Comments by "John Brereton" (@johnbrereton5229) on "Knowledgia" channel.

I have many Slovak and Czech friends and when I've asked why they separated they don't seem to know. Now I know why, it wasn't their decision, they were never asked !
33
But the true answer is that many Irish men did fight for Britain, despite the official neutrality.
19
@robertlee4172 The ancient Britons weren't pushed out by the Roman's they remained where they were. The Normans didnt arrive untill 1066 long after the Roman's had left in 409 ad it's also assumed that the so called 'Anglo Saxons' were already here in Roman times and just mingled with the Brits. That's why modern DNA tests show that the English, southern Scots, and southern Welsh, are all mojority Celtic dna still to this day.
11
@evafodor4660 Aethel means nobel in Anglo Saxon. Aetheling means nobel birth and Aethelstan means nobel stone.
9
@yourlocalramen1660 No, despite the Irish government claiming they were neutral, even the British estimated around 42,000 had joined. However, more recent studies have shown it was more like 70,000 and that's from a population of less than 3million. Also many crossed the border and signed up in Northern Ireland so their could be even more. Here is a 2015 study by Steven O'Connor : https://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/4451?lang=en
7
@vincenthair9124 Scotland is named after the Irish tribe, the Scoti, who invaded and took over from the Picts. That's why they speak Gaelic in the North, but not in the south which was the Anglo Kingdom of Northumberland ruled by King Eidyn who gave his name to Eidyn-burgh meaning Eidyn fort, that we now know as Edinburgh.
5
It's hardly propaganda Pablo, the Spanish were brutal with the native Aztecs and Incas destroying vibrant and sophisticated societies. Compare that to the British soft power in India where the native people carried on much as before leaving their civilisation intact and respected. Today if you go to the former Spanish colonies their native cultures were destroyed and replaced with predominantly Spanish cultural. Yet if you go to India it is still recognisably Indian, with just the trappings of British culture that helped India to be the rising superpower it is to day, helped by British Law, language and technology like railways.
4
@celdur4635 The Spanish were not called conquistadors (conquerors) for nothing they brutalised the native indians and enslaved them. Yes many died of disease, but many others were brutalised and killed.They were also tasked with regularly gathering gold for them and if they failed they were put to death. Also they were very zealous in converting them to Catholicism unlike the British. India is now on it's way to becoming a world power, yes the majority are very poor in India, just as they were in Britain at the height of Empire. Gandhi didn't want India to be completely independent of Britain, he wanted it to be a self governing overseas territory of the British Empire. The British due to being the birth place of the industrial revolution wove the worlds cloth, that's why Indian cotton crops were transported there to he woven into cloth by efficient machinery, it was far quicker and cheaper than by hand. All the previous members of the British Empire are now voluntarily members of the Commonwealth, including some countries that where never members of the Empire, but never the less wanted to join. Why would they do this if it was so bad ? No former Spanish territories have asked to be joined to Spain, I wonder why? You talk of British propaganda and then spread your own.
4
The Roman's only conquered furtile territory, or places with rich mineral deposits that they could exploit, not the infertile harsh regions that lacked anything of value.
4
@marlkarx1757 If Britains only motive in fighting was to save their Empire they could have accepted any of the many peace offering from Hitler, but they didn't they fought on alone when all around them fell. So if fact, they sacrificed their Empire to defeat fascism, and ended WW2 weak and in massive debt after fighting for 6 years, not only in Europe but around the globe.
4
@Liam Farrell No, Liam wrong on both counts, the majority were patriots who wanted to fight a racist dictatorship, and so joined their kith and kin in the only country fighting them, Great Britain.
3
@Liam Farrell Great Britain and its Empire was the only country that fought WW2 from 1939 to 1945, the USA didn't joined them untill 1942. Also GB was never racist or a dictatorship, I'm English but have deep roots in Ireland as do many others, just as many Irish people have deep roots in mainland Britain. In fact the Scots came from Ireland and took over Alba and have run it for far longer than 800yrs. Also GB is a strange sort of 'dictatorship' where everyone has an equal Vote, including the Irish who have freedom of movement and can live in GB if they chose, with full voting rights. This was long before the EU freedom of movement, yet people praise the EU for it and condemn GB ?
3
@Liam Farrell How was the Act of Union or indeed penal laws racist ? Every country has penal laws !!!!! And the potatoe famine raged all across Europe including Britain and many people died because of it. However, in such god fearing times all such catastrophes were considered an 'act of god'. My own family members left Ireland for America because of it. Nevertheless, racism exists all over the world, but Britain is one of the least racist countries you could go to. That's why so many Irish people live and work in Britain and many have risen to very high office, including my own.
3
@johnwoodley2034 If anyone hasn't a clue it's you! Try to learn real history and not your bigoted myths. The Irish used to raid the west coast of England and Wales for slaves and take them by ship to your slave market in Dublin,where they were sold. You probably dont know about this, because unlike low brows like yourself, the Brits haven't bleated on about it for centuries.
3
@danielburden7373 There are more native Indians born in the Indian subcontinent in one year than the whole total population of Bolivia, soy boy. 😊
2
@johnwoodley2034 Yes of course the Northern Irish fought for the crown, but so did the southern Irish from the republic. The study I posted in one of my comments above this, shows around 70,000 from the Irish republic also fought for the crown, some even deserting the Irish Army to sign up for Britain. In fact the Irish have fought for the British crown for centuries, my great great great Irish grandfather was a Colonel in the British army, as was his brothers, father and uncles, for generations. You can find racism in all countries against any people, but England is the least racist country on the planet. You could also make a sound claim that the Irish are racist against the English, it's just the English had more influence. However, it's better to talk about the far more things we have in common, rather than the few negatives.
2
@johnwoodley2034 It's rather disrespectful to call my ancestors 'so called Irish' they were very irish, probably far more than yours were. But they never fought for England, they fought for the British crown which included for Ireland. The only snakes are those who fight for a foreign power against their own people, we call them traitors.
2
@johnwoodley2034 Ha, a man with the English name of John Woodley, calls me a fake paddy?????. What a hypocrite you are.
2
@marlkarx1757 I sleep serenely and peacefully thanks, though it must be hard for someone called Karl Marx whose ideology is responsible for 100 of millions more deaths than the Nazi's or the Fascists combined.
2
@marlkarx1757 Wrong again Karl Marx! And history has shown you have been wrong on most things. Though the ideologies of Nazism and Fascism are both socialist based, they have many differences. Nazism is based on racial purity, Fascism is not. In the pursuit of imposing Nazism millions were sacrificed. Again this is not the case with Facism. The Nazis also purged the arts and philosophy forcing intellectuals to flee abroad while burning books and art that didnt fit their ideology. The Fascist again did not. Nazis discriminated against people based on their religious beliefs, Again the Fascists did not. Therefore, though the two ideologies developed from a growing disinchantment in socialism after WW1, there were enough difference between them to make them distinct and seperate.
2
@danielburden7373 Who is the idiot Danny boy? You don't even know your own countries demographics or your own ancestry. The 1890 US census recorded 248,000 native Indians, it's now over 5 million. But these 'pirates' that YOU complain about are your ancestors , the Burden name derives from the Viking Norman's that settled in England and Scotland after the conquest and slaughtered the native population. These 'pirates' then obviously decided to do the same in the USA and they are YOUR ancestors ! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@johnmaclagan2263 I didn't discover the evidence, it's common knowledge going right back to the 3rd century. Even the Roman's mentioned the Irish Scoti tribe invading northern Scotland. Why do you think the Northern Scots speak Gaelic ?
1
@johnmaclagan2263 It's common knowledge to anyone who has read a British history book, but perhaps thats not you .
1
@brucecollins4729 I'm sorry Bruce but the Scotti tribe came from Ireland not France. It's well recorded and no historian disagrees that it was the Irish Scotti who founded Scotland and that's why they both speak Gaellic, except in the Scotish Lowlands where they speak Scots, a version of English.
1
@brucecollins4729 The Scoti are not a mythical tribe, they are an Irish tribe who invaded eastern Alba and drove out the Picts and eventually gave their name to the region Scoti-land Scotland ! It's well documented, I'm surprised you didn't know this.
1
@julm7744 That's a very good point, it's the same in Scotland with the SNP. Not all their supporters want to seperate from the UK, people vote for parties on lots of issues, not just one. Only in a Referendum do you have one issue to vote on.
1
@SaturnineXTS Well, that's not the opinion of the majority of Scots, it's just the noisy minority that think that.
1
@Liam Farrell Well this was 200 years ago Liam, when we were at war with much of catholic Europe and had just fought of a combined French and Spanish invasion fleet at Trafalgar, but how was religious discrimination racist ? I experienced racism myself in Australia, but I don't hold it against the Aussies. Ireland has been self governing for 100years, plenty of time to promote the Irish language, so ask them why they haven't done it. It's more useful to speak English, it's now a world language arent you lucky to speak it . Do you speak Gaelic? If not, why not, if it's important to you ?
1
@johnwoodley2034 You seem to be confusing England with Britain, John Woodley, which is strange seeing as you are obviously an Englishman yourself. The name Woodley is Anglo Saxon and comes from Berkshire, you can't get more English than that. Did your ancestors arrive to colonise Ireland ? Perhaps that's why you know how bad they were, it was you doing it all along !
1
@johnwoodley2034 I think what you are trying to say is I am very well educated, and of course you are right, I am. That's why I know your ancestors were Anglo Saxons, not Irish at all, just like many English people are descended from the Irish. We are just all one big happy family on these islands, it's just some people are too ignorant to realise it.
1
@johnwoodley2034 Of course it's all made up, just like your so called history, it's all just fake.
1
@johnwoodley2034 Yet another fake comment by the fake John Woodley. However, I prefer facts, so it's pointless talking to a fake.
1
Officially Ireland was neutral, but in fact many Irishman fought for Britain. Signing up both in the Irish Republic itself but many also crossed the border into Northern Ireland and signing up there.
1
Though Martin Luther 1483- 1546 is always quoted as the father of the Reformation, it really started much earlier than the 16th century as you and others claim. In England, John Wycliffe 1320-1384 seems today to be ignored and forgotten for his part in the Reformation. Though in his day he was known as: 'The Morning Star of the Reformation'. Wycliffe was a master of divinity at Oxford university and wrote extensively about his doubts as to the legitimacy of the Pope who he called the antichrist and the Roman Catholic church he led. Much to the Popes annoyance Wycliffe was the first to translate the bible into English so that all could read it. In 1395 his followers the Llollards nailed their 12 conclusions to the door of Westminster Hall. By this time Wycliffe was dead and Martin Luther was only 12 years old and long before he did the same in Germany. Wycliffs writing were much read and admired all across Europe including by the Czech theologian Jan Hus 1369- 1415 who also translated them and wrote texts himself in a similar vein. Both these men were over 100 years before Martin Luther.
1
The French did attack in 1939 they attacked the SARS region of Germany.
1
It was a European potatoe famine not just in Ireland. The decade it lasted was called the Hungry Forties, and started in Belgium where it destroyed 90% of the crop and killed 40% of the population. It wasn't just potatoes either, corn and other crops also failed leading to widespread hunger and riots across Europe which led to a British banking crisis in 1847. The countries worse affected were in a line across Ireland, Britain, the low countries all the way to east Prussia. The crisis was so severe that national governments at the time could not cope, not just in Britain but across Europe too. So it's wrong to single out Britain as the villain, they were just as effected and did exactly what other countries did in what was a very difficult time. Yet only Britain is singled out as the devil incarnate and only Ireland as the victim, but neither is true.
1
@emcc8598 Typical anti British nonsense ! As I said, this famine didn't start in England as this video claimed, it started in Belgium and destroyed 90% of the crop there and killed 40% of the population, so was Britain to blame there too ? In fact, and as I stated before, it was all across Europe and many people died. It created widespread rioting across the continent and because it was the god fearing 19th century they all thought that it was the will of god. Also, I notice the Americans claimed they saved the Irish immigrants from the nasty British. Yet in reality, the Irish were not welcomed in America at the time at all, they were attacked, killed and even refused accommodation. But hey, while you're rewriting history you might as well paint as favourable to those you want to as possible. However, the truth is far more nuance and the Brits were not the devils in carnage that you are trying to paint them. And I speak as a person whose family left Ireland in the EUROPEAN HUNGRY FORTIES, never to return.
1
@UCxDy_sKBWsPGjW2PaB7EdCA Perhaps you should take your own advice and not base you own view of history all on the song: 'The Fields of Athenry,' as good a song as it may be. Sir Charles Trevelyan was a cornish man therefore from the same stock as the Irish themselves, so it's hard to judge him as an anti Irish racist, and there is no evidence to suggest he was. He was also the son of a clergyman. Therefore, in a time of god fearing reverence a clergymans son would attribute many natural phenomena to 'Gods Will'. However, Trevelyan was not a politician he was a civil servant who saw his role as reducing corruption from those claiming famine relief. These rules had been instigated by Trevelyan after he had uncovered corruption amongst his superiors in India while serving there. Therefore he felt it was his duty to observe his new procedures very rigidly so that this sort of corruption could not be be repeated. However, once he realised the severity of the situation he showed impressive leadership organising soup kitchens that fed up to 3million people and was rightly praised at the time. Especially for his impressive work ethic, working from very early in the morning, conducting not only his regular duties but devoting much more time dealing with what he called and was aware was an 'Irish crisis' . Therefore, as a civil servant Trevelyan can't be held totally responsible for the measures instigated by the Whig government and what he did do to help the starving was certainly praiseworthy, but unfortunately, it wasn't enough. However, the famine was unprecedented and the British Government just like their European counterparts who all lacked an adequate response, particularly in the early days. Nevertheless, all this is forgotten, and it becomes solely an Irish famine, no doubt so that the British can be held responsible.
1
@elseggs6504 The US couldn't stop Britain having nuclear weapons, as their nuclear research was very advanced. In fact they helped the US to develop theirs. After WW2 the British were the first country in the world to build nuclear power stations.
1
@elseggs6504 That's actually not true. The British were very advanced and developed nuclear fusion in 1940 at the university of Birmingham and were developing their own bomb before the US entered the war in 1942. At this time British atomic bomb making was well advanced and superior to the US effort. However, after the US joined the war effort, the British shelved their development and were instrumental in developing the US atomic bomb from start to finish.
1