Was he waving hello with his arm outstretched on stage with fascists doing same? You're having a laugh.
They don't cancel each other out. One was SF dealing with Nazis to help their cause. The other was a fascist attending a fascist rally giving a fascist salute. Neither great behaviour.
Fascism was widely acceptable/respectable for most of the 1930s. Even Churchill had good things to say about Mussolini's Italy. Much of Catholic social doctrine of the time was informed by fascist ideology.
Agreed.
Are you saying that Russell believed in Nazi ideology - that in fact he was a Nazi?
I don't think that SF are the only party to have a Nazi connection bearing in mind that as far as I recall, it was Cathal Goulding of the Officials (IRA & Sinn Fein) who erected the statue to Russell. The Officials later became the Workers Party then Demoratic Left and then I think merged into Labour! (I may have left out a few steps there!) This would have been Eoin Harris's origins as well!
Yet, De Valera stayed well clear of it and he would have been in a prime position to become a fascist dictator.
Before fascism, their leader was also a geurilla fighter (or "terrorist" in today's Fine Gael speak)..
It was as director of intelligence of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), however, that he became famous. As chief planner and coordinator of the revolutionary movement, Collins organized numerous attacks on police and the assassination in November 1920 of many of Britain’s leading intelligence agents in Ireland. He headed the list of men wanted by the British, who placed a price of £10,000 on his head.
I asked a poster here, who seemed to be rather upset at Mary Lou McDonald stating the IRA campaign up to the GCA "was justified" if they thought the Rising and the IRAs actions in the years afterwards was also justified, but unfortunately I got the internet equivalent of "no-one available to comment".
However, as rightly pointed out elsewhere on the thread, it's a fairy pointless exercise mentioning the troubles constantly in some vain effort to damage Sinn Fein, young folk (and an ever increasing amount of older folk too) don't care it's ancient history to them. Housing and health, and the incompetent government currently in situ are, (unsurprisingly so) more important to them.
Exactly, you clearly understand the point I am making.
Whatever, you can have whatever twisted opinion you want, but there is no denying the historical fact of the Sinn Fein of the 1940s having deep connections with the German administration of the time. Anyone who claims lineage back to 1916 through that version of Sinn Fein is stuck with the stigma.
No other political party had such links.
Nope, it was all in the Sunday Independent article about his involvement.
Here he is with his involvement in the Strokestown case as well. A fine upstanding member of Sinn Fein, don't you think?
https://academic.tips/question/why-is-historical-context-so-important-to-interpret-events/
"Without understanding historical context, a person might be tempted to interpret past events based on current conditions. Because the context could be drastically different, especially for events that took place many years ago, such a mistake could lead to misunderstanding the facts and making fundamentally wrong conclusions."
That quotation sums up where you are - making fundamentally wrong conclusions.
My post that clearly states "I got the internet equivalent of no-one available to comment" is me making "fundamentally wrong conclusions"?
I did ask you if you thought the Rising was justified, and I also asked if you thought the IRA activities afterwards were justified, and you did give me an evasive "I've answered this elsewhere" answer, which I asked for you to clarify, and you never did. Exactly a "not available for comment" type answer.
What "fundamentally wrong conclusions" my post was completely factual for God sake.
I have answered that question many times before, but you failed to acknowledge that, hence your fundamentally wrong conclusions. That historical context was missing.
Failed to acknowledge it? Might be best to stop digging now blanch152.
I think Dev was a stickler for convention and deeply suspicious of modernity of which fascism was a political expression.
For instance during the Spanish Civil War he resisted pressure to the end to break-off diplomatic relations with the Republic.
Another example was his signing of the book of condolences at the German legation in May 1945 on the death of its head of state. There was also an element of giving the finger to David Gray the U.S. representative who he didn't like.
You have obviously misread, the intention is clear.
Collins had a Democratic mandate, not for his junior participation in the 1916 rising, but he did as director of intelligence of the IRA in the War of Independence following the SF victory in the 1919 election.
Funny that, doesn't Gerry Adams claim to have the same democratic electoral mandate from 1919?
Gerry claims lots of things.
I’m am confused as to how you are posting on this thread as
post page one has you threadbanned.?
Apologies if I am mistaken.
De Valera did not sign a book of condolences at the German legation's offices (which was on Northumberland Rd.) He called to the house in Dun Laoghaire of the German Ambassador (Hempel) who was a career diplomat, and not a Nazi. De Valera had a very good working relationship with Hempel (unlike the relationship with the American Ambassador who bad mouthed De Valera to the Americans).
What people forget is that the IRA of the time who were over plotting with the Nazis and getting support, regarded Dev and the Irish Government as similarly illegitimate as the British in Northern Ireland and would be happy to blow Dev's head off along with the whole of the Irish Government!
Thanks for the correction about the location of the book of condolences. BTW Hempel and Gray were called 'ministers to Ireland' not 'ambassadors '.
The British establishment of the day would have begged to differ that Collins "had a mandate" I would guess. I have seen this before, some people try to validate one example of resistance to British occupation while invalidating the other.
There wasn't a book of condolences (I think that is rather a modern invention). Back in those days in Ireland, people called to the house to express personal sympathy with the family of the person and the diplomatic thing to do would be to write a letter. I don't think such a letter exists.
You are correct on that they were not Ambassadors. The German had Legation's offices, not an Embassy.
Gray wanted to drag Ireland into the war, and Dev was having none of it.
Dev wrote this about it:
[I] noted that my call on the German minister on the announcement of Hitler’s death was played up to the utmost. I expected this.
I could have had a diplomatic illness but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing… So long as we retained our diplomatic relations with Germany, to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and invariably correct — in marked contrast with Gray. I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.[1]
Right yes it's more accurate to say he called on the German minister Hempel to 'offer his condolences'. Thanks.
Yes he was writing to some colleague/friend in America if I remember right. I have a lot of respect for Dev even though I don't come from an FF tradition.
No trumps. They don't cancel each other out. Do you think Herr Cosgrave stumbled onto the stage and was pointing at a passing plane with all fingers, not knowing he was at a fascist rally?
Campaigning against the GFA so much you join an organisation opposed to it is a dalliance now?
Two rather hilarious stretches or reality there.
I'm sure the 'British establishment of the day' would have 'begged to differ' on a lot of matters but it should be noted that no less a figure than Winston Churchill had no problem dealing on convivial terms with Collins only a couple of years later.
You lied claiming the man was involved in taking that man out of hospital. No amount of unrelated links will cover that.
Victim using for your own gain again.
You could also say both Tony Blair and John Major had similarly zero issues dealing with the IRA post ceasefire, pre ceasefire too if some reports are to be believed.
I think the main point is, if posters have been on this site insisting "all violence was wrong" for years now, there's no handwaving away the IRAs actions for them, whether under Collins era or the troubles in the north era. It was either wrong or it was not.
Indeed but you did make a point of mentioning 'the British establishment ' of which Churchill was certainly a member.
You and others no doubt see no distinction between Collins and the PIRA but I do and I've made my reason(s) clear.
Well to be fair, my assumption would be (going by your posts) that you might be what I would describe as "Fine Gael stock" so it's hardly surprising you would seek to legitimise Collins fight against the British, while simultaneously fail to do so for the more recent troubles. That's all part and parcel of the hypocrisy of our state, a state built on revolution and uprisings by the way.
I see little difference in the cause and aims of either.
