2 million Irishmen died fighting for Britain?

Jesus.

Did anyone see this Documentary that was on last year in which its claimed that since 1700, two million Irishmen died fighting in the British army?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/documentary-reveals-2m-irish-men-died-fighting-for-britain-264038.html

DarkyHughes

30,000 in WW1 would have been our biggest loss, Napoleonic Wars + French Revolutionary maybe 20K plus 30k died fighting against during that, maybe 10K during the American revolution. I can't see how they come up with 2 million, can't even see a million maybe a half at most. I would have thought more died fighting against them & living under British rule than fighting for them.

DarkyHughes

“There is this naive belief that the Irish make wonderful soldiers, good fighters and the kind of people you want in a tight spot. You see it also in the American armies during the American civil war. There is this kind of myth about the Fighting Irish.

Is it naive? Do we make good soldiers. I'd wonder how we'd fair in a war. We haven't been in since partition. The IRA fared okay against the British & their allies during the troubles. I'd think we'd do well in a guerrilla war.

Snickers Man

"I really am partly Irish. They're great people the Irish. They like fighting and if they can't find someone to fight with, they'll fight among themselves. They're pretty good at that too."

Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, explaining his selection of Cockles and Mussels (Molly Malone) as one of his Desert Island Discs on BBC Radio circa 1969.

Arsemageddon

DarkyHughes wrote: »

30,000 in WW1 would have been our biggest loss, Napoleonic Wars + French Revolutionary maybe 20K plus 30k died fighting against during that, maybe 10K during the American revolution. I can't see how they come up with 2 million, can't even see a million maybe a half at most. I would have thought more died fighting against them & British rule than fighting for them.

I would be very interested in seeing how they arrived at the 2m figure. I would presume it would include individuals that died while on service rather than just in actual combat. The number of Irish fellas who would have been wiped out by disease in Africa/India etc. in an age before antibiotics and vaccination must have been frightening.

I wouldn't doubt for a second that far more Irish died fighting for the British Army than against Britain. Irish rebellions/insurrections etc. occurred fairly intermittently, whereas the British Army was almost constantly involved in small colonial wars.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Is it naive? Do we make good soldiers. I'd wonder how we'd fair in a war. We haven't been in since partition. The IRA fared okay against the British & their allies during the troubles. I'd think we'd do well in a guerrilla war.

TBH I think it's a bit daft to think that someone would automatically make a particularly good soldier based solely on their nationality. Training, morale and equipment are more important.

DarkyHughes

Snickers Man wrote: »

"I really am partly Irish. They're great people the Irish. They like fighting and if they can't find someone to fight with, they'll fight among themselves. They're pretty good at that too."

Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, explaining his selection of Cockles and Mussels (Molly Malone) as one of his Desert Island Discs on BBC Radio circa 1969.

Is that the same Montgomery who was one of the leaders on the British side during the Tan war?

Del.Monte

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Is that the same Montgomery who was one of the leaders on the British side during the Tan war?

Yes, but that doesn't invalidate the comment.

DarkyHughes

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I would be very interested in seeing how they arrived at the 2m figure. I would presume it would include individuals that died while on service rather than just in actual combat. The number of Irish fellas who would have been wiped out by disease in Africa/India etc. in an age before antibiotics and vaccination must have been frightening.

I wouldn't doubt for a second that far more Irish died fighting for the British Army than against Britain. Irish rebellions/insurrections etc. occurred fairly intermittently, whereas the British Army was almost constantly involved in small colonial wars.



TBH I think it's a bit daft to think that someone would automatically make a particularly good soldier based solely on their nationality. Training, morale and equipment are more important.

That's true, I wasn't basing it on our nationality more on our culture & atmosphere.

DarkyHughes

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I would be very interested in seeing how they arrived at the 2m figure. I would presume it would include individuals that died while on service rather than just in actual combat. The number of Irish fellas who would have been wiped out by disease in Africa/India etc. in an age before antibiotics and vaccination must have been frightening.

I wouldn't doubt for a second that far more Irish died fighting for the British Army than against Britain. Irish rebellions/insurrections etc. occurred fairly intermittently, whereas the British Army was almost constantly involved in small colonial wars.



TBH I think it's a bit daft to think that someone would automatically make a particularly good soldier based solely on their nationality. Training, morale and equipment are more important.

I wouldn't doubt that either. But I also said Irish died living under British laws. 2 separate famines from 1700 must have killed close to 2 million. Just like the counting of dead soldiers be killed from diseases.

Anyway a hell of a lot of Irish people died doing stuff for the British, doing stuff against them & living under them since 1700 right to the present day.

Jesus.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

30,000 in WW1.

Could be even closer to 50k

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Is it naive? Do we make good soldiers.

Definitely naive. As someone said above, a soldier is only as good as his training, equipment, leadership, morale etc. After all, a man is a man.

The Irish had the sh*t knocked out of them in the Confederate, Cromwellian and Williamite wars for example. But that wasn't due to any lack of courage or fighting prowess on their behalf. It was simply a case of the other side having more of what's said above.

The Zulus were courageous to a fault. Suicidally so. But that didn't stop them being destroyed by a much smaller group of men at Rorke's Drift, again for the reasons mentioned above.

Manach

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Is it naive? .

No. Given the range from the Anglo-Irish leadership that made up a good portion of the British Command structure last century to the very large percentage of the British forces in the 19thC, especially the Peninsular war. The opportunities in Ireland were limited, so men who wished to succeed had limited options and one of them to ironically serve in the British Army/Navy.

As for the figure of 2M, even with the high rates of mortality in the Tropical postings, that might be rather high.

poeticmakaveli

my great grandfather was in the Connaught Rangers. Big Jack McCormack. He didn't die in battle though and was able to live a normal life after! My auntie knows it all and I know just little:)
seemingly there was an Irish programme about celebrities going back to find out about their family history and Simon Delaney was on it and his grandfather or great grandfather was great friends with him, not sure how they know that but this post is interesting and I'll have to find out more!

Snickers Man

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Is that the same Montgomery who was one of the leaders on the British side during the Tan war?

"One of the leaders" is putting it a bit strongly. He certainly was an officer stationed in Ireland for part of it, and I believe his cousin was shot by the IRA.

Del.Monte

Snickers Man wrote: »

"One of the leaders" is putting it a bit strongly. He certainly was an officer stationed in Ireland for part of it, and I believe his cousin was shot by the IRA.

An interesting insight into the man from his Wiki entry:

After graduating from Staff College, he was appointed brigade major in the 17th Infantry Brigade in January 1921.[30] The brigade was stationed in County Cork carrying out counter-insurgency operations during the final stages of the Irish War of Independence.[24]
Montgomery came to the conclusion that the conflict could not be won without harsh measures, and that self-government was the only feasible solution; in 1923, after the establishment of the Irish Free State and during the Irish Civil War, Montgomery wrote to Colonel Arthur Percival of the Essex Regiment:

Personally, my whole attention was given to defeating the rebels but it never bothered me a bit how many houses were burnt. I think I regarded all civilians as 'Shinners' and I never had any dealings with any of them. My own view is that to win a war of this sort, you must be ruthless. Oliver Cromwell, or the Germans, would have settled it in a very short time. Nowadays public opinion precludes such methods, the nation would never allow it, and the politicians would lose their jobs if they sanctioned it. That being so, I consider that Lloyd George was right in what he did, if we had gone on we could probably have squashed the rebellion as a temporary measure, but it would have broken out again like an ulcer the moment we removed the troops. I think the rebels would probably [have] refused battles, and hidden their arms etc. until we had gone.[31]

Jesus.

I recall reading somewhere that Montgomery was ordered to draw up plans to lead an invasion of the Free State during WW2. He was to land somewhere on the Cork coast and he said something like "I fought the Irish before. Looks like I may have to do so again" or words to that effect.

His comments above are simply that of an Army General. You do have to be ruthless in combat situations.

tipptom

Jesus. wrote: »

I recall reading somewhere that Montgomery was ordered to draw up plans to lead an invasion of the Free State during WW2. He was to land somewhere on the Cork coast and he said something like "I fought the Irish before. Looks like I may have to do so again" or words to that effect.

His comments above are simply that of an Army General. You do have to be ruthless in combat situations.

From what I can read of his letter though,he would have been happy killing any civilians as long as it quelled the rebels.

Fratton Fred

tipptom wrote: »

From what I can read of his letter though,he would have been happy killing any civilians as long as it quelled the rebels.

Sounds like he made a realistic observation.

Jesus.

tipptom wrote: »

From what I can read of his letter though,he would have been happy killing any civilians as long as it quelled the rebels.

<Mod>
Infracted, trolling will not be tolerated in the forum.
</Mod>

Jesus.

So you DO read my posts Dubhtach? From the Courtown House thread I figured you had me on ignore...

pedroeibar1

It is a stupid headline and a trite article. As Manach pointed out earlier, many Irishmen joined Crown Forces for a variety of reasons, often ‘King & Country’ being the least of them. A large number of them died while serving IN the army/navy, rather than FOR Britain. The vast majority of those deaths were from disease, not KIA. In the Napoleonic era Royal Navy for e.g. there were 7,000 KIA and ten times that number who died from disease (including wounds).

kabakuyu

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds like he made a realistic observation.

How so?

pollyannawins

i'll solve this debate: English citizens in both world wars and those in the preceeding centuries who claim irish decent on census forms. perhaps anyone with mc in their name

kabakuyu

pollyannawins wrote: »

i'll solve this debate: English citizens in both world wars and those in the preceeding centuries who claim irish decent on census forms. perhaps anyone with mc in their name

And "O"

tipptom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds like he made a realistic observation.

??

Fratton Fred

kabakuyu wrote: »

How so?

Because he is basically saying "i could win this war, but I'd have to use the same tactics as Cromwell, which probably isn't acceptable these days."

tipptom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because he is basically saying "i could win this war, but I'd have to use the same tactics as Cromwell, which probably isn't acceptable these days."

Yea,bit of a drag all that silly political correctness,eh Fred,only for that you and old Monty could really give Paddy what for,eh.

tac foley

Let's count how many Welsh and Scottish men died in service whilst in the British Army.

That is just as apposite as asking how many Irishmen died in service.

tac

Fratton Fred

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] Yea,bit of a drag all that silly political correctness,eh Fred,only for that you and old Monty could really give Paddy what for,eh.

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say

This forum really has taken a dive if late.

dubhthach

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] Yea,bit of a drag all that silly political correctness,eh Fred,only for that you and old Monty could really give Paddy what for,eh.

<Mod>
Take a two week "holiday", trolling isn't permitted in the forum.
</Mod>

dubhthach

As the thread has descended into a morass of name calling with very little in way of actual analysis of say "How many men actually died in British service, here is some actual primary sources (as oppose to hearsay)" I'm locking the thread.