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

As I said, the U.S. entered WW2 late as it did in WW1, so no great credit for it there. I am just glad of the 51 countries who did, sooner or later stand up to the aggression of the Axis powers. Glad someone did.

Before officially entering the war, as Roosevelt more than hinted, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard conducted extensive "Neutrality Patrols" throughout 1941 to monitor, track, and protect Allied shipping from German U-boats. Roosevelt wanted us to do the same, but Aiken told him that would breach our neutrality.

Of course when America joined the war, the Allies ( UK, Canadian, American) wanted us, even if it was just in some small way, to help in the battle of the Atlantic too. Would have helped them.

N.B. you are right about "Plenty of Irish volunteered as well, including Brendan "Paddy" Finucane who's 32 kills was nearly half of the entire 3 eagle squadrons 73.". I think Paddy Finucane had 28 confirmed kills, he was one of the top fighter aces in the RAF. I rememember an old WW2 vet telling me many decades ago that many of the Americans had no guts to fight , and he pointed out hundreds of USAF (United States bombers) who turned for the alps when over Germany and landed in neutral Switzerland. Of course, some of the aircraft had sustained damage and were forced to do this however some "deserted" and refused to continue flying these dangerous missions - hundreds went to Switzerland and Sweden.

Big respect to our own Brendan "Paddy" Finucane and many more people like him.

Should have done a lot more earlier of course. Neutrality does not work. If there are Hitlers or Putins in the world, we cannot all be neutrals and freeloaders. The Hitlers and the Putins love neutrals and freeloaders. If the US entered the war earlier it may have shortened the war a bit and saved lives.

Britain and the Commonwealth were the ones who stood up to Nazi Germany. Us and the Americans sat on our hands. in 1939, 1940 etc

One thing for Roosevelt though, he was proved right when in 1941 he 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. " So he did not give us arms. Hard to blame him, even if this was before American joining the war.

Also in the link yesterday it said "The President (Roosevelt) said 'that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'. 

Roosevelt did not trust us with "this material" (arms) in case we attacked the UK with it.

Britain and the Commonwealth were the ones who stood up to Nazi Germany. Us and the Americans sat on our hands. in 1939, 1940 etc

What about the British sitting on their hands during the Anschluss?

One thing for Roosevelt though, he was proved right when in 1941 he went on "to talk of the dire consequences that would come to Ireland in the event of a German victory.

How was he proved right when there was no 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.

You purposely omitted the rest of that again!

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. 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. He should use his own judgment and initiative in approaching this subject. Mr. Aiken pointed out that the Germans might think it unwise to attack England directly, and in that event they might occupy Ireland so as to straddle the communications between Britain and America and cut off the last remaining route.

Also in the link yesterday it said "The President (Roosevelt) said 'that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'.

Again omitting the bit that doesn't suit your argument.

The President said 'that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'. Mr. Aiken said that they had no intention of doing anything of the kind, and recalled again Mr. de Valera's explicit undertaking that Ireland will not be used as a base to attack England and that we had announced it was no part of our policy to settle partition by force.3

Roosevelt did not trust us with "this material" (arms) in case we attacked the UK with it.

Why did he ask Churchill not to attack us either?

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.

You have shown by your willful omissions and at times barefaced lies that you are not arguing in good faith! I have given you plenty of articles only for you to miss quote, edit or miss interpret and when asked for any proof you have shied away. You have let your opinions on certain people known by falsely labeling them Antisemitic, Murderers and Racist! You have contradicted yourself and backtracked several times. It just shows that the argument you are trying to make is either weak or non-existent and you can't back it up!

Maybe we should change the thread title to "Why isn't American neutrality criticized more than Ireland's"

Maybe if the British weren't so weak in agreeing to let the Germans re-arm then it would all be moot.

Rather than hold those with the actual ultimate responsibility (the terms of the Treaty Of Versailles) to account it's easier to blame those caught in the middle when it all goes up in flames.

Not the first or last time that has or will happen.

There is a perception here too that FDR and the US are above criticism,

If FDR was 'firing knives' around at a diplomatic meeting, then he was totally out of order.

Of course he probably wasn't, and that anecdote grew legs as time went on ( Brennan doesn't mention it in his first report) and like most diplomatic meetings each side got some of what they wanted but not all.

I did not tell any bare faced lies or backtrack.

You have not (even though requested several times) produced back up for several claims:

1. The existence of an extradition request for Hempel.

2. Evidence of a refusal to extradite

3. A grant of asylum for Hempel

4. A quote of FDR saying 'he did not trust him' (Aiken)

That is just a few.

If you cannot produce verification then the above are willful mistruths

If you take on board what that implies -that Dev was in cahoots or support of Germany for a UI goal, then you have to come to the conclusion that he played them and was helping out the Allies as well.

Noything was mentioned about a U.I. in the link. Did you not read it? If Hitler had complete control of these islands ( Hitler already invaded 7 neutral countries in Europe, sent minorities there to extermination camps ) etc, it is quite chilling that all you would be worried about is if there would be a U.I. or not.

@adaminho As I said, loads of unbacked up claims.

Seems to have been very confused, the Atkins fellow. That is why he was dismissed from the meeting with Roosevelt, with Roosevelt losing his temper with him, throwing knives and cutlery etc. Atkins may have said "We want union and sovereignty, not union and slavery", but if there was an invasion by Germany then slavery is definitely what we would have got. Ask anyone from the other 7 neutral countries in Europe invaded by the Nazis.

Ask the Jews or handicapped or communists in the likes of Holland or Denmark or Poland how they fared under Nazi occupation, or the slave workers in mines or factories in Nazi occupied countries?

Purposely misusing his name now? Are you 5?

You keep bringing up the meeting with FDR and leaving out the bit that proves you're wrong!

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.

Your post are pure waffle filled with selective editing! I've constantly shown you the full quote but you keep only showing parts that you "think" prove your point! You are posting in a dishonest manner so either start telling the truth or spin your lies elsewhere!

We were a new-ish country just after coming through a fairly brutal civil war. I'm sure much of the planet can understand why we didn't want to get involved in WW2. Spain certainly understands

A typo, but you miss the point. The FBI, UK and Roosevelt all knew that Aiken was not only anti-British but would have welcomed a German invasion.

You can read it all here.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/irlan_0183-973x_1994_num_19_1_1201

If the Nazis invaded, would you still have welcomed that if Ireland's Jews, handicapped, communists etc were led away to extermination camps, same as happened in the other neutral countries Hitler invaded? And if the Nazis used slaves in factories, mines etc here as happened elsewhere?