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

Eamon de Valera Day

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Redleslie
    The Germans would've invaded Ireland (by 1941 at the latest) and soon after, Britain would've been finished.
    The Germans didn't have the lift capacity to mount an invasion, nevermind sustain it.
    Originally posted by klaz
    If they had invaded a country not part of the Axis, then they would have lost serious public image points.
    Eh, Iceland? Iraq?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Originally posted by AngelofFire
    2)he started a civil war in the countryagainst a treaty which the majority of the people had voted in favour of

    I'd like to point out that the majority were not in favour of fighting the British for a "Free State" or a free state.

    I don't really like de Valera or Collins. They let the British of the day fool them into a civil war.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Eh, Iceland? Iraq?

    I never knew about Iceland. I knew alright abt Norway, but not iceland.

    Iraq? wasn't Iraq part of the British empire at that time? I certainly thought so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by klaz
    Iraq? wasn't Iraq part of the British empire at that time? I certainly thought so.
    It had become "independent" during the 1930s.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭ronano


    He is too far one side to truly embrace the modern society oif ireland and wouldn't best represent it's overall views


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭AngelofFire


    Originally posted by monument
    I'd like to point out that the majority were not in favour of fighting the British for a "Free State" or a free state.

    I don't really like de Valera or Collins. They let the British of the day fool them into a civil war.

    i never said that. but in the election of 1921 the pro treaty party got more seats than the anti treaty clearly indicating that the people of ireland accepted the treaty. by starting a civil war dev flouted the will of the people and showed contempt for demcoracy. hardly a person worth having a national day in honour of


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭Redleslie


    Originally posted by Victor
    The Germans didn't have the lift capacity to mount an invasion, nevermind sustain it.
    Yes they did. They had enough for Norway and Crete which were far tougher operations than an invasion of Ireland would have been. They probably wouldn't have had to sustain it for long.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Redleslie
    Yes they did. They had enough for Norway and Crete which were far tougher operations than an invasion of Ireland would have been. They probably wouldn't have had to sustain it for long.
    So, when invading Norway, why did they need to route material and men through Sweden? - because the ships they had couldn't do it (quick enough).

    There is also the matter of having the British sink a substantial portion should they try to move from France to Ireland, a much greater risk that crossing to Norway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭Redleslie


    Originally posted by Victor
    So, when invading Norway, why did they need to route material and men through Sweden? - because the ships they had couldn't do it (quick enough).

    You mean Denmark? No harm in taking a shortcut if it's there. The Germans only routed men and material through Sweden after they got Norway I thought, because they could.
    There is also the matter of having the British sink a substantial portion should they try to move from France to Ireland, a much greater risk that crossing to Norway.
    They committed just about their whole navy to the invasion of Norway afaik. There were German plans to invade Ireland were there not? Plan Kathleen for the north and the Green Plan for the entire island. Their success probably would have depended a good deal on local support and they might well have got more than enough of it if Ireland had come in on the British side.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Redleslie
    The Germans only routed men and material through Sweden after they got Norway I thought, because they could.
    After the invasion, but before the end of the main fighting.
    Originally posted by Redleslie
    They committed just about their whole navy to the invasion of Norway afaik.
    Which strenghthens my point. IF they didn't have enough shipping to invade Norway (shorter crossing, with an 'effective' landbridge in place, closer to Germany), they certainly didn't have enough to invade Ireland.
    Originally posted by Redleslie
    There were German plans to invade Ireland were there not?
    Yes, but was it workable? If they couldn't manage the crossing of a few hours to England, how do your expect them to have been able to make the 2-3 day crossing to Ireland, harrassed all the way by the Royal Navy and the RAF?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭AngelofFire


    ah well heres a list of people who were much more credible than dev whom we could have a national day for.

    Wolfetone
    Parnell
    Michael Collins
    Douglas D. Hyde
    Jim larkin
    James connolly


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,969 ✭✭✭Big Ears


    Brian Boru . He united the whole of Ireland and drove out the vikings .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭Redleslie


    Originally posted by Victor
    After the invasion, but before the end of the main fighting.

    I thought it started a week or two after Norway surrendered.
    Which strenghthens my point. IF they didn't have enough shipping to invade Norway (shorter crossing, with an 'effective' landbridge in place, closer to Germany), they certainly didn't have enough to invade Ireland.

    The Norway invasion didn't make large scale use of paratroops but the invasion planned for Ireland was going to.
    Yes, but was it workable? If they couldn't manage the crossing of a few hours to England, how do your expect them to have been able to make the 2-3 day crossing to Ireland, harrassed all the way by the Royal Navy and the RAF?
    Like I said, it would have been a primarily airborne operation. And it would have been a lot easier than Crete where the allies knew in advance where the Germans were dropping and had experienced troops to meet them but still lost despite massive German casualties.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 30 BarryFry


    Originally posted by Redleslie
    Like I said, it would have been a primarily airborne operation. And it would have been a lot easier than Crete where the allies knew in advance where the Germans were dropping and had experienced troops to meet them but still lost despite massive German casualties.

    Actually, although the Allies had advance knowledge of the invasion, they did not position their troops in the most advantageous positions to meet the Germans, as they did not want the Germans to think that they were lying in wait, as this may have given the Germans reason to believe that their codes were being broken (which, of course they were, by ULTRA).

    Therefore, for example, anti-aircraft gunners were given explicit instructions not to shoot at German transport aircraft, even when the Allied commander, General Freyburg was quoted as saying "Here they come, bang on time" as the first Ju 52's passed overhead.

    Crete SHOULD have been an easy allied victory. Unfortunately for them, they erred too far towards protecting what they considered to be their greatest strateic asset - their encription service.


Advertisement