PDA

View Full Version : Commemorating WW1



Richardbouvet
06-08-2014, 02:30 PM
Commemoration of the 1914-18 bloodbath is bound to be a sensitive area for progressives, both in Ireland and elsewhere.

My own inclination would be to remember the thousands of Irishmen who served, but to do so in a way that does not endorse the allied or central powers "cause" in that war. I would broadly agree with the statement put out by the Irish Anti war Movement:

August 2014 marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. Far from being a “war to end all wars” or a “victory for democracy”, the war was a military disaster and a catastrophe for humankind which left 16 million dead and 20 million wounded, many horribly so. Britain alone suffered almost 900,000 military deaths and a further 124,000 civilian deaths. Life in the trenches was a living hell. Desertions were punished by firing squad. Those who survived were deeply scarred with many suffering debilitating long-term effects. The war became a testing ground for new mechanised techniques of mass killing with the development of tanks, gas warfare and aerial bombing that encouraged huge profiteering through the armaments industry. In the US alone, for example, war profits saw the creation of 21,000 new millionaires.
The dominant, simplistic justification for World War 1 is that it was a tragically necessary expedient to halt German domination of Europe. We believe it is important to remember that this war was driven by the major imperial powers’ competition for influence around the globe. It was an unnecessary slaughter conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Many of the lies told to justify the war on all sides at the time resonate today as young men are cajoled into fighting wars for spurious reasons.
We believe it is vitally important that the sacrifice of the 49,000 soldiers from the island of Ireland who died in World War 1 should be commemorated. We also believe that the supposed good cause for which they died should be exposed for the imperial slaughter that it was. We are not in any way disrespecting the memory of dead Irish soldiers by criticizing the architects of this carnage but we dispute the revisionist narrative idealising the ‘good cause’ that these soldiers died for, a narrative often used to supposedly bridge the nationalist and unionist traditions.
We call on the Irish government not to use the occasion of the commemorations to justify the slaughter of World War 1, or to justify the ongoing militarisation of Europe or the current state of perpetual warfare being promoted by the major world powers. In a time of serious international tension and seemingly perpetual war, we call on everyone, but especially Governments, to ensure that this anniversary is used to expose the real reasons behind World War 1, to analyse the senseless succession of wars in the intervening hundred years, and to promote peace and international co-operation in an effort to end all war forever.

Saoirse go Deo
06-08-2014, 05:30 PM
We need to counteract the "they died for our freedom" guff and remember that it was those at home fighting the British army who died for that cause.

John Redmond has a huge amount of blood on his hands, the needless deaths of thousands of Irishmen.

riposte
06-08-2014, 06:42 PM
We need to counteract the "they died for our freedom" guff and remember that it was those at home fighting the British army who died for that cause.


But Saoirse ... a large number of them went on to join the IRA and fight in the War of Independence. Sometimes people forget that it was not the Easter Rising that delivered Irish freedom ....... but the 4 years of War between 1918 and 1922...... incidently ........led by Michael Collins.

C. Flower
06-08-2014, 07:16 PM
I think words like "sacrifice" and "commemoration" are entirely out of place.

They were sold down the river by the Second International of supposed socialists that broke itself up so that workers could slaugher workers without hindrance. Never again.

http://www.marxist.com/4th-august-1914-the-great-betrayal-and-collapse-of-the-second-international.htm



Commemoration of the 1914-18 bloodbath is bound to be a sensitive area for progressives, both in Ireland and elsewhere.

My own inclination would be to remember the thousands of Irishmen who served, but to do so in a way that does not endorse the allied or central powers "cause" in that war. I would broadly agree with the statement put out by the Irish Anti war Movement:

August 2014 marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. Far from being a “war to end all wars” or a “victory for democracy”, the war was a military disaster and a catastrophe for humankind which left 16 million dead and 20 million wounded, many horribly so. Britain alone suffered almost 900,000 military deaths and a further 124,000 civilian deaths. Life in the trenches was a living hell. Desertions were punished by firing squad. Those who survived were deeply scarred with many suffering debilitating long-term effects. The war became a testing ground for new mechanised techniques of mass killing with the development of tanks, gas warfare and aerial bombing that encouraged huge profiteering through the armaments industry. In the US alone, for example, war profits saw the creation of 21,000 new millionaires.
The dominant, simplistic justification for World War 1 is that it was a tragically necessary expedient to halt German domination of Europe. We believe it is important to remember that this war was driven by the major imperial powers’ competition for influence around the globe. It was an unnecessary slaughter conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Many of the lies told to justify the war on all sides at the time resonate today as young men are cajoled into fighting wars for spurious reasons.
We believe it is vitally important that the sacrifice of the 49,000 soldiers from the island of Ireland who died in World War 1 should be commemorated. We also believe that the supposed good cause for which they died should be exposed for the imperial slaughter that it was. We are not in any way disrespecting the memory of dead Irish soldiers by criticizing the architects of this carnage but we dispute the revisionist narrative idealising the ‘good cause’ that these soldiers died for, a narrative often used to supposedly bridge the nationalist and unionist traditions.
We call on the Irish government not to use the occasion of the commemorations to justify the slaughter of World War 1, or to justify the ongoing militarisation of Europe or the current state of perpetual warfare being promoted by the major world powers. In a time of serious international tension and seemingly perpetual war, we call on everyone, but especially Governments, to ensure that this anniversary is used to expose the real reasons behind World War 1, to analyse the senseless succession of wars in the intervening hundred years, and to promote peace and international co-operation in an effort to end all war forever.

Saoirse go Deo
06-08-2014, 07:42 PM
But Saoirse ... a large number of them went on to join the IRA and fight in the War of Independence. Sometimes people forget that it was not the Easter Rising that delivered Irish freedom ....... but the 4 years of War between 1918 and 1922...... incidently ........led by Michael Collins.

How does that change what I said? No one who died during WW1 died for anyone's freedom, never mind that of Ireland.

It was not a one man show.

riposte
06-08-2014, 08:03 PM
How does that change what I said? No one who died during WW1 died for anyone's freedom, never mind that of Ireland.



Well I guess the Belgians who fought the German invader in the first two weeks of the War without any assistance from elsewhere .... were fighting for their country.

Ireland is not the only country in the history of the world ..... that fought for its freedom.

morticia
06-08-2014, 08:21 PM
But Saoirse ... a large number of them went on to join the IRA and fight in the War of Independence. Sometimes people forget that it was not the Easter Rising that delivered Irish freedom ....... but the 4 years of War between 1918 and 1922...... incidently ........led by Michael Collins.

That is an excellent point, Riposte, the survivors of WW1 were battle hardened veterans handily delivered back home with the experience to lend Michael C a useful helping hand. Any figures on how many fought and whether that was likely to have swung it for Collins?
Well, that should give Republicans an interesting reason to commemorate WW1 😉

Saoirse go Deo
06-08-2014, 08:36 PM
That is an excellent point, Riposte, the survivors of WW1 were battle hardened veterans handily delivered back home with the experience to lend Michael C a useful helping hand. Any figures on how many fought and whether that was likely to have swung it for Collins?
Well, that should give Republicans an interesting reason to commemorate WW1 ��

Even more joined the Free State army... and look at what they got up to.

morticia
06-08-2014, 08:44 PM
Even more joined the Free State army... and look at what they got up to.

Oh, do you mean fighting the civil war? 😰

fluffybiscuits
06-08-2014, 08:56 PM
@Saoirse

The men who joined the army in World War 1 I feel did more so out of economic necessity rather than wanting to fight per se. Irelands economy was very much in the position of the North is now, vast swathes of people were employed in the civil service. What was a largely agarian society back in the early 19th century became heavy industrialised. To access the civil service, an open competition was held and the people needed to have a good standard of education. The outfall from this was those that did not have access to a good education as it was considered at the time, meaning that they either worked in the diminishing agarian sector or moved into occupations like the army which allowed unskilled men to earn a wage. This situation still very much occurs today in the US where a lot of recruits are targetted from areas with high levels of social inequality, fodder for the machine.

Thats just from my reading of it.

We could say British oppression lead to economic inequality which lead to a large number of people joining the British army....

morticia
06-08-2014, 09:02 PM
Good point, Fluffy. Also true of the Welsh Valleys today..lots of them sent off as cannon fodder to Iraq. Sigh. I always feel that supporting and commemorating the soldiers is really important for that reason.
Anger should be reserved for the "masters of war". As Bob Dylan put it. Those politicians who never fought themselves but are happy to deploy others to die in pursuit of their madcap schemes.

fluffybiscuits
06-08-2014, 09:06 PM
Good point, Fluffy. Also true of the Welsh Valleys today..lots of them sent off as cannon fodder to Iraq. Sigh. I always feel that supporting and commemorating the soldiers is really important for that reason.
Anger should be reserved for the "masters of war". As Bob Dylan put it. Those politicians who never fought themselves but are happy to deploy others to die in pursuit of their madcap schemes.

+1

Despots who throw these people into the war machine, the peoiple should gather and ******* the despots out of power. Its a situation repeated over and over all over the world...

riposte
06-08-2014, 09:15 PM
Even more joined the Free State army... and look at what they got up to.

There's something wrong with with your calendar Saoirse ....... the Free State army didn't exist during WWI.

.....and it might be an unpalatable fact to you that Michael Collins led the fight for Irish freedom between 1918 and 1922....... but that's a fact .... and any attempt to deny it is devoid of logic..... and delusional. Collins was Chief-of-Staff of the IRA.

Saoirse go Deo
06-08-2014, 09:27 PM
There's something wrong with with your calendar Saoirse ....... the Free State army didn't exist during WWI.

.....and it might be an unpalatable fact to you that Michael Collins led the fight for Irish freedom between 1918 and 1922....... but that's a fact .... and any attempt to deny it is devoid of logic..... and delusional.

Mortica was talking about the "survivors" of WW1 and what they did after. Many joined the Free State army. You're laggng behind in the conversation.

Collins was not "leading the fight for Irish Freedom" in 1922. He was leading the fight against it. The Tan War ended around mid 1921. I think it's your calender which needs adjusting :)

In any case I wasn't denigrating anything, I merely said that it was not a one man show - many people played their part. Collins was not solely responsible for the successes of the Tan war nor was he solely responsible for the success of the counter revolution which followed. He played major roles in both.

Trow
06-08-2014, 10:42 PM
Sometimes people forget that it was not the Easter Rising that delivered Irish freedom ....... but the 4 years of War between 1918 and 1922...... incidently ........led by Michael Collins.

And sometime people forget that the actual war for Irish freedom [32 Counties] has'nt been won yet.

TotalMayhem
06-08-2014, 11:30 PM
I think words like "sacrifice" and "commemoration" are entirely out of place.

I wonder if RTÉ "commemorates" the Irish soldiers who were "shot at dawn" by the Brits for military offenses.

IIRC, the figure was exceptionally high compared to other ethnic groups and the size of their respective contingents.

riposte
06-08-2014, 11:55 PM
And sometime people forget that the actual war for Irish freedom [32 Counties] has'nt been won yet.

"War is Over...if you want it!".. John Lennon

Trow
07-08-2014, 12:20 AM
"War is Over...if you want it!".. John Lennon

No, riposte.....only the strategy has changed.

Dr. FIVE
07-08-2014, 01:33 AM
good read from Brian Hanley

http://www.lookleftonline.org/2014/08/look-back-in-anger/

Binn Beal
07-08-2014, 08:43 AM
Great article from Seumas Milne on Israel in today's Guardian contains this observation:


David Cameron claims it [WWI] was fought for freedom. In reality, it was a savage industrial slaughter perpetrated by a gang of imperial powers to carve up territories, markets and resources.

Far from defending democracy or the rights of small nations, Britain and France ended the war divvying up the defeated German and Ottoman empires between them, from Iraq to Palestine. A century on, we’re still living with the consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/gaza-crime-washington-jerusalem-carnage-western-support

Richardbouvet
07-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Quite a good piece by Martina Devlin in the Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/martina-devlin/military-displays-at-remembrance-events-are-a-grotesque-offence-to-the-war-dead-30489002.html

Apjp
08-08-2014, 12:33 PM
Well I guess the Belgians who fought the German invader in the first two weeks of the War without any assistance from elsewhere .... were fighting for their country.

Ireland is not the only country in the history of the world ..... that fought for its freedom.

Hang on just a second now. Belgium was an imperial power with imperial interests, just like the others. The fact it was a small imperial power does not change that fact.

You may just as well say Congolese men serving in that army, if indeed there were any left able to serve again Belgium was through murdering and traumatising and stealing from them, were somehow fighting for the promise of some limited Freedom. A Congolese man would be ashamed of any retrospective endorsement of Belgian rule, and we ought to feel that way here too.

Apjp
08-08-2014, 12:35 PM
That is an excellent point, Riposte, the survivors of WW1 were battle hardened veterans handily delivered back home with the experience to lend Michael C a useful helping hand. Any figures on how many fought and whether that was likely to have swung it for Collins?
Well, that should give Republicans an interesting reason to commemorate WW1 😉

Collins did not win the war, lest we forget. It was a stalemate. Arguably the best he could do, but he didn't win.

Apjp
08-08-2014, 12:37 PM
I wonder if RTÉ "commemorates" the Irish soldiers who were "shot at dawn" by the Brits for military offenses.

IIRC, the figure was exceptionally high compared to other ethnic groups and the size of their respective contingents.

Interesting. more info please???

TotalMayhem
08-08-2014, 01:00 PM
Interesting. more info please???


Irish troops in the British Army appear to have been treated with particular harshness. They constituted just two per cent of the membership of the force, yet they were the recipients of eight per cent of all death sentences imposed by its courts-martial.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I)

26 have since been retroactively pardoned.

Trow
08-08-2014, 01:55 PM
I've often thought about how the Irish Volunteers were treated by the Ulster Volunteers in the trenches. In the days before the outbreak of World War 1 they were poised to do battle with each other in a Civil War.

And then there were the colonial Asian and African soldiers fighting under Britain and France.......for their freedom. And ours we're told.

I've little doubt although i was'nt there at the time, that many men there had cause to ponder the real meaning of freedom when faced with the choice of climbing up out of a trench into almost certain death or be shot dead anyway.

Slaves to a war machine.

TotalMayhem
08-08-2014, 03:24 PM
They weren't told such nonsense as "fighting for freedom", back in the day it was all about "King and country". And most of the Irish volunteers volunteered for what they usually volunteer for: money. In 1918 the Brits tried to introduce conscription but that didn't go down all that well.

riposte
08-08-2014, 03:37 PM
I've often thought about how the Irish Volunteers were treated by the Ulster Volunteers in the trenches.


"I am sorry that party politics should ever divide our own tents but am not without hope that a new Ireland will emerge form her ashes in the ruins of Dublin like the Phoenix with one purpose one aim and one ambition. I will tell you this in order that you may know what it is to me to be called a British soldier while my own country has no place amongst the nations but the place of Cinderella."

Francis Ledwidge 1917.

One of Ledwidge's closest comrades at the front........ was one Bob Christie ....... a Northern Unionist.

Trow
08-08-2014, 05:28 PM
"I am sorry that party politics should ever divide our own tents but am not without hope that a new Ireland will emerge form her ashes in the ruins of Dublin like the Phoenix with one purpose one aim and one ambition. I will tell you this in order that you may know what it is to me to be called a British soldier while my own country has no place amongst the nations but the place of Cinderella."

Francis Ledwidge 1917.

One of Ledwidge's closest comrades at the front........ was one Bob Christie ....... a Northern Unionist.

I think when placed in such a unique environment that is trench warfare, you'd come to know the man beside you.

Same with Prison/Slave camps.

Were Ledwidge and Christie acquainted prior to the outbreak of war?

riposte
08-08-2014, 06:14 PM
Collins did not win the war, lest we forget. It was a stalemate. Arguably the best he could do, but he didn't win.

As with the Provos in the North ...... Collins brought the overlord to the negotiating table.

riposte
08-08-2014, 06:15 PM
I think when placed in such a unique environment that is trench warfare, you'd come to know the man beside you.

Same with Prison/Slave camps.

Were Ledwidge and Christie acquainted prior to the outbreak of war?

No.

riposte
08-08-2014, 06:20 PM
Hang on just a second now. Belgium was an imperial power with imperial interests, just like the others. The fact it was a small imperial power does not change that fact.

You may just as well say Congolese men serving in that army, if indeed there were any left able to serve again Belgium was through murdering and traumatising and stealing from them, were somehow fighting for the promise of some limited Freedom. A Congolese man would be ashamed of any retrospective endorsement of Belgian rule, and we ought to feel that way here too.

Nonetheless .. a Belgian fighting the German invader in the First World War .. or the Second World War .... was a freedom fighter.

I repeat .... Ireland is not the only country in the History of the World that fought for its freedom.

Trow
09-08-2014, 03:34 PM
They weren't told such nonsense as "fighting for freedom", back in the day it was all about "King and country". And most of the Irish volunteers volunteered for what they usually volunteer for: money. In 1918 the Brits tried to introduce conscription but that didn't go down all that well.

And for one Division it was for ''God and Ulster'' [36th Ulster Division] Found this article in a Northern newspaper...

Quote.. Nationalists, for whom the establishment of an Irish ‘home rule’ parliament in Dublin had been the principal political aim for most of the 19th century, were committed to the war effort by their leader, John Redmond, in September 1914.

This was on the grounds that the necessary legislation had been passed (though in fact it was suspended for the duration of the war), and that the ‘freedom of small nations’ (such as Belgium or Serbia) was that of Ireland as well.

The plight of gallant, Catholic little Belgium, invaded by a militaristic aggressor, was disadvantageously compared with Ireland, achieving freedom (so Redmond argued) within the British Empire, rather like Canada or Australia.

Despite some jockeying for party advantage, a substantial proportion of the UVF enlisted to form the predominantly unionist and almost wholly Protestant 36th (Ulster) Division.

Nationalists, themselves mostly Catholic, joined the other two of Lord Kitchener’s ‘New Army’ divisions raised in Ireland: the 10th (Irish) and 16th (Irish) Divisions.

But Irishmen joined up for more than political reasons.

Some were simply after adventure, like Tom Barry, later to become a noted IRA commander, who enlisted in June 1915 ‘to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man’.

For others there was an economic motive. James Connolly, the socialist revolutionary, said that employment opportunities were so bad in Ireland that men had no choice but to enlist. It was, he asserted, ‘economic conscription’. Certainly an unskilled worker might more than double his pay by joining up. unquote. http://www.ballymenatimes.com/news/local-news/ballymena-1914-nationalists-and-the-recruitment-campaign-1-6228972

A song....''For God and Ulster''


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bPFzsvUJI

C. Flower
09-08-2014, 08:21 PM
What's this with "commemorating" the deaths of people who died like cattle fighting in imperialist wars?

Everyone dies. Do we "commemorate" people who die of heart attacks and emphysemia ?

But someone who dies while trying to butcher fellow human beings because they were told to do it is "commemorated."

riposte
09-08-2014, 09:08 PM
What's this with "commemorating" the deaths of people who died like cattle fighting in imperialist wars?

Everyone dies. Do we "commemorate" people who die of heart attacks and emphysemia ?



As a matter of fact we do ....... our family get together every year to commemorate (remember together)our father who died of a heart attack.

The above is a very silly argument which amounts to saying that nothing should ever be commemorated ..... which is an attempt to deny of an essential component of human nature.

Apjp
10-08-2014, 12:27 AM
Nonetheless .. a Belgian fighting the German invader in the First World War .. or the Second World War .... was a freedom fighter.

I repeat .... Ireland is not the only country in the History of the World that fought for its freedom.

Er no. It was an empire fighting another empire who had invaded it.

They were fighting for their overlords, no matter what the nationality was.

Apjp
10-08-2014, 12:29 AM
It is a silly argument, but the sentiment is right. It's glorification while other reasons for other uses of violence are deplored by the elites.

lastman
10-08-2014, 10:21 AM
I logged on to see if anyone had caught the discussion programme chaired by John Bowman on the Irish attitudes to WW-1. Three historians were joined on the panel by artist Bobby Ballagh who displayed the ignorance of history characteristic of ideologues who cling to their prejudicial viewpoint- in his case Irish Republicanism with a dash of socialism- in the face of any contrary evidence. The very first sentence out of his mouth contained a gross error on the status of the Home Rule Bill that a schoolboy could correct. How people like him have the neck to go on national TV to pontificate on matters they are too lazy or smug to educate themselves about is beyond me. Alas reading the posts in this thread I detect similar attitudes among some contributors and a very sketchy knowledge of all aspects of the war domestic and international.

The commemoration of the thousands of Irishmen who served and died in the war is not primarily to produce "a narrative often used to supposedly bridge the nationalist and unionist traditions." as Richardbouvet has it in his introduction. It is firstly to right an historic wrong done to those men who through no fault of their own ended up on "the wrong side of history" in the new State. They were written out of Irish history and many suffered prejudice and discrimination on account of it. This intensified after the Fianna Fail victory of 1932- the counter-revolution of the Irregulars, who had some old scores to settle. The irony is that they endured a far longer and deadlier war with far more suffering and global consequence than any who fought in the War of Independence (a provincial bun-fight in comparison). Some joined the IRA on return (did anyone mention Tom Barry) but the majority probably never wanted to see a rifle again.

Of course the Redmond bashers are out again. The rational for the National Volunteers to fight was to demonstrate that Ireland would not truck with Britain's enemies then or in future but would line up alongside her. This was an important demonstration of loyalty to counter the British fear that Ireland could be used by enemies to attack her western flank, which was one of the long-standing justifications of British sovereignty here, no doubt reinforced by those generations of republicans from Tone onwards whose playbook always involved conspiring with those selfsame enemies (a tradition continued by the IRA seeking help from the Nazis to Ghaddafi). Interestingly at the outset of the peace process the IRA sought and received the assurance of "no strategic or selfish interest..." on the part of Britain in Ireland, showing they had understood this historical strategic concern now voided by the EU/NATO and the end of the Cold War.

Anachronism or "present-mindedness" is an obstacle to historical understanding. Imagination an aid. I see much of the first and little of the second in the posts above. An example: calling something "imperial" does not automatically make it evil. After 1945 a new worldwide political dispensation took hold, advanced by US attitudes and policy:
Imperialism=bad, Democracy=good.
It of course already existed in marxism and nationalism, but US hegemony after WW2 helped make it an unquestioned political value. But think! since post-war decolonisation how many people around the world in many of those old imperial lands have had cause to wish their old masters were still in power. This is emphatically not to try to justify them, only to point out that not all regimes were all bad and some were superior in some ways to those which replaced them. We can also note in passing the ethical destinations the US zeal to foster Democracy has led to.

Binn Beal
10-08-2014, 11:15 AM
This is the point where I stopped reading: "Bobby Ballagh who displayed the ignorance of history characteristic of ideologues who cling to their prejudicial viewpoint".

If you want to discuss something, then do so. If you want to bad-mouth someone, find a crayon and a toilet door.

Shaadi
10-08-2014, 12:18 PM
I logged on to see if anyone had caught the discussion programme chaired by John Bowman on the Irish attitudes to WW-1. Three historians were joined on the panel by artist Bobby Ballagh who displayed the ignorance of history characteristic of ideologues who cling to their prejudicial viewpoint- in his case Irish Republicanism with a dash of socialism- in the face of any contrary evidence. The very first sentence out of his mouth contained a gross error on the status of the Home Rule Bill that a schoolboy could correct. How people like him have the neck to go on national TV to pontificate on matters they are too lazy or smug to educate themselves about is beyond me. Alas reading the posts in this thread I detect similar attitudes among some contributors and a very sketchy knowledge of all aspects of the war domestic and international.

The commemoration of the thousands of Irishmen who served and died in the war is not primarily to produce "a narrative often used to supposedly bridge the nationalist and unionist traditions." as Richardbouvet has it in his introduction. It is firstly to right an historic wrong done to those men who through no fault of their own ended up on "the wrong side of history" in the new State. They were written out of Irish history and many suffered prejudice and discrimination on account of it. This intensified after the Fianna Fail victory of 1932- the counter-revolution of the Irregulars, who had some old scores to settle. The irony is that they endured a far longer and deadlier war with far more suffering and global consequence than any who fought in the War of Independence (a provincial bun-fight in comparison). Some joined the IRA on return (did anyone mention Tom Barry) but the majority probably never wanted to see a rifle again.

Of course the Redmond bashers are out again. The rational for the National Volunteers to fight was to demonstrate that Ireland would not truck with Britain's enemies then or in future but would line up alongside her. This was an important demonstration of loyalty to counter the British fear that Ireland could be used by enemies to attack her western flank, which was one of the long-standing justifications of British sovereignty here, no doubt reinforced by those generations of republicans from Tone onwards whose playbook always involved conspiring with those selfsame enemies (a tradition continued by the IRA seeking help from the Nazis to Ghaddafi). Interestingly at the outset of the peace process the IRA sought and received the assurance of "no strategic or selfish interest..." on the part of Britain in Ireland, showing they had understood this historical strategic concern now voided by the EU/NATO and the end of the Cold War.

Anachronism or "present-mindedness" is an obstacle to historical understanding. Imagination an aid. I see much of the first and little of the second in the posts above. An example: calling something "imperial" does not automatically make it evil. After 1945 a new worldwide political dispensation took hold, advanced by US attitudes and policy:
Imperialism=bad, Democracy=good.
It of course already existed in marxism and nationalism, but US hegemony after WW2 helped make it an unquestioned political value. But think! since post-war decolonisation how many people around the world in many of those old imperial lands have had cause to wish their old masters were still in power. This is emphatically not to try to justify them, only to point out that not all regimes were all bad and some were superior in some ways to those which replaced them. We can also note in passing the ethical destinations the US zeal to foster Democracy has led to.Oh dear, you were doing fairly okay until you went into ranting mode and then the mask slipped and your inner blueshirt/Imperialist popped up in all its confused glory.

Ending up with a utilitarian conclusion that maybe Imperialism is a lesser evil than democracy. The utilitarian position of least damage done being the best outcome, the minimal loss of life expended in achieving Independence by rebellion outweighed massively the massive loss of life expended in begging for Independence by dying in service of Empire on the fields of Flanders etc, fighting for the freedom of small countries like Belgium, France, Holland etc who were holding countless millions captive But sure by your logic, all those brown and black fellas were lucky to have massa there killing and exploiting and creating fictitious countries by drawing lines on maps that took no account of ethnicity and left the seeds of ethnic division in those created entities. Divisions that the old Imperialist and new Imperialist powers were only too happy to use to harness the discontent they relished for their cold War proxy and Resource Wars.

Sure the Redmondite line goes that "the divine providence of the famine" ( actual elimination of the peasantry to clear the land for cattle farming which had mass evictions going on a decade before the famine and after ) produced a flourishing economy. For those that grabbed the land and sold cattle it did, but for the bulk of the population it meant endless emigration. But sure isn't that what the Redmondite tradition was all about, the Big House and doffing the cap to massa while assisting him and yourself to grab as much as possible!

US Imperialism has been about hegemony over wealth and resources and geo-politics, it was and is achieved by manipulation, propping up dictators to deny democracy while claiming to be spreading democracy, their armaments industry making billions from selling weapons to people who can't afford them and giving weapons to others at the expense of the US Tax-Payer. Like perfidious Albion, what the US says and does are entirely different things, hence any UK promises to Ireland are worthless.

Go on anyways, tell us how all those famines and genocides, subjugation's at the hands of murdering foreign forces and creations of false countries under Imperial occupation were for their own good. By that logic once the Germans had settled down the natives in their conquered countries, the trains would have all run on time and the natives would then have been living in an efficient Teutonic rapture.




PS. Here's the real picture of Irish political sympathisers with the Nazis. Unlike Russel's utilitarian ( utilitarianism being a concept which you approve of ) link up with the Germans, these boys connections to FG and LAB make the Sean Russell bashing those party's supporters often engage in look very hypocritical.




Seán Treacy. LAB TD ( Ceann Comhairle (chairman) of Dáil Éireann from 1973 to 1977 )

James Walsh. Cumann na nGaedheal/FG ( Minister for Posts and Telegraphs) of the Irish Free State from 1923 to 1927.)

Ernest Blythe. Cumann na nGaedheal/FG ( in 1923 he became Minister for Finance in W. T. Cosgrave's first government. )

Oliver J. Flanagan. FG ( Minister for Defence for six months, Father of the Dáil from 1981 until his retirement in 1987 )


An "organised group of anti-Semites",[3] its sympathies were with the Axis powers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailtir%C3%AD_na_hAis%C3%A9irghe

lastman
10-08-2014, 08:12 PM
This is the point where I stopped reading: "Bobby Ballagh who displayed the ignorance of history characteristic of ideologues who cling to their prejudicial viewpoint".

If you want to discuss something, then do so. If you want to bad-mouth someone, find a crayon and a toilet door.

Very sorry to upset you like that,but ignorant is appropriate for someone who put his foot in mouth on his first sentence. I'm heartily sick of listening to him trotting out his Shinner propaganda and Student politics circa 1969. Surely RTE can find a better informed Irish Republican socialist to peddle that viewpoint.

Are you related?

Sam Lord
10-08-2014, 08:34 PM
Of course the Redmond bashers are out again. The rational for the National Volunteers to fight was to demonstrate that Ireland would not truck with Britain's enemies then or in future but would line up alongside her. This was an important demonstration of loyalty to counter the British fear that Ireland could be used by enemies to attack her western flank, which was one of the long-standing justifications of British sovereignty here ...

I have not heard this before. Could you provide a link to their writings or speeches on this matter at the time.

I am more familiar with the stuff that is traditionally quoted like:





The interests of Ireland — of the whole of Ireland — are at stake in this war. This war is undertaken in the defence of the highest principles of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country and a reproach to her manhood and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and to shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which has distinguished our race all through its history. I say to you, therefore, your duty is twofold. I am glad to see such magnificent material for soldiers around me, and I say to you: "Go on drilling and make yourself efficient for the Work, and then account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war.

Redmond

lastman
10-08-2014, 08:41 PM
Oh dear, you were doing fairly okay until you went into ranting mode and then the mask slipped and your inner blueshirt/Imperialist popped up in all its confused glory.

Oh dear is right! You misunderstand me entirely or perhaps I failed to express myself clearly. (Reading back over my post I'd say the rant was at the start over poor old Bobby Ballagh- mea culpa). I did not intent to defend imperialism as against some imperfect states which succeeded them. All rational Ugandans would have preferred the Brits to Idi Amin Dada: that's a no-brainer which makes a very poor political arguement. I didn't intend to defend empire at all. I was trying to pick an example where people choose a label,

in this case the term "imperial/ist/ism" and attach it to people or to hundreds of years of history so they can dismiss it all with a wave of the hand. If you have time to read back over all the posts in this thread, you will see several examples of this:

eg one says the "Belgians were fighting for their freedom." another "Hold on mate they had an empire!" the next "Oh to hell with them then!" etc etc

I also picked it because on the TV program I refered to, Ballagh, when boxed in by the historians on the panel with him, declared that the essential difference between the Volunteers who went to France and those who stayed here and staged the Rising was that the former "were engaged in an Imperialistic war" and the latter "in an anti-Imperialistic struggle". I bridled at that and so did the historians who pointed out to him that both groups were dedicated Irish Nationalists who felt they were doing the right thing at the time they made their decision and it's too easy to stick a label on one group and dismiss them. They were just human beings after all doing the best thing by their lights- something the labellers seem to forget.

As early as 1944 George Orwell wrote that the term 'fascist' had become a meaningless term of abuse. Why? Because people on the Left called anyone they disagreed with a "fascist" ranging from a mildly traditional conservative all the way to Hitler, to the extent that the word had been emptied of its meaning. (Looking at Irish blogs I would guess that 'blueshirt' has had a similar fate-although I'm not sure what they stood for).
You take my comments on history and immediately translate them into what you imagine my current political positions are. That is so boring. Everyone has opinions. History is not about opinions, it's about facts and interpretations. ideas and institutions. Using history to bolster one's political views is a misuse of history. Complete neutrality as to one side or the other is the sign of mature historical perspective. It's difficult to muster when one's own country or people is the subject but it is a sure sign when you can see the issues from both sides equally.

C. Flower
10-08-2014, 08:46 PM
As a matter of fact we do ....... our family get together every year to commemorate (remember together)our father who died of a heart attack.

The above is a very silly argument which amounts to saying that nothing should ever be commemorated ..... which is an attempt to deny of an essential component of human nature.

Does RTE put on x 6 "commemorative documentaries" in his memory ? I don't think so. And of course the argument is not "tantamount to saying nothing should ever be commemorated."

C. Flower
10-08-2014, 08:46 PM
Very sorry to upset you like that,but ignorant is appropriate for someone who put his foot in mouth on his first sentence. I'm heartily sick of listening to him trotting out his Shinner propaganda and Student politics circa 1969. Surely RTE can find a better informed Irish Republican socialist to peddle that viewpoint.

Are you related?


What was his first sentence ?

Shaadi
10-08-2014, 09:16 PM
Oh dear is right! You misunderstand me entirely or perhaps I failed to express myself clearly. (Reading back over my post I'd say the rant was at the start over poor old Bobby Ballagh- mea culpa). I did not intent to defend imperialism as against some imperfect states which succeeded them. All rational Ugandans would have preferred the Brits to Idi Amin Dada: that's a no-brainer which makes a very poor political arguement. I didn't intend to defend empire at all. I was trying to pick an example where people choose a label,

in this case the term "imperial/ist/ism" and attach it to people or to hundreds of years of history so they can dismiss it all with a wave of the hand. If you have time to read back over all the posts in this thread, you will see several examples of this:

eg one says the "Belgians were fighting for their freedom." another "Hold on mate they had an empire!" the next "Oh to hell with them then!" etc etc

I also picked it because on the TV program I refered to, Ballagh, when boxed in by the historians on the panel with him, declared that the essential difference between the Volunteers who went to France and those who stayed here and staged the Rising was that the former "were engaged in an Imperialistic war" and the latter "in an anti-Imperialistic struggle". I bridled at that and so did the historians who pointed out to him that both groups were dedicated Irish Nationalists who felt they were doing the right thing at the time they made their decision and it's too easy to stick a label on one group and dismiss them. They were just human beings after all doing the best thing by their lights- something the labellers seem to forget.

As early as 1944 George Orwell wrote that the term 'fascist' had become a meaningless term of abuse. Why? Because people on the Left called anyone they disagreed with a "fascist" ranging from a mildly traditional conservative all the way to Hitler, to the extent that the word had been emptied of its meaning. (Looking at Irish blogs I would guess that 'blueshirt' has had a similar fate-although I'm not sure what they stood for).
You take my comments on history and immediately translate them into what you imagine my current political positions are. That is so boring. Everyone has opinions. History is not about opinions, it's about facts and interpretations. ideas and institutions. Using history to bolster one's political views is a misuse of history. Complete neutrality as to one side or the other is the sign of mature historical perspective. It's difficult to muster when one's own country or people is the subject but it is a sure sign when you can see the issues from both sides equally.I'd agree that getting all het up about peoples political opinions back then is pointless, such things as fascism etc were possibly fads for some while others would have gone the whole hog given half a chance.

Back to Ballagh's point in bold which is essentially true, but which doesn't take away from the second bold. It was entirely possible to be an Irish Nationalist and fight in an Imperial War with the best intentions from your POV.

It's also entirely possible that a lot of the Irish Volunteers were varying shades of Unionist/Nationalist/Home Rule and cash strapped/clueless/up for a challenge etc. They weren't all there fighting for the same reasons at all.

PS: A blueshirt hasn't lost its meaning since it originally lost its meaning soon after their demise. It simply refers to an aggressively anti-Republican Fine Gael supporter who is invariably so anti-Republican that they are consumed by bitterness and amnesiac about their own party's history of chronic social and economic conservatism when ruling the country at various times.

riposte
10-08-2014, 10:36 PM
What's this with "commemorating" the deaths of people who died like cattle fighting in imperialist wars?

Everyone dies. Do we "commemorate" people who die of heart attacks and emphysemia ?



As a matter of fact we do ....... our family get together every year to commemorate (remember together)our father who died of a heart attack.

The above is a very silly argument which amounts to saying that nothing should ever be commemorated ..... which is an attempt to deny of an essential component of human nature.


Does RTE put on x 6 "commemorative documentaries" in his memory ? I don't think so. And of course the argument is not "tantamount to saying nothing should ever be commemorated."

It is always delightful to get a response to a post ..... one doesn't feel ignored ...... it would be even better if it was relative to the point ... and embodied some common sense and a tiny bit of logic.

C. Flower
10-08-2014, 10:49 PM
It is always delightful to get a response to a post ..... one doesn't feel ignored ...... it would be even better if it was relative to the point ... and embodied some common sense and a tiny bit of logic.

The "we" is clearly a collective use of the word, in the context of this thread, i.e. society in general (not referring to your family and its respectful commemoration of deceased relations).

Why does objecting to national commemoration of wars and deaths in war in your view add up to "saying nothing should ever be commemorated" ? I certainly can't see the logic in that suggestion.

The orgy of so-called "commemoration" on RTE is not in my view a consequence of "natural human feelings" - it's thinly concealed pro-war hype.

riposte
10-08-2014, 11:17 PM
The "we" is clearly a collective use of the word, in the context of this thread, i.e. society in general (not referring to your family and its respectful commemoration of deceased relations).

Why does objecting to national commemoration of wars and deaths in war in your view add up to "saying nothing should ever be commemorated" ? I certainly can't see the logic in that suggestion.

The orgy of so-called "commemoration" on RTE is not in my view a consequence of "natural human feelings" - it's thinly concealed pro-war hype.

Let's cut to the chase here Cass ...... it's not why they are commemorated ..... or how they are commemorated ..... or how often they are commemorated ..... it's who is being commemorated that irks you.

You'd be quite happy to see an "orgy of commemoration" to mark the deaths of the historical figures you admire.

C. Flower
10-08-2014, 11:23 PM
Let's cut to the chase here Cass ...... it's not why they are commemorated ..... or how they are commemorated ..... or how often they are commemorated ..... it's who is being commemorated that irks you.

You'd be quite happy to see an "orgy of commemoration" to mark the deaths of the historical figures you admire.

WW1 Commemorations as performed by RTE aren't about remembering historical figures. They are sugar coating a charnel house.

Sam Lord
10-08-2014, 11:23 PM
http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n611/boavista1/twobrothers_zps59130987.jpg

Two brothers. One an officer who led his troops into battle at the Somme. The other a conscientious objector who was imprisoned and sentenced to death for refusing to fight.

Who was braver?

I think if anyone is to be commemorated it should be the latter.

We Will Not Fight
The Untold Story of WW1’s Conscientious Objectors
by Will Ellsworth-Jones

http://aurumpress.co.uk/106/We-Will-Not-Fight/300



In this thoughtful, compelling and poignant book, Will Ellsworth-Jones tells the remarkable and little-known story of courageous men like Bert Brocklesby, who defied both brutal incomprehension from the military, and white feathers waved at them in the street, to leave a lasting legacy: the freedom to voice unpopular beliefs and to challenge those who decide to take us to war.

riposte
10-08-2014, 11:35 PM
http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n611/boavista1/twobrothers_zps59130987.jpg

Two brothers. One an officer who led his troops into battle at the Somme. The other a conscientious objector who was imprisoned and sentenced to death for refusing to fight.

Who was braver?

I think if anyone is to be commemorated it should be the latter.

We Will Not Fight
The Untold Story of WW1’s Conscientious Objectors
by Will Ellsworth-Jones

http://aurumpress.co.uk/106/We-Will-Not-Fight/300

How about the 2nd World War Sam ........ do you reckon it was wrong to fight against the Nazis?

riposte
10-08-2014, 11:38 PM
ww1 (edit) commemorations as performed by rte aren't about remembering historical figures. They are sugar coating a charnel house.

ww2...????

Sam Lord
10-08-2014, 11:39 PM
How about the 2nd World War Sam ........ do you reckon it was wrong to fight against the Nazis?

Why do you ask? I don't see the relevance ...

riposte
10-08-2014, 11:56 PM
Why do you ask? I don't see the relevance ...

It's irrelevant why I asked .... you opined that those who refused to fight in WWI were more praiseworthy than those who fought.... the question is ..... do you reckon it was wrong to fight against the Nazis?

C. Flower
10-08-2014, 11:58 PM
ww2...????

Ta. Ive edited to WW1.

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:04 AM
WW1 Commemorations as performed by RTE aren't about remembering historical figures. They are sugar coating a charnel house.


The world doesn't revolve around RTE.

Sam Lord
11-08-2014, 12:05 AM
It's irrelevant why I asked .... you opined that those who refused to fight in WWI were more praiseworthy than those who fought.... the question is ..... do you reckon it was wrong to fight against the Nazis?

I would answer if I could see the relevance but as I cannot I have to respond that life is too short to answer every random question that crosses your mind.

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:14 AM
I would answer if I could see the relevance but as I cannot I have to respond that life is too short to answer every random question that crosses your mind.

Oh! You understand the relevance all right Sam...... it's just you that your answer would make a nonsense of all your other posts on this topic.

Frankie Lee
11-08-2014, 12:17 AM
How about the 2nd World War Sam ........ do you reckon it was wrong to fight against the Nazis?

A lot depends on who you are fighting for, fighting for the empire that invented the concentration camp is not a thing of nobility in my opinion.

Sam Lord
11-08-2014, 12:19 AM
Oh! You understand the relevance all right Sam...... it's just you that your answer would make a nonsense of of all your other posts on this topic.

Why is that?

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:20 AM
A lot depends on who you are fighting for, fighting for the empire that invented the concentration camp is not a thing of nobility in my opinion.

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:22 AM
Why is that?

When you answer some of my questions .... I'll answer some of yours.

Frankie Lee
11-08-2014, 12:23 AM
Isn't hindsight wonderful?

Wouldn't have been hindsight at the time.

Sam Lord
11-08-2014, 12:28 AM
When you answer some of my questions .... I'll answer some of yours.

My parents told me that it was good to stand up to bullies but that I should not join street gangs fighting each other. I never saw a contradiction.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 12:28 AM
The world doesn't revolve around RTE.

Who said it did ?

However, you were replying to my posts in which I expressed by disgust at RTE's WW1 coverage.

But if you want to broaden it out, you will find plenty more of the same in the Irish Times and of course in the British media.

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:55 AM
However, you were replying to my posts in which I expressed by disgust at RTE's WW1 coverage.


No........ I was replying to this....


What's this with "commemorating" the deaths of people who died like cattle fighting in imperialist wars?

Everyone dies. Do we "commemorate" people who die of heart attacks and emphysemia ?

But someone who dies while trying to butcher fellow human beings because they were told to do it is "commemorated."

riposte
11-08-2014, 12:58 AM
My parents told me that it was good to stand up to bullies but that I should not join street gangs fighting each other. I never saw a contradiction.

You left out the other side of the moon.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 09:46 AM
No........ I was replying to this....

Then why did you mention RTE ?

riposte
11-08-2014, 04:05 PM
Then why did you mention RTE ?

I didn't mention RTE ..... you did .....


As a matter of fact we do ....... our family get together every year to commemorate (remember together)our father who died of a heart attack.

The above is a very silly argument which amounts to saying that nothing should ever be commemorated ..... which is an attempt to deny of an essential component of human nature.


Does RTE put on x 6 "commemorative documentaries" in his memory ? I don't think so. And of course the argument is not "tantamount to saying nothing should ever be commemorated."


Let's cut to the chase here Cass ...... it's not why they are commemorated ..... or how they are commemorated ..... or how often they are commemorated ..... it's who is being commemorated that irks you.

You'd be quite happy to see an "orgy of commemoration" to mark the deaths of the historical figures you admire.


WW1 Commemorations as performed by RTE aren't about remembering historical figures. They are sugar coating a charnel house.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 04:56 PM
I didn't mention RTE ..... you did .....

To which you replied -" The world doesn't revolve around RTE."

RTE is the State Broadcaster and is devoting very many hours to what I find to be frankly creepy coverage of WW1. That does not amount to saying "the world revolves around RTE"

Most of Irish broadcasting comes out of it. Why should it be ignored ?

riposte
11-08-2014, 05:19 PM
To which you replied -" The world doesn't revolve around RTE."

RTE is the State Broadcaster and is devoting very many hours to what I find to be frankly creepy coverage of WW1. That does not amount to saying "the world revolves around RTE"

Most of Irish broadcasting comes out of it. Why should it be ignored ?

This was your initial post on Commemorating WWI.


What's this with "commemorating" the deaths of people who died like cattle fighting in imperialist wars?

Everyone dies. Do we "commemorate" people who die of heart attacks and emphysemia ?

But someone who dies while trying to butcher fellow human beings because they were told to do it is "commemorated."

When I poked a few holes in the post ... you kept referring to RTE ..... which is just an escape alley from your original post.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 05:25 PM
This was your initial post on Commemorating WWI.



When I poked a few holes in the post ... you kept referring to RTE ..... which is just an escape alley from your original post.

I have no idea what your views are about WW1.

And RTE is more of a cul de sac than an "escape alley" - precisely my objection to it.

riposte
11-08-2014, 05:36 PM
I have no idea what your views are about WW1.


My views on WWI are as follows .....

1) The Germans were Fascists in 1914.

2) The Germans were Fascists in 1939.

3) The Germans are still Fascists ...... and the sooner we go to war with them the better.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 06:38 PM
Very interesting thesis on the incorporation of ex-British servicemen into the Volunteers, the IRA and the Free State Army.

Only about 50 pages of type and well worth reading. http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.nuim.ie%2F5120%2F1%2FMich ael_Joesph_Whelan_20140624124313.pdf&ei=ePLoU5vbOsOV7AaduIGwCA&usg=AFQjCNFmEzsehtsJz-0CqaU61KkEYO4N_g&bvm=bv.72676100,d.ZGU

I hadn't before heard of the "Army mutiny" in 1924 over the extent to which trained British soldiers were perceived to be given better positions in the army than people who had been in the IRA, but there is a lot more complexity to it than that.

The presence of so many war-experienced men had a big effect on the immediate post war history of Ireland. The thesis concludes that the large numbers of ex servicemen in the new Irish army gave it its victory in the Civil War. It also shows how the new army was based largely on the British model.

Apjp
11-08-2014, 07:32 PM
Oh dear, you were doing fairly okay until you went into ranting mode and then the mask slipped and your inner blueshirt/Imperialist popped up in all its confused glory.

Oh dear is right! You misunderstand me entirely or perhaps I failed to express myself clearly. (Reading back over my post I'd say the rant was at the start over poor old Bobby Ballagh- mea culpa). I did not intent to defend imperialism as against some imperfect states which succeeded them. All rational Ugandans would have preferred the Brits to Idi Amin Dada: that's a no-brainer which makes a very poor political arguement. I didn't intend to defend empire at all. I was trying to pick an example where people choose a label,

in this case the term "imperial/ist/ism" and attach it to people or to hundreds of years of history so they can dismiss it all with a wave of the hand. If you have time to read back over all the posts in this thread, you will see several examples of this:

eg one says the "Belgians were fighting for their freedom." another "Hold on mate they had an empire!" the next "Oh to hell with them then!" etc etc

I also picked it because on the TV program I refered to, Ballagh, when boxed in by the historians on the panel with him, declared that the essential difference between the Volunteers who went to France and those who stayed here and staged the Rising was that the former "were engaged in an Imperialistic war" and the latter "in an anti-Imperialistic struggle". I bridled at that and so did the historians who pointed out to him that both groups were dedicated Irish Nationalists who felt they were doing the right thing at the time they made their decision and it's too easy to stick a label on one group and dismiss them. They were just human beings after all doing the best thing by their lights- something the labellers seem to forget.

As early as 1944 George Orwell wrote that the term 'fascist' had become a meaningless term of abuse. Why? Because people on the Left called anyone they disagreed with a "fascist" ranging from a mildly traditional conservative all the way to Hitler, to the extent that the word had been emptied of its meaning. (Looking at Irish blogs I would guess that 'blueshirt' has had a similar fate-although I'm not sure what they stood for).
You take my comments on history and immediately translate them into what you imagine my current political positions are. That is so boring. Everyone has opinions. History is not about opinions, it's about facts and interpretations. ideas and institutions. Using history to bolster one's political views is a misuse of history. Complete neutrality as to one side or the other is the sign of mature historical perspective. It's difficult to muster when one's own country or people is the subject but it is a sure sign when you can see the issues from both sides equally.

1. I have lived my adult life so far by the general rule it is better to live on your own two feet and be poor, and run your own life in a mediocre or even disorganised/dysfunctional way than to be a well fed slave beholden to someone else-ie in hock to creditors such as a bank or loan shark or tallyman but living on cheap money like many middle class heads did in the boom-I think that is the same for countries, and will lay it down in typical tradition in this regard as a general principle that it is better to govern yourself badly than be governed well by someone else.

2.Imperialism is not a term, it is an ideology and an economic and political system used to grab resources by subjugating others, not always through violence, and not always through countries/armies(imperialism can be an economic tool as well ie corporatism which aims to crush all small business and all workers rights and all labour rights).

3. Belgium did have an empire, and it was being invaded by another empire-that ain't opinion it's a fact. Have you never heard of the Congo? The Belgians murdered 20 million people there in a very short space of time-the most savage and brutal occupation in modern history and the millions who have died there in recent decades are a consequence of the millions murdered there beforehand-the Belgians brought in the 'hacking' off of limbs for example which was popularised in the film Blood Diamond, but which has no African origin. Much of this work was from King Leopold, but there was an empire supporting the king and at his beck and call, and so he can only share the fair proportion of the blame there-in short the whole Belgian elite at the time deserved no sympathy because most of them had some role in what happened in the Congo and elsewhere! small nation me arse.

4. Irish people who fought in ww1 did it for a job out of economic need or in Barry's case work, exploration and adventure. Nationalism me arse-the revolutionaries stayed at home and maybe they were less needy/better educated I don't know but nationalism had little to do with taking the shilling.

5. Nobody is completely neutral in anything in this debate-you certainly are not with your Redmondite anti Sinn Fein Anti Republican anti 1916 comments.

Apjp
11-08-2014, 07:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_colonial_empire

Oh and just so the above poster realises: Belgium also controlled Rwanda where it used ethnic cleansing, and ethnic subjugation to maintain its' rule. I'd advise you to google Hotel Rwanda.

Belgium was in some ways, the worst European empire, and so no it does not deserve any sympathy for being invaded by Germany-wasn't our problem, but as were slaves without a parliament or a State, we had no say in the matter(in case you have forgotten).

Incidentally Belgium and Germany had been at loggerheads for some time over Rwanda/Burundi and so this may have helped seethe more resentment on the part of the German elite towards their Belgian cousins.

Apjp
11-08-2014, 07:49 PM
Oh and the Belgians gave the Congolese sleeping sickness too which accounted for a fair whack of the genocide down there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_trypanosomiasis Just while we are on the subject, it still plagues many poor Congolese today with 80% of global cases in the Congo!!!

Go on please.. Defend little gallant Belgium some more.

Apjp
11-08-2014, 08:09 PM
My views on WWI are as follows .....

1) The Germans were Fascists in 1914.

2) The Germans were Fascists in 1939.

3) The Germans are still Fascists ...... and the sooner we go to war with them the better.


How are you going to go to war with them?

The Germans weren't the only fascists in 1914, nor indeed in 1939. The British and French Empires are nostalgically referred to as the good guys, but they weren't much better until they themselves were bombed and/or invaded(the British channel islands were occupied for example as were some British colonies in Africa which was the whole point of the war in Africa). As soon as the war was over the French went back to being fascists in Africa and the British soon reverted to type in Palestine briefly, later in Ireland and elsewhere.

America killed 500'000 odd people with the two bombs in Japan and many more through radiation poisoning when the Soviet Union was months from taking over the place with much less bloodshed anyways! Germany lost the war, Fascism won!

riposte
11-08-2014, 08:10 PM
Very interesting thesis on the incorporation of ex-British servicemen into the Volunteers, the IRA and the Free State Army.

Only about 50 pages of type and well worth reading. http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.nuim.ie%2F5120%2F1%2FMich ael_Joesph_Whelan_20140624124313.pdf&ei=ePLoU5vbOsOV7AaduIGwCA&usg=AFQjCNFmEzsehtsJz-0CqaU61KkEYO4N_g&bvm=bv.72676100,d.ZGU
A very disappointing read ..... he fails to illustrate of enumerate the number of ex- British Soldiers who fought in the War Independence ... beyond the already widely known examples such as Tom Barry. Full of generalisations.




The thesis concludes that the large numbers of ex servicemen in the new Irish army gave it its victory in the Civil War.

This would have been a doddle to write .. straight out of Mulcathy's papers.




It also shows how the new army was based largely on the British model.

Taking into account that the British Army had been the most successful army since Genghis Khan that is not surprising .... I mean you'd always want to copy the best now wouldn't you?

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 08:32 PM
A very disappointing read ..... he fails to illustrate of enumerate the number of ex- British Soldiers who fought in the War Independence ... beyond the already widely known examples such as Tom Barry. Full of generalisations.

This would have been a doddle to write .. straight out of Mulcathy's papers.
Taking into account that the British Army had been the most successful army since Genghis Khan that is not surprising .... I mean you'd always want to copy the best now wouldn't you?

One of the things I got from it was that every armed body of the day to some extent depended on ex-WW1 soldiers from the British army - the UVF, the Black and Tans (of course), the Irish Volunteers, the IRA, and the Free State Army.
However, the IRA took on small numbers and there was a lot of suspicion of these recruits, including Barry himself. The Free State Army took on a much greater number of ex-WW1 soldiers and some ex-IRA left the army over this.

A considerable number of "revenge" (presumed Republican) shootings of soldiers who fought with the British Army is mentioned - not much mentioned in the recent "commemorations."

riposte
11-08-2014, 08:49 PM
One of the things I got from it was that every armed body of the day to some extent depended on ex-WW1 soldiers from the British army - the UVF, the Black and Tans (of course), the Irish Volunteers, the IRA, and the Free State Army.
However, the IRA took on small numbers and there was a lot of suspicion of these recruits, including Barry himself. The Free State Army took on a much greater number of ex-WW1 soldiers and some ex-IRA left the army over this.

A considerable number of "revenge" (presumed Republican) shootings of soldiers who fought with the British Army is mentioned - not much mentioned in the recent "commemorations."

It is important .. in the interests of clarity and honesty in debate ......to point out that the Free State Army was not contemporaneous with The War of Independence.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Very good blog post by An Sionnach Fionn


In January/February 1922 Richard Mulcahy and Michael Collins, formally the Chief of Staff and Adjutant General (and Director of Intelligence) respectively of the IRA precipitously began turning the small break-way section of Pro-Treaty IRA volunteers into the core of a new Irish National Army (INA). This was to become the military wing of the Irish Free State (also called the Free State Army or in their own parlance, the Regulars). Yet this new nomenclature was resisted from within and some members refused to give up the title of Irish Republican Army, and retained some IRA structures, ranks and insignia. In fact for a time both Collins and Mulcahy were effectively members of both the Republican and National armies, a situation emulated by many other former IRA volunteers, as the lines between the rival forces remained blurred until the war became well advanced (some members and units of the IRA in the North of Ireland became the de facto northern arm of the Free State military, while others sided with the anti-Treaty IRA, or remained neutral – in any case all were supplied with arms or money from the South and continued to call themselves the Irish Republican Army).

One of the first units of the new INA was the Dublin Guard. Initially founded during the latter stages of the War of Independence when the IRA’s Dublin Brigade saw its large Active Service Unit (ASU) amalgamated with the Special Service Unit (or ‘Squad’) of the GHQ Intelligence Department, their name was a nod to what was originally a breakaway faction of the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the late 1800s known as the ‘Old Guard’ (originally followers of James Stephens and later an ad hoc grouping of any number of dissidents), which gradually evolved into an IRB veterans association or the ‘Old Guard Benevolent Union’. The name reflected the make-up of the Dublin Guard most of whose members were sworn activists of the secret IRB of which Collins was the President.
http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/soldiers-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-with-british-supplied-uniforms-weapons-and-equipment-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg?w=620 (http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/soldiers-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-with-british-supplied-uniforms-weapons-and-equipment-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg)Soldiers of the Irish National Army (Free State Army) with British-supplied uniforms, weapons and equipment, the Battle of Dublin, 1922

The Guard, along with other units of the Free State military, soon found themselves in donated British Army uniforms (dyed green), British-supplied weapons and equipment, and often British-style formations. As the conflict progressed thousands of ‘demobbed’ soldiers from the British Forces (particularly the so-called Irish regiments disbanded as a result of the Treaty) became a prime target for Free State recruiters, and whole battalions of the INA were composed of ex-British soldiers, RIC men and in some notorious cases ex-Black and Tans. Even the IRB-dominated Dublin Guard was not immune to British influence and it membership swelled with former soldiers of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers (some of whom had fought in the Easter Rising (http://ansionnachfionn.com/2012/04/08/the-myths-of-easter-1916-and-the-truth/) and War of Independence – on the British side). This in part accounts for the later ferocity of the Free State’s war machine when it was fully unleashed on its Republican opponents and undermines the old myth of the Civil War as a simple and tragic brother-against-brother narrative.
On the other side of the approaching conflict the two anti-Treaty IRA groups were soon reunited, and the Irish Republican Army quickly outnumbered its INA splinter by a ratio of three-to-one. It retained the majority of the Army’s combat veterans, the majority of its most experienced officers and just as importantly significant numbers of younger Volunteers. Indeed there was a noticeable experience and generation gap between the IRA and INA. In contrast to the IRA the INA attracted mainly non-combat staff officers or those from uninvolved areas, as well as those closely associated with the Dublin GHQ, with a noticeable tendency towards older men.
However the IRA’s greatest weakness was, as always, its lack of arms and equipment. During the Truce, though some quantities of munitions had been smuggled into the country (and many weapons abandoned, or stolen or bought from the departing British forces), most units remained under-equipped. In the ‘official’ arms importations organised or sanctioned by the GHQ a bias had been given to re-equipping those units thought to be closest to the thinking of the GHQ Staff in Dublin. So the Anti-Treaty IRA entered the conflict with a far poorer stock of weapons and equipment compared to Pro-Treaty forces which were able to draw upon the military resources of the British Empire.
In some ways the split in the Irish Republican Army, and the subsequent civil war, had already seen a dry-run in the division of the original Irish paramilitary organisation from which the IRA had evolved. Formed in 1913 as the Irish Volunteers (or Irish Volunteer Force), this nationalistic militia was created to force or defend the implementation of British-legislated Home Rule in Ireland, which predictably never emerged. It eventually split in 1915 along rival political lines between Irish Nationalists (http://ansionnachfionn.com/2012/04/11/john-redmond-and-the-blood-sacrifice-for-the-british-empire/) and Irish Republicans (whereas the majority who split off in 1915 were Nationalists, in 1922 the Nationalist splitters were a small minority, a sign of just how far politics in Ireland had progressed). In the aftermath of the 1915 division in the original Irish Volunteers, the breakaway and newly titled Irish National Volunteers (INV) entered a period of uneasy cold war with their former comrades that at times broke out into open violence, an animosity that only dissipated in the aftermath of the Easter Rising of 1916 (though in fact during the insurrection some INV units in Athlone, Wexford and other districts offered help to the British Forces to put down the insurrection, providing military escorts, ‘police’ patrols and scouts; these echoes of this original proto-civil war were to continue to sound in places like Limerick and parts of Ulster throughout the War of Independence and into the Civil War itself).
http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a-british-supplied-armoured-car-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-on-oconnell-street-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg?w=620 (http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a-british-supplied-armoured-car-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-on-oconnell-street-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg)A British-supplied armoured car of the Irish National Army (Free State Army) on O’Connell Street, the Battle of Dublin, 1922

‘The Fall of Dublin’, and history, records that the opening salvos of the Civil War took place at the Four Courts on the 28th of June 1922 (though some in Kilkenny would claim that the first shots of the civil war were in fact fired in May 1922 when Pro- and Ant-Treaty IRA forces vied for control of the city; just as the people of Cork claim that the first actions of the War of Independence began with hold-ups and gun battles between the IRA and RIC in Cork in 1918, not Tipperary in 1919). However this was simply the culmination of a slow descent into an internecine conflict. In Dublin city the leadership of the Anti-Treaty IRA had set up their national headquarters as had of course their Pro-Treaty INA opponents and here, as Liz Gillis’ ably explains, the Civil War was both lost and won.
In some ways the 1922 Battle of Dublin could be described as a second 1916: poorly organised and led Republicans seizing various buildings and districts around the city centre of Dublin against a much larger, better led and equipped force. Indeed one of the accusations made by some Republicans in the aftermath of the Fall of Dublin was the use of British troops in the assaults on the Republican forces entrenched in the city. Certainly this is given some credence in a paragraph by Gillis describing a mutiny of Pro-Treaty soldiers at Portobello Barracks:

‘Frank Carney, supplies officer at the barracks, was ordered to hand over weapons and other materials that were to be used in the assault:
He was about to obey the order when he recognised the officer receiving them as a British officer from the Phoenix Park depot [the British Army HQ]. Realising it was an alliance with British against Republicans that he was being called upon to take action, he refused to comply and resigned. Several men resigned with him and all were placed under arrest.’
However there is little other evidence of direct involvement by the British Forces in the fighting, though British troops were kept at the ready in bases around the city to intervene if need be and the British provided the artillery, heavy machine guns and armoured vehicles that the Free State forces used to swing the battle in their favour. Further offers from the British including the use of warplanes to bomb and strafe Republican positions were rejected. But later in the war direct British military assistance, particularly from the Royal Navy, was accepted so perhaps British ‘advisers’ were present during the battles at the Four Courts and maybe elsewhere. Certainly as the war progressed the Free State army increasingly resembled a ‘demobbed’ British Army in Ireland.



and more, on the ICA - http://ansionnachfionn.com/stair-history/the-fall-of-dublin/

riposte
11-08-2014, 09:23 PM
The Germans weren't the only fascists in 1914, nor indeed in 1939. The British and French Empires are nostalgically referred to as the good guys, but they weren't much better until they themselves were bombed and/or invaded(the British channel islands were occupied for example as were some British colonies in Africa which was the whole point of the war in Africa). As soon as the war was over the French went back to being fascists in Africa and the British soon reverted to type in Palestine briefly, later in Ireland and elsewhere.

America killed 500'000 odd people with the two bombs in Japan and many more through radiation poisoning when the Soviet Union was months from taking over the place with much less bloodshed anyways! Germany lost the war, Fascism won!

I didn't know any of that ....:rolleyes:

riposte
11-08-2014, 09:28 PM
Very good blog post by An Sionnach Fionn

In January/February 1922 Richard Mulcahy and Michael Collins, formally the Chief of Staff and Adjutant General (and Director of Intelligence) respectively of the IRA precipitously began turning the small break-way section of Pro-Treaty IRA volunteers into the core of a new Irish National Army (INA). This was to become the military wing of the Irish Free State (also called the Free State Army or in their own parlance, the Regulars). Yet this new nomenclature was resisted from within and some members refused to give up the title of Irish Republican Army, and retained some IRA structures, ranks and insignia. In fact for a time both Collins and Mulcahy were effectively members of both the Republican and National armies, a situation emulated by many other former IRA volunteers, as the lines between the rival forces remained blurred until the war became well advanced (some members and units of the IRA in the North of Ireland became the de facto northern arm of the Free State military, while others sided with the anti-Treaty IRA, or remained neutral – in any case all were supplied with arms or money from the South and continued to call themselves the Irish Republican Army).

One of the first units of the new INA was the Dublin Guard. Initially founded during the latter stages of the War of Independence when the IRA’s Dublin Brigade saw its large Active Service Unit (ASU) amalgamated with the Special Service Unit (or ‘Squad’) of the GHQ Intelligence Department, their name was a nod to what was originally a breakaway faction of the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the late 1800s known as the ‘Old Guard’ (originally followers of James Stephens and later an ad hoc grouping of any number of dissidents), which gradually evolved into an IRB veterans association or the ‘Old Guard Benevolent Union’. The name reflected the make-up of the Dublin Guard most of whose members were sworn activists of the secret IRB of which Collins was the President.

http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/soldiers-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-with-british-supplied-uniforms-weapons-and-equipment-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg
Soldiers of the Irish National Army (Free State Army) with British-supplied uniforms, weapons and equipment, the Battle of Dublin, 1922

The Guard, along with other units of the Free State military, soon found themselves in donated British Army uniforms (dyed green), British-supplied weapons and equipment, and often British-style formations. As the conflict progressed thousands of ‘demobbed’ soldiers from the British Forces (particularly the so-called Irish regiments disbanded as a result of the Treaty) became a prime target for Free State recruiters, and whole battalions of the INA were composed of ex-British soldiers, RIC men and in some notorious cases ex-Black and Tans. Even the IRB-dominated Dublin Guard was not immune to British influence and it membership swelled with former soldiers of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers (some of whom had fought in the Easter Rising and War of Independence – on the British side). This in part accounts for the later ferocity of the Free State’s war machine when it was fully unleashed on its Republican opponents and undermines the old myth of the Civil War as a simple and tragic brother-against-brother narrative.
On the other side of the approaching conflict the two anti-Treaty IRA groups were soon reunited, and the Irish Republican Army quickly outnumbered its INA splinter by a ratio of three-to-one. It retained the majority of the Army’s combat veterans, the majority of its most experienced officers and just as importantly significant numbers of younger Volunteers. Indeed there was a noticeable experience and generation gap between the IRA and INA. In contrast to the IRA the INA attracted mainly non-combat staff officers or those from uninvolved areas, as well as those closely associated with the Dublin GHQ, with a noticeable tendency towards older men.
However the IRA’s greatest weakness was, as always, its lack of arms and equipment. During the Truce, though some quantities of munitions had been smuggled into the country (and many weapons abandoned, or stolen or bought from the departing British forces), most units remained under-equipped. In the ‘official’ arms importations organised or sanctioned by the GHQ a bias had been given to re-equipping those units thought to be closest to the thinking of the GHQ Staff in Dublin. So the Anti-Treaty IRA entered the conflict with a far poorer stock of weapons and equipment compared to Pro-Treaty forces which were able to draw upon the military resources of the British Empire.
In some ways the split in the Irish Republican Army, and the subsequent civil war, had already seen a dry-run in the division of the original Irish paramilitary organisation from which the IRA had evolved. Formed in 1913 as the Irish Volunteers (or Irish Volunteer Force), this nationalistic militia was created to force or defend the implementation of British-legislated Home Rule in Ireland, which predictably never emerged. It eventually split in 1915 along rival political lines between Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans (whereas the majority who split off in 1915 were Nationalists, in 1922 the Nationalist splitters were a small minority, a sign of just how far politics in Ireland had progressed). In the aftermath of the 1915 division in the original Irish Volunteers, the breakaway and newly titled Irish National Volunteers (INV) entered a period of uneasy cold war with their former comrades that at times broke out into open violence, an animosity that only dissipated in the aftermath of the Easter Rising of 1916 (though in fact during the insurrection some INV units in Athlone, Wexford and other districts offered help to the British Forces to put down the insurrection, providing military escorts, ‘police’ patrols and scouts; these echoes of this original proto-civil war were to continue to sound in places like Limerick and parts of Ulster throughout the War of Independence and into the Civil War itself).

http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a-british-supplied-armoured-car-of-the-irish-national-army-free-state-army-on-oconnell-street-the-battle-of-dublin-1922.jpg
A British-supplied armoured car of the Irish National Army (Free State Army) on O’Connell Street, the Battle of Dublin, 1922

‘The Fall of Dublin’, and history, records that the opening salvos of the Civil War took place at the Four Courts on the 28th of June 1922 (though some in Kilkenny would claim that the first shots of the civil war were in fact fired in May 1922 when Pro- and Ant-Treaty IRA forces vied for control of the city; just as the people of Cork claim that the first actions of the War of Independence began with hold-ups and gun battles between the IRA and RIC in Cork in 1918, not Tipperary in 1919). However this was simply the culmination of a slow descent into an internecine conflict. In Dublin city the leadership of the Anti-Treaty IRA had set up their national headquarters as had of course their Pro-Treaty INA opponents and here, as Liz Gillis’ ably explains, the Civil War was both lost and won.
In some ways the 1922 Battle of Dublin could be described as a second 1916: poorly organised and led Republicans seizing various buildings and districts around the city centre of Dublin against a much larger, better led and equipped force. Indeed one of the accusations made by some Republicans in the aftermath of the Fall of Dublin was the use of British troops in the assaults on the Republican forces entrenched in the city. Certainly this is given some credence in a paragraph by Gillis describing a mutiny of Pro-Treaty soldiers at Portobello Barracks:
‘Frank Carney, supplies officer at the barracks, was ordered to hand over weapons and other materials that were to be used in the assault:
He was about to obey the order when he recognised the officer receiving them as a British officer from the Phoenix Park depot [the British Army HQ]. Realising it was an alliance with British against Republicans that he was being called upon to take action, he refused to comply and resigned. Several men resigned with him and all were placed under arrest.’
However there is little other evidence of direct involvement by the British Forces in the fighting, though British troops were kept at the ready in bases around the city to intervene if need be and the British provided the artillery, heavy machine guns and armoured vehicles that the Free State forces used to swing the battle in their favour. Further offers from the British including the use of warplanes to bomb and strafe Republican positions were rejected. But later in the war direct British military assistance, particularly from the Royal Navy, was accepted so perhaps British ‘advisers’ were present during the battles at the Four Courts and maybe elsewhere. Certainly as the war progressed the Free



and more, on the ICA - http://ansionnachfionn.com/stair-history/the-fall-of-dublin/

Slightly off topic wouldn't you think.......Commemorating WW1

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 09:43 PM
Slightly off topic wouldn't you think.......Commemorating WW1

Just following the direction of some of yours - and Saoirse's - earlier posts - http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16178-Commemorating-WW1&p=395695#post395695

No, I don't think that it is off topic to discuss what the demobilised soldiers did in Ireland, in the following years, as well as what was done to them.

riposte
11-08-2014, 10:54 PM
Just following the direction of some of yours - and Saoirse's - earlier posts - http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16178-Commemorating-WW1&p=395695#post395695

No, I don't think that it is off topic to discuss what the demobilised soldiers did in Ireland, in the following years, as well as what was done to them.

You'd say Mass.

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 11:07 PM
You'd say Mass.

Are you sure the immersion is off?

C. Flower
11-08-2014, 11:13 PM
Mason, on how WW1 ended -


one crucial piece of knowledge should be, for schoolchildren and for TV presenters alike: how and why did it actually end?

Well, on 24 October 1918, with the German army retreating and its discipline disintegrating, the right-wing aristocrats who ran the German navy launched a suicidal mass foray from the base in Kiel, where they’d been holed up. It was quite clear, rebel sailor Ernst Schneider later wrote, that this was to be a “death ride”.

But the sailors had other ideas. The crews of German battleships were drawn from the families of skilled, socialist working class. Since Easter 1916 the entire underground culture of the German ports – Hamburg, Kiel, Wilhelmshaven – had been pervaded by far-left agitation. There was a “whispering campaign”: under the cover of seamen’s yarns in the lower decks, in the lockers, the munition rooms, crow’s nests of the fighting masts – even in the lavatories – an underground organisation was built up, Schneider remembered.
The sailors’ organisation met in in the dark, kneeling between the stones of a war cemetery. This was no Potemkin-style, spontaneous outburst. With extreme order they took over the bridges, ran up red flags and pointed the guns of rebel ships at the hulls of those that did not rebel.

Mutinous sailors

On 4 November 1918 they armed themselves and set off, in their thousands, for the industrial centres of northern Germany. Jan Valtin, a participant, remembered: “That night I saw the mutinous sailors roll into Bremen on caravans of commandeered trucks – from all sides masses of humanity, a sea of swinging, pushing bodies and distorted faces were moving toward the centre of town. Many of the workers were armed with guns, with bayonets and with hammers.”
By 9 November, with workers swarming into the streets of Berlin, the Kaiser abdicated: only the declaration of a republic, with a Labour government and the promised “socialisation of industry”, prevented outright Soviet-style revolution.
These incredible events do not fit easily into the narrative the mass media has been feeding us about the 1914-18 war. We’ve had TV presenters telling us most soldiers “actually enjoyed the war”
- See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/world-war/1240#sthash.qdB9Jofj.dpuf


But the Easter Rising 1916 and the 1917 Russian Revolution came first in turning the guns onto the warmakers.

riposte
12-08-2014, 12:39 AM
the 1917 Russian Revolution came first in turning the guns onto the warmakers.

Now there's a topic that is really relevant to WWI .... how Lenin connived with the Kaiser and the German Jews ..... to defeat Russia crossing Germany in his "sealed train" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Words of Grim Portent

Nicholas and his family are only the best known of countless victims of a regime that openly proclaimed its ruthless purpose. A few weeks after the Ekaterinburg massacre, the newspaper of the fledgling Red Army declared:29

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritskii let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie -- more blood, as much as possible.

Grigori Zinoviev, speaking at a meeting of Communists in September 1918, effectively pronounced a death sentence on ten million human beings: "We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."30
'The Twenty Million'

As it turned out, the Soviet toll in human lives and suffering proved to be much higher than Zinoviev's murderous rhetoric suggested. Rarely, if ever, has a regime taken the lives of so many of its own people.31

Citing newly-available Soviet KGB documents, historian Dmitri Volkogonov, head of a special Russian parliamentary commission, recently concluded that "from 1929 to 1952, 21.5 million [Soviet] people were repressed. Of these a third were shot, the rest sentenced to imprisonment, where many also died."32

Olga Shatunovskaya, a member of the Soviet Commission of Party Control, and head of a special commission during the 1960s appointed by premier Khrushchev, has similarly concluded: "From January 1, 1935 to June 22, 1941, 19,840,000 enemies of the people were arrested. Of these, seven million were shot in prison, and a majority of the others died in camp." These figures were also found in the papers of Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan.33

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet "repression" of it own people:34

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as 'The Twenty Million'."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 10:39 AM
Now there's a topic that is really relevant to WWI .... how Lenin connived with the Kaiser and the German Jews ..... to defeat Russia crossing Germany in his "sealed train" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

"The German Jews" ?

The Irish also turned to Germany one or twice, did they not ? At times, my enemy's enemy is my friend.

The Russian Revolution brought an end to Russia's involvement in WW1. Mutiny - inspired by the example of Russia - followed by uprising, brought an end to the German regime and brought the Social Democrats to power.
WW1 ended because workers would not fight any more and turned to social revolution. This was also part of the background to the end of the War of Independence. The British may have been relatively happy enough to hand over to the safe hands of FG's political forebears, for fear of ending up with something worse.

I would be interested in discussing postwar deaths in the Soviet Union, but what point are you making in relation to WW1 ? Certainly, the economic, social and infrastructural devastation of Russia in WW1 was one of the causes of the revolution, and also created conditions of extreme difficulty for building a new society.

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 10:55 AM
Now there's a topic that is really relevant to WWI .... how Lenin connived with the Kaiser and the German Jews ..... to defeat Russia crossing Germany in his "sealed train" :rolleyes:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

A rank piece of "Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy" anti-semitism. Great that it quotes that old **** Churchill. The writer seems to be a monarchist, longing for the return of the Hapsburg Empire. :)
This kind of propoganda was used by the Nazis to whip up pogroms and mass killings of Jews in WW2.

It is striking how the political role of Jewish people, once perceived as progressive world wide, now appears to be dominated by the Zionist entity. I don't think that will be a permanent state of affairs.


Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:13
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."14
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."15
"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."16
As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.17 Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."18

riposte
12-08-2014, 11:05 AM
"The German Jews" ?

The Irish also turned to Germany one or twice, did they not ? At times, my enemy's enemy is my friend.
.

I like to deal in facts. For 800 years Ireland struggled to get free from English and British domination ..... and every time failure was brought about by informers and traitors ...... and by any definition Lenin was a traitor to his country.

Any republican with integrity must be ashamed that the guns used in the Easter Rising came from Fascist Germany. I certainly am.

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 12:08 PM
I like to deal in facts. For 800 years Ireland struggled to get free from English and British domination ..... and every time failure was brought about by informers and traitors ...... and by any definition Lenin was a traitor to his country.

Any republican with integrity must be ashamed that the guns used in the Easter Rising came from Fascist Germany. I certainly am.

So the people who used the guns in the Rising were traitors ?

I don't now of any accepted definition of fascism that would apply to the German state 1914 - 1918, by the way.

riposte
12-08-2014, 01:35 PM
So the people who used the guns in the Rising were traitors ?

Unlike Lenin none of them was fighting against their own country.



I don't now of any accepted definition of fascism that would apply to the German state 1914 - 1918, by the way.

People alter or makeup definitions to suit their arguments. (Read the Ukraine thread)

Saoirse go Deo
12-08-2014, 01:40 PM
Just following the direction of some of yours - and Saoirse's - earlier posts - http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16178-Commemorating-WW1&p=395695#post395695

No, I don't think that it is off topic to discuss what the demobilised soldiers did in Ireland, in the following years, as well as what was done to them.
Some people aren't as interested in the topic as they are in bickering.

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 01:50 PM
Some people aren't as interested in the topic as they are in bickering.

In spite of the bickering, I've learned a bit from this thread and associated reading :)

riposte
12-08-2014, 02:04 PM
Some people aren't as interested in the topic as they are in bickering.

and splitting hairs..... and going off topic.. talking about the civil war which was four years later .. and the Free State Army .... which didn't exist at the time of WWI.

Ogiol
12-08-2014, 02:57 PM
and splitting hairs..... and going off topic.. talking about the civil war which was four years later .. and the Free State Army .... which didn't exist at the time of WWI.

It's called context. All these events are closely intertwined in Irish history. Very intertwined as has been teased out in some posts.

riposte
12-08-2014, 03:32 PM
It's called context. All these events are closely intertwined in Irish history. Very intertwined as has been teased out in some posts.

If the thread was about the Free State Army or the Civil War ...... WWI could reasonably be discussed as a background or fore-runner to the topic.. but the thread is not about those topics and what happened 4 years or 40 years later is irrevelant to what happened in WWI.

I've seen threads divided up and merged and declared off topic here on far less logical grounds.

For example .... I put up a thread entitled "God Exists because there's order in the universe" .. it was merged with some other thread which had nothing to do with the topic........ resulting in the usual sectarian squabbling about religion, the Catholic Church, the bible, clerical sex-abuse etc.

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 03:41 PM
If the thread was about the Free State Army or the Civil War ...... WWI could reasonably be discussed as a background or fore-runner to the topic.. but the thread is not about those topics and what happened 4 years or 40 years later is irrevelant to what happened in WWI.

I've seen threads divided up and merged and declared off topic here on far less logical grounds.

Hmmmm

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16178-Commemorating-WW1&p=395695#post395695

The best way of bringing a thread on topic, if you think it has drifted, is to make what you consider to be an on topic post.

Ogiol
12-08-2014, 05:22 PM
If the thread was about the Free State Army or the Civil War ...... WWI could reasonably be discussed as a background or fore-runner to the topic.. but the thread is not about those topics and what happened 4 years or 40 years later is irrevelant to what happened in WWI.

I've seen threads divided up and merged and declared off topic here on far less logical grounds.



The big difference here, as you well know is that we're talking about tens of thousands of the SAME PEOPLE (mainly men) who were involved in the ructions 1914 - 20/22 . The very same people. Now naturally the thread concentrates on WW1, Ireland & commemorations so that aspect should dominate the thread, but it is completely unavoidable that people will go off on very close tangents when the topics involve the very same thousands of people.

Now, back on Core (but not only) topic, I think it would be fine to commemorate those who fought in WW1 as long as there is equal concentration on the utterly rotten reasons and clear manipulation carried out by all political leadership in every empire involved, and that includes Redmond.

Now, on a tangent, Roger Casement should be central to any discussion on these issues. He was a pivotal figure who was airbrushed out of history because 1)he used to be on the British imperial side and 2) because he was Gay. He exposed the hippocracy of empires, All of them, and derived from that that fighting for any of them was morally repugnant.

riposte
12-08-2014, 08:39 PM
Now, on a tangent, Roger Casement should be central to any discussion on these issues. He was a pivotal figure who was airbrushed out of history because 1)he used to be on the British imperial side and 2) because he was Gay. He exposed the hippocracy of empires, All of them, and derived from that that fighting for any of them was morally repugnant.

Then why did he try to set up an Irish division in the Kaiser's army?

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 08:57 PM
If the thread was about the Free State Army or the Civil War ...... WWI could reasonably be discussed as a background or fore-runner to the topic.. but the thread is not about those topics and what happened 4 years or 40 years later is irrevelant to what happened in WWI.

I've seen threads divided up and merged and declared off topic here on far less logical grounds.

For example .... I put up a thread entitled "God Exists because there's order in the universe" .. it was merged with some other thread which had nothing to do with the topic........ resulting in the usual sectarian squabbling about religion, the Catholic Church, the bible, clerical sex-abuse etc.

Here is the thread, riposte - all 12 pages of it. It doesn't appear to have been merged.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?15366-God-Exists-because-there-is-order-in-the-Universe

C. Flower
12-08-2014, 09:12 PM
The big difference here, as you well know is that we're talking about tens of thousands of the SAME PEOPLE (mainly men) who were involved in the ructions 1914 - 20/22 . The very same people. Now naturally the thread concentrates on WW1, Ireland & commemorations so that aspect should dominate the thread, but it is completely unavoidable that people will go off on very close tangents when the topics involve the very same thousands of people.

Now, back on Core (but not only) topic, I think it would be fine to commemorate those who fought in WW1 as long as there is equal concentration on the utterly rotten reasons and clear manipulation carried out by all political leadership in every empire involved, and that includes Redmond.

Now, on a tangent, Roger Casement should be central to any discussion on these issues. He was a pivotal figure who was airbrushed out of history because 1)he used to be on the British imperial side and 2) because he was Gay. He exposed the hippocracy of empires, All of them, and derived from that that fighting for any of them was morally repugnant.

A key theme of discussion and commemoration of WW1 in Ireland is that demobbed British soldiers in Ireland were given a bit of a hard time and no credit for their 'sacrifice.' The suggestion is that we should now change our attitude and adopt a misty and idealised view of what they did as being in some way a noble life choice. Also, that we should all think the same thing about this.

The reality was much more polarised and still is. People don't agree about the war, or the reasons why people joined up to the British forces.

I agree with you about Casement, and I also generally admire the anti-imperialist ethos that a good number of people had in Ireland, 1914 onwards. Distinctly different to nationalist republicanism, I think, and less likely to want to do deals and compromise with Britain.

I'm in favour of remembering and examining the events of 1914-1918 so we can learn from them. There are far too many signs that we are facing into another major European war for us to ignore them.

Trow
12-08-2014, 09:40 PM
Any republican with integrity must be ashamed that the guns used in the Easter Rising came from Fascist Germany. I certainly am.

Where else might you get a good bolt action rifle circa 1916?
Worth noting that the 25000 rifles and 3-5 million rounds of ammunition shipped to the UVF in Ulster in April 1914 were shipped out of Hamburg. They were to contest Home Rule.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larne_gun-running

Ogiol
12-08-2014, 09:52 PM
Where else might you get a good bolt action rifle circa 1916?
Worth noting that the 25000 rifles and 3-5 million rounds of ammunition shipped to the UVF in Ulster in April 1914 were shipped out of Hamburg. They were to contest Home Rule.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larne_gun-running

I'll second that reply with regard to Casement...

riposte
12-08-2014, 10:05 PM
Here is the thread, riposte - all 12 pages of it. It doesn't appear to have been merged.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?15366-God-Exists-because-there-is-order-in-the-Universe

A great read ..... a great thread.

lastman
12-08-2014, 11:44 PM
What was his first sentence ?

Can't quote it verbatim but the essence of Ballagh's opening remarks was: that the Volunteers went to France so the Irish Home Rule Bill would get passed.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Irish History should know that the Home Rule Bill 1914 had already been passed by both Houses of Parliament and had received Royal Assent. Because the final passage of the bill coincided with the outbreak of WW1, a Suspensory Act was also passed suspending its implementation for the duration of the war. Home Rule was therefore already on the Statute books, it was the law. Ballagh's remark demonstrates his shaky grasp of the history of a period he claims deep interest in. The events of 1910-22 hinge on the genesis, the disputes and controversies that accompanied the long passage of this Act through parliament.

lastman
13-08-2014, 04:53 AM
The orgy of so-called "commemoration" on RTE is not in my view a consequence of "natural human feelings" - it's thinly concealed pro-war hype.

Is C Flower referring to the RTE documentaries following the stories of Irish WW1 veterans in the company of one or more of their descendants? Calling these pro-war is ridiculous- are you delusional? Like every other WW1 documentary, novel, memoir or poem I have ever seen, it laments the utter waste of lives in this futile and unnecessary conflict.

Oh and 6 documentaries is an orgy? It is the centenary of a war which forged the whole of the 20th century and whose effects are still felt today. A war in which 200,000 Irishmen fought and 50,000 died and you call six programs an orgy? Clearly your obvious political bias has distorted your perception.

I genuinely thought that we had grown up and moved on from mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred, or maybe its just that most bloggers are just a minority of cranks!

lastman
13-08-2014, 06:32 AM
APJP

3. Belgium did have an empire, and it was being invaded by another empire-that ain't opinion it's a fact. Have you never heard of the Congo?.....Much of this work was from King Leopold, but there was an empire supporting the king...

I have heard about it and read Casement's report, and "Heart of Darkness" and a few others. The worst period was 1885-1908 when it was the personal property of King Leopold. He appropriated it himself because his government and the people had no interest in empire building. So in fact there was no "empire supporting the king", he did it all with private international companies and mercenaries. It was a unique and grotesque situation- he owned the whole Congo! Following the exposure of Leopold's genocide by the media, the Belgian govt had to annex it to remove him from the picture, and he fought hard to hang onto it. Most Belgians got nothing out of it. Leopold ought to have been hanged for his crimes there.
(By the way nowhere did I support the "plucky Little Belgium" line, I mentioned it as an example of labels in earlier posts.)

I take your point in 1, up to a point- a country is more than one person and if badly run you can bet those at the top are still taking their big slice, leaving even less for those at the bottom. Think Ireland and Bertie and the rest of those FF c***s' pensions, bankers, NAMA accountants etc etc.

2.Imperialism is not a term, it is an ideology and an economic and political system ....

I'd need a book for this one. "Imperialism" is the name of a critique of empire. Millions of words have been spilled in building up the many and various theories of imperialism. Few are aware that the origin of all these was a book published in 1902 by advanced English Liberal J.A Hobson called "Imperialism- A Study". This is one of the most influential books of the 20th century that nobody has heard of. It was ransacked by Lenin to develop his theories, by Fintin Lalor and James Connolly, by numerous marxists and post-colonialists like Nkruma and the British New Left into the 1960s. Gerry Adams reproduces its ideas, thinking they come from Connolly, but he got them from Hobson- and he's not alone, hundreds of left writers have done the same. Hobson's theory was wide and sweeping and ventured to explain a lot- some of it stands up, but influential chunks of it are underpinned by vague and faulty economic reasoning. Because of its influence on widely read successors like Lenin, these mistakes have been repeated and perpetuated down the years and become a kind of dogma that is hard to overcome. That said, his heart was in the right place.

5 I said nowt about 1916; doubt I'm a Redmondite just said his knockers were about.

riposte
13-08-2014, 09:41 AM
Is C Flower referring to the RTE documentaries following the stories of Irish WW1 veterans in the company of one or more of their descendants? Calling these pro-war is ridiculous- are you delusional? Like every other WW1 documentary, novel, memoir or poem I have ever seen, it laments the utter waste of lives in this futile and unnecessary conflict.

Oh and 6 documentaries is an orgy? It is the centenary of a war which forged the whole of the 20th century and whose effects are still felt today. A war in which 200,000 Irishmen fought and 50,000 died and you call six programs an orgy? Clearly your obvious political bias has distorted your perception.

I genuinely thought that we had grown up and moved on from mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred, or maybe its just that most bloggers are just a minority of cranks!

Rofl!!! ........ You are delusional Lastman.....if you expect to find any logic around here. I don't think your views are going to fit the requirements here ..... my guess is you won't last six weeks ... but you'll sure get a lot of attention in the meantime.

Pearse Monnet
13-08-2014, 11:56 AM
so-called "commemoration" . . . . is thinly concealed pro-war hype.

That’s it in a nutshell

http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t586/blancho15/Other%20Political%20World%20dor%20org%20Threads/Celebratesavageryoverafewdrinks_zpsea113efd.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/blancho15/media/Other%20Political%20World%20dor%20org%20Threads/Celebratesavageryoverafewdrinks_zpsea113efd.jpg.ht ml)

What ever about lectures and ceremonies this night of nostalgia for marching songs is taking the biscuit in the marking of the 100th anniversary of the start of the War to End All Wars.

This “evening of song and stories” is part of an agenda in the Irish state that has come to become noticeable in the last 10 (?) years. This agenda has two functions:
Firstly to sanitise WWI, a conflict that was characterised by a (until-then) unprecedented level of savagery and destruction.
Secondly to emphasise Ireland’s historic relationship with Britain. This is not only simply to de-escalate tension between the two countries but to create a favourable atmosphere IF the decision is made in a generation or two for the Irish state to fold as a (pathetically limited) polity, and the territory of the 26 counties to be absorbed back into the British State.

Would a Local Government (in this case So Dub Co Co) get behind a concert that featured ballads that were famous during the Northern Troubles?
I think we all know the answer to that question.

This event is highly political and is funded by revenue the Neo Redmondite state doesn't have

riposte
13-08-2014, 12:09 PM
but to create a favourable atmosphere IF the decision is made in a generation or two for the Irish state to fold as a (pathetically limited) polity, and the territory of the 26 counties to be absorbed back into the British State.

There isn't enough straw in Ireland to build a strawman that big. Create maximum paranoia for political effect.



Would a Local Government (in this case So Dub Co Co) get behind a concert that featured ballads that were famous during the Northern Troubles?



You are on more solid ground here. A good point.

C. Flower
13-08-2014, 01:02 PM
Is C Flower referring to the RTE documentaries following the stories of Irish WW1 veterans in the company of one or more of their descendants? Calling these pro-war is ridiculous- are you delusional? Like every other WW1 documentary, novel, memoir or poem I have ever seen, it laments the utter waste of lives in this futile and unnecessary conflict.

Oh and 6 documentaries is an orgy? It is the centenary of a war which forged the whole of the 20th century and whose effects are still felt today. A war in which 200,000 Irishmen fought and 50,000 died and you call six programs an orgy? Clearly your obvious political bias has distorted your perception.

I genuinely thought that we had grown up and moved on from mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred, or maybe its just that most bloggers are just a minority of cranks!

To what "mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred are you referring" ?

RTE's coverage is by radio and website, as well as television. I have heard " A Long Way to Tipperary" more times than I've had hot dinners this summer.

I have not head any serious historical analysis of the "futile and unneccessary" conflict. What programmes do you have in mind ? I would like to play them.

What do you call it, when 50,000 Irish people are killed in a "futile and unneccessary war" ? What is your political viewpoint on that ?


RTE is going big time for faux reportage on WW1 - "slice of life" regurgitation of the propoganda of the day, and post card type memoirs.

http://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/articles/redmond-pledges-irish-volunteers-to-defence-of-ireland

This type of coverage normalises war and habituates people to thinking of it uncritically.

riposte
13-08-2014, 01:20 PM
I have heard " A Long Way to Tipperary" more times than I've had hot dinners this summer.



Fr. Kevin supplies hot dinners to any who need them down in Church Street every day.

Pearse Monnet
13-08-2014, 01:51 PM
Secondly to emphasise Ireland’s historic relationship with Britain. This is not only simply to de-escalate tension between the two countries but to create a favourable atmosphere IF the decision is made in a generation or two for the Irish state to fold as a (pathetically limited) polity, and the territory of the 26 counties to be absorbed back into the British State.


There isn't enough straw in Ireland to build a strawman that big.

“in a generation or two” who knows?
Not me and not you.

That li'l sprog squirming in yer one's arms in Buck House could be the future King of Ireland. Or he could die a commoner in a Britain that we can't even imagine at this moment.

The current state of affairs in Ireland today would simply be unrecognisable to anyone two generations ago.

Here are a few examples
1) The Irish state and the EU
The electorate were always told by FF people (pols and grassroots) not to worry about the Irish state’s membership of the EU; that a Strong, Nationalist, Patriotic Party like them would ensure that Irish sovereignty would not be diluted.

Look how well that turned out.

2) The North
The Provos have been de-militarised and are part of state structures in the north-east of this country that . . . . . . well, I don’t think words like power-sharing ever made it into the speeches in Bodenstown.

I could go on but I won’t. My point is made.
With anti-nationalist narrative control over the history of this country, a dwindling future for the fortunes of a (bourgeois) state in this country, the ongoing process of globalisation,. . . . . I believe it is a possibility.

TotalMayhem
13-08-2014, 02:53 PM
Any republican with integrity must be ashamed that the guns used in the Easter Rising came from Fascist Germany. I certainly am.

Did I miss something in the course of this discussion? When did the German Empire become a fascist state?

Besides, those few German carbines amount to nothing compared to the support Irish Republicans later sought and received from Nazi-Germany. If you want something to be ashamed of, traces of this once blooming cooperation can still be found today if you only look hard enough.

Trow
13-08-2014, 06:36 PM
Besides, those few German carbines amount to nothing compared to the support Irish Republicans later sought and received from Nazi-Germany. If you want something to be ashamed of, traces of this once blooming cooperation can still be found today if you only look hard enough.

Volkswagen?

riposte
13-08-2014, 07:50 PM
Did I miss something in the course of this discussion? When did the German Empire become a fascist state?

Sorry TM .... I forgot ...... it was a peace loving Eutopia :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Besides, those few German carbines amount to nothing compared to the support Irish Republicans later sought and received from Nazi-Germany. If you want something to be ashamed of, traces of this once blooming cooperation can still be found today if you only look hard enough.

I am thoroughly ashamed of any connection between Ireland and Germany ..... now ... in the past ... or in the future.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

TotalMayhem
13-08-2014, 11:22 PM
I am thoroughly ashamed of any connection between Ireland and Germany ..... now ... in the past ... or in the future.

Good on you. Then maybe you should be fighting such institutions as Folens (https://www.folens.ie/), Ireland's leading schoolbook publishing company in the hands of the family of Nazi war criminal Albert Folens, or St. Kilian's School in Dublin, founded by the Nazi Helmut Clissmann (http://clissmann.com/index.php) who escaped justice with the help of his pal and former IRA chief of staff Seán MacBride.

Never mind the Volkswagen and Mercs...

We have a thread here you may find of interest: The Nazi Safe House (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?8474-The-Nazi-safe-house#.U-vkq-ypp_Q).

fluffybiscuits
13-08-2014, 11:34 PM
Good on you. Then maybe you should be fighting such institutions as Folens (https://www.folens.ie/), Ireland's leading schoolbook publishing company in the hands of the family of Nazi war criminal Albert Folens, or St. Kilian's School in Dublin, founded by the Nazi Helmut Clissmann (http://clissmann.com/index.php) who escaped justice with the help of his pal and former IRA chief of staff Seán MacBride.

Never mind the Volkswagen and Mercs...

We have a thread here you may find of interest: The Nazi Safe House (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?8474-The-Nazi-safe-house#.U-vkq-ypp_Q).

RA heads at the time


"But but but the enemy of my enemy is my friend!"

lastman
14-08-2014, 01:02 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_colonial_empire


Belgium was in some ways, the worst European empire, and so no it does not deserve any sympathy for being invaded by Germany-wasn't our problem, but as were slaves without a parliament or a State, we had no say in the matter(in case you have forgotten).

Incidentally Belgium and Germany had been at loggerheads for some time over Rwanda/Burundi and so this may have helped seethe more resentment on the part of the German elite towards their Belgian cousins.

How much more nonsense can you trot out? Slaves without a parliament or a state! Ireland sent 100 MPs to Westminster (usually 70 Nationalist and 30 Unionist) plus there was a full democratic system of Local Government. On those occasions when the 70 Nationalists held the balance of power at Westminster they could join the government and extract extra concessions for Ireland. The problematic part was the executive arm of government in Dublin Castle was appointed directly from London. By 1914 the quality of rule in Ireland had greatly improved and conditions for the Irish were broadly similar to the Scots or the English. I'm not saying it was a success, clearly it was a failure, but Slaves.... try to stick with reality.

The Germans didn't invade Belgium cos they hated them- it was the only route around the French defenses- They used the exact same one in 1940 during WW2.

lastman
14-08-2014, 01:50 AM
I like to deal in facts. For 800 years Ireland struggled to get free from English and British domination ..... and every time failure was brought about by informers and traitors ...... and by any definition Lenin was a traitor to his country.

Any republican with integrity must be ashamed that the guns used in the Easter Rising came from Fascist Germany. I certainly am.

Do you like FACTS Mr Riposte?

1 "800 years" is 150 year old (smelly) irish nationalistic propagandistic tripe. In 1169 Ireland was invaded by Normans- ie people who spoke French. The same Normans who invaded England in 1066 and extirpated the Anglo-Saxon (ie English) monarchy, leadership and nobility leaving the rest of the English population to toil away and pay taxes to them. 1066 was the Norman Conquest of England, 1169 the Norman conquest of Ireland. Try 350 years- the first properly English conquest is in Elizabethan times culminating in the Nine Years War.

2. Jewish Bolsheviks eh? It's hardly surprising there were so many Jewish Bolsheviks given how badly they were treated by successive Tsarist regimes. Much worse than the Irish by the Brits. In 1900 Russian jews were still living in conditions as bad or worse than the Penal Laws.

riposte
14-08-2014, 10:14 AM
Do you like FACTS Mr Riposte?

1 "800 years" is 150 year old (smelly) irish nationalistic propagandistic tripe. In 1169 Ireland was invaded by Normans- ie people who spoke French. The same Normans who invaded England in 1066 and extirpated the Anglo-Saxon (ie English) monarchy, leadership and nobility leaving the rest of the English population to toil away and pay taxes to them. 1066 was the Norman Conquest of England, 1169 the Norman conquest of Ireland. Try 350 years- the first properly English conquest is in Elizabethan times culminating in the Nine Years War.

2. Jewish Bolsheviks eh? It's hardly surprising there were so many Jewish Bolsheviks given how badly they were treated by successive Tsarist regimes. Much worse than the Irish by the Brits. In 1900 Russian jews were still living in conditions as bad or worse than the Penal Laws.

So what?

Trow
14-08-2014, 10:02 PM
There's one story of World War 1 that sticks with me. Made me look at things from a whole different perspective when i was first told it. Wonder if you've ever heard it yourself.

The Christmas truce (German: Weihnachtsfrieden; French: Trêve de Noël) was a series of widespread, unofficial ceasefires that took place along the Western Front around Christmas 1914, during World War I. Through the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts. On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, many soldiers from both sides—as well as, to a lesser degree, from French units—independently ventured into "no man's land", where they mingled, exchanging food and souvenirs. As well as joint burial ceremonies, several meetings ended in carol-singing. Troops from both sides were also friendly enough to play games of football with one another.

The truce is often seen as a symbolic moment of peace and humanity amidst one of the most violent events of human history. It was not ubiquitous; in some regions of the front, fighting continued throughout the day, while in others, little more than an arrangement to recover bodies was made. The following year, a few units again arranged ceasefires with their opponents over Christmas, but the truces were not nearly as widespread as in 1914; this was, in part, due to strongly worded orders from the high commands of both sides prohibiting such fraternisation. In 1916, after the unprecedentedly bloody battles of the Somme and Verdun, and the beginning of widespread poison gas use, soldiers on both sides increasingly viewed the other side as less than human, and no more Christmas truces were sought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

I think in the spirit of things World cup matches should be held on Christmas day. To commemorate a moment of humanity.

morticia
14-08-2014, 10:10 PM
I'm afraid I'd have to argue with the 150 years of history a little bit, Lastman. Sure, it was a Norman invasion, but as their monarch was king of England at the time (and his descendants remain so
today), there is total continuity. And I'm saying this as a descendant of the original England invading Normans back in 1066. You are right in one sense, though, descendants of the Saxons, such as my (English) husband, still identify the Normans as the enemy....almost 1000 years of history, there. Apparently French/Norman origin surnames are still more likely to be associated with wealth in Britain, even now.

Having lived in Wales relatively recently, it is abundantly clear to me that, were it not for our patriotic rebels in 1916, we'd still be an agri-backwater with little development and even more of our best and brightest in that sinking overcrowded swamp, otherwise known as London. The Welsh and Scottish parliaments are, moreover, on a leash. And imperialism is alive and well, particularly obvious when you see how much of UK exports are armaments related. Don't get me started. Modern Ireland ain't perfect, but I'll be celebrating 1916, as a two finger flip against generic imperialism if nothing else.

lastman
15-08-2014, 04:39 AM
[QUOTE=morticia;396640]I'm afraid I'd have to argue with the 150 years of history a little bit, Lastman. Sure, it was a Norman invasion, but as their monarch was king of England at the time (and his descendants remain so
today), there is total continuity....

Re 150 years...Sorry. I have caused some confusion in my OTT phrasing of this point.

The 150 years I refer to is the age of the story. Around 150 years ago, ie in the 1860s, the Nationalist Version of Irish History was created and disseminated. The very first Article of this was the "800 Years of Oppression by the English" distorting the fact that Norman knights (from Wales) invaded, whose francophone master was Henry II, king of France & England. Henry was born in France and didn't go to England until he was 22 when he inherited the throne. He moved his court around but mostly it was in France. French remained the language of the king's court, the nobles and the law courts in England for another 200 years. .

Dunno about 1916 effect on the "agri-backwater" as you put it. No significant progress occurred on this front till Lemass/Whittaker in 1959, 43 years later.

morticia
15-08-2014, 06:45 AM
Yes, but Lemass/Whittaker at least managed something, and the IDA 1970s decision to invest in computers managed exponentially more. Wales, by comparison, is a VAT sink, more taxes go in than come out, and the ambitious leave for England. We are so much better off independent. To cite an example, I remember listening to morning radio on the way to work over there and was appalled to hear a CBI (IBEC equivalent survey) on which regional accents were considered more employable. RP English followed by a hint of Scottish apparently; industry respondents felt Welsh, Liverpool and Brummie suggested laziness. The class system is alive and well; we are out of it to some extent. Thank you, 1916...

C. Flower
15-08-2014, 10:02 AM
There's one story of World War 1 that sticks with me. Made me look at things from a whole different perspective when i was first told it. Wonder if you've ever heard it yourself.

The Christmas truce (German: Weihnachtsfrieden; French: Trêve de Noël) was a series of widespread, unofficial ceasefires that took place along the Western Front around Christmas 1914, during World War I. Through the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts. On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, many soldiers from both sides—as well as, to a lesser degree, from French units—independently ventured into "no man's land", where they mingled, exchanging food and souvenirs. As well as joint burial ceremonies, several meetings ended in carol-singing. Troops from both sides were also friendly enough to play games of football with one another.

The truce is often seen as a symbolic moment of peace and humanity amidst one of the most violent events of human history. It was not ubiquitous; in some regions of the front, fighting continued throughout the day, while in others, little more than an arrangement to recover bodies was made. The following year, a few units again arranged ceasefires with their opponents over Christmas, but the truces were not nearly as widespread as in 1914; this was, in part, due to strongly worded orders from the high commands of both sides prohibiting such fraternisation. In 1916, after the unprecedentedly bloody battles of the Somme and Verdun, and the beginning of widespread poison gas use, soldiers on both sides increasingly viewed the other side as less than human, and no more Christmas truces were sought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

I think in the spirit of things World cup matches should be held on Christmas day. To commemorate a moment of humanity.

Yes, the spontaneous truces are worth remembering, the socialists like Rosa Luxembourg who opposed the war tooth and nail, and the mass mutinies of troops and sailors who ended it. :)

TotalMayhem
15-08-2014, 10:13 AM
socialists like Rosa Luxembourg

Rosa who? ;)

Richardbouvet
15-08-2014, 11:18 AM
I do not agreee with Eamonn Maloney's call to withdraw the John Redmond stamp. The stamp depicts a recruiting poster, but it is surely nonsense to think that we are endorsing the recruitment campaign a century later. Another stamp has Carson on it. Does that mean we are endorsing the UVF?

lastman
31-08-2014, 04:11 AM
To what "mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred are you referring" ?

RTE's coverage is by radio and website, as well as television. I have heard " A Long Way to Tipperary" more times than I've had hot dinners this summer.

I have not head any serious historical analysis of the "futile and unneccessary" conflict. What programmes do you have in mind ? I would like to play them.

What do you call it, when 50,000 Irish people are killed in a "futile and unneccessary war" ? What is your political viewpoint on that ?


RTE is going big time for faux reportage on WW1 - "slice of life" regurgitation of the propoganda of the day, and post card type memoirs.



This type of coverage normalises war and habituates people to thinking of it uncritically.


Apologies if I read some (anti-brit) sentiment into your posts they did not contain, I may have been reacting to impressions I got from a number of different authors.

I saw only three RTE TV Docs on the war- the two part one with the descendants and the Gay Byrne piece. Your points above are valid, but c'mon whats your expectation of the depth of TV History docs. The BBC standard has fallen so low thro' relentless dumbing-down and an excess of "history from below" that cogent analysis would come as a shock.

What I (over)reacted strongly to was the notion in many posts that war was being glorified or normalized in these programs. Since the 1920's the consensus on WW1 has been that it was a complete waste of lives. I would guess that the main aim of the Irish makers was to do justice to those Irishmen who participated, but who got written out of history here for political reasons in post-independence Ireland. I don't think they know or care much about the international dimension.

The notion that the Kaiser's Germany was a kind of fascist enterprise is just an excuse trotted out by those trying to justify the Brit's disastrous decision to get involved. WW1 was the first blow that destroyed Britain as a world power in just 30 years. It knocked France out of the game permanently. They both should have let the Germans (and Austria-Hungary) win a quick victory against Russia and re-draw the map of Central Europe. Instead we got:

1. The Bolshevik Revolution- Lenin Stalin- 20 million murdered in USSR
2. The political collapse of Germany- Hitler, the Nazis, WW2 & the Holocaust, 100 million dead, the utter destruction of central Europe plus 50 years stagnation under Stalinism.
3 The emergence of the USA as the new bungling world power, nuclear weapons, the Cold War etc. WW1 was their first involvement in European politics and was a catalogue of errors.

All this is the direct and indirect result of WW1. Historians call WW2 "the last battle of WW1". Hence its importance. Many believe European Civilization ended in 1914 at its own hand. "The Suicide of Europe" is the title of a book written by a Romanian on the period 1914-45. All these points do not get the attention they deserve. Instead we get a lot of noodling about the hobbies of the tommys or a lot of PC tripe on the empowerment of women by driving trucks.

C. Flower
31-08-2014, 03:26 PM
Apologies if I read some (anti-brit) sentiment into your posts they did not contain, I may have been reacting to impressions I got from a number of different authors.

I saw only three RTE TV Docs on the war- the two part one with the descendants and the Gay Byrne piece. Your points above are valid, but c'mon whats your expectation of the depth of TV History docs. The BBC standard has fallen so low thro' relentless dumbing-down and an excess of "history from below" that cogent analysis would come as a shock.

What I (over)reacted strongly to was the notion in many posts that war was being glorified or normalized in these programs. Since the 1920's the consensus on WW1 has been that it was a complete waste of lives. I would guess that the main aim of the Irish makers was to do justice to those Irishmen who participated, but who got written out of history here for political reasons in post-independence Ireland. I don't think they know or care much about the international dimension.

The notion that the Kaiser's Germany was a kind of fascist enterprise is just an excuse trotted out by those trying to justify the Brit's disastrous decision to get involved. WW1 was the first blow that destroyed Britain as a world power in just 30 years. It knocked France out of the game permanently. They both should have let the Germans (and Austria-Hungary) win a quick victory against Russia and re-draw the map of Central Europe. Instead we got:

1. The Bolshevik Revolution- Lenin Stalin- 20 million murdered in USSR
2. The political collapse of Germany- Hitler, the Nazis, WW2 & the Holocaust, 100 million dead, the utter destruction of central Europe plus 50 years stagnation under Stalinism.
3 The emergence of the USA as the new bungling world power, nuclear weapons, the Cold War etc. WW1 was their first involvement in European politics and was a catalogue of errors.

All this is the direct and indirect result of WW1. Historians call WW2 "the last battle of WW1". Hence its importance. Many believe European Civilization ended in 1914 at its own hand. "The Suicide of Europe" is the title of a book written by a Romanian on the period 1914-45. All these points do not get the attention they deserve. Instead we get a lot of noodling about the hobbies of the tommys or a lot of PC tripe on the empowerment of women by driving trucks.

A quick win over Russia has been tried before and didn't work out. It is too big, and the weather too bad.

But your point that this is continuous acting out of the same issues I agree with.

I do think that RTE's coverage is a form of cultural grooming and has been devised as part of a strategy for management of 2016. I have been listening to the radio coverage on WW1 (daily :() for weeks now. When I hear things like '8 million horses died fighting in the war' I know I am listening to people whose brains are in a strange place.

There has been a lot of interesting material, fact and WW1 fiction, some of it worthwhile. But the reiteration of phrases to do with "sacrifice" and "service" was only corrected by the very occasional and rather awkward 'balancing' remark questioning the war itself.

There was very little historical analysis of the reasons for the war, and none that I heard on its geopolitical aftermath.

Binn Beal
31-08-2014, 04:58 PM
It's quite simple really. We learned all about it at school. All those brave Irish men joined up to fight for poor, little, Catholic Belgium where the evil Huns were bayonetting nuns and burning convents. That's why we should also join Nato and recruit all those spare, unemployed people that we have so that they can fight against the bad guys, that is, Russia and China and such like.

Richardbouvet
01-09-2014, 02:23 PM
"I do think that RTE's coverage is a form of cultural grooming and has been devised as part of a strategy for management of 2016"

PW, I agree that there is a certain slant in RTEs coverage of the war, but it is a leap from there to saying, as you seem to do, that RTE is part of a conspiracy to undermine the 1916 centenary and/or soften us ip for new imperialist involvements.

It is more likely that RTE's bias is unintentional. They are simply reflecting the orthodoxies that have gradually taken hold.

C. Flower
01-09-2014, 03:01 PM
"I do think that RTE's coverage is a form of cultural grooming and has been devised as part of a strategy for management of 2016"

PW, I agree that there is a certain slant in RTEs coverage of the war, but it is a leap from there to saying, as you seem to do, that RTE is part of a conspiracy to undermine the 1916 centenary and/or soften us ip for new imperialist involvements.

It is more likely that RTE's bias is unintentional. They are simply reflecting the orthodoxies that have gradually taken hold.

There is an intense history to how republicanism is treated by the media. People like Joe Duffy jump as though electrocuted if they come across a nationalist/republican on air.

I think there is an unspoken establishment consensus that 2016 is a problem that needs handling. There is a mix of conscious and unconscious management of the event, and unthinking complicity. Diarmuid Ferriter and other historians have been critical of how Government has prepared for 2016.

He says here that the belief that the 1966 anniversary led to the outbreak of the Troubles is historically incorrect.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/books/challenging-myths-and-underlining-tensions-195152.html

Richardbouvet
01-09-2014, 03:36 PM
1966 had their version of 1916 and we will have ours.

1966, to my then young eyes, was a revolting orgy of smugness and self-congratulation. I think the 1966 celebrations probably did much more to trigger revisionism that they did to set off the troubles!

2016 will probably be the story of a small open economy which is a great place to do business, and where we have buried the enmities of the past etc etc.

Binn Beal
01-09-2014, 04:28 PM
It is more likely that RTE's bias is unintentional. They are simply reflecting the orthodoxies that have gradually taken hold.

I think you have hit a nail on the head here. An Establishment or ruling elite or class does not need to conspire, as its various elements act in concert much like a living organism. Bishops don't need to be told to give sermons on greed and selfishness just when wage negotiations are starting or there is the threat of a strike; academics don't need to be told to propose changes to an electoral system when the lower orders are making advances in that area. No one told the editors in RTE, Newstalk, the Indo and the Times what the line should be. They all acted spontaneously in defence of their class position.

Often I have heard editors refer to a 'good story' and request more along similar lines while another story is dismissed as not very relevant. This lesson is soon learned by those who seek careers in the news media and that is why nearly all journalists are merely mouthpieces of the owners.

lastman
02-09-2014, 04:05 AM
A quick win over Russia has been tried before and didn't work out. It is too big, and the weather too bad.

But your point that this is continuous acting out of the same issues I agree with.

I do think that RTE's coverage is a form of cultural grooming and has been devised as part of a strategy for management of 2016. I have been listening to the radio coverage on WW1 (daily :() for weeks now. When I hear things like '8 million horses died fighting in the war' I know I am listening to people whose brains are in a strange place.

There has been a lot of interesting material, fact and WW1 fiction, some of it worthwhile. But the reiteration of phrases to do with "sacrifice" and "service" was only corrected by the very occasional and rather awkward 'balancing' remark questioning the war itself.

There was very little historical analysis of the reasons for the war, and none that I heard on its geopolitical aftermath.


I've been obsessed by the consequences of WW1 ever since they clicked in my head a few years ago and I saw it was the cause of the whole 20th century. Before then I used to find WW1 a bit of a bore, and couldn't understand why people made such a big deal about it. It took 30 years for it to really sink in.
eg: the German High Command put the whole Russian Bolshevik party who were in exile in Switzerland (Lenin, Trotsky and another 30 or 40) on a sealed train and delivered them direct to Russia so they could join the Revolution and do maximum damage to the Russian war effort. "Like a bacillus injected into a patient" one historian called it.
At the end of the war pretty much the entire British gold reserves were sitting in JP Morgan Bank, NY City- 100 years of imperial booty gone to the Yanks. They were owed lots by the French & the Italians who they had to bail out during the war- but the French too were bust (ditto the Italians). The Yanks took whatever was left by August 1940.
And lots more

riposte
02-09-2014, 06:31 PM
There is an intense history to how republicanism is treated by the media. People like Joe Duffy jump as though electrocuted if they come across a nationalist/republican on air.

I think there is an unspoken establishment consensus that 2016 is a problem that needs handling. There is a mix of conscious and unconscious management of the event, and unthinking complicity. Diarmuid Ferriter and other historians have been critical of how Government has prepared for 2016.

He says here that the belief that the 1966 anniversary led to the outbreak of the Troubles is historically incorrect.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/books/challenging-myths-and-underlining-tensions-195152.html

Agreed......http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16173-Are-the-1916-Commemorations-being-Swamped&p=395353#post395353

Apjp
02-09-2014, 07:51 PM
How much more nonsense can you trot out? Slaves without a parliament or a state! Ireland sent 100 MPs to Westminster (usually 70 Nationalist and 30 Unionist) plus there was a full democratic system of Local Government. On those occasions when the 70 Nationalists held the balance of power at Westminster they could join the government and extract extra concessions for Ireland. The problematic part was the executive arm of government in Dublin Castle was appointed directly from London. By 1914 the quality of rule in Ireland had greatly improved and conditions for the Irish were broadly similar to the Scots or the English. I'm not saying it was a success, clearly it was a failure, but Slaves.... try to stick with reality.

The Germans didn't invade Belgium cos they hated them- it was the only route around the French defenses- They used the exact same one in 1940 during WW2.

Aside from the last line which makes a good bit of sense, this post is absurd and counter-factual.

The Irish parliament building, which imo should be the national parliament should we ever establish a real Republic, was the last pretense towards any form of democracy in the sense of natural self government and when many of its MPS demanded equal rights for all Irish citizens, the parliament was intimidated and closed following the rebellion once the government of the day refused to recognise the Irish Catholic majority as anything other than subhuman.

Yes we were slaves-there were timid reforms and every inkling is that the Brits planned on stringing us along for as long as possible. An appointed government, no workers rights, no right to join a union, linguicide, no democracy at home on the national level where it matters, and an education system designed to brainwash people into thinking they were British, and minority representation in a foreign parliament, anda foreign currency-and above all else if the promised home rule did fail there were 30'000 British soldiers and an appointed overlord viceroy to make sure the Irish did not get any ideas like a national police force, independent army, or general mindedness towards independent foreign policy.

Yes, slaves, especially given what had happened the previous 100 years in particular. Colonial grooming to be like the slavemaster is not the same as a natural homegrown and developed freedom.

Romanticising of an illegal occupation is beneath contempt.

Apjp
02-09-2014, 08:01 PM
I'm afraid I'd have to argue with the 150 years of history a little bit, Lastman. Sure, it was a Norman invasion, but as their monarch was king of England at the time (and his descendants remain so
today), there is total continuity. And I'm saying this as a descendant of the original England invading Normans back in 1066. You are right in one sense, though, descendants of the Saxons, such as my (English) husband, still identify the Normans as the enemy....almost 1000 years of history, there. Apparently French/Norman origin surnames are still more likely to be associated with wealth in Britain, even now.

Having lived in Wales relatively recently, it is abundantly clear to me that, were it not for our patriotic rebels in 1916, we'd still be an agri-backwater with little development and even more of our best and brightest in that sinking overcrowded swamp, otherwise known as London. The Welsh and Scottish parliaments are, moreover, on a leash. And imperialism is alive and well, particularly obvious when you see how much of UK exports are armaments related. Don't get me started. Modern Ireland ain't perfect, but I'll be celebrating 1916, as a two finger flip against generic imperialism if nothing else.

I do not understand why the Welsh parliament and the Assembly in Stormont do not just introduce their own laws, their own taxes etc. and ignore Whitehall.

The best example of this is the North wanting sovereignty over corpo tax. The Irish Republic implemented its' own taxation albeit during wartime.

Britain isn't going to bomb Wales or Ireland if one or the other makes its' own laws. The problem is too much of both populations are too colonised to just do it their bloody selves.

Apjp
02-09-2014, 08:09 PM
Yes, the spontaneous truces are worth remembering, the socialists like Rosa Luxembourg who opposed the war tooth and nail, and the mass mutinies of troops and sailors who ended it. :)

In fairness this is a slanted view of history re Luxemburg etc.

Although for example many mutinies occurred especially with the German sailors revolt against a pointless assault on Britain via the navy when ww1 was lost already, the popular will was largely for a leftwing but not a Bolshevik republic.

The then very leftwing SPD had at least as much support as the even further left Communist parties who were behind some of the uprisings in Berlin and Prussia, but not the whole of Germany by any means.

It was a triumph of Republicans in the end, although socialism had its day in some parts there's no doubt. There was some legitimacy to Lenin's rule imo.

But the Weimar Republik remains one of the greatest losses to civilisation and is a historical period I'm very much interested in having read a lot about the time.

What struck me about the nazis rise to power was the stupidity and ignorance of the communists siding with the nazis in the Reichstag to bring down Von Papen's hapless government.

They ought to have sided with the SPD and centre leftists and demanded a place in a national unity/Republican government to stem the rise of Fascism.

Some in the WP saw East Germany as a legitimate State. It wasn't as bad as the Stalinist days of the USSR but hardly was it a people's republic eithr when all of society lived under surveillance. It was led by the same communists who helped the nazis bring down German Democracy in late 1932 when they could have saved the republic by siding with the broader left.

C. Flower
02-09-2014, 08:41 PM
[QUOTE=Apjp;399310]In fairness this is a slanted view of history re Luxemburg etc.

Well, not really. All I said about her is I thought she was worth remembering as someone who stuck to internationalist communism and opposed the war tooth and nail. The idea of sending workers to kill each other by the million..
And I said the truces and mutinies were also worth remembering. I said nothing about everyone being Bolshevik. Even in Russia they were in a minority. The Socialists in Germany had Luxembourg murdered - of a piece with letting the Nazis in.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFEQFjAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Fhistory%2Fint ernational%2Fcomintern%2Fsections%2Fbritain%2Fperi odicals%2Fcommunist_review%2F1924%2F09%2Flast_hour s.htm&ei=4S8GVKOJM-f07Aa-y4GoCA&usg=AFQjCNFN52YFEJPe4MvFlnajcjF51ZQJWg&bvm=bv.74115972,d.ZGU

morticia
02-09-2014, 08:55 PM
I do not understand why the Welsh parliament and the Assembly in Stormont do not just introduce their own laws.....Britain isn't going to bomb Wales or Ireland if one or the other makes its' own laws. The problem is too much of both populations are too colonised to just do it their bloody selves.

The reason is that both are what is referred to as a "VAT sink", i.e. Whitehall puts far more money into NI and Wales than it gets out. The precise term means there's more VAT going into those two places than is coming out. NI at least has some slightly rebellious types who are suggesting lower corpo tax; that would help IMO. Wales have absolutely no resources to speak of, with which to make a go of it alone. Mining's dead. Rumour had it Heseltine had a Polish coal import business so many of the mineshafts were filled with concrete; very hard to get the remaining coal under those circs.
If you ever wonder why I loathe Tories, go investigate the Thatcherite legacy in South Wales. The English ripped out the natural resources, paid the miners a pittance until the 1930's and found them nothing else to do when they shut the mines in the 80's.

Even now, the Severn toll bridge charges 6 quid to enter Wales, for a car, but it's free to get back into England!

What an attitude!




"The floggings will continue until morale improves"

Apjp
02-09-2014, 11:59 PM
Is C Flower referring to the RTE documentaries following the stories of Irish WW1 veterans in the company of one or more of their descendants? Calling these pro-war is ridiculous- are you delusional? Like every other WW1 documentary, novel, memoir or poem I have ever seen, it laments the utter waste of lives in this futile and unnecessary conflict.

Oh and 6 documentaries is an orgy? It is the centenary of a war which forged the whole of the 20th century and whose effects are still felt today. A war in which 200,000 Irishmen fought and 50,000 died and you call six programs an orgy? Clearly your obvious political bias has distorted your perception.

I genuinely thought that we had grown up and moved on from mindless kneejerk Brit-hatred, or maybe its just that most bloggers are just a minority of cranks!

As someone from a more Republican view of Statehood, I called CF up on the post war revolutions in the German case scenario stating it was not all nor exclusively socialist, but merely to make a correction, or moderation of the view she then presented. IE the then very leftwing and republican SPD were the popular movement, followed by the further left in Germany(despite what the resident crackpot Germanophobe on pages 6 and 7 wrote about the Germans, most Germans right up until 1933 voted for the left and centre. In addition, the conservative nationalist Hindenburg beat Hitler in the 1932 Presidential election in what should have been the moment Hindenburg as leader clamped down on them. Indeed in the Prussian Putsch, he attempted this somewhat but his failure to include the SPD et al and the extremely harsh clamping down on communists prompted the communists to side with the nazis in parliament to dissolve the Prussian govt-long story short it was a far more complex story than a society that leaned rightwards after a failed socialist revolution so to speak).

Why the history lesson? well- everybody is 'biased' and I am giving an example of how people form an opinion but sometimes leave parts out due to their own ideology-I am not saying I have never done this but my posts are very factual compared with some of yours and the resident Germanophobes especially. This is a political opinion site. Not RTE or the BAI. Everybody has an opinion.

You seem to think WW1 was some noble cause and wish to blame Germany and more specifically Germans for everything in a way that is not comparable to WW2 cos 1. WW1 was inevitable as the imperial powers were carving up the whole world and 2. Germans did not get much of a choice in either war as Germany was not a democracy in 1914 nor any longer in 1939.

For the record the Germans never actually elected Hitler. His party never got a majority and they actually declined in support in the last Reichstag election from 37-32%. In short the real failure was the other parties could not reach an emergency govt. to stave off the far right because of the intransigence of the communists and also some of the conservatives-the SPD, liberals, centrists and communists should have stopped Hitler. They were given that mandate by 63%-67% of the public. Hindenburg as the newly reelected Independent and powerful Head of State and Head of the Army in 1932 had the power to do so. He beat Hitler in the election and should have taken that as a mandate to save the Republic. Arguably martial law for a few short years followed by a transitional government of the centre and left could have done that. The problem was not so much the nazis but the idiocy of all the other relatively similar parties in squabbling at a time of national emergency.

Apjp
03-09-2014, 12:38 AM
[QUOTE]

Well, not really. All I said about her is I thought she was worth remembering as someone who stuck to internationalist communism and opposed the war tooth and nail. The idea of sending workers to kill each other by the million..
And I said the truces and mutinies were also worth remembering. I said nothing about everyone being Bolshevik. Even in Russia they were in a minority. The Socialists in Germany had Luxembourg murdered - of a piece with letting the Nazis in.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFEQFjAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Fhistory%2Fint ernational%2Fcomintern%2Fsections%2Fbritain%2Fperi odicals%2Fcommunist_review%2F1924%2F09%2Flast_hour s.htm&ei=4S8GVKOJM-f07Aa-y4GoCA&usg=AFQjCNFN52YFEJPe4MvFlnajcjF51ZQJWg&bvm=bv.74115972,d.ZGU

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think the German communists were wrong to support the Nazis motion of No confidence in the Von Papen Putsch Govt.?

I am not saying this is the key event in the collapse of the Republik but rather the key opportunity the far left could have seized to go into power with the SPD and liberal left who were a faction of the centrists could have reached some agreement.

At the end of the day in the final election, the SPD and the communists together had 25 more seats than the nazis who had lost 5% of their vote. They could have done something-at least bloody tried to put on a united front to forestall things and pressure Hindenburg to appoint a leftwing govt.

We can say Hindenburg leaned reactively to the right but the main problem was the various groups were squabbling and that paved the way for all that followed.

Apjp
03-09-2014, 12:41 AM
The reason is that both are what is referred to as a "VAT sink", i.e. Whitehall puts far more money into NI and Wales than it gets out. The precise term means there's more VAT going into those two places than is coming out. NI at least has some slightly rebellious types who are suggesting lower corpo tax; that would help IMO. Wales have absolutely no resources to speak of, with which to make a go of it alone. Mining's dead. Rumour had it Heseltine had a Polish coal import business so many of the mineshafts were filled with concrete; very hard to get the remaining coal under those circs.
If you ever wonder why I loathe Tories, go investigate the Thatcherite legacy in South Wales. The English ripped out the natural resources, paid the miners a pittance until the 1930's and found them nothing else to do when they shut the mines in the 80's.

Even now, the Severn toll bridge charges 6 quid to enter Wales, for a car, but it's free to get back into England!

What an attitude!




"The floggings will continue until morale improves"

Why doesn't the Northern government just impose corpo tax itself and income tax etc itself?

I can't imagine the deference required to ask somebody for the above. If you introduce it they are not going to bomb you, and you will make up the shortfall almost immediately in the rerouted tax.

morticia
03-09-2014, 07:12 AM
No, they can't make up the shortfall. NI pays far less tax to Westminster than they receive in subventions. ditto Wales. There's huge unemployment and disability benefits in Wales for ex miners among others. The benefits are simply unpayable from local revenue. They would have to raise taxes, not lower them, and no one could afford to pay. NI had tons of civil service posts moved there to keep people employed as industry was reluctant owing to the history of unrest. Basically, Stormont wants to drop corpo tax while still getting all the goodies from Westminster. There is a case for that. But in short, they don't need to bomb, taking out the payments would have a similar effect.




"The floggings will continue until morale improves"

C. Flower
06-09-2014, 06:01 PM
One of the things I got from it was that every armed body of the day to some extent depended on ex-WW1 soldiers from the British army - the UVF, the Black and Tans (of course), the Irish Volunteers, the IRA, and the Free State Army.
However, the IRA took on small numbers and there was a lot of suspicion of these recruits, including Barry himself. The Free State Army took on a much greater number of ex-WW1 soldiers and some ex-IRA left the army over this.

A considerable number of "revenge" (presumed Republican) shootings of soldiers who fought with the British Army is mentioned - not much mentioned in the recent "commemorations."

This was covered in the last of Miles Dungan's programmes on WW1. The point was made that at the beginning of the Civil War, the Free State army was considerably smaller in numbers than the Anti-Treaty forces. There was wholesale recruitment of British ex-servicemen to boost up the Free State Army numbers. This was critical to the winning of the Civil War. Numbers of ex-servicemen joining the IRA was said to be 155 with many thousands joining the Free State army and the police (and some other parts of the civil service).

C. Flower
06-09-2014, 06:18 PM
C. Flower
]"I do think that RTE's coverage is a form of cultural grooming and has been devised as part of a strategy for management of 2016"


- Richard Bouvet
PW, I agree that there is a certain slant in RTEs coverage of the war, but it is a leap from there to saying, as you seem to do, that RTE is part of a conspiracy to undermine the 1916 centenary and/or soften us ip for new imperialist involvements.
It is more likely that RTE's bias is unintentional. They are simply reflecting the orthodoxies that have gradually taken hold.

My view that the bias is both conscious, and an expression of deliberate manipulation for political reasons, is borne out by the information below. If you want to call it a conspiracy, then by all means do so.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/queen-s-remarks-mean-easter-rising-centenary-might-have-royal-attendee-1.1756399


In the foreign office in London yesterday, Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore said the commemorations, all of them to come over the next few years, had been discussed at length by the two governments.
“Both the British and Irish governments are conscious that we should do this together and commemorate the things that we share together; this is a shared history,” he said, as he stood beside British foreign secretary William Hague.

Hague, a historian of note in his own right, agreed: “With all these very important centenaries coming up over the next four years, it is very important for us to commemorate these things together in a way that helps to bring people together for the future.”

Asked if his remarks specifically covered the Easter Rising anniversary, he told The Irish Times : “All the events of that period. Remember how many lives were lost in so many conflicts around the world . . .with all of them, including the Easter Rising, it is important to remember those principles.”

Ogiol
06-09-2014, 07:56 PM
Any commemoration of WW1 should be strictly non-military. Thus stripping the possibility of justification of what was in modern terms an oligarchs' war. But as has been posted above, there is a huge on-going effort at the minute to somehow legitimise the war through the optic of remembering the soldiers. The soldiers should be commemorated but the leaders and empire symbols should not.

PaddyJoe
14-10-2014, 01:01 PM
There will be Irish government representation at the Cenotaph for the first time this year.


n a sign of improving Anglo-Irish relations, the Republic of Ireland’s ambassador to the UK, Dan Mulhall, will officially attend the main remembrance ceremony next month.Mulhall’s presence at Whitehall will be in honour of the thousands of Irishmen who fought and died in Britain’s armed forces in both world wars.
Sajid Javid, the UK’s secretary of state for culture, media and sport, said: “Throughout the first world war, Irish servicemen stood side by side with men and women from across Great Britain and the Commonwealth.
“As we commemorate the centenary of the start of the war, it is right we remember our nations’ shared sacrifice.”
Ireland’s ambassador said he was pleased to accept the invitation to join the Queen and other dignitaries on 9 November.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/irish-government-wreath-cenotaph-remembrance-day

PaddyJoe
14-10-2014, 01:53 PM
How come I'm seeing this story on the BBC and in the Guardian but not in any of the Irish media?
:confused:

morticia
14-10-2014, 04:57 PM
How come I'm seeing this story on the BBC and in the Guardian but not in any of the Irish media?
:confused:

Good question; I don't know the answer; Budget day hysteria pushing everything else off ye front pages?

C. Flower
11-11-2014, 10:21 AM
The Irish Government last weekend sent a representative for the first time ever to lay a poppy wreath at the base of the bloody memorial of British imperialism and militarism, in Whitehall, in front of Queen Elizabeth in her role as head of the armed forces.

Ger Colleran this morning is giving out stink about RTE and the Government's glorification, sanitisation and promotion of war via the World War One brainwashing exercise.

He shut Kevin Myers up for once.

C. Flower
13-10-2016, 01:29 AM
Just reading Vera Brittain's very interesting "Testament of Youth", which has pointed me in the direction of the Etaples mutiny, starting in September 1917, just before the October Revolution in Russia. It rolled on for over a year.

This article is well worth reading, and also touches on the fact that British soldiers were being sent to fight Soviet Russia in 1919, and also on the many deaths of Chinese and other non-European Labour units (part of the armed forces) who were shot for striking.

http://www.militarian.com/threads/mutiny-at-etaples-base-in-1917.7050/

The whole thing was kept completely out of the Press - surely something not possible today given modern communications ??

C. Flower
11-11-2018, 09:46 AM
Four years on from when this thread was started, there is a muted hurrah! for WW1 coming from the Irish establishment and various groups of holdout West Brits wanting to 'commemorate' the ghastly slaughter of WW1.

"The National", Scottish Nationalist online journal, gives the rundown on how WW1 was brought to an end by masses of soldiers putting down their arms and heading home. An end came, in this particular war, of obscene slaughter of groups of young men in mechanised warfare, being fought over which group of oligarchs of which nation would control which colonies, and which supplies of oil.



ofbclid=IwAR04FgaGI9LndSenD5L6_8HrdbLEjm-9i0Byv0VNo_Itm3SnWUwhh6XeGBA

Count Bobulescu
11-11-2018, 10:36 AM
Reading the first page of the thread was interesting.
Let's just honor those who died in vain........

Count Bobulescu
11-11-2018, 10:23 PM
I'm optimistic for the future at least as it concerns war between the US and China. You might be surprised about how much discussion there is in US think tanks and foreign policy journals about the dangers of the US falling into the Thucydides's Trap with China.


To prevent war with China, study World War I ... Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government at Harvard Kennedy School, for the WashPost (https://link.axios.com/click/15051950.193477/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud2FzaGluZ3RvbnBvc3QuY29tL25ld3MvdG hld29ybGRwb3N0L3dwLzIwMTgvMTEvMDkvY2hpbmEvP3V0bV90 ZXJtPS43MGExYzAwY2RlNDQmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dG VyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3Ns ZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/58739f36cb4a2be3538b51c0B718dc9ad):


"The ... structural cause of World War I follows a familiar historical pattern: a rapidly rising power, Germany, challenging the primacy of an established one, Great Britain, which had ruled the world for a century."
"In this dangerous dynamic — the Thucydides’s Trap — both rivals become extremely vulnerable to third-party provocations, or even accidents, that trigger a cascade of reactions, at the end of which they find themselves in a war neither wanted."