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

The Corinthian

true wrote:

Regarding the figure who died in the Boer war camps, first it was 28,000, now 30,000 and in another source 10,000. It was so long ago and so far away, why is it dragged up whenever Nazism is mentioned?

By that logic we should just stop bothering with the Holocaust in maybe another forty years?

With regard to the number of those who died in the concentration camps of the Boer war, I’ve certainly never heard the figure of 10,000 mentioned - would you care to point to a source for this? And as you do so, let us know whether the death of 10,000 innocents is simply another one of those distractions you’re so fond of discussing?

The reason the concentration camps of the Boer war are brought up is because of their comparative relevancy. The Boer war maybe a century old now, but it was fresher in the minds of people in the 1940’s than World War II is to us today; Winston Churchill, for example, even fought in it. Additionally, the attitudes and behaviour of people in 1900 may be drastically different to ours, but in 1940 they were still largely current.

Most importantly however, the concentration camps of the Boer war are a reminder (one of many) that history of World War II is not as simplistic as some would argue. That the brutality of man is not limited to any particular nation, creed or ideology and that that there are ultimately no good guys, only guys who weren’t quite as bad as the others and guys who won and guys who lost.

Otherwise the World is a simplistic black and white one and you would probably find that your certainties have more in common with the Nazis who were just as convinced as you as to who were the good guys.

monument

true wrote:

OK but two hundred years ago the world was a different place. That was then , this is now. Nobody is denying there were injustices then, just the same as in practically every country in the world.

Are you keen on forgetting about the past, or is it only when it suits you?

true

monument wrote:

Are you keen on forgetting about the past, or is it only when it suits you?

No, I never forget the past, but I do forgive.

As regards seeing things in black and white, yes people are human, and countries and governments are made up of humans. Nobody or no country or no political system could be said to be perfect. Many people in this country have a black and white view of Britain etc, and have learnt all about the famine, the 800 years etc, but never would have a good word to say about our neighbours history with Ireland. I look at the good and bad points and weigh them up. As a previous poster wrote " Otherwise the World is a simplistic black and white one and you would probably find that your certainties have more in common with the Nazis who were just as convinced as you as to who were the good guys."

The topic of this thread is Ireland neutral status in the Second World War , not Irelands neutral status in the Boer war. Incidentally, did you know some Irishmen fought in the Boer war.

In conclusion, I take it that the two previous gentlemen think it was right for Ireland to be neutral in WW2, because of some war in South Africa many years previously?

The Corinthian

true wrote:

No, I never forget the past, but I do forgive.

As regards seeing things in black and white, yes people are human, and countries and governments are made up of humans.

It’s all very well speaking in clichés, but are you going to address any of the points and, in many cases, direct questions that have been addressed to you?

I look at the good and bad points and weigh them up.

Except that you have consistently not done so. Indeed, you’re actually simply ignoring points at this stage rather than even making the pretence of weighing them up.

The topic of this thread is Ireland neutral status in the Second World War , not Irelands neutral status in the Boer war.

We’re addressing the morality of Ireland’s neutral status during World War II. Questioning the relative morality of the belligerent parties, in particular those generally labelled as the ‘good guys’ is quite relevant in the context of the discussion. Highlighting the Boer war is also relevant, for reasons I’ve already given (conveniently ignored by you).

In conclusion, I take it that the two previous gentlemen think it was right for Ireland to be neutral in WW2, because of some war in South Africa many years previously?

How about you try addressing some of the numerous unanswered points posed towards you and we’ll reciprocate?

With logic like that perhaps you should enter "Mastermind", Klaz. If you think British rule is so oppressive, Klaz, why did millions of our countrymen and women vote with their feet and go and live in the UK? If its so oppressive in N. Ireland, why do most people there want to stay in the UK, inc 32% of Catholics there.

If you had really read what I'd posted you would have realised I was refering to the occupation of the south prior to the Independence. I'm not from the north, so i'm not going to comment on situations there. Try reading what I said. It tends to help before you post a rejoinder.

As for mastermind, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Another comment that makes no sense, at least to me anyway. :rolleyes:

Regarding the Boer war, there is no proof that disease was used as a weapon. Regarding the figure who died in the Boer war camps, first it was 28,000, now 30,000 and in another source 10,000. It was so long ago and so far away, why is it dragged up whenever Nazism is mentioned?

Right. Have you actually read any articles about the concentration camps in the boer war? read, not scanned. The lack of sanitation and medicial facilities combined with lack of food, and clothing suggests it. Its common sense, that if these things are put in place, people will die.

Corinthian, has more than adequately replied to the rest of that quote.

OK but two hundred years ago the world was a different place. That was then , this is now. Nobody is denying there were injustices then, just the same as in practically every country in the world.

And yet you seem to believe that the difference in time between WW2, and the Boer War justifies the actions taken place. Sure they were different times, but society's morals were the same then as it was in 1939 regarding the treatment of civilians during time of war. especially considering the way the Boer population was treated.

Public reaction to the Boer War concentration camps was the first indication that peoples opinions towards the treatment of civilians by the military was changing.

No, I never forget the past, but I do forgive

Nice sentiment, however, your posts seem a bit sketchy as regards the past.

The topic of this thread is Ireland neutral status in the Second World War , not Irelands neutral status in the Boer war.

I think you're losing the plot a bit. Nobody has been talking about Ireland's neutrality in the Boer war, the last few pages have had references to the usage of concentration camps in the Boer war as a comparison to WW2. You yourself have posted regarding that usage.

Incidentally, did you know some Irishmen fought in the Boer war.

Lol. Whats the relevence of this?

landser

true wrote:

."

The topic of this thread is Ireland neutral status in the Second World War , not Irelands neutral status in the Boer war. Incidentally, did you know some Irishmen fought in the Boer war.

In conclusion, I take it that the two previous gentlemen think it was right for Ireland to be neutral in WW2, because of some war in South Africa many years previously?

what the....??? ireland couldn't have been neutral in the boer war, it was part of the UK. that is akin to saying that Wales was neutral during WW2! as for your revelation that some irishmen fought in that war.... you don't say! they fought as part of the british army as well as for the Boers

no one has said that it was right for ireland to be neutral during ww2 because of concentration camps in south africa. it's not even a logical argument to make! the issue of the camps in SA was an incidental tangental argument, almost unrelated to the topic of ireland's shame.

as for your "in conclusion" phrase.... is this a promise??

bonkey

This thread is reading a little bit past its "sell by" date at this stage to me. People are getting a little too heated and a little too personal.

I'm inclined to lock it, but I'll give posters 24 hours to convince me otherwise.

jc

I'm inclined to lock it, but I'll give posters 24 hours to convince me otherwise.

Well, until you see any personal insults fly I'd be inclined to leave it open. Its wandered a bit, but I'm kinda interested to see where it'll lead. I've found out a few things I never knew. Still, I'll buy you a few beers next time you're in Cork, Bonkey

arcadegame2004

With logic like that perhaps you should enter "Mastermind", Klaz. If you think British rule is so oppressive, Klaz, why did millions of our countrymen and women vote with their feet and go and live in the UK? If its so oppressive in N. Ireland, why do most people there want to stay in the UK, inc 32% of Catholics there.

In the case of the Unionists wanting to be in the UK, it is simply fear of losing their traditional position of being the rulers that they always had in British-ruled Ireland. A useful analogy is the whites in South Africa and their fear of being ruled by the black majority, as well as the Algerian French-speaking settlers and their descendents planted there during 130 years of French rule. It is no more, and no less, than this.

Regarding the 32%, I would be greatly interested in more probing questions of that group, so as to ascertain if their opposition is to a UI in principle, or just at the moment. The evidence has been from polls I have seen that the older the NI Catholic is, the less likely they are to favour a UI. This bodes well then for the future in the event of a Catholic majority as the younger voters (who tend to vote SF) will become the core of the Catholic vote in decades to come.

Southern Ireland now has a higher GDP per capita and average wage than NI. As this becomes ever clear I expect the 32% figure to begin to decline. I account for the 32% figure as being partly due to traditional fears of being worse off in a UI, as well as others feeling that it should happen but not yet, hence, "no" for the moment.

BTW, try telling the family of Pat Finucane, the Bloody Sunday victims, and the family of Rosemary Nelson that the UK has not been oppressive in recent times.

true

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In the case of the Unionists wanting to be in the UK, it is simply fear of losing their traditional position of being the rulers that they always had in British-ruled Ireland. A useful analogy is the whites in South Africa and their fear of being ruled by the black majority, as well as the Algerian French-speaking settlers and their descendents planted there during 130 years of French rule. It is no more, and no less, than this.

The evidence has been from polls I have seen that the older the NI Catholic is, the less likely they are to favour a UI. This bodes well then for the future in the event of a Catholic majority as the younger voters (who tend to vote SF) will become the core of the Catholic vote in decades to come.

The modern generation of Unionists are not rulers any more than Fianna Fail are in the 26 counties or the Labour part in Britain. In fact, Northern Protestants see their community being slightly under-represted in the new PSNI for example, which is 50% Catholic by law , but they are willing to put up with this for peace. Everyone has a vote in N. Ireland, and there are anti-descrimination legislation : these are just two reasons why your analogy of the modern day N. Ireland with South Africa and Algeria is straight of the propoganda books, or An Phoblocht.

The reason the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not want to join the south has nothing to do with the fact that the Protestant population of the south declined so much after partition?

Younger Catholics may be more likely to vote Sinn Fein that older Catholics , because older Catholics lived through the 50's and 60's and knew what it was like. Younger Catholics mainly go on what they are taught in school, and what they are told by Sinn Fein. Also, older Catholics are likely to have lived through the troubles and remember it all. Most of the people on this island would disagree with you when you say this bodes well for the future.

arcadegame2004

The reason the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not want to join the south has nothing to do with the fact that the Protestant population of the south declined so much after partition?

Well the last census in 2002 showed a considerable increase in the Protestant population. At this rate, it will soon be back where it was when the southern state started.

true

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well the last census in 2002 showed a considerable increase in the Protestant population. At this rate, it will soon be back where it was when the southern state started.

The population increase in the last census was due to many factors, including immigration and some Catholics leaving the R.C. church. However it still has a long , long way to go to where it was at partition, but maybe in another 100 years ! Not that it matters, this country is an awful lot better and more liberal than 40, 60, 80 years ago. I was just giving the perspective from the Northern Unionist community, as not unlike the Jewish community in Germany in the thirties many of them are the ones who see themselves as being under siege.

True, I don't suppose you could respond to the rest of the thread comments?

arcadegame2004

true wrote:

The population increase in the last census was due to many factors, including immigration and some Catholics leaving the R.C. church. However it still has a long , long way to go to where it was at partition, but maybe in another 100 years ! Not that it matters, this country is an awful lot better and more liberal than 40, 60, 80 years ago. I was just giving the perspective from the Northern Unionist community, as not unlike the Jewish community in Germany in the thirties many of them are the ones who see themselves as being under siege.

You cannot seriously compare treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930's with the Irish state's treatment of Southern Protestants. Get real. I am not aware of Irish soldiers or police painting "Prod" on Protestant shop-windows, or sending Protestants to labour/death camps. I am not aware either of an Irish version of the Nuremburg law taking away Protestants rights to Irish citizenship. Nor am I aware of a law banning intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants like Jews being banned from having sexual relations with Germans under the Nazis.

It says a lot that you have to go back to the 1950's to find any evidence of Southern Protestants getting a rough deal, and even then, it was an extremely rare event down here. There was never a Protestant version of Bombay Street in NI where an entire street of Catholics were burnt out of their homes, since independence. Nor did De Valera or any other Taoiseach make remarks like those of Lord Brookeborough (2nd PM of NI) when he called on "those who are Loyalist not to employ Roman Catholics, 95% of whom are disloyal".

Those Unionists of NI who feel "under-siege" feel that way simply for the same reason that the Whites in South Africa felt under siege when faced with demands for equality.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Well, until you see any personal insults fly I'd be inclined to leave it open. Its wandered a bit, but I'm kinda interested to see where it'll lead. I've found out a few things I never knew.

Fair enough....as long as it stays civil and doesn't get stuck in an endless loop.

jc

true

Arcadegame, you misquoted me and you should apologise for saying what you did suggest in those 2 paragraphs.

I said " I was just giving the perspective from the Northern Unionist community, not unlike the Jewish community in Germany in the thirties many of them are the ones who see themselves as being under siege." In your reply, which is the next sentence, you then launch in to an attack on me for camparing Protestants in the south with Nazi Germany! You say "You cannot seriously compare treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930's with the Irish state's treatment of Southern Protestants".

I know of windows being broken and a bit of grafitti here in the south, but that is very rare nowadays. I was talking about the situation in N.I., where there is equality now. The situation in N.I. now is unlike that in South Africa during apartheid, and it is unfair of you to suggest it is. There are anti-descrimination laws, full voting , freedom of choice, etc in N. I. now.l

Like it or not, the reason some N. I. Unionists ( and I am not one ) feel under siege is because many of their family and friends have been killed or wounded by republicans, or they have had property destroyed or whatever. Many in border areas see the IRA campaign of the seventies and eighties as being like a sort of ethnic cleansing, which has resulted in the border being moved back 20 miles, due to the killings and intimidation etc. I think everyone has to understand the other sides position, pain and fears before the situation can really progress. I know both sides have suffered.

gurramok

true wrote:

Younger Catholics may be more likely to vote Sinn Fein that older Catholics , because older Catholics lived through the 50's and 60's and knew what it was like. Younger Catholics mainly go on what they are taught in school, and what they are told by Sinn Fein. Also, older Catholics are likely to have lived through the troubles and remember it all. Most of the people on this island would disagree with you when you say this bodes well for the future

Maybe its because younger catholics have experienced occupation more than the older ones. ie they grew up with police and soldiers all around them with the intimidation that goes with it. Younger would be anyone under 40
It would be interesting to see voting figures of the different ages if they were available.

true wrote:

Like it or not, the reason some N. I. Unionists ( and I am not one ) feel under siege is because many of their family and friends have been killed or wounded by republicans, or they have had property destroyed or whatever. Many in border areas see the IRA campaign of the seventies and eighties as being like a sort of ethnic cleansing, which has resulted in the border being moved back 20 miles, due to the killings and intimidation etc. I think everyone has to understand the other sides position, pain and fears before the situation can really progress. I know both sides have suffered.

Problem is true that you have not highlighted the exact same happenings that have been perpetrated by the members of the same community on their opposites
No community has a monopoly on grief.

arcadegame2004

I said " I was just giving the perspective from the Northern Unionist community, not unlike the Jewish community in Germany in the thirties many of them are the ones who see themselves as being under siege." In your reply, which is the next sentence, you then launch in to an attack on me for camparing Protestants in the south with Nazi Germany! You say "You cannot seriously compare treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930's with the Irish state's treatment of Southern Protestants".

No I didn't accuse you of saying that.

I mean "You" in the "One cannot" sense, not you personally, True!

50_pennies

simu wrote:

No. What good is shame? The past is the past and it can't be undone and besides, all the politicians involved are dead now.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

landser

50_pennies wrote:

Couldnt have said it better myself.

that's about the size of it alright