Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Ach I don't think it was like that, the country wasn't really prepared for it, it was 20 years or so since the War of Independence and it was only recovering from the Civil War, joining the British side might have opened old wounds. The armed forces hadn't much experience even in peace keeping operations like it has now, I'd say he was tempted by the offer of reunification but knew Churchill was offering something he couldn't deliver on.

Fratton Fred

K-9 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Ach I don't think it was like that, the country wasn't really prepared for it, it was 20 years or so since the War of Independence and it was only recovering from the Civil War, joining the British side might have opened old wounds. The armed forces hadn't much experience even in peace keeping operations like it has now, I'd say he was tempted by the offer of reunification but knew Churchill was offering something he couldn't deliver on.

Was he though? Did Dev actually want all those prods kicking around and corrupting his comely maidens?

That's another thread though.

Fratton Fred

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Yes, what I was implying was that Hitler couldn't give a **** about neutrality, as the Belgian, Dutch and Norwegians found out.

indioblack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, what I was implying was that Hitler couldn't give a **** about neutrality, as the Belgian, Dutch and Norwegians found out.

Once again the Free State's position in this business has, and should, be viewed with an attitude of understanding considering their circumstances.

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did Dev actually want all those prods kicking around and corrupting his comely maidens?

That's another thread though.

It's actually not. It is, however, yet another stereotype by our resident most British of British nationalists, Fratton Fred.

Seanchai

getz wrote: »

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

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

indioblack

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

Why was Britain bankrupt at the end of World War Two?
"...building up an image as an "empire"." There is an element of truth in that.
If Germany was "..infinitely smarter" one wonders why they embarked on a global war with opponents who had access to greater natural resources than they had. Pitting yourself against the USA, USSR - even your old chums the British empire. Smart? If your not careful you're going to make the British look clever - that would never do.
A country needing money from foreigners because it screwed up it's own finances? Sound familiar?
I can't tell you if British people hate Germans or not - I'd say not - too much effort in hating, for too little return. Might be a lesson there.

LordSutch

indioblack wrote: »

I can't tell you if British people hate Germans or not - I'd say not - too much effort in hating, for too little return. Might be a lesson there.

They dont.

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

Interesting analysis. Bollocks of course, but interesting. Britain's post-war problems had a lot more to do with a failure to get to get to grips with industrial decline whilst at the same time building up the most lavish welfare state the world has ever seen rather than any lingering Imperial delusions. By the standards of most Empires, Britain positively sprinted away from its "possessions"; dismantling almost all of it within 20 years of 1945. And for the record, "The Malvinas" were never Argentinian (Spain and even France have better claims than Argentina), most Brits actually rather like the Germans (they do tend to dislike the French though), and believe it or not, most English, Welsh and Scottish people didn't give a damn about Northern Ireland either unless they had a relative in the army. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

It's actually not. It is, however, yet another stereotype by our resident most British of British nationalists, Fratton Fred.

All this attention Seanchai, you're making me blush.

http://www.google.com/search?q=rule+britannia&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

ejmaztec

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

:eek:

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

Thanks Seanchai, but fairs fair, we couldn't have done it without you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1zyvlkhROU

Seanchai

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF.

dpe wrote: »

Interesting analysis. Bollocks of course, but interesting.

Nothing of the sort, so don't shoot the messenger. I read it on your BBC, right here:

The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

An extract:

"Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid."

---

You were saying?

And, as for it being "bollocks" that Britain was bailed out by the IMF in 1976, here's evidence for that:

IMF crisis

dpe wrote: »

and believe it or not, most English, Welsh and Scottish people didn't give a damn about Northern Ireland either unless they had a relative in the army. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thanks Seanchai, but fairs fair, we couldn't have done it without you guys.

In fairness, you managed quite well to build an empire for centuries before you ran out of Protestant recruits and decided to trust Catholics with holding guns....

And, of course, you managed with great class to keep the vast majority of the higher positions in the British Army and the RIC in the hands of the [Protestant] sons of the ascendency's colonial class.

Anyway.

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

Nothing of the sort, so don't shoot the messenger. I read it on your BBC, right here:

The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

An extract:

"Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid."

---

You were saying?

And, as for it being "bollocks" that Britain was bailed out by the IMF in 1976, here's evidence for that:

IMF crisis




As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

None of that contradicts what I said, and none of that implies the British wasted Marshall Aid "propping up the Empire" (as you claimed). They spent the money on the NHS and other social programmes.

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Didn't you know ?
There were lots of Irish soldiers in the British army :pac:

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

Tell you what, show me the referendum where the British (rather than Irish) people were given a say on NI's membership of the Union.

Latchy

Interesting article in Daily Mail on Hitlers plans to invade southern Ireland during WW2 .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

karma_

Latchy wrote: »

Interesting article in Daily Mail on Hitlers plans to invade southern Ireland during WW2 .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

My bull**** detector was alerted with the first sentence of the article-

Irish were neutral and allowed German U-boats and submarines into their waters during the Second World War

Ahhh the good old daily mail, crucifying news since 1896.

Latchy

I don't think the Irish had much or any say in German U-boats and submarines entering their waters because the Germans didn't exactly announce their arrival or play by fair means and they also sunk many Irish merchant navy ships to.

Capt'n Midnight

Latchy wrote: »

I don't think the Irish had much or any say in German U-boats and submarines entering their waters because the Germans didn't exactly announce their arrival or play by fair means

I don't think we had much say because we had no anti-submarine capability.

Latchy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I don't think we had much say because we had no anti-submarine capability.

Exactly although I suspect the British were keeping a close eye on Irish sea activity .

dave1987

This is an interesting thread, and there are a few points I would like to make in relation to some posts on here.


1. The likelihood of Germany defeating Britain in 1940/41 was unlikely, despite the fall of France and the defeat of the BEF.

Germany in it's campaign upto the Battle of Britain had faced little in the way of resistance.

Poland fought bravely against the German war machine but it's weapons and tactics were outdated to the extent of employing cavalry against German Panzer units and WW1 era biplane's V the Luftwaffe's monoplane ME109's and JU-87 Stuka precision dive bombers. It is worth making note of the fact that the Luftwaffe had steadily gained experience on campaign in the Spanish Civil War "17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939".

Not only were Germany superior in technological equipment and weapons of which to wage war they also had a distinct advantage in preparing for war for many years prior to the outbreak in 1939.

Just some figures -

Poland had a population of only 34.7 million, the German Reich 84 million.

The German army employed 60 divisions against 39 Polish divisions and outnumbered them in aircraft and tanks substantially.

Germany had a clear advantage in preparation over it's opponents including France and Britain.

2. Britain showed the will to fight Germany continuously.

Notable British involvement -

1. Battle of River Plate - Defeat of German pocket battle ship by the Royal Navy in South America. Britain and her Empire showed an aggressive stance by chasing and forcing the crew of German Pocket Battleship the Admiral Graf Spee to scuttle their ship on River Plate in Argentina.

2. Defeat of Luftwaffe in Battle of Britain -
the RAF lost around 1,023 aircraft whilst the Luftwaffe lost 1,887 despite being outnumbered almost 4 to 1.

3. Bombing of Berlin in retaliation to London bombing's.

This is the first time during WW2 that Germany's capital was attacked. RAF Bomber Command continued to bomb Germany until the war's end in 1945. Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war.

4. The British Empire fought Italy and the Afrika Korps unaided as well as maintaining its colonies in Asia against the Japanese Empire.

5. Britain supplied Russia with weapons such as tanks and aircraft. Cromwell tanks and Hawker Hurricane Aircraft were used in large numbers by Russian forces throughout the war.

I could note many more. Without Britain the war would have been alot harder to win. All 3 Russia, USA and the British Empire were needed to defeat Germany, Italy and Japan.

Ireland would of not been able to withstand an invasion from Germany or Britain. We are talking about global superpowers at eachother's throats. Ireland's forces would be too small to withstand an attack from any of ww2 major combatants whether it be Britain & Empire, USA, Russia, Germany, Italy France.

Germany set aside 2 divisions to attack Ireland, they had 60 to attack Poland this show's how insignificant Ireland was in the eyes of Germany.

I don't necessarily think it was a bad decision to stay neutral but sometimes you need to stand up for what is right and Germany showed she was the aggressor and needed to be put down.

sea_monkey

surely if we had not been neutral germany could use us as a way to get into england?

being neutral blocked that passage for germany?

Dewey collins

it was not the Ireland's war, Dev did the right thing for once and had the free state remain neutral, we are small country that didn't want to fight in a others war, even when the US entered the war and put pressure on dev to enter the war, we were right to not. we lacked weapons to defend Ireland, are army was poorly trained and Ireland did support the allies but wanted to keep it secret. the Nazis also did have plans for Ireland but they never happened. if i was alive then i would have supported the irish gov because we are a small country and at the start of the war no one know about the concentration camps so it didn't look like god vs evil, it just looked like British superpower fighting the German superpower

petersburg2002

Remember the Belfast Blitz? Imagine what the Luftwaffe could have done to Dublin. Bombed it into oblivion, most likely. What defence could we have put up, a few ancient biplanes? Shudder to think how an actual full German invasion would have panned out.

gnfnrhead

petersburg2002 wrote: »

Remember the Belfast Blitz? Imagine what the Luftwaffe could have done to Dublin. Bombed it into oblivion, most likely. What defence could we have out up, a few ancient biplanes? Shudder to think how an actual full German invasion would have panned out.

I suspect it would have been something like this:

German 1: We are invad.....
German 2: We won.
German 1: What? Already? We havent even unloaded the boat yet!

:pac:

petersburg2002

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I suspect it would have been something like this:

German 1: We are invad.....
German 2: We won.
German 1: What? Already? We havent even unloaded the boat yet!

:pac:

The only things we had in our favour were geography, crap weather, and Hitler's crazy decision not to build long range bombers. So most planes were running out of fuel by the time they had crossed the English channel.