Irish involvement in WW2

Fratton Fred

DublinWriter wrote: »

...in coffins.

very different conflicts, and a very different national perspective.

The Falklands was very much seen as an attack on a British dependancy, therefore very much our war. Iraq and to a lessor extent Afghanistan are seen as someone else's war.

I would still like to understand why Britain are being blamed for Afghanistan. As far as I am aware, there would be a lot less Brits there is the rest of Nato/Europe pulled their weight.

gosplan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like I say, I don't want to condone what happened, I would like to try and find an explanation, a simple war crime is, I believe, not a reasonable explanation.

The cities were bombed to end the war as quickly as possible. Whether or not you think firebombing residential areas is a crime in the circumstances is up to you. Is it overkill? Probably, but it was a pretty brutal war.

It's not a war crime techncially because they left all the nasty stuff the allies did out of the 1949 revision of the Geneva convention.

That's how you can drop the 'mother of all bombs' on a village and it's still within the 'rules of war'.....which is another of those great laughable oxymorons but I won't get into it.

FiSe

The winners rules, I suppose?

Carrigart Exile

My grandfather fought in the Royal Navy in WW1; here's a thought, had Britain fallen in WW2 do you think Hitler would have respected Ireland's Neutrality. I doubt it, he would need to secure his western border.

TerrorFirmer

Hard to say. He would not have 'respected' Irelands neutrality certainly, but he might have accepted Ireland as an ally of sorts. Which would have suited Ireland fine had Britain actually fallen. Ireland wouldn't have presented a risk with Britain defeated and Germany in control of the rest of Europe through occupation and alliance. No force could cross the Atlantic and then attempt to land in Ireland in any sort of numbers.

Fratton Fred

HavoK wrote: »

Hard to say. He would not have 'respected' Irelands neutrality certainly, but he might have accepted Ireland as an ally of sorts. Which would have suited Ireland fine had Britain actually fallen. Ireland wouldn't have presented a risk with Britain defeated and Germany in control of the rest of Europe through occupation and alliance. No force could cross the Atlantic and then attempt to land in Ireland in any sort of numbers.

I would have thought Irelands neutrality would have been respected by Hitler, as long as all the jews, communists, homosexuals etc were handed over, as well as any form of military.

I imagine Neutrality whilst Britain and the rest of Europe was under Nazi control would have made British rule look like a stroll in the park.

TerrorFirmer

What I meant to show there was that while he may have left Ireland unoccupied or invaded, it wouldn't have been because he 'respected' the countries neutrality, rather most likely because he wouldn't have needed to.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would still like to understand why Britain are being blamed for Afghanistan. As far as I am aware, there would be a lot less Brits there is the rest of Nato/Europe pulled their weight.

I love this.

The nation that still pumps itself up on the conceit that it fought the might of Nazi Germany alone (total bull**** then as now) is now complaining that its alliance with the USA is not enough to defeat a bunch of cave-dwelling towel heads in Afghanistan, and that everybody else should be over there fighting its battles.

It is of course not the first time that Britain has fought in Afghanistan. She fought several wars there in the 19th century (in which the Afghans had a 100% home record, incidentally). In fact, I believe that a great grandfather of mine might have been one of those troops who went in some time late in the 1870s. The fact that he survived when so many didn't was, so family legend has it, down to his skill as a horseman. (He turned around and got the **** out of there, wise man that he was)

Then he went off to South Africa to fight Zulus. I'm sure there was a perfectly good reason for that as well.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

I love this.

The nation that still pumps itself up on the conceit that it fought the might of Nazi Germany alone (total bull**** then as now) is now complaining that its alliance with the USA is not enough to defeat a bunch of cave-dwelling towel heads in Afghanistan, and that everybody else should be over there fighting its battles.

It is of course not the first time that Britain has fought in Afghanistan. She fought several wars there in the 19th century (in which the Afghans had a 100% home record, incidentally). In fact, I believe that a great grandfather of mine might have been one of those troops who went in some time late in the 1870s. The fact that he survived when so many didn't was, so family legend has it, down to his skill as a horseman. (He turned around and got the **** out of there, wise man that he was)

Then he went off to South Africa to fight Zulus. I'm sure there was a perfectly good reason for that as well.

your views on Britain's involvement in WWII are well known, but you have avoided answering the question and thrown in a few red herrings for good measure.

There is a clear UN mandate on Afghanistan which NATO are carrying out. What exactly is Britain doing wrong?

FiSe

...being british? :cool:

I love the way that everything what has to do with Ireland /either as a whole island or as a republic of/ and second or first war always turns into bitching about 'em English, Brits, UK...
I think that we should count to ten before posting...

My opinion, everyone who fought in the war is a hero in my eyes. As somebody said before, those lads created history we are bitching about. I had the plesure to meet some of them "traitors" who fought on the side of English, Scots, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Australians, New Zelanders and god only knows who else, in the british battledress. What an honour.

Anyway, ring is free :eek:

Hagar

FiSe wrote: »

My opinion, everyone who fought in the war is a hero in my eyes.

On both sides? Too much of a generalisation for me, some undoubtedly were, most were not.

Most of the troops on the ground were uneducated or relatively uneducated people who were swayed by the rhetoric of the day. Most believed what they were told by their "betters". Many joined because their friends and neighbours joined and their family would have been shamed if they didn't, particularly in small towns and villages. Most really had no idea why they were really fighting, as opposed to why they thought they were fighting. Most died screaming for their mothers. Heros? Sadly not.

I think it was John Lennon who said "Imagine if they gave a war and nobody came".

Latchy

FiSe wrote: »

...being british? :cool:

I love the way that everything what has to do with Ireland /either as a whole island or as a republic of/ and second or first war always turns into bitching about 'em English, Brits, UK...
I think that we should count to ten before posting...

:

I really think you have to live amoung another race for a long period to be able to pass a healthy comment ,good or bad about them.If we didn't have the english to blame for our woes ,history and all , we would look for or invent another race to bitch about .

FiSe

Hagar wrote: »

On both sides? Too much of a generalisation for me, some undoubtedly were, most were not.

Most of the troops on the ground were uneducated or relatively uneducated people who were swayed by the rhetoric of the day. Most believed what they were told by their "betters". Many joined because their friends and neighbours joined and their family would have been shamed if they didn't, particularly in small towns and villages. Most really had no idea why they were really fighting, as opposed to why they thought they were fighting. Most died screaming for their mothers. Heros? Sadly not.

I think it was John Lennon who said "Imagine if they gave a war and nobody came".

Some points there. I think it's not so simple, some of them joined because their fathers fought in WWI, some of them joined because of money, some of them joined because it was better than sit at home, some of them joined because of.... some of them joined because they had no other choice.
Some of them believed that thay are doing something for their country /clichee/, protecting their families and friends. And of course some of them were fighting for no reason at all.
I think that every one of them knew what war is and you can get hurt. I would scream for my mother when dying with my guts hanging out, without any shame. But this is not what I would regard as symptom of non heroism.

And yes, heroes are on every side of the conflict.

BTW back to Irish: anyone knows Brendan Finnucane? Was he a hero screaming for his mother? :cool:

Snickers Man

FiSe wrote: »

My opinion, everyone who fought in the war is a hero in my eyes. As somebody said before, those lads created history we are bitching about. I had the plesure to meet some of them "traitors" who fought on the side of English, Scots, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Australians, New Zelanders and god only knows who else, in the british battledress. What an honour.

Anyway, ring is free :eek:

Who called them "traitors"? I don't think that's a common argument. I dislike the retrospective view that Ireland should be ashamed of not joining the war against the Nazis. We stayed out for perfectly good reasons, which have, in my view, been vindicated by history and we should not now be trying to say that we were participants to the same extent as countries who were fully at war.

We weren't, although many of our ancestors may have been for whatever reason.

Like I said, I'm neither proud nor ashamed of my grandfather who died while serving in HM forces in WWII. I certainly wouldn't call him a traitor.

Snickers Man

FiSe wrote: »

BTW back to Irish: anyone knows Brendan Finnucane? Was he a hero screaming for his mother? :cool:

Hard to scream when your lungs are full of the English Channel, which is how "Paddy" Finucane met his end.

A leading fighter ace during the Battle of Britain his early death spared him being used by Churchill as a pawn in the game to encourage greater Irish participation in the war. Either to attract more recruits to the army or to cause public opinion in Ireland to support a declaration of war on Germany.

Churchill certainly saw the publicity potential of a Dublin born, Christian Brothers - educated devout Irish Catholic being one of the heroes of the Battle of Britain. In fact, I think at one stage he might have been the leading RAF ace during the war. (need to confirm that)

But he was shot down after a raid on France and crash landed in the Channel. I think he was only 21.

FiSe

Snickers Man wrote: »

Hard to scream when your lungs are full of the English Channel, which is how "Paddy" Finucane met his end.

A leading fighter ace during the Battle of Britain his early death spared him being used by Churchill as a pawn in the game to encourage greater Irish participation in the war. Either to attract more recruits to the army or to cause public opinion in Ireland to support a declaration of war on Germany.

Churchill certainly saw the publicity potential of a Dublin born, Christian Brothers - educated devout Irish Catholic being one of the heroes of the Battle of Britain. In fact, I think at one stage he might have been the leading RAF ace during the war. (need to confirm that)

But he was shot down after a raid on France and crash landed in the Channel. I think he was only 21.

Spot on :eek:

Tried to make a point here, Valera kept Ireland out of the war, because, perhaps, this country couldn't afford to send men over the channel. Perhaps for another reason.
No appologies, but no excusses.
"Paddy" Finnucane should have a monument on O'Connel street...

Fratton Fred

FiSe wrote: »

Spot on :eek:

Tried to make a point here, Valera kept Ireland out of the war, because, perhaps, this country couldn't afford to send men over the channel. Perhaps for another reason.
No appologies, but no excusses.
"Paddy" Finnucane should have a monument on O'Connel street...

Which was the point I was making earlier, there is a monument to Sean Russell, yet many Irish heroes are not remembered.

Hagar

FiSe wrote: »

"Paddy" Finnucane should have a monument on O'Connel street...

Still had to be called "Paddy". :mad:

Snickers Man

Hagar wrote: »

Still had to be called "Paddy". :mad:

English public schools and services humour, I'm afraid. Anybody called Miller was Dusty and anybody with any Irish connection at all was "Paddy". Included among the latter were Blair Mayne, a solidly Ulster Irish rugby international and decorated SAS pioneer and of course that well known Lib Dem politician Jeremy Ashdown, whose family was originally from Northern Ireland.

Of course those of us of a certain age will remember that to be called "Jeremy" was no advantage in the Liberal Party (and its descendants) after the Thorpe trial.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which was the point I was making earlier, there is a monument to Sean Russell, yet many Irish heroes are not remembered.

"Commemorated" would be a better word there than "remembered" IMHO.

Hey, I'm not proud of the Russell monument at all. Wouldn't it be good to sink a plaque with the narrative of how he came to die on a German submarine next to it? That way those perusing it would get the full picture.

"To commemorate Sean Russell who so desired a United Ireland free of British Rule that he willingly enlisted the help of Nazi Germany to this effect. Fortunately, his utter incompetence, and that of his colleagues, allied to the fact that Germany had bigger fish to fry than Great Britain, caused his gallant German allies to go very cold on the idea after some rudimentary exploratory operations. And the Irish government was so disapproving that it interned as many recalcitrant republicans as it could get its hands on."

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

"Commemorated" would be a better word there than "remembered" IMHO.

Hey, I'm not proud of the Russell monument at all. Wouldn't it be good to sink a plaque with the narrative of how he came to die on a German submarine next to it? That way those perusing it would get the full picture.

"To commemorate Sean Russell who so desired a United Ireland free of British Rule that he willingly enlisted the help of Nazi Germany to this effect. Fortunately, his utter incompetence, and that of his colleagues, allied to the fact that Germany had bigger fish to fry than Great Britain, caused his gallant German allies to go very cold on the idea after some rudimentary exploratory operations. And the Irish government was so disapproving that it interned as many recalcitrant republicans as it could get its hands on."

you just coudn't help yourself could you:D

FiSe

Hagar wrote: »

Still had to be called "Paddy". :mad:

Could be the Australians, who gave him this nick.

McArmalite

Snickers Man wrote: »

I love this.

The nation that still pumps itself up on the conceit that it fought the might of Nazi Germany alone (total bull**** then as now) is now complaining that its alliance with the USA is not enough to defeat a bunch of cave-dwelling towel heads in Afghanistan, and that everybody else should be over there fighting its battles.

It is of course not the first time that Britain has fought in Afghanistan. She fought several wars there in the 19th century (in which the Afghans had a 100% home record, incidentally). In fact, I believe that a great grandfather of mine might have been one of those troops who went in some time late in the 1870s. The fact that he survived when so many didn't was, so family legend has it, down to his skill as a horseman. (He turned around and got the **** out of there, wise man that he was)

Then he went off to South Africa to fight Zulus. I'm sure there was a perfectly good reason for that as well.

"The nation that still pumps itself up on the conceit that it fought the might of Nazi Germany alone " Snickers - YOU ARE THE MAN . As you said if I remember rightly regarding britian and the middle east - let's go over and bomb them before they bomb us. ( Of course when they bomb 'us', (britian), that will be called terrorism).

Watched a great documentary on the Battle of Britain in WW2 on the History channel a few weeks ago. I've obviously seen a few on the Battle of Britain, but this one was particularly riveting I thought. Anyway, if I remember rightly, they said that only one Victoria Cross was awarded to the RAF. I find that incredible. Surely they deserved more than that ?

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

I love the way that everything what has to do with Ireland /either as a whole island or as a republic of/ and second or first war always turns into bitching about 'em English, Brits, UK...
I think that we should count to ten before posting...

You could count to one before it turns into bitching that ' the IRA did this, the IRA did that, the IRA did the other' etc, etc, etc, when someone raises an wrongful and injust aspect of british history

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which was the point I was making earlier, there is a monument to Sean Russell, yet many Irish heroes are not remembered.

Russell fought in the GPO and in the war of independance, that alone makes him more worthy of a monument than people who fought for an empire that had denied their country nationhood.

DublinDes

Bambi wrote: »

Russell fought in the GPO and in the war of independance, that alone makes him more worthy of a monument than people who fought for an empire that had denied their country nationhood.

Very true. Fighting for a country that is still occupying six of our counties. I do not hate or thiunk the Irishmen who fought in the Birtish army in WW2 were traitors, but I can'nt see why we should have a monument to them. Put me right if I'm wrong, but what country honours men with monuments to them if they fought in a foreign army ?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which was the point I was making earlier, there is a monument to Sean Russell, yet many Irish heroes are not remembered.

The last people in the world whom we need to be lectured on as to whom we should honour with monuments is a Brit. We'll honour Irish people who fought for Irish freedom and if we chose so, not those who " fought for an empire that had denied their country nationhood. " and still denies it to six of our counties.

As for those who fought in the british forces in WW2, ok many did, big deal. I'm not going to call or imply that they were 'traitors', indeed I've never heard of them once in my life been described as traitors. Most people just accept it as "it happened, so what" and a shrug of the shoulders, they don't seem to have a guilt complex about remembering them like some have on this board about it. People are much more interested and prouder of remembering their grandparents/ great grandparents role, if any, in fighting the old enemy britian. Well, just my own experience anyway.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

The last people in the world whom we need to be lectured on as to whom we should honour with monuments is a Brit. .

apologies, I did not intend to lecture.

I know it is somthing you would never dream of doing:rolleyes::D

PHB

I really do feel terrible about of lack of honouring of many of our national heroes, including those who fought in WW1 and WW2.

Erin Go Brath

I don't see the guys who fought in the World Wars as traitors, but I also don't think they are as deserving of honours as those who died to secure Irish freedom. I feel sorry for them though.

This verse of the Foggy Dew sums it up for me:

'Twas Britannia bade our Wild Geese go that small nations might be free
But their lonely graves are by Sulva's waves or the shores of the Great North Sea
Oh, had they died by Pearse's side or fought with Cathal Brugha
Their names we will keep where the fenians sleep 'neath the shroud of the foggy dew