Should British soldiers killed in 1916 get a memorial?

Kermit.de.frog · 08-04-2015 02:32PM #1

In two minds on this. Be nice idea however how many memorials are there to honour the memories of "the other side" in key conflicts in other countries? I doubt there is many. Relatives are calling for a memorial to the soldiers and other things as well like visits to the graves etc.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0408/692695-british-soldiers-memorial/

On Twitter, Sinn Féin TD Peadar Toibin wrote: "British Soldiers imposing oppression through violence should not be commemorated equally with volunteers seeking Irish freedom."

How much support did the insurgents have at the time though Peadar? Not much. In fact they were heavily abused and derided by most Dubliners immediately after the fracas ended.

Also it's important to remember the manner in which these soldiers died was more due to stupid strategic thinking by British generals sending their troops mindlessly down streets to be slaughtered which they could easily have bypassed!

Junkyard Tom · 08-04-2015 02:34PM

No.

The_Valeyard · 08-04-2015 02:34PM

Is there a memorial in London to the German pilots who died bombing London?

Uncle Ruckus · 08-04-2015 02:35PM

Never!Never!Never!

conorhal · 08-04-2015 02:35PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Is there a memorial in London to the German pilots who died bombing London?

What next? A memorial for camp guards at Auschwitz?

Silly relativist nonsense.

Shenshen · 08-04-2015 02:36PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Is there a memorial in London to the German pilots who died bombing London?

There are however memorials in many places in Germany to members of the allied forces fighting in WWII.

The_Valeyard · 08-04-2015 02:36PM

Shenshen wrote: »

There are however memorials in many places in Germany to members of the allied forces fighting in WWII.

Because they won and occupied Germany

Wacker The Attacker · 08-04-2015 02:39PM

Why wouldn't they?

Where it's held is another question entirely but I see no reason why not.

Geniass · 08-04-2015 02:40PM

Shenshen wrote: »

There are however memorials in many places in Germany to members of the allied forces fighting in WWII.

The winners write history... and memorials.

Shenshen · 08-04-2015 02:42PM

Geniass wrote: »

The winners write history... and memorials.

Yes, the losers tend to learn more from every conflict than the winners, I'll grant you that.

So I suppose this would be a chance for Ireland to show that they're not sore winners.

SEPT 23 1989 · 08-04-2015 02:42PM

Did the 1200 insurgents not impose violence on half a million Dubliners in 1916?

Egginacup · 08-04-2015 02:45PM

I doubt the Brits have a memorial to the crew of the Belgrano but they do have some honour for the crew of the sub that murdered the 323 Argentine sailors.

Geniass · 08-04-2015 02:46PM

Egginacup wrote: »

I doubt the Brits have a memorial to the crew of the Belgrano but they do have some honour for the crew of the sub that murdered the 323 Argentine sailors.

Bait is bait.

conorhal · 08-04-2015 02:46PM

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Why wouldn't they?

Where it's held is another question entirely but I see no reason why not.

What inscription should it have?

I'd suggest "What were you doing here in the first place?"

Kermit.de.frog · 08-04-2015 02:46PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Did the 1200 insurgents not impose violence on half a million Dubliners in 1916?

...and looting, and destruction. They didn't even have a Footlocker at the time.

wretcheddomain · 08-04-2015 02:47PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In fact they were heavily abused and derided by most Dubliners immediately after the fracas ended.

It's only a fracas if Jeremy Clarkson is involved.

lertsnim · 08-04-2015 02:48PM

There is absolutely no way that British soliders involved in the 1916 rising should have a memorial in Dublin. The soldiers relatives would want to get some perspective.

Reoil · 08-04-2015 02:48PM

Ulster says NO!

08-04-2015 02:48PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Did the 1200 insurgents not impose violence on half a million Dubliners in 1916?

I'd say most of the actual violence came from the British use of artillery and heavy machine guns

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-04-2015 02:48PM

Terrible idea and would be a magnet for vandalism.

conorhal · 08-04-2015 02:48PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Did the 1200 insurgents not impose violence on half a million Dubliners in 1916?

Who were so outraged that 90% of people voted for the parties that represented their political ideals in the 1919 election..... :rolleyes:

Crooked Jack · 08-04-2015 02:49PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In two minds on this. Be nice idea however how many memorials are there to honour the memories of "the other side" in key conflicts in other countries? I doubt there is many. Relatives are calling for a memorial to the soldiers and other things as well like visits to the graves etc.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0408/692695-british-soldiers-memorial/

How much support did the insurgents have at the time though Peadar? Not much. In fact they were heavily abused and derided by most Dubliners immediately after the fracas ended.

Also it's important to remember the manner in which these soldiers died was more do to stupid strategic thinking by British generals sending their troops mindlessly down streets to be slaughtered which they could easily have bypassed!

This isnt really true, though. Certainly there were those who jeered the rebels as they were marched off but I dont know how you can make the claim that it was most Dubliners.
There's a lot of information out there on this and none of it suggests that most Dubliners engaged in this.

http://middleclassdub.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/dublin-1916-and-dublin-4.html

Regarding 1916, it's true that the ordinary citizens of Dublin did not respond to the call from the rebels to rise up, but then again, neither did the ordinary citizens of any other part of the country.

Waters points out that only two of the Proclamation signatories were from Dublin as part of his argument – but fails to tell us how many of the Volunteers or Citizen Army fighters were from Dublin. I don't know the figure, but would be surprised if it was not the majority.

The popularity of the rebellion in Dublin and the rest of the country is an important issue – one that has relevance today. The entirely implausible revisionist/anti-Dublin depiction is that Dubliners in 1916 were contented subjects of the Crown who were furious with the rebels but then did a remarkable volte face and became committed republicans when the leaders of the armed uprising they supposedly hated were executed.

They then went on to vote overwhelmingly for Sinn Féin at the 1918 election and the county, along with Cork, became the crucible of the War of Independence.

of course, there were those who did jeer at the rebels but as always with these issues it was a far more complicated and nuanced response than some would like us to believe

biko · 08-04-2015 02:49PM

They can erect a memory in UK over their dead if they like.

Red_Wake · 08-04-2015 02:49PM

Yes of course.

The one sided reporting of 1916 is crazy - people completely ignore the misdeeds of the volunteers, shooting unarmed policemen, using child soldiers, that if it were to occur in a modern conflict would be labeled a war crime.

Laois_Man · 08-04-2015 02:50PM

Will they put a statue to Bobby Sands in Trafalgar Square? Or even one for any of Pearse, Connolly, Clarke, MacDermott, Plunkett, MacDonagh etc?

Ask again when they do!

osarusan · 08-04-2015 02:50PM

Perhaps there could be some kind of monument dedicated to everybody from all sides who died in the conflict. That would be a bit more inclusive, less controversial, and probably less likely to be targeted for damage.

padd b1975 · 08-04-2015 02:54PM

I think all combatants deserve a mention.

After 100 years it should be seen as a sign of our maturity as a nation.

conorhal · 08-04-2015 02:57PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Yes of course.

The one sided reporting of 1916 is crazy - people completely ignore the misdeeds of the volunteers, shooting unarmed policemen, using child soldiers, that if it were to occur in a modern conflict would be labeled a war crime.

...he said with a total absense of even a hint of irony.

Red_Wake · 08-04-2015 03:02PM

conorhal wrote: »

...he said with a total absense of even a hint of irony.

How do you find it ironic?

You've ridiculed my point, but not disproven it. If you could explain your pov that might be more constructive.

conorhal · 08-04-2015 03:06PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

How do you find it ironic?

You've ridiculed my point, but not disproven it. If you could explain your pov that might be more constructive.

Your one sided view of supposed one sided views is what I find ironic.
No to mention the fact that this supposed one sided view doesn't actually exist, if anything a pathetic amount of time and energy is spent on guff like the OP and the Irish times revising history to to paint those involved in the uprising as unsupported villians while canonising imperial enforcers that indiscriminately shelled a city.

Red_Wake · 08-04-2015 03:09PM

conorhal wrote: »

Your one sided view of supposed one sided views is what I find ironic.
No to mention the fact that this supposed one sided view doesn't actually exist, if anything a pathetic amount of time and energy is spent on guff like the OP and the Irish times revising history to to paint those involved in the uprising as unsupported villians.

Do you dispute the documentation recording the jeering of the defeated rebels by Dubliners?

Or that they committed acts which are now considered war crimes?

Should British soldiers killed in 1916 get a memorial?

Comments