Easter lily

Shane-1

Plus of course there was the small matter that we would have most likely been forced to defend the implementation of Home Rule with force anyway, so your arguament that we did not need to take up arms to secure our end results is ignorant of the facts. Violence looked inevitable regardless.

O'Coonassa

Shane-1 wrote: »

Home rule was but a gesture towards freedom, there would be no real freedom from it. Westminster would continue to rule in terms of the more important matters. Free State was allowed far more autonomy. Come on, if you profess to know so much you wouldnt need to ask these questions, its all very simple.

The Free State allowed more autonomy by outlawing contraception and divorce, setting up a Committee on Evil Literature and getting Priests to kick a dead language into people? Personally I'd have waited for Home Rule rather than start a civil war, get the country partitioned and be ruled by a Spanish-American. But I'm probably in a minority, everyone else seems to think we were right lads.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Was still occupied by British military..

Ports only, if I recall.

Sand wrote: »

Was still ruled over(......)een in vain. :rolleyes:..

As expected, the Anglo-Irish Treaty explicitly ruled out a republic. What it offered was dominion status, as a state of the British Empire (now called the Commonwealth of Nations), equal to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Though less than expected by the Sinn Féin leadership of 1919–1922, it was substantially more than the initial form of home rule within the United Kingdom sought by Charles Stewart Parnell from 1880, and a serious advancement on the final Third Home Rule Act 1914 that the Irish nationalist leader John Redmond had achieved through democratic parliamentary proceedings. It was ratified by the Second Dáil, splitting Sinn Féin in the process.

(my bold and underline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State

Sand wrote: »

Whats wrong (....)to tell you.

Sand wrote: »

Ah give them (....)for all..

Its remarkably hard to have a civil discussion while you're piling on more flamebait, and yet more sneering.

Shane-1

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The Free State allowed more autonomy by outlawing contraception and divorce, setting up a Committee on Evil Literature and getting Priests to kick a dead language into people? Personally I'd have waited for Home Rule rather than start a civil war, get the country partitioned and be ruled by a Spanish-American. But I'm probably in a minority, everyone else seems to think we were right lads.

And that wouldnt have happened under Home Rule then? Cause I thought the general gist of what you were trying to argue to me was that both offered the same levels of freedom, more or less. Thus by that logic, these measures that you mention above would have still been implemented under Home Rule no? I dont think you can blame a system of government for the measures that some of its leaders will later take, bizarre arguament if you ask me The system of government allowed by the Anglo-Irish treaty was more autonomous than that allowed by Home Rule, that does not necessarily equate to the policies being passed by one or the other allowing more or less autonomy to those subject to them!

And of course if I were to get particularily petty I could say that twas an Irish Spanish American who moved home to Ireland at a very young age and had all his schooling etc in this country that ruled over us. And of course the other big point would be that he was elected by the Irish people, not appointed by Westminster as had been the case with our previous leaders.

So ya, in conclusion you probably would be in a minority there alright

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Ah give them time, theyre probably going through that history book they have, coming up with the mother of all posts that will prove me utterly wrong on every point once and for all.

That or accuse me of being a west brit, a troll, or a bit of whataboutery.

Just to extend the point about people accusing each other of being west-brits etc - hitting yourself and crying about it is very unattractive.

moderately,
Scofflaw

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

God Im wasting far too much of my time with this but I even was good enough to go back and check over those references once again;

Clarke, Comer England Under Hitler: Revealed at Last—The Secret Nazi Plans for the Rape of England

-Does this strike any of you here as a book to trust, the title reads like a News of the World headline!! Not of any academic interest I would imagine.

Derwent, Whittlesey German Strategy for World Conquest New York:1942

- Now this could be more like it. It mentions world conquest, in fact even German world conquest. This could be the one reference that makes me think, until of course I peruse further and happen upon where the book is published and at what date. An American book stateing how the Germans were on a mission to take over the world and enslave all peoples, published at the height of the second world war? No you're right Jimmy, this is bang-on the type of reference we should be looking for.

Waite, Robert G.L. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler

-This sounds to me like the sequel to the Da Vinci Code or something, again dubious historical merits to this one.

Do I need to continue?

If you read those 3 books ....well at least it will be an improvement on the one book you admitted you read once . lol Anyway, now you are considering to at least read more than the one book in your life, perhaps you will discover you should never " judge a book by its cover"....not that you have even seen the covers of the above books, only the titles. Nor do you mention the other historical books I mentioned. Hitler was no respector of neutral countries unless it suited him. Do you think Hitlers plan to use the menfolk of Britain to build the autobahn to the far east after WW2 ( ie useful extermination ) would mean he would stop at the Irish sea, and stop at the Irish border? Ah shure he was a grand lad Hitler, sez you.

O'Coonassa

I often wonder if the French spoke English, watched English TV, shopped in English shops, followed English soccer clubs, read English newspapers and had a President akin to a Queen then would they then get called South Brits? I think that'd be very unfair on them lol

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

If you read those 3 books ....well at least it will be an improvement on the one book you admitted you read once . lol Anyway, now you are considering to at least read more than the one book in your life, perhaps you will discover you should never " judge a book by its cover"....not that you have even seen the covers of the above books, only the titles. Nor do you mention the other historical books I mentioned. Hitler was no respector of neutral countries unless it suited him. Do you think Hitlers plan to use the menfolk of Britain to build the autobahn to the far east after WW2 ( ie useful extermination ) would mean he would stop at the Irish sea, and stop at the Irish border? Ah shure he was a grand lad Hitler, sez you.

This is getting silly now Jimmy, I'll try one last time. Jimmy I have an honours degree in history from UCD, it was my business to actually judge many a book by its cover when looking for references! It is relatively easy to spot the historical merits of a book from details as simple as its title, and publication date etc. It was also my business to back up whatever arguament I was trying to make, if I couldnt back up the arguament it was declared null and void. You made a statement about Ireland and the Nazis, there is no evidence to back it up, therefore it is null and void. Perhaps if the Nazis won the war it may have happened, perhaps it may not, we do not know and thus your statements are representative of only your opinions. Thus they are of no use to a historical debate of any substance.
Surely you will now leave this alone? For a start this debate shouldnt even be on this thread, perhaps you could go start it up on the history and heritage page maybe?

We cant just come out with our own opinions and use them as arguaments in a proper historical debate, otherwise I could just come out and say that we should have told Strongbow and the boys to feck off on day one and there would have been no problem. That way I could then shoot down every arguament that anyone on here makes by continually regurgitating this one simple statement - like you and your wikipedia article. But I cant, because I have no evidence to back it, thus it is nothing but my subjective opinion, again same as you and your Nazi theories o Irish enslavement. I wouldnt even mind but your wikipedia article doesnt even mention Ireland, so I am baffled as to where your notion of our enslavement is even coming from!

And at what stage did I mention Hitler as being any sort of a person? I dont believe I have made a single comment on Hitlers character, or any pro or anti Nazi statements. This debate is not about the Nazis, I would debate their relative merits on another thread. I am looking for you to prove to me that your comments are more than just your dreamt up notions? Something you havent managed to do yet!

And what does all this have to do with Easter Lilys anyway?!?

Shane-1

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I often wonder if the French spoke English, watched English TV, shopped in English shops, followed English soccer clubs, read English newspapers and had a President akin to a Queen then would they then get called South Brits? I think that'd be very unfair on them lol

Huh? This thread is getting more and more bizarre, what is this supposed to mean? I would presume they would if they were until recently a colony and sections of their society were seemingly turning misty eyed and nostalgic for the days of tally ho, rule britannia etc. Yes then I think they would be called south Brits, maybe more correctly South East Brits.

Personally I believe we should resurrect our previous term for West Brits. West Brit has no originality, I prefer the older term 'gombeen' refering to the more affluent catholics of the country who prefered to associate with British society than their own. It ridicules them better than West Brit, which is purely a descriptive term that they probably enjoy being called.

Scofflaw

OK, I've just reviewed the first page of this thread, and pretty much everything that can be said in respect of the OP is said on that page. Almost everything else since then is a reiteration of those initially stated positions...so, with apologies to anyone who feels there's a genuinely stimulating debate going on here, I'm going to close the thread.

terminally,
Scofflaw