sinn fein/ira and the nazis

[Blue Angel]

My fiancee comes from a country where the number of people killed in various wars, genocidal attacks - both from forces within and without the country - is actually far higher than the Holocaust. Even before World War 2 Stalin had killed far more people than Hitler would ever do. Look up the wondrous way he dealt with dissent in the Ukraine by confiscating all food for example, leading to at least 7 million dying in a few years. The troubles in Ireland would seem a petty joke to Russians considering the scale of bloodsheed and violence in their history. Also, she would add a point to this that some Jews actually took weapons of the Germans via arms deals just prior to world war 2 to help in arming the Haganah. I doubt they saw themselves as aiding the nazis, more a question of getting guns wherever you could. They bought stolen weapons off British soldiers to, something the old IRA was quite fond of on occassion also.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

jim said:

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.

while the UVF did get weapons of spiro (who was incerdently a german jew), those weapibs were brought and paid for and was nothing more then a buiness transaction and the guns were eventually used against the germans, and at no time did the UVF dicuss plans of allowing the germans to use ireland as a back door to invade the UK (something the Irish have tried many times with through the ages with just about evrey european power and with no success), its also worth pointing out that the IRA had quite the thing for begging help from tyrants, Hitler, mussolini and lets not forget since he has been mentioned stalin but i suppose the main difference is that nobody from the unionist side actaully died on a german u-boat, like it or not but that is quite significant

[Jim]

Thats not the point, when buying them neither the UVF or Germans had any intention of using them for any reason other than revolting against the British.

You can sugar-coat it all you want, fact is unionists bought from their future enemy, from a country with a turbulant relationship with the British, a competing power, so when the time came they would be ready to fight their own country.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

jim said:

Thats not the point, when buying them neither the UVF or Germans had any intention of using them for any reason other than revolting against the British.

You can sugar-coat it all you want, fact is unionists bought from their future enemy, from a country with a turbulant relationship with the British, a competing power, so when the time came they would be ready to fight their own country.

thats exeactly the point, the UVF brought thier guns from of a business man in a buisness transaction and did not get them from the geramn state, the IRA on the other hand went directly to the nazi state and for that matter the communist state

[Wasp]

Good points widerness and lets not forget the plans the ira and the nazis tried to put in place as well, it was alot more than buying a weapons.

Without trying to single anyone out here could I ask republic if you wish to comment on this subject how you feel about this statue and the commemorations or anyone else you know(from the republic) for that matter.

[Jim]

halflife said:

jim said:

Thats not the point, when buying them neither the UVF or Germans had any intention of using them for any reason other than revolting against the British.

You can sugar-coat it all you want, fact is unionists bought from their future enemy, from a country with a turbulant relationship with the British, a competing power, so when the time came they would be ready to fight their own country.

thats exeactly the point, the UVF brought thier guns from of a business man in a buisness transaction and did not get them from the geramn state, the IRA on the other hand went directly to the nazi state and for that matter the communist state

Aye, and I suppose the businessman was making a legitimate transaction, was he? Be realistic.

Besides, IRA going to both a fascist government and then a communist government says a lot and completely ruins any argument of the IRA being fascists.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

jim said:

halflife said:

thats exeactly the point, the UVF brought thier guns from of a business man in a buisness transaction and did not get them from the geramn state, the IRA on the other hand went directly to the nazi state and for that matter the communist state

Aye, and I suppose the businessman was making a legitimate transaction, was he? Be realistic.

Besides, IRA going to both a fascist government and then a communist government says a lot and completely ruins any argument of the IRA being fascists.

legitimate or not it was still a private buisness transaction, the IRA the other hand went cap in hand to the German Nazi state and the stalinist communist state. You seem very comfortable with the IRA courting the worst abuses of human rights in modern history

[Jim]

That means nothing, it achieved the same result, recieving guns. You can sugar-coat how the UVF got guns all you want, it doesn't make them look any better. Human rights abusers, that sounds familiar, I forget who it was that tried to take over the world and slaughtered many doing so. Don't suppose you could remind me could you?

[earl]

Now did Russell and the ira fight the nazis

The answer to this question is quite simple if you knew even the smallest amount on the Spanish civil war. Yes. The nazi's were directly helping Franco, the IRA were fighting Franco, therefore the IRA would have been fighting the nazi's.

or did they state they would attack allies fighting the nazis,

It would seem from the evidence that you've kindly provided, that we have a single instance, involving one (probably drunk) fool and a copy of a proclamation in a cinema. Were there any other incidents to back this assertion up? If I head into the Savoy this evening, stand up infront of a load of people, read out the proclamation and then state that I'm with the IRA, does that make whatever I say an official IRA announcement? Actions speak louder than words, so you'll have to dig up some IRA operations against the allies at the time to prove this point.

welcome them to these shores and praise their actions?

The source of this little gem is being disputed. Not too many historical sites are backing this up.

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.

You're some amadán WASP! I think my stance on these issues is quite, quite clear.

[earl]

The fact that it was legitimate, it further proves that the kaiser approved it. It is not possible to buy as much military equipment as the UVF did, even from private parties, without governmental consent. The kaiser rubberstamped it. And the UVF were fully aware of how they were getting their weapons. They didn't go to any country that Britain was allied with. I suppose you think that it was just pure coincidence that a member of the UVF had a contact, and he just happened to be German. If this contact was French, do you think the UVF would have been successful in their mission. If you actually believe that where the UVF got their guns from didn't realy matter, only the contact, then that's your business.

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 Kaiser of Imperial Germany , who was eager to make trouble for England , approved the sale.

www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/Larne_Gun_Running

[earl]

And by the way Wilderness, which is worse, going to the soviets, looking for arms or selling out free countries to the soviets to do with as they please? Whatever happened to Estonia, Lithuana, Latvia and Poland after the war? Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot. The British told the soviets that they could keep the territory that they had gained in the carve up with the nazi's. detailed within the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. These countries were sold out so that the soviets could be counted on as allies. History has shown that this sell-out was completely unnessesary. So tell me wilderness, which is worse?

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

for starters lets not forget that it was both the nazis and the soviets that turned down the IRA, both governments believed that the IRA were not worth the effort in helping, and note i said the IRA throughout this thread and not the Irish Government Earl, so i am surprized that you are getting so defensive over terroists.
Even if the kieser did approve the sale i would much rather deal with the embarresment of dealing with kieser then dealing with hitler or stalin.

[Wasp]

The answer to this question is quite simple if you knew even the smallest amount on the Spanish civil war. Yes. The nazi's were directly helping Franco, the IRA were fighting Franco, therefore the IRA would have been fighting the nazi's.

I think you know I meant German nazis, but don't forget as I pointed out some also fought for the facists.

It would seem from the evidence that you've kindly provided, that we have a single instance, involving one (probably drunk) fool and a copy of a proclamation in a cinema. Were there any other incidents to back this assertion up?

Quite an assumption there that he was drunk and by himself.

MAYBE Hugh McAteer wouldn't take to kindly to being referred to as that. He was ira chief of staff, ran as a sinn fein candidate in the elections, his son Aiden was a staff officer in the Belfast brigade and was a personnal assistant to Adams. Oh and by the way he and other armed ira men went to the cinema(broadway cinema operation) and read out the proclomation and the threat to target US soldiers. So things have to happen a few times before you can believe them? I am a bit surprized at you finding this hard to believe about the ira.

If I head into the Savoy this evening, stand up infront of a load of people, read out the proclamation and then state that I'm with the IRA, does that make whatever I say an official IRA announcement? Actions speak louder than words, so you'll have to dig up some IRA operations against the allies at the time to prove this point.

Read my post above, the name,rank etc of the main person involved. Alot different from anyone standing up saying it. So this isn't proof for you, well I hope you apply the same to everyside here and not just the ira. Why do you find it hard to believe??? You have the name, rank and various credentials of the man who read out the threat and the fact he was accompanied by other armed ira men.

The source of this little gem is being disputed. Not too many historical sites are backing this up.

Yes quite...

You're some amadán WASP! I think my stance on these issues is quite, quite clear.

If it was I wouldn't have asked so could you run your stance and views on the question I asked again for me so there is no misunderstanding.

[Wasp]

Oh heres some more Earl.

24 April 1943- McAteer was personally involved when the IRA took over the Broadway cinema, Falls Road, Belfast, (a strongly republican area), as part of their Easter Rising commemorations. A Proclamation of the 1916 Easter Rising was read out to the audience along with the IRA Army Council's annual statement. The statement denounced the American military presence in Northern Ireland as an:
"..invasion of our rights..."

and warned that US troops could expect to be targeted in any,

"..resumption of hostilities between the Irish Republic [as invested in the IRA] and Great Britain."

www.sailoroffortune.com/wwiispy.htm

[Jim]

halflife said:

for starters lets not forget that it was both the nazis and the soviets that turned down the IRA, both governments believed that the IRA were not worth the effort in helping, and note i said the IRA throughout this thread and not the Irish Government Earl, so i am surprized that you are getting so defensive over terroists.
Even if the kieser did approve the sale i would much rather deal with the embarresment of dealing with kieser then dealing with hitler or stalin.

Both Governments also would have believed that the IRA were not part of the state ideology. Both the Nazi and Soviet governments had a huge tendency to only help those that agreed with them. The Nazis helped Italy and other fascist countries, the soviets helped many many communist uprisings and states. The IRA are neither of those, thank you for backing me up

The Kaiser was as bad as Hitler and Stalin as was the Russian Tsar, the only reason why people may not say that openly is because of Taboo, "no one could have been as bad as Hitler" and because Hitler is fresh in the memory of most people. They were as bad as each other and if anything Hitler was by far the more popular leader amongst Germans. Not trying to defend him, but your idea of somehow that dealing with the Kaiser was somehow more legitimate than dealing with the Nazis is laughable, you haven't a clue.