Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

saiint

operation green
anyone remember that
whether we would of declared war on germany or not
they were still planning to invade us haha
ireland was too weak
even though we stayed neutral America hated us for it
and some irish still fought in the war so its kind of a awkward question too ask

V480

I think the plan was that if Ireland was invaded by the Germans the Irish army would fight for 24 hours because their amunition would only last that long anyway. After our troops were obliterated DeValera would then have 'invited' the British army to cross the border and fight with what ever was left of our defence forces against the Germans. The whole scenario is so unthinkable I think we should just thank God it never happened.

An interesting consequense of our neutrality though is that we did not have the same historical axe to grind with either the Germans or the French as the British did. This enabled us to become more pro-Europe in a far shorter space of time than the Brits and perhaps contributed towards some of the madness of the Celtic Tiger era when developing a multi-cultural and material society suddenly took precedence over old-hat ideas like sovereignty and nationhood.

I remember five or six years ago a Norwegian politician caused a minor stir when they were being questioned by a journalist who unfavourably compared Norway's participation (or lack of) in Europe to Ireland when at the time we were the darling of the EU. This politician became quite annoyed and defensive and said something like 'well Ireland was neutral during the second world war, so perhaps they do not appreciate their freedom as much as we in Norway do'. At the time I thought this was the most stupid ignorant statement I had ever heard but given what's happened in the last few years maby they had a point?

Son Of A Vidic

getzls wrote: »

latenia wrote: »

It was the correct decision. We just would have had Dublin and Cork razed to the ground by bombers

Surely this is a cowards excuse?

Irelands shame.

Posted like a true keyboard warrior, accusing another poster of being a coward. Yet I have no doubt, that a clap of thunder would have you pissing your trousers and cowering under the nearest bed in terror.

Capt'n Midnight

karma_ wrote: »

Not this again lad. The simple fact was they deserted their post during a time of war. Had they been serving in any other armed force at the time the penalty would have been no less severe.

Apart from the Commonwealth didn't most of the major combatants have the death penalty for desertion ?

49 US soldiers were sentenced to death for desertion during WWII
only 1 executed though.


Then again such things weren't publicised at the time. However, large numbers of people were executed for desertion during WWI something everyone knew. And there were the executions of the civil war.

They didn't live in times where you could walk free a few years for manslaughter.

kentreaper

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd also suggest a reacquaintance with Herr Hitler

Good luck for the 25.000th of these gems - you must be very proud.

Micky Dolenz

foxcat wrote: »

Why not go back - instead of making a life out of making 25,000 rubish/inaccurate/biased posts on here: A job would be good!

kentreaper wrote: »

Good luck for the 25.000th of these gems - you must be very proud.

Mod

Whats with using two accounts? Answers by PM.

Continue to bait and I'll ban either or both accounts.

Edit: both accounts closed. Caught rapid.

the_syco

karma_ wrote: »

Not this again lad.

I acknowledge the deserters deserve it, but in most other countries they'd stand trial in a military tribunal, and not given a blanket sentence by a politician.

=-=

Nice article on the numbers who fought; http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume6/issue1/features/?id=181

bluecode

V480 wrote: »

I remember five or six years ago a Norwegian politician caused a minor stir when they were being questioned by a journalist who unfavourably compared Norway's participation (or lack of) in Europe to Ireland when at the time we were the darling of the EU. This politician became quite annoyed and defensive and said something like 'well Ireland was neutral during the second world war, so perhaps they do not appreciate their freedom as much as we in Norway do'.

That Norwegian politician has convenientally forgotten that in fact Norway was neutral and would have remained so if the Germans hadn't invaded. At the start of the war the list of neutral countries was long. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, America, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece......need I go on? In that context when the war looked like a repeat of the Great War with some of the same players. So remaining neutral made sense. Once France, Belgium etc had fallen and Britain was effectively alone. It made absolutely no sense to join in when it looked like Britain was next for the chop. Although we know now that an invasion of Britain was never really on the cards. They didn't know it then. So it simply made sense to stay out of it.

It was later in the war when neutrality became a folly. Once America came on board and the war turned. A more pragmatic leader than DeValera would have joined the war with an eye to the future. But he was so shortsighted and anti American. His lack of action condemmed this country to years of isolation and economic backwardness. While American money poured into Europe after the war. We only got a small amount and that was mostly to make sure we kept Britain fed with our farm exports.

Basically we lost the war as much as Germany did. But they were rebuilt with American money.

getz

for those who think that dev did not know about the german death camps when sending his countries sadness for hitlers death,think again,the first doctor to visit the camps was irishman who sent his report to dublin,

R P McMurphy

saiint wrote: »

operation green
anyone remember that
whether we would of declared war on germany or not
they were still planning to invade us haha
ireland was too weak
even though we stayed neutral America hated us for it
and some irish still fought in the war so its kind of a awkward question too ask

There is scant data on how serious operation green was and to what stage any plans were developed. The real operation green referred to Czechoslavakia which were certainly hightly developed. There were vague plans to invade if Ireland requested assistance from the Germans

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Apart from the Commonwealth didn't most of the major combatants have the death penalty for desertion ?

49 US soldiers were sentenced to death for desertion during WWII
only 1 executed though.


Then again such things weren't publicised at the time. However, large numbers of people were executed for desertion during WWI something everyone knew. And there were the executions of the civil war.

They didn't live in times where you could walk free a few years for manslaughter.

346 British and commonwealth soldiers executed in WWI, but I believe there were none executed in WWII for desertion, although there were executions for other things, such as murder, rape etc.

The Indian Army soldiers who deserted and joined the Japanese army were also executed.

karma_

bluecode wrote: »

It was later in the war when neutrality became a folly. Once America came on board and the war turned. A more pragmatic leader than DeValera would have joined the war with an eye to the future. But he was so shortsighted and anti American. His lack of action condemmed this country to years of isolation and economic backwardness. While American money poured into Europe after the war. We only got a small amount and that was mostly to make sure we kept Britain fed with our farm exports.

Basically we lost the war as much as Germany did. But they were rebuilt with American money.

After June 1941 there would never have been any need to join the War. Britain was safe after their Victory in the Battle of Britain. The US effectively weren't in the way until the start of 1942 at which point the result of the war was never going to be in doubt.

ejmaztec

V480 wrote: »

I think the plan was that if Ireland was invaded by the Germans the Irish army would fight for 24 hours because their amunition would only last that long anyway. After our troops were obliterated DeValera would then have 'invited' the British army to cross the border and fight with what ever was left of our defence forces against the Germans. The whole scenario is so unthinkable I think we should just thank God it never happened.

An interesting consequense of our neutrality though is that we did not have the same historical axe to grind with either the Germans or the French as the British did. This enabled us to become more pro-Europe in a far shorter space of time than the Brits and perhaps contributed towards some of the madness of the Celtic Tiger era when developing a multi-cultural and material society suddenly took precedence over old-hat ideas like sovereignty and nationhood.

I remember five or six years ago a Norwegian politician caused a minor stir when they were being questioned by a journalist who unfavourably compared Norway's participation (or lack of) in Europe to Ireland when at the time we were the darling of the EU. This politician became quite annoyed and defensive and said something like 'well Ireland was neutral during the second world war, so perhaps they do not appreciate their freedom as much as we in Norway do'. At the time I thought this was the most stupid ignorant statement I had ever heard but given what's happened in the last few years maby they had a point?

I think that was more down to Irish politicians wanting to be less reliant on Britain, and the opportunity of getting free money, some of which actually came from the UK's EU contribution.

indioblack

Wibbs wrote: »

Might I respectfully suggest you re read your own post on the matter

The Boer war. Over by the turn of the 20th century. When Hitler was in knee pants. How in gods name did Winston see what an Austrian schoolboy was going to do 30 years later? Hey maybe Winnie was channeling the spirit world as was mighty popular at the time? And you accuse me of making up history? Try again I'm afraid.

Well ejmaztec points out the obvious flaw in your argument. I shoot you down, you crash land. For you zee war iz over. Any practical tactical threat is gone. How do I avoid being shot down by you? By flying away, or by going in for the kill with a strafing run? Answers on a postcard please...

"The Book of the Blindingly Obvious" indeed. Even going for a strafing run at 150 mph it would be one helluva lucky shot from a handgun to shoot me down. Even if and it's a big if, they were in a position and had enough time to extricate one of the MG's from the wreckage, try holding and aiming and shooting one singlehanded at a fast moving monoplane bearing down on you. Even properly mounted MG emplacements had a hard time and needed skill and luck and not a little bravery to shoot down a strafing fighter. I've been reading Heinz Knoke "I flew for the Fuhrer" recently and he mentions successfully strafing MG AA emplacements on the eastern front with no loss to himself. The Polish pilot was simply going for the kill end of. The morality of that is an entirely different question.

Though for me personally shooting men who are out of the action, either on the ground or hanging in parachutes is pretty scumbaggy behavior. All sides were accused of it and wild rumours and propaganda was bandied about again on all sides. Actually in the same book mentioned above Knoke saw a fellow flyer being machine gunned in his parachute by an American pilot and he was nearly fired on himself. Of the personal accounts over the years I've read a parachuting pilot was generally safer if his opponents were Germans or British, both seemed to keep the notion of "fair play", a pilot was in more peril if Japanese or Soviet(and other eastern Europeans) and occasionally Americans were involved.

A similar situation was in play in the case of the treatment of pilot POW's. Allied pilots caught by the Germans could generally expect fair treatment(unless they were Russian). Watched a good programme recently on the last of the British bomber pilots and one gentleman who was Jewish with an obvious Jewish sounding name was captured as a POW and even he survived the experience. Also look at the investigations after the war. The allies hunted down those responsible for the massacre of POW's following the "Great escape" as shown in the movie. It was a rare enough event that required a follow up. It went the other way too. Germans almost to a man recount the fair treatment of German POW's by the Brits. This continued after the war too. Germans were better treated in British zones than the others. The Russians were unreal, the French were right bastards overall, the Americans were a step above both, but not as much as the Brits. On the other hand being captured by the Japanese was not so good and being captured by the Russians in the majority of cases meant being summarily shot.

Recently read a claim by Richard Evans, in his book on the third Reich, that 350 allied aircrew were lynched after being shot down over Germany in the last two years of the war.
One shot down airman found himself having to take cover in a Berlin street during a bombing mission.
Arrested by police and civilians he was later attacked by one of the policemen and was rescued by the Gestapo!

jjn2

bluecode wrote: »

That Norwegian politician has convenientally forgotten that in fact Norway was neutral and would have remained so if the Germans hadn't invaded. At the start of the war the list of neutral countries was long. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, America, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece......need I go on? In that context when the war looked like a repeat of the Great War with some of the same players. So remaining neutral made sense. Once France, Belgium etc had fallen and Britain was effectively alone. It made absolutely no sense to join in when it looked like Britain was next for the chop. Although we know now that an invasion of Britain was never really on the cards. They didn't know it then. So it simply made sense to stay out of it.

It was later in the war when neutrality became a folly. Once America came on board and the war turned. A more pragmatic leader than DeValera would have joined the war with an eye to the future. But he was so shortsighted and anti American. His lack of action condemmed this country to years of isolation and economic backwardness. While American money poured into Europe after the war. We only got a small amount and that was mostly to make sure we kept Britain fed with our farm exports.

Basically we lost the war as much as Germany did. But they were rebuilt with American money.

While it's true that we received less than the Allies like France and Great Britain, we actually received more per capita than the Germans from the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was obviously important for Germany, but the cost of reparations in the form of forced labour, technology transfer, dismantling and transfer of industry would probably vastly exceed the value of Marshall aid given to Germany. Not to mention the damage done by the food policy regarding Germany.

Capt'n Midnight

bluecode wrote: »

While American money poured into Europe after the war. We only got a small amount and that was mostly to make sure we kept Britain fed with our farm exports.

Basically we lost the war as much as Germany did. But they were rebuilt with American money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures - sort by 1948/49 column

we got about the same per capita as others overall
However, we didn't need to rebuild any infrastructure or import much food

Note also that the UK got twice the aid Germany got.

Capt'n Midnight

indioblack wrote: »

Recently read a claim by Richard Evans, in his book on the third Reich, that 350 allied aircrew were lynched after being shot down over Germany in the last two years of the war.

About 30,000 people died in the Hamburg raid on the night of 27/28 July 1943

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1892714.stm

Earlier in the year, the RAF asked exiled German scientist Professor Franz Lindemann to study the effect of the 1941 Nazi blitz on Hull. He said the locals minded losing their homes more than anything else, and concluded that making German civilians homeless could affect th-eir war effort and undermine their morale.

http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/
Pforzheim Feb 45 379 British aircraft took part in the February 23 attack, which in a terrible 22 minutes (from 19.50 to 20.12) destroyed 83 per cent of the town’s built-up area, killing 17,600 inhabitants and injuring thousands more.

indioblack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

About 30,000 people died in the Hamburg raid on the night of 27/28 July 1943

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1892714.stm[/QUOTE]

Other estimates take the number of fatalities above 40,000.
Don't know if you're making a point with your post - I wasn't with mine.
Most downed allied aircrew became prisoners. For reasons that you must be well aware of, a minority became the object of people's anger.
As regards the Gestapo man who stopped the assault on the airman: after ascertaining his nationality he was then asked, "Do the English normally murder women and children?"

Dyr

indioblack wrote: »

Recently read a claim by Richard Evans, in his book on the third Reich, that 350 allied aircrew were lynched after being shot down over Germany in the last two years of the war.
One shot down airman found himself having to take cover in a Berlin street during a bombing mission.
Arrested by police and civilians he was later attacked by one of the policemen and was rescued by the Gestapo!

I've read accounts of luftwaffe pilots nearly being lynched by germans for not being up in the air fighting the bombers. Dropping incendiaries on people tends to make them very irritable I imagine.

the_syco

Wibbs wrote: »

A similar situation was in play in the case of the treatment of pilot POW's. Allied pilots caught by the Germans could generally expect fair treatment(unless they were Russian).

American GI's didn't get such nice treatment. Saw a video called "National Geographic Hitlers G.I. Death Camp", and holy fcuk, they got the short end of the stick!

Capt'n Midnight

the_syco wrote: »

American GI's didn't get such nice treatment. Saw a video called "National Geographic Hitlers G.I. Death Camp", and holy fcuk, they got the short end of the stick!

No the Russians who surrendered during the first six months of the German invasion got the short end of the stick. Most were killed off, the survivors were 'hiwi' volunteers in the German army. The survivors of that were sent back to Stalin. Between domestic and foreign enemies of the state the gulags held 9 million prisoners in 1947.


Oddly enough some of the first prisoners captured during D-Day were Koreans. http://thomo.coldie.net/wargaming/korean-soldiers-in-ww2-german-army

It seems that the Koreans had been conscripted into the Japanese Army but after being captured by the Russians at the Battle of Nomonhan in the Russo-Japanese War (part II, the 1940′s one, not the 1904-05 one). They were pressed into service in the Russian Army. Captured by the Germans in a battle near Moscow, the Koreans were then pressed into service in the Wehrmacht. They were then captured by the Americans whilst they were engaged working on the Atlantic Wall. The Americans (mercifully) did not press them into service but rather held them as prisoners of war.

indioblack

Bambi wrote: »

I've read accounts of luftwaffe pilots nearly being lynched by germans for not being up in the air fighting the bombers. Dropping incendiaries on people tends to make them very irritable I imagine.

I would think so.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

I've read accounts of luftwaffe pilots nearly being lynched by germans for not being up in the air fighting the bombers. Dropping incendiaries on people tends to make them very irritable I imagine.

There are quite a few stories of German pilots getting a beating after bailing out over England as well.

This had nothing to do with the incendiary bombs, naval mines (yep, they actually dropped the big round naval mines by parachute over some British cities), or even the rather nasty booby trapped devices they dropped that looked like kids toys. Pilots were generally mugged for their parachutes, which were made of silk.

Oarrack Bama

I think Ireland was right in WW2 myself. Join either side and the bombs would have rained down. Look at what happened to British cities with RAF protection especially Belfast.

indioblack

Oarrack Bama wrote: »

I think Ireland was right in WW2 myself. Join either side and the bombs would have rained down. Look at what happened to British cities with RAF protection especially Belfast.

If the Free State had chosen to enter the war in 1939 I'd say that would cause political problems within the country by 1940 when, basically, they were allied simply with Britain.
In the unlikely event of the Free State being at war it would have become some kind of military satellite of Britain - I can envisage the political problems mounting!
The first post of this thread claims Ireland's key strategic position - it's geographic location, (as an ally of Britain), might make the Germans take more interest in the island - but would there have been any genuine advantage to them in having to regard the Free State as an enemy?
If Hitler was content to think Britain emasculated by 1940 and no real threat, would his thinking change if he had to add the Free State to the equation?
Entering the war at a later date - when the USA and USSR were involved, and the war was moving to the advantage of the Allies - might have been more desirable.
After all, how different would it have been for the Free State, (and then the Republic), after the war if the country was a former member of an alliance rather than a neutral?

getz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures - sort by 1948/49 column

we got about the same per capita as others overall
However, we didn't need to rebuild any infrastructure or import much food

Note also that the UK got twice the aid Germany got.

not as simple as that, ireland got 146.2 million USD,unlike the rest of europe only 18 million was in grants,the rest 128.2 million was in loans that had to be paid back.the USA was very reluctant to give ireland anything,

Fratton Fred

Lets face it, if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland he would have, neutral or not.

Declaring war as an ally of Britain's would have forced his hand and he would have at least attacked Ireland.

I think Dev got it right, but not out of any great act of leadership, he just took the same approach as the last government took to the recession. Stick your head in the sand and hope all the nasty stuff goes away.

Wibbs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland he would have, neutral or not.

Oh sure certainly nuetrality wasn't something that kept him up all night worrying, but "wanted to" is very different to "been able to". Quite simply at that stage of the war and because of how the German armed forces worked, he wouldn't have been able to. The English channel was a huge hurdle, never mind the RAF controlling much of the skies over southern England(but not so much over the channel), trying to run the gauntlet around the south of the UK carrying men and materiel in glorified canal barges over a few hundred miles of atlantic ocean and then keeping them supplied would have been nothing short of a military miracle.

Capt'n Midnight

getz wrote: »

not as simple as that, ireland got 146.2 million USD,unlike the rest of europe only 18 million was in grants,the rest 128.2 million was in loans that had to be paid back.the USA was very reluctant to give ireland anything,

The UK finally paid off their war debt to the US on 29 Dec 2006

getz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK finally paid off their war debt to the US on 29 Dec 2006

yes but that was loaned over the war years and had nothing to do with the marshall plan