Easter Sunday/ 2006

LordSutch

Just wondering - how many of you fellow political posters will be attending the 1916 salute outside the GPO on Easter Sunday? if thats where Bertie is holding the military march past/ fly-over this year, and if so, what do you expect to see in the parade .........................?

Long winding columns of soldiers goose stepping with rifles slung over shoulders, followed by the latest military hardware spewing out plumes of black diesel smoke from their engines, then rows of tanks followed by masses of the latest missiles on the back of transporters?, oops, sorry, got carried away there for a moment!

But seriously - does anyone know whats happening in this years 1916 anniversary parade? and will you be attending, or am I thinking of what might happen on the 100th anniversary of the Rising in 2016?

Sand

Just wondering - how many of you fellow political posters will be attending the 1916 salute outside the GPO on Easter Sunday?

No, cant really see myself being drawn to some celebration of violence and murder over constitutional politics tbh.

But seriously - does anyone know whats happening in this years 1916 anniversary parade?

Some 30s style military parade complete with flyover, and some statues are being unveiled. Bertie making some amazing speech depicting the rising as a pacifist anti-war rally gone dreadfully wrong or similar, then everyone gets rained on and goes home?

am I thinking of what might happen on the 100th anniversary of the Rising in 2016?

Will anyone know what actually happened in 1916 by that point is the real question.

Snickers Man

[cue sarcasm]
I support the invasion of Iraq by the British and Americans on false pretences and downright lies and their presiding over its descent into utter anarchy and civil war but I cannot possibly bring myself to contemplate support for a rising by an indigenous people against the strongest empire of its day.

Not even given that the state which ensued:

was democratic and based on the rule of law;

was determined to have an unarmed police force, even though that force
was being shot like flies by its political opponents in its first days;

was restored to a peaceful state shortly after a brutal and futile civil war;

never went to war with anyone (in stark contrast to its former master);

became renowned for its contributions to third world development, out of all proprotion to its size and wealth;

was able to sow the seeds of its own prosperity through its independence of action, concentration on education and determination to safeguard the welfare of its people;

has a constitutional ban on the death penalty.

I support the invasion of the British and Americans of Iraq on false pretences and downright lies but am ashamed of my own country's struggle for independence because ....well...because.... I'm just cleverer than the rest of you.

[sarcasm off]

Mind you, there are some people here (no names no site bans) who can quite happily reconcile those two points of view.

Clever that.

lostexpectation

still very little info on what is happening and its only weeks away...

seems sinn fein are having their commemoration/march on the sat the 15th and the gov are having theirs on sunday the 16th,

i don't know how they decided that but i guess everyone will be better off for it...

somone did point out that the rising actual happened on the 24th of april

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

The date is irrelevant to some extent, it was the Easter Rising - perhaps that is a sad reflection on just how intertwined the Irish psyche and the Catholic Church is but regardless, the Parade is being held on April 16th.

The Parade will involve several Coys of the Irish Army - both PDF and RDF - and it's route will be similiar to that of the St. Patrick's Day Parade with the focal point being the march past the GPO. It may or may not include some military hardware but if it does it will most like be a couple of MOWAGs and some 25Pdrs or 105s (Artillery pieces).

Flex

Im proud of the fact that Ireland is a free country today and that we fought to take back our freedom, rather than begging the people who took it from us to let us have (some of) it back when it suited them to do so; plus Im proud to be Irish and dont have an inferiority complex that causes me to resent my countries freedom because it means Im an Irish citizen rather than British citizen; so Ill definitely be out that day.

Sand

Mind you, there are some people here (no names no site bans) who can quite happily reconcile those two points of view.

/me shrugs - Im guessing I cant get banned for saying you mean me? And either way you cant get banned for attacking what you perceive as contradictions in my views, assuming you keep it to my views. Anyway, Ill exercise my right of reply below, but if youve got a problem with me you should open a thread on it or pm me instead of hijacking this one...

I support the invasion of Iraq by the British and Americans on false pretences and downright lies and their presiding over its descent into utter anarchy and civil war but I cannot possibly bring myself to contemplate support for a rising by an indigenous people against the strongest empire of its day.

Descent into civil war, assassinations of government ministers, tit for tat executions, internment, a heritage of murder and terrorism, the imposition of religous morals and figures onto the elected government. Now am I talking about Iraq or Ireland?

And in their preference for violence over constitutional politics the men of 1916 are most directly comparable to the Sunni insurgency and its terrorism, I oppose both so I dont see any contradiction. I support the end of Saddams dictatorship (a real one, not the MOPE version of dictatorship where the 1916 rebels could happily march around performing military maneuveres under the benevolent eye of the British), and btw, if you want me to accept that implies support for say the secret Shia militia prisons the US are finding, then you better have the intellectual honesty to accept your opposition to the Coalition toppling Saddam implies your support for Saddams torture chambers...

But you wont.

A Dub in Glasgo

If anyone gets 'The Village', have a look out for the rabid neo-unionist who foams at the mouth about Easter 1916 in the letters section. His view in life boils down to the following

British Empire = Good
Irish Independence = Bad

Anyhow, I will be there remembering the men & women of the Rising. The Easter Rising has always been remembered at Easter, not April 24th. As every school child will tell you, Easter falls on different dates each year.

macfran

Flex wrote:

Im proud of the fact that Ireland is a free country today and that we fought to take back our freedom, rather than begging the people who took it from us to let us have (some of) it back when it suited them to do so; plus Im proud to be Irish and dont have an inferiority complex that causes me to resent my countries freedom because it means Im an Irish citizen rather than British citizen; so Ill definitely be out that day.

Flex, I agree with you and I am very proud to be Irish and applaud the men and women who made it possible.

flogen

Maybe when they celebrate Irish Independence as a whole (rather than a lost battle which was a small part of it), or even the Proclemation and its goals...

Seems like a fair idea but badly executed... excuse the pun.

sceptre

lostexpectation wrote:

seems sinn fein are having their commemoration/march on the sat the 15th and the gov are having theirs on sunday the 16th,

And funnily enough given that the event in question (ignoring the April 24 thing) happened on the Monday, neither celebration/commemoration/parade/excuse for a few pints somewhere is taking place on the relevant day anyway. I suppose it's not as though the Monday happens to be a bank holiday with people off work or anything like that.

lostexpectation

was it a holiday back then, a holy day atleast, was that part of the plan? not that i wanna get into a arguement about 1916 again

can we keep this thread just about the commemoration?

axer

Sand wrote:

No, cant really see myself being drawn to some celebration of violence and murder over constitutional politics tbh.

What politics? Nobody has given a viable alternative to what those guys did in 1916 - at least nobody in this forum.

I unfortunately will be in Germany next month so will not be able to attend the commemoration. While I doubt this year's parade will be an extravaganza it is a step in the right direction. The only problem is I fear the government is holding this commemoration for the wrong reasons - this would be an insult to the Irish flag which hung over the GPO in 1916 and to those who gave their lives to Irish freedom.

I think WB Yeats portrays the importance of the easter rising and the effect it had on the Irish People in their goal of Independence from Britain best in his "Easter, 1916" poem.

William Butler Yeats wrote:

Easter, 1916

I Have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road.
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashes within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

September 25, 1916

simu

can we keep this thred just about the commemoration?

Yeah! The rights and wrongs of it have been discussed here many a time afair!

Will there be anything on anywhere else in the country, I wonder?

Diorraing

I'll be there without question. Not just to pay my respects to those who gave their lives for my freedom but to salute our fantastic armed forces as well.

dathi1

I'm there! with both a Tri Colour and Palestinian Flag in support of the Palestinians and their struggle for an independent state too.

Hagar

I would like to see it but I can't be there.
I hope RTE have the gumption to show it, not just the two minute photo op for the fat cats.

murphaph

I won't be attending. I'll remember the few hundred innocent civilians murdered that day in my own way.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

I won't be attending. I'll remember the few hundred innocent civilians murdered that day in my own way.

Very commendable.

While you're at it set a few minutes aside on April 13th to commemorate the several hundred civilians who were massacred that day in India in 1919 at the instigation of loyal Irish servants of the crown.

Amritsar, April 13th 1919: At least 379, almost certainly more than 500 and some claim over a thousand unarmed Indians killed and thousands injured after they were gunned down at a public gathering on the orders of Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, (Indian born but from an Anglo Irish family) who was wholeheartedly supported in his actions by the regional governor, former Clongowes boy Michael Francis O'Dwyer.

See, if we weren't doing it to each other, we would have been doing it to the other people in the Empire with huge gusto. Just to show off to the boss man what good loyal servants we were.

A huge number of Irishmen served in the British army during the Indian mutiny of 1857-58. That was put down with the utmost savagery: Mass executions, tying prisoners to cannons and blowing them to bits,impaling hundreds of them along roadways like was the norm in Roman times. And Irishmen were represented in the army that did that out of all proportion to the population.

You want to decry the actions of 1916 because it caused deaths, fair enough. But look at the other army in which our countrymen served and would have continued to serve in huge numbers had we not gained independence and look at the nunber of deaths for which they were responsible. Those in Dublin were a mere fraction by comparison.

Dyr

Diorraing wrote:

I'll be there without question. Not just to pay my respects to those who gave their lives for my freedom but to salute our fantastic armed forces as well.

Did you watch the embarrasment that was our armed forces during the (re)burial of kevin barry et al? Not only could they not march in step, they had professional soldiers who were morbidly obese waddling up o'connell street. It was a joke

BrianD

It seems to me that the Government are trying to take ownership of 1916 from the Shinners.

What also raises eyebrows that this is a military parade. There seems to be a new found interest by the FF government in the defence forces. Not to the level that other countries have e.g. USA, UK, Australia but it is strange. I recall reading somewhere that FF never ever trusted the defense forces and kept the budget low. This was as a result of hangups from the civil war days. Up to recently, the army looked like some sort of shabbily dressed militia. Now there seems to be a better sense of recognition by the government - pride in them as a professional force rather than security van escorts. Perhaps this a precursor to future involvement in either European or UN actions.

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote:

Very commendable.

While you're at it set a few minutes aside on April 13th to commemorate the several hundred civilians who were massacred that day in India in 1919 at the instigation of loyal Irish servants of the crown.

Amritsar, April 13th 1919: At least 379, almost certainly more than 500 and some claim over a thousand unarmed Indians killed and thousands injured after they were gunned down at a public gathering on the orders of Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, (Indian born but from an Anglo Irish family) who was wholeheartedly supported in his actions by the regional governor, former Clongowes boy Michael Francis O'Dwyer.

See, if we weren't doing it to each other, we would have been doing it to the other people in the Empire with huge gusto. Just to show off to the boss man what good loyal servants we were.

A huge number of Irishmen served in the British army during the Indian mutiny of 1857-58. That was put down with the utmost savagery: Mass executions, tying prisoners to cannons and blowing them to bits,impaling hundreds of them along roadways like was the norm in Roman times. And Irishmen were represented in the army that did that out of all proportion to the population.

You want to decry the actions of 1916 because it caused deaths, fair enough. But look at the other army in which our countrymen served and would have continued to serve in huge numbers had we not gained independence and look at the nunber of deaths for which they were responsible. Those in Dublin were a mere fraction by comparison.

Conscription into the British Army was never applied to any part of the island of Ireland so it has and still is entirely optional for irishmen and women to join the british armed forces. Many still do of course so the rising didn't stop that If it wasn't for those british armed forces you clearly hold in such low regard, we'd have been overrun by Nazi Germany before the yanks could get the finger out and help us. Again, assisted by many thousands of brave irishmen in their ranks.

Sgt Sensible

murphaph wrote:

Conscription into the British Army was never applied to any part of the island of Ireland so it has and still is entirely optional for irishmen and women to join the british armed forces.

The option was precarious unskilled lowpaid labour (if one was lucky) in a disease ridden tenement slum. Not much of an option really.

The rising led to Ireland being turned into a sort of catholic Iran, a hopeless political, social, cultural and economic basketcase, the repercussions of which are still being felt today, so no, stuff it.

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

me you should open a thread on it or pm me instead of hijacking this one...

I'm not hijacking this forum to have a go at you. I'm criticising the point of view that is by no means unique to you that the actions of 1916 should not be condoned in any way because they were 'violent' and 'undemocratic' and 'caused civilain deaths' while at the same time such actions as the invasion of Iraq, which has descended into such anarchy are justified because one set of baddies got replaced by another.

Also, many people, and I don't know whether you are one and it doesn't matter to me either way, are tuning in to the revisionism which says that those Irishmen who served in the British Army are to be revered while those who fought the British Army are to be reviled as terrorists. The Irishmen who served in the British Army down through the decades were responsible for the death and massacre of many more innocent civilians than the IRA ever were.

sand wrote:

Descent into civil war, assassinations of government ministers, tit for tat executions, internment, a heritage of murder and terrorism, the imposition of religous morals and figures onto the elected government. Now am I talking about Iraq or Ireland?

You're describing both. But there is a crucial difference between the two. Ireland ended up being governed by an Irish elected government, policed by an Irish police force and garrisoned by an Irish army all of which served in its own country's interest.

Iraq is being governed by a US/British puppet government, the levers of power are being held by the Americans and British. It is being run in the interests not of its own people but in the strategic interests of the West. They don't care how many Iraqis are killed, they don't care what degree of anarchy pertains inside the country. As long as the oil continues to flow and Iraq is not a threat to neighbouring countries any sort of mayhem can be tolerated inside its borders.

I don't doubt that the rebellion of 1916 caused nearly as many problems as it solved. I don't deny that we might have been better off if our independence had not been shown to be gained by a guerilla war movement. Because there was a violent power grab afterwards which we called the Civil War in which hundreds of people died. There always is following a revolution.

But those that throw their hands up in horror at the mayhem caused in their own country by violent action and say 'How horrible!' while quite blithely supporting even worse military agression else where are the worst kind of armchair general, in my view.

What is remarkable in Ireland is that it settled down to a democratic constitutional republic so quickly afterwards with a general acceptance by the populace of changes in government even though the poison of hte Civil War is only now beginning to seep out of the political establishment.

sand wrote:

And in their preference for violence over constitutional politics the men of 1916 are most directly comparable to the Sunni insurgency and its terrorism,

Oh? Why not the Americans and their terrrorism? Or Shock and Awe as they insist on calling it?

murphaph

Snickers Man, your posts are full of whataboutery in fairness. This thread is about the 1916 commemorations and when some of us voiced our opinions and resons for not attending, you proceeded to compare the actions of the men in 1916 to the crimes committed by the British Army and US forces in Iraq. I condemn all the attrocities by these armies as I condemn the violent rebellion in a country (the UK in 1916) in which everyone had as much voting rights as everyone else. The Irish Volunteers drilled in public right in front of the British Army for God's sake!

Sgt Sensible

murphaph wrote:

I condemn all the attrocities by these armies as I condemn the violent rebellion in a country (the UK in 1916) in which everyone had as much voting rights as everyone else.

Politically correct nonsense. The Irish people (men anyway as women weren't allowed vote until independence was won) voted overwhelmingly for home rule and they were consistently ignored in the commons or defeated by the lords, hence violence was justified, but as I said, the state that was founded was in most respects a travesty.

Do you condemn the atrocious living and working conditions Irish people had to live under? Is enforced poverty not violence? And what is all this condemnation worth anyway? What use is it?

Victor

lostexpectation wrote:

seems sinn fein are having their commemoration/march on the sat the 15th and the gov are having theirs on sunday the 16th

the Rising was on the Moday, the Bank Holiday, a civic 'event'. The Shinners always hold their thing on the Sunday.

axer

BrianD wrote:

It seems to me that the Government are trying to take ownership of 1916 from the Shinners.

Thats what it looks like to me too. It is a shame that the government are that disrespectful to those who died for Ireland. As bad as people think "the shinners" are, at least they commemorate it for the right reasons.

murphaph

Sgt Sensible wrote:

Politically correct nonsense.

In your humble opinion, I'm sure.

Sgt Sensible wrote:

The Irish people (men anyway as women weren't allowed vote until independence was won) voted overwhelmingly for home rule and they were consistently ignored in the commons...

No they weren't. The commons tried to pass 3 Acts on Home Rule.

Sgt Sensible wrote:

...or defeated by the lords

Now you're getting it, it was the Lords, but the commons was prepared to use the new parliament act to force it through the houses of parliament! (a rather nasty war came along though!)

Sgt Sensible wrote:

...hence violence was justified...

I disagree. I believe much more could have been achieved for everyone on the island if the constitutional politicians had been left to get on with it.

Sgt Sensible wrote:

...but as I said, the state that was founded was in most respects a travesty.

Agreed.

Sgt Sensible wrote:

Do you condemn the atrocious living and working conditions Irish people had to live under? Is enforced poverty not violence? And what is all this condemnation worth anyway? What use is it?

The living conditions were attrocious. But they were attrocious in other parts of the UK too, even industrialised cities like Glasgow had squalid tenement blocks. It was 1916 afterall. Did the tenements disappear in 1916/1921?

Sgt Sensible

murphaph wrote:

No they weren't. The commons tried to pass 3 Acts on Home Rule.

Poor choice of words on my part, I think the bill was defeated in the commons twice.

I disagree. I believe much more could have been achieved for everyone on the island if the constitutional politicians had been left to get on with it.

I doubt it, the issue of Ulster was still going to be a problem, no matter what happened. Violence was inevitable. The unionists were armed to the teeth at the time and were fanatically opposed to home rule. If the terms of the act included them there would most likely have been a bloodbath of some sort.

The living conditions were attrocious. But they were attrocious in other parts of the UK too, even industrialised cities like Glasgow had squalid tenement blocks. It was 1916 afterall. Did the tenements disappear in 1916/1921?

Living conditions did improve yes though I've no access to any detailed information from where I am.

axer

murphaph wrote:

(a rather nasty war came along though!)

I think it was more the nasty war that the Ulster Volunteer Force/unionists promised should home rule be introduced that stopped home rule from being implemented.

axer

murphaph wrote:

I disagree. I believe much more could have been achieved for everyone on the island if the constitutional politicians had been left to get on with it.

Would it be the 63rd home rule act or the 64th home rule act that you think would have been enforced. I somehow think that the unionists would have continued to block any sort of home rule - forever!

axer

murphaph wrote:

Conscription into the British Army was never applied to any part of the island of Ireland so it has and still is entirely optional for irishmen and women to join the british armed forces.

They threatened to do it though but they knew they would never get away with it.

Sgt Sensible

axer wrote:

Would it be the 63rd home rule act or the 64th home rule act that you think would have been enforced. I somehow think that the unionists would have continued to block any sort of home rule - forever!

Unionist MPs got a bill with negotiable provisions through which would have excluded Ulster from home rule. The question was whether it was acceptable for a minority to use the threat of civil war to prevent the democratic process. In retrospect the unionists paranoia about home rule equalling rome rule was reasonably well founded.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

Conscription into the British Army was never applied to any part of the island of Ireland so it has and still is entirely optional for irishmen and women to join the british armed forces. Many still do of course so the rising didn't stop that

I'm fully aware of that. I also strongly suspect that the only reason conscription wasn't introduced into Ireland when the rest of the UK got it in 1916 was because of the rising and its aftermath.

But conscription is not the point. The point is that the army was seen as a career by many Irishmen, for whatever reason, and the British Army in which they served used them for the most heinous purposes. It's always the case with Imperial armies. The worst savages come from the countries that they've taken over. It's brilliant psychology: "Look Paddy. You can be as good as the top dog (well not quite, but you can certainly be a cut above the other riff raff if you really show the fighting qualities which makes you famous as a race)"

It's not only the Irish who were patronised in this way. The Ghurkas too. What wonderful chaps they were. So good with a knife.

And it's not just the British Army. Some of the worst savages in the German Army were the Croat Ustashis. A large part of the bitterness in the Balkan wars of the 1990s is a hangover from what they got up to in the second world war.

Truly there is no greater contempt than that with which tuppence ha'penny looks down on tuppence.

wrote:

If it wasn't for those british armed forces you clearly hold in such low regard, we'd have been overrun by Nazi Germany before the yanks could get the finger out and help us. Again, assisted by many thousands of brave irishmen in their ranks.

My grandad was one. And you're talking crap. Hitler never had any notion of invading Ireland. Once he'd put Britain back in its box in 1940, his only interest was in keeping it at bay while he concentrated on his real war which was in the east against the soviets.

What you dewy-eyed romantics can't or won't face is that the main conflict of the second world war was that between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. That's where most of the fighting was, that's where the vast majority of the German army was committed, that's where most of the casualties were suffered.

The Western Front was a sideshow.

And within 25 years of its ending, the British Empire was gone.

They lost.

Victor

axer wrote:

Thats what it looks like to me too. It is a shame that the government are that disrespectful to those who died for Ireland. As bad as people think "the shinners" are, at least they commemorate it for the right reasons.

You mean Irishmen in Army uniforms being killed by Irishmen in volunteer uniforms?

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote:

I'm fully aware of that. I also strongly suspect that the only reason conscription wasn't introduced into Ireland when the rest of the UK got it in 1916 was because of the rising and its aftermath.

But conscription is not the point. The point is that the army was seen as a career by many Irishmen, for whatever reason, and the British Army in which they served used them for the most heinous purposes. It's always the case with Imperial armies. The worst savages come from the countries that they've taken over. It's brilliant psychology: "Look Paddy. You can be as good as the top dog (well not quite, but you can certainly be a cut above the other riff raff if you really show the fighting qualities which makes you famous as a race)"

It's not only the Irish who were patronised in this way. The Ghurkas too. What wonderful chaps they were. So good with a knife.

And it's not just the British Army. Some of the worst savages in the German Army were the Croat Ustashis. A large part of the bitterness in the Balkan wars of the 1990s is a hangover from what they got up to in the second world war.

Truly there is no greater contempt than that with which tuppence ha'penny looks down on tuppence.

The british army is still seen as a career choice for irish people today! The rising did NOT stop irish people joing the british army so you can drop that line now.

Snickers Man wrote:

My grandad was one. And you're talking crap. Hitler never had any notion of invading Ireland. Once he'd put Britain back in its box in 1940, his only interest was in keeping it at bay while he concentrated on his real war which was in the east against the soviets.

What you dewy-eyed romantics can't or won't face is that the main conflict of the second world war was that between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. That's where most of the fighting was, that's where the vast majority of the German army was committed, that's where most of the casualties were suffered.

The Western Front was a sideshow.

And within 25 years of its ending, the British Empire was gone.

They lost.

Yes my grandad also fought (he deserted the Irish Army to do it). Now, if you really want to believe that Germany would have left us alone and in doing so left the only real location to invade (liberate) western Europe from to the americans et al then I believe it is naive of you. They had operation Gruen (green) and although little thought had gone into it, the Germans were aware of Ireland's historical importantce to Britain as somewhere it could be attacked from. To call the western front a sideshow really belittles what happened, notwithstanding the 20 odd million soviet casualties. The British Armed forces held Nazi Germany at bay for just long enough, in particular the RAF were instrumental in keeping Britain and Ireland free nations.

LordSutch

I for one, will certainly Not be at the 1916 Rising commeration . . . .

I am from a non-Nationalist, non-Republican background and I fervently believe that the 1916 rising did more damage to Ireland in so many ways - Politically, Economically, Culturally, Religeously, then add to that the North South dimension (ruined), British Irish relations (ruined), Protestant, Roman Catholic, Returnees from the Western Front, Ex-service men! which ever way you look at it, the Rising was a massive mistake, and we are still trying to repair the damage today! & the Country still isnt United, (but was it ever)?

P.S. I would have been a "Redmondite" if I had been around in 1916, had I survived the trenches.

axer

ArthurF wrote:

I am from a non-Nationalist, non-Republican background and I fervently believe that the 1916 rising did more damage to Ireland in so many ways - Politically, Economically, Culturally, Religeously, then add to that the North South dimension (ruined), British Irish relations (ruined), Protestant, Roman Catholic, Returnees from the Western Front, Ex-service men! which ever way you look at it, the Rising was a massive mistake, and we are still trying to repair the damage today! & the Country still isnt United, (but was it ever)?

Give a viable alternative than the easter rising then if you think it was such a mistake.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

The british army is still seen as a career choice for irish people today!

In vastly reduced numbers though. We have independence to thank for that.

murphaph wrote:

Now, if you really want to believe that Germany would have left us alone and in doing so left the only real location to invade (liberate) western Europe from to the americans et al then I believe it is naive of you. ... the Germans were aware of Ireland's historical importantce to Britain as somewhere it could be attacked from.

I quite agree. If they had really wanted to invade Britain they would probably have taken us first. But they never did. Wonder why? Maybe they had bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

murphaph wrote:

To call the western front a sideshow really belittles what happened, notwithstanding the 20 odd million soviet casualties.

I'm sure it was no fair ground for those caught up in it. What I meant was that compared to the titanic nature of the Eastern Front (the real war) it was a sideshow.

murphap wrote:

The British Armed forces held Nazi Germany at bay for just long enough, in particular the RAF were instrumental in keeping Britain and Ireland free nations.

Well I find it ironic to see that you have no problem with the indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of civilians which was Bomber Command's stock in trade.

You know, the closest the British come to agonising over the murderous deeds of their fighting men (in the way that people on one side of the debate here are wringing their hands over 1916) is when they contemplate the actions of Bomber Command.

The airmen didn't get a campaign medal at the end of the war.
Their actions were largely written out of history.
In some cases, when the likes of Dresden were brought to prominence in later years, they were largely disowned.

In fact, if you read a book called Bomber Command by Max Hastings (a former editor of the Daily Torygraph and no leftie) you will see how utterly futile much of the actions of Bomber Command were. But they sure killed a lot of civilians.

Now, why do you as (presumably) an Irishman have so little problem with that but such a huge problem with what happened on your own country's path to independence?

And to bring things back to the topic which is remembrance of 1916, I guess the main point I am trying to make is that by ignoring 1916 we are creating a vaccuum which a vociferous body of opinion will want to fill with remembrance of another military tradition which is part of our past. One that was far more murderous than anything Pearse and the boys ever got up to.

LordSutch

axer wrote:

Give a viable alternative than the easter rising then if you think it was such a mistake.

I did say that I would have been a Redmondite, therefore I would have agreed with "Home Rule" thus moving the Power from Westminster to Dublin and giving us control over our own affairs, but keeping close ties with Britain non the less, but I do not agree with the Mono cultural, Roman Catholic, narrow minded Republican State that was formed in the years after 1916.

And what were those who masterminded the Rising thinking of? re relations with Britain and the North? I dont think it was going to win many friends - and neither did it, as by all accounts the leaders were dispised by all and sundry after the City lay in tatters.

I do realise that Norhtern Unionists would not have agreed "initially" to Home Rule, but it should have been worked on, and an all inclusive settlement would have "evolved" in the following years, instead of the 1916 leaders banging in another nail into the coffin that might have been Irish Unity?

axer

ArthurF wrote:

I did say that I would have been a Redmondite, therefore I would have agreed with "Home Rule" thus moving the Power from Westminster to Dublin and giving us control over our own affairs, but keeping close ties with Britain non the less, but I do not agree with the Mono cultural, Roman Catholic, narrow minded Republican State that was formed in the years after 1916.

Well their were really only 2 cultures on this island - those of the protestants and those of the catholics. Considering some of the protestants/unionists demanded their own region then I think it is no wonder Ireland became a "Mono cultural, Roman Catholic, narrow minded Republican State" after that.

Easter Proclamation wrote:

The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

ArthurF wrote:

And what were those who masterminded the Rising thinking of? re relations with Britain and the North? I dont think it was going to win many friends

Ahh, come on, thats sounds like an inferiority complex - we wouldn't like to rub them up the wrong way now would we.

ArthurF wrote:

and neither did it, as by all accounts the leaders were dispised by all and sundry after the City lay in tatters.

Back this up please. That is not true and even the minority in Dublin that were against it were fed lies/propaganda of the Rising participators helping the Nazis.

ArthurF wrote:

I do realise that Norhtern Unionists would not have agreed "initially" to Home Rule, but it should have been worked on, and an all inclusive settlement would have "evolved" in the following years, instead of the 1916 leaders banging in another nail into the coffin that might have been Irish Unity?

How many more years would you reckon it would have taken to work on the unionists? It took 34 years to get the fourth home rule act enforced and it only got enforced because it excluded 6 counties from it. So maybe at least 100 years later on the 63rd home rule act the unionists would have thought "actually, hold on one second, I think we should do this".

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote:

In vastly reduced numbers though. We have independence to thank for that.

No, we have increased prosperity. Irishmen still joined british ranks in great numbers for decades after independence. The numbers in the British Army as a whole are drastically reduced today over what they were 100 years ago too though SM, so the numbers of english, scot and welsh are also much reduced given the nature of modern warfare.

Snickers Man wrote:

I quite agree. If they had really wanted to invade Britain they would probably have taken us first. But they never did. Wonder why? Maybe they had bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

That's just wrong. The Battle of Britain was Germany's first assault on GB. They intended knocking out the RAF before a seaborne invasion. They didn't reckon on the RAF at least 'drawing' with them though so phase II couldn't proceed. It was then that Hitler really turned his attention east.

Snickers Man wrote:

Well I find it ironic to see that you have no problem with the indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of civilians which was Bomber Command's stock in trade.

I don't know where you got that from but you must remember that the german people popularly supported Hitler and the Nazis, unlike the irish population wrt. Pearse & Co. who had no such popular support.

Snickers Man wrote:

Now, why do you as (presumably) an Irishman have so little problem with that but such a huge problem with what happened on your own country's path to independence?

I am saddened that tens of thousands of german civilians perished under allied bombers but Germany did start the war and it's government had popular support of its people and went to war (by invading Poland) in their name. The irish rebels did not have such an elected mandate.

murphaph

axer wrote:

Well their were really only 2 cultures on this island - those of the protestants and those of the catholics. Considering some of the protestants/unionists demanded their own region then I think it is no wonder Ireland became a "Mono cultural, Roman Catholic, narrow minded Republican State" after that.

Rubbish. There was a healthy sized prod population in the Free State in 1921 which all but disappeared within a decade. The proclamation was just words, words that the likes of DeV had no interest in (hence the right hand of McQuaid writing our catholic constitution and damning us to decades of unquestioned catholic dogma and misery for many).

axer wrote:

Back this up please. That is not true and even the minority in Dublin that were against it were fed lies/propaganda of the Rising participators helping the Nazis.

Sorry, what? The Nazis, in 1916? A bit premature methinks!

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

I am saddened that tens of thousands of german civilians perished under allied bombers but Germany did start the war and it's government had popular support of its people and went to war (by invading Poland) in their name.

I am against the killings of civilians but in the case of the allied bombings of civilian areas... they got what was coming to them so tough.

The allied bombing of civilans was clearly a war crime but because they won the war, it is not considered as such. Hell, people do not even consider it as terrorism!

wb

Flex wrote:

Im proud of the fact that Ireland is a free country today and that we fought to take back our freedom, rather than begging the people who took it from us to let us have (some of) it back when it suited them to do so; plus Im proud to be Irish and dont have an inferiority complex that causes me to resent my countries freedom because it means Im an Irish citizen rather than British citizen; so Ill definitely be out that day.

Well put flex. Sums up my feelings entirely

axer

murphaph wrote:

Rubbish. There was a healthy sized prod population in the Free State in 1921 which all but disappeared within a decade. The proclamation was just words, words that the likes of DeV had no interest in (hence the right hand of McQuaid writing our catholic constitution and damning us to decades of unquestioned catholic dogma and misery for many).

True, their was a considerable protestant population in the free state at that time but alot of them moved up north - I believe it was something like 50,000 less protestants over a 10 year period. While there were instances of intimidation most just left for the protestant state that was being created as they had always had a sort of upper hand over the catholics and could not stand being on the same level as catholics. There weren't exactly many of the leaders left after the rising so I don't think Dev was the best representative of them. If the other leaders had been involved in writting our constitution AND if the north had been part of the Republic then I believe Ireland would not have become such a mono cultural/religious state.

murphaph wrote:

Sorry, what? The Nazis, in 1916? A bit premature methinks!

Yep, sorry, I meant the central powers.

Diorraing

The 1916 rising was as democratic a rising as there ever was. There was absolutely nothing democratic about Britain's rule in Ireland. Three Home-Rule bills were voted down by that bastion of democracy that is The House of Lords. The war was no excuse not to grant Home Rule, it would have taken some of the burden off the British but they needed us to supply them with food etc. They saw us as complete subordinates to them.
The 1916 rising was completely inspired by Robert Emmet, a republican protestant, the proclamation spoke of cherisihing "all children of the state equally". It was inclusive, there wasn't one element of anti-protestantism about it.
In a time where violence was ubiquitous, the rising was not anomalous. You cannot impose today's standards on those living in a time where war was rampant. There was no democratic path to be taken because there was simply no democracy in Ireland (What mandate did the British have to be there in the first place!?!)
And how much was the public against the rising. Sure, they were pissed off that their city was in flames. But while openly criticising the rebels, they knew that they would be killed. How do you go from one mindset to the complete opposite in such a short space of time!?!

11.3 SECONDS

Is it true that Sen. David Norris has declined an invite to the parade ?

I heard ascribed to him the reply that on Easter Sunday he would be going to church to celebrate the rising of Jesus Christ and not the uprising of Padraig Pearse.

Why would he say this ?

As far as a military parade is concerned I wonder what the Air Corps will put up for a fly past ? I suppose they could hire in the Red Arrows to display green white and orange smoke down O'Connell Street !

model

murphaph wrote:

The British Armed forces held Nazi Germany at bay for just long enough, in particular the RAF were instrumental in keeping Britain and Ireland free nations.

Are you implying the Germans would have invaded and taken over Ireland? Well I must question and offer you to be mistaken regarding your history. Ireland at the time was not a free nation, and remains today what it was then. Operation Green was a plan by the Germans to divert British attention towards Ireland, by sending a number of boats to the south of the country. With all due respect my friend, the Germans had no plans of "invading" Ireland as such, they had intended on working with the IRA due to the history between the two. Allies would be a poor, yet reasonable way to put the relationship.

In conclusion, you are wrong to suggest Britain kept us free from Germany, when really they were the ones who invaded us and Germany had no plans for an invasion of Ireland. Britian was worried of a possible, as a well-used phrase in history goes, "war on two fronts", and therefore was distracted somewhat from concentrating on what was more important.

murphaph

^^shockingly trusting of this benevolent Nazi Germany there model. The germans would certainly have wanted to take control of the british industrial part of this island, ie, Northern Ireland. They would never have left Shorts and H&W among others out of their control! Now, if you think they would have respected the international boundary around the six counties after they'd ridden roughshod over almost every other border in continental Europe then I think you're sadly misguided.

The only countries they didn't invade were allies (or at least had similar outlooks) of theirs (Fascist Spain and Italy, the big Nazi bank of Switzerland and Romania etc.). We were certainly not allies of theirs and we actively assisted the Allies in many ways during WWII. Germany would have been aware of this and we would have paid the price too.