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
-
I am not trying to second guess the election but the if James Connollys bunch had fielded candidates a different ideology woukd have been introduced. A reason for not putting candidates forward was to avoid splitting the nationalist vote.
I am not buying your argument that the SF vision was the only one and there were significant other ideologies floating around too.
It's good too know that you're not buying an argument I never made.
As for splitting the Nationalist vote, this is nonsense. Most of the uncontested electorates were in Nationalist regions. Unionists didn't bother standing.
It wasn't an issue of splitting the Nationalist vote, it was an issue of the IPP not wanting to fight for seats they thought un-winnable.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomExile 1798 wrote: »
It wasn't an issue of splitting the Nationalist vote, it was an issue of the IPP not wanting to fight for seats they thought un-winnable.
My point is that SF was not universally supported even by non unionists and that in that context the SF vision was not shared by everyone.0 -
-
I disagree with itsame can be said for WWII, if germany had invaded Britain do you think they would have left Ireland alone?0
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomExile 1798 wrote: »Sure, but who claimed otherwise?
And the catholic based republicanism that characterised it was far away from the ideas of Tom Clark, James Connolly or many of the others that participated in 1916
Some believed that going to war helped the cause of irish freedom.0 -
Advertisement
-
The results of the 1918 Election were hardly unanimous and it was not a PR voting system but a direct vote and you had the 1916 bounce to consider.
Percentage Votes SF 46.9% Unionist 25.3 HR Party 21.7%
So while SF got 73 seats out of 105 it still had just 47% of the vote and lots of seats were not contested by other nationalist parties or the labour party.
What election results are EVER unanimous? Democracy does not require a unanimous vote - where are you going with this? You are not fielding a discussion here, you are just stating what seems to be your own dislike of the results and attempting to invalidate them. But democratic election history is not on your side.
Simply put, Sinn Fein WON the election on 1918 - If you go down the road you are on you can just about invalidate ANY election. When Labour won the 1945 British election it did so with less than 50% of the vote yet they changed the face of British life with huge changes in how the country was run. In the 1964 election, another huge change election they won with 44% of the vote and built on that with the '66 election..
John Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential vote with less than 50%. Bill Clinton won the '92 election with 43% of the vote and was reelected with less than 50%.
With your line of reasoning these election results were not mandates to rule. But they were.
Sinn Fein won the 1918 election on their platform to secede from the UK Parliament. It was a valid election.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomBig difference was that they didnt campaign based on a "kick out the prodies" platform. A bit of ethnic clensing.
I often see posts on the flight of the earls but what about the "flight of the prodies" as being every bit as catastrophic at that time.
It was disguised with mass immigration but you had a flight of investment capital and expertise from the Irish Economy more catostrophic than the current crisis.
When independence was achieved no-one knew quite what they were going to do with it. All the industrialisation was in the North and it took until Lemass came on the scene before there was a conscious effort to develop industrially and even then it depended on the Marshall Aid plan.
Of course, hindsight is a great thing but independence brought with it some very impractical idealists and unrestrained zealots.
Also their was a conscious effort to sever trade and other links that was just mad, crazy and impulsive.
Kennedy and Clinton had to accomadate their opposition thru concensus politics as opposed to adopting policies to kick them out.0 -
This was posted on the Kerry forum by "Enfield", and is a link to the WW1 dead list compiled by an archivist at Kerry County Library. It doesn't just list the names, and gives more info.
Even Kitchener's on the list as "drowned":eek:
I had a quick look through some of them, and it seems that the sons of local protestant dignatories were officers, and the rest were from the "lower ranks".0 -
Big difference was that they didnt campaign based on a "kick out the prodies" platform. A bit of ethnic clensing.
I often see posts on the flight of the earls but what about the "flight of the prodies" as being every bit as catastrophic at that time.
It was disguised with mass immigration but you had a flight of investment capital and expertise from the Irish Economy more catostrophic than the current crisis.
When independence was achieved no-one knew quite what they were going to do with it. All the industrialisation was in the North and it took until Lemass came on the scene before there was a conscious effort to develop industrially and even then it depended on the Marshall Aid plan.
Of course, hindsight is a great thing but independence brought with it some very impractical idealists and unrestrained zealots.
Also their was a conscious effort to sever trade and other links that was just mad, crazy and impulsive.
Kennedy and Clinton had to accomadate their opposition thru concensus politics as opposed to adopting policies to kick them out.
This is a history form - not a "I don't like what I think happened forum".
Most of what you post is ahistorical anyway - you lose one argument and then jump to another equally as uninformed or fallacious. Ireland elected a Protestant President in 1937. Half of my family are Protestant who were certainly NOT "kicked out" as you claim. How ridiculous, "ethnic cleansing" indeed. Either you are just venting your own anger and prejudice or just trolling.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomEthnic clensing is not too strong a word -the historian Peter Hart described it as such.
While in school we were thought about bloody sunday and the Cairo Gang we were not taught about the Dunmanway Killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings
I have protestant relatives too. Some stayed and others left and the majority left.
Though I only know this anecdotally I have heard that veterans of WWI who returned to Ireland found a real change which made it easier to leave. Vietnam veterans in the US had it easy by comparison. When they enlisted it was under one administration whereas they came home to a different political reality.
While it is not clear cut - I would have been out of here like one hot snot.
Its fine to say "I dont like what happened" but what happened did reflect the values of the political leaders and laid the groundrules for the political landscape we see today.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ethnic clensing is not too strong a word -the historian Peter Hart described it as such.
While in school we were thought about bloody sunday and the Cairo Gang we were not taught about the Dunmanway Killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings
I have protestant relatives too. Some stayed and others left and the majority left.
Though I only know this anecdotally I have heard that veterans of WWI who returned to Ireland found a real change which made it easier to leave. Vietnam veterans in the US had it easy by comparison. When they enlisted it was under one administration whereas they came home to a different political reality.
While it is not clear cut - I would have been out of here like one hot snot.
Its fine to say "I dont like what happened" but what happened did reflect the values of the political leaders and laid the groundrules for the political landscape we see today.
Well if Peter Hart said it then it must be wrong - he's well know to be in the Revisionist bordering on anti-Irish camp. I still say it is ridiculous and a fallacious distortion. The phrase "ethnic cleansing" brings to mind massacres on a grand scale.
But I am not going to waste any further time with this emotional nonsense. I can't be responsible for what you think you didn't learn at school. Maybe you need to read more history now.0 -
Ethnic clensing is not too strong a word -the historian Peter Hart described it as such.
While in school we were thought about bloody sunday and the Cairo Gang we were not taught about the Dunmanway Killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings
I have protestant relatives too. Some stayed and others left and the majority left.
Though I only know this anecdotally I have heard that veterans of WWI who returned to Ireland found a real change which made it easier to leave. Vietnam veterans in the US had it easy by comparison. When they enlisted it was under one administration whereas they came home to a different political reality.
While it is not clear cut - I would have been out of here like one hot snot.
Its fine to say "I dont like what happened" but what happened did reflect the values of the political leaders and laid the groundrules for the political landscape we see today.
Peter Hart is a discredited author whose book was rubbished by historians.
There's no evidence to support the idea that Dunmanway killings were sectarian.
Again, people who advance the "ethnic cleansing" line never provide adequate evidence to support the claim.
You should keep in mind that this is the history forum, historical claims should be supportable by facts – not by what you "think" or "feel."0 -
fact,many protestants left the country in the early 1920s,either because they felt unwelcome in a prodominantly catholic and nationalist state or,because they were afraid due to the burnings of prostantant homes by republicans,by 1960 the prostestant population had declined by 50%,and the population of the republic by 1961 had also declined to a low of 2.7 million in the 1961 census. [all this information is from wiki]Well if Peter Hart said it then it must be wrong - he's well know to be in the Revisionist bordering on anti-Irish camp. I still say it is ridiculous and a fallacious distortion. The phrase "ethnic cleansing" brings to mind massacres on a grand scale.
But I am not going to waste any further time with this emotional nonsense. I can't be responsible for what you think you didn't learn at school. Maybe you need to read more history now.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomfact,many protestants left the country in the early 1920s,either because they felt unwelcome in a prodominantly catholic and nationalist state or,because they were afraid due to the burnings of prostantant homes by republicans,by 1960 the prostestant population had declined by 50%,and the population of the republic by 1961 had also declined to a low of 2.7 million in the 1961 census. [all this information is from wiki]
Dr Andy Bielenberg of UCC said it existed and the type of people who went were shopkeepers and tradespeople - while its not as high as 60,000 that some estimate he thinks it was somewhere between 30-40,000 -which would have been in the region of 1 % of the total Irish Population were forced to leave. And thats just the protestants from small towns in Ireland.
Taken from the Ceder Lounge BlogMadam, – Senator Eoghan Harris has made an important contribution to drawing attention to the Dunmanway executions in 1922, but his interpretation of the statistics of Protestant emigration for this period (October 10th) and those of Tom Carew (October 15th) are problematic.
A greater part of the fall in the non-Catholic population of 106,000 between 1911 and 1926 can be accounted for by the following factors combined: normal emigration; natural increase which was negative in this period; British withdrawal; and those who died in the first World War.
These factors in my estimation collectively contributed to a fall of roughly 65,000 people. I have assumed that the residual figure of 41,000 can be taken to account largely for those who left between 1919 and 1923, who were not employees of the old regime as soldiers, administrators etc, or normal economic emigrants (which are all accounted for in the 65,000 above). Normal economic emigration was an important element in the outflow, more particularly in the Protestant community since the early 20th century.
The 60,000 to 63,000 figure cited by Harris and Carew looks a lot like a figure for total net emigration of the minority community in the south between 1911 and 1926, after the impact of British withdrawal, natural increase (which was negative), first World War dead etc, has been removed, which were published by Sexton and O’Leary (1996) and Delaney (2000). These two studies are scholarly efforts but they lack a separate estimate of normal economic emigrants which I have included above, who clearly were not part of any forced exodus.
A significant share of my residual 41,000 were indeed part of a forced exodus, who left as a consequence of intimidation, revolutionary violence, threatening letters, businesses that were made unviable by boycott, agrarianism, etc, while some simply left for fear of their safety and that of their families as the revolution went into full spate. Others left because of the continued decline of many landed estates and the employment they offered. Some left because they felt the cultural and ideological ethos of the new state was not to their liking.
Future prospects in Ireland looked particularly bleak for Protestants between 1921 and 1923 when the exodus reached its high watermark, and this tipped the balance in favour of departure for many economic migrants.
I don’t think there is any way to further break down this residual figure of 41,000 into voluntary or involuntary migrants.
Logically, however, since this residual contains voluntary migrants, this implies that the portion of the exodus which was literally driven out of the country between 1919 and 1923 was lower than 41,000 rather than significantly higher. – Yours, etc,
Dr ANDY BIELENBERG,
Department of History,
University College
Cork.0 -
Dr Andy Bielenberg of UCC said it existed and the type of people who went were shopkeepers and tradespeople - while its not as high as 60,000 that some estimate he thinks it was somewhere between 30-40,000 -which would have been in the region of 1 % of the total Irish Population were forced to leave. And thats just the protestants from small towns in Ireland.
Taken from the Ceder Lounge Blog
[Firstly, because of how you must have embedded[?] the quote I can't somehow bring it up on a reply, so I cant highlight what I want to.]
I don't see where you see this as part of a planned campaign by the Government to force people out. What is being described here is a war situation where attacks and reprisals on all sides were a part of the whole situation during the War of Independence. No one can dispute that. What you are quoting here is disputed [by the author Bielenberg] statistics of total Protestant emigration for a variant period up to 1923 - which includes much natural or economic migration according to what you show. But that is not where your argument originated - it originated with a plan by the Irish Government to eliminate protestants from the new state. I still call that nonsense.
I can also just as validly say that if Lloyd George had accepted the democratic result of the 1918 election and allowed Dail Eireann to proceed and not declare the new Dail illegal - and send in an augmented British Army and the Tans to violently force the Dail to shut down, much of what you are describing from the War of Independence and ensuing violence would not have happened.0 -
We have drifted considerably off topic...0
-
[Firstly, because of how you must have embedded[?] the quote I can't somehow bring it up on a reply, so I cant highlight what I want to.]
I don't see where you see this as part of a planned campaign by the Government to force people out. What is being described here is a war situation where attacks and reprisals on all sides were a part of the whole situation during the War of Independence. No one can dispute that. What you are quoting here is disputed [by the author Bielenberg] statistics of total Protestant emigration for a variant period up to 1923 - which includes much natural or economic migration according to what you show. But that is not where your argument originated - it originated with a plan by the Irish Government to eliminate protestants from the new state. I still call that nonsense.
I can also just as validly say that if Lloyd George had accepted the democratic result of the 1918 election and allowed Dail Eireann to proceed and not declare the new Dail illegal - and send in an augmented British Army and the Tans to violently force the Dail to shut down, much of what you are describing from the War of Independence and ensuing violence would not have happened.
I can't see that it was a government orchestrated expulsion either. In the Scannal? programme relating to the treatment of protestants in Cork, post-independence lawlessness was rampant, and anyone with a grudge, or even an interest in getting their hands on someone elses property, pretty much went with the flow, and there was no-one to stop them. Even the IRA high-command didn't like what was going on, and issued orders telling everyone to lay off.
I think a lot of what took place was more criminal than ideological, as there was much wealth to be had.
A lot more protestants would have stayed, had there been more protection, and also had our old friend the Catholic Church not had the country by the balls.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI dont think you can blame the catholic church for that.
It was down to the civil authorities to secure the situation and it reflected the values of those in political power.
Those who were largely affected were those outside Dublin in urban locations. It was significantly more then depraved indifference.
You also had a significant labour movement and political Labour Party who were political heirs of the Irish Citizen Army that also stood by. So much for European freedom and democracy.
While the figures look small - proportionately they were much higher when you take into account they were primarily outside Dublin in urban locations.0 -
I dont think you can blame the catholic church for that.
It was down to the civil authorities to secure the situation and it reflected the values of those in political power.
Those who were largely affected were those outside Dublin in urban locations. It was significantly more then depraved indifference.
You also had a significant labour movement and political Labour Party who were political heirs of the Irish Citizen Army that also stood by. So much for European freedom and democracy.
While the figures look small - proportionately they were much higher when you take into account they were primarily outside Dublin in urban locations.
I'm thinking of the hold that the Church had when there was more stability, interfering in the actual running of the country. A lot of Catholics (on Boards anyway:D) don't like the Church interfering now, so for the protestant population of 80 or 90 years ago, it must have been a lot to put up with.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI'm thinking of the hold that the Church had when there was more stability, interfering in the actual running of the country. A lot of Catholics (on Boards anyway:D) don't like the Church interfering now, so for the protestant population of 80 or 90 years ago, it must have been a lot to put up with.
i am catholic and lots of power structures interfere.
it is a curious thing in ireland that our public and civil servants can avoid responsibility for their actions or inaction.
in 1932 or thereabouts my grandfather and his ex old IRA colleagues in west cork took up positions at polling stations to keep them open-as the civil authorities would not act.
but this was a civil matter and you either have rights or you dont -the legacy of this is seen in areas of fathers rights
so if you had lack of enforcement of protestants rights, children in state care, and now fathers it kind of makes you look at the one common denominator.
It is not a complex issue either the state protects its citizens or it dont. That is the nature of government.
So to say the government didnt live up to it and continually fails to is a natural conclusion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I disagree with itThis 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 ;
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.
Thanks for that Morlar, its a very interesting read which shows the complexities surrounding the religion & nationality of the Black & Tans.
"An unexpected finding that is at odds with popular memory is that nineteen per cent of the sampled recruits (514) were Irish-born, twenty per cent of Black-and-Tans and about ten per cent of Auxiliaries. Extrapolating from the sample, more than 2,300 of all Black-and-Tans and 225 of all Auxiliaries were Irish".
"Still, that there were so many Irishmen among the Black-and-Tans shows that there is still much to learn about the complexities of the War of Independence".
So many more stats in the article, of all kinds, they really were a mixed bag.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomIMO the Irish fought in the British Army during WWI for a multitude of reasons:
1.some were attracted to adventure&escaping the stultifying boredom of Irish rural life
2.financial reasons (Ireland was constantly susceptible to Famine&poverty was endemic
3. some heeded the Home Rule leader John Redmond's call to arms (at Woodenbridge),in order to 'guarantee' the passing of The Home Rule Bill
4.a small minority I would guess,were enticed by the noble idea of defending the neutrality of small nations (such as Belgium,which had been invaded by Germany)
5.a large minority were pro-British (especially in N-E of the island)
Interestingly,Tom Barry (renowned Irish Volunteer/IRA Commander&the architect of the Kilmichael ambush in Cork in 1920,where the British suffered their heaviest losses of The Anglo-Irish War),was the Union Jack flag-bearer during the local regiment's farewell parade before leaving to fight with their British comrades in Flanders circa 1914.This indicates how great the volte-face in Irish attitudes to the British Empire,brought about the Easter Rising 1916&subsequent British authorised executions etc.0 -
I disagree with itI think you will find that No:5 would also include large pockets all over the island, (and not just the N-E), also dont forget how unpopular the rising had been (at that time) and how Pro-King & Pro-British many Irish people were! (also at that time). > obviously in the years that followed WW1 attitudes changed rapidly, and perceptions too!
And now some ninety years later the real history is beginning to emerge, Irish Black & Tans & all ..............0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedom2.financial reasons (Ireland was constantly susceptible to Famine&poverty was endemic
in the town imam from there was a tradition in some families of serving in the british army. So it was also a career choice as was working for the colonial serviceInterestingly,Tom Barry (renowned Irish Volunteer/IRA Commander&the architect of the Kilmichael ambush in Cork in 1920,where the British suffered their heaviest losses of The Anglo-Irish War),was the Union Jack flag-bearer during the local regiment's farewell parade before leaving to fight with their British comrades in Flanders circa 1914.This indicates how great the volte-face in Irish attitudes to the British Empire,brought about the Easter Rising 1916&subsequent British authorised executions etc.
What intrigues me is that a lot of admireable ideals descended into tribalism when the chips were down.0 -
I think you will find that No:5 would also include large pockets all over the island, (and not just the N-E), also dont forget how unpopular the rising had been (at that time) and how Pro-King & Pro-British many Irish people were! (also at that time). > obviously in the years that followed WW1 attitudes changed rapidly, and perceptions too!
And now some ninety years later the real history is beginning to emerge, Irish Black & Tans & all ..............
This isnt new history that is "emerging"
It's been known and knowable too anyone with an interest.
All popular history is poor on the details. If you say there were Irish Black & Tans it doesn't make it "emerging history" just because most people don't know it.0 -
What intrigues me is that a lot of admireable ideals descended into tribalism when the chips were down.
What intrigues me is that you can't stop grinding your political axe in the history forum. It wouldn't be nearly so grating if you weren't simply making stuff up as you flail from one ill-conceived point to the next.
How about you actually read Tom Barry's book? In it he states his motivation for joining the British Army.
"Admirable ideals" indeed.In June, in my seventeenth year, I had decided to see what this Great War was like. I cannot plead I went on the advice of John Redmond or any other politician, that if we fought for the British we would secure Home Rule for Ireland, nor can I say I understood what Home Rule meant. I was not influenced by the lurid appeal to fight to save Belgium or small nations. I knew nothing about nations, large or small. I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel a grown man0 -
-
Exile 1798 wrote: »This isnt new history that is "emerging"
It's been known and knowable too anyone with an interest.
All popular history is poor on the details. If you say there were Irish Black & Tans it doesn't make it "emerging history" just because most people don't know it.
Agree. You have hit the problem on the head with this..."popular" history is a rogue field to itself. Reading the posts here claiming "revelations" and "emerging" history is like amateur hour.
It reads like carping prejudice that isn't looking to the historic record for information and enlightenment - with a view to actually learning something - but just babbling on with an assembly of dissociated data to support an agenda. It's all over the map.
Consequently the issue is just going to keep going around in circles. It's a matter of "don't give me the facts from the original sources, I know what I know" type of thinking.0 -
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.
This was a terribly written article, as if the author was intentionally being obscurantist. He jumped back and forth from Irish Catholics to Catholics when he wanted to make his figures look bigger. The 17.4% is Catholics, not Irish Catholics. There are so many problems with the lack of clarity here. Were, for instance, "Irish recruits" those who were Irish-born or those who were recruited in Ireland. This changes his figures significantly but he never qualified what he meant. The total number of Irish-born, both Catholic and Protestant, were recorded as 514 but later as 490. And his figure was for both the Tans and the Auxies. He later said 55% of "the Irish recruits" were Catholic.
to sum up this convoluted article he seems to be claiming there were 282 Catholics among the "Irish recruits" - "the largest proportion of Catholics, not surprisingly, was found among the Irish recruits (59 per cent of the 478 Catholics in the sample)." He then states: "The 46 Irish Auxiliaries included seventeen Catholics."
282 + 17 = 299 Catholics in the "Irish recruits" to the Tans and Auxies. These figures are taken, it should be noted, from a sample 20% of recruits to the RIC. That 20% sample numbered 2,745 individuals. So, if we were to trust this guy's methodology - and I obviously don't - he is basically claiming that just over 10% of this sample section of recruits to the RIC were Catholic "Irish recruits".0 -
Advertisement
-
fact,many protestants left the country in the early 1920s,either because they felt unwelcome in a prodominantly catholic and nationalist state or,because they were afraid due to the burnings of prostantant homes by republicans,by 1960 the prostestant population had declined by 50%,and the population of the republic by 1961 had also declined to a low of 2.7 million in the 1961 census. [all this information is from wiki]
Fact: "many Protestants" left the country in the early 1920s because the British garrison that they were part of left most of the country at the same time. How terrible that such nice members of the British crown forces of occupation in Ireland had to leave Ireland. A travesty!
Furthermore, comparing the 1911 Census with the 1926 Census and trying to blame the natives/sectarianism while overlooking the elephant in the room of world War II deaths is a pretty impressive display of bigotry. Please do your research on something more sophisticated than the websites of Wesley Johnston or the hilariously named Reform Movement.
The rest of your "statistics" are, as per usual, arrant nonsense. Saying "all this information is from wiki" rather than providing a precise link is at best lazy and at worst dishonest. But then again, Getz, you did claim that 'there are 600,000 irishmen living in the republic who have a british passport' so nothing would surprise me from you.0
Advertisement