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)

17677798182109

Answers

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


    So in other words Roosevelt did not say Poland and other small nation’s freedom could swing on Nazi gallows. You made that up.

    In 1940, while USA was still neutral, Roosevelt did say "No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Nazis only at the price of total surrender."

    He also said in 1940 ""Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere."

    A few months in to the war he said "We know now that if we lose this war it will be generations or even centuries before our conception of democracy can live again."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    He told voters


    I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again:

    Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.


    He also defined what the military build up was for in the same speech:

    The purpose of our defence is defence

    in other words, Poland and those invaded could go swing. He was not sending a US army to defend their freedom. He was not going to surrender if attacked but those attacked were on their own.

    Spin all you want, there it is in blacl and white.

    It’s exactly what happened too, so again, you trying to rewrite slant or invent history will be ignored.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,127 ✭✭✭adaminho




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


    I never mentioned him, I have no admiration for those who collaborated with the Nazis.



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


    So Roosevelt never said Poland or other small nation's freedom could swing on a Nazi gallows. Roosevelt never wanted anyone to swing on a Nazi gallows. Could the same be said for Dev if Irishmen, from neutral Ireland, swung on Nazi gallows in a slave labour Nazi concentration camp? Dev knew about their plight but I cannot see any record of him bringing it up with his friend Hempel the Nazi diplomat / party member?

    Roosevelt knew America would take time to prepare for war, as it was a country recovering from the horrors of World War I, deep economic struggles caused by the Great Depression, and a military that was both underfunded and unprepared for a global conflict.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Spinning again.

    He wasn’t going to small nations aid, Poland or anywhere else. He spelt it out to voters and that’s exactly what happened.



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


    He did not used the phase about Poland swinging on Nazi Gallows, you made that up.

    By 1941, Roosevelt argued that the conflict was no longer a distant "foreign war" but an existential threat to American security.

    German troops were unlikely to ever have arrived on U.S. soil but Roosevelt helped liberate Europe from Nazism. Without an awful lot of help from us, we would not even help their lads be protected in the Atlantic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I never said he did. Do you know what quote marks mean?

    Of course you do, because you are a fraud and you think you can avoid the point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 145 ✭✭casey jones


    Roosevelts opinion was at odds with American public opinion which was against entering the war. That only changed once they were attacked at Pearl Harbour followed by Hitler's declaration of war against the USA. We would have entered the war had we experienced the same.

    There was nothing Ireland could have done to help "protect their lads" given the route USA ships used, up along the coast of USA, Canada, south of Greenland and using the air cover from Iceland then in via the north western approaches. The air cover from Northern Ireland and Scotland would not have been improved by anything we could offer.



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


    Wrong. There was the "mid Atlantic gap", especially serious in the early war years, that is why the Allies wanted bases in Ireland so badly. Research it as it appears you never heard of it.

    The Allies could not even use the Donegal corridor until 1941, and that was after pressure from the Americans. The strategic location of Irish bases jutting into the Atlantic would have shortened the perilous mid-Atlantic "air gap". The German submarines came from bases in France. Ports in Ireland for naval operations against German U-boats during the Battle of the Atlantic would also have benefited the Allies, that is why they wanted them.



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


    I never said America was perfect but at least they came to help liberate western Europe eventually.

    As noted already, German troops were unlikely to ever have arrived on U.S. soil but Roosevelt helped liberate Europe from Nazism - without much help from us.  

    Back on 27th May on this very thread, post no 1351, I wrote:

    "America was late to both World Wars, and that is not to its credit. Think of all those deported to Nazi death camps, people enslaved by the Nazis etc.

    By November 1941, 68% of Americans said that aid to Britain was more important than staying out of the war. The American public understood by late 1941 that it would have to go to war to help defend Britain and the west against Nazi Germany and the other axis at the time."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,895 ✭✭✭jmcc


    And there is that obsession with de Valera again!

    Regards…jmcc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,895 ✭✭✭jmcc


    The mid Atlantic gap was an area that could not be covered by land based aircraft operating in an anti-submarine role. The Treaty Ports would have been used for ships rather than aircraft. Sunderlands and Catalinas might have been options but there still would have been a gap. Your knowledge of events seems to be based entirely on your Google searches to support your anti-Irish neutrality and anti-de Valera agenda rather than on knowledge.

    The British invaded Iceland (which was neutral) in 1940 as they considered it an important base in the Battle Of The Atlantic. It had a major effect in reducing the mid Atlantic gap. From your anti-Irish neutrality and anti-de Valera posting history, perhaps you wish that the British had invaded Ireland too.

    Post edited by jmcc on

    Regards…jmcc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fact was the US were happy staying at home while small nations got overrun and invaded.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    @Francis McM for a nation fearing a German or British invasion would Britain invading Iceland have strengthened or weakened those fears?



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


    The British had bases in Ireland and when they were ready and asked for FS overflight rights they were granted supposedly for search and rescue initially before this unenforceable 'condition' was dropped.

    Éire neutrality had little if any effect on the Battle of the Atlantic. It was a perennial obsession of Churchill and a handy excuse for shipping losses as Germany scaled up production of U-boats along with their occupation of the French western seaboard from June 1940 on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,895 ✭✭✭jmcc


    In addition to the scaling up of U-boat production, the addition of the fourth rotor to the Enigma machines used by the U-boats had a major effect in that it locked the Allies out of U-boat communications for some time and shipping losses rose. At that stage, having access to the Treaty Ports would have made little difference because the more fundamental problem of being able to detect U-boats in the mid Atlantic gap, divert convoys and destroy the U-boats existed. When BP was reading U-boat message traffic, it could take some measures to reroute convoys. Without those decrypts, it had to largely wait until a U-boat found a convoy and hope that some radio direction finding and radar could help.

    Regards…jmcc



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


    They built up their army from an incredibly small and weak one in 1938 to a large one by the time they joined the war, having introduced conscription etc, designed and built many ships, aircraft etc.

    Our government were the ones not just happy staying at home while small nations got overrun and invaded, and our Irish seamen who were captured sent to Nazi slave labour Concentration camps, but we done nothing to help defeat Nazism or any of the Axis powers. Not even lend a port , like neutral Portugal did with the Azores, or land for airport.



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


    The Donegal corridor did not come in to existence until 1941, and then only for air sea rescue missions. 1100 ships were sunk by the Germans in the Atlantic in 1940 alone. Learn some history.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    They built up their army from an incredibly small and weak one in 1938 to a large one by the time they joined the war, having introduced conscription etc, designed and built many ships, aircraft etc.

    When he (FDR) tells you why they did that = for their own defence, of course you try to spin a different narrative, no surprises there at all.



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


    You ignore the point and did not answer the question.

    "Because the Nazis proved, despite Dev's friendship, that they would and did put neutral Irish in slave labour Concentration camps at their own will.

    Did you read any of the books recommended for you?"

    Also, because Dev was leader of the country during WW2, and was the only PM in the world to express condolences for Hitler, soon after Hitler's death camps were exposed to most of the world ( except heavily censored Ireland), he is hard to ignore given the threads title.



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


    They were offensive weapons and Germany was not going to land troops on American soil.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    They were for defence - the US President's own words.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,895 ✭✭✭jmcc


    And there, yet again, is the obsession with de Valera complete wih a lie about de Valera. At this stage, it just looks like trolling.

    Regards…jmcc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    @Francis McM persisting with completely demolished arguments is not an obsession, it's an illness.



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


    Richard J. Evans covers this in his 'The Third Reich at War'.

    "Hitler had in fact long since focused resources on the construction of U-boats. But, in the early part of the war, hampered by shortages of essential raw materials such as copper and rubber, and by the concentration of resources on the planning for the land invasion of France, the ambitious plans of Donitz to construct 600 U-boats had stood no chance of being realised. In fact only twenty were built between the outbreak of the war and the summer of 1940."

    "Losses, breakdowns and lengthy periods in port for repairs meant that there were only twenty-five U-boats operating in the Atlantic by the summer of 1940. This was nowhere near sufficient to cut off Britain's transatlantic supply lines."

    "Hitler ordered the rate of construction to be stepped up to twenty-five submarines a month in July 1940. But the effects were slow in coming through. By the end of the year, an observer like the intellectual soldier Hans Meier Welcker was forced to admit 'we cannot break English sea-power'. Other, more senior figures agreed. A short time afterwards Hitler changed priorities back to the army, and by March 1941 only seventy-two additional submarines had been delivered."

    "However, the convoy system was then reinforced, and the British succeeded in deciphering German radio codes, so that losses had fallen to below 100,000 tons a month by the summer of 1941."

    Evans goes on to outline the fortunes of both sides driven by tactics (wolf-packs v convoy escorts) and cryptoanalysis as well as American failures in the early period of their involvement.

    Nowhere does Evans mention Éire's neutrality as a help or hindrance to either side.

    Our neutrality was a handy explanation for German successes or British failures at the time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,244 ✭✭✭growleaves


    The point re the corridor has been answered already.

    The RAF base at Lough Erne which necessitates the use of the Donegal corridor was built in December 1940 and permission to use the corridor was given in January 1941. The corridor joined the base at Lough Erne to the Atlantic Ocean via air space.



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


    And I suppose American troops helping to liberate Europe from Nazism was for Americans defence as well? When do you think the design work and early production of the three most prominent models of long range U.S. bombers - the B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-24 Liberator, and the B-29 Superfortress - started? Were they for defence of US cities or for European or Asian targets do you think? You have not a clue, unfortunately.



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


    It actually was not in use until Feb. 1941. The Germans sunk 1100 ships in the Atlantic, along with their contents and much loss of life,in 1940 alone. The base at Lough Erne was for flying boats only, and was initially supposed to be for air sea rescue.



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


    Evans says that the Battle of the Atlantic was a razor-thin logistical struggle over Great Britain's supply lines. Also that the denial of the Treaty Ports meant Allied escort ships had to bypass Ireland entirely. This often added hundreds of miles to convoy journeys, leaving a dangerous gap in mid-Atlantic air and naval cover that German U-boats heavily exploited early in the war. That book of couse covers the whole war. For more details of the Battle of the Atlantic, read one of the many books that deals with that subject alone.



Advertisement
Advertisement