Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2
Options
Comments
-
isent strange when you think about it ,more irish men joined the british army to fight in ww11 , than the republics own army,and thousands of irish men and woman came over to the uk during the war to work,i think as a englishman who was born in 1940 thats the most possitive way the republic could have helped, and i am sure the people of the uk were gratefulI 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.0 -
The reality is that if the Irish government couldn't have assisted the British Army even if they had wanted to - politically, they would have run the risk of antagonising republicans, particularly if they had even considered conscription, possibly resulting in a civil war type situation. Personally, I have no regrets and only contentment that we stayed out of that war - small nations get trampled when they get involved in wars of bigger nations.
And re assisting the British from occupation, why on earth would we have considered doing that whilst they occupied parts of Ireland? It was plain to see how grateful they were for the help they did get by sticking the jack-boot on the throats of Irish people in the north after the second world war.0 -
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.
Nowadays, of course, it's the Serbs with their supposed penchant for ethnic cleansing who are the pariahs and their leaders are hunted down by the world's righteous in a way that was once reserved for Nazis who had fled to South America. But that's history for you.
Forcing the Irish state as a whole to take the side of the British Empire would have led to a vicious internal reaction from those who could not see that power as anything other than an ancient and continuing enemy. It would have had little to do with Fascist sympathies. It is one of the great ironies of the "Emergency" that men who had voluntarily gone to Spain to fight AGAINST Fascism ended up working for the Germans against the British.
And another irony is that Fine Gael, which had been formed by a merger of several parties including the quasi fascist Blueshirts, had many who were enthusiastic to join the war on the side of the Allies. In fact their leader James Dillon resigned after the idea was turned down.
De Valera had a horrendously difficult balancing act to perform. I am no Fianna Failer, but that was his single greatest achievement, IMHO.0 -
It wasnt Ireland's war to fight.
The seeds of WWII came from WWI and the Treaty of Versailles which all the main actors in the lead up to WWII were involved with. Unfinsihed business so to speak.
Switzerland remained perfectly neutral in the middle of mainland Europe. Should they have joined?
Remember, Ireland was assisting the Allies (unofficially)...for example British Subs and ships were stationed off various ports in Ireland during the battles in the Atlantic with the sanction of the De Valera's Gov.
So to say that Ireland stood by and watched is simply not true.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
And that raises another point - I would hate to see a precedent by the Irish state of following the British state into war, much the same way that the British state follows the United States.0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 88984
Yugoslavia ?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.
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.0 -
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.
Not quite sure what your point is here. But I think it's fair to say that we have quite a long history of being upset with each other in this little island too. Encouraging each other to take sides in a major war in which no holds were barred on either side is not the best way to proceeed.0 -
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.
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
i feel that De Valera was exercising great foresight when he declared that ireland would remain neutral. you have to remember that when Churchill was angrily blabbing for ireland to join the war, the external relations act of 1936, as well as the anglo-irish agreement 1938 had both just been passed. it had taken a long time for ireland to get these agreements, which both ensured that the free state was gaining some degree of true independence. to join the war would have been seen to run back to the old master and undo all that work. Churchill later vaguely promised an end to partition upon entering the war with the telegraph "a nation once again" etc, but De Valera was smart enough to see that this could never be delievered with hard line unionists such as craig and brookeborough in power in the north. i feel that having undergone the economic war of the 30's and all the hardship that it had brought, it would seem infantile to join an inperialists war for no gain.
and i amn't generally an admirerer of De Valera!0 -
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.
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.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88984
We used to let the flying boats based in Lough Erne fly directly to the coast instead of up around the top of Donegal.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88984
When where the treaty ports handed back ?
It could have made a sizeable difference during the start of the battle of the Atlantic.
During WWII Iceland and Iran were invaded by the allies when it suited them. India, Iraq (and Israel ) were already under control ...0 -
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.
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...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.
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.0 -
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.
I did make the point that I was being ultrasimplistic about the situation in Yugoslavia. Indeed the very complexity that you describe is part of the reason things got so messy there.
Wars are rarely, in fact almost never, simplistic cut and dried affairs where everybody on one side holds identical points of view and trusts their colleagues implicitly. On the contrary, a war which breaks down the normal structures of civilised behaviour is more likely to throw up opportunists who will jump on any point of disagreement to enhance their position.
Yes: Tito's Serbian communist partisans were ruthless with Mihailovic's Serbian Royalist Chetniks. And the Croat Ustashe were particularly brutal to other Croats who might have supported Tito. But that just strengthens the point I wanted to make.
Look at our own Civil War. The Free Staters executed more of their Republican former colleagues than the British did in the War of Independence. And the Republicans were no shrinking violets either, provoking many of the reprisals with bloody atrocities of their own. Like Knocknagoshel/Ballyseedy, for instance.
Let's work it through simplistically. The Free State comes in on Britain's side in 1940, say. Are the Unionists going to say "Hallellujah. They have seen the light. We will be happy to serve alongside our Southern Brethern in common cause!"? Or are they going to think. "Hang on. What to these Fenian bastards want to get out of this? A united Ireland? I don't think so." Cue much suspicion, underhand dealings and sneaky self serving manouevrings to ensure that when all the shooting dies down, the right top dogs are in place.
Think I'm being too hard on the Unionists? See
2 Samuel 11:15
Not that they would be the only ones. There would have been a vicious sundering of loyaltie inside the Catholic/Nationalist community as well. Each section would have called the others collaborators with their country's enemies and the internecine feuding and murder would have been horrendous.
Into which mix of course the good old Germans would have thrown as many bombs, bullets, machine guns etc etc as they could spare. Just as they did in 1912. Remember they gave more guns to the UVF than they did to the Irish Volunteers. Because their interest was served by arming both. To the teeth.
This is not an exaggeration. Look at how the peoples in the countries that were ravaged by the war treated each other. How many thousand Frenchmen were murdered in the wake of the "liberation"? Or Italians for that matter. And look at the brutal "ethnic cleansing" that took place in Czechoslovakia with many hundred thousands of Germans forced out of towns their families had lived in for centuries.
And all that was done by the "goodies" in this moral war.
We were dead right to stay out of it.0 -
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...
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.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.
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.0 -
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.
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.
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.0 -
I know that many poles considered the carving up of europe at the Yalta conference to be a betrayal by Britain (and to a lesser extent the US).
Stalin wanted to put in a puppet government, the British wanted free elections with independant monitors and the US couldn't care less as long as an agreement was reached on the formation of the UN. By this time though, Britain was pretty much powerless to do anything and the main objective was persauding the US to keep an interest in europe to keep an eye on the soviets, which by this time were considered a bigger threat.
Stalin agreed that the US, British and French Ambassadors could monitor the elections, knowing full well that Ambassadors could not be appointed until a government was formed, very clever of him.
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
I said millions, I didn't say which millions. You rightly point out that the Poles swapped one oppressor for another (and can be justified in feeling betrayed by the British and particularly the Americans, for Yalta), but the Soviets weren't actively trying to exterminate the Poles (Stalin usually kept the genocide for his own peoples) and there's very little the western allies could have done anyway, the Soviets were on the ground and the Britain and America were in no position to declare war on them (and they still had a war in the Pacific to finish). But with all due respect to the Poles (and it is due, they saved my grandfather at Monte Cassino), they are outnumbered by the number of countries that were truly liberated in 1945.0 -
Jeez Fred, I've a tear in my eye - I nearly agree with everything you said in that postFratton 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.
0 -
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.
yeah, there was the official policy of "friendly neutrality" throughout the war, with john maffey and that. met eireann made forecasts available to the allies and british pilots who crashlanded in the south were allowed to "escape" across the border, while german pilots were locked up for the duration.
the treaty ports were handed over in 1938, and youre right, they would have made a massive difference in the battle of the atlantic.0 -
I know they didn't declare war, I was being sarcastic. You seemed to be saying Ireland was involved in the Korean and Gulf wars through the UN, but that's not the case.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.
And if we go backwards a little more we'll find that if WWI hadn't happened, or hadn't ended in the way it did, we wouldn't have had WWII. If the Allies had been more, or alternatively less aggressive in 1914, we might have avoided two world wars. Even more millions of lives would've been saved.0 -
revisionism ^
to dismiss ww2 as a result from ww2 is ridiculouslt oversimplifying things
on the original question - no of course we should have not. if we did maybe the invasion plans of ireland would have happened
germany would have made it a priority to invade ireland and use it to attack britain from all sides0 -
The Treaty Ports were handed back in 1938, as part of the conclusion of the Economic War. IIRC, Churchill offered to help re-unite Ireland after the war if Ireland entered the war. This was mostly because he wanted to gain access to the Treaty Ports.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.0 -
Yes0
-
while Invasion is indeed much more damaging, Bombs have a fairly Nasty impact. I did indeed suggest Invasion, however discounting a bombing becuase I initially said Invasion is hardly a justification for Ireland joining a war.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.
Finland was Invaded by Russia, Iraq had its own war going on with Britain, and Thailand was a military alliance with Japan so the Japanese would leave them alone - all very specific reasons for going to war with the UK.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.
Given Ireland's constitution claim to the North, it's surprising we didn't get into the mix ourselves. Kinda glad we didn't.
good, we agree on something.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).That only serves to prove my point, strange bedfellows and all that.
Offering a condolence, which is Diplomatic protocol (which I know you've damned - but Ireland was still a Neutral country remember) is very very different from annoucing a National day of mourning.
What was it Dev referred it as "an Illness of Diplomacy" or something like that?.0 -
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.
You said it! The only "moral" aspect of WWII was in the propaganda that spun and spun - especially afterwords. The documents now coming out of the archives of the Soviet Union, Poland and other "Iron Curtain" countries tell a very different story.
The "Allies" sold out Poland for one - the very reason given for the war, to "save" Poland got shelved and put aside. Poland, who fought alongside the allies, lost thousands in the war, were not even allowed to march in the victory parade in London in 1946. The Poles are rightfully very angry about this and how the "Allies" sold Poland at the end of the war. Churchill gave away large tracks of Polish land to the Soviets. Something that was hardly mentioned for fifty years. The massacre at Katyn is another event that got shoved under the carpet by the "Allies."
Morality? You can call WWII many things but a moral war it was not.0 -
Advertisement
-
curchill promised a united ireland if we gave the british army the use of are doc lands yes we should have0
Advertisement