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

purplepanda wrote: »

Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.

Ok wiki can sometimes be reliable but it's conspiracy theory stuff as far as I can see. As I've said in an earlier post, thier seems to be an agenda discrediting Irish neutrality in WW2, which was in fact the state's strongest assertion of it's independence from Britain. The agenda seems to be about painting a picture that Ireland was not neutral in WW2 and that by getting rid of neutrality now or in the future is inconsquential.

The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.

They seem to making a big deal about nothing I'm not going to debate each point but for example

1) The use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. Half of it is surrounded by Derry anyway and besides we probably didn't have the capacity to do anything about it if we wanted !!!!

5) They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft. Very doubtful if they wanted to attract the attention of the Stuka dive bombers and have a sitiuation like the North Strand bombing.

12) They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces Their wasn't a lot they could do to stop it anyway. A guy only had to walk across the border.

Johnmb wrote: »

That would have been an interesting conundrum for the government of the day. On the one hand, would you want to piss off the Germans after they had already won? On the other hand, you just know they are going to take the following day or two to invade you, so do you give up without so much of a whimper or do you use whatever British resources weren't destroyed and go down fighting?

Agreed. The Germans had gone through the Brits and French and anyone else like a knife through butter. In reality if they had invaded we would have been like Denmark, Czechs etc, No point in poking the bear and inviting greater retribution.

The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them, but the average German had been filled with propaganda that made us out to be a heroic people who fought off British imperialist aggression, so they may have had to treat us well (for a while at least) if we didn't go against them.

So they were like the British then so . Not surprising as Hitler greatly admired British imperialism.

Never heard this before that he thought of us as any different to the other people's of Europe. Not doubting you but if you have good links I'd appreciate it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Where did you read this? For the most part issues of genetic impurity were directed at gays, gypsies and jews, ie people within the German state that the Nazis blamed for Germany's problems. After that a hatred for the Slavs made the Slavic races the next target. There is no evidence that the Germans considered any of the Western European countries to be genetically impure, or that they intended to wipe them out. One only has to consider the differences between the treatment of civilians in Belgium or France and any country in East Europe to see that to be the case.

We weren't considered down at the level of being sub-human, but we were not considered equals either. They considered those of German heritage (Nordics) to be the superior race, we were not included in that (nor were most of the French). The English, however, were considered part of their superior race. They did have a German royal family I guess, but the mistaken belief that they were Anglo-Saxon was probably the main reason for it. We certainly weren't on any "final solution" lists, but by the same token, there would have been no hesitation in wiping out any Irish who became a problem, as we weren't needed to help further the "master race". I'll try to find a link, but the last time I recall this coming up was in a documentary about how Ireland was portrayed in Nazi propaganda movies of the time. I can't remember the name, but I'm sure it's around somewhere on-line and will post to it if I can find it.

purplepanda wrote: »

What evidence do you have for this claim? Which actual members of the Nazi regime believed this?

Well, in fairness, pretty much all of them. We are/were not a Germanic/Nordic people. While we possibly were considered Aryan since we were Indo-European (although that wasn't a given), we weren't of the same stock as the Germans, Nordics, and British, as far as they were concerned.

brianthebard wrote: »

I really do think you should give some evidence for this, I've researched the Nazi race theories before and never read anything about the Irish or even the British in them, negative or positive.

Okay, the Irish part I could understand, we weren't important enough in the war for most historians to mention much about. I can only recall two documentaries that mentioned it, the first was Hitler's Irish Movies, and the other was about the IRA trying to make deals with them, I can't remember the name of that one (and it is possible that the opinions of the Nazis expressed where specific to the people they were dealing with, not the Irish generally). But as for the British, seriously? You've never read anything about the Nazi (Hitler in particular) opinion of them? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. It comes up a lot in the reasoning why the British had time to escape from Dunkirk. I don't have many books on WW2, it's way too modern for my liking, but I'll do a search on line, I'm sure there'll be plenty about the British.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.....

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?

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.

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?

brianthebard wrote: »

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

The stereotypical ones ;-)

I wondered where McArmalite had got to.

pwd wrote: »

Do any of your posts have any bearing on the topic being discussed, or are they all just spouting hate and vitriol?
I get it. You don't like Britain.

Just pointing out the historical truth that when they could use us to further their rotten greed the British ruling class like Churchill could be patronising and plausible. Their's no point in anyone fooling themselves with his jingoistic type patronising nonsense. To the Britsh ruling class the Irish were regarded as unhuman who must be kept in check at all times.

ValJester wrote: »

It wasn't just the Irish working classes who suffered from this bigoted view of society though, it was a disease which afflicted Britain's working class every bit as much during the Imperial Era of Britain, with the economic policies of British policymakers pernamently being the concentration of wealth in the hands of the chosen few in order to create a populace of wage slaves. I think that should be remembered, and that any rant about the suffering of the Irish should not be anti-English, it should be anti-aristocracy.

Well we're getting away from WW2 though Churchill it must be said provides a good example of the British ruling classes hypocrisy of praising the unfortunate Irish in fighting for British Imperialism can be seen in his speech where he has throws some patronising comment about the fighting spirit of Irishmen and then has a dig at Dev for neutrality. But as you say, it's not just Ireland that was used in such manner.

Scots Highlanders for example were praised like Irishmen for their fighting ability - though the same men's ancestors were denounced for fighting for Scotland at Batttle of Culloden etc Likewise Indian, African regiments etc Same with the English working class. Fight for annexation and imperialism, they call you a hero, go on a peaceful march from Jarrow to London asking for a job and Chuirchill sends the coppers out to truncheon these men as good as the brown shirts later did in Germany. Very many of the English and Scottish soldeirs who fought in WW2 would have been described only a decade earlier in the Depression as workshy layabouts by Churchill and his class.

My so called " virtiol " came to mind thinking of Joe Duffy's presentation of James Connolly where he quoted a passage from Connolly about how Irshmen fighting for the British imperialism was praised by the establishment while Irish men who wanted to fight for Ireland were denounced.