|
Subject: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:06 AM I suppose I specialise in English songs, but I do a dozen or so Irish songs, including some rebel songs. There is one such however that I find hard to listen to and will not join in.. Gallipoli, recorded by the Fureys and others. The sentiments I find offensive are that the Irish lads who volunteered in tens of thousands to take up arms to free Europe from the tyranny of the Kaiser's brutal and militaristic regime were fighting for ''the wrong country'' and ''the wrong cause'' We are also told that they sang rebel songs as they sailed. Did they? Perhaps someone can persuade me to be more tollerant? My guess is that those involved in those desperate and close run battles would have had a fairly low opinion of any patriots who took up arms against the very army in which they were fighting and dyeing for freedom. How sad that Dublin for so long refused to recognise their service and sacrifice. Find the song as a Lyr.Add thread under Gallipoli, and tell me why I am wrong please. More broadly, is any cause so holy as to justify forming unholy alliances with tyrants and criminals such as Napoleon, The Kaiser, Hitler, Gadafi, The Farc? Keith.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: GUEST Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:19 AM Click here for lyrics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:26 AM Here's the link.
England and America didn't have any problem allying themselves with Stalin did they? And there are some pretty evil warlords in Afghanisatan who've had the backing of America. Yes, the German Empire was a brutal and militaristic one all right. But so was the British Empire - the Kaiser didn't have troops stauoned in Ireland.
There were plenty of fervent Irish Nationalists in the British Army in the First World War, and cases of mutiny when they heard about the Easter Rising even; and if they weren't singing rebel songs on the boat it would be astonishing.
My father fought in the British Army through the last war, and when he was asked once wasn't it strange that he did so, since he'd fought for the Republic in the Irish Civil War and been interned for it, he said "I've always supported the rights of small nations, even my own."
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: The Walrus at work Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:43 AM "...We are also told that they sang rebel songs as they sailed. Did they?..." Doubtful 1) They were all volunteers (IIRS They were the 10th Div which was all Regulars, so they were LONG TERM Regulars and not "Hostilities Only" soldiers like, say the 29th Div). 2) Such action would have been classified as "Conduct prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline" and therefore a military "crime"[1]. Had they been 16th Division, there is a possibility, as these were formed from the "National Volunteers" (in the same way that the 36th Div was formed from the UVF), but I think both of these Divisions were still in training at this time.
"....fighting for ''the wrong country'' and ''the wrong cause'' ..."
"...My guess is that those involved ... would have had a fairly low opinion of any ...who took up arms against the very army in which they were fighting ..."
"How sad that Dublin for so long refused to recognise their service and sacrifice" Indeed 10,16,36 Irishmen all. Walrus [1] Not a criminal act, but an offence entered on the soldier's record, thus affecting possible promotion, good conduct pay etc. [2] Remember this war was going to be "Over by Christmas". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Allan Dennehy Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:17 AM Heres my tuppenshalfpennyworth. 1. Most Irishmen took the "kings shilling" out of dire poverty. The political views of the enlisted, I would imagine, would have varied from fiercely loyalist to fiercely nationalistic. 2. The Irish government has acknowledged the sacrifice of the fallen in both wars. Theres a memorial park in France set up by the government and the president has been down there. Even the Sinn Fein mayor of Belfast has layed a wreath. So the peace treaty up north although by no means perfect for either side is changing things for the better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:49 AM Not out of poverty Allan, There were vastly more volunteers after 1914 than before, and there was plenty of well paid work available during thr war. They volunteered for a cause they believed in. Kevin, I do not think Britain compared with the influence the prussian mitary elite had on the Kaiser's regime, and people here were shocked by the brutality of the Kaiser's armies in the lands they invaded and occupied. Re Stalin, in 1939 a British force was sent to stand with the Finns against his Red Army, as well as to stand with the French and Poles against Hitler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:52 AM Oh , and yes there were British troops in Ireland, and Scotland ,Wales England and all other parts of the Kingdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 02 - 10:08 AM The Walrus at work is perfectly correct in his posting above when he states
"I seem to recall reading that the "Easter Rising" was not as popular at the time as legend would have us believe, ..." Having spent years recruiting, training and arming his volunteers, Pearce saw his efforts and ambitions slipping away from him. The "Easter Week Rising" was initiated to keep the pot on the boil. He (Pearce) knew that it was doomed to failure from the start, he lied to his officers and to his men and knew exactly what retribution could be expected. Before, during and immediately after the events of easter 1916 the rebels were derided by the population of Dublin. It was only the complete and utter mishandling of the aftermath by the British that turned popular opinion through 180 degrees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Allan Dennehy Date: 23 Jul 02 - 11:38 AM Maybe I'm wrong about the poverty bit. I'll keep an open mind about that. I'll bring up another point. The Irish recruits were exhorted to join "to free small nations" in the belief that Ireland would be granted its freedom after the war was over. This was not to be and the result was that many IRA men had a solid Brittish army background to use when the war of independance began in 1919. The most famous of these was Tom Barry, leader of the West Cork Flying column, previously a sergeant during WW1. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 02 - 12:00 PM Quite possibly German imperialsim was even more brutal than the British variety. If so it was a difference of degree rather than kind. The bottom line for any empire is only be as brutal as you need be.
Actually I think the song works better without the last verse, which doesn't really fit in with the way parents would be thinking in the circumstances, with a lost son. Though I'm sure it's what a lot of parents would have said to dissuade their sons from joining up to fight overseas.
But the idea that Irishmen from a nationalist background fighting in the British army would be likely to feel any affection for the British Empire is nonsense, in any war. That's why I quoted my father. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Declan Date: 23 Jul 02 - 12:55 PM Just a thought Keith but if you find pro Irish Republican and anti-British sentiments offensive then maybe Irish 'Rebel' songs are not a great place to look for material. As you probably know, there are songs which are a lot more offensive than this one, which imho merely expresses an opinion. The song is written from a particular point of view - I can see how you might disagree with it, but not how you find it particularly offensive. I'm not a great lover of rebel songs myself, but I try to avoid them rather than allow myself to get upset by them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 02 - 01:21 PM Tyrants and criminals such as Napoleon? Depends where you were. Napoleon is still a hero in France. His reforms in the areas of Europe that he conquered led to civil codes still used today. The British conquered many parts of the world, with much bloodshed, all for economic reasons. Remember that western democratic regimes in Europe are largely a product of the last part of the 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries. The song expresses the bitterness of many who fought or had losses resulting from the ill-advised operation at Gallipoli. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 02 - 01:54 PM Declan, its not the anti Brit sentiments I find offensive. We get used to those. It's the portrayal of those brave idealistic Irish lads as dupes who had little idea of what it was all about. Dicho, to me a military dictator who by force of arms installs puppet rulers on nations conquered by force is a tyrant, even if the system he imposed had practical benefits. Someone also posted recently that he re imposed slavery in his colonies, after they were freed by the revolutionaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Les from Hull Date: 23 Jul 02 - 02:31 PM Yes, Keith that was me who posted that. And he did, in Martinique and the other French colonies in the West Indies. Mind you, the British Empire still had its slaves then, as, of course, did the Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 02 - 02:33 PM "a military dictator who by force of arms installs puppet rulers on nations conquered by force is a tyrant" - fair enough; but that describes all the colonial empires pretty well. And is pretty standard policy for most powerful nations today, when it suits them.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 02 - 02:58 PM Yep, the Americans, current No. 1, have been trying to impose their sense of order and economics, much like their British predecessors- (and making even more of a mess?). Irish died in many wars. Many thousands of Irish immigrants fought and died on both sides of the American Civil War (earlier many fought in the Mexican War- and some deserted and fought with the other side). Wild geese fought with Napoleon's armies. Many Irish believe that Irish should not have participated in the first World War. Getting away from these maunderings, when and by whom was "Gallipoli" written? Is it a Furies song? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 02 - 03:21 PM For me it began in...that land of the Arabs, then a battleground for the two contending Imperialistic armies of Britain and Turkey, where I awoke to the echoes of guns being fired in the capital of my own country, Ireland.
It was a rude awakening, guns being fired at the people of my own race by soldiers of the same army with which I was serving. The echo of those guns in Dublin was to drown imnto insignificance the clamour of all other guns during the remainin two years of war.
From "Guerilla Days in Ireland", by Commandant General Tom Barry, who at the time of the Easter Rising was serving with the Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force, in what is now Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: mack/misophist Date: 23 Jul 02 - 10:34 PM Two comments if I may, please; As big an ass as he was, the Kaiser can't be compared with the real villains of the century. I'm not a historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I seem to remember that almost all the atrocities were linked to General von Francoise (sp?). Now that it's over, I think one has to say that one asshole and one murderer in an army too keen to follow orders is the best we could expect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Allan Dennehy Date: 24 Jul 02 - 01:58 AM Keith, maybe you should sing Bogle's "The band played waltzing matilda" Thats a really good song about Gallipoli seen from the Austrailian side. The most important thing about WW1, I think, is the terrible wanton waste of lives on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 02 - 02:43 AM I do Allan, but not often because it's a singaround killer. Also No Mans Land, but for the same reason I started this thread prefer a 2 verse version of W.McBrides reply. Kevin Mac., wise words and relevant personal perspective as ever. You grudgingly accept the Kaiser's regime was more loathsome than even the British. Also his armies were sweeping East and West across Europe while ours were not. Because Britain was not itself a Utopia, was it not right for them to try to halt his conquests? And if young Irishmen felt the same moral outrage and rushed to help, why are they fighting for the wrong country and cause? Was home rule the only cause they should ever espouse? As has been said , it was not even a very popular cause in Ireland before the 1916 executions. In the same way your father saw it as a separate issue to the Nationalism debate when he joined the British army to fight Hitler. Did anyone ever tell him he was fighting the wrong country and cause? What would he have said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: greg stephens Date: 24 Jul 02 - 04:28 AM ell, since you posed the quetion, Keith, no I don't find it offensive.It's not a very good song, in my humble O, but the sentiments are so commonplace I'd find it difficult to get worked up about them, though I might disagree with them. (Bit of thread creep) references to a childhood hero of mine, Tom Barry, reminds me that he's been getting a fair amount of stick inIreland from revisionist historians. Apparently the accusation is that though he was justly famous for sticking it to the Brits where it hurt, he overstepped the mark by carrying on with the same assiduity against the fully Irish Protestant communities of West Cork after independence. can't say I know enough of the history to judge, but it did slightly tarnish the good old trench-coat and Thompson image a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 02 - 04:37 AM Dicho, "Many Irish believe that Irish should not have participated in the first World War." That belief is retropective - those who enlisted between 1914 and 1915 were all volunteers. Conscription was only introduced on the mainland of the British Isles in 1916. One of the things that spurred the Irish Republican element into rising in 1916 was the suspicion that conscription was to be introduced in Ireland. It never was and the idea of introducing it in Ireland was discounted by the British Government of the time. This was for similar reasons as to why during the Seven Years War the only Scottish regiments used were the ones who had fought on the government side during the '45. It was not until the outbreak of the French Revolutionary War and Napoleonic Wars that most of the highland regiments were raised. Misophist: Regarding how great a villain Kaiser Bill was, you should read about his dismissal of Bismark - his Kaiser was hell bent on a war and the old man tried desperately to convince him that was not the way to go. He foretold what the likely outcome would be and the cost to Germany and the great powers of Europe. Unfortunately the Kaiser did not listen and the best of Europe's manhood perished in a war that was totally avoidable and desired by only one man the German Kaiser. That makes him a villain in my book.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: allie kiwi Date: 24 Jul 02 - 05:20 AM From the NZ perspective I know that for many people Gallipoli has been seen as a sign that it was not our war. Our men also died for 'someone elses cause'. It was the 'colonials' who were sent to some of the harshest battle grounds, who were seen as dispensible. When I listen to the song 'Gallipoli' sung by the Furey's, it reminds me that it was not just the ANZAC's and Turks, but other soldiers as well. And I sympathise. I find it not offensive at all - it was not our war either. However, offensive to the British? Quite possibly. But then most patriotic songs can be seen as offensive to those on the other side. Allie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: allie kiwi Date: 24 Jul 02 - 05:25 AM Also, we often put our own emotions and connotations onto a situation from the past. Whoever wrote the song probably wanted to use it to illustrate a point. Trouble is, people often come to beleive the sentiments and 'facts' they hear in a song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: greg stephens Date: 24 Jul 02 - 05:39 AM Quite a few Brits werent/arent mad keen on what happened at Gallipoli either.Probably Johnny Turk likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 02 - 09:42 AM AGAIN I do not find the song offensive to the BRITISH, but to the volunteers. The causes of the war were many and various, and also blame, but it was the Kaiser's army that swept right through Belgium and deep into France, and who committed atrocities on Belgian people. Revulsion. and the cause of freeing the occupied lands and halting further agression led to the surge of volunteers from Britain, Ireland and the Empire. Perhaps as a soldier myself I find it offensive to say to those men you were WRONG to fight for that cause, and almost as offensive to say as Bogle does that they did not know or understand why they put themselves in the firing line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 02 - 09:49 AM Allie ,what harshest battlegrounds were the colonials sent to and the British were not? I have visited many, and seen the graves of all side by side. It is easy to imagine how the belief and resentment could arise. Any Facts? We recently had a closely argued debate about the rearguard at Dunkirk, who someone thought were sacrificed because they were Scots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Declan Date: 24 Jul 02 - 10:38 AM The song seems to me to be saying that it would have been better if the boy had been killed in the cause of Ireland than fighting in the British army. I don't think it is making much of a statement about whether the cause for which the British were fighting was just or otherwise. I agree with greg stephens that this isn't a great song. I imagine that any real life set of parents wouldn't have wanted their son to die at all, regardless of the cause. By the way Kieth, whereas the people of Ireland did not immediately support the armed insurrection of 1916, home rule was a very popular cause in Ireland throughout the 19th and early 20th Century. John Redmond who advised people to fight in World War 1 was a leader of the Home Rule movement. The anti-redmondites had a slogan which said 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland. Also in 1939 Hitler and Stalin were allies. Subsequently, after they fell out, Britain (and the US)formed an alliance with Stalin. My enemy's enemy is my friend (at least until the common enemy has been beaten). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 02 - 01:25 PM Thanks Declan, I find myself agreeing with you. May I share with all you threadmates some extracts from letters that after many readings still move me. The A in my name is Acheson, The letter is to my grandmother from Lt Joseph Acheson, her cousin. He was from Derrygonnelly, Fermanagh. He joined in 1914 and must have been born lucky to survive so long. 27 10 1917 ...Yes it was sad of poor Tom Evans to be killed, he is one of the many who have paid the great price and nobly laid down his life in defence of the homeland. Every time we see a poor fellow getting covered over with earth in his last resting place very often not pleasant surroundings I think of the old Kaiser and his cursed country and the many crimes and lives theyll have to answer for. You know Sallie the burials are mostly like what we read about in the school books about the Burial of Sir John Moore not a drum was heard nor a funeral note as his corpse in the shell hole we buried. A very fine funeral for a man to get here is to be carried a few miles behind the line and be tied up in an oil sheet or blanket and buried in a proper graveyard and a little wooden cross put over, theryre mostly buried at night anyhow and any place and nothing in half the cases ever marks the spot. The last thing ma said to Tom and I and also his poor wife was to look after one another........ I dont worry about myself so much as Eva as I dont know or at least I'm afraid she wouldnt survive if anything happened to me. I dont like to think of her awful position as it doesnt do me any good. I trust in God and try to make life as happy as possible under all circumstances looking forward to better times when we can all shake hands and say it is finished. Joseph died of wounds in France, June 1918. Keith Acheson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: allie kiwi Date: 24 Jul 02 - 07:02 PM I think it would ne hard to find 'facts' online but there are certainly referrences. Maybe I spoke wrongly that we were sent places that you were not. Yes the graves are side by side. But how about who spearheaded attacks? How about who rode in which rail carriages? There are many referrences to the "class ridden absurdities of the british army". Our numbers of dead may seem few by comparision if you look at statistics - but when you look at the size of our army they were great. A book review: Glyn Harper Massacre at Passchendaele: the New Zealand story Auckland : HarperCollins, 2000. We mark Anzac day on the wrong day. It could be argued the real date is October 12. On that day in 1917 over 1000 New Zealanders died in the space of two hours in a quagmire before the small Belgian village of Passchendaele. The effects of those hours still affect New Zealand even if few people now think of the Third Battle of Ypres. The New Zealand Division was flung into a badly prepared attack with no artillery support. They floundered through thigh deep mud against machine guns and belts of barbed wire. We can imagine Great War battles in some ways thanks to films and the stale, fake file footage trotted out dutifully by TV channels every April. The only real links to it now are the memorials we ignore every day and history books. This is what makes Harper's book interesting and significant. It's not a tale of heroic feats, derring do and roister-doister. It's a story of bungling, arrogance and stupidity. This applies to all sides. The English high command was misguided to keep the battle running after its opening week in July 1917. The German high command was foolish to maintain a policy of ceaseless counter attacks. The important thing is to understand why all this happened and "Massacre at Passchendaele" explains this very clearly. The attack was pressed with insufficient reconnaissance, planning and support. This is what led to over 3,000 New Zealand casualties in the space of two hours. It's easy to pardon soldiers shot for desertion according to the law and mores of the time. It would be harder for our government to condemn as war criminals the likes of Haig, Godley and even Russell for their part in this atrocity. Of course that would also involve trying Winston Churchill for the Gallipoli debacle but that's another issue. Harper's book is a very clear narrative history of the events of October 1917. He interlaces his account with well chosen extracts from letters and diaries which let the soldiers speak for themselves. His last chapter traces the far ranging effects on New Zealand of those few hours in Flanders 83 years ago. Perhaps his most affecting section is the list of the missing from Passchendaele. These aren't just the dead who have known graves but those whose remains were never found. It fills over 70 pages of fine print. "Lest we forget" is one thing; "lest we misunderstand" is the real lesson history teaches us. Harper's book is a worthy step toward that understanding. From an essay on 'To what extent was New Zealand 'born as a nation' in World War I?' - Anita Kundu ...National pride, too, became more noticeable after the war. Prior to World War I, most New Zealanders identified themselves as Britons. At the time, Anthony Trollope even commented that New Zealanders were more English than the Englishmen of Britain. However, after the war, New Zealanders grew ashamed to be associated with Britain. It was the New Zealand troops that first won and then briefly secured Chunuk Bair, only to lose it after a succession of British blunders. Such incidents, along with the carnage at Gallipoli, led to the realisation that Britain was not infallible. After the war, New Zealanders no longer idealised Britain because they became increasingly conscious of their own achievements. Allie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Gareth Date: 24 Jul 02 - 07:09 PM The real tradegy was the Pals battalions. They joined together, trained together, fought together, and died together. And thier names were carved on the same stone outside the Town Hall. "A death in every house in every street in the town or village" Interestingly the old Great Western Railway, after an accident where Father and Son died on the same Locomotive introduced a rule which stopped blood relatives crewing the same Locamotive. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jul 02 - 07:28 PM I thinks it's a pretty good song, when sung right. I also think the last verse is redundant and out of keeping with the supposed singer.
But the sentiment would have been pretty widely held. It's the same one you get in the Easter "Foggy Dew" -
"'Twas England bade our wild geese go That small nations might be free. Their lonely graves are by Suvla's waves On the fringe of the grey North Sea. But had they died by Pearse's side Or fought with Cathal Brugha, Their graves we would keep where the Fenians sleep 'Neath the shrowded and foggy dew."
It's not disparaging the idealism either, it's saying it would have been better directed elsewhere. You can disagree with that, and I might disagree too as to the best way that idealism might have been directed, but there's no insult there.
Though it's interesting to see how Tom Barry explains why he joined up:
"In June 1915, in my seventeenth year, I had decided to see what this Great War was about. I cannot plead I went on the advice of John Redmond or any other politician that if we fought for the British we would secure Home Rule for Ireland, nor can I say I understood what Home Rule meant. "I was not influenced by the lurid appeal to fight for Belgium or small nations. I knew nothing about nations, great or small. 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 a grown man."
That's just one man, and one voice - no doubt there were many for whom Redmond's appeal mean more, and who went to fight seeing it as a way to get independence for Ireland, and others from whom the idealism of supporting another small country meant a great deal. But Barry was not alone in coming to see the war overseas as a trap and a delusion. And there were plenty of English people who saw it that way as well, and still see it that way.
And none of that is in any way to dishonour young men who gave their lives helping each other get through the nightmare of the Great War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: greg stephens Date: 24 Jul 02 - 07:51 PM Exactly the same sentiments in the two songs, as you say. M of H. But I'd give the Foggy Dew 10/10 for expressing them, with about 2 for Gallipoli. But I still can't really follow Keith's reasons for finding it so offensive. All the song says is "if you're going to throw away a young life, there must be a better cause than that". I can see you might disagree quite strongly....but offensive? Not to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jul 02 - 09:24 PM (I've had to come in on http://207.103.108.101/threads.cfm, and that doesn't allow logging in properly)
I think the idea might be that if you say people have been misled you are saying they are fools, and that their motives are unworthy. I can see how that might seem that way, but I disagree with that assumption.
A more recent analogy to the attitude expressed in that last verse is Muhammed Ali saying in explanation of why he wouldn't fight in VietNam "No Viet Cong ever called me a Nigger" - ie, there's a struggle at home that should be seen as more important.
I don't think that was insulting to people who were fighting, and nor do I think that the Vietnam Vets who demonstrated protesting at the war and denouncing it were insulting their comrades in arms. But no doubt there were people who saw it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jul 02 - 02:17 AM Well put everyone, perhaps I was wrong to see it as I did. Oh , and if you were wondering how inbred I must be, Joseph was cousin to my grandfather not grandmother ! He used to write to them separately I suspect hoping to get twice as many replies. He wrote ...You should see the look on the mens faces when the letters arrive and the difference when theyre given out. I could go down the ranks of my Company and pick out every man who didnt receive a letter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: HuwG Date: 25 Jul 02 - 08:42 AM Walrus at Work, one minor quibble with your otherwise excellent post: The 29th Division were Regular Army, formed from units which had been stationed in India when the war broke out. The 10th (Irish) Division were from the first batch of Kitchener's New Army, formed from new recruits in the depots and cadres of the Regular Army. Its personnel would have been the "Hostilities-only" troops you mention. The 16th (Irish) and 36th (Ulster) Divisions were Territorial Army formations. Territorial enlistments were (ostensibly) for part-time training during peacetime and full-time service in wartime.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: The Walrus at work Date: 25 Jul 02 - 12:36 PM Huw,
Mea culpa. I've just checked on the 10th and 29th Divisions and you are correct, the 10th (Irish) and 29th Divs were NA & Regular respectively,(I had it in my mind that the 1st RDF and 1st Munsters were in the 10th Div, not the 29th) however I do dispute that the 16th (Irish) and 36th (Ulster) Divisions were TF. Regards Walrus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 02 - 12:45 PM A distinction between "Nationalist Songs" and "Rebel Songs" just doesn't stand up. Unless maybe you limit the term "Rebel Songs" to mean songs which are specifically about current events.
In which case of course, coming more up to date, "Back Home in Derry" doesn't count as a Rebel Song. And for that matter most Fenian Songs in the mid to late 19th Century tended to be about long gone battles, like those of 1798 or earlier.
If there is a distinction it lies in the mindset of the people singing - in which case most people singing "Rebel Songs" are in fact singing "Nationalist Songs." (And some of the most powerful "Rebel Songs" never even mention armed struggle.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gallipoli, offensive song? From: HuwG Date: 26 Jul 02 - 08:46 AM Walrus at Work, mea maxima culpa ! You are quite right re the 16th and 36th Divisions; they could not have been Territorial formations (although the 36th was in the numbering range for the TA. The British army's numbering system contained a lot of anomalies). Just to confuse matters further, a 36th Division was formed during World War 2. However, it had no line of descent from the 36th (Ulster) Division of World War 1. It helped capture Madagascar from the Vichy French and later fought in Burma. If I recall correctly, it contained one Welsh and one English Territorial brigade, and later on, one Indian Army brigade. |
