Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

General General

I read somewhere that the Germans would have invaded Ireland but for the fact that this would mean that they would have to invade (& occupy) Carlow.

Wibbs

People are also forgetting our Yankee friends. They were already committing support on the quiet to Britain. Let's imagine HItler gets lucky with Britain. Invades England, replaces Churchill and a Vichy France scenario is in play. Would, or even could Germany have stretched their remarkably limited war machine to then invade Ireland? And for what? We were resource poor, no threat militarily, beyond the idea the US would use us as a stepping stone. If Germany had tried an invasion here and succeeded(highly unlikely) then the US would have been more than perturbed. After Pearl harbour? At that point we, not the UK would have likely ended up a US aircraft carrier. All this forgets of course Adolfs push to invade and conquer the Soviets. In many ways the western front and any possible part we may have played in it was a sideline he wasn't so pushed in going down. The oul Bolsheviks were his real focus.

Riddle101

I've always been conflicted about this, on one hand you had Nazi Germany invading Europe, would they have stopped at Britain or would they have invaded Ireland in order to make sure that Ireland wasn't left undefended in case the Americans wanted to use Ireland as a base of operations. On the otherhand, Ireland wasn't really equipped for a war, and all the history we've had with Britain wasn't very easy for us. Yes the Germans were considered the baddies in WWII, but Britain has done terrible thing to Ireland too, things that a lot of people wouldn't have forgotten. So it wasn't as simple for us.

The only thing that makes me want Ireland to have sided with the Allies in WWII, is the possibilities of a United Ireland which Churchill apparently promised, but who knows if Churchill was lying or telling the truth. Either way it doesn't matter anymore, things worked out in the end anyway. In a way.

An Coilean

Entering a War because you think you might get invaded anyway is much akin to burning your house down yourself for fear of arsonists.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

People are also forgetting our Yankee friends. They were already committing support on the quiet to Britain. Let's imagine HItler gets lucky with Britain. Invades England, replaces Churchill and a Vichy France scenario is in play. Would, or even could Germany have stretched their remarkably limited war machine to then invade Ireland? And for what? We were resource poor, no threat militarily, beyond the idea the US would use us as a stepping stone. If Germany had tried an invasion here and succeeded(highly unlikely) then the US would have been more than perturbed. After Pearl harbour? At that point we, not the UK would have likely ended up a US aircraft carrier. All this forgets of course Adolfs push to invade and conquer the Soviets. In many ways the western front and any possible part we may have played in it was a sideline he wasn't so pushed in going down. The oul Bolsheviks were his real focus.

It is a highly dubious position to think the German army would not have had to capasity to Invade Ireland.
It is debatable if Hitler ever had any serious intention to Invade England, certainly he had no real desire to. But if he did then why leave Ireland out? Why should he fear Ireland being used as a back door any less than the British traditionally did?
Certianly it was not worth allowing the US a foothold in Europe, and without it the German war economy would have been substantianly less disturbed by Bombing, allowing the Germans concentrate on the East, and giving them a much better chance of Victory.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Actualy not quite. One Irish commander whose name escapes who had taken part in and beaten famous generals on all sides in war games before the war, had figured the Germans would try to move up the Nore valley(again IIRC) and accordingly had a load of artillery pieces pointed at the place(apparently after the war it turned out that would have been the german plan). Plus the Irish army would have a load of men with some practice at a moving guerrilla war with the largest empire the world has ever seen so wouldn't have been pushovers. The Germans would have been on the ground, with little in the way of tanks etc, with no air support beyond the odd Condor which no doubt the Brits would have been only to happy to shoot out of the sky. Their supply lines would be intermittent or non existent. It would have been a suicide invasion.

As I recall there were some 50,000 German troops earmarked for an Invasion of Ireland had the Invasion of the UK gone ahead, that is not much more than the forces available to the Irish army at the time. The German army was one of the most effective and experienced at the time, I have no doubt that had they made it here, they could have beaten the then Irish army, but that was only one part of it, the LDF which had been set up by the Government was in essence the IRA of the Tan War re-established, in many cases with the same commanders. The difference being it was much larger, much better armed and much better trained than the IRA had been.
The Germans could have taken the country, but holding it would have been running sore for them.

Capt'n Midnight

dttq wrote: »

It’s one thing for large nations such as China throughout the centuries to declare itself isolated from world events, or industrial superpowers such as America to declare itself neutral during the first half of the 20th century. Both stances held water as both nations had large populations, large militaries, a large manufacturing base- all of which would instil some respect in potential imperial and superpower rivals to respect their position, as to rock the boat, would bring two large powers such as America and China out of their neutrality slumber. But what about smaller nations such as Ireland, with little i

. Both stances held water - WTF ?

Do you have any idea how many Chinese died because of foreign invasions or because of destabilisation of the central government by foreign powers ? Have you heard of the effects of the Opium wars ?
From the depopulation of Northern China by hordes, to the Civil wars in which tens of millions died in past centuries to the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese and the foreign influences in the civil war.

As for the USA it was only able to declare isolation because of thousands of miles of ocean East and West. To the south you had deserts and wars in Mexico. That just leaves North. And the US hasn't antagonised Canada since 1814 when they burnt down the White House.

Jimoslimos

No, it was a pragmatic approach and the correct one. Also I'm a little uncomfortable how people can casually wish their ancestors enter a brutal and bloody war. Easy when it's not you I guess

Colmustard wrote: »

But did Dev really have to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy for Hitler..Dev forever the twaT in my eyes.

Yeah, not simply from a moral standpoint but a pretty stupid thing to do politically given the Allies had just won the war.

Rigol

As Wibbs said above, the Rushkies were the real end of Adolf.
But if Germany had the choice to invade Ireland I believe at first they would have made 'an offer you cant refuse' to us...which would have been grasped. I don't see a reason for an ethnic cleansing of us, he liked the Brits ethnically and we're very similar and integrated. Plus why waste the resources, and we were Vatican property anyway...not worth the diplomacy.

Otherwise they'd have done some kind of token political thing to give them reason to squash us, while claiming some weak righteousness in front of the world, and for the history books too.

Like someone else said, they wouldn't want us being a swinging door for the yanks to eventually come through.

Anyway, the Russians finished WW2. If Germanys resources had never been used on Russia then G.Britain was a gonner. They poured millions of men, and thousands of tanks and aircraft into the eastern front. If they'd sent that stuff west then there'd be no contenders.

Capt'n Midnight

An Coilean wrote: »

Entering a War because you think you might get invaded anyway is much akin to burning your house down yourself for fear of arsonists.

Czechoslovakia had good defences , a million men under arms and a large defence industry. They gave up some defences instead of starting a war

Poland refused to let Soviet troops cross their borders in the event of a German invasion. Result the Soviets negotiated a treaty with the Germans instead. When Germany invaded Poland the Soviets followed shortly after and they split the country between them.

France could have invaded the Rhur area when Germany invaded Poland


Most countries in continental Europe apart from the very mountainous ones with large armies / arms industries were invaded. Only two didn't have their capitals captured. From Finland to Italy countries were on both sides. Despite all you hear about those killed during the Blitz more civilians died in the Allied bombing raids on France than during the Axis raids on the UK.


Neutrality was only an option for Ireland because of our peripheral location.

The list of neutral countries invaded by both sides is very long and worldwide

Latchy

It's strange to think that Hitler thought he could take on the might of the Soviet Union while also fighting the Allies on 3 major fronts ,Europe ,Africa and Italy .

Some of his major gaffs ...

1. Not allowing the 3 reserve panzer divisions to join the defense at Normandy ( the Furher wasn't to be awakened )

2. Swinging the attack away from England to concentrate more on Russia

3. Underestimating the Russian winter and not supplying his troops with the equipment needed to continue any serious threat against the soviets .

4 .Meddling so much in decisions making in the Russian and European campaigns which if he had left to his generals in the field , may have swung things in a more favorable position for German forces and Germany .

LordSutch

Latchy wrote: »

Either way , the Irish government and the Allies had a plan of action in place that should the republic ( or EIRE as it was referred to then by the British ).

Did we not call ourselves EIRE back then? Irish Merchant ship the SS Irish Oak 1943 http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/oak.jpg

On another issue, guess who these guys are on a training exercise in 1939 > http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW-zeeNLQyRIRR00EpEjt1VTyUhKRHCXtAfpTOyE5wEk3R7R18ew

And No, they're not Germans :eek:

fasttalkerchat

What were they gonna do? Land in France and shoot at the Brits and the Nazis?

Latchy

LordSutch wrote: »

Did we not call ourselves EIRE back then? Irish Merchant ship the SS Irish Oak 1943 http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/oak.jpg

On another issue, guess who these guys are on a training exercise in 1939 > http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW-zeeNLQyRIRR00EpEjt1VTyUhKRHCXtAfpTOyE5wEk3R7R18ew

And No, they're not Germans :eek:

Along the east coast of Dublin and other part of Ireland then it was common (from the view of an airplane ) to see E.I.R.E written in large white stone so as any misdirected German planes would know they weren't flying over UK

One can only guess at the The German style helmets ,were they to piss the Brits off :pac: or ( should they invade ) welcome the Germans on arrival ?

I dunno

Sunnyisland

Markings to alert aircraft to neutral Ireland ("Éire" English: "Ireland") during WWII on Malin Head, Co Donegal

General General

Latchy wrote: »

It's strange to think that Hitler thought he could take on the might of the Soviet Union while also fighting the Allies on 3 major fronts ,Europe ,Africa and Italy .

Some of his major gaffs ...

1. Not allowing the 3 reserve panzer divisions to join the defense at Normandy ( the Furher wasn't to be awakened )

2. Swinging the attack away from England to concentrate more on Russia

3. Underestimating the Russian winter and not supplying his troops with the equipment needed to continue any serious threat against the soviets .

4 .Meddling so much in decisions making in the Russian and European campaigns which if he had left to his generals in the field , may have swung things in a more favorable position for German forces and Germany .

5. Underestimating just how hardy the Russian hardy bucks were, especially when being chased from behind by a dose of Russian troops prepared to shoot their own front line in the back.

Latchy

General General wrote: »

5. Underestimating just how hardy the Russian hardy bucks were, especially when being chased from behind by a dose of Russian troops prepared to shoot their own front line in the back.

Yes...chased them all the way into the heart of Berlin to .

St.Spodo

On the one hand the policy of neutrality spared the Free State thousands of civilian deaths at the hands of the Luftwaffe and the inevitable huge infrastructural damage which would have came as a result of a blitz. Also, we had an army that would have been wholly incapable of resisting a German invasion with anything resembling success, and the bestial treatment of civilians which followed the Germans around Occupied Europe would have surely followed them into Ireland.

On the other hand, neutrality ultimately reinforced partition and strengthened the bond between the North and Westminster. On top of this, we became something of a leper in the international community for a few years.

I am no fan of de Valera, but ultimately I think neutrality was a wise policy for a country of our size. We must understand that many believed Germany would probably win the war up until 1942. It was correctly seen as national suicide to go to war against them. As for going to war against the Allies, this was an absurd notion. Neutrality was ultimately vindicated but didn't come without side effects.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

It is a highly dubious position to think the German army would not have had to capasity to Invade Ireland.

An Coilean wrote: »

The German army was one of the most effective and experienced at the time, I have no doubt that had they made it here, they could have beaten the then Irish army,

Nope, the simple fact is that the German military machine very impressive as it was(your average German soldier was worth about 3-4 Us/British soldiers and around 8-10 Soviet soldier going on some stats) was not geared up for crossing bodies of water beyond the scale of a large river. They were almost entirely tactically focused on land battles. Heinkels and the like first, followed by Stukas and panzers supporting the infantry. Blitzkrieg. If the UK had been physically joined to Europe the battle of Britain might, if not would have had a very different outcome. Above and beyond tactics and personal bravery the channel saved them, like it had agin Bonaparte and the Spanish before. EG When the Germans won the battle of France and were looking at the upcoming battle of Britain, they had to change the rules/procedures for their single engined flight crews who had been previously restricted from crossing bodies of water beyond a couple of miles. Hasty additions of life rafts and life jackets being the most of it. IT had not figured in their operational plans.

They most certainly hadn't anywhere close, asses roar time, to the capacity of invading Ireland from mainland Europe and invading from the UK, if they had succeeded there, which over and above the UK propaganda was a pretty tall order. PLus even if they had taken southern England the British as a whole would likely have just gone further north and kept harrying them. It was pretty much never gonna happen. Seriously, read up on the actual capacities of their various mechanisms of war. Shít their fighter planes like ME109's could barely make London from France, their Stukas ditto. Their longer range light(in comparison to later B17's etc) bombers could go further but were highly vulnerable to single seat fighters without escort. Their navy was mostly fooked and they were relying on unstable barges for the english channel crossing planned for operation Sea Lion.

Seaneh

namloc1980 wrote: »

The only truly embarrassing episode of Ireland's "neutrality" during WW2 was Eamon De Valera and Douglas Hyde going to the German Embassy to express condolences on Hitler's death.

This nonsense gets thrown around all the time and it's absolute idiocy.

You'd swear they were the only ones to sign a ****ing book of condolences for Hitler.

Ireland was neutral, we had a German Embassy, it was protocol to sign the fecking book just as it would have been to sign it for any other nation.

unkel

LOL as if any player cared about what status Ireland wished to call upon itself during the war

It's a bit like during a fight between a tiger and a bear, there's this annoying little fly who shouts to both that he is neutral. But while the tiger is dying, the fly still manages to eat quite a bit of sh1te out of the tigers hole

(bodice ripper gave the short answer already )

purplepanda

Latchy wrote: »

Either way , the Irish government and the Allies had a plan of action in place that should the republic ( or EIRE as it was referred to then by the British ) be invaded by the Nazis, the American and British forces would join up with the 500,000 strong Irish Army to try repel the invasion which probably would have involved fighting on several fronts .

Whilst plans were certainly made for that scenario, Ireland didn't have the military strength to join the Allies & Britain didn't have the spare military capacity to help defend Ireland in that event from German aggression. Perhaps when the USA joined in the war Ireland should have followed suit.

Ireland was certainly pro Allies, in the same way that Sweden was pro Nazi, there's many shades of neutrality.

As for neutrality Norway, Netherlands, Belgium & others were offiically neutral without any Allied forces stationed on their soil, by then it was too late. A German invasion of Ireland would have had plenty of warning beforehand for Allied counter measures.

In the event of a successful German takeover of Southern England, Allied forces would have used Ireland for a counter offensive base. There would have been no way of keeping out of the war in that event.

Wibbs

Seaneh wrote: »

You'd swear they were the only ones to sign a ****ing book of condolences for Hitler.

Other than Portugal we were.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, the simple fact is that the German military machine very impressive as it was(your average German soldier was worth about 3-4 Us/British soldiers and around 8-10 Soviet soldier going on some stats) was not geared up for crossing bodies of water beyond the scale of a large river. They were almost entirely tactically focused on land battles. Heinkels and the like first, followed by Stukas and panzers supporting the infantry. EG When they won the battle of France and were looking at the upcoming battle of Britain, they had to change the rules/procedures for their single engined flight crews who had been previously restricted from crossing bodies of water beyond a couple of miles. Hasty additions of life rafts and life jackets being the most of it.

They most certainly hadn't anywhere close to the capacity of invading Ireland from mainland Europe and invading from the UK, if they had succeeded there, which over and above the UK propaganda was a pretty tall order. PLus even if they had taken southern England the British as a whole would likely have just gone further north and kept harrying them. It was pretty much never gonna happen. Seriously, read up on the actual capacities of their various mechanisms of war. Shít their fighter planes like ME109's could barely make London from France, their Stukas ditto. Their longer range light(in comparison to later B17's etc) bombers could go further but were highly vulnerable to single seat fighters without escort.

On the sea they were outmatched by the Royal Navy, no question, however had they managed to gain air supremacy over the surthern most part of England, something they very nearly achieved. Then the question of invasion became much more possible, the Luftwaffe could have inflicted enough damage on the then unprotected Navy to force them out of their Suthern Bases.
The Germans may not have had the seabourn resourses of the Brits, but Norway showed they were capable of pulling off a Seabourn Invasion. Once the German army got on land, there really was not enough North for the Brits to retreat into, the Germans would simple persue and defeat them, British Land Forces at the time simply did not have the numbers or Equipment to hold of the German Army on Land.
Interestingly the British high Command studied the IRA of the Tan War as a template for resistance should the Germans make it ashore.

bluecode

Latchy wrote: »

Along the east coast of Dublin and other part of Ireland then it was common (from the view of an airplane ) to see E.I.R.E written in large white stone so as any misdirected German planes would know they weren't flying over UK

One can only guess at the The German style helmets ,were they to piss the Brits off :pac: or ( should they invade ) welcome the Germans on arrival ?

I dunno

Actually in reality those signs were for the Allies, particularly for the Americans. In fact later those Eire signs were numbered so the Allies could check the number and figure out where they were. As for the German helmets, they were actually made in England by Vickers who later made Spitfires. They were soon got rid of and the British supplied us with British helmets, British equipment, planes, tanks and weapons. So much for our neutrality.

Not only that we supplied the British with lots of intelligence. Indeed at one point when the commander of the Coast watching service went on a tour of all the posts in the country. He was accompanied by a Royal Navy officer. Yes that's right a British spy went along with an Irish army commander.

My own opinion is that we really should have joined the war once the Americans were in. If for no other reason than for the masses of dollars it would have brought in. Dev blew it because of his short sighed anti American attitude. Even though he was American.

His attitude condemmed this country to decades of isolatonism and poverty. He was a traitor to this country at every level.

We are still suffering the legacy of his shortsighted parochial isolationism.

May he rot in hell.

wendell borton

Why get invlved in a war were we would have been mere pawns, just look at the sacrifices made by the polish fighting with the allies in places like monte casino just to be betrayed and see europe carved up by the big powers.
What difference would have direct action in the war achieved, ireland supported the allies in lots of other ways such as suppling weather reports.

Keeping ireland out of the war was probably devaleras only real achievment and his reposte to churchills ungratitute his finest moment as Taoiseach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

General General

I agree that we should have joined in when the Yanks did.

Not doing so, we lost out on a lot of grants, which is most unlike us.

wendell borton

General General wrote: »

I agree that we should have joined in when the Yanks did.

Not doing so, we lost out on a lot of grants, which is most unlike us.

We received aid as part of the marshall plan from the yanks.
We also got money later on from the germans for the bombs they droped here.

fasttalkerchat

wendell borton wrote: »

Keeping ireland out of the war was probably devaleras only real achievment and his reposte to churchills ungratitute his finest moment as Taoiseach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

I love that interview. From 4:45 is amazing.

dj jarvis

Rigol wrote: »

As Wibbs said above, the Rushkies were the real end of Adolf.
But if Germany had the choice to invade Ireland I believe at first they would have made 'an offer you cant refuse' to us...which would have been grasped. I don't see a reason for an ethnic cleansing of us, he liked the Brits ethnically and we're very similar and integrated. Plus why waste the resources, and we were Vatican property anyway...not worth the diplomacy.

Otherwise they'd have done some kind of token political thing to give them reason to squash us, while claiming some weak righteousness in front of the world, and for the history books too.

Like someone else said, they wouldn't want us being a swinging door for the yanks to eventually come through.

Anyway, the Russians finished WW2. If Germanys resources had never been used on Russia then G.Britain was a gonner. They poured millions of men, and thousands of tanks and aircraft into the eastern front. If they'd sent that stuff west then there'd be no contenders.

i disagree - the Finns were " offered " a land and naval deal by the soviets in exchange with not being bombed and invaded - the Finns as any self defending nation told then to **** off - the soviets done a Germany and engineered a reason to invade natural Finland, the Finns out gunned, 20 to 1 held and fought back a soviet army 20 times the size - twice , in the winter war and the continuation war

they fought the soviets to a stand still - and in the end gained and held their sovereignty - of the nations who agreed to the soviet deal , Estonia - Latvia remained in soviet control till the 90's

the irish army was not any better armed or originated than the Finns , i think we could have done the same , as a guerilla force the Irish would have been a major pain in the hole to whoever invaded us

i have seen to this day children in Helsinki,walking around with tee shirts with the logo " thank you marshall marnnerhiem " , because he saved them from 60 years of soviet invasion , and enslavement

i think it would have been the same in Ireland - once they were in - they would have been here for generations

as much as i dislike dev - i think this was his aim