Nazi memorabilia for sale in Dublin. Appropriate?

Tony EH

StudentDad wrote: »

Officially we were 'neutral' in practice we were hardly that. We benefitted from the protection of UK/Commonwealth forces initially and US forces later on in the war. I know of people who went to fight in WWII against the Third Reich and were treated as traitors on their return. Whether they were members of the Irish Armed Forces or private citizens too many of them were treated badly by both official and unofficial Ireland. At the end of the hostilities after benefitting from the protection of Allied forces we then turn around and give a diplomatic slap in the face to those very forces who protected us by offering condolences on the death of Hitler. (A man who killed himself rather than face the consequences of his actions).


SD

I can tell you from familial experience that this is untrue.

My father was in the Royal Engineers during the war and transferred to the RAF at the end. When he came home to Ireland, in his RAF uniform, nothing was said to him by anyone, never mind being "treated badly" by Ireland. The worst he and most of the people he knew got was simply a lack of recognition, not that they cared for such things.

Pretty much the same thing happened to his father and that was in a time where taking the "Queens shilling" was even more frowned upon.

Although I've no doubt there was the odd fuckwit who thought they knew it all and couldn't wait to mouth off. But my dad's encounters with them were nothing to be worried about and were few and far between. The fact is few people really talked about the war. They were eager to put it behind them. Plus, in the 50's and 60's, half of Ireland was heading off to England for work. Nobody really gave a damn what lippy so and so's had to say about a conflict nobody cared that much about any longer.

Also, the condolences were to the nation, not really for Hitler. Ireland had no gripe with the German people in 1945.

Tony EH

StudentDad wrote: »

You honestly think a little thing like 'neutrality' would have stopped Hitler had he gotten past Allied forces? Nevermind the fact that UBoats sunk Irish shipping with impunity? Friends they were not.


SD

Hitler wanted nothing to do with Ireland. He didn't even want to bother with Britain. His main and only real military goal was Russia. Everything else was a byproduct of Britain and France declaring war on Germany.

The only definite cases I know of a U-boat deliberately sinking an Irish vessel (out of convoy) was in the case of the Leukos in March 1940, sunk by U-38. There's been no reason given as an explanation, as plenty of Irish Shipping went about their business free of engagement by German U-Boats and there are numerous occasions where the vessel was boarded and set on her way unmolested.

Another case was the Luimneach, which was boarded and the crew ordered to lifeboats with provisions, then she was sunk by gunfire by U-46.

The Irish Oak was sunk in 1943, as the Captain of U-607 couldn't find record of her in the shipping register. He ordered the crew off the boat and fire a torpedo, which eventually sunk her.

In those cases the U-Boat log stated that the vessel's markings had been noted. There were some other cases, but they were either in a convoy, which meant they were fair game, or the nature of the vessel was unknown.

So, Irish ships were not sunk "with impunity".

In fact the Germans went to great lengths to avoid such things, even though it was nigh on impossible.

Tony EH

gandalf wrote: »

They decided to join forces that were fighting with a truly dreadful regime. If I was around at that time I would like to think that I would have done the same.

The vast majority of men who went to Britain to join up did so largely for mercenary reasons. There was no glory seeking and any high minded post war concepts.

Joining the British Army meant the possibility of getting a trade, a good pension and a better life.

Few had any high ideals about fighting the Germans.

Tony EH

Jawgap wrote: »

North Strand wasn't bombed?

I know it was an accident, but one theory was we were hit for sending aid to Belfast when they were blitzed - the Luftwaffe were aiming for Amiens Street Station because it was heavily used to send aid north, and receive refugees and casualties heading south.

Almost definitely an accident. The crew probably thought they were hitting targets in the North.

As far as I recall, didn't Hitler send an apology to Ireland, some of which was written in bad Irish?

Certainly the British made a hulabaloo out of the whole thing and tried to use it as a reason for Ireland to join their cause. There's a Pathe news reel that blames the Irish for "sitting on the fence." As if joining Britain in the war would mean lesser bombing.

Wurzelbert

Tony EH wrote: »

Almost definitely an accident. The crew probably thought they were hitting targets in the North.

As far as I recall, didn't Hitler send an apology to Ireland, some of which was written in bad Irish?

Certainly the British made a hulabaloo out of the whole thing and tried to use it as a reason for Ireland to join their cause. There's a Pathe news reel that blames the Irish for "sitting on the fence." As if joining Britain in the war would mean lesser bombing.

the allied bombings of switzerland come to mind…likely errors, yet some open questions remain…

Palbear

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't sell.

Don't buy.

Don't judge those that do.

I didn't.

Palbear

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Admire and value the craftsmanship of the weapon not the user .

Agreed.
That is one reason why I feel they should be in a museum not a shop.

Trading in Nazi goods creates desirability as does trade in any commodity.
That is simply market forces.
A downside is that this may enhance acceptability and legitimacy of a murderous regime.

To each their own.

Palbear

2011 wrote: »

Three pages of posts and one person agrees with me
I don't feel like such an old fart anymore :D

make that two people now.

(cue: the onslaught)

Eugene Norman

gandalf wrote: »

You are aware that a lot of those men joined the Irish Armed Forces in 1939 fully expecting Ireland to side with the allies only to see Ireland declare Neutrality and realise that they'd be used for manual labour for the duration of the "Emergancy".

They decided to join forces that were fighting with a truly dreadful regime. If I was around at that time I would like to think that I would have done the same.

They still deserted their posts as soldiers in an war/emergency.

Jawgap

Palbear wrote: »

Agreed.
That is one reason why I feel they should be in a museum not a shop.

Trading in Nazi goods creates desirability as does trade in any commodity.
That is simply market forces.
A downside is that this may enhance acceptability and legitimacy of a murderous regime.

To each their own.

Out of interest, what's your take on buying goods made companies who were up to their necks with the Nazi Party before and during WW2? Including those that profited from slave and conscripted labour?

Palbear

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest, what's your take on buying goods made companies who were up to their necks with the Nazi Party before and during WW2? Including those that profited from slave and conscripted labour?

Good question. I own two VW cars. A company that is Hitler's creation.

A friend of mine believes fervently that in the case of Germans, a leopard doesn't change its spots.

I disagree.

The world is a different place now. We are better educated. More inclusive.
I have German friends. They are good people. WW2 and The Holocaust was wrong but this is acknowledged by the Germans themselves as I evidenced visibly on a recent trip to Berlin.

hatrickpatrick

I genuinely don't understand people like the OP. As a cultural libertarian, I believe that free speech should extend to the sale of items. What argument is there against this?

Menas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand people like the OP. As a cultural libertarian, I believe that free speech should extend to the sale of items. What argument is there against this?

The argument is not really clear, despite so many posts in this thread.
Seems to be a mix of...
1) The items are evil!
2) Poor taste
3) Items will only be bought by new Nazis and we should ban them.
4) Profiteering from the war is bad.
5) Its an outrage and I am outraged.

Jawgap

Palbear wrote: »

Good question. I own two VW cars. A company that is Hitler's creation.

A friend of mine believes fervently that in the case of Germans, a leopard doesn't change its spots.

I disagree.

The world is a different place now. We are better educated. More inclusive.
I have German friends. They are good people. WW2 and The Holocaust was wrong but this is acknowledged by the Germans themselves as I evidenced visibly on a recent trip to Berlin.

I slightly agree with your friend - I think there is a tendency to want to dominate in the German 'DNA' - but that only expresses itself through wholly political means now.

Observing how they deal with the legacy of WW2, I find, is quite fascinating. When I lived there I visited the 'Documentation Center Nazi Party Rallying Grounds' just after it opened in Nuremberg. I remember still reflecting on what I saw for weeks afterwards - one of the most thought provoking museums I've ever visited.

Btw, I drive an Audi, and previously drove VWs - brilliant cars!

The Sun King

Jawgap wrote: »

I slightly agree with your friend - I think there is a tendency to want to dominate in the German 'DNA' - but that only expresses itself through wholly political means now.

Any other characteristics that are encoded into a people's DNA?

Heres a few you might agree with:

Big noses. A love of money.
A gift for mathematics.
A predisposition to thievery and child abandonment.
Terrorism.

I'll let you guess which belongs to which people. *rolls eyes*

Jawgap

The Sun King wrote: »

Any other characteristics that are encoded into a people's DNA?

Heres a few you might agree with:

Big noses. A love of money.
A gift for mathematics.
A predisposition to thievery and child abandonment.
Terrorism.

I'll let you guess which belongs to which people. *rolls eyes*

Oh dear.

It's a shame when people can't understand when something is being discussed figuratively :rolleyes:

Nice leap though.

The Sun King

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear.

It's a shame when people can't understand when something is being discussed figuratively :rolleyes:

Nice leap though.

Apologies, Doctor.

Share more findings from your research of genetics.

Pretty please!

Eugene Norman

The Sun King wrote: »

Apologies, Doctor.

Share more findings from your research of genetics.

Pretty please!

How is he supposed to argue against your strawmen? In saying the Germans tend to dominate - which I don't necessarily agree with – is a statement about culture not genetics.

Smiles35

The genetic smell of sweat.

The Sun King

Eugene Norman wrote: »

How is he supposed to argue against your strawmen? In saying the Germans tend to dominate - which I don't necessarily agree with – is a statement about culture not genetics.

Perhaps he might explain how the German will to dominate is entirely absent in the bedroom, leading to a thoroughly forgettable experience.

Perhaps I've given too much away in saying that...

Nekarsulm

I suppose there could be an argument made that Nazi memorabilia tends to be attractive to two distinct types of personality. The historically interested and, to a lesser degree, the worshippers. Stuff that represents such regimes holds up a kind of mirror to the soul of the purchaser. Like many men, as a kid I went through a phase of fascination with WW2, and more specifically the machinery of war. Tanks, planes, guns etc. Fed on a diet of comics like Warlord and Airfix models. I never developed a fascination with the regimes themselves.
I would still, if money and the law allowed, build a collection of Lugers and Schmeisser guns.
But I would distinguish between the person who collects daggers and badges and caps etc, and a person who would seek out Zyklon B canisters. I think that sale of most memorabilia is harmless in the main, and indeed may help viewers reflect on the dangers of Facism.

On different nations having certain personality traits, there was always a half joking belief that Germans possessed an engineering chromosome. But this trait is mainly explained by the school system, whereby youngsters get streamlined into particular branches of education relevant to their abilities. If you show an ability towards a particular trade, you would be encouraged to attend trade school reared towards this ability.

Jawgap

The Sun King wrote: »

Apologies, Doctor.

Share more findings from your research of genetics.

Pretty please!

If you didn't understand the use of the inverted commas, that's hardly my problem.

And your trivial barb would be so much better if you substituted 'eugenics' for 'genetics.' Just a suggestion.

Jawgap

Eugene Norman wrote: »

How is he supposed to argue against your strawmen? In saying the Germans tend to dominate - which I don't necessarily agree with – is a statement about culture not genetics.

Glad to see someone gets it

Tony EH

Palbear wrote: »

Agreed.
That is one reason why I feel they should be in a museum not a shop.

Trading in Nazi goods creates desirability as does trade in any commodity.
That is simply market forces.
A downside is that this may enhance acceptability and legitimacy of a murderous regime.

To each their own.

I asked you before, but you never answered...

Tony EH wrote: »

What about Roman coins? Or Red Army medals? Or British Army decorations?

Do you think Trajan's column should be demolished? A monument that celebrates the complete extermination of a whole nation?

Or are your "morals" reserved only for one aspect of history?

How do your "morals" stack up against trading in the items from other murderous regimes?

Palbear

I don't have an opinion to offer you on these off-topic matters
as honestly have never considered it.

The thread is about Nazi memorabilia.
France, Germany, Austria and Hungary all legally prohibit sales of same.
I support that position despite the fact that many here view this activity
happening in Dublin as acceptable.

That doesn't mean anybody else is wrong.
Just that we disagree.

And if my view is based on my own interpretation of right and wrong, then so be it.

Tony EH

That's a very weak answer.

Means Of Escape

Any photo,replaced part ,logbook etc associated with the Enola Gay should not be sold or in private hands due to its connection to the vapourising of thousands?

No Mitsubishi product should be bought due to the company manufacturing the engines that powered their aeroplanes that killed thousands in Pearl Harbour?

These are products from the past, made at a different time for a purpose that is no different to what weapons are made for today .

They can't be limited to museums simply based on their association with particular events or people .
If someone enjoys stamp collecting should all stamps associated with Germany from the 30s and 40s be confiscated for museum display only ?

Nothing would be achieved by this, All it is is a judgement on an individuals tastes and sanctimonious ribbing regarding their "morals "

What I would favour is that all antique military weapon purchases from these shops be registered
Unfortunately it's impossible to stamp out replication of genuine artefacts .

By all means allow all the military shops to sell war memorabilia from all nations just log it every time .
That would separate the wheat from the chaff

Dick phelan

This stuff is such nonsense it's like those people who give out about people dressed as Nazi's at reenactments or whatever, The Nazi's are a major part of history you'd swear they are the only evil group in history the way some people go on, do people get offended by Viking artifacts in Museums? What about stuff from Ancient Rome, Genghis Khan ect, People need to grow up and stop being so offended by the reality of history, it's not all sunshine rainbows to downplay the importance of the Nazi's or any other evil from history is incredibly stupid.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

Why should anyone care about your "morals"?

What about Roman coins? Or Red Army medals? Or British Army decorations?

Do you think Trajan's column should be demolished? A monument that celebrates the complete extermination of a whole nation?

Or are your "morals" reserved only for one aspect of history?

Some people may be of that mind........a petition on change.org......

Hadrians Wall Must Fall

To the Roman General Julius Caesar, Britain was mysterious, dangerous and exotic. It had remained free despite colonialist attempts by imperialist Rome to invade and conquer. This changed however, when Claudius brought his war elephants and expansionist policies and the conquest of Britain was assured. By AD122 Emperor Hadrian, who was rarely at home in Rome because he was being racist everywhere else, built a huge wall in northern England. This symbol of Roman supremacy stands today and is visited by thousands of pro war, neocon, fascist (likely) imperialist England haters, also known as tourists. In the spirit of #RhodesmustFall we are starting this petition to get Hadrian's wall removed brick by colonialist brick. If you care about the rights of indigenous Britons please sign. If you don't sign you are actively contributing to the continued oppression of ancient Britons and you support the colonialist imperialist hegemony of Rome, you fascists. #HadriansWallMustFall Thank you.

Tony EH

This symbol of Roman supremacy stands today and is visited by thousands of pro war, neocon, fascist (likely) imperialist England haters, also known as tourists.

:pac:

Palbear

Tony EH wrote: »

That's a very weak answer.

It was intended to be.

Your question is not one but a series. They are leading and I'm reluctant to go down this road but accepting them as genuine in the spirit that you are asking, I will elaborate.

Q: Why should anyone care about your "morals"?
A: They shouldn't. Everyone should make up their own mind about things. We are just discussing here. I have already explained this in my last response.

Q: What about Roman coins? Or Red Army medals? Or British Army decorations?
A: Trade in historical artefacts of war is acceptable. War is war. Conflict is not right of course but something that the human race has been doing since time began. I know little about the Red Army so caution there. Stalin I gather was odious. What makes Nazi memorabilia unique and worthy of banning, as some countries have done, is the evil that was the Holocaust. Genocide is not combat. My distaste for Nazism is further heightened by proximity and personal experience.

Do you think Trajan's column should be demolished?
No

A monument that celebrates the complete extermination of a whole nation?
Assume that's Trajan's Column.
Still no.
Demolished sounds drastic and I guess you mean commemorate.
I don't know what nation was exterminated in the Dacian Wars.

Or are your "morals" reserved only for one aspect of history?
No.
I view the actions of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as similar to Nazis. Add Rwanda, Bosnia and Congo genocides. And maybe more if I think about it hard enough.

Having now answered, I repeat that this is off-topic and none of the above are arguments that I proposed. Morals, the agitating word that seems to have brought us here, are simply one's interpretation of right and wrong. It is for each of us to decide this for ourselves. You are particularly interested in mine so I hope this clarifies things for you. But I won't be drawn further. Feel free to add a riposte but do so in the knowledge that my contribution here is done.

thank you.

Tony EH

Palbear wrote: »

It was intended to be.

Your question is not one but a series. They are leading and I'm reluctant to go down this road but accepting them as genuine in the spirit that you are asking, I will elaborate.

They're not "leading" questions at all. They're perfectly valid given your stance. You object to the selling of items from the Germans in WWII, because holocaust...but come across blissfully unaware of other incidents of that type throughout history, of which there are, lamentably, quite a few. The example of Dacia was pointed out to you. Other examples exhibited can be the Turks treatment of Armenians in WWI, or the extermination of the Native American Indian in North America.

Palbear wrote: »

Q: Why should anyone care about your "morals"?
A: They shouldn't. Everyone should make up their own mind about things. We are just discussing here. I have already explained this in my last response.

I think everybody will, in any case. I just find "morals" as a reason to object to the selling of historical items to be rather spurious. In my experience, a persons "morals" tend to be quite fluid and therefore subject to change based on circumstance, to put it politely. I simply don't accept a "moral" argument against the selling of items from a dead regime, turned to dust over 70 years ago, especially when we can point to other regimes that were just as bad, if not worse, that generally go unlit by the "moral" spotlight.

Palbear wrote: »

Q: What about Roman coins? Or Red Army medals? Or British Army decorations?
A: Trade in historical artefacts of war is acceptable. War is war. Conflict is not right of course but something that the human race has been doing since time began. I know little about the Red Army so caution there. Stalin I gather was odious. What makes Nazi memorabilia unique and worthy of banning, as some countries have done, is the evil that was the Holocaust. Genocide is not combat. My distaste for Nazism is further heightened by proximity and personal experience.

An Iron Cross IS an historical artifact and one that is of particular interest in the community that collects such items. The holocaust doesn't preclude it from being so, just as the holocaust visited upon Dacia doesn't exclude the selling of Roman coins with Trajan's head minted on them. There are plenty of regimes throughout history that can easily rival the Germans for brutality and their historical items are traded every day without a whisper from the "outraged".

I's argue that your "distaste for nazism" is heightened by a lack of knowledge of those others and with those narrow parameters, you find yourself with a tunnel vision and a completely untenable set of double standards.

Palbear wrote: »

Do you think Trajan's column should be demolished?
No

A monument that celebrates the complete extermination of a whole nation?
Assume that's Trajan's Column.
Still no.
Demolished sounds drastic and I guess you mean commemorate.
I don't know what nation was exterminated in the Dacian Wars.

Trajan's column, which millions pass by each month stands proudly in the middle of Trajan's forum in Rome. It was built to commemorate the extermination of Dacia (modern day Romania) by the armies of Emperor Trajan around 106AD. There are coins minted to celebrate the event and other trinkets too.

Palbear wrote: »

Or are your "morals" reserved only for one aspect of history?
No.
I view the actions of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as similar to Nazis. Add Rwanda, Bosnia and Congo genocides. And maybe more if I think about it hard enough.

This is the issue. You clearly haven't thought about it hard enough. If you did, you'd find your stance unreasonable as others do. If you wish to apply those standards to the collection of WWII German items, then you must apply them to every item that is available for collection by people who collect such historical items. If you don't, you leave your argument out for dismissal and yourself wide open for ridicule, to be quite frank.

Palbear wrote: »

Having now answered, I repeat that this is off-topic and none of the above are arguments that I proposed.

It's entirely within the topic at hand, which is the selling of items that were available during a regime that carried out an attempt at genocide during a war. It's completely valid to compare and contrast other regimes that have done similar things in a pursuit to understand why a particular argument against would be thus presented.

Palbear wrote: »

Morals, the agitating word that seems to have brought us here, are simply one's interpretation of right and wrong. It is for each of us to decide this for ourselves. You are particularly interested in mine so I hope this clarifies things for you. But I won't be drawn further. Feel free to add a riposte but do so in the knowledge that my contribution here is done.

thank you.

I'm not really that interested in your morals, as explained above. I find "morals" to a very mewling stance on any given subject and usually offered as a reason to object to something without really knowing why one should object and often happens within a vacuum of knowledge.

The most traded item from the Third Reich are medals, largely the Iron Cross. Bits of iron and silver, completely bereft of politics and the trappings of a human mind and its principles, noble or otherwise. It's also merely the continuation of the WWI Iron Cross, which itself was a run on from a Prussian award.

To object to such items being for sale, on that basis of "morals", is such a unsound stance that it eventually becomes indefensible.

recipio

As there is a constant demand for Nazi memorabilia there will be a constant supply - most of it fake.Those are the rules of capitalism so no point getting upset about it.

osarusan

Palbear wrote: »

Having now answered, I repeat that this is off-topic and none of the above are arguments that I proposed. Morals, the agitating word that seems to have brought us here, are simply one's interpretation of right and wrong. It is for each of us to decide this for ourselves. You are particularly interested in mine so I hope this clarifies things for you. But I won't be drawn further. Feel free to add a riposte but do so in the knowledge that my contribution here is done.

thank you.

Seems fairly obvious that the poster wants to see the principles behind your argument and whether you apply those principles consistently.

Also seems fairly obvious that you don't want to examine your own position at all.

pcardin

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I was in Bulgaria a few years ago at a street market. There was loads of old nazi stuff there. From old helmets, to knives, medals etc. it is kinda eerie being so close to something that was so evil. Id agree with op. They shouldn't be on sale.

yes, evil but Kids game in comparison with crimes committed and number of people killed by USSR and Red Army. Allies, especially Americans (Hiroshima) weren't innocent either. If Nazi artifacts shouldn't be, the other ones shouldn't be either.

Eugene Norman

Jawgap wrote: »

By allowing fuel, products and produce bound for Ireland to be shipped on their ships......by allowing the armed forces of the country to buy supplies, equipment and spares (those Spitfires & Hurricanes didn't fly on water), sharing intelligence, co-ordinating contingency planning, etc.

Did the Germans always declare war before invading? And if we weren't at war how did the North Strand ( as well as other locations around the country) get bombed? (And if you are going to mention beam-bending, explain the physics).....and how did ships like Irish Oak, Luimneach etc get sunk?

I've been thinking about this answer. It's almost certainly arse over tit.

Ireland had a state owned merchant fleet. The Germans tried not to sink them– despite the two you mentioned an Irish registered ship was safer than a British registered ship. We were more than self sufficient in food. And we didn't rely on British or allied ships to transport coal - the Americans refused to enter Irish waters and the import and export market was mostly if not entirely dependent on Irish registered ships.

If anything Irish exports to Britain of food saved them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Mercantile_Marine_during_World_War_II

Jawgap

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I've been thinking about this answer. It's almost certainly arse over tit.

Ireland had a state owned merchant fleet. The Germans tried not to sink them– despite the two you mentioned an Irish registered ship was safer than a British registered ship. We were more than self sufficient in food. And we didn't rely on British or allied ships to transport coal - the Americans refused to enter Irish waters and the import and export market was mostly if not entirely dependent on Irish registered ships.

If anything Irish exports to Britain of food saved them

And fuel as in petrol, oil, lubricants?

And I just cited 2 examples, the Germans were responsible for sinking 16 Irish ships in total during WW2.

Eugene Norman

Jawgap wrote: »

And fuel as in petrol, oil, lubricants?

And I just cited 2 examples, the Germans were responsible for sinking 16 Irish ships in total during WW2.

Out of 60 or so. In 5 years. Read the link. Yes fuel. We traded food for fuel. We could have more easily survived with less fuel than could have without Britain without our food.

But you said that we depended on the allied ships for transport. We created our own fleet.

You said.

By allowing fuel, products and produce bound for Ireland to be shipped on their ships

If anything irelands merchant marine's role in keeping Britain fed (and Ireland fuelled) has been under played.

Jawgap

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Out of 60 or so. In 5 years. Read the link. Yes fuel. We traded food for fuel. We could have more easily survived with less fuel than could have without Britain without our food.

But you said that we depended on the allied ships for transport. We created our own fleet.

You said.

By allowing fuel, products and produce bound for Ireland to be shipped on their ships

If anything irelands merchant marine's role in keeping Britain fed (and Ireland fuelled) has been under played.

Eh, no.

Our merchant marine at the outset of WW2 comprised of 56 ships - none of which were ocean-going vessels.

Irish Shipping was established in March 1941 and 15 ocean-going dry cargo ships (meaning no capacity for POL) were purchased/chartered with some assistance from the British.

Two of those 15 were sunk - the Oak and the Pine. In the case of the Oak, the U-boat captain saw her neutrality markings, but fired anyway because she was not listed in his standing orders as a neutral vessel. She was carrying phosphate at the time - difficult to be self-sufficient in food if you don't have fertiliser.

Pine was sunk after she was stalked for 8 hours in pretty foul weather. The U-boat skipper claimed he didn't see her neutrality markings. She went down and all 33 crew were lost.

And we traded food for coal - under the Cattle for Coal agreement. Coal isn't the only fuel. How do you think the country would've fared without petrol, oil, etc? Never mind tea!

Eugene Norman

Jawgap wrote: »

Eh, no.

Our merchant marine at the outset of WW2 comprised of 56 ships - none of which were ocean-going vessels.

Irish Shipping was established in March 1941 and 15 ocean-going dry cargo ships (meaning no capacity for POL) were purchased/chartered with some assistance from the British.

Two of those 15 were sunk - the Oak and the Pine. In the case of the Oak, the U-boat captain saw her neutrality markings, but fired anyway because she was not listed in his standing orders as a neutral vessel. She was carrying phosphate at the time - difficult to be self-sufficient in food if you don't have fertiliser.

Pine was sunk after she was stalked for 8 hours in pretty foul weather. The U-boat skipper claimed he didn't see her neutrality markings. She went down and all 33 crew were lost.

And we traded food for coal - under the Cattle for Coal agreement. Coal isn't the only fuel. How do you think the country would've fared without petrol, oil, etc? Never mind tea!

What in Gods name are you arguing about. You originally said we depended on other countries ships to trade during the war. I refuted that. You apparently then reward my link reply with "eh,no" and quote from that link.

I've had more honest arguments with 6 year olds.

Stop quoting my links back to me to make what you now think is your point. Your point – which I have demolished – is that we depended on Britain for shipping . I know we traded for fuel. I said that. I was clearly refuting your original point which I will now quite again. Please do not reply with direct quotes from my links.

You said.

By allowing fuel, products and produce bound for Ireland to be shipped on their ships

kowloon

the evasion_kid wrote: »

http://i.imgur.com/I0t0I.gif

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/629/331/176.gif

winnie the schtink

This is terrible i will never be able to look at my beloved KDF wagen with the same eyes again

Jawgap

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What in Gods name are you arguing about. You originally said we depended on other countries ships to trade during the war. I refuted that. You apparently then reward my link reply with "eh,no" and quote from that link.

I've had more honest arguments with 6 year olds.

Stop quoting my links back to me to make what you now think is your point. Your point – which I have demolished – is that we depended on Britain for shipping . I know we traded for fuel. I said that. I was clearly refuting your original point which I will now quite again. Please do not reply with direct quotes from my links.

You said.

I think you'll find I never send 'depended.' In response to the question of how did we benefit from Allied protection......

Bambi wrote: »

Fascinating, how did the allies protect us when nobody was at war with us

I replied with a post that included a reference to shipping....

Jawgap wrote: »

By allowing fuel, products and produce bound for Ireland to be shipped on their ships......by allowing the armed forces of the country to buy supplies, equipment and spares (those Spitfires & Hurricanes didn't fly on water), sharing intelligence, co-ordinating contingency planning, etc.

Did the Germans always declare war before invading? And if we weren't at war how did the North Strand ( as well as other locations around the country) get bombed? (And if you are going to mention beam-bending, explain the physics).....and how did ships like Irish Oak, Luimneach etc get sunk?

You seem to have seized in that and decided it means that I posted something about dependence.

My point remains valid, the procurement, transport and delivery of a lot of what we needed to maintain our economy during WW2 including, POL, fertilisers, spares, medicines, grain etc were facilitated by the Allies.

They also held and protected our gold reserves. I presume they'd have included them in the contingency plan to evacuate the BoE to Canada.

deni20000

I love Nazi stuff very cool compared to british stuff

Wibbs

The sad loss of Lemmy from Motorhead yesterday is relevant enough. When asked about his pretty vast collection of Nazi memorabilia including uniforms, bits and bobs of which he wore from time to time, his response was "I collect the stuff, I don't collect the ideas".

kowloon

A large number of Third Reich scholars and collectors are Jewish, much like writers and collectors in Ireland are interested in the Black and Tans. Perhaps we have some Black and Tan sympathisers that the Gardai need to be keeping an eye on.
You get quite a lot of people collecting items from 1798 and demand for anything from 1916 is rising sharply. In the UK, anything from the Great War, including German and Austrian stuff, is bought and sold frequently.
People are always fascinated by the bad guys, you hear Star Wars you think of Darth Vader and his stormtroopers, you hear World War Two and you think Hitler and his.
Film students get shown Leni Riefenstahl films because they're interesting, not because film studies courses are Nazi indoctrination.
I think learning about the past makes people more aware than brushing it all under the carpet.
Maybe the people most offended by symbols are the ones most susceptible to propaganda? The ignorant are easily led.
People who go out of their way to let everyone know how offended they are make me suspicious. Is it a way of showing everyone that they're the most righteous person in the room?

Wurzelbert

Wibbs wrote: »

The sad loss of Lemmy from Motorhead yesterday is relevant enough. When asked about his pretty vast collection of Nazi memorabilia including uniforms, bits and bobs of which he wore from time to time, his response was "I collect the stuff, I don't collect the ideas".

wonder what they (his son paul?) do with his collection now…could be some interesting opportunities for (american) collectors…some cool stuff there, not only from the third reich…

Dyr

Wurzelbert wrote: »

wonder what they (his son paul?) do with his collection now…could be some interesting opportunities for (american) collectors…some cool stuff there, not only from the third reich…

That stuff deserves to go on display, along with the oak leaf rickenbacker

Snickers Man

dandyelevan wrote: »

In the 1970s there was a PLO Office in Dublin while that same organisation of 'dishcloth-headed bastards' were busy kidnapping & murdering Irish soldiers in Lebanon and hi-jacking aeroplanes to Cuba.
Don't remember anyone in Ireland being outraged by its presence.
But then, we Irish are a selective lot in our outrageousness!

Really?

I think you'll find that most violent deaths incurred by Irish UN personnel at the hands of locals were the work of Lebanese Christian militia such as the South Lebanese Army (SLA). These were deadly enemies of the PLO, indeed of all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, as evidenced by the participation of many of their number in the Sabra and Chatila massacres in 1982.

Mahmoud Bazzi, currently facing trial, after his deportation from the US, in Lebanon on charges of murder of two Irish soldiers was a member of the SLA, not the PLO.

Or are you one of those people who things "All them damned Ayrabs are the same!"?

dandyelevan

Snickers Man wrote: »

Really?

I think you'll find that most violent deaths incurred by Irish UN personnel at the hands of locals were the work of Lebanese Christian militia such as the South Lebanese Army (SLA). These were deadly enemies of the PLO, indeed of all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, as evidenced by the participation of many of their number in the Sabra and Chatila massacres in 1982.

Mahmoud Bazzi, currently facing trial, after his deportation from the US, in Lebanon on charges of murder of two Irish soldiers was a member of the SLA, not the PLO.

Or are you one of those people who things "All them damned Ayrabs are the same!"?

I served in the Lebanon many times, firstly in 1978 and through the years till my last trip in 1995, so don't try to lecture me about 'the Leb' please.
The PLO (11 different factions) operated in the Tyre area and further north during my first three trips and they murdered French and Fijian peacekeepers for sport. Secondly, they hijacked UNIFIL transport in the Tyre pocket on a regular basis, and kidnapped the drivers. (Myself included, on two occasions) and shot at our Medivac UNIFIL helicopters for a pastime, causing one to crash (1979) killing all on board.
It wasn't the 'Christian' Militia (Who were mostly Muslims by the way) that kidnapped and murdered Kevin Joyce.

And, No, I don't think 'all Arabs are the same'
The Lebanese people are the salt of the earth and it was a pleasure to serve them when I could. Any UNIFIL veteran will tell you the same thing.
Any PLO I met there, and I met a lot of them, all factions, were in the main Syrian imports.
I've been back to Lebanon as a civilian since my retirement from service so you're sly 'hate all Arabs' don't wash with me. As I said, the Lebanese people are the salt of the earth and I have some very good friends there.