Face Off: De Valera vs Churchill

33cl

Anyone else watch this documentary? My opinion is that even if the South had entered the war on the allied side, the Brits would never have started any sort of unification process after the war. Perfidious Albion and all that.

K-9

33cl wrote: »

Anyone else watch this documentary? My opinion is that even if the South had entered the war on the allied side, the Brits would never have started any sort of unification process after the war. Perfidious Albion and all that.

Yep, Churchill was on the Brandy there!

Think DeV did come out well out of it. There was no need to attack DeV in Churchills victory speech.

DeV responded respectfully and diplomatically.

I can't see how not being Neutral would have been good for Ireland, maybe somebody can point it out?

dlofnep

Link?

therewillbe

Ye ,pretty good, but another rte repeat:mad:

Latchy

Havent seen documentry in question but it wasn't just Churchill who was on De Valera case about allowing brits come south if nessacary ( they probabaly would have anyway if Hitlers mob had got to England , maybe ? ) but Roosevelt was also on Dev's case .

KerranJast

Ireland was covertly on the Allied side anyway. Weather reports, downed German pilots passed onto British forces. Detailed plans existed for cooperation between British forces in the North and local Irish divisions in the South to repel any attempted German invasion. Hitler was notified on several occasions that any attempt to invade Ireland would have resulted in us declaring for the Allies. That would have turned Connacht into a giant airfield which would nullified German U-boats much earlier in the war.

Allah Hu Akbar

dlofnep wrote: »

Link?

Can't believe you didn't see this dlofnep.

Haven't got a link this Dev's return speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

De Valera v Churchill

It is 2.00 am on the 8th December, 1941, Eamon de Valera and Winston Churchill are locked in a bitter argument over Ireland's determined neutrality in war-torn Europe. Finally, Churchill sends de Valera a telegram that appears to contain an astonishing offer: give up your neutrality and you can have a united Ireland. The offer, adds Churchill, is available "now or never."


Taking this intense and momentous exchange as its starting point, Face-Off: de Valera v Churchill is an ambitious documentary which sets-out to explore this key episode in modern Irish history, and through it examine the fraught relationship between de Valera and Churchill, from the War of Independence to their high-profile speeches at the end of World War Two.
Director Jenny Morris was immediately drawn to the story, "The idea of these two men clashing repeatedly really interested me. Amidst all the drama of a World War, these two hugely influential Statesmen always made time to cross swords."
The documentary reveals the deep-seated resentments and ideological conflicts, which meant Churchill and de Valera would never see eye to eye, "It wasn't just that the two men differed politically, crucially during WW2, they had hugely different ambitions for their nations."
"Churchill wanted to take Britain safely through the War, de Valera wanted to keep Ireland out of the War. De Valera's position infuriated Churchill. The story is full of drama and really brings out the conflicting characters of both men." (Jenny Morris)
One really intriguing aspect of the story lies in the reading of the telegram in which Churchill appears to offer de Valera a united Ireland. Director Jenny Morris found numerous readings of the story, "some historians see the telegram as a concrete offer, others see it as just an emotional gesture, the fact that the telegram still provokes historical debate brings a whole new level to the documentary."

Fratton Fred

does the documentary explore whether or not (As discussed in a thread on here ages ago) dev actually wanted a united Ireland?

KerranJast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

does the documentary explore whether or not (As discussed in a thread on here ages ago) dev actually wanted a united Ireland?

Yes. It's obvious Dev wanted a United Ireland. The program discusses in details though that Dev knew Churchill wouldn't be able to deliver on his promise. The Unionists up North would have caused hell.

Deedsie

Does anyone think it could have at least helped bring Unionists and Nationalists together if we had joined in with them saying we are all Irish and we'll fight together for this noble cause?

Perhaps unionist distrust of Ireland could have been reduced if we fought with them?

I dont think it would have resulted in a united Ireland but perhaps the civil rights issues may have been avoided?

KerranJast

Deedsie wrote: »

Does anyone think it could have at least helped bring Unionists and Nationalists together if we had joined in with them saying we are all Irish and we'll fight together for this noble cause?

Perhaps unionist distrust of Ireland could have been reduced if we fought with them?

I dont think it would have resulted in a united Ireland but perhaps the civil rights issues may have been avoided?

If we had overtly sided with the Allies then yes it would have made United Ireland more likely. Unfortunately the Nazis would probably have bombed Ireland back to the Stone Age to prevent it being used for airfields to protect the Western Approaches from German U-boats. Plus Ireland was only 16 or so years since the Civil War. Dev was afraid that could have been reignited if he threw in with Britain.

McArmalite

33cl wrote: »

Anyone else watch this documentary? My opinion is that even if the South had entered the war on the allied side, the Brits would never have started any sort of unification process after the war. Perfidious Albion and all that.

Totally agree that " the Brits would never have started any sort of unification process after the war ". They promised us Home Rule in WW1 before the war, a different story afterwards ofcourse. They did similiar to Cyprus in both World Wars - and of course renigned on it. They promised the same to Ghandi and India if he supported britian in WW2 ( which been a pasifist he wouldn't ) - and of course would have reneged on it.
Indeed the present horrendous crisis in the middle east can be traced back to britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 which made promises to both the Palestinians and the zionists and which was instrumental in the creation of Isreal.

KerranJast wrote: »

Ireland was covertly on the Allied side anyway. Weather reports, downed German pilots passed onto British forces. Detailed plans existed for cooperation between British forces in the North and local Irish divisions in the South to repel any attempted German invasion. Hitler was notified on several occasions that any attempt to invade Ireland would have resulted in us declaring for the Allies. That would have turned Connacht into a giant airfield which would nullified German U-boats much earlier in the war.

Watched a series of programmes on TG4 about Ireland, neutrality and WW2 a few years ago. Yes you are right about plans existed for cooperation between British forces in the North and local Irish divisions in the South to repel any attempted German invasion. But according to the programme, the Irish govt. also leaked informtion to the british, that in the event of a british invasion, the Irish govt. would call upon the Germans to come to our assitance.
Appearently, the Irish forces were mainly arranged along the lines of 2 divisions ( a division is about 10,000 soldiers or so ). One along the border, to deal with a british invasion obviously, and the other down in the south east, Wexford, Waterford etc to attempt to deal with the Germans. But according to the programme, this information was leaked to both the Germans and the british and our intention to call upon either side to come to our aid in the event of an invasion. I doubt if the brits had the resoures to launch an invasion of the south, they were existing day by day, they had more than enough on their hands, sure they couldn't even take the Channel Islands never mind the south of Ireland.
As for the Germans, doubt if they considered Ireland of much significance in their overall plans, britain although still not occupied, had a very bloody nose and little more than Dads Army to fight Germany with. The Germans knew the really big one was coming up in the east.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Watched a series of programmes on TG4 about Ireland, neutrality and WW2 a few years ago. Yes you are right about plans existed for cooperation between British forces in the North and local Irish divisions in the South to repel any attempted German invasion. But according to the programme, the Irish govt. also leaked informtion to the british, that in the event of a british invasion, the Irish govt. would call upon the Germans to come to our assitance.
Appearently, the Irish forces were mainly arranged along the lines of 2 divisions ( a division is about 10,000 soldiers or so ). One along the border, to deal with a british invasion obviously, and the other down in the south east, Wexford, Waterford etc to attempt to deal with the Germans. But according to the programme, this information was leaked to both the Germans and the british and our intention to call upon either side to come to our aid in the event of an invasion. I doubt if the brits had the resoures to launch an invasion of the south, they were existing day by day, they had more than enough on their hands, sure they couldn't even take the Channel Islands never mind the south of Ireland.
As for the Germans, doubt if they considered Ireland of much significance in their overall plans, britain although still not occupied, had a very bloody nose and little more than Dads Army to fight Germany with. The Germans knew the really big one was coming up in the east.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58037545&postcount=1

Why would Britain have invaded Ireland, when the Irish had already gone running home to mummy to ask for help if the Germans attacked? (Some things never change do they)

Good job Britain didn't captiulate eh, things might look a bit different today if they had.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58037545&postcount=1

Why would Britain have invaded Ireland, when the Irish had already gone running home to mummy to ask for help if the Germans attacked? (Some things never change do they)

Good job Britain didn't captiulate eh, things might look a bit different today if they had.

Indeed, we can thank the Japs for invading Pearl Harbour or the invasion by either Army could well have happened!

Fratton Fred

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, we can thank the Japs for invading Pearl Harbour or the invasion by either Army could well have happened!

There were several reasons why Britain didn't invade. Eamon De Velera was not one of them.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were several reasons why Britain didn't invade. Eamon De Velera was not one of them.

Well I know I'm revising but if Dillon was in power, we could well have been involved, there would have been no need for an invasion.

I do see your point though. Would not say he would have been ignored though. He did speak for the vast majority of the Irish people! Jaysus I sound like him!

Fratton Fred

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well I know I'm revising but if Dillon was in power, we could well have been involved, there would have been no need for an invasion.

I do see your point though. Would not say he would have been ignored though. He did speak for the vast majority of the Irish people! Jaysus I sound like him!

I have said many times on here, I think Dev played the emergency perfectly, with the exception of sending condolences to Germany after Hitler's death (I'm not sure why he did that, it seems a very strange move). It may have been luck, or it may have been judgement I'm not sure, but it was the best course of action especially with the different camps pushing for different things, some to join the allies, some to invite Nazi Germany in to help get NI back. I believe that if the latter had happened, there would be a united Ireland today, but there would be a red white and blue flag flying over it.

I don;t have a particularly high opinion of Dev. to me he epitomises all that if bad with Irish politics. I think he was quite happy to have all the unionists outside of his country, because with them in it, he may have not been the big fish he became. I also think he bottled the negotiations with the British and set Michael Collins up for a fall. the politician getting the better of a more popular Military genius and a potential threat for president imho.

I think that is why Churchill had a swipe at him. I don't think it had anything to do with Ireland or the Irish people, I think it was personal, Churchill having a dig at a political leader he had very little respect for.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58037545&postcount=1

Why would Britain have invaded Ireland, when the Irish had already gone running home to mummy to ask for help if the Germans attacked? (Some things never change do they).

As I already said - plans existed for cooperation between British forces in the North and local Irish divisions in the South to repel any attempted German invasion. But according to the programme, the Irish govt. also leaked informtion to the british, that in the event of a british invasion, the Irish govt. would call upon the Germans to come to our assitance.

It's not surprising that a small country like Ireland should make overtures with the larger states. While ofcourse mighty britain was begging big daddy America for help.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good job Britain didn't captiulate eh, things might look a bit different today if they had.

Don't flatter yourself so much Fred, the outcome of the war was determined on the Eastern Front and Pearl Harbour bringing America into the war. The battle of britain was just a sideshow.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself so much Fred, the outcome of the war was determined on the Eastern Front and Pearl Harbour bringing America into the war. The battle of britain was just a sideshow.

would the US have come into europe if Britain had fallen early on? how would the russians have got on if Germany had been able to put all its resources into the eastern front?

We'll never know, except of course that if Britain had fallen, I doubt very much Hitler would have stopped at Newry.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

would the US have come into europe if Britain had fallen early on? how would the russians have got on if Germany had been able to put all its resources into the eastern front?

We'll never know, except of course that if Britain had fallen, I doubt very much Hitler would have stopped at Newry.

This whole scenario rests on the myth that Hitler wanted to control all of Europe and was determined to march into every corner. He didn't - and no sources have ever been found to support this view - but the myth was created by Churchill in order to get Britain into war in the first place. In fact, Hitler, admired the British Empire and did not want a war on that front.

The irony of it all is that the Empire that Churchill wanted so much to protect ended up being lost in the aftermath of his disastrous policies.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

This whole scenario rests on the myth that Hitler wanted to control all of Europe and was determined to march into every corner. He didn't - and no sources have ever been found to support this view - but the myth was created by Churchill in order to get Britain into war in the first place. In fact, Hitler, admired the British Empire and did not want a war on that front.

The irony of it all is that the Empire that Churchill wanted so much to protect ended up being lost in the aftermath of his disastrous policies.

There was no myth, Hitler did not want to invade western europe, other than regaining land lost after WWI. Britain and France declared war on Germany because he invaded Poland. Britain could easily have kept out of it, so could France but someone had to stop Hitler.

The Balfour declaration of 1926 signalled the end of empire, not Hitler.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have said many times on here, I think Dev played the emergency perfectly, with the exception of sending condolences to Germany after Hitler's death (I'm not sure why he did that, it seems a very strange move).

He was being the diplomat, even Dillon admitted that though he disagreed with Neutrality, DeV did the diplomatically correct thing. He probably wanted to piss of Churchill too!

Fratton Fred wrote:

I think that is why Churchill had a swipe at him. I don't think it had anything to do with Ireland or the Irish people, I think it was personal, Churchill having a dig at a political leader he had very little respect for.

Equally, I'd say DeV was having a few swipes at him back. From watching the programme I didn't realise the Treaty Ports where that important to him before. I think there was a symbolic element to them for him too.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was no myth, Hitler did not want to invade western europe, other than regaining land lost after WWI. Britain and France declared war on Germany because he invaded Poland. Britain could easily have kept out of it, so could France but someone had to stop Hitler.

The Balfour declaration of 1926 signalled the end of empire, not Hitler.

The British war guarantee to Poland is now seen by many historians as daft beyond understanding. It was Churchill who wanted to go to war because that was his natural position - the guy loved war. Papers released from heretofore secret cabinet meetings in the lead up to war show how furious some were within the British government at the war guarantee and [rightly] declared that such a senseless war would bankrupt the treasury and lead to the end of Empire. Which is what eventually happened. Poland had been willing to cede the requested territory of Danzig to Hitler but with the war guarantee the Poles decided to sit back and let the Brits fight for them.

The sheer irony of course is that no one saved Poland - the very basis for the war - like WMD of our day, it proved to be a senseless reason for war. Poland went under Soviet dominance for 45 years.

For the Brits the resulting forced withdrawals from India, Africa were predicated on the financial burden holding on to those territories would entail. The cost could not be met and the intense correspondence on this issue is quite revealing. The withdrawal from Kenya was particularly brutal - torture, starvation prisons for the Mau Mau etc but in the end it was the finances that broke the back of empire.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The British war guarantee to Poland is now seen by many historians as daft beyond understanding. It was Churchill who wanted to go to war because that was his natural position - the guy loved war. Papers released from heretofore secret cabinet meetings in the lead up to war show how furious some were within the British government at the war guarantee and [rightly] declared that such a senseless war would bankrupt the treasury and lead to the end of Empire. Which is what eventually happened. Poland had been willing to cede the requested territory of Danzig to Hitler but with the war guarantee the Poles decided to sit back and let the Brits fight for them.

what a load of rubbish. for a start Neville chamberlain (Remember him, peace in our time and all that) was PM when the treaty with France and poland was signed and it was the Chamberlain government that actually declared war. I think you will also find that the poles did everything but sit back and let others fight the war for them.

MarchDub wrote: »

The sheer irony of course is that no one saved Poland - the very basis for the war - like WMD of our day, it proved to be a senseless reason for war. Poland went under Soviet dominance for 45 years.

after 6 years of war, no one was able to prevent the soviets taking over Poland. read up about the Yalta conference and you'll find out what happened.

MarchDub wrote: »

For the Brits the resulting forced withdrawals from India, Africa were predicated on the financial burden holding on to those territories would entail. The cost could not be met and the intense correspondence on this issue is quite revealing. The withdrawal from Kenya was particularly brutal - torture, starvation prisons for the Mau Mau etc but in the end it was the finances that broke the back of empire.

No, in the end it was the changing world that broke the empire.

Don't forget, the vast majority of forces fighting the Mau mau uprising were local forces, it was, I believe, as much ethnic as anything else.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what a load of rubbish. for a start Neville chamberlain (Remember him, peace in our time and all that) was PM when the treaty with France and poland was signed and it was the Chamberlain government that actually declared war. I think you will also find that the poles did everything but sit back and let others fight the war for them.

after 6 years of war, no one was able to prevent the soviets taking over Poland. read up about the Yalta conference and you'll find out what happened.


No, in the end it was the changing world that broke the empire.

Don't forget, the vast majority of forces fighting the Mau mau uprising were local forces, it was, I believe, as much ethnic as anything else.

Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments of why the war happened. You ought to check out the later work of historians who have challenged this propagandised version of events. I would suggest you look at the work of John Charmley and AJP Taylor and even Pat Buchannan [who has recently done an excellent job at compiling all the research together].

Chamberlain was out-voiced by Churchill and the so called "war party" within the British government at the time and ultimately went against his own better judgment. Some of his private correspondence on the issue is revealing for how "shamed" he was made to feel over his previous stand. In fact, in many modern historical quarters Chamberlain is no longer the bête noire of British policy that he was painted to be by Churchill and other war propagandists. And the Polish leadership was woeful - they took full advantage of the foolish war guarantee made by the British at a time when the Brits in fact had insufficient ground forces to back up their crazed promise.

As for Kenya - Jeez, historians are only just really getting to that one. The amount of files that were destroyed by the British on their departure has left it a formidable challenge but recently work by Caroline Elkins at Harvard has revealed the bloodbath that the British engaged in and again - the propaganda that covered up what was really going on there. Like NI and other places that they destroyed they tried to make it look like an internal struggle and not a Brits Vs the nationalists. In other words, same old, same old...

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments of why the war happened. You ought to check out the later work of historians who have challenged this propagandised version of events. I would suggest you look at the work of John Charmley and AJP Taylor and even Pat Buchannan [who has recently done an excellent job at compiling all the research together].

Chamberlain was out-voiced by Churchill and the so called "war party" within the British government at the time and ultimately went against his own better judgment. Some of his private correspondence on the issue is revealing for how "shamed" he was made to feel over his previous stand. In fact, in many modern historical quarters Chamberlain is no longer the bête noire of British policy that he was painted to be by Churchill and other war propagandists. And the Polish leadership was woeful - they took full advantage of the foolish war guarantee made by the British at a time when the Brits in fact had insufficient ground forces to back up their crazed promise.

what you are doing is the now tedious "The Brits did it so it must be bad".

Of course Chamberlain felt "Shamed" he, along with other european leaders had appeased Hitler and let him get away with taking liberty after liberty. sooner or later it was going to end up wth war.

Are you suggesting that Britain (And of course France) should not have declared war on Germany and the Axis? just how exactly do you think the world map would look if they didn't?

Maybe the polish leadership were woeful, but how did that change anything? do you think Hitler would not have invaded if they did not have the assurances from the allies? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Interesting that you quote a notoriously anti churchill historian and a nazi as two references btw.

MarchDub wrote: »

As for Kenya - Jeez, historians are only just really getting to that one. The amount of files that were destroyed by the British on their departure has left it a formidable challenge but recently work by Caroline Elkins at Harvard has revealed the bloodbath that the British engaged in and again - the propaganda that covered up what was really going on there. Like NI and other places that they destroyed they tried to make it look like an internal struggle and not a Brits Vs the nationalists. In other words, same old, same old...

There are plenty of people who believe the work carried out by caroline Elkins is seriously flawed i believe. I believe she falls into the same category as you, call it research, but really it is looking for half truths that back up your own personal agenda.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what you are doing is the now tedious "The Brits did it so it must be bad".

Of course Chamberlain felt "Shamed" he, along with other european leaders had appeased Hitler and let him get away with taking liberty after liberty. sooner or later it was going to end up wth war.

Are you suggesting that Britain (And of course France) should not have declared war on Germany and the Axis? just how exactly do you think the world map would look if they didn't?

Maybe the polish leadership were woeful, but how did that change anything? do you think Hitler would not have invaded if they did not have the assurances from the allies? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Interesting that you quote a notoriously anti churchill historian and a nazi as two references btw.



There are plenty of people who believe the work carried out by caroline Elkins is seriously flawed i believe. I believe she falls into the same category as you, call it research, but really it is looking for half truths that back up your own personal agenda.

The only good references are pro Churchill historians???

So your only answer is if you don't like the message - kill the messenger and Oh name call above all else. Your ignorance about these refs is apparent. In fact, admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you has a "personal agenda"? - nice try. Elkins has widespread support amongst many of her peers for her findings - but the British press went ballistic over some of her findings, but what's new there?

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The only good references are pro Churchill historians???

So your only answer is if you don't like the message - kill the messenger and Oh name call above all else. Your ignorance about these refs is apparent. In fact, admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you has a "personal agenda"? - nice try. Elkins has widespread support amongst many of her peers for her findings - but the British press went ballistic over some of her findings, but what's new there?

all right, lets cut out the name calling.

Maybe you can enlighten us all on why supporting Poland was foolish, why the Polish sat back and let the Allies dotheir fighting for them and how churchill bullied chamberlain into declaring war.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

all right, lets cut out the name calling.

Maybe you can enlighten us all on why supporting Poland was foolish, why the Polish sat back and let the Allies dotheir fighting for them and how churchill bullied chamberlain into declaring war.

OK - be glad to.
First off, from the British point of view WWII was a disaster. The Poles allowed the war guarantee to go forward and therefore did not have to give Germany the Danzig corridor - which they previously had been willing to do. Indeed, the British actually felt that Germany ought to have Danzig. But there was internal disagreement within the British cabinet about how to deal with the issue and Churchill and the war lot won out - Chamberlain was simply weak willed imo and lacked the courage of his convictions. I did not say that the Poles did not fight - but they did not then have to cede territory [which they ought to have done and had been willing to do] because they knew that the Brits and the French had agreed to back them up. The British had no strategic interest in this part of the world yet inconceivably, went to war.

The British were unprepared for a ground war - they had a huge navy and were unassailable on the seas but had comparatively little in the way of ground troops when they declared war on Germany. On the other hand, Germany had an enormous army in 1939. Building up ground forces proved to be highly expensive for the British.

The other great irony – and tragedy for Britain- is that Roosevelt was very anti-European. I mean in an imperial sense. He hated imperialism. He wanted to break the European colonial powers and make the US the super world power. He practically forced Churchill into the Atlantic Charter of 1941 which shaped the post war world. I have a few papers on this but for copyright can’t just post them here but here is a book review that quotes from Roosevelt’s son Elliott on how his father handled Churchill and broke the finances of the empire. I don’t think that it is verbatim really but it gives a good sense of how Roosevelt felt about the Europeans and their empires.

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

The great paradox of it all is that Hitler admired the British Empire, had no wish to go to war with the British and did – and Roosevelt who was part the allies hated imperialism and set about destroying the British Empire.

AJP Taylor was one of the first to bring some of these points out but he was howled out of it back in the 1960s by those who could no tolerate any hint of criticism against Churchill or the “heroics” of WWII, the “good” war. But many of Taylor’s contentions are becoming mainstream now.

Fratton Fred

There's not a lot there I would argue with. Looking at Roosevelt first, britain is often critcised for abandoning Poland to the russians, but in reality what were Britain to do.

Britain had seriously overstretched itself and there was no way it could take on the new force in the world, the red army. Roosevelt wanted to pull out of Europe asap but it was obvious that if they did, there would be no defence against the soviets if they decided to expand further westwards. Britain was in a bad state, but it was not destroyed as pretty much everything in mainland europe was.

Roosevelt was determined to form the UN, partly to stop europe destroying itself again and partly as a legacy as he was almost on his death bed by the time the Yalta conference took place. From what I understand, the deal was that the US would remain in europe, dividing up germany as they did, elections would take place in Poland "Monitored" by the soviets and Britain and Russia agreed with roosevelt's idea for a united nations.

With regards to why Britain went to war, it is a much simpler thing to look at in hindsight. the US made ot very clear that it did not want to get involved, even though it did not approve of Hitler's Germany. What else were Britain and France to do? Talking to people who remember the time, there was an inevitability that europe was heading for war again. Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" was viewed by most as a complete folly and that the only way to stop Hitler was war.

Yes it was a disaster for Britain, but Britain and france not getting involved would have been a far bigger disaster for europe. If he hadn't had to invade france, the Nazis would have swept into Russia earlier and quicker than they did. If the invasion of russia had started two months earlier, it would most probably been a success and with no Russia and Germany abole to exploit russia's industrial might, where would they have stopped?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's not a lot there I would argue with. Looking at Roosevelt first, britain is often critcised for abandoning Poland to the russians, but in reality what were Britain to do.

That is the point I made earlier - the British were totally spent by the war and Poland was abandoned anyway. So the idea for war in the first place, the war guarantee to Poland, proved to be impossible to live up to.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain had seriously overstretched itself and there was no way it could take on the new force in the world, the red army. Roosevelt wanted to pull out of Europe asap but it was obvious that if they did, there would be no defence against the soviets if they decided to expand further westwards. Britain was in a bad state, but it was not destroyed as pretty much everything in mainland europe was. .

Yes, but the French and British were culprits – not saviours - in that destruction. If they had kept out of things and allowed Germany to go to war with Russia this would have resulted in a far better outcome for Europe. Hitler hated communism and wanted to smash it - letting him attempt this would have been better for Europe. Both forces were becoming - in due process - better matched to each other and the end result would have been a weaker Germany AND Soviet Union. The British and French actions actually contributed to a larger and more dominant Soviet Union at war's end and a divided Europe with the “Iron Curtin” as Churchill called it, but side stepped his own culpability by cleverly writing the history himself.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

With regards to why Britain went to war, it is a much simpler thing to look at in hindsight. the US made ot very clear that it did not want to get involved, even though it did not approve of Hitler's Germany. What else were Britain and France to do? Talking to people who remember the time, there was an inevitability that europe was heading for war again. Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" was viewed by most as a complete folly and that the only way to stop Hitler was war.

Yes it was a disaster for Britain, but Britain and france not getting involved would have been a far bigger disaster for europe. If he hadn't had to invade france, the Nazis would have swept into Russia earlier and quicker than they did. If the invasion of russia had started two months earlier, it would most probably been a success and with no Russia and Germany abole to exploit russia's industrial might, where would they have stopped?

This all presupposes the notion that Hitler wanted to "rule the world" - a notion that is not at all universally accepted by historians. There is absolutely no evidence that has ever come to light that suggests this. The guy was a complete loon but he loved imperialism and supported and admired the British. He never wanted to destroy the British Empire. He wanted a strong Germany within the European family of imperialism. The Soviets - his stated enemy - were in the process of building an enormous army and could have taken him down or weakened him severely within Germany - and he would not have opened a western front. But the British and French jumped the gun as it were by declaring war in 1939. The notion of his threat to the British was a clever invention by Churchill and his supporters to justify what was done regarding the declaration of war. As regards the US, Roosevelt was happy to stand by and watch as the French and British destroyed themselves and make way for a dominant - and unscathed - US.

To bring this around to the initial thread – De Valera was heroic to keep the Irish out of this imperial disaster. Even within Britain at the time amongst the working classes there was massive discontent with the war as it dragged on and the reality of the bloodshed hit. You mentioned those who lived through it – I also know some who remember how bitter the average English person felt by 1944 and could not wait for an election to throw out Churchill and build a better country. They did just that in 1945 when the Labour Party swept in. It was the post-war writings, mostly of Churchill, which established the narrative that the war was “just” and “good” and Britain’s “finest hour” etc. that saw to it that the bitterness – and a great deal of the truth - were buried.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, but the French and British were culprits – not saviours - in that destruction. If they had kept out of things and allowed Germany to go to war with Russia this would have resulted in a far better outcome for Europe. Hitler hated communism and wanted to smash it - letting him attempt this would have been better for Europe. Both forces were becoming - in due process - better matched to each other and the end result would have been a weaker Germany AND Soviet Union. The British and French actions actually contributed to a larger and more dominant Soviet Union at war's end and a divided Europe with the “Iron Curtin” as Churchill called it, but side stepped his own culpability by cleverly writing the history himself.

I take it you are quoting that from Buchanan, because that sounds very much like you are saying Nazi Germany wasn't ll that bad.

You might want to think about what you have just written.

Edit: why not open up a thread on the WWII forum (A sub forum of the Military fora) and see what they have to say there. it would make an interesting discussion.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I take it you are quoting that from Buchanan, because that sounds very much like you are saying Nazi Germany wasn't ll that bad.

Let me categorically state that Nazi Germany was evil - there is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact this very evil is the very reason that discussing it becomes so emotive and has been so academically difficult. The problem for many historians is maintaining that position -i.e. that the Nazis were a very sick, heinous bunch - while describing what might have been a better outcome for eastern Europe.

Don't know that you are right about Buchanan - I have never heard him say anything but negative things about the Nazis. Just saw a recent interview done in his personal library in his home in which he repeated this. BTW his was one of the lone voices in the US that hit hard at Bush - and Blair- over the Iraq war and is supportive of a Palestinian homeland but this does not make him a "Nazi" - anyway I never heard him say anything that would suggest this. I certainly don't share his views on a lot of stuff, too far to the right for me - but I think he is a good compiler of issues and a careful researcher.
.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Edit: why not open up a thread on the WWII forum (A sub forum of the Military fora) and see what they have to say there. it would make an interesting discussion.

Yes, it might but you can see how emotive the issue is - and how misconceptions can dominate.

There is an interesting publication on the issues of the origins of WWII and Taylor's research :

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-Reconsidered-J-P/dp/0415163250/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232369528&sr=8-3

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, it might but you can see how emotive the issue is - and how misconceptions can dominate.

There is an interesting publication on the issues of the origins of WWII and Taylor's research :

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-Reconsidered-J-P/dp/0415163250/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232369528&sr=8-3

Someone had to win WWII. it was either going to be Germany, or the alternative. You could argue that if the Allies had not opened up the western front, Russia would have completely dominated europe right up to the Western borders of Germany itself, making it even stronger than it was. the alternative, Germany winning is not worth considering. Where would Germany have stopped?

If you scroll down to the botom of the link you gave, there is a very useful comment that is highly critical of Taylor's work btw.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you scroll down to the botom of the link you gave, there is a very useful comment that is highly critical of Taylor's work btw.

Yes, I am well aware of that - here and in other places - and saw that comment. But I am not looking to put forward a single view - just open up the dialogue - it all adds to the discussion which should be more open than it has been.

deadhead13

There was a very real threat of another civil war if Ireland had made moves to join the war

tricky D

Meanwhile, in relation to Irish 'neutrality'...

Neutral Ireland's secret war

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments of why the war happened. You ought to check out the later work of historians who have challenged this propagandised version of events. I would suggest you look at the work of John Charmley and AJP Taylor and even Pat Buchannan [who has recently done an excellent job at compiling all the research together].

Chamberlain was out-voiced by Churchill and the so called "war party" within the British government at the time and ultimately went against his own better judgment. Some of his private correspondence on the issue is revealing for how "shamed" he was made to feel over his previous stand. In fact, in many modern historical quarters Chamberlain is no longer the bête noire of British policy that he was painted to be by Churchill and other war propagandists. And the Polish leadership was woeful - they took full advantage of the foolish war guarantee made by the British at a time when the Brits in fact had insufficient ground forces to back up their crazed promise.

As for Kenya - Jeez, historians are only just really getting to that one. The amount of files that were destroyed by the British on their departure has left it a formidable challenge but recently work by Caroline Elkins at Harvard has revealed the bloodbath that the British engaged in and again - the propaganda that covered up what was really going on there. Like NI and other places that they destroyed they tried to make it look like an internal struggle and not a Brits Vs the nationalists. In other words, same old, same old...

" Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments " Yes MarchDub, that's our Fred for you. If britain's offical line was that the the earth is flat, then it is flat would be his line :rolleyes:.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments " Yes MarchDub, that's our Fred for you. If britain's offical line was that the the earth is flat, then it is flat would be his line :rolleyes:.

isn't there something in the rules about attacking the post, not the poster?

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

isn't there something in the rules about attacking the post, not the poster?

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

sock puppet

MarchDub wrote: »

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

And where would this war have been fought? They might have destroyed each other but not before leveling everything that stood between them.

Armin_Tamzarian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

This is an excellent, informative thread but that's a pretty outrageous, baseless comment.
It seems pretty clear that marchDub's point was that it would have been better if Germany and Russia were left to fight each other and wear each other down before Britain got involved, if needed.

Armin_Tamzarian

sock puppet wrote: »

And where would this war have been fought? They might have destroyed each other but not before leveling everything that stood between them.

But nothing stood between them, after they both invaded Poland
and split it between them.

SirHenryGrattan

Deedsie wrote: »

Does anyone think it could have at least helped bring Unionists and Nationalists together if we had joined in with them saying we are all Irish and we'll fight together for this noble cause?

Perhaps unionist distrust of Ireland could have been reduced if we fought with them?

I dont think it would have resulted in a united Ireland but perhaps the civil rights issues may have been avoided?

That's a good question but the answer is invariably no, not just in Ireland but in most conflicts. American Civil War. Generals who once fought together fight against each other. Russia V NATO after WW2. And what about all those NI Nationalists that fought with the British military during WW2? Did them absolutely no good.

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why would Britain have invaded Ireland, when the Irish had already gone running home to mummy to ask for help if the Germans attacked? (Some things never change do they)

Good job Britain didn't captiulate eh, things might look a bit different today if they had.

I seem to remember Australia appealing to the USA for help when Churchill refused to send Aussie troops home to defend Australia from the Japs so "running to mummy" was not unusual.

The war in the European theatre was effectively won and lost on the Eastern Front where the Russians broke the back of the Nazi war machine. It's ironic but we have the Russians to thank for preserving democracy in Europe.

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Balfour declaration of 1926 signalled the end of empire, not Hitler.

30 years too early. Suez 1956. Then Britain realised She could not afford the Empire or at least afford to defend it.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

I thought we had agreed not to resort to name calling?

In one post you are saying that Britain and France should never have got involved in WWII, you go on to say that their participation created a stronger soviet union. Their involvement led Poland to not concede Danzig and therefore their invasion and yet you then go on to claim that Germany was only interested in the Soviet Union, how the hell were they going to get there, Ryanair? The long and the short of it is that Poland was ****ed, with or with or British and French support.

You claim that Germany would have crushed the Soviet Union, which is certainly true, especially considering they would have launched their attack earlier in the year and without having to leave a significant amount of men and equipment in northern France, Greece and North Africa and the Russians would have not had the benefit of the Arctic convoys.
So, what would have been left? Would Hitler have just gone away once he had defeated the Russians?

Maybe, rather than resorting to name calling and throwing your toys out of the pram, you could give a reasoned, logical view on how WWII would have panned out, rather than looking for various disjointed reasons why Britain was a “Culprit”.

Fratton Fred

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The war in the European theatre was effectively won and lost on the Eastern Front where the Russians broke the back of the Nazi war machine. It's ironic but we have the Russians to thank for preserving democracy in Europe.

how long would russia have lasted if the Germans had attacked earlier in the year and with an extra one million men, planes etc? There were also huge supply convoys from the US and britian to russia that helped keep them afloat. Yes the war was effectively won and lost on the eatern front, but the russians were not fighting alone.

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

30 years too early. Suez 1956. Then Britain realised She could not afford the Empire or at least afford to defend it.

i would have called that the final nail in the coffin personally.

Svenolsen

The Nazis were never Neutral towards anyone.

They would have chewed up Ireland if they got half a chance.

Ask the Dutch,Belgians,Danes,Norwegians and Poles etc:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/invasion_of_norway_1940.htm

.