What do you think of Irelands neutrality during WW2?

getzls

The Irsh people played a big part in the war, with so many joining the British Army to fight along with so many going to Britain to work. The Irish goverments decision not to join the war was shamefull though. No excuse.

slattery101

getzls wrote: »

The Irsh people played a big part in the war, with so many joining the British Army to fight along with so many going to Britain to work. The Irish goverments decision not to join the war was shamefull though. No excuse.

My grandfather immigrated to the united states to fight and im pretty sure he wasnt the only one. I probally wouldnt be wrong if i was to say that irish fought on every front without directly joining the war.

museologist

getzls wrote: »

The Irsh people played a big part in the war, with so many joining the British Army to fight along with so many going to Britain to work. The Irish goverments decision not to join the war was shamefull though. No excuse.

Shameful? Eire was not a dictatoriship in 1939, it was a democratic state. The government had no mandate from the people to declare war on anybody at that time, indeed only one politician in the Dáil consistantly advocated participation in the war. In that sense, Eire was like the US before Pearl Harbor.

If we had been attacked by Nazi Germany then the situation would have been different.

indioblack

museologist wrote: »

Shameful? Eire was not a dictatoriship in 1939, it was a democratic state. The government had no mandate from the people to declare war on anybody at that time, indeed only one politician in the Dáil consistantly advocated participation in the war. In that sense, Eire was like the US before Pearl Harbor.

If we had been attacked by Nazi Germany then the situation would have been different.

You mean like France or Britain?

museologist

indioblack wrote: »

You mean like France or Britain?

No, not like France or Britain, quite the opposite in fact. Britain and France drew a line in the sand over Poland and declared war when Germany invaded.

Eire was more like the small nations of Europe and declared neutrality. These nations only became involved in the war when attacked. The US also declared war only when in attacked by Japan and after Germany and Italy declared war.

Given Eire’s lack of defences and the desire of the population, neutrality was the only option and nothing to be ashamed of. Of course this attitude toward neutrality would have changed if attacked by either the Third Reich or the UK.

xflyer

As I think I said earlier in the thread, it was initially the only rational position at the start of the war. With hindsight it has been characterised as a crusade against tyranny but when it started is simply looked like another scuffle between the central powers and the Anglo/British. After the battle of France it would have been insane to come in on the British side when it looked very much like Britain was next on the shopping list.

The mistake I feel was not joining in once the US came into it. Even if it only meant basing US troops here. From a purely selfish point of view it would have brought economic benefits to the Free State. Plus it would have enhanced our status in the world. Instead we were left isolated and poor. The only Marshall aid we recieved was to help agricultural production in order to feed the British.

DeValera's antipathy to the country of his birth had damaging consequences for all of us.

Not only that it introduced the myth of our 'honourable neutrality' which persists to this day in this country. We were never neutral even during the war. We're certainly not neutral now merely non aligned.

Tony EH

getzls wrote: »

The Irsh people played a big part in the war, with so many joining the British Army to fight along with so many going to Britain to work. The Irish goverments decision not to join the war was shamefull though. No excuse.

There is no "shame" involved at all. While "the war" is a central touchstone for many a person's historical compass, I'd also encourage people to remember that it was not the only conflict ever to have happened and also recall the fact that Ireland had only just come out from under the very harsh yoke of British occupation, which had lasted for centuries. There was no desire, or even real practical ability for Ireland as a nation to join with Britain in her crusade against Germany in the early years of the war and as the years went on, an alliance with the Allied powers would have been relatively meaningless, because the writing was on the wall for Germany from the Summer of 1943.

Besides, the vast majority of the war in Europe was Germany vs Russia. The "Western" allies, including Britain (after 1940), got off fairly lightly in the grand scheme of things and were happy to sit things out until the right point in time. That point in time being 1944, when the war had already been won, by and large, by the Russians and Ireland's contribution would have been minimal at best. To Ireland, the war for the majority of it's years, was something very distant. It just wasn't on the doorstep enough to warrant a contribution and besides that bulk of nations that got caught up in the war did so, because they were attacked. Even France and especially Britain had no real intention of going to war for any noble "cause". The declaration of war on September 3rd was more an effort to get Hitler to back down and pull out of Poland, rather than an all out effort to actually launch a war against Germany. Both Britain and France did nothing to aid Poland and sat on their behinds for 7 or 8 months until THEY were actually attacked themselves. Bar a few skirmishes and an effort to land troops in Norway to cut off iron ore from Narvik, they were VERY reluctant to get into an actual shooting war with Germany proper.

The only valid help Ireland could have been would have been in letting the British use ports on the Atlantic coast, for shipping and air use against U-Boats. But, the two “Happy Times” notwithstanding, the U-Boats were actually a rather minimal threat, despite the propaganda Churchill made out of them at the time and after 1941/early 42, the U-Boat “menace” was in a serious decline. Considering the fact that they operated in very small figures in the whole of the Atlantic (39 in one operation in 1943 being the highest number) and that the VAST majority of material got through to it's destination unscathed, the only real result in letting the British use Irish ports would have been bombing by the Luftwaffe, thus putting more pressure on the Irish government to enter the war.

There also needs to be some consideration given to how the war was actually viewed during its early years. It looked to a lot of people in a lot of countries that this was yet again Britain and Germany kicking off over power rights with Europe, with France getting caught in between. Ever since the unification of Germany in 1871, Britain had feared German hegemony on the European continent and the effects that would have on her own Empire and status as the world’s superpower (to use a modern phrase). Only a strong Germany and her central role in Europe, was in a position to threaten that power. Of course, post war, WWII has been simplistically made out to be this glorious crusade of right over wrong, but during early years of the actual war 39-40, no such viewpoint was held by people outside of the actual conflict and in the 30's MANY people believed that Germany had legitimate grievances to be observed, even in Britain and especially in America, were there was a huge proportion of German ethnics living, the largest ethnic group, if I recall correctly.

No, Ireland was completely correct in staying out of the war altogether and in fact, I would say that had Britain and France known for sure, that Hitler's war was going primarily with Russia, they probably would have steered clear as well.

tac foley

'But, the two “Happy Times” notwithstanding, the U-Boats were actually a rather minimal threat, despite the propaganda Churchill made out of them at the time and after 1941/early 42, the U-Boat “menace” was in a serious decline.'

Between 1939 and 1945, over 30,000 personnel serving in the Merchant Navy lost their lives at sea.

Minimal threat?

Riiiiiight.

What, Sir, would constitute a 'serious' threat', as far as you are conerned?

tac

Morlar

tac foley wrote: »

'But, the two “Happy Times” notwithstanding, the U-Boats were actually a rather minimal threat, despite the propaganda Churchill made out of them at the time and after 1941/early 42, the U-Boat “menace” was in a serious decline.'

Between 1939 and 1945, over 30,000 personnel serving in the Merchant Navy lost their lives at sea.

Minimal threat?

Riiiiiight.

What, Sir, would constitute a 'serious' threat', as far as you are conerned?

tac

In terms of british survival the amount of Merchant navy lives lost is not the main statistic in this case.

I think to gauge the level of 'threat to british survival' you need to look at it in terms of

a)

tonnage of shipping that got through vs tonnage which did not make it through.

Also in terms of

b)

tonnage of imports required to maintain a functioning wartime economy.

I am curious what percentage of Merchant navy does 30k dead spread over 6 years represent ? I don't doubt that they had a hoffifically dangerous job, how they were treated and protected (or not) is also an interesting aspect of all of this.

In terms of U-boat fatalities on the German side, they (I believe) also lost 30,000 dead. However that is out of 40,000 total.

Tony EH

tac foley wrote: »

'But, the two “Happy Times” notwithstanding, the U-Boats were actually a rather minimal threat, despite the propaganda Churchill made out of them at the time and after 1941/early 42, the U-Boat “menace” was in a serious decline.'

Between 1939 and 1945, over 30,000 personnel serving in the Merchant Navy lost their lives at sea.

Minimal threat?

Riiiiiight.

What, Sir, would constitute a 'serious' threat', as far as you are conerned?

tac

Well, a serious threat was if Britain really did face starvation in the wake of the U-Boat assault. However, it didn't.

Besides...30,000 dead?

That's a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

There were also 36,000 navy personnel killed too, during the war.

...and before you start getting your knickers in a twist..."Sir"...my grandfather on my Mother's side was in the Merchant Navy during the war. So, I am in no way trying to be disparaging to anyones losses.

xflyer

Besides, the vast majority of the war in Europe was Germany vs Russia. The "Western" allies, including Britain (after 1940), got off fairly lightly in the grand scheme of things and were happy to sit things out until the right point in time. That point in time being 1944, when the war had already been won, by and large, by the Russians

Sitting things out? Makes me wonder why they bothered with the whole D-day thing if the war was already won. In fact the 'right point in time' arrived in June not because the allies were fed up with their holidays in Italy and their joyrides over Germany and decided they might as well jump in and have a go. In fact it took that long to build up their forces to the point where any landing wouldn't be rebuffed and flung back into the sea.

in the 30's MANY people believed that Germany had legitimate grievances to be observed,

Many still do as evidenced by one or two threads here.

Besides 30,000 dead?

That's a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

You dismiss their contribution too easily. I would interested in the proportion of casualities compared to the number in service. Incidentally my Grandfather was in the Merchant marine during both wars. Indeed he may have been lost in WW2, it's a bit of mystery. So I might be a bit biased.

The war was not the foregone conclusion you seem to think it was.

Tony EH

xflyer wrote: »

Sitting things out? Makes me wonder why they bothered with the whole D-day thing if the war was already won. In fact the 'right point in time' arrived in June not because the allies were fed up with their holidays in Italy and their joyrides over Germany and decided they might as well jump in and have a go. In fact it took that long to build up their forces to the point where any landing wouldn't be rebuffed and flung back into the sea.

By the time D-Day got going, the Russians had already won. In fact, it probably had more to do with getting a Western foothold in Europe, before the Russians over ran the whole of Germany. The Germans had been bled dry in Russia before the Western allies got going in earnest. 80% of Wehrmacht casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. That WAS the war in Europe. Russia won the war in Europe.

xflyer wrote: »

Many still do as evidenced by one or two threads here.

Yawn. What a tiresome attitude. Drop the nonsense please, you're only diminishing yourself.

xflyer wrote: »

You dismiss their contribution too easily. I would interested in the proportion of casualities compared to the number in service.

The war was not the foregone conclusion you seem to think it was.

I'm not dismissing anything, however, as I said in the grand scheme of things, it's not that staggering. 30,000 dead from 185,000 serving over 5 years of war?

I'd say that was absorbable for the powers that be, wouldn't you?

museologist

xflyer wrote: »

As I think I said earlier in the thread, it was initially the only rational position at the start of the war. With hindsight it has been characterised as a crusade against tyranny but when it started is simply looked like another scuffle between the central powers and the Anglo/British. After the battle of France it would have been insane to come in on the British side when it looked very much like Britain was next on the shopping list.

The mistake I feel was not joining in once the US came into it. Even if it only meant basing US troops here. From a purely selfish point of view it would have brought economic benefits to the Free State. Plus it would have enhanced our status in the world. Instead we were left isolated and poor. The only Marshall aid we recieved was to help agricultural production in order to feed the British.

DeValera's antipathy to the country of his birth had damaging consequences for all of us.

Not only that it introduced the myth of our 'honourable neutrality' which persists to this day in this country. We were never neutral even during the war. We're certainly not neutral now merely non aligned.

I largely agree with your view.

I see the Eire\US relationship from a different perspective. I think the US attitude of insisting Eire abandoning neutrality in favour of the allies, without the provocation of attack by the Axis was hugely hypocritical. This wasn’t lost on the ordinary people of Eire either and it appears that the Irish public’s attitude towards neutrality hardened as the war went on, neutrality was seen to be the only option.

With hindsight, perhaps Irish participation might have resulted in significant post-war economic development in the 1950s, changing Irish history. However, even if de Valera’s personal opinions toward neutrality had changed it is far from certain that he could have taken the Irish population with him and gotten the Dáil to support a declaration of war.

Regarding the garrisoning of Eire by American troops, Cecil Liddle the head of MI5’s Irish section made an interesting comment at the end of the war. Claiming that Eire was of greater benefit to Britain as a neutral than a belligerent, he gave as an example the fact that a declaration of war would have meant the conscription of Irish men for an invasion that would never happen, denying British vital manpower for her war industries.

Jeboa Safari

xflyer wrote: »

As I think I said earlier in the thread, it was initially the only rational position at the start of the war. With hindsight it has been characterised as a crusade against tyranny but when it started is simply looked like another scuffle between the central powers and the Anglo/British. After the battle of France it would have been insane to come in on the British side when it looked very much like Britain was next on the shopping list.

The mistake I feel was not joining in once the US came into it. Even if it only meant basing US troops here. From a purely selfish point of view it would have brought economic benefits to the Free State. Plus it would have enhanced our status in the world. Instead we were left isolated and poor. The only Marshall aid we recieved was to help agricultural production in order to feed the British.

DeValera's antipathy to the country of his birth had damaging consequences for all of us.

Not only that it introduced the myth of our 'honourable neutrality' which persists to this day in this country. We were never neutral even during the war. We're certainly not neutral now merely non aligned.

Agree with what you say there, although I just came across a letter to the editor in the Irish Times archive from 11 September 1939, saying Ireland should join as it was a war of freedom against tyranny.

Can there be any doubt as to the issues at stake in the present war! It is a war for freedom against tyranny; for equity and justice against greed and brute force; for protection of the weak against the violence of the strong. Look at Abyssinia, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, China, and now Poland. Where does the sympathy of the men and women of Ireland lie! If our whole sympathy goes out to those oppressed nations, should we not range ourselves on the side of those who are so nobly fighting for freedom and justice against tyranny and opression!

He also argues that we were wholly reliant on Britain for defence, thought it was an interesting world view from so early in the war.