Was De Valera right to have Ireland neutral in WW2?

Mr.Micro

I think he was wrong to allow Ireland to stay neutral in WW2 .He could have perhaps showed solidarity with the free world against the evil of Hitler.I accept that Ireland as a new nation was struggling to grow and adapt ,and perhaps that was a reason, but in view of his offer of condolences to German Embassy on the death of Hitler I fear perhaps his motivation for neutrality was otherwise.

DemocAnarchis

Mr.Micro wrote: »

in view of his offer of condolences to German Embassy on the death of Hitler I fear perhaps his motivation for neutrality was otherwise.

Are you implying that DeV was a Nazi sympathiser? Nice. Ireland wasn't really neutral, more neutral against the axis. We were too small to make an impact, regardless.

seamus

I think it was more of a political spread bet than any ideal of "we're not getting involved". Aside from our inability to defend ourselves at the time, maintaining neutrality meant one of three outcomes:

1. Germany win, they respect Ireland's neutrality.
2. Germany win, they come in and take control, but recognising our obedience civilian deaths are minimal and they may even leave us with some sort of Irish governing body.
3. The allies win. Ireland stays the way it is.

Taking sides would have been the high-risk option. If Germany had beaten Britain, we'd have been annihilated.

Mr.Micro

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

Are you implying that DeV was a Nazi sympathiser? Nice. Ireland wasn't really neutral, more neutral against the axis. We were too small to make an impact, regardless.

I was not implying anything just an open question.In view of what Hitler had been up to one would hardly be rushing to be associated with him? Ireland could have shown support at least if nothing else to show it was on the side of good.

Hitler was not known to respect pacts or treaties ,borders or indeed sovereignty.So there is no guarantee that Ireland would have been safe had Hitler won the war.

seamus

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I was not implying anything just an open question.In view of what Hitler had been up to one would hardly be rushing to be associated with him? Ireland could have shown support at least if nothing else to show it was on the side of good.

This is the problem with sitting on the fence. Being neutral was not "rushing to associate" with Hitler. That's the same "You're either with us or against us" attitude that Bush showed going into Iraq. In war, it's not a matter of taking sides. It's perfectly legitimate to support nobody. If Churchill had died, I'm sure he would have sent his condolences to London.

kf1920

Dev apparently passed up the opportunity of a 32 county ireland to remain neutral, which goes against his earlier views, i believe dev was a hypocrite and just wanted to be different

Fratton Fred

I think Dev got it about right. I'm not sure if it was luck or superb leadership, but he seemed to do the right thing.

There were many who were pro Hitler and dev kept them at bay whilst keeping the Pro British lobby quiet as well. If he had joined either side, there could well have been another civil war, or at least civil unrest.

Mr.Micro

seamus wrote: »

This is the problem with sitting on the fence. Being neutral was not "rushing to associate" with Hitler. That's the same "You're either with us or against us" attitude that Bush showed going into Iraq. In war, it's not a matter of taking sides. It's perfectly legitimate to support nobody. If Churchill had died, I'm sure he would have sent his condolences to London.

With respect Seamus, Churchill hardly falls into the same category,by the time of Hitlers death his terrible actions were well known and in appropriate therefore to express condolences .

silverharp

he was right up until about 1941,as the outcome was uncertain (I don't know if he looked at it in those terms) but when the US came into the war, siding with the US would have been better for the country. It is a simple economic fact that small countries don't do well in isolation but I guess Dev was happy with his happy peasants fantasy.
The answer I have come to accept about Dev was that he didn't want a united Ireland as the increased urban population would not have voted FF thus diluting FF's power, he was certainly not one for putting the interests of the country first.

gandalf

Technically this is suited more to History/Heritage so I am moving there. I will leave a link in Politics.

Mr.Micro

silverharp wrote: »

he was right up until about 1941,as the outcome was uncertain (I don't know if he looked at it in those terms) but when the US came into the war, siding with the US would have been better for the country. It is a simple economic fact that small countries don't do well in isolation but I guess Dev was happy with his happy peasants fantasy.
The answer I have come to accept about Dev was that he didn't want a united Ireland as the increased urban population would not have voted FF thus diluting FF's power, he was certainly not one for putting the interests of the country first.

As I posted earlier his reasons for his actions are not transparent and I feel there was a good deal of totalitarianism about him.

silverharp

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As I posted earlier his reasons for his actions are not transparent and I feel there was a good deal of totalitarianism about him.

I don't know if I would use the word totalitarianism as it implies certain military or heavy police state overtones and I don't think that fits. But he was probably trying to maintain his rural power base which by definition would be conservative and not progressive.

purple'n'gold

In my opinion we should have joined the allies after Germany declared war on the USA.
The benefits of this action would have been.
1. the gratitude and benevolence of the USA
2. We would not have been seen to be jumping to Churchill’s orders.
3. Germany had no chance of winning the war once the USA was involved against them
4. The battle of Britain was won by the RAF and in any case all Germanys air power was needed on the eastern front. So small chance of us being bombed.
If we had played our part in the defeat of the terrible tyranny that was Nazi Germany we would have become a modern European country 50 years ago, with the help of US aid. As it was we got paltry $3 milion dollars. (in Marshall aid money), and not remained an insular priest ridden back water until we were rescued by membership of the EU.

Mr.Micro

If we had played our part in the defeat of the terrible tyranny that was Nazi Germany we would have become a modern European country 50 years ago, with the help of US aid. As it was we got paltry $3 milion dollars. (in Marshall aid money), and not remained an insular priest ridden back water until we were rescued by membership of the EU.[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree with you P&G . Look at what happened in Ireland under his leadership .He allowed the church to rule and Ireland was close to a communist state in many ways held back in every possible way.Our writers had to leave, no technology ,no development, all resulting in mass exodus.How could we have been so backward in comparison to many of our European neighbours.Think of all the people who left Ireland never to return .

Erin Go Brath

kf1920 wrote: »

Dev apparently passed up the opportunity of a 32 county ireland to remain neutral, which goes against his earlier views, i believe dev was a hypocrite and just wanted to be different

There was talk that Churchill would have opened the door to a 32 County Republic in exchange for Irish support during the war. You're being naieve in the extreme if you think he would have delivered on this.

Dev was absolutely right to remain neutral imo. The fledgling nation needed time to take its own path. Getting involved in a World War was definitely not what the Country needed.

howaya

I wonder what Ferriter's position on it is in his recently-launched 'Judging DeV' book?
I think it was the correct decision at the time. I think condolences to the embassy following Hitler's death was a bridge too far.

Aedh Baclamh

You've just criticised yourself there. On the one hand you're saying that de Valera made the right decision at the time to stay neutral while on the other hand you're saying that we shouldn't have been neutral when Hitler died.

Shutuplaura

kf1920 wrote: »

Dev apparently passed up the opportunity of a 32 county ireland to remain neutral, which goes against his earlier views, i believe dev was a hypocrite and just wanted to be different

This was the 'Nation once again offer' right? According to Terry De Valera's memoirs - and I heard part of this somewhere else but I can't remember where tbh, the telegram was sent by Churchill the Night of the Pearl Harbour. He was apparently drunk and shooting telegrams all over the place. He must have been pretty relieved because he knew that with america in the war victory was almost guaranteed. Its anecdotal but given his love of drink, hatred of Dev and tendancy to work late it wouldn't be at all surprising that he sent off a tauting telegram while enjoying a drink to many.

Its also and this is again speculation because he never explained his offer again reckoned that he didn't mean that he was going to return the north to Ireland but that he meant that Ireland could become a proper country in the eyes of the world by joining the war - becoming a nation once again. Either way, the message was cryptic enough for Dev not to be able to be sure so his caution was understandable.

On the wider issue, Ireland's neutrality really benefitted the allies, unlike the neutrality of almost every other European country who all helped by choice or by necessity the Axis. Portugal provided a material called Wolfram and tungsten - used to make Armour Piercing rounds and hardened steel armour - Spain provided a safe haven for U-boats, volunteers for the war against the USSR & information and intelligence, Sweden and Switzerland both provided Iron ore and munitions, very handy because the allies didn't bomb them. On the balance then I think we can be cut a bit of slack. This is even besides the fact that Ireland had only recently fought a war with Britain.

Finally, the wider facts of the horror of Hitler's genocide against certain minories especially the Jews weren't common knowledge until the end of the war so while he would have appeared to be a despot, he probably wouldn't have seemed worse that say the despot on the allied side Stalin to an impartial observer.

Stimpyone

Shutuplaura wrote: »

On the balance then I think we can be cut a bit of slack. This is even besides the fact that Ireland had only recently fought a war with Britain.

Our Alantic ports and the possibility of airfields on the west coast would have been advantageous in the Battle of the Atlantic and in all probably would have saved hundreds of lifes.

The fact that we sat on our hands is quite despicable in my opinion.

karen3212

I don't see any point to war, any war.

Shutuplaura

Stimpyone wrote: »

Our Alantic ports and the possibility of airfields on the west coast would have been advantageous in the Battle of the Atlantic and in all probably would have saved hundreds of lifes.

The fact that we sat on our hands is quite despicable in my opinion.

Why are you so hard on what presumably is your own country? Three points:

Firstly, the bombing of irish cities would have cost many hundreds of lives. secondly, how do you know it would have saved 'hundred's' of lives. Thirdly, The Big powers of the world got themselves into the awful mess in the firstplace why should they expect anything from ireland to sort their mistakes out?

Fratton Fred

karen3212 wrote: »

I don't see any point to war, any war.

sometimes you have no choice. Most of Europe tried appeasement but it didn't work, it just gave Hitler more time to plan his strategies.

War is the ultimate threat, take that away and the international community becomes toothless.

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Why are you so hard on what presumably is your own country? Three points:

Firstly, the bombing of irish cities would have cost many hundreds of lives. secondly, how do you know it would have saved 'hundred's' of lives. Thirdly, The Big powers of the world got themselves into the awful mess in the firstplace why should they expect anything from ireland to sort their mistakes out?

I don't think Poland did a lot to get themselves into the mess, or Belgium, Holland, Finland etc.

If Ireland had not been an Island, it would have been dragged into the war regardless of what Dev decided.

Tazia

Stimpyone wrote: »

Our Alantic ports and the possibility of airfields on the west coast would have been advantageous in the Battle of the Atlantic and in all probably would have saved hundreds of lifes.

The fact that we sat on our hands is quite despicable in my opinion.

The morality of being at war with Nazism is obviously unanswerable. However, how was Dublin to be defended from the Luftwaffe?

I think you will find that German aircraft would have operated over the Irish Free State, restricted only by inclination and design limitations, if the Irish Free State was a hostile power.

The USA for example, were (initially) unable to prevent German U-Boats operating in NY harbor! I am not entirely sure what the immediate advantages to the allies would have been to simply increase German targeting opportunities.

If the US wanted to defeat the U-Boats, they should have started on their eastern seaboard and allocated VLR Liberators to Iceland etc.

I don't think it was a US naval priority, the RAF preferred to bomb German cities (or rural fields) by night. Without the military consensus, the real estate is perhaps irrelevant.

silverharp

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Thirdly, The Big powers of the world got themselves into the awful mess in the firstplace why should they expect anything from ireland to sort their mistakes out?

Self interest, it was clear that the germans didn't respect neutrals and Ireland was not in a position to defend itself. If Ireland had entered the war the convoys would have been better defended and alot of lives would have been saved and in hindsight Ireland would have benefited more economicaly after the war

gandalf

I really do not have any love for Dev and I do believe what he stood for held this country back at least 2 generations. However with regard to neutrality I believe he made the right decision. Ireland was a new country with wounds still raw from the War of Independence and the Civil War, getting involved in WW2 would have created additional strains and in extreme cases may have opened those wounds again.

As regards the Neutrality it was really in all but name. For example if an allied airman came down over Ireland they were smuggled back to their bases, if an axis one did they were interned.

Its very easy to judge based on hindsight especially given the attrocities of the Nazi regime but the full extend of their crimes did not become apparent until approx 1944 when some of the camps were discovered and liberated.

He did make a major mistake in giving his condolences at Hitlers death.

Shutuplaura

silverharp wrote: »

Self interest, it was clear that the germans didn't respect neutrals and Ireland was not in a position to defend itself. If Ireland had entered the war the convoys would have been better defended and alot of lives would have been saved and in hindsight Ireland would have benefited more economicaly after the war

Why would the convoys have been a lot better defended? By the Irish Navy or Aircorps? e refering to the treaty Ports, remember that the British Navy Still had use of the north as did the RAF. Liberators operating from Iceland also closed the Air cover hole in the Mid Altantic.So Irelands contribution would have been what exactly? If the Allies needed Ireland that much they would have taken it, The fact they didn't is telling enough.

FrattonFred wrote: »

I don't think Poland did a lot to get themselves into the mess, or Belgium, Holland, Finland etc.

If Ireland had not been an Island, it would have been dragged into the war regardless of what Dev decided.

So if Ireland wasn't an island it would have had different circumstances, needs and strategic goals. Whats your point? not all neutral countries had the same strategy for staying out of the war. I'll also point out that noone I ever knew from any of the countries you mention ever felt let down by Ireland remaining out of the War. Perhaps as small countries bordered by aggressive neighbours they understand our decision better than our former masters.

The fact is that if France, the US and Britain hadn't firstly imposed a draconian peace settlement on the second Empire, or if they actually were serious about enforcing it in the 1930's then the war wouldn't have started in the first place.

silverharp

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Why would the convoys have been a lot better defended? By the Irish Navy or Aircorps? e refering to the treaty Ports, remember that the British Navy Still had use of the north as did the RAF. Liberators operating from Iceland also closed the Air cover hole in the Mid Altantic.So Irelands contribution would have been what exactly? If the Allies needed Ireland that much they would have taken it, The fact they didn't is telling enough.

US bases setup along the west/south coast would have extended air cover to shipping going to the south coast of england and would have made it more difficult for the Uboats to operate, I know it was minor but there were instances of Irish fishermen selling fish to the U boats of the west coast of Ireland.
It wouldn't have made or broke the war so the allies didn't feel compelled to invade, probably wouldn't have gone down well with the Irish electorate in the US

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

So if Ireland wasn't an island it would have had different circumstances, needs and strategic goals. Whats your point? not all neutral countries had the same strategy for staying out of the war. I'll also point out that noone I ever knew from any of the countries you mention ever felt let down by Ireland remaining out of the War. Perhaps as small countries bordered by aggressive neighbours they understand our decision better than our former masters.

The fact is that if France, the US and Britain hadn't firstly imposed a draconian peace settlement on the second Empire, or if they actually were serious about enforcing it in the 1930's then the war wouldn't have started in the first place.

I meant that Ireland was lucky that it had the option, many countries did not through reason or either being on Hitler's roadmap or just being in the way.

Yes, Britain, France and the US were party to the rise of Hitler, but Poland etc were not. Hitler's plans were not revenge against those countries, it was to expand eastwards.

PHB

Aside from the huge cost to Ireland for not being involved in the effort, specifically not getting included in the Marshall plan which would have kickstarted our economy and meant 30 years less of suffering,
I think it's possible to see Dev as acting correctly, however, I don't. If you take the start of the war, then you can understand independence. However, if you look at the fact he signed the condolence book for Hitler, at which point, the concentration camps were actually known to people, I think you can begin to understand his actions. He was a man obsessed with England, obsessed with power, and wanted to show the world that Ireland was a nation (under him of course) independent of the UK, independent of the US, independent of anyone. That said, is the price of that show really worth the tacit acceptance of the concentration camps as an acceptable thing to happen in a government? Not a chance in hell you'll ever convince me of that.

Ultimately, there was only one man who made the humanitarian argument, a Mr. Dillon. The rest of the nation went along with it. It seems, as a nation, everybody was obsessed with England.

If you want to take it from a cost/benefit analysis, it's stupid to suggest that Dev was doing the best for the country by staying neutral. Two things would happen, The Allies would win or the Germans would win. If the Germans had won, they knew that we were effectively pro-British, they knew we gave them special treatment, and they didn't see us as one bit different. There's no way they would have allowed a possible US ally to stay within Europe, especially in such a prime stragegic location. Germany did not consider Ireland as neutral, as shown by the plans to invade, they were just happy not to deal with us right then and there. Once the UK had been taken care of, so would Ireland have been. People are living in a dreamworld if they think this, and furthermore, Dev was way too clever to not understand this. He knew we were dependent on the UK for protection, and I've no doubt he cheered when he heard England was saved.

Ireland had much to offer in the War, and it didn't. That is a blackspot on our nation imo. Neutrality is now a joke, just like it is then. We're not neutral, we never have been. We're just doing what we think is best for us.

Gobán Saor

PHB wrote: »

.....and wanted to show the world that Ireland was a nation (under him of course) independent of the UK, independent of the US, independent of anyone.

Given that this was a mere 20 odd years after the Brits fought a vicious war against us to STOP us from being an independent state, don't you think this is an entirely valid objective?

PHB wrote: »

Germany did not consider Ireland as neutral, as shown by the plans to invade,

So what. The Brits had plans to invade us too. For our own good, don't you know:rolleyes:

PHB wrote: »

Ireland had much to offer in the War, and it didn't. That is a blackspot on our nation imo. Neutrality is now a joke, just like it is then. We're not neutral, we never have been. We're just doing what we think is best for us.

Christ almighty, why are you beating yourself up over this. You think every other nation on the planet develops an entirely altruistic Pollyanna-like foreign policy? Yeah, right!:rolleyes: Look, EVERY nations foreign policy (on major issues anyway) is based on what they think is best for them. Diplomacy 101. For us, neutrality is a valid choice if it serves our interests. Not anybody else's interests. Its not a principle, and, despite what many people think, its not a constitutional requirement. Its not even mentioned in the Constitution. Its a pragmatic tactic which can vary in scope or degree from time to time to suit Irish national interests. Rightly so.