What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

Manic Moran

Britain wouldn't have supplied the equipment, they barely had enough or thier own defence until the Land Lease agreement was signed with the United States.

They had some spare manufacturing capacity. In December 1941 25% of the Red Army's medium/heavy tank force was made in the UK, mainly Valentines.

NTM

getz

HavingCrack wrote: »

Once you're again you're completely ignoring my points I made criticising your previous post, very mature.

Those two websites you've linked me to are absolute and utter rubbish and if you're getting your history of ww2 from sites like that I'm not surprised your view of history is so flawed.

i know far more about tha war than you do ,i was born in 1940,and like most english kids i had to carry a gas mask about , and was subject to daily german bombings, on the use of slave labour during the war,the vatican is the only german church not [as yet] to pay out compensation to its victims,[a few of the lucky ones are still alive to testify]they are also accused of taking nazi gold and salting it away in swiss banks they promised open their books to prove that they dident in 2000, the world is still waiting,[they will never show them] and dont you find it strange that the church of rome has never excommunicated a nazi ?

HavingCrack

getz wrote: »

i know far more about tha war than you do ,i was born in 1940,and like most english kids i had to carry a gas mask about , and was subject to daily german bombings, on the use of slave labour during the war,the vatican is the only german church not [as yet] to pay out compensation to its victims,[a few of the lucky ones are still alive to testify]they are also accused of taking nazi gold and salting it away in swiss banks they promised open their books to prove that they dident in 2000, the world is still waiting,[they will never show them] and dont you find it strange that the church of rome has never excommunicated a nazi ?

Congratulations on being one of boards eldest posters.

You've actually shown to have very flawed and ill informed views on ww2 which I've dismantled in previous posts which you conviently ignore. You then linked me to two websites which are hardly credible sources. Being born in 1940 doesn't make you more informed on ww2, you would have only been 5 when it ended so all your memories of it would have been few and far between. In fact I'd go as far to say it would give you an extremely subjective view of history. I was born during the Northern Irish Troubles but I certainly wouldn't consider myself an expert on them merely because of when I was born. In fact my grandmother was a teenager during ww2 and she'd be the first to admit that I would know more about the war than her.

As to your allegations concerning the German Catholic Church using Jewish slave labour during ww2 if you can link me to a credible book, report or website that substantiates your claims I'll discuss further with you but until then I've lost interest in debate, adios.

jamesie_boy

I think Ireland's neutrality was definitely justified. When you look at the other side of the coin, if the Nazi's had succeeded in taking over the majority of territory it would have probably turned Ireland into a slave colony or something resembling that.


This of course would have been the lesser of two evils considering what they would have done if Ireland had not been neutral and helped out the allies. Who knows what havoc Hitler would have wreaked upon us then.

getz

HavingCrack wrote: »

Congratulations on being one of boards eldest posters.

You've actually shown to have very flawed and ill informed views on ww2 which I've dismantled in previous posts which you conviently ignore. You then linked me to two websites which are hardly credible sources. Being born in 1940 doesn't make you more informed on ww2, you would have only been 5 when it ended so all your memories of it would have been few and far between. In fact I'd go as far to say it would give you an extremely subjective view of history. I was born during the Northern Irish Troubles but I certainly wouldn't consider myself an expert on them merely because of when I was born. In fact my grandmother was a teenager during ww2 and she'd be the first to admit that I would know more about the war than her.

As to your allegations concerning the German Catholic Church using Jewish slave labour during ww2 if you can link me to a credible book, report or website that substantiates your claims I'll discuss further with you but until then I've lost interest in debate, adios.

thanks, i will be 70 in december,i always take the official line on history with a pince of salt,i left school in 1955 aged 15,all the male adults i worked with had fought during the war in europe/asia or africa,and like most ex forces would often talk about their experiences,like my father who was with the eight army[desert rats] in north africa, italy,he often talked about the atrocities that was committed on all sides,non of which is in the history books, on slave labour in germany,according to the catholic churches report,8th april 2008,the catholic church had employed[hic] at least 5904 slave labours in 776 catholic institutions,and admit it could be more,the excuse was that we paid them a wage,but what they dident say was we took the money back for accomodation and food,[slave] so it has been admitted.

FiSe

Morlar wrote: »

What I am wondering is do you think that is anti-semitism or anti-bolshevism being dismissed as anti-semitism ?

Would it be based on some form of ancient lingering anti-semitism emerging from the mists when the opportunity arose or could it (at least in part) be a direct response to anything ?

No I don't think so, eeeh, but I think that it is now though. There was always anti-semitism in the continental Europe. Since medieval times and perhaps since rise of Christianity that well know type of: ''After all it was 'them' who stuck prophet Jesus on the cross...'' But, I think, that they, as kinda different christian tolerated religion folk, were used as a decoy when things got tough. there could be a history of pogroms somewhere and it's interesting to dig into it and see what was happening around the same time in whichever part of the world. /Now we just drop the bombs on some natives remember Clinton and Lybia bombing?/ It's oversimplified, just trying to make a point.

Nowadays the myth says that Jews were persecuted on the ground of being pro-Bolsheviks.
That's utter nonsense and embeded propaganda of German Nazis. Some of the Jews were pretty rich industrialists, successful businessmen, bankers, owners of shops, companies, doctors... Some of them were living in a very poor conditions. So no wonder that some welcomed and latter joined commies.

As well, we have to remember that back in the 30's fascism, communism, national socialism and god only knows what else, were legitimate political movements in, I'd say, every European country.

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

Nowadays the myth says that Jews were persecuted on the ground of being pro-Bolsheviks.

I would not accept that this is pure myth - I would say that it's at least partly true.

The 'myth' would be that people in eastern european countries rose up when the germans invaded and persecuted their former jewish neighbours for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than latent anti-jewishness unleashed.

FiSe wrote: »

Some of the Jews were pretty rich industrialists, successful businessmen, bankers, owners of shops, companies, doctors...

No one has said otherwise. Also no one has said that jewish people were 100% supportive of bolshevism.

FiSe wrote: »

Some of them were living in a very poor conditions. So no wonder that some welcomed and latter joined commies.

Poles (ie non jewish poles) were also economically burdened but they do not seem to have been as supportive of a soviet invasion as their jewish neighbours - the question is what would explain that ? If you presume that working class Poles and working class jewish poles were economically similair why the disparity and eagerness to discard Polish national identity within the one group and not the other ? Could that eagerness be even partly a reason for a later backlash or ill feelings ?

FiSe wrote: »

As well, we have to remember that back in the 30's fascism, communism, national socialism and god only knows what else, were legitimate political movements in, I'd say, every European country.

Communism remained acceptable to the 'intellectual' left for a long time after the 1930's (our own labour party was sending delegations to Soviet russia up unti the 1980's don't forget).

FiSe

Morlar wrote: »

Poles (ie non jewish poles) were also economically burdened but they do not seem to have been as supportive of a soviet invasion as their jewish neighbours - the question is what would explain that ? If you presume that working class Poles and working class jewish poles were economically similair why the disparity and eagerness to discard Polish national identity within the one group and not the other ? Could that eagerness be even partly a reason for a later backlash or ill feelings ?

Yes, this could be part of it...
But, Poles - the non jewish - were fighting the Russians and latter Soviets. In another words they were enemies. Could that be the case of 'let's Polishman fight Polish war' from Jewish point of view?
Would, let's say Czechs, do the same to their Gypsy neighbours? Would Slovaks do the same to thir fellow citizens of Hungarian nationality for just being Hungarians or Gypsies? Would Irish people do the same to theire travelling community? What would be the reasons? Would there be any?

I don't know.
It's all very complicated and the animnosity is so deepy embeded within and I can imagine that it's impossible to find one or two reasons behind it all.
Anyway am not offering answers, because I don't know them. Never did, never will. I'm only trying to take another view on this matter. Which is, BTW, way OT

LordSutch

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

... another sad thing is the thousands of Irish people who voluntarily joined the British army simply to help in the war effort.

Not sure it was such a sad thing fighting the Nazi's, rather a noble effort I think. But yes, sad indeed if you were one of the tens of thousands of Irish who never came back.

getz

LordSutch wrote: »

Not sure it was such a sad thing fighting the Nazi's, rather a noble effort I think. But yes, sad indeed if you were one of the tens of thousands of Irish who never came back.

i do not think it will ever be known just how many irish men and woman did die during the war,remember many irish people were living in britian at the start, who are not on the irish missing lists,there was also many irish civilians also killed in the bombings,when working and helping the war effort ,as a young war child i knew of two young lads at school, whose irish daddies never came back to manchester

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?