Alan Shatter Minister of Defence : Irish WW2 Neutrality 'Morally Bankrupt'

Morlar

I thought the lack of discussion of this statement is a bit odd. Considering it (in my view) really amounts to a planned assault on the integrity, character and morality of the Irish state & nation during the period of WW2 on the basis of Irish Neutrality.

Considering the content I think it has recieved very little attention in the Irish media. The British media coverage is not so reluctant.

I am curious if Alan Shatter, Irish Minister of Defence is reflecting the Fine Gael position, or just the Alan Shatter, Jew, Irish Minister of Defence position.

Also curious about what the Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail response to this new form of historical revisionism would be.

I did find it distasteful that at one point he essentially says Ireland has no moral authority to criticise Israel for it's actions on the basis of
our neutrality during WW2 :

However, there were questionable things both done and not done and we should not be in denial nor should we ignore that the conduct of our State,
at that time, in the eyes of some, delimits Ireland’s moral authority and credibility when today we seek to lecture later generations of
those whose families survived the Holocaust on the conduct of their affairs in Israel, without regard to the extent to which they believe
themselves under existential threat.

I am curious about how other people recieved this statement (not just the snippet above) - opinions ? For, against ?

Here is the full official text of this speech :

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP12000011

Speech by Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence Opening ‘the Shoah in Europe’ exhibition The Atrium, Department of Justice and Equality, 51 St Stephen’s Green

23rd January 2012 at 6pm


Oireachtas colleagues, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen

Allied soldiers arrived at the gates of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp sixty seven years ago this week, that is, on the 27th January 1945. It had become the largest graveyard of the Jewish people in history. An estimated 1.1 to 1.3 million people were exterminated there, 90% of them Jewish men, women and children. Others exterminated included Roma families, people with disabilities, homosexuals, prisoners of conscience and religious faith.

Nothing could prepare the camps liberators for what they witnessed in Auschwitz. The remnants of the gas chambers and the crematoria; the mounds of bodies; the stench of death; the piles of clothes; of teeth; of childrens’ shoes and barely living skeletal survivors; the speaking bones who greeted their arrival. By the war’s end, it was estimated that 6 million Jews had been exterminated by the Nazi killing machine in pursuit of the objective of a Judenfrei world. If Hitler had achieved his objectives no Jewish community in Europe would have been exempt from the Nazi slaughter, not even those resident in neutral Ireland. In Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, a map of Europe prepared by Adolf Eichmann, one of the main architects of the extermination policy, includes the estimated 4,000 members of the then Irish Jewish community targeted for extermination. Clearly, had Germany succeeded in invading Britain, our proclaimed war time neutrality would have provided no protection for the small Irish Jewish community nor presented any real barrier to a German invasion.

It is of vital importance that we and future generations remember and learn from the horrors of the past to ensure they are not repeated in the future. In his book "The Drowned and the Saved" Primo Levi writes "human memory is a marvellous but fallacious instrument. This is a threadbare truth, known not only to psychologists but also to anyone who has paid attention to the behaviour of those who surround him or even to his own behaviour. The memories which lie within us are not carved in stone; not only do they tend to become erased as the years go by, but often they change or even increase by incorporating extraneous features."

Despite everything witnessed, the accounts of survivors and the voluminous records maintained by Germany itself of the Nazi killing machine and the many Holocaust Memorials and museums worldwide, there are now too many in Europe who know very little of the horrors perpetrated in the second quarter of the last century and far too many in the State of Israel’s neighbours in the volatile Middle East engaged in Holocaust denial. Again in the words of Primo Levi "the further events fade into the past, the more the construction of convenient truth grows and is perfected."

As the years pass by and the remaining survivors of the Nazi horror who can tell the story firsthand reduce in number, it becomes more important than ever that we keep alive the shocking memory of the Holocaust. It is crucial that we never forget what happened or diminish the scale of the horror that was perpetrated by the Nazi regime. This important exhibition, which will continue for the next three weeks and which I am privileged to open this evening, is an important contribution to raising awareness of the Holocaust. The Holocaust Education Trust Ireland has worked with Mémorial de la Shoah in Paris and the French Embassy in Ireland to bring this exhibition to Dublin and I am particularly pleased to host the exhibition in the Department of Justice and Equality. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to Luc Levy who works with the Mémorial de la Shoah, the producers of this exhibition and to the French Ambassador, Madame Emmanuelle D’Achon. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Boaz Modai, the Israeli Ambassador, who represents a State which provided refuge and a home for tens of thousands of Jewish people following the horrors of the Second World War.

The timing of this exhibition has been arranged to coincide with Ireland’s 10th National Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration which will take place this coming Sunday, the 29th January. This commemoration event, which is now firmly established in the Irish national calendar, has been supported by my Department since 2003 and I am very pleased to be in a position to continue that support. Exhibitions such as this; Holocaust Memorial Day Commemorations and the work of the Holocaust Education Trust in Ireland are all excellent examples of what can be done to raise awareness of the Holocaust.

I am also pleased that Ireland became a full member of the International Task Force on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research in December 2011. This Task Force is a voice of moral authority on the international stage in raising awareness about the Holocaust and can help address the dynamics that we know precede mass killings and genocide.

The importance of this exhibition is that it provides a global view of the Holocaust in Europe, starting with the growth of the Nazi movement, through the different stages of the persecution, inhumane treatment and extermination of millions of Jews, up to the Nuremburg Trials. It also gives a picture of both the political and military reactions of a number of States to this tragedy which included disinterest of some nations toward the fate of the Jews and looks at reactions at an individual level including Jewish resistance and the Righteous among Nations.

It is difficult to comprehend how a society could have allowed such unimaginable atrocities to occur. We must remember that the Holocaust did not occur in a vacuum. These acts of evil emerged in one of the more modern and sophisticated societies of the era.

Tools and advances made toward human progress were used for human destruction. Scientific and medical advances designed to heal and save lives were used to kill. Education which should enlighten was used to justify grotesquely immoral actions. People made choices. Some chose to be involved in some way in the destruction, others chose to do and say nothing, while some chose to resist the evil and do the right thing to support, protect and save the persecuted.

An inconvenient truth is that those who chose to do and say nothing during this unprecedented period in European history include this State. In the period following Hitler coming to power and preceding the Second World War, the doors of this State were kept firmly closed to German Jewish families trying to flee from persecution and death. The advice of the anti-Semitic then Irish Ambassador in Berlin, Charles Bewley, that Ireland should be protected from the contamination that would result from granting residential visas to Jewish refugees resulted in practically all visa requests being refused. This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy. This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish Government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland whilst refusing entry and permanent residence to many more and also by the visit of President De Valera to then German Ambassador Edouard Hemple in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue the Government of this State utterly lost it’s moral compass.

So, in understanding the Holocaust and maintaining its memory, in ensuring that the conditions which allow such evil to flourish to such devastating consequences can never again prevail, we should not forget or ignore the failures of this State and this State’s responsibility for such failures. John Bruton, as Taoiseach, in the Spring of 1995, acknowledged our State’s failures and honoured the memory of those millions of European Jews who died in the Holocaust. When doing so, he acknowledged that the Holocaust "was not the product of an alien culture. It happened in Europe in living memory. It was a product of intolerance, bigotry and a distorted concept of nationalism." In the midst of the ongoing fiscal and banking crisis that currently impacts on the nations of Europe, including our State, we should never lose sight of the extraordinary contribution of the European Union in providing the political architecture for peace and stability in Europe. As Europeans we must all ensure that in addressing vital issues of immediate concern that affect the lives of tens of millions, it is the European ideals of peace, cooperation and solidarity and not extreme nationalism nor narrow domestic political concerns which motivate our actions.

It is appropriate that we revisit the morality of the conduct of our State during the 1930s and 40s, whilst of course being conscious of the fact that only a short time earlier, we had regained our independence from Britain and there was an understandable concern by Government to ensure, insofar as possible, political stability on this island at a time of global conflict. However, there were questionable things both done and not done and we should not be in denial nor should we ignore that the conduct of our State, at that time, in the eyes of some, delimits Ireland’s moral authority and credibility when today we seek to lecture later generations of those whose families survived the Holocaust on the conduct of their affairs in Israel, without regard to the extent to which they believe themselves under existential threat.

When viewing this exhibition no one should assume that what happened in the past cannot be repeated in the future. The truth is we should pay greater attention to the dead. We must never forget the lessons of the past when we make, or urge others to make, decisions which impact on the future. We should never ignore the extent to which their past impacts on their perception of the present and fuels their fears of the future or causes them to question the judgement of others.

For well over a decade, we have commemorated and paid tribute to the estimated 10,000 Irish people who died in British uniforms during the Second World War. Many who fought in British uniforms during that War returned to Ireland. For too many years, their contribution in preserving European and Irish democracy was ignored. Some of those include members of our Defence Forces who left this island during that time to fight for freedom and who were subsequently dishonourably discharged from the Defence Forces. I believe it is also appropriate that we revisit the manner in which they were treated whilst also remembering that those who served in our Defence Forces throughout that time performed a crucial national duty. It is untenable that we commemorate those who died whilst continuing to ignore the manner in which our State treated the living, in the period immediately after World War II, who returned to our State having fought for freedom and democracy. This is an issue to which I hope to return in my role as Minister for Defence later this year.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynn Jackson and her colleagues in the Holocaust Education Trust Ireland for their continued important work.

I would particularly like to commend the Crocus Project, which encourages national school children to plant yellow crocus bulbs in memory of the 1.5 million Jewish children and thousands of other children who died in the Holocaust. This Irish initiative has now been extended to the UK, Croatia, Poland, Malta, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. I am delighted that my Department actively supported the Holocaust Education Trust Ireland in initiatives such as the Crocus Project, the production of the Holocaust Timeline and Teachers Handbook as well as the development of other educational, research and raising awareness materials.

I would also like to express our sincere gratitude to ‘our survivors’, who give so generously of their time to recount their personal stories to our children in schools around the country.

I know that there are teachers here this evening as well and I would like to acknowledge their contribution to teaching our children about the Holocaust, about the dangers of racism and the importance of respect, equality and integration.

Congratulations to all those involved in organising this excellent and informative exhibition and I wish it every success.

ENDS

Manach

Other - please explain

As someone whose family had served in the Irish DF during the Emergency, and as someone with a history degree, I am annoyed that Mr. Shatter has such a poor grasp of the realities of that period and its impact on the Ireland of that time. Neutrality was the clearest choice as an independant country who had not the resources to wage war and was still scarred by the partition of the country.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Manach wrote: »

As someone whose family had served in the Irish DF during the Emergency, and as someone with a history degree, I am annoyed that Mr. Shatter has such a poor grasp of the realities of that period and its impact on the Ireland of that time. Neutrality was the clearest choice as an independant country who had not the resources to wage war and was still scarred by the partition of the country.

I am also kind of a bit dumbfounded by the ignorance & arrogance of his statement above to be honest.

He made those comments on Moday - they were not reported anywhere until Wednesday when his 'pardon for deserters' sorry pardon for those who 'left' remarks were picked up upon. The rest of his statement was ignored.

They have still not had a proper airing in the Irish media in my view.

If I had to guess I'd say that many are still shocked by the cheek of it.

An Irish Minister of Defence declaring the Irish state to have been 'morally bankrupt' on the basis of our non-beligerence status during WW2 is a massive development and a lot to take in. This is a complex well worded statement obviously prepared long in advance. Nothing relaxed or off the cuff about any of this.

Possibly Irish media are unsure how to proceed on this due of sensitivity over Shatters Judaism and the desire to avoid the accusation, or appearance of anti-semitism. Perhaps the prospect of being seen to be antagonistic towards issues surrounding the holocaust is playing a part. In any event the general media handling and silence is noticeable.

Border-Rat

Other - please explain

Mr. Shatter's heart and allegiance is not to this Country. It is to Israel. Now, I know we have our own fair share of dual citizenry, but we always, or usually, respect the host Country. This isn't the first time this man has insulted me.

As for neutrality, I firmly would've backed it then and do now as well. I am for strict military non-involvement with the exception of severe provocation in the 06 Counties. In WW2 the Germans showed us no notable lack of respect. I am fine with that, we had no beef with Germany. In fact, Hitler pointed out the hypocrisy of America when they presented a list of Countries to Germany of whom they demanded security and Ireland was on the list. To a roaring applause, Hitler pointed out that it was not Germany that Ireland was afraid of, but England. The speech is actually on youtube.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

I'd be interested to know how Mr. Alan Shatter, our Minister for Defence, feels about Israelies using Irish Passports, when they carry out assassinations in foreign countries.

Morlar

Other - please explain

marcsignal wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how Mr. Alan Shatter, our Minister for Defence, feels about Israelies using Irish Passports, when they carry out assassinations in foreign countries.

According to our Defence Minister our policy of not declaring war on countries which have not declared war on us 70+yrs ago removes our moral authority to question anything israel does. Including invading and attacking neighbouring countries and using Irish passports to carry out murder.

Cardinal Richelieu

Other - please explain

Could you see him saying that if Cumann na Gael were in office during the Emergency? That opens a debate, would Cumann na Gael have brought Ireland into the War?

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Morlar wrote: »

According to our Defence Minister our policy of not declaring war on countries which have not declared war on us 70+yrs ago removes our moral authority to question anything israel does. Including invading and attacking neighbouring countries and using Irish passports to carry out murder.

If that is the view he personally holds, then I feel his position as Minister for Defence of this State is no longer tenable.
If he is shown to have such divided loyalties, that makes him a potential security risk imo.

museologist

Other - please explain

Morally Bankrupt?

I would have thought it was morally bankrupt to cast a politically divided and unarmed nation into a war. Even if Eire was armed by the Allies, the political divisions within Ireland would probably have led to civil war in the absence of a convenient attack by Germany. Those who make 'moral argument' always ignore this factor just as Geoffrey Roberts, a fine History lecturer at UCC, does here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0128/1224310867283.html

Ireland does have a case to answer with regard to its treatment of Jews after the war when the horrors of the holocaust was apparent. I don't understand why more Jews did not get in then. In the context of this and Shatters comments I don't understand why Irish Jews planted and dedicated a Forest to Eamon de Valera in 1966.

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

museologist wrote: »

Morally Bankrupt?

I would have thought it was morally bankrupt to cast a politically divided and unarmed nation into a war. Even if Eire was armed by the Allies, the political divisions within Ireland would probably have led to civil war in the absence of a convenient attack by Germany. Those who make 'moral argument' always ignore this factor just as Geoffrey Roberts, a fine History lecturer at UCC, does here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0128/1224310867283.html

Ireland does have a case to answer with regard to its treatment of Jews after the war when the horrors of the holocaust was apparent. I don't understand why more Jews did not get in then. In the context of this and Shatters comments I don't understand why Irish Jews planted and dedicated a Forest to Eamon de Valera in 1966.

I think the argument of the time was that they were not Christian. German refugees from catholic areas were taken in as they had the same faith as the Irish and were therefore easier to look after. An impoverished country such a Ireland could ill afford too many refugees. Germans were starving at the time and we could only take in 700 kids, which was not a lot.

I would say Britain has more a case to answer than Ireland. After all they turned away the Jews before the war actually started. How many lives could have been saved there?
Even after the war they would not let them go to Palestine.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Anyone know if this apparent 'Moral Bankrupcy' has left any unfavourable impression on the Leaders, or Irish Representatives of, the Jehovas Witnesses, the Gay Community, Pave Point/Travellers, the Handicapped, and Communists ?

Did Mr Alan Shatter mention them ? Or is he only speaking for the Jewish Community here?

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

If that is the view he personally holds, then I feel his position as Minister for Defence of this State is no longer tenable.
If he is shown to have such divided loyalties, that makes him a potential security risk imo.

I'd expect a better standard of post from you tbh.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'd expect a better standard of post from you tbh.

Sorry BlaasForRafa, but I feel insulted by his remarks, as an Irish person, and as someone who had 5 relatives who contributed to the Allied cause in WW2.

I would still like to know, whether Mr. Shatter feels, using Irish passports to carry out murders in foreign countries, is also morally bankrupt? and until such time as I hear his view on that matter, I flat refuse to be ‘guilt tripped’ by him.

I’d also like to ask him the same questions this respected female Jewish intellectual from Yad Vashem is asking.

For the record, I'd appreciate it if you do not try to infer, that I have my knife in Mr. Shatter because of his religion. I'd like it to be known, that I have, in the past, many times, voted for Ben Briscoe, even though he was a Fianna Failer. I did so because, Ben Briscoe is, and always was, a man of honourable integrity. Alan Shatter is no Ben Briscoe imo.

This stuff about the Holocaust gets ratcheted up every year around this time, and sadly, it is usually followed, in the weeks after, by the Palestinians getting a savage kicking.

Also, you seem to have overlooked that I stressed the word 'If' in my post you quoted. This means, that I am open to hear his explanations, and would be happy to retract and apologise to him on this forum, 'If' those answers to the questions I have asked, are satisfactory.

It's not the first time we have disagreed on here regarding the M.E. (because the M.E. and the Holocaust are intrinsically linked), and I have always fully respecteed your opinion on the matter, as I have no issue whatsoever with the existance of the state of Israel. I simply find Mr. Shatters take on this, hypocritical, and do not feel he has any right to throw stones at anyone, from that big glass house of his.

Mance Rayder

Other - please explain

Alan Shatter is Jewish, maybe this shaped his opinion somewhat.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Alan Shatter is Jewish, maybe this shaped his opinion somewhat.

Maybe, maybe not. His religion is his own private business.
It's not his Jewishness I have a problem with, it's his Chutzpah.

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

the topic has made headlines in Germany and Die Welt has an article on it (unfortunately only in German)

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13841239/Irland-stellt-sich-seiner-dunklen-Vergangenheit.html

the article speaks of Irelands 'dark past'.

Could someone tell me if Charles Bewley, Irish ambassador to Berlin from 1933-39, was an anti-semite, as claimed in the article?

Turbine

Other - please explain

Whoever wrote that article is either British themselves or completely biassed.

They talk of the "alleged deserters", "as they were called", and the "anti-British" attitudes of the Irish that led to the deserters being court martialed.:rolleyes:

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

Turbine wrote: »

Whoever wrote that article is either British themselves or completely biassed.

They talk of the "alleged deserters", "as they were called", and the "anti-British" attitudes of the Irish that led to the deserters being court martialed.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kielinger

Jawgap

Alan Shatter has a point - up to a point!

Ireland's neutrality during WWII was fundamentally morally bankrupt given it was all but guaranteed by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Ireland was content to enjoy the umbrella of this protection without officially contributing to it.

That said, that does not condemn the country to forever being excluded from commenting on comtemporary issues such as the Middle East - if anything our recent history, and the Defence Forces' involvement there, leaves us well placed to comment on events there.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

Could someone tell me if Charles Bewley, Irish ambassador to Berlin from 1933-39, was an anti-semite, as claimed in the article?

I understand Charles Bewley was not fond of the Jews. I recall he is said to have made the remark....

"Ireland never persecuted the Jews, because we never let too many in"

.... and that's as good as verbatim from what I can remember.

Anti-Semitism was not uncommon in Europe at the time, and Ireland was a staunchly Catholic country.
I have no reason to doubt that he (Bewley) made that remark.

Turbine

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

Alan Shatter has a point - up to a point!

Ireland's neutrality during WWII was fundamentally morally bankrupt given it was all but guaranteed by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Ireland was content to enjoy the umbrella of this protection without officially contributing to it.

That said, that does not condemn the country to forever being excluded from commenting on comtemporary issues such as the Middle East - if anything our recent history, and the Defence Forces' involvement there, leaves us well placed to comment on events there.

Britain was as much of a threat to Ireland as Germany was, so to say Ireland was taking comfort by the presence of the Royal Navy and RAF around Ireland is completely false.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Turbine wrote: »

Britain was as much of a threat to Ireland as Germany was, so to say Ireland was taking comfort by the presence of the Royal Navy and RAF around Ireland is completely false.

I agree. Churchill <sarcasm>who of course had a long track record of admiration and respect for the Irish</sarcasm> said that had the Treaty Ports been needed during the war, would have been siezed by HM Forces.

Jawgap wrote: »

That said, that does not condemn the country to forever being excluded from commenting on comtemporary issues such as the Middle East - if anything our recent history, and the Defence Forces' involvement there, leaves us well placed to comment on events there.

I agree with you there.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

Ireland's neutrality during WWII was fundamentally morally bankrupt given it was all but guaranteed by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Ireland was content to enjoy the umbrella of this protection without officially contributing to it.

Ireland did not ask for, expect or receive protection from the RAF or the Royal navy throughout WW2.

Irish fire engines went north to protect Northern Irish civilians.
Irish men volunteered in their tens of thousands to join the British army or join the merchant marine & British industrial war effort (leaving aside for the moment those who deserted the Irish army to do so).

The single greatest threat of a violation of Irish Neutrality and invasion of Ireland was the prospect of a British invasion of Ireland to 'take back' ie forcefully capture certain Irish ports.

The RAF/Royal Navy did not protect Ireland whatsoever, in fact barring a handful of isolated accidental instances the Germans did not attack Ireland to begin with, no more than they attacked neighbouring Switzerland (which presumably you will now claim the RAF and Royal Navy also protected with their magical umbrella).

The RAF did attack shipping which included Irish boats. but the claim - I take it you are claiming that by their exsistence they protected Ireland ? - is a nonsense. We were their natural buffer zone & it is widely acknowledged that our neutrality prevented German kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe from violating our waters & airspace for the most part (something I believe Churchill and his cabinet disagreed on but is in my view the case).

Could I ask you a hypothetical question - if there had been a Nato Vs Warsaw Pact conflict in Europe, say during the early 1980's do you also think that in that scenario the RAF and Royal Navy would by their exsistence also have provided neutral Ireland with some kind of umbrella protection ? Or is this theory uniquely applicable to WW2 ?

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

I'm not Jewish and I think Ireland should have involved itself in WW2 on the Allied side.

There is the argument about partition and our own old enemy the British but......

What the Axis side were about was indefensible, in any mans language, and we should have tried our best to stop it, whatever that may have amounted to.

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

marcsignal wrote: »

I understand Charles Bewley was not fond of the Jews. I recall he is said to have made the remark....

"Ireland never persecuted the Jews, because we never let too many in"

..

did Joyce not say the same in Ulysses?

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

I'm not Jewish and I think Ireland should have involved itself in WW2 on the Allied side.

There is the argument about partition and our own old enemy the British but......

What the Axis side were about was indefensible, in any mans language, and we should have tried our best to stop it, whatever that may have amounted to.

Leaving 'The Chosen People out of the Equation' the Axis were about protecting Europe from Communism, an ideology both the church and big business were not fond of. The Americans and NATO took over this role after 1945.

I find what Robert Mugabe is doing is indefensible. The same with the Taliban. Let us send a few thousand young Irishmen to fight these evils. How can neutral Eire stand by and not send troops to Afghanistan? We owe to humanity. I really find we are missing out on a great adventure. Let them die on foreign soil fighting a war they know little about. There is great money to be made and a great way to solve youth unemployment.

perhaps some Irish felt the same in 1939?

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

did Joyce not say the same in Ulysses?

Very possibly. Maybe Bewley was quoting him, but I can remember that comment being associated with Bewley. I'm sure I can remember it from a Documentary on this very subject on RTE about a year ago. Ben Briscoe (Jr) that I mentioned earlier, was interviewed, and claimed his father had some run in with Bewley, politically.

edit:

I'd like to also add, to the general discussion, that if Mr. Alan Shatter was from a Russian or former Eastern Block backround, had pro Putin leanings, and started lecturing us on our position during the Cold War, in the light of American atrocities in Vietnam etc. I would consider that an insult too, and would also question his integrity on the basis that the Russians were also recently up to malarky with Irish passports.

Fuinseog

Other - please explain

marcsignal wrote: »

Very possibly. Maybe Bewley was quoting him, but I can remember that comment being associated with Bewley. I'm sure I can remember it from a Documentary on this very subject on RTE about a year ago. Ben Briscoe (Jr) that I mentioned earlier, was interviewed, and claimed his father had some run in with Bewley, politically.

edit:

I'd like to also add, to the general discussion, that if Mr. Alan Shatter was from a Russian or former Eastern Block backround, had pro Putin leanings, and started lecturing us on our position during the Cold War, in the light of American atrocities in Vietnam etc. I would consider that an insult too, and would also question his integrity on the basis that the Russians were also recently up to malarky with Irish passports.

It is interesting that Briscoe served in the LDF the precursor to the FCA during the Emergency and did not feel the need to desert and join a foreign army.

Turbine

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

I'm not Jewish and I think Ireland should have involved itself in WW2 on the Allied side.

There is the argument about partition and our own old enemy the British but......

What the Axis side were about was indefensible, in any mans language, and we should have tried our best to stop it, whatever that may have amounted to.

If you're referring to the concentration camps, the Allies didn't know about these till the end of the war.

So effectively what you're saying is that Ireland should've sacrificed tens of thousands of her citizens in attempting to crush the Axis forces.

We had no business getting ourselves involved in that war, and Éamon de Valera was right to keep us out of it. He saved a lot of lives in taking that decision.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

Turbine wrote: »

If you're referring to the concentration camps, the Allies didn't know about these till the end of the war.

So effectively what you're saying is that Ireland should've sacrificed tens of thousands of her citizens in attempting to crush the Axis forces.

We had no business getting ourselves involved in that war, and Éamon de Valera was right to keep us out of it. He saved a lot of lives in taking that decision.

The Jews in Germany were persecuted long before the outbreak of war.

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As an independent nation we had every right to get involved. And don't get me started on that man who signed a book of condolences for Hitler.

Turbine

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

The Jews in Germany were persecuted long before the outbreak of war.

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As an independent nation we had every right to get involved. And don't get me started on that man who signed a book of condolences for Hitler.

America stayed neutral right up until 1942. Britain was happy to stand by and let Germany invade Czechoslovakia, and to add salt to the wound then went and signed a treaty alongside France with Germany to let the Germans keep most of Czechoslovakia. Britain only declared war on Germany because they knew they'd be knocking on their own door eventually, and had to stop them while they still could.

So lets not pretend the Allies went to war with Germany to defend the sovereignty of others, they all had their own agendas.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

Sorry BlaasForRafa, but I feel insulted by his remarks, as an Irish person, and as someone who had 5 relatives who contributed to the Allied cause in WW2.

I would still like to know, whether Mr. Shatter feels, using Irish passports to carry out murders in foreign countries, is also morally bankrupt? and until such time as I hear his view on that matter, I flat refuse to be ‘guilt tripped’ by him.

I’d also like to ask him the same questions this respected female Jewish intellectual from Yad Vashem is asking.

For the record, I'd appreciate it if you do not try to infer, that I have my knife in Mr. Shatter because of his religion. I'd like it to be known, that I have, in the past, many times, voted for Ben Briscoe, even though he was a Fianna Failer. I did so because, Ben Briscoe is, and always was, a man of honourable integrity. Alan Shatter is no Ben Briscoe imo.

This stuff about the Holocaust gets ratcheted up every year around this time, and sadly, it is usually followed, in the weeks after, by the Palestinians getting a savage kicking.

Also, you seem to have overlooked that I stressed the word 'If' in my post you quoted. This means, that I am open to hear his explanations, and would be happy to retract and apologise to him on this forum, 'If' those answers to the questions I have asked, are satisfactory.

It's not the first time we have disagreed on here regarding the M.E. (because the M.E. and the Holocaust are intrinsically linked), and I have always fully respecteed your opinion on the matter, as I have no issue whatsoever with the existance of the state of Israel. I simply find Mr. Shatters take on this, hypocritical, and do not feel he has any right to throw stones at anyone, from that big glass house of his.

Its because of the general high respect I have for your posts that I was disappointed by this one.

To imply that Mr Shatter somehow has divided loyalties is extremely insulting imo. If you want answers to those questions, why don't you ask him? You can write or email him, I'd assume he has a constituency office where you could ask him in person if you prefer.

Also, on the record, I'd prefer that you do not try and infer that I would play the anti-semitism card, its not something I recall doing in the past and am quite annoyed that you'd even mention it.

As for the topic at hand, I too have family members that fought for in the British Army, Navy and Merchant Marine. I think De Valera's stance (and Fianna Fails in general) was partly a view that the dangers outweighed the benefits and partly due to a general anti-british feeling at the time.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The Rising and War of Independence were still fresh in peoples collective memory here. It would equate to the rising happening in 1990, and our reflecting on that today.

I was 23 in 1990. If I was fighting the British then, I wouldn't be quick to support them in a war today, that was essentially 'theirs'. Especially if my most endearing memory of them was the Black and Tans, and I am no Republican.

Jawgap

Turbine wrote: »

Britain was as much of a threat to Ireland as Germany was, so to say Ireland was taking comfort by the presence of the Royal Navy and RAF around Ireland is completely false.

Morlar wrote: »

Ireland did not ask for, expect or receive protection from the RAF or the Royal navy throughout WW2.

Irish fire engines went north to protect Northern Irish civilians.
Irish men volunteered in their tens of thousands to join the British army or join the merchant marine & British industrial war effort (leaving aside for the moment those who deserted the Irish army to do so).

The single greatest threat of a violation of Irish Neutrality and invasion of Ireland was the prospect of a British invasion of Ireland to 'take back' ie forcefully capture certain Irish ports.

The RAF/Royal Navy did not protect Ireland whatsoever, in fact barring a handful of isolated accidental instances the Germans did not attack Ireland to begin with, no more than they attacked neighbouring Switzerland (which presumably you will now claim the RAF and Royal Navy also protected with their magical umbrella).

The RAF did attack shipping which included Irish boats. but the claim - I take it you are claiming that by their exsistence they protected Ireland ? - is a nonsense. We were their natural buffer zone & it is widely acknowledged that our neutrality prevented German kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe from violating our waters & airspace for the most part (something I believe Churchill and his cabinet disagreed on but is in my view the case).

Could I ask you a hypothetical question - if there had been a Nato Vs Warsaw Pact conflict in Europe, say during the early 1980's do you also think that in that scenario the RAF and Royal Navy would by their exsistence also have provided neutral Ireland with some kind of umbrella protection ? Or is this theory uniquely applicable to WW2 ?

Whether Ireland wanted it or not, the accident of strategic geography meant we got it. And thankfully too - otherwise we would like have "enjoyed" the same fate as Denmark.

Irish ships sailed in Royal Navy escorted convoys until they decided - quite admirably - to take their chances out of convoy, despite the significant casualties that led to.

British tankers kept the country supplied with oil & petrol; coal, apart from what we could mine from Arigna, came from the UK; and they bought most of our food surpluses for hard currency which facilitated the purchase of imports.

There was active co-operation between both militaries.

We were not neutral and we never have been neutral - we were just non-aligned.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also, on the record, I'd prefer that you do not try and infer that I would play the anti-semitism card, its not something I recall doing in the past and am quite annoyed that you'd even mention it.

Well actually BlaasForRafa, on reflection, I was absolutely wrong to make such an assumption. You are 100% correct in pointing out that, indeed, you do not, and have not, ever played the Anti-Semitism card, and I completely acknowledge, that it is not your style of posting.

My drawing that assumption from your post was clearly disingenuous on my part, and for this I apologise sincerely.

It is an interesting option you mention, to raise this issue with Alan Shatter himself. I may conssider doing that.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

marcsignal wrote: »

The Rising and War of Independence were still fresh in peoples collective memory here. It would equate to the rising happening in 1990, and our reflecting on that today.

And our way of displaying our hard fought independence was to do nothing to help other countries, well played us.

Turbine wrote: »

America stayed neutral right up until 1942. Britain was happy to stand by and let Germany invade Czechoslovakia, and to add salt to the wound then went and signed a treaty alongside France with Germany to let the Germans keep most of Czechoslovakia. Britain only declared war on Germany because they knew they'd be knocking on their own door eventually, and had to stop them while they still could.

So lets not pretend the Allies went to war with Germany to defend the sovereignty of others, they all had their own agendas.

None of which was ever my point.

The point was what was the right thing for us to do and what was the wrong thing for us to do. We picked the wrong option.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

And our way of displaying our hard fought independence was to do nothing to help other countries, well played us.

Maybe we had had enough of bloodshed and death after 700 years.
Maybe we had good reason to distrust the British, and Churchill in particular.

Hindsight is a wonderful privilige we all have sitting here in 2012.
I feel in order to get a grasp, and proper understanding of our neutrality policy, we need to empathise with the feelings of the Irish, towards the British, at the time in question.

CDfm

Other - please explain

Turbine wrote: »

If you're referring to the concentration camps, the Allies didn't know about these till the end of the war.

So effectively what you're saying is that Ireland should've sacrificed tens of thousands of her citizens in attempting to crush the Axis forces.

We had no business getting ourselves involved in that war, and Éamon de Valera was right to keep us out of it. He saved a lot of lives in taking that decision.

Here it is in the words of the late Brother Columbanus and the existance of the camps were not known until the end of the war.

He signed up

Like many men, the young Sean had signed up because he "was going for the adventure and the money". After D-Day, he rode right through Europe: "When we broke through, that's when I had a ball".

They found out about the camps at the end of the war

"The people back home didn't realise what it meant. To them, you were just a renegade who had gone off and was fighting for the Brits," he told me. "I was a soldier of fortune, not a political soldier. When we went to Germany, we found out it was a worthwhile cause," Deegan said, as he prepared to return to Normandy for this weekend's 60th anniversary commemorations.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-servicemen-airbrushed-out-of-history-says-dday-veteran-481016.html

johngalway wrote: »

The Jews in Germany were persecuted long before the outbreak of war.

The Nazi's overrunning most of Europe should have been reason enough, if it's good enough for people to cry over the occupation of Ireland by Britain, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As an independent nation we had every right to get involved. And don't get me started on that man who signed a book of condolences for Hitler.

Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe and being re-occupied by Britain was a huge fear.

And here is an article that summarizes that event of DeValera and condolences.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmjeWVf7NF7HL8yfBeFx8U7JawkX-tQiqX40gY76mWXYxKZffT

Nonetheless , you are ignoring that Ireland was a friendly neutral the Britain.

As one historian puts it "belligerence would have been suicide"as we did not have any capacity to defend ourselves.

The Christmas Raid in 1939 where the IRA just went in to the Magazine Fort and took what they wanted shows this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Raid

So to call Ireland morally bankrupt would be to call the US morally bankrupt as it did not enter the war until attacked.

Other nations including the Swiss, Spanish & Portugeese must also be morally bankrupt.

It took decades to prise holocaust victims money from the Swiss.

That is without mentioning Vichy France.

The Czechs weren't morally corrupt as Britain & Chamberlain had sacrificed them with a policy of appeasement in 1938.

Also, general elections were held in Ireland in 1938, 1943 and 1944 and that was the will of the people.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Some more readers letters in the Irish Times today on this general subject. Surprising lack of response among media commentators & journalists imo.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

A pardon for Irish soldiers

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) considers Irish Army deserters to have been soldiers of conscience fighting Nazi occupation of Europe in the 1940s. I would suggest they joined the British army as the pay was much better. He is highly critical of Ireland’s decision to remain neutral. Prof Roberts does seem to gloss over many of the realities that prevailed at the time. Britain had the biggest empire in the world and wished to maintain it. A resurgent Germany threatened this dominance. Those were the major factors that underpinned the start of the second World War. Ireland had very little to gain by openly supporting either of these powers.

I fully agree that the slate be wiped clean with regard to those who deserted and joined the British army. – Yours, etc,

JOHN KELLY,
(Address removed)
England.

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) must surely know that, while the Nazi massacres of civilians during the second World War were the largest, there were also large-scale civilian massacres committed by the Allies for which any impartial war crimes’ tribunal would have had to try those responsible. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, in the lower of two estimates, calculated that 330,000 people had died in the bombing of Japanese cities in 1944-45. The main architect of this campaign, Gen Curtis LeMay, is reliably quoted as saying that “if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been tried as war criminals”. That was no less true of air marshal Sir Arthur Harris, though he might have scorned to express the thought.

Éamon de Valera’s opposition to the Nuremberg Trials did not imply any sympathy for the Nazis. He simply saw, as any clear-sighted person must see, that war crimes’ tribunals that prosecuted the leading Nazis, and did not prosecute LeMay, Harris and their political superiors, were victors’ justice. I believe he tactfully chose a different example, the killings at Katyn, to make the point. – Yours, etc,

JOHN MINAHANE,
(Address removed)
Slovakia.

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (January 28th) ) is wrong when he says that the Allies “fought to liberate Europe from German occupation”. In mid-1940 Gen Bernard Montgomery with his 3rd Division was ordered to prepare plans to invade Cork and seize its harbour. There were no Germans or Nazis anywhere near there then or at any other time during the Emergency. On the contrary, it was only the Irish Monty was worried about, as he says in his Memoirs (p70) “I had already fought the Southern Irish once, in 1921 and 1922, and it looked as if this renewed contest might be quite a party – with only one division”.

It is utterly repugnant to pardon anyone who deserted Ireland’s Defence Forces, and carrying with them knowledge of “the Southern Irish” dispositions, who then increased British capacity to invade Ireland during the Emergency. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL HEERY,
(Comdt, Retd),
(Address removed)
Dublin 7.

Sir, – Apropos of the voluminous and heated correspondence regarding a pardon for those soldiers who deserted the Irish Army during “The Emergency”, it would be interesting to know exactly what oath or commitment was subscribed to by these men when they signed up in the first place. – Yours, etc,

JOHN F MCCULLAGH,
(Address removed)
New Jersey,

US.

gizmo555

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

did Joyce not say the same in Ulysses?

Yes:

Mr Deasy halted, breathing hard and swallowing his breath.

—I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?

He frowned sternly on the bright air.

—Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.

—Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.

A coughball of laughter leaped from his throat dragging after it a rattling chain of phlegm. He turned back quickly, coughing, laughing, his lifted arms waving to the air.

—She never let them in, he cried again through his laughter as he stamped on gaitered feet over the gravel of the path. That's why.

johngalway

I disagree with Alan Shatter - No it was not Morally Bankrupt

marcsignal wrote: »

Maybe we had had enough of bloodshed and death after 700 years.
Maybe we had good reason to distrust the British, and Churchill in particular.

Hindsight is a wonderful privilige we all have sitting here in 2012.
I feel in order to get a grasp, and proper understanding of our neutrality policy, we need to empathise with the feelings of the Irish, towards the British, at the time in question.

Maybe we had, it was still the wrong decision.

CDfm wrote: »

Here it is in the words of the late Brother Columbanus and the existance of the camps were not known until the end of the war.

Someone else mentioned the camps so you may address that point towards them.

CDfm wrote: »

Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe and being re-occupied by Britain was a huge fear.

We still had a lot to offer towards the Allied cause, geographical position and manpower being two off the top of my head.

CDfm wrote: »

Nonetheless , you are ignoring that Ireland was a friendly neutral the Britain.

Your assumption & an incorrect view of my view.

CDfm wrote: »

As one historian puts it "belligerence would have been suicide"as we did not have any capacity to defend ourselves.

The Christmas Raid in 1939 where the IRA just went in to the Magazine Fort and took what they wanted shows this

To be fair.... The IRA were home grown and here. The Third Reich were the far side of the UK and unable to land on that island, so suicide is rather far fetched.

CDfm wrote: »

So to call Ireland morally bankrupt would be to call the US morally bankrupt as it did not enter the war until attacked.

Other nations including the Swiss, Spanish & Portugeese must also be morally bankrupt.

This is hillarious. Our position would be apparently "suicide", even though we don't share a land border with an Axis power, yet the Swiss, Spanish, and Portuguese are presumably not suicidal? It's a lot easier to drive a tank to Madrid from Paris than from Paris to Dublin

Besides that you're now ignoring the Fascist state that was Spain at the time.

Anyway, I'm not concerned about other states, their history is their own problem as our history is our problem.

CDfm wrote: »

Also, general elections were held in Ireland in 1938, 1943 and 1944 and that was the will of the people.

*cough-housingbubble-champagnecharlie-charliehaughey-bertie-propertyladder-cough*

Yes, elections solve all.

Maoltuile

Other - please explain

Fuinseog wrote: »

It is interesting that Briscoe served in the LDF the precursor to the FCA during the Emergency and did not feel the need to desert and join a foreign army.

It may or may not be the same member of the family, but a Briscoe was the last serving member of the DF to have an Emergency Service medal. He retired from the FCÁ in the early Nineties, the same year I enlisted.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

Maybe we had, it was still the wrong decision

In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we....

BlaasForRafa

Well actually BlaasForRafa, on reflection, I was absolutely wrong to make such an assumption. You are 100% correct in pointing out that, indeed, you do not, and have not, ever played the Anti-Semitism card, and I completely acknowledge, that it is not your style of posting.

My drawing that assumption from your post was clearly disingenuous on my part, and for this I apologise sincerely.

No bother man.

It is an interesting option you mention, to raise this issue with Alan Shatter himself. I may conssider doing that

You might as well get it from the horses mouth, otherwise its all just conjecture and speculation.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we....

Oh come on, you only have to look at a map to see that the situation with Poland was completely different to Irelands.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oh come on, you only have to look at a map to see that the situation with Poland was completely different to Irelands.

Bitiain AND France made assurances they would come to Polands aid. It's quite clear, in hindsight, that Poland was sold down the toilet by the French and the British.

The French promised the Poles in May 1939, that in the event of a German attack, France would launch an offensive against the Germans in the West “no later than fifteen days after mobilization”. A promise made in a treaty signed between Poland and France.
However, when Germany attacked, Poland was totally and completely betrayed. Britain and France did declare war, and French troops made a brief advance toward the Siegfried Line, but stopped upon meeting German resistance. Had France attacked the Germans in a more aggressive way as promised, the results would have been disastrous for the Germans.
Contrary to their assurances to Poland, Britain and France later agreed to allow Russia keep the parts of Poland seized as part of the non aggression pact with Hitler in 1939.

In terms of Britain, Neville Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons on March 31, 1939:

As the House is aware, certain consultations are now proceeding with other Governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government

Source

By April 1939 a formal agreement was signed between Poland and Britain. It stated quite clearly:

"If Germany attacks Poland His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will at once come to the help of Poland."

Source: Anita Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 193.

Britain’s support for Poland was a relatively new development, but France’s alliance initially went back as far as 1921. That year, France signed a mutual assistance pact with Poland on February 21, and Raymond Poincaré, the fufure president of the French Republic, stated:

"Everything orders us to support Poland: The Versailles Treaty, the plebiscite, loyalty, the present and the future interest of France, and the permanence of peace."

Source: Richard Watt, Bitter Glory: Poland and its Fate, 1919-1939 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 176.

On September 15, 1922 a formal military alliance signed by Marshal Foch and General Sokoski, stated explicitly:

"In case of German aggression against either Poland or France, or both, the two nations would aid each other to the fullest extent.”

Source: Bauer, "Franco-Polish Relations," p. 32.

By mid May 1939 the Franco-Polish Military Convention stated that:

"on the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the French would immediately undertake air action against Germany.

It was also agreed that:

on the third day of French mobilization its army would launch a diversionary offensive into German territory, which would be followed by a major military offensive of the full French army to take place no later than fifteen days after mobilisation

Source: Richard Watt : Watt, Bitter Glory, p. 402.

Despite promising to help Poland fight a war against Nazi Germany, behind the scenes the British and French seriously doubted their ability to effectively aid the Poles. Discussions were held by the British and French Chiefs of Staff between March 31 and April 4, 1939. A report entitled "The Military Implications of an Anglo-French Guarantee of Poland and Rumania" stated:

"If Germany undertook a major offensive in the East there is little doubt that she could occupy Rumania, Polish Silesia and the Polish Corridor. If she were to continue the offensive against Poland it would only be a matter of time before Poland was eliminated from the war. Though lack of adequate communications and difficult country would reduce the chances of an early decision, No spectacular success against the Siegfried Line can be anticipated, but having regard to the internal situation in Germany, the dispersal of her effort and the strain of her rearmament programme, we should be able to reduce the period of Germany's resistance and we could regard the ultimate issue with confidence."

Source: Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, p. 81.

What actually happened is certainly no secret. The RAF, for example, did not even attempt to bomb German military installations because, as the Air Staff concluded on September 20:

"Since the immutable aim of the Allies is the ultimate defeat of Germany, without which the fate of Poland is permanently sealed, it would obviously be militarily unsound and to the disadvantage of all, including Poland, to undertake at any given moment operations ... unlikely to achieve effective results, merely for the sake of maintaining a gesture."

The Chiefs of Staff then informed Chamberlain that:

"nothing we can do in the air in the Western Theatre would have any effect of relieving pressure on Poland."

Source: Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 183-184.

Consequently, instead of Bombing Germany, as promised, the RAF chose to drop Propaganda Leaflets instead. The French made a Half-Arsed probe into German territory in the west and gave up after 5 (?) days.

After it was all over, Poland was left to its fate under Stalin.

Morlar

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You might as well get it from the horses mouth, otherwise its all just conjecture and speculation.

Personally, I think his statement is clear enough. You can categorise it as 'divided loyalties' or 'absence of loyalties' or 'fractured loyalties', 'impaired loyalties' or however way you want. It is not entirely the point how you categorise them.

He certainly (in my view) is not displaying loyalty to this state in some of his remarks and I would stand by the comment that his remarks appear to be coming more from an Alan Shatter, Jew point of view than from an Alan Shatter Minister of Defence for Ireland point of view.

He made those comments not in a personal capacity but in his official role as Minister of Defence.

Considering the state of Israel has in the past :
a) used Irish passports to facilitate murder,
b) caused the deaths of Irish peacekeepers

His comments (which amount to saying) that Ireland does not have the moral authority to criticise israel because of Irish WW2 era neutrality - I find those remarks to be repugnant.

I find his general anti Republican brand of historical revisionism offensive also. Particularly coming from the office he holds.

His dishonest refusal to refer to deserters as 'deserters' but to distort his language into always describing them as men who 'left' is also offensive.

They did not leave - leaving was not the problem - deserting was the problem. Which he full well knows. No men who simply left Ireland to join the British Army faced repercussions on return, those who DESERTED the Irish Army faced mild consequences for their actions. Which is perfectly natural and the normal course of events.

He goes on to miss the point by saying that after the war (he meant when A.H had committed suicide) Ireland should have at that point abandoned neutrality and NOT followed diplomatic protocols in the Devalera visit of condolences:

also by the visit of President De Valera to then German Ambassador Edouard Hemple in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue the Government of this State utterly lost it’s moral compass.

I would fundamentally disagree with that.

If you are neutral you are neutral.

Neutrality is not something you do until one side becomes a clear victor then you switch sides or abandon the principle. No matter how convenient on a personal level it may be.

To have done what Shatter recommends would have been the act of moral bankruptcy.

To maintain the principle of Neutrality, even when one side clearly won was the more admirable and morally upright route to take.

Germany was on it's knees it's cities bombed to dust, occuppied by a brutal raping murdering soviet army and facing it's own annihilation. Countless German men and women were committing suicide by their thousands at this point or were the target of the largest most brutal ethnic cleansing in the history of europe. For Devalera to suddenly have abandoned the principle neutrality at that point would not have done the allies any physical or material good whatsoever. It might have been beneficial to his international reputation in the allied media but to have done what shatter recommends at that time would have been immoral, self serving and dishonest and undermined the previous efforts at neutrality which defined Irish Independence throughout that period and in later years.

Blaas - can I ask you -are you comfortable with that statement by the Irish Minister of Defence on page 1 of this thread ?

What are you views on each of the parts referred to ? I am curious because you have often been knowledgable on this general subject in the past and I can't believe that statement sat well with you either but I may be wrong on that.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

Consequently, instead of Bombing Germany, as promised, the RAF chose to drop Propaganda Leaflets instead. The French made a Half-Arsed probe into German territory in the west and gave up after 5 (?) days.

After it was all over, Poland was left to its fate under Stalin.

You said "In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we...."

Chamberlain was Prime Minister in 1939, not Churchill. As first lord of the admiralty he would have only had limited power to affect government policy and no power to affect the land campaign. By the time Churchill became Prime Minister he had a lot less military capability to do anything let alone come to another countries aid.

And as for later in the war, what happened to Poland was a fait accomplit. Do you really think that Churchill could in any way threaten Stalin? The 200 or so divisions that the USSR had in 1944/45 makes me think not. By all accounts Churchill agonised over the fate of Poland but there was absolutely nothing that anyone could do for them.

BlaasForRafa

Personally, I think his statement is clear enough. You can categorise it as 'divided loyalties' or 'absence of loyalties' or 'fractured loyalties', 'impaired loyalties' or however way you want. It is not entirely the point how you categorise them.

I wouldn't categorise it as any of those things, I would categorise it as having an opinion.

He certainly (in my view) is not displaying loyalty to this state in some of his remarks and I would stand by the comment that his remarks appear to be coming more from an Alan Shatter, Jew point of view than from an Alan Shatter Minister of Defence for Ireland point of view.

Do you not realise how offensive that sounds?

He made those comments not in a personal capacity but in his official role as Minister of Defence.

Considering the state of Israel has in the past :
a) used Irish passports to facilitate murder,
b) caused the deaths of Irish peacekeepers

Are you saying that his religion makes him somehow susceptible to subverting the law in favour of another country?

His comments (which amount to saying) that Ireland does not have the moral authority to criticise israel because of Irish WW2 era neutrality - I find those remarks to be repugnant.

He may be right or wrong but he has his opinion, just as you have yours.

I find his general anti Republican brand of historical revisionism offensive also. Particularly coming from the office he holds.

Anti-republicanism would seem to be a good trait to have in the office that he holds.

His dishonest refusal to refer to deserters as 'deserters' but to distort his language into always describing them as men who 'left' is also offensive.

They did not leave - leaving was not the problem - deserting was the problem. Which he full well knows. No men who simply left Ireland to join the British Army faced repercussions on return, those who DESERTED the Irish Army faced mild consequences for their actions. Which is perfectly natural and the normal course of events.

Deserters or not, they did the morally courageous thing in my opinion and should be praised for doing so. What they did had next to no effect on Irelands ability to defend itself (which would have been pretty much nil if the British had been defeated) but they did have a positive contribution to the defeating of a regime that needed to be defeated.

He goes on to miss the point by saying that after the war (he meant when A.H had committed suicide) Ireland should have at that point abandoned neutrality and NOT followed diplomatic protocols in the Devalera visit of condolences:

I would fundamentally disagree with that.

If you are neutral you are neutral.

Giving condolonces for the death of Adolf Hitler was repugnant, having sympathy for the death of someone responsible for millions of deaths? Gimme a break. I have sympathy for the ordinary germans and the rank and file heer, luftwaffe and kriegsmarine, re-reading Max Hastings Armageddon recently, how could one not have sympathy, however, the REGIME of Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and the rest needed to be defeated.

Also, solely in PR terms it was an absolutely stupid thing to do.

Neutrality is not something you do until one side becomes a clear victor then you switch sides or abandon the principle. No matter how convenient on a personal level it may be.

Leaders of countries are empowered to make decisions that benefit their country, whether convenient or inconvenient.

To have done what Shatter recommends would have been the act of moral bankruptcy.

Thats your opinion, it dosen't mean you are right.

To maintain the principle of Neutrality, even when one side clearly won was the more admirable and morally upright route to take.

Germany was on it's knees it's cities bombed to dust, occuppied by a brutal raping murdering soviet army and facing it's own annihilation. Countless German men and women were committing suicide by their thousands at this point or were the target of the largest most brutal ethnic cleansing in the history of europe. For Devalera to suddenly have abandoned the principle neutrality at that point would not have done the allies any physical or material good whatsoever. It might have been beneficial to his international reputation in the allied media but to have done what shatter recommends at that time would have been immoral, self serving and dishonest and undermined the previous efforts at neutrality which defined Irish Independence throughout that period and in later years.

The agonies that German people were going through was not relevant to De Valera's decisions. If De Valera had done what was right for the country instead of his own peculiar anti-british tinged morality then Ireland may have benefitted from American aid instead of languishing in poverty from the 40's through to the joining of the EEC. Opportunism that hurts nobody and benefits your own people is acceptable.

Blaas - can I ask you -are you comfortable with that statement by the Irish Minister of Defence on page 1 of this thread ?

I don't agree with it but I don't feel offended by his expression of it. People are entitled to free speech even if they are on occasion wrong.

What are you views on each of the parts referred to ? I am curious because you have often been knowledgable on this general subject in the past and I can't believe that statement sat well with you either but I may be wrong on that.

My opinions on it are complex and I don't really have time to go into it (wasted too much of the day already!). If I had been in De Valera's shoes I would LIKE to think that I would be more morally courageous and take a stance against the Third Reich. However I can't say in absolute terms whether I would actually have that courage or not when looking at the stark reality of the situation in 1940. With the parlous state of Ireland's infrastructure and economy at the time, perhaps Realpolitik was the ONLY realistic option.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You said "In your opinion. Because we could have fully depended on Churchills help, just like the Poles, and we know now, in hindsight, how that worked out for them, don't we...."

Chamberlain was Prime Minister in 1939, not Churchill. As first lord of the admiralty he would have only had limited power to affect government policy and no power to affect the land campaign. By the time Churchill became Prime Minister he had a lot less military capability to do anything let alone come to another countries aid.

He may not have been Prime Minister, yet, but as First Lord of the Admiralty, he was prepared to push and push for an Invasion of Neutral Norway. It's curious he never pushed with the same vigour, for the British Government to live up to its obligations regarding Poland. Something that would have been more effective had it been properly organised. In the attack on Poland, the Germans lost 25% of the Aircraft committed, and almost a divisions worth of Tanks. A properly co-ordinated attack in the West as promised, would have ended the war there and then, and possibly resulted in the ousting of Hitler.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And as for later in the war, what happened to Poland was a fait accomplit. Do you really think that Churchill could in any way threaten Stalin? The 200 or so divisions that the USSR had in 1944/45 makes me think not. By all accounts Churchill agonised over the fate of Poland but there was absolutely nothing that anyone could do for them.

He didn't agonise enough imo, considering Polish freedom was his principle war aim.

Ellis Dee

Other - please explain

Given his unquestioning support for every atrocity and crime committed by the zionazi terrorist rogue state entity that occupies the land of Palestine and is busy committing slow (for now) genocide against the people that have lived there for many centuries before millions of immigrants were imported from Russia and elsewhere, I am not sure what value need be assigned to Alan Shatter's views.:rolleyes:

However, my view of war is that the first duty of every government must be to keep its country out of war if that is at all possible. War brings death, maiming, destruction and misery, and no sane government would want to become embroiled in one.:cool:

The First World War was essentially a dog fight into which five or six competing imperialist empires allowed themselves to be drawn through a network of secret treaties and insane ambitions, and it led to the collapse and dissolution of four of them and severely weakened a fifth. Millions of people and many small nations paid a bitter price for the stupidity and greed of the imperial powers.:(

The Second World War was no more than a delayed continuation of the first. Numerous countries tried to keep out of it - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, at least.

Only Sweden, Ireland, Portugal and Switzerland managed to keep out - the others were attacked and suffered great loss of life, but they would not have been involved in the war if they had been able to avoid it. There was nothing morally bankrupt about it, and those countries - especially Sweden and Switzerland - were in a position to render valuable humanitarian aid both during the war and after it. Even impoverished Ireland helped out a bit, as the statue erected in St. Stephen's Green by the German government as thanks for our post-war aid demonstrates.:)

There is nothing morally bankrupt about avoiding war, and Shatter should really shut the fcuk up. He is a minister of our government and has plenty of things on his plate that need urgently seeing to instead of just re-writing history and badmouthing our country rather than doing his duty to protect our reputation.