Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

1…1415171920…51

Comments

  • #482
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    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.
    I don't think his decision was rational. He was robotically sticking to protocol in light of revelations from liberated concentration camps. That's not rational behavior.


  • #483
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If they went only for pay and career opportunity, absolutely, yes.

    People seldom plan their future for pay and career opportunity alone. Even though in the case above they were paid no more than other people in the forces (ie they were treated equally and fairly, as you would expect of the British ), and many may have joined for adventure or to defeat Nazism.


  • #484
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't think his decision was rational. He was robotically sticking to protocol in light of revelations from liberated concentration camps. That's not rational behavior.

    He was acting on the advice of cabinet. I don't think they could all be irrational despite my political cynicism.
    They considered it and opted to stick to protocol and offer condolences to the German people.


  • #485
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    He was acting on the advice of cabinet.
    Source?

    And why do you think the likes of Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences to the Nazi regime on the death of Hitler, like our then Taoiseach and President did, to Irelands shame?


  • #486
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    People seldom plan their future for pay and career opportunity alone. Even though in the case above they were paid no more than other people in the forces (ie they were treated equally and fairly, as you would expect of the British ), and many may have joined for adventure or to defeat Nazism.

    Bar fighting to defeat Nazism the rest are examples of mercenaries, to soldier for gain with ambivalence to the ethics of what you are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Mouseslayer17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 99 ✭✭Mouseslayer17


    Why is there a stigma in this day and age if you sign up for the English army


  • #488
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Bar fighting to defeat Nazism the rest are examples of mercenaries, to soldier for gain with ambivalence to the ethics of what you are doing.

    Indeed considering the word "mercenary" comes from the Latin "merces," which means "wages" or "fee."then taken literally, as discussed before, a mercenary is any person who serves merely for wages. An Irish junior doctor who goes to Canada or Australia could thus be described as a mercenary.
    Usually though, a mercenary is an already qualified / experienced soldier who goes to fight for increased wages only, who sells his military skills to the highest bidder.


  • #489
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    Source?

    And why do you think the likes of Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences to the Nazi regime on the death of Hitler, like our then Taoiseach and President did, to Irelands shame?

    Read about it from something other than a newspaper with ink to waste Mary.
    He took the advice of cabinet rather than the diplomatic corp who were principally worried about annoying Churchill more than any thing else.
    Read also what he said in the Dail after it.
    Who cares what other sovereign states did? That is their business. Thatcher canoodled with a wholesale galaxy of despots but that is not allowed but what other countries did, is?
    And do explain what its relevance is to this thread other than your 'look overf there' tiresome defence of all things British.


  • #490
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't think his decision was rational. He was robotically sticking to protocol in light of revelations from liberated concentration camps. That's not rational behavior.

    He was acting on the advice of cabinet. I don't think they could all be irrational despite my political cynicism.
    They considered it and opted to stick to protocol and offer condolences to the German people.
    They expressed regret at the death of Mr. Hitler, there is no rational basis for that decision.

    You think it's impossible that a committee of people can make an irrational decision? Not a frame of thought I would agree with.


  • #491
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Read about it from something other than a newspaper with ink to waste Mary.
    Indeed I did, and talked to people around at that time too.

    Now would you mind answering the question asked already, please

    "And why do you think the likes of Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences to the Nazi regime on the death of Hitler, like our then Taoiseach and President did, to Irelands shame?"


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    Indeed considering the word "mercenary" comes from the Latin "merces," which means "wages" or "fee."then taken literally, as discussed before, a mercenary is any person who serves merely for wages. An Irish junior doctor who goes to Canada or Australia could thus be described as a mercenary.
    Usually though, a mercenary is an already qualified / experienced soldier who goes to fight for increased wages only, who sells his military skills to the highest bidder.
    Irish soldiers in the BA are not professionals?


  • #493
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    They expressed regret at the death of Mr. Hitler, there is no rational basis for that decision.

    You think it's impossible that a committee of people can make an irrational decision? Not a frame of thought I would agree with.

    And do you know how he qualified what he did?


  • #494
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Irish soldiers in the BA are not professionals?

    The Irish Guards or other regiments in the B.A. would disagree with you there.


  • #495
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    Indeed I did, and talked to people around at that time too.

    Now would you mind answering the question asked already, please

    "And why do you think the likes of Switzerland and Sweden did not send condolences to the Nazi regime on the death of Hitler, like our then Taoiseach and President did, to Irelands shame?"

    We are/were a sovereign nation free to uphold protocol or not, just like Switzerland or Sweden. They are free to do as they wish. That is what freedom is.


  • #496
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    The Irish Guards or other regiments in the B.A. would disagree with you there.
    Professionals soldiers who have no allegiance to the state and who are only there for pay and career opportunity = mercenaries.


  • #497
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    We are/were a sovereign nation free to uphold protocol or not, just like Switzerland or Sweden. They are free to do as they wish. That is what freedom is.
    You did not answer the question. Do you think Sweden and Switzerland shared the worlds revulsion of the extermination camps and the damage Hitler had done to the world, unlike Mr DeValera and Mr. Hyde?


  • #498
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    maryishere wrote: »
    You did not answer the question. Do you think Sweden and Switzerland shared the worlds revulsion of the extermination camps and the damage Hitler had done to the world, unlike Mr DeValera and Mr. Hyde?

    Devalera made it clear what he intended his gesture to mean and not mean. You would know that if you had researched properly.
    Come back and open a new thread on the subject when you know the detail.


  • #499
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Professionals soldiers who have no allegiance to the state and who are only there for pay and career opportunity = mercenaries.
    I would imagine regular soldiers in the British Army would have some sort of allegiance to their employer while they are employed by them. Some may be there for adventure reasons, to see the world, to use latest military technology, or because of family tradition, or for a host of other reasons.


  • #500
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    They expressed regret at the death of Mr. Hitler, there is no rational basis for that decision.

    You think it's impossible that a committee of people can make an irrational decision? Not a frame of thought I would agree with.

    And do you know how he qualified what he did?
    In light of revelations coming from liberated concentration camps I don't see any path to rationalize his decision.


  • #501
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Devalera made it clear what he intended his gesture to mean and not mean. You would know that if you had researched properly.
    Indeed I and others know what DeValera meant, and indeed I have researched properly to show you quotations from around the world of other countries revulsion and disgust at him. You have not answered the question: Do you think Sweden and Switzerland (other neutral countries) shared the worlds revulsion of the extermination camps and the damage Hitler had done to the world, unlike Mr DeValera and Mr. Hyde, and hence that is why those countries did not offer condolences?


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭indioblack


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    We are/were a sovereign nation free to uphold protocol or not, just like Switzerland or Sweden. They are free to do as they wish. That is what freedom is.
    And people are free to think it was a barmy thing to do.
    Even if Devalera couldn't figure out the rights and wrongs of this conflict, he would have been aware of the Allied armies camped out in Germany. His political antenna should have told him that now was not the time to mark the death of this particular head of state.


  • #503
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In light of revelations coming from liberated concentration camps I don't see any path to rationalize his decision.

    He did and I accept his rationale tbh.


  • #504
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In light of revelations coming from liberated concentration camps I don't see any path to rationalize his decision.

    He did and I accept his rationale tbh.
    Oh? Enlighten me?


  • #505
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    indioblack wrote: »
    And people are free to think it was a barmy thing to do.
    Even if Devalera couldn't figure out the rights and wrongs of this conflict, he would have been aware of the Allied armies camped out in Germany. His political antenna should have told him that now was not the time to mark the death of this particular head of state.

    To be still worrying about it as if it had any currency now is the barmy thing. As I said, it always comes trundling into 'certain' threads.

    At the very very worst it was a diplomatic blunder, badly handled. How many of those has the world seen?


  • #506
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh? Enlighten me?
    Apologies, can't work out things on this tablet. Quote beneath from history Ireland
    'De Valera felt that shirking his visit would have set a bad precedent. It was, he thought, of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy should be made on occasions such as the death of a head of state and that they should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the politics of the state in question or of its head: ‘It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgements good or bad’, he concluded. In Dáil Éireann, de Valera stated that his visit ‘implied no question of approval or disapproval or judgement of any kind on the German people of the state represented here’. He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt'


  • #507
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭indioblack


    FrancieBrady wrote: »

    To be still worrying about it as if it had any currency now is the barmy thing. As I said, it always comes trundling into 'certain' threads.

    At the very very worst it was a diplomatic blunder, badly handled. How many of those has the world seen?
    Yet we are still debating it.
    A diplomatic blunder? That's a very diplomatic way of putting it.
    In fairness, it should be a very minor footnote to the history of this period - part of the problem is people trying to defend it.
    So I'll go with your description and maybe we'll not hear of it again on Boards. [We'll see!].


  • #508
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh? Enlighten me?
    Apologies, can't work out things on this tablet. Quote beneath from history Ireland
    'De Valera felt that shirking his visit would have set a bad precedent. It was, he thought, of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy should be made on occasions such as the death of a head of state and that they should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the politics of the state in question or of its head: ‘It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgements good or bad’, he concluded. In Dáil Éireann, de Valera stated that his visit ‘implied no question of approval or disapproval or judgement of any kind on the German people of the state represented here’. He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt'
    I don't accept his reasoning, it would be obvious to any righteous person that normal diplomatic procedures should be suspended in light of revelations coming from the liberated concentration camps.

    His comparison between Hitler and Roosevelt is bizarre and insulting.


  • #509
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't accept his reasoning, it would be obvious to any righteous person that normal diplomatic procedures should be suspended in light of revelations coming from the liberated concentration camps.

    His comparison between Hitler and Roosevelt is bizarre and insulting.
    Come on, he compared Hitler and Roosevelt?

    Is it any wonder there is confusion? Never heard or seen such an appetite to be outraged.

    I accept his rationale, you don't. There you go.


  • #510
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt'

    lol. The Dail would have adjouned to for less and greater reasons...then as now not exactly the most respected or prolific bunch of people in the universe. ;)

    What the Americans and Allied powers would have expected by the time of Roosevelts death in '45 was for Ireland to open up its ports to help the defenders of the Atlantic convoys. Many hundreds of allied lives would have been saved, with little or no risk of retaliation from the then almost defeated Germany. Hitler had invaded neutral countries early in the war : 1945 was time for us to thank the Allied powers for saving us from Nazism, and make some small contribution on an official basis.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,087 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    indioblack wrote: »
    Yet we are still debating it.
    A diplomatic blunder? That's a very diplomatic way of putting it.
    In fairness, it should be a very minor footnote to the history of this period - part of the problem is people trying to defend it.
    So I'll go with your description and maybe we'll not hear of it again on Boards. [We'll see!].

    Still debating it on certain threads. One wonders why.


Advertisement
Advertisement