The glorious 12th

timthumbni

steddyeddy wrote: »

And Tim it's always comforting to know that no matter what time of the day here your posts will always bear no relation to any posts that came before it.

Posts about collaboration between the British monarchy and the Nazis will be read as Nazi defending on planet Tim.

I would say the fact the British fought tooth and nail against the nazis is the more relevant part there pal. Anyway At least your leader got to flash his arse to the nazis though. Proud moment for your country no doubt.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

God almighty, we are really dredging the bottom of the sewer now, aren't we?

When people cannot admit that Sean Russell was a traitor and that Dev's condolences were reprehensible without referring back to what some Brit has done, we have reached a new low.

Is this 'outrage' now?

Who was Russell a 'traitor' to? Wee faux pax there blanch?

I have already said Russell made a mistake and if you read the post you were responding to properly you will see I said Dev made a mistake to.

But carry on with your crusade to disown one of your own. 'Disown'... jaysus christ!!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the point being made was that the then IRA leader - Sean Russell - collaborated with the Nazis, which is indeed a fair point.

This is bull****. He didn't 'collaborate' with the Nazis, he 'used' them to get what he wanted. He wan'st interested in what the nazi's were doing...just like the British weren't when they were ignoring them.

Junkyard Tom

timthumbni wrote: »

The British played a huge part in stopping that.

And inspiring it. Hitler and his cronies were impressed by the British Empire with its subjugation and plunder.

According to Gerwin Strobel in 'The Germanic Isle: Nazi Perceptions of Britain'

Hitler expected the British to welcome a ruthless imitator of their imperial methods into a partnership in the division of the world.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is bull****. He didn't 'collaborate' with the Nazis, he 'used' them to get what he wanted. He wan'st interested in what the nazi's were doing...just like the British weren't when they were ignoring them.

What part of defending nazis is wrong did you not pick up? “Not interested in what the nazis were doing” You really are taking the piss here.

This is a new low, even for Irish republicans. And that’s saying something.

timthumbni

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

And inspiring it. Hitler and his cronies were impressed by the British Empire with its subjugation and plunder.

According to Gerwin Strobel in 'The Germanic Isle: Nazi Perceptions of Britain'

Hitler expected the British to welcome a ruthless imitator of their imperial methods into a partnership in the division of the world.

Holy feck. Blaming the brits for ww2 now?

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

What part of defending nazis is wrong did you not pick up? “Not interested in what the nazis were doing” You really are taking the piss here.

This is a new low, even for Irish republicans. And that’s saying something.

He wasn't interested in what the Nazi's were doing. Any contemporary of his that was asked said he hadn't an anti Semitic bone in his body.
He didn't 'collaborate' with them in the way that American corporations collaborated for instance.

I haven't said a word in 'defence' of the Nazi's and no amount of you foaming at the mouth is going to make it so.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this 'outrage' now?

Who was Russell a 'traitor' to? Wee faux pax there blanch?

I have already said Russell made a mistake and if you read the post you were responding to properly you will see I said Dev made a mistake to.

But carry on with your crusade to disown one of your own. 'Disown'... jaysus christ!!

Russell was a traitor to Ireland, no faux pas.

Again, more disgust than outrage.

You cannot condemn a single republican without a reference to what some Brit has done.

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

Holy feck. Blaming the brits for ww2 now?

Who else would you blame for appeasing the Germans and standing idly by as the built up their armaments and army, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles but the British, French etc?

They could have stopped them but they didn't and the germans did what they had been threatening to do.
Simple facts of history.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is bull****. He didn't 'collaborate' with the Nazis, he 'used' them to get what he wanted. He wan'st interested in what the nazi's were doing...just like the British weren't when they were ignoring them.

Give it up, we all know that there is no such thing as a bad Republican in your mind, I though the defence of Liam Adams was bad, but claiming that Sean Russell wasn't a Nazi collaborator is as one-eyed as it gets.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Russell was a traitor to Ireland, no faux pas.

Again, more disgust than outrage.

You cannot condemn a single republican without a reference to what some Brit has done.

I have condemned that act.

Ireland was officially neutral btw.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who else would you blame for appeasing the Germans and standing idly by as the built up their armaments and army, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles but the British, French etc?

They could have stopped them but they didn't and the germans did what they had been threatening to do.
Simple facts of history.

It must be weird to live in an anti British Irish republican mindset where you defend nazis and try to justify the Germans actions during ww2.

It’s mind boggling.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Give it up, we all know that there is no such thing as a bad Republican in your mind, I though the defence of Liam Adams was bad, but claiming that Sean Russell wasn't a Nazi collaborator is as one-eyed as it gets.

Nobody is all good blanchie or all bad.

I look at the whole picture. That is why I don't gush about one empire being better than another, or a German despot being better than an Irish or British or American one.

I know your eternally doffing hat can't handle that.

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

It’s mind boggling.

It's more foaming at the mouth about something that wasn't said or done Tim.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

claiming that Sean Russell wasn't a Nazi collaborator...

Claiming that he was displays your own confused loyalties perfectly. Ireland wasn't at war with Germany so whatever he was it wasn't a collaborator.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know your eternally doffing hat can't handle that.

What sort of comment is that to make to anybody? Especially considering your posting history.

Junkyard Tom

timthumbni wrote: »

It must be weird to live in an anti British

Britain's a great place full of great people. I'd hate to live in a 'Ulster' Unionist version of it though. Yous have made an utter balls of the north and now you're helping spread the chaos across the water.

timthumbni

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

and now you're helping spread the chaos across the water.

What? Care to explain.

Junkyard Tom

timthumbni wrote: »

What? Care to explain.

The ol' DUP helping the headbangers in the Tory party tear the UK apart. They are a disaster, and only for the raging gammons in the DUP the British might have had their withdrawal agreement long ago.

timthumbni

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

gammons QUOTE]

The minute you used this term I realised you were like spotty teenage Wolfe smith types.

Power to the people.lol

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

No, in the era we were discussing, Devalera being the only leader in the world to express condolences to the Germans over the death of Hitler, only weeks after the horrors of the Nazi death camps were exposed, nobody in their right mind could have chosen the Germans over the British.

Hold on there old chap...you added the (1945) so at least be decent enough to quote me correctly even if it doesn't fit in with your parable.
No, we were talking about Republicanism and drifted to talk to Germany.
I've no time for De Valera by the way, the man was a traitor to his people. Where to now? I quiet like David Bowie maybe start at him?

blanch152 wrote: »

There was no comparison. Equating the British of the 1940s with the Nazis, well we have seen it all.

Japers Blanch you're a card. Point out who did and I'll wag my finger at them.
Context my good man, context. We're talking about supporting, (as in what loyalty would we have to the British?). You are not as good at twisting as you use to be. A bit more hamfisted these days.

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

What sort of comment is that to make to anybody? Especially considering your posting history.

I think it is fair given his posting history and given he was inventing again a narrative about what I had said.

I simply made the point that in the context of the mistakes made, that the mistakes made by Dev and Russell were small change.
But blanch wants to 'disown' Irish people while getting upset because in the context of the debate the British got criticised.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no comparison between the state of knowledge in 1937 of Nazi atrocities and that of 1945.

Calling the comparison disingenuous is unfair, odious would be a better word.

De Valera let this country down badly, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that. After all, the British have more or less disowned Chamberlain, shouldn't we disown De Valera?

'Odious' my hole.
See Jan specifies '1945' in a comment he edited, Blanch runs with it like it actually happened and, well see below...

timthumbni wrote: »

I have read some crap on here but this takes the biscuit. You would take a side who gassed millions of Jews and other non conformers over the British, who along with basically everyone else in the world fought to the death to stop them.

That’s a low point even for Irish republicans ffs.

Seriously, nice try but very Donald Trump in it's execution.
Again...*sigh*... we were talking about folk supporting the Germans. I said and I quote....

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Back then given an option one might choose German over British. In retrospect, not so much.
Again, back to your comment which kicked this all off...



There was such action due to the creation of the border.

G'wan yis chancers

munsterlegend

I love the way people have a 20/20 hindsight of 1930/40’s Europe. Ireland was a very different place. We had just coming out three wars - war of independence, civil war and economic war. Britain were our bitterest foe. Everyone knows now how evil nazism actually was but that was not as clear back then. If hitler stuck to attacking Jews in Germany or Austria no one would have done a thing. So less of the moral high grounds.

timthumbni

Matt Barrett wrote: »

See Jan specifies '1945' in a comment he edited, Blanch runs with it like it actually happened and, well see below...



Seriously, nice try but very Donald Trump in it's execution.
Again...*sigh*... we were talking about folk supporting the Germans. I said and I quote....



G'wan yis chancers

Would you have supported the Germans in the Second World War Matt. I mean really. You are really digging a republican hole here.

James Brown

munsterlegend wrote: »

I love the way people have a 20/20 hindsight of 1930/40’s Europe. Ireland was a very different place. We had just coming out three wars - war of independence, civil war and economic war. Britain were our bitterest foe. Everyone knows now how evil nazism actually was but that was not as clear back then. If hitler stuck to attacking Jews in Germany or Austria no one would have done a thing. So less of the moral high grounds.

It's them bull****ting. They know all this. Dishonest blarney.

James Brown

timthumbni wrote: »

Would you have supported the Germans in the Second World War Matt. I mean really. You are really digging a republican hole here.

You're up your own Tim

Back then given an option one might choose German over British. In retrospect, not so much.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

I love the way people have a 20/20 hindsight of 1930/40’s Europe. Ireland was a very different place. We had just coming out three wars - war of independence, civil war and economic war. Britain were our bitterest foe. Everyone knows now how evil nazism actually was but that was not as clear back then. If hitler stuck to attacking Jews in Germany or Austria no one would have done a thing. So less of the moral high grounds.

You are dealing with posters who seem to have been raised on a diet of Pinewood Studio films and Pathé newsreels.

They have no concept of the lead in or the context at all, or willfully ignore it.

timthumbni

[QUOTE=munsterlegend;111030838. If hitler stuck to attacking Jews in Germany or Austria no one would have done a thing.[/QUOTE]

Why do catholic’s seem to have a hatred for Jews?

Odhinn

timthumbni wrote: »

Why do catholic’s seem to have a hatred for Jews?

The mask doth drop....