Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is there an Official list of dead + Official Memorial for National Army troops?
-
27-10-2008 5:44pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
I didn't ask for your opinion, not many people do McArmalite. I asked about a memorial and list.
Well since this is a discussion forum, since you mentioned the ' National/Free State army ' I only queried why you think they and the period should deserve an unquestioning memorial.
Firstly - The Free Sate witheld the details of the treaty until the morning of the vote, it was only published in the unionist newspapers of the time the Irish Times and Independent ( although Sir Anthony's Irish Independent would obvioulsy still be a unionist - 90 years after ' Independence 'Despite your usual arguments, you fail to note O'Connor and the other Republican commanders openly rejected the democratic will of the majority. O'Connor even spoke of setting up a military dictatorship. They were dreamers, idealists. Collins, Griffith, Cosgrave, O'Higgin's etc were realists. They knew what could and could not be achieved through continuing fighting the Westminster.
) on the moring of the vote, THEORETICALLY it can be said the people knew what they were voting for, reality wise it was a mega lie to deceive and manipulate the public. If the great, honest founding fathers of the state had nothing to hide, why did they just publish the contents on the morning of the vote ?? And given that the distributuion of newspapers in those days was obviously a hap hazard affair - could it really be said that the people were presented with the full details ??
And secondly - IRELAND HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE IF WE WANT bRITISH OCCUPATION IN ANY PART OF OUR COUNTRY. It was not a vote to decide that Ireland should be partitiioned and british occupation survive, it was a british ultimatim of brit rule to stay in the six counties, take it or leave it. The winning side of a war does not dictate the terms.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - those who were the most vunerable - the nationalists in what was to become the six county secterian gerryamnder - to unionist and british thuggery were abonded. The thugery of the Black and Tans etc was nothing compared to the open pograms across the north - with the lovely lads from England etc leading them on their destruction, looting and murder. And what was the Free State doing while all this statred...... atttacking the IRA in the Four Courts and across Dublin with british supplied artillery and rifles. But then, that's what their british masters demanded of them, it's amazing that their are those who try and portray it as a great step in Irelands struggle for independence.Can I just state right now, I have no interest in further pursuing this argument. Nip it in the bud please. I didn't ask for any opinions, just as I said already. Re-read my first post please.
No eroo, you didn't ask for my opinions, nor indeed anyone else's, I'm just making the point that their is serious questions to be asked about the National/Free State Army and how ' glorious ' their actions were. I for one cannot see how Irishmen attacking and murdering Irishmen at the request of the English war criminal Winston Churchill should be regarded as unquestionably right.
" To the men who intend to do killing, until Englands tyrannies cease "0 -
-
McArmalite wrote: »Well since this is a discussion forum, since you mentioned the ' National/Free State army ' I only queried why you think they and the period should deserve an unquestioning memorial.
Firstly - The Free Sate witheld the details of the treaty until the morning of the vote, it was only published in the unionist newspapers of the time the Irish Times and Independent ( although Sir Anthony's Irish Independent would obvioulsy still be a unionist - 90 years after ' Independence ' ) on the moring of the vote, THEORETICALLY it can be said the people knew what they were voting for, reality wise it was a mega lie to deceive and manipulate the public. If the great, honest founding fathers of the state had nothing to hide, why did they just publish the contents on the morning of the vote ?? And given that the distributuion of newspapers in those days was obviously a hap hazard affair - could it really be said that the people were presented with the full details ??
And secondly - IRELAND HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE IF WE WANT bRITISH OCCUPATION IN ANY PART OF OUR COUNTRY. It was not a vote to decide that Ireland should be partitiioned and british occupation survive, it was a british ultimatim of brit rule to stay in the six counties, take it or leave it. The winning side of a war does not dictate the terms.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - those who were the most vunerable - the nationalists in what was to become the six county secterian gerryamnder - to unionist and british thuggery were abonded. The thugery of the Black and Tans etc was nothing compared to the open pograms across the north - with the lovely lads from England etc leading them on their destruction, looting and murder. And what was the Free State doing while all this statred...... atttacking the IRA in the Four Courts and across Dublin with british supplied artillery and rifles. But then, that's what their british masters demanded of them, it's amazing that their are those who try and portray it as a great step in Irelands struggle for independence.
No eroo, you didn't ask for my opinions, nor indeed anyone else's, I'm just making the point that their is serious questions to be asked about the National/Free State Army and how ' glorious ' their actions were. I for one cannot see how Irishmen attacking and murdering Irishmen at the request of the English war criminal Winston Churchill should be regarded as unquestionably right.
" To the men who intend to do killing, until Englands tyrannies cease "
as usual you forget / refuse to read threads in full and fly off into another tangent, the man asked a question. it is none of your business why he may have more interest in casualties etc of free staters or not. you could have simply suggested or recommended some valuable sources. i see you feel that there might not be such a memorial etc for republicans or even innocent bystanders. well, why dont you investigate that, if its not available, do something constructive
one issue about the free staters or national army death roll (assuming national army is considered by op to be free staters and not the ira/irregualrs), it would be reasonable to assume that records of their deaths and how they died might be a little more assessable and their might actaually have being written documents of it since its the national army.
might be impossible with regard to the other side, i heard the free staters were responsible for extremely hush hush brutality all over the state - eg in kerry getting irregular prisoners to look for landmines and blowing them up etc. those deaths are not types the state would want people to know about.
now for the laughable part, with holding deatils till the morning of the election. are you referring actually confusing yourself to the irish elections of 1922, if so i am really holding my sides here.
1. the terms, conditions etc were well known by the people before the treaty elections, do you really think the dáilers were the only ones debating the treaty ? not everyone was a laizzer faire as we saw in lisbon treaty you know. sure they would have read the papers about the dail debates the previous christmas - january. you are being comepletly disgenious, do you really think people who went against collins and co in the civil war actually paid much heed to the likes of dev? they made their own minds up. britains threat of continued war did not help! secondly, read the actually minutes from the dail in the debate of december 1921, too much time was spent dig in on lesser important issues such as oath rather than important issues like partition and treaty ports(consider dev's solution of what the oath really meant when he entered dail in 1926, compare the irish oath with that of australia, canada and south africa at the time-big difference)
2. what actually did happen was collins initially made a pact with
devalera, in order to ensure sinn fein would stand together united under one banner for the elections- flatforms for candiates were split into the same proportion as that which had voted for and against the treaty in the dail the previous december. (basically the other side promised not to put a competing candiate against the other) this pact was not performed, as craig and westminister went mental, collins, trickly, pulled out of the pact the morning of the election, it was an election pact no more no less.
next, the independent back then, was actually not as unionist as you think, (but then again thinking is not really your thing is it?. the origins of the irish independent newspaper had being set up by nationalists and members of the irish parliamentary party- though admittingy anti parnellites and very critical of 1916 and the ira, until members had a word with them of course) i always thought newspapers were easily obtainable back in those days, its not like those two were the only newspapers of the day. care to provide links with your comments. maybe you should pop down to the library and check the papers of the day. politicans went up and down the country prior to this speaking out about the pros and cons of the treaty. if people were misinformed, and no doubt some probably were (look at lisbon) then the blame falls squarely with dev or other people for not convincing the population that the treaty was bad, that and the people had their own opinions. moreover, you fail to have regard to the fact that people, unfortuantely had their fill with over 6 years of violence. country folk were dying of malnurishment, diseases and the tough and tumle of war fare. some had no more heart to continue fighting, they saw the deal as the best that could be got, they believed in collins (who knew better than dev about the details of the war), others unfortuantely did not seem bothered about partition (look at some people's attitude in threads about united ireland in the politics section)
next, the op made no references or implied no reference that free staters deserved a memorial, he simply asked if there is one. it is quiete possible (maybe not) that he/ she would bulke at the idea that there is one, he/she may share your opinion.
as for the north, not much could be argued against this. but, had collins lived, better efforts would have being made alia war of independence style, to free the north, unlike dev who had well over 50 years to do something about it. both anti and pro treaty units were united in their boarder attacks, there are army papers which will support the notion that collins was planning attacks on the north with guns and ammo given by the british. many ira units in the north during civil war supported collins and the free staters (because of collins's intentions with the north)
lastly, i doubt anyone who looks at the civil war can look at it foundly, for it caused deep division and resentment between people in this side of the state and between us and the 6 counties. thus, reasons why civil war tends to be conveniently forgotten, there were no winners and no glory. anyone who thinks different, is in my opinion a bit of a muppet and completly ignorant of irish history of this time. i0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
McArmalite wrote: »Firstly - The Free Sate witheld the details of the treaty until the morning of the vote, it was only published in the unionist newspapers of the time the Irish Times and Independent ( although Sir Anthony's Irish Independent would obvioulsy still be a unionist - 90 years after ' Independence ' ) on the moring of the vote, THEORETICALLY it can be said the people knew what they were voting for, reality wise it was a mega lie to deceive and manipulate the public. If the great, honest founding fathers of the state had nothing to hide, why did they just publish the contents on the morning of the vote ?? And given that the distributuion of newspapers in those days was obviously a hap hazard affair - could it really be said that the people were presented with the full details ??
Perhaps they deserve some memorial because they fought (and died) to preserve and create the Irish State most of us live in now. Unless you're on the extreme of Ruari O'Bradaigh and are still at war with the "Free State". Also, they carried out the will of the majority who were sick of conflict. You could argue of course that "the majority have no right to do wrong".
The Irish Independent, pre-Independence, had always been a Nationalist newspaper. As were it's pre-decessors the Daily Irish Indepedent and the Freemans Journal. Go look at the plaque on Abbey Street if your confused about that. The Black and Tan & Civil War IRA did take a dislike to the paper on occassion, but that was simply because this paper had the temerity to criticise some of their actions.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement