German Occupation of Ireland 1940?

riffmongous

Let's say somehow the Germans manage an invasion of Britain in 1940With the battle going badly for the British at one point either the British or Germans also invade Ireland, and Ireland is taken over by the German troops. Now later the British agree to a surrender with terms and the Germans agree and withdraw from the UK to prepare for Barbarossa.

All fantasy stuff but my question is then how do you think the Germans would have dealt with Ireland at this point? A puppet government, home rule or a more direct form of control? With a neutral Britain how much use would Ireland have been other than a few ports. In the case of a puppet government who would have been the most likely candidate? I guess O' Duffy would have been known in Fascist circles but would he have been taken seriously be anyone?

And also how would Ireland have handled the Germans? Would there have been any armed resistance to the new form of government? The IRA at this point was of a low standard, would people return to it? Imo a new forming IRA would have been more likely..

tac foley

1. Ireland has a truly great selection of deep-water ports and harbours and sheltered ship keeps.

2. An occupying German force would spend a LOT of time and effort making sure that nothing happened to them from local unrest, leaving them free to house their growing U-Boat fleet to harrass the Atlantic ocean, if needed. Remember that with the UK out of the way, only the USA posed any kind of a threat.

3. I'm sure that no matter what you called it - IRA or IFF - the total destruction of a few villages or even towns, and the accompanying massacre of every living thing in them, plus the odd rounding up of fifty men and boys for roadside execution would make a lasting impression.

It happened elsewhere in Europe - Czechoslovakia and France, Greece, Italy and the Balkans, so why not in Ireland?

A reality check is needed here, methinks.

tac

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

..

Would America and Germany have gone to war with Britain at peace?

And my thinking is that without a war in western Europe would Germany be so keen to keep direct control over everywhere? I think states like Slovakia and Croatia or Vichy France would have become the norm in western Europe too once the direct war threat was over

In fairness massacres are nothing new in Irish history. Would massacres have been so severe outside of a direct war setting too?

Jawgap

I think the general view is that the country would not have been occupied - that our situation would have been comparable to that of Denmark. As long as we did what we were told, surrendered our citizens who were Jewish, met the requirements imposed on supplying food, labour and wealth to the Reich we would have been left alone.

We probably would have been forced to finance and build a series of naval bases along the western seaboard and probably an airfield or two for the 'Amerika' bomber.

In terms of resistance, it might not have emerged. If you track the emergence of domestic resistance in occupied Europe it really got into some kind of momentum in 1942/43. In a subservient Ireland, some 20 years after the civil war, there could have been a lot of score settling. If you look at what happened in Vichy France you get an idea of how it might have played out - a lot of political violence, and not much of it directed against the Germans.

And maybe we'd all be speaking German today - if things played out as suggested then by the time Pearl Harbour happened, it's likely Germany would have achieved its victory in Europe and not declared war on the US. It would have opted to consolidate its gains and rebuild its strength.

what then?

Well, following a few years of peace while the US wrapped up matters in the Pacific in a 'short' 18 month campaign, it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that a Germany / US conflict would have emerged in the late 1940s - Hitler knew Germany would have to confront the US at some stage.

That would have put us firmly in the frontline between Germany and the combined forces of the Canadians (and the Free British Forces), the US and a decent assortment of Commonwealth, European and other Allies - and the Germans.

I think we'd have been subjected to devastating air attack - there'd be no use of atomic weapons, but they'd have lashed the napalm down on us - and bypassed once the land campaign started.

Following the conclusion of the conflict the equivalent of the Marshall Plan would have been very generous in rebuilding a now united Ireland, leading us extremely well placed to enter a period of historic prosperity in the mid-1990s

tac foley

Re post #3 - Please put things into perspective, Sir. Please show me where ANY village or town in Ireland was levelled to the ground, and every inhabitant slaughtered - at least, within recent history.

Or where the male population has been subjected to round-ups and road-side machine-gunning.

Please don't let any prejudices you might have get inte way of what, until now, has been a reasonable thread, devoid of such accusations.

tac

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

Re post #3.....

tac

I did say history not recent and within thread there is no need to go any further.

Do you think reprisals would have been so harsh without a direct war setting though?

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

I did say history not recent and within thread there is no need to go any further.

Do you think reprisals would have been so harsh without a direct war setting though?

Lidice - part of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

..

You had me until 'what then?':-D

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

You had me until 'what then?':-D

I suppose the main glaring error is how the war in the East would have resolved?

It's quite possible the Germans would still have been defeated but instead of a complete defeat, they would have a negotiated settlement then taken a few years to bleed their new territories dry before resuming hostilities in the East or West.

Perhaps there would have been a three-way Cold War.

One thing is for sure, any Nazi 'protection' or occupation would have been bleak, bloody and unimaginably cruel.

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

Lidice - part of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Ah yes of course, that was a horrible one

Do you know what was the status of the protectorate, In real terms? Czech would have been considered German lands historically I think, unlike Slovakia which was Hungarian. It's maybe another point actually, where would Irish people have been on the racial scale? Would we have been so low to receive the same brutality shown to the Czechs and poles?

tac foley

So you don't believe that invasion and occupation of the soverereign territory of a nation by another beligerent nation to be an act of war?

That's a rather odd point of view, if I may be forgiven for pointing it out.

For a point of discussion, there can be few, if any, countries in western Europe that have NOT had villages and their inhabitants slaughtered in the last thousand years or so, either by their fellow-countrymen or invaders, and the facts documented in great detail. It certainly happened here in England, where the invading Normans virtually destroyed what is now called Yorkshire in the punitive exercise known as the 'Harrowing of the North'. It was well over two hundred years before the 'system' recovered.

tac

tac foley

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

Plus the Guiness document.......

Ireland would have been treated like anybody else that was occupied by them. Play ball or die. A ready-to-hand male population of navvies would have been used to augment the in-place Organisation-Todt, and used until they dropped.

tac

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

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

Plus the Guiness document.......

Ireland would have been treated like anybody else that was occupied by them. Play ball or die. A ready-to-hand male population of navvies would have been used to augment the in-place Organisation-Todt, and used until they dropped.

tac

Does that say anything about the plans for Ireland afterwards?

So you don't believe that invasion and occupation of the soverereign territory of a nation by another beligerent nation to be an act of war?

Well this thread is about after the war, I would assume that the Irish government itself would have surrendered as soon as Britain did.

Although you can make a case for a Free Irish Government with Dev over in the States if you wish.

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

Ah yes of course, that was a horrible one

Do you know what was the status of the protectorate, In real terms? Czech would have been considered German lands historically I think, unlike Slovakia which was Hungarian. It's maybe another point actually, where would Irish people have been on the racial scale? Would we have been so low to receive the same brutality shown to the Czechs and poles?

The Germans were interested in only what they could extract from countries.

It doesn't matter where the 'Celts' were on their racial scale or in their policy - if we'd actively or passively interfered, reprisals would have been swift, brutal and bloody.

If the example of Lidice, Oradour-sur-Glane or any one of dozens of other reprisals carried out in countries that had been conquered by the Germans don't convince you of that, then consider the atrocities perpetrated in Italy - a former Axis ally - the Ardeatine massacre and Marzabotto massacre are two which spring to mind. If they were capable of doing that in the territory of an ally, what might they have done in one that wasn't?

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

The Germans were interested in only what they could extract from countries.

It doesn't matter where the 'Celts' were on their racial scale or in their policy - if we'd actively or passively interfered, reprisals would have been swift, brutal and bloody.

If the example of Lidice, Oradour-sur-Glane or any one of dozens of other reprisals carried out in countries that had been conquered by the Germans don't convince you of that, then consider the atrocities perpetrated in Italy - a former Axis ally - the Ardeatine massacre and Marzabotto massacre are two which spring to mind. If they were capable of doing that in the territory of an ally, what might they have done in one that wasn't?

Well even today from the racially discerning ethnic German people I have unfortunately encountered the italians are not all too popular, southerners in general unfortunately. I'd be more interested in how the Norwegians were treated? I will be satisfied on the reprisals subject at that point.

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

Well even today from the racially discerning ethnic German people I have unfortunately encountered the italians are not all too popular, southerners in general unfortunately. I'd be more interested in how the Norwegians were treated? I will be satisfied on the reprisals subject at that point.

Probably ok, as long as they behaved and refrained from blowing up heavy water plants.

The fact the word "Quisling" has entered the English language probably says a lot.

There was a system of transit camps there to hold people on their way to Auschwitz and Grini was a significant enough complex of concentration and labour camps. Several hundred Jews were sent to Auschwitz and there seems to be plenty of examples of extra-judicial killing by the German and collaborationist security services.....

CONFIDENTIAL

To: Military Deputy JAGO, 6 Spring Gdns, Cockspur St., SW1

Ref: BLFN/44/TR/DJAG.

Date: 28 November 1945.

From: Lieu-Col. W.H. Bellis, DJAG Office, BLFN.

This case relates to the killing of 5 of the 9 British survivors from the glider crash at Lysefjord, Norway, on the night of 19/20 November 1942; the other 4 being put to death in circumstances outlined in my minute to you reference BLFN/44/2/S/T/DJAG dated 15 November 1945.

Briefly the further facts indicated by the documents now submitted appear to be as follows:

After these survivors had been captured and imprisoned at Stavanger as described in that minute there was an exchange of communications between Wilkens, the head of Stavanger Gestapo, and Fehlis, head of the Oslo Gestapo, who in turn communicated with Muller, in charge of the Amtschef office in Berlin. Following this, orders were given by Fehlis that 5 of the 9 survivors were to be dressed in civilian clothes and were to be sent to Grini Concentration Camp.

Upon arrival in Grini the 5 survivors were dressed in blue pullovers and trousers.

They remained there until 19 January 1943 when they were taken out to Trandum and executed on the orders, so it would appear, of Fehlis given in the presence of Reinhardt, the orders being in turn based on directions from Muller that the Hitler (Commando) order was to be carried out.

Signed W.H. Bellis Lt. Col. DJAG.

This is what happened to the other four referenced in the note above

The three prisoners who had been injected [with air into a blood vessel], and then strangled, were then stripped of all their clothes, and placed in a lorry. Hoffman then drove this lorry to the quay so they could be loaded aboard a ship ready for their dumping at sea. As the sea was so rough, the ship was unable to leave the harbour. So Hoffman drove the lorry back to the prison. On the following day, Seeling and Hoffman collected the fourth, less injured man, who had been shot by Hoffman. Hoffman then drove the lorry containing the four dead prisoners to the quay. They were then loaded on to a ship, and were later dumped at sea.

riffmongous

Yeah well I picked the Norwegians because their resistance groups are fairly well known so with everyone treated equally I'd expect a similar list of war crimes. I am on my phone at the moment so it's not easy to search myself.

On a side note, how effective were reprisals? I gueas it would depend on the level of outside support and how the war was going in their effect in resistance morale?

Regardless of government system at some point the deportation of irish Jews would have been demanded. According to wiki the Wannsee conference would have called for this, I cannot check now, but I wonder does it mention Irelanddirectly or was it an all Europe thing. I also learned the 6th president of Israel was born in Belfast, a nice bonus for a fantasy thread

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah well I picked the Norwegians because their resistance groups are fairly well known so with everyone treated equally I'd expect a similar list of war crimes. I am on my phone at the moment so it's not easy to search myself.

On a side note, how effective were reprisals? I gueas it would depend on the level of outside support and how the war was going in their effect in resistance morale?

Regardless of government system at some point the deportation of irish Jews would have been demanded. According to wiki the Wannsee conference would have called for this, I cannot check now, but I wonder does it mention Irelanddirectly or was it an all Europe thing. I also learned the 6th president of Israel was born in Belfast, a nice bonus for a fantasy thread

I looked after Chaim Herzog when he visited Ireland in 1985 (as in I worked in the Berkeley Court where him and his entourage were staying!) Anyway, his father was the Chief Rabbi in Ireland at the time the 1937 Constitution was drawn up on Dev consulted with him on the drafting of the original Art 44 - which given the time, was a fairly radical inclusion......

Article 44
The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

• The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.
• The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution.
• Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
• The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
• The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
• Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
• Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
• The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

The question, in the context of this thread, is whether the Irish State would have been able to sustain this part, or indeed any part , of the Constitution in the face of a triumphant Germany and a prostrate Britain? I doubt very much it could have.

Eichmann's list from Wannsee

riffmongous

Fantastic stuff Jawgap, what was he like? Could you tell he was originally from Ireland? His father also seems like a very interesting character, the 'sinn fein rabbi', fluent in gaelic, it sounds pretty meshuge to me

I actually don't know anything about how jewish immigrants to Israel assimilated or israeli-jewish culture, I am sure it would be a very interesting topic but to be honest I wouldn't want to start a thread about it here on boards.

Thanks for the picture of the list, it was exactly what I was looking for. It's also fascinating in itself as a jewish census almost, interestingly Estonia is noted as having no jews.

I do not think it would be possible at all for the government to uphold the constitution in this case, but I really wonder how much officail support would any Irish government have given to it.. even our fascists were not noted anti-semites and outside of the catholic church I dont think any other group would have been able to induce strong anti-semite feelings in Ireland at the time (while I do think there is always a low-level of anti-jewish feeling, at least in modern Ireland, I dont think it would ever be enough do anything serious) and the Church was not going to do it in this case. With a land border to Britain only a few hours away and a small population you would hope most of them would be saved.

Jawgap

I spoke to him twice - once when he arrived when I said "Sir" as I served him a drink (sparkling water, if I remember) and the second time when he was going when he came and thanked the staff who looked after him!

I do remember the security detail being a bit paranoid! They had a general 'don't-f5ck-with-us' air about them, so I didn't

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

I spoke to him twice - once when he arrived when I said "Sir" as I served him a drink (sparkling water, if I remember) and the second time when he was going when he came and thanked the staff who looked after him!

I do remember the security detail being a bit paranoid! They had a general 'don't-f5ck-with-us' air about them, so I didn't

Yeah fair enough I must see if I can find get a copy of his memoirs.

I also came across this group on wikipeida, I cant say I have ever heard of them before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailtir%C3%AD_na_hAis%C3%A9irghe

Ailtirí na hAiséirghe (Irish pronunciation: [ˈalʲtʲiːɾʲi na ˈhaʃeːɾʲjə], meaning "Architects of the Resurrection") was a minor radical nationalist and fascist political party from Ireland, founded by Gearóid Ó Cuinneagáin in 1942.[1][2] The party sought to form a totalitarian Irish Christian corporatist state. Its objectives included the creation of a one-party state under the rule of an all-powerful leader; the criminalisation of the public use of the English language; discriminatory measures against Jews; the building-up of a massive conscript army; and the reconquest of Northern Ireland. In the longer term, Aiséirghe aimed to make a fascist Ireland into a "missionary-ideological" state spreading its combination of totalitarian politics and Christian social principles worldwide.
An "organised group of anti-Semites",[3] its sympathies were with the Axis powers. It was one of a wave of minor far right parties in 1940s Ireland that failed to achieve mainstream success, like the Monetary Reform Party.[4]
The party obtained no seats in the 1943 and 1944 general elections.[5] In the 1945 local government elections, however, Aiséirghe candidates won nine seats (out of 31 contested), gaining a total of more than 11,000 first-preference votes.
Its supporters included Ernest Blythe, Oliver J. Flanagan and James Joseph Walsh.[6] Seán Treacy,[7] the future Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann, was a party member in the 1940s, as were the novelist Brian Cleeve,[8] the philosopher Terence Gray[9] and the broadcaster and author Breandán Ó hEithir.[7] Although never a member, Seán South was familiar with the group's publications.[10]
After an internal split in late 1945, Aiséirghe's influence weakened. It held its last formal meeting in 1958, though the party newspaper, Aiséirghe, continued to appear until the early 1970s.

While I never heard of the group some of the politicians are familiar, Flanagan in particular, and Blythe of course.

Balaclava1991

In the summer of 1940 Field Marshal Fedor Von Bock who was in command of Army Group B which consisted of 7th Army and 4th Army was given the job of preparing for the invasion of Ireland.

In June 1940 7th Army consisted of:

XXVII. Armeekorps (at the disposal of the 7. Armee)
- 213. Infanterie-Division
- 218. Infanterie-Division
- 221. Infanterie-Division
- 239. Infanterie-Division
XXV. Armeekorps
- 557. Infanterie-Division
- 555. Infanterie-Division
Höheres Kommando z.b.V. XXXIII
- 554. Infanterie-Division
- 556. Infanterie-Division

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/germany-a-austria/waffen-ss/148-germany-heer/heer-armeen/2633-7-armee

During the invasion of France in June 1940 4th Army then fighting as part of Army Group A consisted of:

4th Army - Generaloberst Günther von Kluge
(Chief of Staff - GenMaj Kurt Brennecke)
II Corps - General of Infantry Adolf Strauß -> 30.5.1940 General of Infantry Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel
12th Infantry Division - GenMaj Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach
32nd Infantry Division - GenLt Franz Böhme
V Corps - General of Infantry Richard Ruoff
211th Infantry Division - GenMaj Kurt Renner
251st Infantry Division - GenMaj Hans Kratzert
263rd Infantry Division- GenMaj Franz Karl
VIII Corps - General of Infantry Ernst Busch
8th Infantry Division - GenMaj Rudolf Koch-Erpach
28th Infantry Division - GenLt Hans von Obstfelder -> 20.5.1940 GenMaj Johann Sinnhuber
87th Infantry Division - GenMaj Bogislav von Studnitz
267th Infantry Division - GenMaj Ernst Fessmann
XV Corps - General of Infantry Hermann Hoth
5th Panzer Division - Major-General Max von Hartlieb -> 22.5.1940 Major-General Joachim Lemelsen -> 6.6.1940 Brigadier-general Ludwig Cruwell
7th Panzer Division - Brigadier-general Erwin Rommel
62nd Infantry Division - GenMaj Walter Keiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_Battle_of_France

Meanwhile the Irish Army Chief of Staff General Dan McKenna had only four brigades at his disposal in the summer of 1940 with two delegated to defend against a British attack from the north and two to defend against a German invasion on the south coast.
The Irish military was completely unprepared for fighting a conventional war let alone as an underground guerrilla resistance movement.

http://www.academia.edu/2108163/The_Irish_Defence_Forces_1940-1949_The_Chief_of_Staffs_Report

In Northern Ireland in the summer of 1940 about 12,000 men many of whom were members of the B-Specials had enlisted in the Ulster Defense Volunteers but had little or no military training and would have been of little use in stopping a German invasion.

The 53rd and 61st infantry divisions were deployed that summer of 1940.

So if Britain had capitulated following the fall of France - supposing Halifax became PM rather than Churchill - if Ireland held out north and south - presuming Nationalists and Unionists integrated their forces - they were facing overwhelming odds.

Von Bock would obviously not have had to commit all of his forces but only a few divisions to overcome any resistance.

SS-Standartenführer Dr. Franz Six was designated to take command of six Einsatzkommandos located at London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and either Edinburgh or Glasgow. These death squads would have been charged with the elimination of civilian resistance members and Jews in the United Kingdom. Doubtless Six would have been given the task of crushing Irish resistance too.

The 4,000 Irish Jews would have been rounded up and shot along with Irish Travelers.
Leading Irish clergy, politicians, academics, members of the GAA and other political, religious, sporting and cultural bodies would also be rounded up and shot. Unionist politicians, the Orange Order and Protestant churchmen would have suffered the same fate.
A mixture of the pro-Nazi IRA and Blueshirts and other fascist minded groups like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe would have been brought together to form a puppet government with an SS-Reich Protector based at Dublin Castle and living in the Phoenix Park the real power over the country.
If there were was any organized resistance the Germans would have responded by leveling towns and villages in reprisal.
German aristocrats would have taken over the abandoned homes of the Anglo-Irish an enslaved the Irish population.

The German Kriegsmarine would make full use of Irish ports for their U-boats and surface fleet, the Luftwaffe would fly patrols from air bases on the west coast and German troops would be tasked with preventing an American amphibious landing that would probably never have come as the Americans would have given up on fighting against the Nazis in Europe if Britain was knocked out of the war in 1940.

Irish volunteers in the Germany Army and Waffen SS would probably have fought on the Eastern Front against the Soviets.

riffmongous

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

For the first part do you mean a plan to invade Ireland after the British had capitulated?

don, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and either Edinburgh or Glasgow. These death squads would have been charged with the elimination of civilian resistance members and Jews in the United Kingdom. Doubtless Six would have been given the task of crushing Irish resistance too.

The 4,000 Irish Jews would have been rounded up and shot along with Irish Travelers.
Leading Irish clergy, politicians, academics, members of the GAA and other political, religious, sporting and cultural bodies would also be rounded up and shot. Unionist politicians, the Orange Order and Protestant churchmen would have suffered the same fate.

A mixture of the pro-Nazi IRA and Blueshirts and other fascist minded groups like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe would have been brought together to form a puppet government with an SS-Reich Protector based at Dublin Castle and living in the Phoenix Park the real power over the country.
If there were was any organized resistance the Germans would have responded by leveling towns and villages in reprisal.
German aristocrats would have taken over the abandoned homes of the Anglo-Irish an enslaved the Irish population.

The German Kriegsmarine would make full use of Irish ports for their U-boats and surface fleet, the Luftwaffe would fly patrols from air bases on the west coast and German troops would be tasked with preventing an American amphibious landing that would probably never have come as the Americans would have given up on fighting against the Nazis in Europe if Britain was knocked out of the war in 1940.

Irish volunteers in the Germany Army and Waffen SS would probably have fought on the Eastern Front against the Soviets.

So you think the Nazis would have gone the route of full on occupation and enslavation? Compared to say what happened in Denmark/Norway?

I am not so into the Nazi/SS vision for europe but from the wikipeida article on the plans for Greater Germany and like we all know its eastward vision would an enslavation and extermination of Irish elite really be neccessary?

RobbingBandit

It would have been interesting to see what happened after the US had become involved, I would imagine Ireland would have become a US naval base, the entire Island. Had the Germans forced the British to surrender the Germans would have gained control of the whole Island of Ireland both North and the Republic, the Americans would have then had no choice but to attack and gain control of Ireland using it as their basis of operations, then slowly gained control of Britain and onto D Day maybe a year or so later than it had originally happened. It would have had a catastrophic effect on the rest of Europe though as the USSR would have been defeating the Nazis in eastern Europe and gotten to Berlin long before the Americans who would be busy liberating Britain.

Balaclava1991

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It would have been interesting to see what happened after the US had become involved, I would imagine Ireland would have become a US naval base, the entire Island. Had the Germans forced the British to surrender the Germans would have gained control of the whole Island of Ireland both North and the Republic, the Americans would have then had no choice but to attack and gain control of Ireland using it as their basis of operations, then slowly gained control of Britain and onto D Day maybe a year or so later than it had originally happened. It would have had a catastrophic effect on the rest of Europe though as the USSR would have been defeating the Nazis in eastern Europe and gotten to Berlin long before the Americans who would be busy liberating Britain.

Doubtful.

If Britain capitulated in 1940 before the Pacific War began FDR probably would not have won U.S. public support for intervening in Europe.

More likely there would have been a Cold War between the U.S. and Nazi Europe.

Before Hitler shot himself in 1945 he was suffering from Parkinson's and on a cocktail of drugs so in an alternate reality there would probably would have been a power struggle among the Nazi elite behind the scenes. Hitler would have become a figure head and in the worst case scenario someone like Reinhard Heyrich - he would not have been killed by Czech partisans in 1942 - would have become the real power behind the throne of the Fuhrer.

Alternatively one of the German generals would have taken power by assassinating Hitler and after crushing the SS swept Nazism away but maintained German hegemony over an alliance of European military rulers.

Ireland would have been the Western frontier of the German Reich and the Kriegsmarine's most important Atlantic base.

Balaclava1991

riffmongous wrote: »

For the first part do you mean a plan to invade Ireland after the British had capitulated?


So you think the Nazis would have gone the route of full on occupation and enslavation? Compared to say what happened in Denmark/Norway?

I am not so into the Nazi/SS vision for europe but from the wikipeida article on the plans for Greater Germany and like we all know its eastward vision would an enslavation and extermination of Irish elite really be neccessary?

Himmler and Heydrich wanted to unleash the same terror on Western Europe in 1940 as had been unleashed in Poland in 1939. Hitler instead appointed German military rulers in the West. However as the war went on SS power grew and had they won the war Hitler's racial ideas would have implemented across all of Europe.
The majority of the Irish people would not have been exterminated but our social elite would have been. The Irish would have become the workforce of a new Nazi racial aristocracy. Those Irish who were considered Aryan would have been allowed to join the SS.

Jawgap

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Himmler and Heydrich wanted to unleash the same terror on Western Europe in 1940 as had been unleashed in Poland in 1939. Hitler instead appointed German military rulers in the West. However as the war went on SS power grew and had they won the war Hitler's racial ideas would have implemented across all of Europe.
The majority of the Irish people would not have been exterminated but our social elite would have been. The Irish would have become the workforce of a new Nazi racial aristocracy. Those Irish who were considered Aryan would have been allowed to join the SS.

Unlikely - in Rosenberg's 'view' Christianity was an abhorrence that fatally weakened people. And given that any occupation or subjugation would likely have taken place within a decade of the Eucharistic Congress in 1932, I think anyone in the country have had a tough time trying to overcome Nazi religious prejudices.

Balaclava1991

Jawgap wrote: »

Unlikely - in Rosenberg's 'view' Christianity was an abhorrence that fatally weakened people. And given that any occupation or subjugation would likely have taken place within a decade of the Eucharistic Congress in 1932, I think anyone in the country have had a tough time trying to overcome Nazi religious prejudices.

Everywhere the Nazis went they recruited collaborators and opportunists who followed the political wind. There would have been plenty of Irish people who would have sold our their fellow countrymen for the spoils of power if the Nazis conquered us. As fanatical as the Nazis were they were not above bending a rule or two when political necessity overruled their ideology.

boomchicawawa

From the original post the scenario is that the Germans withdraw from Britain, so why would they stay in Ireland in any great number ? A lot would have depended on how they managed/ruled Britain and that would have been the template for Ireland. Other than the ports which were of some strategic value there was nothing much else here to hold their interest if the US were not involved. Maybe we could have become a penal island, a punishment for those in the Reich who were not executed!! ...... 'I sentence you to 10 Summers in Dublin' ! Ha:p

As regards how we the civilians were treated, I think initially we would have got better treatment than those on the Eastern front, but there's one thing that I'm sure of, we had just got rid of our old overlords and we would very quickly have become resentful of any one else trying to lord it over us so soon after.

There would have been an armed resistance movement, no doubt about that but not a regular army resistance with uniforms but a militia movement of both Republicans and Loyalists in a united force. But If there's one thing that the German army hated more than anything it was 'partisans', but this was the only way the Irish knew how to fight and remember we would have been buoyed by having taken on the might of the British Empire twenty years previously.

Realistically of course we would have been crushed like bugs. The Germans would have made the black and tans look like choir boys, the reprisals against the population would have been horrendous. Would we have stayed cowed?...probably not and England would have risen again eventually especially as the Germans would have been losing the fight against the Soviets. The German troops here would have had to be thin on the ground as the causalities escalated on the Eastern Front. Irish men and women would have been forced to go to Germany as slave labourers and a lot of our food produce would have been confiscated and exported, leaving us with very little except our old friend the potato.

It would have been interesting to see if the Catholic Church here had supported the fascists as the lesser evil compared to the Communists, would they have intoned the civilians to toe the line I wonder?

Jawgap

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Everywhere the Nazis went they recruited collaborators and opportunists who followed the political wind. There would have been plenty of Irish people who would have sold our their fellow countrymen for the spoils of power if the Nazis conquered us. As fanatical as the Nazis were they were not above bending a rule or two when political necessity overruled their ideology.

There would have definitely been collaborators, but the original point related to the SS. Only as the war progressed did the SS loosen its acceptance criteria for membership. In the event of them triumphing it would seem unlikely they would need or want to accept non-Aryans into the organisation.

As regards collaboration, if there is any doubt over who the collaborators would have been or from where they would have been drawn, one may need to consider the links between the Germans and certain constituencies in this country - I'm guessing there would have been no "republican" resistance as that would have been regarded as pro-British - it's more likely they would have been pulling on the jackboots, rather than taking out the Sten Guns.

Gauleiter Russell would have run an efficient operation to be sure

Balaclava1991

Jawgap wrote: »

There would have definitely been collaborators, but the original point related to the SS. Only as the war progressed did the SS loosen its acceptance criteria for membership. In the event of them triumphing it would seem unlikely they would need or want to accept non-Aryans into the organisation.

As regards collaboration, if there is any doubt over who the collaborators would have been or from where they would have been drawn, one may need to consider the links between the Germans and certain constituencies in this country - I'm guessing there would have been no "republican" resistance as that would have been regarded as pro-British - it's more likely they would have been pulling on the jackboots, rather than taking out the Sten Guns.

Gauleiter Russell would have run an efficient operation to be sure

The Irish Legion of the SS would probably have worn Shamrocks or harps on their right helmet decals and right tunic collar tabs and perhaps a tricolor patch on their sleeves.

Balaclava1991

Jawgap wrote: »

There would have definitely been collaborators, but the original point related to the SS. Only as the war progressed did the SS loosen its acceptance criteria for membership. In the event of them triumphing it would seem unlikely they would need or want to accept non-Aryans into the organisation.

As regards collaboration, if there is any doubt over who the collaborators would have been or from where they would have been drawn, one may need to consider the links between the Germans and certain constituencies in this country - I'm guessing there would have been no "republican" resistance as that would have been regarded as pro-British - it's more likely they would have been pulling on the jackboots, rather than taking out the Sten Guns.

Gauleiter Russell would have run an efficient operation to be sure

The Irish Legion of the SS would probably have worn a tricolor on their sleeve like the French SS did.

boomchicawawa

I think you would have been employed by Hugo Boss !

Jawgap

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Irish Legion of the SS would probably have worn Shamrocks or harps on their right helmet decals and right tunic collar tabs and perhaps a tricolor patch on their sleeves.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Irish Legion of the SS would probably have worn a tricolor on their sleeve like the French SS did.

Still would have been difficult to spot on the Eastern Front.

Anyway, thankfully they never invaded or else we'd probably still be answering to the Chancellor in Berlin for our economic decisions........


.........oh wait......

riffmongous

boomchicawawa wrote: »

From the original post the scenario is that the Germans withdraw from Britain, so why would they stay in Ireland in any great number ? A lot would have depended on how they managed/ruled Britain and that would have been the template for Ireland. Other than the ports which were of some strategic value there was nothing much else here to hold their interest if the US were not involved. Maybe we could have become a penal island, a punishment for those in the Reich who were not executed!! ...... 'I sentence you to 10 Summers in Dublin' ! Ha:p

Those were my thoughts too, I always wondered just how much Lebensraum they needed? Surely with their actual plans to clear out most of the slavs they would have quickly run out of labour, even with taking forced labour from western countries?

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

As regards collaboration, if there is any doubt over who the collaborators would have been or from where they would have been drawn, one may need to consider the links between the Germans and certain constituencies in this country - I'm guessing there would have been no "republican" resistance as that would have been regarded as pro-British - it's more likely they would have been pulling on the jackboots, rather than taking out the Sten Guns.

On this note, if the Germans did agree to go with an IRA government, then by IRA logic Ireland would finally have gotten its legitimate government, and with the prospect of another war it might not even have been to hard to convince people this was true

knucklehead6

I think people are overestimating the importance of the 'strategic' ports.

With Great Britain subjugated, the ports question wouldn't have been on too great an importance unless the US decided to get involved in saving the western democracies.

I think the ports in France would have been of greater importance, given the fact that they were attached to the rest of the continent and moving men and materials to them to fulfil any requirements for repair and crew replacements can be achieved by train.

Any movement of men and equipment across the English Channel, then up through the UK, from Holyhead across to Dublin/Rosslare, or sail direct to Galway/Cork/Limerick would run the risk of attack from marauding US submarines.

Balaclava1991

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think people are overestimating the importance of the 'strategic' ports.

With Great Britain subjugated, the ports question wouldn't have been on too great an importance unless the US decided to get involved in saving the western democracies.

I think the ports in France would have been of greater importance, given the fact that they were attached to the rest of the continent and moving men and materials to them to fulfil any requirements for repair and crew replacements can be achieved by train.

Any movement of men and equipment across the English Channel, then up through the UK, from Holyhead across to Dublin/Rosslare, or sail direct to Galway/Cork/Limerick would run the risk of attack from marauding US submarines.

Bases in Ireland would guard the northern approaches to Britain, the North Sea and Scandinavia and the southern approaches to Britain, the English Channel and the northern European ports.
Those bases would be used to project Nazi power into the Mid Atlantic.
The Nazis would have been nuts not to invade Ireland if they wanted to ward off the Americans.
If Ireland were invaded by the Americans it would have been an important launch pad for attacks on Nazi occupied Europe.
It would have become the equivalent of what Cuba became in the 1960s to the Americans when the Soviets positioned their missiles there.

knucklehead6

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Bases in Ireland would guard the northern approaches to Britain, the North Sea and Scandinavia and the southern approaches to Britain, the English Channel and the northern European ports.
Those bases would be used to project Nazi power into the Mid Atlantic.
The Nazis would have been nuts not to invade Ireland if they wanted to ward off the Americans.
If Ireland were invaded by the Americans it would have been an important launch pad for attacks on Nazi occupied Europe.
It would have become the equivalent of what Cuba became in the 1960s to the Americans when the Soviets positioned their missiles there.

I never said that Ireland wouldn't have been occupied, or that the ports wouldn't have been used/expanded, but i seriously think that people are over estimating the importance of them.

In the event of a transatlantic war between Germany/Occupied Europe and the US, the key to the Atlantic would have been Iceland, not Ireland. With Iceland, you control the North Atlantic.

The attached is a 1000 nautical mile range circle drawn from Keflavik, Bordeaux and Shannon. A base at Keflavik would be much more beneficial.

Balaclava1991

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I never said that Ireland wouldn't have been occupied, or that the ports wouldn't have been used/expanded, but i seriously think that people are over estimating the importance of them.

In the event of a transatlantic war between Germany/Occupied Europe and the US, the key to the Atlantic would have been Iceland, not Ireland. With Iceland, you control the North Atlantic.

The attached is a 1000 nautical mile range circle drawn from Keflavik, Bordeaux and Shannon. A base at Keflavik would be much more beneficial.

The Germans would have liked to have grabbed both.
In the real time line of WW2, the Allies invaded Iceland first.
However if Germany overreached itself and grabbed Iceland but did not take care of Ireland first then it loses both.
Hitler's mistake was to invade Russia before he forced Britain to capitulate.
Instead force Britain to capitulate then grab Ireland and grab Iceland.
With America checked, then turn attention to Russia.

knucklehead6

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Germans would have liked to have grabbed both.
In the real time line of WW2, the Allies invaded Iceland first.
However if Germany overreached itself and grabbed Iceland but did not take care of Ireland first then it loses both.
Hitler's mistake was to invade Russia before he forced Britain to capitulate.
Instead force Britain to capitulate then grab Ireland and grab Iceland.
With America checked, then turn attention to Russia.

There would have been no attack on Iceland without first capturing the British Isles, and i'm not disputing the fact that if Great Britain had been defeated that Ireland would have followed very shortly after.

Ireland would have been far more important to the allies than the Germans during the war though. If Ireland had joined on the Allied side then the ports on the west coast would have been upgraded, as would the country's infrastructure between east and west. Allied convoys would land in Galway/Limerick get unloaded and transported across to Dublin/Drogheda, get loaded onto smaller ships and sent across the Irish Sea, which would have been an allied lake.

Cobh and Haulbowline would have become a major naval base to protect these convoys and long range maritime patrol aircraft would have been based at Shannon. But that's all going off topic.

Would Ireland have been important to the Germans? Yes, it would have been. But not as important as bases in Occupied France. Large fleets of surface ships and U Boats would have been based in the likes of Brest, Lorient & Saint Nazaire with smaller fleets based on the Irish coast, and probably a larger fleet based in Icelandic waters.

Balaclava1991

knucklehead6 wrote: »

There would have been no attack on Iceland without first capturing the British Isles, and i'm not disputing the fact that if Great Britain had been defeated that Ireland would have followed very shortly after.

Ireland would have been far more important to the allies than the Germans during the war though. If Ireland had joined on the Allied side then the ports on the west coast would have been upgraded, as would the country's infrastructure between east and west. Allied convoys would land in Galway/Limerick get unloaded and transported across to Dublin/Drogheda, get loaded onto smaller ships and sent across the Irish Sea, which would have been an allied lake.

Cobh and Haulbowline would have become a major naval base to protect these convoys and long range maritime patrol aircraft would have been based at Shannon. But that's all going off topic.

Would Ireland have been important to the Germans? Yes, it would have been. But not as important as bases in Occupied France. Large fleets of surface ships and U Boats would have been based in the likes of Brest, Lorient & Saint Nazaire with smaller fleets based on the Irish coast, and probably a larger fleet based in Icelandic waters.

Obviously it would be easier to use bases in occupied France because France is attached to the continent.

It would be more difficult to maintain an occupation on an island like Ireland which could be cut off if the German Kiegsmarine lost control of the Atlantic.

Not occupying Ireland would have left Germany's Western flank exposed and if Ireland was invaded by the Americans it would be the stepping stone for the invasion of Britain and then the continent.

The Germans had only a narrow window of time to bring about a Britain capitulation between the fall of France in the summer of 1940 and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. If the Germans had never launched the Blitz and instead concentrated on defeating the British in North Africa and the Middle East, the British public would have probably tired of Churchill and his political rivals would have sued for peace.

Maoltuile

Jawgap wrote: »

There would have definitely been collaborators, but the original point related to the SS. Only as the war progressed did the SS loosen its acceptance criteria for membership. In the event of them triumphing it would seem unlikely they would need or want to accept non-Aryans into the organisation.

The Bretons - a highly relevant topic for this discussion, for many reasons - were considered "Aryans" as they were Celtic. It seems highly unlikely that such a useful loosening of the definition to help their rule would have been reversed (look at the course of gradual repeal of the Penal Laws here by the British, which greatly helped recruitment and co-option).

As regards collaboration, if there is any doubt over who the collaborators would have been or from where they would have been drawn, one may need to consider the links between the Germans and certain constituencies in this country - I'm guessing there would have been no "republican" resistance as that would have been regarded as pro-British - it's more likely they would have been pulling on the jackboots, rather than taking out the Sten Guns.

Except that many Republicans did join the Defence Forces during the Emergency (I think Tom Barry being the most famous). Look up the history of the 26th Battalion.

And the Nazis identified the GAA as a prime target for suppression. Not in any stretch of the imagination a British-sympathising or crypto-loyalist organisation then or now.

Gauleiter Russell would have run an efficient operation to be sure

Gauleiter Duffy, more likely. Didn't he send on a German spy to the IRA?

Maoltuile

Jawgap wrote: »

Unlikely - in Rosenberg's 'view' Christianity was an abhorrence that fatally weakened people. And given that any occupation or subjugation would likely have taken place within a decade of the Eucharistic Congress in 1932, I think anyone in the country have had a tough time trying to overcome Nazi religious prejudices.

A fascinating claim, particularly in the light of the very-well-documented role of the Catholic Church in smuggling Nazis of all nationalities out of Europe to safe refuge after the war, and to this country as well.

Balaclava1991

Maoltuile wrote: »

A fascinating claim, particularly in the light of the very-well-documented role of the Catholic Church in smuggling Nazis of all nationalities out of Europe to safe refuge after the war, and to this country as well.

Or a faction within the Catholic Church? It is also very well documented that many Catholic clergy (i.e. Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty) ran networks during WW2 which rescued thousands of Jews from the Holocaust.

Maoltuile

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Or a faction within the Catholic Church? It is also very well documented that many Catholic clergy (i.e. Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty) ran networks during WW2 which rescued thousands of Jews from the Holocaust.

Those are individual 'good apples' though. There were 'good Germans' too.

What did the Pope, cardinals and bishops have to say about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust?

Balaclava1991

Maoltuile wrote: »

Those are individual 'good apples' though. There were 'good Germans' too.

What did the Pope, cardinals and bishops have to say about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust?

The Pope made numerous public statements criticizing the Nazi regime and he intervened personally with the Italian government to try and save Jews. Much of what the Catholic Church did to fight the Nazis through its network of priests and lay Catholic was secretive and the Pope couched his language in euphemisms and other cautious phrases to deny Hitler and the Nazis the excuse to storm the Vatican. The Catholic clergy in occupied Europe were heavily involved with the resistance movements and acted as couriers for messages and money and in other roles.
Clearly many Catholics in Europe were attracted to the extreme right and became Nazis and Nazi collaborators just as many Protestants, Muslims, atheists and even Jews were.
It is anti-historical nonsense and slander to claim the Catholic Church was allied with the Nazis.
The facts are that Israel praised the Pope after the war for his public and secret efforts against Hitler. The Chief Rabbi in Rome converted to Catholicism and on September 21, 1945, the general secretary of the World Jewish Council, Dr. Leon Kubowitzky, presented an amount of money to the pope, "in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions."
I think we can safely put the old canard that the Catholic Church was in league with Nazism to bed.

Were many Irish Catholics sympathetic to Nazis? Yes.

Many more also joined the Allies and fought and numerous Irish priests served chaplains with the Allied forces.

Maoltuile

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Pope made numerous public statements criticizing the Nazi regime and he intervened personally with the Italian government to try and save Jews. Much of what the Catholic Church did to fight the Nazis through its network of priests and lay Catholic was secretive and the Pope couched his language in euphemisms and other cautious phrases to deny Hitler and the Nazis the excuse to storm the Vatican. The Catholic clergy in occupied Europe were heavily involved with the resistance movements and acted as couriers for messages and money and in other roles.

There have always been Catholic clergy who ignored the dictates of Rome in favour of their congregations (see the long history of 'rebel priests' here in Ireland). As already established, we're not talking about independent efforts but what the Church itself was about. And their history of collaboration with and studied non-resistance to Fascism and Nazism throughout Europe (prime examples being Spain in the Civil War, Croatia, and Germany during the Nazi period) stand in stark contrast to their behaviour towards leftist and especially Communist governments. Very stark contrast indeed.

Clearly many Catholics in Europe were attracted to the extreme right and became Nazis and Nazi collaborators just as many Protestants, Muslims, atheists and even Jews were.
It is anti-historical nonsense and slander to claim the Catholic Church was allied with the Nazis.

Very nice attempt at smuggling in a strawman, I applaud it. No-one here has claimed that the Catholic Church was "allied with the Nazis". However, they have an established history of having facilitated and shared in Fascist and Nazi means and goals - up to the point where they saw their own powers and privileges being infringed on, that is.

But now that you've brought it up, let's mention the Reichskonkordat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

The facts are that Israel praised the Pope after the war for his public and secret efforts against Hitler. The Chief Rabbi in Rome converted to Catholicism and on September 21, 1945, the general secretary of the World Jewish Council, Dr. Leon Kubowitzky, presented an amount of money to the pope, "in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions."

And yet the Vatican still refuses to let anyone see Pope Pius XII's papers relating to that topic.

I think we can safely put the old canard that the Catholic Church was in league with Nazism to bed.

And yet most, if not all, of the prominent Fascist and Nazi leaders were un-excommunicated Catholics. Again, the falseness of your ludicrous agrumentation is demonstrated by how even a casual study of how the Church dealt with those political movements it doesn't like (their long history here of pandering to wealth and power, or on an international scale their implacable hostility to leftist movements and governments).

Were many Irish Catholics sympathetic to Nazis? Yes.

Many more also joined the Allies and fought and numerous Irish priests served chaplains with the Allied forces.

Utterly irrelevant again. We're talking about the institutional Church, not what particular individual members may or may not do.

Balaclava1991

Maoltuile wrote: »

There have always been Catholic clergy who ignored the dictates of Rome in favour of their congregations (see the long history of 'rebel priests' here in Ireland). As already established, we're not talking about independent efforts but what the Church itself was about. And their history of collaboration with and studied non-resistance to Fascism and Nazism throughout Europe (prime examples being Spain in the Civil War, Croatia, and Germany during the Nazi period) stand in stark contrast to their behaviour towards leftist and especially Communist governments. Very stark contrast indeed.

The efforts of Catholic priests to save Jews were not independent efforts.
The Pope was fully aware of what was going but he could not speak openly because Europe was occupied by murderous butchers who would have wiped out every Catholic priest in Nazi Europe.
Catholic clergy and nuns and lay people were risking their lives every day to save people and Catholic institutions were their only refuge.
It would have been suicide to give Hitler the excuse he needed to liquidate the church.

Very nice attempt at smuggling in a strawman, I applaud it. No-one here has claimed that the Catholic Church was "allied with the Nazis". However, they have an established history of having facilitated and shared in Fascist and Nazi means and goals - up to the point where they saw their own powers and privileges being infringed on, that is.

The Catholic Church tries at all times to steer course that tries to preserve the greater good which is survival. We don't live in an ideal world. All the Church can do is preach the gospel.

But now that you've brought it up, let's mention the Reichskonkordat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat



And yet the Vatican still refuses to let anyone see Pope Pius XII's papers relating to that topic.

What choice had the Church but to try and spare Catholics from further persecution? That was what the agreement was about. It wasn't the clergy who stopped Hitler but the armed forces of the Allies.

And yet most, if not all, of the prominent Fascist and Nazi leaders were un-excommunicated Catholics.

If they excommunicated the Nazis the Catholic Church and millions of Catholics would have persecuted.

Again, the falseness of your ludicrous agrumentation is demonstrated by how even a casual study of how the Church dealt with those political movements it doesn't like (their long history here of pandering to wealth and power, or on an international scale their implacable hostility to leftist movements and governments).

Why do you think the Church panders to wealth and power? Look at the good that is done when wealth and power are manipulated toward good ends?

Utterly irrelevant again. We're talking about the institutional Church, not what particular individual members may or may not do.

The institution is the individuals and individuals are the institution.

You have an inflexible world view. The world is not black and white but shades of grey.