PDA

View Full Version : Irelands Nazis.



aly j
10-05-2008, 07:32 PM
For some reason after ww2, Ireland gave nazi war crimminals safe haven.
Why?

Walther
10-06-2008, 05:41 AM
Which Nazi criminals? Any source?

Jan

Amrit
10-06-2008, 05:49 AM
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3495.php
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3496.php

Rising Sun*
10-06-2008, 06:00 AM
For some reason after ww2, Ireland gave nazi war crimminals safe haven.


A 'safe haven' is tautological, although people who make a living from writing and broadcasting words have yet to grasp that as they are too busy inflicting their nonsense on the language.

Rising Sun*
10-06-2008, 06:18 AM
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3495.php
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3496.php

What on earth possessed you to cite the History Channel to ali j, who thinks it is the Holy Grail of historical research and information? ;) :D

Unfortunately the synopsis in the first link demonstrates the dangers in relying upon the the History Channel and its ilk for reliable historical information, as is amply demonstrated by the statements about Andrija Artukovic and his time in Ireland. He spent very little time there and a lot of time in America, from whence he was finally extradited to Yugoslavia in 1986 after spending 35 years in America.

It is misleading to describe Artukovic as a Nazi, as his Ustashi Catholic fascism and crimes were of a home grown variety peculiar to Yugoslavia.

Switzerland has as much to answer for as does Ireland, and America vastly more.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DB1131F93AA25752C0A96E9482 60

Amrit
10-06-2008, 07:26 AM
What on earth possessed you to cite the History Channel to ali j, who thinks it is the Holy Grail of historical research and information? ;) :D

Weelll, what can I say? I always enjoy a good comedy. Seriously, thought the HC presents its info in a suspect way, and often jumps to rather erroneous conclusions, there are usually nuggets of interesting information from which one can then go away and research for yourself.

Personally, I have never relied on just once source for any research - be it for my WW2 hobby or my professional work. I don't think anybody else should either.


Unfortunately the synopsis in the first link demonstrates the dangers in relying upon the the History Channel and its ilk for reliable historical information, as is amply demonstrated by the statements about Andrija Artukovic and his time in Ireland. He spent very little time there and a lot of time in America, from whence he was finally extradited to Yugoslavia in 1986 after spending 35 years in America.

Fair point, and one that potential viewers should be made aware of


It is misleading to describe Artukovic as a Nazi, as his Ustashi Catholic fascism and crimes were of a home grown variety peculiar to Yugoslavia.

I think, given the fact that it allied itself with the German Nazis, it could be considered a collaborationist organisation like many of the others around Europe at the very least.


Switzerland has as much to answer for as does Ireland, and America vastly more.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DB1131F93AA25752C0A96E9482 60

As does Britain - see Justice Delayed: How Britain Became a Refuge for Nazi War Criminals by David Cesarani

Rising Sun*
10-06-2008, 07:54 AM
Seriously, thought the HC presents its info in a suspect way, and often jumps to rather erroneous conclusions, there are usually nuggets of interesting information from which one can then go away and research for yourself.

I think the problem is not so much poor research or sloppy presentation as the consequence of presenting history visually, which means that the presentation is to some extent constrained by the available film.

This is compounded by the necessity of compressing the information into less than half or one hour, usually less when adjusted for ad breaks.

Add to this the natural inclination of visual presenters, who are usually trained in journalism or film rather than history, to go for impact rather than the relatively ponderous and relatively dull building of a written analysis, with sources exhaustively footnoted and a comprehensive bibliography.

The half way ground, here anyway, is a plethora of books written by journalists who annoy me (but, judging by their sales, not most other readers) with journalistic devices which personalise the story and introduce the writer into it. They're not bad books by any means, but I've caught the writers out on a few points of important fact where they've gone for journalistic effect rather than a properly researched and dispassionately presented account. They write good stories but not accuate history.


Personally, I have never relied on just once source for any research - be it for my WW2 hobby or my professional work. I don't think anybody else should either.

Agreed.

Apart from rigid areas like arithmetic, there is no such thing as the final or definitive account of anything. The more information one gets from various sources, the more one might get a balanced (whatever that means) impression of it.


I think, given the fact that it allied itself with the German Nazis, it could be considered a collaborationist organisation like many of the others around Europe at the very least.

Perhaps, but I'd argue that the Ustashi were less a collaborationist organisation than an ethnic organisation which was allowed to flower by the Nazi regime. I doubt that the Nazis much cared about who was Catholic or Orthodox in Yugoslavia.


As does Britain - see Justice Delayed: How Britain Became a Refuge for Nazi War Criminals by David Cesarani

Well, we're all guilty of that, some intentionally and some unintentionally, but with the English speaking Allies I suspect that there was a fair bit of intentionally, or at least turning a blind eye, in some cases.

Adrian Wainer
10-06-2008, 09:49 AM
A 'safe haven' is tautological, although people who make a living from writing and broadcasting words have yet to grasp that as they are too busy inflicting their nonsense on the language.

What does "tautological" mean?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
10-06-2008, 09:54 AM
What about the Blueshirts?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
10-06-2008, 07:18 PM
Hey Rising Sun, i bet you didt know this- Do you know why ireland took those nazis in for a short while?ok i tell you what i learnt not in a nastey way. In ww2 Ireland wanted to stay mutral country juring the war but let England use there ports, but juring the war England and Americia tried to dictact to Ireland to join with the Allies.Ireland got so sick of England and America dominerring them that after the war so they let Nazi in. Nazi then went to those other countries you mentioned. Cheers.

aly j
10-07-2008, 11:39 PM
Hey RS.
Ive got some information to back me up here.
http://www.mazalien.com/irelands-nazis.html. Cheers

Krad42
10-09-2008, 01:30 PM
Hey Rising Sun, i bet you didt know this- Do you know why ireland took those nazis in for a short while?ok i tell you what i learnt not in a nastey way. In ww2 Ireland wanted to stay mutral country juring the war but let England use there ports, but juring the war England and Americia tried to dictact to Ireland to join with the Allies.Ireland got so sick of England and America dominerring them that after the war so they let Nazi in. Nazi then went to those other countries you mentioned. Cheers.

While there is no doubt that most Allied countries and some that called themselves "neutral" harbored many Nazis, I doubt that some resentment over the domination of Britain and the US had much to do with Ireland's decision to give refuge to Nazis! Most countries that harbored alleged Nazis did so because there was some inherent benefit from it or they didn't care. It is also no big surprise that there was anti-semitism in other countries, including the Allies and Ireland. It has always been everywhere and, I have news for you, it is still alive and well! There was and there still is a lot of hypocrisy going around! However, I would think that the alleged accounts from a person who is obviously resentful because he didn't get his pat on the back would have to be studied with some degree of skepticism. Even if it is true in its entirety, are we supposed to be shocked?

herman2
10-09-2008, 02:53 PM
The Nazi's should of done what Idi Amyn did. Convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia where you have imunity regardless of the crime(s) you committed.Idi Amyn killed between 100,000 to 500,000 as a ruthless dictator and lived a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia for over 20 yrs before he dies of natural causes. Rumour has it, he died making love to 7 virgins all at the same time. At least thats what paradise is constrewed by the Muslims. The point is, if you think Irelaland accepted Nazi's to piss off the English, I highly doubt it. In Idi Amyn's example it is different because there was a reason that Saudi Arabia accepted him-because he was a brother of the faith...Oh brother!:roll:

Adrian Wainer
10-09-2008, 03:14 PM
http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/salute.jpg

Don't know why they would have had to import any, as they had enough of the localy produced variety.

http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/oduffyarticle.html

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
10-09-2008, 03:20 PM
and move to Saudi Arabia where you have imunity regardless of the crime(s) you committed.............

or Egypt or Syria

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/where.html

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
10-09-2008, 11:05 PM
While there is no doubt that most Allied countries and some that called themselves "neutral" harbored many Nazis, I doubt that some resentment over the domination of Britain and the US had much to do with Ireland's decision to give refuge to Nazis! Most countries that harbored alleged Nazis did so because there was some inherent benefit from it or they didn't care. It is also no big surprise that there was anti-semitism in other countries, including the Allies and Ireland. It has always been everywhere and, I have news for you, it is still alive and well! There was and there still is a lot of hypocrisy going around! However, I would think that the alleged accounts from a person who is obviously resentful because he didn't get his pat on the back would have to be studied with some degree of skepticism. Even if it is true in its entirety, are we supposed to be shocked?

Hey Krad42, didt you now ireland was neutral in ww2,why dont you look it up and see for youre self.Some of the irish were rooting [not in a sexually way]for the nazis and not England,.It was cause of England and USA Dominating ireland,i put proof on my other post before. Cheers.

Adrian Wainer
10-10-2008, 08:22 AM
Hey Krad42, didt you now ireland was neutral in ww2,why dont you look it up and see for youre self.Some of the irish were rooting [not in a sexually way]for the nazis and not England,.It was cause of England and USA Dominating ireland,i put proof on my other post before. Cheers.

Well sorry, you have really read something in a book and apparently do not have enough background information to know what you are talking about. There was some enjoyment in Ireland at seeing the Nazis give the Brits a bit of a bashing but beyond that anybody who had their head screwed on, realized that if Europe came to be dominated by Nazi Germany, that Southern Ireland would find itself in having only recently rid itself of London rule now being ruled from Berlin. As for the neutrality of Ireland, if you understood Ireland you would have realized that barely anything in Ireland is what it first appears to be, and Irish neutrality during World War 2 was no exception, nearly all of Southern Ireland's exports were going to British markets and a large proportion of the Southern Irish workforce was serving in the British Military or working in the British war industries.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
10-10-2008, 08:39 AM
Well sorry, you have really read something in a book and apparently do not have enough background information to know what you are talking about. There was some enjoyment in Ireland at seeing the Nazis give the Brits a bit of a bashing but beyond that anybody who had their head screwed on, realized that if Europe came to be dominated by Nazi Germany, that Southern Ireland would find itself in having only recently rid itself of London rule now being ruled from Berlin. As for the neutrality of Ireland, if you understood Ireland you would have realized that barely anything in Ireland is what it first appears to be, and Irish neutrality during World War 2 was no exception, nearly all of Southern Ireland's exports were going to British markets and a large proportion of the Southern Irish workforce was serving in the British Military or working in the British war industries.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Hey adrian Wainer, The information didt come from a book it came from history channel and the internet.Yes the irish let britain use there ports but never signed any agreement too the English juring ww2. Means that they were neutral country in ww2.Cheers

herman2
10-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Not related to Nazi's, but related to Ireland in WW-1..seemed interesting...

WW1 soldiers sent to the firing squad for being Irish ... and of
Sunday Mirror, Aug 7, 2005 by ANDREW BUSHE

RACIST British Army officers ordered the firing squad executions of young Irish men without real cause, a damning new report reveals.
The unpublished dossier - seen by the Irish Sunday Mirror - uncovers an anti-Irish bias among officers and a Courts Martial system that was "incosistent, capricious and unpredicatble".
The report was drawn up by Department of Foreign Affairs officials after unprecedented access to the military court case documents of 26 executed soldiers from Ireland, north and south.
It was sent to the British Government nine months ago but no action has yet been taken to pardon the men.

The report shows fast-track military courts that were riddled with not just anti-Irish feeling, but class bias as well.
In many cases, death sentences were dispensed to innocent men simply to set an example and shore up discipline in the trenches.
The secret report is scathing in its criticism of the executions. It says an examination of the cases is "starkly revealing" of the shocking treatment of soldiers.
The "stout" defence of the WWI military justice by the British Defence Ministry is described as "fundamentally flawed".
The 54-page dossier said the courts martial system's racist bias against Irish soldiers is "difficult to explain".
Based on a case-by-case examination by Foreign Affairs experts of the files for each of the so-called field general Courts Martial of Irishmen, the report says each individual case could have been overturned if a review was undertaken based on agreed standards such as the absence of proof or due consideration of medical conditions. Among the 26 Irish Courts Martial, the report says presiding officers ignored, or didn't consider, medical evidence in 11 cases and there are four that involved extenuating circumstances such as the death of family members.
There are 11 "clear cases" where an execution was thought necessary simply to set an example because of bad discipline in units.
It says: "Soldiers were effectively condemned to be shot because of both the behaviour of others and the opinion of others as to their fighting potential. Executing a soldier simply to deter their colleagues from contemplating a similar crime, or because their attitude in the face of the gravest of dangers was not what was expected - in some cases after only a matter of weeks of basic training - must be seen as unjust, and not deserving of the ultimate penalty."
The report calls for full pardons for the men to "grant them the dignity in death they were denied in life".
Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern described the report as "very tragic reading". He said: "No one could fail to be moved by the simple stories of brave, often poorly educated, young men who were shot after perfunctory Courts Martial. The Irish Government believes this was wrong. These Irish people died needlessly.
"We continue to press the British Government to restore the good names of these men. In most instances almost 90 years has passed since these men met their awful fate.
"It was a different world, a different society and a harsher, most bloody time. We must ensure that these men's names are cleared and their memories honoured well in advance of the centenary of their deaths and the outbreak of the Great War.
"Nothing less will do the Irish Government, their families and loved ones."
In addition to the Government, the Shot At Dawn Campaign for pardons - which is coordinated in Ireland by Peter Mulvany - is supported by numerous TDs and MPs including John Hume and Ian Paisley, Catholic and Protestant church leaders and SIPTU. The report says it is "telling" that Britain kept the courts martial files secret and sealed from the public for 75 years because of their sensitivity.
Its controversial conclusion of ethnic and racist bias against Irish soldiers results from a comparison of recruitment figures and subsequent death sentences. That check revealed a disparity in the treatment of Irish soldiers in comparison with those from other countries in the British army.
The report states: "For example, the number of men recruited in Ireland was similar to that of New Zealand, however there are ten times the level of condemnations in the Irish regiments."
This is despite the fact that the New Zealand regiments were "notoriously harsh with discipline" at the time.
"There were 26 executions of soldiers serving in Irish regiments; 23 for desertion, one for striking an officer, one for quitting his post and one for disobedience. This might not seem many, but given the size of the Irish regiments it is an extraordinary high number".
One soldier for every 2-3,000 British troops were shot by firing squad compared to one in less than 600 in the Irish units. This applied equally to regiments, such as the 36th Ulster Division, as it did to regiments recruited south of the border. The report says: "The confirmation process presents clear evidence that some soldiers were executed for example, to deter others from committing a similar crime, and not because they deserved their fate".

Adrian Wainer
10-10-2008, 11:33 AM
Hey adrian Wainer, The information didt come from a book it came from history channel and the internet.Yes the irish let britain use there ports but never signed any agreement too the English juring ww2. Means that they were neutral country in ww2.Cheers

Well warships are allowed to use the ports of a neutral power within certain provisions but and I might stand to be corrected by somebody more knowledgeable than me, I was not aware that overflights by military aircraft was permitted and the British had an arangement with the Free State Government to allow RAF Coastal Command Aircraft to overfly Free State territory. Furthermore whilst Warships were allowed to visit the ports of neutrals without contravention of neutrality regulations, such provisions were very much at the discretion of the host neutral country and it was my impression that during the hunt for the Bismarck, permission was asked for and granted for a British battship to refuel at a Free State port.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Amrit
10-10-2008, 03:06 PM
I was not aware that overflights by military aircraft was permitted and the British had an arangement with the Free State Government to allow RAF Coastal Command Aircraft to overfly Free State territory.

The situation for the RAF was complicated. Officially, the Irish interned any RAF crews that landed in Ireland. However, by the middle of the war, they were quietly allowing them to return to Northern Ireland and thence back to their units. However, German crews were interned for the duration, with pressure from the British and Americans to do so for "security reasons"

Overflights around coastal waters did happen with unofficial permission. As did RAF flights over the tips of Eire bordering Northern Ireland. It all had to be kept hush hush because otherwise Eire would have lost its neautrality status - something Germany constantly threatened. But unlike the Germans, the Allies had greater influence because Ireland needed their shipping for foos and supplies.

A couple of excellent books are:

Guests of the State by T.Ryle Dwyer (about internment of aircrews)

and

In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality, 1939-45 by Robert Fisk

Krad42
10-10-2008, 03:40 PM
Hey Krad42, didt you now ireland was neutral in ww2,why dont you look it up and see for youre self.Some of the irish were rooting [not in a sexually way]for the nazis and not England,.It was cause of England and USA Dominating ireland,i put proof on my other post before. Cheers.

Yes, I did know that Ireland was "neutral" and there was nothing in my post that indicated anything different. I don't need to look it up. I also saw your "proof". Let me think if I can make you understand my point, which you obviously didn't get before. Putting Ireland's "neutrality" aside, most Allied and neutral countries had elements of their population that, not only sympathized with the Nazis, but were indeed Nazis. Therefore, it isn't surprising to me that there were people in Ireland that also favored the Nazis and that enjoyed the fact that Britain got its behind kicked around a little. However, to simplify the Irish people's and government's motivations into some notion that this happened just because of the "domination" of Britain and the US over Ireland is rather ludicrous.
Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that, in spite of the official neutrality of Ireland, it is estimated that some 70,000 Irish men volunteered to fight in the British Armed Forces in addition to the 50,000 or so Northern Irish men that also fought for the British. Therefore, it is also obvious that, in spite of any resentment towards the British, many Irish people sided with the Allies.
Now, after the war, Nazis that saw the need to run away went to many different countries. Those countries included several South American countries, England, the US, Spain, etc. Again, it doesn't surprise me that there were some in Ireland also.
I guess my position on this is "So what?" It isn't a shocking revelation. Are we supposed to feel that we have to prescribe a moral indictment on Ireland for having Nazis among them? In the long list of culprits, Ireland is right at the bottom, as far as I'm concerned.

Ivaylo
10-10-2008, 04:34 PM
Yes, I did know that Ireland was "neutral" and there was nothing in my post that indicated anything different. I don't need to look it up. I also saw your "proof". Let me think if I can make you understand my point, which you obviously didn't get before. Putting Ireland's "neutrality" aside, most Allied and neutral countries had elements of their population that, not only sympathized with the Nazis, but were indeed Nazis. Therefore, it isn't surprising to me that there were people in Ireland that also favored the Nazis and that enjoyed the fact that Britain got its behind kicked around a little. However, to simplify the Irish people's and government's motivations into some notion that this happened just because of the "domination" of Britain and the US over Ireland is rather ludicrous.
Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that, in spite of the official neutrality of Ireland, it is estimated that some 70,000 Irish men volunteered to fight in the British Armed Forces in addition to the 50,000 or so Northern Irish men that also fought for the British. Therefore, it is also obvious that, in spite of any resentment towards the British, many Irish people sided with the Allies.
Now, after the war, Nazis that saw the need to run away went to many different countries. Those countries included several South American countries, England, the US, Spain, etc. Again, it doesn't surprise me that there were some in Ireland also.
I guess my position on this is "So what?" It isn't a shocking revelation. Are we supposed to feel that we have to prescribe a moral indictment on Ireland for having Nazis among them? In the long list of culprits, Ireland is right at the bottom, as far as I'm concerned.

Yep Krad actually i think this show that the Allies fought against the German machine instead to go to punish the the nazis for their crimes , allowing most of them to live many years in peace . I think we should be more shocked by nazis in US and England instead of such in Ireland and other countries , because wasn't they the biggest opponenst fighting for freedom and justice ?? hmm something is not right and smell fishy here :)

downwithpeace
10-10-2008, 06:42 PM
Ireland had less Nazis then Britain and the USA. Irish sailors radioed German uboat sighting to the Royal Navy and it was Winston Churchill who asked for the stop to allied pows "finding their way" to the north as it brought German attention to the Republic even though he told Éamon de Valera "it was now or never" take it as you will. I have still to meet an Irish Nazi and i mean a true Nazi not this neo crap. We supported the Hun but NOT the Nazi. People like Otto Skorzeny did live here (Interesting story about him and the gas man who served in the British army) and another man who went on to start a book company that would become the suppler to state run schools. The main point is Ireland Did Not Support Nazi Germany.

aly j
10-10-2008, 08:43 PM
Ireland had less Nazis then Britain and the USA. Irish sailors radioed German uboat sighting to the Royal Navy and it was Winston Churchill who asked for the stop to allied pows "finding their way" to the north as it brought German attention to the Republic even though he told Éamon de Valera "it was now or never" take it as you will. I have still to meet an Irish Nazi and i mean a true Nazi not this neo crap. We supported the Hun but NOT the Nazi. People like Otto Skorzeny did live here (Interesting story about him and the gas man who served in the British army) and another man who went on to start a book company that would become the suppler to state run schools. The main point is Ireland Did Not Support Nazi Germany.
Hi everyone- Please read this.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II.

herman2
10-16-2008, 02:14 PM
Although a member of the British Commonwealth, Ireland (Eire) remained neutral throughout the war. The Prime Minister, Eamonn De Valera, refused repeated requests by Britain for the use of port facilities at Cobh, Berehaven and Lough Swilly on the west coast of Ireland during the Battle of the Atlantic, ports that Britain considered essential to her survival at that time. When De Valera refused to order all German and Japanese diplomats out of the country London cancelled all travel between the Irish Republic and Britain on March 12, 1944. This could have been for security reasons prior to the Normandy landings. In December, 1941, Hitler had considered invading Ireland and using it as a platform for the assault on the British mainland. If this had proceeded it would have marked the end for Britain. It was Admiral Raeder who changed Hitler's mind, pointing out that in the face of Britain's huge naval superiority it was quite out of the question. The help De Valera gave the Germans was to refuse Britain the use of airfields and submarine bases in Ireland which would have set back the U-boat operations in the Atlantic.

The use of the Berehaven port for instance would have enabled our anti-submarine escorts to operate a further 180 miles out into the Atlantic. During the 'Emergency' enlistment in the British Army however, was popular and around 42,000 Irishmen joined the armed forces or went to sea in the Merchant Navy. Eight won the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest award. These servicemen, when returning home on leave had to wear civilian clothes to avoid any embarrassment should they come home in a British uniform. If they had so, Eire would have to intern them as foreign combatants under International law. Thousands more went to England to work in British munitions factories during the war. Whenever an Irishman died in battle he was reported in the press as having died while working in Britain. (On May 2, 1945, de Valera called at the German legation in Dublin and expressed his condolences for the death of Hitler. It was his foreign affairs department who wrongly advised him that it was the right thing to do. (In neutral Portugal flags were flown at half mast after the government ordered two days of national mourning).

aly j
10-16-2008, 09:41 PM
Although a member of the British Commonwealth, Ireland (Eire) remained neutral throughout the war. The Prime Minister, Eamonn De Valera, refused repeated requests by Britain for the use of port facilities at Cobh, Berehaven and Lough Swilly on the west coast of Ireland during the Battle of the Atlantic, ports that Britain considered essential to her survival at that time. When De Valera refused to order all German and Japanese diplomats out of the country London cancelled all travel between the Irish Republic and Britain on March 12, 1944. This could have been for security reasons prior to the Normandy landings. In December, 1941, Hitler had considered invading Ireland and using it as a platform for the assault on the British mainland. If this had proceeded it would have marked the end for Britain. It was Admiral Raeder who changed Hitler's mind, pointing out that in the face of Britain's huge naval superiority it was quite out of the question. The help De Valera gave the Germans was to refuse Britain the use of airfields and submarine bases in Ireland which would have set back the U-boat operations in the Atlantic.

The use of the Berehaven port for instance would have enabled our anti-submarine escorts to operate a further 180 miles out into the Atlantic. During the 'Emergency' enlistment in the British Army however, was popular and around 42,000 Irishmen joined the armed forces or went to sea in the Merchant Navy. Eight won the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest award. These servicemen, when returning home on leave had to wear civilian clothes to avoid any embarrassment should they come home in a British uniform. If they had so, Eire would have to intern them as foreign combatants under International law. Thousands more went to England to work in British munitions factories during the war. Whenever an Irishman died in battle he was reported in the press as having died while working in Britain. (On May 2, 1945, de Valera called at the German legation in Dublin and expressed his condolences for the death of Hitler. It was his foreign affairs department who wrongly advised him that it was the right thing to do. (In neutral Portugal flags were flown at half mast after the government ordered two days of national mourning).

Herman 2 , Yes true. Im with you on this one.

Nickdfresh
10-16-2008, 10:10 PM
Herman 2 , Yes true. Im with you on this one.


With him how? He cut and pasted a Wiki link...

herman2
10-17-2008, 07:45 AM
With him how? He cut and pasted a Wiki link...

Ya, so?..I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it. I wasn't asking for any credit or applause for it. Next time I'll post an analysis of the article based on a subjective assessment of the pro's and con's as it affects mainstream society:shock:

Nickdfresh
10-17-2008, 07:46 AM
Ya, so?..I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it. I wasn't asking for any credit or applause for it. Next time I'll post an analysis of the article based on a subjective assessment of the pro's and con's as it affects mainstream society:shock:


It just seems that now you're trying to pass other stuff off as your own work...

herman2
10-17-2008, 07:49 AM
no no..I apologize if that was the perception. I thought that if we found interesting articles related to certain threads that it was ok to do this. If this is taken in a wrong way, I apologize. I posted newspaper articles before as have others about war stuff so i thought it was ok?Anyways if the perception is otherwise perhaps I shall make a point of the exact source of the contribution so there is no misunderstanding . is that ok?

aly j
10-17-2008, 08:34 AM
With him how? He cut and pasted a Wiki link...

I mean i believe in his post. What did you think i meant?