Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland he would have, neutral or not.

Declaring war as an ally of Britain's would have forced his hand and he would have at least attacked Ireland.

I think Dev got it right, but not out of any great act of leadership, he just took the same approach as the last government took to the recession. Stick your head in the sand and hope all the nasty stuff goes away.

Ach I don't think it was like that, the country wasn't really prepared for it, it was 20 years or so since the War of Independence and it was only recovering from the Civil War, joining the British side might have opened old wounds. The armed forces hadn't much experience even in peace keeping operations like it has now, I'd say he was tempted by the offer of reunification but knew Churchill was offering something he couldn't deliver on.

Fratton Fred

K-9 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland he would have, neutral or not.
Declaring war as an ally of Britain's would have forced his hand and he would have at least attacked Ireland.
I think Dev got it right, but not out of any great act of leadership, he just took the same approach as the last government took to the recession. Stick your head in the sand and hope all the nasty stuff goes away.

Ach I don't think it was like that, the country wasn't really prepared for it, it was 20 years or so since the War of Independence and it was only recovering from the Civil War, joining the British side might have opened old wounds. The armed forces hadn't much experience even in peace keeping operations like it has now, I'd say he was tempted by the offer of reunification but knew Churchill was offering something he couldn't deliver on.

Was he though? Did Dev actually want all those prods kicking around and corrupting his comely maidens?

That's another thread though.

Fratton Fred

Wibbs wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, if Hitler wanted to invade Ireland he would have, neutral or not.

Oh sure certainly nuetrality wasn't something that kept him up all night worrying, but "wanted to" is very different to "been able to". Quite simply at that stage of the war and because of how the German armed forces worked, he wouldn't have been able to. The English channel was a huge hurdle, never mind the RAF controlling much of the skies over southern England(but not so much over the channel), trying to run the gauntlet around the south of the UK carrying men and materiel in glorified canal barges over a few hundred miles of atlantic ocean and then keeping them supplied would have been nothing short of a military miracle.

Yes, what I was implying was that Hitler couldn't give a **** about neutrality, as the Belgian, Dutch and Norwegians found out.

indioblack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, what I was implying was that Hitler couldn't give a **** about neutrality, as the Belgian, Dutch and Norwegians found out.

Once again the Free State's position in this business has, and should, be viewed with an attitude of understanding considering their circumstances.

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did Dev actually want all those prods kicking around and corrupting his comely maidens?

That's another thread though.

It's actually not. It is, however, yet another stereotype by our resident most British of British nationalists, Fratton Fred.

Seanchai

getz wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK finally paid off their war debt to the US on 29 Dec 2006

yes but that was loaned over the war years and had nothing to do with the marshall plan

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

indioblack

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

Why was Britain bankrupt at the end of World War Two?
"...building up an image as an "empire"." There is an element of truth in that.
If Germany was "..infinitely smarter" one wonders why they embarked on a global war with opponents who had access to greater natural resources than they had. Pitting yourself against the USA, USSR - even your old chums the British empire. Smart? If your not careful you're going to make the British look clever - that would never do.
A country needing money from foreigners because it screwed up it's own finances? Sound familiar?
I can't tell you if British people hate Germans or not - I'd say not - too much effort in hating, for too little return. Might be a lesson there.

LordSutch

indioblack wrote: »

I can't tell you if British people hate Germans or not - I'd say not - too much effort in hating, for too little return. Might be a lesson there.

They dont.

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF. With such stupidity, it's no wonder they hate the Germans and used the Malvinas and fighting the latest "rebellion" by the native Irish in the Six Counties as conduits for their pathetic identity

Interesting analysis. Bollocks of course, but interesting. Britain's post-war problems had a lot more to do with a failure to get to get to grips with industrial decline whilst at the same time building up the most lavish welfare state the world has ever seen rather than any lingering Imperial delusions. By the standards of most Empires, Britain positively sprinted away from its "possessions"; dismantling almost all of it within 20 years of 1945. And for the record, "The Malvinas" were never Argentinian (Spain and even France have better claims than Argentina), most Brits actually rather like the Germans (they do tend to dislike the French though), and believe it or not, most English, Welsh and Scottish people didn't give a damn about Northern Ireland either unless they had a relative in the army. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

It's actually not. It is, however, yet another stereotype by our resident most British of British nationalists, Fratton Fred.

All this attention Seanchai, you're making me blush.

http://www.google.com/search?q=rule+britannia&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

ejmaztec

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

:eek:

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Ah, they were good, very very good, at mass murder and imperialism. No doubt about that, God bless them. Military revolutions, that's what made the British "great". When Britain's enemies were using spears, Britain went in and showed them how to wipe out human beings in style and subjugate their culture into oblivion while lecturing them on the merits of being "civilised".

The downside of this is that British people are under the impression that winning wars/taking human life gives them more right to claim to be more cultured, more learned and more of everything else that is positive in life. The irony of this just seems to evade the collective consciousness of the British tabloid-reading, Butcher's Apron-waving underclasses of John Bull's island.

Thanks Seanchai, but fairs fair, we couldn't have done it without you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1zyvlkhROU

Seanchai

Seanchai wrote: »

Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW2. As was Germany. Germany got much less money to rebuild itself; Britain got much more. Britain wasted it building up an image as an "empire'; Germany spent its paltry money making Germany productive. Germany was infinitely smarter. By 1976 Britain was begging money once again from the IMF.

dpe wrote: »

Interesting analysis. Bollocks of course, but interesting.

Nothing of the sort, so don't shoot the messenger. I read it on your BBC, right here:

The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

An extract:

"Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid."

---

You were saying?

And, as for it being "bollocks" that Britain was bailed out by the IMF in 1976, here's evidence for that:

IMF crisis

dpe wrote: »

and believe it or not, most English, Welsh and Scottish people didn't give a damn about Northern Ireland either unless they had a relative in the army. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thanks Seanchai, but fairs fair, we couldn't have done it without you guys.

In fairness, you managed quite well to build an empire for centuries before you ran out of Protestant recruits and decided to trust Catholics with holding guns....

And, of course, you managed with great class to keep the vast majority of the higher positions in the British Army and the RIC in the hands of the [Protestant] sons of the ascendency's colonial class.

Anyway.

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

Nothing of the sort, so don't shoot the messenger. I read it on your BBC, right here:

The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

An extract:

"Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid."

---

You were saying?

And, as for it being "bollocks" that Britain was bailed out by the IMF in 1976, here's evidence for that:

IMF crisis




As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

None of that contradicts what I said, and none of that implies the British wasted Marshall Aid "propping up the Empire" (as you claimed). They spent the money on the NHS and other social programmes.

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British were as incompetent and useless as Seanchai makes out, I'm surprised the British Empire ever got beyond the Isle of Wight.:eek:

Didn't you know ?
There were lots of Irish soldiers in the British army :pac:

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

As the British state keeps the entire northern statelet in existence in reality, I've never been a believer in the mere utterances of British people about their supposed sentiments. Without British state subsidisation and international support this pathetic sectarian pseudo-capitalist remnant of the British state in Ireland, where over 30% of people work directly for the state, would have collapsed long ago. That's reality.

Tell you what, show me the referendum where the British (rather than Irish) people were given a say on NI's membership of the Union.

Latchy

Interesting article in Daily Mail on Hitlers plans to invade southern Ireland during WW2 .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

karma_

Latchy wrote: »

Interesting article in Daily Mail on Hitlers plans to invade southern Ireland during WW2 .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

My bull**** detector was alerted with the first sentence of the article-

Irish were neutral and allowed German U-boats and submarines into their waters during the Second World War

Ahhh the good old daily mail, crucifying news since 1896.

Latchy

I don't think the Irish had much or any say in German U-boats and submarines entering their waters because the Germans didn't exactly announce their arrival or play by fair means and they also sunk many Irish merchant navy ships to.

Capt'n Midnight

Latchy wrote: »

I don't think the Irish had much or any say in German U-boats and submarines entering their waters because the Germans didn't exactly announce their arrival or play by fair means

I don't think we had much say because we had no anti-submarine capability.

Latchy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I don't think we had much say because we had no anti-submarine capability.

Exactly although I suspect the British were keeping a close eye on Irish sea activity .

dave1987

This is an interesting thread, and there are a few points I would like to make in relation to some posts on here.


1. The likelihood of Germany defeating Britain in 1940/41 was unlikely, despite the fall of France and the defeat of the BEF.

Germany in it's campaign upto the Battle of Britain had faced little in the way of resistance.

Poland fought bravely against the German war machine but it's weapons and tactics were outdated to the extent of employing cavalry against German Panzer units and WW1 era biplane's V the Luftwaffe's monoplane ME109's and JU-87 Stuka precision dive bombers. It is worth making note of the fact that the Luftwaffe had steadily gained experience on campaign in the Spanish Civil War "17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939".

Not only were Germany superior in technological equipment and weapons of which to wage war they also had a distinct advantage in preparing for war for many years prior to the outbreak in 1939.

Just some figures -

Poland had a population of only 34.7 million, the German Reich 84 million.

The German army employed 60 divisions against 39 Polish divisions and outnumbered them in aircraft and tanks substantially.

Germany had a clear advantage in preparation over it's opponents including France and Britain.

2. Britain showed the will to fight Germany continuously.

Notable British involvement -

1. Battle of River Plate - Defeat of German pocket battle ship by the Royal Navy in South America. Britain and her Empire showed an aggressive stance by chasing and forcing the crew of German Pocket Battleship the Admiral Graf Spee to scuttle their ship on River Plate in Argentina.

2. Defeat of Luftwaffe in Battle of Britain -
the RAF lost around 1,023 aircraft whilst the Luftwaffe lost 1,887 despite being outnumbered almost 4 to 1.

3. Bombing of Berlin in retaliation to London bombing's.

This is the first time during WW2 that Germany's capital was attacked. RAF Bomber Command continued to bomb Germany until the war's end in 1945. Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war.

4. The British Empire fought Italy and the Afrika Korps unaided as well as maintaining its colonies in Asia against the Japanese Empire.

5. Britain supplied Russia with weapons such as tanks and aircraft. Cromwell tanks and Hawker Hurricane Aircraft were used in large numbers by Russian forces throughout the war.

I could note many more. Without Britain the war would have been alot harder to win. All 3 Russia, USA and the British Empire were needed to defeat Germany, Italy and Japan.

Ireland would of not been able to withstand an invasion from Germany or Britain. We are talking about global superpowers at eachother's throats. Ireland's forces would be too small to withstand an attack from any of ww2 major combatants whether it be Britain & Empire, USA, Russia, Germany, Italy France.

Germany set aside 2 divisions to attack Ireland, they had 60 to attack Poland this show's how insignificant Ireland was in the eyes of Germany.

I don't necessarily think it was a bad decision to stay neutral but sometimes you need to stand up for what is right and Germany showed she was the aggressor and needed to be put down.

sea_monkey

surely if we had not been neutral germany could use us as a way to get into england?

being neutral blocked that passage for germany?

Dewey collins

it was not the Ireland's war, Dev did the right thing for once and had the free state remain neutral, we are small country that didn't want to fight in a others war, even when the US entered the war and put pressure on dev to enter the war, we were right to not. we lacked weapons to defend Ireland, are army was poorly trained and Ireland did support the allies but wanted to keep it secret. the Nazis also did have plans for Ireland but they never happened. if i was alive then i would have supported the irish gov because we are a small country and at the start of the war no one know about the concentration camps so it didn't look like god vs evil, it just looked like British superpower fighting the German superpower

petersburg2002

Remember the Belfast Blitz? Imagine what the Luftwaffe could have done to Dublin. Bombed it into oblivion, most likely. What defence could we have put up, a few ancient biplanes? Shudder to think how an actual full German invasion would have panned out.

gnfnrhead

petersburg2002 wrote: »

Remember the Belfast Blitz? Imagine what the Luftwaffe could have done to Dublin. Bombed it into oblivion, most likely. What defence could we have out up, a few ancient biplanes? Shudder to think how an actual full German invasion would have panned out.

I suspect it would have been something like this:

German 1: We are invad.....
German 2: We won.
German 1: What? Already? We havent even unloaded the boat yet!

:pac:

petersburg2002

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I suspect it would have been something like this:

German 1: We are invad.....
German 2: We won.
German 1: What? Already? We havent even unloaded the boat yet!

:pac:

The only things we had in our favour were geography, crap weather, and Hitler's crazy decision not to build long range bombers. So most planes were running out of fuel by the time they had crossed the English channel.

Wibbs

dave1987 wrote: »

1. The likelihood of Germany defeating Britain in 1940/41 was unlikely, despite the fall of France and the defeat of the BEF.

Step outside the oul post war propaganda for a minute... It was just as much because of geography as any military advantage. If the English channel hadn't been there Britain would have been in real trouble. Because it was and because the German forces had feck all experience or planning for seaborne invasion this bought Britain time. The Germans were army and tactical weapon centric. One big reason they never got strategic bombers off the ground(so to speak). The British tactics even in the air when the air war came were initially madly outdated. All flying Vee formations unsuited to the loose finger four formations of the German fighters. The germans were at a couple of serious disadvantages. For a start the fighters had very limited range and time over Britain and they were ordered to stay close to their charges the bombers(which drinks petrol) and they didn't even share radio frequencies.

Plus they tried to use tactical weapons like the stuka as strategic weapons(one of the most successful tactical weapons of the war again contrary to post war popular. Just on one point it sank more allied shipping than any other aircraft of the war and I bet you were taught in school that it was a shíte weapon), which was a major mistake. My great uncle was a flier in the melee on the British side and he said the same. They were really bloody scared of an invasion and what that might mean and how they weren't so sure that Britian, or England as it was more commonly known at the time would survive. So it was up to them, it was up to "the Few". One reason why they fought and died so bravely.

Even so the Germans effectively closed the channel to sea traffic and harried the southern ports time and time again sinking or damaging many ships, both merchant and military. They actually won the "Battle of the English channel".

Germany in it's campaign upto the Battle of Britain had faced little in the way of resistance.

Poland fought bravely against the German war machine but it's weapons and tactics were outdated to the extent of employing cavalry against German Panzer units

Not quite. The german army were mostly horse drawn at that stage of the war. Plus again contrary to popular since the war, the allies actually had more tanks in play in the battle of France, yet the Germans won that and won it decisively. The fact is the BEF and the allies were trounced and trounced soundly by the Germans on equal ground. Like I said if the channel wasn't there Britain would have been in serious trouble.

Germany had a clear advantage in preparation over it's opponents including France and Britain.

How so? The French had been building forces in paranoia of a German attack. Maginot line ring any bells? And the UK had the might of empire and a huge navy etc going on. Germany was coming from near destitution in the previous decade.

4. The British Empire fought Italy and the Afrika Korps unaided as well as maintaining its colonies in Asia against the Japanese Empire.

No they didn't. For a start the US was helping out in a big way and were helping on the ground after 42.

5. Britain supplied Russia with weapons such as tanks and aircraft. Cromwell tanks and Hawker Hurricane Aircraft were used in large numbers by Russian forces throughout the war.

And the Russians threw in huge numbers of men and materiel, far in excess of what the UK provided. How many people did Britain lose in the war? How many did the Soviets? Compare and contrast.

I could note many more. Without Britain the war would have been alot harder to win. All 3 Russia, USA and the British Empire were needed to defeat Germany, Italy and Japan.

Of that lot the British involvement though welcome on so many fronts was the lesser of the three, by a long shot.

Ireland would of not been able to withstand an invasion from Germany or Britain. We are talking about global superpowers at eachother's throats.

Actually in the case of Germany we're not. Plus you're making a huge error by disregarding the practicalities of an invasion by Germany. Yes the UK could have invaded and would have done so pretty easily. That said it's likely they would have gotten bogged down in insurgent rebellion to some degree. For the Germans they would have been fcuked. Their invasion "plans" for operation sealion were halfhearted and their loose assemblage of glorified canal barges would have barely made the trip to the white cliffs of Dover without resistance, never mind with. Like I said they had feck all experience or planning for such an invasion. To attempt same on Ireland, much much further away and out of reach of all but a few aircraft like the Condor would have been utterly pointless. They knew this and said it more than once in their musings on operation Grun/Green. To attempt this before the UK was subdued/had capitulated? No way. Hence they didn't put much thought behind it. At that stage of the war a Nazi invasion of Ireland was as about as likely as an Eskimo invasion of Ireland

I don't necessarily think it was a bad decision to stay neutral but sometimes you need to stand up for what is right and Germany showed she was the aggressor and needed to be put down.

"Aggressor" depends entirely one ones viewpoint. After all Britain could be and had been aggressive enough in it's dealings within it's empire, as we in Ireland know all too well. Hell it was aggressive towards it's own peasant/working class for long enough. Plus over 150,000 Irish men and women joined up to the Brits or the Yanks to stand up for what is right. Many of my family among them.

Maybe Sun readers believe this kinda thing, but if one digs a little deeper and steps back from the pomp and flag waving and victory after the fact, it's all not so clear cut.

gnfnrhead

petersburg2002 wrote: »

The only things we had in our favour were geography, crap weather, and Hitler's crazy decision not to build long range bombers. So most planes were running out of fuel by the time they had crossed the English channel.

The geography and weather would likely have been minor things, more inconveniences than problems. If Hitler had been able to keep himself under control a bit and not go after Russia while still fighting Britain, we'd have been done for. We were neutral only until Britain was taken. After that we'd have rolled out the red carpet to the Germans or anyone else who landed on our shores. Luckily, Hitler made the stupid decision to go after Russia and pretty much end Germany's chances of taking Britain.

dave1987

petersburg2002 wrote: »

Remember the Belfast Blitz? Imagine what the Luftwaffe could have done to Dublin. Bombed it into oblivion, most likely. What defence could we have put up, a few ancient biplanes? Shudder to think how an actual full German invasion would have panned out.

I'm pretty confident the RAF and Royal Navy would of protected Ireland if it would of been threatened by Germany

petersburg2002

dave1987 wrote: »

I'm pretty confident the RAF and Royal Navy would of protected Ireland if it would of been threatened by Germany

You mean like they protected Belfast during its Blitz? Not likely.

petersburg2002

gnfnrhead wrote: »

The geography and weather would likely have been minor things, more inconveniences than problems. If Hitler had been able to keep himself under control a bit and not go after Russia while still fighting Britain, we'd have been done for. We were neutral only until Britain was taken. After that we'd have rolled out the red carpet to the Germans or anyone else who landed on our shores. Luckily, Hitler made the stupid decision to go after Russia and pretty much end Germany's chances of taking Britain.

Yes, we can be thankful that Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon's mistakes. He who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it.

cometogether

To those who oppose Dev's condolence offering following Hitler's death, would you have said the same if Churchill had died and he offered condolences? By its very nature one cannot take sides if they are neutral.

Manic Moran

cometogether wrote: »

To those who oppose Dev's condolence offering following Hitler's death, would you have said the same if Churchill had died and he offered condolences? By its very nature one cannot take sides if they are neutral.

Apparently no such condolances were offered to the US when FDR died. Ran into a chap at the WW2 Conference a couple of weeks ago who was somewhat miffed about that.

Although there was no way of knowing about it at the time, I also wonder about the effect of the Marshall Plan. Countries in Europe which were part of the United Nations (As the allies were then called) got more dollars per capita than countries which remained neutral. Would that additional economic boost have made much of a difference to Ireland?

NTM

cometogether

Manic Moran wrote: »

Apparently no such condolances were offered to the US when FDR died. Ran into a chap at the WW2 Conference a couple of weeks ago who was somewhat miffed about that.

Although there was no way of knowing about it at the time, I also wonder about the effect of the Marshall Plan. Countries in Europe which were part of the United Nations (As the allies were then called) got more dollars per capita than countries which remained neutral. Would that additional economic boost have made much of a difference to Ireland?

NTM

Really? I must say I didn't know that!

markesmith

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said they had feck all experience or planning for such an invasion. To attempt same on Ireland, much much further away and out of reach of all but a few aircraft like the Condor would have been utterly pointless. They knew this and said it more than once in their musings on operation Grun/Green. To attempt this before the UK was subdued/had capitulated? No way. Hence they didn't put much thought behind it. At that stage of the war a Nazi invasion of Ireland was as about as likely as an Eskimo invasion of Ireland

The worry was that Britain would capitulate under the hail of bombs, and that we'd be invaded next, being quite strategic in relation to the US. Of course Barbarossa changed all that and showed the Nazis true intentions to anyone who hadn't read Mein Kampf.

Grayson

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I suspect it would have been something like this:

German 1: We are invad.....
German 2: We won.
German 1: What? Already? We havent even unloaded the boat yet!

:pac:

It'd be easy to think that when the irish army were wandering around in german uniforms

dave1987

Wibbs wrote: »

Step outside the oul post war propaganda for a minute... It was just as much because of geography as any military advantage. If the English channel hadn't been there Britain would have been in real trouble. Because it was and because the German forces had feck all experience or planning for seaborne invasion this bought Britain time. The Germans were army and tactical weapon centric. One big reason they never got strategic bombers off the ground(so to speak). The British tactics even in the air when the air war came were initially madly outdated. All flying Vee formations unsuited to the loose finger four formations of the German fighters. The germans were at a couple of serious disadvantages. For a start the fighters had very limited range and time over Britain and they were ordered to stay close to their charges the bombers(which drinks petrol) and they didn't even share radio frequencies.

I don't disagree with you on this point (geography). The same could be said of Russia and her winters as well as Japan and the USA which all have geographical advantages. Britain's advantage of the channel isn't worth a s**t without the Royal Navy to protect it.

I agree Britain's tactics were out dated along with the French, Polish and even Russian tactics of the time. Germany was clearly ahead in this area as I said in my post.

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus they tried to use tactical weapons like the stuka as strategic weapons(one of the most successful tactical weapons of the war again contrary to post war popular. Just on one point it sank more allied shipping than any other aircraft of the war and I bet you were taught in school that it was a shíte weapon), which was a major mistake. My great uncle was a flier in the melee on the British side and he said the same. They were really bloody scared of an invasion and what that might mean and how they weren't so sure that Britian, or England as it was more commonly known at the time would survive. So it was up to them, it was up to "the Few". One reason why they fought and died so bravely.

I was taught nothing of the sort and I'm fully aware of the Stuka's potential as again, stated in my post. Please read correctly.

The Stuka was simply outmatched in the air by fighters like the Spitfire and Hurricane. That's a misconception it was and has been known as Great Britain since the Act of Union 1707.

Wibbs wrote: »

Even so the Germans effectively closed the channel to sea traffic and harried the southern ports time and time again sinking or damaging many ships, both merchant and military. They actually won the "Battle of the English channel".

Not really, the were successful upto the point of the RN developing depth charges and ways of countering German U boats. Also the RNAS and RAF had anti U boat capabilities that were enforced.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. The german army were mostly horse drawn at that stage of the war. Plus again contrary to popular since the war, the allies actually had more tanks in play in the battle of France, yet the Germans won that and won it decisively. The fact is the BEF and the allies were trounced and trounced soundly by the Germans on equal ground. Like I said if the channel wasn't there Britain would have been in serious trouble.

The allies may have had more tanks during the Battle of France but they were not developed for tank to tank combat and were instead used as infantry support like their WW1 role. This is a contradiction of your earlier point. Hence the advancement of German tactics and preparation over the allies. British tanks for the most part were "light tanks" up until introduction of the Churchill and British modified US Sherman Firefly with an upgraded main gun capable of engaging German tanks at greater range.

Wibbs wrote: »

How so? The French had been building forces in paranoia of a German attack. Maginot line ring any bells? And the UK had the might of empire and a huge navy etc going on. Germany was coming from near destitution in the previous decade.

Yes and in fact the French army at the start of World War II was the largest standing army in the world. However out dated and the maginot line was pretty ineffective as the Germans went around it. Germany had been building its war machine for a decade. It's common knowledge that Britain wasn't ready for a war of this scale and she knew it. However by the end of the war britain had a standing army of over 6 million troops not including Imperial troops.

Wibbs wrote: »

No they didn't. For a start the US was helping out in a big way and were helping on the ground after 42.

And the Russians threw in huge numbers of men and materiel, far in excess of what the UK provided. How many people did Britain lose in the war? How many did the Soviets? Compare and contrast.

Not at all. The VIIIth army was engaged solely made up of British and Imperial troops and yes in '42 the US joined. We already had the Axis on the back foot at that point.

The Russians did throw in large men and materials that's not to say most of them were wasted by their own commanders. Any nation can throw mass numbers of troops to death if they have a population that big! The USA lost less manpower than Britain are you saying they did nothing as well? or the Australians? Canadians? Greeks even? Who are you to say?

So YOU compare and contrast!

Wibbs wrote: »

Of that lot the British involvement though welcome on so many fronts was the lesser of the three, by a long shot.

Again your information is obviously poorly sourced. If Britain wasn't involved:

1. All of Germany's forces on the Western Front could be concentrated on the the Russians which means more tanks and alot more aircraft for the Russians to face.

2. British weapon lending to Russia non existent. This was necessary for Russia's counter offensive.

3. Germany's naval resource's could be redirected away from Britain of which a large proportion of it's U boats were assigned to harass Britain and it's merchant fleets.

4. Britain solely opposed Axis forces in Africa until 1942.

5. Britain also deployed 10,000 out of the 35,000 Airborne troops used in Operation Market Garden in 1944 in Holland
They were the British 1st Airborne Division. Also all the armoured Infantry that rendevous with the paratroopers along the 3 bridges, Eindhoven (101st US), Nijmegan (82nd US) and Arnhem (British 1st + 2,000 Polish) were all British
Also
Aircraft were needed to deploy all these Airborne Soldiers
The USAAF provided 1,274 transport planes verses 485 RAF
However out of the Glider Aircraft provided the USAAF only provided 104 versus RAF's 812
Britain was a major contributor and they are not recognized as they should be!
British Military numbers by the end of the war numbered around 6-7 million men!

Also -

if Great Britain had not been standing alone against all of Nazi Germany's might and holding her ground how would of US troops ever landed in Europe? Britain was the launching pad for the European campaign?
1.
The RAF had dealt the Luftwaffe a severe blow in defeating them in the Battle of Britain even though German airpower outnumbered British by 4 to 1!
2.
British Imperial Armies under Montgomery dealt a severe blow to the Italian and German Afrika Korps in the North African campaign!
3. The Royal Navy sunk the German pocket battleships in the Battle of the River Plate in the opening stages of the war crippling Germanys ability to take on our battleships
4.
When the Luftwaffe bombed London out of frustration of not being able to defeat the RAF, Royal Air Force Bomber Command bombed Berlin the following evening taking the fight straight to the German homeland something the German people had not yet seen in the Third Reichs campaign. Germany now knew they had made a major mistake in pulling Great Britain into War as they had started a war with the worlds largest empire and even though the empire fell after the war we had beat them despite being on the backfoot and ill prepared.
5. British and Canadian troops took 3 out of the 5 beaches assaulted on D Day 1944 and On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
Also about 75% of the Ships used to support the landing were British and about 30% of the Airpower.
So tell me this how could the USA replace these troops if the Brits were not involved as part of the big 3? would they find another 61,000 trained and equipped soldiers? another 500 ships? another 300 aircraft? another Airborne battalion? bull**** America would have never ever been able to defeat the German and the Japanese Empire without the British. Replace the Royal Navy that provided a 3rd of the allies Naval power in the Pacific, and troops that replaced well over 50% given that the Indian Imperial troops had almost 2.5 million soldiers to fight the Japanese!
Replace all of RAF bomber command that carpet bombed German cities every night while the USAAF did daytime raids! The USA and Russia needed Britain more than you realise, you should learn the facts before you talk!

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in the case of Germany we're not. Plus you're making a huge error by disregarding the practicalities of an invasion by Germany. Yes the UK could have invaded and would have done so pretty easily. That said it's likely they would have gotten bogged down in insurgent rebellion to some degree. For the Germans they would have been fcuked. Their invasion "plans" for operation sealion were halfhearted and their loose assemblage of glorified canal barges would have barely made the trip to the white cliffs of Dover without resistance, never mind with. Like I said they had feck all experience or planning for such an invasion. To attempt same on Ireland, much much further away and out of reach of all but a few aircraft like the Condor would have been utterly pointless. They knew this and said it more than once in their musings on operation Grun/Green. To attempt this before the UK was subdued/had capitulated? No way. Hence they didn't put much thought behind it. At that stage of the war a Nazi invasion of Ireland was as about as likely as an Eskimo invasion of Ireland

Do you know how funny you sound saying the Germans wouldn't be able to take Ireland? that is ridiculous it's obvious biased on your part, we are talking about one of histories greatest fighting forces that took on the biggest empire in earth's history and the 2 sleeping giant superpowers as well as France another massive military force. German Paratroops alone could take Ireland in my opinion, we're talking about extremely highly trained and motivated soldiers, with combat experience.

Wibbs wrote: »

"Aggressor" depends entirely one ones viewpoint. After all Britain could be and had been aggressive enough in it's dealings within it's empire, as we in Ireland know all too well. Hell it was aggressive towards it's own peasant/working class for long enough. Plus over 150,000 Irish men and women joined up to the Brits or the Yanks to stand up for what is right. Many of my family among them.

This is your worst point? I believe the topic is WW2 and the aggressor of WW2 is Germany as they launched invasions on neighbouring country's my 5 year old brother knows that. How is Britain and the empire the aggressor? They didn't start WW2. Yeah I realise how many Irish fought for Britain and it's well known among the British population. My concern would of been the official stance of the Free State. I could easily go off on a tangent about this but there's no point. It's always focused on the bad Britain did to Ireland and its Empire and not the good it brought and the fact the Commonwealth exists today shows it was not all bad.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe Sun readers believe this kinda thing, but if one digs a little deeper and steps back from the pomp and flag waving and victory after the fact, it's all not so clear cut.

I agree with this, but facts are facts and they're all accessible war is war and bad was done on all sides but at the end of the day you have to take your side and stick with it.

dave1987

petersburg2002 wrote: »

You mean like they protected Belfast during its Blitz? Not likely.

Defence was minimal for air raids, a few AA batteries and air raid shelters over Belfast. But in the event of a land invasion or possible land invasion the Army and Royal Navy would of been mobilised, Royal Air force less likely as it was busy enough over southern England.

Truncheon Rouge

Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

No.

Ability to influence war to bring about allied victory - zero to minimal impact.

(use of ports, minimal impact) (use of troops - impractical. Sending any declares an allegiance to one side, thus requiring those same troops at home for reinforcement, any small number remaining for overseas are poorly equipped, poorly trained, inexperienced and will have to be integrated and transported)

Situation A:
Hitler loses and we're neutral - Citizens unharmed.
Hitler loses and we're with allies - Citizens unharmed, some soldiers killed.

Situation B:
Hitler wins and we're neutral - 50% chance of citizens unharmed.
Hitler wins and we're with allies - 0% chance of citizens unharmed.

Loss/Benefit to Ireland declaring war on Germany- Possibly saving thousands of refugees and allies lives hugely increases risk of death to millions of Irish citizens at hands of people who have ethnically cleansed much of Europe.

Thus, folly = no

Also, if hitler wins. Well our addition was never really going to change the outcome now was it.
Two options remain at this point- in case of verbal political threat, with no-one left to help us, capitulate.
In case of Europe style massacre, nothing to lose, fight for the hell of it.


Just to add, the Irish were not on hitlers death list.
Indeed some nazi propaganda featured Irish rebels fighting the British, casting the Irish in a good light, with a positive spin on Irish culture.
Hitler also had an Irish cousin. He helped the Irish cousin out while the cousin was in Germany, getting him a job etc. The cousin later didn't get on with Adolf...maybe stole from him. Anyway, blood is blood and adolf didn't consider his Irish cousin to be non-ayrian or subhuman/unter-mann.

Also, helping out Britain held no promise of any material reward, the unionists weren't just going to turn around and say 'oh go on then, have some Ulster on us for being such good sports'.

The human numbers involved, the impact that could be made, the options available, the likely outcomes, the risk vs reward, all point to neutrality as the logical choice.

Capt'n Midnight

Don't forget that Switzerland and Sweden were neutral because it was more trouble that it was worth to invade them.

The Poles didn't agree to let the Russians cross their territory in the even of a German invasion, relying on the French instead. Our war of independence was going on about the same time the Poles were fighting the Russians and for similar reasons.

dave1987 wrote:

"UK version of WWII history"

First off
The Poles broke Enigma.

And no the Poles didn't routinely charge German armour with cavalry, nor did the Russians later on when they used horse mounted troops.

The Poles didn't use WWI biplanes. The UK were still using biplanes like Swordfish and Gloster Gladiators after the Polish campaign.


The myth of the RAF not being ready makes no sense when you consider it could have been the Czech's, Poles, French, and UK all combined. Italy only joined later. Even after that had the Russians been allowed by the Poles into some areas it might have been enough to delay things. Instead 1/4 of the tanks used by the Germans in the invasion of France came from Czechoslovak. The Germans did a great job of divide and conquer.

Look at how much of the Royal Navy was tied up by the threat of the Tirpiz later on.


As for the Germans starting WWII, the Chinese had 250,00 military deaths in the Battle of Shanghai in August-Nov 1937, that's roughly half the US or Commonwealth totals for the entire war.

Duck Soup

I don't know how much of an airing it's gotten, but apart from the high political considerations, how likely is that there would have been willing volunteers for Ireland to take part in the war? How likely was it that a draft would have been widely and angrily ignored?

Dig into your family history. Talk to the oldest relations you can find. Irish people had died in their thousands in the First World War. Irish people had fought against the British in the War of Independence. From conversations I've had with relations over the years, the feeling at the time was that this was yet another 'British war' that Britain expected Irish people to die in.

And then factor in the socio-economic conditions. Pre-war, Ireland was a country already in dire poverty. My dad (still alive now and 9 years old at the outbreak of WW2) has a school picture of the time. In a small country school of about 20 children, 2 of the boys don't have shoes on their feet. Even for a school photo.

People were dirt poor. Shít poor. I know this kind of sociological detail doesn't have the grand sweep of discussing possible campaign outcomes or high political intrigue, but it's much closer to the reality of mounting an Irish war effort. Irish men had died for the British, been killed by the British and now were being looked at to support the British. All this while children went hungry and fathers didn't have the arse in their trousers.

There were more pressing concerns for Irish families in the thirties and forties. You didn't need to prowl the corridors of power to find the attitudes of Irish people to joining another war effort, you just had to walk down an Irish street or into an Irish village. Dev knew full well what the answer would be to the question foreign politicians wanted him to ask.

grenache

On our neutrality.....

THE PROS:

1. Our population was saved from the horrors of war (Dublin & Wexford bombings aside). We lost 60,000 men in WW1, we surely would have lost double that had we officially partaken in WW2. A Nazi land invasion would have been a much greater threat had we been involved. In fact I think it's safe to say that Germany would have been extra keen to secure Ireland, seeing as we are on Britain's doorstep. Consequently Ireland could have become a place of fierce battle, both on the ground and in the air.

2. Although our neutral stance undoubtedly irritated the Allied forces in the short term, it certainly made them respect us more in the long term, however grudgingly. It was the first time we were in a position to assert our sovereignty as a nation, garnering recognition from the British and Americans. Britain could not have invaded us, no matter what Churchill claimed, as to do so would have gone against everything he had criticised Nazi Germany for.


THE CONS:

We did receive Marshall Aid from the US but only in very limited amounts compared to the nations who partook in the war. Had we joined the Allied fight, it is almost certain that we would have been a net receiver of aid, with massive amounts of funding been pumped into housing, hospitals, roads, rail, industry and communication infrastructure. Not to mention all the employment that the building of such projects would create. Thus we would have been years ahead of ourselves. It's certain that the Celtic Tiger would have come 20-30 years earlier than it did.

Capt'n Midnight

grenache wrote: »

THE CONS:

We did receive Marshall Aid from the US but only in very limited amounts compared to the nations who partook in the war. Had we joined the Allied fight, it is almost certain that we would have been a net receiver of aid, with massive amounts of funding been pumped into housing, hospitals, roads, rail, industry and communication infrastructure. Not to mention all the employment that the building of such projects would create. Thus we would have been years ahead of ourselves. It's certain that the Celtic Tiger would have come 20-30 years earlier than it did.

Marshall Aid wasn't on offer back in 1940 was it ?

Even then it had to be paid back.

We were very isolationist until the 1960's so like Spain and Portugal we wouldn't have had the Italian type boom.

when you consider the original plan for Germany it's hard to imagine they'd be handing out dosh to all and sundry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Partial_rejection_of_the_plan

In the U.S., Hull argued that nothing would be left to Germany but land, and only 60% of the Germans could live off the land, meaning 40% of the population would die

Wibbs

dave1987 wrote: »

I don't disagree with you on this point (geography). The same could be said of Russia and her winters as well as Japan and the USA which all have geographical advantages. Britain's advantage of the channel isn't worth a s**t without the Royal Navy to protect it.

Between the e boats and bombers the RN where effectively out of the picture in the run up to the BoB in the English channel. All Atlantic convoys through the channel were stopped and at one point shipping losses were running at one in three. They effectively closed Dover down as an anti invasion base.

Regardless of all that, the German forces were quite simply unprepared for a seaborne invasion. They had nothing like the kind of watercraft required. Even the luftwaffe had to cobble together preparations for crossing the channel(life vests and rafts etc) as up to that point single engined aircraft were forbidden to cross more than 8 miles of open water. That's why they tried to bomb them to the negotiating table. The fat fool Goering gets lambasted now(and at the time) for promising hitler "his" luftwaffe would bring Britain to it's knees, but the fact is they had little other choice and the knew it. Sure they could have used paratroops, but then supplying them would have been an issue if fighter command had simply moved a little north out of range of german fighters. Without their tanks and artillery the paratroops would have been pretty fooked given the numbers of the BEF that were left, never mind the rest of the army. It would have been a German operation Market Garden.

I was taught nothing of the sort and I'm fully aware of the Stuka's potential as again, stated in my post. Please read correctly.

The Stuka was simply outmatched in the air by fighters like the Spitfire and Hurricane.

More than potential, it was one of the most successful tactical weapons in history, but that's by the by. My point is, because of the channel the whole German lightning war tactic was stymied and tactical weapons like the aforementioned were used as strategic weapons and failed. Well they very nearly didn't fail. With some luck they might have subdued British air superiority in Southern England, but in the long game the British would still have won.

That's a misconception it was and has been known as Great Britain since the Act of Union 1707.

In law certainly, but watch film of the time, or writings of the time and England as a byword for the UK/Britain is used waaay more than today. There's a reason why many not Brits like the Americans define the whole place as "England".

Not really, the were successful upto the point of the RN developing depth charges and ways of countering German U boats. Also the RNAS and RAF had anti U boat capabilities that were enforced.

U boats were the least of their problems in the battle of the channel. See above.

British tanks for the most part were "light tanks" up until introduction of the Churchill and British modified US Sherman Firefly with an upgraded main gun capable of engaging German tanks at greater range.

That came later. In the battle of France the German tanks were equally "light" and they had less of them. IIRC They had mostly panzer 1's and 3's, the former only fielding a machine gun, they had only a couple of dozen panzer 4's. In the end the Germans were simply better at soldiering and had better tactics than their opponents. At the end of the war they had the highest kill rate per soldier of any of the WW2 forces. Against that the Brits had about the best artillery guys of the war. Both Germans and Japanese noted this.

The Russians did throw in large men and materials that's not to say most of them were wasted by their own commanders. Any nation can throw mass numbers of troops to death if they have a population that big! The USA lost less manpower than Britain are you saying they did nothing as well? or the Australians? Canadians? Greeks even? Who are you to say?

So YOU compare and contrast!

Loud noises!! but talk about missing the point.

:1. All of Germany's forces on the Western Front could be concentrated on the the Russians which means more tanks and alot more aircraft for the Russians to face.

Indeed but that was herr hitlers folly, not because of anything the British had done.

2. British weapon lending to Russia non existent. This was necessary for Russia's counter offensive.

It helped certainly, but Russia would have still counter attacked.

3. Germany's naval resource's could be redirected away from Britain of which a large proportion of it's U boats were assigned to harass Britain and it's merchant fleets.

Again more hitlers folly than Britains plans.

5. Britain also deployed 10,000 out of the 35,000 Airborne troops used in Operation Market Garden in 1944 in Holland

Which failed dismally. Of all the British engagements of WW2 I'd most certainly not namecheck that one, beyond some serious heroics on the part of many of the men on the ground.

Then again Montgomery was behind it. The English seem to love him unreservedly for some reason, but he wasn't particularly rated at the time, even at times by his own men. He got lucky in North Africa fighting a very stretched opponent who was fast running out of fuel and ammo and even there it was a close run thing. Never mind his later wooly thinking in Normandy and his later again failure to spot and close the Falaise gap. Never mind his constant whinging and scathing criticisms of other commanders including better British commanders. Awful little egotist and a right racist with it. Ye had far better commanders than him.

Britain was a major contributor and they are not recognized as they should be!

Of course they are. Maybe you've been watching too many american movies were stuff Brits and others did suddenly gets a revisionist american angle so slack jaws in arkansas can keep up but most of the people in the world with even a passing interest in WW2 would say the UK was a major player at various times in WW2.

Do you know how funny you sound saying the Germans wouldn't be able to take Ireland? that is ridiculous it's obvious biased on your part, we are talking about one of histories greatest fighting forces that took on the biggest empire in earth's history and the 2 sleeping giant superpowers as well as France another massive military force. German Paratroops alone could take Ireland in my opinion, we're talking about extremely highly trained and motivated soldiers, with combat experience.

It's got nada to do with bias on my part, nor any notion the Irish army could have stood a chance against the wehrmacht, it's to do with simple logistics. A Seaborne invasion would be out. They couldn't have managed it across ths english channel, no hope across the north Atlantic. Paratroops? OK taken in what? Ju52? 600 mile range under optimum conditions and they would have had zero fighter cover. Ireland would have been right on their limit. Never mind that if they hadn't subdued the UK first, any sea invasion and/or air attack would have been harried, nay cut to ribbons by the RN and especially the RAF. It would have been a turkey shoot even for a novice pilot. Like I said more chance of Martians invading Ireland in 1940.

*long list*

I could go through them line by line but life is too short. Soe you'd have a point, some I would but anyway... I note you neglect to mention the list of complete screwups in the far east by the British forces before the yanks showed up. Fall of singapore ring any bells?

T

his is your worst point? I believe the topic is WW2 and the aggressor of WW2 is Germany as they launched invasions on neighbouring country's my 5 year old brother knows that. How is Britain and the empire the aggressor?

I said "an" aggressor. How you can type the emboldened bit above without irony is beyond me. How do you think Britain got an empire in the first place? By handing out invitations to join? Seriously? Britain got and kept it's empire in the 19th century by succeeding at doing what Germany was trying to do in the late 30's.

hinault

Ireland had no quarrel with Germany, so it was correct not to join the Allies.

Should Ireland have sided with the Axis?
No, it would have given the Brits the excuse to re-invade Ireland.

Wibbs

hinault wrote: »

Ireland had no quarrel with Germany, so it was correct not to join the Allies.

The Low Countries had no quarrel with Germany either, it didn't stop them marching in and taking over though. The "no quarrel" argument is a thin one.

Should Ireland have sided with the Axis?
No, it would have given the Brits the excuse to re-invade Ireland.

Or no, because even at a time of imperial states all over the place, Germany was up there with the USSR as a major nasty bastard of a political system and viewpoint. Plus for some reason I reckon fascism wouldn't sit well with our national character. Oh we can be right wing and totalitarian in our own way, but I reckon we'd be closer to the Brits in mindset than with Germans of the time. Hard to say. I mean if you read the letters etc of German troops and ordinary Germans they come rarely come across as "typical Nazis". Not by a long shot. Ireland under German rule or as a protectorate? Hard to say what it would have been like. These things are rarely so clear cut I suppose.