Will you wear an Easter Lily?

karma_ · 23-03-2016 08:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He aided the Nazis, that makes him a Nazi collaborator.

Jesus, are ye antifa now?

Wish ye would make up yer mind wan way or t'other!!

23-03-2016 08:13PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He aided the Nazis, that makes him a Nazi collaborator.

How did he 'aid the Nazis'?

Samaris · 23-03-2016 08:23PM

I don't really know who this guy is (and nor do I honestly care that much, but so it goes), but the Nazi Collaborator business so far seems to be laying it on a bit thick.

With the benefit of hindsight, we are all (bar one or two, but there's -always- one or two) pretty clear on that the Nazis were worse than our neighbours over the stream, yes? Because they weren't back then. To most of them, realistically, the Nazis were just "right lads, Britain's distracted with the Germans, let's get on with it". A bit of very discreet palling up with Britain's enemies was pretty par for the course (bonjour, French). The death camps and the atrocities of the Holocaust weren't particularly known about outside Nazi-occupied territory or even that much within them.

In short, I wouldn't necessarily go dooming some poor fella to the depths of hell for being on Hitler's side in World War II. The concept of enemy of my enemy and all that has been around for a fairly long time.

Ronald Wilson Reagan · 23-03-2016 08:24PM

Are you wearing Italian loafers without socks?

Iwasfrozen · 23-03-2016 08:26PM

Samaris wrote: »

I don't really know who this guy is (and nor do I honestly care that much, but so it goes), but the Nazi Collaborator business so far seems to be laying it on a bit thick.

With the benefit of hindsight, we are all (bar one or two, but there's -always- one or two) pretty clear on that the Nazis were worse than our neighbours over the stream, yes? Because they weren't back then. To most of them, realistically, the Nazis were just "right lads, Britain's distracted with the Germans, let's get on with it". A bit of very discreet palling up with Britain's enemies was pretty par for the course (bonjour, French). The death camps and the atrocities of the Holocaust weren't particularly known about outside Nazi-occupied territory or even that much within them.

In short, I wouldn't necessarily go dooming some poor fella to the depths of hell for being on Hitler's side in World War II. The concept of enemy of my enemy and all that has been around for a fairly long time.

I agree let's not condemn him to hell. [Being a terrorist is enough for that] But let's not commemorate him with a bronze memorial either.

Nodin · 23-03-2016 08:27PM

Ronald Wilson Reagan wrote: »

Are you wearing Italian loafers without socks?

a- Who?

b - Wouldn't that be uncomfortable?

marienbad · 23-03-2016 08:31PM

Samaris wrote: »

I don't really know who this guy is (and nor do I honestly care that much, but so it goes), but the Nazi Collaborator business so far seems to be laying it on a bit thick.

With the benefit of hindsight, we are all (bar one or two, but there's -always- one or two) pretty clear on that the Nazis were worse than our neighbours over the stream, yes? Because they weren't back then. To most of them, realistically, the Nazis were just "right lads, Britain's distracted with the Germans, let's get on with it". A bit of very discreet palling up with Britain's enemies was pretty par for the course (bonjour, French). The death camps and the atrocities of the Holocaust weren't particularly known about outside Nazi-occupied territory or even that much within them.

In short, I wouldn't necessarily go dooming some poor fella to the depths of hell for being on Hitler's side in World War II. The concept of enemy of my enemy and all that has been around for a fairly long time.

But we didn't pal around with the Nazis . ( and no I don't want to hear about Dev and his condolence's either ).

And as for those cowardly French - they still managed casualties of around 550 k compared to 450 k of those civilisation saving Brits , both miniscule compared to the Germans (8 million) and the Russians (25million )

23-03-2016 08:32PM

Samaris wrote: »

The death camps and the atrocities of the Holocaust weren't particularly known about outside Nazi-occupied territory or even that much within them.

Indeed, and as Russell died in 1940 he would have known nothing about them. The trendy Irish 'anti-Nazi' dudes would almost have you believing he was actually involved in the inventing of Zyklon-B such is their vilification of him.

karma_ · 23-03-2016 08:40PM

marienbad wrote: »

But we didn't pal around with the Nazis . ( and no I don't want to hear about Dev and his condolence's either ).

And as for those cowardly French - they still managed casualties of around 550 k compared to 450 k of those civilisation saving Brits , both miniscule compared to the Germans (8 million) and the Russians (25million )

WW2 had many nuances and alliances of convinces out of sheer national or self interest. It's by no means the good v evil affair a lot of people assume it was. Vichy French, Estonians, Latvians, Ukranians, Dutch, Finns... etc. etc.

As far as I know there were only two known Irishmen who fought for the Nazis, Frank Stringer and James Brady who I think both died in the battle of Berlin, although I'm open to correction on that and I don't believe there is much information available on these two gentlemen.

Samaris · 23-03-2016 08:42PM

marienbad wrote: »

But we didn't pal around with the Nazis . ( and no I don't want to hear about Dev and his condolence's either ).

And as for those cowardly French - they still managed casualties of around 550 k compared to 450 k of those civilisation saving Brits , both miniscule compared to the Germans (8 million) and the Russians (25million )

Never said "we" did as a whole. TECHNICALLY we were neutral, leaning a bit more Britain-wards. Some people disagreed with this and not only felt that Britain should be left to get on with things themselves, but also that WW2 was being used as an excuse to muscle back in on Irish territory (Cobh, I believe) and if going "Psst, Jerry, over here" would help keep them out, so be it. Especially since at the time, it appeared to be...well, just another war. Okay, war bad and all that, but it's not like they were peering over the wall of Bergen-Belsen.

I'm not, by the way, giving any personal opinion on either option!

also, deleting my thoroughly annoyed rant to check for sarcasm - why are you calling the French cowardly?

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-03-2016 08:46PM

karma_ wrote: »

WW2 had many nuances and alliances of convinces out of sheer national or self interest. It's by no means the good v evil affair a lot of people assume it was. Vichy French, Estonians, Latvians, Ukranians, Dutch, Finns... etc. etc.

As far as I know there were only two known Irishmen who fought for the Nazis, Frank Stringer and James Brady who I think both died in the battle of Berlin, although I'm open to correction on that and I don't believe there is much information available on these two gentlemen.

Brady was a soldier in the British Army to boot and later with the Waffen SS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady_%28SS%29

Nodin · 23-03-2016 08:51PM

marienbad wrote: »

But we didn't pal around with the Nazis . ( and no I don't want to hear about Dev and his condolence's either ).

And as for those cowardly French - they still managed casualties of around 550 k compared to 450 k of those civilisation saving Brits , both miniscule compared to the Germans (8 million) and the Russians (25million )

It's one of the prices of being in the anglo-sphere - the notion of the "cowardly French".

Iwasfrozen · 23-03-2016 08:58PM

Nodin wrote: »

It's one of the prices of being in the anglo-sphere - the notion of the "cowardly French".

The " cowardly French" jibe is a joke, though they were the only major participant of the Allies to surrender.

Hitler tried to turn the British against the war by targeting civilians in the Blitz. He failed utterly.

marienbad · 23-03-2016 09:00PM

Samaris wrote: »

Never said "we" did as a whole. TECHNICALLY we were neutral, leaning a bit more Britain-wards. Some people disagreed with this and not only felt that Britain should be left to get on with things themselves, but also that WW2 was being used as an excuse to muscle back in on Irish territory (Cobh, I believe) and if going "Psst, Jerry, over here" would help keep them out, so be it. Especially since at the time, it appeared to be...well, just another war. Okay, war bad and all that, but it's not like they were peering over the wall of Bergen-Belsen.

I'm not, by the way, giving any personal opinion on either option!

also, deleting my thoroughly annoyed rant to check for sarcasm - why are you calling the French cowardly?

We were not neutral at all , we were as much as possible on the side of the Allies - from sending back airmen , supplying food , supply massive manpower to their factories and armies , allowing them to use Irish airspace as a shorter route to protect the Atlantic convoys etc etc .

As for my 'cowardly French' remark - that was in direct response to your snide Bonjour France - both were inappropriate in light of French sacrifice in WW 2 but typical in an Anglo centric world .

marienbad · 23-03-2016 09:05PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The " cowardly French" jibe is a joke, though they were the only major participant of the Allies to surrender.

No the 'cowardly French' is not a joke , it was a bit of sarcasm at the use of Bonjour France in the previous post .

And I see the meme is in rude good health as you even take a swipe at them above - what does 'major participant ' even signify ?

23-03-2016 09:07PM

esforum wrote: »

Ya had me all the way until I saw where the info came from.

The quote I gave is originally from the Irish Times as listed by the site, so your issue is?

Nodin · 23-03-2016 09:10PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The " cowardly French" jibe is a joke, though they were the only major participant of the Allies to surrender.

..........

"I was joking but I wasn't really"

Samaris · 23-03-2016 09:13PM

marienbad wrote: »

We were not neutral at all , we were as much as possible on the side of the Allies - from sending back airmen , supplying food , supply massive manpower to their factories and armies , allowing them to use Irish airspace as a shorter route to protect the Atlantic convoys etc etc .

As for my 'cowardly French' remark - that was in direct response to your snide Bonjour France - both were inappropriate in light of French sacrifice in WW 2 but typical in an Anglo centric world .

I don't care what we actually DID, you did see the heavy emphasis on "technically", right? We were, technically, neutral. That our actions heavily belied this political fact is irrelevant in the context of the conversation.

And what on earth are you talking about as regards "Bonjour France"? Yes, Ireland has palled up with France on several occasions because France has been a traditional enemy of Britain. My previous line had been abundantly clear that I was talking about Ireland reaching out hands for anyone that Britain didn't get on with, and I used France as a particularly obvious example. That is absolutely not slighting on the French at all. Whereas "cowardly French" is a nasty jibe that should have been lost decades ago.

France had barely recovered from WW1 when 2 broke out. It's true it couldn't hold out long as a country, but courageous men and women kept up their own war against the occupation at risk of capture, torture, internment camps, their families, perhaps even their towns. For -years-. And no-one really knows even now just how many suffered and died for it.

So...yeah, I'm really not sure what you proved there, marienbad!

esforum · 23-03-2016 09:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The quote I gave is originally from the Irish Times as listed by the site, so your issue is?

My issue was I saw you quoting Indymedia and gave up. If you are quoting the Irish times, quote the Irish times

thanks

karma_ · 23-03-2016 09:17PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The " cowardly French" jibe is a joke, though they were the only major participant of the Allies to surrender.

Hitler tried to turn the British against the war by targeting civilians in the Blitz. He failed utterly.

France was soundly beaten. They were still using doctrine from the First World war and War had progressed, they had no option but to surrender.

And that's not what happened during the Air War, it was the British who first targeted civilians for direct bombing. There is no need for you to be this ignorant, all the information is freely available online.

marienbad · 23-03-2016 09:18PM

Samaris wrote: »

I don't care what we actually DID, you did see the heavy emphasis on "technically", right? We were, technically, neutral. That our actions heavily belied this political fact is irrelevant in the context of the conversation.

And what on earth are you talking about as regards "Bonjour France"? Yes, Ireland has palled up with France on several occasions because France has been a traditional enemy of Britain. My previous line had been abundantly clear that I was talking about Ireland reaching out hands for anyone that Britain didn't get on with, and I used France as a particularly obvious example. That is absolutely not slighting on the French at all. Whereas "cowardly French" is a nasty jibe that should have been lost decades ago.

France had barely recovered from WW1 when 2 broke out. It's true it couldn't hold out long as a country, but courageous men and women kept up their own war against the occupation at risk of capture, torture, internment camps, their families, perhaps even their towns. For -years-. And no-one really knows even now just how many suffered and died for it.

So...yeah, I'm really not sure what you proved there, marienbad!

I assumed your bonjour France was a jibe at France in WW2 palling around with the Nazis .

I was wrong , my apologies .

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-03-2016 09:18PM

esforum wrote: »

My issue was I saw you quoting Indymedia and gave up. If you are quoting the Irish times, quote the Irish times

thanks

so what is your opinion on the quote or do you just shoot the messenger?

marienbad · 23-03-2016 09:19PM

karma_ wrote: »

France was soundly beaten. They were still using doctrine from the First World war and War had progressed, they had no option but to surrender.

And that's not what happened during the Air War, it was the British who first targeted civilians for direct bombing. There is no need for you to be this ignorant, all the information is freely available online.

France and the BEF were soundly beaten ....

Exiled1 · 23-03-2016 09:25PM

Thread has strayed far from OP.
No, I will not wear an Easter Lily because of the way it has been devalued and abuse day the two equally appalling versions of the IRA who had tried to use it for their vile propaganda purposes. It was instructive to live through the early seventies to see what went on between those two showers of heroes.
That was coupled with the likes of Conor Cruise O'Brien and John Bruton etc expecting us to be ashamed of our nationalism.
At least we have reclaimed the tri-colour from them by the wonderful idea of 15 March in every school. Now every kid realises that you are not a provo or a drunken football supporter to be able to wave the flag and not be labelled either category!

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-03-2016 09:29PM

Exiled1 wrote: »

Thread has strayed far from OP.
No, I will not wear an Easter Lily because of the way it has been devalued and abuse day the two equally appalling versions of the IRA who had tried to use it for their vile propaganda purposes. It was instructive to live through the early seventies to see what went on between those two showers of heroes.
That was coupled with the likes of Conor Cruise O'Brien and John Bruton etc expecting us to be ashamed of our nationalism.
At least we have reclaimed the tri-colour from them by the wonderful idea of 15 March in every school. Now every kid realises that you are not a provo or a drunken football supporter to be able to wave the flag and not be labelled either category!

I have to laugh at your first few words and then spend the next loads of words dragging the thread even further from the OP

Jimoslimos · 23-03-2016 09:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The " cowardly French" jibe is a joke, though they were the only major participant of the Allies to surrender.

It absolutely is not a joke, it's a particularly nasty piece of anti-French bile used by some British and Americans.

Don't get me started on the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" phrase :mad:

Iwasfrozen · 23-03-2016 09:31PM

karma_ wrote: »

France was soundly beaten. They were still using doctrine from the First World war and War had progressed, they had no option but to surrender.

And that's not what happened during the Air War, it was the British who first targeted civilians for direct bombing. There is no need for you to be this ignorant, all the information is freely available online.

No one denies France were badly beaten. They were badly beaten and surrendered. The only major participant in the allies to do so.

Oh? So Hitler's plan wasn't to demoralize British society through bombing British civilians? There's no need for you to be this ignorant, the information is freely available.

Iwasfrozen · 23-03-2016 09:33PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It absolutely is not a joke, it's a particularly nasty piece of anti-French bile used by some British and Americans.

Don't get me started on the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" phrase :mad:

The jibe probably came from Americans who were bemused they had to travel half way across the world to liberate a country that had surrendered.

CarrickMcJoe · 23-03-2016 09:35PM

No, I won't be supporting the Slab and friends.

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-03-2016 09:39PM

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

No, I won't be supporting the Slab and friends.

Well done you, will you support the originators of the state?

Will you wear an Easter Lily?

Comments