Ireland's Jewish community

Mad_maxx · 12-07-2019 8:45am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The IRA in the north supported Hitler. As did old IRA men in the south.

Their reasoning was he opposed the UK

Sean Russell had close links to hitler.

https://www.thejournal.ie/sean-russell-statue-3549072-Aug2017/

They did indeed collab with the nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%E2%80%93_Abwehr_collaboration_in_World_War_II

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/review-the-devils-deal-the-ira-and-nazi-germany-by-david-odonoghue-26605630.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/the-ex-ira-man-who-died-a-nazi-collaborator-183940.html

I think its why SF still hate Jews and Israelis with such anger. They were always so susceptible to propaganda.

The IRA at the time were very naive they didn't realize germans were sending agents to infiltrate them ..just like they don't realize the british did in the troubles or other foreign agents...

Francis Stuart Stephen Hayes Frank ryan etc were also involved.

Sean Russell was IRA chief of staff and Stephen Hayes was on the IRA army counsel.

Contacts and deep involvement with the NAZIS was at the highest level within the IRA.

Sean Russell was an epic fool but he wasn't remotely representative of the republican movement, no doubt a few lone wolves in the UK itself supported the Nazis, cranks in small numbers everywhere, this thing about how Ireland backed the Nazis is so inaccurate as to be outright laughable

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 8:45am

Tony EH wrote: »

No, they couldn't, which is why the situation regarding the IRA and the Germans during the war is a strange one indeed.

It isn't. It's logical when you understand the IRA's campaign against usury in the 20's attacked Jewish money lenders. Anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery regularly surfaced in the nationalist press before and after 1922.

Such ideas were part of many socialist ideology floating around Europe at the time.

They launched a campaign to rid Dublin of moneylenders in 1926.

The campaign resulted in the arrest of several IRA men.

Briscoe defended them saying it was not anti semitic. I however disagree.

Several others at the time did too.

When Tim Pat Coogan described these events he stated that, ‘

A touch of anti-Semitism also showed in a series of armed raids on moneylenders…at least as much motivated by a desire to stamp at the practice of money-lending as to strike at Jews.

The following action led to a fear of a pogram in Dublin at the time.

In October 1923, Commandant James Conroy was implicated in the murder of two Jewish men, Bernard Goldberg and Emmanuel 'Ernest' Kah[a]n. A later application for an army pension was rejected. The killings were the subject of a 2010 investigative documentary by RTÉ; CSÍ: Murder in Little Jerusalem

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 8:46am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Portobello is viewed as the Jewish quarter in Dublin

Used to be. At the end of the nineteenth century the focus of the Jewish community in Dulblin was in Portobello, along the South Circular Road, and up Clanbrassil Street a bit.

But it shifted over time. A couple of generations later the focus was definitely Rathgar/Terenure, and that's still where the principal synagogue and the Jewish schools are found. And, come to think of it, the Progressive synagogue as well. Whereas all the synagogues in and near Portobello have closed.

The community has grown quite a bit in the last fifteen or twenty years due to immigration. But many of the incoming Jews are young, single, relatively transient and not necessarily very plugged-in to Jewish community life and institutions in Ireland. So, though I don't know for sure, I suspect that as regards where they live they aren't concentrated in any particular area but are quite dispersed throughout the kind of areas where young, single, internationally-mobile adults are prone to rent accommodation.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 8:48am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Sean Russell was an epic fool but he wasn't remotely representative of the republican movement, no doubt a few lone wolves in the UK itself supported the Nazis, cranks in small numbers everywhere, this thing about how Ireland backed the Nazis is so inaccurate as to be outright laughable

No not Ireland. The IRA.

The Belfast Jew Leonard Kaitcer, a wealthy antiques dealer, was abducted from his house by the IRA in 1980 and held for ransom. This was apparently legitimate because he was a "capitalist".

Yeah right.

The Idea that Irish people would support some freak idea of Germany invading NI is ridiculous. The fact that the IRA considered it and at least ATTEMPTED to aid the Luftwaffe in bombing Belfast should show you how nuts the IRA were and are. FRUITLOOPS!

I don't think Ireland and the IRA have ever really seen eye to eye though.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 8:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

In truth, I don't the we can see the IRA as a monlithic institution, of one mind on all things. About the only thing that united the IRA was a commitment to militant Irish republicanism. On every other question, there were divergent opinions.

It's certainly true that, within the IRA, there were individuals who were sympathetic to, or attracted by, Nazism. But equally there were those whose political instincts would have been at the opposite end of the spectrum and, truth be told, there were probably the larger group. This didn't stop them being willing to co-operate with the Nazis against what they saw as a common enemy, but that doesn't make them Nazi sympathisers any more than a previous generation who dealt with Imperial Germany thereby became German imperialists.

There were also Irish nationalist Nazi sympathisers who left, or remained outside, the IRA, mostly because they found the IRA too left-wing; too tainted by communism. And there were also left-wing Republicans who kept their disance from the IRA becuase they didn't consider it sufficiently left-wing, or sufficiently internationalist.

There are certainly individuals within the republican movement about whom we can reasonably make judgments that they were, or were not, Nazi sympathisers. But making such judgments about the movement as a whole is much more difficult because, on all questions other than Irish republican militarism, the movement was pretty diverse, and indeed characterised by constant splits, power struggles and shifting internal alliances.

By 1939, the IRA had dwindled down to about 2000 members of various persuasions, from a high of about 15,000 in in the early 30's. By 1941, that figure wasn't even 1000. Even so, there was a wide variety of political stances that spanned a very wide stretch. On one hand there were Communists and on the other ultra Nationalist Christian Conservatives.

It's true, the IRA leadership were more than willing to turn a blind eye to anything they didn't want to see, such a tendency was also carried through to the Provisional IRA in the 60's/70's and 80's as well. But as you say, it doesn't make them Nazi's or even Nazi collaborators in the truest sense of the word.

It doesn't make their unwillingness to acknowledge Nazi actions any less serious however.

But, if there was one thing that the IRA were aligned on it can be summed up in the sentence, "England’s difficulty was Ireland’s opportunity". A rather naive continuation of the Irish support for Germany that occurred during the First World War.

Mad_maxx · 12-07-2019 8:56am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Used to be. At the end of the nineteenth century the focus of the Jewish community in Dulblin was in Portobello, along the South Circular Road, and up Clanbrassil Street a bit.

But it shifted over time. A couple of generations later the focus was definitely Rathgar/Terenure, and that's still where the principal synagogue and the Jewish schools are found. And, come to think of it, the Progressive synagogue as well. Whereas all the synagogues in and near Portobello have closed.

The community has grown quite a bit in the last fifteen or twenty years due to immigration. But many of the incoming Jews are young, single, relatively transient and not necessarily very plugged-in to Jewish community life and institutions in Ireland. So, though I don't know for sure, I suspect that as regards where they live they aren't concentrated in any particular area but are quite dispersed throughout the kind of areas where young, single, internationally-mobile adults are prone to rent accommodation.

Thank you for correcting me

I should have said it used to be the Jewish quarter

Cryptopagan · 12-07-2019 8:58am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The Belfast Jew Leonard Kaitcer, a wealthy antiques dealer, was abducted from his house by the IRA in 1980 and held for ransom. This was apparently legitimate because he was a "capitalist".

The IRA kidnapped quite a few prominent business people during the Troubles. All sorts of awful actions were considered “legitimate” in the context of its armed struggle; it’s nothing to do with anti-semitism.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:01am

banie01 wrote: »

Why does being Jewish automatically imply a person must hold a position on Zionism or on the arpatheid the Israeli state pursues?

While the Israeli state presents itself as a homeland for all Jews, it doesn't follow that therefore all Jews are responsible for the acts of the state.

Not even all Israelis are responsible. And not all Israelis are obligated to hold a position on it.

And as for Israel being a homeland for all Jews etc. well they don't always stand up for jews in other countries and against anti semitic leaders if they support Israel.

Gimme A Pound · 12-07-2019 9:01am

Be very suspicious of tory/unionist leaning publications implying the provos were anti Semitic/in cahoots with the nazis. Very suspicious.

Loyalist paramilitaries however have most certainly liaised with far right extremists (before they pretended to be allies of the Jews - merely to stick it to Palestinians).

Mad_maxx · 12-07-2019 9:01am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No not Ireland. The IRA.

The Belfast Jew Leonard Kaitcer, a wealthy antiques dealer, was abducted from his house by the IRA in 1980 and held for ransom. This was apparently legitimate because he was a "capitalist".

Yeah right.

The Idea that Irish people would support some freak idea of Germany invading NI is ridiculous. The fact that the IRA considered it and at least ATTEMPTED to aid the Luftwaffe in bombing Belfast should show you how nuts the IRA were and are. FRUITLOOPS!

I don't think Ireland and the IRA have ever really seen eye to eye though.

There would be no Ireland were it not for the IRA, we would still be part of the UK, that's a whole other thread though

The Jewish state would not exist either were it not for the fact Begin and his group attacked the British, it's how new states are born

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 12-07-2019 9:03am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It isn't. It's logical when you understand the IRA's campaign against usury in the 20's attacked Jewish money lenders. Anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery regularly surfaced in the nationalist press before and after 1922.

Such ideas were part of many socialist ideology floating around Europe at the time.

They launched a campaign to rid Dublin of moneylenders in 1926.

The campaign resulted in the arrest of several IRA men.

Briscoe defended them saying it was not anti semitic. I however disagree.

Several others at the time did too.

When Tim Pat Coogan described these events he stated that, ‘

The following action led to a fear of a pogram in Dublin at the time.

If they targeted all money lenders, Jewish and non Jewish, it’s hard to see the anti semitism.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:03am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But that isn't because they were sympathetic to Germany or to Naziism; it's because they thought they saw an opportunity to bring about a united Ireland.

In fact this incident rather makes the point. Invading Ireland or uniting Ireland wasn't on the Nazi radar at all; it wasn't one of their objectives; they had no interest in it for its own sake. So in promoting a Nazi invasion of NI the IRA weren't trying to advance Naziism; they were trying to get the Naziis to advance Irish republicanism

In fact Nazi ideology was quite admiring of Britain. The British were "Aryans", after all, and had demonstrated sterling Aryan qualities by subjugating so much of the globe and so many lesser breeds. True, their moment in the sun was passing and the thousand-year Reich was about to eclipse them in fulfilment of its manifest destiny but, if the British could live with that and remain on friendly terms with Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany would have been quite happy to leave Britain and its empire in peace.

The question of war with Britain only arise because Britain wouldn't take that view, and in fact sought to obstruct the glorious destiny of the deutsche Volk. Even then, that didn't make the Nazis sympathetic to Irish nationalism; they would have been quite happy to see Ireland reincorporated into a (subjugated) United Kingdom. But it did make them interested in anything that could destabillise the United Kingdom, and that was what the IRA spotted. So they tried to pitch to the Germans the idea that invading NI, with the support of the IRA, would tend to destabilise the UK.

The IRA were (for the most part) no more interested in advancing Naziism than the Nazis were interested in advancing a united Ireland; they just thought that a project that would be of interest to them might also, for different reasons, be of interest to the Nazis, and therefore there was an opportunity for mutually beneficial co-operation.

Agreed. But, any so called "plans" that were developed to invade ANY part of Ireland remained a pure fantasy. The Gerries had no way of carrying it out.

As for German admiration of Britain, this is entirely correct. Hitler was an out and out Anglophile, who went to his death bewildered at why they "couldn't see reason" with his anti Communist crusade. A delusion of the highest order, but no less a fact.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:04am

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Be very suspicious of tory/unionist leaning publications implying the provos were anti Semitic/in cahoots with the nazis. Very suspicious.

Loyalist paramilitaries however have more certainly liaised with far right extremists though (before they pretended to be allies of the Jews - merely to stick it to Palestinians).

This is from the holocaust online website. http://holocaustonline.org/ira-irish-republican-army/

Its been in several Irish papers like the Irish times too.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 12-07-2019 9:07am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is from the holocaust online website. http://holocaustonline.org/ira-irish-republican-army/

Its been in several Irish papers like the Irish times too.

There’s a lot of “was said” in there. By whom?

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:08am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There would be no Ireland were it not for the IRA, we would still be part of the UK, that's a whole other thread though

The Jewish state would not exist either were it not for the fact Begin and his group attacked the British, it's how new states are born

Did they have to be antisemitic? Did that help the founding of the state in anyway? No.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:09am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It isn't. It's logical

It's only logical from a practical standpoint in that they were willing for the most part to side with the devil to achieve their political aim of a united Ireland.

It doesn't excuse their wilful blindness, nor does it make them Nazi's either.

But, it's wholly ILLOGICAL given the political stances of a lot of their membership, even when that number had dwindled done to less than a 1000.

The fact of the matter is the IRA's relationship with the Germans during WWII is far more complicated than what you're trying to make it.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:10am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a lot of “was said” in there. By whom?

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/review-the-devils-deal-the-ira-and-nazi-germany-by-david-odonoghue-26605630.html

Check the references on the site.

Its been found in IRA documents. Also from interviews given by IRA members. Many of whom by then regretted their actions.

odyssey06 · 12-07-2019 9:10am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There would be no Ireland were it not for the IRA, we would still be part of the UK, that's a whole other thread though
The Jewish state would not exist either were it not for the fact Begin and his group attacked the British, it's how new states are born

I don't even think that's true of the IRA of 1916-1922.

It certainly isn't true of the Nazi collaborating IRA of the World War II era, which was a different organisation, with different leaders, membership composition and did not enjoy the general support of the Irish people.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:13am

Tony EH wrote: »

It's only logical from a practical standpoint in that they were willing for the most part to side with the devil to achieve their political aim of a united Ireland.

It doesn't excuse their wilful blindness, nor does it make them Nazi's either.

But, it's wholly ILLOGICAL given the political stances of a lot of their membership, even when that number had dwindled done to less than a 1000.

The fact of the matter is the IRA's relationship with the Germans during WWII is far more complicated than what you're trying to make it.

Scratch the surface of the IRA and SF they are deeply ethno nationalist.

Everyone knows this. The multi cultural image is just a facade.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 12-07-2019 9:16am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/review-the-devils-deal-the-ira-and-nazi-germany-by-david-odonoghue-26605630.html

Check the references on the site.

Its been found in IRA documents. Also from interviews given by IRA members. Many of whom by then regretted their actions.

There’s a lot links there. A search finds no such quotes.

Back to Corbyn and the BBC. If the state owned broadcaster has in fact doctored evidence against the leader of the opposition then that’s not really too different from a mini dictatorship, or “partially free” country like Russia.

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 9:17am

Tony EH wrote: »

. . . It's true, the IRA leadership were more than willing to turn a blind eye to anything they didn't want to see, such a tendency was also carried through to the Provisional IRA in the 60's/70's and 80's as well. But as you say, it doesn't make them Nazi's or even Nazi collaborators in the truest sense of the word.

It doesn't make their unwillingness to acknowledge Nazi actions any less serious however.

But, if there was one thing that the IRA were aligned on it can be summed up in the sentence, "England’s difficulty was Ireland’s opportunity". A rather naive continuation of the Irish support for Germany that occurred during the First World War.

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

But there's an important similarity too; they both involve togging out with the Nazis.

And if you help Nazis to do what Nazis do, I think you have to be held morally accountable for the results of that, regardless of your motivation for doing that. "I backed the Naxis - but it was all for Ireland!" is not really much of a defence.

The distinction between (a) and (b) above is important not because it provides any kind of moral vindication of what the IRA did during the war - I don't think it does - but because if we actually want to understand the IRA, where it comes from, what it does, where it's going, then this is important. The IRA is not an intrinsically Nazi-leaning or antisemitic organisation.

But the distinction is important for a wider reason too, because it illustrates that you can be complicit in Naziism, and culpable for what Nazis did, without being a Nazi yourself. An awful lot of political movements thought that they could make common cause with Naziism for limited purposes, could hold their noses and use Naziism to advance their own agenda. And all of that contributed significantly to the advance of Naziism. And, on this level, maybe the IRA weren't Nazis but, in terms of what they actually did, they might as well have been.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:25am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a lot links there. A search finds no such quotes.

Back to Corbyn and the BBC. If the state owned broadcaster has in fact doctored evidence against the leader of the opposition then that’s not really too different from a mini dictatorship, or “partially free” country like Russia.

Read the article in the irish independant.

Check this one out

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sfs-nazi-hero-is-stalking-candidate-mary-lou-26221399.html

ILoveYourVibes · 12-07-2019 9:26am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

No you hang with nazis you are one.

Nazis are not your racist uncle fred who rants about the jews.

They are literal ****ing nazis who murdered jews.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes.

But there's a related point that, rereading the thread, I think needs to be made.

There's an important difference between (a) togging out with the Nazis because you're a Nazi, and (b) togging out with the Nazis even though you're not a Nazi, and perhaps even don't like Nazis very much, but you reckon togging out with them will help to advance some other agenda that is more important to you than not liking Nazis is.

But there's an important similarity too; they both involve togging out with the Nazis.

Agreed, and yes, there's a world of difference between being a co belligerent, which is essentially what the IRA and German relationship was, and being a full on Nazi collaborator, akin to Vidkun Quisling.

True, they both involve "togging out" with the Nazi's, but the degree to which deserves distinction.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if you help Nazis to do what Nazis do, I think you have to be held morally accountable for the results of that, regardless of your motivation for doing that. "I backed the Naxis - but it was all for Ireland!" is not really much of a defence.

The degree of help with which parties enjoyed certainly flowed much stronger in one direction than it did the other. The reality is that the IRA weren't of much use at all to the Germans in the war. How could they be with such a paltry number? But the Germans did supply the IRA with a reasonable supply of arms to such a degree that their contribution was of a vastly greater weight.

Nonetheless, it doesn't absolve the IRA of their dealings.

keano_afc · 12-07-2019 9:36am

My sister in law put 2 of her kids in Stratford NS in Ranelagh because she could afford to and its a good school. Her youngest mixes well with the kids there.

She had her birthday party a couple of weeks back and my SIL ordered one of those mobile petting zoos to come to the house. They set up out the back garden and all was going well. I arrived after work to collect my wife and kids and noticed a lot of the kids from the Jewish school were at the party. You can imagine my surprise when I went out the back garden to see a small pig being passed around the kids as part of the petting zoo. My SIL had completely forgotten that she'd invited a lot of Jewish kids to the party and never told the petting zoo to leave Porky at home.

odyssey06 · 12-07-2019 9:39am

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed, and yes, there's a world of difference between being a co belligerent, which is essentially what the IRA and German relationship was, and being a full on Nazi collaborator, akin to Vidkun Quisling.
True, they both involve "togging out" with the Nazi's, but the degree to which deserves distinction.

I don't see any distinction. Had their plans been achieved, the IRA would have been the Irish Quislings. We all know what the fate of Ireland's Jewish population would have been in a society run by such morally a bankrupt organisation. They were not co-belligerents, you could say that about a state level actor such as Finland. You cannot say that about Ireland's Quislings.

The IRA were Nazi collaborators. Thankfully they and the Nazis were thwarted and defeated.

Canis Lupus · 12-07-2019 9:44am

BeerWolf wrote: »

Don't think I've ever interacted with a Jew here in Ireland.

It's not like they walk around wearing a star you know.

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 9:45am

Tony EH wrote: »

. . . The degree of help with which parties enjoyed certainly flowed much stronger in one direction than it did the other. The reality is that the IRA weren't of much use at all to the Germans in the war. How could they be with such a paltry number? But the Germans did supply the IRA with a reasonable supply of arms to such a degree that their contribution was of a vastly greater weight.

Nonetheless, it doesn't absolve the IRA of their dealings.

I don't think that makes any difference. "I did my best to help the Nazis, though it wasn't much. And I got more out of them than they got out of me."

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:45am

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't see any distinction. Had their plans been achieved, the IRA would have been the Irish Quislings. We all know what the fate of Ireland's Jewish population would have been in a society run by such morally a bankrupt organisation. They were not co-belligerents, you could say that about a state level actor such as Finland. You cannot say that about Ireland's Quislings.

You can contradict the history all you want, but it won't make your opinion any more more factual.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:49am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that makes any difference. "I did my best to help the Nazis, though it wasn't much. And I got more out of them than they got out of me."

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

joe40 · 12-07-2019 9:50am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No you hang with nazis you are one.

Nazis are not your racist uncle fred who rants about the jews.

They are literal ****ing nazis who murdered jews.

Sorta like the blueshirts....

odyssey06 · 12-07-2019 9:51am

Tony EH wrote: »

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

Only cos they failed. Morally they were as bankrupt as the rest of them. De Valera would never have handed over Ireland's Jews and would have joined them in the camps rather than collaborate in such atrocities. We know the IRA would have done, some of them would have done so with glee.

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 9:51am

Tony EH wrote: »

Receiving some arms and coming up with a few hairbrained schemes isn't remotely on the same level as Quisling's Norway or even Finland, Romania or Hungary.

I know, but so what? By the same reason, none of the four countries you list did as much as Italy. Does that make any difference?

We can only judge the morality of what people actually did. It doesn't help to observe that, if their circumstances were different, they might have been able to do a lot more.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 9:52am

odyssey06 wrote: »

Only cos they failed. Morally they were as bankrupt as the rest of them. De Valera would never have handed over Ireland's Jews and would have joined them in the camps rather than collaborate in such atrocities. We know the IRA would have done, some of them would have done so with glee.

We don't "know" this at all.

odyssey06 · 12-07-2019 9:52am

Tony EH wrote: »

You can contradict the history all you want, but it won't make your opinion any more more factual.

We should all be grateful that is the history that played out, and not the contradictory history the IRA would have wished for Ireland and the inevitable fate that meant for her Jewish population.

Wibbs · 12-07-2019 9:54am

keano_afc wrote: »

My sister in law put 2 of her kids in Stratford NS in Ranelagh because she could afford to and its a good school. Her youngest mixes well with the kids there.

She had her birthday party a couple of weeks back and my SIL ordered one of those mobile petting zoos to come to the house. They set up out the back garden and all was going well. I arrived after work to collect my wife and kids and noticed a lot of the kids from the Jewish school were at the party. You can imagine my surprise when I went out the back garden to see a small pig being passed around the kids as part of the petting zoo. My SIL had completely forgotten that she'd invited a lot of Jewish kids to the party and never told the petting zoo to leave Porky at home.

IIRC it's the owning, raising and consumption of pigs that's prohibited in the Jewish faith. I could be way off here, but I don't think petting one is forbidden. As an aside I do recall as a kid first hearing the gospel story where Jesus casts out some demons or other from someone and fires it into a herd of pigs who then run off a cliff. As you do. At the time I wondered and wonder still who around was keeping a herd of pigs? Hardly Jews I would have thought. That always struck me as odd. Unless it was a later addition by the Roman Greek writers. Though they were well aware of kosher practices of the Jewish faith as they had got rid of it and circumcision as a requirement.

odyssey06 · 12-07-2019 9:55am

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't "know" this at all.

Of course we do. We know the IRA collaborated with the Nazis. We know they wanted to hand over Ireland to the Nazis as the price for a united Ireland. We know what that would have meant for Ireland's Jewish population. The IRA was a morally bankrupt organisation.

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 9:56am

joe40 wrote: »

Sorta like the blueshirts....

Actually, I'd make a distinction there. Fine Gael took on board an organisation which was at least quasi-nazi, and effectively supressed it. It was basically dead by the end of 1934. I think they did Ireland a favour.

blackwhite · 12-07-2019 9:57am

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't "know" this at all.

Their continued veneration of Sean Russell - despite knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing - gives some very strong hints as to how willing they've have been to collaborate to the fullest extent.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 10:00am

blackwhite wrote: »

Their continued veneration of Sean Russell - despite knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing - gives some very strong hints as to how willing they've have been to collaborate to the fullest extent.

As a matter fact, Sean Russell said in 1938 that he had no more interest in Germany being in Ireland than the British.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 10:02am

odyssey06 wrote: »

Of course we do. We know the IRA collaborated with the Nazis. We know they wanted to hand over Ireland to the Nazis as the price for a united Ireland. We know what that would have meant for Ireland's Jewish population. The IRA was a morally bankrupt organisation.

This is absolute nonsense.

If you want to discuss the history of the period, I'm all ears.

If it's fantasy you're looking for, I'm not.

12-07-2019 10:12am

Tony EH wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense.

If you want to discuss the history of the period, I'm all ears.

If it's fantasy you're looking for, I'm not.

Didn't Patrick Pearse want to create a throne in Ireland for King Wilhelm?

And wasn't Arthur Griffith's big idea that of a dual monarchy, like in the Austro Hungarian empire?

All of this was long before the Nazis, but there certainly was a willingness there to collaborate with the Germans. Anyway that's just a minor footnote, and not really relevant (but almost as interesting, I think, as Irish Jewish history)

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 10:14am

odyssey06 wrote: »

Of course we do. We know the IRA collaborated with the Nazis. We know they wanted to hand over Ireland to the Nazis as the price for a united Ireland. We know what that would have meant for Ireland's Jewish population. The IRA was a morally bankrupt organisation.

We don't know this; it's a historical what-if.

We can easily come up with a plausible alternative. E.g. while the Germans were happy to encourage/work with the IRA, they were equally happy to encourage/work with elements that were fundamentally opposed to the IRA - like the British Union of Fascists, who harboured many unreconstructed British imperialists who would certainly not have favoured a united Ireland separate from Britain and, given their druthers, would have wanted to re-take the Irish Free State. And even as the some in the German government were channelling practical support to the IRA, we now know that others were drawing up quite detailed plans for a British puppet state whose regional centres of government were to be London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Cardiff . . . and Dublin.

If the IRA were opportunistic in collaborating with Germany, Germany was equally opportunistic in collaborating with the IRA. And if, following a successful invasion of, um, these islands, the Germans felt that the BUF were going to be more useful collaborators than the IRA - and they almost certainly would have felt that - then I wouldn't put much money on the prospects of the IRA's fond expectations of a united Ireland, separate from Britain, being delivered.

So, in our historical what-if fantasy novel, we can quite plausibly depict the IRA as feeling thoroughly abandoned and betrayed by the Germans, and as taking up arms (probably not very effectively) against a German puppet state that embraces Ireland, while it's some other group - let's say, unionists and/or socially conservative Catholics - who provide those who will run the puppet state.

ironingbored · 12-07-2019 10:15am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Your summary of the situation might be too kind. Corbyn has praised a book about Jews being in charge of international finance as "brilliant".

Maybe Corbyn didn't really read the book whose foreword he wrote, but when you add it to all of the other genuine concerns about his stance on anti-semitism, there are legitimate concerns about him.

This is a bigger issue in the UK than it is in Ireland, because we have almost no Jewish population.

But the only Jewish people I know live in London, this is a real issue for them and their families. It's not nice to reflect on the fact that your next leader might object to your existence. I'm on the left, maybe further to the left than Corbyn says he is, but even I couldn't tolerate him.

I follow loads of leftist/left leaning Jews on Twitter who will possibly change your mind.

@jewdas
@shaunjlawson (Thread on the Panorama program: https://twitter.com/shaunjlawson/status/1149144957598539777)
@arryTuttle (who has since deleted his account due to doxxing)

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 10:15am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know, but so what? By the same reason, none of the four countries you list did as much as Italy. Does that make any difference?

We can only judge the morality of what people actually did. It doesn't help to observe that, if their circumstances were different, they might have been able to do a lot more.

I think the matter of degree makes a difference yes. Being a full on ally, like Hungary, is very different to accepting some arms.

I wouldn't mistake that for absolution though.

Peregrinus · 12-07-2019 10:22am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Didn't Patrick Pearse want to create a throne in Ireland for King Wilhelm?

Not for King Wilhelm, but for a German prince. This, after all, is how Greece, Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria and other countries acheived independence; by becoming independent kingdoms and importing a German prince to be king. (Germany had an awful lot of spare princes.)

And it's not something Pearse wanted to do; he was a Republican by conviction. But it's something he was willing to contemplate as a tested-and-effective model of establishing a newly-independent country.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

And wasn't Arthur Griffith's big idea that of a dual monarchy, like in the Austro Hungarian empire?

Yes though, again, he wasn't actually a fan of it. He too would have preferred a republican model of government, and in fact he identified with a Hungarian nationalist figure who held out against the dual monarchy. But he thought the dual monarchy model might have value as a compromise that could secure broader assent than a pure republican model.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

All of this was long before the Nazis, but there certainly was a willingness there to collaborate with the Germans. Anyway that's just a minor footnote, and not really relevant (but almost as interesting, I think, as Irish Jewish history)

Griffith's dual monarchy idea didn't involve collaborating with the Germans; he was suggesting a dual monarchy with Britain.

blackwhite · 12-07-2019 10:28am

Tony EH wrote: »

As a matter fact, Sean Russell said in 1938 that he had no more interest in Germany being in Ireland than the British.

His actions from 1938-40 tell quite a different tale though.

It must get exhausting jumping from thread to thread trying to minimise antisemitism wherever it arises.

Wibbs · 12-07-2019 10:29am

blackwhite wrote: »

Their continued veneration of Sean Russell - despite knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing - gives some very strong hints as to how willing they've have been to collaborate to the fullest extent.

Actually them knowing the full extent of what the Nazis were doing is extremely debatable. Of course the nazis were antisemitic and they weren't the only ones. They were also anticommunist, anti trade unions, anti lots of things. Specific information was hard to come by and even ignored by some in the Allied power base when information did come in. How many air raids were aimed at concentration camps? The German barracks were easy enough to distinguish within them. The Auschwitz complex was also an industrial target, yet never attacked. Churchill apparently considered the option but didn't go through with it. Neither did the Americans.

Nowadays we know the true extent of what they were doing, but before and during the war not nearly so much beyond rumour and whispers. When witnesses did come forward it was scarcely to be believed. Hell, even in the post war period the Holocaust was almost a sideline. The world had seen the photos and film and reports from Belsen, but the true and wider extent was not nearly so well known and with the new Cold War going on and the need for Germany as a buffer it was sidelined even further. It was a US based chap by the name of Dr Raul Hilberg who kicked off research into this period and crime against humanity. Even then he had to fight to get his research published in the US and it only found a publisher in 1961. It didn't get into the general public consciousness until later again.

Even among Germans it was an odd and chilling mix of avoidance of the subject or complete ignorance of the details or a refusal to believe what details did get through. It was a scarily "invisible" machine at work and unless you were directly involved in its implementation it was a very nebulous business and one kept apart from the "normal" war effort. Even among Hitler's staff, bodyguards, secretaries etc, those who worked within the belly of that beast day after day for years, all of them declared they never saw or heard any specific or even vague details of the Final Solution. Even the Soviet interrogators that questioned some of them and tortured many believed their story. Many of them concluded that it was almost entirely left to people like Himmler to implement this horror and kept separate as much as possible. If you were one of his staff you would have known damn well what was going on. Outside that circle, if you noticed anything you kept your mouth shut. I remember an interview with a German railway office type who scheduled trains throughout the reich. Among the everyday rail traffic he saw trains going out of the main German areas into the east packed to capacity, but coming back empty, but didn't want to think about what this actually meant and consoled himself with the idea that people were being simply relocated...

A quote on the matter from Hitler's bodyguard and one of the last people to see him in the bunker where he killed himself:
“I heard nothing of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 in Berlin, which was to organise in detail the extermination of the Jews which had already begun. As already mentioned, the subject of Jews and concentration camps never came up among us. Neither did anything ever filter through to us which might have led to a discussion, nor did we have any motive to talk about these things. We knew of the existence of concentration camps as work camps, but we knew nothing of what had been decided and brought into effect for the inmates of the concentration camps in the eastern territories. If Hitler had ever gone to one of those places, then we would have known, because the bodyguard was at his side around the clock. Wherever he went, we went too: from where he came, we came from there too. Our colleagues might have told me had I not been there myself. How could crimes of such enormity have remained such a well-kept secret?”

Excerpt From: Rochus Misch. “Hitler's Last Witness.”

That's among the more chilling aspects of this crime.

Tony EH · 12-07-2019 10:31am

blackwhite wrote: »

His actions from 1938-40 tell quite a different tale though.

Here's another Russell quote for you:

"I am not a Nazi. I am not even Pro German. I am an Irishman fighting for the independence of Ireland. The British have been our Enemies for hundreds of years. They are the enemy of Germany today. If it suits Germany to give us help to achieve independence, I am willing to accept it, but no more, and there must be no strings attached."

blackwhite wrote: »

It must get exhausting jumping from thread to thread trying to minimise antisemitism wherever it arises.

I'm not interested in minimising anything. Be careful where you're going with this.

topper75 · 12-07-2019 10:33am

keano_afc wrote: »

My sister in law put 2 of her kids in Stratford NS in Ranelagh because she could afford to and its a good school. Her youngest mixes well with the kids there.

She had her birthday party a couple of weeks back and my SIL ordered one of those mobile petting zoos to come to the house. They set up out the back garden and all was going well. I arrived after work to collect my wife and kids and noticed a lot of the kids from the Jewish school were at the party. You can imagine my surprise when I went out the back garden to see a small pig being passed around the kids as part of the petting zoo. My SIL had completely forgotten that she'd invited a lot of Jewish kids to the party and never told the petting zoo to leave Porky at home.

Funny story one way or another. What is the deal with that though technically? It it that cooked pig flesh in not kosher food, or are pigs to be shunned in entirety alive or dead.

Ireland's Jewish community

Comments