British poppy: should the Irish commemorate people who fought for the British Empire?

Morlar · 25-10-2011 05:04PM

pmcmahon wrote: »

I'm not talking about the county Divide but the Divide within the parties and people involved,whether people like it or not from the roots of 1916 up to the end civil war it was every man for himself,

Meaningless drivel.

pmcmahon wrote: »

one example of this is how Pearse and Connolly despised each other,yet in the history books they're portrayed as best pals,fighting for the common goal,however they had no common goal.Connolly was pretty much a communist.

Connolly was a Socialist. Pearse and Connolly having differences is irrelevant. They fought together for a united Ireland and were executed for it. Churchill and Lloyd George also had their differences. That is also irrelevant.

pmcmahon wrote: »

Dev knew before Collins even went over to London there wasn't a chance of a 32 county republic,Collins was the fall guy.

You are overlooking the fact that the divide was caused by the Treaty britain forced on Ireland. The choice Britain offered was a) a Partitioned, divided Country, or b) Total War.

How you can confabulate these circumstances of british calculation into being the fault of Republicans is a mystery.

Fratton Fred · 25-10-2011 05:05PM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Of course they are. You read the thing on the Irish who join the British Army on TV a few years ago? They want combat. Killing people basically. The IDF didn't offer that. What sick minds.

Hate to go all technical on you, but just to put you in your place, here's the definition of a mercenary in a dictionary....

Definition of MERCENARY
: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

Oh dear......CLAMPED:D

You dictionary definition is inaccurate. Look up article 47 of the geneva convention, that will put you right.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:06PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had the British handed the entire island over, the ensuing punch-up would have made the Irish Civil War look like a slight argument.

That's not why they didn't honour the wishes of the majority, though. It wouldn't have been pretty, nobody ever won their freedom the pretty way.

I'm unsure how Unionists would have reacted. What option was open anyway? British leaves and you're a small minority on the island. You can either skip off to Britain or stay and fight for what? To get the British back? That horse had long bolted.

Either way British didn't ignore the wishes of the majority as a humanitarian gesture:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 25-10-2011 05:07PM

Morlar wrote: »

The reason there was a Civil War in Ireland was Britain offered the choice of a divided country, or a Total War. .

When?

Fratton Fred · 25-10-2011 05:08PM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's not why they didn't honour the wishes of the majority, though. It wouldn't have been pretty, nobody ever won their freedom the pretty way.

I'm unsure how Unionists would have reacted. What option was open anyway? British leaves and you're a small minority on the island. You can either skip off to Britain or stay and fight for what? To get the British back? That horse had long bolted.

Either way British didn't ignore the wishes of the majority as a humanitarian gesture:rolleyes:

In the 1922 election, pro treaty parties won an overwhelming majority, yet their wishes were ignored and the country plunged into a bloody civil war.

Damn those Brits.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You dictionary definition is inaccurate. Look up article 47 of the geneva convention, that will put you right.

Okay the dictionary is wrong and you're right.

Tally ho, not long until the men in white coats come along now:D

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:11PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In the 1922 election, pro treaty parties won an overwhelming majority, yet their wishes were ignored and the country plunged into a bloody civil war.

Damn those Brits.

Go back a little there, not just to when it suits your agenda. 1918. Repect the wishes of the people, again NOT JUST WHEN IT SUITS YOU.

Please keep up my dear boy, you're brutal.

KeithAFC · 25-10-2011 05:14PM

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's not why they didn't honour the wishes of the majority, though. It wouldn't have been pretty, nobody ever won their freedom the pretty way.

I'm unsure how Unionists would have reacted. What option was open anyway? British leaves and you're a small minority on the island. You can either skip off to Britain or stay and fight for what? To get the British back? That horse had long bolted.

Either way British didn't ignore the wishes of the majority as a humanitarian gesture:rolleyes:

The Unionist people had been preparing for it and were willing to fight to the death to oppose it. The Irish civil war really would have looked like a picnic compared to what would have happened.

It wasn't me! · 25-10-2011 05:17PM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Okay the dictionary is wrong and you're right.

Tally ho, not long until the men in white coats come along now:D

Geneva Convention which actually materially defines the term is rather more useful than a trite dictionary soundbite. Also, as to wanting to see combat, the vast majority of professional soldiers want to be tested in combat. I'll be going military after college and I want to be tested in combat at some point. I'm upper middle-class in background, extremely well educated, intelligent and certainly not from a deprived and disenfranchised section of society. I've wanted to be a soldier my entire life, and I know why I do too. You may not understand it, but people who understand the vocation are most certainly not damaged or lacking in any way.

Morlar · 25-10-2011 05:19PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When?

Michael Collins himself had noted that Lloyd George was threatening a "terrible and immediate war" in the event of non signing.

Which as you know, would have been a Total war as far as the population of Ireland was concerned.

What do you think was the cause of the Irish Civil War ?

Morlar · 25-10-2011 05:21PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Unionist people had been preparing for it and were willing to fight to the death to oppose it. The Irish civil war really would have looked like a picnic compared to what would have happened.

Yes, Keith you keep repeating that mantra in the delusion that it is either intimidating or makes you sound tough. It's neither.

My own view is that the UVF would have been utterly defeated had the IRA of that time been of a mind to do it.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:23PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Geneva Convention which actually materially defines the term is rather more useful than a trite dictionary soundbite. Also, as to wanting to see combat, the vast majority of professional soldiers want to be tested in combat. I'll be going military after college and I want to be tested in combat at some point. I'm upper middle-class in background, extremely well educated, intelligent and certainly not from a deprived and disenfranchised section of society. I've wanted to be a soldier my entire life, and I know why I do too. You may not understand it, but people who understand the vocation are most certainly not damaged or lacking in any way.

I don't want to understand it, I volunteer at a homeless shelter (Glasgow City Mission), I'll continue to do some good with my life and not look to be another stooge for governments and because I want the 'buzz' of combat, which whatever way you dress it is killing people. You're 100% correct, I don't understand it nor do I want to.

It's always somebody else's country you get to be 'tested'. The more idiots who buy the 'dream' the more we see the likes of Iraq, but sure that's okay you got to play soliders that's the main thing?:rolleyes:

You're a lot of things indeed. Intelligent? You're wanting to chose to be cannon fodder for a vocation I'm afraid we'll agree to disagree on that one.

Fratton Fred · 25-10-2011 05:23PM

Morlar wrote: »

Michael Collins himself had noted that Lloyd George was threatening a "terrible and immediate war" in the event of non signing.

Which as you know, would have been a Total war as far as the population of Ireland was concerned.

What do you think was the cause of the Irish Civil War ?

Proof? Link?

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Proof? Link?

Honesty. Have you never read a book on that period of Irish history? You're actually asking him for a link to Lloyd George threatening terrible war on Ireland if they rejected the treaty:D

See if you're not well read on something don't debate it. Leave it to the big boys who actually went to the trouble to read up on something before they opened their gobs on it.

It wasn't me! · 25-10-2011 05:27PM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

You're a lot of things indeed. Intelligent? You're wanting to chose to be cannon fodder for a vocation I'm afraid we'll agree to disagree on that one.

Intelligence isn't exactly subjective... Also, if you really think the modern western soldier is cannon fodder, you haven't a clue what soldiering is actually about or the experience. This isn't the Somme anymore.

KeithAFC · 25-10-2011 05:27PM

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Morlar wrote: »

Yes, Keith you keep repeating that mantra in the delusion that it is either intimidating or makes you sound tough. It's neither.

My own view is that the UVF would have been utterly defeated had the IRA of that time been of a mind to do it.

We are discussing things in an historical context here. That is what would have happened. The IRA could not defeat anyone after 30 years of war. I think the leadership of the IRA in the 80s started to realise that.

It would have been the same with the IRA in the 20s. A United Ireland was never going to be achieved by armed action then either.

Morlar · 25-10-2011 05:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Proof? Link?

Given the fact that the black and Tans and auxilliaries had been burning and pillaging their way up and down the country throughout the preceding War of Independence and were kept on a severely straining leash, committing blatant murders of innocent and unarmed people left and right & provoking international condemnation in the process. Given the context what does the threat of 'Terrible and immediate War' in the event of non signing mean to you ?

Also, you have yet to fleshed out your 'Britain is blame free' theory on the cause of the Irish Civil War.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:33PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Intelligence isn't exactly subjective... Also, if you really think the modern western soldier is cannon fodder, you haven't a clue what soldiering is actually about or the experience. This isn't the Somme anymore.

Stooges, cannon fodder, call them what you will. I won't be crawling around the sands in fourty degree heat in Afghanistan dodging bullets. There are no noble causes left to fight because there are no noble governments out there to take the mantle - unless you happen to be oil-rich of course. But sure we don't understand and you want your bit of fun and we all know that's truly all that matters.

45% come from broken homes. I'm sure it's be a battalion of saints and scholars you'll be lining out with:D

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:35PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

We are discussing things in an historical context here. That is what would have happened. The IRA could not defeat anyone after 30 years of war. I think the leadership of the IRA in the 80s started to realise that.

It would have been the same with the IRA in the 20s. A United Ireland was never going to be achieved by armed action then either.

Historical context? Nationalists on the Island in 1922 were in the extreme MAJORITY. If they British respected the wishes of the people and completely pulled out your merry little minority could have fought but we would never have surrendered to you granting you six of our counties. Honestly, dream on.

KeithAFC · 25-10-2011 05:44PM

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Historical context? Nationalists on the Island in 1922 were in the extreme MAJORITY. If they British respected the wishes of the people and completely pulled out your merry little minority could have fought but we would never have surrendered to you granting you six of our counties. Honestly, dream on.

Yes but not in the 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster which was drawn out to create Northern Ireland. A large majority of people in that "area" didn't want a United Ireland and had been preparing to fight against it. The IRA was never going to win a war against the Unionists at that time. The war would have went on and on and on until a peace settlement would have been drawn up or defeat for the Irish Republican Army.

Morlar · 25-10-2011 05:50PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes but not in the 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster which was drawn out to create Northern Ireland. A large majority of people in that "area" didn't want a United Ireland and had been preparing to fight against it. The IRA was never going to win a war against the Unionists at that time. The war would have went on and on and on until a peace settlement would have been drawn up or defeat for the Irish Republican Army.

Keith, Dream on.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 25-10-2011 05:51PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes but not in the 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster which was drawn out to create Northern Ireland. A large majority of people in that "area" didn't want a United Ireland and had been preparing to fight against it. The IRA was never going to win a war against the Unionists at that time. The war would have went on and on and on until a peace settlement would have been drawn up or defeat for the Irish Republican Army.

That's not how democracy works. Scotland and the north of England didn't want the Tories, they got them and accepted the will of the majority, that's how it goes. You couldn't even find a province to get a majority in so sorry you weren't entitled to a state within a state.

Oh yeah your little merry army in the north would have defeated the rest of the country. Deluded:D

KeithAFC · 25-10-2011 06:00PM

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's not how democracy works. Scotland and the north of England didn't want the Tories, they got them and accepted the will of the majority, that's how it goes. You couldn't even find a province to get a majority in so sorry you weren't entitled to a state within a state.

Oh yeah your little merry army in the north would have defeated the rest of the country. Deluded:D

Minorities have been given countries of their own before in history. This was no different. A hostile minority in terms of the overall Island is not something that would be easy to get rid of.

I ain't even on about the Ulster volunteers. Just the normal Unionist would have opposed it. You tell me how the Irish Republican Army would get a working government against the will of the majority of people in N.I and how they could avoid war? It would not have worked and they must have known that.

It was rejected in 1798 by the majority of Protestants in that area who didn't join in the ranks of Wolfe Tone and his rebels. It was hardly going to change in the 1920s.

Fratton Fred · 25-10-2011 06:03PM

Morlar wrote: »

Given the fact that the black and Tans and auxilliaries had been burning and pillaging their way up and down the country throughout the preceding War of Independence and were kept on a severely straining leash, committing blatant murders of innocent and unarmed people left and right & provoking international condemnation in the process. Given the context what does the threat of 'Terrible and immediate War' in the event of non signing mean to you ?

Also, you have yet to fleshed out your 'Britain is blame free' theory on the cause of the Irish Civil War.

It was a war between two sides in Ireland, that's why it was called a civil war. It is pretty desperate trying to blame Britain for a war they had no part in.

Have you found the threat yet? Maybe a chap called Griffith can help you http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.P.192112150080.html

The treaty was signed in 1921, a few months later the elections gave overwhelming support for it.

A few months later the anti treaty side sparked a civil war that killed ten times more civilians than the war of independence.

The side that started the war (and lost) formed a political party which went on to rule Ireland for the majority of its independent history.

Its no wonder the civil war and its causes are brushed under the mat.

RMD · 25-10-2011 06:05PM

Morlar wrote: »

Keith, Dream on.

In fairness the UVF could have beaten the IRA during the early 20's. The IRA were poorly armed and had little funding, the UVF on the other hand had a fairly decent arm cache, money to use and the British empire on their side. There's a reason Collins accepted the Anglo-Irish treaty, he knew the IRA didn't have the capacity to fight on.

RichieC · 25-10-2011 06:07PM

why do people keep quoting keith :mad:

The ignore function should be hiding them too

laoch na mona · 25-10-2011 06:11PM

only if they start selling Easter lilies in britian

stooodent · 25-10-2011 06:12PM

No (I'm Irish)

Well said its just so pointless to continue hating over the sins of generation that has long gone..

Morlar · 25-10-2011 06:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was a war between two sides in Ireland, that's why it was called a civil war. It is pretty desperate trying to blame Britain for a war they had no part in.

The Civil War was caused by a Treaty Britain forced on Ireland at the point of a gun.

On the Threat of 2 clear choices:

a) Accept the Treaty.
b) Suffer a 'Terrible and immediate War.'

I'd disagree with your glib view that it would be 'pretty desperate' to blame Britain for it on the basis they were not direct participants in it.

Apportioning blame works on the basis of who caused something to happen, like for example if someone undoes the brakes in your car, they are to blame. You do not blame you & whoever you crash your car into, you don't absolve the cause of any blame on the basis they were not there when the blood was spilled.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have you found the threat yet? Maybe a chap called Griffith can help you http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.P.192112150080.html

The treaty was signed in 1921, a few months later the elections gave overwhelming support for it.

You posted a link there to a sentence from Arthur Griffith during the first days of the treaty debates. What is your point ?
Even then it does not back up your position. "I had absolutely no doubt in my mind the issue there was peace or war."

Collins himself said 'Terrible and immediate War". He later softened this when the Pro and Anti Treaty sides became more defined, in order to give the appearance that the treaty was more desirable to begin with.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A few months later the anti treaty side sparked a civil war that killed ten times more civilians than the war of independence.

You are overlooking the entire context to this, for example that while the Four Courts were held, Collins held out for Peace. Britain was offering to paint it's airforce green to bomb the Four courts and offering gunships and artillery with high explosive shells. Only with extreme reluctance the Civil War began under direct pressure from . . .. . .

http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/Michael_Collins_Life_and_Times/10.THE_CIVIL_WAR.html

Churchill, worried about the stability of his own Coalition Government, became extremely impatient with the Irish Provisional Government in regard to the occupation of the Four Courts. In his parliamentary speech he said "The presence in Dublin of a band of men styling themselves the Headquarters of the Executive is a gross breach and defiance of the Treaty... if it is not brought to a speedy end, then it is my duty to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we shall regard the Treaty as having been formally violated... and we shall resume full liberty of action in any direction.."

Think about the meaning of that quote for a minute.

The picture you paint here of a peaceful, benevolent britain is at total odds with the reality.
- -

All of which is getting further and further from the question of should Irishmen wear a Red British Legion Poppy ?

My vote is No.

Yes we should acknowledge the sacrifices of Irishmen in WWI & WW2, but we can do that in our own way and not in a way that also honours the brutal record of the british army against the Irish people.

charlemont · 25-10-2011 06:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In the 1922 election, pro treaty parties won an overwhelming majority, yet their wishes were ignored and the country plunged into a bloody civil war.

Damn those Brits.

Damn Eamon De Valera more like.. Besides the obvious partition Britain didn't start the civil war.

Eamon talked the talk but when he got power he didn't walk it, He done more than anyone to put the unionists off a united Ireland, Home Rule was Rome Rule with Eamon, Deliberately so too, He knew damn well that in a united Ireland he would lose his power base.

British poppy: should the Irish commemorate people who fought for the British Empire?

Comments