UPDATE 4/14/16 This is a new version of this post. It's improved.
This is about Irish Republicans who today defend the acceptance of support from Nazi Germany by the IRA during World War II and is also about the neutrality of the Dublin state (what we now call “the Republic”) during that war. I will argue that: A) accepting aid from Nazi Germany was morally unacceptable; everyone should have fought Nazi Germany; B) Defending the WWII IRA about this and at the same time calling for a boycott of Israel, is anti-Semitic; C) Overwhelmingly, the history of republicans has been one of opposition to fascism; and D) defending the WWII IRA on this hurts Sinn fein's ability to generate support for a United Ireland.
When the IRA decided to accept aid from Nazi Germany, it was not the best idea they had (for the most part what I say in this article about what Nazi Germany did is with the benefit of hindsight, but as I'll explain, you could pretty much say the same things without that benefit). From what I've read, probably some small minority of the IRA were sympathetic to fascism, and probably some minority was anti-semitic (although I don't have much info to justify those statements, I have some, and odds are they're probably pretty accurate). Beyond that, I realize that their motivation was overwhelmingly about two ideas- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," and "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity."
But it was still wrong. At the very least with hindsight it was wrong (and there are republicans, including many who I'm sure are genuine and good leftists, who, with the benefit of hindsight defend what the IRA did). But even with what they knew at the time, it was wrong. In general, Nazi Germany was an expansionist, fascist state. The unions had been smashed early in the regime, dissidents were rounded up, repressive (to put it mildly) laws were passed, democracy was done away with. The IRA received aid from the Nazis AFTER the war started, when it was clear how expansionist and aggressive the Nazis were.
Also, although probably no one actually predicted the Holocaust, there were reasons to believe that very bad things were going to happen to the Jews:
1. In Mein Kamph, Hitler made it clear how he felt about Jews. He talked about gassing thousands of them. I can't remember for sure and can't find a clear answer, but I'm pretty sure in that book he also referred to them as vermin.
2. There were tons of anti-Semitic propaganda, from the State, the Party and allies of the State.
3. The Nuremberg Laws (and others that came a little later) established (early in the regime) a kind of Apartheid for German Jews and, even worse, stripped them of their citizenship.
4. Kristalnacht was an orgy of violence against German Jews (which was well publicized) about a year before the IRA started accepting aid from the Nazis.
5. German Jews were sent to concentration camps.
People who more or less try to justify the IRA's behavior with the Nazis point to how evil the British have been with the Irish. Now, horrible things have been done. There was the general practice of kicking people off their land. The transportation of 10s of thousands who were sent to the Caribbean by Cromwell and worked under slave-like conditions until they earned their freedom or died (many or MOST died) (they usually lasted about 3-7 years). For more than 100 years, Catholics were stripped of more or less all the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants. During the “Famine,” while 10-15% of the population starved to death and another 10-15% emigrated to avoid starving to death, food was being shipped out of Ireland to England. British policy in Ireland since the Famine has sucked. About 130 years later, during The Troubles, the Nationalist (Catholic) community went through a nightmare- probably the best way to briefly describe that is to say that while roughly 825+ Catholic civilians were killed in the years 1969 to 2005 by either loyalist paramilitaries or the security forces, a comparable scenario in America would have meant around 67,000 unarmed people of color killed by cops or Nazi skinheads (etc.) in the same time period. (A: I would guess that the actual number for that was probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000 (see the very bottom for where I got that); B: I'm not saying the racist system in this country wasn't, ideologically or programatiucally, capable of killing 67,000 people of color in those years if the "rebellion" among people of color here had been as militaristic as the one among Catholics in N. Ireland; but the reality is that as bad as it was for people of color here in those years, it was, in terms of deaths MUCH worse for Catholics in N. Ireland)
That doesn't make the Irish the most oppressed people on the face of the earth. During the Famine, the Brits weren't stopped from killing every single Catholic by foreign intervention- the deaths stopped because the potato blight ended. They certainly weren't rounding up Catholics and shooting them with the goal of extermination or something. What stopped Hitler from killing every single Jew in Europe (and he might not have stopped there) was the military defeat of Germany. And I think we all agree that Genocide is uniquely evil- it is the cultural equivalent of a species going extinct.
This is for the leftist republicans who defend what the IRA did (it’s not about Irish neutrality). Use your imagination- if Apartheid S. Africa were transported through space and time and was in the place of Germany and invaded other countries like Germany did and came into conflict with the UK, would you say the IRA was justified in accepting aid from Apartheid S. Africa? This will sound a little weird, but use even more imagination and do the same with Israel/Palestine. While you're thinking about that, read my post "In The Spirit of Robert Briscoe". If you think what the WWII-era IRA did was okay and you aren't an anti-semite, go on Irish Indymedia, and using your real name, announce that you think the IRA would have been justified in exploiting "England's difficulty" in those two hypothetical situations (or, if you lack the imagination for this, say that republicans should take aid from Israel if it's offered (UPDATE 3/1/20 at the risk of playing switch and bate, I'm changing this- the old question is being replaced by: what if the Israeli government had offered the Provisional IRA money and arms in the 1970s?).
The South of Ireland was largely neutral (they leaned a tiny bit towards the Allies). But if Germany had won, they would have exerted serious influence over Ireland. If Ireland had done something Berlin didn't like, or if there had been a fascist insurgency, or if Hitler decided (and he almost definitely would have) that he wanted Ireland's Jews as well, the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS would have invaded. Pastor Martin Niemöller might have had some thoughts on this. He came up with the following poem (there's multiple versions, this is one) about the Nazi era in Germany:
First they came for the Jews, and I did nothing to help them, because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the Communists, and I did nothing to help them because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the trade-unionists and I did nothing to help them because I was not a trade-unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to help me
You could replace the words “Communists,” or “trade-unionists” with Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. and use it to criticize Dublin (you could also leave it the way it is and use it to criticize Dublin). If you want to ignore the benefit of hindsight and say that up until the invasion of Poland, the appeasement strategy was a good idea, I disagree with you. After the invasion of Poland, well, I strongly disagree with you. At that point Ireland should have joined the Allies.
(in general I should say that both the US and UK had very poor records when it came to injustice generally; and when it came to fascism specifically, they could have done better, but, especially in the end, they were both better than Ireland when it came to defeating Nazi Germany)
There are at least two other compelling reasons why the South should have joined the Allies:
1. London offered to unite Ireland if Dublin helped with the war effort. Even if that was bullshit, if Ireland had helped, that would have made the Allied nations more receptive to what Ireland said about partition after the war.
2. Dublin should have helped the Allies to ensure the safety of Ireland's Jewish population.
(upon learning of the Holocaust in 1942, the Irish Prime Minister de Valera tried, unsuccessfully, to use diplomacy to save the lives of some Jews in occupied Europe. What he didn't do, upon learning of the Holocaust, was declare war on Germany)
Many would say that it was reasonable for the vast majority of the Irish to refuse to fight alongside the British because of what the Brits have done to Ireland. I’d respond by pointing out that the 442nd Regimental Combat Team saw more combat than any other similarly sized unit of the US Army in Europe during WWII. After the war, they were the most decorated Army unit its size in all US military history up to that point. They were entirely Japanese-American (I think some of the officers were white) at a time when about half of Japanese-America was in internment camps.
The leader of the IRA most associated with accepting aid from Nazi Germany was Sean Russell. There is a statue of him, and many republicans, including leftists, consider him a great republican, and last I heard SF commemorates his death. How much did he advance the struggle? How closer did Ireland come to being united and independent because of his work? By itself, the fact that he didn't move the struggle forward isn't enough to justify my feeling that he doesn't deserve to be honored- he tried. But when you add that he accepted aid from the DEVIL, and something else I'll explain shortly, he doesn't deserve to be honored. (I should make something clear- according to republicans who think he was wrong to accept Nazi Germany’s aid, he was not pro-Nazi or pro-German)
(I should say that from what I’ve been told, what the IRA did was not uncommon. Even Indian leftists did something similar. And it’s something that should be forgivable and forgettable as soon as SF stops defending it- if not, to a large degree, NOW. It was a long time ago and the Republican Movement has not been doing anything similar since then. This is especially true when you consider that when African National Congress supporters learned that the ANC did something similar, they don’t seem to have missed a beat. I’m referring to the ANC accepting aid from Indonesia both before and after 1994, while Indonesia maintained a genocidal occupation of East Timor. Mandela even tried selling them military hardware that could have been used against the East Timorese resistance and population. That's based on reports here, and here.
I should briefly state at some point that SF is generally very anti-fascist and very progressive- anti-homophobic, anti-racist, etc. Also, there are things here and there indicating that, USUALLY, SF is very much against anti-Semitism, it's just this combination of criticizing Israel and defending what the IRA did that's the problem.
Lastly, let me explain the last element of why Sean Russell should not be considered a great republican and why Sinn Fein should acknowledge that accepting aid from the Nazis was wrong.
I attended an event around 2000 where Martin A. Lee talked about his book "The Beast Reawakens." It's about the resurgence of fascism in Europe. I haven't read it, but I imagine it's good, if you ignore the forward by CONOR CRUISE O'BRIEN (for those who don't know, he was an Irish politician VERY hostile the Republican Movement). At the time I didn't know about the Cruiser's involvement, but it probably explains why Lee said what he said in response to my question. Shortly before this event I had decided that the Democratic Unionist Party was not too far from fascist, so during the Q&A I asked about that. He said he didn't know, but then mentioned the IRA and Nazi Germany and also apparently two small European fascist organizations admire the IRA (which must have everything to do with tactics and organization, all you have to do is read a single issue of SF's newspaper to know where their politics have been in recent decades (on the Left)). I'll be honest, between shock, and a related problem where 1% of the time my brain freezes, I didn't respond with the several facts I could have tossed out. But that doesn't change the following facts:
1) Accepting aid from Nazi Germany was wrong.
2) Even if I had responded, he was the expert on fascism, probably something like 1/4 of the audience still would have come away with a negative opinion of the IRA.
3) That sort of thing (people slanderously implying or saying that republicans are friendly with fascists) probably happens 5 times a month world-wide with small to large audiences, not to mention the Internet, books, etc.
SF really should acknowledge that accepting aid from the DEVIL was wrong, and should stop commemorating Russell (SF has been attacked quite publicly over that at least 1-2 times in the late 2000s). Although I've done some last-minute research on this, I'll have to take the same approach I've taken on a couple other issues. As far as commemorating Russell, for all I know, SF has stopped. If so, this is to discourage them from changing their minds. Also, in 2009 I found a Irish News article which reported that SF was being attacked over it's connections to the Nazis via Sean Russell. The effectiveness of those attacks would be lessened if SF would acknowledge that the IRA was wrong.
UPDATE 3/1/20 I recently did a LOT of searches (Google Advanced Search of the web, GAS of Sinnfein.ie, sinnfen.ie using their search engine) and I also contacted 2-3 SF politicians about this. I have found nothing new and heard nothing, and I assume SF still hasn't said the IRA was wrong to accept that aid. I found a 2004 Irish Times article where SF was attacked by Fianna Fail. The article quoted a SF spokesperson as saying: "I think Eoin Ryan should look at his own party's history before starting to throw around accusations ... considering Eamon de Valera signed a book of condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler."
********
How did the IRA fail to “Fuck fascism before it fucks you?” Besides accepting aid from Germany, they launched a small amount of probably negligable attacks on the British, and I think a small amount of information was sent to the Nazis (that last bit is from wikipedia). It’s possible that many or most of them might have been able to HELP the Allies in some way, and didn’t.
Referring back to the paragraph about Israel (while occupying the West Bank and Gaza) or Apartheid S. Africa taking the place of Nazi Germany, I think that the more republicans stop defending what the IRA did while supporting the Palestinians the more anti-semitism will be eroded among Irish people (and, at the 2002 National Conference of SF Youth, I met a SF supporter who supports the Palestinians and is an anti-Semite). UPDATE 2/20/20 As far as reasons for SF to do what I'm saying, see this.
UPDATE 10/7/16 In all fairness to SF, for better or worse, they recently have had what were supposed to be secret meetings with Likud. I am probably going to leave this post up anyway, but I felt that at the very least I should mention that, as it sort of erodes my concern that there are some weak and limited and mild anti-Semitic tendencies in SF (I would be very surprised if there is a single holocaust denier or user of the k-word in SF). Going back to the meetings, Unionist politicians were invited and the idea was to constructively push Likud to behave more like the Unionists have and move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, based on hearing more about what worked in Ireland. I think this move also eliminates any concern that SF have the kind of progressive anti-Semites in their party that have a bad approach to supporting the Palestinians- they do or DID have the strain of anti-semitism I discussed in this post, but not one that is all about supporting the Palestinians.
UPDATE 1/28/17 You should also read a brief post here.
UPDATE 2/19/20 Read this. According to an Irish Times article, SF DID support the bill.
(I should also say that although I am relatively moderate, I am largely a supporter of the Palestinians)
What makes me confident about my statement “probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000”?
1. Between 1996 and 2005 according to the FBI there were 38 racist murders. I have read that the Department of Justice officially estimates that for every hate crime reported to the FBI there might be 20-30 that aren’t reported because not all local law enforcement agencies report such crimes to the FBI. So I came up with 1,140 for those years.
2. I heard that in a 12 month period during a 2014 (apparent) surge in police murders of black people including those of Eric Garner in NY, Tamir Rice in OH, and Michael Brown in MO among other highly publicized such cases, that around 200 black people armed or unarmed, had been killed by cops in America. Although I’m very open-minded about accusations that cops plant guns, this country also has a ridiculous number of guns.
3. Bear in mind that decades ago the number of people of color and the number of cops in this country were both smaller or much smaller than they are today.
4. If it’s worth much, about 10 years ago I read a huge amount of what the Southern Poverty Law Center put on their web-site in the previous 10-15 years. I also got an Ethnic Studies degree if that’s worth much.
5.There was little or no talk about “Brown Lives Matter” so I get the impression that very few Latinos/Latinas/Chicanos/Chicanas have been killed by cops in recent years (as far as I know, even Arpaio’s sheriff’s department in AZ didn’t kill a single such person) and that might reflect the situation in earlier decades. I have practically never heard of Asian-Americans being killed by cops. And if Native Americans were being killed at a high rate in the 80s and 90s I would have heard (a massive chunk of my major was Native American Studies).
UPDATE 6/9/21 I just found a Democracy Now! story relevant to this. It's
about the last 20 years, but there's a small overlap between that and
the period I was looking at Catholics and people of color (1969-2005),
and it's possible that what I said about this comparison is off a
little. Bear in mind that the figure I refer to in item #2 above came
from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest.
No comments:
Post a Comment