IRA nazi collaboration. [Archive]

View Full Version : IRA nazi collaboration.

Dr Mindbender

14th May 2009, 21:31

Thought this might be interesting-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II

collaboration between the IRA and Abwehr during World War II ranged in intensity during the period 1937 - 1943 and ended permanently around 1944. The Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%281922-1969%29) (IRA), a paramilitary body active in Ireland, seeking an end to partition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland) and British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) influence on the island, shared intelligence with the Abwehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abwehr), the intelligence service of Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany). Contents

[hide (javascript:toggleToc())]

1 Context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Context)
2 1937 - 1939 The first IRA contacts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#1937_-_1939_The_first_IRA_contacts)
3 1939 - 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#1939_-_1940)
4 Seamus O'Donovan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Seamus_O.27Donovan)
5 Communication problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Communication_problems)
6 Military and political mission phases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Military_and_political_mis sion_phases)

6.1 German Agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#German_Agents)
6.2 Irish liaisons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Irish_liaisons)
6.3 Irish in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Irish_in_Germany)
6.4 Attempts at infiltration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Attempts_at_infiltration)

7 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#References)

7.1 Further Information/Sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#Further_Information.2FSour ces)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=1)] Context

The Government of Nazi Germany, like all Governments, used intelligence gathering to help inform its decisions. Intelligence gathering is not an exact science and the Abwehr was not a particularly professional organisation after it was reorganised in 1938.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-0)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Conquest of the island of Ireland was not a strategic goal for Germany in the run up to or during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). The plan that was devised for the invasion of Ireland, Operation Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Green_%28Ireland%29) was more a diversionary tactic than expression of intent to take over the island. What formed German policy more than anything was the desire to see Éire remain neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country). When German attempts to gain air superiority as part of Operation Sealion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion) were repulsed, Ireland largely ceased to be of much interest.
IRA Abwehr involvement throughout the period can be broken up into three phases:

Coordination missions with the IRA preceding the French campaign,
Military missions directed against Britain for the purposes of gathering technical and weather data,
Political missions against Britain undertaken later in the war, when the threat of direct German action against Britain had receded.

Each phase had similar characteristics- a lack of planning and lack of capabilities of all the organisations concerned. German efforts to cultivate a working relationship with the IRA formed the basis for two wartime missions; that of Ernst Weber-Drohl (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Weber-Drohl&action=edit&redlink=1), and that of Hermann Görtz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6rtz), but the Abwehr later chose to rely on support mechanisms exclusive of the IRA. Neither strategy proved viable and the entire process was one disaster after another. Below the first phase of Coordination missions are covered in detail, followed by a list of missions covering the two remaining phases.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=2)] 1937 - 1939 The first IRA contacts

The Abwehr had German agents in Ireland at this point- Joseph 'Jupp' Hoven was an anthropology student who spent much of 1938 and 1939 in Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) and the area of Connacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connacht). Hoven had befriended Tom Barry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Barry), an IRA member who had fought during the Anglo-Irish War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_War) and was still active within the organisation. They met frequently with a view to fostering links between the IRA and Germany.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-1) At this time Barry had taken up the position as IRA CS. and it was within this capacity that he visited Germany in 1937 accompanied by Hoven, with a view to developing IRA/German relations. While in Germany, Barry won an agreement from the German Government that in the event of a declaration of war between Germany and Britain the German government would assist the IRA.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-2)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] This agreement had one proviso; that material support for IRA activities would only be given if the IRA limited its attacks to British military targets in Northern Ireland or Britain.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Upon his return to Ireland, Barry presented his findings to the IRA General Army Convention (GAC) during April 1938 in the guise of the "Barry Plan"- a campaign focussed on targets in the border region of Northern Ireland. This plan was rejected by the GAC in favour of a competing plan to solely attack targets in Britain- the S-Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Plan) sanctioned by Seán Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell).
Sean MacBride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_MacBride), the son of executed 1916 insurgent John MacBride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_MacBride) and Barry's Director of Intelligence, is also known to have handled a contact with an ex-German Army officer named Bismarck, who was in Ireland attempting to sell armoured cars to the Irish Army in 1937.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-3) The Intelligence director for the Dublin Brigade of the IRA, Con Lehane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_Lehane_%28IRA%29) is also said to have helped MacBride with handling proposals about the IRA being absorbed into the Irish Military.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-4)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=3)] 1939 - 1940

In December 1938, the Abwehr II. Ast., located at Knochenhauerstraße, Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg), took an English-speaking agent on loan from the English section of the Fichte-Bund headquarters (HQ) in Hamburg. This agent was Oscar Pfaus. Around this time, the IRA, independently of German Intelligence, began a series of attacks on targets in Britain following a declaration of war on the British State. Pfaus was familiarised with media reports of this campaign and given a mission:

"to seek out the IRA leadership; make contact; ask if they would be interested in cooperation with Germany; and, if so, to send a liaison man to Germany to discuss specific plans and future co-ordination."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-5)
Pfaus's mission did not include a military component and he was not given authorisation to discuss items of an intelligence nature. In preparation for his mission, Pfaus was to later meet with the officer in charge of Office 1 West, Abwehr II HQ- Hauptmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptmann) Friedrich Carl Marwede, codenamed "Dr. Pfalzgraf".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-6) On reaching Ireland, the contact Pfaus had been given was a former member of the IRA's 3rd Battalion, Liam Walsh, who was a friend and confidant of Eoin O'Duffy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_O%27Duffy), and then employed at the Italian Legation. Pfaus was unaware at the time of the meeting that the fascist Blueshirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts) were ideologically hostile to the IRA, but did secure from Walsh a meeting with an IRA contact. A meeting between Pfaus and IRA representatives took place on 13 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_13) 1939. Pfaus reported that those included in the meeting were Moss Twomey, the new CS. Sean Russell, and Seamus (Jim) O'Donovan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_O%27Donovan).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-7) Pfaus found himself unable or unauthorized to answer all the questions of the IRA, so an arrangement to send an IRA representative to Germany for substantive talks was made.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-8) Following this meeting Russell decided to send O'Donovan, within one week, as the IRA's representative. Bowyer Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowyer_Bell) puts it so:

"Russell, elated by the prospect of German arms, ammunition, and money to supplement the thin stream of Clan [Clan na Gael] aid, decided to entrust the mission to Seamus O'Donovan."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-9)
Further meetings were reported to Irish Intelligence in July 1939.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-10)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The figures involved included Eduard Hempel and "three members of the Nazi party" in Dublin. The meeting took place in County Donegal and General Eoin O'Duffy, Seamus Burke, and Theodor Kordt (attached to the German embassy in London) were reportedly responsible for making the arrangements.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-11) Another meeting reportedly took place in Louisburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisburgh), County Mayo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Mayo) between Hempel, O'Duffy, and members of the IRA in August 1939.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-12)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=4)] Seamus O'Donovan

O'Donovan, a German speaker and former Director of Munitions & Chemicals for the IRA, made three trips to Germany in 1939. The first meeting in February saw O'Donovan conduct discussions with the head of Office 1 West, Abwehr HQ- Friedrich Carl Marwede, codenamed "Dr. Pfalzgraf". O'Donovan and Marwede discussed the appropriate wartime role of the IRA as it concerned the German Government. The Germans were adamant that they could not supply immediate help for the IRA in its S-Plan campaign in Britain.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-13) Other areas of concern for the Germans were that they were unsure how the IRA intended to attack targets in Northern Ireland and how to supply arms to the group. O'Donovan returned to Ireland with these concerns with after being given the codename "V-Held" (Agent Hero in German). He returned to Germany on 26 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_26) 1939 for more meetings with Marwede, this time to discuss radio contact, a courier route for messages and armaments, and the location of a safe house in London for use in the courier route. By the time O'Donovan returned to Ireland on 15 May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15), Russell had left for the United States as part of the propaganda arm of the S-Plan and installed Stephen Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hayes_%28Irish_Republican%29) as Acting CS.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-14) The final meeting O'Donovan took part in was in August 1939 when he brought his wife with him.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-15) This series of meetings was also attended by Joseph McGarrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McGarrity), the leader of Clan na Gael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_na_Gael) and according to O'Donovan's diaries, he was escorted to the meetings by a representative of the German Foreign Ministry. The topics under discussion were:

the possibility of reviving the English campaign in the event of war,
the IRA capabilities in England, Northern Ireland, and Éire,
the policies, intentions and probable reactions of the Dublin government to any outbreak of hostilities between Nazi Germany and Britain,
the standard of IRA capabilities and their exact arms requirements.

O'Donovan notes in his diary that his hosts told him that there would be a war "probably within one week." A few days later, on 1 September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1) 1939, Germany invaded Poland.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=5)] Communication problems

The radio transmitter that was supplied to the IRA by Joesph McGarrity proved to lack the range to reach Germany, and the IRA began using it for propaganda broadcasts- leading to its swift capture by the Éire authorities on 29 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_29) 1939. During its capture, they also found evidence of attempts at coded transmissions to Nazi Germany. Though the transmitter had been captured, O'Donovan, up to his internment in September 1941, was to continue monitoring and transcribing coded broadcasts from Germany. In many cases, the reception was weak or blocked. The existing logs show an almost continuous period of monitoring from January through to September 1940.

30/12/39 - Owing to illness and lack of decision, no reception.
24/01/40 - Conditions bad.
14/02/40 - Morse receiver did not turn up. Abandoned.
09/03/40 - Almost perfect except for what came in like jamming in each of three repeats. However reconstructed blanks ok.
13/03/40 - Untrained Morse man. Says got RVK and a number but no message.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-16)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=6)] Military and political mission phases

By this stage of events, each IRA CS. from 1937 onwards had been involved in liaisons with the Germans to one degree or another. These liaisons were to continue into the tenure of Stephen Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hayes_%28Irish_Republican%29) and his overture to Nazi Germany via "Plan Kathleen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Kathleen)" in 1940.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-17) Once Hayes was exposed as a traitor to the IRA, there was a power shift within the IRA which lead to the futile Northern Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Campaign_%28IRA%29) in 1942. The IRA's Northern Command was briefed on the previous liaisons with the Germans but they appear not to have grasped how fragile and scant they were. This power shift, the restrictions imposed on the IRA during "The Emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29)", and the change in fortunes for the German forces in World War II effectively ended the liaison between the IRA and Abwehr. German Abwehr was to continue attempting to conduct operations in Ireland, however. The majority of these operations from the beginning were stillborn and never took place, or were total fiascos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiasco). These attempts were made without the knowledge of the IRA, however. Was the IRA even in a position to assist with these planned operations if they had taken place? The answer is open to debate, but widely assumed to be No. The IRA was demoralised and militarily moribund, even the ability to gather fruitful intelligence was gone.
The contacts prior to 1940 had expressed an intent by the IRA to assist in the German campaign against Britain. From the IRA's point of view, this was a means to an end- they had no love for the policies of de Valera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Valera), Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill), Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler), or Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin). The 1938 takeover by Russell and a reaffirmation of the "Second Dáil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_D%C3%A1il) mentality" with his succession placed the organisation on a path where it viewed its only recourse as "violent struggle against the forces of foreign occupation".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-18) Certainly they wished for the defeat of Britain which they viewed as the perennial oppressor and persecutor of their nation. The Abwehr, as it did in other nations, made much of encouraging this state of mind within the IRA. This included attempts, via German agents, to keep the tenuous links formed mostly by O'Donovan alive.
What sealed this as German policy was the 1940 IRA arms raid on the Magazine Fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Raid), in Dublin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin). This event gave an entirely misleading impression to the Nazi authorities about the IRA's capabilities. Another factor was the failure of the incompetent German agent, Hermann Görtz, to relay back comprehensive details on his meeting with IRA CS. Stephen Hayes after discussing Plan Kathleen. Due to these factors, the German authorities had to learn the hard way through failed missions that the IRA were hoplessly immature and weak during the period.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II#cite_note-19) Here are some articles describing that weakness and the majority of German attempts in securing IRA assistance:

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=7)] German Agents

Hermann Görtz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6rtz)
Günther Schütz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Sch%C3%BCtz)
Ernst Weber-Drohl (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Weber-Drohl&action=edit&redlink=1)
Helmut Clissmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helmut_Clissmann&action=edit&redlink=1)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=8)] Irish liaisons

Stephen Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hayes_%28Irish_Republican%29)
Seamus O'Donovan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_O%27Donovan)
Seán Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=9)] Irish in Germany

Frank Ryan (Irish republican) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_%28Irish_republican%29)
Friesack Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friesack_Camp)
John Codd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Codd)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwe hr_collaboration_in_World_War_II&action=edit&section=10)] Attempts at infiltration

Operation Lobster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lobster)
Operation Lobster I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lobster_I)
Operation Seagull (Ireland) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Seagull_%28Ireland%29)
Operation Seagull I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Seagull_I)
Operation Seagull II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Seagull_II)
Operation Whale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Whale)
Operation Dove (Ireland) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dove_%28Ireland%29)
Operation Sea Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Eagle)
Plan Kathleen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Kathleen)
Operation Mainau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mainau)
Operation Innkeeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Innkeeper)
Operation Osprey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osprey)

reddevil

21st May 2009, 00:29

Hessian Peel

21st May 2009, 17:04

Interestingly German assistance to the Irish revolutionary struggle during WWI is never really questioned, whereas there's a whole song and dance made about limited Nazi connections with a weak and dejected Republican movement that was as desperate as some of the armed groups around today.

Pogue

21st May 2009, 17:33

Dr Mindbender

21st May 2009, 18:10

the old IRA, so i am led to believe were not a socialist organisation (although there were socialists in it). therefore, the collaboration isn't really that surprising in terms of what they had to gain from a German victory.

I'm somewhat dubious that the nazis would have spared ireland anyway.

It would have been a ''you and whose army'' scenario.

Why should the hypothetic, inter-continental, nazi machine fear a small paramilitary band?

Glenn Beck

21st May 2009, 22:10

I'm somewhat dubious that the nazis would have spared ireland anyway.

It would have been a ''you and whose army'' scenario.

Why should the hypothetic, inter-continental, nazi machine fear a small paramilitary band?

Why would the intercontinental British imperialist war machine fear a small paramilitary band? Their collaboration was probably perfectly rational. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Nazi government would have allowed Ireland a significant degree of independence and autonomy in exchange for following their political and economic policies, much like the United States and Latin America during the Cold War. At least that would seem far more sensible from a Nazi perspective than inheriting Britain's insurgency.

Wanted Man

21st May 2009, 22:20

I'm somewhat dubious that the nazis would have spared ireland anyway.

It would have been a ''you and whose army'' scenario.

Why should the hypothetic, inter-continental, nazi machine fear a small paramilitary band?
On the contrary. The nazis would have given the Irish an "independent state" along the lines of Slovakia, France and Croatia.

Pogue

21st May 2009, 22:28

Glenn Beck

21st May 2009, 23:06

If the IRA were giving the Nazis trouble, do you really think the Nazis would have any problem completely wiping out as many people as possible to destroy the IRA? These are the people who did the Holocaust, I doubt they would have pulled any punches with the Irish.

Just like they burned Paris to the ground and slaughtered everyone in it in response to La Resistance? I'm skeptical that the German ruling class would have gone to the trouble when a client state would have been so much more convenient. Even a successful occupation and difficult and troublesome.

Invader Zim

22nd May 2009, 11:59

Just like they burned Paris to the ground and slaughtered everyone in it in response to La Resistance?

Or perhaps how they installed a vicious puppet regime which sent packs of thugs through the streets of France to round up, steal from and rape suspected insurgents, jews and other undesirables, torture them and then sent them off to the death camps? Like that maybe?

Sounds fucking great does it?

Andropov

22nd May 2009, 12:01

Invader Zim

22nd May 2009, 12:07

And what the Brits did pull their punches with regaurds Ireland?

You are seriously comparing Britain's policy towards Ireland in the mid-20th century to the Nazi regimes policy in its occupation of Europe? Really?

That verges on the edge of holocaust denial. Certainly it is rank trivialisation.

Andropov

22nd May 2009, 12:10

You are seriously comparing Britain's policy towards Ireland in the mid-20th century to nazi occupation of Europe?
No Invader, please dont try and distort my post.
It doesnt lead to an intellectual debate.

That verges on the edge of holocaust denial.
Sweet baby Jesus wept, this hysterical drivel is dissapointing Invader, normally you are capable of formulating a constructive arguement.

Certainly it is rank trivialisation.
Recognising the British holocausts in Ireland is not trivilism.
In fact such a dismissive attitude to such holocausts is what I would call holocaust denial.

Invader Zim

22nd May 2009, 12:19

Recognising the British holocausts in Ireland is not trivilism.

There is only one 'holocaust', and if you think you can draw legitimate comparison, to proclaim that they are also 'holocausts', between even the most serve attrocity committed by Britain in Ireland, automatically trivialises the holocaust.

Andropov

22nd May 2009, 12:25

There is only one 'holocaust', and if you think you can draw legitimate comparison, to proclaim that they are also 'holocausts', between even the most serve attrocity committed by Britain in Ireland, automatically trivialises the holocaust.
An Gorta Mòr.
The proportionately damaging famine of the 1700s.
And the 41% of the Irish population ethnically cleansed by Cromwell.
Invader such a dismissive attitude to just 3 of the genocides conducted in Ireland under the yolk of British Imperialism is worrying.

And I always felt that such petty arguements like, "my holocaust was worse than your holocaust" automatically trivialises genocide.
Genocide is genocide no matter who pumps the zyklon B, who wields the machete, who pulls the trigger or who deports tons of food at the barrel of a gun and the point of a bayonet out of a country where people are reduced to eating grass.
Poor poor post Invader.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 12:30

And what the Brits did pull their punches with regaurds Ireland?

Nope, but the Nazis wouldn't have either. If they'd already decimated the rest of Europe, I doubt they would hold back in the slightest if the Irish resisted them.

Invader Zim

22nd May 2009, 17:27

An Gorta Mòr.

The claim that the irish famine was a 'genocide' is one that is routinely debunked by historians, and is further evidence that you reading on the topic of Irish history is limited to 'scholarship', which is a very positive description of such work, with an extreme sectarian agenda. Indeed the fact that you post a newspaper article, in the other thread, as opposed to an actual scholarly monograph, is testiment to the fact that you are more interested in supporting an agenda you have previously arrived upon than the actual events of the past. No decent historians of Irish history take the charge of genocide seriously. Even the staunchest of anti-revisionist works, who see revisionism on the topic as being reductive, dismiss the charge of genocide. For example Woodham-Smith's work The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410, which a widely employed anti-revisionist text, states, "These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation".

Which is in bang line with the polar opposite text, often accused of being apologism for the British government, R.W. Edwards, T.D. Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. XI which states,"There was no conspiricy to destroy the Irish nation".

The fact of the matter is you are dealing with a topic in which you are clearly well out of your depth, and it shows. You clearly lack a strrong enough grasp on the historiography of genocide and, perhaps more questionably considering your sectarian politics, Ireland.

But this is all beside the point, even if the famine, et al. were examples of genocide, it is still grossly inappropriate to try to declare that they have anything in common with the holocaust. Indeed it is the first tactic of the more intelligent holocaust deniers to deminish the extent of the holocaust in popular conciousness by drawing comparison to other, far less extreme, events in history. And in your case events such as the Great Famine, that very few serious historians would even consider an act of genocide.

Andropov

22nd May 2009, 23:23

The claim that the irish famine was a 'genocide' is one that is routinely debunked by historians, and is further evidence that you reading on the topic of Irish history is limited to 'scholarship', which is a very positive description of such work, with an extreme sectarian agenda. Indeed the fact that you post a newspaper article, in the other thread, as opposed to an actual scholarly monograph, is testiment to the fact that you are more interested in supporting an agenda you have previously arrived upon than the actual events of the past. No decent historians of Irish history take the charge of genocide seriously. Even the staunchest of anti-revisionist works, who see revisionism on the topic as being reductive, dismiss the charge of genocide. For example Woodham-Smith's work The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410, which a widely employed anti-revisionist text, states, "These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation".

Which is in bang line with the polar opposite text, often accused of being apologism for the British government, R.W. Edwards, T.D. Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. XI which states,"There was no conspiricy to destroy the Irish nation".

The fact of the matter is you are dealing with a topic in which you are clearly well out of your depth, and it shows. You clearly lack a strrong enough grasp on the historiography of genocide and, perhaps more questionably considering your sectarian politics, Ireland.
The man who wrote that article that defined the Irish Famine as Genocide is actually a Professor who is internationally renowned in the field of Genocide, man by the name of Francis Boyle.
I bet you feel silly now Invader.
([email protected])
Now his definition of Genocide is rock solid and is set down a factual basis in the Rome Statutes in black and white.
This is what wikipedia say about the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle
So really those pathetic mud slinging attempts at slandering me as "sectarian" and having an agenda with regaurds The Famine is really a cheap shot.
Hopefully Invader you can deal with this topic with some maturity and leave aside the petty slabbering.

But this is all beside the point, even if the famine, et al. were examples of genocide, it is still grossly inappropriate to try to declare that they have anything in common with the holocaust.
Pathetic mud slinging.
Poor form Invader.

Indeed it is the first tactic of the more intelligent holocaust deniers to deminish the extent of the holocaust in popular conciousness by drawing comparison to other, far less extreme, events in history.
Who are you to define what Genocide is "less extreme".
That is an outrageous comment.
Genocide is genocide be they Armenians, Jews, Rwandians, Bosnians or even Irish.
Your cock measuring contest when it comes to Genocide makes for pittiful reading and relegates some of the most horrific chapters in human history to pure trivilisation.

And in your case events such as the Great Famine, that very few serious historians would even consider an act of genocide.
"very few" and "serious historians", what a subjective and irrelevant post.
If you have a problem with Professor Boyles definition of genocide then constructively analyse it please.

PRC-UTE

23rd May 2009, 00:08

There is only one 'holocaust', and if you think you can draw legitimate comparison, to proclaim that they are also 'holocausts', between even the most serve attrocity committed by Britain in Ireland, automatically trivialises the holocaust.

This is just parroting a bourgeois line. There's nothing more sacred about the lives of white-skinned Europeans, FYI. Far more Africans perished in the slave trade. A far higher percent of American Indians died.

Also, looking at what the Irish "famine" did to Irish speakers (who were the majority of its victims) qualifies it as a genocide.

PRC-UTE

23rd May 2009, 00:11

You clearly lack a strrong enough grasp on the historiography of genocide and, perhaps more questionably considering your sectarian politics, Ireland.

What does this mean?

PRC-UTE

23rd May 2009, 00:44

Glenn Beck

23rd May 2009, 03:48

Or perhaps how they installed a vicious puppet regime which sent packs of thugs through the streets of France to round up, steal from and rape suspected insurgents, jews and other undesirables, torture them and then sent them off to the death camps? Like that maybe?

Sounds fucking great does it?

How the fuck do you figure that I am apologizing for the Nazi occupation of France by making a rather straightforward logical argument that the German ruling class would prefer a loyal client state to a costly occupation and would not make Britain's problems its own unless it had very good reason to. Having a native ruling elite enforce your policies on its people is far cheaper than doing it oneself.

What I was replying to was the idea that the Nazis would necessarily attempt to militarily occupy and suppress the Irish movement rather than simply grant certain concessions to a future Irish Republic in exchange for their political and economic fealty. I never suggested it would be a sweet deal, it would only have to be marginally sweeter than the British occupation to succeed. I explicitly compared it to a rather infamous case of imperialism, the treatment of Latin America by the United States during the Cold War. Another poster, whom I agree with, also compared the hypothetical Irish Republic in a Nazi controlled Europe to Vichy France directly. From that comparison I don't see where on earth you could draw the idea that I was claiming that Nazi-collaborating Ireland would have been "fucking great", nor that Vichy France was.

I would suggest that in the future you read more closely and in general comport yourself in discussions in a manner fitting of a respectful and educated human being, instead of coming, unprovoked, indiscriminately flinging derision and implicit accusations of fascist apologism.

Invader Zim

23rd May 2009, 17:42

The man who wrote that article that defined the Irish Famine as Genocide is actually a Professor who is internationally renowned in the field of Genocide, man by the name of Francis Boyle. I bet you feel silly now Invader.

Not really, for two reasons, firstly you didn't include a link to or the author of the article. Secondly Francis Boyle is lawyer, not a historian and his claims have widely been dismissed by people who actually know something about 19th century Ireland; a point I proved to you in my previous post.

As I said, you are way out of your depth.

This is what wikipedia say about the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle)LOL, had you read that page you would have discovered, as I note immidiately above, that the man is not a historian of Ireland. He is a lawyer. His specialism is contemporary law. Specialists on the past, more specifically historians of the Famine take a very different view, as I proved in my previous post. But you wouldn't know that, as stated you are interested only in reading work that confirms your views that work that actually tries to provide an accurate historical narrative and analysis of events.

All I can do is contradict you and point you to the relevent historiography, you are the one who has to read it.

"Pathetic mud slinging."

+

"slandering me as "sectarian""How is the former mudslinging? And slander has to be untrue, you are sectarian.

Who are you to define what Genocide is "less extreme".As shown, experts on the topic, even those who bitterly condemn the British responce, have concluded that the Irish famine was not a genocide. So that is a mute point.

And of course the holocaust is unique, in terms of scale, time, ambition, and the attempt at the industrialisation of murder. Something in the region of 70% of jews under Nazi control (6 million) were murdered in around 4 years, and with them a further 5-6 million others; and that is employing conservative estimates of the death toll. In other words, the Nazis killed considerably more people in four years than were alive in Ireland in 1844 (just over 8 million). And you think that the holocaust and the Irish famine are akin? You're a joke.

If you have a problem with Professor Boyles definition of genocide then constructively analyse it please.The issue is not the man's definition of genocide, but his understanding of 19th century Irish history. And I don't have to prove to you that what he has said on that subject is wrong, because plenty of professional historians have already done so. And I've provided you with suitable reading to substanciate that.

This is just parroting a bourgeois line.

That is the clichéd line used by every idiot on this board who can't formulate a coherent retort. I didn't think you were that person.

There's nothing more sacred about the lives of white-skinned Europeans, FYII suppose what you really mean is that there is nothing more sacred about the lives of white-skinned Europeans than anyone else, but either way I didn't say there was.

Actually it's been taught in some curriculum as a genocide

And some curriculum's in the States teach ID as fact, that doesn't stop it being bullshit.

What does this mean? It means s/he hasn't read many, if any, of the relevent works which examine the fields we are discussing.

Far more Africans perished in the slave trade.Wrong. The trans-Atlantic trade is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of perhaps 10 million over a period of over 300 year, not at least 11-12 million by a single state in 4 years. The two are incomparable. Indeed I challenge you to provide any instance of mass murder which is comparable to the holocaust.

PRC-UTE

23rd May 2009, 22:24

I think the saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend', applys strongly in this discussion.

that's it. the IRA went to the Soviets for help first. Stalin personally rejected their request.

Invader Zim

23rd May 2009, 22:46

How the fuck do you figure that I am apologizing for the Nazi occupation of France by making a rather straightforward logical argument that the German ruling class would prefer a loyal client state to a costly occupation and would not make Britain's problems its own unless it had very good reason to.

I don't, I figure that you were pouring scorn on the notion that the the Nazi's wouldn't have pulled any punches when dealing with the IRA, when you stated: - "Just like they burned Paris to the ground and slaughtered everyone in it in response to La Resistance?" Utterly ignoring the fact that the Nazi's, and their puppet regime, were extremely brutal in their responce to the resistance and attempts to capture fleeing jews.

PeaderO'Donnell

24th May 2009, 01:09

How is the former mudslinging? And slander has to be untrue, you are sectarian.

People on this forum have criticized the party which red revolutionary belongs to for its attempts to reach out to the loyalist working class rather than dismissing them altogether as an inherently reactionary settler caste.

How is Red Revolutionary sectarian?

The fact that invader zim would make such a statement as if it was the most obvious thing in the world is rather disturbing.

pastradamus

24th May 2009, 11:43

Why would the intercontinental British imperialist war machine fear a small paramilitary band? Their collaboration was probably perfectly rational. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Nazi government would have allowed Ireland a significant degree of independence and autonomy in exchange for following their political and economic policies, much like the United States and Latin America during the Cold War. At least that would seem far more sensible from a Nazi perspective than inheriting Britain's insurgency.

Absolutely, The old IRA brought the British Imperialist war machine to its knees and forced her to give in during the 1921 rebellion. So its reasonable to believe that Guerrilla warfare is a viable way of combating imperialism.

However I dont believe that the Nazis would have spared Ireland of anything. They had a thorough plan of invading Ireland called "operation Green". This comprehensively involved capturing Belfast,Dublin, Derry, Limerick and Cork in one swoop to aid with operation Sealion in the UK.

Invader Zim

24th May 2009, 11:43

How is Red Revolutionary sectarian?

For a start, nationalism is inherently sectarian. Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light. But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?

Dr Mindbender

24th May 2009, 12:08

brigadista

24th May 2009, 12:20

at http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html
putting the revisionist historical authorities quoted by Invader Zim in perspective....

"The most important historiographical debate revolves around the issue of British responsibility for the Famine. (4) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_4_) Irish nationalist have long charged the British with the crime of genocide. Among more recent examples of such views, the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee commissioned in 1996 a report by F.A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which concluded that

Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People.... Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 [Hague] Genocide Convention. (5) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_5_)

Although this account has long been the orthodoxy of Irish nationalism in both the 19th and 20th centuries, only one modern Irish historian, Cecil Woodham-Smith, can be said to have endorsed this position. (6) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_6_) Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population.

On the contrary, a generation of "revisionist" historians in Ireland itself argued in the 1950s and '60s that the Famine was at most a natural catastrophe, which no individuals or institutions could have either foreseen or prevented. They sought to minimize the significance of the event in Irish history, suggesting that it was but an acceleration of long-term economic and demographic problems which would have played out even if the potato blight had not struck. On the issue of inadequate British aid to Ireland once the Famine broke out and the state-sanctioned evictions of starving peasants, the revisionists pointed to the massive challenge facing both the British authorities and the Anglo-Irish landlords in, first, their attempts to reform inefficient Irish farming practices and, later, their efforts to alleviate the famine. From this perspective, evictions were less a brutal act of callousness by the landlords than an economic necessity. Faced by a starving peasantry, diminishing rental income and untilled fields, the Irish landlords could not but turn to evictions in order to restore their estates to the sort of prosperity that would make future famines unlikely. Similarly, according to the revisionists, the British government had little reliable knowledge of the situation in Ireland and lacked the funds and the administrative infrastructure necessary for meaningful relief efforts. The little that it accomplished was portrayed as quite an herculean effort which, though inadequate in the face of the catastrophe, was unprecedented in the history of public policy and not equalled until the Great Depression of the 1930s. (7) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_7_)

A more sophisticated variant of this argument has suggested that the British were not so much deliberately callous as they were in thrall to their own ideological preconceptions of classical liberalism. Firmly convinced that charity only bred further poverty and dependence, and that industry and independence were the only paths to prosperity, they could not but be reluctant to provide adequate aid to the Irish. To do so would have meant only a painful prolongation of the conditions and attitudes in Ireland which had led to the Famine itself. The English would have had also to abandon the classical liberal ideological principles which they had recently embraced and applied with great ruthlessness in Britain itself (New Poor Law of 1834)! (8) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_8_)

However, more recent "post-revisionist" scholarship has again lent support to the charge against the British, if not of deliberate genocide, then at the very least of culpable neglect: that the famine was due to centuries of deliberate civil and economic repression of the Irish, designed to strip the population of land and power in their own country, culminating in a disastrous, arguably even willful, failure to provide sufficient aid at the height of a crisis brought about partly of their misrule. The laissez-faire economic ideology which others have treated as an "external" constraint on English relief policy, is now interpreted as a dogmatic effort to rationalize English refusal to help the Irish. In a telling statistical anecdote, Peter Gray has pointed out that in 1833, the government had spent more to compensate West Indian plantation owners for the freeing of their slaves that it did in the entire six years of famine in Ireland! Historians' explanations for this criminal neglect vary, with older explanations based on religious and cultural prejudice now being supplanted by those which stress the element of English racism towards the Irish. (9) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_9_)

WAS ENGLISH RACISM A FACTOR?
The recent work by L.P. Curtis and Liz Curtis has suggested that the English response to the famine was shaped by their long-standing racist perceptions of the Irish as a lesser people. (10) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_10_) Strong evidence for this interpretation may be found both in contemporary literature and the cartoons in the satyrical journal, Punch (available on-line!). (11) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_11_)

Though he essentially endorses this view for the late famine period, Ed Lengel has suggested that the historical picture is far more complex. In analyzing English attitudes before the famine, Lengel identifies a long-standing gender-based view of the Irish as the "female"(and therefore weaker) partner in the marriage with "male" (and hence dominant) England. This view implied a patronising and tutelary perspective of the Irish, which deemed them in need of guidance and protection by the English. The English role in this "marriage" was to educate and civilize their more backward bride by their enlightened rule! Lengel finds that this gendered view of the Irish was only supplanted during the famine itself, and especially after the Young Ireland uprising of 1848, by the more explicitly racialist attitude, which came to see the Irish as a racially primitive and incorrigible breed of humans. Unable or, perhaps, unwilling to help their tragic Irish bride, the English came to see the Irish as an inferior race responsible for its own misfortune! (12) (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/irish-famine-historiographical-issues.html#N_12_) "

[/URL]

4. See some of the historiographical arguments outlined in "The Great Irish Famine Curriculum" at http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish_famine.html, (http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/Irish-Famine-for-CHE.htm) 97-105.
5. Francis A. Boyle to Owen Rodgers, May 30, 1996, reproduced on the website of the "An Gorta Mor Commemoration and Education Committee",http://www.irishfamine.com/history.html . Note that Boyle reproduces in his report the Article II of the genocide Convention.
6. Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland, 1845-49 (1962).
7. See R.D. Edwards and T.D. Williams, eds., The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History, 1845-1852 (1956); R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (1988).
8. T.P. O'Neill, "The Organization and Administration of relief, 1845-1852" in Edwards and Williams, eds., The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History, 1845-1852 (1956), 209-259.
9. Peter Gray, Famine, Land and Politics (1999), 333. For other important "post-revisionist" historians, see Cormac O'Grada, Black '47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory (1999); James S. Donnelly, "'Irish Property must Pay for Irish Poverty': British Public Opinion and the Great Irish Famine", in C. Morash and R. Hayes, eds., Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine (1996), 60-76. Cf. the works of C. Kinealy.
10. L.P. Curtis, Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature (1996); Liz Curtis, Nothing but the Same Old Story: The Roots of Anti-Irish Racism (1984)
11. [url]http://vassun.vassar.edu/~staylor/FAMINE/Punch/Punch.html 12. Ed Lengel, "A "Perverse and Ill-Fated People": English Perceptions of the Irish, 1845-1851" Essays in History 38 (1996) in http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH38/Lengel.html

pastradamus

24th May 2009, 12:28

Also, looking at what the Irish "famine" did to Irish speakers (who were the majority of its victims) qualifies it as a genocide.

I think calling it a genocide is maybe going a bit too far. However, by definition, "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".

Despite the fact I feel that the failure of the potato crop in Ireland was not the fault of Westminister but rather down to poor ecological conditions, Farming methods and the size of Land Stocks and holdings I nevertheless feel there is convincing and overwhelming evidence to suggest that the UK government did very little to assist with famine relief and simply used it for its benefit both culturally and politically.

So what measures did the UK government take to relieve the situations on the ground? Im am now waiting at this point for some one to mention the "food meal from India".

Firstly the food came from INDIA. The other side of the world which in those days took a long time to arrive. Theses vessels arrived to dock in Gibraltar where huge quantities of the Meal were taken and sold. The remains of these barren ships arrived in Ireland with little left.
Moreover the Sultan of the Ottoman empire sent 3 ships secretly to Supply Ireland with Food aid which the British Attempted to block from entering drogheda. After public outcry the UK government eventually allowed the ships to dock.

I think the most sickening food element of the entire famine was the fact that, with approval from Westminister, There was STILL food being exported From Ireland to the UK throughout the entire famine and it was only during the Young Irelander Campagin of 1848 that this ceased.

The famine decimated Cultural and Lingual Ireland. Gaeilge(irish) as a language was almost wiped out completely. The majority of Native Irish speakers were poor peasents who lived in Rural and Farming Intensive area's and were hit hardest. There is also Evidence that the British Government also took advantage of this by using food as a weapon in order to Change the name of people from their vernacular Irish Name into something they invented in English. For example in Irish Im O'Cochlaín which became Coughlan in English - An utterly meaningless translation. This was also done when the British aided a town and so changed it name. A notable example is Clonmel in South Tipperary whose Irish Name "cluain meala" - The Vale of Honey becomes Clonmel (again a meaningless name). There is also much, much more evidence to suggest that the British used the famine as a means of anglicising Ireland. It was not until the gaelic revival at the later part of the century that We once again started promoting our cultural heritage and language. People such as Joyce, Yeats, Wilde and George-Bernard Shaw contributed to this Irish renaissence period.

The Panic that the famine caused forced people later on such as Parnell and Davitt to Ask questions of the Land in Ireland and Rebel with the land Leagues and agrairan reform movements sprang up all over Ireland. This forced Parliment in Westminister to bring in a series of Land Acts enforcing such practices as the Ulster Custom amongst others. Gladstone was the first to intorduce the Land acts. He wanted to be able to look other european statesmen in the Eye on the Ireland issue. This allowed peasents to farm larger holdings and increase food supplies along with making better profits which worked a way to preventing further outbreaks of famine. Famine broke out a few times after 1848 -which is testament to the fact westminister did not take preventitive measures for future famine of its own accord and had to be forced. Farming Improvements from guys like Bulmer Hobson and Co-ops soon answered the famine question and Saved Ireland, its culture and its people.

pastradamus

24th May 2009, 15:08

The Feral Underclass

24th May 2009, 16:17

Just for peoples information, the Abwehr was a military intelligence rather than the SD which was ideologically motivated and Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwehr was actually executed after July '44 for his involvement in the attempt on Hitler's life.

Bitter Ashes

24th May 2009, 16:26

How is hating a foreign power who rules over the populace of another country xenophobic?
It wouldnt be, but the hatred isnt limited to individuals who were responsible, but includes an entire racial group.

PRC-UTE

24th May 2009, 21:22

PRC-UTE

24th May 2009, 21:25

It wouldnt be, but the hatred isnt limited to individuals who were responsible, but includes an entire racial group.

this, too makes no sense. Republicans don't view the British and Irish as separate races, that was historically a British invention. Nearly all Republican groups have at the very least paid lip service to the old United Irishmen's goals of uniting protestant, catholic and dissenter, not attacking prods or anything like racial hatred.

The Idler

24th May 2009, 23:33

The idea that the enemy of humanity and society is everybody's enemy, should be forcefully advocated in this discussion. Hitler and Nazi Germany are enemies of everyone.
The idea that organizations perceived as left-wing never engaged with the Nazis (if only for strategic benefit) is somewhat more undermined by the Soviet Nazi joint victory parade in Brest, Poland (1939) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-nazi-joint-t106190).

Invader Zim

24th May 2009, 23:37

You make no sense at all, you're just regurgitating capitalist propaganda as you so regularly doAnd what, 'capitalist progaganda' would that be? I've posted full references (and regularly do), as well as suitable quotes. If you want to challenge historical fact then you are talking to the wrong person.

When you're ready to provide an argument, or indeed even a post worth reading, please let me know.

Love,

IZ

PRC-UTE

25th May 2009, 00:26

And what, 'capitalist progaganda' would that be? I've posted full references (and regularly do), as well as suitable quotes. If you want to challenge historical fact then you are talking to the wrong person.

When you're ready to provide an argument, or indeed even a post worth reading, please let me know.

Love,

IZ

What a pathetic dodge. You repeated the lie that republicans are sectarians, and I demonstrated this is false. What I posted even included stats:

Republicans are not xenophobic, not in programme, views or methodology. They have not sought to make the part of Ireland's population that identifies with Britain into second class citizens.

the republicans had connections to many groups in England. Look at an old Troops Out poster from the 80s (I happen to have one) it shows a large number of English politicians and activist groups showing up in support. further, republican groups had English members.

neither did any republican group carry out a sectarian military campaign:

Quote:
The idea that Republican killings and assassinations by Loyalist death
squads are on par and a matter of 'tit-for-tat' does not stand up.
"About one third of all deaths in the last phase of the 'Troubles'
-from...1966 to ...1994- were directly 'sectarian', in that people
were killed simply because they were perceived to be either Protestant
or Catholic. Some 750 Loyalist killings (or around 80 per cent of all
Loyalist killings) and some 150 Republican killings(or around 10
percent of all Republican killings) were sectarian in this sense."
(Robbie McVeigh, in P.Clancy et.al (http://www.anonym.to/?http://et.al/). (eds) Irish Society: Sociological
Perspectives, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 1995,
621-622) Such dissimetry in terms of percentages indicates that the
concept of a sectarian conflict between Protestants and Catholics is
flawed.
http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/LOR290308.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/LOR290308.html)

Only a fringe within republicanism could be described as sectarian or xenophobic.

pastradamus

25th May 2009, 03:18

For a start, nationalism is inherently sectarian. Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light. But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?

Zim, I feel using a word-based definition of Nationalism to apply to the Republican Movement is unfair and unsound. Now, Nationalism when applied to groups such as the BNP and the National Bolsheviks is most accurate and fits into the definition correctly - I just dont think you can paint Irish republicanism with the same brush. The Actions of the various parties Involved in republicanism dont fit they typical Nationalist Criteria.

I've rarely (if ever) heard prominent members of Republican parties refer to themselves as being "nationalist" though I constantly hear this from the UK press - Especially the discredited Daily Mail. If anything, I feel the real Nationalist element of Northern Ireland lies in the Loyalist movement.

Im glad to see that PRC mentioned the Young Irelanders movement of the 1800's. This era is significant. During that time Irish rebels were a full mix of Protestant and Catholic members. Earlier during the years of the United Irishmen we see a Mostly Protestant Leadership present In the Republican movement. Argueably Republicanism's most decorated historical hero - Wolfe tone was himself a protestant. So protestantism has Huge historical significance in the Irish Republican movement.

Unionists throughout Ireland were mostly Protestant members of educated backgrounds and were uneasy at the fact that members of the same faith were joining Republican Clubs and Organisations. So in County Armagh in 1795 the Orange Order was founded to appeal to religious bigotry and sectarianism when it split off from mainstream freemasonry. The group spent its entire life-cycle promoting Protestant "traditions" but eased off during the famine years - Thus the Young Irelander Movement (protestant & Catholic mixed). So after the Famine the Orange Order once again embarked on spliting Irishmen and Irish Women based on religious bigotry and sectarianism in order to remove Protestant Republican support. Even today, In this day and age Catholic people are forbidden from Orange Order membership and the Orange Order openly march through Catholic area's to promote a cultural tradition of hate. <---Thats Nationalism.

Another Driving force behind religious and sectarian divide was Unionist Campagining of the Anti-Home rule movement in the Later Part of the 19th century and Early 20th Century. Their Motto was "Home Rule is Rome Rule". A catchy phrase intended to Disrupt Parnells attempts. This also acted as a driving spear of Divide. Though when Collins Initiated his new government he gave special privliges and powers to the Catholic Church which further alienated Protestants and so its of my opinion that Home Rule was rome rule to an extent. Its even hard to find events where upon the Provisional IRA purposelly attacked Workers based on religious backgrounds with of course the exception of the Kingsmill massacre. Though this is a common element of Loyalist mobs and groups such as the LVF, UDA and UVF to attack people on sectarian, Nationalist grounds.

So basically, Im still stuck myself to understand where this word "nationalist" was first applied to the Republican movement and as to why the Loyalist organisations are never branded with this title?

Bilan

25th May 2009, 12:02

O'Donnell, that is possibly the biggest load of slander and character assassination I've seen on this board in a while. Do not repeat this sort of stupid crap again.

Bilan

26th May 2009, 12:31

Posts between PeaderO'Donnell and I moved to the members forum.

Andropov

26th May 2009, 15:29

Not really, for two reasons, firstly you didn't include a link to or the author of the article. Secondly Francis Boyle is lawyer, not a historian and his claims have widely been dismissed by people who actually know something about 19th century Ireland; a point I proved to you in my previous post.
A lawyer who specialises in Genocide.
The point still stands as you have not dismissed his claims what so ever.
You merely state his claims have been dismissed by "historians" and then do not post any article which actually contradicts Professor Boyles analyses and definition of Genocide.

As I said, you are way out of your depth.
Yet again statements that really have no bareing in this debate.
I posted a credibile and internationally renowned opinion of A Professor in the field of Genocide and you come out with meaningless and baseless statements like "sectarian", "holocaust denier", "out of your depth" etc.
TBH Invader I just want to conduct a civil debate with some factual sources and credibile authors, so when you find one that directly contradicts Professor Boyles definition of Genocide then come out with your snide remarks.

LOL, had you read that page you would have discovered, as I note immidiately above, that the man is not a historian of Ireland.
He is a lawyer. His specialism is contemporary law.
I never claimed him to be a historian Invader.
Yet again you diversionary tactics are really quite weak.
He is a professor who is internationally renowned in the field of Genocide.

Specialists on the past, more specifically historians of the Famine take a very different view, as I proved in my previous post.
Wrong again Invader.
In Brigadistas article alone it has numerous referances to historical texts written on the topic.

But you wouldn't know that, as stated you are interested only in reading work that confirms your views that work that actually tries to provide an accurate historical narrative and analysis of events
That charge is no more fitting than being levelled at yourself.

All I can do is contradict you and point you to the relevent historiography, you are the one who has to read it.
Relevant?
As in revisionist texts that conform to your own white washing of Imperialist Britains history?

How is the former mudslinging? And slander has to be untrue, you are sectarian.
Prove it.
If you do not prove it im reporting this post.
I really am not going to put up with this infantile attempt to discredit me.

As shown, experts on the topic, even those who bitterly condemn the British responce, have concluded that the Irish famine was not a genocide. So that is a mute point.
Apparently not.
Yet again you do not address Professor Boyles own definition in Genocide.
A man who has studied the legal definition of Genocide.

And of course the holocaust is unique, in terms of scale, time, ambition, and the attempt at the industrialisation of murder. Something in the region of 70% of jews under Nazi control (6 million) were murdered in around 4 years, and with them a further 5-6 million others; and that is employing conservative estimates of the death toll. In other words, the Nazis killed considerably more people in four years than were alive in Ireland in 1844 (just over 8 million).
The Rwandan Genocide sticks out as one.
Between 6 April through mid-July there was between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi's were massacred.
That is approximately between 8000 and 10000 people being slaughtered every day.
Now in the Holocaust approximately between 3425 and 4110 Jews were slaughtered every day.
On those figures alone it would seem the Rwandan Genocide dwarfs the Holocaust.

And you think that the holocaust and the Irish famine are akin? You're a joke.
I think they are both acts of Genocide.
I would call you a joke but I dont really find the white washing of a genocide funny.

The issue is not the man's definition of genocide, but his understanding of 19th century Irish history.
Ohh absolutely it is.
The definition of Genocide is pivitol to this debate.

And I don't have to prove to you that what he has said on that subject is wrong, because plenty of professional historians have already done so.
Of course you do.
You dismissed Professor Boyles article so please do attempt to constructively analyse his piece.

And I've provided you with suitable reading to substanciate that.
No you didnt.
You merely provided me with a few historians who conformed to your revisionist stance on Britians Imperial past.

Andropov

26th May 2009, 15:33

For a start, nationalism is inherently sectarian.
Im not a nationalist.

Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light.
Absolute bullcrap.
It paints Britians Imperial History in a bad light.
And rightfully so.
Do try and differentiate between the Empire and the British people.

But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?
This is absurd.
Provide links to my "xenophobia" or I suggest you retract that slur.

Andropov

26th May 2009, 15:51

It wouldnt be, but the hatred isnt limited to individuals who were responsible, but includes an entire racial group.
Links?

Invader Zim

26th May 2009, 16:38

My God, you have been proven wrong and you still want to try and continue this argument? Your stubborn, even in the fact of fact, I'll give you that.

A lawyer who specialises in Genocide.

On the contrary, he is a lawyer who specialises in human-rights law. But this is irrelevent, as stated the issue here is not what he knows of the legal definition of genocide, but his interpretation of historical events, in which he most certainly is not an expert.

The point still stands as you have not dismissed his claims what so ever.Indeed, I haven't; rather the worlds leading experts on the famine have already done so in print, a point which has been shown repeatedly.

You merely state his claims have been dismissed by "historians" and then do not post any article which actually contradicts Professor Boyles analyses and definition of Genocide.On the contrary, I have provided full references by academic historians who specialise in this topic. And again the issue is not Boyle's definition, rather it is the fact that the there is no evidence that shows that British policy was bent on the destruction of the Irish people or the Irish nation. In other words, contrary to Boyles assertion that the famine fits within his definition of genocide, historians of the topic have found absolutely no evidence to support his argument. The issue here is of historical fact, not the accuracy of the Genocide Convention Article.

I posted a credibile and internationally renowned opinion of A Professor in the field of Genocide and you come out with meaningless and baseless statements like "sectarian", "holocaust denier", "out of your depth" etcYou're forgetting the testiment from professional historians and experts on the topic that contradict your bullshit assertions, and those of Boyle. As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false. you even go to the point that you contend that British policy was akin to the Nazi 'Final Solution'. That makes you a nationalist sectarian at the least.

[TBH Invader I just want to conduct a civil debate with some factual sources and credibile authorsI have provided you with a number of credible authors: -

J. S. Donnelly Jr., The Great Irish Potato Famine, (Sutton, 2001), p. 209.

Edwards, R.W. & Williams, T.D. (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. XI.

Green, E. R. R. , 'The Great Famine 1845-50', in T. W. Moody & F.X. Martin, The Course of Irish History: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Dublin, 1984), pp. 273-274.

Woodham-Smith, C., The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410.

And you have proven utterly unwilling to address what they have to say. Your response is to try and dodge it by attacking the credibility and objectivity of the historians by proclaiming that they are just "a few historians who conformed to [my] revisionist stance on Britians Imperial past."

I think it a fair conclusion that you aren't remotely interested in having a civil debate, and nor are you interested in facts or credible sources.

so when you find one that directly contradicts Professor Boyles definition of Genocide then come out with your snide remarks.I did, to repost them: -

"These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation; they fell on the people because the government of Lord John Russell was afflicted with an extraordinary inability to foresee consequences. It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed more."

- Woodham-Smith, C., The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410.

"There was no conspiricy to destroy the Irish nation"

- R.W. Edwards, T.D. Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. XI.

"And it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."

Donnelly, 'Landlord and Tenant in Nineteenth-Century Ireland', in Cathal Poirteir, The Great Irish Famine (Dublin, 1995), p. 170.

"so strong are popular feelings on these matters in Ireland and especially in Irish-America that a scholar who seeks to rebut or heavily qualify the nationalist charge of genocide is often capable of stirring furious controversy or runs the risk of being labelled an apologist for the British government's horribly misguided policies during the famine".

- Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine, (Sutton, 2001), p. 209.

"The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous. Yet these are the very qualities which Charles Dickens, for instance, found so distasteful in men of their class, and they were exhibited as much to the English as to the Irish poor."

- Green, E. R. R. , 'The Great Famine 1845-50', in T. W. Moody & F.X. Martin, The Course of Irish History: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Dublin, 1984), pp. 273-274.

And from the article Brigadista posted: -

"Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."

My emphasis.

Quite obviously Boyle's view is utterly in contrast with that of those specialists who study this topic.

I never claimed him to be a historian Invader.

He is a professor who is internationally renowned in the field of Genocide.But as stated, his definition of genocide is not in despute, rather the validity of his assertion that the Great Irish Famine falls under that definition. Experts in irish history, as I have shown clearly, do not accept that it does.

In Brigadistas article alone it has numerous referances to historical texts written on the topic.Brigadista's article states that "Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."

That charge is no more fitting than being levelled at yourself.If you care to provide a work by a professional historian and expert in the Famine that confirms the charge of genocide, I will be glad to read it. But you haven't posted one, while I have provided numerous works to back up my position.

As in revisionist texts that conform to your own white washing of Imperialist Britains history?But that simply isn't true RR. I have provided revisionist and anti-revisionist historians in equal measure.

Prove it.I already have done. To repeat myself; -

"nationalism is inherently sectarian. Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light. But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?"

If you do not prove it im reporting this post.The moderators! Oh-noes!

I really am not going to put up with this infantile attempt to discredit me.You are confused, I haven't discredited you, you have discredited yourself with your sectarian bullshit.

The Rwandan Genocide sticks out as one. ... On those figures alone it would seem the Rwandan Genocide dwarfs the Holocaust.Apart from the fact that it didn't? The Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of upto 1,000,000 individuals, and I take your point that in terms of the sheer speed in which the attrocity was conducted is horrifying and far faster than that of the holocaust. However the Nazi genocide led to the deaths of around 11 or 12 times the number of individuals as were killed in the Rwandan genocide. So actually the Holocaust dwarfs the Rwandan genocide.

I think they are both acts of Genocide.And i think you're a sectarian xenophobe who can't admit when he's been proved wrong.

Andropov

27th May 2009, 00:18

My God, you have been proven wrong and you still want to try and continue this argument? Your stubborn, even in the fact of fact, I'll give you that.
Invader you have not proven anything.
Shouting and throwing mud doesnt prove anything.

On the contrary, he is a lawyer who specialises in human-rights law. But this is irrelevent, as stated the issue here is not what he knows of the legal definition of genocide, but his interpretation of historical events, in which he most certainly is not an expert.
Thats absurd conclusion Invader.
The definition of genocide is pivitol to this debate.
The definition of genocide is set down in the Rome Statutes as.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

James Connolly referred to this policy in Labour in Irish History.
"In that year the enitre potato crop was a failure and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population were the laws of capitalist society set aside and human rights elevated to their proper position."
"England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society."

Now that we have shown that British Policy dictated a culpability in perpetuating the famine we can see as set down in the Rome Statutes that it was indeed a Genocide.

This British policy also deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction within the meaning of Article II(c) of the Convention.

Indeed, I haven't; rather the worlds leading experts on the famine have already done so in print, a point which has been shown repeatedly.
The worlds leading historians own grasp of Human RIghts Law is questionable.
The definitions of genocide are in black and white and the British Empires actions in this famine clearly demonstrate it was a Genocide.

On the contrary, I have provided full references by academic historians who specialise in this topic. And again the issue is not Boyle's definition, rather it is the fact that the there is no evidence that shows that British policy was bent on the destruction of the Irish people or the Irish nation. In other words, contrary to Boyles assertion that the famine fits within his definition of genocide, historians of the topic have found absolutely no evidence to support his argument. The issue here is of historical fact, not the accuracy of the Genocide Convention Article.
Thats farcical.
Of course the legal definition of genocide is pivitol.
If we ignore that we are dealing in purely subjective opinions.
But then that does suite your revisionist agenda in white washing a genocide.

You're forgetting the testiment from professional historians and experts on the topic that contradict your bullshit assertions, and those of Boyle.
You have not provided anything which discredits Boyles legal definition of Genocide.
You have merely provided subjective opinions on the definition of Genocide when Professor Boyles analysis is set down in the Rome Statutes.

As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false.
You are actually suggesting that Britain wasnt morally reprehensible in the course of the famine?
That boggles the mind, says it all really about your Imperialist apologism.

you even go to the point that you contend that British policy was akin to the Nazi 'Final Solution'.
No I didnt, what I said was.

And I always felt that such petty arguements like, "my holocaust was worse than your holocaust" automatically trivialises genocide.
Genocide is genocide no matter who pumps the zyklon B, who wields the machete, who pulls the trigger or who deports tons of food at the barrel of a gun and the point of a bayonet out of a country where people are reduced to eating grass.
Poor poor post Invader.
As per usual you attempt to distort reality with character assasination.
Its fairly pathetic Invader but ive come to expect that from you now.

That makes you a nationalist sectarian at the least
Prove it.
Or can I join in on this fabrication game, chauvanist springs to mind.

I have provided you with a number of credible authors:
None of which specialise in the field of Human Rigths law or Genocide.
How insightfull.

And you have proven utterly unwilling to address what they have to say. Your response is to try and dodge it by attacking the credibility and objectivity of the historians by proclaiming that they are just "a few historians who conformed to [my] revisionist stance on Britians Imperial past."
I will address what they say when they set down in black and white their definition of Genocide.
It is pivitol we address the definition of Genoicde.
Do they define Genocide in the Rome Statutes or not?

I think it a fair conclusion that you aren't remotely interested in having a civil debate, and nor are you interested in facts or credible sources.
How ironic Invader.
I think people can have a look through this thread and come to their own conclusions on who was civil and who was not.
You are one of the most obnoxious and childish posters ive come across here when it comes to being civil.

"These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation; they fell on the people because the government of Lord John Russell was afflicted with an extraordinary inability to foresee consequences. It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed more."
Absurd assertion that is easily dismissed since there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe at the time.

"There was no conspiricy to destroy the Irish nation"
Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior, expressed his fear that existing policies "will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good."

"And it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."
But I thought that....

As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false
Maybe all those paddys were really delusional about Britain doing wrong.
Bit ironic your quote would even suggest that Britain may have done "some wrong".
Contradicting yourself now Invader?

"so strong are popular feelings on these matters in Ireland and especially in Irish-America that a scholar who seeks to rebut or heavily qualify the nationalist charge of genocide is often capable of stirring furious controversy or runs the risk of being labelled an apologist for the British government's horribly misguided policies during the famine".
Ohh please pure west brit chauvanism.

The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous. Yet these are the very qualities which Charles Dickens, for instance, found so distasteful in men of their class, and they were exhibited as much to the English as to the Irish poor."
What?
We are debating did the British reaction to the potato crop failure amount to genocide as set down in the rome statutes.
And it seems that from your own quote there "The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous" that the British Empire did indeed react with a neglect and intent that would amount to Article II(c) of the Convention.
Proveing my point for me now Invader?

"Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."
Brilliant quote.
Thank you yet again Invader.
This fully demonstrates historians weak grasp of the definitions of genocide.
And fully proves my point that the definition of Genocide as set down in the Rome Statutes is pivitol to the debate.

Quite obviously Boyle's view is utterly in contrast with that of those specialists who study this topic.
Not at all.
It merely shows that Professor Boyles definition of Genocide is different to that of Historians.
But as he is a Professor in the field of Human RIgths and Genocide I feel comfortable in his assertions that it was indeed an act of Genocide by the British.

But as stated, his definition of genocide is not in despute, rather the validity of his assertion that the Great Irish Famine falls under that definition. Experts in irish history, as I have shown clearly, do not accept that it does.
It is absolutely in dispute.
It is the key point in this whole debate as his definition of Genocide is proven to show that the fmaine was an act of genocide under Article II(c) of the Convention.

Brigadista's article states that "Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."
I have addressed that quote before.
That is not a definition of genocide set down in the Rome Statutes and only proves my point that historians grasp of Human Rigths Law is deeply flawed.

If you care to provide a work by a professional historian and expert in the Famine that confirms the charge of genocide, I will be glad to read it. But you haven't posted one, while I have provided numerous works to back up my position.
I posted up some works of James Connolly there for you earlier.
It demonstrates that the the British deliberatley removed food from Ireland at gun point when it was in the grip of the worst famine in its history.
That amounts to genoicde under Article II(c) of the Convention

But that simply isn't true RR. I have provided revisionist and anti-revisionist historians in equal measure.
You posted articles from historians that suite your agenda and yet you constantly avoid the elgal definition of genocide because it is in black and white the British Empires actions in Ireland at the time was clearly an act of genocide.

I already have done. To repeat myself; -
"nationalism is inherently sectarian. Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light. But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?"
Hahaha.
You quote yourself to "prove" im sectarian.
That is hilarious Invader, I hope other psoters find taht as entertaining as me.
If you want I will let you slide away with your tail between your legs since you cant seem to sunstantiate those spurious allegations.

The moderators! Oh-noes!
Bad to the bone you are.
With all those petty insults and mud slinging and your fuck the man mentality, you are well hard Invader.

You are confused, I haven't discredited you, you have discredited yourself with your sectarian bullshit.
Sorry dear, could you provide evidence?
I wont hold my breadth.
But do quote yourself again, its always good for a laugh for you to provide evidence of my alleged sectarianism by quoting yourself.

Apart from the fact that it didn't? The Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of upto 1,000,000 individuals, and I take your point that in terms of the sheer speed in which the attrocity was conducted is horrifying and far faster than that of the holocaust. However the Nazi genocide led to the deaths of around 11 or 12 times the number of individuals as were killed in the Rwandan genocide. So actually the Holocaust dwarfs the Rwandan genocide.
Yet again you attempt to completely distort the thruth to suite your warped agenda.
My full post was.

Between 6 April through mid-July there was between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi's were massacred.
That is approximately between 8000 and 10000 people being slaughtered every day.
Now in the Holocaust approximately between 3425 and 4110 Jews were slaughtered every day.
On those figures alone it would seem the Rwandan Genocide dwarfs the Holocaust.
On the figures of people slaughtered per day the Rwandan Genocide dwarfs the Holocaust.
As you seemed to use the time frame as a key factor in measuring which genocide was worse.

The trans-Atlantic trade is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of perhaps 10 million over a period of over 300 year, not at least 11-12 million by a single state in 4 years. The two are incomparable.
From the standard used by yourself it seems that the Rwandan Genocide is indeed worse than the holocaust.
Merely using your own logic invader.

And i think you're a sectarian xenophobe who can't admit when he's been proved wrong.
I think your an ignorant chauvanistic genocidal apologist and cheer leader for the Empire, but this really isnt about what we think of each other is it Invader.

Bitter Ashes

27th May 2009, 01:16

PRC-UTE

27th May 2009, 03:29

The thing which I'm having difficulty with here is this idea that the stupidity and incompitance of Parliment is intentional. Were all these people in Westminister secret geniuses that chose to hide thier amazing logicistical skills from the public just to get a few kicks at the Irish? I doubt it. They were idiots and behaved like idiots and thier failures are a testament to that. If we know one thing for sure about capitalism is that it's a horrifically ineffecient system, especially where aid packages are concerned. Even in the 21st century we still make a royal screw up of sending food to the tsunami hit areas.

I suppose it does all come down to intent. With the holocaust, or Rwanda, or the Harrowing of the North, it's very clear because it's not possible to accidently force hundreds of thousands to violent deaths. When you get into the territory of guilt by ommision of action then there is a lot more thought required about the reasoning for that ommission of action. I personaly put it down to capitalism bieng ineffecient and our leaders bieng idiots who couldnt organise a pissup at a brewary.

Incidently, you dont hear me railing on about the "evil Danes" every chance I get for them burning out every town and village from York to Sunderland, killing 150,000 Northerners, salting the earth, slaying the livestock and fouling the meat in a single winter. Why? Because it'd be ridiculous, even when the North still suffers from the effects of that massacre, I have to accept that it happened over 900 years ago and that the Danes who live today are in no way responsible for that.

I see what you're trying to say, but the two situations are a bit different.

The famine caused a decline in population that Ireland is just now recovering from, and culturally may never recover from. The English government definitely had a sated policy of getting rid of the Irish language, and repeatedly stated that the famine was doing their work for them. I don't really see how that's debatable- the British spent centuries using force to destroy the Irish language and ban all Irish culture. The famine was simply more extreme.

The British state did not cause a potato blight. But they did take the rest of the food that was there literally at bayonet point (it's widely recognised that there was enough food to feed the whole nation). The higher-ups in the British state actually blocked the work of or sought to remove those in the British government that actually wanted to avert scale of the disaster. They claimed that the laws of free trade prohibited them from spending money on stopping the disaster, yet they always had the funds to pay for soldiers and police to attack peasants who resisted and throw them in the ditch. I do think that makes them responsible.

I think the intent to kill off the Irish peasants or drive them from the land was clearly there, but even if it wasn't, I'm not actually too hung up on intent. I think results matter more.

pastradamus

27th May 2009, 04:24

Incidently, you dont hear me railing on about the "evil Danes" every chance I get for them burning out every town and village from York to Sunderland, killing 150,000 Northerners, salting the earth, slaying the livestock and fouling the meat in a single winter. Why? Because it'd be ridiculous, even when the North still suffers from the effects of that massacre, I have to accept that it happened over 900 years ago and that the Danes who live today are in no way responsible for that.

A good point. But we are not talking about Danish Raids or feudal warfare - which incidentally happened all over Ireland as well. We are talking about a Modern governmence system. We are talking about the Conservatives under Sir Robert Peel and the Whig Party under Lord Russell. Whether you choose to believe if the Famine was genocide or not is irrelevant. What is worth talking about is the failure of the British Government in the ruling of Ireland, The lack of Relief, The exporting of food away from the faminised zones and the complete ignorance, hypocracy and arrogance of the said Governments. The results of this decimated our population and culture and the UK government must be in some way responsible for this attrocity.

Now bear in mind that nobody here is being xenophobic and racist when it comes to the British people. I quite like the Brits I know and met. Its the government who our musings are concerned with. We never recieved so much as an apology at the decimation of our culture and language from Westminster. So I dont believe we can just get on with things and ignore this watershed in Irish history.

Bitter Ashes

27th May 2009, 12:55

A good point. But we are not talking about Danish Raids or feudal warfare - which incidentally happened all over Ireland as well. We are talking about a Modern governmence system. We are talking about the Conservatives under Sir Robert Peel and the Whig Party under Lord Russell. Whether you choose to believe if the Famine was genocide or not is irrelevant. What is worth talking about is the failure of the British Government in the ruling of Ireland, The lack of Relief, The exporting of food away from the faminised zones and the complete ignorance, hypocracy and arrogance of the said Governments. The results of this decimated our population and culture and the UK government must be in some way responsible for this attrocity.

Now bear in mind that nobody here is being xenophobic and racist when it comes to the British people. I quite like the Brits I know and met. Its the government who our musings are concerned with. We never recieved so much as an apology at the decimation of our culture and language from Westminster. So I dont believe we can just get on with things and ignore this watershed in Irish history.
I think I see what you're saying. yup. I think The thing I was reffering to btw was the Harrying/Harrowing of the North. During the early years of Norman occupation, Northern England rebelled and William of Normany took that as a good reason to turn the North into a wasteland and massacre its people over the space of one winter. Northern England never did recover from that and it's the root cause of the North/South divide in power, wealth and lifestyle in England.

Invader Zim

27th May 2009, 18:06

Shouting and throwing mud doesnt prove anything.

I'm 'throwing mud'? Seriously after your posts...?

But, whatever, I'll be nice and stick to the issue of whether the famine was a genocide.

The definition of genocide is pivitol to this debate.

Not so, because if we accept the United States' definition (which Boyle was quoting) then historians have argued that Famine still doesn't fall under that definition. They challenge, among other things, the notion that policy was designed with the destruction in mind. Rather they argue that blame for the famine lies with ignorance, parsimoniousness and strict adherence to flawed economic dogma. And these historians are in a position to know that, Boyle isn't.

Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.

And that is where you depart company, as I have shown with direct quotations, with historians. The experts on the topic have argued that their policies were not designed with the destruction of the Irish people and nation at heart.

James Connolly referred to this policy in Labour in Irish History.

"In that year the enitre potato crop was a failure and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population were the laws of capitalist society set aside and human rights elevated to their proper position."
"England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society."

Two points, Connolly is not arguing in this quotation that the British deliberately engineered the famine in the wake of the potato blight. He is arguing that the famine was the result of adherence to the economic system in place. Secondly, his notion that there was enough food produced in Ireland to sustain the population during the famine years, but it was denied to the local population, is actually a myth that has been debunked by archival research. The myth that is regularly appears in nationalist writings on the topic, from the 1840s right through to our very own PRC-UTE here is that, grain in particular, was exported at massive levels.

Actually P. M. A. Bourke has shown that only 146,000 tons of grain were exported in 'black 47' as opposed to 472,000 tons annually in the three years preceding the famine. Furthermore the grain flow into Ireland actually vastly exceeded Ireland's grain exports; total imports in 1847-48 were at 1,328,000 tons.

Bourke, The Visitation of God? The potato and the great Irish famine (Dublin, 1993), p. 168.

James Donnelly, whom you have professed in your post, to have contained in his work "pure west brit chauvanism" without, I suspect, having read a single page of his works, stated, "The food gap created by the loss of the potato in the late 1840s was so enormous that it could not have been filled [through preventing grain export]".

Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine, p. 215.

The worlds leading historians own grasp of Human RIghts Law is questionable.

Or, and far more likely, Boyle's grasp on the history of the famine is questionable and he fails to realise that historian's rejection of the 'genocide' argument is not based on an alternative definition of genocide.

Thats farcical.
Of course the legal definition of genocide is pivitol.
If we ignore that we are dealing in purely subjective opinions.
But then that does suite your revisionist agenda in white washing a genocide.

You didn't address my point, which is that historians reject the genocide charge, not because they have an alternative definition - or fail to understand what 'genocide' is - but because the famine was not deliberately constructed, or worsened, with the aim of attacking the Irish people.

You have not provided anything which discredits Boyles legal definition of Genocide.

No, I have proven that historians of the topic dismiss the charge that British policy was designed to deliberately destroy the nation and kill its people, and that is, by your own admission integral to your, and Boyle's, genocide charge.

You are actually suggesting that Britain wasnt morally reprehensible in the course of the famine?

No, I'm saying that nationalists are intent on massively over-emphasising and inflating the role of the Russell government beyond its actual historical role in order to add further legitimacy to their nationalist ideology. I'm not saying that the British government's policies were correct, obviously they were not.

No I didnt, what I said was.

Actually, what you also said was that there were "British holocausts in Ireland", and when challenged on that you cited the Great Famine, clearly stating that the Irish famine was akin to the holocaust.

But as promised, in the aid of civility, that is the last I'll say on the matter. I have my opinions, you have yours.

Absurd assertion that is easily dismissed since there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe at the time.

The really amusing thing is that the very historian you describe as making 'absurd assertions' is among the most influential anti-revisionists to write on the topic, indeed so anti-revisionist that she was confused by the author of Brigadista's article as a supporter of the genocide charge. Indeed it is this same historian who provided Nassau Senior's alleged remarks you quote in your post (but I will deal with that below). If you want to find a historian who comes close to, though not quite to the point of, supporting the genocide charge then Woodham-Smith is your historian. But you have just dismissed her out of hand.

Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior, expressed his fear that existing policies "will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good."

Presumably you found that quote on the internet, and I suspect on a site espousing the merits of the genocide charge. In an attempt to confirm that theory I conducted a google search of my own and discovered that only a few dozen sites, primarily those with an obvious agenda (such as www.irishholocaust.org (http://www.irishholocaust.org)) provide that quote. I suggest that if you delved deeper into the issue you would be reticent to employ it, as you would know the context of the quote. The quote actually comes not directly from Senior, but from Benjamin Jowett (the Master of Balliol at the time) who when describing the root of his distaste for economists proclaimed to have heard Senior uttering the statement. Sites such as irishholocaust.org cited Cecil Woodham-Smith's work, The Great Hunger as their source (badly I might add, they fail to tell us which edition they refer to, which renders the provision of a page number rather pointless). So presumably Woodham-Smith is the historian who uncovered this quote, though I don't recall the quote in the book when I first came across it a few years ago. And after a brief period of searching I found the quote in her work, and discovered that irishholocaust, and inadvertently those sites who based their material on irishholocaust, had dramatically altered the context of that quote. The fact is that the quote is hear-say derived from a third party. Woodham-Smith also failed to reference the quotation, as a result it is near impossible to know where she found it.

And another point, even if we accept that it is a legitimate insight into the thoughts of Senior there are two major problems still to address. Firstly Senior wasn't a minister of the crown, he was an economist and thus his private views are not an indication of government policy. Secondly, what he may have thought in private does not necessarily translate into the reasoning behind the policy he advised the government.

Maybe all those paddys were really delusional about Britain doing wrong.

Historical memory is popularly constructed. It doesn't make individuals delusional, it doesn't however stop them being wrong. Archival research has shown that the notion that the English deliberately increased food exports to England in the wake of famine, deliberately to destroy the Irish population is a myth. Doubtless that myth has a loose basis in some fact, for example some landlords doubtless did continue to export grain even though the Irish people were starving, but that has become distorted over time. We now regularly see the theory that Ireland produced twice as much food than was necessary to support the population during the famine, but that food was taken from them by English landlords. As shown earlier in my post grain exports during the famine plummeted, and food import levels vastly outstripped export levels.

Ohh please pure west brit chauvanism.

Two points:

A. that is very unfair, I doubt you know anything about the man, and certainly not enough to try to dismiss him out of hand with such charges.

B. Is it? You yourself declared the writings of a historians I posted "revisionist texts that ... [are a] white washing of Imperialist Britain’s history". It strikes me that Donnell is bang on the money.

And it seems that from your own quote there "The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous" that the British Empire did indeed react with a neglect and intent that would amount to Article II(c) of the Convention.

Not so, firstly Green does not argue that the government was to blame, rather he contends that they were forced to take the blame subsequently. Nor does he argue that they had intent to destroy the Irish people or any part of that people. Indeed he argues the exact opposite, he alludes to the general economic theories and social attitudes of the day which he contends were not especially hostile to the Irish people. In other words his argument is that the British gentry's cruelty was not aimed at the Irish and the Irish alone. Rather his argument is that events outside of their control created the famine, rather than any specific desire to hurt the Irish people.

This fully demonstrates historians weak grasp of the definitions of genocide.

Not so, it shows that historians are quite aware that intent is key. Just as the statutes you have quoted state that intent is key.

As you can see, "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" and "there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."

My emphasis.

It merely shows that Professor Boyles definition of Genocide is different to that of Historians.

No, it doesn't. As shown above.

But as he is a Professor in the field of Human RIgths and Genocide I feel comfortable in his assertions that it was indeed an act of Genocide by the British.

But, while not wishing to return to our less than polite mode of discussion, that says more about what you know of the famine than it does of the validity of Boyle's argument. Historians do not reject the genocide charge because they fail to understand what genocide is, they reject the genocide charge because there is no evidence that British policy was intended to destroy.

You posted articles from historians that suite your agenda and yet you constantly avoid the elgal definition of genocide because it is in black and white the British Empires actions in Ireland at the time was clearly an act of genocide.

I see that you have failed to address the fact that your charge is in error, I have not relied upon revisionist historians. But nevermind.

As you seemed to use the time frame as a key factor in measuring which genocide was worse.

You are in error. I provided several key themes, not simply the time frame, that in conjunction make the holocaust unique. What I said was, "the holocaust is unique, in terms of scale, time, ambition, and the attempt at the industrialisation of murder." Doubtless given a little more thought I could add further elements to that list, but it suffices for the purpose of this discussion.

But that brings us full circle, not only have you yet to show that the Great Irish Famine was genocide, you have yet to substantiate that it was a 'holocaust'. ‘Genocide’ and ‘holocaust’ are not synonymous, indeed the phrase was attached to the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ specifically to differentiate the holocaust from other acts of genocide, despite the fact that the term ‘genocide’ first appeared in the English language in the 1940s in the wake of Nazi atrocities.

Merely using your own logic invader.

On the contrary, you have ignored the statement that qualifies what I said.

Andropov

28th May 2009, 02:16

I'm 'throwing mud'? Seriously after your posts...?
You are the one that started throwing pathetic drivel of "sectarian" and "xenophobe" etc.

But, whatever, I'll be nice and stick to the issue of whether the famine was a genocide.
Ohh the irony.

For a start, nationalism is inherently sectarian. Compounded by the fact that he, as proven in this thread, unquestioningly accepts debunked claims as long as they paint his percieved national opponents (the British, or rather the 'English') in a poor light. But maybe you are right, perhaps the best word is not 'sectarian', what do you suggest? 'Xenophobic'?

Not so, because if we accept the United States' definition (which Boyle was quoting)
The Rome Statutes have over 100 signatories, do not even attempt to deflect the issue onto America.
It is the only internationally recognised barometer on human rights law and genocide in the world.
It is free from personel subjectivity that you so freely use to attempt to bolster your arguement.
If you have a more credibile source of defining a genocide I eagerly await to see it.

then historians have argued that Famine still doesn't fall under that definition. They challenge, among other things, the notion that policy was designed with the destruction in mind. Rather they argue that blame for the famine lies with ignorance, parsimoniousness and strict adherence to flawed economic dogma. And these historians are in a position to know that, Boyle isn't.
And that is where you depart company, as I have shown with direct quotations, with historians. The experts on the topic have argued that their policies were not designed with the destruction of the Irish people and nation at heart.
Ohh dear ohh dear invader.
Lets go over this again shall we Invader.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

James Connolly referred to this policy in Labour in Irish History.
"In that year the enitre potato crop was a failure and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population were the laws of capitalist society set aside and human rights elevated to their proper position."
"England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society."

Now that we have shown that British Policy dictated a culpability in perpetuating the famine we can see as set down in the Rome Statutes that it was indeed a Genocide.

This British policy also deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction within the meaning of Article II(c) of the Convention.

Two points, Connolly is not arguing in this quotation that the British deliberately engineered the famine in the wake of the potato blight. He is arguing that the famine was the result of adherence to the economic system in place.
I never claimed that.
Stop trying to misinterpret my point.
I was using Connollys analysis to prove that the British Empire was in breach of article Article II(c) of the Convention.

Secondly, his notion that there was enough food produced in Ireland to sustain the population during the famine years, but it was denied to the local population, is actually a myth that has been debunked by archival research. The myth that is regularly appears in nationalist writings on the topic, from the 1840s right through to our very own PRC-UTE here is that, grain in particular, was exported at massive levels.

Actually P. M. A. Bourke has shown that only 146,000 tons of grain were exported in 'black 47' as opposed to 472,000 tons annually in the three years preceding the famine. Furthermore the grain flow into Ireland actually vastly exceeded Ireland's grain exports; total imports in 1847-48 were at 1,328,000 tons.
Connolly totally contradicts those figures.
"The ordinary value of the potato crop was yearly approximately twenty million pounds in English money; in 1848, in the midst of the famine, the value of agricultural produce in Ireland was £44,958,120. In that year the entire potato crop was a failure, and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population"
A vindication of such evidence of a pillaging of crops from ireland in the grips of a famine is that in the course of the famine 75 British Regiments were deployed across the country.
For example in Kerry which is quite a mountaineous region the 1st and 8th Dragoons were deployed.
These regiments were of course horse back and that was to facilitate the rounding up of Sheep which were widespread on the Kerry mountains for export to Britain as there was little to no crops to plunder in such a rugged and inhospitable county.

James Donnelly, whom you have professed in your post, to have contained in his work "pure west brit chauvanism" without, I suspect, having read a single page of his works, stated, "The food gap created by the loss of the potato in the late 1840s was so enormous that it could not have been filled [through preventing grain export]".
It remains to be seen whether the food gap could have been filled but that is slightly irrelevant.
The British actions fo forcibly removing food in the midst of a famine is in clear breach of article Article II(c) of the Convention and is there fore Genocide under human rights law.

Or, and far more likely, Boyle's grasp on the history of the famine is questionable and he fails to realise that historian's rejection of the 'genocide' argument is not based on an alternative definition of genocide.
Far more likely?
What an arrogant conclusion.
You proved my point when quoting Brigadistas historians definition of genocide which is clearly not what is laid down in the Rome Statutes.

You didn't address my point, which is that historians reject the genocide charge, not because they have an alternative definition - or fail to understand what 'genocide' is - but because the famine was not deliberately constructed, or worsened, with the aim of attacking the Irish people.
Of course it was worsened, that is something that is certain.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.
Its in black and white Invader, your fudging of the issue is really reaking of desperation at this stage.

No, I have proven that historians of the topic dismiss the charge that British policy was designed to deliberately destroy the nation and kill its people, and that is, by your own admission integral to your, and Boyle's, genocide charge.
WRONG AGAIN.
Im getting sick of quoting this but it really seems to be going straight over your head.
Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

No, I'm saying that nationalists are intent on massively over-emphasising and inflating the role of the Russell government beyond its actual historical role in order to add further legitimacy to their nationalist ideology. I'm not saying that the British government's policies were correct, obviously they were not.
No what you said was....

As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false
So from your post there it is fair to assume you feel that the British Empires actions were not at all in a bad light.
Kind of hard for you to fudge your way out of this one since your post is clear for all to see, not even your deflection on "nationalists" can let you slime out of that outrageous comment.

Actually, what you also said was that there were "British holocausts in Ireland", and when challenged on that you cited the Great Famine, clearly stating that the Irish famine was akin to the holocaust.
But as promised, in the aid of civility, that is the last I'll say on the matter. I have my opinions, you have yours.
Dont you mean you have your interpretations and I have mine since I didnt suggest that the Famine was akin to the Holocaust, only that both are defined as Genocide in the Rome Statutes.

The really amusing thing is that the very historian you describe as making 'absurd assertions' is among the most influential anti-revisionists to write on the topic, indeed so anti-revisionist that she was confused by the author of Brigadista's article as a supporter of the genocide charge. Indeed it is this same historian who provided Nassau Senior's alleged remarks you quote in your post (but I will deal with that below). If you want to find a historian who comes close to, though not quite to the point of, supporting the genocide charge then Woodham-Smith is your historian. But you have just dismissed her out of hand.
I dont care for that irrelevant babble Invader.
The fact remains that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe at the time and so it was hardly unforseeable to see Famine was not on the Irish nations doorstep.
So of course that quote you took was an absurd assertion.

Presumably you found that quote on the internet, and I suspect on a site espousing the merits of the genocide charge. In an attempt to confirm that theory I conducted a google search of my own and discovered that only a few dozen sites, primarily those with an obvious agenda (such as www.irishholocaust.org (http://www.irishholocaust.org/)) provide that quote. I suggest that if you delved deeper into the issue you would be reticent to employ it, as you would know the context of the quote. The quote actually comes not directly from Senior, but from Benjamin Jowett (the Master of Balliol at the time) who when describing the root of his distaste for economists proclaimed to have heard Senior uttering the statement. Sites such as irishholocaust.org cited Cecil Woodham-Smith's work, The Great Hunger as their source (badly I might add, they fail to tell us which edition they refer to, which renders the provision of a page number rather pointless). So presumably Woodham-Smith is the historian who uncovered this quote, though I don't recall the quote in the book when I first came across it a few years ago. And after a brief period of searching I found the quote in her work, and discovered that irishholocaust, and inadvertently those sites who based their material on irishholocaust, had dramatically altered the context of that quote. The fact is that the quote is hear-say derived from a third party. Woodham-Smith also failed to reference the quotation, as a result it is near impossible to know where she found it.
Sadly ironic you were championing that very historian when now you are claiming that she is pulling material out of the sky when it is in contradiction with your own arguement.
Interesting indeed.

And another point, even if we accept that it is a legitimate insight into the thoughts of Senior there are two major problems still to address. Firstly Senior wasn't a minister of the crown, he was an economist and thus his private views are not an indication of government policy. Secondly, what he may have thought in private does not necessarily translate into the reasoning behind the policy he advised the government.
That is true.
But it gives a taste of what people in influence in the British Empire felt with regaurds to the famine.

Historical memory is popularly constructed. It doesn't make individuals delusional, it doesn't however stop them being wrong. Archival research has shown that the notion that the English deliberately increased food exports to England in the wake of famine, deliberately to destroy the Irish population is a myth
Invader they did not need to increase exports of food, I never suggested that.
I merely stated that they continued to export vast amounts of food at gun point when Ireland was in the grip of a famine which is in breach of Article II(c) of the Convention and thus An Gorta Mor was Genocide.

Doubtless that myth has a loose basis in some fact, for example some landlords doubtless did continue to export grain even though the Irish people were starving, but that has become distorted over time. We now regularly see the theory that Ireland produced twice as much food than was necessary to support the population during the famine, but that food was taken from them by English landlords. As shown earlier in my post grain exports during the famine plummeted, and food import levels vastly outstripped export levels.
What those figures do not show is that it includes the indian corn imported into Ireland by the British that was sold at a penny a pound (lets not forget to starving peasantry who had no wealth what so ever) and not only that but was left not ground and was inedible. It also had to be cooked again and also resulted in sever bowel complaints which only helped worsen the typhus fever which followed hot on the heels of starvation.
So even though revisionists such as yourself will use those figures to attempt to shine a positive light on Britain as if it were attempting to help the Irish, all those measures were mearly charades and stop gaps on the way to the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands if Irish people.

that is very unfair, I doubt you know anything about the man, and certainly not enough to try to dismiss him out of hand with such charges.
I am dismissing that chauvanistic statement that fobs off all condemnation of the British as apparently "nationalistic".
I will reserve my judgement on the man till a later date when I see more of the mans work.

Is it? You yourself declared the writings of a historians I posted "revisionist texts that ... [are a] white washing of Imperialist Britain’s history". It strikes me that Donnell is bang on the money.
That is because you are a chauvanist and genocide denier.
Of course you will agree with that perspective.

Not so, firstly Green does not argue that the government was to blame, rather he contends that they were forced to take the blame subsequently.
Could you provide a link to that?

Nor does he argue that they had intent to destroy the Irish people or any part of that people. Indeed he argues the exact opposite, he alludes to the general economic theories and social attitudes of the day which he contends were not especially hostile to the Irish people. In other words his argument is that the British gentry's cruelty was not aimed at the Irish and the Irish alone. Rather his argument is that events outside of their control created the famine, rather than any specific desire to hurt the Irish people.
Ohh dear god, here we go again.
Ok one more time Invader.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

Not so, it shows that historians are quite aware that intent is key. Just as the statutes you have quoted state that intent is key.
A link to their definition of intent?

As you can see, "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" and "there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."
Absolute muck.
The very fact that the British Empire was exporting grain at gun point out of Ireland in the midst of a famine and importing some unedible and worthless grain shows intent as set down in the rome statutes and thus a breach in the convention.

No, it doesn't. As shown above.
Yes it does, as shown above.

But, while not wishing to return to our less than polite mode of discussion, that says more about what you know of the famine than it does of the validity of Boyle's argument. Historians do not reject the genocide charge because they fail to understand what genocide is, they reject the genocide charge because there is no evidence that British policy was intended to destroy.
Sweet mother of god.
How many times must I say this.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

I see that you have failed to address the fact that your charge is in error, I have not relied upon revisionist historians. But nevermind.
I didnt claim that there.
I merely stated that you cherry pick your historians as long as they do not claim it was genocide and yet you constantly fail to address the legal realisations that Professor Boyle comes to even with the vast amount of historical material at his disposal.

You are in error. I provided several key themes, not simply the time frame, that in conjunction make the holocaust unique. What I said was, "the holocaust is unique, in terms of scale, time, ambition, and the attempt at the industrialisation of murder." Doubtless given a little more thought I could add further elements to that list, but it suffices for the purpose of this discussion.
What an outrageous conclusion.
To have the sheer audacity to relegate the Rwandan Genocide beneadth the Holocaust by mearly moving the goal posts to suite your assertion is despicable.
I have come to expect your hostility with all things British Empire but to actually trivialise genocides like that smacks of bourgoise opportunism.

But that brings us full circle, not only have you yet to show that the Great Irish Famine was genocide,
Done numerous times over now at this stage.

you have yet to substantiate that it was a 'holocaust'. ‘Genocide’ and ‘holocaust’ are not synonymous, indeed the phrase was attached to the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ specifically to differentiate the holocaust from other acts of genocide, despite the fact that the term ‘genocide’ first appeared in the English language in the 1940s in the wake of Nazi atrocities.
I dont care what Oxford Dictionary definitions attach to each genocide etc, its all farely irrelevant to me.
If you dont like me calling An Gorta Mor a holocaust, fine I wont, I really dont care.

On the contrary, you have ignored the statement that qualifies what I said.
How about we let people decide on this one.

Apart from the fact that it didn't? The Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of upto 1,000,000 individuals, and I take your point that in terms of the sheer speed in which the attrocity was conducted is horrifying and far faster than that of the holocaust. However the Nazi genocide led to the deaths of around 11 or 12 times the number of individuals as were killed in the Rwandan genocide. So actually the Holocaust dwarfs the Rwandan genocide.

Between 6 April through mid-July there was between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi's were massacred.That is approximately between 8000 and 10000 people being slaughtered every day.Now in the Holocaust approximately between 3425 and 4110 Jews were slaughtered every day.
On those figures alone it would seem the Rwandan Genocide dwarfs the Holocaust.

The trans-Atlantic trade is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of perhaps 10 million over a period of over 300 year, not at least 11-12 million by a single state in 4 years. The two are incomparable.

Invader Zim

28th May 2009, 11:53

If you have a more credibile source of defining a genocide I eagerly await to see it.
We are using the same source, as I have explained several times now, so you can cease employing this strawman argument.

Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.

You can't, because they didn't. Let us again return to what professional historians have to say on the issue of intent: -

"there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."

What part of that do you find so hard to get your head round? When are you going to address the fact that the worlds leading experts on the topic disagree with you? Why do you suppose, beyond mind-boggling arrogance, that you are correct, but that they are wrong?

James Connolly referred to this policy in Labour in Irish History.
"In that year the enitre potato crop was a failure and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population were the laws of capitalist society set aside and human rights elevated to their proper position."
"England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society."

And as shown, Connolly's conclusions regarding food production have been found incompatable with the historical evidence.

The British actions fo forcibly removing food in the midst of a famine is in clear breach of article Article II(c) of the Convention and is there fore Genocide under human rights law.

But, as shown, the landlords and the British actually vastly reduced the amount of food that left Ireland and vastly increased the amount that entered. If you want to take issue with that, you should not be addressing your concerns to me, rather you should be addressing them to one of the major scholarly journals and the historians who's research contradtics your beliefs on the matter.

What an arrogant conclusion.

Not at all, and certainly not as arrogant as your statements in this thread which show that you think you know moe about this topic than its leading experts.

Of course it was worsened, that is something that is certain.

That is not indispute, the issue that is in dispute is whether British policy was designed with the intent of making the situation worse. Somthing you have yet to show.

Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

On the contrary, after the 1740-41 famine, which resulted in the death of around 10% of the population, there hadn't been anything like the Great Famine, and your attempt to draw comparison rings hollow. While certainly there had been famines which had caused mass hunger, no major famine had succeeded in causing the kind of scenario that faced Ireland on the eve of the famine for over a hundred years. Indeed it was partially the fact that Ireland regularly suffered partial potato crop failures, that didn't see mass death, that led to a lack of preperation on the part of successive British government. They believed, from experience that things tended to resolve themselves, and that fitted into the economic theories of the time.

You are also wrong in supposing that the initial British responce, that of the Peel government, to the famine was akin to the responce previous famines. Indeed, Peel's responce is typically praised by historians, at least when compared to Russell's responce which was based on what was then believed to be cutting edge economic theory. As it turned out that theory was wrong.

No what you said was....

"As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false"

So from your post there it is fair to assume you feel that the British Empires actions were not at all in a bad light.

My statement obviously refered only to your charge that the famine was a genocide. I am not arguing that British policy was correct. Don't be disingenuous.

since I didnt suggest that the Famine was akin to the Holocaust

So you didn't mean the Famine was akin to the holocaust when you described the famine as an example of a holocaust? Right. Whatever.

So of course that quote you took was an absurd assertion.

There you go again suggesting that you know more than professional historians, and I can't be bothered trying to convinse you otherwise. Quite clearly this discussion is pointless as we have reached an impasse. Obviously when met with expert opinion, which invariably contradicts your ignorant sectarian world view, all you can muster is a petulant outburst. In other words, you have proven Donnelly correct. If you think you know better than people who have studied this topic their entire working lives, yet can only respond to their arguments with angry ad hominems despite not having actually read any of their works, I can't be bothered to argue with you. As i said to you, I can only tell you what the books are, I can't make you read them. If you want to indulge in ignorance that makes you feal better about yourself and your nationalistic ideology, that is your choice.

As you have said, we can let other people read and judge for themselves.

If you change your mind, and want to discuss this honestly, you know where to find me.

Andropov

28th May 2009, 13:38

We are using the same source, as I have explained several times now, so you can cease employing this strawman argument.
Ohh dear ohh dear.
No you havent Invader.
Let me make this clear.
Provide me with someone who denys the Irish famine was genocide on the Rome Statutes grounds.
That quote you provided does not substantitate your arguement because it does not define the historians interpretation of genocide fully or the historians grasp of intent AS DEFINED BY THE ROME STATUTES.
This isnt rocket science Invader, do try and grasp the point here.

You can't, because they didn't. Let us again return to what professional historians have to say on the issue of intent: -
"there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."
Now that I have addressed that quote aboves irrelevancy I will yet again define why the Irish famine was genocide.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now to prove that British policy in Ireland was genocidal all we must prove is that their very policys showed intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

James Connolly referred to this policy in Labour in Irish History.
"In that year the enitre potato crop was a failure and to that fact the famine was placcidly attributed, yet those figures amply prove that there was food enough in the country to feed double the population were the laws of capitalist society set aside and human rights elevated to their proper position."
"England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society."

Now that we have shown that British Policy dictated a culpability in perpetuating the famine we can see as set down in the Rome Statutes that it was indeed a Genocide.

This British policy also deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction within the meaning of Article II(c) of the Convention.

What part of that do you find so hard to get your head round? When are you going to address the fact that the worlds leading experts on the topic disagree with you? Why do you suppose, beyond mind-boggling arrogance, that you are correct, but that they are wrong?
What a weak arguement, really grasping at straws now Invader.
This has nothing to do with arrogance this has to do with the Legal definition of genocide as backed up by historical fact.

And as shown, Connolly's conclusions regarding food production have been found incompatable with the historical evidence.
You didnt show that at all.
You merely posted figures contradicting him from a different historian.
The point still stands.

But, as shown, the landlords and the British actually vastly reduced the amount of food that left Ireland
A pivitol point in my arguement, thanks for raising the issue.
The very fact that any food at all was being forcibly deported from Ireland at gun point in the grips of a famine demonstrates intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.
That is a clear breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

and vastly increased the amount that entered. If you want to take issue with that, you should not be addressing your concerns to me, rather you should be addressing them to one of the major scholarly journals and the historians who's research contradtics your beliefs on the matter.
That is pathetic Invader.
I have fully detailed how the "food" that entered was terrible and did nothing to avert the famine.
So do not try and tuck tail and run by placing the blaim on the historians, you used their figures to defend your arguement so at least have the decency to stand by your own argument.

Not at all, and certainly not as arrogant as your statements in this thread which show that you think you know moe about this topic than its leading experts.
I wouldnt say I know more about the topic than the worlds leading experts.
Just I am able to understand their works in the context of the Rome Statutes to prove the famine really was genocide.
Now can we get back to the topic at hand or do you want to fully divert the debate away from constructive debate to deflect from your own point of view?

That is not indispute, the issue that is in dispute is whether British policy was designed with the intent of making the situation worse. Somthing you have yet to show.
The very action of forcibly removing food from a country in the grips of a famine demonstrates intent under the Rome Statutes.
I have shown it numerous times, even in this post, if you want I will copy and apste it for you again.

On the contrary, after the 1740-41 famine, which resulted in the death of around 10% of the population, there hadn't been anything like the Great Famine, and your attempt to draw comparison rings hollow. While certainly there had been famines which had caused mass hunger, no major famine had succeeded in causing the kind of scenario that faced Ireland on the eve of the famine for over a hundred years. Indeed it was partially the fact that Ireland regularly suffered partial potato crop failures, that didn't see mass death, that led to a lack of preperation on the part of successive British government. They believed, from experience that things tended to resolve themselves, and that fitted into the economic theories of the time.
Absurd suggestion.
The very fact that the 1740 famine wiped out 10% of the population demonstrates the vulnerability and risk of famine to the Irish people.
Even though the 5 other famines were not on a colossaul scale they still demonstrated the vulnerability of the Irish people to crop failure.
The point stands that the famine was of course forseeable and I dont know about you but I would say that 10% of the population being wiped out would be called mass death, maybe thats just me though.

You are also wrong in supposing that the initial British responce, that of the Peel government, to the famine was akin to the responce previous famines. Indeed, Peel's responce is typically praised by historians, at least when compared to Russell's responce which was based on what was then believed to be cutting edge economic theory. As it turned out that theory was wrong.
Yet another innacuracy Invader.
Sir Charles Trevelyan insisted that all reports of famine were actually grossly exaggerated until 1847.
As im sure you know he was placed in charge of administration of Government relief to the victims.
And this is very man appointed to help the crisis described the famine as a "mechanism for reducing surplus population".
Thats not even the best bit invader, he went on to say.
"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people".
Seems like a man after your own heart Invader.

My statement obviously refered only to your charge that the famine was a genocide. I am not arguing that British policy was correct. Don't be disingenuous.

As I have shown, you cling to any claim that places Britain in a bad light, despite being shown that those claims are false
I think the blatant Imperial apologism and genocide denial is evidence enough of where your sympathys lie.
Just a mouthpiece for the Empires revisionism.

So you didn't mean the Famine was akin to the holocaust when you described the famine as an example of a holocaust? Right. Whatever.
It was an example of a genocide.
Not really that difficult to grasp.

There you go again suggesting that you know more than professional historians, and I can't be bothered trying to convinse you otherwise. Quite clearly this discussion is pointless as we have reached an impasse.
Dont forget to clse the door on the way out.

Obviously when met with expert opinion,
As in a Professor of Human Rights Law?

which invariably contradicts your ignorant sectarian world view,
Provide a link to my sectarianism?
I wont hold my breadth as you do enjoy running away from accountability.

all you can muster is a petulant outburst.
Ohh kind of like character assasination, like "sectarianism" right?

In other words, you have proven Donnelly correct.
Link?

If you think you know better than people who have studied this topic their entire working lives,
Is this you passing the book again for your own flawed arguements?
This is enjoyable.

yet can only respond to their arguments with angry ad hominems despite not having actually read any of their works,
Nothing angry about me dear.
Im quite content in vindication.

I can't be bothered to argue with you.
Theres a surprise.

As i said to you, I can only tell you what the books are, I can't make you read them. If you want to indulge in ignorance that makes you feal better about yourself
This isnt a reading club Invader.
This is a debate and unfortuantley even with your books you mentioned your arguement still fell apart.

and your nationalistic ideology, that is your choice.
Ohh the irony....

all you can muster is a petulant outburst

As you have said, we can let other people read and judge for themselves.
Indeed.

If you change your mind, and want to discuss this honestly, you know where to find me.
Links to my alleged fabrications you are insinuating?

brigadista

28th May 2009, 14:38

as my name is being called into this -

the article i posted was to show that historians are not in agreement on whether the irish famine [there were in fact 5] was genocide or not therefore it cannot be claimed that historically there is definitive opinion.

in the absence of definitive historical opinion[due to the diffences between historians views] the legal defintion in the Rome statues is a good starting point taking into account that lawyers will have used historical sources as evidence to support the definition of the Irish famine when applying the legal principles in the Rome statutes to make a finding that the famine was a genocide.

brigadista

28th May 2009, 15:02

in adddition the state of New Jersey Holocaust commission in 1996 accepted that the irish famine was a genocide.

PeaderO'Donnell

28th May 2009, 15:04

I think I see what you're saying. yup. I think The thing I was reffering to btw was the Harrying/Harrowing of the North. During the early years of Norman occupation, Northern England rebelled and William of Normany took that as a good reason to turn the North into a wasteland and massacre its people over the space of one winter. Northern England never did recover from that and it's the root cause of the North/South divide in power, wealth and lifestyle in England.

And most of the english ruling class can trace their ancestory straight back to the Norman invaders.

The issue of the Norman invasion and the Norman/Saxon-Celt divide according to Christopher Hill was brought up a lot during the English civil war.

Invader Zim

28th May 2009, 19:48

Provide me with someone who denys the Irish famine was genocide on the Rome Statutes grounds.

That would be difficult as most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes. However, historians, despite what you may think, are not stupid. They, like those who drafted the Rome Statutes, realise that intent is a key issue. As a result you, as an advocate of the genocide charge, must prove intent. And in making an argument that Britain had intent you depart company from the consensus opinion of professional historians and the worlds leading experts on this topic. That is a point, I think at this stage I (and, Brigadista, by not reading the article s/he posted) have proven beyond question.

Your current attempt at providing proof of intent boils down to two issues:

1. The shipment of food from Ireland. But as shown the British government, among others, undertook a concerted effort to lower food prices, import food and reduce the export of food. Certainly they could have done more, but certainly the actions they did take contradict the genocide thesis.

2. Previous famines. I have already explained why that argument is bunk.

The fact of the matter is you think you know better than professional historians whose work you haven't even read, and I lack the will power to continue arguing with you; either you are going to employ some intellectual honesty or you aren't, my labouring further on the issue from this point forward isn't going to make any difference.

Yet another innacuracy Invader.How would you know? You haven't done any of the necessary research on this topic to be able to make that kind judgement. And that is why this disussion is pointless, you a typically uneducated post, i respond pointing out your flaw, and in turn you spit venom at either myself (which isn't a problem) or the source I cite debunking your claim (which is a problem as it is intellectually dishonest to the core). There is no point our arguing about this, I'm going to stick with the consensus of the academic community, and you are going to unquestioningly swallow whatever nationalist websites publish. There is no point of compromise here.

brigadista

28th May 2009, 22:14

Amendment to the Rome statue

Deliberate starvation of civilians already is prohibited under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002 for state parties, criminalizes deliberate famine acts by states and state-like actors under three of the four types of crimes within its jurisdiction: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Famine is not a chargeable crime under the fourth crime, the crime of aggression, because the state parties intentionally left the fourth crime undefined due to lack of consensus and with the intent of revisiting the definition of the crime through amendment after the establishment of the court

Andropov

28th May 2009, 22:53

That would be difficult as most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes.
Interesting.

However, historians, despite what you may think, are not stupid.
Never claimed they were.

They, like those who drafted the Rome Statutes, realise that intent is a key issue.
But Invader there are numerous different definitions and interpretations of intent.
The only definition of intent that is relevant in this debate is that of the Rome Statutes.

As a result you, as an advocate of the genocide charge, must prove intent.
As I have done.

And in making an argument that Britain had intent you depart company from the consensus opinion of professional historians and the worlds leading experts on this topic.
Largely irrelevant.
As you have point out...

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
So those "consensus opinions" were not able to access the definitions of genocide and intent as set out by the Rome Statutes.

That is a point, I think at this stage I (and, Brigadista, by not reading the article s/he posted) have proven beyond question.
Not at all.
That article vindicated my opinion as it demonstrated the historians weak grasp of intent as laid out by the Rome Statutes.
Let me say this again.
As I have pointed out numerous times, the very act of exporting food at gun point when in the grips of a famine is a breach of the Rome Statutes and demonstrates intent.

1. The shipment of food from Ireland. But as shown the British government, among others, undertook a concerted effort to lower food prices, import food and reduce the export of food. Certainly they could have done more, but certainly the actions they did take contradict the genocide thesis.
But invader those figures distort reality.
As I have detailed that Indian Corn was a farce, it did not help to eleviate the famine what so ever.
And as you even concluded they continued to export large amounts of food, all be it less in volume, at gun point.
This I demonstrated with the deployment of 75 British Regiments across Ireland to continue to safe gaurd the exporting of food and an example of County Kerry where the 1st and 8th Dragoons were deployed so as to secure the livestock of County Kerry for export.
This is all a breach of the convention and thus a genocidal act.

2. Previous famines. I have already explained why that argument is bunk.
Absurd suggestion.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.
Your arguement that they were not colossaul or of a massive scale but yet conceeded that the 1740 famine wiped out 10% of the population.
It all demonstrates the British Empires policy in Ireland was causing famine and a large famine was forseeable and to be expected.

The fact of the matter is you think you know better than professional historians whose work you haven't even read, and I lack the will power to continue arguing with you; either you are going to employ some intellectual honesty or you aren't, my labouring further on the issue from this point forward isn't going to make any difference.
You miss the point again.
This arguemnt really boils down to the definition of Genocide in the Rome Statutes and as you have already stated....

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
And so you have already made my point that the historians you employ to make your point are not edcuated in the Rome Statutes and their definitions and so their charges that it was or was not genocide are largely irrelevant.

How would you know? You haven't done any of the necessary research on this topic to be able to make that kind judgement. And that is why this disussion is pointless, you a typically uneducated post, i respond pointing out your flaw, and in turn you spit venom at either myself (which isn't a problem) or the source I cite debunking your claim (which is a problem as it is intellectually dishonest to the core).
Such incoherent babble.
With all your "education" on the subject you seem fairly out of your depth Invader.
But back to the point at hand.
Are you denying that Sir Charles Trevelyan insisted that all reports of famine were actually grossly exaggerated until 1847?
And also stated that the famine was a "mechanism for reducing surplus population"?
And that...
"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people"?

There is no point our arguing about this, I'm going to stick with the consensus of the academic community,
That which you yourself have stated...

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
And so have not an accurate definition of Genocide to site?

and you are going to unquestioningly swallow whatever nationalist websites publish.
Sorry what have I posted that has been a fabrication?

There is no point of compromise here.
Probably the only thing I will agree with you on.

Bitter Ashes

29th May 2009, 00:55

I must have missed that bit about "reducing surplus population" and it's actualy made me think of something else. I thought the bourgeois liked having a sizable force of surplus labour. Seeing as though the bourgeois only ever act in thier own intrests, wouldnt it have been in thier own intrests to have intervened themselves?

Jolly Red Giant

8th January 2010, 01:02

My father was in the Irish Coast Guards during the 'emergency' and told me about one occasion when he was on night duty seeing a parachutist landing not far from where he was stationed. It happened occasionally as British planes were shot down and the pilots bailed out. He reported the sighting and went off home when his shift was finished. He found out the following day that the parachutist was an IRA member who arrived from Germany (for the life of me I can't remember his name). Anyway - the IRA man immediately went to his father's house, who promptly reported him to the authorities and claimed the reward. The IRA man was sent to the Curragh detention centre from where he escaped some weeks later. He again arrived at his father's house, who again reported him to the authorities and collected a second reward. After the War the IRA man bought a pub in New York with the money.