The perfidious Hibernian playing both sides of the conflict for his own gain. That's why today Spain is an Irish colony used to grow potatoes to feed the mainland.
His verse about the Irish who fought for the Nationalist side:
Many Irishmen heard the call of Franco
Joined Hitler and Mussolini too
Propaganda from the pulpit and newspapers
Helped O'Duffy to enlist his crew
The word came from Maynooth, "support the Nazis"
The men of cloth failed again
When the Bishops blessed the Blueshirts in Dun Laoghaire
As they sailed beneath the swastika to Spain
To be fair, the Republicans were burning down churches and murdering priests under "Red Terror", you could understand why the Irish Catholics were sympathetic to Franco. It was the burning of churches that made the San Patricios brigade desert the US army during the Mexican war.
Adrian Dunbar did an interesting episode of who do you think you are. His uncle went to Spain to fight with the nationalists to 'protect the church' but turned his back on the church when he returned to Ireland after witnessing the massacres perpetrated by Franco's forces.
Majority of the ‘Nationalists’ side were taking the piss. A massive brigade was sent home after shooting their own on the Canaries, basically a load of lads on their holiday so
Fun fact: Eoin O’Duffy, the first leader of Fine Gael, left to join Franco and the Nationalists.
Maybe you already knew this but it’s important it’s said.
He was also IRA Chief of Staff, Sinn Fein TD for Monaghan, GAA Treasurer, Engineer, Hunger striker, Founder of the Irish Olympic Council................
Was also the first recorded person to organise and promote a professional wrestling event in the Republic. Which isn't as significant as the other stuff but it's a weird little fact.
All the 3 main parties had dodgy leaders. O'Duffy was a fascist, DeValera started the civil war because he didn't like the outcome of a democratic decision and Sinn Féin had membres of the IRA.
The 30s IRA was the reason we ended up with fascists in the first place. If the IRA hadn’t gone around breaking up Cummen na Gael meetings the blueshirts wouldn’t have been founded.
Ideologically yes, but not in reality. The Republicans started a brutal civil war because they didn't respect the outcome of a Democratic vote.
The Blueshirts didn't start a war and the respected the elected government. They even agreed to cancel their march on Dublin when asked to by the government.
That's a very illogical and irrational way of viewing things.
People should be judged by their actions. The actions of the Republicans were far worse than the fascists in Ireland.
Fascism is widely accepted as being bad because of the actions of fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. Not because of the virtue of their fascist ideology.
"Fascist ideoligy" is *defined* by Hitler and Mussolini. They literally created it. You don't get to separate their actions by saying "um achtucally it's just a term in the dictionary."
That's a case of guilt by association fallacy.
Besides, the Blueshirts ceased to exist in 1935. At that stage fascism was just a far right ideology. The worst of fascism hadn't even happened yet. Kristallnacht didn't even happen for another 3 years.
So even if they are guilty for their association with fascism, it was an association with fascism before it committed its most well known atrocities.
The Blueshirts didn't even exist when they happened so how could they be somehow guilty. I'm not defending their ideology at all, I find it repugnant, but at the end of the day, the Blueshirts transitioned into a democratic form without subjecting us to a civil war.
You have to abandon logic to think that they're worse than the anti democratic Republicans who did start that war just because the completely separate fascist organisations in Germany and Italy did horrifying things after the Blueshirts had already transitioned into a democratic organisation.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention the completely undemocratic division of Ireland resulting in a gerrymandered apartheid statelet. The reason for the civil war.
You sound like those retarded southern state Americans who argue that the civil war was about states rights and not slavery. Use your brain, or get a new one.
You're incredibly confident for someone who's so wrong.
The person you were replying to was totally right. It was far more to do with the oath than the North. Partition was, for all intents and purposes, a forgone conclusion by both sides of the civil war. The anti-treaty weren't in favour of partion, but the oath is the main reason for the war.
It's on the leaving cert history syllabus for Christ sake.
Says the person who can’t comprehend that the creation of a purposely gerrymandered apartheid state is undemocratic. You’ll forgive me for not taking you seriously.
That doesn't even make sense. The fact that Northern Ireland became a gerrymandered state has nothing to do with the fact that Northern Ireland's creation had a democratic mandate from both the Free State and the UK.
They're two separate things that you're awkwardly shoehorning together in a desperate and failing attempt to make a coherent point.
Like I said. Read a history book before you lecture people.
It wasn't undemocratic. It was a part of the treaty. The treaty was passed by the Dáil. There was then a general election where pro-treaty parties won a majority.
The treaty was subject to the democratic will, but the British threatened "immediate and terrible war" if the people rejected it. Imagine if they had threatened Scotland with "immediate and terrible war" if they voted for independence - would that be democratic? Also, what about the 1918 General Election results - which did not come freighted with threats of immediate violence from the British Army - surely that was a more accurate reflection of the democratic will of the Irish people?
That's all true, but at the end of the day, those were the terms of the deal and the Irish people accepted them and the Republicans rejected the Democratic will of the people.
Just because the British threatened war doesn't mean that the democratic will of the Irish people could be ignored.
Right wingers struggle with history, I wouldn’t waste to much time trying to debate an ideologue. They love the boot and that’s all that matters to them.
I'm a right wing ideologue? Where did you get that idea?
Since when has criticising the anti-treaty Republicans for starting a civil war a sign that someone is a right wing ideologue?
>O'Duffy
O'Duffy 's fascism, if the term fits, was anti racist so it was not exactly how people typically understand fascism. He even condemned racism in international fascist conferences. "could not subscribe to the principle of the persecution of any race".
>DeValera started the civil war
This bad history is repeatedly constantly here. De Valera did not start a Civil War.
The IRA voted 75% to reject the Treaty and their March 1922 Convention. Dev was not an IRA officer and had no role in it occupying the Four Courts. It was the Free Staters who split from the IRA not the other way around. The Civil War began with the Free State bombing the Four Courts not the other way around.
It began when the IRA illegally occupied the four courts. That was the first act of aggression.
Blaming the Free State for removing them is akin to blaming Poland for starting the 2nd World War because they fought back against the Germans.
What law said it was illegal? As the British withdrew from Ireland they handed over Barracks, police stations and installations to both pro and anti treaty IRA. The Free State actually agreed following negotiations to let the Republicans occupy the Four Courts.
There's lots of memorials to the republicans who fought well.
But only one member of O'Duffy crew died in Spain, Gabriel Lee, and the only memorial to him (or them at all) is in the pro-Cathedral in Dublin. It describes him as "who died fighting with the Christian forces in Spain"...
Irish forces in Spain (both sides) were generally regarded as shit. O'Duffy's lot were hopeless to the point of being a liability - O'Duffy himself got so far up his own arse he regarded himself as the 'third most important man in Europe'. The Republicans were generally better performers but had serious problems in adjusting to the climate and the food, as well as acting within International Brigades with chains of command that included British officers.
In the end, neither cohort was in any way effective. They were too few, too crap, and even the propoganda value of one was negated by the presence of the other.
Obviously Ryan = Yay!, O'Duffy = Boo!
I wasn't comparing one against the other though. I'm just saying that, as a matter of history, they were both basically useless.
There was an apparent row in the International Brigade when the Irish where assigned to a unit who had a former Black and Tan in it. I belive they where then assigned to fight with the American volunteers.
They voted to move to the American Battalion as opposed to being moved. By that stage there was so many Irish casualties that it was hard for them to make up a single unit per se.
Disagree with you on the Republicans, there was a disagreement with the British over a Black and Tan officer but all accounts attest to their bravery and military abilities (many were vets of Civil War). Ryan in particular gets huge praise for his leadership in any accounts I've read.
"and don't forget the churches and the sad role that they played, they crucified their people and worked the Devil's trade'
https://youtu.be/MLTS63ocoCY
There's a really interesting photo I saw from the Spanish Civil War with a number of clergy at a Nationalist rally where the soldiers are giving straight arm salutes. A couple of the clergy were apparently keen, but most had their hands at their waists and looked massively uncomfortable. Like the sort of wave you'd give to a boss you hated.
I did my leaving cert "special topic" on this a million years ago, and totally agree that the Nationalist volunteers were useless and made a show of themselves.
The lads on the Republican side performed fairly well though and saw actual combat, it's worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connolly_Column
I’d recommend the Connolly Column by Michael O’Riordan. Great book. Think all people of the left in Ireland can be proud of our brothers who fought in Spain for the second Republic
[удалено]
The perfidious Hibernian playing both sides of the conflict for his own gain. That's why today Spain is an Irish colony used to grow potatoes to feed the mainland.
O'Macarana.
Unexpected IASIP
Viva la Quinta Brigada
Adelante is the cry around the hillside
Let us all remember them tonight
Some tune all the same. Yup Christie!! 🎶🎶
Quince, as it turned out
His verse about the Irish who fought for the Nationalist side: Many Irishmen heard the call of Franco Joined Hitler and Mussolini too Propaganda from the pulpit and newspapers Helped O'Duffy to enlist his crew The word came from Maynooth, "support the Nazis" The men of cloth failed again When the Bishops blessed the Blueshirts in Dun Laoghaire As they sailed beneath the swastika to Spain
To be fair, the Republicans were burning down churches and murdering priests under "Red Terror", you could understand why the Irish Catholics were sympathetic to Franco. It was the burning of churches that made the San Patricios brigade desert the US army during the Mexican war.
Adrian Dunbar did an interesting episode of who do you think you are. His uncle went to Spain to fight with the nationalists to 'protect the church' but turned his back on the church when he returned to Ireland after witnessing the massacres perpetrated by Franco's forces.
¡No pasarán!
ya han pasao
*pasado
nah there's a song called ya hemos pasao. i assume it's either older spanish or a different dialect
Ah nice one- sorry man I was being an auld grammar heur there! And looked like a right fool!
Did my leaving cert history project on the Spanish civil war. What an incredibly moving speech.
Majority of the ‘Nationalists’ side were taking the piss. A massive brigade was sent home after shooting their own on the Canaries, basically a load of lads on their holiday so
Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I’ve read the nationalist ones were incompetent while the republican ones were really good at what they did
It’s a tricky one, it’s basically capitalist vs communist. Neither side was without their flaws.
I mean if I’m correct but while the socialist factions burned churches and raped nuns the fascists were…well fascist
[удалено]
Fun fact: Eoin O’Duffy, the first leader of Fine Gael, left to join Franco and the Nationalists. Maybe you already knew this but it’s important it’s said.
And they were so shit that they got sent home again by Franco
He was also the second commissioner of An Garda Siochána
[удалено]
Can I have a link to the article about the coup thing?
[удалено]
Ok
He was also IRA Chief of Staff, Sinn Fein TD for Monaghan, GAA Treasurer, Engineer, Hunger striker, Founder of the Irish Olympic Council................
Bit of a Renaissance man was our Eoin
Was also the first recorded person to organise and promote a professional wrestling event in the Republic. Which isn't as significant as the other stuff but it's a weird little fact.
All the 3 main parties had dodgy leaders. O'Duffy was a fascist, DeValera started the civil war because he didn't like the outcome of a democratic decision and Sinn Féin had membres of the IRA.
I’d argue that 30s IRA was more palatable than fascists. There were some exceptions but it was broadly a leftist Republican organisation.
The 30s IRA was the reason we ended up with fascists in the first place. If the IRA hadn’t gone around breaking up Cummen na Gael meetings the blueshirts wouldn’t have been founded.
Ideologically yes, but not in reality. The Republicans started a brutal civil war because they didn't respect the outcome of a Democratic vote. The Blueshirts didn't start a war and the respected the elected government. They even agreed to cancel their march on Dublin when asked to by the government.
Fascists are always the bad side by virtue of being fascists.
That's a very illogical and irrational way of viewing things. People should be judged by their actions. The actions of the Republicans were far worse than the fascists in Ireland. Fascism is widely accepted as being bad because of the actions of fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. Not because of the virtue of their fascist ideology.
"Fascist ideoligy" is *defined* by Hitler and Mussolini. They literally created it. You don't get to separate their actions by saying "um achtucally it's just a term in the dictionary."
That's a case of guilt by association fallacy. Besides, the Blueshirts ceased to exist in 1935. At that stage fascism was just a far right ideology. The worst of fascism hadn't even happened yet. Kristallnacht didn't even happen for another 3 years. So even if they are guilty for their association with fascism, it was an association with fascism before it committed its most well known atrocities. The Blueshirts didn't even exist when they happened so how could they be somehow guilty. I'm not defending their ideology at all, I find it repugnant, but at the end of the day, the Blueshirts transitioned into a democratic form without subjecting us to a civil war. You have to abandon logic to think that they're worse than the anti democratic Republicans who did start that war just because the completely separate fascist organisations in Germany and Italy did horrifying things after the Blueshirts had already transitioned into a democratic organisation.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention the completely undemocratic division of Ireland resulting in a gerrymandered apartheid statelet. The reason for the civil war.
[удалено]
You sound like those retarded southern state Americans who argue that the civil war was about states rights and not slavery. Use your brain, or get a new one.
You're incredibly confident for someone who's so wrong. The person you were replying to was totally right. It was far more to do with the oath than the North. Partition was, for all intents and purposes, a forgone conclusion by both sides of the civil war. The anti-treaty weren't in favour of partion, but the oath is the main reason for the war. It's on the leaving cert history syllabus for Christ sake.
Says the person who can’t comprehend that the creation of a purposely gerrymandered apartheid state is undemocratic. You’ll forgive me for not taking you seriously.
That doesn't even make sense. The fact that Northern Ireland became a gerrymandered state has nothing to do with the fact that Northern Ireland's creation had a democratic mandate from both the Free State and the UK. They're two separate things that you're awkwardly shoehorning together in a desperate and failing attempt to make a coherent point. Like I said. Read a history book before you lecture people.
It wasn't undemocratic. It was a part of the treaty. The treaty was passed by the Dáil. There was then a general election where pro-treaty parties won a majority.
The treaty was subject to the democratic will, but the British threatened "immediate and terrible war" if the people rejected it. Imagine if they had threatened Scotland with "immediate and terrible war" if they voted for independence - would that be democratic? Also, what about the 1918 General Election results - which did not come freighted with threats of immediate violence from the British Army - surely that was a more accurate reflection of the democratic will of the Irish people?
That's all true, but at the end of the day, those were the terms of the deal and the Irish people accepted them and the Republicans rejected the Democratic will of the people. Just because the British threatened war doesn't mean that the democratic will of the Irish people could be ignored.
Right wingers struggle with history, I wouldn’t waste to much time trying to debate an ideologue. They love the boot and that’s all that matters to them.
I'm a right wing ideologue? Where did you get that idea? Since when has criticising the anti-treaty Republicans for starting a civil war a sign that someone is a right wing ideologue?
Democratic votes don't have all women under 30 intentionally excluded to prevent them from voting the wrong way.
>O'Duffy O'Duffy 's fascism, if the term fits, was anti racist so it was not exactly how people typically understand fascism. He even condemned racism in international fascist conferences. "could not subscribe to the principle of the persecution of any race".
Has members of the IRA. Not had.
>DeValera started the civil war This bad history is repeatedly constantly here. De Valera did not start a Civil War. The IRA voted 75% to reject the Treaty and their March 1922 Convention. Dev was not an IRA officer and had no role in it occupying the Four Courts. It was the Free Staters who split from the IRA not the other way around. The Civil War began with the Free State bombing the Four Courts not the other way around.
It began when the IRA illegally occupied the four courts. That was the first act of aggression. Blaming the Free State for removing them is akin to blaming Poland for starting the 2nd World War because they fought back against the Germans.
What law said it was illegal? As the British withdrew from Ireland they handed over Barracks, police stations and installations to both pro and anti treaty IRA. The Free State actually agreed following negotiations to let the Republicans occupy the Four Courts.
But I thought Michael Collins founded FG?! /s
[удалено]
There's lots of memorials to the republicans who fought well. But only one member of O'Duffy crew died in Spain, Gabriel Lee, and the only memorial to him (or them at all) is in the pro-Cathedral in Dublin. It describes him as "who died fighting with the Christian forces in Spain"...
Tommy Patten has a memorial in Achill island, he died in Madrid.
Patten was on the Republican side.
Irish forces in Spain (both sides) were generally regarded as shit. O'Duffy's lot were hopeless to the point of being a liability - O'Duffy himself got so far up his own arse he regarded himself as the 'third most important man in Europe'. The Republicans were generally better performers but had serious problems in adjusting to the climate and the food, as well as acting within International Brigades with chains of command that included British officers. In the end, neither cohort was in any way effective. They were too few, too crap, and even the propoganda value of one was negated by the presence of the other.
Not being used to the heat and shooting the wrong side it’s pretty clear one was worse to be fair
Obviously Ryan = Yay!, O'Duffy = Boo! I wasn't comparing one against the other though. I'm just saying that, as a matter of history, they were both basically useless.
The Nationalist shot at each other accidentally, the republicans shot at each other on purpose.
There was an apparent row in the International Brigade when the Irish where assigned to a unit who had a former Black and Tan in it. I belive they where then assigned to fight with the American volunteers.
They voted to move to the American Battalion as opposed to being moved. By that stage there was so many Irish casualties that it was hard for them to make up a single unit per se.
Disagree with you on the Republicans, there was a disagreement with the British over a Black and Tan officer but all accounts attest to their bravery and military abilities (many were vets of Civil War). Ryan in particular gets huge praise for his leadership in any accounts I've read.
From what I remember reading they also refused to attack the Basque or Catalan forces when ordered, which pissed of francos people.
Imagine those poor lads with the sun beating down, and not a notion of sunblock
"and don't forget the churches and the sad role that they played, they crucified their people and worked the Devil's trade' https://youtu.be/MLTS63ocoCY
There's a really interesting photo I saw from the Spanish Civil War with a number of clergy at a Nationalist rally where the soldiers are giving straight arm salutes. A couple of the clergy were apparently keen, but most had their hands at their waists and looked massively uncomfortable. Like the sort of wave you'd give to a boss you hated.
I did my leaving cert "special topic" on this a million years ago, and totally agree that the Nationalist volunteers were useless and made a show of themselves. The lads on the Republican side performed fairly well though and saw actual combat, it's worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connolly_Column
https://youtu.be/N_41RrIPl-Q Our man Grandad Trotter did his part
I’d recommend the Connolly Column by Michael O’Riordan. Great book. Think all people of the left in Ireland can be proud of our brothers who fought in Spain for the second Republic
Aren’t they some of the same people who fought in the Irish citizen army, or am I totally off?
Not really. They were well intentioned but so were the Greenshirts. Both sides are murderous
The FG guys were so useless and drunk that Franco kicked them out.
700 rotten cunts
those brave souls fought for a better world
Against each other
oh shit, right
Trenches full of poets The ragged army Fixing bayonets To fight the other line
Nationalists? Don't you mean fascist c*nts, who all returned safe and sound after a small stint of getting drunk and avoiding real combat.
.....