British plan to invade Ireland in 1940

[Lordhen]

So anybody ever in HoI had the British invade Ireland, because there was a plan to do in in 1940

British plan to invade Ireland in 1940

Churchill had many plans during World War II, including a preventive war with the Soviet Union after the fall of Nazi Germany-as did every other leader, but while we now about the German plan to invade Ireland during World War II in Operation Green, it seems that Churchill also had made a plan to invade Ireland as in 1940, he was urged to invade Ireland by Northern Ireland Prime Minister Lord Craigavon, AKA James Craig, a rock ribbed unionist, who believed that Eamon De Valera, the Irish prime minister, had fallen under Nazi sway and a crossborder invasion was needed to remove him and thus he urged Churchill to send British troops composed chiefly of Scottish and Welsh divisions to install a military governor for the whole of Ireland with his HQ in Dublin who would secure the valuable naval bases along the Irish coastline.

Craigavon also told Churchill that distributing propaganda leaflets in Gaelic and English should be used to persuade the Irish that the Scottish and Welsh divisions were there to defend them. Churchill did not do much at first with this invasion idea but later prepared detailed plans for an invasion of southern Ireland.

Field Marshal Montgomery stated in his memoirs: “I was told to prepare plans for the seizure of Cork and Queenstown in southern Ireland so the harbors could be used as naval bases.”

Any invasion of Ireland by Scottish and Welsh divisions would be over quickly with them being able to take control over the country with out much resistance, but for the IRA this would an absolute gift who would have launched waves after wave of guerrilla attacks. “Occupying Ireland would have been an extremely messy and costly undertaking.”

Also attempting to “camouflage” a British invasion by using Scottish or Welsh divisions would have backfired as “Many of the Black and Tans, the British auxiliaries sent to suppress Irish independence, were Scots and they had an appalling reputation”.

In the end this plan was never implemented, Ireland stayed neutral throughout the war, but Irish prime minister De Valera did offend London by offering his condolences to the German ambassador in Dublin on the death of Hitler.

 

[Henry IX]

As I understand it the Germans made some diplomatic efforts to bring the Irish in on their side, although they never amounted to much. However, from a British perspective there was a real (if small) risk of the rabidly anti-English De Valera turning Ireland hostile and some form of plan to deal with this possibility was a sensible precaution.

In addition, I am sure the idea of 'reclaiming' Ireland for the U.K. would have appealed to the imperialistic Churchill. Thankfully nobody was actually stupid enough to act on these plans.

 

[Eusebio]

Invading neutral Ireland at a time when Britain was trying to secure American entry into the war would have been diplomatic suicide.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Invading neutral Ireland at a time when Britain was trying to secure American entry into the war would have been diplomatic suicide.

Not to mention that pacifying Ireland would have been quite hard. If Britain would have invaded and defeated Ireland then she would have expected resistance from the Irish people and that would have forced her to deploy rather large occupation force in Ireland.

 

[Easy-Kill]

As I understand it the Germans made some diplomatic efforts to bring the Irish in on their side, although they never amounted to much. However, from a British perspective there was a real (if small) risk of the rabidly anti-English De Valera turning Ireland hostile and some form of plan to deal with this possibility was a sensible precaution.

In addition, I am sure the idea of 'reclaiming' Ireland for the U.K. would have appealed to the imperialistic Churchill. Thankfully nobody was actually stupid enough to act on these plans.

I thought that Churchill was always an ardent supporter of an Ireland ruled from Dublin, albeit with a separate northern Ulster part of the UK and the prevention of a united Irish island.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Not to mention that pacifying Ireland would have been quite hard. If Britain would have invaded and defeated Ireland then she would have expected resistance from the Irish people and that would have forced her to deploy rather large occupation force in Ireland.

I am sorry but this is one.of the main hypocrisies of discussing ww2. Supposedly Germany could conquer and pacify the United Kingdom (a nation which 20-25 years prior had developed the most effective fighting force the world had seen to that point), but the UK couldn't conquer and pacify an island that had actually been a part of the UK 25 years prior.

Ireland is a minefield of socio-politically conflict going back centuries, but the main thing preventing it's continued integration with the rest of the UK was the diplomatic will from both the Irish and British.

 

[Avernite]

I am sorry but this is one.of the main hypocrisies of discussing ww2. Supposedly Germany could conquer and pacify the United Kingdom (a nation which 20-25 years prior had developed the most effective fighting force the world had seen to that point), but the UK couldn't conquer and pacify an island that had actually been a part of the UK 25 years prior.

Ireland is a minefield of socio-politically conflict going back centuries, but the main thing preventing it's continued integration with the rest of the UK was the diplomatic will from both the Irish and British.

Uh... I don't think anyone serious still believes Germany could occupy the UK just like that, what with having not enough ships to do it with. By a few orders of magnitude.

 

[Lordhen]

Invading neutral Ireland at a time when Britain was trying to secure American entry into the war would have been diplomatic suicide.

Well it was a plan by Churchill who toughed of several which where crazy and never happened.

 

[Kovax]

There's a big difference between preparing plans for "the worst", and taking such extreme actions without a pressing need. The preparation of the plans can be a learning experience, applicable to more likely scenarios. I'm sure that MOST countries have plans somewhere in their military archives for invading just about every neighbor, "just in case". Only the real nut cases actually contemplate using them.

 

[Gil galad]

Why would the UK want to occupy a country that had been turned into an agrarian theocracy by Devalera. The Irish Joined the allied cause in great Numbers be it as soldiers or factory workers anyway. The only possible gain would have been a few naval bases. Seems like a lot of risk and bad pr for little gain as Ireland could only supply fighting men to the allied cause and little else.

 

[Henry IX]

I thought that Churchill was always an ardent supporter of an Ireland ruled from Dublin, albeit with a separate northern Ulster part of the UK and the prevention of a united Irish island.

My understanding was that he was a supporter of home rule for Ireland rather than full independence. I did not mean to imply that Churchill thought that re-occupying Ireland was a good idea, simply that he would have liked to have returned it to (partial) British rule.

I have no doubt that Britain had the capability of re-occupying Ireland but also that it would have been a diplomatic catastrophe and a massive waste of resources for very little gain.

 

[Geriander]

Why would the UK want to occupy a country that had been turned into an agrarian theocracy by Devalera. The Irish Joined the allied cause in great Numbers be it as soldiers or factory workers anyway. The only possible gain would have been a few naval bases. Seems like a lot of risk and bad pr for little gain as Ireland could only supply fighting men to the allied cause and little else.

In Churchhills own words it was about ports and airfields:

“Owing to the action of Mr de Valera, so much at variance with the temper and instinct of thousands of Southern Irishmen who hastened to the battle-front to prove their ancient valour, the approaches and the Southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This was indeed a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland we would have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera or perish forever from the earth.”

 

[Gil galad]

While these could have been usefull it was Churchill who denied long range bombers to coastal command which could have closed the mid atlantic air gap much earlier. Thereby saving much shipping. Instead bomber command got those bombers.

 

[Easy-Kill]

My understanding was that he was a supporter of home rule for Ireland rather than full independence. I did not mean to imply that Churchill thought that re-occupying Ireland was a good idea, simply that he would have liked to have returned it to (partial) British rule.

I have no doubt that Britain had the capability of re-occupying Ireland but also that it would have been a diplomatic catastrophe and a massive waste of resources for very little gain.

AHH I see, apologies for any misinterpretation. I think that Churchill was rather changeable and I get the impression that he wanted what he thought was best for Britain, I wonder whether how he thought best to achieve that might have changed over his lifetime? After all, Churchill in the Sudan was a different man to Churchill of ww2?

 

[th3freakie]

In Churchhills own words it was about ports and airfields:

“Owing to the action of Mr de Valera, so much at variance with the temper and instinct of thousands of Southern Irishmen who hastened to the battle-front to prove their ancient valour, the approaches and the Southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This was indeed a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland we would have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera or perish forever from the earth.”

Curiously, just the other day I found someone on reddit quoting de Valera's reply to this. It's quite long but I'll post some bits:

"[...]

I know the reply I would have given a quarter of a century ago. But I have deliberately decided that that is not the reply I shall make tonight. I shall strive not to be guilty of adding any fuel to the flames of hatred and passion which, if continued to be fed, promise to burn up whatever is left by the war of decent human feeling in Europe.

[...]

Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain's necessity. 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-and shall it be World War No. 3?

Surely Mr. Churchill must see that if his contention be admitted in our regard, a like justification can be framed for similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a great Power could ever hope to be permitted to go it own way in peace.

[...]

I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.

These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.

Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole--would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain's stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the War.

Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famines, massacres in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but that each time on returning consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?

[...]"

 

[Kovax]

Why would the UK want to occupy a country that had been turned into an agrarian theocracy by Devalera. The Irish Joined the allied cause in great Numbers be it as soldiers or factory workers anyway. The only possible gain would have been a few naval bases. Seems like a lot of risk and bad pr for little gain as Ireland could only supply fighting men to the allied cause and little else.

It doesn't hurt to have a plan in case the worst happens, like Ireland deciding to declare complete independence and join the Axis.

 

[th3freakie]

It doesn't hurt to have a plan in case the worst happens, like Ireland deciding to declare complete independence and join the Axis.

?

 

[Geriander]

?

Independence isn’t complete without the North!

 

[Easy-Kill]

Curiously, just the other day I found someone on reddit quoting de Valera's reply to this. It's quite long but I'll post some bits:

"[...]

I know the reply I would have given a quarter of a century ago. But I have deliberately decided that that is not the reply I shall make tonight. I shall strive not to be guilty of adding any fuel to the flames of hatred and passion which, if continued to be fed, promise to burn up whatever is left by the war of decent human feeling in Europe.

[...]

Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain's necessity. 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-and shall it be World War No. 3?

Surely Mr. Churchill must see that if his contention be admitted in our regard, a like justification can be framed for similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a great Power could ever hope to be permitted to go it own way in peace.

[...]

I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.

These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.

Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole--would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain's stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the War.

Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famines, massacres in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but that each time on returning consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?

[...]"

Thanks for sharing. It's interesting that de Valera likens the English to Nazi Germany ... But I suspect that it's an outcome of centuries of religious conflict. Strangely enough, it was a German's fault as well! /Flippant

 

[Kovax]

Independence isn’t complete without the North!

That's why Ireland would join the Axis, to take back the north. Not very likely, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared, just in case. Losing access to the ports and naval bases in the south would only be half of the danger. As said, it makes a good planning exercise for training purposes, even if it's probably never going to be used. There's nothing wrong with having a detailed plan to take over the world, as long as you don't try to implement it.