The Queen She'll Come To Call On Us

Yes indeed that is the fact. Ireland disallowed access to its waters to a State which was a greater risk to its Independence than the Germans.
Click to expand...

Yes of course the
Nazi's would have over run Ireland if they had taken Britain
Click to expand...

If you had any idea at all about the war you would have been aware that that was far closer to being a reality than some hairbrained pointless scheme to retake ireland when throwing everything at defending the UK

why not try and explain why Britain would have wanted to invade Ireland during second world war when trying to defend itself from germany? why it would have wanted to invade at all 30 years after the treaty? what for? Maybe they would have wanted a strategic presence for defence but there was no way that the Uk would have wanted to go back to further troubles in the medium term> the same strategic presence that the nazis would have wanted and would have got

Ireland continued existence as an independent country depended wholely on britains ability to survive. Thats obvious . Hindering that in any way was clearly counterproductive

We know where "devs" sympathies lay when he sent condolences on Hitlers death as the concentration camps were being liberated.
 
Last edited:
The neutrality policy led to a considerable delay in Ireland's membership of the United Nations (UN). Ireland's applications for membership were vetoed by the Soviet Union, a permanent member of the Security Council, from 1946 to December 1955.[38] The original use of the term "United Nations" in 1942-45 always referred to the Allies of World War II. Ireland had applied to join the UN in 1946, following the demise of the League of Nations, where Irish diplomat Seán Lester was the last Secretary-General.[39]
By March 1955, the Minister for External Affairs, Liam Cosgrave, announced that: “Ireland's application for membership of the U.N.O. still stands although it remains blocked by an objection in the Security Council.” For reasons of diplomacy the government would not state the reason for the objection, nor which country had made it. Sean MacBride considered that the UN boycott of Ireland was originally agreed at the 1945 Yalta Conference by Churchill and Stalin.[40] Ireland's acceptance into the UN was announced by John A. Costello on 15 December 1955.[41]
Click to expand...

heres your answer Marble
 
What is apparent during this discussion is that you can't re-write history to suit current mores. There's no point in airbrushing out any of what happened in order to try and make today's populist 'peace and reconciliation' gestures mean something.

Sheikh, what I'm 'on about' is that many Irish view Britons as post-Cromwellians with the same lack of ardour as their forebears did during his crushing of their rebellion. Since the majority of Cromwell's army was English, not drawn from the suspicious valleys of Wales or the highlands of Catholic-loving Scotland, which was bitterly opposed to the Proddie brutes of England, remember, it would be the English quota of the 'British' army that the Irish would have loathed so deeply, and the legacy of that hatred has persisted in many quarters since. There'd have been a religious kinship with the Scots (Celtic brotherhood, etc.) which did not extend to the Protestant jackboot. You've just called the British a 'recently departed enemy'. I've no doubt that it's too soon for some Irish people to view us, the English portion of that Britishness in particular, as still anything but the enemy.

I'm saying this from the point of view of what perceived good might come out of the Queen's visit? She has to overcome centuries' old bitter resentment, bearing in mind that she represents the Crown, which represents Church of England (i.e. Protestant) dogma, which, in the eyes of many Irish people, represents the brutalisation of their people, no matter how long ago.

I suppose my bottom line is that the Queen might represent goodwill from Britain, but how much goodwill is sincerely returned? I realise a lot of young Irish people now work in the UK and may well have rather different ideas about getting along with others than their parents do, but do they represent the majority of thought in Ireland, do you think? If they don't, the visit looks unnecessary and irrelevant.

I very rarely do agree with Clivex, but sometimes a point of thought coincides - that isn't to say that he and I won't have some overheated arguments in the future, where he'll insult me as usual.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, the Queen is not being asked to make apologies, and I certainly don't expect it. I am surprised she is even going to the Garden of Remembrance, there are plenty of Irish who see the Garden as a glorification of a physical force tradition they don't like. Presumably her visit is intended as an acknowledgement that the cause of Irish freedom was an honourable one, and no more than that.

Regarding Irish neutrality in WW2, there is a lot of misinformation, some of it deliberate (such as labelling De Valera a Hitler lover). We are also discussing events that took place 70 years ago, less than 20 years after Ireland obtained dominion status, so it's necessary to see things in context.

Churchill was not that interested in Ireland joining the war, he was more interested in being sure the Germans didn't get to invade it and use it as platform from which to attack Britain. True, he wanted access to the three Irish ports that had just been handed back only in 1938, and the archives show that the option of retaking them by force was given serious consideration. But the British calculated in the end that if neutrality improved Ireland's chances of not being invaded, then they could do without the ports.

Why did Ireland not join the war? It took the same option as every other small country in Europe. Not one of them chose to become involved. They each viewed the impending war as a conflict between major powers that they were best off keeping out of. Most of them were dragged into it, of course, because they were invaded, but all of them had chosen neutrality.

Irish public opinion was in favour of neutrality for Ireland, but only a minority were sympathetic to Germany. It was not obvious to everyone at the time that the Nazi regime was entirely evil. Even Britain had its share of Hitler admirers. Those in Ireland drawn to the German camp were hard line republicans, who saw Britain's enemy as a potential ally. In this they were no different to some of the Jewish paramilitary organisations in Palestine, who also sought to cooperate with the Germans for the same motives. De Valera was terrified that the Germans might actually assist the IRA, and introduced internment for IRA members to preclude it. Why was he terrified? Because of the reaction it might provoke from Britain, but also because he feared a German invasion.

The UK's main concern was that Ireland not be invaded by Germany, while Ireland's concern was to be invaded by nobody. Once that principle had been established, and the overt aspects of neutrality were rigidly respected, there was practical assistance given to the British (see Viscount Cranborne's memo below).

Regarding merchant shipping, British and allied ships were being attacked and sunk. Irish ships were also attacked because they were carrying vital exports to Britain (mainly food) and many were engaged in a triangular traffic that involved carrying British exports to Portugal for onward movement. Ireland suffered its own casualties at the hands of the U-boats, losing 18 ships, about a quarter of its tiny merchant fleet, with the loss of 180 lives.




The Cranborne report
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939-1945:[37]



“
  1. They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off the Lough.
  2. They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
  3. They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative’s Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
  4. They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
  5. They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
  6. They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
  7. They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
  8. They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
  9. They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
  10. They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
  11. Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
  12. They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
  13. They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
  14. They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.
Click to expand...
“
 
Sheikh, what I'm 'on about' is that many Irish view Britons as post-Cromwellians with the same lack of ardour as their forebears did during his crushing of their rebellion. Since the majority of Cromwell's army was English, not drawn from the suspicious valleys of Wales or the highlands of Catholic-loving Scotland, which was bitterly opposed to the Proddie brutes of England, remember, it would be the English quota of the 'British' army that the Irish would have loathed so deeply, and the legacy of that hatred has persisted in many quarters since. There'd have been a religious kinship with the Scots (Celtic brotherhood, etc.) which did not extend to the Protestant jackboot. You've just called the British a 'recently departed enemy'. I've no doubt that it's too soon for some Irish people to view us, the English portion of that Britishness in particular, as still anything but the enemy
Click to expand...

Grey has addressed the main issue in a more detailed and eloquent way than I could.

I did not call the British 'a recently departed enemy'. I referred to the situation at the time and how the British where regarded.
Quite simply the British where a recenly departed enemy. It's not an interpretation. I did this to try and show how allowing Irish waters and probably Irish ports to be used would have looked to Joe Public. The public as I'm sure you can appreciate do not see the bigger picture. It would have been used against Devs Government.Surely Devs semi Neutrality was better than a hostile Government on Britains doorstep.

As regards the whole reference to Cromwell, we've moved on, it's not too soon and that view is outdated.

Marble

I guess if Ireland had openly supported the Allies it would at best have had a positive impact and at worst, no impact. On the other hand if the Nazi's had won than it would have extremely negative. I reckon Ireland would have been just one big Nazi garrison.
 
May I just say what an engrossing and informative debate.

Have nothing to add except to say that one of my forebears went to Ireland with Cromwell and was created Viscount Midleton. Not something I'll be declaiming in an Irish bar anytime soon...

And by way of a coincidence, my younger son is an active support crew member for a steam locomotive often seen on railtours on the mainlines of Britain; its name...Oliver Cromwell
 
Last edited:
Good post Grey and i wasnt so aware of the co-operation in taht detail, but was aware that it had existed at certain levels.

But as you say, if Hitler had wanted to invade a "neutral" country such as ireland (ala norway) he would simply have done so. The neutrality was no defence. In that instance, an element of british defence or commitment would surely have made some sense. or was it a case of if it happens, it happens and there will be no defending?

As for De valera, it was stupid behaviour on hitlers death and it can hardly be surprising that that would be interpreted as sympathy
 
Would this be a bad time to tell the "What's the difference between an apple and an orange?" joke? :D

A genuinely illuminating and informative post, Grey - top work. :cool:
 
Interestingly (or not) my grandfather took the Royal family up the Foyle in 1945 to view lines of captured German submarines, on board the sub-hunting yacht HMS Hiniesta. The yacht is still alive today, the oldest ocean-going one in the world at over 100 years, in the very loving hands of the Keletsekis family in Greece. They spent some 2.5m Euros renovating her four years ago and she sails now as MV Madiz (a portmanteau of family first names). If you Google MV Madiz there's a good site about her past and present, for any boat buffs.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Good post Grey and i wasnt so aware of the co-operation in taht detail, but was aware that it had existed at certain levels.

But as you say, if Hitler had wanted to invade a "neutral" country such as ireland (ala norway) he would simply have done so. The neutrality was no defence. In that instance, an element of british defence or commitment would surely have made some sense. or was it a case of if it happens, it happens and there will be no defending?

As for De valera, it was stupid behaviour on hitlers death and it can hardly be surprising that that would be interpreted as sympathy
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer to your question, clivex. I guess you have to look to point 9 of Viscount Cranborne's memo above, and take it from there.

Regarding Dev signing that book of condolences, I agree that it should never have happened.
 
From Cranborne's notes, it appears that some cooperation was given, mostly in the area of submarine activity directly off the Irish coast. Plenty of subs were captured and moored in the Foyle, but there's still no mention of permitting the use of southern waters by merchant shipping. So, a rather bizarre situation where you Brits will have to take the most perilous, much longer route, but we'll let you know if our spotters see any subs taking off after them. Then you can try to find and bomb the feckers.

How many German 'fighting personnel' were interned by Ireland, Grey, just as a matter of interest, do you know?
 
krizon said:
From Cranborne's notes, it appears that some cooperation was given, mostly in the area of submarine activity directly off the Irish coast. Plenty of subs were captured and moored in the Foyle, but there's still no mention of permitting the use of southern waters by merchant shipping. So, a rather bizarre situation where you Brits will have to take the most perilous, much longer route, but we'll let you know if our spotters see any subs taking off after them. Then you can try to find and bomb the feckers.

How many German 'fighting personnel' were interned by Ireland, Grey, just as a matter of interest, do you know?
Click to expand...

I think the issue was having control of the ports in order to better defend the southern approaches to the Irish Sea and the Channel more than having access to Irish territorial waters, which only extended three miles offshore at the time.

Given, though, that the Germans had submarine bases in Brittany and the Bay of Biscay, I would imagine those seas were also going to be treacherous, and that the northern route across the Atlantic was likely to be preferred for merchant shipping.

Regarding numbers interned, Kriz, they were relatively minor. There were 70 or 80 lost airmen and spies, I think, and another few dozen are buried in a military cemetery at Glencree. A lot more Allied than German aircraft came down in Ireland.

By the way, I got the numbers wrong concerning Irish merchant shipping. There were 13 ships lost and 139 men dead. And I should add that the agreement to release Allied personnel fetching up in Ireland, and to help recover downed aircraft, (see point 10 of the Cranborne memo) was not in place at the start of the war. It came into effect during 1942, I think.
 
Here's another poser for you, Grey: why would German aircraft be overflying Ireland (in order to crashland there)? What was the purpose of their missions - they weren't bombing anywhere, were they? If Germany admired Ireland's stand-back position, they'd hardly be walloping a pal, surely. Were the aircraft there to drop in spies or pick up others? Interesting. I didn't know any German aircraft came down in the country, although obviously I know why they came down on the UK mainland. Perhaps they were winged and trying to crashland in friendlier territory?
 
If NATO bombs even today fall on their own allies, it's not surprising that German planes in WW2 ended up in the wrong place.

Stray German bombs fell on Dublin but they also deliberately targeted the shipyards and docks in Belfast, and some of those aircraft would have come down south of the border.
 
I know I'm a pessimist, but I keep wondering what would happen if the Queen died before the 'wedding day'..[is it treason to think such thoughts?]..when I left work today I noticed that somebody was flying a Union Jack at half mast and I though 'blimey, it's happened'.
 
I know I'm a pessimist, but I keep wondering what would happen if the Queen died before the 'wedding day'
Click to expand...

And we ended up with Charles visiting us instead? You are indeed a pessimist.
 
I just read it in a cafe nearby - interesting article I thought.

I don't agree with a lot of it though - painting the GAA out as this mdoernising force is completely wide of the mark (it took a lot to allow rugby and football internationals to be played there, and was far from their suggestion) and to say there is no bitterness in Ireland towards Britain is another mistruth - that article describes an Ireland I'd almost go back to but it doesn't exist, and won't for at least a generation..
 
Hamm said:
to say there is no bitterness in Ireland towards Britain is another mistruth -
Click to expand...

I disagree, people who feel bitterness towards Britain these days feel bitterness towards pretty much everyone.Just bitter people.It is generally correct to say there is no bitterness. I am obviously refering to the Republic only.

As regards O'Toole's article, we are most definitley still very much attached to the notion of land and owning it. I don't think he'll be quoting Humphries in his articles for much longer either.....
 
As long as you have staunch Celtic supporters in Ireland you will have bitterness towards Britain (one small way of looking at it)..
 
Back
Top