WW1 Soldiers Traitors?

Fooker

Hi,

I'm doing some research into the above topic. What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea

Manach

Context please?
Irish troops serving in UK, Polish Troops serving in Central or Allied armies, Africans serving Colonial masters, Alstas-Lorraine serving in Imperial Germany ... ?
WWI was not clear cut and dried with many differing sets of alligences made it more a grand European Civil war where one person's traitor was another's patriot.

Fooker

Manach wrote: »

Context please?
Irish troops serving in UK, Polish Troops serving in Central or Allied armies, Africans serving Colonial masters, Alstas-Lorraine serving in Imperial Germany ... ?
WWI was not clear cut and dried with many differing sets of alligences made it more a grand European Civil war where one person's traitor was another's patriot.

Sorry I meant Irish soldiers who fought for the allies.

It certainly is not cut and dried as with one things. I am just seeking to present both polar opposites as welll as the consensus.

Judgement Day

Fooker wrote: »

Sorry I meant Irish soldiers who fought for the allies.

It certainly is not cut and dried as with one things. I am just seeking to present both polar opposites as welll as the consensus.

I still don't understand what you're driving at or are you doing a college project? Irish soldiers did not fight for the Allies - there were Irishmen of different allegiances who were all British citizens at that time (pre-Independence) who fought in the uniform of their country - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is not revisionism just a plain fact.

tac foley

In WW1's revised British Army there were eight regiments drawn from the island of Ireland - roughly 50/50 North and South.

Over 49,000 of them died in service.

My grandfather was one of them.

tac

Fooker

I am not disputing anything. But, I would like to know who specifically would dispute it? The polar opposite of Kevin Myers for instance?

tac foley

Since they were effectively ALL British subjects at that time, any Irish-born person who fought for Germany or its allies - Austro-Hungary or Turkey - would have been classed as a traitor, to Ireland, but to the United Kingdom of which he was a subject.

My grandfather was not a traitor, nor were any of the others who volunteered to fight in the British Army of that time.

What exactly are you actually hoping to get from your question? Are you, perhaps, trying to cause dissention? As JD points out, Ireland at that time was as much part of the UK as the other component countries of Wales, Scotland and England. Are you suggesting that soldiers born in those countries might also be considered traitors to their respective homeland?

tac

Fratton Fred

Fooker wrote: »

I am not disputing anything. But, I would like to know who specifically would dispute it? The polar opposite of Kevin Myers for instance?

Rebelheart, but he's been banned.

Santa Cruz

Fooker wrote: »

Hi,

I'm doing some research into the above topic. What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea

Irish history is too complex to be able to label those who served in British Forces as traitors. Those who do are invariably the narrow minded extremists with little knowledge of Irish history and base their opinions on a very limited education in that area

tac foley

As a couple of us have already pointed out, in vain, it seems, at that time Ireland was part of the UK, so how on earth can its citizens be called traitors for joining the national armed forces?

I think that this thread is going to end badly. Calling MY grandfather a traitor for serving what was then the interests of HIS country is NOT the way to make friends and influence people.

tac, p!ssed off already, or maybe that was the intention of the thread...

tac foley

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Irish history is too complex to be able to label those who served in British Forces as traitors. Those who do are invariably the narrow minded extremists with little knowledge of Irish history and base their opinions on a very limited education in that area

Sir, at that time they were NOT the British fForces, they were the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom and British Empire, of which Ireland was then - like it or don't - part.

tac

Jawgap

OP, I'd suggest getting a firm grip on the law of treason first, before wading into any debate about whether Irish (Scots, Welsh, English, Indian or even Canadian) soldiers can in any way be construed to have committed an offence.

Even if (and it's a huge stretch to imagine it) an Irish soldier (such as my my great grandfather) can be regarded as something other than a subject of the United Kingdom, the act of taking up arms in the service of 'another' state (if you can find some way to argue Ireland and Britain were at the time constitutionally separate) is not in itself treasonous.

The relevant legislation in force at the time is the Treason Act 1351 - and if you want to explore the issue further you do worse than look at some of the material published in relation to the trial of Roger Casement.......

Rex v. Casement
Robert Aitken, Litigation, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 51-54, 71-75 (available on JSTOR)

Fooker

People seem quick to jump to conclusions. My own Great Grandfather fought and was gassed during the war. I do not personally believe the soldiers to be traitors. I asked a question, I did not express any personal views...

I know of figures who would think of them as patriots, I am only seeking to find opinions of those who would hold the opposite of that view?

Jawgap

Maybe if you named the figures in question and linked to some of their articles it might easier to see what the argument 'in favour' is?

johnny_doyle

are you using "Traitor" in the legal sense (a threat to the monarch and his/her family or "rights" e.g. being a republican in 18th Century France or America or a Chartist in 19th Century England) or from the point of view of someone holding a different opinion or political persuasion (e.g. Tom Clarke would consider Bulmer Hobson a traitor for voting for Redmond representatives at the helm of the Irish Volunteers)?

Are you only interested in soldiers as opposed to members of, for example, the Royal Navy or the RFC/RAF?

Fooker

I think I asked a pretty simple question people. I never asked anyone for their opinions on the matter? I am not trying to start a debate, although people seem intent on arguing with themselves...

tac foley

You asked if anybody thought that Irishmen who fought in WW1 were traitors.

Traitors to what, exactly?

There can be very few, if indeed there are any at all, of the folks who post here on this Military forum - or even the rest of the entire Boards.ie for that matter - who did NOT have male family members serving in the Armed Forces of the UK and British Empire in WW1. Many people here are, or were serving military personnel in the service of their country, whichever country that might be.

Eleven of my relatives served in WW1, one died and the other ten were all wounded - five were gassed as well. Only one was Irish - the one who died.

You've come to the wrong place, Sir, if you are asking who thinks or thought of him and his ilk as 'traitors'.

And if you are not asking for 'opinions' but hard evidence of accusations of 'treason', perhaps you ought to be looking in the Republican-flavoured newspapers of the day.

tac

Jawgap

Fooker wrote: »

I think I asked a pretty simple question people. I never asked anyone for their opinions on the matter? I am not trying to start a debate, although people seem intent on arguing with themselves...

No, they weren't traitors. That's my opinion.

Neither were those who served in the Boer War - my great grandad served in both and had the 'good sense' to get wounded at First Mons.

The people who hold a contrary opinion are probably the same ones who refer to Fusiliers' Arch in more derogatory terms

If you find people are being a bit prickly maybe it's because you keep referring to 'figures' who hold a different view and you've yet to either name them or link to some material where they articulate and explain the rationale behind their views.

Fooker

I asked a question, I sought assistance, I never asked for opinions. I have stated that it is not my opinion that these men were traitors.

If I asked who would hold the view that the Holocaust did not happen, the answer would be David Irving. It does not mean that I would be a Holocaust denier or asking people what they think. It is asking a question.

I. Asked. A. Question.

tac foley

Soldiers like I was and others still are are notoriously prickly when the word treason is bandied about as though it was simply a matter of 'opinion'. When a country, nation or conglomerate nation of united countries - in this case the UK - goes to war with another nation, those who choose to go fight for the enemy are the traitors. That is why the offence of treason is described as actually 'Committing an ACT of Treason' by physically doing it.

Or have you somehow misunderstood the significance of that, in spite of your Olympic-quality back-pedalling?

As Jawgap notes, albeit in a more genteel fashion than me, please put up or shut up.

And please, less of the puerile 'word separation for effect'. We might be older than you are - of that I'm pretty much certain - but as yet most of us here don't need the help of reading words one at a time - I find it insulting in the extreme.

Yes, you asked a question, one that seems not to have occurred to anybody I've ever met before in my life. The Government of the Republic of Ireland has recently spent a real fortune of your money providing a physical memorial and on-line data-base of those Irishmen who were killed or are still missing from WW1.

Surely that tells you something about the way that the Irish felt about their menfolk?

tac

Fooker

I. Asked. A. Question.

I. Did. Not. Make. A. Statement.

I do not see where the issue is? I have said that my own Grandfather fought in the Great War, I have stated I do not believe they were traitors. I have not written anything to suggest otherwise.

Grand, you have your opinion, you are entitled to it, but I did not ask for it. If you cannot answer my SIMPLE question, why are you responding?

Have you read anything that I have written other than the words "WW1" and "Traitor"?

tac foley

You, Sir or Madam, are really getting up my nose.

I'm going before I write something that might get me banned.

tac

Jawgap

Can I suggest you read up o the law of treason?

Then maybe consider the implications of its application - if the men who signed up at Redmond's urging were traitors, against what or whom were they committing treason? And what of those who signed up from Ulster - were they treasonous? And those who participated in the Curragh 'Mutiny'?

If all such soldiers are traitors where does that leave people like Tom Barry and Emmet Dalton? If they committed treason by serving in the 'Crown' forces then one or other of them is also guilty of treason post-independence given they pursued diametrically opposed courses of action.

Fooker

tac foley wrote: »

You, Sir or Madam, are really getting up my nose.

I'm going before I write something that might get me banned.

tac

Sir,

If you can quote and explain any issue that you may have, I would be happy to address it. The courtesy you have not given to my QUESTION.

- F

marieholmfan

France,England and Russia were the entente. Germany and Austria were the Allies.

Fooker

Jawgap wrote: »

Can I suggest you read up o the law of treason?

Then maybe consider the implications of its application - if the men who signed up at Redmond's urging were traitors, against what or whom were they committing treason? And what of those who signed up from Ulster - were they treasonous? And those who participated in the Curragh 'Mutiny'?

If all such soldiers are traitors where does that leave people like Tom Barry and Emmet Dalton? If they committed treason by serving in the 'Crown' forces then one or other of them is also guilty of treason post-independence given they pursued diametrically opposed courses of action.

I am not asking what the definition of treason is or stating that these men were traitors. I am wondering WHO would try to argue as such? This is not a reflection of any sympathy or personal opinion held.

marieholmfan

There . are . no . mainstream. . irish political figures who described Irish ww1 veterans as traitors. I am sure that Ailtirì na Aisèrigh would have openly called the traitors. I seem to remember Constance Markievicz describing the women who heckled the volunteers as traitors wives.

Jawgap

Fooker wrote: »

I. Asked. A. Question.

I. Did. Not. Make. A. Statement.

I do not see where the issue is? I have said that my own Grandfather fought in the Great War, I have stated I do not believe they were traitors. I have not written anything to suggest otherwise.

Grand, you have your opinion, you are entitled to it, but I did not ask for it. If you cannot answer my SIMPLE question, why are you responding?

Have you read anything that I have written other than the words "WW1" and "Traitor"?

I'm calling shenanigans on this post.

Looking at some of your other posts in the NUIG threads - I reckon that for your grandfather to have served in WW1 you're grandad must have had your Dad / Mam at an advanced age and he/she likewise must have had you at an advanced age.......or you're an old fart (bit like Tac, but without the experience;) )

I find it hard to believe someone in their early 20s had a grandfather who served in WW1.

Fooker

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm calling shenanigans on this post.

Looking at some of your other posts in the NUIG threads - I reckon that for your grandfather to have served in WW1 you're grandad must have had your Dad / Mam at an advanced age and he/she likewise must have had you at an advanced age.......or you're an old fart (bit like Tac, but without the experience;) )

I find it hard to believe someone in their early 20s had a grandfather who served in WW1.

My apologies, that was a typo. It was my great grandfather which I believe I stated in a previous post.

Jawgap

Apology accepted and I withdraw my earlier shenanigans call.

Can I suggest that the reason you are struggling to find anyone credible arguing that the soldiers were traitors is because it's an unsustainable argument - you can't betray a country that doesn't exist.

I dare say, however, that you may get some arguments in favour if the question was asked in a political rather than a history forum.

Judgement Day

Fooker wrote: »

Hi,

I'm doing some research into the above topic. What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea

It would have helped if you could have given the thread a less confusing title and then posted an intelligible first post.

Fooker

Judgement Day wrote: »

It would have helped if you could have given the thread a less confusing title and then posted an intelligible first post.

How would you rephrase it? I fail to see how it is not easy to understand?

riffmongous

I honestly doubt you'd find many many people willing to call them as traitors in public.. especially since some of them were either fighting for Home Rule or later went on to join the IRA.

While the 'legal' aspect has been pointed out quite quickly, I don't think that should be relied on, in imperial times there was also developing a strong feeling of loyalty to a people and to ignore it is misleading since the majority of peoples didnt have their own state yet to be legally loyal to. It's also not so useful on moral aspects such as collaboration or indeed the case of Irish soldiers who deserted to join the allies in WW2.

Edit: For the record, since its a touchy subject for some, I wouldn't call them traitors myself, it was a complicated time.

pedroeibar1

Fooker wrote: »

How would you rephrase it? I fail to see how it is not easy to understand?

What you wrote in your opening post was :

WW1 Soldiers Traitors? Hi,
I'm doing some research into the above topic. What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea

Well, as you have asked, your post is, for starters, pi$$ poor English, badly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, devoid of a question mark and ambiguous. D in Lower Level LC English.
Personally, I was not ar$ed responding earlier because if you really were interested you could have looked at past threads here (there are many) and instead of giving lip to those who provided suggestions you might have read up on the links they provided.

Zebra3

No doubt some Irish republicans/nationalists would have seen those fighting for the British Empire as traitors, but as Ireland was not a free country and had no government in exile or anything like it (bar the short lived provisional government in 1916), they wouldn't have been in a legal sense.

Many however would have played their part in Britain's war crimes/crimes against humanity.

marieholmfan

does boards.ie have an ignore list function?

Fooker

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Well, as you have asked, your post is, for starters, pi$$ poor English, badly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, devoid of a question mark and ambiguous. D in Lower Level LC English.
Personally, I was not ar$ed responding earlier because if you really were interested you could have looked at past threads here (there are many) and instead of giving lip to those who provided suggestions you might have read up on the links they provided.

Granted I should have used 'which' as opposed to 'what' and yes, it did lack a question mark. It was sloppy on my part. Yet, I fail to comprehend in spite of these errors how one cannot understand what is being asked in the question nor how deriding my English grammar in such a condescending manner is necessary? How exactly was it ambiguous or hard to understand especially given that you appear to have such an utterly astounding command of the English language?

Secondly, Can you point out the suggestions or links that were given by the posters who took my question as a statement of my own opinions? I asked a question, it was not 'what do you think?'. It was not 'this is what I think'. I am fully aware that this is a complicated issue and a complicated period of time, I am not seeking to suggest otherwise nor have any extreme views on the matter. It would seem that there are no significant figures who would choose to publicly describe the soldiers as 'traitors' or at least on the basis of this thread. I was wondering if such people exist. That is all. For posters to suggest that they do not exist would surely have sufficed.

Jawgap

IMO, you should have elaborated more. If you want to get something, give something. For example.......

Hi, I've been doing some research into Irishmen who served as soldiers in WW1 and the attitudes that prevailed in relation to their service. I was reading an article by Smith (link) who mentioned how they were viewed as traitors in certain quarters. I'm trying to find some material that discusses this point further, can anyone help? Thanks in advance.....

The point about the construction and use of English in the original question is valid - to be honest, if you're doing academic research you should develop and maintain better writing habits - a well written sloppy argument will get accepted quicker that a sloppily written sound argument

My final point - my initial reaction to the post was 'troll!' given the brevity of the post and the topic.

Judgement Day

marieholmfan wrote: »

does boards.ie have an ignore list function?

Here's how do it, although I fail to see why anyone would sign up for a discussion forum to start excluding individuals with whom they disagree - easier to un-follow the thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_whatelse#faq_bie_faq_whatelse_ignore

marieholmfan

Fooker wrote: »

Granted I should have used 'which' as opposed to 'what' and yes, it did lack a question mark. It was sloppy on my part. Yet, I fail to comprehend in spite of these errors how one cannot understand what is being asked in the question nor how deriding my English grammar in such a condescending manner is necessary? How exactly was it ambiguous or hard to understand especially given that you appear to have such an utterly astounding command of the English language?

Secondly, Can you point out the suggestions or links that were given by the posters who took my question as a statement of my own opinions? I asked a question, it was not 'what do you think?'. It was not 'this is what I think'. I am fully aware that this is a complicated issue and a complicated period of time, I am not seeking to suggest otherwise nor have any extreme views on the matter. It would seem that there are no significant figures who would choose to publicly describe the soldiers as 'traitors' or at least on the basis of this thread. I was wondering if such people exist. That is all. For posters to suggest that they do not exist would surely have sufficed.

You did not acknowledge any of the responses which attempted to assist you.

Fooker

Jawgap wrote: »

IMO, you should have elaborated more. If you want to get something, give something. For example.......

The point about the construction and use of English in the original question is valid - to be honest, if you're doing academic research you should develop and maintain better writing habits - a well written sloppy argument will get accepted quicker that a sloppily written sound argument

My final point - my initial reaction to the post was 'troll!' given the brevity of the post and the topic.

I understand that one should maintain good writing habits, but this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. I have not mentioned the nature of my research. I was not attempting to construct an argument on the topic and if I were to do so in that case I would be more fastidious in my writing. If I were some barely literate half-wit should I not have been pointed in the right direction or answered rather than receive sneering comments on my English. Even if I were a barely literate half-wit, the question is clear in what it asks. Clear enough that anyone should be able to understand it.

Maybe the question could have been elaborated upon further, but that would have been superfluous. The question was rather simple. It was not asking people 'what do you think?' nor was it asking 'which people would hold this view and what do you think?' nor 'which people would hold this view and why would they hold this view'. People seemed to take the question as a statement, reading into it what they wanted to read into it, adding 2+2 and getting 7. It was completely neutral language... And even after having declared my own views(which were largely irrelevant) as the opposite, posters were still intent on arguing.

Fooker

marieholmfan wrote: »

You did not acknowledge any of the responses which attempted to assist you.

I apologise. I do appreciate those who did attempt to assist me in this fruitless question! In the midst tirade against me I carelessly neglected to acknowledge them.

tac foley

Your sarcasm - the lowest form of wit - is duly noted.

tac

Fooker

tac foley wrote: »

Your sarcasm - the lowest form of wit - is duly noted.

tac

Sir,

If you would like to explain your other posts as to what exactly your issue was with my question? I, on my part would be happy to address any such issue.

tac foley

As has been noted, your original question had the appearance of the beginnings of a troll, and to be honest, I'm still not convinced that you are not about to spring a new premise/opinion - equally contentious to your first - on us.

Basically, your first post read - to me and others here, as - 'Irishmen who fought on the British side in WW1 were thought of as traitors, weren't they? Who else thinks like that?'

After that, there was a heroic demonstration of back-pedalling in order to avoid being wrong-footed in the face of some strongly-held points expressed by others who had interpreted your 'question/posit/opinion' in the same way that I had. The gradual improvement in your written English, from initial near-sh!te to college grad-grade, are also noted.

Why you've chosen to pick ME out of the crowd is also, to me, very suspicious, and smacks of the beginnings of a personal attack. Not a good idea. So let's say no more about ME having to explain MY posts to YOU, and move on.

tac

Jawgap

I find it hard to believe that your research failed to turn up any discussion of Irish soldiers as 'traitors' - to my mind if you are doing research in this area (academic research in July??) then you are looking to do it on the backs of people who post in this forum - that's fine, but I think you should be more transparent in what you're doing and why and you'll find that people are more amenable to helping you.

I say this because I don't have an abiding interest in the history of the Irish Regiments in WW1, but it still only took me less than five minutes searching to find this.....

"Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922: Suborned or Subordinate?" Journal of Social History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 31-64

It contains the following quote

The esprit de corps of British military units in the fin de siecle is well established, and Irishmen within those ranks were not exceptions to
the rule.

Irish republicans of the fin de siecle did try to undo this pattern. "An Irishman" recalled that the Irish regiments embarking for service during the Boer War "were hooted down the Dublin quays" by Redmondite critics of the war "because they were loyal to their oath."

"Any Irishman . . . who enlists under England's blood-red flag," a pamphlet circulated in 1905 read, "is one of the meanest curs in creation."
Other republican handouts prepared shortly after Britain entered the
World War made the same point; the Irish servant of England was a "traitor to his country and an enemy of his people."

Leaders of the "Irish Volunteers" in 1914 made clear that Volunteers were unlike the "Imperial mercenaries" who served in the regular army. Nonetheless, when John Redmond urged these same Irish Volunteers to enlist for service in France "in defence of right, of freedom and religion in this war," and the I.R.B. broke with Redmond, most Volunteers followed Redmond into this National Volunteers, and most of these served in
Europe. Only about 2,500 joined the I.R.B.'s Irish Volunteers in 1915.

Later, in 1917 Redmondites and Sinn Feiners "broke up recruiting meetings," "openly insulted British soldiers," and "by terrorism stopped enlistment" in some areas.

The pamphlets referred to are

Anon., "Traitors to Ireland" (June, 1905); Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

"Irishmen" (c. 1914) Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

Irish Volunteers, ed. Martin, 20, 168-69, 200, 53 is also cited as a source.

tac foley

Well done, JG, you've answered his/her question for him/her. I note that the words used to describe those who DID serve in the UK armed forces of the time, however insulting they might have been, stopped short of 'traitor'. Such an accusation, which would, if successful, be brought to a close at end at the rope, or in front of a line of rifles, would have had to have been proven in court.

Now, hopefully we can move on.

tac

Fooker

tac foley wrote: »

As has been noted, your original question had the appearance of the beginnings of a troll, and to be honest, I'm still not convinced that you are not about to spring a new premise/opinion - equally contentious to your first - on us.

Basically, your first post read - to me and others here, as - 'Irishmen who fought on the British side in WW1 were thought of as traitors, weren't they? Who else thinks like that?'

After that, there was a heroic demonstration of back-pedalling in order to avoid being wrong-footed in the face of some strongly-held points expressed by others who had interpreted your 'question/posit/opinion' in the same way that I had. The gradual improvement in your written English, from initial near-sh!te to college grad-grade, are also noted.

Why you've chosen to pick ME out of the crowd is also, to me, very suspicious, and smacks of the beginnings of a personal attack. Not a good idea. So let's say no more about ME having to explain MY posts to YOU, and move on.

tac

I asked but a simple question, there was nothing implicit. It was not accusative. Nowhere was there any opinion given by me. Others chose to take the question as an expression of my own opinions. I obviously came into this forum innocently expecting that people would address the question. This explains my more cavalier approach to grammar and carelessness. My initial attempts to explore such people in my CASUAL research drew up no results. Thus, I made a quick post to see if others may be able to aid me. Nowhere have I suggested that this was my opinion or did I seek to engage people specifically on the matter. Nowhere did I express any opinions that would lead one to think that I thought of the soldiers as 'traitors'. Feel free correct me.

My 'back-pedalling' as you put it was only a defence to the attacks which I was subject to for simply asking a question which I repeat had no opinions expressed in it. My improvement of English also too is a reflection of the fact that I was snidely derided for my apparent lack of competence in English. For all you could have known I could have been a poor innocent national school pupil doing some small project.

Jawgap wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that your research failed to turn up any discussion of Irish soldiers as 'traitors' - to my mind if you are doing research in this area (academic research in July??) then you are looking to do it on the backs of people who post in this forum - that's fine, but I think you should be more transparent in what you're doing and why and you'll find that people are more amenable to helping you.

I say this because I don't have an abiding interest in the history of the Irish Regiments in WW1, but it still only took me less than five minutes searching to find this.....

"Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922: Suborned or Subordinate?" Journal of Social History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 31-64

It contains the following quote



The pamphlets referred to are

Anon., "Traitors to Ireland" (June, 1905); Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

"Irishmen" (c. 1914) Nat. Lib. of Ireland;

Irish Volunteers, ed. Martin, 20, 168-69, 200, 53 is also cited as a source.

Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.

riffmongous

I cant find anything modern online about it either, even if you look at those who would argue against the wearing of the poppy, the feeling is more that the soldiers were misguided or misled not traitors.

Jawgap

Fooker wrote: »

........

Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

No, your question was

What historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea

Fooker wrote: »

On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

And yet you asked about "......historians or journalists or politicians specifically believe or support this idea"

Fooker wrote: »

The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.

I've provided two links to articles for you. The second one - according to Google Scholar - has been cited by 31 subsequent publications.....

.......just how much information do you want?

Anyway, I think I've contributed enough on this thread - good luck with your research.

Judgement Day

Fooker wrote: »

I asked but a simple question, there was nothing implicit. It was not accusative. Nowhere was there any opinion given by me. Others chose to take the question as an expression of my own opinions. I obviously came into this forum innocently expecting that people would address the question. This explains my more cavalier approach to grammar and carelessness. My initial attempts to explore such people in my CASUAL research drew up no results. Thus, I made a quick post to see if others may be able to aid me. Nowhere have I suggested that this was my opinion or did I seek to engage people specifically on the matter. Nowhere did I express any opinions that would lead one to think that I thought of the soldiers as 'traitors'. Feel free correct me.

My 'back-pedalling' as you put it was only a defence to the attacks which I was subject to for simply asking a question which I repeat had no opinions expressed in it. My improvement of English also too is a reflection of the fact that I was snidely derided for my apparent lack of competence in English. For all you could have known I could have been a poor innocent national school pupil doing some small project.



Yes, surely they were held to be traitors many moons ago. However, my question was about significant contemporary figures who might hold this opinion now.

On another note, the repeated bringing up of the legal definition of treason and the concept of the state too is pointless. Anyone who would hold such a view would not exactly be interested in legal definitions or the official status of an Ireland. They could likely not even recognise this very state in its current state, having a 'romantic' Ireland in their head. Ireland as a concept didn't exactly commence in 1921. Thus, feeling an allegiance to this romantic Ireland I would doubt very much that their concept of betraying this romantic Ireland would have any grounding in legality.

I can assure you however that I myself do not hold such views. If I were doing serious academic research which I am not. It is common practice that looks at all sides and discuss them all. This discussion may result in the conclusion that these views are wholly wrong. In any case any serious historian should not be bringing his own personal views to bear on research.

The personal opinion of myself or anyone else here on the matter is irrelevant to the question that was asked. It was a request for information, not in any way a request for opinions nor a statement of opinion.

Not so - a quick glance at your posting history reveals that you're a 3rd level student at NUIG.