What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

bobblepuzzle · 06-07-2010 08:16PM #1

Was just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this...

In my opinion, we should have been in the effort along side the Allies, as before the Americans joined and Hitlers invasion of Russia, the whole of Europe was in peril... and our neutrality during that conflict left a sour taste in a lot of countries mouths, including America & Russia, the latter constantly vetoing our attempts to join the UN. I believe De Valeras stance put the country in great danger... even the Allies constantly refused to provide us with military equipment for defense should an invasion come, leaving Ireland with no defense for much of the war.

Also, I've heard people mention that "we didn't want to be helping the Brits anyway"

Denerick · 06-07-2010 08:26PM

Our neutrality was 90% pragmatic, 10% principle. I would agree that our neutrality was a good thing, especially during the dark months that followed Hitler's conquest of France. If Ireland were in the war together with Britain we would have experienced a serious bombing campaign and wouldn't have been able to deal with that. Furthermore we could have almost been more of a liability for the British, as an invasion of Ireland would have been relatively straight forward for the Germans - think about it. The Brits would have had to offer assistance to the State for national defence, maybe in the region of 300,000 troops. Public support for the war would have been practically non existant - in the event of a land invasion, which probably would have occured in Ireland before Britain, there would have been massive public pressure to capitulate. I've little doubt there would have been some collaboration as well.

Ireland was neither economically nor pyschologically prepared for war, and neutrality was probably the best course for both us and the Brits. We would have been unreliable allies.

In terms of principal, asserting our independence was certainly a motive for De Valera, but certainly not the over-arching one.

mayotom · 06-07-2010 09:05PM

Ireland was in no way prepared for war, the problems created by the british were still been sorted out, economically we couldnt have done it

also politically it was not good to support Britain especially since during the war britain still claimed rights over Ireland and its ports.

in the long run it was probably better for europe that we stayed neutral, because if we joined the war, our west coast would have been left wide open to attack, leading to the take over of britain and nazi control of all of western europe

l

drkpower · 06-07-2010 09:11PM

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

Denerick · 06-07-2010 09:12PM

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

We did receive some $$$ from the Marshal plan. Not as much proportionate to other countries, but we kinda deserved that. Besides, the importance of the Marshall Plan is exaggerated.

mayotom · 06-07-2010 09:14PM

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

but then again, we would have lost a large amount of our population and therefore not had the manpower to take advantage of something like the Marshal plan

drkpower · 06-07-2010 09:23PM

So not 100% suppport for my suggestion then...!:D

While pragmatism and economics was undoubtedly partly behind the decision, whether we should have joined up is ultimately a moral decision. It seems, from where we stand now, hard to believe that we would not have joined the allies but given where we were in 1939, it was an entirely understandable decision to remain neutral. Thosse making the decison and a huge amount of those who would have been asked to fight would have fought against the British only a few years earlier.

Pittens · 06-07-2010 09:27PM

Russia, the latter constantly vetoing our attempts to join the UN

Was that the reason , or did they just not want another capitalist country. Anyway the USSR's original position was pro-Axis. They cant talk.

PeterIanStaker · 07-07-2010 08:21AM

Ireland was lucky in that geographically it was peripheral to the main theatre of action in Europe post - 1941.

Looking at the bigger picture, Hitlers mistake due to his ego and yes - men in his war room, was to fight the two front war, especially invading Russia. Had he concentrated all his forces on either Russia or Britain/France things would have been quite different.

If the Third Reich had won the Battle of Britian in 1940, a small country like Ireland would have been overran (despite I assume resistance) and and used both as a "back door" to Britain and a naval base for the Atlantic.

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".
So to sum up, this island was extremely lucky in avoiding the horror of Nazi invasion, and part of this luck was due to its geographical location and the nature of the war in Europe.

(note, the above is my opinion and may not necessarily conform to current revisionist claptrap)

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 08:24AM

also politically it was not good to support Britain especially since during the war britain still claimed rights over Ireland and its ports.

The treaty ports were handed back to Ireland by Chamberlain a few years before the war... Britain had no rights over these. She could, as was suggested by Churchill, regain the ports by force if necessary

Jim_Bob_2010 · 07-07-2010 08:33AM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".

Can you provide a source for this? I've heard this several times from teachers etc but nowhere have I ever once found any evidence of this.

getz · 07-07-2010 08:43AM

its easy to look back today and say, for ireland this was a missed opportunity,churchill offered a united ireland to dev ,if he joined the war,de said no,but in the 1940s things looked a little different

Gurgle · 07-07-2010 09:17AM

Jim_Bob_2010 wrote: »

Can you provide a source for this? I've heard this several times from teachers etc but nowhere have I ever once found any evidence of this.

Likewise, heard this story but never any evidence or reasoning. As white european christians, we would have been well qualified for the Reich.

As for joining the war, we were an island full of 2nd world subsistance farmers under the thumb of Hitler's ally the Vatican and with a centuries old grudge against Britain. If Hitler had played the game differently we could easily have found ourselves on his side.

Dr Strange · 07-07-2010 09:30AM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

...

Irish people would have been subject to the same fate as the small Baltic and Balkan states. "Celts" were on the Nazi's list of "inferior races".
...

I don't think this is necessarily correct. Celts were defined as Nordic people by the historians/Professors at that time. Sure they even created chairs of Celtic Research at Berlin University etc with scholars learning Irish, Breton, Welsh etc. Archaeologists and historians were send to Ireland to conduct research before the war started. Even the SS Ahnenerbe (Ancestral heritage) was researching Celtic mythology.

This took place along other well funded research projects for Scandinavian mythology and language. Unfortunately, I do not have the source at the moment but in a highly ideological publication (I think it may have been Das Schwarze Korps - a publication for serving SS members) Himmler even spouted something about having identified certain graveyards in Scandinavia, Brittany and Ireland for SS men and women to procreate on the graves of supposedly ancient Celtic and Nordic warriors. The idea was that the soul of the warrior would enter the child conceived on the graves.

So, in summary I do not think that Celtic "races" would have been considered as part of the so-called "low races", rather the opposite.

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 12:11PM

But this whole thing that we didn't want to help the Brits, is imo the most rediculous idea I've heard

... forget about helping the Brits, how about defending ourselves??

tricky D · 07-07-2010 12:17PM

We weren't quite as neutral as some would think:

Donegal Corridor
Neutral Ireland's secret war: ThePost.ie

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 12:18PM

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

But this whole thing that we didn't want to help the Brits, is imo the most rediculous idea I've heard ... forget about helping the Brits, how about defending ourselves??

Here it is from the man himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ

Add that to the fact that we had about 5 planes and you get the idea. Don't forget, all those who fought in the war of independence were still around and in charge.

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 12:21PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Here it is from the man himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ

Add that to the fact that we had about 5 planes and you get the idea. Don't forget, all those who fought in the war of independence were still around and in charge.

Our lack of military equipment was a direct result of being neutral... the government asked the allies a lot of times to provide it with defensive military equipment, which most of the time they refused. I'd imagine they were very frustrated about not being able to use the Souths ports and airfields)

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 12:27PM

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

Our lack of military equipment was a direct result of being neutral... the government asked the allies a lot of times to provide it with defensive military equipment, which most of the time they refused. I'd imagine they were very frustrated about not being able to use the Souths ports and airfields)

That speech is a response to Churchills criticism for that very reason, the ports would have guarded against Uboats.

Éire at the time had very little money to spend on military equipment. Don't forget it was not even 20 years after independence.
And Ireland had a small population too. I feel that without a doubt Dev was right. We could not afford it, we didn't want it and the sores of partition were very fresh.

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 12:32PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

That speech is a response to Churchills criticism for that very reason, the ports would have guarded against Uboats.

Éire at the time had very little money to spend on military equipment. Don't forget it was not even 20 years after independence.
And Ireland had a small population too. I feel that without a doubt Dev was right. We could not afford it, we didn't want it and the sores of partition were very fresh.

No doubt we lacked the funds to acquire much military equipment, however if we weren't neutral we would've been provided equipment on request, either on loan or otherwise... another sad thing is the thousands of Irish people who voluntarily joined the British army simply to help in the war effort.

Also, the media blackout at the time ensured the Irish public new very little about what was actually going on. In fact they even went around the east coast confiscating radios as to try and prevent people picking up BBC radio signals

PeterIanStaker · 07-07-2010 12:37PM

Preusse wrote: »

Himmler even spouted something about having identified certain graveyards in Scandinavia, Brittany and Ireland for SS men and women to procreate on the graves of supposedly ancient Celtic and Nordic warriors. The idea was that the soul of the warrior would enter the child conceived on the graves

Himmler must have been quite a hit with the ladies! "wanna go to a graveyard and jump the bones!"

Sorry!!

Back on topic regarding the Celts though, I'm just after checking through Burleigh's The Third Reich - A New History and Celts "were a mixed blessing [for the Reich] since the pull of 'race' was as likely to draw the Bretons into the British camp as towards Germany" (p465) and also that Himmler was more interested in Germans than Celts when it came to his skewed racial notions.

Shirer, in his landmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich mentions that a French man of letters, Gobineau, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) [sorry I hate using wikipedia for proper stuff] did not include the bulk of the Germans when he labelled "Aryans", something the Reich studiosly ignored.

So indeed it wasn't simple as I thought it was. I do remember reading that Nazis viewed Celts as inferior and I cant remember where I read it, but I probably took it out of context, as "inferior" when compared with "aryan".

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 12:40PM

I believe Ireland was the only Western country to have a Reich ambassador throughout the war... this really annoyed the allies something fierce :eek:

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 12:41PM

No doubt we lacked the funds to acquire much military equipment, however if we weren't neutral we would've been provided equipment on request, either on loan or otherwise... another sad thing is the thousands of Irish people who voluntarily joined the British army simply to help in the war effort.

Also, the media blackout at the time ensured the Irish public new very little about what was actually going on. In fact they even went around the east coast confiscating radios as to try and prevent people picking up BBC radio signals

Yes, I am sure that the BBC told everything exactly how it was......Press everywhere was censored. It is easy to say now that Éire should have fought, but I feel, and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option. Here is another quote from Dev on Churchills claim that Britaiin showed restraint in not invading our island:

Mr. Churchill makes it clear that in certain circumstances he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count….this same code is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars… shall it be world war number three?

The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.

I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

bobblepuzzle · 07-07-2010 12:47PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.

I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

This is a very good point, makes you wonder why they didn't just say to themselves: "screw Irelands neutrality, lets get in this way". Given the Nazis brutality, I wouldn't have put it past them.

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 12:48PM

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

This is a very good point, makes you wonder why they didn't just say to themselves: "screw Irelands neutrality, lets get in this way". Given the Nazis brutality, I wouldn't have put it past them.

Simple answer really, Irish Americans, would have brought the Americans into the war.

PatsytheNazi · 07-07-2010 12:52PM

drkpower wrote: »

However, the fact that we were not part of the Marshall Plan is credited with us economicaly lagging seriously behind other European countries until at least the Lemass years. Perhaps our economic history would be different if we had joined up. Mind you, we have always proven ourselves capable of fcuking up times of economic opportunity....

Well we'd have been in a nice state after the Luftwaffe had bombed the ar$e out of Dublin, Cork, the Curragh, our Merchant fleet etc and ofcourse the thousands killed. How far would the Marshall Plans money have gone then, remember Britain had to borrow billions off the Americans and were paying it off for 60 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan. Would we have had Fianna Fail crony's destroying the country 50 years before NAMA ?

( I know they once bombed Dublin - but that wasn't on purpose :rolleyes: )

PatsytheNazi · 07-07-2010 12:55PM

Tar.Aldarionftw wrote: »

I believe Ireland was the only Western country to have a Reich ambassador throughout the war... this really annoyed the allies something fierce :eek:

Doubt that very much. Spain under Franco was on good relations with Germany and Italy, I'd imagine Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland etc all have had Reich ambassadors. Especially Switzerland as they were one of the main arms manufacturers and bankers for the Germans.

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 12:57PM

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Doubt that very much. Spain under Franco was on good relations with Germany and Italy, I'd imagine Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland etc all have had Reich ambassadors. Especially Switzerland as they were one of the main arms manufacturers and bankers for the Germans.

Switzerland expelled the Nazi embassy in the dying days of the war I think.

Denerick · 07-07-2010 02:27PM

and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option

I wouldn't read much into the poll other than people consider neutrality to have been the right decision in a pragmatic sense (Me included) De Valera's speech in defense of neutrality was probably the best of his career, but I'm highly skeptical that we were motived much from the sores of partition. The decision to remain neutral was almost entirely pragmatic.

dRNk SAnTA · 07-07-2010 02:43PM

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

Wolfe Tone · 07-07-2010 02:46PM

Devs entire time in office was about breaking ties, weather that be the economic war, taking advantage of the abdication to write the constitution etc.... I have no doubt that part of the motivation was the fresh history between the islands, partition was part of that, although it was not the main one.

I feel that the main reason was this:
Éires neutrality was a demonstration of its sovereignty.

I never read much into polls.

What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

Was Ireland right to be Neutral? 128 votes

Comments