Why Irish soldiers who fought Hitler hide their medals

[Eireneutral]

ok will try follow up with studies from your last two posts, but don't like the word cull being used agains humans it was murder of the republican leadership that Britain carried out, point to note devalera was a leader of the garrison in bolands mill, and after interogation he went onto murder his former comrades long before ww2, at the behest of the beasts of britain

[phylo_roadking]

but don't like the word cull being used agains humans it was murder of the republican leadership that Britain carried out

Meaning sorting a collection of something into two groups: one that will be kept and one that will be rejected - it is of course less prejudiced a term than "murdered", as not everyone would agree with you on that.

[phylo_roadking]

Need to hear the news at ten...but I think I've just heard a headline reporting that the Irish government HAS indeed tonight pardoned the soldiers concerned!

EDIT: yep, that's correct. The pardon will address the injustice done to the ~100 surviving servicemen this affected.

[panzerplatten]

Here's the confirmation phylo.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/govt-p ... diers.html
Regards mark.

[schrisbpd]

Yeah its on Cnn.com....The Irish goverment has officialy pardoned all of the soldiers who deserted the Republic of Ireland Army!!

[Eireneutral]

They deserted for personal gain had they been members of the British army during ww1 or even ww2 they would have been executed

[phylo_roadking]

They deserted for personal gain

You really...I mean REALLY ...need to go find out more about the history of your own country. I would especially concentrate of the various splits in the IRA between the end of the Civil War and the start of WWII...along political/economic lines....or the Anti-Blueshirt riots. There was a LOT of both moderate and militant anti-Fascism in Ireland then. Some didn't like sitting on the fence...

[Andy H]

They deserted for personal gain had they been members of the British army during ww1 or even ww2 they would have been executed

Mmmm a sovereign neutral nation hiding behind the britches of the UK and then the US, or a vassal state of Germany if the Allies had fallen. Thank God for Irish deserters.

Regards

Andy H

[Eireneutral]

Well if the allies did not provoke the war in the early 30's in the 1st place, for capitalist reasons, as they did previously in the beginning of ww1, then there would have been no need for these Irish men to go any where.
Even during the war in Bosnia senior middle class members of the idf were trying to recruit lower working class ranks to go fight as mercenaries, the same scenario just keeps on repeating, poorer people made to fight rich mens wars, how right James Conolly was, when he told the workers to unite, and not to fight

[phylo_roadking]

Well if the allies did not provoke the war in the early 30's in the 1st place, for capitalist reasons, as they did previously in the beginning of ww1, then there would have been no need for these Irish men to go any where.

Provoke??? They did everything in their power to NOT provoke Hitler for most of the 1930s! They let him do whatever he wanted for nearly nine years, no matter what international treaty/aggrement/pact it broke. Have you never heard of Appeasement???? You're not just lacking in some elementary Irish history, it seems your majorly lacking in a lot of basic World history too

[Eireneutral]

I am not lacking in any real basic history, i just don't go with the allied, now nato spin, on it's conflicts, that it chooses to get involved in, which in my view, are mainly provoked by them, in some way shape or form, with their hidden agendas, that usually are just for financial gain, (totally not humanitarian) to suit the member Countries living standards.
Hitler was probably pumping money all over Europe at the time, (just as Germany is doing so today) which suited the rest of them to, turn a blind eye.

[phylo_roadking]

i just don't go with the allied, now nato spin, on it's conflicts, that it chooses to get involved in, which in my view, are mainly provoked by them, in some way shape or form, with thier hidden agendas,

There is no spin on the events of the 1930s - they are all FAR too well known and recorded to be ever clouded by "spin". Pray tell us all exactly how the British allowing Germany to build up its navy beyond the permits of the Versailles Treaty by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement can be interpreted as "provoking" Hitler? Tell us how NOT protesting or taking action against the remilitarisation of the Rhineland can be interpreted as "provoking" Hitler? Tell us how agreeing with Hitler's demands that he occupy the German-speaking Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement....and the abrogating of our guarantees to Czechoslovakia...can be interpreted as "provoking" Hitler? How can allowing Hitler to expand the new Wehrmacht FAR beyond the limits permitted by the Versailles Treaty without taking concrete action be interpreted as "provoking" Hitler? How can taking no action in early 1939 when he occupied the REST of Czechoslovakia be interpreted as "provoking" Hitler?

In fact, we know in great detail of two very specific events where the Air Staff in the UK intevened to ensure that the government did NOT provoke Germany and Italy and start wars that the RAF was not ready to fight - at the time of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, and the aforementioned Munich Crisis.

Hitler was probably pumping money all over Europe at the time, which suited them to, turn a blind eye.

Here in the Research section of the fourm we tend not to deal in "probably".

For a fact....while the Abwehr and the Foreign Ministry were keeping touch with Nazi and fascist groups all over the globe, and all manner of disaffected minorities in Europe...they weren't actually pumping that much money into them! Not pre-war, at least. Germany had much more important things to put its money into...

[Eireneutral]

Bottom line is, that the wall street crash led to the war, communists claimed capitalism failed just as it is now, and the capitalist west was happy to use Hitler to come between them and communism, the rest about military build ups and treaty breeches, was all as a result of the above, greedy capitalists, who lost their money on the stocks

[phylo_roadking]

, and the capitalist west was happy to use Hitler to come between them and communism,

Actually - no; the West, or rather the the nations opposed to the resurgence of Germany....there WAS no "West" then...allied themselves WITH the USSR on several occasions to help ring-fence Hitler's Germany around with an interconnected group of treaties and pacts. The two Soviet defence pacts with Poland, the Soviet defence pact with PARIS...this was what they were for. The only thing that kept Moscow getting involved with a more cohesive ring of treaties was the Soviet doctrine on international treaties after WWI....single treaties with one nation only at a time, no internested treaties because of how they dragged Russia into WWI. But the piecemeal attempt to ringfence Germany all fell apart because Britain and France betrayed their agreement with Czechoslovakia and the Soviets thought they had to find an alternative way of stabilising their Western border I.E. reaching an agreement with the power that threatened it.

Bottom line is, that the wall street crash led to the war,

All the strains of Hitler's thought that led ultimately to the war were observable in Mein Kampf...written a long time BEFORE the Wall Street Crash