Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

brianthebard · 25-06-2009 4:11pm

Proportionately New Zealand probably suffered out of the Commonwealth forces-10% of its population signed up to fight in the war.

Hookey · 25-06-2009 5:03pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Proportionately New Zealand probably suffered out of the Commonwealth forces-10% of its population signed up to fight in the war.

But their casualty rate was still lower than Britain's - 18K dead - 1.64%.

Manic Moran · 26-06-2009 4:21am

I don't know if you can really work it out as a percentage of casualties per population, you'd really have to drill down to the level of "Percentage casualties per infantry regiment" or some such, to account for the percentages of people who volunteered, and the likelihood that people from any particular location may gravitate towards a particular career field, such as Artillery as opposed to Infantry.

Whether this information is publicly available, I can't tell you

NTM

getz · 26-06-2009 7:15am

the british merchant navy had more casualities than any of the armed forces,many of them kid aged 14 and 15.

McArmalite · 26-06-2009 2:10pm

getz wrote: »

the british merchant navy had more casualities than any of the armed forces,many of them kid aged 14 and 15.

I vaguely remember hearing something like this but I think it related to WW2 though ?? I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I'd imagine that the british merchant navy's losses would have been higher in WW2 than WW1 ?

Also from what I remember, merchant sea men when off duty were often called cowards etc by some members of the English public as they assumed that they had dodged 'real' naval service by joing the merchant navy and not the royal navy.

Hookey · 26-06-2009 2:28pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know if you can really work it out as a percentage of casualties per population, you'd really have to drill down to the level of "Percentage casualties per infantry regiment" or some such, to account for the percentages of people who volunteered, and the likelihood that people from any particular location may gravitate towards a particular career field, such as Artillery as opposed to Infantry.

Whether this information is publicly available, I can't tell you

NTM

Actually the Wiki WWI casualty list is pretty well researched. I'm always dubious about Wikipedia but that particular article seems to use pretty credible primary sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Joe1919 · 26-06-2009 3:35pm

Was there a lot of support in Ireland for Germany during WW2? My own granfather told me that they had a 'wireless' during WW2 and they all enjoyed listening to Lord Haw Haw (Joyce) and were generally sympathetic to the Germans during the war.

My granmother told me that her school teacher done nothing but praise the Germans during school, especially in the earlier stages when Germany appeared to be winning.

Of course, its quite possible that we hid these sympathies after the war when we knew about Germanys conduct and their loss. I would be interested to know how great was our sympathy for Germany during this war.

Why would we join with the allies then, if there was a large sympathy for Germany?

Fratton Fred · 26-06-2009 3:56pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

Was there a lot of support in Ireland for Germany during WW2? My own granfather told me that they had a 'wireless' during WW2 and they all enjoyed listening to Lord Haw Haw (Joyce) and were generally sympathetic to the Germans during the war.

My granmother told me that her school teacher done nothing but praise the Germans during school, especially in the earlier stages when Germany appeared to be winning.

Of course, its quite possible that we hid these sympathies after the war when we knew about Germanys conduct and their loss. I would be interested to know how great was our sympathy for Germany during this war.

Why would we join with the allies then, if there was a large sympathy for Germany?

That is why I think Dev played it right. There was pressure from both sides, ie pro germany and pro Britain to join in and with that in mind, anything other than neutrality would have created divisions which could have potentially resulted in family members taking up arms against each other.

What if Ireland had joined Germany? on the basis that the Allies would have won anyway, because the Germans would have been consumed in the east, is there a scenario where this would have been benefical in the long run?

If the north fell into German hands and the allies were forced to invade, a joint allied interim rule may have sorted out the long term future of the island a lot better than had happened in 1922.

I suppose there is the nightmare scenario of Britain falling as well and with no base to launch an Western front from, the russians are either defeated, petition for peace or even push all the way through europe until they reach Donegal.

McArmalite · 27-06-2009 12:51pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

Was there a lot of support in Ireland for Germany during WW2? My own granfather told me that they had a 'wireless' during WW2 and they all enjoyed listening to Lord Haw Haw (Joyce) and were generally sympathetic to the Germans during the war.

My granmother told me that her school teacher done nothing but praise the Germans during school, especially in the earlier stages when Germany appeared to be winning.

Of course, its quite possible that we hid these sympathies after the war when we knew about Germanys conduct and their loss. I would be interested to know how great was our sympathy for Germany during this war.

Why would we join with the allies then, if there was a large sympathy for Germany?

I remember reading an article on the " Emergency " as Ww2 was called in Ireland and the writer ( whose name slips me) stated that as a young boy he remembered a man on his tsreet who used to erect a tri colour whne he heard bad news for the british such as Dunkirk, Singapore etc

Also heard Lord Haw Haw claiming that the Japanese band struck up " The Boys of Kilmicheal " as the british POW's were been led away :rolleyes::D

getz · 27-06-2009 3:32pm

McArmalite wrote: »

I vaguely remember hearing something like this but I think it related to WW2 though ?? I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I'd imagine that the british merchant navy's losses would have been higher in WW2 than WW1 ?

Also from what I remember, merchant sea men when off duty were often called cowards etc by some members of the English public as they assumed that they had dodged 'real' naval service by joing the merchant navy and not the royal navy.

yes it was ww2 sorry if i missled you-my first ship in 1957 was a old liberty ship built during the war it still had its old armaments one spring loaded granade thrower, at night we used to load spuds in it and fire them at the bridge

meathstevie · 28-06-2009 8:48pm

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.

Is that U-boot fighting Catalina's you're refering to ?

Capt'n Midnight · 28-06-2009 9:16pm

not sure, thought they would have used Sunderlands

mcyclist · 30-06-2009 8:48pm

MotteDai wrote: »

I'm new, but i'd say this question was asked before..
I'm not a historian but love reading history, will bow to those that know more, but i think we did wrong by not joining with the Allies back about the time of battle of britan.
Whats the rest of opinion?

Can you list any other countries who joined Britain and France ? Other than the commonwealth countries who accepted the UK enjoining them in the war i don't think there was any other country who joined the 'allies' ( a name not used in 1939) voluntarily.

Or have i forgotten something?

Hagar · 30-06-2009 8:52pm

Just for balance, "Should Ireland have joined the Axis?"

Hookey · 30-06-2009 10:44pm

mcyclist wrote: »

Can you list any other countries who joined Britain and France ? Other than the commonwealth countries who accepted the UK enjoining them in the war i don't think there was any other country who joined the 'allies' ( a name not used in 1939) voluntarily.

Or have i forgotten something?

By "voluntary" I assume you mean "not under threat of invasion". In which case, Brazil and Mexico are the only ones that spring to mind. Although technically there were a bunch of South American countries who declared war but didn't actually do any fighting.

citizen_p · 01-07-2009 12:10am

Hookey wrote: »

By "voluntary" I assume you mean "not under threat of invasion". In which case, Brazil and Mexico are the only ones that spring to mind. Although technically there were a bunch of South American countries who declared war but didn't actually do any fighting.

yeah alot of them only declared to be on the good side with their neighours in south america... some only declared war on germny in the last monts....

and too the qustion should we have joined in battle of britain....id say no.... lets nt forget britain was basicall alone after the invasion of france.... what would a 4 million strong population do.

MarchDub · 02-07-2009 5:17pm

mcyclist wrote: »

Can you list any other countries who joined Britain and France ? Other than the commonwealth countries who accepted the UK enjoining them in the war i don't think there was any other country who joined the 'allies' ( a name not used in 1939) voluntarily.

Or have i forgotten something?

Hookey wrote: »

By "voluntary" I assume you mean "not under threat of invasion". In which case, Brazil and Mexico are the only ones that spring to mind. Although technically there were a bunch of South American countries who declared war but didn't actually do any fighting.

Both Brazil and Mexico entered the war more to assist the US and themselves - and not directly to assist the British and French. Brazil entered the war at the behest of the US and did so with the promise of American financial help in setting up an iron industry in Brazil.

Mexico only broke off diplomatic relations with Germany after Pearl Harbor and entered the war after the Germans had twice torpedoed Mexican oil tankers off the Florida Keys.

I don't think either one can be described as "voluntary" in any accepted sense.

John_Dillinger · 08-07-2009 1:24pm

Why should we have helped Britain after they conscripted us and sent us out to the slaughter during WW1?

Hookey · 08-07-2009 1:33pm

John_Dillinger wrote: »

Why should we have helped Britain after they conscripted us and sent us out to the slaughter during WW1?

Er, they didn't. They tried in 1918 (conscription existed in the rest of the UK from 1916), but it never actually happened. Irish soldiers fighting in WWI were volunteers.

John_Dillinger · 08-07-2009 1:38pm

And the Irish living and working in Britain at the time? What became of them?

Hookey · 08-07-2009 9:39pm

John_Dillinger wrote: »

And the Irish living and working in Britain at the time? What became of them?

If they were naturalised, they'd have been conscripted (but they would no longer have been Irish so your point is moot), if they were Irish and working there, nothing. You seem to have this vision of the Press Gang or something. I'll say it again, Irish troops in WWI were volunteers.

raindog.promo · 08-07-2009 11:10pm

Might not be of absolute relevance but may give a glimpse into the mindset of the people at the time:

My grandmother was from Monaghan, on the border between north and south.
Her uncle's son joined the british army to fight in (I'm not too sure which but I think it was WW2) the world war.

The father disowned him because he was fighting for the british and did not speak to him for the rest of his life.

My point is that there were very strong anti british feelings around at the time and I think this is justified (the feelings of a percentage of the populace, not the disowning of the son) considering the not too distant Irish-English history at the time . Those people that posted at the beginning of this post saying yes indeed Ireland should have joined, I think they should go and read about the history of their country before giving so flippant a remark.

Ireland reaped the benefits of not having a Europe dominated by Germany, whilst not having to sacrifice anything much. Pragmatic, but not very honourable. How much is a nation's self-dignity worth?

brianthebard · 09-07-2009 12:04am

Hookey wrote: »

If they were naturalised, they'd have been conscripted (but they would no longer have been Irish so your point is moot), if they were Irish and working there, nothing. You seem to have this vision of the Press Gang or something. I'll say it again, Irish troops in WWI were volunteers.

If they were working there I'm pretty sure they could've been conscripted, have you a source that states otherwise? Irish troops in WWI were for the most part volunteers, but you have to consider the motives behind volunteering; where they enlisting because Redmond told them it would secure home rule? Because they couldn't emigrate? Because unemployment was so high that they were starving?

Hookey · 09-07-2009 1:15pm

brianthebard wrote: »

If they were working there I'm pretty sure they could've been conscripted, have you a source that states otherwise? Irish troops in WWI were for the most part volunteers, but you have to consider the motives behind volunteering; where they enlisting because Redmond told them it would secure home rule? Because they couldn't emigrate? Because unemployment was so high that they were starving?

Actually, Ireland had higher per capita volunteer rates than England at the start, mainly because the war PR was all about protecting "plucky little Belgium" and the fact that it was a catholic country was pushed pretty heavily. Ironically, when Britain tried to introduce conscription in Ireland in 1918, the same rhetoric was used to resist it; the war was all about protecting "little countries" and yet Britain was bullying Ireland into conscription. (The Brits even tried to play the catholic card again with an idea of Irish conscripts being used in the French army!)

As for Irish workers in the UK being conscripted; I'd guess it would depend on what they were doing.

Manic Moran · 10-07-2009 6:31am

Those people that posted at the beginning of this post saying yes indeed Ireland should have joined, I think they should go and read about the history of their country before giving so flippant a remark.

With respect, I don't see how internal gripes and resentment against the British have any bearing on the validity of my 'flippant remark.' Whether a number of Irish people had a dislike for the British or not was completely irrelevant to the fact that Ireland benefitted from the British resiliance and Allied victory over Germany. If people were too pig-headed or bloody-minded to realise this, that's their problem but does not affect the external situation. The whole 'we must all hang together or for sure we shall all hang separately' sort of philosophy should apply. At least the Afghans have figured it out. The villages and tribes may hate each other and kill each other routinely, but if there's a reason for it, they'll put their squabbles on hold in a heartbeat and unite against a common outside entity. Then they'll get back to their traditional hatreds. Can't be free to hate each other if a larger outside power is controlling everything, after all.

NTM

FiSe · 10-07-2009 9:49am

Ireland did join the allies during WWII. Not officially and openly, with the Irish Army as a part of anti-German fighting force, after all Ireland never had Army capable of fighting open war nor money to support it.
But passing information of U-boots spotting, patterns and times of overflying German planes, passing on met reports directly to the RAF/Navy, allowing allied aircraft to use 'Donegal corridor', allowing ferry flights to pass over the Irish territory. Allowing British Navy ships to operate from the Irish harbours /not a war ships, so easy here/.
Helping lost, force landed allied planes to get back on course, sending crash landed pilots back to NI safety.

None of this applied to the German side. Neutrality? No. All that talk about Irish neutrality is, I am affraid, accepted media nonsense.

Blackjack · 10-07-2009 8:24pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, I don't see how internal gripes and resentment against the British have any bearing on the validity of my 'flippant remark.' Whether a number of Irish people had a dislike for the British or not was completely irrelevant to the fact that Ireland benefitted from the British resiliance and Allied victory over Germany. If people were too pig-headed or bloody-minded to realise this, that's their problem but does not affect the external situation. The whole 'we must all hang together or for sure we shall all hang separately' sort of philosophy should apply. At least the Afghans have figured it out. The villages and tribes may hate each other and kill each other routinely, but if there's a reason for it, they'll put their squabbles on hold in a heartbeat and unite against a common outside entity. Then they'll get back to their traditional hatreds. Can't be free to hate each other if a larger outside power is controlling everything, after all.

NTM

To suggest that peoples dislike for Britain was irrelevant is to ignore public feeling at the time.

The residents of Mallow, Fermoy, and the families of those Killed in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday had damn good reason to dislike the British, given the Carry on in Ireland not 20 years before the start of WW2.

Why would or should the Irish want to join the British in war against other nations given those events which would have been quite fresh in peoples memories?

Manic Moran · 11-07-2009 4:34am

To suggest that peoples dislike for Britain was irrelevant is to ignore public feeling at the time.

No, it's not. Take a football game. #10 had a row with #11, who stole his girlfriend. They flat refuse to work together. They're playing France. The French don't give a flying hoot about whether not #10 and #11 are on speaking terms, other than the fact that it helps them run roughshod over both of them. Were the British to lose out in WWII, Ireland's hatred for being a pawn of the British would basically be replaced by hatred of being a pawn of the Germans. Basically people were letting their own grievances get in the way of seeing the larger picture.

The residents of Mallow, Fermoy, and the families of those Killed in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday had damn good reason to dislike the British, given the Carry on in Ireland not 20 years before the start of WW2.

Not saying that they didn't. Did they give any consideration at all to the their position in a Europe conquered and dominated by Germany?

Why would or should the Irish want to join the British in war against other nations given those events which would have been quite fresh in peoples memories?

Because it was the lesser of two evils. At least the British had finally started to leave Ireland. The Germans, on more recent experience were not withdrawing from anywhere. After recently having gained some independence, did they really want to risk losing it again? Obviously they did because of their resentment.

How many years after having A-Bombs dropped on them did it take the Japanese to work with the Americans? Or before the West Germans became firm allies in Germany? A lot less than 20 years.

NTM

brianthebard · 11-07-2009 1:22pm

Just because there's a war on doesn't mean a country has to or should participate.

And just because the MacArthur plan worked, doesn't mean there isn't a lot of animosity towards America in Japan. Aside from the fact that the US tried to neuter the country after the war, to suggest that the Japanese have just swept the atom bomb legacy under the carpet of collective memory is absurd.

MarchDub · 11-07-2009 3:31pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

. At least the British had finally started to leave Ireland. The Germans, on more recent experience were not withdrawing from anywhere. After recently having gained some independence, did they really want to risk losing it again? Obviously they did because of their resentment.

NTM

I can't believe that you said that - talk about sweeping things under the carpet. "The British had finally started to leave Ireland" - what a innocuous statement. Do you even have an iota of how the leaving of Ireland had come about? Through the shedding of much Irish blood - and how much more "leaving" have they done since 1939?. And you want us to then shed more Irish blood for the British in their foolish and misguided war OF CHOICE that they brought on themselves???

Don't give me that old chestnut "if Germany had won" meaningless argument - that is a simplistic world view long discarded by historians of any value. The issue of WWII is no longer seen as a "heroic" battle between good and evil and if that is where you are you need to start reading up on much archival material.

Of course Ireland should not have gone into WWII. The real "good" that came out of that war was the loss of all their damn empires. I sure as hell would have been cheering that one on from the sidelines.

Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Comments