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

The Wolfe Tones

1101113151621

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭rdwight




  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭rdwight


    Russell may not have been ideologically pro-Nazi or pro-German but by his actions he was clearly a Nazi collaborator.

    He was a perfect example of the fact that the IRA believes the pursuit of a United Ireland overrides all other moral principles. The moral repugnance of collaboration with Nazis was a paltry consideration if it furthered the cause of a United Ireland.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's frustrating how "one or the other" this argument is.

    If you remember Enniskillen and Warrington, these were soul crushing days - obviously first and foremost the atrocities themselves and the destroyed lives, but also the shadow they cast across Ireland, rightly or wrongly. Your dad/uncle being treated with suspicion when travelling to England - because of a campaign of violence on English soil by Irish people. The ceasefire in '94 was a joyous occasion.

    But of course there was context - the mistreatment of Catholics in the North was nothing short of despicable. Refugees had to flee across the border. No wonder the IRA acted as a defence for its community initially. Gerrymandering, discrimination in housing and employment, brutal security forces, internment without trial, the hooded men, Bloody Sunday, collusion. I don't forget about those for a second, and have a huge problem with loyalism/the security forces of the day. I also cannot stand whataboutism and bothsides-ism. "Both are as bad as each other" is one of the most vapid, least nuanced phrases there are when it comes to the conflict in the North.

    But the IRA went too far when it blew up pubs and a shopping centre killing young kids, and all the other innocents. I never met a moderate unionist until the 2000s - and in that decade I met four, all living down here and all absolutely the loveliest people - prior to that I didn't have the most charitable view of any unionists. I thought some might be ok-ish, but bigots deep down (apart from the late Gordon Wilson). I was never ok with any of them being killed though! Because they are just regular folk with families and friends.

    So while I don't have a beef with the Wolfe Tones in general - and am perfectly fine with them singing folk songs about Ireland's struggles, I understand how people might be hurt by "Up the 'ra". It's hardly an unreasonable thing to find offensive. As pointed out, we'd be rightly offended by a chant of "Kill all Taigs".



  • Posts: 13,688 ✭✭✭✭ Katelyn Obnoxious Swinger


    It's really not, unionists are their own worst enemy. Sinn Féin are, by far, the most popular political party on the island (hence why Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want to avoid a border poll)***

    Look, Westminster have been trying to get rid of Northern Ireland for decades.

    Even during Brexit Brexiteers were happy to get rid of Northern Ireland when they heard it costs them 10 billion to just keep somewhat afloat.

    Unionists are holding Stormont to ransom.

    Even the Tories have said within the last week that they're turning off the subsidy tap.

    Don't worry, rebel songs and marching season will still exist in a United Ireland.

    ***I think a border poll is premature because we have no idea what we're voting on - another Brexit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭geospatial


    I wonder how much of the hate for the armed struggle is borne out of guilt from a certain generation or even generations. No question the Republic were hopeless in 1922-1970 allowing what went on in NI with close to zero protest. The adults who lived down south in the early days of the troubles through early 1971 must have felt a lot of angst, this was after their fellow citizens being beaten, burnt out of their homes and then executed on the streets. And we in the south did nothing. Just like we did nothing when our children were being abused and our girls sent to a lifetime of slavery.

    I think older children of the time would have absorbed the same feelings, and then as a defense mechanism (like their parents), pivoted to condemnation of the IRA, even after the hunger strikes. Meanwhile in the North the hunger strikes cemented Sein Fein support.

    The young generation have no preconceived opinions. They were mostly born after 1994 when the troubles effectively ended, and have the anti government ethos that every young generation have. What sets them apart is they are the first Irish since early Celtic Tiger days to have a lot to complain about, specifically the unavailability of affordable accomodation. It is an actual national disgrace.

    So they will sing "Up the Ra" and it means "**** you". Get used to it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭TokTik


    Ireland should have stuck to its neutrality and that bombing most likely would never have happened. War is a serious business.



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


    Strange how you don't mention the people, including children, who the Provos murdered. You don't mention the children abused by Provo paedophiles. You don't mention the women raped by Provos. They don't seem to factor into your thinking at all.

    Sinn Fein still continues to protect these paedophiles and rapists, and their protectors.

    This "anti-government" ideology you speak of is most associated with the far right. I think it's telling that it that's far right Trump style ideology those who defend the Up The Ra are gravitating towards.

    This thread is a great example of that as we've had apologism for Nazi collaboration and silence from Provo supporters any time the reality of they protected paedophiles and rapists is brought up.

    Like with Trump's support, there's no debate on any substantial points, only shouting and grunting.

    The Wolfe Tones at their heart are about far right white ethnonationalism and a cult like white ethnonationalist mentality. We see the damage that kind of hatred does in Russia and in America. Irish nationalism is no inherently less toxic than Russian nationalism or far right white American racism and we're seeing a great demonstration of that on this thread.



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


    Ireland was a neutral country in World War II. I would have thought everybody commenting would know that?

    You appear to be blaming Ireland itself for being bombed by the Nazis.

    I must admit I didn't expect to see a poster here victim blaming Ireland for being bombed by the Nazis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭TokTik


    Neutral me bollix. German soldiers that landed in Ireland were interned here. British and Allied soldiers were sent back to the U.K. to continue in the war. Weather reports were also sent to Britain. It was because of reports from Ireland that D-Day was delayed and not a complete washout before they got to shore. That’s not neutrality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,429 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Ah right, it was the British who was at fault then? The Nazis should have just run roughshod over all of continental Europe.

    Nobody said the British are at "fault". Stop talking shite.

    So you are honestly saying that in the event of a British defeat, the Nazi's would not have invaded us at all? Even in the event of an American military build-up of arms that could be launched at Europe?

    1. Britain is at no point in the war under a threat of defeat. The only thing Hitler actually wants from Britain id for her to either butt out of his war or to, preferably, come in on his side. Either way, Germany has no real ability to defeat Britain, let alone actually occupy the country, and the best she can hope for is to marginalise her in some way.
    2. There is no indication that Hitler has any real interest in Ireland as far as occupation is concerned. He'd much rather we stay neutral and out of it entirely, which is more of a benefit to Germany as Hitler's war is about Russia.

    Laughable how out of touch you are and how your anti-Britishness clouds your reasoning. But at least you out yourself as an appeaser in the same vein as Chamberlain.

    "Anti British"...what utter tripe. My mother was an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940 and my old old man was in the Royal Engineers from 1943.

    Seriously, quit the bollocks talk. You sound like a tart.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,429 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    The North Strand was bombed by mistake. Hitler even apologised for it. German bombers weren't supposed to be anywhere near Dublin and, more than likely, their target was actually the ship yards in Belfast.

    Plus the British had been interfering with Y Gerat causing much confusion amongst Luftwaffe pathfinders.



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


    Wipe those bitter tears away about the outcome of World War II, mate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Safe to say that the provos, and the Wolfe Tones, are still doing what they do best, dividing people.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,429 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Sean Russell didn't give a damn about the nazis. What he cared about was getting the British out of Ireland entirely. If that meant making a pact with the devil, he would have done it. Much in the same way that Churchill did when he allied himself with Russia in order to achieve his war aims.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend often leads to peculiar outcomes.



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


    The Provos used to say they'd bombed a lot of places by mistake.

    Which apparently made it just fine. Apart from for their victims, like.

    The British Army frequently claimed to have shot civilians by mistake. Again , presumably that makes it fine, "honest mistake, chaps, no harm done".

    Yesterday people were telling us that it was fine to celebrate the murderers of civilians. Today those same people are crying crocodile tears over the disgraceful Tory bill to retrospectively legalise British Army murder.

    Here's a tip: if people are celebrating the murderers of civilians one day, they'd can't then with any credibility turn around and credibly object when a rotten government actually legislates to retrospectively legalise the murder of civilians. How can you credibly object to the murderers of civilians getting away scot free when you yourself are celebrating the murderers of civilians, making a big joke of it?

    SF were totally useless and stood on the sidelines cribbing. That breed of Irish nationalism has been far more interested in doing whatever the opposite of virtue signalling is - deplorable signalling to very online idiots or whatever.

    SF don't represent their people in the face of disgusting legislation like this. They won't oppose it. They just cosplay, pretending. They're all image, all talk, all performance, and no substance.

    That's really all Sinn Fein is - cosplaying to the gullible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,429 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    That's not really the case. Both allied and German personnel were arrested and interned in Irish camps during the war. But we had a very lax attitude with regards to our internment responsibilities. Mostly because it was a bit of a drag on us and partly because we had no real dog in the race as it were. A lot of servicemen who found themselves in the likes of the Curragh actually had things pretty easy. Hot meals, a bed for the night and even trips to local towns and villages. The thing was that if one or two of them went on the run, whether they were British or German, we kinda didn't care all that much.

    However it was far, far, easier for a British serviceman to find their way back to their ranks, if they so wished, than it was for a German. All the British lad had to do was make his way north. The German had to contest with the Channel and that was a very different thing entirely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,429 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    This has fuck all to do with the bombing of the North Strand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Well if the premise was true I wouldn't care, but as it's not, it's a stupid question. You have a habit of making stupid statements.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    And in doing so aligned himself with a bunch of murderous thugs who gassed and killed millions. Not a good look.

    He was also a traitor to his own government, people and country.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,082 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    The media are annoyed because they never championed this surge in popularity and the more they try and halt it the more popular it gets



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    British Security forces != Loyalists.


    The latter was deployed to protect Catholic communities from the latter. Even the IRA at the time welcomed their deployment under Operation Banner.

    The British Security Services killed more loyalists than the Irish Security Services killed Republicans. Would you say that the Irish Security services and Republicans worked hand in hand? No, you would not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Operation Paperclip began in 1945 after the 3rd Reich was defeated.

    So how on earth could they have collaborated with the Nazi regime if it was already defeated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,731 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    However, the IRA plan gave no thought to how German troops were to be brought to Derry, how control of the sea approaches was to be obtained or where and how the coast of Northern Ireland was fortified. Görtz described the plan at the time and its limitations thus: "The plan was therefore completely useless. It nearly broke my heart, since it came from the IRA Chief of Staff."[10]


    Fireside soldiers most of these old IRA heads were. Useful idiots who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. I have no idea why the likes of Sean Russell are venerated. He was a fool with Walter Mitty-like tendencies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    That statement above makes no sense, were the Irish security services as you refer to them based in Northern Ireland ?The British security services were based in Northern Ireland and worked hand in hand with loyalist terrorist groups and that is an indisputable fact. The best we could down here was the arms crisis and that was a **** up.

    Your understanding of operation banner seems to be limited also, operation banner was requested by the unionist gov of Northern Ireland at the time and the only reason Catholics welcomed it was because the ruc were so biased and as it turned out the army were worse hence the pira.

    What people seem to forget about all this is the way Catholics were treated in Northern Ireland was a bloody disgrace. Plural voting was allowed as to ensure a Protestant majority up till 1968 when one man one vote was in the rest of the UK since 1945. 12 out of 20 seats in the Derry borough in 1965 were unionist even though 65 percent of the population were catholic.

    I wonder how many in here living in a Catholic working class area in the 1960s would not of resorted to violence. Trying walking in my shoes....



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


    The treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland was a disgrace. How does that legitimise a totally futile 27 year murder campaign?

    The treatment of women in Ireland at that time was a disgrace, and was for a long time afterwards. Should there thus have been a 27 year murder campaign by a freelance group of female terrorist all-stars?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    Stupid comparison, were women denied a vote, a job, basic civil rights ? . Riddle me this if you were a Catholic on the bogside with no vote, no job, no rights what would you do ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,790 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    If you were there you know most Catholics didn't support the IRA. They were terrorists, they only represented themselves.

    There were injustices, there was sectarianism which we were generally at the wrong end of, but your average person did not support the IRA. That doesn't mean there was support for the Brits either, but from a very early stage your average person knew the campaign was wrong.

    It's spun a lot differently now, but that is the reality. It was murder and terror, carried out mostly by thugs. I think young people would like to think there was much more justification or support than there actually was.

    It has set back Ireland by at least a generation, the division now is far worse than it was in the 60s when I first arrived in Belfast. It's not as bad as it was in the worst of the Troubles obviously.

    I live in the South now. Things could be far different now if it wasn't for the IRA. They destroyed many lives and their stupid campaign ended up reinforcing partition rather than ending it. If the Civil Rights campaign hadn't been overtaken by the so-called 'hard men' things would be so much better.



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


    It's not a stupid comparison. It's a comparison of the reaction of two different marginalised groups in societies.

    Women were heavily discriminated against in the Ireland of the late 1960s.

    Marital rape was legal.

    Contraception was illegal - it was primarily women who were forced to deal with the consequences of that.

    Young women who got pregnant were routinely packed off to mother and baby homes and had their children taken off them when they were born.

    Women were not allowed work in the civil service if they were married.

    Divorce was illegal - it was women who took the brunt of abusive relationships.

    Abortion was illegal.

    There were pubs which banned women.

    We still have a reference in the constitution to a woman's place in the home, we're having a referendum on it in November.

    The whole of society was geared towards women not advancing in careers, not being allowed to work in traditionally "male" jobs and in general mainly being vessels to produce children. "Knowing their place" in other words. A bit like Catholics in NI.

    Womens' lot back then was ****.

    Would the appropriate response have been a 27 year murder campaign?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,889 ✭✭✭growleaves


    This thread has turned into a full-out debate about the Troubles.

    But the question was is it okay to like a band that make controversial music... (that blatantly 'takes sides')...?

    Worth nothing btw that Christy Moore sings a ballad celebrating Frank Ryan, who - like Russell - was an IRA man who collaborated with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

    Christy Moore also has a song celebrating Castro, Guevara and comrades in Cuba - who summarily executed people without trial, imprisoned homosexuals in dungeons and sent them to labour camps, committed war crimes in Angola etc., etc.



Advertisement