Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Wolfe Tones

13468913

Comments

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Let me guess - you "learned" your history outside of the Republic.

    The British army was initially brought in to support all sides in the North and "restore law and order". The catholic communities had ZERO faith in the RUC and it was assumed that the British Army would be more accepted which in the beginning they were.

    They were brought in to try and stem the riots in the Nationalist communities that was directly caused by the UKs policies in the North namely discrimination against the Nationalist population, RUC brutality against the Nationalists, rigged voting, unequal housing laws etc.

    However the Nationalist communities started to regard the Army as being part of this discrmination (which they were) and the IRA stepped up to fill a void.

    Thats what started the conflict - The IRA didnt just appear overnight to start bombing and shooting police and army members.It was a long time brewing.

    The conflict was caused directly by a state (The UK) invading another country and trying to ethnically cleanse (probably a bit harsh of a word to use) the existing population by discrimination, unlawful arrests and targetted harrassment of the existing population.

    Remember the IRA were never defeated in this conflict and for that I would be a supporter - however I never agreed with some of their policies or operations but I also never agreed with indiscriminate shooting by the supposed "peace keepers" of the British Army either.

    All parties involved had some policies and operations that one or other person would have a problem with. But remember it was a war - civilian casualties will always be part of any war.

    You just have to look at whats happening with the legacy bill in the UK - Are they afraid that more atrocities carried out by the UK forces will be revealed??


    Its part of our (The Republics) history and will for ever be a bone of contention between one group and another.

    Thankfully we have a peace process in place that has held and these atrocities (by both sides) are behind us.

    But we can still sing about the conflict - its part of our heritage whether you like the band singing the songs or not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭TokTik


    Nonsense. If Russia hadn’t gotten involved, we’d live in a very different world now. The Allies would judge been routed in WW2



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Russia was not invaded until 1941. Let us not forget that the UK and its commonwealth allies ( Canada, Australia etc ) had been fighting the Axis powers ( Germany, Austria, Italy) for 2 years by then. Without the UK, we'd also live in a very different world now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    So you admit the British Army were welcomed by the Catholic community.

    The notion the Provos weren't defeated reminds me of that Monty Python "let's call it a draw" sketch.

    The Provos failed and failed utterly. Their aim was a united Ireland by force. They never advanced that aim one iota.

    The notion they weren't defeated is laughable.

    The bizarre thing about the Troubles is the outcome at the end of it all - the Good Friday Agreement - was a comprehensive victory for Unionism, yet the Unionists like to delude themselves into thinking they lost, whereas it's the opposite on the Provo side - they lost and lost big but delude themselves into thinking they won.

    Delusion is a terrible thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    The UK would have been crushed if not for the Soviet Union. We'd all be speaking German and there would be many people defending all the crimes of the nazi empire.

    While now we all speak English and many people defend the crimes of the British empire. So maybe not so different.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    The Western Allies would won anyway, it just would have taken a bit longer. America's firepower was so overwhelming it would have crushed the Nazis. Stalin himself admitted that without American aid the Soviets (you seem determined to erase the role of the other Soviet republics besides Russia) would have lost.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Let me guess - you got your history from the pages of an Phoblocht? You are right about one thing though, the IRA did not appear overnight causing trouble. There was the failed 1956- 1962 Border campaign by the IRA, for example. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. I bet few if any of the crowd at the Wolfe Tones knew that. At the start of the troubles, 20% of the UDR were Catholics. There were more Catholics in the security services, trying to uphold law and order, than in terrorist organisations like the IRA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    In 1940 alone - when the UK and commonwealth were up to their neck fighting Nazism - The Soviet Union rapidly became Germany’s main source of imported animal feed ( Germany, contrary to popular belief, relied heavily on horses etc for transportation). In 1940 the Soviet Union also supplied Germany with 74 per cent of its phosphates needs, 67 per cent of its asbestos imports, 65 per cent of its chromium supplies, 55 per cent of its manganese, 40 per cent of its nickel imports and 34 per cent of its imported oil.

    Of course, a few years later, convoys were going from the UK to Russia, with aid to fight the Nazis. In the period from 1st October, 1941, to 31st March, 1946, the UK supplied to the Soviet Union 5,218 tanks, of which 1,388 were from Canada. The UK supplied 7,411 aircraft, including 3,129 aircraft sent from the United States of America. As previously explained on the 10th May, 1944, the aircraft from the United States of America were sent on United States Lend Lease to the Soviet Union as part of the British commitment to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for the supply of British aircraft to United States Forces in the European Theatre. The UK also sent about £120 million ( a fortune in them days) of raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies and hospital equipment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,434 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    In the late 80’s and early 90’s I dare say South Armagh felt like a war zone as the IRA and SAS went at it multiple times.

    But again, the very clear factual distinction is the reality of censorship and propaganda before 1994 and its absence in broadcasting and media rules thereafter. There was somewhat of a transition period between 1994 and the IRA decommissioning, as media continued to be influenced by what were operational norms during censorship. But we are now coming on two decades of media content that is free to discuss the conflict as it was, warts and all.

    Your fundamental issue is that - without censorship - the ‘FG Middle Ireland’ view of the “troubles” simply doesn’t hold. The youth of today will never see things as you do, because they will never be exposed to the biased snapshots that you were. It is what it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,814 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    You're going to have a bit of wait for that demographic to reach 0%.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭event


    There was 3500 people watching them in a field on the August Bank holiday weekend in Armagh. They will sell out the 3 Arena easily enough I reckon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Not sure where you get your history, possibly from youth Fine Gael.

    The IRA were finished. They barely had any numbers. It was over. Then the UVF decided to start a bombing campaign and killed innocent Nationalists from 1966. Many Unionists were unhappy with Nationalists receiving equal rights and wanted to quash any campaign for it. We know of the police force violently opposing peaceful demonstrations, loyalist mobs started burning Nationalists out of their homes. Northern Nationalists were isolated and received no support from the South. They also received very little support from the Southern IRA. You may be aware of the I Ran Away graffiti.

    Into the breach emerged the PIRA and we should be all grateful that they did. They defended their communities. Many died or spent years in prison for doing so. We all know that some did some horrible things but we have to remember that they had the local police force beating and murdering Nationalists, loyalist mobs saying any Catholic will do in their murder campaign, the British armed forces which were meant to restore peace started shooting innocents dead on our streets. Under this sort of sustained attack and with very little outside support, the PIRA fought bravely and stuck with targeting active participants for the huge majority of their operations.

    The opposite was true for the British side. Why the PIRA are being criticised for fighting against tyranny while the British side are receiving praise is down to a media campaign lasting decades and partitionists trying to rewrite history. Gladly more people are seeing through this. Many of the young people going to the Wolf Tones also see through the revisionism. The PIRA are heroes to many and rightfully so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    I don't take my view of the Troubles from Fine Gael, I've developed my views myself through actually remembering a decade of it and from extensive reading and documentary watching and talking to people who lived through it.

    Most of the youth of today know diddly squat about what happened in the Troubles or how it started. That's certainly true of the eejits that chant "Up The Ra".

    The belief that the Provos were the good guys spreads in the same way other reactionary conspiracy theories spread - anti-vaccine stuff, Covid conspiracies, belief that 15 minute cities are some sort of authoritarian plot, the belief that immigrants are to blame for all of society's troubles, the batshlt belief that America rather than Russia is to blame for the current barbaric war Russia is waging in Ukraine. It's a product of our current disastrous information environment, where Disney level beliefs proliferate everywhere because gullible people with low concentration spans and a psychological craving to feel they have uncovered hidden "truths" are easy fodder.

    South Armagh was undoubtedly a very dangerous place in the 1970s up to 1990s. It was a very dangerous place precisely because the Provos desired from the outset to make it a dangerous place, and did so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    I'm in my late 50's so lived through the section 31 era in the South. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Are you saying that if Section 31 hadn't existed, there would have been much more, open, active support for the Provo's campaign in the South? If so, it's a fallacy. Section 31 as I recall it was more of a token gesture than anything else - you could still hear Gerry Adams and co. being interviewed on TV but with the ludicrous charade of having an actor dubbing his words. Anyone seriously interested in what was going on could easily find out by reading a good enough spread of media coverage from multiple sources, both "official" and unoffical independent coverage, interviews and of course following the dally litany of atrocities on both sides. The existence of Section 31 didn't turn me against "the armed struggle". It was the endless atrocities and the feeble apologies of "oh sorry we made another mistake but it's really the Brit's fault because if they weren't here there'd be no armed struggle etc. etc. ad nauseum."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    No. Can't understand how you'd even make that connection. FG might be desperate to demonise SF at every opportunity but it'll be FG's failings on housing and other issues that'll lose them the next election.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    I never disputed they were welcomed- but only up until they became as bad as the RUC with their beatings / shootings at peaceful protests in an attempt to completely suppress the nationalist population.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    It was extremist Republicans who were shooting first, and who planted well over 99% of the 16,000 or so bombs during their failed 3 decade long campaign to get the British out.

    As some would say, sad that the WT are spitting on the graves of thousands of murdered, many of whom were Catholics.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Absolute gibberish, just like everything else you've posted in this thread.

    Lend Lease accounted for just 15% of all the items the Russians used (that's a generous assessment) and it's main impact was only felt in 1944 during Bagration. By that stage there was only going to be one outcome in WWII.

    However, the Russians won all their major battles against the Germans in previous years using their own equipment primarily. The Russians stopped the Germans at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk using Russian made material, first and foremost.

    80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front.

    Lend Lease may have helped shorten the war, but it absolutely did not win it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    'However it is a credit to the people of Ireland that 99% of people did not go.'

    😂😂 Its a tent at a music festival, its not like 3 million people were just going to rock up there but decided to boycott it for moral reasons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    It was boots on the ground that also helped the Russians. The British sent 15,000,000 pairs of boots to the USSR. The Russians quite liked these, mainly because they kept their feet relatively warm. It was not just the airplanes etc the British sent the Russians which helped win the war. There were some Irishmen on those Artic convoys, brave men they were, more than a few perished.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    Stalin and Khrushchev disagree with you, but apparently you know more than they did.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    The major thing Britain managed to do in 1940 and 41 was survive. But the simple fact is that the Germans were never going to be able to get across the Channel to actually invade. They had no way of doing this. The best the Germans could hope for was for Britain to withdraw from the the war, so they could get on with their real war aim which was to tackle Russia. Russia was the be all end all of Hitler's war.

    Churchill knew that Sealion was a bluff and that Germany could never get across to make a landing. They just didn't have the maritime vehicles to do it. The Rhine river barges lined up on the French coast were for propaganda purposes and none of them were in any way sea worthy. If the Germans had even tried to use them to cross the Channel they would have floundered before they'd gotten a quarter of the way. And if by some miracle any of them actually made it to the south coast of England they would have been destroyed on the beaches.

    Britain's contribution in the first years of the war helped Britain primarily. It's impact for the rest of Europe was pretty negligible.

    Arguably the greatest impact British forces had was in North Africa and the Atlantic, where she tied up some Italian and German during the years 1940 to 41. But these were essentially side shows compared to what was going to happen on the continent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I've spent decades studying the war and I know very well what was sent to Russia and Britain with Lend Lease. I'm the child of people that were in the Second World War and the grandchild of a man that served in the First.

    The fact of the matter, however, was that Lend Lease did NOT win the war for the Russians, nor any of the Allies for that matter. It helped, certainly, but saying that Russia would have lost without it is nonsense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Revisionist crap. The PIRA only came into existence because of loyalist attacks on innocent Nationalists and the assault on innocent protesters by the police force. Their numbers were still small until the British armed forces began their campaign of beating, harassing and murdering innocent Nationalists. You're spitting on the graves on all those who were murdered by the British side in the war with your lies and revisionism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I don't care.

    The stats and history are on my side. Lend Lease did not win the war for Russia. That was already decided before Lend Lease had its biggest impact.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    🤣 Not for the first time you've been destroyed with facts on this thread and then you resort to that childish rubbish. You just had your arse handed to you, again! Suck it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    And silly, ahistorical, nonsense sums you up. 😉



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 266 ✭✭Ronald Binge Redux


    Sure the Wolfe Tones are great craic. Especially Flow River Flow. Powerful stuff.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    Will you leave the country when we vote in people like Maurice Quinlivan as minister for defence and Gerry Adams as president?

    The likes of yourself, Joe Duffy, Fintan O'Toole and others are merely feeding into the SF momentum



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Tying up Germany on the Eastern front was hardly a mere detail?

    I have never seen anyone claim before that Russia's fighting was negligible to winning the war. That is an extraordinary claim. Usually debate is over whether Russia or USA deserves more 'credit'.

    Even the surrender of Japan is attributed by some historians in whole or in part to the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on 7 August 1945, followed by the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria.

    The Soviet invasion of Manchuria began the same day that the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, August 9 1945.

    Fun fact:

    During the course of WWII, more than one third of the world's population was ruled by either Japan or Germany - making the Axis powers (I think, open to correction) the most successful imperialists in history (based like I said on x% of world population ruled rather than land-mass or whatever) albeit very briefly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,751 ✭✭✭An Claidheamh


    Google “Kitson Kenya” -

    that war criminal was sent by the British to “sort out” the Irish, yet we are expected to believe the British army were peacekeepers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Think it was just under a third but you are not far off. At the height of Axis expansion, there were an estimated 675 million people under their control - around 175 million in Europe under the Germans and around 500 million in East Asia under the Japanese. World Population at the time was something like 2.2 or 2.3 billion. World population now of course is many times that. Incredible to think that in those dark days of 1939 - 1941 it was only the UK and her commonwealth allies that stood up to Germany and the Axis countries. And that Russia supplied Germany with so much materials in 1940, before it was invaded.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    Why are you asking me to leave the country? Seems a bit threatening? Old habits die hard I suppose given that people who stood up to the Provos were frequently "asked" to leave their communities - if they were lucky.

    Gerry Adams protected paedophiles. Do you think it would be "hilarious" if people object to having a president who protected paedophiles?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    The projection is fairly dripping off this one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Absolute scumbag of the highest order he was. But of course, he was highly decorated and lauded amongst the British establishment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Not really, you had one mass murdering imperialistic force fighting another mass murdering imperialistic force. What Britain were doing in India at the same time period was along the same lines as what the Nazis were doing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,209 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Unfortunately the fellas haven’t a note in their heads, the footage of them at EP confirms…lots of mistakes…and off key warbling….

    so whatever about the appropriateness of them being there, the round about historical arguments about this that and the other.

    whatever the Wolfe Tones ‘had’ …..they quite plainly haven’t got it now… so the eejits at EP should have been a bit more discerning as regards that choice of band.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    Nobody is asking you to leave the country.

    I'm just wondering how you will cope if the shinners, as expected, romp home to "up the Ra" chants in count centres around the country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭TokTik


    I don’t think people realise how bad it was for the Irish in NI.

    No vote if you didn’t own your house, no jobs if you were Catholic so no chance of buying one. I’m sure if FFG tried to bring that rule in now the same posters would cheer lead it.

    or expect those without deeds to just push for peaceful means of representation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    They might get into Government but they won't be there long when the brutal reality of actually governing as opposed to shouting from the sidelines kicks in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Actually 2,500,000 ( two and a half million ) Indians fought in ww2 with the British, not against them, and would disagree with you. I suppose if you could get away with it, you would be telling people the British were killing hun dreds of thousands in Ireland during ww2 too. It was the other way round. Nearly 100,000 Irish people helped the British war effort. All of whom were fairly treated. DeValera and his Irish government executed a few IRA prisoners in cold blood, and there was no outcry.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,037 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    However, many more millions of Indians wanted the British out of their country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    The Irish played an extensive role in the occupation of India, You're obviously not very self aware so it's obviously not entered your mind that you yourself are comparing the Irish to the Nazis.

    Of course the notion that British occupation of India was comparable to what the Nazis did is arrant nonsense and you provide no supporting information. Colonial occupation of any kind is bad enough without people resorting to bogus, bad faith comparisons to the most abominable regime in history - a regime which such Irish nationalist heroes as Sean Russell and Dan Breen were open supporters of, incidentally.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Indian troops themselves played an extensive role in the occupation of the other British colonies.

    Empires use their colonies as a source of troops. The Ottomans used Greek jannissaires as some of their best soldiers but Greece still wanted independence from Turkish control.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    That's a disgusting post. You're using the fact that many Indians and Irish were living in poverty so joined the British army to try to excuse the mass murders committed by Britain in those countries. Millions were starved to death during the Bengal 'famine'. A tactic used by Britain for centuries as we know. In fact, the Nazis aped this tactic and it was proposed as a superior method than what they were using.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Some Irish people as members of the British army treated the natives like dirt. That's how it was done in the British armed forces. This is why those Irish people and others who fought with the British army have always been looked at as traitors. There was some mitigating factors such as extreme poverty.

    Millions were starved to death during the same timeframe as the Nazis. This is a fact. Being starved to death or put in a gas chamber still lead to the same result. So as I said, it was 2 rotten imperialistic powers fighting eachother. There wasn't much to tell them apart except that the British had far more experience at mass killings and had learnt better tactics.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Rubbish. 2.5 million Indians and hundreds of thousands of Irish people volunteered to fight with the British last century, not against them. They were treated fairly. Certainly a lot fairer than the IRA man Sean Russell and the Nazis treated their victims. Incidentally, to halfway get back on topic, do you think the crowd seeing the W. Tones  at E.P. would even have known DeValera and his Irish government executed a few IRA prisoners in cold blood, and that there was no outcry?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,011 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    The Wolfe Tones have been around for years. I remember in my younger days, anytime they played near me, there was always trouble as the people who frequented these concerts were tanked up on drink and pseudo-nationalism. They attract a certain crowd let's say, the same type of people who jump American tourists..


    I don't really get the pearl-clutching all of a sudden, but I guess there is a wider conversation on how the next and younger generation views the troubles and the PIRA. There is certainly a type of revisionism going on, on how the PIRA were plucky local boys fighting the British Army for Ireland when in fact they killed more innocent civilians and Catholics than the very security forces they were meant to be fighting.


    The PIRA were scum, utter scum and should be remembered as such. Misty-eyed romanticism about them should be challenged.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,011 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Wolfe Tones attracts the same type of people as those across the water that goes on about WWII and Germany.

    Same mentality, same nonsense, same idiots.

    At least they take the piss out of it.




Advertisement