Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?
Comments
-
I am not convinced that is the case. Large swathes of the country would have a strong preference for RTE over BBC.
Presume you mean Radio Eireann
Given that their programmes:
1) Had very limited coverage of war news
2) Was also heavily censored in other respects
3) Were for a disproportionate number of hours in Irish (despite radio ownership in Gaeltacht areas being minimal)
4) Were largely (to put it charitably) reflective of the stations rather limited budget
but most of all
5) Only broadcast for a handful of hours per day
Its safe to conclude that the overwhelming majority of 1940's radio listeners in Ireland were tuned to the BBC for at least part of the average day even if out of necessity rather than preference.
Anyway I fear we are going off topic so maybe we should take it to the broadcasting history board ?0 -
Its safe to conclude that the overwhelming majority of 1940's radio listeners in Ireland were tuned to the BBC for at least part of the average day even if out of necessity rather than preference
I disagree. All WW2 era radio broadcasts were govt censored. Irish radio coverage was rightly reflective of the Irish Government outlook and stance on neutrality (which was widely popular at that time). Another factor to consider is that the bbc were pumping pro-british propaganda which would not have sat well with an Irish audience, particularly one so close in time to firsthand experience of a british armed conflict on this island. Also bear in mind the sectarian North would have been a far more central and visceral issue for the vast majority of the population. I'd be interested to see if the BBC even had total coverage of the Republic/Free State at that time.0 -
I'd be interested to see if the BBC even had total coverage of the Republic/Free State at that time.
It did (on an anyways decent recieving set anyway)
And Just about any text on the subject (or conversation with anyone old enough to remember and who had access to radio at the time) will confirm listenership to stations from Britain (and often further afield) was very common at the time (and indeed for several decades thereafter) but Im not going to push the point any further since my main intent in posting on this thread was to debunk the earlier assertion regarding mass confiscation of sets (it did however take place in several Nazi occupied territoties particularly after c. 1943)0 -
It did (on an anyways decent recieving set anyway)
What I have read on that is this :
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.tech.digital-tv/2009-05/msg00163.htmlBBC Radio History
1922-1939
...six high power 'regional' medium wave transmitters; one to serve
Wales, four serving England and Northern Ireland plus one for
Scotland, each offering local opt - outs from the new National
Programme. To help fill in areas of poor reception an experimental
long wave transmitter was set up at Daventry, Northamptonshire in
1925 enabling the BBC in 1930 to broadcast the new National
Programme to the majority of the population. These transmissions
were moved to Droitwich, Worcestershire in 1934, (now used to
broadcast Radio 4).
1939-1945
The Home Service
When WWII was declared in 1939, the BBC immediately replaced all
regional medium wave programmes with a simultaneous channel called
the Home Service. This action was taken to prevent German aircraft
using localised transmissions for direction finding.
Which is not definitive but does not seem to imply all Ireland coverage.
An answer of 'It did' to the question :
I'd be interested to see if the BBC even had total coverage of the Republic/Free State at that time.
does not suffice.
No one is saying they were not broadcasting to Parts of Ireland. Or, indeed that there would not have been some listeners.
I just plain flat out don't accept your assertion that 'all but the most rabidly anti-british' would have been everyday listeners.And Just about any text on the subject (or conversation with anyone old enough to remember and who had access to radio at the time) will confirm listenership to stations from Britain (and often further afield) was very common at the time (and indeed for several decades thereafter) but Im not going to push the point any further since my main intent in posting on this thread was to debunk the earlier assertion regarding confiscation of sets (it did however take place in several Nazi occupied territoties particularly after c. 1943)
Very common ? I don't agree. No one has said there were no listeners, the question is the breadth and depth of the Irish WW2 era radio listenership.
FWIW I believe the poster referring to 'confiscated radio sets' is unknowingly referring to broadcast sets - which were confiscated by the state. Most notably from Eduard Hempel.0 -
I think a discussion of the technical intricacies of RF propagation and the hows and whys of signals travelling well beyond their intended coverage area would only invite censure from the mods for travelling well beyond their intended scope of this forum.I disagree. All WW2 era radio broadcasts were govt censored..
As they (albeit to a lesser extent) still are today.............I believe the poster referring to 'confiscated radio sets' is unknowingly referring to broadcast* sets - which were confiscated by the state. Most notably from Eduard Hempel.
Maybe (* Not the best terminology though) although the confiscation of an unauthorised item of transmitting equipment is hardly a government action that would be considered preculiar to wartime (or "Emergency").
Anyways last post by me on this thread since its going seriously O/T here.0 -
Advertisement
-
on the use of slave labour during the war,the vatican is the only german church not [as yet] to pay out compensation to its victims,[a few of the lucky ones are still alive to testify]they are also accused of taking nazi gold and salting it away in swiss banks they promised open their books to prove that they dident in 2000, the world is still waiting,[they will never show them] and dont you find it strange that the church of rome has never excommunicated a nazi ?
+1. Hitler and many of the leading Nazis were born and raised as Roman Catholics, and most of the combined total population of the Axis countries ( in Austria, Italy and Germany ) was Roman Catholic. Shame on DeValera for going to the German embassy to sympathise on the death of Hitler in WW2. A hundred thousand Irish people volunteered to help the British fight Nazism in WW2. Those who returned had to keep their mouths very shut about it...would never get Irish government jobs etc. Did DeValera go to the house of any allied soldier who helped liberate the coincentration camps ? Did DeValera do anything to help the jews?
Pictures tell a thousand words.
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html
If Hitler won the war he would have used Irish people to build the Autobahn to the far east i.e. useful extermination. He had more admiration for the British because they were more like the Aryan race i.e. industious etc - in fact the British was not classified by the Nazis as being racially inferior.lets be clear,dev hated the british and liked the natzi,but not enough to anything about it,look at these facts,celeslin lain[waffen ss] responsible for torturing and the murder of civilians in occupied brittany,lived in ireland,de velera advised lain that he should continue using his alias,so that if the french asked him,if lain was in the country he could truthfully say no.other natzis enjoying ireland artukovic,responsibly for the deaths of over one million people in croatia,menton [a dutchman] responsible for the deaths of 100s of jews lived on his estate in waterford [mahon bridge] many natzi collaborators who fled to france were captured and found in possession of letters of recommondation and addressed to the irish consulate in paris,other countries who are claiming they were neutral are swedon,they made secret loans to berlin in 1941,and only started letting in jews when the tide had turned,switzerland,the complicity of the swiss banks and goverment in funding the natzi regime was known at the end of the war, and we all know they are still keeping the natzi gold in their banks.no dev was only neutral because he knew what would happen to ireland if he was seen to openly favour germany
Good points. But do not tar all Irish with the same brush, many went and volunteered to fight Nazism. Is it true the British supplied what oil Ireland got during the war ( via their merchant fleet ) ? If thats true, is that why Dev may have bent neutrality a bit in favour of the allies ( Donegal air corridor from Lough Erne, return of downed British airmen south of border to N.I.etc )?0 -
was chatting to a polish lad at work a few years back and he said he came to ireland from england and i said what were you doing over there with that shower? (joking) and he said quiet seriously,
'' well at least they were in the war '' the little prick i pulled him straight away for it and asked him where the fúck was poland for 800 odd years ireland needed help? Go fúck yourselves i said to him fair is fair
That shut him up fairly lively but that still resonates with some people that we didn't enter the war it did damage ireland in a way but we were in no position to fight anyway the army was a joke.
my grandfather was in the irish army at the time just before the war and they were starving, skin and bone is all they were so he left and joined the brits, went of the burma to fight in the jungle for the whole war
he said to the dad years later at least they fed us and had proper kit and that if ireland entered the war we would of being wiped out in no time at all and thats from a man who understood combat and had the perspective of the capability's of a real army and the joke that was the irish army
so yes we were right to stay neutral, a no brainer really0 -
-
What are you basing this on ?
I remember reading once about Hitlers plans once he won the war. He planned to build an autobahn to the far east. Just as slave labour was used in german industry during the war ( eg some prisoners from Jersey sent to the mainland Europe ), you would be very naive if you thought Hitler would not use slave labour after the war, especially of races he had no great respect for. Were the Irish Celts .... Aryan, industrious, brave etc ? Certainly Irish Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, disabled etc would have he treated the same as those from other countries he invaded.0 -
I remember reading once about Hitlers plans once he won the war. He planned to build an autobahn to the far east. Just as slave labour was used in german industry during the war ( eg some prisoners from Jersey sent to the mainland Europe ), you would be very naive if you thought Hitler would not use slave labour after the war, especially of races he had no great respect for. Were the Irish Celts .... Aryan, industrious, brave etc ? Certainly Irish Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, disabled etc would have he treated the same as those from other countries he invaded.
I'd be interested to know where you read this, there is a lot of pseudo-history, guff and speculation dressed up as history, this happens in books, news articles and TV documentaries so I am sceptical of this as it goes against other facts more well established.
I'd be interested in the source to ascertain it's credibility as it does not ring true to me.
There are elements to it which appear plausible, for example Irish labourers in Jersey during WW2 were voluntarily offered the chance to go to Germany to work - however this was entirely voluntary and they were at all times treated well and and as voluntary guest workers.
It's worth pointing out that Switzerland was also a neutral and their people were never enslaved. In fact several thousand volunteered for the SS foreign legions to fight bolshevism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Likewise, heard this story but never any evidence or reasoning. As white european christians, we would have been well qualified for the Reich.
Very misinformed the Nazi's had absolutley no interest in Christianity. They were new age pagans with some allusions to extreme hindu'ism adopting ideas from the hindi Caste system, Nordic mysticism, and other occult and pagan belief systems.
White european christians did not represent a genetic group to the Nazi's. The only group the Nazi's were interested in is the Aryan race. That is, those related by genes to an original Indo-Iranian people who migrated North. Now Hitler did't have modern Gene Technology so he relied on fantasy and speculation. The Aryan's to him were the Nordic and the Germanic peoples. The Nazi's even figured the lost city of Atlantis into their pseudo history.
If anything the Nazi religion was the opposite of Christianity.
The Irish were viewed as Celts with a mixture of Nordic blood. We were mongrels to them.0 -
CiscoStudent wrote: »The Irish were viewed as Celts with a mixture of Nordic blood. We were mongrels to them.
I think it's funny that you deem other people misinformed then come out with nonsense like this. Have you even read the thread you are posting on ?
It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity - unlike the bolsheviks who certainly did everywhere they went.I don't think this is necessarily correct. Celts were defined as Nordic people by the historians/Professors at that time. Sure they even created chairs of Celtic Research at Berlin University etc with scholars learning Irish, Breton, Welsh etc. Archaeologists and historians were send to Ireland to conduct research before the war started. Even the SS Ahnenerbe (Ancestral heritage) was researching Celtic mythology.
This took place along other well funded research projects for Scandinavian mythology and language. Unfortunately, I do not have the source at the moment but in a highly ideological publication (I think it may have been Das Schwarze Korps - a publication for serving SS members) Himmler even spouted something about having identified certain graveyards in Scandinavia, Brittany and Ireland for SS men and women to procreate on the graves of supposedly ancient Celtic and Nordic warriors. The idea was that the soul of the warrior would enter the child conceived on the graves.
So, in summary I do not think that Celtic "races" would have been considered as part of the so-called "low races", rather the opposite.0 -
I think it's funny that you deem other people misinformed then come out with nonsense like this. Have you even read the thread you are posting on ?
It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity - unlike the bolsheviks who certainly did everywhere they went.
My apologies, I must be mistaken, Hitler would of been lovely to the Irish i'm sure, just as the Saxons were.0 -
I think it's funny that you deem other people misinformed then come out with nonsense like this. Have you even read the thread you are posting on ?
It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity - unlike the bolsheviks who certainly did everywhere they went.
Really??? They did'nt 'suppress christianity'? I know they may have used it in their favour when it suited but your view of Nazi policy is not based on reality.Throughout the period of National Socialist rule, religious liberties in
Germany and in the occupied areas were seriously impaired. The
various Christian Churches were systematically cut off from effective
communication with the people. They were confined as far as possible
to the performance of narrowly religious functions, and even within
this narrow sphere were subjected to as many hindrances as the Nazis
dared to impose. These results were accomplished partly by legal and
partly by illegal and terroristic means.
http://www.leics.gov.uk/the_nazi_master_plan.pdfAlthough the principal Christian Churches of Germany had long been
associated with conservative ways of thought, which meant that they
tended to agree with the National Socialists in their authoritarianism,
in their attacks on Socialism and Communism, and in their campaign
against the Versailles treaty, their doctrinal commitments could not be
reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of
unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the
complete subservience of Church to State. Since these are fundamental
elements of the National Socialist program, conflict was inevitable.0 -
Complete and utter crap. Source please.If Hitler won the war he would have used Irish people to build the Autobahn to the far east i.e. useful extermination.He had more admiration for the British because they were more like the Aryan race i.e. industious etc - in fact the British was not classified by the Nazis as being racially inferior.
He was envious of their Empire, and how they controlled such huge swathes of land with such small numbers of troops/admin.
I would suggest viewing 'The Nazis A Warning from History' - Episode entitled - The Wrong War It goes into this in some depth.I remember reading once about Hitlers plans once he won the war. He planned to build an autobahn to the far east. Just as slave labour was used in german industry during the war ( eg some prisoners from Jersey sent to the mainland Europe ), you would be very naive if you thought Hitler would not use slave labour after the war, especially of races he had no great respect for. .
Source please, (for the first sentence in bold.)
Source please, (for last sentence) for any academic piece, which states, or even claims that, Hitler had no great respect for the Irish.
Fyi, not only was Hitler, personally, well up on Irish History, but the Ahnenerbe in Germany was extremely interested in trying to establish a connection between the Celts and the Aryan Race.I think that the Nazis saw some of the stories in the Lebor Feasa Runda as supportive of their theory that the Aryan race originated from a lost continent like Atlantis or Thule. The Lebor Feasa Runda relates how the gods once lived on an immortal island that lay to the west of Ireland until it sank beneath the Atlantic Ocean; this island was also the birthplace of the human race according to Celtic legend. Then, of course, there is the fact that the Lebor Feasa Runda reveals techniques by which the ancient gods of the Celts can be summoned to give their aid and assistance to those who contact them by means of magical operations; a prospect which may well have held an enormous appeal to the Nazis in their efforts to establish military domanince over Europe.
Granted, it’s difficult to find concrete sources for mysticism (which doesn’t remotely interest me, I might add), but for what it’s worth...
SourceCiscoStudent wrote: »Very misinformed the Nazi's had absolutley no interest in Christianity. They were new age pagans with some allusions to extreme hindu'ism adopting ideas from the hindi Caste system, Nordic mysticism, and other occult and pagan belief systems.
Accurate assesment imo. In fact, I can't help getting the feeling, the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, in this respect, and they were making it up as they went along.CiscoStudent wrote: »White european christians did not represent a genetic group to the Nazi's. The only group the Nazi's were interested in is the Aryan race. That is, those related by genes to an original Indo-Iranian people who migrated North. Now Hitler did't have modern Gene Technology so he relied on fantasy and speculation. The Aryan's to him were the Nordic and the Germanic peoples. The Nazi's even figured the lost city of Atlantis into their pseudo history.
If the war had never happened, I often wonder what would have happened when Nazi theories eventually clashed with Science/Biology. They were hugely interested in and advanced in Human Biology as well as mysticism. Would it be like the way some aspects of Stem Cell research is not allowed/or faces opposition today. Would the scientists be gagged ?
.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Really??? They did'nt 'suppress christianity'? I know they may have used it in their favour when it suited but your view of Nazi policy is not based on reality.
http://www.leics.gov.uk/the_nazi_master_plan.pdf
You are quoting from a O.S.S document. The Office of Strategic Services was responsible for (among other things) propaganda, it later of course became the CIA.
Even so, that document says:The Problem of Proof . The best evidence now available as to the
existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic
nature of the persecution itself. Different steps in that persecution,
such as the campaign for the suppression of denomination and youth
organizations, the campaign against the denominational schools, the
defamation campaign against the clergy, started on the same day in
the whole area of the Reich or in large districts, and were supported by
the entire regimented press, by Nazi party meetings [and] by travelling
Party speakers. As to direct evidence, the directives of the Reich
Propaganda Ministry, if they have not been destroyed, would be most
authoritative. If they have been destroyed, questioning of Nazi
newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the
desired evidence. It is known that Hitler used to discuss the plans of
his political action with those members of his inner circle who were
especially concerned with the respective problems. Rosenberg, Göring,
Goebbels, Frick, Rust, Baldur von Schirach, Kerrl and Schemm are the
leading Nazis who took a special interest in the relationship of State
and Church
'Campaign against denominational schools' that part reminds me of the current Irish Labour party policy on Education.
Not exactly in the same league as the communist Bolshevik systematic persecution of the Christian faith.
It goes on :The Period from the Seizure of Power to the Signing of the
Concordat . During this period, the main concern of the new regime
was to liquidate the political opposition. Their strategy was to
convince conservatives that the efforts of the government were being
directed primarily against the Communists and other forces of the
extreme Left, and that their own interests would remain safe in Nazi
hands as long as they would consent to refrain from political activity.
Immediately after their rise to power, therefore, the Nazis made
unmistakable overtures to the Churches, and tried to convince the
Catholic hierarchy in particular that after the dissolution of the Centre
Party and some Catholic organizations of more or less political
character, such as the Friedensbund deutscher Katholiken , no obstacle
could remain in the way of complete reconciliation between the
Catholic church and the Nazi state. The German Catholic bishops,
influenced by the experiences of their Italian colleagues, whose
relations with the Fascists under the Lateran Treaty of 1929 had been
fairly smooth, accepted the Nazi proposition. Pourparlers for a
Reichconcordat started immediately.
Meantime the Nazi government abrogated all laws and regulations of
the Republic protecting non-denominational groups of the population
and abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-Church
propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular
(weltliche ) schools in which no religious instruction was given and reestablished
religious instruction in professional and vocation schools.
All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden. When the Reichstag
elected on 5 March 1933 convened, the government organized
religious ceremonies for the Protestant and Catholic members of
Parliament.
And in his speech before the Reichstag, to which he presented his
government, Hitler declared: ‘while the regime is determined to carry
through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating
and ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiosity.
Benefits of a personal nature, which might arise from compromises
with atheistic organizations, could outweigh the results which become
apparent through the destruction of general basic religious–ethical
values. The national regime seeks in both Christian confessions the
factors most important for the maintenance of our “folkdom”. It will
respect agreements concluded between them and the states. Their
rights will not be infringed upon. Conversely, however, it expects and
hopes that the national and ethical uplifting of our people, which the
regime has taken for its task, will enjoy a similar appreciation. The
national regime will concede and safeguard to the Christian
confessions the influence due them, in school and education. It is
concerned with the sincere cooperation of church and state. The
struggle against a materialistic philosophy and for the creation of a
true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well
as our Christian belief.’
Under such circumstances, the conference of German bishops,
meeting as usual in Fulda, decided on 28 March 1933 to lift all
restrictions imposed on members of the Church adhering to the Nazi
movement. This opened the door to mass adherence to the Party of
practising Catholics. The rush started immediately. All those German
Catholics who were inclined to adopt Nazi political views and had
hesitated only because of the anti-Nazi attitude of the hierarchy
hastened now to join the victorious party of the ‘national revolution’.
Former members of the Centre Party’s right wing, who had always
advocated collaboration with the parties to the Right of the Centre and
with the German nationalist movements established themselves now
as so-called ‘bridge-builders’ trying to explain ideological affinities
between the anti-liberal character of Catholic politics and the Nazi
system. They insisted especially on the fact that the Church was
guided like the Nazi movement by the leadership principle.7 They were
soon joined by turn-coats from the Left wing of the Centre and the
Catholic Youth Movement, persons who insisted that the ‘socialist’ and
anti-capitalist character of the Nazi doctrine coincided marvellously
with their own views on the necessity of social reform.
In order to remind the Catholics of the danger of not coming to an
agreement with the Nazi state, a certain amount of pressure was at the
same time maintained against them. A thorough job was done in
purging Reich, State and municipal administrations of officials
appointed for their adherence to the Centre or Bavarian People’s
parties. Former leaders of those parties, including priests, joined
Communist and Social Democrat leaders in the concentration camps,
and the campaign of hatred against the ‘black’ was resumed. By April
1933 the bishops were making appeals for clemency toward former
civil servants who, they pointed out, were not able to join the
celebration of national awakening because they had been dismissed
from positions in which they had given their best to the community of
the German people. And on 31 May 1933 a meeting of the Bavarian
bishops adopted a solemn statement directed against the tendency of
attributing to the state alone the right of educating, organizing and
7 See the program of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Katholischer Deutscher. See also
the declaration of Archbishop Gröber.
7
leading ideologically the German youth.8 A few weeks later, on 18 June
1933, the breaking up in Munich by Nazi hordes of a manifestation of
the Catholic Journeymen Associations (Gesellenvereine ) became the
starting point of a Nazi propaganda campaign against alleged efforts
to keep ‘Political Catholicism’ alive.
Compare all of that to this by the communists - Mass executions and confiscation of all christian church land, assets and property of any kind leading on to gulags mass executions etc etc.
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1987-8/byrnes.htm
One early example :Throughout the trial, Krylenko ignored the defense offered by the clergy and he refused to admit evidence of the agreement of the signing of contracts between the Vatican and the Comissariat of Justice. Further, he told the defendants that the object of the trial was not to study canon law, but to determine violations of the laws of the Soviet government. <38> Father Walsh, who was present during this five-day trial, affirms the final question put to the clergy, their response, and the public prosecutor's disparagement of their response:
'Will you stop teaching the Christian religion?'
'We cannot,' came the uniform reply. 'It is the law of God.'
'That law does not exist on Soviet Territory,' replied Krylenko.
'You must choose . . . As for your religion, I spit on it, as I spit on all
religions.' <39>
And it was on this statement, the Soviet definition of religion, that the clergy were judged and sentenced.
On Palm Sunday, March 25,1923, at midnight, Judge Nemsiv read the sentences imposed by the court: Archbishop Cieplak and Monsignor Budkiewicz were found guilty of being the leaders of counterrevolutionary conspiracy and were sentenced to be shot; Fathers Ejsmont, Juniewicz, Chwietko, Chadiewics and Exarch Fedorov were found guilty of being members of this conspiracy and were sentenced to 10 years solitary confinement in prison; Monsignor Malecki and Fathers Wasilewski, Janukowicz, Matulanis, Troigo, Ivanov, Rutkowski and Pronckietis were sentenced to imprisonment for three years as accomplices of the leaders; and James Sharnov received a six-months imprisonment for insulting behaviors toward Soviet authorities. However, the sentences of Archbishop Cieplak and Monsignor Budkiewicz were delayed pending a review by the Central Executive Committee. <40>
Following these verdicts, there were diplomatic exchanges between the Holy See and Vladimir Vovorskii, the Russian representative to the papacy, who convinced Cardinal Gasparri that the prisoners were in no danger. Further, the Cardinal sent a telegram to President Kalinin and Foreign Minister Chicherine requesting "the commutation of the death sentence for Archbishop Cieplak and Monsignor Budkiewicz, the freeing of the prisoners and sending them to Rome." <41> In addition, the Polish government offered an exchange of prisoners, the English government pointed out that the execution of the archbishop would cause the world community to question economic dealings with Russia, and the United States revoked an entrance visa for Madame Catherine Kalinin, wife of the president of the Soviet government. She had planned a tour in the interests of Russian relief for the famine. <42>
However, all pleas were ignored by the Russian government. On March 30,1923, the Moscow Izvestia reported that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee had commuted the sentence of Archbishop Cieplak from death to 10 years solitary confinement, but they had rejected Monsignor Budkiewicz's appeal for clemency. <43> The following notice appeared in Izvestia on April 3, 1923:
The sentence of the Supreme Court of the republic with respect to Budkiewicz, that he be shot, has been executed, his plea for pardon having been denied by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. <44>
It was later learned that the monsignor had been executed on Holy Saturday night, March 31, 1923.
The execution of the sentence succeeded in destroying the hierarchical organization of both the Roman Catholic and the Russian Catholic churches in Russia. Archbishop Cieplak and Exarch Fedorov were imprisoned, Monsignor Budkiewicz had been shot and 13 other Roman Catholic priests priests, nuns and laity were either in prison or exile. This article also affirmed that there were only three Polish priests in Moscow who were still free.
&
Leading from there on to :
http://www.uq.edu.au/~laacassi/OrthodoxChristianityandMilitantAtheism.html
THE ASSAULT UPON HEAVEN
From October 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, until around 1988, the year when Russian Christianity celebrated its millennium, the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union existed in a state of siege. The intensity of persecution varied at different points in those seventy years, but the basic attitude of the Communist authorities remained the same: religious belief, in all its manifestations, was an error to be repressed and extirpated. In Stalin's words, 'The Party cannot be neutral towards religion. It conducts an anti-religious struggle against all and any religious prejudices.'1 To appreciate the full force of his words, it has to be remembered that the Party, under Soviet Communism, to all intents and purposes meant the State.
In this way, from 1917 onwards, Orthodox and other Christians found themselves in a situation for which there was no exact precedent in earlier Christian history. The Roman Empire, although persecuting Christians from time to time, was in no sense an atheist state, committed to the suppression of religion as such. The Ottoman Turks, while non-Christians, were still worshippers of the one God and ... allowed the Church a large measure of toleration. But Soviet Communism was committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism. It could not rest satisfied merely with a neutral separation between Church and State, but sought by every means, direct and indirect, to overthrow all organized Church life and to eliminate all religious belief.
The Bolsheviks, newly come to power, were quick to carry their programme into effect. Legislation in 1918 excluded the Church from all participation in the educational system, and confiscated all Church property. The Church ceased to possess any rights; quite simply, it was not a legal entity. The terms of the Soviet constitution grew progressively more severe. The constitution of 1918 allowed 'freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda' (Article 13), but in the 'Law on Religious Associations' enacted in 1929 this was changed to 'freedom of religious belief and of anti-religious propaganda'. The distinction here is important: Christians were allowed - at any rate in theory - freedom of belief, but they were not allowed any freedom of propaganda. 'The Church was seen merely as a cultic association. It was in principle permitted to celebrate religious services, and in practice - more particularly from 1943 onwards - there were a certain number of church buildings open for worship. Also, after 1943, the Church was allowed to maintain a few institutions for training priests, and to undertake a limited publishing programme. But it was allowed to do virtually nothing beyond this.
....
Institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church
1914 1939 1947 1988 1992
Churches 54,174 some 100s ?20,000 about 7,000 over 12,000
Priests and Deacons 51,105 some 100s ?30,000 about 7,000 about 10,000
Monasteries (for both men and women) 1,025 none 67 21 121
Monks and Nuns 94,629 ? ?10,000 1,190 ?
Theological Academies 4 none 2 2 2
Seminaries 57 none 8 3 25 (including pre-theological schools)
Pre-theological Schools 185 forbidden by law forbidden by law forbidden by law
Students ? none ? 2,000 4,000
Parochial Schools 37,528 forbidden by law forbidden by law forbidden by law no statistics available; rapidly proliferating
Homes for the Aged 1,113 forbidden by law forbidden by law forbidden by law no statistics available; rapidly proliferating
Hospitals 291 forbidden by law forbidden by law forbidden by law no statistics available; rapidly proliferating
Parish Libraries 34,497 forbidden by law forbidden by law forbidden by law no statistics available; rapidly proliferating0 -
There are elements to it which appear plausible, for example Irish labourers in Jersey during WW2 were voluntarily offered the chance to go to Germany to work - however this was entirely voluntary and they were at all times treated well and and as voluntary guest workers.
It's worth pointing out that Switzerland was also a neutral and their people were never enslaved. In fact several thousand volunteered for the SS foreign legions to fight bolshevism.
Swirzerland was not invaded. Look at countries which were invaded by Germany....and especially look at what happened to members of their societies who happened to be Jewish or gay or travellers or disabled...
Switzerland had close ties to Germany, part was German speaking etc...and a next door neighbour.
Look at the Channel islands as you seem ignorant of the facts there. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lager_Sylt
"Lager Sylt was a Nazi concentration camp on Alderney in the British Crown Dependency, the Channel Islands, in operation between March 1943 and June 1944. The Germans built one concentration camp and three Labour camps on the island, subcamps of the Neuengamme concentration camp (located in Hamburg, Germany).
700 people are estimated to died in the camps on Alderney, although it is now believed to have been higher. This was the only Nazi concentration camp on British soil."
If you go to Dachau concentration camp you will see the flags of dozens + dozens of nationalities of people killed there : The Nazis has no great respect for nationalities not Aryan, and do you think a race who were only good at farming ( if that ) would have been held in high esteem by the Nazis and left alone ...they would have sent us oil as the British did and allowed us grow our spuds in peace ?0 -
If Hitler won the war he would have used Irish people to build the Autobahn to the far east i.e. useful extermination.
No source for this then ???
edit:
Also, why did you leave out the 2 words in the original piece, where I have put an big red asterisk below, when you copied and posted that text from wiki?Look at the Channel islands as you seem ignorant of the facts there. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lager_Sylt
"Lager Sylt was a Nazi concentration camp on Alderney in the British Crown Dependency, the Channel Islands, in operation between March 1943 and June 1944. The Germans built one concentration camp and three Labour camps on the island, subcamps of the Neuengamme concentration camp (located in Hamburg, Germany).
700 people are estimated to died in the camps on Alderney, although it is now believed to have been higher.* This was the only Nazi concentration camp on British soil."
Just for the record people the two words were "By Whom" meaning there is no acedemic source to back up the claim that the numbers were believed to be higher, none whatsoever.
.0 -
Swirzerland was not invaded.
This is the point you seem to be missing. Switzerland was not invaded, neither was Ireland. The far more credible and likely threat of invasion to Ireland during WW2 in my view came from Britain not Germany. Had we declared war on Germany (who had not declared war on Ireland) then that likelihood would have been reversed.Look at countries which were invaded by Germany....and especially look at what happened to members of their societies who happened to be Jewish or gay or travellers or disabled...
I don't doubt for a second that in the scenario of a German invasion and ongoing occupation of Ireland that Ireland would have been purged of most if not all of it's jews, either immediately or over a period of time. They would likely have been shipped out to concentration camps. Treatment of the disabled is a seperate matter. The T4 programme in Germany was not exported for example to Jersey, France, belgium, Norway etc,Look at the Channel islands as you seem ignorant of the facts there.
To clarify this was point was made by you :Originally Posted by gigino View Post
If Hitler won the war he would have used Irish people to build the Autobahn to the far east i.e. useful extermination.
I asked you what you based it upon and you came back with :I remember reading once about Hitlers plans once he won the war. He planned to build an autobahn to the far east. Just as slave labour was used in german industry during the war ( eg some prisoners from Jersey sent to the mainland Europe )
The point about Irish labourers on Jersey stands. They were offered the opportunity to go to Germany as Voluntary guest workers. Some did. By all accounts they were treated well - they were not forced labour and were not put in concentration camps.0 -
marcsignal wrote: »No source for this then ???
edit:
Also, why did you leave out the 2 words in the original piece, where I have put an big red asterisk below, when you copied and posted that text from wiki?
Just for the record people the two words were "By Whom" meaning there is no acedemic source to back up the claim that the numbers were believed to be higher, none whatsoever.
.
Just noticed something else slightly odd about that wiki article.
The wiki article :The States (Alderney's governing body) decline to commemorate the sites of the four labour camps. Local historian Colin Partridge feels this may be due to the locals' desire to dissociate themselves from the accusations of collaboration. A faded memorial plate, tucked away behind the island's parish church, vaguely mentions 45 Soviet citizens who died on Alderney in 1940-45, without saying how they died and why.
Looking at the wiki 'External Links' for this article :
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/a/alderney/lager_sylt/index.shtmlThe States [Alderney's governing body] decline to commemorate the sites of the four labour camps, local historian Colin Partridge feels this may be due to the locals' desire to dissociate themselves from the accusations of collaboration. A faded memorial plate, tucked away behind the island's parish church, vaguely mentions 45 Soviet citizens who died on Alderney in 1940-45, without saying how they died and why. Colin Partridge is convinced that a decent memorial must be built on Alderney. He and a group of enthusiasts have managed to establish the names of all 460 people who perished in the island's four camps. To begin with, they are now planning to unveil a memorial plate with 460 names on it.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are quoting from a O.S.S document. The Office of Strategic Services was responsible for (among other things) propaganda, it later of course became the CIA.
Even so, that document says:
'Campaign against denominational schools' that part reminds me of the current Irish Labour party policy on Education.
Not exactly in the same league as the communist Bolshevik systematic persecution of the Christian faith.
It goes on :
Compare all of that to this by the communists - Mass executions and confiscation of all christian church land, assets and property of any kind leading on to gulags mass executions etc etc.
.....[/url]
You statedposted by Morlar : the Germans did not suppress christianity - unlike the bolsheviks who certainly did everywhere they went
I repliedposted by jonniebgood1 Really??? They did'nt 'suppress christianity'? I know they may have used it in their favour when it suited but your view of Nazi policy is not based on reality.
To which you reply that the Communists "Mass executions and confiscation of all christian church land" which I did'nt dispute in the first place. Quoting article & opinions that have nothing to do with my point is a strange way to argue against it.
My point is that the germans did suppress christianity contrary to what you posted. You dont like my first post (although you didnt deal with the points it makes). So here is another opinion which suggests the same thing:Soon after Hitler assumed dictatorial powers, ''relations between the Nazi state and the church became progressively worse,'' the outline says. The Nazis ''took advantage of their subsequently increasing strength to violate every one of the Concordat's provisions.''
In 1937, Pope Pius XI denounced Nazi treachery in an encyclical that accused Hitler of ''a war of extermination'' against the church. The battle had been joined on some fronts. Nazi street mobs, often in the company of the Gestapo, routinely stormed offices in Protestant and Catholic churches where clergymen were seen as lax in their support of the regime.
The dissident pastor Martin Niemoller spoke openly now against state control of the Protestant churches. He was arrested and imprisoned in 1937 for using his pulpit for ''underhand attacks on state and party.'' When a judge acquitted him, ''on leaving court he was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to a concentration camp where he remained until the end of the war,'' says the outline.
...
Still, in a society where the entire Jewish population was being automatically condemned without public protest, care was taken to manipulate public perceptions about clergymen who fell into Nazi disfavor. ''The Catholic Church need not imagine that we are going to create martyrs,'' Robert Wagner, the Nazi Gauleiter of Baden, said in a speech, according to the O.S.S. study. ''We shall not give the church that satisfaction. She shall have not martyrs, but criminals.''
But once they had total power and set off to launch a world war, the Nazis made no secret of what lay in store for Christian clergymen who expressed dissent.
In Munich, Nazi street gangs and a Gestapo squad attacked the residence of the Roman Catholic cardinal. ''A hail of stones was directed against the windows, while the men shouted, 'Take the rotten traitor to Dachau!' '' the outline says, adding: ''After 1937, German Catholic bishops gave up all attempts to print'' their pastoral letters publicly and instead ''had them merely read from the pulpits.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html?pagewanted=all
Do you still think that "It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity"? It seems quite clear to me that they did.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »My point is that the germans did suppress christianity contrary to what you posted.....
Do you still think that "It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity"? It seems quite clear to me that they did.
Suppressing opposition to National Socialism is not the same as suppressing the church for the sake of suppressing the church.
It is not suppressing the church but suppressing opposition which included elements within the church.
The examples provided by you to make the case that the NS regime suppressed christianity include - 'Campaign against denominational schools' in my view does not qualify as the supression of christianity.
Unless you are arguing that the labour party in Ireland are currently suppressing christianity. Add to that the conditional removal of the confessional seal.
The other minor examples pale into insignificance alongside the Bolshevik programme.
The point about comparison to the bolshevik actual, systematic suppression of christianity is a valid one. This was the point I made which is the one you are looking to undermine :
the Germans did not suppress christianity - unlike the bolsheviks who certainly did everywhere they went
The programme of Bolshevik suppression of christianity adds perspective to this question. It highlights what the systematic ideological suppression of christianity actually looks like, as opposed to the NS /German church relations which were not always good. The bolshevik suppression is the standard to apply in ascertaining what constitutes 'Suppression of Christianity and so far what is offered by you falls short of establishing this on the part of the NS regime.0 -
Suppressing opposition to National Socialism is not the same as suppressing the church for the sake of suppressing the church.
It is not suppressing the church but suppressing opposition which included elements within the church.
Your line on this is laughable- a fallacy. the reasons for the suppression of christianity are irrelevent. Do you still propose that "the Germans did not suppress christianity"?
EDIT: the equivalent would be to point out that as most churches were against communism that Stalin was only wiping out his enemies, not suppressing communism. This also would be a fallacy.0 -
If you don't understand the difference between a & b :
a)
The NS regime suppressing opponents, (including those who happen to be a priest).
b)
Bolshevik suppression of every priest because they are a priest. Confiscating all church land and assets and property, wiping out thousands of clergy (priests, bishops & nuns) etc etc.
The NS regime raised many thousands of foreign volunteers across occuppied europe to fight bolshevism. A cornerstone of this support was based upon protection of the christian faith from atheistic, expansionist bolshevism. The notion that the NS regime suppressed christianity is what is laughable. The difference between point a) and b) above may be beyond your comprehension but they are key to understanding this. If you don't understand the difference point a) and point b) then there is absolutely no point continuing this.0 -
Again you try to bring communist Russia into this- I am dealing with where you say
You may well wish to make up your own version of history, I am merely pointing out that this is the case incase it is not clear.It is of course worth pointing out that the Germans did not suppress christianity
'The Nazi persecution of the churches' by J.S. Conway goes into this subject in great detail. Even prior to the start of the war Arthur Jones published in english 'The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Germany', in 1938. Conway in particular uses government records, Nurembourg testimonies, Nazi party records and church records to detail the persecution of christians that took place in Germany from the early 1930's. To be honest it is hard to understand how you feel that christianity was not suppressed in this case as there are so many examples that could be quoted to you. Take the Cathoolic church and its controversial flirting with facist regimes in the 1930's and the Reichskonkordat agreement. Why was there a need for agreement on the churches behalf if there was no threat? Subsequently in a 1937 papal encyclical Pius XI drew attention to the night of the long knives "Violence had been used against a Catholic leader as early as June 1934". This was part of the failure in the Nazi church relationship that led to the many recorded protests made against the Germans breaking of the Reichskonkordat agreement.0 -
No one has said that there were no instances where the German clergy fell foul of the NS regime, or that priests were not sometimes persecuted for opposing the regime or other isolated instances of tension between them.
That is different to saying the NS regime persecuted the Christian religion.
The relevance of the Bolshevik persecution of Christianity seems clear to me - it is to highlight what an actual systematic programme of persecution against the Christian faith looks like.
The NS regime did not -
imprison and shoot priests, nuns, bishops on the basis of them being priests, nuns or bishops.
confiscate ALL church assets, property and funds
Destroy all christian churches etc,.
Compare what the NS regime did to what the bolsheviks did, what happened on the part of the NS regime does not remotely qualify to be called 'persecution of the christian faith'.
I recall a thread recently where you mentioned having read 'Black Edelweiss'. If so then you will be familiar with what the SS did while retreating through finland. Despite the desperate military situation they took the time to dismantle Finnish church bells and bury them in church grounds, as they knew that the bolsheviks would destroy the christian churches. This hardly qualifies as the actions of an ideology committed to persecution of Christian faith - quite the opposite in fact.0 -
Do you have a link to such accounts of Irish labourers on Jersey ? Were they given the option of returning to Ireland instead of helping the German war effort in Germany ? Many people from the channel islands were used aas forced labour, and some died in concentration camps....700 according to wicki. I do not know if you've been to the Channel islands or not, but they are really small. You should visit the tunnels there sometime, really interesting. I spent a few days there going around everything to do with the war, and I do not remember reading anything about Irish labourers there, but there could indeed have been some. Irish labourers of course tended much more to go to Glasgow + England etc.The point about Irish labourers on Jersey stands. They were offered the opportunity to go to Germany as Voluntary guest workers. Some did. By all accounts they were treated well - they were not forced labour and were not put in concentration camps.
If Hitler won the war, I have no doubt he would have invaded Ireland then, once he had the time and available manpower to do so. Cut off from the outside world, no oil , no industry to speak of, our little country of 3 or 4 million people would have been a walkover, and in any case he would have occupied N. Ireland / seized the large shipyard there etc, and would not have stopped at the border. How do you think the Nazis would have treated this country of troublesome non-ayran non-industrious potato farmers ? Who do you think he would have got to build his autobahn to the far east ?0 -
Do you have a link to such accounts of Irish labourers on Jersey ? Were they given the option of returning to Ireland instead of helping the German war effort in Germany ?
I would refer you to 'Irish Secrets' by Mark M Hull, also 'Hitlers Irishmen' by Terence o'Reilly, I believe there may also be a David Donohue book that mentions this subject. Also Enno Stephan's memoirs which I recall touch briefly on this. None of those books are focused entirely on Irish labourers on the channel islands but all have some level of coverage of this subject.
To the best of my knowledge they were not offered a trip from the channel islands home to Ireland.
I believe this may have been impractical and a significant security risk in any event. The Irish labourers on the channel islands were seen as potentially useful allies.Many people from the channel islands were used aas forced labour, and some died in concentration camps....700 according to wicki.
Considering wiki uses a source that states 460 I would say the numbers are inconclusive. 700 or 460 . . . in 4 seperate camps over the course of 5 years. Potentially that is 22 per camp per year. Undoubtedly harsh conditions but not necessarily an extermination programme.I spent a few days there going around everything to do with the war, and I do not remember reading anything about Irish labourers there, but there could indeed have been some. Irish labourers of course tended much more to go to Glasgow + England etc.
You have to remember that Irish in britain (at that time) were looking down the barrel of conscription. Many seasonal workers were employed in the channel islands, others moved there with the increasing likelihood of conscription into the british army. I don't know the exact figures, I believe we are talking (roughly) of about 200 max, approx 70 (if I recall correctly) went to Germany. The figure who went to Germany could be as low as 40 - I don't have time to verify that at the moment so you can take it or leave it.If Hitler won the war, I have no doubt he would have invaded Ireland then, once he had the time and available manpower to do so.
I think had Hitler won the war it's likely there would have been some kind of forced mutual non-hostility alliance between Ireland and the Third reich. Likely German navy stationed in our ports and so on. Either that or Devalera declares war on the third reich - in a victory scenario a third reich that ruled the entirety of Europe and faced the sole enemy of the USA. I don't consider that likely.
Had hitler won the war it is also possible that the USA would have lost the stomach for fighting all of Europe and Russia. All of this on both sides of the discussion is pure speculation of course and essentially worthless.Who do you think he would have got to build his autobahn to the far east ?
That doesn't qualify as substance to your point about the Irish being used as slave labour on the autobahns in my view.0 -
The Nazi's did move against all Christian churches in Germany in the late 1930's though.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches were targetted by legislation which stripped them of their powers in German civic society.
Charitable donations were curtailed.
The schools that followed their respective religious ethos were made non-denominational.
Religious icons, statues and other images were not allowed to be displayed in schools controlled by the churches.
Youth groups such as the boy scouts and girl guides were amalgamated in to the Hitler Youth.
The teaching of religious studies was prohibited in schools.
In 1937, legislation was passed to confine and restrict all churches from involvement in German civic society.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Nazi's did move against all Christian churches in Germany in the late 1930's though.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches were targetted by legislation which stripped them of their powers in German civic society.
Charitable donations were curtailed.
The schools that followed their respective religious ethos were made non-denominational.
Religious icons, statues and other images were not allowed to be displayed in schools controlled by the churches.
Youth groups such as the boy scouts and girl guides were amalgamated in to the Hitler Youth.
The teaching of religious studies was prohibited in schools.
In 1937, legislation was passed to confine and restrict all churches from involvement in German civic society.
You are right on all of those points.
However I don't believe that qualifies as Persecution of the Christian faith. Particularly in comparison to an actual programme of persecution of the Christian faith as practiced by the bolsheviks.
In fact much of the above would not be entirely out of place in Secular Ireland of 2011.
FYI re those books I referenced above, the Enno Stephan one was 'Spies in Ireland', the memoirs are the Walther Schellenberg (SD/Abwehr) memoirs, these books touch on but are not about Irish labourers originating from the Channel islands.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA0n2vLtFX8
Advertisement