Irish Men or British Soldiers

arnhem44

Irelands involvement in World War 1 was considerable throughtout the conflict by both sides of the border both Catholic and Protestant.As an nation under a foreign ruler and split by the Home Rule Bill Ireland still provided thousands of men and women for the frontline,many came home to face a country on the brink of civil war and an uncertain future.Even though in Irelands troubled times should these returning veterans of being treated better?

Morlar

My view is that it is understandable that the Easter Rising, the War of Independence and The Civil War all overshadowed the Great War in the context of the Irish public of the immediate post war period.

Having said that it is very unfortunate that Irishmen who fought in WWI were so shamefully treated on their return. The fact that many of them had to hide their uniforms and medals is not something that Ireland should be collectively proud of.

I recently came across a photograph in a militaria store which showed the WWI victory parade through Dublin (going past Trinity College). It is hard to make out the details but presumably it was for the most part the Fusilliers and Inniskillings.

What amazed me was that this was not even mentioned in history class as a child. This was a massive parade with armour etc, unlike anything I have seen in Ireland up until recent years.

I think there was an intial post-war euphoria across much of europe after the end of the war which spilled over into Ireland, however the local context soon overshadowed it.

I think in the years that followed the perception that versailles was a vindictive and grossly unfair sham did not help things either. I think that for the most part Ireland is only recently maturing enough to re-assess the role of Irishmen during WWI and this is in large part to the peace process in northern Ireland and the sudden removal of entrenched positions that were for many families the norm for generations.

arnhem44

The conflicts and events at home threw a definite shadow over what these men done and there homecoming,I know that the events of 1916 was a stab in the back for lots of service men abroad considering it was the army they were fighting for were the army who was then fighting Irishmen on the streets of Dublin,even the Germans in the trenchs knew when an Irish Regiment was in the line and used every oppurtunity to stir feelings of resentment by shouting across no mans land to let them know what was going on.Of course these soldiers returning home were deemed by many to be fighting on the wrong side,little do people realise that one of the main reasons for enlisting was employment as had been the case for decades before hand.Still as you said euphoria had spread in the early years after the war but this slowly came to an end in many places with the events of the twenties and as you mentioned even the history books forgot or chose to neglect that Ireland had sacrificed so many men,I also remember when doing history at school and although the home rule bill was covered there was no other mention of what else happened,I never even realised till I was in my late teens that there was an Irish connection with WW1.Having looked into local soldiers who died during the Great War and coming across families who lost more than one son to this conflict it seems sad that these men have been largely forgotten.

R.Dub.Fusilier

I can’t remember doing anything in school about WW1 . Many did join the British military for a job and indeed after the great lockout ,and blacklist which followed it, of 1913 many had no choice but to join the army as there was no other employment for them . Many joined for adventure and others because of the family tradition . Another thing that must be remembered is that Ireland hadn’t got its own army and as we were part of the empire the British army was , dare I say it , our army . Many of the Irish Volunteers joined it to advance home rule and they didn’t see anything wrong with that. .I think it was around 80% of the Irish Volunteers joined. And we must not forget that many went to fight and die to free Belgium , but of course we as another small nation were not free .When the war ended and the men were demobed some joined the fight for Irish Independence and later when the Irish Regiments were disbanded as part of the treaty many of them were met at train stations and changed their khaki uniforms for the green of the new Irish army. My own grandfather was in the British army and later joined the Irish army .

IIMII

arnhem44 wrote: »

As an nation under a foreign ruler and split by the Home Rule Bill Ireland still provided thousands of men and women for the frontline,many came home to face a country on the brink of civil war and an uncertain future.Even though in Irelands troubled times should these returning veterans of being treated better?

Well, none of my relatives fought in the British Army in WW1, though a few fought in 1916. I don't see how they might have been treated better by anyone other than the British, as it was for them they fought rather than the Irish people. I think it was one of those life situations where a personal choice was made, and for better or worse they had to live with those consequences. The reality was that they donned the uniform of the enemy right on the eve of the outbreak of hostilities with that enemy. What can you say? The shame of having served in the British army may have been an issue, but hardly the worst type of shame a person could potentially experience in life. They made a choice to join the British Army to represent one imperial power against another, at the very moment others decided to serve their country's cause for liberation. The decided which way they wanted to jump, and it was their decision. TBH, I've never really bought the line of joing the British Army to achieve home rule - I can understand the loss and war pain of those that joined the BA. But I don't think they deserve to be saluted as being special to this country, whatever about being special to the British. Unfortunately, they dedicated themselves to support British interests instead of Irish interests, and realistically those that felt they erred in that were never going to be overtly proud of their decision, whilst those that felt their were right to join can't claim that their actions served the Irish people in retrospect and if they were proud, it was because that had an affinity to the British cause. It's complicated, but it wasn't up to the Irish people to make ex-British soldiers feel good or bad about their personal choices. Regarding their parades, so what? The people of Dublin spoke and within a few short years those same uniforms ceased to walk the streets of Dublin as if by right.

FiSe

I'd say that more personal choices were made during the 20's than during the period of 1914 - 1918.
During this time Ireland was a part of British empire, so no wonder that people living in that empire fought for the empire, it's only natural, I think.
/For example look at the Czechs fighting for Austro-Hungarian empire/
I would say that one'd really have to live during those times to be able to fully understand the rethoric of those times, the politics, the propaganda and demagogy used in everyday life.
I'd say that a lot of people joined to do their bit for Ireland to fight for the empire. Am not saying that it was because they wanted Home Rule, independent country, or stay with the Queen forever, or whatever. I do not think that they were even thinking along those lines back then in such a scale as presented now. It's only historians of today who are trying to put things in suitable perspectives. But I could be wrong. And, this is not the theme of this topic anyway...

I'd say that if nothing else, those men and wimin should be remembered more then they were, or then they are. After all it is a big part of history and heritage of the nation.
Having said that, UN missions veterans would deserve better too...

Red Sleeping Beauty

I had a family who fought in the war. I remember as a kid there was an old reprint of a photo, I must look for it. I think it was my great grandfather maybe.

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

Well, none of my relatives fought in the British Army in WW1, though a few fought in 1916.

Well that obviously makes you a more thoroughbred Irishman than anyone else.

IIMII wrote: »

The people of Dublin spoke

That's right, they did. They gave the 1916 leaders abuse and spat on them and then gave the soldiers returning from war a hero's welcome.

Why are you here?

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well that obviously makes you a more thoroughbred Irishman than anyone else.

Yeah, yeah. Maybe it is more a case that their actions assisted me to be born a free-Irishman, rather than a subject to an occupying power. And forgive me appreciating that even if it doesn't suit you, much the same way as my own forebearers opinions didn't suit your forebearers. Ouch, almost forget the Fratton doctrine of British Army heroes, Irish terrorists (except in the instances of Irish Anglophiles)

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are you here?

Kind of ironic, that question, coming from you? You are not in England now, get over it.

The topic is 'Irish men or British soldiers' - I'm entitled to comment on it, just as you are. Whilst they wore the uniform, they were representatives of the British Empire. And their only responsibility was to fight and if nessessary die for that empire. It didn't matter whether the Empire was right or just, their mission to that. And again whilst I appreciate those soldiers suffered (and equally inflicted suffering), and whilst I also appreciate their families hardship and losses in some instances, realistically, Ireland owes them nothing.

leincar

IIMII wrote: »

Well, none of my relatives fought in the British Army in WW1, though a few fought in 1916. I don't see how they might have been treated better by anyone other than the British, as it was for them they fought rather than the Irish people. I think it was one of those life situations where a personal choice was made, and for better or worse they had to live with those consequences. The reality was that they donned the uniform of the enemy right on the eve of the outbreak of hostilities with that enemy. What can you say? The shame of having served in the British army may have been an issue, but hardly the worst type of shame a person could potentially experience in life. They made a choice to join the British Army to represent one imperial power against another, at the very moment others decided to serve their country's cause for liberation. The decided which way they wanted to jump, and it was their decision. TBH, I've never really bought the line of joing the British Army to achieve home rule - I can understand the loss and war pain of those that joined the BA. But I don't think they deserve to be saluted as being special to this country, whatever about being special to the British. Unfortunately, they dedicated themselves to support British interests instead of Irish interests, and realistically those that felt they erred in that were never going to be overtly proud of their decision, whilst those that felt their were right to join can't claim that their actions served the Irish people in retrospect and if they were proud, it was because that had an affinity to the British cause. It's complicated, but it wasn't up to the Irish people to make ex-British soldiers feel good or bad about their personal choices. Regarding their parades, so what? The people of Dublin spoke and within a few short years those same uniforms ceased to walk the streets of Dublin as if by right.

Most of what you have written is revisionism of the worst "90 years later I'm going to take the high moral ground kind".

First off, the main political ambition of Nationalists in the run up to 1914 had been for Home Rule. There was very little discussion open or otherwise of an independent Ireland.

For a lot of people it seemed like the correct personal choice to follow and join Redmond into the British Army. At the time the British Army was also our army weather we liked it or not.

You also had many people who joined as they felt they playing their part in protecting the rights of smaller countries. "Pity poor Catholic Belgium" was used as a slogan to get people to volunteer.

You also say that they donned the uniform of the enemy on the eve of hostilities with that enemy. Once again wrong. Most joined when war was declared in August 1914 and very few Irishmen joined in 1916 when it was obvious to them that this war was no picnic. It was nothing to do with the eve of any hostilities as the vast majority had no knowledge of such things.

For many Irishmen it was also as James Connolly called it "Economic conscription". There were few job opportunities and for some they had no choice but to enlist.

Then there were some who joined out of a sheer craving of adventure. One of these people was Tom Barry who went to war "to see what war was like,to get a gun,to see new countries and to feel like a grown man." I don't believe he is looked upon as a lesser Irishman or even a different Irishman by anyone.

In the immediate aftermath of 1916 the feeling amongst the majority was revulsion at the actions caused by those in the Easter Rising. As Fratton Fred stated these people were spat upon after the surrender and it was not until the executions had taken place that opinion changed.

For me the people who fought in the British army were fighting in the uniform of the day for a myriad of reasons and they should be respected as such and not looked down on, or frowned upon. they made their decision and for the most part fought bravely. A lot, on their return to Ireland fought in the War of Independance and the subsequent Civil War. I know my Grandfather did. On the side of the state.

getz

IIMII wrote: »

Yeah, yeah. Maybe it is more a case that their actions assisted me to be born a free-Irishman, rather than a subject to an occupying power. And forgive me appreciating that even if it doesn't suit you, much the same way as my own forebearers opinions didn't suit your forebearers. Ouch, almost forget the Fratton doctrine of British Army heroes, Irish terrorists (except in the instances of Irish Anglophiles)


Kind of ironic, that question, coming from you? You are not in England now, get over it.

The topic is 'Irish men or British soldiers' - I'm entitled to comment on it, just as you are. Whilst they wore the uniform, they were representatives of the British Empire. And their only responsibility was to fight and if nessessary die for that empire. It didn't matter whether the Empire was right or just, their mission to that. And again whilst I appreciate those soldiers suffered (and equally inflicted suffering), and whilst I also appreciate their families hardship and losses in some instances, realistically, Ireland owes them nothing.

ireland in 1914 WAS NOT PART OR THE BRITISH EMPIRE< IT WAS PART OF THE UNION,irish men and woman were fighting for britian because they were british,but i can not expect anyone who has had a republic education to know that,they died for ireland,wales scotland and england all part of the union.

McArmalite

Morlar wrote: »

My view is that it is understandable that the Easter Rising, the War of Independence and The Civil War all overshadowed the Great War in the context of the Irish public of the immediate post war period.

Having said that it is very unfortunate that Irishmen who fought in WWI were so shamefully treated on their return. The fact that many of them had to hide their uniforms and medals is not something that Ireland should be collectively proud of.

Did it ever occur ot you that those wearing british army uniforms were obviously considered the army of occupation ( which you obviously wouldn't have back then or now :rolleyes: ) ? The fact that many of them had to hide their uniforms and medals is something that Ireland should be collectively proud of. I am proud of that generation that seen british thuggery and lies for what it is - terrorism of the most cowardly kind.

I recently came across a photograph in a militaria store which showed the WWI victory parade through Dublin (going past Trinity College). It is hard to make out the details but presumably it was for the most part the Fusilliers and Inniskillings.

What amazed me was that this was not even mentioned in history class as a child. This was a massive parade with armour etc, unlike anything I have seen in Ireland up until recent years.

Yes, and obviously the Trinnity unionists ( Trinnity returned several unionists in the 1918 election ) and west brits were out in force. Don't forget the leader of unionism was Edward Carson from Dublin.

I think there was an intial post-war euphoria across much of europe after the end of the war which spilled over into Ireland, however the local context soon overshadowed it.

I think in the years that followed the perception that versailles was a vindictive and grossly unfair sham did not help things either. I think that for the most part Ireland is only recently maturing enough to re-assess the role of Irishmen during WWI and this is in large part to the peace process in northern Ireland and the sudden removal of entrenched positions that were for many families the norm for generations.

" I think that for the most part Ireland is only recently maturing enough " Our " maturity " as a nation Jayus, when will our wee state ever be mature :rolleyes::). The 26 broke away from the brits over 90 years ago -and still their talking about their " maturity as a nation ". It's always the catch phrase during discussions on wanting to rejoin the commonwealth, inviting the queen over etc, etc, :rolleyes: Instead of actually showing that they can take a pro nationalist line, we have sad Gombeens staring over their shoulder form some kind of patroninsing comment from some MP or journalist from the ' mainland '.

McArmalite

IIMII wrote: »

Well, none of my relatives fought in the British Army in WW1,

None of mine did either - thank God.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well that obviously makes you a more thoroughbred Irishman than anyone else.

Well since our family background obviously influences our character and opinions, if IIMI is proud of his nationalist background then good luck to him. After all it's better than been associated with the gang of mass murderers and rapists known as the british army.

That's right, they did. They gave the 1916 leaders abuse and spat on them and then gave the soldiers returning from war a hero's welcome.

Why are you here?

At the monent I am rereading Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( couldn't recommend it enough for anyone who has not read it). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels and the ' bowsies ' who were been accussed ofstabbing the efforts of Irishmen on the continent.

Their are also very credible historians such as former outstanding Guardian journalist Peter Berresford Ellis who suggests that portraying the Rising as very unpopuliar in Ireland was certainly a view that the british propaganda wanted to impress on everyone, and that newspapers were unlikely to publish anything to the contrary.

According to Berresford Ellis quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. "I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "

McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets were people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

Did it ever occur ot you that those wearing british army uniforms were obviously considered the army of occupation ( which you obviously wouldn't have back then or now :rolleyes: ) ? The fact that many of them had to hide their uniforms and medals is something that Ireland should be collectively proud of. I am proud of that generation that seen british thuggery and lies for what it is - terrorism of the most cowardly kind.


Yes, and obviously the Trinnity unionists ( Trinnity returned several unionists in the 1918 election ) and west brits were out in force. Don't forget the leader of unionism was Edward Carson from Dublin.


" I think that for the most part Ireland is only recently maturing enough " Our " maturity " as a nation Jayus, when will our wee state ever be mature :rolleyes::). The 26 broke away from the brits over 90 years ago -and still their talking about their " maturity ". It's always the catch phrase during discussions on wanting to rejoin the commonwealth, inviting the queen over etc, etc, :rolleyes:

it makes me think not all irish men wanted a independent ireland,in 1920 thousands of irish catholic people left ireland to make home in england, i was in a catholic church in bury[lancashire ]last month,the priest said it wasent untill the irish families came over in 1920s that the catholic church there took off,for the first time since the reformation,it must have been the same all over the UK.we do know that the mass of protestants went north of the border because of fear of reprisals,i wonder haw many of the irish left their home land were ex/british soldiers,it was supposed to be a friendly agreed change over,but the early IRA put paid to that.and we cannot blame the new irish goverment.

Fratton Fred

shame. Another forum ruined by the low end of the republican cause.

McArmalite

getz wrote: »

it makes me think not all irish men wanted a independent ireland,in 1920 thousands of irish catholic people left ireland to make home in england, i was in a catholic church in bury[lancashire ]last month,the priest said it wasent untill the irish families came over in 1920s that the catholic church there took off,for the first time since the reformation,it must have been the same all over the UK.we do know that the mass of protestants went north of the border because of fear of reprisals,i wonder haw many of the irish left their home land were ex/british soldiers,it was supposed to be a friendly agreed change over,but the early IRA put paid to that.and we cannot blame the new irish goverment.

Did it ever occur to you that the economy inherited from britain might have been the main reason for mass emigration ?






:rolleyes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the economy inherited from britain might have been the main reason for mass emigration ?






:rolleyes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

are you telling me that britain stopped trading with the new ireland ,or that the british took there business back to the UK ?if ireland went down the pan it would have been because the new government had not the proper expertise to run a new country,in fact it was only britain and the commonwealth that kept ireland going,and thats a quote from the irish government last year to the british prime minister

Fratton Fred

How about a different angle on the question. Pro independance scotsmen fighting in Afghanistan, scotsmen or British soldiers?

getz

ireland was committed to WW1 by their then nationlist leader john redmond in september 1914,because [among other reasons]of the plight of gallant catholic little belgium, invaded by a militaristic aggressor-- over 210,000 irishmen joined the british army and 35,000 died, and all i hear from fellow irish men is that they were traitors-shame on you

arnhem44

First off this thread was not started to glorify the British Army nor was it to discredit any Irish Uprisings but it sickens me to hear some of the shallow remarks made here about fellow Irishmen.Ireland was in political turmoil at the outbreak of World War I with a possible civil war on there hands,it wasn't the British who were the enemy of Ireland at the outbreak of war,from a Nationalist point of view it was the Ulster Unionists who were the issue and also lets clarify that the Unionists were also not part of the crown forces.Over 150,000 Irishmen supported Redmonds cause for Home Rule and 10,000 remained loyal to Eoin Macneill to form the Irish Volunteers,not all went to fight for Britain,where these men also on the other side even though they supported Redmond?.Nationalists were not without there own troubles at the time,look at how many organizations split amonst themselves,not all supported an armed struggle in Ireland.The Uprising as far the world was concerned was an insignificant event at the time,a drop in the ocean to what was really happening,at the same time its also a hugely significant event as far as Ireland was concerned,it achieved its goals but was a military failure which was never going to succeed from the start.Sein Fein were the clear winners from all this and are mostly to blame for the treatment of Irish men who had served during the Great War due to there propaganda campaign.The support for the war was at its highest from the start and did wane from 1916 onwards mostly to due to lack of men and not civil unrest.As far as been a proud Irishman is concerned,some of those remarks are hypocritical,for any person to claim that we don't owe anything to men who put on khaki is laughable,these were the same men who stood side by side with other Nationalists only a few years before hand with the same goal in mind,both sides went to fight to provide a better Ireland for everybody.Its easy to sit here in hindsight and say they should of done this and they should of done that.Ye seem to have a short memory when it comes to any Irishman who came home and fought during the civil war who had served in the British Army,were these also seen as the enemy in ye're eye's?,were the farmers of Ireland who grew thick and fat off the British Army also traitors,after all they were some of the most well off people in Ireland who provided food stuffs for the entirety of the war,a free Ireland was everyones goal and still the republicans were not happy,ultimatley putting a bullet through the head of the Head of Michael Collins.

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

it wasn't the British who were the enemy of Ireland at the outbreak of war,from a Nationalist point of view it was the Ulster Unionists who were the issue and also lets clarify that the Unionists were also not part of the crown forces.

Firstly the unionists are british, their allageiance is to britian, they opposed Irish nationalism at every step, they are part of our british problem. :rolleyes: Anyway, ah yes, britain the benign, benevolent, totally neutral keeper of the peace trying to get the totally unreasonable OIrish to agree to live together in peace.........:rolleyes: If britain wasn't our enemy but playing the role of the totally neutral police man, how do you explain events like the Larne gun running in 1914 etc when 1,000's of rifles and rounds of ammo were illegally brought into Ireland by the unionists and publicly displayed - and not one single arrest or bullet recaptured ??

Sinn Fein were the clear winners from all this and are mostly to blame for the treatment of Irish men who had served during the Great War due to there propaganda campaign.

And what mistreatment ?? Sure they didn't allow them parade around in their british uniforms, waving union jacks etc but how in hell's name do you think the general public in Ireland felt towards the british forces after the Tans, the burning of Cork, Bloody Sunday etc. If some eejits tried parading around say Cork on Armistice day in the 20's or 30's, undoubtedly the vast majority of the people of Cork would have strung them up considering the atrocity's that had been inflicted on them by those in the same uniform. It had all to do with british atrocities my friend and very, very, very little to do with Sinn Fein and " there propaganda campaign "

leincar

Typical Republican. Go for the person instead of the argument. This is one thread ruined. Then again Republicans make a habit of destroying things. What was an interesting thread on events of ninety odd years ago descends into bitterness and emnity. Nice.

neilled

If one wants to look at it this way, Ireland was one of the four consistent nations of the United Kingdom, men regardless of whether they were redmondite home rulers, unionists were formed into Irish Regiments and thus were viewed as Irish.

The republican/loyalist ethnonationalist arguement is a rather dated and simplistic one. No matter what vein its dressed up in, particularly republican socialism, it boils down to crude ethno nationalism.

Identity and identification is something that has shifted very strongly over time - for instance unionist identity has strongly changed since the start of the troubles. It was split with about 1/3 defining themselves as British, another third as being Ulster, a smaller portion defining themselves as Irish and the smallest % describing themselves as being in a category such as "other". As the troubles went unionist identity shifted from so that by the time of the ceasefires the majority were describing themselves as british and ulster and Irish having shrunk to rather small proportions in comparison to what they once were, miniscule in fact. I do recall seeing sketches of various anti home rule rallies, with one of the slogans being "Erin go Bragh". I would argue that until partition, there was a definition of Irishness that was different than what exists today. Indeed what defined people as Irish back in the Ireland of Dev is very different from that it is now. The shift in identity perception in northern catholics has changed - for instance in 194 the majority stated power sharing as their preferred option. Move forward to 1993 and the situation changes.

The growth in "Unionist/British" identity is something that is relatively new and not the instinctive and automatic bond that ethnonationlists try and make it out to be.

Going by the standards of the time I would suggest that they were Irish men in what was one of the four constituent parts of the UK. Whilst I'm not a believer in ethno nationlism (i'm constructivist) I'm sure they didn't abandon what they perceived to be their identity (as they defined it as the time) when they picked up their tin hats, rifles and went over the top.

The modern states that we know in Europe are a relatively new phenomena the oldest having being forged by the centralising monarchs in the military revolution that followed the middle ages, the stories of the romantic nationalists of the 17th and 18th century whilst some of the newer ones were only born following the redrawing of the map of europe after the first world war.

arnhem44

McArmalite wrote: »

Firstly the unionists are british, their allageiance is to britian, they opposed Irish nationalism at every step, they are part of our british problem. :rolleyes: Anyway, ah yes, britain the benign, benevolent, totally neutral keeper of the peace trying to get the totally unreasonable OIrish to agree to live together in peace.........:rolleyes: If britain wasn't our enemy but playing the role of the totally neutral police man, how do you explain events like the Larne gun running in 1914 etc when 1,000's of rifles and rounds of ammo were illegally brought into Ireland by the unionists and publicly displayed - and not one single arrest or bullet recaptured ??

And what mistreatment ?? Sure they didn't allow them parade around in their british uniforms, waving union jacks etc but how in hell's name do you think the general public in Ireland felt towards the british forces after the Tans, the burning of Cork, Bloody Sunday etc. If some eejits tried parading around say Cork on Armistice day in the 20's or 30's, undoubtedly the vast majority of the people of Cork would have strung them up considering the atrocity's that had been inflicted on them by those in the same uniform. It had all to do with british atrocities my friend and very, very, very little to do with Sinn Fein and " there propaganda campaign "

God thats really the hardliner coming out,maybe we should all just rearm and have it out once and for all,the Unionists are British back then and now and they did show there alligence to Britain but I hate to let you in on a little secret but we were deemed to be British also whether you like it or not.The gun running was commonly known about and would you of tackled them let alone the British Army and start a war here,don't be ridicilous,the nationalists couldn't afford to arm themselves to the same degree and they would of had them just the same if they could of afforded to.Now lets see,the burning of Cork,was that not brought on out of reprisals?,were the killing of a few soldiers really worth the destruction of the inner city and whats this British problem that you seem to have,are you one of thee people that honestly think that Ireland will be reunited,wake up and smell the heather

McArmalite

leincar wrote: »

Typical Republican. Go for the person instead of the argument. This is one thread ruined. Then again Republicans make a habit of destroying things. What was an interesting thread on events of ninety odd years ago descends into bitterness and emnity. Nice.

It's a discussion forum, their's no rule to say you cannot dispute something. This thread is a load of bollox, it implies that the britsh army didn't deserve to be shunned when I only pointed out that it was the thuggery of the british army that naturally caused resentiment towards it. Do you think that the Dutch and Belgians for example have a high opinion of the men who joined the Germans in say the genuine belief that they were going east to fight commmunism ?

arnhem44 wrote: »

God thats really the hardliner coming out,maybe we should all just rearm and have it out once and for all,the Unionists are British back then and now and they did show there alligence to Britain but I hate to let you in on a little secret but we were deemed to be British also whether you like it or not.

Did it ever occur to you that we never wanted to be occupied by the brits and that's why we had countless battles like the Yellow Ford, Kinsale, 1798, 1916 etc ?

The gun running was commonly known about and would you of tackled them let alone the British Army and start a war here,don't be ridicilous,the nationalists couldn't afford to arm themselves to the same degree and they would of had them just the same if they could of afforded to.

Firstly the unionists only make up 2% of the population of the state known as britian, 2%. Are you going to tell me that the british govt. were genuienly afarid of tackling them It had NOTHING to do with been able to " afford to arm themselves ", the weapons were sent free from Germany who wanted to stir up as much trouble for britain. The password for the landing of them was Gough - who just happened to be one of the senior commanders of the british army at the time. Do you see the link ? This ofcourse contrasts with the treatment fo Roger Casement when he was captured trying to land Germany weapons at Banna Strand in Kerry :rolleyes:

And also since you mentioned the brits supposedly been afraid, nationalists was much larger in numbers and with very strong support from Irish America but ofcourse they had no inhibitions raiding, arresting, interning, declaring martial law and executing nationalist Ireland.

Now lets see,the burning of Cork,was that not brought on out of reprisals?,were the killing of a few soldiers really worth the destruction of the inner city and whats this British problem that you seem to have,are you one of thee people that honestly think that Ireland will be reunited,wake up and smell the heather

Well that says it all, justifying the burning of Cork by half drunken brits, thanks buddy, just shows what you think of british thuggery and murder - and then somehow he thinks we should honour the british army . ( Here's a discussion about the burning of Cork been held at the moment on the history forum, I'm sure they'd all be very impressed with your views on it http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055639888 ).

Ofcourse the country will be united, the growing nationalist population is seeing to that. It's more of a question on whether britain as a state will survive with the growth of Scottish nationalism. Now off and get your toy soldiers playing the changing of the guard, trooping the colour etc, etc

arnhem44

There realy is not much point talking to you,you take every last detail out of context,I never said I condoned what the British done during the civil war,I only stated a fact,the burning of Cork happened and happened out of reprisal,simple fact.As for your two percent,even at two percent with 35000 rifles and three millon rounds of ammo and the backing of the British government,what were the nationalists going to fight with? pitch forks,the Nationalists were very poorly armed.Roger Casement was arrested for one reason,even early on the British new that there was a small minority who were known to want an armed struggle,Britain needed the Irish on there side at that time for the war effort and not having Irish Voluteers running around Ireland causing trouble,thats why Casement was made an example.Look even at the amont of arms the Irish had during the civil war,it was still tiny in comparison and is a remarkable achievement in what they succeeded to do by gaining a free state.What the British done here in Ireland after World War I is appalling and is hard to forget but both sides committed murder and thats simply another fact,Ireland to this day has suffered but I still can't see a united Ireland in this life time or the next,maybe some day it will happen and hopefully it does but it still won't be without further trouble.

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

There realy is not much point talking to you,you take every last detail out of context,I never said I condoned what the British done during the civil war,I only stated a fact,the burning of Cork happened and happened out of reprisal,simple fact.As for your two percent,even at two percent with 35000 rifles and three millon rounds of ammo and the backing of the British government,what were the nationalists going to fight with? pitch forks,the Nationalists were very poorly armed.Roger Casement was arrested for one reason,even early on the British new that there was a small minority who were known to want an armed struggle,Britain needed the Irish on there side at that time for the war effort and not having Irish Voluteers running around Ireland causing trouble,thats why Casement was made an example.Look even at the amont of arms the Irish had during the civil war,it was still tiny in comparison and is a remarkable achievement in what they succeeded to do by gaining a free state.What the British done here in Ireland after World War I is appalling and is hard to forget but both sides committed murder and thats simply another fact,Ireland to this day has suffered but I still can't see a united Ireland in this life time or the next,maybe some day it will happen and hopefully it does but it still won't be without further trouble.

Touche to me !!!

arnhem44

McArmalite wrote: »

This thread is a load of bollox, it implies that the britsh army didn't deserve to be shunned

It just goes to show you can't even grasp the original question.:rolleyes:

R.Dub.Fusilier

I see both sides of the story here . I have an interest in the Irish involvement in WW1 and the British Army and have done research on it and on the Irish Nationalist / Home Rule support for WW1 . I would much rather that Irishmen didn’t have to , or want to , join the British Army but they did and it’s a fact . Many ex-British soldiers later joined the IRA such as Tom Barry who was in the Royal Artillery and who’s record in same is un-blemished and Emmett Dalton who was in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and his brother was one of Michael Collins men . Ernie O’Mallie had a brother ,Frank, who was an officer in the RDF . Ernie O’Mallie was often seen talking to Irish men who were British soldiers and I think he mentions it in one of his books. Michael Malone who gallantly gave his live in the battle of mount street bridge had a brother , William, who was killed in WW1 at Mouse Trap Farm and Eamonn Ceannt had a brother ,William ,who was an NCO in the RDF in based in Cork when Ceannt was shot in Dublin . I’m sure the list goes on and on . Lets not forget that James Connolly serve over seven years in the British army . Earlier still we have the Fenians who recuited Irish members of the British army . If I am not mistaken two Irish men who won the Victoria Cross for gallantry in the field of battle later joined the republican movement , while still in uniform .

Lets not forget the Connaught Rangers Mutiny in India in 1920 four years after the Rising and two years after the end of WW1. James Daly was executed two others died and dozens were sentenced to long terms in prison. James Daly’s father and three brothers fought in WW1 and one took an early part in the mutiny. Joseph Hawes who was a leader in the mutiny had served in the Royal Munster Fusiliers and later the CR’s was a supporter of the IRA while in British uniform and he had a brother who was in the IRA. Over 200 members of the CR’s took part it the mutiny. There was not much of a heros welcome for them when they came home either .

One of the problems , and I know there were many, with the British of the time was their knack of misreading of populations that they seen as inferior to them . They thought then ,and before then, that the way to keep a population down was kill and jail their leaders . It didn’t work in India and it didn’t work in Ireland.

We should never forget what the British did to our country. They did murder , rape and starve us to death . They did try to destroy our culture and our faith . We should never forget.

Without the British reaction after the Easter Rising there would be no Irish Republic . But militarily it was a failure but inspired others to finish what they started.

I don’t think we should forget the Irish lads who went to war in the British army . Many of them were idealists and wanted what James Connolly , James Daly and Tom Barry wanted . Are the men who joined the British army in WW1 for Home Rule Patriots ? I think yes . But that’s my opinion .

P.S. Belfast republicans released a book in 2008 called ‘ The 6th Connaught Rangers : Belfast Nationalists and the great War’

FiSe

Oh lads, don't mind McA, he's not serious only looking for reactions on his posts and laughing his head off :rolleyes: United Ireland, FFS, Europe is united and without borders from Portugal to Slovakia and we are still looking for some pencil mark on the map? The Island of Ireland is more united than ever. It's only the brain living in the past and which can't cope with it.


Anyway, closer to topic.
There's a story I've heard, while looking into Irishmen, or should I say men of Ireland, who served in the RAF during WWII.
One of them joined the British Army in 1916 with his 2 older brothers, aged 15. He was wounded at the end of the war, returning to Ireland in 1919. Joined the IRA and fought during the war of independence.
Then he fought on the anti-treaty side /Blessington was mentioned/ only to join the RAF in 1938 as an 'old man' driving truck full of fuel around the airfield.
He was killed in early 1942...

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

It's a discussion forum, their's no rule to say you cannot dispute something. This thread is a load of bollox, it implies that the britsh army didn't deserve to be shunned when I only pointed out that it was the thuggery of the british army that naturally caused resentiment towards it. Do you think that the Dutch and Belgians for example have a high opinion of the men who joined the Germans in say the genuine belief that they were going east to fight commmunism ?

I do believe, that the discussion in those you mentioned countries about their men serving in the German volunteer regiments - SS, are more calmer after all those years. Although depends - some mid 20-ish people could turn it upside down too...
You see, Europe is not an island, where evrything could be turned into 'us' vs 'them', because in every 'us' is a small bit of 'them' and, surprisingly, 'them' could be more 'us' then we are.

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

It just goes to show you can't even grasp the original question.:rolleyes:

If I said black was a dark colour he'd say it was a bright one :rolleyes: To quote my sentence in full " This thread is a load of bollox, it implies that the britsh army didn't deserve to be shunned when I only pointed out that it was the thuggery of the british army that naturally caused resentiment towards it. "

FiSe wrote: »

Oh lads, don't mind McA, he's not serious only looking for reactions on his posts and laughing his head off :rolleyes:

United Ireland, FFS, Europe is united and without borders from Portugal to Slovakia and we are still looking for some pencil mark on the map? The Island of Ireland is more united than ever. It's only the brain living in the past and which can't cope with it.


Anyway, closer to topic.
There's a story I've heard, while looking into Irishmen, or should I say men of Ireland, who served in the RAF during WWII.
One of them joined the British Army in 1916 with his 2 older brothers, aged 15. He was wounded at the end of the war, returning to Ireland in 1919. Joined the IRA and fought during the war of independence.
Then he fought on the anti-treaty side /Blessington was mentioned/ only to join the RAF in 1938 as an 'old man' driving truck full of fuel around the airfield.
He was killed in early 1942...

Europe without borders from Portugal to Slovakia ? Try going to Portugal or Slovakia without a passport.

McArmalite

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

I see both sides of the story here . I have an interest in the Irish involvement in WW1 and the British Army and have done research on it and on the Irish Nationalist / Home Rule support for WW1 . I would much rather that Irishmen didn’t have to , or want to , join the British Army but they did and it’s a fact . Many ex-British soldiers later joined the IRA such as Tom Barry who was in the Royal Artillery and who’s record in same is un-blemished and Emmett Dalton who was in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and his brother was one of Michael Collins men . Ernie O’Mallie had a brother ,Frank, who was an officer in the RDF . Ernie O’Mallie was often seen talking to Irish men who were British soldiers and I think he mentions it in one of his books. Michael Malone who gallantly gave his live in the battle of mount street bridge had a brother , William, who was killed in WW1 at Mouse Trap Farm and Eamonn Ceannt had a brother ,William ,who was an NCO in the RDF in based in Cork when Ceannt was shot in Dublin . I’m sure the list goes on and on . Lets not forget that James Connolly serve over seven years in the British army . Earlier still we have the Fenians who recuited Irish members of the British army . If I am not mistaken two Irish men who won the Victoria Cross for gallantry in the field of battle later joined the republican movement , while still in uniform .

Lets not forget the Connaught Rangers Mutiny in India in 1920 four years after the Rising and two years after the end of WW1. James Daly was executed two others died and dozens were sentenced to long terms in prison. James Daly’s father and three brothers fought in WW1 and one took an early part in the mutiny. Joseph Hawes who was a leader in the mutiny had served in the Royal Munster Fusiliers and later the CR’s was a supporter of the IRA while in British uniform and he had a brother who was in the IRA. Over 200 members of the CR’s took part it the mutiny. There was not much of a heros welcome for them when they came home either .

One of the problems , and I know there were many, with the British of the time was their knack of misreading of populations that they seen as inferior to them . They thought then ,and before then, that the way to keep a population down was kill and jail their leaders . It didn’t work in India and it didn’t work in Ireland.

We should never forget what the British did to our country. They did murder , rape and starve us to death . They did try to destroy our culture and our faith . We should never forget.

Without the British reaction after the Easter Rising there would be no Irish Republic . But militarily it was a failure but inspired others to finish what they started.

I don’t think we should forget the Irish lads who went to war in the British army . Many of them were idealists and wanted what James Connolly , James Daly and Tom Barry wanted . Are the men who joined the British army in WW1 for Home Rule Patriots ? I think yes . But that’s my opinion .

P.S. Belfast republicans released a book in 2008 called ‘ The 6th Connaught Rangers : Belfast Nationalists and the great War’

Good post RDF. Totally agree with your sentiments. Especially your statement " We should never forget what the British did to our country. They did murder , rape and starve us to death . They did try to destroy our culture and our faith . We should never forget. "

It amazes me on boards.ie how we get BSers coming on trying to portray british occupation as britain the benign, benevolent, totally neutral keeper of the peace trying to get the totally unreasonable OIrish to agree to live together in peace. It's laughable how they claim to be Irish nationalists but spout british BS.

arnhem44

Ah McArmalite your back,were you busy all weekend making babies for the cause of our nation,be cafeful don't you get caught with your pance down.Also its great to see people come on here and argue there point but sad they have to go to other forums to get reassurinces about there own beliefs.:D

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

Ah McArmalite your back,were you busy all weekend making babies for the cause of our nation,be cafeful don't you get caught with your pance down.Also its great to see people come on here and argue there point but sad they have to go to other forums to get reassurinces about there own beliefs.:D

Regretfully I wasn't trying to make babies with some hottie over the weekend - but what has this to do with the discussion ?

Hagar

Gentlemen, let's all keep this nice and friendly and within the forum charter. Nobody really wants the ignominy of being the first person banned from a new forum, do they?

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

Europe without borders from Portugal to Slovakia ? Try going to Portugal or Slovakia without a passport.

Well airport controls are still in place, especially for the outsiders :P
But if you take a ferry, I think that you get away without any controls, but haven't been on the boat for a few years. And once you are in one of those countries, you can drive throughout the place without even noticing that you are in different country.

Try to get up to Northern Ireland without passport... But that's way OT

R.Dub.Fusilier

Thomas B Barry joined up at the age of 19 was a student and on the form he answered the question ‘’ Are you a British subject ?’’ and he answered ‘’Yes’’. He became Gunner Barry 100399 Royal Field Artillery on the 30th June 1915 . He spent most of the war in the middle east , Mesopotania 20th January 1916 - 20th May 1918 and Egypt 8th June 1918 - 19th February 1919 before being discharged on 4th April 1919. His character sheet described him as ’’Sober’’ and a ’’ Good hard working man’’ . His medal card show he was entitled to the British war and victory medals , medals I’m sure he didn’t apply for .

Tom Barry Irish man or British soldier? Irish history and politics are not always black or white.

Hagar wrote: »

Gentlemen, let's all keep this nice and friendly and within the forum charter. Nobody really wants the ignominy of being the first person banned from a new forum, do they?

couldn't agree with you more . a good debate is always ruined with bitching and name calling .

arnhem44

I haven't called anyone names,when people come on here going on about British occupation blah blah blah,try reading the question in full, Irish veterans retuning home,(demobbed)not the British Army and no there not the same thing,there civilians.To think Irish people been condemed for making a choice that they believed was right,the same would apply to the civilians who went to the front or would it apply even later in World War II when 100,000 went to fight,the dead been honoured recently by the Roll of Honour and rightly so and to think most of them didn't even live under British occupation but they made a choice to fight along side the same British Army.A topic should be looked at from both sides with an open mind and not some idealistic one sided view.

McArmalite

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

Thomas B Barry joined up at the age of 19 was a student and on the form he answered the question ‘’ Are you a British subject ?’’ and he answered ‘’Yes’’. He became Gunner Barry 100399 Royal Field Artillery on the 30th June 1915 . He spent most of the war in the middle east , Mesopotania 20th January 1916 - 20th May 1918 and Egypt 8th June 1918 - 19th February 1919 before being discharged on 4th April 1919. His character sheet described him as ’’Sober’’ and a ’’ Good hard working man’’ . His medal card show he was entitled to the British war and victory medals , medals I’m sure he didn’t apply for .

Tom Barry Irish man or British soldier? Irish history and politics are not always black or white.



couldn't agree with you more . a good debate is always ruined with bitching and name calling .

To quote Tom Barry and his reasons for joining the british army, basically the spirit of adventure of a 17 year old - " In June, in my seventeenth year, I had decided to see what this Great War was like. I cannot plead I went on the advice of John Redmond or any other politician, that if we fought for the British we would secure Home Rule for Ireland, nor can I say I understood what Home Rule meant. I was not influenced by the lurid appeal to fight to save Belgium or small nations. I knew nothing about nations, large or small. I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel a grown man "

I think at Crossbarry, Kilmicheal etc Tom Barry more than established what his national outlook was and love of britain or the british army definetly wasn't it.

arnhem44

lets also not forget he denounced the killing of British civilians in later life and was actively involved in ex servicemens activites right up till 1920

R.Dub.Fusilier

McArmalite wrote: »

I think at Crossbarry, Kilmicheal etc Tom Barry more than established what his national outlook was and love of britain or the british army definetly wasn't it.

I don’t think anybody is trying to take away Tom Barry’s or any of the independence movements achievements in the fight against the Black & Tans and the Auxiliaries .

Lets just face up to the facts . Many of the Irish men who joined up to fight in WW1 went to fight for Home Rule , its debateable if the British would have given it to us . And with hindsight its easy to say they wouldn’t . the lads who joined up in their thousands didn’t have this hindsight that we have today and they went and died in a war that wasn’t of their making for Home Rule , for Ireland . After the Easter Rising there was no way it was going to be granted . It is understandable , from the viewpoint of the Irish soldiers in the trenches , to feel that they were stabbed in the back by their comrades who took part in the rising . More men were willing to give their lives for home rule , we have to remember that a revolution was not on the table at the time , than would later volunteer to fight in the war of independence . As I said before many ex-soldiers who returned took part in the war of independence . It is of course understandable from the republican movements point of view not to trust returning British soldiers , such as Tom Barry Erskine Childers and Emmett Dalton , and in the in a tiny minority of cases they were right . But of the hundereds of ex-service men who were killed by them only a tiny percentage of them were giving information to the castle . Tom Barry , whatever he said after , was part of the British war machine and hand in the slaughter that was WW1 . Should Tom Barry and those who fought in the ditches for Irish independence be remembered ? Should those Irish men who fought in the trenches be remembered ? The answer to both these questions is yes .

DublinDes

arnhem44 wrote: »

I haven't called anyone names,when people come on here going on about British occupation blah blah blah,try reading the question in full, Irish veterans retuning home,(demobbed)not the British Army and no there not the same thing,there civilians.To think Irish people been condemed for making a choice that they believed was right,the same would apply to the civilians who went to the front or would it apply even later in World War II when 100,000 went to fight,the dead been honoured recently by the Roll of Honour and rightly so and to think most of them didn't even live under British occupation but they made a choice to fight along side the same British Army.A topic should be looked at from both sides with an open mind and not some idealistic one sided view.

I see from your orginal post " Even though in Irelands troubled times should these returning veterans of being treated better? " You seem to be implying that they were treated unfairly. In what manner ? I was never aware that they were say, attacked and beaten up in the streets, forced from their homes, refused to be served in shops, pubs etc. Many of them must have been bitter at been duped into serving britian would probably have supported Sinn Fein and even some joining the IRA like Tom Barry, others would have remained Redmonites, and the unionists would have remained unionists surely ?

So in what ways were they treated unfairly and can you give us examples ?

arnhem44

So the murder of ex-servicemen in most cases by the I.R.A for treason for example wasn't a mistreatment?

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

I haven't called anyone names,when people come on here going on about British occupation blah blah blah,try reading the question in full, Irish veterans retuning home,(demobbed)not the British Army and no there not the same thing,there civilians.To think Irish people been condemed for making a choice that they believed was right,

Listen, your heavy on the accusations there buddy, I myself have never been aware of it but you seem to think it was the order of the day with ex memebers of the british army been denounced at every street corner, pamphlet etc. I would have thought their was general sympathy for those fooled to the front by Redmond, the media and britain. Tom Barry doesn't mention any hassle he received on coming back that I am aware of, neither did Ernie O'Malley when his older brother was back from the front. Those who continued to support Redmondism and oppose SF were naturally of course denounced as they were political enemies - whether they had been in the british army or not - but I have yet to hear of former british soldiers who supported Ireland's independence been denounced regardless. Just as Redmondism denounced those who supported Sinn Fein, that's the nature of politics isn't it.

But since it was so common place maybe you could give us a few links and references in speeches by the leadership such as Micheal Collins, De Velera and Sinn Fein pamphlets and documents etc of denouncing those who had returned from the trenches regardless of their views on Irish freedom ?

the same would apply to the civilians who went to the front or would it apply even later in World War II when 100,000 went to fight,the dead been honoured recently by the Roll of Honour and rightly so and to think most of them didn't even live under British occupation but they made a choice to fight along side the same British Army.A topic should be looked at from both sides with an open mind and not some idealistic one sided view.

Your very heavy on the numbers there 100,000. Maybe it was even 100,000,000 and 35,000,000 guns into Larne

McArmalite

arnhem44 wrote: »

lets also not forget he denounced the killing of British civilians in later life and was actively involved in ex servicemens activites right up till 1920

Yes Tom Barry expressed reservations about some of the operations of the IRA but he was supportive of the Provos and was one of the first major nationalist figures ot visit the beleaguered nationalists in Belfast in August 1969. I have seen the pictures of his visit and their can be no doubting his effect on lifting their spirits.

Also he was only invovled in the ex servicemens associations for a few months on his return to Cork. It's understandable his concern for those who had been fooled by britian. However he wasn't long before he found better things to do with his time :)

DublinDes

arnhem44 wrote: »

So the murder of ex-servicemen in most cases by the I.R.A for treason for example wasn't a mistreatment?

So when I ask him to provide examples of this of the mass of exservicemen been mistreated, what does he do..... but throws out another accusation. He hasn't produced a single hard fact since he started this thread, nothing but accusations. It's just a Walter Mitty anti republican thread.

SamuelFox

I think that the biggest cause of the southern Irish soldiers in WWI being forgotten are those soldiers themselves. They joined the British Army in the main to advance the nationalist cause, and after WWI things had changed so much that home rule, etc were redundant ideas. They didn’t want to be remembered as fighting for the Empire, because that wasn’t their motivation in joining. The UK army is highly politicised, even to this day, and they can’t commemorate anyone without waving flags and involving royalty etc. Ex-soldiers had no sense of belonging to this culture and didn’t want to be associated with this baggage, and so in my opinion inviting neo-colonialists to take credit for the bravery and sacrifice of the war dead is to insult them.

In general, Irish people didn’t have any loyalty to the British Empire, that’s proven by the fact that the people wouldn’t support conscription, and the fact that electoral results were consistently for separatist parties of whatever intensity.

DublinDes

SamuelFox wrote: »

I think that the biggest cause of the southern Irish soldiers in WWI being forgotten are those soldiers themselves. They joined the British Army in the main to advance the nationalist cause, and after WWI things had changed so much that home rule, etc were redundant ideas. They didn’t want to be remembered as fighting for the Empire, because that wasn’t their motivation in joining. The UK army is highly politicised, even to this day, and they can’t commemorate anyone without waving flags and involving royalty etc. Ex-soldiers had no sense of belonging to this culture and didn’t want to be associated with this baggage, and so in my opinion inviting neo-colonialists to take credit for the bravery and sacrifice of the war dead is to insult them.

In general, Irish people didn’t have any loyalty to the British Empire, that’s proven by the fact that the people wouldn’t support conscription, and the fact that electoral results were consistently for separatist parties of whatever intensity.

That's true. Also in the north, commemorations are synonymous with the orange order and the unionist party. Orange order bands etc turn up at a lot of them and the wreaths are often laid by unionist and orange order leaders. You could hardly expect catholic ex soldiers to be enthusiastic and not to mention how people down here view these unionist dominated commrations.

FiSe

...but it all doesn't mean that the 'Green' Irish shouldn't or can't commemorate their soldiers fighting during the war/s more or with bigger respect.

Keep the Queen and Union Jacks and all the other ballast out of the picture for a moment. Ireland has nice flag and the harp doesn't look bad either.

SamuelFox

...but it all doesn't mean that the 'Green' Irish shouldn't or can't commemorate their soldiers fighting during the war/s more or with bigger respect.

Keep the Queen and Union Jacks and all the other ballast out of the picture for a moment. Ireland has nice flag and the harp doesn't look bad either.

Sorry - I meant to add a point like that. I think that the best way to commemorate them is a non-political annual memorial service, maybe not involving military paraphenalia at all?