Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

In 1940 Britain offered the 6 counties to Ireland in exchange for cooperation in WWII

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DHYNZY
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭DHYNZY


    Completely inviable. This seems more like a sensational rumour than a concrete discussion. Was never going to happen on either end. Neutrality was the corner stone of our foreign policy. And reintegration at that point would have been a headache to say the least.


  • Options
    #33
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    pwd wrote: »
    He did say it in an essay. You think if you can't find it on google it doesn't exist. Try reading a book.
    Most of Orwell's essays are available online, but I couldn't find the quote either. This might be similar enough that you could have confused it, and offers a similar enough sentiment that it's plausible Orwell might have said what you claimed:
    "... No country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it."

    Orwell, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and a member of the British Home Guard, was quite happy to point his rifle in the same direction as his mouth when it came to issues of liberty.


  • Options
    #34
    FiSe
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭FiSe


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    :eek: :) I've read many's a piece on Ireland and neutrality in WW2 and wouldn't claim to know it all by any means but this is some news to me bro


    Britian barely had the military capacity to defend itself never mind invade Ireland. They were just about surviving day by day during the Battle of Britain. Who did they have after the fiasco's of Dunkirk and Norway - Capt Mainwarning with his Dad's army. Imagine them poor fellows against the Waffen SS :rolleyes:


    According to a documentary on TG4, secret detailed plans were drawn up by the Irish military which basically consisted of :

    1) A Division in the south east Wexford, etc to try and delay for as long as possible a German invasion and us to call on the British to come to our aid.

    2) Similarily a Division along the border at Monaghan, Louth etc to try and delay for as long as possible a British invasion and us to call on the Germans to come to our aid.

    They were also plans around the rest of the country for the blowing of bridges, sabotage etc How well both plans would have worked and if either side had any real intention to invade is conjecture, nevertheless we can be proud of our stance in the period.


    About the only time the British or Germans were may have been thinking of invading the country was during the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. American did not come into WW2 until Pearl Harbour in December 1941 and therefore had no strategic interests in Britain or Ireland been invaded as they wanted to remain out of it.

    You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were no plans to ask Germans for help at any time, but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.
    Routes were planned and supplies stocked along the proposed routes of movement.
    The only condition was, that Irish Army will take the first blow from the invaders.

    There's two brilliant books, unbiased well researched and easy to read:
    - Guarding Neutral Ireland by Michael Kennedy
    - Military Aviation in Ireland 1921-45 by Michael C. O'Malley


  • Options
    #35
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    FiSe wrote: »
    You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were no plans to ask Germans for help at any time, but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.
    Routes were planned and supplies stocked along the proposed routes of movement.
    The only condition was, that Irish Army will take the first blow from the invaders.

    There's two brilliant books, unbiased well researched and easy to read:
    - Guarding Neutral Ireland by Michael Kennedy
    - Military Aviation in Ireland 1921-45 by Michael C. O'Malley
    :rolleyes: You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were according to the TG4 documentary series EIRE NEODRACH plans to ask Germans for help should Britian invade us. Just as their were plans to ask the British to come to our aid should teh Germans invade. It was basically a bluff with both sets of plans were leaked to the Germans and British. Whether the bluff worked or either of them had any real intention to invade is conjecture.

    I think most people would agree that TG4 tries to be unbiased and well researched. I'm only stating what the programme said and it had interviews with ex Irish army officers etc to back up it's assertions.


    " Éire Neodrach (OS) Were we right? Did we have the moral right to remain neutral in the face of such an extraordinary evil? Can we be nuetral now? Would the same neutral stance be possible within a modern EU framework. Contributors to this programme include: Seán Mac Réamoinn, Col W.E. Doyle, Col. J.P. Duggan & Louis Marcus. " ( See 7.30pm)
    http://www.tg4.ie/bearla/scei/scei.asp?Dt=2010-8-10


  • Options
    #36
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    FiSe wrote: »
    ... but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.
    That's not accurate. All along the Boyne Valley there were installations built at the time as a defence against a British invasion coming from Northern Ireland (although I would have though they'd have just come across the Irish sea and taken Dublin directly). Some of them were even marked on OS maps later on iirc, although not all of them. One or two of them were pointed out many years ago when I was on a college trip to the area. At this stage, with all the development in the area, I'm not sure if they are still there, but the Irish government at the time did take the threat of British invasion very seriously, some people argue that it was considered more of a threat than a German invasion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    well imo at least the British had more to gain from invading Ireland as a means of strengthening their positions at sea and protecting their air force perhaps. Whereas a German invasion of Ireland even if it took less than a day would give the British far too much time to react and be prepared for the subsequent invasion of Britain.


  • Options
    #38
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    mikhail wrote: »
    Most of Orwell's essays are available online, but I couldn't find the quote either. This might be similar enough that you could have confused it, and offers a similar enough sentiment that it's plausible Orwell might have said what you claimed:
    "... No country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it."

    Orwell, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and a member of the British Home Guard, was quite happy to point his rifle in the same direction as his mouth when it came to issues of liberty.
    No I'm not confusing it with that. He was talking about fanaticism in a different context, as far as I remember, and used the Ireland thing as an example. [I'm not sure he was using the specific word fanaticism]. I think he was talking about Communist parties being in actuality Russian foreign policy parties in the same essay [I think the context he was talking about was Communists who were too deluded to see the lie in the Communism in the USSR].


  • Options
    #39
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    Found it. It's in the essay "Notes on Nationalism."
    He also refers to his idea that "The navy created pacifism" in the same quote, conveniently enough.
    Orwell wrote:
    If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:

    BRITISH TORY: Britian will come out of this war with reduced power and prestige.
    COMMUNIST. If she had not been aided by Britain and America, Russia would have been defeated by Germany.
    IRISH NATIONALIST. Eire can only remain independent because of British protection.
    TROTSKYIST. The Stalin regime is accepted by the Russian masses.
    PACIFIST. Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

    http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html


  • Options
    #40
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Any source for this? There is all sorts of 'fascinating' and hitherto unknown information appearing in this thread. :confused:

    I've read that account before regarding Basil Brooke in one of books that I've studied, as well as the Irish military attending British Chief of Staff meetings that I mentioned earlier on in the thread. I'll have to go through the books that I still have although many were "borrowed" to others over the years never to return:rolleyes:

    I still maintain that if Britain really urgently needed access to Irish ports, airspace & facilities they would have ensured they got them by diplomacy or even force if need be. All this complaining from the supposed British point of view since is just sabre rattling!!!

    On a related note clauses in the Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 limited Irish capability in certain areas of military & defence capacity. For example Britain is responsible for repelling any attempted invasion of Ireland at sea. Not that the Royal Navy would have not acted in that scenario during WW2 even if that clause didn't exist!!!:eek:

    Supposedly that there are also secret clauses regarding defence in the above treaty.:D


  • Options
    #41
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    purplepanda wrote: »
    I've read that account before regarding Basil Brooke in one of books that I've studied, as well as the Irish military attending British Chief of Staff meetings that I mentioned earlier on in the thread. I'll have to go through the books that I still have although many were "borrowed" to others over the years never to return:rolleyes:

    I still maintain that if Britain really urgently needed access to Irish ports, airspace & facilities they would have ensured they got them by diplomacy or even force if need be. All this complaining from the supposed British point of view since is just sabre rattling!!!

    On a related note clauses in the Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 limited Irish capability in certain areas of military & defence capacity. For example Britain is responsible for repelling any attempted invasion of Ireland at sea. Not that the Royal Navy would have not acted in that scenario during WW2 even if that clause didn't exist!!!:eek:

    Supposedly that there are also secret clauses regarding defence in the above treaty.:D
    I think the clause you're talking about was to be renegotiated after 5 years, and referred to the control of the ports in question. That's why they were called the Treaty Ports. As I understand it, when it was discussed again, Britain handed control of the ports to Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brianthebard wrote: »
    well imo at least the British had more to gain from invading Ireland as a means of strengthening their positions at sea and protecting their air force perhaps. Whereas a German invasion of Ireland even if it took less than a day would give the British far too much time to react and be prepared for the subsequent invasion of Britain.

    Maybe not useful as an invasion base, but airfields in Ireland would have meant the RAF would have had an entirely new front to defend and new radar bases would need to have been built. It would also have closed the Irish sea and possibly the English channel and the Luftwaffe could have bombed west coast ports at will.

    I'm not sure an invasion of Ireland would have been that easy though. a sea crossing would have been at the mercy of the RAF and the Royal Navy and an airborne assault would probably have faired as well as the invasion of Crete, which cost the German Amy dearly.


  • Options
    #43
    FiSe
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭FiSe


    Johnmb wrote: »
    That's not accurate. All along the Boyne Valley there were installations built at the time as a defence against a British invasion coming from Northern Ireland (although I would have though they'd have just come across the Irish sea and taken Dublin directly). Some of them were even marked on OS maps later on iirc, although not all of them. One or two of them were pointed out many years ago when I was on a college trip to the area. At this stage, with all the development in the area, I'm not sure if they are still there, but the Irish government at the time did take the threat of British invasion very seriously, some people argue that it was considered more of a threat than a German invasion.

    Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
    There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

    I'm aware of the pill boxes scattered all over the Ireland - there's a picture thread on them somewhere on here too, nevertheless I'm not quite sure why exactly and when these were built. No doubt that some, maybe all, are the children of Emergency period. I don't know and I'm still looking for some history on those.
    IRA was another threatening force to the irish goverment, so some of the pillboxes could be built as an anti-terrorist checkpoints?


  • Options
    #44
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    FiSe wrote: »
    IRA was another threatening force to the irish goverment, so some of the pillboxes could be built as an anti-terrorist checkpoints?
    You don't fight insurgents with fixed anti-infantry positions.


  • Options
    #45
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    FiSe wrote: »
    Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
    There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

    Interesting. Not trying to put you on the spot but do you have a link to this ?


  • Options
    #46
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    FiSe wrote: »
    Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
    There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

    The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

    Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.


  • Options
    #47
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    purplepanda wrote: »
    The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

    Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.
    Gerry had U boat pens in Norway. But I do agree with you that Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans.


  • Options
    #48
    FiSe
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭FiSe


    purplepanda wrote: »
    The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

    Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.

    Apparently, it took too long for RN to actually get into the open ocean.
    Those ports ment to be used by RN boats, not convoys themselves.

    The southern road was used latter in the war though.


  • Options
    #49
    FiSe
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭FiSe


    mikhail wrote: »
    You don't fight insurgents with fixed anti-infantry positions.

    No, but you can use those as a fixed guarding points in certain strategically important places...or as fixed checkpoints.

    Before somebody reads something which I haven't wrote, I have to repeat again, that I am not claiming and never was that this was the primary function or functions of these pill boxes at all. I've said that it could be one of their intended use as I have no proper information about these structures, just speculating.

    In 'Guarding Neutral Ireland' is mentioned Ardnacrusha powerplant and it's defence, including AA gun position and fixed pill box. The threat is mentioned as both foreigner military power and fear of possible IRA action.
    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Interesting. Not trying to put you on the spot but do you have a link to this ?

    In the same book.


  • Options
    #50
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

    Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

    Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.

    The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.


  • Options
    #51
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    purplepanda wrote: »
    Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

    Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

    Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.

    The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.
    That would have been an interesting conundrum for the government of the day. On the one hand, would you want to piss off the Germans after they had already won? On the other hand, you just know they are going to take the following day or two to invade you, so do you give up without so much of a whimper or do you use whatever British resources weren't destroyed and go down fighting? The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them, but the average German had been filled with propaganda that made us out to be a heroic people who fought off British imperialist aggression, so they may have had to treat us well (for a while at least) if we didn't go against them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    purplepanda wrote: »
    Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

    Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

    Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.
    Ok wiki can sometimes be reliable but it's conspiracy theory stuff as far as I can see. As I've said in an earlier post, thier seems to be an agenda discrediting Irish neutrality in WW2, which was in fact the state's strongest assertion of it's independence from Britain. The agenda seems to be about painting a picture that Ireland was not neutral in WW2 and that by getting rid of neutrality now or in the future is inconsquential.
    The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.
    They seem to making a big deal about nothing I'm not going to debate each point but for example

    1) The use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. Half of it is surrounded by Derry anyway and besides we probably didn't have the capacity to do anything about it if we wanted !!!!

    5) They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft. Very doubtful if they wanted to attract the attention of the Stuka dive bombers and have a sitiuation like the North Strand bombing.

    12) They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces Their wasn't a lot they could do to stop it anyway. A guy only had to walk across the border.
    Johnmb wrote: »
    That would have been an interesting conundrum for the government of the day. On the one hand, would you want to piss off the Germans after they had already won? On the other hand, you just know they are going to take the following day or two to invade you, so do you give up without so much of a whimper or do you use whatever British resources weren't destroyed and go down fighting?
    Agreed. The Germans had gone through the Brits and French and anyone else like a knife through butter. In reality if they had invaded we would have been like Denmark, Czechs etc, No point in poking the bear and inviting greater retribution.
    The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them, but the average German had been filled with propaganda that made us out to be a heroic people who fought off British imperialist aggression, so they may have had to treat us well (for a while at least) if we didn't go against them.
    So they were like the British then so :). Not surprising as Hitler greatly admired British imperialism.

    Never heard this before that he thought of us as any different to the other people's of Europe. Not doubting you but if you have good links I'd appreciate it.


  • Options
    #53
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Johnmb wrote: »
    The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them, but the average German had been filled with propaganda that made us out to be a heroic people who fought off British imperialist aggression, so they may have had to treat us well (for a while at least) if we didn't go against them.

    Where did you read this? For the most part issues of genetic impurity were directed at gays, gypsies and jews, ie people within the German state that the Nazis blamed for Germany's problems. After that a hatred for the Slavs made the Slavic races the next target. There is no evidence that the Germans considered any of the Western European countries to be genetically impure, or that they intended to wipe them out. One only has to consider the differences between the treatment of civilians in Belgium or France and any country in East Europe to see that to be the case.


  • Options
    #54
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Where did you read this? For the most part issues of genetic impurity were directed at gays, gypsies and jews, ie people within the German state that the Nazis blamed for Germany's problems. After that a hatred for the Slavs made the Slavic races the next target. There is no evidence that the Germans considered any of the Western European countries to be genetically impure, or that they intended to wipe them out. One only has to consider the differences between the treatment of civilians in Belgium or France and any country in East Europe to see that to be the case.
    We weren't considered down at the level of being sub-human, but we were not considered equals either. They considered those of German heritage (Nordics) to be the superior race, we were not included in that (nor were most of the French). The English, however, were considered part of their superior race. They did have a German royal family I guess, but the mistaken belief that they were Anglo-Saxon was probably the main reason for it. We certainly weren't on any "final solution" lists, but by the same token, there would have been no hesitation in wiping out any Irish who became a problem, as we weren't needed to help further the "master race". I'll try to find a link, but the last time I recall this coming up was in a documentary about how Ireland was portrayed in Nazi propaganda movies of the time. I can't remember the name, but I'm sure it's around somewhere on-line and will post to it if I can find it.


  • Options
    #55
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Johnmb wrote: »
    The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them.

    What evidence do you have for this claim? Which actual members of the Nazi regime believed this?


  • Options
    #56
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    purplepanda wrote: »
    What evidence do you have for this claim? Which actual members of the Nazi regime believed this?
    Well, in fairness, pretty much all of them. We are/were not a Germanic/Nordic people. While we possibly were considered Aryan since we were Indo-European (although that wasn't a given), we weren't of the same stock as the Germans, Nordics, and British, as far as they were concerned.


  • Options
    #57
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Well, in fairness, pretty much all of them. We are/were not a Germanic/Nordic people. While we possibly were considered Aryan since we were Indo-European (although that wasn't a given), we weren't of the same stock as the Germans, Nordics, and British, as far as they were concerned.

    I really do think you should give some evidence for this, I've researched the Nazi race theories before and never read anything about the Irish or even the British in them, negative or positive.


  • Options
    #58
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I really do think you should give some evidence for this, I've researched the Nazi race theories before and never read anything about the Irish or even the British in them, negative or positive.
    Okay, the Irish part I could understand, we weren't important enough in the war for most historians to mention much about. I can only recall two documentaries that mentioned it, the first was Hitler's Irish Movies, and the other was about the IRA trying to make deals with them, I can't remember the name of that one (and it is possible that the opinions of the Nazis expressed where specific to the people they were dealing with, not the Irish generally). But as for the British, seriously? You've never read anything about the Nazi (Hitler in particular) opinion of them? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. It comes up a lot in the reasoning why the British had time to escape from Dunkirk. I don't have many books on WW2, it's way too modern for my liking, but I'll do a search on line, I'm sure there'll be plenty about the British.


  • Options
    #59
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Johnmb wrote: »
    But as for the British, seriously? You've never read anything about the Nazi (Hitler in particular) opinion of them? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. It comes up a lot in the reasoning why the British had time to escape from Dunkirk. I don't have many books on WW2, it's way too modern for my liking, but I'll do a search on line, I'm sure there'll be plenty about the British.

    The reason for dunkirk? That's a huge leap to infer the British soldiers were allowed to survive out of a racial kinship, especially at a time of war. Its not a stretch to believe the Nazis saw certain similarities between the British and Germans, but to suggest that extended far enough to allow them to make mistakes in the war on purpose?


  • Options
    #60
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    I've not read Mein Kemp, however people have told me it mentions the "Ayran Race" including Britain & Ireland, plus France north of the River Seine amongst other parts of Europe. It's a made up theory anyway as the Ayran race was present in Iran & India amongst other places:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    brianthebard wrote: »
    The reason for dunkirk? That's a huge leap to infer the British soldiers were allowed to survive out of a racial kinship, especially at a time of war. Its not a stretch to believe the Nazis saw certain similarities between the British and Germans, but to suggest that extended far enough to allow them to make mistakes in the war on purpose?
    It is one of the theories to explain why Hitler ordered a halt to his troops. Not that he did it because they were Germanic, but that he did it because he still hoped the British would ally themselves with Germany, and the reason he wanted that was because he seen them as part of the Germanic peoples, and therefore a natural ally. The Irish were never seen as part of that group (possibly in part due to the fact that a British guy was one of the proponents of the original theory the Nazis adopted). Do any of your books go into any detail about Nordicism in regards to their discussion of the Nazi theories regarding the "master race"? That's pretty much what it came under. They were the natural leaders. While I'm (fairly) sure we would have been considered an Aryan race, we were not in the same league as the "leaders", we were just worthy of being followers, and if we refused to follow, knowing what we know of Nazi ruthlessness at the time, do you think they would have hesitated to put us down?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement