What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

bobblepuzzle

Was just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this...

In my opinion, we should have been in the effort along side the Allies, as before the Americans joined and Hitlers invasion of Russia, the whole of Europe was in peril... and our neutrality during that conflict left a sour taste in a lot of countries mouths, including America & Russia, the latter constantly vetoing our attempts to join the UN. I believe De Valeras stance put the country in great danger... even the Allies constantly refused to provide us with military equipment for defense should an invasion come, leaving Ireland with no defense for much of the war.

Also, I've heard people mention that "we didn't want to be helping the Brits anyway"

Denerick

Our neutrality was 90% pragmatic, 10% principle. I would agree that our neutrality was a good thing, especially during the dark months that followed Hitler's conquest of France. If Ireland were in the war together with Britain we would have experienced a serious bombing campaign and wouldn't have been able to deal with that. Furthermore we could have almost been more of a liability for the British, as an invasion of Ireland would have been relatively straight forward for the Germans - think about it. The Brits would have had to offer assistance to the State for national defence, maybe in the region of 300,000 troops. Public support for the war would have been practically non existant - in the event of a land invasion, which probably would have occured in Ireland before Britain, there would have been massive public pressure to capitulate. I've little doubt there would have been some collaboration as well.

Ireland was neither economically nor pyschologically prepared for war, and neutrality was probably the best course for both us and the Brits. We would have been unreliable allies.

In terms of principal, asserting our independence was certainly a motive for De Valera, but certainly not the over-arching one.

mayotom

Ireland was in no way prepared for war, the problems created by the british were still been sorted out, economically we couldnt have done it

also politically it was not good to support Britain especially since during the war britain still claimed rights over Ireland and its ports.

in the long run it was probably better for europe that we stayed neutral, because if we joined the war, our west coast would have been left wide open to attack, leading to the take over of britain and nazi control of all of western europe

l

drkpower

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

Denerick

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

We did receive some $$$ from the Marshal plan. Not as much proportionate to other countries, but we kinda deserved that. Besides, the importance of the Marshall Plan is exaggerated.

mayotom

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

but then again, we would have lost a large amount of our population and therefore not had the manpower to take advantage of something like the Marshal plan

drkpower

So not 100% suppport for my suggestion then...!:D

While pragmatism and economics was undoubtedly partly behind the decision, whether we should have joined up is ultimately a moral decision. It seems, from where we stand now, hard to believe that we would not have joined the allies but given where we were in 1939, it was an entirely understandable decision to remain neutral. Thosse making the decison and a huge amount of those who would have been asked to fight would have fought against the British only a few years earlier.

Pittens

Russia, the latter constantly vetoing our attempts to join the UN

Was that the reason , or did they just not want another capitalist country. Anyway the USSR's original position was pro-Axis. They cant talk.

PeterIanStaker

Ireland was lucky in that geographically it was peripheral to the main theatre of action in Europe post - 1941.

Looking at the bigger picture, Hitlers mistake due to his ego and yes - men in his war room, was to fight the two front war, especially invading Russia. Had he concentrated all his forces on either Russia or Britain/France things would have been quite different.

If the Third Reich had won the Battle of Britian in 1940, a small country like Ireland would have been overran (despite I assume resistance) and and used both as a "back door" to Britain and a naval base for the Atlantic.

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".
So to sum up, this island was extremely lucky in avoiding the horror of Nazi invasion, and part of this luck was due to its geographical location and the nature of the war in Europe.







(note, the above is my opinion and may not necessarily conform to current revisionist claptrap)

bobblepuzzle

also politically it was not good to support Britain especially since during the war britain still claimed rights over Ireland and its ports.

The treaty ports were handed back to Ireland by Chamberlain a few years before the war... Britain had no rights over these. She could, as was suggested by Churchill, regain the ports by force if necessary

Jim_Bob_2010

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".

Can you provide a source for this? I've heard this several times from teachers etc but nowhere have I ever once found any evidence of this.

getz

its easy to look back today and say, for ireland this was a missed opportunity,churchill offered a united ireland to dev ,if he joined the war,de said no,but in the 1940s things looked a little different

Gurgle

Jim_Bob_2010 wrote: »

Can you provide a source for this? I've heard this several times from teachers etc but nowhere have I ever once found any evidence of this.

Likewise, heard this story but never any evidence or reasoning. As white european christians, we would have been well qualified for the Reich.

As for joining the war, we were an island full of 2nd world subsistance farmers under the thumb of Hitler's ally the Vatican and with a centuries old grudge against Britain. If Hitler had played the game differently we could easily have found ourselves on his side.

Dr Strange

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

...

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".
...

I don't think this is necessarily correct. Celts were defined as Nordic people by the historians/Professors at that time. Sure they even created chairs of Celtic Research at Berlin University etc with scholars learning Irish, Breton, Welsh etc. Archaeologists and historians were send to Ireland to conduct research before the war started. Even the SS Ahnenerbe (Ancestral heritage) was researching Celtic mythology.

This took place along other well funded research projects for Scandinavian mythology and language. Unfortunately, I do not have the source at the moment but in a highly ideological publication (I think it may have been Das Schwarze Korps - a publication for serving SS members) Himmler even spouted something about having identified certain graveyards in Scandinavia, Brittany and Ireland for SS men and women to procreate on the graves of supposedly ancient Celtic and Nordic warriors. The idea was that the soul of the warrior would enter the child conceived on the graves.

So, in summary I do not think that Celtic "races" would have been considered as part of the so-called "low races", rather the opposite.

bobblepuzzle

But this whole thing that we didn't want to help the Brits, is imo the most rediculous idea I've heard ... forget about helping the Brits, how about defending ourselves??

tricky D

We weren't quite as neutral as some would think:

Donegal Corridor
Neutral Ireland's secret war: ThePost.ie

Wolfe Tone

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

But this whole thing that we didn't want to help the Brits, is imo the most rediculous idea I've heard ... forget about helping the Brits, how about defending ourselves??

Here it is from the man himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ

Add that to the fact that we had about 5 planes and you get the idea. Don't forget, all those who fought in the war of independence were still around and in charge.

bobblepuzzle

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Here it is from the man himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ

Add that to the fact that we had about 5 planes and you get the idea. Don't forget, all those who fought in the war of independence were still around and in charge.

Our lack of military equipment was a direct result of being neutral... the government asked the allies a lot of times to provide it with defensive military equipment, which most of the time they refused. I'd imagine they were very frustrated about not being able to use the Souths ports and airfields)

Wolfe Tone

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

Our lack of military equipment was a direct result of being neutral... the government asked the allies a lot of times to provide it with defensive military equipment, which most of the time they refused. I'd imagine they were very frustrated about not being able to use the Souths ports and airfields)

That speech is a response to Churchills criticism for that very reason, the ports would have guarded against Uboats.

Éire at the time had very little money to spend on military equipment. Don't forget it was not even 20 years after independence.
And Ireland had a small population too. I feel that without a doubt Dev was right. We could not afford it, we didn't want it and the sores of partition were very fresh.

bobblepuzzle

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

That speech is a response to Churchills criticism for that very reason, the ports would have guarded against Uboats.

Éire at the time had very little money to spend on military equipment. Don't forget it was not even 20 years after independence.
And Ireland had a small population too. I feel that without a doubt Dev was right. We could not afford it, we didn't want it and the sores of partition were very fresh.

No doubt we lacked the funds to acquire much military equipment, however if we weren't neutral we would've been provided equipment on request, either on loan or otherwise... another sad thing is the thousands of Irish people who voluntarily joined the British army simply to help in the war effort.

Also, the media blackout at the time ensured the Irish public new very little about what was actually going on. In fact they even went around the east coast confiscating radios as to try and prevent people picking up BBC radio signals

PeterIanStaker

Preusse wrote: »

Himmler even spouted something about having identified certain graveyards in Scandinavia, Brittany and Ireland for SS men and women to procreate on the graves of supposedly ancient Celtic and Nordic warriors. The idea was that the soul of the warrior would enter the child conceived on the graves

Himmler must have been quite a hit with the ladies! "wanna go to a graveyard and jump the bones!" Sorry!!

Back on topic regarding the Celts though, I'm just after checking through Burleigh's The Third Reich - A New History and Celts "were a mixed blessing [for the Reich] since the pull of 'race' was as likely to draw the Bretons into the British camp as towards Germany" (p465) and also that Himmler was more interested in Germans than Celts when it came to his skewed racial notions.

Shirer, in his landmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich mentions that a French man of letters, Gobineau, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) [sorry I hate using wikipedia for proper stuff] did not include the bulk of the Germans when he labelled "Aryans", something the Reich studiosly ignored.

So indeed it wasn't simple as I thought it was. I do remember reading that Nazis viewed Celts as inferior and I cant remember where I read it, but I probably took it out of context, as "inferior" when compared with "aryan".

bobblepuzzle

I believe Ireland was the only Western country to have a Reich ambassador throughout the war... this really annoyed the allies something fierce :eek:

Wolfe Tone

No doubt we lacked the funds to acquire much military equipment, however if we weren't neutral we would've been provided equipment on request, either on loan or otherwise... another sad thing is the thousands of Irish people who voluntarily joined the British army simply to help in the war effort.

Also, the media blackout at the time ensured the Irish public new very little about what was actually going on. In fact they even went around the east coast confiscating radios as to try and prevent people picking up BBC radio signals

Yes, I am sure that the BBC told everything exactly how it was......Press everywhere was censored. It is easy to say now that Éire should have fought, but I feel, and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option. Here is another quote from Dev on Churchills claim that Britaiin showed restraint in not invading our island:

Mr. Churchill makes it clear that in certain circumstances he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count….this same code is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars… shall it be world war number three?

The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.


I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

bobblepuzzle

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.


I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

This is a very good point, makes you wonder why they didn't just say to themselves: "screw Irelands neutrality, lets get in this way". Given the Nazis brutality, I wouldn't have put it past them.

Wolfe Tone

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

This is a very good point, makes you wonder why they didn't just say to themselves: "screw Irelands neutrality, lets get in this way". Given the Nazis brutality, I wouldn't have put it past them.

Simple answer really, Irish Americans, would have brought the Americans into the war.

PatsytheNazi

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

Well we'd have been in a nice state after the Luftwaffe had bombed the ar$e out of Dublin, Cork, the Curragh, our Merchant fleet etc and ofcourse the thousands killed. How far would the Marshall Plans money have gone then, remember Britain had to borrow billions off the Americans and were paying it off for 60 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan. Would we have had Fianna Fail crony's destroying the country 50 years before NAMA ?

( I know they once bombed Dublin - but that wasn't on purpose :rolleyes: )

PatsytheNazi

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

I believe Ireland was the only Western country to have a Reich ambassador throughout the war... this really annoyed the allies something fierce :eek:

Doubt that very much. Spain under Franco was on good relations with Germany and Italy, I'd imagine Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland etc all have had Reich ambassadors. Especially Switzerland as they were one of the main arms manufacturers and bankers for the Germans.

Wolfe Tone

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Doubt that very much. Spain under Franco was on good relations with Germany and Italy, I'd imagine Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland etc all have had Reich ambassadors. Especially Switzerland as they were one of the main arms manufacturers and bankers for the Germans.

Switzerland expelled the Nazi embassy in the dying days of the war I think.

Denerick

and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option

I wouldn't read much into the poll other than people consider neutrality to have been the right decision in a pragmatic sense (Me included) De Valera's speech in defense of neutrality was probably the best of his career, but I'm highly skeptical that we were motived much from the sores of partition. The decision to remain neutral was almost entirely pragmatic.

dRNk SAnTA

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

Wolfe Tone

Devs entire time in office was about breaking ties, weather that be the economic war, taking advantage of the abdication to write the constitution etc.... I have no doubt that part of the motivation was the fresh history between the islands, partition was part of that, although it was not the main one.

I feel that the main reason was this:
Éires neutrality was a demonstration of its sovereignty.

I never read much into polls.

bobblepuzzle

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

Can you please provide us with a good enough reason as to why the USA should've joined the war at the outbreak of WW2? Given the fact that they were relatively isolationist at the time, and their military was unbelievably useless. No country goes to war because they like to help people... they have to have an interest in doing so.

Dr Strange

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Himmler must have been quite a hit with the ladies! "wanna go to a graveyard and jump the bones!" Sorry!!

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

So indeed it wasn't simple as I thought it was. I do remember reading that Nazis viewed Celts as inferior and I cant remember where I read it, but I probably took it out of context, as "inferior" when compared with "aryan".

I agree, it isn't easy to look at this in a simple manner. Even in schools at the time (teaching of eugenics and "racial hygiene") the so-called aryan race was separated into pure and not so pure people with the blond blue-eyed people (Nordic type - long-headed or dolichocranic) on top of the list and the people from the southern parts (the Alpine type with brown hair and brown eyes, broad headshape - brachycranic) further down...and so on. The Celts would, in my understanding from German documents of the time, still have been classified as a strong brotherly race to the Nordic race.

Denerick

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

The US weren't too interested in fighting Nazi's after they were attacked either. Hitler declared war on them first.

Wolfe Tone

But I think combat, especially at sea had begun prior to the deceleration by Germany.

Pittens

Gurgle wrote: »

Likewise, heard this story but never any evidence or reasoning. As white european christians, we would have been well qualified for the Reich.

As for joining the war, we were an island full of 2nd world subsistance farmers under the thumb of Hitler's ally the Vatican and with a centuries old grudge against Britain. If Hitler had played the game differently we could easily have found ourselves on his side.

Gosh. If Hitler was so fond of White European Christians he clearly mistook the slavs for Blue African Atheists.

( However celts were considered Aryan, if an inferior branch of the tree to Germans and Anglo-Saxons).

Your claim that the Vatican was Hitler's ally is ahistorical. Plenty of priests died, most of the Polish Catholic priesthood was eliminated. The Vatican was a refuge for Jews. The Vatican as Nazi claptrap is late 20th century propaganda.

Also ireland, in the 30's, recognised Jewishness as protected under the constitution.

As for neutrality

1) in 1939 Hitler's Germany was no more racist than most of the rest of the colonising Western world. ( In particular the democratic world - which was more racist than Catholic Fascist Spain). So all moral claims are hindsight
.
2) Ireland would have lost the war. Irish people, under neutrality, could join the British army. Unless we agreed to join with the Allies as in - be British - with British equipment etc. the Irish army was not going to win against the German.

3) Ireland had just got it's independence a generation before.

4) Plenty of people - in America and the rest of the world - were hostile to the kind of rhetoric of WWI: the war to end all wars, the war to free plucky little Belgium ( itself a colonial power). A war with all that rhetoric which - at the end - saw the British Empire expand it's real Estate by 20%, most in the middle East with repercussions to this day. A quick victory over Nazi's and the Empire would have expanded again.

5) The war - in 1939 - was a war to stop German domination of the continent not a democratic war against non-democrats. It wasn't an anti-racist war - the British Empire could no more enter an anti-racist war than the Nazi's could - it was a war for position between two racist powers.

6) It wasn't a war to save democracy, or to save Poland. Poland wasnt democratic until 1989. Nobody fought, or declared war, against the other larger imperial power which invaded Poland at the same time as the Axis. If the invasion of Poland was a Casus belli then why was the Soviet Union not attacked?

( I am using British here for Allies - the continent fell in about 2 weeks and the US was not involved. The Allies in 1939 were( was) mostly the British Empire).

In retrospect the nicer racists won. At the time it wasn't so obvious. Neutrality was justified.

Gurgle

Pittens wrote: »

Your claim that the Vatican was Hitler's ally is ahistorical. Plenty of priests died, most of the Polish Catholic priesthood was eliminated. The Vatican was a refuge for Jews. The Vatican as Nazi claptrap is late 20th century propaganda.

Fair enough, 'ally' was too strong a word.

Pius was stuck in the middle of the capital city of Hitler's ally Italy, playing Realpolitik to avoid risking the church's wealth and power. There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

Pittens

There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

That's fair.

Morlar

Gurgle wrote: »

Fair enough, 'ally' was too strong a word.

Pius was stuck in the middle of the capital city of Hitler's ally Italy, playing Realpolitik to avoid risking the church's wealth and power. There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

There was an article on this recently on the bbc news site (which I can't find at the moment) to do with recently uncovered letters where the then pope Pius referred to how the church should afford all possible protection to 'non christians' and 'non aryans' ie jews. I believe it is at the core of an upcoming book - but for some reason google isn't finding it.

Edit**
Still can't find it but did find this:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=180806

Hitler’s Pope saved 200,000 Jews’
By JPOST.COM STAFF
07/09/2010 01:34

Historian: visas that Pius XII secured for converts probably went to other Jews as well.


Hitler’s Pope,” Pope Pius XII, may have arranged for 200,000 Jews to leave Germany after Kristallnacht, The Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday.

German historian Dr. Michael Hesemann told the paper that Pius, then known as Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, wrote to archbishops around the world, asking them to obtain exit visas for “non-Aryan Catholics” and Jewish converts to Christianity.

Hesemann is doing research in the Vatican archives sponsored by the Pave the Way foundation, a US interfaith group.

RELATED:
Why was Pius XII silent on the Holocaust?
Editorial: Come clean on Pius XII
Washington Watch: Hitler's pope was no saint

Elliot Hershberg, chairman of Pave the Way, reportedly said: “We believe that many Jews who were successful in leaving Europe may not have had any idea that their visas and travel documents were obtained through these Vatican efforts. Everything we have found thus far seems to indicate the known negative perception of Pope Pius XII is wrong.”

Pius was nicknamed “Hitler’s Pope” because he did not publicly denounce the Holocaust, the Nazis or Adolf Hitler.

“The fact that this letter speaks of ‘converted Jews’ and ‘non-Aryan’ Catholics indeed seems to be a cover,” Hesemann told the Daily Telegraph, adding that evidence suggests that visas would have been given to Jews who didn’t convert, as well.

“You couldn’t be sure that Nazi agents wouldn’t learn about this initiative,” he reportedly said. Therefore, the then-cardinal worded his letter in a way that would not allow Nazis to claim that the Catholic Church was an ally of the Jews and use it as propaganda.

The appeal was dated November 30, 1938 – 20 days after Kristallnacht, the “night of broken glass.”

Pope Benedict XVI : Pius lived a life of "heroic virtue"

Cardinal Pacelli was the Vatican’s secretary of state at the time. He was able to ask for the visas because of an agreement he signed with the Nazis, which protected Jews who converted to Christianity.

In December, Pope Benedict XVI declared Pius “Venerable,” a title that means the Church believes he lived a life of “heroic virtue.” If two miracles performed by Pius are found, he will be canonized as a saint.

However, some Jewish groups demanded that the canonization process be frozen until the Vatican opens its secret World War II archives in 2014.

Sir Martin Gilbert, a British historian and Holocaust expert, has said that Pope Pius XII should be considered as a “Righteous Gentile” by Yad Vashem.

getz

thats not the history i have read,the vatican signed a concordat with hitler in 1933, that only recognized catholicism as the one state religion,the vatican knew about the holocaust but turned a blind eye,the church used slave labour,when the slaves were no longer of use most would be sent on to the death camps,hitlers cardinal pacelli was tried for political war crimes,many leading natzi criminals were handed vatican passports[some used them to escape to ireland] even today the vatican is trying to hide its dirty washing, the present pope benedick XV1 was a member of hitler youth,[he admitted it] but the vatican still try to say he wasent,

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, I am sure that the BBC told everything exactly how it was......Press everywhere was censored. It is easy to say now that Éire should have fought, but I feel, and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option. Here is another quote from Dev on Churchills claim that Britaiin showed restraint in not invading our island:



The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.


I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

Our neutrality did not prevent that, the only thing that stopped that was the fact that it was too risky for the Germans to attack us from France. Denmarks neutrality didn't prevent them being annexed when Germany want to invade Norway (another neutral country) did it? If it was feasible for the Nazi's to invade us to get to Britain, they would have done it, neutral or not.

Also, I can't understand why we didn't declare war on Germany in the final days of the war when Germany was defeated, or even anytime from 1942/43 onwards, like almost every country in the world, could have at least gained us some favour, instead of dev going to the German ambassador sympathising on Hitlers death.

Wolfe Tone

It did I believe. There would have been huge backlash from the Americans.

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It did I believe. There would have been huge backlash from the Americans.

I don't think that would have concerned him too much, he declared war on them in 1941 afterall, and anyway he probably would have gambled that the USA wouldnt leave their isolationist policy for Ireland when they wouldn't do it for several other countries.

And the whole backlash from America if Ireland was invaded is overblown I think, they might have protested at most, but I doubt they would have committed to a war against a powerful Germany on another continent because of one small country

Wolfe Tone

What about the Huge amount of Irish americans? A very influential group.

BlaasForRafa

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But I think combat, especially at sea had begun prior to the deceleration by Germany.

Correct, at least sort of anyway.

The lend-lease program was well into gear at that stage and the US Navy had started escorting US merchant ships as far as Iceland. There were a couple of US destroyers damaged by torpedo strikes from U-boats in mid to late-1941 with several dozen american sailors being killed. Being that the attacks were at night and it being tough to tell one destroyer from another in murky atlantic weather the germans thought that they were attacking UK destroyers.

Profuse apologies were offered by the germans but it did lead to some hardening of opinions towards the germans in the states.

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about the Huge amount of Irish americans? A very influential group.

They were but they weren't so influential that could get the United States into a war just because Ireland was attacked.

If they couldn't enter the war to help Britain they weren't going to go to war for Ireland.

There was also a huge number of Americans with German ancestry, didn't mean the US sided with Germany.

Ireland couldn't even get access to American weapons in ww2 despite de Valera trying

Also, Hitler wasn't scared of the US, he believed the German armies were invincible especially after the fall of France, I don't think it would have bothered him what the US did if he thought it would lead to the fall of Britain.

FiSe

I'm not quite sure if Irish army was too keen to get too much of military equipment from the US. I believe that there was strong tendency to get as much as possible from the nearest source, ie UK. Well, before the war anyway and once the war broke out it was too late to chase some of the defence stuff.

Allegedly - and this could be a total myth - there was an offer on the table from the Americans just before the war, to supply some of the surplus America made aircraft for knock down prices, It was nothing too fancy P-35 or Hawk-75, but was declined in favour of UK built machines like Gladiator and Walrus.

Pegasusbridge

Pittens wrote: »

1) in 1939 Hitler's Germany was no more racist than most of the rest of the colonising Western world. ( In particular the democratic world - which was more racist than Catholic Fascist Spain). So all moral claims are hindsight

Really? In 1939 a Jewish person was legally barred from a number of professions and had a number of legal restrictions placed upon them.
In Britain a Jewish person faced no such problems. There may have been a racist attitude throughout western society but Hitlers legal racism made his country far worse then most

In relation to the Neutrality issue. I've always felt we were never really neutral at all. We clearly sided with Britain and the Allies. We were a non-belligerent but never really neutral

Pittens

Really? In 1939 a Jewish person was legally barred from a number of professions and had a number of legal restrictions placed upon them.
In Britain a Jewish person faced no such problems. There

Is racism only against Jews? I said the "colonising Western world". And the war was not Britain against the Nazis but the British Empire. Ignoring Northern Ireland - where Catholics were culturally bared from the professions and had legal restrictions - there is the issue of India, Kenya, South Africa and on and on. All of which were run by and for whites (Anglo Saxons, mostly) at the expense of the majority.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

Is racism only against Jews? I said the "colonising Western world". And the war was not Britain against the Nazis but the British Empire. Ignoring Northern Ireland - where Catholics were culturally bared from the professions and had legal restrictions - there is the issue of India, Kenya, South Africa and on and on. All of which were run by and for whites (Anglo Saxons, mostly) at the expense of the majority.

India had Colonial assemblies and wide political liberty, including indigenous political parties.

Compared to other colonial powers, such as France, Britain was rather enlightened in its treatment of indigeneous people.

Manach

On topic.
We were right to stay neutral in that our Armed forces, though brave, would not have lasted long in a modern battlefield - [based on conversations with a relative who served in the army at the time]


Slightly offtopic
Re: France and colonialism. AFAIR, France allowed some of its colonies to be French departments (legally part of). Algeria for example sent deputies to the Paris. However this was mostly open to European colonists and not as common for indigeneous descendants.