End of empire and returning soldiers

eejoynt

This can be a tad controversial here in relations to Irishmen who bought in the Great War and how to commemorate them

We are not unique...see today's examiner

Latvian SS ceremony sparks friction
Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 02:55 PM
Hundreds of Latvians commemorated Second World War veterans who fought in Waffen SS divisions in an annual event that stokes ethnic animosity between Latvians and minority Russians.

Peregrinus

eejoynt wrote: »

This can be a tad controversial here in relations to Irishmen who bought in the Great War and how to commemorate them

We are not unique...see today's examiner

Latvian SS ceremony sparks friction
Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 02:55 PM
Hundreds of Latvians commemorated Second World War veterans who fought in Waffen SS divisions in an annual event that stokes ethnic animosity between Latvians and minority Russians.

Gosh. I hesitate to compare serving in the Allied forces in the Great War with serving in the Waffen SS. Different kettle of fish altogether.

ardmacha

Different kettle of fish altogether.

It is the same type of thing, both are evil, but the order of magnitude is certainly different.

ejmaztec

ardmacha wrote: »

It is the same type of thing, both are evil, but the order of magnitude is certainly different.

I can't see that any of the participants in WW1 were "evil", stupid to get involved perhaps, but not evil.

The SS in WW2 however, is as already pointed out, a different kettle of fish.

eejoynt

My point in posting was to try and show hoe irish political circumstances are not unique, other countries that emerged after WW1 had as a key part of their independence struggles soldiers off the formal imperial power
The problem in the Baltic states is that there are two formal imperial powers, and defining which was the 'baddie ' generally depends on your ethnicity

Rebelheart

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gosh. I hesitate to compare serving in the Allied forces in the Great War with serving in the Waffen SS. Different kettle of fish altogether.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I can't see that any of the participants in WW1 were "evil", stupid to get involved perhaps, but not evil.

The SS in WW2 however, is as already pointed out, a different kettle of fish.

This is moral inconsistency at its finest, a morality shaped by whether the participants were fighting on your tribe's side or not, or a morality based on whether the participants were related to you.

Those people who fought in WW I on the side of the British Empire fought for British imperialism, an ideology which subjugated peoples for centuries, established a colonial master race class in said countries and a culture which imposed its culture upon the dispossessed natives for centuries, not just a mere decade.

But because posters here are 1) British or/and 2) Irish whose Irish relatives had once fought for the British Empire, they are trying to make a distinction whereby honouring people who fought for the evil that was British imperialism are in a different moral league to those who fought for the evil that was German Nazism. They weren't and no amount of self-interest can take from that. The British Empire would have collapsed without such people, just as Nazism would have collapsed without such people.

The dishonesty among the above group on the immoral reality of the British Empire and what Irish people who joined it were fighting for is disgusting in the extreme.

And as if to take this hypocrisy and double standard even further, commemorating Irish people who fought for British imperialism is not, apparently, commemorating imperialism but the individuals, yet commemorating non-German people who fought for German Nazism is commemorating Nazism.

Ergo:

Volunteers for British imperialism = good; Volunteers for German Nazism = bad.

ejmaztec

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is moral inconsistency at its finest, a morality shaped by whether the participants were fighting on your tribe's side or not, or a morality based on whether the participants were related to you.

Those people who fought in WW I on the side of the British Empire fought for British imperialism, an ideology which subjugated peoples for centuries, established a colonial master race class in said countries and a culture which imposed its culture upon the dispossessed natives for centuries, not just a mere decade.

But because posters here are 1) British or/and 2) Irish whose Irish relatives had once fought for the British Empire, they are trying to make a distinction whereby honouring people who fought for the evil that was British imperialism are in a different moral league to those who fought for the evil that was German Nazism. They weren't and no amount of self-interest can take from that. The British Empire would have collapsed without such people, just as Nazism would have collapsed without such people.

The dishonesty among the above group on the immoral reality of the British Empire and what Irish people who joined it were fighting for is disgusting in the extreme.

And as if to take this hypocrisy and double standard even further, commemorating Irish people who fought for British imperialism is not, apparently, commemorating imperialism but the individuals, yet commemorating non-German people who fought for German Nazism is commemorating Nazism.

Ergo:

Volunteers for British imperialism = good; Volunteers for German Nazism = bad.

I wouldn't expect you to hold any other opinion.:D

pedroeibar1

The wonder is it took so long to be posted:rolleyes:.

Peregrinus

Rebelheart wrote: »

Volunteers for British imperialism = good; Volunteers for German Nazism = bad.

What a delightlfully simple world you live in, Rebelheart!

Rebelheart

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The wonder is it took so long to be posted:rolleyes:.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What a delightlfully simple world you live in, Rebelheart!

Not really. Can some of the defenders of commemorating those who fought for the British Empire explain to us how commemorating them is morally acceptable but when others commemorate their relatives or compatriots who fought for German Nazism this is not morally acceptable?

It's quite a straightforward question.

Peregrinus

Rebelheart wrote: »

Not really. Can some of the defenders of commemorating those who fought for the British Empire explain to us how commemorating them is morally acceptable but when others commemorate their relatives or compatriots who fought for German Nazism this is not morally acceptable?

It's quite a straightforward question.

And it has a straightforward answer. The poeple who fought for the Allies in the Great War were not supporting, defending or imposing Naziism. Therefore, whatever the rights and wrongs of their case, it is not on all fours with the case of people who volunteered for the Latvian SS divisions.

Rebelheart

Peregrinus wrote: »

And it has a straightforward answer. The poeple who fought for the Allies in the Great War were not supporting, defending or imposing Naziism. Therefore, whatever the rights and wrongs of their case, it is not on all fours with the case of people who volunteered for the Latvian SS divisions.

Bizarre reply. It should, I had hoped, be self-evident that those who volunteered to fight for British imperialism in 1914-1918 were not fighting to defend German Nazism. Now, perhaps you could answer the question?

Peregrinus

Rebelheart wrote: »

Bizarre reply. It should, I had hoped, be self-evident that those who volunteered to fight for British imperialism in 1914-1918 were not fighting to defend German Nazism. Now, perhaps you could answer the question?

You mean this question?

Rebelheart wrote: »

Can some of the defenders of commemorating those who fought for the British Empire explain to us how commemorating them is morally acceptable but when others commemorate their relatives or compatriots who fought for German Nazism this is not morally acceptable?

This question is not addressed to me, since I’m not a “defender of commemorating those who fought for the British Empire”.

In fact, not a single contributor to this thread has defended commemorating those who fought for the British Empire. All that people have done is to suggest that those who fought for the Allies in the Great War are not, morally, on all fours with those who joined the SS. You are the person who concludes from this, in post #6 that, therefore, they all think “Volunteers for British imperialism = good”. None of them has expressed that view and it is tendentious of you to ask them to defend it.

Surely, rather, you should be defending your assumption that this is what they believe? Because, so far, I’m not seeing a shred of evidence for it. In fact, when ejmaztec says that people who fought in the great war were “stupid”, in post #4, and ardmacha describes them in post #3 as “evil”, I struggle to see how you can possible justify your assumption.

Neutronale

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is moral inconsistency at its finest, a morality shaped by whether the participants were fighting on your tribe's side or not, or a morality based on whether the participants were related to you.

Those people who fought in WW I on the side of the British Empire fought for British imperialism, an ideology which subjugated peoples for centuries, established a colonial master race class in said countries and a culture which imposed its culture upon the dispossessed natives for centuries, not just a mere decade.

But because posters here are 1) British or/and 2) Irish whose Irish relatives had once fought for the British Empire, they are trying to make a distinction whereby honouring people who fought for the evil that was British imperialism are in a different moral league to those who fought for the evil that was German Nazism. They weren't and no amount of self-interest can take from that. The British Empire would have collapsed without such people, just as Nazism would have collapsed without such people.

The dishonesty among the above group on the immoral reality of the British Empire and what Irish people who joined it were fighting for is disgusting in the extreme.

And as if to take this hypocrisy and double standard even further, commemorating Irish people who fought for British imperialism is not, apparently, commemorating imperialism but the individuals, yet commemorating non-German people who fought for German Nazism is commemorating Nazism.

Ergo:

Volunteers for British imperialism = good; Volunteers for German Nazism = bad.

Very true.

Another point is that when we discuss the "SS" etc we tend to collapse WWII history and include the holocaust and millions of victims onto the shoulders of the 17 and 18 year olds joining an elite unit in 1940 to fight their nations traditional enemies.

The history of the late 30s in the Baltic states was one of jokeying for position in the face of an impending cataclisim. The Latvians tradititonal enemy was Russia and they were determined to fight for their existance against Russia; a powerfull ally existed in the guise of Germany.

Fratton Fred

A better comparison might be to look at the way the likes of Sean Russell are commemorated. He did everything bar put on the SS uniform, but is treated as a hero.

Gee Bag

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A better comparison might be to look at the way the likes of Sean Russell are commemorated. He did everything bar put on the SS uniform, but is treated as a hero.

Way over the top there, I don't think many people regard Sean Russell as a hero these days.

To be fair to the man I don't think he gave two hoots about Nazism, rather he was more concerned with the opportunity to gain arms for the IRA. He was in contact with the Abwehr, not the SS.

Also worth noting that he died in August 1940, long before the Wansee conference, Operation Barbarossa, etc.

Added link for blog history of Sean Russell statue in Fairview-
http://comeheretome.com/2012/04/20/statues-of-dublin-sean-russell-fairview-park/

And from History Ireland
http://historyireland.com///volumes/volume13/issue3/features/?id=113841

Fratton Fred

Gee Bag wrote: »

Way over the top there, I don't think many people regard Sean Russell as a hero these days.

To be fair to the man I don't think he gave two hoots about Nazism, rather he was more concerned with the opportunity to gain arms for the IRA. He was in contact with the Abwehr, not the SS.

Also worth noting that he died in August 1940, long before the Wansee conference, Operation Barbarossa, etc.

Added link for blog history of Sean Russell statue in Fairview-
http://comeheretome.com/2012/04/20/statues-of-dublin-sean-russell-fairview-park/

And from History Ireland
http://historyireland.com///volumes/volume13/issue3/features/?id=113841

Sean Russell was quite prepared to get in to bed with the devil if it helped further his own political agenda. His case is a lot more akin to young Latvians joining the SS than young men joining the British army in WWI.

jonniebgood1

I think what we see presented in the thread so far is the extreme view of both sides of an argument. Usually by looking at somewhere in between we find what is both more widely accepted and more importantly a truer reflection on the returned soldiers of any army.

On both sides of the extremes I mention, it is amusing to see that both use the framing from an anti-Irish republican viewpoint on one hand and on the other an anti-British imperial viewpoint on the other.

Not everything needs to be framed in these narrow guises. So equivoquating Nazism with the British does not win any argument anymore than equivoquating Nazism with Irish republicanism. Moreso both are churlish attempts to get one up on the otherside in an argument that has little (other than tentative links) to do with either.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think what we see presented in the thread so far is the extreme view of both sides of an argument. Usually by looking at somewhere in between we find what is both more widely accepted and more importantly a truer reflection on the returned soldiers of any army.

On both sides of the extremes I mention, it is amusing to see that both use the framing from an anti-Irish republican viewpoint on one hand and on the other an anti-British imperial viewpoint on the other.

Not everything needs to be framed in these narrow guises. So equivoquating Nazism with the British does not win any argument anymore than equivoquating Nazism with Irish republicanism. Moreso both are churlish attempts to get one up on the otherside in an argument that has little (other than tentative links) to do with either.

I'm not comparing Irish republicanism with Nazism, no more than I would Latvian nationalism. Simply pointing out that people are prone to adopting the enemy of my enemy is my friend stance as and when it suits.

Roger Casement was no supporter of German imperialism, but was quick to accept their support.

Rebelheart

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Not everything needs to be framed in these narrow guises. So equivoquating Nazism with the British does not win any argument anymore than equivoquating Nazism with Irish republicanism.

The issue raised here of posters who feel that those who fought for British imperialism should not be equated with those who fought for German Nazism hits on a massive hypocrisy of those who make apologies for men who defended British imperialism and its elite, racist and sectarian interests in Ireland and against peoples across the world.

As the two posters quoted below make clear, they bestow a superior morality on those who volunteered to fight for British imperialism than they would bestow on those who volunteered to fight for German Nazism. They are unable to answer this: what makes British imperialism, and those who volunteered to protect and expand it, more worthy of being commemorated than German Nazism and those who volunteered to protect and expand it?

At all turns the immorality of imperialism is avoided and fingers are pointed in unison at the Nazis. The Nazis: the best deflection the British could ever have for their own, extraordinary in historical terms, record of imperialist subjugation and inhumanity throughout the centuries.

If they had the honesty to say either A) footsoldiers for both British imperialism and German Nazism should be commemorated or neither set of volunteers should be commemorated, they would have some moral consistency. Trying to say one is morally superior to the other is, among other things, a tribal defence of the indefensible.

Again: without such people fighting for them, both British imperialism and German Nazism would not have thrived. The footsoldiers are guilty, and thus unworthy of commemoration by any civilised society which values freedom and the equal humanity of every person regardless of their race, religion or whatever.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I hesitate to compare serving in the Allied forces in the Great War with serving in the Waffen SS. Different kettle of fish altogether.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I can't see that any of the participants in WW1 were "evil", stupid to get involved perhaps, but not evil.

The SS in WW2 however, is as already pointed out, a different kettle of fish.

Rebelheart

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fact, not a single contributor to this thread has defended commemorating those who fought for the British Empire. All that people have done is to suggest that those who fought for the Allies in the Great War are not, morally, on all fours with those who joined the SS.

This is the sort of deceit, double standard and delusion about which I'm speaking. Say it: they fought for the British Empire, they fought for British imperialism, an ideology which for centuries subjugated peoples across the world to its hegemony. Attempting to dress these people up as people who merely "fought for the Allies" is disingenuous, and you know it. They fought for the biggest empire in the history of the world, and all the extremism and dehumanisation which that entailed. The people who fought for British imperialism, therefore, are just as unworthy of being commemorated as are those who fought for German Nazism.

WW I, by the way, was a war between two imperial powers - it was not some great moral crusade for the rights of small countries fought by Britain, no matter how many times the Kevin Myers, Peter Mulvany or Robin Bury types would like to claim it was. Thousands of Irish people stayed at home and refused to fight to advance the biggest empire in world history - "We serve neither king nor kaiser but Ireland". If any people deserve commemoration it is them.

Zebra3

Neutronale wrote: »

Very true.

Another point is that when we discuss the "SS" etc we tend to collapse WWII history and include the holocaust and millions of victims onto the shoulders of the 17 and 18 year olds joining an elite unit in 1940 to fight their nations traditional enemies.

Interesting point.....

Irish people volunteered to fight for an evil empire built on slavery, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. Their freely made decision.

Many kids in the Baltics states who joined the SS did not have that free will.

A mate of mine whose grandfather long since passed away, was in school in Estonia in the early 1940s and the SS came in to recruit.

Each male in the school aged 16 and over had a gun put to their head and were asked would they like to enlist in the SS.

As the Soviets moved into occupy Estonia, my mate's grandfather had to flee to western Europe or he'd have been executed as a collaborator.

pedroeibar1

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is the sort of deceit, double standard and delusion about which I'm speaking. Say it: they fought for the British Empire, they fought for British imperialism, an ideology which for centuries subjugated peoples across the world to its hegemony. Attempting to dress these people up as people who merely "fought for the Allies" is disingenuous, and you know it. They fought for the biggest empire in the history of the world, and all the extremism and dehumanisation which that entailed. The people who fought for British imperialism, therefore, are just as unworthy of being commemorated as are those who fought for German Nazism.

WW I, by the way, was a war between two imperial powers - it was not some great moral crusade for the rights of small countries fought by Britain, no matter how many times the Kevin Myers, Peter Mulvany or Robin Bury types would like to claim it was. Thousands of Irish people stayed at home and refused to fight to advance the biggest empire in world history - "We serve neither king nor kaiser but Ireland". If any people deserve commemoration it is them.

Those statements are bigoted, insulting and derisive of many posters and those who fought. The claim “WW I, by the way, was a war between two imperial powers- it was not some great moral crusade for the rights of small countries” is sanctimonious, supercilious and made with the benefit of hindsight. You ignore those who did believe the War was for Belgium; you also ignore the Redmondites - look at the number of Volunteers who fought in WWI and compare it to the number of those who stayed at home. You also deride those who enlisted either from a sense of adventure or economic necessity. As usual, the comments posted by you carry your corrosive political agenda, your fixation with Britbashing, Myers and Bury, and add zero to the subject at hand.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is the sort of deceit, double standard and delusion about which I'm speaking. Say it: they fought for the British Empire, they fought for British imperialism, an ideology which for centuries subjugated peoples across the world to its hegemony. Attempting to dress these people up as people who merely "fought for the Allies" is disingenuous, and you know it. They fought for the biggest empire in the history of the world, and all the extremism and dehumanisation which that entailed. The people who fought for British imperialism, therefore, are just as unworthy of being commemorated as are those who fought for German Nazism.

WW I, by the way, was a war between two imperial powers - it was not some great moral crusade for the rights of small countries fought by Britain, no matter how many times the Kevin Myers, Peter Mulvany or Robin Bury types would like to claim it was. Thousands of Irish people stayed at home and refused to fight to advance the biggest empire in world history - "We serve neither king nor kaiser but Ireland". If any people deserve commemoration it is them.

Two imperial powers? Would those two have included France, Belgium, Austria/Hungary, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, Turkey and Japan?

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Two imperial powers? Would those two have included France, Belgium, Austria/Hungary, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, Turkey and Japan?

More a case of two imperial powers who wanted to dominate the world (England + Germany) and the rest happier with their "smaller" empires.

Also, love the claptrap of signing up to fight for England to defend Belgium-one of the most disgusting imperial powers there were.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

More a case of two imperial powers who wanted to dominate the world (England + Germany) and the rest happier with their "smaller" empires.

Also, love the claptrap of signing up to fight for England to defend Belgium-one of the most disgusting imperial powers there were.

Err, you mean Britain not England. You should also do some research on the war, it was principally between Germany and France. Britain had no interest in expansion, only protection.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err, you mean Britain not England. You should also do some research on the war, it was principally between Germany and France. Britain had no interest in expansion, only protection.

I know plenty about the war. :rolleyes:

Most people at the time used the phrase England instead of Britain as it was an English controlled empire and not a British one.

The British Empire couldn't expand any more and had a huge interest in the war to ensure no one power dominated mainland Europe.

A lot of powers were dragged into the war because of alliances. Britain wasn't and opted in with great fervour.

eejoynt

'it was principally between Germany and France. Britain had no interest in expansion, only protection.'

AHEM

Did you read the first post.....there was a huge eastern front in WW1....involving three empires. The reason for invading Belgium thus drawing Britain into the war was to finish the western front before turning on Russia .
Anglophone western front nostalgia, for want of a better word..which has no similar manifestation in France drives this under emphasis on the eastern front

Fratton Fred

eejoynt wrote: »

'it was principally between Germany and France. Britain had no interest in expansion, only protection.'

AHEM

Did you read the first post.....there was a huge eastern front in WW1....involving three empires. The reason for invading Belgium thus drawing Britain into the war was to finish the western front before turning on Russia .
Anglophone western front nostalgia, for want of a better word..which has no similar manifestation in France drives this under emphasis on the eastern front

Of course, I stand corrected.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

I know plenty about the war. :rolleyes:

Most people at the time used the phrase England instead of Britain as it was an English controlled empire and not a British one.

The British Empire couldn't expand any more and had a huge interest in the war to ensure no one power dominated mainland Europe.

A lot of powers were dragged into the war because of alliances. Britain wasn't and opted in with great fervour.

The triple entente was signed in 1907.

pedroeibar1

Zebra3 wrote: »

I know plenty about the war. :rolleyes:

Most people at the time used the phrase England instead of Britain as it was an English controlled empire and not a British one.

I wonder if you do.
I also wonder why 'the British Empire' comes to mind and 'the English Empire' sounds incongruous?