Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

indioblack · 09-01-2017 10:03PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The USSR caused Hitler's defeat.

What's your point?

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:06PM

indioblack wrote: »

What's your point?

Just adding some context. Without the USSR, Britain would not have been able to arm itself and regroup and would have been quickly defeated.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK prevented Russia's defeat.

How?

maryishere · 09-01-2017 10:10PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The USSR caused Hitler's defeat.

And the numerous Arctic convoys (, there were 78 convoys between August 1941 and May 1945 ), the battles in the Atlantic, N. Africa, Europe , the bombing raids launched on Germany etc did not help cause Hitlers defeat?

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2017 10:12PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How?

If Hitler had attacked Russia with the full might of his military, Russia would have been over whelmed.

Keeping a western and north Africa front open, delayed and restricted the Nazi war machine.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:15PM

maryishere wrote: »

And the numerous Arctic convoys (, there were 78 convoys between August 1941 and May 1945 ), the battles in the Atlantic, N. Africa, Europe , the bombing raids launched on Germany etc did not help cause Hitlers defeat?

Yes, they did help. Greatly, in fact. Though what happened in Dresden was a crime against humanity.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 10:15PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just adding some context. Without the USSR, Britain would not have been able to arm itself and regroup and would have been quickly defeated.

And indeed the USSR got loads of equipment from boots to planes from the UK.

Quote:
About 1400 merchant ships delivered essential supplies to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program, escorted by ships of the Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and the U.S. Navy. Eighty-five merchant vessels and 16 Royal Navy warships (two cruisers, six destroyers, eight other escort ships) were lost. Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine lost a number of vessels including one battleship, three destroyers and at least 30 U-boats as well as a large number of aircraft. The convoys demonstrated the Allies' commitment to helping the Soviet Union, prior to the opening of a Second Front, and tied up a substantial part of Germany's Navy and Air Force

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

The USSR contributed manpower and as we all know its casulties were horrendous.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:17PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Hitler had attacked Russia with the full might of his military, Russia would have been over whelmed.

Keeping a western and north Africa front open, delayed and restricted the Nazi war machine.

Indeed. However, and this is just conjecture, perhaps Hitler might have been defeated without Britain's involvement but defeat would have been far less likely without the USSR's involvement.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 10:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Though what happened in Dresden was a crime against humanity.

Agreed, but Germany bombed Coventry etc first, years previously. It reaped the whirlwind.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:20PM

maryishere wrote: »

And indeed the USSR got loads of equipment from boots to planes from the UK.

Quote:
About 1400 merchant ships delivered essential supplies to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program, escorted by ships of the Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and the U.S. Navy. Eighty-five merchant vessels and 16 Royal Navy warships (two cruisers, six destroyers, eight other escort ships) were lost. Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine lost a number of vessels including one battleship, three destroyers and at least 30 U-boats as well as a large number of aircraft. The convoys demonstrated the Allies' commitment to helping the Soviet Union, prior to the opening of a Second Front, and tied up a substantial part of Germany's Navy and Air Force

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

The USSR contributed manpower and as we all know its casulties were horrendous.

Its manpower was some 20,000,000 casualties. And the weather played its part.

indioblack · 09-01-2017 10:21PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just adding some context. Without the USSR, Britain would not have been able to arm itself and regroup and would have been quickly defeated.

The claim was that Britain was beaten in 1940.
I made no claim that Britain defeated Germany.
The history should tell you that it was vital for Britain not to succumb in 1940-41.
Britain made a not unimportant contribution to the war - I take it you wouldn't dispute that.
Hitler had to get across the channel in 1940 - he couldn't - and never seemed to have any serious intention of doing so.
Hitler considered Britain out of the game - he was already looking east.
It's not a question of what if Russia hadn't fought Germany. What happened was Barbarossa - and the consequence of that was that the Red Army broke the back of the German army.
My post was to rebut the claim that Britain was beaten - not what would happen if....

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:22PM

maryishere wrote: »

Agreed, but Germany bombed Coventry etc first, years previously. It reaped the whirlwind.

That was also wrong. As was much of the war. However, 35,000 civilians died in Dresden but less than 600 died in Coventry.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 10:23PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Its manpower was some 20,000,000 casualties. And the weather played its part.

So to help the bigger picture, the allies defeating Nazism, do you not agree Ireland should have joined the allies in 1944 / 45, and saved numerous lives in the N. Atlantic?

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:24PM

indioblack wrote: »

The claim was that Britain was beaten in 1940.
I made no claim that Britain defeated Germany.
The history should tell you that it was vital for Britain not to succumb in 1940-41.
Britain made a not unimportant contribution to the war - I take it you wouldn't dispute that.
Hitler had to get across the channel in 1940 - he couldn't - and never seemed to have any serious intention of doing so.
Hitler considered Britain out of the game - he was already looking east.
It's not a question of what if Russia hadn't fought Germany. What happened was Barbarossa - and the consequence of that was that the Red Army broke the back of the German army.
My post was to rebut the claim that Britain was beaten - not what would happen if....

No it certainly wasn't beaten. Like any army with its back against the wall, they came out fighting. They had no choice other than surrender.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:26PM

maryishere wrote: »

So to help the bigger picture, the allies defeating Nazism, do you not agree Ireland should have joined the allies in 1944 / 45, and saved numerous lives in the N. Atlantic?

No, I don't given the context of the times. We would have become a target for German bombers. Very few Irish civilians died and that was a good thing.

indioblack · 09-01-2017 10:28PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That was also wrong. As was much of the war. However, 35,000 civilians died in Dresden but less than 600 died in Coventry.

Over 43,000 died in Hamburg nearly two years earlier.
Dresden was part of a schedule of bombing attacks on eastern German cities.
The crime against humanity was the war - and both Allied and Axis powers had uncomfortable moral issues to address when it was over.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 10:33PM

indioblack wrote: »

Over 43,000 died in Hamburg nearly two years earlier.
Dresden was part of a schedule of bombing attacks on eastern German cities.
The crime against humanity was the war - and both Allied and Axis powers had uncomfortable moral issues to address when it was over.

Yes it was. And though the victors always write the history, there is no doubt that Germany and Japan, in particular, had serious questions to answer.

indioblack · 09-01-2017 10:34PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No it certainly wasn't beaten. Like any army with its back against the wall, they came out fighting. They had no choice other than surrender.

Good reply. Anything other than carrying on after 1940 might have taken Britain down a long road to surrender.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 10:34PM

maryishere wrote: »

You are wrong again as usual. British and allied losses in the Atlantic in 1944 and 1945 was not as bad as a few years previously, but Germany was still a threat and there were 102 British ships lost in the Atlantic in 1944 and 45 in 1945.
http://www.usmm.org/battleatlantic.html

If Britain / USA / Canada had access to ports south of the border from say 1944 on, and could fly its patrols from the west / s.w. of Ireland, numerous lives would have been saved.

From 1944 on, when it was clear Germany was in retreat and would not waste its scarce resources bombing Ireland. Belfast was bombed earlier in the war. As said before, what the Americans and Allied powers would have expected by the time of Roosevelts death in '45 was for Ireland to open up its ports to help the defenders of the Atlantic convoys. Hitler had invaded neutral countries early in the war : 1945 was time for us to thank the Allied powers for saving us from Nazism, and make some small contribution on an official basis.

Countries chan and did change stance: Italy was an Axis power but on 8 September 1943, Italy joined the Allies as a co-belligerent. Ireland could have abandoned its shameful neutrality in 1944 or 1945 if it wanted to take the high moral ground on the world stage.

If we abandon neutrality, effectively that would be the end of it and who would clean up the mess the worlds imperialists and bullies make.

BTW: Britain had no use for Irish ports, the furor over that was Churchill trying to play the arrogant empire leader and later in the war, Gray playing at being an ambassador.
The allies got plenty of help fro. Ireland.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 09-01-2017 11:11PM

You know if people keep on discussing WW2 you might actually be able to change what happened and maybe Ireland will actually turn out to be the saviours of the world.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2017 11:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. However, and this is just conjecture, perhaps Hitler might have been defeated without Britain's involvement but defeat would have been far less likely without the USSR's involvement.

definitely, if Hitler didn't have his eyes firmly eastwards, Britain would have been toast.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That was also wrong. As was much of the war. However, 35,000 civilians died in Dresden but less than 600 died in Coventry.

the latest figures claim 18-25,000 dead in Dresden, although the actual figure will never be known. Quite frightening.

Professor Moriarty · 09-01-2017 11:23PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

definitely, if Hitler didn't have his eyes firmly eastwards, Britain would have been toast.

the latest figures claim 18-25,000 dead in Dresden, although the actual figure will never be known. Quite frightening.

It was the deliberate carpet bombing that made it so horrific. Mind you, it was relatively benign compared to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

maryishere · 09-01-2017 11:59PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britain had no use for Irish ports

Actually if it had access to Irish ports / airports, the Mid-Atlantic Gap ( a geographical term attributed to an undefended area beyond the reach of land-based RAF Coastal Command antisubmarine (A/S) aircraft during the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War ) would have been reduced in size considerably, saving countless British / Canadian / American and Irish lives, given there were Irishmen on many of those ships.

1945 was time for us to thank the Allied powers for saving us from Nazism, and make some small contribution on an official basis. In 1945 Germany was not in a position to strike against Ireland. Other English speaking countries in the world made valuable contributions towards defeating Nazism, instead of sending condolences on Hitlers death.

FrancieBrady · 10-01-2017 12:11AM

maryishere wrote: »

Actually if it had access to Irish ports / airports, the Mid-Atlantic Gap ( a geographical term attributed to an undefended area beyond the reach of land-based RAF Coastal Command antisubmarine (A/S) aircraft during the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War ) would have been reduced in size considerably, saving countless British / Canadian / American and Irish lives, given there were Irishmen on many of those ships.

1945 was time for us to thank the Allied powers for saving us from Nazism, and make some small contribution on an official basis. In 1945 Germany was not in a position to strike against Ireland. Other English speaking countries in the world made valuable contributions towards defeating Nazism, instead of sending condolences on Hitlers death.

Churchills admirals told him they had no use for the ports Mary. He was posturing.

Warmongers typically don't understand the idea of neutrality. It was and remains a valuable thing in the world. Ireland has done more than it's share cleaning up the messes of imperialists and expansionists from the Congo to rescuing refugees in the Med.
You cannot perform that role effectively if you are not neutral.

Dev, under great pressure, bravely ensured that we can hold our heads high on that front, despite later dilutions of it at Shannon etc

maryishere · 10-01-2017 12:32AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Churchills admirals told him they had no use for the ports Mary.

Wrong. In the anti-submarine war, Britains airplanes could have patrolled hundreds of miles further in to the Atlantic off s.west Ireland if that had use of an airport here. Also, Churchill directed Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery to prepare plans to seize Cork and Queenstown (Cobh) so their harbours could be used as naval bases. However, better submarine-detecting technology, as well as military bases in Iceland, meant that the Irish ports were no longer as vital for the Allies as they had been during World War I, so Cobh was not retaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Warmongers typically don't understand the idea of neutrality.

Correct. Look at the neutral countries invaded by Hitler....for example Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.
He sent their Jews , disabled, homosexuals and gypsies to the extermination camps. And you still think it was morally right for DeValera to send condolences on his death?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was and remains a valuable thing in the world.

lol.

maryishere · 10-01-2017 12:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dev, under great pressure, bravely ensured that we can hold our heads high on that front,

ffs he insulted the 100,000 brave Irish people who volunteered to fight Hitler / Nazism and he was rightly criticised all around the world. I already gave you links to editorials in widespread different newspapers around the world. Not Irelands proudest hour.

FrancieBrady · 10-01-2017 12:53AM

maryishere wrote: »

Wrong. In the anti-submarine war, Britains airplanes could have patrolled hundreds of miles further in to the Atlantic off s.west Ireland if that had use of an airport here. Also, Churchill directed Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery to prepare plans to seize Cork and Queenstown (Cobh) so their harbours could be used as naval bases. However, better submarine-detecting technology, as well as military bases in Iceland, meant that the Irish ports were no longer as vital for the Allies as they had been during World War I, so Cobh was not retaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Yes the ports were not needed, thank you.
They got as much help as a neutral country could give them. You don't attach a value to neutrality and are shamed by it? Go somewhere else, give your allegiance to somebody else. Its really that simple, there is no appetite here to be warmongers or imperialists or expansionists.

Correct. Look at the neutral countries invaded by Hitler....for example Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.
He sent their Jews , disabled, homosexuals and gypsies to the extermination camps. And you still think it was morally right for DeValera to send condolences on his death?

Empires having been doing such things for a long time. We had just gotten rid of one.

lol.

As I said to Fred, warmongers and supporters of imperialists generally don't get neutrality

FrancieBrady · 10-01-2017 12:55AM

maryishere wrote: »

ffs he insulted the 100,000 brave Irish people who volunteered to fight Hitler / Nazism and he was rightly criticised all around the world. I already gave you links to editorials in widespread different newspapers around the world. Not Irelands proudest hour.

Most of the men and women came back and lived happy lives. I.e. they got over it. You should try too.

Lt Dan · 10-01-2017 12:58AM

maryishere wrote: »

Yeah, the rest of the world was appalled as the conditions of Hitlers extermination camps were revealed ( thanks partly to the bravery of some Irish soldiers in allied uniforms ), other neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland did not send their condolences on the death of Hitler. Both our Taoiseach and President did...but shire the rest of the world did not understand.

You miss the point because I quoted from the American Newspapers of the time, 1945 (which I named), and I used quotation marks. I do not know if the American printing presses used fadas in 1945 - I do anyone but you expected them to. And while I normally refer to this country as Ireland, I do not blame the American press for sometimes calling us Eire, considering we had that painted in large letters on our few ships, headlands etc - and even our currency and stamps. The Americans were well aware of the great help N. Ireland gave to the allied war effort, and indeed hundreds of thousands of their forces passed through N. Ireland on the way to Europe.

Read your own post again! In addition to the extract you cite , you referred to this country as Eire . I was not referring to the article you cited,but your comment

Moreover,it ain't the lack of a fada that is the problem! It is the use of the Irish name of this country when speaking the English language

Irish is the offical language of the country. Using the name of the country in Irish on coins,boats etc is not the same as a written statement in the English language. So America rwferred to Germany as Deutchland when writing English did they ? FFS. I feel that it would be an utter waste of time to spell out to you why it was and is a diplomatic no no.

As usual, what was said went over your head.

LordSutch · 10-01-2017 01:00AM

I think Éire refers to the Republic of Ireland, as opposed to the whole island of Ireland.
So I guess Éire does have its uses when differentiating between the island of, and ther ROI.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments