[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by fvp4

I’m sure that most countries have similar publications. The British have dozens of them.

Is Irish-America a country now?

[riffmongous]

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

I and lots of others dismissed IrishCentral as a source. The nonsense purveyed by that site is patent rubbish from the outset. Asserting that Victoria was ‘the Famine Queen’, a name that the American nationalist community tried (unsuccessfully) to stick to her, is plain silly
Queen Victoria was greeted by rapturous crowds everywhere she went when she visited Ireland in the last days of the Famine (1849); Cork, Dublin, etc. all had firework displays, triumphal arches (one for e.g. on the canal to greet her entry into Dublin). It was not just the aristocracy, but the ordinary poor who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to greet and welcome her. Go explain that if you can (because the tiny nationalist community were unable to do so at the time and said her visit had been a huge setback to their ‘cause’. And reflect, while you are at it, the visit was a year after the Young Irelander ‘rising’. Who was shown more support?

Confused. What is your position? Do you believe the myth? Or the kernel of it? Or do you agree it is historically inaccurate (i.e.rubbish)? You also are being rather economical with the truth – what you said was

That statement is patently untrue. You misunderstand her role and powers, and you also dismiss her ‘Letters’.

Contradicting yourself again there. Public opinion in Ireland was also infused with ‘Malthusian beliefs’, laissez-faire economics and blamed the blight as a ‘visitation from God’. Not of course that it stopped the Irish merchants form shipping out foodstuffs. Go read the minute books of any of the Workhouses, or sermons by priests of various denominations, or the contemporary newspapers. Read for example ‘The Great Famine in Tralee and North Kerry’ by Bryan MacMahon. It would open your eyes on the role God played.

Nonsense. Have you any idea of the difference between what is agreed as aid and what is actually delivered? Do you know that the Yemini war has cost that country MORE THAN $100 BILLION? Are you aware of the bureaucracy, corruption, total absence of infrastructure, etc., etc., in Yemen? Or that an oil tanker, the ‘Safer’ (oh the irony!) has been rotting away off the coast and could – at any moment dump more than a million gallons of oil into the Red Sea?
The majority of people around the world have ceased to give a rats about Africa and places like Yemen. Supporting them with ‘aid’ is money down the drain, it lines the pockets of the rulers..


I see you are falling into the trap of the hoary old chestnut of the Ottoman nonsense. Go read about it in a history book, not some fairytale created for Yanks. The Ottoman regime was hardly a poster boy for democracy!

Dream on! I never contended that, nor have I asserted that the British government did a good job – clearly they did not.
Your comments show an ignorance of historical fact, of matters surrounding the Famine and an ignorance of the role of a constitutional monarch including the role (and power) of Victoria after her accession.
If you want to revive a post pages back from last month and pick a fight, at least go do some factual homework first.

Mod: Post a bit more civilly or dont post at all.

[Caquas]

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

I and lots of others dismissed IrishCentral as a source. The nonsense purveyed by that site is patent rubbish from the outset. Asserting that Victoria was ‘the Famine Queen’, a name that the American nationalist community tried (unsuccessfully) to stick to her, is plain silly
Queen Victoria was greeted by rapturous crowds everywhere she went when she visited Ireland in the last days of the Famine (1849); Cork, Dublin, etc. all had firework displays, triumphal arches (one for e.g. on the canal to greet her entry into Dublin). It was not just the aristocracy, but the ordinary poor who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to greet and welcome her. Go explain that if you can (because the tiny nationalist community were unable to do so at the time and said her visit had been a huge setback to their ‘cause’. And reflect, while you are at it, the visit was a year after the Young Irelander ‘rising’. Who was shown more support?

Confused. What is your position? Do you believe the myth? Or the kernel of it? Or do you agree it is historically inaccurate (i.e.rubbish)? You also are being rather economical with the truth – what you said was

That statement is patently untrue. You misunderstand her role and powers, and you also dismiss her ‘Letters’.

Contradicting yourself again there. Public opinion in Ireland was also infused with ‘Malthusian beliefs’, laissez-faire economics and blamed the blight as a ‘visitation from God’. Not of course that it stopped the Irish merchants form shipping out foodstuffs. Go read the minute books of any of the Workhouses, or sermons by priests of various denominations, or the contemporary newspapers. Read for example ‘The Great Famine in Tralee and North Kerry’ by Bryan MacMahon. It would open your eyes on the role God played.

Nonsense. Have you any idea of the difference between what is agreed as aid and what is actually delivered? Do you know that the Yemini war has cost that country MORE THAN $100 BILLION? Are you aware of the bureaucracy, corruption, total absence of infrastructure, etc., etc., in Yemen? Or that an oil tanker, the ‘Safer’ (oh the irony!) has been rotting away off the coast and could – at any moment dump more than a million gallons of oil into the Red Sea?
The majority of people around the world have ceased to give a rats about Africa and places like Yemen. Supporting them with ‘aid’ is money down the drain, it lines the pockets of the rulers..


I see you are falling into the trap of the hoary old chestnut of the Ottoman nonsense. Go read about it in a history book, not some fairytale created for Yanks. The Ottoman regime was hardly a poster boy for democracy!

Dream on! I never contended that, nor have I asserted that the British government did a good job – clearly they did not.
Your comments show an ignorance of historical fact, of matters surrounding the Famine and an ignorance of the role of a constitutional monarch including the role (and power) of Victoria after her accession.
If you want to revive a post pages back from last month and pick a fight, at least go do some factual homework first.

Where to start? Perhaps at the end - I'm not the one picking a fight here! I posted a simple and balanced comment with a link a week ago and you came back with two posts, one merely dismissive and a follow-up

Just to show how wrong you are on the topic and why I was so dismissive

which didn't rebut anything I said or anything in the Irish Central article but pointed to the Church appeal of 1847 in Victoria's defence.

Now you are back with more attacks on Irish Central (a website with which I have no connection and happened to google up)

The nonsense purveyed by that site is patent rubbish from the outset

But the only specific objection you raise is to their use of the epiteth - "Famine Queen". The Famine was the central event during her reign as Queen of Ireland so it seems fair enough to me. Naturally, the English have other views but here we are. Some historian should go around her former Empire and discover her many local titles - official, unofficial and scandalous.

The Royal Visit of 1849 was widely welcomed but it would be delusionary to take it as proof that Victoria had done enough in response to the Famine. History is littered with the corpses of rulers who thought they were beloved of the people until it was too late. Her son Bertie (Edward VII) was greeted even more enthusiastically when he visited us in 1903 but a decade later Ireland was on the verge of civil war (interrupted for a few years by certain hostilities on the continent which swept aside his cousins who each believed they were loved and revered by their people. QED).


You say you are

Confused. What is your position? Do you believe the myth? Or the kernel of it? Or do you agree it is historically inaccurate (i.e.rubbish)? You also are being rather economical with the truth

If you had simply read my first post instead of getting outraged by a link to Irish Central you might not be confused now. I stated my position clearly - Victoria gave far more than five pounds but

Her failure to adequately mobilise the British government or philantropic organisations played a major role in the catastrophe of the Great Famine.

No one suggests Victoria caused the Famine or had the primary responsibility for responding to it - that responsibility rested with her Government and, as I said in my first post, she was a Constitutional Monarch and there were strict limits on her powers.

There's no point in diverting this discussion into the history of Yemen. I offered Yemen simply as the latest example - in a catalogue of humanitarian catastrophes - to illustrate the scale of funding which would be required for an adequate response to a major famine. And yes, of course, there is a big difference between the needs of a starving population and the actual response of international donors. My point remains - the amount raised in the 1847 Church appeal was a drop in the ocean of Irish needs at that moment. (I do not denigrate the generosity of those who donated but that is no defence for Victoria, or her Government.)

You asked for a history book that mentions the Sultan's tale
https://www.routledge.com/The-Histor.../9781138200876
and you might enjoy this detailed monograph giving contemporary references for this story (which, of course, is merely to illustrate that Victoria's contribution was not seen as generous or even adequate by contemporary leaders)
https://www.irishfamine.ie/wp-conten...the-Sultan.pdf

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by saabsaab

See below the panzer I and II made up much of Hitler's tank forces but was inferior to the bulk of the French and British tanks (Matilda II was a good tank at the time with front armour that was immune to german tanks of the time). The Germans were better at using theirs.

"They came on in the same old way, and we stopped them in the same old way"

A quote attributed to Rommel (or maybe one of his subordinates) after they had destroyed a British tank attack in the desert in 1942. Mainly with 88mm guns in antitank mode.

Source: The World at War and my memory

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Beagle

That Sean South, from Garryowen, died in the War of Independence. He died, like all good terrorists, after being shot in the arse during a botched IRA raid on an RUC barracks in Fermanagh in 1957.

Does anyone seriously think Sean South was shot in the War of Independence?

It's essential to his myth that he was killed in the Border Campaign of the 1950s.

[RandomViewer]

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

Does anyone seriously think Sean South was shot in the War of Independence?

It's essential to his myth that he was killed in the Border Campaign of the 1950s.

A lesser goverment politician attributed a major bombing to the wrong side lately, I think someone has decided to muddy the water of other events in an attempt to make it look less embarrassing

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by breezy1985

Was never found innocent was released after the 3rd trial. I'm not saying he wasn't innocent but but song is a little misleading and the movie very much so

And he was never "the number one contender for the middleweight crown".

[Del.Monte]

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

"They came on in the same old way, and we stopped them in the same old way"

A quote attributed to Rommel (or maybe one of his subordinates) after they had destroyed a British tank attack in the desert in 1942. Mainly with 88mm guns in antitank mode.

Source: The World at War and my memory

I thought this quote was attributed to the Duke of Wellington?

And here it is: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur..._of_Wellington

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Del.Monte

I thought this quote was attributed to the Duke of Wellington?

And here it is: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur..._of_Wellington

Maybe it was a German quoting Wellington then.

Groan. OK I'll dig out my WAW box set and check it out.......

(At least I know what episode it was)

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Del.Monte

I thought this quote was attributed to the Duke of Wellington?

And here it is: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur..._of_Wellington

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

Maybe it was a German quoting Wellington then.

Groan. OK I'll dig out my WAW box set and check it out.......

OK. It was Laurence Olivier, narrating the World at War series who described another futile British attack in the desert, by Cunningham and Auchinlek (under great political pressure from Churchill).

"Rommel might have been tempted to echo the words of the Duke of Wellington. 'They came on in the same old way, and we stopped them in the same old way'"

[saabsaab]

Churchill was an excellent wartime leader or strategist.
He made several big mistakes both in WWI and WWII. His (aborted) plan to support Finland against Russia could have cost them the war.