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

MG

I think most people have grasped well why I brought up the point about Britain not declaring war on Russia when they invaded Poland.

There were probably three possible reasons why Britain could have declared war on Germany:
1. The guarantee of Polands borders
2. Humanitarian concerns
3. To protect its own interests

Now the first two concerns we can rule out as the principle reason because they could equally be applied to the Soviet Union. It is safe to assume that the third was the real reason as for geographical reasons Germany threatened Britain's safety and interests more than the Soviets did at the time.

The defence of the jews was merely a byproduct of Britain defending its interests. Imagine the cabinet room when they decided to issue the ultimatum to Hitler. I can't imagine that the treatment of the jews came up as a reason to attack the Nazis other than to illustrate that Hitler was bad news. And even the Skibereen Eagle knew that, as would anyone with a map.

No, all parties in WWII acted out of national interest not moral interests. Ireland has therefore no shame to bear for its stance other than the common shame which all humaity must bear that such a thing is possible in all of us.

No, all parties in WWII acted out of national interest not moral interests. Ireland has therefore no shame to bear for its stance other than the common shame which all humaity must bear that such a thing is possible in all of us.

Perfect conclusion for all these pages

ionapaul

It's nice for humanity when national interest and moral interest / concerns are conveniently aligned, as they were in WWII for the Western Allies

Johnmb

ionapaul wrote:

It's nice for humanity when national interest and moral interest / concerns are conveniently aligned, as they were in WWII for the Western Allies

But they weren't. Both sides carried out atrocities in that war, and moral interests always came in distantly behind national interests.

But they weren't. Both sides carried out atrocities in that war, and moral interests always came in distantly behind national interests.

True enough. The Atrocities that the Allies performed while not covered up, don't really share the same kind of inspection that the Nazi Atrocities do. Even to this day, such is the case. For Example, the firebombing of Dresden (Feb 13/14 1945), or the firebombing of Tokyo. We know they happened but we're more likely to know more about german death camps, or use of V2 rockets against London...

MG

I just saw this in todays independant and thought it should be posted here

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=53&si=1327793&issue_id=12005

Sir - An article in the Times of London, entitled 'Nazi IRA Man's Statue Beheaded', also appeared in your newspaper as 'Jewish group says beheaded "Nazi" statue should be left as "symbol of Irish shame"' on the same day. I wish to clarify that this is a total misrepresentation of my position and that of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

I have repeated in my many visits to Ireland - especially at a seminar on human rights at the National University in Galway and, more recently, in Dublin, at a meeting of European NGOs against racism - my personal sympathy for Ireland's suffering throughout the infamous Famine and as a victim of brutal British colonialism.

The renaissance of your sovereignty, your national liberation and the rejuvenation of your language have run parallel with the rebirth of Jewish statehood and of Hebrew as a modern tongue.

When asked by the Times to comment on the destruction of the Sean Russell statue, I made two points:
* The removal of the damaged effigy or its reconstruction would both be perceived as political acts. I recalled Unesco's decision not to rebuild the Buddhist Bamyan statues of Afghanistan, destroyed by the Taliban. It was thought wiser to leave the ruins as an object lesson of the dangers of extremism and totalitarianism.
* I emphasised that the Jewish people reject the concept of national or inter-generational collective guilt, responsibility or shame - we have been the victim of a collective charge of deicide for two millennia.

On the other hand, Ireland is the only Second World War neutral to have never confronted its contacts with Nazi Germany as opposed to its 'unofficial' support for the Allied war effort. Debating the complexities of Irish neutrality is a cathartic process to be undertaken by the Irish people alone, just as the painful self-enquiry into national collective memory was travelled by the Swiss, the Swedes, the Spanish and other neutrals.

Indeed, I used the word 'shame', but not in the context attributed to me in the article. I said it was "a shame" that the alleged Nazi art connections of the Hunt Museum founders had not led to a public enquiry and an open debate on the lessons of the Second World War, especially during last year's Dublin EU presidency.


Too many of my closest friends in Ireland have been hurt by the perception of an uncharacteristic and unintended offence on my part against the spirit and heritage of Ireland. I am aggrieved at their pain and only hope, through your column, to reassure them of my constancy and goodwill to Ireland.
Dr Shimon Samuels,
Centre Simon Wiesenthal,
Avenue Marceau,
Paris

ionapaul

Johnmb wrote:

But they weren't. Both sides carried out atrocities in that war, and moral interests always came in distantly behind national interests.

So would it have been a moral 'status quo' if Hitler had beaten the Allies, rather than the other way around?

Maybe I've been brainwashed by my history books - I maintain the world is a better place as a result of the Allied rather than Axis victory. I know a great many historians are of the view that the battle against the Nazis was the clearest struggle between 'good and evil' to have existed.

Is the view that either side was as bad as the other the ultimate in moral relativity? I can't accept that view. The bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki =/= the Holocaust and the brutality of Nazism OR the brutality of Imperial Japanese occupation!

Johnmb

ionapaul wrote:

So would it have been a moral 'status quo' if Hitler had beaten the Allies, rather than the other way around?

Maybe I've been brainwashed by my history books - I maintain the world is a better place as a result of the Allied rather than Axis victory. I know a great many historians are of the view that the battle against the Nazis was the clearest struggle between 'good and evil' to have existed.

Is the view that either side was as bad as the other the ultimate in moral relativity? I can't accept that view. The bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki =/= the Holocaust and the brutality of Nazism OR the brutality of Imperial Japanese occupation!

You again seem to want to pick and choose who exactly the "allies" were. Stalin did a lot of evil things after the war, and there is no reason to believe that Hitler would have done anything worse than Stalin. So, in the bigger picture, the only thing that changed was who carried out the atrocities, not that atrocities were carried out.

Maybe I've been brainwashed by my history books - I maintain the world is a better place as a result of the Allied rather than Axis victory. I know a great many historians are of the view that the battle against the Nazis was the clearest struggle between 'good and evil' to have existed.

Don't get me wrong from the previous posts, I view the defeat of Germany as a good thing. I definetly wouldn't have liked a victorious Nazi Third Reich ruling Europe.

But a struggle between good and evil, no. Evil against Grey matter maybe. The allies were definitley not good, but they weren't evil. That falls to Nazi Germany.

Is the view that either side was as bad as the other the ultimate in moral relativity? I can't accept that view. The bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki =/= the Holocaust and the brutality of Nazism OR the brutality of Imperial Japanese occupation!

I don't know. I do know that Britain & the US performed military operations that resulted in massive civilian casualties (with the intentional targeting of civilians), Russian forces raped and murdered their way across Europe to reach Germany, French "troops" & resistance on regaining French Territory stoned to death and murdered collaberators (sp?) (i.e. women whole slept with German troops for food etc).

On the same hand, German troops raped and murdered. Death camps were built. we all know the german atrocities.

ionapaul

Stalin was as evil and murderous as Hitler, yes, and as I have mentioned twice already in this thread, I would have been in favour of Patton's suggestion to attack the Soviets in 1945 and take care of that problem quickly (and bloodily I'm sure) rather than having to wait for 40 years. HOWEVER, the Nazi ideology was certainly more dangerous for the world IMHO than Soviet Communism (I am not including Stalinism as that did not outlast his death in such a brutal form) and I believe that had the Axis won, Nazism would have survived the death of Hitler.

So again I will maintain my belief that it was in the world's benefit that the Nazis were defeated and the Allies won. I am sure that the vast majority of historians would agree with me.

Johnmb

ionapaul wrote:

Stalin was as evil and murderous as Hitler, yes, and as I have mentioned twice already in this thread, I would have been in favour of Patton's suggestion to attack the Soviets in 1945 and take care of that problem quickly (and bloodily I'm sure) rather than having to wait for 40 years. HOWEVER, the Nazi ideology was certainly more dangerous for the world IMHO than Soviet Communism (I am not including Stalinism as that did not outlast his death in such a brutal form) and I believe that had the Axis won, Nazism would have survived the death of Hitler.

So again I will maintain my belief that it was in the world's benefit that the Nazis were defeated and the Allies won. I am sure that the vast majority of historians would agree with me.

Maybe, but that still doesn't mean that moral interests were given any consideration by the policy makers of the time. Both sider carried out immoral acts, before, during, and after the war. They were all pretty much on a par with each other, but some became more publicised than others. That doesn't make the atrocities of the allies any less immoral.

landser

history is always written by the victor. had the axis powers been victorious, we would now be discussing soviet, british and french atrocities, but probably not debating them (no debate would be allowed in public).

nobody ever mentions the british concentration camps during the Boer war, where tens of thousands died due to neglect. while they can't be compared to the death camps, which were intended to kill, as opposed to kill them incidentally, thay are stillan outrage for which britain has never been brought to task. why? cas is was them what won the war!

i'm glad the axis didn't win btw, just so you know.

sceptre

landser wrote:

nobody ever mentions the british concentration camps during the Boer war

They were mentioned a few pages back in this thread. At least I think it was this thread, they've all merged into one in my mind lately for some strange inexplicable reason.

landser

sceptre wrote:

They were mentioned a few pages back in this thread. At least I think it was this thread, they've all merged into one in my mind lately for some strange inexplicable reason.

i know how you feel. if it was this thread i missed it. anyway, whenver you mention the nazis, the british in south africa will always come up

Keyzer

ishmael whale wrote:

“…. Russell was commanding officer of the IRA during the Second World War and conducted a campaign of assassination and sabotage in both Britain and Ireland, aimed at damaging the war effort against Hitler.
Although an open ally of the Nazis, Russell is still honoured by the modern IRA and Sinn Fein. In September 2003, Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald spoke at a rally to commemorate Russell in the north Dublin park. …”

From reading Tim Pat Coogans "IRA", the IRA were not aiming to damage the war effort against Hitler. The old stance of "my enemys enemy is my friend" came into the play. It did not matter who was attacking Britain at the time, the IRA would have had dealings with them. Having said that, a deal was struck between the Nazis and the IRA, but the guns that were promised were old and in very bad condition, so clearly the Nazis did not take the IRA's effort very seriously.

Should we feel guilty? No we should not.
I think the people criticising Ireland on it neutrality should perhaps look at Switzerlands disgraceful actions (manufacturing German Army weapons, allowing tranport of Jews through Switzerland, Hordeing Nazi gold and treasures and keeping them when the war ended to name a few) during WWII and then compare this to Irelands mediocre actions if any.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Don't get me wrong from the previous posts, I view the defeat of Germany as a good thing. I definetly wouldn't have liked a victorious Nazi Third Reich ruling Europe.

Here we go again with the histrionics.

ionapaul wrote:

So again I will maintain my belief that it was in the world's benefit that the Nazis were defeated and the Allies won. I am sure that the vast majority of historians would agree with me.

If they don’t they can be arrested in many countries, and that’s where I begin to become suspicious of what I am told to believe. Yesterday we saw the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and while watching some coverage of it on television, someone mentioned that the Holocaust took the lives of some six million Jews and five or six million others. What struck me was that had someone suggested that five or six million Jews had perished, then they would have been practically lynched.

We still live in a World that is still theoretically administered by the victors of that conflict (the permanent members of the UN Security Council). As such, the history of that period has been written to reflect the morality of the victors and promoted to the point of hysteria. It is unlikely that we will be able to discuss Hitler, Nazism or World War II objectively for at least another 40 years.

secret_squirrel

The Corinthian wrote:

Yesterday we saw the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and while watching some coverage of it on television, someone mentioned that the Holocaust took the lives of some six million Jews and five or six million others. What struck me was that had someone suggested that five or six million Jews had perished, then they would have been practically lynched.

You are spot on there - what has always worried me about the Holocaust is the fact that if anyone dare's question how exactly the total of 6m was reached one risks being labelled anti-semitic.

This thread demonstrates among other things how important it is to maintain a healthy level of scepticism about everything we are are taught or read in the press. In this the holocaust no different to any other significant event of our times.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

Here we go again with the histrionics.

Hardly, since we were talking about a Europe if Germany had won, and if it would be better than the Allied Victory. I said that Germany losing was a good thing.

Or are you going to tell me that there's links I could have used.

We still live in a World that is still theoretically administered by the victors of that conflict (the permanent members of the UN Security Council). As such, the history of that period has been written to reflect the morality of the victors and promoted to the point of hysteria. It is unlikely that we will be able to discuss Hitler, Nazism or World War II objectively for at least another 40 years

i could mention that this opinion falls in with your pointing out of histrionics, BUT I agree with you totally :rolleyes:

You are spot on there - what has always worried me about the Holocaust is the fact that if anyone dare's question how exactly the total of 6m was reached one risks being labelled anti-semitic.

What I always wonder about is when you mention the millions of non-jewish people that died due to concentration and death camps, many people think you're belittling the deaths of the Jews.

true

To clear up some points raised:

The total number of Jews killed was six million.

The bombing of Germany came years after Germany had bombed London, Coventry and many other places in the UK.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki came after it became clear that the Japanese would not surrender, following bloody battles in the islands south of Japan, and that invading Japan would inflict massive casulties and prolong the war. That said, I think one city (or better still military target ) to atom bomb would have been sufficient.

The concentration camps in South Africa which one particular poster keeps refering to were not like the concentration camps in WW2. Even Black south africans will tell you they were just small prisons, but then they do not have the hatred of the British that some Irish people have.

secret_squirrel

true wrote:

Even Black south africans will tell you they were just small prisons

Errr - relevance?? The Boers were mainly white settlers of Dutch origin.

The total number of Jews killed was six million

No, the estimated number of Jews that died was six million. Its an estimate since over the period that they lived there, children were born and children died. They too were jews.

Also since so many families were wiped out, and their records destroyed in the war, its hard to put an actual figure on the death-toll. Its an estimate.

The bombing of Germany came years after Germany had bombed London, Coventry and many other places in the UK.

And that excuses the horrific targeting of civilian areas with a weapon designed to burn the city to the ground? (Think of it like, the someone dropping a MOAB on Dublin) Whereas Germany had no heavy bombers (only light-medium with smaller bomb space and shorter range), so the death toll was way smaller than the majority of attacks by allied bombers.

No one is excusing the targeting of cities with the intent to cause terror and death, but don't be blind to the actions of the Allies during WW2.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki came after it became clear that the Japanese would not surrender, following bloody battles in the islands south of Japan, and that invading Japan would inflict massive casulties and prolong the war. That said, I think one city (or better still military target ) to atom bomb would have been sufficient.

I'm pretty sure thats the point we're trying to make. the dropping of the bomb was not on a military target. It was targeted on a city to cause as much devastation as possible. I know all the military reasons, I can understand them all, it still doesn't excuse those two targets.

The concentration camps in South Africa which one particular poster keeps refering to were not like the concentration camps in WW2. Even Black south africans will tell you they were just small prisons,

Really? You're right in one factor that they weren't like german concentration camps (not Death camps), in Poland and such the weather was colder, in the Boer War the weather was both cold and extremely hot.

The part you seem to forget though, is that they were like any other enforced camp. Lack of adequate food, lack of adequate clothing, freedoms rejected, their personal items confiscated, harrassment of female "prisoners", separation of husbands from wives, etc.

Not as bad as Nazi camps, but still nothing i'd like to endure.

they do not have the hatred of the British that some Irish people have.

Some Boers do, and some don't. The same as Irish people towards the English crown. I don't particularly like the British history of being in Ireland, but i can say with all honesty that I don't hate them. :rolleyes:

billy the squid

whenver you mention the nazis, the british in south africa will always come up

why do they keep blaming the english for the creation of concentration camps

http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Essays/Boer.html

he answer was concentration camps, a technique developed by the Spanish in Cuba during the Spanish-American war.

http://www.candles-museum.com/camps.htm

irishboy99_

No neutrality is good

billy the squid

irishboy99_ wrote:

No neutrality is good

why

and while your there you might want to read the sig rules on

tags

true

Deleted User wrote:

No, the estimated number of Jews that died was six million. Its an estimate since over the period that they lived there, children were born and children died. They too were jews.

Also since so many families were wiped out, and their records destroyed in the war, its hard to put an actual figure on the death-toll. Its an estimate.

That is what I said. Six Million. Someone else thought it was less. I did not say "six million" meaning it was not six million and three people, or five million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand. Of course its only an estimate , since as you say, childred were worn and children died.


Re. the British in South Africa, there is absolutely no comparison between their camps in South Africa and the concentration camps in Germany, Poland etc. in the next century.

Teneka

true wrote:

To clear up some points raised:

The total number of Jews killed was six million.

The bombing of Germany came years after Germany had bombed London, Coventry and many other places in the UK.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki came after it became clear that the Japanese would not surrender, following bloody battles in the islands south of Japan, and that invading Japan would inflict massive casulties and prolong the war. That said, I think one city (or better still military target ) to atom bomb would have been sufficient.

The concentration camps in South Africa which one particular poster keeps refering to were not like the concentration camps in WW2. Even Black south africans will tell you they were just small prisons, but then they do not have the hatred of the British that some Irish people have.

Complete tripe.

billy the squid

Teneka wrote:

Complete tripe.

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/fsol.htm

dont know if it was six million so i will say several million. but please you must be more elaborate in your above post please.

Teneka

Sorry, but that 6 million figure is never questioned. Every news station has it as 6 million. It used to be 9 million. Will it go down again? Who knows. The figure is more likely 1 million or a bit above that. If so, that accounts for 1/50 - 1/60 of the total number killed during the war.

Hmmm.

pete

Teneka wrote:

Sorry, but that 6 million figure is never questioned. Every news station has it as 6 million. It used to be 9 million. Will it go down again? Who knows. The figure is more likely 1 million or a bit above that. If so, that accounts for 1/50 - 1/60 of the total number killed during the war.

Hmmm.

Sources please.

billy the squid

Like i said I dont know the exact number but whether it was 1 or 1 million 6 million it still is genocide and was wrong.