Easter Sunday/ 2006

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 02:33PM

growler wrote:

If not, since civilian casualties are your particular bug bear , how can you reconcile this with saying that armed rebellion is ever justified ?

Quite simply, if an armed rebellion is completely justified and necessary and there is no other option, all care still must be taken to avoid involving killing civilians in attacks on legitimate targets.

And importantly, if a commander in the army makes a stupid mistake that cost the lives of innocent civilans that could have been avoided, that should not be ignored or over looked because the commander was on our side. Accountablitiy and responsibilty don't just wash way because you are at war. A stupid mistake done for a good cause is still a stupid mistake. And the Rising was a stupid mistake

A few points

Was the Rising necessary?

- Not in the slightest. In 1916 we lived in a democractic country that had already put into motion a legal process to give Home Rule to Ireland.

Did the rebels have a mandate from people to carry out the Rising

- Again, not in the slightest. The people of Ireland had no idea the rising was about to take place, and had in no shape or form, through themselves or elected representatives, given the go a head for the rebelion.

Did the rebels have a proper plan to make sure the rebelion was over as quickly as possible to avoid damage to property and life

- Nope, they had a ridiculous socialist idea that the British would not shell the city, an idea that ended up cost hundreds of lives.

Did the rebels take all necessary care to avoid civilian casualites?

- Nope, they started a war in a dense populated urban centre. Following this plan it was inevitable that people would die.

Did the rebels put in place any system to make sure civilians were not in the areas being attacked or in cross fire

- Nope, little attempt was made to warn civilians of upcoming attacks, or to make sure they simply got out of the way

Did the rebels have a plan of action to deal with the break down of law and order

- Nope, they had no plan, and when faced with the break down of law and order they started shooting civilians.

When it was clear the Rising was going to fail did the rebels surrender to save the city more damage and loss of life

- Nope, they fought on regardless, which cost more civilians and was completely pointless since they had already lost

growler · 14-04-2006 03:02PM

Wicknight wrote:

Quite simply, if an armed rebellion is completely justified and necessary and there is no other option, all care still must be taken to avoid involving killing civilians in attacks on legitimate targets.

and you know for a fact that the leaders of 1916 did not take into account potential civilian casualties?

Wicknight wrote:

A few points

Was the Rising necessary?

- Not in the slightest. In 1916 we lived in a democractic country that had already put into motion a legal process to give Home Rule to Ireland.

Did the rebels have a mandate from people to carry out the Rising

- Again, not in the slightest. The people of Ireland had no idea the rising was about to take place, and had in no shape or form, through themselves or elected representatives, given the go a head for the rebelion.

I disagree on the first point, because I have been brainwashed by republican propaganda and hence am less certain of the best intentions of the cuddly, fluffy, loveable, huggable, cute little britsy witsy empire.

Mandate ? this is an excellent point now that you bring it up, silly old me had forgotten all the other, dare I say "popular" uprisings throughout history that had taken the time and effort to conduct a comprehensive opinion poll of the population prior to instigating military action. There was of course the famous american poll of 1773-1774, the french in 1788 ish, the poles in 1981 etc etc.

Wicknight wrote:

Did the rebels have a proper plan to make sure the rebelion was over as quickly as possible to avoid damage to property and life

- Nope, they had a ridiculous socialist idea that the British would not shell the city, an idea that ended up cost hundreds of lives.

I thought P Pearse had personally shot all those civilians, surely the british didn't actually kill anyone themselves ? horror.

Wicknight wrote:

Did the rebels take all necessary care to avoid civilian casualites?

- Nope, they started a war in a dense populated urban centre. Following this plan it was inevitable that people would die..

been overr this one before, no point in seizing fields in Leitrim. utterly daft point that you seem to be so attched to.

Wicknight wrote:

Did the rebels put in place any system to make sure civilians were not in the areas being attacked or in cross fire

- Nope, little attempt was made to warn civilians of upcoming attacks, or to make sure they simply got out of the way..

I'm no military strategist but even i suspect that taking out full page ads and putting posters all around Dublin may have , ever so slightly, ruined the element of surprise. But then again, they weren't the best military strategists either so I am surprised they didn't think of this.

Wicknight wrote:

Did the rebels have a plan of action to deal with the break down of law and order

- Nope, they had no plan, and when faced with the break down of law and order they started shooting civilians.

When it was clear the Rising was going to fail did the rebels surrender to save the city more damage and loss of life

- Nope, they fought on regardless, which cost more civilians and was completely pointless since they had already lost

hindsight gives you 20 / 20 vision.

The might have surrendered to save themselves maybe , in the later stages it would have been a fairly, to use your favourite expression, moronic civilian who hung around to see the fireworks.. but then you wouldn't think that any Dubliner might have to take some element of personal responsibility for staying out of the firing line.

edited: i spelt "witsy" incorrectly.

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 03:11PM

growler wrote:

and you know for a fact that the leaders of 1916 did not take into account potential civilian casualties?

The 220 dead civilians would lead me to believe it yes ... :rolleyes:

growler wrote:

I disagree on the first point, because I have been brainwashed by republican propaganda and hence am less certain of the best intentions of the cuddly, fluffy, loveable, huggable, cute little britsy witsy empire.

Ok fair enough, but I would ask do you think the killing seen at the Rising was worth the difference between Home Rule and the Republic the rebels wanted (and never got btw)?

growler wrote:

Mandate ? this is an excellent point now that you bring it up, silly old me had forgotten all the other, dare I say "popular" uprisings throughout history that had taken the time and effort to conduct a comprehensive opinion poll of the population prior to instigating military action. There was of course the famous american poll of 1773-1774, the french in 1788 ish, the poles in 1981 etc etc.

So you agree the rebels did not have a mandate from the people of Ireland, that they were acting on their own

(I would point out that the American revolution did have a mandate, so did the Polish strike of 1981, but even if they didn't I'm not asking anyone to not celebrate the 4th of July, or claiming that the American war of independence was justified)

growler wrote:

I thought P Pearse had personally shot all those civilians, surely the british didn't actually kill anyone themselves ? horror.

The British actually killed the majority of the civilians with shelling. The rebels take at least half the responsibility for this since they started the rebelion knowing the Britsh would have to responde.

I don't think we should be celebrating the British shelling the city any more than we should be celebrating the rebels making them. Both were barbaric stupid actions, both should be condemed

growler wrote:

been overr this one before, no point in seizing fields in Leitrim. utterly daft point that you seem to be so attched to.

Not much point seizing central dublin either was there ....

Also you work on the assumption that you had to seize something. They didn't. Seriously its like when Lisa sees "Nuke the Whales" poster in the Simpsons and Nelson responds "Ya got to nuke something"

growler wrote:

I'm no military strategist but even i suspect that taking out full page ads and putting posters all around Dublin may have , ever so slightly, ruined the element of surprise.

Did I suggest they take out full page newspaper ads? Nice straw man :rolleyes:

growler wrote:

hindsight gives you 20 / 20 vision.

Yes it does

growler wrote:

but then you wouldn't think that any Dubliner might have to take some element of personal responsibility for staying out of the firing line.

Lol, was waiting for this ... yes it was the Dubliners fault for getting shot because they didn't all flee the city, their city, because some rebels want to start a mini-war.

Growler you asked me how I can say that while armed rebelion is sometimes necessary, the Rising wasn't. I answered your question. Not my fault if you don't like the answer

growler · 14-04-2006 04:30PM

Wicknight wrote:

So you agree the rebels did not have a mandate from the people of Ireland, that they were acting on their own

(I would point out that the American revolution did have a mandate, so did the Polish strike of 1981, but even if they didn't I'm not asking anyone to not celebrate the 4th of July, or claiming that the American war of independence was justified)

Not much point seizing central dublin either was there ....

Did I suggest they take out full page newspaper ads? Nice straw man :rolleyes:

Yes it does

what form did this mandate take ? how did it differ to that of the IRB ? Was the popular feeling in the years to 1921 not sufficient evidence of a popular will for an Ireland free of British rule ? You can't prove there was no mandate for Irish independence and yet claim there was for the Americans or the Poles because such a thing did not exist except as an ethereal concept.

I was, as you may have guessed, being facetious regarding the newspaper ads, but you did suggest that a warning should be given I was using an example to illustrate how extremely impractical that notion was. What form of general warning would you consider to have been appropriate to a secret rebellion?

I'm still somewhat baffled by your hang up regarding civilian deaths, it was unfortunate, regrettable, possibly preventable to some extent, it wasn't hoped for, encouraged or in any way seen as desirable by people of the time or now. But you seem to be suggesting that celebrating the Rising is somehow insulting to those victims and diminishes if not obliterates the place the rising should and does hold in the eyes of many Irish people, without being too callous, I don't.

My Grandfather used to say that the Rising and the subsequent executions shamed many irish men, both at home and those fighting in WW1 into re-evaluating their priorities and providing inspiration to a new generation that actually succeeded in freeing our country after so many failed attempts over the centuries. The symbolic nature of it was far greater than the actual military accomplishments, the battle for "hearts and minds" proved to be of greater importance.... and that in itself is worth remembrance.

I firmly believe that the Irish people were fundamentally better off as a result of Easter 1916 and the chain of events it set in motion, than we would have been had it not happened, you don't. We won't know either way who is right.

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 05:01PM

growler wrote:

Was the popular feeling in the years to 1921 not sufficient evidence of a popular will for an Ireland free of British rule ?

Yes it was, but not for a rebellion in the city centre of Dublin.

We were getting Home Rule, and at the time that was what the vast majority of Irish people had supported and voted for. There was no mandate to persue an armed struggle in Dublin against British Rule in 1916.

That is clearly evident by the fact that the rebels proclamation was roundly ignored by the people of Dublin.

The facts are clear, people of Dublin, and the people of Ireland, did not want the rebels to start the Rising. They had not given a mandate.

growler wrote:

You can't prove there was no mandate for Irish independence and yet claim there was for the Americans or the Poles because such a thing did not exist except as an ethereal concept.

That is nonsense growler. Ever heard of a little thing called the Contiental Congress

The American War of Independence was started by elected representative memebers of the 12 colonies.

(I would also point out so was our War of Independence. I personally think our WoI was a mistake and unnecessary, but it was based on a mandate from the people of Ireland. The Rising was not).

growler wrote:

But you did suggest that a warning should be given I was using an example to illustrate how extremely impractical that notion was.

If a warning was not pratical then the Rising should not have gone ahead. As I said the rebels made very little attempt to limit civilian deaths.

growler wrote:

What form of general warning would you consider to have been appropriate to a secret rebellion?

You seem to miss the part where I think a secret rebellion is a big mistake and unjustifed. By its very nature if a rebelion is completely secret then it cannot have a mandate from the people and therefore is on very shakey grounds to start with.

growler wrote:

I'm still somewhat baffled by your hang up regarding civilian deaths, it was unfortunate, regrettable, possibly preventable to some extent, it wasn't hoped for, encouraged or in any way seen as desirable by people of the time or now.

Doesn't matter if it was "hoped for". Like I said, if you carry out a military action that you know will result in large civilian deaths and take no action to limit those deaths, it is ridiculous to claim that they were simply "regrettable".

They were not regrettable they were avoidable, and they are the responsibility of those who start the military action.

Starting a war does not give you carte blanche to do anything you like, no matter the cost to civilans and then claim it was simply "regretable". That is a horrific concept growler.

growler wrote:

without being too callous, I don't.

Fair enough

growler wrote:

The symbolic nature of it was far greater than the actual military accomplishments, the battle for "hearts and minds" proved to be of greater importance.... and that in itself is worth remembrance.

As I said before, I don't think it is acceptable to kill people for a PR excerise.

If you cannot convince people of your cause without killing people then your cause is not worthy.

It was completely uncessary to "inspire" people with the Rising. The cause of independence was worthy, and it didn't need 220 to die for people to see that. People were already inspired to achieve independence. If the only justification for the Rising was to inspire future generations then the Rising was unnecessary.

growler wrote:

I firmly believe that the Irish people were fundamentally better off as a result of Easter 1916

Er, Dublin was in ruins and hundreds were dead.

The people of Japan were fundementally better off following the end of WWII and the reconstruction of the country with the help of the US government. That doesn't mean that the dropping of the atomic bomb and burning to death thousands of people was a good fecking idea, despite the fact that it lead to this reconstruction, and I doubt many in Japan would want to celebrate the event.

There is no link between the actual Rising rebel itself and the events that follows. The Rising achieved nothing. The link begins with the executions of the rebel leaders. So do you claim that Ireland was fundementlaly better off because the British decided to kill the rebels and therefore that was a good decision? Nope, strange, don't see anyone claiming that.

Because one bad event eventually leads to a good out come doesn't mean you celebrate the bad event. That is just silly.

In the early 20th Century Ireland was quickly moving towards proper self-determination. We were always going to get some form of independence, the British empire was crumbling, the old colonies were each moving towards independence. We were always going to be fundeamentally better off.

growler · 14-04-2006 05:50PM

Wicknight wrote:

Yes it was, but not for a rebellion in the city centre of Dublin.

Er, Dublin was in ruins and hundreds were dead.

.

talk about splitting hairs !

and, as you well know, I was not referring to us being better off in the immediate aftermath, nor was I was alluding to an improvement in the achitectural integrity of Dublin, I did of course mean that we were ULTIMATELY better off.

WTF has Japan got to do with anything? could you please stop comparing apples with turtles ?

ChityWest · 14-04-2006 06:52PM

Wick you have just said that

Wicknight wrote:

There is no link between the actual Rising rebel itself and the events that follows. The Rising achieved nothing. The link begins with the executions of the rebel leaders.

Wick - if the executions were not related to the Rising - why were they executed ?

Because to say that they were executed because of their involvement in the rising is not compatible with your assertion that there is no link between the rising itself and the executions and therefore no link between the rising and the events which followed both the rising and the executions.

*edit snip

TempestSabre · 14-04-2006 07:04PM

Wicknight wrote:

....I doubt many in Japan would want to celebrate the event....

...Every year on August 6, the mayor of Hiroshima gives a speech called "The Peace Declaration" to commemorate the atomic bombing of the city. It has often been used as an occasion to criticize U.S. foreign policy and urge the president to visit Hiroshima. Tens of thousands of people marked the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city on August 6, 2005.

Wicknight wrote:

....There is no link between the actual Rising rebel itself and the events that follows. .....

I agree, "rebels" such as Collins, De Valera, Cosgrave in the rising have no involvment in events after 1916 ... :rolleyes:

ChityWest · 14-04-2006 07:53PM

TempestSabre wrote:

I agree, "rebels" such as Collins, De Valera, Cosgrave in the rising have no involvment in events after 1916 ... :rolleyes:

Probably just as well considering on previous pages wick has argued that they were 'idiotic, stupid, moronic and stupid again' (thats to say Collins, DeValera - etc ).

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 10:15PM

growler wrote:

and, as you well know, I was not referring to us being better off in the immediate aftermath, nor was I was alluding to an improvement in the achitectural integrity of Dublin, I did of course mean that we were ULTIMATELY better off.

So we were better off years later because of events that happened after the Rising and were not caused by the actions of the rebels, events the rebels had no control off and didn't set in motion ...

oh now I see :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 10:17PM

TempestSabre wrote:

I agree, "rebels" such as Collins, De Valera, Cosgrave in the rising have no involvment in events after 1916 ... :rolleyes:

As I said to Chity, how do you inspire yourself.

Your claim is that the Rising inspired and caused events that would not have happened unless the Rising happened.

Yet you now claim that the members of the Rising are directly responsible for future events.

That contradicts itself.

Collins, De Valera etc would always have been involved in any independence movement. They didn't need the rising to inspire them to do this, they were already doing it. The whole argument is nonsense.

- The Rising was a military failure, but its ok because it helped inspire others to take up the cause for independence

- Well who did it inspire exactly?

- Umm, well it .. ummm .. inspired the rebels who survived the Rising

- Er, where they not already inspired to strive for Irish independence? Hence the whole rebelion thing

- Ummm, well, er, yes but after the Rising they were even more inspired

As I said, nonsense

ChityWest · 14-04-2006 10:56PM

Wicknight wrote:

As I said to Chity, how do you inspire yourself.

Your claim is that the Rising inspired and caused events that would not have happened unless the Rising happened.

Yet you now claim that the members of the Rising are directly responsible for future events.

That contradicts itself.

Collins, De Valera etc would always have been involved in any independence movement. They didn't need the rising to inspire them to do this, they were already doing it. The whole argument is nonsense.

- The Rising was a military failure, but its ok because it helped inspire others to take up the cause for independence

- Well who did it inspire exactly?

- Umm, well it .. ummm .. inspired the rebels who survived the Rising

- Er, where they not already inspired to strive for Irish independence? Hence the whole rebelion thing

- Ummm, well, er, yes but after the Rising they were even more inspired

As I said, nonsense

In order for this to make sense - only those men who fought in the Easter Rising subsequently fought in the War of Independence.

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 11:15PM

ChityWest wrote:

In order for this to make sense - only those men who fought in the Easter Rising subsequently fought in the War of Independence.

Exactly .. so at least one of your ideas about the Rising must be wrong since the can't both be right, it doesn't make sense.

The major players in the War of Independence were already involved in the republican movement long before the Rising. So how could the Rising have inspired them to join the republican movement.

You claim the only legacy of the Rising, the only thing it actually did, the only link with the War of Independence is the members of the Rising went on to be major in the WoI

Yet you also claim that the Rising inspired the major players in the WoI. To paraphrase you, it showed them what could be achieved.

But they were already inspired. To claim the Rising inspired them is ridiculous since they were part of the Rising.

So who exactly did the Rising inspire who was not already involved in the republican movement, who was not already inspired??

ChityWest · 14-04-2006 11:24PM

Wicknight wrote:

Exactly .. so at least one of your ideas about the Rising must be wrong since the can't both be right, it doesn't make sense.

I think you may want to re-read the previous pages.

The argument your making (among other things) was that the rising didnt lead to or inspire anything, it was a non-entity of an event.

The point was made to you that the rising did actually lead to and inspire events that would not otherwise have happened in the way that they did.

You then said that how can you inspire yourself. i.e. those involved in the rising were involved in the WOI so how can you inspire yourself.

It was put to you that the war of independence was not fought only by those directly involved in the rising. This does not negate the fact that those who fought in the war of independence INCLUDED those who did survived the easter rising.

In addition to that - who is to say that the experience of fighting the british army in the rising did not provide those directly involved with the desire/impetus to learn from their experience and attain their ultimate goal only on a larger scale using guerilla tactics ?

Dont you think this could be one of the reasons why some of them were put against a wall and shot ? Because the british wanted to prevent them from ever doing it or anything similair ever again and to deter anyone else who would have wanted to follow their example ?

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 11:41PM

ChityWest wrote:

In addition to that - who is to say that the experience of fighting the british army in the rising did not provide those directly involved with the desire/impetus to learn from their experience and attain their ultimate goal only on a larger scale using guerilla tactics ?

So we have moved down along from the Rising itself actually leading to the WoI, to the Rising itself just inspiring those who fought in the WoI, now on down to the Rising giving those in the WoI a lesson in military tactics.

So the lives of 220 people are worth giving those in the War of Independence a tiny bit of knowledge of how not to fight a battle against the British?

Yeah I take it back, it was totally worth it

ChityWest wrote:

Dont you think this could be one of the reasons why some of them were put against a wall and shot ?

They were put against a wall and shot because they commited treason, a crime which punishment back then was death.

ChityWest · 15-04-2006 12:03AM

Wicknight wrote:

So we have moved down along from the Rising itself actually leading to the WoI, to the Rising itself just inspiring those who fought in the WoI, now on down to the Rising giving those in the WoI a lesson in military tactics.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt here and going by your interperation of the position you are arguing against for a second -

you are saying that the above are mutually exclusive ?

Wicknight wrote:

So the lives of 220 people are worth giving those in the War of Independence a tiny bit of knowledge of how not to fight a battle against the British?

Yeah I take it back, it was totally worth it

I wouldnt classify a pivotal event on the road to Ireland's eventual independence in that way.

Wicknight wrote:

They were put against a wall and shot because they commited treason, a crime which punishment back then was death.

This does not mean that everyone was shot. Nor does it negate the possibility that indeed they were shot in order to prevent them from ever doing anything similair again also to deter anyone else who would have wanted to follow their example.

TempestSabre · 15-04-2006 01:42AM

Wicknight wrote:

As I said to Chity, how do you inspire yourself.

Your claim is that the Rising inspired and caused events that would not have happened unless the Rising happened....

I don't remember claiming all that. I thought I said that people involved in the Rising, were also involved in the later events. I said this because you said there was no link between the "Rising rebel" and the events that followed.

Wicknight wrote:

There is no link between the actual Rising rebel itself and the events that follows. The Rising achieved nothing. ...The link begins with the executions of the rebel leaders.....

Like I said earlier, more than once. The link is the people involved. That link existed before the Rising.

Wicknight wrote:

Yet you now claim that the members of the Rising are directly responsible for future events....Collins, De Valera etc ...

Members? Didn't realise it was a club. However I've been claiming that from the start, I would have thought that Collins, and De Valera were two of the main players in subsequent events, the negotiations, the elections, the Dail, the Treaty, and then the split afterwards.

But I'm sure the experience of the Rising had no great effect. Losing your friends and your peers, in a raging battle, is just a normal everyday experience. Likewise the experience of prison afterwards. Normal everyday stuff. I'm sure if you asked them afterward they'd be hard pressed to remember it at all.

joolsveer · 15-04-2006 07:42AM

Given the weekend that's in it I remembered where to find a loyal message on a wall in Dublin. I took a photo and I hope the message is visible.
Does anyone else know where this is? No prize though.

http://tinyurl.com/ozoj7

Zombrex · 15-04-2006 09:34AM

ChityWest wrote:

I wouldnt classify a pivotal event on the road to Ireland's eventual independence in that way.

You just said it wasn't pivotal, that it only inspired others or give military experience to those who were actually in it.

Chity, who was in the War of Indpendence that wouldn't have been if it wasn't for the "inspiration" of the Rising?

growler · 15-04-2006 09:48AM

Wicknight wrote:

[/b]

- Well who did it inspire exactly?

- Umm, well it .. ummm .. inspired the rebels who survived the Rising

- Er, where they not already inspired to strive for Irish independence? Hence the whole rebelion thing

- Ummm, well, er, yes but after the Rising they were even more inspired

As I said, nonsense

are you suggesting that there were not far greater numbers involved in direct military action (as well as those providing logistical support, information, safe houses, and general sympathisers) after the Rising than before ?

I wonder what could possibly account for these greater numbers (if you concede they exist) post 1916 than before it ? Could it have been the actions of the 1916 rebels that *inspired* them or were they just waiting for some other sign from on high ?

Perhaps you should take another look at your junior cert history book, or is that just anti-brit propaganda too ?

Do you understand cause and effect ? or are you just choosing to ignore it because it does not suit your partiuclar line of reasoning ?

growler · 15-04-2006 09:51AM

Wicknight wrote:

They were put against a wall and shot because they commited treason, a crime which punishment back then was death.

of course shooting those guilty of treason was not done so as to strongly discourage others from following their example ( or even inspiring others) .... hang on.... why was it done so ?

ChityWest · 15-04-2006 12:11PM

Wicknight wrote:

You just said it wasn't pivotal, that it only inspired others or give military experience to those who were actually in it.

This is another example where you seem to be asserting that things are mutually exclusive - when they are in fact not mutually exclusive. And nice try adding the word only in there - I didnt say that it only inspired others as you well know.

Wicknight wrote:

]Chity, who was in the War of Indpendence that wouldn't have been if it wasn't for the "inspiration" of the Rising?

Just to clarify for anyone who missed that - your point is that ONLY those who fought in the Rising also fought in the War Of Independence .

Whereas my point would be that those who fought in the War of Independence INCLUDED those who fought in the Rising.

I am happy for everyone reading this to make up their own mind without me having to produce the list you just requested.

Wick considering your habit of answering questions with questions - I will paste these in here to remind you of a couple of points you have forgotten to answer
__________________________________

Originally Posted by Wicknight
So we have moved down along from the Rising itself actually leading to the WoI, to the Rising itself just inspiring those who fought in the WoI, now on down to the Rising giving those in the WoI a lesson in military tactics.

Is your argument still that the above are mutually exclusive ?

_______________________________

Originally Posted by Wicknight

There is no link between the actual Rising rebel itself and the events that follows. The Rising achieved nothing. The link begins with the executions of the rebel leaders.

is your argument still that the Rising and the executions of those involved in the rising are 2 seperate and unrelated historical events ?
It seems to me that you are taking a narrow interpretation of events to see those 2 things as being seperate unconnected entities - solely because it is more suitable to your previous argument that the Rising didnt lead to or inspire anything.

Flex · 15-04-2006 12:32PM

Wicknight wrote:

No, it was rejected by Redmond because he believed partition would be temporary. When he found out it wasn't he with drew.

Lloyd George verbally promised Redmond partition would be temporary, whereas he gave a written promise to Carson that it would be permanent. Hence, the offer was rejected because of Lloyd Geroges negotiating methods.

The 1917 was failed because a number of groups, including Sinn Fein refused to attend.

The only groups relevant at the 1917 discussions were the unionists and IPP because between them they held pretty much every Irish seat in Westminster. Sinn Fein's lack of involvement was irrelevant because a deal couldve been done without them.

Like I said, they were pissed off with Ireland and desprate to get rid of us.

Doesn't sound like a country that was really interested in keeping our little country now does it?

They spent a fortune, carried out horrible acts to coerce us, brought in the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries from Britain, and kept it up for nearly 2 years. That sounds like they werent interested in keeping Ireland?

That is complete nonsense Flex, the British governments had been trying to give us Home Rule for the last 20 years.

As Iv said, Home Rule wasnt independence, if anything it only further made any secession from the UK more difficult, because we wouldve had a parliament in Dublin that could do pretty much nothing, and we wouldve had 42 representatives in Westminster (of which 12 wouldve probably been unionists, so really only 30 out of 680), so the odds of us holding the balance of power to win any more concessions were very limited. In effect, the HR parliament was a nice way of Britain solving the 'Irish question'; we lost our voice in the UK parliament and would probably never be able to hold the influence we once had, while at the same time remaining under British rule.

They weren't "massive" at all they, were practically identical.

If you think that then you clearly dont know what was in the Home Rule act and what powers the HR parliaments would have. I read this book 2 years ago because I was going to do that optional question in the Leaving Cert history exam on the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019522048X/sr=8-32/qid=1145102691/ref=sr_1_32/102-6721021-0065760?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It provides very clear and detailed accounts of what the HR parliaments could and could not do, and believe me, they could do f***-all.

Under Home Rule a bicameral Irish Parliment would be set up that dealth with all national issues. This is the same as the parliment set up under the Anglo-Irish treaty.

LOL. Wick, the HR parliaments didnt even have control over the postal service in Ireland. They had no control over finance with the exception of some limited ability to control stamp duties. Furthermore as I mentioned in my last post, powers were reserved from the already meagre list of powers the HR parliament had, until a point where the Council of Ireland had been given enough control over mutual north-south matters by each parliament.

Under the HR act the British handled foreign affairs matters, this is exactly the same Dominion status in 1922.

No. We had our own ministry for foreign affairs, we could (and did) join the League of Nations, establish diplomatic relations with other countries, send our own ambassadors and representatives to international conferences. The days when Britain could simply dictate foreign policy to Dominions as it had done at the start of the first world war were over. Waaayyyyy more power.

How many did we have after the Anglo-Irish treaty?

Same as every other Dominion, or indeed every other place on earth that wasnt part of the British state.

Not in 1922 we didn't. We achieved that through a number of changes that happened after 1922, changes that also would have effected Home Rule status.

Such as?

We choose war by rejecting Home Rule and starting the War of Independence.

So by seeking independence from Britain we started a war?

It didn't end in a stalemate, the IRA was days away from complete collapse.

But the British didnt know that. If they did then dont ya think they wouldve mentioned it too the Irish delegation at the treaty negotiations ratherr than making threats of war. They figured theyd need 100,000 troops to completely declare martial law on Ireland, and that wasnt a feasible option for them because they were already being criticised by people for the huge amounts of cash they were spending and because the British public were becoming more and more appalled by the methods of coercion being used.

That republic was abolished in 1922 under the Anglo-Irish treaty.

And replaced with a Dominion which had the power to eventually become a republic again.

egon spengler · 15-04-2006 03:52PM

I find the whole exercise to be politically dubious. Its jingoistic. And military parades? Why does Ireland have to celebrate its identity through weapons of death and suffering? 1916 is finished. Time to move on and get over the cultural insecurities bred by colonialism. I hate the kind of ye olde teary eyed mother ireland republicanism that still resides to some extent in this country. Its basically pandering to that vote isnt it. To take away votes from sinn fein. Meh, i have no time for it, hopefully no one will turn up. Its pointless.

Flex · 15-04-2006 05:46PM

egon spengler wrote:

I find the whole exercise to be politically dubious. Its jingoistic. And military parades? Why does Ireland have to celebrate its identity through weapons of death and suffering? 1916 is finished. Time to move on and get over the cultural insecurities bred by colonialism. I hate the kind of ye olde teary eyed mother ireland republicanism that still resides to some extent in this country. Its basically pandering to that vote isnt it. To take away votes from sinn fein. Meh, i have no time for it, hopefully no one will turn up. Its pointless.

Stick to hunting ghosts egon :rolleyes:

billy the squid · 15-04-2006 06:07PM

Pazaz 21 wrote:

If it achieved nothing then why does every body remember it

They remember the Treaty of Limerick too, Just because something is "remembered" does not mean it was remembered for achieving anything.

New_Departure06 · 15-04-2006 06:34PM

I see revisionism is alive and well among some on this forum. The neo-Redmondites are out in force. We are again told that 1916 was unnecessary to achieve independence and that it had no mandate. We are told we should have sleepwalked into Home Rule. Some argue that it would have evolved into independence anyway. I reject these theories. I will explain my view:

A: Had 1916 not happened, it is likely that we would have gotten a form of Home Rule but with partition. Before the operation of the 1914 Home Rule Act had been suspended until after the war, an amendment on the "Exclusion of Ulster" had passed through the House of Lords and became part of the Act. The amendment left open the question of how many counties "Ulster" would contain for the purposes of being excluded from Home Rule. So to those on this thread saying that we were in a democracy in 1916, I would reply that if this were so, why was 32 county Home Rule not legislated for? We had voted for that for 42 years by 1916. People only have so much patience.

B: Where was the mandate for British rule? They never asked for it as a prerequisite to rule us.

C: Both the 1914 and 1920 Government of Ireland Acts would have severely restricted the extent of Home Rule. Ireland was specifically to be partitioned into a 26 county zone and a 6 county zone. More specifically, we would have had no control over taxation, external trade, the RIC/DMP, postal-services, foreign or defence policy. The 1920 Act as shown here proves this: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/goi231220.htm#1

2) The making of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war; or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities; or
(3) The navy, the army, the air force, the [territorial army]., or any other naval, military, or air force, or the defence of the realm, or any other naval, military, or air force matter (including any pensions and allowances payable to persons who have been members of or in respect of service in any such force or their widows or dependants, and provision for the training, education, employment and assistance for the reinstatement in civil life of persons who have ceased to be members of any such force); or
(4) Treaties, or any relations with foreign states, or relations with other parts of His Majesty's dominions, or matters involving the contravention of treaties or agreements with foreign states or any part of His Majesty's dominions, or offences connected with any such treaties or relations, or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any treaty, or the return of fugitive offenders from or to any part of His Majesty's dominions; or
(5) Dignities or titles of honour; or
(6) Treason, treason felony, alienage, naturalization, or aliens as such, or domicile; or
(7) Trade with any place out of the part of Ireland within their jurisdiction, except so far as trade may be affected by the exercise of the powers of taxation given to the said parliaments, or by regulations made for the sole purpose of preventing contagious disease, or by steps taken by means of inquiries or agencies out of the part of Ireland within their jurisdiction for the improvement of the trade of that part or for the protection of traders of that part from fraud; the Granting of bounties on the export of goods; quarantine; navigation, including merchant shipping (except as respects inland waters, the regulation of harbours, and local health regulations); or
8 Submarine cables; or
(9) Wireless telegraphy; or
(10) Aerial navigation; or
(11) Lighthouses, buoys, or beacons (except so far as they can consistently with any general Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom be constructed or maintained by a local harbour authority); or
(12) Coinage; legal tender; negotiable instruments (including bank notes) except so far as negotiable instruments may be affected by the exercise of the powers of taxation given to the said Parliaments; or any change in the standard of weights and measures; or
(13) Trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, copyright, or patent rights; or
( 14) Any matter which by this Act is declared to be a reserved matter, so long as it remains reserved.
Any law made in contravention of the limitations imposed by this section shall, so far as it contravenes those limitations, be void...
....
9. - [Sub. s. (1) rep. by S.L.R. 1927.] Reserved matters.
(2) The following matters, namely,-
(a) the postal service;
(b) the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Banks;
(c) designs for stamps, whether for postal or revenue purposes;
[Para. (d) rep. by 10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 37. s. 8(1) (2).]
(e) the Public Record Office of Ireland;
shall be reserved matters . . . . .
Provided that
[Para. (a) rep. by S.L.R. 1927.]
(b) nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Parliament or Government of .... Northern Ireland establishing a Public Record Office of .... Northern Ireland .... for the reception and preservation of public records appertaining to .... Northern Ireland which otherwise would be deposited in the Public Record Office of Ireland, and, if any such office is so established, provision may be made by the Lord Lieutenant for the removal to that office of such probates, letters of administration, or other testamentary records granted or coming into existence not earlier than twenty years prior to the appointed day as, in his opinion, properly belong to the part of Ireland in which the office is situated and can conveniently be removed to that office.
(3) The general subject-matter of the Acts relating to land purchase in Ireland shall be a reserved matter unless and until otherwise provided by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom relating to land purchase in Ireland; passed in the present or any future session of that Parliament:
Provided that this reservation shall not include ....
the powers and duties of the Irish Land Commission[3] and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland[4] with respect to the collection and recovery of purchase annuities, and, except to such extent as may be provided by Irish transfer orders[5], the powers of the Irish Land Commission[3] with respect to holdings subject to purchase annuities and the apportionment and consolidation of such annuities.
(4) On any transfer under or by virtue of this Act of any reserved matter, the general provisions of this Act (so far as applicable) and the provisions of this Act as to existing Irish officers and existing pensions shall apply with respect to the transfer, with the substitution of the date of the transfer for the appointed day or the date of the passing of this Act.
[S. 10 rep. by 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 77. s. 1(2); S.L.R. 1953.]

In the future, had we become frustrated at the lack of real independence offered by Home Rule, we would have by then become dependent on UK subsidies like NI, and would have been told "you can't be independent - you'd lose the subsidies - and your too small to survive on your own". NI is an example of a part of Ireland becoming overdependent on UK subsidies which seems to have persuaded around 20-30% of Northern Catholics not to support a UI at this time. This is a strong counterargument to those, including Robin Bury of the Reform Movement, that Home Rule would have evolved naturally into independence. It would not have done so.

E: As a Home Rule region of the UK, the Statute of Westminster 1931 would not have applied to us (it only applied to Dominions which the Free State was). As such, the removal of the restrictions on the independence Commonwealth countries would not have applied to Ireland. We would have been stuck with our lot, and increasingly subject to blackmail by the British Treasury over a NI-style subsidy.

F: With Home Rule, we would have been forced into World War II and suffered in the Blitz as much as Belfast and the North did. Thousands would have died. Do those opposing 1916 feel this would have been a price worth paying? A lot more would have died than did in the Rising.

G: The killing of innocent civilians by the South Staffordshire Regiment and Captain J.C. Bowen-Colthurst (who was later committed for insanity to cover up the intent) and the mass internment of thousands of people not involved in the Rising demonstrated the inhumanity of British rule. Papers released in 2001 show that the PM Asquith was told about attrocities against civilians by military commanders and opted to cover it up. Staying in the UK would have meant that Southerners would have been victims of Loyalist paramilitary collusion with security forces (which we would not have control over) to a far greater extent than was the case.

H: Before 1916, the people had been prepared to tolerate Home Rule. While at first many seem to have opposed the Rising on the supposed basis that Britain would grant Home Rule if we fought at the Somme for them and would have been (supposedly) less likely to grant concessions because of the Rising, their executions and the heavy-handed reaction to it changed public opinion and woke people up to the need to resist oppression and foreign British rule. Without 1916, we could not have set our tax rates - including corporate taxes - and therefore the Celtic Tiger would not have happened. Emigration would still be going on on a huge scale. We might have had another Famine.

For all the above reasons I say 1916 was right. The rebels did not kill innocent civilians but the Brits did. Let us honor the patriot dead and turn out in that regard. The West Brits and revisionists should get a life.

SeanW · 15-04-2006 06:46PM

^^ wot he said ^^

only a fool would believe that the Brits of the day would have let Ireland leave the Empire totally without a fight.

TempestSabre · 15-04-2006 06:54PM

This thread is going to run and run...

As an aside what books would people recomend on the subject/period. Last book I read on it was (MICHAEL COLLINS, A BIOGRAPHY Tim Pat Coogan). Which is good, but a definate pro collins slant.

lostexpectation · 15-04-2006 06:57PM

New_Departure06 wrote:

Without 1916, we could not have set our tax rates - including corporate taxes - and therefore the Celtic Tiger would not have happened. Emigration would still be going on on a huge scale. We might have had another Famine.

this is where you lost me^

Easter Sunday/ 2006

Comments