What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

LordSutch

Indeed & very true, but I was primarily refering to those who left these shores & who never came back.

Merelyme

Most historians agree that De Valera did a great job of handling Washington, Berlin and London. I wouldn't be a Dev fan but neutrality was the right way to deal with a war that would have resulted in thousands of dead Irish civilians. This is borne out by the fact that probably less than 100 Irish civilians died during the war (although if you include merchant seamen this figure goes up).

old_aussie

If Hitler wanted Ireland he would have just moved in overnight.

Being neutral would not have meant anything, if Hitler wanted to move in he would have.

HavingCrack

old_aussie wrote: »

If Hitler wanted Ireland he would have just moved in overnight.

Being neutral would not have meant anything, if Hitler wanted to move in he would have.

Its true the Germans could have invaded if they wanted but Dev's idea was to avoid provoking Hitler by declaring war, not that did the Benelux countries or the Danes any good mind you.

NUIG_FiannaFail

It was right to stay neutral in WW2. Dev was a skilled politician. Maybe he went too far in sending his regrets over Herr Hitler's death but his intention were right.

Jeboa Safari

Article in the independent today saying that Germany was preparing to invade Ireland along with an invasion of Britain

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nazis-were-preparing-to-invade-ireland-files-reveal-2313725.html

xflyer

It was a good idea initially particularly at the start of the war. There is no dishonour in neutrality, Sweden, Switzerland stayed neutral. Others tried to but were unlucky to be neighbours with Germany or Italy and in the way. The USA was attacked and had war declared on them.

The idea that our staying out of the war was somehow a high moral stance is nonsense. It was an initially pragmatic decision. It wouldn't have saved us if it became strategic useful for Hitler to invade us. But in truth we were of little interest to anyone except Britain and even then they got on fine without us on their side.

Where I think it went wrong is later in the war when it was obvious which way the tide was flowing and with America sending troops. At that point if De Valera truly had the interests of Ireland in mind rather than his own narrow prejudices against the USA. We should have, rather cynically joined in on the side of the allies. Our main role would have been a naval and air base for the US. Any politician with an eye to the future good of Ireland would have seen that. But not Dev Valera, like so many FF politicians before and since, self interest was his motivation not the good of Ireland.

defiant12

In my opinion we should have opened up our ports and airfields for allied use, certainly after the battle of Britain.
It is easy to say 70 years later but the threat of an invasion of Ireland seems ludicrous to me, the distance from continental Europe is just too great and the Kriegsmarine did not have the means to mount such an operation.
Granted we would undoubtedly have been occupied had Britain fell but i think this would have been the case whether we had remained neutral or not.

endakenny

Ireland's attitude to the Jews is the most disgraceful aspect of Irish neutrality. When newsreel footage of the Holocaust was released, some people in this country believed that the British faked it using starving Indians (There was a famine in Bengal in 1943). Shame on De Valera and John Charles McQuaid for turning a blind eye to the persecution of Jews. Furthermore, the IRA published anti-semitic propoganda. It's political wing is in government at Stormont.

Benito

This thread is still going? Have we not reached a conclusion with that poll?
I was not available to vote. Don't agree with the majority, still

judestynes

Nuetral or not, over 30,000 Irish men still fought in the war, If Ireland had officialy joined the war effort that would have been about the commitment in manpower that would've been sent anyway. All nuetrality did was keep Ireland as Europes poor cousin for the following 60 years and dev signing a book of condolense in the German embassy didn't help either. If dev wanted to play with the big boys then he should've been prepared to stand with the bigboys. This attitude of helping Britain is a load of crap, we would have been helping ourselves by taking our place on the world stage.
Not to forget our wonderful clergy had no qualms about encouraging Irish men to go fight in spain to defend the clergy there, where was this passion for freedom and justice when jews and gays were being murdered by the million???? (had to add that little rant)

getz

lets be clear,dev hated the british and liked the natzi,but not enough to anything about it,look at these facts,celeslin lain[waffen ss] responsible for torturing and the murder of civilians in occupied brittany,lived in ireland,de velera advised lain that he should continue using his alias,so that if the french asked him,if lain was in the country he could truthfully say no.other natzis enjoying ireland artukovic,responsibly for the deaths of over one million people in croatia,menton [a dutchman] responsible for the deaths of 100s of jews lived on his estate in waterford [mahon bridge] many natzi collaborators who fled to france were captured and found in possession of letters of recommondation and addressed to the irish consulate in paris,other countries who are claiming they were neutral are swedon,they made secret loans to berlin in 1941,and only started letting in jews when the tide had turned,switzerland,the complicity of the swiss banks and goverment in funding the natzi regime was known at the end of the war, and we all know they are still keeping the natzi gold in their banks.no dev was only neutral because he knew what would happen to ireland if he was seen to openly favour germany

FiSe

I think, that he was affraid of Britain, but feared the Nazis - from Nazional Sozialist
The factcs about the SS men and other Nazis living in Ireland are truth, but somehow weak in the overall context of the post war worldwide situation. Ex SS men and party members were living in France, UK, Spain, of course Germany, ex Soviet Union, Canada, USA and so on.

endakenny

judestynes wrote: »

Not to forget our wonderful clergy had no qualms about encouraging Irish men to go fight in spain to defend the clergy there....

Many innocent Catholic priests and religious were murdered by supporters of the Spanish Republican government. Franco's victory meant that, inspite of the repression by his regime, the Iberian peninsula was free from communism, thus meaning one less problem for NATO to worry about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

judestynes

endakenny wrote: »

Many innocent Catholic priests and religious were murdered by supporters of the Spanish Republican government. Franco's victory meant that, inspite of the repression by his regime, the Iberian peninsula was free from communism, thus meaning one less problem for NATO to worry about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

What the hell are you talking about? The executions of the clergy were over exagerated purely to raise that sort of response and if the church in Spain was as corrupt and as brutal as it was here, they didn't kill enough of them.

PatsytheNazi

judestynes wrote: »

Nuetral or not, over 30,000 Irish men still fought in the war, If Ireland had officialy joined the war effort that would have been about the commitment in manpower that would've been sent anyway. All nuetrality did was keep Ireland as Europes poor cousin for the following 60 years and dev signing a book of condolense in the German embassy didn't help either. If dev wanted to play with the big boys then he should've been prepared to stand with the bigboys. This attitude of helping Britain is a load of crap, we would have been helping ourselves by taking our place on the world stage.
Not to forget our wonderful clergy had no qualms about encouraging Irish men to go fight in spain to defend the clergy there, where was this passion for freedom and justice when jews and gays were being murdered by the million???? (had to add that little rant)

We'd have been some poor cousin after the Luftwaffe had finished with us. Britain was paying back the Lend Lease WW2 loans to the US until 2006.

johngalway

I disagree with this.

It's true that a paratroop force of some description could have landed here.

But what then? How do you resupply the ground force? What about heavy weapons? How would you keep safe and resupply whatever air force would be stationed here?

Barges, wasn't that what they were planning to invade Britain with?

So suddenly Hitler can steam around Britain and invade Ireland? No, I don't think so.

RAF/Royal Navy turkey shoot.

A suicide mission for any German troops on the ground here. Through N.I. or directly through our own East Coast the British Army could have landed and been relatively easily resupplied.

It is a fantasy to think otherwise IMO.

Ardennes1944

neutrality?...what neutrality?

HavingCrack

endakenny wrote: »

Many innocent Catholic priests and religious were murdered by supporters of the Spanish Republican government. Franco's victory meant that, inspite of the repression by his regime, the Iberian peninsula was free from communism, thus meaning one less problem for NATO to worry about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

Altogether the 'Red Terror' killed around 38,000 tops with around 6,000 of those members of clergy while the purges in Nationalist territory killed at least 200,000 and probably closer to 300,000. The Spanish Catholic Church was targeted because it overwhlemingly supported Franco and had been at the forefront of repression in Spain as far back as the Inquistion. In Nationalist areas the local priest often was a member of the three man council responsible for purging Spain of 'reds' along with the local landowner and Falangist leader. They were responsible for horrific mass murders.

While the murders of priests were horrific it's easy to understand while they were seen as the 'mind control' operations of conservative Spain.

As an aside Communism would never had made a foothold in Spain if Britain, France and the United States hadn't sold the Spanish Republic down the river. The only reason the Republicans turned to the Soviet Union was it wa sthe only nation with the exception of Mexico who would sell them arms. Prior to 1937 the Spanish Communist party had a minor impact on Spanish politics.

endakenny

judestynes wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? The executions of the clergy were over exagerated purely to raise that sort of response and if the church in Spain was as corrupt and as brutal as it was here, they didn't kill enough of them.

Abuse was committed by a minority of members of the Catholic clergy. You are tarring all of them with the same brush. The Bolsheviks executed many Othodox Christian clerics and assisted the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War. They would have done the same with the Catholic Church if the Republicans had won the war. This puts the Republicans on the same level as the Nazis. Have you not read the Wikipedia article that I mentioned?

judestynes

I've read many accounts of the Spanish civil war from Irish men who fought on both sides and the one thing they all had in common was their faith. They were for the most part deeply religious as were many Spanish republicans.

HavingCrack

endakenny wrote: »

Abuse was committed by a minority of members of the Catholic clergy. You are tarring all of them with the same brush. The Bolsheviks executed many Othodox Christian clerics and assisted the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War. They would have done the same with the Catholic Church if the Republicans had won the war. This puts the Republicans on the same level as the Nazis. Have you not read the Wikipedia article that I mentioned?

Have you just conveniently not replied to my post because it doesn't fit with your image of the persecuted Catholic minority. I think your conservative viewpoints is clouding your view of history.

As I said previously the Nationalists systematically murdered between 200,000-300,000 people. In comparison the numbers murdered during the 'Red Terror' numbered far lower, only 38,000 of whom 6,000 or so were clergy. There's simply no comparison.

HavingCrack

judestynes wrote: »

I've read many accounts of the Spanish civil war from Irish men who fought on both sides and the one thing they all had in common was their faith. They were for the most part deeply religious as were many Spanish republicans.

Actually I'd disagree with you here. While O'Duffy's Irish Brigade were ultra conservative Catholics those fighting for the Republic were generally indifferent to Catholicism at best to quite anti-clerical at worst. They were nearly all Communist Party members not known for their religious beliefs. Read Michael O'Riordans book 'The Connolly Column' for a good account of the Irish volunteers for the Republic.

Actually with the exception of the Basques who were nearly 100% Catholic very few Republicans were religious. In the Andulucian countryside church attendence in 1934 ran at about 5-10% of the population. Most of the anarchists in Spain were extremely anti-religious.

endakenny

HavingCrack wrote: »

As I said previously the Nationalists systematically murdered between 200,000-300,000 people. In comparison the numbers murdered during the 'Red Terror' numbered far lower, only 38,000 of whom 6,000 or so were clergy. There's simply no comparison.

I'm well aware of the Nationalists' crimes. However, what is conveniently ignored by the far-left is the fact that, in total, Lenin and Stalin caused the deaths of more innocent people than Hitler did. Ironically, it was because of Hitler, an ardent anti-Communist, that Stalin was able to conquer Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and eastern Germany in 1945. If the Nationalists had been defeated, there would have been a serious risk that the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Western Europe would have been drowned by the red tide.

HavingCrack

endakenny wrote: »

I'm well aware of the Nationalists' crimes. However, what is conveniently ignored by the far-left is the fact that, in total, Lenin and Stalin caused the deaths of more innocent people than Hitler did. Ironically, it was because of Hitler, an ardent anti-Communist, that Stalin was able to conquer Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and eastern Germany in 1945. If the Nationalists had been defeated, there would have been a serious risk that the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Western Europe would have been drowned by the red tide.

That's a strawman argument if I've ever heard one. I'm well aware Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of 20 million citizens of the USSR. What's Hitler got to do with comparing Nationalist crimes with those of the Republicans?

Spain never had the smallest chance of becoming Communist due to the fact the Republicans didn't have enough troops or equipment to to match the combined forces of the Nationalists, Italians and Germans. As I said previously the Republicans only had a chance of winning if the democracies had intervened on their side in 1936. The PCE and PSUC only began to increase in power in 1937 by which the time the war was already effectively lost.

I love your phrase "drowned by the red tide", you and McCarthy would have gotten along splendidly.

endakenny

HavingCrack wrote: »

What's Hitler got to do with comparing Nationalist crimes with those of the Republicans?

I'll rephrase my point. Communist regimes have killed more innocent people than Fascist regimes have. For example, Pinochet killed 3,000 and the Argentinian junta killed 30,000. I do not excuse or justify those murders at all. However, Mao caused a famine that killed tens of millions in China and the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million. Bear in mind that Marxist dictator Mengistu caused the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s. Furthermore, Che Guevara called for a full-scale nuclear attack on the US at the time of the Cuban Missiles Crisis. As far as I am concerned, Che was guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide.

HavingCrack

endakenny wrote: »

I'll rephrase my point. Communist regimes have killed more innocent people than Fascist regimes have. For example, Pinochet killed 3,000 and the Argentinian junta killed 30,000. I do not excuse or justify those murders at all. However, Mao caused a famine that killed tens of millions in China and the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million. Bear in mind that Marxist dictator Mengistu caused the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s. Furthermore, Che Guevara called for a full-scale nuclear attack on the US at the time of the Cuban Missiles Crisis. As far as I am concerned, Che was guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide.

Sorry I just don't see what this has to do with your original point about the Spanish Catholic Church. I have no idea what logic caused you to bring Che Guevara or the Khmer Rouge into a thread on Irish neutrality during ww2. I'm utterly lost.

endakenny

HavingCrack wrote: »

Sorry I just don't see what this has to do with your original point about the Spanish Catholic Church. I have no idea what logic caused you to bring Che Guevara or the Khmer Rouge into a thread on Irish neutrality during ww2. I'm utterly lost.

I was explaining the reason for the Irish Catholic Church's call to fight alongside Franco: to prevent the spread of Communism. I have illustrated that history has proven that Communist regimes were worse than their fascist counterparts.

FiSe

Yes, but only because the reds had more time and larger territory to operate their tomorrow's paradise in.

Commies, Fascists, Nazis, religious totality . . . the only difference between any of these regimes is the colour of their shirts.
You have to look at it in a business kind of way: CEO of Catholic church see a competition in a form of Communist party Ltd and it had to be dealt with it, before the reds grab larger share of the market. The same can be applied to the Nazi and Fascist party. It's business...

hinault

Just watched RTE's documentary by Ryan Tubridy about JFK's visit to Ireland in 1963.

Several contributors to the programme comment about how Irelands neutrality actually riled American public opinion well in to the 1950's.

storker

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

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

Some Nazi high-up is supposed to have said "If I looked like Himmler, I wouldn't go on so much about the Master Race." Or something along those lines...

Stork

Manach

hinault wrote: »

Several contributors to the programme comment about how Irelands neutrality actually riled American public opinion well in to the 1950's.

Well, the US Public Opinion pre-Pearl Harbour (afaik) were quite against an intervention in the "European War", and supported such isolationists as Charles Lindberg.

dr.bollocko

Apologies for bumping an old thread but just found an interesting BBC article relating to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924720

Northern Ireland in 1941, a routine Sunday afternoon sortie by a pilot flying one of Britain's Spitfire fighters runs into difficulties.

Returning to base after flying "top-cover" for maritime convoys off the coast of Donegal, the Rolls Royce Merlin engine overheats and fails.

The pilot yells into his radio "I'm going over the side", slides back the bubble canopy, releases his seat straps and launches himself into the air.

The air flow hit this particular pilot like a freight train and tore off his boots. Luckily he was able to deploy his parachute and landed in a peat bog. His aircraft smashed into the bog half a mile away.

It sounds like a typical wartime accident but it was anything but. It was the beginning of one of the strangest incidents of World War II.

The pilot was 23-year-old Roland "Bud" Wolfe, an RAF officer from 133 "Eagle" Squadron, a unit entirely composed of Americans.

Bud himself was from Nebraska, one of a number of Americans who had volunteered to take up Britain's cause. Since the US was not yet at war with Germany when the men volunteered, the American government stripped Wolfe and others of their citizenship. These pilots were a mix of idealists and thrill seekers.

When Wolfe was found by the authorities he realised his, already unusual, situation was much more complicated than he had guessed. He had crashed over the border.
Bud Wolfe's identity card Bud Wolfe was very keen to get back into action

Since the South was neutral it had been decided that all servicemen of any belligerent nation that ended up on Irish soil through navigational error, shipwreck or other accident would be interned for the duration of the war.

Wolfe found himself heading not back to his airbase, RAF Eglinton, now Derry International Airport, in Northern Ireland just 13 miles away, but to Curragh Camp, County Kildare, 175 miles to the south.

Here, a huddle of corrugated iron huts housed 40 other RAF pilots and crewmen who had accidentally come down in neutral territory. They were effectively prisoners of war.

It was an odd existence. The guards had blank rounds in their rifles, visitors were permitted (one officer shipped his wife over), and the internees were allowed to come and go. Fishing excursions, fox hunting, golf and trips to the pub in the town of Naas helped pass the time.
Map of RAF Eglinton

But what was really odd was the proximity of the Germans.

It was not just the British and their allies who got lost above and around Ireland. German sailors from destroyed U-boats and Luftwaffe aircrew also found themselves interned. The juxtaposition of the two sides made for surreal drama.

Sport was a notable feature. In one football match the Germans beat the British 8-3. There were also boxing contests.

It appears that the rivalry on the pitch followed the teams into the pub afterwards as well. They would drink at different bars, and the British once complained vigorously when the Luftwaffe internees turned up to a dance they had organised.

When the UK went to war against Germany in 1939, Dublin stayed neutral. It was, after all, only 18 years since the country had secured a partial independence from London after centuries of British rule
Indeed, Taoiseach Eamon de Valera - who would later become president after the Republic of Ireland was declared in 1948 - even paid his respects to the German representative in Dublin when news of Hitler's death emerged
However, the Irish people in the 26 counties were not all so impartial as their government. A 2009 study by the University of Edinburgh found more than 3,600 soldiers from the South died on active service during the war
It estimated that in the British army alone, as many as 100,000 people from the island of Ireland served in World war II - half of them from the South.

Anything further from front-line service is hard to imagine.

It may seem to us like a welcome chance to sit out the war with honour intact, plenty of distractions and no danger, but for Wolfe it was an unacceptable interruption to his flying activities.

On 13 December 1941 he walked straight out of camp and after a meal in a hotel, which he did not pay for, he headed into nearby Dublin and caught the train the next day to Belfast. Within hours he was back at RAF Eglinton where he had taken off two weeks earlier in his defective Spitfire.

He could not have expected what was to happen next. The British government decided that, in this, the darkest hours of World War II, it would be unwise to upset a neutral nation.

The decision was made to send Wolfe back to The Curragh and internment. Back in the camp, Wolfe made the best of it, joining the fox-hunting with relish.

He did try to escape again but this time he was caught. Finally in 1943, with the US in the war, and the tide slowly turning, The Curragh was closed and the internees returned. Wolfe joined the US Army Air Force and served once again on the front line.

So great was his love of flying that he also served in Korea and even Vietnam. He eventually died in 1994.

citizen_p

hinault wrote: »

Several contributors to the programme comment about how Irelands neutrality actually riled American public opinion well in to the 1950's.

That can be seen in ww2 period films, when dublin was bombed there was a news reel showing the destruction with commentary, which finished with somthing along the lines of "maybe ths the price EIREEEEAGH will have to pay for sitting on the fence"
LINK


it can be seen in further fnewsreels relating to Ireland during ww2, especially later into the war

Morlar

Mousey- wrote: »

That can be seen in ww2 period films, when dublin was bombed there was a news reel showing the destruction with commentary, which finished with somthing along the lines of "maybe ths the price EIREEEEAGH will have to pay for sitting on the fence"
LINK


it can be seen in further fnewsreels relating to Ireland during ww2, especially later into the war

That footage was in a documentary that was on tv a week or so ago. It did have a condescending and patronising tone, pretty much what you'd expect from ww2 british propaganda on the subject of Irish Neutrality.

couldntthink

I was thinking about this topic recently.

First of all our neutrality had little or no bearing on whether or not Hitler would have invaded. At what point of the war did Hitler ever respect neutrality unless it was in his own interest. Also bombing the ROI wouldn't have been nearly as bad as in Britain, except port facilities of course.

I recently read "The Cruel Sea" by Monsarrat. Now I am fully aware that it is fiction. However, there is a very thought provoking chapter on the neutral stance of Ireland and the affect it had on the war in the Atlantic, especially early on in the war. I hate to say it, but he does make a very valid point. It's worth a read if you have serious thoughts about this subject.

I am not going to say a simple yes or no, as I just don't know. It was a very difficult decision for Ireland at the time, and it wasn't as simple as saying **** the brits. I think that Dev didn't want to end up on the wrong side whichever way it went. Also foreign occupation of part of the island was a major factor.

Morlar

couldntthink wrote: »

I was thinking about this topic recently.

First of all our neutrality had little or no bearing on whether or not Hitler would have invaded. At what point of the war did Hitler ever respect neutrality unless it was in his own interest. Also bombing the ROI wouldn't have been nearly as bad as in Britain, except port facilities of course.

If Ireland had declared war on Germany why do you think the Luftwaffe would have gone easy on us ?

Bear in mind Dublin had literally 3 or 4 out-dated anti aircraft guns (one in howth, one in the phoenix park one in Killiney hill and another mobile one iirc). No meaningful air force to speak of.

Compare that to britains air defences, squadron after squadron of Spitfire and hurricane, thousands of well trained experienced pilots (including Poles, Norwegians etc) vast amounts of modern anti aircraft guns, radar, barrage baloons etc. Even with all those considerable defences british cities were very heavily bombed.

I see no reason to think that in a scenario where Ireland declared war on Germany (who had not declared war on us) that the luftwaffe would have decided to go easy on us.

Also, as to your other point, I don't think anyone is doubting that Ireland declaring war on Germany would have been to the allies benefit, the question (as I am reading it) was - would that have been in the best interests of Ireland ?

mikemac

The fact that the RAF could fly from Derry across Donegal and the flying boats could cross from the lakes of Fermanagh on their way to the Atlantic was a big concession.

It's quite a round trip to go from Fermanagh, up the Foyle estuary north of Malin Head and then west out to the Atlantic and then do the same on the return. Extended the flying boats range and time on patrol.
And of course planes coming over from America had Eire markers and numbers so they could see where they were when they hit the West coast and low on fuel.

BBC have an excellent program called Coast which went into more details on this.

As for neutrality.
Whatever about Dublin, Cork and Cobh and the especially the port would have been bombed into ruins if the Royal Navy was operating from there.
It was huge fortune or good negotiation that the Treaty ports were returned.

Ireland didn't have a navy realy to speak of to patrol for the Atlantic War but Cork Harbour would be a prime and easy target for the Luftwaffe if they wanted to go for it.

Everyone knows what happened on the North Strand in Dublin but in a What If scenario I reckon it would have been Cork that would taken the brunt of the Luftwaffe in Irish airspace

getz

i think the british was not really very that bothered about ireland being neutral,dispite all the shouting,its when you realize the only oil that ireland had to keep its economy /transport going, was dilivered by the 80 british oil tankers,without that the free state would have been in a mess,for some reason history seems to overlook that factor

opinionated3

tbh i find it a small source of embarrassment that we did more or less nothing as a nation to assist the allies in the fight against fascism. In a way i can understand the notion of ''not helping the Brits'' but what about our American friends....the nation we supposedly helped to build! I take some pride now in the fact that their military can use Shannon now on their way to fight the Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda but I don't see why we could not have afforded something to the Americans in ww2. As a previous poster stated if the Nazis had won the battle of Britain we surely would have been next and what would our neutrality have stood for then?
(also not so sure about the whole 'nazis not approving of the Celts' notion. I know for sure of an international list drawn up of various countries Jewish populations and Ireland was definitely was on it.)

getz

opinionated3 wrote: »

tbh i find it a small source of embarrassment that we did more or less nothing as a nation to assist the allies in the fight against fascism. In a way i can understand the notion of ''not helping the Brits'' but what about our American friends....the nation we supposedly helped to build! I take some pride now in the fact that their military can use Shannon now on their way to fight the Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda but I don't see why we could not have afforded something to the Americans in ww2. As a previous poster stated if the Nazis had won the battle of Britain we surely would have been next and what would our neutrality have stood for then?
(also not so sure about the whole 'nazis not approving of the Celts' notion. I know for sure of an international list drawn up of various countries Jewish populations and Ireland was definitely was on it.)

there was a german documentary about two years ago,that they found in nazi arcives notes on who was going to oversee [run]the different parts of europe, hitler himself was going to oversee both britain and ireland,so yes he intended to take over ireland,

Morlar

getz wrote: »

there was a german documentary about two years ago,that they found in nazi arcives notes on who was going to oversee [run]the different parts of europe, hitler himself was going to oversee both britain and ireland,so yes he intended to take over ireland,

Switzerland was not taken over, Sweden was left with a great deal of autonomy too, as was much of france, Norway was invaded purely to block the british invasion which was aimed at stopping vital german Ore imports. An allied violation of neutrality that many seem to overlook.

So it is by no means assured that the Germans would have invaded Ireland had britain fell, (aside form the event of an american occupation) I doubt they would have bothered. In terms of invasion of Ireland during WW2 I'd say we were in more actual risk of an invasion from britain. That also seems to tie in with Irish wartime defensive measures, most of our blockhouses were placed in order to slow down an invasion force originating from the north of the country.

getz

Morlar wrote: »

Switzerland was not taken over, Sweden was left with a great deal of autonomy too, as was much of france, Norway was invaded purely to block the british invasion which was aimed at stopping vital german Ore imports. An allied violation of neutrality that many seem to overlook.

So it is by no means assured that the Germans would have invaded Ireland had britain fell, (aside form the event of an american occupation) I doubt they would have bothered. In terms of invasion of Ireland during WW2 I'd say we were in more actual risk of an invasion from britain. That also seems to tie in with Irish wartime defensive measures, most of our blockhouses were placed in order to slow down an invasion force originating from the north of the country.

early in the war britain and america had plans drawn up to invade ireland,on swedens neutrality,just check out swedens shame, as far as ireland,the german operation code for invading ireland was untermeh grun or operation green, that is nazi germanys planned invasion of ireland,dublin was earmarked as one of the six regional administrative centres for britain and ireland, after dunkirk when the allied collapse seemed imminent,the plan was to send the 4th and 7th army corps ,the troops in total 50,000,all allocated for the irish invasion,the 4th and the 7th were known for their brutality.

Morlar

getz wrote: »

early in the war britain and america had plans drawn up to invade ireland,on swedens neutrality,just check out swedens shame, as far as ireland,the german operation code for invading ireland was untermeh grun or operation green, that is nazi germanys planned invasion of ireland,dublin was earmarked as one of the six regional administrative centres for britain and ireland, after dunkirk when the allied collapse seemed imminent,the plan was to send the 4th and 7th army corps ,the troops in total 50,000,all allocated for the irish invasion,the 4th and the 7th were known for their brutality.

What are you referring to when you say the 4th army and 7th army were known for their brutality ? Bear in mind you are not giving company, regiment, or division details here, let alone campaign or incident.

It is important to point out that there is a difference between having scenarios on paper and having Actual, credible plans or intentions. To the best of my knowledge not a single step (aside from compiling 'in the event of' scenarios on paper) was ever taken in the direction of an actual invasion by Germany of Ireland. Not a single soldier was ever mustered for an invasion by Germany of Ireland (unlike operation sealion), nor were there ever any training exercises on this (to the best of my knowledge).

So when you say the 'plan was to send', you mean 'the paper scenario called for' - should the conditions be met for it to ever be put into action. Which was actually never likely to happen as it was never a military priority. Had we declared war on Germany, it could have become a military priority. Likewise had we been invaded by britain that plan may then have been taken from the shelf and dusted off.

indioblack

opinionated3 wrote: »

tbh i find it a small source of embarrassment that we did more or less nothing as a nation to assist the allies in the fight against fascism. In a way i can understand the notion of ''not helping the Brits'' but what about our American friends....the nation we supposedly helped to build! I take some pride now in the fact that their military can use Shannon now on their way to fight the Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda but I don't see why we could not have afforded something to the Americans in ww2. As a previous poster stated if the Nazis had won the battle of Britain we surely would have been next and what would our neutrality have stood for then?
(also not so sure about the whole 'nazis not approving of the Celts' notion. I know for sure of an international list drawn up of various countries Jewish populations and Ireland was definitely was on it.)

Until 1941 the only active opposition to facism came from Britain.
To assist them, if practicable, was to oppose facism.
"The enemy of my enemy......etc.

indioblack

Morlar wrote: »

What are you referring to when you say the 4th army and 7th army were known for their brutality ? Bear in mind you are not giving company, regiment, or division details here, let alone campaign or incident.

It is important to point out that there is a difference between having scenarios on paper and having Actual, credible plans or intentions. To the best of my knowledge not a single step (aside from compiling 'in the event of' scenarios on paper) was ever taken in the direction of an actual invasion by Germany of Ireland. Not a single soldier was ever mustered for an invasion by Germany of Ireland (unlike operation sealion), nor were there ever any training exercises on this (to the best of my knowledge).

So when you say the 'plan was to send', you mean 'the paper scenario called for' - should the conditions be met for it to ever be put into action. Which was actually never likely to happen as it was never a military priority. Had we declared war on Germany, it could have become a military priority. Likewise had we been invaded by britain that plan may then have been taken from the shelf and dusted off.

Plan Green would only have existed on paper - as opposed to Sealion, Directive no.16, I believe, which was expected to happen.

Morlar

indioblack wrote: »

Plan Green would only have existed on paper - as opposed to Sealion, Directive no.16, I believe, which was expected to happen.

At one point it was indeed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056210806

indioblack

Morlar wrote: »

At one point it was indeed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056210806

Interesting link - thanks.
If I think about Sealion I usually wander off to Dad's Army!
Must take it a bit more seriously next time!

Mike 1972

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

In fact they even went around the east coast confiscating radios as to try and prevent people picking up BBC radio signals

Source ??????

They would have needed to confiscate every set in the country as all but the most rabidly anti-British radio listeners in Ireland at the time would have tuned into the BBC on an almost daily basis

Morlar

Mike 1972 wrote: »

...all but the most rabidly anti-British radio listeners in Ireland at the time would have tuned into the BBC on an almost daily basis

I am not convinced that is the case. Large swathes of the country would have a strong preference for RTE over BBC, particularly in those days, and particularly outside of Dublin.

I don't think you would have to be a 'rabidly anti-british' person to not listen to BBC in the context of Ireland a mere 17 yrs after the end of the Irish War of Independence. Not forgetting it led directly to the Irish Civil War which had a catastrophic affect on Irish society for decades after, I don't consider those who preferred RTE over BBC, or even those who refused to listen to the bbc, to be 'rabidly anti-british'.