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

I think a consideration must be that the extent of the German crimes were not totally clear during the war. Of course the allies would criticise us for not joining, they would want as many countries as possible on their side.

The Germans fought a number of colonial powers such as France, Belgium, Netherlands, Britain who also treated their colonies appallingly. At the time of ww2 (and even after it with many of these European powers trying to regain their lost colonies) the civilised world was not that civilised, it was just unusual for the crimes to be committed against Europeans by Europeans.

I vote for SF.
I did not support them until the 2020 GE

You with your usual delusions might think I run SF, but that doesn't make it so, no matter how much you want to pivot away from self exposing your awful grasp of your own history.

What has this got to do with Ireland's neutrality in WW2? I dont think anyone else here is obsessed about other poster's posting history.

I was replying to him as he was trying to distance him self from Sean Russell, but Sean Russell is relevant to the debate, as he was a noteable figure during "the emergency".

Why mention his amount of posts on the subject or what a mod supposedly said about them. You were attacking the poster.

Sean Russell is relevant, your post on another poster was not.

... so it is criticised...

Irish people look at from a difference historical context. Thats equally valid.

Yet again you continue to push the lie

is of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy paid on such occasions as the death of the head of a State should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the policies of the State in question or of its head. It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgment good or bad.

I think we all know what the battle of Atlantic was. I could see why ireland would be criticised at the time, but it would a strange decision to join any war effort just because another country criticises you.

Our neutrality as shown had little negative affect on our relationships. The Russian ire is over blown, it had more to do with other stuff in geopolitics.

If you are joing a war to prevent soldiers dying on one side then we should have joined every war since WW2 under your logic.

You are making a great case that De Valera showed terrible judgement in his actions around Hitlers death, pity that is not the question in the thread title.

The conclusion to be drawn obviously is that granted Britain had bases on the South coast of Ireland the present position would be unchanged, viz. vessels in convoy in the North Atlantic would still proceed to and from England via the North Channel or around the coast of Scotland. In fact, Cobh and Berehaven could be of no more advantage to the British from the point of view of escorts and assembly of convoys than Plymouth is to-day. Plymouth is not now used as an assembly or escort base for Atlantic convoys.

With regard to Lough Swilly, since that inlet is no longer under British control Lough Foyle is being used instead and escort craft of somewhat lesser dimensions in strength to that based on Lough Swilly 1917/18 now use the Foyle as a haven. Limavady aerodrome is on the East bank of the Foyle and it would be extremely difficult to obtain a tract of land suitable for an airfield adjacent to the Swilly to serve that Lough as Limavady serves the Foyle. In time factors, for the destroyer the Swilly is not more than half an hour more westward than the Foyle and considerably less than ten minutes westward for the aircraft. Buncrana was selected as a port of assembly for out-bound convoys during the last war. It was found unsuitable after two convoys only had been assembled there and the port of assembly was then changed to Lamlash.6 Buncrana was however retained as the escort port. Experts can no doubt put forward reasons to suit their arguments as to the advantages and disadvantages of the Foyle as an escort base when compared with the Swilly.

You willfully omitted the rest of that meeting.

We saw the President; very cordial. He opened by alleging Frank had said Irish had nothing to fear from German victory. This we vigorously denied.

He said difficulty about supplies was not knowing whether they would be used against Germany if the latter attacked. There had been no explicit undertaking on this point. We replied Chief had given explicit assurance on this many times since 1935.

And how did the meeting end?

Mr. Aiken, standing, asked the President whether we could say that he (the President) sympathised with Ireland's stand against aggression. The President replied 'against German aggression'. Mr. Aiken said 'or British aggression'. The President said 'Nonsense, you don't fear an attack from England. England is not going to attack you. It's a preposterous suggestion.' Mr. Aiken said why did the British refuse to give us a specific undertaking on this point when they were asked to. The President said 'It is absurd nonsense, ridiculous nonsense. Why, Churchill would never do anything of that kind. I wouldn't mind saying it to him myself.' Mr. Aiken said 'Will you do this, Mr. President'.

He said 'I certainly will. I'll ask Churchill myself.' Mr. Aiken then said 'Would you give an instruction, Mr. President, that we get a definite yes or no on the matter of supplies within a few days'. He said 'I will do that.' We then withdrew, the interview having lasted from 12.30 to 1.45.

Still peddling the nonsense of Allied lives lost and our entry into the war somehow closing the Atlantic gap.

I suggest you read Jonathan Dimblebys Battle of the Atlantic. Ireland isnt mentioned once. What really did cost lives was Air Ministry starving Coastal Command of long range heavy bombers due to bombing of Germany taking priority.

Also it wasn't Russia it was the Soviet Union that supposedly detested us, which would seem like a good thing!