catbear wrote: » I read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island". I came across an angle that I'd never heard voiced before. Put simply, strategically for Britain it was better that Ireland remain neutral as to protect the Irish coastline from attack would have stretched resources further. Plus once the south Irish sea was mined the British - US convoy route was easier to protect. Indeed if Ireland really wanted to weaken Britain during the war then entering the war with Britain would have been the way to go. There was a lot of resentment in Britain and the US that Ireland received goods from the outside world via these convoys without taking any proactive part in their protection but conversely shipwreck material from both ally and axis forces found its way back to the allied cause via Ireland; especially much needed rubber. Also convenient for Britain was the endless supply of labour, especially in the run up to D-Day. We may not have played a direct combat role but this country did play an indirect part in the allied cause. Pity about the knitting clubs not been able to post jumpers to their sons as it was deemed a treat to Irish neutrality. There were 500 staff in the GPO handling censorship alone. Great read, can't remember the author but the titles correct.
Snickers Man wrote: » If you want to see what Ireland might have been like had we joined the war, look at the countries formerly known collectively as Yugoslavia. They are still dealing with that war 60 years after it ended.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Yugoslavia ? Where the Austrians/Hungarians/Ottomans were fighting for ages before some statelets got independence in the 1880's , and ongoing wars every generation , including WWI where boarders got re-written big time. And then they got invaded in WWII. Seems like the only peace there when when they were under Tito's heel. Can't remember which one but one of the boarders there is the same as when the Roman empire split into east / west halves to give you an idea of how long those guys have been upset with each other.
brianthebard wrote: » Its funny how people still believe the propaganda of the times about the world wars, that they were moral wars. Where they really? If we should've gotten involved, shouldn't we equally have been morally obliged to join the Korean war, the Algerian war, the Gulf war? Why is one war moral and noble and another not? No country should join a war to be like the cool kids.
Hookey wrote: » Its not that complicated; Korea yes (as it was a UN mandate), Algeria, no (as it was effectively an internal French matter), the Gulf War, technically yes (UN resolution again) but with no practical contribution to make.
As for whether WWII was a "moral" war, there's no such thing, but on the continuum of justification then it was more "moral" than most. I don't think anyone regarded WWI as a "just" war, certainly not after the fact.
Snickers Man wrote: » If you want to see what Ireland might have been like had we joined the war, look at the countries formerly known collectively as Yugoslavia. They are still dealing with that war 60 years after it ended. Superimposing a grand strategic imperative over a hotch potch of ancient local rivalries and enmities produced a savage conflict fed with generations of bad blood. Bear in mind that the "Goodies" in Yugoslavia, as far as the Allies were concerned, were the Orthodox Serbs who fought against the Axis whereas the "Baddies" were the Bosnians (largely Muslim) and Croats (largely Catholic) who allied themselves with the Germans. And of course I am speaking VERY generally here because the issues were even more complex from a local point of view.
brianthebard wrote: » WWII can be seen as an internal European matter. Korea and the gulf war-really? Because the UN sanctions a war you think it would be ok to participate? I must say I disagree.
brianthebard wrote: » Well I don't believe there are moral or just wars, but WWI and II were regarded as just that during, and WWII is still considered so in light of Nazi Genocide. I don't believe the war can be justified by the events that happened during it though.
donaghs wrote: » Interesting idea, but I don't think so. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe. Even the northern unionist minority aren't that different. Same alphabet, language, look the same. Off-topic, but its definitely too simple to describe the WWII Yugoslav war in those terms. Tito (a Croat) and his Communist Partisans (mostly serb but multiethnic ), with the backing of the Allies, wiped out his enemies which included the Fascist Croats and the Orthodox Serb Chetniks.
Hookey wrote: » There was no such thing as "an internal European matter" at the time, Europe wasn't a political entity, therefore there was nothing internal about it. If the Germans had won, they might have respected Irish neutrality...for a while, but Hitler was no fan of "Celtic peoples". As for Korea and the Gulf; Ireland has no problem putting blue helmets on its troops, and in 1950 Korea was the first test of the UN's new police role. It was supposed to be the bright shining future where the world collectively stopped aggression before it enveloped everyone. I'd say that was a reasonable aspiration at the time. As for the Gulf, well, we're quite happy to let others do our fighting for cheap oil...
I think there are millions of people across the world, liberated in 1945, who would disagree with you. Of course there are "just" wars. The behaviour of men on the battlefield may not be moral, but our own history proves that war itself is sometimes both necessary and justified.
brianthebard wrote: Well I don't believe there are moral or just wars, but WWI and II were regarded as just that during, and WWII is still considered so in light of Nazi Genocide. I don't believe the war can be justified by the events that happened during it though.
Hookey wrote: » I think there are millions of people across the world, liberated in 1945, who would disagree with you. Of course there are "just" wars. The behaviour of men on the battlefield may not be moral, but our own history proves that war itself is sometimes both necessary and justified.
brianthebard wrote: » The UN didn't declare war on Korea or the Gulf afaik; the policing role you refer to and the actual wars preceding them that I was referring to were two different things. Getting closer to the topic, the US certainly saw WWII as a European affair until Pearl Harbour.
brianthebard wrote: » Weren't millions of people imprisoned because of the war? Wars are messy, unjust things, and when something supposedly good comes at the end of them, it can be hard for people to go against the grain and show that the war was still a destructive bloodbath. It is important for those who participated to afterwards (or during, especially during) to be able to claim a moral reason for the war, but usually there isn't one. Ireland had no business involving itself in WWII and was entirely justified staying out of it imo, for many reasons.
Snickers Man wrote: » An interesting point but who's to say what parts were just and what parts weren't? For instance, take the Poles in WW2: No country suffered more in percentage terms than Poland. It had a higher percentage of its people killed than any other country. Including Germany. You say they were liberated in 1945. Is that the way they see it? NB I don't know the answer to this. If there are any Polish people here, I would love to get their perspective. In 1939, they were invaded by two countries: Germany and the Soviet Union. The latter rounded up virtually the entire Polish officer corps, including most of its conscripted civilian intellegentsia, and massacred them at Katyn. Meanwhile the Germans were suppressing any dissent in their own quaint way. Then in 1944, with the Soviet Union pushing the Germans back, the Poles of Warsaw rose in rebellion. They were supported, politically if not materially, by the western allies; they were treated with utter suspicion by their supposed eastern allies, namely the soviet Union that had invaded and massacred them in 1939. With the Poles fighting for their lives, the Soviet offensive stopped. With an eye to the later play, the Soviets were only too pleased to let the Germans and Polish nationalists, who would have been no friends of the Soviets, blow the hell out of each other. (another example of supposed Allies taking their cue from the second book of Samuel). Do the Poles today remember the Soviets as being an army of liberation? Do they feel grateful for their deliverance by the Red Army? Or do they regard the true heroes of their liberation the people who died failing to achieve it, in much the same way as we look on the leaders of 1916? I don't know the answer but I'm curious as to what it is. I know it's slightly off topic but it's relevant by way of comparison to the OP's question.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Back to the original topic, I agree with the general opinion that dev got it right, although I think all the reasons given do him justice, i think he had a pro-war lobby on one side and the anti-war the other and basically sat on the fence, but gave in to his own convictions and gave low key support to the allies.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » We used to let the flying boats based in Lough Erne fly directly to the coast instead of up around the top of Donegal.
Hookey wrote: » The UN never declared war in Korea at all; the whole thing was a "police action", and yes both in the case of Korea and The Gulf is was UN Mandate that kicked things off.
That's rather curious logic. Look at this way, Germany invaded The Sudetenland, no-one fought them, and then an even stronger Germany invaded Poland. At that point, even when trying to stop them, the Allies watched Germany gobble up most of mainland Europe. War may be messy, but like everything in life, doing the unpleasant things can stop a bigger problem. If the Allies had been more aggressive in 1938, they could, and probably would, have saved millions of lives. If the allies hadn't declared war after over Poland, there could have millions more lost than actually were. There are simply times when a military response is the only answer.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » When where the treaty ports handed back ? It could have made a sizeable difference during the start of the battle of the Atlantic.
Hookey wrote: » The original post was about Ireland being under threat from invasion if they joined, not attack. The Germans managed to do that by mistake anyway.
Hookey wrote: » Finland, Iraq and bizarrely, Thailand, were all co-belligerents, so they fought against the allies (or an ally in Finland and Iraq's case) without being subject to Axis requirements.
Hookey wrote: » This is actually the most relevant point and I don't disagree with it, but there were plenty in America who felt the same way about fighting the British Empire's battles, but FDR still pushed the "Europe first" strategy despite a great deal of public opinion that said they shouldn't get involved in Europe (although the Germans formally declared war on the Americans, there was still feeling that it was a formality rather than a real danger, unlike Japan).
Hookey wrote: » That only serves to prove my point, strange bedfellows and all that.
