Ireland's "shame" for its neutral status in the Second World War

The Corinthian

FatherTed wrote:

Maybe you would feel differently if Irish Catholics were the ones gased instead of the Jews.

If it had been Irish Catholics, or simply any ethnic or racial group we could have identified with, it is unlikely that we would have remained neutral. But it wasn’t and we did. So your point kind of escapes me.

If Britain was overrun by the Germans, Ireland was next on the list.

I think you tend to forget that the subject of this thread would seem to point at the distinct possibility that Ireland might have willingly been next; more a Hungary or Romania than a Holland or Norway.

Redleslie2

true wrote:

Mussolini was elected by the people, as far as I am aware.

You could do with being a lot more aware.

Teneka

Lol. Actually I did go to the Christian Brothers as a national school, and my 6th Class teacher was brilliant as a history Teacher. So, where does your feeling that Christian Brothers can't teach history? Another comment not based anywhere near fact?

What did they teach you? Or more importantly, what was thought in secondary school? I'm sure it was American influenced muck material, no true insight in to what happened, taking figures for granted etc

Redleslie2

Sleepy wrote:

My point is that we have the benefit of hindsight. And with that benefit, we should have the decency not to celebrate anyone who was involved with such an evil force.

As I asked on another thread, does that include wartime IRA man Brendan Behan and his statue which was unveiled by our Leader?

Blackjack

interesting related article on the Holocaust and particularly Auschwitz here

Teneka

Blackjack wrote:

interesting related article on the Holocaust and particularly Auschwitz here

Will it ever be out of the news? Do people realise the crimes committed by other countries around the world? Why focus on this, why is there always a constant focus on this single event. Stalin...Pol Pot... nothing is in the news. Ever think about that?

Moriarty

For one thing, it was close to home. We're bound to talk about it more than other similar events. For another, nazi germany implemented a particularly industrial approach to genocide. That doesn't lessen the horror of deaths in countless other genocides, but what happened in europe over those years was unique.

Present day Israel using the holocaust as a stick to beat other countries over the head with is a deplorable policy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing too far in the opposite direction and deny the significance of what happened.

pete

Teneka wrote:

Will it ever be out of the news? Do people realise the crimes committed by other countries around the world? Why focus on this, why is there always a constant focus on this single event. Stalin...Pol Pot... nothing is in the news. Ever think about that?

You have a total of four posts here. There's this one, another one on historical revisionism, one denying the holocaust, and one praising Hitler Youth.

Could you be any more obvious?

Moriarty

Also, what pete said, but I wasn't going to mention it just yet.

pete

Moriarty wrote:

Also, what pete said, but I wasn't going to mention it just yet.

oops. off to the camps with me, so.

FatherTed

The Corinthian wrote:

If it had been Irish Catholics, or simply any ethnic or racial group we could have identified with, it is unlikely that we would have remained neutral. But it wasn’t and we did. So your point kind of escapes me.

Your reply exactly illustrates the typical mindset, it doesnt affect me so I don't give a fuck. Thousands of lives especially the merchant sea men on the Atlantic would have been saved if Ireland would have open up the ports. Oh, but they werent Irish so why should we care? A long as we're ok, we don't give a shite about anyone else.

We'll just go to the German Embassy to comiserate with them over the loss of their leader instead. Great fucking move.

Teneka

With regards to Pete

I was questioning the figures. Something wrong in that? No, there's something wrong in your reaction - typifies most of the public really.


Out of interest, what are your thoughts on Braveheart?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

You have a total of four posts here. There's this one, another one on historical revisionism, one denying the holocaust, and one praising Hitler Youth.

Why don’t we call anyone who challenges accepted dogma a Nazi and be done with it then?

FatherTed wrote:

Your reply exactly illustrates the typical mindset, it doesnt affect me so I don't give a fuck. Thousands of lives especially the merchant sea men on the Atlantic would have been saved if Ireland would have open up the ports. Oh, but they werent Irish so why should we care? A long as we're ok, we don't give a shite about anyone else.

Oh do wake up and smell the coffee. Despite any aspirations towards humanity in general, it is the primary function and aim of the State to act in the interests of its citizens - that is the social contract all citizens ultimately have with their Governments. Not anyone else’s citizens - its own.

You might think that volunteering on every crusade that comes along and that may act against the interests of your fellow citizens may be noble, but it is equally irresponsible and completely goes against the aforementioned contract between citizen and State.

Teneka

it is the primary function and aim of the State to act in the interests of its citizens

Simple, but exactly what our country should be doing.

pete

Teneka wrote:

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on Braveheart?

My thoughts on Braveheart?


He was probably my least-favourite Care Bear.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Why don’t we call anyone who challenges accepted dogma a Nazi and be done with it then?

You say "challenging accepted dogma", I say "showing your true colours".

Why don't we wait and see how this pans out instead?

pete

and while you're at it, have a look here http://www.stormfront.org/forum/search.php?do=finduser&userid=56110

the_syco

Sorry, but I couldn't be arsed reading most of the reply's so far, so if you don't want to read the following, you don't have to.

You see, neutral Ireland had no reason to fight against Hitler's Germany alongside Britain in 1939; it was only 18 years since the country had secured a partial independence from London after centuries of British rule.

There was about 120,000 recruits from North and South, with an even number from the free state, as their was from the north.

Also, don't forget the heavy censorship. When news of the camps came, they were heavily censored.

Finally, so strong was the neutrailty of the goverment, that irish soldiers who came back to Ireland on leave were treated with a cold-shoulder by their own goverment, and when the war ended, the goverment didn't see why it should pay pension to those who fought in a war for a foreign goverment.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

You say "challenging accepted dogma", I say "showing your true colours".

You may disagree with someone, but to use the inference that nothing they say is valid on the basis of what you believe to be their political affiliation is little more than an intellectual fraud. Ultimately, such knee-jerk judgements are little more than another form of extremism.

pete

Could you point out the bit where i said nothing he / she said was valid on the basis of what i believe (know?) to be his / her political affilliation? I'd hate to think you were just having a knee jerk reaction.

Thanks.

Redleslie2

the_syco wrote:

Finally, so strong was the neutrailty of the goverment, that irish soldiers who came back to Ireland on leave were treated with a cold-shoulder by their own goverment,

You sure? I read that the government had clothes dumps at points of entry for soldiers returning on leave so they could change into civilian clothes and avoid arousing hostility.

Teneka

Making assumptions about me again Pete, are you?

pete

Teneka wrote:

Making assumptions about me again Pete, are you?

Assumptions?

Redleslie2

Is the resident pinochet/mussolini/franco fanboy sticking up for his fellow traveller friend from stormfront? What a surprise. Carry on Pete.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Could you point out the bit where i said nothing he / she said was valid on the basis of what i believe (know?) to be his / her political affilliation? I'd hate to think you were just having a knee jerk reaction.

I said you inferred it. Rather than attacking the poster's arguments you chose to simply attack the poster. As his / her political affiliation is irrelevant to his / her argument, it becomes implicit in your observation is that once branded with a particular political affiliation, there’s no longer need to argue with him. Both knee-jerk and intellectually dishonest.

The Corinthian

true wrote:

Mussolini was elected by the people, as far as I am aware.

Mussolini - like Castro or Stalin - was not actually elected. But you'll have to ask our resident Castro/Stalin/Chavez fanboy about the latter two.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

I said you inferred it. Rather than attacking the poster's arguments you chose to simply attack the poster.

"Attacked"? Hardly. Believe me, if I was "attacking the poster" you'd know.

As you say yourself, I made an observation. I don't care if he's David Duke himself, but I believe it's relevant to the topic at hand that were all clear on a posters' motives.

As his / her political affiliation is irrelevant to his / her argument,

Rubbish. It is entirely relevant when separating rational argument from rationalisations.

it becomes implicit in your observation is that once branded with a particular political affiliation, there’s no longer need to argue with him.

And i said this where? Oh sorry, I forgot - it's implicit. In other words, you're jumping to a (knee jerk) conclusion.

Both knee-jerk and intellectually dishonest.

Yeah whatever. But don't let me stop you defending him / her. Please, do carry on.

Read that stormfront link yet, btw?

the_syco

Redleslie2 wrote:

You sure? I read that the government had clothes dumps at points of entry for soldiers returning on leave so they could change into civilian clothes and avoid arousing hostility.

Maybe your right. It sounds like a good idea, I suppose. Here's were I got my info from;

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3749629.stm]BBC.co.uk[/url] wrote:

Irishmen who had volunteered for Britain's armies were given a tough time when they were home on leave, and were cold-shouldered after the fighting by a de Valera-led government that didn't see why they should qualify for state welfare payments when they came home from fighting for a foreign power.

I've seen the above quote in various different different sources.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

"Attacked"? Hardly. Believe me, if I was "attacking the poster" you'd know.

Yes, you attacked him, not his arguments. Or are you telling me that inferring that someone is a Nazi is a complement then?

Rubbish. It is entirely relevant when separating rational argument from rationalisations.

You separate rational argument from rationalisations by doing exactly that, not by flinging mud and hoping that enough will stick to obscure the argument. You did the latter so that you would not have to do the former.

And i said this where? Oh sorry, I forgot - it's implicit. In other words, you're jumping to a (knee jerk) conclusion.

Again, are you telling me that inferring that someone is a Nazi is a complement then? Would you deny that to call or infer that someone is a Nazi would not automatically brand anything that they say as invalid in modern Society? Or are you being even more dishonest in your feigned innocence now?

Yeah whatever. But don't let me stop you defending him / her. Please, do carry on.

Of course, I’d take it that he / she doesn’t deserve defence in you eyes any more than you need actually address their arguments? Four legs good, ‘n all that...

Read that stormfront link yet, btw?

So what? I don’t care if he’s a card-carrying member of the Nazi party any more than you’re a card-carrying member of the Communist party. The argument is what merits examination, not your black-and-white need to judge by labels first and reason second.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, you attacked him, not his arguments. Or are you telling me that inferring that someone is a Nazi is a complement then?

You separate rational argument from rationalisations by doing exactly that, not by flinging mud and hoping that enough will stick to obscure the argument. You did the latter so that you would not have to do the former.

Again, are you telling me that inferring that someone is a Nazi is a complement then? Would you deny that to call or infer that someone is a Nazi would not automatically brand anything that they say as invalid in modern Society? Or are you being even more dishonest in your feigned innocence now?

Of course, I’d take it that he / she doesn’t deserve defence in you eyes any more than you need actually address their arguments? Four legs good, ‘n all that...

So what? I don’t care if he’s a card-carrying member of the Nazi party any more than you’re a card-carrying member of the Communist party. The argument is what merits examination, not your black-and-white need to judge by labels first and reason second.

Whatever man, whatever. If you want to have a debate about angels on heads of pins then you're going to have to find someone else to play with.

But since you asked, I happen believe that the fact that someone engages in debate (and I'm using that term very, very loosely) on stormfront.org automatically devalues everything else they say in relation to politics. If you can't understand why, well... that's your problem, not mine.

Incidentally, I think now would be a good time for you to go back and read the post my observation was in response to - it itself was an observation. It contained no point or "argument" to argue with.