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'
Comments
-
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
Advertisement