Is Irish Neutrality a bit, you know, embarrassing?

North_West_Art · 13-01-2010 12:35PM

faceman wrote: »

Ive always seen Irish neutrality as something awesome. No conscription. No going to war for things we dont believe in.

Hitler was rather nasty and his regime was doing bad things in Europe and he showed no regard for the rules of war.

Glad that you brought up the 'Rules of War'... a thing that the US seem to have exempted themselves from since before WW2.

Prescott Bush (George W's grandfather) blatantly broke a rule known as Trading with the enemy, when he entered into business with the Nazis, eventually helping Hitler's rise to power..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

The Vatican were guilty of shielding Nazi war criminals on the run, and ensuring their safe passage to Argentina and Spain by organising passports and tickets. This became known as the Vatican Rat Line
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gLJFRQUy2o&feature=related

After WW2, the US granted safe haven to hundreds of Nazi scientists and employed them in arms technology and science. Now America uses Nazi technology against whoever they choose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4443934.stm

mike65 · 13-01-2010 12:36PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'd rather spend my life shagging women, having a good time, travelling etc... rather than in a musty APC wondering when the next RPG is coming.

You type that apparently presuming you would be a conscript, are there any conscript armies in NATO?

Blisterman · 13-01-2010 12:36PM

It was probably the best option for us at the time.

Ireland's a small country with a tiny population compared to Germany or the UK. If we'd joined the Axis side (as in fact quite a lot of Irish people wanted to do,) The UK would have invaded and taken Ireland back over in a second.

If we joined the Allies, we'd likely need extra support from the UK to prevent an invasion from Germany, and would have stretched their resources even further.
The last thing the UK needed was to be surrounded by German occupied countries. As it was Ireland provided a neutral buffer zone preventing a German invasion from the East.

Of course, had the axis managed to take the UK, we'd be gone in 60 seconds.

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:38PM

podgemonster wrote: »

While on a J1 I was constantly asked (more like reminded) 'Ireland werent in the WW2 were they?'

'Do you guys think Hitler would have stopped at England, he'd have gone after ye guys too, if it weren't for us!'

'

I've had british people say that too me.

'Oh if it werent for us you'd have been invaded too'

What they seem to forget is that we had a free state army that would have been defeated in a few days. However, all those free staters would have taken as much guns and ammo as they could and joined up with the existing IRA. IReland had one of the best guerrilla networks established in the world. While it took other countries years to get resistance going. The germans would have walked into a country FULL of partisans.

Britain would have not had any resistance. Never forget that the IRA back then were effectively a private army who would have seen the Germans as the new black and tans (even though they had made some contact with Nazi Germany - they soon would have changed sides had Hitler invaded).

North_West_Art · 13-01-2010 12:39PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That's not it at all.

DeValera refused as it would mean;
reduction in sovereignty
and the fact that the Unionists would be up in arms, it was a practical impossibility. Dev knew this and rightfully refused.

England promised Scotland a large share of the power in Canada, if they helped Britain establish the country and help them defeat the French, a promise that they did a u-turn on after they gained control of the country.
DeValera was right not to trust the British offer, Irish men would have been shoved to the frontline as cannon fodder...

Xluna · 13-01-2010 12:40PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I've had british people say that too me.

'Oh if it werent for us you'd have been invaded too'

What they seem to forget is that we had a free state army that would have been defeated in a few days. However, all those free staters would have taken as much guns and ammo as they could and joined up with the existing IRA. IReland had one of the best guerrilla networks established in the world. While it took other countries years to get resistance going. The germans would have walked into a country FULL of partisans.

Britain would have not had any resistance. Never forget that the IRA back then were effectively a private army who would have seen the Germans as the new black and tans (even though they had made some contact with Nazi Germany - they soon would have changed sides had Hitler invaded).

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

Angry Troll · 13-01-2010 12:41PM

i believe very small countries like ireland might as well be neutral, doesn’t make a difference internationally anyway…as long as the irish remember they are part of the west and when things really get rough can be counted on…no point thinking of buying battle tanks etc. for the irish military…too expensive anyway in the current situation…
and as davyjose, I too did not like the switch from green to red for our german away jerseys…

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:41PM

mike65 wrote: »

You type that apparently presuming you would be a conscript, are there any conscript armies in NATO?

Not that I know of. Lets assume I'm a soldier in the Irish Defence Forces. I get sent away for 6months peace keeping. I know I'm doing good humanitarian work. You;re there for a good reason. You're not fighting for a gain for your country. Rather a selfless cause.

Much better than being shipped off to Iraq if Ireland was in NATO. :eek:

mike65 · 13-01-2010 12:42PM

Blisterman wrote: »

Of course, had the axis managed to take the UK, we'd be gone in 60 seconds.

Wasn't there some mad idea to turn Ireland into a theme park if the Nazis arrived? I may have dreamt that.

EL_Loco · 13-01-2010 12:44PM

Our neutrality has never been tested to any great extent and our attitude seems to have been an "allow all" situation. As in, allow anyone who wants to pass through, land, dock whatever.

I always wonder what would happen if something crazy happened like the nation of Iraq turned the tide on the states and attacked them, via Ireland as a stop off. How neutral would we stay then? As I say, we've never been tested fully on this stance, I think it's a hugely convenient and cozy position sitting on the fence for us.

BraziliaNZ · 13-01-2010 12:44PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

The whole idea of wanting to have big army etc is rubbish. In reality, only a few big world countries are like that. Look at Sweeden, Finland, Holland, Brazil, and hundreds more. Nobody has much of a problem with them. Why? Because they havent been a key nation involved in invasions, bombings etc...

In fairness Finland put up one hell of a fight against the Russians and Germans in WW2, they deserve a lot of credit for that, and we could have done the same

toiletduck · 13-01-2010 12:47PM

I think it's embarrassing the way so many people think neutrality is the best stance ever, given semi-religious devotion in public life, and it somehow gives us the right to look down our noses at others.

It's a policy (better described as non-aligned) which happens to suit us i.e. not have to spend much on defence while remaining under a NATO protective shield.

who the fug · 13-01-2010 12:47PM

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

More to do with the fact they would have problems supplying their troops if the UK was not knocked out, than worrying about 250 men

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:48PM

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly.Germany knew they would have had no problem with invading Ireland,but maintaining it would have costed them too much.

And I think the same stands to this day.

While the IRA (I'll make it clear I'm not a big IRA head or anything) are largely disbanded, there still remains A LOT of knowledge. Think of the amount of ex-provos that know how to make heavy mortars, homemade RPGs, Roadside Bombs and all the weapons stashes around this country.

Let's say that the US invaded IReland (just an example - could be Russia, UK, Argentina, Lichtenstein etc... )

There would be massive public disorder and a growing guerrilla movement which would undoubtedly have the support of the people. It;s well known that a well supported and home-grown guerrilla movement cannot be beaten. The most senior commander of UK forces admitted they;ll have to negotiate with the Taliban. The Vietcong ran rings around the US ... Ireland Defence forces may be overrun quickly by an invading Army. But it;s the problems that Army is going to have in the occupying years afterwards that'll be the problem.

There's a stigma in the West about having a BIG army. But in reality, it;s the people of a country that'll choose. After all,its DEMOCRACY!! ... isn;t that what they;re fighting for in IRaq, Afghan, etc...

stop · 13-01-2010 12:48PM

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:51PM

who the fug wrote: »

More to do with the fact they would have problems supplying their troops if the UK was not knocked out, than worrying about 250 men

Are you seriously implying 250 germans could run Ireland. Cop on.

They would have had to pour thousands in to defend against the US, UK etc... Not to mention the threat from within Ireland. The english had 20,000 black and tans in Ireland, was that enough?

Angry Troll · 13-01-2010 12:51PM

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

true

Xluna · 13-01-2010 12:52PM

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

When you say nutjobs I'm assuming you mean militant Islamicists.These people do not represent a nation. So you're argument is flawed.

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:52PM

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

I would expect the RAF to shoot down the plane because chances are it's heading for buck palace, not Aras an Uachtaran.

Also, the IAC could easily deal with that threat. A small cannon round into the planes engines would more than suffice.

who the fug · 13-01-2010 12:53PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

Are you seriously implying 250 germans could run Ireland. Cop on.

They would have had to pour thousands in to defend against the US, UK etc... Not to mention the threat from within Ireland. The english had 20,000 black and tans in Ireland, was that enough?

Was talking about the rough strength of the IRA in 1940

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:55PM

stop wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral, as it has no ability to defend itself, it relys on others. If the shit hits the fans and some nutjobs try to hijak a plane over Irish airspace it's her majesty's RAF that will intervene to assist us. (Not belittling IAC at all, they do a fine job with limited resources)

Switzerland is a proper Neutral country. We just sit on the fence as it's cheaper, and expect others to help us out when our resources come up short.

What a load of bull. Everyone looks at Switzerland as an ideal neutrality.

Ireland is neutral because it doens;t take sides in wars. It would be more profitable if Ireland did so because we'd get more US investment, oil revenue etc... the fact is that if the Irish tax payer wanted Irish troops in NATO we'd be there.

If there was a referendum to vote on Irish neutrality, would you seriously vote yes? If so, I'd expect you to be down the army recruitment first thing the next morning,

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:56PM

who the fug wrote: »

Was talking about the rough strength of the IRA in 1940

250 MIGHT have been those active. But it would have grown considerably. All ex free state army would join up. those who were previously in it such as Garda ... those who were pissed off because a german kicked in their front door and raped their daughter. You know?

Xluna · 13-01-2010 12:57PM

who the fug wrote: »

Was talking about the rough strength of the IRA in 1940

I'd imagine a swift recruitment campaign would have swelled these numbers to several thousand had the Germans invaded.

ChemOC · 13-01-2010 12:59PM

We may call ourselves Neutral however we have Irish Defence Forces positioned in Afghanistan! "Rubbish" You may say but it's true. My dad is in the Irish Defence Forces and was positioned in Kabul about five years ago. It is admittedly a very small number 6-8 senior officers I think. This is no secret as you find out where the Irish army is deployed online.

http://www.military.ie/overseas/ops/asia/isaf/index.htm

How do Irish soldiers end up effectively fighting with NATO? The UN can mandate a war/peacekeeping as is the case in Afghanistan (but not Iraq). If it gets a UN mandate (eg. Chad) the Irish can be sent in. We have officers positioned around the world in UN mandated areas who offer their expertise, experience etc.

It depends how you define neutral. In our case we define neutral as whatever the UN says. Which is kind of fair enough however you are assuming that the UN get it right all the time.

That said I am fully for peacekeeping missions as I've heard first hand about the excellent work the Irish Defence Forces do in keeping people alive in Lebanon, Chad etc.

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 12:59PM

Xluna wrote: »

I'd imagine a swift recruitment campaign would have swelled these numbers to several thousand had the Germans invaded.

pluss the amount of arms that would have been smuggled from the US. Why? becaus there were hundreds of thousands of Irish over there and the US government would want them on their side. So they would have flown over guns, bombs, mines, cash etc...

They also would have liekd to have Ireland as a friendly nation as a basecamp in Europe had the UK been toppled.

Rowley Birkin QC · 13-01-2010 01:00PM

I'm just happy when people know the difference between Irish neutrality and Swiss neutrality.

toiletduck · 13-01-2010 01:00PM

Xluna wrote: »

I'd imagine a swift recruitment campaign would have swelled these numbers to several thousand had the Germans invaded.

Doubtless, except of course that the IRA of the time was in cohoots with the Germans...

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 01:01PM

ChemOC wrote: »

We may call ourselves Neutral however we have Irish Defence Forces positioned in Afghanistan! "Rubbish" You may say but it's true. My dad is in the Irish Defence Forces and was positioned in Kabul about five years ago. It is admittedly a very small number 6-8 senior officers I think. This is no secret as you find out where the Irish army is deployed online.

http://www.military.ie/overseas/ops/asia/isaf/index.htm

How do Irish soldiers end up effectively fighting with NATO? The UN can mandate a war/peacekeeping as is the case in Afghanistan (but not Iraq). If it gets a UN mandate (eg. Chad) the Irish can be sent in. We have officers positioned around the world in UN mandated areas who offer their expertise, experience etc.

It depends how you define neutral. In our case we define neutral as whatever the UN says. Which is kind of fair enough however you are assuming that the UN get it right all the time.

That said I am fully for peacekeeping missions as I've heard first hand about the excellent work the Irish Defence Forces do in keeping people alive in Lebanon, Chad etc.

FFS, stationing six officers in an Irish embassy in an occupied country is HARLY fighting with NATO!!! it's UN!! come on man, I hardly think they strap up and go out on patrols. They;re there as a symbolic gesture for Irish presence in the future of the country - not to help the allies. :rolleyes:

BraziliaNZ · 13-01-2010 01:01PM

and our amazing IRA superforce may have resisted somewhat in the 1940s but look at the Viet Kong, they kept America at bay, inflicted a lot of damage, think it was 60,000 US troops dead, but 4 million Vietnamese lost their lives. There'd be no one left if that happened here!

Fukuyama · 13-01-2010 01:02PM

toiletduck wrote: »

Doubtless, except of course that the IRA of the time was in cohoots with the Germans...

Which would have quickly changed had they invaded. IReland is friendly with the UK now, would it still be the same if they invaded us?

Common sense man...

Is Irish Neutrality a bit, you know, embarrassing?

Comments