Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/1/2004 12:52:48 AM EDT
Can anyone explain this to me.  

Was it just strongarm tactic?

If so why do we have relations with the UK?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 12:58:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:01:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 1:01:42 AM EDT by r1tual]
Well why did England decide it was going to try and take over Ireland and Scotland?

And why dont we as Americans liberate Ireland and Scotland from British control?

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:07:12 AM EDT
land? conscript soldiers? .......WOMEN !!!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:09:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:12:54 AM EDT
What time period are you wondering about...  different rulers made different choices about why to take what and from where..  you have a approximate date?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:14:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:15:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 1:15:35 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:23:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 1:28:00 AM EDT by r1tual]
The most recent history I am interested in.

It is obvious that the majority opposes Britain.

I was wondering why Britain does not give them their independance?  It seems like Military occupation to me.

There are alot of Irish people in the US.  No doubt because they oppose Britain.

So why doesnt the US give support for the Irish REpublics dependance?  They arent doing much good for themselves being oppressed.  Maybe Ireland would be something positive for that part of the world.  Boost morale and give the British something else to do then pick on people.

Im trying to just know how it all went down.  But really im interested in present activity.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:30:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:44:36 AM EDT
So I pose the question again..

Why doesnt the US liberate Ireland?

Im not Irish btw.  So im not a propagandist or anything.  I just am trying to understand why we are friends with Britain at all.  Its not like we teamed up with Russia on the war on terror.  Why should we team up with Britain?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:44:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 2:00:02 AM EDT by PaDanby]
Which time?  Which "English",  Which Scots, and which Irish?  How far back because you need to look at  Angles, Saxons, Romans, Picts, Celts, Gaels, Welsh, Danish and/or Norwegian Norsemen/Vikings, Normans, etc.  Which are invasions and which are migrations of  population groups, to new and better lands at the expense of the current residents.

Like Europeans into the Americas, pushing out the local aboriginal cultures which had a  history of migrating into other areas and pushing out the weaker tribes, like the Mayans pushed out the Toltecs, the Aztecs the Mayans, some think that the Aztec expansion and influences was a major part of the collapse of the Anasazi groups, the Sioux were a forest dwelling tribe that got pushed onto the plains, where they pushed out the existing tribes and so on and so on with at the latest observation was that the Paiutes and Shoshones ended up with the really lousy  lands east of the Sierras and west of the Rockies.

We haven't gone after the Han Chinese who pushed their cultural and "religious" domination into Southern and Western China in the last half of the last century displacing Tibetan,  and aboriginal  tribes, and a variety of peoples along the traditional "Silk Road" areas.  (Although maybe we did assist some of the anti-Chinese resistance groups that later morphed into  Islamofascists if you believe the Han Chinese or Freedom Fighters trying to preserve their culture against  the heathen Chinese Communists.) Nor did we contest the conquest of the aboriginal groups on Hainan or Formosa by the japanese, Chinese or Viet-Namese.

Or like alluded to above, your question is sufficiently shallow as to be useless in beginning a  meaningful discussion in any direction you want to head.

How recent history are you referring to as "recent", post the "Rising of '45"?  dynastic struggles between Stuarts, Stewarts, Tudors, Plantegenets, Hanoverians, Battenberg-Windsors?, post Protestant Reformation?  Cromwell?  English Civil War, Chas I or Chas II.  The late Queen Mum, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was a descendant of both English and Scottish Monarchs in her own right as opposed to her Husband who was German.

Using the line of reasoning you appear to be thinking along, we should be supporting the Serbs in regaining their ancient homelands in Kosovo? eject the Poles and re-establish Prussia? return Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans?  Not support Israael?

What reasoning could you propose to use to support a war against England that wouldn't be even more applicable against Israel?  Do we give Texas back to Mexico, Spain or the Commanches?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:46:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:53:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:54:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 2:45:01 AM EDT by r1tual]
I just dont understand why Britian has always been so screwed up.  
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:54:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By r1tual:
So I pose the question again..

Why doesnt the US liberate Ireland?

Im not Irish btw.  So im not a propagandist or anything.  I just am trying to understand why we are friends with Britain at all.  Its not like we teamed up with Russia on the war on terror.  Why should we team up with Britain?




No offense, but are you stupid?



Why do you say that?

No offense but are you?  Id bet that you are.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:07:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 2:47:11 AM EDT by r1tual]
IM trying to understand why we arent more hardball with England.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:10:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:13:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:14:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By r1tual:
The Irish fought until 1921 when they agreed to partition, getting 3/4 of what they wanted. Of course, the British kept the most economically strong and developed part when they agreed to partition. Some Irish refuse to accept the occupation of Ulster and continue to press for Ireland's full freedom.




We had the last laugh in the South! The Republic of Ireland has now got a per capita income nearly as high as the United States and second only to Luxemburg in Europe!

Meanwhile, the north is economically bankrupt and relies on billions of pounds of aid money to keep afloat!

ANdy (Irish National… Dublin)
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:14:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 2:49:33 AM EDT by r1tual]
Do you think Britian would fight the US over the Irish territories?

I dont.  

So can someone explain to me.  Why Ireland is even in the United Kingdom?



Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:18:06 AM EDT
Sapper.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:18:26 AM EDT
He probably said it because he read your post before he asked.

You show an abyssmal lack of understanding of how the United Kingdom came about.  In other words, to answer your orignal question it wasn't strong-Arm tactics.

After all do you want to include the expansion of the Kingdom of Dalriada in your discussion.

from the CIA actbook

England has existed as a unified entity since the 10th century; the union between England and Wales, begun in 1284 with the Statute of Rhuddlan, was not formalized until 1536 with an Act of Union; in another Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain; the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was implemented in 1801, with the adoption of the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927

and this may also help

Union of England and Wales
Medieval Wales was rarely united but was under the rule of various native principalities. When the land-hungry Normans invaded England, they naturally started pushing into the relatively weak Welsh Marches setting up a number of lordships in the Eastern part of Wales and the border areas, and the usually fractious Welsh, who still retained control of the North and West of Wales, started uniting around leaders such as Llywelyn the Great.

Edward I finally succeeded in conquering the the last remaining native Welsh principalities in the North and West of Wales (roughly the area of the present day counties of Anglesey, Caernarfonshire, Merioneth, Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire) in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established Edward's rule two years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in February 7, 1301. This area under direct royal control was therefore known as the Principality of Wales(1284-1536). The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today.

Between 1284 and 1536 the Crown only had direct control over the principality, as the Marcher lords (ruling over independent lordships in the East and South of Wales)were independent from crown control. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales. The Act of Union 1536 partitioned Wales into thirteen counties: Anglesey, Brecon, Caernarfon, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Denbigh, Flint, Glamorgan, Merioneth, Monmouth, Montgomery, Pembroke and Radnor and applied the Law of England to both England and Wales, making English the language to be used for official purposes. This excluded most native Welsh from any formal office. Wales was also now represented in the English Parliament at Westminster.

English Conquest of Ireland
The conquest of Ireland began in 1169. At first, it was not stricltly an English conquest, as it was launched by a small group of Normans who were neither English nor acting on behalf of the English Crown. A disposessed Norman baron from Wales, Richard fitzGilbert de Clare ('Strongbow') teamed up with the exiled Irish king, Diarmuid MacMorrough, to help him recover his kingdom of Leinster. This subsequently led to the Normans gaining a foothold in Ireland, capturing Dublin in 1170. The success of Strongbow alarmed Henry II, who was worried that he was becoming too powerful. Henry invaded Ireland himself in 1171, whereby many Irish kings submitted to his authority, and Dublin and the surrounding area came under royal control. This effectively created the Lordship of Ireland(1171-1541) which came under the control of his son John. John (unexpectedly) became king in 1199 after the death of his brother, and this meant that the lordship of Ireland was under the control of the king. He also set up a parliament in Dublin. However in reality this only had jurisdiction over the 'Pale' and the English still only controlled a relatively small area of Ireland In 1541 the Irish Parliament offered to change the status of Ireland to a kingdom, creating the Kingdom of Ireland(1541-1800) with Henry VIII as its monarch; Henry, regarding the way he styled himself as beyond the law of Parliament, refused, but began to style himself as King of Ireland the next year anyway. This created a union of the Crowns, similar to that which was created in England and Scotland after 1603. Another feature of the sixteenth century was the creation of English plantations and colonies, which attempted to extend English influence further into Ireland.

The Union of Two Crowns
Scotland was an independent kingdom that resisted English rule. Scotland because of her climate and her relatively more despotic government tended to be poorer than her southern neighbour. However, political instability and the "Auld Alliance" with France made successive English governments very nervous, and the perceived need to separate Scotland from Catholic France was one of the driving forces in the Scottish Reformation.

The Scottish Reformation saw a clash between the old religion (Roman Catholicism) and the new (The Church of Scotland, known as Presbyterianism). The controversial Catholic Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate and fled to England, leaving her infant son, James VI, to rule Scotland guided by Protestant guardians. She was a figure of intrigue, who because of doubts among adherents to the old religion (Catholicism) in England about the legality of Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was seen by many as a more legitimate heir to the English throne than her Protestant cousin Elizabeth I, the occupant of the throne. Mary Queen of Scots's grandfather was Elizabeth's own grandfather Henry VII due to an earlier marriage alliance between England and Scotland. Elizabeth put her cousin under house arrest and eventually, amid rumours of a plot to overthrow her, reluctantly had her executed for treason.

James VI succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I and assumed the title James I of England in 1603. The Stuarts now reigned as the royal family of "Great Britain", although they maintained separate parliaments, The Union of the Two Crowns had begun. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences continued to divide the kingdoms, and common royalty could not prevent occasions of internecine war.


But of course you knew that didn't you?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:32:16 AM EDT
It's IRA (Irish Republican Army) not NRA (National Rifle Association) ya fuggin' tard!

This has got to be a joke! Whose troll account is "r1tual"?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:40:44 AM EDT
LOL my bad.


Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:10:10 AM EDT
Scotland is the easiest to explain:  intermarriage.   The main result was James I of England, who also was James VI of Scotland (son of Mary, Queen of Scots), ascending the English throne after the death of Elizabeth I.  This brought Scotland into, or connected it to England.  Essentially, while the Stuarts ruled England as well as Scotland, the crowns were unified.  After the Stuarts were deposed, restored and deposed again, England "kept" the possession.  Had to fight for it shortly afterward, but they kept it (Culloden).

Ireland is somewhat more complex, but I'd simply say it's because the English wanted it.  Thye practical issue was to have a unified kingdom and not leave an island hanging out there which might be conquered by someone else and used as a base against England.  Think what might have happened in 1914 were Ireland not under British control, troublesome as the issues were.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:15:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By r1tual:
IM trying to understand why we arent more hardball with England.



First off, there was nothing wrong with the Brits take Ireland and Scottland.  They conquered that land just as fair as we concorqued the west here in America.

Second, the Brits and US have a long history of working together to fight evil in the world.

Third, Great Brittian is a great place to refuel plane and other maintance, we need bases there, they are a 1/2 way point to the mid east.


Sgtar15
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:17:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By r1tual:
Do you think Britian would fight the US over the Irish territories?

I dont.  

So can someone explain to me.  Why Ireland is even in the United Kingdom?






Because the Brits conqoured it!

What is your next question?
Why is the south part of the US?

Because we kicked there ass in the civil war...THATS WHY!

News Flash bucko!  The winner makes the rules!

SGatr15
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:19:16 AM EDT
I wonder how long before the term "orangemen" shows up????


SGatr15
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:31:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
He probably said it because he read your post before he asked.

You show an abyssmal lack of understanding of how the United Kingdom came about.  In other words, to answer your orignal question it wasn't strong-Arm tactics.

After all do you want to include the expansion of the Kingdom of Dalriada in your discussion.

from the CIA factbook




PaDanby - Thanks for the CIA Factbook reference. See it here:

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Awesome site and added to my favorites list.

RJ
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:47:45 AM EDT
As I seem to be the only person born in the South of Ireland posting here…

I'll step up and answer…

FACT: The South does not want the bankrupt and divided north back… even if it was handed over on a plate!

FACT: The South is perfectly happy to get along with England… anyone born in Ireland has 100% the same rights as anyone born in England. So, although I am Irish born and bred, I can live here in Britain, and vote, get all the social security benefits… everything the same as if I was born in England! I can even get a British passport. So why would we want to change anything?  Same applies to the north.

FACT: Scotland has always had seperate Laws to England as has Northern Ireland. Sotland and Wales now have devolved Legislatures and operate much like your States, raising local taxes and passing local laws. Northern Ireland had this too from day one in 1922, but it was suspended why they stopped playing nice. Just as soon as the people in Northern Ireland start talking to each other they will get self rule back again.

Interesting aside…… Although all  handguns are banned in England, Wales and Scotland, they are not in Northern Ireland! You can even get a CCW permit in Northern Ireland!

Andy
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:53:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 5:37:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 5:41:30 AM EDT by Tweak]
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:41:36 AM EDT
I hate when people ask questions in a roundabout way to try to get you to justify their point of view that they all ready have of the question.  Just state your opinion on the subject and see how people respond.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:43:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By r1tual:
Well why did England decide it was going to try and take over Ireland and Scotland?

And why dont we as Americans liberate Ireland and Scotland from British control?




Why did England at one time subjugate half the world's population?  Because they COULD.  Money and power, those age old motives for just about anything.  The British Empire generated millions of $$ in revenues for the Crown annually.  And, just as we here in the original 13 colonies got tired of their shit, so did just about every other country they controlled at one time or another.   Some used peaceful means, some didn't most of their one time colonies managed to get some form of independence or another.  

As for Ireland, here' s some good background:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/ireland_invasion_01.shtml

Bear in mind that the Scots are now on their way to "devolution", or a more limited role by London in Scottish affairs.  Many see this as the inevitable road to Scottish Independence.  Saor Alba!  

In Ireland, armed rebellion against English rule came in almost every generation up the the Anglo-Irish war from 1918-1921: 1798, the Fenian Rebellion in 1867, and the Easter Rising of 1916.  

After the Anglo Irish War, the treaty of Partition divided the country, the counties of Armagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry, Antrim, and Down remaining under English Rule.  These are 6 of the original 9 counties of Ulster, and why Irish nationalists and Republicans presently refer to Northern Ireland as the "six Counties".  

An artificial boundary was agreed to by both sides, which would insure a Protestant majority in what is called Northern Ireland, or Ulster.  The overwhelmingly Catholic counties of Donegal, Cavan (where my family is from) and Monaghan were excluded, so Ulster as it is called today is only 2/3 of the original.  

The problem with Northern Ireland is that there were overwhelmingly Catholic areas in Derry and Armagh.  Under the terms of the treaty of Partition, a commission was supposed to address this, and it was largely thought by the Irish side that the English would give up the Catholic areas.  They didn't; as a matter of fact, iirc they commission never even met.  The modern day "troubles" in NI woundn't exist had this fact been addressed 70 years ago.  

As for the lower 26 counties, or Free State as it was called after the Treaty,  true independence didn't come until 1948.  Partition was a divisive issue in the Free State, leading to a brief civil war that I and many others lay at the feet of Eamonn DeValera, who led the anti-treaty forces after dispatching Michael Collins to England to try and get an impossible deal from the English.  DeValera made a speech about "wading through Irish blood" to get complete independence, and it was this speech that was widely seen as a signal to anti treaty forces to pick up arms.  

U.S. opinion and support of Irish independence has been pivotal throughout the last 200 years.  Following the Civil War, for example, it was Irish born Gen. Thomas Meagher's plan to invade Canada, and use it as a bargaining chip with the English for Irish independence.  The Fenian Raid was pretty much a disaster, and pushed Canada into more formal ties with England.  But, at least we tried...next time you want to bad mouth the Canucks, don't blame me  

A huge portion of the history of Ireland and Scotland was also influenced by the Catholic/Protestant struggle for control of the English Throne.  From Elizabeth I to William of Orange, these two sides were at each other's throats.  King William of Orange's defeat of Catholic forces at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 (still celebrated today by Protestants in NI), and Prince Charles (Bonnie Prince Charles' ) disasterous defeat at the battle of Colluden in 1746 effectively ended Catholic resistance to the Protestant throne, and led to some draconian anti-Catholic legislation being enacted by the English.  

Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are predominantly Celtic in their history, and have opposed English/Saxon rule for hundreds of years.  How successfully is certainly debatable, but it  looks like the "English Connection" will be broken in the future, in NI especially, as the Catholic birth rate is higher than the Protestant birth rate.  Go figure lol.  

U.S. support for Ireland has been crucial to the cause of Irish independence, both monetarily and morally.  From the 1840s on, money has flowed from Irish America back home to fund political protest and armed resistance, and the U.S. moral support of Ireland has prevented the English from burning the place to the ground.  Eamonn DeValera future President of Ireland and born in NY, owes his life to that moral support...his death sentence from his part in the Easter Rebellion was commuted, for fear of an American backlash as the English executed Pearse, Plunkett, Connolly and the others.  

Had President Clinton not given Gerry Adams a visa to the U.S. in 1994, despite the vociferous protests from the British Government, the Good Friday Agreement would never have happened.  Adams had to secure the sign off of the physical force Republicans in the US, who had been supplying $$ and arms to the Provisional IRA since the early 70s...all of those "little Armalites" celebrated in song.  Without their inclusion, the GFA would have been dead in the water.  You can read an excellent account of this in Ed Moloney's The Secret History of the IRA.    Whether this was from a genuine sense of caring on Clinton's part, or a cynical attempt to placate the 40million or so folks in the US who trace their roots back to Ireland is your call...but it was a pivotal moment in the peace process.  

My own personal hope is to see all my Celtic brothers '"free from Saxon sway".  Hopefully, I'll live that long!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:45:29 AM EDT
well at the time when the bittish decided to take Ireland and Scotland they were in thier 'hey lets make a huge kingdom' days. The scots held out till like the 17th or 18th century before becoming part of the UK, and Ireland held out a lot longer than that. I suppose the English wanted someplace to send all those really ugly people with bad teeth....
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:48:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 7:48:54 AM EDT by Lee0302]
"But do we get to kill the English???"-Braveheart
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:58:30 AM EDT

Why did Britain invade Ireland and Scotland?

Because the Brits didn't know how to make liquor, only crappy warm beer.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:09:21 AM EDT
Why we will not interfere has been answered.
My take on why the Britts are so entrenched:
During WW2, many in Irish resistance cooperated with the Nazi's, hoping Brits would be defeated and they would gain independence. If that had not happened recent history MIGHT have been different.

In the same vein, if Castro had not allowed Russian missles in Cuba, I think things would be different now.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:19:45 AM EDT

I wonder how long before the term "orangemen" shows up????



Geez louise! Sgtar you really hold a grudge don't you
To those who don't know, Me and ol sarge got into a 'shouting match' over catholicism where I said "orangemen forever" which is a battle cry for the UDA, Protestant freedom fighters. But I was really making reference to the house of Orange, in Holland, which was one of the great defenders of 'Northern European Protestantism' along with Gustavus Adolphus, the Swedish meatball, opps! I mean meteor. But this was like 10 days ago, and now I think, hw thinks this board is being taken over by protestant Terrorists <----- Note the orange face!

As to the british isles wars, well it's all about pecking order! Don't forget that prior to 1917 imperialism was  thought of as a GOOD thing! conquering smaller nations and uniting them with you was good!?!? and this whole thing was not just One way you know. The irish were used to try and destabilise England as well. The French and Spanish were constantly trying to make alliance with Ireland to invade England or to be use as a base against her. It was just typical European politics plain and simple. BTW- did you know most Royalty northern Europe is German? The queen of England is almost 100% German. Instead of the house of Windsor her real name is Queen Mary Schicklegruber!!! HAHAHAHHAAHA That ain't no shit either I could'nt make that one up.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:43:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 12:30:46 PM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By t-stox:
The queen of England is almost 100% German. Instead of the house of Windsor her real name is Queen Mary Schicklegruber!!! HAHAHAHHAAHA That ain't no shit either I could'nt make that one up.



Actually it's Elizabeth Sax-Coburg-Gotha and yes they ARE german Royalty! They still have family in Germany. They changed the name to Windsor during WWI after crowds started hanging german dachshunds (true, a number of Dachshunds were lynched ), and stoning german shops.

They chose the name of the castle they were living in at the time, Windsor Castle… good job they were not living in the Tower of London at the time……

I can see it now; I,  Elizabeth Tower of London do solemnly declare……

Andy
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:57:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:59:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 9:01:18 AM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By CMB69:
Why we will not interfere has been answered.
My take on why the Britts are so entrenched:
During WW2, many in Irish resistance cooperated with the Nazi's, hoping Brits would be defeated and they would gain independence. If that had not happened recent history MIGHT have been different.
.



This is so historically wrong!!!!!!!!!

Now some facts: Ireland actively co-operated with Britain throught WWII. ALL german aircrew that came down over Ireland were interned, all UK/US aircrew and seamen were immidiatly repatriated.

55,000 Irishmen from the South went to England to volunteer to fight the Germans, including my Grandfather and Great Grandfather.

All german spies that entered the Republic were rounded up within days especially the ones that tried to contact the IRA. The IRA turned them over to the Irish Special Branch as they were quite happy to fight the British but did not want the Germans poking their noses into their private war.

RAF Sunderland flying boats operated from Lochs in Ireland and Royal Navy escort ships were allowed to shelter in West Coast ports… all unofficially of course.

Likewise, whenever a U-Boat was foolish enough to hole up in an Irish bay the local coastguards were under orders to phone the British Embassy in Dublin to tell them. This happened in the village my father lived in during WWII. A U-Boat took shelter in the bay during gales and it was the talk of the village. The local costguard phoned Dublin and a couple of British Destroyers were waiting for the U-Boat when it set sail.

Also, throughout the War, Britain supplied Ireland with all it's essential imports and supplied arms for defence including some Spitfires.

Dublin was bombed on a number of occassions by the Luftwaffe, including the street my Grandfather lived in, he was so mad at this he went to England and joined up!

ANdy
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:10:47 AM EDT
Don't worry too personally Andy, About the whole WWII thing. Most Americans get their History knowledge from Hollywood. I think this rumor comes from "the eagle has landed" movie in which IRA terrorists help the nazis try to kill churchill. People in the US can't seem to understand the love/hate relationship between the various parts of the old united kingdom. We are full aware of how the Irish don't like the british but don't undersyand how when England went to war millions of Irish Catholics joined to fight FOR the Queen. (they were just Irish Lads on the prowl for barney and a little froggy tottie!)  OI!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:46:05 AM EDT
I'll make this real simple since that appears to be all you can manage.

The US doesn't involve itself in the Northern Irish issue because its real frigging small potatos, a tempest in a flipping tea-pot.   It's a situation where the only reason it continues is because vested interests in the extremes of both sides stand to loose too much (usually criminal money) if they stop the violence and allow the thing to be settled peacefully.  The differences between the parties in terms of culture, religion, law, etc. are microscopic and the human rights violations on both sides are comparitively minor.  The potential for the conflict to escalate into a de-stabilizing issue are also small.  So the US remains content to allow England and Ireland and Norther Ireland to work it out on their own.

By contrast Iraq was a human rights disaster with a tyrannical government killing innocent people every day and generally carrying out a slow campaign of genocide.  It's tyrant ruler built palaces to his own glory while his people were left to gather water out of mud-puddles following a rain.   The government of Iraq stood as a constant threat to its neighbors, was a potential harbor for terrorists, and generally stood in a position to wreak region and international havoc.  Clear choice really. Only an idiot would place the situation in Northern Ireland and Iraq in the same category.


Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:47:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By r1tual:
The most recent history I am interested in.

It is obvious that the majority opposes Britain.

I was wondering why Britain does not give them their independance?  It seems like Military occupation to me.

There are alot of Irish people in the US.  No doubt because they oppose Britain.

So why doesnt the US give support for the Irish REpublics dependance?  They arent doing much good for themselves being oppressed.  Maybe Ireland would be something positive for that part of the world.  Boost morale and give the British something else to do then pick on people.

Im trying to just know how it all went down.  But really im interested in present activity.



I think you're about 10 years behind the times here.
Don't you ever watch the news??
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:51:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By r1tual:
Do you think Britian would fight the US over the Irish territories?

I dont.  

So can someone explain to me.  Why Ireland is even in the United Kingdom?






It's not.
What makes you think it is??
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:56:23 AM EDT
They were after their Lucky Charms.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 10:01:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 10:02:04 AM EDT by Fenian]
Ireland's neutrality through both world wars is firmly tooted in the complex relationship borne of the 800 year strugle for independence.  However, in fact, the Irish weren't really neutral in WWII, as Vito113 points out so well.  

Now, it was a completely different story in WW1, where there was an actual relationship between the German government and the various factions that would participate in the Easter Rebellion in 1916.  Sir Roger Casement negotiated a deal with the Germans to provide arms to Ireland for open insurrection.   The very timing of that rebellion was contingent on this shipment arriving in Ireland on Good Friday.  When the ship could not be offloaded, the captain scuttled it, leaving the Rebels with a meager supply of arms and ammunition.  

The threat of conscription in Ireland pushed many over the edge, the irony being that Irish men were being badgered and cajoled into the British Army so that "small nations might be free", when their own small nation was anything BUT free under British rule.  After the execution by the British of the leaders of the rebellion, which had little public support until that moment, made it much more difficult for any self respecting Irishman to join the King's Army.  This popular song sums it up:

"As I was walking down the road
A feeling fine and larky oh
A recruiting Sergeant came up to me
And says you'd look fine in khaki oh
For the King he is in need of men
Come read this proclamation oh
A life in Flanders for you then
Would be a fine vacation now

That maybe so says I to him
But tell me sergent Dearie-oh
If I had a pack stuck upon me back
Would I look fine and cheerie oh
For they'd have you train and drill until
They had you one of Frenchies oh
It maybe warm in Flanders
But it's draughty in the trenches oh

The Sergeant smiled and winked his eye
His smile was most provoking oh
He twiddled and twirled his wee moustache
Says he I know your  joking oh
For the sandbags are so warm and high
The wind you won't feel blowing oh
Three winks at a colleen passing by
Says I what if it's snowing oh

Come rain or hail or wind or snow
I'm not going out to Flanders oh
There's fighting in Dublin to be done
Let your Sergeants and Commanders go
Let Englishmen  for England fight
It's nearly time they started oh
I salute the Sergeant a very good night
And there and then we parted oh"

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 10:23:54 AM EDT
tagged for home
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 10:30:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 10:34:45 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Post from Jarhead_22:

Of course, the British kept the most economically strong and developed part when they agreed to partition.

The British 'kept' Ulster because the vast najority of the folks there were Protestant Scots Irish who had no inclination to join with the Roman Catholics in the South, and maintained their allegiance to the British Crown.

That Ulster was the 'most economically strong' part of Ireland is debatable, but that may have resulted simply because of the good old Protestant work ethic and not because their land was more blessed with resources.

Eric The(Realistic)Hun



Well this begs the question of how Northern Ireland got to have Scotch-Irish majority.

And the answer is the British imported the Scotch into Ireland to do there murdering and oppressing for them… a common English practice, set one ethnic group against another they did it all over the world.  The English operated globally a lot like Democrats operate internally here.

One of Ben Franklin’s chief motivations to push for American independence from England was his first hand observation of the barbaric treatment of the Irish via the Scotch-Irish; he was horrified by what he saw in Ireland.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top