Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    To arm a citizenry costs money and the truth is Ireland between Independence and 1939 had very little to spare. These armed civilians (reserve troops) would have needed to have been trained and organised, more expenditure of resources that we hadn't got.

    Yes there was always an element of moral hypocrisy in our self-view but you could say that also about many other countries, that's not to excuse it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    I am not sure that I understand your argument properly.

    Is your argument that we were right to remain neutral during the early years of the war but when the US entered, and therefore an Allied victory was more likely, that we should have signed up to reap the economic investment?

    And that we would then join the EC before the UK ( and presumably give up that market for our agricultural products) ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    You've summarized my argument pretty well.

    On whether we would have been in a position to join the EC ahead of Britain that would depend on our own efforts to modernise, diversify and develop new markets. It would have helped if someone like Sean Lemass had been in charge from earlier. Dev having two turns in office in the 50s before the Park (1959) didn't help.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    Cyclingtourist wrote

    "On whether we would have been in a position to join the EC ahead of Britain that would depend on our own efforts to modernise, diversify and develop new markets."

    realistically, the Treaty of Rome came into effect in 1958, i think) and Ireland, along with the UK applied to join in 1961. So fairly soon after the founding. Our application was suspended because the De Gaulle wasn't too keen on UK entry. ( How right he was ). It is possible that the Irish Government could have pushed for our entry. The French would probably have had no problem with us alone. But we didn't because we knew we couldn't succeed without UK markets.

    It is really hard to see how we could have usefully joined the EEC earlier than we did ( When France lifted the veto on UK membership.) And it is difficult to see that our participation in WW2 would change that. In fact, if we entered the war in 1942, as you suggest we should have, it would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US. While we had not entered in 1939 when France needed help. Surely it is at least as likely that , when we applied to join, we would have been perceived by De Gaulle as a US actor and we would risk being vetoed in our own right. After all the veto against UK was because France perceived the UK as an actor for US interests.

    Returning to the main argument in the thread. Ireland followed the policy of all the small nations in Europe. It was also the policy of the USSR and the US because, although no friend to Nazi Germany, none of those powers were willing to get involved. And yet we have people suggesting that Ireland, a small , powerless nation, who still had problems having its' own sovereignty accepted, should throw caution to the wind and declare war on Germany?

    While Ireland remained neutral for the duration of the war, we were "neutral on the allied side". That was well understood and appreciated by the allies. It was only much later, when rhetoric demanded it, that Ireland became subject to verbal attack from UK and US. It was exactly analogous to the Brexit related anti EU propaganda emanating from the UK right now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    The USSR was never really neutral and the U.S. became progressively less and less neutral.

    "In fact, if we entered the war in 1942, as you suggest we should have, it would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US. While we had not entered in 1939 when France needed help. Surely it is at least as likely that , when we applied to join, we would have been perceived by De Gaulle as a US actor and we would risk being vetoed in our own right."

    Yes it probably would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US in 1942, better that, from a domestic political view than getting involved on the coat tails of Britain in 1939.

    France didn't need us in 1939, it had the largest army in Europe and fully expected to defeat Germany. They were wrong but that doesn't change what their attitude was then. However Britain certainly did need us after the fall of France in 1940 and they needed the U.S. infinitely more. After the U.S. entered our neutrality was a declining issue for both Britain and the U.S., from then on it was more an issue that was important for domestic political reasons in America than from any particular military view point.

    No any residual perception of Ireland as a U.S. proxy would have been mitigated by our diminutive size and influence. This is not a credible point.

     "And yet we have people suggesting that Ireland, a small , powerless nation, who still had problems having its' own sovereignty accepted, should throw caution to the wind and declare war on Germany?"

    Yes it was never on the cards and I've argued this earlier in the thread but this is a 'what if?' thread so I'm arguing the most credible scenario and that while many think we were right to stay out I'm pointing to some advantages we missed by doing so.

    "While Ireland remained neutral for the duration of the war, we were "neutral on the allied side". That was well understood and appreciated by the allies."

    It became more so as the war progressed but certainly the perception among the allies (British Empire and official America pre-Dec '41) wasn't quite so sanguine from the fall of France to December 1941.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    What "inevitable flow of economic investment and particularly infrastructural development"?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    We would have been integrated into the war economy and have had a role in the opening of the Second Front. To exploit our geographical location improvements in ports, roads, railways, medical facilities, etc. would have been necessary and financial aid of one kind or another required.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Can you point to other countries that benefitted from such largesse?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    Cyclingtourist said

    this is a 'what if?' thread so I'm arguing the most credible scenario and that while many think we were right to stay out I'm pointing to some advantages we missed by doing so.

    And it is in the say sense that i responded to you.

    We were not a founding member of the EEC. In those circumstances , it is hard to see how we could have joined earlier that 1961, our first attempt.

    That attempt was frustrated by De Gaulle's veto of UK membership. I really don't see anything that would change that . And it would not have been in interest to join without the UK. So i think we can at least put to bed the idea that we might have joined the EEC earlier if we were not neutral in WW2.

    However a different scenario would have been possibly post WW2. If we assume we entered in 1942 as you suggest ( i would suggest this was most unlikely when we hadn't joined the allies in 1939/40) then we would have had US bases situated in Ireland. That would probably see some investment in local economy which would have been welcome. Even now, towns in Germany are still very protective of their US bases because of the spill over to the local economy . We would perhaps have adapted to the needs and might be still using inches and gallons, maybe even US ones. In the 60s' , perhaps linked to the presidency of Kennedy, there was considerable pro US sentiment and becoming the 51st US state was often mooted, at least in casual conversation. I am not suggesting any serious political discussion. However it might have seen us developing links westward rather than looking to Europe. But only if the UK did likewise, because no matter what we might have desired, we were too closely linked to the UK to forge a path for our own at that time



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Largesse suggests generosity but I don't see it in those terms, we had something they wanted (although the need was diminishing) and to utilise it fully they (primarily the U.S.) were required to invest and provide.

    To answer your specific question I would suggest the obvious example of the UK and specifically Northern Ireland a region that had been benefiting from Britain's rearmament program since 1935 (BTW they often minimised the extent in lobbying Westminster for more).

    If that example is too close for comfort then look at Portugal who in 1943 agreed to allow Britain to build an airbase on the islands of the Azores and more reluctantly agreed to American involvement that expanded the facilities and became a major air route to North and South America post-war. This base was important to the allies in combating the U-boat threat to convoys. Portugal (a dictatorship) wasn't isolated like Spain (or Ireland) was after the war and was a founding member of NATO. Did it receive any direct monetary gain for this concession? It's not known but they certainly received favourable treatment for their 'neutral but pro-allies' stand.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist



    We were not a founding member of the EEC. In those circumstances , it is hard to see how we could have joined earlier that 1961, our first attempt.

    That attempt was frustrated by De Gaulle's veto of UK membership. I really don't see anything that would change that . And it would not have been in interest to join without the UK. So i think we can at least put to bed the idea that we might have joined the EEC earlier if we were not neutral in WW2.

    I've already covered this in #104.

    We sought accession in 1961 but our isolated sheltered economy and protectionist policies was the main stumbling block. It was in 1963 that De Gaulle first announced his principled objection to British entry. De Gaulle was succeeded by Pompidou in the late '60s which removed that block. Our dependence on Britain with it's 'cheap food policy' was the main selling point in the referendum campaign leading up to our entry in 1973, especially to rural voters. My argument is that if we had taken a less isolationist stance during the war and developed a more open economy less dependent on the UK post-war we might (I never said it was a certainty) have been able to join before we actually did thus demonstrating our true independence from Britain.

    Blame De Valera not De Gaulle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Joining our former enemy would have been unpopular and it would have shortened the war by how much? Days, hours?

    Our cities would have been bombed at least until 1943 and many civillians and trops killed.

    Churchill's 'offer' of a united Ireland was not realistic and would have been fought tooth and nail by Unionists after the war.

    As for Nazi evil much is known in hindsight and the false atrocity stories of WWI made many skeptical here at the time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,512 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    It may have even suited the Allies too, no need to produce all the war materiel to defend Ireland and ship it here.

    The Allies were given all the intel from Irish DF they could ever need without setting foot on Irish soil.

    We might have ended up with US bases and US military guests who never leave as happened in other countries post war and into the cold war and beyond.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "Our cities would have been bombed at least until 1943 and many civillians and trops killed."

    Not really, by 1942 the Luftwaffe was fully occupied in Russia and in defending the Reich. The only real threat after 1942 were the V-1 and V-2, neither of which could reach any targets on the island of Ireland.

    We were bombed by Germany but this happened even though we were neutral in 1940 and early '41.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    We were but by accident, except for Belfast. The capacity to bomb would have been reduced by distance and Russia but it would have lead to more bombing without doubt.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Yes by accident, not that it mattered to those who were killed.

    Take a look at Liverpool for instance which was the second most bombed city in England after London.

    "After the raids in May 1941, the German air assault diminished, as Hitler's attention turned towards attacking the Soviet Union. The last German air raid on Liverpool took place on 10 January 1942, destroying several houses on Upper Stanhope Street. By a quirk of fate one of the houses destroyed was number 102, which had been the home of Alois Hitler, Jr, half brother of Adolf Hitler and the birthplace of Hitler's nephew, William Patrick Hitler."

    Liverpool Blitz - Wikipedia



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    If we provided our ports, Particularly Cork but maybe Shannon estuary, we would have been a target for German bombs.


    I don't think you have dealt with it. Perhaps i am misunderstanding but I am not sure if you are being pedantic when you correct me regarding De Gaulle veto our application in 61. it was our application of 1961 that was stalled by the French veto of 1963, i.e. it was the same process.

    There is no evidence that our previous protectionist policies had any affect on our application, The Council had stalled our application until the matter of the UK membership had been resolved. That effectively cancelled our application when France vetoed UK membership.

    But, this discussion is wandering quite far from the title of the thread, Irish neutrality on WW2 , which does not appear to have been of any interest to the Council at the time. At least it wasn't raised with the Irish Government or reported at the time. And , if you thinkkk about it , it would be odd that our neutrality would have been a problem to either Germany or Italy .



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "There is no evidence that our previous protectionist policies had any affect on our application, The Council had stalled our application until the matter of the UK membership had been resolved."

    Oh no?

    "As the United Kingdom intended on EC membership, Ireland applied for membership in July 1961 due to the substantial economic linkages with the United Kingdom. However, the founding EC members remained skeptical regarding Ireland's economic capacity, neutrality, and unattractive protectionist policy.[52] Many Irish economists and politicians realised that economic policy reform was necessary."

    Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia

    The French objection to British membership was firstly because if Britain was in the EEC it would have opposed CAP which was introduced in 1962 and secondly because of De Gaulle's animosity towards the close Anglo-American ties. Ireland like France and unlike Britain had a large agricultural sector so would have supported the CAP and our ties with America were more romantic than strategic. France would have had no problem with Irish accession on these grounds.

    I agree we are moving away from the 'What if neutrality' question.

    My argument has always been that if we had entered the war on the side of the Allies it should have been in early 1942 so if the last air raid on Liverpool, a major port and industrial area, was in January 1942 they might have bombed Cork or Dublin to make a point but they would hardly have devoted the necessary resources to maintain a campaign. We would have been going to war so of course there would have been people killed in one way or another, that's the nature of war.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    In hindsight you can argue that but in 1942 could any Government been so sure? Many expected Russia to crumble in a few months 9In fact it looked that way in the beginning). Yes our people would have died anyway but far more of ours than otherwise.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    But it's all hindsight, the thread title is hindsight.

    I've laid out my argument/hypothesis call it what you like and answered numerous questions so now I think it's time for others to answer the question 'what if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Yes it's hindsight but joining the fight in 1942 would have looked like a very dangerous move then. Even now it's clear it would have led to many more of our people being killed for no gain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭donaghs


    The German bombing of the UK basically stopped after 1941. There were some intermittant raids in following years, e.g. the "Baedeker raids". Which essentially failed in their objectives. Ireland would have been further away and a less useful target. And of course would have been out of range of the V1 and V2 bombs.

    Depends what follows the declaration of war also. Lots of Latin American countries declared war on Germany, but only Brazil sent a small contigent of troops.

    Having an airbase in the southwest of IReland to patrol the Atlantic would have been useful to the Allies for convoys.

    But overall I don't see the OP's point about it creating a rosier future - for reasons others have pointed out, like getting Marshall aid anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,512 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    'If we provided our ports, Particularly Cork but maybe Shannon estuary, we would have been a target for German bombs.'

    And a target for 'the boys'...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    I've been reading 'In Time of War' Robert Fisk's excellent book about Ireland in WWII and a few things stand out for me. One, the importance Dev placed on partition as a barrier to normal relations with Britain. Secondly, how he used the IRA threat as an argument for strict neutrality and thirdly how unprepared Éire was to defend its neutral position despite Dev being aware for at least three years that war in Europe was almost inevitable.

    The truth was that neutrality was the option Dev had envisaged but apart from getting the treaty ports back when Britain was following a policy of appeasement little or nothing was done to develop a strategy beyond that.

    When, after the fall of France in mid-1940 the British government offered to pressure the NI regime into a unified Irish state in return for our full participation, the prospects of Britain being defeated were so likely that while tempting this offer was inevitably rejected.

    As Britain survived and its prospects of eventual victory improved so the carrot of a united Ireland was no longer on the table.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,512 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    He was probably in one of his legendary drinking sessions at the time of making that offer. Anyhow, our northern brethren obviously would have none of it, if there was anything at all of substance to it which I very much doubt. A throwaway phrase that could be interpreted as anything.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The carrot of a United Ireland was never on the table.

    When the offer was communicated to de Valera, his response was to ask what was the attitude of Sir James Craig - then the Stormont PM - to the offer was. When he was told that Craig didn't know about it, he concluded - correctly - that the offer wasn't genuine; it was an attempt to play him. And he declined to be played.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    Cyclingtourist wrote

    I've been reading 'In Time of War' Robert Fisk's excellent book about Ireland in WWII and a few things stand out for me. One, the importance Dev placed on partition as a barrier to normal relations with Britain. 

    The barrier to normal relations were the British refusal to recognise Ireland as a state. There was no 'normal' relationship and couldn't be until the UK recognised Ireland under the 1937 constitution , and its' right to make decisions for itself. In 1939 Churchill wrote to Halifax that Ireland was legally at war but skulking". Churchill did not recognise that Irish independence

    Secondly, how he used the IRA threat as an argument for strict neutrality

    Surely , he recognised that any entry to war risked reopening the civil war in Ireland. Why should any Irish leader risk that

    and thirdly how unprepared Éire was to defend its neutral position despite Dev being aware for at least three years that war in Europe was almost inevitable.

    Ireland was unprepared. But not because of any inaction on behalf of the Irish government. The country had a small poorly resourced army and had no easy way of correcting that. It simply lacked the financial resources. It would also be unable to provide any useful army formation to any allied effort.

    The truth was that neutrality was the option Dev had envisaged but apart from getting the treaty ports back when Britain was following a policy of appeasement little or nothing was done to develop a strategy beyond that.

    But the government did develop and pursue a very successful strategy, keeping the country out of the war completely, while assisting , where it could, the allies against the fascist states.

    When, after the fall of France in mid-1940 the British government offered to pressure the NI regime into a unified Irish state in return for our full participation, the prospects of Britain being defeated were so likely that while tempting this offer was inevitably rejected.

    There is no evidence that the British government ever pressurised the NI regime with regard to unification. There is evidence that Churchill said, to the Irish government, that a unified Ireland might emerge after the war. But Churchill made no secret that he , even then, saw Ireland as an integral part of the united kingdom and of the Commonwealth . Rightly , De Valera put no trust in anything Churchill promised.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Not a 'throwaway phrase' the British cabinet sent the Minister of Health in the coalition government Malcolm MacDonald to Dublin to outline the offer. He spent a couple of days trying to persuade Dev and also met Aiken and Lemass without success. It was a measure of British desperation that the offer was made but also those very desperate circumstances made it difficult to accept. When later the circumstances weren't desperate the offer wasn't available to be accepted.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    I won't bother going through all your claims when your first is so obviously incorrect. Britain did recognise the 26-county state and negotiated with it the 1937 Anglo-Irish Agreement which saw the return of the Treaty Ports that were within its jurisdiction. The 1937 constitution retained Éire's position within the Commonwealth, Dev chose not to break the link as he saw it as a possible road to future national unity. Significantly it wasn't FF who broke that link and declared a republic.

    You seem to be confusing Churchill and his occasional outbursts with official British policy. You should examine the FACTS rather than rely on your own bias. Merely asserting something doesn't make it a fact.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,512 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Again.

    How was this going to fly with the Unionist persuasion? It wasn't. It was BS all along.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    This presumes that unionism held a veto at a time when Britain needed all the help it could get. MacDonald was someone who had played a part in the pre-war appeasement policy and was generally sympathetic to Irish nationalism but given the perilous state of Britain's position in July, August and September 1940, the tenuous offer was unlikely to be accepted and the British cabinet realised this from the start.

    Dev was quite sympathetic to the British position and from the recorded conversations, he had realised, after Germany violated the neutrality of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, that a German victory would have been disastrous but other diehards like Aiken were so instinctively anti-British that they couldn't see beyond their narrow focus of partition.

    The level of assistance actually provided to Britain and her allies varied according to the fortunes of war. In the dark days of 1940 it was minimal but then as things improved, from an allied perspective, cooperation increased. Éire was almost totally dependent on Britain, and given this fact it's reasonable to ask 'how independent were we'? IMO we were as independent as Britain allowed taking into account Irish-American opinion and the availability of Northern Ireland.

    My position is that we could have entered the war in early 1942 when the threat of air attack was minimal and the benefits of American war investment, in an isolated economy dependent on its nearest neighbour, so beneficial. Instead the old question of partition was brought to the fore and a population that had been fed a diet of heavily censored war news never seriously questioned this approach.

    If such a course had been taken we would have been post-war in a better position to diversify our economy and markets as well as less isolated from modern European influences. Instead we continued for a couple of decades to delude ourselves about our inherent moral superiority while bleating on about the 'terrible injustice' of partition.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Churchill never gave a guarantee of a UI to Dev. Investment is a different topic entirely and didn't depend on a position taken during WII. Many German companies invested in Ireland post war. Did any neutral country declare war on Germany during the war without being attacked? Not one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "Churchill never gave a guarantee of a UI to Dev."

    No he didn't, Éire turned down the offer from his cabinet to back Irish unity in return for its entry into the war on Britain's side. An involvement that wouldn't have required it to provide troops for overseas duty.


    "Investment is a different topic entirely and didn't depend on a position taken during WII.

    Well if you're considering 'what if' which is the topic of this thread then 'investment' as well as other economic factors are relevant. If we had entered in 1942 as I suggest, instead of being isolated and dependant on Britain we would have benefited from investment in our port and marine communications, areas largely neglected by the FF governments of the 1930s. Inward investment in the then ROI didn't really take off till Dev was gone in the late 1960s twenty years after the end of WWII. At least Lemass tried to build bridges with Northern Unionists unlike his predecessors who saw partition as a purely British imposition that needed to be rectified by the UK government in London.

    "Did any neutral country declare war on Germany during the war without being attacked?

    Firstly, we were attacked, both by the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine as well as the Abwher trying to infiltrate fifth columnists and its general meddling in our domestic politics with its IRA contacts.

    Secondly, yes other neutrals did declare war on Germany without being attacked, most of Latin America did at one stage or another following the U.S. entry in December 1941. Brazil even had troops fighting against Germany in Italy.


    Unfortunately it seems the neutrality narrative fostered by Aiken's extraordinary regime of censorship lives on in the half-truths still commonly trotted out in modern-day Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Yes, you are correct about the South American countries declaring war on Germany later in the war,from a safe distance it must be said. I stand corrected.

    As for Dev and economic policy it would have been better to have had Lemass in charge after the war and we would have opened up earlier. I very much doubt that our neutrality would have affected investment here especially as time went on.

    I don't think you can say we were 'attacked' as the bombings and odd sinkings were by mistake. Not only that but it may have been due to British interference with the radio navigation signals of the German bombers. The only attack was on the North as they were in the war on the British side. As for spying and interference both side were engaged in that here.

    I would argue that Anglo American propaganda's influence lives on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    Dominion status of the British Empire was conferred on Ireland. It was not recpognised by Uk as a fully independent state. It's limited ability for independent policy was regularly checked by UK. It was expected, along with other Dominions, to declare war on Germany in tandem with UK and the failure to do so was considered by many in the British establishment, not just Churchill, as illegal. It should be born in mind that that limited ability to independence was granted by act of Westminster and could have been removed just as easily. Therefore the idea that we could have normal relations with Uk, i.e. relations as with a foreign state was just not possible. Our independence was disputed and we were only as independent as the UK allowed us be.

    You make the exact same point in your subsequece post. "it's reasonable to ask 'how independent were we'? IMO we were as independent as Britain allowed taking into account Irish-American opinion and the availability of Northern Ireland."

    The only similarity between Brazil and Ireland is that they both needed to act in their own interests. Brazil, which had a pro Nazi position, found it's markets cut off by Royal Navy blockade and found the only market for its' goods was US. It was also in the interests of the American countries including US but excluding Canada, to maintain their neutrality collectively and that was done by a international treaty pre war. What is more, thee decisions in Brazil were made by the Vargas dictatorship , not by any democratic government .

    you say

    "Unfortunately it seems the neutrality narrative fostered by Aiken's extraordinary regime of censorship lives on in the half-truths still commonly trotted out in modern-day Ireland."

    You earlier accused me of prejudice rather than relying on facts. I think you need to re-read that statement you wrote 2 days ago.

    Irelands aid to the allies and it's cause were well known to both the UK and US. Weapons were sent to Ireland from both to aid in our defence and our support and intelligence was received with thanks by both allies. More Irish from Southern Ireland fought that from Northern Ireland. We aided the return of allied airmen to NI . So if you are right, we should have benefited from US investment and largesse after the war. Instead we had to contend with almost pathological hatred directed at the Irish from both Roosevelt and Gray during the war.

    An animus that was not directed at Sweden, for instance, a neutral that supplied iron ore to the Germans. Or in fact to any other neutral country. Whatever the reason for the anti Irish sentiment in the US after the war, focussing on our neutrality is misguided. In fact that anti Irish sentiment in US was evident long before the war.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "Dominion status of the British Empire was conferred on Ireland. It was not recpognised by Uk as a fully independent state. It's limited ability for independent policy was regularly checked by UK. It was expected, along with other Dominions, to declare war on Germany in tandem with UK and the failure to do so was considered by many in the British establishment, not just Churchill, as illegal. It should be born in mind that that limited ability to independence was granted by act of Westminster and could have been removed just as easily. Therefore the idea that we could have normal relations with Uk, i.e. relations as with a foreign state was just not possible. Our independence was disputed and we were only as independent as the UK allowed us be."

    Sir William Malkin the Foreign Office legal advisor was asked by Eden to prepare a report in 1940 on the legality of Éire's neutrality and he concluded that it was perfectly legal. This was never contested officially to my knowledge. What Churchill or the 'British establishment' (excepting Eden) believed is irrelevant.

    We were almost completely dependant economically on Britain and it's in that context which I questioned the reality of our independence.

    What arms were we given by the UK or the USA? We certainly requested them but any supplies were conditional on concessions Dev wasn't prepared to make.

    Our assistance was given more readily as the allied position improved.

    The routine return of allied 'guests of the nation' didn't happen till 1943 when the outcome of the war was pretty clear.

    There was a lot of resentment after the war but this wasn't evenly apportioned, Portugal who had assisted with bases in the Azores got off lightly, others not so much. Sweden & Switzerland did better than Spain for instance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The fact that an official investigation and report into the legality of Ireland's neutrality was even commissioned is very telling, though. That anybody in the UK would even question this speaks volumes about their attitude to Irish independence. And it strongly suggests that, whatever about the legality of Irish neutrality, there were many in the UK who couldn't accept its legitimacy, and whose view of Irish independence was therefore a qualified one; Ireland didn't have, in their view, the kind of independence that would allow them not to ally themselves with other countries under the British crown in time of war.

    There's a bit of background here, in the form of a British-Irish disagreement over the legal foundations of the Irish state. In the British view, the Irish Free State was established in 1922 by an Act of the Westminster Parliament, and the Oireachtas exercised legislative powers conferred upon it by Westminster. These powers could (in theory) be revoked and/or the Irish Free State could be abolished by a further Act of the Westminster Parliament, but Westminster had bound itself, in the Statute of Westminster 1931, not to legislate with respect to a Dominion (including the Irish Free State) unless the Dominion in question requested and consented to the legislation, with the result that the Irish Free State couldn't be abolished or limited by Westminster without its own agreement. Still, the authority of the Oireachtas to legislate for Ireland was conferred by the British crown, and the entrenchment of that authority was also a decision of the British crown, and whenever the Irish state or the Oireachtas acted, they were exercising powers derived from the crown.

    The Irish view was different. Whatever had been the situation in 1922, in 1936 the Irish people had enacted the Constitution. They did not do so in exercise of any power to legislate conferred, or purportedly conferred, on them by Westminster, since Westminster had never passed any Act conferring any legislative power on the people of the Free State. So this was, legally speaking, a revolution; the people had asserted a power to provide a new legal foundation for the state and the institutions of the state had all accepted that assertion of power (signified by politicians, judges, etc taking an oath to uphold the new Constitution, after it was enacted).

    So, in the Irish view, the legal foundations of the state and its powers of legislation, government etc didn't derive from the British crown at all. They were asserted by the people, in a bloodless revolutionary act that simply overrode and swept away any similar powers or authority previously asserted or exercised or conferred by the British Crown.

    The dispute about the legitimacy of Irish neutrality stems from this particular difference of view. If the Irish Free State was, legally speaking, an emanation of the crown, how could it not be at war with the King's enemies?

    This wasn't a bizarre fringe view. It was, for example, the official view in Australia, which did not declare war on Germany in 1939 because it considered that the UK declaration of war automatically applied to it too, just as it had in 1914. Canada took the opposite view, that a separate Canadian declaration of war was required, but of course it did declare war. People who disputed the legality or legitimacy of the Irish position were essentially asking whether the Canadian view or the Australian view was correct with regard to Ireland, but both those views proceeded on the assumption that the Irish state's authority derived ultimately from the British crown. Ireland didn't accept that assumption at all.

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    All very interesting but in effect the British did accept the right of Éire to decide whether to be neutral or not and proceeded on that basis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,238 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    In case it hasn't been heard by some on this thread here's de Valera's excellent reply to Mr Churchill on Ireland's neutrality in the recent war.





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yes. But they did conduct an enquiry into the legality of Irish neutrality, and commission legal advice. They didn't do that with respect to, say, the neutrality of the US, another former British possession that had achieved independence, indicating that they did see Irish independence as qualitatively different from, and in some way more limited than, American independence.

    (And as the attitudes of some of the dimmer Brexiters have shown, that attitude isn't completely dead in the UK even yet.)

    It's not irrelevant that Churchill is identified as one of the people who doubted the legality of Irish neutrality, and he of course admitted that he considered invading Ireland in order to seize the treaty ports. So it's not too much of a stretch to think that the legal opinion may have been sought as part of efforts to bolster a case for the possible invasion of Ireland.

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    So because they sought legal advice, something governments do regularly, this somehow proves something their (in)actions contradict?

    Yes they saw Éire as different to the USA and the USA didn't see Canada as some fourth green field.

    No I think if you read Fisk's book you will see that, if anything, it was sought to counter the wild outbursts of Churchill, something that happened regularly throughout the war where cooler heads, both military and civilian, prevailed. Churchill was a great war leader but Britain wasn't a dictatorship.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    But their action/inaction did not contradict it, it furthers it. Montgomery was tasked with developing plans for the invasion of Ireland. Even he, in his memoirs, found it strange to devote almost all available army resources to such an invasion.

    But the whole point is , that relations between UK and Ireland were not normal and they were not normal because of the UK view that Ireland was either legally ( Churchilll et all) or morally (rest of UK government) at war with Germany . This had nothing to do with de Valera.

    In any event, maybe we are straying too far from the OP premise. Lets imagine a different history. If Ireland agreed with the UK view, and we either declared war on Germany ( or like Australia and New Zealand, we accepted the UK view that the UK declaration applied to us.). In that scenario, I imagine that the Irish defence forces would very quickly come under overall command of UK forces for the defence of these islands.

    It is doubtful that we would have contributed toe the BEF in France, but after the fall of France, it is possible that we would have provided support to RAF fighter squadrons recuperating during Battle of Britain, perhaps also training bases. . Royal navy might have begun to use the Cork and Cobh posts but these had little air defences and may not have been as useful as Churchill believed. American troops may have been stationed here and RAF Coastal Command would definitely operate from Irelands west coast. All of these of course would make us targets for German raids. Outr posts would be attacked by submarines of destroyers, ( as UK ports were) , our cities might be bombed. This could speed up development of more long range bombers in Germany.

    On the deficit side, Irish troops might have seen action in Africa and Italy and then Normandy through to Germany. There would have been considerable casualties amongst them. The British military did not have a good reputation in protecting such troops.

    When the war was over, we would have a large foreign army on our shores and no possibility of removing them. Our hard won independence , only 20 years old would have evaporated. We might have a united Ireland , but it would be part of the UK.

    Of course this is all imagination but it is within the bounds of the OP's premise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "But their action/inaction did not contradict it, it furthers it. Montgomery was tasked with developing plans for the invasion of Ireland. Even he, in his memoirs, found it strange to devote almost all available army resources to such an invasion."

    The Éire government and military had plans for the British 'invasion' if Germany landed troops here. These plans were worked out in consultation with the British. They were even prepared to countenance a pre-emptive 'invasion' but thought this inadvisable as the Irish population 'was so ill informed as to the true danger' (Dev's view) that it would be better to actually wait till German forces had landed, so as to demonstrate to this uninformed public the necessity of British military intervention.

    "But the whole point is , that relations between UK and Ireland were not normal and they were not normal because of the UK view that Ireland was either legally ( Churchilll et all) or morally (rest of UK government) at war with Germany ."

    Sorry, neither the UK government, nor Churchill had the view that Éire was 'at war with Germany'.

    "It is doubtful that we would have contributed toe the BEF in France, but after the fall of France, it is possible that we would have provided support to RAF fighter squadrons recuperating during Battle of Britain, perhaps also training bases. . Royal navy might have begun to use the Cork and Cobh posts but these had little air defences and may not have been as useful as Churchill believed. American troops may have been stationed here and RAF Coastal Command would definitely operate from Irelands west coast. All of these of course would make us targets for German raids. Outr posts would be attacked by submarines of destroyers, ( as UK ports were) , our cities might be bombed. This could speed up development of more long range bombers in Germany."

    The main contribution was to be the provision of naval and air bases around the south coast to provide extended anti-submarine cover. The transhipment of goods coming from North America would also have been a role for Irish ports.

    Sure, if we weren't neutral we would have been a target for German attacks.

    U.S. troops would have been stationed here as they were in NI from early 1942.

    "On the deficit side, Irish troops might have seen action in Africa and Italy and then Normandy through to Germany. There would have been considerable casualties amongst them. The British military did not have a good reputation in protecting such troops."

    Irish troops did see action in North Africa and Italy where the Royal Irish Brigade saw action from late-1942 till Germany surrendered. This was a brigade that drew its personnel from the entire island, a fitting example IMO of Irish unity. BTW it was called 'Irish' at the insistence of Churchill and against the wishes of the NI PM who saw it as obscuring the fact of Éire's neutrality.

    "When the war was over, we would have a large foreign army on our shores and no possibility of removing them. Our hard won independence , only 20 years old would have evaporated. We might have a united Ireland , but it would be part of the UK."

    Unlikely, most foreign troops would be in Germany. There would have been no willingness on the part of either the U.S. or Britain to remain, effectively in occupation of the territory of an ally, against the wishes of that country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    Why are you talking about the Eire government?

    Churchill is on record as saying that "Legally Ireland is at war".

    Irish troops saw action in the emergency only in Ireland. The 38th Infantry Brigade (Irish brigade) was a unit of the British army. And before you expand on BA units, the Irish Guards were also a British unit.

    Plan W was a later plan after the acceptance of Irish neutrality. Montgomery's memoir records a much earlier order to prepare for the invasion of Ireland. Check his memoirs.

    Britain maintained a military presence for centuries in Ireland, against the wishes of the people of Ireland.

    As this is all

    make believe, I cannot understand your insistence on arguing every point and your continuing expressing such anti Irish sentiment . Perhaps you can explain?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Éire was the official name of the country, in the 'first official language' following the 1937 constitution.

    Churchill said lots of things.

    Every major power 'plans' for things they never do, it's called contingency-planning.

    "I cannot understand your insistence on arguing every point and your continuing expressing such anti Irish sentiment . Perhaps you can explain?"

    None of my opinions are anti-Irish, although they may not be sufficiently anti-British for you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Éire was the official name of the country, in the 'first official language' following the 1937 constitution.

    "Éire" is still the name of the country in the first official language. But you are not writing in the first official language. Unless you commonly use "Deutschland", "Italia" and "España" to refer to the countries so named in their official languages, it seems anomalous to depart from the usual conventions here. There is an English name for the country in official and popular use, also established by the 1937 constitution; why not use it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    England did not need Ireland on its side, Ireland's neutrality which denied Germany the use of Irish ports or airfields was good enough. What Britain did need was food and that flowed without hindrance between Ireland and Britain. Britain sunk all 36 of Ireland's ocean going ships. Who do you think that made us wholly dependent on for tobacco, razor blades and many other things. The excuse was that German submarines were hiding under the Irish ships. Many small countries continue to exist because they have nothing of value that makes them attractive targets. I would put Ireland, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Norway and Portugal on that list. It might be of interest to know that GB is only 60% food self sufficient. Now that they are out of the EU and quite weak militarily the day could come when they need the cabbage and potato patch next door. The unified EU military force is probably a good idea for all the small EU member countries.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,123 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    It would have been a case of send in the Irish first for the English generals.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    "There is an English name for the country in official and popular use, also established by the 1937 constitution; why not use it?"

    because I'm Irish and have lived in Ireland all my life and because I generally type my posts on a keyboard and because I want to and because it's accurate and because I'm posting about post-1937 where people still sometimes in 'popular culture' refer to it as the 'Free State' which was quite common usage in NI and also in towns like Dundalk up to recent years. It also is clear when I use it that I'm referring to the neutral part of the island (1939-45).

    A couple of people here have highlighted my use of it and it makes me wonder what's their problem?

    Why do you ask?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22



    I don't think i have posted anything anti-British. But , for all the reason i have already posted, i believe the Irish Government were correct to resist UK pressure to formally enter the war .



Advertisement