Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference

[Main Street]

As you keep mentioning Lynchboy, an infantile attempt to equalise after the recent outbreak of wannabie fascists, pumping norn iron.

[Main Street]

But having supported a few lost causes, like the Malvinas liberation war against the Brits,  who am I talk  after being Junta stained.

[Myles Na G.]

Russell got it wrong. He got it really wrong. So what? Many other people got it wrong at that time.

But they don't all get a statue erected in their memory. Victory to the vandals!

[Rossfan]

All those Brit Empire builders who got it wrong* have statues erected to them.

* They thought that the Sun would never set on the B E

[Myles Na G.]

All those Brit Empire builders who got it wrong* have statues erected to them.

* They thought that the Sun would never set on the B E

The Brits erected statues to Brit Empire builders - may not agree with it, but can see their logic. But why the fock are the Irish putting up statues to Nazi sympathisers / collaborators / stooges? Thousands of Irishmen took up arms against the Nazis - why not put up a few statues to honour these men?

Power to the painters!

[MasterShake]

The Brits erected statues to Brit Empire builders - may not agree with it, but can see their logic. But why the fock are the Irish putting up statues to Nazi sympathisers / collaborators / stooges? Thousands of Irishmen took up arms against the Nazis - why not put up a few statues to honour these men?

Power to the painters!

[/quote]

And 'performance artists'...?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Russell believed at the time that he was merely furthering his love for his motherland, and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim, in alliance with whomsoever was an enemy of the 800 years enemy. The Nazis actually divided Republicans at the time, not because of the death-camps, because the veracity of such assertions was impossible to ascertain in the propaganda-riddled times of that day, but because of their widely propagated ideology.

Bomber Harris was as big a Nazi as any big-booted, goose-stepping Nazi in that he believed that to wipe out every man, woman and child who might contribute to the Axis cause, however passively, was a legitimate war target - the life destroying carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was as sure of a war crime as any of the modern, or any other, age. Haven't heard the Naive Evil Gimp Genius bleat too loudly about the statue to Harris in London's Strand. Nor any mention of the arch appeaser himself, Chamberlain, who was quite happy to sit down convivially with the Fuhrer, after the Sudetenland had been retaken. But then, however excruciatingly verbose his posts, they never really do get to the point.

[Rossfan]

Do you not know A Fhear, that it's only Irish Nationalists who can be wrong.
Brits are always right .
( That's in Myersland,EG World and other such one eyed eejits)

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Do you not know A Fhear, that it's only Irish Nationalists who can be wrong.
Brits are always right .

D'oh! 

[Myles Na G.]

Russell believed at the time that he was merely furthering his love for his motherland, and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim, in alliance with whomsoever was an enemy of the 800 years enemy. The Nazis actually divided Republicans at the time, not because of the death-camps, because the veracity of such assertions was impossible to ascertain in the propaganda-riddled times of that day, but because of their widely propagated ideology.

Bomber Harris was as big a Nazi as any big-booted, goose-stepping Nazi in that he believed that to wipe out every man, woman and child who might contribute to the Axis cause, however passively, was a legitimate war target - the life destroying carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was as sure of a war crime as any of the modern, or any other, age. Haven't heard the Naive Evil Gimp Genius bleat too loudly about the statue to Harris in London's Strand. Nor any mention of the arch appeaser himself, Chamberlain, who was quite happy to sit down convivially with the Fuhrer, after the Sudetenland had been retaken. But then, however excruciatingly verbose his posts, they never really do get to the point.

And the Nazis believed they were only acting in the best interests of the fatherland, so I suppose they were natural bedfellows in a way. 
I don't care what statues the British put up in London - their country, their problem. I do care what gets put up in Ireland. I care that if we put up statues commemorating pricks like Russell, it sends out a very poor image of our country to the outside world.

[Zapatista]

Russel was a Knight of Templar. It's in a coded message in the Torah, I can't give you the code though.

Ohh, he also invented itchy powder as a lethal weapon.

[slievegullion]

FAO Evil Genius.

First of all I must respond to your uncompromising stance throughout the thread that it is up to others to disprove the claims you source from Wikipedia and such-like. It is you who is asserting or relaying these claims therefore the onus is on you to provide a reliable source for your indictments. Wikipedia is widely regarded by all reasonable people as being unreliable since absolutely anyone with internet access has the ability to publish information on the site. If the information is sourced correctly and accurately on Wikipedia, which is sometimes the case, then the onus is on you to provide these sources to back-up the claims you have made.

Secondly, before I go any further I would like to point out that to open-minded observers (such as myself) your obvious hatred and bitterness for all things Sinn Féin or Irish Republican taints your posts even when raising a very credible topic such as this one.

So having said this, back to the point in hand. I think the one thing that Evil Genius' posts do highlight very well is the complete lunacy of Sinn Féins claims to have an unbroken line from the Sinn Féin set up in 1905.

I am sincerely interested in your claims about Seán Russell however and the wider relationships of many right-wing figures in Ireland through the last century and I wish to learn more. Starting with the article you posted a link to by Jim Cusack. He claims that the Nazis had the names 3500 Jews in Ireland at the time and were preparing for their extermination. Would such information be backed up by credible sources? (Please resist the temptation to think I am playing dumb here, this is genuine interest).

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

In October 1937, visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit ? gave full Nazi salutes. The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of XXXXXXXXX, believed that ?? favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. 's experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through ??. Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. was a severe loss for us."

The ? settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the ?, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the ? had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium. When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the ? fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts. During the occupation of France, the ? asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so. A "defeatist" interview with the ?? that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil. In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill ? could do the least damage to the British war effort.

? was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony". The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when ? planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring. However, was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium." He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews. He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.


Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "? is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue." The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use ?. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of ? when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941.

After the war, ?? admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."

Another wikipedia story about a historical figure with alleged Nazi sympathies. First prize to whoever is the quickest to work out who is and what position he held.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

And the Nazis believed they were only acting in the best interests of the fatherland, so I suppose they were natural bedfellows in a way. 

Russell was driven by love, the Nazis by hate, or is that a distinction a degree too subtle for your mind?

I don't care what statues the British put up in London - their country, their problem. I do care what gets put up in Ireland. I care that if we put up statues commemorating pricks like Russell, it sends out a very poor image of our country to the outside world.

Who claim dominion over part of our country, or is that little detail beyond your grasp too?

[Evil Genius]

No, I don't argue for reducing the assessment of evil down to a crude head count of murder victims - even though as a Unionist from NI, such an exercise would actually "vindicate" my opposition to Republicanism (i.e. Republican terrorists having killed by far the greatest number during The Troubles of any of the various armed Groups involved).

Then what measure do you use to determine that Nazism was worse than Communism?

At the risk of taking the thread off at a tangent, I feel there is a very significant difference between the two. Communism is/purports to be a system of Government which allows for a fair society, based on Marx's thesis of "From Everyone according to their Ability, to Everyone because of their Need". When stated in those terms, that is arguably an admirable objective.
Of course, we know that various Dictators have used the system of State Control required by Communism to terrorise their people and maintain control for themselves etc. But in doing so, they were actually breaking  their own Constitution and Laws - even if it was impossible to hold them to account for this.

Whereas Fascism was entirely different, in that it sought to make repression and dictatorship etc "legal" by amending the Constitution and Laws, in an effort to avoid accountability by the various Dictators involved. As such, the Nazis claimed they were not eg "abusing Jews' Human Rights", since they considered Jews never had any rights in the first place.

Therefore, it was this important difference which meant that Communist States could be accorded legal recognition by organisations such as the League of Nations or UN, etc, whilst Fascist regimes often were not. Apartheid in SA was similar to Fascism in that respect, in that the SA Apartheid leaders sought to confer legitimacy upon their discrimination etc, by enshrining it in the law.