Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

walrusgumble · 23-06-2009 10:32pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

In principle, yes. Basically Ireland just stood behind the guys doing the work and hid in the shadows.

In practise, it seems to have worked out. 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?

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

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

NTM

ireland was heavily censored during the emergency. i would like to respectively ask, how many allied groups were fully aware of places like auschwitz during the war? i thought, i stand to be corrected, the real results were discovered during the trials of the axis leaders.

ireland had its own war. its war was to build on its new found independence after 10 extremely brutal years. the country was divided and broken in the aftermaths of civil war. people were sight of the sight of a gun which dominated the land for almost 10 years. where were the victors of ww1, who influenced 1000's of irish men and women to join and save little catholic belgium, when ireland needed them? would you have trusted many irish people with guns in those days?

the the dellusionment of the irish effort of ww1 and tan and auxies of 1920's it is asking quiete alot for the ordianary rural irish person to dropped the hachet for the sake of london. de valera saw all of this coming during his time as president of the league of nations, a position, the british were not very happy about. he saw that the large countries were not interested in the small nations and that the small nations were being overrun by the big ones- in fairness, ww1 was an extremely pointless and unjust war.

this country had no effective army, had no navy at all. it could only provide its people. whilst the state forbade its people to express pro ally or axis views, it did not stop its people from leaving the country to join up in one way or other.

this country had to put up with harrassment, pressure and hostilities etc from countries such as america and britain who seemed to have difficulty with the fact that the state, at time of the first gun roaring, was all, except on paper, an independent nation.

whatever about this countries reputation in the eyes of the international world during this time, it is a damn sight better than others when it comes to dealing with un peace keeping and our past reputation of not taking sides (offically that is)

walrusgumble · 23-06-2009 10:37pm

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.

how many countries joined the que to help little ireland during the period of 1919-1923 (including civil war)? incidentely, why was the numbers from "ulster" who joined ww2 remarkably lower than that which took part in ww1? had they immigrated?

how could this country take on more people when it could barely look after its own?

can i ask, respectively, what did your family ancestors do in aid of these people? if they did nothing, like many other families, why?

Hookey · 24-06-2009 9:45am

walrusgumble wrote: »

incidentely, why was the numbers from "ulster" who joined ww2 remarkably lower than that which took part in ww1? had they immigrated?

Because NI was the one part of the UK that didn't have conscription in WWII. The view was that it couldn't be enforced. I've no idea what the volunteer rates for NI were compared to WWI, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were on a par with the region's percentage contribution in WWI.

McArmalite · 24-06-2009 12:45pm

Hookey wrote: »

Because NI was the one part of the UK that didn't have conscription in WWII. The view was that it couldn't be enforced. I've no idea what the volunteer rates for NI were compared to WWI, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were on a par with the region's percentage contribution in WWI.

Well I heard that the reason conscrption wasn't introduced in the occupied counties in WW2 was because the unionists refused as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore from all the orange marching !!!

donaghs · 24-06-2009 2:35pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

how many countries joined the que to help little ireland during the period of 1919-1923 (including civil war)? incidentely, why was the numbers from "ulster" who joined ww2 remarkably lower than that which took part in ww1? had they immigrated?

how could this country take on more people when it could barely look after its own?

The record shows that officials in the Irish government made deliberate efforts to reduce Jewish immigration to Ireland, during the 1930s and 40s. (before, during and after the war). This is common knowledge now and its perplexing to still hear this sort of thing. People in Ireland weren't starving at the time so its stretching it a bit to say that we couldn't look after our own.

Jews fleeing the Nazi would have been looking for a safe country, rather a Cradle-to-Grave social benefits system.

No barriers were presented to taking hundreds of kids from post-war Germany in Operation Shamrock. And later refugees from Hungary/1956. Lots of unsavoury Nazi-linked characters did actually make it into Ireland after the war. Its on the record that some Irish civil servants were in favour of letting Leon Degrelle into the country, despite his Belgian Fascist and German SS record.

IIMII · 24-06-2009 4:22pm

Hookey wrote: »

Because NI was the one part of the UK that didn't have conscription in WWII.

Traitors...

walrusgumble · 24-06-2009 9:57pm

Hookey wrote: »

Because NI was the one part of the UK that didn't have conscription in WWII. The view was that it couldn't be enforced. I've no idea what the volunteer rates for NI were compared to WWI, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were on a par with the region's percentage contribution in WWI.

i maybe incorrect, but conscription was not invoked in ulster during ww1. i believe actual participation was lower in ww2. could be wrong of course. i understand why ulster joined in ww1 (loyalty to the crown and to ensure home rule was not invoked in at least the north) but why were they as least pushed on going in during wwII

i note that the irish divisions took the heavy brunt of battle of the somme etc, but was it a cause they were content on their patch and had nothing to fight for? i would invite someone more knowledgeable to attempt to answer this

walrusgumble · 24-06-2009 10:13pm

donaghs wrote: »

The record shows that officials in the Irish government made deliberate efforts to reduce Jewish immigration to Ireland, during the 1930s and 40s. (before, during and after the war). This is common knowledge now and its perplexing to still hear this sort of thing. People in Ireland weren't starving at the time so its stretching it a bit to say that we couldn't look after our own.

Jews fleeing the Nazi would have been looking for a safe country, rather a Cradle-to-Grave social benefits system.

No barriers were presented to taking hundreds of kids from post-war Germany in Operation Shamrock. And later refugees from Hungary/1956. Lots of unsavoury Nazi-linked characters did actually make it into Ireland after the war. Its on the record that some Irish civil servants were in favour of letting Leon Degrelle into the country, despite his Belgian Fascist and German SS record.

i am not claiming that ireland did not try to reduce the numbers of jews neither am i denying it! so i really don't know what your being perplexed about. no one is denying this common knowledge.

what i like one or two others are arguing - is the reasons why ireland acted the way it did. are you completely sure about irish people being sufficently able to look after themselves? there is more to life than food. your ancestors must have got off lightly during the economic war in the 1930's or during the rationing - please i am sorry if that is flippant - because no one got off lightly. cant do much when there's no work. please do not tell me that rationing was just for the craic - granted it was not as severe, food wise as that of belfast and main land britain

but i would say, have you any idea and i am sure you do, of the serious poverty experienced by those in the west and north west in thoose days. there were damn all jobs and health care was not completely up to stratch, you are aware that illness' like tb were not an instant pop of the 1950's

now i am not saying this was ok, but it happened. how many allied countries (outside the uk and us) who were able to brought in vast amount of jews?. and i highly, doubt for one minute that the jews would have sucked whatever state welfare that was available. if we go by their usual sterotype or by the way we have seen many irish jewish families do in ireland - very well and hard working.

but, it would hardly have painted a great picture in "dev's ireland" when it did damn all to discourage people living ireland in the droves yet take in other nationalities. again, i am not saying thats ok but it happened. god forbid, maybe as incidents in limerick suggest, ireland hated them. its an area certainly exploring more (ie irish relations with the jewish)

if you go to that round what about the russians and other victims of the war, or heaven forbid, the innocet german national from cities like drezden? - please i am trying not to make light of this serious issue and worthwhile comment by you.

brianthebard · 24-06-2009 10:15pm

Conscription was no enforced in Ireland during WWI, no. I imagine that having sent so many men to the front and then been betrayed by the British government after the war, as they saw it, Loyalists were less likely to fight in WWII? There was also the threat of IRA attacks and many other factors to consider. I don't think its fair to compare participation in the two different wars without taking into account population size, age, economics, politics, etc, etc. Its a very complex question.

conchubhar1 · 24-06-2009 11:23pm

fear of attack was also an issue to nationalists

Hermione* · 24-06-2009 11:41pm

I think the participation rates for young Unionist men in NI in the world wars would have been roughly the same. It's part of their tradition; "for King and country", doing their bit and all that. It's part of what they liked about being in the Union and also the Empire.

brianthebard wrote: »

Conscription was no enforced in Ireland during WWI, no. I imagine that having sent so many men to the front and then been betrayed by the British government after the war, as they saw it, Loyalists were less likely to fight in WWII? There was also the threat of IRA attacks and many other factors to consider. I don't think its fair to compare participation in the two different wars without taking into account population size, age, economics, politics, etc, etc. Its a very complex question.

Brianthebard, are you referring to Unionists in the Free State or NI? I think by 1939, the southern Unionists were beginning to adapt to life in the Free State. In 1939, there were still remnant symbols of Britishness about. Protestants prayed for the King and the Royal Family at service, it was possible to use God Save the King as the national anthem and so on. And of course, they could join Irish regiments in the British Army.

brianthebard · 25-06-2009 12:03am

Ulster Unionists.

Hermione* · 25-06-2009 12:23am

brianthebard wrote: »

Ulster Unionists.

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't quite work it out from your post.

I don't think Ulster Unionists would have felt at all betrayed by the British government. I think Unionists took the pragmatic step in the 1910s when partition was first mooted to concentrate on where Unionists were concentrated ,i.e, Ulster. They fought the fight they thought they could win. The Southern Unionists were left to fend for themselves. The Northern Ireland mooted during the Treaty negotiations in London was to be a four county state affair originally. This would be too small for self-government though, so the chances of being subsumed back into south were high. Unionists (Craig, I think) argued for whichever were the counties with a 50/50 demographic split (I can't remember which these were) to be included so as to make the state viable. Six Counties was the perfect division from their point of view. The state was large enough for self-government but so chosen to give Protestants a near permanent majority. And of course, they were still in the Union. IIRC, I think PR was intended to be the electoral system. I'll have to check that out.

MarchDub · 25-06-2009 3:30am

Hermione* wrote: »

I don't think Ulster Unionists would have felt at all betrayed by the British government. I think Unionists took the pragmatic step in the 1910s when partition was first mooted to concentrate on where Unionists were concentrated ,i.e, Ulster. They fought the fight they thought they could win. The Southern Unionists were left to fend for themselves. The Northern Ireland mooted during the Treaty negotiations in London was to be a four county state affair originally. This would be too small for self-government though, so the chances of being subsumed back into south were high. Unionists (Craig, I think) argued for whichever were the counties with a 50/50 demographic split (I can't remember which these were) to be included so as to make the state viable. Six Counties was the perfect division from their point of view. The state was large enough for self-government but so chosen to give Protestants a near permanent majority. And of course, they were still in the Union. IIRC, I think PR was intended to be the electoral system. I'll have to check that out.

Northern Ireland was not part of the Treaty negotiations - Ireland was already divided into two states by then by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, passed by the Westminster parliament while Ireland was at war with the British. It called for Home Rule for Ireland with a parliament at Belfast and one in Dublin. Eventually at the Treaty - when the British called a truce with the IRA - Dublin obtained more than Home Rule and with the exception of the Oath to the King broke from the United Kingdom. It was the oath that drove de Valera crazy.

The Unionists could not take all of Ulster because they did not have a majority in Ulster. The four counties where there was a majority Unionist vote were Derry, Antrim, Down and Armagh. Fermanagh and Tyrone were majority nationalist but they were put into Northern Ireland to increase the chances of economic viability. This configuration - and not the entire nine counties of Ulster - was a guarantee also of a permanent Protestant/Unionist majority.

Manic Moran · 25-06-2009 4:37am

i note that the irish divisions took the heavy brunt of battle of the somme etc, but was it a cause they were content on their patch and had nothing to fight for? i would invite someone more knowledgeable to attempt to answer this

I wonder if that wasn't just 'the way it worked out', as opposed to an evil ploy. After all, entire British villages units were wiped out, maybe the Irish were just next in the chute. Has anyone actually figured out that the typical Irish line unit took far more casualties than the typical British line unit?

By the argument, are the Welsh are complaining that the English put them out as fodder given the disproportionate casualties the Welsh Guards took in the Falklands war? Of course, that was just luck of the draw there. It could just as easily have been the Parachute Regiment. Wrong place, wrong time.

NTM

walrusgumble · 25-06-2009 9:14am

Manic Moran wrote: »

I wonder if that wasn't just 'the way it worked out', as opposed to an evil ploy. After all, entire British villages units were wiped out, maybe the Irish were just next in the chute. Has anyone actually figured out that the typical Irish line unit took far more casualties than the typical British line unit?

By the argument, are the Welsh are complaining that the English put them out as fodder given the disproportionate casualties the Welsh Guards took in the Falklands war? Of course, that was just luck of the draw there. It could just as easily have been the Parachute Regiment. Wrong place, wrong time.

NTM

i was certaintly not suggesting for one miniute that hq in london decided to pill all the irish into mindless wave of destruction in ww1, alia south park's get behind the darkies.

i would like to clarify that point which i should have earlier. your right, wrong place at the wrong time, just it was so many irish men and women from both sides of the boarder.

i wonder though did the men think of it that way. my limit understanding was that lines upon lines were sent in without much thought despite the heavy gun fire - i am no miliatary man (obviously) but wouldn't the actions of the officers responsible be in serious trouble for losing such an amount of men in such a manner if that was today.

that fella siegfried sasson has written some interesting material in relation to war in general.

Fratton Fred · 25-06-2009 9:30am

I think some of the early Gas attacks were aimed at where the Irish regiments were stationed. I don't know the casualty figures, vbut the early attacks caused horrific loss of life and injury. This was, as MM said, just a case of wrong place wrong time.

The battle of Hulluch would be a good example

Tarzan007 · 25-06-2009 1:05pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Interesting how our English friend brings up the above and is obviously appalled by their deaths. And this is the same fellow who was banned off the After Hours forum for making insulting remarks about the Irish people killed in the famine ?

Fratton Fred · 25-06-2009 1:14pm

Tarzan007 wrote: »

Interesting how our English friend brings up the above and is obviously appalled by their deaths. And this is the same fellow who was banned off the After Hours forum for making insulting remarks about the Irish people killed in the famine ?

No I didn't and er, no i wasn't.

Anything worthwhile to add to this debate, or are you just here to insult?

Hookey · 25-06-2009 3:36pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

i was certaintly not suggesting for one miniute that hq in london decided to pill all the irish into mindless wave of destruction in ww1, alia south park's get behind the darkies.

Quite the reverse. Ireland's casualties (32 counties) were about 51,000 dead out of a pop of 4.3m approx (1.18%). GB casualties, approx 835,000 dead out of a pop of 41.1m (2.03%). Whether the Welsh of Scots took a disproportionate hit compared to English I have no idea, but the stats show the ANZAC and other Commonwealth forces didn't (Australia's casualty rates are slightly worse than Ireland's, purely down to Gallipoli I guess) so I doubt the Welsh or Scots were singled out. Biggest problem the British Army had was the whole "Pal's Brigade" idea where a bunch of mates signed up together and served together, and unfortunately, got wiped out together, which is why you see so many of those sad cenotaphs in little villages in the UK, and why they split you up in WWII.

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