History HubÌý permalink
A small nation that stood alone
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
" Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his actions by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count... that is precisely why we had this disastrous succession of wars — World War No.1 and World War No.2— and shall it be World War No.3?
Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain’s stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?"
Eamon DeValera 1945. -
Message 2
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Contemptible tripe from the man who mourned Hitler. Appealing though it may be to those with a romanticised view of Irish nationalism, the idea that the Irish nationalist 'struggle' was consistent across the centuries is nonsense.
Let us not forget that the Old IRA, of which Dev was a leader, habitually murdered homeless people, random Protestants and anyone else they thought remotely 'undesirable'...
-
Message 3
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone...Ìý
Why would he do that? The purposes of Churchill's speeches were to rally the British to the cause, not to soothe DeValera's sense of grievance. -
Message 4
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Where was Mr D V during the 1916 events? In the Post Office with all those brave chaps? No, he was away out at Boland's Mills.
And what did he do when he heard the approach of the British Army?
Hmmm? -
Message 5
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
'Shane' rarely engages in posting on these boards that is not puerile Brit-bashing - I think we can dismiss the OP as just more of the same...
-
Message 6
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
OK, in view of Mr D V's performance in 1916, how about Shane giving us a quick chorus of "No Surrender!"?
This is 2011. I'm sorry, but tragic and horrible events happened. To everybody, ALL of our ancestors.
But to keep on, treasuring and polishing these old grievances...
Daft, I call it. -
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone... Ìý
Why would he do that? The purposes of Churchill's speeches were to rally the British to the cause, not to soothe DeValera's sense of grievance.Ìý
Let's not forget, however, that de Valera was responding to Churchill's speech given on 13 May 1945 which was after the defeat of Germany. In other words the 'cause' was already won. During that speech Churchill had not only complained about the neutrality of southern Ireland (a somewhat academic whinge by then) but had also included at least 3 attacks on de Valera personally.
The text of the speech can be read here:
(paragraphs 4 & 5 are the relevant sections)
It was not a very magnanimous performance by Churchill at such a moment in history and to be honest he left himself wide open to de Valera's stinging reply. -
Message 8
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
"habitually murdered homeless people, random Protestants..."
Never heard anything like that before, homeless people??? -
Message 9
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Why would he do that? The purposes of Churchill's speeches were to rally the British to the cause, not to soothe DeValera's sense of grievance. Ìý
I suppose equally the purpose of Devs speech was to rally and defend his nation.
Anyway two good speeches... -
Message 10
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Where was Mr D V during the 1916 events? In the Post Office with all those brave chaps? No, he was away out at Boland's Mills.
And what did he do when he heard the approach of the British Army?
±á³¾³¾³¾?Ìý Bolands Mills was his command; from memory his command was quite active in supporting Mount Street where there was a heavy engagement with the enemy.
Either way when you are given command of a post it is your duty to hold that post even when there is little action.
He was reluctant to surrender the post even when he had word of the GPO surrender. -
Message 11
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
OK, in view of Mr D V's performance in 1916, how about Shane giving us a quick chorus of "No Surrender!"?
This is 2011. I'm sorry, but tragic and horrible events happened. To everybody, ALL of our ancestors.
But to keep on, treasuring and polishing these old grievances...
Daft, I call it.Ìý Lol, thats an amazing thing to say on a history site
-
Message 12
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
I wonder how much was going on in Southern Ireland without De Valera's knowledge? At one time there was a suggestion of putting a radio intercept station in Southern Ireland but eventually the British assisted the Irish in operating their own stations with equipment they supplied.
A TV programme last year described how the coastal lookouts on West coast of Ireland passed sightings to British intelligence.
The British of course controlled the fuel supplies to Ireland and could have made life very unpleasant if they had not allowed supplies through - fuel supplies often shipped over the Atlantic by ships including Irishmen in the crew of course whilst others of their countrymen were assisting the Nazis. -
Message 13
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
'Shane' rarely engages in posting on these boards that is not puerile Brit-bashing - I think we can dismiss the OP as just more of the same...Ìý You're a sensitive soul catigern...
-
Message 14
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone... Ìý
Why would he do that? The purposes of Churchill's speeches were to rally the British to the cause, not to soothe DeValera's sense of grievance.Ìý
Let's not forget, however, that de Valera was responding to Churchill's speech given on 13 May 1945 which was after the defeat of Germany. In other words the 'cause' was already won. During that speech Churchill had not only complained about the neutrality of southern Ireland (a somewhat academic whinge by then) but had also included at least 3 attacks on de Valera personally.
The text of the speech can be read here:
(paragraphs 4 & 5 are the relevant sections)
It was not a very magnanimous performance by Churchill at such a moment in history and to be honest he left himself wide open to de Valera's stinging reply.Ìý Correct. Let us not forget that hitorians today would accept the Irish position at the time was 'neutral' on the side of the allies. Examples of this are the Donegal air corridor and the allowing of Allied airmen to escape across the border. Mind you as has been said the UK had a strangle hold over the republic economically. -
Message 15
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Let's not forget, however, that de Valera was responding to Churchill's speech given on 13 May 1945 which was after the defeat of Germany. In other words the 'cause' was already won. During that speech Churchill had not only complained about the neutrality of southern Ireland (a somewhat academic whinge by then) but had also included at least 3 attacks on de Valera personally.Ìý
Thanks Vizzer, that puts it more in perspective. I'd have expected Churchill to not say anything about Ireland (its history being not relevant to the point), but his abuse of DeValera comes across as very petty.
Shane,
Yes, both men were politicians trying to reach their target audiences and DeValera's comments are entirely understandable in the context of his audience.Why Churchill went out of his way to slate DeValera is another question. I suspect that Churchill simply didn't like him and perhaps, rather ungraciously, took the chance to wind up an old foe? Ireland had (for a neutral nation) been extremely helpful to the UK during the war. Thousands of Irishmen volunteered to fight, thousands more came to work in factories. Ireland handed German spies to the British authorities and interned German servicemen when British pilots and sailors were left free to return to the UK and the fight. -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
In reply to ShaneONeal:
What else was to expect from an English-hater like De Valera. He wasn´t that glorious at all, as he might have been depicted in history. Recent history books are depicting him from a rather balanced point of view. He has himself many dead Irish people on his concious for his diehard propaganda against the Anglo-Irish Treaty and I see him therefore as well responsible for causing the Irish Civil War and for keeping Ireland in a state that allowed too much influence to the RC and its repesentatives in politics and other matters concerning the Irish society. It´s not from nowhere that Ireland has been the "third world country" in Western Europe until it joined, together with the UK, the European Community, now the EU.
I wouldn´t be surprised if someone would ever find out that Dev was himself in some way involved in the plot to kill Michael Collins, a by far more progressive and non-clerical Irish leader with which Ireland had more achieved for its own good than it has rarely in the decades when Dev played his main roles in Irish politics. But that was something Dev couldn´t and won´ted understand. It´s a pity that he re-considered to become a Priest and jointed politics instead.
I know that Dev wasn´t alone with his stubborn clinging on the Republic, there were others still worse then himself, but he had the ability to push the cause forward in public and entrenching it by words like "... the volunteers had to wade through Irish blood, and if the Irish Republic can only achieved by civil war, then so be it". This were his words in the early 1920s.
On the other hand, he was not shy to apply to the British for helping "neutralize" some IRA terrorists in the late 1930s. This was recently discovered from MI5 files upon which there was a broadcast last week on Â鶹ԼÅÄ Radio 4. I´ve set up a link in a thread on here.
Dev´s speech sounds rather pathetic in hindsight and it was nothing new in this as the Irish Republicans always said, on and on for decades if not already to say for more then a century. -
Message 17
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
"... the volunteers had to wade through Irish blood, and if the Irish Republic can only achieved by civil war, then so be it". Ìý
Correction:
It should be written:
"... the volunteers had to wade through Irish blood, through the blood of the servants of this government, and it is that we can only gain our Irish Independence through civil war, then so be it".Ìý -
Message 18
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
"habitually murdered homeless people, random Protestants..."
Never heard anything like that before,Ìý
Of course you haven't heard owt like that before, Shane, given your penchant for pro-Nationalist pseudo-history.
homeless people???Ìý
Yes - homeless people. Read about it for yourself in the works of Stephen Howe, Professor of the History and Cultures of Colonialism at Bristol University...
-
Message 19
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
In reply to Catigern:
Yes - homeless people. Read about it for yourself in the works of Stephen Howe, Professor of the History and Cultures of Colonialism at Bristol UniversityÌý
I would be helpful if you could tell a bit more about that and name the title of the book in which further informations are to find, by Stephen Howe.
I never read something about the "homeless people" you´re referring to either. -
Message 20
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Hi Thomas, this link should help you track down Howe's publications:
-
Message 21
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Thanks for the link Catigern. It´ll take some time to get through the huge amount of informations provided there. So to say from the recent visit of that website.
-
Message 22
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
You're welcome, Thomas. There is indeed a huge amount of info - Professor Howe has been a very busy bee over the years. One sample of his thinking on Ireland in and after the Great War can be found in the relatively short film review he did of Ken Loach's 'Wind That Shakes The Barley':
-
Message 23
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
That was a very interesting article to read, Catigern.
I´ve that film on DVD and watched it for various times. The way Prof Howe is going to analyse it is of course from a point of view of an historian. There are some thoughts of him that looks rational and reasonable, but the problem in all films as well as in some books it, that one can just cover a part from the whole story.
I´ve not so much the impression that Ken Loach´s film is in any way anti-British, as to say what is regarded as such by common sense. In compare to the other film about Michael Collins, where the British are depicted as simply cruel and nothing less. In Ken Loach it is shown the difference between the Black and Tans and some Officer of the British Army who served in WWI.
I´ve most books dealing with Irish History from Mercier Press Publisher, which I regard as a company with focus on Irish History and Culture, but more on a balanced way as if one would like to buy books from Sinn Fein (which I never did and never would). Among the numbers of books about Irish History (by Mercier Press), there are also not too less telling stories on local events, based on towns and counties, from the time 1916 - 1923. The books I´ve are more based on the story concerning Irland as a whole or on particular persons, such as Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera. They are all written by Irishmen and in a style that I appreciate most, by seeking to get a balanced view, keeping the focuse on the facts as good as possible when relying on told stories from time witnesses.
Such a book is "The Squad", telling the story about Michael Collins´ "12 Apostles", sent out to execute the "Cairo Gang" of the British Intelligence service, among others they "proved" being traitors without regard whether they were Irishmen or British. It is a compilation from archives and testimonies of former members of the squad. It was published in the lat 1990s when none of them was still alive, because they were asured that their testimonies were kept secret. These testimonies were given to a historical commission of the Irish Army (so far as I recall it well).
I´ve once started to read a book that compares the biographies and characters of Eamon De Valera and Michael Collins, but ceased to read further for taking another book dealing with British History. I´ll take that book again some time to continue. It´s also very interesting because it tells much about the family backgrounds, growing up and engagement within the Irish Brotherhood and IRA of both persons.
Irish History in its whole is as well interesting as it is complicated to sort out facts and the anit-English sentiments.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 24
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
" an English-hater like De Valera..."
Was he any more of an 'English hater' than Collins? I dont think they were English haters, they were haters of the English domination of Ireland.
"He wasn´t that glorious at all, as he might have been depicted in history..."
I dont think he is depicted all that well in history books, certainly not since the 60s.
" He has himself many dead Irish people on his concious for his diehard propaganda against the Anglo-Irish Treaty and I see him therefore as well responsible for causing the Irish Civil War "
I think you are wrong there; he disagreed with the treaty and was supported in that by most of the Irish forces. Those who pursued conflict and actually began the shooting war were the Pro-Treaty forces, who were cajolled and barracked into using British cannons to open fire on the Four Courts. Churchill himself must take prime responsibility for this...
"Michael Collins, a by far more progressive and non-clerical Irish leader..."
Do you support his idea of recommencing the war against the unionists at the soonest possible moment?
I feel Devs speech is one of the most outstanding speeches in Irish history. -
Message 25
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
You're welcome, Thomas. There is indeed a huge amount of info - Professor Howe has been a very busy bee over the years. One sample of his thinking on Ireland in and after the Great War can be found in the relatively short film review he did of Ken Loach's 'Wind That Shakes The Barley':
Ìý
While I disagree with Howes conclusions about the film and about Irish nationalist historical naratives, he is not completely damning:
"This is not, even so, a dishonest film, nor a stupid one. It does not, even by implication or selection, lie. It distorts, to be sure: it bends and filters. How can any imaginative rendition of historical events avoid doing so? It's much debated whether even "proper" academic historians can ever avoid a high degree of selectivity and partiality.
And if its political message is crude and simple, it's certainly no more so than with most "historical" or agitprop cinema treatments of Irish or any other conflicts. Indeed, compared to the average Hollywood effort, or to other films which have (with some justice) been labelled "anti-English" or "anti-British" like Mel Gibson's ridiculous Braveheart and The Patriot, Loach's is a strikingly intelligent effort."
Which is fair enough form a British viewpoint... -
Message 26
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
IMHO, it's understandable that deValera and Collins should be anti-English, given the role Britain has played in centuries of colonisation of the island of Ireland....
-
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
i remember my uncles remarks. "We fought for 200 years to get independance from the British, and the moment we did, we all moved to England."
-
Message 28
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
While I disagree with Howes conclusions about the film and about Irish nationalist historical narativesÌý
I'm sure Professor Howe will be shaking in his boots, and that all those who would otherwise have cited him in serious historical works will be beating a path to Shane's door to hear his academic critique...
-
Message 29
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
Having Irish ancestors, I've always marvelled at how the Brits were kicked out, and the Church then took over.
Bishops in charge of education. Creepy paedophile priests, even.
Censorship - a list of "forbidden" books even longer than the Vatican's "Index". Contraceptives? Under the counter, wink wink.
Freedom! Aye, freedom! -
Message 30
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
In reply to ShaneONeal:
Was he any more of an 'English hater' than Collins? I dont think they were English haters, they were haters of the English domination of Ireland.Ìý
IMO, Dev was that for his lifetime. The difference between Dev and Collins is indeed that the term "haters of the English domination of Ireland" suites more to Collins. That is proved imo by the fact that once the Anglo-Irish Treaty was ratified he supported it, for he regarded this as the first real opportunity on Irelands way to freedom. The Treaty was accepted - even when one might say by a tiny but though a majority of the Dail and it was also accepted by the Irish people on the held referendum in June 1922. Dev and his fellows refused to accept it and this shows a great deal of lack on dealing with democractic decisions.
I dont think he is depicted all that well in history books, certainly not since the 60s.Ìý
I doubt that because it seems unlikely to me that he had been critisized for his political decisions during his lifetime and not when he was still in office as President of the Republic of Ireland.
I think you are wrong there; he disagreed with the treaty and was supported in that by most of the Irish forces. Those who pursued conflict and actually began the shooting war were the Pro-Treaty forces, who were cajolled and barracked into using British cannons to open fire on the Four Courts. Churchill himself must take prime responsibility for this...Ìý
You may say so, but disagree with you because it was the anti-Treatities which started the trouble by seizing key buildings of the Irish administration. The young Irish Free State had no other choice as to fight back and proof that they are capable of using the power and equipment to defend that state. The alternative had been that the British had intervened to restore law and order in Ireland. In this case, Ireland had lost the status of an Free State and the path to its own freedom. Even Dev had to deal with the Irish constitution when he later came to senses, because the anti-Treatities were defeated. If he hadn´t, he had lost any access into politics and it had been no sense at all to elect him into Dail when he had still refused to take up his mandatory, as he did after the ratification of the Treaty.
Do you support his idea of recommencing the war against the unionists at the soonest possible moment?Ìý
This might had been his suggestion before the Treaty was settled and if the Irish had got the chance to achieve a solution that avoided the partition of NI during the war of Independence, then I wouldn´t object it, according to the aim of the Irish people to get freedom for the whole of Ireland. I would regard this as a war aim and therefore as legitimate. Otherwise one could questioning the whole war of Independence of the Irish people as being illegitimate. That of course would be a very English-centred opinion.
I feel Devs speech is one of the most outstanding speeches in Irish history.Ìý
I see it rather that way that it obviously shows a lack of democracy and disregard of the Dail as the Parliament of the Irish people. It is a speech on selfishness for achieving an aim which wasn´t to achieve but for the sake of his cause, to sacrifice the life of Irish people. His own people and that is worst than any treason. The blood of these Irish people was on his hands, and on the hands of the likes of Cathal Bruga and further radicals in the IRA.
I dare to say that in the time of civil war, the opinion on democracy by Dev was nothing to do with real democracy, but more with autocracy. For the sake of the Irish Republic, he may also had sacrificed the democratic character of Irish Republicanism. I really doubt that the meaning of Republicanism in the view of the IRA is little if not nothing to do with an established and functional democratic Republic. Otherwise there would had been no need for terror acts of the IRA, even in the decades when they were banned in the 1930s by Dev himself, probably on the aforesaid accounts.
Ireland has been robbed of an successful and progressive leader by murders and that leader was - imo - undoubtedly Michael Collins. -
Message 31
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Getting back to the content of the Nazi-lover's speech...
It's ludicrous to suggest either that 'the Irish' struggled for centuries with consistent aims or that those that did rebel 'stood alone'...
Wolfe Tone would have been appalled at the viciously narrow-minded, culturally and religiously exclusive Gaelic/Catholic nationalism that emerged in the later 19th century and inspired the creators of the Free State (though there are certain parallels between that and the equally sectarian 'Confederates' of the Civil Wars period), while his own, inclusive separatism would have had scant appeal to the Jacobites who dominated Irish rebelliousness before him, and sought to impose an absolutist, RC monarchy on the whole of the British Isles. The Northern Earls who preceded the Confederates were just chancers who donned the ragged cloak of Gaelic nationalism after failing to get their own way under English law.
As for the 'stood alone' bit, that's easily dismissed as nonsense by reference to the assistance Irish rebels received over the centuries from Spain, Bourbon France, post-revolutionary France and the Second Reich... -
Message 32
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
In reply to Catigern:
It's ludicrous to suggest either that 'the Irish' struggled for centuries with consistent aims or that those that did rebel 'stood alone'...Ìý
I think that there was a consistent aim of the Irish for centuries, to get rid of English rule. But the idea of an Irish Republic is imo from the late 19th Century, carried within the IRB through the 20th Century.
As for the 'stood alone' bit, that's easily dismissed as nonsense by reference to the assistance Irish rebels received over the centuries from Spain, Bourbon France, post-revolutionary France and the Second Reich...Ìý
That´s a good remark on the "stood alone" assertion and I often wondered myself what is it that refers to the "good relationship" between Germany and Ireland. So to say if it goes beyond the delivery of arms during WWI to the IRA (means besides trade relations). Also the support of them, then illegale IRA during WWII and their involvement with the Third Reich. It seems that the Irish Rebels had sometimes taken the chances to get support from Englands foes, according the motto: "Your enemy is my enemy as well" and use it for their purpose. Remarkably when they considered that with the defeat of Britain, Ireland would gain afterwards its independence. I doubt if Napoleon I had could be trusted on this, as well to say for Hitler. They both were Imperialists and Ireland had become a "satellite state" within the influence area of Germany which would had been the whole of Europe. It seems that either they didn´t know much about Hitlers plans or that the Irish rather tented to ignore it.
I think that the Irish achieved their aim by fighting their war of independence alone from 1919 to 1921. I don´t know about the help from any foreign nation at that time. It is also interesting in this regards that King George V involved himself to bring the British Government to a cease fire in 1921 and advised it to go into negotiations with the Irish, which was one of the rare occasions in which the King interfered in politics.
The speech in the OP says little about the different and various opinions of political creed which assembled in the IRB. The proclamation of the Irish Republic from the Easter Rising 1916 gives for the first time a concrete scheme on how that Republic shall be constituted, once independence was achieved. It was the basic ground on which this state was then created, but the split of the Irish first on the Anglo-Irish Treaty and in this reflecting the political colours of the followers pro and against that treaty made it visible that their common aim was only based on independence, but nothing more in particular. Such political ideas can´t be traced back for centuries, for they weren´t there in the Irish uprisings before. But this is not the point. The point is to keep anti-English sentiments among the Irish public alive. -
Message 33
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Hi Thomas,
I think that there was a consistent aim of the Irish for centuries, to get rid of English rule.Ìý
The problem with this idea is that it simply wasn't true from 1644, when an Irish army came over to Scotland to fight for Charles I, through 1689-90, when thousands of Irishmen fought for James II, until at least 1746, when the Irish contribution was fundamental to the last Jacobite Rebellion. Throughout this time, the Stuarts conspicuously failed to offer the Irish independence, but the mainstay of Irish rebelliousness was support for these Stuarts, whose aim was to impose a Catholic-absolutist monarchy throughout the British Isles.
I think that the Irish achieved their aim by fighting their war of independence alone from 1919 to 1921.Ìý
This assumes that the rebels of 1919-21 represented 'the Irish', which is only true if you deny Irishness to everyone on that island bar militant republicans. Besides the Protestant Unionists, whose communities had been settled in Ireland for centuries, there is also the interesting history of Catholic Irish loyalism in the early 20th century. If you believe the Irish Nationalist myth, the only reason any RC Irishman ever joined crown forces was either to escape starvation or, during the Great War, in the expectation that they would be 'rewarded' with independence. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of RC Irishmen joined the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Irish Constabulary for the 'usual' reasons, such as a thirst for adventure, the respect accorded to those in uniformed service and the mistaken belief that WWI would be a jaunt that would be over quickly. The Irish Regiment of Foot Guards of the British Army was actually formed in commemoration of the tremendous enthusiasm of Irishmen for service in the Second Boer War...
To my mind, the key to the success of militant Irish Republicanism from 1918-1921 was the Westminster government's plan to extent conscription to Ireland in 1918, once the true horrors of the Western Front had become apparent. It was one thing for the Irish to have to put up with sending MPs over to London, with Â鶹ԼÅÄ Rule looming on the horizon, but quite another for ordinary Irishmen to be forced by the British state to go and live in holes in France and Belgium, eating rats and being shot at and gassed... -
Message 34
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
i remember my uncles remarks. "We fought for 200 years to get independance from the British, and the moment we did, we all moved to England." Ìý He was grumpy too, eh?
-
Message 35
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Ah, there you are Shane.
Any news of the chap that told you (over on Wars & Conflicts) that Irish Catholics were discriminated against in the British Army?
Frankly, I don't believe a word of it.
But if it is true, then let's get it exposed - and get the guilty parties punished. Severely. -
Message 36
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 8th April 2011
In reply to Catigern:
The problem with this idea is that it simply wasn't true from 1644, when an Irish army came over to Scotland to fight for Charles I, through 1689-90, when thousands of Irishmen fought for James II, until at least 1746, when the Irish contribution was fundamental to the last Jacobite Rebellion. Throughout this time, the Stuarts conspicuously failed to offer the Irish independence, but the mainstay of Irish rebelliousness was support for these Stuarts, whose aim was to impose a Catholic-absolutist monarchy throughout the British Isles.Ìý
It´s good to bring up that period for it spot on the reason for Oliver Cromwell fighting the Irish. It´s more naturally for Irish Republicans to not mention historical events when the Irish weren´t the victims but the taking sides and part in wars against England. Such events won´t fit into the myth of suffering for centuries, although those suffering in wars were always the ordinary people on both sides.
This assumes that the rebels of 1919-21 represented 'the Irish', which is only true if you deny Irishness to everyone on that island bar militant republicans.Ìý
I won´t deny that, because the Irish Republicans got an huge support by the people and the acting of the Black and Tans has driven not less people to the IRA, even when they won´ted take part in the fighting. So I´m referring in my conclusion to the majority of the Irish population, because without their support, the IRA might had it even harder to succeed.
Besides the Protestant Unionists, whose communities had been settled in Ireland for centuries, there is also the interesting history of Catholic Irish loyalism in the early 20th century.Ìý
I´ve no doubt about that, but I think that Catholic Irish loyalism in the early 20th Century was based on the prospect of Irish home rule, strongly opposed by the Protestant Unionists. Aside from those former Irish Catholics which converted to Protestantism, the origin Protestants came to NI from Scotland, to settle there. They weren´t regarded as "Irish" by the native Irish, even after centuries since they came there. It´s also the aspect that key positions in ruling the Irish counties were given and taken by Protestants. To the Catholic Irish they were all the same, no difference made upon whether these ruling class people were born on Irish sole or came from Britain. It comes also from there that the Unionists are strong bound to Britan than to Ireland as a separate nation. Their loyality to the United Kingdom is on the top, the regarding of Ireland as their home in which they were born and lived, is secondary because both things are referring to political distinctions by using the "membership" to each sort of Christian Churches for that purpose.
If you believe the Irish Nationalist myth, the only reason any RC Irishman ever joined crown forces was either to escape starvation or, during the Great War, in the expectation that they would be 'rewarded' with independence.Ìý
No, I´m not believing in Irish Nationalis myth. I prefer to rely on historical facts, such as I consider for being facts what I´ve written above. I think that the "expectation to be rewarded with independence" depends on whether the meaning of home rule was to grant Ireland independence. I doubt that this was the case by home rule. I rather think that it had turned out to give Ireland something similar like Canada or Australia. But that was not the aim of the IRB, for they wanted to leave the British Empire and establish an independent Irish Republic. At that time, to have a Republic within the British Empire was contrary to the constitution of that Empire and therefore rejected. Otherwise, the British hadn´t suggested within the Anglo-Irish-Treaty negotiations to name it "Irish Free State". That sounds different in compare of the Dominions like Canada and Australia, for instance.
This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of RC Irishmen joined the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Irish Constabulary ...Ìý
You may be right in your opinion and I wouldn´t object it, just to say that these RC Irishmen, concerning the RIC were in minority to their Protestant colleagues in NI. This might have been different in the other parts of Ireland before partition took place. -
Message 37
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 8th April 2011
he wasnt even irish
the normans are irish -
Message 38
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 8th April 2011
the irish starved in 1830
the British starved Boers in south africa i think in concentration camps
others ate too much-yum -
Message 39
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 11th April 2011
"As for the 'stood alone' bit, that's easily dismissed as nonsense by reference to the assistance Irish rebels received over the centuries from Spain, Bourbon France, post-revolutionary France and the Second Reich... "
Such help that came was minimal and ineffectual. In reality the people stood alone for centuries and endured severe English domination. -
Message 40
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 11th April 2011
Having Irish ancestors, I've always marvelled at how the Brits were kicked out, and the Church then took over.
Bishops in charge of education. Creepy paedophile priests, even.
Censorship - a list of "forbidden" books even longer than the Vatican's "Index". Contraceptives? Under the counter, wink wink.
Freedom! Aye, freedom!Ìý Not the same thing at all Jak, start a new thread to discuss 'priest ridden Ireland etc.
Thanx. -
Message 41
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 11th April 2011
the irish starved in 1830
the British starved Boers in south africa i think in concentration camps
others ate too much-yum
Ìý 1845-48 actually... -
Message 42
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Monday, 11th April 2011
In reply to ShaneONeal:
Having Irish ancestors, I've always marvelled at how the Brits were kicked out, and the Church then took over.
Bishops in charge of education. Creepy paedophile priests, even.
Censorship - a list of "forbidden" books even longer than the Vatican's "Index". Contraceptives? Under the counter, wink wink.
Freedom! Aye, freedom!Ìý
Not the same thing at all Jak, start a new thread to discuss 'priest ridden Ireland etc.Ìý
I think this thread is about Dev and so I see it right to bring in the influence and power the RCC had in Ireland, because Dev provided them and supported their influence. Well, he was the founder and the head of FF and from that point, besides the offices he had, his party did also the best to follow him. -
Message 43
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 11th April 2011
the irish starved in [1845-48]Ìý
As did English, Scots, Welsh and whole communities across northern Europe. The potato famine in Europe provided the same sort of catalyst for political change that food prices are causing in the middle east at the moment. In the rest of Britain and northern Europe it drove people into the industrial sectors for relatively better paid work. But that's a side-track. In Ireland the scale of dependence was much bigger, and despite mass emmigrations, the inability to find a different lifestyle for many remaining led to the disaster.
others ate too much-yumÌý
Those others also included Irishmen and women. -
Message 44
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 11th April 2011
sweden had famines as well
-
Message 45
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 11th April 2011
why didnt there rich vatican help the irish?
-
Message 46
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011
In reply to NormanRHood:
why didnt there rich vatican help the irish?Ìý
This might sound a bit wicked, but I think that the creed of the RCC has been (and probably still is) to help the poor but also to keep them poor.
This wasn´t just about Ireland, this was the case in most countries where the RCC had a great deal of influence in society and politics.
Isn´t it remarkable that most wealthy countries were led either by protestants or by secular governments? -
Message 47
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
In reply to NormanRHood:
why didnt there rich vatican help the irish?Ìý
This might sound a bit wicked, but I think that the creed of the RCC has been (and probably still is) to help the poor but also to keep them poor.
This wasn´t just about Ireland, this was the case in most countries where the RCC had a great deal of influence in society and politics.
Isn´t it remarkable that most wealthy countries were led either by protestants or by secular governments?
Ìý sounds like American Democrats -
Message 48
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
the irish starved in [1845-48]Ìý
As did English, Scots, Welsh and whole communities across northern Europe. The potato famine in Europe provided the same sort of catalyst for political change that food prices are causing in the middle east at the moment. In the rest of Britain and northern Europe it drove people into the industrial sectors for relatively better paid work. But that's a side-track. In Ireland the scale of dependence was much bigger, and despite mass emmigrations, the inability to find a different lifestyle for many remaining led to the disaster.
others ate too much-yumÌý
Those others also included Irishmen and women. Ìý -
Message 49
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
the irish starved in [1845-48]Ìý
As did English, Scots, Welsh and whole communities across northern Europe. The potato famine in Europe provided the same sort of catalyst for political change that food prices are causing in the middle east at the moment. In the rest of Britain and northern Europe it drove people into the industrial sectors for relatively better paid work. But that's a side-track. In Ireland the scale of dependence was much bigger, and despite mass emmigrations, the inability to find a different lifestyle for many remaining led to the disaster.
others ate too much-yumÌý
Those others also included Irishmen and women. Ìý I dont think the other communities that starved did so in anything like the numbers the Irish did.
"Those others also included Irishmen and women. "
True. -
Message 50
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
sweden had famines as wellÌý "Ireland’s disaster puts the impact on the potato harvest
elsewhere in the shade"
"The effect of the crisis on Ireland is incomparable to all other places for the devastation it wrought, causing 1 million dead and another million refugees and spurring a century-long population decline."
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.