Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,748 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Portugal, for example, chose to honour one of the oldest alliances in Europe, dating from the 14th C, but, following discussions with Britain, remained benignly neutral towards the Allies while also trading to a limited degree with the Axis

    Interesting.

    I was aware of that old alliance but had no idea it lasted that long. I assumed that having a right wing, dictatorial government at the time Portugal would have been broadly sympathetic to the Nazis.


  • Options
    #63
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    DeadHand wrote: »
    Interesting.

    I was aware of that old alliance but had no idea it lasted that long. I assumed that having a right wing, dictatorial government at the time Portugal would have been broadly sympathetic to the Nazis.

    From previous reading I got the impression that the Salazar regime were more disposed towards the British and it was the strong possibility of causing Spain to provide greater support to Germany that kept them on the sidelines.


  • Options
    #64
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I wouldn't know the exact details - I think there was a lot of 'jumping on' towards the end of the conflict. Where countries declared war earlier it tended to be as a result of their shipping being targeted and sunk.

    yes, those declarations of war only happened in order to be on the winning side and get some of the spoils…germany never attacked anyone in south america…and btw, even england and france had not been attacked by germany in any way when both countries declared war in 39…


  • Options
    #65
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    As indeed South Africa (opposing Nazi racism?!) , Australia, NZ etc British Commonwealth countries.

    Germany declared on America, fact, it matters little whose "side they supported" - they didn't join the war until they had to.

    Same for every other European country.

    as others have already mentioned, america (the us) was de facto at war against germany (and japan) long before the needless and stupid german declaration of war…same in ww1 btw, long before 1917…


  • Options
    #66
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,436 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    I think the Irish Sea would have been turned into an allied lake. The ports on the western seaboard would all have been developed to allow for massive shipments arriving from the Atlantic, and then transported by land across the country to the eastern coast, where a similar upgrade would have been applied to the ports there to allow departure across the Irish Sea to the UK.
    No. The construction effort and multiple handling would have used up too many resources. One would have also been dealing with huge numbers of freight trains, which wouldn't have necessarily been available.
    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    It would have removed the need for the larger ships to travel around wither the northern or southern coasts of Ireland to get to the UK, thus removing the danger (and losses) to them. Pull into Galway or Limerick, unload, transship across the country and load up in Dublin or Rosslare in well protected convoys and head across the Irish Sea.

    The value that it adds would be in the reduced losses of material, shipping and men.

    Maybe I'm wrong, and the losses of ships that COULD have made port on the western seaboard aren't that high. I'm not married to the idea, but it kinda makes sense to me.
    No. It wouldn't work. Remember practically everything would have had to have been unloaded by hand, which is immensely time-consuming, i.e. twice as many ships sitting in port. And the shipping would still have had to cross the Irish Sea anyway.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    ......because in bringing the west coast into play you immediately eliminate the choke points of the Western and Northern Approaches.
    Which were quite well defended. It don't know the exact numbers, but U-boat activities were strongest where there wasn't allied air activity.
    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    yes, those declarations of war only happened in order to be on the winning side and get some of the spoils
    And so the Americans could gerrymander the UN.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    as others have already mentioned, america (the us) was de facto at war against germany (and japan) long before the needless and stupid german declaration of war…same in ww1 btw, long before 1917…

    As I have pointed out, Germany declared war on the US. There was no "de facto" war before then; merely aid to one of the belligerents.

    Following your reasoning we are currently "de facto" at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas (to name but 4) by virtue of supporting sanctions.

    Let's declare war on Russia and see what the difference is! :cool:


  • Options
    #68
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    As I have pointed out, Germany declared war on the US. There was no "de facto" war before then; merely aid to one of the belligerents.

    Following your reasoning we are currently "de facto" at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas (to name but 4) by virtue of supporting sanctions.

    Let's declare war on Russia and see what the difference is! :cool:

    Really? So when U-552 put a fish into the USS Reuben James in October 1941 that wasn't a belligerent act?

    Likewise the Kearny? When she was hit by a U-boat? (Also in October 1941) - admittedly she was actively trying to depth charge the U-boat!


  • Options
    #69
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Likewise the Kearny? When she was hit by a U-boat? (Also in October 1941) - admittedly she was actively trying to depth charge the U-boat!

    There is a huge difference between border clashes and total war. Ask any Indian or Pakistani.


  • Options
    #70
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    There is a huge difference between border clashes and total war. Ask any Indian or Pakistani.

    There has never been a 'total war'

    You originally said
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    As I have pointed out, Germany declared war on the US. There was no "de facto" war before then; merely aid to one of the belligerents.

    Following your reasoning we are currently "de facto" at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas (to name but 4) by virtue of supporting sanctions.

    Let's declare war on Russia and see what the difference is! :cool:

    I was just pointing out that prior to war being declared on the US by Germany, their forces were clashing in combat - there was more than just aid bring provided.


  • Options
    #71
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,744 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    People always look at this in terms of contemporary realities.


    However Ireland only had a war of independence and civil war and had it's country severed by Britain 20 years earlier. In those realities of the time it is not hard to see why Ireland was not leaping to Britain's aid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Really? So when U-552 put a fish into the USS Reuben James in October 1941 that wasn't a belligerent act?

    Likewise the Kearny? When she was hit by a U-boat? (Also in October 1941) - admittedly she was actively trying to depth charge the U-boat!

    yes indeed, there were american navy vessels engaged in military operations against germany long before war was declared, just what i said earlier…


  • Options
    #73
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Jawgap wrote: »
    There has never been a 'total war'

    You originally said



    I was just pointing out that prior to war being declared on the US by Germany, their forces were clashing in combat - there was more than just aid bring provided.


    And I was just pointing out that the US did not join the war before Germany declared war on it.

    You can duck and dive all you wish; that fact stands.


  • Options
    #74
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,436 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    As I have pointed out, Germany declared war on the US. There was no "de facto" war before then; merely aid to one of the belligerents.
    When the militaries of countries shoot at each other with the intention of killing, that's an (undeclared) war. Whether the sides want to do something about it is another matter. You are applying (not very well) de jure rules to a de facto situation.
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Following your reasoning we are currently "de facto" at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas (to name but 4) by virtue of supporting sanctions.

    Let's declare war on Russia and see what the difference is! :cool:
    Sanctions aren't an act of war, unless you go so far as engaging in blockade.
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    There is a huge difference between border clashes and total war. Ask any Indian or Pakistani.
    And there is a difference between war and total war.
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    And I was just pointing out that the US did not join the war before Germany declared war on it.
    Then why were they shooting at each other?


  • Options
    #75
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Victor wrote: »
    When the militaries of countries shoot at each other with the intention of killing, that's an (undeclared) war. Whether the sides want to do something about it is another matter. You are applying (not very well) de jure rules to a de facto situation.

    Sanctions aren't an act of war, unless you go so far as engaging in blockade.

    Since you are mentioning "de facto" situations, the sanctions I mentioned in the cases of Iran etc are most certainly acts of war.


  • Options
    #76
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Victor wrote: »
    When the militaries of countries shoot at each other with the intention of killing, that's an (undeclared) war.

    Then why were they shooting at each other?

    It happened, and happens, all the time. It is not regarded as "war". Surely you don't need contemporary examples pointed out to you :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #77
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    And I was just pointing out that the US did not join the war before Germany declared war on it.

    You can duck and dive all you wish; that fact stands.

    the only fact around here is that you are wrong...


  • Options
    #78
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    And I was just pointing out that the US did not join the war before Germany declared war on it.

    You can duck and dive all you wish; that fact stands.

    Of course the US did. One of their first acts (Sept 1939) was to set up a Neutrality Zone (basically, the Atlantic west of 65o longitude) - only it applied to Axis shipping - RN warships and British shipping were not excluded from it or subject to attack in the same way Axis shipping was.


  • Options
    #79
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Jawgap wrote: »
    From previous reading I got the impression that the Salazar regime were more disposed towards the British and it was the strong possibility of causing Spain to provide greater support to Germany that kept them on the sidelines.

    Spain did not want to join precisely because it had just endured a long and scarring civil war. Likewise Switzerland with Europe's largest army also chose to sit on the side lines. Ireland did not want to fight another war having experienced it own civil war. What Britain was asking of us was totally out of line. The war offered us no benefits and we gained a seat at the UN regardless of the outcome for the war.


  • Options
    #80
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Spain did not want to join precisely because it had just endured a long and scarring civil war. Likewise Switzerland with Europe's largest army also chose to sit on the side lines. Ireland did not want to fight another war having experienced it own civil war. What Britain was asking of us was totally out of line. The war offered us no benefits and we gained a seat at the UN regardless of the outcome for the war.

    10 years after the UN was set up, and only after Stalin died - until then the USSR had always vetoed us joining.

    And contribution doesn't equal combat forces.


  • Options
    #81
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,744 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Jawgap wrote: »
    10 years after the UN was set up, and only after Stalin died - until then the USSR had always vetoed us joining.

    And contribution doesn't equal combat forces.

    I made the point earlier about viewing things in terms of contemporary politics. Fact is this was little over 20 years after a war of independence, a civil war and the partition of the country.

    Those feelings would have been very raw at the time and for good reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    indioblack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,942 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I agree fully except for the bit about Britain and France!

    They were fighting for geopolitical reasons. They were both genocidal Empires every bit as nasty as the Nazis were - except the Nazis were attacking otherEuropeans - so we like to build that into a greater evil that merely killing millions of Africans or Asians.

    In WW1, regarding which some folk think we should be "commemorating" (:rolleyes:) those poor fools who "sacrificed" their lives for the British Empire, we were allegedly going to the aid of plucky little Belgium, a country which was at the time involved in one of the greatest genocides in history in the Congo.

    The notion the Britain or France went to war with Germany as part of some moral crusade is beyond ridicule. Like stories you'd tell a 7 year-old about the tooth fairy.

    So if you want to do a cost/benefit of the Free State opportunistically joining in after America entered and the result was fairly certain, fine. Don't forget to count the Irish bodies and the maimed though.

    But please - spare me any BS "morality".


    The Third Reich was the greater evil - in the way that it functioned and the timescale of it's operations. This was Hitler's war - and there was no going back for him, or Germany while he was alive.
    There was no compromise with Hitler's war - as the Russians realised, this was a fight to the death.
    The Third Reich was an obvious danger to Europe - and then a proven danger.
    There could be no negotiated settlement, the only acceptable ending would have to be the destruction of the Third Reich itself.
    Comparisons to other European empires are irrelevant with regard to Germany and WW2.
    It sounds more like an excuse to sit on your behind and do nothing.


  • Options
    #83
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    [...]
    They were fighting for geopolitical reasons. [...]
    The notion the Britain or France went to war with Germany as part of some moral crusade is beyond ridicule. Like stories you'd tell a 7 year-old about the tooth fairy.
    [...]

    that is very true and even churchill (and others) said so…
    the truth will be acknowledged by a growing number of historians in the years around 2039…just as with the ww1 centenary and the real causes of ww1…as we know, mainstream history is but a set of agreed-upon lies and always written by the winners…


  • Options
    #84
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    indioblack wrote: »
    Comparisons to other European empires are irrelevant with regard to Germany and WW2.
    It sounds more like an excuse to sit on your behind and do nothing.

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


  • Options
    #85
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    the only fact around here is that you are wrong...

    Germany declared war on America before the US joined the war. Period.


  • Options
    #86
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    that is very true and even churchill (and others) said so…
    the truth will be acknowledged by a growing number of historians in the years around 2039…just as with the ww1 centenary and the real causes of ww1…as we know, mainstream history is but a set of agreed-upon lies and always written by the winners…

    I guess we'll have to wait till the Asians are writing the history books before the self-serving "Allied" myths and morality tales about WW1 and WW2 are debunked in the mainstream mind :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #87
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Germany declared war on America before the US joined the war. Period.

    nope


  • Options
    #88
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    nope

    So, you are saying we are at war with Iran and Hamas and Hizbollah?

    And Russia?


  • Options
    #89
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I guess we'll have to wait till the Asians are writing the history books before the self-serving "Allied" myths and morality tales about WW1 and WW2 are debunked in the mainstream mind :rolleyes:

    The 'Asians' (as you put it) already write and discuss the history of both conflicts from any number of cultural, political social and even economic perspectives - witness the recent plethora of publications discussing the role of colonial forces in WW1.


  • Options
    #90
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    So, you are saying we are at war with Iran and Hamas and Hizbollah?

    And Russia?

    we would be if western military forces were engaged in combat operations against theirs…declared or not…


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    So, you are saying we are at war with Iran and Hamas and Hizbollah?

    And Russia?

    Yes, we are in the era of 'hybrid war' and have been since about 2005.


Advertisement