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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Collins vs De Valera
Comments
-
SafeSurfer wrote: »Eoin O’Duffy offered to send a battalion of Blueshirts to fight for Nazi Germany in operation Barbarossa.SafeSurfer wrote: »Many Blueshirts and subsequent Fine Gael TDs were rabid anti semites even after the horrors of the holocaust became known.
James Dillon, leader of Fine Gael, wanted Ireland to enter the war on the Allied side once America joined in. His brother lobbied very hard to increase the quota of Jewish refugees allowed into Ireland. Granted, preference was given to those who had converted to Christianity but that was no help to them in avoiding Nazi deportations. Anti semitism, as opposed to other forms of anti-Jewish prejudice, is based on race, not belief. "Was der Jude glaubt ist einerlei; in der Rasse liegt die Schweinerei" (What the Jew believes is irrelevant; in his race lies his swinishness)
In real terms, such physical assistance as was given to the Nazis by Irish people came more from the left-republican element. That doesn't make Ryan, Stuart, Russell et al Nazis per se; they weren't at all. But it does make them collaborators.SafeSurfer wrote: »Former Blueshirts subsequently went on to become involved with extreme far right groups such as the Architects of the Resurrection and Greenshirts.SafeSurfer wrote: »To say the Blueshirts had nothing to do with German Nazism or Italian Fascism is far from reality.
Of course, they imbibed some of the style and mannerisms of fashionable international movements of the time. As Conor Cruise O'Brien once put it "They mimicked the STYLE of continental fascism (military uniforms, straight arm salutes etc); not the deeds" Did the Blueshirts actually kill anyone in Ireland? (Whatever about Spain) I don't think so.
What sort of useless Fascist organisation was that?
BTW Please don't think I am in any way sympathetic to the narrow, blinkered, stulted, self-important conservatism of the Blueshirts. I'm not. But I think it's a bit rich to compare them to serious Fascists just because they aped some of the postures of the time. The active collaborators with Nazism lay elsewhere on the IRish political spectrum.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »The Blueshirts were passionately anticommunist. Their motivation there might have been more hatred of Godless Bolshevism than admiration of Fascism. Real Fascism, that is.
And many more weren't. Anti semitism was hardly likely to gain much traction in a country with fewer than 4,000 "Semites" most of whom occupied relatively modest positions in society. And many of whom had participated on the rebel side in the War of Independence, which gave the Jewish community a certain kudos in the newly independent state. The Irish born Chaim Herzog, future president of Israel, makes that point very well in his memoirs. His father, the Chief Rabbi of Ireland, was close to De Valera and other leaders.
James Dillon, leader of Fine Gael, wanted Ireland to enter the war on the Allied side once America joined in. His brother lobbied very hard to increase the quota of Jewish refugees allowed into Ireland. Granted, preference was given to those who had converted to Christianity but that was no help to them in avoiding Nazi deportations. Anti semitism, as opposed to other forms of anti-Jewish prejudice, is based on race, not belief. "Was der Jude glaubt ist einerlei; in der Rasse liegt die Schweinerei" (What the Jew believes is irrelevant; in his race lies his swinishness)
In real terms, such physical assistance as was given to the Nazis by Irish people came more from the left-republican element. That doesn't make Ryan, Stuart, Russell et al Nazis per se; they weren't at all. But it does make them collaborators.
About whom the average well informed layperson might say: "Who?"
Their ideology, such as it was, had nothing to do with the ideas of Hitler or Mussolini. In reality they were an Irish organisation whose motivations and ideals were firmly Irish based. They were conservative, Catholic, distrustful of the post-treaty IRA (with good reason). The best, and most accurate description I have heard of the typical Blueshirt is "Pudgy farmers bellowing about cattle prices".
Of course, they imbibed some of the style and mannerisms of fashionable international movements of the time. As Conor Cruise O'Brien once put it "They mimicked the STYLE of continental fascism (military uniforms, straight arm salutes etc); not the deeds" Did the Blueshirts actually kill anyone in Ireland? (Whatever about Spain) I don't think so.
What sort of useless Fascist organisation was that?
BTW Please don't think I am in any way sympathetic to the narrow, blinkered, stulted, self-important conservatism of the Blueshirts. I'm not. But I think it's a bit rich to compare them to serious Fascists just because they aped some of the postures of the time. The active collaborators with Nazism lay elsewhere on the IRish political spectrum.
The Blueshirt ideology was corporatism, similar to the Italian fascists.
The main group of Blueshirts sailed from Galway aboard the Nazi kriegsmarine vessel SS Urundi. They literally “sailed under the swastika to Spain”.
O’ Duffy was a regular at International conferences of fellow fascists, along side such luminaries as Norway’s Vidkun Quisling and indeed was appointed to the committee of the Fascist International. Before sending Blueshirts to fight in Spain he had pledged 1000 Blueshirts to fight for Mussolini in Abyssinia.
Of course many commentators seek to distance the Blueshirts from their fellow fascists. They try to portray them as anything from harmless to not really fascists at all.
Sometimes the truth may be ackward and embarrassing but undeniable.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, rather than grasping at arguments why it may not be a duck sometimes one has to admit that it’s a duck.Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis
0 -
cameramonkey wrote: »
If we are to believe your take on the treaty talks you are saying that Dev decided to completely abdicate power and hand all to Collins? That Dev decided to let Collins decide the future of the country with no input from the president, that he would voluntarily decide to sideline himself after years of struggle and let Collins make all the running and move into a position of supreme power as Collins then did.
That's not my take at all. My interpretation is that De Valera knew the British would not concede all that the Republicans were asking for, and they could either take nothing at all, which would probably have led to a resumption of the war that the IRA were struggling to continue; or they could take a "freedom to achieve freedom" interim deal which many would have condemned, and did condemn, as a sellout.
De Valera wanted to be on the side of the damners rather than the damned. Worked out for him in the long run, didn't it?
So why do YOU think he didn't attend the negotiations?0 -
SafeSurfer wrote: »The Blueshirt ideology was corporatism, similar to the Italian fascists.
Or in other words, state control of industry, similar to the Bolsheviks?
Two can play at this "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" argument.SafeSurfer wrote: »Of course many commentators seek to distance the Blueshirts from their fellow fascists. They try to portray them as anything from harmless to not really fascists at all.
Sometimes the truth may be ackward and embarrassing but undeniable.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, rather than grasping at arguments why it may not be a duck sometimes one has to admit that it’s a duck.
It all depends on what you mean by fascism. Is there an unambiguous definition of the term? If you take German Nazism and Italian Fascism together, and they have similarities as well as significant differences, they were both ultranationalistic, authoritarian, believed in the power of radical experimentation, were utterly indifferent, if not downright hostile, to established religion, demanded absolute submission to "the state" by all citizens, in return for which the provided generous welfare for their own "people" (to hell with anyone who WASN'T "one of us") and were extremely enthusiastic about the development of science and technology.
The Nazis were also vehemently racist, and from a "scientific" or pseudo scientific point of view. Mussolini didn't give a hoot about hostility to Jews. Many Jews were members of his party and quite a few Jewish women shared his bed. Italian Fascism was nowhere near as "scientifically racist" as Nazism and Italy only brought in its anti-Jewish laws in 1938, at German insistence, and were most lax about carrying them out.
Franco and the Blueshirts were different in that their ideology was indeed ultranationalistic and authoritarian but it derived its appeal from passionate religious conservatism, had little to do with racism (yeah, sure, there were a few droids like Oliver J Flanagan who imbibed too much of the AntiSemitic balderdash that was swilling round the world at the time but remember: he wasn't actually a Blueshirt! He joined Fine Gael eventually but he was first elected as a Monetary Reform candidate, and it was in that capacity he made his notorious speech about "Bees and honey, Jews and Money".)
They were most clearly defined by their attitudes to prevailing issues in Ireland, hanging on to their farms, resisting "Godless communism", such as that espoused by the Irish Labour Party!!, and protecting their members from intimidation by republicans.
Not the most admirable bunch of people we have ever produced but their gadding about at "international conferences of fascists" no more tied them to the ideology of Mussolini or Hitler than attendance at the Yalta and Teheran conferences made Hitler or Roosevelt Stalinists.0 -
cameramonkey wrote: »You should read up a bit on the history of the early Free State, it was Collins's side that were fawning and taking their orders from Rome. Cosgrave was much more in the bishops pocket than Dev.
The majority of the population, high up and low down, pandered to the RCC. You would stick out like a sore thumb in Irish society if you didn't.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Or in other words, state control of industry, similar to the Bolsheviks?
Two can play at this "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" argument.
It all depends on what you mean by fascism. Is there an unambiguous definition of the term? If you take German Nazism and Italian Fascism together, and they have similarities as well as significant differences, they were both ultranationalistic, authoritarian, believed in the power of radical experimentation, were utterly indifferent, if not downright hostile, to established religion, demanded absolute submission to "the state" by all citizens, in return for which the provided generous welfare for their own "people" (to hell with anyone who WASN'T "one of us") and were extremely enthusiastic about the development of science and technology.
The Nazis were also vehemently racist, and from a "scientific" or pseudo scientific point of view. Mussolini didn't give a hoot about hostility to Jews. Many Jews were members of his party and quite a few Jewish women shared his bed. Italian Fascism was nowhere near as "scientifically racist" as Nazism and Italy only brought in its anti-Jewish laws in 1938, at German insistence, and were most lax about carrying them out.
Franco and the Blueshirts were different in that their ideology was indeed ultranationalistic and authoritarian but it derived its appeal from passionate religious conservatism, had little to do with racism (yeah, sure, there were a few droids like Oliver J Flanagan who imbibed too much of the AntiSemitic balderdash that was swilling round the world at the time but remember: he wasn't actually a Blueshirt! He joined Fine Gael eventually but he was first elected as a Monetary Reform candidate, and it was in that capacity he made his notorious speech about "Bees and honey, Jews and Money".)
They were most clearly defined by their attitudes to prevailing issues in Ireland, hanging on to their farms, resisting "Godless communism", such as that espoused by the Irish Labour Party!!, and protecting their members from intimidation by republicans.
Not the most admirable bunch of people we have ever produced but their gadding about at "international conferences of fascists" no more tied them to the ideology of Mussolini or Hitler than attendance at the Yalta and Teheran conferences made Hitler or Roosevelt Stalinists.
It is bizarre and disingenuous to compare Roosevelt’s attendance at the Yalta conference with O’ Duffy’s attendance at fascist conferences. O’Duffy served on the secretariat of the Fascist International.
Furthermore claiming they were not racist is simply untrue. Their “racial ideology of pure Irish despondency" was a central tenet.
The denial of the fascist roots of Fine Gael reminds me of the “What have the Romans ever done for us” Monty Python scene.
So apart from attending fascist conferences, being on the secretariat of the Fascist International, identifying as a fascist, supporting fascism, offering to fight for fascists and fighting alongside fascists what makes you think O’ Duffy was a fascist?Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis
0 -
SafeSurfer wrote: »It is bizarre and disingenuous to compare Roosevelt’s attendance at the Yalta conference with O’ Duffy’s attendance at fascist conferences. O’Duffy served on the secretariat of the Fascist International.SafeSurfer wrote: »The denial of the fascist roots of Fine Gael reminds me of the “What have the Romans ever done for us” Monty Python scene.
So apart from attending fascist conferences, being on the secretariat of the Fascist International, identifying as a fascist, supporting fascism, offering to fight for fascists and fighting alongside fascists what makes you think O’ Duffy was a fascist?
Well I was talking about the Blueshirts but since you mention Fine Gael, I feel I must point out, again, that the leader of that party during the Second World War wanted to join the war on the side of the Allies. How do you square that with being a fascist?
And I must admit,I had to look up the Fascist International and if Wikipedia's summary is correct (that's a big caveat I know) it sounds like it was a cat fight from beginning to end, internecine squabbles galore, no attendance by German Nazis or Italian Fascists (a bit of an omission, no?) and hardly any agreement on anything as a result.
That reminds ME of another scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian. The one where the People's Front of Judaea concede that "the only people we hate more than the Romans are the ****ing Judaean People's Front!"
And in that they also have a lot in common with the Socialist roots of both Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's NAZI party.0 -
Just a quick question re. Mick Collins. A grand uncle of mine, who was in prison with Collins and others in Wales after the rising, used to claim that he attended meetings while in prison, chaired by Collins, where the seeds were sown for what would later become New Ireland Assurance. Could this be true ??
He claimed that Collins was a walking encyclopaedia on all matters relating to banking, finance etc.
M.0 -
Well he was Minister for Finance in the first Dail, so it could very well be true. And he worked with money in England before the Rising, so it's probably true yeah.0
-
Advertisement
-
And as for the Dev vs Collins question, well I dislike Dev but like Collins, but would have been against the treaty, so would have fought against FS, then once Dev ascended to power I would have overthrown him in a coup.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »I know he was a fan of Connolly....
Ah - no - Collins was a run-of-the-mill right-wing free marketeer.
He was anti-trade union and repeatedly attempted to split trade unions during the War of Independence.
During the civil war Collins used repression to break strikes and end workplace soviets.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I'm sorry. That's absolute bollocks!!
For a start, you're throwing the word "Fascist" around with gay abandon without being clear on what you mean by it.
The Blueshirts had nothing to do with German Nazism or Italian Fascism, both of which were radical, anticlerical, modernist movements, bitterly hostile to church intrusion in the affairs of the state, slavishly trusting of modern science and both with deep roots in Marxism and Socialism.
Mussolini in particular was an avowed leftist prior to the first World War, an editor of Avanti, the main Italian socialist newspaper for much of the 20th century. His manifesto called for nationalisation of important industries, heavy taxes on capital, a generous welfare state etc etc How left wing can you get?
Nazism too was a movement that grew out of anti-capitalist ideology and favoured the little guy over the hierarchical land owners and big business moguls. The clue's in the name National SOCIALIST German WORKERS' Party.
The Blueshirts were conservative, catholic, nationalist, land-owning patriarchs bitterly hostile to any sort of "Social interference" in family life by the state. They were much closer to Franco, for whom many of them went to fight, than Hitler or Mussolini. You can call Franco a Fascist if you like but it's a misnomer. He was a conservative, ultrareligious, nationalist, marxism-hating, authoritarian militarist thug but none of that, per se, qualifies somebody as a Fascist.
Franco could have made things very difficult for Britain in WWII had he been of similar mind to the two regimes that were indeed his military paymasters throughout the Spanish Civil War, but he chose not to. What would have happened in North Africa if he had taken Gibraltar in 1940, when Britain was on her knees and before the Soviets or Americans entered the war? How soon would the war in North Africa have been finished? How much earlier could Hitler's campaign against the Soviet Union have started if he didn't get bogged down bailing out his Italian allies in Greece and the Balkans? So why didn't he?
And how many Jews were handed over by Franco's Spain in WWII? Er, none. Ironic perhaps when you consider Spain's hysterical anti-Jewish persecutions of the late middle ages.
Bear in mind that the leader of the newly formed Fine Gael (which included the former Blueshirts) during the war actually wanted Ireland to join in on the side of THE ALLIES!! and your allegation that the Blueshirts were in cahoots with the Nazis crumble into dust.
There WERE people in Ireland who wanted to collaborate with the Nazis in WWII and some who did. Ironically, or perhaps not, these were people who had fought AGAINST Franco (Frank Ryan, Francis Stuart et al) and were still by and large supporters of the IRA. And that organisation was keen to solicit German co-operation for its goals.
Isn't history full of ironies?
History is full of ironies - but you should actually try reading a few history books rather than bullsh*t blogs that bear no relationship to the what actually happened. Your assessment of fascism really is cloud cuckoo-land stuff - all of it because it is refuted by historical FACTS.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »History is full of ironies - but you should actually try reading a few history books rather than bullsh*t blogs that bear no relationship to the what actually happened. Your assessment of fascism really is cloud cuckoo-land stuff - all of it because it is refuted by historical FACTS.
You have no idea what constitutes my reading list so don't be presumptuous. I assure you it's a lot more than a few "bull**** blogs". (present company excluded )
My main point is that that the word "Fascist" is so loaded with innuendo that it can mean just about anything you like. Effectively, it's meaningless, if always derogatory.
It is not a glorification or even an apologia for the Blueshirts to say that they were not Fascists in the same sense that Mussolini or Hitler were. That is a simple statement of truth that even a cursory knowledge of those various movements would support.
Safe Surfer almost made that point explicit when he/she pointed out that O'Duffy, the Blueshirt leader, attended an international conference of Fascists....but apparently one that was boycotted by both the Italian Fascists AND the German Nazis!! So what the hell sort of "fascists" were they anyway?
I am no fan of O'Duffy or the Blueshirts. They were narrow, bigoted, ultracatholic, grasping traditionalists but they were NOT murderous, genocidalists or even, in the scientific form espoused by the Nazis, racists.
They were of their time and place which was early 20th century Ireland. They were conditioned by the situation here which was a post revolutionary, post-independence society struggling to come to grips with its own legacy of internecine bitterness while trying to establish itself in a world which was even crazier, owing to the aftermath of the Great War and the subsequent financial meltdown at the end of the 1920s.
Sure, they imbibed some of the rhetoric that was wafting round the world at the time masquerading as the answer to immediate problems. And they dressed up in the military uniforms, gave the straight arm salutes and probably reckoned, as many deluded people here often do, that their solutions mirrored those highly recommended by right thinking people around the world.
In that, they were similar to the extreme left wing of the IRA, which split away at the time of the Republican Congress. Except Frank Ryan, the Gilmours, Peader O'Donnell etc put their faith in international socialism.
And who were the ones who ended up collaborating with the Nazis in World War II?
Believe me, I am of an age that I knew the answer to that question long before the phenomenon of the blog, bull**** or otherwise, came into existence.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »My main point is that that the word "Fascist" is so loaded with innuendo that it can mean just about anything you like. Effectively, it's meaningless, if always derogatory.Snickers Man wrote: »It is not a glorification or even an apologia for the Blueshirts to say that they were not Fascists in the same sense that Mussolini or Hitler were. That is a simple statement of truth that even a cursory knowledge of those various movements would support.Snickers Man wrote: »I am no fan of O'Duffy or the Blueshirts. They were narrow, bigoted, ultracatholic, grasping traditionalists but they were NOT murderous, genocidalists or even, in the scientific form espoused by the Nazis, racists.
It is correct to say that O'Duffy's Blueshirts were not a carbon copy of the Nazis (although they did model a lot of of their approach on Mussolini's Blackshirts) - they would be more of a representation of Franco's fascist regime or that of Salazar (both of which were most definitely 'murderous').
The Blueshirts engaged in widespread acts of violence against the left in Ireland. My uncle who was a member of the Blueshirts was still boasting in the 1980s about cracking the heads of communists in the 1930s. There are many examples of Blueshirts using widespread violence against striking workers - e.g. during a strike by ITGWU members in Kilrush in 1932 the Blueshirts petrolled bombed the homes of striking workers, iron bars and slash-hooks were used to attack picket lines, the Blueshirts attempted to bomb the union offices during the strike and Blueshirts opened fire on a mass meeting of workers wounding two people (including Frank Ryan who was addressing the meeting).
The reason why this never extended to the murder of workers and union activists was because the Blueshirts never built a mass base which would have allowed them to extend the scale of the violence (because DeV and FF stole the populist thunder) and because elements of the left were armed (having split from the IRA) and would have fought back.Snickers Man wrote: »They were of their time and place which was early 20th century Ireland. They were conditioned by the situation here which was a post revolutionary, post-independence society struggling to come to grips with its own legacy of internecine bitterness while trying to establish itself in a world which was even crazier, owing to the aftermath of the Great War and the subsequent financial meltdown at the end of the 1920s.
No - the Blueshirts emerged in the early 1930s in response to an upsurge of strikes by workers which began with the nationwide strike by bus workers in the Omnibus Company of Ireland - a violent strike which culminated in elements of the left within the IRA bombing a bus depot in Mayo and burning all the buses (in response to the use of scabs in an attempt to break the strike) - coupled with the emergence of a radical leftward movement which split form Sinn Fein and the IRA which culminated in the establishment of the Republican Congress in 1934. The objective of the Blueshirts was to smash the left and the resurgent trade union movement.Snickers Man wrote: »Sure, they imbibed some of the rhetoric that was wafting round the world at the time masquerading as the answer to immediate problems. And they dressed up in the military uniforms, gave the straight arm salutes and probably reckoned, as many deluded people here often do, that their solutions mirrored those highly recommended by right thinking people around the world.Snickers Man wrote: »In that, they were similar to the extreme left wing of the IRA, which split away at the time of the Republican Congress. Except Frank Ryan, the Gilmours, Peader O'Donnell etc put their faith in international socialism.Snickers Man wrote: »And who were the ones who ended up collaborating with the Nazis in World War II?Snickers Man wrote: »Believe me, I am of an age that I knew the answer to that question long before the phenomenon of the blog, bull**** or otherwise, came into existence.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I am no fan of O'Duffy or the Blueshirts. They were narrow, bigoted, ultracatholic, grasping traditionalists but they were NOT murderous, genocidalists or even, in the scientific form espoused by the Nazis, racists.
I think lots of people in Fine Gael are very embarrassed by their roots in a fascism.
Your post is the result of this type of thinking. You will stand history on its head in the attempt to prove that one of the organizations that spawned Fine Gael was not fascist.
However the plain truth is that FG are bred from the bueshirts and they were a fascist grouping.
Its best to just accept it and move on.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The term 'fascism' is a catagorisation of the certain political ideology - and ideology with its roots in the late nineteenth century opposition to the growth of trade unions. It is not meaningless - ......
the Blueshirts emerged in the early 1930s in response to an upsurge of strikes by workers which began with the nationwide strike by bus workers in the Omnibus Company of Ireland .....The objective of the Blueshirts was to smash the left and the resurgent trade union movement.
The Blueshirts were a fascist organisation - their objective was the destruction of the left and the establishment of a totalitarian regime based on the ideology of fascism.
OK these two sets of statements basically say "Fascists are people who don't like trade unions very much" and the second says "The Blueshirts were fascists because they wanted to build a regime based on, er, fascism."
Equating a fascist to somebody who doesn't like trade unions is one sure fire way to broaden their appeal, especially in today's highly educated gig economy where the traditional strength of trade unions, based on unity and conformity, is hugely undermined. You might argue that there is a crying need for some form of representative body for the little guy in such a scenario but the increasingly meaningless slogans of yesteryear are not the answer. Or at least not a good answer.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »It is correct to say that O'Duffy's Blueshirts were not a carbon copy of the Nazis (although they did model a lot of of their approach on Mussolini's Blackshirts) - they would be more of a representation of Franco's fascist regime or that of Salazar (both of which were most definitely 'murderous').
Aside: Here's a plot for an alternative history novel. In late 1940, Franco signs a co-operation pact with Hitler. He immediately captures Gibraltar with his large army still in place from the Civil War which only ended a year before.
Britain, without allies at that point, is powerless to prevent him. The British supply route to Egypt is cut off. Only Commonwealth forces can reinforce the embattled British Army in Egypt. The war in the desert ends a year or two earlier than it did with an Axis victory.
German involvement in North Africa is kept to a minimum (it was always an Italian campaign anyway) and the invasion of the Soviet Union can take place in the spring of 1941 rather than high summer as it did, giving the Germans ample time to take Moscow in advance of the Russian Winter.
But of course, that didn't happen.
Say thank you to Franco. Go on! Say it now!Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The Blueshirts were racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic.
What relevance did "racism" have in the first half of the 20th century in Ireland? How many people of different races were even here at the time? Racism was not a vital part of their creed, or their appeal.
As for antisemitism, by which at the risk of disappearing down a rabbit hole that is far too mazy for this discussion I am going to assume you mean Anti-Jewish: yes. They may have spouted some anti-Jewish rhetoric, partly because of the zeitgeist of the time which made such rhetoric fashionable (note I am not saying justifiable) and partly because of an ingrained Christian/Catholic suspicion of Jews on religious grounds. (which is not actually the same thing as being anti-semitic, but that's for another post)
If you want to find ugly anti-Jewish rhetoric in Ireland, now and in the past, you will find it. I dispute that it is widespread however. And, for reasons mentioned earlier, Ireland's tiny if prodigious Jewish community is generally well regarded and not subjected to persecution, aberrations like the Limerick "Pogrom" notwithstanding.
Certainly, the most visible example of flagrant anti-Jewish rhetoric is that found in the Dail record of 1943 in which Oliver J Flanagan made his infamous comments about "routing the Jews out of the country" and described them as people who "crucified our Lord 2,000 years ago and are crucifying us every day of the week".
But again, OJ was never a Blueshirt and at the time he made that speech he wasn't even a member of Fine Gael. He was in a much smaller party called Monetary Reform.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »To minimise the intent of the Blueshirts is the same as minimising the intent of the new 'remodeled' fascist parties that have emerged around Europe that that are using anti-Islamic and xenophobic rhetoric to whip up racism and violence in a number of European countries.
And you are quite right to draw comparisons between the denigration and persecution of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s and the Islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric emerging today. I think much of it is rooted in the same intellectual and emotional soil.
But here's the thing: many of the Alt Right types who come out with this sort of Islamophobic anti-immigrant stuff today (I'm thinking of people like UKIP, Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro, MArk Steyn, Milo Iannopoulos, Steve Bannon etc) would not see themselves at all as being in the same camp as 1930s Nazis. In fact many of them would see "right wing" as being traditional liberalism, based on freedom of the individual, freedom of capital, laissez faire, small government etc.
You might call that alt-right, but it ain't fascism. Or Fascism.
"Left wing" in their eyes is any significant state involvement in the operation of the economy, welfare provision by the state, curtailment of activities like smoking and drinking on health grounds, over regulation of the economy and especially the stock market.
You can call that socialism or even social democracy if you like. But the fascists did all that too.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »And this is the type of bullsh*t that you got from your 'alt-right' cyber-space keyboard warriors - a refrain that is epitomised by the claim that because the Nazis had the word 'socialist' in their name then they were 'socialist' and the same as the left.
Believe me - you are completely taken in by the bullsh*t rhetoric of the alt-right elements that frequent the ether of the internet in the modern world - a rhetoric that has zero basis in historical FACT.
We clearly interpret the facts of history differently. That's fine. But I won't have you saying I ignore or twist the facts. I don't. Comment is free but facts are sacred. And I have not knowingly made any false statements.
You disagree that the IRA, including its ultraleft former members like Frank Ryan collaborated with the Nazis in WWII.
They did!
Ryan was on a submarine on his way to Ireland with Sean Russell, head of the IRA, when the latter died en route. That's a fact. However you choose to interpret it, be my guest, is up to you. But the IRA were actively seeking German assistance and didn't care too much about the nature of the regime they were dealing with. England's difficulty and all that....0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »OK these two sets of statements basically say "Fascists are people who don't like trade unions very much" and the second says "The Blueshirts were fascists because they wanted to build a regime based on, er, fascism."
Equating a fascist to somebody who doesn't like trade unions is one sure fire way to broaden their appeal, especially in today's highly educated gig economy where the traditional strength of trade unions, based on unity and conformity, is hugely undermined. You might argue that there is a crying need for some form of representative body for the little guy in such a scenario but the increasingly meaningless slogans of yesteryear are not the answer. Or at least not a good answer.Snickers Man wrote: »I would totally agree with all that. As I already said, Franco was very much the closest continental counterpart to the "ideology", if that is not too grand a word, of the Blueshirts. But Franco did not have much in common with his German and Italian counterparts. It's no secret he and Hitler hated the sight of each other. And he had nothing to do with Hitler's war. Just as well for the British because he could have made things extremely difficult for them with minimal effort.
Aside: Here's a plot for an alternative history novel. In late 1940, Franco signs a co-operation pact with Hitler. He immediately captures Gibraltar with his large army still in place from the Civil War which only ended a year before.
Britain, without allies at that point, is powerless to prevent him. The British supply route to Egypt is cut off. Only Commonwealth forces can reinforce the embattled British Army in Egypt. The war in the desert ends a year or two earlier than it did with an Axis victory.
German involvement in North Africa is kept to a minimum (it was always an Italian campaign anyway) and the invasion of the Soviet Union can take place in the spring of 1941 rather than high summer as it did, giving the Germans ample time to take Moscow in advance of the Russian Winter.
But of course, that didn't happen.
Say thank you to Franco. Go on! Say it now!
First it has to be remembered that the Spanish fascists won the civil war directly as a result of the assistance received from Nazi Germany - without this assistance they could not have defeated the Republican forces in Spain.
Franco had a major problem in relation to the war - his fascist regime, unlike in Germany and Italy, was not build on mass support, but on military occupation and repression. Engaging in WW2 exposed the fascist regime in Spain to enormous risk. Despite this Franco's regime engaged in prolonged negotiations with the Nazis about joining the Axis war effort - including face-to-face talks between Franco and Hitler in October 1940. The negotiations failed because the Nazis refused to guarantee Franco's claims for large scale colonial concessions in North Africa and the Gulf of Guinea (colonial territories of the French) and military assistance from the Nazis in taking control and maintaining control of these territories. Payne in his book on the relationship between the two fascist dictators asserts that despite Hitler's rejection of these demands, the Spanish fascists determination to enter the war on the side of the Nazis was 'undiminished' right up until 1942 when the tide of the war had begun to turn. Even after that the Spanish fascists openly collaborated with the Nazis for the remainder of the war. Franco and the Spanish fascists felt that the very existence of their regime was dependent on a victory for the Nazis in the war (read Payne's book).Snickers Man wrote: »What relevance did "racism" have in the first half of the 20th century in Ireland? How many people of different races were even here at the time? Racism was not a vital part of their creed, or their appeal.Snickers Man wrote: »As for antisemitism, by which at the risk of disappearing down a rabbit hole that is far too mazy for this discussion I am going to assume you mean Anti-Jewish: yes. They may have spouted some anti-Jewish rhetoric, partly because of the zeitgeist of the time which made such rhetoric fashionable (note I am not saying justifiable) and partly because of an ingrained Christian/Catholic suspicion of Jews on religious grounds. (which is not actually the same thing as being anti-semitic, but that's for another post)Snickers Man wrote: »If you want to find ugly anti-Jewish rhetoric in Ireland, now and in the past, you will find it. I dispute that it is widespread however. And, for reasons mentioned earlier, Ireland's tiny if prodigious Jewish community is generally well regarded and not subjected to persecution, aberrations like the Limerick "Pogrom" notwithstanding.
Certainly, the most visible example of flagrant anti-Jewish rhetoric is that found in the Dail record of 1943 in which Oliver J Flanagan made his infamous comments about "routing the Jews out of the country" and described them as people who "crucified our Lord 2,000 years ago and are crucifying us every day of the week".
But again, OJ was never a Blueshirt and at the time he made that speech he wasn't even a member of Fine Gael. He was in a much smaller party called Monetary Reform.Snickers Man wrote: »I don't seek to "minimise" the actions of the Blueshirts; I seek to hold them to account for the things they WERE guilty of but see no reason to distort the record by pinning on them things they were NOT guilty of. And they were NOT guilty of being Fascists (note capital F) in the same sense as Mussolini or Nazis like Hitler. But that is the intention of people who throw around that slur without thinking. It's wrong. It's ahistorical. It doesn't help anyone.Snickers Man wrote: »And you are quite right to draw comparisons between the denigration and persecution of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s and the Islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric emerging today. I think much of it is rooted in the same intellectual and emotional soil.Snickers Man wrote: »But here's the thing: many of the Alt Right types who come out with this sort of Islamophobic anti-immigrant stuff today (I'm thinking of people like UKIP, Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro, MArk Steyn, Milo Iannopoulos, Steve Bannon etc) would not see themselves at all as being in the same camp as 1930s Nazis. In fact many of them would see "right wing" as being traditional liberalism, based on freedom of the individual, freedom of capital, laissez faire, small government etc.
You might call that alt-right, but it ain't fascism. Or Fascism.Snickers Man wrote: »"Left wing" in their eyes is any significant state involvement in the operation of the economy, welfare provision by the state, curtailment of activities like smoking and drinking on health grounds, over regulation of the economy and especially the stock market.
You can call that socialism or even social democracy if you like. But the fascists did all that too.
On the substantive point - socialism is not about implementing welfare reforms - socialism is about altering the nature of control of the means of production (ownership of property) from a small minority to the mass of the population - fascism is the bulwark against such an objective. all governments from right-wing to liberal to social democracy implement welfare reforms and regulations when they have to - it doesn't make them socialist in any way, shape or form.Snickers Man wrote: »We clearly interpret the facts of history differently. That's fine. But I won't have you saying I ignore or twist the facts. I don't. Comment is free but facts are sacred. And I have not knowingly made any false statements.
As I said earlier - you really do need to expand your pool of historical material that you read.Snickers Man wrote: »You disagree that the IRA, including its ultraleft former members like Frank Ryan collaborated with the Nazis in WWII.
They did!
Furthermore, Frank Ryan was not 'ultra-left' - he was a republican socialist and the republican part was predominant.Snickers Man wrote: »Ryan was on a submarine on his way to Ireland with Sean Russell, head of the IRA, when the latter died en route. That's a fact. However you choose to interpret it, be my guest, is up to you. But the IRA were actively seeking German assistance and didn't care too much about the nature of the regime they were dealing with. England's difficulty and all that....
The Nazis initially brought him to Germany in an attempt to recruit Irish POWs to join a Nazi brigade - Ryan refused. Remember Ryan had suffered a severe mental breakdown in Spain - he continued to suffer from severe mental health issues. We do not know why Ryan was on the sub - it could well have been, from his perspective, an opportunity to get home. The reason purported for the 'mission' was to initiate a bombing campaign against the brits - but Ryan was already an advocate of Irish neutrality. Ryan suffered another mental breakdown on the submarine when Russell died screaming in agony in his arms and when he partially recovered on his return to Germany, as I said earlier, he acted as a liaison between DeV and the Nazis.
Now - if you want to reply to this I suggest that you attempt to use sources to back up your assertions - so far all you have done is spout your 'interpretation of the FACTS' without anything to back them up.0 -
cameramonkey wrote: »I think lots of people in Fine Gael are very embarrassed by their roots in a fascism.
Nor, if we're honest, do they need to be. One of the most positive, if underrated, things Fine Gael has done for Ireland was to "capture" what had all the appearances of a nascent Fascist movement, sideline it and consign it to irrelevance in remarkably short order.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »- the primary objective of fascist organisations is to physically smash the organisations of the working class - the trade union and left political parties. That has been the objective since the emergence of fascism in the late nineteenth century
Well there's a whopper right there! The 19th century? "Fascism" did not exist as a name until Mussolini coined it during the First World War. In the second decade of the 20th century.
Mussolini the avowed socialist, remember.
Do you need a reference to support that FACT?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that Mussolini was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was editor of Avanti, the leading Socialist newspaper?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was named by his socialist father after three socialists and revolutionaries whom he, the father admired, including Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez? Benito being the Spanish, not Italian-Benedetto-version of Benedict?
What you are doing, and I suspect what many academics before you have done, is group together some points of similarity between Mussolini and other authoritarian, tyrannical, unpleasant regimes and/or ideologies and retrospectively and arbitrarily label them with the pejorative "fascist".
That's fair enough up to a point. It's useful to draw comparisons between unpleasant regimes or ideologies and identify what traits make them so.
But the same exercise, if you are honest, must also draw comparisons between fascism and other revolutionary ideologies. Such as the radical socialists who were prominent throughout Europe, especially in the first half of the 20th century.
What were the points of similarity? A worship of centralised state power; a detestation of "unproductive" capital i.e. the prevailing financial system; the relegation of individual rights as inferior to the group to which loyalty was demanded, the group being the Aryan "race" in the case of Nazism, the Italian nation in the case of Fascism and the "proletariat" in the case of socialism; a radical and experimental approach to solving perceived political problems, not necessarily harmful in itself but when allied to the diminution of individual rights and the freedom to dissent, this tended, and tends, to result in tyranny.
Looked at from that perspective, it is no surprise that socialists and fascists largely appealed to the same constituency, the disgruntled working class, and offered solutions that were in many cases very similar. The leap from socialism to Fascism (Italian version) was not very large in many cases.
To support that last statement I offer the FACT that at least two of the people murdered by Communist partisans and strung up by their heels in a square in Milan in 1945 were themselves former socialists or Communists: Mussolini himself and Nicola Bombacci. (And you don't have to go to an "alt-right" blog to verify that FACT either)
The gap between their own ideologies and any version of socialism would have been much larger for some other so-called fascists including Messrs O'Duffy and Franco. Is it fair, or even historically useful, to lump them all together in one common ideology?Jolly Red Giant wrote: »First it has to be remembered that the Spanish fascists won the civil war directly as a result of the assistance received from Nazi Germany - without this assistance they could not have defeated the Republican forces in Spain.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Franco had a major problem in relation to the war - his fascist regime, unlike in Germany and Italy, was not build on mass support, but on military occupation and repression. Engaging in WW2 exposed the fascist regime in Spain to enormous risk.
I would have thought (and this is just me speculating ) that a swift takeover of Gibraltar from the British would have been a potentially unifying stunt for a fractured Spain licking its Civil War wounds in 1940. Who in Spain would not have liked that? It could have done for Franco what the Falklands did for Maggie Thatcher 40 years later.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Despite this Franco's regime engaged in prolonged negotiations with the Nazis about joining the Axis war effort - including face-to-face talks between Franco and Hitler in October 1940.
Didn't Hitler make some comment after Hendaye about preferring to have his teeth removed without anaesthetic than ever have to talk to Franco again? And I believe the feeling was mutual.
Look. Facts are facts. Yes. Franco encouraged his Spanish supporters to join an expeditionary force to fight the Soviets during Operation Barbarossa but he was punctilious about avoiding conflict with the Western Allies. And do you think the British and Americans were all that upset that there was so much hostility towards the Soviets?
And again, Franco's regime was perhaps surprisingly hospitable to Jews. Far more than, say, the French or even our own little catholic state. We would only take in Jews who had converted to Christianity (not that such a change of heart would have saved them from the gas chambers); the so-called fascist Spaniards provided a haven to thousands.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
all governments from right-wing to liberal to social democracy implement welfare reforms and regulations when they have to - it doesn't make them socialist in any way, shape or form.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »There is a difference in terms of being a historian in interpreting evidence and stating facts - you cannot interpret facts.
Wouldn't you agree?0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Well there's a whopper right there! The 19th century? "Fascism" did not exist as a name until Mussolini coined it during the First World War. In the second decade of the 20th century.
Mussolini the avowed socialist, remember.
Do you need a reference to support that FACT?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that Mussolini was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was editor of Avanti, the leading Socialist newspaper?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was named by his socialist father after three socialists and revolutionaries whom he, the father admired, including Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez? Benito being the Spanish, not Italian-Benedetto-version of Benedict?
What you are doing, and I suspect what many academics before you have done, is group together some points of similarity between Mussolini and other authoritarian, tyrannical, unpleasant regimes and/or ideologies and retrospectively and arbitrarily label them with the pejorative "fascist".
That's fair enough up to a point. It's useful to draw comparisons between unpleasant regimes or ideologies and identify what traits make them so.
But the same exercise, if you are honest, must also draw comparisons between fascism and other revolutionary ideologies. Such as the radical socialists who were prominent throughout Europe, especially in the first half of the 20th century.
What were the points of similarity? A worship of centralised state power; a detestation of "unproductive" capital i.e. the prevailing financial system; the relegation of individual rights as inferior to the group to which loyalty was demanded, the group being the Aryan "race" in the case of Nazism, the Italian nation in the case of Fascism and the "proletariat" in the case of socialism; a radical and experimental approach to solving perceived political problems, not necessarily harmful in itself but when allied to the diminution of individual rights and the freedom to dissent, this tended, and tends, to result in tyranny.
Looked at from that perspective, it is no surprise that socialists and fascists largely appealed to the same constituency, the disgruntled working class, and offered solutions that were in many cases very similar. The leap from socialism to Fascism (Italian version) was not very large in many cases.
To support that last statement I offer the FACT that at least two of the people murdered by Communist partisans and strung up by their heels in a square in Milan in 1945 were themselves former socialists or Communists: Mussolini himself and Nicola Bombacci. (And you don't have to go to an "alt-right" blog to verify that FACT either)
The gap between their own ideologies and any version of socialism would have been much larger for some other so-called fascists including Messrs O'Duffy and Franco. Is it fair, or even historically useful, to lump them all together in one common ideology?
Not disputed, but common interest does not imply common ideology. The Americans provided the Soviets with a lot of material support during WWII. Was Roosevelt a Stalinist? L'ennemi de mon ennemi est mon ami
I would have thought (and this is just me speculating ) that a swift takeover of Gibraltar from the British would have been a potentially unifying stunt for a fractured Spain licking its Civil War wounds in 1940. Who in Spain would not have liked that? It could have done for Franco what the Falklands did for Maggie Thatcher 40 years later.
Didn't Hitler make some comment after Hendaye about preferring to have his teeth removed without anaesthetic than ever have to talk to Franco again? And I believe the feeling was mutual.
Look. Facts are facts. Yes. Franco encouraged his Spanish supporters to join an expeditionary force to fight the Soviets during Operation Barbarossa but he was punctilious about avoiding conflict with the Western Allies. And do you think the British and Americans were all that upset that there was so much hostility towards the Soviets?
And again, Franco's regime was perhaps surprisingly hospitable to Jews. Far more than, say, the French or even our own little catholic state. We would only take in Jews who had converted to Christianity (not that such a change of heart would have saved them from the gas chambers); the so-called fascist Spaniards provided a haven to thousands.
Good thing too. That's not a fact; that's straight opinion.
You can, and must, interpret your own version of the truth with reference to available facts. And it's perfectly fair for others to counter your interpretation with their own perspectives.
Wouldn't you agree?
If the Nazi party had only lasted 18 months and Herr Hitler had died an obscure alcoholic there would probably be someone on a German forum now, twisting themselves in knots arguing why they should not be defined as fascist.Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis
0 -
Advertisement
-
cameramonkey wrote: »I think lots of people in Fine Gael are very embarrassed by their roots in a fascism.
Nobody with a brain likes "fascism" or even "a fascism" of any kind. But it's important to know what words mean. Especially loaded terms like that.
It's important to know who the Blueshirts were, what they stood for, what and whom they stood against and what were the factors that brought them into being and sustained them. That's not to eulogise them or to praise the rhetoric they chose to parrot. It's just to put things into perspective.
Nobody eulogises the Blueshirts today, nor do I want to begin to. But their enemies were often no better. As Jolly Red Giant posted:Jolly Red Giant wrote:The roots of fascism in Ireland date back to 1920 when the quasi-fascist 'Farmers Freedom Force' was established to use violence to suppress strikes by farm-labourers during the War of Independence. In his role as head of the police following the foundation of the Free State O'Duffy organised and oversaw the use a fascist corps within the police used to brutally suppress strikes in the early years of the new state.
Perhaps he's referring to this account of the situation in the book War and an Irish Town, written in 1973 by the Trotskyist Eamon McCann.
"Peasants in some areas, assuming that since the revolution happened they might properly make some revolutionary changes in their own lives, had taken over large estates. Mr Cosgrave explained to them that this was a misinterpretation of the situation and sent the army to clear them off the land.
Workers who took over creameries and created "soviets" were similarly disillusioned"
So people who, in a volatile and almost anarchic situation took steps to protect their property when some others thought it was justified to dispossess them and throw them off their land were "fascists"?
Or just "Blueshirts"?
I invite you to say so if that's what you believe. The record of "estates" or even factories and creameries commandeered by revolutionaries is not great!
There was a messianic and murderous militia in Ireland in the early 20th century. The Irish Citizen Army, described by Mr McCann in the above book as "the first Red Army in Europe" which during the 1916 Rising engaged in the most ruthless and murderous activity, frequently gunning down in cold blood unarmed members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police as Countess Markievicz did in St Stephen's Green and the ICA also did at Dublin Castle in one of the first acts of the rising.
Hardly surprising. Like any communist militia anywhere in Europe they felt they were entirely justified in liquidating "agents of the imperialist capitalist bourgeoisie," whether they were armed or not. (They wouldn't have called them fascists in 1916; wouldn't have known the word)
Far from "taking on the might of the British Empire" these actions were brutal, ruthless revolutionary acts against Irish civilians that would cause outrage were they tried today.
But history has been kind to the Irish Citizen Army. Their former members have football stadiums and bridges named after them.
Any chance there will be a new bridge over the Liffey named after a Blueshirt? Seriously.0 -
SafeSurfer wrote: »If the Nazi party had only lasted 18 months and Herr Hitler had died an obscure alcoholic there would probably be someone on a German forum now, twisting themselves in knots arguing why they should not be defined as fascist.
If the Nazi party had only lasted 18 months and Herr Hitler had died an obscure alcoholic, I don't think anyone on a forum anywhere in the world right now would give a hoot about some long-dead German/Austrian nutcase who had never amounted to much.
Would you?0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Well there's a whopper right there! The 19th century? "Fascism" did not exist as a name until Mussolini coined it during the First World War. In the second decade of the 20th century.
Mussolini the avowed socialist, remember.
Do you need a reference to support that FACT?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that Mussolini was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was editor of Avanti, the leading Socialist newspaper?
Do you need a reference to support the FACT that he was named by his socialist father after three socialists and revolutionaries whom he, the father admired, including Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez? Benito being the Spanish, not Italian-Benedetto-version of Benedict?Snickers Man wrote: »What you are doing, and I suspect what many academics before you have done, is group together some points of similarity between Mussolini and other authoritarian, tyrannical, unpleasant regimes and/or ideologies and retrospectively and arbitrarily label them with the pejorative "fascist".
That's fair enough up to a point. It's useful to draw comparisons between unpleasant regimes or ideologies and identify what traits make them so.
But the same exercise, if you are honest, must also draw comparisons between fascism and other revolutionary ideologies. Such as the radical socialists who were prominent throughout Europe, especially in the first half of the 20th century.
What were the points of similarity? A worship of centralised state power; a detestation of "unproductive" capital i.e. the prevailing financial system; the relegation of individual rights as inferior to the group to which loyalty was demanded, the group being the Aryan "race" in the case of Nazism, the Italian nation in the case of Fascism and the "proletariat" in the case of socialism; a radical and experimental approach to solving perceived political problems, not necessarily harmful in itself but when allied to the diminution of individual rights and the freedom to dissent, this tended, and tends, to result in tyranny.
Looked at from that perspective, it is no surprise that socialists and fascists largely appealed to the same constituency, the disgruntled working class, and offered solutions that were in many cases very similar. The leap from socialism to Fascism (Italian version) was not very large in many cases.
To support that last statement I offer the FACT that at least two of the people murdered by Communist partisans and strung up by their heels in a square in Milan in 1945 were themselves former socialists or Communists: Mussolini himself and Nicola Bombacci. (And you don't have to go to an "alt-right" blog to verify that FACT either)Snickers Man wrote: »The gap between their own ideologies and any version of socialism would have been much larger for some other so-called fascists including Messrs O'Duffy and Franco. Is it fair, or even historically useful, to lump them all together in one common ideology?Snickers Man wrote: »Not disputed, but common interest does not imply common ideology. The Americans provided the Soviets with a lot of material support during WWII. Was Roosevelt a Stalinist? L'ennemi de mon ennemi est mon amiSnickers Man wrote: »I would have thought (and this is just me speculating ) that a swift takeover of Gibraltar from the British would have been a potentially unifying stunt for a fractured Spain licking its Civil War wounds in 1940. Who in Spain would not have liked that? It could have done for Franco what the Falklands did for Maggie Thatcher 40 years later.Snickers Man wrote: »Didn't Hitler make some comment after Hendaye about preferring to have his teeth removed without anaesthetic than ever have to talk to Franco again? And I believe the feeling was mutual.Snickers Man wrote: »Look. Facts are facts.Snickers Man wrote: »Yes. Franco encouraged his Spanish supporters to join an expeditionary force to fight the Soviets during Operation Barbarossa but he was punctilious about avoiding conflict with the Western Allies. And do you think the British and Americans were all that upset that there was so much hostility towards the Soviets?
And again, Franco's regime was perhaps surprisingly hospitable to Jews. Far more than, say, the French or even our own little catholic state. We would only take in Jews who had converted to Christianity (not that such a change of heart would have saved them from the gas chambers); the so-called fascist Spaniards provided a haven to thousands.Snickers Man wrote: »Good thing too. That's not a fact; that's straight opinion.Snickers Man wrote: »You can, and must, interpret your own version of the truth with reference to available facts. And it's perfectly fair for others to counter your interpretation with their own perspectives.
Wouldn't you agree?
Now - you have come out with some 'opinion' again in you post - and once again you failed to supply any reference for your opinion. Try again.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »It's important to know who the Blueshirts were, what they stood for, what and whom they stood against and what were the factors that brought them into being and sustained them.Snickers Man wrote: »Perhaps he's referring to this account of the situation in the book War and an Irish Town, written in 1973 by the Trotskyist Eamon McCann.
"Peasants in some areas, assuming that since the revolution happened they might properly make some revolutionary changes in their own lives, had taken over large estates. Mr Cosgrave explained to them that this was a misinterpretation of the situation and sent the army to clear them off the land.
Workers who took over creameries and created "soviets" were similarly disillusioned"The Irish Farmers Union advocated the establishment of a body, the Farmers Freedom Force (FFF), intended to provide a ‘permanent organised body in each branch…capable of meeting force by force…in the interests of the country and of the farmer’. In response to agricultural labour strikes the ‘F.F.F. should take action as may be required’. The farmers’ organisations made clear their priority in political terms, ‘the F.F.F. is required as a national bulwark against Labour, Socialism and Bolshevism, irrespective of whatever political developments may take place in the country’.
The number one objective of the Farmers Union was the destruction of the left and the ITGWU - irrespective of whether it meant the abandonment of the independence struggleSnickers Man wrote: »So people who, in a volatile and almost anarchic situation took steps to protect their property when some others thought it was justified to dispossess them and throw them off their land were "fascists"?
Or just "Blueshirts"?
The FFF was established to break a wave of strikes by farm labourers that erupted throughout the southern half of the country during the summer of 1920 - the cattle drives and occupation of landed estates were a small part of this - and were of little concern to the Farmers Union (they were a significantly bigger concern to the leadership of SF/IRA because they were pulling the nationalist movement asunder along class lines - and that is SF of the period talking, not me).Snickers Man wrote: »I invite you to say so if that's what you believe. The record of "estates" or even factories and creameries commandeered by revolutionaries is not great!Snickers Man wrote: »There was a messianic and murderous militia in Ireland in the early 20th century. The Irish Citizen Army, described by Mr McCann in the above book as "the first Red Army in Europe" which during the 1916 Rising engaged in the most ruthless and murderous activity, frequently gunning down in cold blood unarmed members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police as Countess Markievicz did in St Stephen's Green and the ICA also did at Dublin Castle in one of the first acts of the rising.Snickers Man wrote: »Hardly surprising. Like any communist militia anywhere in Europe they felt they were entirely justified in liquidating "agents of the imperialist capitalist bourgeoisie," whether they were armed or not. (They wouldn't have called them fascists in 1916; wouldn't have known the word)
Far from "taking on the might of the British Empire" these actions were brutal, ruthless revolutionary acts against Irish civilians that would cause outrage were they tried today.
But history has been kind to the Irish Citizen Army. Their former members have football stadiums and bridges named after them.
Any chance there will be a new bridge over the Liffey named after a Blueshirt? Seriously.
At this stage -
0 -
Collins. No brainer.
I think that is a touch of the John Lennon/JFK/James Dean syndrome about it.
Because we never got to see Collins age, or what his policies would have changed into.
It is far easier to see it as Collins the vibrant young energetic progressive v fuddy duddy strange Dev who ignited a Civil War.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »It is far easier to see it as Collins the vibrant young energetic progressive v fuddy duddy strange Dev who ignited a Civil War.
vibrant, young, energetic - yes - 'progressive' is pushing it a bit.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »vibrant, young, energetic - yes - 'progressive' is pushing it a bit.
Progressive for the time that was in it, I should have said?
Edit: In fairness to De Valera he did prove in was progressive for period in the production of the Irish consitition later on so I suppose they cancel each other out on that one.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Progressive for the time that was in it, I should have said?gormdubhgorm wrote: »Edit: In fairness to De Valera he did prove in was progressive for period in the production of the Irish consitition later on so I suppose they cancel each other out on that one.0
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »None of which you have addressed with supporting evidence - all you have done is claim that the Blueshirts weren't fascists.
And do you need a reference to support the FACT that Mussolini turned his back on socialism and became a fascist dictator that butchered the left in Italy after he came to power?
Like I said - you need to read a few history books
A couple of days ago you were claiming that FACTS could be interpreted.
Whew, you do like to misquote me, don't you.
I said that the Blueshirts weren't Fascists in the same sense that Mussolini and Hitler were. I readily conceded they were cut from very much the same cloth as the conservative, authoritarian, traditionalist Franco.
And I have never expressed any admiration for them. I don't have any.
As for "interpreting facts", with which you seem to have such difficulty: what I said was that "you and I interpret the facts of history differently" by which I mean we look at the same historical events, can agree that they actually happened but differ in our interpretations of how they came to happen, what the motivating factors were and which were causes and which effects. You prefer the term "evidence"; I call it "facts". I think we're splitting hairs, here.
As for Mussolini: I'm not going to ask you to quote volume, page and line number your evidence that he "butchered the left" in Italy after he came to power. I accept that he was an authoritarian thug with little time for such niceties as individual human rights or tolerance of dissent. My main point regarding him is that his jump from what he termed socialism into what he called (and he did coin the term) Fascism, was not that broad. They had great similarities. As well as some differences, of course.
I believe that lumping all those together (Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, O'Duffy, Salazar and any others you care to mention) and holding up as their polar opposites the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and even James Connolly, Frank Ryan and Rosie bloody Hackett (You had probably heard of her before they decided to name a bridge after her, it will not surprise you that I had not ) is an ov over simplification and a distortion.
You exhortation to "read more history books" is transparently an invitation to "Read more history books that come to the conclusions that I, Jolly Red Bloke, prefer". I have read various historical accounts of various events by many left wing authors and, have formed the conclusion that as good dialectical materialists, they are miserably one-dimensional. They look at everything in terms of material well being.
Class politics.
The power of money as the only fundamental mover in people's lives.
That's all very well as far as it goes but their simplistic analysis falls down when factors that they didn't consider become enmeshed in the story. Even your definition of fascism which I infer to be anything that is hostile to the working class in general and to trade union activity in particular follows this line. It's not true. There are many other motivating forces concerning issues of identity, and strategic manoeuvring by outside interested forces that are separate from the mere pursuit of the dollar and which have to be considered when analysing any conflict situation.
Calling any and all of your thuggish enemies fascists just dilutes any meaning of the term.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Whew, you do like to misquote me, don't you.
I said that the Blueshirts weren't Fascists in the same sense that Mussolini and Hitler were. I readily conceded they were cut from very much the same cloth as the conservative, authoritarian, traditionalist Franco.
And I have never expressed any admiration for them. I don't have any.Snickers Man wrote: »As for "interpreting facts", with which you seem to have such difficulty: what I said was that "you and I interpret the facts of history differently" by which I mean we look at the same historical events, can agree that they actually happened but differ in our interpretations of how they came to happen, what the motivating factors were and which were causes and which effects. You prefer the term "evidence"; I call it "facts". I think we're splitting hairs, here.
I conduct historical research every day of the week - I have been for years (and may I add I am not an academic historian) - I interpret that evidence and outlined that interpretation. I constantly adjust and alter my interpretation because of new evidence that comes to light from the research I conduct or from evidence provided by other historians.
We (you and me) do not "interpret the facts of history differently" - we interpret evidence differently - you cannot interpret who did what, when and where - because these are facts. You can find evidence as to how and why someone or some group did something and interpret that evidence to formulate a thesis based on the evidence of the how and the why and the facts of the who, what, when and where.
I have interpreted evidence on this thread and outlined my thesis, backed up by references - you have not provided a single shred of evidence for any claim that you have made.Snickers Man wrote: »As for Mussolini: I'm not going to ask you to quote volume, page and line number your evidence that he "butchered the left" in Italy after he came to power. I accept that he was an authoritarian thug with little time for such niceties as individual human rights or tolerance of dissent. My main point regarding him is that his jump from what he termed socialism into what he called (and he did coin the term) Fascism, was not that broad. They had great similarities. As well as some differences, of course.
However, what you are doing is making a bald statement - one that bears not relationship to historiography - and one that is absolutely lacking any evidence (because you have not produced any).Snickers Man wrote: »I believe that lumping all those together (Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, O'Duffy, Salazar and any others you care to mention) and holding up as their polar opposites the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and even James Connolly, Frank Ryan and Rosie bloody Hackett (You had probably heard of her before they decided to name a bridge after her, it will not surprise you that I had not ) is an ov over simplification and a distortion.
Exactly the same applies to the others you mention.Snickers Man wrote: »You exhortation to "read more history books" is transparently an invitation to "Read more history books that come to the conclusions that I, Jolly Red Bloke, prefer".
The power of money as the only fundamental mover in people's lives.Snickers Man wrote: »I have read various historical accounts of various events by many left wing authors and, have formed the conclusion that as good dialectical materialists, they are miserably one-dimensional. They look at everything in terms of material well being.
Class politics.Snickers Man wrote: »That's all very well as far as it goes but their simplistic analysis falls down when factors that they didn't consider become enmeshed in the story. Even your definition of fascism which I infer to be anything that is hostile to the working class in general and to trade union activity in particular follows this line. It's not true. There are many other motivating forces concerning issues of identity, and strategic manoeuvring by outside interested forces that are separate from the mere pursuit of the dollar and which have to be considered when analysing any conflict situation.
I never claimed that fascism wasn't influenced by a wide variety of political, social and economic circumstances - I stated that, at its core, the objective of fascism is the destruction of the organisations of the working class and the evidence for this is that every fascist dictator that came to power in the 1930s set that out as the number one objective of their regime.Snickers Man wrote: »Calling any and all of your thuggish enemies fascists just dilutes any meaning of the term.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Even for 1937 DeV's constitution was far from progressive - there was a major campaign by women against the constitution when it was put to referendum. Over 525,000 people voted against it (mainly women) - 685,000 in favour.
What is your source for the assertion that the "No" voters were mainly women?
DeValera was the most divisive character in independent Ireland, people generally either loved him or hated him. Those who rejected Dev's constitution were those who distrusted him, of both genders.
While there may have been some gender imbalance, it was surely minor in comparison to the political divide.0 -
And here we are again TODAY. Somebody in Sinn Fein calling Fine Gael a Nazi party rebrand.
Oh the irony!0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »And here we are again TODAY. Somebody in Sinn Fein calling Fine Gael a Nazi party rebrand.
Oh the irony!
Just the SF Jungend wing making one of those 'memes' that all the bright young things do now, in between college lectures or getting the shift no doubt.
I'd take no notice of it. File under 'so what'.0 -
Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.0
-
This will always favour Collins, primarily because Dev's judgement includes his subsequent influence on the development of Catholic Ireland.0
-
judestynes wrote: »Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.
He lived too long!0 -
Foster Uptight Someone wrote: »He lived too long!0
-
judestynes wrote: »Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.
Just search for De Valera in google maps. There are loads of places named after him. Number of roads or buildings named after you hardly reflects ones lifetime achievements. There aren’t many Winston Churchill Avenues in the UKMulto autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis
0 -
SafeSurfer wrote: »There aren’t many Winston Churchill Avenues in the UK
But there was a Churchill tank.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
judestynes wrote: »Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.
DeValera public park Ennis
DeValera Park Limerick
DeValera Park Sligo
DeValera Park Drumconrath
DeValera Place Dublin 2
DeValera Street Youghal
There is also quite a few places called after DeV in other countries.0 -
Bonaparte is not common either in France compared to other statesmen/military. There is just one in Paris, the rue Bonaparte, and none of the quais or bridges are named for him, although several were built on his instructions. There is a Napoleon Bonaparte Bridge in Florida.0
-
Collins.0
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »DeValera public park Ennis
DeValera Park Limerick
DeValera Park Sligo
DeValera Park Drumconrath
DeValera Place Dublin 2
DeValera Street Youghal
There is also quite a few places called after DeV in other countries.
Thanks.0 -
judestynes wrote: »Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.
Fianna Fail headquarters in Mount St (if it's still there) was called Aras de Valera.
Maybe that doesn't count0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Fianna Fail headquarters in Mount St (if it's still there) was called Aras de Valera.
They named the old building "Aras de Valera" some time after de Valera died, and they transferred the name to the new building when they moved.
De Valera's childhood home outside Bruree, later a museum, was occasionally referred to as "Aras de Valera", but I think now it has been combined with his former national school as the "De Valera Museum and Bruree Heritage Centre".0 -
judestynes wrote: »Has anyone else noticed Dev is the only personality from that period of our history with nothing named after him. Not a road a street a park not even a park bench. If anyone is aware of anything named for him I'd be interested in knowing of it. I just think it's fascinating in our culture we love to honour significant people in such a way and Dev is conspicuously missing.
Building developers have parks and roads named after them now... That's depressing.
I believe Dev has some backwater places named after him, and an area almost mirror distance over the Liffey from Boland Mills on the Northside. Probably a few more where (new) landowners were looked after.
Edited.
I just saw the posts on this page.0 -
-
Peregrinus wrote: »What do you mean, "now"? Are you under the impression that this is a recent phenomenon? This has been the norm pretty much since organised building development started.
Yes, was under that impression right until I saw your post 3 seconds ago.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »They set up in 13 Upper Mount St pretty early on, but they sold that building in 2001 and moved to a (rented) modern building in 65/66 Lower Mount St, which they still occupy.
They named the old building "Aras de Valera" some time after de Valera died, and they transferred the name to the new building when they moved.
De Valera's childhood home outside Bruree, later a museum, was occasionally referred to as "Aras de Valera", but I think now it has been combined with his former national school as the "De Valera Museum and Bruree Heritage Centre".
I used to walk down Upper Mount St every morning back in the 1980s and was amused that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael party headquarters were each just across the road from each other. Within spitting distance, you might say.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement