Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Irishmen who fought for the British Empire in WW1 fought for 'European freedom'
Comments
-
They were not consrcipted so they did have a choice.
Precisely. But yet they decided to join the largest empire in world history, an empire which had an indisputable record of trampling over the rights of indigenous people from Mullaghmast to Mumbai. That they volunteered for that Empire when thousands of their fellow countrymen remained as conscientious objectors at home in Ireland makes them look even more cowardly.I see no reason to believe that the words of Foch were meant in a spirit of black humour.
To say, as Foch did, that the Irish-born people who fought with Britain in WWI had an 'unconquered' spirit when the people in question were fighting for the very power which had conquered Ireland is embarrassing. Meanwhile, back in Ireland people who did not wish to fight for their conqueror decided to resist them. The contrast is stark between rhetoric about an "unconquered spirit" and a truly unconquered Irish spirit which showed itself in Easter 1916.You are assuming that those men Irish, english Welsh and Scottish who signed up did so with the belief of invincibility. I would make the point that no more or less than the Germans/Italians Russians etc.
Given that they were signing up (for money) to fight for the greatest power in world history and to a belief that the war would be over by Christmas 1914, they were not exactly displaying courage. Had they decided, for instance, to take on the greatest power in world history (for no money) in the so-called "second city" of its empire then that would take much more courage.Actually I have been involved in many threads here about things like the Moore St monuments and so on. I have no issue with commemorating Irish republicans whatsoever. However those 2 things are not mutually exclusive (as you seem to believe).
They are very much mutually exclusive when it comes to morality: one rests upon the denial of freedom to small nations; the other rests upon advocating it. I accept your position is currently fashionable in the Sunday Independent and such places though.It does not undermine or belittle Irish republicanism in any way shape or form to commemorate the Irish who fought bravely in and died during WWI.
It firmly does place Irish people who "commemorate" these men as supporters of people who volunteered to fight for a deeply immoral war on the side of a profoundly immoral, intensely racist and extraordinarily anti-Irish state.
I have yet to see a single Irish person commemorate all the dead of WWI; they are strictly commemorating those who died fighting to defend the British Empire. When you strip it to its raw truth, that is precisely what those Irish-born people fought for. That is an utterly immoral fight. No more, and no less.
The fact that the people in question had "Irish blood" makes them no more morally worthy of support than somebody with "British blood" who fought for the same supremacist ideology. It is parochialism at its height to think their "Irish blood" enables them not to be morally judged by what they actually did, just as thousands of Irishmen condemned them at the time. It's a cop-out to try and write the immorality of their actions off as a modern "liberal" value. It isn't.I have never said that WWI was fought for a 'noble cause'. The men doing the fighting and dying were not doing so because they believed in imperial intrigue. You have to look at their motives in the context of what they knew and what was widely known & believed at that time.
They knowingly volunteered for the greatest power in world history, the same power which occupied their country for centuries. They did so because they got money for it and they did not expect it to be the "great" war which people afterwards described it as. It was meant to be a small thing. To say an Irishman in 1914 was unaware of what the British Empire stood for in is just not credible.We have already established that there was no conscription - they chose to go. This fact does not undermine their sacrifice.
What "sacrifice"? You are talking as if they all volunteered to be massacred. They didn't; few if any people in history have that much courage. That they were massacred does not mean that they consciously offered themselves for 'sacrifice'. They were, at best, misled. At worst, they consciously looked at the power dynamics and decided to back the power which had the strongest record of winning. So, they fought for the British Empire, got paid for it and in many cases died for it. Why are those choices suddenly worthy of 'commemoration' outside the framework of British war/nationalist commemorations in general?AS mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread the Irish fought in WWI for a wide variety of reasons.
And they all fought for the British Empire, the same world power that kept Ireland (and numerous others countries) subjugated at the time. Ergo, not many of those motivations strike me as being either noble or empathising with the underdog.
They fought for the British Empire and all its iniquities and inhumanity and opposition to freedom. There is no dressing this reality up.You made a spurious point about how Irish men fought in WWI for 'kudos' - I countered your point by saying you could just as easily level as inaccurate an accusation as that against Irish republicans.
In terms of financial remuneration or political kudos, there is no comparison between both situations. You have failed to show how there is. Given that the IPP encouraged men to go and die for the British Empire and the same political party controlled almost all Irish localities in 1914, this gave those who volunteered for WWI a strong local support base. These men were also paid for volunteering. In the Easter Rising, there was no similar financial remuneration or local support base - yet they still went. That is a vastly different situation.Having said that you are forgetting the simple fact that WWI veterans were shunned in post war Irish society - had to hide their medals, shut away in hospitals and excluded from jobs within state post independence.
Why on earth should they be commemorated for their cowardice in joining the biggest empire in world history, an empire which was subjugating numerous peoples across the world, and fighting to defend it? There is nothing noble nor brave in their choice.Whereas republican veterans obviously fared a lot better though clearly at the time we are speaking about this was not forseeable to either side.
Precisely. On previous form, those who fought for the British were on to a "sure thing" when they volunteered in 1914 and those who fought against the most powerful state in the world in 1916 were destined to lose. That it didn't turn out like that does not make either decision more/less noble. What makes those decisions more/less noble is the conditions when people joined. And clearly, the republicans who joined the weak against the strong come out much better.As an Irishman I have obviously more interest in the subject of commemorating the sacrifice of Irishmen than I have in commemorating the sacrifice of Indonesians or malaysians or eskimos etc.
Why?Commemorating these men is not exploitation. If there is any exploitation in this discussion it would be in the sphere of seeking to undermine their sacrifice out of a misguided, immature sense of republicanism.
Again, you speak of "sacrifice" as if it had been a deliberate and noble endeavour. It wasn't, except in the myth-making of British nationalists for Irish regionalists with a "British Isles" framework, for whom any death that strengthened British control can be retrospectively dressed up as a "sacrifice". Meanwhile, the nature and fundamental immorality of the British Empire is persistently overlooked by the same apologists.
Find me a republicanism which deems the British Empire, or those who fought for it, worthy of admiration,It is merely that I am Irish - not German or Russian so in this context it is perfectly reasonable to have a primary interest in the commemoration of Irishmen before Germans or anyone else.
Even when those Irishmen were fighting for the same power that was subjugating Ireland, and had been subjugating the Irish people for centuries? This is the equivalent of commemorating a murderer simply because he was Irish rather than looking at what he did during his life. It is infuriating that people would be small-minded enough to commemorate somebody on this basis rather than on their actions.Of course there were alternatives - that is what makes it more impressive from my perspective - that they chose to go. They volunteered rightly or wrongly to risk their lives at forsake their homelife to go to fight a cause that they believed was right.
This is where your problem is. You have swallowed all the British nationalistic nonsense that portrays these people as courageous and brave men who volunteered to die when in reality they were paid to volunteer for an army. It is preposterous to think they (or anybody) volunteered in the certainty (or even probability) that they would die. Yes, they were paid. Furthermore, when they realised that this war was different and bodies were coming home they turned strongly against the war, went ballistic at the thought of being conscripted and much else. You are romanticising these people and giving them motivations which they never had.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedom[QUOTE=ejmaztec;64554200
Had the Irish serving members hated the British so much, why didn’t they do the same as the Czech nationalists (with their hatred of the Hapsburgs), who formed the Czech Legion, and fought alongside the Russians? [/QUOTE]
I think Redmond tried but the British would not allow this, I don't think they were trusted. Someone else may fill you in on that0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Rebelheart, you accuse the British empire of being Xenophobic, then go off into a xenophobic rant.
Kindly don't judge others here by your own evidently lower standards. There is a quite remedial difference between opposing a racist, supremacist project like British imperialism and opposing foreigners, which is what xenophobia is. Please reflect before posting. Thank you.Fratton Fred wrote: »There is nothing I have posted that supports any of what you have said. It has nothing to do with a John Bull Spirit, or any other such **** that you have come out with.
There is indeed. Your contention that German expansion was the threat to world peace in 1914 and the British Empire was an innocent party to it certainly establishes your British nationalist credentials here:Fratton Fred wrote: »where would the new german empire have stopped? once they had conquered France, Germany would have had the largest navy and the biggest army of all the empirial powers. Although it was a war between several empires (France, Turkey, Italy and even Belgium all had empires of a fashion) Germany were still the aggressor.
In your world, it clearly appears that the largest empire on the planet, your own British Empire, was an innocent party to WWI and the "aggressor" was an "empire" barely worthy of the name, the German Empire. That's pathetically tribal and blinkered stuff.Fratton Fred wrote: »If your Dad is a scum bag and another scum bag starts a fight with him, you aren't going to walk away and say feck him, you are going to stand up for your Dad.
How dreadfully nationalist of you. The nation is analogous with the family. Very impressive brainwashing there.0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »I think Redmond tried but the British would not allow this, I don't think they were trusted. Someone else may fill you in on that
I'm referring to the possibility of a nationalist Irish contingent actually fighting the British, in the same way that the Czech Legion fought the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies.
At least Rebelheart would have had some war dead to commemorate, so that he wouldn't be alone on Armistice Day each year.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI'm referring to the possibility of a nationalist Irish contingent actually fighting the British, in the same way that the Czech Legion fought the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies.
At least Rebelheart would have had some war dead to commemorate, so that he wouldn't be alone on Armistice Day each year.
Sadly and naturally of course, THE SPLIT would then occur.
I'm ignorant to the history of the Czech Legion, so forgive me when I make this observation; Weren't the Czech Legion fighting with the Entente? So if an Irish Legion fought against Britian, it would probably be preceived to be pro german thus completely undermining any chance of public support from our normal friendly allies, America? (remember how propaganda deceipted Ireland in ww2 or even the Casement gun running) Wouldn't it have been a tad bit easier for the Czechs to do what they did?
Surely better particaption in 1916 in Ireland or some form of mutiny amongst the Irish ala Connacht Rangers in India would have sufficed?
But sure, those Irish who did fight for Britian, maybe, like eg Tom Barry, they weren't from traditonal Fenian/IRB backgrounds and wouldn't have the same baggage as say Michael Collins or Pearse. Maybe those who did go to the somme didn't hate British rule in Ireland?0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »Kindly don't judge others here by your own evidently lower standards. There is a quite remedial difference between opposing a racist, supremacist project like British imperialism and opposing foreigners, which is what xenophobia is. Please reflect before posting. Thank you.
There is indeed. Your contention that German expansion was the threat to world peace in 1914 and the British Empire was an innocent party to it certainly establishes your British nationalist credentials here:
In your world, it clearly appears that the largest empire on the planet, your own British Empire, was an innocent party to WWI and the "aggressor" was an "empire" barely worthy of the name, the German Empire. That's pathetically tribal and blinkered stuff.
How dreadfully nationalist of you. The nation is analogous with the family. Very impressive brainwashing there.
You are the brainwashed one my friend. They fought for Britain, everything British is bad, therefore they were traitors.
Take the blinkers off for once in your life.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomFratton Fred wrote: »You are the brainwashed one my friend. They fought for Britain, everything British is bad, therefore they were traitors.
Take the blinkers off for once in your life.
Care to explain?
Fratton Fred, no one expects a british citizen like yourself to criticise the actions of your country, not now nor ever, never mind 80 years ago. But you have to accept for a large part, in this country and many others like it, many people see WW1 as a pointless war between imperialists who fought to ensure their interests were not interfered with; all done in cloak, particularily in Ireland via propaganda (which can be found in many musuems in Ireland) about fighting for the liberty of so and so. But I suppose when a country's prestige etc is being treatened, as William clearly tried to do with Britian, what are you expected to do. Just don't expect too much sympathy from some parts of Ireland, British colourful history in this country (no this aint one of those 200 - 800 years crack or NI)
It is unfair to criticise the ordinary people of Britian who as you say, had no choice in whether to fight or not. It did not do much for them when they came home to, for some, broken family life, lost of loved ones or sanity.
It would be unfair to criticise you for your beliefs and opinions and you do have the right to fight back to make your argument over allegations/comments you find hurtful. But to say that people like rebel heart would be blinkered, well lets just agree to disagree here.
When the Volunteers formed in 1913, it formed to make sure UVF did not get their way with regard to Home Rule. THe IRB, who fought for complete Independence tried to inflitrate, like all other Nationalist bodies.Things changed with the suspension of Home Rule and whatever faith Pearse had in Home Rule was lost (as you know he initally supported HR) Sadly, too many people, in my opinion, were dupped into Redmond's rash call - or Redmond's hope to sucker up to Westminister - sadly at a personal lost to a family member. No doubt the Irish on both sides fought gallantly, ironically the one time north and south stood shoulder to shoulder. In my opinion those who professed to be Nationalists should have stayed here were they were needed in the event of outbreak of war in Ireland or should have insisted in setting up their own national army
But considering our history, its a folly to say WW1 was "our war". Redmond was not even allowed to set up a fully independent battalion/brigade. THis was a huge insult to the Irish men. The goals posts widened after 1916, the deeds and efforts of the Irish who fought (and paid) in WW1 were null and void. It would achieve nothing for Ireland. How many Irish men can we say who returned to Ireland in 1918 and gave their lives to the Republican cause, by way of training etc? (granted there were quiet a few)
We can accept our nations particaption in WW1 with, if you want pride. One way or another they should be resepcted. But don't expect many of us to somehow even draw WW1 veterans in the same lines as veteran of 1916 & Tan War.
No debate is going to solve this. Sadly some Irish people feel ashamed of their past. Sadly some mistaken members of the RIC as innocent instead of enemies of the state/enforcers of British law on a country who for most part supported Sinn Fein in 1918-1921 and sadly many seem to be influenced by what has happened in NI.
Its going to be difficult to have a balanced debate on such emotional matters, and worse when the dead are not here to explain themselves.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »You are the brainwashed one my friend. They fought for Britain, everything British is bad, therefore they were traitors.
Take the blinkers off for once in your life.
There you go again judging others by your own clearly lower standards. Yet again there is a basic difference between British imperialism and British policy in, say, Britain. That you are clearly and astonishingly unable to distinguish between the illegitimacy of British actions beyond Britain and the legitimacy of British actions within Britain is breathtaking. You just assume Britain has as much a moral right to rule in both places.
As a matter of fact, any ideology which believes it has a right to rule over peoples and lands beyond it is very much morally repugnant. People who fought for the morally repugnant philosophy of British imperialism should not be commemorated by anybody who disagrees with it. To attempt to commemorate those people (because they were Irish) while overlooking the immorality of the state they were fighting for is akin to commemorating members of the Black and Tans (because they were British) while overlooking what they were fighting for.
It's tribalism at its worst and hypocritical of any Irish person to claim they are against British imperialism while commemorating people who fought and died for that deeply immoral project.
You/They can't have it both ways.0 -
At least Rebelheart would have had some war dead to commemorate, so that he wouldn't be alone on Armistice Day each year.
. You are seriously disconnected from reality Ejmaztec if you think I'm on my own on that day, whenever it is. There's an Ireland beyond Kevin Myers' articles, believe it or not. 0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm referring to the possibility of a nationalist Irish contingent actually fighting the British, in the same way that the Czech Legion fought the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies.
At least Rebelheart would have had some war dead to commemorate, so that he wouldn't be alone on Armistice Day each year.
I don't think that would work. It would be like British people being expected to commemorate those British who fought with the Nazis in WWII in groups such as the British Free Corps. It would demean the sacrifices of those who fought for Irish freedom to have them lumped in with those who fought to defend the British Empire. I couldn't think of a greater contrast.0 -
Exile 1798 wrote: »The kneejerk Nationalist response is to reject those Irishmen who died in World War I. In years gone by I would have been one of those reactionaries.
Quit the patronising "I'm now so cool" sh it. Thank you.Exile 1798 wrote: »Thinking about it more rationally, I don't see the reason for the bitterness and ire... especially from a Republican perspective, as history has fully vindicated the Republican position on WWI.
Oh yes, I suppose you now must be "more rational" than people who disagree with you, if you say so yourself.Exile 1798 wrote: »The Unionists said it was a great cause and a great war and they sent an entire generation of their men to slaughter. The Redmonite's position was that it was a just and necessary cause and sent a large swathe of their support base to the butchery. The Republican's said that it was not a just cause, that it was an Imperialist squabble and that Irish people should take no part in it. So what was the most radical view at the time is now the universally accepted one, and what were the more common views are now treated with distain.
While your point is ostensibly solid you are, I'm afraid, suffering from a form of presentism. It is irrelevant whether they have been justified or not. What is relevant is that one group of Irish people fought for British imperialism and all its immorality, while at the same time another fought for Irish freedom against that immoral project. The former could also have stayed at home and fought for Irish freedom. They didn't; they fought for the very power which kept Ireland subservient and unfree.
To commemorate them given this historical reality is revisionism of the highest order.Exile 1798 wrote: »Remembering these men, Irish victims of British Imperialism, does not equate with glorifying that Imperialism. Quite the opposite.
This thinking is obscene. They volunteered to fight for the British Empire. They were not victims unless you are, ironically given your above rant about 'nationalists', making excuses for them because they share the same nationality as you.Exile 1798 wrote: »It's one of the scars of partition that we've haven't ever addressed this issue properly, and that some react with unthinking anger.
I'm still waiting for that single reason why Irish people who fought for the largest empire in world history, an empire which has subjugated countless peoples (including the Irish) across the planet, should be commemorated today. The fact that they happened to have been born in Ireland makes them no more worthy of commemoration than any other Irish-born people who have done immoral actions in their lives. Ironically, the sole basis of their support rests on their nationality. That's seriously tribal stuff, nothing "rational" there as far as I can see.0 -
I note that none of the eleven (ahem) posters who voted that they agree that the Irish who fought for the British Empire in WWI died for European freedom, have posted in defence of it.0
-
Sitting behind a keyboard with perfect 20:20 hindsight vision is very easy Rebelheart.
I've not seen one person defend the British Empire and I have not seen one person defend the war. The war was wrong, very wrong, but to the average Joe 100 years ago, they thought they were dong the right thing.
Millions of people were effectively duped into signing up and they died on masse doing what they thought was right. To me, that means they deserve to be remembered. If your perfect moral compass does not them that is up to you, but a lot of people disagree with you.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I've not seen one person defend the British Empire and I have not seen one person defend the war. The war was wrong, very wrong, but to the average Joe 100 years ago, they thought they were dong the right thing.
Millions of people were effectively duped into signing up and they died on masse doing what they thought was right. To me, that means they deserve to be remembered. If your perfect moral compass does not them that is up to you, but a lot of people disagree with you.
With all due respect, this is more doublethink. To commemorate the dead of the war but say it's irrelevant what they fought for is to write a blank cheque that allows soldiers/mercenaries/cannonfodder in every war in world history to be rehabilitated in public memory. Next we'll have some sob story about the individuals who constituted the Black and Tans and we'll start making excuses for them. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner (to understand everything is to forgive everything)?
But, you see, it's not really. It is commemorating those who fought for one particular side in a partisan affair. In short, commemorating these people is a form of the most reprehensible "My country right or wrong" thinking.
There is no getting away from the fact that these conscious thinking human beings volunteered to fight to defend the British Empire. They were not harmless victims; they were active participants in war on the side of the greatest empire in world history. While it is possible in Christian theology to 'love the sinner but hate the sin', it is intellectually impossible to separate the sin from the sinner. It is, however, clearly politically possible to separate both.0 -
Rebelheart wrote: ». You are seriously disconnected from reality Ejmaztec if you think I'm on my own on that day, whenever it is. There's an Ireland beyond Kevin Myers' articles, believe it or not.
I imagined that “knowing your enemy” meant that you know everything, so I’ll assume that you know the exact date.:P
Kevin Myers is on my list of obnoxious and poisonous individuals whose opinions are worthless.
I don’t think that the Ireland of the WW1 era was as nationalistic in outlook as you would like it to have been. If it were, not one Irish person would have volunteered to help Britain maintain its dominance in Europe.
Rebelheart wrote: »I don't think that would work. It would be like British people being expected to commemorate those British who fought with the Nazis in WWII in groups such as the British Free Corps. It would demean the sacrifices of those who fought for Irish freedom to have them lumped in with those who fought to defend the British Empire. I couldn't think of a greater contrast.
You just don’t want to believe that Irish people could possibly want to take part in a war alongside Britain, but they did. If you ever managed to get into the mindset of the Irish people of that time, you would realise, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that the majority of Irish people, for better or for worse, felt themselves part of it.
The Germans commemorate their war dead without supporting Nazism, so people here can commemorate all of the war dead without reference to the evils of the British Empire.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rebelheart wrote: »I note that none of the eleven (ahem) posters who voted that they agree that the Irish who fought for the British Empire in WWI died for European freedom, have posted in defence of it.
Perhaps a vote on a strangely worded poll was as much as they wanted to participate.0 -
I don’t think that the Ireland of the WW1 era was as nationalistic in outlook as you would like it to have been.
And your source for that nonsense is what, precisely? It certainly doesn't come from what I've said.You just don’t want to believe that Irish people could possibly want to take part in a war alongside Britain, but they did.
Ahem. Instead of taking on a strawman argument if you read what I actually said you would see I reiterated the voluntary aspect of what they did, an aspect which makes their actions even more immoral. I, of all people, am not in denial of their free choice here. On the contrary, it is that free choice which indicts them. And as for being nationalistic it is the people here who are intent upon commemorating these people solely because of their Irish birth who are the true nationalists (albeit of a regional "British Isles" variety) here. At least be honest about this.
Furthermore, you postulated an idea, the Stockholm Syndrome, about why they volunteered for that Empire; you did not cite an incontrovertible historical fact.The Germans commemorate their war dead without supporting Nazism, so people here can commemorate all of the war dead without reference to the evils of the British Empire.
Their Nazi war dead?0 -
Perhaps a vote on a strangely worded poll was as much as they wanted to participate.
Or perhaps it is a few people with different accounts who are intellectually incapable of defending the indefensible and instead are just basically taking the piss.
And the only "strange wording" here is from those who are invoking psychological mumbo-jumbo as a reason for Irish-born people volunteering to be paid to fight in defence of the British Empire, the most powerful power in the world, a sure thing if ever there were a sure thing in 1914.
Their "love" for such volunteering died off when they realised that a lot of people were dying. Conscription in Ireland, anybody? How people overlook this reality when lauding the supposed "bravery" of these arch mé féiners.0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »With all due respect, this is more doublethink. To commemorate the dead of the war but say it's irrelevant what they fought for is to write a blank cheque that allows soldiers/mercenaries/cannonfodder in every war in world history to be rehabilitated in public memory. Next we'll have some sob story about the individuals who constituted the Black and Tans and we'll start making excuses for them. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner (to understand everything is to forgive everything)?
But, you see, it's not really. It is commemorating those who fought for one particular side in a partisan affair. In short, commemorating these people is a form of the most reprehensible "My country right or wrong" thinking.
There is no getting away from the fact that these conscious thinking human beings volunteered to fight to defend the British Empire. They were not harmless victims; they were active participants in war on the side of the greatest empire in world history. While it is possible in Christian theology to 'love the sinner but hate the sin', it is intellectually impossible to separate the sin from the sinner. It is, however, clearly politically possible to separate both.
so we shouldn't remember 1916 or the Black and Tan wars?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »so we shouldn't remember 1916 or the Black and Tan wars?
Well, I happen to admire what the leaders of 1916 fought for so if I were going to be partisan and remember any group, it would be people who fought for something with which I agree. I don't agree with people who take the King's shilling and go off and fight for something as reprehensible as the British Empire. So I don't commemorate them. Consistency in a world gone mad - yes.
I'll leave your commemoration of the Tans up to yourself, Fratton Fred.
The point, which alas has seemingly been missed by your good self, is that those who speak about the supposed "bravery" of those who signed up and got paid to fight for the British Empire contend they are commemorating a great universal human sacrifice. That is a myth. It is nothing but a partisan affair. It is not a European-wide commemoration of the dead on all sides: it merely commemorates the dead who fought for the British Empire. It is Irish people jumping to affirm the myths of British nationalism and commemorate people who, although of Irish birth, died for the British Empire.
It is their Irish birth which is explicitly being commemorated rather than their deeds - yet it takes absolutely no achievement to be born in Ireland. And awful people are born here all the time. Implicitly, their defence of the British Empire is of course being commemorated. In contrast, it is the deeds and principles of the men of 1916 which makes them worthy of commemoration, not their birthplace. Much more rational.
Commemorating these people who fought for the British Empire is just as partisan as commemorating those who died for Irish freedom, with the vital distinction that you are commemorating people who fought against freedom (including Irish freedom) when you commemorate those who fought for the British Empire in World War I. On the 'my country right or wrong' you might have something to equate with if I were supporting the Irish state occupying another country and condemning some audacious third-rate threat to Irish supremacy in lands it shouldn't be controlling in the first place. I don't, and I wouldn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rebelheart wrote: »Commemorating these people who fought for the British Empire is just as partisan as commemorating those who died for Irish freedom, with the vital distinction that you are commemorating people who fought against freedom (including Irish freedom) when you commemorate those who fought for the British Empire in World War I. On the 'my country right or wrong' you might have something to equate with if I were supporting the Irish state occupying another country and condemning some audacious third-rate threat to Irish supremacy in lands it shouldn't be controlling in the first place. I don't, and I wouldn't.
this is where your arguement falls down. we are not talking about putting down an uprising, or a war to claim more land, or force a country to trade with the East India Company, we are talking about a war with a country who had no intention of freeing people, it wanted what the other empires had that is all.
Germany had no less evil intentions as Britain and france, but the 1916 leaders decided that that particular evil empire was acceptable, why would that be, or is it a case of evil empires are ok, as long as they aren't occupying our country?0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomFratton Fred wrote: »this is where your arguement falls down. we are not talking about putting down an uprising, or a war to claim more land, or force a country to trade with the East India Company, we are talking about a war with a country who had no intention of freeing people, it wanted what the other empires had that is all.
Germany had no less evil intentions as Britain and france, but the 1916 leaders decided that that particular evil empire was acceptable, why would that be, or is it a case of evil empires are ok, as long as they aren't occupying our country?
Not the case
I don't think Pearse and co accepted or would have accepted the German empire. Connoly was pretty clear about his attitude towards ANY Empire. Funny enough there were some rumours about making William head of this island. To put it simply as stated by the ICA, "We will not serve King nor Kaiser, but Ireland"
Where do you get your theory about the 1916 leaders deciding on a particular empire?
The Proclamation? (please!, America is also mentioned, not to mention aid from Irish America in the past and modern times in relation to funds for constitutional and militant fronts) Ireland looked to Germany for arms etc for its own selfish reasons (to do anything to succeed in clear separation from britian) it does not mean it supported germany. Arthur Griffith was influenced by the Austrian - Hungarian situation, but only as to the method used to achieve their goals for independece and apply it to Ireland. It was a case of opputunity knocks for Ireland in 1916 to strike whilst Britain was distracted. Although it does not make it alright, it was a case of your enemy is my enemy, no different to Wolfe Tone seeking the help of the French or O'Donnell seeking the help of the Spannish.
The British tried that those tricks in 1918 - "German Plot" and continued to do so at the start of Worldd War 2. It was charges and arrests on basis for doing so were groudless and false
For the size of Ireland, it was in no postion to pontificate about other countries it had its own problems and wanted to sort the out (ironic, that Irish born men were prodominant in the British Army over the years of the British Empire and made up a substantial number in its Armys)
What rebel heart rejects is the choice of words that were used to call Irish men to arms for the sake of liberty of other countries when they themselves were held by another country. What do you think the purpose of say the Gaelic Leauge (no not the GAA) was trying to do ? rebel heart is sayong. even if there was some well meaning reason to go to ww1 for britian, the people who did go not for economic reasons, abandoned this country when they were needed to get their liberty- despite clear warning signs from the uvf and curragh mutiny that home rule as ipp had fought for may not be guaranteed. How many who did come back, then fought against britian in the tan war?
http://www.stentorian.com/madbrute.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/images/ga/gal03.jpg
http://www.worldwar1.com/post003.htm
http://www.theeasterrising.eu/230WorldWarOne/ww1.htm
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914for_the_glory_of_ireland.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914-for_the_glory_of_ireland.html&usg=__KQz0InCW1DArabKlbvy1pIzlFDI=&h=800&w=533&sz=423&hl=en&start=4&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eLxyaeOY7oQGyM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bwar%2B1%2Bposters%2B%252B%2Bireland%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enIE300IE313%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914for_the_glory_of_ireland.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914-for_the_glory_of_ireland.html&usg=__KQz0InCW1DArabKlbvy1pIzlFDI=&h=800&w=533&sz=423&hl=en&start=4&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eLxyaeOY7oQGyM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bwar%2B1%2Bposters%2B%252B%2Bireland%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enIE300IE313%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914for_the_glory_of_ireland.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ccalireland.com/Graphics/images-chronological/slides/1914-for_the_glory_of_ireland.html&usg=__KQz0InCW1DArabKlbvy1pIzlFDI=&h=800&w=533&sz=423&hl=en&start=4&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eLxyaeOY7oQGyM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bwar%2B1%2Bposters%2B%252B%2Bireland%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enIE300IE313%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://www.emerald-isle-gifts.com/images/articulos/big/icha009.jpg
http://www.emerald-isle-gifts.com/images/articulos/icha165.jpg
what about this one?
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1122/3169137849_54fde78b84.jpg?v=0
take a look at these pictures, in particular the one taken in Longford during the 1917 Bye Election where Joe McGuinness barely took the set from the IPP. Note the Union Jack from IPP supporters - Whilst it ight be in solidiarity for those who were fighting in France at the time, it was hardly seen here to support an independent Irleand. Check out the tales of IPP supporters and their treatment of Sinn Fein followers during these elections - they too knew how to intimidate
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/images/ga/gal03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/gallery/gallery03.shtml&usg=__L3vyNz22GHIGVafLECjsNGx3jvs=&h=380&w=230&sz=32&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=pzVUCzOOQC-BnM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=74&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bwar%2B1%2Bpropaganda%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enIE300IE313%26tbs%3Disch:10 -
The Irish who fought in WWI mostly fought for a dream of John Redmond. Yes indeed it was Redmond’s ambition to be an imperial statesman like that of the other leaders of the sub nations of the Empire. As for freedom a lot of these when the returned to Ireland had to face the guns and tanks that faced the Germans now pointing at them. WWI was nothing more than an imperial adventure which imperial powers slogged it out not only with their own people as cannon fodder but the foolish others who were easily led.0
-
Rebelheart wrote: »While your point is ostensibly solid you are, I'm afraid, suffering from a form of presentism. It is irrelevant whether they have been justified or not. What is relevant is that one group of Irish people fought for British imperialism and all its immorality, while at the same time another fought for Irish freedom against that immoral project. The former could also have stayed at home and fought for Irish freedom. They didn't; they fought for the very power which kept Ireland subservient and unfree.
I agree that one group fought for Irish freedom and the other fought for the British Empire. I didn't seek to equate the two did I?
But I don't share your absolutism about Irish participants on WWI. That they "could have stayed home and fought for Irish freedom" is said with all the benefit of unacknowledged hindsight.
Tom Barry and many others went off to serve with the British Army and then came home and fought for Irish freedom. To propose that these men made some sort of conscious decision not to participate in 1916 is absurd.Rebelheart wrote: »This thinking is obscene. They volunteered to fight for the British Empire. They were not victims unless you are, ironically given your above rant about 'nationalists', making excuses for them because they share the same nationality as you.
Quite the contrary I regard all the men who were slaughtered on the Western Front as victims.
I think the Irish involvement in WWI is well worth remembering as it is a tremendous repudiation of both the Home Rule position and Unionist Ireland.0 -
Exile 1798
“Quite the contrary I regard all the men who were slaughtered on the Western Front as victims.”
Victims of what, in my view of a terrible naivety especially of Irish nationalist
As for fighting for freedom in WWI surely if it was a struggle for freedom then Irish people returned from the war along with other Irish people would not have to bear arms for freedom if WWI was about freedom.0 -
Just joined this forum and very interested how Irish people feel about this subject. I would be the last person to try and talk about Irish political history as if I knew what I was talking about but I thought the following may be of interest here.As for fighting for freedom in WWI surely if it were a struggle for freedom then Irish people returned from the war along with other Irish people would not have to bear arms for freedom if WWI was about freedom.
I was born in England but my Irish Catholic father was born in Dublin and fought for the Royal Navy during WW2. His father (my grandfather) was born in Bethnal Green London requested to join an Irish Regiment (5th Royal Irish Lancers) and was stationed at Marlborough Barracks in 1914. Here he met and married a local Catholic Irish girl (my Grandmother) before going to fight in Europe.
Now consider his feelings at this point, he was a British born soldier beginning to forge really strong bonds through Marriage and his association with Ireland and learning more about the way British interests in Ireland were causing misery for many people. He was now caught up in a war with Germany fighting for the interests of the British Empire and risking his life for that cause.
After learning about the events of the Easter Rising which of course angered many Irishmen while fighting on the front, he returned home to find Ireland far from being free. As I understand it many Irishmen volunteered to fight in WW1 under the illusion that they would finally achieve Indipendace if they helped out?
In the 1920s the Tan War began causing terrible hardship and terror for his wife and family in Dublin. My Grandfather couldn’t face what was happening any longer and joined an IRA flying column along with other ex-soldiers.
Later when my father was born my Grandfather and his family had to leave Ireland because he was a wanted man.
I think that Irishmen fighting for freedom in Europe is a complicated issue and it would seem that on the face of it nothing to do with the plight of many Irish people under British rule at the time. However, many were fighting for all kinds of reasons and maybe their personal ideas of freedom went a little deeper.
Nick Clark0 -
I disagree with itnickjamesclark wrote: »In the 1920s the Tan War began causing terrible hardship and terror for his wife and family in Dublin. My Grandfather couldn’t face what was happening any longer and joined an IRA flying column along with other ex-soldiers.
I don't doubt that there was terrible hardship brought upon your family & many others, but wearnt the tans brought over as a response to the actions of the IRA? shooting policemen etc etc . . .0 -
I don't doubt that there was terrible hardship brought upon your family & many others, but wearnt the tans brought over as a response to the actions of the IRA? shooting policemen etc etc . . .0
-
Rebelheart that sort of post has no place in the history forum. Mod.0
-
I don't doubt that there was terrible hardship brought upon your family & many others, but wearnt the tans brought over as a response to the actions of the IRA? shooting policemen etc etc . . .
Maybe so but look at the tans brutal methods. It's widely known that they were often a law unto themselves and catholic communities were targeted indiscriminately regardless of any involvement with the IRA.
If we are talking about responding to actions I'm sure others would argue that the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army and later the IRA had been fighting Imperial power brutality for years
I was answering the thread in the context of
and my Grandfather's experience of it.'Irishmen who fought for the British Empire in WW1 fought for 'European freedom'
No doubt we could have a whole new topic and long running dispute on the subject of atrocities carried out by the IRA and the British auxiliaries (Black and Tans) and the police. The killing of spectators at Croke Park, the Cairo gang murders and reprisals etc etc.....0 -
Advertisement
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI don't doubt that there was terrible hardship brought upon your family & many others, but wearnt the tans brought over as a response to the actions of the IRA? shooting policemen etc etc . . .
How can you be so sure? People in his area might have been suspicious that he still had and kept links with the British Army. It might have taken a good while before his colleagues in the IRA could trust him. In some instances the susipicon of informers might have left ex ww1 veterans as a possible suspect and certain death. Had the Tans known who they were and their past it might have been a lot easier (assuming intelligence at Dublin Castle or Whitehall was not completelt ancient) to get finer details like photos etc, never mind cutting off their service pay (remember they had families to raise - mind you how the hell did people like David Neligan still managed to get his pension from the Dublin Met and Castle, after it was learned in later years what he did during the tan war?) and yes, certain death.
The Tans weren't too overtly concerned for the property and well fair of the pheasant/less well off protestant or unionist supporter. They too,occassionally got the brunt of the tans treatment.0 -
I disagree with itPlease note, I had a questionmark after my post #78.
I don't know the whole story regarding the tans in Ireland, but I had been told that they were meant to be very crude way of rebuffing the brutality of the IRA? (question mark again). Intrestingly I heard some guy on the radio last week with Pat Kenny (he has written a book all about the B&Ts), and one thing that caught me out (& P.Kenny) was the fact that contrary to popular belief, many of the Black & Tans were in fact Irish Roman Catholics! add to that, many of the 'British Army' in Ireland were Irish too (and not 100% English) as I had always been led to believe . . .
Pat Kenny was also agog at the 'Tan' revelation :eek:0 -
Please note, I had a questionmark after my post #78.
I don't know the whole story regarding the tans in Ireland, but I had been told that they were meant to be very crude way of rebuffing the brutality of the IRA? (question mark again). Intrestingly I heard some guy on the radio last week with Pat Kenny (he has written a book all about the B&Ts), and one thing that caught me out (& P.Kenny) was the fact that contrary to popular belief, many of the Black & Tans were in fact Irish Roman Catholics! add to that, many of the 'British Army' in Ireland were Irish too (and not 100% English) as I had always been led to believe . . .
Pat Kenny was also agog at the 'Tan' revelation :eek:
If you will pardon me for pointing this out but this is a nonsense argument and one that is probably put forward to negate the position of the Irish Independence fighters. The fact that some Irish were in the British Army and even the Tans does not in any way negate the aspirations of the majority of the Irish who were fighting for Irish independence. Nor does it take away from the horror of what the Black and Tans did in Ireland and the unchallengeable fact that they were sent in and were under the command of the British government. There are always self haters, ethnic turncoats, people who just happen to be in the situation to be recruited and what have you, in any war.
A cross over of ethnic origin or nationality is common in ALL war situations. For example, in the German Army in WWII there was actually - more horrors - a British legion, known as Britische Freikorps or British Free Corps, British men who fought on the side of Germany. Put together by no less a man than John Amery, son of one of Churchill's ministers. Does this negate the entire British war effort? I don't think so.
Why do we Irish have to always be on the ready to defend our own history against some minor revelation that will somehow shake us to our roots or what, make us change our minds that our past is not something to be proud of?
No wonder it took 800 years to get them out.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomPlease note, I had a questionmark after my post #78.
I don't know the whole story regarding the tans in Ireland, but I had been told that they were meant to be very crude way of rebuffing the brutality of the IRA? (question mark again). Intrestingly I heard some guy on the radio last week with Pat Kenny (he has written a book all about the B&Ts), and one thing that caught me out (& P.Kenny) was the fact that contrary to popular belief, many of the Black & Tans were in fact Irish Roman Catholics! add to that, many of the 'British Army' in Ireland were Irish too (and not 100% English) as I had always been led to believe . . .
Pat Kenny was also agog at the 'Tan' revelation :eek:
so what if they were Catholic? Sure the RC church heads were against the Republicans (not neccessarily due to any loyality to the crown)What's Irish Roman Catholic?Born and bred? Irishh born Catholics have fought for Britian for centuries all over the world;and have fought against the Irish; the war in Ireland between King James & William of Orange is a perfect example or even during Wolfe Tones time. Sure the Irish fought against Irish in the American War of Independece and American Civil War. look at the wars between spain and france. Considering this county's history of emmigration, this should be nothing to be shocked about. Welsh and Scots also fought in Ireland. people know that fighting with the RIC was fighting Irish Roman Catholics. But it was these people under their powers of the realm act and it was this organisation that helped knock down the homes of tenants who were behind in their rent and fought under Michael Davitt's banner 20-30 years before. For the record, there were many Irish Born Catholics in British Uniform stationed in Dublin in 1916! (Robert Barton, i think is one that springs to mind, also Erskine Childers)i am not going to repeat the things a poster above has said,which i agree, because repeating does nothing for the debate.
the reality is, for all the rebelions before 1916 (and including 1916) republicans lost just as much by the civilian enemy, lack of support and spies as much as by british army might - in fairness irish people did not want violence. Collins got it right that the the republicans greatest weapon was the people's refusal to submit to the crown0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomMy grandfathers brother died in Belgium in March 1918 and enlisted when he was underage during one of Redmonds recruitment drives with the South Dublin Horse. There was a family connection with Redmond.
None of his older brothers enlisted.
My grandfather thought they were barely trained and used as cannon fodder. I imagine that the WWI deaths had a huge influence in the decline of Redmonds Home Rule Party.
My family would have been classed as catholic anglo norman farmers and had been treated fairly well by protestant cousins - so its not too far too suggest that they lived in a mixed community and werent expelling the invader but some of their own.
Its not very clearcut at all.0 -
But at least we now have Sinn Fein's certainty and clarity of vision in knowing how all Irish people must live in the future. They have but one destiny deliverable by SF alone.
Shure isn't it grand, lads.0 -
Intrestingly I heard some guy on the radio last week with Pat Kenny (he has written a book all about the B&Ts), and one thing that caught me out (& P.Kenny) was the fact that contrary to popular belief, many of the Black & Tans were in fact Irish Roman Catholics!
This is from a History Ireland article from a while back - I recommend reading the entire article but this will give you a good basic impression of their composition ;
http://www.historyireland.com////volumes/volume12/issue3/features/?id=113768
Eighty-two per cent of Black-and-Tans and Auxiliaries sampled were Protestant, 17.4 per cent were Catholic and there were ten English Jews.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomBut at least we now have Sinn Fein's certainty and clarity of vision in knowing how all Irish people must live in the future. They have but one destiny deliverable by SF alone.
Shure isn't it grand, lads.
The results of the 1918 Election were hardly unanimous and it was not a PR voting system but a direct vote and you had the 1916 bounce to consider.
Percentage Votes SF 46.9% Unionist 25.3 HR Party 21.7%
So while SF got 73 seats out of 105 it still had just 47% of the vote and lots of seats were not contested by other nationalist parties or the labour party.0 -
The results of the 1918 Election were hardly unanimous and it was not a PR voting system but a direct vote and you had the 1916 bounce to consider.
Percentage Votes SF 46.9% Unionist 25.3 HR Party 21.7%
So while SF got 73 seats out of 105 it still had just 47% of the vote and lots of seats were not contested by other nationalist parties or the labour party.
Most of those seats weren't contested because they were in areas where SF was expected to sweep the vote.
Sinn Féin's percentage of the vote would almost certainly have increased had they been contested.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI am not trying to second guess the election but the if James Connollys bunch had fielded candidates a different ideology woukd have been introduced. A reason for not putting candidates forward was to avoid splitting the nationalist vote.
I am not buying your argument that the SF vision was the only one and there were significant other ideologies floating around too.0 -
I am not trying to second guess the election but the if James Connollys bunch had fielded candidates a different ideology woukd have been introduced. A reason for not putting candidates forward was to avoid splitting the nationalist vote.
I am not buying your argument that the SF vision was the only one and there were significant other ideologies floating around too.
It's good too know that you're not buying an argument I never made.
As for splitting the Nationalist vote, this is nonsense. Most of the uncontested electorates were in Nationalist regions. Unionists didn't bother standing.
It wasn't an issue of splitting the Nationalist vote, it was an issue of the IPP not wanting to fight for seats they thought un-winnable.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomExile 1798 wrote: »
It wasn't an issue of splitting the Nationalist vote, it was an issue of the IPP not wanting to fight for seats they thought un-winnable.
My point is that SF was not universally supported even by non unionists and that in that context the SF vision was not shared by everyone.0 -
-
I disagree with itsame can be said for WWII, if germany had invaded Britain do you think they would have left Ireland alone?0
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomExile 1798 wrote: »Sure, but who claimed otherwise?
And the catholic based republicanism that characterised it was far away from the ideas of Tom Clark, James Connolly or many of the others that participated in 1916
Some believed that going to war helped the cause of irish freedom.0 -
Advertisement
-
The results of the 1918 Election were hardly unanimous and it was not a PR voting system but a direct vote and you had the 1916 bounce to consider.
Percentage Votes SF 46.9% Unionist 25.3 HR Party 21.7%
So while SF got 73 seats out of 105 it still had just 47% of the vote and lots of seats were not contested by other nationalist parties or the labour party.
What election results are EVER unanimous? Democracy does not require a unanimous vote - where are you going with this? You are not fielding a discussion here, you are just stating what seems to be your own dislike of the results and attempting to invalidate them. But democratic election history is not on your side.
Simply put, Sinn Fein WON the election on 1918 - If you go down the road you are on you can just about invalidate ANY election. When Labour won the 1945 British election it did so with less than 50% of the vote yet they changed the face of British life with huge changes in how the country was run. In the 1964 election, another huge change election they won with 44% of the vote and built on that with the '66 election..
John Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential vote with less than 50%. Bill Clinton won the '92 election with 43% of the vote and was reelected with less than 50%.
With your line of reasoning these election results were not mandates to rule. But they were.
Sinn Fein won the 1918 election on their platform to secede from the UK Parliament. It was a valid election.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomBig difference was that they didnt campaign based on a "kick out the prodies" platform. A bit of ethnic clensing.
I often see posts on the flight of the earls but what about the "flight of the prodies" as being every bit as catastrophic at that time.
It was disguised with mass immigration but you had a flight of investment capital and expertise from the Irish Economy more catostrophic than the current crisis.
When independence was achieved no-one knew quite what they were going to do with it. All the industrialisation was in the North and it took until Lemass came on the scene before there was a conscious effort to develop industrially and even then it depended on the Marshall Aid plan.
Of course, hindsight is a great thing but independence brought with it some very impractical idealists and unrestrained zealots.
Also their was a conscious effort to sever trade and other links that was just mad, crazy and impulsive.
Kennedy and Clinton had to accomadate their opposition thru concensus politics as opposed to adopting policies to kick them out.0 -
This was posted on the Kerry forum by "Enfield", and is a link to the WW1 dead list compiled by an archivist at Kerry County Library. It doesn't just list the names, and gives more info.
Even Kitchener's on the list as "drowned":eek:
I had a quick look through some of them, and it seems that the sons of local protestant dignatories were officers, and the rest were from the "lower ranks".0 -
Big difference was that they didnt campaign based on a "kick out the prodies" platform. A bit of ethnic clensing.
I often see posts on the flight of the earls but what about the "flight of the prodies" as being every bit as catastrophic at that time.
It was disguised with mass immigration but you had a flight of investment capital and expertise from the Irish Economy more catostrophic than the current crisis.
When independence was achieved no-one knew quite what they were going to do with it. All the industrialisation was in the North and it took until Lemass came on the scene before there was a conscious effort to develop industrially and even then it depended on the Marshall Aid plan.
Of course, hindsight is a great thing but independence brought with it some very impractical idealists and unrestrained zealots.
Also their was a conscious effort to sever trade and other links that was just mad, crazy and impulsive.
Kennedy and Clinton had to accomadate their opposition thru concensus politics as opposed to adopting policies to kick them out.
This is a history form - not a "I don't like what I think happened forum".
Most of what you post is ahistorical anyway - you lose one argument and then jump to another equally as uninformed or fallacious. Ireland elected a Protestant President in 1937. Half of my family are Protestant who were certainly NOT "kicked out" as you claim. How ridiculous, "ethnic cleansing" indeed. Either you are just venting your own anger and prejudice or just trolling.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomEthnic clensing is not too strong a word -the historian Peter Hart described it as such.
While in school we were thought about bloody sunday and the Cairo Gang we were not taught about the Dunmanway Killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings
I have protestant relatives too. Some stayed and others left and the majority left.
Though I only know this anecdotally I have heard that veterans of WWI who returned to Ireland found a real change which made it easier to leave. Vietnam veterans in the US had it easy by comparison. When they enlisted it was under one administration whereas they came home to a different political reality.
While it is not clear cut - I would have been out of here like one hot snot.
Its fine to say "I dont like what happened" but what happened did reflect the values of the political leaders and laid the groundrules for the political landscape we see today.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement