Why bash America for coming late to WW2?

Don't think that ones fair. Ireland was a distictly pro allied neutral for the duration of the war. True there was the matter of the irish western ports and Prime Ministers sympathy to the German ambassidor on the death of Hitler but there are other factors.

a) The British gave up the rights to the western ports pre war, with hindsight this was a really stupid thing for the British to do but probably spared Ireland from alot of damage.

b) Ireland is a small country, even now a days the population is only around the 4 mill mark. If the Ireland had joined the war it wouldn't have brought in many men since most of their very small army would have to be retained in Ireland for home defence

c) It true the broadly the Irish weren't keen on the British but by 1939 they had most of what they wanted ie their own republic. German victory in the west would threaten that.

d) There are no exact records of Southern Irish that served in the British military but anecdotal evidence indicates it was quite a few.

e) Most allied pilots that landed in Ireland were either returned or 'escaped' to the North. Those that did get interned generally had to do something fairly blatant.

f) Irish Intelligence bodies did keep a very close eye on the various German agents in the country. If a German agent broke wind in the Republic the British got to told about it. There were a couple of times when various Allied leaders wanted to lean on the irish to kick out German agents. However British intelligence always objected on grounds better the devil you know and having the co operation of the Irish, rather than get rid of such agents in the short term but not have Irish co operation when the replacements arrive.

g) Yes there were pro Nazi elements in the republic however I think it has already been covered that there were few countries that didn't have such elements kicking around somewhere.


It worth noting that just before D-Day Eisenhower was all in favour of invading Ireland to close down a possible base for German agents. Land of the free willing to consider invading an uninvolved an fair harmless country, bet that one wasn't publicized to the so called Irish-American (bloody oxymoron really) vote after the war.

 

Well, yes, it was unfair to suggest they'd have joined the Germans.
Although the fact Ike was willing to invade shows quite how pro-German they were perceived to be...

But the point that they were sensible to stay out is a good one. The main achievement of Ireland would be in the Atlantic (either as a slightly more advanced base for aerial patrols, or as a highly useful U-boat base - until it got invaded! Now that would have well & truely screwed up the 'Irish Question' even more than it was/is...)

 

I wonder what would have happened if the Catholic Church, the Vatican, had said something like "Herr Hitler stop what you are doing or we'll excumminicate you?" Its just a thought.

 

I response to Ireland being sided with Germany? If you were living in an oppressed land where genocide took place what would you say to a nation if they promised a chance at freedom?
It may be that simple?

This could be any nation, I hope when you read this you possess the skill of finding the truth of a statement, not the emotional statement.

 

Herr Hitler would have taken out the Vatican.
It is well known how much regard he had for the Catholic church.
That this would have shredded his support base (something like 2/3 of Germany was Catholic, and as for Italy...) is certainly something he would not have considered, at least not by mid-war.

Stalin, I believe, was contemptuous of the idea that the Pope should speak out. Said something along the lines of:
"oh, and how many tank divisions does the Pope have?"

 

Southern Ireland was a seperate country. They had their freedom.
They had had genocide (Bloody Norman idiots, can't leave well alone), on both sides (Bloody Early-Modern fools, why won't they learn), but their only real goal left was to try and reclaim Northern Ireland.

Anyway - I am not gonna get dragged into the 'Irish Question'!
Far too far off topic!

 

Well has to said that for quite a while now the Irish have been happy to aspire to a united Ireland provided it doesn't actually happen!

 

I think the main reason is because so many Americans believe they won the war on their own it is nice to point out that htey didn't.

I am not saying every American, some actually know the truth and deserve respect for it but some don't.

PLUS IT IS ONLY INTENDED AS FRIENDLY BANTER HERE DNAYEL. :lol:

 

There is also the factor that Stalin's Russia doesn't fit with many peoples idea of a white knight riding to the rescue.

From the British Point of view America might have left us a bankrupt shadow of our former self but at least their idea of liberating somewhere wasn't simply swaping conquerors.

 

What? Oh, yeah. Well, don't worry. Give me a few hours to wake up and i'll find some way to be offended.

 

Well, I suppose given the Cold War Propaganda about (and even the actual nature of) Stalinist Russia, nobody really expected them to rush altruistically to the rescue.
I'm not entirely sure why we always expect America to have done so, especially as every time they have done so since (at least in America's eyes ) we all bash them for it!
Probably something to do with all that 'Champion of the Free World' propaganda churned out during the Cold War...

 

Oooo, Ouch!

 

Why don't just reduce everything to the one thing that matters most: national interest?

Great Britain allied with France because she feared Germany. France feared Germany because of the harsh terms imposed by the Versailles. The United States wanted to isolate herself because it was the best option. The Soviet Union sided with Germany at first because it seemed to be a profitable enterprise. Switzerland and Sweeden remained neutral because they were lucky enough to be out of the way. Even if Greece or Poland had wanted to remain neutral they wouldn't have a choice but to be dragged into the conflict. No country would want to sacrifice the thousands of lives and billions of dollars required to fight a war if they could help it. If World War 2 had been started by the Soviet Union, the United States might never have gotten herself involved. Neither would Great Britain if she could help it.

To sum it up: National interest is all that matters. There are, of course, various devices to be employed by both the state and the people to disguise this basic truth. One of them, of course, is the "honour" of contributing most to the war. Arguments like those which you see here are conflicts of national pride. I mean, anyone can be fairly certain that this little debate is never going to reach a conclusion. There are no judges to decide who's the winner. Eventually, we're going to get tired of all this and forget that this thread ever existed.

 

Well, yes.
Good point.

I think the opening post made the point that America did not jump into the war from the start because it did not want to and saw no reason why it should.

So why do we criticise?
To try and hold the Moral 'high ground'?

Does this even exist in this case? (see all posts so far!)

 

I believe that the reasons behind the criticism is because, through much of hollywood, not all but a lot of material, the Americans see themselves as the saviours to both world wars. The escence of this belief enters all aspects of the USA citizens lives and distortion of teaching from historical facts, and yes this rubs people, whose relatives took part in the two conflicts; that knew the facts because they actively participated, around the world.
When a person or group comes in and assumes they were responsible for wining the war, or the finest distortion of them all 'you could not have one the war without us' and not giving credit for others who layed down their lives then of course that person will be seen as severly retatrded and ignorant to the proofs of the conflicts.

Personaly in WW II Hitler was the most responsible for Germany losing the war. But with that said I do not believe that Germany would have gotten as far as it did, in the begining, without his charismatic appeal.

Today we here how the USA leadership is disappointed in some NATO members not participating in Iraq, Bush's statement '"you are with us or against us"' crap is another fine example of Capitol Hill's political arrogance of how it percieves itself amoungst its friends.
It is very interesting how the USA can come into WW I, in the last six months of the war, and claimn they won the war for the Allies. Again in WW II three years had gone by, millions dead, before they entered the war, and only after they were attacked did they participate in the actual conflicts; yet their supposed friends and allies needed them prior to their military participation.
But the USA government demands that there will be reprocussions to those did not come to their aid and attack Iraq, the second time?
To me if this were a marriage and before the courts it would be seen as a very abusive relationship, and the marriage ordered disolved.

I hope before you respond to this you read for the truth of the statements, not you emotional wants and desires.

Cheers!

 

Well, Poodle, to a large extent the United States *did* win WW1 for the Allies. It was fear of the results of America's entry into the war that led the Germans to launch their offensives of early 1918, which gained them little and cost them the reserves they'd gained by Russia's collapse. Both Britain and France were delighted by the fact that American troops entered Europe as fast as they could be shipped over, because the Anglo-French armies had been bled white in the previous four years. General Pershing had to fight tooth and nail to keep his troops from being parcelled out as replacements to the Allied divisions; he wanted them to be used as American units, not as mere cannon fodder for Haig and Foch. But America's entry into the war was the key element in the defeat of Germany in WW1.

In WW2, America entered the war *two* years after it began, not three. The reason the USA did not enter the war sooner was that a very large number of Americans did not want to become involved in yet another European war; they had been badly disillusioned by the results of WW1 and wanted no more of it. Given that attitude, and the fact that they tended to elect politicians who agreed with it, America didn't enter the war in 1939. However, having said that, I would remind you that, as I said in a previous post, America did send the Allies large quantities of military equipment prior to December 1941, as well as providing many other forms of support. Also, the United States was by no stretch of the imagination ready for war in 1939. We really weren't ready for it in 1941, but the situation had improved a lot under FDR's guidance. But until the USA had begun its rearmament program, there was precious little that could be done to help the Allies militarily.

As for nowadays...Poodle, from what I've seen in the media over the years, America has taken a *lot* more abuse than you believe we are dishing out, and we're still getting it. I have always found it incredible how so many governments (and apparently a lot of their people) will scream and shout and demonstrate against us, then demand we come and help them whenever they have a natural disaster or a war. And yet we still come to the rescue whenever some nation has been hit with a hurricane, flood, earthquake, or whatever catastrophe decided to strike. Yeah, Poodle, we Americans are such total monsters. :angry:

 

spot on nearly poodle is wot i say!!

i dont have time to listen to all the jingoism that comes from the other side of the atlantic.

most are two trees short of an orchard, and dont have a clue wot goes on in the world most of the time.

why we have to hold their hands everywhere is beyond me.

roll on chrimbo thats all i got 2 say!

 

Well, I really, really did try to be diplomatic and factual about the issue before us 'Corpcasselbury', however once again you have just amplified my points to the N'th degree.

Ok, youve got me on the three years, how about two and one half years, that is a closer claim. Eh?

Regarding WW I it appears I am now without hope of leading you to the watering hole, let alone drink the water. :cry:

In regards to world catastrophies: if you actually think that the USA is the only one that comes a runnin' to help then I once again am without any hope of accomplishing the same end. :cry:

By the way, were there any American forces in Rawanda during the genocidal war? I know the Dutch and Canadians were there.
One thing is for sure the United Nations stabbed those poor people in the back and in my opinion is guilty of War Crimes. :angry:

Cheers!

 

Well, corpcasselbury is actually fairly right in his assessment of WW1 - without US involvement it would have been far more of a grind, possibly even a stalemate. Could Britain & France have made the advances they did in 1918 had the Germans not launched their offensive, and used up their reserves?
And the threat of the American hordes was enough to panic the Germans - how would we have felt/managed if the US had joined on Germany's side?

What I would quibble:

If America had not decided to go isolationist - it would not have been so cocked-up!
For example - the League of Nations *might* have been vaguely effective (for example in imposing sanctions on military essentials like oil & steel), more importantly Britain & France would not have needed to succk up to Italy to gain an ally vs Germany, thereby completely altering the political balance of the entire 1920s & 1930s. Who knows what would have happened?
It would still be fairly messed-up, but not as much as it was...

 

American monsters?????Hmmmmmm, Najaf would have been zilched into nothingness if so. Talk about kid gloves!!!