John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're seriously proposing that the effectiveness of the rising, or of the credibility of the proclamation, required the declaration of an alliance to a 'gallant' military who were engaged in the massacre of civilians in Belgium? Any sensible/neutral reading of their pitch, would have informed them that this would work against them, not generate any additional support.

*sigh

The British were constantly engaged in killing civillians.

Where else would they get the guns from?

Why would they believe British reports of a German massacre?

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're seriously proposing that the effectiveness of the rising, or of the credibility of the proclamation, required the declaration of an alliance to a 'gallant' military who were engaged in the massacre of civilians in Belgium? Any sensible/neutral reading of their pitch, would have informed them that this would work against them, not generate any additional support.

There was no alliance,and no support from Germany.

Those who fought the might of the British empire,gave their lives to do so.

That is an historical fact.

1916 happened,and changed the course of Irish history.What did or did not happen in Belgium is irrelevant.

And you're comments will change nothing.

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

*sigh

The British were constantly engaged in killing civillians.

Where else would they get the guns from?

Why would they believe British reports of a German massacre?

Sigh yourself.

I've no issue with where they sourced guns from, nor do I have any interest in yet more whataboutery from you regarding the British killing civilians - which they certainly were not doing in any similar fashion to the Germans in Belgium. The reports of the massacres were not limited to 'British reports' - they were widely reported in Irish newspapers, as well as American ones. There was no reason to doubt them - indeed they were accurate.

We return once again to the choice of those rising leaders to explicitly call known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'.

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

There was no alliance,and no support from Germany.

Those who fought the might of the British empire,gave their lives to do so.

That is an historical fact.

1916 happened,and changed the course of Irish history.What did or did not happen in Belgium is irrelevant.

And you're comments will change nothing.

Maybe you might like to explain why they felt driven to articulate that non-existent alliance in the proclamation then? Not just allies, but 'gallant' allies. Who were engaged in civilian massacres. This is also historical fact.

Thanks for the pointer on my words not changing anything btw - just as your words will have equal effect. Any other insights?

who the fug

alastair wrote: »

Sigh yourself.

I've no issue with where they sourced guns from, nor do I have any interest in yet more whataboutery from you regarding the British killing civilians - which they certainly were not doing in any similar fashion to the Germans in Belgium. The reports of the massacres were not limited to 'British reports' - they were widely reported in Irish newspapers, as well as American ones. There was no reason to doubt them - indeed they were accurate.

We return once again to the choice of those rising leaders to explicitly call known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'.

The more important aspect of the whole rising was Major Redmond accurate point that his voice was sidelined for ever

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

'gallant allies'.

Irish Belgian relations under strain due to these two words in the 1916 proclamation...........:rolleyes:.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Irish Belgian relations under strain due to these two words in the 1916 proclamation...........:rolleyes:.

I think you miss the point.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I think you miss the point.

Not really. Its just you continuing your quest to expose a supposed moral vacuum at the heart of Irish republicanism, in any era it seems.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Not really. Its just you continuing your quest to expose a supposed moral vacuum at the heart of Irish republicanism, in any era it seems.

Not me who opted to call those responsible for civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'. I think we can all agree that 'my quest' has no bearing on that reality.

Again - you miss the point.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you might like to explain why they felt driven to articulate that non-existent alliance in the proclamation then? Not just allies, but 'gallant' allies. Who were engaged in civilian massacres. This is also historical fact.

Thanks for the pointer on my words not changing anything btw - just as your words will have equal effect. Any other insights?

Gallant allies have been involved in massacres throughout history.

Russians,americans,spanish,german,british,italian,serbs,israelis.

The list is endless

There will be many gallant allies at the centenary of the 1916 rising.

To honour the martyrs who sacrificed so much.

Brave men and women all.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Not me.....

Hilarious you think that the British were 'better' in light of the length of time they built and maintained an empire compared to Imperial Germany that existed from 1871 to 1918. Plus you must have forgotten about events such as the Amritsar massacre which happened 3 years after the rising. 'Better', yeah right.

poteen o hooley

This thread could be retitled:

"Alastair in Wonderland"

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hilarious you think that the British were 'better' in light of the length of time they built and maintained an empire compared to Imperial Germany that existed from 1871 to 1918. Plus you must have forgotten about events such as the Amritsar massacre which happened 3 years after the rising. 'Better', yeah right.

More whataboutery. I imagine that they didn't have a crystal ball in 1916, so their choice to align themselves with 'gallant allies' who were known to be guilty of civilian massacres, had nothing to do with either the British, nor an event three years in he future.

Hilarious indeed.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

More whataboutery. I imagine that they didn't have a crystal ball in 1916, so their choice to align themselves with 'gallant allies' who were known to be guilty of civilian massacres, had nothing to do with either the British, nor an event three years in he future.

Hilarious indeed.

No crystal ball needed. How many Boer civilians died in South Africa during the war there in 1900-02? And you think the British are 'better'.

Hilarious indeed.

poteen o hooley

While the Alice Dears of this world are ironing their moral chastity belts, the tyrants and sociopaths of life will be twice around the world.
Whataboutery? ha ha ha

Fairyland grasp of how the world works. Olympian levels of ineffectiveness.

Sand

poteen o hooley wrote: »

While the Alice Dears of this world are ironing their moral chastity belts, the tyrants and sociopaths of life will be twice around the world.
Whataboutery? ha ha ha

Fairyland grasp of how the world works. Olympian levels of ineffectiveness.

Is this some sort of protest against the English language?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

No crystal ball needed. How many Boer civilians died in South Africa during the war there in 1900-02? And you think the British are 'better'.

Hilarious indeed.

Again with the whataboutery? It does nothing to alleviate the culpability for the proclamation signatories' alliance with 'gallant' baby killers.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

alliance with 'gallant' baby killers.

Haven't been following the inane argument....but that few words made me think of a solemn faced Joe Duffy for some reason.
Joe and John Bruton as dinner guests......nom nom :rolleyes:

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

It does nothing to alleviate the culpability for the proclamation signatories'

You are guilty of hindsight bias I believe. By claiming these reports of German killings of Belgian civilians are accurate (you did earlier), you are more than likely considering information that has only more recently emerged considering the authenticity of this information, including the Bryce report that was not available to the 1916 proclamation writers. It along with other reports were widely dismissed as propaganda at the time by the Germans and their allies. Why wouldn't they in wartime?

'gallant' baby killers.

Hardly.

In a post-war report, the Belgian Commission proved that the main victims of the German war crimes were male adults, not women and children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Alleged_German_Outrages

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You are guilty of hindsight bias I believe. By claiming these reports of German killings of Belgian civilians are accurate (you did earlier), you are more than likely considering information that has only more recently emerged considering the authenticity of this information, including the Bryce report that was not available to the 1916 proclamation writers. It along with other reports were widely dismissed as propaganda at the time by the Germans and their allies. Why wouldn't they in wartime?

The reports of the various massacres in Belgium were very well known to the signatories, and to the general population at the time. No hindsight is required.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hardly.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Alleged_German_Outrages

Ah, so because they massacred more civilian men than babies, it's all okay? They didn't kill babies? Hardly indeed.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&id=History.Martyrdom&entity=History.Martyrdom.p0015&isize=text

Although the town fell to von Hausen's troops on 23 August the occupation was not initially peaceful. German soldiers who were repairing the town bridge were allegedly fired upon by local inhabitants. In retaliation therefore the German authorities rounded up 612 men, women and children and shot them together; the youngest victim was a three-week-old baby.

The town was subsequently pillaged and many of its buildings destroyed by the rampant German force. Although the massacre shocked public opinion around the world - particularly in neutral countries such as the U.S. - it merely formed part of the German army's strategy of intimidating occupied Belgian territories as a means of securing maximum civilian co-operation.

Although a notorious incident in itself the massacre of Dinant was eclipsed by a similar, wider-scale action at Louvain two days later. Both were exploited to the full by Allied propaganda.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/dinant.htm

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

The reports of the various massacres in Belgium were very well known to the signatories, and to the general population at the time. No hindsight is required.

Did the 1916 signatories see them as propaganda or as accurate reports?

it's all okay?

Why would you think I'd consider it 'okay'?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Did the 1916 signatories see them as propaganda or as accurate reports?

I'm sure they saw them for the accurate reports they were. And opted to still declare an alliance with those known to have massacred civilians.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Why would you think I'd consider it 'okay'?

You seem to think that they were 'hardly' baby killers on the back of your statement. If I'm mistaken, care to tell us what your point was? Did it have any point?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I'm sure

Really? Anything to back that up?

You seem to think that they were 'hardly' baby killers on the back of your statement. If I'm mistaken, care to tell us what your point was? Did it have any point?

Going from 'gallant allies' to 'gallant baby killers'. Whats your point?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Really? Anything to back that up?

They were well informed, and are rather unlikely to have missed the testimony of the day, ncluding direct testimony from Belgian refugees: https://vodhls.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2014/0817/20140817_rteradio1-thehistoryshow-belgianref_c20630063_20634481_261_.m3u8

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Going from 'gallant allies' to 'gallant baby killers'. Whats your point?

Not standing over the 'hardly baby killers' thing anymore then?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

They were well informed, and are rather unlikely to have missed the testimony of the day, ncluding direct testimony from Belgian refugees: https://vodhls.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2014/0817/20140817_rteradio1-thehistoryshow-belgianref_c20630063_20634481_261_.m3u8

'And the media portrayed it that little Belgium was being raped by these monstrous barbarians'. Propaganda pure and simple. No testimonies about civilian killings in that piece either. The guy at the end talks about propagandists too.

Not standing over the 'hardly baby killers' thing anymore then?

I am, since you appeared to give the impression that only babies were being killed.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

'And the media portrayed it that little Belgium was being raped by these monstrous barbarians'. Propaganda pure and simple. No testimonies about civilian killings in that piece either. The guy at the end talks about propagandists too.

The massacres were real enough, and the reporting accurate.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I am, since you appeared to give the impression that only babies were being killed.

Really? You honestly think that posting sort of nonsense makes you look any better? Pathetic. So, not baby killers, except for the babies they killed. gotcha.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were real enough, and the reporting accurate.

Still no proof though that the 1916 signatories themselves also considered this to be the case.

Really? You honestly think that posting sort of nonsense makes you look any better? Pathetic. So, not baby killers, except for the babies they killed. gotcha.

Nah, you went for the baby killers line just to play the moral card. Your real intent here is to to link the 1916 signatories to these events rather than show any genuine concern for the events when considered on their own.

poteen o hooley

Alice Dear's basic problem is this:
He cannot accept that sometimes the greater good will override the rights of the individual. No doubt this is the consequence of personal experience and eventually the day will come when that reality will be faced. It's not easy to accept no doubt about that.

In the meantime he's actually best ignored. He thinks he knows better and arguing feeds that.

gladrags

poteen o hooley wrote: »

Alice Dear's basic problem is this:
He cannot accept that sometimes the greater good will override the rights of the individual. No doubt this is the consequence of personal experience and eventually the day will come when that reality will be faced. It's not easy to accept no doubt about that.

In the meantime he's actually best ignored. He thinks he knows better and arguing feeds that.

Totally agree.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Still no proof though that the 1916 signatories themselves also considered this to be the case..

There's no proof of the converse either, so where does that leave us?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nah, you went for the baby killers line just to play the moral card. Your real intent here is to to link the 1916 signatories to these events rather than show any genuine concern for the events when considered on their own.

Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

There's no proof of the converse either, so where does that leave us?

Yet another circular debate and the weakest attempt I've seen so far in efforts to engage in retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion

It does actually, because you haven't been able to provide any proof that they didn't consider these reports to be propaganda.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Yet another circular debate and the weakest attempt I've seen so far in efforts to engage in retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Just to be clear - you've no proof, and I've no proof, but it's 'weak' on the basis of my not providing proof? Let's review shall we? We know that the reporting of the civilian massacres was widespread, we know that the signatories were aware of them, we have nothing to suggest that they discounted those reports on the back of animosity towards the British, so if you're going to make that contention, it's up to you to provide the proof for it, not me to prove the negative.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It does actually, because you haven't been able to provide any proof that they didn't consider these reports to be propaganda.

See above. You don't really seem to understand how these things work.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

You don't really seem to understand how these things work.

Now now, don't be condescending. It's your belief they knew. I don't agree. Simple as. And as Nodin says it was nothing more than agreement with a rival power to gain aid for the rising. You are reading way too much into it.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Now now, don't be condescending. It's your belief they knew. I don't agree. Simple as. And as Nodin says it was nothing more than agreement with a rival power to gain aid for the rising. You are reading way too much into it.

Of course they did know. It was impossible not to know at the time, if you opened a newspaper or talked to anyone on the street. I'm reading exactly the appropriate amount of significance into their choice to call the known perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Of course they did know.

So what. They may have still dismissed it as propaganda.

It was impossible not to know at the time, if you opened a newspaper or talked to anyone on the street.

Information from a censored press in wartime mightn't be propaganda?

I'm reading exactly the appropriate amount of significance into their choice to call the known perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'.

From a censored press in wartime?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So what. They may have still dismissed it as propaganda.

Have you anything to prove this proposition?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Information from a censored press in wartime mightn't be propaganda?

There were Belgians in Dublin, well able to confirm the factual nature of the massacres. No-one disputed that they happened, even if they recognised their propaganda value to recruiting for the British Army. To pretend otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

From a censored press in wartime?

Sure. People still bought and read newspapers for access to the news.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Have you anything to prove this proposition?

Do you have anything to prove the proposition that they considered these reports to be accurate?

There were Belgians in Dublin, well able to confirm the factual nature of the massacres. No-one disputed that they happened, even if they recognised their propaganda value to recruiting for the British Army.

So? You need to show that those who inserted the words 'gallant allies' into the proclamation believed these reports too.

Sure. People still bought and read newspapers for access to the news.

And how accurate was this news considering it was a censored press in wartime?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Do you have anything to prove the proposition that they considered these reports to be accurate?

The complete absence of any evidence that they didn't. Again - this is your proposition - so you need to prove it.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So? You need to show that those who inserted the words 'gallant allies' into the proclamation believed these reports too.

Actually I don't. See above.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And how accurate was this news considering it was a censored press in wartime?

Pretty accurate on the massacres - as confirmed by the arrival of Belgian refugees in Ireland.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

The complete absence of any evidence that they didn't.

And the complete absence of evidence from you that they did.

so you need to prove it.

Nice try. I have to prove things and you don't?

Pretty accurate on the massacres - as confirmed by the arrival of Belgian refugees in Ireland.

So? Did the the 1916 signatories believe these reports to be accurate?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And the complete absence of evidence from you that they did.

Again - you don't really get this works. You've claimed that the signatories disputed a factual series of massacres. A factual series of massacres widely reported, and confirmed by refugees from Belgium. That requires that you prove that contention. If you can't, then you need to accept that they, along with everyone else, was aware that these massacres happened. Because there is ample evidence to demonstrate that fact.

So - over to you. Can you prove your contention? All it requires is a statement from them disputing the validity of the massacres. Shouldn't be too difficult to find, if there was any merit to the contention.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Again....

You say these reports are accurate and that the 1916 signatories knew about them. If they considered them accurate as well, where's your proof to confirm this?

There's no point in telling me over and over again that they knew about them if you can't show that they believed them to be accurate too. If they didn't believe them to be accurate, what's wrong with them referring to 'gallant allies'?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You say these reports are accurate and that the 1916 signatories knew about them. If they considered them accurate as well, where's your proof to confirm this?

There's no point in telling me over and over again that they knew about them if you can't show that they believed them to be accurate too. If they didn't believe them to be accurate, what's wrong with them referring to 'gallant allies'?

I'm at a loss as to why you can't comprehend where the responsibility to support your contention, lies with you?

The massacres were a fact.
The reporting of the massacres was a fact.
The widespread awareness of the massacres was a fact.
The testimony of the Belgian refugees ISPs Ireland, was a fact.
The absence of anything that suggests the signatories of the proclamation disputed the factual nature of the massacres, was a fact.

You can equally claim the signatories believed the sky not to be blue, but you, would equally, have to support that contention, with some evidence.

You haven't supported your contention.

So, unless you can, please stop rolling it out there as a ridiculous attempt to imply that they were not aware of the nature of 'gallant allies' they felt needed to be called out in their brave new order.

Sand

You want him to prove what the figures *believed*? Or else its not true. Did you ever manage to present *any* evidence as to what anyone in Ireland believed about Redmond and his endorsement of the Volunteers joining the British Army? By your own logic, it must also be untrue to state that Redmond influenced anyone because you cant provide any evidence on what they believed. Right?

There is a balance of probability.

The German atrocities in Belgium were well known and verified by *multiple* sources. The Germans never denied them - they simply rationalised them as being correct and proper military justice against spies and irregulars. They were the British casus belli, and a key point in recruiting Irishmen in particular (a small, neutral Catholic country as referenced by Redmond).

So pretty much everyone in Ireland - and most of the western world - was aware that the German army had gone on a rampage through Belgium, burning cities, looting and executing civilians on little or no grounds. The only debate was if or where this tyrannical treatment of Belgian civilians had crossed over into lurid tales of medieval brutality or widespread rape. But there was no dispute that the German army had acted extremely harshly in Belgium, with only the harshest interpretation of 19th century military justice as a possible defence.

It is more likely that the organisers of the Rising were aware of what had happened, than they were not. Therefore, the balance of probability is that they were aware of it. And that they chose to endorse the Germans anyway, as their "gallant allies".

A stupid move all round.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I'm at a loss....

repeated attempts to ram home your points doesn't advance your argument.

You said this earlier:

There's no proof of the converse either, so where does that leave us?

they were not aware of the nature of 'gallant allies' they felt needed to be called out in their brave new order.

You haven't proved the 1916 signatories themselves considered these reports were actually accurate or not.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

You want him to prove what the figures *believed*? Or else its not true. Did you ever manage to present *any* evidence

I mentioned Willie Redmond.

A stupid move all round.

No, just a continuance by you and others of retrospective condemnation of 1916.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I mentioned Willie Redmond.

Willie Redmond was an experienced, convinced Irish politician and nationalist. He was not one of these weak willed simpletons you present as falling into line at a mere word from Redmond. He also endorsed the volunteers joining the British Army.

"I speak as a man who bears the name of a relation who was hanged in Wexford in ’98 – William Kearney. I speak as a man with all the poor ability at his command has fought the battle for self-government for Ireland since the time – now thirty two years ago – when I lay in Kilmainham Prison with Parnell. No man who is honest can doubt the single-minded desire of myself and men like me to do what is right for Ireland. And when it comes to the question -- as it may come – of asking young Irishmen to go abroad and fight this battle, when I personally am convinced that the battle of Ireland is to be fought where many Irishmen now are – in Flanders and in France – old as I am, and grey as our my hairs, I will say ‘Don’t go, but come with me” .

Never mentioned his brother once. Again and again referred to his own beliefs and convictions and actions.

So, like I said, no evidence at all for your claims. Quite the opposite.

No, just a continuance by you and others of retrospective condemnation of 1916.

No, it was condemned in 1916 too. It was the politically motivated retrospective revisionism presenting it as something it was not that is being challenged.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

at a mere word from Redmond.

Lauding him for Home Rule but mysteriously knocking him down when it came to recruitment into the BA.

He also endorsed the volunteers joining the British Army.

Just like his brother then.

'convinced that the battle of Ireland is to be fought where many Irishmen now are – in Flanders and in France'.

More Redmondite twaddle. Which, unsurprisingly enough again sounds like what his brother came out with.

No, it was condemned in 1916 too. It was the politically motivated retrospective revisionism presenting it as something it was not that is being challenged.

No, it's a rewriting of Irish history that's being attempted by Bruton et al.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

repeated attempts to ram home your points doesn't advance your argument.

My argument is sound - you haven't provided any evidence for your contention.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You haven't proved the 1916 signatories themselves considered these reports were actually accurate or not.

I don't have to. I just have to point to the complete absence of evidence that this was the case. The fact is that the reports were accurate, and the signatories were aware of the reports, and of the testimony of the Belgian refugees. So we know that they were aware of the massacres, and we know that they never disputed that they happened, so it's up to you to show some evidence for your claim that they disputed their happening.

I can keep saying this over and over. And you can keep ignoring those facts, but unless you can actually produce an iota of evidence, you just look more and more foolish in avoiding the logic of your claim.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

that they never disputed that they happened

How is that evidence that they actually considered them to be accurate or just propaganda? You don't know that they even considered these reports when drafting the proclamation.

I can keep saying this over and over.

So that you can seem more correct everytime? Carry on.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How is that evidence that they actually considered them to be accurate or just propaganda? You don't know that they even considered these reports when drafting the proclamation.

It's evidence that your contention is built on nothing but supposition. We know that they definitely gave consideration to whether to state their feelings about the perpetrators of those massacres, because they committed them to the text of their proclamation.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So that you can seem more correct everytime? Carry on.

I'm as correct as I was the first time I pointed this out to you.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention. Put up, or shut up.