Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Hookey · 16-06-2009 4:38pm

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.

IIMII · 16-06-2009 4:40pm

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.

Jeez Fred, I've a tear in my eye - I nearly agree with everything you said in that post

not bakunin · 16-06-2009 6:25pm

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.

brianthebard · 16-06-2009 7:01pm

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.

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.

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.

conchubhar1 · 16-06-2009 8:05pm

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 sides

Hermione* · 16-06-2009 8:58pm

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.

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.

coldwood92 · 16-06-2009 9:31pm

Yes

Blackjack · 16-06-2009 10:37pm

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.

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.

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.

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.
Given Ireland's constitution claim to the North, it's surprising we didn't get into the mix ourselves. Kinda glad we didn't.

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).

good, we agree on something.

Hookey wrote: »

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?.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 12:18am

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.

tayto2009 · 17-06-2009 12:20am

curchill promised a united ireland if we gave the british army the use of are doc lands yes we should have

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 12:25am

tayto2009 wrote: »

curchill promised a united ireland if we gave the british army the use of are doc lands yes we should have

That is a supposition without any foundation - there is absolutely no evidence that Churchill promised this.

Morlar · 17-06-2009 1:08am

MarchDub wrote: »

That is a supposition without any foundation - there is absolutely no evidence that Churchill promised this.

Trusting that churchill would intend to, or, to be able to deliver a united Ireland when the 2nd World War was over would have been a ridiculous gamble.

Churchill did not 'promise' anything in legal terms & nor was he in a position to do so. He 'hinted' it & I would imagine he was 'hinting' the exact opposite to his unionist brethren at the very same time. History has shown De Valera was right not to fall for that. Take a look at the post above re what he 'promised' to Poland - or to the poles who fought within the british forces.

Had Churchill offered a legal guarantee then there would have been a whole new moral, ethical & legal question around that proposition. ie Is it correct to form an alliance with a country (that is currently occupying your territory) in order to attack a 3rd country who has not declared war on you (for the prize of the return of your territory) ? Personally I do not think that that would be a correct basis to declare war on anybody (regardless of how powerful or weak they are just on principle).

brianthebard · 17-06-2009 11:24am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

revisionism ^

How so?

to dismiss ww2 as a result from ww2 is ridiculouslt oversimplifying things

Would you concede that without WWI there would not have been the necessary causes that started WWII? If it is oversimplifying, please expand on how it is so.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 12:40pm

brianthebard wrote: »

So the price to be paid in liberating millions is to allow other millions to be subjugated? Yes it is easy to judge, and to an extent that's what history is about. We can't just sit back and reserve criticism because we weren't there and didn't know what it was like (maaaan). Historians must be critical in order to learn from the past.

Agree completely. That is the point of historical research - to unearth the errors and the cover ups of the propagandists. If anyone thinks that propaganda ends with a war, it does not. Look at what is going on in the US with the out of office Bush administration - they are trying to control the narrative surrounding the Iraq invasion because they KNOW that who controls the narrative owns the history.

WWII has been the "good war" for too long. And as such has been used as justification for all the wars that post dated it. My whole life I have heard the old chestnut "Well what about Hitler, someone had to stop etc. etc. nonsense." The hidden fact that the "Allies" may have in fact created an equal or worse monster in supporting Stalin gets swept under the carpet. How could the Soviet aggression [including genocide] have been avoided? - this question cannot be answered unless all the documents, all the archival material of WWII gets investigated and laid bare.
Eastern European countries were the sacrifical lambs for the “freedom” of the west – that translated into a moral war? Not in my book.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 12:47pm

I should add to the above - no, Ireland should not have entered WWII. There was no justification for this. It was a war for imperial power that failed to even justify the expressed reasons for it as given by the British and French. Why should we have taken part and shed blood at the behest of the lie that Poland's "freedom" was being fought for?

IIMII · 17-06-2009 4:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i doubt very much if irish neutrality would have been much of an issue.

Not to the like of the Russians and the British, obviously. :P

Manic Moran · 17-06-2009 5:56pm

The best contribution Ireland could have made was Atlantic airfields and perhaps a naval base in the south-west.

And it could quite probably have saved a lot of allied lives.

Where Ireland is was far more important than the manpower or industry it could provide. A similar perspective can be found by looking at Iceland. It has a smaller population than Ireland, has no Army, Navy or Air Force at all, but is still a critically important member of NATO because of its position as the Gateway to the Atlantic. Without Iceland, the air and sea convoys from the US would be under critical threat.

NTM

Hookey · 17-06-2009 5:56pm

MarchDub wrote: »

The biggest imperialist of them all was Churchill and he was literally gunning for war and wanted nothing to do with peace. I haven't got the document in front of me right now but there is a letter written by one of the cabinet wives -recently released - where Churchill is described as clicking his heels in delight at the declaration of war. War was an aphrodisiac for him and he was also furious at the idea of a powerful Germany - Nazi or no. Churchill was the supreme British imperialist who ironically did most to damage the British empire. You are right - the French and the Brits were stupid to get involved. They lost all that they had.

They'd have lost their empires anyway; the economics of overseas empire was already destroying the rationale for empire (Britain was actually putting more money into India than it was gettting out by the early part of the 20th century). Post 1918 the British Empire was like a bloated corpse, still getting bigger but already dead. Doesn't mean Churchill wasn't the arch-imperialist, but he was already fighting a losing battle with economics and his own people (the British public had been losing interest in the pink bits on the map for decades).

MarchDub wrote: »

Check your history - Churchill changed the Polish borders most significantly. He was the one who originally suggested this at the beginning of the war and it was his Polish border configuration which was adopted at the end. Poland lost a large chunk of her land to the Russians.

The following is from the PBS site on "Behind Closed Doors" -

"At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter. After the war, the borders of Poland were reshaped to the specifications set out at Potsdam, leading to a population shift on an enormous scale. While Stalin took Poland’s eastern territories, Poland itself was given “Regained Lands” in the west along the Baltic Coast and in Upper Silesia. In the end, Poland became twenty percent smaller."

http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/struggle-poland.html

Slightly selective quoting going on there; from the full commentary: "the fate of Poland was a continual source of frustration between the Allies throughout the war. Although Great Britain had gone to war to protect Poland’s independence, British prime minister Winston Churchill came to understand that Joseph Stalin had no intention of giving back the land he had captured in eastern Poland in 1939. Churchill felt that the best he could do would be to compensate Poland for the loss with part of eastern Germany. At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter."

In 1939 Britain couldn't have known that in 1945 the Soviets would be sat on Poland. The 1939 declaration was intended to beat the Germans on the battlefield and allow Poland to regain its sovreignity at the negotiating table. This obviously didn't happen and Britain was presented with a fait accompli at Potsdam. The idea that impoverished Britain and disinterested America (don't forget they'd made no obligation to go to Poland's aid), both with a war still to fight in the far east, would face up to the Soviets militarily over Poland is laughable. Their own troops would have mutinied. The western allies were lucky the Soviets relinquished German territory in compliance with their obligations, never mind Polish.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 6:45pm

Hookey wrote: »

In 1939 Britain couldn't have known that in 1945 the Soviets would be sat on Poland. The 1939 declaration was intended to beat the Germans on the battlefield and allow Poland to regain its sovreignity at the negotiating table. This obviously didn't happen and Britain was presented with a fait accompli at Potsdam. The idea that impoverished Britain and disinterested America (don't forget they'd made no obligation to go to Poland's aid), both with a war still to fight in the far east, would face up to the Soviets militarily over Poland is laughable. Their own troops would have mutinied. The western allies were lucky the Soviets relinquished German territory in compliance with their obligations, never mind Polish.

That's the point I am making - the war turned out to be a gross error. Not a cause of celebration and win for the higher moral ground that the spin broadcast and promulgated for decades [mostly through Churchill's own "memoirs"]. Great reference that turned out to be. Furthermore the British hid their Polish embarrassment by refusing to even allow the Poles to march in the victory parade in London. Afraid of the truth were they? The end result of WWII was NOT something that it was made out to be for sixty years - a great and unblemished victory for the Allies.

As regards Poland and Churchill he really didn't give a damn , by Churchill's own words at Potsdam - he was only interested in British interests. Polish historians are very critical at how he dropped the Poles easily and without much regret. The fact that Poland and Eastern Europe HAD to be sacrificed IS the point - the war was a terrible mistake and ended up presenting Eastern Europe [and the world] with as many problems as it attempted to solve.

Now why would the Irish have become involved in such a mess?

McArmalite · 17-06-2009 6:48pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

but not very honourable. How much is a nation's self-dignity worth?

Well I’ll bet that a country that stayed neutral like Portugal don’t go on a guilt trip about WW2 and feel that they should somehow have rushed to the aid of an imperialist power against a fascist one - unlike some on this forum :rolleyes:

I'm sure that having a German-dominated Europe would have done wonders for both Irish self-determination and the Irish economy.

Yes and I’m sure by joining in having the Luftwaffe destroying Dublin, Cork etc would also have done wonders for the Irish economy also. So Germany had annexed the neighbouring countries of Poland and Czeckslovakia, so we were to presuppose he’d be coming to Ireland in a few years and therefore call a premptive declaration of war on Germany. Maybe we should also have done the same with the USSR attacked Finland ??

Ever hear of "Dachau", "Auschwitz", "Lidice", or "The Warsaw Ghetto?"

NTM

Yes I did and also heard about the Stalin’s Gulags, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. Were we supposed to declare war on the USSR and the Kymer Rouge also ??

netron · 17-06-2009 6:52pm

before the americans got involved , in December 1941, i would have to say a resounding "No".

but once the Yanks joined up, we should have got involved - but only to assist the American war effort. Would have had no problem with the American army using Ireland as a base.

After all - look what happened eventually - FDR & Truman's ulterior motive was the destruction of the British Empire and the establishment of the modern "free world".

Hookey · 17-06-2009 7:22pm

MarchDub wrote: »

That's the point I am making - the war turned out to be a gross error. Not a cause of celebration and win for the higher moral ground that the spin broadcast and promulgated for decades [mostly through Churchill's own "memoirs"]. Great reference that turned out to be. Furthermore the British hid their Polish embarrassment by refusing to even allow the Poles to march in the victory parade in London. Afraid of the truth were they? The end result of WWII was NOT something that it was made out to be for sixty years - a great and unblemished victory for the Allies.

I don't think anyone outside of Hollywood and comic books viewed it as a "great and unblemished victory", (certainly not the unblemished part - two atomic bombs saw to that, if nothing else) but by the same token you're flat wrong if you simply dismiss the allies as morally equivalent to the Nazis! Bottom line is a truly great evil was crushed. Does it matter if the power politics involved were cynical and self-serving? Show me a government in the history of the world that isn't. Europe after the war was a better place because the Nazis weren't in it.

MarchDub wrote: »

As regards Poland and Churchill he really didn't give a damn , by Churchill's own words at Potsdam - he was only interested in British interests. Polish historians are very critical at how he dropped the Poles easily and without much regret. The fact that Poland and Eastern Europe HAD to be sacrificed IS the point - the war was a terrible mistake and ended up presenting Eastern Europe [and the world] with as many problems as it attempted to solve.

Now why would the Irish have become involved in such a mess?

I'm sorry but this idea that the war was "a terrible mistake" is ridiculous. You're implying the Nazis were somehow forced into it. One way or another the Nazis were going east, and Eastern Europe was going to end up under one lot of oppressors or another. Can you seriously think of a scenario where the Nazis and Soviets wouldn't have ended up at each other's throats? Once the Nazis had rearmed the only "terrible mistake" was in not confronting them militarily sooner, in 1938.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 7:23pm

netron wrote: »

before the americans got involved , in December 1941, i would have to say a resounding "No".

but once the Yanks joined up, we should have got involved - but only to assist the American war effort. Would have had no problem with the American army using Ireland as a base.

After all - look what happened eventually - FDR & Truman's ulterior motive was the destruction of the British Empire and the establishment of the modern "free world".

Although I disagree that Ireland should have become involved you are absolutely bang on about FDR's and Truman's intentions. FDR hated European imperialism as manifested by the European Empires and did have as a sincere ulterior motive the destruction of that world order. He succeeded beyond his own expectations and the French and British dupes, deluded by their own long established sense of entitlement, couldn't and didn't see it coming.

MarchDub · 17-06-2009 7:37pm

Hookey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this idea that the war was "a terrible mistake" is ridiculous. You're implying the Nazis were somehow forced into it. One way or another the Nazis were going east, and Eastern Europe was going to end up under one lot of oppressors or another. Can you seriously think of a scenario where the Nazis and Soviets wouldn't have ended up at each other's throats? Once the Nazis had rearmed the only "terrible mistake" was in not confronting them militarily sooner, in 1938.

That is actually a thesis of many historians - that the French and British ought to have kept out of it [for their own sakes] and let the Nazis and the Soviets go at each other. The British were very ill equipped for a land war. Personally, I have to say I am pleased at the result and their mistaken entry into the mess - The British lost their empire as a result of this decision. That's not a bad ending in my book.

As for the morality of it all - I don't know where you've been living but my whole life I have heard each war justified by the "good" war effort that WWII still claims to be in many quarters. As I said in a previous post the "we had to stop Hitler" brigade are alive and well and using WWII for further war justifications. Even last week we once again had to endure the "morality" of D Day flashed across our TV screens.

$kilkenny · 17-06-2009 8:24pm

i think we shud have joined the nazis!
we'd have the chance in hundreds of years to get our own back at them
if briton had fell to the germans it would be very hard or impossible to stop them

Hermione* · 17-06-2009 11:07pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

And it could quite probably have saved a lot of allied lives.

Where Ireland is was far more important than the manpower or industry it could provide.

This was always Britain's reason for holding Ireland. They solved their strategic dilemna neatly in 1922 by partitioning the island. Northern Ireland served that function for Britain and America in WWII. The Allies had the benefit of Ireland's location.

As I have stated previously, Ireland had more immediate concerns which prevented her from entering the war. This is not to say that Ireland should not have entered the war, but Ireland had been supporting Britain's wars for 700 years. She had had enough, especially as the period 1914-1923 was essentially a period of war in Ireland. Furthermore, in 1939, Ireland was broke.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no small school of thought in 1945 that, yes, it might well be in the best interests to keep going to Moscow (Especially once they had the A-Bomb).

I believe this to be quite a small school of thought indeed, given that the Allies didn't even make it into East Germany. I believe this to be even further unlikely because I subscribe to the view that the Atomic bomb was dropped on Japan to warn Stalin. The suggestion that this school of thought would increase after acquiring the atomic bomb seems unlikely. Surely the whole point of the bomb was to fight wars without having to risk thousands of lives in battle? If as you contend, any hundred lives saved by Ireland's participation is to be valued, why would thousands of lives be risked when America had a weapon like the Atomic bomb? After all, the official line used for the deployment of the bomb on Japan was that it would save thousands of American lives. I fail to see the logic behind such thinking.

Hermione* · 17-06-2009 11:09pm

$kilkenny wrote: »

i think we shud have joined the nazis!
we'd have the chance in hundreds of years to get our own back at them
if briton had fell to the germans it would be very hard or impossible to stop them

I was under the impression that we "got our own back" on Britain when an independent Irish state was established in 1922.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2009 11:53pm

netron wrote:

but once the Yanks joined up, we should have got involved - but only to assist the American war effort. Would have had no problem with the American army using Ireland as a base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
Dates on which independent states joined the Allies

Nepal: 4 September 1939 :eek:
Panama: 7 December 1941

United States: 8 December 1941,
Liberia: 27 January 1944
San Marino: 21 September 1944
Chile: 11 April 1945 :rolleyes:

However, Berwick-upon-Tweed was still technically at war with Russia.

Manic Moran · 18-06-2009 12:16am

I seem to recall that Andorra had forgotten to declare peace after WWI, so in 1940 they declared peace, then immediately declared war again, to make sure that people knew why they were fighting.

NTM

$kilkenny · 18-06-2009 5:04pm

Hermione* wrote: »

I was under the impression that we "got our own back" on Britain when an independent Irish state was established in 1922.

yes but you still have fighting and bombings caused by northern ireland
it would have givin us the chance to take the fighting to their land and their people

Fratton Fred · 18-06-2009 5:14pm

$kilkenny wrote: »

yes but you still have fighting and bombings caused by northern ireland
it would have givin us the chance to take the fighting to their land and their people

The people of warrington, Guildford, Birmingham and London would argue that the Irish did indeed take the "war" to them.

Fratton Fred · 18-06-2009 5:16pm

MarchDub wrote: »

You seem to be the one with the problem here – sorry if you don’t like what you are reading here about Churchill and have to – once again - get personal [nothing new for you] but I am sticking to the historic record and I continue to do so…

Ireland's relationship with Britain was at the heart of many political decisions made at the time. The generation of Irish living at the time had harsh memories of how Churchill behaved towards Ireland during the Tan War and during the Treaty negotiations. Churchill embodied the war for Britain – but he did also for Ireland. There was no support in independent Ireland for his imperialist world view.

Churchill attacked Ireland's neutrality in a speech in the most insulting terms at the end of the war – petty thing to do but a marker of how petty the man really was - to the point where de Valera felt it incumbent on himself to answer for the Irish nation. He did so in a radio address to Churchill in 1945 which the generation of Irish living at the time gave overwhelming support to. Copies of de Valera’s speech were made and given out as gifts for years after – even as late as the 1970s you could buy recordings of it in Dublin shops.
That is why – once again with feeling – any discussion about Ireland and WWII involves discussion on the relationship with Churchill and the duplicitous character he was.
Say what you will about Dev - the man had class and showed it when he had to answer Churchill's ungenerous attack on Ireland at the end of the war.

Hear Dev here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

Sorry, I keep forgetting that the world revolves around Ireland.

Morlar · 18-06-2009 5:22pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, I keep forgetting that the world revolves around Ireland.

The thread is about Ireland & so yes in this context (thread) it does revolve around Ireland.

brianthebard · 18-06-2009 5:23pm

Fred that's enough. MarchDub and $kilkenny keep it on topic. Mod.

DublinWriter · 18-06-2009 5:26pm

dlofnep wrote: »

McArmalite - The Germans bombed Belfast & Dublin.

Let's not also forget the 'accidental' bombing by the Luftwaffe of a major creamery in Wexford that had a large contract to supply the British army.

I think it's wrong to play the 'Jewish' card here - what fired the starting gun in WWII was principally German's plans for empirical expansion, so what you essentially had in 1939 were two empirical nations having a pissing contest over how much of the globe to carve up.

Certainly, anti-Semitism in Ireland during the Free-State years was rife.

I do think it was a very peevish act of DeValera to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy when Hitler died - many of the atrocities of the Axis powers were well known by 1945.

Morlar · 18-06-2009 5:31pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I do think it was a very peevish act of DeValera to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy when Hitler died - many of the atrocities of the Axis powers were well known by 1945.

The German civilian population were suffering greatly at that time. I would view De Valera's signing the book of condolences (in addition to being standard diplomatic protocol) as a symbol of empathy & humanity towards them.

Whether that view is right or wrong it was certainly not an endorsement of warcrimes.

Morlar · 18-06-2009 5:48pm

There is a good article on De Valera's signing of the book of condolences, the background to the event and the full details & context in the national archives :

http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/AAE/Article.pdf

It also covers the reaction both in the media and behind the scenes. In addition it contains information about the burning of the tricolour over trinity and subsequent events.

MarchDub · 18-06-2009 7:02pm

Morlar wrote: »

There is a good article on De Valera's signing of the book of condolences, the background to the event and the full details & context in the national archives :

http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/AAE/Article.pdf

It also covers the reaction both in the media and behind the scenes. In addition it contains information about the burning of the tricolour over trinity and subsequent events.

Thanks Morlar for this contribution - Dermot Keogh's work is really excellent. His book on the Jews in Ireland is very valuable including his description of Dev's long friendship with Rabbi Herzog.

conchubhar1 · 19-06-2009 2:15am

ww1 added to the reasons for ww2
example - hitler use of the stabbing in the back theory

but it is vastly more complex than ww1

also, would you imagine that europe would have been peaceful from 1914-onwards without the two world wars?

----

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

Babbit · 19-06-2009 8:04am

No we should not have, and thats not for petty nationalistic reasons.

1) We are a small island, and unable to withstand a German invasion.

2) Our resources were so limitid we would have been completely reliant on British aid - so much for Irish self determination and independence.

3) Neutrality is a not a bad policy to persue for a small, non aligned democracy in those troubled times.

4) We provided quite a few soldiers and workers to the British in wartime, so I wouldn't feel particularly guilty about our lack of participation.

5) 200,000 ill equipped Irish soldiers (Which is what our full time national army would have been in the war) would have been cannon fodder in the war. Possibly sent to a theatre like North Africa to die on a land far from our own. The Imperial powers of Britain and France created the monster that was Hitler. It was not the fault of poor little Ireland that Europe found itself in another such war. And neither was it our responsibility to fight it.

brianthebard · 19-06-2009 8:35am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ww1 added to the reasons for ww2
example - hitler use of the stabbing in the back theory

but it is vastly more complex than ww1

also, would you imagine that europe would have been peaceful from 1914-onwards without the two world wars?

Is this a response to me? Because it is even more simplistic than the post you criticised as overlysimplistic.
----

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

It was an ongoing policy of the US to stand against (European) Imperialism and to supposedly seek emancipation for all people. Look at Wilson's 14 point plan and the Atlantic Charter for a taster, but its hard to pin to one president, document or era.

Hookey · 19-06-2009 8:53am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

There was a really good BBC documentary a few years ago about the relationship between Churchill, FDR and DeGaulle. A big theme in that was about American policy not to prop up the British or French Empires.

Another good read that partially covers the same theme is Max Hastings' Nemesis. The Americans probably didn't have an active policy to destroy the British Empire, but they made lots of policy decisions to not aid the British if they were doing something that was only about regaining or protecting their colonies, which caused a lot of double-think on the Americans' part in Asia in particular (for example they didn't want to help the British in Burma, but needed a supply route to China via Burma, so they'd kind of give with one hand and take with the other).

conchubhar1 · 19-06-2009 9:16am

brianthebard wrote: »

Is this a response to me? Because it is even more simplistic than the post you criticised as overlysimplistic.
----

yes, it was.

i didnt sum up the reason for ww2 tho, which is what your post seemed to do.

i can see how you would, attack the post and not the idea

you stated without ww1 there would be no ww2

i asked would you say there would have been no international conflict in the 20th century then?

ignore it again if you must

getz · 19-06-2009 9:50am

question was should ireland have joined the allies in ww11,my answer would be no,as a neutral[in truth they let men and woman join the british armed forces and work in the uk on the war effort] also remember they were still members of the commonwealth untill 1949 and reaping the benifits.--in my opinion the war its self was very complicated for inst-germany breached treaty after treaty after treaty and at some point they would have had to meet britain, now britain signed a treaty with poland,to tell germany they,d grown enough and any more would mean war, so when germany entered poland war on germany began, russia at that time was germany,s ally and they split the country with germany,however they were not a british target, why , at that time france had a treaty with russia and for britain to declare war against russia it would damage relationship with france, i told you it was complicated .

conchubhar1 · 19-06-2009 10:50am

we were friendly leaning to the allies, yes.

oh its much more complicated than that....... minefield and utterly vast topic

we didnt want to be part of the commonwealth and we couldnt stop people joining the british army or german or whoever if they wanted to
irish people have always worked in britain - there was a war on hence jobs related to the war, pretty much most jobs were turned to help the war effort so that would be pretty immpossible to avoid

MarchDub · 19-06-2009 11:58am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

----

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

It has been a fairly well known aspect of Roosevelt's attitude for many years. Here are some quotes and refs:

[font=&quot]Anthony Eden wrote about his take on Yalta in his autobiography, Memoirs: The Reckoning (1965)[/font]
[font=&quot]“Roosevelt did not confine his dislike of colonialism to the British Empire alone, for it was a principle with him, not the less cherished for its possible advantages. He hoped that former colonial territories, once free of their masters, would become politically and economically dependent upon the United States, and had no fear that other powers might fill that role”.[/font]
[font=&quot] Also in this recent book -
[/font]
[font=&quot]Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War [2008][/font][font=&quot]. Patrick Buchannan[/font]
[font=&quot]“At Teheran and Yalta, where FDR should have supported his British Ally, he mocked Churchill to amuse Stalin. FDR thought the British Empire an anarchism that ought to be abolished. “We are therefore presented”, writes Captain Grenfell, “with the extraordinary paradox that Britain's principal enemy [Germany] was anxious for the British empire to remain in being, while her principal ally, the United States, was determined to destroy it.”[/font]
[font=&quot]When Churchill’s successor Eden invaded Suez in 1956 to retake the Canal from the Egyptian dictator who had nationalized it, Harold Macmillan assured his cabinet “I like Ike. He will lie doggo.”[/font]
[font=&quot]Like many Brits Macmillan misread Ike and the Americans. Ike ordered Britain out of Egypt. Faced with a US threat to sink the pound, the humiliated Brits submitted and departed. Eden fell. The new Romans would not be needing any Greeks.” [/font]

[font=&quot]See also this article - [/font]
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

Fukuyama · 19-06-2009 12:10pm

parker kent wrote: »

Regardless of what the British might have done here, we should have helped out in some way. Since we knew what it was like to be treated woefully by another country we could have given a hand. Not even allowing Jewish refugees in was low. So no to full out joining the war (would we have been much help anyway??) but yes to helping the people who were treated the way we were not long before that.

we did help. We gave them weather info, returned british airmen, allowed irish to join british army and work in british factories and allowed the RAF and US to use airspace over Donegal to patrol the atlantic. We also sent fire brigades to N.I. to put out fires.

Also, how could Ireland have joined?! the freestate was barely up and running. Joining in a WORLD WAR would have bank rupted and crippled the state. WW!! also helped to heal civil war divisions as Irish people were united in staying out.

Its all well and good to say we should have joined now but ireland was experiencing its first bit of peace in 700 yrs....

jonsnow · 19-06-2009 12:14pm

Ireland just did what every other small nation attempted to do in Europe during World War Two and remain neutral.I think it was something like twenty eight countries tried this approach but must were eventually embroiled in the maelstrom.We were lucky and skillful enough to avoid the war and should make no apologies for it.If superpowers like the United States wanted to avoid the conflict then we could hardly be blamed when our intervention wouldn,t make much difference to the outcome but our nation could have suffered terribly.

getz · 20-06-2009 10:23am

Hookey wrote: »

There was a really good BBC documentary a few years ago about the relationship between Churchill, FDR and DeGaulle. A big theme in that was about American policy not to prop up the British or French Empires.

Another good read that partially covers the same theme is Max Hastings' Nemesis. The Americans probably didn't have an active policy to destroy the British Empire, but they made lots of policy decisions to not aid the British if they were doing something that was only about regaining or protecting their colonies, which caused a lot of double-think on the Americans' part in Asia in particular (for example they didn't want to help the British in Burma, but needed a supply route to China via Burma, so they'd kind of give with one hand and take with the other).

american documents declassified in 1974---between 1920-1930, to seizing halifax[canada] capturing winnipeg attacking quebec take the great lakes region ,the st lawrance valley before moving to british columbia then bemuda and the caribbean-this is all you need to know that the USA wanted to also have a empire .

conchubhar1 · 20-06-2009 2:06pm

well, the u.s always wanted control of all of the americas ^

this included any islands and bases for their security

Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Comments