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?"
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Tough if the rest of the world didn't 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.
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.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Or any other empire, back to Roman times.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You think Maggie cared who was 'appalled' by the company she kept?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Would you have trusted anything Churchill told you after watching his career? I wouldn't.
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.
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.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Do you support his decision Francie? Do you agree it was the right thing to do?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Again, what relevance does this have? Please explain.
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.
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.
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.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » It was correct diplomatic procedure at the time.
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?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » It was. And it was the decision not to suspend normal diplomatic procedure that is worthy of criticism.
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?
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.
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.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » What?
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?
FrancieBrady wrote: » They are the only ones who join. Interesting.
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?
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.
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?
