The glorious 12th

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Criticising the British for only realising in 1939 that the Nazis were the bad guys is extremely hypocritical for someone defending the Irish position of never realising that the Nazis were the bad guys.

Nazi Germany was the most evil regime of the 20th century, and we sat on our hands, one of the most shameful acts of Irish history. In fact, some of us - Sean Russell - actively collaborated with and encouraged the Nazis.

Entertaining 1. Because people don't accept that the Nazis became the bad guys only from when the British decided they were in 1939 doesn't imply that the Nazis were ever the good guys. The Nazis were always the bad guys; trying to claim that the "Irish position" is that they were the good guys is a really special leap of logic.

Entertaining 2. That you genuinely think that the actions of one person, Russell, is on the same level as the 6 years of British state collaboration with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 is shockingly delusional, even by your formidable standards. In terms of scale, there is no comparison. All Russell is for you and your fellow travellers is a convenient deflection from the far more common "the Nazis are better than the communists" worldview of the British in the 1930s, the same view that ensured that the British policy of appeasement/collaboration with Nazi Germany was very popular in Britain until early 1939. You're desperately trying to take the moral high ground, but those 6 years of collaboration despite British knowledge of concentration camps in Dachau and elsewhere from as early as spring 1933, just won't go away.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't know of a unionist who voted nationalist and calls Northern Ireland the 6 counties.

Rubbish, someone on this very thread was calling John Bruton a unionist for example, yet he was the leader of a nationalist party / a party who wanted and still wants a United Ireland. And I have always said that the number of counties in N Ireland is 6.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't know of a unionist who voted nationalist and calls Northern Ireland the 6 counties.

It really has been a revealing couple of days.

Deleted User wrote: »

Entertaining 1. Because people don't accept that the Nazis became the bad guys only from when the British decided they were in 1939 doesn't imply that the Nazis were ever the good guys. The Nazis were always the bad guys; trying to claim that the "Irish position" is that they were the good guys is a really special leap of logic.

Entertaining 2. That you genuinely think that the actions of one person, Russell, is on the same level as the 6 years of British state collaboration with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 is shockingly delusional, even by your formidable standards. In terms of scale, there is no comparison. All Russell is for you and your fellow travellers is a convenient deflection from the far more common "the Nazis are better than the communists" worldview of the British in the 1930s. You're desperately trying to take the moral high ground, but those 6 years of collaboration despite British knowledge of concentration camps in Dachau and elsewhere from as early as spring 1933, just won't go away.

It's almost as if blanch and janfebmar think they can rewrite actual fact based history.
If they just ignore it, it never happened.

janfebmar

F

Deleted User wrote: »

Entertaining 1. Because people don't accept that the Nazis became the bad guys only from when the British decided they were in 1939 doesn't imply that the Nazis were ever the good guys. The Nazis were always the bad guys; trying to claim that the "Irish position" is that they were the good guys is a really special leap of logic.

Entertaining 2. That you genuinely think that the actions of one person, Russell, is on the same level as the 6 years of British state collaboration with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 is shockingly delusional, even by your formidable standards. In terms of scale, there is no comparison. All Russell is for you and your fellow travellers is a convenient deflection from the far more common "the Nazis are better than the communists" worldview of the British in the 1930s, the same view that ensured that the British policy of appeasement/collaboration with Nazi Germany was very popular in Britain until early 1939. You're desperately trying to take the moral high ground, but those 6 years of collaboration despite British knowledge of concentration camps in Dachau and elsewhere from as early as spring 1933, just won't go away.

If you go to the museum in Dachau, you will see in the early and mid thirties nothing that went on there gave any cause for concern. No different to any prison elsewhere in Europe at that time. Dachau was only a concentration camp anyway, it was not an extermination camp, huge difference.

The concentration and extermination camps were exposed in the allied advance of Spring 1945, yet Dev was not shocked at them like the rest of the world was, he even expressed condolences on the death of Hitler.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It really has been a revealing couple of days.

You still have not answered the questions in post 4075.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Criticising the British for only realising in 1939 that the Nazis were the bad guys is extremely hypocritical for someone defending the Irish position of never realising that the Nazis were the bad guys.

Nazi Germany was the most evil regime of the 20th century, and we sat on our hands, one of the most shameful acts of Irish history. In fact, some of us - Sean Russell - actively collaborated with and encouraged the Nazis.

You're talking about something with the benefit of hindsight.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Criticising the British for only realising in 1939 that the Nazis were the bad guys is extremely hypocritical for someone defending the Irish position of never realising that the Nazis were the bad guys.

Nazi Germany was the most evil regime of the 20th century, and we sat on our hands, one of the most shameful acts of Irish history. In fact, some of us - Sean Russell - actively collaborated with and encouraged the Nazis.

Entertaining 1. Because people don't accept that the Nazis became the bad guys only from when the British decided they were in 1939 doesn't imply that the Nazis were ever the good guys. The Nazis were always the bad guys; trying to claim that the "Irish position" is that they were the good guys is a really special leap of logic.

Entertaining 2. That you genuinely think that the actions of one person, Russell, is on the same level as the 6 years of British state collaboration with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 is shockingly delusional, even by your formidable standards. In terms of scale, there is no comparison. All Russell is for you and your fellow travellers is a convenient deflection from the far more common "the Nazis are better than the communists" worldview of the British in the 1930s, the same view that ensured that the British policy of appeasement/collaboration with Nazi Germany was very popular in Britain until early 1939. You're desperately trying to take the moral high ground, but those 6 years of collaboration despite British knowledge of concentration camps in Dachau and elsewhere from as early as spring 1933, just won't go away.

The history books say different to your view,Churchill is honoured by the US with a statue in the White House and a US battle ship named after him.Britain,along with their allies defeated the nazis and nothing can change that fuaranach.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You still have not answered the questions in post 4075.

Thatcher stood over the shoot to kill policy...summary justice...no trial executions jan. We did this before and you slinked off when presented with the evidence.


Like you are now furiously trying to do because you made a fool of yourself over concentration camps.

I noticed you just blithely ignored presentation, yet again, of the fact that the British were still at it in the 60's.

Do you accept the British were running concentration camps long before the Nazis?

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Equating the Nazi extermination camps to previous iterations of concentration camps is just another disingenuous Republican tactic.

Trying to imply that the British entered WWII in September 1939 to stop people being exterminated in such camps is your own little propaganda at work, given that most of us know that the Wannsee Conference which authorised the Nazi extermination camps for Jews was in January 1942. At best you could go back to Karl Fritzsch's successful extermination of Soviet POWs in Auschwitz in August 1941. All a far cry from your "The British joined WWII in 1939 to stop extermination camps" nonsense.

FrancieBrady

An alternate view to blanch, rob and jan's, the figures quoted are quite startling:

Today, the expression “concentration camp” evokes the horrors of Nazi Germany, conjuring up black-and-white images of Auschwitz and Belsen. But Germans were neither the first nation to make use of concentration camps nor the last.

Both during and immediately after the war, concentration camps and slave-labor camps operated throughout the United Kingdom. A year after World War II’s end, British agriculture only functioned thanks to slave labor. In May 1946, while high-ranking SS officers were preparing for trial at Nuremberg, 385,000 enslaved workers were held behind barbed wire across the British Isles; thousands more were arriving every week. At the time, they made up over 25 percent of the land workforce.

The British had been early adopters of these exceedingly useful establishments. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), they set up a network of camps in which conditions were so grim that over twenty-two thousand children under the age of sixteen died of starvation and disease.

During World War I, the United Kingdom used concentration camps to control those they could not or would not bring before the courts: men who had committed no offense besides belonging to the wrong nationality or ethnic group. Among these were Germans and Austrians living in Britain as well as Irish citizens suspected of disloyalty to the crown.

A century ago, no one hesitated to call concentration camps by their correct name. On December 4, 1914, for instance, the Manchester Guardian carried the headline “Disorder at Lancaster Concentration Camp.” The article described a bayonet charge by troops to restore order among the German civilians detained in the camp.


Eighteen months later authorities opened a concentration camp in a remote part of Wales to cope with the thousands of Irish political prisoners who had been filling up British prisons. Frongoch Concentration Camp, built around a disused factory, established the pattern for the camps that began to appear all over Europe in the 1930s: a barbed wire fence circled the old buildings, and wooden huts were constructed to increase the camp’s capacity. Eventually Frongoch held over two thousand Irish republicans.

On March 22, 1933, the first concentration camp in Nazi Germany opened

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

The history books say different to your view.

Really? Care to name one history book which denies those 6 years of British state collaboration - "appeasement" - with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939?


PS: You're not doing your argument, if one could be generous and term it thus, any good by lauding that egregious racist and imperialist Winston Churchill as a hero. Was the mass murdering communist Stalin, who did far more to defeat Nazi Germany than Churchill did, also a hero of yours? If not, why not?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you accept the British were running concentration camps long before the Nazis?

They were running them in the 1980's too, according to you and other extremists, as you have described Long Kesh ( the H-blocks) as a concentration camp. The difference between the British concentration camps,Francie, was that people who died there had a choice to eat or not. They were not denied medical attention either. You are insulting the memories of the many millions who died in WW2 by comparing the 2.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

They were running them in the 1980's too, according to you and other extremists, as you have described Long Kesh ( the H-blocks) as a concentration camp. The difference between the British concentration camps,Francie, was that people who died there had a choice to eat or not. They were not denied medical attention either. You are insulting the memories of the many millions who died in WW2 by comparing the 2.

Long Kesh served as an interment camp jan...that was internment WITHOUT trial. One of the moves by Britain that exacerbated the problem in Ireland.

Did you see that figure on the Boer concentration camp? 22,000 children died of starvation and disease...proud of that?

I am not insulting the many millions who dies by highlighting concentration camps janfebmar...you are. You are no better than holocaust deniers in this respect.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

The history books say different to your view.

Really? Care to name one history book which denies those 6 years of British state collaboration - "appeasement" - with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939?
Of course I appreciate the sacrifice Russia made in WW2 and realise if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia,Germany probably would have overran Britain as well as France.


PS: You're not doing your argument, if one could be generous and term it thus, any good by lauding that egregious racist and imperialist Winston Churchill as a hero. Was the mass murdering communist Stalin, who did far more to defeat Nazi Germany than Churchill did, also a hero of yours? If not, why not?

Of course I appreciate the sacrifice and importance of Russia in WW2-Stalin,although ruthless did what he had to do as do all good leaders.If Hitler hadn't turned on Russia Britain would have been overran by Germany as was France.
In regards to your claims of British appeasement,yes Britain didn't want war with a resurgent, rearmed Germany-whats wrong with that?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Long Kesh served as an interment camp jan....

Then why call it a concentration camp? People there had a choice to eat or not, a choice denied to many people in the concentration camps in Europe during ww2.

It was not just in concentration camps, that people died of disease. In 1922, the year the independent Irish state was founded, a total of 4,614 deaths from tuberculosis were recorded in the country. Of these deaths, 611 were among children under the age of 15 years. This is probably an underestimate of the real death toll as there was a stigma associated with the disease and people tried not to have tuberculosis recorded as the cause of death for family members. Later on, reports say that a total of 973 children from the Tuam children's home died either in Glenamaddy, in the Tuam Home itself or in a hospital or ...
I wonder were the babies in South Africa found hidden in sewers too?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Then why call it a concentration camp? People there had a choice to eat or not, a choice denied to many people in the concentration camps in Europe during ww2.

I didn't call it a concentration camp.

Are you going to address the figure of 22,000 children dying in a British concentration camp or not?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't call it a concentration camp.

Are you going to address the figure of 22,000 children dying in a British concentration camp or not?

Out of millions of people? Needs to be put in context. Are you going to address the 973 children dying in just the Tuam children's home, only one of many such homes in Ireland?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Out of millions of people? Needs to be put in context. Are you going to address the 973 children dying in just the Tuam children's home, only one of many such homes in Ireland?

Jesus. Are you really diverting to that?

Tuam was an absolutely criminal and disgusting disgrace. But I never knew it gave carte blanche to the British to do their own holocaust. 22,000 children jan, and you are still defending and pointing over there. You are one sad sad person.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't call it a concentration camp.

Some Republicans did and do. For example,www.bobbysandstrust.com say Long Kesh by name and appearance was known worldwide as a concentration camp.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Some Republicans did and do. For example,www.bobbysandstrust.com say Long Kesh by name and appearance was known worldwide as a concentration camp.

I can see where they are coming from. Can't you?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see where they are coming from. Can't you?

So you think prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, unless they wanted to commit suicide, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands.

Not very consistent, are you Francie?

Bad day for Francie. Again.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, unless they wanted to commit suicide, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands.

Not very consistent, are you Francie?

Bad day for Francie. Again.

You come up with an arbitrary comparison and expect to be taken seriously?

Concentration camps are concentration camps Jan. The Nazi ones don't define them. They are the extreme example.

But 22,000 children dead in a British one? Not to mention the adult toll. That you deny. Deal with that please?

Do you accept those figures and can you show any evidence that it didn't happen?

Where the British the precursors to the Nazi's?

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

Then why call it a concentration camp? People there had a choice to eat or not, a choice denied to many people in the concentration camps in Europe during ww2.

It was not just in concentration camps, that people died of disease. In 1922, the year the independent Irish state was founded, a total of 4,614 deaths from tuberculosis were recorded in the country. Of these deaths, 611 were among children under the age of 15 years. This is probably an underestimate of the real death toll as there was a stigma associated with the disease and people tried not to have tuberculosis recorded as the cause of death for family members. Later on, reports say that a total of 973 children from the Tuam children's home died either in Glenamaddy, in the Tuam Home itself or in a hospital or ...
I wonder were the babies in South Africa found hidden in sewers too?

Thanks for the blog man.

trashcan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus. Are you really diverting to that?

Tuam was an absolutely criminal and disgusting disgrace. But I never knew it gave carte blanche to the British to do their own holocaust. 22,000 children jan, and you are still defending and pointing over there. You are one sad sad person.

Fantastic attempt at goalpost shifting to be fair. She is all over the place, from Nazis and concentration camps, to De Valera/Thatcher, and now Tuam and TB in Ireland. But in her head she's "winning" these debates.

janfebmar

We have established that FrancieBrady/ Fuaranach / Odhinn / steddyeddy think

Prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands. What an insult to victims of the holocaust, and the 100,000 brave Irish people who volunteered to help fight Nazism.


You do not have to go to South Africa to find 22,000 children dying. Tens of thousands of kids died in Ireland in early 20th century due to TD alone. What did the 973 children found only recently in the sewage system in the Tuam children's home, only one of many such homes in Ireland, die of? Or maybe the religous in 20th century Ireland did not keep as good a records as the dastardly British before that?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

We have established that FrancieBrady/ Fuaranach / Odhinn / steddyeddy think

Prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands. What an insult to victims of the holocaust, and the 100,000 brave Irish people who volunteered to help fight Nazism.


You do not have to go to South Africa to find 22,000 children dying. Tens of thousands of kids died in Ireland in early 20th century due to TD alone. What did the 973 children found only recently in the sewage system in the Tuam children's home, only one of many such homes in Ireland, die of? Or maybe the religous in 20th century Ireland did not keep as good a records as the dastardly British before that?

The obscenities in that post speak for themselves.

citytillidie

janfebmar wrote: »

Someone else made a comment on educational standards (or lack of) just before that. Set up another thread on that if you want, rather than derail this thread.

this thread is far off the original thread topic that they may as well bring it up here

citytillidie

janfebmar wrote: »

And Mrs T. had trials and found a lot more pIRA men and women guilty than Dev did. Yet was there ever a miscarriage of justice under her watch / an innocent person wrongfully convicted? She did not execute her prisoners, Dev did.

Why does the Republican propaganda machine not rename Dev the Iron Man and Mrs T the soft lady?

Hmm Under Maggie there was one of the biggest white washers in British History with the Hillsborough investigation

janfebmar

citytillidie wrote: »

Hmm Under Maggie there was one of the biggest white washers in British History with the Hillsborough investigation

So in relation to the soft Lady, Mrs Thatcher, who treated captured IRA prisoners well and did not execute them, in comparison to the Hard Man DeValera, who executed (by firing squad and hanging) captured prisoners, the worst you can say about the soft Ladies 3 term elected reign is that she was p.m. when there was an alleged whitewash in relation to a football tragedy....

And you whinge about "this thread is far off the original thread topic.."

As Francie would say, Up the yard with ye.

Fionn1952

janfebmar wrote: »

citytillidie wrote: »

Hmm Under Maggie there was one of the biggest white washers in British History with the Hillsborough investigation

So in relation to the soft Lady, Mrs Thatcher, who treated captured IRA prisoners well and did not execute them, in comparison to the Hard Man DeValera, who executed (by firing squad and hanging) captured prisoners, the worst you can say about the soft Ladies 3 term elected reign is that she was p.m. when there was an alleged whitewash in relation to a football tragedy....

And you whinge about "this thread is far off the original thread topic.."

As Francie would say, Up the yard with ye.

Are you still avoiding admitting that the British ran concentration camps, and desperately peddling any way whatsoever to change the subject?