Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

12324262829109

Answers

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes, the British were certainly briefing this. To use a phrase you love, 'some would say' the British had everything to gain from that.

    It doesn't sadly, given history, make it true. A major war/invasion was justified because Tony Blair was briefed about non existent weapons of mass destruction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    with an Irish public service pension,

    Ha I can't believe you managed to bring up your pension that you constantly brag about in a thread on Ireland's neutrality in WWII.

    Which is your favourite hobby horse, your pension or Dev sending condolences?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    é

    It's conceivable that the wheelchair president got agitated at Aiken's departing claim that Éire's neutrality was threatened by Britain and items of cutlery fell to the floor but it hardly mattered, the essential undisputed truth is that FDR forcefully rejected the possibility.

    Aiken was a dyed in the wool Anglophobe and FDR was an anglophile. Someone with a more subtle approach would have avoided this type of confrontation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,785 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Not sure we would have been much help one way or another, a tiny nation with a tiny army wasn't going to push the Nazis back from anywhere



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    You, like a few other, like to personalise things. It was only after I was accused of not being Irish and having an-anti Irish bias that I mentioned "I am Irish myself, born and bred, with an Irish public service pension, having served the Irish public my working life. That does not mean all Irish politicians are above criticism".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    You avoided answering the question and again diverted to Tony Blair and weapons of mass destruction. This thread is about our neutrality in WW2.

    Now try again : You applauded Dev's handling of the situation, even though the link showed his representative Aiken was not only anti-British but would have welcomed a German victory. As confirmed by the FBI, Americans and British. A German victory would have meant the Nazis would be here as they were in the 7 other neutral countries in Europe they invaded. 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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes, events that nobody could predict took the focus away from Ireland.
    The suggestion that Dev or anyone else could predict what might happen with any accuracy is a false one.

    Dev/Ireland were reacting to ongoing events in our interests and managed to ultimately protect them. Nobody reasonable would expect a leader to do any different and the British US Russian Italian leaders etc all did the same.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Not all of the 51 Allied countries who set up the UN immediately after the war understood : we applied to join in 1946 but were not allowed to until 1955. If we were not neutral in the war, we would have been allowd join a decade earlier. Safe to say all the 51 founding members of the UN would have been disgusted at Dev's condolences for Hitler too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,244 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Its embarrassing that you deliberately fail to mention that we were supported by all allied countries apart from the ussr in our bid to join the UN in 1946.

    This shows they were not disgusted by us in 1946 as you continue to falsely claim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Russia saw Ireland and a number of other countries it veto'd as culturally Western, anti Communist, democratic and tied economically to the West.

    They routinely blocked similar countries in the early Bloc driven UN.


    The Russian position was: if pro-Western states were admitted then a pro Soviet one must be too.
    After all that cold war posturing 16 countries (including Ireland were admitted in 55)

    If you could stop spinning stuff to suit your agenda that would be great



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,125 ✭✭✭adaminho


    A typo is once being childish was making multiple times.

    Who would've thought that a Commander in the War of Independence and Commandant of the Anti-treaty troops in the civil war would be Anti British!

    I've read that link three times and there is no mention of Aiken welcoming a German invasion. There is however mention Dev thinking that Germany would win, an opinion shared by the US ambassador to Britain Joseph P. Kennedy.

    It looks like as usual you only read as far the bit you agreed with and didn't finish the article as spoiler: It doesn't back up your argument at all!

    Edit: Let's look at what the British thought of Aiken

    Although Aiken was then convinced that Britain would lose the war, John Maffey (qv), the British representative in Ireland, thought him ‘anti-British but certainly not pro-German’



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I'm still flabbergasted as to how you could read that article and adamantly claim:

    Noything was mentioned about a U.I. in the link. 

    Something seriously wrong with it all tbh.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    I wrote ( post 759) "Not all of the 51 Allied countries who set up the UN immediately after the war understood : we applied to join in 1946 but were not allowed to until 1955. If we were not neutral in the war, we would have been allowd join a decade earlier. Safe to say all the 51 founding members of the UN would have been disgusted at Dev's condolences for Hitler too."

    All of that is true. There is a reason Dev received condemnation from around the world when he went out of his way to express condolences on the death of Hitler, not long after moving pictures and proof of Hitler's death camps were shown around the world, so everyone was aware of the evils of Hitler's regime.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So we have pivoted away from it being about neutrality and not joining the Allies?

    Dear me, hard to keep up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Why did'nt any of the 51 founding members of the UN follow us in expressing condolences in Hitlers death, if you think that was the right thing to do? 60 million or whatever died in the war Hitler started, inc many millions in extermination camps?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Truth is we were very lukewarm applicants in 1946, few in the Dail were enthusiastic about joining apart from Labour.

    Most were sceptical about 'collective security' after the experience of the League in the 1930s.

    They would probably feel vindicated if alive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I have never said it was the 'right thing' to do.

    Dev got it wrong, got the criticism and the world got over it. As other leaders have gotten things wrong as well. Have you not just criticised the US for getting the timing of going to war wrong?

    It was 110% NOT the reason we were blocked from joining the UN.

    Stop spinning and try to grasp the actual facts



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,244 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    You ignore the fact that the allied nations voted for us. Deliberately as this makes a mockery of your claim those countries detected us after the war. This was in 1946.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Dev's condolences visit to Hempel was an international PR disaster but Stalin was the last person entitled to use it to block us over it and he rather wisely didn't. The reason given in 1946 was that we didn't have diplomatic relations with Moscow, the excuse shifted over the following nine years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    You did not read what I wrote.

    I wrote "Safe to say all the 51 founding members of the UN would have been disgusted at Dev's condolences for Hitler too."

    I provided a link 4 or 5 days ago showing outrage from around the world.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    But not disgusted enough to not approve our application a year after the founding of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,244 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Conveniently ignoring they voted for us to join the UN. In 1946.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    If we were not neutral in the war, we would have been in the group of 51 nations who set up the UN after the war, because they were all allied nations. We were not allowed join until a decade earlier, for whatever reason or reasons as it worked out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,244 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    We were supported by all aliied nations except USSR. Which showed they were not disgusted by us. By 1946.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,303 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    It's safe to say many of the 51 didn't give two hoots as they only entered the war at the last moment opportunistically and some, particularly in Latin America, even had a grudging regard for Hitler.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    for whatever reason or reasons as it worked out.

    😁😁 at least the spinning about the 'reason' has stopped,

    We weren't in the initial group, so what?

    We and the UK weren't in the EC either initially but we joined later,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,540 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    I think most people around the world were disgusted by Hitler's extermination camps, and many people had relatives lost in the war. It was Hitler who started the war and was the driving force in Nazism. You may not think he was such a bad fellow but I think most people do and did, ffs.

    You do know 6 million Jews, handicapped etc perished in Hitlers death camps, and knowing that Dev still went out of his way to express condolences on his death?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,059 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Did they know British Royals were over visiting Hitler as he flagrantly broke the Versailles Treaty while the UK Government and FDR etc looked on knowing what he was doing?

    image.png




    You do talk some selective bitter, anti Irish nonsense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,244 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    People may have been disgusted by Dev's condolence but its clear that for the all the allies apart from USSR that there was no long lasting disgust to Ireland after 1946.

    Of course there was and is a lot of disgust of what the nazis did.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,125 ✭✭✭adaminho




Advertisement
Advertisement