DEV SPEAKS AT EASTER COMMEMORATION IN GALWAY

by Outsider Sun Apr 20, 2003 17:50

You are right as far as you go. But didn't the Irish people vote overwhelmingly to discard neutrality when they voted for EEC, now EU, membership in 1972? Even if they didn't know at the time what they were getting themselves into, nevertheless EU membership is already incompatible with neutrality and will become more so as a unified federal superstate with a President of Europe and a single foreign minister for all Europe becomes increasing the political reality. If the people of Ireland really want neutrality, they must have a referendum on leaving the EU. We were glad to take the Euro money handouts when we needed them, but we should have expected a price tag.

by Irish American Sun Apr 20, 2003 22:16

to mourn the deaths of Saddam, Qusay and Uday Hussein al-Tikriti, just like he did for that other victim of the Anglo-Americans, Adolph Hitler, in May 1945.

I'm shocked that anyone would still think that Irish neutrality in WWII was something to be celebrated or imitated.

by Niall Mon Apr 21, 2003 00:42

No, it was the Amsterdam Treaty that proved to be the major compromise to our neutrality. But Dev’s speech does highlight how tenuous FF’s links are with its roots – and whether you like it or not the majority of people are proud of Ireland’s real or imagined neutrality. So it is politically worth exploiting. Besides, the argument made by Dev in this speech has stood the test of time. But best of all, using Dev really gets up the nose of that slithery grandson of his and it is a colourful way to raise the issues of Shannon and the government’s collusion in the invasion of Iraq. In this context the 1916 Rising is particularly relevant – We Serve Neither King Nor Kaiser But Ireland, could so easily be translated to We Serve Neither Bush Nor Blair But Ireland.
As for Ireland’s stand on WWII; One has to remember in 1939 the Irish holocaust, the Great Famine, the mass murder of at least 1 million Irish people and the displacement of many more was only a couple of generations ago; the acts of coercion, the executions, the black & tans even less; and the partition of our country and the occupation of part of it by the British was a reality. So the decision as to whether to stay neutral or not was not so simple as it might seem. And remember, Dev was dealing with Churchill – both he and his family had shown no democratic inclinations when dealing with Ireland.

by Niall Mon Apr 21, 2003 00:49

Just to put the record straight: I hate to disillusion the Irish American, but it was the Soviets in reality that defeated the Nazis. If the Anglo-Americans had opened the 2nd Front sooner, rather than hope the nazis would defeat the Soviets, Hitler would have been overthrown a lot, lot sooner.

by Irish American Mon Apr 21, 2003 06:03

but they're not in Iraq now, are they? Hence the "Anglo-american" reference. And Niall, you can debate the second front endlessly, but there was in essence a second front from October 1942, from the invasion of North Africa through Italy.

And as far as Churchill goes, I read that he offered an end to partition if Ireland joined the war, but Dev declined, prefering to preserve his dream of an Irish speaking rural autarchic republic.

by pooka Mon Apr 21, 2003 17:31

As usual, an "irish" American here, patiently setting up their straw men.

Fortunately, you have your own war-monging country to cheer on, so why pester Ireland with your hay armies and cluster bombs?

by For feck's sake Mon Apr 21, 2003 17:39

"We Serve Neither King Nor Kaiser But Ireland."

You are offending millions who sacrificed their life to get rid of the Nazis, and millions who were killed in concentration camps.

by Outsider Mon Apr 21, 2003 18:13

Yes, Churchill offered Dev a united Ireland if he would join Britain in WW2. Whatever my opinion on Dev, he is to admired for seeing that the promise would not have been kept. It was the usual smoke and mirrors, the three card trick, the carrot and the stick. At least Dev got that one right.

by Kev Mon Apr 21, 2003 18:36

Um, no idea what link you are trying to make here. The Slogan "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland" is from 1916, when FIRST World War was in progress. The young Hitler at this stage was probably lying in a german field hospital recovering from a gas attack.

Don't forget that many of those who shared the views of the 1916 rebels went and fought against Fascism in Spain. Would you have done the same?

by Niall Tue Apr 22, 2003 00:03

Briefly in reply to the Irish American; it’s funny how the Soviets did not consider the North African campaign anywhere near the response needed; neither did the progressive forces in the USA or Britain. The actual second front only occurred when it became patently obvious after Stalingrad that if the Brits and the Yanks didn’t enter Europe the Ruskies would have liberated the whole damn region. I’m afraid Mr Churchill was no friend of the Soviets – he made that clear in his support for the imperialist intervention after 1917. And the common front against the Nazis didn’t change that leopard’s spots as witnessed by his tactics during the Second World War and later in the Fulton Speech.

De Valera was not as naïve as yourself to believe he had changed his attitude towards Ireland either. He, and his father before him, had no qualms in using the Orange Card; and released British cabinet papers from the late 1940s have shown that the Brits for strategic reasons had no intention of allowing “N.Ireland” to be united with the rest of the island even if the majority of the people wished it. And that strategic interest has only changed in the last decade. You may like or dislike de Valera – and I have no great attachment to him – but he was nothing in compared with the imperialist monster Churchill.

by Irish American Tue Apr 22, 2003 00:17

Niall, I do tend to think that the promise of Churchill was a false one: but it would have changed the atmosphere if Ireland had been on the side of the allies. Instead Ireland was shut out of Europe, a condition that might have led to my father's own emigration in 1948. It was a lost opportunity for Ireland. An analogous situation was Arafat's decision to support Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I, even against his patrons the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Think what he could have accomplished if he had offered to send a battalion of Palestinian fedayeen to fight for Kuwait, and how that might have changed things.

As far as the second front goes, it was not possible in 1942, would have been difficult in 1943, just because of the incompletion of the U.S. mobilization. Even in 1944, a frontal assault on France was a chancy thing. The North Africa/Italy campaign might have been the best that the allies could do.

As far as Kev's comment on the Spanish war goes, don't forget that Eoin O'Duffy and the Blueshirts had fought in the War for Independence and then fought for the Falangists in Spain.

by For feck's sake Tue Apr 22, 2003 08:52

That's the problem Kev. If you quote Dev's speech out of context 1916, WW1-WW2-Gulf War 2 look all the same. They aren't. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose war. I marched many times against the last one, but sure as hell I wasn't marching to "serve Ireland"!

by Peter Newman Wed Apr 23, 2003 00:17

the answer is to be found on THE ROAD TO BALLYSEEDY CROSS
-Peter Newman