Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland?
#41
(07-25-2009, 11:22 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 11:07 AM)Melita Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 11:03 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:57 AM)Melita Wrote: You misunderstood the point of my post, which was really about German identity in the Third Reich as a primarily Roman construct. I was talking about Britons, and their tribes. The dates I had in mind: c.43-410 AD. And the Romans never did succeed in subduing all of Britain.

Hmm.  No, I did not misunderstand your post.  I understood it.  I just wanted to correct the anachronism of calling the Britons "English."  And, yes, I know that the Romans never succeeded in subduing all of Britain -- I never disputed that, in case you thought I did (?).  

Ok. I corrected myself in my first response to you btw (re. "Britons").


Yes, I saw that and I acknowledge it.  I just got the impression that you thought I was objecting to your characterization of the extent of the Romans' conquests in Britain.  You're right -- they conquered all of what is now England but not all of what is now Scotland.  We should be on the same page now.

Yep :)
Reply
#42
(07-25-2009, 11:04 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 11:00 AM)didishroom Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:53 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)didishroom Wrote: Hitler didn't even care about Poland; I believe he just wanted a port in Poland.

Are you familiar with the concept of Lebensraum?  Are you familiar with Hitler's routine?  He would make a reasonable demand and then manipulate the situation to get an unreasonable result.  If Hitler got Danzig and the Corridor, he then would have pressed forward to get the rest of Poland.  When he took the Sudetenland, he went on to establish a "protectorate" over Bohemia and Moravia and strong-armed the leaders of Slovakia.  He forcefully conquered Austria.  Etc., etc.  And what Hitler did to Poland once he conquered it shows well enough what his intentions were:  annexation and German colonization.  His henchmen even abducted "Aryan-looking" Polish children and sent them to Germany to be raised by Germans as Germans.  

The Austrians voted him in, and happily too; he did not conquer Austria. As for the Sudentenland, the French abondoned it and Hitler ordered his troops to depart it if there was any resistance whatsoever.

The Sudetenland is in France now?  You'd better consult your sources. 
Sorry I got that confused with something else...thousand apologies.....
Reply
#43
Alaric,

Here are some sources to read about the Nazis' plans to annihilate both the Polish state and the Polish nation and to make Eastern Europe German:  http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster...tm#Further Reading
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster...rticle.HTM

I am *not* approving of the website, whose positions on various matters I do not know.  I am only recommending the primary and secondary sources listed.  The second page provides the account of the Nazis' plans for the extinguishing of the Polish people.  The Soviets only wanted the Poles to be Communists, not for the Poles to cease to exist as a recognizable nationality.
Reply
#44
that may be but the brits did a fine job conquering and destroying and dividing nations. funny thing is people lament the loss of the brit bastard empire while talk of the nazis who really were playing catch up tot he brits is always talked of in a good reddens way.
the brits are finished. no tears and in a thread liek this yeah Irish lads can be anti english all they want.
for cryin out loud what do u expect?
the brits are done. good reddens!
gone without even firing a shot LOL. who would of thought they would roll over for the mohamadans so easy?
Reply
#45
indeed
Reply
#46
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)didishroom Wrote: Hitler didn't even care about Poland; I believe he just wanted a port in Poland.

It actually wanted the land to colonize Germans there - same for European Russia, the Poles and Russians, if not "removed" were planned to be subservient to the Germans until the Slav race died out. Danzig was technically a free city-state. My people (Hungarians) fought with the Axis, if the Germans were not so 1. stupid (lets invade Russia with out winter supplies, worked well for Napoleon!) 2. genocidal we would of won the Eastern front. The fact that the Germans killed not only Jews but utterly oppressed the Russians and Ukrainians of liberated Soviet territory who greeted them as liberators at first did nothing but create a partisan guerrilla war nightmare. You have to face it, the Axis were the badguys, Hitler, Italy and the rest of the Axis could of lead a "crusade" to liberate Russia from red rule, but instead Hitler decided the destruction of Jews and occupation of neighboring countries to colonize them with the "master race" was more important. The other Axis countries (Italy, Hungary - until 1944 when Hitler launched a coup against the Regent and replaced him with the nazi Arrow Cross party) had no desire to commit genocide against minorities.

(07-25-2009, 12:29 AM)Schmendrick Wrote: The anti-English commentary is quite unnecessary.

Interestingly, the first time the English invaded Ireland – in the late 12th century – it was at the express request of an Irish king.  Diarmaid of Leinster had been forced to leave the country and came back to retake his throne with an army made up of Englishmen.  The leader of the army married Diarmaid's daughter and became king of Leinster himself, but he eventually needed assistance from the king of England.  King Henry II was glad to do so, in that in the end he himself controlled the kingdom and assumed the title Lord of Ireland.

Until the time of King Henry VIII in the 16th century, Ireland was ruled essentially as a fief to the king of England.  The English only really controlled the area around Dublin.  Henry, however, named himself king of Ireland (and eventually head of the Church in Ireland), and greatly solidified his rule over the island.  When Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy, he then spent years reconquering, quite brutally, all of Ireland.

Essentially, the Protestant Reformation, and the stalwart fidelity of the Irish people to the Catholic Church, turned the English rule over Ireland into a reign of terror for hundreds of years.  The difference in religion was the basis for the idea of ‘colonizing’ the island with English and Scottish Protestants, which had great success in the northern part of the island.
(07-24-2009, 07:51 PM)Tobri Wrote: Is the soil there good or something or is it simply because England was power thirsty and France was too powerful so they settled for their neighbor? I can't see any other practical reason for England (medieval to empire) to want to own an economically poor Island with inhabitants hostile to foreign occupation. Especially post reformation which like tripled the Irish dislike of England when they shut down the Irish monasteries and suppressed the Church there etc... what benefit did England gain?
Well, after the Reformation, the conversion of the ‘papist’ Irish was reason enough to keep the colony.  By the 19th century, religion had waned in importance but the government had a policy of imperialism.  In an age of expansion, the English were not keen on letting a colony go too easily.  And, in the 20th century, they held on to as much they could, namely Ulster.
(07-24-2009, 11:47 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I mostly know about Englands Tudor era and at that time it was because they were afraid Ireland being Catholic would be a launching pad for a Spanish Invasion . . .
I have often wondered why the Spanish did not try to invade Ireland rather than England in 1588, where they could have conquered relatively easily and enjoyed the support of, say, 98% of the population.

Thanks Schmendrick! As for the last part, the Spanish as I recall were pretty self confident despite from recent forensics having a really crappy fleet  - I imagaine they felt there was no need to island hop from Ireland to Britain because they felt the could take England no problem. I am surprised they did not try a second time, but maybe they never had the resources or will to do it again.
Reply
#47
At the time, the climate was quite different. Ireland was dry enough to not only grow wheat but was known as the breadbasket of Europe.
Reply
#48
I took a class on English and Irish History from about 1200-1800 two semester ago.

Oddly enough, it doesn't seem as if we ever came up with a very good reason why the British were always trying to conquer Ireland, but I suppose it was the same reason that they were always trying to conquer the Scottish.

I think that conquests and land grabs happened quite often in these times.  Land meant wealth and power and fighting with neighbors seemed just a part of life.  The Scottish, and especially the Irish, were seen as less than human wild men who needed to be conquered and civilized.  I think it was a mixture of wanting the land (because it was near and land meant power), but also some sort of combination of the ideas of pompous servitude on the part of the English for wanting to "civilize" them and a fear that these barbarians were a threat to the monarchy.

The Irish were particularly strange, backward, and perhaps even feared by the English.  From very early on, Scotland had had a sort of crude monarchy that could at least be compared with that of those "civilized" English ideas of government.  The Irish were run by patriarchal clans and there was really no idea of Ireland as a unified entity.

Either way you look at it, the English raped Ireland and she's never been the same.  Erin go braugh!
Reply
#49
It has always struck me as odd, though, the antipathy the Normans ( later the English) felt for Irish culture. The Statutes of Kilkenny (1200 or so, haven't checked the exact date in a while) forbid speaking Irish, dancing and music, every cultural feature they could think of. Now I'm not many of these laws completely succeeded, but why try so hard to erase their whole way of life? Why not be content with having conquered the place?
Reply
#50
(07-25-2009, 03:52 PM)Anastasia Wrote: It has always struck me as odd, though, the antipathy the Normans ( later the English) felt for Irish culture. The Statutes of Kilkenny (1200 or so, haven't checked the exact date in a while) forbid speaking Irish, dancing and music, every cultural feature they could think of. Now I'm not many of these laws completely succeeded, but why try so hard to erase their whole way of life? Why not be content with having conquered the place?

I don't know the answer to the question of "why," but I know that such laws were often employed later in Europe.  The central Spanish govt. (yep, even Franco) put legal restrictions on the use of Catalan and Basque, the Austrians tried to force German on their subjects, the Hungarians then tried to force Magyar on their subjects, the French supported a standardized French language, etc., etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)