Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I don't see why Ireland, a European country, should join a war simply because it has become a world war, if it saw no reason to join when it was just a European war, to be honest.

    Not just Nicaragua, but over the course of the war quite a number of Central and South American countries did join on the US side. This was mostly because they were totally under the thumb of the US anyway, economically speaking. Once the US was at war with Germany, Atlantic shipping was effectively closed to them, and they could not trade with Germany or with occupied Europe - or, across the Pacific, with Japan. The US and its allies became the effective monopoly purchaser of (and price-setter for) all their significant export products. They joined mainly in the hope of currying favour with the Americans. (Few of them made more than a token military contribution to the war effort, and in the event I don't think declaring war made that much difference to how the US treated them.)

    Ireland was not in this situation.

    A slew of countries joined very late in the war to secure a place in the post-war conferences which would follow.

    Seriously, I can't think of any country that joined the war, at any point, who did so because they realised the Nazis were really, really bad and a menace to the world. They all fought either because they were attacked, or because they had national interests that were threatened by the Axis, or because they hoped to secure some advantage by togging out with the winning team/the neighbouring superpower. I think it's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect Ireland to be the one exception that acts altruistically.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    That's a very narrow and frankly out of touch view of things. There were many Irishmen who looked at the situation and who volunteered to sign up in other countries armies during WW2. Because they thought this was a) the right thing to do and/or b) for the bit of adventure. I have relatives on all sides of my family who did just that. In doing so, they helped protect this country that hid behind the flimsy curtain of neutrality.

    The principal reason the Republic did not join in officially was the same old mantra - the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc etc. That was Dev's official position but of course many ordinary Irish people looked on far differently at the situation. Not the first or last time there's been a disconnect between state and people here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    Just 20 years prior to the emergency British soldiers were murdering pillaging and raping throughout our country it is perfectly understandable why we were neutral and did not sign up to lose thousands dead to fight for them our only obligation was to protect our own borders and state and that we did.

    The vast majority of people in this country did not under any circumstances support the traitors who abandoned their state to fight for the British empire and many were rightly denied state jobs when they returned from their treason. Many of those men were in the DF and swore loyalty to the state only to abandon it during the emergency this should have been more harshly punished and in any other army or country desertion and treason is punishable by death.



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


    "I don't see why Ireland, a European country, should join a war simply because it has become a world war, if it saw no reason to join when it was just a European war, to be honest."

    Nor do I.

    That wasn't the point I was making regarding whether or not we should have, it was in answer to the previous point that nothing essentially had changed since 1939 when it obviously had.

    It was easier politically to enter the war in 1942 as an ally of the U.S. than in 1939 when we would have been just going in with Britain who by their actions and inactions in the 30s had contributed to the outbreak. Staying out in 1942 meant we continued to be isolated and under developed socially and economically for a long period after the war. Of course you can argue it saved the lives of those Irish people who might have been killed other than those who volunteered in any case but by 1942 the ability of Germany to inflict casualties on Britain or Ireland was severely limited until the arrival of the V weapons shortly after D-Day but these never had the capacity to reach Ireland.

    This is all with hindsight as I've pointed out before.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    I don't see how Ireland could have joined the Allies without previously having purchased / or been provided with adequate modern military weapons, particularly anti aircraft batteries & aircraft, adequate naval ships & anti invasion equipment upgrades for the Army. There was no serious attempts made to upgrade militarily in the years leading up to war, nor proper funding available & by the time conflict had started in Europe Ireland was last on the list for modern military hardware which the United States was sending to other nations. Some attempts were made but little equipment was supplied.

    Britain didn't have the spare resources to defend Ireland, although she could easily have invaded with outdated forces anyway. Luftwaffe bombing raids on Ireland would have been disastrous without adequate air defences.

    As for the treaty ports, these had not been moderised properly since WWI & air defences were totally outdated, Britain spent massive amounts on defensive preparations on naval defences around it's empire, particularly Singapore & didn't have the spare funds available. The treaty ports had negligible airfield provision nearby & it would have taken a while to put these in place.

    We read historical accounts of Britain & later on America trying to persuade Ireland to join the war, but we hear little of how they were going to defend Ireland from German military actions / nor how Ireland's military forces was going to be given adequate modern military upgrades to fight in this war.

    Senior Irish military staff were present at many British GHQ military meetings up until 1945, yet we don't hear of any plans for military aid to help Ireland play it's part in a modern destructive war.

    IF the Germans had invaded southern England & gained a foothold, it's likely that Britain would have put massive pressure on Ireland to allow military forces & bases to be established as a defensive redoubt to fallback in case of further German advances in England.

    Like what happened in Iceland in May 1940 British forces would possibly have initially established bases in Ireland with Canada providing military assistance, & later on as in Iceland in June 1941 (way before Pearl Harbor & Hitler's declaration of war) the USA would have taken over responsibility for military defences.

    It would have been up to De Valera & the Irish government what role they would have played in such a scenario, would they have played their part in an Allied victory or carried on pretending to be neutral like Denmark did under Nazi occupation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If the Germans had succeeded in taking Great Britain its very unlikely that the UK forces could have held out in a "redoubt" in Ireland, and I've never heard the they had any plans to do so. They certainly couldn't have used it as a base to retake the UK. The plan in the event of Great Britain falling was to seek refuge a lot further away than Ireland

    They did have plans drawn up to invade Ireland, but these were for the (fairly unlikely) scenario that it was necessary to do so to prevent a German occupation. That is why they invaded Iceland.

    As already noted, Irish military capacity at the time was negligible. UK and/or US desire for Ireland to enter the war was never based on any hope of a military contribution; it was, as already stated, based on a desire for allied naval and air forces to be able to operate from bases in Ireland. This wouldn't have required any significant investment in equipping and upgrading Irish forces. It would, of course, have required the construction of bases, or the upgrading of existing facilities at the treaty ports, but no matter where they located forces they were going to have to do that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,742 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Any other army or country during WW2? Surprisingly rare actually. Only one US army soldier had the death penalty actually carried out during WW2 and zero British were executed iirc.

    I don't think you can count Nazi Germany, being an evil regime in itself. And before you bring up the Soviet Union, summary executions without a trial? Lovely example to follow.



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


    I think you are confused, the U.S. Army executed only one of their men for desertion but executed dozens for other crimes including rape. Rapes occurred also while Americans were stationed in the UK. None of this is surprising given the circumstances.

    The image that all the liberators behaved well towards civilians and were universally welcomed was cultivated during and after the war and still is part of the myth propagated by popular culture.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Well you're welcome to your narrow bigoted view of Irish & European history. The rest of us will keep ours. WW2 was a major European conflict you do realise, that expanded to war zones around the globe. Not some silly little war that your hated Brits were waging. Take away the tunnel vision and look at the wider picture. People like you would be happy if we were all speaking French, Spanish or German here now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    The topic at hand is Irish involvement in WW2 or the emergency as it was rightfully known as here. You say I would be happy if we were speaking Frech German or Spanish it's more to the point that I'm unhappy we speak English perhaps you should read up on why we speak English it's very similar to what a certain European country tried to do during WW2.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,742 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    We're talking about desertion here, not any other crimes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,802 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Ireland didnt have the military capacity to assist in the war on any side, taking a side would have done nothing more than put a target on our backs and seen the catastrophic bombing of many ports and cities. Maybe the Nazis would have even done a land invasion of ireland, to use as a staging area for a future invasion of Britain.

    It made no sense to join the war, and it was the right choice not to.



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




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,739 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Spot on. Joining either side would have been a disaster for us. On GB side we would have our cities bombed often, many more of our young men would have been killed and Churchill would have been unable to deliver on a UI and our independence would have been undermined.

    Joining Germany would result in a British invasion with Germany unable to help us effectively and at the end probable loss of independence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,739 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    The right choice then and even with hindsight.



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


    Your thesis puts too much weight IMO on single individuals, Dev, Collins, O'Duffy and too little on social/political realities. Would FG for instance have stayed out in 1939 had they been in power? It's hard to see how they could have gone in then or at any time prior to America's entry given the antipathy most Irish nationalists still harboured towards the British establishment.

    Most of the contributions here it seems presume our entry, if it had happened, would have been, like that of Canada, in September 1939 but a more realistic hypothesis would be our declaring war on Germany or provoking Hitler into declaring war on us sometime in 1942. We could have provided air/sea bases for antisubmarine operations in the southern approaches and like Canada operated a dual conscription system where overseas service was voluntary.

    BTW we did benefit from the Marshall Plan despite our neutrality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    We were and remain a small bit player in such matters. We could quite easily be swept up in a major conflict if one arose now. It's a conceit to pretend otherwise. Neutrality is for big nations and empires, not the minnows.

    We speak English as our primary language due to our proximity to a larger neighbour. If our island was located adjacent to France or Germany, we'd likely have been heavily influenced/ occupied by them. If events had turned out differently in previous centuries, we could have had significant Spanish or French control of our island. If events had turned differently in WW2, we might be speaking German now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    We speak English because of invasion and colonisation. I'm constantly amused by the dimmer British nationalists who criticise Ireland's neutrality during the war and ask rhetorical questions about how we would feel about speaking German, and who seem wholly unaware of why we actually speak English.



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




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Isn't that what I just wrote?? Or did you not read and understand it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You wrote "We speak English as our primary language due to our proximity to a larger neighbour". But in fact we speak English because of invasion and colonisation, which is not a function of proximity. Case in point; Australia.

    It was not inevitable that we would be colonised by a near and large neighbour, or have our indigenous language replaced by its. Denmark, after all, was never colonised by Germany, and they still speak Danish. Portugal has yet to be colonised by Spain, and they speak Portuguese.

    Even where invasion or annexation does take place, language replacement is not the norm. The Finns still speak Finnish, despite having spent 600 years as part of Sweden, followed by a century as part of Russia. Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and several other countries all speak their native languages, despite having been incorporated into the Austrian empire. Poland was divided between Prussia, Russia and Austria in the 1790s and didn't emerge as in independent country again until 1918 - almost exactly the same period, incidentally, that we spent as part of the UK - and they still speak Polish. Greece was part of the Ottoman territories for several centuries; they do not speak Turkish there. And so forth.

    As for "speaking German now" if WWII had played out differently; Nazi German did of course invade and occupy many countries, but it didn't force or attempt to force any of them to adopt the German language.

    This trope is trotted out mostly by English people who assume that other invading/colonising powers would behave as Britain did in fact behave.

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


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


    "As for "speaking German now" if WWII had played out differently; Nazi German did of course invade and occupy many countries, but it didn't force or attempt to force any of them to adopt the German language. "

    They certainly did in Poland.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    While they suppressed the Polish language, this was part of a general policy of attacking Polish society and culture, and it certainly wasn't done with a view to forcing Poles to adopt German. In the Nazi worldview the Poles weren't German, that was the whole point, and the last thing the Nazis wanted was to make them appear German, or to share the benefits of "German culture" with them. German culture was for the Volkdeutsch. Polish schools, newspapers, etc weren't replaced with German-language schools and newspapers for Poles; they were just closed. Poles were expected to learn enough German to receive orders from, and provide services to, Germans. What Poles spoke among themselves was not something the Germans cared much about.



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


    Well if you want to make a distinction between supressing/exterminating/deporting Polish speaking Slavs and 'attacking' Polish culture, including language, that's up to you. On a more basic level I presume you don't deny that the Nazi occupiers selected Polish children who they deemed sufficiently 'Aryan' and shipped them back to the Reich for total assimilation into German speaking families?

    To bring this discussion back more on topic, one of the aspects of Irish neutrality was the strict censorship imposed by the de Valera government that didn't allow for critical reporting of either side's conduct. Certainly information was available from neutral sources such as the Catholic Church diplomatic service (the Vatican was a neutral state and Italy remained 'neutral' for the first ten months of WWII)regarding the implementation of Nazi racial policies in Poland both towards Slavs and Jews but reporting on these matters was seen as favouring one side (British) and undermining the sacred cow of Irish neutrality. If the public in predominately Catholic Éire had been better informed and following German bombings in Dublin and elsewhere would they not have been more amenable to our entry into the war against Nazi Germany on the side of America sometime in 1942?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    We shifted towards English in the late 18th centuries and since by choice ... for economic advantage. Exactly the same process that natives of many other states learn English, the driver of many language schools here. Note language schools that survive on their economic merits and which don't need to be heavily subsidised and propped up by state interventions and cash. If some form of gaeilge was the language of Britain across the water, that's what we'd speak now. We are as the French say, an island behind an island. No escape from our basic geography.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I repeat: none of the countries that fought in the Second World War entered the war because they realised that Nazi Germany was very, very nasty. Not one. Ireland was never going to either.

    In 1942 the details of what the Nazis were doing in Poland and the occupied parts of the Soviet Union were not really known, either in neutral or allied countries. The Nazis had obvious reasons for not drawing attention to it, and wartime conditions made it difficult for anyone to find out. The first public reports of what was happening in Poland did not appear until November 1942 and, when they did appear, they were widely discounted because they appeared in the US press - the US was a belligerent by then - and were sourced to the Polish Government-in-Exile, also a belligerent. And the reports were, frankly, pretty incredible (although, it turned out, completely true). Although they didn't say so publicly, the US and UK governments were themselves very sceptical of what the Poles were telling them.

    I don't know when the truth about what happened in the occupied Soviet union first began to be reported in public; I suspect it wasn't until the Soviets retook territory and found out themselves what had happened. That would have been in the course of 1944. And of course reports emanating from the Soviets would equally not have been accepted at face value.



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


    Much of what you say I agree with, indeed I've said much of it myself already in this thread. However, if we are discussing the historical hypothesis of Éire's entry into the war, at whatever point, the issue of censorship as applied by the FF government is an issue worth examining particularly as it relates to public opinion.

    The country already had a tradition of censorship 'to maintain moral standards' so there was little questioning of it initially but as the war progressed and it became a tool of FF/Dev policy supressing even criticism of the government the voices challenging its application increased. In his public pronouncements de Valera often identified Irish neutrality as being divinely inspired and it's in this context the exceptional nature (even among neutral states) of censorship in Éire at the time should be viewed. Censorship and neutrality were a virtuous circle, neutrality equalled our interest ipso facto anything that endangered it needed to be suppressed.

    "In 1942 the details of what the Nazis were doing in Poland and the occupied parts of the Soviet Union were not really known, either in neutral or allied countries."

    The telling word in that sentence is 'really'. What does it mean, can it mean different things at different times during the war? If we are talking about a recognition of Nazi aggression and a dismissal of German propaganda surrounding its invasion yes I think this was widely known. If we are talking about Germany's annexation of part of Poland (General Government} under Hans Frank the Nazis never made any secret of this. If we are talking about what Germany called 'extraordinary suppression measures' namely summary executions of civilians regardless of whether they were Jewish the information was certainly available and not just from Polish exiles.

    Regarding the Holocaust and when people knew or wanted to know, Deborah Lipstadt wrote an interesting book 'Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945' (1985) where if I remember right she puts the date where FDR privately acknowledged the Nazi's extermination of the Jews as sometime in early 1942. Anyway this is a whole different subject.

    To summarise, I contend that our neutrality was popular domestically but due to the extraordinary level of censorship was artificially maintained and promoted by the FF government.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    What those soldiers who were in the FS army and then left and joined the British army were guilty of was far worse than desertion that's mostly individual soldiers getting scared and running away betraying an oath of loyalty to ones own state to go and fight for a hostile state during an emergency is treason and every army under the sun executes people for that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,742 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Good luck bringing these guys to justice, do let us know how you get on. :D



Advertisement