Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War

IrishTrajan · 11-02-2015 9:42pm #1

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

donaghs · 03-05-2015 9:59am

IrishTrajan wrote: »

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

Churchill, much generals and ministers annoyance, was constantly coming up with new schemes and plans. Whatever offer we know of seems fairly vague.

Certainly airfields on the south and west coast, and ports like Cobh and others would have been very useful in the Battle of the Atlantic?

Manach · 03-05-2015 10:51am

Assuming we came in on the Allied side, re-trained with the learnt tactics of modern warfare Irish regiments would have been an immidiate boost on the numeric side. On the strategic side, having bases for planes and a shorter route in the Atlantic would have been meant fewer losses to German u-boats. Thus there would be an impact.

sparky42 · 03-05-2015 2:07pm

I think a post war study suggested that Ireland being on the allies side could have reduce shipping loses by about 10%, which would have had a significant affect directly. The increased numbers of troops along with the potential for extra industrial capacity would also have helped.

purplepanda · 24-05-2015 10:44pm

After Ireland had joined the allied war effort, it would have been more than likely subject to heavy german air raids particularly at night. Such raids caused considerable damage, destruction & countless deaths & injuries to UK cities & people & would have possibly been even worse in Ireland due to lack of any proper provision of air defence at the time.

With allied air defences already stretched there might not have been enough military personnel & equipment available to mount an adequate defence against the new Luftwaffe threat to Ireland.

There at least would have been a very vulnerable time period until equipment & manpower was moved over to Ireland for this purpose & / or Irish military trained in anti aircraft defence tactics.

Joining the allied war effort could well have resulted in large Irish civilian casualties during the first few months.

s8n · 24-05-2015 10:45pm

We would have made a grand cup of tae with the burco boiler going 24/7

TheQuietFella · 24-05-2015 10:51pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

We would have made no impact militarily what so ever if that's what you mean?
We were only important to Churchill geographically but if the Allies had
felt it necessary to invade Ireland and take back the treaty ports then they would have had. What was to stop them?

sparky42 · 24-05-2015 10:57pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

We would have made no impact militarily what so ever if that's what you mean?
We were only important to Churchill geographically but if the Allies had
felt it necessary to invade Ireland and take back the treaty ports then they would have had. What was to stop them?

Well we could have offered more than just our position if we had been involved, by the end of the war the UK's manpower pool was shattered, a couple more divisions might have made a difference in some battles.

sparky42 · 24-05-2015 11:00pm

purplepanda wrote: »

After Ireland had joined the allied war effort, it would have been more than likely subject to heavy german air raids particularly at night. Such raids caused considerable damage, destruction & countless deaths & injuries to UK cities & people & would have possibly been even worse in Ireland due to lack of any proper provision of air defence at the time.

With allied air defences already stretched there might not have been enough military personnel & equipment available to mount an adequate defence against the new Luftwaffe threat to Ireland.

There at least would have been a very vulnerable time period until equipment & manpower was moved over to Ireland for this purpose & / or Irish military trained in anti aircraft defence tactics.

Joining the allied war effort could well have resulted in large Irish civilian casualties during the first few months.

Not an absolute certainty, the bombing attacks against Belfast were much lighter than those concentrated in the Blitz. Remember when the offer was made Germany was still trying to concentrate on knocking out the UK, bombing a very rural nation at the extreme of their range that wouldn't achieve any miltiary value wasn't going to help them win.

TheQuietFella · 24-05-2015 11:06pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Well we could have offered more than just our position if we had been involved, by the end of the war the UK's manpower pool was shattered, a couple more divisions might have made a difference in some battles.

I don't think that Mr De Valera was going into battle with a country that partitioned the island at whatever the cost.
Churchill had nothing but contempt for both anyway.

Manach · 24-05-2015 11:06pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

What was to stop them?

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

TheQuietFella · 24-05-2015 11:12pm

Manach wrote: »

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

I agree with your sentiment but realistically we were a fledgling nation and
we would not have been able to stop the might of British/American forces
had they decided to invade Ireland. They were already stationed in the North
and would have over ran us in hours!

Manach · 24-05-2015 11:33pm

At the high of the British war effort, it may have taken them a few days. However this was from 1944 onwards. Up till that point (referencing books from Hastings etc) the UK was struggling to keep her numerous armies supplied in the various battle areas. By that stage (referencing memoirs/bios from Von Luck or Manstein) the war was turning against the Axis so there was no need.
Politically, while there were cases of the Allies intervening against neutral countries (Norway and to a lesser extent Iceland) the political cost, among the Dominion countries and the US would have scuppered support for the UK. Even up to the eve of Pearl Harbour, Interventionists strongly opposed aid to the UK up to and including lend-lease, which kept the UK war effort going.
Finally, even in the event of a successful invasion the effort by irregular forces could bled garrison forces - eg the German issues with Yugoslavia.

sparky42 · 25-05-2015 3:37pm

Manach wrote: »

At the high of the British war effort, it may have taken them a few days. However this was from 1944 onwards. Up till that point (referencing books from Hastings etc) the UK was struggling to keep her numerous armies supplied in the various battle areas. By that stage (referencing memoirs/bios from Von Luck or Manstein) the war was turning against the Axis so there was no need.
Politically, while there were cases of the Allies intervening against neutral countries (Norway and to a lesser extent Iceland) the political cost, among the Dominion countries and the US would have scuppered support for the UK. Even up to the eve of Pearl Harbour, Interventionists strongly opposed aid to the UK up to and including lend-lease, which kept the UK war effort going.
Finally, even in the event of a successful invasion the effort by irregular forces could bled garrison forces - eg the German issues with Yugoslavia.

Please even post Dunkirk the UK could have overrun the Irish forces with ease if they were willing to pay the diplomatic costs.

riffmongous · 25-05-2015 7:43pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Please even post Dunkirk the UK could have overrun the Irish forces with ease if they were willing to pay the diplomatic costs.

How many troops would have been needed to garrison it though?

sparky42 · 25-05-2015 9:11pm

riffmongous wrote: »

How many troops would have been needed to garrison it though?

Considering the Canadian Divisions that the UK had based in the UK for many years, they could handle it, at worst they could just hold the Treaty Ports and still come out ahead. If you look at the forces deployed in the War of Independence, it was only 2 division's worth of troops.

s8n · 26-05-2015 3:38pm

s8n wrote: »

We would have made a grand cup of tae with the burco boiler going 24/7

Seriously, not one thanks ??

whisky_galore · 04-06-2015 3:03pm

Manach wrote: »

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

I'd give the combined Army and LDF maybe max 48 hours in the face of an Allied or Axis power before being rolled over with guerilla attacks going on for weeks or months afterwards. Perhaps with an invading Allied power we might have had a brief fire fight for show and then come to some 'arrangement'.

Think we were better off staying out of it, in an active role at least.

Jawgap · 19-06-2015 8:32am

The 38th (Irish) Infantry Brigade developed a formidable reputation during the Italian campaign.

The Inniskillings, for example, turned out to be fiercesome mountain fighters and Wigram who set up and revised the infantry training syllabus commented on their innate abilities when it came to practising infiltration tactics.

Given that the country had just, within living memory, fought a guerilla war and introduced the world to the concept of the urban guerilla, I'd say it wouldn't be beyond the realms of reason to suggest that some decent contribution wouldn't haven't been made in respect of the specialist units (commandos etc) and roles (sniper hunters).

Schadenfreudia · 21-06-2015 1:47am

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

indioblack · 21-06-2015 8:51am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

So it didn't matter which "empire" won?

Jawgap · 21-06-2015 9:51am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

Well done?

We lost out on the Marshall Plan - we were shut out of the UN until Stalin popped his clogs and De Gaul was never a fan of us joining the EEC.

So yes well done Dev and thank God for Lemass

21-06-2015 9:56am

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

indioblack · 21-06-2015 10:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

Yep. In this barmy scenario the Free State would have been cordoned off, blockaded - no need for an invasion. No useful help from the Germans - they couldn't even cross the English channel.
Oh yes - and whoever was responsible for such a mad idea would be quietly taken outside and strung up - by his own people.
Better to stick to practical neutrality.

Schadenfreudia · 21-06-2015 9:40pm

indioblack wrote: »

So it didn't matter which "empire" won?

Not to the Indians or most of the other British colonies. As has been often pointed out, bar Britain and France (Polish allies) not a single other European country joined on the side of the Allies unless it was invaded/attacked first.

Reason; they were not insane enough to bring death and destruction upon themselves if it could remotely be avoided.

Schadenfreudia · 21-06-2015 9:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

We lost out on the Marshall Plan

A fairly tiny trade off for the vast death and destruction that would have visited us had we joined the war.

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

At least there would be no Georgian city centre left to fret about and we could be full of sixties high-rise buildings like Beautiful Birmingham.

Jawgap · 21-06-2015 10:22pm

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

A fairly tiny trade off for the vast death and destruction that would have visited us had we joined the war.

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

At least there would be no Georgian city centre left to fret about and we could be full of sixties high-rise buildings like Beautiful Birmingham.

The Luftwaffe completely lacked the capacity to blitz Dublin the way they did London, or even extend the Baedeker Raids to our cities. Plus, if we had been part of the Allies fighter, AAA and RDF cover would have been extended to Ireland, as per the plans I've discussed in other threads here.

Plus, Irish contingency plans envisaged fielding two divisions - much like the Kiwis. The suffered about 12000 KIA despite participating in some of the most vicious combat in the Pacific and Italy.

indioblack · 21-06-2015 10:28pm

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Not to the Indians or most of the other British colonies. As has been often pointed out, bar Britain and France (Polish allies) not a single other European country joined on the side of the Allies unless it was invaded/attacked first.

Reason; they were not insane enough to bring death and destruction upon themselves if it could remotely be avoided.

Fair point - and worth adding that Hitler ignored any nation's neutrality when it suited him. So the chance of avoiding a visit by the Third Reich was effectively impossible.

Victor · 21-06-2015 11:38pm

It would off course depend on when we entered the war. If we entered early, we would have suffered more casualties, but the war would have been shorter - fewer people would have died overall. The effort would have reduced Allied losses in the Atlantic and Irish forces, albeit likely modest, would have put more pressure on the Axis forces.

For anyone who has studied tactics, compare your attacks where (assuming equal force quality) you are outnumbered (will always fail, spectacularly), when numbers are equal (will always fail, expensively) or when you outnumber your opponent (more likely to succeed, the more forces you have). The same thing happens at a strategic level. Each additional attacking asset of a given type is worth more than the preceding asset of that type.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

Those numbers aren't credible. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Blitz suggests 40,000–43,000 civilians dead and 46,000-139,000 injured, so I'm not sure how they would kill more people at a greater range (i.e. less bombs carried) in Ireland, with smaller cities.

whisky_galore · 22-06-2015 10:26am

Deleted User wrote: »

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

Would have the support of a significant number of the population, most of whom would have been pretty ignorant of what Nazi Germany was all about.

Thankfully, saner heads prevailed, not that it was ever seriously considered...except perhaps by fringe lunatic elements like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe.

Schadenfreudia · 22-06-2015 10:29am

Would have the support of a significant number of the population, most of whom would have been pretty ignorant of what Nazi Germany was all about.

Thankfully, saner heads prevailed, not that it was ever seriously considered...except perhaps by fringe lunatic elements like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe.

There were also significant numbers of the population who think/thought we should have entered on the side of Britain; again, thank God for Dev and those sane people.

indioblack · 23-06-2015 12:35am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

There were also significant numbers of the population who think/thought we should have entered on the side of Britain; again, thank God for Dev and those sane people.

Just as well other nations didn't think it was insane to oppose the Third Reich.

sparky42 · 23-06-2015 2:10am

indioblack wrote: »

Just as well other nations didn't think it was insane to oppose the Third Reich.

Ah sure, let them do all that "Liberty or Death" ****, dancing at the crossroads was much more important.

Schadenfreudia · 23-06-2015 9:31pm

indioblack wrote: »

Just as well other nations didn't think it was insane to oppose the Third Reich.

I think that I've already pointed out that Polish allies Britain and France apart, no country entered WW2 on the side of the allies without being attacked first.

Because they thought getting involved a war between imperial powers if it could be avoided would be insane.

Which it would have been.

Schadenfreudia · 23-06-2015 9:39pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Ah sure, let them do all that "Liberty or Death" ****, dancing at the crossroads was much more important.

Ah sure, lets die in the trenches in a war between the Empire that controlled much of the globe (including Ireland) and a State that wanted to replace it.

And let's fool ourselves that WW2 on the Allied side wasn't all about controlling the resources of the failing European global Empires - and positioning America rather than Germany to take over the exploitation of said colonies.

And let's write shallow facile rubbish while making very "witty" references to "dancing at the crossroads" and "ah sure".

Jawgap · 23-06-2015 10:05pm

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I think that I've already pointed out that Polish allies Britain and France apart, no country entered WW2 on the side of the allies without being attacked first.

Because they thought getting involved a war between imperial powers if it could be avoided would be insane.

Which it would have been.

Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa all fought on the Allied side - none were attacked before they joined the Allied cause - although some were subsequently attacked.

sparky42 · 23-06-2015 10:45pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa all fought on the Allied side - none were attacked before they joined the Allied cause - although some were subsequently attacked.

Not to mention the US was virtually at war with Germany in the Battle of the Atlantic long before Pearl Harbour. Nor would I consider the fact that Germany attacking all of those that joined the Allies a good thing.

Jawgap · 23-06-2015 10:49pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Not to mention the US was virtually at war with Germany in the Battle of the Atlantic long before Pearl Harbour. Nor would I consider the fact that Germany attacking all of those that joined the Allies a good thing.

Germany declared war on the US - arguably Germany's greatest blunder as up until they kicked that hornets' nest the yanks were looking to square things with the Japanese.

The German declaration of war made it easier for Churchill to get the US to adopt the "Germany first" policy.

Also to the list above you can add Cuba.

whisky_galore · 23-06-2015 10:59pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Also to the list above you can add Cuba.

Virtually a U.S. colony at that time.

sparky42 · 23-06-2015 11:00pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Germany declared war on the US - arguably Germany's greatest blunder as up until they kicked that hornets' nest the yanks were looking to square things with the Japanese.

The German declaration of war made it easier for Churchill to get the US to adopt the "Germany first" policy.

Also to the list above you can add Cuba.

Nobody ever accused Hitler of being Smart, though I think invading Russia rivials beinstupid enough to declare war on the US.

Schadenfreudia · 24-06-2015 12:41am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Virtually a U.S. colony at that time.

As indeed South Africa (opposing Nazi racism?!) , Australia, NZ etc British Commonwealth countries.

Germany declared on America, fact, it matters little whose "side they supported" - they didn't join the war until they had to.

Same for every other European country.

Victor · 24-06-2015 2:27am

But Germany did attack us! Repeatedly!

Admittedly, not in any coherent fashion and invariably by mistake.

sparky42 · 24-06-2015 3:02am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

As indeed South Africa (opposing Nazi racism?!) , Australia, NZ etc British Commonwealth countries.

Germany declared on America, fact, it matters little whose "side they supported" - they didn't join the war until they had to.

Same for every other European country.

They were already at war with naval clashes in the Atlantic guarding the convoys. But don't let reality get in the way of your BS.

Jawgap · 24-06-2015 5:31am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Virtually a U.S. colony at that time.

Well, to paraphrase Napoleon......that may be.......but the fact remains that there are countries who entered the war or declared war on Germany or the Axis without being attacked first........

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I think that I've already pointed out that Polish allies Britain and France apart, no country entered WW2 on the side of the allies without being attacked first.

Because they thought getting involved a war between imperial powers if it could be avoided would be insane.

Which it would have been.

......and in the case of Mexico, they were attacked by Germany (or rather their shipping was), but their forces fought in the Pacific.

Also Italy swapped sides after the North Africa campaign, following Allied attacks, not German, on their own territory including landings on Pantelleria, Lampedusa and Sicily.

Jawgap · 24-06-2015 5:41am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

As indeed South Africa (opposing Nazi racism?!) , Australia, NZ etc British Commonwealth countries.

Germany declared on America, fact, it matters little whose "side they supported" - they didn't join the war until they had to.

Same for every other European country.

Rowing back much?

The Commonwealth did not unanimously agree (Canada only declared war about a week after Britsin) - there was serious opposition in those countries to declaring war (esp in South Africa, where the pro-Axis prime minister ended being ousted) and one key condition that was enforced was the right of divisional commanders in the contingencies supplied to appeal the decisions of senior commanders back to national governments

sparky42 · 24-06-2015 5:45am

Jawgap wrote: »

Rowing back much?

The Commonwealth did not unanimously agree (Canada only declared war about a week after Britsin) - there was serious opposition in those countries to declaring war (esp in South Africa, where the pro-Axis prime minister ended being ousted) and one key condition that was enforced was the right of divisional commanders in the contingencies supplied to appeal the decisions of senior commanders back to national governments

A quick question to add to your points, when did Germany attack South America? Cause I'm fairly sure some of those nations declared war on Germany as well...

Jawgap · 24-06-2015 7:00am

sparky42 wrote: »

A quick question to add to your points, when did Germany attack South America? Cause I'm fairly sure some of those nations declared war on Germany as well...

I wouldn't know the exact details - I think there was a lot of 'jumping on' towards the end of the conflict. Where countries declared war earlier it tended to be as a result of their shipping being targeted and sunk.

Peregrinus · 24-06-2015 7:02am

Jawgap wrote: »

Rowing back much?

The Commonwealth did not unanimously agree (Canada only declared war about a week after Britsin) - there was serious opposition in those countries to declaring war (esp in South Africa, where the pro-Axis prime minister ended being ousted) and one key condition that was enforced was the right of divisional commanders in the contingencies supplied to appeal the decisions of senior commanders back to national governments

All this is true. But, still, it's misleading to present Canada, Australia, etc as examples of countries that joined the War because they recognised the need to oppose Nazi Germany, as indioblack implies. They all joined because they thought their relationship with the UK required it; the looked to the UK, to a material extent, to guarantee their security and they understood that the quid pro quo was that they would support the UK in its wars.

As the Australian Prime Minister Menzies put it, "Britain is at war therefore Australia is at war". He didn't even bother to serve a formal declaration of war on German diplomatic representatives; he asked London to notify Germany that Australia was associated with the British declaration. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Savage, put it even more simply; "We range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go! Where she stands, we stand!"

In Canada the Prime Minister at the time, King, had declared as far back as 1923 that Canada would always participate in "an Empire war", and he never varied from that position. It did take the Canadians a week to declare war, but there was never any doubt but that they would do so.

South Africa was the only major dominion where there was any real debate about whether to enter the war but, as you point out, those opposed lost that debate. And those who won the debate did not rest their case on the need to oppose Naziism, but on the view that South Africa was politically and morally obliged to support the UK in its wars.

This was plainly a position which was never going to find much popular or official support in Ireland. Ireland was much the most detached member of the Commonwealth, having ceased in practice to participate in 1932. The considerations which led Commonwealth countries to declare war in 1939 simply had no traction in Ireland. Furthermore, they had nothing to do with a recognition of the need to fight Naziism, and everything to do with calculations of self-interest.

Jawgap · 24-06-2015 7:14am

Peregrinus wrote: »

All this is true. But, still, it's misleading to present Canada, Australia, etc as examples of countries that joined the War because they recognised the need to oppose Nazi Germany, as indioblack implies. They all joined because they thought their relationship with the UK required it; the looked to the UK, to a material extent, to guarantee their security and they understood that the quid pro quo was that they would support the UK in its wars.

As the Australian Prime Minister Menzies put it, "Britain is at war therefore Australia is at war". He didn't even bother to serve a formal declaration of war on German diplomatic representatives; he asked London to notify Germany that Australia was associated with the British declaration. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Savage, put it even more simply; "We range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go! Where she stands, we stand!"

In Canada the Prime Minister at the time, King, had declared as far back as 1923 that Canada would always participate in "an Empire war", and he never varied from that position. It did take the Canadians a week to declare war, but there was never any doubt but that they would do so.

South Africa was the only major dominion where there was any real debate about whether to enter the war but, as you point out, those opposed lost that debate. And those who won the debate did not rest their case on the need to oppose Naziism, but on the view that South Africa was politically and morally obliged to support the UK in its wars.

This was plainly a position which was never going to find much popular or official support in Ireland. Ireland was much the most detached member of the Commonwealth, having ceased in practice to participate in 1932. The considerations which led Commonwealth countries to declare war in 1939 simply had no traction in Ireland. Furthermore, they had nothing to do with a recognition of the need to fight Naziism, and everything to do with calculations of self-interest.

Again, all of that may be substantively true but it still doesn't negate my point that there were countries who exercised their right to declare war without being attacked first by the Axis

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I think that I've already pointed out that Polish allies Britain and France apart, no country entered WW2 on the side of the allies without being attacked first.

Because they thought getting involved a war between imperial powers if it could be avoided would be insane.

Which it would have been.

They may well have acted out of allegiance to Britain, out of naked self-interest or out of ideological opposition to Nazism, but it still doesn't mean that there aren't countries who declared war without being attacked.

Plus, there are plenty of countries who declared war post-December 1941. I'd agree that it was politically unacceptable for Dev to have thrown the country's lot in with Britain in 1939 but the argument becomes weaker after 1941 - when a tranche of countries rowed in behind the Americans.

Plus 'contribution' didn't have to mean combat forces - basing rights on the west coast could have helped with shipping, land could have been provided for training and billeting of US and / or Canadian forces, a lot of food was supplied but more could have particularly with US assistance through the provision of machinery, fertilisers etc etc etc

Schadenfreudia · 24-06-2015 8:18am

sparky42 wrote: »

They were already at war with naval clashes in the Atlantic guarding the convoys. But don't let reality get in the way of your BS.

Most historians believe Hitler declared war on America. People who don't realise that really shouldn't throw around accusations of BS.

It is very impolite -and when applied to my observations, very very inaccurate.

Peregrinus · 24-06-2015 8:19am

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, all of that may be substantively true but it still doesn't negate my point that there were countries who exercised their right to declare war without being attacked first by the Axis

And your point is correct. My post wasn't intended to contradict you, but to refute indioblack's suggestion that the countries that fought the Axis were motivated to do so by a recognition of the need to fight Naziism. Britain and France can make the claim, in my view, but practically nobody else can.

Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War

Comments