Pretty much. The modern occupation of Ireland began after the Irish supported the Spanish Armada against us. After that Britain realised that an independent Ireland was basically like leaving a bloke behind us with a knife. It was much easier to put up with regular Irish rebellions than have them ally with our continental enemies. And every time we came close to giving Ireland independence, they went and turned on us again. Like when we repealed Poyning's law - the Irish promptly allied with Napoleon against us. Even in World War II, Ireland remained neutral and refused to let us base ships on the west coast, making it much harder to stop German attacks on our shipping. Ironically, Churchill reportedly claimed that if Ireland had supported us, Ireland would probably have ended up united - one of the main reasons for holding onto Northern Ireland was to keep hold of Belfast docks in case we needed to use them in the Cold War and to extend our airspace over the Atlantic. By the time the cold war faded, the country was too divided for unification to gain enough political support.
there was very little support in Ireland for the Armada. "easier to have regular Irish rebellions"?....so the answer was to obliterate a way of life, undertake with genocidal zeal the de-gaelicisation of an entire population....ok. Whatever is easiest for you. imagine that. A nation sees another striking out for freedom and inspiring another. You make it sound like ireland was ungrateful for being occupied. At that time Ireland was nowhere near getting freedom. As for for 'giving Ireland' independence, in typical fashion of the British government, even when the Home Rule bill passed the house of commons it was blocked by the house of Lords. ireland was neutral during WW2. ireland had just regained the "treaty ports" in 1938, so why would they hand over ports to Britain to compromise that neutrality. As you well know, churchill was a **** talker. He promised the unification of ireland in exchange for Ireland compromising her neutrality. He was in no position to deliver on that promise as DeValera well knew. I am not a fan of De Valera but he was an excellent politician and he completely schooled Chuchill on that one. As for the main reason for holding onto the North...well...it was a little more than that. as for the rest of you, stick to the topic please.
Why did Ireland harbour high profile Nazis after the war? such as Celestine Laine, Pieter Menten & Andrija Artukovic?
Who cares? Is that any worse than the UK, French, Russian and American governments given freedom to Third Reich scientists so they could aid them with their nuclear development programmes? And the development of other weapons of mass destruction.
Why did Dublin allow Nazi UFOs to terrorize Britain from their secret bases dotted around Ireland during WWII? please log in to view this image Even to this day, Irish politicians never mention this dark chapter of their history. You'd almost think it never happened.
they were used like slaves no doubt. quite rightly so. they were'nt given mansions and a free life Why did the Irish PM attend a memorial service for Hitler's death and why were Irish flags flown at half mast in dublin when Hitler's death was announced?
Your first point: no, they were well paid, lived comfortable lives and lived with total freedom as residents of said country. Your second point: as I said previously, who cares? It was over sixty years ago. You do realise this is 2011 don't you?
As soon as we say the Euro Cup win was over 40 years ago we get shot down in flames. As far as I've been made aware a time limit is a futile excuse
And I've taken it upon myself to point out the futility of your inane questions. And if it's titled 95th Anniversary what the **** does that have to do with Hitler dumbass?
the point I was making was I can talk about the past if the OP starts a thread about the past. Get it Bernard?
