Ireland in WW2....

martinedwards

as a response to the Americans and WW2 thread......

I've been researching my grandfathers war history...

born Moville, ended up captaining a corvette convoy escort and then retiring because of TB back to Moville in 42

I never met him and have never heard of HIM bad mouthing the Irish situation, but my general background reading gives a different story, especially in the Navy

OK, there was the Donegal corridor which allowed the sub chaser planes to fly out of Lough Erne, but here were dozens of ships sunk and thousands of lives lost because the convoys had to come round the top of Innishowen to Derry rather than straight into Galway or Cork

the fact that Ireland refused the Navy access to it's ports meant an extra two days each way for a convoy, and at the pit of the Battle of the Atlantic, that was a LOT, especially when Germany controlled from the top of Scandinavia to Gibraltar (as Spain were also Neutral)

and All the while Ireland enjoyed the contents of the convoys.....

plenty of fuel.... Ok, maybe not plenty, but the was still oil available, and ALL of it came from the convoys that were denied a safe haven in Irish ports.

Oh yeah, add in the German embassy in Dublin that stayed open and active throughout the war collecting and relaying intelligence to Hitler.

there were thousands of brave Irish who joined the Allied forces and fought, but I have heard it said that Ireland's neutrality may have added a year to the duration of the war.

whatcha think?

Manic Moran

Wouldn't have hurt the economy either, be it by all the servicemen with time and money to kill, or from the Marshall Plan, which would have seen, as a combatant, Ireland get a much larger boost than it did.

That said, domestic political stupidity probably forced the government's hand to maintain a position of not allying with the UK.

fedor.2.

Really embarrassing period in our history, to be honest

wazky

fedor.2. wrote: »

Really embarrassing period in our history, to be honest

Yeah, we should have joined up with Hitler and the lads, the US of A and Co wouldn't have had a hope then.

Buona Fortuna

martinedwards wrote: »

the fact that Ireland refused the Navy access to it's ports meant an extra two days each way for a convoy, and at the pit of the Battle of the Atlantic, that was a LOT, especially when Germany controlled from the top of Scandinavia to Gibraltar (as Spain were also Neutral)


Oh yeah, add in the German embassy in Dublin that stayed open and active throughout the war collecting and relaying intelligence to Hitler.


whatcha think?

I don't think that Ireland had the wherewithall to fight a war at that time. As a neutral it had an extremely difficult balancing act to follow.

and All the while Ireland enjoyed the contents of the convoys.....

plenty of fuel.... Ok, maybe not plenty, but the was still oil available, and ALL of it came from the convoys that were denied a safe haven in Irish ports.

Ireland had to import its own goods from overseas. Given the U-Boat war, the USA would deliver no closer than Lisbon!

When the war broke out Ireland had to get its own mercantile marine - because no one else was going to do it for us.

there were thousands of brave Irish who joined the Allied forces and fought, but I have heard it said that Ireland's neutrality may have added a year to the duration of the war.

We don't know why they joined up. I'd suggest that very few were looking to "fight a just war". I think the majority would have joined because there were no jobs at home, better money, or for a bit of adventure.

A year? I have my doubts. When you look at some of the mistakes the major players made I don't see Ireland's neutrality as that much of an issue.

mikemac1

Cork would have been bombed to smithereens

P_1

Yes it could have been considered slightly cowardly for Ireland not to have gotten involved on the Allied side but given the lack of defensive capabilities of the Irish military at the time then I'd have to say that it was a justified cowardice. The Luftwaffe was able to bomb Dublin with relative ease during the war, and to be frank, Ireland couldn't have absorbed the sort of punishment that the UK absorbed during the war.

A Coventry style bombing on Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford and (if you excuse the pun) it would have been "Goodnight Vienna" for WW2 era Ireland.

gandalf

Considering we had gone through WW1, a rising, a War of Independence, a Civil War it was prudent that we remained neutral especially as fighting on the allied side could have instigated another civil war. Kepping us neutral was one of the few positive things Devalera did for this country.

That said a large number from Southern Ireland fought on the side of the allies. Numbers range from over 60,000 to 160,000.

rozeboosje

I'm from a little country that decided it was going to be Neutral too. And it was. Until Hitler decided otherwise and bombed the **** out of Rotterdam.

You guys were just lucky that Hitler was defeated before Ireland could become in any way interesting to the Third Reich.

Jawgap

my own view is that the Allies could not have won without us:D

The number of British senior commanders who were born on this island or were of Irish extraction is impressive....

Brooke (Chief of the Imperial General Staff) - Fermanagh
Dill - Antrim
Alexander - Tyrone
Monty - Antrim
Admiral Cunningham - Dublin
Pyle - Dublin
JOE Vandeleur - Clare
Saul - Wicklow

Even the Yanks with Leahy, Gavin etc had more than a few Irish in their ranks.

That said, it's not this country's proudest moment. There was no way Irish troops could have served in a British led force, but there's no reason why aircraft couldn't have been based here to help combat the u-boats, or that Canadian or US troops couldn't have been billeted here or provided with training areas.

Dev signing the book of condolence was probably the lowest point and the treatment of returning soldiers was nothing but the product of spiteful, vindictive and petty minds.

Jawgap

mikemac1 wrote: »

Cork would have been bombed to smithereens

Unlikely - that would have required a very long over water flight (to stay out of range of the fighter defences of SW England) and the Luftwaffe pilots detested over water flying.

UCDVet

Eh - it's pretty hard for me to get upset about a country NOT entering a war. Honestly, the world would be a better place if more countries would just stop going to war.

Personally, I like that I can't think of any recent Irish invasions or battlefronts on foreign soil. Sure - it's hard to make great war movies - but that's a small price to pay for not killing lots and lots of people.

wazky

Jawgap wrote: »

Dev signing the book of condolence was probably the lowest point

All heads of the netural countries did this.

Although Ireland was far from netural really, as it supplied valuable weather reports to the Allies and any Allied pilots that landed here were quietly given back whilst German pilots were incarcerated for the entirety of the war here. Not the mention the thousands of Irish troops on the Allied side.

goz83

Maybe we just thought "the brits invaded us. The yanks refused to help us. Germany has no interest in us. So fcuk them all and their little war" :pac:

Fratton Fred

I think Dev got it right. More by luck than by accident, but right all the same.

Signing the book of condolence was a ridiculous act by a stubborn man though.

The biggest shame is the hero worship of Sean Russell by the NGA, who would have welcomed the Nazis in with open arms.

UCDVet

Honest question: Didn't Dublin get bombed in WW2? Did Ireland remain neutral after the attacks?

P_1

Jawgap wrote: »

Unlikely - that would have required a very long over water flight (to stay out of range of the fighter defences of SW England) and the Luftwaffe pilots detested over water flying.

To be fair a diversionary attack on, say, Plymouth would have left the Irish cities right open for attack. German bombers based in Brittany would have destroyed the cities and killed countless once you consider the lack of shelters.

goz83

UCDVet wrote: »

Honest question: Didn't Dublin get bombed in WW2? Did Ireland remain neutral after the attacks?

I think that was accidental. Was the North Strand area hit.

fergiesfolly

rozeboosje wrote: »

I'm from a little country that decided it was going to be Neutral too. And it was. Until Hitler decided otherwise and bombed the **** out of Rotterdam.

You guys were just lucky that Hitler was defeated before Ireland could become in any way interesting to the Third Reich.

So, Holland was neutral until it was attacked and was forced to enter the fray.
Otherwise, Holland would have stayed out of it.
The USA only became involved after Pearl Harbour, a full two years after the war started and only entered the war in Europe because of the German/ Japanese pact.
Ireland wasn't attacked and had no need to get involved.
Don't get the "guilty shame" we're supposed to feel over not entering the war.
Everyone that did had their own agenda.
And not necessarily a noble one either.

P_1

UCDVet wrote: »

Honest question: Didn't Dublin get bombed in WW2? Did Ireland remain neutral after the attacks?

Yeah Terenure, the SCR and the North Strand were bombed in Dublin. Julianstown and Duleek in Meath, the Curragh in Kildare and Campile in Co Wexford were bombed too.

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

Jawgap

UCDVet wrote: »

Honest question: Didn't Dublin get bombed in WW2? Did Ireland remain neutral after the attacks?

Yes and yes.

Conspiracy theory - the British 'bent' the German navigational beams leading to the Germans bombing Dublin

Conspiracy theory II - the German bombed Dublin in retaliation for Ireland providing humanitarian assistance to Belfast when it was blitzed

Probable explanation - navigational error.

P_1 wrote: »

To be fair a diversionary attack on, say, Plymouth would have left the Irish cities right open for attack. German bombers based in Brittany would have destroyed the cities and killed countless once you consider the lack of shelters.

Sorry, it never would have happened - you had radar cover all through SW England meaning any raid departing Brittany would have to stay heading west to avoid detection before turning north to attack the south coast of Ireland.

That's way beyond what the Luftwaffe were capable of doing - the one time they tried it - the attacks against the east coast of England staged from Norway, on 15 August 1940 - they got hammered losing nearly 20% of the attacking force.

pablomakaveli

One worrying thing i've heard from various people over here in the UK is that they were taught in school that Ireland aided the Nazi's in WW2.

I've gotten into a couple of arguments over it as well with some people who are adament it's true.

smurgen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wouldn't have hurt the economy either, be it by all the servicemen with time and money to kill, or from the Marshall Plan, which would have seen, as a combatant, Ireland get a much larger boost than it did.

That said, domestic political stupidity probably forced the government's hand to maintain a position of not allying with the UK.

your mindset is the problem with the american war machine.you see it as an industry.wake up.it is innocent men and women killed.it's not a game and should be avoided at all costs.

Ireland doesn't owe an explanation to ANYONE for it's behavior in world war two.We are OUR own country, we make OUR own decisions. We fought for OUR independence in blood.And we should only take to arms when we have absolutely no other option.

The_Valeyard

Considering the destruction of the country and division of its people after the war of Independence and Civil war (never mind WW1, or the Rising) I do not see how Ireland could have joined in the war. It Would have been ridiculous and may have caused the collapse of the nation.
Many were still bitter against the British since the wars were very fresh in theirs minds and scares real. Anyone who is trying to guilt trip us into admitting neutrality was wrong, needs a proper history lesson. It was an extremely popular move by the politicians.

Seems to be a bit of West Brit revisionist history going on, attempting to rewrite the past into a modern context.

Micky Dolenz

The joys of being an island meant we were harder to get too. We did absolutely the right thing by staying neutral imo.

Dev signing the book of condolences was protocol and I wouldn't read too much into it.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Buona Fortuna

I don't hold with the "shameful" episode school of thought. I don't think we had so many options.

Our neutrality was skewed towards the Allies though. Allied pilots who crash laned in Ireland were quietly assisted to the North. German pilots were inturned. Weather reports were provided and the report from Blacksod was crucial to D-Day.

rozeboosje

fergiesfolly wrote: »

So, Holland was neutral until it was attacked and was forced to enter the fray.
Otherwise, Holland would have stayed out of it.
The USA only became involved after Pearl Harbour, a full two years after the war started and only entered the war in Europe because of the German/ Japanese pact.
Ireland wasn't attacked and had no need to get involved.
Don't get the "guilty shame" we're supposed to feel over not entering the war.
Everyone that did had their own agenda.
And not necessarily a noble one either.

It's not about "guilty shame", it's about the realisation that "staying neutral" is a luxury that few can afford to indulge in. And while it's nothing to be ASHAMED of, it certainly isn't something to be PROUD of either.

Fratton Fred

pablomakaveli wrote: »

One worrying thing i've heard from various people over here in the UK is that they were taught in school that Ireland aided the Nazi's in WW2.

I've gotten into a couple of arguments over it as well with some people who are adament it's true.

It must have changed since I was at school then.

oceanman

smurgen wrote: »

Ireland doesn't owe an explanation to ANYONE for it's behavior in world war two.We are OUR own country, we make OUR own decisions. We fought for OUR independence in blood.And we should only take to arms when we have absolutely no other option.

great post...fully agree

rozeboosje

oceanman wrote: »

great post...fully agree

I'm sure there are options other than participating in a peace force in places like Lebanon or Syria. For example: leave them to kill each other and pretend you're not seeing the human suffering. The fact that Irish peace-keepers are actually there trying to help shows that the position "we should only get involved when there is absolutely no other option" is not one held by the various Irish governments of the last few decades.

The Diabolical Monocle

Quite simply put the approach taken by Ireland at the time was the best choice available.

There is no other way to play out the scenario that so limits possible later destruction of Ireland* while simultaneously lending as much help as possible within constraints to the allies.

The Cranbourne report will shut up any buffoons who try to besmirch Ireland with a simple nazi/Godwin accusation.

These threads usually emanate from a frustrated loyalist mind, resorting to the lowly tactics of tabloid style accusation.


*by either Germany OR Britain, which would thank Ireland for its now dead men lying in Europe, by putting a knife right in Irelands back.

Shakespeare's Sister

smurgen wrote: »

your mindset is the problem with the american war machine.you see it as an industry.wake up.it is innocent men and women killed.it's not a game and should be avoided at all costs.

Ireland doesn't owe an explanation to ANYONE for it's behavior in world war two.We are OUR own country, we make OUR own decisions. We fought for OUR independence in blood.And we should only take to arms when we have absolutely no other option.

Exactly. An "embarrassing" period in our history -wtf?!
Better shtick in how "we" are an anti-semitic nation too - that's another fashionable one.

pablomakaveli

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The joys of being an island meant we were harder to get too. We did absolutely the right thing by staying neutral imo.

Dev signing the book of condolences was protocol and I wouldn't read too much into it.

It was said that it was more out of respect for the German ambassador who had been well behaved during the war (unlike his American counterpart).

pablomakaveli

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It must have changed since I was at school then.

I put it down to the general ignorance of Irish history in the UK. I reckon people confuse Sean Russell exploits as being representative of Ireland at the time.

smurgen

rozeboosje wrote: »

I'm sure there are options other than participating in a peace force in places like Lebanon or Syria. For example: leave them to kill each other and pretend you're not seeing the human suffering. The fact that Irish peace-keepers are actually there trying to help shows that the position "we should only get involved when there is absolutely no other option" is not one held by the various Irish governments of the last few decades.

well if other countrys acted more like Ireland we wouldn't have issues the likes of which we have in the Middle East that now need fixing.It says something about the world when not engaging in war is perceived to be something to be ashamed about.

P_1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wouldn't have hurt the economy either, be it by all the servicemen with time and money to kill, or from the Marshall Plan, which would have seen, as a combatant, Ireland get a much larger boost than it did.

That said, domestic political stupidity probably forced the government's hand to maintain a position of not allying with the UK.

Yes but that's coming from the US perspective, where (Hawaii and Pacific islands aside) the civilian populace and economy were spared the effects of WW2 thanks to the Atlantic and Pacific. Ireland would have had no such luxury. Yes the Channel and the Irish Sea are formidable natural barriers but they wouldn't have been impenetrable.

Yes having a few GIs in town to spend their dollars would have been nice but would those dollars have paid for rebuilding O'Connell Bridge for example?

Jawgap

The only thing that saved is from attack or domination was the accident of geography. Other countries tried to pursue neutrality and were unable to do so because they were closer to the major theatres of war and did not have the RN and RAF sitting between them and the Germans.

The fact we benefitted from a collective defense that we didn't contribute to, is shameful.

Thankfully, despite the political establishment's attitude a lot of cooperation took place at the military level. But there was still a lot more could've been done - air bases to save he lives of merchant seamen is but one example.

Jawgap

P_1 wrote: »

Yes but that's coming from the US perspective, where (Hawaii and Pacific islands aside) the civilian populace and economy were spared the effects of WW2 thanks to the Atlantic and Pacific. Ireland would have had no such luxury. Yes the Channel and the Irish Sea are formidable natural barriers but they wouldn't have been impenetrable.

Yes having a few GIs in town to spend their dollars would have been nice but would those dollars have paid for rebuilding O'Connell Bridge for example?

No, by the Marshall Plan would've paid for that and a lot more besides.

The Americans also dangled their support for a united Ireland to try and encourage more practical support from the then Irish government.

riffmongous

pablomakaveli wrote: »

One worrying thing i've heard from various people over here in the UK is that they were taught in school that Ireland aided the Nazi's in WW2.

I've gotten into a couple of arguments over it as well with some people who are adament it's true.

I've seen that online a few times, particularly in the top rated commments on the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092138/Irish-minister-admits-time-Jews-fleeing-Nazis-denied-visas-1930s-morally-bankrupt-regime.html

smurgen

riffmongous wrote: »

I've seen that online a few times, particularly in the top rated commments on the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092138/Irish-minister-admits-time-Jews-fleeing-Nazis-denied-visas-1930s-morally-bankrupt-regime.html

that's a right wing publication from a former empire that dominated us for years. **** them and their opinions.

Shakespeare's Sister

pablomakaveli wrote: »

One worrying thing i've heard from various people over here in the UK is that they were taught in school that Ireland aided the Nazi's in WW2.

I've gotten into a couple of arguments over it as well with some people who are adament it's true.

It's a thing self loathers (Ireland being full of them), huge fans of the IDF, some loyalists, and anti-Irish idiots like to say.
Whereas reality: there was a pogrom in Limerick in the early 20th century, which was obviously disgusting, and there are a few anti-semitic scumbags (like in ANY country unfortunately - and to a much greater extent the further east in Europe you go).
Then there's the thing of catholicism automatically = anti-semitism. I guess Spain is automatically an anti-semitic country so.

Jawgap

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

It's a thing self loathers (Ireland being full of them), huge fans of the IDF and anti-Irish idiots like to say.
Whereas reality: there was a pogrom in Limerick in the early 20th century, which was obviously disgusting, and there are a few anti-semitic scumbags (like in ANY country unfortunately - and to a much greater extent the further east in Europe you go).
Then there's the thing of catholicism automatically = anti-semitism. I guess Spain is automatically an anti-semitic country so.

It's kind of difficult to sustain the anti-semitic argument, given the recognition afforded to the Jewish Congregations in the original 1937 Constitution (Art 44).

You could argue that Art 44 was a sectarian given the primacy it afforded the Roman Catholic church, but state recognition for Judaism in late 1930s Europe was pretty progressive for the time. It seems Dev and his advisors (not so much McQuaid) were anxious to prevent in Ireland what was happening in other countries.

That said, you still, as you suggest, can't legislate away stupidity and idiocy on the part of a minority of citizens.

Strong Life in Dublin

No offence but I don't see why Ireland would of getting involved....did anyone get involved when we where occupied by the British? ?

Jawgap

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

No offence but I don't see why Ireland would of getting involved....did anyone get involved when we where occupied by the British? ?

Except we weren't 'occupied' - we were, for better or worse, part of the UK. Unlike the colonies we had full parliamentary representation, participated fully in the administration of the empire and benefited from that participation.

The Irish served as prime ministers, senior administrators and top military commanders, in the same way the Scots and Welsh did.

But don't let the facts obscure your view.

Out of interest, do you think der Fuhrer would have been happy just to leave us to our own devices had the Allies been defeated? Would the lives of 2,000 of our fellow citizens listed at Wannsee have been a small price to pay to be left alone?

To borrow a line from Trotsky......we may not have been interested in the war, but the war was interested in us

wendell borton

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

No offence but I don't see why Ireland would of getting involved....did anyone get involved when we where occupied by the British? ?

The French landed troops in Galway and the Connaught republic was briefly established. The Spanish also at the battle of Kinsale, the papal state supported the earl of desmond rebellion and Robert the Bruce's brother also campaigned here.

Ireland may have had a parliament but it wasn't for the benefit of the vast majority, it was a sectarian apartheid parliament that represented rich land owners.

steddyeddy

gandalf wrote: »

Considering we had gone through WW1, a rising, a War of Independence, a Civil War it was prudent that we remained neutral especially as fighting on the allied side could have instigated another civil war. Kepping us neutral was one of the few positive things Devalera did for this country.

That said a large number from Southern Ireland fought on the side of the allies. Numbers range from over 60,000 to 160,000.

This/thread.

Red Nissan

Ireland added nothing to the war length, do you know that Mr Churchill wanted to invade in 1946 extending the war another year and the Yanks said they were going ahead without him?

Also Ireland was not as neutral as we profess to believe. Plenty of aid was given to the British and American fleets off our West and South West coasts particularly.

We have stories of two German U-Boots sunk in coastal waters and the British Naval frigate sunk in action in Ballycotton Bay.

Check out the activity in Bantry during the war years, effectively a British coastal defense base and a holding area for the US aid fleets for D-Day.

mikemac1

riffmongous wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092138/Irish-minister-admits-time-Jews-fleeing-Nazis-denied-visas-1930s-morally-bankrupt-regime.html

Who cares what Alan Shatter thinks

He would have been happy to drag Ireland into a war

riffmongous

mikemac1 wrote: »

Who cares what Alan Shatter thinks

He would have been happy to drag Ireland into a war

That wasnt the point of my post. I was only interested in the comments section and the attitude some of the people have there

francis1978

What were the names of these Irish Prime-ministers ??

Jawgap wrote: »

Except we weren't 'occupied' - we were, for better or worse, part of the UK. Unlike the colonies we had full parliamentary representation, participated fully in the administration of the empire and benefited from that participation.

The Irish served as prime ministers, senior administrators and top military commanders, in the same way the Scots and Welsh did.

But don't let the facts obscure your view.

Out of interest, do you think der Fuhrer would have been happy just to leave us to our own devices had the Allies been defeated? Would the lives of 2,000 of our fellow citizens listed at Wannsee have been a small price to pay to be left alone?

To borrow a line from Trotsky......we may not have been interested in the war, but the war was interested in us