Good Article in Irish Times

cyrusdvirus

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html?via=mr

Talking about a "What if" Operation Green had gone ahead

Morlar

I read that earlier and didn't think much of it to be honest. I think there is a difference between having contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios and having the actual intent or desire to do it. I'd imagine in the square miles of wehrmacht files you will find all sorts of contradictory paperwork and harebrained schemes put to paper throughout the course of the war. I think if had actually wanted to they would have. Britain also had plans to invade and were always the much more likely threat given the circumstances (in my opinion). They probably also had 'plans' to invade switzerland too. They only went after norway (neutral) when britain had already sent their invasion force.

gizmo555

I actually thought it was pretty poor and the photo montage of Leinster House decked out in swastikas was on a par with Clonan's dreadful and sensationalist TV documentary "If Lynch Had Invaded". And what a bizarre intro:

ANALYSIS: Dublin’s Gauleiter was to have sweeping powers which could have meant the liquidation of trade unions and the GAA, writes TOM CLONAN

I think the future of the trade unions and GAA would have been the least of our worries had we been invaded . . .

Some of the comments on the equipment of the Irish Army are also ignorant and anachronistic, e.g. :

Many Irish units also moved about on bicycles – referred to at the time as Peddling (or Piddling) Panzers. Had they been engaged by the Wehrmacht, the Irish would have been slaughtered.

Many WW II era armies made extensive use of bicycles, including the Wehrmacht.



Indeed the British Army in Malaya and Singapore was defeated by Japanese forces which included large numbers of bicycle infantry.

magotch07

i thought it was interesting article but the photo was pretty shoddie and gimicy

helimachoptor

If this had happened

When Britain’s prime minister, Winston Churchill, became aware of Operation Green, the British military set out detailed plans to counter-attack the Germans from Northern Ireland. Codenamed Plan W, it envisaged Irish Army units regrouping in the Border areas of Cavan-Monaghan and being reinforced by British troops moving south from Northern Ireland. In this scenario, the Irish and British armies would have fought alongside one another to repel the German invasion.

How different would Irish-Anglo relations been today? Would we be brothers in arms? Would Irish soldiers be with the British actively fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan or helped them during the Falklands campaign? Would Britain have helped us improve our military technology over the years?

Morlar

helimachoptor wrote: »

If this had happened

How different would Irish-Anglo relations been today? Would we be brothers in arms? Would Irish soldiers be with the British actively fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan or helped them during the Falklands campaign? Would Britain have helped us improve our military technology over the years?

The other side of that coins is that if the british had invaded (something churchill later admitted they gave serious contemplation to) then the IRA, along with possibly the Irish Army (or elements of it) would have taken help from anyone who offered - including the Germans.

xflyer

Churchill may have considered invasion but they could hardly spare the troops. Not only that he clung to the hope that we would join in eventually. Which perhaps we should have once the Americans arrived.

The only reason for the British to invade would be an imminent threat of a invasion by Germany. In fact what the article omits to mention is that it's likely the British would have crossed the border once it was clear Operation Green was about to start. Probably by invitation from the Irish government. The RN would have steamed into the invasion fleet and the RAF could very easily have intervened too from bases in Southwest England and Wales or even from forward bases in Ireland. None of this is considered in the article. The British would not simply have sat there and hand the Germans yet another base to attack them.

Simply getting ashore in the face of this would be very difficult for the Germans. If they did get ashore, certainly the Irish army would be swept away but no doubt would have fought bravely. This might have delayed them sufficiently to allow for a British/Irish build up. The invaders would be terribly isolated right in Britain's back yard. It could very easily have turned into a military disaster for Hitler.

Another reason for Britain to invade would be if the Irish government showed signs of aligning itself with Hitler. Not a likely scenario.

Operation Green could only work if Britain was too weak to step in. They weren't as proved in the Battle of Britain.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

The other side of that coins is that if the british had invaded (something churchill later admitted they gave serious contemplation to) then the IRA, along with possibly the Irish Army (or elements of it) would have taken help from anyone who offered - including the Germans.

Or, if Operation Green had gone ahead with the support of the IRA, a British invasion force fighting alongside the Irish Army could have been seen as allies and the IRA lost all support and all but wiped out.

If that had happened, Ireland may have opted back into the UK and everyone would be speaking English, supporting Man United and watching Corrie

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or, if Operation Green had gone ahead with the support of the IRA, a British invasion force fighting alongside the Irish Army could have been seen as allies and the IRA lost all support and all but wiped out.

If that had happened, Ireland may have opted back into the UK and everyone would be speaking English, supporting Man United and watching Corrie

Scenario 1
britain invades Ireland - the IRA /Irish Army join forces with either dropped german fj paratroopers or at the very least dropped german weaponry to fight them back. Either way an awful and bloody second war of independence against an aggressive foe begins all over again. Widespread brutality and murder return to our shores.

Scenario 2
britain invades Ireland - the grateful Irish start praising the queen and look to be re-subjugated within the british empire.

I know which outcome strikes me as the more realistic out of those 2.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Scenario 1
britain invades Ireland - the IRA /Irish Army join forces with either dropped german fj paratroopers or at the very least dropped german weaponry to fight them back. Either way an awful and bloody second war of independence against an aggressive foe begins all over again. Widespread brutality and murder return to our shores.

Scenario 2
britain invades Ireland - the grateful Irish start praising the queen and look to be re-subjugated within the british empire.

I know which outcome strikes me as the more realistic out of those 2.

The Important part of my post was "If operation green had gone ahead".

Itwas a fact that the IRA were in talks with the Germans about an invasion, or least elements of it were. If the invasion had taken place, would Sean Russell be regarded as the hero he is today? I doubt it very much.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Important part of my post was "If operation green had gone ahead".

True - must have missed that.

The point you seem to be missing though is that if the germans had arrived with the goal of working with republican elements to remove britain from the north - then they would have recieved widespread public support.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Itwas a fact that the IRA were in talks with the Germans about an invasion, or least elements of it were. If the invasion had taken place, would Sean Russell be regarded as the hero he is today? I doubt it very much.

They talked about a lot of things. Including supplying weapons to Ireland and intelligence from Ireland to Germany and so on. There were talks about trying to organise and rally republican elements though most of these came to nothing due to G2's extraordinary capabilities and also due to abwehr incompetence and misadventures. The actual likelihood of a german armed support was quite low.

If they had arrived at republican request and removed britain from Ireland then yes Sean Russel probably would be regarded as a national hero.

mathepac

gizmo555 wrote: »

I actually thought it was pretty poor ...

+1. I think Ms. Kennedy's stewardship has signalled new lows in Irish Times history and this is another example of it. If this article appeared in The Sunday Worst or The Oirish Daily Male of a Sunday, I'd have regarded it as poor even by their abysmal standards.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

True - must have missed that.

The point you seem to be missing though is that if the germans had arrived with the goal of working with republican elements to remove britain from the north - then they would have recieved widespread public support.

They talked about a lot of things. Including supplying weapons to Ireland and intelligence from Ireland to Germany and so on. There were talks about trying to organise and rally republican elements though most of these came to nothing due to G2's extraordinary capabilities and also due to abwehr incompetence and misadventures. The actual likelihood of a german armed support was quite low.

If they had arrived at republican request and removed britain from Ireland then yes Sean Russel probably would be regarded as a national hero.

I'd agree that if operationGreen was to unify Ireland it would have been different, but it wasn't, it was essentially a plan to invade Ireland and use it as a spring board to attack Britain. (Which actually may have worked, the RAF would have been stretched attacking an invasion fleet in the south of Ireland and the RN would have ben under the guns of the Luftwaffe). Even if it was a plan to unify Ireland and get them onside, would it have been worth the sacrificing of all the Jews, Disabled, communists and any form of democracy?

Still, as they say "If my Auntie had balls.....:D"

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Still, as they say "If my Auntie had balls.....:D"

I think this discussion is going nowhere either.

The Germans never invaded and were never really likely to (that silly article notwithstanding), the far more likely threat of invasion came from britain as churchill himself admitted he thought about it for a while.

I think it is an interesting area though, if britain had invaded I think it's safe to assume that the IRA's German links would have produced some viable results either in terms of equipment alone or equipment and manpower along with air support. I think a british invasion/incursion would have been disastrous in terms of the propaganda success it would have handed to the Germans and the affect it would have had on Irish America.

So it really depends on the context of this supposed german WW2 intervention in Ireland. You say it was more likely to be a German invasion and occupation and suppression - I don't agree with that take on it. If they were to have come it would have been to remove britain from Ireland. Reducing her military abilities and reach and further weakening her significantly which was also in the german interests.

In any event any thoughts of Ireland suddenly breaking into choruses of god save the queen are a bit optimistic on your part.

xflyer

If they were to have come it would have been to remove britain from Ireland.

I couldn't agree with that. That is to give an altruistic interpretation to their actions. That simply does not fit in with their actual actions in the rest of Europe. Which was occupation and suppression, brutal and violent. We would have suffered the same fate as much of the rest of Europe. Certainly the motive for any invasion would be to attack the British. But don't for a minute believe they had any interest in our little squabble with Britain.

I don't agree with your notion that Britain was more likely to invade for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier post and also for the reasons you mentioned. The only realistic possibility would be if Ireland became actively hostile to the Allies and aligned ourselves with the Axis. Even then there would be no need to invade. The RN would simply blockade us. We'd get no help from Germany either.

So in my opinion neither option was likely. We were safer than we knew. In fact if anything the more likely occupier would have been the USA once they joined the war. They would certainly have met little resistance.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

I couldn't agree with that. That is to give an altruistic interpretation to their actions. That simply does not fit in with their actual actions in the rest of Europe.

France declared war on Germany. Ireland did not - so there is an important difference there.

Germany invaded Norway but this was not characterised with brutality (where the population were not engaged in attacks against them).

Let's not forget britain also had it's invasion force enroute to neutral norway at the same time.

xflyer wrote: »

We would have suffered the same fate as much of the rest of Europe.

I think that is far from proven.

xflyer wrote: »

Certainly the motive for any invasion would be to attack the British. But don't for a minute believe they had any interest in our little squabble with Britain.

No one has said they were interested in Ireland for the sake of Ireland.

xflyer wrote: »

I don't agree with your notion that Britain was more likely to invade for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier post and also for the reasons you mentioned.

Well then we will agree to disagree. I did not say britain was going to invade - I said of the 2 scenarios the greater threat and the more likely to invade was britain.

xflyer wrote: »

The only realistic possibility would be if Ireland became actively hostile to the Allies and aligned ourselves with the Axis.

This does not tie in with churchills VE Speech where he boasted at having shown considerable restraint in not invadiing Ireland. This is with the full knowledge that our neutrality was slanted in favour of the allies.

xflyer wrote: »

So in my opinion neither option was likely. We were safer than we knew. In fact if anything the more likely occupier would have been the USA once they joined the war. They would certainly have met little resistance.

The american ambassador may have had his issues but I don't see much credibility to that one.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If that had happened, Ireland may have opted back into the UK and everyone would be speaking English, supporting Man United and watching Corrie

If you ever accuse me of supporting Man United, or any other of those dot.com globalised brand name mostrosities like Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea again I'm going to find out who you are, track you down and kill you.

Slowly.

What a dreadful slur! How dare you!!!







(more considered response to OP follows)

xflyer

There were a lot of countries that didn't declare war on Germany but were invaded nonetheless because they were in the way or had something the Nazis wanted, Poland being the first in line for that treatment. You can't prove we would have suffered a similar fate to other occupied countries. If we did nothing and embraced our new masters, sure we would have suffered less. But do you honestly think that's likely given our history of resistance to the British?

You can hardly compare British and French intentions in Norway with those of Germany.

I concede that Britain was the more likely invader. But any British invasion would essentially be defensive on their part. It would largely be to prevent Ireland falling into the hands of the Nazis. I do believe that in the event of a German landing the British would have crossed the border and attacked the beachhead by sea, air and land with or without the permission of the Free State government. It would be something akin to the Torch landings in French North Africa. There would be token resistance by the Irish army at first with a rapid capitulation with the main resistance being against the invading Germans.

I personally take Churchill's VE speech with a grain of salt. It was perhaps more of a dig at Dev than anything. He was a great orator but he liked sabre rattling a little too much. It was a source of constant irritation to him that Dev wouldn't join the war. After Pearl harbour he fired off a message to him asking would we join the war now.

As for the American option, I just threw that in. If we had been strictly neutral or neutral in favour of the Axis as opposed to the actual we're neutral, but wink, wink. We know which side we're really on, false neutrality game. The Americans might have felt it neccessary to march in to 'protect us'. Iceland being a precedent, first occupied by the British and then by the Americans in July 1941 long before Pearl Harbour. Then there was the case of Madeira and the Azores both Portugese and occupied by the Allies. So it's not an outlandish idea. I would not be surprised if it was considered an option by Roosevelt at some stage. I can just imagine Churchill suggesting it to him.:rolleyes:

Avgas

Thought the article was Okayish......not superb analysis though because the obvious point would be a naval one.....the Royal Navy would have been a major threat to supply lines ......he goes on quite a bit about air superiority....but it was the Royal Navy that would have firmly kept Operation Green or whatever on the back-burner. It might also have tipped the Americans into siding earlier overtly with British if the time-line is Autumn 1940. Although Roosevelt had no love for the Irish, it could have provided a pretext.

He leaves out some interesting things:

One, the British cabinet papers many years back had a small piece about how Churchill noted that old bomber squadrons were to be kept of standby and ready with gas bombs....in the event of a German massive breakthrough or specific mention is made of an invasion of Southern Ireland. Don't have a reference...but was reported in the Irish times during the 1980s sometime...more a contingency no doubt than a firm plan...but interesting...

The obvious point is that it was the USA who was the most likely invader...the "Note Crisis" of 1943 was the high point of a series of low points of diplomacy where Roosevelt and the American Ambassador simply hated DeV....at that stage they had hundreds of thousands of GIs in Northern Ireland. A simple thrust to Dublin would have been 'easy'.

Impossible to know how German invasion with IRA support would have played with wider public...diehard Republicans would have welcomed it as their big break...but the bulk of the population may well have seen it for what it was....an invasion by a foreign power.......

Also he doesn't follow the scenario out. So IF the Germans invaded....and the initial landings were successful...and they thrashed what field forces we could have mustered and they made it to Dublin........would it have been all over?

I think the Brits would have poured troops in via Larne....and Ireland would then have seen possibly quite heavy fighting.....mostly infantry because both sides would have struggled to get armour in theatre in any number.....and an attempt at a guerrilla campaign for sure would have been made...might the Irish army have fared better at that.....? The British would have thrown everything at an invasion of Ireland, if only because it would have damaged their 'western approaches'.

xflyer

The obvious point is that it was the USA who was the most likely invader...the "Note Crisis" of 1943 was the high point of a series of low points of diplomacy where Roosevelt and the American Ambassador simply hated DeV....at that stage they had hundreds of thousands of GIs in Northern Ireland. A simple thrust to Dublin would have been 'easy'.

That's interesting Avgas because I was only speculating. But it fits because we all know that when it comes to strategic interests no country has a conscience. Given the strict press control of the times an American occupation could have been sold as neccessary to protect Ireland. Even the Irish might believe it. In point of fact given the nature of the usual American way of doing things they might well have been welcomed by the population. Mostly the women though:eek:

Avgas

And of course the Kids and Dentists would have welcomed it.....chewing gum and Hershy bars.........weapons of mass destruction if ever there was....:)

The American Note crisis is covered fairly well in Prof. Eunan O Halpin's "Defending Ireland", but I think most historians discount the event quite a bit and think an invasion was unlikely because it would have distracted the allies before Operation Torch and it might have played bad in propaganda terms...still one can easily see how it could have been sold.....Roosevelt was much more anti-Irish/Dev than the British establishment.....(with exception maybe of Churchill who was bitter about losing the treaty ports...a pet topic of his). Also the U Boat war was slowly beginning to turn...so the vital need for owning the western approaches through occupation of Ireland was proving less essential...they were anyhow getting good informal co-operation and Maffey the British ambassador argued for restraint and soft-softly.....he was the key man who perhaps saved Dev's bacon with Churchill and Roosevelt.

BTW there were also detailed enough American inter-war plans from the mid 1930s, for an invasion of most countries in the world [!]...and ours was called Plan Emerald.....not very imaginative as regards operational security...but.....may have been more a game-exercise than a real plan.....

Cloonan doesn't also mention what Halpin did in his book that on the eve of war in September 1939 the Department of Finance circulated a memo suggesting that it was more or less pointless to bother with irksome defence expenditure because we would lose inevitably.....and so suggested maybe outright disarmament and surrender should be considered........

Fast forward 70+ years and the same organisation advised the politicians to consider....

NAMA....
Insane tax breaks to fuel property in a property bubble
Unsustainable tax cuts
Very massive increases in public sector employment with no thought about how to pay for these people nor changes in work practices.....

Probably much greater damage has been inflicted on Ireland in the period 2002-2008 by our own civil service and governments than German or American paratroopers could ever have done.

Funny how history repeats itself, no?:rolleyes:

getz

churchill was urged by lord craigavon[northern irish prime minister]to invade ireland and use scottish and welsh troops, he claimed that valera had fallen under nazi influence,montgomery,said ,i was told to prepare plans for seizure of cork and queenstown,the taoiseach had spurned churchills earlier offer of a united ireland in exchange for entering the war on the allied side.

Snickers Man

xflyer wrote: »

There were a lot of countries that didn't declare war on Germany but were invaded nonetheless because they were in the way or had something the Nazis wanted, Poland being the first in line for that treatment.

There were a lot of other countries that got invaded because they were in the Allies way or had something the Allies wanted. In particular those African and Asian possessions of Vichy France who stayed out of the war after France surrendered and did NOT attack the Allies, despite some pretty severe provocation. Most notably the unprovoked and heinous pre-emptive strike by the Royal Navy on the French Mediterranean fleet in Oran in 1940.

The Americans and British landed in Morrocco because it was the direct route into Italian Tunisia. They also pre-emptively invaded Lebanon and Syria, simply to secure their strategic objectives. Not forgetting the Russians vicious assault on Finland just to safeguard the defences of Leningrad and Murmansk and their subsequent ethnic cleansing of what was then Finland'ssecond biggest city Viipuri.

And there were others like Madagascar, invaded simply to prevent the possibility of it falling into Japanese hands. [/quote]

xflyer wrote: »

You can hardly compare British and French intentions in Norway with those of Germany.

Why ever not? They had exactly the same interest, namely the supply route from Sweden of Germany's vital iron ore. The Norwegians weren't given much say in the matter. Each side attempted to curry favour with potential allies in Norway. The Germans just did it better than the Allies.

Many Norwegians took part in the war. On BOTH sides. Several thousand joined up with the Germans; others joined the Allies.

xflyer wrote: »

I do believe that in the event of a German landing the British would have crossed the border and attacked the beachhead by sea, air and land with or without the permission of the Free State government. It would be something akin to the Torch landings in French North Africa. There would be token resistance by the Irish army at first with a rapid capitulation with the main resistance being against the invading Germans.

You reckon? That is very much the "what -if?" question that Clonan might have asked if he wanted to write a good article, rather than rehashing tired old stereotypes and coming to the same Anglocentric conclusion that echoed the stance of the Irish Times at the time of the war.

"550 dead RAF men saved the world!"

My foot!

There would have been a vicious split in the Irish population. The War of Independence was still in living memory. Most of the Irish cabinet had been participants or were related to people who had been. Some, including the then Taoiseach De Valera had been jailed by the British and had even spent time under sentence of death.

Arousing fears, well founded as you concede, of a likely British invasion would have been a relatively simple matter. The Germans would have found ready natural allies, not because people were Nazis but because of a quarrel that had been around long before Hitler was born.

As against that, many Irish people would have been distrustful of Nazism and/or naturally sympathetic to Britain so the divisions would have been stark.

Read up on what happened to Norwegians who had been sympathetic to Germans after the war. Even what happened to kids born to German soldiers.

Google "epuration illegale" to see how the French tore into each other after the war.

And of course, just take a glance at the enmity between the people of the Balkans today, much of which goes back to the divisions in the Yugoslav population at the time of WWII.

That would have been our fate had we entered WWII. Regardless of who won it.

xflyer

Vichy France who stayed out of the war after France surrendered and did NOT attack the Allies, despite some pretty severe provocation.

Ahem, you have quite a particular view of the war. It's actually difficult to know how to answer that kind of comment. You talk as if Vichy France was some kind of benign neutral. Do I need to remind you that France was invaded and defeated by Germany, split, humiliated and partly occupied by an oppressive and vicious regime? You also have a rather unique view of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa not to mention Syria and Lebanon.

Then you say this:

And there were others like Madagascar, invaded simply to prevent the possibility of it falling into Japanese hands.

Surely the same is true of the other 'invasions'. Preventing them falling into German hands. If Ireland was in danger of falling into Nazi hand would you perhaps prefer that the allies minded their own business and let it happen?

You also mention strategic objectives as if that was somehow a bad thing. The aim was to defeat the Nazis not facilitate them.

As for Norway, are you joking? Neither Britain nor France had any intention of occupying Norway, installing a puppet regime or institute repressive measures against the population. You are not comparing like with like. Next you'll be telling us the Nazis only wanted to protect Norway from allied territorial ambitions.:rolleyes:

You bring up a red herring with Finland v The USSR. I didn't attempt to justify it. You also failed to mention Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia or Poland. Stalin's USSR was a vicious repressive totalitarian state.

Some, including the then Taoiseach De Valera had been jailed by the British and had even spent time under sentence of death.

Yes I studied Irish history too. You are quite wrong in thinking that it was somehow DeValera's anti Britishness that kept Eire out of the war. The Irish Free State had no good reason to join the war when it simply looked a repeat of the old imperialist clashes of the Great war. We certainly had no reason to join when Britain stood alone against Hitler. That could have been suicide. We had no reason to jump to Britain's aid or resources for that matter. It was a pragmatic move at the time. Even if he was sympathetic to Britain he could hardly have joined the war.

You also demonstrate very flawed thinking in relation to the results of a Nazi takeover. We had just managed to become independant so you expect us to believe that some would actually welcome an invasion by yet another regime. Worse a regime that had already demonstrated a level of oppression and ruthlessness that made the Black and Tans look like boy scouts. That is laughable:pac:

The reality is that once there was an imminent invasion of Ireland by the Germans. Britain would have intervened not just to save us but because it was in their strategic interest. We would become de facto allies. Even the most vehement of anglophobes would probably have preferred British help rather than Nazi occupation. A British invasion without any imminent threat from Germany would have been disastrous for them. We would have resisted and it would have tied up valuable troops needed elsewhere. Despite Churchill's posturing, he had to know this. Hence the likelihood of a British invasion was actually quite small unless a German fleet was landing in Wexford.

If you want me to express sympathy for collaborators in France or Norway after the war, you're talking to the wrong person.:mad:

As for the Balkans you're plain wrong, check your history, their problems predated WW2 even WW1 which it sparked off. Beside Ireland was already Balkanised or hadn't you noticed?

If we entered WW2 our fate would have been that we would have been on the winning side and later benefited from the largesse of the Marshall plan to a greater extent than we were. Perhaps we would have become a freer and more prosperous country instead of impoverished exporter of people seeking a better life that we remained until about 1997. There would have been a cost though. Thousands dead, maybe even cities destroyed by the Luftwaffe.

In any case tens of thousands joined the fight or went and worked in British factories or building sites. Very anglocentric of them. As far as I know the Wehrmacht or the SS didn't have an Irish regiment? In fact you can hardly point to a single Irishman who fought for the Nazis.

You cannot defend everything the Allies did to win the war. But you can tell the difference between them and the Nazis. If you are unable to differentiate then that's unfortunate. Most of the rest of us can quite easily.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

As for Norway, are you joking? Neither Britain nor France had any intention of occupying Norway, installing a puppet regime or institute repressive measures against the population. You are not comparing like with like. Next you'll be telling us the Nazis only wanted to protect Norway from allied territorial ambitions.:rolleyes.

Just to pick up on one point because I am in a rush - Norway.

How do you know what the allies would have had to do to prevent resistance and maintain control of Norway ? They were not invited by the norwegians, the norwegians could at any point have chosen to side with the british and stop supplies to Germany- they chose not to.

The fact is Germany did invade Norway to protect it's supplies of Ore which were vital - the reason the allies chose to also invade was to forcibly prevent Norway from trading with the Germans. I don't get how you would criticise one side for beating the other to the punch. Either they were both wrong to violate Norwegian soveirgnty or neither were.

citizen_p

heres an article from an irish war time magezine
size is needed to make it readable




great phone number, ballyshannon 6
sorry about the blurryness on some, didnt want to damage the spine by squashing it down

basically partisan actions, which would get the usual anti partisan response of hangings, and retaliation, 10 men for every one german soldier etc....

the allies were lucky they didnt have as many partisans to face, their reputation would be seriously tarnished.

Avgas

Great Post Mousey…I’m squinting still from reading it…..BTW comments at the end are good....thinking that through still.....

I’ve always been puzzled why we didn’t make more of the whole guerrilla thing….

There is an academic source that examined this: Farrell, Theo (2005) ‘World Culture and Military Power’, Security Studies, Vol. 14, No.3, pp.448-488.

It is a bit jargon and theory heavy but there a few good pages which examine the question why didn’t the Irish DF develop a guerrilla warfare doctrine OR by implication, ‘WHY DID WE …AND STILL DO…REMAIN SO MUCH IN THE MOULD OF BRITISH ARMY LIGHT INFANTRY?”

The question was and arguably is pertinent espeically given our sea and air geography----which suggests we should have more forces and spending on air and sea defences…..

He says in 1923 the basic free state army training was 140 hours…3 hours learning how to salute…only 1 hr on guerrilla warfare!

By 1926 guerrilla warfare was dropped entirely from the infantry training syllabus!

A 1934 General Staff study actually admitted that in the event of a conflict with the UK…we would have to go guerilla pretty quickly as our conventional brigades were weak…and our air and naval assets next to useless…….

BUT instead the Army top brass spent the 1930s asking for 9 infantry brigades…and then in 1938 when the storm clouds were gathering obviously in some shape or form…they asked for two properly resourced birgades…to which the Dept of Finance suggested only one or perhaps none-would do!

In the end some attempt was made to get together much higher spending….as we know…..but the model was very heavy on a conventional 2 division land force….with arguably massive underspending on coastal and aerial defence…….. once any enemy have landed in force…its pretty much over….hence air and naval assets are so much more important to deter this…….

He also mentions PLAN W …the British contingency plan to ‘secure the Irish Free State”…ie. invade……he says that from July to more or less November 1940 the Irish general staff were working on an assumption of a GERMAN invasion…..BUT from November 1940 onwards it was assumed that BRITISH invasion was more likely……

There are some obvious answers why the Irish army ignored our Guerrilla history and experience…..

1. Guerrilla warfare had a bad taste in the mouth from the civil war….the new Free state army wanted to move away from that bad vibe…plus…things like creating well armed reserves …which would be part of a guerilla war strategy…. Would have risked weapons getting into the hands of die-hard republicans who were active and hostile right throughout the 1930s…not withstanding the rapproachement DeV’s Fianna Fail movement provided in a way with the Free state.

2. Guerrilla warfare image wise in the 1920s probably lacked the caché that it now has…yes there was Lawrence of Arabia …….but that was ‘far away in parts foreign’……the Boer war lessons which had inspired Collins so much were forgotten in preference for the ‘methodical battle’ examples of 1917-1918……instead the Military Commission to the USA came back by 1925-26 with ideas that reflected US Army conventional warfare thinking (which in some ways leaned on French thinking!)….. so real soliders and real armies fought otherwise…and the new Free state army were desperate to develop their ‘cred’ by looking like the real thing…..even though in private it was admitted we didn’t have the resources to field proper brigades or divisions……

3. The obvious reason why spending was not directed at naval and air forces was because these were much more expensive than light infantry and perhaps because it was assumed RAF and Royal Navy would provide such ‘cover’…..and developing our own naval forces to take on the Royal Navy…say a fleet of domestic U Boats….would have created massive diplomatic tensions at a time when we were negotiating for the Treaty ports to be handed back……in retrospect we were dam lucky to get them back in 1938……..

4. One other reason is perhaps because a British Army light infantry model as the core of any small nation’s defence force is actually quite a sensible ‘foundation’. As light infantry go, the BA way of training, drill, discipline, tactics, etc. was and is pretty good and professional…and some would argue on balance, maybe the best there is (although German infantry in WW2 were pretty good…..)….…so if your going to copy something…you may as well copy what your familiar with and what has worked well……and the other obvious point is that a light infantry brigade structure has the desired mass and scale to dominate and win any internal challenge to the state’s authority by extremists….lurking IRA refusniks……..

With all today’s fancy talk and speculation about ‘assymetric operations’ and ‘4th generation warfare’…I just wonder to what extent the Irish DF is once again missing the boat and deploying with an old fashioned land-forces heavy structure that mimics the forces of larger countries but can never have the resources to back this up………..and at that perhaps not as flexibly put together……


On other threads…I’ve said that our Brigade structure is….well basically worthless and notional…..except maybe as a mechanism to generate plenty of infantry battalions for major internal security contingencies……..instead smaller and more usable ‘battle groups’ would be a better bet….together with more unconventional type force structures and units….more special forces…ultra light infantry……etc.

Of course that might reduce the number of senior officer postings and promotions to “notional” brigades!

Can’t have that can we?:rolleyes:

Fuinseog

Mousey- wrote: »

heres an article from an irish war time magezine
size is needed to make it readable




great phone number, ballyshannon 6
sorry about the blurryness on some, didnt want to damage the spine by squashing it down

basically partisan actions, which would get the usual anti partisan response of hangings, and retaliation, 10 men for every one german soldier etc....

the allies were lucky they didnt have as many partisans to face, their reputation would be seriously tarnished.

the brits wanted to recruit old IRA for special commando units. emmet Dalton was one of those appraoched, but he turned it down.
there were partisan actions aginst the Brits in Germany, but were brutally suppressed. the germans were criticised for executing partisans in the east, yet when the allied did the same it wasn't the same.

xflyer

there were partisan actions aginst the Brits in Germany, but were brutally suppressed. the germans were criticised for executing partisans in the east, yet when the allied did the same it wasn't the same.

The allies didn't round up civilians as hostages and execute them in retaliation. The 'Grey Wolves' were a small group of Nazi fanatics. The represented no one but themselves and the war was long lost. They were certainly not partisans or guerillas and certainly not comparable in any way to resistance movements in occupied countries.

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? Is it just the usual anti Brit thing. Or do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes:

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? Is it just the usual anti Brit thing. Or do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes:

Maybe the simplistic good guy vs bad guy version doesn't stand up to very much attention from most people who study the period.

Fuinseog

xflyer wrote: »

The allies didn't round up civilians as hostages and execute them in retaliation. The 'Grey Wolves' were a small group of Nazi fanatics. The represented no one but themselves and the war was long lost. They were certainly not partisans or guerillas and certainly not comparable in any way to resistance movements in occupied countries.

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? Is it just the usual anti Brit thing. Or do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes:

you are quick to label people. criticise the made to measure version of events and you are a IRA supporter with an 'immature' view of history or a Nazi.
true, they did not round up hostages. they just cut off the rations of the local population reducing them to starvation. teh allies also executed teenager werewolves, some were only 15. Werewolves fought for a cause just like other partisans.

xflyer

Maybe the simplistic good guy vs bad guy version doesn't stand up to very much attention from most people who study the period.

Do you assume a moral equivalence between the Nazis and the western allies? You don't have to have a simplistic view to realise that the Nazis were not the good guys in this. Something even the Germans realised themselves both during and after the war. You can also say the the Soviets were not people with white hats either.

We also need to separate the actions of the the Soviets from the Western allies. The Soviets certainly did carry out reprisals and executions to a greater scale than the other allies and on a more official basis.

We can all point to war crimes and excesses by the allies. But what does that prove? Nothing more than that war is bad and bad things happen in war.

Fuinseog:

you are quick to label people. criticise the made to measure version of events and you are a IRA supporter with an 'immature' view of history or a Nazi.

Sorry? What are you trying to say? That's garbled. In any case I haven't labelled anyone. I haven't even come close to ad hominen. For me this was an interesting discussion largely with Morlar conducted in a slightly adversial but polite way. Let's not start a flame war as is usual with internet forums.:rolleyes:

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

You don't have to have a simplistic view to realise that the Nazis were not the good guys in this.

I would refer you back to my earlier post - the good guy vs bad guy view in itself is incorrect to begin with in my view.

xflyer wrote: »

Let's not start a flame war as is usual with internet forums.:rolleyes

The post of yours which triggered this minor exchange is the following ;

xflyer wrote: »

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? Is it just the usual anti Brit thing. Or do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes

So you are the one starting the accusations, in this case of being revisionist or having nazi sympathiies for not conforming to your interpretation. I would say if you want to avoid a flame war then put your ignorant assumptions and lazy accusations on hold.

Fuinseog

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? Is it just the usual anti Brit thing. Or do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

i think you are clearly making sweeping statements with the above and presuming anyone critcial of the brits is automatically anti british.
your usage of smileys is appropriate for a teenager forum, but on an adult forum it is also rather patronising.

xflyer

I would refer you back to my earlier post - the good guy vs bad guy view in itself is incorrect to begin with in my view.

I would refer you to the fact that I clearly don't hold to the simplistic good guy/bad guy view. So I ask you again, do you believe there is a moral equlvalence between the protagonists?

I think my question of this revisionist thinking is valid. But instead of answering the question you attack the manner it's put. I mentioned the anti Brit thing because I often see viewpoints on the internet, not neccessarily yours, coloured by anti Britishness or even anti American attitudes based largely on current events rather than the events of the time.

People's political standpoint colours their view of history.

I would say if you want to avoid a flame war then put your ignorant assumptions and lazy accusations on hold.

Ignorant and lazy? I have made neither. I have to say I'm disappointed in your tone as I was enjoying the debate.

Fuinseog

i think you are clearly making sweeping statements with the above and presuming anyone critcial of the brits is automatically anti british.
your usage of smileys is appropriate for a teenager forum, but on an adult forum it is also rather patronising.

I did nothing of the sort, you are the one making 'lazy' assumptions about the way I think. I asked a question. Instead of answering it, I'm attacked for my 'ignorant assumptions and lazy accusations'.

I can draw my own conclusions from that as can everyone else on this forum.

As for the smileys comment. That's laughable and off topic.:D Well you should write to the Boards.ie management and ask them to remove them from this adult forum. Smileys are widely used in many forums adult or not. That's as patronising and off topic as me pointing out that in adult forums sentences start with an upper case letter everytime.

gizmo555

Coming back to the thread topic, Clonan's other recent "alternative history" project, "If Lynch Had Invaded", is being repeated tonight (Mon) on RTE2.

I would hesitate to suggest anyone waste an hour and a half of their life on what is also a sensationalist pile of tripe, but it might put the quality of the historiography of this "Irish Times" article in some context.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

I would refer you to the fact that I clearly don't hold to the simplistic good guy/bad guy view.

That is clearly debatable going by your responses so far (and the manner in which you frame your questions to other posters you may be in disagreement with).

xflyer wrote: »

So I ask you again, do you believe there is a moral equlvalence between the protagonists?

And I would say to you that it is just not that simple.

When you break it down you are talking about a global conflict that spanned 6 years and countless millions of people across different continents, a conflict that had it's roots in the Great war and a grossly unfair treaty and a conflict which by it's end contained combatants who would have been about 5 years old when Germany last had an election.

So no I do not accept the framing of your question - it is just not that simple. And behind the labels on every side are human beings. Whether they are geman civilians or wehrmacht, kriegsmarine or luftwaffe or tank crew or SS. Likewise on the soviet side and the american or british side. All sides were guilty of crimes against humanity - in exactly the same way as all sides were not composed of evil automotons we can label and dismiss as un-human bogeymen who got what they deserved. None of them are worthy of being labelled (along with their children or parents) as being deserving of annihilation.

If you mean in terms of man to man - then no I do not accept that there is a moral relativism in dealing with them historically. If you mean in terms of alliances - ie the allies vs the axis then no there is not an awful lot between them in terms of wartime behaviour. Methods yes - intent and effect - absolutely not.

xflyer wrote: »

I think my question of this revisionist thinking is valid.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. As another poster observed you are overly eager to label derisively as 'nazi' or 'revisionist' anyone who does not agree with your black and white, good vs evil take on the biggest most complex global conflict in the history of the planet.

xflyer wrote: »

But instead of answering the question you attack the manner it's put.

The manner in which it was put was as mentioned lazy and ignorant, in my view.

xflyer wrote: »

I mentioned the anti Brit thing because I often see viewpoints on the internet, not neccessarily yours, coloured by anti Britishness or even anti American attitudes based largely on current events rather than the events of the time.

Not sure how relevant this is to anything really.

xflyer wrote: »

People's political standpoint colours their view of history.

If that is true (and it only works on the assumption that people are disingenous, inflexible or rooted in dogma or personal politics) then it is surely a 2 way street.

xflyer wrote: »

As for the smileys comment. That's laughable and off topic.:D

I disagree - persistently using 'rolleyes smileys' on a History/Military History forum while trying to be taken seriously or while discussing adult - serious subject matter does not tend to work. It lowers the tone into one of a jingo-istic level of antagonism in my view.

xflyer

That is clearly debatable going by your responses so far (and the manner in which you frame your questions to other posters you may be in disagreement with).

Let's clarify it then. I do not hold a simplistic good guy/bad guy viewpoint. That is your conclusion based on my posts. My perception is that both Nazi Germany and the Stalin's USSR were deeply unpleasant regimes whose behaviour was often extreme and who often followed a policy of genocide and terror. This cannot be said of Britain or the USA whatever their failings in your eyes.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. As another poster observed you are overly eager to label derisively as 'nazi' or 'revisionist' anyone who does not agree with your black and white, good vs evil take on the biggest most complex global conflict in the history of the planet.

I'm sorry, you need to reference where I labelled anyone a Nazi or revisonist. I am very careful to avoid ad hominen type attacks. Let me reimind you, I for one never described anyone here as ignorant and lazy. Which you've repeated in your last post.

But back to the point. I take your point on the moral relativism. On a human level, no problem. But you have dodged the question or maybe it wasn't clear. I'm talking about the regimes. On the one hand you have Nazi Germany. Now it's clear that for many Germans, Hitler was to be their saviour. The man to restore Germany to what it was, to avenge Versailles and restore pride. Unite German people everywhere etc. Even the anti Semitism would have made a kind of sense. But I doubt if many Germans realised the extent of Nazi ambitions nor the genocide to come. His intention all along was extend Germany's borders at the expense of his eastern neighbours, wipe out the Slavs, the Jews and anyone else who didn't fit in with the Aryan ideal.

Can any of this be said of the US, British, French? Perhaps you can say that of Stalin's regime to some extent but hardly to the same extent.

Now both sides committed war crimes but there were no Death camps on the allied side. No policy of destruction of an entire population or race of people. Need I go on?

In the eventuality of Germany winning the war there would be no Jews in Europe, no Poles either and probably very few Ukranians and othe East European peoples. WW2 wasn't a war like WW1 in which you could say there was a moral equivalence. All were equally guilty of getting sucked into the Great War.

To get back to the original point, the planned invasion of Ireland by whoever. Given a choice, I for one wouldn't have chosen Germany not just based on hindsight either. Their behaviour wasn't exactly a secret even then. But with hindsight we as a people would have suffered under their control. As for the Irish Jews...................

Fuinseog

gizmo555 wrote: »

Coming back to the thread topic, Clonan's other recent "alternative history" project, "If Lynch Had Invaded", is being repeated tonight (Mon) on RTE2.

I would hesitate to suggest anyone waste an hour and a half of their life on what is also a sensationalist pile of tripe, but it might put the quality of the historiography of this "Irish Times" article in some context.

a lot of poeple thought they would invade. they did send military instructors to the beleaguered areas.

Fuinseog

I'm sorry, you need to reference where I labelled anyone a Nazi or revisonist. I am very careful to avoid ad hominen type attacks. Let me reimind you, I for one never described anyone here as ignorant and lazy. Which you've repeated in your last post.


To get back to the original point, the planned invasion of Ireland by whoever. Given a choice, I for one wouldn't have chosen Germany not just based on hindsight either. Their behaviour wasn't exactly a secret even then. But with hindsight we as a people would have suffered under their control. As for the Irish Jews...................[/QUOTE]









you yourself brought up the term revisonist,nobody else. you just have to reread previous posts.

how exactly would we have suffered under German rule?

The Nazis were a product of tehir time. the Nazis perscuted the Jews for years and nobody had a problem with it. antisemitism was rife in Britain and america. the plans for extermination were laid bare in the bestselling work Mein kampf, which was also available in English in the late 1920s.

the americans did have extermination camps. thousands of germans were deliberately starved to death in POW camps after the war.
their idea of justice was to rip 120 SS guards apart when they entered Dachau. that definitelz doesn't make them better than those they murdered.

The brits did fight a war of terror. there was no justification for the bombing of Dresden.

both the Brits and the americans tortured their prisoners to get confessions.

these things happened, but you do not hear about that much as it might disturb the image of heroic liberaters the western allies like to project.

gizmo555

Fuinseog wrote: »

a lot of poeple thought they would invade. they did send military instructors to the beleaguered areas.

A lot of people, including some of the loopier politicians like Blaney, thought they should invade. But the professional soldiers of the time made clear to the government that it was never in the least bit feasible. Anyway, what I'm talking about is Clonan's recent Irish Times article and the TV programme. So far as the programme is concerned, I can't improve on Emmanuel Kehoe's review (incidentally, he was an FCA member at the time, so has a better than average appreciation of the subject) in the Sunday Business Post - here's his conclusion, with which I heartily agree:

Anyway, the ‘invasion’ didn’t happen. What did happen was a tendentious but ultimately pointless documentary, little more than a what if pub discussion shot as if made for MTV, with an eternally restless camera and presenters Clonan and Keelin Shanley constantly on the move, in and out of focus, talking over their shoulder to the viewer.

Because of this frenetic editing and strident music, it was deeply irritating, and after each break came the inevitable tedious recap.

And as for the reconstructions - why do them if they’re not spot-on? Clonan surely would have seen that the Irish soldiers’ gear was simply wrong for the period, and what self-respecting Brit would wear a riot face shield on his helmet to fight in open country? Maybe up against squaddies like that, the Irish might have had a chance after all.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

Let's clarify it then. I do not hold a simplistic good guy/bad guy viewpoint. That is your conclusion based on my posts.

It is - and it is reinforced with statements like this :

Can any of this be said of the US, British, French? Perhaps you can say that of Stalin's regime to some extent but hardly to the same extent.

While insisting that you don't hold the good guy vs bad guy view.

xflyer wrote: »

I'm sorry, you need to reference where I labelled anyone a Nazi or revisonist. I am very careful to avoid ad hominen type attacks. Let me reimind you, I for one never described anyone here as ignorant and lazy. Which you've repeated in your last post.

Here is the post in question. Obviously it was more subtle than 'X person is a revisionist and nazi sympathiser!' but here it is :

xflyer wrote: »

What gives with this tendency towards a revisionist view of allied actions in WW2? ....... do some of you think the poor Nazis were hard done by. :rolleyes

xflyer wrote: »

But back to the point. I take your point on the moral relativism. On a human level, no problem. But you have dodged the question or maybe it wasn't clear. I'm talking about the regimes.

No actually, first of all I have responded politely as far as I am concerned but the fact is that I try to avoid looking at the history of that conflict in those kinds of stark moral terms of good regimes vs bad regimes as behind each regime or label were people. The communist 'regime' & political system was in my view the most intrinsically evil (if we are to take the conversation down your tack). They also killed more people than anyone else and for a lot longer. This does not trickle down to the russian in the street or in the fields. That is exactly the dehumanising thought process that all sides engaged in fed by wartime propaganda which led to many of the problems to begin with.

xflyer wrote: »

Can any of this be said of the US, British, French? Perhaps you can say that of Stalin's regime to some extent but hardly to the same extent.

Actually it is a lot more than 'to some extent', look at the survival rates of for example SS prisoners in russian captivity, far lower survival rates than that of jews in germany to the best of my reckoning. If I recall correctly 3% of SS Survived russian captivity (I may need to confirm this on checking sources I do not have at hand at the moment) , if you look a bit wider at the treatment of All pows, or even returned russian pow's or white russians, cossacks or chetniks and so on, poles in Poland and so on. If you look at the behaviour before the war the amount of countries absorbed by communist russia or the holdomor against the ukranians. You mentioned before the terrible treatment of the germans against the ukranians but the fact is they were welcomed into many parts of russia at that time as liberators. When the locals turned on local jews to an extent this was a result of the perception of jewish bolshevism and this is borne out by the figures of jewish involvement with the nKVD.

Now both sides committed war crimes but there were no Death camps on the allied side. No policy of destruction of an entire population or race of people. Need I go on?

That is debatable, there were death camps on the allied side - they were called Gulags. There was a policy of destruction of civilians - whether it was in terror bombing of Europe or Japan. In fact the figures on the american bombing of Japan are literally staggering. I don't have them to hand but they are covered extensively in 'A Torch to the Enemy: The Fire Raid on Tokyo' by Martin Caidin. Also lets not forget America rounded up american citizens of japaneese origin and forced them to sell their homes and belongings on literally days notice (of course they did not get the value of their home). They could take only what they could physically carry into their wartime concentration camps.

xflyer wrote: »

To get back to the original point, the planned invasion of Ireland by whoever. Given a choice, I for one wouldn't have chosen Germany not just based on hindsight either.

Why though ? At Nuremberg the Germans replied that their treatment of French resistance in France was no worse than the british treatment of Irish irregulars. Monty himself is said to have been opposed to having french resistance in the victory parade as he saw them as basically terrorists and murder gangs. Do you really think a forced allied occupation against a resistant Ireland would have been more pleasant for the majority of Irish people ?

Morlar

Just as an FYI here is some of the information I mentioned previously. This is from a postwar book which studied the american bomb damage to Japan during ww2 - 'A Torch to the Enemy: The Fire Raid on Tokyo' by Martin Caidin. I believe this is based on american bomber command end of war reports. The first name is the equivalent sized american city (in terms of population) - the second is the name of the Japaneese city and the percentage is the percentage of the city destroyed in incendiary or explosive bombs. From what I recall the thinking at that time was every japaneese home is a potential workshop for their war effort as at that point they were being completely out produced by american industry. There was one figure I came across recently along the lines of . . . . . . during one period america produced 120 aircraft carriers while japan produced 14. That part may not be exact but if it's not exact it is close and gives an idea of the conditions at this time. Some of these figures below are staggering.

AMERICAN CITY JAPANESE COUNTERPART PER CENT DISASTER

San Diego Shimonoseki 37.6 %

Spokane Moji 23.3 %

San Antonio Yawata 21.2 %

Rochester Fukuoka 24.1 %

Nashville Sasebo 41.4 %

Waterloo Saga 44.2 %

Santa Fe Omura 33.1 %

Miami Omuta 35.9 %

Grand Rapids Kumamoto 31.2 %

Saint Joseph Oita 28.2 %

Augusta Nobeoka 25.2 %

Richmond Kagoshima 63.4 %

Greensboro Miyakonojo 26.5 %

Davenport Miyazaki 26.1 %

Utica Ube 20.7 %

no counterpart Uwajima 54.2 %

Duluth Matsuyama 64.0 %

Sacramento Kochi 55.2 %

Butte Tokuyama 48.3 %

Toledo Kure 41.9 %

Stockton Imabari 63.9 %

Macon Fukuyama 80.9 %

Knoxville Takamatsu 67.5 %

Long Beach Okayama 68.9 %

Peoria Himeji 49.4 %

Jacksonville Amagasaki 18.9 %

Baltimore Kobe 55.7 %

Chicago Osaka 35.1 %

Fort Worth Sakai 48.2 %

Lexington Akashi 50.2 %

Salt Lake City Wakayama 50.0 %

Cambridge Nishinomiya 11.9 %

Ft. Wayne Tokushima 85.2 %

Columbus Ujiyamada 41.3 %

Topeka Tsu 59.3 %

Portland Kawasaki 35.2 %

Savannah Chiba 41.0 %

Battle Creek Hiratsuka 48.4 %

Waco Numazu 42.3 %

San Jose Shimizu 42.1 %

Oklahoma City Shizuoka 66.1 %

Wheeling Chosi 44.2 %

New York Tokyo 50.8 %

Cleveland Yokohama 57.6 %

Middletown Tsuriga 65.1 %

Evansville Fukui 86.0 %

Tucson Kuwana 75.0 %

Springfield Ichinomiya 56.3 %

Des Moines Gifu 69.9 %

Corpus Christi Ogaki 39.5 %

Chattanooga Toyama 98.6 %

Los Angeles Nagoya 40.0 %

Charlotte Yokkaichi 33.6 %

Lincoln Okazaki 32.2 %

Montgomery Aomori 30.0 %

Madison Nagaoka 64.9 %

Tulsa Toyohashi 67.9 %

Hartford Hammamatsu 60.3 %

Wilkes-Barre Maebashi 64.2 %

Omaha Sendai 21.9 %

South Bend Kofu 78.6 %

Sioux Falls Isezaki 56.1 %

Kenosha Kumagaya 55.1 %

Sioux City Utsunomiya 43.7 %

Little Rock Hitachi 72.0 %

Galveston Hachioji 65.0 %

Pontiac Mito 68.9 %

xflyer

Fuinnseoig

the americans did have extermination camps. thousands of germans were deliberately starved to death in POW camps after the war.
their idea of justice was to rip 120 SS guards apart when they entered Dachau. that definitelz doesn't make them better than those they murdered.

Americans didn't have extermination camps. You need to be careful of your terminology. They were POW camps, not a gas chamber in sight. I remember the furore at the time the book on the subject was published. A large part of it was dismissed by eminient historians at the time. You clearly believe it for your own reasons. I don't and most people who care to inform themselves know it too.

As for the SS guards in Dachau, frankly I'd probably have executed them myself if I'd been among the soldiers liberating that or any camp. That just makes me human. Save your pity for the victims of the death camps.

There now you can say I'm as bad as all those Americans.

Morlar

No actually, first of all I have responded politely as far as I am concerned but the fact is that I try to avoid looking at the history of that conflict in those kinds of stark moral terms of good regimes vs bad regimes as behind each regime or label were people.

I don't know what your view of Nazi Germany really is. Perhaps in your study of it you realised that in fact despite all the negative coverage that in fact there was indeed a great deal positive about it particularly if you view in the context of the times rather than looking back at it's excesses. If I was a young German at the time. I might well have been caught up in the excitement of it all. The parades, the uniforms the righting of perceived wrongs. A great leader uniting Germans and promising wonderful things for Germany.
However this wasn't a universal view even among Germans at the time. Many saw the dangers and despised the Nazis but they kept quiet for fear of the consequences. But many people did believe in it to the end and if they noticed the oppression it was dismissed as neccessary. Like it or not the Nazi regime was immoral, ammoral, cruel, militaristic, expansionist and practiced genocide. Which brings me to the following:

The communist 'regime' & political system was in my view the most intrinsically evil (if we are to take the conversation down your tack). They also killed more people than anyone else and for a lot longer.

If you're going to take to line you took above then you cannot use me as an excuse to describe Stalin's USSR as evil. You need to stay consistent with your stated viewpoint. The question does arise as to which was worse. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We can argue that one for days. But it's red herring as in fact in the context of this discussion. The Soviets were never in line to invade us.

As an aside, the author, I think Antony Beevor, characterised the main differences between the Germans and the Russians he interviewed particularly in relation to atrocities. The Germans he found believed in what they were doing. The Russians did it because they feared the consequences of not doing what was expected of them.

Finally why have you introduced statistics relating to the war on Japan. What are you trying to prove? Do you want me to dig out staggering statistics in relation to Japanese actions against their enemies. I'm sorry it's irrelevant and off topic. We can start a new thread and argue there if you like.

Also please do not try to characterise me as having a simplified viewpoint of WW2. My views of WW2 was formed long before Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers appeared. I've studied the period long enough to know that not everything was as black and white as many would like it to appear. Indeed any historian worth his salt acknowledges this.

But it remains my view that the Nazi regime was a blot on western civilisation and a salutory lesson on how a highly civilised country can go bad. I won't move on that point.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

As for the SS guards in Dachau, frankly I'd probably have executed them myself

Once you cross into jusfitying offhand executions of unarmed human beings (for where they were or based on your preconceptions) there is really no going back. You do know that Dachau was also a hospital for wounded frontline SS ? Not all of those killed were guards - there were also those present at the ss hospital on the grounds who were dragged out and shot. As an aside this is exactly the logic behind the 'commissar order' - in fact you could argue at length that the 'commissar order' was more reasonable than what you have just said.

xflyer wrote: »

Perhaps in your study of it you realised that in fact despite all the negative coverage that in fact there was indeed a great deal positive about it particularly if you view in the context of the times rather than looking back at it's excesses. If I was a young German at the time. I might well have been caught up in the excitement of it all. The parades, the uniforms the righting of perceived wrongs. A great leader uniting Germans and promising wonderful things for Germany.

I would say that is a reasonably accurate point when discussing Germany - though it would obviously not encapsulate entirety of my viewpoint on this (presuming that is what you are trying to do).

xflyer wrote: »

However this wasn't a universal view even among Germans at the time....Many saw the dangers and despised the Nazis but they kept quiet for fear of the consequences. But many people did believe in it to the end and if they noticed the oppression it was dismissed as neccessary.

I am not sure there is any such thing as a 'universal viewpoint' when dealing with such encompassing continent-spanning issues that went on for as long as this. As an aside there were also americans who did not believe america should be in the war and who kept increasingly quiet as the war went on - likewise there were many in russia/ukraine/latvia/lithuania etc who welcomed the overthrow of communist rule, and likely there were many in britain who felt the war was not their war and who also kept more quiet as time progressed for fear of condemnation or reprisals. I don't think any nation had a 'universal view' of the totality of the conflict in those kind of stark terms. I am sure that at different points throughout the war and the years precdeing it there were even among the same people differing levels of support and of the wider knowledge of what each country was capable of.

xflyer wrote: »

Which brings me to the following:If you're going to take to line you took above then you cannot use me as an excuse to describe Stalin's USSR as evil. You need to stay consistent with your stated viewpoint.

I would respond to you or post in this thread on my terms not yours - you cannot dictate what manner my responses are permitted to take.

xflyer wrote: »

The question does arise as to which was worse. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We can argue that one for days.

Agreed.

xflyer wrote: »

But it's red herring as in fact in the context of this discussion. The Soviets were never in line to invade us.

No it is not a red herring nor can you rule it out - not in the context of this discussion and the path it has taken regardless of the original thread title.

xflyer wrote: »

As an aside, the author, I think Antony Beevor, characterised the main differences between the Germans and the Russians he interviewed particularly in relation to atrocities. The Germans he found believed in what they were doing. The Russians did it because they feared the consequences of not doing what was expected of them.

I have seen many interviews with russians who were not remotely afraid of the consequences - though obviously this is not the complete picture. I have also heard of russian civilians sent to the gulag for being late to work 3 times if they worked in wartime industries so it does cut both ways.

I have seen interviews with soviets who tortured and executed prisoners willingly and not necessarily under orders to do so. I have seen interviews with russians who killed their own fleeing civilians as traitors with relish and even interviewed in the 1990's were smiling and unrepentant, also russians who machine gunned their own men who attempted to retreat (in one interview nkvd /commissars held the unit's 2 machine guns at the rear in order to shoot their own retreating men rather than place them as part of the attack where they were badly needed at that point in the war). When you are talking about the amounts of people who were involved, the scope and timescale etc you can pick and choose to back up any viewpoint from either side based on veteran interviews. I would also make the point that even if it were true that many germans fought without fear of reprisal from their own side (which is not a point I would accept) there were still many who fought out of a legitimate fear of the widescale murder torture and rape which would follow a defeat. Even if you presume for a second that late war germans had no fear of consequences from their own side for going awol or finding a way to surrender there were other factors at play here including wanting to surrender to one side rather than the other, or to seek surrender from a position other than abject defeat.

xflyer wrote: »

Finally why have you introduced statistics relating to the war on Japan. What are you trying to prove? Do you want me to dig out staggering statistics in relation to Japanese actions against their enemies. I'm sorry it's irrelevant and off topic.

It is not irrelevant or out of context. It is a direct reply to something you said earlier which if you read the thread straight through again makes perfect sense. The point being that the american side also had masses of civilian blood on it's hands even though it's mainland was never under direct threat. Can you imagine if they had been invaded and faced occupation and repression what they would have been capable of ?

xflyer wrote: »

Also please do not try to characterise me as having a simplified viewpoint of WW2. My views of WW2 was formed long before Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers appeared. I've studied the period long enough to know that not everything was as black and white as many would like it to appear. Indeed any historian worth his salt acknowledges this.

I have not said that your views were formed by hollywood.

xflyer wrote: »

But it remains my view that the Nazi regime was a blot on western civilisation and a salutory lesson on how a highly civilised country can go bad. I won't move on that point.

Would you also hold that the soviet/communist/bolshevik 'regime' was a blot on civilisation and a salutory lesson in how a highly civilised country can go bad ? If not then i would say that your view is indeed one sided.

Fuinseog

xflyer wrote: »

FuinnseoigAmericans didn't have extermination camps. You need to be careful of your terminology. They were POW camps, not a gas chamber in sight. I remember the furore at the time the book on the subject was published. A large part of it was dismissed by eminient historians at the time. You clearly believe it for your own reasons. I don't and most people who care to inform themselves know it too.

As for the SS guards in Dachau, frankly I'd probably have executed them myself if I'd been among the soldiers liberating that or any camp. That just makes me human. Save your pity for the victims of the death camps.

There now you can say I'm as bad as all those Americans.

.

You yourself need to be careful of your terminology.
they were not executed, they were clubbed to death and ripped apart, which was a barbaric action. two wrongs do not amke a right. this action hardly gave the americans the moral high ground and not surprisingly you do not hear much about it.

xflyer

Would you also hold that the soviet/communist/bolshevik 'regime' was a blot on civilisation and a salutory lesson in how a highly civilised country can go bad ? If not then i would say that your view is indeed one sided.

Yes indeed I would. But I ask you quite sincerely do you believe the Nazi regime in Germany shares that dubious honour.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

Yes indeed I would. But I ask you quite sincerely do you believe the Nazi regime in Germany shares that dubious honour.

I have said I do not look at things in the same way you do, those are your words, your terminology and your rhetoric - that is your way of looking at things and just because I turned it around and pointed it back at you (in order to make a point) does not mean that I need to subscribe to your point of view. Nor use your language or terminology. I will continue to look at that period in all it's complexities on my own terms and in my own way.

gizmo555

Letter from a retired Army colonel in today's Irish Times on this article, essentially making all of the criticisms of Clonan's analysis already raised in this thread, plus a couple more for good measure:

Madam, – While the picture Tom Clonan painted (Opinion, June 28th) of what life under German occupation could be like may be true, I feel in the interest of balance he should have considered whether or not such an eventuality could have come about.

The possibility that either Operation Sealion (the invasion of England) or Operation Green (that of Ireland) could have occurred is extremely remote. Both operations were, apparently, envisaged as being mainly seaborne but the Germans had no amphibious capability, that is, the landing craft and support vessels necessary for the seizure of beaches and the creation of beach-heads.

For Operation Green, with a distance of some 300 miles to be covered from the north-west coast of France to the south of Ireland, the only possibility was the making use of such passenger or freight-carrying ships as could be found, and there were very few. One wonders how the initial force of 4,000 was to establish beach-heads from such vessels and unload tanks and other heavy equipment. As for the remainder of the 50,000 earmarked for the operation, it would have required an armada of ships and all the naval support available to transport them, even in successive waves. Such an armada would have had to take either a direct route from northwest France, bringing it perilously near Land’s End and interception by the RAF based in south-west England, as well as by the royal navy, or, in order to avoid air interception, to take a course a couple of hundred miles west, where it would still have been subject to naval opposition.

The ships involved, being unable to use beaches, would have had to dock without fighter protection at whatever quaysides or piers were available, leaving them at the mercy of the land forces guarding such berths. Neither the Stukas nor Dorniers mentioned by Mr Clonan would have had the range to carry out the bombing missions described unless provided with Irish bases It is not surprising that Operation Green met the same fate as Sealion, remaining in suspense but never resurrected.

Mr Clonan makes no mention of an airborne invasion, probably rightly so, since the concept had not been tried at that point. Subsequently it was the great fear, though here again, Germany may have been limited in the airlift that was possible. A general staff estimate here put the figure of 10,000 as the maximum that could be transported by air to Ireland.

While the Defence Forces were in a weak condition due to the pitifully low financial allocations of the 1930s (about £1,500,000 per year) the situation should not be represented as being worse than it was. The weapons inventory for March 1940 showed that we had 497 Vickers medium machine-guns (not 82 as stated by Mr Clonan) and 1,038 light machine-guns, mainly Lewis. The rather disparaging reference to the Lee Enfield rifles as being of first World War vintage is misplaced. The Mark 2 Lee Enfield was the standard British (as well as Irish) rifle in 1939 and was to remain so until replaced well into the war by the Number 4 rifle, not a significantly better weapon. There were 25, not just a dozen, armoured cars, a number that would be brought up to 80 by home production using Ford and Dodge chassis. Some of these Irish-built Fords were sent to the Congo in 1961 where they gave good service.

A further disparaging reference is to the 14 cyclist squadrons of the Cavalry Corps nicknamed “the peddling panzers”. Cyclist troops were used in many armies. In Ireland, they were an imaginative response to the requirement for reconnaissance and mobility in the face of grave shortages of vehicles and petrol. Stationed in sensitive areas, the squadrons could reach any point within a 10 miles radius in an hour – not a bad speed in a combat zone.