Talk:Irish socialist volunteers in the Spanish Civil War/Archive 1

Most notable
These men are notable from the stand point of republicanism. William Tumilson in particular probably warrants a detailed article. Same for Archibald, Billy Henry, Lamour who were quite active in 1940s Republicanism. There are a few others also and (obviously) plenty of men from other regions not mentioned due to space. Really what this article will do is be part of a few articles on IRA in 1940s. Considering the shift to Northern Command in 1940s, most of these articles will be focused on Northern Republicans. So that is the reason for including so many Northern IRA and Republicans. Fluffy999 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Shouldn't this be merged with the Connolly Column article? Jdorney 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You say the comment on vintagekits page? I was thinking the merge would take place the other way around. Fluffy999 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They should be merged into a Connolly Column page. - Conghaileach 23:20, 28 June 20087 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Ireland and the Spanish Civil War is not up to much, but I respectfully disagree about the merge. I would say for starters that the first two sections of this article should be used to expand the Republican Congress article, because, in and of itself, this material has to do with Irish politics and not the Spanish Civil War. The remainder, I would argue, should be merged with the Conolly Column article, either there or here. What are your thoughts? Jdorney 11:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but I trust your judgment :) I've not much time to wikipedia much these days. Fluffy999 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Column was full of Irish republicans, and the Volunteers were socialist, regardless of Irish political persuasion, why on earth would you merge? They were distinctly different. Spacemarine2552 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the Column members were Republican socialists virtually to a man; most Irish volunteers were mobilised by veterans of the Republican Congress, particularly Peadar O'Donnell and Frank Ryan. Indeed both of them are mentioned in this context in both articles. Indeed I was most surprised to discover that these two separate articles existed. --Mia-etol (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed. In this context, Irish republican and socialist were one-and-the-same.  Frank Ryan would certainly make that argument.  Perhaps the best solution, though, is to merge the lot into Ireland and the Spanish Civil War. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not the point I'm making; The Volunteers included unionists. How can a group featuring republicans and unionists, who fought regardless of political view, be merged with a solely republican group that was mostly full of IRA men? The two were distinctly different, as I said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemarine2552 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, not all Protestants were Unionists. Many of the Protestants who fought had been supporters of the Republican Congress, which had even had a branch on the Shankill Road. Secondly, the only people mentioned by name in this article were members of the Connolly Column, as far as I am aware. The Communist Party, which had members from both Catholic and Protestant backgrounds, was also anti-Unionist in orientation. Can you cite names of non-Republican volunteers and say which units they fought with? --Mia-etol (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth did you mention protestants? Spacemarine2552 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@Spacemarine2552: Because there were virtually no Unionist Catholics in the 1930s, and absolutely no Unionist socialists of Catholic origin. Also the working class was split on religious sectarian grounds by 1936 despite the brief unity achieved during the Outdoor Relief riots. So if there were any Unionists fighting for the Spanish Republich they would have had to be Protestants or of Protestant origin. Do you actually know anything about Irish history in the 1930s? --Mia-etol (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking me down Moot Avenue. Again, what do protestants have to do with anything? Socialists were united because of their proletarian minded ideology, republicans were united by wanting a United Ireland, and unionists were united because they wanted to stay within the kingdom. Religion isn't of any consequence, nor was it mentioned prior to your arrival. Do you actually know why you're on your soapbox? Spacemarine2552 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the tragedies of Northern Irish politics is that political orientation and and religious origin are closely entwined. Since Partition the vast majority of Catholics have been in favour of a Irish unity and the vast majority of Protestants were in favour of the union with Britain. This is also true of teh working class (or teh proletariat, if you prefer). During the early 1930s there was temporary unity in the Outdoor Relief struggle. One result of this was the development of a certain limited Republican socialist tradition among Protestant workers which was expressed in support for the Republican Congress, which had branches in some Protestant working class areas. The vast majority of Irish volunteers who fought in Spain were mobilised by veterans of the Republican Congress, most notably Frank Ryan and Peadar O'Donnell, who were Republican socialists. Your attitude reveals a serious lack of understanding of the history of Northern Ireland and the role of religious sectarianism in politics.

I'm asking you to identify any unionist socialists who fought in Spain for the Spanish Republic? So far you've signally failed to do so. If you can't identify any then your arguments against merging this article with the one about the Connolly Column have no basis. --Mia-etol (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Your attitude reveal a serious lack of understanding", pot, kettle, black, non? It is not fair to say nearly all protestants are for the union to continue; I needn't mention any of the modern day protestant republicans.

Not sure why you're telling me things I already know, but okay. I needn't have to identify any; the article states both republican and unionists fought together. That is good enough for me. I'm sure names could be found if it was necessary to find them. Spacemarine2552 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for Wikipedia. Facts need to be verifiable, so we actually need a reliable source confirming that there was at least one non-Republican socialist from a Unionist background fighting in Spain. Without such a reference there is no verifiable reason for not merging this article with the Connolly Column article.


 * I'm well aware that there were and are Protestant Republicans, but it is an established fact that since partition the vast majority of Protestants have tended to support the Union (particularly in times of crisis) and Protestant Nationalists or Republicans have been fairly rare, although I've known a few. Even a brief look at the population statistics and the election results will show that this has been the case. --Mia-etol (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

reliable figures
could a link be made to a (neautral) source for the "just under 1000" as the Hugh Thomas figure of "around 250" is widely accepted by historians. Paul haynes (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That figure is way out, and I've removed the sentence in question. Hohenloh + 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections
The two sections Background and Republican Congress have no place in this article and should be removed. The information is much better presented in other articles dealing with this time-frame in Ireland. Hohenloh + 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)