Talk:Capture of Schwaben Redoubt

SFN

Changed citations to harv to make clicky-clicky.Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "Irish"

If you look harder you will find that "British" is generic for BEF formations and where there is a national association with a formation like Canadian or Irish divisions that is mentioned. The 36th Division is wikilinked as the 36th (Ulster) Division and if you look, you'll find that Ulster is in Ireland, not Britain. At the time there was a country called The UK of GB and Ireland. Please stop making spurious edits.Keith-264 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There can't be a national association with a formation "like Canadian or Irish", as the situation between Britain and Canada is not analogous to that between Britain and Ireland in the period in question. There was no separate self-governing Irish state or nationality, and the Ulster troops wanted no part of attempts to create one. But I'd be happy to go with "Ulster troops" if you prefer. Otherwise, please be civil, assume good faith, and don't characterise other editor's edits as "spurious". Miles Creagh (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you set me an example by taking your own advice. To treat a separate part of the UK as British is spurious. The clue is in the title, UK of GB and I.Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:UKNATIONALS the terms "Britain" (and by extension "British") may be used to refer to "the United Kingdom" and by extension all of its citizens, from whichever constituent country they may come. But you didn't address my suggestion that we should use the term "Ulster troops" to refer to the soldiers of the 36th (Ulster) division - which, by the way, was raised primarily from formations of Ulster Volunteers who expressed a strong British and Ulster identity, and defined themselves in oposition to Irish separatism. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See my latest edits. Not everyone in the 36th Division was from Ulster; please don't assume ignorance.Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If we need everyone to have been from Ulster before we call members of the 36th (Ulster) Division "Ulstermen", then surey we need everyone to have been Irish before we can call them "Irish"? I am aware of a number of examples of Scots, Englishmen and Canadians serving with the 36th. It seems we have a real problem, here, by your own lights. We should probably just go with "British" after all.Miles Creagh (talk)

Thanks for the link, [1] seems apposite.Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's why I made the change. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also why I changed the changeKeith-264 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not every recruit from Ulster joined the 36th Division, some joined the 10th Division and others travelled and joined English regiments. Oh and the Ulster chauvinists didn't define themselves in opposition to Irish separatism but against majority rule. That said, if you will settle for British instead of Irish, I will settle for British instead of Ulstermen, because that looks like something from Ken Dodd. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to go with British throughout, although I disagree that there is anything Ken Doddish about the term "Ulstermen". Miles Creagh (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

;O)Keith-264 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact I doubt there was a tickling stick in sight on the field of the Somme. Miles Creagh (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look in the 36th Division history chapter on 1 July and no national or regional label was used, just unit names but I found some rhodomontade in the introduction.Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is highly inaccurate to state "which, by the way, was raised primarily from formations of Ulster Volunteers who expressed a strong British and Ulster identity, and defined themselves in oposition to Irish separatism." and use that as a basis for an argument. Irish then, before, and still today refers to someone from the island of Ireland (as well meaning from the Republic if meant that way), and it was used as an ethnicity within the UK just like English, Scottish, and Welsh was. And seeing as ALL of Ireland was part of the UK before and during the war, it is valid term to be used for Ulster folk. The majority of Ulster unionists and 36th Ulster Division members would of been proud Irishmen. Many where aghast at the partition of the island. Lord Carson (yes I know he was from Dublin) was so aghast at it, he refused to become the first PM of Northern Ireland as he could not keep the whole of Ireland within the UK. Even James Craig, staunch Ulster Protestant and Ulster Volunteer leader, and Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, stated the following on 5th March 1929 at the Northern Ireland Parliament: "We are Irishmen ... I always hold that Ulstermen are Irishmen and the best of Irishmen.". I find it highly offensive revisionists trying to erase the rightly Irish identity of pro-British Irishmen. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have quite a bit of sympathy with your argument if the Irish People article, to which the descriptor "Irish" is usually linked when applied to a person or persons, made it clear that it can refer to someone from the whole of the island of Ireland, and can also be used as an ethnicity within the UK just like English, Scottish and Welsh. But it doesn't. Miles Creagh (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" is bunk.Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes the "nation and ethnic group" language in the Irish People article is problematic if, as Mabuska suggests above, Ulster soldiers - mostly Protestants, many of them Ulster-Scots - are to be included as Irishmen in the terms of the article. And "included" isn't the same thing as "lumped in". Miles Creagh (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why use euphemisms, they were traitors to the UK, plotted armed insurrection and persecuted Catholics, still are, still do.Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from that sort of off-topic commentary.Miles Creagh (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I merely corrected your glaring error of omission... unless you care to dispute the facts?Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You present no facts, merely general assertions that seem intended to be inflammatory. This page is for discussing the article on the Capture of the Schwaben redoubt. Let's stick to that, shall we? Miles Creagh (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you deny that the "unionists" armed and drilled, ready for insurrection and treason against the Crown? This is mundane not inflammatory.Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also irrelevant for present purposes. Miles Creagh (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Taylor, English History, 1914-1945 (1965), pp. 21, 56Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is getting widely off-topic. The only reason to remove the term Irish I can see is anti-Irish bigotry based on a false assumption that to be Irish is incompatible with being British. To quote John Andrews (2nd PM of Northern Ireland who was also a Grand Master of the Orange Order) in regards to his predecessor "a great Ulsterman, a great Irishman, a great imperialist". This revisionism of our past is ridiculous.

Prior to WWI, the Royal Irish Rifles where based in eastern Ulster (plus Louth), the Royal Irish Fusiliers recruited from southern Ulster (Royal Inniskillings the west of the province). Successor regiments primarily based in Northern Ireland include the Royal Irish Rangers and then Royal Irish Regiment. Whilst there seem to be people here who take offense to stating the obvious, at least the British Army maintains an acceptance and acknowledgment on it.

Though on the off-topic: "Do you deny that the "unionists" armed and drilled, ready for insurrection and treason against the Crown?" - insurrection yes, but not treason against the Crown. Per the proclaimation of the Provisional Government of Ulster, armed insurrection was only to be carried out in the event of Home Rule being given to all of Ireland and a provisional Ulster government to be set up until Ulster's status within the UK was reaffirmed. You can call it treason all you want, but in reality it is the exact opposite, it was a devout and extreme display of loyalty. Also it could hardly be treason against the Crown seeing as Home Rule Ireland no matter what was and still had the Crown as head of state, which is a no brainer seeing as the Free State was not a republic. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

SophistryKeith-264 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Keith-264 you are showing as much POV and ignorance on Ireland related matters as Miles Creagh. Did you know that the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Denis Henry, was a Roman Catholic Ulster Unionist MP from the republican hotbed of Ballynascreen? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska, would you ever just calm down, stop accusing other editors of ignorance and bigotry, and address my point above about the linking of "Irish" to the Irish People article, which doesn't seem to me to include the notion you are advancing here, that being Irish is compatible with being British. If it did, I would be more inclined to agree with you on this. Miles Creagh (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This is like trying to explain to Australian and Canadian chauvinists that their colonies weren't sovereign states until after the Great War and still lack legitimacy. When I did the rewrite of the article, I took some time to consider the implications of nomenclature for the nationally-labelled divisions and chose Irish as a blanket term, on the assumption that it might be challenged by pro-unionists and supported by nationalists. Previously, I only gave the number of the division but then realised that it was inconsistent, since I had added terms like Australian and Canadian when referring to Dominion divisions. This was one of the first articles where I experimented with giving the full divisional title in the first (wikilinked) use and then abbreviated the title; I'm not sure it's an improvement. It's taken a while but Miles and I have held our noses and split the terminological difference; I'd like to leave things like that. Regards to all.Keith-264 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the analogy to Australia and Canada cuts the other way on this. We refer to troops from Australia and Canada as "Australian" and "Canadian" although their national status would have been "British subjects" in the period. Why? Because it was precisely the experience of WWI that contributed strongly to a growing sense of distinct Australian and Canadian identity, defined as separate from the overarching British Imperial identity. In the case of Ulster soldiers, the experience of the Somme - contrasted explicitly with the Easter Rising - contributed strongly to a growing sense of distinct Ulster identity, separate from an Irish identity that was increasingly identified with Irish nationalism. Miles Creagh (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tried telling them and showing the evidence - British passports, pound notes law etc, which are conclusive rather than subjective notions of consciousness but they will insist on putting their little flags in infoboxes. The Somme contributed to lots of people dying early squalid deaths, which were exploited to create claims on the post-war British state - more proto-fascist, racist repression in Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand, sectarian privileges in some of the Ulster counties and a better deal for the English working class; mysteriously the last one was the only one to be repudiated.... Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I cut and pasted paragraphs from here for the Stuff Redoubt page and realised how awkward changing every occurrence of Irish re the 36th Division looked, so amended them to a mixture of a couple of Irish, a few 36th Division troops and nothing at all. Keith-264 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)