Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2

MarchDub wrote: »

That is a supposition without any foundation - there is absolutely no evidence that Churchill promised this.

Trusting that churchill would intend to, or, to be able to deliver a united Ireland when the 2nd World War was over would have been a ridiculous gamble.

Churchill did not 'promise' anything in legal terms & nor was he in a position to do so. He 'hinted' it & I would imagine he was 'hinting' the exact opposite to his unionist brethren at the very same time. History has shown De Valera was right not to fall for that. Take a look at the post above re what he 'promised' to Poland - or to the poles who fought within the british forces.

Had Churchill offered a legal guarantee then there would have been a whole new moral, ethical & legal question around that proposition. ie Is it correct to form an alliance with a country (that is currently occupying your territory) in order to attack a 3rd country who has not declared war on you (for the prize of the return of your territory) ? Personally I do not think that that would be a correct basis to declare war on anybody (regardless of how powerful or weak they are just on principle).

brianthebard wrote: »

So the price to be paid in liberating millions is to allow other millions to be subjugated? Yes it is easy to judge, and to an extent that's what history is about. We can't just sit back and reserve criticism because we weren't there and didn't know what it was like (maaaan). Historians must be critical in order to learn from the past.

Agree completely. That is the point of historical research - to unearth the errors and the cover ups of the propagandists. If anyone thinks that propaganda ends with a war, it does not. Look at what is going on in the US with the out of office Bush administration - they are trying to control the narrative surrounding the Iraq invasion because they KNOW that who controls the narrative owns the history.

WWII has been the "good war" for too long. And as such has been used as justification for all the wars that post dated it. My whole life I have heard the old chestnut "Well what about Hitler, someone had to stop etc. etc. nonsense." The hidden fact that the "Allies" may have in fact created an equal or worse monster in supporting Stalin gets swept under the carpet. How could the Soviet aggression [including genocide] have been avoided? - this question cannot be answered unless all the documents, all the archival material of WWII gets investigated and laid bare.
Eastern European countries were the sacrifical lambs for the “freedom” of the west – that translated into a moral war? Not in my book.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i doubt very much if irish neutrality would have been much of an issue.

Not to the like of the Russians and the British, obviously. :P

MarchDub wrote: »

The biggest imperialist of them all was Churchill and he was literally gunning for war and wanted nothing to do with peace. I haven't got the document in front of me right now but there is a letter written by one of the cabinet wives -recently released - where Churchill is described as clicking his heels in delight at the declaration of war. War was an aphrodisiac for him and he was also furious at the idea of a powerful Germany - Nazi or no. Churchill was the supreme British imperialist who ironically did most to damage the British empire. You are right - the French and the Brits were stupid to get involved. They lost all that they had.

They'd have lost their empires anyway; the economics of overseas empire was already destroying the rationale for empire (Britain was actually putting more money into India than it was gettting out by the early part of the 20th century). Post 1918 the British Empire was like a bloated corpse, still getting bigger but already dead. Doesn't mean Churchill wasn't the arch-imperialist, but he was already fighting a losing battle with economics and his own people (the British public had been losing interest in the pink bits on the map for decades).

MarchDub wrote: »

Check your history - Churchill changed the Polish borders most significantly. He was the one who originally suggested this at the beginning of the war and it was his Polish border configuration which was adopted at the end. Poland lost a large chunk of her land to the Russians.

The following is from the PBS site on "Behind Closed Doors" -

"At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter. After the war, the borders of Poland were reshaped to the specifications set out at Potsdam, leading to a population shift on an enormous scale. While Stalin took Poland’s eastern territories, Poland itself was given “Regained Lands” in the west along the Baltic Coast and in Upper Silesia. In the end, Poland became twenty percent smaller."

http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/struggle-poland.html

Slightly selective quoting going on there; from the full commentary: "the fate of Poland was a continual source of frustration between the Allies throughout the war. Although Great Britain had gone to war to protect Poland’s independence, British prime minister Winston Churchill came to understand that Joseph Stalin had no intention of giving back the land he had captured in eastern Poland in 1939. Churchill felt that the best he could do would be to compensate Poland for the loss with part of eastern Germany. At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter."

In 1939 Britain couldn't have known that in 1945 the Soviets would be sat on Poland. The 1939 declaration was intended to beat the Germans on the battlefield and allow Poland to regain its sovreignity at the negotiating table. This obviously didn't happen and Britain was presented with a fait accompli at Potsdam. The idea that impoverished Britain and disinterested America (don't forget they'd made no obligation to go to Poland's aid), both with a war still to fight in the far east, would face up to the Soviets militarily over Poland is laughable. Their own troops would have mutinied. The western allies were lucky the Soviets relinquished German territory in compliance with their obligations, never mind Polish.

MarchDub wrote: »

That's the point I am making - the war turned out to be a gross error. Not a cause of celebration and win for the higher moral ground that the spin broadcast and promulgated for decades [mostly through Churchill's own "memoirs"]. Great reference that turned out to be. Furthermore the British hid their Polish embarrassment by refusing to even allow the Poles to march in the victory parade in London. Afraid of the truth were they? The end result of WWII was NOT something that it was made out to be for sixty years - a great and unblemished victory for the Allies.

I don't think anyone outside of Hollywood and comic books viewed it as a "great and unblemished victory", (certainly not the unblemished part - two atomic bombs saw to that, if nothing else) but by the same token you're flat wrong if you simply dismiss the allies as morally equivalent to the Nazis! Bottom line is a truly great evil was crushed. Does it matter if the power politics involved were cynical and self-serving? Show me a government in the history of the world that isn't. Europe after the war was a better place because the Nazis weren't in it.

MarchDub wrote: »

As regards Poland and Churchill he really didn't give a damn , by Churchill's own words at Potsdam - he was only interested in British interests. Polish historians are very critical at how he dropped the Poles easily and without much regret. The fact that Poland and Eastern Europe HAD to be sacrificed IS the point - the war was a terrible mistake and ended up presenting Eastern Europe [and the world] with as many problems as it attempted to solve.

Now why would the Irish have become involved in such a mess?

I'm sorry but this idea that the war was "a terrible mistake" is ridiculous. You're implying the Nazis were somehow forced into it. One way or another the Nazis were going east, and Eastern Europe was going to end up under one lot of oppressors or another. Can you seriously think of a scenario where the Nazis and Soviets wouldn't have ended up at each other's throats? Once the Nazis had rearmed the only "terrible mistake" was in not confronting them militarily sooner, in 1938.

Hookey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this idea that the war was "a terrible mistake" is ridiculous. You're implying the Nazis were somehow forced into it. One way or another the Nazis were going east, and Eastern Europe was going to end up under one lot of oppressors or another. Can you seriously think of a scenario where the Nazis and Soviets wouldn't have ended up at each other's throats? Once the Nazis had rearmed the only "terrible mistake" was in not confronting them militarily sooner, in 1938.

That is actually a thesis of many historians - that the French and British ought to have kept out of it [for their own sakes] and let the Nazis and the Soviets go at each other. The British were very ill equipped for a land war. Personally, I have to say I am pleased at the result and their mistaken entry into the mess - The British lost their empire as a result of this decision. That's not a bad ending in my book.

As for the morality of it all - I don't know where you've been living but my whole life I have heard each war justified by the "good" war effort that WWII still claims to be in many quarters. As I said in a previous post the "we had to stop Hitler" brigade are alive and well and using WWII for further war justifications. Even last week we once again had to endure the "morality" of D Day flashed across our TV screens.

MarchDub wrote: »

You seem to be the one with the problem here – sorry if you don’t like what you are reading here about Churchill and have to – once again - get personal [nothing new for you] but I am sticking to the historic record and I continue to do so…

Ireland's relationship with Britain was at the heart of many political decisions made at the time. The generation of Irish living at the time had harsh memories of how Churchill behaved towards Ireland during the Tan War and during the Treaty negotiations. Churchill embodied the war for Britain – but he did also for Ireland. There was no support in independent Ireland for his imperialist world view.

Churchill attacked Ireland's neutrality in a speech in the most insulting terms at the end of the war – petty thing to do but a marker of how petty the man really was - to the point where de Valera felt it incumbent on himself to answer for the Irish nation. He did so in a radio address to Churchill in 1945 which the generation of Irish living at the time gave overwhelming support to. Copies of de Valera’s speech were made and given out as gifts for years after – even as late as the 1970s you could buy recordings of it in Dublin shops.
That is why – once again with feeling – any discussion about Ireland and WWII involves discussion on the relationship with Churchill and the duplicitous character he was.
Say what you will about Dev - the man had class and showed it when he had to answer Churchill's ungenerous attack on Ireland at the end of the war.

Hear Dev here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

Sorry, I keep forgetting that the world revolves around Ireland.

Fred that's enough. MarchDub and $kilkenny keep it on topic. Mod.

DublinWriter wrote: »

I do think it was a very peevish act of DeValera to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy when Hitler died - many of the atrocities of the Axis powers were well known by 1945.

The German civilian population were suffering greatly at that time. I would view De Valera's signing the book of condolences (in addition to being standard diplomatic protocol) as a symbol of empathy & humanity towards them.

Whether that view is right or wrong it was certainly not an endorsement of warcrimes.

Morlar wrote: »

There is a good article on De Valera's signing of the book of condolences, the background to the event and the full details & context in the national archives :

http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/AAE/Article.pdf

It also covers the reaction both in the media and behind the scenes. In addition it contains information about the burning of the tricolour over trinity and subsequent events.

Thanks Morlar for this contribution - Dermot Keogh's work is really excellent. His book on the Jews in Ireland is very valuable including his description of Dev's long friendship with Rabbi Herzog.