1916 and Conscription

Shutuplaura

Now a lot of people (well Kevin Myers, the Reform party and my mate John) have been saying that the 1916 rising was an unmitigated disaster of which no good ever came (including Irish Independance).

Surely though it actually saved many more lives in the long run as conditions post rising made it impossible for the British government to implement conscription. Thousands of would be Irish conscripts were therefore saved from needless slaughter in France.

What do you reckon? Can you help me beat John in round two or am I just talking ****e.

Mad Finn

I think you're dead right. The line spun by the likes of Myers et al is that those Irish nationalists who showed their dual loyalty to the Irish Nation and the larger British Empire, which was Redmond's line, would have been rewarded with the debt of gratitude by the British after the successful end to the war.

Home Rule would have been swiftly granted with no rancour between North and South and we would all have lived peacefully in the bosom of a loyal happy family in a commonwealth (then called an empire) of nations.

In fact, Britain like any major power showed loyalty only to itself. In war it double crossed and double dealed with any and everybody to suit its own ends and when the time came to divide out the spoils, it made damn sure that it got what it wanted before letting its 'loyal partners' fight it out over the scraps.

Have a look at what it did in the Middle East or India. And look at the massacres that took place in those places just after the First World War--bombings of villages in Iraq, mass shootings of protestors in India--after the locals had bought into British promises of self determination if they supported them in the war.

atholl45

Tiocfaidh ar la!!!!!!!!!!!!

SpitfireIV

atholl45 wrote:

Tiocfaidh ar la!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whats that phrase supposed to mean?? (I know it stands for 'our day will come' or something similar) but why do people say it when an Irish topic comes up? Who's day will come? The IRA's? HAH!

You look through Irish history or Michael Collins video's on YouTube and thats all you see 'Tiocfaidh ar la!'......'Tiocfaidh ar la!'. It's a phrase I cannot stand, that and 'Oh, Mick Collins was a traitor!'.

Rant over :rolleyes:

Mad Finn

I always say it when Ireland gets knocked out of the World Cup or European Championship qualifiers after a scoreless home draw agains the likes of Switzerland or Turkey.

TerrorFirmer

The 1916 rising contributed greatly to both independance and the massive outcry against conscription in Ireland to be introduced in 1918. Had the rising not gone ahead, conscription, whilst no doubt unpopular regardless, might have been viewed as a sacrifice needed as a means to an end - good faith and all that in exchance for the, at that stage, inevitabely impending home rule which was the best thing Ireland could ever have hoped for in the past several hundred years.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Now a lot of people (well Kevin Myers, the Reform party and my mate John) have been saying that the 1916 rising was an unmitigated disaster of which no good ever came (including Irish Independance).

The Rising and the subsequent wars actually achieved nothing that could not have been achieved (had actually already been achieved) peacefully. The pro-violence camp always ignores the fact that Ireland had already achieved Home Rule in 1914. The Government of Ireland Act 1914 had been passed and received Royal Assent. It was quite properly postponed until the war was over. The Treaty of 1921 basically achieved what had been negated by the Rising and subsequent war, rendering the whole conflict pointless. On top of that the consequence of the stalemate was the Civil War, a bloodbath that bred future bloodbaths right up to today and probably will again. The irridentists haven't gone away, you know. To add to that the supremacy of the war camp bequeathed us a venal crop of leaders, including the present bunch of thieves and clowns. All that said, the Republic of Ireland is not an unmitigated disaster. We're doing quite well for ourselves. We'll bedoing a lot better when we give P45s to all those descendants of the Civil Warriors and Trucileers.

As for conscription, in the interests of fairness and the proper conduct of the war it should have been introduced across the UK in 1915. Kitchener knew quite well that the war would last years. The next step should have been the implementation of a proper system of managing the country's human resources. Reliance on the voluntary system meant that people like Tom Kettle and Raymond Asquith (both killed on the Somme) were highly over-qualified platoon commanders while the slackers hid at home. The early introduction of conscription would have seen Pearse and co sating their blood lust on the Western Front.

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Whats that phrase supposed to mean?? (I know it stands for 'our day will come' or something similar) but why do people say it when an Irish topic comes up? Who's day will come? The IRA's? HAH!.....

It's a republican mantra. Like Sieg Heil, Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité and Solidarity Reg it dispenses with reason in the chanter.

Flex

Mick86 wrote:

The Rising and the subsequent wars actually achieved nothing that could not have been achieved (had actually already been achieved) peacefully. The pro-violence camp always ignores the fact that Ireland had already achieved Home Rule in 1914. The Government of Ireland Act 1914 had been passed and received Royal Assent. It was quite properly postponed until the war was over. The Treaty of 1921 basically achieved what had been negated by the Rising and subsequent war, rendering the whole conflict pointless.

I suggest you actually try reading up on the topic, because if you think Home Rule was the same as what was won in the treaty then you clearly dont know what youre talking about. It always amazes how people think they can pull the rug out from underneath 'pro-1916' people or get the upper hand or something by saying "But you see, we ALREADY had it in 1914, BEFORE the rising!!!!11one!". I know what powers the HR parliaments wouldve had because I studied the topic in depth for the Leaving Cert, and the idea the HR parliaments were of any value compared to the Dominion status won in the treaty is laughable and completely ignorant.

Mick86

Flex wrote:

I suggest you actually try reading up on the topic, because if you think Home Rule was the same as what was won in the treaty then you clearly dont know what youre talking about. It always amazes how people think they can pull the rug out from underneath 'pro-1916' people or get the upper hand or something by saying "But you see, we ALREADY had it in 1914, BEFORE the rising!!!!11one!". I know what powers the HR parliaments wouldve had because I studied the topic in depth for the Leaving Cert, and the idea the HR parliaments were of any value compared to the Dominion status won in the treaty is laughable and completely ignorant.

And I think it laughable and completely ignorant that anyone would think that Dominion Status compared to Home Rule justifies a century of bloodshed in Ireland. Because that's what we got. Home Rule might not have been perfect but it was achieved democratically, peacefully and by negotiation. Inevitably, Home Rule would have led to complete independence in my humble, if ill-educated, opinion. And the achievement would have been managed without the bloodshed, ethnic-cleansing and madness that we lived with until a decade ago.

Shutuplaura

Firstly, **** all that tiocfadh ar la nonesense. That really annoys me.

Home rule wasn't achieved in 1914. There was no return of a parliment to dublin in 1914 so that claim is nonsense. I believe that after world war 1 the british government would never have agreed to any threat to the union because public opinion galvanised by the war wouldn't have allowed it.

Someone seems to claim that that whole war was necessary and just, the question has to be asked there is why? Imperial Germany didn't gas the jews and was a parlimentary democracy. Far more preople ruled by the Kaiser could vote that subjects of the King of England (and Emperor of India, a place with a distinct lack of democracy in 1914). It was a pretty big mess that was best avoided and I've yet to have anyone reasonable explain otherwise.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Home rule wasn't achieved in 1914. There was no return of a parliment to dublin in 1914 so that claim is nonsense.

In practical terms you are correct. In legal terms you are wrong.

Shutuplaura wrote:

I believe that after world war 1 the british government would never have agreed to any threat to the union because public opinion galvanised by the war wouldn't have allowed it.

How would they have circumvented the law?

Shutuplaura wrote:

Someone seems to claim that that whole war was necessary and just, the question has to be asked there is why? Imperial Germany didn't gas the jews and was a parlimentary democracy. Far more preople ruled by the Kaiser could vote that subjects of the King of England (and Emperor of India, a place with a distinct lack of democracy in 1914). It was a pretty big mess that was best avoided and I've yet to have anyone reasonable explain otherwise.

All wars are avoidable. Britain went to war ostensibly because Germany violated Belgian neutrality and sovereignty. In reality it was an excuse to curb the power of an imperial rival. I'd imagine that the Kaiser's African subjects did not benefit from German democracy either.

Mad Finn

Here's an interesting study (if you're a total anorak).

Have a look at these names here. They are of 187 soldiers, out of a total of 555 from the states of California and Texas, who have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan since September 11. Ther data comes from a website called Faces of the Fallenwhich records every US soldier killed in those wars.

The link above shows graphically the states all the dead soldiers came from. As you can see, the states with the highest numbers of dead soldiers are Texas and California. Both of these border on Mexico. The names below are those which I reckon to be Hispanic. Maybe not all are. Some of them could be Italian but I reckon I have weeded out all the more obvious Italian ones.

These names are of soldiers who have a recognisably Spanish first or second name. I will stand corrected if somebody genuinely tells me that some of the names there are clearly non-Hispanic.

What has this to do with this thread? Only to show that about one third of all fatal casualties, from the two most prolific providers of sacrifice to the American war effort are from the sort of people that the American right is demanding be repatriated. Pop on to the Fox news network and see how often they complain about the porous border, the number of illegal immigrants and the threat to the existing American culture of all these people coming over who can't even speak English.

Not much sign of gratitude there.

Similarly, do you really think the British would have been swayed towards honouring their home rule commitments if ten thousand MORE Irish soldiers had been killed in WWI? I don't think so.

I think they would have tried to welch out of their commitments here like they did everywhere else. Remember that in 1914, there were TWO grounds for shelving Home Rule. One was that it would not be passed until the war was over. The second was that it would not be passed until a separate settlement was found for Ulster. So on THAT legal point, they would have stalled, prevaricated, held it up and eventually refused to implement it.

Until they were forced to.

Why not? They did it everywhere else.

Here's all the dead spics from Texas and California. (Excuse the flippancy)


Cpl. Roberto Abad
Sgt. David J. Almazan
Cpl. Carlos Arrelanopandura
Staff Sgt. Jimmy J. Arroyave
Petty Officer 2nd Class Cesar O. Baez
Cpl. Jeremiah A. Baro
Staff Sgt. Ricardo Barraza
Cpl. Joseph A. Blanco
Spec. Jonathan Castro
Lance Cpl Manuel A. Ceniceros
Sgt. 1st Class Victor H. Cervantes
Pfc. Javier Chavez
Sgt. Andres J. Contreras
Spec. Marcelino R. Corniel
Cpl. Bernard P. Corpuz
Pfc. Joseph Cruz
Petty Officer 2nd class Allan M. Cundanga
Spec. Sergio R. Diazvarela
Master Sgt. Emigdio E. Elizarraras
Lance Cpl Sergio H. Escobar
Cpl. Michael A. Estrella
Lance Cpl Luis A. Figueroa
Pfc. Jose Ricardo Flores-Mejia
Staff Sgt. Juan De Dios Garcia-Arana
Cpl. Billy Gomez
Sgt. 1st Class Chad A. Gonsalves
Lance Cpl Benjamin R. Gonzalez
Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez
Lance Cpl Victor A. Gonzalez
Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez
Cpl. Cesar A. Granados
Spec. Sergio Gudino
Pvt. Ernesto R. Guerra
Lance Cpl Salvador Guerrero
Lance Cpl Jose Gutierrez
Pfc. Fernando B. Hannon
Sgt. Atanasio Haro Marin Jr.
Cpl. Joseph J. Heredia
Spec. Armando Hernandez
Sgt. David L. Herrera
Spec. Manuel J. Holguin
1st Lt. Oscar Jimenez
Lance Cpl Hugo R. Lopez
Sgt. Edgar E. Lopez
Pfc. Pablo Manzano
Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes
Master Sgt. Jude C. Mariano
Pvt. Robbie M. Mariano
Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez
Spec. Roberto L. Martinez
Sgt. Trinidad R. Martinezluis
Cpl. Antonio Mendoza
Gunnery Sgt Joseph Menusa
Lance Cpl Raul Mercado
Sgt. Eliu A. Miersandoval
Staff Sgt. Jorge A. Molina
Sgt. Luis A. Montes
Sgt. Milton M. Monzon
Pfc. Michelangelo A. Mora
Spec. Jose L. Mora
Sgt. Arthur A. Mora
Lance Cpl Juana Navarro
Spec. Marcos O. Nolasco
Spec. Joseph C. Nurre
Spec. Ramon C. Ojeda
Sgt. Adrian N. Orosco
1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco Ortega
Seaman Pablito Pena Briones Jr.
Staff Sgt. Jorge L. Pena-Romero
Staff Sgt. Abraham D. Penamedina
Sgt. Rafael Peralta
Cpl. Andres H. Perez
Pfc. Geoffrey Perez
Cpl. Carlos Pineda
Spec. Eric U. Ramirez
Staff Sgt. Jose C. Rangel
Spec. Rel A. Ravago
Lance Cpl Rafael Reynosa Suarez
Pfc. Jose Franci Rodriguez
Pfc. Ramon Romero
Staff Sgt. Victor A. Rosales
Cpl. Rudy Salas
Pfc. Oscar Sanchez
Lance Cpl Felipe D. Sandoval-Flores
Spec. Luis D. Santos
Cpl. Erik H. Silva
Sgt. Alfredo B. Silva
Pvt. Sean A. Silva
Maj. Charles R. Soltes
Lance Cpl Jesus A. Suarez
Pfc. George D. Torres
Lance Cpl Ruben Valdez
Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez
Lance Cpl Juan C. Venegas
Sgt. 1st Class Joselito O. Villanueva
Pfc. Ramon A. Villatoro
Cpl. Andres Aguilar Jr.
Capt. Paul C. Alaniz
Cpl. Daniel R. Amaya
Sgt. Edward J. Anguiano
Sgt. Roberto Arizola
Spec. Richard Arriaga
Spec. Robert R. Arsiaga
Sgt. Michael Paul Barrera
Capt. Ernesto M. Blanco
Capt. Orlando A. Bonilla
Sgt. Juan Calderon
Spec. Adolfo C. Carballo
Spec. Rafael A. Carrillo
Lance Cpl. Mario A. Castillo
Staff Sgt. Roland L. Castro
Sgt. Aaron N. Cepeda
Lance Cpl. Julio C. Cisneros
Spec. Zeferino E. Colunga
Lance Cpl. Pedro Contreras
Pvt. Rey D. Cuervo
Sgt. Israel Devora Garcia
Spec. Isaac E. Diaz
Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto
Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez
Lance Cpl. Jonathan R. Flores
Staff Sgt. Omar D. Flores
Sgt. Timothy Shane Folmar
Spec. Tomas Garces
Capt. Anthony R. Garcia
Spec. J. Adan Garcia
Pvt. 1st Class Damian J. Garza
Spec. Israel Garza
1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza
Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza
Spc. Rogelio R. Garza
Spec. Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza
Sgt. Jose Guereca
Lance Cpl. Tony L. Hernandez
Pfc. Jesus A. Leon-Perez
Cpl. John M. Longoria
Lance Cpl. Hilario F. Lopez
Airman 1st Class Raymond Losano
Spec. Francisco G. Martinez
Lance Cpl. Robert A. Martinez
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata
Cpl. Matthew E. Matula
Pfc. Kristian Menchaca
Sgt. Barry K. Meza
Sgt. Gerardo Moreno
Sgt. Roger P. Pena
Sgt. Johnny J. Peralez
Lance Cpl. Stephen J. Perez
Lance Cpl. Nicholas Perez
Staff Sgt. Hector R. Perez
Spec. Jose A. Perez
Sgt. Lorenzo Ponce
Sgt. Reyes Ramirez
Sgt. Christopher Ramirez
Lance Cpl. Benito A. Ramirez
Staff Sgt. Gene Ramirez
Staff Sgt. Ray Rangel
Sgt. Ariel Rico
Lance Cpl. Juan R. Rodriguez
Spec. Isela Rubalcava
Staff Sgt. Alberto V. Sanchez
Pfc. Leroy Sandoval
Lance Cpl. Nazario Serrano
Staff Sgt. Juan M. Solorio
Pfc. Armando Soriano
Cpl. Tomas Sotelo
Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas
Spec. Juan M. Torres
Sgt. Daniel Torres
Lance Cpl. Michael S. Torres
Lance Cpl. Elias Torrez
Sgt. Melissa Valles
Spec. Andrew Velez
Spec. Jose A. Velez
Sgt. 1st Class Ruben J. Villa
Spec. Javier A. Villanueva
Spec. Mark A. Zapata
Cpl. Nicanor Alvarez
Pfc. Jose Casanova
Maj. Ricardo A. Crocker
Cpl. Jose A. Garibay
Pfc. Jesse J. Martinez
Spec. Lauro G. DeLeon
Sgt. Javier Marin
Cpl. Jesus Martin
Sgt. Henry Ybarra

Mick86

Mad Finn wrote:

Here's an interesting study (if you're a total anorak)....

Almost a good theory Finn except;

You can't seriously compare a Liberal British government in 1918 to a Republican American government in 2006.

Your statistics are flawed because you picked two states with a high proportion of Hispanics, mainly because the Yanks nicked those places from Mexico. How many Hispanic soldiers from Wisconsin have died in Iraq? Or fairer yet how do the figures add up nationally? In addition the deceased soldiers were US nationals not illegal immigrants.

You still ignore the fact that the Home Rule Act had been passed into law and received Royal Assent by September 1914. The IMPLEMENTATION of Home Rule was shelved until after the war. Now it's quite possible that the British would have tried to welsh on the deal after the war. But Pearse and his fellows weren't interested in waiting to see if the peaceful option would pan out. If the British had welshed on Home Rule in 1918 they could have had a rebellion then which would have a had a greater chance of success with the surviving Irish Volunteers discharged from the army with all that useful military training and with the Volunteer split healed. On the subject of splits, remember also that in staging the rebellion at Easter 1916, Pearse was actually disobeying the orders of his commander.

Flex

Mick86 wrote:

And I think it laughable and completely ignorant that anyone would think that Dominion Status compared to Home Rule justifies a century of bloodshed in Ireland. Because that's what we got. Home Rule might not have been perfect but it was achieved democratically, peacefully and by negotiation. Inevitably, Home Rule would have led to complete independence in my humble, if ill-educated, opinion. And the achievement would have been managed without the bloodshed, ethnic-cleansing and madness that we lived with until a decade ago.

Ah yes the aul 'it led to bloodshed:( ' argument. Simple counter argument to that was there wouldnt have been any bloodshed at all if the unionists had simply accepted a united Ireland from day1, or the British accepted the dmocratic wishes of Irelands represnetatives in November 1918 when Sinn Fein won a landslide victory of 73 out of 105 on the mandate that Ireland would become a democratic republic independant and seperated from Britain. And if youre referring to the Troubles in the north with regarsds the 'bloodshed, ethnic-cleansing and madness', then Id say that the Unionist Party with their 50 years of uninterrupted rule and blatently open policy of discrimination against Catholics which finally erupted in the late 1960's/early70's is to blame for that. I dont know what you mean by 'a century of bloodshed in Ireland'. Under Home Rule we'd have been involved in WW2 and look at how ridiculously undefended the north was during that; 7 anti air craft guns for the whole province and some air-search lights that didnt work. We'd have got hammered by the Luftwaffe.

I think accepting home rule wouldve been a disgrace to this nations history. We would have gone into the parliament of the country occupying us and begged them to give us back some of the freedom they had taken from us. If a country is occupied then the people of that country have the right to resist. And I doubt HR wouldve led to complete independence, not til the late 60's anyway, because the north didnt get the right to declare independence for quite a while (and one could argue the only reason they got that right to decide was because the British knew the north wouldnt give up its British status, unlike the south would have).

With Dominion status we had our own army, our own foreign affairs ministry, we could join the league of nations, complete control over finance, could establish diplomatic relations with any other country, complete control of internal affairs of the state, our own flag. The Home Rule on offer had no control over finance, no control over communications, the British flag was still going to fly over our country, no Irish army, the 'government' had didnt control over the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the RIC AFAIR, they had no power to implement anymore land acts to get rid of landlords, no control over the postal service even. And there were powers 'reserved by the Westminster parliament' until such a time that the parliaments in the north and south each mutually handed control over ministries to the Council of Ireland (which was intended to lead to reunification). However considering unionists had been willing to start a civil war a few years earlier and didnt even want a HR parliament in the first place, they wouldve undoubtedly held up those 'reserved powers' (which didnt even amount to much anyway to be honest) being held up. Also, the number of Irish seats in the westminster parliament was reduced from 105 to 40, and about 12 of those wouldve been won by unionists, so that meant nationalists would have had 28 or so seats out of 700 to try persuade the British to extend more autonomy to Ireland. Quite frankly, the Home Rule offered was an insult.

Collie D

Mick86 wrote:

As for conscription, in the interests of fairness and the proper conduct of the war it should have been introduced across the UK in 1915. Kitchener knew quite well that the war would last years. The next step should have been the implementation of a proper system of managing the country's human resources. Reliance on the voluntary system meant that people like Tom Kettle and Raymond Asquith (both killed on the Somme) were highly over-qualified platoon commanders while the slackers hid at home.

So you agree that there should have been conscription and anyone who didn't volunteer was a coward? Never mind the fact that WWI was very much an "us and them" affair ie stick the working classes in the trenches and use them as cannon fodder while the upper classes draw lines on maps and send young men to their deaths

Flex

Mick86 wrote:

Almost a good theory Finn except;

You can't seriously compare a Liberal British government in 1918 to a Republican American government in 2006.

When we voted for independence in 1918, this liberal government sent over the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries in response and made us fight for nearly 2 years, during which they committed terrible atrocities. I agree with you, 'You can't seriously compare a Liberal British government in 1918 to a Republican American government in 2006'

You still ignore the fact that the Home Rule Act had been passed into law and received Royal Assent by September 1914. The IMPLEMENTATION of Home Rule was shelved until after the war. Now it's quite possible that the British would have tried to welsh on the deal after the war. But Pearse and his fellows weren't interested in waiting to see if the peaceful option would pan out.

Already dealt with this in my last post. Also the HR act had een passed in April of 1912 and delayed for 2 years, meaning it SHOULDVE been implemented in April 1914, yet it was held up by the British with no solution in site. WW1 breaking out (months after the deadline to implement HR) presented an actual proper reason for the British holding it up. Also the HR parliamnets werent even established in Ireland until May of 1920, nearly 2 years after the end of WW2

If the British had welshed on Home Rule in 1918 they could have had a rebellion then which would have a had a greater chance of success with the surviving Irish Volunteers discharged from the army with all that useful military training and with the Volunteer split healed.

There wasnt a problem of manpower for the IRA during the war of independence, it was a lack of firearms and ammunition. The discharged Volunteers wouldnt have made a difference to that because they wouldve had to return their rifles to the British army upon discharge. And the split was effectively healed when the military organisations in Ireland were merged into the Irish Republican Army. Also, while the Volunteers had military training, the IRA used guerilla warfare rather than conventional army tactics of the time, so the training the volunteers had wouldnt have been quite so valuable (look at how the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries training wasnt of great benefit fighting guerilla warfare). Also, the volunteers who returned home couldve become active soldiers in the IRA anyway.

On the subject of splits, remember also that in staging the rebellion at Easter 1916, Pearse was actually disobeying the orders of his commander.

Its good that he did. The country we have now is by no means perfect and we've made lots of mistakes, but at least its our country. 'Id rather a bad Irish government than a good British government.'

Mick86

Collie D wrote:

So you agree that there should have been conscription and anyone who didn't volunteer was a coward?

There should have been conscription and I didn't mention cowardice.

Collie D wrote:

Never mind the fact that WWI was very much an "us and them" affair ie stick the working classes in the trenches and use them as cannon fodder while the upper classes draw lines on maps and send young men to their deaths

That is actually incorrect. While the working class bore the brunt of the casualties, the middle and upper classes suffered also.

Mick86

Flex wrote:

When we voted for independence in 1918, this liberal government sent over the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries in response and made us fight for nearly 2 years...

That's war for you.

Flex wrote:

Already dealt with this in my last post. Also the HR act had een passed in April of 1912 and delayed for 2 years, meaning it SHOULDVE been implemented in April 1914, yet it was held up by the British with no solution in site. WW1 breaking out (months after the deadline to implement HR) presented an actual proper reason for the British holding it up. Also the HR parliamnets werent even established in Ireland until May of 1920, nearly 2 years after the end of WW2

Factually incorrect. The Third Home Rule Act was introduced in 1912, passed by the Commons but not by the Lords. The same happened again in 1913. Once the Act had passed the Commons for the third time the Lords was bypassed and the bill sent for Royal Assent. So the Home Rule Act could not have been law in 1912. The 1920 Government of Ireland Act was a completely different Act of Parliament.

As for the rest of your posts we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Zebra3

Mick86 wrote:

The Government of Ireland Act 1914 had been passed and received Royal Assent. It was quite properly postponed until the war was over.

What makes you say it was the right decision to postpone HR until the end of WWI?

Shutuplaura

How can you dismiss the Black and Tans atricities with 'thats war for you' and be so unable to see an iota of legitimacy in either the rising or the subsequent Anglo-Irish War?

How can you say the war was a mess but defend it and cause non-participant cowards?

How can you blame them for the death of foolish over qualified platoon or company leaders who volunteered for a misguided imperial adventure?

There is far fewer Irish people lying in the republican plot in republican plots around Clonmel than there is around Messine so I really wonder how you can defend WWI with a dismissive c'est la vie and attack the Anglo-Irish wars as a waste of life.

Mad Finn

Mick86 wrote:

Almost a good theory Finn except;

Your statistics are flawed because you picked two states with a high proportion of Hispanics, mainly because the Yanks nicked those places from Mexico. How many Hispanic soldiers from Wisconsin have died in Iraq? Or fairer yet how do the figures add up nationally? In addition the deceased soldiers were US nationals not illegal immigrants.

I readily admit that. And although there are hispanic communities throughout the US, I would accept that they form a far larger percentage of the popultion in places like California and Texas.

The point I am making is that people of hispanic origin and who maintain the connection with their choice of names (it's a very patriotic American thing to anglicise your name) are still willing to join up and fight and die in the American army. This is despite the collective abuse that is thrown at their countrymen by the American right. I don't think too many hispanics in the south differentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigrants. They're all Mexican to them.

Mick86 wrote:

You still ignore the fact that the Home Rule Act had been passed into law and received Royal Assent by September 1914. The IMPLEMENTATION of Home Rule was shelved until after the war.

You're ignoring the second reason for which it was shelved. The need to bring about a separate agreement for Ulster. That was the second proviso attached to the passing of the Home Rule Bill. It wasn't just about the war.

joebhoy1916

Shutuplaura wrote:

Now a lot of people (well Kevin Myers, the Reform party and my mate John) have been saying that the 1916 rising was an unmitigated disaster of which no good ever came (including Irish Independance).

Surely though it actually saved many more lives in the long run as conditions post rising made it impossible for the British government to implement conscription. Thousands of would be Irish conscripts were therefore saved from needless slaughter in France.

What do you reckon? Can you help me beat John in round two or am I just talking ****e.

Does he like GAA? Ask him everytime he goes would he like to hear god save the queen coming from the band :eek:

IMO we should all be grateful to the men who died for the country we live in today though I would also say the Ireland we live in today isnt the Ireland they died for.

Mick86

Zebra3 wrote:

What makes you say it was the right decision to postpone HR until the end of WWI?

Because a political upheaval would be inadvisable during wartime. Even elections were suspended during both world wars in Britain and the US.

Zebra3 wrote:

How can you dismiss the Black and Tans atricities with 'thats war for you' and be so unable to see an iota of legitimacy in either the rising or the subsequent Anglo-Irish War?

The rising and subsequent wars were illegitimate because they were started by a minority who had no great backing from the people. As I have already said, Pearse disobeyed orders in proceeding with the cancelled rebellion.

Zebra3 wrote:

How can you say the war was a mess but defend it and cause non-participant cowards?

I didn't defend it nor call anybody a coward.

Zebra3 wrote:

How can you blame them for the death of foolish over qualified platoon or company leaders who volunteered for a misguided imperial adventure?

Agian I didn't blame anybody for any deaths. My point was that by not introducing conscription in 1914, the British government did not properly manage it's human resources. I mentioned Kettle and Asquith as examples of men who were employed in the wrong job. Would you run a factory with university graduates on the shop floor and junior cert laureates in management?

Zebra3 wrote:

There is far fewer Irish people lying in the republican plot in republican plots around Clonmel than there is around Messine so I really wonder how you can defend WWI with a dismissive c'est la vie and attack the Anglo-Irish wars as a waste of life.

I didn't defend WW1. And the Irish Civil War was a waste of life because it was unnecessary. The name Anglo Irish war is misleading, far more Irish people died on both sides from 1916 to 1923 than English.

Mick86

Mad Finn wrote:

You're ignoring the second reason for which it was shelved. The need to bring about a separate agreement for Ulster. That was the second proviso attached to the passing of the Home Rule Bill. It wasn't just about the war.

If the British Government wanted a separate Ulster Parliament then they could have included same in any of the three readings of the act. But they didn't. In fact the government precipitated the Curragh Mutiny in 1914 by ordering the army to prepare to implement Home Rule by force. This doesn't tally with the government making a last minute U-Turn on Home Rule.

Mad Finn

Mick86 wrote:

If the British Government wanted a separate Ulster Parliament then they could have included same in any of the three readings of the act. But they didn't.

Actually they did. Read about it here.. Especially the passage which begins The Shaping of Partition. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but any good history of the period will point out that Ulster had earned a temporary, at least, exemption from being included in the Home Rule jurisdiction.

Mick86

Mad Finn wrote:

Actually they did. Read about it here.. Especially the passage which begins The Shaping of Partition. ...

Read it again. It doesn't mention an Ulster Parliament.

The compromise proposed by Asquith was straightforward. Six counties of the northeast of Ireland (roughly two thirds of Ulster), where there was a safe Protestant majority, were to be excluded "temporarily" from the territory of the new Irish parliament and government and to continue to be governed as before from Westminster and Whitehall. How temporary the exclusion would be, and whether northeastern Ireland would eventually be governed by the Irish parliament and government, remained an issue of some controversy.

Mad Finn

You're splitting hairs. The point is, as I originally said, that a separate solution was to be found for Ulster. Whether it was direct rule from London or a form of home rule in Belfast was irrelevant. The key issue is that Ulster--an indefinable part thereof, to be decided at a later date, in effect the six counties--was to be excluded from the Home Rule Act which passed in 1914.

Given Redmond's firm opposition to partition, this might well have been used as a tactic for delaying or watering down implementation of the broader home rule settlement.

As I said, if you look around towards other sections of the empire, you will see that the mother country dragged its heels when implementing expected local reforms. No matter how loyal the children of those particular corners of the empire had been.

Mick86

Mad Finn wrote:

You're splitting hairs. The point is, as I originally said, that a separate solution was to be found for Ulster...

A separate solution might or might not have been found for Ulster. It's a pointless argument since the Rising effectively negated Home Rule and we are now in the realm of "What If History". An interesting exercise though is to speculate on the course of Irish History from 1916 if the Rising had never occurred. Would Sinn Féin have had such a high poll in 1918 without it's martyrs? Would there have been a revolution in the 20's? Would Redmond's successors have accepted partition?

Shutuplaura

I'm just going to throw in my two cents here and leave you's to it because its getting away from the discussion I'm interested in.

Firstly, your right you didn't call anyone a coward, however you did call them all slackers for avoiding the trenches. You also, i'd like to point out did defend the war - you even said that there should have been conscription and your whole tne seems to be that its a pity that fine people like Tom Kettle died while the potential cannon fodder of Ireland stayed in the field, behind shop counters or just hangin' round on corners. One life isn't better than another.

The point about the Anglo Irish war is a bit childish - The Irish who were killed by republicans were serving an Imperial sponser - Britain so its a perfectly valid name - But maybe the 'Tan war is better. oh, and I never condoned the Civil War (of 1922) - Its a pity Churchill started it and its a pity Michael Collins didn't survive it.

Your argument about Pearse disobeying orders is a bit pedantic so I'll give it no more than the response it deserves.

Finally, the Dail had a democratic mandate in 1919, something you seem to ignore. they had more of a mandate than the IPP ever had considering women over thirty were allowed vote for the first time in the Khaki election on 1918.

I'd also like to add, but here we are heading right into politics that the near century of warefare you blame on the seperatist movement in Ireland is a bit hyperbolic.
If Ireland only had HR then we would have been dragged into far bloodier conflict abroad, as Britain struggled with maintaining her Empire. And also, Irish kids would be in Iraq in greater number than they are now doing god knows what.

No 1916 - Who knows, conscription, and even greater anger from returning soldiers at the partition that would have followed. I doubt Redmonds party would have survived that anyway

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

I'm just going to throw in my two cents here and leave you's to it because its getting away from the discussion I'm interested in...

You're dead right. It's a boring topic.

ljy9fn7qwhgasx

The church was preparing to oppose conscription.

Zebra3

Mick86 wrote:

Because a political upheaval would be inadvisable during wartime. Even elections were suspended during both world wars in Britain and the US.

Well, there was even an election and change of government in Britain during WWII.

Also, please edit your earlier post. You've my name inserted in a load of quotes from other people.