Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

brianthebard · 19-06-2009 9:35am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ww1 added to the reasons for ww2
example - hitler use of the stabbing in the back theory

but it is vastly more complex than ww1

also, would you imagine that europe would have been peaceful from 1914-onwards without the two world wars?

Is this a response to me? Because it is even more simplistic than the post you criticised as overlysimplistic.
----

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

It was an ongoing policy of the US to stand against (European) Imperialism and to supposedly seek emancipation for all people. Look at Wilson's 14 point plan and the Atlantic Charter for a taster, but its hard to pin to one president, document or era.

Hookey · 19-06-2009 9:53am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

There was a really good BBC documentary a few years ago about the relationship between Churchill, FDR and DeGaulle. A big theme in that was about American policy not to prop up the British or French Empires.

Another good read that partially covers the same theme is Max Hastings' Nemesis. The Americans probably didn't have an active policy to destroy the British Empire, but they made lots of policy decisions to not aid the British if they were doing something that was only about regaining or protecting their colonies, which caused a lot of double-think on the Americans' part in Asia in particular (for example they didn't want to help the British in Burma, but needed a supply route to China via Burma, so they'd kind of give with one hand and take with the other).

conchubhar1 · 19-06-2009 10:16am

brianthebard wrote: »

Is this a response to me? Because it is even more simplistic than the post you criticised as overlysimplistic.
----

yes, it was.

i didnt sum up the reason for ww2 tho, which is what your post seemed to do.

i can see how you would, attack the post and not the idea

you stated without ww1 there would be no ww2

i asked would you say there would have been no international conflict in the 20th century then?

ignore it again if you must

getz · 19-06-2009 10:50am

question was should ireland have joined the allies in ww11,my answer would be no,as a neutral[in truth they let men and woman join the british armed forces and work in the uk on the war effort] also remember they were still members of the commonwealth untill 1949 and reaping the benifits.--in my opinion the war its self was very complicated for inst-germany breached treaty after treaty after treaty and at some point they would have had to meet britain, now britain signed a treaty with poland,to tell germany they,d grown enough and any more would mean war, so when germany entered poland war on germany began, russia at that time was germany,s ally and they split the country with germany,however they were not a british target, why , at that time france had a treaty with russia and for britain to declare war against russia it would damage relationship with france, i told you it was complicated .

conchubhar1 · 19-06-2009 11:50am

we were friendly leaning to the allies, yes.

oh its much more complicated than that....... minefield and utterly vast topic

we didnt want to be part of the commonwealth and we couldnt stop people joining the british army or german or whoever if they wanted to
irish people have always worked in britain - there was a war on hence jobs related to the war, pretty much most jobs were turned to help the war effort so that would be pretty immpossible to avoid

MarchDub · 19-06-2009 12:58pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

----

does any have a link or a book title or reference to where it is stated that the alterior motive was to break down the british empire and establish a freer world?
thanks

It has been a fairly well known aspect of Roosevelt's attitude for many years. Here are some quotes and refs:

[font=&quot]Anthony Eden wrote about his take on Yalta in his autobiography, Memoirs: The Reckoning (1965)[/font]
[font=&quot]“Roosevelt did not confine his dislike of colonialism to the British Empire alone, for it was a principle with him, not the less cherished for its possible advantages. He hoped that former colonial territories, once free of their masters, would become politically and economically dependent upon the United States, and had no fear that other powers might fill that role”.[/font]
[font=&quot] Also in this recent book -
[/font]
[font=&quot]Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War [2008][/font][font=&quot]. Patrick Buchannan[/font]
[font=&quot]“At Teheran and Yalta, where FDR should have supported his British Ally, he mocked Churchill to amuse Stalin. FDR thought the British Empire an anarchism that ought to be abolished. “We are therefore presented”, writes Captain Grenfell, “with the extraordinary paradox that Britain's principal enemy [Germany] was anxious for the British empire to remain in being, while her principal ally, the United States, was determined to destroy it.”[/font]
[font=&quot]When Churchill’s successor Eden invaded Suez in 1956 to retake the Canal from the Egyptian dictator who had nationalized it, Harold Macmillan assured his cabinet “I like Ike. He will lie doggo.”[/font]
[font=&quot]Like many Brits Macmillan misread Ike and the Americans. Ike ordered Britain out of Egypt. Faced with a US threat to sink the pound, the humiliated Brits submitted and departed. Eden fell. The new Romans would not be needing any Greeks.” [/font]

[font=&quot]See also this article - [/font]
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

Fukuyama · 19-06-2009 1:10pm

parker kent wrote: »

Regardless of what the British might have done here, we should have helped out in some way. Since we knew what it was like to be treated woefully by another country we could have given a hand. Not even allowing Jewish refugees in was low. So no to full out joining the war (would we have been much help anyway??) but yes to helping the people who were treated the way we were not long before that.

we did help. We gave them weather info, returned british airmen, allowed irish to join british army and work in british factories and allowed the RAF and US to use airspace over Donegal to patrol the atlantic. We also sent fire brigades to N.I. to put out fires.

Also, how could Ireland have joined?! the freestate was barely up and running. Joining in a WORLD WAR would have bank rupted and crippled the state. WW!! also helped to heal civil war divisions as Irish people were united in staying out.

Its all well and good to say we should have joined now but ireland was experiencing its first bit of peace in 700 yrs....

jonsnow · 19-06-2009 1:14pm

Ireland just did what every other small nation attempted to do in Europe during World War Two and remain neutral.I think it was something like twenty eight countries tried this approach but must were eventually embroiled in the maelstrom.We were lucky and skillful enough to avoid the war and should make no apologies for it.If superpowers like the United States wanted to avoid the conflict then we could hardly be blamed when our intervention wouldn,t make much difference to the outcome but our nation could have suffered terribly.

getz · 20-06-2009 11:23am

Hookey wrote: »

There was a really good BBC documentary a few years ago about the relationship between Churchill, FDR and DeGaulle. A big theme in that was about American policy not to prop up the British or French Empires.

Another good read that partially covers the same theme is Max Hastings' Nemesis. The Americans probably didn't have an active policy to destroy the British Empire, but they made lots of policy decisions to not aid the British if they were doing something that was only about regaining or protecting their colonies, which caused a lot of double-think on the Americans' part in Asia in particular (for example they didn't want to help the British in Burma, but needed a supply route to China via Burma, so they'd kind of give with one hand and take with the other).

american documents declassified in 1974---between 1920-1930, to seizing halifax[canada] capturing winnipeg attacking quebec take the great lakes region ,the st lawrance valley before moving to british columbia then bemuda and the caribbean-this is all you need to know that the USA wanted to also have a empire .

conchubhar1 · 20-06-2009 3:06pm

well, the u.s always wanted control of all of the americas ^

this included any islands and bases for their security

walrusgumble · 23-06-2009 10:32pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

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

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

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

NTM

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

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

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

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

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

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

walrusgumble · 23-06-2009 10:37pm

parker kent wrote: »

Regardless of what the British might have done here, we should have helped out in some way. Since we knew what it was like to be treated woefully by another country we could have given a hand. Not even allowing Jewish refugees in was low. So no to full out joining the war (would we have been much help anyway??) but yes to helping the people who were treated the way we were not long before that.

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

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

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

Hookey · 24-06-2009 9:45am

walrusgumble wrote: »

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

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

McArmalite · 24-06-2009 12:45pm

Hookey wrote: »

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

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

donaghs · 24-06-2009 2:35pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

IIMII · 24-06-2009 4:22pm

Hookey wrote: »

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

Traitors...

walrusgumble · 24-06-2009 9:57pm

Hookey wrote: »

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

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

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

walrusgumble · 24-06-2009 10:13pm

donaghs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brianthebard · 24-06-2009 10:15pm

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

conchubhar1 · 24-06-2009 11:23pm

fear of attack was also an issue to nationalists

Hermione* · 24-06-2009 11:41pm

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

brianthebard wrote: »

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

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

brianthebard · 25-06-2009 12:03am

Ulster Unionists.

Hermione* · 25-06-2009 12:23am

brianthebard wrote: »

Ulster Unionists.

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

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

MarchDub · 25-06-2009 3:30am

Hermione* wrote: »

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

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

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

Manic Moran · 25-06-2009 4:37am

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

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

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

NTM

walrusgumble · 25-06-2009 9:14am

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

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

NTM

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

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

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

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

Fratton Fred · 25-06-2009 9:30am

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

The battle of Hulluch would be a good example

Tarzan007 · 25-06-2009 1:05pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

Fratton Fred · 25-06-2009 1:14pm

Tarzan007 wrote: »

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

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

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

Hookey · 25-06-2009 3:36pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

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

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

Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

Comments