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
Dunkirk
Comments
-
Well, as this is a history forum, perhaps you would care to give us a source for the 'articles' to which you refer?whisky_galore wrote: »Eh, no they didn't. No need to be smart.0 -
Either way, I take it that there was some purpose behind that, given the talk he always did by "England isn´t our natural enemy". That was his stance all along and I wouldn´t exclude that this has led him to stop the advance and giving the BEF the time to evacuate. Well, he was more confident that he´ll break the Brits by the Blitz that followed a couple of months later. Didn´t pay off for thim though.
Doesn't really fit with the air campaign. Destroying the docks and shipping. Why else were small ships needed. Or indeed anything else he did. Also Would have made more sense to capture the BEF then negotiate.
I think people like the story, more than considering it makes no sense.
The French screwed it up in the first place and weren´t prepared good enough for the advance of the Germans. There are many things in WWII which happened and didn´t make sense.0 -
I have not yet seen the film - but my guess is that it will be as accurate historically as ‘Braveheart’ or the one where the US navy captured the Enigma machine from the UBoat.With the best will in the world, a fair wind and following sea and all going well in the engine room, a Dunkirk-style 'small ship' might just be making 10kn. However, the prevailing wind in the English Channel does not favour smaller boats heading Easterly, nor do the many currents that abound in such a nautical bottleneck help in straight-line navigation of any kind.
With a sailing distance of between 230 and 260 miles, depending on many other factors, this may have taken up to 36 hours of non-stop sailing to achieve.
This is from my next-door neighbour, who is a yottie with an auxiliary yacht based in Kingsbridge, Devonshire.
tac
Small boats in the ‘30s generally had displacement hulls – they had to push the water out of the way when going forward. This creates a bow-wave in front and a stern-wave (drag) at the back, creating a hollow in the middle into which the boat ‘sinks’. As a result the maximum theoretical speed a displacement hull can attain is roughly 1.2 x √LWL (length water line). Thus a 30ft motorboat with a LWL of 25ft could motor at 6 knots, so a distance of c250miles would take about 40 hours. That is the time of a bit more than six tides, (3 ebbing, 3 flowing) and as they flow in /out the Channel they more or less cancel out. At this time of the year the wind generally is south-westerly in the Channel, so it would be a help if coming from any port on the Western Approach, and a hindrance on the return voyage.
Pedro,
(who will never forget his first time crossing the shipping lanes in the Channel, no Luftwaffe but lots of fast big ships with no brakes)0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.
We could play the 'who loved Nazis/Fascism more' game all day, a significant proportion of the population here loved the idea of Britain getting a bloody nose and Germany somehow 'liberating' this country, although they wouldn't have had the faintest idea what Fascism meant, apart from dressing up and marching in formation a lot.
In some Irish documentary, perhaps it was that series "Seven Ages", a former German spy was interviewed in that part that was about the 1940s. He talked about the support of German Invasion on Ireland by the IRA, curiously he admitted that he had no clue about the difference between the Irish Army and the IRA, both were one and the same to him. One would presume that those IRA people should have had an idea about what it would mean to be "liberated" by the German Nazi Forces, but from what I have noticed, they didn´t and actually, they didn´t care much about it as long as they´d help to get the Brits out of Ireland completely.
Not quite the same but I think that the attitude must be similar when the Irish Volunteers hoped and relied on the help of the German Empire helping them by promising to invade Ireland during WWI to support the Easter Rising in 1916, but the Volunteers waited in vain as this didn´t happen either. So it went in WWII, apart from some bombs over Dublin by accident for which the German govt apologised to the Irish govt officially.0 -
Deleted, double post.0
-
I'm not sure I would be so hung up on the timescale in a movie. Dramatic licence and all that.
Of course, that´s some point. If you´re going to watch that film, be prepared that the noises of diving Stukas and exploiding bombs has some impact on concentrating to the flow of the film. Sometimes I couldn´t understand what they were talking that properly. Anyway, the film gives one the notion of how they must have felt back then, to either drown, getting shot or ripped into peaces by the bombs while being exposed on a long beach like sitting ducks and being the best target for the Stukas. Three Spitfires appeared in the whole film and two got down, one survived to the end landing on the beach after running out of fuel and before shooting a couple of Stukas down. As far as I remember, it is an historical fact that Churchill saved the many of the Spitfires and held them back in GB cos he reckoned with an air assault by the Lufwaffe on GB after they lost in France.0 -
The film does suggest that the British were conserving assets for the defence of Britain, even at the cost of hampering the evacuation, and I think this is historically accurate. It makes that point mainly in relation to naval assets, but no doubt it would have been true of air assets also.
Overall, though, the film makes no attempt to explore why the British found themselves in the position they were in, why the Germans made the decisions that they did, etc, etc. The film doesn't look at the political or strategic issues at all. It simply explores some individual experiences of what it was like to be involved in this event, from the perspective of a (fictional) soldier detached from his unit and seeking to get home, a (fictional) small boat owner and a (fictional) RAF pilot. There's no exploration of the bigger picture, apart from a statement early on in the film that the British initially hoped to evacuate 30,000 men, and a statement at the end that they had in fact evacuated more than ten times that number.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The film does suggest that the British were conserving assets for the defence of Britain, even at the cost of hampering the evacuation, and I think this is historically accurate. It makes that point mainly in relation to naval assets, but no doubt it would have been true of air assets also.
Overall, though, the film makes no attempt to explore why the British found themselves in the position they were in, why the Germans made the decisions that they did, etc, etc. The film doesn't look at the political or strategic issues at all. It simply explores some individual experiences of what it was like to be involved in this event, from the perspective of a (fictional) soldier detached from his unit and seeking to get home, a (fictional) small boat owner and a (fictional) RAF pilot. There's no exploration of the bigger picture, apart from a statement early on in the film that the British initially hoped to evacuate 30,000 men, and a statement at the end that they had in fact evacuated more than ten times that number.
Wasn´t the concept for the film anyway and I´d replace "fictional" by "exemplary", cos every film made about that in the past decades was always like an excerpt of a few out of the many.
There´s a wiki article about the film which gives some good explanations regarding the script and the making of the film. It´s just a war film but judged by the effects and the story told, a good one cos it takes a bit of a different angle from which it is told. On the subject itself I have seen two different ones, the first was that with Jean-Paul Belmondo from the 1960s, and the other one was that BBC docu drama from 2004. Another older one from the 1950s I haven´t seen at all, but from what I´ve read it is based on a very similar approach to the story by selecting a few characters to tell the story from two different angles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)
It´s rather possible that the film producers were going out from the fact that the content of the whole story is well known, to many Brits anyway.0 -
Sure. I'm not suggesting that the film should have looked at the strategic, political, etc aspects. These, as you point out, are already much-discussed and quite well-known. To the extent that the film did touch on those issues, it did so through Kenneth Branagh's character. FWIW, I though Branagh gave a good performance but his character was pretty one-dimensional and a bit stereotypical - the weakest in the film.
Not looking at these issues is fine. What the film set out to do is to explore what it was like to be involved in the events. In the beach/mole scenes, I thought the transition over the course of the week from the orderly lines of soldiers waiting for embarkation to the leaderless and disorganised stragglers watching people drown themselves from despair, and then waiting for the tide to float an unseaworthy trawler, was pretty powerful.0 -
Advertisement
-
The 1950s film was always a favourite of mine. Very much of its time but also more focused on the experience of a the characters than historical overview.0
-
The French screwed it up in the first place and weren´t prepared good enough for the advance of the Germans. There are many things in WWII which happened and didn´t make sense.
Generally there is logic to them.
For example the main advantage the Germans had was tactics and radio communications. The French had heavier and a lot more tanks but their tactics and communications were terrible.
The French had prepared a lot for the Germans, and massive forts and army. But they were expecting WWI again. Not a mobile army and the Germans both came from an unexpected direction and went around the fixed defences. The French air force was also antiquated.
The fall of France isn't simple, but it very interesting how so many things played out. Even the political climate in France how that effected moral and tactics.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Sure. I'm not suggesting that the film should have looked at the strategic, political, etc aspects. These, as you point out, are already much-discussed and quite well-known. To the extent that the film did touch on those issues, it did so through Kenneth Branagh's character. FWIW, I though Branagh gave a good performance but his character was pretty one-dimensional and a bit stereotypical - the weakest in the film.
Not looking at these issues is fine. What the film set out to do is to explore what it was like to be involved in the events. In the beach/mole scenes, I thought the transition over the course of the week from the orderly lines of soldiers waiting for embarkation to the leaderless and disorganised stragglers watching people drown themselves from despair, and then waiting for the tide to float an unseaworthy trawler, was pretty powerful.
I might be a bit biased cos Branagh counts among my favourite actors and he certainly did his best in accordance to the way this role he had to fill was set out in the script.0 -
The 1950s film was always a favourite of mine. Very much of its time but also more focused on the experience of a the characters than historical overview.
War films about events during WWII from the 1950s have their merits cos the events weren´t that long ago and some memories were still "fresh". The style of telling the story was very different then in contrast to today. Just to mention another example from that period. There were two films made about the plot to kill Hitler on 20th July 1944 and both are made in the mid 1950s. This was a time when Stauffenberg and his co-plotters were still perceived as traitors and not heros in Germany and it took decades to change that perception among the German public. The into English translated titles are "The 20th July" and for the other "It happens on 20th July". When Setting those two films into contrast with "Operation Valkyrie" (with Tom Cruise playing Stauffenberg), the language used in the latter film is different to those from the 1950s and it is simple, the way to use the German language in Hitlers Military was quite appropriate depicted in the 1950s films cos the people then were still used to that sort of tone. Those films make it more authentic as that from 50 years later. But I am talking about the German versions of those old films, not knowing whether there are versions (editions) of them in English available.0 -
The French screwed it up in the first place and weren´t prepared good enough for the advance of the Germans. There are many things in WWII which happened and didn´t make sense.
Generally there is logic to them.
For example the main advantage the Germans had was tactics and radio communications. The French had heavier and a lot more tanks but their tactics and communications were terrible.
The French had prepared a lot for the Germans, and massive forts and army. But they were expecting WWI again. Not a mobile army and the Germans both came from an unexpected direction and went around the fixed defences. The French air force was also antiquated.
The fall of France isn't simple, but it very interesting how so many things played out. Even the political climate in France how that effected moral and tactics.
This was all already known and the complaints about that published by Charles De Gaulle who, like Winston Churchill, was warning about the rising threat Hitler´s Regime was posing for peace in Europe in the 1930s and stressing the government to prepare for it, but as in GB, the French govt wasn´t listening to him. De Gaulle complained about the lack of fighting spirit and morale among the French Forces in 1940. He has witnessed that himself while going to the frontlines and trying to boost morale of the French soldiers.
The fall of France was the price to pay for the appeacement policy the UK and France practiced on Hitler´s Germany in the 1930s and also for turning a blind eye on the warnings about the fast rearmament in Hitler´s Germany which were send in dispatches to the govts from their Embassies in Berlin. That all played into the hands of Hitler as another part which was his maintenance of trade with the USSR, still settled in the time of the Weimar Republic by the then democratic govts. It was a trade agreement on resourses, important ones and also for use in rearmament efforts. This was sustained until he invaded the USSR in June 1941.0 -
I'm not sure why you'd say it didn't make sense then.
Appeasement is understandable in the context of the time and conditions in France.
Why France fell so fast was the result with a myriad of factors. We have to remember only 20yrs previous air forces and tanks were new and primitive and they walked across open ground in front of machine guns.
Germany invented a lot of the tanks tactics and air combat and combined arms for ww2 that are still in use today.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure why you'd say it didn't make sense then.
Appeasement is understandable in the context of the time and conditions in France.
Why France fell so fast was the result with a myriad of factors. We have to remember only 20yrs previous air forces and tanks were new and primitive and they walked across open ground in front of machine guns.
Germany invented a lot of the tanks tactics and air combat and combined arms for ww2 that are still in use today.
De Gaulle was with his studies at the hight of the new developments of Military armour and especially on tanks that he even published a book himself about it. He was as much ignored by his chiefs like Churchill was by his government and MP colleagues in the HoC during the years 1934 to 1939. Reliable data was leaked to him in secret Meetings with personell from the UK govt departments and he used them wisely in debates in the Commons to make the People Aware of the developing threat and his arguments were always dismissed by the appeacement cabinets of Baldwin and Chamberlain. The latter did so until the last hour when he was forced to declare a state of war with Germany after the invasion of Poland by German Forces. Still believing that one can come to Terms with Hitler despite the fact that Hitler himself was rather laughing at him and Churchill was proved right all along when the inevitable took place and that was a war which might have been prevented if the victorious powers of WWI had acted in time to deter the Nazis form building up the Military strenght of Germany in breaking the Versaille Treaty. The last Chance to take hard measures was in March 1936 when German troops entered the de-militarised Rhineland and at that time, Hitler himself was shaking for fear that the French and the Brits might take measures to drive the German troops back behind the demarcation line of the Rhine. But they did nothing and let him get away with it cos it was just German territory they re-militarised. No Need to go on further as it is well know what followed afterwards. Hitler the bold, Chamberlain and his French colleague the weak and yielding. Hitler himself admitted that if the French and the Brits had intervened in March 1936 to stop his re-militarisation of the Rhineland, his further plans had been destroyed. They both let the bully have his way and others, around 55m dead have paid for that, on all sides of the conflict of WWII in Europe (also to mention the approximately 6m killed Jews during the Holocaust).
This all proves the words of Lord Nelson who said "you cannot make peace with dictators".0 -
When I was a student of military history and studying for my promotion exams, it was clear to all of us that most of the WW2 German tactics on the use of so-called lightning war was actually based on the writings on a British gentleman called Liddell-Hart.
tac0 -
When I was a student of military history and studying for my promotion exams, it was clear to all of us that most of the WW2 German tactics on the use of so-called lightning war was actually based on the writings on a British gentleman called Liddell-Hart.
tac
Never heard about that chap and his writings. I always thought that this was all Hitlers own ideas, based on his experiences during WWI and in accordance with that, he wanted to avoid any trench warfare at all costs, hence the "Blitzkrieg" tactics. Well, this all stopped at Stalingrad, didn´t it? Not much of trenches warfare there, they were that close by floor to floor in buildings. Terror bombing was also his invention, tested already during the Spanish Civil war on a "low scale" and taken to a much wider during the years of his advance. Well, he got it all back later when many many German towns and cities were a heap of ruins.
Well, I didn´t study Military history, my interests in history were always more on the political dimensions of history. So you know some details which I don´t.0 -
Seen this last night with my 2 sons , we all thought this is a great film.0
-
When I was a student of military history and studying for my promotion exams, it was clear to all of us that most of the WW2 German tactics on the use of so-called lightning war was actually based on the writings on a British gentleman called Liddell-Hart.
tac
I'm aware of Liddell-Hart. You are correct of course.
I was thinking more of how the Germans put it all into practise things like equipping all tanks with a radio, the internal crew layout of Tanks, and ergonomics etc. aircraft operating in pairs etc. Dedicated ground support aircraft. VS how the French were organised in particular how they used tanks etc.
Rather than the sweeping generalisation of lightning war. Which I think many assume means superior force and surprise attacks.
Maybe this is drifting off topic though. I'm waiting to see the movie in a decent cinema.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, when one Francophone says “Un vrai ‘British gentleman’” the others immediately understand from that one phrase what usually requires a paragraph.When I was a student of military history and studying for my promotion exams, it was clear to all of us that most of the WW2 German tactics on the use of so-called lightning war was actually based on the writings on a British gentleman called Liddell-Hart.
tac
War is the continuation of politics by other means.Never heard about that chap and his writings. I always thought that this was all Hitlers own ideas, based on his experiences during WWI and in accordance with that, he wanted to avoid any trench warfare at all costs, hence the "Blitzkrieg" tactics. Well, this all stopped at Stalingrad, didn´t it? Not much of trenches warfare there, they were that close by floor to floor in buildings. Terror bombing was also his invention, tested already during the Spanish Civil war on a "low scale" and taken to a much wider during the years of his advance. Well, he got it all back later when many many German towns and cities were a heap of ruins.
Well, I didn´t study Military history, my interests in history were always more on the political dimensions of history. So you know some details which I don´t.
As for praising de Gaulle, he (influence-wise) was a nonentity before WW2, regarded as an upstart and a PITA. He, through his manner, had no hope of gaining support for his ideas from the French military établissement.
When some people who boldly opine about military strategy admit to never hearing of poor old Basil, he must turn in his grave. Next we will hear that ‘Boney’ Fuller doesn’t get a look-in either. Curiously, like Basil, he too was the son of a clergyman, but he was British, whereas Bas was a Frog, born in Paris.
“Vers l'armée de métier” – no doubt read by Tac in the original, with copious notes taken and essays written with references to the influence of Heinz Wilhelm.;)0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »
Well, when one Francophone says “Un vrai ‘British gentleman’” the others immediately understand from that one phrase what usually requires a paragraph.When I was a student of military history and studying for my promotion exams, it was clear to all of us that most of the WW2 German tactics on the use of so-called lightning war was actually based on the writings on a British gentleman called Liddell-Hart.
tac
War is the continuation of politics by other means.Never heard about that chap and his writings. I always thought that this was all Hitlers own ideas, based on his experiences during WWI and in accordance with that, he wanted to avoid any trench warfare at all costs, hence the "Blitzkrieg" tactics. Well, this all stopped at Stalingrad, didn´t it? Not much of trenches warfare there, they were that close by floor to floor in buildings. Terror bombing was also his invention, tested already during the Spanish Civil war on a "low scale" and taken to a much wider during the years of his advance. Well, he got it all back later when many many German towns and cities were a heap of ruins.
Well, I didn´t study Military history, my interests in history were always more on the political dimensions of history. So you know some details which I don´t.
As for praising de Gaulle, he (influence-wise) was a nonentity before WW2, regarded as an upstart and a PITA. He, through his manner, had no hope of gaining support for his ideas from the French military établissement.
When some people who boldly opine about military strategy admit to never hearing of poor old Basil, he must turn in his grave. Next we will hear that ‘Boney’ Fuller doesn’t get a look-in either. Curiously, like Basil, he too was the son of a clergyman, but he was British, whereas Bas was a Frog, born in Paris.
“Vers l'armée de métier” – no doubt read by Tac in the original, with copious notes taken and essays written with references to the influence of Heinz Wilhelm.;)
I wasn´t "opine" on Military strategy, I was just pointing out historical facts regarding De Gaulle, even without praising him. Churchill was ignored by many of his Tory colleagues as well, but we all know, they both acted when the time had come for them and those who sneered at them became silent, rather quickly.0 -
That's a lot of quotes to read on a mobile phone.
Is there a book the current movie is based on?0 -
-
-
That's a lot of quotes to read on a mobile phone.
Is there a book the current movie is based on?
Yes there is and you can choose from where to buy it. Pictures of the front cover of that book are shown in this link:
https://www.google.ie/search?q=Dunkirk:+The+History+Behind+the+Major+Motion+Picture&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJhNLb27rVAhXFthoKHf1XD2IQsAQIKw&biw=1120&bih=5600 -
No, that's not the book on which the film is based. Nolan wrote his script 25 years ago; that book only came out this year. It's a history written and published as a tie-in with the film by a guy who acted as historical adviser to the production, but the film is in no sense based on the book. The other way around, if anything.
Levine has an earlier book, Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk, but even that was published years after Nolan wrote the script. However it was that book which got him an invitation from Nolan to joint the production. And that book may well have influenced the development of the script. Its' an oral history based on accounts by participants, which of course is very much the shape that the film takes.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
Well, the book on which the film is made is mentioned in this wiki article and it is available to buy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)
http://www.bookstation.ie/home/1208-dunkirk-the-history-behind-the-major-motion-picture-by-joshua-levine.htmlThe film's historical consultant was author Joshua Levine,[14][13] who also wrote the book adaptation, Dunkirk: The History Behind the Major Motion Picture.[37] Levine accompanied Nolan while interviewing veterans.[27][38][39] During these interviews, Nolan was told a story of soldiers who were observed walking into the sea in desperation and incorporated it into the screenplay.[38]0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »No, that's not the book on which the film is based. Nolan wrote his script 25 years ago; that book only came out this year. It's a history written and published as a tie-in with the film by a guy who acted as historical adviser to the production, but the film is in no sense based on the book. The other way around, if anything.
Levine has an earlier book, Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk, but even that was published years after Nolan wrote the script. However it was that book which got him an invitation from Nolan to joint the production. And that book may well have influenced the development of the script. Its' an oral history based on accounts by participants, which of course is very much the shape that the film takes.
Well, I prefer to hold on to what is stated in this wiki article, it´s more convincing than your objections.0 -
I don't want to pick nits, but your link doesn't say that the film is based on the book; it describes the book as an adaptation of the film.0
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't want to pick nits, but your link doesn't say that the film is based on the book; it describes the book as an adaptation of the film.
No idea what you´re on about and frankly, this all doesn´t make much of a difference to me, cos the film is like the other ones made of the same subject, they picked stories out of the many who were there and made a film out of it based on the stories told by the survivours. From all those more than 338,000 survivors of Dunkirk, every one had his own story to tell.
I sure that you´d also find things to criticise in the three part docudrame made by the BBC in 2004 about Dunkirk. Sometimes I really don´t get what people are after when nagging on about historical correctness when it comes about a situation in WWII where many things were going out of hand and chaos ruled the place. I rather think that those who made it alive from Dunkirk would not give much of a damn what piece was more and what was less correct given that bringing up the memories from that event by the survivors caused them pain to mentally live through that again. IMO, that is the essence of the film. The traumata this all has caused to those involved, like from any other engagement during WWII.
I´ll leave it at that. Cheers.0 -
Well, I prefer to hold on to what is stated in this wiki article, it´s more convincing than your objections. .No idea what you´re on about and frankly, this all doesn´t make much of a difference to me, ........... Sometimes I really don´t get what people are after when nagging on about historical correctness............I´ll leave it at that. Cheers.
Well, this is a history forum and we are discussing a historical event, not cinema.
History as a discipline cannot exist without primary sources, and Wiki is not recognised as an appropriate one.0 -
Wiki is generally ok for these forums. Even if historians don't like it.
However as has been stated the movie isn't based on any specific book. An adaptation is simply the adapting of the movie source material for the book. Rather than the other way around.0 -
Wiki is generally ok for these forums. Even if historians don't like it.
However as has been stated the movie isn't based on any specific book. An adaptation is simply the adapting of the movie source material for the book. Rather than the other way around.
Not so. Most posters here long ago agreed that Wiki is not an acceptable source on this forum. It's fine for a quick fix overview but for detail you need to go elsewhere.
Far too often people approach history as a debate to be won when it should really be a discovery of the truth. It's hard to find that in most research, and even more so on Wiki when any gob$#ite can log on and edit an entry.0 -
My uncle was taken prisoner at Calais at the same time.
He was standing in the dunes on the beach cleaning sand out of his pistol, and he felt a tap on his shoulder. It was a German who told him it was time to go. All very gentlemanly.
Spent the entire war in prison except for a brief visit to Berlin when the Germans were trying to recruit Irish prisoners to work against the brits. He didn't accept.0 -
InTheTrees wrote: »Spent the entire war in prison except for a brief visit to Berlin when the Germans were trying to recruit Irish prisoners to work against the brits. He didn't accept.
Good man, him. The fact that he was in the British Army seems somehow to have eluded them.
tac0 -
I wonder what else do you understand by the term "Fascist" if not those who incorporated the very meaning of it in founding and in "practice" of the very ideology. The first Fascist was Mussolini and the others were copying him. Hitler, Franco, Mosely, O´Duffy et al followed the pattern he set.
Hitler and Mussolini were similar, although there were some strong differences between their ideologies too. Racism, especially anti-Jewish racism ie Anti-Semitism, had little part of Mussolini's outlook. Italy didn't introduce Anti Semitic laws until just before WWII, nearly 20 years into Mussolini's regime, only at Germany's prompting and even then they enforced them very laxly.
The Nazism of Hitler and Fascism of Mussolini were both versions of socialism. Both were vehemently anti-capitalist, worshipped the cult of youth and militarism, were in favour of a strong centrally planned economy and an extensive welfare state. The beneficiaries in Hitler's case were the Aryan race; in Mussolini's the Italian people. Unlike true Socialism in which the Working Class or proletariat were supposed to be the key interest group.
Franco was a traditional conservative Catholic monarchist. Racism, especially anti Jewish racism, in Spain was hardly an issue. Ironically, perhaps, considering Spain's record during the Inquisition which started out as an anti Jewish witch hunt, Franco's Spain was a haven for Jews fleeing Nazi occupied Europe.
Poor old Franco gets very little credit for this because Socialists, Communists and Liberals want to draw a seamless line connecting traditional Church hostility to Jews on doctrinal grounds to the genocide carried out by the Nazis. It's a con trick and attempts to hide the fact that true anti-Semitism had NOTHING to do with religion or indeed any aspect of jewish belief or behaviour.
It was the Jewish genetic inheritance that damned them in the eyes of the Anti Semites, few of whom had any time for Christianity or indeed any religion whatsoever. They were more interested in the theories of Darwin and a fundamentalist approach to the "survival of the fittest" which was mirrored in other racist legislation to be found throughout the "civilised" world.
How about our own "Fascists" the Blueshirts? Again, O'Duffy and his ilk were conservative,usually land-owning business types who were devoutly Catholic, hysterically anti communist and feared the socialism of the aspirant working class far more than they feared other "races" who hardly existed in Ireland at the time anyway. They had much in common with Franco and indeed, many of them went off to fight for him. But Anti Semitic Nazis? Hardly. A better description of them (and sadly I can't remember where I saw it) was "pudgy farmers bellowing about cattle prices".
Here's one of the great ironies of Irish history. The leader of Fine Gael during the war, James Dillon, resigned when his party refused to back his demand that Ireland join the war on the side of the Allies. Fine Gael, remember, was an amalgam of several parties including the Blueshirts which is how they acquired the nickname that still haunts them. Dillon's brother was later honoured by Israel, I believe (does anyone know any more about this?) for his lobbying work in trying to bring Jewish refugees to Ireland during the war. Admittedly, he insisted that they convert to Catholicism first, which is a bit of a qualification, but the point is that the Nazis didn't care where or whether a Jew, in their eyes, prayed. Their ancestry was all that it took to get them on the train to Auschwitz.
Some Fascist, huh?
Meanwhile the Republican movement, including many who had fought AGAINST Franco in the Spanish Civil War actively collaborated with Nazis as part of their ongoing struggle against Britain. These included such died in the wool "Socialists" as Frank Ryan and Francis Stuart. Who were the real Fascists?
Ah but, some may point out: the most blatant anti semite in Ireland at the time was Oliver J Flanagan whose notorious tirade against Jews in the Dail ("Where there's bees there's honey and where there's Jews there's money")has passed into legend.
OJ later joined Fine Gael and was for many the epitome of the "Blue shirts" but when he made that speech he was actually an "Independent Republican" TD and he was speaking against the motion in a debate on extending emergency legislation brought in to combat the IRA and its new Nazi friends.
Again, who were the real Fascists?0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Not so. Most posters here long ago agreed that Wiki is not an acceptable source on this forum. It's fine for a quick fix overview but for detail you need to go elsewhere.
Far too often people approach history as a debate to be won when it should really be a discovery of the truth. It's hard to find that in most research, and even more so on Wiki when any gob$#ite can log on and edit an entry.
I'd prefer it over paragraphs of no links what so ever. As Peregrinus said the wiki was a mis-quoted anyway. The rest is irreverent.0 -
That's quite the qualification :eek:Snickers Man wrote: »Hitler and Mussolini were similar, although there were some strong differences between their ideologies too. Racism, especially anti-Jewish racism ie Anti-Semitism, had little part of Mussolini's outlook. Italy didn't introduce Anti Semitic laws until just before WWII, nearly 20 years into Mussolini's regime, only at Germany's prompting and even then they enforced them very laxly.
The Nazism of Hitler and Fascism of Mussolini were both versions of socialism. Both were vehemently anti-capitalist, worshipped the cult of youth and militarism, were in favour of a strong centrally planned economy and an extensive welfare state. The beneficiaries in Hitler's case were the Aryan race; in Mussolini's the Italian people. Unlike true Socialism in which the Working Class or proletariat were supposed to be the key interest group.
Franco was a traditional conservative Catholic monarchist. Racism, especially anti Jewish racism, in Spain was hardly an issue. Ironically, perhaps, considering Spain's record during the Inquisition which started out as an anti Jewish witch hunt, Franco's Spain was a haven for Jews fleeing Nazi occupied Europe.
Poor old Franco gets very little credit for this because Socialists, Communists and Liberals want to draw a seamless line connecting traditional Church hostility to Jews on doctrinal grounds to the genocide carried out by the Nazis. It's a con trick and attempts to hide the fact that true anti-Semitism had NOTHING to do with religion or indeed any aspect of jewish belief or behaviour.
It was the Jewish genetic inheritance that damned them in the eyes of the Anti Semites, few of whom had any time for Christianity or indeed any religion whatsoever. They were more interested in the theories of Darwin and a fundamentalist approach to the "survival of the fittest" which was mirrored in other racist legislation to be found throughout the "civilised" world.
How about our own "Fascists" the Blueshirts? Again, O'Duffy and his ilk were conservative,usually land-owning business types who were devoutly Catholic, hysterically anti communist and feared the socialism of the aspirant working class far more than they feared other "races" who hardly existed in Ireland at the time anyway. They had much in common with Franco and indeed, many of them went off to fight for him. But Anti Semitic Nazis? Hardly. A better description of them (and sadly I can't remember where I saw it) was "pudgy farmers bellowing about cattle prices".
Here's one of the great ironies of Irish history. The leader of Fine Gael during the war, James Dillon, resigned when his party refused to back his demand that Ireland join the war on the side of the Allies. Fine Gael, remember, was an amalgam of several parties including the Blueshirts which is how they acquired the nickname that still haunts them. Dillon's brother was later honoured by Israel, I believe (does anyone know any more about this?) for his lobbying work in trying to bring Jewish refugees to Ireland during the war. Admittedly, he insisted that they convert to Catholicism first, which is a bit of a qualification, but the point is that the Nazis didn't care where or whether a Jew, in their eyes, prayed. Their ancestry was all that it took to get them on the train to Auschwitz.
Some Fascist, huh?
Meanwhile the Republican movement, including many who had fought AGAINST Franco in the Spanish Civil War actively collaborated with Nazis as part of their ongoing struggle against Britain. These included such died in the wool "Socialists" as Frank Ryan and Francis Stuart. Who were the real Fascists?
Ah but, some may point out: the most blatant anti semite in Ireland at the time was Oliver J Flanagan whose notorious tirade against Jews in the Dail ("Where there's bees there's honey and where there's Jews there's money")has passed into legend.
OJ later joined Fine Gael and was for many the epitome of the "Blue shirts" but when he made that speech he was actually an "Independent Republican" TD and he was speaking against the motion in a debate on extending emergency legislation brought in to combat the IRA and its new Nazi friends.
Again, who were the real Fascists?
Do you know anything else about him, even his name? He is not on the list of Righteous Among the Nations (perhaps not unsurprisingly) so how do you think he was honoured?0 -
Advertisement
-
How did ye change a thread about Dunkirk into Irish politics.0
-
riffmongous wrote: »That's quite the qualification :eek:
Do you know anything else about him, even his name? He is not on the list of Righteous Among the Nations (perhaps not unsurprisingly) so how do you think he was honoured?
I never said he was mentioned as Righteous among the Nations. I think there is only one Irish person so honoured, a Protestant lady who lived in France during the war and helped Jews there. My understanding is that the Righteous accolade was reserved for those who risked or sacrificed their lives during the Nazi tyranny to help Jews. As such there are very few nationals from countries outside the zone of Nazi occupation honoured as Righteous. Hardly any Americans, for example. The biggest national grouping of Righteous people are Poles.
One might have suffered some spiteful backbiting from the less tolerant sections of Irish society for championing the cause of Jewish immigration during the war but it could hardly be described as life-threatening.
I think Dillon's brother was called Theo and I remember hearing he was honoured for his efforts, although it was probably a minor one.
As regards only accepting Jews who had converted, that was not his doing but the policy of holy Catholic Ireland at the time. But then again, as far as Nazis were concerned, being a practicing Christian of any kind was no defence against being classified as a Jew in their eyes. They were real Anti-Semites; Jewishness was a matter of race to them, not religion.0 -
Advertisement