Soldiers Stories Monday 26th on History channell

mrtaylor1981

Soldiers Stories Monday 26th on History channel at 9.00 tells of the troubles in Northern Ireland from the perspective of the British soldiers who served there between 1969 and 2007, the longest continuous deployment in the history of the British Army. Should be interesting.

MarchDub

mrtaylor1981 wrote: »

Soldiers Stories Monday 26th on History channel at 9.00 tells of the troubles in Northern Ireland from the perspective of the British soldiers who served there between 1969 and 2007, the longest continuous deployment in the history of the British Army. Should be interesting.

I've never understood why the years in NI are frequently described as the "longest continuous deployment" by the British Army. I know this is not from you, it is the way it has been described by the British sources.

Henry VIII sent in troops to guard Dublin Castle in 1541 - after he had the Irish Parliament declare him King of Ireland - and, with further augmentation over the years, they only left in 1922. This would seem to be the "longest continuous deployment".

OS119

MarchDub wrote: »

I've never understood why the years in NI are frequently described as the "longest continuous deployment" by the British Army. I know this is not from you, it is the way it has been described by the British sources.

Henry VIII sent in troops to guard Dublin Castle in 1541 - after he had the Irish Parliament declare him King of Ireland - and, with further augmentation over the years, they only left in 1922. This would seem to be the "longest continuous deployment".

the term 'deployment' (usually in conjunction with a named operation - Herrick, Telic, Grapple, Corperate, etc...) is very different from 'garrisoning' which is what you describe at Dublin Castle - in the same way that the invasion of Europe (OP Overlord) of 1944 was very different to the Garrisoning of Germany and the formation of the British Army on the Rhine and the NATO ORBAT to face WARPAC. it sounds like semantics, but the terms have very distinct meanings.

MarchDub

OS119 wrote: »

the term 'deployment' (usually in conjunction with a named operation - Herrick, Telic, Grapple, Corperate, etc...) is very different from 'garrisoning' which is what you describe at Dublin Castle - in the same way that the invasion of Europe (OP Overlord) of 1944 was very different to the Garrisoning of Germany and the formation of the British Army on the Rhine and the NATO ORBAT to face WARPAC. it sounds like semantics, but the terms have very distinct meanings.

Yes...I get your point, and the subtly involved. Military terminology can be quite nuanced [and clever] it seems. How the Irish situation worked out for the various insurgencies over many years amounted to probably the same thing. There was a strong military presence at the ready to put down any rebellion. And did.

I am reminded of a more recent nuance when the term "invasion" was viewed as a political liability. In the recent "invasion" of Iraq the Bush administration shied away from it with the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" tag. But this too is not new – historically many “invasions” are called otherwise by the invaders.

mega man

Well, what did yee think of it?

Zebra3

Well I suppose it done exactly what it said on the tin, "Soldiers' Stories", but I was disappointed with it. Had hoped it would be more like Peter Taylor's "Brits".

There were some funny moments in it like what happened when some undercover British troops thought they'd stumbled on an IRA checkpoint in south Armagh.

But I was shocked at how they glossed over some incidents like Bloody Sunday which had such a profound effect on the war.

Some of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant talking about their time in Aden, Borneo and Ireland without ever questioning if they had any right to be in those places. Some also hadn't a clue about geography. One thought Belfast was in Great Britain and the presenter used the phrase "County South Armagh". :rolleyes:

McArmalite

Zebra3 wrote: »

Well I suppose it done exactly what it said on the tin, "Soldiers' Stories", but I was disappointed with it. Had hoped it would be more like Peter Taylor's "Brits".

There were some funny moments in it like what happened when some undercover British troops thought they'd stumbled on an IRA checkpoint in south Armagh.

But I was shocked at how they glossed over some incidents like Bloody Sunday which had such a profound effect on the war.

Some of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant talking about their time in Aden, Borneo and Ireland without ever questioning if they had any right to be in those places. Some also hadn't a clue about geography. One thought Belfast was in Great Britain and the presenter used the phrase "County South Armagh". :rolleyes:

" But I was shocked at how they glossed over some incidents like Bloody Sunday which had such a profound effect on the war. " Me too, but that's what I had expected anyway. Sure enough they were welcomed in the beginning etc but it didn't say how the brits had kicked in the doors of people on the Falls Road, Bogside etc under the excuse of looking for guns while the loyalists on the Shankill weren't touched. Their attitude of " We'll teach you fukin' OIrish some fukin' manners " as if a quick kicking would put the natives in their place. I myself would say that the Parachute regiment actions in the early 70's did more than anything to cause the troubles to run for several decades with their macho bullsh!t and thuggery. Some of it was sureal, it's hard to believe so much went on and the intensity of it. But as a friend of mine from Belfast once said to me "If I had not been invovled I would have been the odd one out "




One of the things I noticed about the program was that the brits never admitted they had done wrong at any stage, just the poor little me, we didn't deserve this. I don't rememebr them ever mentioned the loyalists, so much for the brits 'impartiality' and their conflict with 'both sides'. Still, the Provos from South Armagh came out in a strong light, some operatives I can tell you, the famous fighting men from Crossmaglen They even had that little secterian sh!t stirrrer Willie Frazer who brought the LoveUlster riot to Dublin talking about his experiences. He wasn't asked about his support for the loyalists ofcourse.

R.Dub.Fusilier

[quote=McArmalite;62721703
One of the things I noticed about the program was that the brits never admitted they had done wrong at any stage, just the poor little me, we didn't deserve this. I don't rememebr them ever mentioned the loyalists, so much for the brits 'impartiality' and their conflict with 'both sides'. Still, the Provos from South Armagh came out in a strong light, some operatives I can tell you, the famous fighting men from Crossmaglen They even had that little secterian sh!t stirrrer Willie Frazer who brought the LoveUlster riot to Dublin talking about his experiences. He wasn't asked about his support for the loyalists ofcourse.[/quote]

to tell you the truth , i didn't see the programe but what you said here is typical of the stuff that comes out. peter taylor did alright with his programes. i have recorded loads of stuff over the years about the conflict in the north and it is only in latter years that the loyalists have been shown in a bad light and they all seem to forget about the Shankill Butchers.

OS119

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

i have recorded loads of stuff over the years about the conflict in the north and it is only in latter years that the loyalists have been shown in a bad light and they all seem to forget about the Shankill Butchers.

i dunno what you've been watching, but over here i don't think i've seen anything that portrayed the Loyalists(ha!) as anything other than a disorganised, nakedly sectarian, criminal rabble. never once have i seen, heard or read anything which attempted to cast them in the light of 'concerned citizens' or 'patriotic fighters'. they would be considered well below PIRA in moral/political terms - and you can imagine what the British media think of PIRA!