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
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
Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2
-
14-06-2009 1:19am#1I'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?0
Comments
-
Agreed...0
-
Second.0
-
" i think we did wrong by not joining with the Allies back about the time of battle of britan. " Why ?? If the brits are getting a taste of their own medicine, that's their problem. Jayus, it's not like we would have been coming to help an old friend now is it ? :rolleyes: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?
Why should we have attacked the Germans, they had done nothing wrong to us ?
Why should we help a country that had terrorised and murdered our citizens and is still occupying our six counties in the north east ?? Indeed prior to and since WW2 our lovely neighbour treated the nationalists in the six counties in a manner comparable to the mistreatment of black people in the southern states of America such as Alabamha etc. Ever hear of " No Catholics need apply ", Bloody Sunday or indeed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings ?0 -
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?Why should we have attacked the Germans, they had done nothing wrong to us?
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 " No Catholics need apply ", Bloody Sunday or indeed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings ?
Ever hear of "Dachau", "Auschwitz", "Lidice", or "The Warsaw Ghetto?"
NTM0 -
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?
Join one set of Nazi's instead of another? No way!0 -
Advertisement
-
how many english men women and kids were killed defending there country,for what, there are now second class citizens there,0
-
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.0
-
McArmalite wrote: »Indeed prior to and since WW2 our lovely neighbour treated the nationalists in the six counties in a manner comparable to the mistreatment of black people in the southern states of America such as Alabamha etc. Ever hear of " No Catholics need apply ", Bloody Sunday or indeed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings ?
I think you're confusing the English with Irish Protestants in the North.
60,000 Irishmen from the Free State fought with the British in WW2 and 40,000 from the North.
Plus DeValera believed that Ireland should be neutral on the English side.
His fear was that if he supported the British openly and offered troops and so on he would become the John Redmond of his time and be outflanked by Republicans who can listen to no-one's opinion except their own.0 -
McArmalite - The Germans bombed Belfast & Dublin. It's not an issue of what they done to us, but an issue of us standing up against what's wrong. As Irish Republicans, it would have been difficult for us to side with Britain while it upheld mass civil inequality in the north.
If we were to engage in the second world war, I would hazard a guess that it would have been futile given our military might was weak. We would have been used as cannon fodder by the British to man the front-lines. Not something I would take pleasure in being while that same country committed atrocities against my own countrymen.
So no - I think we were right to stay out of it. Both on military strength, and on principle. We wouldn't have added much to the equation from a military standpoint.0 -
Lets not forget that the TDs making the decision back then were all old enough to have lived under the terror of the black and tans.
If you have lived under english occupation would you be so quick to send off Ireland's youth to defend that empire ?0 -
Advertisement
-
I dont think we should of joined.. and here are my reasons..
if we joined id say Germany would of diffently would of invaded us.. meaning the British back on Irish shores defending us as our army wouldn't of been able to take on the Germans..
we dident have the money to take part in the war.. we would of had no supplys and would of lasted a couple of days in France or Africa.. we had no navy or air force... so would be looking at the brits or Americans.. we would of been useless..
we had gone through 2 wars 20 years before hand.. the spirit just wasn't there.. and alot of hatred was among the people still ofr the British ..
saying all that if we did join the war id say Dublin would of been flattened.. and we would of got money off the Americans to rebuild the city.. id say we would have a good transport system in place now if we got that money ( like the french and the German city's now)
almost 100,000 men did sign up for the British army not many came back so id say the Irish did play a small part..
and if a british plane went down in Ireland the pilot would usually make it back to northern Ireland and we let them fly over donegal... we also sent up ambulances and fire brigades to Belfast after the nights of bombings..0 -
and the blue shirts would of just been back from Spain...
what party said for the men to join the British? or was that the first world war?0 -
I think it would have been morally better to have joined the Allies, but the country at the time could never have supported the type of operation required to fight in WWII. Britain could only do it with massive financial aid from the United States, and she had an Empire behind her. Ireland had an economy wrecked form the recent Economic War, no industry to speak of, and a population of just over three million. Bear in mind that during WWI, Ireland was the only part of the then United Kingdom where conscription was not applied, because the government in London could not impose it successfully (they did try but Sinn Féin and the Catholic Church forced them to back down).
The Irish government did whatever they could to help the Allies while maintaining their appearance of neutrality. As in WWI, many Irish men fought in the British Army. The Irish government allowed free travel to all those who wished to work in the munitions factories in England (three of my grandparents did so). The generation of Irish people who lived through the Emergency had already lived through WWI, the War of Independence, and a devastating Civil War. They would not have relished more war only sixteen years after the Civil War. Remember also that when de Valera came to power in 1932 many feared there would be a coup d'état by the outgoing government Cumann na nGaedheal and the peaceful transition of power surprised many. Civil peace in Ireland at the time was a shaky thing.
Historians generally agree that one of de Valera's greatest successes was his handling of neutrality during World War II (paying condolences on the death of Hitler, notwithstanding).
Also, the United States did not rush into World War II either. They only officially joined the Allies after they themselves were attacked (they, like Ireland, had been neutral but pro-Allies prior to Pearl Harbour). It was not just Ireland who did not wish to fight a second massive war in twenty years. For Roosevelt, as it would have been for de Valera, joining the war was a politically very unpopular decision prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour.0 -
We got quite a lot of money under Marshall Aid to counter the potential spread of Communism in Ireland.afatbollix wrote: »saying all that if we did join the war id say Dublin would have been flattened.. and we would have gotten money off the Americans to rebuild the city.. id say we would have a good transport system in place now if we got that money ( like the french and the German cities now)
The Home Rule Party in World War I. Most of the Irish Volunteers took that advice and joined the British Army. The remainder stayed at home and fought in 1916.afatbollix wrote: »what party said for the men to join the British? or was that the first world war?0 -
For us as a nation no, definitely not.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but Ireland was in a strategic location, if we had of openly supported the allies we could have found ourselves in trouble.0 -
I read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island".
I came across an angle that I'd never heard voiced before. Put simply, strategically for Britain it was better that Ireland remain neutral as to protect the Irish coastline from attack would have stretched resources further. Plus once the south Irish sea was mined the British - US convoy route was easier to protect.
Indeed if Ireland really wanted to weaken Britain during the war then entering the war with Britain would have been the way to go.
There was a lot of resentment in Britain and the US that Ireland received goods from the outside world via these convoys without taking any proactive part in their protection but conversely shipwreck material from both ally and axis forces found its way back to the allied cause via Ireland; especially much needed rubber.
Also convenient for Britain was the endless supply of labour, especially in the run up to D-Day. We may not have played a direct combat role but this country did play an indirect part in the allied cause.
Pity about the knitting clubs not been able to post jumpers to their sons as it was deemed a treat to Irish neutrality.
There were 500 staff in the GPO handling censorship alone.
Great read, can't remember the author but the titles correct.0 -
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
I think the Irish wartime government / De Valera played it more or less correctly.
In the context of that time & what the new and fledgling state of Ireland had lived through, by this I refer to (among other things) the first world war when 200,000 Irish men fought on the allied side & the phrase 'Canon Fodder' became widely used in republican circles. I do not have statistics to hand but the perception was that if you were Irish and suffered from Shell shock/went awol during WWI you were more likely to have been executed than an english soldier in the british army.
Don't forget America did not declare war on Germany in 1939 either. They only became involved after they were directly attacked by a German ally. Without Pearl Harbour America would have been able to remain out of the war too & this suited the vast majority of Americans despite Churchill's best efforts to get them involved.
If America had the same level of involvement in WWI as Ireland did (200,000 men out of a population of about 4 million people), seen a national uprising brutally suppressed by britain, had also seen a War of independence against the british Army in Ireland followed directly by a Civil war which had split the country down the middle - if America had seen all that in that same generation they would have taken the route we did and remained neutral.
It is also a factor that unlike in America Churchill was not a stranger to Ireland & was viewed as just as much the warmonger that the british viewed Hitler as.
Declaring war on a country who has not declared war on you & deciding to fight for a country which is currently in occupation of your own Territory is categorically not an indicator of a nations self-dignity. Quite the opposite. It is debatable whether Irish WWII neutrality was more dangerous to Ireland than siding with the allies would have been as the only credible threat of invasion to Ireland during those years came from Britain - not Germany. We were far more within british striking distance than German so any argument that the Irish Government/People/ De Valera took the easy option is not accurate.
Despite all of the above it is a fact that ours was not an even handed neutrality - it was a neutrality in favour of the allies.
I think those who joined the British Army to fight in Europe should be commemorated in the Ireland of today and this Honour Roll (recently in the news) is a long overdue & positive step in this direction in my view. Whatever their reasons for joining, adventure, politics, economic I believe they should be honoured. However we can ignore this nonsense about concentration camps and so on as no WWII warcrimes by any side were known at the time & the only warcrimes committed in Ireland were at the hands of the english.
Considering Ireland was still living with very real Civil war divisions siding with britain would have increased domestic unrest in a state which was by no means guaranteed of continued survival. Republicans had long looked to Germany as a natural ally & Germany viewed republicans as potentially useful throughout WWI & WWII. If the Irish Government/ De Valera had sided Ireland with the British Army and declared war on Germany he could very easily have re-ignited the flames of Civil War in Ireland.
Other possible factor in the Irish decision were the extreme unfairness of Versailles and the fear of communism within Ireland. Communists (viewed at that time often as Jewish Bolshevists) had brutally suppressed christianity wherever they went & the christian Germans were the natural enemies of this and the best opportunity to halt it's progress across Europe. Outrageous WWI anti-German propaganda about germans making bars of soap out of the dead & myths like the crucified canadian etc could also possibly have been a factor. The Irish cabinet had personal experience fighting against the british which would have given them (among other things) an awareness of the dangers of believing every piece of british propaganda they manufacture to demonise you. Britain dont forget consistently (ie for Centuries) portrayed Irish nationalism as basically grubby murder gangs.0 -
I read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island".
I came across an angle that I'd never heard voiced before. Put simply, strategically for Britain it was better that Ireland remain neutral as to protect the Irish coastline from attack would have stretched resources further. Plus once the south Irish sea was mined the British - US convoy route was easier to protect.
Indeed if Ireland really wanted to weaken Britain during the war then entering the war with Britain would have been the way to go.
There was a lot of resentment in Britain and the US that Ireland received goods from the outside world via these convoys without taking any proactive part in their protection but conversely shipwreck material from both ally and axis forces found its way back to the allied cause via Ireland; especially much needed rubber.
Also convenient for Britain was the endless supply of labour, especially in the run up to D-Day. We may not have played a direct combat role but this country did play an indirect part in the allied cause.
Pity about the knitting clubs not been able to post jumpers to their sons as it was deemed a treat to Irish neutrality.
There were 500 staff in the GPO handling censorship alone.
Great read, can't remember the author but the titles correct.
+1
That Neutral Island was written by Clair Wills, and is a must read for anyone with an interest in this subject.
In general, the concensus is that it was necessary for Ireland to remain Neutral during World war 2, for number or reasons but not least the fact that it would have taken another Civil war to decide which country to Join. Further, De Valera declared his intention of Neutrality in April of 1939, 5 months prior to the outbreak of war, so it should have come as no surprise to anyone.
As regards the atrocities against the jews, the full extent of these did not become clear until towards the end of the war. Hindsight is 20-20.
Remarkably, the following nations also declared Neutrality during WW2:
Sweden
Switzerland
Spain
Portugal (which has with the UK what is considered as the longest-standing alliance in the world between two nations, so if anyone feels the need to handwring about allegiances, that Alliance has been around since 1373....)
as well as Andorra, Denmark and Liechtenstein.
Many more (Denmark excluded, as it was invaded but never declared war) were Neutral until War was declared on them (Finland, Norway, the Netherlands AFAIK).
Honestly, people should read the book mentioned if they have, it offers a great insight on what was going on at the time, and offers a more accurate reflection of the cultural issues during that period, rather than the type of revisionist History that tends to plague this debate.0 -
It is hardly Ireland's fault that we are a tiny island of the coast of Europe with a very small population and few natural resources. We did not have an Industrial Revolution as Britain and America did. Furthermore, we suffered a huge economic crisis in the 1930s as a result of the Economic War. You can not fight in a war without money, and we had none at the time (nor the means to repay loans).Manic Moran wrote: »In principle, yes. Basically Ireland just stood behind the guys doing the work and hid in the shadows.
I think the Irish people of the time felt dignified enough as a result of enduring seven years war (1916-1923) and having acquired independent self-government for the first time in their history, not to mention having a parliament in Dublin for the first time since 1801. I don't think they felt any diminution of dignity for not embarking upon yet another war.Manic Moran wrote: »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?
On a side note - despite requests do so, America never felt any need to give assistance to Ireland when she was fighting for her independence, and sacrificing a great deal in that fight. Furthermore, neither Ireland nor America were to know in 1939 that Germany would not win the war.
I've heard of that book; it's supposed to be excellent. It's on my never-ending "to read" list. It had an excellent review in the Irish Times.I read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island".0 -
it is a fact that ours was not an even handed neutrality - it was a neutrality in favour of the allies.
My father took part in the war under discussion. At my request, he wrote a personal memoir encompassing the period and the years that followed.
One interesting episode of note he mentions, was landing on the Shannon at Foynes in a flying boat on his way back to the UK from North Africa for re-assignment.0 -
Advertisement
-
me_right_one wrote: »Join one set of Nazi's instead of another? No way!
With moral relavitism like that, its pointless to try and argue this any further.
People need to read or re-read the history of the period again,
(At least McArmalite tried to provide some context for his points, Ireland still feeling bitter towards the UK, etc).0 -
I read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island".
Overall I'd agree neutrality was better for Britain than outright alliance. The only time when Britain would have been better with direct Irish support was at the height of the Battle of The Atlantic when the extra air-cover from basing off the South-west would have helped. In terms of material support the Irish contribution would have been limited.
Having said all that, if Ireland really wanted to fight, we could have done it without allying with the British; we could have allied to the US alone; if Greeks and Turks can accommodate each other in NATO, we could have managed to fight the Nazis if we'd wanted to (rather than putting on a top hat and visiting the German Embassy to send condolences on the death of Hitler), as it was plenty of individual Irishmen knew Britain was easily the lesser of two evils.0 -
No, we were right not to. We were occupied longer than any other country in Europe, and we needed time to cement that independence. Plus, Britain declared war on Germany - it doesn't follow that we should have supported them merely because the south might have been forced to prior to the war of independence.i think we did wrong by not joining with the Allies back about the time of battle of britan. Whats the rest of opinion?
Plus, ask yourself how many of the Irish people around today wouldn't be here if their grandfathers had been dragged into that war, and you might find your answer.0 -
Interesting points one in all, I do as a nationalist accept the argument of joining a neighbor that had for hundreds of years held down a country and cripled it into poverty as one that would make it greatly difficult to ally with. Indeed a good point in saying that most of the government at the time were ex war of Independence men (& women). So yes one could see why there would be an utter bad taste in following an old enemy once again into battle, especially after the WW1 experience.
I don't know if we could have added anything logistically but strategically we would have been of great importance if (..and I hate that word) D-day had failed.
Of course as a poster mentioned over 20,000 Irishmen anyway joined and fought. It was of course a political decision but I can't help thinking it may have been a lucky one and that we'd have been destroyed neutral or not if D-Day and battle of Britain were not a sucess.
I guess its the feeling of i'd like to think Irish people could have done something more than hide during a time of great evil.
Its a cost of course thats huge but we never had backed before and we did then, all of course for good and soild reasons.
Anyway interesting points one and all.0 -
which would have made Ireland a Target of Invasion. Ireland at the time had it's own issues in dealing with the IRA, who in all likelihood targeted any British infrastructure that was here in this country.Overall I'd agree neutrality was better for Britain than outright alliance. The only time when Britain would have been better with direct Irish support was at the height of the Battle of The Atlantic when the extra air-cover from basing off the South-west would have helped. In terms of material support the Irish contribution would have been limited.Having said all that, if Ireland really wanted to fight, we could have done it without allying with the British; we could have allied to the US alone;
Did any other country in the War (on either side) select such an option?. I don't believe selective alliances were available at the time. It was pretty much a case of once side or the other.if Greeks and Turks can accommodate each other in NATO, we could have managed to fight the Nazis if we'd wanted to (rather than putting on a top hat and visiting the German Embassy to send condolences on the death of Hitler),
Nato was after World War 2.
As regards visiting the German Embassy, that was Diplomatic Protocol.
Without picking on Portugal once again, they declared a days mourning - a bit more than simply expressing condolences.0 -
which would have made Ireland a Target of Invasion. Ireland at the time had it's own issues in dealing with the IRA, who in all likelihood targeted any British infrastructure that was here in this country.
If the Germans couldn't get the resources together to invade Britain, how would they have managed to reach Ireland? If they could have done that, they'd have invaded the North.Did any other country in the War (on either side) select such an option?. I don't believe selective alliances were available at the time. It was pretty much a case of once side or the other.
Lots on the Axis side. Most of the European Axis powers weren't allied with Japan. In diplomatic terms anything is doable.Nato was after World War 2.
It was to illustrate a point. Its quite possible to have "allies" who hate each other, after all the Soviets and the British were more ideologically opposed than the Soviets and the Nazis.As regards visiting the German Embassy, that was Diplomatic Protocol.
Without picking on Portugal once again, they declared a days mourning - a bit more than simply expressing condolences.
It was April 1945, protocol be damned, and Portugal was a right wing military dictatorship at the time.0 -
If the Germans couldn't get the resources together to invade Britain, how would they have managed to reach Ireland? If they could have done that, they'd have invaded the North.
Given they were capable of Bombing Ringsend, Coventry, London, Belfast, I'd say they were more than capable of causing unwelcome damage.
Name one?.Lots on the Axis side. Most of the European Axis powers weren't allied with Japan. In diplomatic terms anything is doable.
And again, we'd have had to have another Civil war to decide which side to Join - bear in mind, there was a strong Anti-British feeling in Ireland at the time. I doubt that joining the allies "but we still don't like the English" would have washed with many who held the Anti British feeling very well.It was to illustrate a point. Its quite possible to have "allies" who hate each other, after all the Soviets and the British were more ideologically opposed than the Soviets and the Nazis.
That was Dev, and you're right, Portugal had a dictatorship - but Portugal itself still had the longest standing Alliance in the World (still does) with the UK at the time, so it's a bit odder than offering condolences, don't you think?.It was April 1945, protocol be damned, and Portugal was a right wing military dictatorship at the time.0 -
I dont think we should off.We would of been slaughted.As in the first world war many irish men joined the british army anyway.
Also dachua,aushwitz all became fact when the war ended.John doe on the street wouldnt of known about the camps,so hindsight is great.
Came across this on youtube, Develera replying to churchhill after the war ended where he attacked irish neutrality and said he thought of invading ireland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F00 -
Worth bearing in mind that most of the countries that declared war on Germany didn't actually make any meaningful participation (e.g. Latin America).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
The best contribution Ireland could have made was Atlantic airfields and perhaps a naval base in the south-west.
And if you want to look a bitter enemies reconciling, South Africa (amid bitter debate on both occasions) joined the Allies in both World Wars. The last Boer war had only ended in 1902.0 -
Advertisement
-
Given they were capable of Bombing Ringsend, Coventry, London, Belfast, I'd say they were more than capable of causing unwelcome damage.
The original post was about Ireland being under threat from invasion if they joined, not attack. The Germans managed to do that by mistake anyway.Name one?.
Finland, Iraq and bizarrely, Thailand, were all co-belligerents, so they fought against the allies (or an ally in Finland and Iraq's case) without being subject to Axis requirements.And again, we'd have had to have another Civil war to decide which side to Join - bear in mind, there was a strong Anti-British feeling in Ireland at the time. I doubt that joining the allies "but we still don't like the English" would have washed with many who held the Anti British feeling very well.
This is actually the most relevant point and I don't disagree with it, but there were plenty in America who felt the same way about fighting the British Empire's battles, but FDR still pushed the "Europe first" strategy despite a great deal of public opinion that said they shouldn't get involved in Europe (although the Germans formally declared war on the Americans, there was still feeling that it was a formality rather than a real danger, unlike Japan).That was Dev, and you're right, Portugal had a dictatorship - but Portugal itself still had the longest standing Alliance in the World (still does) with the UK at the time, so it's a bit odder than offering condolences, don't you think?.
That only serves to prove my point, strange bedfellows and all that.0 -
isent strange when you think about it ,more irish men joined the british army to fight in ww11 , than the republics own army,and thousands of irish men and woman came over to the uk during the war to work,i think as a englishman who was born in 1940 thats the most possitive way the republic could have helped, and i am sure the people of the uk were gratefulI read a book recently about the emergency called "That Neutral Island".
I came across an angle that I'd never heard voiced before. Put simply, strategically for Britain it was better that Ireland remain neutral as to protect the Irish coastline from attack would have stretched resources further. Plus once the south Irish sea was mined the British - US convoy route was easier to protect.
Indeed if Ireland really wanted to weaken Britain during the war then entering the war with Britain would have been the way to go.
There was a lot of resentment in Britain and the US that Ireland received goods from the outside world via these convoys without taking any proactive part in their protection but conversely shipwreck material from both ally and axis forces found its way back to the allied cause via Ireland; especially much needed rubber.
Also convenient for Britain was the endless supply of labour, especially in the run up to D-Day. We may not have played a direct combat role but this country did play an indirect part in the allied cause.
Pity about the knitting clubs not been able to post jumpers to their sons as it was deemed a treat to Irish neutrality.
There were 500 staff in the GPO handling censorship alone.
Great read, can't remember the author but the titles correct.0 -
The reality is that if the Irish government couldn't have assisted the British Army even if they had wanted to - politically, they would have run the risk of antagonising republicans, particularly if they had even considered conscription, possibly resulting in a civil war type situation. Personally, I have no regrets and only contentment that we stayed out of that war - small nations get trampled when they get involved in wars of bigger nations.
And re assisting the British from occupation, why on earth would we have considered doing that whilst they occupied parts of Ireland? It was plain to see how grateful they were for the help they did get by sticking the jack-boot on the throats of Irish people in the north after the second world war.0 -
If you want to see what Ireland might have been like had we joined the war, look at the countries formerly known collectively as Yugoslavia.
They are still dealing with that war 60 years after it ended.
Superimposing a grand strategic imperative over a hotch potch of ancient local rivalries and enmities produced a savage conflict fed with generations of bad blood.
Bear in mind that the "Goodies" in Yugoslavia, as far as the Allies were concerned, were the Orthodox Serbs who fought against the Axis whereas the "Baddies" were the Bosnians (largely Muslim) and Croats (largely Catholic) who allied themselves with the Germans. And of course I am speaking VERY generally here because the issues were even more complex from a local point of view.
Nowadays, of course, it's the Serbs with their supposed penchant for ethnic cleansing who are the pariahs and their leaders are hunted down by the world's righteous in a way that was once reserved for Nazis who had fled to South America. But that's history for you.
Forcing the Irish state as a whole to take the side of the British Empire would have led to a vicious internal reaction from those who could not see that power as anything other than an ancient and continuing enemy. It would have had little to do with Fascist sympathies. It is one of the great ironies of the "Emergency" that men who had voluntarily gone to Spain to fight AGAINST Fascism ended up working for the Germans against the British.
And another irony is that Fine Gael, which had been formed by a merger of several parties including the quasi fascist Blueshirts, had many who were enthusiastic to join the war on the side of the Allies. In fact their leader James Dillon resigned after the idea was turned down.
De Valera had a horrendously difficult balancing act to perform. I am no Fianna Failer, but that was his single greatest achievement, IMHO.0 -
It wasnt Ireland's war to fight.
The seeds of WWII came from WWI and the Treaty of Versailles which all the main actors in the lead up to WWII were involved with. Unfinsihed business so to speak.
Switzerland remained perfectly neutral in the middle of mainland Europe. Should they have joined?
Remember, Ireland was assisting the Allies (unofficially)...for example British Subs and ships were stationed off various ports in Ireland during the battles in the Atlantic with the sanction of the De Valera's Gov.
So to say that Ireland stood by and watched is simply not true.0 -
Its funny how people still believe the propaganda of the times about the world wars, that they were moral wars. Where they really? If we should've gotten involved, shouldn't we equally have been morally obliged to join the Korean war, the Algerian war, the Gulf war? Why is one war moral and noble and another not?
No country should join a war to be like the cool kids.0 -
Advertisement
-
And that raises another point - I would hate to see a precedent by the Irish state of following the British state into war, much the same way that the British state follows the United States.0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90712
Yugoslavia ?Snickers Man wrote: »If you want to see what Ireland might have been like had we joined the war, look at the countries formerly known collectively as Yugoslavia.
They are still dealing with that war 60 years after it ended.
Where the Austrians/Hungarians/Ottomans were fighting for ages before some statelets got independence in the 1880's , and ongoing wars every generation , including WWI where boarders got re-written big time. And then they got invaded in WWII. Seems like the only peace there when when they were under Tito's heel.
Can't remember which one but one of the boarders there is the same as when the Roman empire split into east / west halves to give you an idea of how long those guys have been upset with each other.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Yugoslavia ?
Where the Austrians/Hungarians/Ottomans were fighting for ages before some statelets got independence in the 1880's , and ongoing wars every generation , including WWI where boarders got re-written big time. And then they got invaded in WWII. Seems like the only peace there when when they were under Tito's heel.
Can't remember which one but one of the boarders there is the same as when the Roman empire split into east / west halves to give you an idea of how long those guys have been upset with each other.
Not quite sure what your point is here. But I think it's fair to say that we have quite a long history of being upset with each other in this little island too. Encouraging each other to take sides in a major war in which no holds were barred on either side is not the best way to proceeed.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Its funny how people still believe the propaganda of the times about the world wars, that they were moral wars. Where they really? If we should've gotten involved, shouldn't we equally have been morally obliged to join the Korean war, the Algerian war, the Gulf war? Why is one war moral and noble and another not?
No country should join a war to be like the cool kids.
Its not that complicated; Korea yes (as it was a UN mandate), Algeria, no (as it was effectively an internal French matter), the Gulf War, technically yes (UN resolution again) but with no practical contribution to make.
As for whether WWII was a "moral" war, there's no such thing, but on the continuum of justification then it was more "moral" than most. I don't think anyone regarded WWI as a "just" war, certainly not after the fact.0 -
WWII can be seen as an internal European matter. Korea and the gulf war-really? Because the UN sanctions a war you think it would be ok to participate? I must say I disagree.Its not that complicated; Korea yes (as it was a UN mandate), Algeria, no (as it was effectively an internal French matter), the Gulf War, technically yes (UN resolution again) but with no practical contribution to make.As for whether WWII was a "moral" war, there's no such thing, but on the continuum of justification then it was more "moral" than most. I don't think anyone regarded WWI as a "just" war, certainly not after the fact.
Well I don't believe there are moral or just wars, but WWI and II were regarded as just that during, and WWII is still considered so in light of Nazi Genocide. I don't believe the war can be justified by the events that happened during it though.0 -
Advertisement
-
i feel that De Valera was exercising great foresight when he declared that ireland would remain neutral. you have to remember that when Churchill was angrily blabbing for ireland to join the war, the external relations act of 1936, as well as the anglo-irish agreement 1938 had both just been passed. it had taken a long time for ireland to get these agreements, which both ensured that the free state was gaining some degree of true independence. to join the war would have been seen to run back to the old master and undo all that work. Churchill later vaguely promised an end to partition upon entering the war with the telegraph "a nation once again" etc, but De Valera was smart enough to see that this could never be delievered with hard line unionists such as craig and brookeborough in power in the north. i feel that having undergone the economic war of the 30's and all the hardship that it had brought, it would seem infantile to join an inperialists war for no gain.
and i amn't generally an admirerer of De Valera!0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »If you want to see what Ireland might have been like had we joined the war, look at the countries formerly known collectively as Yugoslavia.
They are still dealing with that war 60 years after it ended.
Superimposing a grand strategic imperative over a hotch potch of ancient local rivalries and enmities produced a savage conflict fed with generations of bad blood.
Bear in mind that the "Goodies" in Yugoslavia, as far as the Allies were concerned, were the Orthodox Serbs who fought against the Axis whereas the "Baddies" were the Bosnians (largely Muslim) and Croats (largely Catholic) who allied themselves with the Germans. And of course I am speaking VERY generally here because the issues were even more complex from a local point of view.
Interesting idea, but I don't think so. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe. Even the northern unionist minority aren't that different. Same alphabet, language, look the same.
Off-topic, but its definitely too simple to describe the WWII Yugoslav war in those terms. Tito (a Croat) and his Communist Partisans (mostly serb but multiethnic ), with the backing of the Allies, wiped out his enemies which included the Fascist Croats and the Orthodox Serb Chetniks.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90712
We used to let the flying boats based in Lough Erne fly directly to the coast instead of up around the top of Donegal.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90712
When where the treaty ports handed back ?
It could have made a sizeable difference during the start of the battle of the Atlantic.
During WWII Iceland and Iran were invaded by the allies when it suited them. India, Iraq (and Israel ) were already under control ...0 -
brianthebard wrote: »WWII can be seen as an internal European matter. Korea and the gulf war-really? Because the UN sanctions a war you think it would be ok to participate? I must say I disagree.
There was no such thing as "an internal European matter" at the time, Europe wasn't a political entity, therefore there was nothing internal about it. If the Germans had won, they might have respected Irish neutrality...for a while, but Hitler was no fan of "Celtic peoples".
As for Korea and the Gulf; Ireland has no problem putting blue helmets on its troops, and in 1950 Korea was the first test of the UN's new police role. It was supposed to be the bright shining future where the world collectively stopped aggression before it enveloped everyone. I'd say that was a reasonable aspiration at the time. As for the Gulf, well, we're quite happy to let others do our fighting for cheap oil...brianthebard wrote: »Well I don't believe there are moral or just wars, but WWI and II were regarded as just that during, and WWII is still considered so in light of Nazi Genocide. I don't believe the war can be justified by the events that happened during it though.
I think there are millions of people across the world, liberated in 1945, who would disagree with you. Of course there are "just" wars. The behaviour of men on the battlefield may not be moral, but our own history proves that war itself is sometimes both necessary and justified.0 -
Interesting idea, but I don't think so. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe. Even the northern unionist minority aren't that different. Same alphabet, language, look the same.
Off-topic, but its definitely too simple to describe the WWII Yugoslav war in those terms. Tito (a Croat) and his Communist Partisans (mostly serb but multiethnic ), with the backing of the Allies, wiped out his enemies which included the Fascist Croats and the Orthodox Serb Chetniks.
I did make the point that I was being ultrasimplistic about the situation in Yugoslavia. Indeed the very complexity that you describe is part of the reason things got so messy there.
Wars are rarely, in fact almost never, simplistic cut and dried affairs where everybody on one side holds identical points of view and trusts their colleagues implicitly. On the contrary, a war which breaks down the normal structures of civilised behaviour is more likely to throw up opportunists who will jump on any point of disagreement to enhance their position.
Yes: Tito's Serbian communist partisans were ruthless with Mihailovic's Serbian Royalist Chetniks. And the Croat Ustashe were particularly brutal to other Croats who might have supported Tito. But that just strengthens the point I wanted to make.
Look at our own Civil War. The Free Staters executed more of their Republican former colleagues than the British did in the War of Independence. And the Republicans were no shrinking violets either, provoking many of the reprisals with bloody atrocities of their own. Like Knocknagoshel/Ballyseedy, for instance.
Let's work it through simplistically. The Free State comes in on Britain's side in 1940, say. Are the Unionists going to say "Hallellujah. They have seen the light. We will be happy to serve alongside our Southern Brethern in common cause!"? Or are they going to think. "Hang on. What to these Fenian bastards want to get out of this? A united Ireland? I don't think so." Cue much suspicion, underhand dealings and sneaky self serving manouevrings to ensure that when all the shooting dies down, the right top dogs are in place.
Think I'm being too hard on the Unionists? See
2 Samuel 11:15
Not that they would be the only ones. There would have been a vicious sundering of loyaltie inside the Catholic/Nationalist community as well. Each section would have called the others collaborators with their country's enemies and the internecine feuding and murder would have been horrendous.
Into which mix of course the good old Germans would have thrown as many bombs, bullets, machine guns etc etc as they could spare. Just as they did in 1912. Remember they gave more guns to the UVF than they did to the Irish Volunteers. Because their interest was served by arming both. To the teeth.
This is not an exaggeration. Look at how the peoples in the countries that were ravaged by the war treated each other. How many thousand Frenchmen were murdered in the wake of the "liberation"? Or Italians for that matter. And look at the brutal "ethnic cleansing" that took place in Czechoslovakia with many hundred thousands of Germans forced out of towns their families had lived in for centuries.
And all that was done by the "goodies" in this moral war.
We were dead right to stay out of it.0 -
There was no such thing as "an internal European matter" at the time, Europe wasn't a political entity, therefore there was nothing internal about it. If the Germans had won, they might have respected Irish neutrality...for a while, but Hitler was no fan of "Celtic peoples".
As for Korea and the Gulf; Ireland has no problem putting blue helmets on its troops, and in 1950 Korea was the first test of the UN's new police role. It was supposed to be the bright shining future where the world collectively stopped aggression before it enveloped everyone. I'd say that was a reasonable aspiration at the time. As for the Gulf, well, we're quite happy to let others do our fighting for cheap oil...
The UN didn't declare war on Korea or the Gulf afaik; the policing role you refer to and the actual wars preceding them that I was referring to were two different things. Getting closer to the topic, the US certainly saw WWII as a European affair until Pearl Harbour.I think there are millions of people across the world, liberated in 1945, who would disagree with you. Of course there are "just" wars. The behaviour of men on the battlefield may not be moral, but our own history proves that war itself is sometimes both necessary and justified.
Weren't millions of people imprisoned because of the war? Wars are messy, unjust things, and when something supposedly good comes at the end of them, it can be hard for people to go against the grain and show that the war was still a destructive bloodbath. It is important for those who participated to afterwards (or during, especially during) to be able to claim a moral reason for the war, but usually there isn't one. Ireland had no business involving itself in WWII and was entirely justified staying out of it imo, for many reasons.0 -
brianthebard wrote:Well I don't believe there are moral or just wars, but WWI and II were regarded as just that during, and WWII is still considered so in light of Nazi Genocide. I don't believe the war can be justified by the events that happened during it though.
I think there are millions of people across the world, liberated in 1945, who would disagree with you. Of course there are "just" wars. The behaviour of men on the battlefield may not be moral, but our own history proves that war itself is sometimes both necessary and justified.
An interesting point but who's to say what parts were just and what parts weren't?
For instance, take the Poles in WW2: No country suffered more in percentage terms than Poland. It had a higher percentage of its people killed than any other country. Including Germany.
You say they were liberated in 1945. Is that the way they see it? NB I don't know the answer to this. If there are any Polish people here, I would love to get their perspective.
In 1939, they were invaded by two countries: Germany and the Soviet Union. The latter rounded up virtually the entire Polish officer corps, including most of its conscripted civilian intellegentsia, and massacred them at Katyn.
Meanwhile the Germans were suppressing any dissent in their own quaint way.
Then in 1944, with the Soviet Union pushing the Germans back, the Poles of Warsaw rose in rebellion. They were supported, politically if not materially, by the western allies; they were treated with utter suspicion by their supposed eastern allies, namely the soviet Union that had invaded and massacred them in 1939.
With the Poles fighting for their lives, the Soviet offensive stopped. With an eye to the later play, the Soviets were only too pleased to let the Germans and Polish nationalists, who would have been no friends of the Soviets, blow the hell out of each other.
(another example of supposed Allies taking their cue from the second book of Samuel).
Do the Poles today remember the Soviets as being an army of liberation? Do they feel grateful for their deliverance by the Red Army? Or do they regard the true heroes of their liberation the people who died failing to achieve it, in much the same way as we look on the leaders of 1916?
I don't know the answer but I'm curious as to what it is.
I know it's slightly off topic but it's relevant by way of comparison to the OP's question.0 -
I know that many poles considered the carving up of europe at the Yalta conference to be a betrayal by Britain (and to a lesser extent the US).
Stalin wanted to put in a puppet government, the British wanted free elections with independant monitors and the US couldn't care less as long as an agreement was reached on the formation of the UN. By this time though, Britain was pretty much powerless to do anything and the main objective was persauding the US to keep an interest in europe to keep an eye on the soviets, which by this time were considered a bigger threat.
Stalin agreed that the US, British and French Ambassadors could monitor the elections, knowing full well that Ambassadors could not be appointed until a government was formed, very clever of him.
Back to the original topic, I agree with the general opinion that dev got it right, although I think all the reasons given do him justice, i think he had a pro-war lobby on one side and the anti-war the other and basically sat on the fence, but gave in to his own convictions and gave low key support to the allies.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »The UN didn't declare war on Korea or the Gulf afaik; the policing role you refer to and the actual wars preceding them that I was referring to were two different things. Getting closer to the topic, the US certainly saw WWII as a European affair until Pearl Harbour.
The UN never declared war in Korea at all; the whole thing was a "police action", and yes both in the case of Korea and The Gulf is was UN Mandate that kicked things off.brianthebard wrote: »Weren't millions of people imprisoned because of the war? Wars are messy, unjust things, and when something supposedly good comes at the end of them, it can be hard for people to go against the grain and show that the war was still a destructive bloodbath. It is important for those who participated to afterwards (or during, especially during) to be able to claim a moral reason for the war, but usually there isn't one. Ireland had no business involving itself in WWII and was entirely justified staying out of it imo, for many reasons.
That's rather curious logic. Look at this way, Germany invaded The Sudetenland, no-one fought them, and then an even stronger Germany invaded Poland. At that point, even when trying to stop them, the Allies watched Germany gobble up most of mainland Europe. War may be messy, but like everything in life, doing the unpleasant things can stop a bigger problem. If the Allies had been more aggressive in 1938, they could, and probably would, have saved millions of lives. If the allies hadn't declared war after over Poland, there could have millions more lost than actually were. There are simply times when a military response is the only answer.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement