Putting WWI in context in Irish history

jonniebgood1

Today is the anniversary of the first day of the Somme. Over 2000 Irish men were lost on that one day Source . Over the whole of WWI almost 50,000 Irishmen were killed (The 1916 Rising cost circa. 470 lives in comparison to put some scale on the WWI losses).
Has any other war cost this type of high numbers of Irishmen? The confederate wars had massive Irish losses but not this high AFAIK.
Due to the changes in Ireland in 1916 while they were away returning soldiers were not celebrated and this continued until maybe the last 20 years when many in the Republic of Ireland have begun to celebrate relatives and neighbours who went to war in Europe. My own opinion is that firstly these men need to be held seperate to the nationalistic agenda that developed while they were away. Many went to war on the premise that they were fighting for the rights of small Catholic Belguim with the obvious similarities to Ireland. Others were following Redmonds advocacy of the wars relevance to Ireland and the home rule movement whilst Unionists were fighting for the Union. Others still were simply looking for a wage or the promise of a trade being developed for their post war life, they had no other option.

So what is the correct context to place the Irish participants in WWI in within Irish history.

Snickers Man

Well I think the paucity of replies to this post several days after you put it up speaks volumes for the dilemma this poses to an Irish audience. We don't seem to know whether to cheer or to boo when considering the story of our participation in the war so we do neither. And some people adjudge this silence to be ignorance of the fact that tens of thousands of Irishmen died in the British Army in World War One.

I believe this to be erroneous. Personally, I cannot remember a time when I DIDN'T know about my great uncles who served in the war, several of whom were killed. I can't remember NOT knowing about the eagerness of the Ulster Volunteers to join up and the earnestness of John Redmond in pledging the Irish Volunteers to the Empire's cause.

I despise the casual dismissal by some people with a contemporary agenda of decades of misgivings about how to commemorate World War One with the hackneyed phrase "written out of history". We have not written these men out of history. Their story piece by piece has been written about in print several times over the intervening decades and many families have folk memories about their loved ones who served.

It's truer to say that we never wrote them into a glorified national myth, as the Australians and New Zealanders did with their soldiers who fought in Gallipoli. And nor should we. But that's a different matter.

The context in which to see Ireland during the First World War, if I may put your original question into that perspective, is that of a subject nation of a major empire that was struggling to redefine its relationship with that empire. In that sense Ireland was similar to many other national groupings around Europe whose peoples were seeking some form of autonomy from the ruling bodies, many of them anachronistic monarchies, that had ruled them for decades if not centuries.

Burgeoning nationalist movements in the Balkans, Poland, Finland, and many of the subject nations of the Russian Empire were helping to destabilise the status quo. And of course the big powers were keen to use a pretended concern for the "Rights" of their preferred minorities to pick fights with each other. Hence Russia guaranteeing Serbian sovereignty no matter what atrocities the Serbs might support against the Austro Hungarians. Thus too, the Germans willingly supplying arms to BOTH sides of the divide over Home Rule in Ireland. These conflicts between Empires and their subject peoples was one of the main causes of the conflict and indeed provided the spark which set it off.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Has any other war cost this type of high numbers of Irishmen?

The Battle of Aughrim reputedly had a death toll of 7,000 on a single day. Probably the highest for a ‘war’ was the Cromwellian Campaign. According to Petty ‘...about 504,000 of the Irish perished and were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, hardships and banishment between the 23rd October 1641, and the same day in 1652.’ (quoted in Peter Beresford Ellis ‘Hell or Connaught’.)
I share some of the views expressed by Snickers’ in his post above, but I have no dilemma of

whether to cheer or to boo when considering the story of our participation in the war.

I see no real need to do either, but honour its Irish dead just as such – i.e. men who, for whatever reason, went off to fight in a good cause and never came home. Possibly too many historians are polarized by their academic learning/views and ordinary people take the middle ground and are more ‘laissez-faire’ not caring much either way. There always will be zealots of whatever persuasion who need a platform to shout their cant, but thankfully they now are in a minority.
I have only one relative who joined up in WW1. My paternal line in 19th & early 20th C was very actively Fenian & Republican. My maternal line was Redmondite / Home Rule. I grew up knowing I had from that side a great uncle killed in WW1, that he had the reputation of being adventurous. There certainly was no educational or financial need for him to join up, nor would any anecdotal evidence suggest that his reasons were anything other than adventure. He was never ‘airbrushed’ from the family, nor was he glorified, he was simply ‘there’ in the background like other dead relatives, but any mention always included ‘Poor Paddy, he always was a bit wild.’
Family bible entries give an idea of the feelings of his father:-
Chap XIII Samuel David mourneth for Absalom - My poor foolish boy Paddy enlisted in Army on ???? (poss Dec) 9, 1900 and left for (Tralee? training?) 10 Dec (?) 1900. Oh God guide him & God help me.
Got him out of the Army 10 July 1901.
Paddy re-enlisted Irish Guards Nov 9th 1903
Paddy came back from the Army Nov. 1st 1906
Patk sailed for New York 11 December 1910 s.s. Baltic

My research has shown that Paddy was just 17 when he first enlisted in 1900. Then, while in Canada working as a telegraphist and linesman, on Sept. 22, 1914 he again enlisted and joined the 13th Bn., Canadian Infantry (Quebec Regt.) He was killed – aged 32 - in action in the Battle of Gravenstafel Ridge(Ypres), on Saturday, 24th April 1915. http://www.greatwar.co.uk/battles/second-ypres-1915/gravenstafel-ridge/gravenstafel-summary.htm
Type of guy I would have loved to meet and go for a pint with. And that is only one part of the reason why I have no problem honouring the dead of WW1 or in wearing a ‘Poppy’ on Armistice Day.

dubhthach

I'd agree with Pedro on Cromwellian war. The 16th century was also pretty bloody, at least a third of population of Munster was lost due to the Desmond Rebellions (2 of them). The period 1530-1603 is probably the longest period of continuous bloodshed in Irish history.

• Plantation of Laois/Offaly
• Supression of the O'Moores of Laois/ O'Connors of Offaly -- Massacare of Mullaghmast
• Desmond revolts -- including massacare of papal army at Smerick
• Martial Law through most of Leinster and Connacht
• Nine year war

etc.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The Battle of Aughrim reputedly had a death toll of 7,000 on a single day. Probably the highest for a ‘war’ was the Cromwellian Campaign. According to Petty ‘...about 504,000 of the Irish perished and were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, hardships and banishment between the 23rd October 1641, and the same day in 1652.’ (quoted in Peter Beresford Ellis ‘Hell or Connaught’.)

How many died on the battlefield in the Cromwell conquests?

dubhthach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How many died on the battlefield in the Cromwell conquests?

Define battlefield, there was plenty of sieges as well as scorched earth reprisals. If you add together the figures for just following you get 14,500

• Battle of Rathmines
• Siege of Drogheda
• Siege of Wexford
• Siege of Clonmel -- Casaulties inflicted on Cromwell by Aodh Dubh Ó Néill (Hugh Dubh)
• Battle of Scarrifholis

You end up with at least 14,500. I didn't see any figures for the deaths during Sieges of Galway, Limerick, Waterford or Duncannon.

Of course you have to remember this is at the end-stage of constant warfare since the 1641 Rebellion. William Petty (of Down Survey fame) puts the figures at over 600,000 dead in period 1641-53 or 40% of population pre-conflict (Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 1998, p. 278. Scott Wheeler, Cromwell in Ireland)

Two thirds of the dead been civilian, which would imply on order of 200,000 dead combatants (Action, famine, plague). The population loss was considerably higher as a overall percentage then that of Famine 200 years later.

pedroeibar1

The plague (bubonic variety) was a major killer when it hit Ireland in 1649, mainly because the low resistance of a big proportion of the population, due to homelessness and starvation following the ‘scorched earth’ policy carried out by both sides. Irish civilians were the worst affected as they were ‘bottled-up’ in the walled towns, where contagion was rampant - 5,000 Catholics died of plague during the July-October 1651 siege at Limerick. Besieging Cromwellian soldiers suffered less from plague, although Ireton died of it at Limerick. In 1649-50 about 20,000 people died in Galway and 1,300 per week were dying in Dublin when the plague hit there. Petty’s estimate that 275,000 died of the plague in eight years of war is regarded as reasonable.

Battles:
The Royalists lost 2,000 men at Drogheda, 3,000 at Rathmines, 2,000 at Wexford and over 3,000 at Scarriffhollis (from August 1649 to July 1650.) During the 1640’s, Catholic Confederate armies lost about 3,000 men at Dungan’s Hill and at Knockanuss, and several thousand more each at the battles of Liscarroll, Clones, New Ross and Bandonbridge. A large number of Catholic soldiers were also killed by the English when they captured dozens of castles during Cromwell’s and Ireton’s campaigns. (All numerical details taken from page 225/6 of James Scott Wheeler’s ‘Cromwell in Ireland.’)

Add to that about 50,000soldiers and followers who went overseas 1640/50's to join various Continental armies and the impact on the economy is very clear.

jonniebgood1

Snickers Man wrote: »

...

We don't seem to know whether to cheer or to boo when considering the story of our participation in the war so we do neither. And some people adjudge this silence to be ignorance of the fact that tens of thousands of Irishmen died in the British Army in World War One.

I believe this to be erroneous. Personally, I cannot remember a time when I DIDN'T know about my great uncles who served in the war, several of whom were killed. I can't remember NOT knowing about the eagerness of the Ulster Volunteers to join up and the earnestness of John Redmond in pledging the Irish Volunteers to the Empire's cause.

...

The reason for this lack of knowing how these men should be remembered is quite obviously related to the fact that the catalyst for our independence, the Easter rising happened when they were away at way. By extension then it is some type of doubt about their nationalism or dedication to the cause of Irish freedom that has caused many who fought in WWI to not be remembered as they deserve. I think this is being addressed in recent years but the blame for this must surely lie in post independence Ireland. Times were obviously different so it is hard to be overly critical of this but in more recent times peoples apathy is more questionable. A look at the recruitment posters give some indication of the reasons why some chose to go to war:


An appeal to male pride-



Revenge for the Lusitania which sank of Cork with loss of Irish people widely reported in the papers-



Following Nationalist leaders advice, hardly the act of someone without the nationalist agenda in their minds-



Fighting for Irish freedom-


http://www.thejournal.ie/slideshow-irish-world-war-i-recruitment-posters-385408-Mar2012/#slide-slideshow12

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Today is the anniversary of the first day of the Somme. Over 2000 Irish men were lost on that one day Source . Over the whole of WWI almost 50,000 Irishmen were killed (The 1916 Rising cost circa. 470 lives in comparison to put some scale on the WWI losses).
Has any other war cost this type of high numbers of Irishmen? The confederate wars had massive Irish losses but not this high AFAIK.
Due to the changes in Ireland in 1916 while they were away returning soldiers were not celebrated and this continued until maybe the last 20 years when many in the Republic of Ireland have begun to celebrate relatives and neighbours who went to war in Europe. My own opinion is that firstly these men need to be held seperate to the nationalistic agenda that developed while they were away. Many went to war on the premise that they were fighting for the rights of small Catholic Belguim with the obvious similarities to Ireland. Others were following Redmonds advocacy of the wars relevance to Ireland and the home rule movement whilst Unionists were fighting for the Union. Others still were simply looking for a wage or the promise of a trade being developed for their post war life, they had no other option.

So what is the correct context to place the Irish participants in WWI in within Irish history.

Maybe the problem is these men need to be held seperate to the anti nationalistic agenda that developed since the troubles kicked off in 1969 ? I myself am very suspicious of the agenda that some may have regarding the commemorations for three reasons -

a) Their deaths are portrayed as some sort of legitmate scarifice for the British empire.

b) The commemorations have too much of a British slant, it's hardly mentioned that Irishmen would have been in the American forces in great numbers also for example. The radio said the commemoration at Islandbridge is been organised by the British Legion, an organisation unapologetic about the crimes perpetrated by Britain not just in our own country but around the world.

c) And it should also be pointed out, that in the six counties many (if not most) commemerations to WW1 are carried out by the sectarian Orange Order and it's marching bands etc. Hardly a proper way to remember the Catholic and nationalist Protestants who fought and died in WW1 ?

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Following Nationalist leaders advice, hardly the act of someone without the nationalist agenda in their minds-



Fighting for Irish freedom-


http://www.thejournal.ie/slideshow-irish-world-war-i-recruitment-posters-385408-Mar2012/#slide-slideshow12

I remember reading how James Connolly got on a train in Blefast and how he noted all the recruitment posters with images of the British empire and slogans such as fight for King and country etc plastered all over the station. However as the train headed south and came into Newry and Dundalk, the tone of the propaganda of the posters changed to " Join the army and save Catholic Belgium".

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Maybe the problem is these men need to be held seperate to the anti nationalistic agenda that developed since the troubles kicked off in 1969 ? I myself am very suspicious of the agenda that some may have regarding the commemorations for three reasons -

I guess what I meant was they need to be looked at as a seperate entity.

thecommietommy wrote: »

a) Their deaths are portrayed as some sort of legitmate scarifice for the British empire.

I think the recruitment posters give an idea of the reasons that many joined up. Any highjacking of ceremonies that suggests otherwise would be wrong. There were of course units from Ulster that were fighting for retaining the Union (one mainly UVF being the 36th Ulster division).

thecommietommy wrote: »

b) The commemorations have too much of a British slant, it's hardly mentioned that Irishmen would have been in the American forces in great numbers also for example. The radio said the commemoration at Islandbridge is been organised by the British Legion, an organisation unapologetic about the crimes perpetrated by Britain not just in our own country but around the world.

There was recently a ceremony launching a roll of honour in Cavan for losses in WWI. The British legion in Ireland were represented at this but they were no more prominent than the other representative, those being the Belgian ambassador to Ireland, American army officer, Anzac representative and German army representative. They were all guests of the families of those on the roll and the ceremonies ended with amhran na bhfiann.

thecommietommy wrote: »

c) And it should also be pointed out, that in the six counties many (if not most) commemerations to WW1 are carried out by the sectarian Orange Order and it's marching bands etc. Hardly a proper way to remember the Catholic and nationalist Protestants who fought and died in WW1 ?

My opinion is that an organisation such as this that excludes people because of the religion they are have no place in commemorations of WWI soldiers. It is unfortunate if they do so regardless of the division they celebrate as they would tarnish the names of others. They should stay away from this.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My opinion is that an organisation such as (Orange Order) that excludes people because of the religion they are have no place in commemorations of WWI soldiers. It is unfortunate if they do so regardless of the division they celebrate as they would tarnish the names of others. They should stay away from this.

Of course the Orange Order is a sectarian outfit and its bigotry should be corralled.
So too should the bigotry of people that perceive the RBL as

“an organisation unapologetic about the crimes perpetrated by Britain not just in our own country but around the world.”

(no proof furnished.)
Ignore also those that say

“Their deaths are portrayed as some sort of legitmate scarifice for the British empire”

– those being commemorated died as soldiers fighting a war, which is what the ceremony is about, nothing more.
As for the

‘ ”anti nationalistic agenda that developed since the troubles kicked off in 1969”

– dozens of nationalists decried the antics of the extremists (on both sides) and were disgusted by the self-serving cant of various republican factions in the name of so-called 'nationalism'. One can comfortably be a nationalist without supporting the aims, wishes and deeds of sectarian thugs of any denomination.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fighting for Irish freedom-

I think the technical term for this is 'LOL'

I'd suggest that the primary reason that there is ambivalence about those Irishmen who fought in WWI is the very obvious contradiction between fighting so that "small nations might be free" and enlisting in the British army, a clear tool of imperialism. In essence, most later generations asked the very question of that poster: what did you do to help when Ireland fought for freedom? Fighting for the British Empire was very much the wrong answer to give

But this was not just a post-independence question. There were plenty of contemporary voices against fighting England's wars, voices that were later proven correct

jonniebgood1

Reekwind wrote: »

I think the technical term for this is 'LOL'

I'd suggest that the primary reason that there is ambivalence about those Irishmen who fought in WWI is the very obvious contradiction between fighting so that "small nations might be free" and enlisting in the British army, a clear tool of imperialism. In essence, most later generations asked the very question of that poster: what did you do to help when Ireland fought for freedom? Fighting for the British Empire was very much the wrong answer to give

The point that the posters show is the variation in reasons for people joining. They range from revenge for killings of Irishmen to notions of home rule. Remember that from the time of the land league home rule was the aim of the Irish parliamentary party. It seems to me that the lol comment is very much making use of hindsight. If the poster from 1915 follows on from Redmond, the Home rule leader of the times advice, then surely it was not so far fetched for a nationalistic youth to sign up thinking he was fighting for the sake of Irish seperatism.

Reekwind wrote: »

But this was not just a post-independence question. There were plenty of contemporary voices against fighting England's wars, voices that were later proven correct

What were these voices saying- I would be interested in reading the anti war commentary from that time, i.e. before 1916. Was it widespread, etc? I'm not sure what year Tom Barry signed up but his education had taught him all about British monarchs etc but nothing of Irish struggles against British rule. I suspect the same was for others which would of course make the recuitment posters easier to believe.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It seems to me that the lol comment is very much making use of hindsight

The "small nations might be free" line was deliberately chosen from a near-contemporary tune (1919 but close enough) while those with eyes to see could perfectly well point out the absurdity of enlisting with the British Army to fight a war for small nations. Witness Connolly in Sept 1914:

"The ‘war on behalf of small nationalities’ is still going merrily on in the newspapers. That great champion of oppressed races, Russia, is pouring her armies into East Prussia land offering freedom and deliverance to all and sundry...

...and the Russian Government and the British Government stand solidly together in favour of small nationalities everywhere except in countries now under Russian and British rule"

(Which is dripping with enough sarcasm that in a 21st C translation would probably be LOL)

And so on, making references to Egypt, India, Persia, South Africa and, of course, Ireland. Connolly obviously had form for this sort of thing but the attitude was far from isolated to the socialists. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Volunteers split over the issue (with Redmond leading a breakway after failing to convince the leadership of joining the war) and proposals to introduce conscription were fiercely resisted (contrast with conscription in GB)

So yes, there were alternative voices pointing out the absurdity of the war from the beginning. That's not the important point though. Even if it was purely hindsight, the fact is that those who rejected the war were proved right. And that's what's informed the subsequent century of discussion on the remembrance of those Irish soldiers. You can argue that they were fooled into joining, that they didn't know better, that their sacrifice was still inherently noble, etc, but you can't argue that they contributed to 'fighting for Irish freedom in 1915'. And this in a period where a new independence tradition was being actively constructed at home

whatever_

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Today is the anniversary of the first day of the Somme. Over 2000 Irish men were lost on that one day Source . Over the whole of WWI almost 50,000 Irishmen were killed (The 1916 Rising cost circa. 470 lives in comparison to put some scale on the WWI losses).

The 1923 document "Ireland's Memorial Records 1914 - 1918" which contains the names of "over 49000
Irishmen who fell in the Great War" is probably the source for this figure. A quick perusal suggests
that this document is unlikely to be accurate.


There are 14 names on the first page. 6 are Irish and the remaining 8 are predominately Englishmen
serving in Irish regiments. Clearly, it would be unwise to attempt to extrapolate these figures,
but I think it is time for a more accurate record to be produced.


The details of this are as follows:
1) Noel Abadie (London Irish Rifles) born Marylebone, London
CWGC shows (age 27) son of Son of Jean Marie and Augustine Abadie, of 36, Sussex Place, South
Kensington, London
1911 England census shows that both his parents were born in Toulouse, France
Conclusion: Englishman or Frenchman in an Irish Regiment


2) John Abbey born Co Wicklow
Conclusion: Irishman

3) William Claridge Abbey (Royal Irish) birthplace not stated
CWGC shows (age 19) parents Samuel N. and Florence E. Abbey, of 767, High Road, Leyton, Essex.
1911 England Census shows (age 12) that he was born in Russell Road Leyton and that both his parents
were born in England
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

4) Charles Abbott (Royal Irish) born East India
CWGC shows Son of the late H. G. Abbott; husband of Margaret Helen Abbott, of 9, The Terrace, Tramore,
Co. Waterford
Conclusion: Irishman

5) Edgar Reveley Abbott
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows (age 11) both parents born in London, he was born in Sevenoaks
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

6) Edward John White Abbott (Royal Irish Fusiliers)
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census : possible matches
1911 Ireland Census : possible matches
Conclusion: insufficient information

7) Frank Abbott (Royal Irish Rifles) born Old Werton, Huntingdonshire d 18 Sep 1917
CWGC shows he actually died 18 Aug 1917 (age 19) Son of Frank Abbott, of Old Weston, Huntingdon.
1911 England Census shows that both he and his parents were born in Old Weston
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

8) Frederick James Abbott (Cameron Highlanders) born Birr, Kings County
Conclusion: Irishman

9) Geoffrey Dyett Abbott (Connaught Rangers)
CWGC shows (age 23) Son of Mrs. E. L. M. Abbott, of 6, Pall Mall, London and the late Col. Frank Abbott.
1911 England Census shows him (age 19) living in Dover, born Kashmir, India both parents born in India
Conclusion Englishman / Indian serving in an Irish Regiment

10) John Abbott (The Gloucestershires) b Waterford
Conclusion: Irishman

11) Joseph Abbott Northumberland Fusiliers (Tyneside Irish) b Alabama, USA d 28 Apr 1917
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows him (age 20) living in Sunderland with his English wife
1901 England Census shows him living with his parents (both born in England)
Conclusion: Englishman/ American serving in an Irish Regiment

12) Michael Abbott (Connaught Rangers) b Athlone d 21 Dec 1914
Conclusion: Irishman

13) Vivian Hartley Church Abbott (Canadian Infantry) d 22 Aug 1917
CWGC shows he died 21 Aug 1917 age 36 Son of the Venerable the late Archdeacon of Clogher, Ireland, and his wife, the late Charlotte E. Church; husband of Eleanor Bell Abbott (nee Riddell), of 51, Myrtlefield Park, Belfast, Ireland.
Conclusion: Irishman

14) William Abbott (Royal Munster Fusiliers) d 21 Dec 1914 b Marylebone, London
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows him (age 15) living with his parents (both born in England) in Willesden
Conclusion: Englishman serving with an Irish Regiment

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Of course the Orange Order is a sectarian outfit and its bigotry should be corralled.
So too should the bigotry of people that perceive the RBL as (no proof furnished.)

Any evidence of the RBL denouncing the war crimes of Dresden or Hamburg or Amritsar ?

Ignore also those that say – those being commemorated died as soldiers fighting a war, which is what the ceremony is about, nothing more.
As for the – dozens of nationalists decried the antics of the extremists (on both sides) and were disgusted by the self-serving cant of various republican factions in the name of so-called 'nationalism'. One can comfortably be a nationalist without supporting the aims, wishes and deeds of sectarian thugs of any denomination.

Here we go again, the Eoghan Harris students with their " ethnic cleansing at Coolacrease " or Peter Hart's Tom Barry and the IRA sectarian slaughter campaign in Cork etc, etc :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Any evidence of the RBL denouncing the war crimes of Dresden or Hamburg or Amritsar ?

They are a charity for war veterans. I am lost as to why they would do what you suggest above?

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They are a charity for war veterans. I am lost as to why they would do what you suggest above?

Condemn them as war crimes and exclude the participants from been honoured ( just like Waffen SS and Japenese camp guards in WW2 ) - which they don't, nor does the British govt despite been asked to by the Mayor of Dresden etc

Dresden mayor 'to lobby against building of Bomber Command memorial’


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/raf-bomber-command/7985917/Dresden-mayor-to-lobby-against-building-of-Bomber-Command-memorial.html

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Condemn them as war crimes and exclude the participants from been honoured ( just like Waffen SS and Japenese camp guards in WW2 ) - which they don't, nor does the British govt despite been asked to by the Mayor of Dresden etc

Dresden mayor 'to lobby against building of Bomber Command memorial’


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/raf-bomber-command/7985917/Dresden-mayor-to-lobby-against-building-of-Bomber-Command-memorial.html

]

Perhaps a topic for a different thread, it doesnt have anything got to do with how Irish participants in WWI are remembered.

goose2005

thecommietommy wrote: »

I remember reading how James Connolly got on a train in Blefast and how he noted all the recruitment posters with images of the British empire and slogans such as fight for King and country etc plastered all over the station. However as the train headed south and came into Newry and Dundalk, the tone of the propaganda of the posters changed to " Join the army and save Catholic Belgium".

And in Ulster they were also told to fight to crush Catholic Austria!

jonniebgood1

goose2005 wrote: »

And in Ulster they were also told to fight to crush Catholic Austria!

Do you have a source for this?

BFDCH.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The Battle of Aughrim reputedly had a death toll of 7,000 on a single day. Probably the highest for a ‘war’ was the Cromwellian Campaign. According to Petty ‘...about 504,000 of the Irish perished and were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, hardships and banishment between the 23rd October 1641, and the same day in 1652.’ (quoted in Peter Beresford Ellis ‘Hell or Connaught’.)
I share some of the views expressed by Snickers’ in his post above, but I have no dilemma of I see no real need to do either, but honour its Irish dead just as such – i.e. men who, for whatever reason, went off to fight in a good cause and never came home. Possibly too many historians are polarized by their academic learning/views and ordinary people take the middle ground and are more ‘laissez-faire’ not caring much either way. There always will be zealots of whatever persuasion who need a platform to shout their cant, but thankfully they now are in a minority.
I have only one relative who joined up in WW1. My paternal line in 19th & early 20th C was very actively Fenian & Republican. My maternal line was Redmondite / Home Rule. I grew up knowing I had from that side a great uncle killed in WW1, that he had the reputation of being adventurous. There certainly was no educational or financial need for him to join up, nor would any anecdotal evidence suggest that his reasons were anything other than adventure. He was never ‘airbrushed’ from the family, nor was he glorified, he was simply ‘there’ in the background like other dead relatives, but any mention always included ‘Poor Paddy, he always was a bit wild.’
Family bible entries give an idea of the feelings of his father:-
Chap XIII Samuel David mourneth for Absalom - My poor foolish boy Paddy enlisted in Army on ???? (poss Dec) 9, 1900 and left for (Tralee? training?) 10 Dec (?) 1900. Oh God guide him & God help me.
Got him out of the Army 10 July 1901.
Paddy re-enlisted Irish Guards Nov 9th 1903
Paddy came back from the Army Nov. 1st 1906
Patk sailed for New York 11 December 1910 s.s. Baltic

My research has shown that Paddy was just 17 when he first enlisted in 1900. Then, while in Canada working as a telegraphist and linesman, on Sept. 22, 1914 he again enlisted and joined the 13th Bn., Canadian Infantry (Quebec Regt.) He was killed – aged 32 - in action in the Battle of Gravenstafel Ridge(Ypres), on Saturday, 24th April 1915. http://www.greatwar.co.uk/battles/second-ypres-1915/gravenstafel-ridge/gravenstafel-summary.htm
Type of guy I would have loved to meet and go for a pint with. And that is only one part of the reason why I have no problem honouring the dead of WW1 or in wearing a ‘Poppy’ on Armistice Day.

It's a similar situation in my own family, my great granddad fought in WW1, the war of independence (on our side) and then the civil war. Not much was said about his involvement with Brits or the civil war other than kind of jokingly saying that he picked the wrong side both times- being from the North and having fought for the free staters and for an army that would later imprison his sons and some grandsons.
His involvement in the war was only remembered in a matter of fact way, 'Great granda Patrick fought in WW1, his brother went too and was left maimed by mustard gas.'
The other side of the family my grandfather was too young, he would've been 12 when it ended, i know his older brother fought in it and one died, I know this because he was extremely proud of them and their efforts.

The poppy is no longer used to remember the dead from the world wars, it's used as a recruiting tool for the current British army 'support our heroes'- with pictures of the modern army in Afghanistan etc are common place in England and even on the TV here, the money's also go to support the veterans of other wars and conflicts including the one on our own Island.
I'd have a problem (and I’m sure my GGfather would too)with giving money to support an organisation that has damaged so many in this country including the sons of those that fought in the great war.
The white Poppy seems a more apt way of remembering those slaughtered and mangled in the world wars.

goose2005

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

"Elsewhere in Ireland men were persuaded to fight by the leader of the Irish Party at Westminster, John Redmond, who told them this could guarantee Home Rule. George Gilmore told how he had seen in Belfast a recruiting poster which said ‘Fight Catholic Austria’. He carefully removed it, then took it to Dublin where he pasted it up again, next to another recruitment poster which said ‘Save Catholic Belgium’." http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap4.htm

However, I suppose it could have been made up by Gilmore - it has the sound of an invented story. And I don't think the British directly fought Austria-Hungary very much, except in Serbia.

pedroeibar1

goose2005 wrote: »

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap4.htm

Hardly an acceptable or unbiased source, given its links with Sinn Fein.:rolleyes:

pedroeibar1

BFDCH. wrote: »

The poppy is no longer used to remember the dead from the world wars, it's used as a recruiting tool for the current British army 'support our heroes'- with pictures of the modern army in Afghanistan etc are common place in England and even on the TV here, the money's also go to support the veterans of other wars and conflicts including the one on our own Island.
I'd have a problem (and I’m sure my GGfather would too)with giving money to support an organisation that has damaged so many in this country including the sons of those that fought in the great war.
The white Poppy seems a more apt way of remembering those slaughtered and mangled in the world wars.

I really do not see the Red / White Poppy connection or how it can be used to put WW1 in context here. The White Poppy is fine if you are a pacifist / anti war, but then why stop there? Why not campaign to disband all armies? Also, if I read you correctly, I think your choice of language is disingenuous – (RBL)......‘has damaged so many in this country’ and ‘recruiting tool’ are neither accurate nor apt.

It is much easier to put present wars in context, as the general population is more educated, has access to better media and should be better informed.
There are no survivors of WW1 living, so ‘military’ charities look after survivors of later wars including later ones such as Iraq & Afghanistan. The validity of those wars has no bearing on the work of the RBL (a charity) or other veterans’ charities. I see the reason to support any veterans’ charity in a straightforward way - Soldiers do what they are ordered to do and deserve our support; when they are wounded and need support, we should provide it. However, those of us at home have a responsibility to understand and consider why they have received these orders, and try to bring them out of harm’s way when those orders are questionable.

(And I have a sneaking admiration for Mary Kelly and her hatchet.)

Reekwind

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There are no survivors of WW1 living, so ‘military’ charities look after survivors of later wars including later ones such as Iraq & Afghanistan. The validity of those wars has no bearing on the work of the RBL (a charity) or other veterans’ charities

I disagree that these charities are inherently functional and apolitical in their approach. Such military charities can play a passive or overt political role

To take an historical example (this is the History forum after all), the French war memorial committees were initially founded in the 1920s with the rather prosaic purpose of building and maintaining monuments to the dead. However by the 1930s these committees had become highly politicised and often formed an important part of local right-wing activist networks. A nominally universal and worthy cause (remembering the war dead) bled into reactionary activism

Now I'm not suggesting that the various military charities are all hidden Nazis or the like but they do very much have a role in what I see as the creeping militarisation of England. Think soldiers at football matches, the annual poppy campaigns, etc. The charities, however well-meaning, are ever more visible and contributing to if not a glorification of war then at least an acceptance of specific wars

Soldiers do what they are ordered to do and deserve our support

The model of an unthinking soldier automatons should have died at Nuremberg. Soldiers have the duty to consider their actions and the causes for which they are fighting. It is them, not us, for who an "understanding [of] why they have received these orders" has real, often deadly, importance

thecommietommy

Well all I'll say, from what I seen on the news, it was good to see men from the French army among others as well of course our own, it had too much of a British slant for me in the past.

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

It's a fair question, haven't time to check further for one about fighting Catholic Austria, but here's a good example of British propaganda trying to appeal to Irish Catholics with the St Patrick imagery -

thecommietommy

Here's a propaganda image that wouldn't have been out of place for thousands of family's in real life across Ireland a short while later, substituting German soldiers for British ones, especially the Tans and Auxiliary's -

kabakuyu

whatever_ wrote: »

The 1923 document "Ireland's Memorial Records 1914 - 1918" which contains the names of "over 49000
Irishmen who fell in the Great War" is probably the source for this figure. A quick perusal suggests
that this document is unlikely to be accurate.


There are 14 names on the first page. 6 are Irish and the remaining 8 are predominately Englishmen
serving in Irish regiments. Clearly, it would be unwise to attempt to extrapolate these figures,
but I think it is time for a more accurate record to be produced.


The details of this are as follows:
1) Noel Abadie (London Irish Rifles) born Marylebone, London
CWGC shows (age 27) son of Son of Jean Marie and Augustine Abadie, of 36, Sussex Place, South
Kensington, London
1911 England census shows that both his parents were born in Toulouse, France
Conclusion: Englishman or Frenchman in an Irish Regiment


2) John Abbey born Co Wicklow
Conclusion: Irishman

3) William Claridge Abbey (Royal Irish) birthplace not stated
CWGC shows (age 19) parents Samuel N. and Florence E. Abbey, of 767, High Road, Leyton, Essex.
1911 England Census shows (age 12) that he was born in Russell Road Leyton and that both his parents
were born in England
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

4) Charles Abbott (Royal Irish) born East India
CWGC shows Son of the late H. G. Abbott; husband of Margaret Helen Abbott, of 9, The Terrace, Tramore,
Co. Waterford
Conclusion: Irishman

5) Edgar Reveley Abbott
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows (age 11) both parents born in London, he was born in Sevenoaks
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

6) Edward John White Abbott (Royal Irish Fusiliers)
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census : possible matches
1911 Ireland Census : possible matches
Conclusion: insufficient information

7) Frank Abbott (Royal Irish Rifles) born Old Werton, Huntingdonshire d 18 Sep 1917
CWGC shows he actually died 18 Aug 1917 (age 19) Son of Frank Abbott, of Old Weston, Huntingdon.
1911 England Census shows that both he and his parents were born in Old Weston
Conclusion: Englishman serving in an Irish Regiment

8) Frederick James Abbott (Cameron Highlanders) born Birr, Kings County
Conclusion: Irishman

9) Geoffrey Dyett Abbott (Connaught Rangers)
CWGC shows (age 23) Son of Mrs. E. L. M. Abbott, of 6, Pall Mall, London and the late Col. Frank Abbott.
1911 England Census shows him (age 19) living in Dover, born Kashmir, India both parents born in India
Conclusion Englishman / Indian serving in an Irish Regiment

10) John Abbott (The Gloucestershires) b Waterford
Conclusion: Irishman

11) Joseph Abbott Northumberland Fusiliers (Tyneside Irish) b Alabama, USA d 28 Apr 1917
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows him (age 20) living in Sunderland with his English wife
1901 England Census shows him living with his parents (both born in England)
Conclusion: Englishman/ American serving in an Irish Regiment

12) Michael Abbott (Connaught Rangers) b Athlone d 21 Dec 1914
Conclusion: Irishman

13) Vivian Hartley Church Abbott (Canadian Infantry) d 22 Aug 1917
CWGC shows he died 21 Aug 1917 age 36 Son of the Venerable the late Archdeacon of Clogher, Ireland, and his wife, the late Charlotte E. Church; husband of Eleanor Bell Abbott (nee Riddell), of 51, Myrtlefield Park, Belfast, Ireland.
Conclusion: Irishman

14) William Abbott (Royal Munster Fusiliers) d 21 Dec 1914 b Marylebone, London
CWGC does not show age or parents names
1911 England Census shows him (age 15) living with his parents (both born in England) in Willesden
Conclusion: Englishman serving with an Irish Regiment

You should have a look at these two databases SDGW(Soldiers Died in the Great War and Officers died in the Great War) for more accurate information, it was recognised some years ago (about 1998)that the Irish Memorial records are incorrect.More substantial research has been carried out since( some of it by members of this forum)and a figure of approx 40,000-45,000 may be more accurate.