Comments by "Taint ABird" (@taintabird23) on "Knowledgia" channel.

  1.  @MarkMcAllister-ni9sf  No, sorry, you are wrong. The IRA wanted Britain to lose, the Irish government and the vast majority of public opinion did not - de Valera suppressed the IRA before the end of 1941 and executed two of them. Your opinion regarding a conquered Ireland is speculation and suggests a sectarian undertone to your selective ill-informed analysis. Your claim, 'all of that to not cooperate with the English' is no borne out by contemporary pro-British commentators: Frank Pakenham, a lecturer and historian from a landed Anglo-Irish family visited Dublin in October 1939, estimated 8 out of 10 supported neutrality and were ‘mildly supportive’ of the Allies. Even Churchill acknowledged in 1940 that ‘three quarters of the people of Southern Ireland are with us, but the implacable, malignant minority can make so much trouble that de Valera dare not declare for the British side in the war’. Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporters. ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’. I'm not sure what 'trying to lawyer your way out of' something is supposed to mean, but you are not speaking the truth as you claim. You don't even know enough about the topic to muster a coherent response. My original claim that Churchill was selling the unionists down the river in 1940 still stands.
    14
  2.  @MarkMcAllister-ni9sf  Churchill made de Valera an offer of a united Ireland in the summer of 1940, having just withdrawn its troops in disarray from Dunkirk. He was selling the Unionist population of Northern Ireland down the river. It doesn’t seem to have cost the British government any great soul-searching - now there’s moral bankruptcy for you.
    9
  3. 'A public-private contradiction emerges when the two Ireland’s respective roles in the Second World War are considered . Eire’s stance was often criticised in public by UK and US politicians, but in private its ‘contribution’ was tacitly, though rarely warmly, acknowledged. By contrast, Northern Ireland’s war effort was publicly praised on all sides ...yet in private, in report after report, there was much criticism of Northern Irelands lacklustre response to the needs of the UK war economy.' (Thomas Bartlett, Ireland: A History, p 457)
    8
  4.  J S  'The problem being, the Irish were staunchly Catholic. A denomination that didn't 'forgive' the Jews for killing Jesus till the 70's.' Staunchly Catholic Ireland was the only country in the world that refused to send a team to the 1936 Berlin Olympics because of Hitler's treatment of the Jews. A year later, Staunchly Catholic Ireland became the only country in the world to place specif protections for Irish Jews in the Irish constitution (there were only 5,000 of them) because of Hitler's treatment of the Jews. The Irish public voted in favour of it in a referendum. The Irish Jewry were so impressed with staunchly Catholic de Valera's attempts to protect them that in 1966 they planted a forest in his honour in Isreal, something that de Valera only agreed to provided it remained secret. It only became public in 2005 following the release of secret documents and the forest was rededicated in 2006.
    6
  5.  @markhenley3097  Ireland never invited a German invasion force to annex Northern Ireland.
    5
  6. The UK gave refuge to the Nazis after WW2, one of whom lived quietly in Edinburgh until he was allowed to die peacefully a few years ago. It also provided shelter for an entire SS Division, saving it from the hands of the Soviets. It is true that Ireland was not neutral during WW2, and indeed Lord Crabourne provide a complete list of all the ways Dublin provided assistance to the Allies during the war. Hitler's brother married an Irishwoman whose politics is unknown to us. Hitler deserted his wife and returned to Germany in 1914 just before the outbreak of the First World War and two years before Irish republicanism began to become mainstream in Ireland.
    4
  7. There is no accounting for ignorance.
    4
  8. It stands up to Irish scrutiny. Why should the Irish trust the British in any war with Germany? Look how Britain took the Soviets as an ally in 1941 even though they had invaded half of Poland when the Germans rolled in, in 1939? It is certainly the case that Ireland would have faced invasion had Britain fallen, but at she would have done so on her own terms and not at the demand of a power that burned Cork, Balbriggan, Lahinch and murdered Irish civilians less than 20 years before... Ireland would certainly have been a target you paraphrase Churchill in your claim that it was ignoble to fear it. There is no moral justification for taking an unarmed people into a war against their will that I am aware of, unless attacked first. That attack never came. Your a fool if you think the prejudices were only one way...
    3
  9.  J S  According to historian Robert Fisk: 'Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporters. ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’ Nobody accused the Irish of being pro-Nazi during the war, though the IRA were until repressed by de Valera. Your claim that Ireland was the only nation exempt from U boat attacks is nonsense. Neutral shipping was usually not attacked because they came from non-belligerent countries, however, both Ireland and Sweden lost neutral ships to German uboats during the war. De Valera also had the distinction of being the only world leader to refuse to send an Olympic Team to the 1936 Berlin games and was the only world leader to insert protection of Irish Jews in a national constitution.
    3
  10. 'DeValera was a dictator.' He was not. He won more elections than any other Irish political leaders. Ireland is the only country to have gained its independence between the World Wars that maintained its democracy unbroken until today. 'He was arrogant, a racist and pro Nazi. He even paid homage and offered his condolences to the Nazi's on Hitler's death. His blind hatred of all things British blinded his judgement. ' I don't think he was arrogant, but he was certainly single-minded. He was not a racist. Ireland was the only country in the world to put protections for it Jewish population in the Irish Constitution in 1937. The Irish-Jewish population never forgot that and named a forest in his honor in Israel in 1966 - some racist, eh?. He was also NOT pro-Nazi. He refused to send an Irish team to 1936 Olympics because he did not wish to participate in Hitlers pantomime. He offered condolences on the Hitlers death - a mistake - but this was at a time when Churchill was pressurizing the Irish to hand over Axis diplomats to them, in breach of Irish neutrality. He also sent condolences upon the death of Churchill - does this mean he was pro-Imperialist too? 'It would've been far better for Ireland and everyone else if Michael Collins had survived and been our leader. ' Possibly, be we don't know that for sure. Collins had plans to run a terror war in Northern Ireland, and who knows where that would have led. Fine Gael, populated by his supporters, also supported neutrality in WW2. 'When DeValera was asked if Ireland would give refuge to small Jewish children and babies to escape the Holocaust his answer was " No - We do not want to be contaminated by these people." - This in our name and to our Shame. ' He never said those words, you ignorant prick. Any efforts the de Valera made to help the jews were blocked by the Department of Justice. This is a matter of record, if you ever cared to read a fucking history book. 'Yes - We were neutral - To our Total and Utter Everlasting Shame. It's only because of the tens of thousands of decent Irishmen and women who volunteered to fight the Nazi's in both the American, British and Coomonwealth armies that in a small way saved our honour.' Speak for yourself. I suspect your shame and self-loathing could alleviated if you actually researched the facts, but I think you like it too much. And I say that having had great uncles in both Bomber Command and the 8th Army.
    3
  11.  J S  No historian anywhere claims there was a high level sympathies with Germany you fool. No contemporary critic of Irish neutrality made such a claim at the time either.
    3
  12.  @sansoucci5394  I'm not interested in the supporters of a Scottish football team. You won't find too many rockets scientists among them What power does the Catholic Church had in Ireland ? There was a pogrom in Limerick in the early 20th century. The Limerick Jews moved to Cork where they thrived and one became Lord Mayor of Cork. The Jews of Ireland do not consider Ireland to be anti-Jewish no matter how much you wish others wise. 'Most Irish people (not just in Ireland ) supported Nazisim and Facisim' - no evidence then? Learn to spell Fascism. 'Who lit the way to Belfast for Nazi bombers?' - Nobody, the people of Belfast were infamous for breaking the blackout. 'Who spied for the Nazis? who committed sabotaged for the Nazis?'- all Nazi spies in the Ireland were rounded up, and I am unaware of any sabotage, perhaps you could tell me about it? 'De Valera went to the German legation to express regret for the death of Hitler!!' This is the ONLY piece of truth you provided. While he was condemned for being a fool, nobody suggested he was actually a Nazi sympathiser.. 'Ireland regularly re-fueled German submarines' - this is a old myth, debunked by the Admiralty in 1940 because the British knew they were the only supplier of fuel to the Irish and they did not supply the type of heavy fuel used by uboats, 'Paddy devlin and the IRA prisoners in the Crumlin Road jail cheered to the rafters when following the progress of the German Armies in Russia during WW2' - de Valera executed 6 IRA men during WW2 and interned hundreds more for collaboration with the Nazis. The IRA were no friends of the people of Ireland. 'Every dog in every Irish stret knows that the country is anti Jewish and helped the Nazis.' - perhaps along the Shankill Road, but you won't find to many professors of history along there. Your post is a wonderful collection of traditional Glasgow Rangers level ahistorical bullshit. My original, factual post still stands.
    3
  13.  BemusedBarfly  It is good to expose the ignorance of these people.
    3
  14.  @sansoucci5394  There is nothing 'selectively factual' about MY post, nor is there anything sectarian or racist. I may well be guilty of condescension, but I'm not the thick, hysterical bigot here considering your comments about Catholics. Some of my best friends are Catholics. Perhaps you can help me with something: Otto Jaffe, a Jew, was elected Lord Mayor of Belfast in 1904, but in 1916 he had to flee the city' when vicious Unionist anti-German hysteria forced him to flee from Ulster even though his son was an Officer in the British Army. There were also anti-Semitic assaults in the Bessbrook-Newry area on the Russian born David Abrahamson by Ulster’s Empire Loyalists. His son Leonard explained that ‘since the outbreak of the war, the belief is generally rampant that all Jews are Germans... Would you consider the people involved in these incidents to stupid, or racist? Asking for a friend.
    3
  15.  @sansoucci5394  Too hard, were they? I'll see if I can find an easier one.
    3
  16.  @turnpiketumbler8938  This kind of behaviour will not be tolerated during negotations for a new agreed Ireland, I hope he realises that.
    3
  17. Not when you consider that when war broke out in 1939, Stalin was the most evil man in world history and the UK and France allied themselves with him even though he, like Hitler, had invaded Poland. If human decency was fighting for survival is makes you wonder why the war was not directed towards tackling the holocaust. But, you know, don't let your ability to read history backwards get in the way of your virtue signaling....
    2
  18. Nothing would surprise me!
    2
  19. 'Ireland hates the UK and England in particular.' Not true. But we don't trust the English, because they have never given us reason to trust them. 'Ireland blames the English for the potato famine as if the English destroyed the crop.' You obviously know nothing of the famine. In the summer of 1846 the British government fed 3 million starving Irish people, cheaply and effectively. However, the English resented other people getting 'their money' (sound familiar) and withdrew government aid. A million starved and a million left the country. It was clear to the Irish people that they were not equals in this United Kingdom, but were seen as alien. So we left in 1921. 'England was (and is) a nation of small farms. It does not have commodity food stuff agriculture as does modern day America. There was nothing England could really do to feed the Irish - just as there would have been nothing Ireland could do to feed the English if the situation was reversed.' See above. You badly need to read a history book. Ireland was at the heart of the riches empire in the world and they were allowed to starve. That's just a fact. Sorry. 'As for ruling Ireland, the Irish seem to forget that England and Wales ignored Ireland UNTIL after Irish raiders grew too bold in their attacks.' It is an interesting moral trick to try to compare the activities of barbarian tribes during the fall of the Roman Empire with a centralized exercise of state run european imperialism that Ireland experienced. Are you normally this morally vacuous about the wholesale exploitation of a people and its resources?
    2
  20. 'The IRA declared war on the UK in support of Nazi Germany.' The IRA was already at war with the UK. They sought an alliance with the Nazis as a Nazi invasion remove regimes in both Dublin and Belfast and unite the country. 'They had secret contact with the Nazi's and there was even a plan to invade Ulster in support of the Nazi invasion of England.' Not that secret. What they didn't tell you in the Orange Hall was that by mid-1940 de Valera's government found out about the IRA plot and rounded up the IRA. Two IRA men were executed. ' Yes, the IRA is an unofficial group of irregular civilians who always adopted terror tactics but it gives an insight into the will of the people.' On the contrary, the behaviour of the democratically elected government that is the insight into the will of the people. 'The Irish are said to have permitted U-boats to refuel in "neutral" Irish waters despite refusing access to the allies... In 23/10/1940 Lord Strabolgi stated in a speech in the House of Lords that refuelling of uboats in Eire was ‘physically impossible because submarines did not use gasoline but heavy fuel oil...such supplies could only be carried in a surface ship which could not fail to be observed and reported’. Stabolgi demanded to know the UK government had allowed such false rumours to circulate. Lord Snell, replied saying that the Government had no evidence that enemy submarines were supplied from Irish territory. The idea that heavy fuel oil could be conveyed in large quantities to submarines, which are distinctive warships without anyone knowing about it is grotesque’, Lord Strabolgi remarked. In contrast, the Royal Navy were free to pursue their enemy in Irish waters, contrary to your claim. 'The Catholic Church was sympathetic to the Nazi's and the Vatican arranged the escape of a great many Senior Nazi's after the war. I mention this because the Catholic church was a (the?) real power in Ireland at that time.' The Catholic Church was sympathetic to anybody who was anti-communist, but of course you didn't have to be Catholic to help the Nazis escape justice. Look at the UK, where the Catholic Church has no real power, some 7,000 Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and their families were granted post-war asylum, many subsequently moving on to Canada or the US. Men of the 15th and 19th Waffen SS (Latvian) Divisions and the 20th Waffen SS (Estonian) Division were also offered a life in Britain. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Antanas Gecas was a Lithuanian Nazi who lived in Edinburgh. Under his original name of Gecevicius, he was named in a list of war criminals living in the UK compiled by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in 1986. British intelligence even employed him after the war. He was NEVER indicted for war crimes, despite a multitude of evidence testifying to his participation in a number of heinous activities. He died peacefully,unlike men, women and children he hanged in Minsk, in 2001. Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. 'Finally, those brave Irish men (7.000?) who returned after joining the British army to fight the Nazi's were treated like traitors by the government and people of Ireland. Many of those men had their lives blighted by their brave decision to fight fascism. This "history" is so, so wrong headed.' About 70,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British Armed forces and none of theme were treated like traitors when they returned home, though nor were they treated like heroes; deserters from the Irish Army who joined the British Army were barred from jobs in the Public Service and were ostracised for being traitors. In the 1980s, the British Army were still arresting Irishmen who deserted the British Army in peacetime, for the same reason. Treachery. You're knowledge of Irish history of this period of the East Belfast variety. Imbued with anti-Irish ignorance.
    2
  21.  @djyork8634  No DJ, it is not. The IRA never met Hitler. They dealt with the Abwehr. The IRA were NOT neutral, they declared war on Britain with a bombing campaign in Coventry in January 1939. Members of the IRA had fought Fascism in Spain, and one of them, imprisoned by Franco, saw an opportunity to build an alliance with the Nazi's in a classic case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. These people were traitors to Ireland and a threat to Irish neutrality. The Irish government, all political parties and popular opinion supported Irish neutrality. It had a democratic mandate. The people of Ireland wanted no involvement in the war declared by London against Germans. This included the former 'Southern Unionist' element of the population who were happy to see their sons join the British Army to fight. Ireland is Britain's nearest neighbour and the average English person knows nothing its history, culture or society. Quite damning when you think about it. You are now smarter having read this post, so its all good.
    2
  22.  @djyork8634  You said: 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'...it is not semantics to assume you meant 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'. 'The Irish government claimed neutrality but in reality were quite clear on their sympathies when they offered their'condolences' on Hitlers suicide.' Contemporary commentators never suggested that the Irish government was pro-Nazi, and your comment does little to explain away the extensive co-operation Ireland rendered to the UK during the war. It is of course quite possible you know nothing about it. If the Irish government was sympathetic to the Nazi's then you need to explain why Ireland was the only country in the world NOT to send a team to Berlin Olympics because of the the Nazi's behaviour and why Ireland was the only country in the world to place a special protection for its Jews in its constitution. To follow your logic, the British supported the Japanese in WW2 because Prince Charles attended Hirohito's funeral or worse, that the Irish supported Churchill's policy on Ireland because de Valera sent his condolences upon his death too. 'I'm well aware of Irish history particularly the shameful episodes of soldiers who fought bravely for the British returning home to be scorned - a blight on Irish history.' It's not considered a blight on Irish history in Ireland and I say that having had three great Uncles in British uniform in WW2. There is no evidence you know anything about Irish history, quite the opposite in fact. I doubt you ever lived in Belfast and you certainly never lived Dublin. 'The colonial nature of the British is in the past, outside of the extremist imbeciles to be found in any country, it is an extremely wecoming place.' Brexit and the casual way the Irish were expected to go along with their role as collateral damage suggest that the colonial nature of the relationship is still harboured among the English who long for 'the good old days'. I have not been to Britain since the referendum, so I cannot comment on the welcoming nature of the place these days, but I have it on good understanding that many living there from other countries are experiencing a less than warm welcome. Your extremists are increasing. 'It is a shame that things are not so pleasant in Ireland.' Well then you need to visit again. Ireland is a very welcoming place, with no hang ups about immigrants and no right-wing political parties with any representation. Ireland has never been considered xenophobic but arseholes are usually given short-shrift. The Catholic Church has little power in Ireland these days, and as a universal church has little issue with foreigners - so much for your theory. Ireland now has a higher proportion of its population born outside the country than the United Kingdom has. The British make up the lsecond argest minority in Ireland, and they seem to settle in well. ' A quick lesson for you - no one alive today is responsible for the acts of the past.' One of the problems with the British, well the English mainly, is that they have simply never come to terms with their Imperial past. Because they have never processed the consequences of their great achievements - its not taught in your schools for example - they tend to wash their hands of it, either by victim blaming or claiming victimhood themselves. Another way is by saying 'no one today is responsible for the acts of the past', a meaningless statement of the obvious. A quick lesson for you - in Ireland we live with the consequences of British rule in Ireland every single day. Its just part of our routine. 'Let these things pass, and move forward and lose the hatred'. Telling the British things they don't want to hear does not signify 'hatred'. When you come to terms with your own past and actually learn something about Ireland you will understand that. As a nation, the English need to mature. Its like everyone in Britain blaming the French for the invasion of 1066.. The English have no time for the French to this day, their dislike for them is second only to the Germans. And of course the French did not partition your island either.. '(and technically it was they who invaded Ireland in the first place, not the English)' In Ireland they were known as the Anglo-Normans for good reason. 'Xenophobia is an extremely ugly trait, and ultimately just another way of demonstrating ignorance.' It is. And the English have embraced with all their heart, 15.1 million of them at least. With only 13% of Britain's population born somewhere else your countrymen think their culture is being denuded because of immigration, when in fact it enhances it. Why are they so insecure in their identity? 'There's an excellent life lesson which I think will serve you well. Best of luck!' I think the prescription was made out to you, I don't need it. Try closer to home. Oh and do us all a favour, will you? Get over the war - everyone else has.
    2
  23.  @djyork8634  Do you have an abridged version? The only problem you have is that anything that makes you feel uncomfortable - England's less than stellar record in Ireland for example - is automatically interpreted as 'hatred'. I hate nobody. It is not my role to make allowances for your failure to come to terms with your nations past, an ability to balance the bad with the good. You could learn a lot from the Germans in this regard. Earlier you claimed that Ireland was backward country. This is not the case. Ireland has made success of EU membership while the British made pig's ear of it, by all accounts. Ireland has a more dynamic economy, a more productive workforce, and a higher average income than the UK. The minimum wage is higher and Ireland has no barriers to workers from other countries coming to live and work in the country. In the United Nations Human Development Index for 2019, Ireland is ranked third highest in the world. The UK is 12 places below Ireland. As the UK faces into a once in 300 year recession, followed by its choice to trade on WTO rules only, and with a liar and a charlatan for PM, the following is some data for you to consider. It makes a sound argument that in fact the UK is a more backward country than Ireland in 2020. You could learn a great deal from us if only you could let go of your prejudices and open your mind to new ideas. You guys live shorter lives, are closer to being a failed state, have less democracy (your lack of democratic accountability is a shocker, believe me, I don't know how you put up with it), makes fewer contributions to global peace, and have a less free press than the Irish. Check it out Life Expectancy at Birth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy Fragile State Index (Formerly Failed State Index) – Ireland ahead of UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index Democracy index – Ireland ahead of UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Global Peace Index – Ireland ahead of UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index Freedom of the Press Index – Ireland ahead of UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report) Economic Freedom of the World – Ireland ahead of UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World Good Country Index – Ireland ahead of UK https://goodcountry.org/index/results# Better Life Index – Education Irish people spend longer in education, have better Maths, literacy and science rates with 82% of Irish people having completed secondary school than the UK. However, only one in five English people complete secondary school. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/
    2
  24.  @djyork8634  I've read the top and the bottom line: 1) You have made no salient point for me to grasp. Your narrative rambles all over the place. 2) I have laid no blame on others for Ireland's problems, I have simply pointed out that there is a legacy in Ireland for which the British have excused themselves. 3) Nobody hates the British in Ireland, we have too many connections with the place. The English in particular need to grow up and be honest with themselves about their history. In doing so they will find their place in the world and they won't so thin skinned when dealing with the descendants of their former colonial subjects.
    2
  25.  @djyork8634  A xenophobe is a person who does not like people from other countries. I have no problem with people from other countries, I'm married to one. In Ireland, 17% of the population is from somewhere else, and unlike in your country we don't scapegoat immigrants for our problems. Xenophobia is a not a popular hobby in Ireland, whereas it is openly stoked in your media. Pointing out that the English in particular need to grow up and be honest with themselves about their own history, is for your own good, not for mine. It is quite a leap to conclude that such advice constitutes xenophobia, indeed I can see no connection at all. I don't know anyone in Ireland who hates the British. It appears that unless you participate willingly in British misrepresentations of Ireland on YouTube, you can be accused of being a xenophobe. I find this quite pathetic. You're entire opinion on Irish neutrality in WW2 is based on ignorance. You don't like to be corrected. I will not stop correcting such ignorance. Seems to me that all the problems are on your side.
    2
  26.  @leehallam9365  'You question the decision of the British Government to ally itself with the Soviet Union.' Yes, I do. While it makes military sense of course, you cannot make the claim that participation in the war was a 'moral' issue as you claim later on, without confronting the fact that Stalin, not Hitler, was the most evil man of the modern era in 1941 - and Britain was happy ally with him. That is just a matter of plain fact. It is also the case that the Irish were fiercely anti-Communist and saw little difference between Stalin and Hitler. You fall into the trap of moral cognitive dissonance. 'I am afraid you demonstrate those prejudices further in your references of events 20 years before.' I am demonstrating no prejudices. I am pointing out the reality of 1940s Ireland. The reality is, the entire Irish government of wartime Ireland had fought against the British in the Irish War of Independence and it was Churchill who gave the green light to take revenge against the civilian population and made it official policy during the conflict. It is not my problem that this shameful part of Britain's imperial past is not taught in British schools. There was no Article 50 for Ireland. The generation of 1940s Ireland had no reason to trust the British. Public opinion would not allow any entry to the war on Britain's side unless attacked by Germany first. 'It's the same point, that was history, even then. To justify decisions on the basis of historic grievances, is just wrong.' That is easy for you to say, the UK is the only country in Europe that never had foreign troops on its soil but for the Irish government of wartime Ireland those issues were not in past, they were real and were represented by the border. Your comment is odd as the English in particular still distrust Germany to this day even though they won both world wars. 'The question before Ireland at that point was not, do I love the British, rather it was, which side in this conflict should I take?' That question never even arose!. The question in Ireland was, how do we stay out of yet another war between the great powers of Europe. Ireland condemned Nazi Germany in its invasion of the neutral Benelux countries. It is also a fact that Churchill refused to give an undertaking not to invade Ireland in the same way if it suited him. 'Ireland's neutality was not in the end crucial to the war.' The Irish made the same argument in 1940. Interestingly, according to Cecil Liddell of MI5 in January ‘46 ‘...as things turned out Eire neutral was of more value...than Eire belligerent would have been. Had Eire come into the war her people would have been conscripted...for an invasion that never materialized. They would have to have been supplied with arms to resist attacks by air and land...when supplies were practically non-existent ‘particularly after the fall of France...to the accompaniment of minor guerrilla warfare by the IRA.' He could also have added that neutral Eire supplied thousands of people to work in the British war industries. 'Yet the valour of the tens of thousands of their own citizens who ignored their government is a rebuke to that policy, and the decision of DeValera to sign Hitler's book of condolence, is a symbol of the moral smallness of Irish leaders.' Oh please, this analysis is simplistic and belongs with the Daily Mail (which supported the rise of Hitler, funnily enough). De Valera took a neutral stance on British recruitment in Ireland, as pointed out in the Cranbourne Report. He did nothing to prevent it. It is a mistake to see Irish recruitment as a rubuke of neutrality: The Volunteers Project based at University College Cork has interviewed veterans on their experiences. Most considered they were fighting for the defence of Ireland as well as Britain and all supported Irish neutrality. Many of the volunteers also believed that their war-time endeavours were not incompatible with an Irish national identity, or a demonstration of hostility to neutrality – there was, after all, a long tradition of Irish service in the British Armed Forces. Others joined for their anti-fascist views or simply in search of military excitement. The old joke in the British army was that the Irish 'knew who they were neutral against'. I had three great uncles that served, one in the 8th Army and two others in Bomber Command. Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Irish nationalist, ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’. De Valera did not sign any book of condolences, his condolences were made personally to the German legate and his family as a demonstration - an unnecessary one at that stage in the war - of Irish neutrality. He also offered the man and his family political asylum, which was refused. Ireland paid a price for 'getting away with neutrality' as you say. This incident was widely circulated in the American press by the US legate in Dublin. It was vindictive, but it was also political - Roosavelt before his death was already trying to undermine de Valera's influence in his relection with the Irish-American diaspora. The US legate to Dublin was his husband in law. Churchill too, seized on it because he did not recognise Irish neutrality in the first place and wanted to silence any attempts by Dev to seek unification. However, nobody accused de Valera of being pro-Nazi, his anti-fascist credentials had been established way back in the 1930s when he was head of the League of Nations.
    2
  27.  @leehallam9365  The invasion of Poland was a matter for the UK, it was a world power playing geopolitics – but you have provided no moral justification for Ireland join the war because of a treaty the UK had with Poland. If you consider Ireland risking its own political stability to join in a war with a former imperial master on these grounds, then you are not dealing with reality. The traditional British response to such realities is dismiss it as ‘victimhood’, which means you simply don’t need to deal with it. This is dishonest. But it is also avoiding the proposition that when reading history we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those at the time and judge them on these grounds – you have shown evidence you understand that but then you cop out. What I have been trying to draw out of you is the moral reason Ireland should have joined the war. You have avoided it. I’m going to lay my cards on the table here – I think Hitler was the most evil man in history by the end of the war, but I only know that from reading history backwards. I’m trying to find out from what the moral argument was for Ireland joining the war. I disagree that I defame Britain. I’m trying to present the landscape from an Irish perspective and from you I’m trying get back what moral responsibility Ireland had to Britain’s commitment to Poland. I’m trying to find the moral argument that you believe compelled Ireland to join the war, so far unsuccessfully. You have not articulated what that moral reason is, either through oversight or avoidance. An attack or a declaration of war by Germany would have brought Ireland into the war, but it never came. So, what moral imperative was there for an Irish government in the 1940s to join the war? Incidentally, Ireland also feared invasion from Britain. While Churchill gave Roosevelt an assurance that he would not invade Ireland and make life difficult for the President in the US, he refused to give any such assurance to de Valera. Regarding discrediting Ireland: the Democratic Party in the US was deeply divided between the WASPish side of the party that Roosevelt belonged to and the rising Catholic-Irish American element, which included Joseph Kennedy, the father of the future President. Kennedy and others were opposed to US material support for Britain not to mention involvement in the war - until Pearl Harbor changed that. de Valera had fairly strong connections to them and had used their influence in the 1938 Anglo-Irish negotiations. Roosevelt and particularly his brother in law wanted to discredit de Valera and Ireland so that the Irish-American faction within his party could not use Ireland to undermine them, as they saw it, in the post-war world. It worked for about 15 years. It is taken as a given that the British public are not interested in Ireland – but it was an issue for the Ulster unionists. Your quote from Bevan is reflects that it was government policy. I’m not sure what you mean by this when you say I'm dishonest. Being dismissive of the realities that faced the Irish government in the 1940s is anything but honest in my view. You place no moral value on avoiding war while unarmed and politically divided and are quick to dismiss the legacy of British activity in Ireland in the 1919-1921 period as ‘victimhood’. ‘Political convenience’ is your prejudice, political reality is my reasoning. Ireland and NATO: The war was nearly two years old when Stalin joined the war, but the British did not declare war on Stalin when he invaded eastern Poland which indicates that the defence of Poland was not a moral issue. It was about Germany. Ireland did not join NATO because of partition. You need to understand, this issue regarding partition was not settled until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and this transformed the relationship until Brexit. Partition was extremely divisive in Ireland, just because people in Britain have no interest in it does not mean the Irish felt the same way. Partition flew in the face of democracy, yet the Irish were expected to set this aside by those who denied this democratic will of the Irish people…to fight a war to in defence of democracy. The hypocrisy of the Americans in this regard was particularly galling to the Irish. That did not change in the 1950s when Ireland considered NATO membership. While the Irish could ally themselves with the United States, they could not do so with the UK as public feeling would not support it. Political reality. I did not suggest Britain could not supply Ireland – it could have, but Churchill would not arm neutral Ireland as a matter of policy. Churchill also stopped the American’s giving the Irish Defence Forces any heavy equipment, the strategy was to keep Ireland dependent on the Allies for defence. And yes, there is a good argument to be made that Irish neutrality helped the UK, and you have provided no evidence to contradict that. Liddel was your M15 man, he was not Irish. These were not ‘diplomatic words’ as you state, M!5 is not the foreign office or the diplomatic corps, and they were never meant for public consumption or Irish ears. This was an M15 internal report delivered in January 1946, emerging years later with the release of archival documents. This was the reality of Irish neutrality without the politics. Behind the scenes Ireland co-operated and provided any assistance it could to British Intelligence. If you think MI5s contemporary assessment is ridiculous, then we will have to differ on that, but it is not honest. The fact is there was no majority in Ireland for participation in the war. Various British and American commentators gauged public feeling during the war, and found none. It is quite possible some could have been convinced, but it is likely too that de Valera would have faced a coup from within his own party. ireland was not choosing to stand against an enemy. Ireland didn’t have an enemy. The British did. It was opposed to Partition, Imperialism, Fascism and Communism. I agree, its fun to speculate about how things could turned out if different decisions had been made. You demonstrate the usual argument that usually ends with the proposition that Ireland could well be a united country today had Ireland joined the war. Yet, in the 1940s he Irish were aware that Unionists and Nationalists had fought side-by-side in the Great War and within two years Ireland was partitioned. Even now, 22 years after the border issue has been settled, it is difficult to see any sign that the Unionists in Northern Ireland have warmed up to the notion of Irish unity despite removing pretty much all the issues that unionists placed as obstacles to unity. Ireland had the distinction of being the only country that gain independence during the interwar period that managed to remain a democracy, but it was a close-run thing. Would that democratic consensus have held had Ireland entered the war? Let’s ask an Englishman: ‘If he has wished to do so, could de Valera have brought Eire into the war on the side of Great Britain inspite of Partition? He would have been bitterly opposed by the IRA, then a formidable organisation, capable of gaining large numbers of sympathisers…;while many of his own supporters were convinced that entry into the war on the side of Britain would have meant the occupation of the ports and airfields by British troops, and that, once there, they would never have been got rid of’… De Valera is a very astute politician…he may, none the less, have been politically right in deciding that as long as Partition remained, his Government would not have survived an attempt to bring Eire into the war. (Guy Liddel, 28th May, 1945). It is also the case that post-war the British government turned its back on Northern Ireland gave unionists a free hand in running the place as they saw fit. This in turn led the violence the civil rights protests and later The Troubles. It took until the mid-1980s before the British could acknowledge the problem required a political solution. Had that political solution existed before the outbreak of the war, things may well have been different. So that leaves us with the moral argument. Can you make one?
    2
  28.  @leehallam9365  ‘It was certainly the case that Germany did not invade Ireland, to what degree that was due to its neutrality being successful, or was down to Britain not being defeated is open to debate.’ No, in fairness to you I don’t think there is ANY debate. Britain not getting invaded prevented Ireland from getting invaded. We know today that the Nazis would only have attempted an invasion of Ireland as part of an invasion of Britain, and that they had no confidence in invading Ireland separately without knocking out Britain first. Irish neutrality also prevented a political split internally, which would have been exploited by the Germans, no doubt and who know, perhaps by the British too. Neutrality was the first time there was consensus in new state on anything. Not joining the allies kept the Germans from attacking Ireland, which was highly vulnerable to the Luftwaffe. Assisting the British in secret prevented an invasion from Britain. To this day, the Irish considered neutrality in WW2 to be a foreign policy success. ‘I think it is most unlikely the Germans did not see what Ireland was doing, they ignored it because it suited them.’ This is speculation. Ireland remained on the Nazi agenda even up to late 1940. In December that year at a meeting in Berlin where an invasion of Ireland was discussed, Hitler stated that ‘a landing in Ireland’ could ‘only be attempted if Ireland requests help’. Admiral Raeder considered that, British naval supremacy in the waters surrounding Ireland meant that no transport operation of troops to Ireland would be possible. This may have its roots in the de Valera’s statement that any invasion by Britain would result in a request for assistance from Germany. He told the Nazi’s that any attack by them would result in a request for help from Britain. Raeder was not even confident of a cross-channel invasion of England either, as it happens. However, there are no files on Ireland that indicate the Germans knew what the Irish were doing. During that same month, December 1940, the Germans requested to send four serving military officers as military attaches to the German Legation in Dublin and were told that ‘refusal would be seen by the German Government in a most serious light’. De Valera refused the request stating that it would undermine neutrality. All military leave was cancelled and Dublin braced itself for air raids or an invasion. In early January several bombs fell on Ireland, (one damaging a synagogue in Dublin. It became the only synagogue that the Nazis ever paid for the repairs of). Incidentally, also during this month the Irish took in refugees from British, including children whose parents had been killed, a total of 2000 altogether. But I digress… ‘…it was a neutral country led by a man that from Churchill's perspective, was led by a man who had been among the leaders of an armed rebellion, while his country was at war.’ This is a perfectly logical argument. However, Churchill’s own intelligence agency was working hand in glove with its Irish counterpart, G2, since Chamberlain’s time and he knew, when he listened, that Ireland was playing ball behind the scenes. Churchill was a drama queen, and an old imperialist. It galled him that Ireland did not know its place and fall into line behind what he would have considered the ‘mother country’. It mattered little to him that the public display of neutrality concealed a private benevolence that met most of the UKs needs. As MI5 pointed out, there was little additional advantage, if any, to be gained through having a belligerent Ireland, and perhaps some considerable disadvantage. At the end of the war, Churchill found time to have that side-swipe at Ireland, but Churchill was disingenuous given MI5s account of its Irish activities. There was no moral reason for Ireland to join the war. And Ireland would have put its differences with Britain aside has Ireland been attacked or if Germany had declared war on Ireland, as ‘Plan W’ indicates. The Irish position was no different to that of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and so forth. Ireland’s ‘problem’ is that Ireland was never attacked. ‘If you look below the racial aspect, you will notice it was an attack on the principle of nationalism…’ That’s not very reassuring if your Irish, is it? Britain had an empire base on a notion that some races are entitled to dominate others, including the Irish. ‘When we get down to the basic moral choice over neutrality, we won't agree, and it is becoming repetitive.’ There was no moral dilemma for Ireland in being neutral, you have provided no logical basis for it. But the case you could make, and I’m surprised you have not yet, is that Hitler was undoubtedly the most evil man in human history by May 1945. The benefit of hindsight, and decades of research have all combined to ensure that most now have a certain view of the morality and immorality of various decisions made during the Second World War. Popular culture has given the reading of history backwards a free hand, while a certain obsession with the war is now a part of British culture. Putin is currently re-writing the Soviet history of the Great War, as are the Poles (I think). In the US it is taught that World War Two was fought to save the Jews. Commemoration and memory are often used to serve contemporary requirements. But again, I digress… ‘All nations have their national mythology, mine does, I think this might be part of yours.’ It may well be as you say, though the Irish spend much less time thinking about this period than the British do. In fact, only for the British ‘mythology’, which ranges from ‘Irish collaborated with the Nazis’ across to ‘the moral bankruptcy’ argument, I think few Irish people would give much thought to this period of Irish history. It is clearly much more important to the British than to the Irish or indeed any of the countries of Europe once occupied by the Nazis. If you have any insights as to why this might be the case, I would be genuinely interested. Ireland has been dealing with its national mythology over the last 30 years and has come a long way with it. There seems to be little evidence, no evidence in fact, that the English in particular have done something similar. ‘..and saying well we decided in 1936 is just silly, what's decided can be undecided.’ Agreed. But you provided no logical reason as why that change could have taken place. ‘However, my view is very simple, you don't need to like your allies, you don't have to trust them.’ Given the size and proximity of Ireland and partition in relation to Britain, I’m afraid you do. Remember, when you asked if the Irish were so stupid to believe that they could force Unionists into a united Ireland against their will? Churchill offered Irish unity to de Valera in exchange for an ending of neutrality in June 1940, without the knowledge of unionists. He seems to have offered it again in December 1941. He never consulted the unionists. Is that not moral bankruptcy? Is Britain’s necessity a moral code? Trust is vital. John Redmond, the great constitutional Irish nationalist who campaigned for Home Rule had his career destroyed by his support for the Britain in the Great War. He was seen to have been duped by the British. Between the wars, it became clear that many of claims about German atrocities in Belgium used to recruit Irishmen were exaggerated. You can be sure that the ghost of John Redmond was in the room of the Irish cabinet during this time…
    2
  29. ​ @leehallam9365  ‘However, it's little commented on how perhaps three quarters of protestants left the Republic after independence…’, There are plenty of books and documentaries on the subject the existence which discount this notion that it has been little commented on. Ian Paisley regularly made claims that southern Protestant community were a persecuted minority prompting correspondence to the letters page of the Irish Times repudiating such claims from southern Irish protestants. Of course Catholic Ireland was not often a cold place for Irish protestants, but they remained an affluent, middle-class, professionals, that dominated the judiciary and produced two of Ireland’s nine Presidents. The banning of divorce and contraception in the 1930s was viewed as a hostile act by them generally and for those wishing to celebrate their British identity, they felt they could only do it in private. This was shared by some Irish Catholics nationalist also. The Protestant community had been in decline since the disestablishment of the CoE, and, it nose-dived with the withdrawal of British administration in 1922. Others left because of their loyalty to the crown, and more still for economic reasons, just like Catholics. While most protestants in the Republic came from unionist backgrounds of a century ago, Irish protestants identify with the Irish state and have done so for decades now. Irish Free State did adopt a holier-than-thou level of Catholicism that was completely over the top, and for Protestants this was difficult. Recently protestant historians now also argue that their community must were too inclined to keep their heads down. From 1937 they had a constitution that explicitly protected them. ‘Is that really about a change in Irish Nationalism, or just Irish culture, are they really the same thing?’ It is both. After Independence, a very narrow view of what it was to be Irish became the norm: it was implicitly, white, Irish and Catholic. A number of factors influenced the change, including the Troubles in NI. A new notion of Irish nationalism emerged, which was more inclusive and allowed for a multi-layered identity. Ultimately, it became a corner stone of the Good Friday Agreement and led to the redefining of Articles 2 and 3 three of the Irish constitution, adopted by 94% of voters in the Republic. Our culture is international now anyway, our writers, musicians, film makers, politicians are Irish, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, American, British, Ulster Scots. Some of our finest literary works challenged that old binary notion of Irishness. Now life, and the Irish constitution, imitates the art. In the event of a border poll, the citizens of the Republic have a vote too. It will be held on the same day as the one in NI. It is quite possible that NI could vote for unity and citizens south of the border will reject it. Any future united Ireland will have to be an agreed one and everything will on the table. I imagine there will need to be a sense that about 60% at least in favour, before a vote will be held. ‘Ireland and the EU actually believed it was right that laws be placed on the north, that they had no part in making...’ You’ve lost me here... ‘It's interesting two in light of your views on Partician, that Irish Nationalists took the view that the Remain vote in NI somehow invalidated the Leave vote in the UK overall applying in NI.’ Not in light of the Good Friday Agreement, it highlighted the democratic deficit at the heart of the UKs constitutional arrangement at time when British identity was never weaker. ‘Funny how a majority in NI counts in your mind in one case and not the other.’ Don’t confuse my ability to place myself in the Ireland of 1920 or 1940 with that of 2020. One is dealing with different realities. The GFA did not exist in 1920. ‘A lot will depend how NI special status works out… I agree. No Irish government will want a 51% majority in favour of unity – it will need to be larger than that. I gave you examples, which you have ignored, that indicate that something is changing. Brexit Britain does not reflect their values or economic interests. Remember Northern Ireland voted to remain, manly for economic reasons. There is no clamor for a border poll in the Republic either, and you are correct that the situation is fluid, however it is quite clear which way the momentum is going, and if we take that Northern Ireland’s existence was originally based on a sectarian headcount, then it would be foolish suggest it can be dismissed when the numbers are reversed. It certainly doesn’t bring Unionists much comfort. ‘As for Irish Nationalism, well it has changed, it's no longer tied to the Church, but it continues to be focused on its bigger neighbour, but has also taken on an ethnic nature.’ I don't understand your claim that Irish nationalism is becoming more ethnic. It is unfortunate that you see an Ireland standing up for itself as somehow intrinsically hostile to Britain, but that might reflect an insecurity on your side of the Irish Sea. Dismissing Irish utterances that you don’t like as ‘victimhood’ or ‘ethnic’ or ‘anti-British’ is simplistic. The idea that the Irish should just ‘know their place’ and pipe down has been one of the characteristics of Brexit and it has not gone unnoticed in Dublin, Northern Ireland, Brussels and elsewhere. I expect Ireland's focus is on Europe, not Britain, and that will increase post-Brexit. Ireland has reduced its dependency on UK over the years and this will continue by necessity now. I emphasise England because it is the English vote that is taking the UK out of the EU. And it remains the case that there is no international land border on the island of Britain. You have no relationship with the British border in Ireland – you never have to deal with it. ‘Your bizarre idea that England will leave the UK is a fantasy…’ I know! Precisely nobody agrees with me in Ireland either. It’s a gut feeling. I feel that English nationalism will evolve in that direction in due course in part because Brexit will not solve any of the problems the English have with their democracy, their inequality etc. ‘..if you are of Irish ancestry, then that Empire at its height was your ancestors responsibility as much as mine.’ The British empire was a joint English and Scottish project. Ireland was different. Ireland was the only country in Europe that was ruled by a minority who were planted there; a people who were who practiced a different language, religion, had a different culture and customs, they had virtually sole access to the law and the enforcement of that law. It was this Anglo-Irish class that was empire building across the world, many of their descendants were southern protestants whose fate you feel is not talked about. The Gaelic Irish provided the rank and file of the army and navy. Ireland was the laboratory for the creation of the British empire, the place where plantation was first attempted and where blueprints for command and control were formulated. Ireland was the UKs first colony. ‘As for partition, you didn't take on my question about what Ireland would have been like without it.’ Partition dates to when to passing of the Home Rule bill in 1914, when the British government tolerated the arming of the UVF in resistance to it, and a mutiny of the British Army officer corps. That’s hardly democratic. Had Ireland not been partitioned, the avoidance of violence would have depended on the approach of nationalists and the British government. If the British had said to the unionists that they needed to work out an arrangement with Irish nationalism, then anything is possible. Had it come to pass, the emergence of two states each with dominant religious cultures would not have occurred. Unionists could have held the balance of political power, creating a more religiously plural state, still a member of the commonwealth and having participated in WW2. I will not discount the possibility there could have been sectarian bloodshed, of course, but a political arrangement could have been reached. Nobody consulted Irish nationalism in 1920. ‘The civil war demonstrated that the heroes of the Independence struggle, were every bit as capable of using violence to settle political disputes among themselves, as in fighting Britain.’ I agree, but it was conducted under pressure from London as the pro-Treaty faction was reluctant to move against de Valera’s faction. De Valera’s faction had little political support among the public. Democracy survived because, there was just enough common sense to take the gun out of politics. When de Valera came to power, he did not seek retribution and the army did not stage a coup. However, the bitterness remained a factor into the 1970s at least. Surely if NI had been democratic there would have been no civil rights movement or outbreak of the Troubles in 1968?
    2
  30. You first.
    2
  31. Ireland started co-operating with the British in 1940, on the eve of an expected British defeat. So much for your premise.
    2
  32. The Irish were not pro-Fascist, Ireland valued its democracy. The IRA did not represent the Irish people, and the whitewash is on your side because you fail to mention the internment of the IRA and the execution of two of them by de Valera. But who needs facts when you are a bigot? You can put a statue up to anybody in Ireland, once it meet planning criteria. It is a measure of your bias that you fail to mention that it is constantly attacked by anti-fascist. You probably felt it would undermine the opening six words of your statement. As Northern Irelander you failed to mention how Irish volunteers from neutral Ireland outstripped the number of volunteers from NI and that recruiting was not banned in Eire. You express no knowledge of the high regard Irish military intelligence was held in by MI5 - the Irish even helped to crack Nazi codes.. Your post is a celebration of your deep respect for ignorance.
    2
  33. I'm not ashamed of my history because the IRA of the 1940s were using the Nazi's against the will of the Irish people. Are you ashamed that a few British soldiers joined the Waffen SS? This piece of Irish history was obviously news to you, but it was no secret in Ireland. It has been in Irish school history books since the 1960s. There is no evidence that the IRA were particularly anti-Semitic as Jews had been members of the IRA in past.
    2
  34.  @the_red_barron1002  And the Irish government were collaborators with the British. Are we pretending that did not happen?
    2
  35.  @Edmonton-of2ec  There was nothing confusing about Irish neutrality for the Irish.
    2
  36.  @chunkybuster7203  Actually, there was not such 'secret blacklist' as you claim. However, British ex-servicemen got no special treatment when they returned to Ireland after the war, while ex-Irish soldiers were favoured for state jobs. Ex-British servicemen living in Ireland after the war were still able to collect their British pensions.
    2
  37. No, the IRA did. De Valera suppressed the IRA and executed 6 of them.
    2
  38. @Strve Sit It is true that not all the Irish supported the UK at the time. It is not true that Ireland did not back the allies - it was neutral. However, in private it provided assistance where it could keep it secret.
    2
  39. The French didn't end up speaking German. Neither did anyone else.
    2
  40. The only European nations that were not neutral in WW2 were German, France and the UK. All the rest stayed out unless attacked. Ireland was not attacked.
    2
  41.  @fisher1907  Wrong. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland all declared neutrality in 1939. Spain abandoned neutrality in the summer of 1940, offering the Nazis their services and becoming a non-belligerent ally. Spain u-boats were allowed to refuel in Vigo, for example. As the war turned, Franco declared neutrality again in 1943. Sweden and Switzerland were neutrals which leaned in favour of the Axis. Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway were all neutrals that became belligerent only when the Nazi's invaded them. Portugal was neutral but under a fascist dictatorship. It's neutrality favoured the Allies. Ireland was neutral, but provided assistance to the allies in secret. It remained neutral as the Nazi's never invaded Ireland or declared war on it.
    2
  42. Ireland could not have prevented an invasion of the UK, clown.
    2
  43. The Irish call Eire Ireland in the English language. Ireland is both an island and the name of the larger state on the that same island. The Spanish refuelled Nazi Uboats, the Irish did not, but the myth has persisted. Rev James Little MP, a NI Presbyterian clergyman, wrote to the Admiralty stating a parishioner on holiday in Donegal met U-boat crews on a bus near Bundoran. He stated that the Irish were harbouring U-boat crews and providing assistance. The Admiralty wrote back that rumours like this had been investigated before and proved to be baseless. They even noted in their files that the guy was rabid bigot In 23/10/1940 Lord Strabolgi stated in a speech in the House of Lords that refuelling of uboats in Eire was ‘physically impossible because submarines did not use gasoline but heavy fuel oil...such supplies could only be carried in a surface ship which could not fail to be observed and reported’. Stabolgi demanded to know the UK Gov. had allowed such false rumours to circulate. Lord Snell, replied saying that the Gov. had no evidence that enemy submarines were supplied from Irish territory.’ ‘The idea that heavy fuel oil could be conveyed in large quantities to submarines, which are distinctive warships without anyone knowing about it is grotesque’, Lord Strabolgi remarked. A minute from British Naval Intelligence from early December 1940 concluded that ‘no real evidence has been found that U-boats use bases in Eire’. Hope that helps.
    2
  44. The Irish Jews did not think so. They planted a forest in his honor in Israel in 1966. In the same year, Dev was presented with a specially commissioned hand-painted book in the presence of leading members of the Jewish community. The book contained a number of tributes including: .‘I consider the project to inaugurate the Eamon de Valera forest a well deserved tribute to a great statesman – one who has won the esteem of all peace loving peoples’, the widow of Rabbi Isaac Hertzog. Arthur Newman, a Zionist wrote: ‘No man in my opinion is more deserving to be honoured by our community than Eamon de Valera’.
    2
  45. You're not even qualified to have an opinion.
    2
  46. Well you can say what you like, fact based evidence suggests something entirely different.
    2
  47. I'm Irish and I feel no shame regarding Irish neutrality in WW2. Like other Irish people, I feel nothing but pride.
    2
  48. Recruitment was a source of embarrassment for the Unionist government in Northern Ireland as it was lower than they wanted and was easily matched by recruitment to the British armed forces from neutral Eire. This was in part explained by the numbers of jobs available in the NI shipyards.
    2
  49.  @joecook5689  Well Joe I am sorry you feel that way. However it is the case that the war industries in NI did effect recruitment there in WW2. Tomorrow I will deal with your distortions regarding Irish neutrality and you can explain the obsession the English have with WW2. I need my sleep now.
    2
  50.  @joecook5689  I'm back, sorry for the delay. Here is some research on the topic. This is a quotation from Brian Barton from his book Northern Ireland and the Second World War. 'Until April 1941, when Belfast's first blitz brought them to their senses, it was difficult to raise recruits even for civil defence. The local force, 40,000 armed Protestants (B Specials and Local Defence Volunteers), never took their eyes off the main sectarian chance. The irony was that between September 1941 and May 1945 there were 11,500 northern volunteers as against 18,600 southerners passing through the Northern Ireland recruiting channel alone.'...later he comments: ' Apathy was pervasive. Cynics suggested that the suspension of twelfth of July demonstrations was to divert attention from the large number of able-bodied Orangemen who had not entered military service.' This from Thomas Bartlett's book 'Ireland a History': 'A public-private contradiction emerges when the two Ireland’s respective roles in the Second World War are considered . Eire’s stance was often criticised in public by UK and US politicians, but in private its ‘contribution’ was tacitly, though rarely warmly, acknowledged. By contrast, Northern Ireland’s war effort was publicly praised on all sides ...yet in private, in report after report, there was much criticism of Northern Irelands lacklustre response to the needs of the UK war economy. You state that Ireland would have loved to have seen Germany win the Battle of Britain - that is not borne out by the historical evidence. Neutrality was the only sustainable policy for Ireland, given the divisions within its society in relation to Britian, which had committed atrocities in Ireland less than 20 years before. Nonetheless, thousands of Irishmen volunteered in the British forces, thousands of others served nurses in British hospitals, or worked in British war industry; Irish military intelligence worked hand in hand with the British, even helping to crack Nazi codes, and repressing any that might have might facilitated Germany in attacking Britain. The subject is complicated. There was a sense in the US and UK that Ireland 'got away with it' in terms of neutrality and both countries sought to discredit Irish neutrality in the immediate aftermath, making no public mention of any assistance the Irish rendered.
    2