I watched this film for the first time last night. Pretty good. Dirty brit bastards.
For all of the atrocities that occured during the time surrounding this film, Burning of Cork etc, the worst thing the British coonts managed to do was to turn the irish people against themselves. Thats the message the film really drives home.
Without a doubt the best movie of last year.
The Brits didn’t turn us against each other, that stupid DeValera coont did, he should never had sent an inexperienced negociator like Collins to a table with some of the most experienced politicians of the time like Lloyd George.
hypocrits
I know Flano is, but why me?
you enjoy an anti imperialist movie yet believe in imperialism
I dont believe in imperialsm.
in another thread your pro the imperialist wars in Afghanastan & Iraq
They are not imperialist wars. Neither U.S nor U.K. have invaded those countries with the idea of ruling them.
De Valera is a legend.
What he did was sly. He sent Collins over because he knew we would never get a 32 county Republic from George. Sly granted but I like that.
The Brits being here in the first place is what caused it
sure- they dont want puppet governments?
I was fully expectin this from Raven. I made the point on numerous occasions that I was talking about the British goverment/army of today. 80 years ago they were the scum of the earth.
Even back then I would have had a sence of respect for the British army (with the exception of their Irish policy). They were the Heroes of WW1 and WW2.
Jesus ben come on. Im shocked
What were the Black and Tans?
The Black and Tans were the product of a very corrupt/tired British government who would have tried anything to get rid of the Irish problem except give her independence. The people they recruited for the Black and Tans were pissed off British soldiers who didn’t come back from Flanders to the heroes welcome they deserved after 1918. They were bound to seek revenge, unfortunately the poor Irish got the shite end of the stick on that one!
WW1 was an imperilaist war - why respect the brits for WW1 - that war was a stain on humanity & the Brits were major players in it yet you respect them?
Britain was only protecting their own back garden against a German invasion of British soil, she had to defend herself.
in WW1?? you ever study history?
Okay you Tell me Raven, what would have happened in WW1 if Britain stayed out of it?
there was never a chance they would stay out of it? they were one of the instigators -there was a power struggle to be the superpower in Europe - this war wasnt about territory at all - ive never heard your reason put forward before
below are the accepted reasons
On the 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student, killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary. The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that eventually escalated into full-scale war. Austria-Hungary demanded action by Serbia to punish those responsible, and when Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia had not complied, declared war. Major European powers were at war within weeks because of overlapping agreements for collective defense and the complex nature of international alliances.
See also: Black Hand
Arms race
The naval race between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of HMS Dreadnought a revolutionary craft whose size and power rendered previous battleships obsolete. Britain also maintained a large naval lead in other areas particularly over Germany and Italy. Paul Kennedy pointed out both nations believed Alfred Thayer Mahan’s thesis of command of the sea as vital to great nation status; experience with guerre de course would prove Mahan false.
David Stevenson described the arms race as “a self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness.” David Herrmann viewed the shipbuilding rivalry as part of a general movement in the direction of war. Niall Ferguson, however, argued Britain’s ability to maintain an overall lead signified this was not a factor in the oncoming conflict.
The cost of the arms race was felt in both Britain and Germany. The total arms spending by the six Great Powers (Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy) increased by 50% between 1908 and 1913.[3]
Plans, distrust and mobilization
Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the mobilization plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined a two-front strategy. Fighting on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly, before taking on the other. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by pre-empting its mobilization. After the attack, the German army would rush east by railroad and quickly destroy the slowly mobilizing Russian forces.
France’s Plan XVII envisioned a quick thrust into the Ruhr Valley, Germanys industrial heartland, which would in theory cripple Germany’s ability to wage a modern war.
Russia’s Plan XIX foresaw a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.
All three plans created an atmosphere in which speed was one of the determining factors for victory. Elaborate timetables were prepared; once mobilization had begun, there was little possibility of turning back. Diplomatic delays and poor communications exacerbated the problems.
Also, the plans of France, Germany and Russia were all biased toward the offensive, in clear conflict with the improvements of defensive firepower and entrenchment.[4]
Militarism and autocracy
President Woodrow Wilson of the United States and others blamed the war on militarism.[5] Some argued that aristocrats and military lites had too much power in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. War was thus a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. This theme figured prominently in anti-German propaganda. Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of rulers such as Kaiser Wilhelm II, as well as an end to aristocracy and militarism in general. This platform provided some justification for the American entry into the war when the Russian Empire surrendered in 1917.
Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged that variations of militarism, in his opinion, existed within the British and French Empires.
There was some validity to this view, as the Allies consisted of Great Britain and France, both democracies, fighting the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, one of the Allied Powers, was an empire until 1917, but it was opposed to the subjugation of Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungary. Against this backdrop, the view of the war as one of democracy versus dictatorship initially had some validity, but lost credibility as the conflict dragged on.
Balance of Power
Political cartoon depicting the tangled web of European alliances.One of the goals of the foreign policies of the Great Powers in the pre-war years was to maintain the ‘Balance of Power’ in Europe. This evolved into an elaborate network of secret and public alliances and agreements. For example, after the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), Britain seemed to favor a strong Germany, as it helped to balance its traditional enemy, France. After Germany began its naval construction plans to rival that of Britain, this stance shifted. France, looking for an ally to balance the threat created by Germany, found it in Russia. Austria-Hungary, facing a threat from Russia, sought support from Germany.
When the Great War broke out, these treaties only partially determined who entered the war on which side. Britain had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side. Italy had a treaty with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, yet did not enter the war with them; Italy later sided with the Allies. Perhaps the most significant treaty of all was the initially defensive pact between Germany and Austria-Hungary, which Germany in 1909 extended by declaring that Germany was bound to stand with Austria-Hungary even if it had started the war. [6]
Economic imperialism
Vladimir Lenin asserted that imperialism was responsible for the war. He drew upon the economic theories of Karl Marx and English economist John A. Hobson, who predicted that unlimited competition for expanding markets would lead to a global conflict.[7] This argument was popular in the wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Communism. Lenin argued that the banking interests of various capitalist-imperialist powers orchestrated the war.[8]
Trade barriers
Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt, believed that trade barriers were the root cause of both World War I and World War II. In 1944, he helped design the Bretton Woods Agreements to reduce trade barriers and eliminate what he saw as the cause of the conflicts.
Ethnic and political rivalries
A Balkan war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable, as Austria-Hungarys influence waned and the Pan-Slavic movement grew. The rise of ethnic nationalism coincided with the growth of Serbia, where anti-Austrian sentiment was perhaps most fervent. Austria-Hungary had occupied the former Ottoman province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had a large Serb population, in 1878. It was formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. Increasing nationalist sentiment also coincided with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Russia supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic and religious loyalties and a rivalry with Austria dating back to the Crimean War. Recent events such as the failed Russian-Austrian treaty and a century-old dream of a warm water port also motivated St. Petersburg.[9]
Myriad other geopolitical motivations existed elsewhere as well, for example France’s loss of Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War helped create a sentiment of irredentist revanchism in that country. France eventually allied itself with Russia, creating the likelihood of a two-front war for Germany.