Ireland's "shame" for its neutral status in the Second World War

Dub13

I was reading a article about the removal of the head from a statue of IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell in Dublin’s Fairview Park.And this was a part of it.

**

However, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, the world’s largest Jewish human rights organisation, called for it to be left unrestored as a symbol of Ireland’s “shame” for its neutral status in the Second World War as thousands of Jews were put to death.


**

So what do you think....Should modern Ireland feel any “shame” .

simu

No. What good is shame? The past is the past and it can't be undone and besides, all the politicians involved are dead now.

Enduro

Ireland's Neutral during WWII was shameful. Of course the current generation have nothing to be ashamed of with regard to WWII.

However a lot of people seem to be proud of Ireland's neutrality during WWII, and surely that is a shameful stance, particularly with the full benifit of hindsight.

The past can't be undone, but it can be learned from. Ireland has continued to stand idly by whilst similarly shameful acts have taken place relatively close to home in recent times, e.g. Bosnia and Kosovo. No doubt our pride in our so called neutrality will continue to prevent us taking meaniful action to stop future atrocities.

uberwolf

they can sod off.

Regardless of the stance and its motivation, I'd imagine more russians dies than jews, etc. Or at least a very significant number. Their terrible pain hasn't motivated them to be more compassionate with other vunerable groups.

Their belief that they are in a position to pontificate to us is misguided.

edit: to clarify. The jewish russian commentary is just to say that the Jews (hardly a united group - and certainly not represented by an individual) hasn't got a monopoly on grief caused by WWII. And certainly the russians, for e.g, would think better than to make rude comments such as this one. Further their continuing track record as a nation hardly grants them the moral high ground - regardless of their illinformed view of our neutrality.

egan007

More power to Ireland - If Neutrality was practiced by all there would be no problem in the first place

The Corinthian

First of all Ireland was not exactly neutral. We were happy enough to accept British ships on our east coast and German U-boats on our west coast, and ultimately were more than just a little biased in favour of the allies by the end of the war.

Secondly, perhaps the Simon Wiesenthal is just looking to open up new markets in the Holocaust industry? Or perhaps they’ve just finally lost the plot? Either way they can sod off.

Poz3D

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, perhaps the Simon Wiesenthal is just looking to open up new markets in the Holocaust industry? Or perhaps they’ve just finally lost the plot? Either way they can sod off.

Maybe they're just a bit ticked off after all the controversy surrounding Prince Harry's recent fancy dress costume! That was a very stupid mistake for him to make, especially with Holocaust memorials coming up in a few weeks.

As for neutrality, I don't think we should be shameful at all. We had a small army at the time and it would have been devastating for our nation if our young population was conscripted to a war that there was no need for us to partake in.

Third_Echelon

egan007 wrote:

More power to Ireland - If Neutrality was practiced by all there would be no problem in the first place

well said...

meditraitor

uberwolf wrote:

they can sod off.

My thoughts precisely,

ishmael whale

There’s clearly no need for shame over neutrality, as no small country volunteered to enter WW II. And as Russell was not a representative of the Irish people we don’t need to feel any shame on his behalf for his willingness to deal with Nazis. But equally I wouldn’t be queuing up at his statute to remember him fondly.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1382163,00.html
“…. Russell was commanding officer of the IRA during the Second World War and conducted a campaign of assassination and sabotage in both Britain and Ireland, aimed at damaging the war effort against Hitler.
Although an open ally of the Nazis, Russell is still honoured by the modern IRA and Sinn Fein. In September 2003, Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald spoke at a rally to commemorate Russell in the north Dublin park. …”

MG

An ignorant comment which displays a complete lack of knowledge of the complex and ultimately valid reasons for neutrality.

Sparks

For a neutral nation we sure had a lot of irishmen fighting in the allied armies...

Not to mention the fact that jews fleeing the nazis were interned (in the Isle of Man) by the UK and turned away by the US. Auschwitz was never assaulted (well, they missed a nearby target and hit the camp by mistake once, with a single bomb) even though it was known about and there were aerial photographs taken of it. So basicly, the whole "final solution" was never itself directly attacked by the allies, only through their attacks on the german military itself.

So I don't see how we've got anything to be ashamed of, frankly.

bizmark

I'd imagine more russians dies than jews

Many more ...Russia lost 26 million people the jews lost around 5-6 million china also lost nearly twice the number at 11 million.

And no we shouldnt be ashamed

Hippo

So how would Ireland have fared under German occupation?

ishmael whale

MG wrote:

An ignorant comment which displays a complete lack of knowledge of the complex and ultimately valid reasons for neutrality.

I hesitate before suggesting that these complex, but ultimately valid, reasons would be tractable by explanation in as uncouth a tool as the written word.

But could you even give us a hint about what you are on about?

magick

Ireland's Neutral during WWII was shameful.

That was the only thing we could do , either that or join the Allies with our 5 barnstorm fighter kites with our elite haystack assualt troops.

Hairy Homer

At least, with the very small exception of people like Russell, we didn't actually fight on the Nazi side. All we did was declare neutrality--along with Norway, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and er the USA.

What about the Finns? They actively participated in a war against one of the major allied countries the Soviet Union (two wars, actually) the second of which caused Britain to declare war on them.

The Soviets attacked the Finns in 1939, demanding that they hand over some territority north of Leningrad for defence purposes. After receiving a right bloody nose from the Finns for a few months during the winter, they inevitably succeeded and annexed Karelia, from which they forcibly evicted all the Finnish population.

Then when the Germans attacked the Soviets in the summer of 1941, the Finns SHAMEFULLY joined in on the Nazi side and participated in the slaughter of the poor Red Army by the Nazi death machine. They also participated in the brutal siege of Leningrad.

How shameful is that?

I think we should boycott all Finnish products. Ditch those Nokia phones and all you Liverpool fans: burn your scarves until they agree to sell Sami Hypia and donate all the proceeds to the Wiesenthal centre.


I hope this all sounds as ridiculous as the opening suggestion.

arcadegame2004

Many more ...Russia lost 26 million people the jews lost around 5-6 million china also lost nearly twice the number at 11 million.

26 million Soviet deaths would be a better way of putting it, and remember that a hell of a lot of Soviet Jews were massacred in Ukraine and Belarus and Russia. I am making that point as a reaction to the differentiation of Jewish deaths versus Russian deaths.

I do not feel ashamed at our neutrality. We would have been completely destroyed by the Luftwaffe had we sided with Britain. Remember that it is now known that RAF nearly had all its planes destroyed and were only saved by Hitler's decision to divert bombing raids to civilian targets. So Britain only barely held out in 1940. So how would Ireland have been supposed to?

Remember also that tens of thousands of Southerners fought in WW2 in the British army.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is not shameful to stay neutral in a war although with hindsight, maybe we should have officially aligned ourselves with the forces fighting Hitler.

As for Sean Russell, he just used the opportunity presented by the war to try and hurt the UK. Nothing different regarding Irish Nationalism through the centuries and certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I hope the National Graves Association does something to protect the statue from those misguided fools who think that Russell was a fascist.

What about Fine Gael and their association with the Blue Shirts during that time. What about the Catholic church and their endorsement of the fascist side in the Spanish civil War?

bus77

What sort of Irish reporter would go hunting down that type of comment in the first place?

Trojan

"Simon Wiesenthal Centre": go frisk yourselves.

PaulHughesWH

Dub13 wrote:

I was reading a article about the removal of the head from a statue of IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell in Dublin’s Fairview Park.And this was a part of it.

**

However, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, the world’s largest Jewish human rights organisation, called for it to be left unrestored as a symbol of Ireland’s “shame” for its neutral status in the Second World War as thousands of Jews were put to death.


**

So what do you think....Should modern Ireland feel any “shame” .

We should feel no shame. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre is an arm of the state of Israel, which is pursuing its own sick agenda.

Ireland should not be targeted by this campaign of hereditary guilt, no more than the Germans of today should. We have more in common which the tens of millions of Christians who died in Soviet gulags, at the hands of wicked Commissars, many of them Jewish. And yet they are never remembered. Why?

true

Ireland is the only country in Europe to have a statue of a terrorist ally of the Nazi. To our shame we allow this statue to be placed in Ireland. It is an insult to all those killed by the IRA and by the Nazis, and it is an insult to all those Irishmen (among others) who gave their lives in WW2 so we can live in freedom and peace today.
Shame on Sinn Fein/IRA for being associated with this statue , but with their track record of atrocities, it is not surprising. A foreign group once asked of the Irish "are we mentally starved?" when they saw our IRA boyos misadventures.

PaulHughesWH

true wrote:

Ireland is the only country in Europe to have a statue of a terrorist ally of the Nazi. To our shame we allow this statue to be placed in Ireland. It is an insult to all those killed by the IRA and by the Nazis, and it is an insult to all those Irishmen (among others) who gave their lives in WW2 so we can live in freedom and peace today.
Shame on Sinn Fein/IRA for being associated with this statue , but with their track record of atrocities, it is not surprising. A foreign group once asked of the Irish "are we mentally starved?" when they saw our IRA boyos misadventures.

Another Anti-Fascist action proponent of hereditary guilt.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Ireland is the only country in Europe to have a statue of a terrorist ally of the Nazi. To our shame we allow this statue to be placed in Ireland. It is an insult to all those killed by the IRA and by the Nazis, and it is an insult to all those Irishmen (among others) who gave their lives in WW2 so we can live in freedom and peace today.
Shame on Sinn Fein/IRA for being associated with this statue , but with their track record of atrocities, it is not surprising. A foreign group once asked of the Irish "are we mentally starved?" when they saw our IRA boyos misadventures.

You are truly on a wind up since you joined these boards. Sean Russell was not a Nazi nor a fascist, he was an Irish Republican who saw an opportunity to advance the republican cause in a way he saw fit. In hindsight, he may have been parochial but your stuff above is pure nonsense. You think Frank Ryan is another ally of the Nazis?

is_that_so

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Sigh , we were neutral in WW1 but that doesn't matter because it was only soldiers that were killed, millions of them, but no Nazis, fascists or any other type of nasty people involved in the war that gave us mustard gas, the efficient use of the machine gun and wholesale butchery of soldiers for a few metres of land. A war that wiped out a whole generation. And of course this gave us Versailles which in turn punished the German nation so severely that they were prepared to vote for anyone who could get their country out of the mess it was in. Read and understand history, before waving diktats and dogmas about. We're good at remembering ours but little understand why some of it occurred. Revisionism serves no-one especially when put forth by people who little care for the consequences of their actions. But it gets us talking boll** for hours.

delly

Lets remember that both Germany and the British had plans to invade us during the second world war, so I think it was brave of our government to keep to there neutrality. The Brits were pissed cause they gave us back our Treaty ports, and somehow thought that they would be able to use them as freely as before, but this was not the case.

My main interest of WWII was the Battle of the Atlantic, and i have much respect for the men of the Royal Navy as well as the merchant navy for the hell that they had to live thru'. If we had of come in on the side of the Allies, its clear that there would have been less boats sunk and more lifes saved.

But, as bad as it seems, neutrality was about more than just lifes and ships, and I believe that our leaders at the time made there decision with this in mind. We had to watch our back in order to protect our new status in the world, and neutrality was the best way.

Hindsight is a great thing, but its also a paradox IMHO.

BTW 'The Cruel Sea' by Nicholos Monserrat is a great read.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You are truly on a wind up since you joined these boards. Sean Russell was not a Nazi nor a fascist, he was an Irish Republican who saw an opportunity to advance the republican cause in a way he saw fit. In hindsight, he may have been parochial but your stuff above is pure nonsense. You think Frank Ryan is another ally of the Nazis?

No , Dub in Glasgow, I am not truly on a wind up. Everthing I said on these boards is true, and well you know it. You may not like to hear the other side of the story, or the middle ground occassionaly ; I suppose is you only get your version of current affairs from An Phoblocht in Glasgow then you may think it a wind up.

Sean Russell was more than an Irish republican : he was an active IRA man , who was an open and willing ally of Nazi Germany. I never said Russell was a Nazi? At least the Nazis dressed up in uniforms and sometimes adhered to the Geneva convention. If the Nazi won the war, do you know what they were going to do with the Jews of Ireland ? Do you know what they done with the Jews of Holland and Denmark, to name but two other small neutral countries? Not very clear on our history , Dub in G, or is it that you do not like to stand up for non-catholic minorities in Ireland ? Lucky we were shielded by the UK, Dub in Glasgow.

Finally, you ask about Frank Ryan. Who is Frank Ryan ? We were talking about Russell.

Big Ears

true wrote:

Ireland is the only country in Europe to have a statue of a terrorist ally of the Nazi. To our shame we allow this statue to be placed in Ireland. It is an insult to all those killed by the IRA and by the Nazis, and it is an insult to all those Irishmen (among others) who gave their lives in WW2 so we can live in freedom and peace today.
Shame on Sinn Fein/IRA for being associated with this statue , but with their track record of atrocities, it is not surprising. A foreign group once asked of the Irish "are we mentally starved?" when they saw our IRA boyos misadventures.

give it a rest for once . :cool:

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

No , Dub in Glasgow, I am not truly on a wind up. Everthing I said on these boards is true, and well you know it.

You certainly come out with some amazing stuff. Everything you say (other than bold facts) is your perception of the truth, it is not the same thing. The same goes for everybody elses opinion. Facts are what matters. The facts say that Russell went to Germany to seek their help. Anything after that is mere perception and opinion.

You may not like to hear the other side of the story, or the middle ground occassionaly ; I suppose is you only get your version of current affairs from An Phoblocht in Glasgow then you may think it a wind up.

I love to hear the other side but only if it has been stripped of the predudice and sensationalism. Unfortunately, you do not strip anything out.. I have not read An Phoblact in about 10 years. I get my current affairs from a wide source of media, thank you very much.

Sean Russell was more than an Irish republican : he was an active IRA man , who was an open and willing ally of Nazi Germany. I never said Russell was a Nazi? At least the Nazis dressed up in uniforms and sometimes adhered to the Geneva convention. If the Nazi won the war, do you know what they were going to do with the Jews of Ireland ? Do you know what they done with the Jews of Holland and Denmark, to name but two other small neutral countries? Not very clear on our history , Dub in G, or is it that you do not like to stand up for non-catholic minorities in Ireland ? Lucky we were shielded by the UK, Dub in Glasgow.

If you read the whole thread and not just a selection of posts, you will see that I think Ireland should have aligned ourselves more to the allied side during the war. Of course, this is all hindsight talking and it is very doubtful if Russell would have been aware of the full extent of Nazi Germany. I do not like religion so your comment regarding the 'non-catholic' minorities does not make sense.

Finally, you ask about Frank Ryan. Who is Frank Ryan ? We were talking about Russell.

I rest my case

Manach

At the start and mid phases of WWII, it was not an absolute Good vs Evil conflict. The policy of neutrality was broadly supported by the public and the politicians. In general the people were pro-Allies but the reality is that we were struggling to survive, importing raw materials in the middle of the U-boat blockade. I remenber older members of my family always had a good word for Irish merchant sailors, especially those who were lost at sea.

As an aside, an interesting book about this time is "Guests of the State" : How both Allied and Axis internees were kept in the same prison camp in the Curragh.

pete

The fact that only about 60 Jewish refugees* were permitted to enter the country over the course of World War 2 ain't nothing to be proud of neither.

* "Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust", Dermot Keogh 1998

secret_squirrel

Given the history and the times - I think its very naive to have expected Ireland to be anything other than Neutral during WWII. From a purely academic view point it would have been interesting to see what had happened if for example the UK had been sucessfully invaded.

As for the Simon Wisenthal center - they can bog off and keep their noses out of what doesnt concern them. They lost any right to claim the moral high ground years ago.

Next they will be hassling 21 years olds for dressing up in German WWII gear at fancy dress parties. Oh :eek:

Blackjack

I certainly don't think there is any shame in having declared Neutrality during WW2, given that
1) we had only 17 years before gained Independance (of sorts, not full independance until later) from one of the countries we were expected to Ally ourselves with.
2) Did we not have a policy of Neutrality in the Constitution already?
3) With what Army were we supposed to fight with?
Can we imagine Israel allying itself in conflict with Egypt or Lebanon any time soon?. I doubt it somehow.

Times were very different in the late 30's to what they are now. Commentators such as Simon Wiesenthal should spend their time taking a look at our reasons for Neutrality before chastising the decision.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

true

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display. I think most Europeans would find this offensive as well. The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace. If they were, why did they not dedicate a statue to the countless number of men, women and children killed by IRA violence ? The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims, the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

PaulHughesWH

How absurd. You people have obvious taken everything which has been fed to you, in terms of history and current affairs, and taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

The Irish were once renowned for their scholarly achievements - now here we have two "Irishmen" demanding that we surrender our neutrality, and therefore our status as a free nation, to the wishes of the EU.

Gentlemen, has it not become all too clear that these so-called "wars of liberation" by the "armies of democracy" are nothing more than a cover for a new kind of tyranny? Instead, your gleeful political correctness which has been beaten into you over the years has taken precedence over rational thought.

If we are to maintain our status as a free nation, then we will NOT surrender our foreign policy into the hands of bureaucrats, with a penchant for fixing problems that aren't there at all, usually on behalf of the state of Israel. They are obviously surrendering at gunpoint to this hereditary guilt crap, but we should not. That is the realm of the far-left, who care little about Ireland.

And I repeat myself - the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has no business telling Ireland what and what not to do, given that it is an arm of the state of Israel. The same country which brought us the undeniable evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and has developed a close affinity with lies.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display.

How many times do you have to be told, he wasnt a Nazi sympathizer he was simply taking advantage (as any military commander would) of an a chance to attack his enemies flank

true wrote:

The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace.

All nations/armies/ethnic groups commemorate their fallen comrades and to imply that this act alone shows SF is not serious about peace is pathetic.

true wrote:

The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims,

Are you sure about that, certainly it is one of the functions of the centre and quiet rightly so as well.
However propoganda is as much a part of the function of that organization as commemoration.

true wrote:

the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Wrong signals to who? Your mind seems to be already made up................

pete

PaulHughesWH wrote:

How absurd. You people have obvious taken everything which has been fed to you, in terms of history and current affairs, and taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

The Irish were once renowned for their scholarly achievements - now here we have two "Irishmen" demanding that we surrender our neutrality, and therefore our status as a free nation, to the wishes of the EU.

Gentlemen, has it not become all too clear that these so-called "wars of liberation" by the "armies of democracy" are nothing more than a cover for a new kind of tyranny? Instead, your gleeful political correctness which has been beaten into you over the years has taken precedence over rational thought.

If we are to maintain our status as a free nation, then we will NOT surrender our foreign policy into the hands of bureaucrats, with a penchant for fixing problems that aren't there at all, usually on behalf of the state of Israel. They are obviously surrendering at gunpoint to this hereditary guilt crap, but we should not. That is the realm of the far-left, who care little about Ireland.

And I repeat myself - the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has no business telling Ireland what and what not to do, given that it is an arm of the state of Israel. The same country which brought us the undeniable evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and has developed a close affinity with lies.

and of course we all know that everything "the state of Israel" (did you mean to say THE JEW, by any chance?) does is, by default, wrong.

A Dub in Glasgo

pete wrote:

and of course we all know that everything "the state of Israel" (did you mean to say THE JEW, by any chance?) does is, by default, wrong.

He think he means what he says, the state of Israel. Isreal does a lot wrong, not everything though. Do you not think so or do you think that everything the state of Israel does is, by default, right?

---

It comes as no surprise, to me, to see who feels ashamed of our history. You can tell through their posts on various subjects during the last few months.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display. I think most Europeans would find this offensive as well. The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace. If they were, why did they not dedicate a statue to the countless number of men, women and children killed by IRA violence ? The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims, the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

You must be really offended when you walk past the GPO in Dublin or the Garden of Remembrance or the various statues dotted across Ireland. I bet you even refer to the train stations in Dublin as Kingsbridge Station and Amiens Street Station as you are ashamed to say the names.

pete

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

He think he means what he says, the state of Israel. Isreal does a lot wrong, not everything though. Do you not think so or do you think that everything the state of Israel does is, by default, right?

Oh please. Everything right? Hardly.

I just have to question the motives of posters who speak in alarmist tones of the "far-left", accuse Israel "pursuing its own sick agenda", who talk of ".... wicked Commissars, many of them Jewish", accuses Israel of having "developed a close affinity with lies", and uses the term "anti fascist action" as an insult.

So forgive me if I see a bit of a pattern emerging there.

MG

ishmael whale wrote:

I hesitate before suggesting that these complex, but ultimately valid, reasons would be tractable by explanation in as uncouth a tool as the written word.

But could you even give us a hint about what you are on about?

Ismael Whale – I was called away to a 5 pm meeting mid sentence (written at 16.59) so didn’t get a chance to elucidate. I assume we agree on this but here are my reasons:

Any criticism of Irish neutrality in WW2 tends to be from a fairly simplistic viewpoint. Ireland was neutral in a fight against a terrible peril and by not fighting was forever shamed. Black and white, with us or agin us. I don’t believe in such a simplistic view of the world.

I would divide any defence of Irish neutrality into four basic areas:
1. Domestic politics – Ireland was a very young county at the time and its representative democracy was not yet a decade old. While there was little pro-German sentiment in the country, there would have been a fairly strong anti-British feeling. The war of independence was still fresh in people memory and northern Ireland was regarded as occupied land (it still is by many over 60 years later). An alliance with Britain might have destabilised the government and provided an opportunity and excuse for invasion by either the Nazis or the British.
2. National duty – the first duty of a government is to protect its own citizens. The government was entitled to take any stance to protect the best interests of its citizens. It is equally entitled to change its stance if this position changed. This stance was also adopted by the US for instance. In Irelands case the threat to its citizens and sovereignty was never sufficiently compromised to necessitate a change in position. The objective of protecting its citizens and maintaining its prized sovereignty was achieved.
3. War effort - The reality was that Ireland contributed much of what it was capable of towards the war effort anyway. Some 100,000 Irishmen fought for the allies while attempts to raise an Irish corp in the Wehrmacht failed – something which cannot be said of other countries (including occupied nations). Informal contacts and intelligence sharing may have been low key but they certainly favoured the British. And if the ports were not available for use by the Allies, well they weren’t available for the Axis either. A formal declaration of war would in many ways have been mere window dressing.
4. Hindsight – based on the comments on this board and my experience, it appears to be generally accepted by the Irish people that neutrality was the best course of action.

In each of the first three points, I find myself wondering “what if” and pursuing different scenarios and possibilities. Each lead to a myriad of complex scenarios and by my admittedly limited reckoning, few would have made a significant or better contribution to the allied war effort than course pursued.

Finally, when thinking about Ireland’s neutrality, I always think of De Valeras address at the end of the war. Specifically, I find the comment on by, as I understand, a representative of the Wiesenthal centre to be ill judged, but more generally I think that there in a vocal Jewish lobby which needs to rethink the swiftness and frequency with which it uses the “Holocaust card”.

On the other hand, I do find it strange and inappropraie to have a statue of Russell there in the first place.

meditraitor

Dub13 wrote:

I was reading a article about the removal of the head from a statue of IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell in Dublin’s Fairview Park.And this was a part of it.

**

However, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, the world’s largest Jewish human rights organisation, called for it to be left unrestored as a symbol of Ireland’s “shame” for its neutral status in the Second World War as thousands of Jews were put to death.


**

So what do you think....Should modern Ireland feel any “shame” .

They (isreali propoganda machine)should be thankfull for the 120 thousand Irish volunteers (70 nuetral ireland, 50 NI) that went against their gut and joined the British army to fight against the Nazi's,,

Shame on the them for suggesting we should feel any as a nation, at least our terrorists are illegal, they murder and execute people daily with the full backing of their lawmakers

landser

the best thing that DeV did was to keep this country neutral. we could not have afforded to enter the war, no more than Franco's spain could or indeed, italy should. apart from the european superpowers, all other countries were forced into the war by invasion

i do not believe that the note of condolence to germany in may '45 was wrong. we were a neutral country.

the Wiesenthal centre, and it's equally brutal cousin, the anti defamation league, are on the verge of becoming contemptuous. one cannot now be anti isreali policy, which i am, without becoming an anti semite, which i am not. we recently had a similar problem with the hunt museum in limerick and that claim that the works there were nazi art stolen from the jews of europe.. this without any evidence whatsoever. like wise russell is now a "sympathiser" because he sought help from britains enemy. i'm sure that the allegations helped to send hunt junior to his untimely grave

Hippo

Excellent post MG, these issues are rarely black and white and it's always dangerous if tempting to take a simplistic view. You're right about the covert activity on the part of the Irish state which was always in favour of the Allies. However, I feel there is a moral dimension to this. Unquestionably Ireland's feeble army might not have made much difference to the war, but I imagine that the Irish who volunteered for the British army felt that their contribution did matter even on a small scale. Towards the end of the war when the tide had turned in the allies' favour, many formerly neutral nations lined up against the Nazis, and even though the threat (imagined or real) of a German invasion had receded completely, Ireland maintained its apparently neutral stance, culminating in De Valera's bizzare signing of the book of condolence in the German embassy.
Much was known before the war about Jewish persecution in Germany,and I don't think anyone was in much doubt about Nazi expansionist policies after 1939. I suppose I'm merely asking was Ireland's position morally defensible in the face of the Nazi threat while sheltering under the British umbrella, regardless of what other countries were doing?
As a footnote to the question of any domestic political split that might have been caused by siding with the British it's worth remembering that De Valera had a particularly short way with the IRA in those years.

MG

Hippo wrote:

However, I feel there is a moral dimension to this.

I can’t disagree with you that morally perhaps we should have entered the war on the Allied side. However, I don’t know of any country in the world that operates or has ever operated a foreign policy based on morality (no matter what Robin Cook says). I find that there is therefore no shame in operating a foreign policy which puts pragmatism before morality.

Hippo

I take your point completely, I'm not so naive as to expect states to pursue a foreign policy on strictly moral terms, however, by the end of the war the picture had become pretty clear, and I do feel ashamed of DeValera' s act at the conclusion of the war, and seems to me to be taking the concept of right down the middle neutrality to an extraordinary level. To describe it as insensitive in view of events in the preceding years does not really do it justice.

seamus

Looks lads, what has happened has happened. As someone said, hindsight is a great thing.
IMO, dropping our neutrality would have done very little in the way of the war. All's fair in love and war, as they say, and no country has any obligation to be ashamed of their, or their ancestor's actions, when faced with war.

Ireland was already painfully poor. Coupled with us already being a diffucult country to get to in times of war, I'm surprised we took in any refugess at all.
If we had declared our support for the Allies, we would have made ourselves a bit of a target for some bombing runs. We would have lost some ports.

Neutrality or not, the results would have been the same. Allies win - Ireland is safe. Nazis win - Ireland is taken over. Simple as that. De Valera made a call which he believed would help protect this country and it's people as long as possible.

Raskolnikov

pete wrote:

The fact that only about 60 Jewish refugees* were permitted to enter the country over the course of World War 2 ain't nothing to be proud of neither.

* "Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust", Dermot Keogh 1998

That is a damning statistic, we should have done more to allow displaced refugees to come here. I might not be right in this assumption, but were we aware of the scale of the genocide that happened in Germany at this time?

I would ask you though those who do feel shameful about our neutrality in WW2, do you feel the same way given that there are people today who are being butchered and slaughtered in Sudan, Iraq, etc? Would you propose that we pump hundreds of millions of Euros and thousands of Irish lifes into trying to protect these people? Would you, risk your life to protect the life of others in this pursuit?

pete

seamus wrote:

Coupled with us already being a diffucult country to get to in times of war, I'm surprised we took in any refugess at all.

I can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the problem lay not with refugees physically getting here, but with their being refused on principal on application (at ireland's european embassies/consulates etc).

Again, I have no source for this.

Raskolnikov wrote:

I might not be right in this assumption, but were we aware of the scale of the genocide that happened in Germany at this time?

I don't think anyone has claimed that the Jewish refugees were refused entry when the Irish government of the day was aware of the genocide then taking place - to the best of my knowledge, they weren't. They were, however, fully aware of the persecution of European Jews.