Is Irish Neutrality a bit, you know, embarrassing?

faceman

Ive always seen Irish neutrality as something awesome. No conscription. No going to war for things we dont believe in. Not wasting as much money on military as other nations too. its all good.

According to our history books, following WWII, we introduced legislation to tighten our neutrality laws even further. This got me thinking. Imagine living in Ireland/Europe during WWII. Unlike modern day wars, there was no grey area about the war that was being fought. Hitler was rather nasty and his regime was doing bad things in Europe and he showed no regard for the rules of war.

And while the allies and our neighbouring countries got their a$$es whipped, us paddies took a backseat. (ok i know there were irish people who fought for the british army but that was their personal choice as opposed to the official Irish choice)

that must have been a bit of an embarrassment at the time. Im sure it made is look like a nation of pillocks too.

Now its not something later generations had to think about because we havent had wars like it since.

What do yizzer think? Should we build an army and start invading iceland?

AnonoBoy

DeValera signing the book of condolences in the German Embassy after Hitler's death was the real embarrassment.

Lockstep

Ireland was far from neutral in WWII.


ALlies had use of Irish airspace, information sharing and immediate repatriation of any downed/washed up servicemen.

THe reason was purely practical; joining the war would have severed Ireland in two. THe Civil War was less than 20 years ago and Ireland joining on the side of the British would have probably have erupted a new civil war.

Also, the Fitzgerald government were hoping to end neutrality but the Irish people firmly opposed it

folan

Not at all. We were right to remain neutral, imagine the devestation to a country that young, already in alot of trouble internally, to get involved in a war!

Fukuyama

I've always been proud of it. When I'm away in another country I don;t have to explain our country's foreign policy. That's why most people abroad hold the Irish in such high esteem.

'Never did nothing to nobody those Irish!'

Also, if we had of fought in WW2 it would have crushed our national identity. What little of it we had. Imagine, we spend hundreds of year fighting against the British only to be pressured by them into fighting alongside them!! (We did help them in many ways by smuggling British airmen back over the border, allowing radar stations to be built and giving them access to Donegal airspace).

Also, you say that everyone knew Hitler was an evil man etc... Well yes - to an extent. In 1939 nobody knew (outside of Germany) about his plans to exterminate six million Jews etc...

The whole idea of wanting to have big army etc is rubbish. In reality, only a few big world countries are like that. Look at Sweeden, Finland, Holland, Brazil, and hundreds more. Nobody has much of a problem with them. Why? Because they havent been a key nation involved in invasions, bombings etc...

If somebody were to look down upon Ireland because of the size of our Army, I'd ask them what war they fought in.

syklops

It is a bit embarassing that until recently the Czech republic had a larger navy than ireland.

The Czech republic is land locked.

davyjose

Bastard Germans don't even wear Green away jerseys anymore. :mad:

topper75

Put the stance in context. The country at the time was -

• no more than 2 decades old
• in poor economic shape
• bearing the living memory of an armed independence struggle
• attempting to put the grievances of a nasty and divisive civil war to bed

So all credit to Hitler's nastiness, but correct decision for us at the time in hindsight. We were not a war machine by any stretch of the imagination approaching the mid 20th cent. Why supply our males as cannon fodder when we had already lost so many not long before?

brummytom

(As a complete outsider) : Well from 1939-1945, Ireland was still a very new state, and of course there was much domestic fighting at the time. Had conscription been introduced, the effects would have been disasterous for Ireland.

You had (and still have) an incredibly small population, it wouldn't take much for the whole of the male working population to have been erradicated/injured. This would have been devastating for a country that relied almost soley on farming - a job that really needed men. Even so, 200,000 Irish men and women still voluntarily served for the Allied Forces (my granddad served in India, I think)

To be quite honest, I didn't know you still had no army, that's surprised me. Personally, though I disagree with war, I'd say an army would still be a neccessity (who knows what could happen..).

Fukuyama

AnonoBoy wrote: »

DeValera signing the book of condolences in the German Embassy after Hitler's death was the real embarrassment.

Or a sign of a ture diplomat not afraid to stand up against the US etc... and say 'yup we were neutral, and I'll behave in such a manner'.

So what, he signed the book. Not like he condoned all of Hitlers actions. It's politics - not personal.

Blazer

They can keep Kerry Katona though..


damn you Zohan..I posted this back on your post about "Tesco do deliveries" but you then removed it :mad:

Yep..Looking at the archives Dev was damned if he did and damned if he didn't..
Regardless...Ireland cannot afford to keep an army upto date with all the tech.
Would be a complete waste of money just for a few F16s and tanks when you would put it in comparison with other countries.
I think Neutrality is just another word for "we cannot afford to keep an army so we're neutral" basically.

who the fug

Are there any laws on the books about Irish Neutrality?

Smcgie

I wouldn't call it Neutrality, its more like we are easygoing and don't really give a sh1te

Fukuyama

brummytom wrote: »

To be quite honest, I didn't know you still had no army, that's surprised me. Personally, though I disagree with war, I'd say an army would still be a neccessity (who knows what could happen..).

We do have an army with over 10,000 soldiers. And an airforce and Navy. The thing is - we're neutral. Our soldiers are deployed abroad in Chad and Kosovo in PEACEKEEPING operations.

Nobody said we had no Army. Traditionally, Ireland holds having an armed military force closely. But traditionally, it's used for Defence. Not having men with grey hair and beer-guts who have lived out their lives, ordering those who haven't to horrible deaths because some people in flashy suits want some oil.

Xluna

Why should we be embarressed? Ireland just won independence and people expect us to give the WASP empire a helping hand because it was losing the war? People seem to think WW2 was a battle of good vs evil. The U.S. commited terrible war crimes when the nuked Japan,but they don't count right?:rolleyes:

AnonoBoy

Dean0088 wrote: »

Or a sign of a ture diplomat not afraid to stand up against the US etc... and say 'yup we were neutral, and I'll behave in such a manner'.

So what, he signed the book. Not like he condoned all of Hitlers actions. It's politics - not personal.

Standing up to the US? The US couldn't have given two sh*tes if he signed it or not.

After what Hitler had done and the fact that Dev had held German pilots in Ireland and released Allied pilots it was clear which side we were leaning towards even if we couldn't join the war. It was something which he shouldn't have done.

biko

Everybody knows the Irish are just drunken louts*


*not actually true. Saint Patrick's Battalion, led by Captain John Riley from Clifden, was a fighting unit that deserted the US army to fight against it on Mexico's side 1846.
Toward the end of the conflict, at the Battle of Churubsco, 83 San Patricios were captured, and 72 were court martialed. Of this number, 50 were sentenced to be hanged and 16 were flogged and branded on their cheeks with the letter "D" for deserter.

Mexico's general Santa Anna later said that if he would have had another Saint Patrick's Battalion he could have pushed the US back and won the war.

Fukuyama

Berkut wrote: »

Regardless...Ireland cannot afford to keep an army upto date with all the tech.
Would be a complete waste of money just for a few F16s and tanks when you would put it in comparison with other countries.
I think Neutrality is just another word for "we cannot afford to keep an army so we're neutral" basically.

The thing is though, we do have a modern army. Just a small one. We don;t have tanks because we prefer quick vehicles for ambushing and recon. That's the type of warfare that works best in terrain such as Ireland; loads of hills, laneways, towns, villages, farms, mountain passes. Tanks would be pretty much useless.

One of Irelands best defence tactics is to defent in traditional warfare for a few days/weeks then break up into small guerrilla units and ambush etc... with support from the public and to train public voluteers to keep a force going.

Ireland doesn't need F-16s etc... because nobody in Ireland would support invading countries like Iraq etc... what's the point? All we'd ever be is Americas bitch. I'd rather be a cute little nation that nobody really has a problem with than cannon fodder.

Lockstep

I'd say that Devalera's actions were more about a global statement.

EVeryone knew we had an extremely biased form of neutrality, I think he was trying to reinforce the fact that we were independant from Britain.

Time Magazine

Our neutrality isn't embarrassing, but our helplessness is.

brummytom

Dean0088 wrote: »

We do have an army with over 10,000 soldiers. And an airforce and Navy. The thing is - we're neutral. Our soldiers are deployed abroad in Chad and Kosovo in PEACEKEEPING operations.

Nobody said we had no Army. Traditionally, Ireland holds having an armed military force closely. But traditionally, it's used for Defence.

Oh right, sorry. As I said, I'm a complete outsider. I just took the line:

faceman wrote: »

Should we build an army

to mean that there isn't already one in existence. An incorrect presumption, apologies.

Not having men with grey hair and beer-guts who have lived out their lives, ordering those who haven't to horrible deaths because some people in flashy suits want some oil.

If you mean the British Army, I agree. The war in Iraq was/is illegal and immoral, I think most people realise that now (my family and I went on a protest in London in 2003).

As I thought you didn't have an army, my original reply (and suggestion of having an army) was for defence rather than attack. But you've already got that, so.. good.

Fukuyama

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Standing up to the US? The US couldn't have given two sh*tes if he signed it or not.

After what Hitler had done and the fact that Dev had held German pilots in Ireland and released Allied pilots it was clear which side we were leaning towards even if we couldn't join the war. It was something which he shouldn't have done.

I think you're forgetting how much pressure came from the US for Ireland to join up. Dev got huge support for digging in his heels. I'm not saying signing was RIGHT. Just saying from a purely textbook political standpoint it was spot on. Should he have done it? well that's a discussion for another thread IMO

podgemonster

While on a J1 I was constantly asked (more like reminded) 'Ireland werent in the WW2 were they?'

'Do you guys think Hitler would have stopped at England, he'd have gone after ye guys too, if it weren't for us!'

Thanks to Hollywood they think they saved the world!
Drove me mad! Americans dont understand nuetrality!

Off topic:
They were also Shocked that we didn't have an official independance. The conversation was with one Yank...
'4th of July is coming up, Do you guys have an independance day holiday'
'Eh, no kinda hard to find a specific date'
'What you dont hav a day celebrate your countries independance from the British'
'Ya we do, every f*cking day'

Xluna

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd say that Devalera's actions were more about a global statement.

EVeryone knew we had an extremely biased form of neutrality, I think he was trying to reinforce the fact that we were independant from Britain.

Churchill offered him the north if Ireland would join Britain,but Dev refused as he thought Germany would win. Churchill taunted him after the battle of Britain though a letter.

bonerm

Yeah it's really embarrasing. I'd love to be one of those countries that despite having an army for "defence" always somehow seems to be fighting it's battles in other peoples backyards. Not to mention the welcome home after a campaign of blowing the shít of nations of little brown people with nothing but rocks (and sometimes shoes) to throw.

Fukuyama

brummytom wrote: »

If you mean the British Army, I agree. The war in Iraq was/is illegal and immoral, I think most people realise that now (my family and I went on a protest in London in 2003).

.

Well I wouldnt single out Britain but it's a fine example. All Ireland would ever be (due to population constrictions) would be another bullet in the gun which the US holds - like all the small NATO countries. Why should we worry about paying for a war that 99% of those who live in countries involved don't know about or care about?

War is hell

I'd rather spend my life shagging women, having a good time, travelling etc... rather than in a musty APC wondering when the next RPG is coming.

AnonoBoy

Dean0088 wrote: »

I think you're forgetting how much pressure came from the US for Ireland to join up. Dev got huge support for digging in his heels. I'm not saying signing was RIGHT. Just saying from a purely textbook political standpoint it was spot on. Should he have done it? well that's a discussion for another thread IMO

There was a lot of pressure from England to join too. You're right, he was making a political statement by signing the book but I think however our not joining was enough and signing the book was just too much.

jumpguy

Neutrality is not embarrassing IMO and not going into WW2 was probably one of the best decisions taken in Ireland. We'd have been wiped out, no doubt!

Benevolent neutrality is though.

Fukuyama

Xluna wrote: »

Churchill offered him the north if Ireland would join Britain,but Dev refused as he thought Germany would win. Churchill taunted him after the battle of Britain though a letter.

He didn't offer him the north. He offered to sit down with Unionist leaders and we all know how that story goes.

In Churchils V-Day speech he said how easy it would have been to invade IReland during the war for addes security. he then basically called the Irish pussies for not joining up.

Dev then made what is often called his finest speech about how one nation stood alone for 700 years against an oppressor, fought in foreign wars WITH the british and got nothing in return etc... He basically turned everything Chrushcill said right around 180 and came away looking clean

me_right_one

Dean0088 wrote: »

We do have an army with over 10,000 soldiers. And an airforce and Navy. The thing is - we're neutral. Our soldiers are deployed abroad in Chad and Kosovo in PEACEKEEPING operations.

Nobody said we had no Army. Traditionally, Ireland holds having an armed military force closely. But traditionally, it's used for Defence. Not having men with grey hair and beer-guts who have lived out their lives, ordering those who haven't to horrible deaths because some people in flashy suits want some oil.

+1. I cant believe somebody said they thought we had NO army! We have indeed! (Two in fact! One, ahem, undefeated unofficial army;), and) one small but deadly official army for "defence". The ranger wing are among the best in the world! I cant believe someone thought we had none!

Lockstep

Xluna wrote: »

Churchill offered him the north if Ireland would join Britain,but Dev refused as he thought Germany would win. Churchill taunted him after the battle of Britain though a letter.

That's not it at all.

DeValera refused as it would mean;
reduction in sovereignty
and the fact that the Unionists would be up in arms, it was a practical impossibility. Dev knew this and rightfully refused.

North_West_Art

faceman wrote: »

Ive always seen Irish neutrality as something awesome. No conscription. No going to war for things we dont believe in.

Hitler was rather nasty and his regime was doing bad things in Europe and he showed no regard for the rules of war.

Glad that you brought up the 'Rules of War'... a thing that the US seem to have exempted themselves from since before WW2.

Prescott Bush (George W's grandfather) blatantly broke a rule known as Trading with the enemy, when he entered into business with the Nazis, eventually helping Hitler's rise to power..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

The Vatican were guilty of shielding Nazi war criminals on the run, and ensuring their safe passage to Argentina and Spain by organising passports and tickets. This became known as the Vatican Rat Line
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gLJFRQUy2o&feature=related

After WW2, the US granted safe haven to hundreds of Nazi scientists and employed them in arms technology and science. Now America uses Nazi technology against whoever they choose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4443934.stm

mike65

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'd rather spend my life shagging women, having a good time, travelling etc... rather than in a musty APC wondering when the next RPG is coming.

You type that apparently presuming you would be a conscript, are there any conscript armies in NATO?

Blisterman

It was probably the best option for us at the time.

Ireland's a small country with a tiny population compared to Germany or the UK. If we'd joined the Axis side (as in fact quite a lot of Irish people wanted to do,) The UK would have invaded and taken Ireland back over in a second.

If we joined the Allies, we'd likely need extra support from the UK to prevent an invasion from Germany, and would have stretched their resources even further.
The last thing the UK needed was to be surrounded by German occupied countries. As it was Ireland provided a neutral buffer zone preventing a German invasion from the East.

Of course, had the axis managed to take the UK, we'd be gone in 60 seconds.

Fukuyama

podgemonster wrote: »

While on a J1 I was constantly asked (more like reminded) 'Ireland werent in the WW2 were they?'

'Do you guys think Hitler would have stopped at England, he'd have gone after ye guys too, if it weren't for us!'

'

I've had british people say that too me.

'Oh if it werent for us you'd have been invaded too'

What they seem to forget is that we had a free state army that would have been defeated in a few days. However, all those free staters would have taken as much guns and ammo as they could and joined up with the existing IRA. IReland had one of the best guerrilla networks established in the world. While it took other countries years to get resistance going. The germans would have walked into a country FULL of partisans.

Britain would have not had any resistance. Never forget that the IRA back then were effectively a private army who would have seen the Germans as the new black and tans (even though they had made some contact with Nazi Germany - they soon would have changed sides had Hitler invaded).

North_West_Art

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That's not it at all.

DeValera refused as it would mean;
reduction in sovereignty
and the fact that the Unionists would be up in arms, it was a practical impossibility. Dev knew this and rightfully refused.

England promised Scotland a large share of the power in Canada, if they helped Britain establish the country and help them defeat the French, a promise that they did a u-turn on after they gained control of the country.
DeValera was right not to trust the British offer, Irish men would have been shoved to the frontline as cannon fodder...

Xluna

Dean0088 wrote: »

I've had british people say that too me.

'Oh if it werent for us you'd have been invaded too'

What they seem to forget is that we had a free state army that would have been defeated in a few days. However, all those free staters would have taken as much guns and ammo as they could and joined up with the existing IRA. IReland had one of the best guerrilla networks established in the world. While it took other countries years to get resistance going. The germans would have walked into a country FULL of partisans.

Britain would have not had any resistance. Never forget that the IRA back then were effectively a private army who would have seen the Germans as the new black and tans (even though they had made some contact with Nazi Germany - they soon would have changed sides had Hitler invaded).

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

Angry Troll

i believe very small countries like ireland might as well be neutral, doesn’t make a difference internationally anyway…as long as the irish remember they are part of the west and when things really get rough can be counted on…no point thinking of buying battle tanks etc. for the irish military…too expensive anyway in the current situation…
and as davyjose, I too did not like the switch from green to red for our german away jerseys…

Fukuyama

mike65 wrote: »

You type that apparently presuming you would be a conscript, are there any conscript armies in NATO?

Not that I know of. Lets assume I'm a soldier in the Irish Defence Forces. I get sent away for 6months peace keeping. I know I'm doing good humanitarian work. You;re there for a good reason. You're not fighting for a gain for your country. Rather a selfless cause.

Much better than being shipped off to Iraq if Ireland was in NATO. :eek:

mike65

Blisterman wrote: »

Of course, had the axis managed to take the UK, we'd be gone in 60 seconds.

Wasn't there some mad idea to turn Ireland into a theme park if the Nazis arrived? I may have dreamt that.

EL_Loco

Our neutrality has never been tested to any great extent and our attitude seems to have been an "allow all" situation. As in, allow anyone who wants to pass through, land, dock whatever.

I always wonder what would happen if something crazy happened like the nation of Iraq turned the tide on the states and attacked them, via Ireland as a stop off. How neutral would we stay then? As I say, we've never been tested fully on this stance, I think it's a hugely convenient and cozy position sitting on the fence for us.

BraziliaNZ

Dean0088 wrote: »

The whole idea of wanting to have big army etc is rubbish. In reality, only a few big world countries are like that. Look at Sweeden, Finland, Holland, Brazil, and hundreds more. Nobody has much of a problem with them. Why? Because they havent been a key nation involved in invasions, bombings etc...

In fairness Finland put up one hell of a fight against the Russians and Germans in WW2, they deserve a lot of credit for that, and we could have done the same

toiletduck

I think it's embarrassing the way so many people think neutrality is the best stance ever, given semi-religious devotion in public life, and it somehow gives us the right to look down our noses at others.

It's a policy (better described as non-aligned) which happens to suit us i.e. not have to spend much on defence while remaining under a NATO protective shield.

who the fug

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

More to do with the fact they would have problems supplying their troops if the UK was not knocked out, than worrying about 250 men

Fukuyama

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

And I think the same stands to this day.

While the IRA (I'll make it clear I'm not a big IRA head or anything) are largely disbanded, there still remains A LOT of knowledge. Think of the amount of ex-provos that know how to make heavy mortars, homemade RPGs, Roadside Bombs and all the weapons stashes around this country.

Let's say that the US invaded IReland (just an example - could be Russia, UK, Argentina, Lichtenstein etc... )

There would be massive public disorder and a growing guerrilla movement which would undoubtedly have the support of the people. It;s well known that a well supported and home-grown guerrilla movement cannot be beaten. The most senior commander of UK forces admitted they;ll have to negotiate with the Taliban. The Vietcong ran rings around the US ... Ireland Defence forces may be overrun quickly by an invading Army. But it;s the problems that Army is going to have in the occupying years afterwards that'll be the problem.

There's a stigma in the West about having a BIG army. But in reality, it;s the people of a country that'll choose. After all,its DEMOCRACY!! ... isn;t that what they;re fighting for in IRaq, Afghan, etc...

stop

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

Fukuyama

who the fug wrote: »

More to do with the fact they would have problems supplying their troops if the UK was not knocked out, than worrying about 250 men

Are you seriously implying 250 germans could run Ireland. Cop on.

They would have had to pour thousands in to defend against the US, UK etc... Not to mention the threat from within Ireland. The english had 20,000 black and tans in Ireland, was that enough?

Angry Troll

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

true

Xluna

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

When you say nutjobs I'm assuming you mean militant Islamicists.These people do not represent a nation. So you're argument is flawed.

Fukuyama

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

I would expect the RAF to shoot down the plane because chances are it's heading for buck palace, not Aras an Uachtaran.

Also, the IAC could easily deal with that threat. A small cannon round into the planes engines would more than suffice.

who the fug

Dean0088 wrote: »

Are you seriously implying 250 germans could run Ireland. Cop on.

They would have had to pour thousands in to defend against the US, UK etc... Not to mention the threat from within Ireland. The english had 20,000 black and tans in Ireland, was that enough?

Was talking about the rough strength of the IRA in 1940