Is Irelands neutrality stance in WW2 unfairly criticized? (see Mod note 217)

I would broadly agree with Churchills speech. But he was anti Irish and imperialist. Dev was anti UK and anti Imperialism to a level that clouded his judgement. He damaged his legacy beyond repair with his actions. He might have protected Irish neutrality but damaged it's international reputation at the same time.

What has that all got to do with Neutrality?

You just want to do a hactchet job on a man who like all leaders did good and bad for his country.

Judging from the answers you have gotten here, you have failed in your arguments on our neutrality.

Sweden supplied Nazi Germany with massive quantities of high-grade iron ore and other economic and logistical support which directly supported the Nazi war machine.

This is well-known and controversial to this day.

Late in the war when it looked like Germany would lose and the Allies would win, Sweden softened on the Allies and started allowing US use of Swedish Airbases.

Do you know why they were hanged? McGrath, Harte and Kerins were convicted of murdering Gardai, O'Neill and Goss were convicted of attempted murder of Gardai.

Similarly the population of the United States were largely in favour of American neutrality until the attack on Pearl Harbour. I read a book years ago about American Anglophobia between the wars. "Limeys" were not much loved in the good 'ol USA of that time.

Yes and I think that is retroactively obscured because people may not be fully aware that American entry into the war, and the subsequent Cold War and Marshall Plan, came with a huge public relations campaign orchestrated by the US Government about the friendship between America and Britain.

Ireland and with them the other neutrals that managed to stay that way were walking a tightrope where mis-steps could have seen them dragged in one way or another.

The War of Independence / Civil War was less than twenty years gone. Joining the 'Old Enemy' would have been viewed as unforgivable by a sizable group of people. Which would have run the risk of internal instability. Ireland certainly would have found itself the target of bombing. I think there's also a case that a neutral Ireland was perhaps more beneficial to Britain than a co-belligerent. Thousands of Irish either fought for or worked in Britain. Had Ireland be directly involved, there's no certainty they would have been available. Certainly Britain would have had to provide equipment, training and possibly troops to defend Ireland's southern coast at a time at a stage of the war where there were more demands on resources than resources to go round.

Now the country did have a lucky break with the return of the treaty ports. Had those still be in British hands, they certainly would have been fair game for bombing which with the limits of 1940s accuracy, would have resulted in far more damage to the country (even assuming the Germans tried to limit it to the ports).

Where I think you can definitely point and say this is wrong is Dev's actions after the death of Hitler. Regardless of what was or was not known about the regime's crimes, it had been ground out of existence. The opinions of Germans or whatever came out of the war was not going to count for anything. However the opinions of the winners was going to matter and Dev basically committed an unforced error that left a massive and lasting blot on his own legacy and on the country's reputation.

Now going into current affairs I think Ireland's WW2 neutrality gives a false impression that neutrality is something that can be done easily and really without cost. In reality it was as I said walking a tightrope where ultimately you got neutral if the combatants chose to allow you to be neutral.

Imagine the scorn that would have been heaped on Dev and Ireland had we joined the allies in 1944 when it was clear Germany was going to lose!

There is no record of what was said when Dev called on Hempel who was a diplomat and certainly not a Nazi. Hempel had conducted himself impeccably throughout the war and Dev wished to assure him his diplomatic status would be respected when it was unclear how far the allies were going to go in punishing Germany.

However it was a mistake, easily misrepresented, e.g. the non existent book of condolances.

Leo Varadkars blunder in bringing a photo of a bombed customs post to an EU dinner to support the case for no border had similar echoes of this, easily misrepresented by bad actors as threatening violence, which it wasnt.

If we did join the Allies, we could have insisted that only the Americans - or the Canadians, or whoever - establish bases and naval stations in the Republic. Could have saved a lot of allied lives. Or maybe even decided the course of the war, because the battle of the Atlantic was a close thing for a long time. Churchill said the only thing that really worried him was the U boat threat in the Atlantic.

It's well known that US population didn't want to enter the war (either war). They basically wanted nothing to do with it until it landed at their door. On both coasts and all theatres of the war. They had to be persuaded to get involved. They were dragged into it.

US did well out of the war. It ended the Great Depression, propelled industrial production, and sparked a post-war economic boom. It rebuilt Germany and Japan but made UK pay through the nose for everything.

The US looked after us own interests.

Defending the empire was certain a large part of British interest. But it still got involved to defend other countries when it didn't have to. It essentially bankrupted itself. No debt forgiveness from the US either.

That's the context of Irish Neutrality in WW2.

Wheres the evidence it could have saved a lot of allied lives? The western approaches to UK are over the top, ships from US went up along the coast of Canada and across the top following the earths curvature, the earth isnt flat! With Britain having use of Northern Ireland e.g. Lough Erne for the boat planes plus the Donegal corridor allowing them to fly directly out over "neutral" Irish airspace the ROI ports would have been of little use.

The death penalty existed in Ireland up until 1990 with the last execution taking place in 1954. I notice you didn't mind the other 9 executions that took place during the war only the IRA members.

Imagine if northern or British authorities had treated Irish prisoners in jail as harshly as Dev did? Why does Dev get a free pass on this? Was there any need for him to execute IRA men in Irish jails?

What are you on about! They were convicted like the other 9 people executed in Ireland during the war. Also the British executed IRA members Peter Barnes and James McCormack in 1940 despite De Valera campaigning for clemency.