Alan Shatter Minister of Defence : Irish WW2 Neutrality 'Morally Bankrupt'

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Ireland did not ask for, expect or receive protection from the RAF or the Royal navy throughout WW2.

Irish fire engines went north to protect Northern Irish civilians.
Irish men volunteered in their tens of thousands to join the British army or join the merchant marine & British industrial war effort (leaving aside for the moment those who deserted the Irish army to do so).

The single greatest threat of a violation of Irish Neutrality and invasion of Ireland was the prospect of a British invasion of Ireland to 'take back' ie forcefully capture certain Irish ports.

The RAF/Royal Navy did not protect Ireland whatsoever, in fact barring a handful of isolated accidental instances the Germans did not attack Ireland to begin with, no more than they attacked neighbouring Switzerland (which presumably you will now claim the RAF and Royal Navy also protected with their magical umbrella).

The RAF did attack shipping which included Irish boats. but the claim - I take it you are claiming that by their exsistence they protected Ireland ? - is a nonsense. We were their natural buffer zone & it is widely acknowledged that our neutrality prevented German kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe from violating our waters & airspace for the most part (something I believe Churchill and his cabinet disagreed on but is in my view the case).

Could I ask you a hypothetical question - if there had been a Nato Vs Warsaw Pact conflict in Europe, say during the early 1980's do you also think that in that scenario the RAF and Royal Navy would by their exsistence also have provided neutral Ireland with some kind of umbrella protection ? Or is this theory uniquely applicable to WW2 ?

I guess France saw Belgium and the Netherlands as their "Neutral Buffer Zone".

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess France saw Belgium and the Netherlands as their "Neutral Buffer Zone".

I'd say to a degree that is correct.

Which was unfortunate for Belgium and Holland when France declared war on Germany safe in the knowledge that France was protected by a Maginot line clearly formidable in terms of a frontal assault by land forces.

The design & construction of the maginot line meant the likelihood of conflict in the low countries was greatly increased in the event of a France V German war. France also planned for an invasion of the low countries as a defensive necessity.

Not entirely the same thing as Irish neutrality however is it ? Neutrality which Germany DID respect let's not forget, covering Britains atlantic approach.

CDfm

Other - please explain

Morlar wrote: »

Not entirely the same thing as Irish neutrality however is it ? Neutrality which Germany DID respect let's not forget, covering Britains atlantic approach.

Wait a minute in 1938 Germany was allowed to annex the Sudetenland part of the Czech Republic and "Peace for our Time" Deal brokered by Britain and France

A chumsy little pic here



The Czechs loved that.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the Third Reich & the Soviet Union carved up Poland.

Little countries like Ireland did not feel safe.

Morlar

Other - please explain

If you want to talk about neutrality violations let's not forget the Soviet Union in the years before the war had had attacked and invaded the ukraine which it then absorbed. Creating a Holdomor which some estimates say dropped the population by 8,000,000 people. Leading to epic recriminations by locals against those involved with the regime when the Germans later arrived to a popular welcome.

Soviet Union also tried the same with Poland and was defeated (1919-1921).

It later tried the same with finland and was initially defeated there also.

It's agents were also extremely active in Germany, Communists having tried multiple times to take power by force in the years leading up to nsdap coming to power.

So neutrality not being respected & countries in peril was nothing new.

During the War Britain invaded Iceland and Norway in clear violation of their neutrality.

They also threatened to do the same to us (as referenced in the inspirational DeValera response above).

Having said all of that Ireland was a natural buffer zone for Britain. Irish neutrality meant britain did not have to worry about her atlantic approach (obviously once shipping entered the atlantic and left our waters that was a different story).

CDfm

Other - please explain

Weren't the Treaty Ports unnecessary with the German's occupied France set up and Britain's takeover of Iceland.

Morlar

Other - please explain

CDfm wrote: »

Weren't the Treaty Ports unnecessary with the German's occupied France set up and Britain's takeover of Iceland.

My take on that is that Irish ports are Irish. In the same way that Portsmouth or Dover are british not Irish. We'd have as little right to claim their territory as they do to ours.

Britain has never had a moral / legal / ethical right to claim other countries territory on the basis that some elements of the British govt think it would be preferable to their interests.

I think Britain violating Irish neutrality and attacking Ireland to take control of our ports would have been a major gamble & the risks would have outweighed any percieved benefits.

It would have caused a renewal of the War of Independence & opened up a new front for them.

It would also have driven Ireland into the arms of German 'liberators'.

In the same way that Britain sided with one of the most repressive regimes in history (Soviet Union) out of military necessity (even though their territory had not actually been invaded).

Ireland too would have had little choice - either a) submit to foreign domination or b) fight the invader and take assistance from whoever offered (in this case Germany would no doubt have offered).

CDfm

Other - please explain

I have posted elsewhere that Churchill , while not happy , respected Irish sensitivities and delegated the relationship to Lord Cranborne the Dominions Secretary who was very effusive in his praise of Ireland to the War Cabinet.

So while Churchill sniped at DeValera he appreciated the realpolitik of Ireland.

It is odd that Alan Shatter seems less knowledgeable than Churchill about Irish affairs.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

I have posted elsewhere that Churchill , while not happy , respected Irish sensitivities and delegated the relationship to Lord Cranborne the Dominions Secretary who was very effusive in his praise of Ireland to the War Cabinet.

So while Churchill sniped at DeValera he appreciated the realpolitik of Ireland.

It is odd that Alan Shatter seems less knowledgeable than Churchill about Irish affairs.

This entire threat of invasion was little more than sniping. Britain was never going to invade Ireland unless it had to. Of course plans were drawn up, but if the Germans had gone ahead with the Green plan, then Ireland would have been begging Britain to expel them, (although a lot of the anti semitic posts on this forun does make me question that to a degree).

It was never a real threat.

Churchill hated Dev, he saw right through him.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This entire threat of invasion was little more than sniping. Britain was never going to invade Ireland unless it had to. Of course plans were drawn up,

That is not necessarily the case. If britains fortunes had waned, or the war had developed along a slightly different trajectory then the decision not to attack Neutral Ireland would certainly have been revisited.

The mindset to justify such aggression was there.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but if the Germans had gone ahead with the Green plan, then Ireland would have been begging Britain to expel them,

That is also speculation.

Depending on how intelligently any potential German landing force was.

For example, if they packaged it as being 'To liberate ALL OF Ireland once and for all' then Ireland would not have been 'begging britain for help' as you put it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was never a real threat.

Churchill hated Dev, he saw right through him.

I disagree. I don't think it was a very high probability but it was a 'real threat'.

There is no logic in saying that because something did not happen therefore there was never any real threat.

There never was a nuclear war but NatO countries prepared for that possibility and rightly considered it a 'real threat' despite the fact that it never occurred.

My take on it is that the risk from Britain was more significant and realistic than that from Germany. As you yourself pointed out Fred, Land borders are a particular liability.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill hated Dev

Exactly FF, which would have naturally made Churchill a trustworthy and dependable ally in a time of war, right ?

CDfm

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was never a real threat.

That is not what people believed.

"Friendly neutrality" did work and I do believe that it worked mutually.

Churchill hated Dev, he saw right through him.

Politicians don't really hate other politician's and the resources of the "colonies" and lend/lease agreements with the USA were of more concern to Churchill.

To be able to say to Gandhi & Nehru (& even Smuts) at the time - look lads we have a great working relationship with DeValera was valuable to Churchill.

Tony EH

Other - please explain

johngalway wrote: »

The Jews in Germany were persecuted long before the outbreak of war...

There isn't single nation that went to war in the 40's for the Jews. Why should Ireland be any different?

By your yardstick, perhaps Ireland should have declared war on America, who had wiped out the indeginious population and was persecuting blacks right up to the late 60's.

Tony EH

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

Alan Shatter has a point - up to a point!

Ireland's neutrality during WWII was fundamentally morally bankrupt given it was all but guaranteed by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

This is bollocks. Sorry, there's no other way to say it.

Germany's lack of interest in Ireland during the war and Hitler's desire to see her remain neutral and not yet another enemy to worry about, "guaranteed" her neutrality.

Fratton Fred

marcsignal wrote: »

Exactly FF, which would have naturally made Churchill a trustworthy and dependable ally in a time of war, right ?

He was no fan of De Gaulle either and as for Stalin.

Whatever Churchill did, he did because he believed it was the right thing for Britain. Could the same be said of Dev?

Churchill described negotiating with Dev like walking through treacle (or something like that). However, if he felt Dev's cooperation was needed, he would have let him sleep with his daughter, afterall, it worked with the Americans.

CDfm

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He was no fan of De Gaulle either and as for Stalin.

Whatever Churchill did, he did because he believed it was the right thing for Britain. Could the same be said of Dev?

You can safely say that DeValera didn't do what he did because he believed it was the right thing for Britain.

Churchill described negotiating with Dev like walking through treacle (or something like that). However, if he felt Dev's cooperation was needed, he would have let him sleep with his daughter, afterall, it worked with the Americans.

Unlike the American's sleep is what DeValera would have done. :pac:

I think what Churchill meant was DeValera would recite Irish history at negotiations or something like that and it was out of place at negotiations as he went on and on and on.

marcsignal

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He was no fan of De Gaulle either and as for Stalin.

He certainly wasn't any fan of De Gaulle. He made every effort to have him sidelined, excluded form operational matters, and if I recall correctly, was, at one point, even considering having him arrested because of his 'meddeling'. I refer you to the documentary or book 'Allies At War'

In London extraordinary new documents show how Churchill deployed MI5 to restrain de Gaulle. De Gaulle himself muttered darkly in private against his American and British allies.

BBC Review Book

His relationship with Stalin only proves, that he was still prepared to frolic with a mass murderer, to eliminate another mass murderer he didn't like.
I would refer you to WW2 behind closed doors. On youtube in 4 parts.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Whatever Churchill did, he did because he believed it was the right thing for Britain. Could the same be said of Dev?

Well yes! He kept us out of a war that could well have ended in the destruction of this country, either by outside beligerants, or by internal conflict with the IRA. Boxing clever, if you want my opinion.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill described negotiating with Dev like walking through treacle (or something like that). However, if he felt Dev's cooperation was needed, he would have let him sleep with his daughter, afterall, it worked with the Americans.

John Maffey didn't seem to have a problem with Dev. In fact they seemed to get along quite well. Mybe Churchills difficulty with Dev had something to do with Churchills bedside manner ? Perhaps Churchill had a problem with dealing with Dev (the insolent Paddy and former rebel) on the same level, as opposed to dictating to him. No? let's not forget here, Churchill was instrumental in the creation of the Black and Tans, which imo, sums up his general attitude to 'Dealing with the Irish'.

I would hypothesise, that the fact we allowed British Airmen to cross the border into NI having crashed here, and our providing weather reports and other intelligence, as well as the use of our airspace by flying boats, had more to do with Maffey than Churchill.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

This is bollocks. Sorry, there's no other way to say it.

Germany's lack of interest in Ireland during the war and Hitler's desire to see her remain neutral and not yet another enemy to worry about, "guaranteed" her neutrality.

The simple facts are that the Germans lacked the capability to project their forces across to this country while the Royal Navy remain "in being" and a strikiing force of RAF aircraft (modest as it was) remained in the North.

Secondly, on the question of economics, it seems we (Ireland) were quite willing to have the Brits etc fight to protect our external interests without really officially contributing a whole lot ourselves. On the eve of the War a delegation from the Bank of Ireland travelled to London because the Bank of England acted as our unofficial central bank (we had none). They asked for reassurances about the availability of foreign exchange and the free repatriation of Irish bank assets held in London.

As TK Whittaker pointed out.......

"Such is the preponderance of sterling assets that it does no violence to the facts to treat the expressions " external assets " and " sterling assets " as virtually synonymous." (Irish pre-War total was variously estimated at between £250 million and £300 million - that's the equivalent of between stg£13.2 billion or €15.9 billion).

Also

"During the period 1940 to 1945, inclusive there was a nominal addition of almost £140 million to Ireland's total sterling holdings."

Between 1940 and 1945 the country enjoyed a net balance of payments in its favour £137 million. Wages were hammered, but employment grew (thanks mostly to emigration) and the economy motored at a decent 2-3% annual growth.

Speaking in 1949 Whittaker described the net creditor position of the country as "exceptional in the world today"

In short, the country profiteered from the War. If things had gone against the Allies, it is likely the entire external holdings of the country would, at best, been rendered worthless or at worst seized.

To suggest the country's interests were not threatened is wrong and allowing someone else to fight to protect those interests without contributing and even being obstructive is morally bankrupt.

The contribution didn't have to be in fighting strength, allowing trans-shipping (admittedly risky given Dr Hempel's threats in this area) and allowing basing rights to narrow the Atlantic air gap would have been meangingful in their own right.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

In short, the country profiteered from the War.

Pure, total and utter drivel.

Tony EH

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

The simple facts are that the Germans lacked the capability to project their forces across to this country while the Royal Navy remain "in being" and a strikiing force of RAF aircraft (modest as it was) remained in the North.

The simple FACTS are that Hitler prefered that neutral countries stay neutral and not get involved in the war. There were already too many nations stacked against him and his forces were overstretched by 1941.

Hitler's war was about Russia and the East. He didn't want anyone else involved, if it could be helped. Britain and France's declaration of war on the 3rd Sept 1939 had already dragged too many countries into the mix and had diverted his attention away from his primary goal. A diversion he could have done without.

Hitler had no designs on Ireland, except perhaps as a potential ally to tie down British forces. But, it was clear that Ireland hadn't the military capacity or the desire to get involved in a large conflict, especially after just emerging from centuries of strife and they were entirely correct to do so.

Jawgap

Morlar wrote: »

Pure, total and utter drivel.

Why?

The debate would be better served if you were to construct a reasoned rebuttal or is this the equivalent of the old lawyer's adage....

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names"

The country was never nearly as poor as has been made out, indeed in terms of relativities the country was holding it's own.....



From the table above you can see that at the outset of WWII Ireland had the ninth highest in income per capita in Europe, behind the UK, Germany and the Scandinavians but ahead of such countries as France, Austria and Italy - by 1948 were up to 6th.

Fratton Fred

marcsignal wrote: »

He certainly wasn't any fan of De Gaulle. He made every effort to have him sidelined, excluded form operational matters, and if I recall correctly, was, at one point, even considering having him arrested because of his 'meddeling'. I refer you to the documentary or book 'Allies At War'



BBC Review Book

His relationship with Stalin only proves, that he was still prepared to frolic with a mass murderer, to eliminate another mass murderer he didn't like.
I would refer you to WW2 behind closed doors. On youtube in 4 parts.



Well yes! He kept us out of a war that could well have ended in the destruction of this country, either by outside beligerants, or by internal conflict with the IRA. Boxing clever, if you want my opinion.



John Maffey didn't seem to have a problem with Dev. In fact they seemed to get along quite well. Mybe Churchills difficulty with Dev had something to do with Churchills bedside manner ? Perhaps Churchill had a problem with dealing with Dev (the insolent Paddy and former rebel) on the same level, as opposed to dictating to him. No? let's not forget here, Churchill was instrumental in the creation of the Black and Tans, which imo, sums up his general attitude to 'Dealing with the Irish'.

I would hypothesise, that the fact we allowed British Airmen to cross the border into NI having crashed here, and our providing weather reports and other intelligence, as well as the use of our airspace by flying boats, had more to do with Maffey than Churchill.

Did Churchill call Dev an "Insolent Paddy" or are you paraphrasing for effect.

Anyway, this is interesting

http://www.mary-kenny.com/published_articles/winston-churchill-ireland.html

Morlar

Other - please explain

Your 'argument' is flawed.

You present one piece of information and then assume it somehow reinforces your unsupported conclusion. I think you misunderstand (giving you the benefit of the doubt) the meaning of wartime profiteering.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did Churchill call Dev an "Insolent Paddy" or are you paraphrasing for effect.

Anyway, this is interesting http://www.mary.kenny.com/published_articles/wionston-churchill-ireland.html

That link doesn't seem to work ? Even correcting the typo doesn't seem to resolve it for me.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

The simple FACTS are that Hitler prefered that neutral countries stay neutral and not get involved in the war. There were already too many nations stacked against him and his forces were overstretched by 1941.

Hitler's war was about Russia and the East. He didn't want anyone else involved, if it could be helped. Britain and France's declaration of war on the 3rd Sept 1939 had already dragged too many countries into the mix and had diverted his attention away from his primary goal. A diversion he could have done without.

Hitler had no designs on Ireland, except perhaps as a potential ally to tie down British forces. But, it was clear that Ireland hadn't the military capacity or the desire to get involved in a large conflict, especially after just emerging from centuries of strife and they were entirely correct to do so.

As I've already suggested, our interests were much broader than territorial. The UK was our major trading partner, most of our foreign holdings were in the Sterling area and we relied on the Bank of England as our de facto central bank - even after we set up a central bank (which effectively remained as a currency commission until we de-coupled from Sterling).

We didn't need to provide military manpower, so military capacity and capability is a bit of a red herring when we could have, if we wanted, allowed trans-shipping of goods, and the basing of patrol aircraft on the West and South West Coasts to help save civilian merchant mariners (and Royal Navy sailors) from U-boats.

By the way, I should also clarify that while the country itself was in an enviable financial position, the lot of individual families and people was notably pretty rough.

There was a lot of income and wealth inequity which led to a lot of "destitution, malnutrition and scores of other ailments" - but this does not take away from the core point that we had significant interests at stake and were not prepared to engage, even at a modest level, to contribute to their defence while expecting others to do so on our behalf.

Jawgap

Morlar wrote: »

Your 'argument' is flawed.

You present one piece of information and then assume it somehow reinforces your unsupported conclusion. I think you misunderstand (giving you the benefit of the doubt) the meaning of wartime profiteering.

there's profiteering and unlawful profiteering. I'm not suggesting there was organised unlawful profiteering , but given that the country - pratically uniquely in Europe - finshed the War (and before we got the crumbs from the Marshall Plan) as a creditor nation in a stronger economic position than when it started, I'd say there's more than a whiff of profiteering about that.

Webster's define it as "one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency"

Morlar

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

there's profiteering and unlawful profiteering. I'm not suggesting there was organised unlawful profiteering , but given that the country - pratically uniquely in Europe - finshed the War (and before we got the crumbs from the Marshall Plan) as a creditor nation in a stronger economic position than when it started, I'd say there's more than a whiff of profiteering about that.

Webster's define it as "one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency"

We do not meet any criteria of the standard definition of wartime profiteering or profiteering during wartime or however you want to describe it.

The fact that our economy may have naturally grown year on year due to massive outward migration causing decreasing levels of domestic unemployment was neither here nor there.

It certainly was not exploitative or predatory on the part of Ireland, which would be a requirement for your label of wartime profiteering to be an accurate one. Your argument amounts to a gross distortion of the facts.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

The debate would be better served if you were to construct a reasoned rebuttal or is this the equivalent of the old lawyer's adage....

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names"

The country was never nearly as poor as has been made out, indeed in terms of relativities the country was holding it's own.....



From the table above you can see that at the outset of WWII Ireland had the ninth highest in income per capita in Europe, behind the UK, Germany and the Scandinavians but ahead of such countries as France, Austria and Italy - by 1948 were up to 6th.

I notice by your chart that neutral Switzerland and Sweden topped it - were they also 'profiteering'? Or - as neutral countries were they free to trade with whom they wished?

Morlar

Other - please explain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice by your chart that neutral Switzerland and Sweden topped it - were they also 'profiteering'? Or - as neutral countries were they free to trade with whom they wished?

You will also note Irelands income per person in dollars decreased during 1938-1947.

Subsequently increasing more or less in line with the rest of europe in 1948 (which would cover the introduction of the time of the Marshall Plan).

Jawgap wrote: »

In short, the country profiteered from the War.

It is simply inaccurate to suggest Ireland had a predatory or exploitative outlook on this conflict and sought to profiteer from it or that it's conduct was motivated by financial greed.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Morlar wrote: »

You will also note Irelands income per person in dollars decreased during 1938-1947.

Subsequently increasing more or less in line with the rest of europe in 1948 (which would cover the introduction of the time of the Marshall Plan).



It is simply inaccurate to suggest Ireland had a predatory or exploitative outlook on this conflict and sought to profiteer from it or that it's conduct was motivated by financial greed.

It also begs the question what were we exporting that allowed us to profiteer? Perhaps we tripled the prices we were charging for coal ..steel..um...weapons...ummm...spuds?

Jawgap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice by your chart that neutral Switzerland and Sweden topped it - were they also 'profiteering'? Or - as neutral countries were they free to trade with whom they wished?

In Sweden's case I'd don't have the economic data, but given their supply of raw materials, especially iron ore, I'd say yes. They also allowed trans-shipping of German materiel and personnel. But they were in something of a similar, even worse, strategic position to us with regards to Germany.

Switzerland, and their role in the distribution of seized / stolen assets, is a whole new discussion thread - if we see our war time posture in the same class as the Swiss then there was definite moral bankruptcy - unless you fully agree with the principle of money being absolutely morally neutral.