Irishmen who fought for the British Empire in WW1 fought for 'European freedom'

I think this could turn into an interesting thread, but I am not sure I agree that WWI fits very neatly into those kind of jingo-istic 'European Freedom!' kinds of soundbites. Also the possible answers in your poll (3 & 4) seem a bit loaded to me.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Exactly. So, why on earth A) she is claiming they died for "European freedom" or
we should be 'commemorating' them, remains to be answered.

Whilst I believe it's factually inaccurate to say that they died for 'european freedom' I still think it's correct to comemorate them. There is not one single thing un-nationalistic about that. They were Irishmen who fought bravely and died in outrageously large numbers on the Somme and at Galipoli and all over the battlefields of WWI -every single one of them recorded in history as 'GB casualties'. We should show them the respect they deserve as Irishmen - not merely as ba soldiers.

Surely most Irishmen who fought simply did so for employment?

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - they did not fight for European freedom.

Some went for employment, some to serve King and country, some for adventure and many more to secure Irish political freedom through Home Rule within a United Kingdom framework.

i dont think they even thought of european freedom, i have read a few books on irish men in the british army in WW1 and european freedom was never mentioned.

along with the reasons in the quote above a lot went to free belguim , of course we at home were not free from the british empire. not sure of the numbers , but some of the men locked out after the strikes of 1913 had to enlist in the army to feed their families . as has been written in countless posts before we should remember those irish who fought for freedom and bread in WW1.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is stretching things to say European freedom, but 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.

If you're on the British/Allied side then yes Germany might be viewed as the aggressor. There's no evidence to suggest Germany intended to conquer France is there?

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why commemorate them because "they were Irishmen who fought bravely [sic] and died in outrageously large numbers" if they did so defending the largest empire in world history? Is this a case of "love the sinner; hate the sin"?

1. Their Irish birth is subservient to their membership of the human race. In particular the fact that they were, despite the enormous attempts to dress it up as a result of the Peace Process,

There is no [sic] required to a description of their bravery. There are countless books and testimonies from the british, the French and the Germans that go to this. They were Irish.

Rebelheart wrote: »

.....fighting for a power which was the antithesis of freedom, humanity or respect.

I would not go so far as to say 'antithesis of freedom, humanity or respect'. You are looking at imperial & colonial behaviour through the prism of a 21st century liberal perspective and expecting it to live up to 'Obama's promises'. All imperial powers behaved in a similair fashion whether it was the French, british or German. The british had been doing it for longer and were more successful. In the context of Ireland it should go without saying they were opposed to Irish freedom and this is a factor no one here has overlooked to begin with.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Only in the most blinkered xenophobic John Bull mindset can the British Empire be seen as a paragon of freedom, justice or civilisation as it (apparently selflessly) ruled over 25% of this planet. This is the most salient point of all.

No one has submitted the rhetoric which you seem to be trying to counter here.

Rebelheart wrote: »

2. These people volunteered to fight on the side of the strongest power in the world, fully conscious of what the British Empire stood for. That they chose money and even "adventure" rather than not fight for the noxious political philosophy of British imperialism does not make them worthy of admiration, no more than I would admire murderers, bullies, thugs, opportunists and chancers in history generally. It is utterly preposterous to say that simply because they were Irish in a British uniform that they should be commemorated for doing this. That is about as nationalistic as nationalistic thinking comes.

You are basically trying to score internet points against dead people because they were economically distressed ?

Rebelheart wrote: »

3. Given that so many of these Irish-born volunteers thought the war would be over by Christmas 1914 - i.e. it was a handy number that would give them money and perhaps a bit of kudos in their Irish Parliamentary Party dominated locality - and that they were paid for fighting it, the degree of self interest in their motivations is far more convincing than any supposed courage or selfless noble sacrifice which they are (embarrassingly) supposed to have been motivated by.

There are equally dismissive people who would say the same thing about the Easter Rebels (or any preiod Irish republicans) - 'thought it would bring them kudos and advancement in their grubby little republican circles'. It would be just as incorrect to belittle their motives as you are trying to do here with the veterans of Galipoli and the Somme etc.

Rebelheart wrote: »

4. That they died in huge numbers has little if anything to do with bravery.

You are missing the point here. If 2 people die that is bad news. If 20,000.000 die then you can't dismiss the fact that the volume of the tragedy is a relevant factor.

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is sheer after the fact politicising and glorification of their deaths, all motivated by nationalistic rather than humane sentiment;

No it is not. Your dismissiveness of these Irismen is where the politication in this thread begins and your seeking to undermine/ belittle the deaths of fellow Irishmen is not motivated out of some kind of benign 'humane sentiment'.

Rebelheart wrote: »

not much commemoration for the German soldiers in this framework, is there?

No one here has said that the sacrifice of German troops should not be comemorated. Again you are countering rhetoric no one has put forward.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Certainly, there would have been cases of bravery as they are when any group of humans are gathered together. But to contend that these guys were brave when they would be shot if they refused to attack is simply romanticising their reality. Their deaths had much more to do with the fact that 1) they joined an army for payment in order to fight in a war 2) true to the culture of British imperialism, the people commanding that war placed very little value upon the lives of Paddies or poor alike.

Dismissing their bravery as statistically non-relevant is not convincing. See point above - you may wish to read up on this, british French and German commanders have all commended the bravery of Irish troops from the perspective of either fighting with or against. The fact that their lives were not valued and many were wasted by their commanders is another factor no one here is disputing. From my perspective that just underlines all the more the reason to comemorate their sacrifices. The likes of which neither you nor I can even begin to comprehend.

Rebelheart wrote: »

5. So, I'm left with a group of people who joined the forces of the largest power on earth in a tribal imperialist bloodbath out of a variety of motivations, the overwhelming number (to understate things) of which were of self-interest.

Basically this is correct. Yes they were human beings with families to feed.

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is a reality far from that propagated by the poppy-pushers of the Royal British Legion, a myth-making exercise which is facilitated by the Peace Process détente. Accordingly, I remain bereft of reasons other than tribal drumbeating and political expediency why such people should be commemorated.

This may shed some light on things for you. There is also a book about the Kaisers pass that relates to the passage from Foch 'A Forlorn Hpoe' you may be interested to read before you dismiss these Irishmen & their bravery. Then again going from your post above you may just get a chuckle out of it.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/History_of_Government/1916_Commemorations/Marshal_Foch%E2%80%99s_Tribute_to_the_Irish_Soldiers_who_died_in_the_First_World_War_.html


Marshal Foch’s Tribute to the Irish Soldiers who died in the First World War.
PARIS, FRIDAY, Nov. 9th, 1928

THE Heroic Dead of Ireland have every right to the homage of the living for they proved in some of the heaviest fighting of the world war that the unconquerable spirit of the Irish race— the spirit that has placed them among the world’s greatest soldiers—still lives and is stronger than ever it was.

I had occasions to put to the test the valour of the Irishmen serving in France, and, whether they were Irishmen from the North or the South, or from one party or another, they did not fail me.

Some of the hardest fighting in the terrible days that followed the last offensive of the Germans fell to the Irishmen, and some of their splendid regiments had to endure ordeals that might justly have taxed to breaking-point the capacity of the finest troops in the world.

ON THE SOMME

Never once did the Irish fail me in those terrible days. On the Somme, in 1916, I saw the heroism of the Irishmen of the North and South, I arrived on the scene shortly after the death of that very gallant Irish gentleman, Major William Redmond. I saw Irishmen of the North and. the South forget their age-long differences, and fight side by side, giving their lives freely for the common cause.

In war there are times when the necessity for yielding up one’s life is the most urgent duty of the moment, and there were many such moments in our long drawn- out struggle. Those Irish heroes gave their lives freely, and, in honouring then I hope we shall not allow our grief to let us forgot our pride in the glorious heroism of these men.

They have left to those who come after a glorious heritage and an inspiration to duty that will live long after their names are forgotten. France will never forget her debt to the heroic Irish dead, and in the hearts of the French people to-day their memory lives as that of the memory of the heroes of old, preserved in the tales that the old people tell to their children and their children’s children.

A GERMAN TRIBUTE

I know of no better tribute to Irish valour than that paid after the armistice by one of the German High Command, whom I had known in happier days. I asked him if he could tell me when he had first noted the declining moral of his own troops, and he replied that it was after the picked troops under his command had had repeated experience of meeting the dauntless Irish troops who opposed them in the last great push that was expected to separate the British and French armies, and give the enemy their long-sought victory.

The Irishmen had endured such constant attacks that it was thought that they must be utterly demoralised, but always they seemed to find new energy with which to attack their assailants, and in the end the flower of the German Army withered and faded away as an effective force.

“THEY NEVER FAILED”

When the moment came for taking the offensive all along our line, it was these same worn Irish troops that we placed in the van, making call after call on their devotion, but never finding them fail us. In the critical days of the German offensive, when it was necessary that lives should be sacrificed by the thousand to slow down the rush of the enemy, in order that our harassed forces should have time to reform, it was on the Irish that we relied repeatedly to make these desperate stands, and we found them responding always.

Again and again, when the bravest were necessary to delay the enemy’s advance, it was the Irish who were ready and at all times the soldiers of Ireland fought with the rare courage and determination that has always characterised the race on the battlefield.

"WE SHALL NEVER FORGET”

Some of the flower of Irish chivalry rests in the cemeteries that have been reserved in France, and the French people will always have these reminders of the debt that France owes to Irish valour. We shall always see that the graves of these heroes from across the sea are lovingly tended, and we shall try to ensure that the generations that come after us shall never forget the heroic dead of Ireland.

Rebelheart wrote: »

When the choice is between taking your chances on the field of battle or being shot for refusing to, the 'bravery' in question looks very different as it has been stripped of its voluntary aspect.

They were not consrcipted so they did have a choice. Having said that their options were probably more limited than you seem to allow for (going by your later comments about how they could have emigrated instead etc).

Rebelheart wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing served by projecting values like bravery on to men fighting in a blood bath with such choices.

You are wrong about the choices to begin with in my view.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Judging by your quote from Foch, regarding the 'unconquerable spirit of the Irish race' this is what is known as either black humour or plámás of the highest order.

I see no reason to believe that the words of Foch were meant in a spirit of black humour. They were sincerely delivered and recieved. You can, from your perspective of 80 yrs later (comments made in 1928), assign it to the realm of black humour if you prefer but you are wrong.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The 'unconquerable' Irish. How ironic. This is really very insulting stuff.

There is nothing insulting about those comments. He clearly meant unconquerable on the battlefields of France during WWI. It was intended to compliment and show his respect and admiration for Irish troops - it was not presented as a catch all accurate reflection of Irish history throughout the ages as I am sure you and I and every single other person reading them are well aware.

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'm not. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a guy who has spent years reading English/British history and viewing it within its contemporary context. In this case, racism, supremacism, sectarianism and class hatred (among other values).

I hold to my point that your perspective on this issue is not accurate in context - it's from a judgemental 21st century liberal mindset.

Rebelheart wrote: »

t doesn't take much courage to sign up to fight with the biggest and most advanced tyrant.

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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Moreover, this is not much faithfulness to historical context; you have omitted all those in Ireland who refused to fight for the British Empire, people who demonstrate that there were contemporary alternatives.

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).

Rebelheart wrote: »

Many of these Irishmen, in sharp contrast to joining the greatest military power on earth, fought for no pay for one of the greatest underdog causes in Europe, Irish freedom. That took courage.

Again you are countering rhetoric which is not being put forward by anyone. 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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Interesting twist. If there is "point scoring" it is against those people who today are trying to dress these guys up as something they were not: a courageous and brave group of men fighting a noble cause.

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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The reality was far more different to that fantasy. As for this supposed "economic distress",

Economic distress in the period 1914-1918 in Ireland is clearly not 'supposed'.

Rebelheart wrote: »

there were many alternatives such as stay at home like thousands of Irish Volunteers did or emigrate to America like millions of Irish before them. Indeed what would all these people have been doing had there been no war?

We have already established that there was no conscription - they chose to go. This fact does not undermine their sacrifice.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Fighting for economic benefit is not the same as fighting for economic necessity.

AS mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread the Irish fought in WWI for a wide variety of reasons.

Rebelheart wrote: »

That's a non sequitur. The Irish Parliamentary Party was the dominant force in every nationalist locality in 1914. The republicans were not, and neither were they when the Rising started in 1916. Furthermore, the financial or social benefits which a republican could get for turning up in 1916 to take on the biggest military power on earth were at the time negligible if not comical when contrasted with what a volunteer into the British forces would and could receive.

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.

I did not say I agreed with either preposterous allegation.

I merely used it to point out the ridiculousness of your original claim by turning it around.

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. Whereas republican veterans obviously fared a lot better though clearly at the time we are speaking about this was not forseeable to either side.

Rebelheart wrote: »

It comes down to whether or not you believe that the British Empire represented some greater moral good on earth;

No it does not.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Actually, no. Once again, you proved my point by pointing to the 'Irish' aspect of those who fought with the British Empire. If this 'commemoration' business were about commemorating sacrifice etc, the Irishness of these people would be irrelevant. Your mention of their Irishness twice in one sentence shows that their nationality, rather than merely their deaths,

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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

is what is being exploited.

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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

This entire 'commemoration' business is promoted by people who seek to commemorate those who died on one side, and one side only: the British side. How anybody can contend it is not politicised and wrapped up in the myths of British nationalism is hard to fathom.

No it is not prompted by a wish to commemorate one side exclusively. I have zero interest in playing down or undermining the role of the German/Russian soldier throughout WWI etc. 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.

You are making a completely unfounded assumption to get from that to the notion that this means that I do not also respect their sacrifices too.

Rebelheart wrote: »

I have yet to see the poppy pushers of the Royal British Legion advocating a commemoration ceremony which includes the Germans or anybody else. It's a strictly British nationalist affair, this "commemoration" of World War I business.

You would have to take that up with them.

Rebelheart wrote: »

And contending that they were 'brave' to join the greatest military power on earth, in a war which many thought would be over by Christmas 1914 and in a war where if they did not face the odds of death in battle they would face the certainty of execution is to place all 1.14 million in a category which they do not belong. If they joined a weak country to fight against a powerful aggressor, you might have a point about bravery and courage.

You are wrong to think that all Irishmen to volunteer thought the war would be over by christmas 1914.

Notwithstanding the fact that a great many volunteered throughout the entire duration of the war - it was not a case that they all volunteered mid 1914.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Again, there is a critical distinction between economic benefit and economic necessity. Ireland in 1914 was not Ireland in 1847. There were, as pointed out above, plenty of alternatives to joining

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 not about whether or not with 20/20 hindsight, and with instant access to all of the facts uncovered in the previous 100 yrs and which were at that time unknown to those men, they made a decision at that time based on what they knew for a variety of reasons. Second guessing them to me serves no purpose.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed. There is also a forum policy which forbids ad hominem attacks. As you want to go there, there are also, I am sure, plenty of British forums for you to do what amounts to your own little Rule Britannia party piece. At any rate, it's a bit silly for a British person to come to an Irish discussion forum and talk about how terrible things would be if ever the German Empire challenged the British Empire and then get upset when told to stop being so, well, John Bull about it all.

Ah, one law for those savages out in Africa (and, of course, Ireland) and another for the white, civilised Europeans. Is that, really, what this is about? The Germans threatened the sovereignty of white Europeans rather than of native black Africans? I feel like I'm back in 1914 and its enormous racism (oops bravery and heroism) already.

Considering it was holding on to power it gained entirely as a result of war and went to war to defend these benefits of war, this is not exactly a demonstration of Britain's aversion to war but rather of her aversion to any potential reduction in her power. Why must some people always dress their tribe's crass predictable self-interest up in noble clothing?

In terms of its regular army, this is quite true comparatively speaking, although including the reserves with the regulars it numbered almost 700,000 men. Moreover, this 'small' force was a reflection of its perceived military needs there not a reflection of a sudden love of a peace other than Pax Britannica.

How is any of that shoite relevant?

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed. There is also a forum policy which forbids ad hominem attacks. As you want to go there, there are also, I am sure, plenty of British forums for you to do what amounts to your own little Rule Britannia party piece. At any rate, it's a bit silly for a British person to come to an Irish discussion forum and talk about how terrible things would be if ever the German Empire challenged the British Empire and then get upset when told to stop being so, well, John Bull about it all.

Ah, one law for those savages out in Africa (and, of course, Ireland) and another for the white, civilised Europeans. Is that, really, what this is about? The Germans threatened the sovereignty of white Europeans rather than of native black Africans? I feel like I'm back in 1914 and its enormous racism (oops bravery and heroism) already.

Considering it was holding on to power it gained entirely as a result of war and went to war to defend these benefits of war, this is not exactly a demonstration of Britain's aversion to war but rather of her aversion to any potential reduction in her power. Why must some people always dress their tribe's crass predictable self-interest up in noble clothing?

In terms of its regular army, this is quite true comparatively speaking, although including the reserves with the regulars it numbered almost 700,000 men. Moreover, this 'small' force was a reflection of its perceived military needs there not a reflection of a sudden love of a peace other than Pax Britannica.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is any of that shoite relevant?

BossArky wrote: »

Keep it civil please.

Certainly boss.

Rebelheart, you accuse the British empire of being Xenophobic, then go off into a xenophobic rant.

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.

WWI was a war between the home lands of several empires, none of which could claim to be any better than any of the others, but this was, to an extent, irrelevant.

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.

Britain was at war with Germany, it did not start the war and was not in a position to claim any moral high ground, but it wasn't going to lay down and die. The same applies to France and Russia, neither of them were going to roll over just because they had empires and were the bad boys of the day.

what the **** any of this has to do with "Savages" i do not know.:rolleyes:

None of what you have posted is relevant to this thread.