BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Iput up an interesting aticle related to the easter rising and dev, and both sides continue to sqabble and score points and ignore, a dbatable article about dev and how the easter rising affected him, are you lot interested in the easter rising orinterested in scoring points and childish alterations of each others names ,examples jom and terribus, puerile infantile behaviour absolutely pathetic on both sides

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:04 AM

Don't know if they are "boring" but any repetition is an attempt to get responses to points I put up - I've certainly put enough of them up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:25 AM

"You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents"

Do I Jom? I have never laid any claim that "ALL of them" were any such thing. That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable.

That their leadership in the form of the secretive Military Council that Pearse and Connelly set up to isolate the Leadership of the IRB and act against their wishes is undeniable.

That the leadership of the Easter Rising deliberately set it up to fail is undeniable.

That their leadership deliberately lied to their men is undeniable.

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them. Permanent partition would have been guaranteed under Wilson's right of self-determination as the pro-unionist North could clearly demonstrate that they had always opposed those who sided with Germany and quite rightly wanted to be treated as being entirely separate from the enemy of the victorious Entente powers.

Funny thing about military law, there are offences and charges against which there is no defence, no question of guilt, if you have been charged with the offence you automatically are guilty, all you can plead is mitigation. The most common is being AWOL, doesn't matter how or why you were absent, you were absent full stop. Now then Jom the same would be true of those who signed the Proclamation, they had no defence, to those who had taken up arms and fought, there is no defence, so witter on all you like about rules, etc - The rules under Martial Law were whatever they needed to be as viewed by the Officer Commanding - they were guilty as charged and the vast majority of them were treated with extreme leniency considering that they had acted in the way they had in time of war.

The Easter Rising brought about the collapse of the British Empire - DREAM ON. What collapse? What Downfall? if as you state it started in Easter 1916 it must be the slowest collapse in History.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

Apologies GSS, I did read your post with interest. The author's POV is certainly plausible but I think I would have to read his book, before I could comment on the balance of probability.

The "De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops" is certainly believable and borne out by the man's own actions.

Since the formation of the Irish Free State and the declaration of the Republic there have been two occasions where British Prime Ministers have offered their full support for union between the South and the North - on both occasions the offer has been refused in seconds.

I also apologise for apparently boring you with our squabble, but when Carroll persists in putting forward his cock-eyed Made-Up-Shit version of history to advance his Anglophobia, you can rest assured that I will draw his attention to details that tend to blow his dearly held myths clear out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

An interesting resume Good Soldier I shall look out for the book by John Turi.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:18 AM

Raggytash - 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

The answer to your question Raggy would tend to swing rather dramatically during the course of that year.

In the first half of the year I would imagine that the Germans started out feeling fairly confident that it would be them dictating peace terms.

In the second half of the year the Entente powers started to gain confidence in their ability to win the war.

The events of 1916 that support that (The Easter Rising being a flea-bite on the backside of an elephant - ["And the world did gaze with deep amaze" my arse]):

1: Battle of Verdun when Falkenhayn put into practice his strategy of attrition to bleed the French and British Armies in France white. Simply put he failed to do this, the Battle of Verdun would last until December 1916 and proved to be a decisive French victory.

2: Battle of Jutland 31 May – 1 June 1916 after which the German High Seas Fleet never again set sail. So where it could be argued that it was tactically inconclusive it was an overwhelmingly important strategic victory for the Royal Navy.

3: Battle of the Somme 1 July – 18 November 1916 the first battle to be fought by Britain's new citizen army. Fought to relieve pressure on the French Armies fighting at Verdun a goal it did accomplish. By the time the battle was over Falkenhayn's strategy had failed to achieve its goal and the German High command came to realise that their armies in the west could not defeat the French and British. Falkenhayn was dismissed and Britain's new citizen army knew that it could take on and defeat the best Germany could throw against it - and that is precisely what proved to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - missed a bit Dick
Your article on Dev may be of interest to you, but he played a peripheral part during Easter Week, though it might be worthwhile discussing what happened to the ideals of the Rising under his leadership of Ireland, which is partly what Coogan's book and and Diarmaid Ferriter's response is about - but not necessarily here though
I would remind you that you are one of the last people to accuse others of abuse and "puerile, infantile behaviour" - glass houses etc.
THe rudeness that happens here - from all sides - does not change any of the arguments
"That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable"
It's been denied and proven to be not the case - they accepted guns and no more.
The leadership did not set it up to fail - where is there a modicum of proof to suggest they did?
They thought they could win and had things gone to plan and the Rising been backed throughout Ireland (and unofficially called off), it might have got further than it did.
You are still avoiding the fact that Britain behaved illegally in the way the trials were conducted (after the crisis was over) and the Prime Minister actually altered the reason for one execution after it had been carried out - SFA to do with "martial law" - it was a face-saving attempt to cover up the illegality of what had happened.
The Rising did not bring about the fall of the Empire (the term I used was "set in motion") but it inspired enough opposition to eventually bring the entire system tumbling.
"must be the slowest collapse in History."
I suggest you read Gibbon if you wish to learn how long it actually takes for an empire to collapse - centuries rather than a few decades.
As it was, a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week - comparable to the peasant army which kicked the U.S. off the roof of Saigon Embassy after over a decade of armed struggle.
Credit where credit's due, I say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:26 AM

My word, that doesn't actually answer the question though does it.

We have discussed often enough WW1 and we will never agree on the details so can we move back to the Rising of 1916 and your statement that said:

"But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them"

I asked if anyone knew in 1916 the outcome of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:39 AM

I would point out Teribus I suggested a short time ago we should use the given name of the other individual at all times (as I had been doing for a few days) your reply was less than accommodating and you continued to refer to me as Raggy. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:42 AM

By December 1916 - the Entente Powers knew that they would win. German losses could not be sustained, that was the bitter truth that Falkenhayn's failed attempts at attrition proved throughout 1916. After November 1916 the German Army on the Western Front went onto the defensive and even then British and French bite-and-hold assaults kept them moving back. It was only the collapse of Russia and it's withdrawal from the war that allowed the Germans to make one last desperate effort in 1918. That attack through a series of five offensives failed for exactly the same reasons their initial attack in 1914 failed and then within 21 days of the last of those offensives petering out the British, French and American Armies went over onto the offensive - 100 days later the First World War was over. British leaders Lloyd George and Churchill thought that the Entente powers would have to wait until 1919 to defeat the Germans, Haig proved them wrong, the tactics developed from 1916 and 1917 were refined and put into effect as the Germans ran out of steam and once the offensive started there was never going to be any chance of the Germans stopping it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:49 AM

By December 1916 ............ the Rising took place some 9 months prior. Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:51 AM

Besides Raggy your question was moot - The Entente Powers DID win the war and had the Leaders of 1916 won their place at the table it would only have been to get themselves new arseholes reamed - In those days the inevitable penalty for picking the losing side in any conflict.

Their actions whilst inspiring the "men of the gun" to falsely claim they had the sole mandate to decide the future of the Irish Nation, undoubtedly hardened pro-union opposition and guaranteed partition. In doing this the "heroes of 1916" did neither Ireland or their cause any good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:54 AM

Quite agree Dick. However I held an olive branch out quite recently and was told by Teribus to **** off (for want of a better expression)

It would appear he considered my approach a weakness. I would be quite happy to use the given name if the same consideration was extended to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:05 AM

If the point is moot why did you try to use it to further your argument. Yet another incorrect statement hoping no-one would pull you up no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:06 AM

But Raggy in the general scheme of things related to the prosecution of the First World War the Easter Rising meant absolutely nothing, and as far as Jom's - "a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week" - that's right Carroll big up the opposition after they have knocked seven bells out of you.

Your handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels:

1: Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it.

2: Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years.

As for - "the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week":

1: Initially ~1,000 men and police officers that increased to 4,000 troops all of them raw recruits straight out of training in England.

2: Historically this went the same way as most attempted rebellions in Ireland or Scotland. The rebels initially make gains against the local forces and militia, but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast.

3: The fact that the conflict was fought in the centre of a city with a population of over 305,000 the fact that fatalities were held to less than 500 shows amazing restraint compared to what the armed forces of the world's richest and most powerful Empire could have done had it actually deployed an army to do the work. Besides Jom an army wasn't available they were doing far more important things elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:11 AM

Ehmmm Raggy' if the point was moot why ask your question in the first place? Totally irrelevant, although the possibility of being tried and executed for treason might have put a few people off and explain the astounding lack of support your rising had.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:14 AM

Nicely glossing over the poor nature and the scarcity of the weapons available to the Irish forces.

You know enough about weapons, so you constantly tell us, did the Irish forces have anything like the weaponry of the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:18 AM

The point was raised by you not I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:25 AM

Sorry Raggy' the question I was referring to was your one about who would know what when. That question I believe I answered fairly comprehensively and factually

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:41 AM

Not factual at all. In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Anyhow, That's me done for a while I'm off on holiday and hopefully will be out of contact for over a week.


Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it."
Numerical superiority over whom - the population of Dublin?
Immediately the revolt broke out the Army moved in.
The Rebels took over the GPO and read the Proclamation - it had no intention of taking over the City - it was a demonstration in support of Independence.
"Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years."
A tiny handful had - the majority were raw volunteers.
Certainly none had the ability and experience to match those they were fighting.
"but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast."
And yet they brought about the beginning of the end for the Empire
"shows amazing restraint"
Yeah sure - the wind blew down all the buildings and killed all the civilians - and the murder of the Rebels with a afked trial never really happened.
"it becomes tedious and boring,"
As does all rudeness Dick, including your own, which is quite often tinged with insulting nastiness
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:11 AM

The ridiculousness of your suggestion has just struck me Terri
By the end of the Rising there were 19,000 (have no idea where your 4,000 was conjured up from) British troops in Dublin, some new recruits, but the vast majority trained in weapon use, cavalrymen, heavy-gunners, a battleship and highly trained and log-serving officers - against how many?
Those Rebels who were trained, did so without weapons, whiche were not available, and without experienced officers - their 'training' was little more than a few Sunday afternoons marching with broom-handles over their shoulders and listening to lectures in The Dublin Hills.
The Irish Citizen Army (the 'trained' rebels) was a small group of trained trade union volunteers from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union established in Dublin for the defence of worker's demonstrations from the police. It was formed by such seasoned and battle-scarred leaders as James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913. Other prominent members included Seán O'Casey, Constance Markievicz, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and P. T. Daly. In 1916, it took part in the Easter Rising
Those were the ones who started the dominoes of Empire tumbling and gave inspiration to those who were part of its eventual fall.
You really do make this up as you go along, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:35 AM

In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Ah but Raggy you didn't ask about who thought that they would win in April 1916 did you, you asked the following question:

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?"

To which I answered first half of 1916 the Germans might have been confident that they would win. By December they would not have been so confident while France and Great Britain would have had grounds for optimism, serious damage inflicted on the German Army forced to retreat on the western front, dismissal of their Commander, realisation in the German High Command that having given it their best shot they could not defeat either Great Britain or France, the German Highs Seas Fleet confined to port where it would remain for the rest of the war. Great Britain's new citizen army had just forced the best army in the world to retreat.

This statement of mine is perfectly true and requires no guessing and no crystal ball at all:

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 10:50 AM

"Didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks"
You have had a reasonable explanation for this fro one of your own - Thatcherite, Michael Portaloo.
You have also been given adequate proof that the Rebels wanted nothing of either Imperial power - "We serve neither King nor Kaiser" - not an empty slogan but a policy statement by James Connolly, one of the leading architects of the Rising (see his gathered essays 'Labour and Easter Week').
The Rebels had no sympathy whatever for either side and you now should know that fact - you've been given enough evidence.
It seems little more than a malicious attempt to distort their position - nobody else anywhere is making such a suggestion.
Those "clowns" still managed to kick the arse of the most powerful Empire on the planet though - no getting away from that fact.
Diarmaid Ferriter who "really knows Irish history."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:04 PM

From your Ferriter link Jim.

"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals. The Rising, they say, increased the divisions between Ulster unionists and southern Irish nationalists, and was the start of an era of unnecessary bloodshed and violence. Many of these people say that independence for Ireland could have been achieved peacefully, without the Rising.
The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea."

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:35 PM

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."
I think that is a reasonable statement, unfortunately De velera put the clock back by revising the constitution and making reactionary and backward looking deals with the catholic church, and now we appear to have irish politicians the majority of whom are intent on looking after themselves

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:55 PM

"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals."
And he's quite right - some do - he doesn't and he "really knows Irish history."
Some people think it's a shame the Empire collapsed – some people would like to see dog-fighting come back – or hanging or corporal punishment – or even burning witches (they really knew how to put on a good show in those days)
The vast majority in Ireland at the present time say just the opposite.
Instead of looking for historians, why not just respond to the facts
He also said, "The Rising has been claimed by many as the founding act of a democratic Irish state. The rebels were determined that decisions affecting Ireland would be taken in Ireland, not in the British parliament in London."
He also said, "The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British Empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea. After 1916, people called for recognition of the Republic that had been declared during the Rising", and "What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active.
The 1916 Rising came to be seen as the first stage in a war of independence that resulted in the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and, ultimately, the formal declaration of an Irish Republic in 1949."
You praised this feller to the skies when you thought he was agreeing with you - What's your point.
Why just select the bits you like – are historians reliable only when they agree with you?
So far you have failed to produce one single historian who does.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 16 - 02:58 PM

I've said before that I will remove off-topic messages from this thread, in my attempt to preserve the discussion of the actual subject. I have removed a number of recent off-topic messages. I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to allow for discussion of the actual topic. But do stop the name-calling, willya? It's downright juvenile, and it really makes you name-callers look stupid.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:17 PM

"It's downright juvenile, and it really makes you name-callers look stupid"
Couldn't agree more Joe and I get pissed off with myself when I indulge.
Promise to make an effort - hope I'm not alone.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:22 PM

Those "clowns" still managed to kick the arse of the most powerful Empire on the planet though

Really? How?

To any sentient human being from the introduction of the first Irish Home Rule Bill in 1886 it was bloody obvious to all but a few in Ireland that Great Britain wanted shot of Ireland. Instead of working with what was desired they decided after some totally perverse fashion that this had to be fought for.

What those clowns of 1916 managed to achieve was the certainty that Ireland would be partitioned. They secured the political position that 100 years after their stupid and pointless rebellion that a united Ireland is as far away today as it was 100 years ago - well done boys, "Glory-oh, glory-oh, to those bold Fenian men" indeed.

Take a look back on threads on Ireland on this forum from about ten years ago - take a look at how many were confidently predicting that by the 100th anniversary of 1916 Ireland would be a united country. Why isn't it? Look to the events of Easter 1916 and the lessons learned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 08:19 PM



Oh yes you are Joe and that has been shown quite clearly - stories learned on your grandmothers knee. Your comments regarding the British are stereotypical, ill-informed and inaccurate - you refuse point blank to look at the broader picture that you think you advocate being trapped as you are from looking at it from one perspective. You haven't even considered the times these events happened in and what was going on in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 04:03 AM

"Really? How?"
It's been explained enough, here and within the links you've been given, how.
You've given us your attitude of the Empire, a benevolent motherly power for the good of the world - those living under it thought differently - Easter Week and its aftermath showed it was possible to stand up to Empires.
You've been kicked back on every argument you've put up here - the devastation in Dublin was all the fault of the rebels, Ireland would have been given independence, the people supported the war, 4000 untrained British troops against highly-trained Rebels who had been training for "at least three years" (still chortling over that one), pro-Imperial rebels fighting for Germany.....each time you've moved on to another.
You refuse to respond to the illegally carried our, rigged trials (backed up by British Legal condemnation), the fitting up of Tom Kent, the fact that, if Ireland had remained subservient it would have been forced to participate in a bloodbath which would have virtually depopulated the country of young men and, following the earlier culling of the Irish a little over half a century earlier, would have made the the place untenable as a nation.
Ireland was partitioned by Britain colluding with the Unionists - they had conceded to the Curragh Mutineers by doing nothing, they altered the Home Rule Bill which guaranteed permanent partition and which made the agreed one null and void and which moved Ireland on from agreeing to remain as part of the Empire under that system to demands for Independence proper.
Britain's dishonest behaviour even disillusioned the supporters of Home Rule - the Redmondites, who dismissed any further negotiations as "betrayal".
It wasn't the massacre of the leaders that turned the tables on the British - why should the Irish worry about the death of a few rebels when their children were being slaughtered in Europe in their thousands -
It was the crude display of brutality by the British which made it clear that Ireland would never become free without a fight - that was underlined when the thuggish Tans were sent in to beat Ireland into making a deal which suited Britain and the Unionists - Imperialism with the mask off.
Ireland had been fighting for independence from Britain for centuries, the 19th century was made up of an ongoing series of disturbances, disputes, uprisings which lapsed during the five years of the famine but intensified following the mass evictions.
The land disputes lasted officially till 1911, but continued in the harder-hit areas right up to Independence and beyond.
During the first decade and a half of the 20th century, Dublin was among the most impoverished cities in the Western World Poverty in Dublin and the countryside had never fully recovered from the Famine - over half a century of continuing active repression and poverty.
And the Irish people were faithful supporters of and willing to die for an Empire which imposed this situation on them...... you are making a joke!!!
Ireland wanted separation from this shithole - some (like the Redmondites) may have adopted the attitude that it could be achieved when the war was all over, but the Republicans knew that would never happen and Britain's ongoing dishonest conniving over the Home Rule Bill proved them right.
Eventually, Britain forced through a Treaty at gunpoint, under the threat, accept or war, that Treaty has led to bloodshed and unrest from then till now.
The same dirty tricks were used against Collins as were used previously against Parnell over his affair with Kitty O'Shea and against Casement and his homosexuality - early 20th century Britain could leave today's honey-trappers and sexual blackmailers standing.
Easter Week inspired national liberation fighters and revolutionaries throughout the Imperial world.   
You want to discuss something - why not try the facts - and why not try providing some of your own?
It really does help to sort things out in your own head instead of picking on inconsequential bits and pieces which fall apart in our hands.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 05:13 AM

Jim,
And he's quite right - some do - he doesn't and he "really knows Irish history."

There is nothing in the article to support that assertion.
He neither challenges that view nor states his own.

Joe,
Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 05:56 AM

"There is nothing in the article to support that assertion."
Read the article and read the rest of his articles (as I now have - those on line anyway)
His whole work is dedicated to how the ideals of Easter Week have been betrayed by what has happened to the Republic since - as is Tim Pat Coogan's book.
His criticism of Coogan was not on what he had to say but on what he regarded as shoddy workmanship on dates and note-keeping, as were the criticisms of the other three historians - as amatuish as Coogan can be at times on technicalities, he remains one of the most respected historians in Ireland - though you can never know that as you have bnever read anything of substance on Ireland and you have said you have no interest in doing so - who are we to contradict you?   
You really have not got your head around the fact that, unless you read the writings of the historians you persist in hiding behind enough to understand what they are actually saying, they will continue to blow up in your face, as has Kineally, Max Hastings and now Ferriter..... and virtually every other historian you have used in this way
"Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."
Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.
What problem do you have with this Keith - is it wrong - have I made it up - did this not happen - what?
You have had credible evidence in the form of Lloyd George's confessions that it had been done - what more "credible evidence" do you need other than that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 06:33 AM

There is nothing in the article to support that assertion, and you have not produced any other articles.

He says it is "indisputable" that the rising "increased divisions."
That is what destroyed all hope of a united independent Ireland, and led to all the bloody years of conflict that followed.

he (Coogan)remains one of the most respected historians in Ireland
I see no evidence of that among other Irish historians who dismiss his work with contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 08:24 AM

"You've been kicked back on every argument you've put up here"

- Only when you are putting words in peoples mouths Carroll.


1: The devastation in Dublin was all the fault of the rebels,

Well yes it was. Had there been no Easter Rising in 1916, nobody would have been killed in Dublin, no looting would have occurred, no fires would have been started, there would have been no artillery fire. People make choices, in this case seven men did, and they must bear the responsibility for what resulted from their chosen course of action.

2: Ireland would have been given independence,

No, in 1914 Ireland was guaranteed Home Rule as soon as the war against Germany was over. Home Rule would have been a stepping stone to Independence.

3: the people supported the war,

Well I'd say that the numbers speak for themselves wouldn't you? 1,250 turned out for your rebellion out of a population of around 3 million. Now that number might have been as high as 15,000 had it not been for the fact that the men who did turn out were lied to and mislead by their leaders who ordered the other 13,750 to stand down and do nothing, thereby guaranteeing that the rebellion would fail. The Irish Volunteers in 1914 numbered around 200,000 strong but when war was declared in 1914 the Redmond faction of the Irish Volunteers that supported the war and serving in the British Army split leaving somewhere between 13,500 and 15,000 that backed armed struggle. As it turned out ~210,000 Irishmen volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces, now if their families backed their decision then one hell of a proportion of the Irish population supported the war - far more than ever supported Connolly and Pearse

4: 4000 untrained British troops against highly-trained Rebels who had been training for "at least three years"

Where and when did I say that the troops sent to Dublin were untrained? What I did say was that they had just completed their training. Where did I say that the rebels were highly trained? All I said was that they had been drilling for three years - but there again you tend to be not very good at reading, but very good at making up shit.

5: pro-Imperial rebels fighting for Germany

Again where have I said that they were pro-Imperial? Or that they were fighting for Germany? It is undeniable that in their Proclamation Germany is described by the leaders as a "Gallant Ally". An ally = a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose - Their common purpose? To fight the British. By raising a rebellion in Ireland, British troops would have to be diverted from fighting in France, therefore by raising a rebellion in Ireland those rebels are effectively supporting and aiding the German war effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 10:48 AM

"Only when you are putting words in peoples mouths Carroll."
I sign on as Jim Carroll - if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen - new rules, remember.
We've been through the rest of this interminably - I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.
Unless you have anything new, let's leave it there.
"There is nothing in the article to support that assertion, and you have not produced any other articles."
He makes clear in all his writings that he is disturbed at the betrayal of the ideals of the rising - that is what he writes about.
The "increased divisions" he writes about refer to the fact that, having become more politically conscious, Irish thought polarised around whether Ireland should remain with the Empire or leave it - the overwhelming majority went with Independence - even the Free Staters believed that full Independence was only a matter of time - the country was suffering from battle-fatigue and just wanted peace (I suggest you try Carlton Younger's 'Ireland's Civil War' if yoiu ever become interested enough to read a book.      
He says nothing about the Rising leading to Bloody conflict or the bloody conflict that followed - you have just made that up.
destruction
The bloody conflict that followed was first to do with a war for independence, then over a treaty forced on Ireland by Britain and finally by a permanently divided Ireland.
You are not really trying to claim this historian as agreeing with you are you - un******believable?
"I see no evidence of that among other Irish historians who dismiss his work with contempt."
As oyu don't read any history, are not interested in the subject and don't live in Ireland - how can you possibly see evidence of anything Keith
You have come up with tiny bunch of historians (out of how many?) who have criticised his methodology - only one of those has come anywhere near showing contempt (one again, you are making things up, like your running-mate
I asked a question last time I posted and received no reply.
Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.
What problem do you have with this Keith - is it wrong - have I made it up - did this not happen - what?
I have responded to every single one of your and Terribus's points - you have responded to none of mine, not eve to claim that "all historians disagree with you".
Now this really is boring - my response to you is as it was with your friend; We've been through the rest of this interminably
I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.
Unless you have anything new, let's leave it there.
Then maybe those who are genuinely interested and are not just pushing time-wor agendas can join in.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 16 - 10:48 AM

Oh yes you are [taking sides] Joe and that has been shown quite clearly

Indeed- he's on the side of reality and fact- a difficult place to be when dealing with Keith & Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 11:18 AM

I have responded to every single one of your and Terribus's points


No Carroll you have not, what you have done is attribute to us points of view, opinions and statements that we have never made, and addressed THEM

Want a couple of examples of this Jim Carroll "made-up-shit"?

I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.

Show us where either Keith or myself have ever stated that we don't think Ireland was entitled to independence - As far as I am aware I have never ever stated anything even remotely close to that.

Likewise show us where either Keith or myself have ever stated that we thought or believed that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires. - As far as I am aware I have never ever stated anything even remotely close to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 11:27 AM

Oh from the same post I got this which I think is hilarious:

I sign on as Jim Carroll - if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen - new rules, remember.

I have responded to every single one of your and TERRIBUS's points

From that I take it that those new rules don't apply to you then Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 12:04 PM

Home rule, which you have based your entire case on - is not independence, it was based on Ireland remaining within the Empire
You:
"Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada"
Keith isn't interested enough in Ireland for me to give a toss one way or another what he thinks, or in his case doesn't think.   
"TERRIBUS's"
Still trying to score points from typos and mis-spellings then - now why am I not surprised- what else have you?
J-I-M Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 12:30 PM

Home Rule was what the people wanted in 1916, and it was always going to be a first step towards full independence.
The Rising just created violent divisions and years of bloodshed.
Without it there would have been a peaceful transition to Home Rule and Independence, very likely of a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:09 PM

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

Thanks for that T
One of the most memorable parts of Coffey's book is the description of the survivors of the uprising being brought out of the GPO and being set on by Dublin 'Shawlies' demanding, "why aren't you supporting our lads in the trenches".
It took the brutality of unnecessary, hastily carried out executions to turn what was widely regarded as a somewhat eccentric incident into a revolution.
Jim Carroll
This rather ILLUSTRATES THAT SUPPORT FOR THE EASTER RISING WAS NOT UNIVERSAL

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:35 PM

if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen

But Jom it was YOU yourself that called yourself J-O-M, I have simply used it ever since.

Home rule, which you have based your entire case on - is not independence, it was based on Ireland remaining within the Empire
You:
"Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada"

Are you honestly trying to tell us all that Australia and Canada are NOT fully independent sovereign states?

Let me see now Ireland declared itself a Republic in 1949, the Dominions became fully independent sovereign states with the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

Still waiting Jom

When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence?

When and where did I ever say that I thought that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires?

The actual, truthful answer to both those questions is NEVER, but Jom-the-infallible says that I did - all he has to do is show us all when and where by posting quotes from past posts of mine - if he cannot do that then once again he has made a complete and utter prat of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

Keith Says: Joe,
Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."

Jim Carroll says: Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.

This sounds credible to me, Keith. What evidence do you have to refute it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 02:16 PM

It is just assertions, not evidence Joe.
"Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence ."

All sides agreed the bill.
There was no outcry against the bill.
It was democracy in action.

- it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.

The temporary partition was accepted by all parties.
If all had gone smoothly, a united Ireland would have emerged.
The rising destroyed that dream.

The Unionists would never risk being part of such a volatile unstable state.
Then came the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 May 16 - 02:32 PM

joe,
the six counties in the north did not want independence, and they are part of the geographical island known as ireland, this was because ulster was a plantation of scottish protestants.
the area that was not ulster, was called the irish free state.
so dominion status was achieved until 1937 when de velera embarked on a trade warin 1937.
Joe, under home rule ireland enjoyed greater economic prosperity than they did when de velera abandoned home rule and embarked in a trade war with the uk in 1937, i have spoken to many irish farmers about this period when de velera declared independence, and they all said that they had to sell their cattle for virtually nothing,causing massive rural hardship, that was not the fault of home rule but the fault of de veleras ridiculous economic war with the uk
republic ofireland joined europe in 1972, rep of ireland unknowingly abandoned independence in 1972, why did they sell out the ideals of the easter rising of 1916? the fact of the matter is that there were considerable shortcomings in DE VELERAS ECONoMIC Policies, when he abolished the irish free state
the agreement was signed by BOTH sides and michael collins[ who was a soldier not a diplomat] was sent over along with others by that weasel de velera to sign it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:01 PM

"All sides agreed the bill."
On the understanding it was a transitional measure - the British, in collusion with the Unionists, secretly changed it thereby nullifying it.
What agrrements can be changed secretly without forming all the perties?
What problem do you have with this Keith?
"If all had gone smoothly, a united Ireland would have emerged."
No it wouldn't - the Unionists had made it clear that they would never work with a United Ireland as far back as The Curragh Mutiny
With Irish Home Rule due to become law in 1914, the British Cabinet contemplated some kind of military action against the Ulster Volunteers who threatened to rebel against it. Many officers, especially those with Irish Protestant connections, of whom the most prominent was Hubert Gough, threatened to resign rather than obey, privately encouraged from London by senior officers including Henry Wilson. - that was why Britain secretly changed the agreement - what problem do you have with this Keith.
"Then came the civil war."
The Civil War was brought about by a Partitioned Ireland being forced on The Republic
"Still waiting Jom"
And I'm still waiting for you to address fellow members of this thread in the manner you have been asked to by one of forum officers - I'm making an effort to be polite, for the sake of reasonable discussion, I suggest you fight your superiority complex and do the same.
If I demanded (in the arrogant way you are) responses to all the points I have put to you, we may as well have packed up and gone home at the time of the famine discussion.
If you can't be polite, please be quiet.
This gets more and more bizarrely unpleasant the longer it is dragged out.
Is there and adjudicator in the house?
Jim Carroll