Is Irish Neutrality a bit, you know, embarrassing?

Blisterman wrote: »

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.

Exactly. Holland was neutral in WW1 and thought it was a great idea to be neutral when WW2 broke out.
Hitler thought different.
Took 3 days though in stead of 60 seconds though.

stop wrote: »

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.

The Swiss neutrality in WWII can be questioned. Whilst they didn't pick up arms, they did deliver war material and contributed to the war effort of Nazi Germany.

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Anobody know where i'd get a linky to these speeches? Sound interesting

here is one link

who the fug wrote: »

How would they have been landed, and what planes could fly non stop US to Ireland return in the forties.

The RAF could not resupply the Warsaw uprising in 1944 because they could not refuel on Russian bases , and that is a shorter run.

there were frequent convoys to Europer from america, often dropping supplies from aircraft carries into France. The same would have happened in Ireland.

Or maybe land by boat at night like weapons did from Lybia in the 70s - only it would have been ten times easier back then

ChemOC wrote: »

You would be surprised where they end up. On patrol and going to meet the local tribe elders. Which is how Afghanistan has ruled itself for god knows how long. I never said that they were on the front line. A lot of people would have no idea that Irish troops are over seas in a lot of different areas. Places that you would not expect to find them if we were neutral.

The point is, there not there to help the war effort. Rather contribute to the country like we do in Kosovo etc... They don;t take commands from NATO - THAT is the key point here.

Dean0088 wrote: »

there were frequent convoys to Europer from america, often dropping supplies from aircraft carries into France. The same would have happened in Ireland.

Or maybe land by boat at night like weapons did from Lybia in the 70s - only it would have been ten times easier back then

How are you going to refuel the ships in the convoy in the North Alantic during the Winter without bases in Europe, and to my knowledge aircraft carriers where used to defend the convoys not land supplied in France.

How are you going to shift them arms around the country

who the fug wrote: »

How are you going to refuel the ships in the convoy in the North Alantic during the Winter without bases in Europe, and to my knowledge aircraft carriers where used to defend the convoys not land supplied in France.

How are you going to shift them arms around the country

Loads of supplies were dropped into france with the coordination of downed US airmen living with the resistance.

ICeland was used as a base in the North Atlantic. Refueling is not that big a problem with ships as it is with planes.

Moving arms around the country is a simple one - same way they did when the British were here. In cars, womens dresses, at night, hide them in forests. Basically how every other resistance did it during WW2.

IRA were a mobile force by-in-large. So the movement of goods was something they were good at.

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).

Erm, you ever seen what the Germans did to areas full of Partisans?

There are villages in France tehy wiped out. There are nations in Eastern Europe they did the same too. They'd quite happily have butchered all of us.

Dean0088 wrote: »

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...

The Vietcong didn't run rings around the US. That's a crock of shíte. The reason America 'lost' that war is because public opinion turned against it.

America lost somewhere in the region of 50,000 men. The Vietnamese had casualties in the millions. Their's was the ultimate in Phyrric victories.

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

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!

Exactly. Guerilla wars don't do much for the country.

m@cc@ wrote: »

That's not fair on the Dutch though, they had been neutral for a century before that and few would have predicted what would happen next.

Holland had mixed feelings about the war anyway. If I remember rightly, they had the highest percentage of their population in teh SS of any nation other than Germany as well as the highest percentage of their population in resistance movements.

Moreover, they've f all history of land based military actions since the 17th and 18th century wars with Britain and Spain. Other than conquering London back then they've done very little of note in terms of land-based militarism. Moreover, they're a relatively small country with ludicrously indefensible terrain. If you've ever spent time there, you'll know that the nearest hill to Amsterdam's somewhere in the region of Maastricht on the other side of the country. Given the German's army was heavily reliant on massed tank movements the Dutch wouldn't have stood a chance.

We on the other hand, in an alliance with Britain and the US would have been bloody difficult to invade at the best of times, and would have had the British navy and a large chunk of the American Atlantic fleet defending us in all likelihood. Moreover, a massed landing on any part of Britain and Ireland would have been bloody difficult. We would probably have benefited massively (not that we knew it then) too, because the Yanks and Soviets would have had a lot of good will towards us, not to mention the British. But then, hindsight's 20:20.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Erm, you ever seen what the Germans did to areas full of Partisans?

There are villages in France tehy wiped out. There are nations in Eastern Europe they did the same too. They'd quite happily have butchered all of us.

The Vietcong didn't run rings around the US. That's a crock of shíte. The reason America 'lost' that war is because public opinion turned against it.

America lost somewhere in the region of 50,000 men. The Vietnamese had casualties in the millions. Their's was the ultimate in Phyrric victories.

E.

Indeed I have. I believe they killed ten civilians for every german soldier killed by the resistance. HOWEVER - this turned the public against them. When people have there father killed for NOTHING - its those who will join the resistance for revenge. I'm not saying there were'nt a large number of people who submitted to the germans having seen these killing, but many also sought revenge.

The sad thing about war is that two wrong DO make a right.

Vietnam can only be compared to Ireland in terms of two guerilla movements. The wars would have been toally different. Every US soldier killed in Ireland would have been equal to 100 in vietnam because
a/ there would have been far fewer in Ireland
b/ it would have been white people killing white people. I'm not racist here. But studies have shown that people get more upset when someone of their own race is killed. Why do you think IRA campaigns agiainst british soldiers up the north plucked so many heart strings in the UK even though ten times more have been killed in one year in Iraq and Afghan

inforfun wrote: »

That is ok. I am Dutch, i am allowed to be unfair to them.

I lived there for a year so I feel I need to defend them. Plus you're part of the Legion, so I feel I should disagree with everything you say.

If you think British rule was harsh then German rule would of made it look like a day out at the beach.

If there had been a invasion and the IRA had resisted that invasion then Germans would of treated you like they treated the Jews. Any sniff of being a Resistance fighter then pop bullet to the head, it wouldn't matter if you where man, women or child. People who are saying that thousands would of joined the IRA should try reading a book on what the Germans did back then. Also there would be no guns from America has the ports would be blockaded and if Britain had Fallen America would be looking for a Peace deal has they would be dealing with War on both its coasts.

Also Britain had a massive home defense network who had been training for a invasion.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

If you think British rule was harsh then German rule would of made it look like a day out at the beach.

If there had been a invasion and the IRA had resisted that invasion then Germans would of treated you like they treated the Jews. Any sniff of being a Resistance fighter then pop bullet to the head, it wouldn't matter if you where man, women or child. People who are saying that thousands would of joined the IRA should try reading a book on what the Germans did back then. Also there would be no guns from America has the ports would be blockaded and if Britain had Fallen America would be looking for a Peace deal has they would be dealing with War on both its coasts.

Also Britain had a massive home defense network who had been training for a invasion.

I'd consider myself fairly well educated on resistance in Europe against the NAzis and I'm aware of what would have happened in Ireland. The resistance still would have been better here than in France, poland etc... because we had an established network!

Everyone seems to think that the Nazis were undefeatable when in fact they were defeated. If people in Europe resisted then people in Irish could have done so too. I'm not saying they would have overthrown the germans or anything, rather fight back, set up small infrastructure to help downed allied airmen, kill german SS officers responsible for massacres just as other resistence movements did.

And, yes , the US would have sent over weapons. Loads in fact. Purely because the US-Irish demographic over there could not be ignored. Imagine if the New York Time headline had read 'Ireland taken by German'. Right away the public would have wanted their government to send arms, ammunition, assistance and training operatives to the Irish.