For some reason after ww2, Ireland gave nazi war crimminals safe haven.
Why?
Which Nazi criminals? Any source?
Jan
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3495.php
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3496.php
A ‘safe haven’ is tautological, although people who make a living from writing and broadcasting words have yet to grasp that as they are too busy inflicting their nonsense on the language.
What on earth possessed you to cite the History Channel to ali j, who thinks it is the Holy Grail of historical research and information? 
Unfortunately the synopsis in the first link demonstrates the dangers in relying upon the the History Channel and its ilk for reliable historical information, as is amply demonstrated by the statements about Andrija Artukovic and his time in Ireland. He spent very little time there and a lot of time in America, from whence he was finally extradited to Yugoslavia in 1986 after spending 35 years in America.
It is misleading to describe Artukovic as a Nazi, as his Ustashi Catholic fascism and crimes were of a home grown variety peculiar to Yugoslavia.
Switzerland has as much to answer for as does Ireland, and America vastly more.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DB1131F93AA25752C0A96E948260
Weelll, what can I say? I always enjoy a good comedy. Seriously, thought the HC presents its info in a suspect way, and often jumps to rather erroneous conclusions, there are usually nuggets of interesting information from which one can then go away and research for yourself.
Personally, I have never relied on just once source for any research - be it for my WW2 hobby or my professional work. I don’t think anybody else should either.
Unfortunately the synopsis in the first link demonstrates the dangers in relying upon the the History Channel and its ilk for reliable historical information, as is amply demonstrated by the statements about Andrija Artukovic and his time in Ireland. He spent very little time there and a lot of time in America, from whence he was finally extradited to Yugoslavia in 1986 after spending 35 years in America.
Fair point, and one that potential viewers should be made aware of
It is misleading to describe Artukovic as a Nazi, as his Ustashi Catholic fascism and crimes were of a home grown variety peculiar to Yugoslavia.
I think, given the fact that it allied itself with the German Nazis, it could be considered a collaborationist organisation like many of the others around Europe at the very least.
Switzerland has as much to answer for as does Ireland, and America vastly more.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DB1131F93AA25752C0A96E948260
As does Britain - see Justice Delayed: How Britain Became a Refuge for Nazi War Criminals by David Cesarani
I think the problem is not so much poor research or sloppy presentation as the consequence of presenting history visually, which means that the presentation is to some extent constrained by the available film.
This is compounded by the necessity of compressing the information into less than half or one hour, usually less when adjusted for ad breaks.
Add to this the natural inclination of visual presenters, who are usually trained in journalism or film rather than history, to go for impact rather than the relatively ponderous and relatively dull building of a written analysis, with sources exhaustively footnoted and a comprehensive bibliography.
The half way ground, here anyway, is a plethora of books written by journalists who annoy me (but, judging by their sales, not most other readers) with journalistic devices which personalise the story and introduce the writer into it. They’re not bad books by any means, but I’ve caught the writers out on a few points of important fact where they’ve gone for journalistic effect rather than a properly researched and dispassionately presented account. They write good stories but not accuate history.
Agreed.
Apart from rigid areas like arithmetic, there is no such thing as the final or definitive account of anything. The more information one gets from various sources, the more one might get a balanced (whatever that means) impression of it.
Perhaps, but I’d argue that the Ustashi were less a collaborationist organisation than an ethnic organisation which was allowed to flower by the Nazi regime. I doubt that the Nazis much cared about who was Catholic or Orthodox in Yugoslavia.
Well, we’re all guilty of that, some intentionally and some unintentionally, but with the English speaking Allies I suspect that there was a fair bit of intentionally, or at least turning a blind eye, in some cases.
What does “tautological” mean?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
What about the Blueshirts?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Hey Rising Sun, i bet you didt know this- Do you know why ireland took those nazis in for a short while?ok i tell you what i learnt not in a nastey way. In ww2 Ireland wanted to stay mutral country juring the war but let England use there ports, but juring the war England and Americia tried to dictact to Ireland to join with the Allies.Ireland got so sick of England and America dominerring them that after the war so they let Nazi in. Nazi then went to those other countries you mentioned. Cheers.
Hey RS.
Ive got some information to back me up here.
http://www.mazalien.com/irelands-nazis.html. Cheers
While there is no doubt that most Allied countries and some that called themselves “neutral” harbored many Nazis, I doubt that some resentment over the domination of Britain and the US had much to do with Ireland’s decision to give refuge to Nazis! Most countries that harbored alleged Nazis did so because there was some inherent benefit from it or they didn’t care. It is also no big surprise that there was anti-semitism in other countries, including the Allies and Ireland. It has always been everywhere and, I have news for you, it is still alive and well! There was and there still is a lot of hypocrisy going around! However, I would think that the alleged accounts from a person who is obviously resentful because he didn’t get his pat on the back would have to be studied with some degree of skepticism. Even if it is true in its entirety, are we supposed to be shocked?
The Nazi’s should of done what Idi Amyn did. Convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia where you have imunity regardless of the crime(s) you committed.Idi Amyn killed between 100,000 to 500,000 as a ruthless dictator and lived a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia for over 20 yrs before he dies of natural causes. Rumour has it, he died making love to 7 virgins all at the same time. At least thats what paradise is constrewed by the Muslims. The point is, if you think Irelaland accepted Nazi’s to piss off the English, I highly doubt it. In Idi Amyn’s example it is different because there was a reason that Saudi Arabia accepted him-because he was a brother of the faith…Oh brother!:roll:
Don’t know why they would have had to import any, as they had enough of the localy produced variety.
http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/oduffyarticle.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
or Egypt or Syria
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/where.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Hey Krad42, didt you now ireland was neutral in ww2,why dont you look it up and see for youre self.Some of the irish were rooting [not in a sexually way]for the nazis and not England,.It was cause of England and USA Dominating ireland,i put proof on my other post before. Cheers.
Well sorry, you have really read something in a book and apparently do not have enough background information to know what you are talking about. There was some enjoyment in Ireland at seeing the Nazis give the Brits a bit of a bashing but beyond that anybody who had their head screwed on, realized that if Europe came to be dominated by Nazi Germany, that Southern Ireland would find itself in having only recently rid itself of London rule now being ruled from Berlin. As for the neutrality of Ireland, if you understood Ireland you would have realized that barely anything in Ireland is what it first appears to be, and Irish neutrality during World War 2 was no exception, nearly all of Southern Ireland’s exports were going to British markets and a large proportion of the Southern Irish workforce was serving in the British Military or working in the British war industries.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Hey adrian Wainer, The information didt come from a book it came from history channel and the internet.Yes the irish let britain use there ports but never signed any agreement too the English juring ww2. Means that they were neutral country in ww2.Cheers
Not related to Nazi’s, but related to Ireland in WW-1…seemed interesting…
WW1 soldiers sent to the firing squad for being Irish … and of
Sunday Mirror, Aug 7, 2005 by ANDREW BUSHE
RACIST British Army officers ordered the firing squad executions of young Irish men without real cause, a damning new report reveals.
The unpublished dossier - seen by the Irish Sunday Mirror - uncovers an anti-Irish bias among officers and a Courts Martial system that was “incosistent, capricious and unpredicatble”.
The report was drawn up by Department of Foreign Affairs officials after unprecedented access to the military court case documents of 26 executed soldiers from Ireland, north and south.
It was sent to the British Government nine months ago but no action has yet been taken to pardon the men.
The report shows fast-track military courts that were riddled with not just anti-Irish feeling, but class bias as well.
In many cases, death sentences were dispensed to innocent men simply to set an example and shore up discipline in the trenches.
The secret report is scathing in its criticism of the executions. It says an examination of the cases is “starkly revealing” of the shocking treatment of soldiers.
The “stout” defence of the WWI military justice by the British Defence Ministry is described as “fundamentally flawed”.
The 54-page dossier said the courts martial system’s racist bias against Irish soldiers is “difficult to explain”.
Based on a case-by-case examination by Foreign Affairs experts of the files for each of the so-called field general Courts Martial of Irishmen, the report says each individual case could have been overturned if a review was undertaken based on agreed standards such as the absence of proof or due consideration of medical conditions. Among the 26 Irish Courts Martial, the report says presiding officers ignored, or didn’t consider, medical evidence in 11 cases and there are four that involved extenuating circumstances such as the death of family members.
There are 11 “clear cases” where an execution was thought necessary simply to set an example because of bad discipline in units.
It says: “Soldiers were effectively condemned to be shot because of both the behaviour of others and the opinion of others as to their fighting potential. Executing a soldier simply to deter their colleagues from contemplating a similar crime, or because their attitude in the face of the gravest of dangers was not what was expected - in some cases after only a matter of weeks of basic training - must be seen as unjust, and not deserving of the ultimate penalty.”
The report calls for full pardons for the men to “grant them the dignity in death they were denied in life”.
Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern described the report as “very tragic reading”. He said: "No one could fail to be moved by the simple stories of brave, often poorly educated, young men who were shot after perfunctory Courts Martial. The Irish Government believes this was wrong. These Irish people died needlessly.
"We continue to press the British Government to restore the good names of these men. In most instances almost 90 years has passed since these men met their awful fate.
"It was a different world, a different society and a harsher, most bloody time. We must ensure that these men’s names are cleared and their memories honoured well in advance of the centenary of their deaths and the outbreak of the Great War.
“Nothing less will do the Irish Government, their families and loved ones.”
In addition to the Government, the Shot At Dawn Campaign for pardons - which is coordinated in Ireland by Peter Mulvany - is supported by numerous TDs and MPs including John Hume and Ian Paisley, Catholic and Protestant church leaders and SIPTU. The report says it is “telling” that Britain kept the courts martial files secret and sealed from the public for 75 years because of their sensitivity.
Its controversial conclusion of ethnic and racist bias against Irish soldiers results from a comparison of recruitment figures and subsequent death sentences. That check revealed a disparity in the treatment of Irish soldiers in comparison with those from other countries in the British army.
The report states: “For example, the number of men recruited in Ireland was similar to that of New Zealand, however there are ten times the level of condemnations in the Irish regiments.”
This is despite the fact that the New Zealand regiments were “notoriously harsh with discipline” at the time.
“There were 26 executions of soldiers serving in Irish regiments; 23 for desertion, one for striking an officer, one for quitting his post and one for disobedience. This might not seem many, but given the size of the Irish regiments it is an extraordinary high number”.
One soldier for every 2-3,000 British troops were shot by firing squad compared to one in less than 600 in the Irish units. This applied equally to regiments, such as the 36th Ulster Division, as it did to regiments recruited south of the border. The report says: “The confirmation process presents clear evidence that some soldiers were executed for example, to deter others from committing a similar crime, and not because they deserved their fate”.
Well warships are allowed to use the ports of a neutral power within certain provisions but and I might stand to be corrected by somebody more knowledgeable than me, I was not aware that overflights by military aircraft was permitted and the British had an arangement with the Free State Government to allow RAF Coastal Command Aircraft to overfly Free State territory. Furthermore whilst Warships were allowed to visit the ports of neutrals without contravention of neutrality regulations, such provisions were very much at the discretion of the host neutral country and it was my impression that during the hunt for the Bismarck, permission was asked for and granted for a British battship to refuel at a Free State port.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer