What if Hitler had invaded Ireland? Seriously? July 16, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History, Irish Politics.trackback
Ah, Tom Clonan’s recent article in the Irish Times on ‘What if Hitler had invaded?’ (accompanied by perhaps the most tasteless graphic I’ve seen in quite a while in the IT – and inappropriate too given that it was about the conduct of the Emergency rather than the contemporary period) managed to get the sackcloth and ashes brigade out in the IT letters page. A fine example of which was the following:
By the way, on a purely pedantic point it’s highly unlikely that Leinster House would have retained any political or administrative function with such being transfered as they were in other conquered territories to other installations.
It would be nice to think that this would comprehensively end the myth that our neutrality is anything other than the result of an historic act of cowardice during Europe’s darkest hour, but somehow I doubt it.
Well, I think the correspondent would do well to reexamine Clonan’s article. Firstly we should note that Operation Green was a plan, not an operation. So therefore all discussions of this hypothetical invasion must be positioned with regard to the rather large possibility that it in itself was a hypothetical plan.
For he notes that:
In military terms, the Irish Army would have been wholly ill-equipped to challenge a German invasion in the summer of 1940. In 1939, there were approximately 7,600 regulars in the Army with a further 11,000 volunteers and reserves of the Local Defence Force, forerunner of the FCA. By May 1940, this number had dropped by 6,000 due to financial constraints. The Irish government’s recruitment campaign only began to bear fruit by the autumn of 1940.
Had the Germans come ashore in the summer of 1940, they would have been met by an Army with no experience of combined arms combat and capable only of company- sized manoeuvres, involving a maximum of about 100 men. In addition, the Irish Army was poorly equipped, possessing only a dozen or so serviceable armoured cars and tanks. In terms of small arms, the Army did have plenty of Lee Enfield rifles – of first World War vintage – but had only 82 machine guns in total for the defence of the entire State.Many Irish units also moved about on bicycles – referred to at the time as Peddling (or Piddling) Panzers. Had they been engaged by the Wehrmacht, the Irish would have been slaughtered.
And there’s the small matter that Ireland was under threat from both the Germans and the British, hardly something to instill confidence in the idea that this was an existential battle between good and evil in which the Irish bottled it, a point Clonan makes explicitly in the article.
Ironically, the Germans were not the only foreign power making plans for the invasion of Ireland in the summer of 1940. In June of that year, Gen Montgomery drew up plans for the seizure of Cork and Cobh along with the remainder of the Treaty ports.
That British invasion plans were logical, and understandable from the context of her national survival doesn’t negate the fact that they somewhat takes the gloss off the bona fides of those who would see this as a virtuous struggle in which Ireland besmirched her name and reputation (consider that Icelandic neutrality was violated by the British in 1940 and subsequently by the US in 1941). And that they indicate just how much would have been asked of the Irish state to align with them.
But even to say that is to do no justice to the true complexity of the relationships extant between the two islands.
It’s also to ignore the small point that a German invasion of Britain, or England to be more precise, looks as if – given the disposition of German forces in the crucial 1940 period – it were unfeasible in and of itself. In truth a political armistice of some form or another was always a slightly more likely route to an exit by the UK from the war than invasion, and at some points in time within British political circles those championing such an approach were relatively powerful. But that too muddies the notion that this was a ‘clean’ conflict before whose purity the Irish, in this state, must bow their heads from shame.
What’s most notable about this is not the above, but the following sentences where it is clear that in such an eventuality Irish and British forces would have combined in some fashion.
When Britain’s prime minister, Winston Churchill, became aware of Operation Green, the British military set out detailed plans to counter-attack the Germans from Northern Ireland. Codenamed Plan W, it envisaged Irish Army units regrouping in the Border areas of Cavan-Monaghan and being reinforced by British troops moving south from Northern Ireland. In this scenario, the Irish and British armies would have fought alongside one another to repel the German invasion.
And that merely points up a further reality which is that Irish neutrality was always skewed heavily towards British interests as discussed here.
To be honest I think that neutrality given the political and military balances that were in play was a rational and sensible choice in terms of ensuring national survival. Of course had things gone differently… well, they’d have gone differently. But to try to posit that a state with utterly limited military assets available for its own protection let alone for offensive operations, living in the shadow of a neighbour who barely two decades previously had finally exited part, but not the whole of it (and had only left military bases on its territory a few short years previously) actually working very closely with that nation despite that shared history and present, exhibited ‘an historic act of cowardice’ is absurd rhetoric given the realities of the situation.
Indeed a much more tenable argument can be made that Irish neutrality provided a cover for Britain on its western approaches blunting the impulse of the Germans to invade outright while offering most, if not all, of the resources that the twenty-six counties could offer to the Allied war effort from man power to materiel.
That’s not particularly heroic, but it’s entirely utilitarian – and even highly efficient, and in a struggle with fascism [and even to phrase it in that way requires caveat upon caveat - so perhaps a struggle for national survival is a better way of putting it] I doubt either de Valera or Churchill found that particularly wanting as a means of negotiating that shared history mentioned above.
It would be nice to think that this would comprehensively end the myth that our neutrality is anything other than the result of an historic act of cowardice during Europe’s darkest hour, but somehow I doubt it.
I know it’s a bit of whatabouttery and should therefore be treated with caution, but whenever I read this sort of thing, I kind of want to know the author’s views on the neutrality of European democracy during Spain’s darkest hour just before.
The other point, wearing my history graduate’s hat*is that it is not only disingenuous but bad history to discuss Irish neutrality outside the context of its time. “Anything other”, indeed. There was plenty of “other”, and if the writer considers that the “other” wasn’t reason enough, well that’s a reasonable point of view. But tyou don’t just pretend it isn’t there.
[* not that I've got one, mind]
That’s it, it’s the tendency to boil down a hugely complex number of factors into a preformulated conclusion that gets me.
“That’s it, it’s the tendency to boil down a hugely complex number of factors into a preformulated conclusion that gets me.”
WBS, is that tendency not what people all do all the time? Whatever about this particular preformulated conclusion, it’s hard to fault the general process by which an argument is made and a conclusion is reached on the back of supporting pieces of selective evidence and analysis. No?
In this particular case of course it’s fair to say that simplification has won the day.
I wonder are there Swiss or Swedish journalists who retrospectively flay their contrymen for not fighting the good fight 39-45. especially as both countries profited from doing quite a lot of business with the Axis. I somehow doubt it.
I was re-reading R.M. Douglas’ book Architects of the Resurrection, about our own would-be Furhers, recently-he makes the point that open Irish intervention in the war would have probably split the country in two, as there was considerable pro-Axis sentiment in the country at that time. Most countries in Europe were neutral at the beginning of the war-they had war forced upon them. Fortunately Ireland didn’t have that choice made for it.
This whole neutrality thing is nearly as bad as the WWI poppy thing. Like that, it is spun as an example of modern, liberal, international/European (26 county) Ireland, when in fact it is about the most pariochial of concerns – getting at Irish nationalism in the here and now. I’d be more inclined to take these people seriously had any of them jumped on a plane to Rwanda in the 1990s to stop the genocide there. Or even – as EJH points out – if they lambasted the free state government for failing to act to defend the Spanish Republic. But what you’re more likely to get from these people is a rant about the republicans and communism in Spain.
It’s completely ahistorical moralising, and ignores the harsh reality that involvement in the war would undoubtedly have sparked another round of civil war.
On the money G (esp your first sentence)
Re: Nationalism and this debate. You rarely hear them mention Paddy Finucane, who was not only an RAF ace, but had a tricolour painted on the nose-cone of his Spitfire.
As for the Doheny and Nesbitt’s School of History, their attitude is really ‘oh noes, we missed the big party the cool kids went to’.
This whole neutrality thing is nearly as bad as the WWI poppy thing.
And from the same sources, which says it all really.
Indeed EWI. And I think Dr. X is quite right about missing the cool kids’ party.
Yes
You can add complete absence of airpower to the reasons why the Irish Army would have been slaughtered. I would like to see the penitents talk out of that one.
“Indeed a much more tenable argument can be made that Irish neutrality provided a cover for Britain on its western approaches”
There is something to this. I saw a lecture by Anthony Beevor about his Spanish Civil War book speculating that a possible benefit of Franco winning the war and keeping Spain neutral meant that it kept Germany out of Spain in WWII, thereby limiting their control of the Mediteranean.
Personally I think Ireland should have joined the allies after the Luftwaffe had been effectively neutralised in 44 (I’m not an expert so am open to correction on this) for purelty political reasons.
The Turks did something similar and were given a large amount of land for their “troubles”.
I agree Ramzi – Ireland could have made a statement after 1944, when the survival question was long settled.
All the mentions of Spain are interesting, seeing as Ireland was one of the very few countries that didn’t remove its embassador following a UN resolution to isolate Franco’s regime. What was their reasoning at the time for this?
Roman Catholic solidarity, Papal pressure? Just guessing.
probably their joint misguided belief in authority of the Church of Rome unfortunately. Not sure if they said as much of course.
Actually if you think the Catholic Church has been bad in Ireland, you should read about what they did in Spain.
Actually Cardinal MacRory lobbied the Irish government very intensively to come out in favour of the Spanish Nationalists. De Valera rejected the suggestion, much to the personal disappointment of Franco. If I am not mistaken he also introduced legislation making it a criminal offence for any Irish citizen to fight on either side.
Had I been alive at the time, I imagine I would have been an unenthusiastic supporter of the Spanish Nationalists, but I still think it was correct for the government to stay out of the conflict and give recognition to which ever side won the war. It was simply none of our business. Remember had the government not adopted a position of neutrality, it would necessarily have been pro-Franco.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0712/1224274512771.html
By the way WBS, one of the guys above disagrees with some of Clonan’s figures. I have no idea who is right
I remember Clonan was the guy behind the documentary last year about Lynch, invasion of the North etc.
recent work shows
1 sketchy plans for joint anglo Irish defensive measures after the fall of France
2 structured economic co operation with Irish manufacturing capacity being pit at the disposal of the allies
Donal O’Carroll is one of the most respected historians of the Irish Army, and especially of the period in question. Clonan has just had his head given to him by this venerable old gent, who is clearly much more knowledgable of the period (for what it’s worth, I agree with everything DO’C says).
That Clonan – a former commissioned officer! – is feigning ignorance of the details of the period, which he cannot but have encountered during his career[1], doesn’t reflect well on him at all. Rather, it shows that he understands just what West Britain’s favourite newspaper demands of its contributors.
[1] To pick just one example, outside the Panzer units most of the German Army itself travelled by foot, bicycle or horse, as even a cursory familiarity with the period will establish.
This surely is a complex issue.
- firstly, was WWII a crusade against facism as it is often portrayed. Alas, I don’t think the historical evidence supports that e.g Spain. It was a war of capitalist rivalry and imperialst expansion in my view. Of course most British US servicemen and women wouldn’t have seen it that way but.. So why should Ireland have joined such a war?
(- BTW te CP in Ireland must have been in a fix at this time, imperialist war? Great Patriotic War? NI? Free state? What did they say?)
- as a previous commentator said most of Europe was neutral, until they were invaded. Ireland wouldn’t have been neutral had it been invaded by Germany (what if it was the UK that invaded?). So why not have a go at Holland, Denmark etc? And, as mentioned Sweden, neutral throughout the war (and made lots of money (especially before the USA) which is what it would have been seen as, would have been catastrophic for Ireland for many reasons, and really would it have helped the allies?
- in fact Ireland wasn’t neutral neutral, it was pro-allies neutral. Many examples of that. How many Irish joined the UK military? 10s of thousands (my parents included), the govt did nothing to stop them. Plus many more working in arms factories etc. and points eejoynt makes.
I can’t understand why some Irish people beat themselves up about this? To have a go at “republicans” and Irish nationalism generally? Are they closet unioinists? Some sort of moral guilt? They should have done something to stop the gas ovens? Would Ireland have made any more of a difference to that than that she made as a neutral? Moot point.
Finally, more discussion into the causes of WWII and the motives and war aims of all those involved wouldn’t be a bad thing as some of the WWII allies claim to be engaged in moral wars right now,
So why not have a go at Holland, Denmark etc? And, as mentioned Sweden, neutral throughout the war (and made lots of mone. IF IRELAND HAD JOINED ON THE UK “SIDE” (especially before the USA ENTERED THE WAR) which is what it would have been seen as, would have been catastrophic for Ireland for many reasons, and really would it have helped the allies?
- sorry some bits (capitals) inadvertently lost!.
A couple of years back I met a Swedish woman who told me that German troops had been allowed pass through Swedish territory for the invasion of Norway. This caused more than a bit of a furore in Sweden, when it emerged a few years ago.
OTOH, if Sweden had also been occupied, there would have been nowhere for the Jewish community in Denmark to escape to (when news of the roundups came, the Danish resistance organised a sealift to get them across the water (the Skagerrak?) to safety).
Yeah. I still believe Irish neutrality was the correct position for
the state to adopt, given the devastation that would have resulted to Ireland if it had joined. The North Strand would only
have been the start of it.
I’m far more disappointed by the fact Ireland could have done
much more to help refugees from the war, especially Jews,
and didn’t.
Starkadder, are we doing much now to help refugees from wars?
A couple of years back I met a Swedish woman who told me that German troops had been allowed pass through Swedish territory for the invasion of Norway.
Not to mention supplying the Nazis with all the steel they required.
Regarding Spain did more Irish not fight on the side of Franco than against him?
Cant recall precisely but as news reached our shores of Priests being hung and killed in Spain was a boatload of recruits not sent over to defend Francos Catholic Spain from the Anarchist/Communist infidels?
Yes we were neutral in favour of the Allies, but partially by economic necessity. The Allied prisoners were supposed to have been better treated here than the Germans.
There was also great cross border co operation between the Fire Brigades during war as areas of the North were blitzed.
They were called the Irish Brigade. I dont think they saw action actually. I think they were sent home after some sort of arguement. If memory serves Eoin O’Duffy was involved with them.
O’Duffy led them, and not only were they sent home after a disagreement, they were sent home after being fired on by their own side.
LOL.
there is a book just out on shipbuilding in dublin which describes the large amount of repairs carried out on allied merchant ships in the dublin dockyard between 1939 and 1945.
facinating stuff
-” BTW te CP in Ireland must have been in a fix at this time, imperialist war? Great Patriotic War? NI? Free state? What did they say?”
up to June 1941 i think the phrase was ‘revolutionary defeatism’ following which it which it became a great patriotic war in NI only, the CP in the south entered the Irish Labour party en bloc
Now might be a good time to link to the site of the Holocaust Educational Trust Ireland:
http://www.hetireland.org/index.php?page=default
I’m currently reading Tim Pat Coogan’s Ireland in the Twentieth Century. On p. 297 he quotes Henry Harrison a former Parnellite who distinguished himself fighting for the British in WW1; Harrison is responding to a critique of Irish neutrality in the New York Times by Professor Comager:
“You proclaim that the Irish people have ‘missed out somehow on the greatest moral issue of modern history’….Presumably when Britain and France declared war upon the Axis in September 1939, ‘the greatest moral issue in modern history’ for two and a quarter years until Hitler invaded her territory in June 1941, and America herself ‘missed out on the greatest moral issue of modern history’ for two and a quarter years until December 1941, when Japan struck her the assassin blow at Pearl Harbor. These two great leviathan Powers were no voluntary crusaders leaping into the arena in unreflecting and disinterested enthusiasm for high moral principle. They remained neutral when Denmark and Norway, Holland and Belgium, Jugoslavia and Greece were, in turn, ravaged and enslaved. They fought because they were attacked, because being attacked, they might fight or submit to a conqueror’s yoke. And little Ireland was not attacked. That is the difference. That is the sole difference. For there is nothing more certain than that Ireland also would have fought back if she had been attacked.”
“All the mentions of Spain are interesting, seeing as Ireland was one of the very few countries that didn’t remove its embassador following a UN resolution to isolate Franco’s regime. What was their reasoning at the time for this?”
Tim, I’ll refer you to these:
http://url.ie/6sr2 (defence given of Ireland’s diplomatic recognition of the Spanish Republic, against charges that it gave implicit sanction to anti-clericalism)
http://url.ie/6sqz (from 1937, before diplomatic recognition was awarded, giving the prerequisite for diplomatic recognition of revolutionary governments):
Mr. MacDermot asked the Minister for External Affairs whether in view of the fact that by international law and custom the proper moment for recognising a new Government which has established itself in the course of a revolution or civil war is when it is judged to have attained stability and to have secured obedience over a clear majority of the country and the people he will consult with the other nations of the Commonwealth for the purpose of obtaining simultaneous recognition of General Franco’s Government directly these conditions are fulfilled.
The President: The conditions indicated by the Deputy are those which generally determine the recognition of revolutionary governments by other States. The moment these conditions are fulfilled there will be no difficulty in the recognition of General Franco’s Government by this State.
I cannot say whether there will be any question of recognition by groups of States simultaneously. If such a suggestion is made it is more likely to concern a European group than a combination of European and non-European States. Obviously European States have the more direct interest in taking the lead to insure stability.
So, once they’d recognised the Franco state before WWII they thought it best to carry on doing so after the war when the UN tried to isolate the regime?
I suppose there’s a difference between recognising a government and approving of it though
“I suppose there’s a difference between recognising a government and approving of it though”
Indeed.
‘For there is nothing more certain than that Ireland also would have fought back if she had been attacked.”
But Ireland wasn’t attacked precisely because Britain was in the way. Once the Brits gave up on the idea of invasion, which they did think seriously about in 1940, then our neutrality depended on the RAF and the Royal Navy. Because if the Germans had beaten Britain then they would have landed here as well, no doubt about it. Strategic ports on the Atlantic etc, same thing the Brits were going mad over giving back two years before. The reason the Germans didn’t land here wasn’t because they were afraid or weren’t interested, it was because they simply couldn’t after 1940.
Before anyone starts with the ‘the Brits learned the hard way in 1921 they couldn’t beat us’, you wouldn’t have been comparing like with like. The British had their backs against the wall in 1940 and would have gone all out to crush resistance quickly (though they only really wanted the ports so they may not have reoccupied anywhere else) while the Germans…well, the Brits executed about 20 people during the Tan War, while the Nazis were getting through that for every soldier shot in France, let alone what they got up to in Poland and the Balkans. I think it was Joe Lee who said the Black and Tans would look very different if we had been occupied by the SS.
That’s not to say we wouldn’t have fought: we would have but we would have lost and quickly. The Dutch and Belgians had much more modern armies, and actually had air forces and they didn’t last long. The occupation would have been very ‘interesting’ to view in retrospect to say the least- provided the Russians and the Yanks eventually did win the war. In my view there would have been collaborators from every walk of life and political viewpoint and more or less the same for the resistance, just like the rest of Europe, with the exception that we had a very small left.
(In Tim Pat Coogan’s 1966 Ireland Since the Rising book he claimed that the IRA had drawn up lists of anti-fascists and socialists to give to the Germans).
The Dutch and Belgians had much more modern armies, and actually had air forces and they didn’t last long.
The Brits, the Yanks and ourselves had in common something more valuable than any army, navy or air force when it came to defence – the sea.
Agreed. But the Brits and Yanks also had navies.
Agreed. But the Brits and Yanks also had navies.
And we had the Brits’
I’d say it’s a small recompense for eight hundred years’ etc. (itself the result of our geographical position).
As electionliterature points out neutrality in favour of the Allies was partially out of neccessity. The reason Sweden and Switzerland dealt with the Germans was because they were right next to them. We were right next too, and much weaker than, Britain.
Btw Garibaldy, communist historian Geoff Roberts in UCC would argue that neutral Ireland pursued appeasement towards the Axis and that anti-communism influenced its wartime policy. Certainly the Communist world and the British left were unforgiving about neutrality. The USSR tried to keep ‘Eire’ out of the UN and some argue that the British Labour party’s pro-Unionist policies in the late 40s were motivated by resentment at neutrality and Irish nationalist hostility towards Britain’s war effort.
Cheers Captain. I don’t doubt that the British and Communist left were pissed off. But I don’t doubt either that the current mob of right-wingers who peddle this line do so for entirely different, and less honourable, motives.
I think the answer to the main question is, Ireland would have done nothing, initially, not having the means to do so – but I believe we would have fought a guerilla war, such as the Germans would have faced everywhere in Europe during any period of occupation.
We might have fought it Tim, but would we have sustained it? The last 45 minutes of Elem Klimov’s ‘Come and See’ are pretty graphic depiction of what might have happened to us if we sustained such resistance.
The fate of civilians in France and Italy during WW11 shows that even without the anti-Jew and anti-Slav ‘vernichtungskrieg’ mentality, the Germans were no slouches when it came to crushing guerilla movements.
good point.
And a lot of our fighting men were, of course, overseas! My gramps was in India/Burma….
True.
Éire actually had 4 Victoria Cross medals and there were more Southern Irish in the British army than there were northern.
Re DC: they of course discuss this stuff, again and again, in both Sweden and Switzerland. And every country occupied or involved in the war has gone through numerous history/culture wars on the subject.
I would also agree that Donal O’Carroll knows a lot more about this than Tom Clonan, but even so the defence were woefully il-equipped for the battle they would have to fight, plus no navy (6 torpedo boats) and no real air corps-a few of the same machines that the Poles had before the Luftwaffe destroyed them and later a few Hurricanes the Brits sold us.
and no real air corps-a few of the same machines that the Poles had before the Luftwaffe destroyed them and later a few Hurricanes the Brits sold us.
While it was bad, it wasn’t quite as dire as that. The key to sudden victories over an opposing air force (no matter how out-of-date) was catching planes by surprise on the ground.
Otherwise you had bombers operating at distance from their bases, up against fighters (the defence of Malta, Wake and other such episodes during WWII are fascinating, with a small number of obsolete defending fighters having an effect out of all proportion to what you might imagine).
And there’s the small matter that Ireland was under threat from both the Germans and the British, hardly something to instill confidence in the idea that this was an existential battle between good and evil in which the Irish bottled it
There was a revelation in a British archives release a few years back, when Churchill’s preferred plan for dealing with the anticipated German landing area around Wexford/Waterford came to light.
His intention? Gassing the whole region.
Lads. What about the very imminet war about to begin with the Mass Mudering Machine call the USa see below.
The origin of wars
(Taken from CubaDebate)
I affirmed on July 4 that neither the United States nor Iran would give in; “one, due to the pride of the powerful, and the other, out of resistance to the yoke and the capacity to fight, as has occurred so many times in the history of humanity…”
In almost all wars, one of the parties wishes to avoid them, and sometimes, both. On this occasion, it would come about even though one of the parties does not wish it, as happened in the two World Wars in 1914 and 1939, with only 25 years of distance before the first outbreak and the second.
The slaughters were horrific, they would not have been unleashed without prior errors of calculation. The two parties were defending imperialist interests and they believed that they would obtain their objectives without the terrible cost that that implied.
In the case that concerns us: one of them is defending national, absolutely just interests. The other is pursuing illegitimate intentions and crude material interests.
If we analyze all the wars that have taken place, starting from the known history of our species, one of the parties has sought those objectives.
Any illusion that, on this occasion, such objectives will be reached without the most terrible of all wars is absolutely vain.
In one of the best articles published by the Global Research website on Thursday, July 1, signed by Rick Rozoff, he provides abundant indisputable arguments on the United States’ intentions, of which any well-informed person must be aware.
“…Victory can be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and devastating attack without the ability to defend itself or retaliate,” is what the United States thinks, according to the author.
“…A country which aspires to remain the only state in history to wield full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air, on the seas and in space.”
“…To maintain and extend military bases and troops, aircraft carrier
battle groups and strategic bombers on and to most every latitude
and longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record war budget of $708 billion for next year.”
It was “…the first country to develop and use nuclear weapons…”
“… the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 2,200
(by some counts 3,500) more in storage and a triad of land, air and
submarine delivery vehicles.”
“The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and destroying the air
defenses and strategic, potentially all major, military forces of other nations will consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles, adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses.”
Rozoff lists the many press conferences, meetings and statements of Joint Chiefs of Staff and high-ranking members of the government of the United States in the last few months.
He explains the commitments to NATO and the reinforced cooperation with Near East allies, primarily, read Israel. He says, “The U.S. is also intensifying space and cyber warfare programs with the potential to completely shut down other nations’ military surveillance and command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems, rendering them defenseless on any but the
most basic tactical level.”
He speaks of the signing in Prague, on April 8 of this year, of the new START Treaty between Russia and the United States, which “does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.”
He refers to countless news items on the subject and illustrates the intentions of the United States with one overwhelming example.
He notes that “…’The Department of Defense is currently exploring the full range of technologies and systems for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability that could provide the President more credible and technically suitable options for dealing with new and evolving threats.’”
I maintain the opinion that any president whosoever, not even the most expert military chief, would not have one minute to know what should be done if it was not already programmed on computers.
Imperturbably, Rozoff relates what the Global Security Network affirms in an analysis titled: “’Cost to test U.S. global-strike missile could reach $500 million,’” by Elaine Grossman.
“’The Obama administration has requested $239.9 million for prompt global strike research and development across the military services in fiscal 2011… If funding levels remain as anticipated into the coming years, the Pentagon will have spent some $2 billion on prompt global strike by the end of fiscal 2015, according to budget documents submitted last month to Capitol Hill.’”
“A terrifying scenario comparable to the effects of a PGS attack, in this case the sea-based version, appeared three years ago in Popular Mechanics:
“’In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president’s command to launch. When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles.
“’At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident’s four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet.
“’Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel.
“’Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.’”
Rozoff immediately explains the April 7 statement of General Leonid Ivashov, joint chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, made in a column entitled “Obama’s nuclear surprise.”
In that same column Ivashov, refers to the speech by the U.S. president in Prague last year: “The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War” – and his signing of the START II agreement in that same city on April 8, Rozoff quotes the author, who stated:
“’No examples of sacrificial service of the U.S. elites to mankind or peoples of other countries can be discovered in the U.S. history over the past century. Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president to the White House to change the country’s political philosophy traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like that is possible should try to realize why the U.S. – the country with a military budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world combined – continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations for war.’”
“… ‘The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike using several thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus force it to capitulate.’”
“’The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the U.S. monopoly in the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world. Combined with the deployment of the missile defense supposed to keep the U.S. immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global dictator.’”
“’In essence, the new U.S. nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel U.S. security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of total impunity. The U.S. is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as the global gendarme, and planning real-life exercise in Iran to test the efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same time, Washington is talking about the completely nuclear-free world.’”
In essence, Obama is trying to deceive the world by talking of a humanity free of nuclear weapons, which would be replaced by other extremely destructive ones, ideal for terrorizing state leaders and achieving the new strategy of total impunity.
The yankis believe that Iran’s rendition is already close. The European Union is expected to announce a sanctions package of its own to be signed on July 26.
The last meeting of the 5+1 took place on July 2, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad affirmed that “his country would return to talks at the end of August with the participation of Brazil and Turkey.”
A high-ranking EU official “stated that neither Brazil nor Turkey will be invited to take part in talks, at least not at this level.”
“Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that he was in favor of defying international sanctions and continuing with the enriched uranium program.”
From Tuesday, July 5, in the face of the European reiteration that they are to promote additional measures against Iran, this country has responded that it will not negotiate until September.
Every day the possibilities of overcoming the insurmountable obstacle are reducing further.
What is going to happen is so evident that it can be foreseen in an almost exact form.
For my part, I must make a self-criticism; I committed an error in affirming in the June 27 Reflection that the conflict would break out on the Thursday, Friday or at the latest Saturday. It was already known that Israeli warships were navigating toward that objective together with the yanki naval forces. The order to search Iranian merchant ships was already given.
However, I did not realize that there was a prior step: confirmation of the negation of permission for the inspection of its mercantile fleet on the part of Iran. In analyzing the torturous language of the Security Council imposing sanctions on that country, I did not notice that detail to give the inspection order full effect. It was the only thing missing.
The 60-day period given by the Security Council on June 9 to receive information on compliance with the Resolution expires on August 8.
But something really most lamentable happened. I was working on the latest material on the delicate issue drafted by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the said document did not contain two key paragraphs – the last two of the abovementioned resolution – which textually state:
“Requests within 90 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and with other provisions of resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration;
“Affirms that it shall review Iran’s actions in light of the report referred to in paragraph 36 above, to be submitted within 90 days, and: (a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations in good faith in order to reach an early and mutually acceptable outcome;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of resolution 1737 (2006), as well as in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of resolution 1803 (2008), and in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 above, as soon as it determines, following receipt of the report referred to in the paragraph above, that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board of Governors; (c) that it shall, in the event that the report shows that Iran has not complied with resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with these resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary…”
A compañero from the Ministry, after the exhausting work of many hours at the machine making photocopies of all the documents, fell asleep. My eagerness in seeking out information and exchanging points of view on these delicate issues, made it possible for me to discover this omission.
From my point of view, the United States and its NATO allies have said their last word. Two powerful states with authority and prestige did not exercise their right to veto the perfidious UN resolution.
It was the only possibility of gaining time to seek some formula for saving the peace, an objective that would have afforded them greater authority to continue fighting for it.
Today, everything is hanging from a tenuous thread.
My principal intention was to advise international public opinion of what was occurring.
I have in part achieved that by observing what was taking place, as a political leader who, for many years, has been confronting the empire, its blockades and its indescribable crimes. But I am not doing it out of revenge.
I am not hesitating to run the risks of compromising my modest moral authority.
I shall continue writing Reflections on the subject. There will be a number more after this one in order to continue going more profoundly into it in July and August, unless some incident occurs to trigger the deadly weapons currently pointed at each other.
I have very much enjoyed the final games of the World Cup and the volleyball games, in which our valiant team is marching at the head of its group in the World League of that sport.
Fidel Castro Ruz
July 11, 2010
8:14 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
I’m glad I scrolled down after a few paragraphs to see who wrote it. Saved some time.
& Jesus wept…
Truths hurts
I’m a fan of the whole “truth to power” kick, but Raul Castro spewing a bunch of crap is far from that mark.
And morons bore.
To me life is not boring, saving it. It is quite a good thing,and if FC can help in that , then lets hope it does some good.
Could those who would retrospectivally oppose neutrality care to give a list of current regimes with which we should declare war, hopefully small ones. oh, and would they volunteer themselves or their first born children.
Oh, the Swedes insisted the germans pay in gold after Stalingrad.
And the Poles whose problems stared the war, ended with an imposed regime and their borders somewhat shifted.
I wonder what the anti=fascists refugees handed over to Hitler by Stalin thiought of it all.
‘And the Poles whose problems stared the war, ended with an imposed regime and their borders somewhat shifted.’
The Germans started the war Jim and used various issues with Poland as an excuse. I never said that Irish neutrality was wrong just that it was based on realpolitik and we were dependent on Britain at the end of the day. I wouldn’t go quoting the numbers of Irishmen who joined the Allied forces either: they weren’t supposed to.
in what way were they not supposed to, CR?
I think Jim’s keyword is ‘retrospectively’, in that it’s a luxury of us who have hindsight to judge what our forebears ‘should’ have done. Which is right to a point, but after, say, 1943 it should have been obvious who the winning side would turn out to be and the issue of an invasion of Ireland had long since evaporated. It would have made a nice moral statement – not to mention reflecting the reality that thousands of Irishmen felt strongly enough to sign up for foreign armies – for Ireland to have declared war at some point.
After all, consider the list of countries who declared war on Germany in 1918, months before the armistice.
Should we declare war on anyone now? War seems to have become supra-national these days so probably not. We do participate in UN-mandated actions throughout the world and should be proud of that.
It would have made a nice moral statement
I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘opportunistic’. And the conventional wisdom on when would have been the opportunistic moment to join the Allies was the day that Hitler declared war on the US, and the USA declared war in response (and not the other way around, which the heroic pro-British accounts of the war glide over).
Opportunistic, too. And pragmatic. American ‘neutrality’ was of a different nature to Ireland’s, of course, being more understood in terms of isolationism. Ireland’s ‘entry’ into the war at that point would have made a statement of solidarity with the US rather than with Britain, which would certainly have pleased many quarters in Ireland.
Captain Rock, fortunately there was an option for those who conscientiously objected to the national policy of neutrality, then. I wonder did many volunteer for the US army instead of the British one, in order to circumvent the (understandable) hostility to such a move?
American ‘neutrality’ was of a different nature to Ireland’s, of course, being more understood in terms of isolationism.
I don’t accept a difference. Neutral is neutral, no matter what the motivation(s).
Captain Rock, fortunately there was an option for those who conscientiously objected to the national policy of neutrality, then. I wonder did many volunteer for the US army instead of the British one, in order to circumvent the (understandable) hostility to such a move?
Three points: (i) the recruiting offices and training depots for the US Army were rather far away, and I’m not aware of any in the UK(!). I’m not aware of whether the Americans would have countenanced such an arrangement either, out of deference to a Hiberno-phobic British government which regarded “Éire” as a traitor.
(ii) From the published histories of the Spanish Civil War, we know that this was a serious issue for (at least) most, such that a considerable number went instead into the American Lincoln brigade.
(iii) The US, as we know, was rather late to the war…
Citizens of the Irish Free State who joined the British (or any other foreign army) were acting against the spirit of neutrality. They were not supposed to go to Britain to join up and therefore kept it quiet. Some deserted and came back. Some deserted the Irish Army and went over! But a large proportion of the Free State’s population considered those who joined the British forces to be traitors and that view was shared by many in the Irish Army. if you wanted to defend Ireland, you stayed here. Those who joined the Brits contravened neutrality.
Did any Irish actually directly fight for hitler? A la the British members of the ss friekorps? There were Indian members of the ss i seem to recall
On 15 February 1942,Lt Gen. Arthur Percival walked under a flag of truce to negotiate the capitulation of Allied forces in Singapore, . It was the largest surrender of British-led forces in history.
Your starter for 1, Captain Rock, where previously did Percival distinguish himself ?
There was a rumour that the Japanese were singing “Kevin Barry” when they walked in. Hilarious.
In Cork during the Tan War. Why do you think I am defending British imperialism Nollaig?
In Limerick in 1921 a British Black and Tan called Nathan was involved in the murder of the Sinn Fein Lord Mayor. Where in 1937 did Nathan distinguish himself? Your starter for 10 Nollaig. And read my posts above prior to asking smart-arse questions.
While we are having a Saturday night quiz (is your social life shit as well?), in 1920 Captain Sean Cunningham of the Belfast IRA distinguished himself in the defence of Ballymacarret. Where did he not distinguish himself in 1937?
Nathan was killed at the battle of the Jarama fighting with the International Brigades, ironically the British Battalion he was leading contained an Irish company composed mostly of Left Wing ex members of the IRA including Frank Ryan. I would imagine Cunningham was in Duffys Brigade that fought on Francos side?
lads is this not a bi like the cult of the individual?
sweden supplied irion ore steel and engineering components to germany as well as allowing troops to be transported from norway to finland across their territory
spain and portugal supplied wolfram – vital for weapons grade steel to germany
switzerland supplied hydro electricity financial services and weapons to germany
argentina remined neutral despite stron US pressure and supplied the allies with beef
ireland supplied britain with overflight facilities, intelligence co operation, food, cement, tyres, and manpower
ireland supplied britain with overflight facilities, intelligence co operation, food, cement, tyres, and manpower
And the quick return of any planes which could immediately fly, and of any aircrew who were downed.
The Northern response was less helpful. Stormont (among other parochial concerns) exercised itself about any influx of Catholic Polish refugees…
Yes and Yes. Sorry for the Saturday night point-scoring. I’m afraid the story of the Japanese singing the ‘Boys of Kilmichael’ is a little bit made up..
A couple of Irish deserters from the British Army ended up in the SS- there was a book published on it a couple of years ago.
thanks Captain.
- were they in the mainly english friekorps do you know? I can look it up
The Japanese story would be great were it true, Captain Rock
They were not deserters they were captured by the Germans after been left in a prison.The Brits abandoned their posts in Jersey I think, and left these two to the mercy of the Germans.They had been charged with drunkeness and assaulting a policeman.
http://www.mercierpress.ie/cartage.html?main_page=product_book_info&products_id=424&zenid=nm3031uv917v1eimnhg8ndror3&cartage_alias=cartage
Terence O’Reilly: Hitler’s Irishmen (Mercier, 2008)
thanks. Looks interesting. That Otto S. dude ended up in Ireland after the war for a while I seem to recall.
Apparently….He spent part of his time between 1959 and 1969 in Ireland, where he bought Martinstown House, a 200-acre farm in County Kildare in 1959.
What’s striking about that is how centrally he remained involved in fascist networks post war, and indeed post-Ireland.
Someone in a position to know told me once that the National Archives have a big file on OS, which describe him as a ‘German war hero’, and a ‘good anti-Communist’.
Now that’s a file I’d like to see…