John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

alastair · 23-09-2014 09:59AM

Redmond spun the case for a romantic notion of fighting in the war for sure. And he may or may not have had a greater insight into the harsh realities than the man on the street (though I'm not personally persuaded that this was the case). But the undoubted romantic spin that Pearse placed on sacrificing men for his particular project, doesn't paint a much better picture. Indeed the romanticisation of those German "gallant allies" by those at the GPO, given what was widely known about what happened Belgian civilians at the start of the war, is just as grubby.

No real winners in this moral bunfight.

jank · 23-09-2014 11:47AM

Am I right that the 1916 rebels allied themselves with Kaisers Germany? If so, this moral equivalence about WWI is bollox

gladrags · 23-09-2014 12:52PM

"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"

Conflict is historically driven by religous and moral frenzies, there are few exceptions, from early christianity to the present times. 40,000 Irish citizens died, countless injured.

Redmonds speech has all the hallmarks.

Redmonds call to arms had other motives, and are well documented.

"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."

I am sure that the german King in Buckingham palace knew a thing or two about, "little,neutral,catholic, countries."

Ireland being one of them, and countless others across the globe, Imperial Germany = Imperial Britain.

"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. "

Redmond reminds me of Raglan, orating from a distance,from a safe distance, instructing the "troops".

You are confused, 1916 was clearly miniscule when compared to the Somme or any other WW1 tragedy, the British(and Germans, Spanish etc) were historical war mongers, colonialists, rapists,that WAS there history.

I never said I agreed with 1916, so at least try to get the facts straight.

But, at the very least, they made the ultimate sacrifice

alastair · 23-09-2014 01:34PM

gladrags wrote: »

But, at the very least, they made the ultimate sacrifice

Redmond was an old sick man - hard to see what you expected him to do at the battlefront. He lost his brother in the war - kind of petty to doubt his personal commitment to his cause.

gladrags · 23-09-2014 02:46PM

alastair wrote: »

Redmond was an old sick man - hard to see what you expected him to do at the battlefront. He lost his brother in the war - kind of petty to doubt his personal commitment to his cause.

Read the topic of this discussion.

Daniel O'Connell was "old", he would never have advocated such war mongering.

You are correct,it was " his cause".

alastair · 23-09-2014 02:52PM

gladrags wrote: »

Read the topic of this discussion.

I have. My point stands. It was a petty and misguided comment you made.

gladrags wrote: »

Daniel O'Connell was "old", he would never have advocated such war mongering."

Really? You've stuck him in a time machine, briefed him on the context of the day, and received that reassurance? Or is this just your supposition?

gladrags wrote: »

You are correct,it was " his cause".

A cause that was shared by the democratic majority of the country at the time.

gladrags · 23-09-2014 04:06PM

"Redmond spun the case for a romantic notion of fighting in the war for sure. And he may or may not have had a greater insight into the harsh realities than the man on the street (though I'm not personally persuaded that this was the case). But the undoubted romantic spin that Pearse placed on sacrificing men for his particular project, doesn't paint a much better picture. Indeed the romanticisation of those German "gallant allies" by those at the GPO, given what was widely known about what happened Belgian civilians at the start of the war, is just as grubby.

No real winners in this moral bunfight. "

I see you have joined the bunfight.

What point are you making on this topic?, other than personal.

"Really? You've stuck him in a time machine, briefed him on the context of the day, and received that reassurance? Or is this just your supposition?"

Now it looks as if you have really joined your "bunfight"

"A cause that was shared by the democratic majority of the country at the time."

What democracy?, their was no vote, and thier certainly was no "democratic majority"

alastair · 23-09-2014 04:31PM

gladrags wrote: »

What point are you making on this topic?, other than personal.

I've made no personal point. I wasn't alive at the time. The point I did make was all players under discussion are guilty of romanticising violence and war-making. I also made the point that you made a petty misrepresentation of Redmond's commitment to his cause.

gladrags wrote: »

Now it looks as if you have really joined your "bunfight"

I guess it's just your supposition on O'Connell then? The same O'Connell who supported an imperial war in 1841?

gladrags wrote: »

What democracy?, their was no vote, and thier certainly was no "democratic majority"

There was a democracy, and a vote, with exactly the same franchise across the whole of the UK. Irish voters, in the democratic election in 1910, voted by a large majority for the IPP/Redmond.

gladrags · 23-09-2014 05:38PM

alastair wrote: »

I've made no personal point. I wasn't alive at the time. The point I did make was all players under discussion are guilty of romanticising violence and war-making. I also made the point that you made a petty misrepresentation of Redmond's commitment to his cause.

Most posts on this topic are well thought
out,and put forward alt perspectives.

There is little in the way of romantics.

" I guess it's just your supposition on O'Connell then? The same O'Connell who supported an imperial war in 1841?"

Yes,this is why he was a pacifist all his life, and why he advocated non violence.

Pretty unromantic!

" There was a democracy, and a vote, with exactly the same franchise acrossi the whole of the UK. Irish voters, in the democratic election in 1910, voted by a large majority for the IPP/Redmond.

"

This has been dealt with many times,their was NO democratic vote.

alastair · 23-09-2014 06:26PM

gladrags wrote: »

"

This has been dealt with many times,their was NO democratic vote.

The voters of 1910 would beg to differ.

Edit: could you possibly get to grips with correct quoting? Your posts are headwreckers.

Sand · 23-09-2014 06:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Redmond didn't "send" people anywhere. It was all volunteer. Redmond was reacting to a war that had already started, and in which he was merely a bystander. Irishmen were already volunteering before Redmond gave his speech and continued to do so afterwards.

The people of Dublin didn't volunteer for the misery that the Rising inflicted upon them, and if the Rising had been limited to simply giving a speech then that misery would have been prevented.

@Red Louth

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'.

How many Irishmen do you think Redmond killed, directly or indirectly?

@gladrags

Redmonds call to arms had other motives, and are well documented.

Yes, I referenced them myself earlier in the thread. Regardless, Redmond did not praise bloodshed in the same way that Pearse did. And Redmond did not inflict misery and suffering on a civilian population to make a point.

No matter how much people twist and squirm, there is no equivalence.

I am sure that the german King in Buckingham palace knew a thing or two about, "little,neutral,catholic, countries."

Ireland being one of them, and countless others across the globe

Very good, very good for spotting that connection between Ireland and Belgium. I wondered if anyone might be sharp enough to pick up on it. Now, can you develop that point a little and think about why Redmond might publicly champion the rights of "little, neutral, catholic, countries"...

Why might it be useful to Ireland to champion this?

I never said I agreed with 1916

Yeah, I never actually said I disagreed with 1916 either, so lets everyone get their facts straight.

RED L4 0TH · 23-09-2014 07:06PM

Sand wrote: »

How many Irishmen do you think Redmond....

Thousands, when he told them to go 'wherever the firing line extends'.

Since you've already said that:

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.

Therefore Redmond I'm sure is equally aware of these same risks when exhorting others to join and so is culpable.

Sand · 23-09-2014 07:09PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Thousands, when he told them to go 'wherever the firing line extends'.

Yeah, but how many. How many lives would have been saved if Redmond had not made the speech? How many men who were killed were *only* motivated to go because Redmond gave that speech?

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-09-2014 07:12PM

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, but how many. How many lives would have been saved if Redmond had not made the speech? How many men who were killed were *only* motivated to go because Redmond gave that speech?

6,421

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, I never actually said I disagreed with 1916 either, so lets everyone get their facts straight.

You agree with 1916 then?

Sand · 23-09-2014 07:14PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You agree with 1916 then?

Does Gladrags disagree with 1916?

gladrags · 23-09-2014 07:34PM

Sand wrote: »

Does Gladrags disagree with 1916?

1916 is an historical fact,and shaped this country.

It does not matter who agrees/disagrees.

Getting back to the topic,Bruton is not an historian,he has an agenda.

He is incapable of perspective,and he is in effect,using Redmond as a crutch,because Bruton and his party have no Noel Brown,no Connolly or Collins,and no O'Connell.

It is also possible that he is eyeing the Park.

alastair · 23-09-2014 07:42PM

gladrags wrote: »

because Bruton and his party have no Noel Brown,no Connolly or Collins,and no O'Connell.

That's going to surprise a lot of FG folk (Collins).

RED L4 0TH · 23-09-2014 08:42PM

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, but how many. How many lives would have been saved if Redmond had not made the speech? How many men who were killed were *only* motivated to go because Redmond gave that speech?

About 25,000 National Volunteers (those Irish Volunteers who supported Redmond's line on the war) are estimated to have joined the BA, along with thousands who weren't in the National Volunteers but may have still heeded Redmond's call nonetheless. The 16th Irish Division were derisively called 'Johnnie Redmonds pets' by some in the BA. It suffered 28,000 casualties with about 4,000 dead. The 10th Irish suffered a further 9,400 killed wounded and missing. I'd say alot of these heeded Redmond's call to join.

Sand · 24-09-2014 08:50PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

About 25,000 National Volunteers (those Irish Volunteers who supported Redmond's line on the war) are estimated to have joined the BA, along with thousands who weren't in the National Volunteers but may have still heeded Redmond's call nonetheless. The 16th Irish Division were derisively called 'Johnnie Redmonds pets' by some in the BA. It suffered 28,000 casualties with about 4,000 dead. The 10th Irish suffered a further 9,400 killed wounded and missing. I'd say alot of these heeded Redmond's call to join.

And do you believe that Redmond is directly or indirectly responsible for all those dead and missing? Because of the mild speech he gave?

Sand · 24-09-2014 08:54PM

gladrags wrote: »

1916 is an historical fact,and shaped this country.

It does not matter who agrees/disagrees.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that the occurrence of the Rising is not dependant on belief or support. That was unclear for me.

For my part, I shall clarify that people are acknowledging that the Rising happened and weighing up if the Rising was necessary, or if the ends achieved justified the means over and beyond the peaceful tools that were already available.

On both counts, people are finding that it was not.

RED L4 0TH · 24-09-2014 09:21PM

Sand wrote: »

And do you believe that Redmond is directly or indirectly responsible for all those dead and missing? Because of the mild speech he gave?

He's collectively responsible. 'Mild' is an interesting term you use considering the killing power of the weaponry available at the 'firing line' in 1914.

Sand · 24-09-2014 10:01PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

He's collectively responsible. 'Mild' is an interesting term you use considering the killing power of the weaponry available at the 'firing line' in 1914.

And how many deaths do you think Gerry Adams is responsible for?

A Dub in Glasgo · 24-09-2014 10:12PM

Sand wrote: »

And how many deaths do you think Gerry Adams is responsible for?

Clearly less than Redmond

RED L4 0TH · 24-09-2014 10:22PM

Sand wrote: »

And how many deaths do you think Gerry Adams is responsible for?

Since the conflict in the North involved many, theres a collective responsibility associated with it. Same with the 1914-18 war & 1916-23 in Ireland.

Sand · 24-09-2014 10:46PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Since the conflict in the North involved many, theres a collective responsibility associated with it. Same with the 1914-18 war & 1916-23 in Ireland.

Now, don't dodge - you were happy to assign all deaths, missing and wounded suffered by the 10th and 16th division in WW1 to Redmond on the basis of a speech. How many deaths, woundings and "disappeared" is Gerry Adams responsible for? How many poor, innocent, impressionable lads would not have joined up with the IRA if it was not for Gerry's speeches?

Ah, moral equivalence is a slippery path...the reason I don't hold the views you do is I have thought about them a little more.

RED L4 0TH · 24-09-2014 11:32PM

Sand wrote: »

Now, don't dodge - you were happy to assign all deaths, missing and wounded suffered by the 10th and 16th division in WW1 to Redmond on the basis of a speech....

I said 'alot', not 'all', as well as mentioning collective responsibility.

Interesting how you needed to jump clean out of the historical era that was being discussed (Pearse v Redmond) and compare it to another (Adams v Redmond), and then bring in the notion of moral equivalence or lack of when talking about the actions of republicans as opposed to the actions of others. Can't you discuss moral equivalence against the background of republicans (Pearse etc) v Redmond in the WW1 & 1916 era alone?

gladrags · 25-09-2014 05:39PM

Quote: Sand

"on the basis of a speech"

It is not merely on the basis of a speech.

Redmond it appears, attempted to use WW1 as a stepping stone to HR, wittingly or unwittingly aware of the human consequences.

Redmond's naivety led him to believe that this would lead to possible North/ South solution with regard to HR.

He clearly had ulterior motives, and promoting WW1 in order to enhance his HR strategy was one of them.

Irrespective of how many answered Redmond's call to arms, or how many joined the war out of loyalty etc, the point is Redmond was clearly advocating violence/war,

It is likely that Redmond's dithering, and his input into the breakup of the IVF, and the watered down HR on the backburner, contributed to the events of 1916.

After 1916 Redmond wrote to Asquith advising that he (Asquith) needed to act, on the fate 1500 Irish prisoners languishing in jails.

Redmond had no power to act himself, nor would he have had... had HR been enacted at the time.

Bruton attempts to revise a history that no historian, Irish or otherwise, that I know of, would try to do, in such a blatant and ignorant manner.

Bruton, in fact, is an example, of how the politicians have failed this country time and time again, with agenda ridden, narrow minded, and self serving politics.

Sand · 25-09-2014 06:54PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I said 'alot', not 'all', as well as mentioning collective responsibility.

Yep, when I asked if he was responsible for all those deaths, wounded and missing you said he was.

Interesting how you needed to jump clean out of the historical era that was being discussed (Pearse v Redmond) and compare it to another (Adams v Redmond), and then bring in the notion of moral equivalence or lack of when talking about the actions of republicans as opposed to the actions of others. Can't you discuss moral equivalence against the background of republicans (Pearse etc) v Redmond in the WW1 & 1916 era alone?

No, its you who are unable to judge the motivations of either Pearse or Redmond without the benefit of jumping ahead in the timeline. I'm quite happy to judge both men within the context of their time. You're not.

Comparing the writings of Pearse and Redmond its very clear they were entirely different men, with Pearse praising bloodshed as a positive thing in and of itself. And it was Pearse, not Redmond, that launched a pointless, stupid, bloody battle in the middle of Dublin, just to make a point.

I also pointed out Redmonds reasoning for supporting the war effort as an Irish nationalist - reasons that other Irish nationalists with minds of their own could and did share without prompting. I pointed out that even putting aside political motivations, regular pay in the army could beat what was on offer. I pointed out Irish nationalists were joining before Redmond gave his speech. I pointed out that the vast majority of Irish nationalists who joined would not have heard Redmond speak. I have pointed out that the "Rape of Belgium" aroused great anger internationally - in Ireland as well. I pointed out that Redmond couldn't realistically do anything other than support the war effort to ensure Unionists that wanted partition didn't gain support with the British government. You ignore *all* that. All the context of that time.

On the other have not provided a single *scrap* of evidence that even a single Irish Volunteer was swung to joining the British Army by Redmond specifically. You haven't provided a single *scrap* of evidence that Redmon was responsible, directly or indirectly for even a single casualty suffered by the 10th or 16th division. When talking about casualties suffered by the 10th and 16th you also seem to miss that the 10th and 16th were almost 90% English & Indian by the end of the war, because England has conscription and Ireland did not. I presume we can discount Englishmen and Indians as being influenced by Redmond, right?

Instead you support Pearse and the Rising because you jump ahead and agree with the ultimate outcome, so you retroactively approve, regardless of reason. In the same way, you jump ahead of what Redmond knew at the time, and dismiss all his motivations and instead smear him as *knowingly* sending the volunteers into more than 4 years trench warfare that hadn't even broken out when Redmond gave his speech at Woodenbridge.

You seem to ignore all evidence contrary to your view, so I just allowed you to frame yourself up nice and tight, smearing Redmond as being responsible for thousands of deaths on the basis of a speech, of just supporting the war effort. I made sure you wouldn't have any wriggle room. And then I highlighted how poor and unfair your argument was by applying to one of your heroes.

Suddenly now you want to talk about specifics and keep the discussion limited to the context of the time. Deal with the points I raised then.

gladrags · 25-09-2014 07:20PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I said 'alot', not 'all', as well as mentioning collective responsibility.

Interesting how you needed to jump clean out of the historical era that was being discussed (Pearse v Redmond) and compare it to another (Adams v Redmond), and then bring in the notion of moral equivalence or lack of when talking about the actions of republicans as opposed to the actions of others. Can't you discuss moral equivalence against the background of republicans (Pearse etc) v Redmond in the WW1 & 1916 era alone?

Red is correct.You need to deal with the facts,and stop evading them.

"Irish Division were derisively called 'Johnnie Redmonds pets' by some in the BA. It suffered 28,000 casualties with about 4,000 dead. The 10th Irish suffered a further 9,400 killed wounded and missing. I'd say alot of these heeded Redmond's call to join."

Sand · 25-09-2014 07:23PM

gladrags wrote: »

Red is correct.You need to deal with the facts,and stop evading them.

No, he is incorrect. Much like the Rising, that's a matter independent of your agreement or disagreement with it.

That said, can I direct you to all my posts on your contributions in the last page or two which you have evaded?

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments