Irish involvement in WW2

TerrorFirmer

latchyco wrote: »

Hitlers impatients and his lack of trust in his generals judgement cost him dearly.When his troops were bogged down in the russian winter lacking esential food, equipment ,troops and supplies he refused to supply and send more troops, and when his top general in Normandy asked for the 3 panzer divisions that were available to cut off the allied advance after the landing he also refused then to. The americans coming into the war at the right time was a godsend ,somtimes their british counterparts dont like to give enough credit for .

Well thats a bit of a crazy hindsight picture, sure if any army during the war had the gift of hindsight things like the Fall of France would never even have happened. Allied blunders contributed just as much to their defeats as the Germand did to theirs - people don't credit that enough. Reserves were kept away from the beaches because they thought another landing might happen in the pais de calais area, not just because hitler wanted them doing nothing. as for sending no equipment to the east, of course he did, all of germanys best equipment and supplies went there. he didn't supply them with winter gear because the germany army had none at the time owing to the mistaken notion they'd have beaten russia in a few months - not, again, because hitler felt they'd be better off in a storeroom.

and yes an awful lot of poles joined and flew with the RAF. they had a crap airforce but their pilots were surprisingly good

Dyr

boneless wrote: »

I heard recently but have not been able to confirm it, that the RAF was on the point of collapse but the Luftwaffe did not press on with the campaign which would have crippled Britain. Can anyone here confirm this?

By the way, to get back on topic... The Clancy brothers, or at least three of them, were in the RAF during the second war and they were members of the Tipp Brigade IRA too....;)

the general belief is that the Luftwaffe nearly destroyed the RAF by concentrating all their raids on RAF airfields but they then switched back to bombing industrial targets just as the RAF was beginning to fall apart, allowing the RAF to recover. Truth is that Goering promised Hitler that he would defeat Britain through aerial assault alone, something that was impossible at the time.

Latchy

Quote =HavoK;Well thats a bit of a crazy hindsight picture, sure if any army during the war had the gift of hindsight things like the Fall of France would never even have happened.

Yes thats what we have ,the benifit of Hindsight and thats were i am quoting from , not trying to re-write history .

Allied blunders contributed just as much to their defeats as the Germand did to theirs - people don't credit that enough. Reserves were kept away from the beaches because they thought another landing might happen in the pais de calais area, not just because hitler wanted them doing nothing.

Yes that is true , but when his top generals got the bigger picture as to what was happning at Normandy so to speak and advised him he wouldent listen .One general in particular (think it was rommel ) worked out what the allies were up to ,but Hitler would not release the troops for that area for reasons you give ie, he was expecting a larger force at the calais area .Rommel who had gone to paris to see his family a few days before the landings headed back to Normandy but did not arrive back in time to alter the german plan of defense, (which was doing quite well until the allies got a foothold on the beaches ) so he pleaded with Hitler to give him the 3 panzer divisions/troops but to no avail

as for sending no equipment to the east, of course he did, all of germanys best equipment and supplies went there. he didn't supply them with winter gear because the germany army had none at the time owing to the mistaken notion they'd have beaten russia in a few months - not, again, because hitler felt they'd be better off in a storeroom.

I think like the troops it got bogged down in the snow .

TerrorFirmer

Actually, Hitler believed the allies would land at Normandy, as did Rommel. But they still thought the allies would make a second landing, as the Calais area would have been the shortest route start to the industrial heart of Germany. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but a logical one - the allies had made a massive false build up in the area directly opposite.

Rommel always believed that if the allies hadn't been cast into the sea within the first day, then the battle was lost. Given that he only arrived back to his command close to that evening, taht the reserves did nothing for the first several vital hours, and the weather improved meaning that allied air power came to bear, he already knew 'winning' was virtually impossible.

I think you've got it a bit confused there, Rommel did not plead with Hitler to release divisions, Von Rundstet did, and they weren't released because they were in reserve and he needed permission. which he couldn't get until hitler gave okw permission, which in turn did not happen until midday.

Snickers Man

grahamo wrote: »

They are heroes in my book. How anyone can call them traitors is unbelievable! If people think the Nazis would have stopped at England there fooling themselves. but for these Irish fellas we'd all be talking german now!

Das ist ganz Blod. Deutschland hat niemals England erobert. Oder Irland.

Snickers Man

ejmaztec wrote: »

Ireland would have been invaded by the Nazis and my late uncle would have fought them off with his LDF issued broomstick, which also covered as a gun. Of course, some guerilla war veterans would have started a campaign against the invader. The British would aslo have been down here and The IRA wouldn't have been able to decide which "enemy" to shoot first.

You make it sound like it a huge joke but that is pretty much what would haved happened. With a choice of invaders fighting over our territory, the Irish people would have made a choice as to who they would fight against. It would have been like the Civil War again only WAY more vicious because other powerful countries would have been adding fuel to the fire.

Every country that was ever invaded by another has been told that it is in their best interests, that they are not being conquered, they are being liberated. The Nazis sought allies in every country they took over. Sometimes they were political allies, sometimes they were ethnic ones.

Many of the Belgians, for example, who sided with the Nazis were Flemish speakers fed up of playing second fiddle to the French speaking elite. Didn't necessarily make them Nazis or genocidists.

And look at the irony in Ireland. The closest political organisation to the Nazis was the Blueshirts, which became part of Fine Gael. Many people in the IRA, on the other hand, fought against Fascism in Spain. Yet it was the leader of Fine Gael, James Dillon, who wanted Ireland to join in the war on the Allies side whereas the leader of the IRA Sean Russel enlisted the support of Nazi Germany to his cause.

I am not a big admirer of De Valera but keeping us out of that war was the wisest, bravest and most admirable thing he ever did.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've just reported this by the way, until you can come up with something you can prove, then I suggest you lay off the war criminal comments.

No. That's fair comment. Victors in war are not tried for war crimes, only the losers. But if the Allies had lost, among those facing charges for war crimes would have been Churchill and his good friend Air Vice Marshall Harris for their deliberate, calculated and indiscriminate bombing of civilians, principally German but also Dutch, Belgian and French as the main offensive weapon of their country.

Similar actions in Iraq have earned "Chemical Ali" a death sentence. A reprieve is unlikely.

And incidentally, before you say "It was all we could do to hit back. We didn't have an army after Dunkirk" some of the worst raids with the highest casualties took place in the last months of the war when the Germans were effectively defenceless. There are numerous texts on this, typically written by people from the right of the centre ground of British politics. See Max Hastings' Bomber Command for one of the best examples.

Fratton Fred wrote:

As I have said on another thread, if Ireland opted for the German side, what other choice would Britain have had other than to invade Ireland.

What indeed. Which is why de Valera was so right to keep us out of it altogether.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Strategically, Ireland falling into German hands would have been a disaster.

Good job it wasn't really a priority for Hitler then, isn't it? (see other threads about Hitler's "peripheral" priorities)

Latchy

Quote Havok

I think you've got it a bit confused there, Rommel did not plead with Hitler to release divisions, Von Rundstet did, and they weren't released because they were in reserve and he needed permission. which he couldn't get until hitler gave okw permission, which in turn did not happen until midday.

Yes i did i say (i think ) it was rommel .Hitler was asleep and under strict instructions not to be awoken when news of the landings took place so he lost a few vital hrs there.

Just finished reading a book about Dwight D Eisenhour title ' Ike' .
A fascinating insight into his leadership as comander in chief of the allies and his dealings with his generals and British high command.

Great chapters on the Build up to D-Day ,the landings , and the slow difficult push through (and many screw ups) and advance onto Berlin.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

No. That's fair comment. Victors in war are not tried for war crimes, only the losers. But if the Allies had lost, among those facing charges for war crimes would have been Churchill and his good friend Air Vice Marshall Harris for their deliberate, calculated and indiscriminate bombing of civilians, principally German but also Dutch, Belgian and French as the main offensive weapon of their country.

it's not a fair comment at all. A fair comment could be that he has been accused of war crimes, but even the accusations are tenuous. What evidence is there that Churchill actually ordered the bombings to be carried out in the manor in which they were?

Snickers Man wrote: »

Similar actions in Iraq have earned "Chemical Ali" a death sentence. A reprieve is unlikely.

Gasing 10,000 Kurdish civilians is more an act of genocide I'd say. Unless you want to accuse Churchill of that as well.

Snickers Man wrote: »

And incidentally, before you say "It was all we could do to hit back. We didn't have an army after Dunkirk" some of the worst raids with the highest casualties took place in the last months of the war when the Germans were effectively defenceless. There are numerous texts on this, typically written by people from the right of the centre ground of British politics. See Max Hastings' Bomber Command for one of the best examples.

I wasn't going to, but thanks all the same. But as you raise it, the Germans were hardly defenceless, they were in retreat but they were not defenceless.

TerrorFirmer

Dresden was defenseless. Dresden really had no military value whatsoever and the raid had negligible effects on any form of transport system. The Luftwaffe was virtually grounded by lack of fuel. It was a complete act of mindless civilian destruction. I'd agree with Snickers Man on this one. The German army may not have been defenceless agreed of course but it's cities mostly were at that stage of the war.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it's not a fair comment at all. A fair comment could be that he has been accused of war crimes, but even the accusations are tenuous. What evidence is there that Churchill actually ordered the bombings to be carried out in the manor in which they were?

Probably the fact that Harris repeatedly stated that his intention was to terrorise the german people through area bombing and that he would target the working population in industrial areas, and that he had the cabinets full approval for a total war strategy that would target civilan areas. The fact that they flattened Hamburg (in an operation called "gommorah" bit of a dead giveaway on the ould war crime front there), Cologne, Dresden and few other cities. Use of Incenderies and Napalm too AFAIR. Stuff like that.

Fratton Fred

HavoK wrote: »

Dresden was defenseless. Dresden really had no military value whatsoever and the raid had negligible effects on any form of transport system. The Luftwaffe was virtually grounded by lack of fuel. It was a complete act of mindless civilian destruction. I'd agree with Snickers Man on this one. The German army may not have been defenceless agreed of course but it's cities mostly were at that stage of the war.

Firstly, let me say that the bombings of these cities as horrendous, I have read quite a few of the reports and the eye witness accounts and it is very chilling to say the least. I believe all those cities, defenceless or not, were legitimate targets, because the purpose of bombing was to remove Germany's ability to wage war, so arms factories, oil refineries etc were legitimate targets. Targetting civilians obviously is not

Bambi wrote: »

Probably the fact that Harris repeatedly stated that his intention was to terrorise the german people through area bombing and that he would target the working population in industrial areas, and that he had the cabinets full approval for a total war strategy that would target civilan areas. The fact that they flattened Hamburg (in an operation called "gommorah" bit of a dead giveaway on the ould war crime front there), Cologne, Dresden and few other cities. Use of Incenderies and Napalm too AFAIR. Stuff like that.

was Napalm invented then?

Area bombing was out of order, agreed, but did it have the full approval of the cabinet, or indeed Churchill? The only memo's I have seen are the ones from Churchill instructing it to be stopped.

Do politicians define the targets or did the RAF? Imagine how many orders and instructions were being given at the time, was this something the RAF wanted to do and got lost in the "Bigger Picture"? was the full impact of the bombing known when it was planned, I know that no one expected or foresaw the mass firestorms that took place killing most of the people.

Churchill used to talk about the war against Hitler, or the Nazi's he never referred to it as a war against Germany or the people of Germany. He also spoke about leaving enough intact so that they could restor Germany to the great and proud nation it once was. I find it hard to believe that a man who made a conscious effort to distinguish between the acts of Hitler and the German people would quite willingly authorise terror bombing.

Like I say, I don't want to condone what happened, I would like to try and find an explanation, a simple war crime is, I believe, not a reasonable explanation.

McArmalite

Snickers Man wrote: »

Similar actions in Iraq have earned "Chemical Ali" a death sentence. A reprieve is unlikely.

And incidentally, before you say "It was all we could do to hit back. We didn't have an army after Dunkirk" some of the worst raids with the highest casualties took place in the last months of the war when the Germans were effectively defenceless. There are numerous texts on this, typically written by people from the right of the centre ground of British politics. See Max Hastings' Bomber Command for one of the best examples.

Sadly true, when you think of all the war criminals who have got off with it, as Noam Chomsky once said, " If every US president since WW2 was tried under the terms of the Nuremburg trails, they'd all have been executed ". A few more could have been thrown in also, such as Pope John Paul the 2nd's buddy - Pinochet.

Here is an excerpt from Bomber Command: The Myths and Reality of the Strategic Bombing Offensive 1939 - 45. Chilling reading indeed. " General Sir Frederick Pile, told B.H. Liddell Hart that,"Winston is pinning all his faith to the bombing offensive now. The devastation it causes suits his temperament, and he would be disappointed at a less destructive ending to the war."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p247_Lutton.html

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would like to try and find an explanation, a simple war crime is, I believe, not a reasonable explanation.

No, your not looking for an explanation, your looking for an excuse.:rolleyes:

ejmaztec

McArmalite

India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, Malvinas 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present. And then the British govt. and their apologists, pontificate about International Terrorism ????

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at here, unless you mean that the Brits got terrorised

TerrorFirmer

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Firstly, let me say that the bombings of these cities as horrendous, I have read quite a few of the reports and the eye witness accounts and it is very chilling to say the least. I believe all those cities, defenceless or not, were legitimate targets, because the purpose of bombing was to remove Germany's ability to wage war, so arms factories, oil refineries etc were legitimate targets. Targetting civilians obviously is not

That's an understandable viewpoint but you wouldn't have found many oil refineries or factories contributing to the war effort in Dresden. Dresden was a purely civilian center.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

McArmalite

India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, Malvinas 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present. And then the British govt. and their apologists, pontificate about International Terrorism ????

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at here, unless you mean that the Brits got terrorised

No, I mean trhe brits were the ones carrying out the terrorism, though they will try and excuse themselves as a benign colonial policeman trying to keep the peace etc, etc, etc

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

No, I mean trhe brits were the ones carrying out the terrorism, though they will try and excuse themselves as a benign colonial policeman trying to keep the peace etc, etc, etc

care to enlighten me as to what Britain has done wrong in the Falklands and Afghanistan?

Hagar

Belgrano?

DublinWriter

Hagar wrote: »

Belgrano?

Quite true. Not only was the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone, but also sailing away from said exclusion zone.

The Falklands was effectively an exercise in keeping Thatcher in power. Between getting elected in 1979 and the start of the Falklands war in 1981, she was arguably the most unpopular PM Britain ever had.

Queue the Falklands, and she was up there with 'Winnie' for a couple of years.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Belgrano?

sinking the Belgrano was an unfortunate neccessity, caused by the Argentinian invasion.

Fratton Fred

DublinWriter wrote: »

Quite true. Not only was the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone, but also sailing away from said exclusion zone.

The Falklands was effectively an exercise in keeping Thatcher in power. Between getting elected in 1979 and the start of the Falklands war in 1981, she was arguably the most unpopular PM Britain ever had.

Queue the Falklands, and she was up there with 'Winnie' for a couple of years.

so the Argentinian invasion was ok? strange, I thought it was an act of aggression condemned by the UN.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought it was an act of aggression condemned by the UN.

No it was an "unfortunate necessity" as a result of an attempt to undo the colonial annexation of the islands by a nation half a world away.

Latchy

Quote =Hagar;No it was an "unfortunate necessity" as a result of an attempt to undo the colonial annexation of the islands by a nation half a world away.

The returning british force were greeted like heroes on their return to UK .It was a one nation on one conflict .

Contrast that today with the returning injured servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan who are shipped in through the back door ....

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

No it was an "unfortunate necessity" as a result of an attempt to undo the colonial annexation of the islands by a nation half a world away.

Agentina is in itself a colonial annexation, so they have as much right to the Falklands as Britain, except of course every single person on the Falklands wants to remain part of Britain.

The only reason they invaded was so that the Military Junta could disguise their own popularity (or lack of).

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Agentina is in itself a colonial annexation, so they have as much right to the Falklands as Britain, except of course every single person on the Falklands wants to remain part of Britain.

The only reason they invaded was so that the Military Junta could disguise their own popularity (or lack of).

Agreed, Argentina is a colonial annexation and if they can assert their right to an island by force of arms... well sure isn't that how the colonial game is played?
Who knows they might have another go while Britain is stretched to the four winds at their masters bidding. As for "everyone on the island wants to remain part of Britain", of course they do, they're British, although the Plantation of Ulster and the legacy we have of it today springs to mind.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Agreed, Argentina is a colonial annexation and if they can assert their right to an island by force of arms... well sure isn't that how the colonial game is played?

yep, but I don't see what Britain did wrong. I know the Belgrano was sailing in the other direction, but where was she going? half way thfough a war the Argentine navy sent thier flagship off to South Africa on a jolly? I doubt it.:rolleyes:

Hagar wrote: »

Who knows they might have another go while Britain is stretched to the four winds at their masters bidding. As for "everyone on the island wants to remain part of Britain", of course they do, they're British, although the Plantation of Ulster and the legacy we have of it today springs to mind.

with any luck they will leave it unil the new carriers are built, the current ones are starting to show their age

who were the original inhabitants of the Falklands anyway?

Hagar

P-P-Penguins.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

P-P-Penguins.

so now I know what the hell happy feet was all about, the Penguin's struggle against colonialism:D

DublinWriter

latchyco wrote: »

The returning british force were greeted like heroes on their return to UK .It was a one nation on one conflict .

Contrast that today with the returning injured servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan who are shipped in through the back door ....

...in coffins.