Connect with us


Remembering the terror 80 years on

Voice Of EU



During the early hours of Saturday, May 31st, 1941, Mary Tarrant awoke to a loud thumping of Bofors anti-aircraft guns firing into the sky. The 32-year-old daughter of a prominent, Dublin-based livestock merchant got up and went to her stepmother’s room. “Well sure there’s an awful lot of banging going on and noise,” she said excitedly. Her stepmother, who was concerned for the safety of Mary’s brother, who had gone out that night, replied, “I think we’ll go down and make a cup of tea.”

Irish air observers had earlier detected significant numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft in the skies over Dublin; these aircraft were not in formation and appeared to be circling erratically over the city. Searchlights were switched on to track the intruders and a series of flares were fired – tricolour flares to indicate to the German crews that they had entered Irish sovereign airspace, followed by red flares to signal to depart immediately or be fired upon. These signals went unheeded and the anti-aircraft batteries around Dublin Bay opened fire.

German aircraft had been transgressing Irish airspace for nefarious purposes in recent months. Earlier in the year, on January 2nd and 3rd, German bombs were dropped on Terenure and Donore Terrace. Both incidents were clearly deliberate attacks, as both areas held sizeable Jewish populations, with what seemed like a precision strike at Donore Terrace causing damage to the Jewish synagogue. Although there was no loss of life, 21 people were seriously injured and there was considerable property damage.

The impact of the bomb blast was catastrophic: 28 people were killed, 90 injured and 300 houses were destroyed, leaving 400 people homeless. File photograph: The Irish Times
The impact of the bomb blast was catastrophic: 28 people were killed, 90 injured and 300 houses were destroyed, leaving 400 people homeless. File photograph: The Irish Times

In addition, Belfast had been raided intensively during four nights throughout April and May, with the worst raid, on the night of April 15th-16th, resulting in more than 800 fatalities. More than 1,100 people ultimately lost their lives in the Greater Belfast area, and more than 110,000 had been “de-housed” by the Blitz. Many thousands of these homeless refugees poured south on the Belfast-Dublin train, arriving at Amiens Street Station (now Connolly Station), seeking the assistance of the Irish Red Cross and the government of then taoiseach Eamon de Valera.

News reports and images of seemingly endless trainloads of Belfast refugees stepping on to the platforms of Amiens Street were widely publicised internationally, possibly provoking embarrassment in Berlin, as well as highlighting the tangible assistance that neutral Ireland was rendering to Northern Ireland, and by extension, the UK, in their hour of need. It was also no secret that this train station was the key point of departure for the hundreds of Irish nationals who journeyed north every week, either to enlist in the British forces or to find employment as civilian workers in Belfast’s war industries.

According to Irish Army Col Edward Flynn, a second cousin of Frank Aiken, then minister for co-ordination of defensive measures, the notorious Nazi propagandist William Joyce, known as Lord Haw-Haw, had broadcast one of his famous “pre-warnings” that Amiens Street Station would be bombed in the preceding weeks. Joyce had delivered similar warnings in advance of the Blitz on Belfast and as a prelude to a bomb attack on Dundalk on July 4th.


At 2.05 on the morning of May 31st, Mary Tarrant and her stepmother were making their tea in the basement kitchen of their home at Number 5 Seville Place, located just off Amiens Street, when the bomb exploded.

“As I got making the tea in the kitchen, I heard the whistle. And I guessed what it was – I’d never heard a bomb before but I just read about it. I could hear this whistling sound. And we were in a room that was luckily protected in a way because there was a kind of – you know, it was like an old house with a basement to it. So, we were in a room that had leaded window and . . . that window didn’t blow in,” Mary recalled. “But it was frightening . . . we were saying our prayers, I can tell you that.”

This bomb was the last of four dropped on the city that morning. The first detonated in the Ballybough area at 1.28am, demolishing two houses, 43 and 44 Summerhill Park, and causing many injuries, but with no loss of life. The second fell in the Phoenix Park, blowing up the Dog Pond pumping works at the zoo and causing damage to Áras an Uachtaráin, but again with no casualties. The third landed on the North Circular Road near Summerhill, leaving a large crater. The final bomb was dropped from an aircraft that had flown in a loop around the city as far north as Collinstown, attracting both “ack-ack” (machine gun fire) and Bofor’s shellfire as it made occasional low swoops over the city centre. It seems that the pilot and navigator of the bomber were trying hard to find their target.

May 31st, 2011: Old friends who were children living on William Street, North Strand, at the time of the bombing meet 70 years later. File photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill
May 31st, 2011: Old friends who were children living on William Street, North Strand, at the time of the bombing meet 70 years later. File photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

After weaving through searchlight beams and anti-aircraft shellburst patterns for more than half an hour, the bomber discharged its payload. The explosion ripped through the North Strand Road, obliterating 17 houses, and severely damaging 50. The worst damage from the blast was visited on the neighbourhood between Newcomen Bridge and Seville Place, where Mary and her stepmother were thrown to the ground by the shockwave.

“They came right over Dublin so they were straight over our house. All our windows and our doors, our front doors, were blown open,” Mary recalled, in an interview with the Imperial War Museum. “The ambulance people came around to see if we were alright . . . the bombs, you know, they sprayed out the cobble stones and the tram lines and that. Of course, they hit houses. I think there were – where about 14 people lived – killed in a main street near us.”

The impact of the bomb blast was catastrophic. Twenty-eight people perished, with 90 injured. A total of 300 houses were destroyed or damaged beyond repair, leaving 400 people homeless. Eight of the victims were from the same family, the Browns. Their home was near the epicentre of the blast and the entire family was wiped out. The following day revealed the extent of the damage. Bewildered Dubliners surveyed demolished and half-collapsed houses and stared into a bomb crater that was about 15ft deep and some 50ft in diameter. Many mumbled nervously of the destruction that would be visited on Dublin were Hitler to make full war on neutral Ireland.

On June 5th, de Valera and members of his cabinet attended a mass funeral of 12 victims of the bombing. Later that day, he informed Dáil Éireann that an official protest, delivered to German diplomat Dr Eduard Hempel, had been registered in Berlin. However, little further was mentioned of the incident thereafter. Long interpreted as a simple navigation error by German pilots, and cited by Winston Churchill after the war as an example of British signals jamming, known as the Battle of the Beams, the tragedy was interpreted as a simple accident or, at best, a shot across the bow to remind the neutral Irish state of the destruction and carnage that awaited should the government opt to go to war with Nazi Germany, or to place the nation on an overtly pro-Allied footing.

May 31st, 2011: A plaque commemorating the 70th anniversary of the North Strand bombing is unveiled on the grounds of Marino College, Dublin 1. File photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill
May 31st, 2011: A plaque commemorating the 70th anniversary of the North Strand bombing is unveiled on the grounds of Marino College, Dublin 1. File photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Moreover, it may well be that the fourth bomb dropped on the North Strand had actually been intended for Amiens Street Station, with the probable objective of disabling this vital rail terminal, disrupting the exodus of bombed-out refugees from Belfast to Dublin and bringing a pause to the constant flow of Irish recruits to the British forces going the opposite direction.

If the latter motive was, indeed, Berlin’s original intention for authorising an attack on Dublin, it had quite the opposite effect upon Mary Tarrant. A few weeks later, she walked into the station, boarded a train to Belfast and joined the Royal Air Force.

Source link


Systematic American Mistakes Are Making Russia Great Again

Voice Of EU



Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.

He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed ‘The Dystopians’ in an excellent 2009 profile, along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive). These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.

He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America’s will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.

He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there, as Russia Insider does.

His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself.

If you haven’t discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI. They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.

After a year and a half of silence accompanied by much media noise, from the Mueller investigation into Trump the Terrible’s collusion with the Russians (and their lord and master the Dread Pirate Putin) in order to steal the election from innocent young Hillary “twinkle-toes” Clinton, Mueller finally laid an egg. He indicted 13 Russians for identity theft  and wire fraud.

He alleges that they bought some stolen personal info  (Social Security numbers, names, birth dates, etc.) on the internet,  used these to set up PayPal and Facebook accounts, and then used these  to buy Facebook ads in an effort to undermine the American people’s  faith in the wholesome goodness of their democracy.

There is no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign or administration knew that this was happening. There is no evidence that any of the 13 Russians had anything to do with Putin or the Russian government. There is no evidence that anything they did had any measurable effect on the outcome of the election.

There is, however, ample evidence that this indictment will go nowhere.

There is a difference between being indicted and being convicted: a convicted person is proven guilty; an indicted person is protected by  the presumption of innocence until convicted. To be convicted in a  criminal trial, a person has to be physically present before the court  because one has the right to face one’s accusers. A trial held in  absentia is automatically a kangaroo court. The 13 Russians are Russian  nationals residing in Russia. According to the Russian constitution,  Russian citizens cannot be extradited to stand trial in a foreign court,  and it seems exceedingly unlikely that they will face criminal charges  in Russia based on Mueller’s indictment. Therefore, these 13 Russians  have to be presumed innocent under US law—forever—even if they get to spend time in a Russian jail, convicted under Russian law.

It’s still possible that one of these Russians will at some point travel  abroad, get snatched and shipped off to the US to stand trial, and be  convicted of money laundering, identity theft and wire fraud. But the  charge of working to undermine the American people’s faith in the  wholesome goodness of their democracy would be rather hard to prove,  mostly because there isn’t much of it to be found these days. The  accusation is a lot like accusing somebody of despoiling an outhouse by  crapping in it, along with everyone else, but the outhouse in question  had a sign on its door that read “No Russians!” and the 13 Russians just  ignored it and crapped in it anyway.

The reason the Outhouse of American Democracy is posted “No Russians!”  is because Russia is the enemy. There aren’t any compelling reasons why  it should be the enemy, and treating it as such is incredibly foolish  and dangerous, but that’s beside the point. Painting Russia as the enemy  serves a psychological need rather than a rational one: Americans  desperately need some entity onto which they can project their own  faults. The US is progressing toward a fascist police state; therefore,  Russia is said to be a horrible dictatorship run by Putin. The US  traditionally meddles in elections around the world, including Russia;  therefore, the Russians are said to meddle in US elections. The US is  the most aggressive country on the planet, occupying and bombing dozens  of countries; therefore, the Russians are accused of “aggression.” And  so on…

If (for whatever stupid reason) Russia is indeed America’s enemy, it  stands to reason that the Americans would want to make it weaker rather  than stronger. Working to strengthen one’s enemy seems like a poor  strategy. And yet that is what has been happening: the last two US  administrations—Obama’s and Trump’s—both have been steadfastly aiding  and abetting Russia’s rise to greatness. Aiding and abetting the enemy  is bad enough by itself, but it would also appear that they have been  doing so unwittingly. Thus, if Mueller really had the health and beauty  of American democracy in his heart, he would have indicted both the  Obama and the Trump administrations for aiding and abetting the enemy  through gross negligence. Here is how the indictment would read:

1. The Obama administration falsely accused the government of Syria of  carrying out an attack using chemical weapons near Damascus on August  21, 2013 in order to find an excuse to attack and invade Syria. Chemical  weapons were in fact used in that incident, but not by the forces  controlled by the Syrian government. Since the Syrian government had no  interest in either using chemical weapons or in maintaining its chemical  weapons stockpile, this gave Russia an opening to negotiate an  international deal under which Syria surrendered its entire stockpile of  chemical weapons, which were destroyed, and international inspectors  subsequently certified Syria as being free of them. This incident showed  Russia to be a trustworthy partner, able to peacefully resolve crises  through negotiation, raising its stature in the world, and the US to be a  rogue state willing to use any means, including the use of chemical  weapons against civilians, in order to justify its illegal use of force.  Following in Obama’s footsteps, the Trump administration, soon after  assuming office, used similar unverified accusations of a Syrian  chemical weapons attack to ineffectually bomb a Syrian airbase using  Tomahawk missiles.

2. In February 2014 the Obama administration organized and carried out a  bloody coup in Kiev, staging a massacre using foreign mercenaries,  falsely accusing the Ukraine’s constitutional government of carrying it  out, overthrowing it, and installing a puppet regime managed by the CIA  and the US State Department. The nature of this regime, which is  comprised of oligarchs and criminals allied with neo-Nazi groups, and  which has elevated to the status of national heroes certain perpetrators  of genocide against Jews, Poles and others during World War II, has  been kept hidden from the public in the US. But because Russia and the  Ukraine are not ethnically, linguistically, culturally or religiously  distinct, and have existed as a single entity through most of their  history, most Russians understood what had happened. The chaos and  mayhem that followed the putsch gave the Russian government an opening  to hold a referendum in Crimea, which was briefly joined to the Ukraine,  but which had been part of Russia since 1783, and to re-annex the  territory. It also led to armed rebellion in eastern Ukraine and the  formation of two de facto independent republics there, making the  Ukraine into a semi-defunct state that does not control its own  territory. All of these developments led to a tremendous surge of  patriotic feeling among Russians, who felt proud of being able to  reclaim what they saw as rightfully theirs and felt threatened by seeing  the Ukraine once again fall to the fascists. True to form, the Trump  administration has continued Obama’s this policy of Making Russia Great  Again by providing the Ukrainian military with lethal weapons and  advice.

3. Although the Russian annexation of Crimea, based on an overwhelming  victory in a popular referendum and a great showing of public support,  was impeccably legal in upholding the Crimea’s right to  self-determination (unlike NATO previous annexation of Kosovo), the  Obama administration saw it fit to impose economic sanctions on Russia  in retribution. These sanctions, together with Russia’s  counter-sanctions on food exports from the EU, have finally provided the  impetus for Russia to break with the past pattern of exporting gas and  oil and importing just about everything else, and to embrace the  strategy of import replacement. This has allowed Russia to become  self-sufficient in many areas, such as oil and gas exploration and  production technology, agriculture and many other areas. Although Russia  experienced a period of considerable economic difficulty which saw the  purchasing power of the population dwindle substantially, Russia’s  economy has survived. The popularity of the national leadership did not  suffer because most Russians now understand what they are fighting for  and, given the barrage of negative news from the Ukraine, who their  enemy is, and what would happen to them if they were to show weakness.

4. Although the Trump administration has mostly followed in Obama’s  footsteps in Making Russia Great Again, the most recent round of  anti-Russian sanctions, which the Trump administration did not impose  but only announced, as required by an act of Congress, was inadvertently  an act of pure genius. What Trump’s flunkies did was take the Kremlin  directory and the Forbes list of Russia’s wealthiest individuals, and  put them together into a single list of people. If these sanctions were  actually imposed rather than merely threatened, those having any  dealings with the individuals on this list would suffer legal  repercussions. The brilliance of this plan is in two parts. First, there  have been some differences of orientation among the members of the  Kremlin administration: some were more US-oriented than others. What  this list did was make them look foolish in their hopes of ever  appeasing the US. Before, the US had a few lukewarm champions inside the  Kremlin; now it has zero. Second, Russia has had a problem with wealthy  individuals moving their capital abroad, to Switzerland, to various  offshore tax havens, and most notably to the United States, which is the  money laundering capital of the world. But now Trump has threatened  them with wealth confiscation. At the same time, the Russian government  has extended a tax amnesty for those wishing to repatriate their  capital. As a result, a flood of money is now reentering the Russian  economy, giving it a major boost.

Once you put it all together, the charge against the last two US  administrations for Making Russia Great Again by aiding and abetting it,  unwittingly and through gross negligence, becomes compelling. There is,  of course, no chance at all that anybody will be put on trial for it,  but that may not be necessary. As shown by the #MeToo movement, it is no  longer necessary in contemporary America to prove a crime; a mere  allegation is now sufficient to end careers and to ruin reputations. You  can play this game too: of each US policy or initiative announced  against Russia, ask yourself: How is it going to help Make Russia Great  Again? Because it probably will.

Source link

Continue Reading


Rotunda to lift restrictions on partners attending appointments

Voice Of EU



Restrictions on partners attending appointments at the Rotunda maternity hospital in Dublin are to be removed from the beginning of November.

The Rotunda said it was planning to return to “pre-Covid” access to appointments for patients and their partners as the country enters the next stage of living with the disease.

It said that from next Monday partners would be able to attend booking visit appointments and appointments in the hospital’s high-risk clinic. From November 1st, the hospital would “remove remaining restrictions for partners for other antenatal outpatient appointments”.

The hospital said it reviewed and risk assessed its Covid-19 safety measures each week, while taking into account rates of infection in the community, vaccination rates amongst patients and the hospital’s “unique infrastructural challenges”.

“We have already restored access similar to pre-pandemic levels in most areas of the hospital, including early pregnancy scans, anomaly scans, the emergency and assessment unit, and our inpatient wards,” the hospital said in a statement.

It said many of the Rotunda’s outpatient areas were “in older buildings with very small waiting areas” and in order to manage potential overcrowding in those areas it “strongly encouraged” patients to attend outpatient appointments alone. It recommended that women only bring partners for “occasional visits, such as if you have a complicated or special issue to discuss with your care team”.

The Rotunda said that at times when there is high footfall, partners could be asked to “wait outside the building until called to the consultation room”. It dded that it was important to remember that Covid-19 “has not gone away and is in fact endemic within our community”.

Source link

Continue Reading


When will face masks no longer be compulsory indoors in Spain?

Voice Of EU



With Covid-19 vaccine campaigns in their later stages and infection rates generally lower, several countries around the world have eased their face mask rules.

Such is the case in England, where masks are now not required in shops and even on certain modes of public transport, or in the US, where fully vaccinated people don’t have to wear one in most indoor settings. 

Spain on the other hand has been strict on its mask-wearing policy throughout the pandemic and its citizens have willingly complied in general.

Many people are still wearing masks outdoors, even though they’ve not been required by Spanish authorities since June, as long as a safety distance of 1.5 metres can be maintained.

So when might it be possible to remove face masks indoors in Spain (other than for eating and drinking) ?

In early October, Spanish media reported that Health Minister Carolina Darias had said that the use of masks indoors would be required until the spring of 2022.

On Wednesday at a press conference after Spain’s Interterritorial Health Council, Darias stressed she never stated that the mandatory use of masks would end in spring next year.

“The face mask has come to stay, at least while the flu virus or other possible viruses are present this autumn,” she reiterated.

“Spain was one of the first countries to regulate the safety distance in outdoor spaces to not have to wear a mask outside, but we know the importance of its use indoors where transmission by aerosols is proven”.

“Let’s take it slowly,” Darias concluded.

READ ALSO – Calendar: When will the Covid restrictions end across Spain?

As usual, Spain’s regional governments have their own views on Covid-19 rules.

Madrid president Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the regional leader with the most liberal take on Covid restrictions during the pandemic, has again taken a different approach by actually offering something closer to a date for when mandatory mask-wearing indoors will be scrapped.

The end of indoor masks should come “after Christmas,” stated Ayuso in late September. “Total” normality and “pre-pandemic” life should not be delayed beyond the spring of 2022, she added.  

Castilla-La Mancha president Emiliano García-Page has also suggested February 2022 as an end date for mandatory masks indoors in the central Spanish region. 

Are regions relaxing any mask-wearing rules?

Catalan Education Minister Josep González-Cambray said on Wednesday that “We will get rid of face masks in schools as soon as we can”. 

According to González-Cambray, the use of face masks in schools is a “health measure” dependent on epidemiological criteria, which is why it will be down to the health departments to decide.

In Valencia, the Generalitat government has said that it will scrap the requirement for children to wear a mask in the school playground. 

“We are working every week with the Health Department and in the next few days the protocol will be updated” because the numbers have been very favorable,” said Valencia’s Minister of Education Vicent Marzà on Saturday.

However, in the Balearic Islands, the regional government has decided the use of masks in the school playground should continue, causing an outcry from many students and their parents.

Balearic  Minister of Health Patricia Gómez confirmed yesterday that the use of masks will continue to be mandatory in school playgrounds “until the situation improves”.

READ ALSO – Going out in Spain: What are the rules for bars and nightclubs?

Why wait until after the winter if the numbers are good now?

The epidemiological situation in Spain is currently the best it’s been since autumn of last year, with a 14-day cumulative incidence of 40.85 cases per 100,000 inhabitants.

This means that the country is currently at very low risk for Covid infections according to the categorisation used by the Spanish health ministry.

In addition to this, almost 80 percent of the total population has been fully vaccinated against Covid-19, a percentage that’s higher still if focusing only on those who are eligible for the vaccine (people aged 12 and over).

According to César Carballo, deputy emergency physician at Hospital Ramón y Cajal in Madrid, Spain is in a good epidemiological situation now which should allow to at least remove their masks outdoors.

But flu season is on its way, government leaders and health professionals are keen for the use of masks indoors to continue until after the winter.  

“There is talk that we may have more cases of the flu. We do not know. Last year the flu disappeared completely. We will see this year,” Carballo told Spanish TV channel La Sexta.

“Health personnel are exhausted … to suffer a wave of flu this year would be a severe blow,” he added. “If it were up to me I would maintain that mask-wearing indoors should be required until January or February, accompanied by hand washing and distance”.

READ ALSO: Getting the flu vaccine in Spain in 2021: What you need to know

Source link

Continue Reading


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!