'support', a small part 'hostility', a large part of 'bewilderment' and an amount of that most cutting of attitudes, 'indifference'.

Originally Posted by LordSutch

Pearse read out the proclamation to a handful of supporters and a dog, .

You'll find that - and I believe this to be a universal occurrence - clandestinely organised events tend not to be well attended by those 'outside the loop'. One of course could advertise ones intentions, but that would lead to certain difficulties, particularily in regard to overthrowing governments and such like.

Originally Posted by LordSutch

...... and the rebels got to know about that as they were led away to the jibes to jeers from the public at large, many of whom had their sons fighting & dying on the western front against ze Germans. From many an Irishman's point of view in 1916, the rebels stabbed them in the back while they were fighting the Germans in Europe. Nothing too controversial there I hope.

Yet a scant two years later their apologists become the overwhelming majority selected by vote in a general Election. Evidently feelings were neither as deep or as widespread ad you might believe.

[Fenian Army]

Irish Unionist in belittlement of Easter rebels shocker. (Yes LordSutch I'm talking about you).

Aren't you on record as saying that you would have fought against the heroes of '16?

[murphaph]

Originally Posted by Fenian Army

Irish Unionist in belittlement of Easter rebels shocker. (Yes LordSutch I'm talking about you).

Aren't you on record as saying that you would have fought against the heroes of '16?

I'm not a unionist. I do not believe Ireland should rejoin the UK, BUT I am no fan of the 1916 rising either.

It's not black and white.

[snafuk35]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by LordSutch

But of course, there was no revolution in 1916, and regarding your long winded ramble in praise of the rebels

I didn't ramble. I spoke the facts of history. If you would bother to read about the history of the period - Max Caulfield, Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Hopkinson, Peter Hart, Mena Ryan, Richard English etc. would be a good place to start - it would be immediately clear that 1916 radicalized fence sitting Irish nationalists.

I for one would not buy into the "heroes of 1916" who to my mind were opportunist rebels and nothing more

What other kind of rebel is there except an opportunist? The French resistance were opportunists. The Libyan rebels were opportunists.

, who then took it upon themselves (without widespread support) to declare and then start a rebellion!!!

How else was an Irish Republic going to come about? The British had suspended even the limited Home Rule which was on offer before 1916. The subsequent brutality of the British to the Irish people during the Tan War clearly shows force would have to have been used somewhere down the line. The Treaty signatories had a gun to their head when they signed the Treaty in 1922 - "war in three days". The people had no arms or organization so a small secretive militant group would have to do for them. That's what patriotism and sacrifice about. That's why men like Pearse took it upon themselves to light the spark.

Many people were killed, including many policemen, many civilians, many soldiers, many rebels too. Homes and shops were burnt down and Dublin was in ruins (thank you rebels), and I say this in the full knowledge that most people milling around Dublin in that week of 1916 would agree with me 100%.

And of course when the Allies were fighting through France, the bombs and shells they were firing killed only German soldiers? No innocent French civilians were killed at all no? Nobody should ever fight a war because of civilian casualties eh?

Pearse read out the proclamation to a handful of supporters and a dog

So what? Men like the O'Rahilly and John McBride and others who had opposed an uprising were stirred to take part.

, so there was no great Revolution in 1916, and there was no great groundswell of support either

Between 1918-1922 there was a groundswell of support and large areas of the country became ungovernable by the British. The people voted for Sinn Féin repeatedly at local and national level. They endorsed the Irish Republic that Pearse et al proclaimed. Flying columns could not have operated without the popular support across much of the country and the flow of intelligence into the hands of the IRA GHQ. There wasn't armed action across all of the country but there were mass campaigns of civil disobedience, roads cut, railroads cut and other acts of sabotage.

but there certainly was lots of anti rebel feeling in that Easter of 1916

That soon changed after the executions and when the rebels returned from Frognach and other prisons they were greeted as heroes by large crowds. Willie Redmond's seat was won by De Valera in 1917.

, and the rebels got to know about that as they were led away to the jibes to jeers from the public at large, many of whom had their sons fighting & dying on the western front against ze Germans. From many an Irishman's point of view in 1916, the rebels stabbed them in the back while they were fighting the Germans in Europe. Nothing too controversial there I hope.

When those men who had fought in World War I came home and voted in the 'khaki' election of November 1918 they voted overwhelmingly for Sinn Féin. Men like Tom Barry who had fought in Mespotamia and many others joined the IRA and fought for their country. People who supported the war effort including members of Redmond party turned to Sinn Féin. The conscription crisis demonstrates that the majority of people turned against the Great War in 1918 which fed into the tide of nationalism.

As I said - read the history of the period before demonstrating your historical ignorance.
How do you think in the space of a little over 2 years Sinn Féin won such an overwhelming majority unless 1916 had something to do with it?

These electoral maps say it all :

[murphaph]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

As I said - read the history of the period before demonstrating your historical ignorance.

Whose version of that history? Different books say different things. None of us were actually there.

[LordSutch]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

As I said - read the history of the period before demonstrating your historical ignorance.

Thing is, I was talking about Easter 1916, but you are muddying the waters by bringing in 1917-1922.

[snafuk35]

Originally Posted by murphaph

Whose version of that history? Different books say different things. None of us were actually there.

The testimony of thousands of people who took part in the Irish revolutionary period are in the archives and historians have researched the period. It is quite clear the 1916 Rising inspired an entire generation of Irish nationalists to embrace republicanism. It is hard to envision how else it could have happened. The blood sacrifice of the rebels clearly won popular support and swelled the ranks of Sinn Féin and the IRA. That is indisputable historical fact.

[snafuk35]

Originally Posted by LordSutch

Thing is, I was talking about Easter 1916, but you are muddying the waters by bringing in 1917-1922.

The events of 1917-1922 would not have happened only for the events of 1916 and are inseparable from the Rising. The rebels clearly captured the mood of the country. The person who is trying to muddy the waters is you. There is clear link between the repeated frustration of Irish constitutional nationalism since the 1880s and 1890s by British conspiracy and the explosive consequences of the suspension of Home Rule once again in 1914. 1916 and the 1919-1922 independence struggle came about when democratic alternatives had been crushed.

[murphaph]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

The testimony of thousands of people who took part in the Irish revolutionary period are in the archives and historians have researched the period. It is quite clear the 1916 Rising inspired an entire generation of Irish nationalists to embrace republicanism. It is hard to envision how else it could have happened. The blood sacrifice of the rebels clearly won popular support and swelled the ranks of Sinn Féin and the IRA. That is indisputable historical fact.

Says you. The rebels became martyrs when the British executed them. If they had merely imprisoned them the sequence of events may have been entirely different.

[snafuk35]

Originally Posted by murphaph

Says you. The rebels became martyrs when the British executed them. If they had merely imprisoned them the sequence of events may have been entirely different.

Sure. Believe what you want.
It would have made no difference. The popular desire for Irish freedom was a wave that could not be held back.
You are ignoring the fact that tens of thousands across Ireland rushed to join the Irish Volunteers in order to defend Irish Home Rule prior to 1914?
The Tories and Unionists were opposed to Irish independence in any form.
The Treaty that was imposed on Collins and Griffith et al with the explicit threat of immediate and terrible war flew in face of the democratic aspirations of the majority of the Irish people who had voted for Sinn Féin. The national mood was clearly in favour of a Republic.
If the rebels had been imprisoned they still would have gained support anyway.
Pearse was an inspirational figure. Imagine if he had not been shot?
Consider that De Valera returned as hero and was elected easily by the voters of Clare? Pearse would have been met with even greater enthusiasm.
You are deluding yourself.

[comeback_kid]

Originally Posted by murphaph

Says you. The rebels became martyrs when the British executed them. If they had merely imprisoned them the sequence of events may have been entirely different.

you could say that about any scenario , thier are countless concievable outcomes from any given event