Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

CucaFace

Had Ireland declared war on the Germans this would have lead to the Brits to having to use their own already under massive pressure resources to also help us here to defend ourselves as the reality was we had very little in terms of arms and they would have had to come in here t defend us from invasion. .

So it is generally thought that this could have actually lead to the Allies losing the battle for Britain as they may have had a lot of those planes here in Ireland defending this country also, as well as having a large Naval force here.

Basically Ireland staying out of the war actually helped the Allies win in a way.

Obviously this wasn't why we decided to stay neutral.

The main point was would you really go and invite the enemy it took you 800 years to vanquish back into your country 20 years after you finally got rid of them?

No, so people need to get real on this point. The truths about what the Nazi’s were up to did not become evident until after the war.

Would the British 20 years after WW2 have invited a German army into their country if they was say another WW if say another country was threatening peace?

I think not.

Duckworth_Luas

Manic Moran wrote: »

Apparently no such condolances were offered to the US when FDR died. Ran into a chap at the WW2 Conference a couple of weeks ago who was somewhat miffed about that.

Dev, being Dev, was following the rules of being neutral to the letter of the law. In his opinion he couldn't be seen to be sympathetic to any warring country by offering condolances on the death of their head of state.

This was the case with FDRs death. However, by not offering condolances to the US Ambassador he came under huge criticism in Ireland, especially from the opposition.

Protocol was reviewed and unfortunately for Dev the next belligerent head of state to die was Hitler.

People like to believe that De Valera was a Nazi sympathiser but it was really as simple as that.

Wibbs

CucaFace wrote: »

No, so people need to get real on this point. The truths about what the Nazi’s were up to did not become evident until after the war.

Untrue. People had a fair idea what the Nazi's were up to, it was the scale of it that was hidden. They knew about hitlers rise to power, the night of the long knives etc, they knew how Jews were being singled out for bully boy tactics and that was before the war kicked off.

Manic Moran

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Dev, being Dev, was following the rules of being neutral to the letter of the law. In his opinion he couldn't be seen to be sympathetic to any warring country by offering condolances on the death of their head of state.

This was the case with FDRs death. However, by not offering condolances to the US Ambassador he came under huge criticism in Ireland, especially from the opposition.

Protocol was reviewed and unfortunately for Dev the next belligerent head of state to die was Hitler.

People like to believe that De Valera was a Nazi sympathiser but it was really as simple as that.

Simple enough explanation, so. Thank you.

gnfnrhead

CucaFace wrote: »

Would the British 20 years after WW2 have invited a German army into their country if they was say another WW if say another country was threatening peace?

I think not.

I don't know how true this is (maybe someone can confirm or refute it here as I haven't had the chance to really look into it yet) but I recently read that Churchill was trying to forge an alliance with Germany to go after Russia almost as soon as the war had ended.

Wibbs

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I don't know how true this is (maybe someone can confirm or refute it here as I haven't had the chance to really look into it yet) but I recently read that Churchill was trying to forge an alliance with Germany to go after Russia almost as soon as the war had ended.

There was talk of that alright. General Patton among others was very behind the notion. Many of the German forces themselves thought that would happen when the allies saw the Soviets taking huge swathes of Europe.

grenache

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Marshall Aid wasn't on offer back in 1940 was it ?

Even then it had to be paid back.

We were very isolationist until the 1960's so like Spain and Portugal we wouldn't have had the Italian type boom.

when you consider the original plan for Germany it's hard to imagine they'd be handing out dosh to all and sundry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Partial_rejection_of_the_plan

The fact is had we joined the war, we would have received a much greater amount of Aid, I don't think that's disputable!

Our isolationist policies would not have changed no, but with rebuilding comes growth and jobs. Its likely that would have gone some distance towards improving the economic outlook.

Capt'n Midnight

grenache wrote: »

The fact is had we joined the war, we would have received a much greater amount of Aid, I don't think that's disputable!

The UK was forced to sell the family silver and then some to get US aid during the war. Lend lease when the cash ran out.

It was the threat of communism later on that led to the Marshal plan. And even then most of that had to be paid back.

But during the war we'd have to pay our way or get deep into debt.


Also unlike the countries on the continent there was little scope for territorial gains. Between the Anschluss and the German invasion of Russia there were lots of border changes in the East with everyone trying to get a slice of what was on offer next.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_German_ultimatum_to_Lithuania

The Nazis went so far as to suggest a German–Lithuanian military alliance against Poland and promised to return the Vilnius Region, but Lithuania held to its policy of strict neutrality

CucaFace

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I don't know how true this is (maybe someone can confirm or refute it here as I haven't had the chance to really look into it yet) but I recently read that Churchill was trying to forge an alliance with Germany to go after Russia almost as soon as the war had ended.

Ok but thats not the same as allowing a German army to land in Britain.

Had that alliance been formed, it would have been based in Germany I would imangine and move east.

My point is that i don't blame Dev and co for not wanting to allow a British force to once again land in this country.

Downlinz

It's an incorrect assertion that we'd have been invaded by Germany regardless. There may have been an opportunity to pledge loyalty to Germany, turn over any British in our lands to them while still keeping our sovereignty.

mike65

The Quisling option might have been considered enough.

getz

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Dev, being Dev, was following the rules of being neutral to the letter of the law. In his opinion he couldn't be seen to be sympathetic to any warring country by offering condolances on the death of their head of state.

This was the case with FDRs death. However, by not offering condolances to the US Ambassador he came under huge criticism in Ireland, especially from the opposition.

Protocol was reviewed and unfortunately for Dev the next belligerent head of state to die was Hitler.

People like to believe that De Valera was a Nazi sympathiser but it was really as simple as that.

its not that simple,eamon de valera saw fit to sign a petition of condolance at the german legation in dublin to express his grief on the death of hitler,furthermore he wanted to personally commiserate with the nazi representive in eire, dr eduard hempel on the death of their beloved fuhrer,later on a dublin mob vandalised the british high commision and the US embassy,dev was not unaware of the treatment of jews ,as just a few weeks before, the british had liberated bergen-belson accompanied by a irish doctor who had reported back to dublin,its also interesting to note ,that only two countries in the world sent their condolances, eire, and japan who were still at war

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Seriously? Britain got and kept it's empire in the 19th century by succeeding at doing what Germany was trying to do in the late 30's.

Pretty much, as I recall reading one commentary at the time, "from the Irish perspective, there wasn't much to choose from between Churchill and Hitler". And sure enough, years after world war 2, the UK was running its own concentration camps in sub-Saharan Africa in a desperate attempt to keep the last vestiges of empire once the natives had figured out which was the business end of a machinegun (the Mau Mau).

The UK's contribution to the war effort seemed to consist largely of running away and getting blown to pieces, then releasing positive-spin press articles about it, until the US came along once again to clean up the situation. Even the heavy handed propaganda about national solidarity in the teeth of the aggressor pushed the 80s falls apart when closely examined as in "The Myth of the Blitz".

So even away from the sensible tactical and political reasons for Irish neutrality, I've no difficulty with the decision.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

First off
The Poles broke Enigma.

.

They did, an early version of the code that was in use prior to WWII. The version broken at Bletchley was completely different and the code breakers there were pretty much starting from scratch.

To forget the Polish cracking of the code does them a disservice. To say the Poles broke enigma does the geeks at Bletchley a disservice as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma#Polish_breakthrough

mike65

Everyone knows Jon Bon Jovi broke Enigma.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They did, an early version of the code that was in use prior to WWII. The version broken at Bletchley was completely different and the code breakers there were pretty much starting from scratch.

The point is that the Poles were using group theory etc. which took cryptoanalysis to another level altogether. Their approach was completely alien to anything that gone before. Paradigm shift and all that.

Nothing from Bletchley came remotely close. Yes they discovered a few tricks, yes they used valves instead of the electro mechanicals of the Polish machines.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The point is that the Poles were using group theory etc. which took cryptoanalysis to another level altogether. Their approach was completely alien to anything that gone before. Paradigm shift and all that.

Nothing from Bletchley came remotely close. Yes they discovered a few tricks, yes they used valves instead of the electro mechanicals of the Polish machines.

The Poles were working on the codes ten years before the British, so they were ground breaking. Bletchley was in its own way groundbreaking.

Whatever way you look at it, both were a hell of an achievement.

dave1987

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Pretty much, as I recall reading one commentary at the time, "from the Irish perspective, there wasn't much to choose from between Churchill and Hitler". And sure enough, years after world war 2, the UK was running its own concentration camps in sub-Saharan Africa in a desperate attempt to keep the last vestiges of empire once the natives had figured out which was the business end of a machinegun (the Mau Mau).

The UK's contribution to the war effort seemed to consist largely of running away and getting blown to pieces, then releasing positive-spin press articles about it, until the US came along once again to clean up the situation. Even the heavy handed propaganda about national solidarity in the teeth of the aggressor pushed the 80s falls apart when closely examined as in "The Myth of the Blitz".

So even away from the sensible tactical and political reasons for Irish neutrality, I've no difficulty with the decision.

Britain has never run concentration camps like the Germans thats anti British propaganda, prisoners held were enemies of the empire. They were held because they supported rebels, they were not persecuted because of their religion or race, i.e Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. The USA and Spain are 2 other notable countries that have used concentration camps as military tactics. However Britain, Spain or the USA have never run "extermination camps" as the Germans did. I'm not saying its right but its not in the same league as what happened in WW2.

How was Britains war effort largely consisting of running away and getting blown to pieces? That's a stupid comment and all evidence and facts points against that. Britain for many years was the only country to stand against Germany by itself? How is that running away? At least they fought, and fought across the globe wherever the enemy was to be engaged you didn't see Britain avoiding the fight, even to this day.

I would of thought sitting on the fence as Ireland did was more cowardly! As it always does and more than likely always will. There is clearly an anti British sentiment in this thread, which people seem to jump on even though the thread wasn't about Britain originally.

At least Britain takes it's side and sticks with it and gets sh!t done and does it well.

Stop trying to rewrite history because you don't like or are jealous of the UK or for whatever reason you make silly little digs at it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Could somebody clear this up for me? Did Churchill promise Dev a 32 county Republic if we allowed Britain use of the treaty ports during WW2.

Capt'n Midnight

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Could somebody clear this up for me? Did Churchill promise Dev a 32 county Republic if we allowed Britain use of the treaty ports during WW2.

sorta

no one believed the offer was serious, even if was serious then the Unionists up North would hold the balance of power between FF and the other parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir The attack resulted in the deaths of 1,297 French servicemen,

And Churchill was involved in the Treaty Negotiations at the end of the war of independence

gallag

The British hate is strong in here, now Britain had no impact in ww2 and just ran away and got blown up???? Massive insult to the people that died fighting the Nazis, Irish and British.

An Coilean

dave1987 wrote: »

Britain has never run concentration camps like the Germans thats anti British propaganda, prisoners held were enemies of the empire.

Those held in Germany were considered enimies of the Reich, I fail to see the distinction.

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

4:20 look at that and tell me about what the British never did.

Wibbs

gallag wrote: »

The British hate is strong in here, now Britain had no impact in ww2 and just ran away and got blown up???? Massive insult to the people that died fighting the Nazis, Irish and British.

I'd agree with all of that.

Of course they had an impact on WW2. The Battle of Britain probably the most lasting one as it was the first real chink in the armour of German military might. Yes one could argue that they were fighting on home ground and the German war machine wasn't set up for such a fight and if they had been on continental Europe they would have been routed(as they were) etc etc, but in the end they did hold them for all the world to see. And theydid it with (at that stage) a shortage of aircraft, many of whom were hugely outclassed and a major shortage of pilots, against a foe with (mostly)superior tactics and numbers to boot. Oul Winston was on the money when he said "this was their finest hour".

If Britain had fallen or more likely Churchill had been forced to capitulate and stand on the sidelines Russia would have likely fallen. More than likely actually. Even with distractions the German forces were on the outskirts of Moscow and old Joe was readying a train to run away. Not just because of Britain itself holding german attention at their backs(which was surprisingly little), but because of the Brits irritating and jabbing at them in north africa and Yugoslavia and Greece. Now they were fecked over in those arenas at first, but that was a major distraction and held up a helluva lot of German resources(Italy botching it up really didn't help either).

Now it could be argued they had no choice to fight, but you could say that of the USSR too. Moreso as unlike Stalin, Churchill didn't want any truck with appeasement(unlike the previous incumbent). Given Hitler didn't want to invade or fight the UK(and said this more than once) Churchill could have gotten away with staying out of it/appeasement, leaving the Germans to plough on unopposed.

The US stayed well out of it giving not much more than moral support until they were attacked by Japan and soooo many big US companies were only too happy to deal with Herr Hitler and in concert with German companies directly helped him and his party grow to power. Even when visiting US company heads saw Jewish and others high ups being "retired". To be fair to the Brits on that score there was substantially less of that guff going on, even with quite the number of people in the UK having some Fascist sympathies.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

Those held in Germany were considered enimies of the Reich, I fail to see the distinction.


4:20 look at that and tell me about what the British never did.

True enough AC.

The big difference with the Nazi's was they had actual extermination camps. The British didn't have them, nor anything like them, only the Axis powers pulled that stuff.

The German concentration camps like Bergen Belson where similar to the Boer camps in general principle. As you said they were collection centres for "enemies of the state" just like the Boer camps. Contrary to popular belief today Belson wasn't an extermination camp. No gas chambers or any of that. They were hidden away further east. The horrific scenes found when Belson was liberated were down to criminal and official neglect and starvation.

However even though the two are roughly comparable, the sheer scale of the neglect and downright cruelty in somewhere like Belson was not close to seen in the Boer examples. Oh sure the British don't have bloodless hands, but when news of the camps reached England, there was huge outcry over them. Many ordinary Germans knew well of such camps, many had direct dealings with them and short of a few brave German souls(which we hear little of today) the camps were left alone. Similar in purpose, very different in trajectory of criminality.

Doc Ruby

An Coilean wrote: »

4:20 look at that and tell me about what the British never did.

There's no point in trying to bring facts to some of these types, it's talking to a wall. Never mind that the Polish were the ones who won the Battle of Britain.

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

The fighting 303rd, taking on two hundred German planes with just six of their own, or three hundred with just nine Polish pilots (most of whom returned to tell about it), as opposed to the British pilots who couldn't fly to save their lives, literally about half the time. It was said they liked to see more German planes, as it gave them more to shoot at. Twenty four kills in the first six days of operation. Sixteen kills in a quarter of an hour. A hundred kills in a single month.

After the war they were not only not invited to the victory parade, their entire country was handed over to the Russians to suffer decades of torment and occupation, forgotten and betrayed. As well for us we didn't believe Churchill's mumblings on the North, the honorless dog.

Wibbs wrote:

The British didn't have them, nor anything like them, only the Axis powers pulled that stuff.

Oh, that's okay then...

[E]lectric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire. Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes, vermin, and hot eggs were thrust up men's rectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned and mutilated Mau Mau suspects, ostensibly to gather intelligence for military operations and as court evidence.

[T]here is something peculiarly chilling about the way colonial officials behaved, most notoriously but not only in Kenya, within a decade of the liberation of the [Nazi] concentration camps and the return of thousands of emaciated British prisoners of war from the Pacific. One courageous judge in Nairobi explicitly drew the parallel: Kenya's Belsen, he called one camp.

Of course its not like they are any strangers to criminal neglect leading to mass starvation either.

Wibbs

Actually a "better" comparison between the Allies including Britain and the Axis powers came after WW2 was won. The immediate period following is rarely mentioned or examined. There was a serious loss of high moral ground going on with the treatment of the vanquished by the victors.

Forget the mass rapes and killings of women (and children) that came after the surrender ignored by pretty much all the Allied powers, one and a half million German men who were captured and interned never came home. Gone. Vanished. Few official explanations, but plenty of horror stories and not just about treatment of SS Nazi bastards either, lowly soldiers, civilians anyone suspected of being a nazi and sure wasn't that all of them? Not quite as a few of the Germans who resisted Hitler were targeted too. These men were starved and frozen or beaten to death or shot out of hand or met other grisly ends. Not even show trials. One and a half million. Ever hear about them? I bet most haven't. It was very well hidden and officially so.

Again to be fair to the Brits, the British sector was by far the safest for Germans, civilians and POW's in the aftermath of the war. The Russians the worst, with the French coming in not far behind them. The Yanks didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either and of all the allies they were the ones who had been directly affected by the Germans the least. I mean you could explain the Russians after Barbarossa etc.

Fratton Fred

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough AC.

The big difference with the Nazi's was they had actual extermination camps. The British didn't have them, nor anything like them, only the Axis powers pulled that stuff.

The German concentration camps like Bergen Belson where similar to the Boer camps in general principle. As you said they were collection centres for "enemies of the state" just like the Boer camps. Contrary to popular belief today Belson wasn't an extermination camp. No gas chambers or any of that. They were hidden away further east. The horrific scenes found when Belson was liberated were down to criminal and official neglect and starvation.

However even though the two are roughly comparable, the sheer scale of the neglect and downright cruelty in somewhere like Belson was not close to seen in the Boer examples. Oh sure the British don't have bloodless hands, but when news of the camps reached England, there was huge outcry over them. Many ordinary Germans knew well of such camps, many had direct dealings with them and short of a few brave German souls(which we hear little of today) the camps were left alone. Similar in purpose, very different in trajectory of criminality.

I suppose one parallel to the camps in the Boer war and Bergen-Belsen would be the huge outbreak of Typhoid which killed twenty thousand Boers and Thousands of Jews etc in B-B. Although in fairness, over 8,000 British soldiers also died in the Typhoid outbreak in South Africa.

As you also point out, when news of the concentration camps in South Africa rached home, public outcry forced the army to rethink the strategy.

Wibbs

Not just Poles either DR. Free Czechs too.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

After the war they were not only not invited to the victory parade, their entire country was handed over to the Russians to suffer decades of torment and occupation, forgotten and betrayed. As well for us we didn't believe Churchill's mumblings on the North, the honorless dog.

That was one of the most shabby betrayals in modern history alright.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There's no point in trying to bring facts to some of these types, it's talking to a wall. Never mind that the Polish were the ones who won the Battle of Britain.

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

The fighting 303rd, taking on two hundred German planes with just six of their own, or three hundred with just nine Polish pilots (most of whom returned to tell about it), as opposed to the British pilots who couldn't fly to save their lives, literally about half the time. It was said they liked to see more German planes, as it gave them more to shoot at. Twenty four kills in the first six days of operation. Sixteen kills in a quarter of an hour. A hundred kills in a single month.

After the war they were not only not invited to the victory parade, their entire country was handed over to the Russians to suffer decades of torment and occupation, forgotten and betrayed. As well for us we didn't believe Churchill's mumblings on the North, the honorless dog.

aah Doc, your spin on History is wonderful.

Surely you mean it was the Polish and Irish pilots that won the battle of Britain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Finucane

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually a "better" comparison between the Allies including Britain and the Axis powers came after WW2 was won. The immediate period following is rarely mentioned or examined. There was a serious loss of high moral ground going on with the treatment of the vanquished by the victors.

Forget the mass rapes and killings of women (and children) that came after the surrender ignored by pretty much all the Allied powers, one and a half million German men who were captured and interned never came home. Gone. Vanished. Few official explanations, but plenty of horror stories and not just about treatment of SS Nazi bastards either, lowly soldiers, civilians anyone suspected of being a nazi and sure wasn't that all of them? Not quite as a few of the Germans who resisted Hitler were targeted too. These men were starved and frozen or beaten to death or shot out of hand or met other grisly ends. Not even show trials. One and a half million. Ever hear about them? I bet most haven't. It was very well hidden and officially so.

Again to be fair to the Brits, the British sector was by far the safest for Germans, civilians and POW's in the aftermath of the war. The Russians the worst, with the French coming in not far behind them. The Yanks didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either and of all the allies they were the ones who had been directly affected by the Germans the least. I mean you could explain the Russians after Barbarossa etc.

Before fears that west Germany could fall to Communism hit home, American policy was to transform Germany into an agircultural state, a plan that was estimated would have cost the lives of 40% of the remaing German Population.
Its one of the Reasons Germany fought on, Gobbels was able to prove to his countrymen that what he had been saying about the Allies all along had been true. German soldiers in the closing months were not fighting to save the Nazis, they were fighting to save Germany.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh, that's okay then...

Oh no DR it's most certainly not OK. Criminal isn't in it and fcuk all were called to account either. No doubt a few got campaign medals and a CBE when they became doddery enough.

What I mean is the German Final Solution was a step above even that shíte and a huge one with it. They officially and with great efficiency built the technology and infrastructure and sought to and succeeded in willfully murdering millions of men women and children of various "undesirable" backgrounds on a extermination production line. While that shíte the Brits were pulling in Kenya and other nations have pulled elsewhere it doesn't compare in scale of ambition nor execution.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

While that shíte the Brits were pulling in Kenya and other nations have pulled elsewhere it doesn't compare in scale of ambition nor execution.

How would you know, the jolly old civil service destroyed all the jolly old paperwork.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How would you know, the jolly old civil service destroyed all the jolly old paperwork.

Sure like I said incredibly criminal acts were sanctioned and perpetrated and went unpunished, but if you are honestly comparing that with the Nazi extermination camps then I give up. I really do. Daft and histrionic, not historical.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure like I said incredibly criminal acts were sanctioned and perpetrated and went unpunished, but if you are honestly comparing that with the Nazi extermination camps then I give up. I really do. Daft and histrionic, not historical.

Hey you're the one claiming it wasn't as bad, I simply pointed out that you have no way of knowing since most of the official records of the atrocities were destroyed by the british civil service. Is a policy of official neglect leading to mass deaths, official lack of concern for mass torture any better than an official policy encouraging those things? The end result is much the same.

How and ever we're splitting hairs at this stage, evil is evil and to get back on topic, I have no problem whatsoever with the decision to stay neutral. As those poor Polish pilots discovered, the gratitude of britain isn't worth a gassy exhalation from a donkey's rear, and the british subsequently proved quite capable of their own atrocities, so again, not much to choose from really. You'd have to be pretty well indoctrinated to think otherwise.

Wibbs

It wasn't as bad for god's sake? There's no way of knowing what? That the Brits were running an African Treblinka? Seriously? Jesus you'd really want to have a chip on your shoulder about a nation/culture/whatever to compare local war crimes(where you'll get no argument from me with that description) with the systematic, state backed mechanised extermination of many millions of people. Hey if you were talking about Pol Pot or Stalin or the Japanese in WW2 I'd be well seeing comparisons, but there? To compare the Brits bad as they could be and were with what Nazi Germany and many of their allies and fellow nutters were up to at the time and you reckon there wasn't much to chose from? With WW1 and you'd have a point, more than a point, but WW2?

Seriously look at something as simple as the system of law in both countries in the 1930's before the war. Class ridden gobshítes in one system that needed updating but by and large was pretty even handed overall, versus kangaroo courts in the other system where many thousands were guillotined for being agin the state. Put it another way; you're charged with public order offences for which you're not guilty, pick a country to be tried in. If you say Nazi Germany you're having an actual laugh.

Eff all to do with "indoctrination" either, certainly on my side. Then again I've heard some of the thankfully rare enough more swivel eyed end of republican viewpoint compare the Bloody Sunday murders with the My Lai Massacre along similar reasoning so...

Feck it when the bands on both sides of an argument start playing from the loony tunes songbook with history, objectivity and plain common sense I bow out and by god it's happening here.

Border-Rat

There were no gas chambers under Nazi Germany. If operated as alleged by eye witnesses, who by the way admitted they were lying in the Zundel trial, the 'gas chamber' at Treblinka would've exploded. That's if they actually got the engine working, because you can't pump exhaust fumes from a diesel engine into a hermetically sealed room - the engine will stall. If you defy that element of physics, then the pressure inside will amount to several tons per square inch if worked as alleged, which means the path of least resistance will give. In other words the roof.

On top of that, the story goes that the Germans cremated 870,000 bodies with wood - unseasoned wood, mind you. Which would've required tens of thousands of tons of wood. Came from the surrounding forestry, they said. So why then does the aerial photographs before and after of Treblinka show no difference in forestry at all?

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

There were no gas chambers under Nazi Germany. If operated as alleged by eye witnesses, who by the way admitted they were lying in the Zundel trial, the 'gas chamber' at Treblinka would've exploded. That's if they actually got the engine working, because you can't pump exhaust fumes from a diesel engine into a hermetically sealed room - the engine will stall. If you defy that element of physics, then the pressure inside will amount to several tons per square inch if worked as alleged, which means the path of least resistance will give. In other words the roof.

On top of that, the story goes that the Germans cremated 870,000 bodies with wood - unseasoned wood, mind you. Which would've required tens of thousands of tons of wood. Came from the surrounding forestry, they said. So why then does the aerial photographs before and after of Treblinka show no difference in forestry at all?

****ing hell :eek:

Border-Rat

I've dealt with these lies here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056583350&page=3

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

golden lane

Fratton Fred wrote: »

****ing hell :eek:

them jews.....always telling lies, but only to irishmen.....

i wonder what stopped the irish from freeing poland after the war....

Wibbs

Oh oh another band has struck up from the same songbook...

OK BR, let's say you're correct. Let's say the witnesses - and I'm speaking of Germans and Czechs and Poles working for the various places who came forward years later - are lying/delusional, let's say it was all a zionist ruse(or the brits or the yanks or lizards). Answer me this one question. Where did all those people, not just Jews BTW, where did they go? Where are the kids and grandkids and great grandkids? Where did those cousins and relatives go? Where did all those people who were "resettled" in the east go? Where did almost the entire Jewish population of Greece go? Were the Greeks who witnessed them being taken away, even helping to take them away, where they all lying?

How do you explain many hundreds of surviving train schedules and manifestos showing "special trains" and their passengers(shít I've seen them come up on ebay FFS). Some were common or garden daytripping excursions, but the majority of special train passenger tickets were one way and only going one way, with nice bureaucratic bits of paper that followed them every step of that way. Shít what about the train drivers themselves? Many of them came forward with feck all remorse by the by about driving the trains right up to the camps. A few mention necking the old vodka cos the cries and smell got too bad. Are they lying and why? Mossad get to them?

Don't get me wrong all history should be open for debate, including this part. In fact it pisses me off no end that such discussion is banned in Germany and other places. That really grinds my bloody gears. NO history should be pickled as unassailable fact. Indeed when I see muppets claim 10 million died when that figure is inaccurate, or that 4 million died in Dachau(again inaccurate), or that Belson was an extermination camp I get really pissed off and call shenanigans(more personally as my uncle was at Belson a few days after the liberation). The yanks in particular get lots of things wrong almost as if to outdo each others horror porn and disgust. However I also call shenanigans when I read stuff like your blanket holocaust denial guff too. Both are inaccurate, though with respect I find your shenanigans worse.

Wibbs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

****ing hell :eek:

Oh it's a common meme on the interweb among some. In the other corner, but lesser you have the victim card being played for all it's worth, though at least they have some relevance.

Border-Rat wrote: »

I've dealt with these lies here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056583350&page=3

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

And personally speaking I would disagree with that stance if true. Why? I hate censorship for many reasons even if for apparently "good reason", mostly because it often leads to denial and conspiracy in those that are censored.

If you censor all talk of a subject you raise the suspicion that there's something not to be talked about. This gets the conspiratorial mind grinding away to no good end.

Secondly they may be right. Oh yes, the scary part, but if even a little true and evidence supports them we may all learn something new.

Thirdly they might well be wrong, but in talking we may discover more truths about a subject. Even truths about how the human psyche responds to a subject.

Censorship kills that all stone dead.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

To compare the Brits bad as they could be and were with what Nazi Germany and many of their allies and fellow nutters were up to at the time and you reckon there wasn't much to chose from?

Its always entertaining trying to watch someone defend broken bottles being shoved up womens' vaginas as "it could be worse".

No, no wait, it isn't.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its always entertaining trying to watch someone defend broken bottles being shoved up womens' vaginas as "it could be worse".

No, no wait, it isn't.

Well if you want to argue equivalence of evil to back your deeply engrained stance, be my guest.

From your link;
"Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948;

German SS special patrols could have knocked that total out before lunch. After a bit of a lie in. There is film fully youtubable that shows such special operations shooting hundreds in pits. The Soviets when they got the upper hand could have knocked that number out before breakfast. Regardless you still compare the undeniably abominable actions of the Brits in Kenya with the worst elements of the German state? It's up there with comparing a tension headache with a aneurysm. But no doubt you'll plough on in this deep entrenchment about perfidious Albion(and it defo was at times) while missing the elements of scale and yes scale makes a difference. Not to the individual, but most certainly to the culture at large

By the way you never answered my question re which state would you have chosen to be tried in? After all there wasn't much of a choice eh?

EDIT and BTB who the fcuk is defending atrocities of any nature? Nice line of reasoning there, but then again it is what those of us who're read you have come to expect.

golden lane

i wonder how high up the scale does blowing innocent kids to bit's.....????

there must be a scale where that is on.....

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you want to argue equivalence of evil to back your deeply engrained stance, be my guest.

From your link;
"Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948;

Don't forget the broken bottles in the vaginas. I really find this unpleasant, but it bears repeating in light of the ongoing apologism.

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless you still compare the undeniably abominable actions of the Brits

So let's talk about the equivalence of evil. By your lights it's less evil if an administration ignores torture and massacres despite clearly being aware of them, as is obviously indicated by the destructon of documentation, than if an administration promotes these tactics. What difference is there? Ignoring them with the subtext of hiding crimes (what what) and promoting them become the same thing when the result is likewise the same.

Lets put this in its proper historical context. This was at the end of the british empire, the last squalling efforts to retain the authority properly due the rightful lords and masters of the darkies, as I imagine the british saw it. Not being fit to responsibly govern anyone, let alone people on a different continent, they resorted to the widespread torture of innocents.

Now tell me Ireland was wrong to refuse support to either side in the war.

Wibbs wrote: »

By the way you never answered my question re which state would you have chosen to be tried in? After all there wasn't much of a choice eh?

Yes, the rule of law was such a major feature of british culture when dealing with Ireland.

Wibbs

Border-Rat wrote: »

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

Actually BR I clicked on your link there and I'll be honest some of the responses did trouble me a tad. An automatic response of revulsion and dismissal from too many. A blanket acceptance that you must be wrong, even before some came forward with rebuttals to your posts. I mistrust "accepted truths" about any subject, there is always something more to be learned, even if the stimulus for that learning is wrong or even right.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Don't forget the broken bottles in the vaginas. I really find this unpleasant, but it bears repeating in light of the ongoing apologism.

Good God man, at least try and remove the blinkers if even just a little. Point out to me where anyone was apologising or excusing a bunch of bastards torturing women and killing civilians. Oh wait... no one was. That's in your head and your head alone.

Yes, the rule of law was such a major feature of british culture when dealing with Ireland.

You still haven't answered my question. Yes many Irish men and women were treated unjustly(and that's putting in mildly) by the British authorities over the centuries. As BTW were "their own". Scots, Welsh and yes even English "peasants" and "working classes" and above were treated miserably by the ruling caste of that culture for far too long. Why the Scots aren't still baying for English blood over the highland clearances is beyond me and the Welsh didn't fair much better, neither did many an Engilshman or woman of good yeoman stock. Thousands were transported or even hanged for their efforts for the common man. Plus like I said the English ruling class were all to happy to promote an idea of "Britain" while fortifying the idea that only the "right kind" of "British" was OK and that was usually a narrow idea of "English".

However as we're considering the times of the topic are you seriously still saying they were equivalent? The Birmingham Six and way to many others ranged against thousands of Germans whose heads ended up in baskets or thousands of Germans who were killed by injection because they didn't fit the master race ideal or thousands locked up or forced out because they had the wrong politics or the wrong blood? Like I say maybe try dropping the "I hate the brits, they're the cause of all our woes" blinkers, just a little, if even for a second. Hope springs but there you go.

golden lane

maybe kneecapping is on the scale......or, killing your own fellow country people...now that has to be a high one.....

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I say maybe try dropping the "I hate the brits, they're the cause of all our woes" blinkers, just a little, if even for a second. Hope springs but there you go.

You'd really want to take a long hard look in the mirror. Still fresh from saying how Belsen was the result of starvation caused by administrative oversight, you miss entirely that the population of this country still hasn't recovered to what it was in the mid nineteenth century, but somehow that's all part of the craic. This comfortable notion that it's all just a misunderstanding over a cup of tea needs to be buried as the wastrel PR that it is.

For the record, I don't "hate the brits". Brian Blessed may be the only man on earth for whom I'd turn, JRR Tolkien is somewhere north of Jesus, and Doctor Who rocks my socks clean off. I know plenty of "brits" and 90% of them are just fine. But when you come to issues of national policy and the relativity of evil, britain has nothing to boast of. Nothing at all.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You'd really want to take a long hard look in the mirror. Still fresh from saying how Belsen was the result of starvation caused by administrative oversight,

Nope I didn't say that. I said "The horrific scenes found when Belson was liberated were down to criminal and official neglect and starvation". For the hard of reading like yourself the "criminal and official neglect of starvation" might give you a clue. Though I doubt it. If you consider that an "administrative oversight" I pray you don't work in the public service.

you miss entirely that the population of this country still hasn't recovered to what it was in the mid nineteenth century,

Oh oh here we go...

but somehow that's all part of the craic. This comfortable notion that it's all just a misunderstanding over a cup of tea needs to be buried as the wastrel PR that it is.

Nope again, but you keep on believing it. It seems on a many levels you really do read what you want to read.

For the record, I don't "hate the brits". Brian Blessed may be the only man on earth for whom I'd turn, JRR Tolkien is somewhere north of Jesus, and Doctor Who rocks my socks clean off. I know plenty of "brits" and 90% of them are just fine. But when you come to issues of national policy and the relativity of evil, britain has nothing to boast of. Nothing at all.

You still haven't answered my original question.



And god Tolkien makes me want to take up cutting myself... Middle earth is right, it couldn't be more middle if he tried. So we certainly differ there anyway. Though I'm with you on Brian