Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Margaret Thatcher renewed the relationship between Christianity and Conservatism

 In his excellent study The Religious Mind of Margaret Thatcher, Antonio E. Weiss observed in 2011:
Of all British Prime Ministers from Harold Macmillan to Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher was by far the most vocal about her faith whilst in office, and the only one to draw direct and explicit parallels between her personal beliefs and her political ones. Macmillan believed that ‘a nation can[not] live without religion’, and, more personally in his official biography, he claimed that ‘I go to Communion as long as I can...I reach for the Bible whenever I can...I still find religion a great help’. For Douglas-Home, ‘Christianity was of the heart, not of the pew, a matter of private witness and personal conduct’. Wilson was brought up very much in the Nonconformist manner as a Baptist, joined the evangelical Oxford Group at university and told an interviewer in 1963 that ‘I have religious beliefs and they very much affected my political views’. Heath’s attitude to religion was more similar to Home’s, in that he did not speak openly about it – as he told James Margach in 1965: ‘It’s not a thing one talks about very much but it has a secure hold’, but when reminiscing in his memoirs, he did also claim that: ‘My Christian faith also provided foundations for my political beliefs...I was influenced by the teaching of William Temple (former Archbishop of Canterbury)’. Callaghan’s mother was ‘deeply religious and fundamentalist’. He became a Sunday school teacher in the late 1920s and although he claimed to turn away from his Baptist upbringing when his activities in the Labour Party increasingly had the ‘first charge on my energies’, he also stated in his memoirs that he owed an ‘immense debt’ to his Christian upbringing and that he had never ‘escaped its influence’. Major, on the other hand, whilst professing belief in God – ‘I do believe. I don’t pretend to understand all the complex parts of Christian theology, but I simply accept it...[I pray] in all circumstances’ – seemed to be uncomfortable with the whole issue: ‘I was mortally embarrassed to be interviewed about my religious faith on Radio 4’s Sunday programme’. And of course Tony Blair famously admitted to praying to God for guidance when preparing for the Iraq war of 2003.
It is easy to reduce Thatcherism to liberal economics or 'Monetarism', and to portray Margaret Thatcher herself as the divisive apostle of an evil creed. But it is nothing more than a 'Spitting Image' caricature. Like all reformers, Margaret Thatcher revolutionised society because she believed passionately in what she was doing, and her mission was inspired by the spirit of truth and justice. She was fully aware of her party's heritage and political history, noting: ‘Tories became Tories well before the modern concept of a free market economy meant anything, well before it became a matter of political controversy.’

Her Conservatism was deeply rooted in Christianity - the faith which 'kept alight the flickering flame of hope' during the dark nights of Europe's secular tyranny, she wrote in the preface to the 1990 book Christianity and Conservatism. She didn't hide her faith under a bushel, and neither did it come and go like Magic FM in the Chilterns. Christ, for her, was intrinsic to all of social and political life, and His eradication from society was not possible 'without a terrible consequence'. She knew perfectly well how to distinguish between that which belonged to Caesar and that which belonged to God, but she was never afraid to engage and wrestle in debate with both. There was, quite simply, truth and error; right and wrong; good and evil. If you were not for her, you were against her.

It was never her intention to belittle Christianity by partisanship, or to exalt Conservatism by some whisper of the transcendent. But she realised, as far back as 1990, that 'a historical turning point has been reached for our nation, and the way ahead must be carefully and judiciously charted'. She was of the view that the eradication of Christ from society would result in 'terrible consequence': many Conservatives are of the view that the eradication of Thatcher from Conservatism cannot be achieved without similar terrible consequence - for both the party and the country.    

For centuries preceding Margaret Thatcher, the Church of England had been 'the Conservative Party at prayer'. The maxim endured until the mid-80s, during which decade the tensions between the Church and the Conservative Party were considered to have buried the whole notion. The Tory-Anglican relationship undoubtedly reached its nadir during her premiership, but she never gave up on it; she never used religious pluralism or advancing secularism as excuses for tampering with the Constitution or sidelining Christianity.

Margaret Thatcher was not the last Christian prime minister, but she was certainly the last who understood the divisive message of the Old Testament prophets, and that Christ came not only to bring a sword, but to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. She didn't 'do God' in a Songs of Praise kind of way, with pious platitudes and patronising nods at popes and archbishops. Margaret Thatcher did God with a sincere reflective and profoundly theological mindset: she read her Bible, preached in pulpits and applied her theology to her programme of government.

You may not have agreed with her, but reformers always attract the ire of the divinely-appointed established hierarchy: the Whig will always irritate the Tory. Thatcherism is first and foremost a creed of values: like Christianity, it sometimes needs reinterpreting for a new age. But it seeks fundamentally to inspire individuals, assist families, revive communities and renew the country towards a glorious vision of freedom, fellowship and service:
The primary principle of Christian ethics and Christian politics must be respect for every person simply as a person. If each man and woman is a child of God, whom God loves and for whom Christ died, then there is in each a worth absolutely independent of all usefulness to society. The person is primary, not the society; the State exists for the citizen, not the citizen for the State. The first aim of social progress must be to give the fullest possible scope for the exercise of all powers and qualities which are distinctly personal; and of these the most fundamental is deliberate choice.
Not the words of Margaret Thatcher, but those of Archbishop William Temple in 1942. And he went on to expound the theology of Thatcherism while Margaret Roberts was still an undergraduate at Oxford. But why let the truth of the religious inspiration of Thatcherism get in the way of a soulless, unfeeling, uncompassionate anti-Christian caricature?


Blogger Darter Noster said...

"It is easy to reduce Thatcherism to liberal economics or 'Monetarism'"

That's what some of her opponents are trying to do, but they seem to forget that the regulatory failures which caused the current crisis happened on the watches of Major,Blair and Brown.

Margaret Thatcher's economics were those of the hard-working small businessman, not the banker presiding over an economy-sized Ponzi scheme, which is why she appealed to working class Tories in a way which the current lot, with their patronising attitudes to anyone who actually has to work for a living, will never be able to do. Cameron is more the heir to Harold Macmillan than Margaret Thatcher. More's the pity.

10 April 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger MFH said...

She didnt like the special nature of Sunday and releasie its benefits - and sadly nor do the churches now.

10 April 2013 at 11:02  
Blogger Corrigan said...

From a Catholic viewpoint, it's easy to write her off as a Christian; she was a complete believer in the artifical Christianity of the Reformation, created to justify the massive theft and destruction of the Catholic religious houses and the diversion of their revenues into the pockets of Henry VIII's courtiers. She did much the same with state industries for her spiv pals in the City.

10 April 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

"She did much the same with state industries for her spiv pals in the City."

Yes, because Jack Jones, Jim Callaghan and Harold Wilson ran them brilliantly didn't they?

10 April 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger Manfarang said...

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

10 April 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Good point. Manfarang...

If only we had more practitioners of apostolic poverty, like Bob Crowe and Arthur Scargill.

Oh, hang on...

10 April 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, Scargill justifies Thatcher, is that your reasoning?

10 April 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Congratulations, Corrigan, you cotton on fast.

It's only taken you 34 years to catch up with the British electorate.

10 April 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Before I gave up on The Conservative Party, about two years ago, I had been a life long One Nation Conservative. Therefore during her premiership, I regretted the rather harsh actions that she took during office.
But now, with the benefit of hindsight and greater maturity, I can see that the extreme positions that had been taken by many of the Trades Unions and the parlous state that the country found itself in, by the time that she took office, ruled out a more moderate approach. A strong reaction was needed against the "action" of the totalitarian left. Anything other than a strong, uncompromising crusade would have been interpreted as weakness and lack of resolve by the near triumphalist leftists. She was the right woman for the job that needed to be done, at that time, undoubtedly. Looking back on it now, it's easy for those who were not alive at the time, or those who choose to forget the near despair that was setting in, to rip into her legacy.
She was a great Christian, conviction leader, from and of the people, so unlike the plastic, Christianity denying, populists that plague us now. So from my Ukip activist stance, I respect and honour her memory and achievements. Long live freedom. Rest in peace, Margaret Thatcher.

10 April 2013 at 12:23  
Blogger Corrigan said...

The ENGLISH electorate, please.

10 April 2013 at 12:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Yes, because the Scots and Welsh public were denied a vote at the 1979, 1983 and 1987 General Elections.

How silly of me to forget.

10 April 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Corrigan said...

They don't count; they're not English. See my point?

10 April 2013 at 12:52  
Blogger non mouse said...

Brilliant, Your Grace. The more the cowardly nasties keep coming out ot the woodwork, the more one appreciates a positive response to the life of someone who actually stood against the Marxist Establishment.

As for the Irish who persist trying to turn GB into Eire (via Northern Ireland) --- well, they've never stopped since we all hopped over from the Black Sea and the 'Atlantic' route, have they? They've invaded the larger island throughout history.

10 April 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Hatred isn't an argument. It's just hatred. All you are doing is stamping the face of Margaret Thatcher onto economic reality and declaring over and over again how much you despise it. Gov'ts can't repeal the Laws of Economics by fiat no matter how much they desire to do so. No matter how much the population desires the Gov't to do so.


10 April 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Peter D said...


The statement below from the Vatican is neither infallible nor binding but it does suggest not all Catholcs share your sentiments about Margaret Thatcher's Christianity.

"His Holiness Pope Francis was saddened to learn of the death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

He recalls with appreciation the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and to the promotion of freedom among the family of nations.

Entrusting her soul to the mercy of God, and assuring her family and the British people of a remembrance in his prayers, the Holy Father invokes upon all whose lives she touched God’s abundant blessings."

(Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary of State)

Do show some respect.

10 April 2013 at 13:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Your Grace,

Will we get a day off for the funeral? It is fitting that the national pay tribute (as we are also paying for the funeral) to this great lady of historical importance. I think we did that for Princess Diana's funeral, so only right for Mrs T.

10 April 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Princess Diana was buried on a Saturday so the answer to your question is no.

10 April 2013 at 17:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Manfarang,

Spoil sport! I still think we should get a day off for mourning for this Prime Minister. I wonder if Elton John will do a version of candle in the wind?

10 April 2013 at 18:03  
Blogger Tony B said...

Funny how one minute Thatcher and Reagan were praised for ridding the world of Marxism, the next minute the establishment is Marxist. A neat trick.

10 April 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I thought Maurice Saatchi summed up her philosophy of Mrs Thatcher very well here:

in the 08:41 clip, including the notion that human dignity resides in independence, individuality and self-determination.

10 April 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

His Grace. For centuries preceding Margaret Thatcher, the Church of England had been 'the Conservative Party at prayer'. The maxim endured until the mid-80s, during which decade the tensions between the Church and the Conservative Party were considered to have buried the whole notion.

One always had the feeling it was the church that moved away from the Conservatives, not the other way round. This was the decade when screaming lefties announced we were multicultural. A rather disgusting word in the Inspector’s book arising from the tragedy of mass alien immigration. The church HAD to distance itself from white affluent middle England, because the newly arrived black and brown types were anything but. And we know there’s nothing more embarrassed than an Englishmen being himself in an England with Johnny Foreigner around.

Goes on today, you know. White Christian protestant cleric guilt. Rather strange, as the influx to this over-crowded country was overwhelmingly non Christian, so why should they care ? In fact, we find the Islamic types are very much anti Christian, but fortunately are tolerating us for now. Rather good of them really, but no less then we the hosts deserve. However, as time goes on, one fears we will move from being hosts to being in the way…

10 April 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well I think Corrigan is a bad show. Naturally as Corrigan spills his venom here, be it regarding Scotland or England or Wales ("which doesn't count- why? Wales is a great country and full of great people!) compares Lady Thatcher to non entity Hugo Chavez, then I am guessing in 1945 he'd be the man in the Irish foreign office who offered the Fourth German Reich condolences on the death of the Chancellor of Germany....

10 April 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Sorry I meant the 'third Reich'. I was confusing that and our current EU!

10 April 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger michael north said...

Lord Lavendon @18.58

It wasn't the Irish foreign office; it was de Valera himself.

10 April 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

As a Church & Crown Tory, deserted by both the Cof E, the Conservative party and (possibly) the Crown, the world is rather a cheerless place - at any rate until "the King enjoys his own again" for which, of course , the Crown's vassalage to the EU must cease.

MrsThatcher came to that conclusion, I think, and was knifed in the back for it.

It is unfortunate that her trade union reforms were not introduced in the Fifties during the "thirteen years of Tory misrule" as Harold Wilson called them. Instead Harold MacMillan bewailed the ungovernability of the country and looked to the cold wind of unrestricted competition from Europe to bring the union leaders to their senses. If he had grasped the nettle of legal reform, there would have been much more British industry worth saving.
Another twenty years of subsidy-guzzling weak management, strong unions and complaisant government had done for much of it by the time Mrs T came to power. No amount of "caring" or "compassion" could have made up for that - so the Lady got the blame for the results of the sins of her predecessors.

10 April 2013 at 19:21  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Michael North,

You are indeed correct. And I have already been berated by family for not including the wonderful and beautiful emerald Island!

10 April 2013 at 19:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Edward Spalton, one has the feeling that what the unions did had to happen. So that their ‘beer and sandwiches’ consultations at number 10 NEVER happen again. The Inspector recalls reading some years ago that the TUC was so arrogant, that on the election of Thatcher in 1979, the bastards were straight in touch for an audience, only to be sent running with a flea in their ear...

10 April 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Corrigan said...

The Hitler thing was de Valera winding up the American ambassador (and sticking it to the Brits at the same time). When I say, "the Welsh don't count", I mean to you, the English, same as the Scots don't count and the Irish never did. You understand "British" to mean the extension of Englishness to the less fortunate Celtic fringe. I'm in favour of the the break up of the UK for the benefit of the English as much as the other nations, and in fairness, I should say that that raddled old hag Thatcher did one good thing in her rotten, worthless existence - she guaranteed the break up of the UK, sooner or later. For that, maybe they should raise her a statue.

10 April 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

'The Hitler thing was de Valera winding up the American ambassador.' says Corrigan @ 21.04.

A wild guess that only serves to validate your own prejudice.

Perhaps the 60,000 Irishmen who fought Nazi Germany would have disagreed with you.

We can safely conclude that your vision of hell is a Scottish vote to remain in the UK, and an Irish decision to rejoin the UK after the EU implodes.

What are the odds?

Fingers crossed.

10 April 2013 at 21:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We must not forget that De Valera would have gone before a English firing squad in 1916 had it not been for the British Governments desire to entice the USA into WW1, of which he had citizenship. As it happened, the rest of the Easter uprising leadership were shot. Damnable mistake as history attests, though the Inspector comes clean here: It seemed the most sensible course of action at the time...

10 April 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 April 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hear now the gospel according to saint Corrigan of the latter day true Catholic Church :

The English are vile oppressors of the people of the UK! The poor oppressed Celtic people don't count. Scotland is under the jackboot of the English and Ireland is on a one way ticket to genocide, under the rule of the Cromwellian English... the Proddies in those places aren't real Irish,Scots or Welsh either.

The Welsh are of no consequence in my nationalist mindset, being mostly Methodist or Protestant (and therefore are not worth liberating from the vile English).

The English (especially the non-Christian and artificial, brutal land grubbing 'Anglicans') are worse than the vermin that brought the black death.... don't mention the flea on the back of the rat, or the J- ... as we are commonly known.

10 April 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"Margaret Thatcher renewed the relationship between Christianity and Conservatism "


After Maggie nobody cared and greed was good this was true of all parties. The greed genie is still very much out of the box. Money and "stuff" is the new god in Britain.

This is good for our society?

I am a conservative but not a Maggie fan.

Quite the opposite.

Christianity and was Maggie stood for, promoted and fought for, are miles apart.

Can you really see Jesus in Maggie?

I thought not


11 April 2013 at 00:51  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Margaqret Thatcher used to work 18hours a day. She didn't want people loafing about even on her funeral.

11 April 2013 at 02:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

For Corrigan:

PM Netanyahu to attend Margaret Thatcher's funeral in London

04/10/2013 21:01

The former British prime minister's family invited Netanyahu to attend the funeral of Israel's staunch ally.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu plans to fly to London to attend the funeral of his friend and the nation’s staunch ally, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, on April 17. Thatcher’s family invited Netanyahu to the funeral, the Prime Minister’s Office said.

Long before he entered politics, Netanyahu admired Thatcher, particularly her economic vision for Great Britain that he felt could be applicable to Israel. She sent him a handwritten note when he lost the prime minister’s race in 1999 and he traveled to London to visit her in 2000, the Prime Minister’s Office said. Its spokesman said Netanyahu viewed Thatcher as a “woman of valor.”

“The prime minister wants to pay his respect because she was a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. He had the utmost respect for her as a strong political leader and a leader of vision,” the office said.

11 April 2013 at 04:53  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Why doesn't this surprise me, Avi? A professional courtesy between scumbags.

11 April 2013 at 07:00  
Blogger Corrigan said...

BTW, please pass on to Carl that there are no laws of economics. This is because the markets are not analogous to forces of nature. They are man-made and artificial, and can be manipulated. Thatcher's kind have been doing it for personal gain for generations.

11 April 2013 at 07:38  
Blogger michael north said...

bluedog @ 21.20 yesterday

I too have been thinking about what the Irish will do when the UK leaves the EU. I have come to the conviction that Irish nationalism was a historical detour, largely created by English greed and bigotry. Fair treatment, particularly in the matter of religion, would have resulted in nothing more radical than Home Rule.

One thing is certain; the Irish will go where the money is.

11 April 2013 at 08:21  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Actually, Michael, there is probably a little more truth in what you write than one might think, albeit that you wrote it to give gratuitious insult. Money is always a big consideration; that's why Britain drops its strides and bends over whenever the Americans feel a little horny. Irish nationalism, on the other hand, is an aberation in Irish history. It was a reaction against exactly the kind of whoreism which is the legacy of Thatcher and the emblem of England. The physical force tradition was something of an antidote, in that once bullets started flying, people had to pick sides in a hurry, and many took an attitude that they'd lost too much to violence to turn back to the path of personal comfort and self-indulgence, at least not without some substantial gain, such as your own country back. Violence does have that effect. After a generation of Thatcherite personal comfort and self-indulgence, you probably didn't know that.

11 April 2013 at 11:17  
Blogger Corrigan said...

On a wider point, I'm becoming a little concerned at the creeping Liberalism oozing across this blog. A lot of people seem - ahem -"hurt and offended" that I consider Thatcher a scumbag and make no bones about it. I mean, at various points, Avi has called me both a drunk and an anti-Semite (both actionable liables, by the way), Cranmer himself has used just about every post he puts up to take snidey digs at The Church, and Flossie has gone into Helen Lovejoy mode at any criticism of the beloved dirt-bucket, and I don't complain about a bit of it. Traditionalists don't; you Liberals might learn from me.

11 April 2013 at 11:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Poor Corrigan. All I did was to inquire about whether your classless tantrum made you feel better. Calling a pseudonym on a blog a drunk antisemite is actionable in Ireland? I'm not surprised; given the state of the economy there and the integrity of the justice system, you could probably put me away for life at the price of a metric ton of potatoes and a case of whiskey.

But speaking of laws of economics, they do so exist, just that they are hard to pin down on account of human action based on culture. Money, cowrie shells or potatoes all represent calories or kilojewels... energy... and are quantifiable and behave like energy. If your hangover is making it hard for you to think, just consider that you can't get some'tn from nut'n, no matter how hard you wish for it... just like the first law of thermodynamics. All else is academic fluff anyway.

11 April 2013 at 12:33  
Blogger Ivan said...

M Begin on the other hand may not be attending the funeral were he at the head of Likud today. That terrorist was pushing arms onto the Argentinians during the Falklands conflict, with the proviso that it be used to kill the British. Wonderful people to have as allies.

11 April 2013 at 12:54  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Can't get some'tn from nut'n, Avi? I dunno. Israel has been getting about $5 million a day from the Americans for years, and all you ever gave them was an airstrike on the USS Liberty and a few dead citizens who had the cheek to object to land grabbing (ok, ok, I'll give you that one, Americans objecting to land grabbing...). You even got them to front up the aircraft and weaponry. Naw, these things can be manipulated, my hirsute friend, these things can be manipulated.

11 April 2013 at 13:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Got a point there, Ivan. The late M Begin took things too personally. Britain's violation of it's mandate, it's arming of the Arabs and disarming of the Jews, covertly assisting the Arabs in their massacres, pillage and rapine, creating "Jordan," such things can lead old men to be bitter and to misjudge current realities. Good thing Bibi's in charge, eh?

Put this way, Corrigan, sounds like Israel's got a bargoon. I suspect things aren't so simple, though. Remember what I said about laws of economics getting fuzzed up by humans.

11 April 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Ivan said...

What mandate Avi? The British - actually Empire forces - siezed the place from the Turks. Palestine/Transjordan was war booty. They could do damn well what they please. Such were the rules then and even now. Possession is nine-tenth the law etc.

11 April 2013 at 14:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ivan, ever hear of Wikiedia? An imperfect but fairly useful source on basic history, often covering several sides. Passing familiarity with basics makes for more enjoyable debates... not that I wish to get into deep exchanges on this topic on this post. Given your war booty hypothesis, though youd be ok with Israel applying such principles, then. Unless of course Jews are to be judged by different standards.

11 April 2013 at 14:59  
Blogger Ivan said...

The mandate question was meant ironically, Avi. The British were under no obligations, moral or otherwise, to the Jews or to the Arabs.

11 April 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

I wrote a paper entitled "Who was De Valera neutral against?" which was sufficiently even-handed to appear in both a Unionist and Nationalist publication. In the latter it produced such a vehement response that my colleague Rodney Atkinson posted it and my article together on under the title "Nazism- alive and well in Ireland" . In my article I did point out how intensely resented the American ambassador, Gray, had become in Ireland because of his hectoring demands for the abandonment of neutrality.

I also guess a few other reasons for De Valera's controversial signing of the book of condolence on Hitler's death at the German Legation. I also follow the later denazification process of Dr. Eduard Hempel, the German minister.

11 April 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Another thing you need to google, Ivan: I-R-O-N-Y. And a mandate involves an obligation.

11 April 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Hi Edward,

I do find it a little unfair that Dev's winding up Ambassador Gray - the Carl Jacobs of his generation - merits more annoyance from Avi than his own people going to the German Embassy in Ankara and offering Hitler an alliance in return for guns to kill British soldiers with. Still, I suppose we can ignore the stink of hypocrisy about that since it's not wrong if Zionists do it, eh Avi?

Ivan, I should point out that you have differed with Avi on this thread. This means you must be an anti-Semite. Die, Hater, die!!!

11 April 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


11 April 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord Avi, your reply to Corrigan at 19:57, his post being at 19:55 !

Absolutely remarkable. Almost as if you were lying in wait... !

11 April 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh,yeah, pretty cool, but sheer chance that one Inspector... forgot to even turn on the email alert which pings you right away and gives the opportunity to freak people out. Been dealing with a snow storm morphing onto freezing rain and a ten ton load. I know, we're still waiting for that promised global warming here in Canuckistan.

11 April 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A safe journey for you Avi. One is impressed you haven’t been missing the keys of late – better suspension one thinks...

11 April 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, no, I don't text whilst moving. And don't get me going about this stupid device and word correction, but I'm starting to hit the letters I want. When sober. But today I'm riding shotgun; training a Sri Lankan chap for winter conditions... didn't think we'd get them in April.

Thanks for the good wishes. Me, i wish i hada diaper on, the way buddy keeps hitting, pumping and molesting my poor airbrakes.

11 April 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Don't bother arguing with Corrigan, as this is a waste of time and effort. No matter what you say, he'll always be horrid to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Israel.

Anyone who thinks it was OK for the Irish Prime Minister to send condolences on the death of the war criminal and genocidal maniac that was Hitler isn't worth the dignity of a response.

11 April 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Forgot to add "and Canada" too!

11 April 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh no, Hannah, Corrigan is coming around, just as the Inspector said he might. The change is subtle, barely discernible to some, but the momentum is gaining. Give him two years or so and he'll be a bowler-hatted Proddie,lecturing US dabblers on how to be better Zionists. O yee of little faith....

11 April 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Ambassador Gray - the Carl Jacobs of his generation

Yeah, no. I don't do seances.

than his own people going to the German Embassy in Ankara and offering Hitler an alliance in return for guns to kill British soldiers with.

I don't judge Ireland's behavior during the Second World War according to the benign neutrality of the late war years - when events had turned against Hitler and adopting the cause of the Allies (even to the little extent that Ireland did so) became prosperous for the Irish gov't. I judge it according to its actions in 1939 and 1940. When it thought Hitler would win. When it wanted to be on the right side of history - perhaps with Northern Ireland reclaimed by Hitler's fiat. When it decided that it hated the British more than it feared a Nazi victory. If indeed it feared a Nazi victory at all. Ireland doesn't get credit for eventually making a virtue of the cause it had previously denied.

Citizens of Ireland have no standing to criticize any other nation's behavior during that war, because their own nation's behavior amounted to little more than "duck & cover." Excepting the men who left Ireland and volunteered to fight in the Army of the hated Queen. What kind of nation requires its men to go so far as to desert in order to face the enemy in the struggle for western civilization? Here's to the Irish volunteers who by their sacrifice uncovered their own nation's shame.


Then to side with truth is noble,
when we share her wretched crust,
ere her cause bring fame and profit,
and 'tis prosperous to be just;
then it is the brave man chooses
while the coward stands aside,
till the multitude make virtue
of the faith they had denied.

11 April 2013 at 23:59  
Blogger Corrigan said...

"Their own nation's shame?" Remind us what it took to get your nation involved, would you.

12 April 2013 at 07:39  
Blogger michael north said...

De Valera's determination to stay out of WW2 was reasonable so long as only Britain was involved; his "old comrades" (some of whom he'd been forced to hang in the 1930s) would never have stood for his supporting Britain. His refusal to join on the side of the USA was the greatest wrong turning taken by Ireland since independence. It would have given the country a seat at the victors' table in 1945, brought Marshall aid to a chronically depressed economy and prevented "Loyalists" wrapping themselves in the flag whenever they felt like giving Catholics a kicking.

De Valera preferred to remain a big fish in a small pond and create his own Gaelic fantasy world in which shysters like Charles Haughey and Berty Ahern could flourish, until the whole economy was brought to its knees.

12 April 2013 at 08:24  
Blogger Shalom43 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 April 2013 at 09:21  
Blogger Shalom43 said...

True Christianity is about sowing into the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven, depending on viewpoint) and as some have remarked in this comments section, determination, moral backbone and compass are fundamental attributes to achieve this.

Whether Margaret Thatcher really sowed into the Kingdom is questionable, because all consuming fractious Political life took over and obscured any testimony of Jesus.

12 April 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Corrigan said...

The whole "the Irish are evil" thing has a strangely familiar ring to it, possibly because we've been through it all before. Since our resident ugly American is a slow learner, however, let me reiterate:

Ireland did not require anyone to desert to join the British army except serving members of the Irish armed forces. I know this because my father and uncle were both members of the British army. All citizens were perfectly free to join "the hated queen" (actually, at that time it was the hated king) provided they weren't already serving in the Irish military, which, by the way, was all volunteer. If Carl is aware of any military which does not object to its members unilaterally decamping to join another country's forces, perhaps he'd let us know about them. Certainly, I'm unaware of any Americans who deserted Uncle Sam to take the King's shilling.

We didn't need Hitler's fiat to reclaim the North of Ireland; Churchill offered it to us if we came in. We just took him for a liar, which, of course, he was (as well as being a drunkard).

The UK did nothing when Hitler marched into the Saar. They looked the other way when he annexed Austria. They polished his apples when he grabbed the Sudetenland and held his coat when he took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. They "stood up to Hitler" only when they ran out of bones to throw him. The US, being richer and further away, sat it out for another two years until the Japanese bombed them in, and even then it took a couple more days before Hitler declared war on THEM (they didn't want to declare war on Germany at all.) In short, none of you did anything until doing nothing was no longer an option for you. It remained an option for us.

I've asked this question before, and all I got for my trouble was a lot of abuse, but how exactly does following Allied policy better than the Allies make us worse than the Allies?

12 April 2013 at 11:32  
Blogger michael north said...

Correction to my post @ 8.24

De Valera didn't start hanging the bastards till the 1940s.

(Memo to self: never post before breakfast.)

12 April 2013 at 14:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


In June 1940, the continued survival of Ireland as a free nation depended on the survival of Great Britain. Any other result, and Ireland becomes a vassal state of victorious Nazi Germany. And so what did Ireland do? Did it move Heaven and Earth to aide its only source of protection? Did it specifically aid Britain in the battle of the Atlantic? No. It decided that Germany was going to win the war. It decided to position itself favorably in a post-war Europe dominated by Hitler. It decided to leverage neutrality into obtaining some measure of revenge on England through a German-dictated peace. Now perhaps you can explain to me why Ireland was so willing to become a vassal state of Nazi Germany.

1. Did it choose not to fight because it feared German reprisal?

2. Did it choose not to fight because it hated the British so much, it wanted Germany to win?

3. Did it choose not to fight because it found Hitler's New World Order an attractive option?

Some combination of all three?

There are no noble motives in this history, Corrigan. You can spin it any way you like. The historical record of Ireland's behavior in 1940 is there for all to see. Ireland made peace with the prospect of Nazi domination, and acted in accordance with its expectation. It was fully prepared to see England fall. And a healthy percentage of the Irish population would have cheered the prospect.

Ireland cozied up to Hitler when Hitler was winning. Ireland cozied up to the Allies when the Allies were winning. What is dispositive however is that in 1940, when the fate of nations hung in the balance, Ireland chose for Germany by choosing against Britain. That is your national shame. You can't hide it. You can't wash it away. You can't say it didn't happen.

And that by the way is the answer to your question. The difference is that Ireland chose by its inaction to aid the Nazi cause and thereby to submit itself to Nazi domination. It is only by the courage and sacrifice of other nations that Ireland did not experience the bitter fruit of its choices. Live with it.


12 April 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs. You are a fool sir. Why should a country with a population under 3 million want to involve itself with what was the latest European war ? For what ends, the victors spoils, the chance to be bombed, to satisfy the guilt of a USA that kept well away from that war, until war was declared on them ?

12 April 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Chaps, let's just think what a post-war fascist victory would have looked like :

1. The total EXTERMINATION of Jews.
2. The total EXTERMINATION of Slavs.
3. The total EXTERMINATION of the Mentally disabled.
4. The total EXTERMINATION OF Gypsies, homosexuals and those of the centre left.
5. The ENSLAVEMENT of the world, which was ordered along racial lines, and most of the world being turned into a slave labour camp.
6. The slaughter of ANYONE who got in the way (including the Catholic Church- do you think if Hitler had won, he wouldn't have sent the tanks into the Vatican?!?).

Now, I see no reason why anyone can justify Hitler at all. He was a genocidal swine. If it had been up to Churchill, we'd have never appeased this maniac in the first place. The appeasers were shown to be complete idiots, "the guilty men" who v tried to appease the unappeasable.

There were many a brave Irish, Jew, Czech, Polish, American and African that volunteered to see off Hitler. So this was never the Imperialist British fighting another war. This was the free world which fought against a wicked tyrant bent upon the genocide of whole groups of people- the 'sub humans' as the Fascist called them.

Look up Belsen to see the horrors of the Fascist. Then you might grasp why 60,000 Irish Roman Catholics fought alongside their British brothers....

12 April 2013 at 19:14  
Blogger Corrigan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 April 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, Carl, no answer there came. Just to remind you of the question, what did it take to get you involved, why did it take THAT to get you involved, why didn't you get involved before you had to get involved, and would you have got involved if you didn't have to get involved?

12 April 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Corrigan, America is a democracy and alas the fascists had a toehold on that great democracy.

The President would have declared war sooner, but public opinion and Congress were against him on the whole, as the public didn't want want be involved in what they considered was another 'European War', without seeing the Hitler regime for what it really was...

no different to the appeasers in this country, which didn't want to fight for lands which no-one had heard of (as the appeaser Chamberlain said of Czecksolvakia, when he happily gave that great country to the Fascist).

So it took the assault on Pearl Harbor to galvanise America, for them to understand the implications of global war and how certain states were determined to create a new world order...

12 April 2013 at 19:48  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, what you're saying, Lord Lavendon, is that Americans are a bit stupid and you can't expcect them to get off their backsides until somebody bombs them off, but you expect better from us,eh?

12 April 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"what you're saying, Lord Lavendon, is that Americans are a bit stupid"...


12 April 2013 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That fellow Lavendon. Unfortunately for your synopsis at 19:14, the NAZIs did not reveal their black hand until 1942. We were discussing 1940. So, as this man has said earlier, why would the tiny population of a western European island want to get involved in the latest of a long string of European wars ?

12 April 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Carl Jacobs, Corrigan and others.
I have to blow my own trumpet here as I put in a fair amount of research in looking at Ireland's wartime situation and the activities of Germans in Ireland before that. As previously mentioned, my paper appears with a vehement pro German one under the title of "Nazism alive and well in Ireland" on

I do not believe that the internal political situation in Eire permitted any other reasonable policy than neutrality and the British government had gone along with this in giving up the "treaty ports" - British naval bases in Southern Ireland - most probably on the calculation that their presence in wartime would have been a cause of instability in a country which had been convulsed by a fratricidal civil war after independence. There would have been pressure to intervene in another such struggle in order to keep the bases secure.

De Valera quietly did some very helpful things for Britain - for instance allowing flying boats from Lough Erne to overfly neutral Donegal, thus adding 100 miles to their range. He also permitted nominally civilian British rescue boats to operate out of West coast ports and maintained the transatlantic air route through the flying boat base at Foynes ( where Irish coffee was invented!). British and American top military brass with civiilian papers came and went. He also classed distressed flying boat crews as "mariners" and returned them to Britain although Royal Air Force and army personnel were interned as combatants - and so on - all behind a screen of the strictest press censorship.
It is also often forgotten that he sent the Dublin Fire Brigade to render humanitarian assistance in the Belfast blitz.
So, although I am a Unionist and deplore much of his career, I have to speak as I find.

He knew fascism very well from his League of Nations experience.
My paper on earlier German influence in th Irish Free State was entitled "Visitors with a purpose" It's also on the Free Nations site.

12 April 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You are a fool sir.

It is no shame to be called a fool by you.

Why should a country with a population under 3 million want to involve itself with what was the latest European war?

Because the alternative was ending up like Czechoslovakia.


12 April 2013 at 23:22  
Blogger Joe Byrne said...

Is HIs Grace aware that Thatcher voted for the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1966?

I've got the impression that he is fairly opposed to abortion ...

12 April 2013 at 23:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Edward Spalton

most probably on the calculation that their presence in wartime would have been a cause of instability in a country

I fail to see how this helps your cause. Why should the fight against Germany have led to instability in Ireland when the survival of Ireland depended upon Britain successfully prosecuting the war against Germany? You are saying "The Gov't did what it could do." Assume that is true. It doesn't explain the attitude of the population that drove the government to such limited actions. Unless of course you want to consider the possibility that many many citizens of Ireland wanted the Germans to win - despite the cost to Ireland.


12 April 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The US is not a European nation. (There is this thing called the Atlantic Ocean. It's a big body of water that separates North America from Europe and .. oh, never mind.) The threat to the US from Nazi Germany was much farther removed and much harder to establish to a skeptical US polity. It took political vision to see it. Ireland, on the other hand, is a European nation. From the moment the French Army collapsed in 1940, the German threat to Ireland was immediate and mortal. You needed England to survive or you fell into Hilter's hands like over-ripe fruit. It's really that simple. And yet you did nothing to help them. If you can't see the difference, then you are blind.


12 April 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


My dear chap. Mein Kampf was Hitler's 'play book' and reading the diatribe that is it tells us what he would have done if the allies hadn't won.

Ireland would have been crushed under the jackboot and been nothing more than a colony of the Reich.

Hitler was nothing more than a little genocidal idiot Schweinehund.

Simple as that.

As another note, I think if by 1940,people or more accurately governments didn't know the nature of said regime after the 1938 Kristallnacht...

13 April 2013 at 00:04  
Blogger Corrigan said...

What Carl Jacobs is saying is that America didn't dirty its hands before Pearl Harbor because it didn't need to; or to put it another way, it did what Ireland did, only not as successfully. Don't do what I do, do what I tell you. Set that to music and you've got the American national anthem.

13 April 2013 at 00:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What I am saying is that the survival of the US didn't depend upon the survival of England whereas the survival of Ireland did depend upon the survival of England. So how is it that Ireland decided to stay neutral in a conflict that would decide the fact of its very existence? Edward Spalton says it is because fighting with Britain against Germany would have destabilized the nation. That is a damning indictment. Ireland was willing to see itself and Europe thrown under Hitler's boot for generations just to satisfy its animosity against England.

And that is the charitable interpretation.


13 April 2013 at 00:55  
Blogger michael north said...

carl jacobs @00.55

De Valera did the best he could. With a substantial, violent minority, who had been going around murdering people in the 1930s, there was a serious risk of civil war if he had sided with the old enemy. Memories of the post-Treaty civil war were fresh in his mind, and everybody else's. And, as Pascal observed, civil war is the greatest of evils.

De Valera's real failure was in not taking the opportunity to move Ireland onto a wider stage when the USA entered the war. I believe that he feared the undermining of his personal project for Gaelic Ireland. The country only began to modernise once had lost power.

13 April 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger Corrigan said...

20:20 hindsight, Jacobs, is the emblem of the pompous narcissist and an American speciality. De Valera did what he did because he was there at the time; you were not.

13 April 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

michael north

there was a serious risk of civil war if he had sided with the old enemy.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -even if my new friend is Hitler, and even if my new friend is in truth my enemy as well. I haven't seen anyone actually disagree with my conclusions on this thread. What I see instead is a lot of rationalization. "Yes, the Irish gov't may have hedged its bets against German victory, and yes, a substantial portion of the population desired German victory, but you have to understand the context." No, I don't. Ireland survived by hiding behind the very nation it hated. It bit the hand that sustained its very existence. That's despicable.

And then you would have Ireland 'move onto a wider stage' when America entered the war? But Ireland was needed in 1940 & 1941 during the happy times for the U-Boats - according to Churchill, the single greatest threat to British survival in the war. Why should Ireland have been rewarded for finally making a decision well after the need date? Don't offer your services well after they are needed, and well beyond the point when the offer might have risked real cost, and then expect to be praised for it.


13 April 2013 at 14:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Nothing I have written depends upon hindsight. It was all blindingly obvious in 1940. Hitler had by that time invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemborg, and France. People knew what was going on, and knew what German victory meant. The question is rather this. Did the Irish hate Britain so much that they didn't care abut their own fate. Or did they expect to fair well under Hitler's new order? Because there isn't any doubt that German soldiers and sailors and airmen would have arrived to take residence in Ireland once Britain was dispatched. It's the obvious forward base for naval units and air reconnaissance units on the western edge of Europe.


13 April 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs reminds us all that he does not possess the qualities that of which a leader is made. He especially lacks pragmatism and insight into the nature of the Irish people and appears to have little understanding of Irish history in the 100 years leading up to 1940.

So, the best our man from America will ever be is that of an advisor, and a poor one at that...

13 April 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger len said...

It is[sometimes] quite interesting to look at the last comment and to try and guess what Cranmers original article was?.

13 April 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, to recap Carl Jacobs argument, the Americans were right to pull every stroke in the book to avoid having to go to war regardless of the savagery of Nazism, as were the British, but the Irish were not because Carl has retrospectively decided we weren't.

Then Americans wonder why everybody hates them.

13 April 2013 at 17:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. It is[sometimes] quite interesting to look at Cranmer’s thought for the day, and wonder what your born again propaganda has got to do with the price of anything...

13 April 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Corrigan. Mr America sure has a downer on the Emerald Isle, old buddy. Surely he can’t have it in for us papists to THAT extent !

13 April 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Well, Inspector, as len will attest, we're not actually Christians, which means we're in the same category as Muslims as far as Carl and his ilk are concerned.

13 April 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Corrigan. One recalls a couple of sayings from the time...

First, Brendan Behan on the dire state of the Southern Irish economy during the American greed caused 1930s depression. To the effect. “It was difficult to get enough to eat in those times, but to get drunk ! Now, there was a real achievement.

Then from during the war of independence. “What makes you think an Irish boss is going to be any better than an English boss”.

Irish life under the jackboot wouldn’t have been so bad. The country would have been re-united, and Irish soldiers would have been patrolling the streets of Belfast with their Wehrmacht colleagues. If it had all been over by 1940, then the Jews of Europe would have survived as a people, albeit propelled back a few hundred years to the way they were treated during the middle ages. There were many who knew Hitler who said his ultimate genocidal contempt for the Jews sprang only from the great loses in military lives the Germans were experiencing up to and including 1942. Had those loses not taken place, so his temper would not have been murderously inflamed.

13 April 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan: "Well, Inspector, as len will attest, we're not actually Christians, which means we're in the same category as Muslims as far as Carl and his ilk are concerned."

Even if you are Christians, you're all in the same category as Muslims as far as I'm concerned. :)

14 April 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Even if you are Christians, you're all in the same category as Muslims as far as I'm concerned. :)

Good boy. Spoken as a true gayist. Someone who follows Christ’s teaching can’t possibly be considered a Christian if they cannot accept EVERYTHING the homosexual community demand. Neither can they be considered Christian if they are not willing to kiss gay behind. So, how do we classify these awful people. Let’s group them with a religion that would have you executed.

An important impediment to making the whole world Gay removed. Of course, you wouldn’t be able to eradicate Christianity entirely, so we’ll have a new church. The Church of Stonewall, where Jesus is, of course, a gay man. Instant LGBT approval, which is so damned important these days, don’t you find ?

14 April 2013 at 11:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 April 2013 at 11:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

The American isolationist movement of the late 1930's included people from the far left and the far right as well as moderates. It grew out of most American's feelings of that era they were lied to by President Wilson in 1916 when he ran on a peace platform in 1916 and promised to keep the USA out of WW I, a war 90% of Americans wanted no part of, and they were correct. Then he did and amazing about face and managed to get the USA Congress to declare war on the Central Powers in April 1916 based on a telegram that Germany had plans to invade the USA from Mexico which was a farce. Of course the fact the Western Front was starting to look good for the Germans didn't influence him at all did it? Please remember that WW I was none of the USA's business and we wanted, more than anything, to stay out a hopeless European war which should have never started in the first place. Why should we have had to come to the aid of the British and French Empires to save them if they lost their war with Germany? Germany was not our enemy. Isn't it odd the British and the French carved up Germany's colonies between them after WW I? WW I gave the world the Russian Revolution and the agony it caused for the Russian people and the rest of the wotld until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.The Treaty of Versailles unjustly punished Germany for supposedly starting WW I (the blame was on every country and their leaders which took part in that evil war in 1914)_and laid the paranoia for Germany's "stab in the back" hatred of the Allies which led eventually, thanks to the Great Depression, to the rise of Adolf Hitler. WW I was not started by the USA and neither was WW II so please don't lay try and lay that guilt on us. Both of those wars were started by European arrogance and apathy.The Americans got sucked into both of those wars and ended up as the deciding factor of who won them as well as having to stay in Europe after 1945 to make certain the USSR didn't decide to invade West Germany and send the Red Army all the way to London some weekend if it chose to do so. This might be a point of view you have never considered but I think it's correct from an American point of view which of course doesn't matter until Europe needs us to save them once again when they get into trouble. I am impressed how Britain and most other Europe countries came to our aid after 911. Who would have guessed that the European members of NATO would have been called to help the USA after it's homeland was attacked? It was always assumed it would be the other way around...

14 April 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, from Pink News. A young gay man killed himself in Canada, and instead of his parents grieving over the selfish bugger, this is happening...
A couple from Canada [Rob and Nancy] have started a petition to urge the government to change a federal law which classifies gay people as high-risk, when it comes to organ donation, following the death of their son.

Recalling the conversation she had with the Trillium Gift of Live Network in Ontario, which faciiltates organ donation, Nancy said: ”I was asked if he was a gay male and I said, ‘Yes.’ And I was asked if he was a sexually active gay male or if he had a partner and I said, ‘yes,’”

“When I got off the phone to relay that to both Rob and a lot of Rocky’s friends … many of them broke down,” she said. “The gay ones said, ‘Nancy, we can’t donate blood; they’re not going to take our organs’,” reports CBC News.

She said she was later told that his organs would not be used by the organ donation system.


How’s that for equality. Gay people want to give everyone else the chance to live with diseased organs !

14 April 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "So, how do we classify these awful people. Let’s group them with a religion that would have you executed."

That's the why the cookie crumbles. You're also in with Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Cathars and many assorted others who view or viewed our reality in a special way no matter how nice or not they are or were as a group. The category is 'theists', of course, and it's full of people with conflicting beliefs who are convinced they're the only ones who have imagined it correctly.

14 April 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, there’s a thing. At one time we normal people grouped YOU deviants in with the mentally ill and prison dwellers. It’s a funny old world :–>

Heh ! What goes around comes around, or so they say...

14 April 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "At one time we normal people grouped YOU deviants in with the mentally ill and prison dwellers."

Except the rest of us are leaving your group to live your lives as you see fit, subject to the usual constraints in a liberal democratic society these days. We're more civilised and self-aware in some respects now.

14 April 2013 at 12:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes, evangelical atheism is your answer. Shake off the constraints of religion and anything is possible for newly freed man, as we note from the last century...

14 April 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, what's possible for Christians is not possible for Muslims, and vice versa. As an atheist, I'm internally bound to certain behaviour just as much as you are in the real world. In fact, as recent events have shown here, I'm at least as honourable as the next man and more so than some others.

14 April 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, nothing honourable in demonising Christians along with muslims. And what do you know of the real world, when you cannot be you in it ?

14 April 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Ivan said...

John Magee, 90% of whom? These figures can be massaged to fit any agenda. In WW1 there were sufficient number of young men in every country who like the young Adolf lusted for war, in order to prove themselves in battle. Countless numbers like the young PMS Blunkett - later famous wartime scientist falsified their age in order to enlist. Even if the Irish and German Americans may have been ambiguous, the Anglo, Italian and French component were not. By themselves alone they could mobilise millions, given the temper of the time.

During the period in WWII when the UK stood alone, there were in America genuine isolationists such as Herbert Hoover who suspected that the war was going to be used for another round of power-grabbing by Roosevelt; fake isolationists and pacifists in the Communist fellow-travelling mold, parroting the Stalin line that it was a war between imperialists. It wouldn't have taken much to turn US isolationism around, in spite loudmouths such as Fr Fahey.

14 April 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


So, to recap Carl Jacobs argument, the Americans were right to pull every stroke in the book to avoid having to go to war regardless of the savagery of Nazism, as were the British, but the Irish were not because Carl has retrospectively decided we weren't.

Yes, Corrigan that was totally my argument. Or at least a caricature sufficient to allow you to avoid answering any point I made. Perhaps that is because you know that what I have said is true. That's the one salient feature of this argument. An invalid Tu Quoque is all that has been mustered against me.

And nobody seemed to hate my father when he disembarked a troopship docked at Liverpool England on June 14, 1944.


14 April 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Mr America sure has a downer on the Emerald Isle

When Corrigan made his statement about Zionists trying to cut a deal with the Turks to aid Hitler and kill the British, I thought "Someone from Ireland is saying this?" I couldn't let it stand unchallenged. People from Ireland have no business making accusations about aiding Hitler and killing the British.


14 April 2013 at 14:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs, don’t try and explain away your contempt for Irish neutrality by quoting Corrigan of recent. This is not the first occasion this subject has been visited. And this is not the first time you have expressed your contempt.

14 April 2013 at 14:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0, nothing honourable in demonising Christians along with muslims."

It's you who has assumed the demonising there, along with introducing the homosexuality context. All I said was that Christians and Muslims are in the same category if one is labelling some as true Christians and some not ... as far as atheists are concerned.

14 April 2013 at 14:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I am not explaining away anything. I stand by what I write. If I decide I am wrong, I will say so. This is the second time I have argued this subject with Corrigan. And both times it emerged from his comments about Israel or the Jews.

And yes I am contemptuous of Irish neutrality, because Irish neutrality was contemptible. Even the Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists found a way to make a common front against Japan. And you snivel about 'Irish history.' Would it have been worth ending up under Hitler's yoke? Or did Ireland find Hitler's yoke an appealing prospect?

You tell me.


14 April 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yeah, the world is full of sorrow due to Christian car bombs, Christian riots, Christian persecution...

Only odd ball atheists think like that, surely ?

14 April 2013 at 14:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs, And yes I am contemptuous of Irish neutrality

And finally we get there !

So now we know why Corrigan takes pot shots at you.

As for the final question, think about this. The Irish would have exchanged an English master for a German one in twenty short years. So, little change there then. And if the less than three million of them went in with their hands up, they wouldn’t have been blitzkrieged. And Irish mothers would not have needlessly lost their children fighting the inevitable. Now Carl Eamonn De Valera-Jacobs, Irish head of State, an onerous responsibility rests in your hands. What do you do ? And remember this, your first duty is to your own people and country, and NOT the rest of the world.

14 April 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Only odd ball atheists think like that, surely ?"

You're being a bit 'Clampett clan' on the understanding front today, Inspector. Are you unsettled by your recent jaunts to Pink News or something?

14 April 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interesting. One wouldn’t insult atheist though by suggesting they believe one religion is no better than another. Odd you do, unless you are being disingenuous as you are wont to be on occasion, for your own scheming ends :->

14 April 2013 at 16:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

‘thought’, that be...

14 April 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, atheists think that no religion to date is true. Therefore you're all in the same boat as far as we're concerned. I can say this in many different ways for as long as you like. Keep pretending I'm actually saying something else and I will too. ;)

14 April 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


And finally we get there!

Are you under the false impression that I somehow tried to hide it?

The Irish would have exchanged an English master for a German one in twenty short years.

Did you really just equate Britain to Nazi Germany? Are you really prepared to justify that statement?

an onerous responsibility rests in your hands. What do you do?

Tell me first so that I may answer. What percentage of my population actually hopes for a German victory? Forty percent? Fifty percent? Sixty percent? What do you say?


14 April 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs.Tell me first so that I may answer. What percentage of my population actually hopes for a German victory? Forty percent? Fifty percent? Sixty percent? What do you say?

Sorry old chap, but you confirm this man’s earlier questioning of the worth of your knowledge on the issue. You see, the above would not even have been asked or considered by anyone in the Free State. The question they would have asked is what does the latest in a long series of European wars have to do with a truncated south of Ireland. And they would have been damn right to ask that !

14 April 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs. Startling idea old man. If you are so sure that the southern Irish were so anti English as to side with the NAZIs, one would expect a regiment of like minded Irish to have made their way to Germany to fight for Hitler. Find them and present them to the Inspector. (cf, the 60,000 Irish who took the Kings shilling, or worked the British merchant marine)

Put up or shut up, in other words....

14 April 2013 at 19:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Put up or shut up, in other words....

Well, I suppose I could point you at Edward Spaldon's claim on this very thread that supporting Britain could have destabilized Ireland. Then I would ask "Why?" But you would not answer. Or I could point to Michael North's assertion on this very thread that supporting Britain risked fratricidal civil war. The I would ask "Why?" But you would not answer. So ...

Putting up

John Stout served with the Irish Guards armoured division which raced to Arnhem to capture a key bridge. He also fought in the Battle of the Bulge, ending the war as a commando.
On his return home to Cork, however, he was treated as a pariah.

"What they did to us was wrong. I know that in my heart. They cold-shouldered you. They didn't speak to you. They didn't understand why we did what we did. A lot of Irish people wanted Germany to win the war - they were dead up against the British."

It was only 20 years since Ireland had won its independence after many years of rule from London, and the Irish list of grievances against Britain was long - as Gerald Morgan, long-time professor of history at Trinity College, Dublin, explains.

"The uprisings, the civil war, all sorts of reneged promises - I'd estimate that 60% of the population expected or indeed hoped the Germans would win."

Ireland adopted a policy of strict neutrality which may have been necessary politically or even popular, but a significant minority strongly backed Britain, including tens of thousands of Irish civilians who signed up to fight alongside the 5,000 Irish servicemen who switched uniforms.

I am sure you will be happy to know that the 4500 "deserters" were pardoned only seven decades after the fact. It's a funny world where people have to "desert" in order to face the enemy in combat.


14 April 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The question they would have asked is what does the latest in a long series of European wars have to do with a truncated south of Ireland.

You can't even keep track of your own argument. Here let me quote you.

The Irish would have exchanged an English master for a German one in twenty short years. So, little change there then. And if the less than three million of them went in with their hands up, they wouldn’t have been blitzkrieged.

Here, let me summarize. Ireland couldn't stay neutral in the conflict any more than Belgium could. A defeated Britain meant an occupied Ireland. Not with a blitzkrieg. The Germans would have simply landed on an airfield. They would have driven warships into a port and disembarked. And that would have been the end. That's what this "latest in a long series of European wars" had to do with the truncated south.

So I will keep asking the question if only to demonstrate that no answer is forthcoming. Why did Ireland stay neutral in a conflict that would determine its own survival as a free nation? Hatred of the British? Fear of Hitler? Affinity for Hitler? I am still waiting for a response.


14 April 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Right then Carl Jacobs. Concession time...

The people of Cork hated the English. Their Lord Mayor was murdered by the Black and Tans, and his successor, Terence McSwiney, died on hunger strike in prison. When the Tans left, they burnt down half of Cork as their way of saying “Cheery bye”. That kind of behaviour tends to have an effect on thinking twenty years up the line.

The Irish defence service, a military establishment, lost quite a few deserters to England. Now, as a former soldier yourself, you know that the ultimate penalty for desertion during war is the firing squad. So what we can determine to be true in the USA is not applicable to the Free State then ?

As far as this man knows, the only Irish to have been involved with the NAZIs were a tiny handful of IRA men, most notably the drunk, Frank Ryan.

Finally, don’t tell the Inspector that you are so stupid as to put your faith in a single professor’s opinion ?

14 April 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This afternoon, I have been reading the transcripts of the Trial of Adolf Eichmann. About midway through the prosecutor's opening, I encountered this revealing reference to a statement made by Reinhard Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference.

Heydrich listed the countries to be considered for the "final solution," including besides all the countries under Nazi occupation, Britain, IRELAND, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, and the entire area of the Soviet Union, and arrived at a total of eleven million Jews to be included in the "final solution." In his list, Estonia already appears as "Judenrein"(clear of Jews).


Emphasis mine, of course. For those who might think German domination of Ireland would have been benign. Or that Britain and Nazi Germany were the same in kind.


Perhaps Avi can explain to you the historical significance of the Wannsee Conference.


15 April 2013 at 01:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The Irish defence service, a military establishment, lost quite a few deserters to England. Now, as a former soldier yourself, you know that the ultimate penalty for desertion during war is the firing squad.

What war? The war you have been going to great efforts to prove Ireland had no business involving itself in? That war? The war Ireland didn't fight? These men deserted to fight in that war. They didn't desert to avoid the war. You appealed to those men who left Ireland to fight for the UK in order to try to establish opposition to Hitler in Ireland. And now you say some of those men should have been shot for doing so?

Here is what the Irish government said - too late, too little though it might be.

On June 12, 2012, the Irish Minister of Defense, Alan Shatter, issued a statement: "On behalf of the State, the Government apologizes for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces who left to fight on the Allied side during World War II, 1939 to 1945, were treated after the War by the State."

Deserters Pardoned

don’t tell the Inspector that you are so stupid as to put your faith in a single professor’s opinion?

No, I don't. That's why I asked you the percentage instead of telling you the percentage. But I have no reason to disbelieve him either. What reason do you have to disbelieve him - other than he make a claim you dislike? Are you saying he is wrong?


15 April 2013 at 02:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs. You are clearly suffering from a form of obsessive compulsive disorder. Resulting apparently, from a single, admittedly unwise telegram from De Valera to Germany on Hitler’s death. From this one action, you are fabricating within your head, the idea that the tiny country of the then fledgling and near bankrupt Irish Republic was Hitler’s greatest passive ally.

You insult the memory of all who were there, sir, and furthermore you insult the descendants of the same, to wit, the Inspector and Corrigan.

Still, what happened around that time is certainly a fascinating story of pragmatism over ideal, and you may wish to follow up your research in private. The Inspector recommends you put down what appears to be your primary source of material, The American Boy’s Big Book of WW2 or similar, and aim for specialist publications.

This correspondence is now closed. The Inspector bids you a good day, Sir.

15 April 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I think a total of 50,000 British Jews fought in the war... and that was out of a TOTAL British Jewish population of no more than 500,000.... Although if Hitler's plan had gone accordingly that would have a been a total British Jewish population of zero.

17 April 2013 at 18:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older