sinn fein/ira and the nazis

[earl]

don't presume the UK had an open door policy either

as mentioned on another thread, they allowed a certain number of Jews into Palestine. This was a controlled number, large enough to augment British power in the region, and to help with the culling of arabs, but not enough so that the Jews themselves might become a problem. Unfortunately for the British and despite their best efforts to place holocaust survivors into camps on Cyprus, the flood of Jewish refugees from Europe to Palestine became out of control, and once enough Jews had moved into the area, they then set out to free the region from British occupation and forge a nation of their own.

British interests in the area fluctuated from being nice to the Arabs during WW1 so as to stab them in the back after they were considered useful, where they then used the Jews to help keep the Arabs in place. By the time the Jewish population of the region had become significant enough to demand their own country, British interests had once again swung back in favour of the Arabs due to oil requirements and Egypt, so they tried to crush the Jewish cry for freedom. Luckily for the Jews, they had studied the original IRA in how to take on an oppressor. They adopted these same tactics, and won their freedom. As stated on the other thread, not only did the top men involved in the Jewish freedom fighter groups come over to Dublin to learn tactics, members of the IRA, including Bob Briscoe used their past experience to help the soon-to-be-Israelis out.

[Blue Angel]

Bob Briscoes autobiography is worth reading if you can get your hands on it - its sadly long out of print but i found a copy a long time ago in a second-hand book store.

I have a question for some here - is a country that takes on the might of one of the world's then superpowers with a couple of thousand poorly trained men armed with obsolete and captured equipment a cowardly one? Just asking...

[bearhunter]

WASP, I took issue with that one part of your post because it was either wrong or deliberately offensive. I have no issue with most of the rest of what you say, only your extrapolation of Nazi support from hardline IRA members to the Irish Government and then the Irish people. You're not being clear about who you are labelling cowards. If you eman the govt then say the govt. And falling back on cheap country & western quotes like "all gave some, some gave all" cheapens your argument by the way. Otherwise, carry on, because I'd like to hear some coherent explanation for SF's honouring of Sean Russell myself.

[Wasp]

bearhunter said:

WASP, I took issue with that one part of your post because it was either wrong or deliberately offensive. I have no issue with most of the rest of what you say, only your extrapolation of Nazi support from hardline IRA members to the Irish Government and then the Irish people. You're not being clear about who you are labelling cowards. If you eman the govt then say the govt. And falling back on cheap country & western quotes like "all gave some, some gave all" cheapens your argument by the way. Otherwise, carry on, because I'd like to hear some coherent explanation for SF's honouring of Sean Russell myself.

Ok BH I can kind of see your point. BUT I wrote this 'Yep and it was flaming disgusting what our countries done. '

By our countries I obviously mean the UK and Ireland so why did no-one accuse me here of meaning the Irish people?

Anyway there is a photo of a nazi scumbag aiming a rifle at a Jewish woman holding a child, this photo haunts me everybit as any images of the troubles here. Being a father I think what was going through that womans mind such as are they going to hurt or kill my child, who is going to protect them, feed them and help them grow up etc etc. And then the thoughts going through the terrified childs mind leaves me sick to the stomach and I wish I never set eyes on the photo.

Republicans here fail to state anything against the statue of Russell, fail to condemn commemorating such a piece of trash considering who he collaborated with. I have heard endless excuses about the statue and commemoration, endless points of what about the British and what they done etc. Simply disgusting. There are plenty of republicans whom staues can be put up about and commemorated, but this one in particular is the most sickening and insulting to those who fought and died in the war and those who suffered at the hands of the nazis.

If Unionists commemorated a staute of a man linked to combat 18 we all know the reaction it would get. But a republcian collaborating with the nazis is ok??? Apparently news blackouts made it impossible for Irish people to know what was going on yet the ira knew, funny that isn't it.

Those who support this statue and the commemoration of this man are no better than the extremists with combat 18 or any other group that supported/sympathized/collaborated with the nazis. Shame on you all.

BTW I don't give a fuck if it is loaylists/English/American/Irish/republicans etc who do this, my opinion would be the same for each and everyone of them.

Perhaps reading up on the horrors of the nazis people may think again about this particular statue and put up one of a different republican. But given the violent republican mindset that is hardly going to happen.

[Jim]

Republicans fail to state anything on Russell because we don't see it as him working with Nazis because he was a Nazi, the way his opponents see him.

The difference with Russell and a unionist with Combat 18 is the time. Wartime, the IRA had no guns, no weapons, very very little men and a very bad leadership and were dedicated to bringing an end to NI by force. Lets look at today, name me a loyalist paramilitary still looking to buy guns and would do so from Combat 18? A lot of members would go along with it because either way they get guns, not because they agree with Combat 18, a few might, but most probably wouldnt have an interest. Not only that but Combat 18 fly the same flag, and are the same nationality so the link would naturally be closer.

Loyalists bought guns from South Africa, did they agree with the racism going on? Most probably didnt really give a shite. Not only that but the father of modern unionism worked with Britains enemy before WWI. Why? Because it achieved one thing, a result.

You call it collaboration, but collaboration means he must have agreed wholeheartidly with the Nazis, the fact is he just didnt. He wanted guns, they were willing to give guns, end of.

The man is dead and cant speak for himself, which is why I've tried to avoid this thread as much as possible. Rightly or wrongly most Republicans see Russell as a man willing to do what it took, talk to who he had too, to achieve his goal. No country or person charged with a mission like that would do it differently.

[Wasp]

Jim sit down and try to convince the Jews who suffered, the families of Jews who suffered etc. The biggest Jewish centre in the world is appaled by it so that would be a good incling of how Jews feel about it nevermind everyone else including fellow Irishmen and women.

[bearhunter]

setanta said:

It's because he and a dozen men, heavily out numbered and out gunned held the Annessly Bridge during the Easter Rising until Pearse ordered them to withdraw into the city on day 4.

Okay, that's fine. I will now expect similar commemorations for Sean Etchingham, Seamus Rafter and Robert Brennan every year, seeing as how - outnumbered and outgunned - they held the town of Enniscorthy until after Dublin had surrendered.

[bearhunter]

Wexford (well, Enniscorthy in reality) held out until May 2 and only surrendered after being given the order to do so by Pearse in person in his cell at Kilmainham. Symbolically, the rebels marched in formation up to Vinegar Hill to officially surrender to the British. My mother has photographs of them marching up the hill, all local men, both my grandfathers among them.

[bearhunter]

And oddly enough, two of the leaders (Etchingham and Rafter) were publicans. Etchingham's is still under that name in the gorgeous wee coastal village of Blackwater (lovely pint too), while Rafter's was knwon for years as the Cotton tree and is now Holohan's by the old bridge in Enniscorthy. And the old bridge has explosives in it from the War of Independence, which no one has ever bothered removing. Odd how memories get triggered...

[Jim]

wasp said:

Jim sit down and try to convince the Jews who suffered, the families of Jews who suffered etc. The biggest Jewish centre in the world is appaled by it so that would be a good incling of how Jews feel about it nevermind everyone else including fellow Irishmen and women.

How can I convince them since I dont know any Jews? Not like the Jews have the most appealing human rights records lets be honest.

SEAN RUSSELL did not "collaborate" with nazis because he believed in them, he wanted their guns. Can it be any simple?

If it cant. then the father of modern unionism is a kaiser collaborator, would you accept that? would you fuck.

[earl]

Northern Ireland. Created through threat of terrorism and revolt against the British government, and given the stamp of approval by the kaiser through 'collaboration'. The UVF 'collaborated' with the kaiser to get weapons, so that must mean that the UVF agreed whole-heartedly with the kaiser and everything he stood for. Right? Am I right WASP? It's the exact same logic, and if you say that there's a difference, then you've obviously got a slight sectarian mindset which allows you to apply two different sets of logic, at odds with each other, to differing groups of people.

So why don't you prove that you are not sectarian, by clearly stating the difference between how the UVF went to the kaiser to get guns, but didn't collaberate is different to Sean Russell's case. At least in Russells case, he was captured while fighting against fascism in Spain. He ended up in Germany against his will as a POW. The UVF went directly to the kaiser, cap in hand, and of their own free will. They went to beg for weapons from a king whose forces would kill10's if not 100's of thousands of British and Irish lads. They went there in full knowledge of the growing hostilities between the British and Germans to take advantage of the situation to get what they wanted. And kindly stop ignoring the questions on page 5 and answer them. If you continue to ignore them, we'll have to assume that you don't have a clue.

[Wasp]

Oh so me saying this would prove I am not sectarian?

Now to answer your points here goes. I think you will find it had nothing to do with the Kaiser. And it was before the War broke out.

On Saturday 21 March the news that officers of the British Army at the Curragh camp had mutinied, and refused to participate in a betrayal of Ulster, put paid to the Government’s plans for extensive suppression of the resistance to Home Rule. Directives for military action were withdrawn and tension was defused, if only by Asquith’s abject capitulation. However, the Unionist leaders felt they had learnt that the UVF was not properly prepared to take on the British Army unless it was fully equipped with arms. Plans were made for a large-scale gun-running operation. It would, however, be foolish to imagine that the UVF had been reliant on wooden rifles until the spring of 1914.In many of the rural areas, the periodic threat of Home Rule over the past decades had led to the presence of guns in cupboards or under beds, in houses of Ulster Protestants.....................

Crawford, a former artillery officer in the British Army, had been involved in the Volunteer movement since 1911 and had built up contacts with a German, Bruno Spiro, which were to prove invaluable. The so-called business committee of the UVF approved Crawford’s plan to buy 20,000 rifles and two million rounds of ammunition from Spiro in Hamburg, acquire a suitable steamer in a foreign port and bring the weapons back to Ulster, perhaps with a secret mid-voyage transfer to some other vessel. The gun-running was planned secretly and scrupulously. The operation was code named Lion. On the night of 24 April 1914 there was to be a test mobilisation of the UVF under cover of which the Co.Antrim Regiment was to take over the port of Larne, whilst the Clyde Valley docked there and unloaded..................

It was with the sense of achievement that the men of the UVF were to enter the British Army and, eventually, the gun and shell fire of the Somme. They had the verdict of military men that they could compare with any army in Europe in their organisation and strategy, and they had evidence that God was on their side. Again the Ulster loyalist emphasised the righteousness of their cause. Even before the Clyde Valley steamed into Larne, the Northern Whig declared.

There is strong feeling in Belfast to-day, notwithstanding Mr Churchill’s ferocity, Mr Lloyd George’s vulgar bluster, and Mr Devlin’s impotent boasting, that the worst of the battle is over, and that the cause of Ulster has been justified in the eyes of England, of Europe, and of the World.

Then there is the bravery of the uvf along with other regiments in fighting the Germans and lets not forget the Ulster tower in France which is a copy of the tower near Newtownards where the men trained etc etc etc.

Now did Russell and the ira fight the nazis or did they state they would attack allies fighting the nazis, welcome them to these shores and praise their actions?

Now Earl you prove you are in no-way a sectarian bigot, anti-sematic or sympathised even slightly with the nazis by condemning this statue of Russell and the celebrations and commemorations at it.

PS don't forget when russell etc went to the nazis and when the statue was built. You said at least russell fought facists in Spain well take a good look at the brave men of the uvf and what they done.

[Blue Angel]

crikey i didn't know the nazis were in world one meself. I will give a sensible and thought out answer to this in a short while however.

[Blue Angel]

In many of the rural areas, the periodic threat of Home Rule over the past decades had led to the presence of guns in cupboards or under beds, in houses of Ulster Protestants.....................

Um yes, because those nasty Catholics would have eaten everyone wouldn't they It should be pointed out that Home Rule was actually passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons. Unionists are fond of pointing out that NI exsists due to the rules of democracy and the majority favouring a connection with Britain so one wonders why a democratic result was ignored in this instance...

To believe the Kaiser was not aware of a sale of the magnitude of the one made to the UVF is idiocy to be blunt about it. Crawford was buying enough equipment to outfit a lighty armed army division. Of course Imperial German intelligence and by extentsion the Kaiser and German govt. were aware of what was going on. Earl pointed out the war was not on-going himself, the purpose was to stir up dissent and potential problems prior to what was fast becoming an inevitable conflict.

As to the Curragh Mutiny effectively you have the dangerous practise there of an army dictating politics to a govt. The soldiers technically did not commit treason or mutiny as they did not disobey direct orders from a lawfully consituted govt. but the reality is they were dictating politics. When that happens you are one step away from a coup and only a few more steps away from a banana republic. There are good reasons states do not allow soldiers to interfere with politics.

Lest it not be forget the King himself at the time, George V was no fan of the whole situation and it is the monarchy and not the British govt. loyalists and unionists often say their loyalty is directed towards. George V was bitterly oppossed to partition and appealed several times against it occuring during this period and later on also.

As to Sean Russell's statue - well I have no great love for the man but I think you are misunderstanding why he would take guns from anyone. The key difference between the British and Irish side in this period and before and after was that Britain had a huge ammount of manpower and arms to draw on. Even though it never maintained a standing army of comparitive size to the German one it was still immensely more potent than anything the Irish could hope to come up with. Hence the tradition of taking guns of the French, Spanish, Germans etc. Remember both sides obtained their guns from Germany (although it's interesting to note how easily the UVF were able to land theirs in comparision to the volunteers) in the pre-world war one period - hell they both even got some of the same types of rifles.

It's interesting that though you rightly sympathise with the Jews you forget that in part their freedom as a state was obtained by fighting the British using tactics that you would no doubt see as 'terrorism'.

Celebrating Sean Russell is not the wisest PR move ever made but Unionists are in a poor position to gloat considering the history of unionism. And I wonder why this particular statue bothers you so much WASP as from your point of view it is in a foreing country is it not?

[Wasp]

BA it is a foreign country but the statue should bother you more than me because of your fiancee's jewish connections. That in itself would embarrass the hell out of me if I was in your shoes. But apart from that I have made it crystal clear why the statue bothers me and I have made it crystal clear why couldn't a statue of other republicans be put in its place taking into consideration the sensitivity of the person behind the statue.

But as you say it is in a foreign country, a foreign country to you as well I guess with you being an Englishman born and bred. lol

Apart from that commemorate/sympathize/support who you want at the end of the day but do you not in all honesty find it embarrassing?LIike the example I gave earlier if I was commemorating someone with connections to the Klu Klux Klan I would distance myself completely if anyone close to me had say coloured relations through their family.#

TBH I find the republican mindset on this highly amusing, imagine defending such a person.