In 1940 Britain offered the 6 counties to Ireland in exchange for cooperation in WWII

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

who are 'the irish' in this scenario? Was there a referendum about this stereotype that I don't know about or something?

The stereotypical ones ;-)

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

What does that matter?

You have to remember, it was only 20 years earlier generations got whiped out who signed up to the UVF and the Battle of the somme.

What does that matter? - You were the one BSing back in post #73 " Some of the best soldiers in the British Army during WW2 were from Ulster and Unionists " The point I was making about the VC's is that if the unionists were " Some of the best soldiers in the British Army during WW2 " - then how come these great soldiers never won a single VC ? If VC's were awarded for delusion and self glorification - then you lot would have no end of them :rolleyes:

ValJester wrote: »

Your point being? Most Irish joined due to how poor the job prospects were in the Free State, and because of moral objections to Nazism, the same reason as socialists across the world chose to fight in the Spanish Civil War.

My point been as above.

pwd

How good/bad soldiers NI Unionists are is not very relevant.

What is more relevant is that the Irish were classed as a Martial Race by the British. Churchill believed in the Martial Races theory. This might have been part of his reasons for being so keen to get Ireland involved.

PatsytheNazi

pwd wrote: »

How good/bad soldiers NI Unionists are is not very relevant.

What is more relevant is that the Irish were classed as a Martial Race by the British. Churchill believed in the Martial Races theory. This might have been part of his reasons for being so keen to get Ireland involved.

Patronising rubbish to win over men from Ireland to spill endless blood for the perverts of the British empire. During 1798, the Famine, Fenians, 1916 - 1921, 1969 - 1994. The ' OIrish ' were generally classified such as babboons who illogically refused to accept Britian's benvolence and needed indiscriminate violence inflicted or the threat of it on them by the tough but fair Tommy to put them in their place. However like stated, when they needed recruits to put down Arab horsemen, Maori's etc apart from their main recruitment method in Ireland - conscription through economic necccessity - they also could throw a few plausible comments out. Talk as we know is very cheap.

Fratton Fred

I wondered where McArmalite had got to.

pwd

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Patronising rubbish to win over men from Ireland to spill endless blood for the perverts of the British empire. During 1798, the Famine, Fenians, 1916 - 1921, 1969 - 1994. The ' OIrish ' were generally classified such as babboons who illogically refused to accept Britian's benvolence and needed indiscriminate violence inflicted or the threat of it on them by the tough but fair Tommy to put them in their place. However like stated, when they needed recruits to put down Arab horsemen, Maori's etc apart from their main recruitment method in Ireland - conscription through economic necccessity - they also could throw a few plausible comments out. Talk as we know is very cheap.

Do any of your posts have any bearing on the topic being discussed, or are they all just spouting hate and vitriol?
I get it. You don't like Britain.

PatsytheNazi

pwd wrote: »

Do any of your posts have any bearing on the topic being discussed, or are they all just spouting hate and vitriol?
I get it. You don't like Britain.

Just pointing out the historical truth that when they could use us to further their rotten greed the British ruling class like Churchill could be patronising and plausible. Their's no point in anyone fooling themselves with his jingoistic type patronising nonsense. To the Britsh ruling class the Irish were regarded as unhuman who must be kept in check at all times.

ValJester

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Just pointing out the historical truth that when they could use us to further their rotten greed the British ruling class like Churchill could be patronising and plausible. Their's no point in anyone fooling themselves with his jingoistic type patronising nonsense. To the Britsh ruling class the Irish were regarded as unhuman who must be kept in check at all times.

It wasn't just the Irish working classes who suffered from this bigoted view of society though, it was a disease which afflicted Britain's working class every bit as much during the Imperial Era of Britain, with the economic policies of British policymakers pernamently being the concentration of wealth in the hands of the chosen few in order to create a populace of wage slaves. I think that should be remembered, and that any rant about the suffering of the Irish should not be anti-English, it should be anti-aristocracy.

PatsytheNazi

ValJester wrote: »

It wasn't just the Irish working classes who suffered from this bigoted view of society though, it was a disease which afflicted Britain's working class every bit as much during the Imperial Era of Britain, with the economic policies of British policymakers pernamently being the concentration of wealth in the hands of the chosen few in order to create a populace of wage slaves. I think that should be remembered, and that any rant about the suffering of the Irish should not be anti-English, it should be anti-aristocracy.

Well we're getting away from WW2 though Churchill it must be said provides a good example of the British ruling classes hypocrisy of praising the unfortunate Irish in fighting for British Imperialism can be seen in his speech where he has throws some patronising comment about the fighting spirit of Irishmen and then has a dig at Dev for neutrality. But as you say, it's not just Ireland that was used in such manner.

Scots Highlanders for example were praised like Irishmen for their fighting ability - though the same men's ancestors were denounced for fighting for Scotland at Batttle of Culloden etc Likewise Indian, African regiments etc Same with the English working class. Fight for annexation and imperialism, they call you a hero, go on a peaceful march from Jarrow to London asking for a job and Chuirchill sends the coppers out to truncheon these men as good as the brown shirts later did in Germany. Very many of the English and Scottish soldeirs who fought in WW2 would have been described only a decade earlier in the Depression as workshy layabouts by Churchill and his class.

My so called " virtiol " came to mind thinking of Joe Duffy's presentation of James Connolly where he quoted a passage from Connolly about how Irshmen fighting for the British imperialism was praised by the establishment while Irish men who wanted to fight for Ireland were denounced.

johngalway

Just going on what I've read on this thread. The British thoughts on Irish reunification seem, flaky at best. If you do this, we may think about that type of situation. Doesn't sound like a good deal, if that's all that was on the table.

I liked the bit, was it Churchill said it, about Dev showing loyalty to crown & empire. That says all that needs to be said.

As for a German invasion of Ireland. A paratroop landing could have been done I'm sure, and then base aircraft here. But, I can't see how, at the time, the Germans could possibly have landed heavy gear here. The RAF or RN would have sent them to the bottom of the Atlantic.

There would be huge resupply issues and Britain could have launched amphibious landings pretty much anywhere on out coast with air cover. Doesn't sound like a good deal for the Germans given how the war played out.

ValJester

johngalway wrote: »

As for a German invasion of Ireland. A paratroop landing could have been done I'm sure, and then base aircraft here. But, I can't see how, at the time, the Germans could possibly have landed heavy gear here. The RAF or RN would have sent them to the bottom of the Atlantic.

There would be huge resupply issues and Britain could have launched amphibious landings pretty much anywhere on out coast with air cover. Doesn't sound like a good deal for the Germans given how the war played out.

In addition to this, the infrastructure in the West Of Ireland at the time would never have been able to sustain the German army,meaning they would have had to advance slowly across the midlands,giving the UK adequate time to reinforce Dublin.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Devalera would have been stupid to trust Churchill and it would have been irresponsible to put it to referendum. Imagine the response in the north just a few decades after the massive casulties the UVF took in WW1. Would be civil war.

If the GFA mechanisms for a UI poll were held today I wouldnt trust the British to hold a fair election. There's plenty to dislike about de Valera but he was dead right to reject that deal.

Fratton Fred

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If the GFA mechanisms for a UI poll were held today I wouldnt trust the British to hold a fair election.

I agree, those Brits will do anything to get rid of the north, even rig a referendum:D

ValJester

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I agree, those Brits will do anything to get rid of the north, even rig a referendum:D

I wonder if a British Bord Snip will ever urge getting rid of the white elephant that it is.An independent Northern Ireland would be fascinating to watch.

pwd

ValJester wrote: »

I wonder if a British Bord Snip will ever urge getting rid of the white elephant that it is.An independent Northern Ireland would be fascinating to watch.

Makes me think of the movie 'Escape from New York'

Rebelheart

pwd wrote: »

How good/bad soldiers NI Unionists are is not very relevant.

What is more relevant is that the Irish were classed as a Martial Race by the British. Churchill believed in the Martial Races theory.

Any footnote for this? I googled 'martial race' and up came the Scottish Highlanders and the Indians, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race

pwd

Rebelheart wrote: »

Any footnote for this? I googled 'martial race' and up came the Scottish Highlanders and the Indians, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race

The Irish used to be in the list on wikipedia. Now it only appears to list Indian groups. It's published numerous places online, but that could be propigation of the wikipedia content.

realitykeeper

The 6 counties were not Britain`s to offer. Besides they had offered independence if we supported them in the 1st world war, but changed their minds after 50 thousand Irish went and died fighting our good friends the German.

If the Brits renege on the Good Friday Agreement, articles 2 & 3 will need to be reinstated. Of course, there will be no need bother the electorate with another referendum, the answer would obviously be to reinstate the articles on the grounds of the British breaking the deal. The six counties were always part of this country anyway, the time for pretending otherwise is gone.

The Good Friday agreement brought peace. If peace is to be reasserted, we need to be in a negotiating position whereby we can once again offer to pretend that the northern part of our country is not part of our country, (at least until a demographic shift heralds the time for a united Ireland). To do that, we need to have articles 2 & 3 reinstated to the statute books.

One day, all this nonsense will end and Ireland will be both united and free.

One other thought, when I hear people of a certain persuasion refer to the northern part of our country as the north of Ireland, it sounds like they are talking about some place up in the North Sea. This reminds me of the Afrikaans derogatory description of the English, i.e. soutpiel, meaning salt penis. The expression came about when the British in South Africa proclaimed themselves to have one foot in South Africa and the other in Britain. The Boers would then say the British had their willy in the Atlantic, hence soutpiel. Of course, I would never say such a thing.

riffmongous

Mod Note: This thread is almost 8 years old, please see the forum charter. Political posts would also be better suited to the Politics forums .

Try not to repeat topics, have a quick search in the past threads. However you should not bump old threads unless there is a worthwhile reason for doing so such as new information or a new source that relates to the subject.