Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wartime Actions vs. Normal Standards
There was an Irish organization that was looking to form an uprising during World War One. Its motives were found out, and its leaders executed or jailed for the remainder of the war. I find it interesting that such drastic measures were taken. It is logical that during a war anyone who is against you is an enemy that should be treated as opposing militia, but it seems contradictory of diplomatic values to react so violently. The group hadn't received any form of weaponry, they were not trained, they hadn't attacked anyone. In essence they were still civilians, and yet because of the war they were attacked and treated as an armed force. I think that perhaps the action was necessary, though in a peacetime situation I wonder, would Britain have earned the disapproval of the rest of the democratic world for an attack on civilians merely trying to voice an opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had a similar question. It seems that the Irish uprising was something britain may have supported if it wasn't for the war. Because of Germany's involvement they instead veiwed it as an attack against them. I think in wartime people's views really change and they accept things that they might not normally be ok with.
ReplyDeleteI definitly think that you were right in saying that the measures that were taken were definitly a little drastic. especially you would think that the government would want to keep peace with in its own country. But at the same time like you said when people go against major political or militaristic movements they are very often brought down harshly. As far as Britain, I think they probably would not recieve any disaproval. Although I look at it and am critical, at the time I think bc Britain was such a power that really no one dared to criticize them. Also, maybe other countries understood bc they know tensions are high at wartime. I still believe that there is no excuse for taking such dratic measures for something that is not really causing a threat.
ReplyDeleteI definitly don't think Britain would have had approval by the rest of the democratic world for an attack on civilians speaking out if they weren't in a time of war. But the fact is they were at war and when your at war you worry about things like attacks and it's nesseccary to take out any threats so that in the end you aren't over powered. And even thought these people were mearly "civilians" they were a threat and had to be handled
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Alysa with this one, if the Irish was just peaceful civilians then I would agree. But I wonder if the Irish did use weaponry against the British in the first place.
ReplyDelete