Ireland's Jewish community

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It isn't. It's logical when you understand the IRA's campaign against usury in the 20's attacked Jewish money lenders. Anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery regularly surfaced in the nationalist press before and after 1922.

Such ideas were part of many socialist ideology floating around Europe at the time.

They launched a campaign to rid Dublin of moneylenders in 1926.

The campaign resulted in the arrest of several IRA men.

Briscoe defended them saying it was not anti semitic. I however disagree.

Several others at the time did too.

When Tim Pat Coogan described these events he stated that, ‘

The following action led to a fear of a pogram in Dublin at the time.

If they targeted all money lenders, Jewish and non Jewish, it’s hard to see the anti semitism.

Tony EH

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But that isn't because they were sympathetic to Germany or to Naziism; it's because they thought they saw an opportunity to bring about a united Ireland.

In fact this incident rather makes the point. Invading Ireland or uniting Ireland wasn't on the Nazi radar at all; it wasn't one of their objectives; they had no interest in it for its own sake. So in promoting a Nazi invasion of NI the IRA weren't trying to advance Naziism; they were trying to get the Naziis to advance Irish republicanism

In fact Nazi ideology was quite admiring of Britain. The British were "Aryans", after all, and had demonstrated sterling Aryan qualities by subjugating so much of the globe and so many lesser breeds. True, their moment in the sun was passing and the thousand-year Reich was about to eclipse them in fulfilment of its manifest destiny but, if the British could live with that and remain on friendly terms with Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany would have been quite happy to leave Britain and its empire in peace.

The question of war with Britain only arise because Britain wouldn't take that view, and in fact sought to obstruct the glorious destiny of the deutsche Volk. Even then, that didn't make the Nazis sympathetic to Irish nationalism; they would have been quite happy to see Ireland reincorporated into a (subjugated) United Kingdom. But it did make them interested in anything that could destabillise the United Kingdom, and that was what the IRA spotted. So they tried to pitch to the Germans the idea that invading NI, with the support of the IRA, would tend to destabilise the UK.

The IRA were (for the most part) no more interested in advancing Naziism than the Nazis were interested in advancing a united Ireland; they just thought that a project that would be of interest to them might also, for different reasons, be of interest to the Nazis, and therefore there was an opportunity for mutually beneficial co-operation.

Agreed. But, any so called "plans" that were developed to invade ANY part of Ireland remained a pure fantasy. The Gerries had no way of carrying it out.

As for German admiration of Britain, this is entirely correct. Hitler was an out and out Anglophile, who went to his death bewildered at why they "couldn't see reason" with his anti Communist crusade. A delusion of the highest order, but no less a fact.

ILoveYourVibes

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Be very suspicious of tory/unionist leaning publications implying the provos were anti Semitic/in cahoots with the nazis. Very suspicious.

Loyalist paramilitaries however have more certainly liaised with far right extremists though (before they pretended to be allies of the Jews - merely to stick it to Palestinians).

This is from the holocaust online website. http://holocaustonline.org/ira-irish-republican-army/

Its been in several Irish papers like the Irish times too.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is from the holocaust online website. http://holocaustonline.org/ira-irish-republican-army/

Its been in several Irish papers like the Irish times too.

There’s a lot of “was said” in there. By whom?

ILoveYourVibes

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There would be no Ireland were it not for the IRA, we would still be part of the UK, that's a whole other thread though

The Jewish state would not exist either were it not for the fact Begin and his group attacked the British, it's how new states are born

Did they have to be antisemitic? Did that help the founding of the state in anyway? No.

Tony EH

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It isn't. It's logical

It's only logical from a practical standpoint in that they were willing for the most part to side with the devil to achieve their political aim of a united Ireland.

It doesn't excuse their wilful blindness, nor does it make them Nazi's either.

But, it's wholly ILLOGICAL given the political stances of a lot of their membership, even when that number had dwindled done to less than a 1000.

The fact of the matter is the IRA's relationship with the Germans during WWII is far more complicated than what you're trying to make it.

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a lot of “was said” in there. By whom?

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/review-the-devils-deal-the-ira-and-nazi-germany-by-david-odonoghue-26605630.html

Check the references on the site.

Its been found in IRA documents. Also from interviews given by IRA members. Many of whom by then regretted their actions.

odyssey06

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There would be no Ireland were it not for the IRA, we would still be part of the UK, that's a whole other thread though
The Jewish state would not exist either were it not for the fact Begin and his group attacked the British, it's how new states are born

I don't even think that's true of the IRA of 1916-1922.

It certainly isn't true of the Nazi collaborating IRA of the World War II era, which was a different organisation, with different leaders, membership composition and did not enjoy the general support of the Irish people.

ILoveYourVibes

Tony EH wrote: »

It's only logical from a practical standpoint in that they were willing for the most part to side with the devil to achieve their political aim of a united Ireland.

It doesn't excuse their wilful blindness, nor does it make them Nazi's either.

But, it's wholly ILLOGICAL given the political stances of a lot of their membership, even when that number had dwindled done to less than a 1000.

The fact of the matter is the IRA's relationship with the Germans during WWII is far more complicated than what you're trying to make it.

Scratch the surface of the IRA and SF they are deeply ethno nationalist.

Everyone knows this. The multi cultural image is just a facade.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/review-the-devils-deal-the-ira-and-nazi-germany-by-david-odonoghue-26605630.html

Check the references on the site.

Its been found in IRA documents. Also from interviews given by IRA members. Many of whom by then regretted their actions.

There’s a lot links there. A search finds no such quotes.

Back to Corbyn and the BBC. If the state owned broadcaster has in fact doctored evidence against the leader of the opposition then that’s not really too different from a mini dictatorship, or “partially free” country like Russia.

Peregrinus

Tony EH wrote: »

. . . It's true, the IRA leadership were more than willing to turn a blind eye to anything they didn't want to see, such a tendency was also carried through to the Provisional IRA in the 60's/70's and 80's as well. But as you say, it doesn't make them Nazi's or even Nazi collaborators in the truest sense of the word.

It doesn't make their unwillingness to acknowledge Nazi actions any less serious however.

But, if there was one thing that the IRA were aligned on it can be summed up in the sentence, "England’s difficulty was Ireland’s opportunity". A rather naive continuation of the Irish support for Germany that occurred during the First World War.

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

But there's an important similarity too; they both involve togging out with the Nazis.

And if you help Nazis to do what Nazis do, I think you have to be held morally accountable for the results of that, regardless of your motivation for doing that. "I backed the Naxis - but it was all for Ireland!" is not really much of a defence.

The distinction between (a) and (b) above is important not because it provides any kind of moral vindication of what the IRA did during the war - I don't think it does - but because if we actually want to understand the IRA, where it comes from, what it does, where it's going, then this is important. The IRA is not an intrinsically Nazi-leaning or antisemitic organisation.

But the distinction is important for a wider reason too, because it illustrates that you can be complicit in Naziism, and culpable for what Nazis did, without being a Nazi yourself. An awful lot of political movements thought that they could make common cause with Naziism for limited purposes, could hold their noses and use Naziism to advance their own agenda. And all of that contributed significantly to the advance of Naziism. And, on this level, maybe the IRA weren't Nazis but, in terms of what they actually did, they might as well have been.

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a lot links there. A search finds no such quotes.

Back to Corbyn and the BBC. If the state owned broadcaster has in fact doctored evidence against the leader of the opposition then that’s not really too different from a mini dictatorship, or “partially free” country like Russia.

Read the article in the irish independant.

Check this one out

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sfs-nazi-hero-is-stalking-candidate-mary-lou-26221399.html

ILoveYourVibes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

No you hang with nazis you are one.

Nazis are not your racist uncle fred who rants about the jews.

They are literal ****ing nazis who murdered jews.

Tony EH

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

But there's an important similarity too; they both involve togging out with the Nazis.

Agreed, and yes, there's a world of difference between being a co belligerent, which is essentially what the IRA and German relationship was, and being a full on Nazi collaborator, akin to Vidkun Quisling.

True, they both involve "togging out" with the Nazi's, but the degree to which deserves distinction.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if you help Nazis to do what Nazis do, I think you have to be held morally accountable for the results of that, regardless of your motivation for doing that. "I backed the Naxis - but it was all for Ireland!" is not really much of a defence.

The degree of help with which parties enjoyed certainly flowed much stronger in one direction than it did the other. The reality is that the IRA weren't of much use at all to the Germans in the war. How could they be with such a paltry number? But the Germans did supply the IRA with a reasonable supply of arms to such a degree that their contribution was of a vastly greater weight.

Nonetheless, it doesn't absolve the IRA of their dealings.

keano_afc

My sister in law put 2 of her kids in Stratford NS in Ranelagh because she could afford to and its a good school. Her youngest mixes well with the kids there.

She had her birthday party a couple of weeks back and my SIL ordered one of those mobile petting zoos to come to the house. They set up out the back garden and all was going well. I arrived after work to collect my wife and kids and noticed a lot of the kids from the Jewish school were at the party. You can imagine my surprise when I went out the back garden to see a small pig being passed around the kids as part of the petting zoo. My SIL had completely forgotten that she'd invited a lot of Jewish kids to the party and never told the petting zoo to leave Porky at home.

odyssey06

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed, and yes, there's a world of difference between being a co belligerent, which is essentially what the IRA and German relationship was, and being a full on Nazi collaborator, akin to Vidkun Quisling.
True, they both involve "togging out" with the Nazi's, but the degree to which deserves distinction.

I don't see any distinction. Had their plans been achieved, the IRA would have been the Irish Quislings. We all know what the fate of Ireland's Jewish population would have been in a society run by such morally a bankrupt organisation. They were not co-belligerents, you could say that about a state level actor such as Finland. You cannot say that about Ireland's Quislings.

The IRA were Nazi collaborators. Thankfully they and the Nazis were thwarted and defeated.

Canis Lupus

BeerWolf wrote: »

Don't think I've ever interacted with a Jew here in Ireland.

It's not like they walk around wearing a star you know.

Peregrinus

Tony EH wrote: »

. . . The degree of help with which parties enjoyed certainly flowed much stronger in one direction than it did the other. The reality is that the IRA weren't of much use at all to the Germans in the war. How could they be with such a paltry number? But the Germans did supply the IRA with a reasonable supply of arms to such a degree that their contribution was of a vastly greater weight.

Nonetheless, it doesn't absolve the IRA of their dealings.

I don't think that makes any difference. "I did my best to help the Nazis, though it wasn't much. And I got more out of them than they got out of me."

Tony EH

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't see any distinction. Had their plans been achieved, the IRA would have been the Irish Quislings. We all know what the fate of Ireland's Jewish population would have been in a society run by such morally a bankrupt organisation. They were not co-belligerents, you could say that about a state level actor such as Finland. You cannot say that about Ireland's Quislings.

You can contradict the history all you want, but it won't make your opinion any more more factual.

Tony EH

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that makes any difference. "I did my best to help the Nazis, though it wasn't much. And I got more out of them than they got out of me."

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

joe40

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No you hang with nazis you are one.

Nazis are not your racist uncle fred who rants about the jews.

They are literal ****ing nazis who murdered jews.

Sorta like the blueshirts....

odyssey06

Tony EH wrote: »

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

Only cos they failed. Morally they were as bankrupt as the rest of them. De Valera would never have handed over Ireland's Jews and would have joined them in the camps rather than collaborate in such atrocities. We know the IRA would have done, some of them would have done so with glee.

Peregrinus

Tony EH wrote: »

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

I know, but so what? By the same reason, none of the four countries you list did as much as Italy. Does that make any difference?

We can only judge the morality of what people actually did. It doesn't help to observe that, if their circumstances were different, they might have been able to do a lot more.

Tony EH

odyssey06 wrote: »

Only cos they failed. Morally they were as bankrupt as the rest of them. De Valera would never have handed over Ireland's Jews and would have joined them in the camps rather than collaborate in such atrocities. We know the IRA would have done, some of them would have done so with glee.

We don't "know" this at all.

odyssey06

Tony EH wrote: »

You can contradict the history all you want, but it won't make your opinion any more more factual.

We should all be grateful that is the history that played out, and not the contradictory history the IRA would have wished for Ireland and the inevitable fate that meant for her Jewish population.

Wibbs

keano_afc wrote: »

My sister in law put 2 of her kids in Stratford NS in Ranelagh because she could afford to and its a good school. Her youngest mixes well with the kids there.

She had her birthday party a couple of weeks back and my SIL ordered one of those mobile petting zoos to come to the house. They set up out the back garden and all was going well. I arrived after work to collect my wife and kids and noticed a lot of the kids from the Jewish school were at the party. You can imagine my surprise when I went out the back garden to see a small pig being passed around the kids as part of the petting zoo. My SIL had completely forgotten that she'd invited a lot of Jewish kids to the party and never told the petting zoo to leave Porky at home.

IIRC it's the owning, raising and consumption of pigs that's prohibited in the Jewish faith. I could be way off here, but I don't think petting one is forbidden. As an aside I do recall as a kid first hearing the gospel story where Jesus casts out some demons or other from someone and fires it into a herd of pigs who then run off a cliff. As you do. At the time I wondered and wonder still who around was keeping a herd of pigs? Hardly Jews I would have thought. That always struck me as odd. Unless it was a later addition by the Roman Greek writers. Though they were well aware of kosher practices of the Jewish faith as they had got rid of it and circumcision as a requirement.

odyssey06

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't "know" this at all.

Of course we do. We know the IRA collaborated with the Nazis. We know they wanted to hand over Ireland to the Nazis as the price for a united Ireland. We know what that would have meant for Ireland's Jewish population. The IRA was a morally bankrupt organisation.

Peregrinus

joe40 wrote: »

Sorta like the blueshirts....

Actually, I'd make a distinction there. Fine Gael took on board an organisation which was at least quasi-nazi, and effectively supressed it. It was basically dead by the end of 1934. I think they did Ireland a favour.

blackwhite

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't "know" this at all.

Their continued veneration of Sean Russell - despite knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing - gives some very strong hints as to how willing they've have been to collaborate to the fullest extent.

Tony EH

blackwhite wrote: »

Their continued veneration of Sean Russell - despite knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing - gives some very strong hints as to how willing they've have been to collaborate to the fullest extent.

As a matter fact, Sean Russell said in 1938 that he had no more interest in Germany being in Ireland than the British.