New Irish film that links IRA to Nazis a hit at Montreal film festival - VIDEO

@Lynchy - there were pro-Nazi movements all over Europe, incl UK, Belgium, Netherlands...also in the US - 'German American Bund' - National Socialism was seen as an attractive alternative by many...Germany looked to have solve the problems of the depression era. The democracies were reluctant to go to war...mainly because they had not rearmed, and were rightly fearful of the Nazi military machine...The US had the decision made for them when Hitler declared war on the US, a few days after Pearl Harbor...

About 4 years ago I saw some interesting photographs of a German event in South America prior to WW2 - It was basically a mini rally (typical shirts and swastika armbands, Third Reich flags and military style marching) which I understand was not uncommon in several countries as prior to the war much of Europe and elsewhere were in awe of the incredible growth of Germany after WW1. I don´t have any axe to grind on this subject so I am happy to be contradicted if it is not true that the UK was reluctant to enter into conflict with Germany for reasons other than not wanting another war and that the US was not entirely sure if they would side with Britain if they were drawn into the war.

Tom Swinford argues his points with respect and dignity(even though we disagree on some points). WoundedKnee would do well to show respect and he may garner some kudos.

What a craven hypocrite this guy Swinford is. He whines about his opposition to " bloodshed and destruction" (who isn't against it?) but then he tells us his big hero is John Redmond. This man Redmond, by my calculation, bears moral responsibility for some 60000 deaths. I calculate this on the basis of perhaps some 30000 Irish killed in WW1 who joined the British Forces in response to Redmond's recruiting, and the equal number of Germans, Turks, Hungarians etc, of whom these Irish knew nothing yet senselessly and criminally killed.

Sean, I am aware of the Home Rule story going back to the 1880s. As for why Home Rule was not implemented following WWl, well just maybe the 1916 Rebellion and the commencement of the War of Independence in 1919 had something to do with this - the Home Rule cup had been well and truly poisoned. Unionist opposition to Home Rule was clearly a problem but the opportunity had been there for a peaceful transition to Dev's dream of a republic. I accept that you and ancavker have a fair argument in rebuttal - and we're not going to change any minds here so I'm bowing out. Slan.

Tom the first Home rule Act 1886 was rejected by the British when over 90 liberals crossed the floor to vote with the opposition. the third home rule bill was rejected by the house of lords on two occasions and on the third introduction of the bill(1914) the house overrode the lords and sent it for "Royal assent" in affect it was passed by parliament and not enacted on because of the spiteful campaign by Churchill and the Curragh Mutiny engineered by him. To paraphrase you Tom to say everything would've been OK but for WW1 is a weak argument 100,000 Irishmen went to war on the promise of home rule and were cheated.Why not enact it in 1918,1919 after WWI finished. Britain preferred to send in their black and tan thugs and would not discuss home rule.

ancavker, fair enough - but I've never blamed Collins. In my book he is one of the very few authentic heroes in our history - we've had far too many psuedo heroes. We have paid a very high price for the road taken in 1916 - we are still paying it. In 1916 the Irish economy was booming, the country serving as Britain's larder - Irish farmers doing better than ever in history. This prosperity continued into the 1920s. In 1916 Dublin had one of the most competent and professional civil service sectors in Europe, modeled on Britain's - and like Britain's it was merit-based and a-political- and mostly Irish and largely Catholic at most levels. Dev's FF victory in 1932 changed all that. His disastrous 'economic war' with Britain reduced Irish exports to Britain by 60% by 1935. Not a smart thing to do when Britain purchased 96% of Irish exports while Ireland accounted for about 5% of British exports - you don't win that kind of a war. Dev also gutted the Civil Service, bringing in his own cronies and establishing the requirement that all employees in the public sector speak Irish, regardless of education, experience or competence - and, of course, made the civil service a political fiefdom, property of FF. This was all part of the 1916-1923 legacy handed down to us. Yes, I do believe there was a better way, perhaps not as 'heroic' but also without the bloodshed and destruction that loosed the worst in the national character. We have not fully recovered from that legacy. In my humble opinion, that is.

Tom: Agree to disagree is fine, but to blame Collins and the rest for the failures of the state they established is simply not fair, and wrong As I always say and will say again the independence achieved in 1922 was far greater than the Home Rule offered in 1914, and it took a violent war of independence to achieve it. That its ideals were not achieved is the fault of the generations that followed, including this one. It seems the Irish will blame anyone but themselves for their problems, including the dead. Two final points the violence of the Irish war of independence was but a drop compared with the carnage of WWI, perpetrated by Europe's elite on both sides, and all the other mini wars of the 1920's. As far as Pro-Treaty/Anti-Treaty, FF or FG, in my fmaily we were and Clann na Poblachta, except for own home place, we were truly outsiders.

Dan WWI has not been revised, it is still taught as the war to end all wars and the rights of small nations to be free. I defend 1916-1922 as so many revisionists claim point blank that it was wrong, and our leaders were gangsters and gunmen, and criminals and on it goes. I will defend their efforts time and time again. Yoy have claimed repeatedly that Home Rule was the way to go, as if that were fact. I have pointed out time and time again, that Home Rule vs. what Collins achieved are incomparable. I suggest you compare what may have been implemented with the Home Rule bill vs what Collins got in the Anglo-Irish Treaty. No comparison.

CurtisJ, with his ‘balanced’ view of Irish history, echoes perfectly the words of Irish nationalist Stephen Gwynn, when he wrote: ‘We know in Ireland what the cost of victorious hate is’

It would have "turned out" the same way it did in the occupied statelet - pogroms, daily harrassment of the indigenous population, gerrymandering, exclusion from employment, etc. The Irish people would have been more liberated under islamo-fascism.

@DanO "you can't bring yourself to think that a peaceful way" So in 8 centuries, what were the peaceful means that the british were pursuing to restore the natural rights of the indigenous Irish? Was it when they kidnapped and shipped thousands upon thousands of Irish children into slavery (the anglo sickos raped and bred children as young as 12 according to their own records)? When they broke/ignored the Treaty of Limerick (against the wishes of their own supposed sovereign) to making any type of civil right a felony? When they stationed massive military forces all over the country during the famine to insure the export of food? The rape, pitch and cap, half hangings, the display of severed heads?

I had thought that this story would have surely burnt itself out by now - that it isn't is testimony to the difficulty we have in dealing with the Home Rule vs War and Civil War in the 1916-23 period. As Sean and ancavker know, I am with Dan on this sadly devisive issue. I do believe that there was a better way. I do believe that the Home Rule Bill, already passed, would have been implemented after WWl - had 1916 not happened. Yes, it would have been implemented without the North - but that is what we got anyway, after much destruction and bloodshed and a terrible legacy of hatred, bitterness, manifest distrust (as children going to school in the 1950s and 1960s we learned who we could trust based on which side their fathers or grandfathers were on in the Civil War), the legacy of the gun, in and out of government, the legacy of corruption and incompetancy in government, the acceptance of an armed, violent and illegal army in a liberal democracy. All of this might well have been avoided. Michael Collins did not start us down this road and I admire him for what he achieved. Let us agree to disagree, respectfully.

Now Dan your shouting again and making childish claims what constitution? Ancakver Dans narrow point of view prevents him from making commonsense posts.

ancavker - But as you say, 'Who know how it ultimately would have turned out?'...and of course WW1 has been revised, in the 'Oh what a lovely war' time, and later was re-revised...you are so precious about the 1916-22 period, as you can't bring yourself to think that a peaceful way may have been better in the long run...I only say may, again 'Who know how it ultimately would have turned out?'