Please drop the patronising tone, it does little to advance your cause. Thanks.

I hadn't avoided the question, I just hadn't got there yet.

The extreme excess shown in the civil war was quite extraordinary, particularly when you take into account that just a brief period earlier, they were comrades in arms. It has been a long time since I read it, The Civil War 1922-23 by Eoin Neeson details in depth the atrocities participated by both sides including as you state tying prisoners to land mines, ( I thought they tied them up in groups and threw hand grenades amongst them ), but I guess we don't need to argue the details.

As for the Black & Tans, well no more need be said, both the actions of them and those that created the atrocities of the Civil war are to be condemned, the difference? One was a clash of ideology against their own people, and the other because they thought they could get away with it, however, their losses were out of all proportion to their numbers, and their actions condemned by a British public, had them withdrawn in ignominy from Ireland.

Please drop the patronising tone, it does little to advance your cause. Thanks.

A little surprised at this statement, as your opening salvo was

There speaks the Irishman....as ever the objective critic of all things Brit.

however I will keep my responses to fact and opinion.

Ahh, the irony.........

Perhaps you prefer PMs to be more of a GUBU type, into gun-running, phone-tapping, philandering and utterly corrupt and on the make. Celtic Mist indeed....

Oh come on Folium, are you suggesting that successive British Governments haven't sold arms to countries with slightly, shall we say, dodgy human rights issues. Corrupt MP's Heaven Forbid, as for phone tapping, we won't mention Nixon, oh I know he is a U.S politician, but I can't show tonight the UK has done so, what do you think? Philandering....... Irish Politicians, yup they are the only ones to do it, I hold my hands down on that one.

It appears I might have to explain a few things 'GUBU', grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented, a scandal in the Haughey G'ment, we don't have them anywhere else do we?

As for the gun running incident, I wonder in the same circumstances, who wouldn't do the same, that again Khun Folium is another debate, one I am quite willing to undertake.

Can't wait to hear your defence of the gun-running, corrupt, phone-tapping politician who even outshines Berlusconi for his misdeeds and would put most Thai politicians to shame in terms of the bare-faced cheek of his obvious corrupt activities. Celtic Mist and his own island......

Running guns to terrorists in conjunction with an ex Waffen SS convicted war criminal (one of those given sanctuary and citizenship by the Irish government). You would be pushed to make it up, but sadly it's all there to see. And let's not mention the Catholic Church and its "laying on of hands". No, that would be airing too much dirty laundry. But that reminds me of Magdalene laundries....and so it could go on.

As I said, no country is perfect and politicians all have feet of clay, it's just that some reallly take the proverbial. If you are going to post provocative posts, don't be surprised to get it returned with interest.

What's the old saying....

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." And it goes on about motes and beams but I'm sure you get my point.

Corruption, is not the sole province of Irish Ministers, nor phone tapping ask Murdoch/Nixon et al, and if we had the means, MI5 and/or 6.

Philandering is also not something that can be laid at Irish Ministers fate alone, although the hypocrisy of it in this case is simply astonishing.

Gun running, and I thought he was acquitted! However lets take this with the background that we know, he and his whole family were burnt out of their farm in a sectarian attack and they took refuge in the Republic.

1966-1969 the Six Counties are progressively going to hell in a hand basket, riots, mass attacks on the Catholic community and the RUC, although doing a job are predominately Protestant, and they are out on their feet, it starts becoming a shooting war, the Catholic Community are out-numbered, out gunned and with little hope.

The Old IRA are a spent force, pretty much ineffectual, but still a presence, certain members of the Republic fill the boots of their cars with weapons and head for the border- Gun running or trying to defend your community?

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter- surely this depends on your perspective. That is my defence.

I have another thread on the specifics of 'Terrorist or Freedom Fighter', check that one out, I look forward to your contribution.

I am afraid I need to tell you that nearly 70,000 men of the Republic fought for the Uk, countless others with other countries namely Canada and The U.S by the end of the War.

Can I also suggest, that neutrality was, in all its guises, a good thing for Britain, if it had declared for the 'Allies', it would have made it a prime invasion route, that Britain would have been sorely tested to defend. Whilst neutral, if invaded, would have almost certainly drawn the U.S into an early declaration, remember it was Germany who declared on he U.S first not the other way round.

in context of "Germany declared war first" it should be mentioned that (as in WWI) Germany was bound by the "Berlin-Tokyo Axis" to declare war on the U.S.

I am not sure about that Naam

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Article 3 of the Tripartite Agreement states if they are attacked, Japan was the Aggressor, I may be playing semantics, but it might be important.

Germany had to be persuaded to declare war, and they may have underestimated the USA, or over estimated Japan's fighting credentials, but they may have thought Japan could tie up the U.S and so not get caught up in the European theatre.

Blood, soil, fears and bleats

'Tweets', sadly, in this age of multimedia.

Please drop the patronising tone, it does little to advance your cause. Thanks.

I hadn't avoided the question, I just hadn't got there yet.

The extreme excess shown in the civil war was quite extraordinary, particularly when you take into account that just a brief period earlier, they were comrades in arms. It has been a long time since I read it, The Civil War 1922-23 by Eoin Neeson details in depth the atrocities participated by both sides including as you state tying prisoners to land mines, ( I thought they tied them up in groups and threw hand grenades amongst them ), but I guess we don't need to argue the details.

As for the Black & Tans, well no more need be said, both the actions of them and those that created the atrocities of the Civil war are to be condemned, the difference? One was a clash of ideology against their own people, and the other because they thought they could get away with it, however, their losses were out of all proportion to their numbers, and their actions condemned by a British public, had them withdrawn in ignominy from Ireland.

Sadly excesses and civil wars go hand in hand throughout history, be it Ireland, Syria or even dear old England. In 1649 Ireland's favourite, Oliver Cromwell, summarily shot the leaders of the Levellers against the wall of the church in Burford, a quaint little town on the edge of the Cotswolds.

Hence it's not a huge surprise that fellow Irishmen killed far more of their kin than the dreaded Brits ever did. It's just that does not quite fit the customary narrative of suffering at the hands of the cruel, oppressive Brits, but heck why let facts get in the way of a good "armoured cars, tanks & guns" sing-along.

Similarly "only" some 720 of the 3500 people killed in the troubles were Brits, the rest and the vast majority of the 47,500 injured were likewise residents of the island of Ireland. Sadly, some of the terrorists, both orange and green, remain in business today. Gun running and similar support from the Republic are as unhelpful and counter-productive today as they were in 1969.

Sadly excesses and civil wars go hand in hand throughout history, be it Ireland, Syria or even dear old England. In 1649 Ireland's favourite, Oliver Cromwell, summarily shot the leaders of the Levellers against the wall of the church in Burford, a quaint little town on the edge of the Cotswolds.

Hence it's not a huge surprise that fellow Irishmen killed far more of their kin than the dreaded Brits ever did. It's just that does not quite fit the customary narrative of suffering at the hands of the cruel, oppressive Brits, but heck why let facts get in the way of a good "armoured cars, tanks & guns" sing-along.

Similarly "only" some 720 of the 3500 people killed in the troubles were Brits, the rest and the vast majority of the 47,500 injured were likewise residents of the island of Ireland. Sadly, some of the terrorists, both orange and green, remain in business today. Gun running and similar support from the Republic are as unhelpful and counter-productive today as they were in 1969.

OK, after this post, I will bug out of answering you Folium, because I cannot see any logic in your argument, and it would appear you have a theme in your constant battle with all things Green, being Red for Wrong.

Hence it's not a huge surprise that fellow Irishmen killed far more of their kin than the dreaded Brits ever did. It's just that does not quite fit the customary narrative of suffering at the hands of the cruel, oppressive Brits, but heck why let facts get in the way of a good "armoured cars, tanks & guns" sing-along.

It would depend on your term Brit, mine would appear to be different, suffering at the hands of the 'Brit' has gone on for 900 years, Strongbow, Cromwell, the Famine, Civil Rights.

Similarly "only" some 720 of the 3500 people killed in the troubles were Brits, the rest and the vast majority of the 47,500 injured were likewise residents of the island of Ireland.

Rather surprising this statement in regard to casualties being non-Brits ( your term ) not mine, are the the people of the six counties, British, Irish or Ulstermen? So were the Casualties Irish or British.

Bye Bye, like the Conservative G'ment that needed Ulster Unionist MP votes, you cannot be reasoned with.

Good Night and Good Luck

Moss

I cannot see any logic in your argument, and it would appear you have a theme in your constant battle with all things Green, being Red for Wrong.

Similarly "only" some 720 of the 3500 people killed in the troubles were Brits, the rest and the vast majority of the 47,500 injured were likewise residents of the island of Ireland.

Rather surprising this statement in regard to casualties being non-Brits ( your term ) not mine, are the the people of the six counties, British, Irish or Ulstermen? So were the Casualties Irish or British.

I have no particular "beef" with green, nor orange either. It's the extremists on both sides that have caused such grief for far too long.

Citizens of Northern Ireland are not "Brits", but citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Similarly residents of today's Republic were never "Brits" in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that existed until 1922.

Whether you classify the Troubles as a civil war, attempted secession, an insurgency, or "just" sectarian conflict, the sad reality is that the vast majority of those killed and injured were local to Northern Ireland not Brits. Tragically the legacy of the 1922 partition will probably take at least another couple of generations to fade into its deserved obscurity, and the border becomes purely a line on a map with little real significance.

Good night.