BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:23 AM

14 at Kilmainham, Kent in Cork, Casement in England.

May 3rd 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Pádraic Pearse
Thomas Clarke
Thomas MacDonagh

May 4th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Joseph Plunkett
Edward Daly
Michael O'Hanrahan
Willie Pearse

May 5th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
John MacBride

May 8th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Eamonn Ceantt
Michael Mallin
Sean Heuston
Con Colbert

May 9th 1916        Cork Detention Barracks        
Thomas Kent

May 12th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Seán MacDiarmada
James Connolly

August 3rd 1916        Pentonville Prison, London        
Sir Roger Casement

Treason was one of the charges in the drumhead court martials. The video here should contain a reading including the charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:42 AM

"The apologies are like wetting your pants whilst wearing a dark blue suit - it momentarily gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody takes the slightest notice and ultimately leaves you feeling rather foolish."
can we discuss facts, not your philosophy.
the fact of the matter is that a lot of irish people welcomed the apology from the queen,I live in Ireland and saw it and heard the reaction, it does make a difference it helps to bring the two nations closer and brings two nations a little closer.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:25 AM

" the old hatreds are still there unforgiven and the old myths are still trotted out."

On this forum Raggy - On this forum.

See you stayed true to your preconceptions Joe.

As far as this goes

I did not say - "that Kent was the ONLY ONE (your caps) executed" - did I Joe? Your contention was that Kent could have been excused his actions because he thought he was going to die anyway. I pointed out the following factual truths:

1: On the 2nd of May the day the Kent brothers decided to start a gun battle with the police NOBODY had been executed.

2: What I actually did say was as follows:

"One the raid happened, Kent had every reason to believe that his own death was inevitable...and history proved that to be correct. Sorry, but I can't place any blame on Thomas Kent." - Joe Offer

1: The gun-fight that occurred was started by the four Kent brothers, their choice, the choice taken had consequences that the Kent brothers must have known. If you shoot at police officers they are most certainly going to shoot back - The fault here was entirely on the part of the Kent brothers NOT the RIC

2: The "inevitability of death" line that you have stated. Of the four Kent brothers, one died as a result of wounds received in a gun battle that they initiated - entirely his own fault, NOT that of the RIC, another attempted to escape after having surrendered - again entirely his own fault. Of the remaining two the person who shot and killed Rowe was tried, found guilty and executed and the other was tried and acquitted. The round up and arrest of members and supporters of the IRB and IVF from all over Ireland numbered 3,509 Joe - ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent was executed and he was executed not for offences under the Treason Act but for the murder of a police officer, a charge he was undoubtedly guilty of. I'd blame Thomas Kent entirely.

I further went on to clarify:

"You seem to be a little confused Joe, Out of the 1,800-odd people arrested and detained in the aftermath of the Easter Rising ONLY 90 people were sentenced to death and of those ONLY 15 IN TOTAL were executed - 15 people WERE NOT executed at Kilmainham between 3rd and 12th May, if you had bothered to look up and count them you would find that only 14 people were executed at Kilmainham. Kent was executed in Cork where he was arrested, tried and convicted for the shooting of William Rowe."

And further clarified in the same post:

" I will stand by my statement that from the thousands of people rounded up and arrested from various places outside Dublin in the aftermath of the rising ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent - was executed and he was executed for killing William Rowe an act that he was guilty of and an act that he performed entirely of his own volition".

You have been told what the charges were for the 14 men executed at Kilmainham. You have been told what Thomas Kent was charged with, tried and executed. So why do you say that you have not been told.

Now for someone who says that they seek statement accompanied by fact I find this gem of yours absolutely hilarious:

"I've asked several times what charges were made against those executed at Kilmainham. Somebody ranted about the charges not being treason, but they didn't say what the charges were. They seemed to think it was important that the charges were not treason, so I asked. Either I didn't get an answer, or the answer got lost amidst the silly accusations of lying. And really, I don't think it IS particularly important what the Kilmainham people were charged with, or what the charge was against Kent. The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead.

And that being the case, Teribus, I see no defect in the presentation of the Kent incident by Jim Carroll. Jim's account was brief, and not garbled by unimportant factoids.

And all of this goes to prove my initial contention: that there are certain things in this event that are factual, certain things that can vary according to the reporter's perception, and many things that are just a matter of opinion that can cover a very broad spectrum.

Joe Offer unimportant factoid #1:
The 14 who were executed at Kilmainham were tried for offences detailed under the Treason Act. Kent on the otherhand was charged with the killing of William Rowe.

Joe Offer unimportant factoid #2:
Jim Carroll sought to present the arrest of Thomas Kent as a random act against someone who was innocent. Yet you Joe state - "I see no defect in the presentation of the Kent incident by Jim Carroll" - you mean apart from the fact that Thomas Kent killed a police officer in the performance of his duty - Not worth mentioning Joe? To paraphrase John McEnroe "Are you serious?" Are you really that biased?

By the way was your source that said that 15 men had been executed at Kilmainham Wikipedia?

"Ninety were sentenced to death. Fifteen of those (including all seven signatories of the Proclamation) had their sentences confirmed by Maxwell and were executed by firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol between 3 and 12 May. Among them was the seriously wounded Connolly, who was shot while tied to a chair because of his shattered ankle. Maxwell stated that only the "ringleaders" and those proven to have committed "coldblooded murder" would be executed. However, the evidence presented was weak, and some of those executed were not leaders and did not kill anyone: Willie Pearse described himself as "a personal attaché to my brother, Patrick Pearse"; John MacBride had not even been aware of the Rising until it began, but had fought against the British in the Boer War fifteen years before; Thomas Kent did not come out at all—he was executed for the killing of a police officer during the raid on his house the week after the Rising. The most prominent leader to escape execution was Éamon de Valera, Commandant of the 3rd Battalion, who did so partly because of his American birth.[133]

Most of the executions took place over a nine-day period:
3 May: Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and Thomas Clarke
4 May: Joseph Plunkett, William Pearse, Edward Daly and Michael O'Hanrahan
5 May: John MacBride
8 May: Éamonn Ceannt, Michael Mallin, Seán Heuston and Con Colbert
12 May: James Connolly and Sean MacDiarmada

Count the names Joe then add on the fact that Kent was executed in Cork.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:43 AM

Do I get an apology as Joe has. When I mentioned a FGCM I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.

What was it you posted:

"An apparent quote from somewhere cut-n-pasted by Raggy - who expects it to be taken as gospel. Unfortunately Raggy:

1: No such animal as a Field General Courts-Martial"

Now it appears there is such a thing as a FGCM.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:46 AM

"I don't think it IS particularly important what the Kilmainham people were charged with, or what the charge was against Kent. The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead."

You might not think it was important - basically I couldn't care less.

But for someone who states that in the interests of informative debate he wants the true facts backed up you personally have got some neck to come out with the following:

"The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead."

It has been stated ad nauseum that Thomas Kent played no part in the Easter Rising so he could hardly be described as being a participant. The offence for which Thomas Kent was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with the Easter Rising it occurred two days after all fighting in Dublin had ended. It occurred because for reasons best known to themselves that Thomas Kent along with his three brothers decided to start a gun battle with the police who had been sent to arrest them. On the 2nd May, 1916 the Kent brothers could have no possible idea for certain why the police arrived to raid their house. One thing they would have known for certain would be that it could have nothing to do with their participation in the events up in Dublin because they had after all obeyed the order to stand down and had not gone up to Dublin from Cork something that would have been easily established and verified.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:48 AM

My apologies Raggy I stand corrected

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:52 AM

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:07 PM

"You might not think it was important - basically I couldn't care less."
And it shows
For the rest of us it matters a great deal that Britain specify what reason they give for taking lives - natural justice, if nothing else
They broke their own rules and in a civilised society these executions would have been ruled mass murder because of the convenient way they took place this pait of clowns have yet to acknowledge that the 'trials' (for the want of a better word) were rigged.   
Have been away to the 1916 project in Galway and missed bullshitting and evasion - will catch up later.
Meanwhile - I intended to post this before I laft but the site was down.

I think it's about time we gave a little context to this argument and perhaps either moved it on or put a stop to it (which seems to be Keith's objective).
Keith made his position quite clear on Ireland some time ago - he stated he knows nothing of the subject, has never read anything on it and has no intention of doing so as it doesn't interest him.
Fine – no problem there; we all have subjects on which we know nothing and have no interest – but we do not attempt to flood and dominatesubjects with our ignorance and disinterest as Keith has on this and on other threads.
It seems to me an act of monumental trolling spite to behave in such a way on a subject on which many of us do have an interest and do possess a modicum of knowledge.
I'd like to make my own position quite clear.
I am not an Irish republican or nationalist (I'm not even Irish), in fact nationalism when misused and overstated disturbs me greatly.
I have always believed and stated that the partitioning of any country leads to ongoing strife, repression and bloodshed – plenty of examples in the world to confirm that.
I come from an Irish family background – both of my parents' families were famine refugees in the middle of the 19th century – that part of Ireland's history is part of my heritage and has been a subject that has interested me for most of my life.
My father's sister and her family lived in Derry up to the 1950s, when, along with their Catholic neighbours, they were driven out by Anti-Catholic rioters who burned their home down and forced them to leave carrying what possessions they could, my aunt pushing her baby son, my cousin, in a pushchair – they eventually settled in Dublin and spent time in Liverpool, where I got to know them well.
Last year a neighbour here in Clare gave me a book containing a large chapter on an uncle whose father was a hunger striker along with Thomas Ashe in 1918 and became one of Michael Collin's agents during the Irish War of Independence – (my neighbour spotted my father's name in the chapter as having fought in Spain).
My uncle and Aunt Nora were political activists for the betterment of Ireland and argued and campaigned for its reunification all their lives – two of my aunts were members of Cumann na mBan – I'm enormously proud of many of my family members and what I believe to be their dedication to justice and equality.
None of this gives me any special knowledge; I have never been a political activist – my 'thing' has always been song, music and folklore, but it means I don't have to scurry around the internet to root out arguments for what I believe to be fact – all this was part of my 70-odd years long life and personal experience – I certainly don't need to be told by a self-inflicted, self-declared, disinterested ignoramous that I "find this subject hard".
I am not claiming that I am automatically "right" about anything, but I do believe that my background and my interest suggests the possibility that I might just know a little about what I am talking about and am not "gullible and mislead by propaganda".
This individual has already told another member of this thread, an Irish friend of mine, who I know to have actively researched this subject in depth and is part of 'The 1916 Song Project', that he is a gullible no-nothing who has been mislead by propaganda – he has in essence told the whole of the Irish people who are noted for their interest in their own history and are on a daily basis being made aware of the subject of this discussion by researchers, historians and experts, exactly the same – there has been no outcry and accusations of "propaganda" and "brainwashing" in our national press, though there has been some very thought-provoking discussion, in the form of articles and letters.
Had this come from someone who had researched the subject, even from the other side of the argument and come to a different conclusion than ours, it might have been acceptable, even interesting and educational – it isn't; it's simply blindly arrogant and insulting and it really does need to stop now.
I don't expect him to admit to his behaviour, nor do I expect him to apologise to those he has insulted in the way he has and continues to do, but I do expect him to live up to his declared disinterest and desist.
It is against the entire spirit of this forum that someone who boasts of his ignorance and disinterest should be allowed to ruin threads, this isn't the first time this has happened – two threads on the Irish famine were deliberately spoiled by disinterest and ignorance in exactly the same manner – it was on one of these that he first admitted his disinterest.
This discussion isn't the exchange of ideas and opinions that I believe makes this Forum the enjoyable and educational place that I know it can be – it's simple fillibusting sabotage.
There is plenty more to be said and learned on this subject – I appeal to those who have no interest in it to leave it to those who wish to gain from it and give to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:30 PM

1916 documents on executions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:37 PM

"The offence for which Thomas Kent was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with the Easter Rising "
"Most legal observers would have looked at this as a case of ordinary murder, but the British were out for blood and indicted Kent with the same charge that they were charging the Dublin rebels with: "Did an act to wit did take part in an armed rebellion and in the waging of war against His Majesty the King, such act being of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the Defence to the Realm and being done with the intention and for the purpose of assisting the enemy.""
Thomas Kent charges
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim: Re your post of 01.07pm

Thank you, for a reasoned and measured post.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:08 PM

Jim,
Keith made his position quite clear on Ireland some time ago - he stated he knows nothing of the subject, has never read anything on it and has no intention of doing so as it doesn't interest him.

In spite of all that, you have been unable to fault my knowledge of the rising, while I have been able to fault yours on major issues Jim!

I have not insulted anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:30 PM

"Because of confusion about orders and the loss of the Aud's cargo of guns, Kent did not go out to fight at Easter."

What confusion about orders? Those conned into fighting up in Dublin were deliberately fed lies and set up as sacrificial lambs by Pearse and Connelly. While they told the Volunteers in Dublin that the whole country was rising and that reinforcements would come, they were telling the IRB and IVF elsewhere to stand down and those were the orders that Kent and the others obeyed, those were the orders that guaranteed the defeat of those fighting in Dublin.

"On May 2 at 3:45 a.m. seven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), under the command of Head Constable Rowe, came to arrest Kent and his brothers William, David and Richard. Told to come out, the Kent brothers supposedly responded: "We will not surrender. We will leave some of you dead." In the ensuing gunplay Constable Rowe was hit in the head by gunfire and died instantly. "

Now that just simply does not square up with Kent's testimony at his trial does it.

"Kent's statement: "On May 2, 1916 during the night I was awakened by the sound of firearms and I immediately went into my mother's room, where my brother William was. They were standing on the bed in the corner of the room. I immediately went into the corner where they were, where the three of us remains till the military officers arrived when we immediately surrendered. I never fired or had arms in my hand."

"I was awakened by the sound of firearms" !!!– highly unlikely, just who or what the hell would the RIC be shooting at? If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did? There was a gun-battle and a stand-off that lasted for four hours – how could that be possible if indeed – Thomas Kent, "never fired or had arms in my hand." If they had no arms how on earth were they ever going to leave "some of you dead"?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:30 PM

"Because of confusion about orders and the loss of the Aud's cargo of guns, Kent did not go out to fight at Easter."

What confusion about orders? Those conned into fighting up in Dublin were deliberately fed lies and set up as sacrificial lambs by Pearse and Connelly. While they told the Volunteers in Dublin that the whole country was rising and that reinforcements would come, they were telling the IRB and IVF elsewhere to stand down and those were the orders that Kent and the others obeyed, those were the orders that guaranteed the defeat of those fighting in Dublin.

"On May 2 at 3:45 a.m. seven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), under the command of Head Constable Rowe, came to arrest Kent and his brothers William, David and Richard. Told to come out, the Kent brothers supposedly responded: "We will not surrender. We will leave some of you dead." In the ensuing gunplay Constable Rowe was hit in the head by gunfire and died instantly. "

Now that just simply does not square up with Kent's testimony at his trial does it.

"Kent's statement: "On May 2, 1916 during the night I was awakened by the sound of firearms and I immediately went into my mother's room, where my brother William was. They were standing on the bed in the corner of the room. I immediately went into the corner where they were, where the three of us remains till the military officers arrived when we immediately surrendered. I never fired or had arms in my hand."

"I was awakened by the sound of firearms" !!!– highly unlikely, just who or what the hell would the RIC be shooting at? If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did? There was a gun-battle and a stand-off that lasted for four hours – how could that be possible if indeed – Thomas Kent, "never fired or had arms in my hand." If they had no arms how on earth were they ever going to leave "some of you dead"?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:32 PM

"If the above post was not written and deliberately presented to mislead then nothing could be."
Kent was implicated with The Rising because, when arrested, he was found to be unarmed and so, could not be charged with murder - he was fitted up with taking part in a Rebellion he was not even present at - an act of revenge.
He was not a signatory, yet he was executed as a leader.
No lies.
"Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?"
Those who gave them weapons - nobody has ever accused the Irish of siding with Germany except you pair
Russia was in exactly the same position shortly after - nobody has ever accused them of being German allies either.
Maxwell instigated the executions - The British Crown court declared the proceedings illegal in the manner they were carried out.
Half way through the executions Redmond appealed to Parliament to stop them as they were doing more harm than good to the cause of Empire - Asquith refused and in doing so made the Executions acts of murder by the British Parliament rather than military executions.
"It appears to me that Home Rule had been approved by Parliament, and was soon to become a reality. If that was the case, what sense did it make to organize this "Rising""
Joe,
Some time between the Home Rule Bill being approved and July 1916, when it was re-introduced into Parliament, it was secretly altered by The British Government to accommodate the Loyalists, therefore making it invalid.
The Republicans had always opposed partition in any form and did not trust Britain to honour the "temporary" nature of its inclusion even as a temporary measure.
The details of the Bill were to be settled sometime after the War ended But Britain went ahead and partitioned Ireland without consent of the signatories.
That is why the Bill was never a reality in a completed form.
The altered form was forced through after the War of Independence, using a threat of war and blackmailing one of the signatories, Michael Collins.
That butcered treaty has been responsoble of every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now.
"Thank you, for a reasoned and measured post."
While we were having a drink following the 1916 Song Project Concert on Saturday in Galway, a relative stranger who I had met briefly at Limerick Uni came over and said, "why the feck are you treating that pair of bollixes seriously - they're a pair of no-nothing gobshites.
I tend to agree with her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:42 PM

"If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did?"
"but the British were out for blood and indicted Kent with the same charge that they were charging the Dublin rebels with: "Did an act to wit did take part in an armed rebellion and in the waging of war against His Majesty the King, such act being of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the Defence to the Realm and being done with the intention and for the purpose of assisting the enemy.""
This is how Kent was tried - you've been given the link
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:09 PM

Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe. Germany had sent arms in the Aud (pretty terrible guns, but guns nevertheless), and did shell England's east coast a little bit during the Rising.
Germany was Ireland's ally in the Rising, just as France (then an enemy of the English colonisers) was America's ally in the American Revolution. Washington was using an enemy of his country's enemy in exactly the same way that Pearse was; if the English had won, Washington et al would have been executed on exactly the same charges and with exactly the same drumhead court martial as happened in 1916.
And I'm sure that the people here who feel aggrieved at Ireland winning independence through a revolution to throw off a British occupation feel exactly the same about the previous American revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 01:26 AM

"Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe"
No it wasn't - Germany supplied arms to Ireland in the same way they allowed Lenin to cross Germany from Switzerland in a sealed train - it suited them to do so and that is the extent of co-operation between Germany and both those countries.
In neither case did either Russia nor Ireland co-operate with Germany in their war effort and nobody has ever been able to prove that they did.
Germany was an Imperial country fighting an Imperial war - Ireland was fighting to free itself from any Empire and Imperialism was an anathema to the Russian revolutionaries.
The Rebels at no time supported the German cause - the Home Rulers in Parliament actually supported Britain's war effort and many Irish people were recruited onto Britain's side, mainly as a way of earning a living.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:42 AM

Teribus, you have stated more than once that the Ceannt Brothers opened fire first. Could you provide the source of that information.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:51 AM

Many rebels did support the German cause — remember, this was Britain, the largest and most brutal empire in history, attempting to destroy the much smaller Ottoman empire, and Germany's first feeble attempt to have its own navy. This was an economic war, with the capitalists of Britain, then the world's dominant capitalist state, using mass murder to suppress competition.

Many Irishmen joined the British Army; their reasons varied:

1) Unionists joined because they had always been part of and supported Britain's capitalism.

2) Irish Volunteers joined because John Redmond, head of the Home Rule party, the Irish Parliamentary Party, reasoned (without any evidence) that if Nationalists and Unionists fought side by side, any hostility between them would be over after the war, and the Unionists would then want Irish independence. He pledged Irish Volunteer troops to Britain in the UK parliament; he then, in a speech in Woodenbridge, Co Wicklow, made the case for Irish Volunteers to join the British Army, and they did in their thousands, poor fools.

3) The very poor, including farm labourers and especially the workingmen of inner-city Dublin, joined the British Army because it was the only way they could support their families. The 'separation allowance' paid to their wives or mothers was far more than they could earn otherwise.

4) In every war there are some poor eejits who join up because it'll be fun; often these are young teenagers pretending to be older than their stated age.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:55 AM

By the way, I knew a song from Frongoch when I was a child, sung to the tune of Molly Malone with the chorus of "Sinn Féiners, pro-Germans, alive, alive-o".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:23 AM

"Many rebels did support the German cause"
If this is the case, I would like to learn how they did.
I wouldn't have thought they would have gained as much support as they did from the Irish people so close on the heels of the sinking of the Lusitania.
I totally agree with you about the reasons Irishmen joined the British army - pretty well for the same ones Englishmen did.
The article I put up earlier from Queens Uni. Belfast sums up the reasons pretty accurately.
Jim Carroll

The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in September 1916.
Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done. On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law, although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war. No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement. On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood, and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism] confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many young Irishmen.
But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure. For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like … I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started, and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early days does not tell the whole story.
And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too, in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons. Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country' was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is our difficulty.'
There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills specialised in the quality end of the market—fine table and bed-linen, high quality shirting and so on—just the sort of products which people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted. Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been the case.
Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge, the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted 'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of motivations to joining up.
Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do, and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors. Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour—'Come on, John, it'll be great crack'—and the lure might be irresistible. What, in any case, we can say about these men—who were both 'ordinary' and extraordinary at the same time— is that they became victims of circumstances well beyond their control.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:30 AM

Kent was implicated with The Rising because, when arrested, he was found to be unarmed and so, could not be charged with murder - he was fitted up with taking part in a Rebellion he was not even present at - an act of revenge.
He was not a signatory, yet he was executed as a leader.

So there was NO gun battle on the morning of the 2nd May 1916 at the Kent's house – strange that because that morning three men were shot, one, the first to die was a police officer who was killed outright (Suicide was it Jim? – I mean if the Kent brothers had no weapons how on earth did William Rowe die? I take it that you are aware that he did die, or was that all a fit up too, perhaps William Rowe wasn't dead at all but very much alive and they huckled him away to a quiet retirement bungalow in Bognor to live out his days?), the second died of wounds received during a gun battle that didn't take place and the third was shot attempting to escape after he had surrendered.

The raid was initially carried out by seven police officers, who having mysteriously come under fire from four men who according to Jom had no guns, requested assistance from the Army. The soldiers arrive on the scene and I would just love to know how the police managed to convince the soldiers that their presence was required to subdue four unarmed men (Maybe there was a gifted comedian and ventriloquist among the policemen present, you know like that character in Police Academy who could make a noise like a machine gun and that is what convinced the troops to hang around)

Now as to fitting up goes the link that Carroll gave is written from one perspective, one that Jom believes in its entirety. But as soldiers were present and if there was a gun battle, and I believe that there was (Only explanation for Rowe's death), and that gun battle and stand-off lasted four hours, which it did, then the Kent brothers must have fired on both Police officers and on the soldiers present.

15 executed, only seven signed the proclamation, the other eight were leaders of contingents who had fired on policemen and soldiers in Dublin and in Cork. Why was Thomas Kent executed and why was his brother acquitted? My guess is that Thomas Kent did a deal to save his brothers life.

""Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?"
Those who gave them weapons - nobody has ever accused the Irish of siding with Germany except you pair"

Really Jom? What about Sir Roger Casement's "Irish Report" requesting that German troops be landed in Ireland to assist in driving the British out? The German High Command rejected it as totally impracticable as they could not get that sort of assistance past the British Naval blockade.

"Russia was in exactly the same position shortly after - nobody has ever accused them of being German allies either."

Laughable notion, the revolution had already started and the Tsar had abdicated BEFORE Lenin started to organise his return to Russia from Switzerland. Casement and the leadership of the IRB and IVF waited until after the war had started, then elected to collude with the enemy.

"Some time between the Home Rule Bill being approved and July 1916, when it was re-introduced into Parliament, it was secretly altered by The British Government to accommodate the Loyalists, therefore making it invalid.
The Republicans had always opposed partition in any form and did not trust Britain to honour the "temporary" nature of its inclusion even as a temporary measure.
The details of the Bill were to be settled sometime after the War ended But Britain went ahead and partitioned Ireland without consent of the signatories.
That is why the Bill was never a reality in a completed form.
The altered form was forced through after the War of Independence, using a threat of war and blackmailing one of the signatories, Michael Collins.
That butcered treaty has been responsoble of every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now."

Sorry Jom but can you please give us the date when the already passed Irish Home Rule Bill was re-introduced into Parliament? I ask as that would be a first in Parliamentary Procedure and would require another Act of Parliament having to have been overthrown. As always you demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of British Parliamentary procedure, of how things are done and of what can and what cannot be done.

I also like your definition of self-determination inferred in the above. You seem to advocate self-determination on a highly selective basis, self-determination for some but not for others – how quaint. Trouble was you had two sides in Ireland who were diametrically opposed and neither appeared to be prepared to compromise. Your "men of the gun" in Easter 1916 ended all hope of any compromise ever being reached, they guaranteed the civil war at the end of the war of independence and their idiotic territorial claim, now thankfully moderated and rationalised, was been the cause of " every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now.". Thankfully however as a result of the GFA and the All Ireland referendum that followed it, the "men of the gun" have been told by the Irish people both North and South of the border that the gun, bomb and violence have no place in Irish politics and must not be used again - sort of blows all claims of their "mandate from the people" right out of the water, even going back to Easter 1916 it never existed in the first place.

The Easter Rising did nothing to accomplish what it's leaders wanted, in fact it hindered it, now one hundred years on there is still no signs of there ever being a united Ireland - unless such a union is desired by the people of Northern Ireland (Exactly as was the case in 1914). The greatest shame of the period was that there was no General Election in 1915, had there been one the IPP would have had the landslide victory in Ireland, the "men of the gun" would have been consigned to history, and some sort of compromised would have been worked out - the Easter Rising killed all chance of that ever happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:44 AM

Teribus, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is quite different from the Home Rule Act of 1914 (also called the Government of Ireland Act).

Whether you think the Easter Rising was a success for its leaders' plans depends on what you understand as those leaders' intentions.

The main intention was to gain Ireland a place in the Peace Conference that would follow the war, and press for independence from our long forcible colonisation through that. The second intention was to arouse national spirit so that independence would be gained.

Britain (and America) blocked Irish representation to that Peace Conference.

The War of Independence, and especially the mass disengagement from all British government and civil service, and the construction of a parallel Irish system of government, and the landslide win for independence in the 1918 general election made independence inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:55 AM

"Britain, the largest and most brutal empire in history,

Really Thompson? Were that indeed the case could you now please explain the creation and existence of the voluntary organisation that used to be called The British Commonwealth of Nations, now known throughout the world as The Commonwealth, the second largest international organisation in the world after the United Nations itself. There are countries that have joined it who have never had any historical link to the UK - strange that for rulers who were as brutal as you claim isn't it.

attempting to destroy the much smaller Ottoman empire,

Really Thompson? Great Britain was dragged into the First World War by the German invasion of Belgium, Great Britain declaring war on the Central Powers on 4th August, 1914 - hold that date in mind Thompson:

"The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers through the secret Ottoman-German Alliance, which was signed on 2 August 1914. The main objective of the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus was the recovery of its territories that had been lost during the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78, in particular Artvin, Ardahan, Kars, and the port of Batum. Success in this region would force the Russians to divert troops from the Polish and Galician fronts"


and Germany's first feeble attempt to have its own navy.

The "Naval Race" as it was known was all done and dusted by 1912 Thompson - what ended it? The simple fact that British yards had proven conclusively that no matter what Germany did the British could always out-build them.

"This was an economic war, with the capitalists of Britain, then the world's dominant capitalist state, using mass murder to suppress competition."

Really?? I thought that it was a war of empires, Germany and the Ottomans wishing to increase the size of theirs, the Russians, British and Austro-Hungarians trying to preserve theirs. Be fascinated to read about the examples you no doubt will put forward to back up (As Joe Offer wishes) your statement about Great Britain "using mass murder to suppress competition."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:03 AM

"So there was NO gun battle on the morning of the 2nd May 1916 at the Kent's house"
This is more of your bullshit Terrytoon - there is no way you can possibly claim to know what Kent was executed for - as usual, you are making it up as you have every other 'fact' you have refused to and are continuing to substantiate.
These are the known facts of Kent's secret trial.
Once again, it shows the mealy-mouthed dishonesty of the British Government, making your claim that Maxwell had overall say in the executions utterly ridiculous.

"Kent was one of 16 men executed in between 3 and 12 May, yet the trials of none were open to the press or public. This secrecy bred suspicion which in turn gave rise to questions in both parliament and the press. On 11 May 1916, two days after Kent's death by firing squad, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith informed the House of Commons that he had been 'executed – most properly executed as everybody will admit – for murder'. But not everybody thought it proper. Four days later in the same chamber, William O'Brien addressed the Chief Secretary of Ireland and told him that Thomas Kent's family were 'respectable people' and would suffer more from 'the accusation of murder against him even than from his execution'. What's more, he pressed for the publication of the evidence given at Kent's court martial. O'Brien repeated the call to publish the evidence against Kent on 18 May as did Irish nationalist MP Laurence Ginnell on 4 July. In responding to Ginnell, Herbert Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'. This was, of course, a travesty of the truth as whatever about Thomas Kent's political convictions or his behaviour on the night of the RIC came knocking on the door of his family home (and the nobody could identify the person who had actually fired the shot that killed Head Constable Rowe), he had most certainly not partaken in the Easter Rising; rather he, like thousands of others, had become swept up in the repressive wave to which it gave rise."
Thomas Kent

You have systematically made up 'fact' after 'fact' throughout all your arguments - you have provided no evidence to your claims - you never do, and you belligerently invent claims that not even the British establishment have never made and try to bluff and bully them through.
"Jom but can you please give us the date when the already passed Irish Home Rule Bill was re-introduced into Parliament?"
The Bill was raised again in doctored form in July 1916 and was rejected by the Redmondites as "a betrayal".
You have been linked to this information earlier.
You continually hide behind "procedure" and "rule books" to claim that what happened couldn't have - yet it did.
The British courts - not the Irish - condemned the manner in which the trials were carried out as illegal - the random selection of those to be 'tried', the fact that they were chosen by involved parties who were part of the decision to carry out the executions, the fact that the men were not allowed to give evidence on their own behalf or have legal representation - all this was not only immoral - it was downright illegal and it was said to be so.
Your entire offering here has been all your own work - it has never appeared in any history book, British or Irish, much of the events remain locked away and the British establishment have never made the claims you are making - about anything.
It is all your own work - again!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:06 AM

Someone - Joe Offer I think - asked what brought the British to Ireland in the first place.

That is easily answered, but get the players correct to begin with.

1: It wasn't the British, or the Saxons, it was the Normans in the 12th century.

2: They were invited to Ireland by a disgruntled and disposed Irish King in order to help him regain his Kingdom, a kingdom that had been taken from him by the High King of Ireland.

3: The Normans then did to Ireland what they had done on the British mainland about 100 years earlier. Same sort of thing that the Americans did to the native population - they took their land by force - that most certainly was they way things were done back in medieval times, should I apologise for it? Hell no, as it had absolutely nothing to do with me - All water that has long since flowed under the bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:13 AM

Home Rule Bill.
"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:43 AM

Ah Jom so the Irish Home Rule Bill did not come back before Parliament in June/July or at anytime back in 1916 - what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. Only those on the Republican side had the right to self-determination did they Jom? How egalitarian.

Thompson the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 was delayed at six month intervals throughout the course of the Great War and after during the War of Independence. That latter war caused the 1914 Bill to be repealed and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 brought in to replace it.

The Act was intended to establish separate Home Rule institutions within two new subdivisions of Ireland: the six north-eastern counties were to form "Northern Ireland", while the larger part of the country was to form "Southern Ireland". Both areas of Ireland were to continue as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for their future reunification under common Home Rule institutions.

Home Rule never took effect in Southern Ireland, due to the Irish War of Independence, which resulted instead in the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment in 1922 of the Irish Free State."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

There's a bit of a difference between the Normans and the 'British'.

A king of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough, was deprived of his lands by the High King, Rory O'Connor, because he had abducted Dervogilla, wife of the king of Breifne. In classic schoolyard manner, he called in a bigger bully - a bunch of Norsemen settled in Wales - to take his side. They took his side and his land and everyone else's land, and built a string of castles across Ireland. The Norsemen/Normans had a bigger bully still, the English Normans, and they agreed to make Ireland subservient to them.

(These 12th-century Normans were the descendants of the 8th-century Norsemen who had harried the coasts of Ireland and Britain.)

These Irish-settled Normans then rapidly began speaking Irish, dressing in Irish clothes, marrying Irishwomen, playing Irish games, eating the Irish diet (based on raw — ewww! — vegetables, soured-milk products like yogurts and cheeses, oatmeal bread, lots of fish, etc), using the Irish system of name and surname, and generally behaving in an Irish manner.

Fast-forward to the 16th century, and Britain is in the throes of a Protestant revolution — enormous amounts of land being stolen from monasteries to enrich the Tudor 'kings', the social welfare system of those monasteries being dismantled, statues being smashed, etc. So far, so ISIS.

It is now that the real invasion of Ireland happened.

These Tudor boyos decided, Burglar Bill-style, that they liked Ireland. "That's a nice country. I'll have that." They proceeded to spread the invasion from its former enclave in the east of the country and, using famine as a deliberate weapon, to remove the Normans' descendants (known as the 'Old English') and the Gaelic Irish, and steal their land. The south, west and north of the country were utterly devastated. Some Norman-descended quislings, notably the Butlers, helped in this, hoping to ladle in to themselves some of the spoils.

(At this stage, it was illegal for any Irish person to enter Dublin without a pass issued by the British-run Dublin government; the penalty for doing so was death.)

A couple of generations later, another Protestant ISIS type, Oliver Cromwell, invaded; he tasked William Petty with surveying all Catholic-owned land in Ireland with a view to stealing it, and then did so; he attempted to remove all Catholics to Connacht, but the farmers brought in from England and lowland Scotland could not farm the land, and the former owners often returned as illegal, insecure and impoverished tenants.

This colony continued into the 18th century — maintaining many laws under which Catholics could not practise the professions, teach school, own land, carry arms, own good horses, foster orphans, hold public office, serve in the British Army, marry a Protestant, inheritant Protestant land, etc. Catholics and 'Dissenters' (Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc) had to pay one-tenth of their income to support the Protestant Church of Ireland.

The Act of Union of 1801 (secured by massive bribery of the Protestant-only parliament in Dublin, which was then repaid to the British exchequer through Irish taxes) closed down that Dublin parliament and removed the rule of Ireland altogether to London. The removal of this 'Union' and the return of the government of Ireland to the people of Ireland was the main focus of Irish political life throughout the 19th century. It was from this that the Irish Parliamentary Party and Gladstone's plan for Home Rule came about.

Home Rule was not independence; it was a very limited devolution, in which all decisions of the Irish parliament would have been subject to a veto by the British-imposed Lord Lieutenant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:10 AM

"Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe"
No it wasn't -

The rebels said they were.
Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:54 AM

"The rebels said they were."
And they did nothing other than accept the weapons - do you have any evidence that they did - no - thought not??
" what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. "
It was invalid because it had been unilaterally altered to appease the Unionists by permanently Ireland - very egalitarian.
Redmond's "chat" was to reject the doctored version as "a betrayal" - as the Rebels always knew would happen. or something of the sort
Asquith made an effort to reintroduce it in 1917 but by then even the Redmondites would not associate themselves with it - British dishonesty had put paid to that.
Home rule never too effect because it was dead in the water long before The Civil War which took place as a result of the stitched-up version being forced through at gunpoint.
I take it we're now agreed on the Kent trial, though I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact in a million years
Do you not realise how stupid your making up 'facts' then doing a runner when they are shot down in flames makes you look?
Obviously not.
Stop making things up and arrogantly presenting them as fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Thompson - 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Very lazy and one-sided synopsis

No mention of overtures made by self-serving Irish Nobles hoping to claw their way to the top of the pile by selling "their" country out to either the Spanish or the French - The Catholic Church didn't mind, as long as the Protestant English were kicked out.

The other thing you omitted - when the Normans came to Ireland the High King of Ireland swore an oath of fealty to King Henry II - that still held good at the time of Henry VIII.

Besides none of that matters Thompson I answered Joe Offers original question - what were the British doing in Ireland. All the rest - water under the bridge - now irrelevant except to those looking to stir up trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:27 AM

Sorry Thompson, I forgot this bit - That ISIS Cromwell chap you mentioned, if you do a bit of checking up on him you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English, Welsh or the Scots. Scotland, Ireland and parts of England were ripe stamping grounds for Royalist supporters ever keen to reignite the flames of rebellion and civil war - he put all down equally ruthlessly.

Again in today's world his actions are totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

It might be water under the bridge to you but to the people of Ireland it is their history for good or ill. Do you really expect them to say that it doesn't matter.

For over 700 years the British (in various guises) trampled over the people for their own ends. The native population suffered at the hands of the British (in various guises) and to compound the matter some idiot on a folk forum tells them it's all water under the bridge.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:45 AM

" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford" or the Protestants of Ulster floooews by the razing of entire towns and the destruction of crops; he didn't drive entire populations off their land to "Hell or Norfolk" as he did "To Hell or Connaught"
Is there no limit to your invention?
Take it we're finished with your colourfully creative history of Home Rule as well??
Still no links to your claims??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:52 AM

"Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?"
By the way Keith - you don't have to "believe" anything I say, you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:58 AM

Rag, the Irish people considered it water under the bridge.
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Source last quote,
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-forgotten-volunteers-of-world-war-ii/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:33 AM

"They did not want a rising in 1916."
Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State.
Forcing The Free State was the final straw.
By then, even the Free Staters wanted no part of a partitioned Ireland and belived it could be a temporary thing.
If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:48 AM

Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916

Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:50 AM

"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject. Over 20 new books were published last year alone. The country has been awash with memorial dedications to the fallen. Art, Literature, drama, music have all paid homage over the last few months to say nothing of the Government involvement. Last week and this there are ceremonies each day at Kilmainham Jail to remember those executed. In 2015 Thomas Ceannts remains were given a state funeral reinterred in Cork at a ceremony attended by the President Michael D Higgins and the Taoiseach Enda Kelly. Ask Jim how many programmes on the TV and radio have been given over to it.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:57 AM

"Not before, not during, and not after the rising."
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith
I ask again Keith - If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
What the hell is Ireland celebrating at the present time.
If they did not support the Rising they have never ever supported Britain's behaviour towards the Rising since - not ever.
You haven't even been able to come up with one of your "historians" who have - not one.
Do you still believe Irish people to be gullible and fooled by propaganda and her children brainwashed to hate Britain as you have claimed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:32 AM

I've mentioned this before, but up to recently there have been few books dealing specifically withe the Easter Rising - a few books of essays at the time of the 50th anniversary in 1966, but very little before that or since.
While we were in Galway over the weekend we went into Charlie Byrne's Bookshop to find a virtual landslide of well-researched books on the subject, from the actual events in Dublin to how it was received locally throughout Ireland - it seems that the predictions that this would happen have been proved right.
Those on the Rising include a set of volumes covering each of the executed.
I believe that this is only the beginning and between now and the hundredth anniversary of independence we will see more and more, from the War of Independence to the Black and Tan Period right through to the signing of the Treaty - hopefully, the Civil War will be part of this historical soul-searching.
It's always seemed to me sadly ironic that the best book on The Civil War was by Englishman, Carlton Younger, which struck me as being extremely balanced at the time but as it was written nearly fifty years ago, could probably do with updating.
Like the Famine, many of these subjects have been avoided so as not to disturb the neighbours, but since Ireland joined the European Community, and are no longer reliant on it young people looking for work in Britain, as they once where, things will hopefully change.
"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"
More utter nonsense - Cromwell remains the archetypal English bogeyman, still very much discussed by historians and remembered in the poorer rural areas
What planet do you occupy - read a book.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:40 AM

Rag,
Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.

I think not. Identify something I got wrong.

Jim,
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith

It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started, while it was going on, or after its defeat.
Not until the executions did they start to sympathise, so it was nothing the rebels said or did apart from being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:46 AM

Is it really water under the bridge when much of the country has been involved in commemorations for the past few weeks, when one of the men killed is given a STATE funeral attended by the President AND the Taoiseach, when more than 20 new books have been published in the past year, when literature, art, drama and music have all remembered the Rising, when TV and Radio produce a myriad of programmes about it.

The word cretin comes to mind, but I mustn't say that even though it fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:58 AM

Rag, "water under the bridge" referred to ancient history back to the Normans, not the rising!

Read the posts using that phrase.
That was my context.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:59 AM

I think not.

Spot on, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:07 AM

I don't know of another country were the people are so well versed in their own history.
In the pub a young lad will be able to tell you the legends of prehistory, the invasion of Strongbow and the reasons for it. They know all about Elizabeth and Cromwell, the Famine, Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell and the Rising.
What's more they are interested in it for good and ill. History is not water under the bridge for them it's a part of their very being.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:23 AM

Rag,
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.