What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?
Comments
-
We could always put a few 90 odd year olds on trial like they do in Germany? Or dig them up and hang them like Cromwell? But in all seriousness this is a hypothetical discussion obviously but it just bothers me that people who abandoned this state during it's time of need are now rehabilitated and celebrated as heroes when they were anything but.
0 -
They weren't in the Free State (FS) Army they were in the Irish Army. The Free State didn't exist during WW2 having ended with the 1937 constitution after which the official name was Ireland/Éire.
You are right that normally someone who deserts to join the enemy forces would normally, at least in time of war, expect to be executed but the fact remains that we weren't at war with Britain.
0 -
I don't know to what extent wartime censorship was effective in keeping the public ignorant - the "target market" was foreign governments, to avoid giving them any argument for saying that the Irish government was adopting a position hostile to them. I'm open to correction here, but SFAIK British newspapers circulated fairly freely in Ireland during the war and of course BBC radio broadcasts were available, so stories that reflected badly on the Nazis were certainly accessible. What was suppressed was any commentary on those stories in the Irish media. People did learn of at least some atrocity stories; I think they mostly discounted them - as you'd expect, really - as propaganda from the other side.
But I think the real question is this: Can we point to any information (a) that was circulated outside Ireland but supressed in Ireland, and (b) that led any other country to take up arms against the Axis? I suggest the answer is "no". And if that's the case then there's no reason to think that lighter censorship or no censorship at all would have resulted in Ireland entering the war, or even resulted in much popular support for the notion. To be honest, I suspect that, the more you learned about the reality of the war, , the happier you'd be to be out of it.
Post edited by Peregrinus on1 -
It's my understanding that British newspapers published Irish editions here and that these were censored.
I found this useful article from History Ireland which explains the unique policy that the FF government operated.
"The Irish authorities refused to allow the war to be placed in a moral framework. Neither side was any better or worse than the other; this was a conflict between powers pursuing their own materialist interests, an ‘ungodly struggle’ which traditionally ‘spiritual’ Ireland would stand not only outside of but above. Unlike other neutrals, a sense of moral superiority became attached to the Irish policy and this demanded that both sides be morally equated, that information revealing one side to be more cruel, inhuman, etc. than the other be kept from the Irish public’s view. Besides, how could anyone, even the Nazis or the Japanese, behave more immorally than perfidious Albion or Godless Russia? (Even the term ‘Nazi’ itself was banned, as the official position of the German legation was that its use outside Germany had an adverse connotation!)."
Of course the censor couldn't cover every base and people with radios could listen to British or German radio broadcasts.
"The censors claimed that the Irish people had been kept ‘fully informed’ of atrocities by means of belligerent broadcasts, the English press and the Letter from America, the bulletin distributed by the US legation in Dublin. These media, however, reached a limited audience, preached largely to the converted and carried the stamp of ‘propaganda’. For the majority such stories would have lacked credibility until carried in the neutral press or on neutral radio. Frank Aiken and his censors ensured that this did not happen in the dubious belief that ignorance was the best policy when it came to maintaining a neutral world-view, if such a thing can be said to exist."
No it's not my contention that 'atrocity stories' would have caused us to want to join the allied cause but it's notable that the Irish authorities went to such unique lengths among the neutral democracies to keep their people uninformed.
Post edited by Cyclingtourist on1 -
Well, if you're not suggesting that 'atrocity stories' would have caused us to want to join the allied cause, the question looks like a bit of a side-issue in this thread; censorship doesn not account for domestic support for our neutrality (though it might possibly have reduced the risk of external threats to our neutrality).
The History Ireland article (which is very interesting - thanks for the link) reinforces me here. It makes the point that at least some other neutral countries didn't have comparably strict censorship - it mentions Sweden and Switzerland. And yet those countries did not enter the war, and did not so far as I know experience any wave of popular support for the idea of entering the war. So there's no reason to think that less strict censorship would have swayed Irish public opinion in favour of togging out with the Allies.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Some British military personell transited through Ireland during the war. I suspect the Irish government were happy to turn a blind eye and that they probably wore civies.
0 -
My take on Irish neutrality in WWII is that it was a pragmatic policy to pursue at least initially and that we didn't jump in at the last moment (early 1945) like a few other neutrals did is to our credit. That said, our remaining out particularly after the U.S. had formally entered did have lasting consequences regarding our economic development. The other question is how sustainable was the type of Irish independence that was being sanctified? In the fifties emigration to Britain increased and our dependence on it for selling our exports continued.
As we see from looking at Ireland (Éire) during the war we hadn't got the military capability to defend neutrality unlike countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. When we to tried to obtain arms from the U.S. during 1941 supply was made conditional on our allowing the use of ports to Britain. We didn't even have our own neutral foreign news correspondents.
If you asked people here in the 60s, 70s, 80s what was Dev's greatest achievement they invariably said 'he kept us out of the war' but this failed to recognise the downside of neutrality, continued isolation economically and socially into the immediate post-war era.
For the sake of this 'what if' look at history I would argue that a cost-benefit analysis would suggest that entering the war shortly after the U.S. did would have been to our medium to long term advantage while minimising the risks to life and property.
2 -
I'm not convinced that our neutrality led to adverse economic consequences after the war. Marshall Plan Aid was distributed without regard to previous belligerent/neutral status, and Ireland did benefit substantially from it - per capita, somewhat less than GB but very much more than Italy, Sweden or Portugal, and I think more than any other country which had suffered negligible direct war damage, apart from Iceland. (Little-known fact - the country that did best out of the Marshall Plan on a per capita basis was Iceland, another neutral.)
Are you thinking of something other than Marshall Plan Aid? What economic benefits would have flowed from togging out with the Allies?
As for Ireland not having the military capacity to defend neutrality, I'm not sure we had much of a choice there. The only countries that might conceivably have infringed our neutrality, the UK and Germany, were both vastly bigger and better-resourced than us. There was no possibility that we could have resourced and equipped ourselves to successfully resist an invasion by either of those powers, so why waste money trying? If the lessons of our own history have taught us anything, it's that we cannot vindicate our national independence through conventional warfare. We tested that hypothesis pretty thoroughly over about 300 years or so and found that other strategies were required.
I suggest the real qualification on our independence in the mid-twentieth century was so much our lack of military power but - as you point out - our substantial economic dependence on the UK. You could see De Valera's policies in the 1930s as an attempt to do something about that problem - in fact, about both problems; he pursued the economic war and sought return of the treaty ports. But, even though he achieved a certain amount with both campaigns, we still didn't have either military or economic independence in the war years, and our model of neutrality had to be tailored to that reality.
(On edit: there's a moral dimension to this as well. The implicit calculation is "let's participate in killing people because doing so may help to make us richer in the long run". While the ethical arguments that justify fighting Nazis are obvious, the prospect of enriching yourself by doing so is not one of them. But maybe that's for a different discussion.)
1 -
Excuses, excuses. The Swiss armed their citizenry and border Germany. Don't give me this geography nonsense. X million armed civillions is a far more significant deterrent. The Japanese admitted this was a major consideration disuading them from ever attempting a US landing. This lack of resources argument doesn't hold water with me, as arming a citizenry is cheap, whereas the logistics of distance is an expensive bear.
The Irish are just moral cowards: WW2, catholic church abuse of children, Magdeline laundries, mothers and babies homes and any enquiries into state fups you care to mention, like the GFC/AiB, national childrens hospital. Neutrality is cheap, and excuses even more so.
0 -
My argument wasn't about Marshall Plan aid which if you look back in this thread you will see where I corrected one poster who was suggesting we missed out on it.
No my argument is that we could have used the inevitable inflow of economic investment and particularly infrastructural development over the final three years of the war in Europe to our advantage. We could have strengthened our ties to continental Europe and the United States, maybe even have joined the EC prior to British entry. Instead we chose as a nation, though many individuals took a different track, to stay in a peculiarly Irish lofty isolation.
On the economic war in the 30s, you present this as something Dev sought but it wasn't, it was his side in fact that tried to end it. He tried to ignore and amend the provisions of the Treaty which he had opposed from 1921 and this, particularly the land annuities, that prompted Britain to impose tariffs and that then led to counter tariffs on British imports.
Yes I'm taking what some might call a cynical look back but others chose what I would call a rose-tinted spectacle view of Irish neutrality. I'm trying bring a bit of balance to this discussion.
It's all good provided it doesn't descend into personal attacks which I think neither of us has done or is inclined towards. :-)
0 -
Advertisement
-
To arm a citizenry costs money and the truth is Ireland between Independence and 1939 had very little to spare. These armed civilians (reserve troops) would have needed to have been trained and organised, more expenditure of resources that we hadn't got.
Yes there was always an element of moral hypocrisy in our self-view but you could say that also about many other countries, that's not to excuse it.
0 -
I am not sure that I understand your argument properly.
Is your argument that we were right to remain neutral during the early years of the war but when the US entered, and therefore an Allied victory was more likely, that we should have signed up to reap the economic investment?
And that we would then join the EC before the UK ( and presumably give up that market for our agricultural products) ?
0 -
You've summarized my argument pretty well.
On whether we would have been in a position to join the EC ahead of Britain that would depend on our own efforts to modernise, diversify and develop new markets. It would have helped if someone like Sean Lemass had been in charge from earlier. Dev having two turns in office in the 50s before the Park (1959) didn't help.
0 -
Cyclingtourist wrote
"On whether we would have been in a position to join the EC ahead of Britain that would depend on our own efforts to modernise, diversify and develop new markets."
realistically, the Treaty of Rome came into effect in 1958, i think) and Ireland, along with the UK applied to join in 1961. So fairly soon after the founding. Our application was suspended because the De Gaulle wasn't too keen on UK entry. ( How right he was ). It is possible that the Irish Government could have pushed for our entry. The French would probably have had no problem with us alone. But we didn't because we knew we couldn't succeed without UK markets.
It is really hard to see how we could have usefully joined the EEC earlier than we did ( When France lifted the veto on UK membership.) And it is difficult to see that our participation in WW2 would change that. In fact, if we entered the war in 1942, as you suggest we should have, it would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US. While we had not entered in 1939 when France needed help. Surely it is at least as likely that , when we applied to join, we would have been perceived by De Gaulle as a US actor and we would risk being vetoed in our own right. After all the veto against UK was because France perceived the UK as an actor for US interests.
Returning to the main argument in the thread. Ireland followed the policy of all the small nations in Europe. It was also the policy of the USSR and the US because, although no friend to Nazi Germany, none of those powers were willing to get involved. And yet we have people suggesting that Ireland, a small , powerless nation, who still had problems having its' own sovereignty accepted, should throw caution to the wind and declare war on Germany?
While Ireland remained neutral for the duration of the war, we were "neutral on the allied side". That was well understood and appreciated by the allies. It was only much later, when rhetoric demanded it, that Ireland became subject to verbal attack from UK and US. It was exactly analogous to the Brexit related anti EU propaganda emanating from the UK right now.
1 -
The USSR was never really neutral and the U.S. became progressively less and less neutral.
"In fact, if we entered the war in 1942, as you suggest we should have, it would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US. While we had not entered in 1939 when France needed help. Surely it is at least as likely that , when we applied to join, we would have been perceived by De Gaulle as a US actor and we would risk being vetoed in our own right."
Yes it probably would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US in 1942, better that, from a domestic political view than getting involved on the coat tails of Britain in 1939.
France didn't need us in 1939, it had the largest army in Europe and fully expected to defeat Germany. They were wrong but that doesn't change what their attitude was then. However Britain certainly did need us after the fall of France in 1940 and they needed the U.S. infinitely more. After the U.S. entered our neutrality was a declining issue for both Britain and the U.S., from then on it was more an issue that was important for domestic political reasons in America than from any particular military view point.
No any residual perception of Ireland as a U.S. proxy would have been mitigated by our diminutive size and influence. This is not a credible point.
"And yet we have people suggesting that Ireland, a small , powerless nation, who still had problems having its' own sovereignty accepted, should throw caution to the wind and declare war on Germany?"
Yes it was never on the cards and I've argued this earlier in the thread but this is a 'what if?' thread so I'm arguing the most credible scenario and that while many think we were right to stay out I'm pointing to some advantages we missed by doing so.
"While Ireland remained neutral for the duration of the war, we were "neutral on the allied side". That was well understood and appreciated by the allies."
It became more so as the war progressed but certainly the perception among the allies (British Empire and official America pre-Dec '41) wasn't quite so sanguine from the fall of France to December 1941.
0 -
What "inevitable flow of economic investment and particularly infrastructural development"?
0 -
We would have been integrated into the war economy and have had a role in the opening of the Second Front. To exploit our geographical location improvements in ports, roads, railways, medical facilities, etc. would have been necessary and financial aid of one kind or another required.
0 -
Can you point to other countries that benefitted from such largesse?
0 -
Cyclingtourist said
this is a 'what if?' thread so I'm arguing the most credible scenario and that while many think we were right to stay out I'm pointing to some advantages we missed by doing so.
And it is in the say sense that i responded to you.
We were not a founding member of the EEC. In those circumstances , it is hard to see how we could have joined earlier that 1961, our first attempt.
That attempt was frustrated by De Gaulle's veto of UK membership. I really don't see anything that would change that . And it would not have been in interest to join without the UK. So i think we can at least put to bed the idea that we might have joined the EEC earlier if we were not neutral in WW2.
However a different scenario would have been possibly post WW2. If we assume we entered in 1942 as you suggest ( i would suggest this was most unlikely when we hadn't joined the allies in 1939/40) then we would have had US bases situated in Ireland. That would probably see some investment in local economy which would have been welcome. Even now, towns in Germany are still very protective of their US bases because of the spill over to the local economy . We would perhaps have adapted to the needs and might be still using inches and gallons, maybe even US ones. In the 60s' , perhaps linked to the presidency of Kennedy, there was considerable pro US sentiment and becoming the 51st US state was often mooted, at least in casual conversation. I am not suggesting any serious political discussion. However it might have seen us developing links westward rather than looking to Europe. But only if the UK did likewise, because no matter what we might have desired, we were too closely linked to the UK to forge a path for our own at that time
0 -
Largesse suggests generosity but I don't see it in those terms, we had something they wanted (although the need was diminishing) and to utilise it fully they (primarily the U.S.) were required to invest and provide.
To answer your specific question I would suggest the obvious example of the UK and specifically Northern Ireland a region that had been benefiting from Britain's rearmament program since 1935 (BTW they often minimised the extent in lobbying Westminster for more).
If that example is too close for comfort then look at Portugal who in 1943 agreed to allow Britain to build an airbase on the islands of the Azores and more reluctantly agreed to American involvement that expanded the facilities and became a major air route to North and South America post-war. This base was important to the allies in combating the U-boat threat to convoys. Portugal (a dictatorship) wasn't isolated like Spain (or Ireland) was after the war and was a founding member of NATO. Did it receive any direct monetary gain for this concession? It's not known but they certainly received favourable treatment for their 'neutral but pro-allies' stand.
0 -
Advertisement
-
We were not a founding member of the EEC. In those circumstances , it is hard to see how we could have joined earlier that 1961, our first attempt.
That attempt was frustrated by De Gaulle's veto of UK membership. I really don't see anything that would change that . And it would not have been in interest to join without the UK. So i think we can at least put to bed the idea that we might have joined the EEC earlier if we were not neutral in WW2.
I've already covered this in #104.
We sought accession in 1961 but our isolated sheltered economy and protectionist policies was the main stumbling block. It was in 1963 that De Gaulle first announced his principled objection to British entry. De Gaulle was succeeded by Pompidou in the late '60s which removed that block. Our dependence on Britain with it's 'cheap food policy' was the main selling point in the referendum campaign leading up to our entry in 1973, especially to rural voters. My argument is that if we had taken a less isolationist stance during the war and developed a more open economy less dependent on the UK post-war we might (I never said it was a certainty) have been able to join before we actually did thus demonstrating our true independence from Britain.
Blame De Valera not De Gaulle.
0 -
Joining our former enemy would have been unpopular and it would have shortened the war by how much? Days, hours?
Our cities would have been bombed at least until 1943 and many civillians and trops killed.
Churchill's 'offer' of a united Ireland was not realistic and would have been fought tooth and nail by Unionists after the war.
As for Nazi evil much is known in hindsight and the false atrocity stories of WWI made many skeptical here at the time.
0 -
It may have even suited the Allies too, no need to produce all the war materiel to defend Ireland and ship it here.
The Allies were given all the intel from Irish DF they could ever need without setting foot on Irish soil.
We might have ended up with US bases and US military guests who never leave as happened in other countries post war and into the cold war and beyond.
2 -
"Our cities would have been bombed at least until 1943 and many civillians and trops killed."
Not really, by 1942 the Luftwaffe was fully occupied in Russia and in defending the Reich. The only real threat after 1942 were the V-1 and V-2, neither of which could reach any targets on the island of Ireland.
We were bombed by Germany but this happened even though we were neutral in 1940 and early '41.
0 -
We were but by accident, except for Belfast. The capacity to bomb would have been reduced by distance and Russia but it would have lead to more bombing without doubt.
0 -
Yes by accident, not that it mattered to those who were killed.
Take a look at Liverpool for instance which was the second most bombed city in England after London.
"After the raids in May 1941, the German air assault diminished, as Hitler's attention turned towards attacking the Soviet Union. The last German air raid on Liverpool took place on 10 January 1942, destroying several houses on Upper Stanhope Street. By a quirk of fate one of the houses destroyed was number 102, which had been the home of Alois Hitler, Jr, half brother of Adolf Hitler and the birthplace of Hitler's nephew, William Patrick Hitler."
0 -
If we provided our ports, Particularly Cork but maybe Shannon estuary, we would have been a target for German bombs.
I don't think you have dealt with it. Perhaps i am misunderstanding but I am not sure if you are being pedantic when you correct me regarding De Gaulle veto our application in 61. it was our application of 1961 that was stalled by the French veto of 1963, i.e. it was the same process.
There is no evidence that our previous protectionist policies had any affect on our application, The Council had stalled our application until the matter of the UK membership had been resolved. That effectively cancelled our application when France vetoed UK membership.
But, this discussion is wandering quite far from the title of the thread, Irish neutrality on WW2 , which does not appear to have been of any interest to the Council at the time. At least it wasn't raised with the Irish Government or reported at the time. And , if you thinkkk about it , it would be odd that our neutrality would have been a problem to either Germany or Italy .
1 -
"There is no evidence that our previous protectionist policies had any affect on our application, The Council had stalled our application until the matter of the UK membership had been resolved."
Oh no?
"As the United Kingdom intended on EC membership, Ireland applied for membership in July 1961 due to the substantial economic linkages with the United Kingdom. However, the founding EC members remained skeptical regarding Ireland's economic capacity, neutrality, and unattractive protectionist policy.[52] Many Irish economists and politicians realised that economic policy reform was necessary."
Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia
The French objection to British membership was firstly because if Britain was in the EEC it would have opposed CAP which was introduced in 1962 and secondly because of De Gaulle's animosity towards the close Anglo-American ties. Ireland like France and unlike Britain had a large agricultural sector so would have supported the CAP and our ties with America were more romantic than strategic. France would have had no problem with Irish accession on these grounds.
I agree we are moving away from the 'What if neutrality' question.
My argument has always been that if we had entered the war on the side of the Allies it should have been in early 1942 so if the last air raid on Liverpool, a major port and industrial area, was in January 1942 they might have bombed Cork or Dublin to make a point but they would hardly have devoted the necessary resources to maintain a campaign. We would have been going to war so of course there would have been people killed in one way or another, that's the nature of war.
0 -
In hindsight you can argue that but in 1942 could any Government been so sure? Many expected Russia to crumble in a few months 9In fact it looked that way in the beginning). Yes our people would have died anyway but far more of ours than otherwise.
0 -
Advertisement
-
But it's all hindsight, the thread title is hindsight.
I've laid out my argument/hypothesis call it what you like and answered numerous questions so now I think it's time for others to answer the question 'what if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?'.
0
