Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

dttq

It’s one thing for large nations such as China throughout the centuries to declare itself isolated from world events, or industrial superpowers such as America to declare itself neutral during the first half of the 20th century. Both stances held water as both nations had large populations, large militaries, a large manufacturing base- all of which would instil some respect in potential imperial and superpower rivals to respect their position, as to rock the boat, would bring two large powers such as America and China out of their neutrality slumber. But what about smaller nations such as Ireland, with little in the way to defend it’s position of neutrality, both past and present?

Are we really to believe that by simply declaring ourselves neutral, as a small country during a war such as the Second World War, that our position would have been respected by larger and more powerful nations, giving that we were and always have been a key strategic location regarding defense. It seems to be that we would have been attacked and overrun either way by either the Germans, or the Americans/ British during WWII, had either seen us as a threat to their interests. Had the Americans/ British thought for a moment that the Germans would invade Ireland to use as a launch pad for an easier invasion into England, and hence cut off the entire Western Front, given that both Ireland and Britain would be under German occupation- then would have not have thought twice about ceasing the country until the war had ended.

Conversely, how can we really have expected that as a small country with no means of fighting back, that had Germany conquered Britain, that they would not have invaded Ireland, simply because we took a stance of neutrality- knowing full well that to not invade Ireland, would provide the Americans/ British with an outpost for attacking Germany and it’s newly conquered territories, including Britain to the east.

bodice ripper

yes

starbelgrade

It really doesn't matter what happened in WW2. We were always gonna end up being run by the Germans in the end.

eth0

We were neutral enough to prevent Hitler from declaring war on us and that's what matters. Everyone knew Hitler was a cunt so not really necessary to be 100% neutral and a few subtle digs at his regime like sending a few of his pilots to England after they crashed was the right thing to do.

namloc1980

We weren't alone during WW2, Portugal was also officially neutral but in reality it helped the Allies much like Ireland (although much of our assistance was kept secret). The only truly embarrassing episode of Ireland's "neutrality" during WW2 was Eamon De Valera and Douglas Hyde going to the German Embassy to express condolences on Hitler's death.

talla10

Ireland was too weak to declare war on Germany. We has a small poorly trained and equipped army, it was too soon for most the public and politians to be seen supporting Britain and all it would have done is get thousands more Irish men killed

latenia

It was the correct decision. We just would have had Dublin and Cork razed to the ground by bombers while cowering waiting for America to join in. Given that we were at war with Britain less than 20 years earlier and Irishmen were used disproportionately as cannon fodder against the same enemy on almost the same battlefields shortly before that I see no logical or moral reason for us to have sided with the allies. The Holocaust is often brought out as a stick to beat us with but that was never a causus belli at the time as the true horror only emerged afterwards.

AnonoBoy

Most sequels are folly to be honest whether you have a neutral opinion on them or not.

Toy Story 2 and Godfather 2 being the big exceptions of course.

getzls

latenia wrote: »

It was the correct decision. We just would have had Dublin and Cork razed to the ground by bombers .

Surely this is a cowards excuse?

Irelands shame.

sheesh

bodice ripper wrote: »

yes

no

Latchy

Either way , the Irish government and the Allies had a plan of action in place that should the republic ( or EIRE as it was referred to then by the British ) be invaded by the Nazis, the American and British forces would join up with the 500,000 strong Irish Army to try repel the invasion which probably would have involved fighting on several fronts .

Chuck Stone

We were neutral for the Allies.

Latchy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We were neutral for the Allies.

Only because of a stubborn Eamon De Valera who infuriated Roosevelt and Churchill by this stance on neutrality ( although understandable knowing it had already took hundreds of years to get rid of the British ) and as we all know on the announcement of Hitlers death ,sent a letter of condolences to the German Embassy in Dublin.

jpm4

latenia wrote: »

It was the correct decision. We just would have had Dublin and Cork razed to the ground by bombers while cowering waiting for America to join in. Given that we were at war with Britain less than 20 years earlier and Irishmen were used disproportionately as cannon fodder against the same enemy on almost the same battlefields shortly before that I see no logical or moral reason for us to have sided with the allies. The Holocaust is often brought out as a stick to beat us with but that was never a causus belli at the time as the true horror only emerged afterwards.

Any substantial proof of that?

chughes

I'm not an apologist for DeValera but WW2 presented him with a huge dilemma. At the start of WW2 the Irish Free State was less than 20 years old and after taking so long to get Britain out of the the 26 counties part of the island of Ireland, he wasn't about to invite them back in again.

It's easy at this remove to condemn the policy of neutrality but DeValera's supporters would have pilloried him if he had agreed to the ports being used. Churchill even offered the 6 counties for the use of the ports and it's highly likely that Churchill would have reneged on this as the Unionists would have revolted. I think DeVelera knew Churchill well enough not to trust him one inch.

Many Irish people did join the British forces during WW2 so we did play some part in the war. My own father worked in the Clyde shipyards and in Harland & Wolfe repairing damages warships. The memorial gardens in Islandbridge are testament to the Irish people who fought and died in a number of conflicts including WW2.

One thing I would condemn DeVelera for, however, is offering condolences to the German ambassador on the death of Hitler. At that stage the concentration camps would have been public knowledge so to offer condolences on behalf of the Irish people is unforgivable.

Colmustard

We weren't really neutral. We were neutral on the side of the allies. We gave the British information about German uboats coming up our coast and vital weather information, which was a reason June 6th was picked for the Normandy landings. We also gave gave up our Airspace over Donegal so Aircraft could cut through to the Atlantic for the Atlantic war.

As a whole I think our neutrality was the correct policy we were only a fledgling nation. But did Dev really have to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy for Hitler..Dev forever the twaT in my eyes.

bodice ripper

sheesh wrote: »

no

I disagree!

Alias G

getzls wrote: »

Surely this is a cowards excuse?

Irelands shame.

No, it is an entirely logical stance. Why would Ireland willingly volunteer for its cities to be bombed out of recognition.

Milk & Honey

Latchy wrote: »

Either way , the Irish government and the Allies had a plan of action in place that should the republic ( or EIRE as it was referred to then by the British ) be invaded by the Nazis, the American and British forces would join up with the 500,000 strong Irish Army to try repel the invasion which probably would have involved fighting on several fronts .

The Irish Army was 43,000 strong in the war years. There were two plans drawn up. One was to repel a German invasion and the other was to repel a British invasion.

Colmustard

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The Irish Army was 43,000 strong in the war years. There were two plans drawn up. One was to repel a German invasion and the other was to repel a British invasion.

Yeah one was we surrender said in German, the other plan was we surrender said in English, they were good plans.

Wibbs

dttq wrote: »

Had the Americans/ British thought for a moment that the Germans would invade Ireland to use as a launch pad for an easier invasion into England, and hence cut off the entire Western Front,

Eh they would have thought about it and immediately dismissed. The Germans wouldn't have had a snowball in hell's hope of a successful invasion of Ireland before the UK and even then it would have been bloody difficult. The threat of that was near zero. There was a thumbnail sketch plan "operation green" IIRC, but it was underfunded, under informed and ultimately useless.

People forget that the German armed forces were based around and responsive to their army and that they were a (very good) land based force. Their air force bombers were mostly designed as artillery to support ground troops(compare this to the allies and heavy bombers designed on their own to win wars, yet they still had to send infantry mile by mile all the way to Berlin). The Stuka was literally a flying artillery piece(among other things) and a very accurate and successful one. One of the first armies to call in moving accurate air strikes as we know them today was the German. It was a tactical air force. Indeed the majority of those in the officer class in the early Luftwaffe were army officers.

Their navy outside of the U boats was largely tied up for most of the war and U boats wouldn't be worth jack shít for a seaborne invasion. They would likely have been in trouble just trying to cross the English channel even with full air superiority. They really weren't equipped for it. They'd have had to rely on their transports like JU 52's to drop paratroops, but without tanks and artillery? Game over. Trying to hit Ireland from mainland Europe? Not in the most feverish moments of Adolf blitzed on schnapps would that have been even suggested. So that right there is a non runner.

OurLadyofKnock

chughes wrote: »

I'm not an apologist for DeValera but WW2 presented him with a huge dilemma. At the start of WW2 the Irish Free State was less than 20 years old and after taking so long to get Britain out of the the 26 counties part of the island of Ireland, he wasn't about to invite them back in again.

It's easy at this remove to condemn the policy of neutrality but DeValera's supporters would have pilloried him if he had agreed to the ports being used. Churchill even offered the 6 counties for the use of the ports and it's highly likely that Churchill would have reneged on this as the Unionists would have revolted. I think DeVelera knew Churchill well enough not to trust him one inch.

Many Irish people did join the British forces during WW2 so we did play some part in the war. My own father worked in the Clyde shipyards and in Harland & Wolfe repairing damages warships. The memorial gardens in Islandbridge are testament to the Irish people who fought and died in a number of conflicts including WW2.

One thing I would condemn DeVelera for, however, is offering condolences to the German ambassador on the death of Hitler. At that stage the concentration camps would have been public knowledge so to offer condolences on behalf of the Irish people is unforgivable.

This post sums it up perfectly. Dev's Aspberger's like telegram isn't enough to condem an entire nation.

OurLadyofKnock

Colmustard wrote: »

Yeah one was we surrender said in German, the other plan was we surrender said in English, they were good plans.

Knowing Dev the defence plans would of been in Irish so nobody here would of been able to understand them.

Latchy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The Irish Army was 43,000 strong in the war years. There were two plans drawn up. One was to repel a German invasion and the other was to repel a British invasion.

I think the plan I mentioned included co operation with the British for the German invasion scenario and yes , Dev had his son and a contingent of troops on the border to size up the situation but it doesn't take much brains to realize that the ''Brits invading the south to help repel the Germans '' scenario was the best option ...if only in the short term .

Wibbs

Colmustard wrote: »

Yeah one was we surrender said in German, the other plan was we surrender said in English, they were good plans.

Actualy not quite. One Irish commander whose name escapes who had taken part in and beaten famous generals on all sides in war games before the war, had figured the Germans would try to move up the Nore valley(again IIRC) and accordingly had a load of artillery pieces pointed at the place(apparently after the war it turned out that would have been the german plan). Plus the Irish army would have a load of men with some practice at a moving guerrilla war with the largest empire the world has ever seen so wouldn't have been pushovers. The Germans would have been on the ground, with little in the way of tanks etc, with no air support beyond the odd Condor which no doubt the Brits would have been only to happy to shoot out of the sky. Their supply lines would be intermittent or non existent. It would have been a suicide invasion.

Colmustard

Wibbs wrote: »

Actualy not quite. One Irish commander whose name escapes who had taken part in and beaten famous generals on all sides in war games before the war, had figured the Germans would try to move up the Nore valley(again IIRC) and accordingly had a load of artillery pieces pointed at the place(apparently after the war it turned out that would have been the german plan). Plus the Irish army would have a load of men with some practice at a moving guerrilla war with the largest empire the world has ever seen so wouldn't have been pushovers. The Germans would have been on the ground, with little in the way of tanks etc, with no air support beyond the odd Condor which no doubt the Brits would have been only to happy to shoot out of the sky. Their supply lines would be intermittent or non existent. It would have been a suicide invasion.

Not if they had already beaten the British. I take it they would not have invaded before they beat them. Which they didn't so us Irish should have a thank you Britain day for not capitulating to the Germans. As a bonus that day would piss off the Ra heads.

Pottler

"Yeah, them jerries were just lucky we were neutral, we'da kicked their a55es". Sounds like a barstool boast, at best. "Better off out of it", is about as good as you can really say.

OurLadyofKnock

The German plan to invade Ireland would of been disaster for them. They would of been all dead or in prisioner of war camps before they go to Carlow. Can't even see how they would of gotten the troops here after 1941.

The British invasion was a bluff by Churchill and Dev read it correctly.

There is a lot to be said for how Ireland protected its citizens in the war.

Latchy

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for how Ireland protected its citizens in the war.

protected in the sense that Ireland wasn't invaded by anybody then but had the RAF lost the Battle of Britain and had the Normandy landings failed ,it's difficult to tell how a land war in Britain / Ireland would have panned out .

Milk & Honey

Latchy wrote: »

I think the plan I mentioned included co operation with the British for the German invasion scenario and yes , Dev had his son and a contingent of troops on the border to size up the situation but it doesn't take much brains to realize that the ''Brits invading the south to help repel the Germans '' scenario was the best option ...if only in the short term .

The Brits might have invaded even in the absence of a German invasion. In that case they were to be resisted.The First Division under Major-General MJ Costello with HQ in Cork was to attempt to repel a German invasion and the Second Division under Major-General Hugo MacNeill with HQ in Maynooth was to attempt to repel a British invasion.
Both plans were wildly optimistic given the number of troops and the equipment they were provided with.

Rigol

Were we going to send our 5th fleet and our cavalry divisions.
Nope, Dev played it perfectly.

General General

I read somewhere that the Germans would have invaded Ireland but for the fact that this would mean that they would have to invade (& occupy) Carlow.

Wibbs

People are also forgetting our Yankee friends. They were already committing support on the quiet to Britain. Let's imagine HItler gets lucky with Britain. Invades England, replaces Churchill and a Vichy France scenario is in play. Would, or even could Germany have stretched their remarkably limited war machine to then invade Ireland? And for what? We were resource poor, no threat militarily, beyond the idea the US would use us as a stepping stone. If Germany had tried an invasion here and succeeded(highly unlikely) then the US would have been more than perturbed. After Pearl harbour? At that point we, not the UK would have likely ended up a US aircraft carrier. All this forgets of course Adolfs push to invade and conquer the Soviets. In many ways the western front and any possible part we may have played in it was a sideline he wasn't so pushed in going down. The oul Bolsheviks were his real focus.

Riddle101

I've always been conflicted about this, on one hand you had Nazi Germany invading Europe, would they have stopped at Britain or would they have invaded Ireland in order to make sure that Ireland wasn't left undefended in case the Americans wanted to use Ireland as a base of operations. On the otherhand, Ireland wasn't really equipped for a war, and all the history we've had with Britain wasn't very easy for us. Yes the Germans were considered the baddies in WWII, but Britain has done terrible thing to Ireland too, things that a lot of people wouldn't have forgotten. So it wasn't as simple for us.

The only thing that makes me want Ireland to have sided with the Allies in WWII, is the possibilities of a United Ireland which Churchill apparently promised, but who knows if Churchill was lying or telling the truth. Either way it doesn't matter anymore, things worked out in the end anyway. In a way.

An Coilean

Entering a War because you think you might get invaded anyway is much akin to burning your house down yourself for fear of arsonists.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

People are also forgetting our Yankee friends. They were already committing support on the quiet to Britain. Let's imagine HItler gets lucky with Britain. Invades England, replaces Churchill and a Vichy France scenario is in play. Would, or even could Germany have stretched their remarkably limited war machine to then invade Ireland? And for what? We were resource poor, no threat militarily, beyond the idea the US would use us as a stepping stone. If Germany had tried an invasion here and succeeded(highly unlikely) then the US would have been more than perturbed. After Pearl harbour? At that point we, not the UK would have likely ended up a US aircraft carrier. All this forgets of course Adolfs push to invade and conquer the Soviets. In many ways the western front and any possible part we may have played in it was a sideline he wasn't so pushed in going down. The oul Bolsheviks were his real focus.

It is a highly dubious position to think the German army would not have had to capasity to Invade Ireland.
It is debatable if Hitler ever had any serious intention to Invade England, certainly he had no real desire to. But if he did then why leave Ireland out? Why should he fear Ireland being used as a back door any less than the British traditionally did?
Certianly it was not worth allowing the US a foothold in Europe, and without it the German war economy would have been substantianly less disturbed by Bombing, allowing the Germans concentrate on the East, and giving them a much better chance of Victory.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Actualy not quite. One Irish commander whose name escapes who had taken part in and beaten famous generals on all sides in war games before the war, had figured the Germans would try to move up the Nore valley(again IIRC) and accordingly had a load of artillery pieces pointed at the place(apparently after the war it turned out that would have been the german plan). Plus the Irish army would have a load of men with some practice at a moving guerrilla war with the largest empire the world has ever seen so wouldn't have been pushovers. The Germans would have been on the ground, with little in the way of tanks etc, with no air support beyond the odd Condor which no doubt the Brits would have been only to happy to shoot out of the sky. Their supply lines would be intermittent or non existent. It would have been a suicide invasion.

As I recall there were some 50,000 German troops earmarked for an Invasion of Ireland had the Invasion of the UK gone ahead, that is not much more than the forces available to the Irish army at the time. The German army was one of the most effective and experienced at the time, I have no doubt that had they made it here, they could have beaten the then Irish army, but that was only one part of it, the LDF which had been set up by the Government was in essence the IRA of the Tan War re-established, in many cases with the same commanders. The difference being it was much larger, much better armed and much better trained than the IRA had been.
The Germans could have taken the country, but holding it would have been running sore for them.

Capt'n Midnight

dttq wrote: »

It’s one thing for large nations such as China throughout the centuries to declare itself isolated from world events, or industrial superpowers such as America to declare itself neutral during the first half of the 20th century. Both stances held water as both nations had large populations, large militaries, a large manufacturing base- all of which would instil some respect in potential imperial and superpower rivals to respect their position, as to rock the boat, would bring two large powers such as America and China out of their neutrality slumber. But what about smaller nations such as Ireland, with little i

. Both stances held water - WTF ?

Do you have any idea how many Chinese died because of foreign invasions or because of destabilisation of the central government by foreign powers ? Have you heard of the effects of the Opium wars ?
From the depopulation of Northern China by hordes, to the Civil wars in which tens of millions died in past centuries to the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese and the foreign influences in the civil war.

As for the USA it was only able to declare isolation because of thousands of miles of ocean East and West. To the south you had deserts and wars in Mexico. That just leaves North. And the US hasn't antagonised Canada since 1814 when they burnt down the White House.

Jimoslimos

No, it was a pragmatic approach and the correct one. Also I'm a little uncomfortable how people can casually wish their ancestors enter a brutal and bloody war. Easy when it's not you I guess

Colmustard wrote: »

But did Dev really have to sign the book of condolences at the German embassy for Hitler..Dev forever the twaT in my eyes.

Yeah, not simply from a moral standpoint but a pretty stupid thing to do politically given the Allies had just won the war.

Rigol

As Wibbs said above, the Rushkies were the real end of Adolf.
But if Germany had the choice to invade Ireland I believe at first they would have made 'an offer you cant refuse' to us...which would have been grasped. I don't see a reason for an ethnic cleansing of us, he liked the Brits ethnically and we're very similar and integrated. Plus why waste the resources, and we were Vatican property anyway...not worth the diplomacy.

Otherwise they'd have done some kind of token political thing to give them reason to squash us, while claiming some weak righteousness in front of the world, and for the history books too.

Like someone else said, they wouldn't want us being a swinging door for the yanks to eventually come through.

Anyway, the Russians finished WW2. If Germanys resources had never been used on Russia then G.Britain was a gonner. They poured millions of men, and thousands of tanks and aircraft into the eastern front. If they'd sent that stuff west then there'd be no contenders.

Capt'n Midnight

An Coilean wrote: »

Entering a War because you think you might get invaded anyway is much akin to burning your house down yourself for fear of arsonists.

Czechoslovakia had good defences , a million men under arms and a large defence industry. They gave up some defences instead of starting a war

Poland refused to let Soviet troops cross their borders in the event of a German invasion. Result the Soviets negotiated a treaty with the Germans instead. When Germany invaded Poland the Soviets followed shortly after and they split the country between them.

France could have invaded the Rhur area when Germany invaded Poland


Most countries in continental Europe apart from the very mountainous ones with large armies / arms industries were invaded. Only two didn't have their capitals captured. From Finland to Italy countries were on both sides. Despite all you hear about those killed during the Blitz more civilians died in the Allied bombing raids on France than during the Axis raids on the UK.


Neutrality was only an option for Ireland because of our peripheral location.

The list of neutral countries invaded by both sides is very long and worldwide

Latchy

It's strange to think that Hitler thought he could take on the might of the Soviet Union while also fighting the Allies on 3 major fronts ,Europe ,Africa and Italy .

Some of his major gaffs ...

1. Not allowing the 3 reserve panzer divisions to join the defense at Normandy ( the Furher wasn't to be awakened )

2. Swinging the attack away from England to concentrate more on Russia

3. Underestimating the Russian winter and not supplying his troops with the equipment needed to continue any serious threat against the soviets .

4 .Meddling so much in decisions making in the Russian and European campaigns which if he had left to his generals in the field , may have swung things in a more favorable position for German forces and Germany .

LordSutch

Latchy wrote: »

Either way , the Irish government and the Allies had a plan of action in place that should the republic ( or EIRE as it was referred to then by the British ).

Did we not call ourselves EIRE back then? Irish Merchant ship the SS Irish Oak 1943 http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/oak.jpg

On another issue, guess who these guys are on a training exercise in 1939 > http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW-zeeNLQyRIRR00EpEjt1VTyUhKRHCXtAfpTOyE5wEk3R7R18ew

And No, they're not Germans :eek:

fasttalkerchat

What were they gonna do? Land in France and shoot at the Brits and the Nazis?

Latchy

LordSutch wrote: »

Did we not call ourselves EIRE back then? Irish Merchant ship the SS Irish Oak 1943 http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/oak.jpg

On another issue, guess who these guys are on a training exercise in 1939 > http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW-zeeNLQyRIRR00EpEjt1VTyUhKRHCXtAfpTOyE5wEk3R7R18ew

And No, they're not Germans :eek:

Along the east coast of Dublin and other part of Ireland then it was common (from the view of an airplane ) to see E.I.R.E written in large white stone so as any misdirected German planes would know they weren't flying over UK

One can only guess at the The German style helmets ,were they to piss the Brits off :pac: or ( should they invade ) welcome the Germans on arrival ?

I dunno

Sunnyisland

Markings to alert aircraft to neutral Ireland ("Éire" English: "Ireland") during WWII on Malin Head, Co Donegal

General General

Latchy wrote: »

It's strange to think that Hitler thought he could take on the might of the Soviet Union while also fighting the Allies on 3 major fronts ,Europe ,Africa and Italy .

Some of his major gaffs ...

1. Not allowing the 3 reserve panzer divisions to join the defense at Normandy ( the Furher wasn't to be awakened )

2. Swinging the attack away from England to concentrate more on Russia

3. Underestimating the Russian winter and not supplying his troops with the equipment needed to continue any serious threat against the soviets .

4 .Meddling so much in decisions making in the Russian and European campaigns which if he had left to his generals in the field , may have swung things in a more favorable position for German forces and Germany .

5. Underestimating just how hardy the Russian hardy bucks were, especially when being chased from behind by a dose of Russian troops prepared to shoot their own front line in the back.

Latchy

General General wrote: »

5. Underestimating just how hardy the Russian hardy bucks were, especially when being chased from behind by a dose of Russian troops prepared to shoot their own front line in the back.

Yes...chased them all the way into the heart of Berlin to .

St.Spodo

On the one hand the policy of neutrality spared the Free State thousands of civilian deaths at the hands of the Luftwaffe and the inevitable huge infrastructural damage which would have came as a result of a blitz. Also, we had an army that would have been wholly incapable of resisting a German invasion with anything resembling success, and the bestial treatment of civilians which followed the Germans around Occupied Europe would have surely followed them into Ireland.

On the other hand, neutrality ultimately reinforced partition and strengthened the bond between the North and Westminster. On top of this, we became something of a leper in the international community for a few years.

I am no fan of de Valera, but ultimately I think neutrality was a wise policy for a country of our size. We must understand that many believed Germany would probably win the war up until 1942. It was correctly seen as national suicide to go to war against them. As for going to war against the Allies, this was an absurd notion. Neutrality was ultimately vindicated but didn't come without side effects.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

It is a highly dubious position to think the German army would not have had to capasity to Invade Ireland.

An Coilean wrote: »

The German army was one of the most effective and experienced at the time, I have no doubt that had they made it here, they could have beaten the then Irish army,

Nope, the simple fact is that the German military machine very impressive as it was(your average German soldier was worth about 3-4 Us/British soldiers and around 8-10 Soviet soldier going on some stats) was not geared up for crossing bodies of water beyond the scale of a large river. They were almost entirely tactically focused on land battles. Heinkels and the like first, followed by Stukas and panzers supporting the infantry. Blitzkrieg. If the UK had been physically joined to Europe the battle of Britain might, if not would have had a very different outcome. Above and beyond tactics and personal bravery the channel saved them, like it had agin Bonaparte and the Spanish before. EG When the Germans won the battle of France and were looking at the upcoming battle of Britain, they had to change the rules/procedures for their single engined flight crews who had been previously restricted from crossing bodies of water beyond a couple of miles. Hasty additions of life rafts and life jackets being the most of it. IT had not figured in their operational plans.

They most certainly hadn't anywhere close, asses roar time, to the capacity of invading Ireland from mainland Europe and invading from the UK, if they had succeeded there, which over and above the UK propaganda was a pretty tall order. PLus even if they had taken southern England the British as a whole would likely have just gone further north and kept harrying them. It was pretty much never gonna happen. Seriously, read up on the actual capacities of their various mechanisms of war. Shít their fighter planes like ME109's could barely make London from France, their Stukas ditto. Their longer range light(in comparison to later B17's etc) bombers could go further but were highly vulnerable to single seat fighters without escort. Their navy was mostly fooked and they were relying on unstable barges for the english channel crossing planned for operation Sea Lion.

Seaneh

namloc1980 wrote: »

The only truly embarrassing episode of Ireland's "neutrality" during WW2 was Eamon De Valera and Douglas Hyde going to the German Embassy to express condolences on Hitler's death.

This nonsense gets thrown around all the time and it's absolute idiocy.

You'd swear they were the only ones to sign a ****ing book of condolences for Hitler.

Ireland was neutral, we had a German Embassy, it was protocol to sign the fecking book just as it would have been to sign it for any other nation.