What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

Wolfe Tone

I hate the way banks get dragged into every single topic ever.

Benito

'Benito'...Mussolini', kinda funny:) Da banks thingy was there just to show how anal we were and still are.

Wolfe Tone

Haha! Didnt notice that! Yeah I follow, but the banks are the flavour of the minute, the RCC will soon follow I suppose!

Benito

Still awake? I have a 12 hour shift that starts at 7.30 But, I can't sleep. If you posted on this thread, forgive me, I haven't read. The Banks are not relevant. I still think we should have fought.

HavingCrack

Ireland remained neutral because it had no real choice. It had no modern military, no airforce, no industry, was riven by divisions between the pro-British and pro-German sentiment etc etc etc. Ireland would have needed large numbers of British troops to defend it adaquetly, troops which Britain probably couldn't spare so on the whole Ireland stayed neutral through force of cicumstance rather than through any real choice.

Jim_Bob_2010 wrote: »

Can you provide a source for this? I've heard this several times from teachers etc but nowhere have I ever once found any evidence of this.

Hitlers Irish Movies was a show by RTE a few years back which examined this in detail if I recall correctly.

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Our lack of military equipment was a direct result of being neutral... the government asked the allies a lot of times to provide it with defensive military equipment, which most of the time they refused. I'd imagine they were very frustrated about not being able to use the Souths ports and airfields)

The British hadn't enough equipment for themselves so they obviously weren't going to give any to Ireland while I don't really know why the Americans refused to sell to Ireland as I know De Valera sent Frank Aiken to talks in Washington over purchasing arms.

getz wrote: »

thats not the history i have read,the vatican signed a concordat with hitler in 1933, that only recognized catholicism as the one state religion,the vatican knew about the holocaust but turned a blind eye,the church used slave labour,when the slaves were no longer of use most would be sent on to the death camps,hitlers cardinal pacelli was tried for political war crimes,many leading natzi criminals were handed vatican passports[some used them to escape to ireland] even today the vatican is trying to hide its dirty washing, the present pope benedick XV1 was a member of hitler youth,[he admitted it] but the vatican still try to say he wasent,

There's so many things wrong with this post that I don't know where to begin.

1-The Vatican Concordat with Germany did not recognise Catholicism as the state religion. Considering Catholics only made up about 35% of Germans at the time this is a ridiculous statement. It was an agreement that the Nazis would not interfere with the Catholic Church as long as priests stayed out of politics. However the Nazis soon broke their agreement and arrested several hundred priests on charges of currency trafficking and sexual immorality and closed down all Catholic schools by 1940 or so.

2-Pope Pius xi actually robustly condemmed the Nazis in the encylical 'With Burning Grief' which was smuggled into Germany and read from pulpits and he was preparing an encylical criticising anti-semitism in Germany when he died. His successor Pius xii was aware of the Holocaust but was afraid to openly criticise it for fear that the Nazis would move to silence Catholic influences in Germany completely by a process similar to the outlawing of the Communist party I would imagine. Therefore he preferred to remain silent and hope to allow Catholics to continue to oppose the Nazi regime. I also believe he personally sheltered Jews himself.

3- This is the first time I've ever heard of the Vatican using slave labour which was then sent to death camps. I'd like to see what your source is for this if you don't mind as I don't believe its true.

4- Likewise I can't seem to find a reference to him being tried for political war crimes.

5-Yes many Nazi criminals such as Eichmann were helped escape in ww2's aftermath by officials in the Vatican, some of which came to Ireland. This is the first claim you've made that is true.

6-Pope Benedict xvi has admitted he's a member of the Hitler Youth as it was compulsory at that time in Nazi Germany. However I don't think other members of the Vatican establishment are attempting to pretend that he wans't, I mean how could they??

On the whole I find it worrying that you're this ill informed on the Catholic Church during WW2 but still make such accusations.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about the Huge amount of Irish americans? A very influential group.

They're not as influential as many would like to think in Ireland.

Benito

Wepons of war could have been imported from Britain. If we were to be bombed, what fighter support could have followed the German bombers. Even the 'Bolton Paul Defiants' had some success arround Dunkirk. Britains defence needed factory workers and soldiers. We could have helped.

chalkitdown

Benito wrote: »

Wepons of war could have been imported from Britain. If we were to be bombed, what fighter support could have followed the German bombers. Even the 'Bolton Paul Defiants' had some success arround Dunkirk. Britains defence needed factory workers and soldiers. We could have helped.

We did, much of the farm labour in Britian during the war was Irish.

Benito

Yep! Food was good, industry and munitions too. Like I said in me post. It's all revisionist. So many fought, so many worked and helped but, we saved no Jews. As a Proud Nation who sought to take it's place in the World.

Morlar

Benito wrote: »

Yep! Food was good, industry and munitions too. Like I said in me post. It's all revisionist. So many fought, so many worked and helped but, we saved no Jews. As a Proud Nation who sought to take it's place in the World.

It's funny that you talk of revisionism everywhere on this thread when you are the one looking at the 2nd world war in terms of 'jews, jews, jews'. That is not an accurate reflection of the priorities of that timeframe in Ireland in my view. I don't think getting Ireland to fight a war for 'britains defence' was ever going to be a popular choice, nor fighting a war to protect jews from some (at that time) unspecified & unknown potential future calamity.

Ireland was a christian, catholic country and jewish people from the continent were seen (in part) as being at least sympathetic to anti-christian, anti-catholic bolshevism. They were viewed with suspicion and as having a questionable allegiance to the countries they lived in. If you look at how they for example were disproportionately represented in the soviet regime including the vile nkvd or how many Polish jews welcomed the communists into poland - the notions of Irish people laying down their lives in fighting a war to protect jews is laughable. To the best of my knowledge NO ONE at that time who (was of the notion that Ireland should declare war on Germany) used the 'Irish people are needed to lay down their lives to protect jews' as it would have had about 0% popular support among non jews in this land.

What about declaring war on the soviet union to protect the ukranians ? Far more of them died BEFORE the 2nd world war broke out and they at least shared a christian heritage.

getz

from the 30s 40s anti-semitism was rife in catholic countries,jews fled from spain to the only safe haven gibraltar,most german and european jews tried to get to britain,then on to america,ireland being a catholic country reflected its church by rejecting [at first] jewish children ,the catholic church in germany used jewish slave labour,when young jewish woman gave birth, the child was taken from its mother by the church ,at the end of the war, the vatican sent out letters to its bishops that they were not to give the children back to their jewish parents,many people will say ,but the catholic church saved thousands of jewish people,yes the did,but it is no coincidence that they did not start to do this untill,the russians had turned the tables on the germans and were driving them back, the vatican realized that then there was only going to be one outcome,so they tried to join the good guys,

ejmaztec

getz wrote: »

from the 30s 40s anti-semitism was rife in catholic countries,jews fled from spain to the only safe haven gibraltar,most german and european jews tried to get to britain,then on to america,ireland being a catholic country reflected its church by rejecting [at first] jewish children ,the catholic church in germany used jewish slave labour,when young jewish woman gave birth, the child was taken from its mother by the church ,at the end of the war, the vatican sent out letters to its bishops that they were not to give the children back to their jewish parents,many people will say ,but the catholic church saved thousands of jewish people,yes the did,but it is no coincidence that they did not start to do this untill,the russians had turned the tables on the germans and were driving them back, the vatican realized that then there was only going to be one outcome,so they tried to join the good guys,

Are there any links to the bold part of this lengthy, but unfinished sentence?

HavingCrack

Benito wrote: »

Wepons of war could have been imported from Britain. If we were to be bombed, what fighter support could have followed the German bombers. Even the 'Bolton Paul Defiants' had some success arround Dunkirk. Britains defence needed factory workers and soldiers. We could have helped.

As I previously said Britain didn't have enough weaponary for itself let alone enough to support Ireland. However thousands of Irish workers went to Britain to work in the factories during the war and actually encountered a lot of racism from British people who felt they were stealing soldiers jobs, which they were in a way I suppose.

chalkitdown wrote: »

We did, much of the farm labour in Britian during the war was Irish.

Spot on.

Benito wrote: »

Yep! Food was good, industry and munitions too. Like I said in me post. It's all revisionist. So many fought, so many worked and helped but, we saved no Jews. As a Proud Nation who sought to take it's place in the World.

You've become slightly obsessed by the issue of Jews during ww2 in my opinion. For somebody talking of revisionism its slightly odd I must say. Its unfair to single out Ireland for refusing to take in any Jewish refugees. At a conference in 1937 (? if I'm wrong please correct me) the only coutnries that agreed to admit significant numbers of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany were the Dominican Republic and the Japanese controlled enclave in Shanghai. The United States, Britain, France, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Portugal, Holland, Sweden etc, etc, etc all refused to admit any so its unfair to single out Ireland as refusing to help.

That was prior to ww2. However the actual Holocaust did not begin until 1942. Prior to this many massacures had be carried out by the Einsatgruppen in 1941 during Barbarossa but these were not the 'death camps' such as Treblinka. By 1942 the focus of the war had shifted from western Europe to the eastern front so it would have been nigh on impossible for any Jews who escaped to make their way across occupied Europe to Ireland. Interestingly I presume you're aware that the Germans gassed, shot, hanged, starved millions of Poles, Romany gypsies, Soviet POW's, homosexuals and Jehovahs witnessess also during the Holocaust?? even though the Jews made up a large majority of the victims the rest are often forgotten.

Morlar wrote: »

It's funny that you talk of revisionism everywhere on this thread when you are the one looking at the 2nd world war in terms of 'jews, jews, jews'. That is not an accurate reflection of the priorities of that timeframe in Ireland in my view. I don't think getting Ireland to fight a war for 'britains defence' was ever going to be a popular choice, nor fighting a war to protect jews from some (at that time) unspecified & unknown potential future calamity.

Ireland was a christian, catholic country and jewish people from the continent were seen (in part) as being at least sympathetic to anti-christian, anti-catholic bolshevism. They were viewed with suspicion and as having a questionable allegiance to the countries they lived in. If you look at how they for example were disproportionately represented in the soviet regime including the vile nkvd or how many Polish jews welcomed the communists into poland - the notions of Irish people laying down their lives in fighting a war to protect jews is laughable. To the best of my knowledge NO ONE at that time who (was of the notion that Ireland should declare war on Germany) used the 'Irish people are needed to lay down their lives to protect jews' as it would have had about 0% popular support among non jews in this land.

What about declaring war on the soviet union to protect the ukranians ? Far more of them died BEFORE the 2nd world war broke out and they at least shared a christian heritage.

Nearly everything that Morlar says is true. Anti-semitism would have been rife in Ireland and indeed most of Europe and North America at the time so its ridiculous to think Ireland would have gone to war over the Jews alone. Furthermore the Holocaust did not begin until 1942 by which stage the focus of the war had shifted and Ireland's strategic importance diminshed.

Few questions Morlar.

I'm sure you're aware the reason Jews were disproportionly represented in the NKVD goes back to the days of Tsarist Russia when horrific pogroms were carried out against the Jews. Many of them felt a lot more compassion for the Communists than the White Russians and this continued right the way up to the war.

I've never heard of Jewish Poles welcoming the invading Soviets into their county. Whats your source for it??

I'm fairly sure Stalin's ethnic cleansing of the Ukranians wasn't really known or believed inside or outside of the USSR until after his death in the 1950's. However if I'm wrong I apologise.

getz wrote: »

from the 30s 40s anti-semitism was rife in catholic countries,jews fled from spain to the only safe haven gibraltar,most german and european jews tried to get to britain,then on to america,ireland being a catholic country reflected its church by rejecting [at first] jewish children ,the catholic church in germany used jewish slave labour,when young jewish woman gave birth, the child was taken from its mother by the church ,at the end of the war, the vatican sent out letters to its bishops that they were not to give the children back to their jewish parents,many people will say ,but the catholic church saved thousands of jewish people,yes the did,but it is no coincidence that they did not start to do this untill,the russians had turned the tables on the germans and were driving them back, the vatican realized that then there was only going to be one outcome,so they tried to join the good guys,

You've completely ignored my original post which dealt with all your mistaken beliefs and have gone on to post more anti-Catholic rants which have little to no basis in fact. I'm certainly no fan of the Catholic Church myself but you're just spewing out utter rubbish. Where are your sources for these accusations????

1-Anti Semitism was rife in Catholic countries in the 30's and 40's but it was also rife in Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim and Communist nations. It wasn't something peculiar to Catholicism.

2-Franco actually wasn't particularly anti-semitic (no more so than much of Europe at the time) and actually allowed the passage of refugee Jews through his country to Lisbon where they borded ships for the US. I've never heard of them fleeing to Gibraltar either.

3-Jews did flee to Britain but pre-ww2. Escaping Nazi occupied Europe to Great Britain after the surrender of France would have been extremely difficult, most would have taken the route through Spain to Lisbon. I think you're getting your dates mixed up.

4-I've never heard of the Catholic Church using Jewish slave labour during ww2. What is your source for this?????

5-In some cases the Catholic church took Jewish children from their parents (usually with consent but I'm sure there were some parents forced to give up their child) to hide them in Catholic orphanages for their own safety. This Jewish orphans controversy is quite long winded and detailed but the Popes directive was ignored by the French bishop responsible for the orphans whiel the Pope himself eventually changed his midn and the children were re untied with relatives in Israel, Wikipedia actually has quite a good article on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_orphans_controversy.

6-The Holocaust did not begin until 1942 while the tide of the war did not begin to change until El Alamein and Stalingrad in 1943. Furthermore a huge amount of people were not aware of the death camps until 1943 including the Catholic Church I presume so I don't think they only decided t help the Jews to look good to the Allies. However the Catholic Church had previously condemmed anti-semitism and sheltered Jews as I showed in previous post if you bothered to read it.

Your grammar is appallingly poor by the way. Please try to post a more legible post if you bother to reply.

Morlar

The church and the catholic church in particular taking an anti-communist approach is 100% understandable in my view. Look at how the bolsheviks suppressed christianity in the ussr, or how the communists treated the clergy in spain during the spanish civil war etc.

Morlar

HavingCrack wrote: »

Few questions Morlar.

I'm sure you're aware the reason Jews were disproportionly represented in the NKVD goes back to the days of Tsarist Russia when horrific pogroms were carried out against the Jews. Many of them felt a lot more compassion for the Communists than the White Russians and this continued right the way up to the war.

I've never heard of Jewish Poles welcoming the invading Soviets into their county. Whats your source for it??

There are a few, here is one collection of sources ;

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_2.html

Also illustrated in towns such as * Zamosc , this was a Polish town the germans invaded in 1939.

The Germans and Russians then divided up Poland and in the initial split the Germans pulled out - the russians entered.

Believe it or not the territory was then renegotiated and the details of the split refined . . . . so . . . the Russians left it and once more Germans returned. At this point there were 5000 Polish Jews who in the interim period had discarded their polish identity and joined with the internationalist communists and so left with them. Bear in mind this is 1939 Sept-Aug.

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm fairly sure Stalin's ethnic cleansing of the Ukranians wasn't really known or believed inside or outside of the USSR until after his death in the 1950's. However if I'm wrong I apologise.

There is no need to apologise but the fact is it was known - the Holdomor the soviet forced collectivisation famine begain in (iirc) 1932. There was coincidentally in fact a very prominent (Pullitzer winning) jewish journalist who wrote extensively on this very subject and consistently, repeatedly downplayed the extent of the genocide by the soviets against the ukranians.

HavingCrack wrote: »

1-Anti Semitism was rife in Catholic countries in the 30's and 40's but it was also rife in Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim and Communist nations. It wasn't something peculiar to Catholicism.

I would make the point that it is important to distinguish between anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.

* Zamosc & Szczebrzeszyn feature prominently on jewish holocaust sites - however the period we are talking about is Sept-Aug 1939

HavingCrack

Morlar wrote: »

There are a few, here is one collection of sources ;

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_2.html

Also illustrated in towns such as * Zamosc , this was a Polish town the germans invaded in 1939.

The Germans and Russians then divided up Poland and in the initial split the Germans pulled out - the russians entered.

Believe it or not the territory was then renegotiated and the details of the split refined . . . . so . . . the Russians left it and once more Germans returned. At this point there were 5000 Polish Jews who in the interim period had discarded their polish identity and joined with the internationalist communists and so left with them. Bear in mind this is 1939 Sept-Aug.



There is no need to apologise but the fact is it was known - the Holdomor the soviet forced collectivisation famine begain in (iirc) 1932. There was coincidentally in fact a very prominent (Pullitzer winning) jewish journalist who wrote extensively on this very subject and consistently, repeatedly downplayed the extent of the genocide by the soviets against the ukranians.



I would make the point that it is important to distinguish between anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.

* Zamosc & Szczebrzeszyn feature prominently on jewish holocaust sites - however the period we are talking about is Sept-Aug 1939

Very interesting post-I'd never heard of this event before-thanks a lot.

KeithAFC

People have to consider what Ireland give in WW1. Thousands of Irish people died.

FiSe

Morlar wrote: »

There are a few, here is one collection of sources ;

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_2.html

Also illustrated in towns such as * Zamosc , this was a Polish town the germans invaded in 1939.

The Germans and Russians then divided up Poland and in the initial split the Germans pulled out - the russians entered.

Believe it or not the territory was then renegotiated and the details of the split refined . . . . so . . . the Russians left it and once more Germans returned. At this point there were 5000 Polish Jews who in the interim period had discarded their polish identity and joined with the internationalist communists and so left with them. Bear in mind this is 1939 Sept-Aug.



There is no need to apologise but the fact is it was known - the Holdomor the soviet forced collectivisation famine begain in (iirc) 1932. There was coincidentally in fact a very prominent (Pullitzer winning) jewish journalist who wrote extensively on this very subject and consistently, repeatedly downplayed the extent of the genocide by the soviets against the ukranians.



I would make the point that it is important to distinguish between anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.

* Zamosc & Szczebrzeszyn feature prominently on jewish holocaust sites - however the period we are talking about is Sept-Aug 1939

The question is:
Why did they welcome Red Army and left with the Soviets after that border shifting?
Was it because they - Jews - were pro-bolsheviks or was it from the same reason why the Ukrainians were welcoming WH soldiers in 1940?
I doubt that we'd be talking about the Ukrainias as being Nazis.

Live4Ever

Haha what were we going to defend ourselves with? Hurleys and pikes and a handful of ****e guns from 1916? Just as well we were neutral..

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

The question is:
Why did they welcome Red Army and left with the Soviets after that border shifting?
Was it because they - Jews - were pro-bolsheviks or was it from the same reason why the Ukrainians were welcoming WH soldiers in 1940?
I doubt that we'd be talking about the Ukrainias as being Nazis.

That's a fair point.

Ok If you leave aside the unique circumstance of Zamosc for a moment (& I know I brought it up) then to turn and address the multitude of other instances listed in the link provided

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_2.html

what do you think could explain them ?

They were repeated instances of multitudes of Polish jews discarding their polish identity like that* (clicks fingers) to welcome internationalist communists. Many even ripping up the polish flag to create a red one.

Is it not at least possible that there was a disproportionate identification between bolshevism and judaism when compared to that of non jewish poles ?

Given that bolshevism was anti-nationalist and jews did not hold to the same levels of national identity as held by polish catholics. There were always questions raised as to their loyalty as indeed there are today with many jews identifying more with israel today than britain or wherever. At that time however without an israel, and as part of an insular community within a greater national identity do you think that it's possible that large numbers identified more with a bolshevik anti-nationalist vision than with a Polish/Ukranian etc ?

Unfortunately the way Ukranians, lithuanians and latvians of WW2 era German occupation are portrayed in the media today is, generally, as containing anti-semitic elements (if not nazi). Obviously it's a given that there were acts committed against jews under german occupation by people of those countries.

Could I ask do you think that that is down to an inherent, lingering anti-semitism or could it perhaps that be due to their previous experiences under communist rule (by disproportionately jewish communists) ?

FiSe

I would say that in Europe, in general, Judaism was never - and is not - popular and population of Poland and those other mentioned states, or Soviet territories, in 1939 were 'a bit' anti-Semite.
But it wasn't unusual as most of the European states had a go on their Jewish citizens when the opportunity arose.
So, that was my point, trading Satan for the Devil and hoping that they would get a better deal with the commies. Perhaps...

BTW, wouldn't be too keen on the tone of some Canadian based web page talking about Polish history with the 'The purpose of this compilation is not simply to present evidence for the widespread phenomenon of throngs of Jews, often dressed in their best attire for the occasion, avidly greeting the Soviet invaders of Poland in September 1939'

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

I would say that in Europe, in general, Judaism was never - and is not - popular and population of Poland and those other mentioned states, or Soviet territories, in 1939 were 'a bit' anti-Semite.
But it wasn't unusual as most of the European states had a go on their Jewish citizens when the opportunity arose.
So, that was my point, trading Satan for the Devil and hoping that they would get a better deal with the commies. Perhaps...

What I am wondering is do you think that is anti-semitism or anti-bolshevism being dismissed as anti-semitism ?

Would it be based on some form of ancient lingering anti-semitism emerging from the mists when the opportunity arose or could it (at least in part) be a direct response to anything ?

FiSe wrote: »

BTW, wouldn't be too keen on the tone of some Canadian based web page talking about Polish history with the 'The purpose of this compilation is not simply to present evidence for the widespread phenomenon of throngs of Jews, often dressed in their best attire for the occasion, avidly greeting the Soviet invaders of Poland in September 1939'

Fair enough but that is just one line from one specific article and easily taken out of context - I would recommend a perusal of the rest of the site before making a firm judgement on that

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/index.html

I have only come across it recently but from what I can gather it's quite an impressive collection of information relating to Poland pre-war and then under wartime occupation focusing on a lot of different areas of which only one or two would be of a jewish aspect.

getz

two good links.www.shoaheducation.com/ppharaoh.html. www.telusplanet.net/dgarneau/euro75.htm.

tac foley

chalkitdown wrote: »

We did, much of the farm labour in Britian during the war was Irish.

My dad - a Cork man - was a bus driver for the Crosville in North Wales carrying out a job that would normally have been that of a native, until they found out that he was also a skilled welder. Having a prison record that pre-dated the Truce meant that he had to register with the local police station every week as a former prisoner of the crown. In late 1944 some sharp-eyed policeman noticed his other skill [apart from a pre-disposition to acts of arson where the RIC was concerned], and he was shunted in to the RASC post-haste as a 'civilian contractor'.

It all went downhill from then on...........

tac

PatsytheNazi

Morlar wrote: »

There are a few, here is one collection of sources ;

http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_2.html

Also illustrated in towns such as * Zamosc , this was a Polish town the germans invaded in 1939.

The Germans and Russians then divided up Poland and in the initial split the Germans pulled out - the russians entered.

Believe it or not the territory was then renegotiated and the details of the split refined . . . . so . . . the Russians left it and once more Germans returned. At this point there were 5000 Polish Jews who in the interim period had discarded their polish identity and joined with the internationalist communists and so left with them. Bear in mind this is 1939 Sept-Aug.



There is no need to apologise but the fact is it was known - the Holdomor the soviet forced collectivisation famine begain in (iirc) 1932. There was coincidentally in fact a very prominent (Pullitzer winning) jewish journalist who wrote extensively on this very subject and consistently, repeatedly downplayed the extent of the genocide by the soviets against the ukranians.



I would make the point that it is important to distinguish between anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.

* Zamosc & Szczebrzeszyn feature prominently on jewish holocaust sites - however the period we are talking about is Sept-Aug 1939

Excellent Morlar, excellent. Ireally wish some of these facts were made more public, but I suppose it contradicts the " WW2 the great war for the saving of the human race" balony.

Morlar

Just to clarify - there were several pro-stalin journalists who dismissed the holdomor, one Walter Duranty won a pullitzer (and despite the best efforts of many it was never officially removed from him). He was non jewish. The prominent jewish one was Louis Fischer. Also I meant Sept-Oct not august

HavingCrack

getz wrote: »

two good links.www.shoaheducation.com/ppharaoh.html. www.telusplanet.net/dgarneau/euro75.htm.

Once you're again you're completely ignoring my points I made criticising your previous post, very mature.

Those two websites you've linked me to are absolute and utter rubbish and if you're getting your history of ww2 from sites like that I'm not surprised your view of history is so flawed.

Morlar

HavingCrack wrote: »

Those two websites you've linked me to are absolute and utter rubbish and if you're getting your history of ww2 from sites like that I'm not surprised your view of history is so flawed.

I would have to agree. Here is one quote from getz's site # 2

http://www.telusplanet.net/dgarneau/euro75.htm

At Berlin, Germany between 95,000 and 130,000 women and children are raped within the first weeks of Soviet occupation. It is noteworthy that Stalin had forbidden this act of war.

This seems to me to be an intentional distortion of the reality, a downplaying of soviet warcrimes and Stalin's knowledge of them when you counter that quote with this article from the Telegraph newspaper:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1382565/Red-Army-troops-raped-even-Russian-women-as-they-freed-them-from-camps.html

Against this horrific background, Stalin and his commanders condoned or even justified rape, not only against Germans but also their allies in Hungary, Romania and Croatia. When the Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas protested to Stalin, the dictator exploded: "Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?"

And when German Communists warned him that the rapes were turning the population against them, Stalin fumed: "I will not allow anyone to drag the reputation of the Red Army in the mud."

The rapes had begun as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944. In many towns and villages every female, aged from 10 to 80, was raped. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate who was then a young officer, described the horror in his narrative poem Prussian Nights: "The little daughter's on the mattress,/Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"

But Solzhenitsyn was rare: most of his comrades regarded rape as legitimate. As the offensive struck deep into Germany, the orders of Marshal Zhukov, their commander, stated: "Woe to the land of the murderers. We will get a terrible revenge for everything."

By the time the Red Army reached Berlin its reputation, reinforced by Nazi propaganda, had already terrified the population, many of whom fled. Though the hopeless struggle came to an end in May 1945, the ordeal of German women did not.

How many German women were raped? One can only guess, but a high proportion of at least 15 million women who either lived in the Soviet Union zone or were expelled from the eastern provinces. The scale of rape is suggested by the fact that about two million women had illegal abortions every year between 1945 and 1948.

It was not until the winter of 1946-47 that the Soviet authorities, concerned by the spread of disease, imposed serious penalties on their forces in East Germany for fraternising with the enemy.

HavingCrack

Morlar wrote: »

I would have to agree. Here is one quote from getz's site # 2

http://www.telusplanet.net/dgarneau/euro75.htm



This seems to me to be an intentional distortion of the reality, a downplaying of soviet warcrimes and Stalin's knowledge of them when you counter that quote with this article from the Telegraph newspaper:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1382565/Red-Army-troops-raped-even-Russian-women-as-they-freed-them-from-camps.html

I wouldn't exactly trust a newspaper as notoriously conservative as the Telegraph to be a reputable source but on the whole that article seems to be much closer to the truth than the websites getz seems to get his information from.

Some other 'facts' froms getzs sites.

1-"July 1: The British Broadcasting Company broadcast a French account of seven hundred thousand Jews massacred. Many don't believe these accounts as the Germans are Roman Catholic and the Holy Catholic Church remains silent. ".

As I've previously said, Catholics only made up about 35% of the German population during ww2 with Protestants being a clear majority so to say all German are Catholic is just ridiculous.

2-"The bigoted reality behind the secret report of the Easter 1943 Bermuda Conference is that not a single Western Allied Nation wanted to let the Jews settle in their country. The unspoken consensus is that it is better to let Hitler (1889-1945) handle them than arrange a mass evacuation to America, Britain or Canada."

Quite how the Westen Allies were expected to arrange the evacuation of Jews from the death camps in Poland under German occupation isn't mentioned I notice because it was impossible.

3-"Bestiality and homosexuality is made legal in Sweden."

Beastiality is made legal???? I very much doubt this.

4-"During the war the Catholic Croat Ustashi, in league with the German Catholics and Italian Catholics, persecuted the Greek Orthodox Serbs."

Once again Germans were a Protestant majority nation and in fact even the Germans were horrified by the excesses of the Ustashi. Secondly neither Hitler nor Mussolini were particularly fond of the Catholic church and in fact Hitler had plans to entirely eliminate any form of Christianity once the war was won.

5-"When the Vatican realized that the United States and the Soviet Union would be victorious, it started immediately to form a bloc of western European Nations to effect a counter-balance to these two non-European countries. France, the most beloved daughter of the Catholic Church, is to take a leading role."

The Vatican is behind the formation of the European Union???? Em.....don't think so.

6-"A Turkish pilot claim to have photographed Noah's Ark."

Right.......

7-"Ireland's prime minister Eamon de Valera, was the only government leader to convey official condolences to Eduard Hempel, director of the German diplomatic corps in Ireland. He was critized by most nations of the world. The Republic of Ireland, then called Eire, remained neutral throughout the war, and many Irish rooted for Germany against Britain. Jews fleeing Nazi persecution trying to receive asylum in Ireland are rejected. . De Valera also refused to allow Britain or its Allies to use strategic Irish ports for protecting Atlantic convoys from attacks by German U-boats. Churchill said Britain had considered laying "a violent hand" on neutral Ireland to seize its ports,"

I've already discussed Irish neutrality (the point of this thread before you de railed it with your rubbish) in detail.


I've lost interest in de bunking the rest of the rubbish you're spouting so I'm going to try to get back on the topic of irish neutrality from now on.

Empire o de Sun

Our army wasn't in a position to fight. But Britain knew that and would have supplied the equipment. They needed that manpower and access to the Atlantic. Britain objected to supplies from Amreica being sent to ireland because of our neutrality.

An alliance with britain could have caused problem in the domestic front with civil war or rebellion (central gov unable to control some regions) a real prospect.

The FF gov distrusted the Army, as they lost the Civil War to the Army. The Army was grossly underfunded and unprepared.

When the USA entered the war, Churchill made sure that Ireland stayed neutral as he didn't want Ireland to interfere with Britians post war relationship with the USA ( I read that in a book about a US spy in Ireland)

Ireland's refusal to take Jews from Germany before the war was shameful.

HavingCrack

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Our army wasn't in a position to fight. But Britain knew that and would have supplied the equipment. They needed that manpower and access to the Atlantic. Britain objected to supplies from Amreica being sent to ireland because of our neutrality.

Britain wouldn't have supplied the equipment, they barely had enough or thier own defence until the Land Lease agreement was signed with the United States. All Britian needed from Ireland was ports on the south coast and airfields to counter the German u-boats. America only entered the war in 1941 so for Britain to object to supplies being sent to Ireland before that seems ridiculous.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

An alliance with britain could have caused problem in the domestic front with civil war or rebellion (central gov unable to control some regions) a real prospect.

Civil war might be a bit of an exaggeration but I'd agree there was significant amounts of anti-British sentiment still rife in Ireland, particularly over Northern Ireland.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

The FF gov distrusted the Army, as they lost the Civil War to the Army. The Army was grossly underfunded and unprepared.

You can't really compare Fianna Fail in 1939 to the anti-Treaty forces during the Irish Civil War-there had been significant divergence in the interim. As to whether they trusted the army I'd say its open to debate. Your second point is very true however.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

When the USA entered the war, Churchill made sure that Ireland stayed neutral as he didn't want Ireland to interfere with Britians post war relationship with the USA ( I read that in a book about a US spy in Ireland)

Churchill actually made a second offer of Irish re unification in either 1942/1943 if the country entered the war while the USA entered in late 1941 so that doesn't seem to tally with your post.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Ireland's refusal to take Jews from Germany before the war was shameful.

I agree completely but as I previously said only two countries agreed to take any significant amount of Jewish refugees at the Evian Conference, the Dominican Republic and the Japanese controlled Shanghai enclave. Its unfair to single Ireland out.