Worst British War Criminal In Irish History

AOMURCHU

Was reading threads about cromwell and was wondering if he really was the worst visitor we ever had from fair britannia.

McArmalite

AOMURCHU wrote: »

Was reading threads about cromwell and was wondering if he really was the worst visitor we ever had from fair britannia.

Churchill would have to be included. This is the ' hero ' who defended the use of poisionious gas against the Kurds in Iraq. Churchill, an ardent imperialist and racist, sanctioned use of burning mustard gas on `primitive tribesmen’ but not on white troops, " I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes "

He was also behind the fire bombing of Dresden. From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees, mainly women, children and old men fleeing the invading Russian Army, some 80 miles away, were murdered when Germany's defeat was beyond doubt two months before the end of the Second World War. These were even more deaths than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki together.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Churchill would have to be included. This is the ' hero ' who defended the use of poisionious gas against the Kurds in Iraq. Churchill, an ardent imperialist and racist, sanctioned use of burning mustard gas on `primitive tribesmen’ but not on white troops, " I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes "

He was also behind the fire bombing of Dresden. From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees, mainly women, children and old men fleeing the invading Russian Army, some 80 miles away, were murdered when Germany's defeat was beyond doubt two months before the end of the Second World War. These were even more deaths than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki together.

all that happened in Ireland did it?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

all that happened in Ireland did it?

True enough Fred, I should have only posted regarding Irish history. I suppose it would have to be Cromwell.

MichealOR

Maggie Thatcher LOL

Snickers Man

Martin Johnson. No contest.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

Martin Johnson. No contest.

well, if you believe in Karma....

ilkhanid

"From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees..."
Exaggerated figures. Most of the literature I have see put deaths in the 35 000-at low end-to 125 000-at high end bracket. Not that that was'nt a terrible toll, but...

Fratton Fred

ilkhanid wrote: »

"From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees..."
Exaggerated figures. Most of the literature I have see put deaths in the 35 000-at low end-to 125 000-at high end bracket. Not that that was'nt a terrible toll, but...

it wasn't mustard gas, it was tear gas and it was never used, only proposed. but lets not let a small fact like that get in the way

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

"From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees..."
Exaggerated figures. Most of the literature I have see put deaths in the 35 000-at low end-to 125 000-at high end bracket. Not that that was'nt a terrible toll, but...

Well since your accusing me of " Exaggerated figures. " just put - 150,000 250,000 dresden refugees - into Google and you'll see the numerous sites quoting this number, including this one
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/09/40596.html

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since your accusing me of " Exaggerated figures. " just put - 150,000 250,000 dresden refugees - into Google and you'll see the numerous sites quoting this number, including this one
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/09/40596.html

indymedia, the well known oracle of truth and righteousness

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

indymedia, the well known oracle of truth and righteousness

Yes, and if I had quoted Wiki, Micheal Moore, Noam Chomsky or anyone else - you'd be saying the same :rolleyes:

ilkhanid

I prefer to take my figures from the historical literature rather than from controversialists and websites.

ChocolateSauce

I would argue that Cromwell cannot be a war criminal because the notion of war crimes didn't come to be until recently. Back then it was common practice throughout the world to raze towns and kill non-combatants.

ilkhanid

" just put - 150,000 250,000 dresden refugees - into Google and you'll see the numerous sites quoting this number, including this one..."

You will see figures for 200 000+ refugees in Dresden at the time of the bombing. But historians-including German ones-have settled on figures for dead that range between 25 000 and 40 000.

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

True enough Fred, I should have only posted regarding Irish history. I suppose it would have to be Cromwell.

McArmalite you are not far off the mark at all - Churchill was responsible for sending in the Black and Tans into Ireland. They were his brainchild and Lloyd George agreed to it.

Black and Tan destruction of many Irish towns and murderous brutality to innocent people can be compared - in Europe in the twentieth century - to the Nazis' kristallnacht. The major difference being that Churchill's murder squads operated in Ireland for years and not days.

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since your accusing me of " Exaggerated figures. " just put - 150,000 250,000 dresden refugees - into Google and you'll see the numerous sites quoting this number, including this one
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/09/40596.html

This has been covered before, those figures were made up by well known holocaust denier David Irving.

Fratton Fred

I guess the Germans probably know best

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,581992,00.html

Drawing on archival sources, many never previously consulted, on burial records and scientific findings -- including street-by-street archaeological investigations -- plus hundreds of eye-witness reports, the “Dresden Commission of Historians for the Ascertainment of the Number of Victims of the Air Raids on the City of Dresden on 13/14 February 1945” has provisionally estimated the likely death-toll at around 18,000 and definitely no more than 25,000.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Black and Tan destruction of many Irish towns and murderous brutality to innocent people can be compared - in Europe in the twentieth century - to the Nazis' kristallnacht. The major difference being that Churchill's murder squads operated in Ireland for years and not days.

no it can't, that is rediculous.

The Irish people never in a million years went through what the Jews went through under the Nazis.

ChocolateSauce

MarchDub wrote: »

McArmalite you are not far off the mark at all - Churchill was responsible for sending in the Black and Tans into Ireland. They were his brainchild and Lloyd George agreed to it.

Black and Tan destruction of many Irish towns and murderous brutality to innocent people can be compared - in Europe in the twentieth century - to the Nazis' kristallnacht. The major difference being that Churchill's murder squads operated in Ireland for years and not days.

Utterly OTT statement, unsupported by fact.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no it can't, that is rediculous.

Marchdub was comparing kristallnacht to the actions of the Tans throughtout Ireland, the state approved destuction and looting of homes and businesses.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Irish people never in a million years went through what the Jews went through under the Nazis.

Ignore it, he's just trying to stir it up because he's got the hump over my post no #2 about his great ' hero ' the war criminal winston churchill

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Marchdub was comparing kristallnacht to the actions of the Tans throughtout Ireland, the state approved destuction and looting of homes and businesses.


Ignore it, he's just trying to stir it up because he's got the hump over my post no #2 about his great ' hero ' the war criminal winston churchill

to be honest, I and most of the other posters on here are used to your over the top ****e by now so no, it doesn't bother me, but thanks for your concern.

MarchDub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Utterly OTT statement, unsupported by fact.

I beg your pardon - you are totally incorrect in this. This is now a well accepted historical fact. Churchill - as British Secretary of State for War - was the "brain" behind the Black and Tans and Lloyd George agreed with the idea.


You can read this in any researched history book - it even has a special scene in the RTE docudrama "The Treaty" . Look at Tim Pat Coogan's reference to this in his "Michael Collins" and also "In Search of Ireland's Heroes" by McCaffrey for another.

An original source is in the Churchill Archives Centre.

See ref also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19597.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irelands-war-of-independence-the-chilling-story-of-the-black-and-tans-475005.html

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

to be honest, I and most of the other posters on here are used to your over the top ****e by now so no, it doesn't bother me, but thanks for your concern.

Frattan - I think you are badly misreading McArmalite's post. Read it slowly again - he is not referring to me as having Churchill as a "hero". I think it is you he is suggesting is "stirring it up".

Tricky language English -

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Frattan - I think you are badly misreading McArmalite's post. Read it slowly again - he is not referring to me as having Churchill will as a "hero". I think it is you he is suggesting is "stirring it up".

Tricky language English -

I know exactly what he is saying, he posts something that is deliberately meant to stri things up, then makes accusations against me.

Same old **** from this joker I'm afraid.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

I beg your pardon - you are totally incorrect in this. This is now a well accepted historical fact. Churchill - as British Secretary of State for War - was the "brain" behind the Black and Tans and Lloyd George agreed with the idea.


You can read this in any researched history book - it even has a special scene in the RTE docudrama "The Treaty" . Look at Tim Pat Coogan's reference to this in his "Michael Collins" and also "In Search of Ireland's Heroes" by McCaffrey for another.

An original source is in the Churchill Archives Centre.

See ref also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19597.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irelands-war-of-independence-the-chilling-story-of-the-black-and-tans-475005.html

I can't speak for chocolatesauce, but my reasoning is this.

kristallnacht was a deliberate policy meant to victimise Jews, it was a coordinated planned action, in which a lot of civilians participated, pointing out jews and dragging them out into the street.

The Black and Tans were not meant to be anywhere near that, they were meant to backup the RIC. over a period of time they turned into a bunch of lawless thugs who carried out a lot of appaling actions, eventuallythe tactics used by the Black and Tans shocked the British Public so much, pressure was put on the government to withdraw them. This was also the beginning of the end of British rule in Ireland

kristallnacht had the support of the German people and was only the beginning for the Jews in Germany.

I know it was Churchill (Along with others) who came up with the original idea.

wolfpawnat

I would say worst Brit to ever set foot in Ireland, let alone act like a w*nker towards us is definately Cromwell! "Warts and all" Yes he wasnt a war criminal but damn it killing how many irish and justifying with his religion definately get him on my most hated list.

pierrot

Bobby Sands, ahem

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't speak for chocolatesauce, but my reasoning is this.

kristallnacht was a deliberate policy meant to victimise Jews, it was a coordinated planned action, in which a lot of civilians participated, pointing out jews and dragging them out into the street.

The Black and Tans were not meant to be anywhere near that, they were meant to backup the RIC. over a period of time they turned into a bunch of lawless thugs who carried out a lot of appaling actions, eventuallythe tactics used by the Black and Tans shocked the British Public so much, pressure was put on the government to withdraw them. This was also the beginning of the end of British rule in Ireland

kristallnacht had the support of the German people and was only the beginning for the Jews in Germany.

I know it was Churchill (Along with others) who came up with the original idea.

Actually, [to give credit properly] it was Tim Pat Coogan who first came up with the comparison with Kristallnacht - in singularly looking at what the outcome was for civilian life under the murderous Black and Tan policy. I do think that it is a fair comparison in that way. The purpose of British policy at that time was to break the newly set up Dail [declared illegal by Lloyd George] , the Irish court system and the Irish economy. Creameries were a main target and Irish civilians were considered to be legitimate targets.

But there was certainly a nefarious aspect to the planning and the Tans were to do what the army had failed to do i.e the above mentioned destruction to the Irish economy and embryonic political frame vis a vis the declared "illegal" Dail Eireann.

Churchill stated that something more than "perfunctory lip service" was needed to answer the Irish uprising and virtual establishment of a new political system outside of the UK control - the Dail and court system were taking hold and had Irish public support. That the Tans got so out of control is not surprising and British leadership has to be held responsible for this. War crimes are war crimes and a defence that events got out of the control of those who initiated the policy is not acceptable. There was enough time to reverse the policy but nothing was done.

ejmaztec

Saint Patrick did more damage in Ireland than any of his countrymen put together. He should have stayed where he was and left Ireland to enjoy its Paganism. The British would have kept well away, not wishing to find themselves as offerings to a choice of different gods. At least then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the crap spread across this forum, and a few others, and any curious outsiders wouldn't think that they had found themselves peering into a nest of bigots.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't speak for chocolatesauce, but my reasoning is this.

kristallnacht was a deliberate policy meant to victimise Jews, it was a coordinated planned action, in which a lot of civilians participated, pointing out jews and dragging them out into the street.

The thuggery of the Tans, Auxiliary regiment and reguliar british army and unionist mobs " was a deliberate policy meant to victimise " Irish nationalists.

" It was a coordinated planned action, in which a lot of " unionist civilians participated, pointing out nationalists and dragging them out into the street. The violence against nationalists in Belfast alone, which continued long after the truce in the rest of the country, killed around 450 people, mostly civilians.

T runner

Cromwell. In addition to his more obvious atrocities his land policy in Ireland of putting the ownership of all the land in Ireland into the hands of a tiny minority of English settlers, caused centuries of unnecessary strife.

Flex

Id have to go with Cromwell.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Black and Tans were not meant to be anywhere near that, they were meant to backup the RIC. over a period of time they turned into a bunch of lawless thugs who carried out a lot of appaling actions, eventuallythe tactics used by the Black and Tans shocked the British Public so much, pressure was put on the government to withdraw them. This was also the beginning of the end of British rule in Ireland

Not true. But why let facts get in the way of posting such rubbish? :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not true. But why let facts get in the way of posting such rubbish? :rolleyes:

what sort of knife do you prefer for splitting hairs

Anyway, Cromwell appears to win this particular award hands down i believe.

cherrypicker555

McArmalite wrote: »

True enough Fred, I should have only posted regarding Irish history. I suppose it would have to be Cromwell.

And perhaps you could tell us where Cromwell committed these "war crimes", the reality is he abided by the rules of warfare of that time.

cherrypicker555

T runner wrote: »

Cromwell. In addition to his more obvious atrocities his land policy in Ireland of putting the ownership of all the land in Ireland into the hands of a tiny minority of English settlers, caused centuries of unnecessary strife.

More Narnia.

Irish pesants did not own their land they were feudal tenants of the Gaelic aristocracy some of who were given land by James I for supporting his plantations in Ireland, the rest was owned by the "Old English", who were actually Norman.

Please list the attrocities Cromwell committed against Irish catholics ?

Those killed at Drogheda and Wexford were mainly English soldiers and settlers.

cherrypicker555

McArmalite wrote: »

The thuggery of the Tans, Auxiliary regiment and reguliar british army and unionist mobs " was a deliberate policy meant to victimise " Irish nationalists.

" It was a coordinated planned action, in which a lot of " unionist civilians participated, pointing out nationalists and dragging them out into the street. The violence against nationalists in Belfast alone, which continued long after the truce in the rest of the country, killed around 450 people, mostly civilians.

Can you post a link for your stat ?

As far as I'm aware around 700 "civilians" died in the war of Independence, most combatants.

cherrypicker555

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no it can't, that is rediculous.

The Irish people never in a million years went through what the Jews went through under the Nazis.

You have to understand, historically lies and half truths are/were used by the independence movement to garner political support for it, to this day they are taught as fact in the republic by the church/state. While the pogrom against southern protestants is ignored.

T runner

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Can you post a link for your stat ?

As far as I'm aware around 700 "civilians" died in the war of Independence, most combatants.

Hypocritically, you dont see the need to post links for your own stats.

T runner

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

You have to understand, historically lies and half truths are/were used by the independence movement to garner political support for it, to this day they are taught as fact in the republic by the church/state. While the pogrom against southern protestants is ignored.

I live near Sligo town. There were enough protestants alive and thriving there to block a plebicide on changing a street name from lower Knox street to O'Connell street. No pogrom there, by the looks of it.

I think there is another thread about the post independence treatment of southern protestants on this forum. If you decide to post on that youll probably have to substantiate your wilder claims. Otherwise you may be accused of half-truths or, dare I say it, lies yourself.

T runner

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

More Narnia.

Irish pesants did not own their land they were feudal tenants of the Gaelic aristocracy some of who were given land by James I for supporting his plantations in Ireland, the rest was owned by the "Old English", who were actually Norman.

Please list the attrocities Cromwell committed against Irish catholics ?

Those killed at Drogheda and Wexford were mainly English soldiers and settlers.

The first few I found below.

From this British site

"Cromwell regarded the massacre at Drogheda as a righteous judgment on the Catholics who had slaughtered Protestant settlers in the Irish Uprising of 1641, a view that was probably shared by most Protestants at the time"

Here

"Thomas à Wood, who served in Cromwell's army, says that three thousand at least, besides women and children, were put to the sword. Sir Arthur Aston had his brains beaten out and his body hacked to pieces, and the women of high and low rank who took refuge in the vaults were slain without pity."

"...fled out of the town and attempted to escape in boats so heavily laden that most of them capsized, and the soldiery, entering without resistance, put all they found in arms to the sword. The priests were a special object of their hatred, but neither sex nor age was spared. Cromwell thinks that two thousand "became a prey to the soldier" at Wexford."

Youve missed the point of Cromwell's actions re. the land. The majority were indeed peasants already, like most in Europe. The tenancy conditions werent as good when they were eventually allowed return. The one major difference was that the new masters were of a different religion (as well as a different nationality) to the tenants. This created a protestant overclass loyal to England and peasantry almost exclusively roman catholic (at that time). The peasantry did not really need independence protaganists to show them who their tormentors were. By necessity this meant that the catholic majority would spend the next 2 and a half centuries trying to right this wrong.
This sectarian divide has lasted to this day.

the rest was owned by the "Old English", who were actually Norman.

Ive heard it all now! Are you making this up as you go along? The old English werent Norman! They were part of earlier (than the later Ulster plantation) plantations.
Do you not think the people of the day knew the difference between Norman and English? Is this your own personal brand of revisionism?

cherrypicker555

T runner wrote: »

The first few I found below.

From this British site

"Cromwell regarded the massacre at Drogheda as a righteous judgment on the Catholics who had slaughtered Protestant settlers in the Irish Uprising of 1641, a view that was probably shared by most Protestants at the time"

Here

"Thomas à Wood, who served in Cromwell's army, says that three thousand at least, besides women and children, were put to the sword. Sir Arthur Aston had his brains beaten out and his body hacked to pieces, and the women of high and low rank who took refuge in the vaults were slain without pity."

"...fled out of the town and attempted to escape in boats so heavily laden that most of them capsized, and the soldiery, entering without resistance, put all they found in arms to the sword. The priests were a special object of their hatred, but neither sex nor age was spared. Cromwell thinks that two thousand "became a prey to the soldier" at Wexford."

Youve missed the point of Cromwell's actions re. the land. The majority were indeed peasants already, like most in Europe. The tenancy conditions werent as good when they were eventually allowed return. The one major difference was that the new masters were of a different religion (as well as a different nationality) to the tenants. This created a protestant overclass loyal to England and peasantry almost exclusively roman catholic (at that time). The peasantry did not really need independence protaganists to show them who their tormentors were. By necessity this meant that the catholic majority would spend the next 2 and a half centuries trying to right this wrong.
This sectarian divide has lasted to this day.

Ive heard it all now! Are you making this up as you go along? The old English werent Norman! They were part of earlier (than the later Ulster plantation) plantations.
Do you not think the people of the day knew the difference between Norman and English? Is this your own personal brand of revisionism?

Most of those killed by Cromwell were English royalist soldiers, many Catholic and their families, they were English settler towns.

Cromwell's siege (1649)Siege of DroghedaPart of the Irish Confederate WarsDate11 September 1649LocationDrogheda, eastern IrelandResultEnglish Parliamentarians take town and massacre the garrison.BelligerentsIrish Catholic Confederate and English Royalist troopsEnglish Parliamentarian New Model ArmyCommandersArthur AstonOliver CromwellStrengthc.3,10012,000Casualties and lossesc.2800 soldiers killed, 200 captured. 700+ civilians and Catholic clergy killed.150 killed.

URL="javascript:collapseTable(0);"][COLOR=#002bb8]hide[/COLOR][/URL

Irish Confederate Wars


Oliver Cromwell landed in Ireland in August 1649, to re-conquer the country on behalf of the English Parliament. Drogheda was by this time garrisoned by an English Royalist regiment under Arthur Aston and Irish Confederate troops – a total strength of about 3100 (mostly English). Cromwell had around 18,000 men, of whom 12,000 were brought to Drogheda.




Quote :


This created a protestant overclass loyal to England and peasantry almost exclusively roman catholic (at that time).

............Not true,many Protestants were also peasants, Cromwell ended feudalism, absolute rule by church and monarch and laid the foundations for democracy. He redistributed land taken off aristocrats in Ireland to 30,000 of his troops. As for sectarianism yes he was, but this was the norm of the time on all sides.

Old English refers to those ancestors of the Norman invasion. Infact the Normans were French, but historically named as English by Irish nationalists to further resentment.

McArmalite

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Can you post a link for your stat ?

As far as I'm aware around 700 "civilians" died in the war of Independence, most combatants.

Re : About 450 mainly nationalists died in sectarian violence in Belfast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belfast#Partition_and_conflict

Here's an even more descriptive statement from a Dail debate 6 August, 1920 by TD Sean McEntee (Monaghan) though not mentioning the number 450 more than tells the plight of nationalists at the time -

“We assume that you have read the press reports of the pogrom which started on July 21st with the violent expulsion from work of well over 5,000 people; of the murders wrecking, looting and wholesale eviction of families. The situation for expelled workers grows worse daily, and all signs go to show that the persecution is to be continued with unabated vigour. No one, not being in Belfast can have any adequate idea of what our people are suffering now and must continue to suffer. "

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060056.html

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

You have to understand, historically lies and half truths are/were used by the independence movement to garner political support for it, to this day they are taught as fact in the republic by the church/state. While the pogrom against southern protestants is ignored.

Since you were so quick to ask me for the link, could you supply a link of the so called ' progroms ' against Protestants in the south of Ireland were the mirror of what was going on in the north eastern counties, or in typical unionist fashion is it just" historically lies and half truths are/were used by the unionist movement to garner political support for it, to this day they are taught as fact in the six counties by the church/state " .

T runner

Thanks (Cherrypicker550), but your sources are all from Wikipedia which is un-reliable.

I have quoted from more reliable historical sites (1 British, 1 Irish) which state that civilians were targeted and murdered in Drogheda and Wexford.

Not true,many Protestants were also peasants

What proportion please?

Old English refers to those ancestors of the Norman invasion. Infact the Normans were French, but historically named as English by Irish nationalists to further resentment.

That is propaganda at best. Any chance of you substantiating this?

(I notice you couldnt even find a Wikipedia reference for it).

Of-course the Normans were French, Normandy is in France after all!


These Normans had more in common with the English aristocracy (Norman) than with the English themselves.

The Old English were Catholic English loyal to the Crown before the reformation but siding with the Catholic Irish after.

The term "old" is used to distinguish them from the new protestant English plantations.


The Normans came 3-4 centuries before the majority of old English who were part of plantations.

Heres a quote describing the plantation of Munster. There were also plantations of the North and the midlands before this:

"In 1584, the Surveyor General of Ireland, Sir Valentine Brown headed a commission that surveyed Munster and allocated confiscated lands to English and Welsh Undertakers, wealthy colonists who 'undertook' to settle the lands with tenants from England and Wales. The Undertakers were also supposed to build new towns and provide for the defence of planted districts from attack."

Some Normans may have been described as "old English" but the vast majorityof "old English" were from Plantations of the North, Midland and Munster by pre-reformation English settlers.

Your claim that this fact was made up by Irish Nationalists to foster resentment is ludicrous.

Erin Go Brath

ilkhanid wrote: »

" just put - 150,000 250,000 dresden refugees - into Google and you'll see the numerous sites quoting this number, including this one..."

You will see figures for 200 000+ refugees in Dresden at the time of the bombing. But historians-including German ones-have settled on figures for dead that range between 25 000 and 40 000.

Oh well thats alright then, we'll get off Churchills back if it was only that many killed! :rolleyes:

Oliver Cromwell probably was the worst War Criminal in Irish History. A special mention must go the callous excuse for a human being that was Charles Trevelyan for both his racist and sectarian views towards the Irish which no doubt influenced his decision to do nothing to help the Irish during the famine. Whether this qualifies him as a war criminal i'm not 100%, but he deserves a mention i feel.

cherrypicker555

T runner wrote: »

Thanks (Cherrypicker550), but your sources are all from Wikipedia which is un-reliable.

I have quoted from more reliable historical sites (1 British, 1 Irish) which state that civilians were targeted and murdered in Drogheda and Wexford.


What proportion please?



That is propaganda at best. Any chance of you substantiating this?

(I notice you couldnt even find a Wikipedia reference for it).

Of-course the Normans were French, Normandy is in France after all!


These Normans had more in common with the English aristocracy (Norman) than with the English themselves.

The Old English were Catholic English loyal to the Crown before the reformation but siding with the Catholic Irish after.

The term "old" is used to distinguish them from the new protestant English plantations.


The Normans came 3-4 centuries before the majority of old English who were part of plantations.

Heres a quote describing the plantation of Munster. There were also plantations of the North and the midlands before this:

"In 1584, the Surveyor General of Ireland, Sir Valentine Brown headed a commission that surveyed Munster and allocated confiscated lands to English and Welsh Undertakers, wealthy colonists who 'undertook' to settle the lands with tenants from England and Wales. The Undertakers were also supposed to build new towns and provide for the defence of planted districts from attack."

Some Normans may have been described as "old English" but the vast majorityof "old English" were from Plantations of the North, Midland and Munster by pre-reformation English settlers.

Your claim that this fact was made up by Irish Nationalists to foster resentment is ludicrous.

Old English refers to those who arrived with the Norman settlers, the term is confussing as old English is also the language of the Saxons, the term is used in Ireland historically to confuse, hence many Irish thinking Ireland was once invaded by Saxons..it never was. The Normans inc those its claimed were "Welsh" were French and never even spoke English, infact they banned it in England. Native Irish did not live in the Pale or English settler towns like Wexford and Drogheda, they were banned from under the statutes of Kilkenny. Cromwell did not target native Irish this is a lie, those killed in those towns were English Royalist and confederate troops and the associates.


Old English (Ireland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The Old English (Irish: Seanghaill) were the descendants of the settlers who came to Ireland from Wales, Normandy and England after the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169-71. Many of the Old English became assimilated into Irish society over the centuries and their nobility were effectively the ruling class in the land up to the 16th century. Some were dispossessed, however, in the political and religious conflicts during and after the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland in the 16th and 17th centuries, largely due to their continued adherence to the Catholic religion. The so called "New English" Protestant settlers had largely replaced them as the governing and landowning class of Ireland by 1700.
The name Old English was coined in the late sixteenth century to describe the section of the above community which lived within the heart of English-ruled Ireland, the Pale.
Contents

/SIZE][URL="javascript:toggleToc()"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#002bb8]hide[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2

<LI class=toclevel-1>

1 In medieval Ireland <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Tudor re-conquest <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Dispossession and defeat <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Collective identity of the Old English
[*]5 See also

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_English_(Ireland)&action=edit&section=1"][COLOR=#002bb8]edit[/COLOR][/URL In medieval Ireland

Old English was the term applied from the 1580s to those Irish descended on the patrilineal side from a wave of late medieval Norman, French, Welsh, English, Breton and Flemish settlers who went to Ireland to claim territory and lands in the wake of the Norman conquest of Ireland in 1169-72. London-based Norman-English governments expected the "Old English" to promote English rule in Ireland, through the use of the English language, law, trade, currency, social customs and farming methods. The realisation of this aim was most advanced in the Pale and the walled towns.


Cromwell at Wexford, most civilians, mostly English drowned crossing the river Slanny or by artillery fire and musket etc in the battle, native Irsh were banned from living in English towns.


The town's garrison initially consisted of 1500 Confederate soldiers under David Sinnot. However, the morale of the town was low - perhaps as a result of hearing the fall of Drogheda on September 11 - and many of the civilians in Wexford wanted to surrender. Sinnot however, appears to have strung out surrender negotiations with Cromwell and was steadily reinforced, bringing his garrison strength up to 4,800 men by the 11th of October. In addition, the main Royalist/Confederate force under James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde was close by at New Ross.

Sinnot insisted on several conditions for surrender that Cromwell would not countenance, including the free practice of the Catholic religion, the evacuation of the garrison with their arms and the free passage of the privateer fleet to a friendly port.

Negotiations were re-opened when Cromwell's guns blasted two breaches in the walls of Wexford castle, opening the prospect of an assault on the town. However, while negotiations were still ongoing, the town was unexpectedly stormed and sacked on the 11th of October 1649. The circumstances are confused and contentious. It does not appear that Cromwell ordered an assault on the town, much less its sacking.

Cromwell's final letter to Sinnott on 11th October 1649 read as follows - it unequivocally expresses willingness to give terms:

"Sir, I have had the patience to persuse your propositions; to which I might have returned an answer with some disdain. But to be short I shall give the soldiers and non-commissioned officers quarter for life and leave to go to their several habitations......and as for the inhabitants, I shall engage myself that no violence shall be offered to their goods, and that I shall protect their town from plunder".

While negotiations were still proceeding, however, Stafford, the English Royalist captain of Wexford Castle (part of the town's defences), surrendered the castle, for reasons that have never been determined. The troops of the New Model Army, on their own initiative, immediately assaulted the walls of the town, causing the Confederate troops to flee in panic from their positions. The Parliamentarians pursued them into the streets of Wexford killing many of town's defenders. Several hundred, including David Sinnot the town governor, were shot or drowned as they tried to cross the river Slaney. Estimates of the death toll vary. Cromwell himself thought that over 2000 of the town's defenders had been killed compared with only 20 of his troops. Several Catholic priests, including 7 Franciscans were killed by the Roundheads. Much of the town, including its harbour was burned and looted. As many as 1,500 civilians were also killed in the sack. This figure is difficult to corroborate but most historians accept that many civilians were killed in chaos surrounding the fall of Wexford.

The destruction of Wexford was so severe that it could not be used either as a port or as winter quarters for the Parliamentarian forces. One Parliamentarian source therefore described the sack as "incommodius to ourselves". Cromwell reported that the remaining civilians had "run off" and asked for soldiers to be sent from England to re-populate the town and re-open its port.

jmayo

McArmalite wrote: »

Churchill would have to be included. This is the ' hero ' who defended the use of poisionious gas against the Kurds in Iraq. Churchill, an ardent imperialist and racist, sanctioned use of burning mustard gas on `primitive tribesmen’ but not on white troops, " I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes "

He was also behind the fire bombing of Dresden. From 150,000 to 250,000 refugees, mainly women, children and old men fleeing the invading Russian Army, some 80 miles away, were murdered when Germany's defeat was beyond doubt two months before the end of the Second World War. These were even more deaths than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki together.

Not defending some of Churchills actions such as Dardanells or his part in Ireland circa 1991-1921, but FFS get over Dresden.
You drag it up at every opportunity as some awful attrocity premediatated by the British. It was full scale war, and you were dealing with an enemy that did not have a problem leveling cities themselves, civlians or no civilians e.g Warsaw being prime example :rolleyes:

The RAF were not speciaifally told by Bomber Harris and Churchill to go over and burn the entire city.
They had raided numerous other cities and towns, but it just happened to be a "perfect raid" or very successful raid for the RAF due to a few factors that worked in their favour that night.

Oh and PS why don't you also accuse Roosevelt of the crime, since the Americans went and bombed the place the following day :rolleyes:

There were numerous barabaric acts perpetrated by the British/English on the Irish people, some of which were carried out by Irish collaborators.
We Irish had a lot of willing British collaborators just like our Scottish neighbours.
What about affectively ethnic cleansing of Ulster for the plantation, what about slaughter of rebels in 1798 ?
And of course there is always Cromwell, his mass deportation of people to Carribean or Connaught :mad:

getz

jmayo wrote: »

Not defending some of Churchills actions such as Dardanells or his part in Ireland circa 1991-1921, but FFS get over Dresden.
You drag it up at every opportunity as some awful attrocity premediatated by the British. It was full scale war, and you were dealing with an enemy that did not have a problem leveling cities themselves, civlians or no civilians e.g Warsaw being prime example :rolleyes:

The RAF were not speciaifally told by Bomber Harris and Churchill to go over and burn the entire city.
They had raided numerous other cities and towns, but it just happened to be a "perfect raid" or very successful raid for the RAF due to a few factors that worked in their favour that night.

Oh and PS why don't you also accuse Roosevelt of the crime, since the Americans went and bombed the place the following day :rolleyes:

There were numerous barabaric acts perpetrated by the British/English on the Irish people, some of which were carried out by Irish collaborators.
We Irish had a lot of willing British collaborators just like our Scottish neighbours.
What about affectively ethnic cleansing of Ulster for the plantation, what about slaughter of rebels in 1798 ?
And of course there is always Cromwell, his mass deportation of people to Carribean or Connaught :mad:

if any of you have ever been to the dardanelles in turkey you will find the graves well tended by the turks the british led troops never got off the beach head ,both sides pulled back at the same time,churchil never got the backing from the royal navy to continue the invasion,as far as bombing during the the war the germans had first attact british citys-both hull ,coventry had been destroyed as had all large british citys i was born in 1940 in manchester and i remember being issued with a[micky mouse] gas mask and had to put it on every time the sirens sounded and can remember playing in bombed out buildings in the day time ,it was good for the uk that over 50,000 irish people came over to help and work in britian ,because without them life would have been a lot harder for us but as we in the uk can forget the passed isent it time the young irish listened to your parents and look to what we both have in common-we are the same race of people after all

Fratton Fred

getz wrote: »

i remember being issued with a[micky mouse] gas mask and had to put it on every time the sirens sounded and can remember playing in bombed out buildings in the day time

The top picture is of No 30 the Crossway, My father, his sister and Mother were all in their anderson shelter in no 18 at the time.

http://www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/events/portsdown_ww2_photos_p5.html

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The top picture is of No 30 the Crossway, My father, his sister and Mother were all in their anderson shelter in no 18 at the time.

http://www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/events/portsdown_ww2_photos_p5.html

good pics fred-this may be going offthe treads a little but my first ship that i joined in 1958 was a old liberty ship [that was a boat built during the war years ] this still had its granade thrower on it was spring loaded, at night as a young lad i used to lob potatoes at the bridge