Cromwell in Ireland

SlabMurphy · 16-09-2008 3:04pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A big "What If" I think that also needs to be considered, is what would have happened if Cromwell not come to Ireland?

The fight would have come to England, with victorious Irish confederate chieftains being given English land as payment for their efforts.

Presuming for one minute that the tactics used by Cromwell were the standard of the day, then Cromwell's biggest crime, it could be argued, was winning.

" Presuming for one minute that the tactics used by Cromwell were the standard of the day ". Jayus, but you have to grab at any straw don't you to try and slip in an excuse. I would have thought that even a British bigot like you could have took on boneless's post just a few post's back, regarding the remains of women and children found and the sword injuries etc on the skeletons. But been the little Englander* and bigot that you are you had to go and make up a straw to grab at. As has been said before, you just adore yourselves don't you.

Maybe we'll also presume that the Conquistdors tatics were the order of the day, Genghis Khan's tatics were the order of the day, Atillia the Hun's tatics were the order of the day etc What addition could that be only to try and slip in some sort of justification for their acts.

*( Little Englander - An English person who is xenophobic and/or overly patriotic and are often accused of being ignorant and boorish. )

boneless wrote: »

Fred, I agree he "garnished the lily" a bit in his reports to London to justify his appeal for funds to continue the campaign. Like what was referred to recently as "sexing up" the reports of WMD's in Iraq. But I worked on a number of test excavations in Drogheda a while ago and on one archaeological dig. There were civilian casualities in many of the sites.

We uncovered skeletons of women and children with definate sword and other blunt trauma wounds to the head and neck areas which were perimortem. The dating evidence was also suggestive of the period in question. I agree this does not fully support a theory of a wholesale massacre of the general population but we were surprised at the numbers found in the areas we were digging.

The inference I drew was the historical (written and oral) evidence was slowly been propped up by the archaeological evidence. Watch this space.

Fratton Fred · 16-09-2008 3:15pm

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" Presuming for one minute that the tactics used by Cromwell were the standard of the day ". Jayus, but you have to grab at any straw don't you to try and slip in an excuse. I would have thought that even a British bigot like you could have took on boneless's post just a few post's back, regarding the remains of women and children found and the sword injuries etc on the skeletons. But been the little Englander* and bigot that you are you had to go and make up a straw to grab at. As has been said before, you just adore yourselves don't you.

Maybe we'll also presume that the Conquistdors tatics were the order of the day, Genghis Khan's tatics were the order of the day, Atillia the Hun's tatics were the order of the day etc What addition could that be only to try and slip in some sort of justification for their acts.

*( Little Englander - An English person who is xenophobic and/or overly patriotic and are often accused of being ignorant and boorish. )

typical over reaction tbh.

Why not try responding tto the post and not attacking the poster (Based on what appears to be nationality). What if, as has been said a million times, the tactics were standard for the day. It would then make sense the same tactics would have been deployed in England causing as much loss of life.

Why not read Snickersman's post and look at this without the republican glasses on.

Snickers Man · 16-09-2008 3:50pm

zaister wrote: »

Snickers man and Shinji... i got in touch with the company that made the documentary for rte... they said they'll have DVDs available for sale in the near future. You can email them at info@tilefilms.ie

how do you do those cute little "thank you" thingies that people put at the bottom of messages?

LordSutch · 16-09-2008 5:25pm

When you are 'signed in' you will see three symbols at the bottom of each post on the (right hand side of the screen) - the one on the far right (thumbs up) is the 'thank you' symbol.

You can send me one now

Snickers Man · 17-09-2008 9:52am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A big "What If" I think that also needs to be considered, is what would have happened if Cromwell not come to Ireland?

The fight would have come to England, with victorious Irish confederate chieftains being given English land as payment for their efforts.

Presuming for one minute that the tactics used by Cromwell were the standard of the day, then Cromwell's biggest crime, it could be argued, was winning.

that's a bit like saying that Hitler was justified in invading the Soviet Union because they would have done the same to the Germans if they had the chance.

In fact, they pretty much did do the same to the Germans when they got the chance.

I know it's a truism that the victors write the history but really......

As for last night's programme, I thought it glossed over a lot of the campaign following the sieges of Wexford and Drogheda. Especially with regard to the alliances and motivations of the forces on the Royalist/Irish side. I would have liked to have known more about that. Admittedly I missed the first episode so maybe that was dealt with there.

I thought it was interesting how the memory of Cromwell was resurrected in the 19th century. On both the British and Irish sides and from different viewpoints. As the program pointed out, after the Restoration Cromwell's body was dug up and defiled. His reputation became mud in Britain for nearly 200 years and he was largely forgotten about in Ireland.

It was only when he was rehabilitated as a hero of parliamentary democracy in the 19th century that the Irish nationalists said "hey, wait a minute. We think he was a bit of a c**t!"

It always fascinates me how a subsequent generation can have a differing view from a preceding generation and that both of these may be different from the views of the generation that actually lived through the period in question.

Fratton Fred · 17-09-2008 10:15am

Snickers Man wrote: »

that's a bit like saying that Hitler was justified in invading the Soviet Union because they would have done the same to the Germans if they had the chance.

In fact, they pretty much did do the same to the Germans when they got the chance.

I'm not sure that's is a fair comparison, because i don't think the Russians had announced their intentions to go to war with Germany. If they were builidng an Army to invade Germany, then Hitler would have been justified.

As Neutrals though we look at them both as nasty conquering nations.

Snickers Man wrote: »

I thought it was interesting how the memory of Cromwell was resurrected in the 19th century. On both the British and Irish sides and from different viewpoints. As the program pointed out, after the Restoration Cromwell's body was dug up and defiled. His reputation became mud in Britain for nearly 200 years and he was largely forgotten about in Ireland.

It was only when he was rehabilitated as a hero of parliamentary democracy in the 19th century that the Irish nationalists said "hey, wait a minute. We think he was a bit of a c**t!"

It always fascinates me how a subsequent generation can have a differing view from a preceding generation and that both of these may be different from the views of the generation that actually lived through the period in question.

Cromwell was put forward as one of the "Great Britons" a few years ago. Cromwell was doing quite well until people started to point out that if he could, he would probably have created his own "Final Solution" to the catholic problem.

LordSutch · 17-09-2008 10:41am

Good points there Snickersman, and what about the 'sacking' of Monastries & Abbeys? there was an awful lot of detail glossed over I agree. Cromwell was a self appointed enforcer of God's Law in England Ireland & Scotland, he had overthrown the Monarchy in England, beheaded the King of England and was now about to do the same in Ireland & Scotland, it has already been pointed out in Post#40 that his enemies in Ireland were not nessecerily Irish, although as time went by (after Cromwell had left Ireland) the English Royalists were either spent or walked away, some Irish Protestants joined the 'New Model Army' & a Spaniard 'Hugh Dubh' led a New Catholic Army down from the North to confront Cromwells Army now led by his son in law.

I for one will see Cromwell in a new light, in the "Perspective of Those Times" and of who he was fighting (English Royalists + Old English + Irish) why he was fighting them in the first place (Post#40 Paragraph 4 & 5)

Shinji Ikari · 17-09-2008 11:58am

Snickers Man wrote: »

that's a bit like saying that Hitler was justified in invading the Soviet Union because they would have done the same to the Germans if they had the chance.

In fact, they pretty much did do the same to the Germans when they got the chance.

I know it's a truism that the victors write the history but really......

As for last night's programme, I thought it glossed over a lot of the campaign following the sieges of Wexford and Drogheda. Especially with regard to the alliances and motivations of the forces on the Royalist/Irish side. I would have liked to have known more about that. Admittedly I missed the first episode so maybe that was dealt with there.

I thought it was interesting how the memory of Cromwell was resurrected in the 19th century. On both the British and Irish sides and from different viewpoints. As the program pointed out, after the Restoration Cromwell's body was dug up and defiled. His reputation became mud in Britain for nearly 200 years and he was largely forgotten about in Ireland.

It was only when he was rehabilitated as a hero of parliamentary democracy in the 19th century that the Irish nationalists said "hey, wait a minute. We think he was a bit of a c**t!"

It always fascinates me how a subsequent generation can have a differing view from a preceding generation and that both of these may be different from the views of the generation that actually lived through the period in question.

The Victorians had a very waped sense of logic. They tried to turn William Wallace into a Unionist icon by arguing that were it not for his endeavours Scotland would have been absorbed into England. So no Wallace=no Kingdom of Scotland= no Kingdom of Scotland= no United Kingdom.
Talk about mental gymnastics and compartmentalisation.:rolleyes:

McArmalite · 17-09-2008 8:33pm

Well Snickers, I agree with most of the points you made, though there is one or two things I don't. Anyway -

Snickers Man wrote: »

This should not be a surprise if you look at things dispassionately with the benefit of 350 years of hindsight.

To say that the troubles between Ireland and Britain over the centuries have been a consistent struggle between the same two sides is a gross oversimplification. The Norman invaders of the 12th century became the Irish "rebels" of the 16th century. The Fitzgerald's of Kildare and Munster in particular were the descendants of Norman lords who had snatched lands from native Irish.

The presbyterian United Irishmen who rebelled against the Establishment in Ulster in 1798 became the Carsonites of a century later and the Paisleyites of recent memory.

The Catholics who defended to the death the cause of the Stuart kings against the Puritan republicans of the 17th century became the most ardent republicants a century later.

To quote President De Gaulle: "Geography is the constant factor in the making of history" The implication being that all else is changeable.

Ireland's fertile lands were a natural target for brigandly medieval knights from Britain. But from the 16th century on, with a growing international rivalry on the European stage Ireland became an important strategic concern to Britain. As the country on its western flank, it had to be secure against invasion from whichever European superpower Britain was fighting against at the time.

That was the strategic factor which gives the context for why Spaniards in the 16th and 17th centuries, Frenchmen in the 17th and 18th centuries, and Germans in the 20th century all attempted to curry favour with Irish rebels.

The financial picture changed too. In feudal times, land was everything. In post industrial revolutionary times the economy in Ireland changed. While much of the country languished as a backward agrarian economy, Ulster developed as a modern industrial economy. Textiles, ship building, heavy engineering. Paid for by British investment, powered by British coal and steel and serving the markets of the empire, there was no sound economic reason to split Ulster away from the bosom of the empire in the early 20th century.

The differences in the population were frequently brought to division but the dividing lines changed regularly. Where once native settler clashed with Norman invader, they had by the 16th century largely come to be allies as Catholics against the Protestant invaders of Tudor times.

Catholics were more natural allies of the Stuart kings against the non-conformist Puritans who sought, among other things, to curtail the power of monarchs by making them subservient to an elected parliament.

And the Scots, who had been the allies and had provided the bulk of the fighting forces of Irish chieftains since time immemorial had become by the early 17th century the hated Presbyterian planters of Ulster.

It may seem ironic now that an English republican who essentially came to Ireland to safeguard his commonwealth against the allies of a deposed monarch should come to be such a reviled character among today's Irish republicans but that's history for you.

That was then and this is now.

" And the Scots, who had been the allies and had provided the bulk of the fighting forces of Irish chieftains " How did you come up with that one. Now I know that what was called a Gallowglass ( Scotish mercenary ) was hired to come and fight in Ireland ( one of the reasons was becasue they were not inclined to and take sides get into local feuds as they only had a beef with the crown forces ). But are you going to tell me that the majority of the soldiers under say at the battles of Dysert O'Dea, Clonmel, Glenmalure, the Yellow Ford etc were Scotish and not Irish ? Indeed the Irish often went over the other way, a considerable number of the Jacobite army were Irish at Culloden.

Cromwell is reviled by today's Irish republicans as the only thing he had in common with the ideals of Irish republicanism in getting rid of the monarchy - but holding onto Ireland ofcourse and ethnic cleansing of as many Catholics as he could.

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't know why McArmalite hates Cromwell.

He was a republican who overthrew the British government and executed the king of England.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and all that.

As above.

LordSutch · 17-09-2008 9:26pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Well Cromwell is reviled by today's Irish republicans as the only thing he had in common with the ideals of Irish republicanism in getting rid of the monarchy - but holding onto Ireland of course and ethnic cleansing of as many Catholics as he could.

Are you sure Cromwell is attributed with comitting the 'ethnic cleansing' of catholics as mentioned above :cool:

Pgibson · 17-09-2008 10:44pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

does it not occur to you that both events are hyped up as propaganda?

Cromwell butchered far more Englishmen in England than he ever killed Irishmen.

He executed the King of England (Charles the First) on 30th Jan 1649.

Wars were universally brutal in those days.

Cromwell was indeed a brute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War

(Just like the Armalite wielding Irish Republican Brutes (IRB) we all witnessed murdering Irish people over the last 30 years....before the IRB hypocrites handed Northern Ireland over to Ian Paisley.)

.

Pgibson · 17-09-2008 11:27pm

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

They tried to turn William Wallace into a Unionist icon by arguing that were it not for his endeavours Scotland would have been absorbed into England..:rolleyes:

I consider Gerry Adams to be a "Unionist Icon".

It was the endeavours of the Provos which sparked the 19th Amendment to the IRISH constitution:

Article 2 and Article 3 of the Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) were adopted with the constitution as a whole on 29 December 1937, but completely revised by means of the Nineteenth Amendment which took full effect on 2 December 1999.As amended they grant the right to be "part of the Irish Nation" to all of those born on the island of Ireland and express a desire for the peaceful political unification of the island subject to the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Prior to 1999, Articles 2 and 3 made the claim that the whole island formed one "national territory", which was offensive to unionists.

In this sense the Provo's campaign cemented the "Union".

.

Snickers Man · 18-09-2008 12:51am

McArmalite wrote: »

Well Snickers, I agree with most of the points you made, though there is one or two things I don't. Anyway -

" And the Scots, who had been the allies and had provided the bulk of the fighting forces of Irish chieftains " How did you come up with that one. Now I know that what was called a Gallowglass ( Scotish mercenary ) was hired to come and fight in Ireland ( one of the reasons was becasue they were not inclined to and take sides get into local feuds as they only had a beef with the crown forces ). But are you going to tell me that the majority of the soldiers under say at the battles of Dysert O'Dea, Clonmel, Glenmalure, the Yellow Ford etc were Scotish and not Irish ? Indeed the Irish often went over the other way, a considerable number of the Jacobite army were Irish at Culloden.

Well I was talking about Gallowglasses, which I understand were very prominent in the ranks of the private armies of chieftains in Ireland in the middle ages. Maybe they did not make up the majority, but the point I was making was that there was a centuries-old tradition of Scots from the Western Isles fighting with the Irish.

McArmalite · 18-09-2008 5:38am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well I was talking about Gallowglasses, which I understand were very prominent in the ranks of the private armies of chieftains in Ireland in the middle ages. Maybe they did not make up the majority, but the point I was making was that there was a centuries-old tradition of Scots from the Western Isles fighting with the Irish.

Agree with you Snickers, sorry if I seemed to be pernickity.

And as regards your earlier post regarding the shifting alliances that England used in their occupation of Ireland, (which I generally agreee with) I'm not sure if it was Henry Joy McCraken or John Mitchell (two Protestants BTW ) or Fintan Lalor who summed it up by stating " Their are two views of british rule in Ireland, a minority who wish to collaborate and benefit from it, and the majority who don't". Unfortunately a pattern that has been repeated down the centuries, not just in Ireland, but all over the world.

Fratton Fred · 18-09-2008 8:45am

McArmalite wrote: »

And as regards your earlier post regarding the shifting alliances that England used in their occupation of Ireland, (which I generally agreee with) I'm not sure if it was Henry Joy McCraken or John Mitchell (two Protestants BTW ) or Fintan Lalor who summed it up by stating " Their are two views of british rule in Ireland, a minority who wish to collaborate and benefit from it, and the majority who don't". Unfortunately a pattern that has been repeated down the centuries, not just in Ireland, but all over the world.

QFT. That is the story of Europe over the last 1000 years tbh.

Pgibson · 18-09-2008 10:20am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

QFT. That is the story of Europe over the last 1000 years tbh.

Good article here by Kevin Myers:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/cromwell-historical-fact-and-the-hysterical-myth-1473330.html

(Provos hate Myers even more than they hate Cromwell you will be happy to hear.)

.

Erin Go Brath · 18-09-2008 2:13pm

Pgibson wrote: »

Good article here by Kevin Myers:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/cromwell-historical-fact-and-the-hysterical-myth-1473330.html

(Provos hate Myers even more than they hate Cromwell you will be happy to hear.)

.

'Cromwell in Ireland' did not disturb the nationalist canon too much. The massacre of Protestants in 1641 is presented almost as an accident, beyond the ken of the Catholic leader Owen Roe O'Neill.The actual coverage of the slaughter of thousands, and the eviction of tens of thousands, lasted approximately a minute-and-a-half. This is disproportionately little, for (as the programme admitted) the butchery of thousands of women and children on ethnic and religious grounds had almost no precedent in Irish or English history.

Myers must have been watching a different program to the rest of us.

This is certainly not how it was portrayed. The relevant scene in the program had the gaels driving some young buxom protestant ladies wearing their nightgowns into the river bann. While they mightn't have spent a huge amount of time on it, the imagery was rich and certainly presented the gaels in a very negative light. Seeing the program was entitled 'Cromwell in Ireland' it is totally understandable that the main part of the program concentrated on the time of Cromwell in Ireland and not events previous although they warranted mention as a precursor to events.

WindSock · 18-09-2008 3:38pm

Missed the 2nd part. Does anyone know when it's repeated?

Pgibson · 18-09-2008 3:53pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Myers must have been watching a different program to the rest of us.

Didn't see the program but that would be Myers all right.

Myers is a master of the half-truth.

Now that Ireland is rated the 4th most peaceful country on the planet lets hope we keep the Armalites (AND McArmalites) well under wraps in future.

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/30/duncancampbell

.

Pgibson · 18-09-2008 4:13pm

SlabMurphy wrote: »

"
Maybe we'll also presume that the Conquistdors tatics were the order of the day, Genghis Khan's tatics were the order of the day, Atillia the Hun's tatics were the order of the day etc What addition could that be only to try and slip in some sort of justification for their acts.

We civilised people know what the "Order of the Day" is for the IRA:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/905000/images/_906132_tallen300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/906132.stm&h=180&w=300&sz=6&tbnid=I6BD33nRq2AJ::&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dira%2Batrocity%2Bphoto&hl=en&usg=__FXobwcjcPa8CMqJmlYpBUSrdfMY=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

.

McArmalite · 20-09-2008 11:20am

Pgibson wrote: »

Good article here by Kevin Myers:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/cromwell-historical-fact-and-the-hysterical-myth-1473330.html

(Provos hate Myers even more than they hate Cromwell you will be happy to hear.)

.

And

Pgibson wrote: »

Didn't see the program but that would be Myers all right.

Myers is a master of the half-truth.

Now that Ireland is rated the 4th most peaceful country on the planet lets hope we keep the Armalites (AND McArmalites) well under wraps in future.

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/30/duncancampbell

.

First he says " Good article here by Kevin Myers " and then in the next post he contradicts his previous post " Didn't see the program but that would be Myers all right. Myers is a master of the half-truth. " Very clever indeed

McArmalite · 20-09-2008 11:36am

Pgibson wrote: »

Didn't see the program but that would be Myers all right.

Myers is a master of the half-truth.

Now that Ireland is rated the 4th most peaceful country on the planet lets hope we keep the Armalites (AND McArmalites) well under wraps in future.

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/30/duncancampbell

.

He's made 4 posts about Cromwell in Ireland and he's managed to bring the IRA into everyone of them.....:rolleyes: WHAT THE HELL have the IRA go to do with Cromwell's campaign. Does EVERY discussion about Irish history have to get some clown thinking his clever by bring the IRA into it ???? Even when the IRA ddin't exist for centuries later, even when the wrongs of the IRA are only the tinyest fraction of those carried out by Cromwell and co, ......AAAGHHH !!!!!

And ofcourse the most hypocritical thing with people like yourself, is though you seem to be so appalled by the deaths caused by the IRA, you always have a blindspot for those carried out by the the british forces and their unoffical loyalist killers.

I'll have to bring in a version of Godwin's Law - " As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one " instead to what I'll call the Gombeen's Law - In any discussion invovling criticism of Britain, the probability of bringing the IRA into the discussion, even when they have'nt the slightest thing to do with the subject under debate, is a certainty.

God spare us PLEASE.....

guinnessdrinker · 20-09-2008 5:36pm

I've heard the Cromwell/Hitler comparisions many times. However as a result of Cromwell setting foot in Ireland between 40 and 45 percent of the population either died or were banished from the country and even with the technology Hitler posessed, he didn't manage to devistate a single country as much as Cromwell did with Ireland.

LordSutch · 20-09-2008 8:08pm

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I've heard the Cromwell/Hitler comparisions many times.

Or indeed IRA/Nazi comparisons, by many people many times . . .

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

However as a result of Cromwell setting foot in Ireland between 40 and 45 percent of the population either died or were banished from the country and even with the technology Hitler posessed, he didn't manage to devistate a single country as much as Cromwell did with Ireland.

Are you sure about that one Guinnessdrinker? maybe the Plague played a small part too :rolleyes:

guinnessdrinker · 21-09-2008 11:49am

Camelot wrote: »

Or indeed IRA/Nazi comparisons, by many people many times . . .

Not sure what the IRA have got to do with a thread discussing Cromwell.

Camelot wrote: »

Are you sure about that one Guinnessdrinker? maybe the Plague played a small part too :rolleyes:

I probably should have reprased my post but you are right, the outbreak of plague also played a large part in decimating the population. However, would the plague have been as devestating if there had not also been a famine at the time and would there have even been a famine at that time if Cromwell had never set foot in Ireland?

Anyway, I would probably go along with the comparison of Cromwell to an English version of Hitler. For example,

both men were fanatics that believed what they were doing was just and right,

both were responsible for genocide,

while Hitler did not sell prisoners off as slaves as Cromwell did, he did send people to concentration and labour camps.

Ironically, I read once that Hitler was an admirer of Cromwell. I wonder just how much of an influence Cromwell really had on him.

Fratton Fred · 22-09-2008 11:14am

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Not sure what the IRA have got to do with a thread discussing Cromwell.

I probably should have reprased my post but you are right, the outbreak of plague also played a large part in decimating the population. However, would the plague have been as devestating if there had not also been a famine at the time and would there have even been a famine at that time if Cromwell had never set foot in Ireland?

Anyway, I would probably go along with the comparison of Cromwell to an English version of Hitler. For example,

both men were fanatics that believed what they were doing was just and right,

both were responsible for genocide,

while Hitler did not sell prisoners off as slaves as Cromwell did, he did send people to concentration and labour camps.

Ironically, I read once that Hitler was an admirer of Cromwell. I wonder just how much of an influence Cromwell really had on him.

I would compare cromwell to certain characteristics of Hitler, but a straight forward comparison is not, i think that valid.

Hitler was looking to expand the German nation, whereas Cromwell had no interest in that. although he despised Rome, he did not actively seek out catholics and kill them, it was more (In his view anyway) removing a threat, so the main catholics targetted were powerful ones.

The only reason he came to Ireland was not to persecute Catholics, but to take on an enemy that was gaining a lot of support, if that had not happened he would most likely never have come here.

I think for Comparisons to cromwell, you would need to look towards Spain, France or even Rome itself rather than Hitler.

Pgibson · 22-09-2008 12:14pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think for Comparisons to cromwell, you would need to look towards Spain, France or even Rome itself rather than Hitler.

Comparing Cromwell to Hitler is LAUGHABLE.

Hitler was planning to kill EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD in Ireland.

Having exterminated the inferior Celts (Just like the Slavs, Jews etc.) he was going to re-populate Ireland with selectively bred Norwegians.

(Read Mein Kampf.)

Cromwell was just a typical murderous Warlord of his time.

(Just like the murderous warlords of the IRA, UVF etc in the 20th century.)

Our own Cromwells are alive and well and living in Ireland today.

“To Hell or to Connacht”, incidentally, only applied to the rich landowners.

There is not even a folk memory of any massive population exodus to Connacht.

It beggars belief that anyone can compare Hitler to Cromwell..

.

Snickers Man · 22-09-2008 1:30pm

Pgibson wrote: »

Hitler was planning to kill EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD in Ireland.

Having exterminated the inferior Celts (Just like the Slavs, Jews etc.) he was going to re-populate Ireland with selectively bred Norwegians.

(Read Mein Kampf.)

I really couldn't be arsed. But I am intrigued that there is a reference to bringing back the Vikings to stiffen up the Irish gene pool in Mein Kampf. If you have read it (in translation hopefully) and have that section would you care to post it?

I like to be informed but I don't think I could sit through the whole tome.

You're not exaggerating by any chance are you?

Pgibson · 22-09-2008 1:31pm

P.S.
If you think think Ireland had it bad under Cromwell,this is what was happening in Germany (TheThirty Years War) at about the same time:

"Over the course of the Thirty Years War, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%.[11] In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died. The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half. The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs. The Swedish armies alone destroyed 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns."

ALL wars were indescribably brutal at that time.

.

ilkhanid · 16-11-2008 5:21pm

Exactly. For a comparison with Cromwell, the best examples would be contemporaries of his. Look at the behaviour of the Spanish in the Netherlands,Tilly at Magdeburg and the persecutions unleashed by the Austrians in the Czech lands after White Mountain. They put him in perspective. And the Royalist English were no innocents either. They perpetrated atrocities during the Civil War too.

Cromwell in Ireland

Comments