This is awful too..UK troops beating children in Iraq

[Dboy]

This you tube video is a few years old now..posting it to make a point. The video shows UK troops beating children in Iraq,
taunting them, laughing at them, and basically enjoying a little British sadism. You have to login to YouTube in order
to watch this video, due to the violence and cruelty on display. I guess if you can't change their hearts and minds, you just
beat them into submission. Every day we stay in Iraq we create another child who hates the West. Evey day we stay in Iraq we
create another terrorist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmnUQLqcYD0

Every day we stay in Iraq we create another child who hates the West. Evey day we stay in Iraq we
create another terroristOnly one per day? How did you arrive at this statistic - or is it merely a slogan?

The video shows only an excerpt of what happened. Despite the evidence, no action has been taken against any of the soldiers involved, including the NCO who egged on the thugs.
The British media tried to downplay the incident by referring to the kids as "young men"- as if that were justification. In fact, the boys were in their early teens.
The UK government has a record worse even than the US (though not Israel) in covering up war-crimes. This petty sadism may not be a war-crime on the level of Haditha, Jenin or Fallujah but it aptly demonstrates the racism that lies at the heart of UK and US policies in the Middle East.

[Marsilius]

"Evey [sic.] day we stay in Iraq we create another terrorist" - Dboy, above.

Well, as long as every day we stay there we are managing to kill at least two terrorists, we're staying on top.

The UK government has a record worse even than the US (though not Israel) in covering up war-crimes. .

and the original poster mentioned "British sadism"

come on guys - sadism is sadism and a war crime is a war crime - the nationality of whoever commits such acts is wholly irrelevant

there is a little bit too much of brits trying to bash the yanks and the yanks trying to bash the brits on these boards - so much for our special relationship!

when something is fundamentally morally wrong and repugnant the nationality of who does it is surely not the point

it is all a case of examples of man's imhumanity towards man - simple as surely?

there is a little bit too much of brits trying to bash the yanks and the yanks trying to bash the brits on these boards - so much for our special relationship!Purely a slogan for politicians

lol i know that (my tongue was in my cheek.....................i can think of better places to put it though hehehe), but my underlying point was, we're all gay, and we all love thailand, so why all this bashing each other on the forum based on our nationalities - kinda sadistic in itself :violent1:

... my underlying point was, we're all gay, and we all love thailand, so why all this bashing each other on the forum based on our nationalities - kinda sadistic in itself As opposed to "naive", which is what your attitude is, I'm sorry to say. You want to infer some solidarity based on sexual and location preferences? A very thin offering, I'm afraid. Disputes between heterosexual neighbours, and how to resolve them, forms a large part of the legal system in any part of the world

Yarden might like to ponder why it is that yesterday the NatWest three were imprisoned under a legal arrangement by which British Citizens can be extradited to the American "Justice" system that is not reciprocated. Blair should stand trial for more than his war crimes in Iraq IMNSHO.

...there is a little bit too much of brits trying to bash the yanks and the yanks trying to bash the brits on these boards - so much for our special relationship!....


Well the Brits burned Washington DC to the ground in 1814 (you can still see the charred collums at the White House) and Queen Victoria almost backed the Confederates in the Civil war. And there's always been a tension between the Pro British Anglicans and Pro French Catholics in this country. Not to mention the fact that there are more Irishmen here than in Ireland.

But still, when the chips are down we instinctively know which side we're on. There was quite an argument in WW1 weather to back the Germans or British/French in that war. Many German immigrants in the US. But ultimately we knew which side was right.

And even though we held back for a LOOOONG time in WW2 we knew which side we had to be on. The thought of Britian, standing alone after Dunkirk and facing the full force of the Nazi war machine - ALONE - is enough to give them a Free Pass in America's book for a long, long time. Britian literally saved the World for Democracy. Yes - Their Finest Hour.

This Yank might not want to sing "Rule Britannia" but will always join in a chorus of "There'll Always Be an England".

BTW, I've also noticed there's a split on the Boards and in Pattaya between the Brits and the Yanks.
And I think its a shame.

homintern u can call me naive if you want - a preferable label to being called a cynic, which I hope i never become.

my point is this board is about gay - about thailand - and about interesting stories from around the world - it surely isnt meant for small minded generalisations about people based on their nationalities - those kind of broad statements putting all "brits" on the one hand and all "yanks" on the other is very stupid to say the least, and that was the point I was making.

[Marsilius]

kenc: your reading of history is somewhat askew, I am afraid.

The reason that the US ultimately joined the cause that Britain had already been fighting for more than two years was not that America chose to do it altruistically as the right thing ("we knew which side we had to be on") but that, on 11 December 1941 and as a gesture of support to his Japanese allies, Hitler declared war on the USA!

While the 7 December attack on Pearl Harbour meant that the US was thereafter at de facto war with Japan, there was - as many Americans at the time pointed out - no need for America to commit itself to war in Europe too... until Hitler, four days later, decided the issue for them.

[Bob]

kenc: your reading of hisrtory is somewhat askew, I am afraid.


While not that relevant, suggesting the US only got involved in the war in Europe because of Hitler's declaration is a bit simplistic. While there was no declared war nor, supposedly, active shooting between the US and Germany (other than in the Atlantic naval lanes), the US was already heavily involved in support of Britain long before December of 1941. The US was already on the march to war against the Axis when the Japanese and Germans made it more official.

[Aunty]

kenc: your reading of hisrtory is somewhat askew, I am afraid.


While not that relevant, suggesting the US only got involved in the war in Europe because of Hitler's declaration is a bit simplistic. While there was no declared war nor, supposedly, active shooting between the US and Germany (other than in the Atlantic naval lanes), the US was already heavily involved in support of Britain long before December of 1941. The US was already on the march to war against the Axis when the Japanese and Germans made it more official.

Shame they weren't marching a bit quicker then, wasn't it? For while the Americans were dawdling people from my country, 12,000 miles away from Nazi Germany, were fighting and dying in Europe from day one.

[Bob]

Shame they weren't marching a bit quicker then, wasn't it? For while the Americans were dawdling people from my country, 12,000 miles away from Nazi Germany, were fighting and dying in Europe from day one.

Dern, Aunty, some might view those sentiments as just a bit ingratious. Just be happy you're not currently speaking German or Russian.....

[Aunty]

kenc: your reading of hisrtory is somewhat askew, I am afraid.


While not that relevant, suggesting the US only got involved in the war in Europe because of Hitler's declaration is a bit simplistic. While there was no declared war nor, supposedly, active shooting between the US and Germany (other than in the Atlantic naval lanes), the US was already heavily involved in support of Britain long before December of 1941. The US was already on the march to war against the Axis when the Japanese and Germans made it more official.

Shame they weren't marching a bit quicker then, wasn't it? For while the Americans were dawdling people from my country, 12,000 miles away from Nazi Germany, were fighting and dying in Europe from day one.

Surely, the fact that your country is part of a Commonwealth and worships the same head of state as the UK had something to do with that..

To a certain extent you are correct. New Zealand at that time did have very strong family and trading links with the UK, (and it was part of the British Empire - the 'Commonwealth' as it is today actually came after the war) that did indeed play a major role in its decision to declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland, but we were not obligated by those ties to go to war and the decision had to be made by the New Zealand Government itself. It was not made for us. And unlike the United States, we actually declared war on Germany first (and one of the first countries to do so), the Germans then declared war on us.

New Zealand at that time was, like Canada and Australia, an independent nation. We could have sat back and said it's 12,000 miles away, it's not our war. But New Zealand has always had a strong sense of its international obligations and the sort of world that it wants to live in and a willingness to engage in the world to bring that about. So the decision to go to war was taken to be in the national interests of New Zealand (and the desire of our people) for Europe to be free of Nazi tyranny, and of course to fully support Britain (our family) from what was going to inevitably be an all out attack by Germany.

In those days there was a strong sense of family among the nations of the British Empire, so when you threatened one, you essentially threatened all. Even those who had no family or cultural ties to the UK, like the indigenous people of New Zealand, the Maori, went off to fight because they felt it was their obligation to. It's a great pity that the American people didn't share that sense of obligation to the world back in the 1930's as the outcome for it in the 1940s may have been very different? But I think it learnt.

I guess looking back on it we went to war with Germany (and Japan) becuase we wanted to, whereas the US went to war with both Germany and Japan becuase it had to.

Words from Mr M. J. Savage (the Prime Minister of New Zealand) at the declaration of war against Germany.

тАШNot in anger but in sorrow, not in lightheartedness, but with heavy hearts, not in hatred but with a grave sense of great responsibility to mankind and to the future of humanity, not in malice and revenge, but with a prayer of peace on our lips, the British people today dedicate themselves to the work of overthrowing the oppressor and freeing the peoples of the earth from bondage and slavery to a ruthless and cruel tyrannyтАЩ.

And more from the same history text.....

Similarly Savage emphasised that тАШnone of us has any hatred for the German peopleтАЩ, that the true enemy was Nazism, тАШmilitant and insatiable paganismтАЩ. тАШTo destroy it but not the great nation which it has so cruelly cheated, is the task of those who have taken up arms against Nazism.тАЩ He concluded his speech with words which at once assumed New Zealand's independent nationhood and stressed the link with BritainтАФтАШBoth with gratitude for the past, and with confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go, where she stands, we stand. We are only a small and young nation, but we are one and all a band of brothers, and we march forward with a union of hearts and wills to a common destiny.тАЩ

kenc: your reading of history is somewhat askew, I am afraid.

The reason that the US ultimately joined the cause that Britain had already been fighting for more than two years was not that America chose to do it altruistically as the right thing ("we knew which side we had to be on") but that, on 11 December 1941 and as a gesture of support to his Japanese allies, Hitler declared war on the USA! ....

OOF! Talk about askew! As soon as we declared war on Japan Hitler was obliged by treaty to declare war on us, though there was some technical/legalistic argument that he didn't have to. In any case we had no army with which to fight Hitler until 1942. If we had declared war earlier the only results would have been a)the Japanese would have been obliged to declare war on us and b) it would have been open season on US merchant shipping in the Atlantic which at the time was sending gobs of war material and food to Britian.

And Aunty....

...It's a great pity that the American people didn't share that sense of obligation to the world back in the 1930's as the outcome for it in the 1940s may have been very different? But I think it learnt.

I guess looking back on it we went to war with Germany (and Japan) becuase we wanted to, whereas the US went to war with both Germany and Japan becuase it had to. ...

HOO WHEE! What a Crock. Churchill had to drag Britian by the hair, kicking and screaming to stand up against Hitler. Before that Britian was following a stupid and cynical policy of Appeasement hoping to avoid war at any cost and secretly hoping Hitler would take care of the Bolsheviks for them. The sellout of Czeckoslovakia in '38 was absolutely appaling. The sight of that silly little man Chamberlain waving his silly little white paper about has to be one of the LOWEST points of British history. In fact I would argue that until 1940 Hitler was Europe's problem to deal with, not America's. I would further argue that until May of 1940 Britian and France were also dawdling - thinking that the Maginot Line would stop the Nazis once and for all.
Of course the Maginot Line turned out to be as brittle as the crust on top of a creme brulee and in no time France was overrun and the British were almost destroyed at Dunkirk.
Then, finally, everyone realized that Churchill was right all along about the Nazis.

Aw shit. Why are we fighting about this? America and Britian did end up fighting shoulder to shoulder. There were a couple thousand dead American boys on Omaha Beach - most no older than the Thai bar boys we're so fond of. Isn't that enough to make amends?
Can't we all just sit down and have a beer together and be friends forcrissake? :occasion5:

[Aunty]

And Aunty....

...It's a great pity that the American people didn't share that sense of obligation to the world back in the 1930's as the outcome for it in the 1940s may have been very different? But I think it learnt.

I guess looking back on it we went to war with Germany (and Japan) becuase we wanted to, whereas the US went to war with both Germany and Japan becuase it had to. ...

HOO WHEE! What a Crock. Churchill had to drag Britian by the hair, kicking and screaming to stand up against Hitler.

Well that's all terribly interesting I'm sure kenc, but what does Winston Churchill have to do with New Zealand's decision to declare war on Germany in Sept. 1939? Winston wasn't even the Prime Minister of the UK at that time and he certainly had no say over New Zealand's foreign policy or right to declare war. Moreover it was Chamberlain who took the UK to war with Germany in 1939, not Churchill. So in that regard at least Chamberlain did stand up to Hitler, who gambled one too many times and lost.

But lets face it, the United States was free at anytime it chose to to get itself involved in opposing the Nazis in Europe from 1939 onwards. Unlike Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, South Africa, and Great Britain it chose not to until the choice was made for it. That's the history dude!

[Bob]

It's difficult to understand the underlying complaining tone, Aunty. I'm sure Germany quaked in its boots when New Zealand declared war against them, right?

Seriously, New Zealand lost nearly 12,000 military personnel in the war and the US and the UK lost over 400,000 military and civilians each. There are estimates that over 73 million people died in that war, a testament to man's inhumanity to man.

...and let's all remember whose side Thailand was on.

It's difficult to understand the underlying complaining tone, AuntyYou forget that Kiwis (or in Aunty's case, closet Australians) are so evenly balanced - they have a chip on both shoulders

[cottmann]

.....In those days there was a strong sense of family among the nations of the British Empire,... тАЩ

Not all the self-governing countries in the British Empire declared war on the Axis Powers - the Irish Free State remained neutral during the Second World War (known at The Emergency), although many Irishmen and women served in the ranks of the British and other (including the US) armed forces. Despite being officially neutral, therefore, Ireland suffered casualties. In 1995 the-then Irish Prime Minister (John Bruton) claimed at least 10,000 Irish were killed serving in the British or Commonwealth armed forces. Eighteen Irishmen killed in the US Forces were initially buried in various U.S. military cemeteries on the Continent but their remains were returned to Ireland in 1948-1949 for re-interment at the request of their next-of-kin.


HOO WHEE! What a Crock. Churchill had to drag Britian by the hair, kicking and screaming to stand up against Hitler. ... тАЩ

If Churchill had to drag the British kicking and screaming into the war, there is some evidence that F D Roosevelt did the same thing with the USA. With regard to Pearl Harbor and the Japanese attack, there is some evidence that this was neither unexpected nor unprovoked, as a consequence of steps taken by the USA and outlined in what is known as the McCollum memo - Google it for yourselves. There is also some evidence that the US Administration deliberately left US citizens in The Philippines to be captured, e.g., Frances Cogan, a professor at the University of Oregon and author of "Captured: The Internment of American civilians in the Philippines 1941-1945," said of the US government's reasons for its actions. "It was thought that if they moved the Americans out of the Philippines, it would look like we were going to launch a war against Japan. Another reason was to keep the Filipino people from feeling they had been deserted and left to rot."

Italy and Germany (in that order) did indeed declare war on the US under their Axis treaty obligations.


If we had declared war earlier the only results would have been a)the Japanese would have been obliged to declare war on us and b) it would have been open season on US merchant shipping in the Atlantic which at the time was sending gobs of war material and food to Britian. ... тАЩ

While it is widely known that the US did support the British Empire, France, the Soviet Union and China before it entered the war under the so-called Lend-Lease Program, it is less widely realized is the the UK (at least) repaid its debt in full on December 29 2006 (the last working day of the year), with a final payment of $83.3 million on a debt whose principal had been estimated on 31 March 2001 at $US346,287,953 (at the exchange rate on that day). Reverse Lend Lease, i.e., reciprocal aid from countries like New Zealand, may actually have exceeded their receipts under Lend Lease, too, (GI Roundtable Pamphlet Series). In 1942 alone the British Empire provided $US 8 billion worth of services and goods to U.S. forces that were overseas.

What is also not realized is that Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements - radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research - that the US got for free (no intellectual copyright payments there!). The value of these inventions is never factored into what the US got in return for Lend Lease, however.


....There were a couple thousand dead American boys on Omaha Beach - ... тАЩ
Without in any way wishing to detract from the US sacrifice on Omaha Beach, the official figure is that losses there totaled more than 3,000 men including a thousand dead. Different sources cite different numbers of Allied and US losses for D Day, e.g., The D-Day Museum in Portsmouth (England) claims a total of 2,500 Allied troops died, the US Heritage Foundation claims 4,900 U.S. dead on D-Day while the U.S. Army Center of Military History cites a total casualty figure for U.S. forces at 6,036 (but this number combines dead and wounded in the D-Day battles), and John Keegan (an American Historian and Author) believed that 2,500 Americans died along with 3,000 British and Canadian troops on D-Day.

Of course, one could go further back in time, and blame WWII on Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter WWI and the influence on the Versailles Peace Treaty - but that may be getting into counterfactual history!

Thank you for that military expose, Colonel.

[cottmann]

Thank you for that military expose, Colonel.

I wonder if you understood it?

Sorry, Curious, but you continue to be wrong on who I am but you continue to be as tedious (i.e., wearisome; tiresome; dreary) as always! You obviously get some perverse sort of pleasure from imagining matching posters' identities, so I wonder if you are actually a troll?

[Marsilius]

"Not all the self-governing countries in the British Empire declared war on the Axis Powers - the Irish Free State remained neutral during the Second World War" - cottmann, above.

Sorry, cottmann, but you are factually incorrect...

In fact, by the time of the Second World War the Irish Free State no longer existed, having come to an end on 29 December 1937 when it was replaced by the Republic of Ireland. The latter owed no allegiance to the British Crown or Empire and so there was no self-interested need for Ireland to join the Allied side.

On the question of whether the Irish Republic ought to have joined the Allied cause for MORAL reasons, they do seem to have had a pretty warped sense of morality at the time. Why the hell, for instance, did the Republic's Prime Minister Eamon de Valera go to the German Embassy in Dublin on 30 April 1945, in the war's final days, and sign the official book of condolence for Adolf Hitler? After all, this was some time after the liberation of many concentration and extermination camps and the exposure of the Nazi government's crimes against humanity.

[thaiworthy-old]

. . . and by the way, thank you for a lovely war!


" . . . Why the hell, for instance, did the Republic's Prime Minister Eamon de Valera go to the German Embassy in Dublin on 30 April 1945, in the war's final days, and sign the official book of condolence for Adolf Hitler? After all, this was some time after the liberation of many concentration and extermination camps and the exposure of the Nazi government's crimes against humanity.

There was a book of condolence for Adolph Hitler? Unbelievable! I've got to find out more about this! (Here I come Google).

Utterly amazing! The mind boggles.

[cottmann]

"Not all the self-governing countries in the British Empire declared war on the Axis Powers - the Irish Free State remained neutral during the Second World War" - cottmann, above.

Sorry, cottmann, but you are factually incorrect...

In fact, by the time of the Second World War the Irish Free State no longer existed, having come to an end on 29 December 1937 when it was replaced by the Republic of Ireland. The latter owed no allegiance to the British Crown or Empire and so there was no self-interested need for Ireland to join the Allied side..

Of course, Marsilius, you are correct that the Irish Free State ended in 1937 - I really don't know why I used the term instead of Eire (or Ireland), which is what Eamon de Valera's constitution called the country because it implied that the six counties of Northern Ireland were part of the new state. Technically, however, although the 1937 constitution established the post of President of Ireland the country was not a Republic because the President in law replaced the Governor-General and was elected by the people instead of being appointed, but the head of state (particularly in representing the country internationally) continued to be the King of Ireland - George VI. Ireland formally did not become a Republic till December 1948, when the Republic of Ireland Act passed to the President of Ireland the functions previously preserved to the Irish monarch.

Although the country certainly owed no allegiance to the BRITISH crown (after all, the Irish Crown was separate), the country was still a member of the British Empire/Commonwealth in 1939, enjoying Dominion status under the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The Republic declared in 1948 was a member of the Commonwealth till early 1949, however, when its membership was automatically terminated because it had declared itself a Republic and did not seek (and has not sought) re-admission to the Commonwealth.


On the question of whether the Irish Republic ought to have joined the Allied cause for MORAL reasons, they do seem to have had a pretty warped sense of morality at the time. Why the hell, for instance, did the Republic's Prime Minister Eamon de Valera go to the German Embassy in Dublin on 30 April 1945, in the war's final days, and sign the official book of condolence for Adolf Hitler? After all, this was some time after the liberation of many concentration and extermination camps and the exposure of the Nazi government's crimes against humanity.

On the question of whether Ireland ought to have joined the Allies on MORAL grounds, the same could be asked of Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal - and perhaps even of the USA itself till 1941! On the other hand, at the beginning of the war in 1939, there was considerable anti-British feeling - partly because of the 800 years of colonial history, partly because of British reaction to the Easter Uprising of 1916, partly because of bad feelings aroused by the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921, and partly because De Valera played politics - he didn't think he could help the British and still stay in power. You have to remember, too, that he had personal cause to hate the UK - he would have been shot in 1916 except for the fact that he was actually a US citizen at the time (he was born in New York), which was the only thing that save him from the firing squad. Irish neutrality, too, was actually pro-Allied, e.g., German soldiers, airmen, etc, who landed in Ireland were interned; Allied servicemen were mostly allowed to cross into Northern Ireland. Allied aircraft actually refueled at Shannon or at Foynes, and in 1941 (in a breach of neutrality) De Valera sent Irish fire-trucks into Northern Ireland to render aid after the German bombing of Belfast. And while De Valera's Government was officially neutral, as I noted in my earlier post, many Irishmen and women served in the Allied forces - eight won the VC.

De Valera signed the condolence book in the German Embassy (and you may gather that I am not a fan of his) on the grounds of abstract principle in pursuance of his policy of neutrality. The visit provoked widespread domestic criticism but De Valera regarded it as a perfunctory diplomatic act by a neutral government, and I guess by that time he had automatically lost his US citizenship by becoming an government leader in a foreign country (INA ┬з 349, 8 USC ┬з 1481).

[Marsilius]

"On the question of whether Ireland ought to have joined the Allies on MORAL grounds, the same could be asked of Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal - and perhaps even of the USA itself till 1941!"

Well, yes, indeed! That was what we were discussing earlier. The US did not join in on moral grounds but only when war was declared on her.

"De Valera signed the condolence book in the German Embassy (and you may gather that I am not a fan of his) on the grounds of abstract principle in pursuance of his policy of neutrality. The visit provoked widespread domestic criticism but De Valera regarded it as a perfunctory diplomatic act by a neutral government."

I suspect, from recognising one or two phrases here, that you and I have both been Googling "De Valera Hitler" and reading the same material. I note, though, that you have avoided any reference to something alse I turned up thereby: ..."Later on [i.e. after De Valera had signed the book of condolence for Hitler] the Dublin mob vandalised the British High Commission and the US embassy on news of the Allied victory."

[Incidentally, the last quotation, by referring to the British High Commission rather than the British Embassy, does appear to confirm your view about Ireland's status within the British Empire, so for that it is my turn to say mea culpa!]

[cottmann]

.... I note, though, that you have avoided any reference to something alse I turned up thereby: ..."Later on [i.e. after De Valera had signed the book of condolence for Hitler] the Dublin mob vandalised the British High Commission and the US embassy on news of the Allied victory."

The British Embassy, not High Commission, was certainly burned to the ground in 1972, but I didn't avoid any mention of a Dublin mob vandalising both the British High Commission and the US embassy on the news of an Allied victory because I wasn't aware of the claim and I don't believe it happened. Since you mentioned it, I have Googled that statement and find that the claim originates on a website whose impartiality I doubt (although it is repeated word for word on many others, sometimes unattributed but always word for word). I haven't been able to confirm the claim from other sources. Searching on any search engine for either the British High Commission or the US Embassy in Dublin in 1945 brings up only those parroting the claim. Do you know of any sites that independently confirm this claim?

On De Valera's actions being in accord with his principles and beliefs about neutrality, I have to point out that at least one other officially neutral country officially marked Hitler's death - on May 3, 1945, the Portuguese Government ordered that official flags be flown at half-mast to mark Hitler's death. At least De Valera never ordered that!

[Marsilius]

Portugal was, of course, a fascist dictatorship run by Salazar - so one might expect that. But the President of a democracy like Ireland...?

[cottmann]

Portugal was, of course, a fascist dictatorship run by Salazar - so one might expect that. But the President of a democracy like Ireland...?

Two points. First, De Valera was not "President" meaning Head of State but meaning Head of Government (similar to Prime Minister); a similar situation holds in Spain where the head of the government is called President in the Spanish Constitution. Second, the situation was not called "The Emergency" for nothing, and the state's powers under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 could be compared with the situation in Salazar's Portugal. The timing of the Act is interesting. One can take the beginning of WWII either as September 1st, when Germany invaded Poland, or September 3rd, when Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. De Valera's Government enacted The Emergency Powers Act on September 2nd and it came into force on September 3rd. The text can be found at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939 and, as you can see, under Section 2, the Government could do practically anything it wanted to do. One could make comparisons with the powers of the US President in its current GWOT - or Global War on Terra - in the name of spreading democracy.

You obviously get some perverse sort of pleasure from imagining matching posters' identities, so I wonder if you are actually a troll?The only two posters I have ever suggested are one and the same are you and the Colonel/homintern. I think it's interesting that you use the term "troll" in this context which we know is a word the Colonel detests - a rather good cover-up.

De Valera was not "President" meaning Head of State but meaning Head of Government (similar to Prime Minister)Remind us all, cottager dear boy - who was the Head of State when De Valera was Head of Government?

[cottmann]

De Valera was not "President" meaning Head of State but meaning Head of Government (similar to Prime Minister)Remind us all, cottager dear boy - who was the Head of State when De Valera was Head of Government?

The exact constitutional situation was (and is) not clear for this period, I admit - I don't think even De Valera was entirely sure, whatever he claimed at the time or later. But (as I noted earlier) I'm not a fan of De Valera's and I lean to the viewpoint that he was not head of state. His title in office in Irish was Taoiseach, which is now the word used for Prime Minister - Uachtar├бn is now the term used for President - and he is counted as the first Taoiseach. In international relations, the Head of State was the King of Ireland, George VI, so in my view, in signing the condolences book for a foreign head of state, De Valera was in fact the head of government (a post he held from 1937 to 1948).

[cottmann]

You obviously get some perverse sort of pleasure from imagining matching posters' identities, so I wonder if you are actually a troll?The only two posters I have ever suggested are one and the same are you and the Colonel/homintern. I think it's interesting that you use the term "troll" in this context which we know is a word the Colonel detests - a rather good cover-up.

Considering how many other posters also have used the term, a rather weak response. Please get a life.

In international relations, the Head of State was the King of Ireland, George VI, so in my view, in signing the condolences book for a foreign head of state, De Valera was in fact the head of government (a post he held from 1937 to 1948).And when did Eire become a republic, then? When De Valera was defeated, incidentally - in 1948 - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107648.html

[cottmann]

In international relations, the Head of State was the King of Ireland, George VI, so in my view, in signing the condolences book for a foreign head of state, De Valera was in fact the head of government (a post he held from 1937 to 1948).And when did Eire become a republic, then? When De Valera was defeated, incidentally - in 1948 - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107648.html

I don't know if you are asking a question or not, given the linked page, but at the risk of provoking another comment from Curious, I'll answer by posting a link of my own - http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/ ... of_Ireland (http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/%C9ire#From_.C9ire_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland). As you can see there, no one outside Ireland considered it a republic with De Valera as Head of State, and ambassadors to the country were accredited to George VI as King of Ireland. You can also see when and how - if not why - De Valera's successor decided that the country should "finally and unambiguously" become an independent republic.

Fattmann, I assume your uncle was either Cathal Brugha or, possibly, Richard Mulcahy?

By the way, I wonder whether the similarity in our names - Fattman and cottmann - might convince Curious that you are yet another of the Colonel's manifestations?

[Marsilius]

Perhaps we all ought to read this book - reviewed today (timely enough for this thread) in today's Sunday Times.

"That Neutral Island: A History of Ireland during the Second World War" by Clair Wills (Faber, ┬г9.99)

The review in full:

"In 1939, as Hitler advanced into Poland and the war in Europe seemed inevitable, Ireland announced its neutrality. Just years after it had gained its independence, the young state found itself shunned by its nearest neighbours and isolated from the international community. In her engaging and comprehensive account of the Irish experience of the second world war, Wills examines the two conflicting views of the country's neutrality. One was that remaining neutral was a necessary assertion of independence from Britain; the other that it constituted a failure of Ireland to fulfil its moral duty. That Neutral Island tells the story of Ireland's "shadow theatre of war", focusing on the cultural repercussions of the country's isolation and how neutrality was experienced day-to-day by Irish citizens."

Sounds pretty much like the debate we've been enjoying here!