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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

13

Comments

  • #62
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    purplepanda wrote: »
    I've not read Mein Kemp, however people have told me it mentions the "Ayran Race" including Britain & Ireland, plus France north of the River Seine amongst other parts of Europe. It's a made up theory anyway as the Ayran race was present in Iran & India amongst other places:rolleyes:
    If I remember correctly, the Nazi version was that the Aryans originated in Northern Europe, and brought the languages etc down to Iran and India via conquest (going the opposite direction to the way Indo-European languages are actually believed to have spread!). But then they became impure by breeding with the locals, but those who stayed behind in Northern Europe, i.e. the Germanic peoples, were still pure. Some BS like that in any case.


  • #63
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Johnmb wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, the Nazi version was that the Aryans originated in Northern Europe, and brought the languages etc down to Iran and India via conquest (going the opposite direction to the way Indo-European languages are actually believed to have spread!). But then they became impure by breeding with the locals, but those who stayed behind in Northern Europe, i.e. the Germanic peoples, were still pure. Some BS like that in any case.

    The whole Aryan idea was bull**** anyway, the German's decided who was and wasn't an Aryan overnight. The Japanese were considered 'honorary Aryans' while the Greeks were downgraded in their racial pyramid when Italy invaded Greece. It was scarily summed up by Gobbels saying "we will decide who is and isn't a Jew".


  • #64
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    The whole Aryan idea was bull**** anyway, the German's decided who was and wasn't an Aryan overnight. The Japanese were considered 'honorary Aryans' while the Greeks were downgraded in their racial pyramid when Italy invaded Greece. It was scarily summed up by Gobbels saying "we will decide who is and isn't a Jew".
    Yep, the Roma were downgraded to non-Aryan status too as far as I know, despite them clearly being Indo-European. Hence, I'm not sure if the Irish were considered Aryan or not, and if they were, there was no guarantee it would stay that way!


  • #65
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Johnmb wrote: »
    It is one of the theories to explain why Hitler ordered a halt to his troops. Not that he did it because they were Germanic, but that he did it because he still hoped the British would ally themselves with Germany, and the reason he wanted that was because he seen them as part of the Germanic peoples, and therefore a natural ally. The Irish were never seen as part of that group (possibly in part due to the fact that a British guy was one of the proponents of the original theory the Nazis adopted). Do any of your books go into any detail about Nordicism in regards to their discussion of the Nazi theories regarding the "master race"? That's pretty much what it came under. They were the natural leaders. While I'm (fairly) sure we would have been considered an Aryan race, we were not in the same league as the "leaders", we were just worthy of being followers, and if we refused to follow, knowing what we know of Nazi ruthlessness at the time, do you think they would have hesitated to put us down?

    Its just a theory by historians, ie has no evidence? that's what I thought tbh. The West of Europe as I already said was not considered in the same light as Slavs, Jews, Gypsies or other undesirables.
    Johnmb wrote: »
    Yep, the Roma were downgraded to non-Aryan status too as far as I know, despite them clearly being Indo-European. Hence, I'm not sure if the Irish were considered Aryan or not, and if they were, there was no guarantee it would stay that way!

    The Roma were never downgraded, they were always seen as inferior because they were not rooted in the country in the way Germans were thought to or expected to be. Same with Jews. This was a key principle of German romanticism which Nazism was strongly based on.


  • #66
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    It would of been 'interesting' if Germany had landed on Ireland and if the Irish people would of helped Germany and invaded in the North. Although, i doubt the Unionists would of given in easily.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

    Distribution of races in nordic master race theory.


  • #68
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Its just a theory by historians, ie has no evidence? that's what I thought tbh. The West of Europe as I already said was not considered in the same light as Slavs, Jews, Gypsies or other undesirables.
    That depends on what part you are referring to as "just a theory by historians". The part about Hitler's reasoning for not finishing the British off at Dunkirk is just a theory (that is a good starting point for finding more information about his racial beliefs). The part about the Nazi party believing that the Germanic people were the pinnacle of humanity and the natural leaders of the other Aryan peoples is not just a theory, it was Nazi policy. The Irish were most likely counted among the Aryan peoples (incorrectly), but not as equals to the Germanic people, which included the English (again, incorrectly), Norwegians, Dutch, etc.


  • #69
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    pwd wrote: »
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

    Distribution of races in nordic master race theory.
    The only problem with that is that the Nazis adjusted the theory to suit themselves. Under the original theory, an awful lot of Germans where considered to be Alpines. They didn't use pure Nordic theory, nor pure Aryan Theory, they had their own version that borrowed ideas from them, but ended up making sure that Germans, of German decent, where fully included in the master race (Hitler couldn't have himself being included as a mere Alpine after all!!)


  • #70
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Johnmb wrote: »
    That depends on what part you are referring to as "just a theory by historians". The part about Hitler's reasoning for not finishing the British off at Dunkirk is just a theory (that is a good starting point for finding more information about his racial beliefs). The part about the Nazi party believing that the Germanic people were the pinnacle of humanity and the natural leaders of the other Aryan peoples is not just a theory, it was Nazi policy. The Irish were most likely counted among the Aryan peoples (incorrectly), but not as equals to the Germanic people, which included the English (again, incorrectly), Norwegians, Dutch, etc.

    Clearly referring to dunkirk.


  • #71
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Clearly referring to dunkirk.
    I wasn't sure from the quote. My reference to Dunkirk wasn't to say that they (the historians) were correct, it was just to show that Hitler did count the British (more specifically the English) as part of the superior race, that's why it is a theory. Obviously genetic research has come a long way since then, and the English are not Germanic, but actual facts never got in the way of racists in any time period, so its not that surprising that Hitler et al would believe that those who had the largest empire shared their ethnicity.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    It would of been 'interesting' if Germany had landed on Ireland and if the Irish people would of helped Germany and invaded in the North. Although, i doubt the Unionists would of given in easily.
    Do you crowd ever let anything sink in :rolleyes: Their forever deluding themselves of brave, fearless wee Protestant Ulster ready to take on all comers :rolleyes: As regards WW2, it was said that the unionists refused conscription as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore form all the orange marches :)

    " i doubt the Unionists would of given in easily " History actually tells us the exact opposite. Their were no shortage of unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. However history obvioulsy tells us that when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, threatened violence on a massive scale ? Nothing of course. Indeed here's a fine example of the Donegal UVF in 1913 gobbing off about " No Surrender " etc. And did their brethern across the border lift a fighting finger - ofcourse not, barely a murmur out of the whole lot of them.

    http://ams2-aai-web-1.anu.net/reading-room/history-heritage/heritage-towns/the-heritage-towns-of-don/raphoe/the-laggan-and-the-ulster/

    And in more recent times " their was going to be a bloodbath " if the B Specials were disbanded, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn’t get down Garvagh Road, the Good Friday Agreement, if the RUC cap badge was changed blah, blah, blah :rolleyes:

    Here’s a fine example of Paisley at it back in the 70's

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzo1GSWAEuA



    Indeed I haven't the slighest doubt that if the Germans had invaded the very first people to go running to them and offering their services would have been - the unionists ofcourse.


  • #73
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Do you crowd ever let anything sink in :rolleyes: Their forever deluding themselves of brave, fearless wee Protestant Ulster ready to take on all comers :rolleyes: As regards WW2, it was said that the unionists refused conscription as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore form all the orange marches :)

    " i doubt the Unionists would of given in easily " History actually tells us the exact opposite. Their were no shortage of unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. However history obvioulsy tells us that when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, threatened violence on a massive scale ? Nothing of course. Indeed here's a fine example of the Donegal UVF in 1913 gobbing off about " No Surrender " etc. And did their brethern across the border lift a fighting finger - ofcourse not, barely a murmur out of the whole lot of them.

    http://ams2-aai-web-1.anu.net/reading-room/history-heritage/heritage-towns/the-heritage-towns-of-don/raphoe/the-laggan-and-the-ulster/

    And in more recent times " their was going to be a bloodbath " if the B Specials were disbanded, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn’t get down Garvagh Road, the Good Friday Agreement, if the RUC cap badge was changed blah, blah, blah :rolleyes:

    Here’s a fine example of Paisley at it back in the 70's

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzo1GSWAEuA




    Indeed I haven't the slighest doubt that if the Germans had invaded the very first people to go running to them and offering their services would have been - the unionists ofcourse.
    Some of the best soldiers in the British Army during WW2 were from Ulster and Unionists. And i doubt when you say Loyalists/Unionists give up easily and said its the opposite. History actually shows you its true that they don't give up. Siege of Derry being just one of them.

    The 13 brave apprentice boys, was a fine example of that.


  • #74
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I think one of the most important things here is that it clearly shows the British attitude to the north, they did not really want it at all.


  • #75
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Some of the best soldiers in the British Army during WW2 were from Ulster and Unionists. And i doubt when you say Loyalists/Unionists give up easily and said its the opposite. History actually shows you its true that they don't give up. Siege of Derry being just one of them.

    The 13 brave apprentice boys, was a fine example of that.
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know all of the Victoria Crosses won in WW2 by men from Ireland were by nationalists from the south with one exception been a man from the Falls Road in Belfast. So much for unioinists to claim they were some of the best soldiers in the British Army.


  • #76
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know all of the Victoria Crosses won in WW2 by men from Ireland were by nationalists from the south with one exception been a man from the Falls Road in Belfast. So much for unioinists to claim they were some of the best soldiers in the British Army.
    What does that matter?

    You have to remember, it was only 20 years earlier generations got whiped out who signed up to the UVF and the Battle of the somme.


  • #77
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    What does that matter?

    You have to remember, it was only 20 years earlier generations got whiped out who signed up to the UVF and the Battle of the somme.

    Compared to the amount of Irish men who have lost their lives serving in the British Armed Forces over the centuries, this event has been elevated far above others who made the same sacrifice. Including their comrades in the Irish 16th Division who suffered the same fate in Flanders.


  • #78
    ValJester
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭ValJester


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know all of the Victoria Crosses won in WW2 by men from Ireland were by nationalists from the south with one exception been a man from the Falls Road in Belfast. So much for unioinists to claim they were some of the best soldiers in the British Army.

    Your point being? Most Irish joined due to how poor the job prospects were in the Free State, and because of moral objections to Nazism, the same reason as socialists across the world chose to fight in the Spanish Civil War.


  • #79
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know all of the Victoria Crosses won in WW2 by men from Ireland were by nationalists from the south with one exception been a man from the Falls Road in Belfast. So much for unioinists to claim they were some of the best soldiers in the British Army.

    For the record, a good soldier, and a courageous, dumb or lucky soldier need not be the same thing. A recent case which comes to mind is the Battle of Wanat where the company commander received both a Silver Star for valor and a letter of reprimand for his decisions. In other words, he screwed up, but he was quite courageous as he did it.

    The formal reprimand was subsequently revoked, but under the basis that 'it is possible for officers to err in judgment—and to thereby incur censure—without violating a criminal statute', not because he was particularly good.

    The VC is awarded for displays of personal courage and valour, not for being a good soldier.

    NTM


  • #80
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Thats a bit of a stupid debate anyway, cowards and heroes are not defined by country.


  • #81
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Thats a bit of a stupid debate anyway, cowards and heroes are not defined by country.

    No, but they are often defined by culture, which is frequently closely related to country The Ghurkas are considered crack troops not so much because they are necessarily any better in tactical or technical skill than regular British soldiers, but because they are culturally brought up to take actions on the battlefield which by Western standards are unusually courageous. They think nothing of charging at the enemy when they get a chance, Kukhri knives drawn. Indeed, it's something of a badge of honour for them. Most Western soldiers would just sit back and keep shooting, conducting a bayonet charge is considered remarkable and deserving of recognition.

    Is there something about a Southern Irish culture which makes a soldier more likely to do something considered 'heroic', 'valorous' or 'gallant' than one of his Northern colleagues? I'm not sure, but there is definitely an underlying 'warrior's culture' in Ireland, even if we don't admit it often. Put simply, Irish people like to fight. We've been fighting in other peoples' wars for centuries.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    No, but they are often defined by culture, which is frequently closely related to country The Ghurkas are considered crack troops not so much because they are necessarily any better in tactical or technical skill than regular British soldiers, but because they are culturally brought up to take actions on the battlefield which by Western standards are unusually courageous. They think nothing of charging at the enemy when they get a chance, Kukhri knives drawn. Indeed, it's something of a badge of honour for them. Most Western soldiers would just sit back and keep shooting, conducting a bayonet charge is considered remarkable and deserving of recognition.

    Is there something about a Southern Irish culture which makes a soldier more likely to do something considered 'heroic', 'valorous' or 'gallant' than one of his Northern colleagues? I'm not sure, but there is definitely an underlying 'warrior's culture' in Ireland, even if we don't admit it often. Put simply, Irish people like to fight. We've been fighting in other peoples' wars for centuries.

    NTM
    So you think that the unionist culture breeds more courageous people? Or the nationalist one does? Our cultures are not THAT much different so in this case I think it is a silly debate.


    I get what you are saying, like the Japs in WW2 etc.....


  • #83
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    So you think that the unionist culture breeds more courageous people? Or the nationalist one does? Our cultures are not THAT much different so in this case I think it is a silly debate.

    I'm honestly not sure. I've never really considered it in the context of something as similar as North and South Ireland before, so I'm kindof thinking out loud here. I don't think it's as much a case of being culturally more courageous, as much as being more or less willing to allow your courageousness/hot-headedness to override sense or training. For example, for a Northern Unionist to join the British Army, he may have done so out of a sense of duty as opposed to any particular desire for the 'thrill of battle'. Show up, serve King and Country as required, but don't take risks. For a person from the Free State, however, I don't think there was any particular feeling of obligation to Britain to join the British Army, other factors may have been at play. Someone who goes to fight a war for the sake of fighting the war is likely to be more prone to doing something daft than someone who joined up because he thought it his national duty.

    NTM


  • #84
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I'm honestly not sure. I've never really considered it in the context of something as similar as North and South Ireland before, so I'm kindof thinking out loud here. I don't think it's as much a case of being culturally more courageous, as much as being more or less willing to allow your courageousness/hot-headedness to override sense or training. For example, for a Northern Unionist to join the British Army, he may have done so out of a sense of duty as opposed to any particular desire for the 'thrill of battle'. Show up, serve King and Country as required, but don't take risks. For a person from the Free State, however, I don't think there was any particular feeling of obligation to Britain to join the British Army, other factors may have been at play. Someone who goes to fight a war for the sake of fighting the war is likely to be more prone to doing something daft than someone who joined up because he thought it his national duty.

    NTM
    I suppose he may have felt obliged, or that he would be ostracized if he did NOT sign up. So if he had his way he would be at home.

    I think most Irish men joined out of economic necessity tbh.

    Personally I cannot get my head around the idea of wanting the "thrill" of battle. I can understand fighting for ideals etc, but simply for he sake of it?


  • #85
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Is there something about a Southern Irish culture which makes a soldier more likely to do something considered 'heroic', 'valorous' or 'gallant' than one of his Northern colleagues? I'm not sure, but there is definitely an underlying 'warrior's culture' in Ireland, even if we don't admit it often. Put simply, Irish people like to fight. We've been fighting in other peoples' wars for centuries.

    NTM

    Yes that's what British racist imperialists used to say about the Irish and Scottish. Of course there's no objective evidence for it.


  • #86
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Yes that's what British racist imperialists used to say about the Irish and Scottish. Of course there's no objective evidence for it.

    Other than the rather celebrated history of the Wild Geese, of course. Or the Irish Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Or the St Patrick's in the Mexican American war. Or what have you. For such a small country, the Irish have a surprising history of showing up in fights which have very little to do with Ireland.
    Personally I cannot get my head around the idea of wanting the "thrill" of battle. I can understand fighting for ideals etc, but simply for he sake of it?

    Yes, but you've also seen the opening scenes in Saving Private Ryan, or seen the photos of wounded soldiers transmitted electronically from the front lines in Afghanistan. In WWI people joined up for a 'Grand Adventure', it was only after they showed up to the fight did they change their minds. As the saying goes, 'War is wonderful to those who have no experience of it.'

    NTM


  • #87
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Other than the rather celebrated history of the Wild Geese, of course. Or the Irish Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Or the St Patrick's in the Mexican American war. Or what have you. For such a small country, the Irish have a surprising history of showing up in fights which have very little to do with Ireland.

    NTM

    that's not objective in any way however. A stereotype can become a self fulfilling prophesy given enough time and a willingness to believe it.


  • #88
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Other than the rather celebrated history of the Wild Geese, of course. Or the Irish Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Or the St Patrick's in the Mexican American war. Or what have you. For such a small country, the Irish have a surprising history of showing up in fights which have very little to do with Ireland.



    Yes, but you've also seen the opening scenes in Saving Private Ryan, or seen the photos of wounded soldiers transmitted electronically from the front lines in Afghanistan. In WWI people joined up for a 'Grand Adventure', it was only after they showed up to the fight did they change their minds. As the saying goes, 'War is wonderful to those who have no experience of it.'

    NTM
    Yes, but you've also seen the opening scenes in Saving Private Ryan, or seen the photos of wounded soldiers transmitted electronically from the front lines in Afghanistan. In WWI people joined up for a 'Grand Adventure', it was only after they showed up to the fight did they change their minds. As the saying goes, 'War is wonderful to those who have no experience of it.'

    NTM

    So have those who say join a foreign countries army, such as the BA or the american army.


  • #89
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brianthebard wrote: »
    that's not objective in any way however. A stereotype can become a self fulfilling prophesy given enough time and a willingness to believe it.

    But it is a stereotype the Irish are quite willing to promote, when it suits. A bit like drinking.


  • #90
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    But it is a stereotype the Irish are quite willing to promote, when it suits. A bit like drinking.

    who are 'the irish' in this scenario? Was there a referendum about this stereotype that I don't know about or something?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    brianthebard wrote: »
    who are 'the irish' in this scenario? Was there a referendum about this stereotype that I don't know about or something?
    You missed it cause you were in the pub.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement