But there was very little partisan activity throughout the most industrialized parts of Europe. So what explains this compared to the intense activity in Eastern Europe?

And what is the definition of 'major'? Poland was certainly a significant power in the 1920s, scoring big victories against the Soviets and plowing their way all the way to Kiev. In 1920 they amassed an army almost 1 million strong out of a population of 26 million. Yugoslavia held their own against the Austrians during WWI (Serbia - the core military power within Yugoslavia), and was only defeated when the Germans and Bulgarians overwhelmed them in 1915. Serbia had also won big victories in the two Balkan wars prior to 1914 and in the 1950s had one of the largest armies in Europe (370 thousand from 1956-1960), so Yugo was no small power.

"I think the disparity between French partisanship and the same further east was because Hitler, while he didn't like the French, didn't want to exterminate them like he did with Slavs. "

Certainly true.

Definition of major in this case. Major. A country that had good industry and was thought to be one of the leading military powers. Poland was a significant power, but not when they needed to be.

"Not to hijack this thread, but there were other reasons the British were able to take over India so easily. But that's a different story."

I'm interested in that story. Please elucidate. This thread is dying anyway.

It gets active then goes inactive. Every thread does that

Whatever, we've had dozens of threads on WWII. I'm interested in British India.

Well, then start your own thread

I did and yet you still complain.

Perhaps there is a similarity here between French resistance in WW2 and British India. If, as an occupying power, you can persuade a particular population, either that they are really your friends, or that you are helping them against a greater enemy then you might have an easier time of it.

The British certainly did this to good effect in India, particularly with the Sikh population. The Germans didn't make a bad fist of it either, particularly in France, Belgium and Bosnia. Witness the SS legions drawn from these populations.

Incidently, throwing a firework into the bonfire, this goes a long way to explain the stance of the Irish government in the conflict too.

That's a good point. Certainly that helped the Americans in Japan and Germany. By playing the 'Soviet threat' card, the populations were much more willing to abide by American demands. On the other hand, the German threat allowed the Soviets to move into the Baltic states along much the same lines. The Russian threat also allowed Japan to take Korea from China, since the argument was Japan could not tolerate Korea in the hands of a hostile power. The Bantu 'threat' compelled the Afrikaners to accept the Union of South Africa under the British flag.

Ireland's behavior was truly treacherous. The only nation to sign the Book of Condolences for Hitler after his death. De Valera was even offered an end to partition to join the Allies. Oy.

As Churchill said:

…if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera or perish forever from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I say, history will find few parallels, we never laid a violent hand upon them, which at times would have been quite easy and quite natural, and left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content…

and crucially: “ the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats.

What did the Republic or Ireland do during WW2? Were they neutral, or what?

Many commited Irishmen went to fight for the allied cause, however, you are correct that the Irish government remauined neutral. Given Ireland's strategic position, as the battle of the Atlantic was so finely balanced this could easily have led to an axis victory.

Also please note that many of the Irish volenteers experienced a rather unplesant time when they returned home after the war. This site is very good on the subject -

http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/war.htm

And here is an exract -

Irish citizens who had served in the British armed forces during the war, often alongside their Northern Irish compatriots, implicitly resisted and refused this polarisation. In Northern Ireland their diverse identity as Irish-British patriots was denied while in the south they were marginalised socially, politically and culturally, and excluded them from the ongoing process of identity formation. One example of this exclusion was the boycott by successive postwar governments of Remembrance Sunday commemorations. That began to change in the 1980s but official representation at remembrance services and ceremonies was patchy until the mid-1990s. Symbolically, the National War Memorial at Islandbridge was allowed to decay into a state of considerable disrepair. As well as official apathy there was popular hostility towards the volunteers which was summed up by the furore created by Gay Byrne’s announcement in 1988 that he would wear a remembrance poppy on his show. He backed down in the face of protests and threats.

You may even have heard of what around Remberance Sunday 2010 at Parkhead -

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/celtic/2010/11/08/celtic-launch-probe-into-parkhead-poppy-protest-banner-86908-22701627/

of course there is the issue of ireland and the Spanish Civil war but that is another can of worms, I am afraid.

Ireland & the Spanish Civil war??? What about that? I have never heard of any irish involvement in spain....

I am reluctant to appear to be embarking on an anti-Irish tirade so perhaps I had better leave that one well alone. Perhaps, it would be wise to ask me again in a week or so. For now you can look up Michael O'Riordan, but there is, unfortunately, a rather darker side to the story.

Lol this site is unique for the afficionados!!

DeValera was probably toying with his bargaining position in the world should Germany succeed in the Atlantic. As Fulhamish is indicating, the British are made well aware of the residual Irish perspective on British interests by Devaleras pandering to the Nazis. But he didn't make the mistake of pitching in too early , so it mostly went unnoticed Historically.
Remember, the Irish state of the time was in a vulnerable position, so much of Devaleras thinking was probably bargaining for outcome with both sides. A good example of a small state doing big league diplomacy. In fact, one man doing all that.

@Putin, fulhamish; what are you guys, historians? Theres a lot of detailed knowledge there, but you're both outspoken moralisers. After all, what's the theme of this site?
Putin in particular you ar seemingly out to prove something to yourself about Anglo-American civilisation all the time? Flaming the forum over Israel.
Lol some of the quotes are fit for a soap opera. And where the heck do you get all the demographic and statistical information?
Maybe you're planning for a career at Fox News?

You should also be aware then that Mr.Churchill had stated he would invade the south of Ireland in order to commision Irish Catholics into the British war effort. You two need to get your facts in the right chronological order. This is something the Irish had spent several centuries doing; sailing british vessels and fighting British wars. This should explain the hostility of the Irish to the volunteers. A 'white mans war' as Cassius Clay once put it!

@Perry6006 - Irish volunteers were numerous in the spanish civil war but these were not sanctioned by the State as far as I am aware. Mostly socialists and anarchists, poets and writers the usual leftys.

The data comes from the Correlates of War database which I happen to be using for my project on state weakness/failed states. The charge of moralizer I accept, it is difficult to be a dispassionate realist - especially in the face of WWII.

WWII was hardly a "British war". Irish merchant marines were killed overwhelmingly by the Axis side and Ireland's economy depended on Britain for fuel which was effected by the blockade. Ireland would have been occupied just as assuredly as Britain had Sealion gone forward. Ever heard of Operation Green?

@ the Verve

In the final analysis I cannot agree with your vedict on Dev diplomatic prowess. I do, however, think that he was a consumate politician. There was a lot of anti-British and pro-German sympathy in Ireland at the time, particularly in the republican movement (nothing much changes!). Witness IRA plots in Berlin, attempts to raise an Irish SS legion among POWs, arms being smuggled by submarines, possible tendering of German submarines, possible guiding of German bombers, onto Belfast etc....

Dev brilliantly exploited this to remove Britain from the Treaty ports in 1938. A move which nearly cost the allies the war. There is no question, however, that if Britain fell then Ireland would be next, and Dev was trying to pacify a tiger. This in my view made him a poor diplomat, certainly compared to Churchill.

As to WW2 being a ''white man's war'' do I really need to go into Nazi/Social Darwinist philosophy on this point?

@Perry6006 - Irish volunteers were numerous in the spanish civil war but these were not sanctioned by the State as far as I am aware. Mostly socialists and anarchists, poets and writers the usual leftys.

Unfortunately (or perhaps not, given the way you express your views) by proportion Ireland sent more volenteers to fight for Franco than the Republic, apart from the obvious exceptions of Germany and Italy. Read up on the Blue Shirts and the initial leader of Fiona Gael - Eoin O'Duffy. And the support given to these fascists by many of the clergy at the time.

"@Perry6006 - Irish volunteers were numerous in the spanish civil war but these were not sanctioned by the State as far as I am aware. Mostly socialists and anarchists, poets and writers the usual leftys. "

No, as many irish socialists and anarchists who fought in the spanish civil war, there were also Irish Catholics who fought for Franco. (see Eoin duffy and the quasi-fascist blue shirts) The Catholic church partly supported Franco and opposed communism in Spain, so about as many Irish men fought on the right as on the left in the Spannish civil war.

Yes Orathaic that is my understanding too, but you must be aware that we are saying the unsayable!

indeed, completely unsayable, i mean the irish are great, we never invaded or opressed anyone! We never even had the chance :p

Lol, I guess my political history is not a match for these folks.

Fair enough, the ones who get the press are the idealistic socialists rather than the Catholic Fascists.

But please, the Socialists in Spain were elected and they were not Communists!
Again the Irish were demonstrating a tendency to play both sides for adbvantage. DeValera was a hard core Catholic, and controversially may have been a jesuit agent.
Mysterious overlaps? Ask yourselves on a deeper level.
I've enough of this. I can't keep up a live debate on the forum, sorry.

@fulhamish, the reference was to the fact that Muhammed ali denounced his conscription as a 'white mans conflict' and not a black americans issue. It was not a bloody indictment of Darwinian theory!! Jeez, I'm gonna stay out of this.

i don't see any attempt 'to play both sides for advantage' - in both case i think it was irish men going to fight for something they believed in without the consent of the government or of Dev... at least as far as my limited history goes...

Yes the Verve you are quite right to chide me and I apologise for the Social Darwinist reference, it was unnecassary and probably spurious.

"@fulhamish, the reference was to the fact that Muhammed ali denounced his conscription as a 'white mans conflict' and not a black americans issue. It was not a bloody indictment of Darwinian theory!! Jeez, I'm gonna stay out of this."

You seem to be confusing WWII with the Vietnam war. Since Ali/Clay was born in 1942, he could have hardly been conscripted in that conflict.

I still don't get the trend of commenting in a thread just to make fun of it or declare it unimportant/irrelevant.