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

Why did the Russians veto our membership?

Ireland’s application to join the UN in 1946 was rejected, and would be rejected repeatedly for a further nine years, courtesy of the Soviet veto. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the USSR could prevent the accession of any applicant state. Ostensibly, the Soviets were displeased by our neutral policy during the Second World War, and falsely claimed that Ireland had been openly sympathetic to the Axis powers. They conveniently forgot that they themselves had formed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler to carve up Poland in 1939. In reality, their opposition was part of the new Cold War power play, as they feared Ireland would likely align – and vote – with the Western powers at the UN Assembly.

Reading over Mr. Churchill’s speech the average Irishman felt that the British Premier was at a loss for something to say which might direct atten tion from the real facts at the time, i.e. Britain was obtaining a first class trouncing on land and sea. Some excuse had to be put forward. Mr. Churchill did not favour in 1938 or at any time the surrender to the Government of Ireland of the Forts at Cork Harbour, Berehaven and Lough Swilly, and his speech on the 5th November could be interpreted as indicative of an ‘I told you so’ attitude. During the months of September and October British and allied shipping losses were very heavy.

It was a tactic to deflect blame.

He's wasn't the one who started the thread.

People choose who they wish to engage with. If people are complaining who they are engaging with then, just stop.

I think this thread is great craic and an interesting debate which is what forums are for.

I think Ireland not wanting to break a nail while millions died isn't fondly remembered.

I don't think much damage would have happened to Ireland. A bit sure. But Germany didn't have a heavy bomber force able to do much damage. One of the reasons the Blitz wasn't as destructive as it could have been.

A long range bomber campaign against Ireland would have extremely vulnerable as it past within range of British air bases. It would have been torn to shreds.

A population tired of civil war, and a war of independence is valid counter argument. Its seen as a bit lite internationally.

Its not likely the only occasion we didn't intervene when millions died. Like many countries we didn't intervene in the Vietnam or Korean wars. I dont think a country should just intervene in any war just because they may not be remembered fondly because of it.

Hindsight is a terrible weapon to use to criticise leaders of the past. Im sure thr allied leaders didn't like that allying with Soviet union left millions under the yoke of an authoritarian leadership for 50 years.

The question to ask is why was it only ever bombed one month in 1941.

The reason was the Germans realised it was undefended (tested the defences) and navigation was easy due to the lights in the republic. The city had no guns no search lights and no RAF assigned to defend it, especially at night. Night fighters just coming online in the RAF. Not one fighter took to the air in it's defence.

The opportunity (those perfect conditions) never arose again. Indeed night raids later in the war over Britain were done by fast fighter bombers and suffered heavy losses. RAf night fighters capability increased throughout the war.

One summer day does not make a summer

Is that your only criteria for entering a war? De Valera had to make what he thought was the best decision for the Irish people at the time, like every other country in the world that didn't ally with either warring faction. Its easy to suppose we would act differently if we were leader because we are risking nothing.

I dunno why you mention Korea or Vietnam.

The thread title is Irish Neutrality in WW2. That frame of reference would seem to exclude those wars.

WW2 and in particular battle of the Atlantic was on Irish shores. It was a unique opportunity to contribute. Thats not the same for all wars especially those on the other side of the planet where Irish Ports are irrelevant.

In my opinion Dev took one step forward and 3 backwards on many of things he did. He dragged Ireland with him.

I mention it as you mentioned the casualty figures as a reason why ireland would not be remembered fondly for not taking part.

It was on our shores but it was between a German nation and a country that had occupied us for centuries.

The neutrality that De Valera followed and we have followed since was perhaps the only good thing De Valera left us with.

I mentioned it as if we had joined the Allies in 1939 then by 1940 the main Southern ports would have been well within range of the Luftwaffe.

The Luftwaffe were a bit busy in 1940 losing the Battle of Britain.

Badly as did those counties colonised by Britain, France, Belgium, netherlands and the Soviet Union. We didn't fight for many countries who were colonised.

I didn't say they were the only participants and Dev never said that if you want to be pedantic.

Neutrality is a choice we have chosen for decades. You just seem to want us to participate in wars on one side or another.