John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Nodin · 31-10-2014 05:25PM

alastair wrote: »

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're seriously proposing that the effectiveness of the rising, or of the credibility of the proclamation, required the declaration of an alliance to a 'gallant' military who were engaged in the massacre of civilians in Belgium? Any sensible/neutral reading of their pitch, would have informed them that this would work against them, not generate any additional support.

*sigh

The British were constantly engaged in killing civillians.

Where else would they get the guns from?

Why would they believe British reports of a German massacre?

gladrags · 31-10-2014 05:33PM

alastair wrote: »

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're seriously proposing that the effectiveness of the rising, or of the credibility of the proclamation, required the declaration of an alliance to a 'gallant' military who were engaged in the massacre of civilians in Belgium? Any sensible/neutral reading of their pitch, would have informed them that this would work against them, not generate any additional support.

There was no alliance,and no support from Germany.

Those who fought the might of the British empire,gave their lives to do so.

That is an historical fact.

1916 happened,and changed the course of Irish history.What did or did not happen in Belgium is irrelevant.

And you're comments will change nothing.

alastair · 31-10-2014 06:12PM

Nodin wrote: »

*sigh

The British were constantly engaged in killing civillians.

Where else would they get the guns from?

Why would they believe British reports of a German massacre?

Sigh yourself.

I've no issue with where they sourced guns from, nor do I have any interest in yet more whataboutery from you regarding the British killing civilians - which they certainly were not doing in any similar fashion to the Germans in Belgium. The reports of the massacres were not limited to 'British reports' - they were widely reported in Irish newspapers, as well as American ones. There was no reason to doubt them - indeed they were accurate.

We return once again to the choice of those rising leaders to explicitly call known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'.

alastair · 31-10-2014 06:14PM

gladrags wrote: »

There was no alliance,and no support from Germany.

Those who fought the might of the British empire,gave their lives to do so.

That is an historical fact.

1916 happened,and changed the course of Irish history.What did or did not happen in Belgium is irrelevant.

And you're comments will change nothing.

Maybe you might like to explain why they felt driven to articulate that non-existent alliance in the proclamation then? Not just allies, but 'gallant' allies. Who were engaged in civilian massacres. This is also historical fact.

Thanks for the pointer on my words not changing anything btw - just as your words will have equal effect. Any other insights?

who the fug · 31-10-2014 06:17PM

alastair wrote: »

Sigh yourself.

I've no issue with where they sourced guns from, nor do I have any interest in yet more whataboutery from you regarding the British killing civilians - which they certainly were not doing in any similar fashion to the Germans in Belgium. The reports of the massacres were not limited to 'British reports' - they were widely reported in Irish newspapers, as well as American ones. There was no reason to doubt them - indeed they were accurate.

We return once again to the choice of those rising leaders to explicitly call known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'.

The more important aspect of the whole rising was Major Redmond accurate point that his voice was sidelined for ever

RED L4 0TH · 31-10-2014 06:34PM

alastair wrote: »

'gallant allies'.

Irish Belgian relations under strain due to these two words in the 1916 proclamation...........:rolleyes:.

alastair · 31-10-2014 06:40PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Irish Belgian relations under strain due to these two words in the 1916 proclamation...........:rolleyes:.

I think you miss the point.

RED L4 0TH · 31-10-2014 06:54PM

alastair wrote: »

I think you miss the point.

Not really. Its just you continuing your quest to expose a supposed moral vacuum at the heart of Irish republicanism, in any era it seems.

alastair · 31-10-2014 07:10PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Not really. Its just you continuing your quest to expose a supposed moral vacuum at the heart of Irish republicanism, in any era it seems.

Not me who opted to call those responsible for civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'. I think we can all agree that 'my quest' has no bearing on that reality.

Again - you miss the point.

gladrags · 31-10-2014 08:04PM

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you might like to explain why they felt driven to articulate that non-existent alliance in the proclamation then? Not just allies, but 'gallant' allies. Who were engaged in civilian massacres. This is also historical fact.

Thanks for the pointer on my words not changing anything btw - just as your words will have equal effect. Any other insights?

Gallant allies have been involved in massacres throughout history.

Russians,americans,spanish,german,british,italian,serbs,israelis.

The list is endless

There will be many gallant allies at the centenary of the 1916 rising.

To honour the martyrs who sacrificed so much.

Brave men and women all.

RED L4 0TH · 31-10-2014 08:41PM

alastair wrote: »

Not me.....

Hilarious you think that the British were 'better' in light of the length of time they built and maintained an empire compared to Imperial Germany that existed from 1871 to 1918. Plus you must have forgotten about events such as the Amritsar massacre which happened 3 years after the rising. 'Better', yeah right.

poteen o hooley · 31-10-2014 09:38PM

This thread could be retitled:

"Alastair in Wonderland"

alastair · 31-10-2014 10:19PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hilarious you think that the British were 'better' in light of the length of time they built and maintained an empire compared to Imperial Germany that existed from 1871 to 1918. Plus you must have forgotten about events such as the Amritsar massacre which happened 3 years after the rising. 'Better', yeah right.

More whataboutery. I imagine that they didn't have a crystal ball in 1916, so their choice to align themselves with 'gallant allies' who were known to be guilty of civilian massacres, had nothing to do with either the British, nor an event three years in he future.

Hilarious indeed.

RED L4 0TH · 31-10-2014 10:59PM

alastair wrote: »

More whataboutery. I imagine that they didn't have a crystal ball in 1916, so their choice to align themselves with 'gallant allies' who were known to be guilty of civilian massacres, had nothing to do with either the British, nor an event three years in he future.

Hilarious indeed.

No crystal ball needed. How many Boer civilians died in South Africa during the war there in 1900-02? And you think the British are 'better'.

Hilarious indeed.

poteen o hooley · 31-10-2014 11:09PM

While the Alice Dears of this world are ironing their moral chastity belts, the tyrants and sociopaths of life will be twice around the world.
Whataboutery? ha ha ha

Fairyland grasp of how the world works. Olympian levels of ineffectiveness.

Sand · 31-10-2014 11:47PM

poteen o hooley wrote: »

While the Alice Dears of this world are ironing their moral chastity belts, the tyrants and sociopaths of life will be twice around the world.
Whataboutery? ha ha ha

Fairyland grasp of how the world works. Olympian levels of ineffectiveness.

Is this some sort of protest against the English language?

alastair · 01-11-2014 12:33AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

No crystal ball needed. How many Boer civilians died in South Africa during the war there in 1900-02? And you think the British are 'better'.

Hilarious indeed.

Again with the whataboutery? It does nothing to alleviate the culpability for the proclamation signatories' alliance with 'gallant' baby killers.

Happyman42 · 01-11-2014 12:46AM

alastair wrote: »

alliance with 'gallant' baby killers.

Haven't been following the inane argument....but that few words made me think of a solemn faced Joe Duffy for some reason.
Joe and John Bruton as dinner guests......nom nom :rolleyes:

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 12:53AM

alastair wrote: »

It does nothing to alleviate the culpability for the proclamation signatories'

You are guilty of hindsight bias I believe. By claiming these reports of German killings of Belgian civilians are accurate (you did earlier), you are more than likely considering information that has only more recently emerged considering the authenticity of this information, including the Bryce report that was not available to the 1916 proclamation writers. It along with other reports were widely dismissed as propaganda at the time by the Germans and their allies. Why wouldn't they in wartime?

'gallant' baby killers.

Hardly.

In a post-war report, the Belgian Commission proved that the main victims of the German war crimes were male adults, not women and children.

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

alastair · 01-11-2014 01:01AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You are guilty of hindsight bias I believe. By claiming these reports of German killings of Belgian civilians are accurate (you did earlier), you are more than likely considering information that has only more recently emerged considering the authenticity of this information, including the Bryce report that was not available to the 1916 proclamation writers. It along with other reports were widely dismissed as propaganda at the time by the Germans and their allies. Why wouldn't they in wartime?

The reports of the various massacres in Belgium were very well known to the signatories, and to the general population at the time. No hindsight is required.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hardly.

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

Ah, so because they massacred more civilian men than babies, it's all okay? They didn't kill babies? Hardly indeed.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&id=History.Martyrdom&entity=History.Martyrdom.p0015&isize=text

Although the town fell to von Hausen's troops on 23 August the occupation was not initially peaceful. German soldiers who were repairing the town bridge were allegedly fired upon by local inhabitants. In retaliation therefore the German authorities rounded up 612 men, women and children and shot them together; the youngest victim was a three-week-old baby.

The town was subsequently pillaged and many of its buildings destroyed by the rampant German force. Although the massacre shocked public opinion around the world - particularly in neutral countries such as the U.S. - it merely formed part of the German army's strategy of intimidating occupied Belgian territories as a means of securing maximum civilian co-operation.

Although a notorious incident in itself the massacre of Dinant was eclipsed by a similar, wider-scale action at Louvain two days later. Both were exploited to the full by Allied propaganda.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/dinant.htm

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 01:09AM

alastair wrote: »

The reports of the various massacres in Belgium were very well known to the signatories, and to the general population at the time. No hindsight is required.

Did the 1916 signatories see them as propaganda or as accurate reports?

it's all okay?

Why would you think I'd consider it 'okay'?

alastair · 01-11-2014 01:18AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Did the 1916 signatories see them as propaganda or as accurate reports?

I'm sure they saw them for the accurate reports they were. And opted to still declare an alliance with those known to have massacred civilians.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Why would you think I'd consider it 'okay'?

You seem to think that they were 'hardly' baby killers on the back of your statement. If I'm mistaken, care to tell us what your point was? Did it have any point?

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 01:31AM

alastair wrote: »

I'm sure

Really? Anything to back that up?

You seem to think that they were 'hardly' baby killers on the back of your statement. If I'm mistaken, care to tell us what your point was? Did it have any point?

Going from 'gallant allies' to 'gallant baby killers'. Whats your point?

alastair · 01-11-2014 01:43AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Really? Anything to back that up?

They were well informed, and are rather unlikely to have missed the testimony of the day, ncluding direct testimony from Belgian refugees: https://vodhls.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2014/0817/20140817_rteradio1-thehistoryshow-belgianref_c20630063_20634481_261_.m3u8

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Going from 'gallant allies' to 'gallant baby killers'. Whats your point?

Not standing over the 'hardly baby killers' thing anymore then?

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 02:12AM

alastair wrote: »

They were well informed, and are rather unlikely to have missed the testimony of the day, ncluding direct testimony from Belgian refugees: https://vodhls.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2014/0817/20140817_rteradio1-thehistoryshow-belgianref_c20630063_20634481_261_.m3u8

'And the media portrayed it that little Belgium was being raped by these monstrous barbarians'. Propaganda pure and simple. No testimonies about civilian killings in that piece either. The guy at the end talks about propagandists too.

Not standing over the 'hardly baby killers' thing anymore then?

I am, since you appeared to give the impression that only babies were being killed.

alastair · 01-11-2014 02:35AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

'And the media portrayed it that little Belgium was being raped by these monstrous barbarians'. Propaganda pure and simple. No testimonies about civilian killings in that piece either. The guy at the end talks about propagandists too.

The massacres were real enough, and the reporting accurate.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I am, since you appeared to give the impression that only babies were being killed.

Really? You honestly think that posting sort of nonsense makes you look any better? Pathetic. So, not baby killers, except for the babies they killed. gotcha.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 02:50AM

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were real enough, and the reporting accurate.

Still no proof though that the 1916 signatories themselves also considered this to be the case.

Really? You honestly think that posting sort of nonsense makes you look any better? Pathetic. So, not baby killers, except for the babies they killed. gotcha.

Nah, you went for the baby killers line just to play the moral card. Your real intent here is to to link the 1916 signatories to these events rather than show any genuine concern for the events when considered on their own.

poteen o hooley · 01-11-2014 08:43AM

Alice Dear's basic problem is this:
He cannot accept that sometimes the greater good will override the rights of the individual. No doubt this is the consequence of personal experience and eventually the day will come when that reality will be faced. It's not easy to accept no doubt about that.

In the meantime he's actually best ignored. He thinks he knows better and arguing feeds that.

gladrags · 01-11-2014 10:12AM

poteen o hooley wrote: »

Alice Dear's basic problem is this:
He cannot accept that sometimes the greater good will override the rights of the individual. No doubt this is the consequence of personal experience and eventually the day will come when that reality will be faced. It's not easy to accept no doubt about that.

In the meantime he's actually best ignored. He thinks he knows better and arguing feeds that.

Totally agree.

alastair · 01-11-2014 11:26AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Still no proof though that the 1916 signatories themselves also considered this to be the case..

There's no proof of the converse either, so where does that leave us?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nah, you went for the baby killers line just to play the moral card. Your real intent here is to to link the 1916 signatories to these events rather than show any genuine concern for the events when considered on their own.

Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments