EIRE during WWII

[unmerged(4745)]

The neutrality of the Irish freestate during WWII gave the axis a sort of reconning post in the north Atlantic.

1. Why gave the brittish cabitet the treaty navala bases back?
2. Why didn't Roosevelt give de Valera an ultimatum in 1941/42?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Sten Sture d:ä
The neutrality of the Irish freestate during WWII gave the axis a sort of reconning post in the north Atlantic.

What evidence would you use to make such a claim as this? Ireland was neutral, and gave no aid to the axis

1. Why gave the brittish cabitet the treaty navala bases back?

Seizing neutral territory would not have endeered Britain to America.

2. Why didn't Roosevelt give de Valera an ultimatum in 1941/42?

What ultimatum? Join the war or else?

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by Sten Sture d:ä
The neutrality of the Irish freestate during WWII gave the axis a sort of reconning post in the north Atlantic.

1. Why gave the brittish cabitet the treaty navala bases back?
2. Why didn't Roosevelt give de Valera an ultimatum in 1941/42?

Roosevelt would be commiting political suicide, Irish immigrants were mostly Democrat voters, at least at the time. They had a lot of sympathy for the Irish Free State, for anyone to try to force Ireland to do anything would be viewed angrily.
Equally Britain wouldn't want another uprising in the middle of the war, it had solved the Irish problem at the time, the North was relatively content as they were united against Germany and the South was building itself up after the civil war. For Britain to break a treaty made only a decade ago would be deangerous, also Ireland would call on support from the Axis who would have been more than happy to help. Britain wouldn't be able to re-requisition the bases without the threat of an Ulster-German ally border at worst and revolt at best.

 

[unmerged(592)]

By what right could anyone, Roosevelt or Churchill, force a neutral state into a war Britain voluntarily entered?

 

[unmerged(598)]

I'd still like to know the foundation for belief that Ireland offered an Axis outpost on the Atlantic. This kind of propaganda began surfacing during the 1970's IRA campaign.

Perhaps Churchill should have given Roosevelt an ultimatum to declare war in 1940?

 

[unmerged(592)]

I agree that there might have been some German spies in Ireland or Irish nazi sympathisants but this was no official Irish support. Any Abwehr engagement in the UK, including Northern Ireland was a mess and I see no reason it would have been a pro-German free Irish government on the other side of the border. Of course there was this message on birthday or death of Hitler, can't remember but this is a formal diplomatic act.

No doubt a neutral Ireland was better for Germany than a pro-British.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
I agree that there might have been some German spies in Ireland or Irish nazi sympathisants but this was no official Irish support. Any Abwehr engagement in the UK, including Northern Ireland was a mess and I see no reason it would have been a pro-German free Irish government on the other side of the border. Of course there was this message on birthday or death of Hitler, can't remember but this is a formal diplomatic act.

No doubt a neutral Ireland was better for Germany than a pro-British.

The telegram was on the death of Hitler, and was a diplomatic curtesy which can only be criticised with the hindsight of Nazi attrocities. I often find it humouress that this telegram is so criticized, yet the Anglo-American policy of placating Stalin is not.

There's no doubt that the loss of the "Treaty Ports," a number of British bases in Ireland, affected the British ability to fight the convoy war. Had those ports still been in British hands, then it is quite likely that Ireland might have entered the war on the side of the allies. Should Germany have attempted to bomb those base, then Irish entry into the war would have been a certainty.

Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe, a navigational error led their force off target, an action which Germany appologized for, and I think paid compensation for during the war.

There were most certainly pro-Axis sympathizers in Ireland, however, the overwhelming majority of the people sympathized with the Allies. Quite natural, given that so many had relatives in Britain and America. Had Britain not engaged in a lengthy trade war with Ireland in the 1930's it's possible that a more pro-Britain stance would have been adopted by the population.

Back to the original post, should Chang-Kai-Shek have given Roosevelt and Chamberlin an ultimatum to declare war on Japan in the 1930's?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by sean9898
The telegram was on the death of Hitler, and was a diplomatic curtesy which can only be criticised with the hindsight of Nazi attrocities. I often find it humouress that this telegram is so criticized, yet the Anglo-American policy of placating Stalin is not.

A telegram sent to a government that has just ceased to exist on the death of its dictator is a bit more than a "diplomatic courtesy". However, isn't it true that is was basically a personal message from de Valera and so evidence that he personally was pro-Nazi rather than the Irish government or people?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
A telegram sent to a government that has just ceased to exist on the death of its dictator is a bit more than a "diplomatic courtesy".

Why?

Can someone please explain to me, why Hitler became the anti-Christ sometime in Septemer 1939, June 1941, or Decemeber 1941 depending on which allied group you believe.

Neutral nations traded with, and engaged in diplomatic activity with Nazi Germany. Some of those nations then went to war with Germany, and this allows a Holier-than-thou stance regarding diplomcay.

So, can either the Russians, Britons or Americans please state the exact date when Hitler's government was beneath diplomatic relations, and then we can all wring our hands with sorrow for not joining the crusade that instant.

 

[unmerged(469)]

This is Dark Knights point, but do you think that in 1945 Hitler was still viewed as a morally neutral leader?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
This is Dark Knights point, but do you think that in 1945 Hitler was still viewed as a morally neutral leader?

It's a paradox that Ireland was one of the few nations in Europe which accepted Jewish refugees prior to 1939, yet also extended diplomatic recognition to the Doenitz government in Germany.

No, I don't think that Hitler was a morally neutral leader in 1945, any more or less than Stalin was in 1945, or Mao in 1971, Galtieri in 1981, or Khomeni in 1986. Yet Ireland had diplomatic relations with them all, and entered negotiations for the release of a hostage with the latter.

So perhaps the question is, should governments conduct diplomatic relations with nations morally abhorrent to the world, or to that nation in particular. It would rather limit the number of embassies around the world, but might increase world conflict, so on the whole while we may think it personally vile to comminicate with dictators, it has, and will continue to be the diplomatic norm in the future.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by sean9898


Why?

Can someone please explain to me, why Hitler became the anti-Christ sometime in Septemer 1939, June 1941, or Decemeber 1941 depending on which allied group you believe.

Neutral nations traded with, and engaged in diplomatic activity with Nazi Germany. Some of those nations then went to war with Germany, and this allows a Holier-than-thou stance regarding diplomcay.

So, can either the Russians, Britons or Americans please state the exact date when Hitler's government was beneath diplomatic relations, and then we can all wring our hands with sorrow for not joining the crusade that instant.

Sean -- This date was the time when Hitler rose into power and became Chancellor of Germany (1933?) And yes -- I am using hindsight as my ally.

 

[SideshowBob]

In December 1940 Churchill considered the question of Ireland.

'As November and December drew on, the entrances and estuaries of the Mersey and the Clyde far surpassed in mortal significance all other factors in the war. We could of course at this time have descended upon de Valera's Ireland and regained the southern ports by force of modern arms. I had always declared that nothing but self-preservation would lead me to this. But perhaps the case of self-preservation might come. Then so be it'

The second world war, Volume II, Page 530

In fact the only action which Churchill took was to stop subsidies

Prime Minister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 01/12/1940

'The straits to which we are being reduced by Irish action compel a reconsideration of the subsidies to Ireland. It can hardly be argued that we can go on paying them till our last gasp. Surely we ought to use this money to build more ships or buy more from the United States in view of the heavy sinkings.
Pray let me know how these subsidies could be terminated, and what retaliatory measures could be taken in the financial sphere by the Irish, observing that we are not afraid of their cutting off our food, as it would save us the enormous mass of fertilisers and feeding-stuffs we have to carry into Ireland through the de Valera-aided German blockade.'

The second world war, Volume II, Page 534

Note that when Churchill uses the term de Valera-aided, he is only referring to the fact that the Irish are aiding the German blockade by not allowing British ships and planes to base in southern Ireland.

In all of this Churchill kept the American President informed.

Former Naval Person to President Roosevelt 13/12/1940

'In the meanwhile we are so hard pressed at sea that we cannot undertake to carry any longer the 400,000 tons of feeding-stuff and fertilisers which we have hitherto convoyed to Eire through all the attacks of the enemy. We need this tonnage for our own supply, and we do not need the food which Eire has been sending us. We must now concentrate on essentials, and the Cabinet proposes to let de Valera know that we cannot go on supplying him under present conditions. he will of course have plenty of food for his people, but they will not have the prosperous trading they are making now. I am sorry about this, but we must think of our own self-preservation, and use for vital purposes our own tonnage brought in through so many perils. Perhaps this may loosen things up and make him more ready to consider common interests. I should like to know quite privately what your reactions would be if and when we are forced to concentrate our own tonnage upon the supply of Great Britain. We also do not feel able in present circumstances to continue the heavy subsidies we have hitherto been paying to the Irish agricultural producers. You will realise also that our merchant seamen, as well as public opinion generally, take it much amiss that we should have to carry Irish supplies through air and U-boat attacks and subsidise them handsomely when de Valera is quite content to sit happy and see us strangled.'

The second world war, volume II, Page 535

 

[unmerged(3200)]

There's an inference in Nicholas Montserrat's "The Cruel Sea" that the food that the irish ate was shipped in by the British, who ran all the risks that that entailed. Is this actually true? The population of Eire must have been nearly self-supporting in food at the time.

 

[Deaghaidh]

I don't know, but I think Ireland was actually making a modest surplus in food suplies in WWII era. And I'm not entirely sure that Ireland was blockaded, because if the U-boats cut down on their food supply I would imagine that would shift them into the Allied camp pretty quickly (Irish have had quite enough famines, thank-you-very-much).

The big reason ireland didn't enter the war was the combined manpower and morale hit they took in WWI, when a very high (have no idea exact numbers) number of young Irish men were lost fighting what was essentially not their war, a good number of those conscripts. This contributed to the discontent that started the rise of the Free State.

A good analogy would probably be if the were to go to war with another southeast asian nation only ten years after vietnam- or worse, be asked to go BACK into Vietnam.

It's always stuck with me, but about ten years ago, when I was a weee little laddy, I took a trip with my uncles to visit Ireland. We spent a lot of time at gealogical centers. One was a four story building tracing our Clan from pre-historic legends through the day before it opened. Of that, an entire floor, 1/4 the area, was devoted to Irish losses in WWI, and one got the impression the wound was still somewhat fresh.

I didn't realize that Ireland had accepted Jewish refugees, though. Good for them ( I wonder why there aren't more jews in Ireland then?)

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Deaghaidh
I didn't realize that Ireland had accepted Jewish refugees, though. Good for them ( I wonder why there aren't more jews in Ireland then?)

It wasn't a significantly large number, and from what I gather they moved on to Palestine after the war. A part of Cork City though is still known as Jewtown (not in the derogatory sense) to those over the age of 50, and a number of years ago the City Council dedicated a park named Shalom in the area. They managed to bring families back from all over the world to the opening.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Leave off the Irish

They were neutral during the war, which is a stance that must be respected. So, for that matter, were Portugal, Switzerland and Turkey (in the general European area).

 

[Sir James]

It should be noted that a great many Irishmen fought and died for the British and other Allied forces, including many who deserted the Irish army, crossed the border and joined up in Belfast. Many also contributed enormously to the war effort in the construction and manufacturing industries, often in the midst of the blitz, and there were several thousand Irish nurses in the UK (Still are, of course).

Ireland had every right to remain neutral during the war. The Irish government’s first obligation was to protect its people: if she had joined the allies, Ireland would have certainly been bombed, and in 1939-40, there was every possibility of invasion.

There are also ‘shades’ of neutrality. Several axis aircraft were shot down by Irish forces, while British planes that force landed were returned to the RAF. On one occasion, apparently, we were allowed to recover an intact German bomber that had landed in Ireland.

Churchill’s comments on subsidies, supplies and the possible re-occupation of the treaty ports were purely practicalities – this was total war, and Britain was in deep trouble.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Deaghaidh
The big reason ireland didn't enter the war was the combined manpower and morale hit they took in WWI, when a very high (have no idea exact numbers) number of young Irish men were lost fighting what was essentially not their war, a good number of those conscripts. This contributed to the discontent that started the rise of the Free State.

To the best of my knowledge, conscription was never introduced into Ireland in WWI, as it was considered to be too politically sensitive. The Irish who died from both sides of the sectarian divide were volunteers (or at least had been "volunteered" by their leaders from the pre-war para-military formations.)

The discontent leading to the Free State had grown throughout the nineteenth century. Despite this, the initial response of the general populace to the Easter Rising in Ireland was almost universally hostile (innapropriate with so many Irishmen fighting and dying away from home, the country they were still at that point part of fighting one of the greatest wars in its' history.) It was the crass stupidity and sheer brutality of the British response that really cemented the path which led to the "Free State". Personally, I see 1916 as one of the great "lost opportunities" of history with regard to the Irish "Troubles".

 

[unmerged(5451)]

Originally posted by Deaghaidh
I didn't realize that Ireland had accepted Jewish refugees, though. Good for them ( I wonder why there aren't more
jews in Ireland then?)

-- I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do
you know why?

He frowned sternly on the bright air.

-- Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.

-- Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.

- James Joyce, Ulyses Nestor