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

bus77

FatherTed wrote:

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

Maybe you would say the same if you realised your own ancestors were simply starved instead of gassed.

FatherTed wrote:

If Britain was overrun by the Germans, Ireland was next on the list. How long would we have lasted? About 20 minutes.

How long would Germany have lasted trying to stifle rebellion in 30 odd countrys?

FatherTed wrote:

I'm sure a lot of us would be complaining that noone came to our aid in our time of need in WWII.

I just watch the British say that every time Irish republicans are mentioned.

FatherTed wrote:

But when the shoe is on the other foot, it's ok for us to say ah sure what could we do.

In Irelands situation, yes. Read others posts on the subject for more information.

FatherTed wrote:

But it's typical, not much backbone these Irish pols have, much like "condemning" the war in Iraq yet allowing US planes into Shannon.

ahh sure what could we do? fight the fourth reich this time is it?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

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.

Diddums. Is the use of reason over clichés in argument all a bit too much for you?

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.

I’ve actually heard similar arguments used by religious zealots. Either you have faith and agree with their view or you’re the one with the problem. Guess I won’t get let into the gates of Utopia then. Go figure.

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.

And my response was that your observation was simply designed to discredit an argument on the basis of the poster and not the argument itself. That was the implicit argument in you observation, that “he / she must be wrong because he / she is a Nazi” as opposed to “he / she must be wrong because his / her argument does not stand up to scrutiny” - a belief that you have since admitted.

And ultimately if we don’t accept this belief, well, that’s our problem. So you might look in a mirror next time you’re looking for extremists or fanatics.

Cork

Enduro wrote:

Ireland's Neutral during WWII was shameful.

We were just after the economic war.

The government of the day had threats from the blue shirts and the IRA. Democracy itself was under threat in this country.

We were not neutal in a strict sense during the war.

Irish shipping was set up to bring food into this country. Our army was badly equiped. It was not like we had a well equiped and trained army at the time.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

And my response was that your observation was simply designed to discredit an argument on the basis of the poster and not the argument itself. That was the implicit argument in you observation, that “he / she must be wrong because he / she is a Nazi” as opposed to “he / she must be wrong because his / her argument does not stand up to scrutiny” - a belief that you have since admitted.

What the **** are you talking about? I mean - really.... i just pointed out the common thread among his / her (then) four posts and at no time did I comment on whether he / she was right or wrong. (and yes, after I was asked I did. my point stands.)

And ultimately if we don’t accept this belief, well, that’s our problem. So you might look in a mirror next time you’re looking for extremists or fanatics.

To continue your style of debate, can I just say that I know what you are, what am I?

Get over it man. You have way too much time on your hands.

Stabshauptmann

Why should we have done anything?
A war between colonialist, fascists and communists. Ireland couldnt have defeated everyone, we were just one country. In the end the war greatly diminished the threat those three systems posed to the world and the nations of the world (mostly) choose new paths.
This fight was waged in Ireland, internally between the peoples of Ireland. As for the war at large, Irish soldiers did volunteer to fight, since Ireland didnt have a policy of conscription, why would an official gov initiative increased the number of Irish soldiers fighting in the war.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

What the **** are you talking about? I mean - really.... i just pointed out the common thread among his / her (then) four posts and at no time did I comment on whether he / she was right or wrong. (and yes, after I was asked I did. my point stands.)

By marking him as a Nazi you implied that he was, by dint of that, wrong and should not be entertained in debate. Feigning innocence and claiming you did not mean to say he was right or wrong at this stage is not very convincing.

To continue your style of debate, can I just say that I know what you are, what am I?

What you know I am? I doubt that, you don’t seem to recognise your own philosophical shortcomings, let alone identify others.

Get over it man. You have way too much time on your hands.

Yet, to date, you seem to have plenty of time to respond too.

bonkey

Could the pointless bickering be given a rest already?
Whatever point(s) each of you has on this side-issue....its been made. Move on.

jc

pete

bonkey wrote:

Could the pointless bickering be given a rest already?
Whatever point(s) each of you has on this side-issue....its been made. Move on.

jc

I hear that.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Could the pointless bickering be given a rest already?
Whatever point(s) each of you has on this side-issue....its been made. Move on.

Made but not understood.

Lennoxschips

The issue of the statue and the issue of Irish neutrality are two completely different things. I have never heard of Sean Russell, so I can't comment on the statue issue.

As for neutrality, Ireland was neutral for good reason. The nation had been through a century of famine, mass emigration, a struggle for independence and then a civil war. WWII would probably have broken the country's back altogether. As it is, thousands of Irish fought the Germans in the fields of Europe and the Dublin fire brigades helped put out fires in Belfast after Luftwaffe air raids. Indeed, Hitler was so annoyed at the Irish fire brigades that Dublin was 'accidentally' hit by an air raid at one point. Ireland has nothing to be ashamed of as far as neutrality is concerned.

Teneka

As it is, thousands of Irish fought the Germans in the fields of Europe

A rare occurance but did you know that some Irish fought in the Waffen-SS?

sceptre

Teneka wrote:

A rare occurance but did you know that some Irish fought in the Waffen-SS?

"Some" is a little vague. Wasn't it "two"? Or an unconfirmed third?

pete

sceptre wrote:

"Some" is a little vague. Wasn't it "two"? Or an unconfirmed third?

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=399

That P. O'Neill certainly gets around

true

The Irish people certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, as over 100,000 men volunteered to fight against the Nazis. However, not having the ports on our western seaboard available to the allies during the battle of the atlantic no doubt cost a cost of lives and suffering. To add insult to injury, Dev then goes to the German embassy to sign a book of condolences on Hitlers death. Dev done nothing to save many of Hitlers victims.

Lemming

FatherTed wrote:

If Britain was overrun by the Germans, Ireland was next on the list. How long would we have lasted? About 20 minutes.

Actually, I've been wondering about this. Never anywhere have I read any sort of material that Hitler had genocidal designs on Ireland. I've only ever heard "the rumour".

So my question is this. Were documents found, or was an intention stated in public or what-not as to wanting to anhiliate the Irish populace? Or is this scaremongering? The thread of the proverbial bogeyman to the unruly child at bedtime?

So, if someone could either confirm/debunk this rumour it would be most appreciated. And please, no "I heard it from my mates mates mates dad's grandfather four time removed from his great great uncle's pet cat thrice removed on his mother's side" nonsense.

Moriarty

I think he was referring to invasion, rather than genocidal plans. There were specific plans for the invasion of Ireland, but they never got around to it. I've seen it suggested here on boards that the nazis didn't consider the Irish much better than slavs, but I don't think I've ever seen that suggested elsewhere.

Personally, I'm almost certain we would have been invaded sooner or later because we are in such a strategically important location.

MG

Lemming wrote:

So my question is this. Were documents found, or was an intention stated in public or what-not as to wanting to anhiliate the Irish populace? Or is this scaremongering? The thread of the proverbial bogeyman to the unruly child at bedtime?
QUOTE]

There was a plan to invade Ireland, Fall Grun (Case Green). AFAIK this was mainly a minor optional subset of Sealion and was apparantly poorly planned. I remember someone saying, a german spy I think, that German high command didn't seem to be fully aware that the Irish Army and the IRA were different.
As for genocidal plans for Ireland, this was totally false. Hitler never had any genocidal plans for any of the Western European nations, apart from its Jewish citizens. He regarded Western Europeans as normal, as opposed to his opinion of sub-human Eastern Europeans. Hitlers interest in Ireland was only ever in relation to the effect it would have on the war with Britain.

Lemming

I should have made my question al ittle more clear. Strategically I would not bat an eyelid if *anyone* involved with ships in the Atlantic during the war had revealed plans/desires to invade us.

I am referring of course, to issues of genocide rather than invasion.

The Corinthian

Given the strategic importance of both the Belfast shipyards and Ireland’s position between Britain and the US, a German invasion was not outside the realms of possibility. Given this, certainly at the time, it was felt that Britain would be far more likely to invade, rather than allow Ireland to side with Germany.

With regard to Nazi ideology towards the Irish, I believe a pro-Irish propaganda film was made by Germany at some stage, so as to prepare its population for a potential Irish entry into the war on the Axis side, but I can’t confirm that. Apart from that, Hitler almost certainly had opinions about the Irish, his half-brother, Alois, had lived in Dublin where he worked in the Shelbourne Hotel (he also married and later abandoned an Irish girl). Some, again unconfirmed, reports have Hitler himself living in Dublin and living / working with Alois, for a brief period around the time he is known to have also visited England.

Beyond strategic importance, however, it’s doubtful that Hitler or Germany was all that interested in Ireland or even Western Europe in general. The principle of Leibensraum was eastern looking - seeking to build a greater German Reich from lands annexed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. As such, western expansion was fuelled almost entirely by military considerations and would probably only have lasted for little more than the duration of the war and after sympathetic governments had been successfully installed (which, incidentally, is exactly what the allies did).

Teneka

Teneka wrote:

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

Where do you get this tripe? Did you go to the Christian Brothers at any stage of your education? I'd like to know why your opinion is so low. Are you basing this on experiences or just something you've heard?

You see, History has always been a passion for me, especially matters that pertain to WW2. The teacher I got in 6th class woke that interest in me.

I had a damn good primary education there, so I'd like to see some evidence/reference, for your dismissal of their education... rather than off the wall opinions.

father Ted wrote:

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

More melodrama. Guys, think about this logically. Europe did not go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust. Not one country did. (otherwise war would have started in 1936ish)

So when Ireland declared its neutrality, it was in ignorance of the Death Camps. Just as the population of Britain & the US were ignorant of the Holocaust right up until the close of the war in Europe.

Evidence of the Camps only became public after mainland Germany was invaded by Allied Troops. Before that there were only rumors that the governments never confirmed. To blame Ireland for being Neutral, and using
the Holocaust as your reason, is rediculous. The only blame you can lie at Ireland's feet is being neutral against a Germany who were on the virge of military victory against the Allies. No more innocent or guilty than a dozen countries in this world War

Teneka wrote:

A rare occurance but did you know that some Irish fought in the Waffen-SS?

Did you know that the Waffen SS had members from most european countries including Britain, USA, France, Poland, etc?. Hell, they had large groups of Russians during the time of Stalingrad. It means nothing.

I've seen it suggested here on boards that the nazis didn't consider the Irish much better than slavs, but I don't think I've ever seen that suggested elsewhere.

I've never seen any comment made by Hitler to suggest that Irish people were racially similar to Slavs, nor have I heard any reference to genocide in ireland.

The only comments I've seen were transcripts from some Abwehr Officers saying that operations in Ireland were a waste of time. Nothing about treating Irish people any worse or better than any other conquered nation.

Personally, I'm almost certain we would have been invaded sooner or later because we are in such a strategically important location

Hitler dreamed of conquering all of Europe. I doubt he would have let us remain free to spite his dream.



Since your backs are up against Ireland, for its neutrality, and ignorance is apparently no excuse ... What are your feelings towards the Superpowers of Britain, France, Russia, The USA, Italy etc for allowing the round up and subsequent executions of German Undesirables which, in turn, led to the Holocaust?

Surely, you should be more angry that Britain and the other powers didn't interfere in 1936 when their Intelligence forces would have told them what was happening. But then they were the "allies". They won in the end, so i'm sure its all ok then. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

I had a damn good primary education there, so I'd like to see some evidence/reference, for your dismissal of their education... rather than off the wall opinions.

Hitler dreamed of conquering all of Europe. I doubt he would have let us remain free to spite his dream.

You should really practice what you preach.

Are you telling me that Hitler didn't have the Dream to beat Napoleon's campaign? (Which included Europe and Russia)

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Are you telling me that Hitler didn't have the Dream to beat Napoleon's campaign? (Which included Europe and Russia)

No I'm telling you to present evidence (or even a cogent argument to begin with) rather than come out with wild clichés, especially in light of your lecturing others for doing the same - he may well have been spouting unsubstantiated crap, but that’s no excuse for you to be hypocritical.

As for Hitler’s need to aspire to better Napoleon, just because he may have aspired to emulate him does not mean that he aspired to copy him either. Napoleon was a big fan of Alexander, but you didn’t see him go off to invade Persia. There’s plenty of historical evidence and argument that would seem to indicate that while he may have had minor aspirations towards territories lost to France in WWI, his focus was on eastern expansion and annexation.

Realistically, the only evidence that I’ve seen of Hitler’s ambitions for World domination have been in episodes of Star Trek - and frankly I’m a bit dubious about the all Germans speaking perfect English...

No I'm telling you to present evidence (or even a cogent argument to begin with) rather than come out with wild clichés, especially in light of your lecturing others for doing the same - he may well have been spouting unsubstantiated crap, but that’s no excuse for you to be hypocritical.

Actually it was my second time querying why the Christian Brothers were being held in disrepute under this thread. My first query was never answered. Hence the question.

As for my being hypocritical, I suppose I was. Thanks for pointing it out. I assumed that it was a common belief, and didn't need to be proved. My assumption was incorrect. Cheers.

But I'd still like an expansion on his comment abt the Christian Brothers. Reasons to back up his opinion etc.

As for Hitler’s need to aspire to better Napoleon, just because he may have aspired to emulate him does not mean that he aspired to copy him either. Napoleon was a big fan of Alexander, but you didn’t see him go off to invade Persia. There’s plenty of historical evidence and argument that would seem to indicate that while he may have had minor aspirations towards territories lost to France in WWI, his focus was on eastern expansion and annexation

I never said that Hitler wished to copy Napoleon. I said that he wished to beat Napoleon's campaign. Napoleon conquered mainland europe, reached into africa & egypt, and finally into Russia. Hitler wished to expand in a similiar fashion. The western aspect figured the need to Humble France, isolate Britain, and secure the mineral imports from Denmark/Norway.

Realistically, the only evidence that I’ve seen of Hitler’s ambitions for World domination have been in episodes of Star Trek - and frankly I’m a bit dubious about the all Germans speaking perfect English...

Ditto. All the evidence that I've seen points that Hitler was suprised Britain and France supported Poland, and was forced into the War. Sure a war with Russia was definelty going to happen based on his speeches. I personally believe that he wished to humble France, sue a peace with the rest of the west, and utterly destroy the Soviet Union.

true

Klaz : seeing as you have such a poor understanding of history, grammar and spelling, I would not boast about your Christian Brothers education if I were you.

True, care to point out where I'm incorrect as regards the History? As for the spelling, the same can be said of most of the posters in boards including yourself.

And when you're pointing out my mistakes in History, I'd definetly like to see examples. The grammar and spelling I don't really care about, because I know i've made mistakes there. The History though, I'd like to see evidence of your accusation.

And you keep avoiding answering the question about the Christian Brothers. Some backing up of your opinions please. <Hint> <Hint>

toiletduck

[QUOTE=klaz All the evidence that I've seen points that Hitler was suprised Britain and France supported Poland, and was forced into the War. Sure a war with Russia was definelty going to happen based on his speeches. I personally believe that he wished to humble France, sue a peace with the rest of the west, and utterly destroy the Soviet Union.[/QUOTE]
He wasnt forced into war, he didnt have to invade Poland. But i agree that the last thing he wanted was to fight a war on two fronts. Russia was his main target but he always wanted to right the wrongs (as he saw it) of the Versailles treaty e.g. he made the French sign their 'surrender' in the same train carriage that Germany signed the armistice that ended WWI.

true

klaz wrote " Europe did not go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust. Not one country did. (otherwise war would have started in 1936ish)"

Sorry to enlighten you klaz, but the Holocaust proper did not start in 1936ish. The concentration camps were not built until years later.

Klaz wrote " What are your feelings towards the Superpowers of Britain, France, Russia, The USA, Italy etc for allowing the round up and subsequent executions of German Undesirables which, in turn, led to the Holocaust?"

Eh, Klaz, the Britain , France , Russia and the USA fought to some extent in WW2. Ok, you may quibble that the USA entered late, that France could have put up a better effort etc, but they did resist Nazism. Italy was an axis power, as you are no doubt aware. Britain and the USA over the years did accept numbers of Jewish refugees. What has this got to do with Ireland ?



You wrote "You see, History has always been a passion for me, especially matters that pertain to WW2. The teacher I got in 6th class woke that interest in me.

Re. the Christian Brothers, it was you ( klaz) who asked Teneka " Where did you get this tripe? Did you go to the Christian Brothers at any stage of your education? "
It was you (klaz) that wrote "You see, History has always been a passion for me, especially matters that pertain to WW2. The teacher I got in 6th class woke that interest in me."

The funny thing is, you say "I had a damn good primary education there" !!!

Redleslie2

true wrote:

Sorry to enlighten you klaz, but the Holocaust proper did not start in 1936ish. The concentration camps were not built until years later.

Tell us when Dachau and Sachsenhausen were established then. Then tell us where the nazis put 150,000 communist and social democratic party people by the end of 1933.

MG

The Wannsee conference which finalised "the final solution" was in January 1942. As far as I know, this was the beginning of the policy of systematic extermination of Jews. Before that there was oppression, deportation, imprisonment, work camps and murder but no coherent policy as such.