Claudy report to be published by Ombudsman

[updown9194]

Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.

They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940 does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.

My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.

That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.

He knew that the Germans had invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc etc. What do you think he thought about that? And your point about 'leaders' is irrelevant, since neither Russell or any other IRA man at that time had the right to claim that mantle.

The invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France alone are hardly tantamount to the actions of the 'greatest tyranny the world has ever seen': if they are, they can certainly leave room for comparison with the actions of Britain over the course of its colonial conquests.

I didn't clarify the word 'leaders' in my post but if you're suggesting that the actions of Russell were as an individual rather than the head of any collective then the discussion of his actions is moot. He most certainly was a 'leader' who held seniority in the IRA. I did not and do not suggest that this amounted to popular support, but just because De Valera and the others mentioned had such support does not excuse any of his or their actions. In any case, since you have vested your support in De Valera (at least over Russell in respect to 'popularity'), a quote from him illuminates a general Irish stance:

I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.
These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.
Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Whilst this riposte (which is completely bare without the remainder of what is considered De Valera's finest, and most 'popular' speech) is in defence of Ireland's stance of neutrality (or lack of action), it can certainly go a long way towards explaining the non-neutral 'actions' of Russell. He knew that the Germans invaded Poland et al but he hardly considered that an atrocity equal or commensurate to the 300/700 year colonial subjugation of Ireland, which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

[delboy]

which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

crap!

[Aerlik]

Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.

Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s?  If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.

Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man.  And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.

[Puckoon]

I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.

Up on your moral high horse? What's the view like up there looking down on the big evil republicans?

I don't ever recall claiming that every IRA action was totally justified and this one certainly was not. To me therefor, your post is a typically cynical cheap shot at people of a republican persuasion on this board and hence are the true "weasel words".

I would imagine that no matter what reply I gave to your post, it would be simply not good enough. I would be accused of being "cold hearted" if I defended the bombing, or accused of "SF press release repeating" if I criticised it.

Fair play.

[Puckoon]

Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?

I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.

In the interests of avoiding history from being distorted and misrepresented, it would be worth noting that priests are not suspected of involvement several hundred murders, where as the british "security" forces are. Hardly a suitable parallel.

Whereasaboutery

Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.

Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s?  If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.

Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man.  And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.

Whataboutery.

[lynchbhoy]

Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?

I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.

not sure why delboy felt he had to post that as some kind of reply...bad and all as it is, its not quite relevant here.

mylestheslasher - the priest was being blamed for 'carrying ' the bomb to its final location by the ruc/army at the time. This was communicated back to the church and they were told to get the priest out of there. A nice little plan that would make it look like the priest was indeed guilty. Esp when the church moved him !
However the priest was guilty of colluding with the Ira, and while many clerics of both sides helped out or even lead miliraty groups (I'd agree with aerlik there) , I personally have a belief that they should not be doing so given their 'position'.
So the priest was a collaborator and thus guilty.
There have been people in the area that have been tarnished by this as also being guilty. However the culprits were not from the area at all. Its common knowledge as when all the local men folk were dragged into interrogations in their hundreds, the names of the culprits were mentioned to a lot of them. These culrprits were let go. There must have been some local involvement but the fingers have been pointing at too many for them all to have been involved.
This whole thing stinks and why Claudy was targetted and allowed to be targetted is beyond me, as that neck of the woods was reasonably happy and contented and more or less devoid of the problems elsewhere in the six counties.
Sad event, tragic event. Poor families having this dragged up again with stil no proper answers. Its an insult.
Also its insulting for myles the clown to be peddling more BS and digressing the thread. mylesnagab - youve been slapped down here by historical facts. stop digging.

[updown9194]

which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

crap!

Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.

[delboy]

which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

crap!

Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.

Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.

But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.

[updown9194]

which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

crap!

Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.

Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.

But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.

Your use of quotation marks to imply doubt as to whether it was a 'Final Solution' mirror my own. However, if you're going to talk about revisionism, perhaps a quote from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time might give you an idea of how committed the British were towards 'humanitarian aid': 'I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination.'

A 'policy of extermination' as described not by a nationalist but a member of the British Government; perhaps this doesn't suffice as to your own definition of 'genocide'. However, if Lord Clarendon's phrase is not tantamount to 'genocide', then neither is your wikipedia-borrowed one. In 1996, a Professor of International Law with prior knowledge and application of the codified legal definition of 'genocide', opined that

'clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People, as such. In addition, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland clearly caused serious bodily and mental harm to members of the Irish People within the meaning of Genocide Convention Article II (b). Furthermore, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part within the meaning of Article 11(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish People.'

Trevelyan, the famous administrator of the famine era, came to justify his actions, or lack thereof, as a Malthusian act of providence in a throwback to various explanations for British atrocity throughout the globe. However, if, as you say, the government applied the 'same principles' to people in England then show me the numbers which point to a parity of suffering. Furthermore, you would do well to bear in mind I used famine in the plural rather than the singular, and that you've failed to mention either the various drouts spanning 1600-1800 or Lord Mountjoy's engineered famine in Ulster which lead to cannibalism in places like Newry--all of these suggest that, rather than the British being stunned by an absolutely unique and unprecedented phenomenon, they implemented a system of land seizure and 'Ascendancy' for one religion at the expense of another which led at various points to famine, the most unparalleled in number being the 19th Century one.

In spite of all of that, I don't necessarily believe that it was genocide--I'm unsure. As I indicated in my previous post, it was Sean Russell's view of the English colonial subjugation which I was trying to explain, not my own. I don't believe that any view of history justifies Sean Russell's actions; I don't believe either that any view justifies revisionist criticism of them either.

[delboy]

which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.

crap!

Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.

Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.

But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.

Your use of quotation marks to imply doubt as to whether it was a 'Final Solution' mirror my own. However, if you're going to talk about revisionism, perhaps a quote from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time might give you an idea of how committed the British were towards 'humanitarian aid': 'I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination.'

A 'policy of extermination' as described not by a nationalist but a member of the British Government; perhaps this doesn't suffice as to your own definition of 'genocide'. However, if Lord Clarendon's phrase is not tantamount to 'genocide', then neither is your wikipedia-borrowed one. In 1996, a Professor of International Law with prior knowledge and application of the codified legal definition of 'genocide', opined that

'clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People, as such. In addition, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland clearly caused serious bodily and mental harm to members of the Irish People within the meaning of Genocide Convention Article II (b). Furthermore, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part within the meaning of Article 11(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish People.'

Trevelyan, the famous administrator of the famine era, came to justify his actions, or lack thereof, as a Malthusian act of providence in a throwback to various explanations for British atrocity throughout the globe. However, if, as you say, the government applied the 'same principles' to people in England then show me the numbers which point to a parity of suffering. Furthermore, you would do well to bear in mind I used famine in the plural rather than the singular, and that you've failed to mention either the various drouts spanning 1600-1800 or Lord Mountjoy's engineered famine in Ulster which lead to cannibalism in places like Newry--all of these suggest that, rather than the British being stunned by an absolutely unique and unprecedented phenomenon, they implemented a system of land seizure and 'Ascendancy' for one religion at the expense of another which led at various points to famine, the most unparalleled in number being the 19th Century one.

In spite of all of that, I don't necessarily believe that it was genocide--I'm unsure. As I indicated in my previous post, it was Sean Russell's view of the English colonial subjugation which I was trying to explain, not my own. I don't believe that any view of history justifies Sean Russell's actions; I don't believe either that any view justifies revisionist criticism of them either.

The genocide definition is actually the shorter oxford dictionary definition, im assuming from your comment that its one that wiki uses also, so what?  One of your own quotes from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is knocking about wiki as well does that mean it some how now has less significance.
All sorts of people can opine all sorts of things, lets look at some of the figures though.

Year   Exports   Imports   Net Export
   ------- ------- ----------
1844   424   30   +394
1845   513   28   +485
1846   284   197   +87
1847   146   889   -743
1848   314   439   -125

I think its pretty obvious that something happened between the years of 1845 and 1848 to the whigs non-interventionist policy, more grain was coming into the country than leaving in these latter years, obviously those who thought that the non-interventionist policy needed changing were beginning to win the argument, hardly the mark of a 'final solution'. Obviously this help came too little too late and was stopped too early but I don't think that is the same as saying it was genocide, indeed you yourself seem to reservations labelling it as such.

You ask me to show you an example of the same parity of suffering as proof that the whigs practised non-interventionist policies, I can't really in terms of the scale of the suffering however there is no doubt that the individuals amongst the poor would have suffered and died due to these policies. Its well chronicled that the poor could expect virtually no help from the state and that they had to fend for themselves or depend on charitable organisations for any aid. The same principle was applied to the irish famine, Ireland was expected to get itself out of trouble with the meagre help of charitable organisations. The Scottish highlands also had a potato famine around the same time they also suffered the same non-intervention policies that saw the population of places like the Hebrides plummet and the highlands as a whole depopulate by almost 2 million people.     


Trevelyan, yes he did come of with his malthusian nonsense, although if you read what he said you'll find he was holding the big man in the sky responsible for Irelands depopulation. But im not here to defend the indefensible, i've no love for god bothers who use religion to justify all sorts of morally bankrupt  decisions such as this one.

[red hander]

Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish

[gallsman]

Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish

Stretching things a bit. Colonialism took many different shapes and forms.

[delboy]

Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish

They did indeed create concentration camps during the boer war as a way of combating the boers particular brand of gureilla warfare and yes people died in them because of cholera and other diseases which run rampant through people when kept it close quarters with poor sanitation, and yes they were adopted by many other countries as well but the major and most significant difference is that they were not set up as death camps like the nazis. Actually the incidicence of deaths by disease in the concentration camps was virtually identical to that for for the enlisted men dying from disease so the conditions were pretty much on a par. If you're interested I can't recommend 'The boer war' by thomas packenham enough, an excellent book about the boer war which happens to go into the setting up of concentration camps in quite some depth.
BTW am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest.

[red hander]

'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'

They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does

... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in

[updown9194]

The genocide definition is actually the shorter oxford dictionary definition, im assuming from your comment that its one that wiki uses also, so what?  One of your own quotes from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is knocking about wiki as well does that mean it some how now has less significance.
All sorts of people can opine all sorts of things, lets look at some of the figures though.

If we're taking the etymological definition, then the OED entry is not as you say, but as follows: '1944 R. LEMKIN Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.' The 'destruction of a nation or ethnic group' is precisely what happened during the famine: whether it was deliberate or not is a moot point unless you take a later and anachronistic definition. If you are going to take that later definition, which is the 'systematic' one, then you could arguably supplant it with an even later entry which states: '1969 Peace News 13 June 4/1 The government are..conducting cultural genocide by destroying this Scottish (Gaidhlig) community.' Interestingly, cultures as well as races can be subject to genocide, and there is no deliberate intention implied in either of the above definitions. Even more importantly, both definitions are appropriate descriptions of what happened in Ireland throughout its occupation and colonial subjugation by British forces and settlers to native races and cultures. Your earlier implication that the lack of 'finality' to the famine makes 'genocide' an unsuitable definition perhaps fails to notice that the Jewish race, thankfully and heroically, was saved from that terrible and final fate by the Allied Forces.

Year   Exports   Imports   Net Export
   ------- ------- ----------
1844   424   30   +394
1845   513   28   +485
1846   284   197   +87
1847   146   889   -743
1848   314   439   -125

I think its pretty obvious that something happened between the years of 1845 and 1848 to the whigs non-interventionist policy, more grain was coming into the country than leaving in these latter years, obviously those who thought that the non-interventionist policy needed changing were beginning to win the argument, hardly the mark of a 'final solution'. Obviously this help came too little too late and was stopped too early but I don't think that is the same as saying it was genocide, indeed you yourself seem to reservations labelling it as such.

There was, quite markedly, an decrease in the exportation of grain, as you point out. However, this was only after the initial onset of a man-made and Malthusian famine was 'achieved'.

You ask me to show you an example of the same parity of suffering as proof that the whigs practised non-interventionist policies, I can't really in terms of the scale of the suffering however there is no doubt that the individuals amongst the poor would have suffered and died due to these policies. Its well chronicled that the poor could expect virtually no help from the state and that they had to fend for themselves or depend on charitable organisations for any aid.

People suffered starvation quite obviously--what isn't obvious is that they starved solely because they were either Catholic or Irish, or that they were historically oppressed by their state for being either. That the poor would have suffered is not in question; that there was a famine in a similar climate is beyond question. That failed to occur as a result of differing British trade policy within Ireland, which exacerbated the structure put in place by British settlers for the 200 years previous. "We do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into Ireland"- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and, supposedly, Ireland.

The same principle was applied to the irish famine, Ireland was expected to get itself out of trouble with the meagre help of charitable organisations.

No it wasn't, and even if the 'same principle' had been applied, the colonial situation enabled England's peasantry much better equipped than Ireland to cope with it. Religious differences, potato-based diets, national resentment and the system of Protestant Ascendancy were all colonial imports. Their combined effects married with a non-interventionist policy (which amounted to one of the few times Britain left Ireland alone) were the elements of famine in 19th Century Ireland. As to the charitable organisations, have you recognised the fact that Protestants held the wealth and therefore the bulk of grain in Ireland, and that accordingly their charity was often subject to either religious conversion or horribly inept methods, as was the case with Elizabeth Bowen's grandmother in Cork?

The Scottish highlands also had a potato famine around the same time they also suffered the same non-intervention policies that saw the population of places like the Hebrides plummet and the highlands as a whole depopulate by almost 2 million people.

What's your point?

Trevelyan, yes he did come of with his malthusian nonsense, although if you read what he said you'll find he was holding the big man in the sky responsible for Irelands depopulation. But im not here to defend the indefensible, i've no love for god bothers who use religion to justify all sorts of morally bankrupt  decisions such as this one.

What do you think 'Act of Providence' means?