In 1940 Britain offered the 6 counties to Ireland in exchange for cooperation in WWII

pwd · 25-09-2010 5:16pm #1

Saw this on Wikipedia. Sources listed are a biography of de Valera, and a publication of Irish historical documents.

I was so surprised I thought I must have misread it.

Following the fall of France in June 1940, a formal offer of Irish unity to end the partition of Ireland was also made to de Valera via Neville Chamberlain. The revised final terms were signed on 28 June 1940. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter.

Ireland (then described as "Éire") would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting German and Italian civilians resident in the Free State, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights.
In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted "the principle of a United Ireland" in the form of a solemn undertaking "that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back."[4]
Clause 2 of the offer promised a Joint Body to work out the practical and constitutional details, "the purpose of the work being to establish at as early a date as possible the whole machinery of government of the Union".

I suppose:

Ireland would have presumably been bombed, and possibly invaded by the Axis if this had been accepted. [There was a plan devised to invade Ireland in any case].
There was no way to know Germany was going to be defeated at that time. As far as I know they seemed fairly unstoppable at that point, in fact.
I don't think anybody really knew the half of the atrocities being carried out under the Nazi regime at that time.
I don't think the situation in the North that followed over different decades could have been foreseen then either.

However I still think the proposal should have been put to referendum, if not just accepted straight off.

Thoughts?

edit: RTE Documentary about this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0vK1ZiG3l0

Johnmb · 25-09-2010 5:46pm

I doubt very much any such offer was made in a serious way by Britain. It suited them to have us remain neutral, because they had no way of defending us from a German invasion, and if the Germans successfully invaded us, Britain would likely fall, as a war on two fronts would have been too much for them. Now, after the US entered the war, maybe such an offer would have been possible, but still unlikely.

brianthebard · 25-09-2010 6:10pm

This is often mentioned but there is no evidence that I know of and very little chance that it would or could have been honoured if an agreement was made.

pwd · 25-09-2010 6:18pm

I am certain they would have honoured it, even if they didn't want to. Consider all of the British colonies that became independent since WWII. This was largely instigated by Churchill's position that the Allies believed in the right of nations to self-determination. He made no promises to any of them, just said something that undermined their status as colonies. [He said this to garner support and to prevent Allied forces being seen as a threat or expansionist].

For that reason I cannot see them doing anything but ceding the six counties, had such an agreement been in place.

pwd · 25-09-2010 6:27pm

Johnmb wrote: »

I doubt very much any such offer was made in a serious way by Britain. It suited them to have us remain neutral, because they had no way of defending us from a German invasion, and if the Germans successfully invaded us, Britain would likely fall, as a war on two fronts would have been too much for them. Now, after the US entered the war, maybe such an offer would have been possible, but still unlikely.

They had a plan in place to defend against a German invasion. Plan W it was called. The Germans had a plan in place to invade Ireland likewise. Our neutrality did not diminish our strategic importance because of our geographic location. We are an ideal base to attack Britain, and to a lesser extent mainland Europe. It is for that reason that England was resolute to stay in Ireland before imo, a point of view which is supported by the fact that when they did grant independence, the treaty included that they would be in control of Ireland's naval defence.

It was either Churchil or Hitler (or both) who referred to Ireland as an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Orwell said that an inability to recognise that Ireland was reliant on foreign states to protect its sovereignty indicates fanaticism. This is equally true today imo.

drunkmonkey · 25-09-2010 6:33pm

Nice they were trying to bribe us with our own land. Ireland should have seized the opportunity and taken it back while the Germans had the English distracted. Would have saved a lot of nonsense over the last 60 odd years.
It's about time it was handed back.

pwd · 25-09-2010 6:41pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nice they were trying to bribe us with our own land. Ireland should have seized the opportunity and taken it back while the Germans had the English distracted. Would have saved a lot of nonsense over the last 60 odd years.
It's about time it was handed back.

We'd have been invaded by both Britain and Germany if we'd done that. Country would have been laid waste to tbh.

hotmail.com · 25-09-2010 6:49pm

Partition had been in place for 20 years by 1940, so it might be fair to say that people on the island had got used to the division.

Churchill was bluffing in my opinion anyway and Dev was aware of this.

Us staying neutral widened the gap between North and South culturally as the people of the two jurisdictions have different memories of the War.

pwd · 25-09-2010 6:53pm

The proposals were kept secret, and not published until 1970.

The Irish people should have known, and the Irish people should have decided.

de Valera banged on about determining our own course. Tbh he dictated it for us.

Johnmb · 25-09-2010 6:54pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nice they were trying to bribe us with our own land. Ireland should have seized the opportunity and taken it back while the Germans had the English distracted. Would have saved a lot of nonsense over the last 60 odd years.
It's about time it was handed back.

We would have been bombed back to the stone age by Britain, and possible even the US depending on when exactly we launched our invasion! And we probably would have been reinvaded as soon as they had the time to spare.

Ultimately, it was very good luck for the British that we were an independent, neutral country by the time of WW2, and that Germany recognised our neutrality (albeit, probably only intended to be a temporary situation as far as they were concerned). Britain may have had a plan in place to defend Ireland against a German invasion, but it would have been a last act of desperation on their part had it ever needed to be implemented. The politicians may have liked the idea of having Ireland on their side, but politicians are not the brightest of people generally speaking! Their military planners must have being having nightmares about the possibility of the politicians' efforts being successful every time they reached out to Ireland to get on board.

Denerick · 25-09-2010 7:00pm

I think everyone's intelligence in Ireland was slightly insulted by this. The evidence is meagre anyway.

amcalester · 25-09-2010 7:11pm

Had Ireland joined the Allies in WWII then at some point we would have had to "invite" Allied Forces into the country to defend against invasion from Germany. And by Allied you can read British as the US hadn't entered the war at that stage. Would we have gotten them back out again as easily?
More than likely but at what cost and remember it was only 20 odd years since the War of Independence. Would the Irish people have accepted British troops back on Irish streets.

Also

"the principle of a United Ireland" and "that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back."

seems to me to be a little vague and similar to what was in place before the Easter Rising in 1916.

I'm not surprised that the offer was turned down.

brianthebard · 25-09-2010 7:26pm

pwd wrote: »

I am certain they would have honoured it, even if they didn't want to. Consider all of the British colonies that became independent since WWII. This was largely instigated by Churchill's position that the Allies believed in the right of nations to self-determination. He made no promises to any of them, just said something that undermined their status as colonies. [He said this to garner support and to prevent Allied forces being seen as a threat or expansionist].

For that reason I cannot see them doing anything but ceding the six counties, had such an agreement been in place.

I don't know what you're referring to specifically here, but considering his opinion on India and I don't think Churchill had the colonies in mind when he was talking about self-determination. In addition to that, did any of the colonies actually attain independence while Churchill was pm? I don't think so. The reasons for decolonisation were many and Churchill is imo the lowest in importance of them all.

pwd · 25-09-2010 7:44pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know what you're referring to specifically here, but considering his opinion on India and I don't think Churchill had the colonies in mind when he was talking about self-determination. In addition to that, did any of the colonies actually attain independence while Churchill was pm? I don't think so. The reasons for decolonisation were many and Churchill is imo the lowest in importance of them all.

I agree that he wasn't thinking about losing colonies when he was saying that. He would have been strongly opposed to losing colonies, as I understand it. However I've read that taking this position significantly strengthened movements towards independence, and undermined their continued status as colonies.

I do think cooperation would have led to the eventual unification of Ireland. However, the more I thiink about it, the more I think Ireland would have suffered severely if we had cooperated, from German attacks, and possibly been subject to one or more invasions. I think this for reasons of our strategic importance which I alluded to above.

But he did make the offer a second time, the same day America joined the war. If we had accepted at that time I think we would have avoided the possible devastation we might have been subject to earlier.

The Floyd p · 25-09-2010 7:47pm

There were too many unionists in the north for this to work.

brianthebard · 25-09-2010 8:00pm

pwd wrote: »

I agree that he wasn't thinking about losing colonies when he was saying that. He would have been strongly opposed to losing colonies, as I understand it. However I've read that taking this position significantly strengthened movements towards independence, and undermined their continued status as colonies.

I can see how some people might put forward that argument, but I don't think either the natives of the various colonies nor the British leaders after Churchill thought it at the time. In terms of factors undermining colonial status, Churchill is not one of them, certainly not compared to the cost of the war, the continued cost of rebuilding, or the relative prosperity and growth experienced by the colonies as a result of war and in some cases a temporary independence as a result of war. These are some of the main reasons colonial status was undermined.

I do think cooperation would have led to the eventual unification of Ireland. However, the more I thiink about it, the more I think Ireland would have suffered severely if we had cooperated, from German attacks, and possibly been subject to one or more invasions. I think this for reasons of our strategic importance which I alluded to above.

But he did make the offer a second time, the same day America joined the war. If we had accepted at that time I think we would have avoided the possible devastation we might have been subject to earlier.

I think for it to work it would have had to have been on the table before the war, it just seems far too messy to join the war for this deal in the middle of it. And of course all this ignores how the Ulster Unionists would have reacted. Its not beyond the realm of possibility to suggest at least a partial rebellion on the front line by Ulster and indeed British troops in general if this deal had happened.
Finally you do have to consider the fact that the possibility of a united Ireland has appeared tantalisingly close in some people's minds a number of times during the history of Ireland's independence; consider what the border commission was supposed to achieve, or how it was expected Northern Ireland would be a 4 county statelet which would not be capable of existing for long outside the rest of Ireland. The promise or hope of a United Ireland has been thought close at hand many times, and this WWII deal is just another example of what turned out to be wishful thinking.

pwd · 25-09-2010 8:01pm

The Floyd p wrote: »

There were too many unionists in the north for this to work.

Maybe. But they would have softened though if they were allowed to perceive Ireland as an ally of Britain. Our refusal to compromise our neutrality must have caused them to harden their stance instead [in addition to the increased cultural divide that was mentioned]

brianthebard wrote: »

I think for it to work it would have had to have been on the table before the war, it just seems far too messy to join the war for this deal in the middle of it. And of course all this ignores how the Ulster Unionists would have reacted. Its not beyond the realm of possibility to suggest at least a partial rebellion on the front line by Ulster and indeed British troops in general if this deal had happened.
Finally you do have to consider the fact that the possibility of a united Ireland has appeared tantalisingly close in some people's minds a number of times during the history of Ireland's independence; consider what the border commission was supposed to achieve, or how it was expected Northern Ireland would be a 4 county statelet which would not be capable of existing for long outside the rest of Ireland. The promise or hope of a United Ireland has been thought close at hand many times, and this WWII deal is just another example of what turned out to be wishful thinking.

Well the second time he said it, he said it was now or never. I think it's acknowledged that our refusal to compromise strengthened the partition. It also lost us a lot of sympathy, especially from the USA, who have always been highly influential since the partition came into being. De Valera commiserating Germany on Hitler's death (at a time when the extent of his atrocities were just coming to light) didn't help that either.

A discussion as to what might have been can only be speculative. However, I think it can be taken as fact that our refusal to compromise strengthened the partition, while cooperation would have weakened it.

brianthebard · 25-09-2010 8:14pm

I think it did strengthen partition because as suggested earlier by someone it meant both sides of the border had different war memories. I would question what the American's perceptions would have been, positive or negative, and what effect it would have had. For instance, the influence of the diaspora was seen as a huge issue during the third home rule bill debate, but when home rule was suspended, and then when the Rising was suppressed and the leader's killed, it still did not prevent the US joining WWI in 1917, as it was suggested it might.

hotmail.com · 25-09-2010 8:51pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it did strengthen partition because as suggested earlier by someone it meant both sides of the border had different war memories. I would question what the American's perceptions would have been, positive or negative, and what effect it would have had. For instance, the influence of the diaspora was seen as a huge issue during the third home rule bill debate, but when home rule was suspended, and then when the Rising was suppressed and the leader's killed, it still did not prevent the US joining WWI in 1917, as it was suggested it might.

I think I remember hearing that the Irish diaspora were isolated in their new homeland because of Ireland's neutrality.

MarchDub · 26-09-2010 11:04am

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think I remember hearing that the Irish diaspora were isolated in their new homeland because of Ireland's neutrality.

Not at all - the USA had a large German diaspora population, not to mention Swedes [and Spanish who didn't officially participate]. At the ground roots level of American society there was not a fully, singular, gung ho attitude that fully supported the war.

When I first went to the US in the the late 1960s on a visit there was still an attitude about WWII that it was once again "The Europeans beating the S**t out of each other as usual and we had to sort them out". There wasn't much right or wrong attitude about it all.

MarchDub · 26-09-2010 11:22am

This question about the so called "offer" of unity of the island of Ireland during WWII has taken on the level of an urban myth and as far as I remember it has come up on boards a few times in the past.

Here is a quote from a paper published by the Churchill museum in London:

Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour, proposed in a private letter to the Prime Minister [Churchill] the creation of a ‘joint Defence Council’ for Britain and Ireland with the promise for a new constitution ‘on the basis of a united Ireland at the end of hostilities.’ Bevin recommended the President of the United States for appointing the chair of any constitution-making body. In reply Churchill noted: ‘I certainly should welcome any approach to Irish unity: but I have 40 years experience of its difficulties.’ Nevertheless, he went on to confess that while he could ‘never be a party to the coercion of Ulster to join the Southern counties,’ he was very ‘much in favour of their being persuaded.’ ‘The key,’ Churchill concluded, ‘is de Valera showing some loyalty to Crown & Empire.’

In other words - there was no solid offer and De Valera knew this. Shades of the Border Commission. It was an offer - a suggestion actually - to form a body to discuss the situation and the Government of NI would have been part of the 'discussion'. Good luck with that one.

PatsytheNazi · 26-09-2010 5:07pm

pwd wrote: »

They had a plan in place to defend against a German invasion. Plan W it was called. The Germans had a plan in place to invade Ireland likewise. Our neutrality did not diminish our strategic importance because of our geographic location. We are an ideal base to attack Britain, and to a lesser extent mainland Europe. It is for that reason that England was resolute to stay in Ireland before imo, a point of view which is supported by the fact that when they did grant independence, the treaty included that they would be in control of Ireland's naval defence.

It was either Churchil or Hitler (or both) who referred to Ireland as an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Orwell said that an inability to recognise that Ireland was reliant on foreign states to protect its sovereignty indicates fanaticism. This is equally true today imo.

I've actually googled that and their's nothing apart form your post to show that Orwell ever said that. More like some Brit or unionist more like - or somebody with an agenda to try and protray our selfless benign big brother Britain protecting us from all the baddies across the world :rolleyes: It had no truth then and it has no truth now. If we don't go the far side of the world dropping bombs on people - they wouldn't come here bombing us

PatsytheNazi · 26-09-2010 5:19pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Partition had been in place for 20 years by 1940, so it might be fair to say that people on the island had got used to the division.

Churchill was bluffing in my opinion anyway and Dev was aware of this.

My father actually went to work in his relations hardware shop in Enniskillen during the " Emergency " as his generation called it. From what I remember him telling me, life was barely effected in the six counties during it, the north didn't have conscription, the unionists quite contently did their bit for King and country by staying at home drinking porter. Sure their was rationing etc, but life went on as usual, only Belfast got some bombing, but so too did Dublin if accidentally.

Us staying neutral widened the gap between North and South culturally as the people of the two jurisdictions have different memories of the War.

The south staying neutral didn't have any effect on North South relations, to the unionists it was a Protestant state for a Protestant people etc whether we had joined teh war or not. And as you say Churchill was bluffing anyway and Dev was aware of this.

And as for culturally as the people of the two jurisdictions have different memories of the War. " Culturally " my father palyed football with Enniskillen Gaels, went to dances in Enniskillen, Lisnaskea, Bundoran, Manorhamilton etc. About the only thing different culturally he woudl probably say was the " Yanks " who had an air base outside Enniskillen.

pwd · 27-09-2010 12:35pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

I've actually googled that and their's nothing apart form your post to show that Orwell ever said that. More like some Brit or unionist more like - or somebody with an agenda to try and protray our selfless benign big brother Britain protecting us from all the baddies across the world :rolleyes: It had no truth then and it has no truth now. If we don't go the far side of the world dropping bombs on people - they wouldn't come here bombing us

That's pretty offensive.

He did say it in an essay. You think if you can't find it on google it doesn't exist. Try reading a book.

He wasn't making them out to be a benign big brother, and neither was I. It was in their own interest to defend us, because our island could be used as a base to attack Britain from.

To respond to your second point, I'll paraphrase Orwell again, and say that the navy invented pacififism... The mind boggles at your suggestion that if country doesn't attack anyone, they're inherently safe from attack tbh.

purplepanda · 27-09-2010 2:25pm

It suited Britain for Ireland to be "neutral" with a pro allied bias including military & other co-operation, British Army recruitment offices in Dublin, pooling of information & Irish senior army officials being present at all British Chief of Staff meetings during the war. Not to mention the massive supply of foodstuffs & workers coming from Ireland to aid the war effort.

Ireland did not have the manpower or military equipment to defend itself & Britain didn't have the spare capacity to defend Ireland as it's military was overstretched around the globe.

Churchill & many others later on were critical of Irish policy when it actually suited them at the time, I think De Valera missed a trick not joining in when the US officially entered the war after Pearl Harbour though.

Secret detailed plans were drawn up jointly by British & Irish military for joint reaction to any German invasion, these are well known.

I don't believe Norway or Holland for example actually allowed British military onto their territories until the Germans actually invaded, they were still officially neutral up to that point, the same situation applied to Ireland unless the Germans attacked.

If Britain was invaded Ireland would have been drawn into the war as British & American strategic interests would have required access to Irish airspace & ports to help resistance against the German forces advancing.

losthorizon · 27-09-2010 3:40pm

I remember hearing on some TV show that when Churchill actually made contact with De Valera to discuss the South joining the war effort and in return that maybe a united Ireland could come about that Churchill was drunk. It was for this reason apparently that De valera didnt take it too seriously. Anyway there were large numbers of men from the South fighting in The British army. By the end of the war more men from "Eire" than from the "North" (and some of those Northeners must have been nationalists) were fighting for the British.

PatsytheNazi · 27-09-2010 4:39pm

purplepanda wrote: »

It suited Britain for Ireland to be "neutral" with a pro allied bias including military & other co-operation, British Army recruitment offices in Dublin, pooling of information & Irish senior army officials being present at all British Chief of Staff meetings during the war. Not to mention the massive supply of foodstuffs & workers coming from Ireland to aid the war effort.

:eek:

I've read many's a piece on Ireland and neutrality in WW2 and wouldn't claim to know it all by any means but this is some news to me bro

Ireland did not have the manpower or military equipment to defend itself & Britain didn't have the spare capacity to defend Ireland as it's military was overstretched around the globe.

Britian barely had the military capacity to defend itself never mind invade Ireland. They were just about surviving day by day during the Battle of Britain. Who did they have after the fiasco's of Dunkirk and Norway - Capt Mainwarning with his Dad's army. Imagine them poor fellows against the Waffen SS :rolleyes:

Churchill & many others later on were critical of Irish policy when it actually suited them at the time, I think De Valera missed a trick not joining in when the US officially entered the war after Pearl Harbour though.

Secret detailed plans were drawn up jointly by British & Irish military for joint reaction to any German invasion, these are well known.

According to a documentary on TG4, secret detailed plans were drawn up by the Irish military which basically consisted of :

1) A Division in the south east Wexford, etc to try and delay for as long as possible a German invasion and us to call on the British to come to our aid.

2) Similarily a Division along the border at Monaghan, Louth etc to try and delay for as long as possible a British invasion and us to call on the Germans to come to our aid.

They were also plans around the rest of the country for the blowing of bridges, sabotage etc How well both plans would have worked and if either side had any real intention to invade is conjecture, nevertheless we can be proud of our stance in the period.

I don't believe Norway or Holland for example actually allowed British military onto their territories until the Germans actually invaded, they were still officially neutral up to that point, the same situation applied to Ireland unless the Germans attacked.

If Britain was invaded Ireland would have been drawn into the war as British & American strategic interests would have required access to Irish airspace & ports to help resistance against the German forces advancing.

About the only time the British or Germans were may have been thinking of invading the country was during the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. American did not come into WW2 until Pearl Harbour in December 1941 and therefore had no strategic interests in Britain or Ireland been invaded as they wanted to remain out of it.

purplepanda · 28-09-2010 12:30am

My own father said there were British Army recruitment offices in Dublin at the time, although he was too young to join up. The close military meetings were involved at the highest level, for Plan W & other areas of strategic planning.

Ireland's actions in this respect are no different to what happened with other countries that did have the war thrust upon them. There are degrees of neutrality, even the US WW2 policy before Pearl Harbour can't be seen as strict neutrality with lend lease, massive arms shipments & loan bonds be given by Rossevelt who was very eager to join the war at the earliest opportunity.

As for Britain's defence, a German invasion would have not been as easy as some believe, despite Dad's Army waiting on the beaches. There was plans in place before the war for guerrilla warfare if needed, influenced by Ireland's War of Independence, & actually advised by Irish veterans of that conflict. The further the Germans moved into Britain the more resistance they would have faced on tougher terrain than Southern England.

The only serious German invasion of Ireland would have probably been under 5000 men in a Paratroop / Commando style raid like Dieppe in 1942 by the Allies, any much larger force traveling over by sea would have been totally destroyed by Britain's Navy before reaching the Irish coast.

Most of the Allied shipping , troops & equipment came via the Denmark Straight, so the British bases in Northern Ireland, were more important than the former Treaty Ports in protecting shipping lanes.

If the British wanted the Treaty Ports & / or Ireland to join the war they would have seriously gone about obtaining a deal or even tried to impose their wishes on De Valera, it was not a major strategic need & would have required more resources in men & equipment that could be used elsewhere.

Although as usual there was plenty of posturing & complaining from their side ever since!

HavingCrack · 28-09-2010 10:57pm

Apparently the Unionist government in Northern Ireland under Basil Brooke were prepared to be reunified with the Free State if it was necessary for the defense of Great Britain.

Judgement Day · 28-09-2010 11:08pm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apparently the Unionist government in Northern Ireland under Basil Brooke were prepared to be reunified with the Free State if it was necessary for the defense of Great Britain.

Any source for this? There is all sorts of 'fascinating' and hitherto unknown information appearing in this thread.

HavingCrack · 28-09-2010 11:13pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Any source for this? There is all sorts of 'fascinating' and hitherto unknown information appearing in this thread.

I'll have a look for it and get back to you with the source. I'm 100% sure of this one

. I think it actually might have come from cabinet minutes but I'll find out.

DHYNZY · 28-09-2010 11:18pm

Completely inviable. This seems more like a sensational rumour than a concrete discussion. Was never going to happen on either end. Neutrality was the corner stone of our foreign policy. And reintegration at that point would have been a headache to say the least.

mikhail · 28-09-2010 11:21pm

pwd wrote: »

He did say it in an essay. You think if you can't find it on google it doesn't exist. Try reading a book.

Most of Orwell's essays are available online, but I couldn't find the quote either. This might be similar enough that you could have confused it, and offers a similar enough sentiment that it's plausible Orwell might have said what you claimed:
"... No country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it."

Orwell, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and a member of the British Home Guard, was quite happy to point his rifle in the same direction as his mouth when it came to issues of liberty.

FiSe · 29-09-2010 8:45am

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

:eek: I've read many's a piece on Ireland and neutrality in WW2 and wouldn't claim to know it all by any means but this is some news to me bro

Britian barely had the military capacity to defend itself never mind invade Ireland. They were just about surviving day by day during the Battle of Britain. Who did they have after the fiasco's of Dunkirk and Norway - Capt Mainwarning with his Dad's army. Imagine them poor fellows against the Waffen SS :rolleyes:

According to a documentary on TG4, secret detailed plans were drawn up by the Irish military which basically consisted of :

1) A Division in the south east Wexford, etc to try and delay for as long as possible a German invasion and us to call on the British to come to our aid.

2) Similarily a Division along the border at Monaghan, Louth etc to try and delay for as long as possible a British invasion and us to call on the Germans to come to our aid.

They were also plans around the rest of the country for the blowing of bridges, sabotage etc How well both plans would have worked and if either side had any real intention to invade is conjecture, nevertheless we can be proud of our stance in the period.

About the only time the British or Germans were may have been thinking of invading the country was during the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. American did not come into WW2 until Pearl Harbour in December 1941 and therefore had no strategic interests in Britain or Ireland been invaded as they wanted to remain out of it.

You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were no plans to ask Germans for help at any time, but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.
Routes were planned and supplies stocked along the proposed routes of movement.
The only condition was, that Irish Army will take the first blow from the invaders.

There's two brilliant books, unbiased well researched and easy to read:
- Guarding Neutral Ireland by Michael Kennedy
- Military Aviation in Ireland 1921-45 by Michael C. O'Malley

PatsytheNazi · 29-09-2010 11:41am

FiSe wrote: »

You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were no plans to ask Germans for help at any time, but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.
Routes were planned and supplies stocked along the proposed routes of movement.
The only condition was, that Irish Army will take the first blow from the invaders.

There's two brilliant books, unbiased well researched and easy to read:
- Guarding Neutral Ireland by Michael Kennedy
- Military Aviation in Ireland 1921-45 by Michael C. O'Malley

:rolleyes: You'd might be surprised to hear, that there were according to the TG4 documentary series EIRE NEODRACH plans to ask Germans for help should Britian invade us. Just as their were plans to ask the British to come to our aid should teh Germans invade. It was basically a bluff with both sets of plans were leaked to the Germans and British. Whether the bluff worked or either of them had any real intention to invade is conjecture.

I think most people would agree that TG4 tries to be unbiased and well researched. I'm only stating what the programme said and it had interviews with ex Irish army officers etc to back up it's assertions.

" Éire Neodrach (OS) Were we right? Did we have the moral right to remain neutral in the face of such an extraordinary evil? Can we be nuetral now? Would the same neutral stance be possible within a modern EU framework. Contributors to this programme include: Seán Mac Réamoinn, Col W.E. Doyle, Col. J.P. Duggan & Louis Marcus. " ( See 7.30pm)
http://www.tg4.ie/bearla/scei/scei.asp?Dt=2010-8-10

Johnmb · 29-09-2010 12:44pm

FiSe wrote: »

... but everything was aimed to prevent, detect and repulse German invasion with the help of British armed forces.

That's not accurate. All along the Boyne Valley there were installations built at the time as a defence against a British invasion coming from Northern Ireland (although I would have though they'd have just come across the Irish sea and taken Dublin directly). Some of them were even marked on OS maps later on iirc, although not all of them. One or two of them were pointed out many years ago when I was on a college trip to the area. At this stage, with all the development in the area, I'm not sure if they are still there, but the Irish government at the time did take the threat of British invasion very seriously, some people argue that it was considered more of a threat than a German invasion.

brianthebard · 29-09-2010 1:37pm

well imo at least the British had more to gain from invading Ireland as a means of strengthening their positions at sea and protecting their air force perhaps. Whereas a German invasion of Ireland even if it took less than a day would give the British far too much time to react and be prepared for the subsequent invasion of Britain.

pwd · 29-09-2010 3:19pm

mikhail wrote: »

Most of Orwell's essays are available online, but I couldn't find the quote either. This might be similar enough that you could have confused it, and offers a similar enough sentiment that it's plausible Orwell might have said what you claimed:
"... No country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it."

Orwell, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and a member of the British Home Guard, was quite happy to point his rifle in the same direction as his mouth when it came to issues of liberty.

No I'm not confusing it with that. He was talking about fanaticism in a different context, as far as I remember, and used the Ireland thing as an example. [I'm not sure he was using the specific word fanaticism]. I think he was talking about Communist parties being in actuality Russian foreign policy parties in the same essay [I think the context he was talking about was Communists who were too deluded to see the lie in the Communism in the USSR].

pwd · 29-09-2010 3:24pm

Found it. It's in the essay "Notes on Nationalism."
He also refers to his idea that "The navy created pacifism" in the same quote, conveniently enough.

Orwell wrote:

If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:

BRITISH TORY: Britian will come out of this war with reduced power and prestige.
COMMUNIST. If she had not been aided by Britain and America, Russia would have been defeated by Germany.
IRISH NATIONALIST. Eire can only remain independent because of British protection.
TROTSKYIST. The Stalin regime is accepted by the Russian masses.
PACIFIST. Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

purplepanda · 29-09-2010 4:55pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Any source for this? There is all sorts of 'fascinating' and hitherto unknown information appearing in this thread.

I've read that account before regarding Basil Brooke in one of books that I've studied, as well as the Irish military attending British Chief of Staff meetings that I mentioned earlier on in the thread. I'll have to go through the books that I still have although many were "borrowed" to others over the years never to return:rolleyes:

I still maintain that if Britain really urgently needed access to Irish ports, airspace & facilities they would have ensured they got them by diplomacy or even force if need be. All this complaining from the supposed British point of view since is just sabre rattling!!!

On a related note clauses in the Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 limited Irish capability in certain areas of military & defence capacity. For example Britain is responsible for repelling any attempted invasion of Ireland at sea. Not that the Royal Navy would have not acted in that scenario during WW2 even if that clause didn't exist!!!:eek:

Supposedly that there are also secret clauses regarding defence in the above treaty.:D

pwd · 29-09-2010 5:02pm

purplepanda wrote: »

I've read that account before regarding Basil Brooke in one of books that I've studied, as well as the Irish military attending British Chief of Staff meetings that I mentioned earlier on in the thread. I'll have to go through the books that I still have although many were "borrowed" to others over the years never to return:rolleyes:

I still maintain that if Britain really urgently needed access to Irish ports, airspace & facilities they would have ensured they got them by diplomacy or even force if need be. All this complaining from the supposed British point of view since is just sabre rattling!!!

On a related note clauses in the Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 limited Irish capability in certain areas of military & defence capacity. For example Britain is responsible for repelling any attempted invasion of Ireland at sea. Not that the Royal Navy would have not acted in that scenario during WW2 even if that clause didn't exist!!!:eek:

Supposedly that there are also secret clauses regarding defence in the above treaty.:D

I think the clause you're talking about was to be renegotiated after 5 years, and referred to the control of the ports in question. That's why they were called the Treaty Ports. As I understand it, when it was discussed again, Britain handed control of the ports to Ireland.

Fratton Fred · 29-09-2010 10:18pm

brianthebard wrote: »

well imo at least the British had more to gain from invading Ireland as a means of strengthening their positions at sea and protecting their air force perhaps. Whereas a German invasion of Ireland even if it took less than a day would give the British far too much time to react and be prepared for the subsequent invasion of Britain.

Maybe not useful as an invasion base, but airfields in Ireland would have meant the RAF would have had an entirely new front to defend and new radar bases would need to have been built. It would also have closed the Irish sea and possibly the English channel and the Luftwaffe could have bombed west coast ports at will.

I'm not sure an invasion of Ireland would have been that easy though. a sea crossing would have been at the mercy of the RAF and the Royal Navy and an airborne assault would probably have faired as well as the invasion of Crete, which cost the German Amy dearly.

FiSe · 30-09-2010 2:32pm

Johnmb wrote: »

That's not accurate. All along the Boyne Valley there were installations built at the time as a defence against a British invasion coming from Northern Ireland (although I would have though they'd have just come across the Irish sea and taken Dublin directly). Some of them were even marked on OS maps later on iirc, although not all of them. One or two of them were pointed out many years ago when I was on a college trip to the area. At this stage, with all the development in the area, I'm not sure if they are still there, but the Irish government at the time did take the threat of British invasion very seriously, some people argue that it was considered more of a threat than a German invasion.

Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

I'm aware of the pill boxes scattered all over the Ireland - there's a picture thread on them somewhere on here too, nevertheless I'm not quite sure why exactly and when these were built. No doubt that some, maybe all, are the children of Emergency period. I don't know and I'm still looking for some history on those.
IRA was another threatening force to the irish goverment, so some of the pillboxes could be built as an anti-terrorist checkpoints?

mikhail · 30-09-2010 3:16pm

FiSe wrote: »

IRA was another threatening force to the irish goverment, so some of the pillboxes could be built as an anti-terrorist checkpoints?

You don't fight insurgents with fixed anti-infantry positions.

PatsytheNazi · 30-09-2010 4:50pm

FiSe wrote: »

Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

Interesting. Not trying to put you on the spot but do you have a link to this ?

purplepanda · 30-09-2010 5:06pm

FiSe wrote: »

Yes and no... The British invasion was feared as a consequence of the feared German invasion.
There was time, early in the war, when Churchill was seriously considering invasion of Treaty harbours to shorten journey to the Atlantic where convoys were at desperate situation at the time.

The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.

PatsytheNazi · 30-09-2010 5:37pm

purplepanda wrote: »

The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.

Gerry had U boat pens in Norway. But I do agree with you that Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans.

FiSe · 30-09-2010 7:39pm

purplepanda wrote: »

The main route for convoys was through the Greenland Denmark Straights via Iceland. Destined for Glasgow & Liverpool & protected by Royal Navy from Scapa Flow & other bases.

Going straight across from the US to the Southern Approaches would have exposed Allied convoys to U-Boats based on the NW coasts of France, easy pickings for the Germans. Even landing at ports like Bristol or Southhampton / Plymouth would have exposed ships to air attack from France.

Apparently, it took too long for RN to actually get into the open ocean.
Those ports ment to be used by RN boats, not convoys themselves.

The southern road was used latter in the war though.

FiSe · 30-09-2010 7:43pm

mikhail wrote: »

You don't fight insurgents with fixed anti-infantry positions.

No, but you can use those as a fixed guarding points in certain strategically important places...or as fixed checkpoints.

Before somebody reads something which I haven't wrote, I have to repeat again, that I am not claiming and never was that this was the primary function or functions of these pill boxes at all. I've said that it could be one of their intended use as I have no proper information about these structures, just speculating.

In 'Guarding Neutral Ireland' is mentioned Ardnacrusha powerplant and it's defence, including AA gun position and fixed pill box. The threat is mentioned as both foreigner military power and fear of possible IRA action.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Interesting. Not trying to put you on the spot but do you have a link to this ?

In the same book.

purplepanda · 01-10-2010 1:13am

Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

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

Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.

The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.

Johnmb · 01-10-2010 10:41am

purplepanda wrote: »

Only Wikipedia I know but there's more interesting reading regards this discussion.

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

Sections 4 & 6 are fascinating

Ireland, Britain's Last Redoubt, joint military plans for RAF bases in Ireland if Britain falls to German invasion.

The Cranbourne report on details of Ireland's wartime co-operation with Britain.

That would have been an interesting conundrum for the government of the day. On the one hand, would you want to piss off the Germans after they had already won? On the other hand, you just know they are going to take the following day or two to invade you, so do you give up without so much of a whimper or do you use whatever British resources weren't destroyed and go down fighting? The Nazi hierarchy considered the Irish to be genetically impure, so wiping us out wouldn't have been a moral problem for them, but the average German had been filled with propaganda that made us out to be a heroic people who fought off British imperialist aggression, so they may have had to treat us well (for a while at least) if we didn't go against them.

In 1940 Britain offered the 6 counties to Ireland in exchange for cooperation in WWII

Comments