The glorious 12th

downcow wrote: »

There will be people putting up Irish signage in unionist areas

Quite aside from the fact that this is untrue - what exactly do you find so disturbing about Irish language signage?

You wouldn't be showing racism there, by any chance, or denying the equal rights of your Nationalist brethren?

You do realise that the vast majority of place names in the North are - shock, horror - Irish?

Y'know, like Derry (Doire) is just misspelling of the Irish name?
I could name dozens more, but I'm sure you get the point....

janfebmar wrote: »

They would probably say it matches the statue of Sean Russell ( the IRA Nazi collaborator ) in Dublin. Maybe the only statue to a Nazi collaborator in the world?

Ha; Seán Russell is all you have? The obvious elephant in that particular room is that I'm sure you'll find memorials to some of the far more numerous British collaborators with Nazi Germany - Ramsey Macdonald, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, the Duke of Windsor, Lord Londonderry, etc etc - if you looked even a small bit. You'll find photos of some of the 20,000 British volunteers who volunteered to "police" the Sudetenland for Nazi Germany in 1938 or the British Free Corps or happy British royals meeting leading Nazis or the Royal British Legion pledging their support for the Nazis in 1938...

That's one huge glasshouse of British collaboration with Nazi Germany that you're in, and all you have to throw at the Irish is Russell. Entertaining.

As for the moral ground, none of you ever mention all those monuments in Britain to genocidal uber racist imperialists like Winston Churchill or Cecil Rhodes. Sure if it's only millions of Bengalis, Kenyans and other "uncivilised tribes" dying because of your glorious British Empire, it's grand.

The crimes of Winston Churchill

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha; Seán Russell is all you have?

Not at all: I just mentioned him as someone else wondered " what would be said if there was a statue of Hitler outside the reichstag". After all, Republican Russells statue in Dublin is probably the only statue to a Nazi collaborator in the world. ...so the nearest thing to a statue of Hitler. It took a lot of brave people to stand up to Hitler and his regime, including something like 100,000 from Ireland, lest we forget.

Rodin wrote: »

Cromwell did an awful lot worse than Ray McCreesh, and the name of the playpark was democratically chosen.

Not to mention everything with 'Royal' in the title. All those 'Royal' patents and grants to mass murderers in Ireland, starting with the genocide of Humphrey Gilbert, Richard and George Bingham and their soulmates. I reckon there need to be about 20,000 more streets, parks, institutions, etc etc named after Irish republicans in Ireland before we've equalled the number of memorials to Victoria/Albert/Belgrave/Herbert/Wellington/Lansdowne/Elgin and all the rest of the British royalist cult.

janfebmar wrote: »

Not at all: I just mentioned him as someone else wondered " what would be said if there was a statue of Hitler outside the reichstag". After all, Republican Russells statue in Dublin is probably the only statue to a Nazi collaborator in the world. ...so the nearest thing to a statue of Hitler. It took a lot of brave people to stand up to Hitler and his regime,

Ha. Comedy gold. How come it took your supposedly heroic Britain over 6 years of collaborating with Nazi Germany - "appeasement" as you like to euphemistically term it - before you decided that the Nazis were the baddies? Where was your 'bravery' then? Well? What excuses do you have? "Oh, but the evil communists were worse"?

You, the British, were still doing deals with them years after the Nazis set up the first concentration camps (March 1933), and years after the Nuremberg Laws against Jews in 1935. In fact, Britain stabbed the French in the back (the Stresa Front) in order to benefit from Nazi rearmament (Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 1935). And so much else. They don't seem to have taught you that in history class, understandably enough.

But you got all the post-WWII whitewashing revisionism of the collaboration - so well done for that.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

janfebmar wrote: »

Not at all: I just mentioned him as someone else wondered " what would be said if there was a statue of Hitler outside the reichstag". After all, Republican Russells statue in Dublin is probably the only statue to a Nazi collaborator in the world. ...so the nearest thing to a statue of Hitler. It took a lot of brave people to stand up to Hitler and his regime,

Ha. Comedy gold. How come it took your supposedly heroic Britain over 6 years of collaborating with Nazi Germany - "appeasement" as you like to euphemistically term it - before you decided that the Nazis were the baddies? Where was your 'bravery' then? Well? What excuses do you have? "Oh, but the evil communists were worse"?

You, the British, were still doing deals with them years after the Nazis set up the first concentration camps (March 1933), and years after the Nuremberg Laws against Jews in 1935. In fact, Britain stabbed the French in the back (the Stresa Front) in order to benefit from Nazi rearmament (Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 1935). And so much else. They don't seem to have taught you that in history class, understandably enough.

But you got all the post-WWII whitewashing revisionism of the collaboration - so well done for that.

After listening to President Macron yesterday speaking about how keen he is to retain close links with Britain over the defence of Europe-i can imagine he will be very shocked at discovering your assertion that in fact,Britain had stabbed France in the back and were just a brunch of collaborators-but well done you've obviously spent a lot of time trawling all that drivel up.

It's a bit ironic that an Irish Republican like Fuaranach would whinge about others collaborating with Nazi Germany when it was Irish Republicans who were the biggest collaborators from any English speaking country during the war. Leading Republican Sean Russell passed away in what some would say were suspicious circumstances on a German submarine.
The Germans probably got fed up of him, same as the North Koreans got fed up of the IRA group whinging about the food and living standards , and not being able to hack it, when they went on a training course in North Korea once.
Dev was right to execute some IRA in prison here during the war. I wonder if that approach had been used against paramilitaries (on both sides) at the start of the troubles would things have got so bad?

Is this were we post photos of the Royals happily smoozing with Hitler and the Nazis?

Russell no more collaborated with the Nazi's than the royals did in fact. He did what plenty did before and after him, simply used 'the enemy of his enemy'.

RobMc59 wrote: »

i can imagine he will be very shocked at discovering your assertion that in fact,Britain had stabbed France in the back

What you "imagine" is irrelevant, when by signing the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June 1935 the British did, in fact, treacherously stab the French in the back and breached their own commitments, given two months earlier in the Stresa Front. 30 pieces of silver.

It was this unilateral British state alliance with Nazi Germany which was key to Mussolini's subsequent decision to make his own deal with Nazi Germany. That they don't teach you this in the post-WW 2 whitewashing of British collaboration does not negate its veracity.

janfebmar wrote: »

it was Irish Republicans who were the biggest collaborators from any English speaking country during the war.

Ah, now that all that British collaboration with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 has been highlighted you're trying to shift the goalposts from "collaborating with the Nazis" to "collaborating with the Nazis during the [sic] war". For many socialists, communists, Jews, disabled children, Czechs, Austrians and others you do know "the war" didn't just start when you British finally worked up the courage to declare war in September 1939? There's a concept.

At any rate you're, as usual, wrong given that the US continued to recognise Vichy France as the legitimate government of France, and treat the French resistance forces as terrorist forces, until it joined "the war" after Pearl Harbour in December 1941.

Keep trying.

blanch152

There is some reworking of history here to try and paint Sean Russell as some poor misunderstood unfortunate, who was only as innocent as anyone who had dealings with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell

There are many dark and disgusting aspects of "republican" history, and Russell and the Army Council of the time are among the darkest. From allying themselves with Nazi Germany to starting bombing campaigns, they are right up there. There was no remorse - "Russell became the idol of traditionalist republicanism during the 1950s". At a time when we knew what the Germans had done, this was particularly nauseating.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this were we post photos of the Royals happily smoozing with Hitler and the Nazis?

Russell no more collaborated with the Nazi's than the royals did in fact. He did what plenty did before and after him, simply used 'the enemy of his enemy'.

The British did not "happily smooze" with the Nazi during the war, far from it. They tried to prevent a war and did not relish the thought of another world war, having endured the First World War, but nevertheless went to war with Nazi Germany in 1939. During the war Russell and a tiny number of Republicans did try to collaborate with the Nazis. There is a statue to Russell now in Dublin.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is some reworking of history here to try and paint Sean Russell as some poor misunderstood unfortunate, who was only as innocent as anyone who had dealings with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell

There are many dark and disgusting aspects of "republican" history, and Russell and the Army Council of the time are among the darkest. From allying themselves with Nazi Germany to starting bombing campaigns, they are right up there. There was no remorse - "Russell became the idol of traditionalist republicanism during the 1950s". At a time when we knew what the Germans had done, this was particularly nauseating.

Well said. At least we can be proud of the bravery of the 100,000 or whatever it was Irish people who did help in the war effort against the Nazis.

janfebmar wrote: »

The British did not "happily smooze" with the Nazi during the war, far from it. They tried to prevent a war and did not relish the thought of another world war, having endured the First World War, but nevertheless went to war with Nazi Germany in 1939. During the war Russell and a tiny number of Republicans did try to collaborate with the Nazis. There is a statue to Russell now in Dublin.

Why did they appease and allow Germany to blatantly break the terms of the Treaty and rebuild. They willfully ignored it.

While you wallow in the Pinewood Studio's version of the 'gallant' British, the real histories have been rewritten. As Fuarnach says, the 'war' didn't begin in 1939.
While the Royals 'smoozed' with the Nazis it was well known that Germany was re-arming and breaking the Treaty. A Nobel Peace Prize winner gave his life for exposing it as far back as 1931.
100's of companies based in the land of Britain's 'special friend' were getting rich doing it too.

But yeh...'Sean Russell something something'....your revisionism is mostly funny but it is also sickening sometimes.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is some reworking of history here.... From allying themselves with Nazi Germany to starting bombing campaigns, they are right up there. There was no remorse.

Your own "reworking of history" is hilarious given that Britain collaborated on an incomparably larger scale with Nazi Germany for a longer period of time (6 years), and not only started bombing campaigns but intentionally murdered tens of thousands of innocent civilians by targeting civilian areas. And, by the way, the British were bombing Germany four months before the Germans started to bomb Britain, but again you wouldn't learn that in the glorification cult around Bomber Harris and Britain's other civilian-targeting military "heroes".

It was an IRA leader Russell who was aboard the Nazi submarine, not someone from the UK. I think you will find the only dealing the UK had with German subs was being sunk by them or trying to sink them.
You remind me of another infamous Irishman, Lord Haw haw, who the world laughed at as well. Like the Republicans in Irish prison who Deverera executed, was'nt he hung in the end as well?

Deleted User wrote: »

Your own "reworking of history" is hilarious given that Britain collaborated on an incomparably larger scale with Nazi Germany for a longer period of time (6 years), and not only started bombing campaigns but intentionally murdered tens of thousands of innocent civilians by targeting civilian areas. And, by the way, the British were bombing Germany four months before the Germans started to bomb Britain, but again you wouldn't learn that in the glorification cult around Bomber Harris and Britain's other civilian-targeting military "heroes".

Wrong again Fuaranach, it was the germans who began the mass bombing of cities.

janfebmar wrote: »

It was an IRA leader Russell who was aboard the Nazi submarine, not someone from the UK. I think you will find the only dealing the UK had with German subs was being sunk by them or trying to sink them.
You remind me of another infamous Irishman, Lord Haw haw, who the world laughed at as well. Like the Republicans in Irish prison who Deverera executed, was'nt he hung in the end as well?

Are you a bot or something else with the same 150 words repositioned in each post? Definitely something very 'not right', to be kind about it, in your posting style.

janfebmar wrote: »

It was an IRA leader Russell who was aboard the Nazi submarine, not someone from the UK. I think you will find the only dealing the UK had with German subs was being sunk by them or trying to sink them.
You remind me of another infamous Irishman, Lord Haw haw, who the world laughed at as well. Like the Republicans in Irish prison who Deverera executed, was'nt he hung in the end as well?

Maybe he should have bought arms of those American corporations that were busily getting rich re-arming Germany in contravention of an international treaty and with the acquiescence of the British who knew it was happening?

So much more worthy to have done it that way, eh? The delusional belief in a morally upstanding, innocent Empire in the Unionist/partitionist/British mindset despite the truth of the history is mind boggling.

_blaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

There is some reworking of history here to try and paint Sean Russell as some poor misunderstood unfortunate, who was only as innocent as anyone who had dealings with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell

There are many dark and disgusting aspects of "republican" history, and Russell and the Army Council of the time are among the darkest. From allying themselves with Nazi Germany to starting bombing campaigns, they are right up there. There was no remorse - "Russell became the idol of traditionalist republicanism during the 1950s". At a time when we knew what the Germans had done, this was particularly nauseating.

Tbf the offial ira were terrible...they abandoned people in belfast in face of sectarian riots in 1969 (ironically kicked off by july 12th celebrations to give some relevence to thread)

I would consider that a much worse crime than some blueshirt wannabe dieing on a nazi submarine?

_blaaz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you a bot or something else with the same 150 words repositioned in each post? Definitely something very 'not right', to be kind about it, in your posting style.

You should chek out union bears on facebook group....its literally a copy and paste from there

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe he should have bought arms of those American corporations that were busily getting rich re-arming Germany in contravention of an international treaty and with the acquiescence of the British who knew it was happening?

So much more worthy to have done it that way, eh? The delusional belief in a morally upstanding, innocent Empire in the Unionist/partitionist/British mindset despite the truth of the history is mind boggling.

I certainly don't believe in a morally upstanding innocent Empire and I certainly don't buy into the British were completely innocent when it came to Nazi Germany.

However, the whitewashing of Sean Russell on this thread over the last few pages is something to behold. When it came to it, the British did put their lives on the line to defeat the evil of Nazi Germany. SF/IRA (and they were definitely intertwined back then) were revering the Nazi collaborator Sean Russell well into the following two decades.

I pointed out some time ago that there are more than a few throwing stones in glasshouses around here, and anyone who defends Sean Russell is among the lowest of the low.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe he should have bought arms of those American corporations that were ...

Deflection. Nice try though

blanch152 wrote: »

I certainly don't believe in a morally upstanding innocent Empire and I certainly don't buy into the British were completely innocent when it came to Nazi Germany.

However, the whitewashing of Sean Russell on this thread over the last few pages is something to behold. When it came to it, the British did put their lives on the line to defeat the evil of Nazi Germany. SF/IRA (and they were definitely intertwined back then) were revering the Nazi collaborator Sean Russell well into the following two decades.

I pointed out some time ago that there are more than a few throwing stones in glasshouses around here, and anyone who defends Sean Russell is among the lowest of the low.

I am all eyes for evidence that Russell specifically collaborated with what the Nazi's were doing and was not just doing what many have done before and after him...using the enemy of his enemy to his perceived advantage.

You are slightly more rational than janfebmar in these matters so can you show that Russell collaborated with what the Nazi's were principally doing?

And as a sidebar: would you agree that if Russell was a 'collaborator' then all those who helped re-arm Germany in the knowledge it was breaking the terms of an International treaty stand accused of 'collaboration' too?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am all eyes for evidence that Russell specifically collaborated with what the Nazi's were doing and was not just doing what many have done before and after him...using the enemy of his enemy to his perceived advantage.

You are slightly more rational than janfebmar in these matters so can you show that Russell collaborated with what the Nazi's were principally doing?

And as a sidebar: would you agree that if Russell was a 'collaborator' then all those who helped re-arm Germany in the knowledge it was breaking the terms of an International treaty stand accused of 'collaboration' too?

From the Wiki page:

"Claiming to be the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, in January 1939, the Army Council under Russell's leadership declared war on the United Kingdom in alliance with Nazi Germany"

That is pretty much enough for me to label him a collaborator. If you prefer me to describe SF/IRA as allies of Nazi Germany, I can do so.

And, by the way, the British were bombing Germany four months before the Germans started to bomb Britain

janfebmar wrote: »

Wrong again Fuaranach, it was the germans who began the mass bombing of cities.

Ah, changing the goalposts again. I'm correct, as anybody here can verify with a google. Given that you don't know how to use the vocative case (wrong again, Fuaránach) or that a proper noun (Germans) must be capitalised, this is probably just more intellectual inadequacy on your part when it comes to being able to discuss facts and nuance with adults. I'll let others waste their time on your consistently head-melting posts because you'll only bring me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you a bot or something else with the same 150 words repositioned in each post? Definitely something very 'not right', to be kind about it, in your posting style.

It is fairly typical of British hand washing and moral superiority that you get the 'well they started it' answer from janfebmar.

Here is one British historian's more eloquent response ( than jan's)to the accusation:

Anthony Beevor wrote:

The trouble is this argument is removed from the context that they were the ones who invented terror bombing, referring to German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw.

They literally obliterated whole cities and that certainly preceded what the British did. What we did was more terrifying and appalling, but it was a natural progression in this war.

When they indulge in butchery and planned terror, it is a 'natural progression but the progression of the conflict/war here was a result of IRA/republican bloodlust and intransigence.

Deluded?

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, changing the goalposts again.

No, just stating the facts about who started bombing in WW2, while I am doing something else. Then you attack the poster again. I have other things to do today now, bye.

blanch152 wrote: »

From the Wiki page:

"Claiming to be the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, in January 1939, the Army Council under Russell's leadership declared war on the United Kingdom in alliance with Nazi Germany"

That is pretty much enough for me to label him a collaborator. If you prefer me to describe SF/IRA as allies of Nazi Germany, I can do so.

Come on blanch...I asked you for specific examples of HOW he did this. 'Bluster' and rethoric doesn't count.