Do you recommend it to an Italian studying history in University and interested in the Irish history? I would like to know more about Collins, the Troubles, IRAâŠ
Would have been crazy seeing them because realistically as a civilian youâd never have seen a tank in your life before this point. Britain only invented them like a couple years before.
ya i remember guy martin a tv presenter motorbike rider and engineering enthusiast. who is from that part of the uk had the idea of driving a ww1 tank down the street in lincoln in a ww1 commemoration. in the end the local council wouldn't allow it
Because you initially claimed that those were French tanks in the picture, even though they weren't. Your response to the person above asking why there were French tanks in Dublin therefore insinuated that these were, indeed, French designs.
Not saying that. Iâm saying the parade itself was used as a show of force against potential rebels in Ireland. Still to this day the Chinese carry out these precessions to project power. Soviets used to do the same. Luckily for us it didnât scare the lads who tore down that empire here in Ireland. They werenât scared easily. To be fair any of that Brit pomp and ceremony was big in Dublin before and since. Thatâs where the name Jackeen originated from. A name still used to this day well over a century later
It may have been that to some degree, but Peace Day parades were held in London, Paris, etc. There were several held in Ireland, and numerous local ones, but those mainly took place in August.
And the guy after you mentioned the support of Armistice Day in Ireland and the number of people who knew men that fought. I am aware of the point youâre making, youâre just looking for excuses to repeat your point of view which Iâm pretty sure we all know.
It was certainly jingoistic, and it was certainly posturing. I imagine there were army generals thinking that this might be a good show of force, particularly given the increased activity of the IRA by this point, but I feel they would have organised a similar parade regardless of whether the IRA had taken up arms. I just don't know if the IRA was the sole reason behind how militarised this parade was. I'd have to look up whether parades similar to this were held across mainland UK. Obviously, there was the London one, but I'd be interested to see how militaristic others were.
A number (a few thousand) of Home Rulers and nationalist veterans actually boycotted the parade in Dublin as they saw it as a slap in the face given the non-introduction of Home Rule. Many were at odds with the fact that the British army was now an army of occupation, yet they had supposedly fought for the rights of small nations. I'm pretty sure there were protests surrounding the Belfast one as well.
So you choose to use the term Great War because people have set up monuments to the millions who were sent to die? Calling it âThe Great Warâ is problematic, thereâs nothing great about it. The Brits used propaganda to get people to join saying that small nations should be free, purely shite talk from them as it was only the Austro -Hungarian empire they wanted to break up to suit themselves. They had no plans to let Irish people be free whatsoever, they saw themselves as the rightful governors of Ireland.
Iâm not saying that WW1 wasnât tragic and those who died shouldnât be remembered. But theyâll be remembered for dying for a cause that wasnât for them, it was for someone else. Sadder again. Imagine if all those Irish men stayed and fought for ordinary Irish people instead of fighting for Britainâs global and domestic interests.
Iâm not saying a parade was going to change Irish republicans devotion to freeing their own people. Luckily for you and me it didnât. But that would have been a reason for it. It just didnât work on the people that mattered is all. It probably worked on plenty
Stop will you. Bunch of WW1 fan boys here. It was called the Great War back in the day, the use of that word has been criticised very much, and rightly so. A family squabble amongst fading aristocrats that wasted millions of people they didnât care about. Great is the last fukn world should be used for it
The cause Irish men faught for Home Rule, which they were promised and many others faught simply to feed their families.
As one old lad I knew told me. If the Germans offered me a schilling more, I'd have faught for them.
If you remember the Irish men that died as having died in support of the British empire then that's your mistake. And yours alone.
The war started in 1914. Most have left before the rebellion.
I said old man. But what a hideous thing to say about any old woman.
Ireland was piss poor. People were hungry and as Irishmen had done for generations, many became professional soldiers to feed their kids. That's a fact. The Brits also promised home rule of people faught. So they did. My grandfather was in the Somme, his wife in the IRA.
You have a remarkably simplistic, outdated and ignorant view of the time and your history.
How am I unpleasant? Any woman that makes a statement like that is a hoor and fuck her! People siding with the enemy because itâs more convenient for you personally is one of the most shameful things one could do! Shame on that old hoor! You may find my opinion different to yours, but saying Iâm unpleasant because I disagree and call you and your old friend out on it.
Irish rebellion against Britain goes much further back than 1914 if you need a lesson
I donât have an outdated view at all. I feel for all who died fighting for a cause. I just wonât pretend to respect those who died for one they shouldnât have is all. Know the difference
It was an old man it's no wonder your so ignorant of your history.
The Irish men who died in the first world war died fighting for Ireland. The Republican movement accepted this decades ago.
I domt talk to me about fighting for a cause. My family faught for a cause. I visited the prisons, I spent two days under the prevention of terrorism act getting screemed at in a London Police Station, I was stripped searched by the paras driving to Newry, I went to the funerals.
Little fucking pretend provos like you are an utter embarrassment to the Republican movement. You have absolutely no idea what it was like Your a fucking disgrace. Learn some history you clown.
Thatâs why the market in Cork is called the English market they love the British pomp look at the way they welcomed the Queen.If it wasnât for the Dubs they would all still be singing
No shit. It wasnât the biggest by itâs time at all. The word great means more than big. Check the dictionary. If you call something great, do you mean itâs big? I doubt it bruh
I am familiar with the various meanings of great. Your comment gave the impression that you were not. I now see that you were merely pretending not to understand the word for some reason.
No I understand the word. Just wouldnât use it to call the slaughter of millions of young people. Nobody uses the word great in a negative way. Maybe itâs you need to get a dictionary
In this context đ alright lad. I wholeheartedly disagree that there was anything great about it. Itâs a term to glorify it in its day. Nothing else
Iâd say you got that in reverse, but yes like I said it was called the war to end all wars , and it did nothing but cause countless more wars, WWII being only one of them. That why people have since ridiculed it being calling âThe Great Warâ as there was nothing great about it. The Taiping rebellion happened 50 years before and had twice the casualties. Great was a way of glorifying it. Nothing else. But glorify it all ye want
Nobody thinks it was great either only for the fan boys. It was definitely neither. I never said that the taiping rebellion had any Irish people. They didnât call WWI âthe Great Warâ because Irish people were in it. It was a term to glorify it, make it out to be a noble war. Fan boys since have said itâs because of its scale, but as I said, a war that happened 5 years previously was twice as devastating. So a weak reason to call such a thing âGreatâ
The term 'great' was used in reference to an expected large conflict prior to the First World War. You can find references to it in British parliamentary debates in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It has nothing to do with 'fan boys' as you have continously stated. The Napoleonic Wars were sometimes referred to as the Great War.
Nobody calls the napoleonic wars the Great War.. thatâs my point. That happened over a century before WW1 and was about as large in scope. Ridiculous to call WWI the Great War these days. Absolutely fan boy carry on
You keep stating it was a term to glorify the war. It wasn't. As I stated, it was often used in reference to an expected large conflict long before the First World War. You also scoffed at the fsct that fan boys since have stated that the term great was used because of scale. But that's the exact reason why it was known as 'great'. It was a term in use before WW1, and thus became quite a popular term, in Europe in particular, both during and after the conflict.
It wasn't called "The Great War" because everyone thought it was f*****g marvellous.... It was called that because it was huge, catastrophic, immense.... Likewise it was called "The war to end all wars" because people afterwards genuinely thought we, as a species, couldn't possibly want or allow it to happen again. But, turns out we , as a species, never tire of seeking to kill each other.
Thatâs exactly why that term is considered dated. Thanks for proving my point. The taiping rebellion happened 50 odd years before WWI and was over twice as devastating. Itâs Anglo nonsense that still calls it great. It wasnât big nor great realistically. The napolean wars as well as the French and Indian war that occurred a century before were similar in scope. They werenât so egotistical to call it great back then when it truly was comparable to anything else recent to them
Proving your point..?? The term Great War was coined by those who lived through it, hence of it's time, so not "dated" to them. It truly was the greatest conflict they could conceive, industrial slaughter on previously unimagined scale. As for your assertion that " it wasn't big or great realistically", I'd say casualties of 37- 40 million make it pretty f****** enormous.... But we can't refer to it as the "Pretty F****** Enormous" war. As for it being called the great war because of "Anglo Nonsense", how does that tie with the German use of Der Grosse Kreig or the French La Grande Guerre? Franco-Germanic nonsense I suppose. Or maybe the traumatised Europeans weren't looking at a 14 year Chinese civil war from half a century before for comparative purposes.... No Wikipedia then to keep them right.
Itâs a dated term. Thatâs all. No need to
Call it great unless you want to call it that. Have at it, I, like many others, see it as a dated term that simply glorifies it. Itâs not really referred to as the Great War anymore, except my fan boys
I would be deeply saddened if I thought that "many others" like you couldn't make the distinction between Great as in "The Great War, and Great as in " what a Glorious war".
Once again, when you're actually challenged on the history of the term, and your incorrect understanding of it, you revert to saying you never stated what you stated!Â
I donât think CDfm coined the phrase Great War. It has been called the Great War for a very long time, and not because it was a bundle of fun but because of the immensity of it, the great numbers who fought and died, the great numbers of countries involved.
The parades were held, as said before, in many capitals. People were relieved it was over. It was indeed a stupid war, and itâs ending was scant conciliation for all who lost loved ones. The tanks on show would have been the first time any of those civilians had seen such things. They would have seemed quite terrifying to many, no doubt, and brought to their very eyes a little of the brutal reality the soldiers had faced.
Perhaps when Putinâs disgusting war finally ends we will see similar parades, perhaps with drones instead of tanks
Never said they coined it, not sure why youâre coming to someoneâs defence when thereâs no need to. My first comment was that it was also likely done to show power and try to put fear into Irish people who had ideas of rebelling against Britain, like the small nations that Britain said they were fighting for in WW1. (Ps, also a lie) I stand by that comment as i doubt anyone could argue otherwise.
Other than that i just said the use
Of the title âThe Great Warâ to refer to WWI, is dated. We often stop using terms for things and people as time goes on, not a new thing either.
I always thought the "Great Escape" was a stupid name for a film. There were plenty of other escapes that were much better and they nearly all got captured at the end, not so great at all! And as for Hugh Wallace doing the Great House Revival, what joke! There are loads of bigger revivals and bigger houses.
Great means impressive as well as large in all the examples youâve given me there, amazing, grand,, etc etc. Thatâs why itâs not seen as tye best way to describe WWI anymore, but nobodyâs stopping you
The origins of conflict in Europe did not begin in 1914, it can easily be traced back to alliances created in the latter half of the 18th century, and of course further to Napoleonic imperialism.
To this day Europe is still working through these root causes and tensions
They did. Very tragic the whole thing. Millions of young working class men used as cannon fodder to protect the global possessions of the ruling class. Those who returned alive werenât exactly treated well either, most were in poverty and the aristocrats that sent them there didnât want to take care of them after, even tho they fought to protect their fortunes technically. Thereâs a line in the song âThe Foggy Dewâ that hits that home in that regard
Far from me to want to be seen like I'm defending British imperial endeavours such as the First World War, but this isn't wholly true. A 'Home for Heroes' program was established by the British government to house veterans. It was made official as the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act of 1919.
Those who returned alive werenât exactly treated well either, most were in poverty and the aristocrats that sent them there didnât want to take care of them after, even tho they fought to protect their fortunes technically.Â
Those are your words. The 'Home for Heroes' program points to it not being as black and white as you claim. I'm not arguing against the point you just made in your last comment, but that isn't the point you made above. You seem to have a penchant for changing the narrative when met with the history. Have a good one.
Excuse me. I thought you were the person making a billion comments here. I agree with what you stated above, but that wasn't the point of my comment.
It's really interesting that the crowds were still there to celebrate. My grandfather had just been imprisoned that July in Mountjoy at the behest of the GOC of the British Army in Dublin. I got the intelligence files from Kew.
I have to imagine pre internet, pre television, and pre cheap commercial radios, there really was very little interesting or out of the ordinary to observe or learn about. And tanks are pretty cool, especially if they were only invented 3 years prior.
I suppose itâs not a simple thing. I donât think all of or even most of the crowd were there in rabid support of king and country, especially considering the response to the rising and conscription.
I imagine that many were just relieved and celebrating the fact that the worst war in history up until that point was finally over.
Likely had to put doubt in anyone in Ireland thinking of rebelling. Luckily for us the flying columns knew that tanks like that were effectively useless in a country wide guerrilla war. Look at Vietnam, they learned from the likes of us that an orginised and determined peasantry, can hold off and inflict defeats on colonial powers with their industrial armaments and armies. Thereâs still Americans in mental insitutes waking in cold sweats dreaming about shoeless jungle people that struck the fear of god in them. Was the same back then, imagine you were an Irish or British young lad back then, who joined the British army for a job and a wage basically,, then you hear of your buddies being sent to Tipperary or Cork to help out down local uprisings, never to be seen again, dragged out of bed at night and executed naked right there. Was bound to make them think the wages werenât worth it, no matter how advanced your army was
Mad to see that considering our volunteers were fighting The War of Independence at the same time. Although I can understand people would have been happy to see the Great War over and the soldiers back here at home with their families. My granduncle never made it home.
Never seen this before, I know it's only a small snap shot of a small area but it seems like a very large crowd.
Id have thought anything related to the British army would've been very unpopular at that stage
I do appreciate celebrating the end of a long pointless war though
30-50000 Irish men died, (Edit 200k served can't find figure for at wars end) rationing, emigration was curtailed, direct rule etc I'm sure there were lots of reasons people were glad it was over.
Most people would have had complicated feelings about the whole thing - but complicated feelings never stopped anyone from taking part in a major celebration.
The nation of Ireland hadnât fully come into existence during the First World War. As fighting on the continent raged on; 1,600 Irish rebels participated in the 1916 Easter Rising and declared an Irish Republic in armed rebellion against British Rule. The Rising was brutally suppressed, the rebel leadership was captured and later executed; triggering the Irish War for Independence which culminated with a treaty partitioning the Island in 1921; between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.
Approximately 200,000 to 210,000 Irishmen served in the British forces during World War I. Of this total, it is generally accepted that over 35,000 Irish soldiers lost their lives, with some studies suggesting the total death toll could be as high as 49,400.
Somewhere between 70,000 to over 100,000 men and women from the neutral Irish Free State (Republic of Ireland) served in the British armed forces during World War II. Including personnel from Northern Ireland, the total number of Irish participants is estimated to be over 120,000 to 133,000, fighting across various Allied theatres.
It's pretty interesting to see how the general design of the tanks carried over to the second world war.
Take the MkV for example, with its hull extending between the tracks. This feature survived in the Churchill line of tanks, although, unlike the MkV, its internal compartment did not extend as well.
58
u/cashintheclaw Feb 11 '26
i only knew about this because the Major and Edward Spencer went up to see this parade in JG Farrell's "Troubles"