Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Lt Dan · 08-01-2017 06:41PM

maryishere wrote: »

But neutral countries in Europe such as Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences on the death of Hitler.
Eire was ridiculed from across the Atlantic. Paperers like the Herald Tribune entitled its editorial ‘Neutrality gone mad’ and commented:

"In this time of the breaking of nations when the stream of history becomes a rushing millrace, there is much to arrest the attention of the world. But, despite all preoccupation with greater events, there is still time for a glance and a gasp at the spectacle of the prime minister of Eire marching solemnly to the German legation to present his government’s condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler".

The Washington Post headlined its editorial ‘Moral myopia’. The paper did not question the ‘correctness’ of de Valera’s action. Concluding that the visit provided an indication of ‘why diplomatic usages have fallen into such disrepute’, it added:

The neutrality which these governments practised throughout the course of the war was dictated by expediency… Now, however, the war in Europe has been won; the neutrals need no longer fear Hitler or the Reich. Can it be that the moral myopia they imposed upon themselves in the face of danger has now blinded them to all ethical values? Or is it merely that a preoccupation with protocol has atrophied their emotions? In sober truth, there could be no real neutrality in this war… Even in death, Hitler forced a choice upon the neutral governments.

The depth of antagonism among certain Irish Americans may be gauged by the following letter from Angela D. Walsh of New York:

"Have you seen the motion pictures of the victims of German concentration camps, de Valera? Have you seen the crematoriums? Have you seen the bodies of little children murdered by Nazi hands? Have you seen the flourishing cabbages—cabbages for German food—flourishing because of the fertiliser, human remains of citizens from almost completely Catholic countries like Poland? These were citizens of a conquered country—and ÉIRE might easily have been a conquered country, neutrality or no neutrality. Have you seen the living dead, de Valera? Skin stretched over bone, and too weak to walk?"

1 . There is a fada on Eire. Eire without the fada is a different thing altogether

2. When speaking in the English language ,the name of this country is "Ireland" not Eire. Do catch up! Even Westminster copt onto that by the late 1940s . Such reference today is ignorant.

3. No one cares about what others thought or think. Hearld Tribune,and their origins is .... Now reference to the earlier approach to the US either. Neutrality gone mad,surely . Ireland also offered condolence to Truman. He wiped out civilians in two Japanese Cities with nuclear bombs but sure ,thank is okay,US were the winning team.

4.In the long run,it did not harm Ireland

5 As for Irish Anericans,to hell with them. They were very vocal about US NOT joining the war until Pealr Harbour! No regard was had for what was going on in Europe or concentration camps . I doubt the Irish or Dev lost one second of sleep over what they thought

buried · 08-01-2017 06:42PM

maryishere wrote: »

They fought the nation behind unit 731, instead of their sending condolences to the nation on the death of its leader. Big difference.

They granted immunity to the butchers of Unit 731 then gave them jobs in their own state departments too, an outright disgrace, Sickening.

Lt Dan · 08-01-2017 06:42PM

maryishere wrote: »

They fought the nation behind unit 731, instead of their sending condolences to the nation on the death of its leader. Big difference.

And committed what would be war crimes today,in Japan

Lt Dan · 08-01-2017 06:44PM

buried wrote: »

They granted immunity to the butchers of Unit 731 then gave them jobs in their own state departments too, an outright disgrace, Sickening.

So did the USSR. How else did the space age come about. German scientists executed? Don't think so

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 06:51PM

maryishere wrote: »

But neutral countries in Europe such as Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences on the death of Hitler.
Eire was ridiculed from across the Atlantic. Paperers like the Herald Tribune entitled its editorial ‘Neutrality gone mad’ and commented:

"In this time of the breaking of nations when the stream of history becomes a rushing millrace, there is much to arrest the attention of the world. But, despite all preoccupation with greater events, there is still time for a glance and a gasp at the spectacle of the prime minister of Eire marching solemnly to the German legation to present his government’s condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler".

The Washington Post headlined its editorial ‘Moral myopia’. The paper did not question the ‘correctness’ of de Valera’s action. Concluding that the visit provided an indication of ‘why diplomatic usages have fallen into such disrepute’, it added:

The neutrality which these governments practised throughout the course of the war was dictated by expediency… Now, however, the war in Europe has been won; the neutrals need no longer fear Hitler or the Reich. Can it be that the moral myopia they imposed upon themselves in the face of danger has now blinded them to all ethical values? Or is it merely that a preoccupation with protocol has atrophied their emotions? In sober truth, there could be no real neutrality in this war… Even in death, Hitler forced a choice upon the neutral governments.

The depth of antagonism among certain Irish Americans may be gauged by the following letter from Angela D. Walsh of New York:

"Have you seen the motion pictures of the victims of German concentration camps, de Valera? Have you seen the crematoriums? Have you seen the bodies of little children murdered by Nazi hands? Have you seen the flourishing cabbages—cabbages for German food—flourishing because of the fertiliser, human remains of citizens from almost completely Catholic countries like Poland? These were citizens of a conquered country—and ÉIRE might easily have been a conquered country, neutrality or no neutrality. Have you seen the living dead, de Valera? Skin stretched over bone, and too weak to walk?"

We should kowtow to American notions of diplomatic courtesy as well as British ones?
Who cares what they think. DeValera did what he thought was proper with a country we still had diplomatic ties with
Tough if the rest of the world didn't understand. Paper doesn't refuse ink and all that.
But I think you should be over it by now.

maryishere · 08-01-2017 08:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tough if the rest of the world didn't understand.

Yeah, the rest of the world was appalled as the conditions of Hitlers extermination camps were revealed ( thanks partly to the bravery of some Irish soldiers in allied uniforms ), other neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland did not send their condolences on the death of Hitler. Both our Taoiseach and President did...but shire the rest of the world did not understand.

Lt Dan wrote: »

1 . There is a fada on Eire. Eire without the fada is a different thing altogether

2. When speaking in the English language ,the name of this country is "Ireland" not Eire. Do catch up! Even Westminster copt onto that by the late 1940s . Such reference today is ignorant.

You miss the point because I quoted from the American Newspapers of the time, 1945 (which I named), and I used quotation marks. I do not know if the American printing presses used fadas in 1945 - I do anyone but you expected them to. And while I normally refer to this country as Ireland, I do not blame the American press for sometimes calling us Eire, considering we had that painted in large letters on our few ships, headlands etc - and even our currency and stamps. The Americans were well aware of the great help N. Ireland gave to the allied war effort, and indeed hundreds of thousands of their forces passed through N. Ireland on the way to Europe.

A Little Pony · 08-01-2017 08:35PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or any other empire, back to Roman times.

Yeah whatever, we didn't get colonized by Italy. Italy's soldiers weren't shooting children and colluding with mass murderers here up until relatively recently. Focus.

It wasn't Italy, it was Rome.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 08:55PM

maryishere wrote: »

Yeah, the rest of the world was appalled as the conditions of Hitlers extermination camps were revealed ( thanks partly to the bravery of some Irish soldiers in allied uniforms ), other neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland did not send their condolences on the death of Hitler. Both our Taoiseach and President did...but shire the rest of the world did not understand.

You think Maggie cared who was 'appalled' by the company she kept?
So what? The press got in a strop about it, that is what the press do mostly. I think the real world had a bit more on it's mind than the diplomatic conundrum an Irish president and Taoiseach found themselves in.
If it was a serious incident it would have has serious consequences. I see none in relations with other countries. I am proud of how Dev stood up to Churchill's (fresh from his own murderous campaigns] attempts to bully him. Would you have trusted anything Churchill told you after watching his career? I wouldn't.

What relevance has it to Irish mercenaries in foreign armies anyway?

maryishere · 08-01-2017 09:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think Maggie cared who was 'appalled' by the company she kept?

What relevance has she to the topic latest being discussed, WW2, or Irish people joining British army? Most of the regimes she fought were discredited and not around now anyway( from Argentenian dictatorship which murdered its own population, Ghadaffi, the PIRA etc )

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you have trusted anything Churchill told you after watching his career? I wouldn't.

At least Churchill was not ridiculed by the world for sending condolences on the death of Hitler, as the world looked on at the horrors of the extermination camps.

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 09:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We should kowtow to American notions of diplomatic courtesy as well as British ones?
Who cares what they think. DeValera did what he thought was proper with a country we still had diplomatic ties with
Tough if the rest of the world didn't understand. Paper doesn't refuse ink and all that.
But I think you should be over it by now.

Do you support his decision Francie? Do you agree it was the right thing to do?

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 09:13PM

maryishere wrote: »

What relevance has she to the topic latest being discussed, WW2, or Irish people joining British army? Most of the regimes she fought were discredited and not around now anyway( from Argentenian dictatorship which murdered its own population, Ghadaffi, the PIRA etc )

At least Churchill was not ridiculed by the world for sending condolences on the death of Hitler, as the world looked on at the horrors of the extermination camps.

Again, what relevance does this have? Please explain.

*PS the 'world' and some of the 'worlds press' are different things. I am sure there are many more embarrassed by Churchills dark career because it has been largely ignored in the hero worship.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 09:18PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you support his decision Francie? Do you agree it was the right thing to do?

Off topic. I have taken the time to read about it and I can see his conundrum and reasoning. The press was in a frenzy at the time and a quiet act was blown out of proportion. They even bayed that the Irish legate in Spain flew the swastica at half mast. A lie of course.
Silly media led faux outrage.

Yes, faced with the same conundrum I would have done the same.

maryishere · 08-01-2017 09:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, what relevance does this have? Please explain.

What relevance does what have? It was you who brought up Mrs Thatchers name.

If you mean what relevance does the statement "Yeah, the rest of the world was appalled as the conditions of Hitlers extermination camps were revealed ( thanks partly to the bravery of some Irish soldiers in allied uniforms ), other neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland did not send their condolences on the death of Hitler. Both our Taoiseach and President did...but shire the rest of the world did not understand" have to your silly comment " Tough if the rest of the world didn't understand.".

A hundred thousand Irishmen volunteered to join British armed forces in WW2. Some paid with their lives to help liberate Europe from Hitler, and many were injured. Our President and Taoiseach sending their condolences on the death of Hitler was an insult to those men. I suppose nobody would have expected our Taoiseach and President to behave or act as well as their counterparts in other neutral countries at the time time Switzerland and Sweden, who did not offer condolences. Recruitment for British army from Ireland is nothing new, its part of a long tradition. People are treated well and fairly there, and people have joined for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps part of the reason it is soaring now is because no British service person was killed on active duty in 2016.

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 09:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Off topic. I have taken the time to read about it and I can see his conundrum and reasoning. The press was in a frenzy at the time and a quiet act was blown out of proportion. They even bayed that the Irish legate in Spain flew the swastica at half mast. A lie of course.
Silly media led faux outrage.

"The media" was rightly outraged. Signing a book of condolences is a statement of regret at the passing of a person. Unless one regrets the early passing of Mr. Hitler I can't see how signing the book would be ok.

Not everything is grey. Objective right and wrong do exist and signing that book was objectively wrong.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 08-01-2017 09:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"The media" was rightly outraged. Signing a book of condolences is a statement of regret at the passing of a person. Unless one regrets the early passing of Mr. Hitler I can't see how signing the book would be ok.

It was correct diplomatic procedure at the time.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 09:44PM

maryishere wrote: »

Recruitment for British army from Ireland is nothing new, its part of a long tradition. People are treated well and fairly there, and people have joined for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps part of the reason it is soaring now is because no British service person was killed on active duty in 2016.

Yes we know it's a long tradition, apparently numbers are 'soaring' to lower numbers that went before.

If a man/woman joins any foreign army(let's leave Britain out of it as it seems to make you over sensitive) for pay or career opportunities, are they mercenaries? (seems to be the definition of one to me)

maryishere · 08-01-2017 09:44PM

Even the Australian newspaper in recent years has written articles explaining how Irelands refusal to resist Hitler still shames Ireland.
"the Nazi occupations of The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark had clearly revealed how much Hitler respected the neutrality of small independent countries. If Britain had fallen, Ireland would undoubtedly have been next to see the Panzers rolling in, giving the Nazis unrestricted access to the Atlantic. The guarantor of Ireland's liberty was not neutrality but Britain's determination to stand up to Hitler."

"By 1943, with the tide of war turning, neutrality was less defensible since the military threat to Ireland was now negligible. Other formerly neutral countries had modified their positions, isolating the Axis powers. By 1945, with the full horror of Nazism exposed and Germany on the verge of defeat, neutrality was inexcusable."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/its-refusal-to-resist-hitler-still-shames-ireland/news-story/60e1f1de7ef1bc2887172265630a6c22

maryishere · 08-01-2017 09:47PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It was correct diplomatic procedure at the time.

Not according to the Swedes or Swiss, two other neutral countries in Europe, who were / are geographically closer to Germany than us.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 09:48PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"The media" was rightly outraged. Signing a book of condolences is a statement of regret at the passing of a person. Unless one regrets the early passing of Mr. Hitler I can't see how signing the book would be ok.

If it was a personal matter of course. But it wasn't, there was diplomatic protocol to be considered. Read up on it. As usual, media outrage isn't very nuanced. And you were in the era of influential press barons.

Is the suggestion here that Dev supported Hitler or something, and Douglas Hyde?

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 09:50PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It was correct diplomatic procedure at the time.

It was. And it was the decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure that is worthy of criticism.

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 09:55PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it was a personal matter of course. But it wasn't, there was diplomatic protocol to be considered. Read up on it. As usual, media outrage isn't very nuanced. And you were in the era of influential press barons.

Is the suggestion here that Dev supported Hitler or something, and Douglas Hyde?

No one is disputing that Dev followed normal diplomatic procedure. What I criticize is the decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure in light of revelations of atrocities carried our in concentration camps.

No I don't think Dev was a Nazi, nor do I think he was overall a bad guy but he made a terrible decision to honor a monster and deserves to be criticized for it.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 09:55PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was. And it was the decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure that is worthy of criticism.

Churchill should have ordered his Irish soldiers to invade if he was upset.

maryishere · 08-01-2017 09:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If a man/woman joins any foreign army(let's leave Britain out of it as it seems to make you over sensitive) for pay or career opportunities, are they mercenaries?

Not necessarily. It was explained to you in post 443 as follows:

"It has been explained to you already, hence why nobody but you refers to untrained people volunteering for British army as possible mercenaries.

"The word "mercenary" comes from the Latin "merces," which means "wages" or "fee." Thus, taken literally, a mercenary is any person who serves merely for wages. Although this definition could apply to many of us in the working world, it's most closely associated with the professional soldier, or someone who is hired by a political entity to fight in a conflict. That conflict could be a war, a coup attempt or a prohibition campaign designed to reduce illegal drug trade."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/mercenary1.htm

In addition, mercenaries are paid for service " usually more than ordinary armed forces" and would have "No allegiance to the country for which they fight".

A school leaver untrained in military matters from these islands, who watches eastenders and Louis Walsh on that pop show, shops in UK chain stores and Tesco, wears a man utd top, and whose relations may have served generations ago in the British forces, and who joins a regiment like the Irish Guards, would not be described as a mercenary by most people.

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 09:58PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was. And it was the decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure that is worthy of criticism.

Churchill should have ordered his Irish soldiers to invade if he was upset.

What?

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 10:10PM

maryishere wrote: »

Not necessarily. It was explained to you in post 443 as follows:

"It has been explained to you already, hence why nobody but you refers to untrained people volunteering for British army as possible mercenaries.

"The word "mercenary" comes from the Latin "merces," which means "wages" or "fee." Thus, taken literally, a mercenary is any person who serves merely for wages. Although this definition could apply to many of us in the working world, it's most closely associated with the professional soldier, or someone who is hired by a political entity to fight in a conflict. That conflict could be a war, a coup attempt or a prohibition campaign designed to reduce illegal drug trade."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/mercenary1.htm

In addition, mercenaries are paid for service " usually more than ordinary armed forces" and would have "No allegiance to the country for which they fight".

A school leaver untrained in military matters from these islands, who watches eastenders and Louis Walsh on that pop show, shops in UK chain stores and Tesco, wears a man utd top, and whose relations may have served generations ago in the British forces, and who joins a regiment like the Irish Guards, would not be described as a mercenary by most people.

They are the only ones who join. Interesting.

So we are agreed then, it is legitimate to see people who join a foreign army for pay or career opportunity as mercenaries?

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 10:17PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What?

If Churchill or Truman were so upset they had options like recalling ambassadors. They didn't because in the scheme of things, while annoying, it was not that important

Regarding protocol and the precedent Dev didn't want to set. Do you think it would be okay for an Irish taoiseach or President to make a personal politics decision on matters such as this?

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2017 10:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What?

If Churchill or Truman were so upset they had options like recalling ambassadors. They didn't because in the scheme of things, while annoying, it was not that important

Regarding protocol and the precedent Dev didn't want to set. Do you think it would be okay for an Irish taoiseach or President to make a personal politics decision on matters such as this?

I never said it was important in the scheme or things. Something doesn't have to be important to be revolting...

Yes, absolutely it is ok and even desirable for an Irish toaiseach to suspend normal diplomatic procedure for the death of Hitler. The decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure is likewise undesirable to say the least.

Like I said before, everything isn't grey. There is such a thing as objective right and wrong and signing that book was objectively wrong.

maryishere · 08-01-2017 10:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are the only ones who join. Interesting.

I would imagine that a wide diversity of people join for every reason you can imagine.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So we are agreed then, it is legitimate to see people who join a foreign army for pay or career opportunity as mercenaries?

Not necessarily. It was explained to you in post 443. There were some examples iof Irish mercenaries in Africa in the past but I refer you the the explanation of what mercenaries are again. Would you call the 100,000 Irishmen who served in the British forces in WW2 mercenaries? Yes or no?

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 10:44PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never said it was important in the scheme or things. Something doesn't have to be important to be revolting...

Yes, absolutely it is ok and even desirable for an Irish toaiseach to suspend normal diplomatic procedure for the death of Hitler. The decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure is likewise undesirable to say the least.

Like I said before, everything isn't grey. There is such a thing as objective right and wrong and signing that book was objectively wrong.

Dev objectively (and I think it was a rationalised decision) saw it differently.
I think it is one of those storms in a teacup of history that people like to get upset about.
It will always be thrown up in threads that dare to look critically at an aspect of British life. The old inferiority complex again.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2017 10:46PM

maryishere wrote: »

I would imagine that a wide diversity of people join for every reason you can imagine.

(/quote) Typically you reached for a cliche though.

(Quote) Not necessarily. It was explained to you in post 443. There were some examples iof Irish mercenaries in Africa in the past but I refer you the the explanation of what mercenaries are again. Would you call the 100,000 Irishmen who served in the British forces in WW2 mercenaries? Yes or no?

If they went only for pay and career opportunity, absolutely, yes.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments