John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Sand · 18-09-2014 09:24PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there would have been such vigorous campaign against conscription without the Rising and it's aftermath especially when British military intelligence considered that "the mass of the people are sound and loyal as regards the war" on the eve of the Rising?

Given the widespread resistance to conscription - which *was* introduced, but never actually implemented - yes. By 1918, it had seeped through to most people that WW1 was not going to be over by Christmas (ironically), and the fighting was nasty and brutish rather than glorious.

So from a purely constitutional/political sense it was or not....?

Obviously it wasn't in a constitutional/political sense. In the same way that Cork is not "occupied" by the government of County Dublin today.

The point is about his speech costing lives. There's nothing to disprove.

Well, firstly you would have to prove his speech cost lives. Secondly, you're moving the goal posts, acknowledging you are wrong about your original claim that Pearse's love of blood being shed on the battlefields of Europe was little different to Redmond's own view on the war and the value of Irishmen serving in it.

His speech cost lives, a point which you appear to allow Redmond far more forgiveness for than you do republicans.

Again, you would have to prove his speech cost lives. It's very easy for me to prove that the *rising* cost lives because they actually took lives in the middle of Dublin, and invited a full fledged military assault on Dublin in response. For no good reason. Its very easy for me to prove that men like Pearse rejoiced in the concept of bloodshed as a positive in its own right because he can be quoted doing so.

You're going to have a pretty hard time proving Redmond's speech cost lives or that he praised bloodshed as a positive thing in itself. You might *believe* it did, but you cant prove it. There is a reason for that...its not true.

@ChicagoJoe

The 26 counties population was in continual sharp decline under the British. With the formation of the Irish state 1926 to 1971 the population decline was slowed in the 45 years and has been rising since 1971 as you can see from the link below.

No, it actually increased massively up until the 1840s.. By your own chart, the decline in population was already slowing under British rule up in the late 19th and early 20th century when the British were trying to "Kill Home Rule with Kindness".

Your chart also demonstrates that Irish population figures levelled off in 1926 to a slight but persistent decline up until 1951 when they took a sudden dip again, not recovering to 1979. Three decades after the British left, its still the fault of the British government that Irish people fled the joys of Irish independence, mainly to find jobs under British rule? Has any other peacetime European country presided over such a decline in its citizenship? With Catholic attitudes to birth control? At some point, if we truly are an independent people, we have to take responsibility for ourselves and not keep blaming someone else.

As I said...Irish independence was simply an opportunity to do better than what British rule offered. People voted on the results with their feet. The value of the 1916 rising, the benefit it offered that justified the people killed and the cities and villages burned and the political bitterness sowed have to be weighed against that - especially when peaceful politics offered at least the same, and probably better opportunities for the Irish people.

Yeah sure, your not a unionist and I have a date with Miss World tonight.

I hope you brought her somewhere decent.

Oh dear Irish GDP also was on a pretty much constant climb through the 20th century as can be seen from the graph below but I wouldn’t be getting too excited about using GDP as measure of ‘success’ as GDP for example doesn't take into account the level of debt a country has. (For example, Japan has the fourth highest GDP in the world behind the EU, US and China (in that order) and yet it has the highest debt to GDP ration in the world, higher than Zimbabwe and many other "less stable" countries.) And as stated if Britain was doing so great all the time, how come it had to borrow Billions from the USA and then defaulted in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 and had to be bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70’s !!!!!
http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/gdp.ireland.gif

I'm not overly excited about GDP either, but the point remains: people fled Ireland to go to Britain to gain employment and live free in a way that they could not within Ireland. Something that continues today...sadly.

If Ireland was the economic success story you claim it was, people would be flowing the other way throughout the 20th century.

Lucky for the Limeys the USA came into the war eh

Luckier for the Russians tbh.

Again as stated, most of the reason for the Irish population having to emigrate was due to the colossal damage and underdevelopment the British had been doing for centuries which in fairness to the Irish state it couldn't undo in just a few short years. (Even look at the countries of Eastern Europe who even though they are free of communism for two and a half decades are still trying to catch up with western Europe.) You keep trying to ignore the economic elephant in the room and I’ll keep reminding you of it

The Irish state didn't just fail to undo the damage and underdevelopment of British rule - they made it worse: getting into a self defeating trade war, a tragic attempt at autarky by a tiny, non-industrial economy, on top of social and cultural regression to an imagined "Aran Man" ideal.

It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that the "Burn everything British except their coal" economic nationalist mantra was put aside in favour of some realism. And even so, given the mismanagement of the 1980s and the 2000s it is hard to argue that the violence of 1916 is justified by the results.

For Reals · 18-09-2014 09:56PM

He's, (Bruton) loving the attention anyway.
Basically, as he'd have re-written it, it would have been a case of waiting on permission from the very people who invaded your country, for the chance of being able to carry out your own affairs under their watchful eye and mayhap, if you're good, one day you might get a chance to vote to be independant..
Bog off John you twat.

And I don't even like the Wolfe Tones!

Harry Angstrom · 18-09-2014 10:06PM

I find it laughable that Bruton is advocating Redmond's supposed non-violent approach to Irish independence yet at the same time Redmond was urging young Irishmen to go off to Europe to be slaughtered in their thousands. Such hypocrisy.

oscarBravo · 18-09-2014 10:20PM

For Reals wrote: »

Basically, as he'd have re-written it, it would have been a case of waiting on permission from the very people who invaded your country, for the chance of being able to carry out your own affairs under their watchful eye and mayhap, if you're good, one day you might get a chance to vote to be independant..

Yeah - the idea that the London government would allow part of the United Kingdom to have a referendum on independence is so mind-bogglingly stupid that you'd have to be a complete idiot to imagine that such a thing could ever have happened within a million years.

Nodin · 18-09-2014 10:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah - the idea that the London government would allow part of the United Kingdom to have a referendum on independence is so mind-bogglingly stupid that you'd have to be a complete idiot to imagine that such a thing could ever have happened within a million years.

Yes, they should have just consulted the local soothsayer who could have told them what would happen nearly 100 years in the future.

oscarBravo · 18-09-2014 10:47PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, they should have just consulted the local soothsayer who could have told them what would happen nearly 100 years in the future.

You're right, nobody can know what will happen in the future. I guess that's why the Scots had no choice but to start a war in order to achieve independence.

RED L4 0TH · 18-09-2014 11:00PM

Sand wrote: »

Given the widespread resistance to conscription - which *was* introduced, but never actually implemented - yes. By 1918, it had seeped through to most people that WW1 was not going to be over by Christmas (ironically), and the fighting was nasty and brutish rather than glorious.

How so? The war was a year and a half old (and two Christmas's had gone by then) when British intelligence commented on the state of ireland in April 1916. Long enough for people to realise for themselves how bad the war was by then. If the population was still 'sound and loyal' at this stage, where would this 'widespread resistance' to conscription emerge from in the absence of the Rising and the British response to it?

Obviously it wasn't in a constitutional/political sense. In the same way that Cork is not "occupied" by the government of County Dublin today.

Obviously?

Well, firstly you would have to prove his speech cost lives......

........It's very easy for me to prove that the *rising* cost lives because they actually took lives in the middle of Dublin .........

......There is a reason for that...its not true.

It's very true actually. I'm sure that those Irish nationalists heeding Redmond's call and who joined the BA, took plenty of German lives on the Western front, who in turn took plenty of Irish lives in response. If Redmond had told Irish nationalists not to enlist how many would have joined the BA as a consequence?

Sand · 18-09-2014 11:17PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How so? The war was a year and a half old (and two Christmas's had gone by then) when British intelligence commented on the state of ireland in April 1916. Long enough for people to realise for themselves how bad the war was by then. If the population was still 'sound and loyal' at this stage, where would this 'widespread resistance' to conscription emerge from in the absence of the Rising and the British response to it?

Because conscription was being introduced in 1918, and wasnt in 1916? The resistance in 1918 wasn't a pacifist movement - far from it in SFs case. It was a resistance to conscription.

There is a difference between being "sound and loyal" on a war that is purely a voluntary exercise, is being fought hundreds of miles away and if anything creates a boom market for agricultural exports, and "sound and loyal" on a war where you, or your father, brother, uncle, son or grandson could be conscripted and sent to fight.

Obviously?

Is there some misunderstanding?

It's very true actually. I'm sure that those Irish nationalists heeding Redmond's call and who joined the BA, took plenty of German lives on the Western front, who in turn took plenty of Irish lives in response. If Redmond had told Irish nationalists not to enlist how many would have joined the BA as a consequence?

Given Redmond was making his speech to Irish nationalists who had *already* joined up, and in an age without twitter or youtube the majority of Irishmen would never have heard Redmond speak, I think its fair to say quite a large proportion would have joined the British army regardless.

There was never any threat of Redmond telling Irish nationalists *not* to join up. That was simply politically inconceivable and stupid when Redmond was trying to persuade Britain that an Ireland under Home Rule would present no threat to their interests.

Always surprises me how people can be so sensitive regarding the political imperatives that dictate the actions of men like Gerry Adams, but are so tone deaf to political imperatives of earlier times.

RED L4 0TH · 19-09-2014 12:30AM

Sand wrote: »

Because conscription was being introduced in 1918, and wasnt in 1916? The resistance in 1918 wasn't a pacifist movement - far from it in SFs case. It was a resistance to conscription.

A resistance greatly enhanced due to British policy in Ireland after the Rising and Irish nationalism's reaction to this policy.

There is a difference between being "sound and loyal" on a war that is purely a voluntary exercise, is being fought hundreds of miles away and if anything creates a boom market for agricultural exports, and "sound and loyal" on a war where you, or your father, brother, uncle, son or grandson could be conscripted and sent to fight.

So you think resistance would have been as vigorous in the absence of the Rising and subsequent events, while at the same time not forgetting that the economy was doing well on the back of the war?

Is there some misunderstanding?

No. Just a that a particular political interpretation on something can be 'obvious'.

and in an age without twitter or youtube the majority of Irishmen would never have heard Redmond speak, I think its fair to say quite a large proportion would have joined the British army regardless.

The widespread availability of the newspaper at the time would have given alot of publicity to his speech. Why would Irish nationalists have joined the BA in the absence of such a speech considering the crisis in Ireland just before WW1 started?

There was never any threat of Redmond telling Irish nationalists *not* to join up.

I was just asking you to consider the possibilities if he did.

political imperatives of earlier times.

The war was already 6 weeks or so old when Redmond made his speech (100 years ago this Saturday actually). Thousands were already dead by then (27,000 French alone on 22 August 1914). I doubt that Redmond wasn't aware as to what the risks could have been as a consequence.

Sand · 19-09-2014 07:02PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

A resistance greatly enhanced due to British policy in Ireland after the Rising and Irish nationalism's reaction to this policy.

No, not true. The resistance to conscription was always there. Before the Rising ever happened, the 1916 military service act introduced conscription to England, Scotland and Wales - but not to Ireland which was specifically exempted from the legislation because the resistance of Ireland to conscription was acknowledged. The British only attempted to impose conscription in 1918 because they were desperate for manpower due to the German spring offensives.

Conscription was deeply unpopular in Ireland before the Rising. It was deeply unpopular in Ireland after the Rising. The Rising caused no significant change in the Irish resistance to conscription.

So you think resistance would have been as vigorous in the absence of the Rising and subsequent events, while at the same time not forgetting that the economy was doing well on the back of the war?

Yes - it was vigorous enough to see off conscription in 1916 before the Rising. And the resistance was organised and led by the same political, church and trade union establishment in 1918.

The widespread availability of the newspaper at the time would have given alot of publicity to his speech. Why would Irish nationalists have joined the BA in the absence of such a speech considering the crisis in Ireland just before WW1 started?

I already explained the likely reasons for Redmond encouraging nationalists to join up. It's clear you didn't read them then, so no point me stating them again.

Putting those aside, I'd imagine Irishmen would join the British army then for the same reasons they (voluntarily) join the British army today: regular pay, a different life from what was on offer to them, and perhaps excitement.

I was just asking you to consider the possibilities if he did.

It would have destroyed all good will for Irish home rule within the UK government and handed the northern unionists an easy way to secede from Ireland?

The war was already 6 weeks or so old when Redmond made his speech (100 years ago this Saturday actually). Thousands were already dead by then (27,000 French alone on 22 August 1914). I doubt that Redmond wasn't aware as to what the risks could have been as a consequence.

Equally, the volunteers joining up - and the volunteers who had already joined when Redmond gave his speech - would have been aware of the risks and potential consequences of joining an army at war. They weren't simple minded children.

RED L4 0TH · 19-09-2014 10:28PM

Sand wrote: »

No, not true...

Nope true. The British promised to deliver Home Rule if Irish nationalists accepted the introduction of conscription in the spring of 1918. Nonetheless fierce resistance to conscription continued. Why would this have occurred if this was potentially going to scupper the introduction of HR by the government? Underlying this was the swing to SF as evidenced in their by-election wins. The IPP sniffed which way the wind was blowing and jumped on the growing bandwagon in an attempt to rescue their credibility and that of HR.

I already explained the likely reasons for Redmond encouraging nationalists to join up. It's clear you didn't read them then, so no point me stating them again.

It's clear you're not reading mine. I said why would they have joined in the absence of such a speech.

I'd imagine Irishmen would join the British army then for the same reasons they (voluntarily) join the British army today: regular pay, a different life from what was on offer to them, and perhaps excitement.

A different life? Excitement? Once the brutal nature of trench warfare became clear?

It would have destroyed all good will for Irish home rule within the UK government and handed the northern unionists an easy way to secede from Ireland?

Do you really think that Unionist leaning elements within the British establishment (the Tory party, to mention one, being in this camp) really cared about Irish nationalists since the HR project was in serious trouble before the war even started?

would have been aware of the risks and potential consequences of joining an army at war. They weren't simple minded children.

This also applies to Redmond himself. His actions in encouraging this recruitment in wartime had the potential to cost lives, which turned out to be exactly what happened.

Sand · 21-09-2014 06:22PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nope true.

No, not true. What I said was true. Deep and successful Irish resistance to conscription pre-dated the Rising, as reflected in the British decision to exempt Ireland from conscription in Jan 1916.

The British promised to deliver Home Rule if Irish nationalists accepted the introduction of conscription in the spring of 1918. Nonetheless fierce resistance to conscription continued. Why would this have occurred if this was potentially going to scupper the introduction of HR by the government?

Because Home Rule was already on the books as law. The British had no leverage: Home Rule was going to be introduced regardless of conscription. Offering them nothing for something is a poor ploy and none of the Home Rule parties were inclined to accept it: the IPP, Church and trade unions all resisted conscription.

It's clear you're not reading mine. I said why would they have joined in the absence of such a speech.

Because, being Irish nationalists, they felt as Redmond, an Irish nationalist, did about the potential benefits.

Redmond did not force anyone to volunteer. He only supported Irishmen joining up because he believed it would benefit Irish nationalism and possibly serve to unify Irish nationalists and unionists in a common identity.

You cannot compare giving a speech to a deliberate plan to carry out a full scale battle in the middle of a peaceful Dublin. The Rising cost lives, for no good reason. We had all the tools we needed: but men like Pearse rejoiced in blood being shed, so people had to die. For the past 100 years, Irish constitutional nationalists have had to struggle to undo the harm and suffering caused by the Rising and all the bloodshed justified by it since.

A different life? Excitement? Once the brutal nature of trench warfare became clear?

Different people make different choices. Irishmen continued to join voluntarily well after 1914.

Do you really think that Unionist leaning elements within the British establishment (the Tory party, to mention one, being in this camp) really cared about Irish nationalists since the HR project was in serious trouble before the war even started?

I think Irish unionists had their champions within the British establishment. I think Redmond succeeded in getting Home Rule passed despite their objections, with the support of his supporters within the British establishment. I think alienating those supporters when there was still dispute over if Ulster would half its own form of Home Rule within Ireland, or be excluded for a temporary period would have been stupid and self defeating.

This also applies to Redmond himself. His actions in encouraging this recruitment in wartime had the potential to cost lives, which turned out to be exactly what happened.

Doing anything has the potential to cost lives. What we know is that the Rising *did* cost lives, and its echoes have continued to fuel militant violence which *did* cost lives.

On the other hand, it is your belief, entirely unsupported, that Redmond giving a speech to already enlisted men could, possibly, arguably have cost lives in some indirect and unclear way.

I know which I give more weight to in terms of probability.

Also, you seem to support the Rising which *did* cost lives on the basis that it was in the interests of Irish nationalism. And you criticise giving a speech, which did *not* cost lives despite that speech being made in the interests of Irish nationalism. Very odd.

gladrags · 21-09-2014 07:37PM

The trail of events are what they are historically.

There is only a "what if " left to ponder.

McDowell has a grasp on Bruton's agenda,its not hard to figure,and has little to do with historical fact.

The agenda is FG based,I see Enda is popping his head above the paraphet.

A very dangerous pastime, rewriting "our" history.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-09-2014 07:46PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah - the idea that the London government would allow part of the United Kingdom to have a referendum on independence is so mind-bogglingly stupid that you'd have to be a complete idiot to imagine that such a thing could ever have happened within a million years.

Are you attempting to apply current norms to something which happen nearly 100 years ago?

gladrags · 21-09-2014 09:15PM

"
"You cannot compare giving a speech to a deliberate plan to carry out a full scale battle in the middle of a peaceful Dublin. The Rising cost lives, for no good reason. We had all the tools we needed: but men like Pearse rejoiced in blood being shed, so people had to die. For the past 100 years, Irish constitutional nationalists have had to struggle to undo the harm and suffering caused by the Rising and all the bloodshed justified by it since."

There is a litany of events in Irish history prior to 1916, caused by bloodshed and undone.

Not least the famines, which were arguably akin to ethnic cleansing.

The peaceful Dublin you refer to ignores the third world conditions of the tennaments,and rampant disease.

WW1was Redmonds Waterloo, he bequeathed violence.

Sand · 21-09-2014 09:17PM

gladrags wrote: »

A very dangerous pastime, rewriting "our" history.

Who is rewriting history? Acknowledging what happened and weighing its value without mythology is just realism. Bruton's basic point is valid: the Rising was unnecessary. Home Rule was on the books. Home Rule was the only tool we needed to achieve full independence.

Sand · 21-09-2014 09:25PM

gladrags wrote: »

There is a litany of events in Irish history prior to 1916, caused by bloodshed and undone.

Not least the famines, which were arguably akin to ethnic cleansing.

The peaceful Dublin you refer to ignores the third world conditions of the tennaments,and rampant disease.

WW1was Redmonds Waterloo, he bequeathed violence.

Uh huh - the solution to tenements and disease is to hold a battle in the city. Right.

gladrags · 21-09-2014 10:56PM

Similar to Bruton,you have no concept of suffering.

Redmond advocated butchery,Bruton ignores this,his agenda is simply
Self promotion.

jank · 21-09-2014 11:59PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you attempting to apply current norms to something which happen nearly 100 years ago?

Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa gained independence without resorting to violence... just saying.

RED L4 0TH · 22-09-2014 01:21AM

Sand wrote: »

No, not true. What I said was true. Deep and successful Irish resistance to conscription pre-dated the Rising, as reflected in the British decision to exempt Ireland from conscription in Jan 1916.

More to do with the operational parameters of British military planning than for any concern for Irish nationalist sensitivities I suspect.

Because Home Rule was already on the books as law.

And that's all it was. More importantly, nobody had a clue as how to implement it.

The British had no leverage: Home Rule was going to be introduced regardless of conscription.

No it was not. The Asquith administration that got this law passed was replaced by David Lloyd George's government in December 1916 which had a larger Tory & Unionist representation within it. They subsequently linked the introduction of Home Rule to the introduction of conscription in Spring 1918 which finally buried it as a credible way forward amongst Irish nationalists that was confirmed in the 1918 GE result.

potential benefits.

In other words words high stakes poker........

He only supported Irishmen joining up because he believed it would benefit Irish nationalism and possibly serve to unify Irish nationalists and unionists in a common identity.

Naive idiocy, and what common identity? Unionists enlisted & fought in the BA in the hope that it would influence the government that Ireland should remain within the union.

You cannot compare giving a speech to a deliberate plan to carry out a full scale battle in the middle of a peaceful Dublin.

I can and will. How many Irish died on the Western Front as opposed to in the Rising?

We had all the tools we needed

Which nobody knew what would be created if they were used.

For the past 100 years, Irish constitutional nationalists have had to struggle to undo the harm and suffering caused by the Rising and all the bloodshed justified by it since.

What 'Irish constitutional nationalists'? The 1918 election result finished off the IPP. Republicans and their descendants governed the Free State from 1922 onwards. The 1966 celebrations of the Rising offer scant evidence of any activity to 'undo the harm' as you put it.

I think Redmond succeeded in getting Home Rule passed despite their objections, with the support of his supporters within the British establishment. I think alienating those supporters when there was still dispute over if Ulster would half its own form of Home Rule within Ireland, or be excluded for a temporary period would have been stupid and self defeating.

And these supporters dwindled in number when Asquiths government was unseated and replaced by Lloyd George's administration in December 1916 which had a larger Tory and Unionist element within it as already said above.

On the other hand, it is your belief, entirely unsupported

The resulting butcher's bill in Europe is my support.

that Redmond giving a speech to already enlisted men could, possibly, arguably have cost lives in some indirect and unclear way.

Don't be so naive. That speech was aimed at a far larger audience.

And you criticise giving a speech, which did *not* cost lives despite that speech being made in the interests of Irish nationalism. Very odd.

I will criticise it. It cost lives and wasn't in the interests of Irish nationalism. If you are going to say that those who join an army in wartime know the risks involved, then those who encourage them to do so are equally aware of those same risks.

Sand · 22-09-2014 01:53AM

jank wrote: »

Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa gained independence without resorting to violence... just saying.

And they actually largely gained home rule in the mid to late 19th century - In some cases up to 50 years or more *before* Ireland achieved Home Rule, so it wasn't even some theoretical possibility. A peaceful attainment of independence was very possible. Others were already achieving it before the Rising, and achieved it after the Rising.

Smiles35 · 22-09-2014 02:24AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

No it was not. The Asquith administration that got this law passed was replaced by David Lloyd George's government in December 1916 which had a larger Tory & Unionist representation within it.

But how do you know conscription would have been tacked on anyway before Easter Week?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

They subsequently linked the introduction of Home Rule to the introduction of conscription in Spring 1918 which finally buried it as a credible way forward amongst Irish nationalists that was confirmed in the 1918 GE result.

Stepping stones? After the rising? It was dead and buried.

jank · 22-09-2014 08:51AM

Sand wrote: »

And they actually largely gained home rule in the mid to late 19th century - In some cases up to 50 years or more *before* Ireland achieved Home Rule, so it wasn't even some theoretical possibility. A peaceful attainment of independence was very possible. Others were already achieving it before the Rising, and achieved it after the Rising.

Indeed. In fact NZ delayed its own independence by 16 years due to the fact that most of the country didn't want Westminster to be hands free of the place. The statue of Westminster was passed in 1931 which gave free reign to all of Britain's dominions. NZ adopted it in 1947 eventually.

Dev used this piece of legislation to remove the oath of allegiance to the monarchy. So, there you have it. Laws passed by Westminster giving Ireland and others the ability to gradually and peacefully gain a fuller degree of independence. All without the loss of life...

John Bruton on Prime time was right. We should have given Home Rule a chance and see what the lay of the land was in the mid 1920's.

gladrags · 22-09-2014 09:55PM

gladrags wrote: »

August 14th

Letters »

Madam - As a son of an Irish Volunteer officer who fought in the 1916 Easter Rising, I have followed with interest the recent controversy in your columns.

My father, John F (Jack) Shouldice was officer in charge of the strong point known as 'Reilly's Fort' at the Church Street/North King Street junction, and his younger brother Frank was a sniper on the roof of the nearby Jameson's Malthouse. Their exploits were featured on the recent TG4 dramadoc A Terrible Beauty. Jack's courtmartial sentence of death was commuted to five years penal servitude, which he served in Dartmoor and Lewes prisons until the General Amnesty of June 1917.

In the context of the present Home Rule 1914 and Easter Rising controversy, I find it interesting that my father always held John Redmond in high regard, particularly for rebuilding the Irish Party after the Parnellite split, and for achieving the Home Rule measure in 1914.

He felt however that the opposition in Westminster from the Conservatives in conjunction with the War Office and Carson's Unionists would frustrate the Bill, limited as it was, and it was therefore necessary for the Irish Volunteers to make a statement in arms.

For those of your readers interested in the complexities of the situation in these islands in that timeframe, I would suggest they read John Redmond, The National Leader by Dermot Meleady, published earlier this year. However, I think Gene Kerrigan (Soapbox, 10 August) got to the heart of the matter when he called World War One "a massive, inexcusable waste of 16 million dead and 20 million wounded... a war of empire, a war to preserve alliances and dominion over markets".

The motives however of the 27,000 brave Irishmen who lost their lives in that awful war should never be impugned, and their sacrifice honoured by this generation.

I find it difficult however to respect the description of one of your correspondents who referred to the Irish Volunteers as "the 1916 terrorists". I can only suggest that my father would have quoted the Greek classical satirist Aristophanes who said "to be insulted by you is to be garlanded with lilies".

Easter lilies, perhaps?

In context Redmonds speech glorifies the oncoming slaughter.

One of the most galling aspects of all this,was that Redmond did not lead these men from the front.He had no military record.

Yet, he condemned 1916,hypocrisy indeed.

September 1914 Woodenbridge...

‘The interests of Ireland—of the whole of Ireland—are at stake in this war. This war is undertaken in the defence of the highest principles of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country and a reproach to heor manhood and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and to shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which has distinguished our race all through its history. I say to you, therefore, your duty is twofold. I am glad to see such magnificent material for soldiers around me, and I say to you: “Go on drilling and make yourself efficient for the Work, and then account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war”’.

Sand · 22-09-2014 11:24PM

gladrags wrote: »

In context Redmonds speech glorifies the oncoming slaughter.

No, it doesn't. He claims the war is being fought for "the highest principles of religion and morality and right" and he urges the enlisted men to "account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war"

Redmond was responding to a war launched by Imperial Germany, and specifically to the invasion of little, neutral, Catholic, Belgium and the heavy handed German treatment of civilians there with many executions and shootings by the Imperial army outraging international opinion and the UKs nominal casus belli. Hence religion, morality and right.

He at no point praises bloodshed or slaughter as a positive thing to be welcomed in the same way that Pearse did. Pearse and his cohorts deliberately launched a pointless, stupid battle in the middle of Dublin, shooting unarmed policemen and Dubliners, and inviting a full scale British military response with all the misery that entailed. For no good reason other than to shed blood, for the sake of shedding blood.

Rewriting history to paint Redmond as a warmonger and Pearse as a saint is dangerous indeed.

RED L4 0TH · 23-09-2014 01:01AM

Sand wrote: »

and he urges the enlisted men to "account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war"

How do you 'account for yourself as a man' in wartime?

Sand · 23-09-2014 08:41AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How do you 'account for yourself as a man' in wartime?

Man, you're grasping at any straw now...

Given most soldiers will never even see the frontline, let alone an enemy soldier most would and do account for themselves by doing their non lethal job in what are often difficult and/or boring circumstances far from family and friends.

And even still, Redmond is encouraging them to account well for themselves - again, no matter how much you twist and turn, he does not praise bloodshed as a good thing in and of itself. And he did not inflict a week of misery and death on innocent civilians just to make a point.

Happyman42 · 23-09-2014 08:52AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Bruton spouting his half-baked nonsense again on Primetime tonight.

It's quite clear how FG are going to deal with the upcoming centenary...troll it.
Anything to keep the attention away from their failures as we review.

BBC4 has an obscure late night programme called 'What If...' where history nerds and junkies discuss this sort of stuff. I don't think even they could have stayed interested in this 'thesis/hookum' or seen any point in it.

RED L4 0TH · 23-09-2014 09:23AM

Sand wrote: »

Man, you're grasping at any straw now..

Thousands of 'straws' maybe, buried in the fields of Flanders and elsewhere?

Redmond is encouraging them to account well for themselves

In the front-line how do you do that?

And he did not inflict a week of misery and death on innocent civilians just to make a point.

No, he inflicted 4 years of misery and death in the hell of the trenches on those who heeded his call to ‘account for themselves as men'.

steddyeddy · 23-09-2014 09:48AM

Sand wrote: »

Man, you're grasping at any straw now...

Given most soldiers will never even see the frontline, let alone an enemy soldier most would and do account for themselves by doing their non lethal job in what are often difficult and/or boring circumstances far from family and friends.

And even still, Redmond is encouraging them to account well for themselves - again, no matter how much you twist and turn, he does not praise bloodshed as a good thing in and of itself. And he did not inflict a week of misery and death on innocent civilians just to make a point.

Cognitive dissonance. The 1916 rising was unnecessary bloodshed yet Redmond just sent encouraged people to go to war to become men. Remarkable.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments