Ireland's "shame" for its neutral status in the Second World War

pete

The fact that only about 60 Jewish refugees* were permitted to enter the country over the course of World War 2 ain't nothing to be proud of neither.

* "Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust", Dermot Keogh 1998

secret_squirrel

Given the history and the times - I think its very naive to have expected Ireland to be anything other than Neutral during WWII. From a purely academic view point it would have been interesting to see what had happened if for example the UK had been sucessfully invaded.

As for the Simon Wisenthal center - they can bog off and keep their noses out of what doesnt concern them. They lost any right to claim the moral high ground years ago.

Next they will be hassling 21 years olds for dressing up in German WWII gear at fancy dress parties. Oh :eek:

Blackjack

I certainly don't think there is any shame in having declared Neutrality during WW2, given that
1) we had only 17 years before gained Independance (of sorts, not full independance until later) from one of the countries we were expected to Ally ourselves with.
2) Did we not have a policy of Neutrality in the Constitution already?
3) With what Army were we supposed to fight with?
Can we imagine Israel allying itself in conflict with Egypt or Lebanon any time soon?. I doubt it somehow.

Times were very different in the late 30's to what they are now. Commentators such as Simon Wiesenthal should spend their time taking a look at our reasons for Neutrality before chastising the decision.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

true

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display. I think most Europeans would find this offensive as well. The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace. If they were, why did they not dedicate a statue to the countless number of men, women and children killed by IRA violence ? The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims, the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

PaulHughesWH

How absurd. You people have obvious taken everything which has been fed to you, in terms of history and current affairs, and taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

The Irish were once renowned for their scholarly achievements - now here we have two "Irishmen" demanding that we surrender our neutrality, and therefore our status as a free nation, to the wishes of the EU.

Gentlemen, has it not become all too clear that these so-called "wars of liberation" by the "armies of democracy" are nothing more than a cover for a new kind of tyranny? Instead, your gleeful political correctness which has been beaten into you over the years has taken precedence over rational thought.

If we are to maintain our status as a free nation, then we will NOT surrender our foreign policy into the hands of bureaucrats, with a penchant for fixing problems that aren't there at all, usually on behalf of the state of Israel. They are obviously surrendering at gunpoint to this hereditary guilt crap, but we should not. That is the realm of the far-left, who care little about Ireland.

And I repeat myself - the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has no business telling Ireland what and what not to do, given that it is an arm of the state of Israel. The same country which brought us the undeniable evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and has developed a close affinity with lies.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display.

How many times do you have to be told, he wasnt a Nazi sympathizer he was simply taking advantage (as any military commander would) of an a chance to attack his enemies flank

true wrote:

The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace.

All nations/armies/ethnic groups commemorate their fallen comrades and to imply that this act alone shows SF is not serious about peace is pathetic.

true wrote:

The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims,

Are you sure about that, certainly it is one of the functions of the centre and quiet rightly so as well.
However propoganda is as much a part of the function of that organization as commemoration.

true wrote:

the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Wrong signals to who? Your mind seems to be already made up................

pete

PaulHughesWH wrote:

How absurd. You people have obvious taken everything which has been fed to you, in terms of history and current affairs, and taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

The Irish were once renowned for their scholarly achievements - now here we have two "Irishmen" demanding that we surrender our neutrality, and therefore our status as a free nation, to the wishes of the EU.

Gentlemen, has it not become all too clear that these so-called "wars of liberation" by the "armies of democracy" are nothing more than a cover for a new kind of tyranny? Instead, your gleeful political correctness which has been beaten into you over the years has taken precedence over rational thought.

If we are to maintain our status as a free nation, then we will NOT surrender our foreign policy into the hands of bureaucrats, with a penchant for fixing problems that aren't there at all, usually on behalf of the state of Israel. They are obviously surrendering at gunpoint to this hereditary guilt crap, but we should not. That is the realm of the far-left, who care little about Ireland.

And I repeat myself - the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has no business telling Ireland what and what not to do, given that it is an arm of the state of Israel. The same country which brought us the undeniable evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and has developed a close affinity with lies.

and of course we all know that everything "the state of Israel" (did you mean to say THE JEW, by any chance?) does is, by default, wrong.

A Dub in Glasgo

pete wrote:

and of course we all know that everything "the state of Israel" (did you mean to say THE JEW, by any chance?) does is, by default, wrong.

He think he means what he says, the state of Israel. Isreal does a lot wrong, not everything though. Do you not think so or do you think that everything the state of Israel does is, by default, right?

---

It comes as no surprise, to me, to see who feels ashamed of our history. You can tell through their posts on various subjects during the last few months.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Well said Daveirl. I think the Wiesenthal centre objected to the statue of a Nazi sympathiser being given public display. I think most Europeans would find this offensive as well. The fact that Sinn Fein officiated at an event at the statue of this IRA man shows that they are not serious about peace. If they were, why did they not dedicate a statue to the countless number of men, women and children killed by IRA violence ? The Wiesenthal centre commemorates the victims, the IRA statue glorifies the terrorist and send the wrong signals.

You must be really offended when you walk past the GPO in Dublin or the Garden of Remembrance or the various statues dotted across Ireland. I bet you even refer to the train stations in Dublin as Kingsbridge Station and Amiens Street Station as you are ashamed to say the names.

pete

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

He think he means what he says, the state of Israel. Isreal does a lot wrong, not everything though. Do you not think so or do you think that everything the state of Israel does is, by default, right?

Oh please. Everything right? Hardly.

I just have to question the motives of posters who speak in alarmist tones of the "far-left", accuse Israel "pursuing its own sick agenda", who talk of ".... wicked Commissars, many of them Jewish", accuses Israel of having "developed a close affinity with lies", and uses the term "anti fascist action" as an insult.

So forgive me if I see a bit of a pattern emerging there.

MG

ishmael whale wrote:

I hesitate before suggesting that these complex, but ultimately valid, reasons would be tractable by explanation in as uncouth a tool as the written word.

But could you even give us a hint about what you are on about?

Ismael Whale – I was called away to a 5 pm meeting mid sentence (written at 16.59) so didn’t get a chance to elucidate. I assume we agree on this but here are my reasons:

Any criticism of Irish neutrality in WW2 tends to be from a fairly simplistic viewpoint. Ireland was neutral in a fight against a terrible peril and by not fighting was forever shamed. Black and white, with us or agin us. I don’t believe in such a simplistic view of the world.

I would divide any defence of Irish neutrality into four basic areas:
1. Domestic politics – Ireland was a very young county at the time and its representative democracy was not yet a decade old. While there was little pro-German sentiment in the country, there would have been a fairly strong anti-British feeling. The war of independence was still fresh in people memory and northern Ireland was regarded as occupied land (it still is by many over 60 years later). An alliance with Britain might have destabilised the government and provided an opportunity and excuse for invasion by either the Nazis or the British.
2. National duty – the first duty of a government is to protect its own citizens. The government was entitled to take any stance to protect the best interests of its citizens. It is equally entitled to change its stance if this position changed. This stance was also adopted by the US for instance. In Irelands case the threat to its citizens and sovereignty was never sufficiently compromised to necessitate a change in position. The objective of protecting its citizens and maintaining its prized sovereignty was achieved.
3. War effort - The reality was that Ireland contributed much of what it was capable of towards the war effort anyway. Some 100,000 Irishmen fought for the allies while attempts to raise an Irish corp in the Wehrmacht failed – something which cannot be said of other countries (including occupied nations). Informal contacts and intelligence sharing may have been low key but they certainly favoured the British. And if the ports were not available for use by the Allies, well they weren’t available for the Axis either. A formal declaration of war would in many ways have been mere window dressing.
4. Hindsight – based on the comments on this board and my experience, it appears to be generally accepted by the Irish people that neutrality was the best course of action.

In each of the first three points, I find myself wondering “what if” and pursuing different scenarios and possibilities. Each lead to a myriad of complex scenarios and by my admittedly limited reckoning, few would have made a significant or better contribution to the allied war effort than course pursued.

Finally, when thinking about Ireland’s neutrality, I always think of De Valeras address at the end of the war. Specifically, I find the comment on by, as I understand, a representative of the Wiesenthal centre to be ill judged, but more generally I think that there in a vocal Jewish lobby which needs to rethink the swiftness and frequency with which it uses the “Holocaust card”.

On the other hand, I do find it strange and inappropraie to have a statue of Russell there in the first place.

meditraitor

Dub13 wrote:

I was reading a article about the removal of the head from a statue of IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell in Dublin’s Fairview Park.And this was a part of it.

**

However, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, the world’s largest Jewish human rights organisation, called for it to be left unrestored as a symbol of Ireland’s “shame” for its neutral status in the Second World War as thousands of Jews were put to death.


**

So what do you think....Should modern Ireland feel any “shame” .

They (isreali propoganda machine)should be thankfull for the 120 thousand Irish volunteers (70 nuetral ireland, 50 NI) that went against their gut and joined the British army to fight against the Nazi's,,

Shame on the them for suggesting we should feel any as a nation, at least our terrorists are illegal, they murder and execute people daily with the full backing of their lawmakers

landser

the best thing that DeV did was to keep this country neutral. we could not have afforded to enter the war, no more than Franco's spain could or indeed, italy should. apart from the european superpowers, all other countries were forced into the war by invasion

i do not believe that the note of condolence to germany in may '45 was wrong. we were a neutral country.

the Wiesenthal centre, and it's equally brutal cousin, the anti defamation league, are on the verge of becoming contemptuous. one cannot now be anti isreali policy, which i am, without becoming an anti semite, which i am not. we recently had a similar problem with the hunt museum in limerick and that claim that the works there were nazi art stolen from the jews of europe.. this without any evidence whatsoever. like wise russell is now a "sympathiser" because he sought help from britains enemy. i'm sure that the allegations helped to send hunt junior to his untimely grave

Hippo

Excellent post MG, these issues are rarely black and white and it's always dangerous if tempting to take a simplistic view. You're right about the covert activity on the part of the Irish state which was always in favour of the Allies. However, I feel there is a moral dimension to this. Unquestionably Ireland's feeble army might not have made much difference to the war, but I imagine that the Irish who volunteered for the British army felt that their contribution did matter even on a small scale. Towards the end of the war when the tide had turned in the allies' favour, many formerly neutral nations lined up against the Nazis, and even though the threat (imagined or real) of a German invasion had receded completely, Ireland maintained its apparently neutral stance, culminating in De Valera's bizzare signing of the book of condolence in the German embassy.
Much was known before the war about Jewish persecution in Germany,and I don't think anyone was in much doubt about Nazi expansionist policies after 1939. I suppose I'm merely asking was Ireland's position morally defensible in the face of the Nazi threat while sheltering under the British umbrella, regardless of what other countries were doing?
As a footnote to the question of any domestic political split that might have been caused by siding with the British it's worth remembering that De Valera had a particularly short way with the IRA in those years.

MG

Hippo wrote:

However, I feel there is a moral dimension to this.

I can’t disagree with you that morally perhaps we should have entered the war on the Allied side. However, I don’t know of any country in the world that operates or has ever operated a foreign policy based on morality (no matter what Robin Cook says). I find that there is therefore no shame in operating a foreign policy which puts pragmatism before morality.

Hippo

I take your point completely, I'm not so naive as to expect states to pursue a foreign policy on strictly moral terms, however, by the end of the war the picture had become pretty clear, and I do feel ashamed of DeValera' s act at the conclusion of the war, and seems to me to be taking the concept of right down the middle neutrality to an extraordinary level. To describe it as insensitive in view of events in the preceding years does not really do it justice.

seamus

Looks lads, what has happened has happened. As someone said, hindsight is a great thing.
IMO, dropping our neutrality would have done very little in the way of the war. All's fair in love and war, as they say, and no country has any obligation to be ashamed of their, or their ancestor's actions, when faced with war.

Ireland was already painfully poor. Coupled with us already being a diffucult country to get to in times of war, I'm surprised we took in any refugess at all.
If we had declared our support for the Allies, we would have made ourselves a bit of a target for some bombing runs. We would have lost some ports.

Neutrality or not, the results would have been the same. Allies win - Ireland is safe. Nazis win - Ireland is taken over. Simple as that. De Valera made a call which he believed would help protect this country and it's people as long as possible.

Raskolnikov

pete wrote:

The fact that only about 60 Jewish refugees* were permitted to enter the country over the course of World War 2 ain't nothing to be proud of neither.

* "Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust", Dermot Keogh 1998

That is a damning statistic, we should have done more to allow displaced refugees to come here. I might not be right in this assumption, but were we aware of the scale of the genocide that happened in Germany at this time?

I would ask you though those who do feel shameful about our neutrality in WW2, do you feel the same way given that there are people today who are being butchered and slaughtered in Sudan, Iraq, etc? Would you propose that we pump hundreds of millions of Euros and thousands of Irish lifes into trying to protect these people? Would you, risk your life to protect the life of others in this pursuit?

pete

seamus wrote:

Coupled with us already being a diffucult country to get to in times of war, I'm surprised we took in any refugess at all.

I can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the problem lay not with refugees physically getting here, but with their being refused on principal on application (at ireland's european embassies/consulates etc).

Again, I have no source for this.

Raskolnikov wrote:

I might not be right in this assumption, but were we aware of the scale of the genocide that happened in Germany at this time?

I don't think anyone has claimed that the Jewish refugees were refused entry when the Irish government of the day was aware of the genocide then taking place - to the best of my knowledge, they weren't. They were, however, fully aware of the persecution of European Jews.

Enduro

To me its irrelevant who is calling Ireland's Neutral stance shameful (In this case, the Wiesenthal centre). The debate is about Ireland's neutrality, not about the Wiesenthal centre's right to state an opinion about Ireland. Irrespective of where the debate originated, it is worth having as Ireland still maintains a pseudo-neutral stance, and examing the past should enable us to have a greater understanding of the effects of our current policy.

MG : good post. Just taking your points as raised...
(1) Domestic politics.
I agree that one of the main reasons we didn't enter the war on the allied side was anti-british sentiment, both at a politcal and national level. To my mind, and particularly with the benifit of hindsight, it does look shameful that this was used as a reason no to fight fascism.
(2) I agree that the government has as its primary responsibility to protect its own citizens, just like every other country. However I do think that Ireland was under great peril at the time, and that if Britain had been sucessfully invaded by the Nazis I don't think there can have been much doubt (Then or now) that Ireland would have been invaded subsequently. Therefore it would have been in the governments interests to join the war on the allied side. It was a gamble (that paid off) to hope that either Britain would hold out or that our neutrality in itself would somehow protect us.
(3) Irish war effort. I think its something to be proud of that 100,000 Irishmen felt sufficiently motivated to join the armies of foreign countries in order to help defeat fascism. To me though, this just highlights the shamefulness of the government's stance. 100,000 is a massive number of people. They must have been crystal clear in the convictions at the time to leave their families behind and take a very big risk to their lives to fight in the war. It must have been very clear and obvious to them that it was the morally right thing to do.
(4) Hindsight. Thats what this discussion is all about!

I also disagree on Ireland's potential benifit to the allied was effort. In terms of troops or equipment that could be used to help in the war effort then I agree that it wouldn't have made any significant difference. What would have made a big differnence would have been the bases which could have been used as part of the allied war effort. The battle for the Atlantic was a very costly and hard-fought affair. There was a huge loss of allied men and equipment. If Ireland (the likes of Shannon for example) could have been used to extend the air cover available to conveys, and possibly shorten their journies as well, it would have had a significant impact. If the battle of the Atlantic had been lost then Britain would have been lost too. Its impact on the overall course of the war was pivitol. And it was a battle that was touch and go for a long long time.


Seamus :

Neutrality or not, the results would have been the same

This is obviously true, but we can only be sure of this with the benifit of hindsight.

De Valera made a call which he believed would help protect this country and it's people as long as possible.

Thats obviously the case. In general this would be true of most decisions taken by most leaders. The question is was it the right thing to do. My opion is to side with the 100,000 Irishmen who fought the fascists, and conclude that De Valera's stance was wrong.

Enduro

I would ask you though those who do feel shameful about our neutrality in WW2, do you feel the same way given that there are people today who are being butchered and slaughtered in Sudan, Iraq, etc? Would you propose that we pump hundreds of millions of Euros and thousands of Irish lifes into trying to protect these people? Would you, risk your life to protect the life of others in this pursuit?

Thats exactly why this issue is so important. We do continue to use our pseudo-neutrality as a basis to do nothing when confronted with situation such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan etc etc. Would I propose spending money to try and prevent these massacres. Yes. Would I be prepared to risk my life as part of an Irish army deployment to fight against the perpetrators. Yes. Absolutely.

There are a lot of countries who took up a shameful stance in some of these recent events. E.G. the government in Holland resigned over its troops role in failing to stop the Srebinica massacre. The entire EU was shamefully inactive in preventing attempted genocide on its doorstep. The UN has admitted that its inaction in both Bosnia and Rwanda was shameful in retrospect.

We also use it as an excuse not to spend money on defence. European countries which take their neutrality seriously (Sweden and Switzerland) spend large amounts of money to ensure that they can defend themselves.

Lemming

pete wrote:

I can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the problem lay not with refugees physically getting here, but with their being refused on principal on application (at ireland's european embassies/consulates etc).

Again, I have no source for this.



I don't think anyone has claimed that the Jewish refugees were refused entry when the Irish government of the day was aware of the genocide then taking place - to the best of my knowledge, they weren't. They were, however, fully aware of the persecution of European Jews.

If I recall, there was an Irishman operating in one of the nordic countries (possibly Norway) who handed out thousands of Irish passports to the Jewish community there during the course of WWII

I'll try find the name & any links for you. All that I can recollect is the above and that the number he saved far exceeded that done by Oscar Schindler. He also handed out many of the passports whilst surrounded by the Germany Army and/or Nazi party members whilst Jews were being herded onto/off transports if I recall too.

The notion of shame coming from an organisation representing a country that thinks nothign of bombing an apartment block full of the innocent to get one person rings very, very hollow in my ears ......


[edit: whilst looking for him, found another Irish man who saved a great deal many: Monseignor O'Flaherty - a catholic priest. linky look for the title "The Pimpernel of the Vatican" on the page]

MG

Enduro, this is largely an academic exercise and one filled with conjecture but I’d like to pick up on some of the points you raise.

1) I don’t think that it was anti-british sentiment as such which was the reason we did not fight, rather that allying ourselves to the British might have destabilised the government to such an extent that it could have caused another civil war, given the British an excuse to occupy or given the Nazis an opportunity to invade.

2) Neutrality was in some ways a good each way bet, if Britain won things stayed as they were, if Germany won it offered a chance that they would have just left us alone. With Britain defeated, we would have been of far less strategic value as Hitlers eyes were already turning East.
3) Neutrality perversely may actually have helped the war effort. If we had declared war in 1939 there is a chance that we would have been invaded by Germany and Britain could have done nothing about it (as in Norway for instance). Ireland could therefore have been used as a u boat base to strangle British imports. Alternatively and more likely is that Britain would have occupied us to “protect” us. This would have fuelled pro-German sentiment (mine enemy’s enemy…), lessened the number of Irish recruits and tied up lots of British troops in Ireland. It’s conjecture but it’s not unreasonable.
4) I suppose the point about hindsight is that the majority of people I have spoken to about this and the majority of people on this board believe we did the right thing even/especially with the benefit of hindsight.

Boggle

Excellent posts MG.

3) Neutrality perversely may actually have helped the war effort. If we had declared war in 1939 there is a chance that we would have been invaded by Germany and Britain could have done nothing about it (as in Norway for instance). Ireland could therefore have been used as a u boat base to strangle British imports. Alternatively and more likely is that Britain would have occupied us to “protect” us. This would have fuelled pro-German sentiment (mine enemy’s enemy…), lessened the number of Irish recruits and tied up lots of British troops in Ireland. It’s conjecture but it’s not unreasonable.

While being no history buff I have heard this statement before and I believe that Britain would more than likely NOT have wanted us in the war at the time as we would have been as soft touch. Britain was struggling to defend one flank and a base on the other flank would have been overwhelming.

You could argue also that even the HOLIER than thou yanks only joined the war after Hitler's progress had been halted and it looked like a winable war. (not good at history so could be wrong)

To those feeling shame: Do you feel shame that we now do nothing to protect the sudanese, palestinians or Iraqi's? If you called the Nazi's evil - do you now call the Israeli's and Americans evil? If not why not.... unless its because the Nazi's lost the war whereas the americans & israeli's are winning.... and you know history is always written by the winners.

Enduro

MG: Another very interesting post. Responses by point....
(1) Thats a perfectly plausable argument, and might well be the case. Even if it is true then the underlying reasoning (the factor that would cause the potential instability) would be an anti-british sentiment amongst the population at large. Again, if this were the case then it looks even worse than a simple anti-british sentiment held by the government (And I'd be truely surprised if Dev didn't harbour any of that in 1939). i.e that defeating fascism was less important than being anti-british to a sizeable proportion of the population.

(2) The logic of your argument is plausable. But the morality of the thinking behind such a decision would be questionable (Doing nothing about fascism in the hope that it'll leave us alone). Anyway, I think Hitler would have finished off the job in western Europe. Ireland would have been, literally, fertile pickings for some lebensraum. I think his mind was looking east from the very beginning, but Britain and France declaring war after the invasion of Poland forced his hand, and caused him to attempt to clear his western flank first (While Russia was still nominally an ally).

(3) This is a very interesting argument, and one I hadn't heard before. However I simply disagree there. Germany had absolutely no problems invading Neutral countries if it was stategically or tactically advantagous. After all they by-passed France's great anti-German defence (the Maginot line), by simply blitzkrieging through Belgium and Holland and invading France through the one gap the French had left. Now I'm sure you'll agree that if Germany thought it could have successfully invaded Ireland then it would have, because it would have quickly led to Britain's military collapse (The convoys would have had a very very slim survival chance, and it would have been completely surrounded). For this reason I don't doubt for a second that had Germany attempted to invade Ireland the British would have had to repulse the attack, which would of course meant they would have defended (i.e. also invaded!) Ireland, with or without being asked! And that is probably the fundamental fact that would have made a German invasion of Ireland unlikely to succeed, and therefore ensured it didn't happen. I don't think that Ireland joining the allies would have altered this one little bit, so therefore I don't think that Germany (and subsequently Britain) would have been any more likely to invade.

(4) Seems to be the case alright. I'm just very surprised that with the full benifit of hindsight that the majority of people still don't think it would have been a morally better decision to join the allies and help defeat fascism.
An odd dichotomy exists with the way the Irish veterens of the spanish civil war were percieve. Those who went out to fight facism there have (rightly) been lauded as heroes who "fought the good fight" because of their moral convictions, ever since. But yet the government's refusal to take the same morally couragous step is also lauded.

Do you feel shame that we now do nothing to protect the sudanese, palestinians or Iraqi's? If you called the Nazi's evil - do you now call the Israeli's and Americans evil? If not why not.... unless its because the Nazi's lost the war whereas the americans & israeli's are winning.... and you know history is always written by the winners

Thats pretty much the point I'm trying to make. Our government (and many others) does continue to stand aside and allow preventable atrocities to happen (Sudan is an exellent example you have provided. John O'Shea of GOAL called for military intervention there as the only way eradicate the cause of the genocide, and really stop it). Personally, I don't call the Americans or the Israelis evil. But I would have called the actions of the Milisovic regime in Serbia evil, and I would call the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfur evil, amongst others.

I've no doubt that, despite the smug psuedo-neutral stance, we would expect to bailed out (by the "evil" Americans probably) if we were ever faced a similar threat (Yes the whole concept of us being threatened seem comfortably ridiculous, but I'll bet the Croatians and Bosnians would have thought the same up until Tito's death, and a land war was thought of as a real possibility in Ireland at the start of the troubles in 1968).

true

All in all, I think Sinn Feins erection of a Statue to an IRA man in Dublin , who was an ally of a regime who gassed six million people, and held millions more in dreadful conditions, is what really rose the Wiesenthal centre, and rightfully so.

At least it should wake us up to what Sinn Fein stands for. I am sure those thousands of men who gave their lives to liberate Europe would turn in their graves at the modern day goings on of SinnFein/IRA, and of the government that appeases them. During the war, DeValera executed some IRA.

ionapaul

I certainly do not feel we should be ashamed of our neutral stance during the way - I think the statue is a little shameful and the consolation on Hitler's death much more so.

Had we joined the war on the Allies side, we would have had our own Blitz - but a German invasion? As previously mentioned, Hitler did not respect smaller countries neutrality and certainly would have invaded if there was a good chance of success. I don't see how that would have been possible without either complete destruction of the RAF and the British Navy.

Boggle, the US entered the war against the Nazis after Hitler committed one of his many infamous blunders - Germany declared war on the US after its ally, Japan, attacked at Pearl Harbour. I feel certain that the US would have ended up at war with Germany anyway, but this was a crazy move by Germany. In many ways it is lucky for the rest of us that Hitler was unstable and made such massive blunders - they quickened the end of the war.

The war became 'winnable' after Germany could not quickly defeat the Soviets - though had the Germans had a different leader and delayed the Allied advances longer, they might have been in a position (due to technological advances such as the V-series rockets and nuclear weapon research) to salvage something at the end.

Anyhow, in hindsight we should have joined the Allies for moral reasons, but it was not very practical at the time due to the anti-British feeling. But no need for shame.

Boggle

Boggle, the US entered the war against the Nazis after Hitler committed one of his many infamous blunders - Germany declared war on the US after its ally, Japan, attacked at Pearl Harbour.

Indeed, and up to that point they happily stood by and watched the war from the spectators seats. They will take credit for winning the war but, from what I understand, the war was at a stalemate at that stage and the Russians were causing massive fatalities to the East and effectively overstretched the lines.

Anyhow, in hindsight we should have joined the Allies for moral reasons,

Honestly speaking, no country does much for MORAL REASONS - just ask the sudanese people of today...

Hobbes

We were neutral? There were loads of Irish soliders fighting in WWII? My Grandfather was one of them (Was even in a POW camp).