Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
View Poll Results: Collins or DeValera
Collins 136 83.44%
DeValera 27 16.56%
Voters: 163. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
15-09-2018, 01:26   #61
BalcombeSt4
Registered User
 
BalcombeSt4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bray
Posts: 1,147
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.
BalcombeSt4 is offline  
Advertisement
17-09-2018, 21:56   #62
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianthebard View Post
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.
Jolly Red Giant is offline  
17-09-2018, 22:03   #63
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
Jolly Red Giant is offline  
18-09-2018, 13:20   #64
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dublin 4 (and Loike it so totally rocks, man)
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.
Snickers Man is offline  
18-09-2018, 16:42   #65
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
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 - it has its manifestations in global politics today. The fact that some people throw the word 'fascist' around as a term of insult does not mitigate the fact that fascist organisations exist and they root their ideology in the traditional class basis of fascism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
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. 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
The fact that the Blueshirts were not 'murderous' does not mean that they weren't fascists. Mussolini's Blackshirts and the Nazis weren't 'murderous' in the formative years either. To the best of my knowledge Moseley's Blackshirts never killed anyone.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
The Blueshirts were racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic. 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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 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. Fascism is the indiscriminate brutal hammer of corporate capitalism, funded by the capitalist elites and intent on protecting the rule of capitalism - and all the anti-establishment rhetoric is just that, rhetoric to whip-up support among the reactionary layers in society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
And who were the ones who ended up collaborating with the Nazis in World War II?
More bullsh*t - none of them ever 'collaborated' with the Nazis - in fact the only one who had any contact with the Nazis was Frank Ryan who was captured in Spain and suffered a mental breakdown as a result of the torture he received at the hands of the Spanish fascists - his remaining few years until his death in 1944 were characterised by serious mental health and medical problems. Even then he was not a collaborator with the Nazis - in fact he played a role as DeV's unofficial liaison with the Nazis until his death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
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.
Jolly Red Giant is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
18-09-2018, 18:57   #66
cameramonkey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SOUTHD
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
cameramonkey is offline  
18-09-2018, 19:19   #67
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dublin 4 (and Loike it so totally rocks, man)
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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').
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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....
Snickers Man is offline  
Thanks from:
18-09-2018, 20:42   #68
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
It has nothing to do with 'liking' or 'not liking' trade unions - 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 - and it is exactly what Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar did - and Moseley, O'Duffy and others attempted to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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!
Well the 'what if' is lovely - the problem is that your assertion that Franco 'had nothing to do with Hitler's war' is false.

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
Bryan Fanning has stated that the Blueshirts sought 'to apply the xenophobic and racist formulae of continental fascist movements within an Irish context' and that the anti-Semiticm of O'Duffy and the Blueshirts was espoused within a racist framework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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)
Actually the anti-Semitism was based on the fact that the Blueshirts openly expressed an opposition to 'communism and alien control and influence in national affairs' that existed because of the Jews. The basis of O'Duffy's recruitment for Spain was to fight 'Communism, Jews and freemasonry'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View 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.
Not all fascists were members of the Blueshirts - the Monetary Reform Party was but one a a slew of far-right parties in Ireland in the 1940s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
Asserting that the Blueshirts were fascist is not a 'slur' - it is a statement of historical fact. The fact that they were unsuccessful in implementing their political agenda does nothing to mitigate this fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
it is rooted in fascism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
I have outlined the reason for the existence of fascism - UKIP and the other individuals (as far as I am aware) have not advocated the smashing of the organisations of the working class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
"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.
Clearly you have little knowledge of the nature of the fascist regimes of Europe and other places.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
There is a difference in terms of being a historian in interpreting evidence and stating facts - you cannot interpret facts.

As I said earlier - you really do need to expand your pool of historical material that you read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
You disagree that the IRA, including its ultraleft former members like Frank Ryan collaborated with the Nazis in WWII.
They did!
I never disputed that elements of the IRA collaborated with the Nazis - the IRA split along class lines in the 1930s - what was left during WW2 was the right-wing rump.

Furthermore, Frank Ryan was not 'ultra-left' - he was a republican socialist and the republican part was predominant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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....
Yes Ryan was on the submarine with Russell - that is a fact - however, there is zero evidence that Ryan ever collaborated with the Nazis.

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.
Jolly Red Giant is offline  
19-09-2018, 01:55   #69
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 15,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameramonkey View Post
I think lots of people in Fine Gael are very embarrassed by their roots in a fascism.
I'm not sure they are, actually.

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.
Peregrinus is offline  
Advertisement
20-09-2018, 12:44   #70
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dublin 4 (and Loike it so totally rocks, man)
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
- 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post

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.
Good thing too. That's not a fact; that's straight opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant View Post
There is a difference in terms of being a historian in interpreting evidence and stating facts - you cannot interpret facts.
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?
Snickers Man is offline  
20-09-2018, 13:21   #71
SafeSurfer
Registered User
 
SafeSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
SafeSurfer is offline  
Thanks from:
20-09-2018, 15:45   #72
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dublin 4 (and Loike it so totally rocks, man)
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameramonkey View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant
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.
Snickers Man is offline  
Thanks from:
20-09-2018, 15:47   #73
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dublin 4 (and Loike it so totally rocks, man)
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by SafeSurfer View Post
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?
Snickers Man is offline  
20-09-2018, 20:04   #74
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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?
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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)
Seriously - is that the best you can do - the fact that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar were racist, xenophobic anti-Semites who butchered millions in their quest to crush socialism and the working class won't do it for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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?
Like I said - you need to read a few history books


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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
Roosevelt supported the extension of Stalinism to Eastern Europe - why - because it served a purpose - the Russians had the human resources to smash the Nazis and he was willing to use them and pay Stalin for the effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
Like I said - you need to read a few history books - in this case Payne's book on the relationship between Franco's fascist regime and the Nazis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
So you believe that personal animosity trumped a common political ideology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
Look. Facts are facts.
A couple of days ago you were claiming that FACTS could be interpreted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
Like I said - go read a few history books

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
Good thing too. That's not a fact; that's straight opinion.
Nope - its a FACT - and the people who implemented such policies have stated as much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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?
No - you interpret EVIDENCE - you give opinion on the how and the way based on an interpretation of the evidence EVIDENCE ('truth' does not come into it - every interpretation of evidence contains bias) - the who, what, when and where are not open to interpretation.

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.
Jolly Red Giant is offline  
20-09-2018, 20:22   #75
Jolly Red Giant
Registered User
 
Jolly Red Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
None of which you have addressed with supporting evidence - all you have done is claim that the Blueshirts weren't fascists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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"
No I am not - I am basing my comments on my own research -

Quote:
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’.
Quoted in the Watchword of Labour 5 June 1920.

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 struggle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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"?
Showing both feet into you mouth again - making a false assumption from where i get my evidence - then making a false claim based on the false assumption and then demonstrating that you have zero idea what you are talking about.

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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!
Once again - jumping in with both feet - the record of the large number of workplace soviets during the revolutionary period is well documented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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.
And now we see you going off the deep end - displaying all the inherent political bias you have - with ZERO reference to the historical realities or EVIDENCE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers Man View Post
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 -

Jolly Red Giant is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet