Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War

Jawgap

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

But Ireland was part of the Marshall Plan?
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/adopting-the-american-way-ireland-and-the-marshall-plan-1947-57/

Yes, we benefitted nominally - compare the the contributions received in quality and quantity with those received by other countries

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

They saw the onset of hybrid war by non-Western actors; NATO themselves pioneered the concept in Yugoslavia and other places.

Earlier examples might be the coups organised across the globe or the support given to the Kmer Rouge.

Actually there are too many examples of "proto-hybrid war" since the end of WW2 to mention; mostly orchestrated by the US.

I guess 2005 was when the US post Cold War hegemony started to fray after the geopolitical catastrophe of Iraq 2.

It wasn't.

You might be better reading some of NATO's literature before commenting further.

Yugoslavia was, to a degree, peace enforcement - and a rare example of air power compelling a decision.

sparky42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

Ireland joining the Germans would have made zero difference, Germany utterly lacked the capability to invade the UK. Had they attempted to the UK forces would have had a turkey shoot against the best of the German army.

Us being stupid enough to join Germany would have just demonstrated how stupid the political leadership was.

sparky42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In a letter to Roosevelt in 1942 Churchill said De Velera did not want to join the war because he believed Germany would win the war. At that stage it would have have seemed likely, in the absence of US involvement, that Germany would win.

I'd say that was Dev blowing smoke to find a reason to say no, by 42 Germany was already bogged down in Russia and the Middle EAst was still relatively stable.

Schadenfreudia

Jawgap wrote: »

You might be better reading some of NATO's literature before commenting further.

I don't need to do anything before commenting further :rolleyes:

"Literature" is a good euphemism for propaganda. I read across a huge range of sources.

Maybe you need to read more Chomsky or Pilger before commenting further?

Schadenfreudia

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In a letter to Roosevelt in 1942 Churchill said De Velera did not want to join the war because he believed Germany would win the war. At that stage it would have have seemed likely, in the absence of US involvement, that Germany would win.

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Maybe he should have consulted a crystal ball and channelled some of the experts posting here who could have given him a heads up?

KingBrian2

Would Turkey have turned the tables around if they had supported the allies in WW2? Ireland was not the only neutral country in that war.

Schadenfreudia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Ireland was not the only neutral country in that war.

But it is probably the only country where a clique of - eh...talking heads - thinks we should have!

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I don't need to do anything before commenting further :rolleyes:

"Literature" is a good euphemism for propaganda. I read across a huge range of sources.

Maybe you need to read more Chomsky or Pilger before commenting further?

No, literature is just an expression of the organisation's thinking.

Pilger and Chomsky I've both read, and previously had "Failed States" on the reading list for a course I taught.

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Maybe he should have consulted a crystal ball and channelled some of the experts posting here who could have given him a heads up?

It really only became apparent in early spring 1943 that Germany could be defeated, not just denied victory.

CINCLANTFLT

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Please - stop contaminating myth with fact!

Ah...I see

indioblack

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

They are not only relevant, they are an unavoidable problem for those who's present the Allies war as some sort of moral cause.

Hitler's war. Virtually the whole of Europe under German control. Russia taking one hell of a battering. People the Nazis didn't care for eliminated.
Whatever else you might feel about European imperialism - you would be unable to choose between the protagonists?
That the victors write their version of this war is true. That they were not perfect or 100% per cent in the moral right either before or after this war is also true.
But that the Third Reich had to be put down was the right and only outcome that should happen.

Victor

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Weren't you arguing earlier that they only declared war less than a month before the start of 1942?

Schadenfreudia

Victor wrote: »

Weren't you arguing earlier that they only declared war less than a month before the start of 1942?

That is still my contention. I was using the citation that Dev seemed unaware of the US involvement, contra opinion here, to illustrate a point.

Irony appears to be lost on people here :cool:

sparky42

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

That is still my contention. I was using the citation that Dev seemed unaware of the US involvement, contra opinion here, to illustrate a point.

Irony appears to be lost on people here :cool:

To my mind, either Dev had little idea of the wide scale naval operations the US had embarked on (with their insuring naval clashes), which given the disgraceful position he and his government gave to the navy is possible.

Or he knew exactly what the positions/forces were and it suited the cute whore to play games.

Given Dev either is possible and equally gutless.

Peregrinus

sparky42 wrote: »

To my mind, either Dev had little idea of the wide scale naval operations the US had embarked on (with their insuring naval clashes), which given the disgraceful position he and his government gave to the navy is possible.

Or he knew exactly what the positions/forces were and it suited the cute whore to play games.

Given Dev either is possible and equally gutless.

I think we are all overlooking the fact that the only claim made is is that Churchill told Roosevelt on some unspecified date in 1942 that Dev expected the Germans to win.

I myself wouldn't take this seriously as evidence that Dev did in fact expect the Germans to win. Churchill might have been mistaken, or he might have had his own reasons for telling Roosevelt this.

Even if Churchill did genuinely hold the view that Dev believed this, we don't know how objectively well-founded that view was. Plus, we don't know when he formed it. If the leetter was written in early 1942 it might well reflect an opinion that Churchill had held since before December 1941.

None of this provides any sound basis for making judgments about Dev's grasp of strategic issues, in particular the impact of US entry into the war.

RDM_83 again

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

edit: should the fact that many Irish men were able to work in Britain on fairly high pay instead of being conscripted be considered as an associated benefit to neutrality

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

Hitler's war. Virtually the whole of Europe under German control. Russia taking one hell of a battering. People the Nazis didn't care for eliminated.
Whatever else you might feel about European imperialism - you would be unable to choose between the protagonists?
That the victors write their version of this war is true. That they were not perfect or 100% per cent in the moral right either before or after this war is also true.
But that the Third Reich had to be put down was the right and only outcome that should happen.

I think you're having a different argument here to the rest of us...

Jawgap

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

One assumes that's because there was no need for anti-submarine capacity in that part of the world

Schadenfreudia

sparky42 wrote: »

To my mind, either Dev had little idea of the wide scale naval operations the US had embarked on (with their insuring naval clashes), which given the disgraceful position he and his government gave to the navy is possible.

Or he knew exactly what the positions/forces were and it suited the cute whore to play games.

Given Dev either is possible and equally gutless.

I would not describe keeping us out of a vast murderous Imperial slaughter as "gutless".

The easy thing to do would be to go along with the US.

indioblack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

If you want to know what I think about Ireland siding with Germany read my post number 24 in this thread.
In 1940 an invasion exercise was held off the coast of Boulogne by the Germans. Military observers concluded from the resultant chaos that a cross-channel invasion would not be successful.
Reference was made by a poster to WW2 being a clash of empires - with Britain and France's empires being the same as the Nazi one.
The implication being that one could not choose the Allies over the Nazis.
I disagree with this and my posts were in that vein.
My last sentence in post no. 24 still stands - stick to practical neutrality.
But only a fool would think that the Third Reich could be left unopposed.

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

If you want to know what I think about Ireland siding with Germany read my post number 24 in this thread.
In 1940 an invasion exercise was held off the coast of Boulogne by the Germans. Military observers concluded from the resultant chaos that a cross-channel invasion would not be successful.
Reference was made by a poster to WW2 being a clash of empires - with Britain and France's empires being the same as the Nazi one.
The implication being that one could not choose the Allies over the Nazis.
I disagree with this and my posts were in that vein.
My last sentence in post no. 24 still stands - stick to practical neutrality.
But only a fool would think that the Third Reich could be left unopposed.

Again, you're having a moral argument with yourself there. Nobody's arguing that Ireland should have sided with Germany (or the Allies), just what would have happened if they did.

Victor

Given that an average of 20,000-30,000 people were killed every day of the war, surely, if Ireland's participation would have reduced the war by a few days, it would have been worth it?

Peregrinus

By the same argument, a much better strategy would have been for everybody else to stay out of the war, which would have saved many more lives.

In any event, I see no reason to suppose that Irelans' having entered the War would have shortened it by even one day. The two events which brought about an end to the fighting were (a) the suicide of Hitler following defeat in the Battle of Berlin, and (b) the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's hard to make the case that Ireland's entry into the war woul have materially advanced eithe rof those two events.

If your belief is that the war should have been made as short as possible, then I think Ireland's failure to become a belligerent would be very far down on the list of things to criticise. The Allies' decision to insist on unconditional surrender, however . . . .

indioblack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you're having a moral argument with yourself there. Nobody's arguing that Ireland should have sided with Germany (or the Allies), just what would have happened if they did.

Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War?
Little noticeable impact, in my opinion.
The Free State, as has already been mentioned, would be unlikely to have joined the Allies in 1939 and 1940 when that would have meant siding with the British.
What's the point of considering the effect of the Free State joining the Axis powers? Be realistic.
Mention has been made in this thread of European genocidal imperialism - referring to Britain and France - this is not a moral statement?
The point being, as I understood it, that neutrality was the correct choice because there was no difference between these two imperial powers and the Third Reich.
Staying out of the war to avoid any harm coming to Ireland is practical - I've said that all along and I don't recall using the word morality.
Keep out of the war because it's safer - ok.
But to inject into that argument the reasoning that Britain and France were the same as Nazi Germany is crackers.
Debate if you wish what would have happened if Ireland joined the Nazis - I see no point in that. They might as well have joined the Martians. It's a sterile argument.
Debate what could possibly happen if the Free State joined the Allied side - that makes sense.
But making value judgements on some of the protagonists is a moral argument for choosing neutrality.
I'm not having a moral argument with myself - simply responding to the posts I read in this thread.

Peregrinus

Well, "should we fight?" is an inherently moral question, isn't it? So all arguments for fighting on one side or the other or remaining neutral are, necessarily, moral arguments. Even the simple calculation that staying out of the war is safer and avoids injury to the Irish people rests on the assumption that the safety of the people, and avoiding injury to them, etc is something a government should prioritise over, say, defending Poland or seeking to stay in Britain's good books.

Criticism of the motives behind Britain and France entering the war is an attempt to rebut the claim that Britain and France had a moral claim to Irish support in the war. To make this case it's not necessary to say that Britain and France were just as bad as Nazi Germany; you can perfectly consistently say that Nazi Germany is horrible and Britain and France not so horrible but, nevertheless that doesn't amount to a moral case for saying that we have to fight with Britain and France.

indioblack

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, "should we fight?" is an inherently moral question, isn't it? So all arguments for fighting on one side or the other or remaining neutral are, necessarily, moral arguments. Even the simple calculation that staying out of the war is safer and avoids injury to the Irish people rests on the assumption that the safety of the people, and avoiding injury to them, etc is something a government should prioritise over, say, defending Poland or seeking to stay in Britain's good books.

Criticism of the motives behind Britain and France entering the war is an attempt to rebut the claim that Britain and France had a moral claim to Irish support in the war. To make this case it's not necessary to say that Britain and France were just as bad as Nazi Germany; you can perfectly consistently say that Nazi Germany is horrible and Britain and France not so horrible but, nevertheless that doesn't amount to a moral case for saying that we have to fight with Britain and France.

Quite right. I deliberately used the expression "practical neutrality" - realising as I did so that the political decision to be neutral had to have a moral element to it.
The Irish seem to have been singled out for their decision to choose neutrality.
It's cropped up time and again on Boards - as if there is always a need to justify it.
Other nations chose neutrality and, as far as I'm aware, received much less flak for doing so.
Yours is a perceptive and reasonable post.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

By the same argument, a much better strategy would have been for everybody else to stay out of the war, which would have saved many more lives.

This would have worked best with the main axis countries. However, the Nazis weren't using war (or at least not open war) in the 1936-1939 period - they used the likes of the annexation of Austria and the Munich Agreement.

In any event, I see no reason to suppose that Irelans' having entered the War would have shortened it by even one day. The two events which brought about an end to the fighting were (a) the suicide of Hitler following defeat in the Battle of Berlin, and (b) the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's hard to make the case that Ireland's entry into the war woul have materially advanced eithe rof those two events.

An extra pressure would have foreshortened those time frames. If, say, Irish ports and airfields had been available for anti-submarine activities, that would have meant fewer shipping losses, less resources needed for anti-submarine activities (shorter transit times, fewer crews) and more resources at the front. Remember, every unit at the front is worth more than the previous unit at the front. Increase the resources by 1% and you shorten the war by more than 1%.

If your belief is that the war should have been made as short as possible, then I think Ireland's failure to become a belligerent would be very far down on the list of things to criticise. The Allies' decision to insist on unconditional surrender, however . . . .

Another day's argument, but are you suggesting peace should have been made which left the Nazis in power?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

An extra pressure would have foreshortened those time frames. If, say, Irish ports and airfields had been available for anti-submarine activities, that would have meant fewer shipping losses, less resources needed for anti-submarine activities (shorter transit times, fewer crews) and more resources at the front. Remember, every unit at the front is worth more than the previous unit at the front. Increase the resources by 1% and you shorten the war by more than 1%.

I disagree. Remember, it was the war in Europe was ended by a battle on th the Eastern Front. You could possibly make the case that, all other things being equal, had Ireland entered the war the Western Allies would have advanced a teeny bit further East before the fall of Berlin, but I really don't see thathe fall of Berlin would have been accelerated. And certainly not the Japanese surrender.

Victor wrote: »

Another day's argument, but are you suggesting peace should have been made which left the Nazis in power?

Well, if you take the view that shortening the war by one day is a good thing, then that's certainly a possiblity you should at least be open to. But in fact that;s not what I'm saying. My point is rather that, by demanding unconditional surrender, the Allies deprives the Germans of any hope that they might save Germany through an anti-Hitler coup, or an anti-Nazi coup. I do think one side effect of the unconditional surrender demand was that it deprives anti-Nazi German elements of much of their potential appeal to Germans - they couldn't hold out the prospect that they could secure a negotiated peace.

Jawgap

It's obviously very doubtful that anything Ireland could've done would've shortened the war in any theatre, but certainly any number of Irish contributions could have led to the same outcome, but with slightly fewer casualties among the Western Allies.

Peregrinus

Well, even that is open to question. If the Irish contribution had made, say, protection of the Atlantic sea lanes easier, presumably some naval resources could have been deployed to other theatres, where increased deaths might have resulted.

Or, as I pointed out earlier, if saving Allied lives is the priority, that would have been much more effectively achieved by the Allies not becoming belligerents in the first place.

I take the point that, given that the Second World War happened at all, the defeat of the Axis was the optimal outcome, and we are all very glad that that was the outcome. It doesn't follow, though, that everyone (or every country) had a moral obligation to fight on the side of the Allies. I dare say that, had Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us we, like the US, would have fought. But that didn't happen. I don't think that provides any basis for a moral condemnation of the Irish policy.

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, even that is open to question. If the Irish contribution had made, say, protection of the Atlantic sea lanes easier, presumably some naval resources could have been deployed to other theatres, where increased deaths might have resulted.

Or, as I pointed out earlier, if saving Allied lives is the priority, that would have been much more effectively achieved by the Allies not becoming belligerents in the first place.

I take the point that, given that the Second World War happened at all, the defeat of the Axis was the optimal outcome, and we are all very glad that that was the outcome. It doesn't follow, though, that everyone (or every country) had a moral obligation to fight on the side of the Allies. I dare say that, had Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us we, like the US, would have fought. But that didn't happen. I don't think that provides any basis for a moral condemnation of the Irish policy.

Avoiding deaths and minimising casualties are not the same thing.

Plus, Ireland benefitted from the incidental protection of the RN, RAF, and, latterly, the USN. It's arguable that created a moral obligation to make more overt and less informal contributions than the country actually did.

indioblack

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, even that is open to question. If the Irish contribution had made, say, protection of the Atlantic sea lanes easier, presumably some naval resources could have been deployed to other theatres, where increased deaths might have resulted.

Or, as I pointed out earlier, if saving Allied lives is the priority, that would have been much more effectively achieved by the Allies not becoming belligerents in the first place.

I take the point that, given that the Second World War happened at all, the defeat of the Axis was the optimal outcome, and we are all very glad that that was the outcome. It doesn't follow, though, that everyone (or every country) had a moral obligation to fight on the side of the Allies. I dare say that, had Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us we, like the US, would have fought. But that didn't happen. I don't think that provides any basis for a moral condemnation of the Irish policy.

I'm not sure how France and Britain could avoid becoming belligerents once Germany was on the move.
As the war progressed it probably made little difference what policy the Free State had towards the war. The business of de Valera and his condolences probably made more news.
As for unconditional surrender, could there have been a negotiated settlement? Would every Allied power want it?
By the time Roosevelt declared unconditional surrender as the only option it was probably too late anyway.

Peregrinus

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus, Ireland benefitted from the incidental protection of the RN, RAF, and, latterly, the USN. It's arguable that created a moral obligation to make more overt and less informal contributions than the country actually did.

Well, it's arguable, but it's not a very good argument, is it? The UKS and the US did what they did in pursuit of their own objectives, not our benefit. If there was a benefit to us, it was entirely a by-product. That does not create a moral obligation on us to go to war out of a sense of gratitude.

In any event, I think you could seriously question the claim that the UK and the US actions did benefit Ireland. The Germans had absolutely no strategic interest in Ireland; the only conceivable circumstance in which they would have attempted anything in Ireland was in pursuit of or in connection with their war with the UK. Thus the UK, in declaring war on Germany, didn't reduce the risks that Ireland faced; it increased them, creating a possibility of attempted German intervention in Ireland where none had existed before.

Peregrinus

indioblack wrote: »

I'm not sure how France and Britain could avoid becoming belligerents once Germany was on the move.

By not declaring war on Germany? Not that I'm suggesting that they ought to have made that decision. But if you take the view that the overriding moral good was to save Allied lives, then the corollary would be that they should have made that decision.

indioblack wrote: »

As the war progressed it probably made little difference what policy the Free State had towards the war. The business of de Valera and his condolences probably made more news.

I agree.

indioblack wrote: »

As for unconditional surrender, could there have been a negotiated settlement? Would every Allied power want it?
By the time Roosevelt declared unconditional surrender as the only option it was probably too late anyway.

Well, since the Allies demanded unconditional surrender, we know that they didn't want a negotiated peace. My point is that if they hadn't adopted that stance, the war could have ended earlier than it did. And it's not a given that they Allies had to take the stance they did; that no other course was possible. Roosevelt rather sprang it on the others; Churchill went along despite his serious doubts (along the lines that I have suggested) and Stalin wasn't even at the Casablanca conference.

And if you take the view that the objective of ending the war earlier is the overriding one (and, again, it's not me that suggested that) then the Casablanca declaration looks like a much bigger problem than Ireland's decision to remain neutral.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, even that is open to question. If the Irish contribution had made, say, protection of the Atlantic sea lanes easier, presumably some naval resources could have been deployed to other theatres, where increased deaths might have resulted.

What's your logic here?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, if saving Allied lives is the priority, that would have been much more effectively achieved by the Allies not becoming belligerents in the first place.

Polish people would disagree. If the Allies didn't become belligerents, the Nazis would have eventually killed the vast majority of them.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

What's your logic here?

If the availability of the Irish ports makes it easier for the Allies to police the Atlantic shipping routes, that frees up Allied naval resources to be deployed to other theatres. Where, you know, they may be killed.

Victor wrote: »

Polish people would disagree. If the Allies didn't become belligerents, the Nazis would have eventually killed the vast majority of them.

Of course. So avoiding British and French deaths wasn't the overriding priority for the British and French governments. If it had been, they would not have declared war on Germany.

But, if that wasn't the priority of the British and French governments, why should it be the priority of the Irish government? I'm responding here, remember, to the suggestion that "it would save Allied lives" amounts to a moral case for Ireland joining the war. If that wasn't an overriding moral claim for the Allied governments themselves, why on earth should it have dictated Irish policy? It makes no sense.

indioblack

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the availability of the Irish ports makes it easier for the Allies to police the Atlantic shipping routes, that frees up Allied naval resources to be deployed to other theatres. Where, you know, they may be killed.


Of course. So avoiding British and French deaths wasn't the overriding priority for the British and French governments. If it had been, they would not have declared war on Germany.

But, if that wasn't the priority of the British and French governments, why should it be the priority of the Irish government? I'm responding here, remember, to the suggestion that "it would save Allied lives" amounts to a moral case for Ireland joining the war. If that wasn't an overriding moral claim for the Allied governments themselves, why on earth should it have dictated Irish policy? It makes no sense.

Of course avoiding British and French deaths wasn't the overriding priority for these two governments. After Poland had been invaded and war declared the focus of these two countries was fixed on Germany - and how to defeat it .
There would have been more motives for the Allies to be at war with Germany than wanting to put an end to a dangerous regime.
But wanting to put an end to the Third Reich would have been the primary one.
The Allies would claim to be right in going to war - they wouldn't say the opposite! Germans, too, claimed the right to, as they saw it, defend themselves.
Surely few would doubt that Hitler's regime should end.
Does this impose a moral demand on other countries to assist or join the Allies?
With hindsight, probably yes.
Some countries chose neutrality. Ireland was one.
This was self-interest - and understandable -all the belligerents had self-interest as well as a need to defeat their opponents.
Neutrality was a practical choice for the Free State in a war where the moral guidelines of all involved became blurred as the conflict continued.

Schadenfreudia

indioblack wrote: »

Does this impose a moral demand on other countries to assist or join the Allies?
With hindsight, probably yes.

Moral obligation imposed with hindsight?!

That, I humbly suggest, is a bizarre concept. If the morality of actions can only be determined with the advantage of hindsight then we have no moral guidelines to govern actions.

If morality can only be determined retrospectively in the case of certain acts, than by definition that applies to immorality or criminality.

So without the benefit of hindsight the Free State, from its perspective, might well have been joining a criminal exercise by joining the allies.

The moral obligation was, thus, to stay out! :cool:

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the availability of the Irish ports makes it easier for the Allies to police the Atlantic shipping routes, that frees up Allied naval resources to be deployed to other theatres. Where, you know, they may be killed.

Or, alternatively, those extra resources would mean they wouldn't get killed, as they would be the superior force.

Of course. So avoiding British and French deaths wasn't the overriding priority for the British and French governments. If it had been, they would not have declared war on Germany.

Alternatively, they took the view that challenging the Nazis was necessary early (too late for some) rather than later, as it was seen that they were on a rampage that would eventually cost British and French lives.

indioblack

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Moral obligation imposed with hindsight?!

That, I humbly suggest, is a bizarre concept. If the morality of actions can only be determined with the advantage of hindsight then we have no moral guidelines to govern actions.

If morality can only be determined retrospectively in the case of certain acts, than by definition that applies to immorality or criminality.

So without the benefit of hindsight the Free State, from its perspective, might well have been joining a criminal exercise by joining the allies.

The moral obligation was, thus, to stay out! :cool:

Having re-read my post I'm happy to withdraw that illogical part.

Schadenfreudia

indioblack wrote: »

Having re-read my post I'm happy to withdraw that illogical part.

'Twas a bit like quantum physics - weird results that would have you scratching yer head

KingBrian2

One big problem with Ireland having an alliance with Germany under Hitler. They saw us as a bunch of primitive agrarian peasants, a stereotype Dev was eager to proliferate. We would only have served as a client state like all the other Axis powers eventually being absorbed into the Third Reich.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Or, alternatively, those extra resources would mean they wouldn't get killed, as they would be the superior force.

Indeed. It's a historical what-if. If the Irish had entered the war there was a point at which it would have made the British position with regard to Atlantic trade somewhat easier. But we really can't say what the downstream consequences would have been, in terms of lives saved or lost. The British would have had the capacity to redeploy forces to do something else, but we really can't say what that would have been, or how it would have worked out.

Victor wrote: »

Alternatively, they took the view that challenging the Nazis was necessary early (too late for some) rather than later, as it was seen that they were on a rampage that would eventually cost British and French lives.

I don't think there's any serious case for saying that the UK and France attacked Germany pre-emptively because they were convinced that Germany intended to attack them. They attacked Germany because Germany's attitudes to its neighbours destabilised Europe, and threatened UK/French interests and positions. None of which amounts to much of a case for saying that the Irish ought to have joined them.

Peregrinus

indioblack wrote: »

Of course avoiding British and French deaths wasn't the overriding priority for these two governments. After Poland had been invaded and war declared the focus of these two countries was fixed on Germany - and how to defeat it .
There would have been more motives for the Allies to be at war with Germany than wanting to put an end to a dangerous regime.
But wanting to put an end to the Third Reich would have been the primary one.

Actually, no.

The British/French reason for going to war in 1939 was to defend Poland, with whom they had formed a defensive alliance. Their war objectives did not include regime change in Germany; if Germany had been willing to withdraw from Poland and abandon further territorial ambitions outside Germany, the war could certainly have been ended without the Nazis being removed from power, and they would still have had a free hand to govern Germany itself however they wished.

The objective of "unconditional surrender", with the implication that regime change in Germany was a Allied objective, wasn't adopted until January 1943.

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no.

The British/French reason for going to war in 1939 was to defend Poland, with whom they had formed a defensive alliance. Their war objectives did not include regime change in Germany; if Germany had been willing to withdraw from Poland and abandon further territorial ambitions outside Germany, the war could certainly have been ended without the Nazis being removed from power, and they would still have had a free hand to govern Germany itself however they wished.

The objective of "unconditional surrender", with the implication that regime change in Germany was a Allied objective, wasn't adopted until January 1943.

Actually, the French were driven by their losses in Czecheslovakia - the German occupation of that country saw them lose significant assets/investments/interests in that country.

Peregrinus

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, the French were driven by their losses in Czecheslovakia - the German occupation of that country saw them lose significant assets/investments/interests in that country.

Well, maybe. But that just underlines the point. Why would anybody argue that Ireland was morally obliged to go to war to defend French investments in Czechoslovakia, or avenge their loss?

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, maybe. But that just underlines the point. Why would anybody argue that Ireland was morally obliged to go to war to defend French investments in Czechoslovakia, or avenge their loss?

There is a strong argument to be made in my view, that Ireland could not and should not have gone to war in 1939, but that argument weakened as the conflict progressed and was pretty much minimal by 1942 when the world realised what it was dealing with, the country had been attacked (North Strand bombing), was surviving thanks to Allied benevolence and the opportunity existed to serve under US rather than British command.

Peregrinus

I'm not seeing that "strong argument" myself.

The main difference between Ireland and other neutral European states was that Ireland was a (semi-detached) member of the Commonwealth, and the British had a kind of assumption that when push came to shove Commonwealth countries should and would rally round the flag. That assumption was shared in various degrees in most of the Commonwealth dominions, but hardly at all in Ireland. I think Churchill's hissy-fit over the treaty ports was animated partly by his empire-loyalty assumptions, but even at the time they were not very realistic assumptions, and from today's perspective they would be indefensible.

Client states and occupied states aside, I think after 1942 only two countries became belligerents on the Allied side - Brazil and Mexico, but that was under considerable pressure from the Americans and after the Axis had targetted the merchant shipping of both countries. It had nothing to do with any dawning realization of how unpleasant the Nazis were.

(I should qualify that by saying that in the dying months of the war a bunch of nations declared for the Allies, though they mostly made no actual military contribution. They did so in order to get a seat at the table in post-war conferences.)