Record numbers of free staters flock to join British Army

[Main Street]

Well written reply Hardy.

Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. 

Shatter quite clearly states that in the context of the Holocaust, for Eire to maintain a policy of "neutrality" between the Allies and the Nazis was "morally bankrupt". I agree entirely.

For even if you ignore the refusal of the Irish Government to accept Jewish refugees, including children, before the war; even if you ignore the refusal to accept then during the war, and even after news of the Holocaust started to emerge, consider this.

It is quite absurd to regard the policy of neutrality in 1939 as being morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust, something that was not known until 1945.

And what was revealed about the Holocaust near the end of the war about the Holocaust was not going to have any bearing on Irish neutrality in 1945.
And any anti-jewish sentiment had absolutely no bearing on Dev's policy of neutrality.
Considering how politicians were at that time, Dev was not an anti-semite, as evidenced by the deliberate phrased clauses inserted into the 1937 constitution.
Post war action on the plight of Jewish refugees?  Britain became the main barrier to Jewish refugees seeking to reach Palestine, "political concerns - not human considerations - determined British policy regarding the refugees"
Britain aimed to beat Germany in WW2 , rescuing the Jews was an effect of that, it was not the ambition of Britain to rescue the Jews.

Dev has a mixed record. In 1943 the impoverished Irish state sent £100,000 for famine relief in Bengal, where an estimated 3 million people starved to death as a result of what became known as "Churchill's secret war", a deliberate man made famine, Churchill's scorched earth policy to impede progress of the Japanese Army, one of the blackest ever acts of genocide inflicted in WW2, proven beyond doubt in a forensic analytical account by Madhusree Mukerjee.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Now to widen the context, I am not criticising the Mutineers, any more than I am absolving the Deserters - those were terrible times and it is far too easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our easy, 21st Century life.

But the point I have been trying to get across, and to which you seem oblivious or unmoved, is that I am instead  criticising the reaction of Dev's Government to the desertions, for which the Pardon is now being granted, some 70-odd years later.

Okay, so we are not "absolving" the Deserters then why the "pardon"?   Surely an apology for the excessive nature of the punishment and subsequent mistreatment of their families was the correct course of action.

Granting an unequivocal pardon suggests that it was okay for these men to forgo their oath of allegiance to the Irish Army and the Free State, abandon their posts and join a foreign state's army.  Because they preferred the government policy of the other state?  Not acceptable in my book.

Also it should be acknowledge that all these deserters were paid their pensions based on time worked to date they went AWOL.  They also received their British Army pension along with it via the Irish Government. 

No discharged soldier was allowed a state post unless they had correct discharge papers (unavailable to any deserters) so said punishment although explicitly in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was already a policy.

No doubt any further punishment (particularly of families/children) should be apologised for and where still possible compensated.

/Jim.

[Evil Genius]

Shooting of innocent protesters is equivalent to army deserters being black listed for state jobs and pension. Only in your bizarre world EG!

I did not make that equation (nor would I).

I merely chose Bloody Sunday as an example of a Government apologising for something which it hadn't actually done, but for which it still bore some responsibility.

Like the Kenny Government apologising for Dev.

[Evil Genius]

Well written reply Hardy.

Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. 

Shatter quite clearly states that in the context of the Holocaust, for Eire to maintain a policy of "neutrality" between the Allies and the Nazis was "morally bankrupt". I agree entirely.

For even if you ignore the refusal of the Irish Government to accept Jewish refugees, including children, before the war; even if you ignore the refusal to accept then during the war, and even after news of the Holocaust started to emerge, consider this.

It is quite absurd to regard the policy of neutrality in 1939 as being morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust, something that was not known until 1945.

And what was revealed about the Holocaust near the end of the war about the Holocaust was not going to have any bearing on Irish neutrality in 1945.
And any anti-jewish sentiment had absolutely no bearing on Dev's policy of neutrality.
Considering how politicians were at that time, Dev was not an anti-semite, as evidenced by the deliberate phrased clauses inserted into the 1937 constitution.
Post war action on the plight of Jewish refugees?  Britain became the main barrier to Jewish refugees seeking to reach Palestine, "political concerns - not human considerations - determined British policy regarding the refugees"
Britain aimed to beat Germany in WW2 , rescuing the Jews was an effect of that, it was not the ambition of Britain to rescue the Jews.

Dev has a mixed record. In 1943 the impoverished Irish state sent £100,000 for famine relief in Bengal, where an estimated 3 million people starved to death as a result of what became known as "Churchill's secret war", a deliberate man made famine, Churchill's scorched earth policy to impede progress of the Japanese Army, one of the blackest ever acts of genocide inflicted in WW2, proven beyond doubt in a forensic analytical account by Madhusree Mukerjee.

Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

[Evil Genius]

Now to widen the context, I am not criticising the Mutineers, any more than I am absolving the Deserters - those were terrible times and it is far too easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our easy, 21st Century life.

But the point I have been trying to get across, and to which you seem oblivious or unmoved, is that I am instead  criticising the reaction of Dev's Government to the desertions, for which the Pardon is now being granted, some 70-odd years later.

Okay, so we are not "absolving" the Deserters then why the "pardon"?   Surely an apology for the excessive nature of the punishment and subsequent mistreatment of their families was the correct course of action.

Granting an unequivocal pardon suggests that it was okay for these men to forgo their oath of allegiance to the Irish Army and the Free State, abandon their posts and join a foreign state's army.  Because they preferred the government policy of the other state?  Not acceptable in my book.

Also it should be acknowledge that all these deserters were paid their pensions based on time worked to date they went AWOL.  They also received their British Army pension along with it via the Irish Government. 

No discharged soldier was allowed a state post unless they had correct discharge papers (unavailable to any deserters) so said punishment although explicitly in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was already a policy.

No doubt any further punishment (particularly of families/children) should be apologised for and where still possible compensated.

/Jim.

Why a Pardon, rather than a mere Apology? I would guess there are three reasons.

1. The punishment influcted was particularly egregious, indeed spiteful, since there were lawful punishments (Court Martial etc) open to Dev, but which he wilfully chose to ignore;
2. These Deserters did not leave their post for the usual reasons (eg cowardice or shell-shock etc). Quite the contrary, it was to put their lives at risk in fighting a particularly loathesome enemy (and one which would not have spared the Free State, had GB & NI, fallen);
3. There are only a handful left, and all of those are about 90...

[LondonCamanachd]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

[Evil Genius]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off.  Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day...

[LondonCamanachd]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

You've never chanced across Aberdeen supporters discussing the SFA's Glasgow based referees...

My point was more that apologising and fauz acts of contrition are useless. 

Contrition should be one recognises that one is in the wrong and seeks to make amends for it.  Not, recognise that somebody else a long time ago did something wrong, and then look doleful in front of the memorial.*

Shatter has no need to apologise for the actions of De Valera's government, Tony Blair does have a lot to apologise for, but not slavery.




*I'm going to be a hypocrite and point out that Willy Brandt falling to his knees at the Warsaw ghetto memorial is different, despite the man's life long anti-Nazi stance..

[Main Street]

Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

The condolence was not an apology, it was an expression of sympathy, by a  dedicated fanatic advocate of neutrality. Humanitarian concerns did not come into that equation.
You should be aware of that political act, considering British governments post-war callous attitude to the jewish refugees. Dev's action was pretty mild in comparison.

Dev was informed to some degree of what was happening in Germany due to his close relationship with the Chief Rabbi of Ireland Herzog, who had helped him draft the 1937 constitution. It's generally accepted by rational historians that Dev was confronted by  anti-semites that infested the civil service. Pre war it was Charles Bewley the envoy to Italy and later Germany who persistently thwarted the visa applications from jewish refugees. He was dismissed by Dev and left without a pension in 1939.
In contrast to Charles, the Bewley family in Dublin were very supportive of the jewish refugees who did arrive.
Dev collaberated with Herzog to assist jewish refugees  in 1943.
Anyway,  Kenny's party along with religious nuts in the 1930's and 1940's were the source of most of the vile anti-semite sentiments. The most vile anti-semites found a safe refuge inside Fine Gael.

[muppet]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off. Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day...

An idiotic mob hangs a dead body and you think that constitutes an apology for genocide?

As for your MOPE comment, it shows you up for exactly what you are. Millions of Irish died at the hands of Britain. That is a matter of historical fact, not some victim complex. Your use of other murderous regimes in Europe as some sort of context to justify your casual dismissal of dead Irish people is exactly the sort of logic that leads to the justification of people like the IRA i.e. murder is o because otherr people are doing it too. Well done!

And as for your scorched by the flames of Drogheda comment, say that to those who march every year celebrating a 400 year old war.

[Evil Genius]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

You've never chanced across Aberdeen supporters discussing the SFA's Glasgow based referees...

Trust me, Aberdeen FC has only existed for 100-odd years, whereas Irish Republicans have been moping since, well, forever...

My point was more that apologising and fauz acts of contrition are useless. 

Contrition should be one recognises that one is in the wrong and seeks to make amends for it.  Not, recognise that somebody else a long time ago did something wrong, and then look doleful in front of the memorial*

Couldn't agree more.

Shatter has no need to apologise for the actions of De Valera's government, Tony Blair does have a lot to apologise for, but not slavery.

Whilst you're spot on re Blair, I actually think Shatter is right to make an apology and issue a Pardon etc, since there are survivors and veterans of WWII still around (just). In fact, imo it is all the more important that he said these things, before the last few die off.

[Evil Genius]

Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

The condolence was not an apology, it was an expression of sympathy, by a  dedicated fanatic advocate of neutrality. Humanitarian concerns did not come into that equation.

So you think it acceptable to ignore humanitarian concerns, and sympathise with the death of someone who had just been exposed as one of the vilest dictators the world has ever known?

It is exactly that sort of thinking which Shatter condemned when he said that under Dev's foreign policy, Eire had "lost its moral compass".

I guess I should thank you for proving his point (whilst I try not to throw up...)

You should be aware of that political act, considering British governments post-war callous attitude to the jewish refugees. Dev's action was pretty mild in comparison.

Ah, whataboutery to the rescue again...

Anyhow, if you want to discuss the UK's policy over Palestine in the post-War period then by all means, start another thread, just don't pollute this one, which is discussing the topic of Irish people serving in the British Armed Forces, including during the fight against Fascism in WWII.

Dev was informed to some degree of what was happening in Germany due to his close relationship with the Chief Rabbi of Ireland Herzog, who had helped him draft the 1937 constitution. It's generally accepted by rational historians that Dev was confronted by  anti-semites that infested the civil service. Pre war it was Charles Bewley the envoy to Italy and later Germany who persistently thwarted the visa applications from jewish refugees. He was dismissed by Dev and left without a pension in 1939.
In contrast to Charles, the Bewley family in Dublin were very supportive of the jewish refugees who did arrive.
Dev collaberated with Herzog to assist jewish refugees  in 1943.

And no doubt Herzog helped formulate his policy of even-handedness between the Allies and the Nazis, too?
Or maybe advised him on what form of words he should use to Ambassador Hempel in order best to express the country's sympathy at the death of Der Fuhrer?
Or even suggested to De Valera that he should grant political asylum to Hempel after the War?

Anyway,  Kenny's party along with religious nuts in the 1930's and 1940's were the source of most of the vile anti-semite sentiments. The most vile anti-semites found a safe refuge inside Fine Gael.

More "whataboutery"...

Still, as excuses go, I suppose it makes a change from "We were just following orders, Mein Herr" 

[Evil Genius]

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off. Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day...

An idiotic mob hangs a dead body and you think that constitutes an apology for genocide?

Oh dear, I guess I'm going to have to make it explicit every time I'm exagerrating for effect, or being sarcastic, or taking the p1ss out of a poster who's being particularly obtuse.

For you, at least...

As for your MOPE comment, it shows you up for exactly what you are. Millions of Irish died at the hands of Britain. That is a matter of historical fact, not some victim complex. Your use of other murderous regimes in Europe as some sort of context to justify your casual dismissal of dead Irish people is exactly the sort of logic that leads to the justification of people like the IRA i.e. murder is o because otherr people are doing it too. Well done!

And your reply shows your inability to read another poster's point without bursting into flames* with indignation at the first hint of being sleighted.

READ IT AGAIN! I said that Irish Republicans  (you know, Sinn Fein and the like) are incorrigible Mopes. However I will never accept their claim that theirs is the only type of Irishness, not least since I am proudly Irish myself.

Nor, by reason of that latter point alone, would I ever casually dismiss the suffering of those countless of (my fellow) Irish folk who suffered at the hands of the British.

But perhaps because I am also British, neither will I consider that I have to answer for the actions of 'Brit Oppressors' who lived and died hundreds of years ago, any more than I consider I have a right to an "apology" as an Irishman, from their descendants hundreds of years later.


* - Just so as you aren't mislead, or further offended, "bursting into flames" is just a figure of speech, not a literal claim, or an allusion to Drogheda or any other centuries-old massacre

And as for your scorched by the flames of Drogheda comment, say that to those who march every year celebrating a 400 year old war.

And which war would that be, then? The Second Aztec-Spanish War of 1612? Or the Kalmar War of 1611-13? The Polish-Muscovite War of 1605-1618, maybe?

Anyhow, whichever War it is, why don't you tell the marchers yourself, seeing as how I have never marched in celebration of any War, or Battle even, in my entire life. 

[muppet]

Your argument is that you were being sarcastic, didn't mean it or I overreacted or whatever you think gets you away from answering from anything.

Your indignance at De Valera doesn't stand up when matched with your causal dismissal of any evil perpetrated on the Irish. Hide behind whatever you want but that is the crux of it.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

READ IT AGAIN! I said that Irish Republicans  (you know, Sinn Fein and the like) are incorrigible Mopes. However I will never accept their claim that theirs is the only type of Irishness, not least since I am proudly Irish myself.

That's exactly why you're not worth the debating effort: casually and casuistically dropping a whopper of a lie into your response.

Post one, just one, example of Sinn Féin asserting that 'theirs is the only type of Irishness'. Just one.