52 Comments

• kurtjohnson | Jan 01, 2011, 02:50 AM EST

  The british artificially forced three distinct groups into a country to promote and exploit internal conflict - it's not really disputable. The same tactic and results in Afghanistan where the Pashtun nation was artificially divided - a large percentage residing in Northern Pakistan. The "british" (a contrived bolshevik term to begin with) are not native to North America either.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 23, 2010, 11:03 AM EST

  Kurtjohnson – agree much of your comparison Iraq –Saudi, but I think your i.e. should be an e.g. – SH not so good with the Kurds or Marsh Arabs, though. I befriended some Christian families in Baghdad, and they said the best time for them in Iraq was under the British Mandate, as they were generally more educated than their Muslim neighbours…they said the Brits tried to keep ethnic balance, and did not defer to the tribal leaders as readily as later. The planters had been resident for a lot longer than most Irish Americans in USA, and more could have been done to ‘reach out’ to the less strident of them, but it did not accord with the AOH view that ‘Ulster must follow’.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 09:38 PM EST

  Edit - I meant Iran not Iraq in the second to last post. Of course, the british terror state created Iraq as three ethnicities/branches of Islam that hated each other so that they could never unite and rise against imperialism. Of course, with a small middle class and no hope of stable consensus, the only logical regime is a dictatorship. Notably, Hussein's regime was much more tolerant than britain's primary ally in the region, Saudi Arabia (i.e. his foreign minister was Christian).

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 09:31 PM EST

  @ DanOLoingsigh If the UK was a "unitary state" as you allege, why didn't the property laws which protected tenants in England protect the indigenous Irish from eviction during the 1800s?

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 09:27 PM EST

  Britain creates and promotes terror all over the world. The occupied counties (O6) were certainly a terror state for the indigenous residents (and still are in many ways). Unfortunately for british citizens, the british terror state is slowly importing the techniques of oppression it perfected in the O6 to the british mainland. Ever ask yourself what created the conditions for a dictatorship in Iraq after the british toppled the peaceful democratic regime in 1956 and put the repressive Shah in power as their puppet? Yes, partition was an artificial division so that the planters could create a south africa style supremacists state with the intention of driving out and oppressing the indigenous people.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 01:50 PM EST

  Kurt, I have lived and worked in some genuine ‘Terror States’ including Milosevic’s Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, so you’ll forgive me if I demur from your extremist republican hyperbole. Partition was at the behest of the Unionist Irish, and even republican paramilitaries eventually accepted that their consent would be needed to effect a United Ireland… they refused to be bombed and bullied into one.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 20, 2010, 08:09 PM EST

  @DanOLoingsigh The terror state was a "unitary state" in name only - it was a form of ongoing medieval proto-bolshevism without the consent of the original captive nations let alone the Irish people. Put simply, it had/has no legitimate basis other than force. The notion that the terror state was even close to being a "democracy" b/f WWI is a grotesque fraud. Even today it remains today in substance a class/caste driven oligarchy only functioning in form as a hybrid monarchy-republic (i.e. the City of London has much more power/influence than the crown). Let's see your evidence that both sides had equal excesses - the british terror state clearly targeted civilian non-combatants for harrassment, torture, and murder as it has all over the world. See the Report of the American Commission on the Condition in Ireland - primarily Protestant in membership - for a realistic picture of terror state atrocities during this period. Partition was a tool to promote sectarian violence against the indigenous people still trapped in the occupied six - do you seriously dispute that this divide was promoted and exacerbated by the government? I do not begrudge the Irish leaders who chose partition given that the british terror state, as threatened, would have unleashed a holocaust against non-combatants (the tan war was a prelude to this).

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 06:18 PM EST

  Seanomelbourne – I am more than happy to condemn British excesses in Ireland, Black & Tans etc; there were excesses on both sides, something that’s not easily accepted by some. Sorry Sean, but it is a fact that the 3rd Home Rule bill did pass into law on 18 September 1914 as ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 90) the references in brackets show that it was on the statute book. It was suspended for the duration of the war, and never implemented due to the War of Independence, and then the Treaty - another area of debate, either a ‘sell out’ or the ‘half a loaf’ argument, depending on ones point of view; the Irish negotiators faced an impossible dilemma, and did what they believed was right at the time. Others disagree, as is their right.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 20, 2010, 05:31 PM EST

  Dan seems to be a fence sitter unable to condemn British excesses in Ireland. You do have a right to free speech,but at least show your true colours. The home rule bill never passed into law as it was stymied (twice) by the house of lords. it was never passed to the lords for a third reading the reason being,it would automatically become law and/or because of the Curragh mutiny when British officers refused to carry out the government orders. whether the lords passed it or not.Britain to it's chagrin lost Ireland by dishonouring it's promise of Home Rule.So much for British democracy and as i said previously the British high command was more powerful than parliament.

• KevinKehoe | Dec 20, 2010, 03:14 PM EST

  For anyone interested a fascinating new book mainly about Roger Casement's time in Germany with the Irish Brigade has been published in Ireland by Choice Publishing.ie this year. It was written by Casement's recruiting officer Capt.Michael Keogh, but was stolen from his death bed in 1964 and recovered in 2005.It goes into great detail of what went on in Germany and the camps from a source untapped before.Some of Brigade went on to fight on the Western Front with Germany others as Hamburg Dock Police who were then in a position to help smuggle arms to Ireland for the War of Independence.The book is "With Casement's Irish Brigade" also points out that none of the 5o volunteers got assistance from the Irish state after the wars.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 01:23 PM EST

  WoundedKnee – I am not trying to ‘deal with’ the topic, just give a different viewpoint. I am not expecting others to necessarily agree, but I would not suggest anyone ‘quits posting’, given free speech and all that, so just what parts of the 0531 post do you find inaccurate or stupid. I am keen to learn

• WoundedKnee | Dec 20, 2010, 09:40 AM EST

  DanOLoingsigh: Your simplistic Anglophile analysis is quite inadequate to deal with this topic. I suggest you quit posting--or better still, instead of stupid statements offer some thoughtful questions and we will try to help you learn.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 05:31 AM EST

  @kurtjohnson. The UK, then a unitary state including all of Ireland, had a well developed parliamentary system, successfully exported across the world. The 1910 General Election mandated the IPP to seek ‘Home Rule’, which was accepted and passed into law Compare and contrast that with the USA and what happened when some of their states ‘voted for independence’ in 1860. 1916 needs to be viewed from more than one perspective…partition was seen as a temporary fix mitigating sectarian violence…I’m not saying that was right or wrong, I am saying that the men who made that choice were between a rock and a hard place…simplistic Anglophobe analysis does them a grave disservice.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 19, 2010, 11:32 PM EST

  @DanOLoingsigh When was it again that the british terror state gave the Irish people a right to vote for their independence? Re Canada and the other Commonwealth nations, I wasn't aware that they had been artificially bifurcated against their will for the purpose of promoting sectarian violence. Also, Canada has at various times had strong Franco secessionist movements. Additionally, in most of these countries the british terror state managed to nearly exterminate the indigenous people whereas they weren't as successful in Ireland.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 19, 2010, 08:25 PM EST

  I am well aware of the events leading up to his death that was not the point. He was arrested by Collins Free State cohorts for carrying a pistol.A pearl handled colt a wedding gift from Collins.

• bridgetony52 | Dec 19, 2010, 06:50 PM EST

  Erskine Childers was executed by Free State officers in 1922, not the British.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 19, 2010, 05:56 PM EST

  Most blogger's on this subject seem to "generally" agree on the historical details. Casement was vilified by the British,there were allegations of forged diaries and homosexuality. Another British diplomat known to Casement was Erskine Childers and he to was denigrated by the British led by Stanley Baldwin. They embarrassed their British masters. and both paid the ultimate price for their principals.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 19, 2010, 01:28 PM EST

  My thanks to those posters who alerted me to the fact that this site has made a mess of my posting. For the record, I DID write the note which commences "Supporters of violence like OLoonsigh should be forced to justify their hatred and bigotry". I stand over that note, as I stand over all attacks on the violence and imperialism that OLoonigh has been advocating here. I DID NOT write the post which commences "KevinKehoe – seanomelbourne – The history of Ireland is a lot more complex...". In fact I could never have written such pro-imperialist trash. I call on Irish Central to wake up, start controlling and monitoring posts in a professional manner, cut out the laziness and sloppiness that characterizes this site, and remove my name from that particular piece of garbage.

• bridgetony52 | Dec 19, 2010, 09:12 AM EST

  GeorgeDillon, I agree that Tom Crean was an Irish Hero, and you should not feel ashamed by what any of your ancestors got up to, but am a little confused by the rest of it?

• KevinKehoe | Dec 19, 2010, 08:47 AM EST

  I'm confused to GeorgeDillon, I think you may have forgotten who you are or who you were judging by you last two posts.

• londonirishtom | Dec 19, 2010, 08:17 AM EST

  GeorgeDillon, am confused when you say you have an RIC man in your family, and in the next post that you don’t? Don’t worry, you can’t help who your ancestors were; it’s what you do with your life that counts, not folks who were dead long before you came along.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 19, 2010, 07:49 AM EST

  With regard to the guy who appears proud of his RIC ancestor, it should be remembered that it was the RIC in Kerry who arrested Casement and dragged him off to be hanged in London. The RIC were England's eyes and ears and thugs in Ireland. I thank God I have no RIC ancestry, on the contrary my forefathers fought to protect the Irish Republic against enemies foreign and native.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 19, 2010, 07:25 AM EST

  KevinKehoe – seanomelbourne – The history of Ireland is a lot more complex than most people are now prepared to admit, and may be read many ways; We are all subjective in how we use the sources. I am attempting to show that not everyone AT THE TIME thought that an independent Ireland was the right course to take; this included many both Protestant and Catholic. In my family tree I have forebears who took both views, including a ‘Rebel Priest’ and an RIC man. They had their own reasons. In the First World War, thousands of Irishmen busied themselves building warships; others bred and sold many thousands of horses for cavalry regiments, so there was plenty of active support for the war effort. When they found themselves on the ‘wrong’ side, Tom Crean and many more had to take a ‘vow of silence’ when they came home…is it not time that their voices were heard?

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 19, 2010, 04:52 AM EST

  Supporters of violence like OLoonsigh should be forced to justify their hatred and bigotry. OLoonsigh, do you condemn the mass killing in Europe perpetrated between 1914 and 1918 by the political forces you admire? Specifically, do you feel shame for the perhaps 50,000 people killed by Irishmen serving in the British Armed Forces in that period? Shame on you if you support murder and mayhem, just because Irishmen were doing the killing.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 19, 2010, 02:27 AM EST

  Again you misread history,the Unionists were invited to sit in the first parliament(in fact some did).They rejected the majority and ran away to Carson and (Churchill an anti-Irish bigot). Carson on his death bed regretted his stance on an independent Ireland.

• KevinKehoe | Dec 18, 2010, 09:20 PM EST

  Ah now Dan come on,some politicians then and now say one thing and do another. Mr Redmond was chosen and was soon found out by the people. He preached of liberty and freedom for the Irish people but al-lass no action to that end.In fact quite the opposite, he helped on behalf of Britain to persuade Irishmen, some hungry for freedom, others for a wage to fill empty stomachs to volunteer and fight with there only enemy on this earth at that time and die in there thousands as cannon fodder.I know and I'm delighted that relations between Ireland and Briton are on the up since the Good Friday Agreement and may they stay that way but we can learn from truthful history and not always believe what politicians and some media say. W.M.D might ring a bell in the US or on a financial theme the lies the recent Irish Government have been telling there people.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 18, 2010, 08:36 PM EST

  KevinKehoe, you are correct, I am quoting contemporary historical figures, not modern and not filtered through a green-tinted prism. I am quoting a former US President…and John Redmond was the Irish peoples choice at the time, so who are you or I to say they were wrong?

• KevinKehoe | Dec 18, 2010, 08:26 PM EST

  Dan O Loingsign must think he’s writing to a tabloid back in 1900’s and that people still believe all the fairy tales that politicians tell,[come to think of it politicians are still telling them] so that there country men will fight and die for a cause that really is about making the Internationals Bankers and arms manufactures even more wealthy than they need to be. Especially when they finance and arm both sides in the conflict as thay did in the First World War. Dan quotes former US President Taft as saying German militarism is a cancer which must be cut out by a surgical operation. That was some surgery, 9 million men died in the trenches. Up to WW1 the British Empire was the biggest military power. Germany and Europe was bursting at the seems and needed to expand but Britain was having none of it as she controlled the high seas and wanted to keep the status quoi. History records now that Germany offered the Allies in 1916 unconditional peace terms while they had the upper hand. But after talks with Bankers based in Germany, London and New York Britain refused after they were promised America would be persuaded to join the war on the side of the Allies. President Woodrow Wilson got elected on a mandate from the American people that he would not drag America into the war. A few months later he broke his promise. [Sounds familiar] Dan I recommend you read or listen to two speech’s by two great American Presidents. First Presidents Eisenhower’s last speech to the Nation and President J.F. Kennedy speech on secret societies and if you have time read Ireland, Germany and the Freedom of the Seas by Roger Casement a great Irish Patriot and humanitarian of all peoples.

• KevinKehoe | Dec 18, 2010, 08:24 PM EST

  I think Dan O Loingsign must be in a time warp. He seems to be quoting history writing and printed in a bygone age by news media feed by powerful propaganda from the British establishment of the time and not by credible writers and historians then and since. Remembering one of the first acts Britain took was to cut the transatlantic cables from mainland Europe leaving there own in place. By doing so only there side of what was going on in Europe would be told. The first of the untruths was as we know now was the outrages claim that German soldiers were raping nuns and massacring children in the small nation Belgium. The same Belgium under King Leopold which was responsible for the torture and genocide of the peoples of the Congo first exposed by Roger Casement just a few years earlier. As for Home Rule for Ireland it was simply a ploy? Pass it then suspend it and with the help of John Redmond, promised the bold Paddy if he fights and dies in there thousands against Germany. A country that never harmed, oppressed the Irish people, or practiced genocide at the time of the so called famine [one crop failed] and denied its people democracy, then the British Empire might grant home rule. Looking back at it now it was ludicrous. Ireland was the small nation overrun by tyranny. After WWI at the Treaty of Versailles the Allied powers would not even discuss Ireland plight, says a lot about there concern for the welfare of small nations. I think they were too busy carving up there new Empires.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 18, 2010, 07:31 PM EST

  Seanomelbourne, the 3rd Home Rule Bill DID become law, but was suspended on the outbreak of World War One. I’m not trying to ignore 1918, but chronologically it did come after 1916, so cannot be relevant for the rising. I agree that the will of the majority of the Irish people in 1918 was for an independent republic, but nobody could find a way to coerce or persuade the unionists into that republic. The view at the time was that the ‘six county’ mini state was a very temporary solution. This has not proven to be the case, and let’s face it, Southern politicians made very little effort to win over the unionists, perhaps because in an ‘ALL IRELAND’ context, who ever the unionists backed could form the government.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 18, 2010, 06:51 PM EST

  Your "selective" reading material amuses me.Regards

• seanomelbourne | Dec 18, 2010, 06:51 PM EST

  If you wish to compare Ireland to Australia here's another fact for you. In the mid 1930's the state of Western Australia voted to secede from what was then called the "Dominion of Australia".The privy council brought down a judgment"Unless the majority of the people of Australia voted for the secession of W.A. it must remain part of Australia.I inform you of the above just to compare the duplicity of the British.What was good for Australia and damn the majority of the Irish people and what they voted for(their is still a strong secessionist movement in W.A.)

• seanomelbourne | Dec 18, 2010, 06:40 PM EST

  Dan claims to be all knowing on all things "Casement". To state that " Ireland is harvesting the fruits of the rising"is at least disingenuous and at most a narrow view of Irish history. We are harvesting the fruits of centuries of British suppression which you seem to ignore. The act of union was foisted on the Irish people and left us economically barren. Your deliberate attempt to ignore the 1918 election in which the majority voted for a republic(including Ulster 56%).Twice the Home Rule Act was passed by the British parliament and in true British fashion they reneged(A third passage of the act would have passed it into law without the need for approval by the house of Lords.)

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 18, 2010, 03:09 PM EST

  Its simply not true that Irish voters consistently voted for a repeal of the Act of Union; the main southern party, John Redmond’s Irish Parliamentary Party, had campaigned on a ‘Home Rule’ ticket, heavily endorsed by the electorate in the December 1910 General Election, with 74 seats out of the 103 available at Westminster. The Home Rule Act was passed in 1914, but suspended for the duration of the war. The 1916 rising was organised and executed by a very small and disparate group of extremists, with no political mandate, and was condemned by most Irish at the time. Retrospective endorsement followed, after the execution of some of the leaders, and the traumatic years that followed. The Ireland of today is still harvesting the bitter fruits of the rising and its aftermath; compare and contrast politics in Ireland with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all were part of the ‘Evil Empire’.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 18, 2010, 03:08 PM EST

  NOT SO DIFFERENT GERMANY…(German) militarism is a cancer which must be cut out by a surgical operation. It shows its malignant character in the utter disregard of the rules of war. It shows itself in the violation of Belgium, in the policy of frightfulness in order to subjugate Belgium; in the violation of The Hague treaties…and all violated promptly by this German military machine. Former US President W H Taft, Union College, Schenectady, N.Y., 13 June 1917

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 18, 2010, 01:09 AM EST

  I think OLoonsigh is confusing Hindenburg with Hitler. Different war, different Germany, O Loonsigh. And I suspect he never heard of the famous slogan of Connolly's Citizen Army. In fact it was the vicious revenge that Britain et al took on Germany in the form of the Treaty of Versailles (very similar to loan arangements forced on Ireland by Germany et al a few weeks back) that caused the drift towards extremism and despair in that country. As to militarism and expansionism, Britain had vast colonial settlements throughout the world, and was happy to use force to keep them (India, South Africa etc.). A small nation like Ireland situated a hundred miles from the biggest imperialist power in history had to look to alliances with other countries, just as the United Irishmen had done more than a century earlier, and indeed the American Republic had done a couple of decades previous to that. As to human rights, in Casement's time there were many people alive in Ireland and elsewhere who had survived the near genocide of the so-called Famine. There were also countless graves strewn around the country of those who hadn't. As to democracy, from the time the franchise was reformed around 1830 Irish voters had consistently voted for national democracy and a repeal of the Act of Union. By Casement's time that was about 80 years of elections in which people who wanted more independence for Ireland had been elected. And it was eighty years in which Britain had thwarted this democratic demand for freedom.

• plasticpaddy | Dec 17, 2010, 09:05 PM EST

  Also apply your own argument to Britain and your point seems silly and to only further the argument that Casement made.

• plasticpaddy | Dec 17, 2010, 09:04 PM EST

  Who had the power to declare war Dan?

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 17, 2010, 06:19 PM EST

  Plasticpaddy, I can assure you I have read a number of books on the subject…by 1916 Germany was effectively a military dictatorship led by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, this would have been apparent to Casement during his time there.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 17, 2010, 05:49 PM EST

  Mr Seanomelbourne…Casement’s own rationale to encourage German assistance was that trouble in Ireland would mean less British troops on the Western Front, and so help Germany in its war with Britain, France and later the USA. To say that would not assist the German 2nd Reich is the fiction, and the mantra of the Irish Citizen Army is disingenuous. Any student of European history can see a continuous line of German expansion and aggression from the rise of the 2nd Reich to the final destruction of the 3rd Reich, to the lasting benefit of the World.

• plasticpaddy | Dec 17, 2010, 05:42 PM EST

  DanOLoinsigh, it was a Constitutional Monarchy not a military dictatorship, jeez read a history book.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 17, 2010, 05:12 PM EST

  Mr. O Loinsigh has it all wrong.To use the mantra of the Irish Citizen Army "WE serve neither king or Kaiser" or maybe to use a more modern parlance "my enemies enemies are my friends" By the way Germany at the time had a constitutional monarchy with a powerful military similar to Britain. Your confusing facts with fiction.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 17, 2010, 04:47 PM EST

  In my opinion Casement’s support of a German military dictatorship, in a war against the democracies, eventually including the USA, was tragically misguided rather than heroic. The world would be a very different place if his ‘friends’ had succeeded.

• bostonblakie | Dec 17, 2010, 04:46 PM EST

  Looks to me like he was a decent man.

• Selouscout | Dec 17, 2010, 04:30 PM EST

  @ GeorgeDillon You do not seem to have a very high opinion of people from Ireland. This makes me wonder why you bother to waste your time on this site.

• maireadinmelb | Dec 17, 2010, 04:02 PM EST

  A hero not just for Ireland, but for mankind!

• ancavker | Dec 17, 2010, 03:53 PM EST

  George: Many irish probably nver heard of him. They don' teach irish history in irish schools. The general line and ethos of th elite in Ireland over the last 30 years or so is the following. the 1916 rising was a blood fest led by a bunch of blooed crazed wackos headed by a non straight half English man. The ensuing war of iendependence was another blood fest where by The ruthlesss gunmen of the IRA destroyed Ireland. Had the Irish only been a little more patient, England would have very generously and nobly given the mere Irish a little talk shop in Dublin called home rule.

• Irishphotograph | Dec 17, 2010, 03:49 PM EST

  Roger Casement and my ancestor John Devoy (IRB) were comrades.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 17, 2010, 03:36 PM EST

  Casements mission accomplished after nearly a century…German aid successfully lands in Dublin.

• Derrylass627 | Dec 17, 2010, 10:05 AM EST

  Roger Casement, himself a persecuted man, was a great Irishman and it's about time people understood he was more than just a patriot for the Irish cause, but for the cause of equality in all of humankind.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 17, 2010, 08:49 AM EST

  Casement was surely the greatest Irishman of all time. It shows you the empty-headed banality of the current generation of Irish people that he was not even listed by them in a poll for the top five greatest Irish people. Instead overpaid charlatans like McAleese, Bono and Robinson were nominated. McAleese gets not far off a half-million bucks for her "work". Casement got the prison cell and the scaffold. The Irish are really ignornat and without roots right now.

• bluetit | Dec 17, 2010, 06:08 AM EST

  Casement brought the boys home to Peru and they became servants to the British consul in Iquitos. But they wanted to go back to the forest. The consul's wife, Mrs Michell, later wrote: "About Ricudo and Omo, I was very sorry to leave Iquitos without knowing their whereabouts. I tried again and again to find out where they had gone but unsuccessfully, except for a report from a Spanish woman in the Arica who said Omo had gone away on a launch as he was bent upon getting to the Putumayo. When we moved to the Cazes’ flat, Ricudo and his wife seemed very pleased with the change and quite happy and we thought would perhaps stay especially as the Captain of Arana’s Company’s steamer refused to take them – but Ricudo hated work and said he was “tired of it” and must get away to the woods! We could not think where they had gone and never saw them after they left us. I knew you would be disappointed but it was inevitable.”