Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Allies didn't fight the Nazis for my benefit. The Americans weren't even all that bothered by the Germans taking over Europe. The American public was pretty isolationist and anti-war before Pearl Harbour.

The British and Americans fought the Nazis for geo-strategic reasons not any highfalutin notions of freedom and democracy.

Even if the Germans had followed the retreating British across the English Channel and taken Britain and Ireland how long would they have managed to hold it? A few years?

Nonsense chuck, you make it sound like the British were in some way wrong for fighting back at the Nazis, we had to fight, simple. You are benefiting from the deaths of brave men right now including many brave irish men.

Chuck Stone

round tower huntsman wrote: »

the ira havent had popular support since....

The PIRA couldn't have sustained its campaign without popular support; that's self evident.

gallag wrote: »

You have to quantity it though, how many other army's would have fought a civil war over such a long period of time with so few casualties? People get on like the BA were blood thirsty yet they only killed 15-20% as many as the IRA

You keep talking about the BA and ignoring collusion. Also, I've never once said the BA were bloodthirsty. In many ways the BA were victims of the conflict too. I can imagine being told 'you're going to NI' was a horrible thing to hear for a young British soldier.

I am not saying they were perfect its just I would honestly believe the British army handled things beter than any other army would have.

As I've said before, the British couldn't push things too far in the north because there were too many potential enemies within in the form of the Irish Diaspora - the British didn't want the conflict fought in Britain.

You can be sure there were people in Whitehall who would have loved to have turned the north into a murder hole and I've little doubt that had it been Africa or SE Asia they would have.

gallag wrote: »

Nonsense chuck, you make it sound like the British were in some way wrong for fighting back at the Nazis, we had to fight, simple.

I don't think it was wrong but I see it for what it was. The Soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves so there was no 'had to' about it. How long would the Germans have been able to hold countries where they weren't wanted?

You are benefiting from the deaths of brave men right now including many brave irish men.

I've no doubt they were brave men (RIP) but I don't buy that I owe my relative freedom to them.

Garzard

If we did join NATO we might not have to increase our military expenditure by much, if anything. For weak NATO members like Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, there's a Baltic Air Policing in place, where other NATO countries take turns stationing a few jets there every few months. Don't see why the same couldn't be done here. If we wanted, we could probably lease a few ourselves quite cheaply from the US or UK.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The PIRA couldn't have sustained its campaign without popular support; that's self evident.



You keep talking about the BA and ignoring collusion. Also, I've never once said the BA were bloodthirsty. In many ways the BA were victims of the conflict too. I can imagine being told 'you're going to NI' was a horrible thing to hear for a young British soldier.



As I've said before, the British couldn't push things too far in the north because there were too many potential enemies within in the form of the Irish Diaspora - the British didn't want the conflict fought in Britain.

You can be sure there were people in Whitehall who would have loved to have turned the north into a murder hole and I've little doubt that had it been Africa or SE Asia they would have.



I don't think it was wrong but I see it for what it was. The Soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves so there was no 'had to' about it. How long would the Germans have been able to hold countries where they weren't wanted?



I've no doubt they were brave men (RIP) but I don't buy that I owe my relative freedom to them.

So you believe the only thing keeping Whitehall honest and not turning n.i into murder hole was the irish diaspora? Interesting. I like to think it was because we are simply more evolved and have compassion and a respect for human life, fighting the IRA could not have been easy for the British government, they were murderous cowards who used there community as a shield and had zero regard for human life.

The numbers show who the bad guys were, the IRA killed around 80% more than the BA yet most murals in west belfast depict scene's of British brutality brainwashing people to believe the brits are scum. Any way I respect your opinion on this, I do realise we have both been indoctrinated into our mindset to a large degree and the truth would probably lie at some middle point, from reading a lot of your posts I have learnt a bit, I for example fell more understanding of the hardships suffered by Catholics in the early days etc.

Now on the "soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves" thats not true. Remember the harsh Russian winter helped even things on that front but the amount of german resources being used to fight the battle of Britain, Africa, France and many more was very important, the Germans would have blitzkriegd Russia with relative ease if afforded the time to attack in summer and more importantly the millions of men, tanks, planes etc being used elsewhere.

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

So you believe the only thing keeping Whitehall honest and not turning n.i into murder hole was the irish diaspora?

That was part of it.

fighting the IRA could not have been easy for the British government,

Agreed.

they were murderous cowards

Not even British experts thought that.

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

who used there community as a shield

On the contrary, in the earlier years there might well have been ethnic cleansing of Catholics in the north had there not been weapons and a display of willingness to use them. The people asked the OIRA to step up and start defending Catholic areas which they largely failed to do. The PIRA put an end to incursions into Catholic areas by loyalists and others.

and had zero regard for human life.

Untrue. 35% of the PIRA's killings were civilian. If they'd zero regard for human life then their civilian kill rate would have been a little more like loyalists with 85% civilian kill count (4% Republican).

The numbers show who the bad guys were, the IRA killed around 80% more than the BA

You keep ignoring BA collusion with loyalists and others. Also, there are no 'good guys' in a conflict such as was fought in the north.

Now on the "soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves" thats not true. Remember the harsh Russian winter helped even things on that front but the amount of german resources being used to fight the battle of Britain, Africa, France and many more was very important, the Germans would have blitzkriegd Russia with relative ease if afforded the time to attack in summer and more importantly the millions of men, tanks, planes etc being used elsewhere.

Okay that's your opinion and we're talking about alternate realities but I really don't believe the Germans would have held Europe for too long. I don't deny that British involvement helped defeat the Germans I just don't think it was essential.

awec

IMO it's a bit unfair to compare either world war with any conflict since. I think that it was a totally different situation.

WakeUp

gallag wrote: »

Now on the "soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves" thats not true. Remember the harsh Russian winter helped even things on that front but the amount of german resources being used to fight the battle of Britain, Africa, France and many more was very important, the Germans would have blitzkriegd Russia with relative ease if afforded the time to attack in summer and more importantly the millions of men, tanks, planes etc being used elsewhere.

Some of the above is backwards. The battle of Britain was fought in the air and as far as hardware goes in comparison to the rest of the war theatre relatively little was committed by the Germans this was in 1940 it lasted about three months. France was already occupied in the same year. The Allies were taking a beating in Africa until Hitler invaded Russia and the Germans had to move units from there to the east much to the relief of the commanders there that was in 1941. From then on the Allies gained a footing and started winning battles. The turning point of the Africa campaign was the Allies cracking German communications (ULTRA) and holding on to the island of Malta. The Russians were the deciding factor in world war 2 from whatever angle you look at it. The Russian winter played a part but it didnt decide the outcome. The Nazi thrust initially headed for Moscow and was only days away. Hitler got cocky thinking he had won and decided to split that army into two groups one continued toward Moscow and the other headed toward the Ukraine to secure the oil fields. A massive miscalculation. The Russians against all odds held out at Moscow then finished the Germans off in the east at Stalingrad. If you look at the numbers of people lost, between them the Allies lost abut 800,000 a huge number indeed but the Russians lost somewhere in the region of 27 million people. Without the Russians the nazis would not have been stopped history and any historian worth their salt will tell you this.

Thomas_I

WakeUp wrote: »

...
Right can someone here explain to me the benefits of joining NATO?? We have a vast ocean then the States to our west and a friendly NATO member Britain to our east. We also have NATO coverage on the island already as Northern Ireland falls under British juristiction so whats the point?? If push came to shove and somebody did try invade us or whatever theres no way the US or Britain would let that happen. Not because they love us plucky Irish or anything like that but for their own geo strategic interests it couldnt be allowed happen. Any nation that might be hostile toward us would in all likelyhood be hostile to our friends Britain and the US and Britain wouldnt tolerate such an entity on their doorstep and the US wouldnt tolerate that and access to the Western Atlantic that occupation of Ireland would in turn open up. So whats the point?? would be nice to hear some tangible benefits that come our way should we join up. Realpolitik dictates that foreign policy is about self interest. Anyone care to outline them for me...

Most of what you´ve said makes sense to me. The geo-stratigic points are indeed of some vital interest to the NATO states USA and UK, but I don´t see the RoI fitting as a NATO member. I suppose that it´s very expensive (I don´t know the rates other already NATO members of a similar size to the RoI are paying for). By keeping its neutrality the RoI is far better off.

Thomas_I

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...
Okay that's your opinion and we're talking about alternate realities but I really don't believe the Germans would have held Europe for too long. I don't deny that British involvement helped defeat the Germans I just don't think it was essential.

I can´t believe it!

The Germans hold Europe for far too long and this for six bloody years!

Sometimes these "anti-British" blinkers irks.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

...

Now on the "soviets could have taken the Germans by themselves" thats not true. Remember the harsh Russian winter helped even things on that front but the amount of german resources being used to fight the battle of Britain, Africa, France and many more was very important, the Germans would have blitzkriegd Russia with relative ease if afforded the time to attack in summer and more importantly the millions of men, tanks, planes etc being used elsewhere.

There hasn´t been that many occasions in which I´ve fully agreed with you, but this time it is. You´re absolutely right in all that.

All these ongoing statements against the British are really sickening to me, just for "what they´ve done to Ireland" and all the other "positive" things are downplayed. I´m nearly fed up by such statements, honestly.

Chuck Stone

Thomas_I wrote: »

Sometimes these "anti-British" blinkers irks.

Being critical of British militarism =/= being anti-British.

WakeUp

Thomas_I wrote: »

There hasn´t been that many occasions in which I´ve fully agreed with you, but this time it is. You´re absolutely right in all that.

All these ongoing statements against the British are really sickening to me, just for "what they´ve done to Ireland" and all the other "positive" things are downplayed. I´m nearly fed up by such statements, honestly.

There is no need to be sickened the statements arent against the British it isnt a case of being against them but they didnt defeat the Nazis on their own as some would have you believe no more than the Americans did. It was a combined effort with the deciding factor being the Russians and Germanys ill advised, planned and ill thought out operation Barbarosa. I think the British did a lot in world war 2. The British did a fine job in North Africa defeating Rommel he was the finest German general and he hated the nazi party and all it stood for it ended up costing him his life. When the British cracked the German code in Africa obviously it meant they knew about unit movements but more importantly supply routes. They estimate that after the code was cracked something like 60% of Rommels supplies were interupted and destroyed and you cant fight if you cant resupply basically he ran out of gas, equipment and men. When the Germans failed to take Malta the allies had an airbase in the mediterranean and used it to disrupt nazi supplies coming from Greece it was really crucial. During the Africa campaign 2/3rds of the German army was in Russia with the rest spread out everywhere else. Africa wasnt decisive but was important theres no doubt about that. It secured the Suez canal and oil fields and opened up Southern Italy and that in turn gave the Allies a base to bomb southern Germany from and wreak even more havoc on the nazis. That was Britains most crucial contribution to world war 2 in my opinion but it didnt decide the outcome important as it was.

Riddle101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay that's your opinion and we're talking about alternate realities but I really don't believe the Germans would have held Europe for too long. I don't deny that British involvement helped defeat the Germans I just don't think it was essential.

British involvement was very much essential in defeat Germany in WWII, since Germany had to fight a two pronged war. One in Russia and the other in Africa. They spread German forces thin, and always left them short of supplies, which kept the Germans at bay. Had Britain not been involved in the war, Germany would have focused their efforts on Russia alone, which means, the German effort in Russia would have been a lot worse for Russia. Although the Russians were certainly formidable, and they were essential in WWII, that does not mean Britain shouldn't get any credit either. They was just as essential as any of the armies who fought with Germany.

Also you said you don't think Germany would have held Europe for too long?That all depends really. If World War 2 had lasted longer, and Germany had been a lot more succesful, I think Germany would have allied with other countries and gotten them involved. I believe Spain would have joined in the war, just like Italy did. They stayed neutral during the war, but Franco also met with Hitler and Mussolini a couple of times. I think if the opportunity had arose, Franco would have joined in, and all three Facist countries would have been allies.

Storm 10

NATO would be good for us, we would be good for it, I imagine other foreign Military being deployed to Ireland ( as happens in pretty much every NATO Nation EG US Bases in UK such as RAF Lakenheath/RAFMildenhall ) could help our economy with much needed spending/Tourism hell you would be stupid to not take extra € that we vitally need.

Alos it might kick the Govt in the arse with rapidly creating jobs to build possibly needed infrastructure and create construction jobs.

Thomas_I

WakeUp wrote: »

There is no need to be sickened the statements arent against the British it isnt a case of being against them but they didnt defeat the Nazis on their own as some would have you believe no more than the Americans did. It was a combined effort with the deciding factor being the Russians and Germanys ill advised, planned and ill thought out operation Barbarosa. I think the British did a lot in world war 2. The British did a fine job in North Africa defeating Rommel he was the finest German general and he hated the nazi party and all it stood for it ended up costing him his life. When the British cracked the German code in Africa obviously it meant they knew about unit movements but more importantly supply routes. They estimate that after the code was cracked something like 60% of Rommels supplies were interupted and destroyed and you cant fight if you cant resupply basically he ran out of gas, equipment and men. When the Germans failed to take Malta the allies had an airbase in the mediterranean and used it to disrupt nazi supplies coming from Greece it was really crucial. During the Africa campaign 2/3rds of the German army was in Russia with the rest spread out everywhere else. Africa wasnt decisive but was important theres no doubt about that. It secured the Suez canal and oil fields and opened up Southern Italy and that in turn gave the Allies a base to bomb southern Germany from and wreak even more havoc on the nazis. That was Britains most crucial contribution to world war 2 in my opinion but it didnt decide the outcome important as it was.

I just disagree with you on your last line. Britain was after the fall of France the only country that resisted the Nazis for nearly two years on their own. So did Malta for even longer (1940 to 1943). The conduct of the Irish State according to its neutrality in WWII is a matter most controversially debated. As that has little or rather nothing to do with this thread, I´ll not go into further details on this. Britain and namely Winston Churchill took all of his efforts to forge the Alliance that won the war, first with the Soviets after they´ve been invaded in 1941 and bringing the Americans into the war by the lend and lease agreement between the USA and the UK re material help. After the attack of Pearl Harbour the USA were in the same boat. Without Britains successful resistance and winning the "Batle of Britain", the then Allies had scarcely got a base to launch D-Day in 1944. Italy was a starter but the main efforts were concentrated on the landings into Normandy.

I haven´t said that Britain won WWII on her own, I´m of course aware that this task has been just successful by the efforts of all the three Allied Nations, but I´m not going to accept in any way that the efforts of the British are downplayed for some "Irish nationalist" emotions which one has the opportunity to come across more often and even so on these boards.

I´m fair enough to leave every mans opinion as it is, but I´m not so thick that I can´t recognize these sentiments towards Britain and I´m free to say so. Ireland was despite its neutrality fair enough to let some "British War Internees" escape through the border to NI but keep the Germans in their camps. It has been the least what the Irish could do to keep their face in the presence of the Americans. De Valera´s "dimplomatic correct" condolences towards the German Ambassador after Hitlers suicide in May 1945 was the most embarrassing act he´s done and the way Ireland was willing to give shelter to Nazis after the war is a chapter for itself.

Thomas_I

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Being critical of British militarism =/= being anti-British.

To critisize Britain in her military failurs is one thing, to downplay their efforts is another. I´m often missing the awareness about the times when the Irish themselves contributed to this "British militarism" for centuries and they were not more or less "forced" to join the British Army / Navy than any other people in the UK or the then British Empire. I can understand that to admit these facts isn´t suiteable to the way the Irish view their own history but I´m not going to neglect it.

WakeUp

Thomas_I wrote: »

I just disagree with you on your last line. Britain was after the fall of France the only country that resisted the Nazis for nearly two years on their own. So did Malta for even longer (1940 to 1943). The conduct of the Irish State according to its neutrality in WWII is a matter most controversially debated. As that has little or rather nothing to do with this thread, I´ll not go into further details on this. Britain and namely Winston Churchill took all of his efforts to forge the Alliance that won the war, first with the Soviets after they´ve been invaded in 1941 and bringing the Americans into the war by the lend and lease agreement between the USA and the UK re material help. After the attack of Pearl Harbour the USA were in the same boat. Without Britains successful resistance and winning the "Batle of Britain", the then Allies had scarcely got a base to launch D-Day in 1944. Italy was a starter but the main efforts were concentrated on the landings into Normandy.

I haven´t said that Britain won WWII on her own, I´m of course aware that this task has been just successful by the efforts of all the three Allied Nations, but I´m not going to accept in any way that the efforts of the British are downplayed for some "Irish nationalist" emotions which one has the opportunity to come across more often and even so on these boards.

I´m fair enough to leave every mans opinion as it is, but I´m not so thick that I can´t recognize these sentiments towards Britain and I´m free to say so. Ireland was despite its neutrality fair enough to let some "British War Internees" escape through the border to NI but keep the Germans in their camps. It has been the least what the Irish could do to keep their face in the presence of the Americans. De Valera´s "dimplomatic correct" condolences towards the German Ambassador after Hitlers suicide in May 1945 was the most embarrassing act he´s done and the way Ireland was willing to give shelter to Nazis after the war is a chapter for itself.

Like you said going into further detail about this is probably a topic for another thread. Nobody is downplaying the actions of Britain no need to be so defensive about it and it has nothing to do with Irish nationalism I dont know where you got that from you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting five there. The British were steamrolled and ran out of France along with the French. Had the Germans launched a full scale invasion of Britain its doubtful the British would have come out on top or resisted though as Ive already said they did a good job and played a part in world war 2 of course they did no one is denying that.

The part Ive bolded Im going to make a point about. Anybody who critisises Ireland after the war whislt blowing the trumpet of the Allies in relation to Germans and nazis being given shelter and makes a comment like the one you made is one of two things - a hypocrite or ill informed. I am not suggesting you are a hypocrite not for a second you dont strike me as that sort of person perhaps you are ill informed. Familiarise yourself with project paperclip - you could write a ten volume book - forget about a chapter - about the shelter given to Nazi war criminals by the Allies in their countries. People like to beat Ireland over the head over such a thing and I like to point out home truths. It has been covieniently "air brushed" out of history so before you decide to have a pop at Ireland maybe you should take a closer look at things you may be surprised what you find.:)

Riddle101

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´m fair enough to leave every mans opinion as it is, but I´m not so thick that I can´t recognize these sentiments towards Britain and I´m free to say so. Ireland was despite its neutrality fair enough to let some "British War Internees" escape through the border to NI but keep the Germans in their camps. It has been the least what the Irish could do to keep their face in the presence of the Americans. De Valera´s "dimplomatic correct" condolences towards the German Ambassador after Hitlers suicide in May 1945 was the most embarrassing act he´s done and the way Ireland was willing to give shelter to Nazis after the war is a chapter for itself.

It was poor judgement on DeValera's part to give his condolences as did Douglas Hyde. However his thoughts at the time was that it would further show Ireland's neutrality. DeValera also gave condolences to FDR when he passed away too. Although looking back on it now, I agree it was embarrassing, but the mentality at the time was different to today, where we can look back on history from a revisonist view, as opposed to back then when it happened at the time. Decisions made at the time can be looked back on in a negative light today, but back then it may have seemed like the right decision. After all, when you look back to 9/11. We can look back from an objective point of view, because a lot of things were done from poor judgement, but back then it might have seemed right at the time. Again, I don't like that DeValera and Hyde gave their condolences. But at the time, Ireland was neutral, and the mentality was given condolences further solified their neutrality even if the Allied Forces didn't like it.

Thomas_I

WakeUp wrote: »

Like you said going into further detail about this is probably a topic for another thread. Nobody is downplaying the actions of Britain no need to be so defensive about it and it has nothing to do with Irish nationalism I dont know where you got that from you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting five there. The British were steamrolled and ran out of France along with the French. Had the Germans launched a full scale invasion of Britain its doubtful the British would have come out on top or resisted though as Ive already said they did a good job and played a part in world war 2 of course they did no one is denying that.

Maybe we´ve both a different perception on such matters.

WakeUp wrote: »

The part Ive bolded Im going to make a point about. Anybody who critisises Ireland after the war whislt blowing the trumpet of the Allies in relation to Germans and nazis being given shelter and makes a comment like the one you made is one of two things - a hypocrite or ill informed. I am not suggesting you are a hypocrite not for a second you dont strike me as that sort of person perhaps you are ill informed. Familiarise yourself with project paperclip - you could write a ten volume book - forget about a chapter - about the shelter given to Nazi war criminals by the Allies in their countries. People like to beat Ireland over the head over such a thing and I like to point out home truths. It has been covieniently "air brushed" out of history so before you decide to have a pop at Ireland maybe you should take a closer look at things you may be surprised what you find.:)

Thanks for that link, it refers to those scientists useful to the Americans. I know about that. I wasn´t referring in my statement to these scientists, nor was it about "war criminals". The worst of them escaped via the "rat-line" to South America. My point was how far and how deep the Irish State was involved in "co-operation" with the Third Reich and what the reasons for that has been. I´m not "beating Ireland over the head" over such things. I´m merely pointing out that the Irish had their friends in the Germans as long as it was going against England. But we´re already drifting too far from the topic of this thread.

Thomas_I

Riddle101 wrote: »

It was poor judgement on DeValera's part to give his condolences as did Douglas Hyde. However his thoughts at the time was that it would further show Ireland's neutrality. DeValera also gave condolences to FDR when he passed away too. Although looking back on it now, I agree it was embarrassing, but the mentality at the time was different to today, where we can look back on history from a revisonist view, as opposed to back then when it happened at the time. Decisions made at the time can be looked back on in a negative light today, but back then it may have seemed like the right decision. After all, when you look back to 9/11. We can look back from an objective point of view, because a lot of things were done from poor judgement, but back then it might have seemed right at the time. Again, I don't like that DeValera and Hyde gave their condolences. But at the time, Ireland was neutral, and the mentality was given condolences further solified their neutrality even if the Allied Forces didn't like it.

I´ve read some statements similar to yours about that. Some people say, that De Valera either hasn´t got a clue about Nazism, or even worse he was a sympathiser to them. The first seems to be more likely to me, the latter is a bold assumption but I´m sure about none of the both mentioned, he hated the English and he welcomed every difficulty they could have.

Remember the (as far as I´m right in this) motto from P. Pearse "Englands difficulties are Irelands opportunities". That is no shallow phrase it has been used on fitting occasions, like in 1936 / 1937 (Abdication Crisis by Englands King Edward VIII. and introduction of the Irish Constitution with abolishing the oath of allegiance towards the English King).

WakeUp

Thomas_I wrote: »

Thanks for that link, it refers to those scientists useful to the Americans. I know about that. I wasn´t referring in my statement to these scientists, nor was it about "war criminals". The worst of them escaped via the "rat-line" to South America. My point was how far and how deep the Irish State was involved in "co-operation" with the Third Reich and what the reasons for that has been. I´m not "beating Ireland over the head" over such things. I´m merely pointing out that the Irish had their friends in the Germans as long as it was going against England. But we´re already drifting too far from the topic of this thread.

Well Thomas you seem like a decent auld skin and I agree we are going off topic here but Im going to take you to task over your previous comment. You said "nazi" and it wasnt just scientists that the Allies recruited and gave shelter too. So it was ok to recruit some nazis but not others?? thats hypocritical though its the response that is usually forthcoming when I bring up paperclip as a retort to "evil" Ireland after the war.

Have a read about Otto. This man help set up the CIA was a former SS officer and was involved in the planning of Hitlers final solution. Thousands of former nazis were given new identities and shleter including Otto by the allies so forgive me if I find it a bit rich and have a little chuckle to myself when Ireland is demonised for giving shelter to German pilots and such. Sometimes the truth hurts but its the truth none the less. The Allies and people from those countries or people in general who critisise other nations after the war havent a leg to stand on in my opinion which is why I make a point of pointing such things out. I shall leave it at that:)

speedboatchase

There's an actual door? :eek:

Riddle101

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´ve read some statements similar to yours about that. Some people say, that De Valera either hasn´t got a clue about Nazism, or even worse he was a sympathiser to them. The first seems to be more likely to me, the latter is a bold assumption but I´m sure about none of the both mentioned, he hated the English and he welcomed every difficulty they could have.

Remember the (as far as I´m right in this) motto from P. Pearse "Englands difficulties are Irelands opportunities". That is no shallow phrase it has been used on fitting occasions, like in 1936 / 1937 (Abdication Crisis by Englands King Edward VIII. and introduction of the Irish Constitution with abolishing the oath of allegiance towards the English King).

Maybe there was some anti-British sentiment from DeValera. But there's a saying "Old wounds never heal, until you acknowledge them and move on". There was still an awful lot of bitterness and old grudges between Ireland and England due to their past history. I would assume DeValera was the same way. But then again, that happens when two countries fight. I'm sure there was a lot of anti-Irish sentiment in England too.

That being said of course. Britain didn't exactly make it easy either. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, called for an invasion of Ireland, and plans were drawn up to seize ports over here too. Luckily it never came to fruition, but England did invade Iceland during WWII. So it's not like Britain wouldn't have been a stranger for violating another countries neutrality as well.

Thomas_I

WakeUp wrote: »

Well Thomas you seem like a decent auld skin and I agree we are going off topic here but Im going to take you to task over your previous comment. You said "nazi" and it wasnt just scientists that the Allies recruited and gave shelter too. So it was ok to recruit some nazis but not others?? thats hypocritical though its the response that is usually forthcoming when I bring up paperclip as a retort to "evil" Ireland after the war.

Have a read about Otto. This man help set up the CIA was a former SS officer and was involved in the planning of Hitlers final solution. Thousands of former nazis were given new identities and shleter including Otto by the allies so forgive me if I find it a bit rich and have a little chuckle to myself when Ireland is demonised for giving shelter to German pilots and such. Sometimes the truth hurts but its the truth none the less. The Allies and people from those countries or people in general who critisise other nations after the war havent a leg to stand on in my opinion which is why I make a point of pointing such things out. I shall leave it at that:)

Hold on a minute please. I was never speaking of "evil" Ireland and I´m not hypocritical towards Ireland in any way. You´ve mentioned "Pilots" of the German Luftwaffe, shot down by the British and managed to get ashore to Ireland and remained there in custody for the duration of the war, as this was what the Irish State did at that time. It was of course the decision of the Irish State to give them residence permissions to stay there after the war. There are some other stories, aside from the PoWs in Ireland, such as the co-operation of German Nazi spies in Ireland with the (also then illegal) IRA, but that isn´t a issue for this topic either. I just mention that by the way.

As for the higher rank Nazis taken into service by the Americans and the Soviets, they were supplied with other identities if necessary and this was the decision taken by these states as such people were for their use (see the link in your post). That´s politics in the light of the cold war. The other way round were those already with "false" identities entering the USA and when later on their war crimes has been discovered, these people were treated differently. I admit, that I have no evidence nor did I ever come across such thing that a high rank Nazi war criminal was given shelter in the Irish State. I´d assume that among these former PoWs, Ireland has taken some of the "smaller ones" into their society. It seems that they were few enough and did no harm to Ireland at all. I think that we can leave it at that. Now you could ask "what´s the point anyway?". I don´t know either, besides some rather "irritating" behaviour on some now historical occasions. That´s the point I was trying to make.

Thomas_I

Riddle101 wrote: »

Maybe there was some anti-British sentiment from DeValera. But there's a saying "Old wounds never heal, until you acknowledge them and move on". There was still an awful lot of bitterness and old grudges between Ireland and England due to their past history. I would assume DeValera was the same way. But then again, that happens when two countries fight. I'm sure there was a lot of anti-Irish sentiment in England too.

That being said of course. Britain didn't exactly make it easy either. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, called for an invasion of Ireland, and plans were drawn up to seize ports over here too. Luckily it never came to fruition, but England did invade Iceland during WWII. So it's not like Britain wouldn't have been a stranger for violating another countries neutrality as well.

To sum it up in one sentence, the history of England and Ireland (and vice versa) is a story of "love and hate".

You forget to mention that Iceland has also served as a base for the USA during WWII. Still, I see it as a bit different than the occupation of Norway (which the British have failed to achieve before the Germans succeeded). These were different purposes and the British didn´t go into Iceland to take it into their Empire, it was a strategic one. As for the Germans, it was purely for Imperial reasons.

Riddle101

Thomas_I wrote: »

To sum it up in one sentence, the history of England and Ireland (and vice versa) is a story of "love and hate".

You forget to mention that Iceland has also served as a base for the USA during WWII. Still, I see it as a bit different than the occupation of Norway (which the British have failed to achieve before the Germans succeeded). These were different purposes and the British didn´t go into Iceland to take it into their Empire, it was a strategic one. As for the Germans, it was purely for Imperial reasons.

I realize that, but they still violated their neutrality, and invaded them. The defence of Iceland was later transferred to USA however, because USA was still neautral at the time. My point being, invading Ireland wasn't entirely out of Britain's mind, so it was hard to trust them at the time.

Thomas_I

Riddle101 wrote: »

I realize that, but they still violated their neutrality, and invaded them. The defence of Iceland was later transferred to USA however, because USA was still neautral at the time. My point being, invading Ireland wasn't entirely out of Britain's mind, so it was hard to trust them at the time.

I got your point and I admit, if it had been necessary for the survival of Britain, Churchill probably had had no qualms to get an invasion of Ireland launched. As a matter of fact, he didn´t.

I correct myself, it´s more like "mutual distrust" (England and Ireland).

WakeUp

Thomas_I wrote: »

Hold on a minute please. I was never speaking of "evil" Ireland and I´m not hypocritical towards Ireland in any way. You´ve mentioned "Pilots" of the German Luftwaffe, shot down by the British and managed to get ashore to Ireland and remained there in custody for the duration of the war, as this was what the Irish State did at that time. It was of course the decision of the Irish State to give them residence permissions to stay there after the war. There are some other stories, aside from the PoWs in Ireland, such as the co-operation of German Nazi spies in Ireland with the (also then illegal) IRA, but that isn´t a issue for this topic either. I just mention that by the way.

As for the higher rank Nazis taken into service by the Americans and the Soviets, they were supplied with other identities if necessary and this was the decision taken by these states as such people were for their use (see the link in your post). That´s politics in the light of the cold war. The other way round were those already with "false" identities entering the USA and when later on their war crimes has been discovered, these people were treated differently. I admit, that I have no evidence nor did I ever come across such thing that a high rank Nazi war criminal was given shelter in the Irish State. I´d assume that among these former PoWs, Ireland has taken some of the "smaller ones" into their society. It seems that they were few enough and did no harm to Ireland at all. I think that we can leave it at that. Now you could ask "what´s the point anyway?". I don´t know either, besides some rather "irritating" behaviour on some now historical occasions. That´s the point I was trying to make.

See now your backtracking and making excuses for the allies rounding up thousands of nazis some former SS memembers included, you know who the SS were right?. The reason I brought up paperclip is because of your comment about Ireland shletering Germans and how you could write a chapter on that. Ill see your chapter and raise you a library if you wanna talk about nazis being sheltered. You cant on the one hand make comments like yours and on the other say the allies had their "reasons" this is the issue I have with comments like yours. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by your chapter comment considering the amount of nazis the allies recruited including monsters like Otto Von Bolschwing? Do you honestly believe the allies didnt know what nazis they were recruiting??:D the reasons they gave them new identities was to hide their nazi past. I realise this is a touchy subject but I encounter the same thing time and again when I bring it up and thats excuses.

Thomas_I

WakeUp wrote: »

See now your backtracking and making excuses for the allies rounding up thousands of nazis some former SS memembers included, you know who the SS were right?. The reason I brought up paperclip is because of your comment about Ireland shletering Germans and how you could write a chapter on that. Ill see your chapter and raise you a library if you wanna talk about nazis being sheltered. You cant on the one hand make comments like yours and on the other say the allies had their "reasons" this is the issue I have with comments like yours. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by your chapter comment considering the amount of nazis the allies recruited including monsters like Otto Von Bolschwing? Do you honestly believe the allies didnt know what nazis they were recruiting??:D the reasons they gave them new identities was to hide their nazi past. I realise this is a touchy subject but I encounter the same thing time and again when I bring it up and thats excuses.

I know what the SS was and the Allies know perfectly well what kind of people they were recruiting after the war. As I said before, that all served their purposes. Of course I can say that because that´s the way it went. You can complain about the moral aspects in that, but it doesn´t alter that. That is the explanation of my comment. It´s not so much a touchy thing as it can become something like a pain in the a... .

Other question on this to you: Do you think that the Irish State was well informed about the Third Reich or was it likely that they were a bit naive? I mean aside from the propaganda.

WakeUp

Thomas_I wrote: »

I know what the SS was and the Allies know perfectly well what kind of people they were recruiting after the war. As I said before, that all served their purposes. Of course I can say that because that´s the way it went. You can complain about the moral aspects in that, but it doesn´t alter that. That is the explanation of my comment. It´s not so much a touchy thing as it can become something like a pain in the a... .

Other question on this to you: Do you think that the Irish State was well informed about the Third Reich or was it likely that they were a bit naive? I mean aside from the propaganda.

Ok so, if Ireland is to be critisised for sheltering German pilots and such is it a fair comment to say that the Allies should then be ashamed of themselves for their recruitment of nazi scientists and monsters?? Does that also make the Nuremburg trials after the war slightly hypocritical, staged to appease public opinion and a bit of a sham??...

Personally I cant see how the Irish state couldnt have known what the third Reich was all about in what context are you asking me that question??...