Irishmen fell during the fall of France 1940 - (Myers article)

Morlar

This is an interesting article I saw today about the Irishmen who died during the fall of France 1940. I was out in St Nazaire a few weeks ago but had no Idea about the level of Irish loss of life there.

Kevin Myers:

Let us not forget Irish deaths in calamitous events of 1940


Wednesday June 09 2010

History -- the tale that a country tells of itself -- is never about all the events that befall the people of that country, but, more usually, about the events that conform with the prevailing narrative.

Any number of books have dealt with Ireland during that winsomely named thing, "The Emergency". But they have usually dealt with the major world events -- in which Irishmen were certainly participants, but which do not also form part of the national narrative -- with an austere factual economy.

The recent Irish and British media coverage of the events of 70 years ago tell us something about the ways two different narratives have been shaped. There has, so far as I have noticed, been no reflection at all in the Irish media on the calamities of 1940. British newspapers, on the other hand, have been obsessing about them.

It is as if the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were in two different hemispheres, rather than sharing the same archipelago and having land frontiers with no other polities but one another.

The neglect of this period within the Irish collective psyche is of course natural for a country whose independence had so recently been won; but it is nonetheless a considerable achievement. Because the total Irish death toll for the Fall of France and Norway was about 500 men, and probably more.

This exceeds the losses for Irish republican forces from 1916 to the truce in 1921, yet it is entirely absent from the national narrative. (Hence this column: for if I don't write about Irish involvement in one of the most seismic events in the 20th century -- the continental defeats of France and Britain in May-June 1940 -- who, pray, will?)

The largest single Irish loss of life that summer came with the sinking of the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious, and her two escorts, in the flight from Norway. Sixty-five Irishmen died in the complement of 1,200.

This was a catastrophe that was almost entirely of Churchill's making, from the appointment of a submariner (and a favourite of Churchill's) to be skipper of the aircraft carrier, to the impetuous despatch of the taskforce home to Britain.

Twenty-two of the dead came from Cork, including the brothers James and Joseph Regan, of Leap. One of the seven Dublin dead was surgeon Dermot Duggan, an only child, whose father had been killed in Flanders in 1917. That left just his mother, Dorothy, alone in her home in Foxrock.

And as for motivation, I say nothing, but merely draw your attention to one 19-year-old Cork-born sailor lost with the Glorious: Patrick Pearse Murphy.

Irish censors, who had earlier allowed Irish deaths to be published in newspapers, now stopped this. And who can blame de Valera's government for putting some prudent distance between what seemed like a doomed Britain, and a defenceless Ireland?

We now know that Hitler was not really interested in defeating the British: he wanted to see if he could force the British to the table without a full-scale invasion. But no one was aware back then that his mind was already shifting to the east, where within a year he would launch Operation Barbarossa. Instead, that summer of 1940, it seemed the world was about to come to an end.

It certainly was for hundreds of Irishmen serving in the British army. Nearly 400 were to lose their lives in the retreats to Dunkirk, St Valery and St Nazaire. It was off this last port that the greatest single loss of Irish life occurred, when the RMS Lancastria -- with thousands of troops aboard -- was sunk by dive-bombers as it headed to Britain.

Some 23 Irishmen are known to have been killed here. Just one was an officer: Lt Reginald Markey, a working-class Catholic from Dublin who had been commissioned from the ranks.

The deaths of at least 18 other Irishmen in the Fall of France are clouded in mystery. Joseph Fahy, of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was possibly captured and murdered by the SS in one of a series of massacres of British POWs which served as a foretaste of things to come.

Others still were taken prisoner and died unseen and forgotten in POW camps: thus the fate of Patrick O'Connell (25), of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, son of Timothy and Mary O'Connell of Youghal, who died in April 1941 and is buried in Berlin War Cemetery.

Interred in that same necropolis is Frederick Fellner, from Aughrim Street, Dublin. He died within months of freedom, on December 16, 1944. His father was Leopold Kellner, a railway waiter (probably at the nearby Broadstone Station): his young brother was named Rudolf.

I do not know how this young Catholic Irishman, of clearly German ancestry, came to be serving with the Royal Artillery in 1940 against Germany, or how he died in Germany in 1944. He just did.

Seventy years ago this summer the Battle of Britain lay ahead. Some 33 Irishmen serving with the RAF were killed in that great conflict -- 21 from the South and 12 from the North.

You groan: why do I tell you, yet again, of these things? Good question. Here's another one. Why have you read this far?

Irish Independent

R.Dub.Fusilier

my mothers uncle was lucky enough to have escaped from Dunkirk. he died some years later as a result of standing in the water for so long waiting to be rescued . he lived in Scotland so i can only asume he was in a Scottish regiment.

franklyon

Excuse the stupid question, but how can you die from standing in the water too long? Fair enough if he got hypothermia and died after a week or so, but a few years later?

Morlar

franklyon wrote: »

Excuse the stupid question, but how can you die from standing in the water too long? Fair enough if he got hypothermia and died after a week or so, but a few years later?

They queued up on the beaches for transport back to england. Some of them were up to their waist/shoulders for (open to correction on this !) over 24 hours.

Anyone skipping the queue was told they would be shot - so the men stood in place so as to keep a place towards the top of the queue in order to escape an unknown fate.

I am not a doctor but I can well believe that standing waist or chest deep in freezing water for 24 + hours will damage your health.

Considering also their supplies were in chaos and the men were in fear for their lives, combat stress, secondary injuries, manlutrition lack of sleep - add all that into the mix I have no problem believing it would damage your health.

R.Dub.Fusilier

franklyon wrote: »

Excuse the stupid question, but how can you die from standing in the water too long? Fair enough if he got hypothermia and died after a week or so, but a few years later?

from what i was told he was standing up to his chest in water for hours on end and it damaged his health. molar made some good points on the issue and put it better than i did and i'm relaying what i was told so you can believe it or not.

Fratton Fred

I watched the film Atonement the other day and they mentioned the Lancastria in that. http://www.lancastria.org.uk/home.html

arnhem44

My Grand Uncle was shot by another British soldiers during the evacuation but survived,reading Morlars post about skipping the queue is making me wonder was this maybe the cause.There's a lad buried locally(well commerated) here that died in the battle of Narvik.

Snickers Man

We must never forget the Irishmen (the rather miniscule number of Irishmen) who died while serving with the British forces in 1940!!!

Why?

Why should what they did be so central to our nation's narrative, as Myers seems to suggest?

Because it isn't. They formed a tiny minority of the armed forces of a country which has overstated its role in the overall conflict that was WWII.

Ask the average English person (or Scottish or Welsh) what WWII was about and they will say that Britain went to war when Germany invaded Poland and after the defeat of France, fought on alone against the might of the German Empire until the Americans joined in with some typically belated assistance to help them finish the job.

That's pretty much THEIR version of a national narrative and it's complete bollox, as even Myers admits in his article. Why should we be party to the maintenance of such a fantasy?

As it happens, my grandfather was one of those Irishmen who died while serving in the British forces in 1940.His brother in law, my great uncle, had died just before the preceding Christmas while serving with the Irish Guards. Neither were killed in action. Illness and exhaustion got them before the Germans did.

I've always known about these men, especially my grandfather. I don't need some twerp like Kevin Myers to admonish me for amnesia.

There were any number of reasons, some of them complex, why Irishmen found themselves in the British armed forces in WWII. But we as a country were not involved in it for our own, perfectly fair and justifiable reasons.

Fast forward 70 years. Right now there are Irish people volunteering to assist in a struggle that has nothing to do with us. They may have many and varied reasons for so doing. They are putting themselves in harm's way and trying to defy one of the best equipped, most highly motivated and most ruthless military machines seen in the world since Hitler launched his Blitzkrieg.

I am talking of course of the Irish people involved in the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Naturally they are getting support and sympathy from many Irish people but not from the likes of Myers and his ilk in Independent Newspapers who support the "war on terror" and the general Anglo-American adventure in the Middle East.

To them, such people are "dupes", "leftist fantasists", "supporters of terror" or in the cheapest moments "anti-Semites" who are inheritors of the virus of race hatred that helped earlier generations rationalise the Holocaust.

In years to come will this be viewed as "Ireland" or "The Irish people" coming to the aid of the Palestinians? Depending on the prevailing mood decades from now: possibly, or they may be considered an embarassing aberration to the generally apathetic behaviour of the rest of us.

The few Irishmen who served in the British Army in WWII were a tiny part of our "historical narrative". Those who are interested in the history of the time are perfectly entitled to study their stories and learn what they might. But we have no right to admonish later generations for not crafting some fantasy about their role in our country's history.

It's just not true.

And it's rather pathetic of a journalist to decry the truth as "austere factual economy". Even though all he's really saying is the old journalistic maxim "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story."

Morlar

This thread has absolutely sweet FA to do with the gaza blockade. There are threads in politics and ah on that.

Manic Moran

This thread has absolutely sweet FA to do with the gaza blockade. There are threads in politics and ah on that.

In fairness, it is a viable example of "Irish people volunteering to assist in a struggle that has nothing to do with us."

NTM

drakshug

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, it is a viable example of "Irish people volunteering to assist in a struggle that has nothing to do with us."

NTM

If we are talking about the BEF the we aren't talking volunteers of that ilk. We are talking professional army and the TA.

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, it is a viable example of "Irish people volunteering to assist in a struggle that has nothing to do with us."

NTM

We can agree to disagree on the 'fairness' of your assumption or not.

I could personally link any thread currently in page 1 of the WWII forum with the current or historic israel /palestine conflict in any manner, either supporting an israeli/jewish agenda or supporting a palestinian one, or in an attempt to highlight human rights abuses in a non paritsan manner. If I stretched it I could probably do it on the MOTORS forum or the LADIES LOUNGE too. It would be equally as irrelevant to them as this thread derailment is to us. If you were to say Grenada or Panama or the Falklands I could probably do the same with those issues too - as could most people.

Supporting either agenda or side in a contemporary conflict in this thread would still be trollish and out of place.

'Viable' covers a lot of **** & there is a question of basic respect behind this.

The original article is from a journalist, one I disagree with on a lot of topics, not least his coverage of . . for example 1916 I find to be offensive & unforgivable.

All of which is as irrelevant as whether or not I agree with his choice of automobile or his preferred brand of digital hd tv. This thread is about THAT article not other ones or past ones or possible future ones. It is about an neglected aspect of Irish WWII period history - that of the extent to which Irishmen served during WWII . Whether you agree with the various motivations behind those men or not - this is a neglected field, it is also a part of 'our collective national narrative' which has been suppressed. No retard one is talking about how 'we won the war' or 'england won the war' - such drivel is irrelevant.

The article should be assessed on it's standalone merits - regardless of other articles that particular journalist has written on other topics & equally regardless of his stance on other contemporary issues. imo. If we only read and absorb articles or books from authors we 100% align with politically we are doomed, the premise of the post above (the one taking issue with the authors politics or other articles & linking this WWII issue with the current gaza blockade) is beyond retarded in my view.

Manic Moran

drakshug wrote: »

If we are talking about the BEF the we aren't talking volunteers of that ilk. We are talking professional army and the TA.

I don't believe anyone forced them to join. If they chose of their own free will, I'll call that a volunteer for these purposes.

NTM

Japer

Snickers Man wrote: »

They formed a tiny minority of the armed forces of a country which has overstated its role in the overall conflict that was WWII.


The few Irishmen who served in the British Army in WWII were a tiny part of our "historical narrative".

100,000 Irishmen fought in the British forces in WW2, so you cannot say they were a tiny minority. Many more Irish people worked in civilian ways which helped the war effort. But for those who did stand up to Nazism, Europe and the world would be a much poorer place to be. I for one feel very grateful and proud to those who volunteered ( and many paid the ultimate price ) so that we may live in peace and health ( unlike 6 million civilians such as Jews, gypsies, handicapped who were not so lucky ).
Maybe , snickers man, if you were to visit one of the remaining concentration camps on the continent, you may learn something and appreciate something of what WW2 was about.

Fratton Fred

arnhem44 wrote: »

My Grand Uncle was shot by another British soldiers during the evacuation but survived,reading Morlars post about skipping the queue is making me wonder was this maybe the cause.There's a lad buried locally(well commerated) here that died in the battle of Narvik.

The popular story is that there were well disciplined men queueing up for boats. i bet the reality was a lot different. 500,000 beaten, nervous and shell shocked men, a lot of whom had seen their mates killed and probably hadn't slept or eaten for two or three days, it must have been absolute chaos.

FiSe

There were a few documentaries on the 'UK' channels over the last couple of weeks.
It must have been terrible, standing in the cold water for days /3 days in some cases they've said high tides just under your chin/, being bombed and machine gunned from the air, dead bodies all around you. That in the case that you've made it to the beaches.
Rather than chaos of disorder I'd say it was image of pure chaos of desperation.
Apparently Navy dropped their men to the shore to keep things organized for evacuation and there was a certain plan for the surviving BE units to be collected from certain spots, one of them had to march 8 miles along the coast to get to their area.
I can imagine that some people were shot for various reasons, to stop panic, to keep order during the queuing.
Wouldn't fancy to be there.

Fuinseog

if the Fuehrer had not procrastinated they would never have gotten out.

Fuinseog

apparently they refused to take thousands of french soldiers with them and left them behind

Fuinseog

drakshug wrote: »

If we are talking about the BEF the we aren't talking volunteers of that ilk. We are talking professional army and the TA.

weren't TA volunteers?

Fuinseog

Japer wrote: »

100,000 Irishmen fought in the British forces in WW2, so you cannot say they were a tiny minority. Many more Irish people worked in civilian ways which helped the war effort. But for those who did stand up to Nazism, Europe and the world would be a much poorer place to be. I for one feel very grateful and proud to those who volunteered ( and many paid the ultimate price ) so that we may live in peace and health ( unlike 6 million civilians such as Jews, gypsies, handicapped who were not so lucky ).
Maybe , snickers man, if you were to visit one of the remaining concentration camps on the continent, you may learn something and appreciate something of what WW2 was about.

they fought for Britain, because they sought adventure, this isle being somewhat dreary at the time.
they also sought a job, this isle having massive unemployment at the time.
this notion of fighting fascism is laughable. the germans and Brits could have worked together. Britain fought for teh glory of its empire and could have had peace with germany were it not for the war monger churchill.
the brits betrayed the Poles to the Russians and subujated Asians. hardly a noble cause to fight for.

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

they fought for Britain, because they sought adventure, this isle being somewhat dreary at the time.
they also sought a job, this isle having massive unemployment at the time.
this notion of fighting fascism is laughable. the germans and Brits could have worked together. Britain fought for teh glory of its empire and could have had peace with germany were it not for the war monger churchill.
the brits betrayed the Poles to the Russians and subujated Asians. hardly a noble cause to fight for.

Ah ,the History of WWII as put forward by my kid's SF primary school teacher or how to subject non-Irish kids to ridicule and political rants in the classroom.


1. The TAVR. Volunteer reserves. Not the type of volunteer who rushes to the colours when war breaks out. Instead a voluntary reserve of men trained like a militia to support the regulars. Staffed by reservists and most with several years part time soldiering behind them. In effest, as much volunteers as a regular is a volunteer. If you are in Britain, you'd know that a terrie is not a volunteer in the way originally posted.


2. The Fuhrer order. In 1940 the Wehrmacht weren't a highly mechanised army. Behind the panzer's steel tip was an army that marched and artillery that was pulled by horses. The BEF was more mechanised at the outset.
Various theories have been put forward for the panzer halt but the most plausibele is that the terrain was not suited to panzers and refitting was needed.

3. Poland. Britain went to war over Poland. It wasn't Churchill who declared war, it was Chamberlain. If you go to the UK you'll find memorials to the Poles who fought in all the services to protect the UK. Churchill wanted to send troops across Poland to cut off the Russians but it was Vetoed by the Americans. It was America who sidelined Churchill at Yalta to get the Russian manpower behind them. Churchill was frozen out.
Interestingly, the Baltics and AK parts of Poland kept up resistance against the Soviets until the fifties. Britain ran ex-German E- boats up the Baltic to supply these representatives of the legit Governments. The Americans found out and put pressure on Britain to desist. Uncle Joe Stalin would've got upset. The forest brother movement is the forgotten war in Europe. The last partisan died trying to escape the KGB in the seventies in Estonia.
Finally, the idea of peace with Germany. What sort of peace would that have been? I've seen the camps and the forests where the massacres took place. I've seen the memorials where villages stood but were liquidated by Nazi troops. Go anywhere North of Germany and you'll see it.
Britain, having declared war, was fighting for survival, not for the glory of it's empire. If you are interested in History you'd see that.
How would Ireland have survived if the who;e of Europe had been occupied? Do you think the German's would have occupied the North and let you be? A strategic island like Ireland? Come on.

Don't let your politics blinker you.

Edit. 100000 French troops were evacuated, a third of allied troops and amazingly enough out of the other two thirds were actually some Polish troops.

FiSe

Fuinseog wrote: »

if the Fuehrer had not procrastinated they would never have gotten out.

Dunkirk isn't the ideal place for the Blitzkrieg. lots of water channels, small and narrow bridges, lots of buildings and factories. Hard to get through the defences there.
No wonder that Allies never got there before final surrender of the Reich in 1945. Although they were trying to break the defences.
But hey, it sounds good about the Fuhrer who didn't know whether wipe the BA out or let 'em go

Fuinseog wrote: »

apparently they refused to take thousands of french soldiers with them and left them behind

They've actually returned especially for French soldiers. But, there was only as much as they coud do.

Edit...am only aminute or two behind

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

they fought for Britain, because they sought adventure, this isle being somewhat dreary at the time.
they also sought a job, this isle having massive unemployment at the time.
this notion of fighting fascism is laughable. the germans and Brits could have worked together. Britain fought for teh glory of its empire and could have had peace with germany were it not for the war monger churchill.
the brits betrayed the Poles to the Russians and subujated Asians. hardly a noble cause to fight for.

You don't really have anything constructive to add here do you?

Fuinseog

drakshug wrote: »

Ah ,the History of WWII as put forward by my kid's SF primary school teacher or how to subject non-Irish kids to ridicule and political rants in the classroom.


1. The TAVR. Volunteer reserves. Not the type of volunteer who rushes to the colours when war breaks out. Instead a voluntary reserve of men trained like a militia to support the regulars. Staffed by reservists and most with several years part time soldiering behind them. In effest, as much volunteers as a regular is a volunteer. If you are in Britain, you'd know that a terrie is not a volunteer in the way originally posted.


2. The Fuhrer order. In 1940 the Wehrmacht weren't a highly mechanised army. Behind the panzer's steel tip was an army that marched and artillery that was pulled by horses. The BEF was more mechanised at the outset.
Various theories have been put forward for the panzer halt but the most plausibele is that the terrain was not suited to panzers and refitting was needed.

3. Poland. Britain went to war over Poland. It wasn't Churchill who declared war, it was Chamberlain. If you go to the UK you'll find memorials to the Poles who fought in all the services to protect the UK. Churchill wanted to send troops across Poland to cut off the Russians but it was Vetoed by the Americans. It was America who sidelined Churchill at Yalta to get the Russian manpower behind them. Churchill was frozen out.
Interestingly, the Baltics and AK parts of Poland kept up resistance against the Soviets until the fifties. Britain ran ex-German E- boats up the Baltic to supply these representatives of the legit Governments. The Americans found out and put pressure on Britain to desist. Uncle Joe Stalin would've got upset. The forest brother movement is the forgotten war in Europe. The last partisan died trying to escape the KGB in the seventies in Estonia.
Finally, the idea of peace with Germany. What sort of peace would that have been? I've seen the camps and the forests where the massacres took place. I've seen the memorials where villages stood but were liquidated by Nazi troops. Go anywhere North of Germany and you'll see it.
Britain, having declared war, was fighting for survival, not for the glory of it's empire. If you are interested in History you'd see that.
How would Ireland have survived if the who;e of Europe had been occupied? Do you think the German's would have occupied the North and let you be? A strategic island like Ireland? Come on.

Don't let your politics blinker you.

Edit. 100000 French troops were evacuated, a third of allied troops and amazingly enough out of the other two thirds were actually some Polish troops.

you can surely make your point without childish name calling. If I disagree with you I am automatically SF? Do I go around calling you Jaffas, seoinins and west Brits? I would expect should childishness on youtube. You will find its not just SF that are critical of the British.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You don't really have anything constructive to add here do you?

I think the real motives these people had should be investigated. I also dislike the glorification of war that the British go on with.

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

you can make surely point without childish name calling. If I disagree with you I am automatically SF?
Do I go around calling you Jaffas, seoinins and west Brits?

Did I call you SF?

I merely pointed out that the comments put forward by yourself mirror the aforesaid person. I didn't even mention you.
However you have responded with phrases that don't refer to me either. You can refer to me as Albannaich

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

I think the real motives these people had should be investigated. I also dislike the glorification of war that the British go on with.

What motives who had, The Irishmen? a lot would have been sons of the British tha hung around after 1922, a lot would have joined up for the same reasons they always have, to be a professional soldier and some would have been after money.

The British don't glorify war. they glorify the part Britain played in WWII, which is understandable, Britain had a lot to be proud of. you will not find anyone who glorifies WWI, because there is nothing there to be proud of.

If you are referring to the British passion for wearing poppies then that is understandable. Britian had conscription in both wars. A lot that went and died had no choice. Despite the reason for either war, the dead should be remembered.

Fuinseog

FiSe wrote: »

Dunkirk isn't the ideal place for the Blitzkrieg. lots of water channels, small and narrow bridges, lots of buildings and factories. Hard to get through the defences there.
No wonder that Allies never got there before final surrender of the Reich in 1945. Although they were trying to break the defences.
But hey, it sounds good about the Fuhrer who didn't know whether wipe the BA out or let 'em go



They've actually returned especially for French soldiers. But, there was only as much as they coud do.

Edit...am only aminute or two behind

there are those who argue that he did not wish to destroy the English as he had too much respect for them. after all the Germans and the British both saw themselves as the master race. The Reich modelled itself on the Empire. perceived inferior races had to toil for both. Russian slave labour and Indian slave labour.

drakshug

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You don't really have anything constructive to add here do you?

I agree, I thought this was about History. No comments on my reply except about name calling. Nothing about the points I made which were all on topic.

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are those who argue that he did not wish to destroy the English as he had too much respect for them. after all the Germans and the British both saw themselves as the master race. The Reich modelled itself on the Empire. perceived inferior races had to toil for both. Russian slave labour and Indian slave labour.

If you have read anything in the last 40 years you'd have seen that theory well and truly debunked.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What motives who had, The Irishmen? a lot would have been sons of the British tha hung around after 1922, a lot would have joined up for the same reasons they always have, to be a professional soldier and some would have been after money.

The British don't glorify war. they glorify the part Britain played in WWII, which is understandable, Britain had a lot to be proud of. you will not find anyone who glorifies WWI, because there is nothing there to be proud of.

If you are referring to the British passion for wearing poppies then that is understandable. Britian had conscription in both wars. A lot that went and died had no choice. Despite the reason for either war, the dead should be remembered.

THe brits helped create the Iron Curtain. thirteen years of Opression was replaced by forty years. if tehy declared war over Poland they should have declared war on russia as well.

many believe that the Brits find war a moment of glory (WWI excepted).
I would hardly call the bombing of Dresden something to be proud of.

the poppy debate was already adequately covered some months previously.

people like Cathal Shannon fought in the Far East so places could free of The Japansese to be returned to the British. its hardly fight for freedom to exhange one enslavng empire for another.

Fuinseog

drakshug wrote: »

If you have read anything in the last 40 years you'd have seen that theory well and truly debunked.

debunked by whom? it depends on which side you read. you get a different picture when you read german historians.

there is still unclarity about the war.
we still do not know why Hess flew to Scotland and will not until 2026. have the Brits something to hide?

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

THe brits helped create the Iron Curtain. thirteen years of Opression was replaced by forty years. if tehy declared war over Poland they should have declared war on russia as well.

many believe that the Brits find war a moment of glory (WWI excepted).
I would hardly call the bombing of Dresden something to be proud of.

the poppy debate was already adequately covered some months previously.

people like Cathal Shannon fought in the Far East so places could free of The Japansese to be returned to the British. its hardly fight for freedom to exhange one enslavng empire for another.

The Soviet oppression was terrible but Nazi oppression was worse and I've pointed out that aid was given by the British to the states occupied by the Soviet Union.
I don't see how you can ignore, that regardless of politics, the removal of the Nazi regime was imperative? If Britain had failed in 1940 to withdraw, who would have endeavoured to protect Europe from Nazism and the Horrors it brought about? The Irish?

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

THe brits helped create the Iron Curtain. thirteen years of Opression was replaced by forty years. if tehy declared war over Poland they should have declared war on russia as well.

many believe that the Brits find war a moment of glory (WWI excepted).
I would hardly call the bombing of Dresden something to be proud of.

the poppy debate was already adequately covered some months previously.

people like Cathal Shannon fought in the Far East so places could free of The Japansese to be returned to the British. its hardly fight for freedom to exhange one enslavng empire for another.

so what are you saying, Britian shouldn't have got involved? how would that have ended up then, Comrade.

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

debunked by whom? it depends on which side you read. you get a different picture when you read german historians.

there is still unclarity about the war.
we still do not know why Hess flew to Scotland and will not until 2026. have the Brits something to hide?

You are trying to give precedence to the German overtures to Britain.
They were rejected publicly.
Think logically. If you have an army bottled up that you can destroy and then occupy their territory, you don't give up and let them escape. Hitler didn't give a damn about the RN at that time. He had Europe. The OLD theory that Hitler would offer Britain the seas and he would keep Europe is tosh. Hitler believed the U-boats would starve Britain if needed. Indeed they almost did - 2 weeks off from that.
As for Hess. We are getting into the conspiracy theory stuff when we start going on about Hess. Was it him at Spandau? Was he Hitler's Emissary. Yeah right. Great way to try to start peace talks. Steal an ME109 and get shot down over Lanarkshire and get picked up by the Home Guard. Great way of starting peace talks........ That isn't the way things are done. any contact between the belligerants were made in places like Sweden, Switzerland etc.

Fuinseog

drakshug wrote: »

The Soviet oppression was terrible but Nazi oppression was worse and I've pointed out that aid was given by the British to the states occupied by the Soviet Union.
I don't see how you can ignore, that regardless of politics, the removal of the Nazi regime was imperative? If Britain had failed in 1940 to withdraw, who would have endeavoured to protect Europe from Nazism and the Horrors it brought about? The Irish?

how was Nazi Opression worse? this is now a matter of debate. Hitler was selective in who he murdered. stalin was not. the latter murdered more. I believe Myers himself would be of this opinion.

the Brits betrayed the Poles as much as the Russians, though more discreetly. they knew the Poles were fighting for an ideal- a free poland that they would never be granted.
their leader, whose name I can't think of, suffered an unfortunate air accient, which churchill is supposed to have ordered.

The Brits try to give the impression that they won the war, yet without intervention of uncle Sam they would not have been successful.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what are you saying, Britian shouldn't have got involved? how would that have ended up then, Comrade.

they got involved to curb German power, not to save poland. they did not care about repression.they were perfectly happy with the Reichs concenration camps unil 1939. the germans were considered wonderful until 1937 and the british establishment and their german royal family were full of praise for err itler.

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

they got involved to curb German power, not to save poland. they did not care about repression.they were perfectly happy with the Reichs concenration camps unil 1939. the germans were considered wonderful until 1937 and the british establishment and their german royal family were full of praise for err itler.

OK, whatever you like.

Fantasy and fiction is that way ====>

drakshug

Fuinseog wrote: »

how was Nazi Opression worse? this is now a matter of debate. Hitler was selective in who he murdered. stalin was not. the latter murdered more. I believe Myers himself would be of this opinion.

the Brits betrayed the Poles as much as the Russians, though more discreetly. they knew the Poles were fighting for an ideal- a free poland that they would never be granted.
their leader, whose name I can't think of, suffered an unfortunate air accient, which churchill is supposed to have ordered.

The Brits try to give the impression that they won the war, yet without intervention of uncle Sam they would not have been successful.

Sikorski is the leader. Crashed at Gibralter. Funnily enough the plane had been left unguarded before the flight. A Soviet plane was parked next to it.
See, Anyone can play conspiracy theory.
Britain went to war to guarantee a free Poland. Russia wanted a subjugated Poland so we get stuff like Katyn.
As for who murdered who and being selective. Stalin was a monster. However, the Gulag system was not as 'efficient' as the machine that was the concentration camp. Most of Stalins victims were through sheer ruthless neglect. The Gulag could mean death but it wasn't designed to kill.
The Nazi regime created Genocide on a scale never seen. Trains were timetabled to take victims to the camps at the expense of the war effort. For Stalin, the Gulags were emptied for the war effort and then refilled after the war with those troops who had seen the west. Ovens and gas chambers, experiments, soap......
My wife is Lithuanian. I lived there for 12 years. I know and have seen what the NKVD did but it is nothing compared to what the Nazis did.

Fuinseog

as I already mentioned the Brits were pro Nazi in the thirties, despite the fact that concentration camps were open for business, jews were openly discriminated against and thousands of germans had been murdered in 1934. they did not care about oppression.



I Talked to Hitler" by the Right Honourable DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

I have just returned from a visit to Germany. In so short time one can only form impressions or at least check impressions which years of distant observation through the telescope of the Press and constant inquiry from those who have seen things at a closer range had already made on one's mind. I have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country - there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement has made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected, and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and importance. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic, dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against that constant dread of starvation, which is one of the poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world. The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of a repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him unchallenged authority in modern Germany. As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation. It is true that public criticism of the Government is forbidden in every form. That does not mean that criticism is absent. I have heard the speeches of prominent Nazi orators freely condemned. But not a word of criticism or of disapproval have I heard of Hitler. He is as immune from criticism as a king in a monarchical country. He is something more. He is the George Washington of Germany - the man who won for his country independence from all her oppressors. To those who have not actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany this description may appear extravagant. All the same, it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany. On the other hand, those who imagine that Germany has swung back to its old Imperialist temper cannot have any understanding of the character of the change. The idea of a Germany intimidating Europe with a threat that its irresistible army might march across frontiers forms no part of the new vision. What Hitler said at Nuremberg is true. The Germans will resist to the death every invader at their own country, but they have no longer the desire themselves to invade any other land. The leaders of modern Germany know too well that Europe is too formidable a proposition to be overrun and trampled down by any single nation, however powerful may be its armaments. They have learned that lesson in the war. Hitler fought in the ranks throughout the war, and knows from personal experience what war means. He also knows too well that the odds are even heavier today against an aggressor than they were at that time. What was then Austria would now be in the main hostile to the ideals of 1914. The Germans are under no illusions about Italy. They also are aware that the Russian Army is in every respect far more efficient than it was in 1914. The establishment of a German hegemony in Europe which was the aim and dream of the old pre-war militarism, is not even on the horizon of Nazism. ...
Daily Express (London), November 17, 1936

Fuinseog

Like most of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, George VI and his wife, the late Queen Mother, hoped to avoid war with Germany. The king sent birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland. More notoriously, his brother, the former King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. Even in 1970 he told one interviewer: "I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap."
Other royals also had links to the Nazis. Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a "wonderful job".

taken from http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html

Fratton Fred

A lot changes in three years.

lloyd George was villified for the comments he made about Hitler and Germany and then went on to become one of the one opponents to Britain's policy of appeasement.

You are taking quotes out of context and putting your own spin on them. They bear no historical fact and are simply your own assumptions made on your own prejudice.

If Britain had not entered the war, then either Stalin or Hitler would have had control of the entire continent. that may be desirable for you, but personally I think the way it turned out is a lot better.

you have to remember that at the end of WWII, the US were only interested in the UN and were willing to trade Poland for Russia's support in creating it. Churchill opposed this, but efectively lost out. In return he managed to keep the Americans in Europe for longer than they had intended, which helped keep the russians at bay. Yes, you could argue that Britain sold out Poland, but there was no way that after 6 years of war, Britain was going to fight russia, particularly without American help.

Fuinseog

Regarding Hess I find it interesting that he was never allowed to speak to the media. the russians were on the verge on releasing him, thereby giving him freedom to speak, when he decided to 'kill himself'. his file when fully released will have something relevant to say about possible peace deals in 1941, which could have saved thousands, if not millions, of lives. if Churchill was given the option between war and peace he would choose the former. even in britain they are reconsidering their viewpoint on him.


Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War by Pat Buchanan makes interesting arguements.


The dust jacket summary asks, "Were World Wars I and II — which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction — inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen — Winston Churchill first among them — the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.
Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 — that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A lot changes in three years.

lloyd George was villified for the comments he made about Hitler and Germany and then went on to become one of the one opponents to Britain's policy of appeasement.

You are taking quotes out of context and putting your own spin on them. They bear no historical fact and are simply your own assumptions made on your own prejudice.

If Britain had not entered the war, then either Stalin or Hitler would have had control of the entire continent. that may be desirable for you, but personally I think the way it turned out is a lot better.

you have to remember that at the end of WWII, the US were only interested in the UN and were willing to trade Poland for Russia's support in creating it. Churchill opposed this, but efectively lost out. In return he managed to keep the Americans in Europe for longer than they had intended, which helped keep the russians at bay. Yes, you could argue that Britain sold out Poland, but there was no way that after 6 years of war, Britain was going to fight russia, particularly without American help.

it did not turn out better for most of europe which was enslaved by communism for forty years.

many Germans assumed hostilities in the west would cease in 1945 and a combined German allied force would fight the real enemy. three years later a Cold war had developed anyway.

Fratton Fred

why no mention of France in all this? I think you will find that they were not only the country that imposed the hardest sanctions and reperations on Germany, but also signed a trety with Poland before britian did.

Probably doesn't figure on your radar though does it?

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

it did not turn out better for most of europe which was enslaved by communism for forty years.

many Germans assumed hostilities in the west would cease in 1945 and a combined German allied force would fight the real enemy. three years later a Cold war had developed anyway.

and if Britain hadn't joined the war, the communists would have made it all the way to the Atlantic, or do you think they would have stopped at Berklin and not gone on to take back German controlled Belgium, Holland, France, Greece....

drakshug

It is so much easier to see things in black an White for some. No mention of Finland here. No mention of ireland's condolences to the Nazi state over hitlers death or the refusal to admit jewish refugees. No mention of the members of the Nazi party from the Irish civil service in the thirties. (they were only banned from being members of Irish parties, not foreign ones).
If the uk had gone to war for empire and glory, where were the crowds greeting war such as there had been in 1914? Where was the British empire 10 years after the war?
If the allies hadn't confronted hitler, Europe would have been occupied by Germany and, in turn, most likely by the soviet union as Russia would have eventually swallowed up Germany.
What did Ireland care about Poland, by the way?

Morlar

The context of Irish neutrality is that we were a fledgling state and by no means guaranteed to survive. In the years previous to WW2 we had seen the devestating losses of World War one where vast numbers of Irishmen were wiped out in the war to save 'little catholic belgium' from it's oppresive neighbours. Add to that the Rising, War of Independence and Civil war - we were utterly 100% right as a nation to remain neutral during WW2 in my view.

Having said that large numbers of Irishmen did volunteer and fight in many of the major battles of the second world war - and these are all but forgotten in the history books. I see no problem or contradiction with honouring them and remembering their service (such as is done in the original article at the start of this thread) and there is nothing un-republican or un-nationalistic about that at all. I think finding an Irish element to certain events such as Dunkirk, St Nazaire etc makes the history of WW2 more interesting from an Irish perspective.

On the subject of Dunkirk I have never seen anything to dissuade me from the belief that had hitler wanted to he could have either wiped them out or captured them.

He chose to halt and stay halted for days (while the luftwaffe randomly harried).

If you look at a map of the German advance on Dunkirk it came in from all land directions all converging on a very narrow point and the notion that the German army at that time somehow could not cover the final yards due to supply issues, or terrain (as has been put forward on recent 'tally ho' types of documentaries and repeated on this thread) is laughable in my view.

At that point Hitler did not want to completely alienate any peace hopes with britain - he wanted to allow them to escape and hope for a change of thinking on the british side (or even a change of leadership) without crossing the line by wiping out the BEF. To me this is the only explanation that makes any kind of sense given the way previous and subsequent events and campaigns played out.

The idea that if the allies were not involved in WW2 that soviet russia would have dominated europe doesn't add up either.

Barbarossa on one front with no other distractions would have been swift and decisive, communist russia would undoubtedly have fallen. Freeing up communist absorbed countries like bessarabia, ukraine, lithuania, latvia estonia, kazakhstan, azerbijan, Georgia and so on. When you consider the scale of the holdomor and the nkvd & stalinist repressions - it is clear the communists were far worse than the nazis ever were and the numbers back this up.

On the subject of Irish govt extending sympathies to the people of Germany on the death of their leader - this is standard diplomatic protocol and not an endorsement of approval. If ariel sharon had died in office we would have done the same then & it would not mean we approved of everything that state does either. On the subject of not accepting some jewish refugees I think we did accept many refugees after the war but not all. There are a myriad of factors behind that included would be the belief at that time that the jews were generally communist sympathisers (given the disproportionate numbers in the nkvd, communist party etc). Also given the anti-nationalist behaviour as exhibited in East Europe when the communists came along & were welcomed into Catholic Poland by their jewish populations it is not overly surprising in my view.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why no mention of France in all this? I think you will find that they were not only the country that imposed the hardest sanctions and reperations on Germany, but also signed a trety with Poland before britian did.

Probably doesn't figure on your radar though does it?

I don't mention France, because that would be a thread in itself and I am trying to remain in the Dunkirk period, but France certainly was a mass of contradictions.

drakshug

I can accept your points though I don't agree with them all, mohar. One thing. Do you also find the comments on an imperialist British war laughable or just the "hung ho" Britain stands alone comments?

Fuinseog

drakshug wrote: »

It is so much easier to see things in black an White for some. No mention of Finland here. No mention of ireland's condolences to the Nazi state over hitlers death or the refusal to admit jewish refugees. No mention of the members of the Nazi party from the Irish civil service in the thirties. (they were only banned from being members of Irish parties, not foreign ones).
What did Ireland care about Poland, by the way?

you conveniently forget that the Free State also refused admission to people like Dr Adolf Mahr who made a significant cultural contribution to this state.