Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War

IrishTrajan

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

donaghs

IrishTrajan wrote: »

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

Churchill, much generals and ministers annoyance, was constantly coming up with new schemes and plans. Whatever offer we know of seems fairly vague.

Certainly airfields on the south and west coast, and ports like Cobh and others would have been very useful in the Battle of the Atlantic?

Manach

Assuming we came in on the Allied side, re-trained with the learnt tactics of modern warfare Irish regiments would have been an immidiate boost on the numeric side. On the strategic side, having bases for planes and a shorter route in the Atlantic would have been meant fewer losses to German u-boats. Thus there would be an impact.

sparky42

I think a post war study suggested that Ireland being on the allies side could have reduce shipping loses by about 10%, which would have had a significant affect directly. The increased numbers of troops along with the potential for extra industrial capacity would also have helped.

purplepanda

After Ireland had joined the allied war effort, it would have been more than likely subject to heavy german air raids particularly at night. Such raids caused considerable damage, destruction & countless deaths & injuries to UK cities & people & would have possibly been even worse in Ireland due to lack of any proper provision of air defence at the time.

With allied air defences already stretched there might not have been enough military personnel & equipment available to mount an adequate defence against the new Luftwaffe threat to Ireland.

There at least would have been a very vulnerable time period until equipment & manpower was moved over to Ireland for this purpose & / or Irish military trained in anti aircraft defence tactics.

Joining the allied war effort could well have resulted in large Irish civilian casualties during the first few months.

s8n

We would have made a grand cup of tae with the burco boiler going 24/7

TheQuietFella

IrishTrajan wrote: »

For theoretical reasons, let's assume that De Valera accepted Churchill's offer of reunification in return for joining the war on the side of the allies; what sort of an impact would Ireland have made on the war? Was his plea merely political, or did he genuinely believe Ireland was more of an asset than a liability?

We would have made no impact militarily what so ever if that's what you mean?
We were only important to Churchill geographically but if the Allies had
felt it necessary to invade Ireland and take back the treaty ports then they would have had. What was to stop them?

sparky42

TheQuietFella wrote: »

We would have made no impact militarily what so ever if that's what you mean?
We were only important to Churchill geographically but if the Allies had
felt it necessary to invade Ireland and take back the treaty ports then they would have had. What was to stop them?

Well we could have offered more than just our position if we had been involved, by the end of the war the UK's manpower pool was shattered, a couple more divisions might have made a difference in some battles.

sparky42

purplepanda wrote: »

After Ireland had joined the allied war effort, it would have been more than likely subject to heavy german air raids particularly at night. Such raids caused considerable damage, destruction & countless deaths & injuries to UK cities & people & would have possibly been even worse in Ireland due to lack of any proper provision of air defence at the time.

With allied air defences already stretched there might not have been enough military personnel & equipment available to mount an adequate defence against the new Luftwaffe threat to Ireland.

There at least would have been a very vulnerable time period until equipment & manpower was moved over to Ireland for this purpose & / or Irish military trained in anti aircraft defence tactics.

Joining the allied war effort could well have resulted in large Irish civilian casualties during the first few months.

Not an absolute certainty, the bombing attacks against Belfast were much lighter than those concentrated in the Blitz. Remember when the offer was made Germany was still trying to concentrate on knocking out the UK, bombing a very rural nation at the extreme of their range that wouldn't achieve any miltiary value wasn't going to help them win.

TheQuietFella

sparky42 wrote: »

Well we could have offered more than just our position if we had been involved, by the end of the war the UK's manpower pool was shattered, a couple more divisions might have made a difference in some battles.

I don't think that Mr De Valera was going into battle with a country that partitioned the island at whatever the cost.
Churchill had nothing but contempt for both anyway.

Manach

TheQuietFella wrote: »

What was to stop them?

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

TheQuietFella

Manach wrote: »

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

I agree with your sentiment but realistically we were a fledgling nation and
we would not have been able to stop the might of British/American forces
had they decided to invade Ireland. They were already stationed in the North
and would have over ran us in hours!

Manach

At the high of the British war effort, it may have taken them a few days. However this was from 1944 onwards. Up till that point (referencing books from Hastings etc) the UK was struggling to keep her numerous armies supplied in the various battle areas. By that stage (referencing memoirs/bios from Von Luck or Manstein) the war was turning against the Axis so there was no need.
Politically, while there were cases of the Allies intervening against neutral countries (Norway and to a lesser extent Iceland) the political cost, among the Dominion countries and the US would have scuppered support for the UK. Even up to the eve of Pearl Harbour, Interventionists strongly opposed aid to the UK up to and including lend-lease, which kept the UK war effort going.
Finally, even in the event of a successful invasion the effort by irregular forces could bled garrison forces - eg the German issues with Yugoslavia.

sparky42

Manach wrote: »

At the high of the British war effort, it may have taken them a few days. However this was from 1944 onwards. Up till that point (referencing books from Hastings etc) the UK was struggling to keep her numerous armies supplied in the various battle areas. By that stage (referencing memoirs/bios from Von Luck or Manstein) the war was turning against the Axis so there was no need.
Politically, while there were cases of the Allies intervening against neutral countries (Norway and to a lesser extent Iceland) the political cost, among the Dominion countries and the US would have scuppered support for the UK. Even up to the eve of Pearl Harbour, Interventionists strongly opposed aid to the UK up to and including lend-lease, which kept the UK war effort going.
Finally, even in the event of a successful invasion the effort by irregular forces could bled garrison forces - eg the German issues with Yugoslavia.

Please even post Dunkirk the UK could have overrun the Irish forces with ease if they were willing to pay the diplomatic costs.

riffmongous

sparky42 wrote: »

Please even post Dunkirk the UK could have overrun the Irish forces with ease if they were willing to pay the diplomatic costs.

How many troops would have been needed to garrison it though?

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

How many troops would have been needed to garrison it though?

Considering the Canadian Divisions that the UK had based in the UK for many years, they could handle it, at worst they could just hold the Treaty Ports and still come out ahead. If you look at the forces deployed in the War of Independence, it was only 2 division's worth of troops.

s8n

s8n wrote: »

We would have made a grand cup of tae with the burco boiler going 24/7

Seriously, not one thanks ??

whisky_galore

Manach wrote: »

The soldiers who were there to defend the country, unlike Shatter's deserters.

I'd give the combined Army and LDF maybe max 48 hours in the face of an Allied or Axis power before being rolled over with guerilla attacks going on for weeks or months afterwards. Perhaps with an invading Allied power we might have had a brief fire fight for show and then come to some 'arrangement'.

Think we were better off staying out of it, in an active role at least.

Jawgap

The 38th (Irish) Infantry Brigade developed a formidable reputation during the Italian campaign.

The Inniskillings, for example, turned out to be fiercesome mountain fighters and Wigram who set up and revised the infantry training syllabus commented on their innate abilities when it came to practising infiltration tactics.

Given that the country had just, within living memory, fought a guerilla war and introduced the world to the concept of the urban guerilla, I'd say it wouldn't be beyond the realms of reason to suggest that some decent contribution wouldn't haven't been made in respect of the specialist units (commandos etc) and roles (sniper hunters).

Schadenfreudia

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

indioblack

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

So it didn't matter which "empire" won?

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Well, Churchill thought it would take 400,000 troops to subdue Ireland in 1920; I'd imagine they couldn't afford that many in 1940.

The only way we'd have made a noticeable difference is if we'd attacked England!

But we took the best pragmatic and moral course and stayed out of the Second War of Empires.

Well done Dev!

Well done?

We lost out on the Marshall Plan - we were shut out of the UN until Stalin popped his clogs and De Gaul was never a fan of us joining the EEC.

So yes well done Dev and thank God for Lemass

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

indioblack

Deleted User wrote: »

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

Yep. In this barmy scenario the Free State would have been cordoned off, blockaded - no need for an invasion. No useful help from the Germans - they couldn't even cross the English channel.
Oh yes - and whoever was responsible for such a mad idea would be quietly taken outside and strung up - by his own people.
Better to stick to practical neutrality.

Schadenfreudia

indioblack wrote: »

So it didn't matter which "empire" won?

Not to the Indians or most of the other British colonies. As has been often pointed out, bar Britain and France (Polish allies) not a single other European country joined on the side of the Allies unless it was invaded/attacked first.

Reason; they were not insane enough to bring death and destruction upon themselves if it could remotely be avoided.

Schadenfreudia

Jawgap wrote: »

We lost out on the Marshall Plan

A fairly tiny trade off for the vast death and destruction that would have visited us had we joined the war.

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

At least there would be no Georgian city centre left to fret about and we could be full of sixties high-rise buildings like Beautiful Birmingham.

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

A fairly tiny trade off for the vast death and destruction that would have visited us had we joined the war.

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

At least there would be no Georgian city centre left to fret about and we could be full of sixties high-rise buildings like Beautiful Birmingham.

The Luftwaffe completely lacked the capacity to blitz Dublin the way they did London, or even extend the Baedeker Raids to our cities. Plus, if we had been part of the Allies fighter, AAA and RDF cover would have been extended to Ireland, as per the plans I've discussed in other threads here.

Plus, Irish contingency plans envisaged fielding two divisions - much like the Kiwis. The suffered about 12000 KIA despite participating in some of the most vicious combat in the Pacific and Italy.

indioblack

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Not to the Indians or most of the other British colonies. As has been often pointed out, bar Britain and France (Polish allies) not a single other European country joined on the side of the Allies unless it was invaded/attacked first.

Reason; they were not insane enough to bring death and destruction upon themselves if it could remotely be avoided.

Fair point - and worth adding that Hitler ignored any nation's neutrality when it suited him. So the chance of avoiding a visit by the Third Reich was effectively impossible.

Victor

It would off course depend on when we entered the war. If we entered early, we would have suffered more casualties, but the war would have been shorter - fewer people would have died overall. The effort would have reduced Allied losses in the Atlantic and Irish forces, albeit likely modest, would have put more pressure on the Axis forces.

For anyone who has studied tactics, compare your attacks where (assuming equal force quality) you are outnumbered (will always fail, spectacularly), when numbers are equal (will always fail, expensively) or when you outnumber your opponent (more likely to succeed, the more forces you have). The same thing happens at a strategic level. Each additional attacking asset of a given type is worth more than the preceding asset of that type.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Another 50,000 dead troops and maybe 100,000 dead civilians in a ruined Dublin and other towns?

Those numbers aren't credible. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Blitz suggests 40,000–43,000 civilians dead and 46,000-139,000 injured, so I'm not sure how they would kill more people at a greater range (i.e. less bombs carried) in Ireland, with smaller cities.

whisky_galore

Deleted User wrote: »

Turn tables. What if we had sided with Germany? Surely that would have made an impact.

Would have the support of a significant number of the population, most of whom would have been pretty ignorant of what Nazi Germany was all about.

Thankfully, saner heads prevailed, not that it was ever seriously considered...except perhaps by fringe lunatic elements like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe.

Schadenfreudia

Would have the support of a significant number of the population, most of whom would have been pretty ignorant of what Nazi Germany was all about.

Thankfully, saner heads prevailed, not that it was ever seriously considered...except perhaps by fringe lunatic elements like Ailtirí na hAiséirghe.

There were also significant numbers of the population who think/thought we should have entered on the side of Britain; again, thank God for Dev and those sane people.