Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

I can't believe that you said that - talk about sweeping things under the carpet. "The British had finally started to leave Ireland" - what a innocuous statement. Do you even have an iota of how the leaving of Ireland had come about? Through the shedding of much Irish blood - and how much more "leaving" have they done since 1939?. And you want us to then shed more Irish blood for the British in their foolish and misguided war OF CHOICE that they brought on themselves???

Don't give me that old chestnut "if Germany had won" meaningless argument - that is a simplistic world view long discarded by historians of any value. The issue of WWII is no longer seen as a "heroic" battle between good and evil and if that is where you are you need to start reading up on much archival material.

Of course Ireland should not have gone into WWII. The real "good" that came out of that war was the loss of all their damn empires. I sure as hell would have been cheering that one on from the sidelines.

all irish pro/german anti/brit posters should read the book,VISIONS OF VICTORY by gerhard l weinberg [it was considered the finest study of WW11] hitlers intention was that after WW11 he would have a WW111 and a WW1V untill he conquered the world hitler himself intended to retain control of france great britain and ireland ,the natzis intended to eradicate the jews they also intended to eliminate christianity and adept a state policy of polygamy ,so that the male survivors of wars,expected to kill four million, german soldiers would be able impregnate enough german women to forestall a drop in population,arnt you glad we won the war

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

all irish pro/german anti/brit posters should read the book,VISIONS OF VICTORY by gerhard l weinberg [it was considered the finest study of WW11] hitlers intention was that after WW11 he would have a WW111 and a WW1V untill he conquered the world hitler himself intended to retain control of france great britain and ireland ,the natzis intended to eradicate the jews they also intended to eliminate christianity and adept a state policy of polygamy ,so that the male survivors of wars,expected to kill four million, german soldiers would be able impregnate enough german women to forestall a drop in population,arnt you glad we won the war

Ah yes, the Biggles "Boys Own" version of the war. Invaluable...

Manic Moran

to suggest that the Japanese have just swept the atom bomb legacy under the carpet of collective memory is absurd.

I'm not suggesting that they did. I am suggesting that despite the scars caused in Japanese society by the event, which continue today, they still were able to make decisions as to 'what's best for the country for the future.'

"The British had finally started to leave Ireland" - what a innocuous statement

I am prone to understatement. A particular idiom of mine, I fear.

And you want us to then shed more Irish blood for the British in their foolish and misguided war OF CHOICE that they brought on themselves???

I'm sorry... Britain disregarded Versailles, took over the Sudetenland and then invaded Poland? Or was it on the other side of the world, where they convinced the Japanese to capture China on the way to Singapore?

that is a simplistic world view long discarded by historians of any value

I've got some time on my hands. Recommend me a book or two, obviously I've not been reading the right historians. It will take me some convincing that the Pax Germania was a good thing, though. (My grand-dad lived through the German occupation of Greece, they certainly didn't appreciate it all that much, as he told it to me).

NTM

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

Ah yes, the Biggles "Boys Own" version of the war. Invaluable...

it was written by a top german who has access to many natzi german papers

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it's not. Take a football game. #10 had a row with #11, who stole his girlfriend. They flat refuse to work together. They're playing France. The French don't give a flying hoot about whether not #10 and #11 are on speaking terms, other than the fact that it helps them run roughshod over both of them. Were the British to lose out in WWII, Ireland's hatred for being a pawn of the British would basically be replaced by hatred of being a pawn of the Germans. Basically people were letting their own grievances get in the way of seeing the larger picture.

Comparing WW2 to a football match now?. Seriously, do you have any notion of what recent History of Ireland was at the time?.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not saying that they didn't. Did they give any consideration at all to the their position in a Europe conquered and dominated by Germany?

Well, perhaps after being burned out of their homes and terrorised by the British not 20 years before slightly blighted their concern for people quite a distance away.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because it was the lesser of two evils. At least the British had finally started to leave Ireland. The Germans, on more recent experience were not withdrawing from anywhere. After recently having gained some independence, did they really want to risk losing it again? Obviously they did because of their resentment.

How many years after having A-Bombs dropped on them did it take the Japanese to work with the Americans? Or before the West Germans became firm allies in Germany? A lot less than 20 years.

NTM

The British were still (and are still) in the North. That was the most recent experience that Irish people had with another nation at the time, they had little experience with Germany.

MarchDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've got some time on my hands. Recommend me a book or two, obviously I've not been reading the right historians. It will take me some convincing that the Pax Germania was a good thing, though. (My grand-dad lived through the German occupation of Greece, they certainly didn't appreciate it all that much, as he told it to me).

NTM

If you search through this forum you will find discussion by me and others on reading material for WWII that offers a much different view from the "Heroic" propaganda that filled so much paper for far too long.

Victor

afatbollix wrote: »

we had gone through 2 wars 20 years before hand

**cough** Three wars. **cough**

Manic Moran

Blackjack wrote: »

Comparing WW2 to a football match now?.

I could use rugby if you prefer something a little rougher. The principle of united effort against a larger opponenet still stands.

Well, perhaps after being burned out of their homes and terrorised by the British not 20 years before slightly blighted their concern for people quite a distance away.

Not so much out of concern for the people a distance away, as much as the concern for what could happen to themselves, using the people some distance away as a then-current case in point. Or, even if not directly occupied, the true level of independence which the Irish nation may have had in Europe.

If you search through this forum you will find discussion by me and others on reading material for WWII that offers a much different view from the "Heroic" propaganda that filled so much paper for far too long.

I shall look.

NTM

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

I could use rugby if you prefer something a little rougher. The principle of united effort against a larger opponenet still stands.

Perhaps use a more appropriate analogy, rather than Sport.

The Principle applies only if there is a feeling of Unity with those whom you are playing against. You've ignored the fact that we had our won war with the British not 20 years before, and that the depth of feeling against the British at the time was quite high - why join a War with them?.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not so much out of concern for the people a distance away, as much as the concern for what could happen to themselves, using the people some distance away as a then-current case in point. Or, even if not directly occupied, the true level of independence which the Irish nation may have had in Europe.

Couldn't afford to joing the War
Weren't equipped to join the War
Depth of feeling against the British would mean another Civil war would be needed to decide who to join in the War.
Strong and recent memories of being terrorised by the Black and Tans (who were Created by Churchill).
British occupation of Northern Ireland.
Previously stated policy of Neutrality.
Governments responibility to its own people, over-riding any responsibility to any peoples elsewhere.

Amongt many others, good enough reasons to stay out IMO.

Hagar

Blackjack wrote: »

Couldn't afford to joing the War
Weren't equipped to join the War
Depth of feeling against the British would mean another Civil war would be needed to decide who to join in the War.
Strong and recent memories of being terrorised by the Black and Tans (who were Created by Churchill).
British occupation of Northern Ireland.
Previously stated policy of Neutrality.
Governments responibility to its own people, over-riding any responsibility to any peoples elsewhere.

Amongt many others, good enough reasons to stay out IMO.

I wouldn't argue with any of that.

Manic Moran

Governments responibility to its own people, over-riding any responsibility to any peoples elsewhere

This is the one which I think is a clincher, I agree with the statement, and disagree with your conclusion. I think the Government's responsibility to its people would be to take measures best likely to protect the independence and freedom of the country, and is the most important factor of all the ones you have listed. Doing nothing and hoping that the Germans don't send you the same way as Norway or Greece strikes me as being an extremely irresponsible course of action.

NTM

brianthebard

Concur with Blackjack.

Manic you seem to be assuming that (a) everyone felt that Germany had to be fought-this is not the case. Many countries did not want to get sucked into a war between imperialism and facism. Many colonies that were less fortunate than Ireland and were not independent were not given an option, and suffered because of it.

(b) that the oppression of Ireland by Britain was water under the bridge, but a mere twenty years prior to WWII they were fighting each other as Irish nationalists sought independence. If the memory of WWI was a spur to Germany, why should a war in Ireland be any different? Also, the economic war had just finished by WWII, another example of the unequal relationship between Ireland and Britain continuing. Why then would Ireland feel obliged to fight a war that they had not caused and was none of their business?

Tbh I know no one here's going to change your mind, but really I think you're being terribly myopic in your analysis of the Irish situation.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Concur with Blackjack.

Manic you seem to be assuming that (a) everyone felt that Germany had to be fought-this is not the case. Many countries did not want to get sucked into a war between imperialism and facism. Many colonies that were less fortunate than Ireland and were not independent were not given an option, and suffered because of it.

(b) that the oppression of Ireland by Britain was water under the bridge, but a mere twenty years prior to WWII they were fighting each other as Irish nationalists sought independence. If the memory of WWI was a spur to Germany, why should a war in Ireland be any different? Also, the economic war had just finished by WWII, another example of the unequal relationship between Ireland and Britain continuing. Why then would Ireland feel obliged to fight a war that they had not caused and was none of their business?

Tbh I know no one here's going to change your mind, but really I think you're being terribly myopic in your analysis of the Irish situation.

Agree completely. Manic needs to get beyond the Hollywood and BBC dramas version of WWII and - dare I once again say it? the Churchill created myths.

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the one which I think is a clincher, I agree with the statement, and disagree with your conclusion. I think the Government's responsibility to its people would be to take measures best likely to protect the independence and freedom of the country, and is the most important factor of all the ones you have listed. Doing nothing and hoping that the Germans don't send you the same way as Norway or Greece strikes me as being an extremely irresponsible course of action.

NTM

Unfortunately the "Over the top to Glory" at the direction of the British Military Gentry was responsible for many (if not most) mens deaths who served in the British Army during WW1.
There was nothing to suggest to the people at the time that it would have been any better for them to get involved in WW2.

How many countries actually declared war prior to being attacked during ww2?.

Manic Moran

How many countries actually declared war prior to being attacked during ww2?

Surely this would show the unreliability of a position of attempting to stay out of the war? Perhaps it would have been premature to ally with the Allies before the invasion of Belgium and Holland. Or Greece. Maybe Norway? Countries of strategic position, and there's no way that Ireland cannot fit into this category, could not rely on anything short of large force of arms to retain their independence, this would have been plain to anybody by the Battle of Britain.

Many colonies that were less fortunate than Ireland and were not independent were not given an option, and suffered because of it.

Many countries that were independent were not given an option, and suffered because of it.

Why then would Ireland feel obliged to fight a war that they had not caused and was none of their business?

The best way to determine your future is to take action. I have no doubt that a decision to engage on the same side as the British would have been somewhat questioned by some quarters, but what's best, and what's popular are not necessarily going to be two of the same things.

NTM

ejmaztec

All of the reasons for Ireland's neutrality didn't stop over 100,000 Irishmen joining the British forces in their fight against the Nazis, not to mention God knows how many more went to the UK to their bit in the essential industries. The depth of ill-feeling towards the British and Churchill can't have been that great, given the number of volunteers involved.

http://news.scotsman.com/breaking-news/Full-scale-of-Irish-WWII.5360587.jp

Had Ireland not had De Valera as its leader, I think that it would have sided with the allies, and would have received whatever it needed in the way of equipment.

Morlar

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had Ireland not had De Valera as its leader, I think that it would have sided with the allies, and would have received whatever it needed in the way of equipment.

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that De Valera was the sole reason for Irish neutrality, also you are completely disregarding or downplaying the depth of feeling relating to the Irish Civil War at that time.

ejmaztec

Morlar wrote: »

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that De Valera was the sole reason for Irish neutrality, also you are completely disregarding or downplaying the depth of feeling relating to the Irish Civil War at that time.

I don't think that it's at all ridiculous, then that's my opinion. His mediocrity was contagious.

With regard to the Civil War aspect, perhaps the Irish hated each other more than they hated the British. 100,000 didn't have any qualms about joining the old enemy. According to the linked article, over 3,600 of them died.

Morlar

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't think that it's at all ridiculous, then that's my opinion. His mediocrity was contagious.

With regard to the Civil War aspect, perhaps the Irish hated each other more than they hated the British. 100,000 didn't have any qualms about joining the old enemy. According to the linked article, over 3,600 of them died.

In the Irish context, centuries of occupation & tyrrany, rebellions being crushed, uprisings and national movements and continual violence. The Irish who fought and died in WWI, the Easter Rising, the War of Independence the Civil war - I think we had had enough violence for the time being at the time of WWII. Let alone wanting to fight for england once more. Those who wished to fight were permitted to do so while the country (which was at that stage in it's infancy and its continued survival was by no means guaranteed) was kept neutral. De Valera was right to keep Ireland out of WWII in my opinion. In that context there is nothing mediocre about neutrality.

In fact you could argue that it was the more brave stance which he took, he defied world opinion at a point in time when it would have been easier for him to shed more blood to keep the rest of the world happy and on side. He took the criticism and insults throughout rather than risk another civil war. He put Ireland first which is exactly the kind of attitude we needed in our leader especially at that time.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Agree completely. Manic needs to get beyond the Hollywood and BBC dramas version of WWII and - dare I once again say it? the Churchill created myths.

I'm curios, do you also believe the holocaust was a Hollywood cration?

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

could not rely on anything short of large force of arms to retain their independence, this would have been plain to anybody by the Battle of Britain.

But we weren't attacked, and Hitler didn't win the War, so it's entirely a moot point that we didn't join the war.

Theres a whole lot of could have, should have and would have in the conjecture in this debate. We can really only deal with the facts, which have been outlined previously.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm curios, do you also believe the holocaust was a Hollywood cration?

Don't be absurd and insulting as usual for you - don't try to pin that pathetic charge on me. The war was not fought over the Holocaust and it was certainly no invention. In fact the Allies refused to bomb the train routes taking the Jews to their deaths - or bomb the camps- and did not want word going out about this horror until the war was over. I have first hand knowledge of Jews who were extremely frustrated at the Allies refusal to address the issue of the death camps until millions had gone to their deaths. No one comes out of WWII looking good to the Jews - They truly were the ones left standing alone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4175045.stm

This link actually gives only half the picture - the 1944 date is massively in dispute. The Jews themselves throughout Europe KNEW of the death camps well before these dates -close family friends of my family knew in late 1939 - but were not listened to.

Hollywood and the BBC drama dept have continuously emphasized the "heroics" of the war effort without making any comment or enlightening anyone on the real reasons this sorry war was fought.

Manic Moran

But we weren't attacked, and Hitler didn't win the War, so it's entirely a moot point that we didn't join the war.

This is information which we only have available in hindsight. As I said in my original post, it worked out rather nicely for Ireland, but there was no way of knowing this before the tide of the war turned against Germany. People in every neutral country during the war could say "We haven't been attacked" until they found a large number of soldiers wearing foreign uniforms marching down Main Street.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Just curious MarchDub, that's all.

It's just that I am confused, we are supposed to believe Pat Buchanan's view that Churchill started WWII, but not supposed to believe his views on the nazi death camps. Are we just supposed to pick and choose the bits of revisionism that we like and
Ignore the rest?

Also curious as to how it was an imperialist war as well. Are you implying that Britain and France (who you seem to conveniently ignore) were only interested in gaining territory from Germany?

Just another question as well, if the death camps were known about in 1939, then surely this vindicates Britain's stance and damns Ireland's and in particular DeVelera for sending a message of condolence to the Germans.

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

He put Ireland first which is exactly the kind of attitude we needed in our leader especially at that time.

i would suggest that in the early stages of the war he could arguably have been putting the irish national interest first. 1939 to early 1942 was a time when Germany looked very powerful indeed, and the UK/allies didn't look like a fantastic bet (this is a narrow political view on who might win, rather than a wider strategic/military view on what might cause victory for either and what would be the consequences for Ireland of either eventuality). however, by mid-1942 and certainly by 1943 it was clear to all concerned that a) Germany was on the stategic backfoot, it was not able to launch a large-scale air or sea attack on Ireland, b) that the use of Irish Air and Naval bases by allied Anti-Submarine forces may have had a significant impact on the Battle of the atlantic and consequently the Irish food and fuel ration, and c) that the Allies were already looking at a post-war world, and the US had made very clear to De Valera the political and economic costs of not providing basing rights to US and UK forces while they fought to control and defend the Sea Lines Of Communication.

after June 1943 (and thats being charitable) De Valera was not being prudent, he was not advancing the Irish national interest, indeed short of declaring war on the US its difficult to see what he could have to make Irelands late-war and post-war position worse.

and its not a dry, academic issue. Ireland's refusal to get involved, even in its own naked self-interest, continues to have an impact on the way other nations - big, rich, powerful nations who aren't afraid to squeeze small, weak nations who displease them - treat Ireland. if you want to know why Ireland got a Marshall Loan instread of a Marshall Gift, or why the US refused a mutual defence pact (which means Ireland didn't get a free Air Force and Navy when everyone else in western Europe did), or why Irelands application to join the UN got canned, look at DeV...

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

and its not a dry, academic issue. Ireland's refusal to get involved, even in its own naked self-interest

I think a fledgling state (Republic of Ireland) declaring war for the first time in it's history against a 2nd state (Germany) in order to benefit economically in the post war carve-up from a third state (USA) would have been shameful and immoral. We are not a nation of whores and mercenaries frankly.

Hookey

Morlar wrote: »

I think a fledgling state (Republic of Ireland) declaring war for the first time in it's history against a 2nd state (Germany) in order to benefit economically in the post war carve-up from a third state (USA) would have been shameful and immoral. We are not a nation of whores and mercenaries frankly.

I LOL'd.

I think if we'd have known there was going to be a post-war carve-up and the Marshall Plan, we'd have fallen over ourselves to declare war.

Morlar

Hookey wrote: »

I LOL'd.

I think if we'd have known there was going to be a post-war carve-up and the Marshall Plan, we'd have fallen over ourselves to declare war.

Considering what had happened after WWI & Versailles and considering that the allies were already talking about divvying up the post war spoils it's fair to say that De Valera knew there would be financial incentives/financial rewards for Ireland declaring war on a country that never declared war on us. The specifics of the marshall plan are not the factor here, in whatever form they took it was obvious there would be spoils and rewards to joining in an alliance against Germany. He maintained the option which was in fact more difficult and took more resolve to see through.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just curious MarchDub, that's all.

It's just that I am confused, we are supposed to believe Pat Buchanan's view that Churchill started WWII, but not supposed to believe his views on the nazi death camps. Are we just supposed to pick and choose the bits of revisionism that we like and
Ignore the rest?

Also curious as to how it was an imperialist war as well. Are you implying that Britain and France (who you seem to conveniently ignore) were only interested in gaining territory from Germany?

Just another question as well, if the death camps were known about in 1939, then surely this vindicates Britain's stance and damns Ireland's and in particular DeVelera for sending a message of condolence to the Germans.

in the irish republic there was demestic anti-jewishness during WW11,discrimination against jews was perceived to be of public interest, even after the war was over, ireland was still using the natzi racial criteria to keep the jews out of the state,even eight years after hitler commited suicide in his berlin bunker, and who can forget the refusal of devalera to except jewish orphan children,

Hookey

Morlar wrote: »

Considering what had happened after WWI & Versailles and considering that the allies were already talking about divvying up the post war spoils it's fair to say that De Valera knew there would be financial incentives/financial rewards for Ireland declaring war on a country that never declared war on us. The specifics of the marshall plan are not the factor here, in whatever form they took it was obvious there would be spoils and rewards to joining in an alliance against Germany. He maintained the option which was in fact more difficult and took more resolve to see through.

Post WWII reconstruction was nothing like post-WWI though; that's my point; DeV was probably betting on another Versailles, or something even worse like the Morgenthau plan, whereas the Marshall Plan was radically different from anything that had gone before. If any politician of any stripe had known what the Americans would ultimately do, they would have been stupid not to join the allies. What I laughed at was the idea that somehow we were uniquely honourable and that Irish politicians were any different to politicians all over the world, the vast majority of whom would sell their own mothers for more power and more money.