Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Fratton Fred · 13-07-2009 4:59pm

there is a memorial in my local church to men of the parish who died in both world wars. the WWII section has about 8 names on it, all bar two were in the RN.

I wonder if there were a number of Irishmen in the RN because of the treaty ports and the convenience.

Just an idea.

Morlar · 13-07-2009 5:24pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a memorial in my local church to men of the parish who died in both world wars. the WWII section has about 8 names on it, all bar two were in the RN.

I wonder if there were a number of Irishmen in the RN because of the treaty ports and the convenience.

Just an idea.

There are a lot of churches around Ireland with discreet plaques commemorating Irishmen who died in the world wars. I came across a site recently where someone had catalogued them extensively but dont have the link at the moment.

I would not have thought there was a particular preference for the royal navy above other branches so that could just be a co-incidence though I could be wrong.

ejmaztec · 13-07-2009 5:32pm

brianthebard wrote: »

With respect all that proves is that Ireland had a small army, another reason to stay out of the war.

It's more logical to compare the 100,000 with the size of the IDF, than to compare the 100,000 with the entire population, most of whom were either too young, or too old to fight, given the emigration levels.

Only one of my uncles was old enough, but fortunately for him, he was a sergeant based at the Curragh, ironically enough guarding British and German internees, or should I say escorting them to the local pub.

In times of war, standing armies are enlarged for those countries on a war footing.

MarchDub · 13-07-2009 7:08pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yep, and WW2 is portrayed as the 'good fight' against evil, while Ireland's neutrality is generally viewed on the same lines as the current so-called war on terror, 'you're either with us or against us' - but WW2 was not the heroic enterprise we're spoon-fed by mainstream history; The Morgenthau Plan and other acts of deliberate genocide - the firebombing of Dresden, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - clearly demonstrates the fact.

There is little to be proud of in WW2 - all sides committed atrocities, and ultimately, who proffits? Perhaps it served to further the economic interests of the banking industry, but certainly not the common people of Europe, or anywhere, and i can't see anything to suggest it would have been any different here.

I agree, 'the vast majority of politicians would sell their own mothers for more power and more money.' Well they'd certainly sell us!

Better off well-out of that one, i reckon.

Yes, well said - as usual it was the banks who came out of it on top and the working classes who shed the blood.

arnhem44 · 22-07-2009 9:09pm

I would have to say no to this,Ireland had provided thousands of men only twenty + years before hand,a lot of these returning home got a poor reception due to the civil unrest already in place,some of these soldiers felt they had been stabbed in the back by the treatment of the army they were serving in for what happened during 1916.The figure of 100,000 shouldn't be used as an exact figure,a huge porportion of these men were already serving in the British army as had been the case of Irish men for decades before hand,employment into the British army had always been the main incintive to join up.Its always been understood that Ireland remained neuteral during the war,thats true for most of it,they interned any Germans who landed here or made it to land from the sea however for any British or American service men they were sent across the border to the north and any aircraft that was recoverable were handed over to the appropriate authorities,when you look at these things that are happening you'd wonder were we helping them from the start.

ChocolateSauce · 24-07-2009 11:18am

I think no. Primarily and above all else, we wouldn't have made a difference, and also importantly every Irish person who felt it was a just war and who wanted to fight in it was more than welcome to join the British army (and tens of thousands did). By joining the vastly more effective British army, each Irish man contributed more than he would have in a seperate, Irish army.

Bragadin · 24-07-2009 12:14pm

I have a english translation of a german document which evaluated britains geography, peoples, infrastructure and industry for the purposes of invasion and occupation.

One thing in particular kind of struck me, and that was the small section on race. They refered to the people of the east of england as 'bright and beautifull' while the people in the south west and wales were 'short and dark'. Maybe an a anlysis based more on the assumptions of distinct 'saxon' and 'cletic' areas and not a very detailed (by nazi standards) evaluation of race. But there is still something chilling about this clear differntiation they made. It seems that if they ever invaded ireland they would have conjured reasons to brand us as less then human. I'd say we had much to gain from an allied victory.

Morlar · 24-07-2009 12:31pm

Bragadin wrote: »

It seems that if they ever invaded ireland they would have conjured reasons to brand us as less then human.

With respect that seems like pure conjecture to me. They also invaded and occupied France and did not treat the Bretons, gauls etc any differently than other french people in practice (despite the apparent differentiation mentioned in your lone document) . The people they took issue with racially were jews, roma gypsies, and russian/slav's, there was no actual evidence they viewed any other western european races as inferior. In the western european countries they invaded and occuppied they recruited heavily, even into the ss.

Out of curiosity could I ask about the document ? Is that an official document/copy ? Published when & authored by whom etc ? Was it a policy document in any way ? In any organisation that size you will find conflicting documentation as not every single person was on the exact same page, the ones setting policy (as outlined above in the western european examples) seem to have taken a different approach.

Of course this is all assuming they intended to invade and occupy Ireland which is not proven. They would have had contingency plans on paper but a realistic intention to do it is a seperate thing. They never invaded Spain, or Switzerland etc. They went after Norway as Britain had already sent an invasion force enroute. An even more realistic threat of invasion of Ireland came from Britain (churchill of course confirmed this I believe in his VE Speech which triggered a reply from De Valera).

Bragadin · 24-07-2009 12:44pm

Morlar wrote: »

With respect that seems like pure conjecture to me. They also invaded and occupied France and did not treat the Bretons, gauls etc any differently than other french people. The people they took issue with racially were jews, roma gypsies, and russian/slav's, there was no actual evidence they viewed any other western european races as inferior. In the western european countries they invaded and occuppied they recruited heavily, even into the ss.

Oh it i could well be conjecture, i understand that. It certianly is based on very little evidence. Also thats a good point with regards to france. I always wondered what they would make of irish people. They may have confined most their descrimination to eastern european ethnic groups, but the similarities between jews, gypsies and slavs are vast and just reading that document made me wonder.

Edit:Just saw your edit. It was a small bound copy sold in the imperial war museum, i just bought it as souvineer but just that section struck my interest.

Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/German-Invasion-Plans-British-Isles/dp/1851243569

Also you're right there was no definitive proof that the germans intended to invade ireland, it was just a consideration as a possible approach to britain.

Morlar · 24-07-2009 1:00pm

Bragadin wrote: »

Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/German-Invasion-Plans-British-Isles/dp/1851243569

Also your right there was no definitive proof that the germans intended to invade ireland, it was just a consideration as a possible approach to britain.

Thanks for that - it looks like an interesting document. Reading the description one part stood out :

Prior to the invasion, a complex set of documents had been drawn up, consisting of maps, aerial photographs, a physical description of the British Isles - region by region, statistics about roads, lists of strategic targets, and a short phrase book for the invading forces when it became necessary to fraternize with the local populace.This book brings together a selection of these documents and reproduces them in a handy-sized format.

I can just picture a bunch of german paratroopers lined up to go, practicing their cockney slang in german accents - 'A-wite Gavnor' & their 'Ow's ya father's.

OS119 · 24-07-2009 1:11pm

Morlar wrote: »

With respect that seems like pure conjecture to me. They also invaded and occupied France and did not treat the Bretons, gauls etc any differently than other french people in practice (despite the apparent differentiation mentioned in your lone document) . The people they took issue with racially were jews, roma gypsies, and russian/slav's, there was no actual evidence they viewed any other western european races as inferior. In the western european countries they invaded and occuppied they recruited heavily, even into the ss.

Out of curiosity could I ask about the document ? Is that an official document/copy ? Published when & authored by whom etc ? Was it a policy document in any way ? In any organisation that size you will find conflicting documentation as not every single person was on the exact same page, the ones setting policy (as outlined above in the western european examples) seem to have taken a different approach.

Of course this is all assuming they intended to invade and occupy Ireland which is not proven. They would have had contingency plans on paper but a realistic intention to do it is a seperate thing. They never invaded Spain, or Switzerland etc. They went after Norway as Britain had already sent an invasion force enroute. An even more realistic threat of invasion of Ireland came from Britain (churchill of course confirmed this I believe in his VE Speech which triggered a reply from De Valera).

while i accept that there were divergent views with Germany as to the exact level of inferiority of the various races/ethnicities/nationalities that they came into contact with and the subsequent treatment they should receive, the history shows clearly that none of them were considered equal to the Germans and therefore worthy of the protection and rights afforded to the Germans themselves.

not one of the countries the Germans had control over was not required to provide slave labour, and that slave labour did not just come from Jews, Roma, Homosexuals or political prisoners - it came from apolitical, straight western europeans.

sorry, but by the end of 1942 there was absolutely no way anyone within the Irish political establishment could have believed that a German victory over continental Europe - and worse, over the UK, - would have been anything but very bad news indeed for Ireland.

Ireland need not have been invaded, a military/political defeat of the UK would have meant that Germany could put pressure on the Irish government that it couldn't possibly ignore. whatever they asked for, Ireland would have given.

Fratton Fred · 24-07-2009 1:57pm

Morlar wrote: »

I can just picture a bunch of german paratroopers lined up to go, practicing their cockney slang in german accents - 'A-wite Gavnor' & their 'Ow's ya father's.

sounds like Dick Van Dyke's accent in Mary Poppins:D

Bragadin · 24-07-2009 2:12pm

Morlar wrote: »

Thanks for that - it looks like an interesting document. Reading the description one part stood out :

Prior to the invasion, a complex set of documents had been drawn up, consisting of maps, aerial photographs, a physical description of the British Isles - region by region, statistics about roads, lists of strategic targets, and a short phrase book for the invading forces when it became necessary to fraternize with the local populace.This book brings together a selection of these documents and reproduces them in a handy-sized format.

I can just picture a bunch of german paratroopers lined up to go, practicing their cockney slang in german accents - 'A-wite Gavnor' & their 'Ow's ya father's.

Ha, i don't remember that part, i must look at it again.

Sadly the book was less 'battle plans' and more lists of power stations, ariel photos and the like. Although it's kind of funny to see the germans put down britains inferior coal mining techniques.

Morlar · 24-07-2009 2:31pm

OS119 wrote: »

while i accept that there were divergent views with Germany as to the exact level of inferiority of the various races/ethnicities/nationalities that they came into contact with and the subsequent treatment they should receive, the history shows clearly that none of them were considered equal to the Germans and therefore worthy of the protection and rights afforded to the Germans themselves.

That's a very narrow definition you have placed there. 'Equal' or 'different' or 'inferior' are 3 different categories. West europe fit into the 'equal' or 'different' category - not inferior. There is no evidence here that the germans defined, for example british people, as genetically or racially inferior in the same way that they viewed jews or roma or russians etc. You may well find in a multi-million person regime and in the course of several years spanning thousands of miles and generating thousands and thousands of tonnes of paperwork - one or two letters from one person to another saying the opposite, but in terms of official documentation or implemented policy - I have yet to see the evidence that west europeans were seen as either racially or genetically inferior (and this mantra does seem to do the rounds with regularity).

OS119 wrote: »

not one of the countries the Germans had control over was not required to provide slave labour, and that slave labour did not just come from Jews, Roma, Homosexuals or political prisoners - it came from apolitical, straight western europeans.

Primarily it clearly did. Do you have examples of this from all of the counrties the germans invaded (as you mentioned) ? To the best of my knowledge those who composed the populations of concentration camps were indeed in the above list, (jews, roma, homosexuals, criminals, communists, people involved in the resistance (& suspected of same), political opponents and so on). They were not in the main composed of the law abiding general population (which did not fit into the above categories). There were exceptions but as a 'policy' it is unproven. In fact if you look at the 'aryanisation' process of, for example (at least in the case of one GAU) Poland the opposite is the case even in non west european nations.

There were labourers provided - for example Irish people on Jersey were offered the choice of going to the Ruhr to work in the german heartland but this was not 'forced' labour, they were paid, treated well and allowed to live freely within the normal confines of wartime. More so than japaneese in america or germans in england.

OS119 wrote: »

sorry, but by the end of 1942 there was absolutely no way anyone within the Irish political establishment could have believed that a German victory over continental Europe - and worse, over the UK, - would have been anything but very bad news indeed for Ireland.

That is one opinion - but not the only one. Regardless of which we are not talking specifically about the opinions of the Irish political establishment gleaned from the allied media of the time.

OS119 wrote: »

a military/political defeat of the UK would have meant that Germany could put pressure on the Irish government that it couldn't possibly ignore. whatever they asked for, Ireland would have given.

I don't see any evidence of that. For example (presuming you are referring to forced labour - which seems to be the case) looking at the continental european countries not invaded - they were not pressured to provide labour for the war effort (forced or otherwise). More importantly had the war been won by the germans the need for 'labour for the war effort' would not have been an issue anyway.

Agent J · 24-07-2009 8:04pm

I'm sure someone has mentioned it before but

"In a Time of War" by Keegan is great book on this topic.

Personally i think so. I think after May 1940 when the neutral benelux countries fell we could no longer pretend that we were going to be spared.
After Dec '41 with the Americans on board we certainly had even less excuse.

The issue about wether we could have made a difference is largely irrelevant to my mind. Its the principle of the matter.
Aside from that
We could have opened up the treaty ports which would have allowed a larger cover area of the shiping convoys which were hammered during 40/41/42.

Of course its easy to sit 70 years later and speculate on such matters. I just dont get the whole "Britian have a taste of their own medicne" arguement. We would have been next on the list.

brianthebard · 24-07-2009 9:10pm

Agent J wrote: »

I'm sure someone has mentioned it before but

"In a Time of War" by Keegan is great book on this topic.

Personally i think so. I think after May 1940 when the neutral benelux countries fell we could no longer pretend that we were going to be spared.

Switzerland.

After Dec '41 with the Americans on board we certainly had even less excuse.

To all intents and purposes that was a separate war, at least until the US invaded Europe in '44. I don't think Ireland had any business involving itself in that war either ftr.

The issue about wether we could have made a difference is largely irrelevant to my mind. Its the principle of the matter.

Yes I think that's exactly what those of us who say Ireland was right to stay out of the war feel. What's your principle?

Aside from that
We could have opened up the treaty ports which would have allowed a larger cover area of the shiping convoys which were hammered during 40/41/42.

Why would we have opened the treaty ports? You realise at that stage they were no longer the treaty ports?

Of course its easy to sit 70 years later and speculate on such matters. I just dont get the whole "Britian have a taste of their own medicne" arguement.

I don't think anyone is arguing that really. I certainly am not.

We would have been next on the list.

Prove it.

Agent J · 25-07-2009 2:49am

brianthebard wrote: »

Switzerland.

Yes the nice mountainous terrain country to Germanys south with a riduculus high conscription rate and prepared military. Not to mention no stratgiec value to them at the time.

One word does not a counter argument make. Still does not negate the fact of Germany running straight through "neutral" countries when it suited her purpose.

brianthebard wrote: »

To all intents and purposes that was a separate war, at least until the US invaded Europe in '44. I don't think Ireland had any business involving itself in that war either ftr.

Not really. It was still had major theatre in the North Atlanic/Europe.
North Africa 42, Italy 43. Not to mention the North Altanic supply line to the UK and Russia.

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes I think that's exactly what those of us who say Ireland was right to stay out of the war feel. What's your principle?

"All it takes for evil to truimph is for good men to do nothing"

Not to mention the pure backhanded of our "Neutrality" at the time. If the Germans were caught they were sent to the Curragh. If an Allied solider was caught they were either refulled or sent up North.

If you are going to take a side then do so instead of trying to play both sides of the fence.

brianthebard wrote: »

Why would we have opened the treaty ports? You realise at that stage they were no longer the treaty ports?

Semantics. The ports that were previously known as treaty ports.
To allow a quicker turn around and plug the gaps in cover that existed in the North Atlantic supply lines.
Possibly might have ended the war quicker if they could have protected those supply lines better in the early years. Certainly would have saved a couple of lives anyway.

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that really. I certainly am not.

Saw it on a couple of the earlier pages of this thread. Never implied you were.

brianthebard wrote: »

Prove it.

Oh come now.You can theorise and extraopolate but hard proof. What you accept anyway?

I look at the situation and theorise that assuming a successful invasion of Britian had been acheived and rate that situation low enough probablity.
But if it had been then Ireland would have been chicken feed compared to that espeically if they crossed over to subdue the north.
Why leave an undefended,relatively easy terrain, with a few good ports neutral country when you can roll a division over it pretty quickly?

Assuming the Germans wanted access to our ports to secure this side of the Altantic the fact we were neutral would not have stopped them if they decided they wanted anything we had. One only had to look again at the benelux countries.

That senario is dependant of course dependant on the UK falling.

Besides Dublin was listed at one of the Centres of adminatration for the UK in the Germany plan to rule the UK post invasion. I believe it was in was in either Invaision 1940 or Operation Sealon books. which were quoting Gestapo plans in themselves.

Snickers Man · 25-07-2009 11:55am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a memorial in my local church to men of the parish who died in both world wars.

As a matter of interest, to which denomination does that church belong?

I only ask because I have noticed that CoI churches tend to have WWI and WWII memorials prominently displayed whereas I have never noticed one in an Irish RC church.

Some years ago I was interested to see memorials in the Anglican church in Dawson St Dublin (St Annes?) to people who had been on the "other" side in 1916. There was a plaque to a guy who had fought "in the defence of Trinity College against the rebels".

You would be unlikely to find such a notice in a Catholic church.

brianthebard · 25-07-2009 12:02pm

Agent J wrote: »

Yes the nice mountainous terrain country to Germanys south with a riduculus high conscription rate and prepared military. Not to mention no stratgiec value to them at the time.

One word does not a counter argument make. Still does not negate the fact of Germany running straight through "neutral" countries when it suited her purpose.

The invasion of the benelux countries was historically important, following the same path of advance as WWI and offering a chance for revenge for that War. Sweden and Switzerland were not invaded, at least one of them wsa very valuable strategically.

Not really. It was still had major theatre in the North Atlanic/Europe.
North Africa 42, Italy 43. Not to mention the North Altanic supply line to the UK and Russia.
"All it takes for evil to truimph is for good men to do nothing"

Not to mention the pure backhanded of our "Neutrality" at the time. If the Germans were caught they were sent to the Curragh. If an Allied solider was caught they were either refulled or sent up North.

If you are going to take a side then do so instead of trying to play both sides of the fence.

What you're arguing is that we could've been more neutral, I agree. Doesn't mean Ireland should have thrown it away. You can't base joining a war on a snappy quote.

Semantics. The ports that were previously known as treaty ports.
To allow a quicker turn around and plug the gaps in cover that existed in the North Atlantic supply lines.
Possibly might have ended the war quicker if they could have protected those supply lines better in the early years. Certainly would have saved a couple of lives anyway.

what is the purpose of a treaty port? For the colonial power to continue to have control over strategic aspects of the colonised countries infrastructure. Britain already had that via the North, hence there was very little need for Ireland to give up its independence to one Empire or the other. As for plugging gaps, I meant what reason had Ireland to do it? We all know why the Allies wanted to.

Oh come now.You can theorise and extraopolate but hard proof. What you accept anyway?

I look at the situation and theorise that assuming a successful invasion of Britian had been acheived and rate that situation low enough probablity.
But if it had been then Ireland would have been chicken feed compared to that espeically if they crossed over to subdue the north.
Why leave an undefended,relatively easy terrain, with a few good ports neutral country when you can roll a division over it pretty quickly?

Assuming the Germans wanted access to our ports to secure this side of the Altantic the fact we were neutral would not have stopped them if they decided they wanted anything we had. One only had to look again at the benelux countries.

That senario is dependant of course dependant on the UK falling.

Besides Dublin was listed at one of the Centres of adminatration for the UK in the Germany plan to rule the UK post invasion. I believe it was in was in either Invaision 1940 or Operation Sealon books. which were quoting Gestapo plans in themselves.

firstly there's plenty of assumptions there that are in no way provable. Control of the Atlantic could've been possible from the French coast, or the British, or even the Portuguese or Spanish. Why was Spain not invated? Considering the importance of Gibraltar to the British war effort, it actually would've made much more sense to invade Spain than Ireland.
Secondly why invade Ireland after defeating your enemy? This is a common mistake people make, assuming that Hitler's regime was nothing more than a war machine, intending to roll over the World in chaos. No, its ultimate aim (however mad) was to create another 1000 year reich. It had no reason to control Western Europe or Ireland, and its lebensraum aim was always always meant to go Eastwards.

There was no reaon for Germany to take Ireland.

Affable · 25-07-2009 12:26pm

Hard one. Uf it was in Irish self interest yes, otherwise no. Particularly after seeing that show t'other night reminded me that Britain got the Irish to fight at WW1 and promised them with home rule which then didn't arrive when it should. I think, though you can correct me.

Agent J · 25-07-2009 1:01pm

brianthebard wrote: »

The invasion of the benelux countries was historically important, following the same path of advance as WWI and offering a chance for revenge for that War. Sweden and Switzerland were not invaded, at least one of them wsa very valuable strategically.

So your logic is that because some of the neutral countries werent invaded that all remaing neutral countries would have been safe?

Unless they had any sort of reason to. Or perhaps had a plan drawn up for it.

Besides apart from material wealth Switzerland was landlocked and boxed in on all sides by Axis countrolled countries. Its terrain and to lesser extent military would have made it a very tought nut to crack. They would have been able eventually but the cost vs gain probably wouldnt have been worth it. Ireland comparatively would have been a cake walk espeically if you consider assuming successful invasion of the UK it would have had to include Northern Ireland.

Sweden. Possibly straegical in the mineral sense but not in a geogrpahical sense. THey had norway which was atlantic facing. What were they going to do attack Russia via finland? Again the size and terrain of that country would have been problematic anyway. Possible but problematic.

IReland on the other hand would have been a cakewalk espeically if they had troops accross the nothern border. We would have nothing that could've made a dent in their armour.

brianthebard wrote: »

What you're arguing is that we could've been more neutral, I agree. Doesn't mean Ireland should have thrown it away. You can't base joining a war on a snappy quote.

No but i can base it that our actions were directed towards that anyway and just a person a country should follow its words with actions and not try to say one thing and do another. Unfortunatly it is a very Irish Government trait which continues to this day.

brianthebard wrote: »

what is the purpose of a treaty port? For the colonial power to continue to have control over strategic aspects of the colonised countries infrastructure. Britain already had that via the North, hence there was very little need for Ireland to give up its independence to one Empire or the other. As for plugging gaps, I meant what reason had Ireland to do it? We all know why the Allies wanted to.

To try and end the war quicker on the side which through our policy of "neutrality" but really wanting the Allies to Win.Unless you dispute that?

The ports in the North were nice but having access to Donegal And Cork ports would have been so much better espiecally in the early years of the North Atlantic theatre where the turn around times of the Naval patrols was crucial to the supply line.

You are assuming that we had to give up our independance to do so. I disagree and see no evidence to support that.

brianthebard wrote: »

There was no reaon for Germany to take Ireland.

Ok. One more time.
Dublin was contained on a list as one of the 6 Regional Adminstration centres when they sucessfully invaded the UK which was drawn up by the Germans. It was in their handbook as per the book invasion 1940.

That is as close to proof as we are going to get aside from hyptheical arguements of German intent.

And why the hell would he attack spain? It was neutral leaning to wards them anyway.

Fratton Fred · 27-07-2009 4:40pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

As a matter of interest, to which denomination does that church belong?

I only ask because I have noticed that CoI churches tend to have WWI and WWII memorials prominently displayed whereas I have never noticed one in an Irish RC church.

Some years ago I was interested to see memorials in the Anglican church in Dawson St Dublin (St Annes?) to people who had been on the "other" side in 1916. There was a plaque to a guy who had fought "in the defence of Trinity College against the rebels".

You would be unlikely to find such a notice in a Catholic church.

it is the CoI church in Dalkey. TBH, I would expect a disproportionately large number of volunteers for the British army from that area as it has very close historical links with Britain. It just struck m that most of the WWII names were in the RN, that could have a lot to do with descendants of ex RN people who were still living there at the time and may already have been in the navy.

brianthebard · 27-07-2009 7:54pm

Agent J wrote: »

So your logic is that because some of the neutral countries werent invaded that all remaing neutral countries would have been safe?

Unless they had any sort of reason to. Or perhaps had a plan drawn up for it.

Besides apart from material wealth Switzerland was landlocked and boxed in on all sides by Axis countrolled countries. Its terrain and to lesser extent military would have made it a very tought nut to crack. They would have been able eventually but the cost vs gain probably wouldnt have been worth it. Ireland comparatively would have been a cake walk espeically if you consider assuming successful invasion of the UK it would have had to include Northern Ireland.

Sweden. Possibly straegical in the mineral sense but not in a geogrpahical sense. THey had norway which was atlantic facing. What were they going to do attack Russia via finland? Again the size and terrain of that country would have been problematic anyway. Possible but problematic.

IReland on the other hand would have been a cakewalk espeically if they had troops accross the nothern border. We would have nothing that could've made a dent in their armour.

Whether it would be a cakewalk or not is completely not the point. If they invaded Ireland it would've given the British forces plenty of notice, and achieved nothing in terms of leading to the invasion of Britain. They already controlled Belgium as you've made clear, which is quicker, to cross to Britain via Belgium/the French coast, or plan a long distance journey to Ireland which would alert the British navy, take a week or two to invade and conquer, and then invade Britain?

No but i can base it that our actions were directed towards that anyway and just a person a country should follow its words with actions and not try to say one thing and do another. Unfortunatly it is a very Irish Government trait which continues to this day.

Unfortunately as a reason to join the war this is more than insufficient.

The ports in the North were nice but having access to Donegal And Cork ports would have been so much better espiecally in the early years of the North Atlantic theatre where the turn around times of the Naval patrols was crucial to the supply line.

You are assuming that we had to give up our independance to do so. I disagree and see no evidence to support that.

Again this is to say that it would benefit the Allies, but the benefits to Ireland, especially in light of the rupture it might cause in society are unclear. No Ireland might not have had to give up its independence, I was assuming you realised that it had only recently gained its independence.

Ok. One more time.
Dublin was contained on a list as one of the 6 Regional Adminstration centres when they sucessfully invaded the UK which was drawn up by the Germans. It was in their handbook as per the book invasion 1940.

That is as close to proof as we are going to get aside from hyptheical arguements of German intent.

And why the hell would he attack spain? It was neutral leaning to wards them anyway.

I'm sorry but this isn't even close to evidence.

Fratton Fred · 27-07-2009 10:30pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Whether it would be a cakewalk or not is completely not the point. If they invaded Ireland it would've given the British forces plenty of notice, and achieved nothing in terms of leading to the invasion of Britain. They already controlled Belgium as you've made clear, which is quicker, to cross to Britain via Belgium/the French coast, or plan a long distance journey to Ireland which would alert the British navy, take a week or two to invade and conquer, and then invade Britain?

If Germany took Ireland then there would have been no need to invade Britain. Germany would have starved Britain out of the war and bombed it at will.

Morlar · 27-07-2009 11:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Germany took Ireland then there would have been no need to invade Britain. Germany would have starved Britain out of the war and bombed it at will.

That is just wrong - in the scenario we are talking about the purpose is to militarily defeat britain not Ireland.

How could it have bombed britain at will from Ireland but not from France ?

Re the convoys; early in the U boat war the numbers were very much in Germany's favour and britain's days were numbered until the change in tactics etc.

U-boat bases off the west coast of Ireland would have been an advantage in the earlier scenario but not with armed escorts and the enigma code in hand, don't forget the U-boats suffered horrific survival rates, something like 1 in 10 survived. Those numbers would be the same regardless if launched from France or West Ireland as most of their losses were mid-atlantic.

Don't forget these fictional bases off the coast of Ireland would have been much more susceptible to RAF bombing too in the event of a German invasion.

It would have changed things in ways that were good for both sides but decisive for neither.

To militarily defeat britain called for either bombing it into submission or starving it or invading it - none of which would have been guaranteed by an invasion of Ireland.

The germans (as mentioned earlier in this thread) had many plans on paper but no real intent to invade Ireland.

Regardless of what some people say there was no military requirement to invalidate our neutrality on the part of Germany in thes same way as there was in Norway (so long that is that britain did not invade Ireland which would have made us a military requirement for Germany to bomb our cities en masse).

Britain was the bigger threat of invasion to Ireland and the consequent situation would have split the luftwaffe down the middle in terms of targets, it would have made britain an equal target as it would have made Ireland given our resources and anti aircraft ability our coastline would suddenly have been a free for all for bombing runs, if the germans followed the british firebombing tactics against civilian populations we would have suffered horrifically due to a british invasion - or at the hands of the RAF due to a german invasion.

McArmalite · 28-07-2009 11:38am

Agent J wrote: »

I'm sure someone has mentioned it before but

"In a Time of War" by Keegan is great book on this topic.

Personally i think so. I think after May 1940 when the neutral benelux countries fell we could no longer pretend that we were going to be spared.

So, your implying that the Germans were baddies because they could possibly have invaded us, and the british are the goodies because even though they had unleashed a campaign of terrorism on us 20 years previously and are still occupying the 6 counties, were the only ones who implied taht they would renege on Irish sovereignity, we should somehow think of the british as the goodies and have rushed to their aid regardless ??

After Dec '41 with the Americans on board we certainly had even less excuse.

I would have thought the purpose of the Irish govt. was to the welfare and interests of it's own people. Bet the Americans don't denounce themselves for not joining WW2 before Pearl Harbour.

The issue about wether we could have made a difference is largely irrelevant to my mind. Its the principle of the matter.

If principle had anything to do with Anglo Irish relations, I would have thought that removing themselves finally from Ireland and apologising for britain's past behaviour would be first on the agenda.

Aside from that
We could have opened up the treaty ports which would have allowed a larger cover area of the shiping convoys which were hammered during 40/41/42.

And we could have had the Germans hammering the country also. All for possibly a little thanks from Churchill in a radio speech after the war ??

Of course its easy to sit 70 years later and speculate on such matters. I just dont get the whole "Britian have a taste of their own medicne" arguement. We would have been next on the list.

Well, since you seem to have such a guilt complex, maybe you should go off and help those poor Tommies over in Iraq and Afghanistan in their humanitarian war to bring peace for the umpteenth time to those regions ?

Fratton Fred · 28-07-2009 11:45am

Britain's defences, especially the thinly stretched RAF were all based aorund the south coast and east anglia. Airfields in Ireland would have effectively opend up a new front for the RAF to defend.

As it was, any attacks on the UK were well watched and could be intercepted before the reached land, attacks coming from Ireland would have given the RAF less time to respond and would also have meant new radar sites being built to detect incoming planes and new fighter squadrons being created along the West coast. There just would not have been time.T he Luftwaffe would have been able to bomb Liverpool at will, along with possibly the Shetlands and Orkneys and Britain's "Safe Havens" in Scotland.

If the Germans had based the Scharnhorst in Lough Swilly, along with it's sister ship the Gneisenau and the Tirpitz based in Norway, the Germans would have been able to effectively blockade Britain and take out Liverpool as a safe(ish) port.

The ports on the west coast of Ireland would have been irrelevant, It just would have stretched the British defences too thinly.

Snickers Man · 29-07-2009 12:21pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain's defences, especially the thinly stretched RAF were all based aorund the south coast and east anglia. Airfields in Ireland would have effectively opend up a new front for the RAF to defend.

As it was, any attacks on the UK were well watched and could be intercepted before the reached land, attacks coming from Ireland would have given the RAF less time to respond and would also have meant new radar sites being built to detect incoming planes and new fighter squadrons being created along the West coast. There just would not have been time.T he Luftwaffe would have been able to bomb Liverpool at will, along with possibly the Shetlands and Orkneys and Britain's "Safe Havens" in Scotland.

If the Germans had based the Scharnhorst in Lough Swilly, along with it's sister ship the Gneisenau and the Tirpitz based in Norway, the Germans would have been able to effectively blockade Britain and take out Liverpool as a safe(ish) port.

The ports on the west coast of Ireland would have been irrelevant, It just would have stretched the British defences too thinly.

All fair points. But let's turn the argument around. Given that Ireland would have presented such a wonderful springboard from which to attack Britain, why didn't the Germans simply march in here and take it over first, as a prelude to an attack on Britain?

And if we had declared war on Germany in or before 1940 would they have been more or less likely to attack us for those same reasons? After all they would not have had to worry dreaming up a pretext for so doing; we would have been at war and therefore fair game to be invaded.

Was it because as a neutral country Ireland presented sufficient advantages to the Germans to be left alone: eg they could keep a legation in Dublin with all the diplomatic advantages that entailed, including the ability to keep a closer eye on what was going on in Britain; the lack of port facilities in Ireland made supplying Britain just that bit more difficult; whatever about no radar stations on their west coast Britain still had to have a modicum of defences there just to watch their backs?

Or was it because they calculated that they could take Britain across the Channel if they really wanted to and there was no need to incur the expense of going through Ireland as a circuitous route?

One could argue that an Ireland at war with Germany would only have invited them into the country anyway. If they really wanted it.

Of course, you know my view by now.

Which is that Germany had no interest in invading Britain unless it could be got really cheaply. Once the British, especially the RAF, upped the ante, the Germans remembered they had bigger fish to fry in the east and buggered off.

If the British air defences had crumbled and the Luftwaffe had proven able to keep the Royal Navy at bay, then Germany may indeed have invaded with a token force to effect a quick surrender. But then, if a Ferrari cost 10 grand, I would own one. It doesn't, and so I drive a Volkswagen instead.

Quite happily.

funnyname · 29-07-2009 12:49pm

What did the Swiss do?

Fratton Fred · 29-07-2009 1:47pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

All fair points. But let's turn the argument around. Given that Ireland would have presented such a wonderful springboard from which to attack Britain, why didn't the Germans simply march in here and take it over first, as a prelude to an attack on Britain?
If the British air defences had crumbled and the Luftwaffe had proven able to keep the Royal Navy at bay, then Germany may indeed have invaded with a token force to effect a quick surrender. But then, if a Ferrari cost 10 grand, I would own one. It doesn't, and so I drive a Volkswagen instead.

Quite happily.

I wouldn't disagree, I was only highlighting how Important Ireland is to Britain strategically. That is why I believe the UK had plans drawn up to invade Ireland, purely as a contingency due to the uncertainty on which way Ireland would swing.

In reality, there was probably very little chance of either germany or britain invading Ireland.

If my Auntie had balls, she'd be my Uncle, as they say

Fratton Fred · 29-07-2009 1:48pm

funnyname wrote: »

What did the Swiss do?

Hoarded a lot of gold, diamonds and fine art I believe.

funnyname · 29-07-2009 2:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hoarded a lot of gold, diamonds and fine art I believe.

And we opened a book of condolence when Hitler died.

Manach · 29-07-2009 2:14pm

Offhand I think Devalera also had opened a book for the death of FDR. I believe he was trying to be even-handedly neutral.

Morlar · 29-07-2009 3:01pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hoarded a lot of gold, diamonds and fine art I believe.

How did they do that exactly ? Did they break into anyone's house and take what was not theirs ?

They also provided a safe haven for any jews who made it to their territory - unless you are saying the swiss should not have been neutral ?

They would have been overrun in about 3 days.

Where would those refugees have gone then ?

Also the refugees who made it there & transferred their wealth into dollars and fled to the states - had the swiss, at that time took the attitude of, - no we are not dealing with you are on your own they would have been accused of being heartless. Instead they were crucified for it later in the american courts who basically shook the swiss banking system down.

Fratton Fred · 29-07-2009 3:50pm

OK Morlar, calm down.

I think it would be fair to say that the Swiss were neutral in a way that was very beneficial to their banks.

Morlar · 29-07-2009 4:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK Morlar, calm down.

I think it would be fair to say that the Swiss were neutral in a way that was very beneficial to their banks.

? I never said that I was not calm, the above was typed quickly but you shouldn't read any lack of calmness into that.

There really isn't much of a point here to address, obviously the swiss financial institutions are vital to their international standing and to their national interest to an extent which is pretty unique.

Saying their govt policy of neutrality was beneficial to their banks is a given. There is nothing sinister or underhand about swiss neutrality during ww2.

Fratton Fred · 29-07-2009 4:56pm

Morlar wrote: »

? I never said that I was not calm, the above was typed quickly but you shouldn't read any lack of calmness into that.

would you mind writing slower in future, I have trouble reading quickly

Morlar wrote: »

Saying their govt policy of neutrality was beneficial to their banks is a given. There is nothing sinister or underhand about swiss neutrality during ww2.

it wasn't my intention to imply there was.

Exile 1798 · 29-07-2009 5:02pm

Manach wrote: »

Offhand I think Devalera also had opened a book for the death of FDR. I believe he was trying to be even-handedly neutral.

He was, but it was a pretty bad f-up even if he was just doing the strict diplomatic thing.

Someone criticized the fact that Irish neutrality favored the Allies in that their sailors where handed over to Britain while the Germans where interned. This was more a matter of practicality – British or American service men could be handed over quite easily – but how exactly could Ireland have returned soldiers to Germany? It couldn't be done without the acquiescence of Britain.

Morlar · 29-07-2009 5:09pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it wasn't my intention to imply there was.

Fair enough - I think it's an interesting discussion and a lot of people seem to hold the view about swiss neutrality, that there was something incorrect about it.

Personally I think it is the only approach which made any sense given the situation at that time.

All the luftwaffe would have had to do (had the swiss declared war or allied with an enemy of germany) would be to fly a few thousand bombers over a swiss city, open their bomb bay doors and circle for an hour. The war would have been over right there for them and they would have lost control of their sovereignty and been asset stripped until the end of the war. Either that or face the threat of having their cities levelled (in a way which did not apply to english cities defended by geography, radar and the raf).

arnhem44 · 29-07-2009 5:15pm

Right been right British and Americans should of been interned,Ireland in my opinion were looking after there own interests politically by handing them over,this could of been interpreted by Germany as helping the allies,any planes that were repairable were handed over and even other air crews would come into the Republic to fly them out on different occassions,whatever about handing over men,handing back a bomber for example could of caused alot more agro,"Neutrality" in Ireland seems like a very loose meaning of the word

Exile 1798 · 29-07-2009 5:23pm

arnhem44 wrote: »

Right been right British and Americans should of been interned,Ireland in my opinion were looking after there own interests politically by handing them over,this could of been interpreted by Germany as helping the allies,any planes that were repairable were handed over and even other air crews would come into the Republic to fly them out on different occassions,whatever about handing over men,handing back a bomber for example could of caused alot more agro,"Neutrality" in Ireland seems like a very loose meaning of the word

I would assume that for a neutral country the done thing would have been to return soldiers of other countries wherever possible. Not sure.

You might be right about the political aspect as there was a great fear the Churchill would use the cover of war to re-invade the south.

nayorleck114 · 29-07-2009 5:24pm

Yes, They should, but its not easy to judge the ireland of then with the knowledge of today.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-07-2009 5:50pm

Morlar wrote:

There is nothing sinister or underhand about swiss neutrality during ww2.

Well they did let the goods trains full of Italian Jews travel through.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-07-2009 6:07pm

Agent J wrote:

IReland on the other hand would have been a cakewalk espeically if they had troops accross the nothern border. We would have nothing that could've made a dent in their armour.
...
And why the hell would he attack spain? It was neutral leaning to wards them anyway.

totally agree re Spain
Spain had just fought a civil war so wouldn't have been an easy nut to crack. And many of the Central Eastern European countries had their own governments. Vichy France was allowed go on for a while.

Ireland would have been a logistical nightmare. Too far away to keep supplied , long coast to keep defended. Norway had a long boarder too, but no problem getting fuel through Denmark, you could even import munitions from Sweden. Ireland could have supplied food , but that was what the east was for.

Morlar · 29-07-2009 6:32pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Well they did let the goods trains full of Italian Jews travel through.

I think the devil is in the details. When exactly are you referring to ?

What was known at that time, bearing in mind how fresh the outlandish ww1 propaganda would have been to the european mind (ie the german dead soap factory fiction of WWI created by certain propaganda-ists). This would have led to a reluctance by many governments to be fooled again.

If they had known more about the presumed destination of trains full of jewish people what options would the swiss have had and what would the likely consequences be for their own people ?

I still say there is nothing sinister about their neutrality - their goal was to look after their own interests primarily, so with that in mind they had no other choice on the matter of neutrality.

brianthebard · 30-07-2009 12:40am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Well they did let the goods trains full of Italian Jews travel through.

I was under the impression that Italy didn't send any jewish people to concentration camps, through ineptness as much as anything. Can you expand on the above point?

arnhem44 · 30-07-2009 1:10am

I was never aware of that happening either,I know The Swiss were very slow to take in refugees and only accepted people who's lives were in danger(in very small cases),the issue of refugees coming into the country was simply to intern them as was the case of soldiers entering the country(Hague Convention) but to be honest I never heard of trains taking Jews through there,maybe they did,it would be interesting to know.

DHYNZY · 30-07-2009 5:29pm

We're always neutral. And we were an asset to the allies as neutral. As ally, we were limited in our capability, but our neutrality could have been essential for any potential diplomatic espionage.

MarchDub · 30-07-2009 9:10pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I was under the impression that Italy didn't send any jewish people to concentration camps, through ineptness as much as anything. Can you expand on the above point?

Yes, there were Italian concentration camps. Here is some information on that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/news/29iht-camp_ed3_.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_concentration_camps

And remember the movie La Vita e'Bella [Life is Beautiful] the Italian film set in an Italian concentration camp. It won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1998 or 99. Great movie...worth checking into it you have never seen it.

Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Comments