Spanish Civil War - Irish connection./WWII

Jawgap

ledgebag1 wrote: »

Egypt was a key position as you say

From memory, Iraq had a Nazi pro/ sympathetic government put in place, thats from memory.

Didn't Husayni in Palestine was also Pro Nazi and from memory went to Berlin to meet Hitler.

They had RAF Habbaniya in Iraq - which was a significant enough facility and HQ of RAF Iraq Command.

And RAF Aqir (now Tel Nof IDF Airbase) which was established just before WWII.

ledgebag1

I stand corrected, I know the airbase at Habbaniyah was attacked alright,

Jawgap

ledgebag1 wrote: »

I stand corrected, I know the airbase at Habbaniyah was attacked alright,

It was, in 1941 - that kicked off the Anglo-Iraqi war.

ledgebag1

anyway no more hi jacking of the thread, my apologies

BFDCH.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My thoughts are you might want to brush up on Eoin O Duffy, and the Irish Brigade. And while you're at it, try to put yourself in the mindset of that time.

What's amusing to me is that most people are well aware that there were Irish men fighting for the republican side (which in the 1930's was actually seem as a communist/socialist faction) they were vastly out numbered by the Irish Brigade who fought on Franco's side (which had the support of the catholic church, which was one of the leading factors in so many men joining up with O'Duffy)

There were approx 120 on the republican side, approx 700 on the nationalist side.

i think when you factor in the Irish diaspora this figure becomes a lot higher- huge numbers of the american an british contingents were Irish or of Irish decent. But you're right, far too many fine gaelers went off to fight for the fascists

tdv123

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I can't believe that in the winter of 1942, when the very existence of the Soviet Union was on a knife edge, Stalin would have had the slightest qualm about dropping an atomic bomb on Berlin.

If the US were willing to use such weapons against an enemy close to defeat then to argue that Stalin would have refused to do so against a strong enemy with a chance of overthrowing his regime would make him into some kind of humanitarian saint.

That's not what I mean. I agree if he had a atomic bomb in 1942 he would have dropped it on Nazi Germany. I think all the allies probably would have done the same.

I mean he didn't want an all out nuclear war with another country who was capable of dropping the same kind of bombs.

Maybe it's just me but the role of the Soviets in WWII seems to be played down by the west because they see Communism just as bad as Nazism.

My thesis is Fascism & Nazism should have & could have been tacked sooner. It's a fact that Hitler made the German economy strong through his oil dealings with the UK. They also helped Hitler with the stolen Czech gold. They wanted Hitler to become strong because they knew of his hatred for Communism & they thought him & Stalin would wipe each other out.

Communism was bad but it does not match up with Nazism. The National Socialist party of Germany was the worst thing that ever happened to the world, they were intent on a New World Order, the Holocaust was the greatest crime in human history, it's purpose was to wipe out an entire race of peoples & if succeeded could have wiped other races & "undesirables" out.

Should have been tackled sooner & could have. The appeasement of Hitler was the greatest mistake a UK PM ever made. I despises Churchill but if he was in charge instead of Chamberlain he would not have put up with Hitler's territorial demands & would have nipped Nazism in the bud.

tdv123

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My thoughts are you might want to brush up on Eoin O Duffy, and the Irish Brigade. And while you're at it, try to put yourself in the mindset of that time.

What's amusing to me is that most people are well aware that there were Irish men fighting for the republican side (which in the 1930's was actually seem as a communist/socialist faction) they were vastly out numbered by the Irish Brigade who fought on Franco's side (which had the support of the catholic church, which was one of the leading factors in so many men joining up with O'Duffy)

There were approx 120 on the republican side, approx 700 on the nationalist side.

Exactly Duffy was the leader of Blueshirts. I'm talking about the Republicans who fought in the war. All the more reason to be proud of the Irish who fought against Nazism no matter what their motives were/

knucklehead6

tdv123 wrote: »

Exactly Duffy was the leader of Blueshirts. I'm talking about the Republicans who fought in the war. All the more reason to be proud of the Irish who fought against Nazism no matter what their motives were/

Again, you are looking back at this with the eyes of someone from 2013.

Look at it through the eyes of someone who would have been of serving age in 1936.

The church was railing against the republican forces as being communists and referring to the red terror (I hate using wiki to back a point but needs must...) and about the murder and persecution of the clergy, and they were talking about this from the altar at Sunday mass.

There was no internet to source your own information. there was no 24 hour news for you to form your own opinion. Radio Athlone was the only national broadcaster. And Radio Athlone was set up for the Eucharistic Congress, so draw your own conclusions about what the standard of broadcasting would have been.

Its all well and good throwing around words like Nazism and and Fascists and communists.... but the the two factions involved in fighting the Spanish Civil War were Nationalists and Republicans, and I get the impression that some here are hearing 'republican' and automatically assuming that the other side are the bad guys because of their own beliefs about what being republican means today in Ireland.

tdv123

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Again, you are looking back at this with the eyes of someone from 2013.

Look at it through the eyes of someone who would have been of serving age in 1936.

The church was railing against the republican forces as being communists and referring to the red terror (I hate using wiki to back a point but needs must...) and about the murder and persecution of the clergy, and they were talking about this from the altar at Sunday mass.

There was no internet to source your own information. there was no 24 hour news for you to form your own opinion. Radio Athlone was the only national broadcaster. And Radio Athlone was set up for the Eucharistic Congress, so draw your own conclusions about what the standard of broadcasting would have been.

Its all well and good throwing around words like Nazism and and Fascists and communists.... but the the two factions involved in fighting the Spanish Civil War were Nationalists and Republicans, and I get the impression that some here are hearing 'republican' and automatically assuming that the other side are the bad guys because of their own beliefs about what being republican means today in Ireland.

I can't look at it through the eyes of someone from 1936 if I was this thread would be in current affairs not history. Nobody can help but look at it with hindsight.

Well the church has nearly always been against Republicans that's nothing strange there.

Bassfish

tdv123 wrote: »

Exactly Duffy was the leader of Blueshirts. I'm talking about the Republicans who fought in the war. All the more reason to be proud of the Irish who fought against Nazism no matter what their motives were/

Probably worth remembering that Frank
Ryan went to Berlin in 1940 and lived there for most of the rest of his life during which time he worked with Nazi intelligence in plotting against Britain.

tdv123

Bassfish wrote: »

Probably worth remembering that Frank
Ryan went to Berlin in 1940 and lived there for most of the rest of his life during which time he worked with Nazi intelligence in plotting against Britain.

Why would I want to remember a Nazi supporter?

ledgebag1

Maybe it's just me but the role of the Soviets in WWII seems to be played down by the west because they see Communism just as bad as Nazism.

I am not having a go but I just want to pick up on some points if thats okay, it might help further down the line

On your first point it is not really played down, there are factors involved, firstly to access any soviet military records of that period is even to this day, next to impossible. Their archives are rarely if ever available, so to accurately assess their strategies, tactics, logistical input etc is based in the greater part on using other sources of information, from attached armies or interviews, captured documents.

Also bear in mind, the stalinist regime murdered a lot of not only their own population but those of Ukraine, Poland, Latvia etc. In other words they were inflicting atrocity and carnage also. So this might also play a part in the documenting of their participation

Their role was hugely significant in defeating the Reich, but not the only factors in the eventual downfall. Three million men of the German Army were tied up in Russia and the surrounding areas so that in itself was a massive factor

My thesis is Fascism & Nazism should have & could have been tacked sooner. It's a fact that Hitler made the German economy strong through his oil dealings with the UK. They also helped Hitler with the stolen Czech gold. They wanted Hitler to become strong because they knew of his hatred for Communism & they thought him & Stalin would wipe each other out.

I don't know how true your last sentence is to be honest, I think when you delve deeper into the subject you will see there are so many different factors involved and would not be as simplistic as that.



Should have been tackled sooner & could have. The appeasement of Hitler was the greatest mistake a UK PM ever made. I despises Churchill but if he was in charge instead of Chamberlain he would not have put up with Hitler's territorial demands & would have nipped Nazism in the bud.[/QUOTE]

Again I think you are a little off with that statement, all the prime ministers Presidents etc still have to go through a house of Parliament, Congress so its not a case of lets get Hitler. Bear in mind the psychological affects of the First World War were still relevant, Britain didn't have a large standing army and knew to win any war they would need the United States to have some involvement.

You could talk about this all day, some of the points you bring up are in themselves worth of a thesis

Waitsian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Jawgap's point is valid; in the Spanish civil war, everyone who togged out against the fascists was also togging out with the Stalinists (and vice versa).

Ahem! Come again?

You have't heard of the Barcelona May Days? Or the Stalinists constant harassment and attacks on Anarchist and POUM militias both before and after that specific event? I suggest you read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, and the following links will shed some light on how incorrect your statement reads.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt

http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-%E2%80%98may-days%E2%80%99-in-barcelona-1937

http://libcom.org/library/tragic-week-may-days-barcelona-1937-souchy

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

tdv123

ledgebag1 wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but the role of the Soviets in WWII seems to be played down by the west because they see Communism just as bad as Nazism.

I am not having a go but I just want to pick up on some points if thats okay, it might help further down the line

On your first point it is not really played down, there are factors involved, firstly to access any soviet military records of that period is even to this day, next to impossible. Their archives are rarely if ever available, so to accurately assess their strategies, tactics, logistical input etc is based in the greater part on using other sources of information, from attached armies or interviews, captured documents.

Also bear in mind, the stalinist regime murdered a lot of not only their own population but those of Ukraine, Poland, Latvia etc. In other words they were inflicting atrocity and carnage also. So this might also play a part in the documenting of their participation

Their role was hugely significant in defeating the Reich, but not the only factors in the eventual downfall. Three million men of the German Army were tied up in Russia and the surrounding areas so that in itself was a massive factor

My thesis is Fascism & Nazism should have & could have been tacked sooner. It's a fact that Hitler made the German economy strong through his oil dealings with the UK. They also helped Hitler with the stolen Czech gold. They wanted Hitler to become strong because they knew of his hatred for Communism & they thought him & Stalin would wipe each other out.

I don't know how true your last sentence is to be honest, I think when you delve deeper into the subject you will see there are so many different factors involved and would not be as simplistic as that.



Should have been tackled sooner & could have. The appeasement of Hitler was the greatest mistake a UK PM ever made. I despises Churchill but if he was in charge instead of Chamberlain he would not have put up with Hitler's territorial demands & would have nipped Nazism in the bud.

Again I think you are a little off with that statement, all the prime ministers Presidents etc still have to go through a house of Parliament, Congress so its not a case of lets get Hitler. Bear in mind the psychological affects of the First World War were still relevant, Britain didn't have a large standing army and knew to win any war they would need the United States to have some involvement.

You could talk about this all day, some of the points you bring up are in themselves worth of a thesis[/QUOTE]

That's true about soviet archives.

I'm sure when the war was over the USSR was given the credit it deserves, well I know it did But for example on the 70th anniversary of the D-day landing the BBC mentioned all the allies liberating the "whole" Europe except for the Red Army who did most of the fighting. Maybe it's just the modern mainstream media who want to play it down.

Yes I know PM's & Presidents have to go through Parliament & Congress but they seem to go through them a lot faster these days whenever the latest bogeyman like Sadam or Bin Laden pop up.

That's another good point that the British Army wasn't that prepared to tackle Hitler in 36 but I'd make the counter-point that Nazi's were even less prepared for a war at that time. Anyone who violates anybody else territory should be tackled as soon possible, they seem quick to follow that rule these days

Another point is the fact the UK helped Hitler's regime grow in power because they hoped him & Stalin would knock each other out. The oil, the Czech gold, the appeasement etc...

Can you not see the point I'm making? Hitler was the most evil bastard with the most evil ideologys ever to set foot on this planet. I know Stalin killed more people but Hitler was only get warmed up when his Empire came crashing down on top of him. What he had in my mind would have been hell on earth for anyone who opposed him.

ledgebag1

Maybe so about the media, possibly their actions in Germany following the war, the following years of the Cold War, influence all these, who knows. I believe they are a victim of their own secrecy.

On the PM's and Presidents, technology and diplomatic procedures are entirely different now. Governments can witness real time issues rather than relying on a Spy system or Ambassadorial reports which was the case in the early 20th Century. From what I have read on this issue, it seems there was an underlying belief that Hitler might be overthrown or removed from power from within Germany, this might have attributed to their cautiousness. As I say Britain were slow to react as they knew they would need US backing, they also didn't expect France to capitulate as quickly as it did.

Hitler had been carrying out a rearmament programme long before the invasion of Poland, and I might be corrected on this but wasn't there an involvement with Russia training or supplying weaponry outside of the Versailles convention? A contributing factor to their loss in operation Barbarossa was based on inadequate clothing for soldiers and the lack of motorized weaponry and a supply line, relying heavily on horses. Other than that they were well equipped for warfare.

In relation to your last paragraph, yes he was horrific, so was Stalin, Idi Armin, Japanese army atrocities in China are something frightening also

tdv123

Well the mainstream is so far right these days it's not surprising it won't cover anything to the left of Mussolini.

He couldn't have rearmed that well so quickly could he? He was only power less than 3 years by 36.

There's also the outstanding issue that the allies helped finance him out on his way to the top as well.

finianhttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_excerpts.htmlce

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/31/bank-of-england-and-nazis-stolen-gold

The Japanese Army was just as bad. The Nangking massacre was something else. The whole axis powers taking over the world was a terrifying prospect.

ledgebag1

I dont think it was allies that financed him, companies that were German linked and based abroad did i would like to see more evidence based around that article you have linked. I am not disputing it but would like to see more evidence and I am not speaking about the Czech gold, that's pretty damning.

The American, British or French government never provided financial assistance directly unless someone can show me evidence to the contrary.

He didn't invade Poland until 1939, plenty of time to re arm. As I mentioned before

Back to the Spanish Civil War

This books looks like it can give a good insight

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/irish-politics-and-the-spanish-civil-war-fearghal-mcgarry-cork-university-press-16-isbn-1859182402-the-irish-the-spanish-civil-war-1936-1939-robert-stradling-manchester-university-press-12/

tdv123

ledgebag1 wrote: »

I dont think it was allies that financed him, companies that were German linked and based abroad did i would like to see more evidence based around that article you have linked. I am not disputing it but would like to see more evidence and I am not speaking about the Czech gold, that's pretty damning.

The American, British or French government never provided financial assistance directly unless someone can show me evidence to the contrary.

He didn't invade Poland until 1939, plenty of time to re arm. As I mentioned before

Back to the Spanish Civil War

This books looks like it can give a good insight

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/irish-politics-and-the-spanish-civil-war-fearghal-mcgarry-cork-university-press-16-isbn-1859182402-the-irish-the-spanish-civil-war-1936-1939-robert-stradling-manchester-university-press-12/

He was definitely involved in oil trading of some sorts with the allies which did the Nazi economy a great deal.

But wasn't the rearmament of Germany in violation of the treaty Versailles? How could he rearm on such a mass scale without the allies getting wind of it? If they did know what did the hell did they think he was rearming on such a mass scale for? Did they think he was rearming for a game of golf?

ledgebag1

It was in violation of the treaty, this gives some explanation

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm

atschool.eduweb.co.uk/redschl/historydocs/.../Rearmament.doc‎

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-rearmament.htm

http://www.historyextra.com/qa/german-rearmament

riffmongous

This thread is a bit all over the place, and the Red Terror only gets a mention on page 4 or 5..

ledgebag1

Yeah sorry get back on topic

ledgebag1

Yeah sorry get back on topic, no more hitler talk