[Snickers Man]

Our current Minister for Justice and Defence has made several statements criticising the actions of the Irish Free State during and after World War Two, which ended long before he was born.

Our policy of neutrality was "morally bankrupt" he has said. He apologised for the condign punishment handed out to men who had deserted from our own armed forces.

How does he feel about the incontrovertible schmooze fest that is being indulged in today to welcome the daughter of a leading military/political figure from the time who chose not just to stand aside from the war but to participate actively and brutally AGAINST the Western Allies, to lead an insurgent army backed, equipped and in many cases trained by the Japanese and to indulge in a civil war in his own country which inflamed many long-standing ethnic tensions and saw many incidents of massacre and what we would today call "ethnic cleansing" perpetrated by troops of the insurgent army he commanded against people of his own country?

For such is the record of Aung San, father of the media darling Aung San Suu Kyi who today is having her Nobel Prize winning backside kissed and more by such bellwethers of public opinion as Bono, Bob Geldof and many of our leading politicians.

My aim here is not to hold her to account for the actions of her father who died when she was an infant. (Assassinated as it happens by a conspiracy which included members of British intelligence, acting unofficially of course)

Nor indeed to criticise her father unduly. He did, after all, change sides during the war when he realised that Japanese support for Burmese insurgents against the British was not the same as support for Burmese independence per se.

The reason I put this in History and Heritage is because it raises questions about how we view the past and the actions of people at the time, facing the situation as they saw it and without the benefit of hindsight.

Failure to support wholeheartedly all actions by the Allied side tends to be conflated nowadays to mean "supporter of Nazi tyranny". Especially in the public statements of Mr Shatter. This is not so. It has never been so.

Reputable people often form temporary alliances of convenience with utterly disreputable people in alliance against a common foe. Such as the Finns during the war, allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. Such as Aung San who played off both empires with designs on his country against each other.

He was also prepared to tolerate vicious ethnic strife in his own country as a price to be paid for independence. But then, so were many of the heroes of our independence struggle, not least Mr De Valera.

At least Dev, in keeping us neutral, used the benefits of his experience largely to avoid a reignition of our Civil War which would surely have attended entering the war on the Allied side. For that he is to be praised. And Mr Shatter, as long as he is a minister of this country, should shut up with his retrospective condemnations.

Unless he wants to ask Madam Aung San what her daddy did in the war...

[Fenian Army]

<<--snip-->>

-Mod-
Comments such as this are not welcome on this forum, please desist from making them in the future.

[Manach]

Personally IMHO, unless one is living under a monarchy, is it does not matter what a person's fore-bearer's conduct during a conflict was.
Saying that, I would have reservations about Minister Shatter's grasp of history and that his criticisms of the Irish State during WWII is in very poor judgement.

[tricky D]

A lot of ethnic groups chopped and changed sides in that theatre and he acted in what he thought was his nation's best interests. The Japanese were particularly brutal, so appeasing them while they were in de facto occupation wasn't a clear cut black and white bad thing. There were many similar manipulations of factions in the theatre of a similar nature, most noteworthy getting Mao and Kai-shek to work together which makes Aung San's action look like small beer in comparison.

Besides should Suu Ki be held so responsible for the actions of her ancestor in such messy times?

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by tricky D

Besides should Suu Ki be held so responsible for the actions of her ancestor in such messy times?

I thought I was very specific on that point.


My main point is that they were indeed, as you eloquently put it "messy times". And people were not always faced with the black v white unambiguous moral choices we like to think they were.

All times are "messy times". Clarity of moral vision is extremely difficult.

[dmcronin]

While you're at it, why not tar the Thais and the Indians with the same brush?

[SaoriseBiker]

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

Our current Minister for Justice and Defence has made several statements criticising the actions of the Irish Free State during and after World War Two, which ended long before he was born.

Our policy of neutrality was "morally bankrupt" he has said. He apologised for the condign punishment handed out to men who had deserted from our own armed forces.

Nothing would surprise me about Shatter or Fine Gael for that matter, the party of Sir Garret and John Unionist Bruton. Though I don't know of too many of them who have rushed to serve in the Irish army. Indeed just a few days ago Shatter was calling Derry by the London prefix in the Dail and has since defended his choice of words.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3138318.html

(And I'm no Fianna Failer either.)

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by SaoriseBiker

Indeed just a few days ago Shatter was calling Derry by the London prefix in the Dail and has since defended his choice of words.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3138318.html

(And I'm no Fianna Failer either.)

I really didn't mean this thread to be an Alan Shatter bash fest. It is true I referenced comments he made on Ireland's behaviour during the war, but he is far from alone in holding those views.

What I am opposed to is the contention that World War Two was so clearly a moral crusade that it must have been obvious to anyone of any decency that they must join in on the side known as the Allies and that anybody who failed to do so or ended up on the Axis/Tripartite Pact side must be considered a fellow traveler of evil and guilty of an offence so horrid that their offspring and future generations have a duty to atone for it.

It was a "messy time", as all times are.

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

What I am opposed to is the contention that World War Two was so clearly a moral crusade that it must have been obvious to anyone of any decency that they must join in on the side known as the Allies and that anybody who failed to do so or ended up on the Axis/Tripartite Pact side must be considered a fellow traveler of evil and guilty of an offence so horrid that their offspring and future generations have a duty to atone for it.

You are correct and there were plenty of atrocities commited by the Allied side in WWII and in the years that followed. What was worse- the persecution of Jews in Germany before the war started or the persecution of Germans in Eastern and central Europe after the war. Which was worse, the Pearl Harbour attack or Hiroshima?

History of course is written by the victor- Goering said "The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused"*. This proved correct starting at Nueremburg and continues to the present day with the minister mentioned in the OP. Hindsight is a great thing but it should be used with balance.

*source 'The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945' Herbert R. Reginbogin & Christoph J. M. Safferling.

[GERRYMAC65]

Originally Posted by SaoriseBiker

Nothing would surprise me about Shatter or Fine Gael for that matter, the party of Sir Garret and John Unionist Bruton. Though I don't know of too many of them who have rushed to serve in the Irish army. Indeed just a few days ago Shatter was calling Derry by the London prefix in the Dail and has since defended his choice of words.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3138318.html

(And I'm no Fianna Failer either.)

I dont know why Fine Gael are bothering with Dail reform,they give a very strong impression that they dont want the Dail at all,and are running this country and its people into the ground,so that their friends in WESTMINISTER will come to the rescue and take over things.In short FG should come clean about their idea for Irelands future.

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by GERRYMAC65

I dont know why Fine Gael are bothering with Dail reform,they give a very strong impression that they dont want the Dail at all,and are running this country and its people into the ground,so that their friends in WESTMINISTER will come to the rescue and take over things.In short FG should come clean about their idea for Irelands future.

Keep this sort of nonsense for the after hours or politics forum- it has no place in history. This is a warning so if you wish to post on the history forum you should read the forum charter first.
Moderator.