2nd worst war for Irish?

Fratton Fred

One of the oddities of history I find. The Irish had no problem becoming Roman Catholics when the Norman's brought the power of Rome here, but then refused to change.

The effects of the penal laws in the majority of the population is hugely over exaggerated.

If you were poor, it didn't matter what religion you were, you didn't own land so you couldn't vote and also had zero chance of getting an education. Not that Catholics were banned from getting an education anyway.

Catholics with money simply had an eldest son convert to church of Ireland to keep their land and carried on as was. It was easier for them to do this in Ireland because the penal laws were not as vigorously enforced as they were in England. Catholics also had the advantage of not being dissenters as well. Again, it's odd that the rabid loyalists of the north would probably have been more discriminated against than the nationalists.

pedroeibar1

Jesus. wrote: »

What a ridiculous reply.........

Another insult followed by waffle to again avoid the truth. Why cannot you just admit you were wrong? You made a sweeping statement, I pulled you up on it, so instead of blushing with embarrassment you reply with a rant of semantic waffle.
Your mate Joe was the first to mention the Penal Laws in an ill-informed comment when he said

Due to the Penal Laws which forbade Catholics to own arms or join the British army, Ireland was a major recruitment for the French

I never brought up the Penal Laws, Joe introduced that topic and you, picking up that canard went off on another rant,

…….. you were talking about the Penal Laws when you're born and bred in your own Country with ancestry stretching back hundreds of years prior to the oppressors) ……

trying (as usual) to attribute words to me that never were said. Again, I gave a source you ignored, writing

…….Catholics were allowed own arms. The Act was called “An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papists” (it was 7 Will III. 1695). ………… Also, the cost of a firearm was far beyond the means of the ordinary Irish person, not a hope of one being owned by a peasant cottier….

Go read that Act, you and Joe will educate yourselves and find that I was correct. (Some papists were allowed own arms, all were allowed join the British Army but some of the 'officer' class had a problrm with the oaths. ) The more you and Joe post, the more you show yourselves to be ignorant of the finer details.
It's impossible to debate with those who ignore authoritative sources - you dismissed the information I linked to on the UCC site on the Irish Brigade, you clearly did not bother to read the Kildare.ie site for details of pitchcapping in 1798 (happened after the Rebellion broke out, not – your contention - before) and now you and Joe seem fixated on a personal interpretation of the Penal Laws, their severity, the poor Irish,

…….and the reduction of the Catholic population to a state of semi-serfdom (in my opinion there's actually no "semi" about it……

Professional historians are in agreement that as far as the majority of the Irish population is concerned the Protestant Reformation failed in Ireland, although it is agreed that the anti-popery laws destroyed the Roman Catholic landed class (the main purpose of the Penal Laws). As a result of the destruction of the ‘RC gentry’ actually the 18th century saw the gradual and steady recovery of the RC Church in Ireland.
The simple fact of the matter is that for the majority of the population it did not matter a whit who their landlord was 1650 – 1750, it was above their status before and during that period - because they were peasant farmers/labourers.
As for your interest in the Penal Laws, if you are the ‘expert’ you claim to be perhaps you might explain how and why Roman Catholic families like the O’Connells of Derrynane and the Brownes of Kildare (to name just two easy ones ) managed to hold onto huge acreages into the 1800’s? Or maybe why the RC Sees were progressively filled from 1707 and all were filled before 1747?(And FWIW, I believe that the Penal Laws were vicious, on a par with the anti- protestant laws of France, on which they were based.:))
Surprise me with a bit of knowledge, go on! (and bonus marks for no false attributions and insults!)

Jesus.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One of the oddities of history I find. The Irish had no problem becoming Roman Catholics when the Norman's brought the power of Rome here, but then refused to change.

How is it an oddity of history? Both scenarios were hundreds of years apart for God's sake. Totally different times.

But as usual you sound like you hold the Irish in contempt because they didn't bow to the bullying antics of their neighbour and convert to Protestantism which was being forced on them.

I presume you have the same superior attitude to all the other Colony's people's that Britain tried to bully down the Centuries?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The effects of the penal laws in the majority of the population is hugely over exaggerated.If you were poor, it didn't matter what religion you were, you didn't own land so you couldn't vote and also had zero chance of getting an education. Not that Catholics were banned from getting an education anyway.

If you were poor, yes. You haven't mentioned that the vast majority of the poor were Catholic and that the vast majority of the power, land and wealth was in the hands of Protestants. Nor have you mentioned why that was so.

You have some neck on you, Mr Englishman, I'll give you that. I'd venture to say with a large degree of certainty that if your own people were put upon from outside, lets just say by the Germans, and had such "laws" enacted against them in their own Country, you'd have a very different take on things. I've always found old Empire-type apologists from Great Britain to also be the most rabid nationalists themselves and would abhor even the idea of Johnny Foreigner laying a finger on Blighty. Never mind militarily, the same people go mad when they hear of Continental Europeans making decisions for them down in Brussels. How dare they! What about our national integrity? No such integrity was allowed many nations by Great Britain down the years though, eh?

How embarrassed are you, for example, for the murderous activities of your soldiers out in Kenya in the 60's, Fred?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OneCatholics with money simply had an eldest son convert to church of Ireland to keep their land and carried on as was.

Catholics weren't treated badly as long as they ceased being Catholics.

Comedy gold Freddie :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OneCatholics also had the advantage of not being dissenters as well. Again, it's odd that the rabid loyalists of the north would probably have been more discriminated against than the nationalists.

Incorrect. They were discriminated against but not to the same extent.

Jesus.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The effects of the penal laws in the majority of the population is hugely over exaggerated.

So, Frederick the Great, what do you make of Pedro finally talking a bit of sense?

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I believe that the Penal Laws were vicious

pedroeibar1

Jesus. wrote: »

So, Frederick the Great, what do you make of Pedro finally talking a bit of sense?

Yet again you take a few of my words on the Penal Laws and use them out of context to suit your uninformed views.

FF is correct, the Penal Laws had little effect on the ordinary population. The laws were enforced (not always successfully) against the landed “Irish” gentry to get their land but the general population carried on as before. It is a generalisation, but the enforcement of the Penal laws had huge legal issues - finding Protestants to fill official roles, evading a process-server, obtaining witnesses, getting them to appear......etc. Even in Kilkenny the mayor was complaining that the papists hugely outnumbered the handful of Protestants. (So much for the law about papists living in towns!) You should read around the topic, you would find it educational.);)

BTW, I'm still waiting for your response to my questions above… have you been able to look it up yet?

Fratton Fred

Jesus. wrote: »

So, Frederick the Great, what do you make of Pedro finally talking a bit of sense?

They were vicious, but only affected the top tier of the population that had wealth and land and therefore influence.

Seeing as 95% of people in these islands, if not Europe, had sweet fa, the penal laws barely affected them.

Seriously, rather than just come out with petty childish insults, why not read up in the laws, what they actually stated and why they were put in place.

You may want to read up on the European wars of religion as well.

Fratton Fred

Jesus. wrote: »

How is it an oddity of history? Both scenarios were hundreds of years apart for God's sake. Totally different times.

But as usual you sound like you hold the Irish in contempt because they didn't bow to the bullying antics of their neighbour and convert to Protestantism which was being forced on them.

I presume you have the same superior attitude to all the other Colony's people's that Britain tried to bully down the Centuries?



If you were poor, yes. You haven't mentioned that the vast majority of the poor were Catholic and that the vast majority of the power, land and wealth was in the hands of Protestants. Nor have you mentioned why that was so.

You have some neck on you, Mr Englishman, I'll give you that. I'd venture to say with a large degree of certainty that if your own people were put upon from outside, lets just say by the Germans, and had such "laws" enacted against them in their own Country, you'd have a very different take on things. I've always found old Empire-type apologists from Great Britain to also be the most rabid nationalists themselves and would abhor even the idea of Johnny Foreigner laying a finger on Blighty. Never mind militarily, the same people go mad when they hear of Continental Europeans making decisions for them down in Brussels. How dare they! What about our national integrity? No such integrity was allowed many nations by Great Britain down the years though, eh?

How embarrassed are you, for example, for the murderous activities of your soldiers out in Kenya in the 60's, Fred?



Catholics weren't treated badly as long as they ceased being Catholics.

Comedy gold Freddie :pac:



Incorrect. They were discriminated against but not to the same extent.

More pathetic off topic ad hominem. I hope the mods are reading this.

nuac

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Yes and their are others who will try and make the Warrington or Enniskillen bomb out to be an atomic explosion on a par with Nagasaki or Dresden.

Warrington and Enniskillen were murders, not acts of war

Jesus.

Pedro, I quoted you directly, word for word. Are you now telling me you never wrote that? There is documented proof you did.

Where do you want me to start regarding your lies?

Can you tell me, for example, what compelled Anthony Perry to take the United Irish oath a full year before the outbreak of the '98?

And once again, why did you revert to theological technicalities when you knew full well that when Joe mentioned Catholics he was referring to the branch of Christianity that everyone knows them to be, without having to ammend the "Roman" prefix to it? I'll tell you why. You were trying to be smart and also dodge the issue at the same time. Papists and Catholics (that is Roman Catholics) are and more specifically were at the time terms used for the exact same thing.

Yours and Frederick's propaganda knows no bounds, so much so that Fred has now joined you in running to the teacher (Moderator) because he can't counter the arguments put before his old Colonial, oppressive mindset.

Time to see the light my boy

Fratton Fred

Jesus. wrote: »

Pedro, I quoted you directly, word for word. Are you now telling me you never wrote that? There is documented proof you did.

Where do you want me to start regarding your lies?

Can you tell me, for example, what compelled Anthony Perry to take the United Irish oath a full year before the outbreak of the '98?

And once again, why did you revert to theological technicalities when you knew full well that when Joe mentioned Catholics he was referring to the branch of Christianity that everyone knows them to be, without having to ammend the "Roman" prefix to it? I'll tell you why. You were trying to be smart and also dodge the issue at the same time. Papists and Catholics (that is Roman Catholics) are and more specifically were at the time terms used for the exact same thing.

Yours and Frederick's propaganda knows no bounds, so much so that Fred has now joined you in running to the teacher (Moderator) because he can't counter the arguments put before his old Colonial, oppressive mindset.

Time to see the light my boy

So, no actual response then, just more ad hominem.

jonniebgood1

nuac wrote: »

Originally Posted by ChicagoJoe View Post

Yes and their are others who will try and make the Warrington or Enniskillen bomb out to be an atomic explosion on a par with Nagasaki or Dresden.

Warrington and Enniskillen were murders, not acts of war

Well called out Nuac, Posts such as the one you quote are difficult to moderate but pointing out their stupidity is the best way of showing them for what they are. Well done IMO.

pedroeibar1

More waffle.

The topic is the “Second worst war for the Irish” – yet you have consistently dragged the posts away from the topic.

Jesus. wrote: »

Are you now telling me you never wrote that? There is documented proof you did.

??? I said you took a few words out of a sentence of mine and used them out of context – no more, no less.

Jesus. wrote: »

Can you tell me, for example, what compelled Anthony Perry to take the United Irish oath a full year before the outbreak of the '98?

Lots of people took the U I oath at that time. Perry, from a gentleman farmer background, university educated, was part of a mindset that existed in both Europe and America at that time, just as there was a similar ‘meeting of minds’ in the late 1960’s (Paris, Kent State, Civil Rights, etc.) The ‘tool’ of bigotry was used by the Government to forment violence, to disrupt any unity between dissenter and papist. Playing the Orange card, it is called divide and conquer. The 1798 rebellion broke out on 23rd May, having been declared (and immediately betrayed) months earlier following a failed French landing. The country was ‘on edge’, Crown Forces were few and militias had been formed. Yes there were a few atrocities (as there were in France in 1968 and Kent in 1970), but that is what happens when a State feels under threat.. In 1798 the Authorities knew the Rebellion was due to break out, they managed to find and arrest Perry who was tortured. That happened ONE day before the Rebellion actually broke out – it does not support your argument that Government Forces tried to force the population to rebel by using rape and pitch-capping BEFORE the Rebellion broke out. You gave one source, a BBC document that you either misread or deliberately misinterpreted. In post #81 I gave you a correct source and proof that the events you spoke about happened AFTER the outbreak. Also you ignore the sequence of events as I pointed out (in detail) in my post #84 - the facts are there for you to look up.

Jesus. wrote: »

Where do you want me to start regarding your lies?... Yours and Frederick's propaganda knows no bounds, so much so that Fred has now joined you in running to the teacher (Moderator) because he can't counter the arguments put before his old Colonial, oppressive mindset. Time to see the light my boy

Ad hominem and plain rude, like most of the remarks you make. If you disagree, fine, but show facts, not waffle and stupid remarks. (You have still to respond on the questions I posed on your false claims on the Penal Laws.) I have supported by arguments with several referenced sources, you just dismiss them and waffle on with spurious attributions and invective.

Frankly, you are not worth the trouble, the reference to the Moderators was in regard to insults and topic drift. I have more interesting things to be doing that arguing with a rude person who misquotes, falsely arributes and clearly has a twisted agenda that is not supported by any historical knowledge. And the level of 'modding' has been disappointingly poor given the insults. I'm out of this thread,

Jesus wrote:

Pedro are you from the UK?

In post #56

Jesus wrote:

EDIT: On second thoughts, I can't be 100% certain that I didn't write something and delete it. You could be right Pedro lad.

In post #70 (Yes, you did delete several sentences of nast invective)

Jesus wrote:

Pedro for fukk's sake, its you who's submerged the thread in BS, sarcasm and false construction.

In post #76

Jesus wrote:

Whatever your reasons are for distorting the facts (maybe you had your schoolbag stolen by someone dressed as a Leprechaun when you were a child?), it is not a noble craft, being a revisionist with an agenda.

In post #76

Jesus wrote:

You, Sir, are a complete chancer

in #81

Jesus wrote:

Now turn off those red, white and blue Xmas lights you have all over the front of your house. Its very late and they're dazzling the motorists

In #85

Jesus wrote:

Comedy gold

in #89

Jesus wrote:

What a ridiculous reply.

In #91

Jesus.

I'm waffling? I asked you why Perry took the oath, not when he was pitch-capped. More deflection from you.

He took the oath a full year prior to the outbreak of the rebellion because of Government repression (some might call it terrorism) including torture and indeed murder (remember Willy Orr?), judicial or otherwise. Yes, that is what Governments do when they're afraid but it wasn't a just Government, it was a tyrannical one. Naturally an oppressive regime gets afraid when it feels threatened and will hit out at the people. You seem to be trying to excuse the actions of said Government and you don't like it that you've been called out on it. So much so that you continue to cry like a child to the Moderators because you don't like what you're hearing.

Grow up Pedro and stop behaving like an infant that's just had its rattler taken from them.

jonniebgood1

Jesus. wrote: »

So, Frederick the Great, what do you make of Pedro finally talking a bit of sense?

Infraction for goading comment.

Mod

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

More waffle.

...

Frankly, you are not worth the trouble, the reference to the Moderators was in regard to insults and topic drift. I have more interesting things to be doing that arguing with a rude person who misquotes, falsely arributes and clearly has a twisted agenda that is not supported by any historical knowledge. And the level of 'modding' has been disappointingly poor given the insults. I'm out of this thread,

You will find modding this quote "waffle" which you have contributed to is not an easy task.

Infraction to you as part of the moderating which you request.

Moderator.

jonniebgood1

Jesus. wrote: »

Grow up Pedro and stop behaving like an infant that's just had its rattler taken from them.

Trolling infraction. 2nd infraction in thread = 1 week ban.

Moderator

jonniebgood1

Jesus. wrote: »

You have some neck on you, Mr Englishman, I'll give you that. .

More trolling - ban is extended to 2 weeks.

Moderator

ChicagoJoe

nuac wrote: »

Warrington and Enniskillen were murders, not acts of war

Well I'll let people judge that for themselves whether Dresden or Hiroshima (carried out by the USAF) were gross acts of murder, don't know if any Irishmen were involved.

ChicagoJoe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well called out Nuac, Posts such as the one you quote are difficult to moderate but pointing out their stupidity is the best way of showing them for what they are. Well done IMO.

As you can see below that my post was a reply to Santa Cruz's post and it's context of exaggeration

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The figures have been assessed by a number of historians with access to military records, casualties lists, widow pensions applications etc. There are certain people who won't accept that of course and will try to make the Kilmichael Ambush the primary military action of the 20th century

Yes and their are others who will try and make the Warrington or Enniskillen bomb out to be an atomic explosion on a par with Nagasaki or Dresden.

pedroeibar1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Well I'll let people judge that for themselves whether Dresden or Hiroshima (carried out by the USAF) were gross acts of murder....................

More OT and childish Brit-bashing - it is a pity that you are unable to see beyond your bias and look at the historical facts of aerial warfare.

The Germans were the first to use aerial bombardment, as far back as August 1914. Squadrons of Taube monoplanes flew sorties over Paris and when crowds gathered to gaze at the unusual sight they were bombed. The French retaliated in November, with attacks aimed at targets such as railway junctions. Next, on Christmas Eve 1914 a German seaplane dropped bombs on Dover (they hit a vegetable patch, injuring a guy who was picking sprouts for his Christmas dinner!) and the following day another plane dumped its bombs on a church in north Kent, where a Christmas wedding was in progress.

Thenceforth, in keeping with the German General Staff's doctrine of Schrecklichkeit (‘frightfulness’ - or ‘shock and awe’) the bombing campaign became increasingly targeted at civilians. Raids by German airships began in January 1915. Famously, Kaiser Wilhelm ordered no bombs were to be dropped west of Charing Cross, to avoid injuring his cousins in Buckingham Palace. Those were acts of war, and quite random, given the technology of the day. Positioning two strategically timed bombs outside a chemist and McDonalds is murder.

And apart from a few tear-gas grenades used by the French in 1914, the Germans were also the first to use gas as a weapon when using chlorine gas they killed about 20,000 soldiers and an indefinite but huge number of civilians in the 2nd Battle of Ypres. And the Germans also were the first to use mustard gas against the Russians at Riga in September 1917.

DarkyHughes

nuac wrote: »

Warrington and Enniskillen were murders, not acts of war

And Dresden & Nagasaki were not "acts of war" they were war crimes.

And Enniskillen & Warrington were horrible sicken tragedies but they were not aimed at killing innocent people. If the IRA's goal was just to kill a lot of people they could have easily done so. The Manchester 1996 bomb was the largest bomb detonated on mainland Britain ever. If the IRA's goal was to kill people they would not have given a 50 minute warning to evacuate 80,000+ plus people. You can work work out for yourself how many people would have been killed if it wasn't for the warning.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

And Dresden & Nagasaki were not "acts of war" they were war crimes.

And Enniskillen & Warrington were horrible sicken tragedies but they were not aimed at killing innocent people. If the IRA's goal was just to kill a lot of people they could have easily done so. The Manchester 1996 bomb was the largest bomb detonated on mainland Britain ever. If the IRA's goal was to kill people they would not have given a 50 minute warning to evacuate 80,000+ plus people. You can work work out for yourself how many people would have been killed if it wasn't for the warning.

Why didn't they detonate the Warrington bomb st 4am, why do it on a Saturday lunchtime?

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why didn't they detonate the Warrington bomb st 4am, why do it on a Saturday lunchtime?

I'm not sure. I did say already there was evidence to suggest it wasn't actually the IRA. I'm not saying it wasn't the IRA just saying there is some evidence there, but it's hard to turn it into proof. Just like there is evidence to suggest the Dublin & Monaghan bombings were not the sole work of the UVF & were helped by British forces, but again it's hard to turn that into proof.

If it was the IRA. Well an IRA ASU was arrested for a previous bombing in Warrington about a week before the tragic bombing that killed the 2 kids. My guess is if it was the IRA the police hadn't caught the whole ASU & what ever was left behind of the unit was inexperienced & strategical & very political unaware. From the IRA's point of view their 90's mainland campaign was going very well up until that point. From the start with the Downing Street mortar attack serving as a big propaganda coup & a few months earlier they blew up the Baltic exchange which cost the British government a right few bob & until Warrington largely avoided large number of civilian causalities. So it doesn't make any sense why they would put the whole campaign at risk by trying to kill civilians. There's a good documentary about the bombings made in 2013 for the 20th anniversary which gave me a lot of info I didn't know before, for example the codeword given for the warnings was never used by the IRA before & was never used by them again.

Snickers Man

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

So that's OK, then.

Jesus.

Snickers Man wrote: »

So that's OK, then.

Puts it into context though doesn't it?

dubhthach

Mod

Closing thread, discussion of the Troubles or of actions carried out by the Allies during the second world war aren't relevant. Thread is an absolute trainwreck.