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

Did you even read the report beyond the headline? Roosevelt was pissed when asked would they stand against British aggression as well as German.

Over in the Celtic thread now asking for yesterdays match to be replayed with all the money going to charity.

Roosevelt and the Americans were pissed with Dev's rep long before that, They kept him waiting 2 weeks for the meeting. At the meeting the U.S. President was so annoyed at Dev's rep. Aiken that knives, cutlery etc went flying. Did you not read the report?

The meeting was ( according to Dev's racist representative, and I quote his words ) "finally terminated in the presence of four or five negroes who entered and placed the president’s lunch on the table"

Aiken did not return home with the arms ( not surprising the Americans did not trust him) or the moral support he wanted.

That was 1941. Roosevelt knew many American boys, and Canadian ones, would die un-necessarily because of Dev, and he was right.

Seeing as Dev expressed condolences on the death of Hitler, do you think Dev should also have offered condolences to the families of American boys who lost their lives in the middle of the Atlantic?, in the mid Atlantic gap?

According to notes from the meeting between Dev's representative, Frank Aiken, and the U.S. President, in 1941 in America the following is recorded to have happened:

"The President interrupted to say that he believed in being perfectly frank. He said to Aiken 'you are reported as having said that the Irish had nothing to fear from a German victory'."

Not surprising the meeting ended with cutlery flying from the U.S. President and Aiken leaving with his tail between his legs.

Roosevelt sensed even then where Dev's sympathies laid, as evidenced by Dev's condolences on the death of Hitler.

Find a verified quote from Aitken saying that?

You won't so don't waste your time.

There were people around then like there is now, willing to misquote and spin what was being said.

Be more circumspect, verify before you repeat.

Also in the notes from the meeting:

"The President went on to talk of the dire consequences that would come to Ireland in the event of a German victory. On the question of supplies the difficulty was in not knowing how they would be used. The Rumanians, for instance, had asked for military equipment, and, when asked who they would use the equipment against, they had no reply. In our case there was no definite and explicit statement that they would be used against Germany in case of attack."

Also in the metort of that meeting in 1941

"The President said we should try and find a formula by which we could assist in patrolling our coast – a formula which would obvi- ate any German attack. He spoke of his bases on the British possessions in this hemisphere, and on the fact that he had extended the territorial waters of the U.S. to a belt 300 miles off the coast. He was considering increasing that belt. He had been told before taking certain of these measures that the Germans would use it as a pretext, but he judged differently. Mr. Aiken pointed out the difference of Ireland's position which would be right under the guns. The President repeated that a formula might be found. For instance, he said, in the patrolling of the area over here they were watching out for German submarine activities or surface craft. Why could you not institute an air patrol service extending, say, 50 miles off the Irish coast to spot these engines of destruction which are preying on your ships. Mr. Aiken said that any endeavour to get us committed would be turned down by the Irish Government"

Roosevelt was trying to save the lives of American boys. Aiken was not helping him.

Also in the report:

"The President said that the Irish did not seem to realise what a German victory would mean. At present they could buy and sell where they liked, but the Germans, even if they did not ravage and destroy the country, would take the Irish produce and say you will take in exchange children's toys. The Irish would reply 'We do not want children's toys', but the Germans would say, whether you want them or not, you are going to take them in exchange for your produce.

During the interview, General Watson4 had come in a couple of times to signify that the interview was at an end, but, as Mr. Aiken had not said all he wanted to say, he kept on. At this stage, however, the President showed that the interview was at an end" 

Interesting reading.

Plenty of Irish people died in the war. And plenty more would have if Hitler won the war, looking at the Nazis record in neutral countries they invaded.

Selective editing again. The rest of that first section

Mr. Aiken pointed out that Mr. de Valera had stated again and again, as far back as 1935 and since, that we would defend our territory against any belligerent who attacked us, and, furthermore, that he had given an explicit undertaking in public that he would not allow Ireland to be used as a base to attack England.2 The President said that a great many people in America did not realise this. He said that, if we could convince the British that such were the case, and if then the British came to him and said they were satisfied on the point, the supplies would be forthcoming. Mr. Aiken pointed out that the British policy in regard to Ireland had been very stupid and that the President should try and save them from their own folly

I think our neutrality suited everyone.

Saved us a lot of death and destructiion.

It meant the Germans didnt have an excuse to invade - which would have opened up another front for the British who were sevetely stretched in the early years of the war. So suited the allies.

You could also guarantee that if Ireland entered the war, Irish soldiers would have been used as cannon fodder in the most dangerous sitiations......as per WW1.

No they were not. The tactic is war is to have the other sides troops die, not your own. Besides, Dev could have let land for airbases to the Canadians or Americans and refused to send troops overseas. We could have helped the allied war effort from 1944 onwards in other ways too eg guarding captured Axis troops, instead of shipping them across the Atlantic as some were. Would have been safer for all involved too, more than one or 2 troop ships went down in war.

And the Germans would have attempted to bomb those bases and everywhere else.

That was what was facing us - that and veiled threats of an invasion from Britain.

Nobody, bar yourself, believes that the British were trustworthy or cared a jot for what happened here.

Talking of plans, in the event of the Nazis winning WW2, Field-Marshal von Brauchitsch, then C. -in-C. of all German forces, ordered that the entire male population between 17 and 45 should be deported to the Continent and interned, as soon as possible after these islands were defeated. A new Autobahn was to be made connecting Europe to the far east. Useful annihilation in other words. The Germans were big in to efficiency. Ask anyone from one of the neutral countries that Germany invaded, and who ended up a slave worker, and they can explain what working for Germany meant.

And Dev sent condolences on the death of Hitler. What did tens of millions around the world think of that - arguably the most disgusting gesture by a political leader towards any individual ever?

You still cannot admit you were wrong, but what else would I expect from someone who supported Sean Russell, the IRA man who went to Germany looking for German co-operation but who died in mysterious circumstances of the Nazi U-boat that was supposed to leave him back to Ireland.

The Irish who worked for the British during the war, who fought in their armed forces or who worked in hospitals, factories, mines, were cared for a lot better than the slave workers in neutral countries the Nazi invaded. No Irish people had a bad word to say. They were treated fairly, same as everyone else.

You do know how the Nazis treated their slave workers?