IRA

Ban this prat, he is nothing but an immature child who knows nothing of what happened other there. The glorification of terrorism is too far, he has sought to justify the murder of hundreds of British soldiers INCLUDING WELSH MEN.

Your a really Dic Head ,you pratt ! Its the Soldiers who are the Terrorists , they are the people in another country that is not british The land is Ireland , if the french were doing the same in scotland, you would say the scotts were the Terrorist to fight the French that were killing the scotts ? come on you dic head !

I've followed this thread with a certain interest as some one who served out there during the seventies, the Army did make mistakes but consider this at the height of the troubles 35, 000 troops were deployed there under extremely stressful conditions, I certainly don't consider myself a terrorist as would the soldiers who served there just someone who was stuck in the middle of a very dirty war clearing up the mess , I was shot at spat at, rocks etc thrown at me from both sides of the divide because both sides had their own agenda's I bet you have a good chance of meeting up with an ex squaddie either RRW or RWF who both Regiments lost friends out there & who would take offence at your beliefs ,if you do repeat it just be careful of the reaction

Everyone who was caught up in the situation in the 6 counties in the 1970/80's was in a difficult position.

Individual soldiers were clearly in an almost impossible situation, but so were the Republicans who lived there.

The real problem was not the soldiers themsleves, but the Politicians who had allowed the situation to develop into what it had in the 6 counties.

For myself, the heart of the problem is that the deal that struck in the 1920's - to summarise the history, in what I think is a non biased way and as objective as I can be :

In the 1918 general election, a massive majority in the whole of Ireland voted for Sinn Fein.
They did not take their seats in Westminster, but set up their own Parliament in Dublin.
The British did not accept this democratic decision and sent in the Black & Tans (who I think all sides accept behaved deplorably).
The IRA was founded by Collins and co. and brought the British establishment to the negotiating table.
Collins then agreed a treaty partitioning not just Ireland, but Ulster as well, as only the 6 of the 9 counties of ancient Ulster remained as part of UK.
This is when the real problems arise, as the Irish in the 6 counties had fought and died for their freedom as much as people in Dublin and what is now the Republic.
The treaty is agreed by Collins and a narrow majority in a referendum.

I firmly believe Collins felt he had little alternative, as if he had rejected the treaty, the British would have sent in even more troops to subjugate the democratic wishes of the Irish people, causing much more suffering. However, the splitting of Ulster in 2 and artificially creating a Loyalist majority in what remained was fundamentally undemocratic, in my view.

What then happens in the 6 counties for the next 70 years gets even worse, as the Nationalists are effectively made 2nd class citizens in their own country - the infamous gerrymandering in Derry etc.

The reason why I outline the above, is that this is not merely historical (in the same way that 4th Century Romans subjugating Britain is), but something that has happened within the living memory of many people, and the injustices of what happened are still acutely felt. In particular, in 1969 many people would still have had personal memories of the atrocities of the black and tans.

I am a supporter of the Good Friday agreement, and I think all sides deserve massive credit for the way this has been dealt with since 1997, including the British Government - but it still doesn't detract from the continuing injustice that was caused by the partition of both a country and a province which was done in a fundamentally unfair way.

I have sympathy for any innocent victims of war and one of my best friends was almost killed in the Harrods bombing, as he was in the store when the warning was given and left the store and was knocked to the pavement outside by the force of the blast. But equally, what about the countless number of Irish people killed by the British - Thatcher's response to the Hunger strikes and the brutal killing of 14 innocent civilians in Derry in January 1972 for example.

What I keep coming back to is, who caused this in the first place, and for me the answer is the British Government, as if they had accepted the democratic will of the Irish people in the 1918 General Election, then the rest of the problems would not have occured. Of course, Britain still had an Empire at that stage, and would have been fearful that allowing Ireland the freedom she wanted may have meant other countries would have jumped on the bandwagon.

This most definitely does not mean that I hate all English people (or all British soldiers) for what happened - but at a state level, I hold the British Government to blame, and whilst I can have sympathy for individual soldiers caught up in a terribe situation, that cannot deflect from the fact that they were there enforcing the continued partition of a country and a province that was fundamentally undemoctaric, in my view.

Similarly, at the time of the Hunger strikes, the prisoners had not even been allowed the basic right that you and I and everybody else who lives in Britain has, of being tried by 12 of our peers in a jury trial for serious allegations. Those prisoners were only allowed to be tried by an English Judge and not a jury. Given this fact, it had been previously accepted that their position was distinct from other common criminals - however this was taken away at the time when Thatcher came to power, and led to the Hunger strikes. It's hard to believe these basic human rights of being tried by your peers were withheld from people as late as the 1980's in the UK.

Whilst I tend to dislike Nationalism in general (the last refuge of the scoundrel etc.), I do feel an emotional bond with my fellow celts (as I see them) who were treated this way by the British establishment. It's the British establishment that I have a major problem with.

In fact, as has been outlined above, at the time of the Easter rising in 1916, the rebels didn't have that much support amongst the Irish people (although it is also untrue to say that Irish home rule had not been a hot potato for a long time, as it certainly had for many years) - but the way that the British then executed the leaders of the rebellion showed how ruthless they were, and led to the situation where Sinn Fein had such a mandate at the 1918 election from the whole of the Island of Ireland.

As for the position since 1916 and the actions of the PIRA, there are many examples cited above of bombings which it would be very hard for anyone to justify, and I will certainly not seek to do so - however, it must be remembered, if it had not been for the infamous events of 'Bloody Sunday', I doubt that they would have had the support that they had during that period - and in my view, the establishment were implicated in that, but the soldiers on the ground were the main cause of that atrocity.

My sympathies are entirely Republican, but I have tried to be as fair and balanced as possible above - I'm sure not many of the soldiers who served out there would have been aware of all of the above history, and were faced with a situation I would certainly not have wanted to be in the middle of.

However, I am most definitely not a Roman Catholic, and can also fully understand the concerns of the Protestant community in the 6 counties about being left in a country which may have tried to implement legislation in line with RC thinking (both in 1921 and 1969).

The whole situation was therefore very complicated, and its to everyone's credit that the Good Friday agreement has been as succesful as it has been - and I'm prepared to concede that that includes the British Government, and the majority of political representatives of the paramilitary groups on both sides of the divide. In particular, I think Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have behaved in a courageous and dignified way in the whole process - especially when they could easily have gone the way of poor old Collins, given the fact that they were seen by some parts of their community as 'selling out'.

Just my views on the situation.

Everyone who was caught up in the situation in the 6 counties in the 1970/80's was in a difficult position. Individual soldiers were clearly in an almost impossible situation, but so were the Republicans who lived there. The real problem was not the soldiers themsleves, but the Politicians who had allowed the situation to develop into what it had in the 6 counties. For myself, the heart of the problem is that the deal that struck in the 1920's - to summarise the history, in what I think is a non biased way and as objective as I can be : In the 1918 general election, a massive majority in the whole of Ireland voted for Sinn Fein. They did not take their seats in Westminster, but set up their own Parliament in Dublin. The British did not accept this democratic decision and sent in the Black & Tans (who I think all sides accept behaved deplorably). The IRA was founded by Collins and co. and brought the British establishment to the negotiating table. Collins then agreed a treaty partitioning not just Ireland, but Ulster as well, as only the 6 of the 9 counties of ancient Ulster remained as part of UK. This is when the real problems arise, as the Irish in the 6 counties had fought and died for their freedom as much as people in Dublin and what is now the Republic. The treaty is agreed by Collins and a narrow majority in a referendum. I firmly believe Collins felt he had little alternative, as if he had rejected the treaty, the British would have sent in even more troops to subjugate the democratic wishes of the Irish people, causing much more suffering. However, the splitting of Ulster in 2 and artificially creating a Loyalist majority in what remained was fundamentally undemocratic, in my view. What then happens in the 6 counties for the next 70 years gets even worse, as the Nationalists are effectively made 2nd class citizens in their own country - the infamous gerrymandering in Derry etc. The reason why I outline the above, is that this is not merely historical (in the same way that 4th Century Romans subjugating Britain is), but something that has happened within the living memory of many people, and the injustices of what happened are still acutely felt. In particular, in 1969 many people would still have had personal memories of the atrocities of the black and tans. I am a supporter of the Good Friday agreement, and I think all sides deserve massive credit for the way this has been dealt with since 1997, including the British Government - but it still doesn't detract from the continuing injustice that was caused by the partition of both a country and a province which was done in a fundamentally unfair way. I have sympathy for any innocent victims of war and one of my best friends was almost killed in the Harrods bombing, as he was in the store when the warning was given and left the store and was knocked to the pavement outside by the force of the blast. But equally, what about the countless number of Irish people killed by the British - Thatcher's response to the Hunger strikes and the brutal killing of 14 innocent civilians in Derry in January 1972 for example. What I keep coming back to is, who caused this in the first place, and for me the answer is the British Government, as if they had accepted the democratic will of the Irish people in the 1918 General Election, then the rest of the problems would not have occured. Of course, Britain still had an Empire at that stage, and would have been fearful that allowing Ireland the freedom she wanted may have meant other countries would have jumped on the bandwagon. This most definitely does not mean that I hate all English people (or all British soldiers) for what happened - but at a state level, I hold the British Government to blame, and whilst I can have sympathy for individual soldiers caught up in a terribe situation, that cannot deflect from the fact that they were there enforcing the continued partition of a country and a province that was fundamentally undemoctaric, in my view. Similarly, at the time of the Hunger strikes, the prisoners had not even been allowed the basic right that you and I and everybody else who lives in Britain has, of being tried by 12 of our peers in a jury trial for serious allegations. Those prisoners were only allowed to be tried by an English Judge and not a jury. Given this fact, it had been previously accepted that their position was distinct from other common criminals - however this was taken away at the time when Thatcher came to power, and led to the Hunger strikes. It's hard to believe these basic human rights of being tried by your peers were withheld from people as late as the 1980's in the UK. Whilst I tend to dislike Nationalism in general (the last refuge of the scoundrel etc.), I do feel an emotional bond with my fellow celts (as I see them) who were treated this way by the British establishment. It's the British establishment that I have a major problem with. In fact, as has been outlined above, at the time of the Easter rising in 1916, the rebels didn't have that much support amongst the Irish people (although it is also untrue to say that Irish home rule had not been a hot potato for a long time, as it certainly had for many years) - but the way that the British then executed the leaders of the rebellion showed how ruthless they were, and led to the situation where Sinn Fein had such a mandate at the 1918 election from the whole of the Island of Ireland. As for the position since 1916 and the actions of the PIRA, there are many examples cited above of bombings which it would be very hard for anyone to justify, and I will certainly not seek to do so - however, it must be remembered, if it had not been for the infamous events of 'Bloody Sunday', I doubt that they would have had the support that they had during that period - and in my view, the establishment were implicated in that, but the soldiers on the ground were the main cause of that atrocity. My sympathies are entirely Republican, but I have tried to be as fair and balanced as possible above - I'm sure not many of the soldiers who served out there would have been aware of all of the above history, and were faced with a situation I would certainly not have wanted to be in the middle of. However, I am most definitely not a Roman Catholic, and can also fully understand the concerns of the Protestant community in the 6 counties about being left in a country which may have tried to implement legislation in line with RC thinking (both in 1921 and 1969). The whole situation was therefore very complicated, and its to everyone's credit that the Good Friday agreement has been as succesful as it has been - and I'm prepared to concede that that includes the British Government, and the majority of political representatives of the paramilitary groups on both sides of the divide. In particular, I think Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have behaved in a courageous and dignified way in the whole process - especially when they could easily have gone the way of poor old Collins, given the fact that they were seen by some parts of their community as 'selling out'. Just my views on the situation.

A reasoned and accurate appraisal of Ireland's troubles during the 20th century. Well done you... pity about the other seven pages and some of inane fuking horseshit written here.

A reasoned and accurate appraisal of Ireland's troubles during the 20th century. Well done you... pity about the other seven pages and some of inane fuking horseshit written here.

Thank you - I didn't want to get into some of the petty name calling etc., but do feel strongly about the history, so just wanted to put down my feelings on it, as I see it.

I just hope if people want to disagree with me on any of the points I've made (which is fine, and I will learn from them if I am wrong on any), that they do so in a reasoned and sensible way, not just throw juvenile insults around.

It's called due process.

The SNP won the Scottish elections. They simply didn't pack their bags and walk away.

SF won in 1918, but that doesn't mean they spoke the entire population of Ireland. They simply took the election results and used them as a excuse and not only that they chose to do it during WWI.

I can't see how you can put the blame fully with the British Government.

It's called due process.

The SNP won the Scottish elections. They simply didn't pack their bags and walk away.

SF won in 1918, but that doesn't mean they spoke the entire population of Ireland. They simply took the election results and used them as a excuse and not only that they chose to do it during WWI.

I can't see how you can put the blame fully with the British Government.

The SNP weren't standing on an independance manifesto though - merely a call for a referendum where independence would be voted upon. I doubt they would have won a clear victory if they had stood on such a manifesto - so the analogy with 1918 is not made out, in my view.

Also, if they had and set up their own parliament (which of course, they already have, so again the parallel is not made out), do you feel the British establishment would have been justified in coming in and arresting and imprisoning them?

Indepence was a key pledge in the SNP last election?

Have you seen the voters numbers in 1918? 30% didn't vote for SF.

We have due process. Winning an election is not the end. It's the just the start and a positive start.

30% of Irish voters did not vote for SF.

Winning a majority is not the same as having total public support.

Indepence was a key pledge in the SNP last election?

Have you seen the voters numbers in 1918? 30% didn't vote for SF.

We have due process. Winning an election is not the end. It's the just the start and a positive start.

30% of Irish voters did not vote for SF.

Winning a majority is not the same as having total public support.

The SNP have not stood on a platform of independance without the need for a referendum! Sinn Fein did in 1918, and won overwhelming support in the general election - even the most ardent SNP supported would not claim that for their party in recent elections.

The 1918 election took place in December, so after the armistice, so it was not fought during the Great War.

Sinn Fein won 73 out of the 105 seats in Ireland in 1918. Of course they did not have the support of everyone including most of the Loyalist community - but I'd call that amount of support pretty overwhelming, and more than any British Prime Minister has ever had since Robert Walpole became the first Britsh Prime Minister in the 18th Centuary (and he didn't have that kind of support either).

Quite rightly, you say 30% did not vote Sinn Fein, but what about the other 70%?

Given the fact that British rule in Ireland for over 700 years had not exactly been exercised in a fair and reasonable way over the centuries, it's hardly surprising that at the first general election when the whole of the populace had the vote they voted in the overwhelming way that they did for independence. Also remember, that the vast majority of the Loyalists in the North had only been in Ireland since the 16th Century, although I'm not imlying by that that they did not have a valid voice as well, but the context is important.

Do I understand you correctly and are you actually saying that the British response to the fact that the vast majority of elected representatives decided to set up their own parliament was proportionate in arresting and imprisoning the majority of them????

Furthermore, they then with the Black & Tans sent in a ruthless force to terrorise innocent civilians in Ireland on November 21, 1920 Croke Park was the scene of a massacre by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The Police, supported by the British Auxiliary Division entered the ground, shooting indiscriminately into the crowd killing or fatally wounding 14 during a Dublin-Tipperary Gaelic football match. The dead included 13 spectators and Tipperary's captain, Michael Hogan.

Given the fact that the British establishment had clearly shown the way it would deal with people after the killing of the leaders of the 1916 Rising, and then these kind of barbaric acts, it was pretty obvious that it was not the kind of Empire that was going to accede to the democratice wishes of the Irish people, however they voted in any due process promoted by the Briitsh establishment - the British establishment would never have left Ireland gain her freedom without an armed struggle of some kind - and so it proved.

What you are saying is that we forget about due process and simply go with what the majority say?

That's chaos.

Do you think the 30% - and that was a hardcore 30% who signed with their own blood! - we just sat back and taken it?

SF won and should of built on that and taken their time. Nothing happens over night.

Prior to the Easter Rising there was NO large public support for SF. They had come a long way in a few years and we own the right track.

Due process is key.

Carson's party took 22 seats out of the 105, and of course, they should have been listened to, but the fact remains that they were a minority within the country that had clearly voted overwhelmingly for indepedence in the general election - surely you accept that, given the fact that Sinn Fein had 70% of the vote?

I have sympathy with Carson and the Unionists - as I have no time for Roman Catholicism myself, and especially in 1918, can fullly understand why they would have been terrified by the thought of being dragged into the kind of RC Ireland that DeValera may have desired. Where I lose sympathy for them is with all the pro Monarchy sentiments. I know Cromwell is not a postive figure in Irish Republican sentiment, but he's a hero of mine - and there was a very good recent book which I've read about him by an Irishman Tom Reilly called "Cromwell - an honourable enemy" which shows that much of the popular myths about him were in fact false. I say this to show that I'm not just singing from an anti British/Unionist sentiment unthinkingly.

Cromwell of course founded a Republic/Commonwealth in the whole of Britain and Ireland.

The situation was always going to be a complicated one in 1918, but the main point I'm making is that appropriate negotiations should have taken place, not the arrest and imprisonment of the majority of the elected representatives of the Irish people.

How could any appropriate deal have been agreed fairly? That's very difficult to answer, but perhaps something along the lines of the following :

1. An acceptance by Britain that the majority in Ireland had clearly voted for Independance, and an acceptance that Ireland would become a Republic.
2. An acceptance by the Republicans that the Loyalists had the right to dual citizenship, and could remain British, and a stronger role for Local Government and that counties that had a clear Loyalist majority would be recognised as having strong ties with Britain.

That's very simplistic, but something along that kind of thing that would have been a fair basis for the start of negotiations, in my view.

The imprisonment of the majority of the elected representatives and the partition of the Country after a very brutal attempt at subjugating the will of the people was certainly not a fair way of dealing with the situation, in my view and it's that approach that left us with the problems that we're all aware of during the last 40 odd years.

I'm trying to be fair here, and I accept that the Protestant people of the North should always have been respected as well.

What are your views on this?

Of course I accept that, but the real world does not work like that.

Due process takes time. The SF won and should of built on that. They were nowhere three years prior.

They knew what they were doing would lead to war and it did.

Don't base it on seats won. I'm not a fan on first past the post. Base it on the actual numbers of voters who voted for each party to get a proper view on public opinion.

SF also have to accept blame for stirring up hardcore support within the main land.

You can't side with Germany during a war. Of course that's going to be a red rag to a bull and cause the hard liners within the UK to take a more hard line approach.

Let me make my point clear.

I believe SF should have built on the results and continue to built support for Irish independence. Simply stating that based on election result you have been given a mandate to declare independence was always going to lead to blood shed.

Due process takes time.

Of course I accept that, but the real world does not work like that.

Due process takes time. The SF won and should of built on that. They were nowhere three years prior.

They knew what they were doing would lead to war and it did.

Don't base it on seats won. I'm not a fan on first past the post. Base it on the actual numbers of voters who voted for each party to get a proper view on public opinion.

But the problem with that is that they had won their mandate on a Republican/Independence promise.

To have gone to the British Parliament and signed an oath of allegiance to the British King would have been an act of utter hypocrisy.

You say the real world doesn't operate like that, but what the Irish people achieved initially in gaining their Independence and what others then achieved later (Gandhi in India etc.) shows that Republicans can achieve such things with strong action - when you have the will of the people behind you - the British Empire finally had to accept this in Ireland and India.

You say Sinn Fein were nowhere 3 years earlier, but of course, they'd only been founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith and by 1918 it had been a decade since the last general election (and that not on the basis of full suffrage). Also, whilst the Easter Rising had not initially been that popular with the Irish people, the over reaction in the killing of James Connoly and others meant that it had fired up the support for Sinn Fein in Ireland, and this was clearly reflected within the 1918 results.

You say you're not a fan of first past the post, but that was the electoral system that Britain had set up in Ireland, so you can't have it both ways.

You say Sinn Fein knew what they were doing, and it led to a war, but the flaw in that argument is that if the British establishemnt had not over reacted in the way that they did (by the imprisonment of the majority of the elected representatives), then no such result would have occured - so it was really another massive own goal by the British establishment, even on your logic there.

SF also have to accept blame for stirring up hardcore support within the main land.

You can't side with Germany during a war. Of course that's going to be a red rag to a bull and cause the hard liners within the UK to take a more hard line approach.

The problem with that is that it's a natural reaction for most people to take the position of ......"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Obviously, in 1939 no one was aware of the full depravity of what the Hitler regime would do - the extent of the Holocaust was something that Britain and other countries would not even accept late into the war.

With hindsight, no one would want to even remotely support such a regime, but at the time, the Irish people would merely have seen it as another war involving Britian. Also, in fairness to them, they were neutral, and despite manay attempts to say they gave active support to Germany, this has been far from proven.

What has been shown beyond much doubt is that at a series of meetings between 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy. However, the reality of unity would have to be agreed by the "representatives of the government of Éire and the government of Northern Ireland", each of which distrusted the other intensely. De Valera therefore rejected the amended proposals on 4 July, worried that there was "no guarantee that in the end we would have a united Ireland" and that it "would commit us definitely to an immediate abandonment of our neutrality". De Valera had campaigned against partition and the 1937 Constitution drafted by him had an irredentist clause describing the State as the "whole island of Ireland". After the war he again called repeatedly for the ending of partition. The offer and his rejection remained secret until a biography was published in 1970.

Of course they knew what they were doing would lead to war.

They were dealing with the British Government and the vocal north of Ireland.

In India & North America, the British left due to public opinion. They were not forced out by force.

The British could of smashed the revolt in America if they put their heart and soul in it - British opinion was against it. When the US attack the UK in 1812, we responded by smashing the American's and burning down the White House.

India didn't force the British out with force either. It took time and effort.

And like you said, if the British had not come down so hard on the Easter revolt then they would not of been a huge turn around in public support within Ireland for Irish independence.

Let me make my point clear.

I believe SF should have built on the results and continue to built support for Irish independence. Simply stating that based on election result you have been given a mandate to declare independence was always going to lead to blood shed.

Due process takes time.

My view is that the results of the 1918 Irish election should have been accepted by Britain and no Irish MP's should have been expected to swear an oth of allegiance to the British King, after having such a strong mandate from the people.

The fact that there was active Loyalist support in the country should also have been accepted by the Republicans and sensible negotiations enetered into by all parties to to ensure their concerns were addressed within the new Republic (including the option of dual citizenship for the Loyalists, in my view).

Of course they knew what they were doing would lead to war.

They were dealing with the British Government and the vocal north of Ireland.

In India & North America, the British left due to public opinion. They were not forced out by force.

The British could of smashed the revolt in America if they put their heart and soul in it - British opinion was against it. When the US attack the UK in 1812, we responded by smashing the American's and burning down the White House.

India didn't force the British out with force either. It took time and effort.

And like you said, if the British had not come down so hard on the Easter revolt then they would not of been a huge turn around in public support within Ireland for Irish independence.

They only "knew what they were doing" in the sense that Britain would not deal with them in a reasonable way - to that extent, you (and they, if your interpretation is correct) were right.

My point is that if Britain hadn't reacted in such a brutal way, then a war wouldn't have resulted.

If the vocal north of Ireland, as you call it, were not prepared to abide by the democratic will of the people, then that was not the fault of the Republicans, I'm afraid.

As for India, Britain was so weakened by WW2, there was little she could do thank goodness - but if India had tried for freedom when Ireland did in 1918, I suspect a similar brutal response would have been attempted by the Britsh Empire in India.

As for USA, one of the factors there was Britain didn't want a major fight with France at that stage - which could have happened, but I don't have a massive knowledge of 18th Century history.

I simply believe in due process and natual law.

All that simply means is that things take time and nothing happens overnight.

SF were on the right track, but simply pushed to fast and to hard.

I also believe the SF leadingship had it's own agenda, HL by the murder/assassination of Collins.

I simply believe in due process and natual law.

All that simply means is that things take time and nothing happens overnight.

SF were on the right track, but simply pushed to fast and to hard.

I also believe the SF leadingship had it's own agenda, HL by the murder/assassination of Collins.

But where is the due process in asking people who have just been elected witha very large majority on a Republican and an Independence mandate to then go against that very mandate and swear an oath of allegiance to the British king (or a foriegn king as they would have seen it, and as I see it)?

That is non-sensical.

What would have made sense would have been the British establishment accepting a seismic shift had taken place in the 1918 election and indicating appropriate negotiations needed to take place given that.

Hence, back to the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread - that the problems in Ireland over the course of the last Century have been because of Britain's actions in not accepting that change in 1918 and trying to brutally supress the democtaric will of the Irish people, and when that was unsuccesful, partitioning the country in a completely undemocratic way - but we're going around in circles now, I fear.

I accept everything you are saying.

I'm simply pointed out that I believe SF pushed to hard and to fast and that resulted in the British pushing back.

SF went from nowhere to getting 70% in just three years. That's a major swing more or less overnight.

I accept everything you are saying.

I'm simply pointed out that I believe SF pushed to hard and to fast and that resulted in the British pushing back.

SF went from nowhere to getting 70% in just three years. That's a major swing more or less overnight.

I suppose to put it into context, the whole issue of Irish home rule had dominated a lot of Britsih politics throughout the last few decades of the 19th Century - and one of the most evocotive quotes about the start of the Great War comes from Winston Churchill (who, despite many reservations, because of his stand against Nazism is someone I do have a lot of time for) when he says that upon hearing of the attack by Gavrilo Princip on Archduke Ferdinand, the subject they were talking about in the cabinet was Ireland, and suddenly the byways of Fermanagh and Tyrone changed into approaching thunder storms. I haven't done it justice there, but it's something like that, and it's a great quote.

I've digressed, but the main point I'm making is the period leading up to 1918 was full of home rule issues, but this was very different to independence. The Great War meant a decade without a General Election and of course, the pivotal events around the Easter Rising in 1916 occured during this period - you're absolutely right though in saying that it was not the Rising itself that caused the change in public feeling, but the British reaction to it. Not many are aware of that fact, and you're absolutley correct in drawing the distinction. I suppose, as well, in fairness to the British, the Great War was a catastrophe for everyone involved in it, and the Battle of the Somme was only a couple of months away, so the diverting of troops to Dublin must have been a major irritant.

Sinn Fein of course had only been founded by Griffith in 1905, and its probably fair to say were very lucky in the timing of these events, and for what it's worth, I always have more time for Collins that I do for DeValera when I read about them, although I would not have agreed with him on the Treaty. I would have been with Boland on that.

You say Sinn Fein pushed too hard and too fast, but it's very interesting to speculate on what would have happened if the British establishment, rather than imprison the 'rebels' had instead done what I've suggested they should have done - and negotiated with them.

We all know what happened when they finally did in 1921 - but that was after Collins's rise to fame, whereas in 1918, it would have been directly with DeValera and before Collins was known at all - and DeValera couldn't have got out of it the way some say he did in 1921 in pushing Collins into doing the negotiating.

Anyway, it's been very interesting discussing these things, and thanks for the reasonable and interesting way you've debated them

Some of the points you've made have definitely made me think about the events around the 1918 election in ways I haven't done before.

I love this mb, as virtually every debate I've got into on here almost always ends up with me having more respect for the majority on here

If they had simply ignored the rebels then SF would not of got a huge swing in public support.

It always amazed me that those in power, mainly the British Army, never learned that you can not stop a uprising with violence. In fact by trying to do so you will create more public support.

And this is why I believe SF made a mistake. Violence is British method of control 101.

America, South Africa, India etc.

I believe SF should of built on the 70% and tried to make inroads in the North.

Without the North, Westminster would not of cared and handed over Ireland fully to the Irish.

To a much lesser extent you see this in Wales. Wales is not united. I've lost count of the times I have heard Welsh speakers mock the North.

Unite a country and then press a claim for independence.

Of course they knew what they were doing would lead to war.

They were dealing with the British Government and the vocal north of Ireland.

In India & North America, the British left due to public opinion. They were not forced out by force.

The British could of smashed the revolt in America if they put their heart and soul in it - British opinion was against it. When the US attack the UK in 1812, we responded by smashing the American's and burning down the White House.

India didn't force the British out with force either. It took time and effort.

And like you said, if the British had not come down so hard on the Easter revolt then they would not of been a huge turn around in public support within Ireland for Irish independence.

They only "knew what they were doing" in the sense that Britain would not deal with them in a reasonable way - to that extent, you (and they, if your interpretation is correct) were right.

My point is that if Britain hadn't reacted in such a brutal way, then a war wouldn't have resulted.

If the vocal north of Ireland, as you call it, were not prepared to abide by the democratic will of the people, then that was not the fault of the Republicans, I'm afraid.

As for India, Britain was so weakened by WW2, there was little she could do thank goodness - but if India had tried for freedom when Ireland did in 1918, I suspect a similar brutal response would have been attempted by the Britsh Empire in India.

As for USA, one of the factors there was Britain didn't want a major fight with France at that stage - which could have happened, but I don't have a massive knowledge of 18th Century history.

what a load of hyped up shjt.

Of course they knew what they were doing would lead to war.

They were dealing with the British Government and the vocal north of Ireland.

In India & North America, the British left due to public opinion. They were not forced out by force.

The British could of smashed the revolt in America if they put their heart and soul in it - British opinion was against it. When the US attack the UK in 1812, we responded by smashing the American's and burning down the White House.

India didn't force the British out with force either. It took time and effort.

And like you said, if the British had not come down so hard on the Easter revolt then they would not of been a huge turn around in public support within Ireland for Irish independence.

They only "knew what they were doing" in the sense that Britain would not deal with them in a reasonable way - to that extent, you (and they, if your interpretation is correct) were right.

My point is that if Britain hadn't reacted in such a brutal way, then a war wouldn't have resulted.

If the vocal north of Ireland, as you call it, were not prepared to abide by the democratic will of the people, then that was not the fault of the Republicans, I'm afraid.

As for India, Britain was so weakened by WW2, there was little she could do thank goodness - but if India had tried for freedom when Ireland did in 1918, I suspect a similar brutal response would have been attempted by the Britsh Empire in India.

As for USA, one of the factors there was Britain didn't want a major fight with France at that stage - which could have happened, but I don't have a massive knowledge of 18th Century history.

what a load of hyped up shjt.

Would you care to elaborate on what particular part you feel that way about, as "Big Boss Man" and I were having a sensible debate, and all the points he made I could see the sense of what he was saying, even though we disagreed on some of it.

Cracking bunch of lads them.

If they had simply ignored the rebels then SF would not of got a huge swing in public support.

It always amazed me that those in power, mainly the British Army, never learned that you can not stop a uprising with violence. In fact by trying to do so you will create more public support.

And this is why I believe SF made a mistake. Violence is British method of control 101.

America, South Africa, India etc.

I believe SF should of built on the 70% and tried to make inroads in the North.

Without the North, Westminster would not of cared and handed over Ireland fully to the Irish.

To a much lesser extent you see this in Wales. Wales is not united. I've lost count of the times I have heard Welsh speakers mock the North.

Unite a country and then press a claim for independence.

You're definitely right about the reason for the huge swing in favour of Sinn Fein.

The history of the Protestant North is fascinating in terms of Irish rebellions, as most of the prominent rebels historically were from that community - Wolf Tone, Robert Emmett, just to name a couple.

In fact, the design of the Irish Republican flag is done in such a way that the Orange third is to represent the Unionist community and heritage.

I would have loved the idea you've outlined there of the Nationalists winning over the Loyalist North with argument, and perhaps you are right - the rise of Sinn Fein was so dramatic that it took even themselves by surprise. Obviously another factor in that was the leadership of DeValera, and I would probably be with you on the concerns about the pro RC side of that, and can fully see why Carson and the Loyalists would have been fearful of that.

Everyone who was caught up in the situation in the 6 counties in the 1970/80's was in a difficult position.

Individual soldiers were clearly in an almost impossible situation, but so were the Republicans who lived there.

The real problem was not the soldiers themsleves, but the Politicians who had allowed the situation to develop into what it had in the 6 counties.

For myself, the heart of the problem is that the deal that struck in the 1920's - to summarise the history, in what I think is a non biased way and as objective as I can be :

In the 1918 general election, a massive majority in the whole of Ireland voted for Sinn Fein.
They did not take their seats in Westminster, but set up their own Parliament in Dublin.
The British did not accept this democratic decision and sent in the Black & Tans (who I think all sides accept behaved deplorably).
The IRA was founded by Collins and co. and brought the British establishment to the negotiating table.
Collins then agreed a treaty partitioning not just Ireland, but Ulster as well, as only the 6 of the 9 counties of ancient Ulster remained as part of UK.
This is when the real problems arise, as the Irish in the 6 counties had fought and died for their freedom as much as people in Dublin and what is now the Republic.
The treaty is agreed by Collins and a narrow majority in a referendum.

I firmly believe Collins felt he had little alternative, as if he had rejected the treaty, the British would have sent in even more troops to subjugate the democratic wishes of the Irish people, causing much more suffering. However, the splitting of Ulster in 2 and artificially creating a Loyalist majority in what remained was fundamentally undemocratic, in my view.

What then happens in the 6 counties for the next 70 years gets even worse, as the Nationalists are effectively made 2nd class citizens in their own country - the infamous gerrymandering in Derry etc.

The reason why I outline the above, is that this is not merely historical (in the same way that 4th Century Romans subjugating Britain is), but something that has happened within the living memory of many people, and the injustices of what happened are still acutely felt. In particular, in 1969 many people would still have had personal memories of the atrocities of the black and tans.

I am a supporter of the Good Friday agreement, and I think all sides deserve massive credit for the way this has been dealt with since 1997, including the British Government - but it still doesn't detract from the continuing injustice that was caused by the partition of both a country and a province which was done in a fundamentally unfair way.

I have sympathy for any innocent victims of war and one of my best friends was almost killed in the Harrods bombing, as he was in the store when the warning was given and left the store and was knocked to the pavement outside by the force of the blast. But equally, what about the countless number of Irish people killed by the British - Thatcher's response to the Hunger strikes and the brutal killing of 14 innocent civilians in Derry in January 1972 for example.

What I keep coming back to is, who caused this in the first place, and for me the answer is the British Government, as if they had accepted the democratic will of the Irish people in the 1918 General Election, then the rest of the problems would not have occured. Of course, Britain still had an Empire at that stage, and would have been fearful that allowing Ireland the freedom she wanted may have meant other countries would have jumped on the bandwagon.

This most definitely does not mean that I hate all English people (or all British soldiers) for what happened - but at a state level, I hold the British Government to blame, and whilst I can have sympathy for individual soldiers caught up in a terribe situation, that cannot deflect from the fact that they were there enforcing the continued partition of a country and a province that was fundamentally undemoctaric, in my view.

Similarly, at the time of the Hunger strikes, the prisoners had not even been allowed the basic right that you and I and everybody else who lives in Britain has, of being tried by 12 of our peers in a jury trial for serious allegations. Those prisoners were only allowed to be tried by an English Judge and not a jury. Given this fact, it had been previously accepted that their position was distinct from other common criminals - however this was taken away at the time when Thatcher came to power, and led to the Hunger strikes. It's hard to believe these basic human rights of being tried by your peers were withheld from people as late as the 1980's in the UK.

Whilst I tend to dislike Nationalism in general (the last refuge of the scoundrel etc.), I do feel an emotional bond with my fellow celts (as I see them) who were treated this way by the British establishment. It's the British establishment that I have a major problem with.

In fact, as has been outlined above, at the time of the Easter rising in 1916, the rebels didn't have that much support amongst the Irish people (although it is also untrue to say that Irish home rule had not been a hot potato for a long time, as it certainly had for many years) - but the way that the British then executed the leaders of the rebellion showed how ruthless they were, and led to the situation where Sinn Fein had such a mandate at the 1918 election from the whole of the Island of Ireland.

As for the position since 1916 and the actions of the PIRA, there are many examples cited above of bombings which it would be very hard for anyone to justify, and I will certainly not seek to do so - however, it must be remembered, if it had not been for the infamous events of 'Bloody Sunday', I doubt that they would have had the support that they had during that period - and in my view, the establishment were implicated in that, but the soldiers on the ground were the main cause of that atrocity.

My sympathies are entirely Republican, but I have tried to be as fair and balanced as possible above - I'm sure not many of the soldiers who served out there would have been aware of all of the above history, and were faced with a situation I would certainly not have wanted to be in the middle of.

However, I am most definitely not a Roman Catholic, and can also fully understand the concerns of the Protestant community in the 6 counties about being left in a country which may have tried to implement legislation in line with RC thinking (both in 1921 and 1969).

The whole situation was therefore very complicated, and its to everyone's credit that the Good Friday agreement has been as succesful as it has been - and I'm prepared to concede that that includes the British Government, and the majority of political representatives of the paramilitary groups on both sides of the divide. In particular, I think Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have behaved in a courageous and dignified way in the whole process - especially when they could easily have gone the way of poor old Collins, given the fact that they were seen by some parts of their community as 'selling out'.

Just my views on the situation.

You can't side with Germany during a war.

why? who are the british troops fighting alongside with in afghanistan?

You can't side with Germany during a war.

why? who are the british troops fighting alongside with in afghanistan?

Because that is exactly the same........

Anal for the sake of being anal.