Was Ireland neutral?

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by trumpetplayer992, Mar 3, 2006.

  1. djcrtoye

    djcrtoye Member

    That question has always bugged me because if the Nazi's had invaded this country surely he would have all the British Isles including Ireland. I know that Irish men fought for the British armed forces. Were they the only members of the Commonwealth at the time not to send troops to help in the cause. Was it because they were anti- British or was that they thought it was not their fight. Surely if Hitler had his way Ireland would have been under his jackboot as well, so neutral or not they would have suffered as well. I hope some body can answer this question.
     
  2. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    This may help explain it.

    De Valera in his wartime speeches told a story of a small state trying to survive and maintain its independence in a dangerous world dominated by big powers, a small state which stood for certain principles of international behaviour and for national rights, including the right to remain neutral. Notwithstanding the occasional gesture in the allied direction, de Valera’s public stance on the war combined strict political neutrality with a moral distancing of Ireland from both sides of the conflict. The only time he deviated from this position was in May 1940 when he expressed opposition to the German invasion of the Low Countries: it "would be unworthy of this small nation if…I did not utter our protest against the cruel wrong which has been done to them."


    http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/war.htm



    Conquest of the island of Ireland was not a strategic goal for Germany

    What formed German policy more than anything was the desire to see Eire remain neutral. When German attempts to gain air superiority as part of Operation Sealion were repulsed Ireland largely ceased to be of much interest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_WW2
     
  3. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    Just to add to Owen's post:


    De Valera chose neutrality, because with one eye on Britain and with the scars of the Civil War still vivid and unhealed it was perhaps the most pragmatic approach.



    A military alliance with any other power would have been perceived by Britain as a direct threat to her own security and an alliance with Britain would have been anathema to many elements within not only Fianna Fail but within militant republican factions.

    Eire had also only just startied its own defence policy after the new 1937 constitution, which allowed it to take control of its own military ports and develop its army (which had then until then been under British control or constraints).


    However, even though the public declarations were of neutrality, in fact Eire participated a lot in Allied plans and actions - there were no restrictions on Irishmen joing the British army, British airmen and sailors who were supposed to be interned were silently returned (whereas Luftwaffe pilots were interned, especially after Germany accidently bombed the country), and Eire provided a lot of intelligence to the British na d Americans. It had even developed a secret contingency plan with the British in case of a German invasion.

    But there were others in Ireland who actively sought German support, and their activities were also a problem for Ireland. The IRA's bombing campaign in Britain during the war, even though ineffective, was supported by the Irish government (covertly at least) because of the Irish constitution's declaration of a united Ireland.

    Probably the most comprihensive book on Ireland during the war is:

    "In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality 1939-45) by Robert Frisk (a great read)
     
  4. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    This is a cause of immense shame to me that so many Irishmen had to enlist in the colors of another nation because their own nation wouldnt take up the fight. I agree with the concept of a country wishing to be neutral but the example of Holland should have alerted De Valera to Hitler''s intentions. If I think you important enough, I'll invade you. Treaties mean nothing.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  5. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

  6. Mike_F

    Mike_F Member

    Lots of strange replies in here.. Most "off-topic" unfortunately.
    Was Ireland (Eire) neutral? Government wise that's a definite NO, people wise that's a definite "maybe".

    This may be a misquote by me but I have read somewhere that more Irish (Eire) people were in the British army than were in the IRA during the WWII time period..

    The Irish Government were soooo "pished" with those who left the Irish army, calling them deserters, (which technically they were) that they made their return home very difficult and in some instances punished them and their families by getting them sacked from employment, taking away their pension rights, making employment difficult if not impossible, and many faced harsh discrimination... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22425684
     
  7. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    One of the interesting what ifs to me was the suggestion (? Confirmed / unconfirmed ?) that Churchill favoured Irish unification if Ireland joined the allies in the 2nd world war - mind you he also favoured unification with France, USA and might have had a few good words for s if Hitler had invaded hell.

    I was trying to find a reference to this (Churchill's "offer" to the Irish Govt) - but it might have just been something he passingly said, in a similar way to the quote about hell.

    On the other hand just as Spain might have been slightly 'less than neutral' as regards U-boat supply - I don't think Hitler in turn would have really trusted "Ireland" - by invading numerous "neutrals" already he'd kind of made all "neutrals" his enemy already. He was more of a 'with me or against me' rationaliser he didn't see the point of neutrals and if you didn't help him you were in the way and lined up for some future snack.

    At no point would Switzerland or Sweden have remained neutral had Hitler had it all his own way, and I think ultimately they knew that quite early on, they just couldn't admit it, because Hitler would have taken them out without even waiting until he had digested his other "meals" - ultimately by playing neutral these countries were stalling for time and ultimately they were fortunate that their gambles paid off, and I think are still rather thankful for that.

    Of course I may be wrong, but this is only an opinion of a "what if" ;)

    All the best,

    Rm.
     
  8. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    Ah, I've remembered now I was recently listening to this, where the subject of Churchill's offer to De Valera is also discussed here:

    http://worldwariipodcast.net/2012/09/episode-60b-talk-history/

    In an interesting wide ranging discussion between Ray Harris and Zach Twamley about WW2 - where they touch on it about 33 minutes in.

    There's snippets of information about how Hitler "treated" and viewed "neutrals" elsewhere in this podcast too.

    Nb. the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

    Rm.
     
  9. Drayton

    Drayton Senior Member

    There has been much confusion of nomenclature in this thread.

    Following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, the legal name for that part of the island of Ireland excluded from the United Kingdom was, from 1922, the Irish Free State, distinguished from the part remaining in the UK, entitled Northern Ireland.

    In 1937 the government of the Irish Free State attempted to adopt the name Eire for its territory. However, as that word is the Gaelic name for "Ireland", it necessarily carried the implication, enshrined in its Constitution, that its territory extended to the whole of island of Ireland, ignoring both the de facto and the de jure status of Northern Ireland. Use of Eire to refer to the Irish Free State was there partisan.

    The international status of the Irish Free State was an autonomous independent "dominion" within the Commonwealth, and formally recognised by the Statute of Westminster 1931.

    In 1947 the Irish Free State formally seceded from the Commonwealth and became the Republic of Ireland. Use of the term Republic of Ireland to refer to the WW2 period is both misleading and tendentious.

    Throughout WW2 the Irish Free State declared a formal status of neutrality. The rationale for such status and the manner in which neutrality was displayed may be subjects for legitimate debate, but the fact, in international law, of neutrality is not.
     
    Rich Payne and dbf like this.
  10. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Haven't seen it mentioned on this thread yet, but one issue worth highlighting is the treatment of those Irishmen who volunteered to serve in the British forces in WWII after they returned to their homeland. In particular, those several thousand men from the Irish military who volunteered. These men were branded as "deserters" and de Valera used the Emergency Powers Act to dismiss them from service after the war which meant they were ineligible for public service for 7 years. They did not receive a formal pardon until 2012.
     
    dbf likes this.
  11. Drayton

    Drayton Senior Member

    It was mentioned in Post 66, 30 March 2015.
     
  12. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Fair enough. Still - no harm mentioning it again. Just like there is no harm mentioning again the Irish government sending condolences to Germany on Hitler's death. Unfortunately, WWII and its aftermath wasn't exactly the proudest moment in the history of the Irish state. Many thousands of Irishmen did however rise above the actions of their government and act honorably and with distinction during WWII.
     
  13. NickFenton

    NickFenton Well-Known Member

    Interesting topic although i'm loathed too comment as there appear to be tooooooo many banned members who made comment here, never to return.

    Does not Ireland's involvement in WW1 also have an ultimate impact on the reaction of the Irish people in WW2, both fore and against? Part covered here.
     
  14. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    I count 2, and it's a very old thread. Don't see any indication that it was their comments here which lead to their demise.

    Carry on regardless, I say. :)
     
  15. ww2ni

    ww2ni Senior Member

    Please take a look at my website "The Second World War in Northern Ireland" at http://www.ww2ni.webs.com and you will see the involvement of people from both North and South of the Border during WW2.

    One example is Frederick Strutt who is buried in Dublin.
    A civilian from Eire who came north to work at R.A.F. Ballyhalbert and was working on runway lighting when he was killed in an accident involving an aircraft.

    Hope this will be of use.

    Andy
     
  16. Mike_F

    Mike_F Member

    Agree with dbf. Don't see anything contentious enough in here to get anyone banned. Yet... :lol:

    smdarby. Drayton is right as I guess you now know. Did you go back and read my post, No 66 in this topic?

    Drayton. Thanks for keeping us all (especially me) right about the use of Eire when I should have said Irish Free State.
    And thanks for teaching me a new word. Tendentious. A wonderful word that I had to Google. However my misuse of Eire was not me showing a bias, tendency or purpose to cause argument or even deep discussion. I was just plain wrong. Oppppss. :(

    Maybe any replies should be focused on it's title. Was Ireland neutral?
    And another message/thread started about the Irish men and women who joined the British army during WWII and the after-effects of their actions from when they enlisted until 2012.

    ww2ni (Andy) I took a quick peek at your very well produced website. Nice work indeed. However I struggled to find the bits about people from south of the border.. any chance you can help out by messaging me the direct link plz???
     
  17. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    Here is my 2p.

    The Irish Free State was neutral in WW2. It was a nationalist state founded in opposition to rule from London. it had a complicated relationship with the IRA, whose members had been purged in a very bloody way in 1923, but operated as a kind of mafia within the free state (according to an old chum brought up in Cork. His father a customs official told him to never accept a favour from these because they will ask for one in return) ) .

    Irish Nationalists had a lot of sympathy in both world wars with small countries bullied by their neighbours - hence the national Volunteers in the 16th Irish Division

    Free State Neutrality did not stop many of its citizens contributing to the allied cause. There were too many irish soldiers sailors and airmen to try to mention.

    One of the biggest contributions made by Ireland was by a Regiment which only exists in legend. The Germans had the Organisation Todt served by slave labour . The Allies had "Mcalpine's Fusiliers" which paid its navvies a lot better. These were the construction companiws which built the airfoield programme 1942-44 and the mulberry harbours.

    They are also forgotten and largely unrecorded in Britain The Museum of London in Docklands has a good WW2 exhibit - except no mention of the Irish anywhere.. The preceding, politically sensitive gallery explains how London was built on the profits of sugar and slavery. That may have been so, but it was built largely by the Irish, from the Regent;s canal to the railways and then rebuilt after the war. .
     
    smdarby likes this.
  18. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    Would have to agree with Sheldrake that the Irish people (as opposed from their IFS) weren't always "neutral" and were basically free (in their own minds) to pick a side, and hence have reactions occurred (whether right or wrong) to such subsequently, but it would be great to recognise far more -elsewhere- what their contributions were. How many Irish Americans fought and worked against Germany, and the list goes on.

    It's just the question was about "Ireland" as a state, which as it turns out should have been about the "Irish Free State" - and as goes with the name they were "Free" to choose. It "woz after all wot the war was for".

    Was Ireland neutral, as in did the Irish Free State itself whether opening or secretly support either side. I think that there is some evidence suggested that the US "persuaded" the "IFS" to quietly aid in air and sea repatriation of allies that strayed into Irish areas, as well as detaining German spies that were trying to slip north into the UK. Also they may even have provided material support off the west coast to help to somewhat bridge the allied Atlantic air gap.

    I'd be wondering was there actual evidence if the IF state assisted Germany in some way. On the whole I think that evidence seems to suggest that they sought to remain neutral mostly in that effect - i.e. "IFS" wasn't secretly resupplying U-Boats in Dingh Bay. Or flying beached U-boat crews back to Germany or occupied France. There is some evidence to suggest that Spanish ports were "pressured" to do that.

    Even in the fictional "The Eagle has Landed"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_Has_Landed_%28film%29

    The Irishman there wasn't actually working for the "IFS" but because he was such a large part of the plot if you wandered in and watched it half-through you might think that he was?

    Rm.
     
  19. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Good point, Sheldrake. My grandfather from County Louth worked in an aircraft factory in Portsmouth during the war (where he met my grandmother). Makes you wonder how many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Irish workers contributed to the war effort, not just navvies but those who worked in arms factories also.
     
  20. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    I'd add in this thread too how the "Irish Free State" reacted to Irish peoples that assisted the allied war effort in WW2. The UK was at war with Germany, so treated UK citizens that aided Germany as such. Ireland as a "neutral" had certain responsibilities, how was it (or any neutral country) supposed to treat with citizens that fought in "foreign" wars. Or indeed civilians that worked in countries engaged in such. I think from the evidence they took a fairly pragmatic approach about workers, their remitted wages were probably helping alleviate some of the poverty in Ireland and so were actually "helping" the "IFS", but were a bit stricter on the service of IFS citizens in "foreign" armies. It's a tough call though as it seems that when Ireland broke from the UK there were agreements that Irish people could still work for and in the UK, even in the police and army (I guess?). How many Irish, half Irish, quarter Irish are there, they all count! I'm sure I have some Irish ancestry too back there. So we do in deed have much to thank, ourselves for that.

    Did the Irish Government cover up mass starvation in 1920s?
    http://podbay.fm/show/363368392/e/1415713516?autostart=1
     

Share This Page