Hiter's Useful Irish Idiot

by eeekkkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 00:53

.

by pc Mon Jan 03, 2005 01:20

hmmm, the sindo have been constantly running several stories in each issue stories BITCHING about sinn fein for weeks now..., and now they're worried when a hero's statue is vandalised, the use of the phrase anti-facist was peculiar aswell...

by John Meehan Mon Jan 03, 2005 01:59

Manus O'Riordan's wrote a thoughtful letter to the Irish Times about Seán Russell some time ago - see below..

A notable feature of DeValera's government in the 1930's, and the Cumann na nGael administration which preceded it, was anti-semitism and bigoted Catholicism. This influenced its hostility to accepting refugees from Nazi Germany and giving them asylum. A more enlightened Irish régime at that time would have welcomed Jewish refugees from the Nazi terror in Europe.

Are the Russell statue smashers proposing to travel the length and breadth of the 26 Counties damaging memorials honouring DeValera, WT Cosgrave, or Seán MacBride (a leader of the IRA in the 1930's)?

This thought has contemporary relevance - combatting racism on June11 2004 meant helping the No campaign against the government's citizenship referendum.

We should give Minister McDowell, his Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael colleagues "credit" for imitating the racist and reactionary policies of their political ancestors in the 1930's.

Mary Lou McDonald, and Sinn Fein, for all their faults, were for a No.

I am in favour of a critical discussion about Sean Russell's dealings with the Nazi Government of Germany in the 1940's. I do not agree with Manus O'Riordan's statement that DeValera's government had "no option but to act ruthlesly.." against Russell and his comrades. Such issues could be explored further. But I commend Manus for opposing the character assassination of Russell.

The people who defaced the Russell statue may be well-motivated - but they have made a foolish mistake.

================

Madam, - Seán Russell was a man whom de Valera once considered worth making the effort to save from himself. Russell had given sterling service in the 20th century's first war for democracy - the Irish War of Independence fought to give effect to the democratic mandate of the 1918 elections. When de Valera failed to persuade Russell to accept the democratic mandate of his later Republican election victories of the 1930s, he was left with no option but to act ruthlessly and with resolve against Russell and his followers.

By all means condemn Russell, as I do, for his actions in defiance of de Valera, specifically his 1939 bombing campaign in England, followed by his request for Nazi German aid to mount an IRA invasion of the North. If Russell's plan had materialised it would have led to either a German or British invasion and occupation of Southern Ireland, bringing to naught de Valera's skilful safeguarding of this State from both war and fascism.

But condemnation of Russell is one thing; character assassination is another. Russell was not the Holocaust-champion that Kevin Myers caricatures in his Irishman's Diary of September 5th. The UK Public Records Office has released files which show that, after intensive post-war interrogation of German intelligence agents at the highest level, British intelligence itself concluded in 1946 that "Russell throughout his stay in Germany had shown considerable reticence towards the Germans and plainly did not regard himself as a German agent".

In his 1958 novel Victors and Vanquished, Francis Stuart observed of the Russell-based character's outspokenness in Berlin: "Pro-German when it comes to the English, and pro-Jew when it's a question of the Germans". One might dismiss this as another of Stuart's literary inventions were it not that this assessment was corroborated by a more significant witness - Erwin Lahousen, the first and most important witness for the prosecution at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1945. Lahousen had been head of the second bureau of the German Intelligence Service from 1939 to 1943. An Austrian clerico-fascist by conviction, Lahousen loathed Nazism and had been the key figure in an aborted pre-war plot to assassinate Hitler. By common consent, it was Lahousen's evidence at Nuremberg that ensured that Hitler's foreign minister Ribbentrop would be sentenced to death.

It is true that Lahousen's own ideological prejudices led him to make another set of wild and unfounded allegations, such as that Frank Ryan, whom he described as "a ruffian of a distinctly red complexion", had actually murdered Russell. But it is less easy to dismiss what that Nuremberg star witness said of Russell himself. Under the heading of "No Nazi", Lahousen's character reference on behalf of Russell was published as follows by The Irish Times on June 6th, 1958: "The Irishman was a hyper-sensitive Celt who, however willing he might be to use the Germans for his own political ends, regarded the Nazi philosophy as anathema. To the Austrian Catholic Lahousen, whom he found much more congenial, Russell poured out his private views of the Nazis, their attempts to convert him. . .Lahousen was sympathetic and took a strong and personal liking to the curious Irishman. . .He admired his integrity and honesty."

Lahousen said that "Russell was the only one of the IRA with whom I dealt who was a real Irish Republican of the old school". After what Lahousen described as "one of Russell's fiery denunciations of the Nazi attempts to indoctrinate him", the IRA leader further proclaimed: "I am not a Nazi. I'm not even pro-German. I am an Irishman fighting for the independence of Ireland. The British have been our enemies for hundreds of years. They are the enemies of Germany today. If it suits Germany to give us help to achieve independence I am willing to accept it, but no more, and there must be no strings to the help."

This was extremely naïve. As regards his dealings with Nazi Germany, Russell is to be condemned more as a fool than a knave. But notwithstanding that condemnation, Seán Russell is still entitled to the integrity of his reputation, in death no less than in life. - Yours, etc.,

MANUS O'RIORDAN,

Finglas Road,

Dublin 11.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 05:06

I notice the brave people who did this arent quite brave enough to identify themselves.

The Indo piece, unsurprisingly, seems to be quite impressed with their desecration of a heros statue and only too willing to support their character assassination of Russell with its rabidly anti-republican slant. Interesting that it carries the statement word for word but refuses to name the group.

Oscar seems quite keen to highlight this attack as well, along with the alleged motives of the scum responsible. Referring to Russell as "Hitlers idiot" as well as a Nazi collaborator would make one wonder where he was on the night in question himself.

I dont know which is sadder though, Russell being branded a Nazi collaborator while being honored by British collaborators like New $inn £ein.

by Devil Dog Mon Jan 03, 2005 14:59

the "brave people" who desecrated the Islandbridge memorial didn't ID themselves either..oh, wait a minute ...someone supporting the murderous criminal buffoons of the RIRA did it, that's ok then.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 15:44

Check again, I specifically referred to those vandals as IDIOTS and called the vandalism "silly". (I speculated it was the work of kids). It was claimed that it was a RACIST attack, and I asked how on earth it was racist.

I was drawn into an argument on the Royal British Legions activities in Ireland.

I also highlighted the Indos rabid hatred of republicans and its slanted editorial policy. This latest article simply reinforces what I said.

The Indo falsely tried to lay the blame of the Islandbridge attack at the door of a specific political grouping. Unlike the Indo I actually took the time to talk to Dublin republicans about that specific act of vandalism and they were far from impressed, not least because the RIRAs name was being linked to it.

In this case it carries a statement from a group which it refuses to name for some strange reason. It allows the attack on Russell to be justified by slander, but prevents anyone from challenging the lies it carries.

The main difference between Islandbridge and this act of desecration is that Irishmen in the occupying British Army WERE collaborators. Sean Russell was most definitely not.

( I actually wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if the attacks on Islandbridge, the Jewish museum, and Sean Russells statue were actually the work of the same individuals. Why wont the Indo name the group which claimed responsibility ? Someone is shit-stirring)

by Devil Dog Mon Jan 03, 2005 16:28

I'll apologise for implying u thought the I'bridge vandalism was a good idea.

As for why the Indo won't name the group, maybe they're not a recognised group, just some bunch of self-appointed anti-fascists, the same gobshites who attacked that other gobshite out in UCD.

While I loathe Russell for the Nazi collabarator he was, I can't support this vandalism - a more serious question is why Dublin civic bodies allowed a memorial to this traitor.

The British Army in Ireland in the early 20th century was hardly "occupying" - the main burden of security was on the RIC and the I'bridge memorial commemorates those Irishmen who died in two WW's - few if any of them wd have served in Ireland.

Re the Sindo - half of it is shite but they do have some great journos - Jim Cusack, Ronan Fanning, John A Murhpy, Harriss and my own favourite, Eilis O'Hanlon.

As for finding yourself agreeing with me, to quote a great movie, my advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

by eeekkkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 16:36

if it was the 'UCD Gobshites' as you call them I reckon they would have claimed credit - probably through this site as they have in the past. First thing I thought when i saw the article was that kids or unknowndid it and the indo was just scapegoating lefties/afa in general in a kneejerk way.

by eeeekkkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 16:55

They said that as Europe prepares to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps, they could no longer tolerate a statue in honour of Sean Russell.

Russell was commanding officer of the IRA during the Second World War and conducted a campaign of assassination and sabotage in both Britain and Ireland, aimed at damaging the war effort against Hitler.

Although an open ally of the Nazis, Russell is still honoured by the modern IRA and Sinn Fein. In September 2003, Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald spoke at a rally to commemorate Russell in the north Dublin park. The same rally was also addressed by veteran IRA man Brian Keenan.

In a statement released this weekend, the group claiming to be behind the attack on the statue said: 'Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 45.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:01

An unknown group attacks Islandbridge, daubing it with "republican" as well as insulting slogans. On the very same night the Jewish museum in Dublin is attacked and daubed with swastikas.

The Indo claims the attacks are the work of republicans and infers they are Nazis.

Shortly afterwards some punter stars posting on Indymedia claiming that "dissident" republicans are in fact linked to the far-right. On an almost daily basis he makes allegations about Radio Free Eireann etc and refers to them as Nazis. A scumbag even attemted to smear ME as a far-right headbanger.

A few months later Sean Russells memorial is desecrated by an unknown group of "anti-facist youths" in the Dublin. The Indo carries their statement of responsibility yet refuses to name them. Sean Russell is also falsely blackened as a Nazi. mmmmmmmmm.

Im no Sherlock Holmes, but it seems someone out there is trying to blacken Irish republicans as Nazis. I wonder who it is ?

by eeekkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:05

Displacement i think is the correct word in Freudian terms.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:12

Russell did not engage in a campaign to "help Hitler". His goal was to free his country from British occupation. As IRA C/S it was his simple DUTY to seek military assistance for his countrys struggle. Was Frank Ryan a nazi-collaborator too? He died in Berlin.

It is absolutely clear that Russell rejected Nazi ideology outright. Russell was no more a Nazi collaborator than Joe Cahill was a supporter of Gadaffis pan-Arab nationalism.

It should be remembered that Russells campaign against England was planned and begun BEFORE WW2 even broke out.

Englands difficulty was Irelands opportunity, simple as that. If the Iraqis offered republicans arms at the minute it doesnt mean wed be reading the Koran.

by faceman Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:12

Where, when, and how did Sean Russell die?

by eeekkkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:28

That above under my moniker is a straight quote from an observer article which I provided a link to - not my opinion.

I am not knowledgeable about this guy at all and am interested in what all on this thread have to say on this subject.

by eeekkkk Mon Jan 03, 2005 17:30

.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 18:03

Misunderstood you there.

Faceman ; Russell died aboard a German submarine while on his way back to Ireland. The Germans claim he died from burst stomach ulcer. All that is known for sure is that halfway through the journey Russell suffered excruciating abdominal pain and died soon afterwards. His body was disposed of at sea, so therefore no autopsy could reveal the actual cause of death, or whether as many republicans have long suspected, he was poisoned by the Nazis.

It is clear his contact with the Nazis did not go well. He absolutely rejected their ideology, and his comradeship with the avowed communist Frank Ryan did not go down well with them either.

It is also clear that Ribbentrop among others took a severe dislike to his refusal to accept Nazi doctrine as a precondition for military equipment. In fact the Germans refused to give him any equipment. They most likely feared if they did it would end up used against them as well if they invaded. Russell made it clear he was neither pro-german or pro-nazi.

The Nazis had also opened up contacts with facist leader O'Duffy at this time. Russells IRA and O'Duffys blueshirts were mortal enemies. It is possible the Nazis took the opportunity to dispose of Russell in the hope that ODuffy could be installed as the puppet leader of Ireland should the war go their way. At the time it looked like German victory in Europe was assured.

It would have been an absolute certainty that both Russell and Ryan would have opposed ODuffy with the last breath in their bodies. Thats why it made perfect sense for them to remove Russell, which also prevented Frank Ryan from returning to Ireland as well. This suited ODuffy down to the ground.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 18:50

He died in 1940.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 21:26

Identify your group, come onto this website and justify your actions. Prove you arent a pro-British front out to cause deliberate mischief.

by Devil Dog Mon Jan 03, 2005 23:00

Are you sure you haven't been indulging too much over chrimbo?

Do you have a link to back up your claim that O'Duffy was in contact with the Nazis, first I've heard of it.

Wasn't Ryan on the same U-Boat as Russell when he died???

Either way, ANYONE seeking aid from Nazi Germany deserves all the opprobrium they get.

Pro-Britsh fronts? You're taking the michael, right???

by S. Holmes Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:14

Mary Lou did the job on Russell's statue.
Must have been trying to erase any memory to him so she wouldn't have to go along to any more embarrassing memorials to him.

by Ion Antonescu Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:34

Do Hitler's foreign legionaires deserve statues (regardless of their national interests)? Of course not.

by Leon Degrelle Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:56

Leave me out of it, I was crusading against communism!

by Barry Wed Jan 05, 2005 02:15

Sean Russell died (in mysterious circumstances) in 1940. The Wannsee conference which authorised the Nazi "final solution" (genocide) took place in 1942. Hitlers destruction of the Jews and use of death camps were not apparent until the defeat of Nazi germany. In fact a great many ordinary Germans, soldiers and even Nazis were unaware of what the regime was engaged in.

This only came to light 5 years after Russels death, so how was he in any way complicit with something which didnt begin until 2 years after he died ?

Furthermore what is abundantly clear to those who are even half ways interested in the truth (as opposed to those usual republican bashing gobshites) is that Sean Russel rejected Nazi ideology outright. He made it clear he was neither pro-nazi nor pro- German.

It is also clear that the Germans did not supply him with a single round of ammunition. They clearly viewed him as someone they couldnt do business with. Why is that I wonder?

The IRA bombing campaign was planned, authorised and begun BEFORE WW 2 even began. As C/S it was Sean Russels simple military duty to explore all avenues of acquiring military hardware to conduct an entirely legitimate resistance campaign to free his country from foreign occupation.

Was James Connolly an agent of Kaiser Wilhelm ? Were the Finnish resistance Nazi collaborators for opposing Stalins invasion of their nation ? They sought and recieved German aid from Hitler. Were they wrong to do so?

It should be remembered who actually invented concentration camps for use against civilian populations in the first place - the British. They used them to great effect against the civilian Boer population where 100s of 1000s of women and children died in British camps. Hitler himself made no secret of his admiration of the British Empire and the fact that he wanted the German Reich to align itself with that stinking empire.

If someone as evil as Adolf Hitler viewed Britain as a role model has the penny not dropped with ANYONE as to why Sean Russel was so desperate to acquire the hardware to remove its hated presence from his country ?

The worst Sean Russel can be accused of is short-sightedness as to the politico/military situation in Europe. Given the man was totally dedicated to the freedom of his country that is perfectly understandable. He simply put the freedom of his country first, and paid the ultimate price as a result. It is doubtful whether those who are sneering at him now have ever endured the slightest hardship, danger or sacrifice for any cause or beliefs. The mere thought of it is beyond their comprehension.

Finally I see those who attacked his statue still refuse to identify their group or enter into any debate. I believe my theory that they are the same people who attacked Islandbridge and the Jewish museum simultaneously in order to blacken republicans was too close to the truth for them to defend their latest heroic operation.

by R. Isible Wed Jan 05, 2005 03:52

QUOTE: Hitlers destruction of the Jews and use of death camps were not apparent until the defeat of Nazi germany.

Not according to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in _Hitler's WIlling Executioners_. Ditto to that w.r.t. "ordinary" Germans being aware of it. I'd be willing to bet that lots of USAians are claiming ignorance now.

by Barry Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:24

Sean Russel was only in Germany for a very brief period. It is apparent he came away with not exactly a high opinion of the Nazis, nor they of him.

That has not addressed any of the points I made. Russel died in 1940, 2 years before the Wannsee conference. Criticise the ordinary German people of that time by all means, but that still does not make Russel a Nazi sympathiser or responsible in any way for the slaughter of Europes Jews.

by Devil Dog Wed Jan 05, 2005 13:42

The Wannsee conference did not "authorise" the Holocaust, that decision had already been made by Hitler (and it had begun to be implemented by the Einsatzgruppen by machine gunning 1,000's of Jews). Wannsee was about coordinating the efforts of various agencies to implement the Endlosung while also emphasising that Heydrich and the SS were henceforth in charge of dealing with the Jews.


Sorry Bazza, Russell didn't need to be alive in 1942 for his odious collaboration with the Nazis to stink to high heaven.

R.Isible: are you suggesting that the US is implementing its own Endlosung today, presumably in Iraq? Can you tell us where Birkenau Mark II is located? Or is this just another of the gratuitously offensive comments on IMC, where the terms "Nazi" and "genocide" are thrown around freely?

by Smillie Wed Jan 05, 2005 14:30

"Russel died in 1940, 2 years before the Wannsee conference."

Thats a great consolation to all the pre-Wansee Nazi victims. And what did people know about it? The Irish Times editorials in the 1930s were highly critical of Nazi oppression and racism, before wartime censorship ended this.

by C sna C Wed Jan 05, 2005 14:47

DDs logic is that Sean Russells "collaboration" with the Nazis stinks to high heaven.

Hmmm... what would you call the Brit-approved partioning of Czechoslovakia for Hitler then? Hows about the arms embargo against the Spanish Government 1936-38? Also on a note of inconsistency I dont recall the British empire declaring war on the USSR for invading Poland a few weeks after Hitler.

The US only fought Germany when Hitler declated war on them after Pearl Harbour so spare us your pebble overturning in your US-Brit orientated servile take on matters historical.

BTW
US Dachau MK II torture camps are located at Guantanamo, Baghram, Abu Gharib.

The Wannsee conference finally ruled out emigration as a means of making Germany ""judenfrei" and approved concentrated extermination in the camps as the official means. In this sense, the Holocaust was "authorised" at Waddensee i.e the full machinery of the state put behind the planned extermination thus eliminating the need for relatively "inefficient" Einsatzgruppen.

by Devil Dog Wed Jan 05, 2005 15:09

Wannsee most definitely did not "authorise" the setting up of extermination camps, once again, that decision had already been made nor did it "approve" anything, the officials present were presented with a fait accompli by Heydrich.

The US Navy was at war with the Kriegsmarine from the Summer of 1941...also, ever hear of Lend lease? So what if Germany declared war on the US? How was the Wehrmacht going to do anything to trouble let alone attack the US? Despite the fact that Japan was the country which attacked it, the US still made "Germany first" its strategy.

As for 1938, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was also approved by the French...and it too stank to heaven.

by Noel Wed Jan 05, 2005 15:22

The odious IMC practice of comparing Bush with Hitler, Israel with Nazi Germany and now Dachau with Abu Ghraib, belittles the murder of millions at the hands of the Nazis.

Dachau, which incidentally was opened in 1933, long before the swastika wrapped body of Russell was dropped in to the sea; saw the torture, mutilation and death of hundreds of thousands.

I suspect these now silent victims would be perplexed, finding their awful fate compared with that of Iraqis forced to wear womens knickers on their heads.

by C sna C Wed Jan 05, 2005 16:08

The comparison I made with Dachau and American present day concentration camps does not demean the victims of the post 1941 death camps as I was not comparing them to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen etc.

The comparison is valid to Dachau c. 1933 as it was Hitlers first concentration camp with the purpose of "reeducating" the victims of Hitlers first targets, communists, trade unionists. The US camps by holding people idenfinitely without trial, using torture and humiliation, and at least a dozen proven deaths by torture are similar. Detainees are treated as subhuman, and world opinion is supposed to accept this to protects us from terror, much as Dachau was accepted by many of Germany at the time because the Communists were perceived as ready to do the same.

The comparison between the likes of Bush and Hitler stands because of their willingness to dispose of previously accepted standards of decent behaviour under the cloak of national necessity. The ethnocratic behaviour of Israel by collective punishments, excecution of children for example, remind of Nazi WW2 atrocities.

Pointing out obvious similaries of behaviour between the two does not belittle the victims of Hitler, the repetition of some of the evils perpetrated by him by self-annointed leading states like the US and Israel in the name of democraticy is what is the real mockery of the millions of victims of nazism and fascism.

Then again, imperialism, or neo-imperialsim has rarely admitted any of it's own atrocities.

by Barry Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:06

I see the tramps which wrecked the statue STILL havent identified their group OR come on here to defend/debate their dirty deed. Why go to the trouble of releasing a statement to the Indo if they wont stand over their actions. If they are that concerned about facism why arent they putting their point of view forward.

One smells a rat !!! (and a pro-brit one at that)

Talking of pro-brits, Devil-Dog I cant remember what thread that was on. You asked the question before so try and rack your brain about where it was the last time you asked it . You could remember Nordie, why not me? I hope selective amnesia isnt a side effect of depleted uranium.

by Barry Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:09

That question Im on about was by DD on another thread. And I was slagging him about amnesia.

Bollocks.

by R. Isible Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:20

QUOTE: R.Isible: are you suggesting that the US is implementing its own Endlosung today, presumably in Iraq? Can you tell us where Birkenau Mark II is located? Or is this just another of the gratuitously offensive comments on IMC, where the terms "Nazi" and "genocide" are thrown around freely?

RESPONSE: My point is simply that there are serious historians that argue that a majority of Germans were aware of, active in, and complicit with the actions of their government. Goldhagen cites survivor stories about the "death marches" towards the end of the war where skeleton-like inmates were marched through villages where the inhabitants came out and stoned them as they passed through. A mass more detail that I suggest you read. I don't buy all of it, but I do believe that Barry's repetition of the "no one knew about the camps until after the war" is questionable at least.

I am not accusing the USA or its inhabitants of being Nazis. That refers to a very specific historical phenomenon.

In this case I'm pointing out that the USA is committing war-crimes (including the slaughter by starvation and interference with medical aid, the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure, the illegal occupation of a foreign country, the torture of prisoners, the denial of due process to prisoners) with the full knowledge of its citizens and the citizens of the "civilised" world.

At this point to a civilised person there are two groups of war-criminals involved in a conflict. One of them is a rag-tag motley band of clerico-fascists and the other is the largest, most powerfully armed state in the history of the world. Both are barbarians that seek to undermine democracy and freedom for their own ends.

Luckily it would appear that there may also be a large number of people that believe in good old-fashioned values like national self-determination, freedom and democracy. I hope the numbers of these grow by the day and they manage to oust the American barbarians and the American-created barbarians ( known to you probably as "islamo nazi headhackers" ).

Back to the central topic here: I'm not arguing that Russell was definitely aware of the Nazi program ( but Barry provides evidence that he was aware of Nazi policies which he disagreed with and that this makes him moral ). I am objecting to Barry's blanket assertion that people were not in general aware of the disgusting nature of Nazi ideology. (Perhaps the large ghettoes, Kristalnacht, written ideology etc would have been a big fecking clue).

In defence of this point (to those that would argue "surely not" I'll just point out that after we've seen that there are no WMDs in Iraq, that there never were seriously believed to be any, that _at least_ 500,000 children were murdered in UN administered Oil For Food programs (enforced by US and UK jets patrolling the "no fly zone" and dropping munitions daily), innocent civilians abducted and sexually abused by US soldiers, whole cities bombed etc., there will still be people who claim "ignorance" of these war crimes, or like some of our less-bright contributors, will argue that they never happened. It's the same denial of reality and group-think that permeated Nazi Germany.

by R. Isible Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:39

Noel writes: "The odious IMC practice of comparing Bush with Hitler, Israel with Nazi Germany and now Dachau with Abu Ghraib, belittles the murder of millions at the hands of the Nazis."

Calling it an "IMC practice" makes you sound like a biased nut. If you trawl through a lot of "alternative" press you'll find the comparisons made. It's interesting that in this thread _you_ are the first person to compare Israel with Nazi Germany. The simple equivalency in this thread was introduced by "Devil Dog" and "C sna C" makes the obvious point that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are concentration camps in which inmates are tortured, denied any semblance of justice (and in Baghram beaten to death). A naive observer could be forgiven for seing certain similarities to the Nazi concentration camps.

Noel continues: "Dachau, which incidentally was opened in 1933, long before the swastika wrapped body of Russell was dropped in to the sea; saw the torture, mutilation and death of hundreds of thousands. I suspect these now silent victims would be perplexed, finding their awful fate compared with that of Iraqis forced to wear womens knickers on their heads."

Ah now, Noel. Don't go forgetting the people that died in the prisons that we _know_ about. Don't go forgetting the over 500,000 kiddies that died because they were denied drugs to stop the diarrhoea that robbed their little bodies of nutrition. Don't go forgetting the "combat aged males" trapped in Fallujah and bombed from the air, shot when they tried to run, killed my cholera because their drinking water and sewerage had been bombed into the same pipes.

Ah shure 'twas just wimmins knickers on their heads!

by pat c Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:48

Whoever carried out the attack on the statue were common or garden vandals or ignorant middle class life-style "anarchists",( not the WSM or Organise). I doubt if these fools would have the gumption to take on fascists or racists in real life. Easy to knock the head off a statue.

Russel was guilty of stupidity (and as Risible points out he must have had some knowledge of what was happening in Germany) but he was not a fascist. I think the John Meehan comment with the Manus Riordan letter deals best with what was a complex issue.

by Barry Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:50

Dont mean to sidetrack you from your debate with DD, however its worth pointing out that the nationalist community in the North suffered extensive pogroms and Kristalnachts at the hands of the British authorities throughout the 1920's and 30s.

It has been estimated approximately 10% of the nationalist population were driven from the 6 counties in the 1922-24 period alone. That is ethnic cleansing without a doubt.

Catholic owned businesses were put to the torch in Belfast in orgies of destruction. Catholic workers were forced from their jobs throughout the city. A protestant parliament for a protestant people isnt that far removed as a moral concept from Ein Volk, Ein Reich.

It should be remebered that when the racist regime in S.Africa first responded to criticism of its apartheid laws, its Prime Minister declared they would gladly do away with apartheid if they could introduce the NI Special powers act instead.

I am not for one second attempting to compare the actual genocide and persecution of the Jews with that of the northern nationalists, however the state which Sean Russell sought German aid to overthrow in Ireland was highly bigoted and morally corrupt in every way imaginable. While they certainly did not suffer genocide during that period, Irish Catholics were without doubt persecuted and hounded by the state.

State paramilitary groups such as the B-Specials were used to strike fear into the population and enforce the edicts of a bigoted government.

This should be taken into account when considering Russells attempts to acquire armaments, moreso when one remembers that Russell himself was never given an opportunity to explain his actions.

I also notice that thus far no-one has commented upon whether or not the Finnish people were right to seek German military aid in their fight against Stalinist occupation. It would be interesting to compare this with what Sean Russell was attempting to do.

by eeekkkkk Wed Jan 05, 2005 20:26

Fallujah:

"According to al-Iyssaue, the hospital emergency team has recovered more than 700 bodies from rubble where houses and shops once stood, adding that more than 550 were women and children. He said a very small number of men were found in these places and most were elderly.

Doctors at the hospital claim that many bodies had been found in a mutilated condition, some without legs or arms. Two babies were found at their homes, who are believed to have died from malnutrition, according to a specialist at the hospital.

Al-Iyssaue added these numbers were only from nine neighbourhoods of the city and that 18 others had not yet been reached, as they were waiting for help from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) to make it easier for them to enter.

He explained that many of the dead had been already buried by civilians from the Garma and Amirya districts of Fallujah after approval from US-led forces nearly three weeks ago, and those bodies had not been counted.

IRCS officials told IRIN they needed more time to give an accurate death toll, adding that the city was completely uninhabitable. "

by Oscar Thu Jan 06, 2005 01:18

Still no one wants to own up to beheading Sean.
But I'm also not sure why anyone would be so quick to assume that the attackers were "common or garden vandals" or "ignorant lifestyle middle class anarchists (but not WSM or organise). ?! Where is the evidence to rule out anyone else?
As for the debate about Russell himself, I think that Lenin's "useful idiots" quote ( used by him in a different context to refer to foreign communist party members and USSR admirers abroad) is pretty apt.
It doesn't seek to pass judgement on the extent of Russell's support for the Third Reich. It merely implies that :
(1) He was extremely naive (as republicans eager to defend Russell's memory have conceded)
(2) He was useful to Nazis, or at least they intended for him to be.

by rooster Fri Jan 07, 2005 02:33

he is one in a long line of ira men who have said Britains enemy is our friend (USSR/Libya)
Although how someone could willingly associate themselves with the nazis and still claim to possess any moral fibre is beyond me.

by Barry Fri Jan 07, 2005 04:44

Your oul chum Johnny Adair and his crew were self confessed neo-nazis. There was and is a fair bit of support for the BNP/NF amongst loyalist paramilitaries around Portadown as well. Regular visitors every twelfth I believe. How many of your orange brethren are up to their necks in racial attacks in the mid Ulster area ?

by rooster Fri Jan 07, 2005 04:58

Your oul chum Johnny Adair and his crew were self confessed neo-nazis.
-expalin how they are my chums

Regular visitors every twelfth I believe.
-the twelth is a public event, it is open to everyone, please do not confuse the paramilitaries with the orange order.
In fact, Sinn fein councillors sometimes have better attendance at parades than members of the lodges!

If you want to debate about this at least know your topic. IRA members frequent GAA clubs, what if I equated the GAA with the IRA?

by The truth is out there Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:05

Adair was in a Nazi band in his earlier years, his links to combat 18 and other Nazi groups have been more than adequately exposed before. Rooster can deny it all he wants but he is merely being a liar, a trait not uncommon in Unionists/Loyalists.

by Joe bloggs Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:29

Didn't see any denial by Rooster of Adair's Nazi links.
"The truth is out there" - you don't seem like the brightest kid on the block

by The truth is out there Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:37

"by rooster Friday, Jan 7 2005, 3:58am
'Your oul chum Johnny Adair and his crew were self confessed neo-nazis'.
-expalin how they are my chums"

So Joe Bloggs explain how you could not see this posting of Roosters, which is only a few lines up. Are you blind? or just an idiot?

by p+p Fri Jan 07, 2005 14:47

"idiot"? Who is?
The comment you refer to was rooster quoting Barry's previous comment.
You are definitely not the brightest.

by Dogmatic Fri Jan 07, 2005 15:54

Loyalism/Facism same coin different sides. And they haven't gone away you know!

by Big Irish from the USA Fri Jan 07, 2005 18:00

Unhappy the land that needs heroes. - Brecht.

But leave the statues - all statues - alone.

Is it just me who sees the irony of "Anti-Fascist" youths adopting the tactics of Ultra-Fascist Islamic Terrorists?

by R. Isible Fri Jan 07, 2005 18:45

"Big Irish" (aka "toneore" ?) writes about the "irony" of some uncomfirmed, unidentifed people that may or may not be anti-fascists attacking a statue (which action he sees as "islamic" and "nazi" in some way). Well feast your eyes on this "statue desecration" buddy!

A marine engaged in "islamo nazi" "statue desecration"

Foreshadowing the hooding and torture of prisoners. Goodbye Old Boss, Hello New Boss

by Devil Dog Fri Jan 07, 2005 18:56

I think the connection may have more to do with the hacking off of heads (inanimate in the case of the Russell vandals; not quite so inanimate in the case of Islamofascists) than the simple destruction of statues.

Fair play to your powers of imagination if you see a connection between the destruction of that SH statue and the treatment of prisoners....maybe the Red Cross should examine these allegations of "statue torture"?

by Barry Fri Jan 07, 2005 19:05

If theyd tried that a few years back, in the era of Irelands moving statues, Sean Russell would have chased them down the road and kicked the shite out of them.

by R. Isible Fri Jan 07, 2005 20:33

QUOTE: I think the connection may have more to do with the hacking off of heads (inanimate in the case of the Russell vandals; not quite so inanimate in the case of Islamofascists) than the simple destruction of statues.

RESPONSE: Well "Big Irish's" comment wasn't very informative or clear, but I was delighted with his display of irony. Got to wonder though, doesn't he know that "irony died on Sept 11th"? (Except if you're one of those liberals that controls the media).

I'd rather we focussed on: Sean Russell, his statue, anti-fascist actions in Ireland. Any other comments are off topic and I think we've discussed the international ramifications of this enough and can now adjourn to the billiards room for a snooze.

by Barry Sat Jan 08, 2005 04:32

Strange that the people whodunnit didnt appear. Dont you agree. I would have enjoyed that. I think we can safely discount this "anti-facist youth" malarkey.

Now we know.

by rooster Sat Jan 08, 2005 04:40

Your oul chum Johnny Adair and his crew were self confessed neo-nazis.
-expalin how they are my chums

Regular visitors every twelfth I believe.
-the twelth is a public event, it is open to everyone, please do not confuse the paramilitaries with the orange order.
In fact, Sinn fein councillors sometimes have better attendance at parades than members of the lodges!

If you want to debate about this at least know your topic. IRA members frequent GAA clubs, what if I equated the GAA with the IRA?

by J B Malone Sat Jan 08, 2005 04:52

There is no comparison between the GAA and the Orange Order. the Gaa do not stage paramilitary-style marches. Pity the same can not be said about the Orange Order, who go out of their way to be offensive and provocative toward one section of the community.

by rooster Sat Jan 08, 2005 06:04

"There is no comparison between the GAA and the Orange Order. the Gaa do not stage paramilitary-style marches. Pity the same can not be said about the Orange Order, who go out of their way to be offensive and provocative toward one section of the community."

The GAA are not simply just a sporting organisation, it is representative of only one section of the community and so has been both devisive and sectarian.
The Orange Order do not "go out of their way" if they had their way they would simply parade and then go home. It is the nationalist community who bring in the international media and end up making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

by Dogmatic Sun Jan 09, 2005 13:42

Catholics are not allowed join the orange order, Protestants are allowed join the GAA.

by Barry Sun Jan 09, 2005 19:54

Utter nonsense. When was the last time you saw the GAA organise riots, block raods, make bigoted speeches ? Never.

The GAA have never intimidated, threatened or abused anyone. They are simply a sporting and cultural organisation which is open to all.

This comparison with sick minded religious bigots is absolutely absurd.

Im a bigger fool for even being drawn on this nonsense.

by Big Irish from the USA Sun Jan 09, 2005 20:19

Perhaps they can ask Sinn Fein/IRA for a donation to fix the statue of this great patriot. Since they were responsible for the robbery in Belfast they should be good for a few quid.

by South African Friend of Ireland Mon Jan 10, 2005 08:52

Regarding Rooster's comments about IRA members frequenting GAA clubs etc.

On a similar vein, I am sure there are IRA members who travel to watch Glasgow Celtic play, whilst there are members of Loyalist paramilitaries who travel to watch Glasgow Rangers play.

Both sets of supporters sing Rebel and Loyalist songs respectively.

GAA is a cultural and sporting organisation with no interest in paramilitary and political machinations.

Why don't you just leave it at that Rooster?
Next you will be telling us that there are still
'Reds under the bed'

As for your comments regarding GAA being sectarian because it represents only one section of the community, I have never heard of any Protestant being victimised by supporters affiliated to GAA, the way Neil Lennon was abused by Loyalist supports of the Northern Ireland national soccer team. This abuse, which included death threats and a physical assault in Glasgow, led him to end his international career. These supporters are as thick as pig s#@t because ' their' team lost one of the finest players in the world simply because they did not want a Catholic playing under the banner of Northern Ireland. They are quite content to have Northern Ireland languish at the lower end of the FIFA rankings than have a Catholic player help the team improve its fortunes. Just look at where The Republic stands in the FIFA rankings. And whilst on the subject of sectarianism in sport, do I need to remind you Rooster about the circumstances surrounding the defunct Belfast Celtic?

Also, the GAA reflects Gaelic/Celtic culture. As I said in a previous posting the Anglo Saxon plantationers never assimilated into the true Irish culture, and to this day, their descendents prefer to remain alienated from the Gaels/Celts. Is it any wonder that there are few, if any Protestant/Loyalist members of GAA? I am not privy to the constitution of the GAA, but I would imagine it accommodates anyone, irrespective of their religous and political beliefs, provided they abide by the constitution and are interested in the activities of the organisation which are sporting and cultural.

As far as the Orange Order is concerned, just take a look at it history. Why it was started and how it has behaved particularly during the early parts of the C20th. A vicous and violent hatred of anything Catholic lies at the core of its very existence.

by Irish friend of S. Africa Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:32

You seem to be a little bit misinformed..

For example:
"GAA is a cultural and sporting organisation with no interest in paramilitary and political machinations"
--- Ever heard of the GAA's Rule 21??


"Is it any wonder that there are few, if any Protestant/Loyalist members of GAA?"
--- Ever heard of Jack Boothman?? To name but one of many protestants who were able to overcome what you imply is some sort of tribal inability to take part in Gaelic games.

As for this quote,
"As I said in a previous posting the Anglo Saxon plantationers never
assimilated into the true Irish culture, and to this day, their descendents
prefer to remain alienated from the Gaels/Celts."
--- It's the sort of talk which would make the worst type of sectarian happy. Please try to leave your "volk" mentality at home

by Devil Dog Mon Jan 10, 2005 13:00

Billy Wright apparently played GAA when he was a young fella...then he got radicalised after Kingsmills...which of course wasn't sectarian, was it SAFoI?

The GAA passed a motion in, I believe, 1979, which was essentially a vote of support for the IRA....The GAA itself would contend that it's a lot more than a sporting/cultural organisation and has always had a political element to it.

Again, you accusing people of being racist really takes the fig roll....."Anglo Saxon planter scum go home"....you sound like a taxi driver banging on about "asylum seekers".

by David Mon Jan 10, 2005 19:32

Wondering if South African friend of Ireland could help me with something.
My dad is a protestant, my num's a catholic and I had a granny who was jewish.
Am I a Gael/Celt or a planter ???

by David Mon Jan 10, 2005 19:34

er... obviusly my mother wasn't a "num". Sorry 'bout that.

by Barry Mon Jan 10, 2005 20:09

There is absolutely no comparison between the GAA nad the orange order. Stop this shite talk now for Gods sake.
The only point to such nonsense in the past was for loylist killers, usually orangemen, to justify the murder of gaa members, and the orange orders own casting about to try and highlight bigotry which simply doesnt exist.

Have to say I disagree with S Africans generalisation though. GAA and gaelic culture have attracted people from a wide varuety of backgrounds, and long may that continue to be the case. Irish culture is inclusive and always has been. In the past was able to absorb Viking and Norman, as well as Ulster protestant, until huge efforts were made by the British to drive us and keep us apart.

That is one of the main reasons why so many ulster protestants today are antagonistic, wasnt like that in the past for everyone. The first fluent Irish speaker I ever met was from an Ulster prod background. I still cant speak my own language properly which is a disgrace, and a new years resolution.

by South African Friend of Ireland Mon Jan 10, 2005 20:13

You have to look within yourself to answer
that. Only you have the answer.

As Lao Tzu said :

" The Tao that can be described is not the
real Tao".

by Barry Mon Jan 10, 2005 20:14

If you REALLY (and I mean really really) want to annoy fenians in the worst way imaginable - learn fluent Irish. That will be more sickening than rangers winning 10-nil against Celtic. Garaunteed to silence a taig at 50 yards.

by South African Friend of Ireland Tue Jan 11, 2005 07:32

Barry, your point regarding the GAA and Gaelic culture is precisely the point I was making. The problem has been that radical Protestantism has not wanted to embrace or assimilate into the culture of the Gael. There have been many Protestants who have played an important role in the history of a free Ireland, but the radicals have refused.

Your point about the Brits 'divide and rule' policy prompts me to remind you that on more than one occasion Sinn Fein has offered the hand of friendship to even the most radical of Protestants in the North. Their thesis was that both sides should unite at least in an awareness that the Brits had created the problems in Ireland and that both sides could work together to build a future without Britain, and eventually within the framework of a united Ireland. Of course that offer was rejected.

One only has to look at the history of the modern world to see where Britain, and more specifically England, has applied the same principle, for no other eason than their own filthy ends. I feel sorry for the likes of the radical Protestants, because no one really wants them, particularly their masters in London. Through the centuries they have been manipulated by the English like little puppets and have been led to believe that they secured a position of superiority over the indigenous Irish. Very sad.

I would like to ask Rooster and other 'orangies' out there what is the fear of being in a united Ireland? Protestants have fared very well in the Republic. What is the attraction of clinging to an area of land, which the Brits are trying to off load, which is economically poor relative to other parts of Europe, and especially to The Republic, when you could become part of a thriving economy and a nation which is highly respected within the world? In terms of the new EU constitution which is being drafted your identity would be protected. You would be free to worship as you see fit and lead your lives in peace and prosperity. Also you could create a real future for your children and your children's children. So what is the problem?

by rooster Wed Jan 12, 2005 13:10

Protestants have fared very well in the Republic.

-So how come since partition the protestant community in the republic reduced by 50%every decade, do you call that faring well? Compare that to the blossoming of the catholic population north of the border.


What is the attraction of clinging to an area of land, which the Brits are trying to off load,

-We have been on this land for the best part of a millenium and will be here for another millenium, get used to it.


which is economically poor relative to other parts of Europe, and especially to The Republic, when you could become part of a thriving economy

-the republics economic success has been largely the result of EU funding, you know those signs on the side of the road with the blue flag and gold stars? Sorry, I forgot you were in south africa!!


In terms of the new EU constitution which is being drafted your identity would be protected. You would be free to worship as you see fit and lead your lives in peace and prosperity.

-And what if we saw the orange marches as expression of our culture/religon, would you accept orangeism in exchange for a 32 county Ireland? we had those promises before and accepted them until mr devilera came along.
You see I have had this discussion many times before with irish people and that is how I know you are not south african.

by South African Friend of Ireland Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:13

"So how come since partition the protestant community in the republic reduced by 50%every decade, do you call that faring well? Compare that to the blossoming of the catholic population north of the border."

- One has to ascertain the reason for them leaving. Your bitterness towards the Republic assumes it has to be on sectarian grounds. Maybe it really has something to do with the fact that until recently the Republic was an agrarian economy with a low standard of living thanks to the Brits doing the grab for the industrialised North. By the way, nice to see how Harland and Wolff that one time bastion of Orange employment are now doing.

As for the Catholic population blossoming north of the border, well these two points are mutually exclusive. You seem to forget the way the Brits engineered the border in order to secure a Protestant majority in the North. That's why a numskull like Ian Paisley was able to stand up on his hind legs and thunder on about until the people of Northern Ireland so wish it, Ulster will remain part of the United Kingdom. If the Catholics are taking him at his word who are you to criticise?


" We have been on this land for the best part of a millenium and will be here for another millenium, get used to it."

- You probably will.....as part of a United Ireland. I have no problem with that.



"the republics economic success has been largely the result of EU funding, you know those signs on the side of the road with the blue flag and gold stars? Sorry, I forgot you were in south africa!! "

- Your bitterness even extends to being envious of the Republic's good fortunes.
Yes, you are right. EU funding has played a role in the development of its economy. But your downright ignorance and bitterness has cause you to miss the following which are undisputed facts supported by EU, OECD and World Bank economists:

1. The Republic has invested heavily in education and training since the Sixties. That is now paying off as the country produces an ongoing stream of scientific and engineering graduates which potential investors find an attractive proposition.

2. The country has a low corporation tax rate.

3. There has been an increase in labour market participation by females, and a high proportion of the population is of working age.

4. Human capital availability is further enhanced by the reverse trend of emigration towards immigration.

5. The country has a more stable public finance position.

6. FDInvestors can repatriate a good part of their profits.

In a nutshell a most attractive place to invest.

The truth of the matter is that The Irish have taken what they have been given, have made it work for them and have built on it. No wonder you are so bitter. You seem to forget that the economy of the Six Counties has been propped up by the UK for decades. THE REPUBLIC IS NOT BEING PROPPED UP BY THE EU THE WAY THE SIX COUNTIES ARE BEING PROPPED UP BY THE UK !!! The Republic have proven themselves to be worthy recipients of any transfers. Their GDP per capita is about the fourth highest in the world after the US, Norway and Luxembourg.



"And what if we saw the orange marches as expression of our culture/religon, would you accept orangeism in exchange for a 32 county Ireland? we had those promises before and accepted them until mr devilera came along."

- I never knew Orangeism was a religion. And as for it being a culture.......well............I suppose maybe one day cows, and pigs for that matter, will fly.

by Barry Thu Jan 13, 2005 15:09

One of the reasons why the protestant population fell intthe 26 cos was the generous grants offered by the Stormont parliament for them to relocate north. Also there was the problem of the brain drain. Many protestant families sent their sons to be educated at universities in Scotland and England, they quite simply never returned. Exactly the same things been happening in the north for decades.

Then theres the simple fact that many protestants simply intermarried with catholics. This is true in my own area, were many traditionally "protestant" families are today mixed with catholics, and very happy they are too.

Thats what happens when people simply wise up and stop being orange bigots and actually "love thy neighbour", instead of burning them out like the orangemen do.

by South African Friend of Ireland Thu Jan 13, 2005 15:32

Barry,

I've noticed that Rooster has conveniently said nothing about the Bombay Street burnings I mentioned in an earlier posting.

by Dan Again Thu Jan 13, 2005 16:40

At risk of being seen as Barry's lone fan, but anyway :)

What you say is true about Protestants in the South and their relationships with Catholic neighbours.

There are Protestants married into my own family and they are just bods in the family, no one takes very much notice of their beliefs. Certainly no one would ever think of being hostile to them on the basis of theological fights in Central Europe hundreds of years ago. They are merely liked or disliked on the basis of their personalities, just like everyone else.

Recently we had a family death and there was huge support from the whole community, Catholic and Protestant. It was particularly noticeable though the support and effort Protestant familes put into helping out, this wasn't because of the marriage relationship though, just because they are good neighbours. Most of the younger ones would be involved in the GAA, older ones attend cards and bingo, etc. in the Catholic parish hall and all go to weddings, funerals, etc. in each others places of worship.

This is called normal behaviour and getting on with others in your community.

by Toad Alley Oarsum Thu Jan 13, 2005 20:52

It's a grave pity that this thread has been hi-jacked from its original points, which essentially were three:
[1] Sean Russell's self-evident willingness to support Nazi Germany against all-comers (Was he not in Germany before the collapse of France and the invasion of Scandinavia? Was anyone unaware of Nazi persecution of Jews and others by the outbreak of War?);
[2] Whether Ireland needs a mean and miserable statue or memorial to this man;
[3] Whether the defacing of the statue was an act of politics or of art-criticism.

There are valid sidelines still to be explored:
[1] Why Russell and Frank Ryan have both been airbrushed out of history [e.g Tim Pat Coogan];
[2] The complicity of the Fianna Fail leadership [say, from the 1930s to the 1960s] in taking the then Free State and later Republic down the road of imitating factional Iberian nationalism rather than building a progressive egalitarian republic: Russell was not unique.

by Anne phoblact Thu Jan 13, 2005 21:54

A Dublin statue to the old IRA man was attacked by a group of young anti-fascists and had its head and right arm lopped off. Unfortunate timing, that, given that 2005 is set to be such a big year for Sean's political heirs...

This year marks the centenary of the founding of Sinn Fein by Arthur Griffith. Oddly enough, Sinn Fein are not the only political party in Ireland now claiming the sadly unIrish sounding Mr Griffiths as their own. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the PDs are just a few of those who, for reasons too boring to go into, can also style themselves the rightful heirs of old Arthur.

Needless to say though, Sinn Fein are set to make the most hay from this year's centenary. So what are we to expect from 2005 - The International Year of Caitriona Ruane? (Caitriona is officer co-ordinating the centenary "celebrations.")

An exhibition, perhaps, on the theme One Hundred Years of Hate - from colluding with Hitler to sectarian mass murder in Northern Ireland?

Alas no.

What we are more likely to get is a 12-month long promotion on the post-modern image of cuddly Sinn Fein as a bunch of politically correct tree huggers. Sound as a Northern Bank £50 note, missus.

What we will get is Sinn Fein packaged in biodegradable fluffiness and targeted primarily at an audience too young to remember the horrors of the 30-plus years of the Troubles.

During those years the IRA was responsible for almost 2000 murders; the vast majority innocent civilians, many targeted purely and simply because they were Protestant.

The IRA was, and is, a hate-driven bunch of bigots. Sinn Fein was, and is, no different. What are the chances though, of any of this being reflected in this year's "celebrations"?

Will we be provided with, say, a monthly reminder of past IRA atrocities - Teebane, Claudy, La Mon, Enniskillen, Tullyvallen, the Shankill - with an accompanying recap on the "justification" the Sinn Fein spokespersons of the day provided?

Of course not. Sinn Fein, aiming as it is for the youth vote, is now loathe to draw attention to that bit on the CV of its armed wing that features sectarian carnage.

It's OK for the young to be reminded of the hunger strikers. But sssh, not a word to them about IRA victims.

This then will be a year big on murals but short on historical accuracy. Adolf himself would be impressed with the propaganda. Which brings me back to the hapless, and now headless, Sean Russell.

For Sean wasn't only a friend of Shinners but a big mate of Adolf and the Nazis. During the Second World War as commanding officer of the IRA he led a murder campaign in both the UK and Ireland. England's difficulty and all that...

He eventually died on a U-boat (natural causes, allegedly.)

Now you would think that new millennium Sinn Fein would not wish to be associated with Sean's sort.

Not a bit of it.

In 2003, Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Fein MEP, spoke at a commemoration to Russell in Dublin's Fairview Park where his statue still (just about) stands. Also addressing that rally was leading IRA man Brian Keenan.

But in Dublin, others have taken exception to their capital having the dubious distinction of being the only city in Europe which still boasts a statue of a Nazi collaborator.

And the fact that this is the Shinner centenary obviously did not weigh so heavily with those young people, as did another anniversary.

In 2005, Europe is commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

In a statement the statue beheaders point out: "Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 1945.

"Sean Russell was one of many nationalist fanatics who looked to Hitler for political and military support in the IRA's quest to reunify Ireland at the point of the bayonets of the Gestapo.

It goes on: "Russell sought to overthrow the government of Eamon De Valera by fomenting terror and sabotage in the shipyards and munitions factories of Northern Ireland.

"In Belfast, IRA volunteers were ordered to help the Luftwaffe bomb their own city at the cost of nearly 2,000 dead and thousands made homeless.

"At the Wannsee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the 'Final Solution', the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators in Sinn Fein and the IRA to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition."

The statue of Sean, which was erected after the war by Sinn Fein originally had its right arm raised in a Nazi style salute. This arm, lopped off by communist protesters in the Fifties was later replaced.

How fitting that Sean and his decommissioned arms should, just as the Shinners prepare to "celebrate" their centenary, hit the headlines and remind the world of that party's true fascist roots.

As Tony himself might agree - however you try to spin it, you can never quite escape from the hand of history.

by Barry Thu Jan 13, 2005 22:06

Sean Russell willing to defend Germany against all comers ? Please back this daft little assertion up. The historical evidence I believe makes it perfectly clear - Russell was neither pro-german or pro-nazi. Who did he defend germany against ? please identify who and how ?

It is absolutely clear Russell sought only to defend his country against British imperialism. They have behaved like facists, engaging in genocide, terror and intimidation. Everything hitler did to the jews, Britain did it here first, probably a main reason for his admiration of them. The main difference is gas chambers werent invented in 1847. Had they been I have no doubt england would have used them against our people in days gone by.

Russell merely sought German arms. This was an entirely legitimate act as IRA Chief of staff, as his country was subject to foreign occupation. It was simply his duty to seek war material from any source as long as there was no strings attached. It is also clear russells refusal to adopt nazi ideology ensured he never recieved a single round.

If republicans today sought arms from Iraq for instance, that would not make them muslim fundamentalists.

Ill pose a serious question to his critics in the south. How many of them would have liked to live under the Stormont regime ? What would have been your response to it. How do you think youd have felt being brought up, and bringing up your kids as second class citizens in a bigoted militaristic, one party regime ? How would you have felt if your family was subject to blatant discrimination, Draconian laws and periodic state backed Kristalnachts and pogroms Would you not have a right to resist this.

Perhaps a stern letter to the Irish times might have sorted it out. ?

I notice noone has answered my earlier question either. Were the Finnish people Nazi collaborators simply because they sought german assistance when faced with the Russian occupation of their country at that time. Were they wrong for resisiting ?

If I was to use the logic of Russells critics, I would have to assume that those who desecrated his statue are supporters of the Stormont regime which he sought to topple.

It seems to me peoples own inbred anti republican prejudices are blinding them to the situation in this country. Russell was an Irishman, with balls. His country was occupied, his people oppressed. He had every right to seek guns and explosives to end that occupation from whoever would give it. End of story.

by paddy whack Fri Jan 14, 2005 00:25 paddywhack at netscaper dot com

About time.

From the Times:

"A statue to Sean Russell, who died on board a German U-boat in 1940, was left headless after an attack by youths in Fairview Park in Dublin."

"As the group that looks after the statue admitted that it is almost certainly beyond repair, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris called for it to be left unrestored as an enduring symbol of Ireland’s “shame”. "

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 00:44

Israel has a lot more to be ashamed about than Ireland. Theyd be better off lecturing their murdering Zionist associates than Irish republicans.

This issue has nothing to do with Simon Wiesenthal or Paris. They should keep their noses out of it.

That Kevin bloody Myers is quoted along with them says it all.

by Linguist Fri Jan 14, 2005 03:00

Barry,
"Brilliant" is not a word anyone should use in the same sentence as "Kevin Myers".
Just goes to show how you Irish Republicans are determined to destroy the English language.

by Shinner, gone a while Fri Jan 14, 2005 03:06

I look forward to his commemeration, head or none he was a great volunter of the republican movement and will be remeberd as such. Tiocfaidh ar La.

by crusty clouter. Fri Jan 14, 2005 03:13

Sat. 10th September - Vol. Seán Russell Commemoration, North Strand

You are all welcome to attend if you want mo chara.

by re ; LINGUIST Fri Jan 14, 2005 03:55

I know my "brilliant" comment was sarcastic, but now youve pointed it out Im absolutely horrified.

Thats atrocious, even for me.

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 03:57

And now Ive typed the wrong name in above as well, as a result of my shock and horror.

by Tom Stone - Anti-Yank Fri Jan 14, 2005 04:17 clan_man12000 at yahoo dot ie

Barrys post (thursday-13) sums it all up!Thanks for that post, Barry.

As for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, they excercise an emotive and moral monopoly on Jewish human suffering, that is somehow designed to dictate the rest of humanity into a unquestionable, universal moral framework. It is shameful how they can still promote their emotive history for political and moral leveraging with little regard to what is modern Germany today, and for that matter, what the modern world is today. Its shameful how children are shot on sight at Israeli checkpoints, and its shameful that the very same oppression the SM centre elucidates, is embedded, in the Israeli view of Palestinians.

I salute those in the past, that faced up to British oppression. How funny, with that act of vandalism, Irelands non-existant shameful past was taken up by irresponsible journalist s and editors, who were very much aware of the emotive currency of the story.

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 04:32

Germany has been profusely apologising for the crimes committed in its name for the last 60 years, non stop almost.

Britain continues to occupy this country, and does not even refer to it as an occupation, simply a "policing matter", inferring that the Irish people are savages only they can control. It has NEVER apologised for its genocide . The closest we got was Blair calling it "unfortunate".

It is a crime internationally to deny the Nazi holocaust. The Irish genocide is simply referred to as a "famine". People were deliberately starved to death. The glee expressed in the London times sums up the establisments attitude of that time. They rejoiced that an Irishman on the banks of the Shannon would soon be as rare as a native American on the banks of the Hudson. Thats as close a philosohy to "Judenfrei" as youll ever get.

Theres a statue to an Irish traitor in the centre of Dublin, Daniel O'Connell , a brit-licking landlord who collaborated during 1847 in the destruction of his own people, which should be blown to smithereens as far as Im concerned.

He is part of our shameful past, and honoured by those collaborators who control our shameful present. Sean Russell fought for his own people and died a hero. Shame on those who spit on his memory.

by Paddy Whack Fri Jan 14, 2005 09:21

"It is shameful how they can still promote their emotive history for political and moral leveraging with little regard to what is modern Germany today, and for that matter, what the modern world is today. Its shameful how children are shot on sight at Israeli checkpoints, and its shameful that the very same oppression the SM centre elucidates, is embedded, in the Israeli view of Palestinians."

1) Isn't it as shameful that Palestinians blow up and murder Israeli children and are taught to hate jews from an early age? THAT IS GENOCIDE. Zyklon B or Suicide Bomber, all must be comdemned and punished.
2) As for "emotive history" - the history is FACT. Your comment smacks of Le Pen's "detail of history" remark - i.e., you are a holocaust denier.
3) Germany has NOT profuself apologized and still has to be sued in courts for compensation for slave labour and the rest. As for their Neo Nazi groups and an immigration policy that makes Ireland look good (ever heard about the Turks in Germany?), you have got to be joking if you think we should EVER let the Germans forget this.
4) "The Israeli view"? Are you saying all Israelis have that view? How come you can equate Jews with Zionism as use it as post-justification for the holocaust.

Let's not forget the original statue of Herr Russell had his arm raised in Nazi salute... says it all really...

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 09:39

With absolutely no response to my question about living under, and bringing your children up in the bigoted, corrupt, hateful, militaristic, pathologically anti-catholic state Sean Russel wanted to overthrow.

I can only assume then that Russels critics hate Irish catholics and support right wing bigotry, state-backed pogroms, pro-British extremism and religious discrimination.

They certainly believe Irish people had no right to resist this.

Their logic is even more twisted than that so why not.

It sounds like they have no regard whatsoever for the persecution suffered by the people in this country. Except for Devil Dog who believes Irish people died in their 100s of 1000s because they were fussy eaters. No genocide in 1847 is a doozy even for him.

Or maybe I just made all that up as well.

by Noel Fri Jan 14, 2005 09:48

Not knowing so much about Irish history, this thread is a little confusing.

I was led to believe that the Nazis were a pretty nasty bunch. Murdered millions of Jews, Soviet POWs etc. There were even whispers of the Nazi plans to eventually murder all Irish Jews.
Also, I'd heard somewhere that Sean Russell was collaborating with them.

Now, I've also read (a little) about Daniel O'Connell. He helped achieve Catholic Emancipation. He also helped achieve the abolition of slavery and worked towards universal suffrage.

My ideas on heroism are probably old fashioned, and this thread would seem to suggest this. But, as everyone is applauding everyone else on their masterful posts, I hope I haven't stumbled across just more rabid bigots.

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:55

Daniel OConnell was the collaborator, not Sean Russell. He only wanted guns to free his country. That makes him a hero.

The British were, and are, a pretty nasty bunch as well. They murdered millions throughout the world, as well as here, stole their land, and are in fact still doing it.

Yes there are bigots on this site. Because Sean Russell wanted guns to overthrow a rabidly bigoted state, a lot of these people dont like him. Thats why people who think like them attacked Seans statue, and arent brave enough to identify their own group.

These people believe that Irish catholics in the north had no right to free themselves from bigotted rulers and foreign dominion. Therefore we can only assume they agreed with it all.

Perhaps your view on heroism is a little strange, not old fashioned. I dont recall Daniel OConnell, the landlord whose tenants were evicted and starved to death, doing an heroic thing in his miserable, collaborating life.

Hope thats cleared things up for you Noel.

by Jack Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:21

That Myer's quote: Russell "contacted German intelligence in February 1939, days after Hitler had publicly promised that in the event of the war the Jews of Europe would be exterminated."
Is it true?? If so, it's pretty damning.

by Historical Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:53

Daniel O Connell also served in a British supporting Yeomanry Corps which rounded up the rebels after Emmet's failed rebellion in 1803. His opposition to black slavery in the US is praiseworthy and he did make important contributions to it's destruction. However he also repeatedly spoke in the British Parliament opposing laws aimed at ending or restricting the practise of child labour, on the basis that such abolition would 'reduce our manufacturers to beggars' and he was also viciously opposed to trade unions. He urged starving tenants to pay their rent during the Famine, and there is a famous quote from his son on this topic too, something about thanking God that Irish tenants were too honest to deprive their landlord, even if they themselves were dying of hunger. O Connell's whole reputation and fame was built on delivering Catholic Emancipation and this made him a hero in the public eye. It is arguable that the Penal Laws had run their course anyway, some had already been repealed by 1829 and the Act would not have been passed without it having some establishment support outside of Danny himself . But then Dev also built his career and demi-God status on constant attention to his early political career. And, like O Connell, it was all news management and myth making as both had considerable Irish opposition from people who saw through it all. On reports I have read about O Connell's personal/private life he is reported to be a snob obsessed with high society, and also a lecherous old goat. Bit ironic that he is beaming down from O Connell Bridge surrounded by angels.

by Dogmatic Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:47

First of all their is no justification for Israeli State terror and palestinian suicide bombers should be equally condemned. But for someone on this site to try and justify what Israel is doing is reprehensible. This site does not need apologists for state terror.

As for O'Connell, he equated the national struggle in this country with Catholicism, a problem which continues to this day.

As for Russell, people should supply us with historical evidence rather than false information and their own personal prejudices. Its amazing how many revisionists their are on this site.

by Barry Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:59

Your quote is certainly damning for Hitler and for Nazism. Not Sean Russell.

by Jack Fri Jan 14, 2005 13:19

It's certainly damning for Hitler and the Nazis, but why not also Russell? From Hitler's public pronouncements, he would have known exactly what type of scum he was forging an alliance with.
Look Barry, there are plenty of other republican icons who deserve respect and admiration. You wouldn't be betraying their memory by admitting Russell's faults.

by Glenbrook Fri Jan 14, 2005 18:05

The original statue did not have russell doing a nazi salute. It was suspected of being a communist salute. It was based on a photo of him making a speech in 1938. It's arm was broken off by anti-communists several times in the fifties, leading to the remodelling. Guess the poor guy just can't win.

by stoner - Anti-Yank- Sat Jan 15, 2005 04:39 clan_man12000 at yahoo dot ie

I'm reminded of the sacrosanctity of the Jewish holocaust ,everyday of my life. In the eyes of many, its the great paradigm of the inhumanity of man. I wont deny its historical resonance, but I will not accept it as the great paradigm of evil.

I'm not sure how anyone can be described as a "holocaust denier", I'm very much aware of great acts of genocide, and I'm still trying to put the horror of Rwanda into perspective. For that matter, I'm trying not to forget the inhumane UN sanctions that murdered thousands of children in Iraq.

I might sit down and watch a documentary on how the Americans developed and delivered the first Atomic bomb. How should I feel about those victims, or I could examine the countless other deaths America has been responsible for, and come to what conclusion?

Why is it morally reprehensible not to be moved by the holocaust, but acceptable not to be moved by Rwanda or Cambodia?Is it possible, irrespective of numbers, to be a "holocaust denier" in relation to Rwanda?

I'll never deny mans capacity and adeptness at inflicting great horror, but I will challenge how we deal with this industry of horror, and how it shapes the world we live in today, and how we live in the past. Inhumanity did not cease to exist once those camps were liberated, and we should all be reminded of that.

I will not cease to be human if I'm not moved by a holocaust, that I find irrelevant to how we should co-exist today. I'm so much more alive than those who continue to be moved. If you want mention history repeating itself, well...it has. Who can deny that?

by Barry Sat Jan 15, 2005 19:36

The reason I posted on this topic was not to glamorise republican "icons". It is because I am extremely angry with the attack by nameless cowards upon Sean Russells statue.

I am also angry with the false smearing of the mans name by utter hypocrites. I know full well that in attackiing and smearing Russell, they are attempting to blacken his cause, and mine, also.

The fact is that Sean Russell was an extremely brave and dedicated Irishman, who was deeply respected by his contemporaries because of his commitment and high moral calibre. To have the likes of Kevin Myers and the Indo blackening his name simply galls me.

It is abundantly clear from Manus O Riordans Times letter, which contains actual historical research, that Russell was not a nazi sympathiser ( "neither pro-nazi or pro-german").

A fascinating book by respected Irish writer Sean Cronin (The McGarrity papers) also covers this episode in depth. It is clear from Cronins work also that both Russell and the nazis viewed their brief meeting as "highly unsatisfactory". Russells rejection of their ideology being the number one reason.

Absolutely no-one, including those who attacked his statue, has produced a single pro-nazi, anti-jewish or racist comment from Russell. That is because no such thing exists.

As objectionable as the Nazis were, and it is clear Russell found them so, the fact is they were possibly the most sophisticated military power the world had seen to date. They were a virtual military super power. Only 20 odd years earlier Germany had supplied arms to Irish rebels. As IRA cheif of staff it was simply his duty to seek war materials from wherever he could. In fact he would have been absolutely stupid not to.

Furthermore one of the first things he sought was the release of one of Irelands most famous socialist revolutionaries, Frank Ryan from facist captivity. Perhaps he should just have let him rot there.

Earlier on I said that Russell displayed some naievete, but on further reflection if I had been in Russells shoes I would have done exactly the same thing. It is inevitable that had Russell not made that trip someone else simply would have done. Englands difficulty was Irelands opportunity, as simple as that. The IRAs bombing campaign was planned and begun prior to war even breaking out.

To us that is simply an historical footnote.It has to be remembered that for those people involved in that struggle, it was a life or death matter. They had staked everything on the success of a noble enterpise. Sean Russell lost his life simply trying to ensure the success of that enterprise.

His mission was simply to acquire arms to free his country, as others had sought to do in the past, no more and no less. He entered into no alliance and made it clear he would accept no strings attached to any arms, the primary reason why he never recieved them.

We now of course have seen the footage of Hitlers camps and the holocaust. Russell was dead long before the world saw those images or understood the true satanic horror. We have the luxury of hindsight Russell didnt. Nor was the man afforded the opportunity to ever explain his actions, or even publicly renounce them. That is why I feel motivated to defend him.

As yet none of Russells detractors have answered my repeated questions about the nature of the Stormont regime Russell sought to overthrow. This speaks volumes about their hypocrisy. While they have plenty to say about distasteful regimes elsewhere, god forbid anyone would seek to overthrow one here. State backed pogroms and Kristalnachts against jews are wrong, but a regime which did it to Irish civilians shouldnt be fought against it seems.

20 odd years after the fall of Berlin, in the midst of the liberated swinging 60s, my own parents were looking for jobs in this corner of Ireland. The newspaper advertisements which carried them often carried a necessary qualification. It read "NO ROMAN CATHOLICS NEED APPLY". Think about living under such a system. Think about your own childrens dignity as human beings being brought up in it as second class citizens. Then tell me why Sean Russell shouldnt have fought to get rid of it.

Gallant little England which Russell "stabbed in the back" were the bastards responsible for it.

by Revolutionary Sat Jan 15, 2005 19:46

Well said. The problem with many lefties in this country is that it is OK to support revolutions elsewhere, Palestine, Nicaragua, South Africa etc as long as its not here in Ireland.

by Mr Perspective Sat Jan 15, 2005 20:26

has it occurred to you that maybe the situations on Nicaragua, Palestine, South Africa etc were slightly worse than they are in Ireland today?

Its one thing to support revolution against a racist or feudal regime, its quite another to revolt against a democratic government(however rotten).

by Revolutionary Sat Jan 15, 2005 20:38

Sorry, but what democratic Government was that?

If you are talking about British Rule in Ireland, it was never based on Democracy but on military occupation, sectarianism and the repression of the nationalist community. We had gerrymandering, discrimination, internment and every other form of repression possible here.

In relation to your point that the situation in some of these countries was worse, if you take that to a logical position, you could say that you shouldn'y have supported revolution in South Africa because the situation in Nicaragua was worse.

Repression, whether in Ireland, Nicaragua, Iraq or South Africa or anywhere else needs to be fought, not sided with.

by Barry Sat Jan 15, 2005 21:19

Thats because they are British regimes, which everyone knows we shouldnt fight against - ever. Thats why theres a statue in Dublin to Daniel OConnel who actually DID collaborate in a holocaust - against his own people. Imagine naming the main street of the capital after such an unpleasant individual. A disgraceful turncoat and collaborator who let his own tenants starve to death by the roadsiside and condemned any Irishman who fought against it.

Of course there are people who will insist it was an unfortunate natural occurence and deny Britains role.

And the native Americans perished because buffalos became extinct too.

by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Sun Jan 16, 2005 00:12

Picture taken from Beta News Agency

Beheaded statue of Sean Russell 2004 (c)Beta News Agency "Heading: IRELAND MEMORIAL Date: 13.01.2005."

by always looking at that wall sized poster on parnell sq Sun Jan 16, 2005 00:37

of being a stick to beat mary-lou (goodbye heart) with

i reckon it was mickey mcd wot dun it - he's handy with a ladder from what i've seen in the papers

by Barry Sun Jan 16, 2005 00:46

Theres better sticks than that you could beat her with. If sean russell was alive today Id say hed beat her too, along with her party leader. A slight issue of engaging in collaborative acts might be an issue of dispute.

Sean Russell died trying to import weaponry into Ireland. If hed have been successful, theyd have bloody decommissioned it.

by :-) Sun Jan 16, 2005 13:20

the angry amongst you could replace the head and put it in fine medieval fashion by the remaining arm.
you'll find the activity of arts and crafts very therapeutic, and in the process you'll have to look at photos of the man, was the original statue a good likeness?
was it himself as an old man? or a young man?
was it himself bravely fighting 1916? or himself being the good catholic escaping the firing squad? or himself long after all when like most men who live long lives he went a bit gaga? or was it an idealised face cast in stone?
You can think about all this, and practise with papier mache and when you've got the face just right in a representational sort of way, take up a collection, pay a sculptor or sculptress (there are many) and perhaps they'll carve it for you, and with some string and blue tack and glue you'll be able to put it under the arm, or at the foot or who knows? back on his head.

by Paul Tue Jan 25, 2005 17:44

So much sinn Fein bull on one thread. Fank Ryan returned to Nazi Germany until 44, and worked for Edmond Weisnter who deported serbian jews, face the facts, the IRA werecollaborators. They also received arms from Nazi Germany.

by Barry Tue Jan 25, 2005 18:14

What arms did they recieve, and when ?

by Barry Wed Jan 26, 2005 13:55

(reference to abusive hidden post - ed. 1 0f indymedia).Instead Ill reproduce a letter on behalf of the National Grave Association in reference to this desecration. Indymedia readers may be unaware that this monument was not only to Sean Russell but to others as well. Therefore I believe this is worth posting.

"A Chara,

Over the Christmas period cowardly mindless thugs vandalised a National Monument in Fairview Park. The Sean Russell Monument.

There has been for a number of years a deliberate orchestrated attempt to misinform the public as to the role of Sean Russells fight for Irish Freedom. In some cases inflammatory remarks were made in order to point score, provoke people or indeed highlight their own political importance.

In 2004 during the European elections, remarks calling for the demolition of the monument on the grounds that it was a "symbol of the Third Reich" were not only ignorant, over the top, but also careless. Any incitement against tolerance leads to the path of facism. Sean Russell was no facist ; he was a proud, dedicated Irish Republican. On board the U-Boat with Russell was the great Irish Socialist Frank Ryan who fought against facism during the Spanish Civil War.

The dirty tricks used to blemish the good name of this great Irishman are reminiscent of those used to blacken Roger Casement. The similarity of Casements and Russells actions are identical.

The monument not only honoured Russell but the IRA Volunteers of the forties, the Hungerstrikers Tony Darcy, Sean McNeela and Sean McAughey. The dark forties in neutral Ireland saw the controversial execution of General George Plant. Charlie Kerins stood on the scaffold high, while many more were executed.

The National Graves will repair the damage. An appeal fund will be set up to restore the monument.

Matt Doyle
National Graves Association. "

This monument was in memory to those republicans who died lonely miserable deaths during a very dark, heart-breaking period of our history.

A number died on Hungerstrike, McCaughey on hunger and thirst strike. The British hangman Pierrepoint was engaged by the facist DeValera on many occasions to dispose of his republican opponents. Habeas Corpus was done away with and men sentenced to death in kangaroo courts.

Others were simply gunned down on their way to work by DeValeras Gestapo, Special Branch and the Broy Harriers.

The Curragh Concentration Camp was opened and filled with political dissidents. Republicans incarcerated in this hell hole often found their wooden huts being fired into by trigger-happy free-staters and naturally casualties ensued. This camps regime was bitterly militaristic and anti-republican, and men were brutally beaten as a matter of routine.

The attack on Russells monument is simply an attack on the memory of all these men from that period that republicans today are especially proud of. Therefore I for one am grateful to the NGA on their announcement that this memorial will be rebuilt.

I am also sure that eventually those who desecrated the monument will be identified. Once 2 or 3 people know something it is no longer a secret. People have big mouths, and somewhere along the line word ALWAYS leaks out.

I am fully confident that those responsible for this cowardly vandalism will not only be identified but challenged on their actions at some period in due course.

by put the boot in Wed Jan 26, 2005 23:51

Would that be Frank "the antifa" Ryan who once said: "as long as we have fists
and boots, there will be no free speech for traitors" ....

With role models like that shure 'tis no wonder that poor oul Shauneen lost the head over Christmas .....

by Barry Thu Jan 27, 2005 00:24

What is a "shauneen" , pray tell ?. Is that a word you just made up ?

Ryan was referring to facist traitors, who would remove everyones right to free speech if allowed a foothold. Both he and Russell were quite effective in beating those trash into the holes they crawled out of.

by put the boot in Thu Jan 27, 2005 00:31

Shauneen is merely an anglicisation of "Seáinín", the diminutive of "Seán", which was Mr. Russell´s first name .....

I was affectionately referring to him as "Shauneen" using an anglicised version of the diminutive of his name not calling him a "Shoneen" if that's what you were worried about ....

As Humpty Dumpty once said when I use a word it means exactly what I say it means - no more no less ....

Hope that clarifies matters for you ....

by put the boot in Thu Jan 27, 2005 00:35

Yeah right .... they really put a big dent into the Free State establishment ..... had De Valera shittin' in his shoes ...

That's why the Fifties were such a swinging time south of the border down Mexico way ......

by Barry Thu Jan 27, 2005 00:46

It wasnt exactly a barrel of laughs either. Not even in the 60s.

When I was a kid in the 70s I can remember this horrible little man who was paid by the unionist controlled local council to chain up all the swings on a Saturday evening, to prevent us kids from playing on the "sabbath". That was feckin Taliban territory.

Sean Russel and frank ryan were fighting against that nonsense.

They did a good job against the blueshirts, but I believe I just outlined the facist methods used by Mr DeValera to wipe out opposition to him from within republicanism. And as usual the Catholic Church was staunchly supportive.

If Hitler or Stalin had given Sean the gear he was looking things might have been different.

Dont tell me your going to blame the IRA for Irelands sexually repressed past as well are you ?

by Ugh Horde Thu Jan 27, 2005 01:01

"Dont tell me your going to blame the IRA for Irelands sexually repressed past as well are you ?"
Ah, why not? Maybe we could even blame them for An Gort Mor. Why not. Hugh Orde probably believes it. So I suppose Bertie will have to start believing it too.

by Dublin Exile Thu Jan 27, 2005 16:11

Blame them for the Big Field?
Which field would this be now?
I think we deserve an answer,
Are the IRA responsible for big fields or are they not?
And Who, by the way, is responsible for the wee fields?

by Ugh Horde Thu Jan 27, 2005 16:52

Yes, it should have been 'gorta'. My mistake.
I'm right about bertie though

by Mé Fein Thu Jan 27, 2005 18:09

The only fields that matter are the "four green fields"
Name is brilliant though - "Ugh Horde". Wonder no one thought of it before

by controlling the past is the future made - "dochas linn..." Fri Mar 18, 2005 09:48

"a little titbit" from afar-
In the small hours of St Paddy's day, the government of Spain, hired a crane, a few men and lifted the last statue of Francisco Franco in saddle, on a horse, in uniform off its pedestal and took it & a part of him away from Placa de San Juan de la Cruz, Madrid.

Not however without a place for everyone.

A bunch of ardent Franco-ist supporters were present to give fascist salutes, and today the right wing parties have turned to their media organs to protest such "radical" action by the socialist bunch who govern the state.

by Teddy McNabb - none Thu Mar 10, 2016 13:18

Sinn Féin commemorates Irish International Brigadiers (or Connolly Column) who were members of the Marxist splinter group, Republican Congress formed by ex-IRA man, Frank Ryan and went over to Spain to fight for the vile oppressive Spanish Republican government that had been raping and destroying Catholic churches priests and nuns, except in Basque country.

by O'Sullivan Thu Mar 10, 2016 18:25

@ ryan: The crackpot Irish Christian Front and gullible journalists writing for Independent newspapers publicised atrocity stories about churches being destroyed, priests lynched and nuns being raped, by the leftwing forces fighting against the troops of Generalissimo Franco. Terrible crimes were committed by forces on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, but rapes of nuns were not as extensive as reported at the time. De Valera's government managed to maintain a noninvolvement policy towards the conflict despite the ill-informed attitudes of the clergy and media.

by Rua Sun Mar 13, 2016 09:05

Nazi Collaborator or not - he is still a significant part of our history,we should not look back in shame,other countries have done a lot worse and still do a lot worse than us...