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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Irishmen who fought for the British Empire in WW1 fought for 'European freedom'
Options
Comments
-
-
fontanalis wrote: »The SS were in WW1?
They used their jet planes to bomb the western front. The bombs were silent, hence the title of the novel..... :pac:0 -
:Pbrianthebard wrote: »They used their jet planes to bomb the western front. The bombs were silent, hence the title of the novel..... :pac:
The Germans had Jet aeroplanes in WW1?0 -
That was the joke...
maybe i should have said jet packs. 0 -
brianthebard wrote: »That was the joke... maybe i should have said jet packs.
Only if they had flux capacitors first.0 -
Advertisement
-
That might be a relevant question if ;
a) they had fought with honour and were not associated with warcrimes
b) there had been hundreds of thousands of Irishmen involved.
c) If it was credible to say that they fought for varied reasons including that they were sincerely misled by the propaganda of the day.
If those 3 conditions were met it would be a remotely comparable hypothetical paralell universe kind of scenario.
What is the meaning of that post? I take it you are against honouring the Irishmen of WWI and that your looking to throw a holocaust reference into this thread for some kind of well thought out legitimate reason ? ie not just scraping the barrel or anything.
Yes I am against honouring Irishmen who fought in WWI on any side regardless of their intentions. Why anyone would want to honour those who fought on behalf of an evil empire (British or German) is beyond me. It sends out a terrible message imo.
And I never mentioned the holocaust.... :rolleyes:fontanalis wrote: »The SS were in WW1?
Did I say they were? :rolleyes:0 -
Yes I am against honouring Irishmen who fought in WWI on any side regardless of their intentions. Why anyone would want to honour those who fought on behalf of an evil empire (British or German) is beyond me. It sends out a terrible message imo.
but it is not about singing and dancing about the fact they went, it is about remembering that several imperial countries decided to have a war over pretty much nothing and millions of people died.
People joined up for many reasons (my main interest is the fact that in Britain they had no choice) and most of them honourable, but i think it is only with hindsight that we can look back and say they shouldn't have gone.
as far as WWI goes, I really don't think it matters who they were fighting for, all those that died deserve to be remembered. Germany looks after their own dead, Britain looks after their's (In fact the whole commonwealth does through the CWGC who also look after the graves of Irishmen) so i think it is only right that Ireland at least pays respect to their war dead, even if it likes to pretend that it had nothing to do with all that imperial nonsense.0 -
Yes I am against honouring Irishmen who fought in WWI on any side regardless of their intentions.
That clears your position up nicely. So why did you have to go dragging the holocaust into it ?And I never mentioned the holocaust.... :rolleyes
The holoaust was not just gaschambers - it includes the ss in poland and russia. So yes you did actually.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »but it is not about singing and dancing about the fact they went, it is about remembering that several imperial countries decided to have a war over pretty much nothing and millions of people died.
People joined up for many reasons (my main interest is the fact that in Britain they had no choice) and most of them honourable, but i think it is only with hindsight that we can look back and say they shouldn't have gone.
as far as WWI goes, I really don't think it matters who they were fighting for, all those that died deserve to be remembered. Germany looks after their own dead, Britain looks after their's (In fact the whole commonwealth does through the CWGC who also look after the graves of Irishmen) so i think it is only right that Ireland at least pays respect to their war dead, even if it likes to pretend that it had nothing to do with all that imperial nonsense.
"Imperial nonsense"? That's some way to descibe genocide and ethnic cleansing. :rolleyes:
And your main interest has nothing to do with this thread.That clears your position up nicely. So why did you have to go dragging the holocaust into it ?
The holoaust was not just gaschambers - it includes the ss in poland and russia. So yes you did actually.
Thanks for backing up my point. I was refering to the "regular" war (if that's how it can be descibed) that the SS was involved in.0 -
Thanks for backing up my point. I was refering to the "regular" war (if that's how it can be descibed) that the SS was involved in.
I did not backup your point. You compared the Irish men who fought in WWI with the SS.Would we fondly remember Irishmen if they had fought "bravely" for the SS on the eastern front?
As a way to try to associate/equate them with wrongdoing.
You then denied that the holocaust involved the SS in the east.
You are now trying to clarify what you had originally meant.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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.
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.
As we now accept their view of the war, why don't we also accept their view of the Irish who took part in it? They were not hateful and condemning, they were lamenting and regretful. They viewed those Irishmen who died such pointless, vain deaths as more victim then traitor.
'Twas England bade our wild geese go, that "small nations might be free"
Their lonely graves are by Suvla's waves or the fringe of the great North Sea.
Oh, had they died by Pearse's side or fought with Cathal Brugha
Their graves we'd keep where the Fenians sleep, 'neath the shroud of the foggy dew.
Remembering these men, Irish victims of British Imperialism, does not equate with glorifying that Imperialism. Quite the opposite.
I think in the past in Ireland we have overlooked or simply forgotten this view. 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.0 -
I did not backup your point. You compared the Irish men who fought in WWI with the SS.
No, I didn't, I simply asked a question. Please stop making things up.As a way to try to associate/equate them with wrongdoing.
My opinion is that those involved in WWI were involved in wrongdoing. As were those fighting for the SS on the eastern front.You then denied that the holocaust involved the SS in the east.
No I did not. Please withdraw that accusation.You are now trying to clarify what you had originally meant.
Well it has to be done when some poeple cannot understand plain English.0 -
I disagree with itI think it's too simplistic to say that they fought for any one thing, jobs or European Freedom or any thing.
However I'd say if you asked them were they fighting for European Freedom they'd say yes. Whether this is down to them believing the hype (yeaaaaahhhh) or that was the actual aim of the British Empire is immaterial.
What they were fighting for was what they understood to be European Freedom.
Albeit a European Freedom which required that Germany disarm because she were too strong and that required that British and Irish ships be allowed sail wherever they wanted without tariffs. A very self-interested idea of european freedom.
Certainly not a european freedom in which everyone was equal.0 -
Originally Posted by Zebra3 View Post
Would we fondly remember Irishmen if they had fought "bravely" for the SS on the eastern front?
The fact that you were not aware of a connection between the 'SS in the eastern front' and the holocaust might explain why you would say that you had not brought the subject up. When in fact you did, knowingly or otherwise.0 -
World War 1, what a clusterf**k!
So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb, for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an Angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not they hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold.
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.0 -
The fact that you were not aware of a connection between the 'SS in the eastern front' and the holocaust might explain why you would say that you had not brought the subject up. When in fact you did, knowingly or otherwise.
I'm fully aware of what the SS was involved in.
I mentioned the SS on the eastern front as the thread was about war.
Many people (and I'd be one) see the holocaust as a seperate issue from WWII.
And please stop misqouting what I post. :mad:0 -
I commemorate the dead on all sides, who for all intents and purposes, were suckered into the conflict by the higher echelons of their individual societies, before they were sent off to the slaughter.
They were all victims, whether Irish, English, German, or whatever. I shouldn't be commemorating my deceased ancestors? I'm not going with that one, and no right-thinking individual would expect me to.
I don't know of any Irish ancestor that took part in WW1 (probably a dark family secret), but those that happened to be in Scotland (by way of the previous generation's move from Derry), were involved in it. The survivors went back to the same sh1t jobs and the same poverty that they had before the war started. My great grandfather survived, but thanks to getting a dose of mustard-gas, was a hell of a lot worse off than he was prior to his trip across the English Channel. The dead weren't the only victims.
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?
In a twisted logic kind of way, an Irish nationalist should commemorate all of the dead, because WW1 was one of the final nails in the coffin of the British Empire, and anyone involved in the war (on all sides) contributed to its demise.
If that particular skirmish hadn't taken place, how far would Irish independence have progressed?0 -
I'm fully aware of what the SS was involved in.
I mentioned the SS on the eastern front as the thread was about war.
Many people (and I'd be one) see the holocaust as a seperate issue from WWII.
And please stop misqouting what I post. :mad:
Please stop this off topic conversation. Mod.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomFratton 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.
You are right, it is stretching it a bit to say it was fight for European Freedom
Granted, William was very aggresive in the expanding of the german empire
but
having Britain maintain its dominence in empire building, navy and army was okay? Was it not more a fight to ensure the German's don't move ahead of Britian?
its not like any of the above countries which you mentioned and Britain (with assistance of many Irish) were shinning lights of hope and glory in their activities in Africa. You are well aware of German/French problems from the Bismark era. The French, as you might agree were no angels either
It was a horrible pointless war0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomSimarillion wrote: »I think people are getting confused between what Irishmen in WWI dies for and what they signed up for.
While many of them signed up out of loyalty to King and country, for employment in a secure and well paying job, for adventure etc. they did in fact die for freedom from European agrressors. Im not sure if "European freedom" is the correct term to use. It is from the case of the Allies, but if you were to ask the Austro-Hungarians or the Germans they would claim they were fighting for freedom within Europe. Freedom from Russian influences on the Balkan states and freedom from ever increasing rise of anarchy against traditionally monarchical and feudal systems.
I also think no matter where you stand on this, whether you approve of the reasons of Irishmen who joined, they ought to be commemorated for their bravery and courage. Why they should be left forgotten, when so many memorials dot the countryside dedicated to IRA militia, who ambushed and murdered innocent members of the country's police force for doing their job is absolutly bizarre to me.
Innocent members of the police force? You are referring to the RIC, I assume.
Doing their job was to uphold peace and order, and ulitmately uphold the british laws in Ireland. Our Proclamation of 1916, and later 1919 decalred them to be foreign. This was the same group or associates who tried to close down Sinn Fein Courts (an example of peaceful protest against Britian, one which Gandi would probably be ok with) and meetings of Dail Eireann
You know full well that this country was at war with britain in 1919-1921,and a new road was taken - away from the home rule. the RIC were frontline representatives of British presence in the State. It was PUBLICALLY stated by the IRA, which was controlled by the Dail (supposedly), that people in the RIC were now targets and were to be treated no different to British soldiers, Tans or Auxies.
For most part of the RIC history, they were tolerated, with the exception of the Land League days. Granted, there WERE members of the RIC who were POPULAR/LIKED in the community and there WERE members of the RIC who actively assisted members of the IRA in various forms and there WERE members of the RIC who resigned in PROTEST over the Auxies/Tans/British Army reprisals on, for most part, INNOCENT people eg Balbriggan, Knockergrahery (sp), Cork City (you get the point). RIC was the main source of intelligence within the public area, it was this intelligence that led to people's homes and lives destroyed, whether they were active or not in the war. Whilst you clearly either don't accept that there was a war or you do accept that there was a war but don't like how the war was played out, there won't be too much sympathy for those who died in RIC uniforms.
But to say they were innocent despite their association with a force(s) with brought martial law on the ordinary people is disengenuious. Surely many were doing it more than just the money?
As brave as the men of ww1, bar the ones who came home and fought for the natinonal struggle against for some, their former comrades, the men who fought (at this point I DO'NT refer to the dead) in the somme etc did nothing for the fight of Irish Independence. You would be well aware that unlike the men who fought in British and American armies in ww1, the men who stayed at home did not enjoy the luxury of being well armed and well trained. Maybe had they been so, then their mode of warfare may have greatly differ to a method you clearly seem to have preferred.
I have no problem remembering in decency and uptmost respect, those Irish men who fought and died for "King and Country" or for other reasons, but under no circumstance would I celebrate or cemmorate them over and above those who actually fought for freedom under the Irish flag in 1916-1923.0 -
Advertisement
-
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
Advertisement