Alan Shatter Minister of Defence : Irish WW2 Neutrality 'Morally Bankrupt'

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

Sorry BlaasForRafa, but I feel insulted by his remarks, as an Irish person, and as someone who had 5 relatives who contributed to the Allied cause in WW2.

I would still like to know, whether Mr. Shatter feels, using Irish passports to carry out murders in foreign countries, is also morally bankrupt? and until such time as I hear his view on that matter, I flat refuse to be ‘guilt tripped’ by him.

I’d also like to ask him the same questions this respected female Jewish intellectual from Yad Vashem is asking.

For the record, I'd appreciate it if you do not try to infer, that I have my knife in Mr. Shatter because of his religion. I'd like it to be known, that I have, in the past, many times, voted for Ben Briscoe, even though he was a Fianna Failer. I did so because, Ben Briscoe is, and always was, a man of honourable integrity. Alan Shatter is no Ben Briscoe imo.

This stuff about the Holocaust gets ratcheted up every year around this time, and sadly, it is usually followed, in the weeks after, by the Palestinians getting a savage kicking.

Also, you seem to have overlooked that I stressed the word 'If' in my post you quoted. This means, that I am open to hear his explanations, and would be happy to retract and apologise to him on this forum, 'If' those answers to the questions I have asked, are satisfactory.

It's not the first time we have disagreed on here regarding the M.E. (because the M.E. and the Holocaust are intrinsically linked), and I have always fully respecteed your opinion on the matter, as I have no issue whatsoever with the existance of the state of Israel. I simply find Mr. Shatters take on this, hypocritical, and do not feel he has any right to throw stones at anyone, from that big glass house of his.

Its because of the general high respect I have for your posts that I was disappointed by this one.

To imply that Mr Shatter somehow has divided loyalties is extremely insulting imo. If you want answers to those questions, why don't you ask him? You can write or email him, I'd assume he has a constituency office where you could ask him in person if you prefer.

Also, on the record, I'd prefer that you do not try and infer that I would play the anti-semitism card, its not something I recall doing in the past and am quite annoyed that you'd even mention it.

As for the topic at hand, I too have family members that fought for in the British Army, Navy and Merchant Marine. I think De Valera's stance (and Fianna Fails in general) was partly a view that the dangers outweighed the benefits and partly due to a general anti-british feeling at the time.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The Rising and War of Independence were still fresh in peoples collective memory here. It would equate to the rising happening in 1990, and our reflecting on that today.

I was 23 in 1990. If I was fighting the British then, I wouldn't be quick to support them in a war today, that was essentially 'theirs'. Especially if my most endearing memory of them was the Black and Tans, and I am no Republican.

Jawgap

Turbine wrote: »

Britain was as much of a threat to Ireland as Germany was, so to say Ireland was taking comfort by the presence of the Royal Navy and RAF around Ireland is completely false.

Morlar wrote: »

Ireland did not ask for, expect or receive protection from the RAF or the Royal navy throughout WW2.

Irish fire engines went north to protect Northern Irish civilians.
Irish men volunteered in their tens of thousands to join the British army or join the merchant marine & British industrial war effort (leaving aside for the moment those who deserted the Irish army to do so).

The single greatest threat of a violation of Irish Neutrality and invasion of Ireland was the prospect of a British invasion of Ireland to 'take back' ie forcefully capture certain Irish ports.

The RAF/Royal Navy did not protect Ireland whatsoever, in fact barring a handful of isolated accidental instances the Germans did not attack Ireland to begin with, no more than they attacked neighbouring Switzerland (which presumably you will now claim the RAF and Royal Navy also protected with their magical umbrella).

The RAF did attack shipping which included Irish boats. but the claim - I take it you are claiming that by their exsistence they protected Ireland ? - is a nonsense. We were their natural buffer zone & it is widely acknowledged that our neutrality prevented German kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe from violating our waters & airspace for the most part (something I believe Churchill and his cabinet disagreed on but is in my view the case).

Could I ask you a hypothetical question - if there had been a Nato Vs Warsaw Pact conflict in Europe, say during the early 1980's do you also think that in that scenario the RAF and Royal Navy would by their exsistence also have provided neutral Ireland with some kind of umbrella protection ? Or is this theory uniquely applicable to WW2 ?

Whether Ireland wanted it or not, the accident of strategic geography meant we got it. And thankfully too - otherwise we would like have "enjoyed" the same fate as Denmark.

Irish ships sailed in Royal Navy escorted convoys until they decided - quite admirably - to take their chances out of convoy, despite the significant casualties that led to.

British tankers kept the country supplied with oil & petrol; coal, apart from what we could mine from Arigna, came from the UK; and they bought most of our food surpluses for hard currency which facilitated the purchase of imports.

There was active co-operation between both militaries.

We were not neutral and we never have been neutral - we were just non-aligned.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also, on the record, I'd prefer that you do not try and infer that I would play the anti-semitism card, its not something I recall doing in the past and am quite annoyed that you'd even mention it.

Well actually BlaasForRafa, on reflection, I was absolutely wrong to make such an assumption. You are 100% correct in pointing out that, indeed, you do not, and have not, ever played the Anti-Semitism card, and I completely acknowledge, that it is not your style of posting.

My drawing that assumption from your post was clearly disingenuous on my part, and for this I apologise sincerely.

It is an interesting option you mention, to raise this issue with Alan Shatter himself. I may conssider doing that.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

marcsignal wrote: »

The Rising and War of Independence were still fresh in peoples collective memory here. It would equate to the rising happening in 1990, and our reflecting on that today.

And our way of displaying our hard fought independence was to do nothing to help other countries, well played us.

Turbine wrote: »

America stayed neutral right up until 1942. Britain was happy to stand by and let Germany invade Czechoslovakia, and to add salt to the wound then went and signed a treaty alongside France with Germany to let the Germans keep most of Czechoslovakia. Britain only declared war on Germany because they knew they'd be knocking on their own door eventually, and had to stop them while they still could.

So lets not pretend the Allies went to war with Germany to defend the sovereignty of others, they all had their own agendas.

None of which was ever my point.

The point was what was the right thing for us to do and what was the wrong thing for us to do. We picked the wrong option.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

And our way of displaying our hard fought independence was to do nothing to help other countries, well played us.

Maybe we had had enough of bloodshed and death after 700 years.
Maybe we had good reason to distrust the British, and Churchill in particular.

Hindsight is a wonderful privilige we all have sitting here in 2012.
I feel in order to get a grasp, and proper understanding of our neutrality policy, we need to empathise with the feelings of the Irish, towards the British, at the time in question.

CDfm

Other - please explain

Turbine wrote: »

If you're referring to the concentration camps, the Allies didn't know about these till the end of the war.

So effectively what you're saying is that Ireland should've sacrificed tens of thousands of her citizens in attempting to crush the Axis forces.

We had no business getting ourselves involved in that war, and Éamon de Valera was right to keep us out of it. He saved a lot of lives in taking that decision.

Here it is in the words of the late Brother Columbanus and the existance of the camps were not known until the end of the war.

He signed up

Like many men, the young Sean had signed up because he "was going for the adventure and the money". After D-Day, he rode right through Europe: "When we broke through, that's when I had a ball".

They found out about the camps at the end of the war

"The people back home didn't realise what it meant. To them, you were just a renegade who had gone off and was fighting for the Brits," he told me. "I was a soldier of fortune, not a political soldier. When we went to Germany, we found out it was a worthwhile cause," Deegan said, as he prepared to return to Normandy for this weekend's 60th anniversary commemorations.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-servicemen-airbrushed-out-of-history-says-dday-veteran-481016.html

johngalway wrote: »

The Jews in Germany were persecuted long before the outbreak of war.

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As an independent nation we had every right to get involved. And don't get me started on that man who signed a book of condolences for Hitler.

Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe and being re-occupied by Britain was a huge fear.

And here is an article that summarizes that event of DeValera and condolences.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmjeWVf7NF7HL8yfBeFx8U7JawkX-tQiqX40gY76mWXYxKZffT

Nonetheless , you are ignoring that Ireland was a friendly neutral the Britain.

As one historian puts it "belligerence would have been suicide"as we did not have any capacity to defend ourselves.

The Christmas Raid in 1939 where the IRA just went in to the Magazine Fort and took what they wanted shows this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Raid

So to call Ireland morally bankrupt would be to call the US morally bankrupt as it did not enter the war until attacked.

Other nations including the Swiss, Spanish & Portugeese must also be morally bankrupt.

It took decades to prise holocaust victims money from the Swiss.

That is without mentioning Vichy France.

The Czechs weren't morally corrupt as Britain & Chamberlain had sacrificed them with a policy of appeasement in 1938.

Also, general elections were held in Ireland in 1938, 1943 and 1944 and that was the will of the people.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Some more readers letters in the Irish Times today on this general subject. Surprising lack of response among media commentators & journalists imo.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

A pardon for Irish soldiers

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) considers Irish Army deserters to have been soldiers of conscience fighting Nazi occupation of Europe in the 1940s. I would suggest they joined the British army as the pay was much better. He is highly critical of Ireland’s decision to remain neutral. Prof Roberts does seem to gloss over many of the realities that prevailed at the time. Britain had the biggest empire in the world and wished to maintain it. A resurgent Germany threatened this dominance. Those were the major factors that underpinned the start of the second World War. Ireland had very little to gain by openly supporting either of these powers.

I fully agree that the slate be wiped clean with regard to those who deserted and joined the British army. – Yours, etc,

JOHN KELLY,
(Address removed)
England.

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) must surely know that, while the Nazi massacres of civilians during the second World War were the largest, there were also large-scale civilian massacres committed by the Allies for which any impartial war crimes’ tribunal would have had to try those responsible. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, in the lower of two estimates, calculated that 330,000 people had died in the bombing of Japanese cities in 1944-45. The main architect of this campaign, Gen Curtis LeMay, is reliably quoted as saying that “if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been tried as war criminals”. That was no less true of air marshal Sir Arthur Harris, though he might have scorned to express the thought.

Éamon de Valera’s opposition to the Nuremberg Trials did not imply any sympathy for the Nazis. He simply saw, as any clear-sighted person must see, that war crimes’ tribunals that prosecuted the leading Nazis, and did not prosecute LeMay, Harris and their political superiors, were victors’ justice. I believe he tactfully chose a different example, the killings at Katyn, to make the point. – Yours, etc,

JOHN MINAHANE,
(Address removed)
Slovakia.

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) ) is wrong when he says that the Allies “fought to liberate Europe from German occupation”. In mid-1940 Gen Bernard Montgomery with his 3rd Division was ordered to prepare plans to invade Cork and seize its harbour. There were no Germans or Nazis anywhere near there then or at any other time during the Emergency. On the contrary, it was only the Irish Monty was worried about, as he says in his Memoirs (p70) “I had already fought the Southern Irish once, in 1921 and 1922, and it looked as if this renewed contest might be quite a party – with only one division”.

It is utterly repugnant to pardon anyone who deserted Ireland’s Defence Forces, and carrying with them knowledge of “the Southern Irish” dispositions, who then increased British capacity to invade Ireland during the Emergency. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL HEERY,
(Comdt, Retd),
(Address removed)
Dublin 7.

Sir, – Apropos of the voluminous and heated correspondence regarding a pardon for those soldiers who deserted the Irish Army during “The Emergency”, it would be interesting to know exactly what oath or commitment was subscribed to by these men when they signed up in the first place. – Yours, etc,

JOHN F MCCULLAGH,
(Address removed)
New Jersey,

US.

gizmo555

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

did Joyce not say the same in Ulysses?

Yes:

Mr Deasy halted, breathing hard and swallowing his breath.

—I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?

He frowned sternly on the bright air.

—Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.

—Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.

A coughball of laughter leaped from his throat dragging after it a rattling chain of phlegm. He turned back quickly, coughing, laughing, his lifted arms waving to the air.

—She never let them in, he cried again through his laughter as he stamped on gaitered feet over the gravel of the path. That's why.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

marcsignal wrote: »

Maybe we had had enough of bloodshed and death after 700 years.
Maybe we had good reason to distrust the British, and Churchill in particular.

Hindsight is a wonderful privilige we all have sitting here in 2012.
I feel in order to get a grasp, and proper understanding of our neutrality policy, we need to empathise with the feelings of the Irish, towards the British, at the time in question.

Maybe we had, it was still the wrong decision.

CDfm wrote: »

Here it is in the words of the late Brother Columbanus and the existance of the camps were not known until the end of the war.

Someone else mentioned the camps so you may address that point towards them.

CDfm wrote: »

Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe and being re-occupied by Britain was a huge fear.

We still had a lot to offer towards the Allied cause, geographical position and manpower being two off the top of my head.

CDfm wrote: »

Nonetheless , you are ignoring that Ireland was a friendly neutral the Britain.

Your assumption & an incorrect view of my view.

CDfm wrote: »

As one historian puts it "belligerence would have been suicide"as we did not have any capacity to defend ourselves.

The Christmas Raid in 1939 where the IRA just went in to the Magazine Fort and took what they wanted shows this

To be fair.... The IRA were home grown and here. The Third Reich were the far side of the UK and unable to land on that island, so suicide is rather far fetched.

CDfm wrote: »

So to call Ireland morally bankrupt would be to call the US morally bankrupt as it did not enter the war until attacked.

Other nations including the Swiss, Spanish & Portugeese must also be morally bankrupt.

This is hillarious. Our position would be apparently "suicide", even though we don't share a land border with an Axis power, yet the Swiss, Spanish, and Portuguese are presumably not suicidal? It's a lot easier to drive a tank to Madrid from Paris than from Paris to Dublin

Besides that you're now ignoring the Fascist state that was Spain at the time.

Anyway, I'm not concerned about other states, their history is their own problem as our history is our problem.

CDfm wrote: »

Also, general elections were held in Ireland in 1938, 1943 and 1944 and that was the will of the people.

*cough-housingbubble-champagnecharlie-charliehaughey-bertie-propertyladder-cough*

Yes, elections solve all.

Maoltuile

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

It is interesting that Briscoe served in the LDF the precursor to the FCA during the Emergency and did not feel the need to desert and join a foreign army.

It may or may not be the same member of the family, but a Briscoe was the last serving member of the DF to have an Emergency Service medal. He retired from the FCÁ in the early Nineties, the same year I enlisted.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

Maybe we had, it was still the wrong decision

In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we....

BlaasForRafa

Well actually BlaasForRafa, on reflection, I was absolutely wrong to make such an assumption. You are 100% correct in pointing out that, indeed, you do not, and have not, ever played the Anti-Semitism card, and I completely acknowledge, that it is not your style of posting.

My drawing that assumption from your post was clearly disingenuous on my part, and for this I apologise sincerely.

No bother man.

It is an interesting option you mention, to raise this issue with Alan Shatter himself. I may conssider doing that

You might as well get it from the horses mouth, otherwise its all just conjecture and speculation.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we....

Oh come on, you only have to look at a map to see that the situation with Poland was completely different to Irelands.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oh come on, you only have to look at a map to see that the situation with Poland was completely different to Irelands.

Bitiain AND France made assurances they would come to Polands aid. It's quite clear, in hindsight, that Poland was sold down the toilet by the French and the British.

The French promised the Poles in May 1939, that in the event of a German attack, France would launch an offensive against the Germans in the West “no later than fifteen days after mobilization”. A promise made in a treaty signed between Poland and France.
However, when Germany attacked, Poland was totally and completely betrayed. Britain and France did declare war, and French troops made a brief advance toward the Siegfried Line, but stopped upon meeting German resistance. Had France attacked the Germans in a more aggressive way as promised, the results would have been disastrous for the Germans.
Contrary to their assurances to Poland, Britain and France later agreed to allow Russia keep the parts of Poland seized as part of the non aggression pact with Hitler in 1939.

In terms of Britain, Neville Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons on March 31, 1939:

As the House is aware, certain consultations are now proceeding with other Governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government

Source

By April 1939 a formal agreement was signed between Poland and Britain. It stated quite clearly:

"If Germany attacks Poland His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will at once come to the help of Poland."

Source: Anita Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 193.

Britain’s support for Poland was a relatively new development, but France’s alliance initially went back as far as 1921. That year, France signed a mutual assistance pact with Poland on February 21, and Raymond Poincaré, the fufure president of the French Republic, stated:

"Everything orders us to support Poland: The Versailles Treaty, the plebiscite, loyalty, the present and the future interest of France, and the permanence of peace."

Source: Richard Watt, Bitter Glory: Poland and its Fate, 1919-1939 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 176.

On September 15, 1922 a formal military alliance signed by Marshal Foch and General Sokoski, stated explicitly:

"In case of German aggression against either Poland or France, or both, the two nations would aid each other to the fullest extent.”

Source: Bauer, "Franco-Polish Relations," p. 32.

By mid May 1939 the Franco-Polish Military Convention stated that:

"on the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the French would immediately undertake air action against Germany.

It was also agreed that:

on the third day of French mobilization its army would launch a diversionary offensive into German territory, which would be followed by a major military offensive of the full French army to take place no later than fifteen days after mobilisation

Source: Richard Watt : Watt, Bitter Glory, p. 402.

Despite promising to help Poland fight a war against Nazi Germany, behind the scenes the British and French seriously doubted their ability to effectively aid the Poles. Discussions were held by the British and French Chiefs of Staff between March 31 and April 4, 1939. A report entitled "The Military Implications of an Anglo-French Guarantee of Poland and Rumania" stated:

"If Germany undertook a major offensive in the East there is little doubt that she could occupy Rumania, Polish Silesia and the Polish Corridor. If she were to continue the offensive against Poland it would only be a matter of time before Poland was eliminated from the war. Though lack of adequate communications and difficult country would reduce the chances of an early decision, No spectacular success against the Siegfried Line can be anticipated, but having regard to the internal situation in Germany, the dispersal of her effort and the strain of her rearmament programme, we should be able to reduce the period of Germany's resistance and we could regard the ultimate issue with confidence."

Source: Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, p. 81.

What actually happened is certainly no secret. The RAF, for example, did not even attempt to bomb German military installations because, as the Air Staff concluded on September 20:

"Since the immutable aim of the Allies is the ultimate defeat of Germany, without which the fate of Poland is permanently sealed, it would obviously be militarily unsound and to the disadvantage of all, including Poland, to undertake at any given moment operations ... unlikely to achieve effective results, merely for the sake of maintaining a gesture."

The Chiefs of Staff then informed Chamberlain that:

"nothing we can do in the air in the Western Theatre would have any effect of relieving pressure on Poland."

Source: Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 183-184.

Consequently, instead of Bombing Germany, as promised, the RAF chose to drop Propaganda Leaflets instead. The French made a Half-Arsed probe into German territory in the west and gave up after 5 (?) days.

After it was all over, Poland was left to its fate under Stalin.

Morlar

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You might as well get it from the horses mouth, otherwise its all just conjecture and speculation.

Personally, I think his statement is clear enough. You can categorise it as 'divided loyalties' or 'absence of loyalties' or 'fractured loyalties', 'impaired loyalties' or however way you want. It is not entirely the point how you categorise them.

He certainly (in my view) is not displaying loyalty to this state in some of his remarks and I would stand by the comment that his remarks appear to be coming more from an Alan Shatter, Jew point of view than from an Alan Shatter Minister of Defence for Ireland point of view.

He made those comments not in a personal capacity but in his official role as Minister of Defence.

Considering the state of Israel has in the past :
a) used Irish passports to facilitate murder,
b) caused the deaths of Irish peacekeepers

His comments (which amount to saying) that Ireland does not have the moral authority to criticise israel because of Irish WW2 era neutrality - I find those remarks to be repugnant.

I find his general anti Republican brand of historical revisionism offensive also. Particularly coming from the office he holds.

His dishonest refusal to refer to deserters as 'deserters' but to distort his language into always describing them as men who 'left' is also offensive.

They did not leave - leaving was not the problem - deserting was the problem. Which he full well knows. No men who simply left Ireland to join the British Army faced repercussions on return, those who DESERTED the Irish Army faced mild consequences for their actions. Which is perfectly natural and the normal course of events.

He goes on to miss the point by saying that after the war (he meant when A.H had committed suicide) Ireland should have at that point abandoned neutrality and NOT followed diplomatic protocols in the Devalera visit of condolences:

also by the visit of President De Valera to then German Ambassador Edouard Hemple in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue the Government of this State utterly lost it’s moral compass.

I would fundamentally disagree with that.

If you are neutral you are neutral.

Neutrality is not something you do until one side becomes a clear victor then you switch sides or abandon the principle. No matter how convenient on a personal level it may be.

To have done what Shatter recommends would have been the act of moral bankruptcy.

To maintain the principle of Neutrality, even when one side clearly won was the more admirable and morally upright route to take.

Germany was on it's knees it's cities bombed to dust, occuppied by a brutal raping murdering soviet army and facing it's own annihilation. Countless German men and women were committing suicide by their thousands at this point or were the target of the largest most brutal ethnic cleansing in the history of europe. For Devalera to suddenly have abandoned the principle neutrality at that point would not have done the allies any physical or material good whatsoever. It might have been beneficial to his international reputation in the allied media but to have done what shatter recommends at that time would have been immoral, self serving and dishonest and undermined the previous efforts at neutrality which defined Irish Independence throughout that period and in later years.

Blaas - can I ask you -are you comfortable with that statement by the Irish Minister of Defence on page 1 of this thread ?

What are you views on each of the parts referred to ? I am curious because you have often been knowledgable on this general subject in the past and I can't believe that statement sat well with you either but I may be wrong on that.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

Consequently, instead of Bombing Germany, as promised, the RAF chose to drop Propaganda Leaflets instead. The French made a Half-Arsed probe into German territory in the west and gave up after 5 (?) days.

After it was all over, Poland was left to its fate under Stalin.

You said "In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we...."

Chamberlain was Prime Minister in 1939, not Churchill. As first lord of the admiralty he would have only had limited power to affect government policy and no power to affect the land campaign. By the time Churchill became Prime Minister he had a lot less military capability to do anything let alone come to another countries aid.

And as for later in the war, what happened to Poland was a fait accomplit. Do you really think that Churchill could in any way threaten Stalin? The 200 or so divisions that the USSR had in 1944/45 makes me think not. By all accounts Churchill agonised over the fate of Poland but there was absolutely nothing that anyone could do for them.

BlaasForRafa

Personally, I think his statement is clear enough. You can categorise it as 'divided loyalties' or 'absence of loyalties' or 'fractured loyalties', 'impaired loyalties' or however way you want. It is not entirely the point how you categorise them.

I wouldn't categorise it as any of those things, I would categorise it as having an opinion.

He certainly (in my view) is not displaying loyalty to this state in some of his remarks and I would stand by the comment that his remarks appear to be coming more from an Alan Shatter, Jew point of view than from an Alan Shatter Minister of Defence for Ireland point of view.

Do you not realise how offensive that sounds?

He made those comments not in a personal capacity but in his official role as Minister of Defence.

Considering the state of Israel has in the past :
a) used Irish passports to facilitate murder,
b) caused the deaths of Irish peacekeepers

Are you saying that his religion makes him somehow susceptible to subverting the law in favour of another country?

His comments (which amount to saying) that Ireland does not have the moral authority to criticise israel because of Irish WW2 era neutrality - I find those remarks to be repugnant.

He may be right or wrong but he has his opinion, just as you have yours.

I find his general anti Republican brand of historical revisionism offensive also. Particularly coming from the office he holds.

Anti-republicanism would seem to be a good trait to have in the office that he holds.

His dishonest refusal to refer to deserters as 'deserters' but to distort his language into always describing them as men who 'left' is also offensive.

They did not leave - leaving was not the problem - deserting was the problem. Which he full well knows. No men who simply left Ireland to join the British Army faced repercussions on return, those who DESERTED the Irish Army faced mild consequences for their actions. Which is perfectly natural and the normal course of events.

Deserters or not, they did the morally courageous thing in my opinion and should be praised for doing so. What they did had next to no effect on Irelands ability to defend itself (which would have been pretty much nil if the British had been defeated) but they did have a positive contribution to the defeating of a regime that needed to be defeated.

He goes on to miss the point by saying that after the war (he meant when A.H had committed suicide) Ireland should have at that point abandoned neutrality and NOT followed diplomatic protocols in the Devalera visit of condolences:

I would fundamentally disagree with that.

If you are neutral you are neutral.

Giving condolonces for the death of Adolf Hitler was repugnant, having sympathy for the death of someone responsible for millions of deaths? Gimme a break. I have sympathy for the ordinary germans and the rank and file heer, luftwaffe and kriegsmarine, re-reading Max Hastings Armageddon recently, how could one not have sympathy, however, the REGIME of Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and the rest needed to be defeated.

Also, solely in PR terms it was an absolutely stupid thing to do.

Neutrality is not something you do until one side becomes a clear victor then you switch sides or abandon the principle. No matter how convenient on a personal level it may be.

Leaders of countries are empowered to make decisions that benefit their country, whether convenient or inconvenient.

To have done what Shatter recommends would have been the act of moral bankruptcy.

Thats your opinion, it dosen't mean you are right.

To maintain the principle of Neutrality, even when one side clearly won was the more admirable and morally upright route to take.

Germany was on it's knees it's cities bombed to dust, occuppied by a brutal raping murdering soviet army and facing it's own annihilation. Countless German men and women were committing suicide by their thousands at this point or were the target of the largest most brutal ethnic cleansing in the history of europe. For Devalera to suddenly have abandoned the principle neutrality at that point would not have done the allies any physical or material good whatsoever. It might have been beneficial to his international reputation in the allied media but to have done what shatter recommends at that time would have been immoral, self serving and dishonest and undermined the previous efforts at neutrality which defined Irish Independence throughout that period and in later years.

The agonies that German people were going through was not relevant to De Valera's decisions. If De Valera had done what was right for the country instead of his own peculiar anti-british tinged morality then Ireland may have benefitted from American aid instead of languishing in poverty from the 40's through to the joining of the EEC. Opportunism that hurts nobody and benefits your own people is acceptable.

Blaas - can I ask you -are you comfortable with that statement by the Irish Minister of Defence on page 1 of this thread ?

I don't agree with it but I don't feel offended by his expression of it. People are entitled to free speech even if they are on occasion wrong.

What are you views on each of the parts referred to ? I am curious because you have often been knowledgable on this general subject in the past and I can't believe that statement sat well with you either but I may be wrong on that.

My opinions on it are complex and I don't really have time to go into it (wasted too much of the day already!). If I had been in De Valera's shoes I would LIKE to think that I would be more morally courageous and take a stance against the Third Reich. However I can't say in absolute terms whether I would actually have that courage or not when looking at the stark reality of the situation in 1940. With the parlous state of Ireland's infrastructure and economy at the time, perhaps Realpolitik was the ONLY realistic option.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You said "In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we...."

Chamberlain was Prime Minister in 1939, not Churchill. As first lord of the admiralty he would have only had limited power to affect government policy and no power to affect the land campaign. By the time Churchill became Prime Minister he had a lot less military capability to do anything let alone come to another countries aid.

He may not have been Prime Minister, yet, but as First Lord of the Admiralty, he was prepared to push and push for an Invasion of Neutral Norway. It's curious he never pushed with the same vigour, for the British Government to live up to its obligations regarding Poland. Something that would have been more effective had it been properly organised. In the attack on Poland, the Germans lost 25% of the Aircraft committed, and almost a divisions worth of Tanks. A properly co-ordinated attack in the West as promised, would have ended the war there and then, and possibly resulted in the ousting of Hitler.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And as for later in the war, what happened to Poland was a fait accomplit. Do you really think that Churchill could in any way threaten Stalin? The 200 or so divisions that the USSR had in 1944/45 makes me think not. By all accounts Churchill agonised over the fate of Poland but there was absolutely nothing that anyone could do for them.

He didn't agonise enough imo, considering Polish freedom was his principle war aim.

Ellis Dee

Other - please explain

Given his unquestioning support for every atrocity and crime committed by the zionazi terrorist rogue state entity that occupies the land of Palestine and is busy committing slow (for now) genocide against the people that have lived there for many centuries before millions of immigrants were imported from Russia and elsewhere, I am not sure what value need be assigned to Alan Shatter's views.:rolleyes:

However, my view of war is that the first duty of every government must be to keep its country out of war if that is at all possible. War brings death, maiming, destruction and misery, and no sane government would want to become embroiled in one.:cool:

The First World War was essentially a dog fight into which five or six competing imperialist empires allowed themselves to be drawn through a network of secret treaties and insane ambitions, and it led to the collapse and dissolution of four of them and severely weakened a fifth. Millions of people and many small nations paid a bitter price for the stupidity and greed of the imperial powers.:(

The Second World War was no more than a delayed continuation of the first. Numerous countries tried to keep out of it - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, at least.

Only Sweden, Ireland, Portugal and Switzerland managed to keep out - the others were attacked and suffered great loss of life, but they would not have been involved in the war if they had been able to avoid it. There was nothing morally bankrupt about it, and those countries - especially Sweden and Switzerland - were in a position to render valuable humanitarian aid both during the war and after it. Even impoverished Ireland helped out a bit, as the statue erected in St. Stephen's Green by the German government as thanks for our post-war aid demonstrates.:)

There is nothing morally bankrupt about avoiding war, and Shatter should really shut the fcuk up. He is a minister of our government and has plenty of things on his plate that need urgently seeing to instead of just re-writing history and badmouthing our country rather than doing his duty to protect our reputation.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

I wouldn't be crazy about the tone of your opening sentence Ellis Dee, but I broadly agree with the rest of your post I have to say.

BlaasForRafa

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Given his unquestioning support for every atrocity and crime committed by the zionazi terrorist rogue state entity that occupies the land of Palestine and is busy committing slow (for now) genocide against the people that have lived there for many centuries before millions of immigrants were imported from Russia and elsewhere, I am not sure what value need be assigned to Alan Shatter's views.:rolleyes:

However, my view of war is that the first duty of every government must be to keep its country out of war if that is at all possible. War brings death, maiming, destruction and misery, and no sane government would want to become embroiled in one.:cool:

The First World War was essentially a dog fight into which five or six competing imperialist empires allowed themselves to be drawn through a network of secret treaties and insane ambitions, and it led to the collapse and dissolution of four of them and severely weakened a fifth. Millions of people and many small nations paid a bitter price for the stupidity and greed of the imperial powers.:(

The Second World War was no more than a delayed continuation of the first. Numerous countries tried to keep out of it - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, at least.

Only Sweden, Ireland, Portugal and Switzerland managed to keep out - the others were attacked and suffered great loss of life, but they would not have been involved in the war if they had been able to avoid it. There was nothing morally bankrupt about it, and those countries - especially Sweden and Switzerland - were in a position to render valuable humanitarian aid both during the war and after it. Even impoverished Ireland helped out a bit, as the statue erected in St. Stephen's Green by the German government as thanks for our post-war aid demonstrates.:)

There is nothing morally bankrupt about avoiding war, and Shatter should really shut the fcuk up. He is a minister of our government and has plenty of things on his plate that need urgently seeing to instead of just re-writing history and badmouthing our country rather than doing his duty to protect our reputation.

I stopped reading at zionazi. I mean seriously, that destroys the credibility of everything else you said.

BlaasForRafa

may not have been Prime Minister, yet, but as First Lord of the Admiralty, he was prepared to push and push for an Invasion of Neutral Norway.

And surely you know WHY he pushed for that, the Iron Ore routes through northern Norway. In the event he was proved right by the Germans needing to secure it in operation Weserubung.

It's curious he never pushed with the same vigour, for the British Government to live up to its obligations regarding Poland. Something that would have been more effective had it been properly organised. In the attack on Poland, the Germans lost 25% of the Aircraft committed, and almost a divisions worth of Tanks. A properly co-ordinated attack in the West as promised, would have ended the war there and then, and possibly resulted in the ousting of Hitler.

Regarding the Luftwaffe, it was going through a change in the variants of plane it used, from 109D to E, DO-17E and M to the Z, the JU88 was only just coming into service. The capability level of the Luftwaffe in 1939 was much less than it was in 1940. The same can be said for tanks, the proportion of IIIs and IVs and Czech 38Ts was higher in 1940 than in 1939 etc.

And an attack through Belgium into Germany would probably had the most effect in 1939 but the Belgians were neutral right up to May 1940 (which hindered the eventual French/British move to the Dyle line. Plus the awful state of morale in the French army (both in leadership as well as in the rank and file) of the time wouldn't have helped, who can say for sure whether a french thrust anywhere would have done much.

As for ousting Hitler, the main anti-Hitler generals Frick and Beck had been ousted themselves by that stage.

He didn't agonise enough imo, considering Polish freedom was his principle war aim.

So what should he have done in 1944/45?

Raskolnikov

Other - please explain

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The Second World War was no more than a delayed continuation of the first. Numerous countries tried to keep out of it - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, at least.

Even countries more advanced than Ireland who tried to maintain a war effort suffered appalling casualties (Poland, Hungary, etc.). A nation like Ireland with no oil, no motorized infantry, no heavy weapons, no heavy industries, no air force, etc. would have been wiped off the face of the planet as easily as the Polish horsemen who charged Nazi armour in the invasion of Poland.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

good points Blaas, but gotta eat :pac: will address this later

Morlar

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Do you not realise how offensive that sounds?

He is a Jew, referring to him as 'Alan Shatter, Jew' is not offensive, it's simply factually correct. 'Jew' is not an insult.

Imagine for a second if he was a born again christian, or a mormon, or a quaker if it makes you feel better.

If that was the case & he was rubbishing say . . . Darwin, or evolution..... while Minister of Technology or Minister of Education & Science etc.

If that was the case & I referred to :

'Alan Shatter, born again Christian vs Alan Shatter, Minister of Technology'

would that also be offensive ?

If I genuinely believed his religious / ethnic or political loyalties appear to be colouring his perception then I have a right to voice that concern in a public forum. In this case and in this context I see nothing wrong with that given the contents of his repugnant speech.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And those jews stick together don't they?

In the context of a Jewish Minister of Defence of Ireland saying that Ireland has no moral authority to criticise Israel (based on Irish neutrality 70+ yrs ago) and considering (to keep this brief) a ) Israeli use of Irish passports to commit murder and b) their killings of Irish peacekeepers - then yes I continue to find his remarks repugnant.

He is Jewish, he is (in this case) speaking in favour of Israel at the expense of Ireland in my estimation.

I have outlined how my objections to his comments coherently. His faith/ethnicity etc should not preclude him from legitimate criticism based on his official statements as Irish Minister of Defence of Ireland.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

He may be right or wrong but he has his opinion, just as you have yours.

Being Minister of Defence of Ireland and saying your nation as 'morally bankrupt' should be based on clear concious, sober, rational, extensive and deliberate examination of the facts in their correct context. Sweeping, condemnatory statements such as those ought to be based on a little more than a 'personal opinion'. He was not speaking in a personal-opinion-capacity, he was giving a speech as the Minister of Defence of Ireland.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Anti-republicanism would seem to be a good trait to have in the office that he holds.

Anti-republicanism/anti-nationalism.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Deserters or not, they did the morally courageous thing in my opinion and should be praised for doing so.

That is arguable. Many simply deserted for better pay. I put Ireland's defensive interests above Britains or anyone elses. They deserted the Irish national army at a time of war in Europe. The consequences they faced were minor in comparison with other nations. I will quote from this letter in today's Irishtimes here:

It is utterly repugnant to pardon anyone who deserted Ireland’s Defence Forces, and carrying with them knowledge of “the Southern Irish” dispositions, who then increased British capacity to invade Ireland during the Emergency. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL HEERY,
(Comdt, Retd),

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What they did had next to no effect on Irelands ability to defend itself (which would have been pretty much nil if the British had been defeated) but they did have a positive contribution to the defeating of a regime that needed to be defeated.

You are commenting with hindsight which is not the correct way to judge this issue.

Ireland was in moderate danger of attack and invasion from either Britain or Germany at certain points during this timeframe. In the event of German invasion our skilled, trained defensive capability was depleted. In the event of a British invasion those men would be traitors to Ireland, active in an army of occupation where their skills, knowledge and intelligence would have been turned against this nation. So, saying 'there was no invasion as it turns out' does not reduce the levity of their decision. It's the same principle as a drunk driver making it home without killing a pedestrian. That does not therefore make it ok to drink and drive.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Giving condolonces for the death of Adolf Hitler was repugnant, having sympathy for the death of someone responsible for millions of deaths? Gimme a break.

"http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2506&dat=19530306&id=PyVaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7UsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4051,1373131

"Eisenhower tells Dulles to send 'Official Condolences' to Russia"

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also, solely in PR terms it was an absolutely stupid thing to do.

The easier thing for Devalera to do would have been to do nothing. The correct thing for Devalera to do was adhere to the principles of neutrality and diplomatic protocol which is basically what he did in the full knowledge it would be costly in the short term. As George Bernard Shaw commented at the time :

“a champion of the Christian chivalry we are all pretending to admire”.

Let's not forget no flags were flown at halfmast as they had been for FDR. The minimum protocol was observed.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Leaders of countries are empowered to make decisions that benefit their country, whether convenient or inconvenient.

Principles are not always convenient in the short term. That doesn't mean you abandon them for convenience.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

.....If De Valera had done what was right for the country instead of his own peculiar anti-british tinged morality then Ireland may have benefitted from American aid instead of languishing in poverty from the 40's through to the joining of the EEC.

It's incorrect to dismiss Irish Neutrality as an expression of anti-britishness. That is the sort of thing the Daily Mail readership love but is incorrect.

The prospect of commercial /financial aid is not a valid reason to declare war on another country which has not declared war on you.

Morlar

Other - please explain

marcsignal wrote: »

I wouldn't be crazy about the tone of your opening sentence Ellis Dee, but I broadly agree with the rest of your post I have to say.

Exactly what I was thinking.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

marcsignal wrote: »

In your opinion.

Yes, in my opinion.

WTF.

marcsignal wrote: »

Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we....

No, nothing like Poland. For one, and I find myself repeating what I've already posted...

We don't share a land border with Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CDfm

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

Someone else mentioned the camps so you may address that point towards them.

So if we were not fighting to liberate the camps then why were we to go to war ?

We still had a lot to offer towards the Allied cause, geographical position and manpower being two off the top of my head.

So our reason was to join the Britain who if you don't remember we had fought a war against and who we were not best buddies with.

No we were going to leap at that ?

To be fair.... The IRA were home grown and here. The Third Reich were the far side of the UK and unable to land on that island, so suicide is rather far fetched.

The IRA were involved in a terrorist campaign in Britain and were an internal threat.

They were inviting the Germans in.

The threat was there for a Civil war if we joined the allies acknowledged by Churchill and General Mulcahy.

So we had a major internal threat.

This is hillarious. Our position would be apparently "suicide", even though we don't share a land border with an Axis power, yet the Swiss, Spanish, and Portuguese are presumably not suicidal? It's a lot easier to drive a tank to Madrid from Paris than from Paris to Dublin

Like us the Swiss, Spanish, and Portuguese remained neutral .

The US did not join the Allies until it was attacked.

Besides that you're now ignoring the Fascist state that was Spain at the time.

Anyway, I'm not concerned about other states, their history is their own problem as our history is our problem.

Others felt their countries may not survive joining either side.

Yes, elections solve all.

That is the point of a democracy.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

Yes, in my opinion.

WTF.

By not including 'imo' after your original post, you, by default, automatically made a blanket dismissal of all of the other extrapolations that Dev would have had to consider at the time. In my opinion (and I believe there are many on here who would agree), the idea of tens of thousands of Irish Soldiers/Men, being sent off on the Dun Leary mail boat, in Irish uniforms, or in civvies to don British uniforms, to fight a war that was essentially 'Britains war', would not have gone down at all well with the general populous here, 20 odd years after the Rising, and War of Independence. I believe Dev knew this, and knew he would have had also, to lock up his former IRA mates in the K-Lines sooner than he did, because of the potential upsurge in sympathy for the IRA, perhaps leading to another Civil War here.

johngalway wrote: »

No, nothing like Poland. For one, and I find myself repeating what I've already posted...

We don't share a land border with Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our land border with Britain was irrelevant to our neutrality :edit-(in terms of Churchills attitude):. Churchill was chomping at the bit to sail a force across the fckn North Sea to invade Neutral Norway. I've already pointed out, that had Britain needed our Treaty Ports, he was going to sieze them anyway. Neutrality meant as little to him, as it did to the Austrian Painter. In that respect, I think Dev was right to stand his ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0