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.

silverharp

PHB wrote: »

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.

if he didn't know about the camps he would of known of the various mass killings in Italy etc. however I've read that it was more his personality type that led him to do things in a very robotic manner, rather then it being any view he held about hitler.

brianthebard

seamus wrote: »

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.

I think there's a fourth outcome there Seamus, where Britain declares martial rule over the whole island. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ireland would have been invaded if they had been in the war, in World war terms Ireland would be a key strategic base for anyone who could get their hands on it. I don't have much time for Dev but that was definitely something he did right.

moe_sizlak

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

not everyone sees britians occupation here as having been a good thing , oh wait no one sees it , well apart from eoghan harris and kevin myers who have said so in print

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I think there's a fourth outcome there Seamus, where Britain declares martial rule over the whole island. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ireland would have been invaded if they had been in the war, in World war terms Ireland would be a key strategic base for anyone who could get their hands on it. I don't have much time for Dev but that was definitely something he did right.

I think that's a good point. Ireland could well have been Britain's weak underbelly so the invasion on ireland, if the situation called for it would have been good planning. If Dev had opted to join hitler, then what other choice would Britain have had?

Mr.Micro

moe_sizlak wrote: »

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

The thing is the whole of Europe was being overrun and Britain was fighting for her life .It is not as if Hitler would have left Ireland alone if he had invaded England .I suspect there was a good deal of anti British reasoning in De Valera s decision ( not unreasonable in view of the history between the 2 countries) but I do not think he would have seen it as another adventure in view of the fact that Hitler was the aggressor .

Manic Moran

Gobán Saor wrote: »

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

Different reasons, though.

The British plan would be put into effect if it seemed likely that Ireland would let Germany have the use of ports or air facilities. The German plan would have been put into effect regardless of Irish intentions on the matter: Either as a supporting operation to Sea Lion (British would have to keep troops and naval/anti-shipping assets in Ireland to protect Northern Ireland) or as a subsequent conquest.

NTM

Rosita

Mr.Micro wrote: »

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.

Of course he was right.

Redmond urged Irish people to fight for King and country in WW1 in the mistaken belief that it would mean something in the end and it didn't. What on earth would the slaughter of the Irish population in WW2 have achieved?

As for his offer of condolences to the German Embassy on the death of Hitler (which was also done by President Douglas Hyde the head of state but because he is not a political figure people are not so exercised by it or many even aware of it - funny that) as a neutral country it was diplomatically the only thing to do.

Those who retrospectively want to have it both ways will indeed have it both ways, but if you are neutral you have to be neutral when it might not suit you either.

Churchill's subsequent admission that it wouldn't have cost the Brits a thought to invade here again had they deemed it necessary copperfastens neutrality as the right decision. Why on earth would you hitch your wagon to that lot? The British had done nothing to earn the right to have the Irish nation prostrate itself for them.

One of the problems here is that like all consideration of history, most people cannot go back beyond their knowledge of the history books to consider how people might have thought when making these decisions. In 1940/41 the "evil of Hitler" would have seemed a lot more abstract to Irish people than the "evil of Britain" as exhibited in Ireland as recently as two decades earlier.

Latchy

Like most of the world ,Dev was unaware of the concentration camps and He was hedging his bets on either germany or the british invading the republic .He would i am sure have re-considered his letter of condolance at Hitlers death had he known , then again he might just have wanted to get up the nose's of the british ?

Mr.Micro

Rosita wrote: »

Of course he was right

One of the problems here is that like all consideration of history, most people cannot go back beyond their knowledge of the history books to consider how people might have thought when making these decisions. In 1940/41 the "evil of Hitler" would have seemed a lot more abstract to Irish people than the "evil of Britain" as exhibited in Ireland as recently as two decades earlier.

That is perhaps so but one could argue people knew a little bit more of what was going on as radio existed and newspapers .The Irish Government would have had even more knowledge through diplomatic channels and bearing in mind Hitlers track record through the thirties and his persecution of the jews and others during this time I am sure was well known .In the end if for nothing else perhaps Ireland should have gone with the allies to save our fellow man .

rlogue

Rosita wrote: »

As for his offer of condolences to the German Embassy on the death of Hitler (which was also done by President Douglas Hyde the head of state but because he is not a political figure people are not so exercised by it or many even aware of it - funny that) as a neutral country it was diplomatically the only thing to do.

Those who retrospectively want to have it both ways will indeed have it both ways, but if you are neutral you have to be neutral when it might not suit you either.

Let's get one thing straight shall we? We were the only nation that offered its condolences to the Germans after the death of Hitler. Where were the other neutrals? Clearly making sure they wouldn't get a heap of abuse on their heads following on from the revealing of the true murderous nature of the German state.

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

The war could have been the making of us, instead we stuck our heads in the sand and paid a big price for Dev's principles.

walrusgumble

silverharp wrote: »

if he didn't know about the camps he would of known of the various mass killings in Italy etc. however I've read that it was more his personality type that led him to do things in a very robotic manner, rather then it being any view he held about hitler.

i heard that signing the condolence was simply out of a mark of respect for the german ambassador who was in ireland at that time, appartantly he was a person whom dev had alot of time for. ireland was no of few countries who allowed ambassadors from axis countries to remain in position. britain and the usa (david gray) had no business whatsoever bulling a neutral state over the policy of keeping these abassadors. a neutal country takes no sides (ok ireland leaned to the allies)

hindsight is a fine thing:but ask yourself, or put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary dubliner cork or galway man/woman, at that time, or indeed even now with today's problems,how many of you, in light that damn all countries coming to the aid of ireland (a small country like belgium) during the war of independence and the bitterness of the people after civil war (never mind fighting together in europe people would barely look at each other) would any of you be willing to send your child over to europe to do there bit? funny how call out about the horrible things that happened to the jewish community when b-specials had taken lumps out of catholics in places like belfast and derry in the 1930's, who cried out foul play there?

who ever really thinks a 32 county offer would really be delivered, really needs their heads checked. do you really under estimate the unionists that much? churchill, whose father spent much of his public life protecting and supporting ulster or the quarter of a million who signed the ulster solemn league and covenant pledged to take up arms even against the crown if status quo was changed, these people did not go away you know.

as for the treaty ports, britain was not too pushed once america based them selves in the north. why could he recognise that ireland won them back in 1937 fairly, ireland had its own government to decide its own issues and that the treaty was all but dismantled after the enactment of statute of westminster. if he was so concerned about security, then why did he not offer money/weapons secretly to the irish government to fund a coastal survaillence?. surely such defence was as much a priority to ireland as to britain.

and the notion of economic prosperity after the war: do you justify entering war because of the economic benefits after the war or because it was a just cause? and there is all of us slaging off bush during his quest for oil in iraq.

again hindsight is a wonderful thing, how can one tell if ireland or the rest of europe would have quickly reform economically after the war, at that time? how can a country particularily as small as ours develop economically when it had in place protectionist tarrifs and taxes (many other countries did too)making it too small to surive on home based products and business to survive without foreign investment.note reasons why the european coal and steal community (later eec and eu came into being, how many euroepan countries really and truely were economically buyont straight away after the war, considering MANY HAD TO REBUILD ALL THE INFRASTRUCURE IT ONCE HAD?)

only the usa truely gained from the war financially on a long term basis (ok britain gave northern ireland the welfare state out of the funds) would war particapation have leapt frog our economy a number decades? maybe, northern ireland got some motorways funded and a few other things but its not like it grew strong economic links with them in years to come (of course the troubles stopped it from happening)

rlogue

Not a question of hindsight, but fact. The Ireland Act of 1949 in the UK parliament was pushed through by the Attlee government at the behest of Basil Brooke. In that act the UK recognised the Republic of Ireland but as I said earlier, copperfastened NI to the UK by specifically stating that NI would not ever leave the UK without a majority vote in Stormont.

The Republic of Ireland came about because of the abuse that John Costello got from the other Commonwealth nations at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in 1948, as Ireland's neutrality was despised by the other commonwealth nations. Costello literally pulled us out in a fit of pique.

We got hardly any Marshall Aid as we had no reconstruction to do in the aftermath of the war either. And as we weren't in NATO the Yanks were very much not inclined to invest much money in Ireland in the forties and fifties.

rlogue

funny how call out about the horrible things that happened to the jewish community when b-specials had taken lumps out of catholics in places like belfast and derry in the 1930's, who cried out foul play there?

I hardly think six million jewish people killed by the Nazis compares with the poor treatment of Catholics by the Stormont regime.

Shutuplaura

moe_sizlak wrote: »

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

not everyone sees britians occupation here as having been a good thing , oh wait no one sees it , well apart from eoghan harris and kevin myers who have said so in print

Nail on the head there mate. Nazi Germany was a terrible place and in hindsight its easy to see that. At the time when she was behaving like other european powers had done for hundreds of years and the death camps etc were not widely know about I think it entirely reasonable for Dev to look at the problem and say stuff it, you caused it you fix it. Like it or not the Versailles terms and the subsequant failure to use force to keep Germany to those terms was a huge factor in causing the global crises of the 1930's to escalate to war.

Regards the persecution of the jews in the 1930's. While terrible it wasn't the final solution on the 1940's and could be more comparable to apartheid. That said a great many countries stronger than Ireland have to take the blame for that also. The US government refused entry to a shipload of jewish refugees who were later let stay in Holland where after the invasion they fell into the Nazi's hands again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis

I'm sure Ireland wasn't too welcoming of refugees and that in my opinion is a greater stain on the countries flag than involvement in the war.

PHB wrote: »

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,

Do you even know anything about the Marshalll Plan? Ireland did recieve aid under the Marshal Plan, like other neutral European countries, including ones who's neutrality aided the axis rather than the allied side such as Portugal. It took me about 20 seconds to find the details below. Sorry to rain on your Dev bashing parade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marshall_Plan.png

PHB wrote: »

It seems, as a nation, everybody was obsessed with England.

Probably they were. Given that Ireland had been at war with Britain less than a quater century before I think its entirely understandable. The destruction of parts of the country was materially as bad as what occured in Europe during the First World war (obviously though the loss of life wasn't as great) Cork and Balgriggan had been torched, O' Connell street half destroyed and Co-Ops up and down the countries burned down. Why wouldn't people have been obsessed with Britain. The Allies were obsessed with avoid war with Germany for the same reasons.

PHB wrote: »

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?

When did Dev show tacit acceptance of the concentration camps? Was it in the same way the western allies showed tacit acceptance of the Invasion of Ethopia and China, the rape of Nanking? Or The Winter war? Firstly, the concentration camps were not well known about until late in the war, even by the allies. Secondly, Dev had shown himself to be a consistent opponent of aggression in the League of Nations - an organ set up by the Great Powers as a final arbiter of international affairs to avoid war. It wasn't his fault but the leagues own creators that it lacked teeth. And thirdly, even if he had known, what could the Irish government have done in war than it couldn't do in peace? It could have accepted more refugees as I say but it couldn't have contributed much more to the allied cause than it did under Dev's policy of neutrality which was heavily in favour of the allies as it was. How could it otherwise? Convoys to Britain were routed closer to Iceland and the around the North coast rather than by the south coast and were protected by long range air cover all the way. Destroyers guarded the convoys and they accompanied the ships from the US to Britain so I really think its false to say that Ireland could have contributed a lot more but didn't and cost hundreds of lives.

And fundamentally it comes down to the first duty of the government which is to look after the welfare of its citizens. It did so by remaining out of the war and arguably it saved our cities from aerial bombardment. People can say that it was risky becasue Hitler might have invaded Britain and have carried on to Ireland afterwards and therefore Britain deserved our help. This is all besides the point becasue any strategy carries an elemnt of risk. That Dev's strategy worked is to his and the government's credit.

Shutuplaura

rlogue wrote: »

Not a question of hindsight, but fact. The Ireland Act of 1949 in the UK parliament was pushed through by the Attlee government at the behest of Basil Brooke. In that act the UK recognised the Republic of Ireland but as I said earlier, copperfastened NI to the UK by specifically stating that NI would not ever leave the UK without a majority vote in Stormont.

The Republic of Ireland came about because of the abuse that John Costello got from the other Commonwealth nations at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in 1948, as Ireland's neutrality was despised by the other commonwealth nations. Costello literally pulled us out in a fit of pique.

We got hardly any Marshall Aid as we had no reconstruction to do in the aftermath of the war either. And as we weren't in NATO the Yanks were very much not inclined to invest much money in Ireland in the forties and fifties.

What are you on about? Not s question of hindsight? That was 1949! The war started ten years before. So it is very much a question of hindsight. Anyway, As I explained, churchill's offer was vague and very much a spur of the moment thing. No one, least of all Dev knew what he meant, how serious he was or how he would get the northern government to go along with it. Also, regards Marshall Aid, We got enough to cover post war reconstruction, which wasn't ase great as other countries. That we didn't pursue wise economic policies afterwards is a seperate issue. The fact you are trying to link them shows your true agenda.

walrusgumble

rlogue wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight shall we? We were the only nation that offered its condolences to the Germans after the death of Hitler. Where were the other neutrals? Clearly making sure they wouldn't get a heap of abuse on their heads following on from the revealing of the true murderous nature of the German state.

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

The war could have been the making of us, instead we stuck our heads in the sand and paid a big price for Dev's principles.

good point about the north, but if you are assessing dev's actions now, what makes you think that the constitutional position in northern ireland has been set in stone for ever, in light of recent times?

as for the un which was formed in 1945, ireland became a republic in 1949 it joined un in 1955, hardly much of a wait is it? the ussr blocked ireland's previous application, sure jesus they have used its veto over about 79 times in the first 10 years of the un, there foreign minister was known as mr no. more importantly, ireland' s application for the un had NOTHING to do with its neutrality stance. russia vetoed ireland, italy and finland as a ccounter-response to the USA’s objection to the admission of Outer Mongolia, which it believed to be little more than a Russian colony.


ireland had a choice to join in the 1960's, but de gaulle vetoed britain, not ireland. but as 90% of our exports lied with britain sean lemass decided that it would wait until britain got approval, there was nothing stopping them then. i doubt five or six years would have made much of a difference seeing the eu only really came to dominance or importance in the late 1970-1980's when the treaties atempted sweaping instituional reforms of significance.

i appreciate your approach to justification of ireland joining the war (sole economic reasons on ireland's part), but if that is the case, i hope you are not one of them bush - blair bashers.

how are you so sure that the irish government would have actually spent the money wisely? the bit of marshall plan we did get was wasted on draining bogs of no particular use. there were many dinosaurs in fianna fail at that time who were too conservative, how do we know that they would have spent the money wisely? noel brown later came up with a very good idea in the child - mother scheme, whether or not it would have been feasible to fund it, it was struck down not only by external influence (church) but also cabinet colleagues. look at the amount of money that has been paid into the health system by health ministers in the last decade. is our health system the envey of the world?

walrusgumble

rlogue wrote: »

I hardly think six million jewish people killed by the Nazis compares with the poor treatment of Catholics by the Stormont regime.

charity begins at home.:rolleyes:

under no circumstnces should what happened in the north should be compared to the jews, poor mary mac learned that mistake when the unionist cried foul. of course the plight of the jews is more noticable as there was more of them, but you make it sound like, i am sure you are not doing it intentional, what happened to catholics should be swept under the carpet, like all things have done in the north execpt in recently with these truth commissions and bloody sunday enquiry.

you seem to neglect to acknowledge in your reply that the poor treatment of the poor catholic as you described kick off events like the civil rights marches which in turn got nasty and kicked off the troubles, a whole 30 years worth.

brianthebard

latchyco wrote: »

Like most of the world ,Dev was unaware of the concentration camps and He was hedging his bets on either germany or the british invading the republic .He would i am sure have re-considered his letter of condolance at Hitlers death had he known , then again he might just have wanted to get up the nose's of the british ?

The problem is people had already known about the concentration camps for at least a month before the war ended, so there's no reason why dev wouldn't have known about them.

Fratton Fred

I was thinking about this driving home the other night.

What if Ireland had decided Britain was still the enemy and had thrown it's lot in with Germany. This would probably have forced Britain to invade and seen total war on the Island of Ireland. Obviously this would not have been a good thing. or would it?

Would it have forced the issue of Irish sovereignty. After the war the question of what to do with Irland would have been discussed in the same way it was with Japan, Poland, Germany and Austria. Ireland would, I suspect remained under British control, but no doubt with an increased American presence. Ireland would also have seen the sort of investment and aid that Japan and Germany received. However most of this aid came from the US, so would the US have insisted that grants be given, on the basis of a final solution, a united independant Ireland?

In the long term, would this have been so bad?

I undecided about this but thought it may be worth discussing.

gosplan

PHB wrote: »

If the Germans had won, they knew that we were effectively pro-British

I don't really see how you can say this and then say that being neutral was a black spot on our history.

I think in all most people are looking at this argument from the modern day.

'How come Dev didn't declare war onthe Nazis - hadn't he seen Schlinders list?'

The background at the time was:

Previous Imperial war(WW1) was totally self serving from each side.
Nazi's had the vatican on their side.
England didn't have most of the Irish population on their side and had a pretty poor record of winning supporters over here.

Dev couldn't just declare a war and then make it so. He needed the country behind him and I don't think he would have had it.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and he was a total Nazi, that's why he signed the book of condelences...I even hear that he had Jonathan Rhys Meyers shout 'Heil Hitler' just before he shot Michael Collins.

A last point:

How many soliders could Ireland have contributed? How effective would the tiny and technologically backward army of an unwilling nation be if he had pledged it?

How many Irish worked in British industries producing goods and equipment for the war?