What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

bobblepuzzle

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

Can you please provide us with a good enough reason as to why the USA should've joined the war at the outbreak of WW2? Given the fact that they were relatively isolationist at the time, and their military was unbelievably useless. No country goes to war because they like to help people... they have to have an interest in doing so.

Dr Strange

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Himmler must have been quite a hit with the ladies! "wanna go to a graveyard and jump the bones!" Sorry!!

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

So indeed it wasn't simple as I thought it was. I do remember reading that Nazis viewed Celts as inferior and I cant remember where I read it, but I probably took it out of context, as "inferior" when compared with "aryan".

I agree, it isn't easy to look at this in a simple manner. Even in schools at the time (teaching of eugenics and "racial hygiene") the so-called aryan race was separated into pure and not so pure people with the blond blue-eyed people (Nordic type - long-headed or dolichocranic) on top of the list and the people from the southern parts (the Alpine type with brown hair and brown eyes, broad headshape - brachycranic) further down...and so on. The Celts would, in my understanding from German documents of the time, still have been classified as a strong brotherly race to the Nordic race.

Denerick

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

The US weren't too interested in fighting Nazi's after they were attacked either. Hitler declared war on them first.

Wolfe Tone

But I think combat, especially at sea had begun prior to the deceleration by Germany.

Pittens

Gurgle wrote: »

Likewise, heard this story but never any evidence or reasoning. As white european christians, we would have been well qualified for the Reich.

As for joining the war, we were an island full of 2nd world subsistance farmers under the thumb of Hitler's ally the Vatican and with a centuries old grudge against Britain. If Hitler had played the game differently we could easily have found ourselves on his side.

Gosh. If Hitler was so fond of White European Christians he clearly mistook the slavs for Blue African Atheists.

( However celts were considered Aryan, if an inferior branch of the tree to Germans and Anglo-Saxons).

Your claim that the Vatican was Hitler's ally is ahistorical. Plenty of priests died, most of the Polish Catholic priesthood was eliminated. The Vatican was a refuge for Jews. The Vatican as Nazi claptrap is late 20th century propaganda.

Also ireland, in the 30's, recognised Jewishness as protected under the constitution.

As for neutrality

1) in 1939 Hitler's Germany was no more racist than most of the rest of the colonising Western world. ( In particular the democratic world - which was more racist than Catholic Fascist Spain). So all moral claims are hindsight
.
2) Ireland would have lost the war. Irish people, under neutrality, could join the British army. Unless we agreed to join with the Allies as in - be British - with British equipment etc. the Irish army was not going to win against the German.

3) Ireland had just got it's independence a generation before.

4) Plenty of people - in America and the rest of the world - were hostile to the kind of rhetoric of WWI: the war to end all wars, the war to free plucky little Belgium ( itself a colonial power). A war with all that rhetoric which - at the end - saw the British Empire expand it's real Estate by 20%, most in the middle East with repercussions to this day. A quick victory over Nazi's and the Empire would have expanded again.

5) The war - in 1939 - was a war to stop German domination of the continent not a democratic war against non-democrats. It wasn't an anti-racist war - the British Empire could no more enter an anti-racist war than the Nazi's could - it was a war for position between two racist powers.

6) It wasn't a war to save democracy, or to save Poland. Poland wasnt democratic until 1989. Nobody fought, or declared war, against the other larger imperial power which invaded Poland at the same time as the Axis. If the invasion of Poland was a Casus belli then why was the Soviet Union not attacked?

( I am using British here for Allies - the continent fell in about 2 weeks and the US was not involved. The Allies in 1939 were( was) mostly the British Empire).

In retrospect the nicer racists won. At the time it wasn't so obvious. Neutrality was justified.

Gurgle

Pittens wrote: »

Your claim that the Vatican was Hitler's ally is ahistorical. Plenty of priests died, most of the Polish Catholic priesthood was eliminated. The Vatican was a refuge for Jews. The Vatican as Nazi claptrap is late 20th century propaganda.

Fair enough, 'ally' was too strong a word.

Pius was stuck in the middle of the capital city of Hitler's ally Italy, playing Realpolitik to avoid risking the church's wealth and power. There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

Pittens

There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

That's fair.

Morlar

Gurgle wrote: »

Fair enough, 'ally' was too strong a word.

Pius was stuck in the middle of the capital city of Hitler's ally Italy, playing Realpolitik to avoid risking the church's wealth and power. There is certainly no case to say he did all he could.

There was an article on this recently on the bbc news site (which I can't find at the moment) to do with recently uncovered letters where the then pope Pius referred to how the church should afford all possible protection to 'non christians' and 'non aryans' ie jews. I believe it is at the core of an upcoming book - but for some reason google isn't finding it.

Edit**
Still can't find it but did find this:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=180806

Hitler’s Pope saved 200,000 Jews’
By JPOST.COM STAFF
07/09/2010 01:34

Historian: visas that Pius XII secured for converts probably went to other Jews as well.


Hitler’s Pope,” Pope Pius XII, may have arranged for 200,000 Jews to leave Germany after Kristallnacht, The Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday.

German historian Dr. Michael Hesemann told the paper that Pius, then known as Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, wrote to archbishops around the world, asking them to obtain exit visas for “non-Aryan Catholics” and Jewish converts to Christianity.

Hesemann is doing research in the Vatican archives sponsored by the Pave the Way foundation, a US interfaith group.

RELATED:
Why was Pius XII silent on the Holocaust?
Editorial: Come clean on Pius XII
Washington Watch: Hitler's pope was no saint

Elliot Hershberg, chairman of Pave the Way, reportedly said: “We believe that many Jews who were successful in leaving Europe may not have had any idea that their visas and travel documents were obtained through these Vatican efforts. Everything we have found thus far seems to indicate the known negative perception of Pope Pius XII is wrong.”

Pius was nicknamed “Hitler’s Pope” because he did not publicly denounce the Holocaust, the Nazis or Adolf Hitler.

“The fact that this letter speaks of ‘converted Jews’ and ‘non-Aryan’ Catholics indeed seems to be a cover,” Hesemann told the Daily Telegraph, adding that evidence suggests that visas would have been given to Jews who didn’t convert, as well.

“You couldn’t be sure that Nazi agents wouldn’t learn about this initiative,” he reportedly said. Therefore, the then-cardinal worded his letter in a way that would not allow Nazis to claim that the Catholic Church was an ally of the Jews and use it as propaganda.

The appeal was dated November 30, 1938 – 20 days after Kristallnacht, the “night of broken glass.”

Pope Benedict XVI : Pius lived a life of "heroic virtue"

Cardinal Pacelli was the Vatican’s secretary of state at the time. He was able to ask for the visas because of an agreement he signed with the Nazis, which protected Jews who converted to Christianity.

In December, Pope Benedict XVI declared Pius “Venerable,” a title that means the Church believes he lived a life of “heroic virtue.” If two miracles performed by Pius are found, he will be canonized as a saint.

However, some Jewish groups demanded that the canonization process be frozen until the Vatican opens its secret World War II archives in 2014.

Sir Martin Gilbert, a British historian and Holocaust expert, has said that Pope Pius XII should be considered as a “Righteous Gentile” by Yad Vashem.

getz

thats not the history i have read,the vatican signed a concordat with hitler in 1933, that only recognized catholicism as the one state religion,the vatican knew about the holocaust but turned a blind eye,the church used slave labour,when the slaves were no longer of use most would be sent on to the death camps,hitlers cardinal pacelli was tried for political war crimes,many leading natzi criminals were handed vatican passports[some used them to escape to ireland] even today the vatican is trying to hide its dirty washing, the present pope benedick XV1 was a member of hitler youth,[he admitted it] but the vatican still try to say he wasent,

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, I am sure that the BBC told everything exactly how it was......Press everywhere was censored. It is easy to say now that Éire should have fought, but I feel, and the poll feels, (although it is not a reflection of public opinion) that Neutrality was the best option. Here is another quote from Dev on Churchills claim that Britaiin showed restraint in not invading our island:



The Nazis would have had no fear at using Ireland as the dreaded "back door" into Britain during the period after the fall of France. Our neutrality prevented that. Also, Éire helped the allies out with flight permission over Donegal, returning downed airmen, passing intelligence and weather reports among other things.


I believe Ireland was one of the only "Neutral" countries to not declare war on the Germans in the last days of WW2 in order to seize assets.

Our neutrality did not prevent that, the only thing that stopped that was the fact that it was too risky for the Germans to attack us from France. Denmarks neutrality didn't prevent them being annexed when Germany want to invade Norway (another neutral country) did it? If it was feasible for the Nazi's to invade us to get to Britain, they would have done it, neutral or not.

Also, I can't understand why we didn't declare war on Germany in the final days of the war when Germany was defeated, or even anytime from 1942/43 onwards, like almost every country in the world, could have at least gained us some favour, instead of dev going to the German ambassador sympathising on Hitlers death.

Wolfe Tone

It did I believe. There would have been huge backlash from the Americans.

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It did I believe. There would have been huge backlash from the Americans.

I don't think that would have concerned him too much, he declared war on them in 1941 afterall, and anyway he probably would have gambled that the USA wouldnt leave their isolationist policy for Ireland when they wouldn't do it for several other countries.

And the whole backlash from America if Ireland was invaded is overblown I think, they might have protested at most, but I doubt they would have committed to a war against a powerful Germany on another continent because of one small country

Wolfe Tone

What about the Huge amount of Irish americans? A very influential group.

BlaasForRafa

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But I think combat, especially at sea had begun prior to the deceleration by Germany.

Correct, at least sort of anyway.

The lend-lease program was well into gear at that stage and the US Navy had started escorting US merchant ships as far as Iceland. There were a couple of US destroyers damaged by torpedo strikes from U-boats in mid to late-1941 with several dozen american sailors being killed. Being that the attacks were at night and it being tough to tell one destroyer from another in murky atlantic weather the germans thought that they were attacking UK destroyers.

Profuse apologies were offered by the germans but it did lead to some hardening of opinions towards the germans in the states.

Jeboa Safari

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about the Huge amount of Irish americans? A very influential group.

They were but they weren't so influential that could get the United States into a war just because Ireland was attacked.

If they couldn't enter the war to help Britain they weren't going to go to war for Ireland.

There was also a huge number of Americans with German ancestry, didn't mean the US sided with Germany.

Ireland couldn't even get access to American weapons in ww2 despite de Valera trying

Also, Hitler wasn't scared of the US, he believed the German armies were invincible especially after the fall of France, I don't think it would have bothered him what the US did if he thought it would lead to the fall of Britain.

FiSe

I'm not quite sure if Irish army was too keen to get too much of military equipment from the US. I believe that there was strong tendency to get as much as possible from the nearest source, ie UK. Well, before the war anyway and once the war broke out it was too late to chase some of the defence stuff.

Allegedly - and this could be a total myth - there was an offer on the table from the Americans just before the war, to supply some of the surplus America made aircraft for knock down prices, It was nothing too fancy P-35 or Hawk-75, but was declined in favour of UK built machines like Gladiator and Walrus.

Pegasusbridge

Pittens wrote: »

1) in 1939 Hitler's Germany was no more racist than most of the rest of the colonising Western world. ( In particular the democratic world - which was more racist than Catholic Fascist Spain). So all moral claims are hindsight

Really? In 1939 a Jewish person was legally barred from a number of professions and had a number of legal restrictions placed upon them.
In Britain a Jewish person faced no such problems. There may have been a racist attitude throughout western society but Hitlers legal racism made his country far worse then most

In relation to the Neutrality issue. I've always felt we were never really neutral at all. We clearly sided with Britain and the Allies. We were a non-belligerent but never really neutral

Pittens

Really? In 1939 a Jewish person was legally barred from a number of professions and had a number of legal restrictions placed upon them.
In Britain a Jewish person faced no such problems. There

Is racism only against Jews? I said the "colonising Western world". And the war was not Britain against the Nazis but the British Empire. Ignoring Northern Ireland - where Catholics were culturally bared from the professions and had legal restrictions - there is the issue of India, Kenya, South Africa and on and on. All of which were run by and for whites (Anglo Saxons, mostly) at the expense of the majority.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

Is racism only against Jews? I said the "colonising Western world". And the war was not Britain against the Nazis but the British Empire. Ignoring Northern Ireland - where Catholics were culturally bared from the professions and had legal restrictions - there is the issue of India, Kenya, South Africa and on and on. All of which were run by and for whites (Anglo Saxons, mostly) at the expense of the majority.

India had Colonial assemblies and wide political liberty, including indigenous political parties.

Compared to other colonial powers, such as France, Britain was rather enlightened in its treatment of indigeneous people.

Manach

On topic.
We were right to stay neutral in that our Armed forces, though brave, would not have lasted long in a modern battlefield - [based on conversations with a relative who served in the army at the time]


Slightly offtopic
Re: France and colonialism. AFAIR, France allowed some of its colonies to be French departments (legally part of). Algeria for example sent deputies to the Paris. However this was mostly open to European colonists and not as common for indigeneous descendants.

Pegasusbridge

Pittens wrote: »

Is racism only against Jews? I said the "colonising Western world". And the war was not Britain against the Nazis but the British Empire. Ignoring Northern Ireland - where Catholics were culturally bared from the professions and had legal restrictions - there is the issue of India, Kenya, South Africa and on and on. All of which were run by and for whites (Anglo Saxons, mostly) at the expense of the majority.

Only using jews as an example. The point is there is a difference between cultural racism and legally institutionalised racism. The British Empire may have been guilty on the first count but not on the second count

PatsytheNazi

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I don't know what to think. We don't really have anything to be proud of, but on the other hand the U.S.A weren't too interested in fighting Nazis either - until they were attacked.

Well I could understand America's position. As the used to say, Canada to the north, Mexico to the south, Europe 2,000 miles to the east, Asia 2,000 miles to the west. Why do we want got to war.

If I remember rightly, Fine Gael wanted us to enter the war when America came not it, am I correct ?

Pittens

The British Empire may have been guilty on the first count but not on the second count

That is utter nonsense. The British Empire included South Africa, Kenya. Rhodesia etc. These were racist States with racial laws.

PatsytheNazi

Denerick wrote: »

India had Colonial assemblies and wide political liberty, including indigenous political parties.

Compared to other colonial powers, such as France, Britain was rather enlightened in its treatment of indigeneous people.

Something the Nazi's couldn't even achieve, exterminating a whole race of people the Tasmanian aborigines, would be one fine example of Britain's " enlightened in its treatment of indigeneous people. " ?

ejmaztec

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Something the Nazi's couldn't even achieve, exterminating a whole race of people the Tasmanian aborigines, would be one fine example of Britain's " enlightened in its treatment of indigeneous people. " ?

The number of Tasmanian Aborigines intentionally killed by settlers can't be compared with the umpteen millions of people killed by the Nazis.

Pittens

The number of Tasmanian Aborigines intentionally killed by settlers can't be compared with the umpteen millions of people killed by the Nazis.

genocide is the killing of a people - an ethnic group - regardless of numbers. ( Communism killed more people but engaged in less genocide than Nazzism).

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[2] Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political groups.

That last bit was good for Stalin, as he exterminated Kulaks. Anyway, nothing about numbers,

ejmaztec

Pittens wrote: »

genocide is the killing of a people - an ethnic group - regardless of numbers. ( Communism killed more people but engaged in less genocide than Nazzism).



That last bit was good for Stalin, as he exterminated Kulaks. Anyway, nothing about numbers,

Yes, I know what genocide is, and as I didn't mention genocide, I still stand by my post.

Pegasusbridge

Pittens wrote: »

That is utter nonsense. The British Empire included South Africa, Kenya. Rhodesia etc. These were racist States with racial laws.

Fair point in the sense that I must admit I wasn't thinking of South Africa. However it is interesting to note that you are using African countries to back up your incorrect ascertion that Western Society was as racist as Germany in 1939. The racism in Western European society was far less then in Germany in that it wasn't legalised. It is also unfair to judge the British Empire as a whole based on its colonies.
The simple fact is that Germany was a more racist country in 1939 then GB, France, Belgium etc

indioblack

Should the Free State have been neutral? No.
But could it have done so, practically?
I think the poll so far is right.
I can't see Ireland being used as a springboard into Britain - think of the geography and the logistics required - not to mention interference from Britain.
Part of DeValeras reasoning was understandably partly political and historical, and the very fact of the states neutrality left it open to criticism.
As to the Irish-American slant, some Irish-American politicians argued fiercely for the US to remain neutral because to do otherwise would meaning aiding an old foe. If the Free State entered the war they would be back tracking pretty rapidly.
And what practical use could the Free State have been as a belligerent?

Benito

Every post is to an extent, revisionist. From the time date of 2010, any opinion is redundant. BUT, given our total subservience to our own bank failure and bailout of these scum, we have learned nothing. IMO, it would have been 'noble' of us to join with 'Great Britain' to help defeat what the NAZI's had in mind for Europe. We were part of the League of Nations and spoke often..........on stuff. We had our heads up our arses then and still have, now. We could have done as Franco done, give every Jew diplomatic protection who sought it...................WE SAVED NO JEWS!!!!!!