Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Is Irelands neutrality stance in WW2 unfairly criticized? (see Mod note 217)

11415171920109

Answers

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,058 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Ever research what Aiken and Dev ACTUALLY thought?

    Ever hear of Plan W? Which was a plan to send troops into Ireland.

    'The British preferred the carrot….'😁😁😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    Nothing that you have written there negates the fact that the RAF command and the bomber crews are accused of war crimes, and on the balance of probability, are guilty of said crimes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    In the ZDF programme interview, Professor Neitzel made the observation that the Nazi German dictatorship certainly did not observe the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions, which lead to terror bombing of European cities, including British cities. On the other hand, he emphasized that it was democracies (the UK and the US) that behaved exactly the same way in massive indiscriminate bombing of German cities. He opined that this was no better than the evil dictatorship that they were fighting.

    [I'm summarising his thoughts, as far as I recall what the gist of his argument was].

    Edited to say: Professor Neitzel expressly called the attacks on Hamburg (1943), and Dresden (1945) war crimes on the ZDF programme.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    And did he say he was the nephew of a S.S. officer, and that he did not want the war shortened or even that Germany was to lose the war, which it itself started?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    The bombing of Dresden was carried out by the United States Air force as well as the RAF. How would you have closed down the 100 war munitions factories and the railway marshalling yards in Dresden, as it is the worst Allied action it seems you can cherry pick during the war, and which occured after the bombing of London and Coventry etc? How would you have stood up to Hitler? Or would you not have stood up to him at all, just praised him in private and comisserated on his death?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Plan W was a secret joint defense agreement between the Irish and British governments, devised between 1940 and 1942, to be enacted if Nazi Germany invaded Ireland during World War II. The threat was from Nazi Germany, not from the British, and we would have relied on them to defend us then just as now when a Russian aircraft approaches Irish airspace.

    The British did offer us a U.I. if we co-operated with the Allies, but Dev did not want that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    Do you have any evidence for your claims "that he did not want the war shortened"?

    Or is this just an attempted smear of a well-respected historian?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    Delete



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,058 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Plan W was agreed to prevent an ‘invasion’.

    YOU claimed Ireland didn’t fear invasion. They did and agreed clear parameters for Britain to put troops here and when they would leave.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Comparing the Azores to Achill Island is ridiculous. Have you looked at a map recently?

    Yes and how did an island state that had sustained minimal damage because it remained neutral figure in that plan to 'prevent the economic collapse of western Europe'?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    2 minutes of Googling suggests a lot of criticism of his bias and ignoring less palatable parts of German actions. To then do the opposite with the allies seems hypocritical to me.

    This cherry picking on one bombing and not even the worse one and being ignorant of the context and facts of strategic bombing of all sides and throughout history is effectively just repeating German propaganda of the time with no critical analysis of the facts.

    It's got nothing to do with Irish Neutrality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭csirl


    People forget the context at the time when considering this question:

    1. Ireland had only just over a decade before fought a War of Independence with the British, where the British had been very brutal/underhanded and, Churchill in particular, was very bitter about losing. There was zero trust between Ireland and UK.

    2. The UK had blocked Irelands participation in the League of Nations - who's failures contributed to the rise of the Nazis and WW2. This had been done out of pure bitterness by the British - Ireland should have been included.

    3. Britain had offered independence if Irish troops fought in WW1. Irish troops fought bravely and had a very high casualty rate eg. Dublin Fusiliers. Britain didnt honour its promise.

    Nobody in their right mind would have believed any promise made by Britain in this context e.g. reunification. My parents and grandparents lived through WW2. There was a genuine fear among ordinary people that the British would re-occupy Ireland. They wanted to keep as far away as possible from anything the British were involved in. This fear wasnt just in republican circles. My grandfathers family had several WW1 vets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭adaminho


    Also we were in a trade war with Britain as late as May 1938 which decimated the Irish Whiskey industry to a level that it is only recovering in the last few years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    A lot of that is Dev protectionism policies. He kept it up and anti Anglo retoric long after the war.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "The UK had blocked Irelands participation in the League of Nations - who's failures contributed to the rise of the Nazis and WW2. This had been done out of pure bitterness by the British - Ireland should have been included."

    That's a strange assertion because the Irish Free State was a member of the League of Nations from 1923 to its dissolution in 1946.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,058 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    He was critical of some of what the British were doing. Overblown and a tad paranoid to suggest he was ‘anti Anglo’.

    It’s such a lazy analysis of somebody who objects to some aspects of British foreign policy which was evolving too, away from Empire days.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    True but I think that's only part of it. Lot of people were still attached to being part of British Empire. People had family in Britain and lots of economic emigration to Britain for generations.

    Dev, IRA etc wanted to drive a wedge in that which is fair enough. But they continued past the point of common sense. That rhetoric was kept long after WW2. There was a lot of reprisals against any associations and the were also lots of bitterness and grudges on both sides of the Civil War. There was more fear of that than British invasion in my opinion.

    I also had relatives in that that period and they saw the American troops in trucks,air battles in the sky. Yet they were back and forward to England for work. The terror and destruction from the IRA was much discussed.

    That it preserved Neutrality has some merit. But not all valid. But there was an economic cost.

    Reality is Ireland and UK are closely linked. Probably Brexit has strengthened Irelands economic separation from the UK like never before.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I think people look at Irelands Neutrality from wholly Irish perspective. But it's not viewed the same international.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,058 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    eh? Why would you expect it to be anything other than an Irish perspective.

    We are judging Irish people for policies and actions carried out in their roles as Irish leaders



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    Yes, it is not germane to the topic, it's true, but the post I was reacting to was a thinly veiled smear attempt.

    It's significant that the poster hasn't answered my challenge.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,874 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Well, the Germans didn't judge Belgian neutrality from the Belgian perspective, neither did the British judge Iceland's neutrality from the Icelandic perspective…

    The foreign perception is that the attitude was "Eh, we don't need to do anything, not our problem", whilst the war in Europe kicked off precisely because the UK and France decided that Germany taking over Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland was something which required action, even if it wasn't their problem either. Fundamentally, Hitler relied on all of Europe having an Irish attitude. If Hitler was to be stopped, then inherently that attitude must have been wrong.

    Of the other European countries which maintained some form of neutrality and generally stayed out of it, in two cases (Sweden and Switzerland) it was because there was a very real possibility that Germany would do to them what it had done to their neighbors so both made it far too expensive to Germany for them to attack them for the benefit to be obtained (both militarily and economically). Their protection didn't come from declared neutrality alone, this is generally acknowledged by most people. Spain was a wreck, and still Franco offered to join the Axis. Hitler felt his asking price was too high, and Franco is… well.. shall we say not universally approved of in modern historiography. Portugal remained an ally of the UK, announcing when the war kicked off that they were still going to abide by the Treaty of Windsor, but they also announced that they were not going to take action at that time, thus making them non-belligerants: This was a position approved of by the UK due to the concerns mainly revolving around Spain should Portugal get more active. When the British asked for the use of the Azores in 1943, that was done under the Treaty (the oldest treaty alliance in the world, incidentally, still in effect today). Roosevelt was apparently not aware of this 600-year-old alliance, and had proposed invading the Azores: the Foreign Office replied "we have an alliance with Portugal, why don't we just ask them?" Shades of Trump and Greenland (As of last week, the US was talking with Greenland/Denmark about opening three new bases under a similar principle).

    So certainly from the foreign perspective, Ireland's neutrality was unique in that it was a position mainly led by desire, not necessity.

    Fair enough. It would not be wrong to say, however, that it is a minority viewpoint which is attained only through subjective interpretation. Call his a dissenting opinion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Norway's neutrality ended with a race between Britain and Germany to end it.

    In the end whether you remain neutral or not has more to do with geography and resources than morality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Not quite accurate. Britain and France mined the coast to block ore shipments. Germany invaded it in a surprise attack. King and government fled to London. Allied forces of Britain, France and Poland and Norway tried to take it back. Failed but caused significant damage to German navy especially their destroyers which it never really recovered from.

    Germans used norway to feed its war industry.

    This constant gross distortion of WW2 removing all nations except Britain and Germany is childish. People would remove Germany from the conversation if they thought they'd get away with it. Britain invading Norway... Etc.

    Norway didn't prepare to defend itself. It's learnt that lesson.

    "...Norway spends over $9 billion annually (about 1.6% of its GDP) as a founding NATO member, ..... Ireland spends roughly 1.5 billion (about 0.2% of its GDP)..."

    Ah someone else will look after it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Similarly Britain could have not got involved in Europe just sat on its island with the navy protecting its shores.

    If someone rocks up today and cut our under sea cables and grounds our air traffic. Would Ireland be happy if no one came to it's aid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    No attempts needed. There's enough criticism of him online that you'd have to use some critical judgment on his opinions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "Not quite accurate. Britain and France mined the coast to block ore shipments. Germany invaded it in a surprise attack."

    It's more accurate than your account.

    " In March and April 1940, British plans for an invasion of Norway were prepared, mainly in order to reach and disable the Swedish iron ore mines in Gällivare. It was hoped that this would divert German forces away from France and open a war front in south Sweden.[2]

    The plan involved the placement of naval mines in Norwegian waters (Operation Wilfred) and was to be followed by the landing of troops at four Norwegian ports: NarvikTrondheimBergen and Stavanger. It was hoped that the mining would trigger German agitation, thereby necessitating an immediate response from the Allies. However, because of Anglo-French arguments, the date of the mining was postponed from 5 April to 8 April."

    German occupation of Norway - Wikipedia

    Both sides planned to invade Norway, the Germans were quicker off the mark.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭myfreespirit


    Delete



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,184 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    It's not that he didn't want a UI but that he doubted rightly the British ability and bona fides in delivering it after. Yes there was a joint defence plan with Britain also there was a policy was to align with the other side if attacked by one. Churchill had also considered a plan to use antrax on Ireland if the Germans invaded sucessfully.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,555 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Well as we know Britain invaded western Europe in 1944 bombed it's way across Europe then enslaved the population of Europe with it's work camps and gulags and stripped western Europe if it's ore and minerals to build it's vast war machine. It's why all of Europe today speaks English and eats Yorkshire pudding.

    Dev saved Ireland and Singapore from this horrible future by being neutral and watching from the sidelines.

    Ireland Neutrality is the envy of the world especially Putin.

    Thanks Dev.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Western Europe wasn't neutral in 1944, it was occupied, by Germany.

    Facts are neutral, stick to them.



Advertisement
Advertisement