Belfast Lord Mayor to avoid official Somme commemoration
Six years after the first Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast, Alex Maskey, refused to attend the official ceremony commemorating those killed at the Battle of the Somme and, instead, laid a wreath separately at 9am on the same morning – at the time Mick suggested his attendance “may be too soon for both his own and Unionist supporters in the City” – this year’s new Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast, Tom Hartley, has announced he will not be attending the official ceremony and will instead lay a wreath seperately at 9am on the same morning, before chairing a Special Council meeting scheduled to begin at the same time as the official ceremony. Tom Hartley claims that this “consolidates and builds upon the initiatives taken by Alex Maskey during his term as Mayor and by Joe O’Donnell as Deputy Mayor to reach out to the unionist and protestant people of Belfast.” In 2004 a Sinn Féin Ard Fheis passed a resolution barring Sinn Fein representatives from attending “British military commemorations”.
@Garibaldy
“Memoirs of some of those involved, and Dispatches I think it was. Training and those landmines came from somewhere.”
Oh I see, so you just made it up then off the top of your head.
I wasn’t aware that landmines played any significant part in the Killing Fields.
Picador
Very well argued!
There has been tonnes of evidence linking mainstream Unionism with their paramilitaries. I now view those who deny it as idiots, liars and or both.
>>What’s immoral about the French people and their allies defending France in 1914?< <
Been busy Harry, we were discussing Vietnam last week, swap France/French for Vietnam/Vietnamese and 1914 for anytime between 1942-75. I couldn't agree more. Also that smoke you are blowing up peoples arses regarding Russell, how could he have possibly known of the scale of the German atrocities? I'm sure he would have known of the then recent British atrocities in 1930's Iraq though.
>>The handful of German overseas possessions was overrun within weeks of the outbreak of the war.< <
You are dead wrong here harry. The Germans and their native soldiers fought an excellent and long running campaign in east Africa. They tied down massive British resources and disrupted the economy of the entire region. Though by and large I agree with your take on WW1 and 2 being the same war with many subtle, often substantial differences. Not downplaying the differences, jeez how could I but they were consequences mainly rather than motivating factors. Though Lebensraum focused on the east rather than the colonies in WW2.
Concerned Loyalist
You have not exactly covered yourself in glory with your flawed depiction of Russell and WW1, I'd advise reading books, not being overly nasty but your lack of basic knowledge is showing.
>>The Schlieffen Plan was basically the Kaiser’s/Germany’s Declaration Of War on France to the West and Russia to the East. They rode roughshod over the neutrality of countries such as Belgium and The Netherlands< <
No, no no no! First of all the Schlieffen plan was aimed as a military knockout blow to France, nothing to do with Russia or declarations of war. And very importantly Holland was left alone as a neutral.
>>Regarding the point I made about Sean Russell. It was a major sub-plot of the First World War and should be addressed< <
*groans* Too many soaps on TV these days. I suppose you could be right if these major sub-plots ran into the thousands..........and thousands. Also you have you wars mixed up, it figures.
>>British servicemen who fight/fought to keep Ulster, the UK, and the World as a whole, free from the cancer that is coercive, autocratic rule…<<
Are you familiar at all with even the basics of British rule in Ireland?
>>No, no no no! First of all the Schlieffen plan was aimed as a military knockout blow to France, nothing to do with Russia or declarations of war.<<
*shamefaced* In re-reading, I suppose in the long run the knockout blow was needed to then shift resources east to counter the Russian bear. And declarations of war was a legal prerequisite, I’m offski(as they say in Russia) to cool my red face.
No, Harry I didn’t make it up, as you are well aware. If you use google, you’ll find several references to the support given to Pol Pot et al by America and Britain as part of the continued campaign against Vietnam. Let’s not forget that they continued fighting for around two decades. Even the BBC History website refers obliquely to Pol Pot continuing to receive support from foreign countries. Here is one example from the BBC which mentions US support for the Khmer Rouge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/78988.stm
And another describing how the US refused to describe what happened as genocide while ensuring Pol Pot kept the Cambodia seat at the UN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/81048.stm
And finally Harry, here is a report from John Pilger complete with documented evidence comfirming the American role in funding and the British role in training the KR
http://www.newstatesman.com/200004170017
Enjoy reading that. And be more careful about accusing people of making things up. You end up only showing your own ignirance.
As for the difference in German war aims. Try crushing “Judeo-Bolshevism” for a start.
Italy fought half-heartedly? Don’t mistake tactical error for half-heartedness. Also Italys recent occupation of Libya, created tension Germany and Austria-Hungary. Don’t be foolish enough to think the were all great pals and Itlay jumped ship at the first sign of trouble. It is a hell of a lot more complex that you would like to paint Harry. France wasn’t too fond of Italy, over the Prussia issue, but they were not at eachothers throats either.
Oh I see, after the killing fields some minor assistance was given to some Cambodian resistance groups with the approval of the UN. Not quite what I thought you were saying, fair enough however I accept you didn’t make it up.
“As for the difference in German war aims. Try crushing “Judeo-Bolshevism” for a start.”
And why was that necessary? Because Hitler, a veteran of WW1, leading a party of WW1 veterans wished to overturn the defeat of WW1 which he blamed not on military defeat on the battlefield but due to Jews and Communists behind the lines.
Therefore in order to re-fight WW1 and win this time, it was necessary to destroy the Jews and the Communists, this was a strategic part of Hitler’s method whereby he could successfully fight WW1 all over again, it was not the objective, merely a means to attaining the objective.
For the eleventy millionth time of pointing it out, killing Jews was not the primary purpose of the Second World War, it was merely a by product of fighting that war.
Hitler refused to accept the result of the First World War so he rearmed and re-equipped the German army and fought the First World War over again. In both conflicts the German Reich lost, but they were part and parcel of the same war.
156 posts, a lot of smoke, very little light. Quite what the later effusions have to do with the original thread defeats me.
However, the mention of the WW1 Italian campaign has a passing relevance to where this discussion started: remembering the unnecessary deaths of 2,069 men of the 36th Ulster Division on the first day of the Somme (part of the 32,000 casualties from the 36th by 1919; and the 28,000 0f the 16th Irish Division).
On 14 June 1918 (so there’s an anniversary just missed — but I feel a blog coming on) Yeats wrote his little — and highly instructive — elegy for Major Robert Gregory. Gregory first joined the Connaught Rangers, a unit of the 16th Division, before transferring to the RFC. He earned a Military Cross and was a Chevalier of the Legion d’Honneur.
In this context, let it be remembered, Gregory was shot down by an Italian (i.e. an “own goal”) on 23 January 1918:
I had to do that for Leaving Certificate, when Eisenhower was still President. I’ve still got it by heart, down to the punctuation.
‘Arry Flashman
“killing Jews was not the primary purpose of the Second World War, it was merely a by product of fighting that war.”
I think the problem with this arguement is that most people dont want to hear it (understandably) because of the horror of Hitler’s actions and ideology – he is deemed to have been motivated by ‘evil’ – and that is the end of the story.
Any further exploration of the facts, particularly in relation to a debate on Irish Nationlaism, will inevitablly lead to shouts of appeasement and collaboration. What interests me about the boy Adolf is how he arrives at his position of anti-semitism and how he could sway the German population behind him. I dont know what basis he has for saying that Jewish betrayal at WWI was a significant factor in defeat – apart from the link between Jewish intellectuals and Bolshevism. The more I read about him the more I think that personal factors in growing up in Vienna underlay most of his attitudes.
As always in these matters it is necessary to say that any understanding of how he arrived at his ideas should not be confused with sympathy for them.
Harry,
Strategic interests don’t necessarily change all that much. But motivations of government, their ideology, their behaviour, and their social bases all do.
Malcolm,
Laughable to see Yeats talking about the poor. Fascist nutter he was. And instead of celebrating him, we should bury his memory in shame.
It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it
Interesting question about Hitler and anti Semitism. I think there was a fairly strong current of it in German society (as there was in a number of European societies, Britain and Ireland were not immune and are still not).
I guess the quite and successful large Jewish community “helped” anti Semitism. Also I suppose after they lost the war the Germans thrashed about looking for “traitors” who caused their downfall. Jews (being perversely seen to have a loyalty outside the state) would have made a good target. Also I guess if some Jews were doing proportionally less badly in the 1920s it might have helped fuel hatred.
Also remember that at the start they “only” said nasty things about Jews and even after the Nazis came to power there was a gradual spiral downwards in their level of evil to Jews. I suppose that made people who were ambivalent about anti Semitism more used to it over time.
It is an interesting yet ghastly question but personally I find the whole Hitler had a personal thing a bit too simplistic: he managed to get so many people on board to support it that surely it was not simply a personal crusade of evil based on his childhood.
As you say though it is always difficult to analyse these things without being seen to be justifying them if though I know you are not.
quite large and successful in first line of above
@PE
“swap France/French for Vietnam/Vietnamese and 1914 for anytime between 1942-75. I couldn’t agree more.”
Sorry I missed my old sparring partner earlier, and if you throw in the heroic resistance by millions of brave South Vietnamese against the fanatical Stalinist aggression of their northern neighbour from 1959 until 1975 then we’d both be in complete agreement.
See how much fun this can be?
Garibaldy @ 12:52 PM:
The ignorance shown in this comment exceeds the norms of bathetic trolling.
It has absolutely no relevance to this thread, except to cast doubt on any other contribution from the same source.
In terms of lit. crit., it ignores Yeats’s constant habit of adapting a “mask”. Garibaldy might care to observe the first-person singular throughout these sixteen lines.
It shows the contributor has no comprehension of Yeats’s changing political stances throughout a long life. In this particular case he might start with the anecdote of George Yeats’s “democratic” chicken and the neighbour’s “blueshirt” dog: it would at least give some colour to his blather.
As for Yeats’s brief flirtation with O’Duffy (which extended to just one meeting, and which presumably is the whole basis for Garibaldy‘s diatribe):
[Stephen Coote, page 533].
As for the rest of such a discussion: another time, another place. However, Garibaldy, next time bring a big stick of informed argument, not a broken reed of ill-formed prejudice.
Turgon,
to enter the even murkier waters in relation to anti-semitism lets throw in the supposed similarity between anti-semitism in Nazi society and anti-catholicism in Non Iron.
Disclaimer
Clearly no comparison can be made between the bias/discrimination/illegal security force activity against Catholics in Non Iron and the mass murder of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
There is however a similarity in the sense that there was a percieved ‘enemy’ within that were not to be trusted and were to some extent to be excluded from the society in which they lived. In relation to the ‘fenian threat’ you could argue that given the hotile position of the ROI and various ‘border campaigns’ there was some basis ( though no justifiable in my opinion) for unionist post partition policies. The sectarian edge of Unionist ideology which expressed iteslf in the desire of Unionist parmilitaries to kill Fenians/Catolics irrespecive of their involvement in underminig the state shows this ‘enemy within’ view in quite sharp relief.
To understand loyalsity paramilitary violence this ‘enemy within’ concept needs to be understood and is distinct from that which fed republican ideology – who percieved an ‘enemey without’ namely the British. That is not to say there were not sectarian elements within Republicanism but that was a significantly smaller factor than that in Loyalist violence.
Mary Mac Alese should not have made her remarks about the similarites between Non Iron and Nazi Germany becuase whatever she may have meant her words were always going to be drowned out by Unionist outrage at such a comparison. Many Nationalsits instinctively understood what she meant and I suspect many Unionists did too but
saw to the opportunity to attack her as a more comfortable option than challenging some of their underlying beliefs.
Malcolm,
I’m perfectly happy to discuss Yeats’ persistent authoritarianism, hatred of democracy, elitism and his being – the words of his far from unsympathetic biographer, Roy Foster – a Crocean fascist any time you like. Attitudes that we can identify with fascism are present in Yeats’ poetry and life both before and after his involvement with the Blueshirts. Hence my use of the term fascist and not blueshirt, lest someone attempt precisely the specious argument that his involvement with and support for the Blueshirts – which by the way was much greater than a single meeting with O’Duffy – was too short for him to be described as a fascist in any meaningful way.
As for the mask, I am well aware of it. Just laughing at Yeats praising concern for the poor as a good thing.
As for his being a nutter, automatic writing is all I shall say to that.
Harry
>>and if you throw in the heroic resistance by millions of brave South Vietnamese against the fanatical Stalinist aggression of their northern neighbour from 1959 until 1975<<
Where were these millions when they were needed? C’mon Harry! I make no defence for some of the actions of Ho especially in the 50′s, camps apart the dictatorship in the south was no better, and certainly not worth your erstwhile championing. The millions made their choice, they chose to fight the US and their puppet state, and they died in their millions, real millions not the mythical ones that you have spoken of. And hey, the people, the good guys won. Does that stick in the craw so?
Garibaldy @ 02:44 PM:
… “a Crocean fascist”? Huh?
Now, would that somehow derive from Benedetto Croce, leader of the anti-fascist Italian opposition for two decades? The squib here is the invention of Togliatti and his Marxist-Leninist faction, intent on building up Gramsci’s reputation.
A further warning that one needs to read critically.
Any way, it’s party time! Byeee!
Malcolm,
I’m happy just with the phrase fascist myself, and regarded him as such long before that biography came out. Just trying to show that it is not just me who thinks in these terms, nor is it people ignorant of Yeats’ lifestory. I do however know that there was indeed a strand of fascist thinking associated with Croce, and that it is not the invention of PCI people.
Anyway hope you enjoy the party.
Lads whatever you say about Yeats the man or his poetry, I think we can all agree on one thing, he had terrible taste in women !
RepublicanStones
“Elliot, im not ignoring your point.”
Yes you are, you have not adressed it at all. My question still stands.
In fact you have done nothing to actually prove anything wrong, you just pick at one detail and resort to patronising quips of no substance when called out on it.
Prionsa Eoghan
While I agree with you that South Vietman was a far from pleasant state I wouldn’t go as far to call North Vietnam and attached Viet Cong the ‘good guys’. In fact, I wouldn’t apply that to any party involved at all.
Elliot me ‘aul flower, it was you who misread my point regarding Harry’s assertion that Germany fought the same people in WW1 as in WW2. This was not the case. Nothing more was I inferring, now i do hope you will go back and re-read all the posts before jumping again. I suggest you read them slower this time.
>>I wouldn’t go as far to call North Vietnam and attached Viet Cong the ‘good guys’.<<
No you are quite right Elliot. It was a stupid retort to a piece of trolling from Harry last week that in Iraq unlike Vietnam, the good guys actually won…………..Yep to Harry Bush and his fraudulent crew well documented for ripping off the US and Iraqui treasury, responsible ultimately for the needless killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of US and Iraqui’s. They are the good guys in Harry’s world.
Post war Iraq did not have to be the way it did. But there is no money in peace.
“Good”? “Bad”? Dunno but Giap finest 20th century General.
Giap
RepublicanStones:
And the purpose of making this point was? It does nothing to establish that German aims, as claimed by Harry, were any different.
Eoghan:
I’m surprised he reached that conclusion, I only thought the lunacy set in when communists were on the prowl. Or has al Sadr recently embraced the principles of Marx and Engels and managed to escape being murdered for apostacy?
Is this the same man who partook on a Belfast Council junket with the Somme Association to Flanders? Seems to smell of double standards.
@Dewi
“Good”? “Bad”? Dunno but Giap finest 20th century General.
Nah, not by a long shot, Douglas MacArthur maybe but Giap was a bit of a one trick pony.
@PE
“The People” won in Vietnam did they? A group of people won and brutalised another group of people that’s all one can say with any certainty. Or were the millions forced to take their chances among the typhoons and pirates of the South China Sea or enslaved, tortured and brainwashed in re-education camps somehow not “people”?
Giap may have been a one-trick pony, but given that that trick was defeating better armed imperial powers, and that he did it three times, then maybe he should be considered best in show.
Ah he wasn’t too bad for a minor regional actor I suppose but not ready for prime time, give me real generals, real armies and real wars every time.
“give me real generals…”
Like Westmoreland?
No Dewi, like I said, more along the lines of MacArthur, a man who captured massive tracts of enemy territory with minimum casualties among his own men then set up humane and reasonable democratic institutions for the benefit of the defeated nation.
Say like General Petraeus in Iraq today
Harry
>>“The People” won in Vietnam did they? A group of people won and brutalised another group of people that’s all one can say with any certainty.< <
Yep as bas as you may think wars like this, civil wars are generally won with the help, tacitly or otherwise, of "the people". Only one side had the aid of the largest power the world has ever seen for nigh on twenty years, and still lost. The ordinary people of Vietnam saw to that, dying in their millions in doing so.
>>Or were the millions forced to take their chances among the typhoons and pirates of the South China Sea or enslaved, tortured and brainwashed in re-education camps somehow not “people”?<<
Are these millions of boat people as mythical as the heroic millions who fought for the US puppet dictatorship of S. Vietnam? I think that you will find that the majority of boat people(certainly not millions) who fled were part of the old deposed regime and had crimes against humanity to account for. Many of the rest were simply economic refugees with their eyes on Australia. I have met many children of such people in Oz.
Vietnam seems to be doin ok these days, we don’t ALL need to be under US/white man’s hegemony to thrive you know. And you really should show some class with recognising Giap, or does it all still stick in your craw so?
I recognise Giap as being a useful leader of a largely peasant army fighting a war against larger forces, fine but unlike you I don’t go all misty eyed over fighters just because they carry an AK 47.
So nobody resisted Stalinist aggression did they but the millions (yes millions) who fled into perilous exile, were murdered, tortured, brainwashed, enslaved and imprisoned all got what they deserved because they were guilty of er, resisting the Stalinist aggression. Something does not compute here.
Yes Vietnam’s doing very well now, having thrown out the old absurd ideas of Communism they have adopted a free market economy. Vietnam; simple economics for terminally slow learners.
Poor old Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh must be spinning in his Marxist mausoleum right now.
“or does it all still stick in your craw so?”
See above.
I’ll take that as an affirmative then ;¬)