John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 11:52AM

alastair wrote: »

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

Yet another circular debate and the weakest attempt I've seen so far in efforts to engage in retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion

It does actually, because you haven't been able to provide any proof that they didn't consider these reports to be propaganda.

alastair · 01-11-2014 12:03PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Yet another circular debate and the weakest attempt I've seen so far in efforts to engage in retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Just to be clear - you've no proof, and I've no proof, but it's 'weak' on the basis of my not providing proof? Let's review shall we? We know that the reporting of the civilian massacres was widespread, we know that the signatories were aware of them, we have nothing to suggest that they discounted those reports on the back of animosity towards the British, so if you're going to make that contention, it's up to you to provide the proof for it, not me to prove the negative.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It does actually, because you haven't been able to provide any proof that they didn't consider these reports to be propaganda.

See above. You don't really seem to understand how these things work.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 12:14PM

alastair wrote: »

You don't really seem to understand how these things work.

Now now, don't be condescending. It's your belief they knew. I don't agree. Simple as. And as Nodin says it was nothing more than agreement with a rival power to gain aid for the rising. You are reading way too much into it.

alastair · 01-11-2014 12:32PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Now now, don't be condescending. It's your belief they knew. I don't agree. Simple as. And as Nodin says it was nothing more than agreement with a rival power to gain aid for the rising. You are reading way too much into it.

Of course they did know. It was impossible not to know at the time, if you opened a newspaper or talked to anyone on the street. I'm reading exactly the appropriate amount of significance into their choice to call the known perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 12:40PM

alastair wrote: »

Of course they did know.

So what. They may have still dismissed it as propaganda.

It was impossible not to know at the time, if you opened a newspaper or talked to anyone on the street.

Information from a censored press in wartime mightn't be propaganda?

I'm reading exactly the appropriate amount of significance into their choice to call the known perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'.

From a censored press in wartime?

alastair · 01-11-2014 12:47PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So what. They may have still dismissed it as propaganda.

Have you anything to prove this proposition?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Information from a censored press in wartime mightn't be propaganda?

There were Belgians in Dublin, well able to confirm the factual nature of the massacres. No-one disputed that they happened, even if they recognised their propaganda value to recruiting for the British Army. To pretend otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

From a censored press in wartime?

Sure. People still bought and read newspapers for access to the news.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 12:55PM

alastair wrote: »

Have you anything to prove this proposition?

Do you have anything to prove the proposition that they considered these reports to be accurate?

There were Belgians in Dublin, well able to confirm the factual nature of the massacres. No-one disputed that they happened, even if they recognised their propaganda value to recruiting for the British Army.

So? You need to show that those who inserted the words 'gallant allies' into the proclamation believed these reports too.

Sure. People still bought and read newspapers for access to the news.

And how accurate was this news considering it was a censored press in wartime?

alastair · 01-11-2014 01:00PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Do you have anything to prove the proposition that they considered these reports to be accurate?

The complete absence of any evidence that they didn't. Again - this is your proposition - so you need to prove it.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So? You need to show that those who inserted the words 'gallant allies' into the proclamation believed these reports too.

Actually I don't. See above.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And how accurate was this news considering it was a censored press in wartime?

Pretty accurate on the massacres - as confirmed by the arrival of Belgian refugees in Ireland.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 01:13PM

alastair wrote: »

The complete absence of any evidence that they didn't.

And the complete absence of evidence from you that they did.

so you need to prove it.

Nice try. I have to prove things and you don't?

Pretty accurate on the massacres - as confirmed by the arrival of Belgian refugees in Ireland.

So? Did the the 1916 signatories believe these reports to be accurate?

alastair · 01-11-2014 01:38PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And the complete absence of evidence from you that they did.

Again - you don't really get this works. You've claimed that the signatories disputed a factual series of massacres. A factual series of massacres widely reported, and confirmed by refugees from Belgium. That requires that you prove that contention. If you can't, then you need to accept that they, along with everyone else, was aware that these massacres happened. Because there is ample evidence to demonstrate that fact.

So - over to you. Can you prove your contention? All it requires is a statement from them disputing the validity of the massacres. Shouldn't be too difficult to find, if there was any merit to the contention.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 01:50PM

alastair wrote: »

Again....

You say these reports are accurate and that the 1916 signatories knew about them. If they considered them accurate as well, where's your proof to confirm this?

There's no point in telling me over and over again that they knew about them if you can't show that they believed them to be accurate too. If they didn't believe them to be accurate, what's wrong with them referring to 'gallant allies'?

alastair · 01-11-2014 02:01PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You say these reports are accurate and that the 1916 signatories knew about them. If they considered them accurate as well, where's your proof to confirm this?

There's no point in telling me over and over again that they knew about them if you can't show that they believed them to be accurate too. If they didn't believe them to be accurate, what's wrong with them referring to 'gallant allies'?

I'm at a loss as to why you can't comprehend where the responsibility to support your contention, lies with you?

The massacres were a fact.
The reporting of the massacres was a fact.
The widespread awareness of the massacres was a fact.
The testimony of the Belgian refugees ISPs Ireland, was a fact.
The absence of anything that suggests the signatories of the proclamation disputed the factual nature of the massacres, was a fact.

You can equally claim the signatories believed the sky not to be blue, but you, would equally, have to support that contention, with some evidence.

You haven't supported your contention.

So, unless you can, please stop rolling it out there as a ridiculous attempt to imply that they were not aware of the nature of 'gallant allies' they felt needed to be called out in their brave new order.

Sand · 01-11-2014 02:11PM

You want him to prove what the figures *believed*? Or else its not true. Did you ever manage to present *any* evidence as to what anyone in Ireland believed about Redmond and his endorsement of the Volunteers joining the British Army? By your own logic, it must also be untrue to state that Redmond influenced anyone because you cant provide any evidence on what they believed. Right?

There is a balance of probability.

The German atrocities in Belgium were well known and verified by *multiple* sources. The Germans never denied them - they simply rationalised them as being correct and proper military justice against spies and irregulars. They were the British casus belli, and a key point in recruiting Irishmen in particular (a small, neutral Catholic country as referenced by Redmond).

So pretty much everyone in Ireland - and most of the western world - was aware that the German army had gone on a rampage through Belgium, burning cities, looting and executing civilians on little or no grounds. The only debate was if or where this tyrannical treatment of Belgian civilians had crossed over into lurid tales of medieval brutality or widespread rape. But there was no dispute that the German army had acted extremely harshly in Belgium, with only the harshest interpretation of 19th century military justice as a possible defence.

It is more likely that the organisers of the Rising were aware of what had happened, than they were not. Therefore, the balance of probability is that they were aware of it. And that they chose to endorse the Germans anyway, as their "gallant allies".

A stupid move all round.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 02:16PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm at a loss....

repeated attempts to ram home your points doesn't advance your argument.

You said this earlier:

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

they were not aware of the nature of 'gallant allies' they felt needed to be called out in their brave new order.

You haven't proved the 1916 signatories themselves considered these reports were actually accurate or not.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 02:23PM

Sand wrote: »

You want him to prove what the figures *believed*? Or else its not true. Did you ever manage to present *any* evidence

I mentioned Willie Redmond.

A stupid move all round.

No, just a continuance by you and others of retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Sand · 01-11-2014 02:32PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I mentioned Willie Redmond.

Willie Redmond was an experienced, convinced Irish politician and nationalist. He was not one of these weak willed simpletons you present as falling into line at a mere word from Redmond. He also endorsed the volunteers joining the British Army.

"I speak as a man who bears the name of a relation who was hanged in Wexford in ’98 – William Kearney. I speak as a man with all the poor ability at his command has fought the battle for self-government for Ireland since the time – now thirty two years ago – when I lay in Kilmainham Prison with Parnell. No man who is honest can doubt the single-minded desire of myself and men like me to do what is right for Ireland. And when it comes to the question -- as it may come – of asking young Irishmen to go abroad and fight this battle, when I personally am convinced that the battle of Ireland is to be fought where many Irishmen now are – in Flanders and in France – old as I am, and grey as our my hairs, I will say ‘Don’t go, but come with me” .

Never mentioned his brother once. Again and again referred to his own beliefs and convictions and actions.

So, like I said, no evidence at all for your claims. Quite the opposite.

No, just a continuance by you and others of retrospective condemnation of 1916.

No, it was condemned in 1916 too. It was the politically motivated retrospective revisionism presenting it as something it was not that is being challenged.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 02:49PM

Sand wrote: »

at a mere word from Redmond.

Lauding him for Home Rule but mysteriously knocking him down when it came to recruitment into the BA.

He also endorsed the volunteers joining the British Army.

Just like his brother then.

'convinced that the battle of Ireland is to be fought where many Irishmen now are – in Flanders and in France'.

More Redmondite twaddle. Which, unsurprisingly enough again sounds like what his brother came out with.

No, it was condemned in 1916 too. It was the politically motivated retrospective revisionism presenting it as something it was not that is being challenged.

No, it's a rewriting of Irish history that's being attempted by Bruton et al.

alastair · 01-11-2014 04:03PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

repeated attempts to ram home your points doesn't advance your argument.

My argument is sound - you haven't provided any evidence for your contention.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You haven't proved the 1916 signatories themselves considered these reports were actually accurate or not.

I don't have to. I just have to point to the complete absence of evidence that this was the case. The fact is that the reports were accurate, and the signatories were aware of the reports, and of the testimony of the Belgian refugees. So we know that they were aware of the massacres, and we know that they never disputed that they happened, so it's up to you to show some evidence for your claim that they disputed their happening.

I can keep saying this over and over. And you can keep ignoring those facts, but unless you can actually produce an iota of evidence, you just look more and more foolish in avoiding the logic of your claim.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 04:20PM

alastair wrote: »

that they never disputed that they happened

How is that evidence that they actually considered them to be accurate or just propaganda? You don't know that they even considered these reports when drafting the proclamation.

I can keep saying this over and over.

So that you can seem more correct everytime? Carry on.

alastair · 01-11-2014 04:28PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How is that evidence that they actually considered them to be accurate or just propaganda? You don't know that they even considered these reports when drafting the proclamation.

It's evidence that your contention is built on nothing but supposition. We know that they definitely gave consideration to whether to state their feelings about the perpetrators of those massacres, because they committed them to the text of their proclamation.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So that you can seem more correct everytime? Carry on.

I'm as correct as I was the first time I pointed this out to you.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention. Put up, or shut up.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 04:35PM

alastair wrote: »

We know that they definitely gave consideration to whether to state their feelings about the perpetrators of those massacres, because they committed them to the text of their proclamation.

Supposition. You weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the drafting of the proclamation.

Put up, or shut up.

Classy.

alastair · 01-11-2014 04:40PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Supposition. You weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the drafting of the proclamation.

No supposition - the text is there to see. You're suggesting they gave it no consideration before including it?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Classy.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

1StradBROOK · 01-11-2014 04:41PM

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.

Ah Alisdair my darling - where have you been all my life !!!

Question to you Alisdair old chum - are these gallant allies the same ones who massacred the massacre-ers of the entire Ugandan and Congolese races during the Belgian colonial days in old Middle Eastern Africa ?

Question Alisdair - is it acceptable to put in it's place, a genocide committing colonialist, in the way the Germans did the Belgians old chum - it would seem the hand cutters had their old babies boiled and heads chopped off - such are the spoils of risk taking and going into another country for resource gain I suppose!!

Alisdair tell me where your views lie on one side committing massacres by cutting off the hands of generations of Congolese only to be massacred themselves in the World Wars - isn't it a case of just desserts ?

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 04:43PM

alastair wrote: »

No supposition - the text is there to see.

Yes supposition. I'm not referring to the text, but the discussion that lead to it.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

Likewise.

1StradBROOK · 01-11-2014 05:05PM

alastair wrote: »

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.

Perhaps they were French priests who went down to Africa and saw the massacres the royal houses and colonialists were committing in Africa.

Perhaps they were acting on words of such priests trying to prevent such action in Africa.

Perhaps they were Scandinavian adventurers who whilst on safari saw the worst the Royal houses of Europe had done to races not of their own.

In any case, what they (our gallant allies in Europe) carried out was of moral standing and uprightness because they rooted out vampirism in the form of King Leopald and the Russian empires.

They only fell short on a trio of hits in failing to prevent slavic unification in the Balkans - if they had done that we might not have a Russian (Slavic) nation or people today !!!!

alastair · 01-11-2014 09:23PM

1StradBROOK wrote: »

Ah Alisdair my darling - where have you been all my life !!!

Question to you Alisdair old chum - are these gallant allies the same ones who massacred the massacre-ers of the entire Ugandan and Congolese races during the Belgian colonial days in old Middle Eastern Africa ?

Question Alisdair - is it acceptable to put in it's place, a genocide committing colonialist, in the way the Germans did the Belgians old chum - it would seem the hand cutters had their old babies boiled and heads chopped off - such are the spoils of risk taking and going into another country for resource gain I suppose!!

Alisdair tell me where your views lie on one side committing massacres by cutting off the hands of generations of Congolese only to be massacred themselves in the World Wars - isn't it a case of just desserts ?

Fine dose of whataboutery there - and about as relevant to the point as you managed to be accurate with my name.

alastair · 01-11-2014 09:24PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Yes supposition. I'm not referring to the text, but the discussion that lead to it.

Likewise.

Nope, as explained, it doesn't work that way.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH · 01-11-2014 09:52PM

alastair wrote: »

that way.

Alastairs way?

If you don't know the contents of the discussion that lead to the text, then how do you know what the reason was for the inclusion of 'gallant allies'?

alastair · 02-11-2014 02:12AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Alastairs way?

If you don't know the contents of the discussion that lead to the text, then how do you know what the reason was for the inclusion of 'gallant allies'?

I don't care what the reason was. The point is that they chose to declare known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'. So your bizarre proposition is that they, unlike everyone around them, refused to believe that the massacres had taken place - and you have no evidence whatsoever to support that proposition (despite being asked a number of times), or they chose to believe that these 'gallant allies' actions were acceptable.

RED L4 0TH · 02-11-2014 11:24AM

alastair wrote: »

and you have no evidence whatsoever to support that proposition

Here you go:

The autumn of 1914 saw the appearance of a new Separatist paper, Eire-Ireland, which appeared as a weekly on October 26th and was changed to a daily after the second number. It is significant of the change in Irish feeling that it was now possible to run a Separatist daily paper in Dublin, and of the gradual rapprochement between Irish parties that this paper, intended as the organ of the Irish Volunteers.......

The new daily contained a column " The War Day by Day" in which a critical analysis of the military situation was attempted. While most of the other Irish papers merely repro- duced the amateur war criticisms of Fleet Street, the editor of Eire, assuming that English news- papers were giving only one side of the case, attempted an independent study of the situation, which was made to appear much less favourable to the Allies than was asserted by other Irish papers. Stories of German atrocities were analyzed and ridiculed.

https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028168726/cu31924028168726_djvu.txt

Easier to read version here:

https://www.bookiejar.com/Content/Books/7ccbe2a1-12a9-41fa-a3ff-0f8ebaf40ef6/1269_r1/34477/www.gutenberg.org@files@34477@34477-h@34477-h-3.htm.html

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments