Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

cdebru

true wrote:

I wrote "Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence".

You then wrote "no you are wrong Ireland was never a part of britain it was the UK of GB and Ireland"

Cant you read cdebru?


QUOTE]

YES
but why did you stop quoting yourself at that line
because the next line you said
"We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand."

now i will try to spell it out for yo as you seem to be unable to grasp this concept
we were NOT british

the people on this Island were IRISH not BRITISH

British is anybody born in Great Britain Ireland was never A part of GReat Britain

hopefully it will sink in this time that the part of your post i disagreed with is the Part i have now quoted to you TWICE

you would get more sense out of a child

cdebru

true wrote:

.


Who does that overpaid bitch think she is to compare the hatred of people in Ireland ( of course she mentioned the hatred of catholics, as if catholics were never brought up to hate the British etc ) to the hatred in Nazi Germany. Fat lot of use her Fianna Fail govt of the time did about the injustices in Germany. At least Northern Ireland fought in the war and done its bit. If every country behaved like the 26 counties then, what sort of world would we have now?
Hitler invaded many neutral countries when it suited him. I think what few Jews were left in Ireland then would not have escaped his attention, as least.




.

She is the President of this Country and a bit of respect would not go astray

what devalera did during the second world war was in the best interests of the state and had the overwhelming support of the vast majority of the population it is easy for you to sit here now and second guess that decision


Are you really suggesting that the president was wrong and that people in the north did not instll a hatred for catholics in their children

yes nationalist were given a hatred of britain but that would hardly be a surprise as they were occupying the country what would you expect

gurramok

true wrote:

Did you know 70,000 volunteers from the 26 counties fought in WW1 , and 50,000 from N. Ireland

Are you implying that these 70,000 fought and died for Britain, to retain the union ???
You are misleading the facts, they fought like my grandfather on the premise from Redmond that home rule would be granted to Ireland at the time by Britain if they fought in an British army uniform. They did not willy-nilly die for the Union cause.
Agreed that they should be remembered equally like the heroes who won our independence.
Often wondered why this country does not celebrate our independence day.

true wrote:

I took a train journey recently. It was on the same railway lines the "British" laid, and the CIE train must nearly be as old. I am not joking. Yes, I know Ireland has boomed especially this last ten years, mainly due to EC grants and foreign investment and tourism ( which N.I. does not have ).

That is your opinion : I know quite a few catholics in N. Ireland who would not only disagree with you, but have the opposite opinion.

Firstly, NI has had 'foreign'(britain to you and me) investment from the uk govt over the centuries to develop its industries(shipbuilding, flax etc) unlike the south which was neglected until after independence.

Secondly, I also know a few catholics who take preference with an Irish passport and those on both sides who hold dual nationality(my opinion is that they use it when it suits them)

cdebru wrote:

British is anybody born in Great Britain Ireland was never A part of GReat Britain

Wrong on the born thing.
I was born in uk and am ethnic Irish. I was raised over here and I hold an Irish passport and proud of it.

true

cdebru wrote:

true wrote:

I wrote "Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence".

You then wrote "no you are wrong Ireland was never a part of britain it was the UK of GB and Ireland"

Cant you read cdebru?


QUOTE]

YES
but why did you stop quoting yourself at that line
because the next line you said
"We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand."

now i will try to spell it out for yo as you seem to be unable to grasp this concept
we were NOT british

the people on this Island were IRISH not BRITISH

British is anybody born in Great Britain Ireland was never A part of GReat Britain

hopefully it will sink in this time that the part of your post i disagreed with is the Part i have now quoted to you TWICE

you would get more sense out of a child

Yes, but the point I made is that the UK was made up of Ireland and Britain.
You agreed on that part. When I said we were British please consider the context I said it in. I earlier explained to you :

"Well, cdebru, in case you read too much in to what I wrote, its nice to agree on something, but I have to say that if a person from N. Ireland declares that they are British, I would take that to mean that their allegiance is to the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and N. Ireland. They are technically a "United Kingdomer" but call themselves British for short. I have seen it numerous times when checking in at airports with friends from N. Ireland. They are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants but all have what they call " British " passports."

Many northerners in N. Ireland call themselves British, because it is easier to say that "a United Kingdomer". The USA has the same problem. People from USA do not call themselves "United States of Americaners" : they simply call themselves Americans, and it is generally known worldwide where they are from. Technically speaking Canadians are Americans as well, but they call themselves Canadians. Mexicans are from America but they call themselves Mexicans. Like it or not , many of our ancestors called themselves British. The Irish regiments in WW1, were part of the British army. 120,000 Irishmen fought in WW1, and they fought in "British" army uniforms. The wives and girlfiends they left behind looked on it as our uniform, as we were equal to "the mainland " at the time. No wonder the boys in the GPO were boood and did not have popular support at the time. When they charged the Germans, the Germans did not say "here comes the Irish", did they?

In case you are still confused, the Scottish (or Welsh) have no difficulty seeing themselves as Scottish ( or Welsh ) and British.

We are all European now anyway, just to confuse you more !

cdebru

gurramok wrote:

Wrong on the born thing.
I was born in uk and am ethnic Irish. I was raised over here and I hold an Irish passport and proud of it.

apologies i did not mean everyone born in britain had to be british

merely that that is britain this is Ireland

Ireland is not was not and never will be part of britain

cdebru

true wrote:

cdebru wrote:

In case you are still confused, the Scottish (or Welsh) have no difficulty seeing themselves as Scottish ( or Welsh ) and British.

We are all European now anyway, just to confuse you more !

iam not confused you obviuosly still are

england scotland and wales make up great britain

so obviously they are british ( whilst also being english scottish welsh)

and we were always europeans what continent did you think Ireland was part of

swiss

I'm tired and I don't have time to read through all these posts right now. Nevertheless, I'm going to ask cdebru and true to stop bickering, or at least curtail their spat until the morning.

cdebru, I think the debate would be a lot more convivial if you left your condescension behind you. Comparing a debate with someone to a debate with a child is also something I consider quite childish. Ironic, no?

I also take exception to true calling the president of Ireland an "overpaid bitch". You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it is highly inappropriate to deride her comments about northern unionists on one hand and describe her as a bitch on the other. It reeks of hypocrisy.

This is a very interesting thread, and I would prefer it not to be polluted with internal flamewars.

true

cdebru wrote:

She is the President of this Country and a bit of respect would not go astray

Not when she insulted a whole community with her sectarian remark, as well as belittling the suffering of Jews in Nazi Europe.

cdebru wrote:

what devalera did during the second world war was in the best interests of the state and had the overwhelming support of the vast majority of the population it is easy for you to sit here now and second guess that decision

Signing the book of condolence for Hitler and paying his respects at the German embassy was an act no other leader of a country in the world did.
Auschwitz / Birkenau had been liberated a number of months, and the world knew of Hitlers atrocities against various ethnic groups. Thankfully 70000 Irishmen from the 26 counties went to join the British armed forces ( and many thousands more joined from N. Ireland ) and fought Hitler, and many more went to help the war effort in England. DeValera signing the book of condolences of probably the biggest mass murdered in History let down the tens of thousands of Irishmen who played their part in his defeat, many paying with their lives. It was the likes of Dev and you who found it "easy to sit here and second guess decisions"

cdebru wrote:

Are you really suggesting that the president was wrong and that people in the north did not instll a hatred for catholics in their children

If she said "SOME" people in the North or if she said " instll a hatred for catholics or protestants in their children " then that would not be as bad.
However, she is a lawyer, a woman of words, and to abuse her position by saying what she did on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz must go down as one of the greatest slurs / racist comments ever. By inference, she compared the Protestants of N. Ireland to Nazis.
Is the president of Ireland not supposed to be above politics ? Maybe she only got the tour of Auschwitz after she opened her gob. And to think that she costs us seven million euro a year for that.

cdebru wrote:

yes nationalist were given a hatred of britain but that would hardly be a surprise as they were occupying the country what would you expect

Britain is occuping Scotland but the Scottish are not taught to hate Britain.
America is occuping Hawaii but Hawaiians are not taught to hate Americans.
Britain is not "occuping" the 26 counties ( as far as I am aware ) so why are Nationalists taught to hate Brits here? Why is there not parity of esteem?
I know both catholics and protestants in N. Ireland who do not regard Britain as an "occupying" force.

true

True said : In case you are still confused, the Scottish (or Welsh) have no difficulty seeing themselves as Scottish ( or Welsh ) and British

cdebru wrote:

true wrote:

iam not confused you obviuosly still are

england scotland and wales make up great britain

so obviously they are british ( whilst also being english scottish welsh)

and we were always europeans what continent did you think Ireland was part of

That is my point exactly. You can be from Northern Ireland ie Irish and still have allegiance to the UK. When going out in to the world, a person from N. Ireland has the right to call themselves British if they want to , as to call themselves a United Kingdomer does not exactly trip off the tongue. Equally, I fully agree with a resident of N. Ireland calling themselves Irish and having an Irish passport if they so wish.

Yes , I know we were always europeans, but with the EEC becoming the EU and us becoming more and more "united"/ closer, I suppose its fair to say we are all becoming more European.

true

swiss wrote:

I also take exception to true calling the president of Ireland an "overpaid bitch". You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it is highly inappropriate to deride her comments about northern unionists on one hand and describe her as a bitch on the other. It reeks of hypocrisy.

.

Fair enough, it was out of character for me to describe her as a bi**h. I am sorry. Even though I am not a Northern unionist, I was really annoyed about her comments. However, she did make an apology, and she has done some good work previously in bringing the communities together, so I will not mention her in this debate again. Sorry for any offence my bad language caused.

true

gurramok wrote:

Are you implying that these 70,000 fought and died for Britain, to retain the union ???
You are misleading the facts, they fought like my grandfather on the premise from Redmond that home rule would be granted to Ireland at the time by Britain if they fought in an British army uniform. They did not willy-nilly die for the Union cause.
Agreed that they should be remembered equally like the heroes who won our independence.
Often wondered why this country does not celebrate our independence day.
.

No, I am not implying that the men who fought and died in WW1 did so to retain the union. I know some fought ( like your grandfather ) on Redmonds promise that it would help Home Rule. Others fought for the money and could'nt care less what uniform. Some fought for the adventure and thought they would be home for Xmas. And a lot fought because they were proud to fight for their country.

gurramok wrote:

Firstly, NI has had 'foreign'(britain to you and me) investment from the uk govt over the centuries to develop its industries(shipbuilding, flax etc) unlike the south which was neglected until after independence.

"Over the centuries" N.I industry was home grown. Harland and Wolffe and the flax industry were not subsidised from London. They would say ( not I ) that their advantage was industrious workers. Dublin has Guinness and other big employers. To say the south was neglected until after independence - I think many people still felt economically neglected in the decades after independence.

Poker_Peter

I took a train journey recently. It was on the same railway lines the "British" laid, and the CIE train must nearly be as old. I am not joking. Yes, I know Ireland has boomed especially this last ten years, mainly due to EC grants and foreign investment and tourism ( which N.I. does not have ). The UK has been the second largest contributer to the EC funds since the EEC started.

Any infrastructural improvements that are down to the British should be seen as compensation for 700-800 years of oppression, e.g. like the reparations paid by Germany after the Second (as opposed to the First) World War, and imposed on Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War (although obviously far less honorous for a country the size of Britain population-wise). We are entitled to it as compensation. Gratitude is out of the question, as far as I am concerned, except to the other EU countries giving us aid.

"Over the centuries" N.I industry was home grown. Harland and Wolffe and the flax industry were not subsidised from London. They would say ( not I ) that their advantage was industrious workers. Dublin has Guinness and other big employers. To say the south was neglected until after independence - I think many people still felt economically neglected in the decades after independence.

Well the ban on Catholics attending university and owning property until Catholic Emancipation did not exactly help the economic advancement of Irish Catholics. By the way, the university part I believe continued on for decades until the 1860's. I think it is perfectly fair to say that the South was economically neglected on religious bigotry grounds. The fact that whatever money someone had all went to the Protestant child at the expense of whatever Catholic children there were didn't help either (under the Penal Laws - Britains version of the Nazi Nuremburg Laws or Mussolini's Race Laws in Italy).

Not when she insulted a whole community with her sectarian remark, as well as belittling the suffering of Jews in Nazi Europe.

What she said was obviously a slip of the tongue (the slip being the words "in the same way as" and neglecting to mention similar prejudice amongst some Catholics).

Signing the book of condolence for Hitler and paying his respects at the German embassy was an act no other leader of a country in the world did.Auschwitz / Birkenau had been liberated a number of months, and the world knew of Hitlers atrocities against various ethnic groups. Thankfully 70000 Irishmen from the 26 counties went to join the British armed forces ( and many thousands more joined from N. Ireland ) and fought Hitler, and many more went to help the war effort in England. DeValera signing the book of condolences of probably the biggest mass murdered in History let down the tens of thousands of Irishmen who played their part in his defeat, many paying with their lives. It was the likes of Dev and you who found it "easy to sit here and second guess decisions"

OK I fully accept that giving condolences on the death of Hitler was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Even so, I disagree with you saying that everyone now knew about Auschwitz. Media censorship in Allied countries - especially Britain, meant that on the contrary, it was hushed up for a while, partly because it was suspected of being Soviet propaganda.

Britain is occuping Scotland but the Scottish are not taught to hate Britain.

Different, because London has given Scotland what it would not give Ireland i.e. Home Rule without partition, and also because Scotland, being Protestant like England, did not experience anything like the same degree of persecution e.g. Penal Laws, Famine, as Ireland did. Also, Cromwell didn't commit the kind of attrocities in Scotland that he did in Ireland. I personally do not see myself as having been brought up to "hate" Britain by the way.

bonkey

true wrote:

If every country behaved like the 26 counties then, what sort of world would we have now?

A much better one than we have now, at a guess, as every country would be trying desperately to be neutral, which would mean none - Germany included - would have been off invading others.

Also, given Ireland's progression from then to now, if every country today was like Ireland was 50 or 60 years ago, we could look to a future where 50-60 years down the line, every country would be like Ireland is today.

Not perfect, but a damned sight better than many countries have.

jc

true

Originally Posted by true
If every country behaved like the 26 counties then ( ie was neutral ), what sort of world would we have now?

bonkey wrote:

A much better one than we have now, at a guess, as every country would be trying desperately to be neutral, which would mean none - Germany included - would have been off invading others.

Also, given Ireland's progression from then to now, if every country today was like Ireland was 50 or 60 years ago, we could look to a future where 50-60 years down the line, every country would be like Ireland is today.

jc

Out of well over 100 and something countries in the world, there are always going to be "rogue" countries / agressive countries. There always has been.
Germany under Hitler was the threat in the late thirties, followed a few years later by Japan. I asked "If every country behaved like the 26 counties then ( ie was neutral ), what sort of world would we have now?" In other words , if everyone left it up tpo everyone else to fight Hitler. Do not forget Hitler invaded more than one small, neutral country. Bonkey says "A much better one than we have now". That logic did not argue well with the SS.


Regarding your second point, "if every country today was like Ireland was 50 or 60 years ago, we could look to a future where 50-60 years down the line, every country would be like Ireland is today"....well, I suppose, if every country got huge EC subsidies (Paid by Germany and UK mainly ) like we did, as well as massive foreign investment from places like USA ( because of low corporation tax for foreign investors, our proximity to Europe and the fact we speak English ) , and if world growth continues for another 50-60 years down the line like it did the last 50-60 years as you say....

cdebru

true wrote:

Originally Posted by true
If every country behaved like the 26 counties then ( ie was neutral ), what sort of world would we have now?




Out of well over 100 and something countries in the world, there are always going to be "rogue" countries / agressive countries. There always has been.
Germany under Hitler was the threat in the late thirties, followed a few years later by Japan. I asked "If every country behaved like the 26 counties then ( ie was neutral ), what sort of world would we have now?" In other words , if everyone left it up tpo everyone else to fight Hitler. Do not forget Hitler invaded more than one small, neutral country. Bonkey says "A much better one than we have now". That logic did not argue well with the SS.


Regarding your second point, "if every country today was like Ireland was 50 or 60 years ago, we could look to a future where 50-60 years down the line, every country would be like Ireland is today"....well, I suppose, if every country got huge EC subsidies (Paid by Germany and UK mainly ) like we did, as well as massive foreign investment from places like USA ( because of low corporation tax for foreign investors, our proximity to Europe and the fact we speak English ) , and if world growth continues for another 50-60 years down the line like it did the last 50-60 years as you say....

can I just ask a question why do you dislike your own country so much
why do you belittle and deride anything achieved in this state

would you really and honestly prefer to be a part of the uk
do you honestly think that this country would be better off as a part of the uk

wether you agree or disagree with Irelands nuetrality during ww2 and i honestly can see both sides of the arguement
at least it was our decision to make
the decision was to stay out and like it or lump it the vast majority of Irish people agreed with that decision
In fact military nuetrality has maintained its popularity amongst the Irish people ever since

true

Poker_Peter wrote:

Any infrastructural improvements that are down to the British should be seen as compensation for 700-800 years of oppression, e.g. like the reparations paid by Germany after the Second (as opposed to the First) World War, and imposed on Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War (although obviously far less honorous for a country the size of Britain population-wise). We are entitled to it as compensation. Gratitude is out of the question, as far as I am concerned, except to the other EU countries giving us aid.

700-800 years of oppression ? During the 700-800 years in Europe there were also famines, there was a mass holocaust of Protestants during the Spanish inquisition, there were countless wars, battles , oppressions you name it everywhere else. Life for 99% of people in England was no more comfortable than for the people in Ireland during the 800 years. They also had civil wars, you name it. Ah, but the Irish victim mentality kicks in again. 700-800 years of oppression. You say "Any infrastructural improvements that are down to the British should be seen as compensation for 700-800 years of oppression" ehhhhh they done them when they were here eg railways ,harbours, buildings ( still some , if not most , of Ireland best architecture), canals, court system, university system etc.
You say "e.g. like the reparations paid by Germany after the Second (as opposed to the First) World War". Germany did not pay reparations in the aftermath of the second World War. Quite the opposite if anything: the Berlin air lift, the Marshall plan etc.
You say "Gratitude is out of the question". I did not say they were looking for gratitude. Actually , Blair has apologised for the famine, even though it was many many generations before his time. The point was, why are people constantly and consistently brought up to bicker about "the 800 years of oppression " and hate the British ,when they can never see anything positive in it.

Poker_Peter wrote:

I think it is perfectly fair to say that the South was economically neglected on religious bigotry grounds. The fact that whatever money someone had all went to the Protestant child at the expense of whatever Catholic children there were didn't help either

What do you mean , "The fact that whatever money someone had all went to the Protestant child at the expense of whatever Catholic children there were "
Most families were either Protestant or Catholic. Presumably 99% at least of siblings in those days were of the same religion. If two catholics had kids I am sure the kids were catholics, and if two protestants had kids I am sure the kids were protestant. Do you mean in mixed marriages? The catholic church is not one to talk on the fair treatment of protestant people in mixed marriages. Ever heard of the Ne Temere ruling? In mixed marriages in Ireland in most cases whatever money / land the couple had all went to the children who were cathoilic, as the kids had to be brought up catholic, as this is how the Catholic church ruled Ireland. Not fair, but true.

Poker_Peter wrote:

OK I fully accept that giving condolences on the death of Hitler was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Even so, I disagree with you saying that everyone now knew about Auschwitz. Media censorship in Allied countries - especially Britain, meant that on the contrary, it was hushed up for a while, partly because it was suspected of being Soviet propaganda.

Everyone knew then about the treatment of the Jews. Even Dev knew.
Your statement " Media censorship in Allied countries - especially Britain" is another slur on Britain. What proof do you have to show that media censorship was worse in Britain than say Australia? There were enough Jewish refugees coming out of Europe since the thirties for Dev to have know Hitlers attitude to the Jews. Other concentration camps had been liberated by the Americans for example before Dev signed the book. So Dev did not trust the Brits, the Soviets, the Jews, the Americans. And what about all the smaller countries that Hitler had invaded, inc neutral countries. Yet you still try to justify Dev. going to the Germans building to sign the book. What an insult to the brave Irishmen who died defeating Nazism.

Poker_Peter wrote:

I personally do not see myself as having been brought up to "hate" Britain by the way.

No, you love it. I am sure during an England football match you always cheer on England, no matter who else in the world they are playing.

true

cdebru wrote:

can I just ask a question why do you dislike your own country so much

I do not "dislike your own country so much". I never said I did. I would not have lived here my whole life if I did. I actually love most things about Ireland. I have worked damn hard all my life and done my share ( those who know me would probably say I've done much more than my share ) to make the celtic tiger a reality. What I do hate is the Sinn Fein / IRA / anti-Brit attitude.....which thankfully I do not encounter much nowadays. You asked a question - I answered.

cdebru wrote:

why do you belittle and deride anything achieved in this state

I do not belittle and deride everything achieved in this state. I have travelled a fair bit around the world and I think I can see some good and some bad in most countries. Ireland , like the UK and most countries has good achievements.

cdebru wrote:

would you really and honestly prefer to be a part of the uk
do you honestly think that this country would be better off as a part of the uk

We are all in Europe ( the EC ) now so it would not make as much difference as pre EEC days.
You asked the question.
No if everyone in Ireland have the attitudes they have now. Yes if the people of Ireland had different ( less republican ) attitudes. I believe a UK of Britain and Ireland ( in pre-EC days ) was more economically viable than 2 seperate countries , due to economies of scale, single market , single currency etc. One of the reasons USA got rich and powerful was because of this reason. If Hawaii or Florida was independent it would help nobody.
However , we all all in the EC now, so its a hypothetical question.
If we were part of the UK , perhaps the financial abuses of Charle Haughey would have been less possible, and various thinks like clerical abuse may not have been swept under the carpet so much.

cdebru wrote:

wether you agree or disagree with Irelands nuetrality during ww2 and i honestly can see both sides of the arguement
at least it was our decision to make
the decision was to stay out and like it or lump it the vast majority of Irish people agreed with that decision
In fact military nuetrality has maintained its popularity amongst the Irish people ever since

The poor old allied soldiers washed up on our beaches during the battle of the Atlantic may have thought the decision a bit selfish / cowardly / call it what you will. If "the vast majority of Irish people agreed with that decision" why did 120,000 of them volunteer to fight with Britain? Most of the people I know think it a shame we did not do more to fight Nazism. Still, I know its taught in the school books that the majority of Irish people agreed with that decision, so if they did, thats ok by me.

cdebru

true wrote:

700-800 years of oppression ? During the 700-800 years in Europe there were also famines, there was a mass holocaust of Protestants during the Spanish inquisition, there were countless wars, battles , oppressions you name it everywhere else. Life for 99% of people in England was no more comfortable than for the people in Ireland during the 800 years. They also had civil wars, you name it. Ah, but the Irish victim mentality kicks in again. 700-800 years of oppression. You say "Any infrastructural improvements that are down to the British should be seen as compensation for 700-800 years of oppression" ehhhhh they done them when they were here eg railways ,harbours, buildings ( still some , if not most , of Ireland best architecture), canals, court system, university system etc.
You say "e.g. like the reparations paid by Germany after the Second (as opposed to the First) World War". Germany did not pay reparations in the aftermath of the second World War. Quite the opposite if anything: the Berlin air lift, the Marshall plan etc.
You say "Gratitude is out of the question". I did not say they were looking for gratitude. Actually , Blair has apologised for the famine, even though it was many many generations before his time. The point was, why are people constantly and consistently brought up to bicker about "the 800 years of oppression " and hate the British ,when they can never see anything positive in it.
.

there was no mass holocaust of protestants during the spainish inquisition

about 3500 to 5000 people were killed during the 150 years not all protestant

true wrote:

Everyone knew then about the treatment of the Jews. Even Dev knew.
Your statement " Media censorship in Allied countries - especially Britain" is another slur on Britain. What proof do you have to show that media censorship was worse in Britain than say Australia? There were enough Jewish refugees coming out of Europe since the thirties for Dev to have know Hitlers attitude to the Jews. Other concentration camps had been liberated by the Americans for example before Dev signed the book. So Dev did not trust the Brits, the Soviets, the Jews, the Americans. And what about all the smaller countries that Hitler had invaded, inc neutral countries. Yet you still try to justify Dev. going to the Germans building to sign the book. What an insult to the brave Irishmen who died defeating Nazism.
.

that is not true
the reality of the death camps where only starting to be revealed
you have to remember that this was before the instant satelite news era

this is a quote from eisenhower on the 12th of april

"We are constantly finding German camps in which they have placed political prisoners where unspeakable conditions exist. From my own personal observation, I can state unequivocally that all written statements up to now do not paint the full horrors."

the images of death camps that we are all familiar with today were not released for months after the liberation of the camps

it is unfair to suggest that develera had all the facts that we have available to us today when he decided to sign the book of condolences

also devalera did not pay any tribute to hitler unlike what he did on the death of roosevelt where he paid a glowing tribute and the dail was suspended as a mark of respect for 2 days undoubtly devalera made a mistake but it is unfair to him to suggest he woould have had full knowledge of the death camps

MT

Hi again, been aw

cdebru

true wrote:

I do not "dislike your own country so much". I never said I did. I would not have lived here my whole life if I did. I actually love most things about Ireland. I have worked damn hard all my life and done my share ( those who know me would probably say I've done much more than my share ) to make the celtic tiger a reality. What I do hate is the Sinn Fein / IRA / anti-Brit attitude.....which thankfully I do not encounter much nowadays. You asked a question - I answered..

well it doesn't appear like that

true wrote:

I do not belittle and deride everything achieved in this state. I have travelled a fair bit around the world and I think I can see some good and some bad in most countries. Ireland , like the UK and most countries has good achievements..

yes you do
I 'm not suggesting that we are better than other countries I know this country has it bad points but it is our country

true wrote:

We are all in Europe ( the EC ) now so it would not make as much difference as pre EEC days.
You asked the question.
No if everyone in Ireland have the attitudes they have now. Yes if the people of Ireland had different ( less republican ) attitudes. I believe a UK of Britain and Ireland ( in pre-EC days ) was more economically viable than 2 seperate countries , due to economies of scale, single market , single currency etc. One of the reasons USA got rich and powerful was because of this reason. If Hawaii or Florida was independent it would help nobody.
However , we all all in the EC now, so its a hypothetical question.
If we were part of the UK , perhaps the financial abuses of Charle Haughey would have been less possible, and various thinks like clerical abuse may not have been swept under the carpet so much..

if that was true why did Ireland not prosper when it was occupied

the logic of you arguement would be a one country world

as some elsee already said i would rather a bad irish government that a good british one

true wrote:

The poor old allied soldiers washed up on our beaches during the battle of the Atlantic may have thought the decision a bit selfish / cowardly / call it what you will. If "the vast majority of Irish people agreed with that decision" why did 120,000 of them volunteer to fight with Britain? Most of the people I know think it a shame we did not do more to fight Nazism. Still, I know its taught in the school books that the majority of Irish people agreed with that decision, so if they did, thats ok by me.

selfish???
all countries act in their own self interest
do you believe that britain was performing a selfless act in declaring war on germany
it was in britains interest to defeat the germans that is why they declared war not because they had some fondness for poland or the polish people
america entered the war when it was in their own interest to do so

it is not just taught in history book it is a fact fianna fail won both war time elections

and as for the 120,000 it unfortunately was far less 43,000 volunteers from the the 26 counties 38,000 from the 6 counties

Poker_Peter

What do you mean , "The fact that whatever money someone had all went to the Protestant child at the expense of whatever Catholic children there were "Most families were either Protestant or Catholic. Presumably 99% at least of siblings in those days were of the same religion. If two catholics had kids I am sure the kids were catholics, and if two protestants had kids I am sure the kids were protestant. Do you mean in mixed marriages? The catholic church is not one to talk on the fair treatment of protestant people in mixed marriages. Ever heard of the Ne Temere ruling? In mixed marriages in Ireland in most cases whatever money / land the couple had all went to the children who were cathoilic, as the kids had to be brought up catholic, as this is how the Catholic church ruled Ireland. Not fair, but true.

I am talking about the requirement under the Penal Laws, for all the possessions/money of the parent to be inherited by the Protestant male. The Penal Laws punished Catholic children by disinheriting them in favour of a Protestant relative, who got everything. The Penal Laws were not ended until 1832, and even then the ban on Catholics going to university stayed until the 1860's.

The point was, why are people constantly and consistently brought up to bicker about "the 800 years of oppression " and hate the British ,when they can never see anything positive in it.

I don't hate the British. Polls in the UK show most people want to leave NI, so that makes me like them more . They do not hanker after the days when they had their own Reich with concentration camps (Boer War) and artificial famines that would make Stalin proud.

MT

Don’t know what happened there!!


Hi again, been away for a few days. What a response! A bit off topic but still thanks for having shown an interest.

Anyway, here are a few of what I believe are the salient points raised so far on the thread and my opinions beneath.


It’d never work. Cities cut in two like Berlin. The region left behind too small to support itself.

Firstly, I wouldn’t envisage the splitting of any towns, never mind cities. In order not to damage the economic prospects or integrity of identity of any settlement the new border would best be laid in sparsely inhabited countryside. As for Belfast or Derry, they’d be far away from the divide on either side.

With regards the unionist area’s self-sufficiency, well NI can’t even pay for itself in its current state - it consumes ever larger subsidies from Britain. Interestingly, such an arrangement as I’ve proffered might well stymie the gravy train. Without two groups forever at each other’s throats there’d be little need for a security regime to fund. However, at the end of the day keeping what remained solvent would be Britain’s problem – not yours. And really, how unionists and Britain coped would be of little consequence. The end result would be the greater long-term stability of the Irish Republic. That is after all the thrust of my original post. This is a proposal with a sole aim of shoring up Ireland’s sole democracy – not an attempt to aid unionism. If their region stabilised and moderated after the split then that would be a pleasant but largely incidental outcome.


No need for such drastic action. If we continue with the current approach things will eventually come good.

The most popular view of the northern situation. But I’ve lost faith that there’ll be lasting reconciliation enabling stable self-rule. The divide over almost every issue is now so great as to be truly unbridgeable. If you’ve ever followed the week by week debates on issues here you’d realise the willingness to compromise is unlikely to ever materialise. You see, as the place is guaranteed to be kept running by Britain a rather perverse complacency exists here. To be blunt, both sides don’t need to compromise. They can squabble and fight to the crack of doom, both fully aware that ‘treacherous Albion’ or ‘the oppressive Sassenach’ – unionist/nationalist delete as appropriate – will continue to fork out the cash for hospitals etc. But Ireland can’t afford to be drawn into such debilitating wrangling. Your politicians must focus on the real issues that ensure prosperity and good government. If they fúck up there’s no one else to pick up the bill. Just think. Over the past 30 years NI effectively engaged in a civil war and yet still the hospitals were financed. Who paid the state’s bills when the south last fought a civil war?

The terrible truth is that there’s something else that will forever foster mutual loathing - both communities’ very real presence next to each other. In some abstract theories the two could well have an agreeable destiny together planned out. The problems arise when the two come face to face on the same patch. The distrust has become so bad that each can only treat the other with permanent suspicion.

Starting from a base of mutually exclusive aims of immense importance to both, violence has intermittently flared over the centuries. Such sparks have fed into fear promoting segregation into sectarian ghettos. These in turn ensure further cultural separation leading to greater paranoia about the ‘other side’, this suspicion provoking more violence. And so the vicious cycle continues. This has gone on for centuries and will most likely continue for centuries more. It’s an irreversible trend. So, why not bring it to a permanent end. Like two people trapped in a lift while possessing an irresistible urge to kill each other, complete separation is the only answer. Get the two tribes apart.

Under separate jurisdictions neither will ever again be able to point a finger at lawmakers and scream ‘bias!’ Who knows? With time, and certainly passing generations, the former foes might come to be pragmatic neighbours. But it will never happen while they share a bed. Hackneyed analogy I realise, but the north’s is a marriage that broke down centuries ago.


Sure it’s only a matter of time before there are more Catholics up there – why give the unionists a get out?

Has anyone seen the recent births/deaths statistics? With the fall in catholic birth rates to near equal with those of prods there’ll most likely never be a catholic majority. I believe that at most they’ll make up 46-47% of the population. So, if voting continues to resemble a sectarian head count there’ll be no all–island state. Given the close blurring of the constitutional question and religious persuasion, a road to Damascus conversion’s unlikely to occur. Furthermore, in the zero-sum game that’s played up here the very Irishness of protestants has come under increasing pressure. With the rise of the alternative identity ‘Ulster-Scots’ a separate ethnicity seems to be developing before our eyes. The further entrenchment of both segregration and ethnic differences should ensure little cross over to enable a total constitutional change.

This state of affairs throws up some interesting and challenging questions for those in the likes of Sinn Fein. If they hold on in the hope of a united Ireland it may well never arrive - by consent anyway. So they condemn their community to live for eternity in the UK – perennially supplying false hope of an imminent unionist change of heart. On top of this, if their rise succeeds in the south the Irish political class risks becoming obsessed with something they’ll never achieve. ‘Sure the economy can wait, think of the streamlining we’ll do when unity arrives’, ‘after all I just know the unionists will come around.’ Real issues will be kicked into touch.

If you’re in Sinn Fein, just ask yourself if you could ever convert to Britishness, unionism and orangeism. Of course not, it’s all anathema - so can you really believe the opposite will occur? And why should it need to? There’s a solution at hand that gives everyone the statehood to match his or her identity. Surely repartition isn’t just in the vital interests of the Irish Republic but also the most equitable solution. How can true Republicans possessing a belief in self determination demand sovereignty over unionist areas. To do so would be to dismiss their claims of identity as the deluded ramblings of false-consciousness. That was exactly the view held by the old Stormont junta when brushing aside the aspirations of nationalists in NI.


The remaining unionist area would still leave a scar of colonialism on Ireland. Any such thing’s a product of British imperialism: it cannot be allowed to stand.

The plantation was an act of colonial settlement. English imperialism was responsible. The aim was an obedient and united archipelago. These things are very true. Yet, it was a time of monstrous treatment of the weak by the strong. Democracy, self-determination, tolerance for the other were as yet unheard of. This was an age of terrifying paranoia, unabashed self-supremacy and any other primeval national/religious sentiments you can think of. And this all occurred the good part of half a millennium ago. We now live in an infinitely more knowledgeable era of democracy and human rights. Colonialism and British imperialism have been exposed for what they were. Rightly, they’ve been consigned to the dustbin of history. I’m not proposing a unionist region so a candle can be held for those barbaric times. Merely, a 21st century observance of the principle of self-determination.

If the current generation of unionists is to be held accountable for the colonial exploits of their forefathers, where do you draw the line? Setting aside the point that their ancestors behaved in accordance with the spirit of the age, do descendants bare responsibility for all past deeds? Are the sins of the father the son’s also? If so, I’d suggest that merely unifying the island isn’t enough. For to do so is to accept that the contemporary generation of protestants do bare responsibility for the past. In that case punishment should surely go further. Land taken in an invasion is in effect stolen so reparations would have to be made. Failing that, expulsion. Then on to war criminals – detailed family trees would require close scrutiny. We can’t pick and chose. If the present day inhabitants are still colonial thieves then there’s bound to be some who deserve punishment for colonial war crimes.

Where does it all stop. If one crime can pass from generation to generation so can all of them.

Can't you see how preposterous such an urge to settle injustices from a long bygone age becomes? The time passed is so immense and the change in sensibilities so great that the age of the plantations resembles more a tale from an alien universe than a reference point for current disputes.

MT

previous post continued...

AmenToThat wrote:

The most important single issue for me is a united Ireland, all else is secondary, job security, better infrastructer, the whole lot of it.

I find such a view wearily familiar. It’s exactly the same all or nothing devotion to the cause that both sides up here have held for the past century. That quote embodies their singular obsession with nothing other than the constitutional issue. Such a psychosis – for that’s what it is – is the very Northern disease the south risks catching while its deranged neighbour survives in its current state.

True enough, I’ve ventured to explain the unionist case in previous paragraphs. Despite their often repugnant extremism, generations yet to be born shouldn’t be denied their identity or statehood. But make no mistake, the place I really believe worthy of support is the one that’s proven itself a real and balanced democracy. However, if Sinn Fein – as I’m sure the DUP must dream of doing in Britain – can inculcate such an obsession within the south’s electorate then I fail to see how prosperity, stability or even democracy can survive. Such total fixations, when held by enough people, have led to bloody violence up here since times long past. Why would the south be any different? If not against Britain then surely towards the share of the electorate with a less extreme, if not opposing out look. It’d be a return to the 1920s.

Do you really think so little of your country? That its achievements will forever count for nothing in your eyes until every square inch of this island lies within its borders?


This brings me on to another point I struggle to grasp. Why the need for the unity of the entire island?

This view is often seen as the defining characteristic of true Irish republicanism. But it’s a corruption of the truth IMO. This is a kind of geographic absolutism masquerading as republicanism. The latter is a belief in the democratic self-governance of a nation of people, not a patch of land. Its highest aim should be the unity and well being of the citizens of the Irish Republic. For the people rather than a neat geographical fix. Why should this state be any lesser for its borders not touching every shore?

How can Sinn Fein call themselves republicans? They are geographic fanatics. The true yardsticks of a republic – the achievements of its people, the durability of its institutions, the soundness of its laws and the democracy that writes them – mean nothing to them. It’s the entire island or nothing. No wonder the human rights of Irish citizens can be so easily brushed aside. They don’t matter – they’re not blades of grass.

Is the United States a failed republic because it doesn’t encompass all of North America? Look at Europe. The boundaries of democracies rest where their peoples end. It was precisely English geographic fanaticism that led to the oppression modern day ‘Republicans’ so deplore. A nation is the sum of its people – no more, no less. They, not stones or fields, are its true building blocks. True Republicans should strive to have the boundaries on this island redrawn to include all its aspiring citizens. Why go further?

gurramok

MT.

From your original post it seems that you may have taken the decision that NI is a failed state ?
Though repartition and the movement of populations did take place between Greece and Turkey voluntary and involuntary to solve minorites living outside their home state issue.
Barring the issue of Cyprus, it by and large solved the problem in that case though and helped good relations between the countries.

true

Poker_Peter wrote:

I am talking about the requirement under the Penal Laws, for all the possessions/money of the parent to be inherited by the Protestant male. The Penal Laws punished Catholic children by disinheriting them in favour of a Protestant relative, who got everything. The Penal Laws were not ended until 1832, and even then the ban on Catholics going to university stayed until the 1860's.

This does not answer my point. How many Catholic children had Protestant siblings? In the last century, in mixed marriage situations in Ireland, the Catholic church has had a history of forcing the Children to be brought up Catholic. When this did not happen , it sometimes encouraged all the local catholics to boycott the Protestant partners business eg Fethard-on-sea. The inheritance / farm therefore passed on to Catholics mainly. This has been one of the reasons for the decimation of the Protestant people in the Republic of Ireland.

Poker_Peter wrote:

I don't hate the British. Polls in the UK show most people want to leave NI, so that makes me like them more . They do not hanker after the days when they had their own Reich with concentration camps (Boer War) and artificial famines that would make Stalin proud.

To state that the British "had their own Reich with concentration camps (Boer War) and artificial famines that would make Stalin proud" is a distortion and exageration of the truth and to say so if a racist slur which does not reflect well on you.

true

I originally said : "I do not "dislike your own country so much". I never said I did. I would not have lived here my whole life if I did. I actually love most things about Ireland. I have worked damn hard all my life and done my share ( those who know me would probably say I've done much more than my share ) to make the celtic tiger a reality. What I do hate is the Sinn Fein / IRA / anti-Brit attitude.....which thankfully I do not encounter much nowadays"

cdebru wrote:

well it doesn't appear like that

Thats your problem cdebru, not mine.

cdebru wrote:

yes you do
I 'm not suggesting that we are better than other countries I know this country has it bad points but it is our country

Excuse me, I do not "belittle and deride everything achieved in this state"
You did suggest this country is superior to the UK. You do not mention too many of this countrys bad points. I never said it is not our country. Ireland is our country. Scotland is the Scots country. Same with Wales. The people of Majorca have their own country. The Sicilians have their own country. Big deal.

cdebru wrote:

if that was true why did Ireland not prosper when it was occupied

"occupied" is a biased word. Dublin was the second richest city in these islands at one stage. We had state of the art infrastructure during and after the industrial revolution. There was a lot of poverty everwhere in the world during that 800 year period, including Britain. To ask "why did Ireland not prosper" is a bit of a loaded question. It is thought by some that we prospered far more than if we had been on our own here, eating spuds.


Ireland had one of the highest birth rates in the world. Families of 8, 10 , 12 whatever were not unknown. China now is achieving a birthrate of one child per family in most instances, especially in the cities, and China is beginning to flourish as a major world power as you know.

[QUOTE=cdebru
the logic of you arguement would be a one country world
[/QUOTE]
Dont know what youre talking about. I never advocated a one country world.

[QUOTE=cdebru
as some elsee already said i would rather a bad irish government that a good british one
[/QUOTE]
Thats mainly because you are bigoted.

cdebru wrote:

selfish???
all countries act in their own self interest

Do you think it was in our self interest to see Nazi Germany invading countries all around her, and to see it abusing minority groups like Jews? Do you think it would have been in our self interest to help our neighbours? Anyway ,countries do not always act in their own self interest. They sometimes do what they think is right.

cdebru wrote:

do you believe that britain was performing a selfless act in declaring war on germany
it was in britains interest to defeat the germans that is why they declared war not because they had some fondness for poland or the polish people

WW2 cost Britain very heavily financially. It also endured a lot of hardship and suffering , and it cost a lot of lives. Somebody had to take a stand and stand up to Hitler.

cdebru wrote:

america entered the war when it was in their own interest to do so

it is not just taught in history book it is a fact fianna fail won both war time elections

and as for the 120,000 it unfortunately was far less 43,000 volunteers from the the 26 counties 38,000 from the 6 counties

I never said America was perfect.
I know fianna fail won both war time elections , I did not dispute that but do not take that to be the same as a referendum on neutrality. That said , I would still say most people in this country wanted neutrality , and as I said, that is OK by me. I believe in democracy, believe it or not.

true

I originally said : "I do not "dislike your own country so much". I never said I did. I would not have lived here my whole life if I did. I actually love most things about Ireland. I have worked damn hard all my life and done my share ( those who know me would probably say I've done much more than my share ) to make the celtic tiger a reality. What I do hate is the Sinn Fein / IRA / anti-Brit attitude.....which thankfully I do not encounter much nowadays"

cdebru wrote:

well it doesn't appear like that

Thats your problem cdebru, not mine.

cdebru wrote:

yes you do
I 'm not suggesting that we are better than other countries I know this country has it bad points but it is our country

Excuse me, I do not "belittle and deride everything achieved in this state"
You did suggest this country is superior to the UK. You do not mention too many of this countrys bad points. I never said it is not our country. Ireland is our country. Scotland is the Scots country. Same with Wales. The people of Majorca have their own country. The Sicilians have their own country. Big deal.

cdebru wrote:

if that was true why did Ireland not prosper when it was occupied

"occupied" is a biased word. Dublin was the second richest city in these islands at one stage. We had state of the art infrastructure during and after the industrial revolution. There was a lot of poverty everwhere in the world during that 800 year period, including Britain. To ask "why did Ireland not prosper" is a bit of a loaded question. It is thought by some that we prospered far more than if we had been on our own here, eating spuds.


Ireland had one of the highest birth rates in the world. Families of 8, 10 , 12 whatever were not unknown. China now is achieving a birthrate of one child per family in most instances, especially in the cities, and China is beginning to flourish as a major world power as you know.

cdebru wrote:

the logic of you arguement would be a one country world

Dont know what youre talking about. I never advocated a one country world.

cdebru wrote:

as some elsee already said i would rather a bad irish government that a good british one

Thats mainly because you are bigoted.

cdebru wrote:

selfish???
all countries act in their own self interest

Do you think it was in our self interest to see Nazi Germany invading countries all around her, and to see it abusing minority groups like Jews? Do you think it would have been in our self interest to help our neighbours? Anyway ,countries do not always act in their own self interest. They sometimes do what they think is right.

cdebru wrote:

do you believe that britain was performing a selfless act in declaring war on germany
it was in britains interest to defeat the germans that is why they declared war not because they had some fondness for poland or the polish people

WW2 cost Britain very heavily financially. It also endured a lot of hardship and suffering , and it cost a lot of lives. Somebody had to take a stand and stand up to Hitler.

cdebru wrote:

america entered the war when it was in their own interest to do so

it is not just taught in history book it is a fact fianna fail won both war time elections

and as for the 120,000 it unfortunately was far less 43,000 volunteers from the the 26 counties 38,000 from the 6 counties

I never said America was perfect.
I know fianna fail won both war time elections , I did not dispute that but do not take that to be the same as a referendum on neutrality. That said , I would still say most people in this country wanted neutrality , and as I said, that is OK by me. I believe in democracy, believe it or not.

Re. the figures, the figures I am led to believe are accurate are 70,000 people from the 26 counties and 50,000 from N. I. Total 120,000. However, confusion may arise at arriving at the total because of eg many people from the 26 counties went to Belfast or England to join up, and may have given a Northern or English address of a relative or friend etc. Some people joined the army, some the RAF, some the Royal Navy, some were nurses / doctors, some joined the British merchant navy. Many more went to work in munitions factories etc.

true

cdebru wrote:

there was no mass holocaust of protestants during the spainish inquisition

about 3500 to 5000 people were killed during the 150 years not all protestant
ethnic cleansing.

Here are some facts on the Spanish inquisition, which incidentally was not the only sort of ethnic cleansing in Europe in this period eg the French Catholics hunting out the Hugenots, some of whom settled in Ireland.
The Spanish Inquisition and its actions caused 200,000 loyal, but Jewish, Spaniards to leave the country. Surely, the Spanish Inquisition was about more than just religious purity.



The Inquisition in Spain began in 1478 and officially ended in 1808. During that time, 323,362 people were burned and 17,659 were burned in effigy. It is one of the darkest periods in Spanish history. Most were Jews, but some were Protestants. Jews were the cases that were tried the most severely. There were other minorities, of course, that were persecuted, but the majority were Jews. The Inquisition definitely had racial overtones. Although it can be said that Queen Isabella officially initiated the Spanish Inquisition for the purity of the Catholic faith, nation, and people, this is probably not the case. The materialistic desires of the aristocracy certainly factor into the reasons for the perpetuation of the Inquisition.

Many hundreds of thousands of people were severly tortured during the spanish inquisition as well. A sort of torture that makes a south Armagh torture look ....tame. In fairness to the Brits, not too many of them did that, did they.


If you dont believe me , read the following books:

Machiavelli, Niccolo (translated by Henry C. Mansfield). (1985). The Prince. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Plaidy, Jean. (1967). The Spanish Inquisition. New York: The Citadel Press.

Roth, Cecil. (1964). The Spanish Inquisition. United States of America: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.


The reason all this came up is because of all of the talk about the famine, the 700 or 800 years etc. The rest of Europe had its share of famines, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, disease outbreaks etc as well.

true

cdebru wrote:

the reality of the death camps where only starting to be revealed
you have to remember that this was before the instant satelite news era

this is a quote from eisenhower on the 12th of april

"We are constantly finding German camps in which they have placed political prisoners where unspeakable conditions exist. From my own personal observation, I can state unequivocally that all written statements up to now do not paint the full horrors."

the images of death camps that we are all familiar with today were not released for months after the liberation of the camps

it is unfair to suggest that develera had all the facts that we have available to us today when he decided to sign the book of condolences

also devalera did not pay any tribute to hitler unlike what he did on the death of roosevelt where he paid a glowing tribute and the dail was suspended as a mark of respect for 2 days undoubtly devalera made a mistake but it is unfair to him to suggest he woould have had full knowledge of the death camps

Cdebru, it seems you are not fully aware of the facts surrounding Irelands attitude to Jews in those years, and Ireland neutrality. Let me give you some facts.

Sixty Years ago on the 2nd May 1945 just at the close of World War Two the political leader of the Irish Free State and embodiment of the Irish Republican movement failed even to be discreet in his support for Nazism. Eamon de Valera saw fit to sign a petition of condolence at the German legation in Dublin to express his grief on the death of Hitler. Furthermore, he went to personally commiserate with the Nazi representative in Eire, Dr Eduard Hempel on the death of their beloved Fuhrer. Later a mob vandalised the British High Commission and the US embassy in Dublin on news of the Allied victory, both countries being outraged at Ireland's attitude and actions.

Please note this event took place a full three months after the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp and the revelation of the full horror of the Nazi genocide, and was only two weeks after British troops had liberated Bergen-Belsen, accompanied as it happened by an Irish doctor. There could be no possibility that de Valera and the Dail were unaware of the Nazi treatment of Jews, and yet the leader of supposedly neutral Ireland still wished to pay his respects to one of the most evil men in the history of the world. It was a display of support that no other national leader on earth made. At the time it was defended as a diplomatic gesture but was one that not even General Franco was insensitive enough to make.

This of course was not the only manifestation of Irish sympathy for Nazism which led to them being rebuffed scornfully by the USA, that prevented their qualification for Marshal Aid, and delayed their entrance into the United Nations until 1957. During the War officials of the Irish Free State were outrageous in their racist anti-Semitism which was openly tolerated by the Catholic hierarchy and common currency in Irish society. Indeed Hitler's racial criteria for keeping out the Jew were still being used in Eire 8 years after Hitler's death. A 1953 memo from the Dublin department of Justice argues that vetting refugees into the Republic should be on a similar basis to that 'adopted for the admission of non-Ayran refugees' in 1938 and 1939. The Department of Justice went on to depicte the eastern European Jews applying for asylum as a danger to the Irish State. "There is strong anti-Jewish feeling in this State which is particularly evident to the Alien Section of the Department of Justice." They went on to write 'Sympathy for the Jews has not been particularly excited at the recent news that some thousands are fleeing westwards because of the recent round-up of communist Jews who had been prominent in Government and in government service in eastern European countries.'

When in the Dail in 1943, Oliver J. Flanagan praised Hitler for ridding Germany of Jews claiming, "I doubt very much if they are human!", he was not challenged by any other member. Later in a speech to the Dail he said "There is one thing that Germany did and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is honey, and where the Jews are there is money." Flanagan was soon to join Fine Gael and remained a T.D. for them until 1987 briefly becoming Minister for Defence in the late 1970's. J.J. Walsh T.D. who had been a minister in the Cosgrave government was another high ranking anti-Semite who described Irish Jews as a "gang of parasites".

Anti-Semitism and praise for fascism was also rife within the Catholic hierarchy. The main body organising support for Franco was the Irish Christian Front (I.C.F.) a broad based pressure group which , in the early months of the Spanish civil war organised massive demonstrations and had, initially at least, more widespread support than the Blueshirts. The Front's founders were Patrick Belton, who was formerly a T.D. for both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael as well as being an ex-Blueshirt, and Alexander McCabe, formerly elected for both Sinn Fein (pre-1922) and Cumann Na nGaedheal and later to be a member of Eoin O'Duffy's pro-nazi People's National Party. At one I.C.F. rally in Cork in September 1936 40,000 people assembled to hear Monsignor Patrick Sexton, Roman Catholic Dean of Cork, blame the Spanish civil war on "a gang of murderous Jews in Moscow". Beside him stood Alfred O'Rahilly, the future president of the University College of Cork, and Douglas Hyde, the future president of the Irish state who up until introduction of the Euro has his head on our Irish £50 note.

This track record of democratically elected and clerical Jew-baiting was certainly foundation for the fact that only 30 European Jews fleeing persecution were given asylum before the war, none during it, and only a handful afterwards, and that there was consistent government opposition to granting any asylum. Even a year after the close of war, with the memory of the concentration camps fresh in the Irish public's consciousness, the Department of Justice was still vehemently opposed to Jews entering Ireland. In August 1946, the Minister of Justice refused to admit 100 Jewish orphans found at the Bergen-Belsen death camp.

This race hatred should be no surprise given the recent history there had been, of pogroms against Jews in Ireland, such as in Limerick in 1904 when catholic Priest Father John Creagh incited the local population against "blood-sucking" Jewish money-lenders. His sermons brought about a two-year trade boycott of Jewish businesses that was accompanied by harassment and beatings and resulted in the almost total departure of the 150-strong Limerick Jewish community.

During the course of World War Two the Irish Free State remained officially neutral. In 1938 a year before the outbreak of war de Valera took control of the three treaty ports of Queenstown, Berehaven and Lough Swilly making them unavailable for British and thus allied naval operations. These ports were of such significance to allied naval activities that the US ambassador to Eire, David Gray urged President Roosevelt to seize them.

Without the free access to ports and seaways around Northern Ireland operations would have been near impossible, as was later testified to by President Eisenhower who said, "without Northern Ireland I do not see how the American forces could have been concentrated to begin the invasion of Europe. If Ulster had not been a definite, co-operative part of the British Empire and had not been available for our use I do not see how the build up could have been carried out in England". In 1943 Churchill paid a similar tribute to Northern Irelands contribution in the face of the Irish Free State's hindrance and obstruction: "Only one channel of entry remained open. That channel remained open because loyal Ulster gave us the full use of the Northern Irish ports and waters and thus ensured the free working of the Clyde and the Mersey".


Incidentally, at the declaration of war in 1939 Sinn Fein/IRA responded by attacking targets in England - also receiving financial support for their enterprise by support from Irish American Clan na Gael. It is interesting to note that on the day Britain and Germany went to war that the first soldier to be shot was by the IRA in Belfast.

In April 1942 RUC Constables Thomas Forbes and Patrick Murphy ( Catholic father of 10) were murdered in two separate attacks by an IRA gang as a part of the IRA's pro-Nazi subterfuge. The gang of 5 were sentanced to death with only leader Tom Williams getting the noose. ( One of them, Joe Cahill, later to be prominent IRA Chief of Staff, and the other three escaped the rope following direct intervention from Hitler's Pope Pius XII. At his death in July 2004 Cahill was lauded as a hero by Fr. Des Wilson and former Taioseach Albert Reynolds.)

Just in case you thought the IRA only started in the North in '69.

billy the squid

true wrote:

This does not answer my point. How many Catholic children had Protestant siblings? In the last century, in mixed marriage situations in Ireland, the Catholic church has had a history of forcing the Children to be brought up Catholic. When this did not happen , it sometimes encouraged all the local catholics to boycott the Protestant partners business eg Fethard-on-sea. The inheritance / farm therefore passed on to Catholics mainly. This has been one of the reasons for the decimation of the Protestant people in the Republic of Ireland.

maybe, but I believe that the use of a piece of legislation brought in by the brittish administration during its tenure in the south, called "The Compulsery Purchase Order" was used by the Irish Government post 1922 to remove ownership of lands from Brittish Landlords, had a lot more to do with it.

cdebru wrote:

]and as for the 120,000 it unfortunately was far less 43,000 volunteers from the the 26 counties 38,000 from the 6 counties

may I ask where you are getting these figures from? This point came up in a thread only a few weeks ago.

But while Fianna Fail conceptions dominated definitions of Irish identity they did not monopolise them. As Alvin Jackson notes in his recent history of modern Ireland: "while most Irish people endorsed neutrality, there was broad sympathy for the allied cause; massive recruitment to the British army was compatible with popular support for De Valera". Others have pointed to the significance of the fact that between 1939 and 1945 nearly 200,000 workers from Eire migrated to work in the British war economy – most of whom remained in the country after the war.

Source

This puts the figure close to 100,000 people who volunteered during world War II on both sides of the border.

true wrote:

Sixty Years ago on the 2nd May 1945 just at the close of World War Two the political leader of the Irish Free State and embodiment of the Irish Republican movement failed even to be discreet in his support for Nazism. Eamon de Valera saw fit to sign a petition of condolence at the German legation in Dublin to express his grief on the death of Hitler. Furthermore, he went to personally commiserate with the Nazi representative in Eire, Dr Eduard Hempel on the death of their beloved Fuhrer. Later a mob vandalised the British High Commission and the US embassy in Dublin on news of the Allied victory, both countries being outraged at Ireland's attitude and actions.

you forgot to put quote tags on this when you copied and pasted it so i did it for you. Now, If i am not mistaken, didnt de valera also express similar sentiments to the government of the United States on the death of President Rosevelt?

Another thing to mention is that Ireland was not the only country divided on its stance during the second world war. The boers of South Africa were sympathetic to the Third Reich,

During the course of World War Two the Irish Free State remained officially neutral. In 1938 a year before the outbreak of war de Valera took control of the three treaty ports of Queenstown, Berehaven and Lough Swilly making them unavailable for British and thus allied naval operations. These ports were of such significance to allied naval activities that the US ambassador to Eire, David Gray urged President Roosevelt to seize them.

while at the same time allowing the Allied land their airboats at foynes. not to mention repatriating allied troops who parashooted into ireland, while detaining German troops. Also giving weather reports onto britain during the war at a time when they wouldnt even broadcast them on Radio Eireann.

n April 1942 RUC Constables Thomas Forbes and Patrick Murphy ( Catholic father of 10) were murdered in two separate attacks by an IRA gang as a part of the IRA's pro-Nazi subterfuge. The gang of 5 were sentanced to death with only leader Tom Williams getting the noose. ( One of them, Joe Cahill, later to be prominent IRA Chief of Staff, and the other three escaped the rope following direct intervention from Hitler's Pope Pius XII. At his death in July 2004 Cahill was lauded as a hero by Fr. Des Wilson and former Taioseach Albert Reynolds.)

Pope pius XII had different reasons for wanting to save lives

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0260.htm

Both before and throughout WWII he worked for peace. On 24 December 1942 and 2 June 1943, he forcefully denounced the extermination of peoples on account of race. Through the Pontifical Aid Commission, Pius XII operated a vast program of relief to the victims of the war on both sides, but especially to the Jewish people. When Hitler occupied Rome on 10 September 1943, after the fall of the Italian government, the Pope opened Vatican City to Jewish refugees.

True, could you please post a link to your source. thank you