Will 1916 commemorations open up old wounds between Ireland and the brits?

masti123

LordSutch wrote: »

At the time of the rising the rebels were spat at and cursed at by Dubliners, as they were led away to meet their fate.

What else would you expect as they led them through Unionist areas..

LordSutch

Sackville Street I believe.

masti123

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

And remember, 1918 was the first democratic election ever held in this Imperial Provence.

Ehh, not really. Let's look at the reason why SF won the 1918 election? Oh yes they were uncontested in most constituencies.

Why were seats uncontested? Because the status quo had been established the year prior with 3 SF election victories, 2 of which were dodgy as ****. When DeV was elected in Clare the volunteers formed an armed cordon around the city and wouldn't let any non SF voters past. Equally McGuinness' by election victory was just as dodgy. He actually lost the election until an IRA gun was put to the counting officers head to suggest a recount, and surprise surprise he won on the recount. So the situation by which the 1918 victory came about through uncontested areas was undemocratic and brought about by militancy.

KingBrian2

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland, (the island of), was an integral part of the United Kingdom in 1916, and as such was at war with Germany, of that there can be no doubt.

Between two hundred & fifty thousand, and three hundred thousand Irish men left this island and fought with Britain and her allies against Germany in the Great War (1914-1918.

Up to fifty thousand Irish men died in that war. Interestingly conscription was never introduced here, ergo all those men who went to join the war effort, did so of their own free will.

We did support the first world war for 3 years. 1914 -1916. The disastrous 1915 Gallipoli campaign is what turned Irish attitudes about the war off long before 1916 or the chemical warfare at the Somme. The deeply anti Labour William Martin Murphy was scathing about British policy and used his paper to say so.

That naval outing brought home the realities of 20th century warfare and we still believed the conflict was justified but the enemy was no longer the Kaiser but the King. Militarism was not unique to Ireland at that time. It was however turned against those that had been sending Irish people across the sea to die in Gallipoli.

LordSutch

KingBrian2 wrote: »

... and we still believed the conflict was justified but the enemy was no longer the Kaiser but the King.

We? you mean a minority within the minority IRB.

We (most Irish people) just were not aware of, or involved with the Rising, as it caught everybody by surprise. Including that poor Dublin policeman I mentioned earlier (see post #241).

tomwaterford

LordSutch wrote: »

We? you mean a minority within the minority IRB.

We (most Irish people) just were not aware of, or involved with the Rising, as it caught everybody by surprise. Including that poor Dublin policeman I mentioned earlier (see post #241).

The fact there was a rising coming down the tracks was well flagged...just the timing when it was to occur was not known
No one was suprised it occurred

Dyr

masti123 wrote: »

Ehh, not really. Let's look at the reason why SF won the 1918 election? Oh yes they were uncontested in most constituencies.

Why were seats uncontested? Because the status quo had been established the year prior with 3 SF election victories, 2 of which were dodgy as ****. When DeV was elected in Clare the volunteers formed an armed cordon around the city and wouldn't let any non SF voters past. Equally McGuinness' by election victory was just as dodgy. He actually lost the election until an IRA gun was put to the counting officers head to suggest a recount, and surprise surprise he won on the recount. So the situation by which the 1918 victory came about through uncontested areas was undemocratic and brought about by militancy.

You might want to take that guff to the conspiracy theories forum.

Or maybe the balloons on stormfront would lap it up

Iwasfrozen

MPFGLB wrote: »

Just becasue they were cursed on the street by some sections of the population does not mean what they set out to do was not heroic

What is right is not always popular ( at the time or anytime)

Must be history 101 you are quoting from ....

Terrorism that leads to murder is never "heroic".

NoHornJan

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I've always found the idea of commemorating a failed uprising to be rather a stupid one. Surely the Irish would be better off getting their dose of historical nationalism in 1921?

A failed uprising?

tomwaterford

NoHornJan wrote: »

A failed uprising?

You do know it fell asunder after a week??

It took a prolonged guerrilla war to break the British

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Terrorism that leads to murder is never "heroic".

So no armed resistance in history was heroic then? All terrorists by your definition?

masti123

Bambi wrote: »

You might want to take that guff to the conspiracy theories forum.

Or maybe the balloons on stormfront would lap it up

You'll find all the section on the 1917 by elections in Michael Laffens lecture series on history hub. I've a degree and a first class master's in Irish history if it's worth anything.

Junkyard Tom

LordSutch wrote: »

Rightful for us

Who is us? You and Beserker?

The_Valeyard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Terrorism that leads to murder is never "heroic".

Hang on now, George Washington was once considered a terrorist, minutemen militia and rebel forces eventually, with French help broke the British and forced them out of the colonies. Doubt the Americans would consider there founding fathers terrorists.

War is murder. But it can be a necessary evil when the cause is right and just. The murder might not be heroic but the actions behind it and the ideals for which it stood for can be.

KingBrian2

If there was an uprising in Berlin in 1939 nobody would jeer them as unpatriotic traitors as the NAZIS ruled Germany so overthrowing them would be considered good. A party that had universal support from conservatives, monarchists, militarists and farmers.

NoHornJan

tomwaterford wrote: »

You do know it fell asunder after a week??

It took a prolonged guerrilla war to break the British

The journey of a thousand miles started with a single step.

opiniated

Berserker wrote: »

Wrong. Take a look at the visits of the King to Dublin at that time. The streets were filled with people celebrating the visits with Union flags in hand. The terrorists would have been dealt with, in an appropriate manner and the above would have become the norm once again. Ireland was a very peaceful country, prior to the rising. People were poor but they lived happy, safe lives, as my grandparents used to tell me.

You're joking, right?

Orangebrigade wrote: »

When have Irish Republicans been anything but losers in history? Even going back to 1798 to the present day, you have perfected the art in losing.

Your bitterness is astounding! 26 Counties out of 32 is a victory, compared to those who were left with six. A partial victory, it's true - but still a victory compared to 6 Counties.

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland, (the island of), was an integral part of the United Kingdom in 1916, and as such was at war with Germany, of that there can be no doubt.

Between two hundred & fifty thousand, and three hundred thousand Irish men left this island and fought with Britain and her allies against Germany in the Great War (1914-1918.

Up to fifty thousand Irish men died in that war. Interestingly conscription was never introduced here, ergo all those men who went to join the war effort, did so of their own free will.

Most of those men who went to join the war effort went there because they and their families were starving.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Terrorism that leads to murder is never "heroic".

So, what is your opinion of those people who invaded this Country?
Were they "terrorists", too?

tomwaterford

NoHornJan wrote: »

The journey of a thousand miles started with a single step.

Still abit to go though

LeeLooLee

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd be surprised to meet a Brit who had any idea about 1916. A good proportion think all of Ireland is part of the UK.

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So no armed resistance in history was heroic then? All terrorists by your definition?

Armed resistance, apart of on a few exceptions generally leads to more death and suffering. The terrorists who carried out 1916 ignored the peaceful means of protest / resistence that were available to them and instead decided to pick up a gun. A decision that led to thousands of needless deaths over the next century decades.

Compare this to the peaceful independence movements of Scotland and Catalonia.

Iwasfrozen

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Hang on now, George Washington was once considered a terrorist, minutemen militia and rebel forces eventually, with French help broke the British and forced them out of the colonies. Doubt the Americans would consider there founding fathers terrorists.

War is murder. But it can be a necessary evil when the cause is right and just. The murder might not be heroic but the actions behind it and the ideals for which it stood for can be.

George Washington was certainly a terrorist in his time as well as a traitor but thankfully the American War of Independence is one of the few tines armed resistance has not led to decades of needless death and violence. Unlike 1916.

tomwaterford

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Compare this to the peaceful independence movements of Scotland and Catalonia.

Which have achieved what??

Junkyard Tom

Iwasfrozen is pretending he cares about violence which is simply not true. I would respect a pacifist if he was condemning violence because they have a degree of credibility.

IWF, on the other hand, only cares about his unbridled hatred of Republicans and Nationalists which is why you won't read anything by him about the horrific violence of British colonialism in Ireland or that of the RUC/UDR or British Army in the north in more recent times.

Iwasfrozen

tomwaterford wrote: »

Which have achieved what??

The potential for independence without a single shot fired.

Junkyard Tom

opiniated wrote: »

A partial victory, it's true - but still a victory compared to 6 Counties.

They don't even really have six any more. Unionists are a minority in a number of counties and many of them live under the auspices of nationalist councils.

Muff Richardson

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

George Washington was certainly a terrorist in his time as well as a traitor but thankfully the American War of Independence is one of the few tines armed resistance has not led to decades of needless death and violence. Unlike 1916.

ye know one of those lads that frantically googles facts and then tries to pass it off as his own general knowledge....but still comes across as a complete thicko, this is it in its essence



mod: BANNED

tomwaterford

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The potential for independence without a single shot fired.

So in other words nothing??

dubscottie

Skipping through the posts..

The usual English=Bad thing... Rabble rabble.. Scotland!

Its all the usual left wing nuts that want a Communist state (same posters as in the politics forum)

Everyone keeps calling it colonialism.. Ireland was not.. It got the same treatment as the rest of the regions of the UK got.. Highland clearances in Scotland?? May want to look it up..

And I am Scottish and would have voted NO for independence.. Am I Scottish or a Brit..

Iwasfrozen

tomwaterford wrote: »

So in other words nothing??

Political independence in the presence of personal freedom is meaningless and not worth the cost of a single life.

tomwaterford

[quote="dubscottie;
Everyone keeps calling it colonialism.. Ireland was not.. It got the same treatment as the rest of the regions of the UK got.. Highland clearances in Scotland?? May want to look it up..[/quote]

This makes it ok how???

Just because they are willing to put up with it deosnt mean the Irish have to?


Take a look at how ireland has come along since independence vs the rest of the UK outside of London