In Relative Terms, The British Empire's Defeat In Ireland Was Greater Than America's Defeat in Vietnam?

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,710
In Relative Terms, The British Empire's Defeat In Ireland Was Greater Than America's Defeat in Vietnam?

The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
 


between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
45,131
Ach sure yez are great, mind ye the Vietnamese wern't beatch slapped like big girls blouses for 800 years beforehand...
 
D

Deleted member 45466

The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
Only a year before Britain had been engaged in of the bloodiest wars in human history. I'd imagine that played a significant role in the demise of her empire, of which Ireland was a minor possession.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
Ireland was an integral and key possession.
 

Strawberry

Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,333
Ach sure yez are great, mind ye the Vietnamese wern't beatch slapped like big girls blouses for 800 years beforehand...
I'm sure you know a lot about Vietnamese history, and what treatment they received as a colony of first China, then France, and briefly Japan. Their history of being colonised stretches back further than Ireland's as it happens.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,241
The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
Frankly I think they just left. They never really mobilised against Ireland and Collins signed the treaty because he knew they could retain Ireland if they wanted to. The Irish were spent and Britain hadn't even really engaged. If anything it shows that "Home Rule" was actually policy.

What paved the way for the demise of the British Empire was WWI and WWII finished it. I think the idea that Ireland defeated Britain in war and so began the process is an Irish version of jingoistic nationalist nonsense.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
Wait, what in the almighty f$&@k?

The Irish defeated the British?

Is this a sci-fi movie coming out or are ya all deluded?

Because no such thing happened in the run up to independence.


And another thing, the VC didn't defeat the USA either. A political withdrawal is not a war defeat.
 
Last edited:

londonpride

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
647
The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
The loyalist UVF could have raced down and with the Aid of Loyalists in Louth and Meath taken Dublin overnight . A massive civil war would have ensued.
Irish independence was a neccessity and was the only decent outcome . The British could have squashed the Rising but would have been happy with an independent state within the commonwealth. And even today this is how a United Ireland could be achieved within a very short time.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
The loyalist UVF could have raced down and with the Aid of Loyalists in Louth and Meath taken Dublin overnight . A massive civil war would have ensued.
Irish independence was a neccessity and was the only decent outcome . The British could have squashed the Rising but would have been happy with an independent state within the commonwealth. And even today this is how a United Ireland could be achieved within a very short time.
Cool story bro.
 

Fr. Hank Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,845
Frankly I think they just left. They never really mobilised against Ireland and Collins signed the treaty because he knew they could retain Ireland if they wanted to. The Irish were spent and Britain hadn't even really engaged. If anything it shows that "Home Rule" was actually policy.

What paved the way for the demise of the British Empire was WWI and WWII finished it. I think the idea that Ireland defeated Britain in war and so began the process is an Irish version of jingoistic nationalist nonsense.
Yes they just let us win. They were always in control of the situation :roll:
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
Whilst we didn't end the British empire we inspired the jewel in the crown to revolt.

In 1916, Ireland represented the weakest point of the British Empire, the colony from which most pressure could be exerted.
By 1916, many of the eastern European nations colonized by Russia were also at the point of insurrection, and many colonies of the European empires were already in open revolt
e.g. The German Cameroons, 1914,
Nyasaland, 1915,
Dahomey, French Indochina and Niger, 1916,
Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique), 1917
As well as Chad, Egypt, India, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and, most successfully, Libya.

The year before the Easter Rising, Indian Sikh soldiers mutinied in Singapore and hoped that, with German help, they would be able to drive the British out of the Malay peninsula and eventually the whole of the Far East.. The strategy behind the Singapore mutiny bore some similarity to that of the insurgents in Dublin.

But the importance of the Easter Rising is that it took place in Europe and not in some distant colony…Lenin underlines its explosive political effects, “A blow delivered against British imperialist …rule by a rebellion in Ireland is of a hundred times greater political significance than a blow of equal weight in Asia or Africa.”

The Chittagong uprising in Bengal on Good Friday 18th April 1930 by the ‘I.R.A.’ = Indian Republican Army! ‘The Sinn Fein of India’….was inspired and modelled on the 1916 Rising….Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of independent India, on a visit to Dublin in April 1949, acknowledged the role that Ireland had played in the Indian freedom movement.

In 1943, radical Indian revolutionary Subhas Chandra Bose in a radio broadcast reminded his listeners of the extent to which the Irish had taught the Indians their ABC of freedom fighting: “Of all the freedom movements we Indians have studied closely and from which we have received inspiration, there is perhaps none that can equal the Irish struggle for independence. The Irish Nation has had the same oppressors and exploiters as ourselves. It has had the same experience of ruthlessness, brutality and hypocrisy.”

"From the reaction of members of leading sections of the British ruling class, it is evident that the threat of the 1916 Easter Rising was not just to the British presence in Ireland but to the concept of empire and imperialism as such. Leading establishment figures saw Ireland as a vital link in the chain that bound the British Empire together, “If we lose Ireland we have lost the Empire” declared Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson on 30th March 1921..

In 1919, General Smuts.warned that, “Unless the Irish question is settled, this Empire must cease to exist.”
After the 1916 Rising, Unionist leader Edward Carson warned the British government of the consequences of defeat in Ireland for the Empire:

“If you tell your Empire in India, in Egypt, and all over the world that you have not got the men, the money, the pluck, the inclination and the backing to restore order in a country within 20 miles of your own shore, you may as well begin to abandon the attempt to make British rule prevail throughout the Empire at all.”

“The 1916 EASTER RISING AND THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST IMPERIALISM..” | Irish Volunteers.org



Irish Days, Indian Memories: V. V. Giri and Indian Law Students at University College Dublin, 1913-1916 | Irish Academic Press
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,413
The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
Very true and a good point.

Also it was done at a minimum loss of human life and it was the beginning of the end for the British Empire.

These points are not emphasised enough in Irish history teaching due to the counter revolutionary efforts of FG and the slavish mentality to British historicity.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,413
Frankly I think they just left. They never really mobilised against Ireland and Collins signed the treaty because he knew they could retain Ireland if they wanted to. The Irish were spent and Britain hadn't even really engaged. If anything it shows that "Home Rule" was actually policy.

What paved the way for the demise of the British Empire was WWI and WWII finished it. I think the idea that Ireland defeated Britain in war and so began the process is an Irish version of jingoistic nationalist nonsense.
It was an immense victory for the IRA and an enormous defeat for the British. Remember war is politics by another means.
 

londonpride

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
647
Have just done a quicki family headcount . Out of 26 Extended family members living in Ireland in 1921 some of whom were Old IRA members from the West of Ireland Mostly Mayo and Sligo there are only the descendants of two still living in the area. The real Irish from the west became the unwanted poor of the new republic so the boat and train mostly to London was their only option. A sad end to what some call a glorious uprising.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
The notion that Britain's defeat in Ireland (1919-21) was greater than the vastly more famous superpower defeat in the C20th, that of The Americans in Vietnam was put forward by a contributor to the recent Talking History Programme from Cork.

Why?

Well, The Vietnamese had the support of The Soviet Union and China, The Irish had no external assistance apart from PR!
The British lost on their doorstep.
The Irish were up against a much larger population in relative terms.
In terms of their own teritory lost, when The French lost Alsace-Lorraine to The Germans, they lost 3% of their national territory, during The Franco-Purussian War. The British lost almost a quarter of what they perceived as their own land.
It paved the way for the end of the empire albeit a further 40 years and another World War down the road.

I thought it was an interesting point and I throw it out to you, my dear fellow Piesters.

The link -

Podcasts - Talking History - Highlights from Talking History -...

The relevant piece is about 60% in and comes up when the subject of Michael Collins is aired.
We're the KINGS OF THE WOOOORLD!
 

NMunsterman

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,163
Have just done a quicki family headcount . Out of 26 Extended family members living in Ireland in 1921 some of whom were Old IRA members from the West of Ireland Mostly Mayo and Sligo there are only the descendants of two still living in the area. The real Irish from the west became the unwanted poor of the new republic so the boat and train mostly to London was their only option. A sad end to what some call a glorious uprising.
Translates as :

"The successful Irish struggle for an independent state still pi$$es me off - but of course, I will never admit that".



Global Quality-of-life Index 2013 - Economist Intelligence Unit **

Ireland = 12 th
Britain = 27th
http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life

Enjoy.

** That well-known Irish Nationalist rag.
 

NMunsterman

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,163
Ach sure yez are great, mind ye the Vietnamese wern't beatch slapped like big girls blouses for 800 years beforehand...
Says the Orange lad who can't even get a flag up a pole on Belfast City Council on Unionist terms.
Girls blouses indeed.
Little wonder London found it so easy to sell you lads down the river at the GFA - though in fairness you lads were past your sell-by date at that stage.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top