Irelands neutrality?

melikedonunts

dont know if this topic was posted before,but i just want to hear peoples veiws on it?

my personnel oppinion is that during the world wars the fact we stayed neutral was a disgrace.I cant see why we as a counrty consider this to be sacred.I dont see why people are worried that we might be joining a single european army.the fact is that if we joined all decisions would be voted on.i think in this day and age the european army if they were to form would be involved in more peacekeeping issues not full on warfare(unless russia start acting up again,which might happen)

I think that an army like this should be involved when ever their is a crisis is the way people are treated,like in china,and possible northern korea

its not as if all of a sudden were going to afghanistan to help out the brits(i think that going into iraq and afghan was the right decision to make,but not for the reasons they gave,weopans of mass destruction,they should have said they gone in to help the people who were living in fear,from a evil dictatorship)

thanks for your oppinions!

Pyridine

my personnel oppinion is that during the world wars the fact we stayed neutral was a disgrace

Why? It saved us getting the crap bombed out of us. If Irish people wanted to fight they went and joined the Brits.

I cant see why we as a counrty consider this to be sacred

We're not in a part of the world where we need a large strong army. Plus the costs involved in equipping a military properly would mean no chocolates for Mary Harney and no pay rises for the lads in the Dáil. Also I'd rather the money was spent on education/health (although more wisely than at present..though that's a discussion for another day and forum!)

As for a European army again...Why? We don't need it!

unless russia start acting up again

I'd be more worried about the Americans TBH.

I think that an army like this should be involved when ever their is a crisis is the way people are treated,like in china,and possible northern korea

So you want to send a European army to China. I suggest you volunteer to lead the charge!! Also to the point, armies are there for protection/defense and offense where necessary. They're not for humanitarian issues in countries
that you would like to meddle in or who you currently consider to be the "bad guy".

i think that going into iraq and afghan was the right decision to make,but not for the reasons they gave,weopans of mass destruction,they should have said they gone in to help the people who were living in fear,from a evil dictatorship

Yeah because that's the REAL reason they went into those countries...it was all for the good of the people there, Operation Iraqi Liberation and Get Afghanistan Stabilised!

Anyway I reckon this is probably more suited to politics.

daithicarr

melikedonunts wrote: »

dont know if this topic was posted before,but i just want to hear peoples veiws on it?

my personnel oppinion is that during the world wars the fact we stayed neutral was a disgrace.I cant see why we as a counrty consider this to be sacred.I dont see why people are worried that we might be joining a single european army.the fact is that if we joined all decisions would be voted on.i think in this day and age the european army if they were to form would be involved in more peacekeeping issues not full on warfare(unless russia start acting up again,which might happen)

!

We only stayed out of the second. we were in the first on Britains side, if we should have stayed out of one, it should have been the first war, that was just a fight between imperial powers trying to gain more power.

World war 2 was a different matter, moraly it was a fight of good against evil. But i dont see what we could have contrubited. due to the famine and act of union , war of independance and civil war. our economy was ruined, industry almost non existant, low population and there for little man power. no Defenses, no navy, tiny airforce, very underequiped Army.

What could we have achieved?

We definitly should have taken in more Refugees fleeing persecution, we hid a similar size of Nazi war Criminals and colaberators as we did take in surviours of the Holocaust.

Cadet?

This is something I've thought about a lot, and over many years.

From a historical perspective I believe that technically we were in WW1 owing to the fact that at that time we were part of the United Kingdom- Am I right?
WW2...well that was a different story- Personally, I believe that it was the right decision to remain neutral. We were a very young nation, struggling economically- and let's face it we were'nt going to jump into bed with the the foreign power that we'd only got rid of. Essentially, I think our neutrality was borne out of neccessity.

Nowadays I'm against Irish neutrality. Like the OP, I don't know understand why our neutrality is sometimes called "sacred" and seems to be supported by the majority of citizens. I would have far less problem with us being so if we were "properly" neutral- like Switzerland for instance. I believe that we are only nominally neutral- obviously the US use of Shannon as the foremost example.

The main reason why I believe out position of neutrality is untenable is that simply that no country can remain neutral nowadays. Warfare has evolved. It evolved from WW1 to WW2 to the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Do you think Bin Laden would have any problem targeting us if he wanted to? If he attacked Shannon would we see that as being the US's problem and nothing to do with us cause we're neutral?

The idea that because we are a small nation we should remain neutral puzzles me. All warfare is made of coalitions, alliances, ententes.....even the US doesn't "go it alone". If Irish soldiers were ever to be sent abroad to fight we'd most probably be fighting with the Brits, EU or Americans.

Also, in my opinion I think Ireland would have a uch greater voice in world affairs if we were not neutral. Again using the Shannon example, do you think we'd be letting the US use the airport if our government had adopted an official anti-war stance? No. (Or at least if we did the government would be seen as a shower of hypocrites and more than likely booted)

I just don't understand the average Irish person's belief in neutrality. Do people think we are safer because of it? Are we a nation of pacificists? Do we just not want the expense? Or (and I sincerely hope not) are we just too cowardly and happy to let other people go out and complete the job even if we believe in it?

Sorry, my post is a bit all over the shop.......just a stream of thought to be honest.

Elmo

We only stayed out of the second. we were in the first on Britains side, if we should have stayed out of one, it should have been the first war, that was just a fight between imperial powers trying to gain more power.

Total agree here.

We were not neutral in WW1 due to being part of the British Empire. WW1 was only about colonilasation. Big powers wanting more power and sending the people out to fight for their coloniliasation of Africa and Asia.

WW1 is a disgrace.

It would have cost us to much to enter WW2. We had just come out of A war of Independence and a Civil War.

I think Germany and Japan have a much big reason to be embarrassed by WW2.

I think that an army like this should be involved when ever their is a crisis is the way people are treated,like in china,and possible northern korea

You have to remember that the UN was only set up after WW2 and Irish Army has been dedicated to the UN since its inception.

The Irish Army should only work on Peacekeeping missions for the UN.

Cadet?

OK so. Here's my contention. Some might say it's oversimplified, which may indeed be true- but somtimes I believe by simplifying things we can get to the crux of the matter more quickly.

Most people are not pacifists, meaning that most people believe that certain wars are necessary- The most obvious example of this is WW2.

So, is it not right to fight for the things that you believe in? What if a new Hitler attacked Poland tomorrow and started persecuting Jews, gays and blacks. Would we remain neutral? Should we?

Of course, wars are opaque and sometimes we can't see what they really were about till after them. Also, some wars are unnnecessary and belligerent.

But nevertheless, most people agree there are cases of "just war" and would be happy to fight- or at least support the fighting. It is at this point that I question Irish neutrality. Are we saying that we are neutral simply because we can't or don't want to differentiate between a "just" war or an "unjust" war?

Hypothetical situation; Tomorrow Bin laden bombs the fook out of the UK (inc. NI) but leaves Ireland alone. Thousands, perhaps millions die from the nuclear and biological weapons that have been used. Islamist extremists rise up in Britain using guerilla and terrorist tactics. The Brits are overstretched. Gordon Brown asks for any help Ireland can muster.

What do we do?

"Sorry we're neutral Gordo"

I don't think we would.

Maybe we are politically and militarily neutral at the moment. But we have a western liberal-democratic perspective and some **** just doesn't fly. I hope someday a politician in Ireland will at least raise the issue of neutrality- I'd love to see where that debate would take us.

daithicarr

We are not really Neutral in the true sense of the word, unaligned is more accurate.
To be Neutral you are supposed to have the capacity to defend your own territory, we cant, our navy and army could only put up a token resistance. we have no control over our airspace. unless the enemy fly really low and really slowly then our old bofors might get them.

allowing America to us Shannon is not Neutral. If Saddam had wanted to use it would we have said Yes?

I dont Believe we should join Nato, but we should have a closer and more offical co-operation with our European partners with an opt out clause for any foregin intervention, but not for the defnece of a fellow Euopean nation.
It would be good if we could contribute more to UN missions etc and have our own capacity to do so. such as being able to move men and equipment our selves to an operation theater.
But i cant really see military spending being justified over health and Education.

arybvtcw0eolkf

daithicarr wrote: »

We are not really Neutral in the true sense of the word, unaligned is more accurate.
To be Neutral you are supposed to have the capacity to defend your own territory, we cant, our navy and army could only put up a token resistance. we have no control over our airspace. unless the enemy fly really low and really slowly then our old bofors might get them.

allowing America to us Shannon is not Neutral. If Saddam had wanted to use it would we have said Yes?

I dont Believe we should join Nato, but we should have a closer and more offical co-operation with our European partners with an opt out clause for any foregin intervention, but not for the defnece of a fellow Euopean nation.
It would be good if we could contribute more to UN missions etc and have our own capacity to do so. such as being able to move men and equipment our selves to an operation theater.
But i cant really see military spending being justified over health and Education.

I agree with everyword.

Cadet?

Do you think there is a practical difference between a state being neutral or non-aligned?
To me, letting the US use Shannon demostrates our 'alignment' towards them..does it not?

"Token resistance" Hmmmm. I dunno. Yes if we are going to be invaded by the US or some other major power throught brute military force. But even so we'd put up a good fight. If I'm correct Ireland's military tactics would be along the lines of those "freedom fighters/terrorists" in Iraq. We'd use guerilla tactics, asymmetric warfare....Who will have been adjudged to have won the War in Iraq if Clinton or Obama get in and pull the troops out within 12 months? TBH I can foresee a lot of whooping, gunshots firing into the air and I don't think it'll be coming ffrom the US soldiers.
And anyway didn't we bring the British Empire to it's knees using similar tactics?

Size doesn't always matter.

melikedonunts

completely agree(we fought the british for years and we were not neutral then,almost creating fighting on the run)I dont see why joining a european army is a big issue if we are apart of it,I think as a MAJOR country of europe we should look to play a larger role,and that should include millatarily

Prolatarian

Cadet? wrote: »

Do you think there is a practical difference between a state being neutral or non-aligned?
To me, letting the US use Shannon demostrates our 'alignment' towards them..does it not?

"Token resistance" Hmmmm. I dunno. Yes if we are going to be invaded by the US or some other major power throught brute military force. But even so we'd put up a good fight. If I'm correct Ireland's military tactics would be along the lines of those "freedom fighters/terrorists" in Iraq. We'd use guerilla tactics, asymmetric warfare....Who will have been adjudged to have won the War in Iraq if Clinton or Obama get in and pull the troops out within 12 months? TBH I can foresee a lot of whooping, gunshots firing into the air and I don't think it'll be coming from the US soldiers.
And anyway didn't we bring the British Empire to it's knees using similar tactics?


Size doesn't always matter.

Very different time,No army had any experience in counter guerilla tactics
back then.Not to mention that briton was nearley bankrupt after WWI and the british public dident want another war so soon.Quite unlikely Any way as the EU would have its say.

daithicarr

a more accurate comparison of our potential to resist would be the IRA's activitys agianst the British security forces, warfare has come a very long way since columns of men armed with small arms were an effective force.

But thats not the point, we are not a neutral nation by the definition you can protect yourself, we rely on others for our protection.

Cadet?

Daithi,

I agree with you completely about us not being a neutral nation in a real sense. No problem with that at all.

I do believe however that tactics similar to that of Collins et al. would be what we would do in the event of an invasion (as you said, it would be improbable that we would be left fend for ourself anyway with the EU, UN, NATO etc.). Of course the tactics would be adapted and modernised to suit the times. Instead of small arms we'd be using different methods, bombing, cyberterrorism etc. I agree that the tactics used would be similar to that of the IRA...but the IRA's tactics were themselves an adaption of the Squads'. Collins himself is seen by many as the father of modern guerilla warfare.

Anyway, that's kinda off topic.

Kaiser_Sma

Well modern neutrality is a differnt issue. But during world war 2 it was a common perspective in britain that the irish choice of neutrality was 'shameful'. The fact that although ireland may have not made much of an impact by direct military response is besides the point, it was the british merchant navy that allowed supplies to reach ireland, british men risked their lives to bring essential shipments to ireland in ships that would not have been discriminated against by the kriegsmarine. It was also pretty much a certainty that had ireland been on the continent, neutrailty would have been no defence against the axis powers, it was only because britain remained that ireland remained free. Invading ireland would have made them vunerable to british counter attacks and airpower.

But what could ireland have done, other then drawing fire? One of the biggest resources was it's seaports where british naval ships where barred from entry for most the war. It's agriculture and industry may have been limited but it could have been mobilized to some extent that would have helped the allies to some degree (and i don't just mean arms manufacture). Formalizing and encouraging recruitmant to the british (or other allies) may have helped and cooperating with british intelligence.

The alliance didin't have to be compeltly formal but there where ways we could have helped more. It was very nearly the case that supplies would be diverted from ireland to britain as a form of punishment for its neutrality at the expense of others.

Its of course a differnt issue now, but people shouldn't cling on to the inflexibility of constitutional neutrality so readily and risk turning a blind eye or finding ourselves impotent when something requires our help.

purple'n'gold

Some people on here seem to be comparing the Irish army to other European armies. Our army was set up in 1922 with the primary objective of protecting the security of the state from dissidents within the country. A job that the Irish army has fulfilled faithfully and professionally up until the present day. Our army was never set up, equipped or had the necessary man power to go to war with anyone. United Nations missions are a good outlet for our troops to experience overseas activities, and maybe going forward we will contribute more to EU security with the Nordic battle group. As things stand our army is at the moment well equipped for its primary role. I will leave the naval service and air corps for further discussion.

Cadet?

Hey purple n' gold,

Agree with a lot of what you have to say- the question is however, do you think Ireland should still be, or even claim to be neutral? Is it even possible to be neutral nowadays? And, if you do think we should remain neutral, what are your reasons? e.g expense, lack of necessity?

purple'n'gold

Cadet? wrote: »

Hey purple n' gold,

Agree with a lot of what you have to say- the question is however, do you think Ireland should still be, or even claim to be neutral? Is it even possible to be neutral nowadays? And, if you do think we should remain neutral, what are your reasons? e.g expense, lack of necessity?

We are not neutral we are under the protection of the US/UK/NATO umbrella. Whether we are neutral officially or not is not really very important in the grand scheme of things. Military speaking we are totally insignificant and it just wouldn’t pay us to change our situation now. In the event of a major conflict the British would look after our air defences and Nato would ensure that our sea supply lines were kept open. This may sound very unpalatable to the left wing liberals among us, but I’m afraid that’s just the way it is. Oh yes, and this nonsense about Shannon airport and the US military, it’s a nice little earner for Shannon in difficult economic times (all times are difficult economically for Shannon of course) and would only be a very minor irritant to the US if they had to fly a few hundred miles extra to England or Wales.

Cadet?

purplengold wrote: »

We are not neutral we are under the protection of the US/UK/NATO umbrella. Whether we are neutral officially or not is not really very important in the grand scheme of things. Military speaking we are totally insignificant and it just wouldn’t pay us to change our situation now. In the event of a major conflict the British would look after our air defences and Nato would ensure that our sea supply lines were kept open. This may sound very unpalatable to the left wing liberals among us, but I’m afraid that’s just the way it is. Oh yes, and this nonsense about Shannon airport and the US military, it’s a nice little earner for Shannon in difficult economic times (all times are difficult economically for Shannon of course) and would only be a very minor irritant to the US if they had to fly a few hundred miles extra to England or Wales.

I agree that in practicality we are not neutral. In fact that is one of my arguments why Ireland should remove it from our constitution.

Well, personally I do think it is important in the grand scheme of things. I think that as a mature, modern and economically successful country we have a responsbility to put our money where our mouth is and just not let all the rest of the lads do it for us. Even if we only play a very small part we are still playing a part.

The neutrality question is also relevant in that influences a lot of people in the pro-, anti- Europe debate.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "this nonsense about Shannon."

Whether you agree or don't agree with US use of Shannon is irrelevant. The fact is that to let the US use it is not a "neutral" or "non- aligned" position.

purple'n'gold

“I don't understand what you mean when you say "this nonsense about Shannon."

Whether you agree or don't agree with US use of Shannon is irrelevant. The fact is that to let the US use it is not a "neutral" or "non- aligned" position.”


I have stated that in reality we are not neutral, so the controversy about Shannon is nonsense. The US is a friendly and benign power, so if they want our help (as allies) to refuel their aircraft we allow them to do so. Its also very good business for Shannon.

minidazzler

On the topic of Shannon,
Are we paid to allow the use of the Airport to the Americans?

If yes then
It is a good move from
A Business view
A Political view
and a
strategic view.

Since its for money we can just claim we needed the cash if the Sh1t hits the fan ever.

The Strategic view comes from the fact the Americans wont let people attack us if they need to use our Airport for refueling.

uptherebels

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

But during world war 2 it was a common perspective in britain that the irish choice of neutrality was 'shameful'.

it was the british merchant navy that allowed supplies to reach ireland, british men risked their lives to bring essential shipments to ireland in ships that would not have been discriminated against by the kriegsmarine.
allies) may have helped and cooperating with british intelligence.

Not only was it considered shameful but churchill in his speech after the war admitted that if it had become necessary to britains survival that they would have invaded ireland regardless of our neutrality.
As for the british merchant navy I was under the impression that it was that Sean lemass had to set up The Irish Shipping Company to bring supplies into this country as the brits decided to cut supplies to us

purplengold wrote: »

“I don't understand what you mean when you say "this nonsense about Shannon."
Its also very good business for Shannon.

Yes it is because in 2005 it generated an estimated 37 million euro in shannon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/21/usa.ciarendition
now I may be over simplifying this but how is taking the americans money helping them.

uptherebels

minidazzler wrote: »

The Strategic view comes from the fact the Americans wont let people attack us if they need to use our Airport for refueling.

The americans dont really need to refuel in shannon they could go to england or their bases in germany.But as I said bove why let all that money be spent someplace else when it can be spent in ireland.

Cadet?

Purple n' gold,

Sorry bout the confusion there. Yeah I completely agree with you.

But do you not think if we are not neutral in any real sense that we may aswell get rid of it from our constituion? That's what I believe.

There are three scenarios in my view.

Scenario 1; We are neutral and we act it. We offer no strategic, diplomatic, economic or any other type of help to any power in any war.

Scenario 2: We remove the idea of neutrality from our constitution and act accordingly.

Scenario 3: We do what we are doing now. Call ourselves neutral when in practice we aren't.

I'd be happy with option 1 or 2, although I mightn't agree with one. The third option leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Why are we being hypocritical? Without getting a little melodramatic over the whole thing, it's one thing that makes me a little ashamed. Trying not to sound too jingoistic, we are a proud nation, we should step up to the plate and accept some responsibility on the world stage. We may not have that much to offer, but we can offer something.

vulcan57

Ireland is neutral in name only. In this day and age very few countries are neutral in the true sense of the meaning. Ireland has a great reputation in peace keeping and that experience would be valuable to any European army or defence force. Joining a European defence force may well be benificial as I am sure there would be European defence funds available to better equip the army and, in particular, the air corps.

As far as Shannon and the US use of it is concerned I personally have no problem. This doesn't mean that we are in anyway in an alliance with them over Iraq or Afghanistan. When the Russians were fighting in Afghanistan for 10 years they were using Aeroflot and Shannon to transport troops between Afghanistan, Russia and Cuba, even if it was mostly for R&R. Where we in an alliance with them? No of course not.

Cadet?

So, most people here seem to be in agreement that Ireland is not neutral in any real sense.

Then why the pretence? Why isn't there some movement, campaign to try and remove it from our constitution? Or do people just think it's a nice little excuse to have in the drawer if we ever need to pull it out? I hate the hypocrisy more than anything...

cp251

And anyway didn't we bring the British Empire to it's knees using similar tactics?

In fact, they didn't bring the British empire to it's knees. The reality was that it was a close run thing and in fact the British army may have been gaining the upper hand thanks to stupid mistakes like attacking the Custom house. If it had continued the British may indeed have won the war. Although I suspect we would soon have had some form of home rule afterwards if only to defuse the nationalist feelings. But that's a discussion for another thread or forum.

On neutrality, I always believed that the original idea of staying out of the war was the right decision. After all, originally it was just another tiff amongst the great powers. Germany versus France and the British empire again. When it came down to a straight fight between Britain and Germany it would have been suicidal to join in at that stage. Being neutral was not such a bad thing, many other countries were neutral, notably the Dutch but they were swept up because they had a land border with Germany. A fate we would have shared if we hade been closer to the Continent. America was neutral too, so it was no disgrace. Whatever the British might have thought.

The mistake came later when the war became obvious for what it was and when the US joined the war. A more savvy or cynical politician than DeValera would have come in with the Americans around 1942 or 1943. Make no mistake, by this act, De Valera condemmed us to be isolated and backward socially and financially until recent years.

We often characterised our neutrality as some kind of high moral act (many still do) But in reality nobody needed us or wanted us. On the contrary we needed them, their help and investment to help to drag us out the Celtic bog were mired ourselves in. It's no coincidence that Ireland became the country it is today when foreign investment was encouraged. We could have been here in the sixties. But we remained isolated and backward for decades.

We've become less neutral lately while still maintaining the pretence. Joining the Nordic battle group isn't exactly neutral. But even that plays the old game. What on Earth are we doing in a 'Nordic' battle group. All the other countries in it border each other. Logically we should be in one with our neighbours France or Britain. But of course we can't be seen to cooperate with the British. Going to Chad as part of an EU force isn't exactly neutral either. It's start. As a country we are growing up and taking responsibiltiy for our part in the bigger world. About time.

purple'n'gold

cp251 wrote: »

In fact, they didn't bring the British empire to it's knees. The reality was that it was a close run thing and in fact the British army may have been gaining the upper hand thanks to stupid mistakes like attacking the Custom house. If it had continued the British may indeed have won the war. Although I suspect we would soon have had some form of home rule afterwards if only to defuse the nationalist feelings. But that's a discussion for another thread or forum.

On neutrality, I always believed that the original idea of staying out of the war was the right decision. After all, originally it was just another tiff amongst the great powers. Germany versus France and the British empire again. When it came down to a straight fight between Britain and Germany it would have been suicidal to join in at that stage. Being neutral was not such a bad thing, many other countries were neutral, notably the Dutch but they were swept up because they had a land border with Germany. A fate we would have shared if we hade been closer to the Continent. America was neutral too, so it was no disgrace. Whatever the British might have thought.

The mistake came later when the war became obvious for what it was and when the US joined the war. A more savvy or cynical politician than DeValera would have come in with the Americans around 1942 or 1943. Make no mistake, by this act, De Valera condemmed us to be isolated and backward socially and financially until recent years.

We often characterised our neutrality as some kind of high moral act (many still do) But in reality nobody needed us or wanted us. On the contrary we needed them, their help and investment to help to drag us out the Celtic bog were mired ourselves in. It's no coincidence that Ireland became the country it is today when foreign investment was encouraged. We could have been here in the sixties. But we remained isolated and backward for decades.

We've become less neutral lately while still maintaining the pretence. Joining the Nordic battle group isn't exactly neutral. But even that plays the old game. What on Earth are we doing in a 'Nordic' battle group. All the other countries in it border each other. Logically we should be in one with our neighbours France or Britain. But of course we can't be seen to cooperate with the British. Going to Chad as part of an EU force isn't exactly neutral either. It's start. As a country we are growing up and taking responsibiltiy for our part in the bigger world. About time.

Excellent post, the part where you say we should have joined the war when America came in is exactly what I think. And furthermore the battle of Britain was over and won, Germany needed every plane they possessed in the fight against the Soviet Union, so slight chance of us being bombed.

Cadet?

I did put a little Winky Mcwink after I said that " we brought the British Empire to its knees"....

darkman2

Personally I think neutrality is nothing more then cowardly. I agree with the sentiments saying that its time to grow up and take on responsibility in the big bad world. We cannot skive off other nations and expect to be supposedly morally righteous aswell. We are not neutral anyway.

I can understand why we were neutral in WW2 - no country could join a fight aligned with another country that divided your own country. Being neutral was the only realistic option. However the concept was hijacked by all types of do gooders and people with a strange view of the world as milk and honey. i.e we take as much as we can and take 0 responsibility.

The other question these people should be asked (and they should answer) is how any country can be 'neutral' between rouge states with terrorists (that wont think twice about taking your head off because your from Ireland) and the Western world. The stance we put out sickens me tbh.

Cadet?

I agree Darkman.

As of yet no one has seemed to have posted who believes in Irish neutrality yet I'd wager if you went out onto the street and asked the average Joe they'd be supportive of it. Why is that? What are their reasons? Do they really think about the issue or is it just some sort of knee-jerk, built in response?

King Ludvig

melikedonunts wrote: »

my personnel oppinion is that during the world wars the fact we stayed neutral was a disgrace.I cant see why we as a counrty consider this to be sacred.

A disgrace that we remained neutral? In my opinion De Valera made the right choice. For your information there were three main reasons why De Valera followed a policy of neutrality in the lead up to WWII:

1) The Irish Free State was established in 1922. Ireland was still technically part of the British monarch. However, declaring ourselves neutral, while Britian entered the war, made a very clear statement about Irelands soverignty and portrayed us as an independant state with control over our own forigen policy.

2) The Irish people did not want the suffering and hardship of another war. They had suffered enough during the War Of Independance and Civil War.
The country was only now being rebuilt by the Cuman na Gaedheal and Fianna Fáil Governments, and we didnt want the progress made to be destroyed by bombings etc. Also remember our economy was in bad shape (and worstened by the 1929 wall st crash) would we afford a war?

3) Ireland was/is a very small nation. It could not adequately defend itself from larger countries such as Germany. Secretary of the Department of External Affairs at the time, D. Keogh wrote: "small nations like Ireland do not and cannot assume a role of defenders of just causes except their own". As a result of demobilisation, the size of Irelands Army had been greatly reduced. We needed to focus all our resources on defending our own territory, not launching an offensive.

Then again, we did have "selective neutrality" whereby we showed favour to the Allies by passing on information to the British etc.
Also thousands of Irishmen did go and join the British army at this time.


As regards to todays EU suituation, I'll be voting yes on the lisbon treaty.

Cadet?

Hey King Ludvig,

I think a lot of people agree with you that staying neutral during WW2 was prudent and indeed necessary. I'm just wondering what your thoughts about Ireland remaining neutral (and when I say neutral, I mean in in the official, constitutional sense) nowadays are?

DILLIGAF

I'm not going to get deep into the political pockets of what's being discussed here. I agree that WW1 was a fight for a cake that shouldn't have happened, but WW2 was required in order to push back an evil superpower that had ideas for ALL of us beyond the scope of anything that we had to face before then.


With regards shannon, if all we were going to do to alleviate a bit of pressure from their pilots is let them land and refuel and for the soldiers to get some food then damn ****ing right. I understand that we didn't want our soldiers over there, that's fine, we've never had the training for such a scenario anyway. Our ranger wing could have offered some support to the RM or SAS in the early days but they did the job anyway. All we offered in the last 5 years has been logistical support in the form of a piece of tarmac. This does tarnish our "neutral" stance in the eyes of onlookers, but what effect did it have on our people? Remember that woman who ran onto the runway and did some damage to a plane? I've never wanted to slap a woman in my life, but that would have warranted on open palm the likes of which Charlie Murphy could relate to.

Anyway, I really think we need to look at our previous "peace keeping" efforts. They are nicely branded but our boys have seen some tough times too and have the backbone to do what needs to be done (read Heroes Of Jadvotville if you get the chance)

The point needs to be raised, with a closer EU than ever before, we have already given up so many of our exclusive traits and customs that aside from our tourism industry, we aren't clinging to the Ireland we once were. It's time that our military saw that as civilians are moving on then the force that is in place to protect them should consider this too.

Remember when we were in a school nativity play, and someone was made play the donkey or the tree or something daft? The teacher would always say "It's not the size of the part that counts, it's how well you play it", I'd like to think that such a simple outlook could be applied to our armed forces, we might only have a few combat medics, engineers and the like, but we could still get stuck in and do our bit. I really don't think any eastern power recognizes us anyway, and if we did anything to help I'm sure it would swoop under the radar. I think it ultimately falls to the civvies and their attitude.

cp251

Indeed you did cadet, but they were already on their knees. But we worried them nonetheless. We were as good as they were and I suppose they acknowledged that in a way. The English have no respect for a people unless they beat them at something. We gained their respect. It is worth remembering that the Irish regiments in the British army are still 'Irish' not 'Ulster' or 'Northern Irish'.

I wish though that the average civilian in Ireland respected the Irish soldier they way they should. No need for militarism just respect. It's been hard earned.

I honestly think, it will take multiple casualties in some operation far away from our shores befores the average Joe Soap actually realises what a good job our military can do. Sad but true.

Even as a mere FCA member I was glad to wear the uniform of the Irish army even though I was sneered at by civvies as 'Free Clothes Association' or 'Dads Army'. The regulars called us 'Sandbags'. But as often as not we were as good as them if not better.

The Irish disease.

cp251

Dilligraf, agree with you completely.

Cadet?

I think this thread is focusing too much on the US use of Shannon (my fault, but I was bringing it up only because it has implications on Irish 'neutrality', and not in trying to provoke pro-/anti- Iraq War sentiment).

Personally I have no problem with the US use of Shannon as I did and indeed do support the war but however we try and sugar coat it, it is not congruent with our official and indeed constitutional stance of neutrality.

This is what I'm trying to get at.

Let's forget about our history of neutrality (by looking at WW2 etc.) and instead look at our position now.

What our people's opinions of our 'official' stance?

Why do the majority* seem to favour this stance? It just puzzles me...


* I have no stats or anything, but just from my experience the average Joe seem to be supportive of our neutrality.

melikedonunts

"Also thousands of Irishmen did go and join the British army at this time."
your almost proving are point.thousands of irish did go over and fight for the british,they realised that staying"neutral" was stupid,and that this event had a significant impact on the future for evryone!

you make the point that we had nothing and that are economy wouldnt be able for it?what economy?we had nothing!the only reasaon dev wanted to stay neutral was that he didnt want to be seen suppporting the british!which mises the point as this was a cause for COMMON GOOD!we didnt have money to spend on arms i agree,but if that was the problem im sure british would have had no problem arming us!
The least said about Dev the better in my books!

melikedonunts

I forgot to add in the point that dev at the time was helping the nazis against the british,Ireland was seen as a safe heaven for nazis during and after the war,were they could seek refuge

Manic Moran

If Saddam had wanted to use it would we have said Yes?

Don't see why not. Ireland has rarely said "no" to anyone over the years, be they proudly flying the flags of Capitalism (US Air Force) or Communisim (Soviet Air Force)

NTM

daithicarr

I cant Believe some people would want ireland to Join america in their foolish and illegal war in Iraq. what purpose would it serve?

Why send our men to fight and die for some neo imperial exercise, when there are far more worthy places our military resources could be used. the various UN missions always have a hard time putting a force together, our resources could be used there to help stop conflict in the world.

Not by going to Iraq and promoting conflict.

bartholomewbinn

daithicarr wrote: »

I cant Believe some people would want ireland to Join america in their foolish and illegal war in Iraq. what purpose would it serve?

Why send our men to fight and die for some neo imperial exercise, when there are far more worthy places our military resources could be used. the various UN missions always have a hard time putting a force together, our resources could be used there to help stop conflict in the world.

Not by going to Iraq and promoting conflict.

America couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks about their adventures in Iraq. They went in there to secure the oil, they have done that. Ok about 4,000 US service personnel have been killed, but they can live with casualties like that. They lost in excess of 50,000 dead in Vietnam and there was no oil at the end of it. At the end of the day when the dust settles, and it will, America will have achieved their objective.

cp251

Daithi, who was suggesting Ireland join the Americans in Iraq? This is about our false neutrality. A better example is Afghanistan where we have some officers. Beside we did our bit for the USA by allowing the stopovers. The anti war crowd are right on one thing. The stopovers would compromise our neutrality, if we were neutral in the first place.

our resources could be used there to help stop conflict in the world.

That's the fantasy we've been fed for some time now. Somehow we are expected to believe that our 'neutrality' is recognised all round the world and our mythical colonial victimhood helps us to be seen as peacemakers. In reality it is the behaviour of our troops when they go abroad that clinches it for the locals. The Irish army are famous for winning hearts and minds in the countries they find themselves.

If you ever travel to faraway places you soon realise that in fact many people out have never heard of Ireland or if they have they believe it's part of Britain. They don't even know we exist, never mind what our history was. Half the time when they have heard of us it's only because some Paddy passed through previously and fed them the hoary old myths we all know and love. I've even met foreigners in Ireland who were a bit vague as to our status as an independant country. They thought they were in the UK.

Manic Moran

The stopovers would compromise our neutrality, if we were neutral in the first place.

Why? Neutrality is indicated by refusing to take any side, to offer aid on a discretionary basis to one group and not another. As long as Ireland allows stopovers to all who ask for it (which it does, as far as I know), no violation of neutrality is indicated. For example, as I'm bouncing around the Dail transcripts (What a bloody great site) I see that in the six months prior to April 03, foreign military aircraft from Croatia, UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, Mexico, Romania, Turkey, the US and Yugoslavia all made landings in Dublin and Casemont. When was the last time Ireland ever said 'no' to anyone except on the basis of procedural issues such as the request coming in too late?

NTM

DILLIGAF

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see that in the six months prior to April 03, foreign military aircraft from Croatia, UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, Mexico, Romania, Turkey, the US and Yugoslavia all made landings in Dublin and Casemont.

bloody good point mate!

Cadet?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why? Neutrality is indicated by refusing to take any side, to offer aid on a discretionary basis to one group and not another. As long as Ireland allows stopovers to all who ask for it (which it does, as far as I know), no violation of neutrality is indicated. For example, as I'm bouncing around the Dail transcripts (What a bloody great site) I see that in the six months prior to April 03, foreign military aircraft from Croatia, UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, Mexico, Romania, Turkey, the US and Yugoslavia all made landings in Dublin and Casemont. When was the last time Ireland ever said 'no' to anyone except on the basis of procedural issues such as the request coming in too late?

NTM

Excellent point actually. Food for thought.

Manic Moran

I guess a more direct and well-known analogy would be "Did Uraguay violate its neutrality in WWII when it allowed KM Graf Spee to dock to conduct repairs after the Battle of the River Plate?" In this case there was no doubt that the ship was a belligerant, that it was involved in combat operations (Hey, it was half way to blown up), and that as soon as it left Uraguay it would immediately engage in combat with the British forces waiting offshore.

Yet nobody from any side has, as best I know, said anything negative about Uraguay. Indeed, the laws of war of the time specifically mentioned the rules for combatant warships entering neutral ports, including having ships from both sides in port at the same time. I see no reason these principles cannot be viewed in modern form to apply to aircraft.

NTM