The epitamy of british history and military lies.

odonnell

Fenian wrote:

Being Irish we know all too well how the British act during armed conflicts, as do many other nations.
The British have very few qualms about using any method to secure victory. Yet when the opposing side uses your own methods they're "terrorists" and "gunmen".
I'm a Republican, and make no apologises for it. So my views and opinions are quite biased. Yet I do try to look at things from both sides.
That said, if you look at some of the actions by the British military through the centuries, you'll find some of the most despicable acts of barbarism ever inflicted on another human being.
I can understand how British people might look at those acts and excuse them, for whatever reason. Just like I excuse some of the IRA's atrocities.

Mate, i KNOW the overpowering Irish sentiment toward the 'British' and have been on the receiving end of quite a few tirades against me personally just because Im Scottish - and im not talkin in the forums, im talkin in the pub, in a car park, in Dunnes for crying out loud - and to me it seems that a lot of you boys tend to dwell. Now im not saying its an excuse (or as you rightly pointed out - justification may be a better term), or justification for how the imperialist UK went about its business - but you have to remember here - they are NOT and never have been the only ones, nor the worst of the bunch to go about on a path of conquest. Im sorry but your tales of barbarism probably couldnt come CLOSE to some of the tales of Roman, Egyptian, Greek conquest - then we look at the Japanese and the Germans during WWII - ultimately brutal even to their prisoners, then we look at the Americans and good old 'native americans' ...

So i mean, it isnt REALLY the case that the British are one of the worst or most brutal as you like to see them at all! There have been far worse and a longer line of aggressive nations in this world without threads which seem to be nothing more than a finger pointing excercise. Seriously - this is nothing more than a thread by a guy who seems to me, to dwell on anything anti-british ... Sorry O'Leprosy but you do seem to do this mate... and I for one, whilst Scottish and not too sure if your beef is with the British or the English here - I still dont like it.

Irish and British history is another matter entirely - what gives any of you the right to start poking a stick at British conflicts for the sake of saying "oooh they are just all liars i tell you, liars!!!....and and and theyre BRUTAL!! theyre BRUTAL!!!!! look at what they did to those poor zulus... the germans would never have done that..."

surely you can see why id get annoyed at this sort of approach no?

odonnell

[edit] this posted twice for some obscure boardsie reason

Zambia

I concur with the Scot... Start a new thread if you wish to debate the history of the IRA.

Erin Go Brath

odonnell wrote:

Mate, i KNOW the overpowering Irish sentiment toward the 'British' and have been on the receiving end of quite a few tirades against me personally just because Im Scottish - and im not talkin in the forums, im talkin in the pub, in a car park, in Dunnes for crying out loud - and to me it seems that a lot of you boys tend to dwell.

Just to start, I'm sorry to hear about the grief you've been getting. It's just a small minority of idiots I'm sure. Everywhere has them unfortunately.

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.

odonnell wrote:

it isnt REALLY the case that the British are one of the worst or most brutal as you like to see them at all! There have been far worse and a longer line of aggressive nations in this world

I agree with you here to an extent. In global terms there has been many powerful nations throughout the centuries, which plundered smaller and weaker nations, committing terrible atrocities. The Romans, Egyptians and Greeks in their day as you point out would certainly give the British empire a run for their money in the barbarity stakes.
However, none of them invaded us, and oppressed us for centuries so we probably let them off the hook more in that respect.

odonnell wrote:

what gives any of you the right to start poking a stick at British conflicts for the sake of saying "oooh they are just all liars i tell you, liars!!!....and and and theyre BRUTAL!! theyre BRUTAL!!!!! look at what they did to those poor zulus... the germans would never have done that..."

surely you can see why id get annoyed at this sort of approach no?

Anybody has the right to stand up and say and unjust conflict in unjust. We, as Irish people know too well from our history what it means to be oppressed, and thus we clearly would have an affinity with smaller oppressed nations of the world. Britains history of lies, propaganda, and brutality is well documented for all to see!

Fratton Fred

Mick86 wrote:

That said the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Italians and Americans managed to extend and maintain their empires with due regard to the human rights and dignity of the people whose land they were stealing. Which is why they hardly ever get a mention from the anti-imperialists.

Ask the people of Portugal how their human rights were during the occupation by Napoleons armies. Take a look at the history of the Hugenots as well. They had a rather significant involvement in something called the slave trade as well.

Germany, well, do we need to get into that

Belgium, check out Roger Casement's report on their antics, he was quite vocal on the subject.

Italy, I'm sure there is something to do with the Romans, I can;t quite remember. The old Venetians were a pretty brutal bunch as well.

America, I'd call the attempted genocide and forced rehoming of entire tribes of people a bit of a slight on their human rights.


It happened all over the world, it was the way the world was back then. The Romans were at it, the Turks, the Greeks, Hannibal was a bit of a rogue in his day as well.

odonnell

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Just to start, I'm sorry to hear about the grief you've been getting. It's just a small minority of idiots I'm sure. Everywhere has them unfortunately.

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.


I agree with you here to an extent. In global terms there has been many powerful nations throughout the centuries, which plundered smaller and weaker nations, committing terrible atrocities. The Romans, Egyptians and Greeks in their day as you point out would certainly give the British empire a run for their money in the barbarity stakes.
However, none of them invaded us, and oppressed us for centuries so we probably let them off the hook more in that respect.



Anybody has the right to stand up and say and unjust conflict in unjust. We, as Irish people know too well from our history what it means to be oppressed, and thus we clearly would have an affinity with smaller oppressed nations of the world. Britains history of lies, propaganda, and brutality is well documented for all to see!

I think thats fair enough mate...i really see where you, and a lot of people with the same sentiments as yourself, are coming from. But this is a curious one for me to really have a non-bias view on. Obviously i understand the animosity which is all but bred into you - the same thing exists in Scotland through thousands of years of conflict with our uhmm, southerly neighbours!

So i get that and thats cool... and I have no quam whatsoever disecting military history or otherwise - where i DO draw that line nowadays bud, is when the topic is started not as a legitimate conversation starter - but as an excercise in brit bashing. I often envisage someone sitting around chalking up just another reason to hate people from the UK.

soldering iron

There was no shortage of ammo. Historians armed with metal detectors have found bits of ammo box and spent cartridge cases galore at the site. Enough to prove that lack of ammunition wasn't the cause of the defeat. The defenders of the British camp at Isandlwana were spread too thin on the ground and the Zulus overcame them by weight of numbers. Also Chelmsford, the commander of the Army, split his forces and led the main body off into the wilds of Zululand.

The historians who reenacted the battle also found the ammunition box screws where bent a right angles, indicating that the boxes where broken open with a rifle butt.The rifle that were use also had a tendency to jam if over heated,when the rifles jamed the front riflemen and they fell back to the next line.It is also speculated that the first of the Zulu warrior that charged the british Army line, where to some degree on something (what i do not know) this substance enhanced the bravery of the warrior with his spear/shield.
The british goverment of the time did commit some atrocities, and showed total disregard for al fellow humans , but that is history.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.

Ironic that you give examples of British propaganda, then quote republican propaganda in reply.

Maybe you could give an explanation of the following, or is this more propaganda. (From Wikipedia, so it may not be unbiased)

The number of Protestants killed in the early months of the uprising is the subject of debate. Early Parliamentarian pamphlets claimed that over 100,000 settlers had lost their lives. In fact, recent research has suggested that the number is far more modest, in the region of 4,000 or so killed, though many thousands were expelled from their homes. It is estimated that up to 12,000 Protestants may have lost their lives in total, the majority dying of cold or disease after being expelled from their homes in the depths of winter. The general pattern around the country was that the violence of the attacks intensified the longer the rebellion went on. At first, there were beatings and robbing of local Protestants, then house burnings and expulsions and finally widespread killings, most of them concentrated in Ulster. In one notorious incident, the Protestant inhabitants of Portadown were taken captive and then massacred on the bridge in the town. In County Armagh, recent research has shown that about 1,250 Protestants were killed in the early months of the rebellion, or about a quarter of the Protestant population.

Modern historians have stressed that the massacres of 1641 had an overwhelming psychological impact on the Protestant settler community. Whereas before the Rebellion, inter-communal relationships had been improving, after it, many Protestants in Ireland took the attitude that the native Irish Catholic community could never be trusted again. This attitude led many settlers to take merciless reprisals on Catholics when they got the chance, particularly in 1642-43 when a Scottish Covenanter army landed in Ulster. Massacres of Catholic civilians or prisoners in 1641-42 occurred at Kilwarlin woods near Newry, Rathlin Island, Glenmaquinn near Strabane and elsewhere. In addition, the English Parliament passed an Ordinance of No Quarter against the Irish rebels, meaning that prisoners were to be killed when taken. William Lecky, the 19th century historian of the rebellion, concluded that, "it is hard to know on which side the balance of cruelty rests".

The widespread killing of civilians was brought under control to some degree in 1642, when Owen Roe O'Neill arrived in Ulster to command the Irish Catholic forces and hanged several rebels for attacks on civilians. Thereafter, the war, though still brutal, was fought in line with the code of conduct that both O'Neill and the Scottish commander Robert Munro had learned as professional soldiers in continental Europe.

In the long term, the cycle of massacres initiated in 1641 polarised Irish politics along sectarian lines. The effects of this can still be seen, particularly in Northern Ireland today. The bitterness created by the massacres of 1641 proved extremely long lasting. Ulster Protestants commemorated the anniversary of the rebellion on every October 23 for over two hundred years after the event. Images of the massacres of 1641 are still represented on the banners of the Orange Order. Even today, the killings are thought of by some as an example of attempted genocide. In fact, if the figure of 12,000 deaths is accurate, this would represent less than 10% of the British settler population in Ireland, though in Ulster the ratio of deaths to the settler population would have been somewhat higher.

I am not using this as an excuse, or to justiy the actions of the British, what I prefer to do is look for reasons and try and get them in context of the events of the day.

Mick86

Fratton Fred wrote:

Ask the people of Portugal how their human rights were during the occupation by Napoleons armies. Take a look at the history of the Hugenots as well. They had a rather significant involvement in something called the slave trade as well.

Germany, well, do we need to get into that

Belgium, check out Roger Casement's report on their antics, he was quite vocal on the subject.

Italy, I'm sure there is something to do with the Romans, I can;t quite remember. The old Venetians were a pretty brutal bunch as well.

America, I'd call the attempted genocide and forced rehoming of entire tribes of people a bit of a slight on their human rights.


It happened all over the world, it was the way the world was back then. The Romans were at it, the Turks, the Greeks, Hannibal was a bit of a rogue in his day as well.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I am not using this as an excuse, or to justiy the actions of the British, what I prefer to do is look for reasons and try and get them in context of the events of the day.

It's possible that up to 1/3 of the Rorke's Drift garrison wasn't British at all. There were about thirty men with Irish names present.

Fratton Fred

Mick86 wrote:

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Phew. Sarcasm is best spoken I find.

Mick86 wrote:

It's possible that up to 1/3 of the Rorke's Drift garrison wasn't British at all. There were about thirty men with Irish names present.

Who, at the time of the Zulu wars, were considered by the British to be British. Many people conveniently forget the Irish presence in the British Army. Not all Ulstermen either.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

Ironic that you give examples of British propaganda, then quote republican propaganda in reply.

Its not republican propoganda though. It's historical fact. Are you denying Britains role is the said atrocities?

Typical British propaganda i'm referring to is stuff like telling the world that Britain is invading a country for the good of the poor backward savages that reside within. Whereas in reality, it generally was for their own ends, bolstering the empire.

Not sure where your going with the wiki excerpt about the 1641 massacre

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Who, at the time of the Zulu wars, were considered by the British to be British. Many people conveniently forget the Irish presence in the British Army. Not all Ulstermen either.

Just on the point of Irish people in the British Army and since someone else mentioned Napolean. Over 33% of Wellington's Army was Irish so its fair to say t if it wasn't for us Irish we would all be speaking French now.:D

Although most Irish people "conveniently forget" for good reason the Irish presence in the British Army. Most Irish people entered the British Army out of economic reasons not for the "Queen and Empire" Victorian romanticism that some people (not saying you) like to hint at.

Irish people are usually against the naked imperialism that went hand in hand with the British Army. Quite reasonable one would imagine seeing as they have been on the receiving end up until relatively recently.

csk

As for the toic at hand. I don't see the problem. All Governments Armies etc. use spin and propaganda. Why would they highlight a major loss like Isandlwana?

Especially given the context of the time where the British would not have spat on a zulu if he was on fire as the saying goes. Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?). British people looked down on Zulus as less than Human so its only natural they would not advertise a major loss.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

As for the toic at hand. I don't see the problem. All Governments Armies etc. use spin and propaganda. Why would they highlight a major loss like Isandlwana?

Especially given the context of the time where the British would not have spat on a zulu if he was on fire as the saying goes. Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?). British people looked down on Zulus as less than Human so its only natural they would not advertise a major loss.

that's not fair, it wasn't just the Zulus (and it wasn't just the British).

Racism was big in those days. Slavery had not long been abolished and to most europeans, Africans were just savages.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

that's not fair, it wasn't just the Zulus (and it wasn't just the British).

Racism was big in those days. Slavery had not long been abolished and to most europeans, Africans were just savages.

Context of the time yadda yadda yadda. Still doesn't make racism right nor Imperialism for that matter.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Its not republican propoganda though. It's historical fact. Are you denying Britains role is the said atrocities?

Typical British propaganda i'm referring to is stuff like telling the world that Britain is invading a country for the good of the poor backward savages that reside within. Whereas in reality, it generally was for their own ends, bolstering the empire.

Not sure where your going with the wiki excerpt about the 1641 massacre

bringing civilisation to the world:rolleyes: I know, it's not exactly factual but it serves a purpose, a bit like "800 years of British oppression". Little more than just rallying cries to the troops.

The purpose of the Wiki post (and after looking further, I realise it is a piece of strong unionist propoganda, it was not my intention to use it in the way Paisley et al do) is to demonstrate that there is two sides, conveniently forgotten when the purpose serves.

You can talk of the plantations, but not mention the murder of thousands of people? that's not exactly a balanced view.

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors. Besides, their executions did more for a free Ireland than the Rising ever did.

The famine we have talked to death.

The penal laws were not aimed at Ireland, they were aimed at Catholics, wrong though they were, I do not think they should be used as an example of Britains oppression in Ireland.

bloody Sunday was an appalling massacre, even more shocking is that no one has been brought to account for it.

The Hunger strikers, to you they were heroes, to me they were nothing more than terrorists trying to manipulate a government.

we can go forever, but lets try and get this balanced and into context.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Context of the time yadda yadda yadda. Still doesn't make racism right nor Imperialism for that matter.

fwiw, I agree.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors. Besides, their executions did more for a free Ireland than the Rising ever did.

Not to get into this again but that's not necessarily true. The Rising and the executions cannot be separated.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Not to get into this again but that's not necessarily true. The Rising and the executions cannot be separated.

it was not my intention seperate the two.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can talk of the plantations, but not mention the murder of thousands of people? that's not exactly a balanced view.

Who decided on the plantation, and caused the conflict in the first place? Do remind me. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors.

Yeah they were traitors.......................to the crown.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The penal laws were not aimed at Ireland, they were aimed at Catholics, wrong though they were, I do not think they should be used as an example of Britains oppression in Ireland.

The penal laws are a perfect example of British oppression in Ireland. Coming over here trying to inflict a new made up religion on people, and persecuting them for sticking to their original beliefs. That's oppression in any language.

Fratton Fred wrote:

bloody Sunday was an appalling massacre, even more shocking is that no one has been brought to account for it.

Yes it was.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Hunger strikers, to you they were heroes, to me they were nothing more than terrorists trying to manipulate a government.

I know we've done this one in a previous thread, but Maggie Thatcher turning her back on citizens in her jurisdiction was not just irresponsible, but sickening.

Zambia

csk wrote:

Just on the point of Irish people in the British Army and since someone else mentioned Napolean. Over 33% of Wellington's Army was Irish so its fair to say t if it wasn't for us Irish we would all be speaking French now.:D

Although most Irish people "conveniently forget" for good reason the Irish presence in the British Army. Most Irish people entered the British Army out of economic reasons not for the "Queen and Empire" Victorian romanticism that some people (not saying you) like to hint at.

Irish people are usually against the naked imperialism that went hand in hand with the British Army. Quite reasonable one would imagine seeing as they have been on the receiving end up until relatively recently.

Hang on at the time of the conscripton was not in force irish men like described here went and signed up. So Ireland played a direct hand in the imperilism you all are describing. At the time of the Zulu wars ireland was part of Britain.


Soldiers have frequently been seen by both government and society alike as necessary only in times of war - to be set aside as quickly as possible in peacetime. Mass conscription has been resorted to only twice - both times in the twentieth century at times of acute national danger - even though Britain's Army has been engaged in warlike operations somewhere in the world almost continuously for more than three hundred years.

The Zulu invented a shorter-style assegai which had a larger, broader blade this would basically stab their victim with a thrust and turn motion this would pretty much disembowl but not every kill was that clean.

As a matter of fact, the Zulus were a very noble race with a high standard of morality, but they bought to kill, and undoubtedly killed the wounded and mutilated the bodies; but a predominant superstition with them was that if they did not disembowel a fallen enemy, their own stomachs would swell up when that of their dead enemy did, and that therefore they must let out the gas.

As far as British troops stabbing wounded Zulus after the battle of rourkes drift I think that was probably the humane thing to do they where not exactly a stones throw from a military hospital resources where scarce enough and prisoners where not taken by the Zulus at Isandlana so the decent thing to do was end their pain. That said i find no mention of this and if the OP can tell me where he found that fact i wouldnt mind reading it.

However in my view both armys fought with the amount of fairness the time afforded. Not to mention their traditions allowed.

As to why the British lost Isandlwana soldering iron raises some good pionts the Martini Henry did jam in high heat after several rounds. That may not be the only reason as personnal I think Chelmsford understimated the Zulus on home ground a classic military mistake. Lord Chelmsford, however seemed to learn from this and later defeated the Zulus at the battle of Ulundi.

As for not screaming down the rafters about the defeat at Isandlwana , wel thats just good sense. Its like a coach rousing his team saying remeber the trashing that last team gave us.

Mick86

Fratton Fred wrote:

Phew. Sarcasm is best spoken I find.

Yes it is.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Who, at the time of the Zulu wars, were considered by the British to be British. Many people conveniently forget the Irish presence in the British Army. Not all Ulstermen either.

Yes at that time the Irish were indeed British citizens. However to some Irish propagandists British equals English. So when some dreadful massacre happened they can be hypocritical and say the British (English) did it when in fact it might have been an Irish perpetrated atrocity.

I'm quite proud to think we were so well represented at Rorke's Drift. More Irish accents in the remake please.:D

csk wrote:

Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?).

That was the Sudan.

csk wrote:

Context of the time yadda yadda yadda. Still doesn't make racism right nor Imperialism for that matter.

You're judging a historical event by contemporary standards.

Erin Go Brath

Mick86 wrote:

Yes at that time the Irish were indeed British citizens. However to some Irish propagandists British equals English. So when some dreadful massacre happened they can be hypocritical and say the British (English) did it when in fact it might have been an Irish perpetrated atrocity.

I despair when I see posts like this. West Brit rubbish if ever I've seen it. :rolleyes:

Irish people entered the British army for the most part because it was a job which put food on the table, as csk has alluded to above. They took orders from crown forces, and did what they had to do to survive, and support their families. The Celtic Tiger wasn't roaring in them days you know, people had limited opportunities.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I despair when I see posts like this. West Brit rubbish if ever I've seen it. :rolleyes:

Irish people entered the British army for the most part because it was a job which put food on the table, as csk has alluded to above. They took orders from crown forces, and did what they had to do to survive, and support their families. The Celtic Tiger wasn't roaring in them days you know, people had limited opportunities.

being a hired gun is fine, but doing it of your own free will is not?

I would suggest that outside of the upper classes, most people who joined the British army did it to put food on the table.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The penal laws are a perfect example of British oppression in Ireland. Coming over here trying to inflict a new made up religion on people, and persecuting them for sticking to their original beliefs. That's oppression in any language.

Sorry, are you talking about Catholicism or Protestantism? Britain brought both over.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

tell me what country glorifies defeat?

Australia. Gallipoli.

Britain. Dunkirk.

Well maybe not so much glorification, but certainly skilfull spinning of a humiliation into a moral victory.

Snickers Man

Mick86 wrote:

Of the VC winners-

Chard, Bromhead, Allen, Hitch, Hook, William Jones and Dalton were English.

I think I remember seeing a book about Irish VC winners which tried to claim Bromhead was Irish, or at least qualified to be under some contemporary equivalent of the "Granny Rule". Probably came from an Anglo-Irish family.

Bromhead was the chinless wonder played by Michael Caine in the film Zulu. It's not the only time he has played an Anglo-Irish soldier. In A Bridge Too Far he plays the part of JOE Vandeleur, Indian born from an old Anglo-Irish family, commander of the Irish Guards tank unit that has to lead the assault on the German lines. Most memorable quote is when he;s told of his assignment and mutters. "Christ, not us again"

But I digress....

Mick86 wrote:

That said the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Italians and Americans managed to extend and maintain their empires with due regard to the human rights and dignity of the people whose land they were stealing. Which is why they hardly ever get a mention from the anti-imperialists.

How do you know? How many books have you read in French, German, flemsh, Dutch or Italian? There's plenty of opposition to colonialism in these countries. They just focus on their own first because that is what they know best. And they probably get criticised by people in their own country saying: "Why does nobody ever mention the Brits?" :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Australia. Gallipoli.

Britain. Dunkirk.

Well maybe not so much glorification, but certainly skilfull spinning of a humiliation into a moral victory.

I don't think anyone particularly celebrates Gallipoli, more llike remembers it solemly.

Dinkirk is remembered for the success of geting so many people off the beach, the support given by boat owners along the south coast etc. No one particularly glorifies it. I supppose it is spin, but there is a lot to be proud of there too.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I despair when I see posts like this. West Brit rubbish if ever I've seen it. :rolleyes:

Irish people entered the British army for the most part because it was a job which put food on the table, as csk has alluded to above. They took orders from crown forces, and did what they had to do to survive, and support their families. The Celtic Tiger wasn't roaring in them days you know, people had limited opportunities.

Sorry Utter horse crap to imagine every Irish serving soldeir joined due to poverty.

You could say the same about the Engilish Welsh and Scots. Some Irish soldiers would have joined the army just "to join the army" same way they do today in the Irish Army.

Stop making excuses for people actions when they in fact could have joined for other reasons. If you can find somewhere that proves to me they all joined due to being poor I would love to see it because personnally i think its a slander on the thousands who served by there own accord with distinction.

That said I am sure some did join to put food on the table, but at the time people joined the army worldwide for that reason.

jmayo

csk wrote:

As for the toic at hand. I don't see the problem. All Governments Armies etc. use spin and propaganda. Why would they highlight a major loss like Isandlwana?

Especially given the context of the time where the British would not have spat on a zulu if he was on fire as the saying goes. Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?). British people looked down on Zulus as less than Human so its only natural they would not advertise a major loss.

Isandlwana was a cock up highlighting the fact that the British army were led by arrogant aristocratic eejits (Lord Chelmesford), that made the mistake of underestimating their foe.
I managed to catch part of a documentary on the whole subject some time back and it made some points on both battles.

At Isandlwana, Chelmsford went chasing after some Zulu parties they spotted. They never thought of the Zulu tactic of "horns of the buffalo".
At the camp they spilt their units too far apart and too far from their supply wagons, something like quarter of a mile.
Then the best part was it stated that the sergants in charge of the supply wagons refused to hand out ammunition to the runners, if they were from the incorrect unit and if they did not have written authorisation from the unit officer.
In the end they had to try and break boxes open to try and get at the ammunition.
BTW something like 750 natives died in the service of the crown, so they were not all white guys.

Rorke's Drift was a galant defence but it was also talked up to cover up the major cockup that was Isandlwana. A little bit of spin by Victoria's Disraeli government. Maybe Allastir Campbell's forebearers were involved?
Chelmsford should have been hung out to dry, as wanted by Disraeli, but ould Vicy championed him because he "came form the right background".

Actually by all accounts the two officers (Chard and Bromhead) involved at Rorke's drift were supposedly incapable of leading a p*ss-up in a brewery and as usual with British army it was the NCOs that were the mainstay.
The supposed real hero was Commissary Dalton, another Irish name.

Regarding make up of British army, you will find they used lot of people from their colonies (Ireland, India, etc), although Scotland does not fall into this.
Poverty would have driven a lot of the lower ranks into the army, whereas the upper ranks were filled by military families and the non-inheriting sons of wealthy families. And yes some would have joined to see the world or was that just the navy?

Regarding famous British generals, Arthur Wesley, the Duke of Wellington was born in Dublin or Meath (take your pick), Kitchener of the Sudan was born in Kerry, Mongomery was from a Dongeal family.

So if you look at it one way, the Irish kept the Empire going.

Mick86 wrote:

That said the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Italians and Americans managed to extend and maintain their empires with due regard to the human rights and dignity of the people whose land they were stealing. Which is why they hardly ever get a mention from the anti-imperialists.

The Indochinese (Vietnamesse, Cambodians, Laotians) had such a great time under French rule they welcomed them back after WWII. The Belgians were such great rulers in the Congo, Casement wrote glowing reports of their actions, the Italians of course did nothing wrong in Ethopia or Libya, the Dutch held onto power in the Dutch East Indias, Guiana by looking after the natives, after all some their descendents would be the mainstay of their soccer team in 1990s, 2000s.
The French Foriegn Legion loved by all the peoples of North Africa, they even threw a party for them when they were leaving their HQ in Algeria.

It is an interesting thread topic, but I do think the OP was trying to stir the pot and due to fact the poster always without fail, refers to anything or anyone "British" as "british" it does come across as bigotted.
That's my two cent worth.