What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

Samsonsmasher

Irish neutrality was directly linked to De Valera and Fianna Fail who came to power in the 1930s having reluctantly recognized the Irish Free State in the late 1920s entered the Dáil contested elections won thumping victory over WT Cosgrave and the victors of the Irish Civil War a decade before. De Valera was determined to dismantle the Treaty get rid of land loan repayments dating back to the Parnell era buy out of Anglo Irish landlords, get back the Treaty ports to keep Ireland out of future British wars, dismantle British powers over the government of Eire as Ireland was renamed and pave the road for a full constitutional independent Republic.
De Valera did not declare a Republic while he was in office even during the Emergency because he did not want to politically abandon Northern Catholics cut off from the south under Protestant majority sectarian rule in Northern Ireland.

Twenty years on from the start of the War of Independence 1919-1921 there would be many men who have taken up arms if the Irish state Ireland took sides against Nazi Germany. Ultra conservative Catholics who had supported Franco most definitely would have seen this as a betrayal. Die hard nationalists in the ranks of the IRA would have taken the same line. Marxists around the world taking their orders from Stalin did not support WW2 until the Nazi invasion in 1941 and ideologues in socialist republican ranks would have been no different.

De Valera was almost shot after the 1916 Rising and could easily have died during the War of Independence and Civil War like many of his peers. It was not certain that he would emerge as the leader of Fianna Fáil led government in the 1930s after being sidelined by the IRA leadership during the Civil War 1922-23. Catholic Ireland could have adopted fascist rule possibly under Eoin O'Duffy who led the Blueshirts or some other hard line nationalists. Most of Europe adopted militaristic fascist style government at that time. If Michael Collins had lived and had filled the role De Valera had filled it is possible an Ireland less triumphantly Catholic - Collins held strong anti clerical views - and with friendlier relations with Britain - Churchill and Collins apparently grew to like eachother - might have emerged. Collins might have been quite like General Pilsudski of Poland - posing as a patriot soldier and politician.

In this scenario Collins would have allowed Royal Navy ships to use Irish ports allowed British troops and aircraft to use bases in Ireland while British money weapons and equipment would have been used to raise Irish divisions to fight alongside the Western Allies in North Africa Italy France Germany and Asia just as the Canadian South Africans Australians Indians and New Zealanders did. Luftwaffe air attacks on Cork Waterford and Dublin would have been devastating but outraged the Irish people against the Nazis.

American troops and aircraft would have been based across Ireland just as they were in the UK and because many would have been Irish American they would be warmly welcomed by the Irish people. However the "oversexed overpaid and over here" phenomenon that led to a sexual revolution in wartime Britain would also have played out in Ireland.

Irish troops would have landed in Normandy and perhaps an Irish parachute division like the American British and Polish units would have taken part in drops in Holland and Germany.

Post war Ireland would be part of NATO might have joined the EEC sooner enjoyed the benefits of the Marshall plan abandoning economic isolation industrializing during WW2 and benefitting from the post war boom without the plague of emigration. American and British air ground and nuclear forces would have been based here.

In the 1960s more positive relations between Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland might have existed due to the experience of war. Perhaps more reasonable government without discrimination against Catholic might emerged with bigots sidelined thus avoiding decades of the Troubles?

Markcheese

I doubt Colin's or anyone else would have led Ireland into the war early on , we had feic all to gain and lots to loose...
We could have entered when it was fairly obvious that the Germans weren't going to win , but I don't think our assistance was a big deal by then ...and I don't think there's have been much change ,
Even If there'd been a facist style coup/take over in the late 20s / 30s I reckon we'd have stayed neutral during the war , although there could well have been a forced regieme change at the wars end ...

Acosta

Didn't Ireland let allied ships use the ports anyway, in a kind of Irish way of officially you can't, but do if you really need to just don't tell anyone? Also, allied airmen were immediately repatriated. Unlike the Germans who were sent to the Curragh.

Samsonsmasher

Acosta wrote: »

Didn't Ireland let allied ships use the ports anyway, in a kind of Irish way of officially you can't, but do if you really need to just don't tell anyone? Also, allied airmen were immediately repatriated. Unlike the Germans who were sent to the Curragh.

There was a lot of "neutral on the right side" stuff but part of the deal that brought an end to the Economic War between Ireland and the UK was the hand over of the so called Treaty Ports which had continued to be used by the Royal Navy. If that had not be concluded before the outbreak of world war Ireland would have come under Luftwaffe attack.
The Germans had a detailed plan to land forces on our southern coast and march on Dublin.
In the event of that happening British forces would have crossed the border to fight alongside Irish troops.
Realistically any invasion and occupation of Ireland would have followed a British defeat and surrender first.

Stovepipe

Allied airmen were not immediately repatriated at the start of the war but later, they were "allowed" to wander across the Border and in some cases, actively assisted to cross the Border. The Germans weren't and quite a few declined to make any attempt to escape.....it served Britain better that we were neutral.

whisky_galore

Stovepipe wrote: »

Allied airmen were not immediately repatriated at the start of the war but later, they were "allowed" to wander across the Border and in some cases, actively assisted to cross the Border. The Germans weren't and quite a few declined to make any attempt to escape.....it served Britain better that we were neutral.

With better food, freedoms and conditions than a POW in a UK camp, why would you even bother?
Rather tough to make an escape as an Axis prisoner from Ireland anyhow, easy to get out of the camp, getting out of the country and back home? How would you even go about it?

Stovepipe

whisky_galore wrote: »

With better food, freedoms and conditions than a POW in a UK camp, why would you even bother?
Rather tough to make an escape as an Axis prisoner from Ireland anyhow, easy to get out of the camp, getting out of the country and back home? How would you even go about it?

Germany had plenty of sympathisers in Ireland. When pows were given parole to go to Dublin to study, and lot of people were eager to host them. If a German with connections had escaped, it wouldn't have been impossible to hide in the population. The ports were tightly controlled so access to ships was difficult but not impossible. It wasn't until later in the war and rationing began to bite that public sympathy for Germany faded.

feargale

This seems to be the only thread on Irish WW2 Neutrality, so I'll post here.
I see from time to time accusations that German U-boats were serviced by Ireland during the war. I don't know if any of these accusers,who for the most part have no love for Ireland, are suggesting the the Irish government had a hand in this, but clearly that was not so. However, see this piece by a Canadian poster in another site:

John Fletcher, Canada:

"The Irish fishboats would rendezvous with U -boats out in the Atlantic to sell them supplies. I had a friend who was a tail gunner on a Sunderland Flying Boat, who hunted U boats, and they would often find the boats and the subs together at night. They never had any confirmed kills on the subs, but he had several stenciled ‘sinking boats’ on his turret, as by the time he could see where they were, only the fishboat was there as the sub had submerged. He said if all his four guns were working, which was rare, the boats would just about disintegrate if he was on target!"

Is there any truth in this? It is true that a few of our fishing ports had a strong anti-British element which might lend credence to this, but I doubt very much that the logistics of such an operation would make it possible. And at that time not many Irish fishermen had any craft other than currachs.

Any comments, please?

landofthetree

feargale wrote: »

This seems to be the only thread on Irish WW2 Neutrality, so I'll post here.
I see from time to time accusations that German U-boats were serviced by Ireland during the war. I don't know if any of these accusers,who for themostpart have no love for Ireland, are suggesting the the Irish government had a hand in this, but clearly that was not so. However, see this piece by a Canadian poster inanother site:

John Fletcher, Canada:

"The Irish fishboats would rendezvous with U -boats out in the Atlantic to sell them supplies. I had a friend who was a tail gunner on a Sunderland Flying Boat, who hunted U boats, and they would often find the boats and the subs together at night. They never had any confirmed kills on the subs, but he had several stenciled ‘sinking boats’ on his turret, as by the time he could see where they were, only the fishboat was there as the sub had submerged. He said if all his four guns were working, which was rare, the boats would just about disintegrate if he was on target!"

Is there any truth in this? It is true that a few of our fishing ports had a strong anti-British element which might lend credence to this, but I doubt very much that the logistics of such an operation would make it possible. And at that time not many Irish fishermen had any craft other than currachs.

Any comments, please?

They sold them fish according to Joe Sweeney
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sweeney_(Irish_politician)

@34.15


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQ3KDFGgig&t=1223s

feargale

How much would a Deutchmark buy in Donegal at that time?

Strumms

For the anti British sentiment, it’s better the devil you know as your neighbor....

That said, the only interest the British may have in us around WWII would have been a tactical one.

Had we not been neutral, the only help to the allies would have been a strategic one.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

How much would a Deutchmark buy in Donegal at that time?

Nitpick: The currency of Germany in Nazi times was the Reichsmark. The Deutschmark wasn't launched until 1948.

What would a Reichsmark buy in Donegal? Nothing, basically. It would have been impossible to convert to Irish currency or to sterling. None of the banks would touch it.

If German naval vessels had a need to purchase supplies for cash while on mission, I imagine that the captain was issued with a float of suitable foreign currencies that he could use for that purpose.

But its very unlikely that the Germans would have planned naval missions in which feeding the crew required a fortunate rendezvous with a fishing vessel in order to purchase a few pilchards. Vessels were issued with the food supplies they needed for the mission. If that wasn't possible then the mission would be planned to include stops at regular ports where supplies could be purchased, and German consular officials would arrange for settlement of the cost.

Which is not to say that there might not have been the odd opportunistic purchase as a result of a chance encounter with a fishing vessel; fresh fish would make a pleasant change from tinned beef and powdered eggs. But it would be unplanned, occasional, and a decision made by the captain when the occasion arose. And not, of course, if it threatened the safety of the vessel or the successful completion of the mission.

The suggestion that these encounters were planned, that the RAF were patrolling to detect them, and that they were sinking the fishing vessels involved is, I think, wholly incredible.

Markcheese

It probably also would have fairly close to shore , not a lot of big Irish fishing boats back then , not a lot of need to go far offshore ...
And if an armed submarine surfaced next to you and politely offered to buy your catch you'd wanna be pretty brave to argue with them ...

AMKC

Such a pity that De Velera was not shot in 1916. Some lucky alternate reality got that one. We unfortunatly had to suffer him for many more decades to come.i am glad it was not De Velera that declared a Republic. It should have been Micheal Collins that got that honour but because of the civil war and some of De Veleras goones killing Collins he never did. Do I think Collins would have let the British use bases in Ireland during WW2 no not a hope not unless there was a big payment for it and I doubt there would have been as every cent Britain had then was going to the war effort. Its not like it would have benefitted Britain much anyway. Maybe a few naval bases on the west coast might have but that's about it.

whisky_galore

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: The currency of Germany in Nazi times was the Reichsmark. The Deutschmark wasn't launched until 1948.

What would a Reichsmark buy in Donegal? Nothing, basically. It would have been impossible to convert to Irish currency or to sterling. None of the banks would touch it.

If German naval vessels had a need to purchase supplies for cash while on mission, I imagine that the captain was issued with a float of suitable foreign currencies that he could use for that purpose.

But its very unlikely that the Germans would have planned naval missions in which feeding the crew required a fortunate rendezvous with a fishing vessel in order to purchase a few pilchards. Vessels were issued with the food supplies they needed for the mission. If that wasn't possible then the mission would be planned to include stops at regular ports where supplies could be purchased, and German consular officials would arrange for settlement of the cost.

Which is not to say that there might not have been the odd opportunistic purchase as a result of a chance encounter with a fishing vessel; fresh fish would make a pleasant change from tinned beef and powdered eggs. But it would be unplanned, occasional, and a decision made by the captain when the occasion arose. And not, of course, if it threatened the safety of the vessel or the successful completion of the mission.

The suggestion that these encounters were planned, that the RAF were patrolling to detect them, and that they were sinking the fishing vessels involved is, I think, wholly incredible.

It's not like a u boat could stop off at a Centra, it had to be self sufficient for a patrol.
If an opportunity for say, a small amount of fresh fish was presented, barter would be the done thing. Bottles of beer or bottle of schnapps, chocolate, cigarettes etc.

whisky_galore

Stovepipe wrote: »

Germany had plenty of sympathisers in Ireland. When pows were given parole to go to Dublin to study, and lot of people were eager to host them. If a German with connections had escaped, it wouldn't have been impossible to hide in the population. The ports were tightly controlled so access to ships was difficult but not impossible. It wasn't until later in the war and rationing began to bite that public sympathy for Germany faded.

Getting off the island is still a problem. Afaik no one made a home run to Germany from Ireland during the conflict. Why would you want to anyway? Good food (compared to German rationing), no one shooting at you, opportunities for study, pubs, dances and women? Great place to sit it out.

You would need to be one deranged committed Nazi to want to escape especially later in the war.

Edgware

No sense glorifying Collins and saying that he would not have entered WW2. ( he signed a Treaty agreeing to let Britain have the Ports so getting them back was not his priority) We just dont know what he would have done in the 20s and we could have had a decade of civil war but this time between the hopelessly armed Free State against a British backed U.V.F.
If we had entered on behalf of the Allies we certainly would have been subject to a lot more bombing by the Luftwaffe. We would also have been able to receive massive support from the Marshall Plan as part of the rebuilding of Europe.
Its hard to estimate the human cost but it would probably run into tens of thousands

AMKC

whisky_galore wrote: »

Getting off the island is still a problem. Afaik no one made a home run to Germany from Ireland during the conflict. Why would you want to anyway? Good food (compared to German rationing), no one shooting at you, opportunities for study, pubs, dances and women? Great place to sit it out.

You would need to be one deranged committed Nazi to want to escape especially later in the war.

Because they were brainwashed and it's all they knew.

Edgware wrote: »

No sense glorifying Collins and saying that he would not have entered WW2. ( he signed a Treaty agreeing to let Britain have the Ports so getting them back was not his priority) We just dont know what he would have done in the 20s and we could have had a decade of civil war but this time between the hopelessly armed Free State against a British backed U.V.F.
If we had entered on behalf of the Allies we certainly would have been subject to a lot more bombing by the Luftwaffe. We would also have been able to receive massive support from the Marshall Plan as part of the rebuilding of Europe.
Its hard to estimate the human cost but it would probably run into tens of thousands

If that had of been the case the some of us but mostly I would say people who parents lived in the cities at the time might not be here now as there parents might not have made it. Only one way to know do and that is to visit an alternate reality but to do that we need to find out how to first.

Peregrinus

Edgware wrote: »

. . . If we had entered on behalf of the Allies we certainly would have been subject to a lot more bombing by the Luftwaffe. We would also have been able to receive massive support from the Marshall Plan as part of the rebuilding of Europe.

Marshall Plan aid was distributed witout regard to former belligerent status - former allied countries, former axis countries and former neutral countries were all offered it on similar terms. We did receive Marshall Plan grants — a total of $133 million which, per capita, works out at about 88% of what the UK received. We might have got a little bit more if we had joined the allies, but not much. The countries that got very much more generous funding than we did were mainly neutral countries that had been invaded and occupied by the Axis — Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece. The most generously-treated country was Iceland, a neutral country invaded and occupied by the Allies.

rock22

AMKC wrote: »

Such a pity that De Velera was not shot in 1916. Some lucky alternate reality got that one. We unfortunatly had to suffer him for many more decades to come.i am glad it was not De Velera that declared a Republic. It should have been Micheal Collins that got that honour but because of the civil war and some of De Veleras goones killing Collins he never did. Do I think Collins would have let the British use bases in Ireland during WW2 no not a hope not unless there was a big payment for it and I doubt there would have been as every cent Britain had then was going to the war effort. Its not like it would have benefitted Britain much anyway. Maybe a few naval bases on the west coast might have but that's about it.

I think you have a very unique view the De Valera/Collins relationship with the British.
But just to speculate. If De Valera had died and Collins lived then the Churchill would have been quick to remind him,. i.e. Collins, that he succeeded in the civil war only thanks to British guns. And it is now pay back time .The British did try to pressurise De Valera so they would certainly pressurise Collins.
What the British wanted most were our ports although they would have probably developed airports as well to help in the war in the Atlantic.

We would probably have suffered some air attacks. But as that would have required diverting Luftwaffe planes away from the UK we might have escaped.

Thankfully we had De Valera at the time to ensure we could remain neutral.

breezy1985

I don't understand why people are assuming it would be Collins in charge during the war if De Valera was dead. Collins would have lead CnG/FG who probably would still have lost the elections after 10+ years in charge and someone would have emerged to challenge them. I'm not sure who maybe Aiken, Lemass or most likely O'Kelly but someone would have gotten the better of CnG

Larbre34

When the US entered the War in Dec 41, Ireland should have declared war on Germany and facilitated US and Canadian forces (and free French, Polish etc) to conduct operations against the Axis powers, all in exchange for reunification of the island.

Ireland as a base would have enabled significant force projection for the War in the north and mid Atlantic, and would likely have turned the tide against the Nazi submarine Wolf packs and enabled faster build up of US food and weapons products in Europe. Who knows, they could have taken a year or more off the War.

Peregrinus

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't understand why people are assuming it would be Collins in charge during the war if De Valera was dead. Collins would have lead CnG/FG who probably would still have lost the elections after 10+ years in charge and someone would have emerged to challenge them. I'm not sure who maybe Aiken, Lemass or most likely O'Kelly but someone would have gotten the better of CnG

Oh, gosh, we're into historical what-ifs here, which are fun but pointless. If Collins had survived and Dev have died we can't assume that there would ahve been any elections to lose; on the pro-Treaty side, Collins might well have become Ireland's Mussolini, and we could have had an effective one-party state by the mid-20s. On the other side, with no Dev, even if Ireland wasn't a one-party state by then, who's to say that Fianna Fáil or an FF equivalent would have split from SF and entered the Dáil in 1927, or ever?

scottigael

Considering the north strand bombing and how destructive a single bomber was I think neutrality was to our benefit our towns and cities would have suffered immensely had we joined.

However if Churchill had gone ahead and offered the north as he did (drunkenly allegedly) once or twice along with a few dozen anti aircraft guns it may have been worth it

spring lane jack

Dev could have lost it altogether and joined the Axis. Imagine the big stupid head on him next to Il Duce and the Fuhrer. The Brits would have absolutely flipped and probably would have occupied us again. We would have been seen as total scum to the rest of the English speaking world.

Peregrinus

Larbre34 wrote: »

When the US entered the War in Dec 41, Ireland should have declared war on Germany and facilitated US and Canadian forces (and free French, Polish etc) to conduct operations against the Axis powers, all in exchange for reunification of the island.

Ireland as a base would have enabled significant force projection for the War in the north and mid Atlantic, and would likely have turned the tide against the Nazi submarine Wolf packs and enabled faster build up of US food and weapons products in Europe. Who knows, they could have taken a year or more off the War.

The UK did sound out De Valera on entering the war/offering the treaty ports in return for reunification of Ireland after the war. Dev's response was to ask what James Craig thought of the proposal and, when he was told that Craig knew nothing of it, he knew it was bogus.

It wouldn't have been within the power of the US to offer a unified Ireland in return for Irish entry into the war, and if the UK had been willing and able to make such a offer seriously, they would already have done so.

Peregrinus

spring lane jack wrote: »

Dev could have lost it altogether and joined the Axis. Imagine the big stupid head on him next to Il Duce and the Fuhrer. The Brits would have absolutely flipped and probably would have occupied us again. We would have been seen as total scum to the rest of the English speaking world.

Well, that's the thing with alternative histories. In the real world, Dev didn't align with the Axis; real-world Dev, for all his faults, wouldn't have done such a thing in a fit. In alternative-world where Dev joins the Axis, we can't say that "we would have been seen as total scum to the rest of the English speaking world" because, in alternative world, Churchill and Roosevelt might also have joined the Axis.

breezy1985

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, gosh, we're into historical what-ifs here, which are fun but pointless. If Collins had survived and Dev have died we can't assume that there would ahve been any elections to lose; on the pro-Treaty side, Collins might well have become Ireland's Mussolini, and we could have had an effective one-party state by the mid-20s. On the other side, with no Dev, even if Ireland wasn't a one-party state by then, who's to say that Fianna Fáil or an FF equivalent would have split from SF and entered the Dáil in 1927, or ever?

The whole premise of the thread is a historical what if

Peregrinus

breezy1985 wrote: »

The whole premise of the thread is a historical what if

Yes, I know. But what-ifs are only interesting if the what-if is at least modestly plausible, so we can rationally consider how it might have played out. Dev aligning Ireland with the Axis is so wildly unmoored in any kind of reality that a world in which that could have happened is so radically different from our own that we cannot really talk about what would have ensued. "What if Dev had aligned Ireland with the Axis?" is pretty much on a par with "What if Chamberlain had aligned the UK with the Axis?" In both cases, to consider the hypothesis in any meaningful way you have to consider why such a thing would have happened. Basic facts would have to have been very different before either leader would have considered such a course of action and, if basic facts were that different, then the what-if largely becomes teasing out the other consequences of such a difference. The circumstances which might have lead Dev to join the Axis would certainly mean that Dev joining the Axis — and many other things — would have played out very differently.

The interesting what-ifs are the ones that might, plausibly, have happened in our world. What if the UK had not handed back the treaty ports in 1938? What if someone other than Churchill had become PM on Chamberlain's resignation? What if Hitler had not declared war on the US in December 1941?

If Collins has survived but Dev has not, then the whole civil war and its aftermath plays out differently. The way you frame the question suggests that you assume that FF would have emerged anyway, and there would have been elections which FF would have won at about the same time that they did, in fact, win elections. But, really, in the scenario we are considering we have no reason to think that either of these things would have happened.

breezy1985

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But what-ifs are only interesting if the what-if is at least modestly plausible, so we can rationally consider how it might have played out. Dev aligning Ireland with the Axis is so wildly unmoored in any kind of reality that a world in which that could have happened is so radically different from our own that we cannot really talk about what would have ensued. "What if Dev had aligned Ireland with the Axis?" is pretty much on a par with "What if Chamberlain had aligned the UK with the Axis?" In both cases, to consider the hypothesis in any meaningful way you have to consider why such a thing would have happened. Basic facts would have to have been very different before either leader would have considered such a course of action and, if basic facts were that different, then the what-if largely becomes teasing out the other consequences of such a difference. The circumstances which might have lead Dev to join the Axis would certainly mean that Dev joining the Axis — and many other things — would have played out very differently.

The interesting what-ifs are the ones that might, plausibly, have happened in our world. What if the UK had not handed back the treaty ports in 1938? What if someone other than Churchill had become PM on Chamberlain's resignation? What if Hitler had not declared war on the US in December 1941?

If Collins has survived but Dev has not, then the whole civil war and its aftermath plays out differently. The way you frame the question suggests that you assume that FF would have emerged anyway, and there would have been elections which FF would have won at about the same time that they did, in fact, win elections. But, really, in the scenario we are considering we have no reason to think that either of these things would have happened.

I believe someone would have beaten CnG in an election in the 30s based mostly on the fact that Irish politics and also most similar systems would point to voter fatigue after 10/15 years so assuming democracy prevailed which would be the most likely outcome then all indicators point to a CnG loss in the 30s

rock22

spring lane jack wrote: »

Dev could have lost it altogether and joined the Axis. Imagine the big stupid head on him next to Il Duce and the Fuhrer. The Brits would have absolutely flipped and probably would have occupied us again. We would have been seen as total scum to the rest of the English speaking world.

Dev spoke against Mussolini in the league of nations and wanted the large countries of the world to take action after the invasion of Ethiopia. When they failed to, Dev lost trust in the large powers ever doing anything to aid the small nations, hence his strong position on neutrality.

There was no likelihood of Dev aligning with the Axis.

Despite pleas from the UK, and earlier France, the US remained resolutely neutral even after Pearl Harbour. It only entered the war in Europe after Hitler declared war on it. Hitler never declared war on Ireland in the same way.

It is also not likely that there would have been any popular support for entering the war amongst the general population here.

spring lane jack

rock22 wrote: »

Dev spoke against Mussolini in the league of nations and wanted the large countries of the world to take action after the invasion of Ethiopia. When they failed to, Dev lost trust in the large powers ever doing anything to aid the small nations, hence his strong position on neutrality.

There was no likelihood of Dev aligning with the Axis.

Despite pleas from the UK, and earlier France, the US remained resolutely neutral even after Pearl Harbour. It only entered the war in Europe after Hitler declared war on it. Hitler never declared war on Ireland in the same way.

It is also not likely that there would have been any popular support for entering the war amongst the general population here.

Of course not the Axis were dirtbags, I'm currently doing research on Poland's border changes and by god those people knew what suffering was. We were blessed not to be involved in the madness.

BalcombeSt4

Markcheese wrote: »

I doubt Colin's or anyone else would have led Ireland into the war early on , we had feic all to gain and lots to loose...
We could have entered when it was fairly obvious that the Germans weren't going to win , but I don't think our assistance was a big deal by then ...and I don't think there's have been much change ,
Even If there'd been a facist style coup/take over in the late 20s / 30s I reckon we'd have stayed neutral during the war , although there could well have been a forced regieme change at the wars end ...

It's a interesting question but I doubt there would have been a regime change in a Fascist Ireland as long as it didn't take up arms against the allies during the war, we probably would have got the same reaction Francos dictatorship got after the war ended.

Peregrinus

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It's a interesting question but I doubt there would have been a regime change in a Fascist Ireland as long as it didn't take up arms against the allies during the war, we probably would have got the same reaction Francos dictatorship got after the war ended.

This. Fascist or quasi-fascist regimes which remained neutral during the war survived for decades afterwards in Spain and Portugal

dubhthach

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Post war Ireland would be part of NATO might have joined the EEC sooner enjoyed the benefits of the Marshall plan abandoning economic isolation industrializing during WW2 and benefitting from the post war boom without the plague of emigration. American and British air ground and nuclear forces would have been based here.

NATO possibly yes, but I doubt it would have pushed up EEC accession. Denmark were a founding member of NATO in 1949, however they only joined the EEC with us and the UK in 1973. Mainly due to fact that the Danes were like us heavily dependent on UK as an export market. If anything they were one of our main competitors for alot of agricultural exports to UK during the period.

Like us they applied to join in 1961 (along with UK), when de Gaulle veto UK accession, both us and Denmark withdrew our applications to join the EEC.

rock22

rock22 wrote: »

Dev spoke against Mussolini in the league of nations and wanted the large countries of the world to take action after the invasion of Ethiopia. When they failed to, Dev lost trust in the large powers ever doing anything to aid the small nations, hence his strong position on neutrality.

I think it was more the case that DeValera didn't want to be dragged into a war, relying on a totally inadequate Irish army & navy, that would inevitably have to seek protection from Great Britain. It isn't that he felt anxious about Britain's willingness to 'step in', it's that this would have made a joke of our fledgling independence.

I doubt Abyssinia was much on his mind at all.

Peregrinus

dubhthach wrote: »

NATO possibly yes, but I doubt it would have pushed up EEC accession. Denmark were a founding member of NATO in 1949, however they only joined the EEC with us and the UK in 1973. Mainly due to fact that the Danes were like us heavily dependent on UK as an export market. If anything they were one of our main competitors for alot of agricultural exports to UK during the period.

Like us they applied to join in 1961 (along with UK), when de Gaulle veto UK accession, both us and Denmark withdrew our applications to join the EEC.

Worth pointing out that, like ourselves, Denmark was neutral during the war. This didn't stop them from being invaded and occupied by Germany but, unlike Norway or the Netherlands, say, who were occupied at the same time, they didn't then become belligerents with a government-in-exile co-ordinating resistance to the occupation; the King and the government remained in Copenhagen and continued to govern Denmark, formally neutral in the war but co-operating grudgingly with the German occupation.

The notion that Ireland was unusual in preferring neutrality, and that this was caused either by spinelessness or by hostility to the UK, is one cherished by the more stupid kind of British nationalist, but it's balls. A great many European countries adopted a policy of neutrality, and persisted in it until actually attacked or invaded by one belligerent or another - Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Yugoslavia, doubtless others. (And of course this was also the policy pursued by the United States.) Ireland's policy regarding participation in the war was pretty much the standard policy of smaller European states. We were simply fortunate in that our geographical position meant that none of the belligerents felt the need to attack us.

rock22

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think it was more the case that DeValera didn't want to be dragged into a war, relying on a totally inadequate Irish army & navy, that would inevitably have to seek protection from Great Britain. It isn't that he felt anxious about Britain's willingness to 'step in', it's that this would have made a joke of our fledgling independence.

I doubt Abyssinia was much on his mind at all.

See League of nations bill

Perhaps you should read up on the period before dismissing my post

rock22

rock22 wrote: »

See League of nations bill

Perhaps you should read up on the period before dismissing my post

I'm not contesting DeValera's concern for the integrity of small states, more your claim that Abyssinia was in any way central to his influence on Irish neutrality.

Take your statement "Dev lost trust in the large powers ever doing anything to aid the small nations, hence his strong position on neutrality"

That's really a stretch.

rock22

You said
I think it was more the case that DeValera didn't want to be dragged into a war, relying on a totally inadequate Irish army & navy, that would inevitably have to seek protection from Great Britain. It isn't that he felt anxious about Britain's willingness to 'step in', it's that this would have made a joke of our fledgling independence.

I doubt Abyssinia was much on his mind at all.

All the evidence suggest otherwise, his internationalism and his support for international interventions via the League of Nations. The Abyssinian crisis was the point at which it became apparent that the 'great powers' were only interested in their own imperial ambitions and that nothing should be expected from them. And he was proved right. His address to the league of nations make it clear he was in favour of agreed international intervention in principle. Nothing in the lead up to WW2 would have served to change his mind. I also believe that his position was widely understood and shared by most of the political thinkers in Ireland at the time , (? with the exception of Duffy).
Had the great powers used the league of Nations to address the German aggression then Ireland would almost certainly have been to the forefront in that intervention . But Ireland was not willing to align with one or other belligerent in order to aid their imperial ambitions around balance of power. etc.

The change in position and sentiment of Ireland , ( or de Valera) , is clear up to and then after the Abyssinian crisis. It was a turning point and , luckily for us, ensured we remained neutral when the conflict inevitably

dubhthach

Peregrinus wrote: »

Worth pointing out that, like ourselves, Denmark was neutral during the war. This didn't stop them from being invaded and occupied by Germany but, unlike Norway or the Netherlands, say, who were occupied at the same time, they didn't then become belligerents with a government-in-exile co-ordinating resistance to the occupation; the King and the government remained in Copenhagen and continued to govern Denmark, formally neutral in the war but co-operating grudgingly with the German occupation.

The notion that Ireland was unusual in preferring neutrality, and that this was caused either by spinelessness or by hostility to the UK, is one cherished by the more stupid kind of British nationalist, but it's balls. A great many European countries adopted a policy of neutrality, and persisted in it until actually attacked or invaded by one belligerent or another - Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Yugoslavia, doubtless others. (And of course this was also the policy pursued by the United States.) Ireland's policy regarding participation in the war was pretty much the standard policy of smaller European states. We were simply fortunate in that our geographical position meant that none of the belligerents felt the need to attack us.

My point was purely about EEC membership in post war scenario, and not about Neutrality. Again if we had entered war and then post-war been a founding member of NATO in 1949, it's still probable we wouldn't have joined the then EEC until 1973, just like situation with Denmark.

Likewise in scenario where we stayed Neutral but then join NATO in 1949 (something Gov. decided against as it would entail recognising position of Northern Ireland as integral part of the UK), we would still not have ended up in the EEC until 1973.

The issue here been that like Denmark our accession was tied to whether the UK applied or not given it's position as the dominant trading partner for both countries.

Cyclingtourist

Did Dev keep us out of WWII?

The most important contribution he made to keeping us neutral non-belligerent was his negotiation of the return of the treaty ports with Chamberlain pre-war.

When you consider Eire remaining neutral you have to ask at what point would she have entered the war? In September 1939, highly unlikely any political majority would have supported it at that time. Remember neutrality was the default position of just about every democracy in Western Europe with the exception of France and Britain.

after the fall of France? Even less likely than in '39.

After the invasion of the Soviet Union? Still very unlikely as most believed that German Troops would be in Moscow within a few months.

After Germany declared war on the U.S.? This period from say early 1942 on is the most likely if a government of a different hue had been in power but there's little evidence that a majority in the state were in favour of entering the war even as late as '44.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117973631#Comment_117973631

I'd be pretty confident that there was no majority in Ireland in favour of entering the war at any point. Why would there be.

Our position was, in a much smaller way, not wildly different from that of the US; not unsympathetic to the allied cause, and not averse to assisting in ways that didn't too obviously infringe neutral status, but not wishing to fight. The US position altered when Japan attacked it and Germany declared war on it and, if something analogous had happened to Ireland, I dare say our position would likewise have altered.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977798#Comment_117977798

Yes I agree.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be to ask should Eire have joined and if so at what point? But that's a moral and selfish judgement that we make with the benefit of hindsight.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978352#Comment_117978352

Well, indeed. What looks to us like the most compelling moral argument for opposing Naziism - viz, the Holocaust - was wholly unknown to those who would have made any decision about whether Ireland should enter the war. We can hardly criticise them for that, or use it to second-guess the judgment they made.

We have to remember that this was less than 20 years since the War of Independence, and the political leadership on both sides of Irish politics had been participants in that war. Ireland was a country in which almost everybody could remember the Black-and-Tans from their own experience. And, in the 1930s, English journalists trying to explain to English readers what Nazi Germany was like would often invoke the Black-and-Tans. So the stark moral contrast that we see between the Allies and the Axis was not at all evident at the time; the Nazis were less egregiously evil, and the UK less obviously virtuous.

BalcombeSt4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978352#Comment_117978352

I don't think we should have ever entered in to the war at any stage, the cons far out weigh the pros.

Ireland in the 1930's/40's was a very poor country, with a population of just 3 million, that's how many Germans invaded the USSR, the whole population of Ireland. We had a much smaller army than most on the European mainland, poor infrastructure, a weak economy that largely depended upon exports to the UK, a Anglo-Irish trade war made things even harder.

I think we would have been a bigger liability than an asset to the allies. Plus it would give the Nazi's a pre-text to invade Ireland & if successful would give the Nazi's a springboard for invading the UK mainland, a bit like what the French revolutionary army tried to do in 1795 accompanied by Wolfe Tone. We would have been the weight on the Brits, that Italy was on Germany, having to save them in Greece & northern Italy.

I think we would have been more use staying military neutral while passing on intelligence & information to the Allies, and help encouraging Irish men & women to join the US or British Army.

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977798#Comment_117977798

The US had the means to fight, whereas we had a ramshackle collection of ww1 era hardware and a fisheries protection vessel with a pea shooter on it.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056068#Comment_118056068

The Irish naval service (formally the Coastal and Marine Service) was somewhat larger than you suggest (and, little-known fact, one of its vessels participated in the Dunkirk evacuation operation) but, yeah, the direct military contribution that Ireland could make to the Allied cause was negligible. I think the main value to the Allies of Irish participation would have been the ability to locate air and sea bases in Ireland to assist in protecting the North Atlantic convoy route, and for long-range operations into Europe.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056059#Comment_118056059

"I think we would have been a bigger liability than an asset to the allies. Plus it would give the Nazi's a pre-text to invade Ireland & if successful would give the Nazi's a springboard for invading the UK mainland, a bit like what the French revolutionary army tried to do in 1795 accompanied by Wolfe Tone."

Hitler was quite capable of inventing pre-texts to invade and continued Irish neutrality was a German foreign policy aim but had the Soviet Union been conquered in 1941 it's more than likely that by the Spring-Summer of 1942 the invasion of the UK including Eire would again have been activated.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056294#Comment_118056294

Yeah. Whatever about invading Ireland along with the UK (which I think was the Nazi plan), I can't see them invading Ireland in advance of the UK, to use as a springboard. For one thing, Ireland was a lot further away. For another, the UK was in the way. Getting an invading army across the English Channel on barges would have been a piece of cake compared to shipping one around the coast of Cornwall and through the Celtic Sea to the South-East coast of Ireland. I think the Royal Navy would have made Mulligan's mother of them. Plus, the UK could have got troops into Ireland to resist a German invasion far faster than the Germans could have got their forces to Ireland.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056444#Comment_118056444

Getting Eire into the war was important for the UK from June '40 to December '41 but a lot less so after America entered and adopted a 'Germany-first' policy.

I know someone who met Churchill in his final years and on learning that this person was from Dublin his first question was 'why didn't Ireland join the fight against Nazism?' This person said they were too young at the time and so didn't know but that in their belief we should have. My own belief is that with the benefit of hindsight we could have joined in 1942 and while we couldn't have prior to that we probably should have.

But it's all academic at this stage.