Irish War Memorials

[cerberus]

http://www.irishwarmemorials.ie/

An important part of our joint history.

[Errigal]

That's an interesting site. Sad to see how many plaques there are in all sorts of places: churches, factories, sports clubs. What a senseless waste.

This is the one where the IRA set of that bomb in 1987
http://www.irishwarmemorials.ie/html/place-details.php?show=170

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_Bombing

[Ernest]

70,000 Irish volunteers fought in the British forces in WW2. I'm against the fetishisation of the armed forces and obsessive mawkish ceremonies, I think there is altogether too much 'remembrance' in the UK however Ireland should acknowledge the sacrifices of its fighting men.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/eichmann-would-get-a-statue-if-hed-had-an-irish-grandmother-1815598.html (July 10 2009)

It never entered my silly little head that anyone in authority would permit the re-erection of a statue to Sean Russell in Fairview Park, after the original was vandalised four years ago. And equally, in my utter ignorance of the unrepentant attitude of republicans towards their history and their heroes, I assumed that on this occasion, they would let bygones be bygones.

After all, Sean Russell was a Nazi collaborator, who died in a German submarine on his way to cause mayhem in Ireland in 1940.

The statue to him was unveiled in September 1951, when nationalist mythology, a hubristic neutralism, and a profound equivalence towards the Third Reich, were politically dominant in the grisly lunatic asylum that Ireland had become. Dublin Corporation even donated the land for the statue.

And frankly, you could have erected anything in those days, as long as it was anti-British.

Adolf Eichmann would have got a little statue, if someone could have shown he had an Irish grandmother.

For Ireland had turned its back on the world, and was sinking into an impoverished and heathen stupor, in which the primary government activity was to keep out foreign goods and foreign books: some 5,000 titles had been banned by the publications' censors up to 1954.

This was an Ireland which also gave sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, so a mere statue to one of the Third Reich's most dedicated Irish stooges was merely another part of the diseased isolationist culture of the time.

Over half a century on, and Ireland has changed more totally than it is possible to describe. On Sunday, the President will honour the Irish dead of the two world wars, who for the most part served with the British.

Most particularly this Sunday, minds will go back to that summer 70 years ago, before most of us were born, when Hitler's plans to conquer and subjugate Poland were taking final shape.

Over the next six years, thousands of Irish volunteers were to die opposing him. Just one -- Sean Russell -- died in his service. Yet he is the only Irish victim of the Second World War to have a statue in his honour in Dublin. For having earlier offered his services to the Abwehr, German intelligence, in February 1939, with the outbreak of war, he hurried from America to Germany to take his place in the Nazi battleline. Only a perforated ulcer prevented him doing a sovereign service to the Fuehrer.

You can present Russell's role in many lights.

You can say that he was caught up in the republican mood of the time. You can say that he was enraged at the treatment of nationalists in the North. You can say that many decent people sympathised with the IRA's objectives. All true. Comparable justifications can be offered for activists from different nationalist minorities in mainland Europe who sided with Hitler. The fact is that he -- and they -- took the side of the man who led Europe into a Dark Age unprecedented in history.

To raise a statue to such a collaborator with an absolutist evil is self-preening neutralism at its most toxic.

From 1970 on, with the start of the Troubles, Sinn Fein held an annual commemorative rally at the Sean Russell statue. This has continued ever since, even with Sinn Fein's transformation into a largely constitutional party in the European parliament.

This not merely made Dublin the only capital in the EU with a statue to a Nazi collaborator, but it made the Shinners the only party in the parliament to honour such a man. That they were able to get away with this was largely due to the compliance of other Irish parties in the European parliament, who never drew the attention of our fellow Europeans to the presence in their midst of this strange, strange group, who annually paid homage to Ireland's own Quisling.

Four years ago, "vandals" beheaded the statue, to commemorate the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I disagree with that act. It is not up to individuals to decide on public statuary. But at least this deed gave Dublin City Council the opportunity to abolish from view a revolting insult to the millions of victims of the Holocaust.

Instead, the National Grave Association has been allowed to erect a new bronze statue, and it was this which was daubed with anti-Nazi graffiti the other day.

So, how did a statue to a traitor to Ireland, and an ally of the Third Reich, come to be erected as we approach the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War? Who approved this in Dublin City Council?

And what is the prevailing aesthetic which can rule that the destroyers of Nelson's Pillar in Dublin may permanently affect the streetscape of the capital, but that a statue to a Nazi fellow traveller should be restored? :thumbsup:

I trust that all EU ambassadors to this country report back to their governments that Dublin has just raised a statue to a Nazi traitor. Maybe they will do what our own political class, either through cowardice or inertia, has failed to do -- namely, to cause it to be eradicated for ever.

[Errigal]

70,000 Irish volunteers fought in the British forces in WW2. I'm against the fetishisation of the armed forces and obsessive mawkish ceremonies, I think there is altogether too much 'remembrance' in the UK however Ireland should acknowledge the sacrifices of its fighting men.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/eichmann-would-get-a-statue-if-hed-had-an-irish-grandmother-1815598.html (July 10 2009)

I read that article and thought "this is very hysterical and female in tone, I wonder if it's written by Kevin Myers". Turns out it is. He's unconventional and useful on the topic of immigration but in this article he runs around like a silly old woman shrieking about other people's dramas.

Myers is a typical 68er in this piece; look at how he embraces the off the rack, imported and mass produced version of WW2 rather than deal with the more complicated but homegrown Irish story. Look at all this stuff about Auschwitz, the Holocaust, "Ireland's own Quisling". The French call this politically correct, off the shelf thinking "prêt-à-penser", "ready to think". Myers is just being a silly female in this article showing off her imported fashions.

This part made me laugh: "This was an Ireland which also gave sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, so a mere statue to one of the Third Reich's most dedicated Irish stooges was merely another part of the diseased isolationist culture of the time". My great-uncles were both just lucky enough not to end up on one of those WW2 churchyard plaques themselves and yet they were adult enough to happily have one of those "Nazi war criminals" as a house guest when he was up their way fishing. That was before acting like an hysterical madwoman was the expected thing to do I guess.

[Errigal]

Funnily enough Myers redeems himself with a very good recent article and then has to give a very left-handed apology to the Jews in a following piece. It's all quite interesting and amusing. I'll post them in this thread because they relate directly to the topic of war and remembrance.



Kevin Myers: If you tell untruths to yourself about your past, you'll tell even greater ones about your future

By Kevin Myers

Tuesday June 29 2010

IF A people repeatedly tell themselves lies about what they are and were, then a sorry reckoning invariably awaits them. I have said this many, many times about Ireland and our addictive revisits to the poisoned well that is 1916. But today, in the aftermath of its team's abominable performance against Germany, I am focusing on England.

An absurd, almost imbecilic media optimism has been the backing track to every England soccer campaign for more than a generation, but this year it was combined with a revival of the Churchillian myths of 1940.

If you tell untruths to yourself about the easily visible truths of your past, then you'll probably tell even greater falsehoods about your still invisible near-future. For the English, there is a connecting skein: namely, a wholly unjustified optimism, which is recycled so often that it must be presumed to be a national characteristic.

Now, contrary to everything that you might read in the British media, Hitler had no intention of invading England in 1940. The Battle of Britain was merely a murderous bluff to bring Churchill's government to the negotiating table. Germany had neither the intention nor the means to invade Britain, never mind conquer it.

In fact, Hitler rather admired the British empire, and what the British had done to Saskatchewan he had in mind for the Ukraine.

To be sure, the plain folk of Britain didn't know that then and they clearly still don't. Comparable ignorance informs so much of the English perception of the world today.

The British fought on in 1940 in order to save the Jews? But not even British Jews believed that the Nazis intended genocide. How else can you explain the low level of Jewish recruitment into the British armed forces during the war?

Jews -- before the creation of Israel -- were a very non-martial people. During the war, more British Cohens died as civilians than as soldiers. A total of 142 Cohens were killed by enemy action: 54 civilians, compared to 47 soldiers, and the remaining 41 casualties were airmen or seamen. But nearly five times more Smiths died as soldiers than as civilians. Which roughly means that, proportionately, over six times more Smiths than Cohens were killed serving as soldiers.

The statistics of army deaths for the names Brown, Jones and Murphy are roughly similar to the Smiths. Clearly, if British Jews really believed in 1940 that the Nazis planned a Holocaust, then the Jewish army-recruitment figures would have been far higher. So it might be argued that stubborn stupidity, rather than principle, was why the British kept fighting in 1940.

On the day of the England-Germany match, the 'Sunday Telegraph' carried a supplement celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. It also included a quiz about English/German achievements in the past century.

Obviously, the questions were weighted in favour of the English, yet the answers were generally either wrong or misleading. Viz: In which battles on African soil did British troops not defeat a German army? A) Omdurman, B) Medenine C) Alamein.

This tasteless trinity actually says rather more about the stubborn stupidity of the people who concocted it than it does about history.

So, Omdurman -- in Sudan in 1898 -- was the exception, but what an exception. It was a wholly British imperial horror, in which about 20,000 tribesmen with muskets were massacred -- with, you might say, almost Germanic efficiency -- for the loss of about 34 British soldiers. The other two were 'British' defeats of Germans. Except that New Zealanders and Free French were a primary element in the defeat of German-Italian forces at Medenine, in Tunisia, in 1943. And the 'British' infantry in the defeat of Rommel's largely Italian army at El Alamein in 1942 were mainly from Australia and New Zealand. In other words, the British weren't British and the Germans weren't German.

Other quiz questions were equally meretricious. True or false -- British athletes won more medals in the last Olympics than did the Germans? Well, if you consider that the British bronze in the one-legged, red-haired, 10-metre air-rifle balloon-shooting competition is something to boast of, then bully for you.

And finally, which country has the greater foreign debt? Germany, of course. But if one has to continually reinvest in capital equipment for the greatest export economy in the world, as well as having to integrate the industrial and social wasteland of former East Germany into the old Federal Republic, then naturally one has borrowings.

It IS as if a cultural purblindness is an irremovable core of English national identity. Presumably, that is why it needed £200m (€245m) to convince the British government that mass murder had occurred on Bloody Sunday. Otherwise, who'd have guessed?

A comparable lesson is repeated every two to four years, as a media-proclaimed English triumph is imminent in the European championships or World Cup, to be invariably followed by a grinding humiliation. And better still -- all is then completely forgotten.

This summer, the people of Britain (not just England) have every right to be proud of their resistance to the Third Reich 70 years ago. But this shouldn't constitute a licence to concoct a history that never was. Nonetheless, following the amnesiac ignominies of South Africa, a 1940s-based, fiction-fed fantasia is probably next on the agenda for the British media.
.....
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-if-you-tell-untruths-to-yourself-about-your-past-youll-tell-even-greater-ones-about-your-future-2238144.html

And here's his less than abject apology for being beastly to the Jews:
Kevin Myers: No other people have done more than the Jews to enrich our common civilisation (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-no-other-people-have-done-more-than-the-jews-to-enrich-our-common-civilisation-2250260.html)

These opinion pieces alone or together would mark the end of a journalist's career in Canada. Shows how even in these troubled times Ireland has its advantages.

[Dan Dare]

I'm not sure who or what Kevin Myers is but his grasp on history is particularly tenuous:

1. General conscription was introduced in Britain in 1939, and applied just as equally to British Cohens as to British Smiths. It's complete nonsense to talk of 'low levels of Jewish recruitment' into the armed forces in WW II.

2. For some reason he limits his equally inane remarks about El Alamein to 'infantry' divisions, and even then he's wrong. The 8th Army order of battle on 24 October 1942 included seven infantry divisions including three British, one Australian and one NZ (the other two were South African and Indian). There were also three armoured divisions (all British) and two armoured brigades (one British, one NZ). So of the twelve divisions and two brigades which saw action seven were British and seven were 'colonial', although many of the participants in the latter would have considered themselves of British stock. In the Indian division, one of the three regiments was British as were all the senior officers, an arrangement which had been introduced into the Indian Army following the 1857 mutiny.

3. He is just as hopelessly wrong regarding the battle at Medenine. On 19 March 1943 the order of battle for the 8th Army consisted of five infantry divisions (three British, one NZ, one Indian), a Guards brigade (British) and an armoured division (British).

As for the gormlessly childish tone of the article generally, well words fail me for once. Perhaps Errigal can explain what it is he finds about it to be 'very good'.

[Errigal]

I'm not sure who or what Kevin Myers is but his grasp on history is particularly tenuous:

1. General conscription was introduced in Britain in 1939, and applied just as equally to British Cohens as to British Smiths. It's complete nonsense to talk of 'low levels of Jewish recruitment' into the armed forces in WW II.

2. For some reason he limits his equally inane remarks about El Alamein to 'infantry' divisions, and even then he's wrong. The 8th Army order of battle on 24 October 1942 included seven infantry divisions including three British, one Australian and one NZ (the other two were South African and Indian). There were also three armoured divisions (all British) and two armoured brigades (one British, one NZ). So of the twelve divisions and two brigades which saw action seven were British and seven were 'colonial', although many of the participants in the latter would have considered themselves of British stock. In the Indian division, one of the three regiments was British as were all the senior officers, an arrangement which had been introduced into the Indian Army following the 1857 mutiny.

3. He is just as hopelessly wrong regarding the battle at Medenine. On 19 March 1943 the order of battle for the 8th Army consisted of five infantry divisions (three British, one NZ, one Indian), a Guards brigade (British) and an armoured division (British).

Well the 8th Army was surly British but was it English? Too many fookin' thick Paddies like Auchinleck, Alexander (Viscount Alexander of Tunis & Errigal) and that work-shy Irish bugger Alan Brooke hiding out at the Imperial General Staff, the fookin' skiver.


As for the gormlessly childish tone of the article generally, well words fail me for once. Perhaps Errigal can explain what it is he finds about it to be 'very good'.

The article takes a well deserved shot at the English for their unreflective and self-flattering pop history.

[Dan Dare]

Yes, I can understand its appeal for anglophobes in general.

As for English or British, Myers begins by telling us of his intention to focus on the former, then writes an article about the latter.

It's almost as though he doesn't understand the difference. That would be unsurprising though given his woeful ignorance in other areas.

Rather surprising that you should be championing such incompetence Errigal, I thought we'd put the era of the Thick Paddy behind us at last.

[Ernest]

Paddies like Auchinleck, Alexander (Viscount Alexander of Tunis & Errigal) and that work-shy Irish bugger Alan Brooke

Anglo-Irish =/= ethnic Irish

[Errigal]

Yes, I can understand its appeal for anglophobes in general.

Well the English collectively do have a knack for annoying those within earshot. It is a cultivated habit and so they should take no offence when others are offended.



As for English or British, Myers begins by telling us of his intention to focus on the former, then writes an article about the latter....

Yes British does not equal English. This is something people need to think about. Perhaps it will never really be understood, by the English themselves most of all.



Rather surprising that you should be championing such incompetence Errigal, I thought we'd put the era of the Thick Paddy behind us at last.



The "thick Paddy" myth is a comfort and salve for the northern English especially it seems. They can think about how thick Paddies are while they wait for the shepherd to get their own thick head unstuck from the fence like the bleating sheep they are.

Anglo-Irish =/= ethnic Irish
You mean the dark-haired mountain dwelling Celts of the Gaeltacht when you say "ethnic Irish"?

The men I named would have happily and proudly described themselves as Irish.

[Gregz]

You mean the dark-haired mountain dwelling Celts of the Gaeltacht when you say "ethnic Irish"?

The men I named would have happily and proudly described themselves as Irish.

The most notable Anglo-Irish, persons that I can think of are the Duke of Wellington and Oscar Wilde. The Anglo so-called-Irish where Englandstanis and not Irish.

Ads for those dark-haired, mountain dwelling Celts are you mention, Scottie. Do they live in caves and feast upon wild boar? lol :p


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie"

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1WVBSuickY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen"

value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1WVBSuickY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"

allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Felix the Cat]

I used to know an Ulster lad called Myers. Is the name common up there?

[Basil Fawlty]

http://www.igp-web.com/carlow/IRA_1916_1923_Ballymurphy.jpg

http://image48.webshots.com/48/4/64/9/2652464090060205125LigBGB_ph.jpg

[Errigal]

http://www.igp-web.com/carlow/IRA_1916_1923_Ballymurphy.jpg

http://image48.webshots.com/48/4/64/9/2652464090060205125LigBGB_ph.jpg

How many years after the Civil War did plaques like this begin to be put up?

[Basil Fawlty]

How many years after the Civil War did plaques like this begin to be put up?I think very soon, many of them look to be very much of the period.

[Errigal]

I think very soon, many of them look to be very much of the period.

That's interesting, I would have guessed it would have taken longer for feelings to cool down.

[Basil Fawlty]

That's interesting, I would have guessed it would have taken longer for feelings to cool down.I think many of the ones like above were put up by the veteran groups themselves. Very few of them would be state-sanctioned. Later ones like the Garden of Rememberance would be state affairs, or anything to do with 1916 and the Tan War likewise. Some of them would have been upgrades of already exising, locally erected monuments.

[Errigal]

I think many of the ones like above were put up by the veteran groups themselves. Very few of them would be state-sanctioned. Later ones like the Garden of Rememberance would be state affairs, or anything to do with 1916 and the Tan War likewise. Some of them would have been upgrades of already exising, locally erected monuments.

The relations between the pro and anti-Treaty sides after the war are mostly a mystery to me as my crowd were not players in that story. The whole topic of memorials and monuments are a reminder of how Ireland is a very complicated and multilayered country, to put it mildly.

Edit:
I'd also say that there really shouldn't be too much of a push to make a one-size fits all version of Irish history and then enforce it through the media and education system. From what I've seen of other countries these official versions of history are bland mush with lots of lies and half-truths mixed in. It's better to have the many different non-state memorials we see in this thread than to fight over the one version of history and then enforce that in the style of the French Republic in particular.