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

The Germans had no heavy bombers like the Lancester or B17 or B29.

The Allies out-bombed Germany by a ratio of roughly 35-to-1. The Germans bombed Belfast because of its ship building etc. If Ireland joined the war effort from say late 1943 or 1944 on, it would have had little to fear from bombing. if we allowed a Canadian or American air force base in the west or s.west, we could have made it a condition they would have planes based in Wexford too to defend us. But I think in late 1943 /44 Germany was focusing most of its resources elsewhere and had not spare bombers to send round by Cornwall to bomb us and back again.

The Canadians or Americans at that stage might have said, f. off, we do not need you now, but it would have been a nice gesture.

Other countries changed sides during the war.

And did not commiserate on Hitler's death.

Great whataboutery to get in a dig about colonisation. The death toll in WW2 was 60 million plus, not to mention destruction to property, a bit more than any colonisation.

I didn't think colonisation had to be defended or anyone could possibly think that less than 50 million died because of it. My only point is Ireland didnt take part of in alot of conflicts that could be considered moral, like fighting for independence for these colonies, and that the allies with the Soviet Union were not good. They were just less evil than the Nazis , though I suppose perhaps not the Soviet Union.

Germany was trying to colonise Europe and was fighting colonial powers in size, number one and two. The war became a world war because of the colonies. Many colonies were unwillingly brought into the war by their colonial masters. Why not mention it?

No need for troops stationed here at all. The allies could have done with air and sea bases further west than they had, but they survived without us.

If Ireland had joined the Allied war effort in 1943 / 44 it would have been a nice gesture, if done properly at no cost to us, and saved some lives in the Atlantic.

If Dev had kept his mouth shut in May 1945, he would not have insulted the free world, still in shock after seeing the newsreels of Hitler's death camps.

And in real time Dev did what he had to do.

You could speculate all night what the consequences of an always irresponsible Britain bestowing what Francis would call their gifts on us again.

Silly question, the British were tied up in a world war and were fighting for their very survival by the skin of their teeth. No point in them tying up scarce resources in a possible guerilla war in Ireland for what?

So all Churchill had to do was say "We're not going to invade Ireland" bang 2 second job no resources tied up as the US were going to supply us!

Roosevelt himself said he was unsure what use arms would be put to if they supplied Ireland. After all, the U.S. President said that he believed in being perfectly frank, and he said to Aiken 'you are reported as having said that the Irish had nothing to fear from a German victory'."

Neither the U.S. or UK trusted Ireland with arms when we would not even co-operate in the allied war effort. Different story if we did.

Did the U.S. arm Sweden or Switzerland? There were hardly enough arms to go around allied war countries.

He believed everything else he said at the meeting, all in black and white.

You'd have a point if they never upgraded Belfast and NI defences from air attack afterwards. Except they did upgrade the air defences.

So your point is invalid.

I did not edit anything. Here are extracts from the meeting:

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 notes 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"

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" 

This view is completely trashed by the evidence presented.
You are spinning and twisting to get as negative a rant as you can.