What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

I dunno. Not many other countries felt motivated to enter the war in 1942 to support the US against Nazi aggression — in fact, I can't think of any. So I don't see why Ireland would have. All the considerations which militated against Ireland declaring war in 1939 were still operating in 1942.

Nicaragua declared war on the Axis in December '41, Turkey considered joining as the war progressed in favour of the Allies and eventually joined, rather opportunistically in 1945. Portugal allowed the use of the Azores so effectively ended its strict neutrality.

No I don't agree, the war had become a world war in 1942 whereas in 1939 it was another European war of conquest, the situation had changed dramatically with the involvement of Italy (mid-1940), Soviet Union (June '41), Japan & USA (December '41) and the Chinese-Japanese conflict became part of the wider war at this time. Lots of other minor players like Finland also joined the war as it progressed. Italy even changed sides in 1943.

The Irish barely had oil for oil lamps in their houses let alone giving away thousands of gallons for free to a U boat!

 (and, little-known fact, one of its vessels participated in the Dunkirk evacuation operation)

Was this not an urban legend/yarn?