Was De Valera right to have Ireland neutral in WW2?

Snickers Man

rlogue wrote: »

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

This is all so much horse ****. Churchill wasn't so stupid, as was one of his successors, to regard Northern Ireland as being "as British as Finchley". He knew it was only as British as Northern Ireland. So while he toyed with the idea of introducing conscription there (like had been done with every other part of the UK) he came to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea. Hardly "copperfastening Northern Ireland to the UK".

A mere 20 years after the war, some would argue, the northern Ireland troubles broke out precisely because in economic terms every body realised that it made more sense for Northern Ireland to become more closely aligned with the Republic. Its old industries (linen,shipbuilding, engineering) were and remain in decline. The empire which served as its market was gone. The EEC was evidently the way forward. Britain had been trying to join since the early 1960s.

We were not barred from the UN, we declined to join for our own reasons (neutrality).

We got no Marshall aid because we refused to join NATO for our own reasons (neutrality). This only goes to show that Marshall "Aid" was nothing of the kind. It was a purchase of military co-operation in return for investment in rebuilding a shattered Europe.

Snickers Man

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In the end if for nothing else perhaps Ireland should have gone with the allies to save our fellow man .

Oh for crying out loud.

Get one fact very firmly into your noodle. The "ally" that did most to defeat Hitler was the Soviet Union. They were the main protagonists in Hitler's war. They were the people he really wanted to defeat and occupy and they were the people against whom he concentrated nearly all of his troops.

Saving our fellow man? Joe Stalin?

Tankman

rlogue wrote: »

Not a question of hindsight, but fact. The Ireland Act of 1949 in the UK parliament was pushed through by the Attlee government at the behest of Basil Brooke. In that act the UK recognised the Republic of Ireland but as I said earlier, copperfastened NI to the UK by specifically stating that NI would not ever leave the UK without a majority vote in Stormont.

The Republic of Ireland came about because of the abuse that John Costello got from the other Commonwealth nations at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in 1948, as Ireland's neutrality was despised by the other commonwealth nations. Costello literally pulled us out in a fit of pique.

We got hardly any Marshall Aid as we had no reconstruction to do in the aftermath of the war either. And as we weren't in NATO the Yanks were very much not inclined to invest much money in Ireland in the forties and fifties.

surely thats a good thing. if we were getting lots of marshall aid then it would of been because our cities were bombed to bits and in need of reconstruction. if that had of happened then there would of been lots of casualties, thats not such a good thing. i checked wikipedia and it says we giot 133million from the marshall money.

Shutuplaura

Regarding Marshall Aid, for once and for all, as Tankman Said, we did get aid from the US in 1947. In fact we were the first of the neutral countries to be granted it. And recieved proportionately the third largest share during the first 15 months of the programme.

US state dept official regarding Irelands Marshall Aid package:

"The Irish Case suffered from the absence of a communist movement in Ireland"

http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/arts/history/workingpapers/wp_44.pdf

Mr.Micro

Snickers Man wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud.

Get one fact very firmly into your noodle. The "ally" that did most to defeat Hitler was the Soviet Union. They were the main protagonists in Hitler's war. They were the people he really wanted to defeat and occupy and they were the people against whom he concentrated nearly all of his troops.

Saving our fellow man? Joe Stalin?

No ,lost me there .I was not thinking of the Red Tzar ,as he did not need Hitler to kill his people ,he did that himself with all his purges.I meant all all people and not just the USSR and it was the terrain, weather and timescale that defeated Hitler coupled with the German arrogance and conceitedness.

Shutuplaura

The weather alone? WTF!

TerrorFirmer

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The weather alone? WTF!

I don't see him saying that anymore?

rlogue

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is all so much horse ****. Churchill wasn't so stupid, as was one of his successors, to regard Northern Ireland as being "as British as Finchley". He knew it was only as British as Northern Ireland. So while he toyed with the idea of introducing conscription there (like had been done with every other part of the UK) he came to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea. Hardly "copperfastening Northern Ireland to the UK".

Read your history before you dish out the insults. Thanks.

Churchill was out of office when the Ireland Act of 1949 was enacted by the Clement Attlee government. The Ireland Act itself was a direct result of the declaration of a Republic by the Inter-Party government, which came about because Costello took his treatment by the other Commonwealth heads of government at the Commonwealth conference in Canada as a snub.

The other heads of government were known to despise Ireland for adopting its policy of neutrality during the war and knew little enough about the governance of Ireland to know or care whether De Valera's party was in government or not.

So now you are in the picture.

Shutuplaura

It is a load of nonsense becasue to lay any balme for the Ireland Act at Dev's door. For a start its all with the benefit of hindsight, he wasn't to know in 1939 that 10 years later another government of the country would set in motion the chain of events leading to the act. Anyway, his decision to remain out of the war was to help protect the irish people from the horrors of war, not to win a popularity contest.

The Act itself wasn't as important as people made out. Ireland didn't start to be treasted like a foreign country in the UK and the unionist guarantee put into law the de facto situation that already existed.

Anyway, unionists and nationalists had gought side by side in WW1 without any change in their attitudes after the war so I don't see how you can say for certain that doing the same in WW2 would be any different.

karen3212

Fratton Fred wrote: »

sometimes you have no choice. Most of Europe tried appeasement but it didn't work, it just gave Hitler more time to plan his strategies.

War is the ultimate threat, take that away and the international community becomes toothless.

There is always a choice, I mean aren't the English in a roundabout way related to the Germans, perhaps if they'd invited them in, kinda like the austrians did, then it mightn't have been so bad. Eventually they'd have settled in and the British would be ruled by Germans who'd have assimilated in time. No? What was it Ghandi said the British should do?

And who's to say how many Britain would have lost by inviting them in to have tea. Sorry if I'm off topic, I just think there are other ways of dealing with occupiers/potential occupiers.

ejmaztec

karen3212 wrote: »

There is always a choice, I mean aren't the English in a roundabout way related to the Germans, perhaps if they'd invited them in, kinda like the austrians did, then it mightn't have been so bad. Eventually they'd have settled in and the British would be ruled by Germans who'd have assimilated in time. No? What was it Ghandi said the British should do?

And who's to say how many Britain would have lost by inviting them in to have tea. Sorry if I'm off topic, I just think there are other ways of dealing with occupiers/potential occupiers.

The Royal Family might be related to the Germans, but the rest of the people are related on the same level as everyone else in Northern Europe.

mrgalway

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think Poland did a lot to get themselves into the mess, or Belgium, Holland, Finland etc.

If Ireland had not been an Island, it would have been dragged into the war regardless of what Dev decided.

If Ireland was an Island in front of Britain it would have been occupied by Hitler inspite of any neutral status.

As for participating in the war, neutrality or not, many Irish served in the UK forces and even more over to do "essential" jobs left empty due to conscriptions.

karen3212

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Royal Family might be related to the Germans, but the rest of the people are related on the same level as everyone else in Northern Europe.

Really, I thought they were a bit more related, anglo-saxons? More so than Scottish, Welsh, French etc?

mrgalway

karen3212 wrote: »

There is always a choice, I mean aren't the English in a roundabout way related to the Germans, perhaps if they'd invited them in, kinda like the austrians did, then it mightn't have been so bad. Eventually they'd have settled in and the British would be ruled by Germans who'd have assimilated in time. No? What was it Ghandi said the British should do?

And who's to say how many Britain would have lost by inviting them in to have tea. Sorry if I'm off topic, I just think there are other ways of dealing with occupiers/potential occupiers.

Don't you know. People only want to be "opressed" by someone speaking their own language.

cp251

Marshall aid was only granted to Ireland in fact as a means of helping feed the British via farm production in Ireland. They were in a bad way in terms of shortages, after the war. Dev was reluctant to accept it as he never liked to be beholden to anyone. Even by the standards of the times it was a small amount.

I agree with the likes of purplengold and others in the consensus that keeping us out of the war was a mistake which condemed to years relative backwardsness, poverty and emigration. Which I remind you only really ended just over ten years ago. Some younger contributors please note. It wasn't like this for most of this country's history. The blame can fairly and squarely be put on Dev's head and in general the gombeen men of the Fianna Fail party who looked after themselves and damm the rest of us.

I would agree with Dev's early stance in keeping us neutral. In 1939 the war looked just like another of those big powers struggle. Essentially Germany, France and Britain reprising WW1. When France fell and Britain stood alone. It would have been suicidal to join in. Britain's sense of betrayal is understandable in the context particularly when the other dominions stood with Britain. However unlike the other dominions Ireland was in the front line. Germany was never going to invade New Zealand. Plus Ireland and Dev had a 'history' with Britain which made it tricky.
The big mistake as others and the programme suggested was the failure to join the war when it was obvious who was winning particularly with the US involved. It would have been a cynical move but farsighted. However, farsightness was never one of Dev's 'faults'.

It would hardly have cost us casualties. Remember many thousands of Irishmens were already fighting with the British. For a supposedly neutral country that was odd. I don't remember thousands of Swedes, Turks or Swiss fighting for either side in WW2? It would have changed nothing except for millions of dollars of aid. Lots of big American airfields on west coast leaving ready made airports and jobs galore.

Instead we got practically nothing, our country became a backwater in every sense.

Our 'neutrality' since then was a sham. The only reason we didn't join NATO after the war was the rule that members had to recognise borders as they then stood. Not practical for us.

We didn't suffer much damage in WW2. We didn't get bombed much, (although my great uncle had his house bombed by the Germans). But the war did us a lot of damage thanks in part to our bumbling dictator. Thanks Dev.

It is interesting to note that his relatives who followed him into politics seems to have inherited this trait. Particularly the current minister. What a clown he is.

Fratton Fred

karen3212 wrote: »

There is always a choice, I mean aren't the English in a roundabout way related to the Germans, perhaps if they'd invited them in, kinda like the austrians did, then it mightn't have been so bad. Eventually they'd have settled in and the British would be ruled by Germans who'd have assimilated in time. No? What was it Ghandi said the British should do?

And who's to say how many Britain would have lost by inviting them in to have tea. Sorry if I'm off topic, I just think there are other ways of dealing with occupiers/potential occupiers.

the white christian able bodied hetrosexual English would probably have been ok. Provided they didn't mind standing by as everyone that wasn't was rounded up and thrown off the white cliffs of Dover.

mrgalway

I stumbled across the Eamon archives on RTE the other day and found some audio of a few of his WWII speaches, notably on staying neutral as well as his response to Churchill on his critism to Irelands neutrality.

Quite eirie listening to him after this thread.

http://www.rte.ie/laweb/ll/ll_t09b.html

McArmalite

mrgalway wrote: »

I stumbled across the Eamon archives on RTE the other day and found some audio of a few of his WWII speaches, notably on staying neutral as well as his response to Churchill on his critism to Irelands neutrality.

Quite eirie listening to him after this thread.

http://www.rte.ie/laweb/ll/ll_t09b.html

" as well as his response to Churchill on his critism to Irelands neutrality. " Churchill grudgingly called his response as " De Valera's finest hour ". Touche to Dev

mrgalway

The parable about the 6 counties was brilliant.

ossi

Im half German and think of it the propaganda the church & the NAZIS played along together with the Prosecution of the jews and profited during the war as if nothing happened, COMON wake up and smell the coffee, and my Irish Part of me says Bad DEv Bad boy because he was Churchill you child if he was still alive

FiSe

HavoK wrote: »

I think that's an interesting question. On it's own, the army would have been next to useless - without modern armour and air power a purely infantry based army was just that. It would have needed either side to equip it first, and then, it could have served some use - even the Finns with their tiny army, poor equipment and with a brigade of tanks from the Germans (not actually tanks, tank destroyers) forced the Soviets to abandon their idea of forcing unconditional surrender.

A popular ideal is that guerrilla warfare akin to the war of independance would have resurfaced. Certainly it would have if the British invaded. But I really don't think it could have had the Germans occupied the country - their brutality in retaliation would have been far, far worse then anything the British committed while in Ireland in the 19/20th century.

Finns vs Irish... I don't think that you can compare these two. Finns were fighting their own privat and, you can say, truly independent war with Soviet Union. They were protecting their own soverenity and their own country... Speaking of poor equipment, they were using aircrafts supplied by Great Britain / Hurricanes, Buffaloes, Blenheims + mix of captured ones and ones supplied by third country, Switzerland, I think/ and tanks either captured from the Soviets or supplied by Germans latter in the war /StuGs as you've mentioned/. But you have to understand, that Finnish-Soviet war took place in very limited area with very specific natural conditions...
I think, that majority of Finns were ready and willing to fight for their independance and their country till last drop of blood with bare hands, if neccessary. I doubt, that majority of Irishmen would accept such an unconditional and merciless war.
Guerilla war? This island is too small and easily accsessible for modern army /in the late 30's/. Look at Grece...

Bit of propaganda rethoric in this post but don't worry about it :cool:

Copper

I think Dev was right to keep us out of the war. It wasn't the black and white, good versus evil war that everyone in the west assumes it was. It was a war of competing tyrannies and it wasn't in the interests of the Irish people to take sides. Why should we have joined the slaughter for either the British Empire/Soviet Empire or the Reich? Both sides were guilty of committing mass murder and war crimes unprecedented in history, from firebombing and nuking civilian populations to gas chambers and Gulags. The Allies won the war, but it didn't mean freedom from tyranny and oppression for Europe. Half of Europe ended up under murderous communist oppression and freedom didn't come until 45 years later. Neither side was "good". There was I believe, no moral obligation for Ireland to join either side at any stage in the conflict.

The smart move was to remain neutral. Neither the Germans nor the Allies would have respected Ireland as an equal sovereign partner in any alliance.

Poland was Britains "First Ally" and most trusted partner in the war. Poland was the reason Britain went to war in the first place. Thousands of Polish soldiers were fighting for the Allies on the western front in parachute and tank brigades, and in the R.A.F.

The Polish Home Army rose up against the Germans in Warsawa in '44. They were promised aid and support by the Allies, yet in a series of diplomatic maneouvers Churchill and FDR betrayed the Polish Government in Exile (who were in London) and let the Home Army and Warsawa be destroyed by the Germans over 4 months. They refused to release the Polish Parachute Brigade (which was deployed on the western front) to join the rising. They betrayed their oldest Ally and watched over the destruction of her capital to appease Stalin, who wanted the Home Army destroyed. And Churchill and FDR were both aware that Stalin and the NKVD were committing mass murder and repression in Poland and had executed 20,000 Polish officers and POWs at Katyn. Despite repeated assurances that her independance after the war was guaranteed by both Britain and the U.S, she was occupied by Stalin with the western leaders consent. My point is that the international diplomatic scene was treacherous; the Allies would never have respected Ireland and her sovereignty unless it suited them. We would have just been used to further Britains interests, just as Poland was.

As for Dev signing the book of condolences, I'm not too sure if I agree or disagree with it but it was definitely a brave thing to do. But its not the only case where Dev stood up against the diplomatic tide. After the war, Stalin started liquidating the Polish Home Army and Government in Exile (which was the sovereign government of Poland, recognised by the western Allies). General Komorowski was the leader of the Home Army in Warsawa. His family tried to flee from Poland to England at the end of the war to avoid the NKVD who were actively seeking the families of the Home Army leadership. The British refused them entry to England. They were diplomatic pariahs now that Stalin had declared the Home Army illegal. Dev heard of their plight and invited them to Ireland. Whats worse, signing a book of condolences for a fellow statesman, or refusing to help the families of allies who have fought alongside you for 6 years, just so as not to upset Stalin?

Fratton Fred

Copper wrote: »

Poland was Britains "First Ally" and most trusted partner in the war. Poland was the reason Britain went to war in the first place. Thousands of Polish soldiers were fighting for the Allies on the western front in parachute and tank brigades, and in the R.A.F.

The Polish Home Army rose up against the Germans in Warsawa in '44. They were promised aid and support by the Allies, yet in a series of diplomatic maneouvers Churchill and FDR betrayed the Polish Government in Exile (who were in London) and let the Home Army and Warsawa be destroyed by the Germans over 4 months. They refused to release the Polish Parachute Brigade (which was deployed on the western front) to join the rising. They betrayed their oldest Ally and watched over the destruction of her capital to appease Stalin, who wanted the Home Army destroyed. And Churchill and FDR were both aware that Stalin and the NKVD were committing mass murder and repression in Poland and had executed 20,000 Polish officers and POWs at Katyn. Despite repeated assurances that her independance after the war was guaranteed by both Britain and the U.S, she was occupied by Stalin with the western leaders consent. My point is that the international diplomatic scene was treacherous; the Allies would never have respected Ireland and her sovereignty unless it suited them. We would have just been used to further Britains interests, just as Poland was.

As for Dev signing the book of condolences, I'm not too sure if I agree or disagree with it but it was definitely a brave thing to do. But its not the only case where Dev stood up against the diplomatic tide. After the war, Stalin started liquidating the Polish Home Army and Government in Exile (which was the sovereign government of Poland, recognised by the western Allies). General Komorowski was the leader of the Home Army in Warsawa. His family tried to flee from Poland to England at the end of the war to avoid the NKVD who were actively seeking the families of the Home Army leadership. The British refused them entry to England. They were diplomatic pariahs now that Stalin had declared the Home Army illegal. Dev heard of their plight and invited them to Ireland. Whats worse, signing a book of condolences for a fellow statesman, or refusing to help the families of allies who have fought alongside you for 6 years, just so as not to upset Stalin?

That is quite a simplistic view of what happened to Poland. Yes the allies left Poland to the mercy of Stalin, but you are presuming that Britain and to a lessor extent the US had a choice.

FDR was under pressure to bring the troops home, to pull out of Europ completely which would have effectively left Europe to the the mercy of Stalin, Germany was destroed, France ineffective and Britain more or less on it' knees. Getting Stalin to agree to the UN was FDR's main objective and keeping US troops in Europe was Churchill's. Poland was a pawn, but in a much bigger picture. No comfort if you were Polish, but keeping Russia out of the majority of Europe was, I'm sure you would agree, more important.

I agree though, I think the "Emergency" was probably Dev's best bit of leadership.

Morlar

If you look at it in context - ie in the years prior to 1939 we (Ireland) had had to deal with a longstanding army of occupation of our own, an uprising against the british which was crushed, a war of independence followed closely by a brutal civil war that split the country more or less in half (not just in terms of north south) - and this is not including the first world war where massive numbers (proportionately) of our soldiers fought for other armies in the meantime.

I think at the point of england declaring war on germany our country had had enough of war and bloodshed and the thoughts of fighting alongside england (given the above) was way too much to expect. Devalera had other concerns than churchill - our economic survival and social cohesion had been in significant danger throughout the 20's & 30's. This was a direct legacy of british occupation - something churchill had he not been so arrogant could have considered before threatening to invade us. I think at that time our country was in greater danger from the british than from the germans. We had fallen for the allied propaganda ('who will defend little catholic belgium' - was one poster I seem to remember) at the outbreak of World war one and rightly werent as gullible the 2nd time round.