Comments by "Taint ABird" (@taintabird23) on "Why was Ireland Neutral in WW2?" video.
-
@MarkMcAllister-ni9sf No, sorry, you are wrong. The IRA wanted Britain to lose, the Irish government and the vast majority of public opinion did not - de Valera suppressed the IRA before the end of 1941 and executed two of them. Your opinion regarding a conquered Ireland is speculation and suggests a sectarian undertone to your selective ill-informed analysis.
Your claim, 'all of that to not cooperate with the English' is no borne out by contemporary pro-British commentators: Frank Pakenham, a lecturer and historian from a landed Anglo-Irish family visited Dublin in October 1939, estimated 8 out of 10 supported neutrality and were ‘mildly supportive’ of the Allies. Even Churchill acknowledged in 1940 that ‘three quarters of the people of Southern Ireland are with us, but the implacable, malignant minority can make so much trouble that de Valera dare not declare for the British side in the war’. Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporters. ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’.
I'm not sure what 'trying to lawyer your way out of' something is supposed to mean, but you are not speaking the truth as you claim. You don't even know enough about the topic to muster a coherent response.
My original claim that Churchill was selling the unionists down the river in 1940 still stands.
14
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
'DeValera was a dictator.'
He was not. He won more elections than any other Irish political leaders. Ireland is the only country to have gained its independence between the World Wars that maintained its democracy unbroken until today.
'He was arrogant, a racist and pro Nazi. He even paid homage and offered his condolences to the Nazi's on Hitler's death. His blind hatred of all things British blinded his judgement.
'
I don't think he was arrogant, but he was certainly single-minded. He was not a racist. Ireland was the only country in the world to put protections for it Jewish population in the Irish Constitution in 1937. The Irish-Jewish population never forgot that and named a forest in his honor in Israel in 1966 - some racist, eh?. He was also NOT pro-Nazi. He refused to send an Irish team to 1936 Olympics because he did not wish to participate in Hitlers pantomime. He offered condolences on the Hitlers death - a mistake - but this was at a time when Churchill was pressurizing the Irish to hand over Axis diplomats to them, in breach of Irish neutrality. He also sent condolences upon the death of Churchill - does this mean he was pro-Imperialist too?
'It would've been far better for Ireland and everyone else if Michael Collins had survived and been our leader. '
Possibly, be we don't know that for sure. Collins had plans to run a terror war in Northern Ireland, and who knows where that would have led. Fine Gael, populated by his supporters, also supported neutrality in WW2.
'When DeValera was asked if Ireland would give refuge to small Jewish children and babies to escape the Holocaust his answer was " No - We do not want to be contaminated by these people." - This in our name and to our Shame.
'
He never said those words, you ignorant prick. Any efforts the de Valera made to help the jews were blocked by the Department of Justice. This is a matter of record, if you ever cared to read a fucking history book.
'Yes - We were neutral - To our Total and Utter Everlasting Shame. It's only because of the tens of thousands of decent Irishmen and women who volunteered to fight the Nazi's in both the American, British and Coomonwealth armies that in a small way saved our honour.'
Speak for yourself. I suspect your shame and self-loathing could alleviated if you actually researched the facts, but I think you like it too much. And I say that having had great uncles in both Bomber Command and the 8th Army.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'The IRA declared war on the UK in support of Nazi Germany.'
The IRA was already at war with the UK. They sought an alliance with the Nazis as a Nazi invasion remove regimes in both Dublin and Belfast and unite the country.
'They had secret contact with the Nazi's and there was even a plan to invade Ulster in support of the Nazi invasion of England.'
Not that secret. What they didn't tell you in the Orange Hall was that by mid-1940 de Valera's government found out about the IRA plot and rounded up the IRA. Two IRA men were executed.
' Yes, the IRA is an unofficial group of irregular civilians who always adopted terror tactics but it gives an insight into the will of the people.'
On the contrary, the behaviour of the democratically elected government that is the insight into the will of the people.
'The Irish are said to have permitted U-boats to refuel in "neutral" Irish waters despite refusing access to the allies...
In 23/10/1940 Lord Strabolgi stated in a speech in the House of Lords that refuelling of uboats in Eire was ‘physically impossible because submarines did not use gasoline but heavy fuel oil...such supplies could only be carried in a surface ship which could not fail to be observed and reported’. Stabolgi demanded to know the UK government had allowed such false rumours to circulate. Lord Snell, replied saying that the Government had no evidence that enemy submarines were supplied from Irish territory. The idea that heavy fuel oil could be conveyed in large quantities to submarines, which are distinctive warships without anyone knowing about it is grotesque’, Lord Strabolgi remarked. In contrast, the Royal Navy were free to pursue their enemy in Irish waters, contrary to your claim.
'The Catholic Church was sympathetic to the Nazi's and the Vatican arranged the escape of a great many Senior Nazi's after the war. I mention this because the Catholic church was a (the?) real power in Ireland at that time.'
The Catholic Church was sympathetic to anybody who was anti-communist, but of course you didn't have to be Catholic to help the Nazis escape justice. Look at the UK, where the Catholic Church has no real power, some 7,000 Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and their families were granted post-war asylum, many subsequently moving on to Canada or the US. Men of the 15th and 19th Waffen SS (Latvian) Divisions and the 20th Waffen SS (Estonian) Division were also offered a life in Britain. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Antanas Gecas was a Lithuanian Nazi who lived in Edinburgh. Under his original name of Gecevicius, he was named in a list of war criminals living in the UK compiled by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in 1986. British intelligence even employed him after the war. He was NEVER indicted for war crimes, despite a multitude of evidence testifying to his participation in a number of heinous activities. He died peacefully,unlike men, women and children he hanged in Minsk, in 2001. Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.
'Finally, those brave Irish men (7.000?) who returned after joining the British army to fight the Nazi's were treated like traitors by the government and people of Ireland. Many of those men had their lives blighted by their brave decision to fight fascism. This "history" is so, so wrong headed.'
About 70,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British Armed forces and none of theme were treated like traitors when they returned home, though nor were they treated like heroes; deserters from the Irish Army who joined the British Army were barred from jobs in the Public Service and were ostracised for being traitors. In the 1980s, the British Army were still arresting Irishmen who deserted the British Army in peacetime, for the same reason. Treachery.
You're knowledge of Irish history of this period of the East Belfast variety. Imbued with anti-Irish ignorance.
2
-
2
-
@djyork8634 You said: 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'...it is not semantics to assume you meant 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'.
'The Irish government claimed neutrality but in reality were quite clear on their sympathies when they offered their'condolences' on Hitlers suicide.'
Contemporary commentators never suggested that the Irish government was pro-Nazi, and your comment does little to explain away the extensive co-operation Ireland rendered to the UK during the war. It is of course quite possible you know nothing about it. If the Irish government was sympathetic to the Nazi's then you need to explain why Ireland was the only country in the world NOT to send a team to Berlin Olympics because of the the Nazi's behaviour and why Ireland was the only country in the world to place a special protection for its Jews in its constitution. To follow your logic, the British supported the Japanese in WW2 because Prince Charles attended Hirohito's funeral or worse, that the Irish supported Churchill's policy on Ireland because de Valera sent his condolences upon his death too.
'I'm well aware of Irish history particularly the shameful episodes of soldiers who fought bravely for the British returning home to be scorned - a blight on Irish history.'
It's not considered a blight on Irish history in Ireland and I say that having had three great Uncles in British uniform in WW2. There is no evidence you know anything about Irish history, quite the opposite in fact. I doubt you ever lived in Belfast and you certainly never lived Dublin.
'The colonial nature of the British is in the past, outside of the extremist imbeciles to be found in any country, it is an extremely wecoming place.'
Brexit and the casual way the Irish were expected to go along with their role as collateral damage suggest that the colonial nature of the relationship is still harboured among the English who long for 'the good old days'. I have not been to Britain since the referendum, so I cannot comment on the welcoming nature of the place these days, but I have it on good understanding that many living there from other countries are experiencing a less than warm welcome. Your extremists are increasing.
'It is a shame that things are not so pleasant in Ireland.'
Well then you need to visit again. Ireland is a very welcoming place, with no hang ups about immigrants and no right-wing political parties with any representation. Ireland has never been considered xenophobic but arseholes are usually given short-shrift. The Catholic Church has little power in Ireland these days, and as a universal church has little issue with foreigners - so much for your theory. Ireland now has a higher proportion of its population born outside the country than the United Kingdom has. The British make up the lsecond argest minority in Ireland, and they seem to settle in well.
' A quick lesson for you - no one alive today is responsible for the acts of the past.'
One of the problems with the British, well the English mainly, is that they have simply never come to terms with their Imperial past. Because they have never processed the consequences of their great achievements - its not taught in your schools for example - they tend to wash their hands of it, either by victim blaming or claiming victimhood themselves. Another way is by saying 'no one today is responsible for the acts of the past', a meaningless statement of the obvious. A quick lesson for you - in Ireland we live with the consequences of British rule in Ireland every single day. Its just part of our routine.
'Let these things pass, and move forward and lose the hatred'.
Telling the British things they don't want to hear does not signify 'hatred'. When you come to terms with your own past and actually learn something about Ireland you will understand that. As a nation, the English need to mature.
Its like everyone in Britain blaming the French for the invasion of 1066..
The English have no time for the French to this day, their dislike for them is second only to the Germans. And of course the French did not partition your island either..
'(and technically it was they who invaded Ireland in the first place, not the English)'
In Ireland they were known as the Anglo-Normans for good reason.
'Xenophobia is an extremely ugly trait, and ultimately just another way of demonstrating ignorance.'
It is. And the English have embraced with all their heart, 15.1 million of them at least. With only 13% of Britain's population born somewhere else your countrymen think their culture is being denuded because of immigration, when in fact it enhances it. Why are they so insecure in their identity?
'There's an excellent life lesson which I think will serve you well. Best of luck!'
I think the prescription was made out to you, I don't need it. Try closer to home.
Oh and do us all a favour, will you? Get over the war - everyone else has.
2
-
@djyork8634 Do you have an abridged version?
The only problem you have is that anything that makes you feel uncomfortable - England's less than stellar record in Ireland for example - is automatically interpreted as 'hatred'. I hate nobody. It is not my role to make allowances for your failure to come to terms with your nations past, an ability to balance the bad with the good. You could learn a lot from the Germans in this regard.
Earlier you claimed that Ireland was backward country. This is not the case. Ireland has made success of EU membership while the British made pig's ear of it, by all accounts. Ireland has a more dynamic economy, a more productive workforce, and a higher average income than the UK. The minimum wage is higher and Ireland has no barriers to workers from other countries coming to live and work in the country. In the United Nations Human Development Index for 2019, Ireland is ranked third highest in the world. The UK is 12 places below Ireland.
As the UK faces into a once in 300 year recession, followed by its choice to trade on WTO rules only, and with a liar and a charlatan for PM, the following is some data for you to consider. It makes a sound argument that in fact the UK is a more backward country than Ireland in 2020. You could learn a great deal from us if only you could let go of your prejudices and open your mind to new ideas.
You guys live shorter lives, are closer to being a failed state, have less democracy (your lack of democratic accountability is a shocker, believe me, I don't know how you put up with it), makes fewer contributions to global peace, and have a less free press than the Irish. Check it out
Life Expectancy at Birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Fragile State Index (Formerly Failed State Index) – Ireland ahead of UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index
Democracy index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Global Peace Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Freedom of the Press Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)
Economic Freedom of the World – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
Good Country Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://goodcountry.org/index/results#
Better Life Index – Education
Irish people spend longer in education, have better Maths, literacy and science rates with 82% of Irish people having completed secondary school than the UK. However, only one in five English people complete secondary school.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leehallam9365 'You question the decision of the British Government to ally itself with the Soviet Union.'
Yes, I do. While it makes military sense of course, you cannot make the claim that participation in the war was a 'moral' issue as you claim later on, without confronting the fact that Stalin, not Hitler, was the most evil man of the modern era in 1941 - and Britain was happy ally with him. That is just a matter of plain fact. It is also the case that the Irish were fiercely anti-Communist and saw little difference between Stalin and Hitler. You fall into the trap of moral cognitive dissonance.
'I am afraid you demonstrate those prejudices further in your references of events 20 years before.'
I am demonstrating no prejudices. I am pointing out the reality of 1940s Ireland. The reality is, the entire Irish government of wartime Ireland had fought against the British in the Irish War of Independence and it was Churchill who gave the green light to take revenge against the civilian population and made it official policy during the conflict. It is not my problem that this shameful part of Britain's imperial past is not taught in British schools. There was no Article 50 for Ireland. The generation of 1940s Ireland had no reason to trust the British. Public opinion would not allow any entry to the war on Britain's side unless attacked by Germany first.
'It's the same point, that was history, even then. To justify decisions on the basis of historic grievances, is just wrong.'
That is easy for you to say, the UK is the only country in Europe that never had foreign troops on its soil but for the Irish government of wartime Ireland those issues were not in past, they were real and were represented by the border. Your comment is odd as the English in particular still distrust Germany to this day even though they won both world wars.
'The question before Ireland at that point was not, do I love the British, rather it was, which side in this conflict should I take?'
That question never even arose!. The question in Ireland was, how do we stay out of yet another war between the great powers of Europe. Ireland condemned Nazi Germany in its invasion of the neutral Benelux countries. It is also a fact that Churchill refused to give an undertaking not to invade Ireland in the same way if it suited him.
'Ireland's neutality was not in the end crucial to the war.'
The Irish made the same argument in 1940. Interestingly, according to Cecil Liddell of MI5 in January ‘46 ‘...as things turned out Eire neutral was of more value...than Eire belligerent would have been. Had Eire come into the war her people would have been conscripted...for an invasion that never materialized. They would have to have been supplied with arms to resist attacks by air and land...when supplies were practically non-existent ‘particularly after the fall of France...to the accompaniment of minor guerrilla warfare by the IRA.' He could also have added that neutral Eire supplied thousands of people to work in the British war industries.
'Yet the valour of the tens of thousands of their own citizens who ignored their government is a rebuke to that policy, and the decision of DeValera to sign Hitler's book of condolence, is a symbol of the moral smallness of Irish leaders.'
Oh please, this analysis is simplistic and belongs with the Daily Mail (which supported the rise of Hitler, funnily enough). De Valera took a neutral stance on British recruitment in Ireland, as pointed out in the Cranbourne Report. He did nothing to prevent it. It is a mistake to see Irish recruitment as a rubuke of neutrality: The Volunteers Project based at University College Cork has interviewed veterans on their experiences. Most considered they were fighting for the defence of Ireland as well as Britain and all supported Irish neutrality. Many of the volunteers also believed that their war-time endeavours were not incompatible with an Irish national identity, or a demonstration of hostility to neutrality – there was, after all, a long tradition of Irish service in the British Armed Forces. Others joined for their anti-fascist views or simply in search of military excitement. The old joke in the British army was that the Irish 'knew who they were neutral against'. I had three great uncles that served, one in the 8th Army and two others in Bomber Command.
Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Irish nationalist, ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’.
De Valera did not sign any book of condolences, his condolences were made personally to the German legate and his family as a demonstration - an unnecessary one at that stage in the war - of Irish neutrality. He also offered the man and his family political asylum, which was refused. Ireland paid a price for 'getting away with neutrality' as you say. This incident was widely circulated in the American press by the US legate in Dublin. It was vindictive, but it was also political - Roosavelt before his death was already trying to undermine de Valera's influence in his relection with the Irish-American diaspora. The US legate to Dublin was his husband in law. Churchill too, seized on it because he did not recognise Irish neutrality in the first place and wanted to silence any attempts by Dev to seek unification.
However, nobody accused de Valera of being pro-Nazi, his anti-fascist credentials had been established way back in the 1930s when he was head of the League of Nations.
2
-
@leehallam9365
The invasion of Poland was a matter for the UK, it was a world power playing geopolitics – but you have provided no moral justification for Ireland join the war because of a treaty the UK had with Poland. If you consider Ireland risking its own political stability to join in a war with a former imperial master on these grounds, then you are not dealing with reality. The traditional British response to such realities is dismiss it as ‘victimhood’, which means you simply don’t need to deal with it. This is dishonest. But it is also avoiding the proposition that when reading history we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those at the time and judge them on these grounds – you have shown evidence you understand that but then you cop out. What I have been trying to draw out of you is the moral reason Ireland should have joined the war. You have avoided it.
I’m going to lay my cards on the table here – I think Hitler was the most evil man in history by the end of the war, but I only know that from reading history backwards. I’m trying to find out from what the moral argument was for Ireland joining the war.
I disagree that I defame Britain. I’m trying to present the landscape from an Irish perspective and from you I’m trying get back what moral responsibility Ireland had to Britain’s commitment to Poland. I’m trying to find the moral argument that you believe compelled Ireland to join the war, so far unsuccessfully. You have not articulated what that moral reason is, either through oversight or avoidance. An attack or a declaration of war by Germany would have brought Ireland into the war, but it never came. So, what moral imperative was there for an Irish government in the 1940s to join the war? Incidentally, Ireland also feared invasion from Britain. While Churchill gave Roosevelt an assurance that he would not invade Ireland and make life difficult for the President in the US, he refused to give any such assurance to de Valera.
Regarding discrediting Ireland: the Democratic Party in the US was deeply divided between the WASPish side of the party that Roosevelt belonged to and the rising Catholic-Irish American element, which included Joseph Kennedy, the father of the future President. Kennedy and others were opposed to US material support for Britain not to mention involvement in the war - until Pearl Harbor changed that. de Valera had fairly strong connections to them and had used their influence in the 1938 Anglo-Irish negotiations. Roosevelt and particularly his brother in law wanted to discredit de Valera and Ireland so that the Irish-American faction within his party could not use Ireland to undermine them, as they saw it, in the post-war world. It worked for about 15 years.
It is taken as a given that the British public are not interested in Ireland – but it was an issue for the Ulster unionists. Your quote from Bevan is reflects that it was government policy.
I’m not sure what you mean by this when you say I'm dishonest. Being dismissive of the realities that faced the Irish government in the 1940s is anything but honest in my view. You place no moral value on avoiding war while unarmed and politically divided and are quick to dismiss the legacy of British activity in Ireland in the 1919-1921 period as ‘victimhood’. ‘Political convenience’ is your prejudice, political reality is my reasoning.
Ireland and NATO: The war was nearly two years old when Stalin joined the war, but the British did not declare war on Stalin when he invaded eastern Poland which indicates that the defence of Poland was not a moral issue. It was about Germany. Ireland did not join NATO because of partition. You need to understand, this issue regarding partition was not settled until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and this transformed the relationship until Brexit. Partition was extremely divisive in Ireland, just because people in Britain have no interest in it does not mean the Irish felt the same way. Partition flew in the face of democracy, yet the Irish were expected to set this aside by those who denied this democratic will of the Irish people…to fight a war to in defence of democracy. The hypocrisy of the Americans in this regard was particularly galling to the Irish. That did not change in the 1950s when Ireland considered NATO membership. While the Irish could ally themselves with the United States, they could not do so with the UK as public feeling would not support it. Political reality.
I did not suggest Britain could not supply Ireland – it could have, but Churchill would not arm neutral Ireland as a matter of policy. Churchill also stopped the American’s giving the Irish Defence Forces any heavy equipment, the strategy was to keep Ireland dependent on the Allies for defence. And yes, there is a good argument to be made that Irish neutrality helped the UK, and you have provided no evidence to contradict that.
Liddel was your M15 man, he was not Irish. These were not ‘diplomatic words’ as you state, M!5 is not the foreign office or the diplomatic corps, and they were never meant for public consumption or Irish ears. This was an M15 internal report delivered in January 1946, emerging years later with the release of archival documents. This was the reality of Irish neutrality without the politics. Behind the scenes Ireland co-operated and provided any assistance it could to British Intelligence. If you think MI5s contemporary assessment is ridiculous, then we will have to differ on that, but it is not honest. The fact is there was no majority in Ireland for participation in the war. Various British and American commentators gauged public feeling during the war, and found none. It is quite possible some could have been convinced, but it is likely too that de Valera would have faced a coup from within his own party.
ireland was not choosing to stand against an enemy. Ireland didn’t have an enemy. The British did. It was opposed to Partition, Imperialism, Fascism and Communism.
I agree, its fun to speculate about how things could turned out if different decisions had been made. You demonstrate the usual argument that usually ends with the proposition that Ireland could well be a united country today had Ireland joined the war. Yet, in the 1940s he Irish were aware that Unionists and Nationalists had fought side-by-side in the Great War and within two years Ireland was partitioned. Even now, 22 years after the border issue has been settled, it is difficult to see any sign that the Unionists in Northern Ireland have warmed up to the notion of Irish unity despite removing pretty much all the issues that unionists placed as obstacles to unity. Ireland had the distinction of being the only country that gain independence during the interwar period that managed to remain a democracy, but it was a close-run thing. Would that democratic consensus have held had Ireland entered the war? Let’s ask an Englishman: ‘If he has wished to do so, could de Valera have brought Eire into the war on the side of Great Britain inspite of Partition? He would have been bitterly opposed by the IRA, then a formidable organisation, capable of gaining large numbers of sympathisers…;while many of his own supporters were convinced that entry into the war on the side of Britain would have meant the occupation of the ports and airfields by British troops, and that, once there, they would never have been got rid of’… De Valera is a very astute politician…he may, none the less, have been politically right in deciding that as long as Partition remained, his Government would not have survived an attempt to bring Eire into the war. (Guy Liddel, 28th May, 1945).
It is also the case that post-war the British government turned its back on Northern Ireland gave unionists a free hand in running the place as they saw fit. This in turn led the violence the civil rights protests and later The Troubles. It took until the mid-1980s before the British could acknowledge the problem required a political solution. Had that political solution existed before the outbreak of the war, things may well have been different.
So that leaves us with the moral argument. Can you make one?
2
-
@leehallam9365 ‘It was certainly the case that Germany did not invade Ireland, to what degree that was due to its neutrality being successful, or was down to Britain not being defeated is open to debate.’
No, in fairness to you I don’t think there is ANY debate.
Britain not getting invaded prevented Ireland from getting invaded. We know today that the Nazis would only have attempted an invasion of Ireland as part of an invasion of Britain, and that they had no confidence in invading Ireland separately without knocking out Britain first. Irish neutrality also prevented a political split internally, which would have been exploited by the Germans, no doubt and who know, perhaps by the British too. Neutrality was the first time there was consensus in new state on anything. Not joining the allies kept the Germans from attacking Ireland, which was highly vulnerable to the Luftwaffe. Assisting the British in secret prevented an invasion from Britain. To this day, the Irish considered neutrality in WW2 to be a foreign policy success.
‘I think it is most unlikely the Germans did not see what Ireland was doing, they ignored it because it suited them.’
This is speculation. Ireland remained on the Nazi agenda even up to late 1940. In December that year at a meeting in Berlin where an invasion of Ireland was discussed, Hitler stated that ‘a landing in Ireland’ could ‘only be attempted if Ireland requests help’. Admiral Raeder considered that, British naval supremacy in the waters surrounding Ireland meant that no transport operation of troops to Ireland would be possible. This may have its roots in the de Valera’s statement that any invasion by Britain would result in a request for assistance from Germany. He told the Nazi’s that any attack by them would result in a request for help from Britain. Raeder was not even confident of a cross-channel invasion of England either, as it happens. However, there are no files on Ireland that indicate the Germans knew what the Irish were doing.
During that same month, December 1940, the Germans requested to send four serving military officers as military attaches to the German Legation in Dublin and were told that ‘refusal would be seen by the German Government in a most serious light’. De Valera refused the request stating that it would undermine neutrality. All military leave was cancelled and Dublin braced itself for air raids or an invasion. In early January several bombs fell on Ireland, (one damaging a synagogue in Dublin. It became the only synagogue that the Nazis ever paid for the repairs of). Incidentally, also during this month the Irish took in refugees from British, including children whose parents had been killed, a total of 2000 altogether. But I digress…
‘…it was a neutral country led by a man that from Churchill's perspective, was led by a man who had been among the leaders of an armed rebellion, while his country was at war.’
This is a perfectly logical argument. However, Churchill’s own intelligence agency was working hand in glove with its Irish counterpart, G2, since Chamberlain’s time and he knew, when he listened, that Ireland was playing ball behind the scenes. Churchill was a drama queen, and an old imperialist. It galled him that Ireland did not know its place and fall into line behind what he would have considered the ‘mother country’. It mattered little to him that the public display of neutrality concealed a private benevolence that met most of the UKs needs. As MI5 pointed out, there was little additional advantage, if any, to be gained through having a belligerent Ireland, and perhaps some considerable disadvantage. At the end of the war, Churchill found time to have that side-swipe at Ireland, but Churchill was disingenuous given MI5s account of its Irish activities.
There was no moral reason for Ireland to join the war. And Ireland would have put its differences with Britain aside has Ireland been attacked or if Germany had declared war on Ireland, as ‘Plan W’ indicates. The Irish position was no different to that of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and so forth. Ireland’s ‘problem’ is that Ireland was never attacked.
‘If you look below the racial aspect, you will notice it was an attack on the principle of nationalism…’
That’s not very reassuring if your Irish, is it? Britain had an empire base on a notion that some races are entitled to dominate others, including the Irish.
‘When we get down to the basic moral choice over neutrality, we won't agree, and it is becoming repetitive.’
There was no moral dilemma for Ireland in being neutral, you have provided no logical basis for it. But the case you could make, and I’m surprised you have not yet, is that Hitler was undoubtedly the most evil man in human history by May 1945. The benefit of hindsight, and decades of research have all combined to ensure that most now have a certain view of the morality and immorality of various decisions made during the Second World War. Popular culture has given the reading of history backwards a free hand, while a certain obsession with the war is now a part of British culture. Putin is currently re-writing the Soviet history of the Great War, as are the Poles (I think). In the US it is taught that World War Two was fought to save the Jews. Commemoration and memory are often used to serve contemporary requirements. But again, I digress…
‘All nations have their national mythology, mine does, I think this might be part of yours.’
It may well be as you say, though the Irish spend much less time thinking about this period than the British do. In fact, only for the British ‘mythology’, which ranges from ‘Irish collaborated with the Nazis’ across to ‘the moral bankruptcy’ argument, I think few Irish people would give much thought to this period of Irish history. It is clearly much more important to the British than to the Irish or indeed any of the countries of Europe once occupied by the Nazis. If you have any insights as to why this might be the case, I would be genuinely interested.
Ireland has been dealing with its national mythology over the last 30 years and has come a long way with it. There seems to be little evidence, no evidence in fact, that the English in particular have done something similar.
‘..and saying well we decided in 1936 is just silly, what's decided can be undecided.’
Agreed. But you provided no logical reason as why that change could have taken place.
‘However, my view is very simple, you don't need to like your allies, you don't have to trust them.’
Given the size and proximity of Ireland and partition in relation to Britain, I’m afraid you do. Remember, when you asked if the Irish were so stupid to believe that they could force Unionists into a united Ireland against their will? Churchill offered Irish unity to de Valera in exchange for an ending of neutrality in June 1940, without the knowledge of unionists. He seems to have offered it again in December 1941. He never consulted the unionists. Is that not moral bankruptcy? Is Britain’s necessity a moral code? Trust is vital.
John Redmond, the great constitutional Irish nationalist who campaigned for Home Rule had his career destroyed by his support for the Britain in the Great War. He was seen to have been duped by the British. Between the wars, it became clear that many of claims about German atrocities in Belgium used to recruit Irishmen were exaggerated. You can be sure that the ghost of John Redmond was in the room of the Irish cabinet during this time…
2
-
@leehallam9365 ‘However, it's little commented on how perhaps three quarters of protestants left the Republic after independence…’,
There are plenty of books and documentaries on the subject the existence which discount this notion that it has been little commented on. Ian Paisley regularly made claims that southern Protestant community were a persecuted minority prompting correspondence to the letters page of the Irish Times repudiating such claims from southern Irish protestants. Of course Catholic Ireland was not often a cold place for Irish protestants, but they remained an affluent, middle-class, professionals, that dominated the judiciary and produced two of Ireland’s nine Presidents. The banning of divorce and contraception in the 1930s was viewed as a hostile act by them generally and for those wishing to celebrate their British identity, they felt they could only do it in private. This was shared by some Irish Catholics nationalist also.
The Protestant community had been in decline since the disestablishment of the CoE, and, it nose-dived with the withdrawal of British administration in 1922. Others left because of their loyalty to the crown, and more still for economic reasons, just like Catholics. While most protestants in the Republic came from unionist backgrounds of a century ago, Irish protestants identify with the Irish state and have done so for decades now. Irish Free State did adopt a holier-than-thou level of Catholicism that was completely over the top, and for Protestants this was difficult. Recently protestant historians now also argue that their community must were too inclined to keep their heads down. From 1937 they had a constitution that explicitly protected them.
‘Is that really about a change in Irish Nationalism, or just Irish culture, are they really the same thing?’
It is both. After Independence, a very narrow view of what it was to be Irish became the norm: it was implicitly, white, Irish and Catholic. A number of factors influenced the change, including the Troubles in NI. A new notion of Irish nationalism emerged, which was more inclusive and allowed for a multi-layered identity. Ultimately, it became a corner stone of the Good Friday Agreement and led to the redefining of Articles 2 and 3 three of the Irish constitution, adopted by 94% of voters in the Republic. Our culture is international now anyway, our writers, musicians, film makers, politicians are Irish, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, American, British, Ulster Scots. Some of our finest literary works challenged that old binary notion of Irishness. Now life, and the Irish constitution, imitates the art.
In the event of a border poll, the citizens of the Republic have a vote too. It will be held on the same day as the one in NI. It is quite possible that NI could vote for unity and citizens south of the border will reject it. Any future united Ireland will have to be an agreed one and everything will on the table. I imagine there will need to be a sense that about 60% at least in favour, before a vote will be held.
‘Ireland and the EU actually believed it was right that laws be placed on the north, that they had no part in making...’
You’ve lost me here...
‘It's interesting two in light of your views on Partician, that Irish Nationalists took the view that the Remain vote in NI somehow invalidated the Leave vote in the UK overall applying in NI.’
Not in light of the Good Friday Agreement, it highlighted the democratic deficit at the heart of the UKs constitutional arrangement at time when British identity was never weaker.
‘Funny how a majority in NI counts in your mind in one case and not the other.’
Don’t confuse my ability to place myself in the Ireland of 1920 or 1940 with that of 2020. One is dealing with different realities. The GFA did not exist in 1920.
‘A lot will depend how NI special status works out…
I agree. No Irish government will want a 51% majority in favour of unity – it will need to be larger than that. I gave you examples, which you have ignored, that indicate that something is changing. Brexit Britain does not reflect their values or economic interests. Remember Northern Ireland voted to remain, manly for economic reasons.
There is no clamor for a border poll in the Republic either, and you are correct that the situation is fluid, however it is quite clear which way the momentum is going, and if we take that Northern Ireland’s existence was originally based on a sectarian headcount, then it would be foolish suggest it can be dismissed when the numbers are reversed. It certainly doesn’t bring Unionists much comfort.
‘As for Irish Nationalism, well it has changed, it's no longer tied to the Church, but it continues to be focused on its bigger neighbour, but has also taken on an ethnic nature.’
I don't understand your claim that Irish nationalism is becoming more ethnic. It is unfortunate that you see an Ireland standing up for itself as somehow intrinsically hostile to Britain, but that might reflect an insecurity on your side of the Irish Sea. Dismissing Irish utterances that you don’t like as ‘victimhood’ or ‘ethnic’ or ‘anti-British’ is simplistic. The idea that the Irish should just ‘know their place’ and pipe down has been one of the characteristics of Brexit and it has not gone unnoticed in Dublin, Northern Ireland, Brussels and elsewhere. I expect Ireland's focus is on Europe, not Britain, and that will increase post-Brexit. Ireland has reduced its dependency on UK over the years and this will continue by necessity now.
I emphasise England because it is the English vote that is taking the UK out of the EU. And it remains the case that there is no international land border on the island of Britain. You have no relationship with the British border in Ireland – you never have to deal with it.
‘Your bizarre idea that England will leave the UK is a fantasy…’
I know! Precisely nobody agrees with me in Ireland either. It’s a gut feeling. I feel that English nationalism will evolve in that direction in due course in part because Brexit will not solve any of the problems the English have with their democracy, their inequality etc.
‘..if you are of Irish ancestry, then that Empire at its height was your ancestors responsibility as much as mine.’
The British empire was a joint English and Scottish project. Ireland was different. Ireland was the only country in Europe that was ruled by a minority who were planted there; a people who were who practiced a different language, religion, had a different culture and customs, they had virtually sole access to the law and the enforcement of that law. It was this Anglo-Irish class that was empire building across the world, many of their descendants were southern protestants whose fate you feel is not talked about. The Gaelic Irish provided the rank and file of the army and navy. Ireland was the laboratory for the creation of the British empire, the place where plantation was first attempted and where blueprints for command and control were formulated. Ireland was the UKs first colony.
‘As for partition, you didn't take on my question about what Ireland would have been like without it.’
Partition dates to when to passing of the Home Rule bill in 1914, when the British government tolerated the arming of the UVF in resistance to it, and a mutiny of the British Army officer corps. That’s hardly democratic. Had Ireland not been partitioned, the avoidance of violence would have depended on the approach of nationalists and the British government. If the British had said to the unionists that they needed to work out an arrangement with Irish nationalism, then anything is possible. Had it come to pass, the emergence of two states each with dominant religious cultures would not have occurred. Unionists could have held the balance of political power, creating a more religiously plural state, still a member of the commonwealth and having participated in WW2. I will not discount the possibility there could have been sectarian bloodshed, of course, but a political arrangement could have been reached. Nobody consulted Irish nationalism in 1920.
‘The civil war demonstrated that the heroes of the Independence struggle, were every bit as capable of using violence to settle political disputes among themselves, as in fighting Britain.’
I agree, but it was conducted under pressure from London as the pro-Treaty faction was reluctant to move against de Valera’s faction. De Valera’s faction had little political support among the public. Democracy survived because, there was just enough common sense to take the gun out of politics. When de Valera came to power, he did not seek retribution and the army did not stage a coup. However, the bitterness remained a factor into the 1970s at least.
Surely if NI had been democratic there would have been no civil rights movement or outbreak of the Troubles in 1968?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fisher1907 Wrong. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland all declared neutrality in 1939.
Spain abandoned neutrality in the summer of 1940, offering the Nazis their services and becoming a non-belligerent ally. Spain u-boats were allowed to refuel in Vigo, for example. As the war turned, Franco declared neutrality again in 1943.
Sweden and Switzerland were neutrals which leaned in favour of the Axis.
Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway were all neutrals that became belligerent only when the Nazi's invaded them.
Portugal was neutral but under a fascist dictatorship. It's neutrality favoured the Allies.
Ireland was neutral, but provided assistance to the allies in secret. It remained neutral as the Nazi's never invaded Ireland or declared war on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joecook5689 I'm back, sorry for the delay. Here is some research on the topic. This is a quotation from Brian Barton from his book Northern Ireland and the Second World War.
'Until April 1941, when Belfast's first blitz brought them to their senses, it was difficult to raise recruits even for civil defence. The local force, 40,000 armed Protestants (B Specials and Local Defence Volunteers), never took their eyes off the main sectarian chance. The irony was that between September 1941 and May 1945 there were 11,500 northern volunteers as against 18,600 southerners passing through the Northern Ireland recruiting channel alone.'...later he comments: ' Apathy was pervasive. Cynics suggested that the suspension of twelfth of July demonstrations was to divert attention from the large number of able-bodied Orangemen who had not entered military service.'
This from Thomas Bartlett's book 'Ireland a History':
'A public-private contradiction emerges when the two Ireland’s respective roles in the Second World War are considered . Eire’s stance was often criticised in public by UK and US politicians, but in private its ‘contribution’ was tacitly, though rarely warmly, acknowledged. By contrast, Northern Ireland’s war effort was publicly praised on all sides ...yet in private, in report after report, there was much criticism of Northern Irelands lacklustre response to the needs of the UK war economy.
You state that Ireland would have loved to have seen Germany win the Battle of Britain - that is not borne out by the historical evidence. Neutrality was the only sustainable policy for Ireland, given the divisions within its society in relation to Britian, which had committed atrocities in Ireland less than 20 years before. Nonetheless, thousands of Irishmen volunteered in the British forces, thousands of others served nurses in British hospitals, or worked in British war industry; Irish military intelligence worked hand in hand with the British, even helping to crack Nazi codes, and repressing any that might have might facilitated Germany in attacking Britain.
The subject is complicated. There was a sense in the US and UK that Ireland 'got away with it' in terms of neutrality and both countries sought to discredit Irish neutrality in the immediate aftermath, making no public mention of any assistance the Irish rendered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leehallam9365 ‘…so yes I do claim moral credit for Britain in both instances.’
I’m not sure about the claiming of ‘moral credit’ for upholding a treaty and for holding out after the fall of France. That's setting the bar a bit low, isn't it? The treaty existed for geopolitical purposes, and while Britain was expected to fall in the summer of 1940, the Germans still had to press home their advantage. They failed.
‘That was not a moral decision, but the notion that we, or the Irish were choosing between the two, is ridiculous.’
Not from and Irish perspective: 1) There was no moral justification for Ireland declaring war on Germany when it was unarmed, particularly when there was consensus since 1936 that Ireland would be neutral in the coming war. 2) The British and French were Imperial nations and Ireland considered imperialism to be immoral – it is a tenet of Irish nationalism and the Irish of the 1940 did not trust a British leadership that was trying to kill them just a few years before, and partitioned their country; 3) the Irish considered the Nazi racial system to be immoral and indeed was the only country in the world not to send an Olympic team to the 1936 Berlin Nazi showpiece for this reason. 6) Catholic Ireland hated Stalin. Rightly or wrongly, many in Ireland saw a moral equivalence between all sides.
‘Germany was the prime aggressor, it was they who initiated the attack on Poland, who took country after country.’
The UK and France did not go to war against the Soviets when it invaded Eastern Poland because their treaty with Poland only specifically mentioned Germany as the aggressor. Thus they did not go to war for moral purposes but for geopolitical reasons: containing German ambitions.
'Second, this idea about the English not trusting the Germans, it matters little but it is nonsense… it's the French we don't trust.'
I don’t buy that. There is a venom towards Germany that does not exist towards the French, it is very apparent, perhaps you have a difficulty admitting it. Militarily the British had an alliance with France in 1914 and 1939 and again in NATO. They went into the Suez with the French in 1956. Within the EU, the British popular belief is that the Germans run the EU, that they alone pull all the strings because Germany has the biggest economy and countries don’t have an equal voice in the bloc because, in their view, it is undemocratic. British people have told me for years that, through the EU, the Germans had achieved economically what they could not achieve militarily, and their resentment was real.
‘But they also believe that they understand the English. I've heard a great deal of it over recent years, lots of analysis about what we think and why, quite hilariously superficial and wrong.’
Wrong? Oh I don’t think so…
‘Third, the substance of your reply about the reasons behind the Irish decision. We have judge these things on the situation at the time, so relections after the event that it might have been for the best are not relevant, you mention that the Irish argued at the time that was the case, but without detailing it.’
You had previously stated that Ireland’s participation was, in the end, not crucial in the war. You then state that such reflections are not relevant when I supplied M15’s assessment supporting the assertion. I claimed that the Irish had made the same argument: that Ireland had little to offer the allies by declaring war on Germany. It had no defences of its own and that these would have to be supplied by the British, who claimed they couldn’t spare very much (it was policy not to supply Ireland, instructions of Churchill). Another issue was the provision RN naval bases in Cork and Donegal – the Cork ports were of little advantage following the fall of France, and the Donegal base was irrelevant because NI was available. Ireland could have provided little more than it already did in secret.
‘But there were many different ways in which Ireland could have been involved, it certainly need not have meant a conscripted army.’
Cecil Liddel did not seem to think so, nor does anyone else from that time that I'm aware of. You don't provide examples of these 'different ways', none of which would relevant anyway as belligerence would not reflect the will of the people. Ireland was involved behind the scenes, and was thanked for it in private.
‘Yet had West Germany been attacked in the 1950s, do you seriously think the UK would have stood by?’
No, you had a treaty with them as part of NATO. Ireland had no such treaty with the United Kingdom. Germany did not partition part of Britain and rule the partitioned bit against the will of the majority in Germany. Britain did not partition Germany, the Soviets did, but they partitioned Ireland.
‘…Is victimhood so weaved into the Irish psyche that even now you haven't noticed that?
Ouch! I didn’t see that reversion to type coming! I'm only telling you how it was then. Anti-British feeling, dating from the Anglo-Irish War in the 1920s was still high; while many viewed the NI as an illegal occupation. An alliance with the UK risked serious political instability. De Valera’s public policy of neutrality enabled Ireland to maintain internal political unity.
‘Ireland had a choice, perhaps it's government couldn't choose against public opinion, but that just moves the ownership of the decision from its government to its people.
Yes, neutrality was ‘the will of the people’, and under the 1937 Constitution the Irish people are sovereign. Support crossed all sections of society from the old Anglo-Irish unionists and those who volunteered to fight in the British Armed Forces – they all saw it as the only option for Ireland. In the early months of the war the British Government did not suggest that there was anything wrong about Irish neutrality, only that it would prove to be an impractical policy. Nor was neutrality an unusual notion: Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland were all following a respectable and rational policy of neutrality. The United States was also neutral at the start of the European war, and only joined the war when attacked by Japan - Ireland was never attacked by Germany. Had the Germans declared war on Ireland as they had done with the Americans, that situation would have changed. Make no mistake, the Irish people own their neutrality, then as now. The British attitude changed significantly when Churchill came to power. He had no time for neutrals, constantly argued that Irish neutrality was not even legal, did not believe the RN bases in Ireland should ever have been returned to Ireland and he did not trust Ireland. Elizabeth Bowen, the Anglo-Irish writer, friend of Churchill and spy, in a letter to the Ministry of Information saw it thus: ‘It may be felt in England that Eire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But his assertion of her neutrality is Eire’s first free self-assertion; as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Eire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative’.
‘You shouldn't be surprised then if Churchill and Roosevelt showed scant respect for Ireland or DeValera after the war.’
Why not? Irish neutrality was a sophisticated deception based on a two track policy: external scrupulousness in maintaining the diplomatic niceties of neutrality and secret de facto co-operation with the Allies. Co-operation with the UK began in 1938 following the return of the treaty ports, and became more focussed from the summer of 1940. Neutrality was a public relations exercise by the Irish Government that convinced everyone at home and abroad that Irish neutrality was unpartisan. There is a good argument that neutrality benefitted Britain, MI5 certainly believed so. Either way Churchill and Roosavelt were fully aware of Irish assistance but never acknowledged it. Their attitude was vindictive and political. They needed to discredit Ireland for their own personal political reasons, which I may or may not have mentioned earlier.
'Had those volunteers and more beside fought under the Irish flag, then DeValera and Ireland would have earned a very different place in the post war world. I think they made the wrong decision, for reasons that are understandable, but are just excuses based on how they felt about the British.'
I don’t think de Valera really cared about how the world viewed him, when the Irish Jewish community sought to plant a forest in Isreal in his honour, he only agreed to it on the grounds that there would be no publicity. Like Roosavelt and Churchill he was man of strong will. I genuinely believe that the Irish people didn’t care much for how it was viewed either, they were very proud of their stand. Ireland was blocked from UN membership by the Soviets in 1945 on the grounds that it had been neutral, but the real reason was that throughout the war, while there was no criticism of the UK and the US permitted in the media, Stalinism was constantly criticised throughout. It is often said that Ireland was excluded from the Marshall Plan, but in fact Ireland rejected most, though not all of it. The Irish government did not trust the Americans.
You have no excuse for not having a more nuanced view now...
1
-
@leehallam9365 ‘I did not intend to say you were dishonest, my view was by your own estimation Ireland's neutality was dishonest, it said one thing, and to some extent did another.’
It is certainly the case that Ireland maintained a scrupulously neutral position in public, and behind the scenes provided whatever assistance it could to Britain and to a lesser extent the Americans. It was a balancing act, necessary to maintain political and social cohesion at home and to deter German aggression on the one hand, while assisting the British in secret and keeping them at arms-length at the other. In WW2 Europe, there was no such thing as absolute neutrality anyway. Maintaining that balancing act was where Ireland’s interests lay, and they pulled it off.
‘On Churchill, of course he would not arm a neutral Ireland, we were at war, our supplies were needed for ourselves and our allies, no country would have done that.’
But that was not the reason, the reason was to keep Ireland on a short leash, better to pressurise Ireland into joining the war.
‘As for his failure to guarantee he would not invade Ireland, wasn't he just being honest?
No. A feasibility study to invade the former RN bases in Cork Harbour, Berehaven and Lough Swilly was conducted by Montgomery at Churchill's instruction in June 1940, while at the same time the Irish and British militaries were putting a plan in place for a joint defence of Ireland (Plan W) in the event of a German invasion – Ireland was committed to resisting any invasion and the British were keeping their options open. After the attack on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, the US Secretary of State informed the UK that such an attack on Ireland would have a disastrous impact on Roosevelts pro-British policy. Churchill told him that the UK would not make the first move. This is more than the UK ever told the Irish at any stage of the war, despite repeated requests after sinking of the French fleet.
Churchill congratulated himself in his victory broadcast in May 1945 for not invading Ireland, saying it would have been perfectly justifiable to invade Eire. De Valera’s response highlighted the hypocrisy in the British position from an Irish perspective, as Britain claimed it was in a war for democracy, but was prepared to invade a neutral democracy if it wished to: 'It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean Britain's necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people's rights were not to count. It is quite true that other great Powers believe in this same code-in their own regard-and have behaved in accordance with it. That is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars-World War No. 1 and World War No. 2…’
You need to brush up on your history of partition. The fact is, from an Irish perspective, the British partitioned the country without consulting the nationalist majority on the island – this is undemocratic. The war in what is now the Republic was not sectarian, but it was in Northern Ireland - and it was not nationalists who brought the gun into Irish politics but the unionists in 1912, and the British government turned a blind eye. The British Empire has a long history of drawing lines on maps and leaving those on either side of those lines to deal with the consequences which have lasted down to this day. Maybe if you had a land border in your country you might feel differently.
‘I do wonder how those demanding an end to partition without the consent of those in the North actually thought it would turn out, we're they really that stupid?’
The British ruled Ireland without consent and they didn’t think it was stupid, did they? As we have seen, Churchill would probably have annexed Ireland in 1940 but for Roosevelts concerns about the Kennedy faction, Ireland would have exploded. Let’s not get carried away with administration of stupidity here.
Irish nationalism has matured and evolved since the 1960s. Today you can be Irish and Catholic, Irish and Protestant, Irish and black, Irish and British, Irish and gay and so on. The Irish constitution embraces the notion of a multi-layered identity. Contrary to your claims, I read in today’s Irish Times the headline by Newton Emerson, a unionist commentator ‘Unionists interested in a United Ireland’; it is also the case that since Brexit thousands of unionists now carry an Irish passport; with a declining British Demos, it would appear that the UK is in decline (my personal opinion is that the English will leave it) and Irish nationalists will probably find themselves in the majority in NI after the 2021 census. The Union has lost moderate Irish nationalism since Brexit and Unionists know English nationalism would throw Unionists under a bus in heartbeat if it suited them. A united Ireland is much more likely now than it was in May 2016, the only argument is over what the new Ireland will look like and how long it will take. Yesterday the Orange Order announced it had purchased PPE equipment for hospitals north and south of the border. I had to read the article twice to check. Brexit is changing things.
‘It's about the survival of civilisation, yes they don't know about how evil Hitler is, but they do know he is pretty bad, you've made clear that Irish public opinion and politicians knew who they wanted to win, so Ireland has a choice.’
Yes, they had chosen to be neutral since 1936. Irish public opinion was hardly going to be changed by Churchill. On 13th May 1940, Churchill made is famous ‘Blood, Sweat and Tears’ speech. The reason he gave as to why Britain must win the war was that otherwise there would be ‘No survival for the British Empire, no survival at all for the British Empire stood for...’. Well, as far as the Irish were concerned, they knew what the British empire stood for – why would they Irish fight for the maintenance of an Empire they had to shoot their way out of during living memory and still partitioned their country? There is no logic there.
It is not surprising the Irish of the 1940s saw a moral equivalence between the great powers of Europe. Who said, “I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. ...I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, has come in and taken their place...
Adolf Hitler? Nope, it was Winston Churchill in 1937 in relation to Palestinian Arabs.
Churchill failed to place Ireland in a moral dilemma with such beliefs. There was genuine anxiety in Dublin that if the British came into Ireland the Irish would never get them out again, and these words above explain why. And you we are still stuck with the reality that the democratic will of the Irish people was to stay neutral, a position that was not out of step with most other nations in Europe In this context is difficult to see how the Irish had a ‘practical and moral’ choice to go to war alongside Britain without an attack or a declaration of war by Germany first.
I’m reminded of the words of the British spy Elizabeth Bowen, I quoted her in a previous post, who said that Irish neutrality was important to the Irish people, that was not just a negative (one in the eye for the British) but a positive (an expression of sovereignty). That sovereignty, amid the empires, was an important factor.
I’ve outlined where Ireland’s interests lay, but the evidence does not suggest there was a moral imperative to abandoning neutrality.
1
-
1
-
@leehallam9365 I retrieved my response. I it had something to do with the length,
‘.. the Germans did use the IRA, I think it unlikely that they didn't know what happened in Ireland.’
The IRA was a banned organisation in 1939, did not recognise the 1937 constitution and they were a threat to Irish neutrality. De Valera rounded them all up and executed six of them. They had no access to the government. Dev made a promise to Chamberlain that Ireland would not be used as a base to attack the British from and he kept it. Not only do the British and Ulster Protestants hate de Valera but Sinn Fein supporters do to.
‘Is Churchill supposed to be intent on taking back Ireland? Or on selling out the Unionists?’
The public feared a German invasion, but what they did not know was the Irish government could not get an assurance that Irish neutrality would be respected from Churchill. This caused anxiety about invasion from Britain in government and military circles. We know that a feasibility study regarding the seizure of the old RN bases was carried out, it was decided it was not worth it. It is also the case that Churchill sent de Valera a telegram offering Irish unity for an abandonment of neutrality. It is a measure of the desperation felt in Britain and Ireland that these actions, offers and fears existed.
‘Britain gave up Ireland after a war with 2000 dead, had it wanted to keep it by force, it could easily have done so, why on earth would it desire to take it by force at massive cost, while fighting Germany.’
Montgomery came to the same conclusion in relation to seizure of the ports, but remember the Irish were unaware of all of this. Furthermore, the value of the ports was much diminished as they were run down and within range of the Luftwaffe following the fall of France…but Churchill kept pushing for them. It was a psychological thing with him from his days as First Lord of the Admiralty, concerned about his exposed Western flank.
‘Perhaps the Irish at the time genuinely thought it likely, though I've seen no evidence of that, but their was no logic to it.’
Its all about trust. The Irish did not trust the British, and had no grounds to do so. The British did not trust the Irish and you put forward the explanation as to why.
‘The reality about Churchill is that this is evidence that he passionately believed in 1940, that ending Irish Neutrality was of vital importance.’
I’m not disputing that. My point was that that maintain neutrality was of vital importance for the Irish. De Valera saw it as being of vital importance to Britain. To be honest, I think if Germany did attack Ireland or even just declare war, the Irish would have had no problem throwing in their lot as Dev could have carried the country. But it never happened.
‘Later judgements might have been that he was wrong, but they had hindsight. Only one thing mattered to Churchill, winning the War, and if that needed him to sink the french fleet, and give the Irish Unity, or if the need arose invade Ireland, he would do that.’
England’s necessity becoming a moral code?
I read somewhere that Churchill wanted to use poison gas Ireland if the Germans began an invasion. Ever come across that?
‘My view is that on the basis of what was known at the time it was the wrong choice.’
It was certainly the logical one, Britain was facing defeat. We have an insight from Neville Chamberlain who was still a member of the British War Cabinet in July 1940 when he wrote: “The real basic fact is that it is not partition which stands in the way at this moment, but the fear that Dev and his friends that we shall be beaten. They don’t want to be on the losing side, and, if that is unheroic, one can only say that it is the attitude of the world from the USA to Romania, and from Japan to Ireland.”
‘So yes having Britain between them and the Nazis, was what gave them the moral choice.’
The moral choice between throwing yourself in behind an apparent loser when you are unarmed is neutrality, especially as the British lost so much military equipment at Dunkirk and had little to spare.
‘Its leaders, put their careers and old disputes and historic enmity before the very real threat about to hit them.’
In 1942, a member of Fine Gael called James Dillon, broke with the consensus and advocated Irish entry in the war. He was not in Devs party, but his assessment to the American legate in Dublin who was trying to get Ireland to end neutrality was ‘If de Valera tried to carry the country for abandoning neutrality on the strength of the present British promises, he would be beaten’. He could not have done it, and he would have been overthrown from within his own party. I disagree that they put their careers ahead of the German threat, these were not people afraid to but their lives on the line for their country. But they were not prepared to split the country either.
‘And Ireland was not a possession of the Empire, or even a Dominion, it was part of the UK from 1801.’
Ireland was colonised in stages from the 12th Century, Ulster was planted in the early 1600s and there were various failed plantations in Munster and the midlands. Cromwell dispossessed all landowners, Irish and ‘old English’ who were Catholic, and replaced them with protestant owned estates. It was a colony. It remained a colony after the Act of Union, but differed from the others by having representation in parliament. Unlike the rest of the UK, it had an armed paramilitary police force. The Great Famine provided clear knowledge to Irish people that there were not considered to be the same as English, Scottish and Welsh members of the UK by London. It is no national myth. It was the experience.
‘Finally why are the British more interested in WW2 than other European countries, other than the ones re-writing it?... We stood alone..’
Yes, the last act as a power, that is what I thought myself, and if anything it is growing stronger with the years rather than diminishing. The UK to find its post-imperial place in the world and the EU did not cut it. As you know though, the Canadians and the Australians would dispute that you stood alone!
1
-
@leehallam9365 Are you suggesting the South might vote against unity?
It is quite possible. A poll in November said that most people in the Republic believed there could be a united Ireland in five years. Today a poll says only 30% see a united Ireland by 2030. Its fluid, but these are also polls taken in a vacuum. Any united Ireland will have to be an agreed new Ireland. We have a lot of experience with referenda and its pitfalls. Irish people rejected two EU treaties in protest at the government for reasons that had nothing to do with the EU, so we have form. Hard choices will have to be made: a new flag? A new constitution? A new national anthem? How will it be paid for? Will the loyalists bomb Dublin? Will it be federal? Rejoin the commonwealth? These are issues that have to be overcome and they have not been discussed yet. The first move may have to come from the unionists.
‘Why for example would we want a NI that had declared it does not want to be British in our country?’
That’s a matter for the UK. Also, no Irish government will want to deal with the embarrassment of NI voting for unity and the republic rejecting it (or vice versa). While a 50%+1 vote in NI in favour of unity is enough, no Irish government will want unity unless there is a substantial minority of unionists favour too. And what if the Scots or the English leave the UK and there is no union, will there be time to do things correctly? There are questions to be asked that did not exist in 1920 or 1940, but such is the evolution of Irish nationalism. Under the GFA, unity is no longer simply about unification of territory, it’s about the unity of people.
‘..under the original Backstop EU law including new laws would apply in NI, they would have no representatives to vote on them, and no right to leave the arrangement.’
The original backstop was the suggestion of the British Government, not the Irish government. I’m sure if NI later desired to leave the EU, it would be free to go.
‘I don't understand what you mean about democratic deficit.’
There is no constitutional account for the fact that NI and Scotland voted to remain. Scotland is a nation with its own identity, NI is a territory where two separate identities are given equal standing, both unified under a shared EU identity. That shared identity was what future reconciliation was to be built upon, and the people NI voted to keep it. There are other deficits in the UK: the FPTP electoral system, unelected House of Lords with seats for bishops in it, no codified constitution that the public ever voted on, no devolution for England and so on…you could even include hereditary monarchy!
'You suggest that in a united newly independent Ireland Unionists would hold the balance of power. I'm not sure how that happens, the nationslist divide was over partician. '
The Irish Civil War was actually fought over the Oath of Allegiance as partition was supposed to be temporary. The Oath of Allegiance to the King remained until the 1937 constitution abolished it. It has been argued here that de Valera deliberately avoided doing anything to remove partition because he feared a million unionists voting for their party would it dilute the dominance of his party in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.
‘Isn't it more likely that they would be in the position of the nationalists in Northern Ireland.’
Well, if the experience of southern protestants is anything to go by, then no. And certainly in the south we would be very conscious of not repeating the same mistake. Unionists felt under siege in NI, in a united Ireland, Irish nationalists will not have that insecurity. In 1920, a united Ireland of say 5 million people would have been about 25-30% protestant, with a disproportionate dominance in positions of economic power and the professional classes. That would have given them clout and the excessively Catholic Irish Free State would surely have been blunted.
‘The anger directed at Ireland was in part due to the use made of the border issue by those trying to stop it. The Irish government were quite explicit in their support for this campaign to over turn a referendum decision in another country.’
That is the perception. Brexit Britain had no understanding of the emotional impact that border has in Ireland. The GFA was the perfect compromise. But Ireland never featured in the Brexit debate and it was dominated by a particular type of English person who would expect Ireland to suck it up. What Ireland did was put the border issue straight back on to the British government. It appeared that the Irish were trying to stop Brexit simply because there was no solution. While the British politicians and media were banging on about the economic impact of Brexit on Ireland, to the Irish this was secondary to the political implications of an Irish government watching while a hard border was erected on the island again. Ireland would have to deal with the problem. Fixing the economy would be easier.
‘It was as though it was something we had done to Ireland, it wasn't it was something we are doing for ourselves.’
It did feel like something that was ‘done’ to Ireland. It really did. A thoughtless oversight that we saw coming when we watched your pre-referendum ‘debates’. It took us by surprise because relations between Ireland and the UK had never been better. Brexit meant that the Irish government had to speak up, not only for the Republic but for nationalists in NI. Their grievance in the past was that when they were being shafted by Stormont for decades, Dublin said nothing and that this contributed to the emergence of the IRA terrorism. Once the DUP went into government with the Tories, Ireland hardened its position. Ireland had an obligation under the GFA to speak up, and quietly, moderate unionists were impressed because Varadkar spoke for their interests too. The people of Ireland voted for the GFA, and a decision made largely by English voters on another island changed it.
Brexit was just not compatible with realities in life in Ireland. Brexiters had dealt with that problem by not dealing with it because Brexit was supposed to be easy.
‘…firstly we voted as a single nation not as separate entities, and second Wales voted to leave too. Poor old Wales always forgotten as they don't fit the England dragging the Celtic nations out of the EU agenda.’
Yes, you voted as one nation, but it also the case that 15.1 million votes were English. An English academic, Anthony Barnett, pointed out that there is a correlation between those who identified as English only (and English first and British second) in the 2011 census and leave voting areas in England in 2016. These were areas where people had identified as British in 1991. This suggests an assertion of English national identity. The pro-EU SNP dominate in Scotland, while NI returned more Irish nationalist seats than unionist for the first time. There are three nationalisms rising in the UK resulting in the overarching British identity becoming increasingly irrelevant. There is a good argument therefore that the UK is no longer fit for purpose, and that the realignment you mention also includes this rise in nationalisms.
‘England will not leave the UK. I don't even see a constitutional mechanism for that. There is no English Government.’
Why is there no devolution for England? You still have your political class in charge, the same type of people that always ruled, now with notions of an Empire 2.0…what will Brexit change for the ordinary people of England? Like I said before, I know nobody else who agrees with me about an Independent England, and you may well turn out to be right.
The election in December saw victories for English, Scottish and Irish nationalism within the UK. Everybody overlooks the Welsh, including me, but Barnett tells us that in the last UK census 12% of the Welsh population identified as English. Apparently, there is a large population of English retirees in Wales, and he argues they took their politics with them. He also points out that unlike Scotland and NI, Wales has a weak local print media, and they are more exposed to their English counterparts. Interestingly, Welsh speaking north Wales provided the highest remain vote of any British demographic – some 80%. Barnett reckons the break up of the UK is not inevitable and that it may instead lead to constitutional reform.
‘How Britain does outside the EU remains to be seen, but don't think that Brexit is loaded with expectations by most Brexit voters.’
Expectations were high in he summer of 2016, but the narrative was subsequently modified to fit the reality that Brexit was not going to make people better off, it would appear. At the moment I’m not seeing anything that suggests it will prove to have been a good economic decision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joecook5689 'Ireland as a country wanted Britain to defeat the axis or not?'
Yes, the Irish government did not want Germany to win. Most Irish people were ambivalent about the war and just wanted Ireland to be left alone. They had little interest in Germany and did not trust the British.
'And what percent of Ireland fought for the allies out of the number of possible soldiers that would've been enlisted British soldiers if they were, for the sake of argument, part of Britain, say. You know, like what percent would not bother or oppose?'
No idea. According to British figure in 1945, there were 50,000 Irishmen and women in British uniform, though this did not count volunteers from the south who enlisted in NI. The correct figure may have been 70,000 with up to 10,000 fatalities. There was a long tradition of service in the British army in Ireland, a tradition that often ran in families. Research has shown that many who volunteered for the British armed forces had no difficulty with Irish neutrality, and joined for reasons of tradition, anti-fascist ideology or for adventure.
Elizabeth Bowen, the Anglo-Irish writer, lived in neutral ireland throughout the war. A supporter of Churchill, she wrote fortnightly in secret to the British Ministry of Information on the Irish attitude to neutrality – she was a spy. She discouraged any invasion by the British as she was convinced it would be fiercely resisted and counter-productive. The Irish government would have welcomed such an observation, but she was not acting in Eire’s interests, but in the interests of Britain and was opposed to Irish neutrality.
Nonetheless, she stated that 'it may be felt in England that Eire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But this assertion of her neutrality is Eire’s first free self-assertion; as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Eire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative’.
Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1