Easter Rising 1916 (Youtube Video)

Dec 2011
3,556
The Irish are largely mentally deficient and shouldn't be trusted en masse. It is only prosperous for gombeens and foreigners. Do you have any idea what the rate of long-term unemployment is? The statistics do not include those who are on "jobpath" projects or whatever other crap. No one in the country is properly educated or cultured. It's a mess.
On behalf of the land of Saints and Scholars, get stuffed you ignorant kraut.
 
Aug 2011
5,441
Amerikay
Well perhaps being a right-wing Nationalist who dimissed democracy and embraced, even positively promoted violence.

Believed that in some mystical way he represented the 'real Ireland'.
So why should using violence matter? One of Irelands most talented Historians said for Ireland to have gain any measure of freedom they would have to take it by force. You can leisure be all you want about Home Rule being passed and on the books, but it would not have been implemented because the fundamental issues had not been resolved, the Unionist wanting no part of Home Rule and the rest wanting Home Rule for the whole Island. The British would have wrote it of as an Irish problem. There was going to be no Home Rule without Partition. So why should they have settled for Home when they could go for total freedom?
 
May 2011
13,803
Navan, Ireland
So why should using violence matter? One of Irelands most talented Historians said for Ireland to have gain any measure of freedom they would have to take it by force. You can leisure be all you want about Home Rule being passed and on the books, but it would not have been implemented because the fundamental issues had not been resolved, the Unionist wanting no part of Home Rule and the rest wanting Home Rule for the whole Island. The British would have wrote it of as an Irish problem. There was going to be no Home Rule without Partition. So why should they have settled for Home when they could go for total freedom?
Well firstly the question was why is Pearce considered a 'proto-fascist' and sorry he did glorify violence and actually believed that war was good for a country, independence achieved through peaceful means would somehow be 'cheapened'.

What force did Australia use? Canada? New Zealand? infact in the 20th century what colonies became independent from Britain through violent means?

And as much as you don't like it Home Rule had been passed, it had ben attained through largely peaceful means .

You can not say it would not have been implemented with certainty because its speculative history-- it certainly faced great and perhaps insurmountable challenges but we do not know that they would no have been overcome.

What we can say with certainty that if violent means are used then there will definitely be partition and independence will be achieved with little more than was already on the table because that's what actually happened.

Also going for 'total freedom' in the middle of the most murderous war in history with a 'minority of the minority' is the very time that London with fight desperately to keep Ireland-- how on earth do you think they'd allow a German allied state off their west coast, astride their sea lanes?

Whole German army corps to descend in Zeppelins and U-boats? The German Kaiser loves Ireland so much he'll send and invasion fleet that will have to defeat the British Fleet to reach Ireland so he risks loosing the war in one day all for the love of Irish democracy?
 
Aug 2011
5,441
Amerikay
Well firstly the question was why is Pearce considered a 'proto-fascist' and sorry he did glorify violence and actually believed that war was good for a country, independence achieved through peaceful means would somehow be 'cheapened'.
I didn't say Pearce didn't glorify war. Pearce was right, regardless independence was not going to going to be achieved though peaceful means, it so not for a very long time.
What force did Australia use? Canada? New Zealand? infact in the 20th century what colonies became independent from Britain through violent means?
They are all still British Dominions. India would have been a better example, but they had millions resisting British rule.
[QUOTE="Kevinmeath,post:3139189,member:108757]
And as much as you don't like it Home Rule had been passed, it had ben attained through largely peaceful means .

You can not say it would not have been implemented with certainty because its speculative history-- it certainly faced great and perhaps insurmountable challenges but we do not know that they would no have been overcome.

What we can say with certainty that if violent means are used then there will definitely be partition and independence will be achieved with little more than was already on the table because that's what actually happened.[/QUOTE]

And saying that it would ,would also be speculative history. it became a stepping stone for a lot more even those it wasn't the whole thing.
[QUOTE=''Kevinmeath,post:3139189,member:108757]
oing for 'total freedom' in the middle of the most murderous war in history with a 'minority of the minority' is the very time that London with fight desperately to keep Ireland-- how on earth do you think they'd allow a German allied state off their west coast, astride their sea lanes?

Whole German army corps to descend in Zeppelins and U-boats? The German Kaiser loves Ireland so much he'll send and invasion fleet that will have to defeat the British Fleet to reach Ireland so he risks loosing the war in one day all for the love of Irish democracy?[/QUOTE]
What better time? The Anglo-Irish War didn't begin till after the Great War, and I know that one rebellion wasn't going to gain ones freedom, but it was a start.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
3,556
So why should using violence matter? One of Irelands most talented Historians said for Ireland to have gain any measure of freedom they would have to take it by force. You can leisure be all you want about Home Rule being passed and on the books, but it would not have been implemented because the fundamental issues had not been resolved, the Unionist wanting no part of Home Rule and the rest wanting Home Rule for the whole Island. The British would have wrote it of as an Irish problem. There was going to be no Home Rule without Partition. So why should they have settled for Home when they could go for total freedom?
What nonsense, which of Ireland's most talented historians said that? Republican fairy tale storyteller Tim Pat Coogan? Unionists wanted no part of HR and we were so right, Nationalists only wanted to persecute and murder us and stab the rest of Britain in the back. They always had their freedom, they lived in Britain. If Ireland can separate from the rest of the British Isles, why can't NI separate from the rest of Ireland?
 
Likes: Fred Crawford
May 2011
13,803
Navan, Ireland
I didn't say Pearce didn't glorify war. Pearce was right, regardless independence was not going to going to be achieved though peaceful means, it so not for a very long time..
The initial post you responded to was in reply to a poster who asked why Pearce is considered a 'proto-fascits', to which I replied that he was a right-wing nationalists who loved war and disliked democracy .

Why would independence not be achieved by peaceful means? (if it had Pearce et al wouldn't have liked it because war was a good thing) Home Rule was, Land re-distribution was? Parliamentary democracy may not be as exciting and cool as killing people but it worked.

...............They are all still British Dominions. India would have been a better example, but they had millions resisting British rule....................
Sorry are you saying that somehow Australia etc are lesser countries because they still have the Queen as a figurehead? India is still in the Commonwealth and there was no revolution.

All those countries became independent without an 'Easter Rising'


And saying that it would ,would also be speculative history. it became a stepping stone for a lot more even those it wasn't the whole thing..
True but your speculation appears to be fact why?

So you agree that Home Rule could have been implemented?

What we know for a fact because it actually happened that violent revolution (instigated by a minority of a minority) did not succeed and even later violence results in partition. You have a million plus of Irish people who don't agree with 'independence' why is putting a gun to their head going to make them agree?



...............What better time? The Anglo-Irish War didn't begin till after the Great War, and I know that one rebellion wasn't going to gain ones freedom, but it was a start.
What worse possible time could there have been? No British government worth its salt is going to allow an independent Irish state allied to Germany in time of war, they'd be mad to allow it.

And sorry don't buy the 'blood sacrifice' bit that's just trying to explain away a bloody silly plan that was rejected by the majority of armed nationalists (who in turn were a minority of nationalists) as being unworkable and even counter-productive.
 
Aug 2011
5,441
Amerikay
The initial post you responded to was in reply to a poster who asked why Pearce is considered a 'proto-fascits', to which I replied that he was a right-wing nationalists who loved war and disliked democracy .
Or Pearce was a realist, who felt they need to out do Wolf Tone.

Why would independence not be achieved by peaceful means? (if it had Pearce et al wouldn't have liked it because war was a good thing) Home Rule was, Land re-distribution was? Parliamentary democracy may not be as exciting and cool as killing people but it worked.
Home Rule was not happening, the fundamental issues were not being solved. Both sides were
buying guns from Germany and the Unionist were threating war if Home Rule was implemented. The way Home Rule was going to happen was with partition, and getting the Southern Irish to agree to this, well good luck there. They need a violent conflict to drive this home, the issues need to be forced. And why should one side get there way, the only fair thing was neither side getting what they wanted completely. And Parliamentary democracy sounded more like 'throw them a bone now and then to keep them happy.

Kevinmeath said:
Sorry are you saying that somehow Australia etc are lesser countries because they still have the Queen as a figurehead? India is still in the Commonwealth and there was no revolution.

All those countries became independent without an 'Easter Rising'
Remember this is an American your taking to. Your argument using Canada and Co. sound more like an a argument angst our Revolution. And India is no longer in the Commonwealth and they did have a revolution.
India, although they did so nonviolently, America, South Africa and Israel did have revolutions. What worked for some would not work for all, the situation were not the same.
Kevinmeath said:
True but your speculation appears to be fact why?
I've read the History. So it is more of an educated guess.
Kevinmeath said:
So you agree that Home Rule could have been implemented?
Only if partition was agreed to, and would it be fair if the South got it all there way?
Kevinmeath said:
What we know for a fact because it actually happened that violent revolution (instigated by a minority of a minority) did not succeed and even later violence results in partition. You have a million plus of Irish people who don't agree with 'independence' why is putting a gun to their head going to make them agree?
It did succeed, and it may have been the only way that partition was to happen, short of just giving up. And like I said it wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't be fair to South for the Unionist to get it all their way also.
And by the way we were way worse to the Loyalist after our revolution

Kevinmeath said:
What worse possible time could there have been? No British government worth its salt is going to allow an independent Irish state allied to Germany in time of war, they'd be mad to allow it.

And sorry don't buy the 'blood sacrifice' bit that's just trying to explain away a bloody silly plan that was rejected by the majority of armed nationalists (who in turn were a minority of nationalists) as being unworkable and even counter-productive.
Actually it was the best time, it was sure to get the British to over react. Throwing tea in the Boston harbor didn't gain us our independence, but it did start a war. That so called 'bloody silly plan' did work, it got the worlds attention, and sparked the war for their independence.
I don't agree with sitting on ones hands and waiting for something to happen. David Lloyd George said that Home Rule was an Irish problem let them solve it, and they did.
 
Aug 2011
5,441
Amerikay
What nonsense, which of Ireland's most talented historians said that? Republican fairy tale storyteller Tim Pat Coogan? Unionists wanted no part of HR and we were so right, Nationalists only wanted to persecute and murder us and stab the rest of Britain in the back. They always had their freedom, they lived in Britain. If Ireland can separate from the rest of the British Isles, why can't NI separate from the rest of Ireland?
Diarmaid Ferriter was the talented Historian to say that.
 
May 2011
13,803
Navan, Ireland
Or Pearce was a realist, who felt they need to out do Wolf Tone..
Pearce a realist? !!!!! -- with that plan!

He was a romantic dreamer who loved war and ,perhaps, a proto-fascist.

Home Rule was not happening, the fundamental issues were not being solved. Both sides were
buying guns from Germany and the Unionist were threating war if Home Rule was implemented. The way Home Rule was going to happen was with partition, and getting the Southern Irish to agree to this, well good luck there. They need a violent conflict to drive this home, the issues need to be forced. And why should one side get there way, the only fair thing was neither side getting what they wanted completely. And Parliamentary democracy sounded more like 'throw them a bone now and then to keep them happy..
You can not say Home Rule was not going to happen , yes it faced major problem perhaps insurmountable ones but it may have come about. What we can say for certain is the violent road did lead to Partition.
Sorry Pearce was not resorting to the gun in some vain attempt to get the Unionists to see 'reason' he was dong it because of some naïve romantic notions about glorious wars and to impose his vision on the majority. He actually feared that with Home Rule on the statute and land redistributed that would be the end of his Republic


Remember this is an American your taking to. Your argument using Canada and Co. sound more like an a argument angst our Revolution. And India is no longer in the Commonwealth and they did have a revolution.
India, although they did so nonviolently, America, South Africa and Israel did have revolutions. What worked for some would not work for all, the situation were not the same..
Sorry thats totally garbled and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India etc did become independent states without a violent revolution so the assertion that such a thing could not happen is simply wrong.

I've read the History. So it is more of an educated guess.

Only if partition was agreed to, and would it be fair if the South got it all there way?

It did succeed, and it may have been the only way that partition was to happen, short of just giving up. And like I said it wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't be fair to South for the Unionist to get it all their way also.
And by the way we were way worse to the Loyalist after our revolution.
Its still speculation and we know from history that countries did leave the Empire peacefully and we know from history that violence did not stop Partition but may well have even mad it more likely.


Actually it was the best time, it was sure to get the British to over react. Throwing tea in the Boston harbor didn't gain us our independence, but it did start a war. That so called 'bloody silly plan' did work, it got the worlds attention, and sparked the war for their independence.
I don't agree with sitting on ones hands and waiting for something to happen. David Lloyd George said that Home Rule was an Irish problem let them solve it, and they did .
No it was the worst time possible -- may that's why the majority of Nationalist who actually supported violence did not participate?--- and the British did not over-react at all in fact perhaps the opposite is true, I very much doubt that if Breton separatists had rebelled taken Rennes , killed French, civilians, policemen and soldier calling for and receiving aid from the Germans you'd see only a dozen or so executed and 1500 interned for a few months.

And sorry it was a terrible plan that did not get the worlds attention --- well received were the Nationalists at Versailles etc? and the war of independence stated much later, when revolutions were sweeping across Europe.

And they solved what problem? Ireland still partitioned and the Treaty brought little more than Home Rule.
 

Similar History Discussions