Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 12:07AM

maryishere wrote: »

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.

You need a time machine Mary.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 12:14AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still debating it on certain threads. One wonders why.

Because as said already part of the problem is a few people are still trying to defend DeValera's extraordinary and disgusting attitudes and acts. Most people, inc most germans you meet nowadays, are appalled by Hitler, and to express condolences on his death to the German embassy / Nazi regime ,, as the world was exposed to the horrors of the extermination camps leaves most people dumbfounded. Pity DeValera did not have the same admiration for the 100,000 brave Irishmen who volunteered to fight Nazism.

route9 · 09-01-2017 12:18AM

Plebbit wrote: »

From the Belfast Telegraph.

Apparently a new Irish recruit signs up every 4 1/2 days. Can't blame the young Irish lads. If it's a choice between wasting your life away on the dole in some grim village in the backarse of Cavan or traveling the world on global deployments with the British Army, I'd choose the latter. I hear the pay is decent and there are lots of opportunities for advancement.

Except when you are on the front lines in Iraq or Syria watching for snipers, the backarse of Cavan will probably feel like Malibu.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 12:20AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need a time machine Mary.

You do not need a time machine to know what Hitler did. Indeed I have visited some of his extermination camps on the continent. Indeed I have chatted about DeValera ( offering condolences on the death of Hitler ) with dozens of Irish people ( who were alive in 1945 ) and all were disappointed with DeValera, some more so than others. Some had friends of relations who were among the hundreds of thousands who helped the allied war effort in some way.

indioblack · 09-01-2017 12:22AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still debating it on certain threads. One wonders why.

Well, [and we are still debating it!], the thinking that formally following certain procedures should be paramount against the backdrop of such a conflict is hard to rationalize. Certain rules of behaviour should be adhered to in a conflict such as this - else the victors and the vanquished become indistinguishable.
I don't think that applies in this case. The simple solution was just to let it go - who would ever trawl through government records to see if protocol had always been followed - and especially in a case such as this?
Having decided to observe this protocol, at this time and with this particular head of state, Devalera allowed a spotlight to be shone on himself.
People have since been critical of him and others feel obliged to defend him.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 12:22AM

maryishere wrote: »

Because as said already part of the problem is a few people are still trying to defend DeValera's extraordinary and disgusting attitudes and acts. Most people, inc most germans you meet nowadays, are appalled by Hitler, and to express condolences on his death to the German embassy / Nazi regime ,, as the world was exposed to the horrors of the extermination camps leaves most people dumbfounded. Pity DeValera did not have the same admiration for the 100,000 brave Irishmen who volunteered to fight Nazism.

Dev defended himself and I accept the intention of the diplomatic gesture. You dont.
There you have it.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 12:25AM

route9 wrote: »

Except when you are on the front lines in Iraq or Syria watching for snipers, the backarse of Cavan will probably feel like Malibu.

Probably more snipers in Ireland (more risk of getting caught in cross fire between drug gangs in Dublin etc ) , given no British army or navy or air force died in armed conflict anywhere in the world in 2016.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 09-01-2017 12:25AM

maryishere wrote: »

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.

Who knows if the Nazis did invade Ireland all we'd have ended up with is a great infrastructure, greater efficiency from our workers , being able to speak German,Oktoberfest,decent suasages etc etc.really them not invading was massive lost opportunity for us.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 12:33AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Who knows if the Nazis did invade Ireland all we'd have ended up with is a great infrastructure, greater efficiency from our workers , being able to speak German,Oktoberfest,decent suasages etc etc.really them not invading was massive lost opportunity for us.

Obviously history is not your strong point. Several countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral. These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Germanys invasion of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.

You do realise what happened jews, disabled, gays, gypies etc from those countries? You do realise some other people were used as slave labour in factories for the Germans etc?

Dirty Dingus McGee · 09-01-2017 12:36AM

maryishere wrote: »

Obviously history is not your strong point. Several countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral. These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Germanys invasion of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.

You do realise what happened jews, disabled, gays, gypies etc from those countries? You do realise some other people were used as slave labour in factories for the Germans etc?

No please tell me what happened .Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 12:55AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No please tell me what happened .

Nah. Sean Russell and DeValera were correct in their evaluation of Hitler, the rest of the world was wrong:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 01:02AM

maryishere wrote: »

Nah. Sean Russell and DeValera were correct in their evaluation of Hitler, the rest of the world was wrong:rolleyes:

Link to Dev's evaluation of Hitler?

maryishere · 09-01-2017 01:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Link to Dev's evaluation of Hitler?

Do your own research. Its easy enough to find plenty of information on Dev.

Not so well known, and more interesting, perhaps, are the thoughts of the American ambassador to Ireland at the time. He said Mr de Valera’s conviction that Hitler would win the war was stupid. I would recommend for starters an interesting book, A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland: The Memoir of David Gray , edited by Paul Bew.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 01:44AM

maryishere wrote: »

Do your own research. Its easy enough to find plenty of information on Dev.

Not so well known, and more interesting, perhaps, are the thoughts of the American ambassador to Ireland at the time. He said Mr de Valera’s conviction that Hitler would win the war was stupid. I would recommendations for starters an interesting book, A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland: The Memoir of David Gray , edited by Paul Bew.

no link, quelle surprise again.

Dev didnt think much of Gray either. The feeling was mutual obviously.
Hitler almost won the war, Britain was a beaten docket after being driven off mainland Europe.
He was not far off in his conviction.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 01:54AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

no link, quelle surprise again.

Do I have to give you links for everything? You should buy the book, it makes for very interesting reading.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/extract-mr-de-valera%E2%80%99s-conviction-that-hitler-would-win-the-war-was-stupid-663097-Nov2012/

You still have not answered the question, asked previously : 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? A yes or no will suffice.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 02:03AM

maryishere wrote: »

Do I have to give you links for everything? You should buy the book, it makes for very interesting reading.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/extract-mr-de-valera%E2%80%99s-conviction-that-hitler-would-win-the-war-was-stupid-663097-Nov2012/

You still have not answered the question, asked previously : 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? A yes or no will suffice.

That isn't what you were asked to link to. Where is Dev's evaluation of Hitler? Not his evaluation of who would win the war. Dev's opinion of Hitler was known from the early 30s if that helps in your search.

Have you read what Dev intended Ireland's condolences to be and what they were not intended to mean?
There is your answer, you can project onto them all you want, but that is all it is. Your projection.

I am positive sure Sweden and Switz shared the revulsion. What a stupid question.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 02:47AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am positive sure Sweden and Switz shared the (worlds) revulsion.

Finally you answer. Now why do you think Sweden and Switzerland did not send condolences on the death of Hitler, but DeValera did, and was ridiculed around the world for doing so, given that the Extermination camps etc were revealed and the world was fully aware of what Hitler had done?

Now off you go and buy the book by the then American Ambassador to Ireland,
"A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland". You will find pages 81, 82 and 120 interesting.

Cool_CM · 09-01-2017 05:56AM

Lt Dan wrote: »

Stop talking about Bunreacht na hEireann.

Your knowledge of the document and case law is extremely poor.! Social history is pathetic as well.

Case law,time and time again interpreted the preamble and the rest of the document in a way that actually went against many Catholic principles such as family planning.

Ah right, so you chose to ignore the post where I clarified the specific part of the Preamble that I was obviously talking about and go for the belittling approach instead. Here it is again for you:

Cool_CM wrote: »

When and how did it become redundant exactly?

I accept that many nations' constitutions make reference to some form of God, my point was in response to FrancieBrady's comment that in Ireland 'Church is mostly separated from State now'. How can it be when specifically the opening line (regardless of what is still or was contained 'elsewhere' in the document) of our Constitution talks about humbly acknowledging all of our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ and how God is the ultimate authority?

You don't have to be an expert in Constitutional Law to realise that this is the section of the Preamble that I was referring to and not the section on Prudence, Justice and Charity and the the dignity and freedom of the individual on which all of those court challenges were based. I assumed that that didn't need to be spelled out.

Seeing as you appear to be putting yourself forward as some form of authority on the subject, maybe you could enlighten us as to when the Preamble became redundant and which cases in particular made reference to the opening paragraph that I'm referring to (as opposed to the part dealing with Prudence, Justice and Charity and the the dignity and freedom of the individual that all of the cases make reference to and I have already had to clarify for you)?

Lt Dan wrote: »

Comparing today with 60 plus years ago and using todays standards when assessing and judging the past is moronic,espeically when one is so clueless as to the topic

That's a bit of a misguided sweeping generalisation. Should that apply to everything? Including what we now deem to be things like war crimes or crimes against humanity for which there is no statute of limitations under international law? But if it happened over 60 plus years ago and it was the norm during a certain time in a certain place, then it's moronic to judge it? Where is the cut-off point? Slavery used to be the norm in quite a few places. Maybe we should leave off all of the people involved in collusion and state sponsored murder up North during The Troubles too...

Lt Dan wrote: »

The special recognition of the RC,such provision no longer in the article,was merely a statement of fact at the time. The country was Ferveantly Catholic,hundred joined the seminary each year and people were quicker to go to a priest before they went to a Garda or politican. Many expected priests to rare up to lecture on social issues . In no way was Article 44 used to ignored the religious views of others .Even Jews were specifically referred to in the old text.1937,a Eurooean Consitution referring to Jews!! Protestants were also ensured that the State would fund their educational needs -religious matters was defined as being included in education.The people may have rejected the Constitution if it was secular like the 1922 Constiution.There was little or no big issue with the RC place as that was already the status quo. Even with a secular provision,there was nothing in the document that had stopped the power of the RC,power that they had LONG BEFORE 1921!!!

Yes, that was then and this is now. I'm sure that you'll agree that lot has changed since 1937 and there have been both successful/unsuccessful amendments since then to reflect this. The provisions that you are referring to were removed in 1973 as they were deemed, by the Irish people, to no longer be relevant to Irish society. The opening lines are still present and must be regarded as being relevant because they are still present (even though a Constitutional Reform Group deemed the whole preamble to be problematic in 1996 and recommended that it be replaced by a more simple enactment). And because the opening lines of our nation's most important document (aside from the Proclamation) talk about all of our obligations to Jesus Christ and how God is the ultimate authority, how can Church and State be 'mostly' separated?

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 09:20AM

maryishere wrote: »

Finally you answer. Now why do you think Sweden and Switzerland did not send condolences on the death of Hitler, but DeValera did, and was ridiculed around the world for doing so, given that the Extermination camps etc were revealed and the world was fully aware of what Hitler had done?

Now off you go and buy the book by the then American Ambassador to Ireland,
"A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland". You will find pages 81, 82 and 120 interesting.

Read widely my parents always told me. Never accept anyone's word for anything, there is always two sides to any story.
Perhaps you should take the same advice and do some deeper research.

Here is another review of your buke, which was written by David Trimble's revisionist right hand man too - just to sprinkle some more bias on it:

T. Ryle Dwyer wrote:

The only real value of this memoir is the tortuous insight it provides into the twisted mind of David Gray, who was no more a historian than a diplomat. His reckless book is a testament to his pathological determination to discredit de Valera by sheer distortion.

Lt Dan · 09-01-2017 03:02PM

Cool_CM wrote: »

Ah right, so you chose to ignore the post where I clarified the specific part of the Preamble that I was obviously talking about and go for the belittling approach instead. Here it is again for you:

Seeing as you appear to be putting yourself forward as some form of authority on the subject, maybe you could enlighten us as to when the Preamble became redundant and which cases in particular made reference to the opening paragraph that I'm referring to (as opposed to the part dealing with Prudence, Justice and Charity and the the dignity and freedom of the individual that all of the cases make reference to and I have already had to clarify for you)?

That's a bit of a misguided sweeping generalisation. Should that apply to everything? Including what we now deem to be things like war crimes or crimes against humanity for which there is no statute of limitations under international law? But if it happened over 60 plus years ago and it was the norm during a certain time in a certain place, then it's moronic to judge it? Where is the cut-off point? Slavery used to be the norm in quite a few places. Maybe we should leave off all of the people involved in collusion and state sponsored murder up North during The Troubles too...

Yes, that was then and this is now. I'm sure that you'll agree that lot has changed since 1937 and there have been both successful/unsuccessful amendments since then to reflect this. The provisions that you are referring to were removed in 1973 as they were deemed, by the Irish people, to no longer be relevant to Irish society. The opening lines are still present and must be regarded as being relevant because they are still present (even though a Constitutional Reform Group deemed the whole preamble to be problematic in 1996 and recommended that it be replaced by a more simple enactment). And because the opening lines of our nation's most important document (aside from the Proclamation) talk about all of our obligations to Jesus Christ and how God is the ultimate authority, how can Church and State be 'mostly' separated?

I read your last post and the post above. Your first post was actually very clear as to what yiu were getting at. My points still rebut yours. My comment stands.

With regard to the differences between now and 1937, that is in part due to the Constitution allowing for this and thus blows out your original argument. Consitution allows court a large leeway to interet the clauses,thus ensuring that the document stays up to date,and also provides an easy way to change it too. When social change came to Ireland from 1960 onwards, the Courts were at the front line. Obviously there was a long way to go to what we saw from 1990 onwards.

It has been widely accepted that the Preamble is of historical value and no more. With regard to the Preamble and old Artcile 44 , even before 1973 ,it actually was used in a way to bring postive social change!!!

Those to complained about the clearly Catholic in tone piece in the Preamble and Article 44 were people who had little experience of how it was used in practice or just had problems with the RC. As per the Dail Session leading up to the admendment of Article 44 the actual main discussion was about trying to make the south more open to Unionosts in the North. The theology association of teachers thought the special position was also pointless.

Should the preamble be removed,and no harm if it was, so what? Changes little.

Best you do not read the draft EU Constitution so. Threat of removal of god from the piece sent people mental. The EU treaty refers to God. The US Constitution refers to god and they have no issue with seperation of the church. People still swear to god /allah in many courts as do politicians elected to the highest offices in the land

Separation of state and church will only succeed if the people themselves agree to it. People still,for whatever reason want to send kids to schools patroned by the RC,muslim,jewish and protestant churches. Ruairi Quinn found out quickly. No document can or will ever be a bar to anything as our document can be easily changed

As for the 1916 Proclamation, legally it is worthless. It says nothing and most certainly has been failed by society eg equal treatment for all etc. The list of all the times Ireland stood up to Britain over the centuries is also over dramatic. Two IRB fist fights that went no where quick hardly count.

Last time I checked, those involved in slavery met justice and a civil war in the US and poverty and death. Those involved(or most of) in genocide during World War 2 met justice swiftly afterwards. All done under the justice system of their time

On the other hand, we are still trying to investigate and prosecute State Collussion during the Troubles,an event that most of us were around for (some or all,unlike the other mentioned events). Brutal argument! These events arw not even comparable to what was actually discussed

Oh,and perhaps you need to read the 1996 Review again! Gives you some answers regarding the preamble. There were susbequent reports in the early 2000's too. All can be found in tue Taosieach's web site or the law reform commission site .i think the constitution has its own site containing the 1996 report and subsequent reports

While a separate issue, premable was used to recognise unemumerated Constitutional rights ie implied rights. This was during an era of Judicial activism. While not completely dead,the courts since the late 1990s began to feel uneasy about stepping on the toes of the government ie recognising rights without legislation as the Courts felt that the Constitution by then had matured . Bear in mind the the european human rights laws now have a more prominent place in Irish law for potentially newer rights.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2017 03:26PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

1. Traitor to who? Fianna Fail had oppossed the Treaty as did Russell. Fianna Fail always waffled about a UI but knew it was impossible. Best try and reign contol on Sean and the IRA rather than call them traitors,since many in Fianna Fail would be consideres traitors to the IRB and later principles of 1916 . Why would Russell have been executed by the Irish State ? Amnesty was granted after the Civil War. Alas Dev did execute IRA men in the 1940s

A traitor to his country, the one he colluded with the Nazis to invade. Who did you think?

Lt Dan wrote: »

2. Russell saw the Germans as a means to help the IRA gain back the North. Naive yes but no different to the old policy of the past. "my enemey's enemey is my friend"

so your enemies enemy is ok, even if he rounds up Jews, Slavs, communists, Romas etc by the millions and executes en masse?

Hitler and the Nazis were the enemy to every right thinking member of the human race.

Lt Dan wrote: »

4 Letter of condolence was no different to the letter of condolence sent ro the US on the news of the death of the US President - despite him and Britian refusing to agree not to invade Ireland -despite allegedly being at war to peotect small nations

Did the UK and US invade Ireland? I'm sure I'd have heard about it if they had.

Lt Dan wrote: »

5 One of the reasons for a small air force and non existent navy,even if it had minded to build one was due to the terms of the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty which prevented this! It was in Britain's interest to protect its own borders ! This meant making sure that Ireland (including their own Belfast) did not become a back door for Nazis . Reality is,Ireland did not declare war. Ireland did not allow Britain and the US to bully them. If my aunt had balls....

yeah, whatever, regardless of the reasons, I still believe dev got it right.

Hans Bricks · 09-01-2017 03:26PM

Less than 80 Irishmen joining the BA since 2013.

Barstool republicans have little of importance to worry themselves with.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 03:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did the UK and US invade Ireland? I'm sure I'd have heard about it if they had.

Churchill had advocated seizing Irish ports in '41. The threat was there.

Lt Dan · 09-01-2017 03:59PM

maryishere wrote: »

Finally you answer. Now why do you think Sweden and Switzerland did not send condolences on the death of Hitler, but DeValera did, and was ridiculed around the world for doing so, given that the Extermination camps etc were revealed and the world was fully aware of what Hitler had done?

Now off you go and buy the book by the then American Ambassador to Ireland,
"A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland". You will find pages 81, 82 and 120 interesting.

David Gray? Really? You stooped to referring to him? My god you are desperate

Even his own OSS men ,when they came to Ireland to investigate Gray's allegations ,completely rebutted him. He left office in embarrassment and disgrace

This is a man who spent more time doing seances than any actual investigations for god sake. Jesus you'd believe anything.

Even the Brits gave up on the propaganda against Ireland when the US joined the war, realising that Ireland being closed off meant less resources being needed out west. By then they had won the sea and air battle in the west .

As for neutral Switzerland,they continued to enjoy economic concessions from Germany. Their media were far from neutral and were rather critical of the Third Reich.Berlin was not impressed .Furfhermore, Switzerland was far from neutral as they helped allies providing shelter and resources . Nazi Germany regularly invaded Swiss airspace as well! Unlike Ireland,the Swiss had no qualms shooting down Nazi planes (and Allied planes) Troops also had a few fist fights with Nazis who violated their neutrality. Rather impressive how they held up actually but they were no friend of Germany. Like Ireland, Switzerland had litle regard for Jewish refugees coming to their borders.

oh and of course, all that gold and jewery confiscated from jews ended up in .....Swizz banks. Suffice to say, Switzerland had more self awarness to keep the head down . Poor example !

As for Sweden,they continued to sell raw material needed for the war to...Germany.they also allowed German troops use their rail system to get to the USSR.Churchill was not impressed

but they took in alot of jewish refugees too so were under no illusion as to what was going on in Europe.They also aided Nazi Finland against their common enemy,USSR. Either way,their ability to stay relatively "neutral" is even more impressive.Trade was severely hampered by both British and Nazi blockades and their ships were attacked by both.

So both examples of Sweden and Switzerland are pretty poor

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2017 04:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Churchill had advocated seizing Irish ports in '41. The threat was there.

you plan for everything in time of war. Especially if you aren't too sure which way a country's allegiance may go.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 04:15PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you plan for everything in time of war. Especially if you aren't too sure which way a country's allegiance may go.

You advocate seizing the ports of a sovereign nation? Really?

Nonsense, and a complete lack of knowledge of what was going on to boot. Shame on you Fred.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2017 04:25PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You advocate seizing the ports of a sovereign nation? Really?

Nonsense, and a complete lack of knowledge of what was going on to boot. Shame on you Fred.

go away with your self righteous bollocks.

If Churchill had really wanted to seize the ports, he would have. It was a contingency plan, if even that.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 04:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

go away with your self righteous bollocks.

If Churchill had really wanted to seize the ports, he would have. It was a contingency plan, if even that.

It was a threat also. The important point.

Lt Dan · 09-01-2017 04:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A traitor to his country, the one he colluded with the Nazis to invade. Who did you think?

so your enemies enemy is ok, even if he rounds up Jews, Slavs, communists, Romas etc by the millions and executes en masse?

Hitler and the Nazis were the enemy to every right thinking member of the human race.

Did the UK and US invade Ireland? I'm sure I'd have heard about it if they had.

yeah, whatever, regardless of the reasons, I still believe dev got it right.

Germany was not Ireland's enemy. "collusion" was to invade Northern Ireland" something the South waffled on about for a long time. Like it or not,I am not sure that many in Ireland or government would consider him a traitor if there was a chance of success. But of course he would be classed as a lunatic as Britain and US would have destroyed Ireland in every way possible.. Mere membership of the IRA was enough to meet the hangman

There is enough evidence ,including hos own statements to show that he was no Nazi.Hell,he was accussed of being a Communist too. Look at how Frank Ryan landes with the Nazis. He uses to Nazis for his and the IRA's own gain,Northern Ireland and Britain. He clearly was not a man of political clout as any other IRA man would have copped on and have sfa to do with the Nazis. The extent of his "coullision"? Training in bombs

You have attempted a conversion kick but the ball landed over at the corner flag. Hard luck. Alas,perception is much more important than the truth.

Fred,you are being incredibly disengenious ,waffling about victims of Nazis. Britain had little or no concern about them . They went to war as they saw Germany wanted another go and because Britain's interests,even existence was at threat ! Britain can never lecture anyone considering their own colonial past and treatment of natives. These are unrebuttable facts. Britain sent Polish air pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain, to their inevitable internment and risk of death back in USSR occupies Poland.

Moreover, Britain was not particularly receiptive to taking in Jewish refugees !!! Those that arrived experienced anti semitism and anti german abuse. In 1938 Britain stopped letting in Jewish refugees from Germany.

Germany had nothing to do with us. The Irish government spent more time worrying about Britain and in particular the US ,invading Ireland. Both of whom flat out refused to promise that they would respect our neutrality.

A Little Pony · 09-01-2017 04:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Just say he did it because he hated Britain and didn't think about the dead Jewish people.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments