This isn't strictly "mythbusting", but it's my blog and I'll stray off-topic if I feel like it.
I have to thank the justly-renowned Grumpy Spindoctor for bringing to my attention the wartime travails of one Arthur Donaldson, a Nat who later became leader of the SNP in the 60s.
With my interest piqued, I was able to follow the trail to Wikipedia and to a 2005 Sunday Times article.
A quick inspection of the PRO catalogue shows that there is indeed a file entitled:
"HO 45/23801
WAR: Arthur Donaldson, Scottish nationalist extremist engaged in formation of United Scotland Party and Scottish Neutrality League: organiser of National Aid Society to assist conscientious objectors to evade military service by going into hiding; detention under Defence Regulation 18B"
(As well as a similar one dealing with a Mathew Hamilton.)
I periodically go to Kew to look at other (non-political) stuff. I'm planning a trip in the next couple of months. I think I'll have a gander at these files.
Why am I bringing this up?
Pure amusement. CyberNats are notorious for throwing around "Vichy" and "Quisling" as insults.
So isn't it deliciously ironic that one of their own founding fathers was apparently caught entertaining the prospect of becoming, quite literally, the Quisling-like leader of a Vichy-type regime?
Priceless.
Anna's birthday Day 1 - Buying a guitar
1 day ago
29 comments:
Wikipedia, nice.
LOL
A Enemy of Scotland, yes you are
Muttley, if you were capable of reading more than a couple of words at a time you would have noticed that I went from Wiki to the Sunday Times to the PRO catalogue reference for the documents which were the primary source for their story.
Do you know what "PRO" means?
Also, I hope you've worked out why some of your posts get deleted and some don't.
I quite like your last one. Shows I'm hitting the mark.
"Do you know what "PRO" means?"
It has different meanings, in Nigel Griffeth's case it means.......
Again, like AM2, I can't account for your anti-libetrian views, don't you find it strange that bloggers like you of the 'right' are the ones who use moderation on comments htta are critical of your posts.
I mean, if I were posting porn or slanderous comments, fair enough but I'm not, I'm simply contesting your ability to do fair minded research.
It's maybe time that you and AM2 (that's if your not actually the same person) to face up to the challenges of blogging and being honest.
sm753, just wondering why you deleted your Scotsman account?
CTL
I haven't.
Not since the last time I took a ban, which was either for posting in Klingon or mentioning the name "Sheridan" too many times. But they were both a while back.
In contemporary usage, "Quisling" is synonymous with "traitor", and particularly applied to politicians who appear to favour the interests of other nations or cultures over their own.
Smee, do you favour the interests of the UK over Scotland?
I'll take that silence as confirmation that you are a quisling.
From the SNP Website
Arthur Donaldson was leader of the Scottish National Party from 1960 to 1969.
Born in Dundee, he initially became journalist in his hometown but later decided to try his hand at the same profession in the United States, to where he emigrated at the age of 21. He did not find work as a journalist and instead found employment in the automotive industry in Detroit. He then attended the Detroit Technical College, to study engineering.
Although he was now beginning to be established in the United States he took a keen interest in the developing political movement for Scottish independence back home. To that end he joined the newly formed National Party of Scotland in 1928, as an overseas member, and Scotland’s political and economic plight was never far from his thoughts.
In 1932, Donaldson married Vi Bruce, another expatriate Scot (from Forfar) and set up home in Washington D.C., where he worked for the Chrysler Corporation. In 1936 Donaldson returned to his native Scotland with his family, moving to Ayrshire to work in farming.
Donaldson came into contact with Robert McIntyre, one of the leading members of the SNP and his involvement with the party deepened.
In May 1941, during World War II, Donaldson’s home was raided by police who allegedly suspected him and a number of other SNP figures of “subversive activities”, due to their support for the Scottish Neutrality League. Donaldson was arrested and interned under Defence Regulation 18B, at first to Kilmarnock Prison and then in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow. He was held for six weeks, but released without charge.
Donaldson’s arrest and detention did not dissuade him of the value of his political activities. He remained a member of the SNP throughout the 1940s and 1950s, when they were particularly weak, and much of the focus of nationalist efforts was being invested in the Scottish Covenant.
Arthur Donaldson became SNP leader in 1960, replacing James Halliday, and it was during his term as SNP leader that the party began to grow and impose itself on the Scottish political landscape. He was the SNP candidate opposing Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election in November 1963, although he lost his deposit there.
During his term of office the SNP began to perform credibly in elections, winning the 1967 Hamilton by-election, and polling more votes than any other party in the 1968 Scottish local authority elections.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/comment/-Why-we-are-no.4803550.jp
The tally says 14 but there are only 9 posts, and you are mentioned...?
Even the cut and paste job from the SNP website doesn't deny that Arthur Donaldson supported the Scottish Neutrality League in May 1941.Let's have a quick history lesson for wardog. In 1941 Norway was run by the local Nazi Vidkun Quisling, the Irish Free State by Eamon De Valera - later to sign the book of condolences at the German Embassy in Dublin following the suicide of Hitler - and Iceland also declared itself neutral.
Looks like Donaldson was an early advocate of the 'arc of prosperity.'
Interesting article here about the early SNP
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1749995.ece
Scotleag
Yes your right, the SNP are Nazi's, that's patently obvious.
You would deny it.
Certainly not 350,000 scots who voted for them.
I guess we in labour need to ask ourselves the question:
OSWALD MOSLEY?
THE LEAUGE OF EMPIRE LOYALISTS?
Oh dear
CTL
"The tally says 14 but there are only 9 posts, and you are mentioned...?"
That was back in December - I think both the Klingon and Sheridan bans (and my consequent resetting of my account) were after then.
So no surprise
"Yes your right, the SNP are Nazi's, that's patently obvious."
Well Muttley, you said it...
That's not the accusation.
The point is simply that a party whose supporters love to chuck around the words "Quisling" and "Vichy" as insults (as you have done above) in fact turns out to be the party that was arguably closest to ever becoming a Quisling, Vichy party.
Never mind, eh?
I really shouldn't respond to the semi-literate though totally hysterical wardog but it seems that once again this particular canine has sunk his teeth into a totally different bone from the one in contention.
Perhaps the historical truth is hurting. In which case I'll leave Donaldson alone and look instead at Douglas Young, the Chairman of the SNP during WW2. It was reported in The Times of October 30th 1942 that Young was serving time in Saughton for refusing to submit to medical examination under the National Service Act and had decided to stand for election as SNP candidate for the rectorship of Edinburgh University.
What a brave stand against the imperialist warmongers that was. I was going to ask another Scot who was a young man at that time - my father - what impact this selfless decision by the gallant Young had on the Scottish youth of 1942. But then I remembered that my Dad wouldn't have been aware of Young's stunt as, in common with the rest of the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division and alongside thousands of other British, Australian, New Zealand, South African and Indian troops in the 8th Army, he'd have been halfway through the two-weeks long Battle of El Alamein at the time.
Perhaps, wardog, you consider those brave men to be 'enemies' of Scotland for not following the SNP's lead in refusing to undergo medical examinations?
I wonder too if those imprisoned in the concentration camps on mainland Europe would have been afforded the same luxury as Young was in being permitted to stand for the rectorship while in prison?
For the record Young came a very poor last in the election. But he left prison to continue his grandstanding for the rest of the war while men like my father fought on in North Africa and Italy, spending years away from their loved ones, fighting for the freedom which Young and his ilk so casually abused.
I go away on holiday and this appears------
Right. Concerning Scotleag's swipe at the "Arce of Prosperity" in World War II -
Norway was invaded by the Germans. It was aided by the Quisling's "National Salvation" movement - a small party in democratic politics. Norway was INVADED and run by collaborators under the supervision of Terboven, the Gauleiter. Every occupied zone collaborated for goodness sake in some way. The Channel Islands collaborated in deporting some of their their small Jewish population to Auschwitz.
Maybe a few more Paul Verhoeven movies (Black Book and Soldier of Orange - not Showgirls!) and a bit less "Boy's Own" for accuracy please.
Iceland declared independence and neutrality upon Denmark's quick capitulation (it became a "model potectorate" of the Reich). I suppose if Iceland had not declared independence then it would have been bound by the mother country's treaty with Germany on this issue. A declaration of war would have prompted a possible German invasion quicker than the British one that occupied the island until the Yanks took over.
Ireland - ah, the old inference, nudge, nudge, that De Valera was pro-Nazi. Well De Valera was daft to sign the book of condolence but as a sovereign state Eire remained neutral like Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden - and hoped for the best.
Essentially Dev had a choice. Stay neutral or openly back the allies and open Eire to a possible new civil war and air raids with no proper defence system in place - as imposed by the Anglo-Irish treaty till the late 1930's. It was probably better in the long run that Eire did not get involved as British armed forces would have inevitably got involved in a second civil war.
Dev bugged the German embassy and passed on the details to the UK (check with T P Coogan's De Valera - Long Fellow, Long Shadow) and allowed British servicemen interned in Eire to be declared "unfit for service" and returned to the UK where they promptly rejoined their units. Irish men and women serving in the British forces were allowed to wonder in out of the state unhindered.
There was of course the draconian "Offences against the State Act" to prevent pro-German IRA from helping the Nazis and undermine neutrality. More than a few hundred were interned under that act and a few were executed under it. Indeed a German caught spying lay in Mountjoy under sentence of death for much of the war for violating the act.
Of course the man who could have savaged Dev over World War Two was Irishman Chaim Herzog, the Irish Jew who later was President of Israel and served in the British Army during World War II. Instead in his memoir "Living History" he praised Dev generally (family friend - his dad Rabbi Herzog ran a Republican safehouse in Dublin during the 1919-1921 period and Dev was a guest during some of that period). Funny that.
Concerning some individual nationalists who refused to do national service etc, yes I was aware of this. I heard one invoked the Act of Union in one case.
Personally I think such attitudes were wrongheaded.
However to try to charge all nationalists, and I hope this is not nudge-nudge on your part, during this period as being pro-nazi, anti-conscription would be wrong. Names such as Donald Stewart (ex-Navy), Ian Hamilton (ex-RAF) and Paul Henderson Scott (ex-army, 1941-1947, demobbed a major in Royal Artillery) come to mind.
Both the latter two have published memoirs.
There of course is plenty of incidents in history of nationalists within states at war cutting deals with the enemy in return for achieving their aims. During World War I the Central Powers backed Irish and Polish political dissidents against Allied States.
In turn the Allies backed Czechoslovak and Yugoslav and later Polish (yes it is confusing!) dissidents. And of course Arab dissidents against the Turks - followed by Sykes-Picot stab in the back. We are still paying for that one.
Aberdonian, you should get your facts right before you criticise others. At no time did I suggest Norway hadn't been invaded by the Nazis.
Iceland did NOT declare independence upon Denmark being taken over by the Nazis, rather it maintained a form of neutrality so beneficial to Nazi prospects that it led to British and subsequent American invasion. Independence was declared in 1944 when it was still under Allied occupation.
Your suggestion that backing the Allies would have led to a second Irish civil war is amazing. In trying to protect the old rogue De Valera from a charge of sympathy for Hitler you accuse a substantial section of the Irish people of being prepared to go to war against a pro-Allied government.
De Valera was no slouch at locking up his opponents - whether in peacetime or wartime - so such a suggestion is as false as it is insulting.
In any case even if true there was surely no threat of civil war in 1945 when De Valera, of his own volition, walked into the German Embassy to sign the condolence book on the death of the Fuhrer. He knew exactly what he was doing and how it would be interpreted and went ahead all the same. I don't NEED to accuse him of sympathy for Hitler, his signature is on the record.
BTW remaining neutral didn't do much for Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and many others. A British defeat and Nazi occupation would have led - at best - to a client status much worse than anything experienced under British rule for Ireland.
As for 'individual nationalists' the 'individual' I mentioned was Douglas Young Chairman of the whole bloody party. It was the SNP - the party as a whole - that offered support to those who refused the call-up and Donaldson - a leadinglight and future party leader - who backed the 'Scottish Neutrality League.'
I don't suggest for one minute that all Nats were pro-Nazi but the actions of their leadership and the policies they adopted are a matter of historical record and the SNP must be judged by the stance they took as a party.
Though to be fair they jumped from one extreme to the other when replacing Donaldson as leader with 'King' Billy Wolfe - the man who said it WASN'T his aim to break up the UK and that the Falklands War should be supported not because it was a matter of self-determination for the islanders but rather that they were "mainly Protestant" and "mostly descended from Scots" as opposed to the "Roman Catholic state" of Argentina.
That was the same Wolfe who also talked about "colonial settlers" and the "total imposition of the English ways" into Scotland at the 1973 SNP conference. Where he also declared that "we are entering inescapably a period of direct confrontation with the English state." You know the conference I mean, the same one where Donald Stewart, whom you mention, said that England was being "eaten by the maggots of permissiveness and decay" and that the 'English government' was "sterilising our resources" and that a "disintegrating" England would pay for the Channel Tunnel with "Scottish oil"
Needless to say Stewart received a standing ovation for his hysterical tirade.
So, from 'Neutral' Nazi sympathisers, anti-English bigots, religious crackpots all the way to the present egotistical chancer, the leadership of the SNP has run a strange course.
Scotleague
What evidence do you have that De Valera was pro-Hitler. He signed the condolence book, that there is no doubt and that was stupid, but does that mean he admired the man. There is no record of Dev praising Hitler. He said in the mid-30's he admired Mussolini but there were a few European politicians going around at that time saying the same thing. And a few newspapers. The Daily Mail comes to mind.
When Brechnev, Andropov, Mao etc died - and after all they had done - governments from around the world sent condolence messages about his death and went to the funeral even though er he did not have a great human rights record to say the least.
(Entry in Adrian Mole's Diary - The Russian Prime Minister Mr Brechnev died today. Everyone around the world are sending lying telegrams on how sorry they are)
If Ireland had entered the war then it would have been likely the IRA "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality would probably have started something up big time with sabotage, recruitment of youth reared on anti-British rhetoric etc. There was still a lot of memories (myths and truth) going on in Ireland at that time. Remember young Haughey burning a union jack from a lamp post on VE Day.
By the way, if De Valera was so pro-Hitler, why was he allowed to be the first European statesman (then leader of the opposition) to visit the newly created Israel in 1948. He was a personal guest of now Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Herzog. Surely he would have been deported or even arrested as soon he touched the ground?
(All this chronicled in Herzog's memoir)
Of course the pro-Hitler Dev was the man who enshrined protection of the Jewish people in the 1937 constitution (now removed with all references to religion in the Irish constitution)
"The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution"
Dev was partly motivated to protect the Jewish community becuase of the rise of the Blue Shirts, the Irish fascist movement, were not too fond of them. Indeed the Blue Shirts even put the rumour around that Dev's Spanish father was a Jew.
Dev on this issue said "To the best of my knowledge my father was baptised into the Catholic church, my parents were married in a Catholic church and I was baptised into the Catholic church. I say these things not because I wish to attack the Jewish people. Many others do. I am merely reiterating what I believe to be correct"
(Check Coogan's tome on this issue)
I would agree Dev was "an old rogue". It would have been better if he had retired when he was kicked out in 1948 and left things to Lemass. However he was a democrat, that there is no doubt. He did not have to give Ireland a constitution with a form of PR which hardly ever gave him an overall majority in the Dail and the use of referendums.
(In the film the Scarlet and the Black, hero Mosignoir O'Flahtery tells a Nazi he is Irish. The Nazi officer says Ireland is primative and backward but says O'Flahtery would disagree and say they have a freely elected parliament. O'Flahtery replies that Ireland has an elected Parliament and an elected Prime Minister. He would commend it to Nazi Germany)
By the way the people you mentioned chucked into jail by Dev before the war would have included the Blue Shirts (who were running a paramilitary style organisation and threatened to march on the Dail ala Musso) and the IRA who were still running around with guns somewhere fighting the Free State and partition. Hardly organisations I thought you would endorse.
Yes there were and are crackpots in the SNP. As there have been in other parties. Amongst the Tories you had Enoch and of course Nicky Ridley comparing Chancellor Kohl to Hitler. And Thatcher. We will not go there although her tendency to pull out pictures of Nelson and Wellington when Mitterand was visiting ------.
Billy Wolfe by the way thankfully renounced his sectarianism and married a Catholic with Catholic rites.
Herr Lederhosen Scotleag, always brings it back to nazi's.
What a tube
Ah, de Valera.
I was thinking of doing something on him, but Aberdonian & Scotleag have almost saved me the trouble.
We know about and acknowledge the thousands of Irish people who did their bit against Hitler.
We know about and acknowledge all the behind-the-scenes assistance that Ireland rendered. One thing not so far mentioned is the "Donegal corridor" by which the RAF were allowed to fly directly out into the Atlantic, rather than having to take the long way round.
We can also acknowledge why the Irish government would not want to joint the Brits' fight in 1939, as well as the exaggerated fear of air attack which might also have discouraged them from doing so through most of 1940 and 1941.
But the shameful fact is that the name "Ireland" is absent from the roll-call of countries which joined together to destroy Nazism.
After December 1941, Ireland could have opened its ports and airfields to US (and not British) forces.
The fact of the Holocaust was becoming known in the west from mid- to late-1942.
By the end of 1943, it was plain that Germany was beaten and even the likes of Brazil were rushing to the aid of the victors and declaring war.
But still de Valera and Ireland did nothing, even to the point of signing Hitler's condolence book in *****May 1945*****.
After the massacres in Warsaw. After the concentration camps were discovered and opened.
What on earth justifies that?
SM, he is the answer from the man himself in a letter to one of his cabinet memebers. Two of his ministers had misgivings before he went.
As recorded in Coogan:
"I have noted that my call on the German Minister on the announcement of Hitler's death was plyaed up to utmost. I expected this. I could have had a diplomatic illness but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing----So long as we retained our diplomatic relations with Germany, to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel (the German Minister) himself. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel's conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and inevitably correct (I would that interpret that as in correct behaviour) - in marked contrast to Gray (the American Minister who used to threaten Dev with everything from economic sanctions to invasion). I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat".
He then added his action should have "no special significance attached to it such as connoting approval or disapproval of the State in question or its head"
The UK rep in Eire Sir John Maffey's view of the situation was:
"De Valera had taken a very unwise step. Obstinately and mathematically consistent - stung perhaps on the most recent assault on his principles, ie. by the request for --- the German archives before VE day - he decided to get a mention for a conspicious act of neutrality in the field. He would at leat show he was no "bandwaggoner" (the tendency you mentioned for countries to declare war on the Axis when defeat was certain). He therefore called on the German Legation in Dublin to express his personal condolences on the the death of Hitler --- but --- with the sudden end of the censorship there came also atrocity stories, pictures of Buchenwald etc --- a sense of disgust slowly manifested itself ----"
You of course mention Brazil entering the war. This was brought about by the constant sinking of Brazilian shipping in retaliation for Brazil allowing American planes to refuel before flying to North Africa. The Brazilians did this in return for cash to develop industry such as loans to construct steel mills, build airports and develop industrial ports. Nothing moral there as the Brazilian government auctioned itself to the highest bidder - Germany or USA on was prepared to put up the cash. Early in the war Brazil was getting paid off by the Nazis in return for prioritising the sale of foodstuffs and other materials to them.
After the sinking of a vessel taking women and children up the coast on pilgramage, the Brazilian government accepted public outrage and declared war.
Talking about Portugese speakers, why do people not cry foul about Portugese neutrality during the war. After all they were militarily stronger than the Irish. And they had a reason to fight. Japan invaded East Timor and still they remained neutral. Were the Portugese cowards? Why did they not enter the war when the Holocaust was revealed (did any country enter the war due to the Holocaust?)? Why such emphasis on Irish neutrality?
If Portugal had been in the war then it would have facilitated an excellent springboard for invading north-west africa. How many British etc lives could have been saved this way? No, lets bleat about the Irish.
I think it is because there is still a sense now and particularly then that Paddy should do what he is told.
Yet we do not emphasise that even our allies let us down in some ways. Does not look good. From the Canadians only introducing conscription in 1942 and refusing to commit conscripts to the front till after D-Day to the Aussies electing a Labor "Australian soldiers to defend Australia" regime under Curtin. Curtin was advocating such a policy back in 1940 before Pearl Harbour and did not introduce consciption until 1943. If Canada and Australia had been fully behind us, would the war have been won quicker?
Aberdonian
Thanks for that insight into de Valera's thinking. I think it shows pretty clearly why it was a mistake.
Now as for Brazil, your points are valid but you sell the Brazilians short. They didn't just make a cosmetic declaration of war and start hunting a few U-boats. They sent an entire infantry division and a fighter-bomber group to fight in Italy, where they served with some distinction.
As for the Portuguese, I don't think anyone expected the right-wing Catholic quasi-fascist Salazar dictatorship to join in, especially since they arguably faced the prospect of serious German action if they did. Ditto (doubly so) for Franco's Spanish regime.
But for Ireland? Things were different. This was supposedly a democracy, and one which could choose to become involved in any way it chose *without* facing the prospect of any serious reaction from Germany, barring a few night bombings. To reach Ireland, the Luftwaffe would have to fly all the way over the UK. And in any case, Ireland ended up with a few night bombings by mistake.
So it's not a case of "Paddy doing as told", more one of "Paddy could have done the right thing at minimal cost, and didn't."
Where of course "Paddy" applies to the government and not the people, who seemed to take a much more defensible view of things.
SM
I am aware of the bravery of Brazil's BEF/FEB. The paradox of Brazil's involvement in the war was that it actually weakened any attempts for democracy in Brazil for many years after the war as it gave the army a certain prestige and (to their mind) a right to take a "more active" role in Brazilian politics.
A very good essay on Brazil's involvement was:
http://www.tau.ac.il/eial/VI_2/mccann.htm
As you rightly note, Ireland was a democracy during that period and of course governments are not totally truely representative of the people. However Dev gave the Irish two opportunities to kick him out of office during the war - the elections of 1943 and 1944. They did not.
The more serious result of Irish neutrality was the lack of economic opportunity post-war. As a non-combatant Eire did not receive hardly any Marshal plan money.
Maybe I am being retrospectively cynical, but I am sure if Eire had been a "bandwagoner" in the last days of the war, I am sure the accusation would have been that Paddy joined the war for the American post-war windfall.
Well Smee, looks like your blog is a bit of a failure, minimal comments, minimal followers and a very narrow interest content.
Probably best retire gracefully.
I think Scotland has had enough of your ill informed, poorly researched propaganda efforts.
Aberdonian
"As a non-combatant Eire did not receive hardly any Marshal plan money."
Hadn't thought of that, but you're correct. Serves 'em right.
"Maybe I am being retrospectively cynical, but I am sure if Eire had been a "bandwagoner" in the last days of the war, I am sure the accusation would have been that Paddy joined the war for the American post-war windfall."
Er, not possible, since the Marshall Plan wasn't dreamed up until 1948.
Muttley
"Well Smee, looks like your blog is a bit of a failure, minimal comments, minimal followers and a very narrow interest content."
If you look back at the initial post you'll see I was fully aware that this didn't fall into the usual form of a blog - not newsy and immediate enough. I am frankly surprised and pleased at the level of interest I've got. (Although disappointed that you are the most frequent commenter.)
"I think Scotland has had enough of your ill informed, poorly researched propaganda efforts."
One of the reasons posts are relatively infrequent is because I make the effort to link back explicitly to primary data sources. How exactly is that "poorly researched"?
Here's a challenge for you.
Find a statement in one of my blog posts which you can prove to be factually wrong.
I've said it over and over there are clear links to the nazi's from today's natz.
Isn't it odd that Wardog shows up to refute so many allegations made against cybernats and yet consistently confirms all of them?
Grahamski
That statement is utterly disgraceful.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Post a Comment