100 Comments

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 12, 2012, 05:31 PM EDT

  @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...

• Lynchy | Sep 09, 2012, 02:17 AM EDT

  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.

• seanomelb | Sep 08, 2012, 08:24 PM EDT

  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.

• WoundedKnee | Sep 08, 2012, 02:50 PM EDT

  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.

• WoundedKnee | Sep 08, 2012, 09:40 AM EDT

  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.

• seanomelb | Sep 08, 2012, 02:16 AM EDT

  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.

• seanomelb | Sep 07, 2012, 11:24 PM EDT

  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.

• ancavker | Sep 07, 2012, 03:06 PM EDT

  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.

• ancavker | Sep 07, 2012, 02:59 PM EDT

  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.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 07, 2012, 03:42 AM EDT

  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’

• curtisjohnson | Sep 06, 2012, 09:03 PM EDT

  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.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 06, 2012, 08:59 PM EDT

  @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?

• curtisjohnson | Sep 06, 2012, 08:19 PM EDT

  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.

• seanomelb | Sep 06, 2012, 07:31 PM EDT

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

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 06, 2012, 04:00 PM EDT

  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?'

• ancavker | Sep 06, 2012, 10:54 AM EDT

  Dan: As I have pointed out time and time again, it is very questionable that the so called Home Rule would have led to real Irish independence. And again as pointed out, even Garrett Fitzgerald acknowledged that some years back. Collins achieved real independence for the 26 counties, and not a talk shop. And I find it offensive this attitude that the Irish should have been good patient boys and girls, and England in her generosity would eventually give the mere Irish their independence. One final point Dan, if revisionism is permissable in Irish history, than why not in the case of WW I. War to end all wars, and right of small nations to be free. What a bunch of nonsense.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 06, 2012, 04:23 AM EDT

  Seano - Why don't they favour Plebiscites? BECAUSE PLEBISCITES DO NOT FORM PART OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION - That way they don't have to go through endless diversions to fail to get eg the law on abortion in line with ECHR basic law...the US constitution has had 6 amendments since WW2, the Irish 29!!! The Germans ban plebiscites as well...so what's your point?...asked again, and again..

• seanomelb | Sep 06, 2012, 12:15 AM EDT

  Tell me silly Dan when do the people of england have a plebiscite to enact constitutional law? the answer is never they do not have any rights to alter any law. They are bound by parliamentary changes and they have to like it or lump it.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 05, 2012, 10:29 PM EDT

  Regarding the "unwritten constitution," it's interesting that the british are slowly subjecting their own mainland citizens (even though people in the Northern Ireland are supposed to have full and equal citizenship status) to the same types of civil abuses they employ in the occupied statelet.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 05, 2012, 10:17 PM EDT

  The notion that Ireland was headed for independence because the british terror state was forced to cede some fundamental human rights to its indigenous inhabitants as the 20th century approached is ludicrous. This is evidenced by the fact that the treaty arguably left Ireland with less rights than a Commmonwealth nation and every inch of freedom had to be asserted rather than ceded voluntarily (see the post treaty trade war, for instance). The british terror state never cedes anything voluntarily where it sees a material interest (witness their disgusting abuse and terrorism of the indigenous population in Kenya, which they later tried to cover up).

• curtisjohnson | Sep 05, 2012, 10:14 PM EDT

  The british certainly used alleged German atrocities in Belgium as a primary justification for entering the war - are you saying the british terror state was lying DanO? You're seriously positing that the terror state was not threatened by the fact that Germany was rapidly approaching them in terms of naval power and was beyond them in terms of industrial/military capacity?

• curtisjohnson | Sep 05, 2012, 10:10 PM EDT

  "Magna Carta, much of English Common Law eg Habeas Corpus, and customs which taken as a whole makes up a constitution…newly created countries took much of these and sensibly formulated them in one single document" This is silly - none of these things provide any immutable guarantee of the natural rights of ordinary citizens against the central government (habeus corpus never constrained a sovreign from indefinitely detaining someone in the Tower) and none of them articulated natural rights of the individual against government as a premise. The Magna Carta merely reflected a changing power dynamic in england. If anything, the US Constituion was a reaction to the abuse of rights under the british system (with the systemic division of government function being lifted from Montesquieu). It's interesting that rights under the supposed "unwritten constitution" could be suspended at the whim of the government in the occupied statelet.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 05, 2012, 08:09 PM EDT

  Seano - you obviously don't understand what a constitution is...buy a good dictionary and read the definition...END

• seanomelb | Sep 05, 2012, 07:01 PM EDT

  Nitpicking Dan!! They cannot have a written constitution because they do not have a constitution birdbrain. Go back to your mates on Carlisle Square they need you to throw more stones at the PSNI/RUC

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 05, 2012, 04:56 PM EDT

  seanomelb - Changing your argument I see...you posted on Aug 31, 2012, 08:08 PM, and I quote ‘Britain does not have a constitution’…NO MENTION OF WRITTEN HERE!!

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 05, 2012, 05:32 AM EDT

  I don’t argue that the Brits entered the war to protect Belgium…like most countries they were motivated by self-interest. On Naval supremacy, they still had the world’s largest navy, and were outbuilding Germany…at hideous cost…no, they could not stand by and see France defeated and become a vassal of the Germans…none of this means that Ireland had no right to independence…and things were moving in that direction anyway…and it’s arguable that the limited Home Rule would have lead to ‘all-Ireland’ independence, just as the Empire morphed into the Commonwealth in later years..

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 05, 2012, 05:31 AM EDT

  CurtisJ – I don’t argue that Britain has an ‘Unwritten Constitution’…what they have is a series of documents, starting with Magna Carta, much of English Common Law eg Habeas Corpus, and customs which taken as a whole makes up a constitution…newly created countries took much of these and sensibly formulated them in one single document…the influences on the U.S. Constitution are generally accepted…quote ‘most of our American forefathers cherished the English constitution and did not change their opinion of its merits just because Parliament and the ministers of King George III failed to observe some of its provisions.’…more

• curtisjohnson | Sep 04, 2012, 10:20 PM EDT

  Britain's "unwritten constitution" LOL. It gives the ruling commercial oligarchs an opportunity to invent a moral pretense for virtually any action - including the progressive introduction of a police state (not a hard thing to do when there are really no fixed "rights" to begin with). Can you cite any serious historians who believe there was a definitive moral highground in WWI DanO? The british terror state entered the war because they were in fear of the loss of naval supremacy (I mean because they really cared about the people of Belgium - LOL; as noted by member of their own government, the black and tans committed many of the atrocities they were accusing Germany of in Belgium). You think the Americans had more of a justification for independence than the Irish, Dano?

• seanomelb | Sep 04, 2012, 07:25 PM EDT

  Just repeat after me Britain does not have a written constitution moron. You know I'm correct but your pro British little mind cannot grasp it, poor thing.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 04, 2012, 06:27 PM EDT

  Oh, Seano…do keep those ‘pearls of wisdom’ coming…some say you’re all p*** and wind, not me... I say you’re not that useful…

• bunkerhill | Sep 04, 2012, 04:53 PM EDT

  For Kilsally - Do you know what a WASP is? A WASP is a "white, anglo-saxon, Protestant American, and they are supposed to be the elite of England and the US. Social studies in the US in the '70's however showed them to be near the bottom. Question Americans and you will find that British means English, so it was the English Empire, or English plundering if you wish. I didn't say the English lived in the smallest space in Europe, 786 sq ft, our House and Garden Show said it. But then the royals "true Anglo-Saxons" have many palaces with 40,000 acres surrounding not in any sense to be used by "commoners." Have you forgotten the English and Scots sent to Australian prisons for poaching on royal land? No commoners? Kate was constantly referred to as a "Commoner" on US TV. I can tell you that the Scots, Welsh and Orange people in Northern Ireland are given short shrift in the US. Even English who are not considered Anglo-Saxons count for nothing. You people are fooling yourselves and this totally stupid film is getting fare more publicity than it deserves. Check out the American view of England or Angleland if you prefer.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 04, 2012, 01:57 PM EDT

  ancavker – Not sure how it proves your point, as WW1 has been subject to much revisionism, and then re-revisionism…and yes the Brits do overdo the heroic aspect, though it pales in comparison to our ‘Deification’ of the men of 1916…the aggression started with Germany and their attacks on Belgium and France…their war plan demanded an aggressive campaign…in July 1914, just before the war, the British proposed a conference to address the issues Austria-Hungary had with Serbia, this was ACCEPTED by France, but REJECTED by Germany…as to your ‘who knows how it would have turned out’, one could say that about any historic ‘might have been’ eg the peaceful adoption of Home Rule…

• TayandCake | Sep 04, 2012, 11:58 AM EDT

  stop arguing people below V

• ancavker | Sep 04, 2012, 10:25 AM EDT

  Dan: You prove my point exactly. Revisionism only applies to Irish history. As far as South West Africa, the Germans were only there 30 odd years, in a sparsely populated country. And the British of course were involved there, having jailed one of the rebel leaders on behalf of the Germans in the early 1900's. As far as the German historian, one man, and one mans views. Who know how it ultimately would have turned out had the Germans won? The fact remains that according to the British versions of history they and their allies were noble and heroic, fighting the German Huns. And they romanticized the slaugheter of millions. Yet according to you this version of history cannot be challenged. The war to end all wars, and the rights of small nations to be free indeed!!!

• seanomelb | Sep 04, 2012, 05:28 AM EDT

  Pissi#g against the wind again Lynch.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 04, 2012, 04:15 AM EDT

  No Seano...you claimed that Britain didn't have a constitution...you simply don't understand that a 'single document' statement setting out a country's constitution is just one option...seems a little too subtle for that sun-drenched old thing you have between your ears...nothing new there!!!!

• seanomelb | Sep 03, 2012, 07:34 PM EDT

  Your the one disputing the facts not I.You argued the point and lost what's your point.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 03, 2012, 04:55 AM EDT

  Just because its not all in a single document, doesn't mean its not a constitution...the Irish Constitution insists on referendums, the German one bans them...so what's your point?

• seanomelb | Sep 01, 2012, 08:47 PM EDT

  Show me the constitution in a written form.Common law is nor Magna Carta "constitute" a constitution. The British parliament can change any law anytime by a simple majority idiot.Your scoring is like your logic infantile by nature.

• WoundedKnee | Sep 01, 2012, 04:15 PM EDT

  O'Looney: " the confederate states should have been allowed to peaceably leave the union". You got that right.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 01, 2012, 02:56 PM EDT

  By old Knee's logic, the confederate states should have been allowed to peaceably leave the union....

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 01, 2012, 02:48 PM EDT

  Only an idiot would contend that Britain does not have a constitution...it is built up over centuries, and includes Magna Carta, common law, and habeas corpus...the fact that it is not all in a single document testifies to the fact that it was an organic structure...Parliament is the place where the people are represented...it is supreme, and so all must bend to its will...this means that any new laws, in theory, are manifestations of the will of the people...and on monarchies - the present Spanish monarchy was put in place by popular choice...errr that's 2-0 to me!!!

• seanomelb | Aug 31, 2012, 08:08 PM EDT

  how can the monarchy be constitutional when Britain does not have a constitution and a simple majority of parliament can change the law. The British although they accept the monarchy never voted for a monarchy. All monarchies are are initially there by force of arms. The robber baron with the biggest army gets first prize.

• Kilsally | Aug 31, 2012, 03:00 PM EDT

  bunkerhill - sorry but the UK and British identity is Scottish, Welsh, English and Ulster / Irish . Britian buil the empire not England and history testifies to the many Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Manx and others who did so. THe reason for your figures on housing is that England is a very crowded place with over 50million people - combining Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland & Wales together barely gives you more than the population of Greater London. Houses are much more expensive in England and planning permission has green spaces protected. Again your `commoner` nonsense is wrong - the queen is actually an EU citizen the same as everyone else in Europe, the same as Irish people are EU citizens - the UK is a constitutional Monarchy - power lies with elected government - absolute Monarchy went out when William of Orange and his wife Mary jointly ascended the throne and gave much of their powers to Parliament.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 31, 2012, 12:49 PM EDT

  The socialist James Connolly's words as he faced death sum up what is foul and rotten in the pro-imperialist cant of posters such as Swinford and O'Looney. "Believing that the British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland, the presence, in any one generation of Irishmen, of even a respectable minority, ready to die to affirm that truth, makes that Government for ever an usurpation and a crime against human progress. I personally thank God that I have lived to see the day when thousands of Irish men and boys, and hundreds of Irish women and girls, were ready to affirm that truth, and to attest it with their lives if need be."

• seanomelb | Aug 31, 2012, 08:52 AM EDT

  Posts pulled on all sites yesterday

• IrelandNorth | Aug 31, 2012, 08:11 AM EDT

  WoundedKnee! If North Strand was/is working class, that doesn't mean Jews didn't/don't live there. What about Warsaw ghetto? Yes, streets off middle-class South Circular Road in Dublin were know as Little Jerusalem due to concentration of Jewish population there, but wasn't bombed by Luftwaffe. Rathdown Park in southern suburbs of Rathgar/Terenure was/is renownly Jewish, as testified to still by one of their Synagogs close by. TomSwinford! If history is written by victors, revision may be no bad thing. But when it seeks to update original historical heresies and retrospectively incriminate liberation struggles, it's reprehensible indeed. If 1916 was a blood sacrifice to awaken slumbering masses to political consciousness, it was hardly a failure, even if the republic it breach birthed was imperfect. Imperfect republics improve on perfect empires. Alas, WKs math may be disturbingly accurate re WWI/II. Kilsally! Interesting that concern for material wellbeing should preface more idealistic consideration by the £oyal [wo/]men of 'Ulster' (sic). How do you explain the subsequent exclusion of 3 of Ulsters counties (Cavan/Donegal/Monaghan) from a kingdom which was no longer united. If Home Rule was a conspiracy against a democratically challenged Act of Union, does that not make conspiracy respectable? NB One is a subject of a monarchy rather than a citizen? Does the Carsonian Covenant not recognise Ulster as being an integral part of Ireland? Undoubtedly Home Rule was perilous to the unity of an empire, the inconvenient truth of which was that nobody had voting for! And did not Ulster/Northern Ireland not end up with Home Rule anyway. How truly powerful a consensual alliance could have been, rather than turning a generations of men into murderers in the Abrahamic aberrations of WWI&II.

• DanOLoingsigh | Aug 31, 2012, 03:30 AM EDT

  ancavker – Yes I do know about Belgium and their Congo – that didn’t mean the occupation was deserved by the average Belgian…Germany committed atrocities in their African empire too, in South West Africa against the Herero and Nama tribes…something you don’t ever mention - It’s a myth to think that Germany’s main aim was for overseas colonies – they wanted to dominate Europe, (read ‘Germany's Aims in the First World War’ by German historian Fritz Fischer) and needed to invoke the Schlieffen Plan to do this – The Brits realised that the plan was likely to succeed, and so intervened on the French side…revisionism also applies to WW1…just compare the very small standing army of Britain, to that of Germany, and it’s obvious who was better prepared for a European land war…German expansionist aims from the uniting of Germany to the end of WW2 were the chief causes of conflict… a German dominated Europe in either 1918 or 1945 would have been quite different to what we have today… our ‘Gallant Allies’ indeed?

• seanomelb | Aug 30, 2012, 11:18 PM EDT

  Amen to that Tom!! The Nam war was wrong but the vets did their country proud and deserve our respect. Georgy boy you are a failed human being. BTW I often wonder why the six counties had only 70,000 fighters in WW11 when they had a population at the time of over a million!! is it because they did not have conscription like the rest of the UK?? and they would rather stay at home than fight for King and country?? I wonder!!

• curtisjohnson | Aug 30, 2012, 11:08 PM EDT

  "the republic - i believe oliver cromwell first established that principle in the english civil war that deposed the monarchy" This is such re-hashed silly garbage. The concept of a Republic is at least as old as classical Greece and arguably much older. Olly merely enabled a commercial oligarchy with a weak executive.

• curtisjohnson | Aug 30, 2012, 05:36 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee aka GeorgeDillon, you are one truly sick dude -as most regular posters are well aware. They have seen your abuse and insult and rage - and ludicrous arguments over several years. As for Vietnam, there is nothing to lie about and I never have. I was drafted into the U.S. Army and five months later was in Vietnam, straight-leg infantry. I did not avoid the draft as your daddy did, and did not do the shameful and dishonest things that your daddy did in order to avoid the draft. But, of course, as you said, your daddy was a man of principle, implying that the 2.5 million young men, average age 19, who did go to Vietnam and the 58,700 young Americans who died there were less principled than daddy dillion, the draft-dodger. Again, you are truly one sick dude.

• ancavker | Aug 30, 2012, 04:07 PM EDT

  Dan: You do realize they invaded Belgium the same Belgium that was committing atrocities in the Congo, so spare me the poor defenseless small nation nonsense. I don't deny that non-combanats were killed on ALL sides in the WWI. That is what happens in war, so what exactly is the point? The reality of WWI is that it was simply the imperial powers fighting it out for colonial spoils etc. If Germany had won, England would have still kept her empire, and Germany would not have invaded and occupied Britain, and as far as Ireland, the Germans would not have bothered themselves with such an insignificant (in their minds) place. Ironically what Germany wanted in continental Europe is what ultimatley happened, the EU, Euro, and ironically now the rest of the continent today wants Germany to bail them out. Yes there was romanticism and all the rest with 1916, but there was much more with WWI. And spare us with the fellow countymen nonsense.

• bunkerhill | Aug 30, 2012, 04:02 PM EDT

  Probably this post won't go through either but I will find out why I was given a yellow triangle censure sign. Our American House and Garden Channel had a show last year showing that the average English person lived in 786 sq ft. the smallest space in Europe surrounded by an average of 40,000 acres of royal land surrounding many palaces. For everyone in the UK who is not English, to the rest of the world British means English. Being English is not enough you have to be "Anglo-Saxon." Even if you do qualify you are still a "commoner." Scots are Scots and not English or Anglo-Saxons. "All men are created equal" probably comes from ancient Irish Brehon law, and for SAirish, George Washington was an American born patriot who fought at the head of the American Army and could have become royal and lived in a palace. Instead being so totally American, he chose the Irish theory that "All men are created equal. I am very happy that you folks enjoy being commoners, but please go your merry way and leave the rest of us "equals" alone.

• DanOLoingsigh | Aug 30, 2012, 03:54 PM EDT

  Usual simplistic nonsense from old Knee…Germany began the war by invading a near neighbour, another small country…and would have meted out the same fate to Ireland if necessary…The U-Boat campaign killed many Irish non-combatants, who never set foot on the continent…yet he argues that their fellow countrymen should have sat on their backsides…Germany had quite clear war aims..They had a fully conscripted military many years before the war…they weren’t about to go away unless they were made go.

• ancavker | Aug 30, 2012, 03:32 PM EDT

  Tom: I agree with WK in that Irish men went to fight and kill people that never did harm to them or Ireland. My problem with the Irish version of revisionism is that it seeks to delegitimize Ireland's right to fight for her independence, and not to wait like good boys and girls, for the generosity of the British government to grant them some talk shop that would still partitoin their country. Of course the men of 1916, were given saint status, as their efforts ultimately led to independence a few years later, was it over board at times yes, but so what. I see more monuments and plaques and all sorts of memorials in Britain to all sorts of wars and battles both big and small. The problem with Irish revisionism is that it now seeks to be the new myth. Home Rule did not gurantee ultimate indendence for Ireland. Sadly the provos and their disastrous campaign played right into the hands of the revisionists in Ireland.

• ancavker | Aug 30, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT

  Kilsally: My home place is right on the Cavan Fermangh border, and in fact part of the land (in addition to some other holdings) is in Fermanagh Blacklion/Belcoo, we are one Ireland, one people, regarddless of some silly border. You do know that had the British honored the boundary commission, and the Free state government had the back bone to stand up to them, you in Tyrone in addition to Fermanagh would be in the now Irish Republic.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 30, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT

  Swinford: Do you deny that you told you us you fought against the Vietnamese? Or are you saying you were in Vietnam but you killed or maimed no one? Which is it? Get your story straight for once and for all. It's not surprising that you're a big fan of Imperialism. Stop your stupid abuse, and try some rational argument for a change. I proposed an estimate of 60.000 as the number of people whose deaths your hero John Redmond shared culpability for. Instead of proving me wrong, all you could do is scream abuse. Why do you bother posting here if you can't argue rationally? You're a disgrace.

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 02:46 PM EDT

  bunkerhill - sorry but as i say my passport says i am both a british citizen and an EU citizen - the queen is also an EU citizen. A constitutional monarchy is not an absolute monarchy as in centuries past despite your claims to the contrary - you are hardly comparing like for like here as what you talk of was occurring for thousands of years across europe centuries before the USA existed. As stated the UK constitution evolved over thousands of years from the magna carta to the 1688 bill of rights to the modern era. The US constitution is based on the 1688 bill of rights. Your post was inaccurate to say the least as the Irish Republic did not exist until the 1920`s so how could it have influence the US constitution declared centuries befor? And as stated the black soldiers were kept separate from the whites in Springhill, County L`derry when stationed here during WW1 . And sorry to inform you but I live in the country in rural County Tyrone with lots of fields, my dogs, goats round about.

• bunkerhill | Aug 30, 2012, 02:36 PM EDT

  Why was my comment deleted and why was I told to post a comment on this film which is total propaganda via Montreal. What happened to my comment and why? I cannot believe the baloney coming from Kilsally and SAirish. I will not write my comment over again as obviously it has been censured, but I would tell both of them that the Blacks in our country are equal and not commoners as they are.The indentured servants, poor children from England and Scotland were the first slaves until the "powers that be" discovered Africa. It these two want to be commoners and live in 786 sq ft of space surrounded by sumptuous estates so be it. Commoners have a right to be just that commoners. I am very concerned about what happened to my post however and will pursue it.

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 10:53 AM EDT

  indeed SAirish - bunkerhill forgets that the American Army was stationed in Northern Ireland during the World Wars and three miles down the road from me in Springhill the black soldiers were camped separately from the white soldiers.

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 10:51 AM EDT

  sorry bunkerhill but my passport clearly says citizen - the queen serves the country - as to the republic - i believe oliver cromwell first established that principle in the english civil war that deposed the monarchy - the US constitution is in fact based on centuries of british constitutional change from magna carta to the 1688 bill of rights established under William and Mary (Prince of Orange)

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 10:39 AM EDT

  Sean, fair point. on re-reading my post - I was a bit harsh. I painted all with the same broad brush. Certainly the 1916 leaders, whatever their other shortcomings, were not drunks. Nor I was attacking idealism in itself - which can be noble and virtuous but not always. Paul Ryan, the GOP VP nominee is often praised for his idealism. God help us if his idealism is implemented as public policy.Regards

• ancavker | Aug 30, 2012, 10:17 AM EDT

  kilsally: What a bunch of nonsense. They defied the same British government that they claimed loyalty to. They were only loyal if it suited their purpose.

• SAirish | Aug 30, 2012, 10:17 AM EDT

  Bunkerhill - "All men are created equal" I don't think that the black slaves in the USA would have agreed with that. English Country gentleman George Washington had a 100 of them. The USA was one of the last countries in the world to be fully democratic as the blacks in the South did not get the vote until the 1960's. Segregation in the USA rivaled that of South Africa and the USA abolished slavery 30 years after the UK did. Some equality!!!

• bunkerhill | Aug 30, 2012, 09:39 AM EDT

  To Kilsally - How different "some" Ulster citizens are from those in the Republic of Ireland and the USA. As you state, your royal covenant says "equal citizenship" regards the UK citizens when in fact you are indeed "commoners" as everyone knows. The people of the Republic believed "All men are created "equal," and in fact passed that concept on to our wonderful USA. But if you choose to be "commoners" so be it, but many would find it an odd choice and choose to be "equal."

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 09:14 AM EDT

  Sean Russell died at the bottom of the ocean in a German U Boat - his statue in dublin was decapitated by anti fascists a few years ago only to be replaced and unveiled by Sinn Fein TD / MEP

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 09:07 AM EDT

  ankaver - sorry but you are wrong - later this month on 28th September it will be the centenary of the signing of 1912 Ulster`s Solemn League and Covenant which saw the organisation. arming and training of the Ulster Volunteers to oppose both the South of Ireland AND Britain. Northern Ireland exists because of the Ulster people and has nothing to do with the British government who signed off on the Home Rule bill - there will be huge celebration on Ulster Day, 28th September 2012. These volunteers later merged into the British Army as the 36th Ulster Division at the outbreak of World War 1

• Kilsally | Aug 30, 2012, 09:04 AM EDT

  The Covenant (for men) BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names. And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant. [edit]The Declaration (for women) We, whose names are underwritten, women of Ulster, and loyal subjects of our gracious King, being firmly persuaded that Home Rule would be disastrous to our Country, desire to associate ourselves with the men of Ulster in their uncompromising opposition to the Home Rule Bill now before Parliament, whereby it is proposed to drive Ulster out of her cherished place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and to place her under the domination and control of a Parliament in Ireland. Praying that from this calamity God will save Ireland, we here to subscribe our names.

• bunkerhill | Aug 30, 2012, 06:04 AM EDT

  Switzerland was neutral but I have never heard anyone question that. Of course Switzerland has all that hidden money. The USA fought the same fight the IRA did to get the royals and their empire out of their country. During WWI when 150,000 Irish were fighting in the British Army, the Irish were even taxed for the number of windows in their houses. (Check out the old houses in Ireland and you will see the added transoms.) Ireland was not really free until the '30's so where would they get the treasury to participate in WWII. And yet 50,00 of them did participate in the British Army. An American Veterans Magazine a few years back prattled on about the same thing saying that the British had a deal with Ireland that they could move back into Irish ports. Oh sure, any one would really believe that. This magazine, even though so many Americans were WWII veterans blasted Ireland to smithereens. The British with the royals at the helm have killed more people on this earth probably than all the mighty plunderers put together. The actor playing Frank Ryan looks like a very handsome Spaniard to me. He doesn't look a bit Irish. No blue eyed blonde or red head there. No master race there. And Bell from Northern Ireland. Bell is a very Scottish name isn't it? No agenda there? I heard a reporter yesterday for the first time refer to the "Anglo-American" Empire. Watch out folks the US may be the next target. Many Americans are appalled at Harry, but then there is more openness now. Of course he was just working off tension as he on the way for another ten day photo shoot in Afghanistan? God Bless our veterans who can't afford eight thousand dollar a night rooms along with all the partying.

• bunkerhill | Aug 29, 2012, 07:48 PM EDT

  ancavker, I am no apologist for British occupation or Irish collaboration with that occupation. As for revisionism, this is a normal process in recording history. It happens everywhere and all the time, due to new evidence, more cool-headed objective analysis, etc. When growing up in Ireland it was unthinkable that you would dare question the "heroes of 1916." Whether at home, in school or at the local pub, to question the motives or the outcome of the rebellion was pure and simple treason. And for seven decades we were all trapped into this lock-step mindset. Now,in Ireland,there is much descussion on what was achieved and might there have been a better way. This is natural and healthy in a democracy - and long overdue. Understandably, there are some who fear such debate. The 1916 uprising was hatched up by, as one Irish historian wrote, "a clique, within a clique, within a clique." Like most other rebellions it had no popular support anywhere in the country. Like all other rebellions it failed - and for the same old reasons: lack of organization, lack of competence, lack of means, lack of leadership and lack of popular support - but then the aspirations of the Irish people were never of much concern to our rebel heroes. Irish rebellions were usually cooked up by drunks and dreamers, idealists and idealogues, romantics and fools, which is why they always failed. Even though I do believe that there was a better way to nationhood, I have always had a high regard for Michael Collins. The reason the British feared him so much was because he was as ruthless as he was competent, a rarity in Irish history. For the first time they were up against a real opponent. Frankly, I am surprised that you agreed with WoundedKnee, aka GeorgeDillon, on his lunatic math re. Redmond's presumed crimes in WWl. No rational thinking person would believe this lunacy. This is the same nutcase who accused me of murdering men, women and children in Vietnam.

• ancavker | Aug 29, 2012, 04:48 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee: Agreed. These Irish man althogh many may have honestly believed enlisting would free Ireland, went out and killed people who never caued any harm to Ireland in any way. In addition Tom Swinford also ignores that in 1918 the Irish people as a whole voted for independence, and right around the whole small nations might be free. At that time the British government could have sat down and negogiated with Collins, Griffith De Valera etc, but they chose not to. They were not letting Ireland go without a fight.

• citizen69 | Aug 29, 2012, 04:43 PM EDT

  @RichardP: this information can be sourced (amongst other places) in a book called 'British Spies and Irish Rebels' by Paul McMahon.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 29, 2012, 03:52 PM EDT

  ancvker: Swinford and similar apologists often prate that they are for peace. Yet they canonize one of the most violent men in Irish history. I am referring to John Redmond. By my rough calculations, and I could be wrong by tens of thousands, Redmond bears moral responsibility for some 60,000 deaths. I calculate this on the basis of about 30.000 Irish killed in WW1 after listening to his propaganda and joining the British forces, and another 30.000 Turks, Austrians, Hungarians, Germans etc whom these Irish killed. These numbers are far in excess of the total of all those killed by Irish nationalists from the 1798 Rebellion onwards.

• RichardP | Aug 29, 2012, 12:49 PM EDT

  @citizen69 - you may well be correct but can you provide a reference to that or is it an assertion made based on what you have heard?

• ancavker | Aug 29, 2012, 12:19 PM EDT

  Tom Swinford: The IRA of the 30's and 40's had no where near the strength of Collins' IRA, and yes they were deadly, but certainly not effective. As far as the 1916-1923 period. Well I don't regret it. I am proud of the men and women who got up off their knees (figuratively speaking) and took what was rightfully theirs. You and other revisionists/apologists constanly say Ireland would have evolved into Canada and Australis, and I don't believe that. The Home Rule bill of 1914 was a talk shop, with no real power given to a Dublin parliament and it was still going to partiton Ireland. Comparing Canada and Austrailia to Ireland is really disingeuous. To comapre those 2 countries thousands of miles away to Ireland which was on Britain's door step Really??? Even Garret Fitzgerald no friend of Repbublicans acknowledged that Home Rule was nothing compared to what Collins got, real independence, with the north to be settled later. I will say it 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.

• ancavker | Aug 29, 2012, 11:03 AM EDT

  seanomelb, I realize that this is more than an academic discussion to you; it is very personal and I respect that. We disagree on some things and share common ground on others. Slan.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 29, 2012, 10:15 AM EDT

  irelandNorth: Your claim that Dublin's North Strand area, the one that suffered most in a German bombing, was a Jewish area is utter nonsense. It is and was a working-class Catholic area. The Germans also bombed a village in Wexford. That was a big Jewish centre too? The fact is that even if the Germans had wanted to bomb Dublin's Jewish quarter (the South Circular Road neighborhood) they wouldn't have had the technical expertise to find it and bomb it. What you claim is nonsense.

• IrelandNorth | Aug 29, 2012, 07:02 AM EDT

  If Proinsíous Ó Ríann/Frank Ryan was on the left of Óglaigh na h'Éireann/Irish Republican Army (IRA) whilst fighting Francoist fascistas at Guernica in the Spanish Civi War, 1936-'39, I hardly think this would have made him flavour of the month with the boys-in-Berlin, with whom Generalissimo Francisco and Il Duce were bosom buddies. If England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity in WWI, why not during WWII, not least since full 'Home Rule' had been reneged on by British 'parliamentarianism' (sic). And if a certain Judeo-Christian biblical imperative dic[k]tates[?] that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," why the fu[e]r[h]ore[r] about alleged collaboration? Even if replacing one colonial power with another has proven dramatically indavisabe. (Look at the European Union (EU), for God's sake!) And speaking of "treasonous facilitation," what about Senore Edwardo Carsoni's subversion of a duly debated and passed democractic Home Rule Act for ALL of Ireland with German arms for his Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) - with the connivance of democratically-challenged Conservative English imperialists! (And the carnival of reaction it still causes). PS[st!] Luftwaffe pilots dropped bombs on Dublin merely to ditch surplus ordinance and hasten return to Eine Vaterland after blitzreiging Britain, (the equivalent of burning rubber after a bank raid). Though the fact that they were dropped in areas of Dublin with highest Jewish populations (North Strand, Nth Cen Dublin 03, and Rathdown Park, Sth Dubin 06) was admittedly a peculiar convergence of circumstances(?) But even if Proinsíous had been munching frankfurters with Adolf unt Josef in Der Bunker, would that not have amounted to a spot of political pragmatism. Not lease since a certain British royal was known to be partial to the Nazi's?

• Cherball | Aug 28, 2012, 10:37 PM EDT

  Ether or real Irish can't stand English.

• seanomelb | Aug 28, 2012, 09:17 PM EDT

  Harland and Wolfe was an obvious German target regardless of what side you supported. The roll of the IRA in that period is grossly overstated. Ending partition was the endgame for the IRA not German domination of Ireland. Britain and the US have no qualms in sidling up to terrorist regimes when it suits their endgame. Tom Swinford my father was in the IRA in the thirties and in the Curragh POW camp in the early forties and his conversations with Ryan he was definitely socialist but not communist. Their socialist beliefs at the time were no different to the British Labour party of the thirties.

• curtisjohnson | Aug 28, 2012, 07:47 PM EDT

  A silly distraction to the violent supremacism of the british terror state whereas no one can identify supremacism as a tenet of Irish republicanism.

• kubs | Aug 28, 2012, 06:36 PM EDT

  Reminds me of another indebtured country that sought help from the Crown's mortal enemy-- France-- in 1776. "Rebels", they were called, "traitors & riffraff", by the Anglophiles. Seems a people gotta do what they gotta do; not always pretty but at times necessary. I salute the IRA, not for their purported pro-Nazi stance ,( I being a child survivor of a Nazi WWII labor camp) but for their passion to retake the whole of their country from a voracious colonial power, with limited resources. The 1776 colonists also sought help whereever it was available --Prussia (von Steuben) Poland (Kosciescou) France (Rochambeau & de Lafayette) etc. etc. The IRA's unfortunate position in seeking help during WWII gave them only one (supposed) ally. Their other choice was to sit on their hands. Their fathers took bold & controversial action a generation earlier in 1916 when the Crown forces were at war,& in defeat rallied a country of Subjects into becoming Citizens. The IRA in WWII reached out to the only (supposed) ally available & hoped for salvation with a pact with a devil (just how much of Hitler's debauchery was public & believed at that time is a source of furious debate--just peruse America's stance to the Jewish pleas in the early years of WWII ) ; however, the real damage to Ireland was done a millinium & a half earlier when Dermait Mac Murchada sought his salvation from his own demons Henry II & Strongbow. In each case one may have heard their thoughts : "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time"

• kubs | Aug 28, 2012, 04:33 PM EDT

  ancavker, with respect, I believe you are being a bit disingeuous. You say that the IRA of the 1930s-1940s were not made of the same stuff of their earlier brethern. They may not have been as competent but they were every bit as deadly serious in their intent, to strike at the heart and soul of England and bring about Nazi occupation of Ireland, north and south. Sean Russell, IRA Chief of Staff and his successor, Stephen Hayes, were deadly serious in what they wished to accomplish. They had carried out more than a 100 bombings in England in 1940 - with much death and destruction when Britain itself was hanging by a thread. Dev's government hanged some of these fearless lads for murder, bringing in an English hangman to do the honors. Yes, both Russell and Hayes did have a sinister plot - and selling out their country to Hitler was a big part of it. As for the earlier IRA, I have long believed that the 1916-1923 period in Irish history is most regrettable. Had it not happened the way it did Ireland would inevitably have evolved to independence as did Canada and Australia - and we would be much the better for it. Instead, we were left with a legacy of the gun, of endless graft, corruption and incompetence in government, a violent, illegal army tolerated in a liberal democracy, and despite the brief illusion of prosperity, the country is back to very hard times when, ironically, our nemesis is now Germany and our best friend is Britain.

• aloistmartin | Aug 28, 2012, 04:15 PM EDT

  Actually I. see no difference between Franco`s Juan Carlos II, Hitler`s Master Race, ( Originally a Hohenzollern / Prussian Idea, if I. am not mistaken ? ) and the Irish Democracy`s indentured subjugation to the Royal Treasury. Let us endeavour to remember Capitalism, and Fascism were not the only Two, Political theories at work in the Irish Revolution ( Socialism, Communism, )

• ancavker | Aug 28, 2012, 03:13 PM EDT

  Richard: Agreed. Don't you know though, that the goal posts are always moved when it comes to Ireland. The so called IRA of the 1930' and 40's could not find their way out of a paper bag. Yet there are those here who are saying it was a huge sinister plot, and if we were to listne to them it jeporadized the whole Allied war effort. It is also mentioned by these same posters as a way of associating the IRA from 1918-1921, that fought for Ireland's independence. All done to delegitmize Ireland's struggle for real indepdence and freedom.

• ancavker | Aug 28, 2012, 03:06 PM EDT

  Tom: You are creating a mountain out of a molehill. AT the end of it nothing happened, and it would not have either. You make it sound like some sinister plot. At the end of the day, it was the remnants of a group calling itself the IRA, who were using the England's trouble is Ireland's opportunity.

• citizen69 | Aug 28, 2012, 01:38 PM EDT

  @RichardP:After the first Nazi bombing raid on Belfast, the IRA produced a fourteen page survey of the damage caused by the German Luftwaffe and provided information and advice for the Nazis. The typescript IRA document was entitled Comprehensive Military Report on Belfast and was ‘issued by the DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE in cooperation with the MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER of NORTHERN COMMAND’. It came to light on 20 October 1941 when Helena Kelly, an IRA courier, was arrested in Dublin by Irish authorities and the document was found in her handbag. It was clearly intended for the Nazis. The IRA report gave a detailed account of the damage caused by the Luftwaffe and identified targets that had escaped destruction. There was also a map on which the IRA had marked ‘the remaining and most outstanding objects of military significance, as yet unblitzed.’ The IRA suggested that if these objectives were ‘bombed by the Luftwaffe as thoroughly as the other areas in recent raids’, Belfast would ‘be rendered a negative quantity in Britain’s war effort’. The intercepted report contained a diagram of the Short & Harland aircraft factory, a plan of Sydenham aerodrome, details on the British army, the names and addresses of British officers, and a scheme for sabotaging the Belfast telephone system. The map also showed RUC police barracks and it was commented by the IRA that ‘in this occupied area, they are really a military rather than a civilian force’. A ‘special note’ from the IRA explained: ’Re the symbol coloured light blue, it may be noted that the road thus marked, is the Falls Road, the chief site of Nationalism, while the square is the Prison, where some 300 to 400 Irish Republican soldiers are imprisoned.’.

• citizen69 | Aug 28, 2012, 01:23 PM EDT

  @maireadinmelb: IRA had long been considered treasonous by successive Irish governments. During WWII Ireland may well have been neutral but Hitler didn't give much regard to neutrality, just ask Belgium & the Netherlands. The Nazis had plans drawn up for an invasion of Ireland called Operation Green. IRA members were known to have forwarded information onto Nazi spies including details of Irish airfields, harbours and other targets as well as the distribution of the Irish defence forces. In 1940 the IRA issued a statement saying "If German forces should land in Ireland, they will land as friends and liberators of the Irish people". In their own publication the IRA expressed satisfaction that the "cleansing fire" of the German armies was driving the Jews from Europe. The IRA also drew up a plan for a Third Reich invasion of Northern Ireland. They issued statements threatening to attack American GI's in Northern Ireland yet they welcomed the Nazis with open arms.

• RichardP | Aug 28, 2012, 11:36 AM EDT

  There is an unstated suggestion that because the IRA was 'collaborating with' the Germans that they were effective in doing so and that they assisted in guiding bombers to hit Belfast - that's a load of bullshit. They also bombed Dublin - a city NOT subject to blackout and hence a very obviously non-British location. It defies logic that the Luftwaffe was so incompetent that they had no idea where they were or what they were doing in either case, yet they were able to find their way home. A few IRA men with flashlights was hardly their means of navigation and if you think it was you're a fool. It suits a lot of people's preconceived notions of Ireland and the IRA to call them Nazi collaborators. It is also worth mentioning that while Nazi agents operated in Ireland, they also operated in every other country too - Canada, USA, Britain etc - yet they are not tarred with the accusation of 'collaborator' because they were the Allies. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal all escape this accusation despite the first three each playing a serious role in giving 'comfort' if not direct assistance to germany. Switzerland is always held out as a great help to escaping POWs etc but they also aided Germans.

• RichardP | Aug 28, 2012, 09:36 AM EDT

  That the most senior officials of the IRA collaborated with the Nazis during WWll is not subject to conjecture or debate. It is historic fact and well documented in Ireland and Germany. German intelligence agents operated in Ireland in the early years of the war, working closely with the IRA - with the ultimate aim of Nazi occupation of Ireland. Those who doubt or deny this unpleasant bit of history should look up the IRA's Plan Kathleen and the Nazi plan Operation Green. Two things ended this collaboration: 1. The Abwehr concluded that their Irish friends were a bunch of collossal f..k-ups and drunks who could not be trusted to do much more than bring them whiskey and tea, 2. Hitler's Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain, was called off because Goering's Luftwaffe utterly failed to break England's will to fight during the Battle of Britain - and besides, by this time Hitler was looking east to Russia for what he hoped would be an easier victory. He was wrong. That said, I don't believe there any evidence that Frank Ryan ever collaborated with the Nazis. He was, at heart, a communist.

• maireadinmelb | Aug 28, 2012, 05:34 AM EDT

  Given IReland was neutral how was it treasonous for people to associate with the Nazis? They were not IReland's enemy. If the IRA are treasonous so are the 70,000 who volunteered for the British!

• citizen69 | Aug 28, 2012, 01:21 AM EDT

  @seanomelb: You and i have discussed this several times on the pages of this website so you already know the evidence i have produced (there is plenty of it out there). Let me make it clear that i am very grateful to the brave 70,000 citizens of the Republic who volunteered to fight Hitler. What i deplore though are those within the IRA who treasonously tried to facilitate the Nazi regime for their own gains.

• seanomelb | Aug 27, 2012, 07:08 PM EDT

  The bombing of Belfast and Dublin by the Germans had nothing to do with The IRA. "British 69" is posing as a citizen of where?? The collaboration of the IRA by the Brits was part of their spite campaign against Ireland for remaining neutral.They should get on their knees and thank the 70,000 Irish volunteers who fought the Germans.

• RichardP | Aug 27, 2012, 06:39 PM EDT

  I have to agree with WoundedKnee and Pilib04 here - @citizen69 - produce or refer to the specific evidence please. (Or is this just a folkloric belief in certain quarters?)

• citizen69 | Aug 27, 2012, 05:11 PM EDT

  There was quite clearly many cases of collaboration between the Nazis & the IRA, including intelligence gathering, aiding in the Nazi bombing raids of Belfast (resulting in the death of over 1000 Belfast citizens) and plans for a Nazi invasion of Ireland.

• cillowen | Aug 27, 2012, 05:02 PM EDT

  proddi at it again - messing with mother england Nazi brethern and attempting to smear freedom seekers. Who knew?

• ancavker | Aug 27, 2012, 04:42 PM EDT

  I have to agree with woundedknee. The tone of the articel makes it sound like Ryan actively worked with the Nazi's as in collaborated with the nazi's. He sought their help, basically got nothing, and this is but a minor footnote in history. Of course the revisionists/apologists will be out in droves and we will go throgh the De Valera/Free State neutrality bashing again. And simply give a pass to the other neutral countries in Europe during WW 2. And those countries that actively collaborated with the nazi's like Finland.

• branagh | Aug 27, 2012, 04:24 PM EDT

  The two comments here a bit harsh! First,there WAS some sort of collaboration with the Nazis-this is certain! But the details will probably never be known unless shows up in Moscow in captured German Archives. Second,the writer helpfully give a link to the Montreal Gazette where there is some elaboration and mentions the uncertainty of what happened when Ryan reached Germany. Under the old DDR,I visited Ryan's grave in Dresden; the line from DDR guides was that he was a revolutionary fighter and anti-NAZI but I heard no documentation for the anti-Nazi part.

• pilib04 | Aug 27, 2012, 03:58 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee, I have been harping about this for a year. Not just a little historical background. How about a degree in journalism so they remember to check their facts! These articles appear to be written by kids with their Junior Certificate.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 27, 2012, 10:20 AM EDT

  I recommend close down Irish Central for three or four years and make all its interns take a BA in English and history. Specifically, the intern Kelly who wrote the above is an utter ignoramus about history. There is not the slightest historical evidence that Frank Ryan "collaborated with Nazi Germans". It's a stupid slur born out of Kelly's profound ignorance of the topic. Worthless journalism.