73 Comments

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 10, 2012, 08:19 PM EDT

  CurtisJ...Greek democracy was long dead...the only 'working model' was in the 'britain' thing...you can't wish it away...it still remains a fact...and a tedious fact to you and yours!!

• curtisjohnson | Oct 09, 2012, 09:14 PM EDT

  Yes, a democracy in terms of the rights held by those defined by citizens. Read Aristotle or, for a modern analysis, Kagan. You constantly conflate structure with substance - the idea of a legislature is a basic one that has existed since antiquity. However, the mere existence of a legislative body is not ipso facto evidence of a democracy. From a substantive standpoint, this "britain" thing did not resemble a democracy in any shape or form over those "300 years" (or even presently) other than having an assembly they labeled a "parliament." Please spare the tedious and empty argument over the adjective "modern."

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 04, 2012, 06:39 PM EDT

  So the term parliament doesn’t have an Anglo-Saxon root? Hardly a revelation, as it was derived from the French ‘Parler’ meaning to talk…Norman-French being the dominant language of the day…and the Icelandic ‘Althing’ is often cited as one of the first examples of a parliament…

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 04, 2012, 03:31 PM EDT

  Greek city states were ‘pure democracies’? As long as a large slave population and the absence of female voting rights are consistent with pure democracy?

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 04, 2012, 03:30 PM EDT

  Your claim of ‘organic development’ in the major West European nations is nonsense, most of them weren’t even united until late in the 19th century…it cannot be denied that the British parliament has an unbroken line of development of over 300 years…and was a model and major influence on later democracies…

• curtisjohnson | Oct 03, 2012, 10:23 PM EDT

  Incidentally, the first know version of a parliament in Western Europe was the Spanish Parliament of the Kingdom of Leon. The word doesn't even have an anglo-saxon root.

• curtisjohnson | Oct 03, 2012, 09:31 PM EDT

  The US was much closer in terms of developing into a real democracy with checks on oligarchic power and faction. However, most of the ideas for the structure of government were lifted from Montesquieu.

• curtisjohnson | Oct 03, 2012, 09:28 PM EDT

  what silliness - britain isn't even substantively a democracy now - it remains a rigid class based commercial oligarchy. If you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd see that I was referring to the fact that certain institutions organically develope from a regime that is structured on its surface as a democracy. The parliamentary structure in britain developed from the importation of the Italian city state oligarchic model - in particular Venice with the weak executive. You apparently haven't studied political history or theory - there were Greek city states that were pure democracies not "some forms".

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 03, 2012, 05:37 PM EDT

  While some forms of ‘democracy’ can be traced back to ancient times, the modern parliamentary model did indeed develop in your nemesis…the notion that they arise ‘organically’ is pure fiction. Take a look at the main European nations that formed the Common Market - France, Germany and Italy, as they were in 1800, the year the GB&I union was DEBATED in the two parliaments. Napoleon was the despotic leader of France, soon to be ‘Emperor’, had recently jailed Pope Pius IV, and was about to embark on his failed campaign to impose his imperial ways on the rest of Europe…Both Italy and Germany were collections of large and small states, Napoleon would try to subdue both…showing few traces of any ‘organic democracy’…While few would claim that the UK of the time was a democracy in modern terms, it is most certainly the only one of that group that has an unbroken timeline of steady progress to modern democracy…and barring the 1918 - 1922 period, the same applies to Ireland…reference to a Pearse-inspired model for Ireland is more pure fantasy and fiction… with no evidence offered to support the theory…whatever you imagine Pearse stood for, his ‘obvious devotion to young boys’ suggests his talents were not in the political sphere…

• curtisjohnson | Oct 02, 2012, 10:47 PM EDT

  The models for britain's petty mercantile regime from bill the orange forward (and actually beginning with Cromwell's regicide) were the Italian banking oligarchies. Speaking substantively the "institutions" of state grew from this type of power structure. Are you going to tell us how the anglo-saxons invented democracy Dano?

• DanOLoingsigh | Oct 02, 2012, 07:25 PM EDT

  Hey Curt...suggest you check on the actual facts re Europe before you continue with this nonsense...

• curtisjohnson | Oct 01, 2012, 03:42 PM EDT

  Now towntroll will tell us all how the illiterate "anglo saxons" invented demcracy! No, the terror state did not originate any of these basic institutions and they are widespread in one form or another throughout Western europe and other structural "democracies" - they arise organically from the structure of government. I have never waivered from the fact that post-colonial self hatred careful fostered by the anglo oriented Dublin institutions (which have never really lost power since the times of occupation) as well as partition are the major problems in modern Ireland. The same phenomenon has occurred in post-colonial nations all over the world but Ireland, with little to no natural resources, has fared much better in terms of stability and developing a large middle class. A united Ireland under the values of Pearse would be a model state far superior to the degenerate mass consumerism and materialsm so prevalent among the anglo-sphere.

• Towngate | Oct 01, 2012, 07:43 AM EDT

  Ah, deary me!,CJ,. "The Institutions are in place ...all over the Western Europe..(World),etc". Based on the British System ,naturally,so I rest my case! But! you are totally missing the point(!!) and score a massive 'own goal' by admitting that because the Irish, having been granted independence,failed to change the (British) political culture is what has led it to it's current lamentable downfall!! Btw: (and finally on this thread, a chara -) Pearse had no intention of ever changing the Institutional or Administrative Structure either...(just their names - and with him in charge, and everybody obeying him - or else!). We can only speculate what a Devine mess he might have made of the place if his attempted coup has not failed. His government might not have lasted much longer than the 'rising' when the rest of the population realised the 'stroke' he had pulled off! But when all is said and done, from the social and political debris of 1916, we Irish can, at least, admire his personal courage in his chosen cause. "I see the road that lies before me - and the death that I shall die!" ~ "Patrick Pearse. R.I.P".

• curtisjohnson | Sep 30, 2012, 10:38 PM EDT

  Towntroll, you sort of rose to the occassion on this one - I could make it through some of your rambling mess of exclamation points as your post was mildly entertaining this time. That some of the "institutions" are in place is meaningless as there are similar beauracratic structures in all of Western Europe and Ireland was occupied long before the rise of the modern nation state. As I've demonstrated, the lingering effects of the anglo-sphere in Dublin institutions is responsible for the nation's current difficulties.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 30, 2012, 10:27 PM EDT

  DanO you simpleton - the net effect was to bail out primarily the foreign creditors of the banks who, although based in Ireland, were trans-national in character. No financial expert disputes this.

• Towngate | Sep 30, 2012, 07:05 AM EDT

  Curtisjohnson: We can hear your poor brain creaking and groaning as you try to hammer the square the facts into the round holes of your bigitory, but twisting facts with weasel-words makes no difference! We can take great comfort from your last comment that you certainly display no comprehension of the current - or historical - Irish condition, so you are more to be pitied, than laughed at; so please brush the cobwebs from your 'brain', wipe the foam from your mouth and try and learn something before posting on this subject again. For instance: Most of the British Administrative Institutions in place at the time of semi-brit Pearses Easter adventure - are still in place to this very day! ~ We even perversely seem to delight in the fact that our President is currently squatting in the very house built for the British Royal's representative in Shamrockshire! When the Germans took over they would have shovelled all the snivelling Irish 'patriots' (nobody loves a traitor) into it - blown it up, and built a New one of their own! - as the Irish should have!

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 30, 2012, 04:30 AM EDT

  More misinformation from Curt..The Government bailed out ONLY Irish financial institutions...now including some Credit Unions...understandable mistake though, he's not Irish...so needs to blame somebody, anybody, for consequences of decisions made in Dublin...

• curtisjohnson | Sep 30, 2012, 12:11 AM EDT

  @Towntroll - "democratically agreed Irish Home Rule" - lol by who - the british parliament? Pearse was half "british" - what nonsense - he was half english but wholly Irish in terms of nationalism (of course, anglo ethnic supremacy - now mostly latent except among internet brit trolls - does not recognize civic nationalism irrespective of the current cheap labor project in the british terror state). The influence of the anglo-sphere created the Irish financial difficulties - degenerate anglo-materialism with its boom bust cycle and the vision of industrial estate Ireland pushed by the anglophile Dublin cartel. Had Ireland refused to bail out the creditors of international banks the debt story would be far different.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 29, 2012, 05:58 PM EDT

  Dear bunkerhill - The question is quite simple - How could any US Citizens chose to 'side' with Nazi Germany, after Hitler had declared war on the US? and I'm not 'anti - Irish'...just anti the one-sided version that passes for Irishness (mostly by out of touch non-Irish) on this site...an example being the outcry about the QE2 visit, which was later voted the top highlight of 2011 by listeners to Ireland's most influential radio show...

• bunkerhill | Sep 29, 2012, 05:17 PM EDT

  Dear Dano - I recall you were the poster who said we were "anti-royal," not your exact words, and right you are. As I said previously we did have that US revolution and Bunker Hill is the resting place for one of our ancestors, a 26 year old farmer from New Hampshire who along with so many other colonists took on the English royal gypsies along with their Hession troops sent by a german royal gypsy cousin. We fought the lazy, imbred idiots off but they are trying to get back in. They will have a hell of a struggle. Where do you live and are you a butler or a commoner under the royals? With due respect we cannnot respond to your question as we have no idea what you are talking about. If you live in the Republic of Ireland, why are you so against every thing they stand for. Lets give praise to the many Germans, Japanese, Irish and all those around the world who stood up to gypsies calling themselves royal or dictators and fought for peace. Please stop bashing Ireland.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 29, 2012, 04:39 PM EDT

  bunkerhill – Surprised that you, a ‘lifetime History scholar’, have such a hazy recall of how the US got drawn into the world wars…WW1 saw the Germans sink a number of US merchant vessels (generally considered an act of war by most nations) while still nominally at peace, and then foolishly offer the Mexican government assistance in ‘recovering’ some southern US states (the Zimmerman Telegram), and WW2 saw Hitler declare war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor…How any Americans, regardless of ancestry, could have sided with a declared enemy state you fail to explain??

• Towngate | Sep 29, 2012, 03:47 PM EDT

  Kevinkehoe: Don't be rude. It undermines your agrument! I never mentioned who we owe the money to ~ but it is a painful fact that we just DO! Besides, the systematic mis-management of Ireland has endured since 1922 'independence', but I accept Biffo and his Bowsies brought us to the Nadir! Remember the current Finance Bill was passed before the collapse of Cowan's calamity and those presently in Office knowingly voted for it too! So you are dreaming,Kevin, if you think a simple change of government will make the debt disappear. Also: don't confuse the money paid to the banks by the last 'Government', and the IMF/ECB Bailout Funds we are now existing on are very different matters, old chap! For the record, I consider the present coalition Government is meeting it's agreed duty to it's life-saving Creditors in a mature and sophisticated way; their real struggle is to wake the people up to realising just how bad things are: e.g enduring Protest Movements about a nominal €100 per ANNUM Household charge which is not even a full WEEKS child allowance and less than they probably spend in the Pub at the weekend!

• bunkerhill | Sep 29, 2012, 03:37 PM EDT

  Given the bad publicity "The Republic of Ireland" has experienced regards WWII, there is one more never mentioned country I would like to see given considerable study in this regard. This country is now being touted as a great place to live and a truly benevolent society, economically sound. That country is Sweden. Sweden of course has a "royal family" related to all their cousins across Europe including Engand. I will not say UK, because if there is anyone in the areas other than England you don't matter. British is the term applied to people entering England, and everyone world wide believes British is English. In the 1970's the Swedish population lived on 20% of the national gross while 80% went to the royals. Today they pay 57% taxes, are taking care of from the cradle to the grave, but can never rise above their lowly position. There is no incentive to work harder as they are then taxed more to take care of the population who has dropped out of supporting the "royals." Like other countries controlled by the royal inbred cousins across Europe, Swedish children were down in the mines at 12 years of age. Sweden, probably in rebellion, collaborated with the Germans in WW1 and WWII. And yet they are still regarded so highly since they are still subserviant to the royal cousins and their little collaborations with the " German Leaders" at the time is not mentioned as they are still supporting their "royals." We knew so many unhappy American Swedes who told us horror stories about their homeland. We also know Norwegians who still regard the Swedes as traitors. This is a complex world and we have to start looking to the meglomaniacs who think they are truly entitled to live lives of luxury at the expense of decent people. They will murder and maim to maintain their palaces and estates and now we have a chance to truly look at the false histories we have been presented with.

• KevinKehoe | Sep 29, 2012, 01:30 PM EDT

  Well said bunkerhill. Least they forget or are to dumb to know the truth.

• KevinKehoe | Sep 29, 2012, 01:26 PM EDT

  Towngate: The Irish State was in the last administration run by gangsters and traitors and the present ones coned the voters into believing that they would be different, all lies. The hardworking Irish taxpayer does not owe the Corrupt blood sucking bankers in Wall St and City of London the extra billions they are burdened with and if you had a brain you would know that. But hopefully all that will change when we vote them out and install a true Republican government, pity we have to wait 3 more years or maybe not.

• bunkerhill | Sep 29, 2012, 01:21 PM EDT

  War has always been about innocent people destroyed by a few inbred maniacs or bullies at the top, each of whom thought they would come out on top. Where is the discussion about neutral Switzerland where all the money was? Why pick on the newly formed tiny Republic of Ireland. As many posters here have said so many native Irish fought in the "British" army, along with millions of their descendants who fought in the American and Australian armies. Seven German Generals recognized early on that Hitler was a maniac and tried to kill him after consulting with their Catholic and Lutheran leaders as this was fraticide. They failed and met horrible ends. The largest population in the US at the time was German Americans as it also was in WWI. If the German-Americans had chosen to side with Hitler everything would have been lost. Instead they fought against their own ancestral people. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know "Eisenhower" and in General Dwight D. Eisenhower, is a German name. American Germans were ostracized at home and often changed their names. The Japanese-Americans also gave tremendous service for the US against Japan, their ancestral home in spite of the fact that there families were put in US concentration camps. Look to the maniacs at the top who have caused in the past and are still causing tremendous hardship for the decent, hardworking people of the world. Ireland did their very best and even at present allow the US acess to Shannon. German submarines were found trolling US waters and certainly the US was not their ally.

• Caolan | Sep 29, 2012, 11:11 AM EDT

  angrypaddy | Sep 29, 2012, 12:13 AM EDT Stop trying to make Ireland significant during WW11 Ireland is a boile on the western edge of Europe of no significance today,yesterday or tomorrow Really so where would the Yanks refuel for their wars in Afghan and Iraq if not for Eire ? Why would millions of Yanks claim to be from Eire if we were of so little significance ? Why do the normal US leaders all seek to come here during their term and claim to have a bit of Irish in them ? As for ww2, why should be back the UK up ? as they declared war on Germany for invading a sovereign nation and yet they still held 6 of our counties back then and still do as well as controlling AUSTRALIA, India, Canada, South Africa,Hong Kong,parts of China through dictatorship

• angrypaddy | Sep 29, 2012, 12:13 AM EDT

  Stop trying to make Ireland significant during WW11 Ireland is a boile on the western edge of Europe of no significance today,yesterday or tomorrow

• Towngate | Sep 28, 2012, 08:12 PM EDT

  KevinKehoe: I don't know which is worse - US or UK. ~ Anyway,you are totally wrong on both counts,old buddy,old chap! Yeah, most countries live 'on tick'. ~ but they know it and can work hard to repay it! The eternally delusional Irish State pretends the shamefully begged money they are now living on,is earned! That's the big pathetic difference!

• KevinKehoe | Sep 28, 2012, 07:25 PM EDT

  Hey Towngate, I'm guessing your American or British, and how much is your country in hock ? last estimates put USA owing Trillions of $ to the privately owned FED, other world banks and China. Britain like the US has no problems getting borrowings but still owes billions.

• Towngate | Sep 28, 2012, 04:18 PM EDT

  @ ancavker and curtisjohnson: I am glad my 'little home truth' Comment has rattled yer cages again and you can hopefully begin to comprehend the facts rather than convolute and misrepresent other peoples comments. It is coming up to a hundred years since the 'GPO Gig' ( thanks,@IrelandNorth - I prefer 'caper' myself!) and we should be advanced enough to be able to face the truth! If they hadn't hijacked and derailed the planned and democratically agreed Irish Home Rule, they would have found themselves facing the Irish Electorate, and the chances are they would have fared no better than they did facing the firing squad. Half-British Pearse and full British Soldier Connolly (who should have stuck to his principles and not allowed himself to be coerced into "this Thing" by Pearse) had no right or authority to act on 'behalf of the Irish People'. (any farmers, professionals or landowners - even today - throughout the land would give you a shockingly truthful answer to that!) ~ and far from 'giving it a rest and calming down' - I thank you for putting an extra 'v' in my galvanised determination to demolish any 'sacred cows' still grazing on the green fields they have almost destroyed. Btw: I have never advocated a return to British rule ~ but I would love my country to return to IRISH rule. Sadly, that will not happen in our lifetimes!!

• curtisjohnson | Sep 28, 2012, 03:38 PM EDT

  @towntroll - remind me when the british terror state gave the indigenous Irish a vote for autonomy? Was it when they were still being forced to pay tithes to the anglican "Church" during the famine.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 28, 2012, 03:35 PM EDT

  Despite begin a tiny divided nation with little to no natural resources, Ireland has been stable politically and is one of the few post-colonial nations that has been able to create a stable democracy (paricularly given its proximity to a much largery and hostile neighbor). This is in contrast to the british terror state, which had/has its own severe fiscal problems despite centuries of global resource theft and nation mugging (including having to be bailed out by the IMF in the 1970s). Ireland's current problems stem from anglo inspired materialsm and its decision to bail out the creditors of trans-national banks.

• curtisjohnson | Sep 28, 2012, 03:28 PM EDT

  Yeah, calms down townroll. "bought Peace and democratic self-determination to Ireland and left them free to hack themselves to pieces afterwards" comedy gold!

• hunter933 | Sep 28, 2012, 10:24 AM EDT

  "Once secret"? Where and when?

• ancavker | Sep 28, 2012, 10:09 AM EDT

  Towngate: Give it a rest child. The rising was not popular at the time, we all know that. But the leaders hoped it would galvvanize the irish people to fight for what they were entitled to. And the rest as they say is history. By the way, the American Revolution had little popular support either. Do you advocate that the U.S. should return to English rule.

• Jacob | Sep 28, 2012, 09:45 AM EDT

  So, IrelandNorth, I take it from your comment that it is your position that Scotland was not bombed by Germany during the Second World War, and therefore Scotland was neutral in that war. Kiss your credibility goodbye. Scottish cities were heavily bombed by the Germans, and Scotland contributed massively in soldiers and in industrial production in support of the war effort. Where do you get the idea you can just make history up to support whatever nonsense is in your head at the moment?

• IrelandNorth | Sep 28, 2012, 06:52 AM EDT

  Two books: "Between Green and Red" (about the enigmatic Irish republican socialist - Prionsias O Riain/Frank Ryan - and Maurice Walshe's "In Defence of Ireland: Irish Military Intelligence (G2), 1918-45", treat of this period in detail. If Scotland wasn't neutral and at war with Germany, how come the Luftwaffe didn't blietzkrieg them as she did England and major English cities? Ask the Irish of a right to declare independence from a democratically challenged kingdom. Imperialists handle rejection very badly, like a controlling spouse. The Act of Settlement, 1776 united (sic) the kingdoms of England and Scotland. That's not 500 years ago! Factual inaccuracy? Intensity of nationality is prediacted by socio-economic class. When Maggie Thatcher banged the jingoistic drum of British nationalism re the Malvinas islands, it wasn't Eton or Harrow, Oxford of Cambridge material which answered the call. When Pearse and Connolly staged their GPO gig in 1916, few Clongoes Wood Collegians or Glenstall Abbeyians - Trinitarians or National University rallyed to Amhran na bh'Fiann. Disparagers of the Irish characteristics may be projecting. Politically enlightened anywhere are usually a miniscule minority. It only takes one well aimed slingshot to lance the boil on an elephantine posterior and awaken the slumbering masses. The occupational hazard of inviting in a foreign power to dislodge another is that they often merely replace each other. Since the EU is really a Franco-Germanic collaboration, looks like John Bull is now dancing to the mainland's tune.

• Towngate | Sep 28, 2012, 06:25 AM EDT

  ...."yeah! - but whose side are you neutral on?!" was a well-used jibe. Despite Irelands previous collusion with Germany which led them to believe they were immune from invasion, Ireland would have fallen within hours after Britain. Ergo:- @Curtisjohnson:Britains 'terror state' victory saved Ireland from the Nazi jackboot, - and to her shame, Ireland has never thanked her for it. ...... and bought Peace and democratic self-determination to Ireland and left them free to hack themselves to pieces afterwards ... as Pearse and Connolly would surely have, if their little adventure to steal a country which was about to achieve Home rule by diplomatic and Democratic means, had succeeded. The delusional 'rising' had no support or democratic Mandate whatsoever from the Irish people, so it follows , yes, that they were trying to steal the country from the Irish People. Btw: If you study Pearses writings, you will soon realise the kind of country he intended. Possibly one far more draconian than the one Adolf Hitler had in mind! Ireland has had a lucky escape... and what has she done with it? Practiced monumental mis-management and is now struggling to exist on borrowed money which it can never hope to repay! And finally:-(Pearse was crippled by personal debt in 1916, so he might have felt at home in the Ireland of today!)

• ReturnedYank | Sep 28, 2012, 05:16 AM EDT

  "Despite being officially neutral, Ireland allowed German U-Boats to operate in its waters." You make it sound like we were "neutral" on the side of the Axis. Everyone knows were were "neutral" on the side of the Allies, who incidentally also had a plan to invade us.

• angrypaddy | Sep 28, 2012, 12:55 AM EDT

  It would have been the best thing ever to happen to Ireland

• irishpjk | Sep 27, 2012, 11:54 PM EDT

  wtf The Irish never seem to learn sure they could remain neutral, but what did they think would happen if Hitler invaded England. They would have two choices then join up and fight with Hitler or die, nether option sounds very neutral to me. They condemn the USA for going to war, war never is good but you must look at the alternative. Hitler ruling the world, or down the road the Russians, now it is the Muslim extremist and one day it will be China, should we stay neutral or stand up and fight?

• curtisjohnson | Sep 27, 2012, 10:01 PM EDT

  "Pearse and his crew in his pathetic attempt to steal the country" from - the british terror state?

• Rebelforce | Sep 27, 2012, 07:22 PM EDT

  During World War II the belligerant countries all had contingency plans drawn up for various possible invasions. For example, Churchill had wanted to invade and occupy Norway but the Germans got wind of the plan and beat him to it.

• bobby | Sep 27, 2012, 06:48 PM EDT

  Rebelforce, its not that Ireland allowed the Germans to use Irish waters. They just entered and many were sunk by the British around the Irish coast.

• brendan gillen | Sep 27, 2012, 06:13 PM EDT

  This is old hat. This is bull. Yes, Herr Hitler had plans to invade Ireland but he had to get Gt. Britian out of the way first. And the British were going to come to Eire's aid. Who writes this dribble. The equivelent of eight army divisions left Eire and joined the British Forces. They won countless awards for bravery. Four thousand men of the Irish army deserted and joined the British. They did not want the Germans to win the war. We have other things to contend with other than WW2. Give it a rest.

• joebloggs | Sep 27, 2012, 05:43 PM EDT

  Hitlers plans to invade Ireland have been known for many years. The plans were detailed down to listing the number of Jews in Ireland. This article is a load of bull, where is the evidence that Ireland allowed the Nazi's to operate in Irish waters. There is no such evidence. German subs did use Irish waters, but so did the Americans and the British. While Ireland was neutral it is well known that it was neutral on the Allied side, an example of this is the air corridor granted to the British to fly over Donegal directly to the Atlantic on air patrol. Also the exchange of intelligence with the British, the supply of weather reports from Belmullet whiich was the basis of Eisenhowers decision to launch D-Day

• Rebelforce | Sep 27, 2012, 05:26 PM EDT

  "Despite being officially neutral, Ireland allowed German U-Boats to operate in its waters." LOL And exactly how would Ireland have stopped the German U-boats from operating in its territorial waters?

• aloistmartin | Sep 27, 2012, 05:04 PM EDT

  If Hitler had won his war as Franco did, and would have eventually restored the Hohenzollern Monarchy, The Irish would have regretted the day of their Baptism ! You Real I.R.A. Boy`s stay away from the Dark Side !

• Towngate | Sep 27, 2012, 04:57 PM EDT

  If Germany really wanted Ireland,they would have sent even more guns, gold* and men to support Pearse and his crew in his pathetic attempt to steal the country,and they would have had it during the first World war! ..........* Pearse at his Courts Marshal, referred to the 'rising' as " this thing." ...and stated that the Germans had sent "no gold!".

• pilib04 | Sep 27, 2012, 04:30 PM EDT

  Kerry O'Shea does us a disservice with this puff piece. Most of the commentators here know more about Ireland during WWII than O'Shea. O'Shea would learn more today by simply reading the comments. Most are spot-on. This blurb, to quote Slainte9, seems more of a "WeHateDevaleraCentral" piece. Citizenwhy's comment on "fact checking" would be appropriate if that was even in the capability of a Central writer, which clearly it is not.

• bunkerhill | Sep 27, 2012, 04:27 PM EDT

  History does have to be examined and corrected, as so much misinformation has been passed on by the money makers and castle dewellers who profit from all these conflicts. It is still going on today and who knows how it will turn out. However we have to say we love the independent Republic of Ireland and the Irish society who were the first to say "All men are created equal." That is the credo for the new experiment in the world as we know it, the USA and though threatened at present, long may it live.

• pilib04 | Sep 27, 2012, 04:17 PM EDT

  More gibberish from the "Mail." Big surprise here.

• ancavker | Sep 27, 2012, 03:48 PM EDT

  Another bug yawn story! And more amunition for the revisionists to say how horrible Ireland was for staying neutral. At the end of the day, if Germany had invaded, Ireland would have been defeated in a day, after Scotland was invaded, England would have been knocked out of the war, which is what Germany wanted, and he would have given the Free State back to England.

• Nicomax | Sep 27, 2012, 02:21 PM EDT

  Actually what happened was once aerial photos showed those massive, confusing street signs almost everywhere in the Emerald Isle, the generals firmly advised Hitler to invade Russia instead.

• KevinKehoe | Sep 27, 2012, 02:17 PM EDT

  Basically this story was concocted and fed to auctioneer Richard Brookes to sell “wait for it” post-cards he has in his possession. The Irish post cards of that time some how got into Nazi hands and they used them for intelligence gathering for an invasion of Ireland.The post cards in question have little marks on them made by German military Intel.The article was printed in the Daily Mail and there writer would not even put his or her to it. Pure and utter Bull -S, Hog-wash and Tripe.

• cillowen | Sep 27, 2012, 01:47 PM EDT

  Eire's neutrality was a blessing for Mother England both as for the foodstuff and manpower that such allowed - Gerry was too stupid to figure - go figure. Methink it was an FDR, Churchill and Dev plan that worked. Those U-boats in harbor were well watched and reported on - more Gerry dumbness.

• Irishphotograph | Sep 27, 2012, 12:46 PM EDT

  11.Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland. 12.They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes). 13.They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland. 14.They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.

• Irishphotograph | Sep 27, 2012, 12:12 PM EDT

  MichaelMcGrath, I do not agree with all of your comments but there is a searing, painful truth in much of your post. Many of us believe, or prefer to believe, in a mythical, heroic Ireland that never was. All of our so-called rebellions together never amounted to more than a pimple on an elephant's arse - because they never had the support of more than a tiny fraction of the people. Overwhelmingly, we accepted, we colluded, we collaborated, we went along, we endured.

• slainte9 | Sep 27, 2012, 11:59 AM EDT

  Why doesn't We-Hate-DeValera Central write about the very real joint Irish-British plans for defense of the British Isles if Germany invaded England (Germany had no intention of doing that, but hey the British didn't know). These plans included very really joint Irish-British siting of airfields in the Republic of Ireland by the RAF if England were invaded (which never happened because the Germans didn't have the naval and air force military capability to invade England, even if they wanted to, which of course they didn't).

• MichaelMcGrath | Sep 27, 2012, 11:39 AM EDT

  The Irish were , and are, very close to and sympathetic to, the English working-class people. The Irish only ever opposed British governments and systems, and once catholic Emancipation came in 1829 that won almnost total Irish loyalty to the UK governments as well ( who after all were paying millions of pounds in grants to Irish Catholic cathedrals, seminaries and colleges, the Famine was an interruption, but the Irish very quickly got back on track under Cardinal Cullen , so much so that they spurned the revolutionaries of 1916 - Ireland was doing very well at the time. The land agitations were only as serious as the Household Charge demos today. But even at its height the War of Independence only included about 55,000 Irish people, maybe some of their families too, a real minority. Thus there was very little nationalism ever in the Irish in recent centuries, and that little comprised mostly of catholic nationalism. Thus the Irish today are glad to accept in a million immigrants into Ireland , they love the Africans in particular, and they are prepared to help them all out with social welfare payments , making tens of thousands of the incomers citizens. Irish nationalism was ever only a romance, it's meaningless today, the Irish are not that type of a people that will ever build up to national greatness, \and the biggest reason for this is that the irish identify with being part of the British Isles to this day and tend to follow whatever the English do. And today the Irish are not really aware of any national identity at all - that was all beaten out of the Irish long ago.

• rhunter67 | Sep 27, 2012, 11:05 AM EDT

  Ok, first of all, Scotland was NOT a neutral nation. As part of the UK, they were fully engrossed in the war. And Operation Sea Lion is the well-known aborted operation that was the invasion of Britain, which was called off after the Luftwaffe was defeated by the RAF in the skies over Britain. You can read that in any history of WWII

• rhunter67 | Sep 27, 2012, 10:57 AM EDT

  Springfield9, you are correct. The planned Nazi invasion of Ireland was separate from Operation Sealion - but it was intended to support Sealion. The German plan for Ireland was called Operation Green or Unternehmen Grun. In support of Operation Green was the IRA's Plan Kathleen - by Stephen Hayes, IRA Chief of Staff. Operation Green was called off before Sealion was scuttled because German Military Intelligence, the Abwehr, concluded that Hayes & Co. were unreliable and incompetent.

• bunkerhill | Sep 27, 2012, 10:39 AM EDT

  I agree with all the commentators. The tiny separated country of Ireland and it's citizens did all they could for the allies, as did the Irish diaspora in the US and Australian armies. One thing very few people ever mention is that German-Americans were by far the largest group in the USA from the time of the Revolution.. The royals of Britain had reached out to the their cousins across Europe and brought in a large number of "Hessians" to fight the early colonists. The royals have been moving armies around for centuries, mostly conscripted, poor young men left out by the law of primogenitur or other reasons. After the Revolutionary war most of the Germans stayed in the US and many arrived in later years as immigrants. I have been told that the US Govt looked around (during the first World War) and realized that if the German-Americans took Germany's side it would be disasterous for the US. I was told they then came up with the name "Anglo-Saxon," to put forth we are all one, WASPS. However almost every German-American remained loyal to the US in both wars and fought their own ancestral people, although at the same time, many were attacked by their US neighbors because they were German descent, and many changed their names. I should also add the Japanese-Americans did the same thing even though their families were placed in concentration camps in the western US. The Japenese-Americans in the Pacific knew if they were captured their death would be heinous. They also fought valiently in Europe. Our history books really need to be rewritten with all the propaganda and false information removed.

• citicelt | Sep 27, 2012, 10:37 AM EDT

  maybe they didn't invade during the war years but it seems the invasion took place post war.LOL

• Hill16Man | Sep 27, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  This article is garbage. Lets look at the factual inaccuracies before we move on to the subjective opinions which I believe are also off the mark. Operation Sealion was the codename for Germany's invasion of Great Britain. This should be well known to any high school student who studied WWII. Maybe Hitler included Ireland in his Sealion plan to invade GB but it was not a specific plan for Ireland. Scotland is NOT a neutral nation. It is and has been for 500 years a part of the United Kingdom. Scotland sends MP to Westminster. It is NOT neutral. Ireland LET U Boats operate in its waters? What was Ireland going to do to stop them? We had no Navy to talk of, none, nada, zippo. There was no capability to prevent them from operating in our waters. No more that we had any capability to prevent US, UK, USSR subs operating in or around our waters post WWII, some of which accidentally sank Irish fishing vessels. Subjective Opinion The Irish were sympathetic to the Germans. hence all the Irish that wen to fight in the war in the British and US armies. Also all the Irish that went to Spain to fight against Franco - Hitlers Spanish sidekick. Mr. Westwood Brooks would do well to remember that Britain had a sizeable right-wing/ Nazi party before the war also. This article is so full of incorrect information, it should be taken down.

• CitizenWhy | Sep 27, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  Scotland at that time was a totally integrated part of the UK, and was at war, along with the rest of Britain, with Hitler. It was not an independent country, never mind a neutral country. Fat checking please! Today Scotland, like Northern Ireland, is a devolved section of the United Kingdom, with a degree of autonomy, but it is still a part of the United Kingdom and still send MPs to London. It has the right to declare independence but it has not done so.

• Springfield9 | Sep 27, 2012, 10:19 AM EDT

  Strictly speaking, the invasion of Ireland was not part of "Operation Sea Lion". There was a lively exchange between the IRA and the Germans. A detailed plan for Ireland was developed. It didn't take long for the Germans to figure out that "local insurgents" were complete idiots and the "Irish Invasion" was shelved.

• Jacob | Sep 27, 2012, 10:14 AM EDT

  First of all, Scotland wasn't neutral. Secondly, only part of Ireland - the Free State - was neutral. Northern Ireland, like Scotland, was part of the United Kingdom then as now and was part of the fight against Hitler. *20%* of the Free State's armed forces left Ireland to join the British forces to fight the Nazis. Many civilians living in the Free State did the same. The Free State Govt may have had fascist sympathies as the other clerical states did, but the sympathies of the Irish people were with the Allies.

• slainte9 | Sep 27, 2012, 10:13 AM EDT

  Why does Irish Central print this garbage. Some German somewhere might have drawn up a plan to invade Ireland. The Germans did not have the capabilities or intentions to do that. The only reason the Germans went to war with France and Britain was because the French and British tried to protect Poland. The Soviet Union and its territory were Hitlers principal objective in WWII and that proved a lot more than Germany could handle. Planning is different from fighting a war. War Plan Red was the US plan deveoloped prior to WWII for war with the British Empire.

• Tooreenagrena | Sep 27, 2012, 09:59 AM EDT

  What a terrible article full of half truths and slanders against the Irish. Richard Westwood Brookes says'that many Irish were sympathetic to Germany throughout the war'. How does he know this? Is it proven by the number of Irishmen who fought against Hitler or by the fact that Ireland was neutral in name only. Richard Westwood Brookes is not an historian but an auctioneer. Mr O'Shea whats your agenda.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 27, 2012, 09:39 AM EDT

  Scotland neutral in WW2? and here's me thinking Braveheart (aka Rudolf Hess) invaded England but was defeated at Jutland Bridge...

• Saoi | Sep 27, 2012, 08:51 AM EDT

  This article has some serious trolling, but I'd like to point out early, our neutrality was complex. I'd say that very few Irish people really though their neutrality would protect them. Neutrality hasn't protected Poland either. Now although some Irish had vague support for the Germans, most didn't. This can be seen in the tens of thousands of Irish who volunteered to fight in the British and American armies, and the rather one sided prejudice we gave to the allies in our neutrality - return of downed airmen and the passing on of intelligence. Nazi agents who landed here were quickly arrested, and downed airmen were interned for the duration of the war. The dark side is that our neutrality blinded us to sheltering some germans who shouldn't have been, and DeValera's unfortunate signing of the book of condolences on the death of Hitler. But after the disaster of the first world war, a bloody war of independence and bloodier civil war, the formation of a poor new state apparatus, a disastrous economic war following the depression, the unresolved issue of partition and a Schadenfreude for the British empire Ireland could never have, nor have the capabilities to enter a foreign war with British allies. I think history though will always look poorly on the Irish state but he fact that it was no ordinary war took a few years to sink in.