It's Easter Sunday; I will post ITT photos and information the often forgotten preriod of 1913-1916; an era of revolutionary politics in Ireland which ended with the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin.
FAQ:>Who's fighting who?The "Irish Republic"-a revolutionary government proclaimed by the main rebel belligerent, the Irish Volunteers (precursor to the IRA)-against the British Army; approximately 1,250 rebels vs 16,000 British troops.>Why?A revolutionary group, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), used the Ulster Crisis as an excuse to found and drill an Irish nationalist militia. The militia (Irish Volunteers) split at the outset of WW1; some went to war, others refused to until Britain granted Ireland its own government-something most Irish voters had wanted since the 1870s.With the IRB now in control of the more radicalised Irish Volunteers, they staged a rebellion intended to radicalise the population into supporting independence.>So, they lost?Yep. They were fucked from the outset; only a tiny fraction of the rebels actually took part due to the counter-order from Eoin MacNeill on Easter Sunday. The rebellion lasted 6 days. However, many of the Nationalist leaders believed that they may lose and that such a "sacrifice" would radicalise the Irish population-an outcome they actually *underestimated.* The Socialists, however, openly hoped this would be the start of a prolonged war of independence.>Did the rebellion do anything?Yes. More specifically, Britain's response did something; many who were previously apathetic or even criticial of the rebellion began to support their ideas. Britain's extremely harsh response is something that some of the ringleaders (most of whom were executed) hoped for-and the Irish Republican movement got an enormous boost in the aftermath of it.The Irish Republic "founded" in this rebellion in 1916 is the one which the IRA fought for between 1919 and 1922 in the Irish War of Independence; following the 1918 general elections, Sinn Féin founded the 1st Dáil Éireann-a revolutionary government which came to control most of Ireland.Beyond that, feel free to AMA about it.
The funeral of Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa, 1915.Rossa was a near legendary Irish rebel; he was born in 1831, and had spent most of his life helping build the movement for an Irish Republic. Campaigning in Ireland, Britain and in the United States, Rossa was behind what's believed to be the first bombing campaign by the Irish against Britain; he carried out the Fenian Dynamite Campaign in the 1880s, and became largely symbolic of the belief in "physical force" Republicanism.He returned to the UK in 1891 to deliver a series of lectures, before returning to New York where his health declined. When he died in 1915, the younger generation of revolutionaries in Ireland demanded his body returned to Ireland for a funeral. His funeral gathered thousands of people, and at his graveside Patrick Pearse gave a famous message:>"They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half.">"They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools!">"They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace."The funeral, and Pearse's speech, became a focal point of Irish revolutionary politics-and were hugely influential in the build-up to the rebellion in 1916.
Photograph of members of the Irish Volunteers inside the General Post Office-the rebellion's headquarters in central Dublin.
Full text of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. Notable for:>universal suffrageThis document would be highly influential in the politics of the revolutionary Irish Republic years later-specifically in their Democratic Programme which outlined how they planned to run the country.It was read during the rebellion by Patrick Pearse, who acted as President & Commander-in-Chief of the "Provisional Government."
The rebellion's significance in Irish Republicanism cannot be overstated; it continues to be commemorated annually by Irish Republicans to this day.Among the best known Irish Nationalist songs is "The Foggy Dew", written by a priest in the aftermath of the rebellion. The best known version is that of Sinéad O'Connor & The Chieftans.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWnPZOd2cw
Picrel are the Irish Citizen Army-who fought alongside the Irish Volunteers during the Easter Rising.Founded in 1913, they were named by Vladimir Lenin as the first "Red Army" in Europe-they were formed during the Dublin Lockout to protect workers from police, but then armed themselves and backed the declaration of an independent Irish Republic.They were lead by James Connolly, a socialist revolutionary who had been campaigning against British rules for decades.>"We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland."
Wanna get comfy this Sunday and watch some documentaries about the Easter Rising?here you go:>The Great War Episode: The Easter Risinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMWP9G6gecc>The 1916 Rising in Colourhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kei29wOKq_0Here was the Republic of Ireland's commemoration of it in 1916, on the centenary of the Rising.>Proclamation red outside the GPOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvZwbK0E_i0>News clips of the Commemorationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCCwaWcMZgwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRCsVSDjgpE
Notably, men were not the only participants in the rebellion.Cumann na mBan (essentially a "Women's IRA") also fought; some acted as support, and others took part in the fighting and smuggling of weapons. Cumann na mBan (unlike the Irish Volunteers or Irish Citizen Army) still exists today.
>>18419569Oh yay another thread where amerimutts pretend to understand Irish history.
>>18419571>Britain's extremely harsh responseWhat exactly is harsh about executing treasonous terrorists who had just chimped out and killed a bunch of soldiers and police officers? Not to mention said terrorists had bought weapons from Germany (the country Britain was at war with).
>>18419573>a near legendary Irish rebelThere's nothing legendary about terrorists. Would you describe Hamas or ISIS as legendary?>Ireland unfree shall never be at peace."Idk, according to Irish Republicans Ireland is currently "unfree" yet it's at peace lol
>>18419580>>"We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland."They sure did like giving money to the Kaiser though.
>>18419590Reddittube slop videos aren't real documentaries.
was The Troubles the last time that white people ever fought for independence?
>>18419594Wow, female terrorists, so heckin wholesome! Upvoted!
>>18419646IRA wasn't fighting for "independence" during the Troubles.
KATATATWATPVTOT
>>18419637>What exactly is harsh The rebellion was not popular, and Dublin was (in the eyes of many) the "2nd City of the Empire." Britain's response was extremely retarded, as was realised by just about everyone but the Army.>Bombing of DublinDublin was absolutely devastated by bombs fired by Britain; most of the people killed in the rebellion were killed by the artillery and in incdendiary shells used by Britain. >Atrocities against civiliansThe rebels generally didn't fire unless fired upon-it was only the Irish Citizen Army that were aggressive or proactive in their armed actions. Police at many areas of central Dublin who made no real attempt to go near the rebels were left alone. Britain, comparitively, rampaged through Dublin; there were numerous instances of people being gunned down in droves by British soldiers despite having no involvement whatsoever in the rebellion.>ExecutionsThe Irish Parliamentary Party, which had dominated politics for decades, urged Britain not to carry out the string of executions because it would radicalise the population. They were right.>Not to mention said terrorists had bought weapons from GermanyAgain, this is a rebellion of a tiny minority at the time which began without any popular support.>>18419641>There's nothing legendary about terrorists. Would you describe Hamas or ISIS as legendary?>muh terrorismHis funeral drew crowds in the thousands, and he recieved a hero's welcome. You can be mad about it if you like, it is what it is.>>18419631What about any of the above is incorrect to you, anon?
>>18419646Troubles didn't start over a call for independence.Ulster Loyalists, aided by the RUC, attacked the civil rights movement in the 1960s and carried out bombings+killings to try and bring down the reformist Unionists in government in favour of more hardline ones. Things continued to escalate until there were widespread riots in the late 1960s, at which point the British Army was called in.The IRA began their own campaign shortly after that point, but their goals were less "independence, simple as" and instead changed over time; first it was Éire Nua (Republic of Ireland and NI replaced with a federal Republic) then it simply became an endurance campaign aimed at forcing an eventual British withdrawal.
>>18419656>His funeral drew crowds in the thousands, and he recieved a hero's welcomeso did the funerals of the ulster loyalists who slaughtered the showband but you cry about them
>>18419651Didn't you admit to being on this website for 20 years? Isn't it time you grew out of this, anon? Clearly it isn't working for you.https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18389791/#q18396752
>>18419662>slaughtered the showband Yes, Ulster Loyalists almost exclusively carried out random killings of civilians. They didn't make much impact on the IRA.Who's funeral are you referring to, and did it attract over 20,000 people?
>>18419664you're spending easter sunday crying about le brits on /his/ get a life paddy
>>18419666>killing civilians is bad>but it's fine when we do it???>The Fenian dynamite campaign (also known as the Fenian bombing campaign) was a campaign of political violence orchestrated by Irish republican paramilitary groups in Great Britain from 1881 to 1885. It involved attacks using explosives such as dynamite on British government and civilian targets and was carried out by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, United Irishmen of America and Clan na Gael with the ultimate aim of ending British rule in Ireland. Infrastructure was attacked along with government (including military and police) targets as part of the campaign, which killed 4 people, including a young boy, and wounded 86
>>18419666>Who's funeral are you referring to, and did it attract over 20,000 peoplehundreds of people attend the memorial parade commemorating based wesley
>>18419667You are also posting here, anon.>>18419669The Fenian Dynamite campaign consisted of bombings of Barracks, ships, or infastructure targets. Chester Barracks, Gasworks, Bridges, Whitehall, etc. Ulster Loyalists drove around aimlessly and shot anyone that they guessed might have been a Catholic. You are also referring to political violence in the late 19th Century to people who were literally just randomly murdering people for "probably being Catholic" as late as the 1990s. Have a word with yourself.
>>18419675i'm not spending my time saving pictures and making threads>The Fenian Dynamite campaign consisted of bombings of Barracks, ships, or infastructure targets. Chester Barracks, Gasworks, Bridges, Whitehall, etc.And train stations. Where civilians are usually found in large numbers.How is exploding a bomb at a train station where civilians will be found any different from shooting random civilians?
>>18419673>based wesleyWho blew himself to bits taking part in a retarded attack which did absolutely nothing to strengthen Loyalism or damage Republicanism. I guess there's a drought of heroes in Loyalism, kekked
>>18419656>Britain's response was extremely retarded, as was realised by just about everyone but the Army.Why was it retarded? Obviously if terrorists chimp out and start killing people they're going to be executed.>most of the people killed in the rebellion were killed by the artillery and in incdendiary shells used by Britain.IRA shouldn't have used human shields.>The rebels generally didn't fire unless fired uponHow do you think the Easter Rising started? They went around shooting people. The Rebels weren't acting in self defense, they were launching an attack.>Police at many areas of central Dublin who made no real attempt to go near the rebels were left alone. Not true. RIC officers (who were Irish btw, not English) were shot at unprovoked by Irish Rebels.>Britain, comparitively, rampaged through Dublin; there were numerous instances of people being gunned down in droves by British soldiers despite having no involvement whatsoever in the rebellion.Source?>The Irish Parliamentary Party, which had dominated politics for decades, urged Britain not to carry out the string of executionsToo bad. Start shit get hit.>this is a rebellion of a tiny minority at the time which began without any popular support.What's your point?>His funeral drew crowds in the thousandsOkay, that doesn't refute my point.>What about any of the above is incorrect to you, anonThe blatant glazing of IRA terrorists which clueless amerisharts constantly engage in.
>>18419677yet you taigs celebrate Brendan Burns and Brendan Moley who died the same way?
>>18419666>Ulster Loyalists almost exclusively carried out random killings of civiliansSo did the IRA
>>18419676You are here, anon.>And train stationsIs a train station not an infastructure target?>how is it differentHow is a 19th Century revolutionary bombing infastructure in the nation he's trying to destabilise different to a group of retards killing random civilians on the off-chance that they might be Catholics that live in the same jurisdiction they do? The Loyalist education crisis needs to be solved.
>>18419675>Killing civilians is okay when we do it!Kys
>>18419649what did they fight for?
>>18419682>Is a train station not an infastructure target?Are civilians not expected to be at train stations, retard?>How is a 19th Century revolutionary bombing infastructure in the nation he's trying to destabilise different to a group of retards killing random civilians on the off-chance that they might be Catholics that live in the same jurisdiction they do?ATAT
>>18419678>Why was it retarded? Because, as I said, many correctly noted that the civilian population were outraged by the atrocities Britain had already committed and creating 16 martyrs (some of whom weren't really involved in the rebellion at all) was retarded. We quite literally know why it was a bad idea anon, we can read about it>IRA shouldn't have used human shields.IRA didn't exist at this point. The rebels were the Irish Volunteers, Irish Citizen Army, Fianna Eireann, and a small number of the Hibernian Rifles.>How do you think the Easter Rising started? The Irish Volunteers seized several areas around Dublin. Yes, they launched the attack-but they weren't travelling around Dublin looking for Police to kill-that was more the game of the ICA, a small minority. Britain's response was indiscriminate, the rebel's actions were not.>Not true. RIC officers (who were Irish btw, not English) were shot at unprovoked by Irish Rebels.In some cases, yes! But in many cases they weren't; such as those at Nelson's Pillar.>Source?Actions of Bowen-Colthurst or what happened on North King Street at the hands of the South Staffordshire Regiment are perfect examples.>Too bad. Start shit get hit.But the IPP didn't start anything. The rebels were a tiny minority.>What's your point?That indiscriminately bombing your Empire's "2nd City" and killing a load of civilians to put down a rebellion nobody even supported is very retarded.>Okay, that doesn't refute my point.You don't have a point, you're angry that someone who didn't fight in an honorabu way opposed Britain and is considered a hero in his home for it.>The blatant glazing of IRA terrorists which clueless amerisharts constantly engage in.Yeah, I hate Americans too. But I don't really care about the terrorist label, a uniform was really the only thing that divided the IRA/British soldiers in the early 20th Century.
>>18419681The number of people that Republicans killed for being Protestant is 186. In reality that number would be lower, but I added the almost 40 "unknown motive" killings to it.The number of people killed by Loyalists for being Catholic is 718. Irish Republicans fought for their cause, Ulster Loyalists spent 30 years killing random Catholics and each other (usually over ego or drugs).
>>18419679Burns caried out Warrenpoint, an extremely effective attack, and Moley carried out many attacks with his Brigade before his death. The bomb they planned to plant was intended to disrupt Britain's military infastructure in the area.So yes, two men who fought the British Army (and killed several members of it) are different to some random retards who blew themselves up in an effort to kill a Pop Band, kekked
Looks like once again many are simply buttblasted that Ireland dared to fight back.Veteran rivals of Loyalist/Republican Paramilitaries were able to break bread with one another and come to a mutual respect (some even worked together during the Troubles at some stages), yet some lads still get themselves worked into a meltdown over it. Some people on this board still view history as a football match and are obsessed with interpreting the results in a way that lets them win. I hope you retards grow out of it soon.
look how mad the taigs are when loyalists fight back and don't let themselves get ethnically cleansed like what happened in the south
>>18419694>burnsAnglo surname>moleyAnglo Surnameonce again the most successful "irishmen" are just anglos who married irish catholics and let their children get raised catholicsame with bobby sands and gerry adams.sad!
>>18419698The main cause of Protestant population decline in "the south" (see: Free State/Republic of Ireland) was mixed marriages. The population was declining a decade before the IRA existed.There are also now more Catholics than Protestants in Northern Ireland. Not that it matters, since Protestants are welcome in Irish Nationalism.
Everything went bad for Ireland after the Easter Rising IMO.It sent in motion a series of events that led to partition.
>>18419723Almost, it went bad after the Ulster Crisis. We know that British rule was incompetent at best and malicious at worse, but the creation of Ulster Unionism was a new breed of dogshit that fucked everyone (including Unionists) over.There were numerous paths to peace and prosperity for Ireland that involved all-island government (in OR out of the British Empire), but partition basically ensured that everyone was fucked indefinitely.
>>18419667The only ones on this thread crying about anything are spastics like you triggered by some anon making a thread about an historic even that happened on Easter some 110 years ago. Any mention of Ireland seems to drive certain spastics on his to seethe posting. >>18419651Kill yourself Abdul.
>>18419735>Kill yourself Abdul.
>>18419752Cringe!
>>18419728The Easter Rising rebellion was deeply unpopular but the retarded Irish public were outraged when they were (justifiably) executed for their retarded actions.>>18419765You can't pretend that the Irish don't care about Britain. They base their whole identity on being NotBritain. The country goes into meltdown whenever an Irish celebrity is called British and their favourite sporting event is watching another country beat England.
What is the connection between Ulster Loyalism and Kincora Boys' Home, the heart of a paedophile ring in Northern Ireland which went to the top of British politics?>TaraTara was the name of an evangelical Protestant Ulster Loyalist movement from the 1960s. Lead by a group known as the "Cell", it consisted primarily of Orangemen and was based out of a house on the Malone Road. It was lead by William McGrath-the house master of Kincora who was jailed in 1981 on account of the fact he was a paedophile.>Jon McKeague, founding member of the Red Hand CommandoCo-founder of Tara and prominent Ulster Loyalist, he was a founding member of the Red Hand Commando-a small paramilitary group. Known as a regular visitor to Kincora, he was interviewed in 1982 by detectives about the rape of teenage boys. McKeague offered to inform about others at Kincora-and was shot dead in suspicious circumstances days later-with witnesses reporting that the gunmen had links to British intelligence.>Alan CampbellLecturer on British Israelism and staunch Ulster Loyalist, he had close associations with Loyalist Groups and was a lifelong member of the Orange Order. He was also closely linked to George Swawright, leader within the UVF. Campbell was later prosecuted for indecent assault for the sexual abuse of a young boy and involvement at Kincora.There's a web of nonces that is completely entangled with British Intelligence, Ulster Loyalism and the Orange Order-serial child rapists were protected or inducted to Kincora via their links to Ulster Loyalism. Lord Mountbatten, who the IRA assassinated, is also reported to have raped at least 5 children at Kincora.
>>18419765>Cringe!
>>18419815gerry adams's brother is a bacon yet you'll gladly ignore that
>>18419790>The Easter Rising rebellion was deeply unpopular At the outset, yes. But by the end of the week they'd already gained many supporters-and Britain's retarded response gained them many more. This is, again, something the rebel leaders hoped would happen in the event of their (likely) defeat. It was only really the socialists that thought the war was actually starting.Again, your attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed Irish Republicanism to do so well between 1916 and 1919.
>>18419819Will I fuck ignore it, I hate that LARPing bearded faggot. NuSinnFéin are gormless lying populist retards.Interesting that your immediate response to a Loyalist Nonce Network is>well, uh, cafflicks did it too!!!!
Far across the stormy ocean in our happy Northern home,Where our country men are arming to resist the wiles of Rome,I can see the Union Cruiser in the harbour of Belfast,And the Orange flag of Liberty is floating on her mast.Every city, town and village in our happy Northern coast,Is preparing to defend itself against the Redmond hosts,From the shores of Carrickfergus to the margins of Lough Neagh,There’s a hundred thousand Orangemen preparing for the fray.Magherafelt and Castledawson, Maghera and Tobermore,Are as eager for the conflict as they were in days of yore,Culnady and the Tamlaght boys still loyal to the throne,Are responding to the battle cry that comes from Portglenone.The fighting men of Garvagh and the Sprigs of old Kilrea,With their armour brightly burnished and their flags and banners gay,Send a ringing call to arms rolling o’er our native hills,That was heard at Ballymoney, Aghadowey and Bushmills.Every loyal heart is throbbing in the town of stout Coleraine,Where the men of proven value are assembled on the plains,Cool courageous, self reliance from the lips of everyman,Brings a cheer of bold defiance rolling o’er the river Bann.From the crest of Keady mountains I can see the bayonets gleam,Hear the roll of martial music in the valley, winding stream,Where the loyal Limavady men that never feared a foe,Are resting on their arms in the valley of the Roe.In the streets of Londonderry there’s a grand inspiring scene,Where our ‘prentice boys are arming to defend our Maiden Queen,And our walls are stoutly guarded by defenders of the soil,And their cry of ‘No Surrender’ echo’s o’er the river Foyle.You Loyal Sons of Ulster who have of your valour shown,On the crimson field of battle as defenders of the throne,Put your trust in God above, be courageous calm and cool,And the North bid bold defiance to John Redmond and Home Rule.
>>18419685United socialist Ireland
>>18419696>>18419735I’m glad that Irish communists were mowed down by based British fascist paramilitaries and I hope it’s done again. Total Bolshevik death!
>>18419873I'm just glad that a 1000 young working class British boys in the British army in Northern Ireland went home in wooden boxes and in pieces. I bet you can't even name one of them off the top of your head as they're all now forgotten.
>>18419689>outraged by the atrocities Britain had already committedSuch as?>The rebels were the Irish Volunteers, Irish Citizen Army, Fianna Eireann, and a small number of the Hibernian RiflesSame thing as IRA. Also you didn't deny they used human shields.>Yes, they launched the attack-but they weren't travelling around Dublin looking for Police to killSo yes they were going around killing people but they also weren't going around killing people? Which one is it?>Britain's response was indiscriminate, the rebel's actions were notSo the Rebels indiscriminately killing people in an unprovoked attack is not indiscriminate but Britain suppressing the Rebels is indiscriminate? How exactly was Britain meant to respond to the Easter Rising? Just let the Rebels kill as many police and soldiers as they wanted?>That indiscriminately bombing your Empire's "2nd City" and killing a load of civilians to put down a rebellion nobody even supported is very retarded.Again, too bad the Rebels used human shields.>a uniform was really the only thing that divided the IRA/British soldiers in the early 20th Century.IRA are terrorists who kill/terrorise people to achieve a political goal, British soldiers are professional soldiers who are trained to follow rules of engagement.
>>18419691>Killing civilians is okay when we do it!
>>18419696>Ireland dared to fight back.A handful of commie terrorists don't represent Ireland.
>>18419873Most of the people you are referring to were not Bolsheviks, nor Communists, nor even Marxists. In 1916 the Irish Citizen Army was just over 200, compared to over 1,000 Irish Volunteers.>>18419880>Such as?Aside from the indiscriminate use of artillery and incindary shells (again, the main cause of civilian loss of life) the massacres of civilians on North King Street is an example.>Same thing as IRA. No, not really. Especially given that the IRA were later deployed to break up ICA/other Socialist activities in the later stages of the War of Independence.>Which one is it?Rebelling =/= roaming the streets shooting people on sight. Deliberation in targeting vs indiscriminate targeting.>So the Rebels indiscriminately killing people in an unprovoked attack But they weren't indiscriminately killing people. Most of their targets were Police/Army. The fact that the RIC were Irish doesn't matter as the RIC were an incredibly unpopular force in Dublin and had been since 1913. >Again, too bad the Rebels used human shields.Staging a rebellion in a city does not mean you are using the entire city's population as a human shield. By this logic every single civilian death at the hands of the IRA doesn't matter, because sure the British state was using the population of the UK as a human shield!>IRA are terrorists who kill/terrorise people to achieve a political goalYeah, British soldiers did that too to achieve their political goals or maintain them. British soldiers did not follow rules of engagement in 1916, nor did they in the Irish War of Independence.>>18419887Actually given the landslide victory Sinn Féin won in 1919, they did! Not in 1916, though. No Irish historian would suggest they did.
>>18419887>handful of commie terrorists don't represent Ireland.Shows desperation when you have to label them something they were not.
>>18419896Anon, the IRA frequently murdered anyone they considered a collaborator or informant, often on false grounds.Everyone knows that.
>>18419902>the IRA frequently murdered anyone they considered a collaborator or informantSure did! And they were perfectly justified in doing so.>often on false groundsA very small minority, actually. Of course, the British Army likewise executed people on false grounds-but the difference is that in 1916 and in the War of Independence, most of the people Britain killed were civilians who happened to be nearby when they decided to take out their anger on the locals.
>>18419905>murdering innocent civilians is perfectly justified when we do itNo? War crimes are always bad.
>>18419919>murdering innocent civilians is perfectly justified I didn't say that. You said that. I said that executing informers (who can and will get not only armed belligerents killed, but will often see many more civilians targeted due to how Britain operated) was absolutely justified.There really wasn't much that the IRA did in 1919-1922 that the British Army didn't also do-the only difference is where the IRA mostly targeted soldiers/police, the British Army were happy to indscriminately shoot civilians (or even just burn and pillage their way across a major cit) on account of something the IRA did elsewhere. Most of the civilians who died in the conflict were victims either of the British Army or of Ulster Unionist mobs in the north.
>>18419919What's the difference between a civilian and an innocent civilian?
>irish>civilianATATBritish army and loyalists were just taking revenge over what the taig yankees did to the sons of dixie across the pond
>>18419940Wall of losers
>>18419926The IRA was not capable of conducting judicious investigations into who was an informer and who wasn't, more often than not they targeted people because of baseless assumptions, personal vendettas or their religion.And even if they were informers I still don't think it is justified as helping the police uphold the rule of law is never something you should be executed over.
>>18419957>more often than not they targeted people because of baseless assumptions, personal vendettas or their religion.[Citation needed]. One of the most infamous instances of Protestant informers being targeted was part of a wider crackdown on informant networks in Cork-a larger number of Catholics were killed.>I still don't think it is justified as helping the police uphold the rule of lawSort of loses its meaning when Britain makes their paramilitary death squads an extension of the police, to such a degree that the RIC start resigning en mass because they're sick of dealing with retarded Britons acting like cowboys. Applying a strictly "we should just follow the law, guys!" to a population who have not only become (justifiably) totally disillusioned with British rule but who also have a fresh memory of the RIC's actions in the Lockout and the British Army's actions in 1916 is a bit silly.The RIC were also key in feeding information to people who would then send the likes of the Auxiliaries to brutalise a village because a fella that grew up there was reportedly seen with IRA men miles away. ALL of this being said, like I said earlier there wasn't really anything that the IRA did which the British Army didn't do, often to a greater severity.
>be sinn féin>oppose irish independence>oppose irish republicanism>support an austro-hungary approach to britain an ireland; two nations, one crown>advocates passive resistance>basically irrelevant>no money, no support>in 1915, can barely even pay rent for the party HQ>few months later in 1916, rebels stage a rebellion>british government blames your party for some reason, calling it the "sinn féin rebellion" >confused>post rebellion all the rebels and other nationalists flock to your party>win a landslide victory in the next election>???>irish independence declared
>>18419965You mean the pogrom of Protestants in Dunmanway? Yeah, there's no proof whatsoever that any of the victims were informants.>Applying a strictly "we should just follow the law, guys!" to a population who have not only become (justifiably) totally disillusionedObviously not everyone had become disillusioned. Those people were understandably deeply suspicious of a group of murderous terrorists who sought to overthrow British democracy.Try to see things from other perspectives.>there wasn't really anything that the IRA did which the British Army didn't doWhataboutism.
>>18419989>DunmanwayThe only notable historian to accuse this of being a pogrom was Peter Hart, who's entire career was built on being deliberately over-critical of the IRA. That said, even if we accept it as a sectarian incident, incidents like that comprise a small minority of the IRA's anti-intelligence work. There is categorically zero reason the IRA would go around shooting civilians where avoidable because unlike in Northern Ireland years later, these are their own people.>Obviously not everyone had become disillusioned. The complete collapse of a party which had dominated Irish politics since the 1870s in favour of the "independence by any means necessary" party indicates that most of those who voted had absolutely become disillusioned.>British democracyMeaningless phrase in a place where the main policy that most Irish voters had voted for since 1870 still wasn't implemented to protect Protestant supremacists in the northeast.>WhataboutismYes I know that word and it's meaningless here. You're holding the IRA to a moral standard which you aren't applying to any other belligerent.There are many glaring incidents where I believe the IRA did something retarded or shortsighted, both in the War of Independence and during the Troubles. But I notice that I'm often only ever really being demanded to do so by people who have a laser focus on very specifically the IRA in a vacuum, ignoring all of the external forces that allow political violence to begin and continue. If the IRA's campaign in 1919-1922 was hubristic and shortsighted, it makes British policy in the same period absolutely pants-on-head retarded. But the IRA's campaign worked; British governance collapsed and was replaced across much of Ireland, and most of the people the IRA killed were belligerents.
>>18420003>There is categorically zero reason the IRA would go around shooting civilians where avoidableYet there is no proof whatsoever that they had a good reason for shooting that many civilians.>most of those who voted had absolutely become disillusioned.1/5 voted for the IPP in 1918, 1/4 voted for the IUP, together they received slightly more votes than Sinn Feinn.>You're holding the IRA to a moral standard which you aren't applying to any other belligerent.Except that's exactly what you're doing. You claim that when the IRA murdered civilians it was almost always justified because they were supposedly "informants" and therefore deserved to get shot even though that allegation was scarcely ever proven, but when the Black and Tans do it? Then it's always unjustifiable and inexcusable.
>>18420037>Yet there is no proof whatsoever that they had a good reason for shooting that many civilians.The IRA spent most of the conflict leagues ahead of Britain on the intelligence front partly due to how harshly they targeted informers or spies. Winter may have eventually caught up but identifying and eliminating spies is something the likes of Florence Donohue was very good at; it is much easierto run survelliance on people when the population are more supportive of you than the British.>1/5 voted for the IPP in 1918, 1/4 voted for the Given that Unionist votes in this case are also rejecting law and order, I think it's very generous to suggest that the two of them constitute some sort of majority that support the status quo.Ulster Unionists were threatening rebellion just a few years earlier, remember. The fact remains is that Sinn Féin won by a very clear margin despite it being their first ever election.>Except that's exactly what you're doing. Not even slightly, anon.>You claim that when the IRA murdered civilians it was almost always justified I do not consider informants and spies to be civilians, anon. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a historian who will suggest that anywhere near a majority of the people the IRA suspected of being informants were actually innocent. >it's always unjustifiable and inexcusableEither you hold the IRA to the same standard as everyone else-in which case British AND the IRA must be totally disavowed along with their political goals on account of said atrocities, or you tint your condemnation with whether or not you support the "side" the people doing these things are on.I don't really think there was much difference in morals between the British and Irish side in the War of Independence, save for the fact that instances of the IRA indiscriminately targeting civilians was much lower than that of Britain. Still did it, though.
>>18420051>I think it's very generous to suggest that the two of them constitute some sort of majorityThey did constitute a majority that opposed Sinn Fein and the insurgency.>I do not consider informants and spies to be civilians, anon.But every time the IRA killed civilians they claimed that they were actually killing informants and spies, and that type of excuse is very typical for war crime apologetics. The Einsatzgruppen were supposedly killing partisans for example.>I think you'd be hard pressed to find a historian who will suggest that anywhere near a majority of the people the IRA suspected of being informants were actually innocent. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a historian who would suggest that almost all the people who were arbitrarily executed for allegedly being informants were for sure actual informants.To me it's clear that most of the people they killed were killed for being unsympathetic to their cause which automatically made them suspected informants, but I do not and cannot know how many of them actually did inform on the IRA.
>>18420168>They did constitute a majority that opposed Sinn Fein and the insurgency.I think seeing them as one group at that stage is a mistake in the first place-it's not like they teamed up to oppose Sinn Féin. It's more that there were 3 tents, of which Sinn Féin's was the largest. The Unionists would (and did) threaten armed response to the IPP too.>But every time the IRA killed civilians they claimed that they were actually killing informants and spiesAgain-this is a very abstract thing to say. Most armies do that-it doesn't make it right, but pretending the IRA are uniquely opaque in disclosure of potential harmful information is daft. Britain covers up shit it did in the Troubles to this day-this is what I mean by holding the IRA to a standard you aren't holding others to.The IRA did not run around punishing civilians, because civilians generally tended to favour them over the guys the IRA were fighting. Those they did kill were mostly those suspected of being informants-something that came from information fed to the IRA by spies, not decided by the IRA on the spot.>I think you'd be hard pressed to find a historian who would suggest that almost all the people who were arbitrarily executed for allegedly being informants were for sure actual informants.Most historians tend not to suggest otherwise, on account of the fact that it'd be nonsensical to suggest a majority of them were random killings given how many of them were Catholics or even Nationalists.Killing people for being unsympathetic didn't really track, as it caused the IRA far more problems than it would have solved. Like I said, by the later stages of the war landowners were calling the IRA for help in dealing with the ICA sorts running around setting up soviets all over the place.
>>18420188>I think seeing them as one group at that stage is a mistakeNot what I said. You claimed that most people were totally disillusioned and hence voted for Sinn Fein, I brought up actual election figures showing that a majority voted for other parties that were opposed to Sinn Fein and their agenda. That those parties were also largely opposed to each other changes nothing as your claim is still wrong.>this is what I mean by holding the IRA to a standard you aren't holding others to.The British also did some horrid shit, I never denied that, but we're talking about what the IRA did and you're downplaying and justifying their crimes.>it'd be nonsensical to suggest a majority of them were random killings given how many of them were Catholics or even Nationalists.If many Catholics informed on the IRA then it goes without saying that there were also many Catholics who were unsympathetic to the rebel cause, ergo they could have been killed solely for being unsympathetic to the rebel cause. Never said anything about the killings being random.
>>18420327>The British also did some horrid shit, I never denied that, but we're talking about what the IRA did and you're downplaying and justifying their crimes.I am quite openly just stating that no, I don't believe a majority or anything close to a majority of the "civilians" the IRA killed weren't actually informants or collaboraters. I also have no qualms in saying that in a time when collaberation could mean a village getting raided and brutalised by the Black and Tans, dealing with them harshly is fine.As Collins said quite astutely;>"There is no crime in detecting and destroying in wartime the spy and informer. They have destroyed without trial. I have paid them back in their own coin.” Seems the only quandry people seem to have with what the IRA did is that THEY did it, rather than the British State or Police-both of which readily used violence to maintain their own form of politics.>>18420327>I brought up actual election figures showing that a majority voted for other parties that were opposed to Sinn Fein and their agendaBut the Unionist seats didn't change. Sinn Féin and the IPP quite literally did have (limited) cooperation in the 1918 elections in Ulster, with SF openly telling their supporters to throw their weight behind them where necessary.IPP domination + Unionists leading to Sinn Féin dominance + Unionists paints a very clear picture of disillusionment.>ergo they could have been killed solely for being unsympathetic to the rebel causeThis is a ridiculous reach, lad. I am not (and never would want to be) denying the idea that the IRA killed innocent people, nor that they could be properly nasty cunts. I am rejecting the notion that they carried out killings of those who didn't support them to anywhere near the same scale as either the Unionists or the British. If the IRA (and by extension, their cause) are condemned by this fact, then hard luck to the guys they were fighting.
>>18419899They were
>>18419896>indiscriminate use of artillery and incindary shellIrish Rebels shouldn't have been using civilian buildings for cover.>No, not reallyThey are, nobody cares about the difference.>Rebelling =/= roaming the streets shooting people on sightRoaming the streets shooting people on sight is exactly what the Rebels did.>But they weren't indiscriminately killing people.How was the Easter Rising not indiscriminate killing?>The fact that the RIC were Irish doesn't matter as the RIC were an incredibly unpopular force in DublinOh so they're not proper Irish unless they support your politics, very convenient. Also more Irish people in 1916 supported staying in the UK as oppose to gaining independence. Pro-indepence sentiment wouldn't become mainstream in Ireland until 1919.>Staging a rebellion in a city does not mean you are using the entire city's population as a human shieldOccupying civilian buildings is putting civilians in the line of fire.>the British state was using the population of the UK as a human shield!False equivalency that doesn't even make sense.>British soldiers did that too to achieve their political goals or maintain them. There is it, the typical leftist "soldiers sometimes do bad things so they're the REAL terrorists" fallacy. Terroists deliberately terrorise people, soldiers are trained to follow rules of engagement. Try and understand the difference.>Actually given the landslide victory Sinn Féin won in 1919, they did! Winning an election doesn't mean you represent everyone, only the people who voted for you.
>>18421617>Irish Rebels shouldn't have been using civilian buildings for cover.Meaningless, it's a rebellion.|>They are, nobody cares about the difference.You don't, making you about as aptly equipped for the rebellion as the retards who reported that Sinn Féin were behind it.>Roaming the streets shooting people on sight is exactly what the Rebels did.No it isn't, not at all actually.>How was the Easter Rising not indiscriminate killing?Because the rebels didn't just shoot anyone, they mostly targeted British soldiers. Most of the civilians died at the hands of Britain.>Oh so they're not proper Irish unless they support your politics, very convenientDidn't say that, anon. Just that they were unpopular and that a paramilitary formed to oppose them several years prior. Meaningless goal post moving.>Occupying civilian buildings is putting civilians in the line of fire.So is indiscriminately firebombing what's supposed to be a city of the Empire 2nd only in significance to London, anon. If most Irish people didn't support the rebellion, why did Britain just kill a load of civilians anyway?>There is it, the typical leftist "soldiers sometimes do bad things so they're the REAL terrorists" fallacy. What?>Terroists deliberately terrorise people, soldiers are trained to follow rules of engagement. We are talking about a situation where the Irish Volunteers did this and the British Army didn't. Most of the civilian casualties and destruction of property was due to Britain.>Winning an election doesn't mean you represent everyone, only the people who voted for you.Almost everyone who didn't vote Sinn Féin voted for Ulster Unionists, who likewise aimed to get their way by force. You might feel like you're being very clever but you're being outmaneuvered on these concepts by people who lived a century ago.
>>18420343>They have destroyed without trial. I have paid them back in their own coin.So the killings were arbitrary...>Sinn Féin and the IPP quite literally did have (limited) cooperation in the 1918 elections in Ulster, with SF openly telling their supporters to throw their weight behind them where necessary.This only applies to a couple of constituencies, i.e. it does not account for much of the IPP vote.>IPP domination + Unionists leading to Sinn Féin dominance + Unionists paints a very clear picture of disillusionment.A clear picture of greatly increased disillusionment, sure, but you said "most of those who voted had absolutely become disillusioned" which is obviously false.>This is a ridiculous reachNot really, no, especially not compared to your argument that if the victims were Catholics they must have been informants.
>>18421593They weren't and no historian or expert on it all would agree.I hate these fucking 20th century Irish history threads. Op is a bore who seems to think about nothing other than Republican faggotry and the troubles. Sick of hearing about all that shit at this stage.
>>18422941They were commies, I don't care what some left-wing "historians" have to say.
>>18422941Anon, I make threads about all sorts of Irish history. Ones involving Republican history tend to attract assmad britbongs, but I have been making threads about everything from the Mercantile Marine in WW2 to the Gaelic prison heists of the late 16th Century.If you'd like to read about something else in Irish history I'm always happy to oblige for another thread!
>>18422739>Meaningless, it's a rebellionSo you approve of using human shields? I thought the Irish Rebels were fighting for Irish people? Is using Irish civilians as human shields helping Ireland and Irish people?>You don'tNobody does lol>No it isn't, not at all actually.It is, they went around randomly shooting RIC officers.>Because the rebels didn't just shoot anyone, they mostly targeted British soldiers.That's still indiscriminate killing you retard. If you go up to a soldier and shoot him that's indiscriminate murder.>Most of the civilians died at the hands of Britain.Baseless claim. What's your source?>Didn't say that, anonYou implied it.>So is indiscriminately firebombing what's supposed to be a city of the EmpireBritain targeted building that had been taken over by Rebels. Collateral damage (death of civilians) caused by shelling is the fault of the Rebels who deliberately occupied civilian buildings. The Rebels knew they were putting innocent lives at risk, but I guess innocent Irish people dying didn't matter to the Rebels.>What?Read my post again if you don't understand.>We are talking about a situation where the Irish Volunteers did this and the British Army didn'tFalse.>We are talking about a situation where the Irish Volunteers did this and the British Army didn'tAlso false.>Almost everyone who didn't vote Sinn Féin voted for Ulster UnionistsHow is that relevant to my post?>you're being outmaneuvered on these conceptsOutmanoeuvred on what concepts? I'm simply stating the facts, something you don't seem to understand.
>>18423253>So you approve of using human shields?No, anon, if I did I'd have said that. Were the British Army using human shields by putting an army barracks in a city where the British army brutalised the population?>Nobody does lolHistorians and people keen to have their opinions listened to on the topic do.>It is, they went around randomly shooting RIC officers.There are many recorded instances of them doing the exact opposite. But like I said, RIC (not DMP) were hated in Dublin.>That's still indiscriminate killing you retard. If you go up to a soldier and shoot him that's indiscriminate murder.No it isn't you utter brainlet, if you shoot someone because they are a British soldier and you're rebelling against the army he represents that is the exact opposite of indiscriminate. What are you talking about?>Baseless claim. What's your source?Atlas of the Irish Revolution, Ferghal McGarry's writing, basically any book (British or Irish in origin) will confirm that most civilian deaths and injuries came from the British artillery, in particular the firebombing.>Read my post again if you don't understand.Anon I don't give a fuck what your political views are, they are not relevant here.>Also false.No, true. Nobody was angry at the rebels for gunning down civilians in anger or bombing their homes, because they weren't doing that.>Outmanoeuvred on what concepts? You are presenting a bewildering and inconsistent view of the period which appears to rest any and all blame for any violence at the feet of Irish Republicans, despite the fact that the worst they can be said to be guilty of is resorting to the shit that their rivals or enemies had been doing all along.tl;dr - I think you need to do a bit more reading on the topic, because it looks like you need to understand it a certain way to make it compatible with your current day political views. Bonkers stuff.
The final redpill is that the irish rebellion was a cultural revolution tier moment that 90% of the irish populace didn't support yet everybody had to post-revolution or they'd be purged.victoria was ireland's most popular queen and was swarmed by droves of people when she visited yet post revolution ireland has twisted history to make it seem like she was unpopular.what happend to ireland after the easter rising was far worse than anything that happened to china after mao got into power. actual irish traditon was destroyed to make way for a national, ahistorical LARP that 90% of irishmen didn't care for but had to go along with anyway
>>18423481>yet everybody had to post-revolution or they'd be purged.This isn't true. Ireland's government for the 1st decade after the revolution was a cobbled together coalition of conservatives, Redmondites (the guys who opposed independence) and the remnants of Irish Unionism who were abandoned by the Ulster Unionists. Half of the seats on the first Seaned was formed, around half the seats were Unionists.>victoria was ireland's most popular queen She also had many protestors, including those who participated in the rising. Victoria was not responsible for Ireland's suffering, she just later became a symbol of it.>actual irish traditon was destroyed to make way for a national, ahistorical LARP That was destroyed by Britain and those who supported them, actually.The final redpill isn't the LARP you posted, it's that Irish independence (and the revolutionary politics that lead to it) could have been VERY easily avoided but Britain are retards. Opportunities to solve the "Irish Question" presented themselves regularly in the form of moderate nationalists hoping to restore Ireland's home government-it's the union which was the new concept, and one that failed magnificently. Now the current retarded state of affairs exists because Britain continued to be too retarded not to cut the Ulster Unionists loose to retain the entire island.Irish Nationalist leaders in the early 1900s were quite literally commenting on how embarassing it was for Ulster Unionists to have armed themselves and threatened mass rebellion before they did.
>>18423438>Were the British Army using human shields by putting an army barracks in a city where the British army brutalised the population?Army barracks were clearly marked and not inside of or behind civilian infrastructure. Also how did the British Army brutalise the population in Dublin prior to the Easter Rising?>Historians and people keen to have their opinions listened to on the topic do.Are you one of these "historians" lol>There are many recorded instances of them doing the exact oppositeSo no one was shot and nothing happened?>But like I said, RIC (not DMP) were hated in Dublin.Proof? Even if that is true, you can't go around shooting police officers. ICE are hated in blue cities in the US, doesn't mean people can go around shooting ICE officers.>if you shoot someone because they are a British soldier and you're rebelling against the army he representsEaster Rising wasn't "rebellion," it was terrorism and murder against people who worked for the legitimate government of Ireland at the time.>came from the British artillery, in particular the firebombing.And why did Britain use artillery? Because the Rebels used civilian buildings for cover. It was the Rebels who put Irish people in the line of fire, similar to how Hamas puts Palestinians in the line of fire in Gaza.> I don't give a fuck what your political viewsUnlike you I'm not here to push a political agenda. I will however call you out on your bullshit.>Nobody was angry at the rebels for gunning down civilians in anger or bombing their homes, because they weren't doing that.The Rebels caused the battle the lead to Irish civilians being killed. Additionally, as stated previously, the Rebels occupied civilian buildings and used them for cover, deliberately putting civilians in harms way.>appears to rest any and all blame for any violence at the feet of Irish RepublicansAs far as the Easter Rising specifically goes, yes it was caused by Irish Republicans. Is this incorrect?
>>18424184I agree that the British made some retarded fuckups and missed atleast two easy solutions, but not at all for trying to keep the Ulster Unionists happy.As you yourself admitted they threatened mass rebellion, and not only that, basically the entire fucking officer corps threatened with mass resignations if given the order to supress a rebellion against home rule. Expecting the government to still follow through with it by sending a no longer functional army against their own citizens is utterly retarded.Real solution to the Home Rule Crisis, which would have kept both Redmondites and Ulster Unionists happy for atleast a couple of decades, was to just exclude Ulster. Southern Unionists were the ones blocking that from happening, not the northerners, but after WW1 they ended up getting ignored anyway.Then it's the Irish convention. Don't get why it doesn't get talked about more since it is probably the greatest missed opportunity in all of Irish history. You say in hindsight that they should have embraced the moderates when there were only moderates around, but moderates do not seem moderate when there are no radicals to compare them to. However, after Sinn Fein rose in popularity in the latter half of the war Unionists actually DID realize that they needed to compromise with the Redmondites while they still had the chance, hence why a convention was called to do just that. And they probably could have reached a final agreement if the government didn't try to make it conditional on conscription to save the (at the time) crumbling front, leading to the collapse of both the convention and the IPP.
