@ Putin, Your right the Dutch could have hold out for a while longer. The Germans didn't captured the best defended part of the country yet. But they didn't wanted to do so at the cost of thousands of citizens of the big cities Germany was threatening to bomb (recall Rotterdam) And if you think of it, they ware going to loose anyway, so why should they?

Further, i think your stance on the bureaucracy isn't that nuanced as it should be. The Germans barely touched it because they could use it big time, while the maintaining Goverment just wanted to make the best out of it. They didn't know the true nature of the German occupier in 1940.

Further about the French, the didn't sent their best troops to the Low Countries. They send there best troops to fight the German attackers in Belgium, to keep them out of there own country. No defending the Netherlands there. The English even send ships to destroy Dutch harbour installations to keep them out of German Fingers (but actually the Dutch did most of that fore them).

Yeah, I don't even bother following up on some strands of discussion with Putin anymore, but I should have mentioned that.

The number of casualties in Rotterdam has been grossly inflated. The number is not anywhere close to the 30,000 usually claimed. It's more like 1,000. The Germans attacked Rotterdam because it was on the frontlines of the most defended part of Netherlands. Terror bombing wasn't a strategy. The fact is they just gave up.

On the issue of the bureaucracy, the Germans didn't touch it because the cabinet ministers all basically told their agents to comply with the new order. They didn't have to worry about any protests or resignations. Partisan opposition in the Netherlands was very low. Indeed the Dutch were the most efficient collaborators in all of western Europe, crushing their Jewish population more than anywhere else.

The French sent their 7th army to defend the Netherlands, which was a strategic error as this was supposed to be France's strategic reserve. So the notion that the French didn't defend the Netherlands is just not true. The 7th army had the most militarized units of any of the French armies.

Just to weigh in here, "And if you think of it, they ware going to loose anyway, so why should they?" That's no excuse, if the Germans had made it to the United States they would have been bogged down in war for at least a decade. The French (despite the common American view of them) had one of the most organized and effective resistance organizations in history, and the British maintained their resolve in the face of overwhelming odds, vast destruction far surpassing that of Rotterdam, and the prospect of fighting Germany alone. Giving up the fight just because victory seems impossible is not prudence, but cowardice.

Now on topic, I would have to agree that Germany is one of the best governed nations, as well as rich, free, and a good place to live. I could personally never live there as the echoes of the holocaust are still far to recent for me as a Jew to settle there. The United States despite the overly large presence of Religion in our politics has one of the strongest judiciaries in the world, as well as a strong and effective police force, and the bill of rights ensures many freedoms. I would not feel as secure in my freedom, both from internal and international crime, anywhere else in the world.

On that bit about war for a decade, the U.S. like Russia has vast open spaces to retreat into, a stubborn and hardy populous, and more guns than people as well as the knowledge on how to use them. The hardiness of the people applied more then than it does now, but I would argue that the United States is impossible to invade and occupy. More so than Afghanistan, and as much as Russia.

Oh, Canada seems pretty well governed to me. They have their issues, but there isn't utopia on the planet. Plus, Montreal is phenomenally liveable.

The UK

The logistical challenge alone of succesfully invading the US has meant that it is utterly safe for the foreseeable future against any outside invaders, barring some sort of demographic catastrophe similar to the Columbian epidemiological holocaust thinning our neighbors by an order of magnitude.

erm, numbers, not neighbors.

"had one of the most organized and effective resistance organizations in history, and the British maintained their resolve in the face of overwhelming odds, vast destruction far surpassing that of Rotterdam, and the prospect of fighting Germany alone."

*headdesk*

@ Puddle

Hopefully we never have to find out. But there are a lot of gun nuts and a lot of force multiplying terrain features.

@Puddle

"the British maintained their resolve in the face of overwhelming odds, vast destruction far surpassing that of Rotterdam, and the prospect of fighting Germany alone. Giving up the fight just because victory seems impossible is not prudence, but cowardice. "

Germany was 10 times larger than Holland in that time in terms of size, and probably 6 times larger in population (not counting their Austrian friends).

Also, >90% our country is flat as a football field.

There is another difference between Germany invading Holland or Britain, I'm sure if you played Diplomacy once you noticed it: it's called the "North Sea".

The contribution of the then British Commonwealth of Nations and Empire should not be forgotten (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Malan). Neither should that of the Polish pilots in the Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_War_Memorial).
Personally, returning to the topic of the thread, despite the treachery of De Valera (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dev-expected-hitler-death-backlash-2418490.html) and the opposition of many of their countrymen (http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume13/issue3/features/?id=113841), I would have been proud to be associated with those brave Irishmen who volunteered for the Allied cause. I would have been even prouder to stand by them when they returned home to a generally hostile Ireland, after the war (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211).

Of course you would, imperialist bastard.

They will be forgotten fairly soon as the only people who still remember will be dead. After that we shall only have a vague awareness of these events that will change almost randomly as fashions in history education change.

Two stories remembered by my grandad from world war II

A British unit was setting up camp in the North African desert and had started digging trenches (which is what the military did in that era, whether they needed them or not). It was a hot day and work was slow. The enemy was believed to be a fair way off so there was no great urgency. Over lunch someone noticed that the silence of the desert was broken by a droning noise. The shout went up that Nazi planes were coming and the unit should take cover. One of them ran straight for the trench and dived in, breaking his neck as it wasn't half as deep as he thought it was. The plane flew by in the distance.

Story two takes place in Alexandria. My grandad had recently aquired an Italian handgun and was rather proud of it. A beautiful little thing, it was, deisgned in the pre-war era when looks were considered as important as functionality. He was wearing it when he went to take in a show during some time off. At the show were some other British servicemen also armed with handguns. They were cheering at some local dancing girls on the stage, when one of them thought it would be hilarious to shoot at the girl's feet like what the cowboys do in the Yank films. Instead of stopping him, the chap's friends joined in. My grandad left in disgust (partly at the actions of the men and partly at himself for not doing more to stop it), and that night through his gun into the sea.

In a few years the memories of those events will be lost, and all that will remain are some half remembered stories told to a few people who can only imagine what it was really like.

Maybe they will, but as with your grandfather my father was, if not among the liberators, one of the first Allied troops in Belsen. Here is a rather disturbing radio report from the time, with some attached images - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hLYavpMSFs
Certainly this will vividly live on within me and, I think, my children too. Beyond that, who knows?

Here is part II, in case anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opn15-59L1I&feature=related

Obligatory British hijacking of a WWII thread to talk about how great they are. And obligatory gratuitous bashing of the Irish. I guess you still can't stand the fact that old De Valera humiliated your drunken buffoon of a Prime Minister and showed him what real statesmanship is.

Is all this drunk talk a thinly veiled lure designed to tempt someone into mentioning Stalin's famed vodka habit so you can vigorously defend him again? Very well, Putin, I'll bite... But never let me hear you saying I don't do anything for you ;).

I say! How dare you go mouthing off against our top notch hero of a PM when that Stalin chap of yours was a vodka swilling pig! I won't stand for such nonsense!

There you go. Have fun!

Whatever you do Octavious do not mention the Doctor's Plot, that always makes him disappear and we will miss out on the fun.

Our Stalinist is right for once. Fulhamish, you're a patronizing asshole. De Valera is a traitor? Of what? Your vested interest in Ireland? Fucking hell... The Queen's trained monkey, that's what you are.

I don't know where you people come up with this stuff. Seemingly every week a new lie is told about JVS. Actual historians are quite adamant that Stalin liked to serve his guests vodka while he sipped wine, so that he would be the only sober one in the room. Stalin is famous for liking Khvanchkara, a weak Georgian wine. How on earth people expect anyone to believe Stalin, as paranoid as he was, was a raging vodka maniac is beyond me.

De Valeria is a traitor because he didn't kiss the ass of the country that pillaged Ireland for centuries, the same country who only two decades before WWII - after legions of Irish volunteered for Britain's first war for empire - unleashed the Black & Tans on his *actual* countrymen.

From the Irish Independent, Sun 31 Dec 2005:


PRESIDENT Douglas Hyde offered condolences to Nazi Germany's representative in Dublin over the death of Hitler, newly declassified records show.

Until now, historians had believed that the then Taoiseach Eamon de Valera was the only leader to convey official condolences to Eduard Hempel, director of the German diplomatic corps in Ireland.

De Valera's gesture - unique among leaders of neutral nations in the final weeks of World War II - was criticised worldwide.

The presidential protocol record for 1938-1957, made public this week, shed new light on the embarrassing episode and the decision to maintain cordial relations with the Nazis even after news of the Holocaust emerged.

The new document confirmed that President Hyde visited Hempel on May 3, 1945, a day after Ireland received reports of Hitler's death.

It says Hyde - who served as Head of State from 1938 to 1945, and died in 1949 - visited Hempel at the diplomat's home in Dun Laoghaire.

It says the president did not send an official letter of condolence because Berlin was under siege "and no successor (to Hitler) had been appointed.".

De Valera argued that to refuse condolences "would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel's conduct was irreproachable. ... I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat."

Is that better or worse than Britain refusing the USSR's offer of a military alliance with Britain before the war to prevent German aggression? Or the Munich conference dismembering Czechoslovakia? Or the Anglo-German Naval Treaty which gutted the enforcement of Versailles and torpedoed the Stresa Front a mere two months after the UK promised to not make any such agreement without consulting Italy & France first?

Tell me which of these events was less consequential than a diplomatic formality done after the war was over?

You will note that my first post on this subject praised those brave Irishmen who despite opposition at home fought for the Allied cause.No doubt Putin would have joined those who shunned and insulted those brave returning servicemen. Indeed I remember distinctly when he denied this disgusting behaviour even took place. I am certain that, if pressed, he would describe these brave men as traitors.

Here is another piece from the Irish Independent by an Irishman who takes the opposite point of view to our Blueshirt/Sean Russell/Dev supporting crank:

.........................................
The reality is that Irish neutrality had more to do with hostility to the British government and our view of its continued occupation of the "Six Counties" than with morality.

In the context of the Holocaust, it was a principle of moral bankruptcy.

In the years immediately preceding World War Two, the Irish government consistently refused requests made to come to Ireland by those seeking refuge from Nazi persecution.

In reliance on neutrality the de Valera lead government between 1939 to 1945 continued this policy.

Following Hitler's death and the war ending, Ireland continued to say no.

At a time when neutrality ceased to be the issue, Ireland was essentially closed to the surviving remnants of European Jewry save for a very small number of individuals.

Interviewed by Aine Lawlor on RTE prior to yesterday's commemoration ceremonies, President McAleese was asked about this State's record, its "strict application of neutrality" and whether it was morally wrong.

Responding, she doubted whether there is an apology "big enough" that can be given but acknowledged that "we hid behind bureaucracy, we hid behind words and didn't do all the things that could have been done and should have been done and to that extent we all have a fair degree of complicity and for that I think we should hang our heads with a degree of shame for the things that were within our power to do and that weren't done."

Of course, the President is constrained in her language by her constitutional position and by the remit given to her by government.

It is my recollection that such an apology on behalf of the State was eloquently and unequivocally given by John Bruton when Taoiseach on the 28th April 1995 at a State organised Commemoration Service for those Irish people who died in the Second World War and for the victims of the Holocaust.

Perhaps, if the President had been aware of this, she would have been more sure-footed in her language.

A few short months after the liberation of Auschwitz, Hitler committed suicide and the war in Europe ended.

By then, de Valera and his government were fully aware of the barbaric atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi's in their attempt to implement the "Final Solution".

Despite this, de Valera visited the then German Ambassador Edouard Hemple to express his condolences on the death of Hitler.

This morally repugnant and indefensible act has been explained over the years and excused as a matter of protocol.

However, there is no issue of protocol which requires any head of State or Prime Minister to express condolences on the death of another who has perpetrated genocide and mass murder.

President McAleese when asked directly whether it was morally wrong that de Valera so visited the German Ambassador and signed the book of condolences, asserted this to be a mere "local issue" that should not distract us from the dreadful consequences of what happened in Auschwitz.

This was an unfortunate response.

Perhaps the President felt in the absence of government approval, she could not adequately address this issue.

As this week is the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz it would be of significant historical importance if either the President or Taoiseach would, before it ends, publicly acknowledge and apologise for Eamonn de Valera's morally repugnant error of judgment.

Alan Shatter is a former Fine Gael TD and a former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

- Alan Shatter

Do you have a brain of your own, fulhamish?

Why do you keep changing the subject? How many more posts about the book of condolences are you going to produce? Why don't you address the British 'treachery' that allowed Germany to expand to begin with? Why should the Irish have fought for a country that abused them, especially when last time they did so, during WWI, they got nothing but abuse in return?

Oh and what was the UK's record on the refugee question again? Oh but we can't get into that, now can we?

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/221

Hey Zmaj when will you post anything that isn't an insult?