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

You did not read what I wrote, and you are misquoting me / adding legs to it. Hempel did not go to Germany until the heat had died down in 1949. He was allowed live in South Dublin until then. I wrote:

If you research it, you will see Allied authorities, notably the US, suspected that Hempel's intelligence network was responsible for leaking information on Allied operations, which some alleged contributed to the failure of the 1942 Dieppe Raid. No smoke without fire, some thought. That is why the Allies wanted to question him.

In the final days of the war in 1945, the Allies demanded that all neutral countries close Axis embassies, expel their envoys, and hand over government property to the conquering Allied coalition. Without delay. Of course, Dev refused to hand over Hempel and instead of letting the Americans in to his offices immediately, allowed Hempel a week or 10 days to destroy all evidence.

The above is all true.

FrancieBrady kept asking why was he not extradited, but if he knew anything about the era or Hempel, he would have known that extradition did not legally exist in Ireland in 1945. Although this State inherited British extradition laws, those laws broke down by the late 1920s. For decades, we relied on informal handovers - or not - instead of formal, court-backed procedures.

The Allies were pretty busy will millions of other things to do at the time as well. Without much help from us.

FrancieBrady kept asking why was he not extradited, but if he knew anything about the era or Hempel, he would have known that extradition did not legally exist

This from the poster that breathlessly claimed Dev refused an extradition request (now they claim extradition didn't exist!! )

Spin and twist.

😁😁😁 the irony.

I'm out of this one.

I don't think I have ever seen (around here a long time) a posters 'arguments' so completely trashed again and again. They just keep pivoting and spinning and ignoring. The tin hat being the bizarre comeback that the Allies were too busy to prosecute. Jaysus H.

A waste of time.

To answer the OP's question…

Yes. Yes it is, and we've had 30 pages of absolute bullshit demonstrating that quite clearly.

There were bigger fish to fry by the time 1949 came around

Link? Or is this your opinion? If there were bigger fish to fry why was he put through denazification. You were shown records of the process and still deny it.

the Americans did ask for some co-operation in the final 10 days of the war and were refused it.

The Americans asked us to break International law! Do you know why?

DUBLIN, 12.30pm, 30 April 1945

Mr. David Gray, the American Minister, called and informed me that they had learned that the American troops had overrun the area in which our representative in Germany was in residence. They have put a guard in the Castle in which he is staying and is under their protection.1

He also gave me an Aide Mémoire for a Conversation which he handed to me, and I read it. I said that this was fundamentally a legal matter. There were I knew a number of precedents dealing with matters where a country had been conquered. We are a neutral nation and we wished to act correctly. He went on to press that it would be a friendly act. People got in accordance with what they gave. I said that we had many times argued the question and that there was no use in going over the ground again.

He said that a person who was rolling in the mud struggling with someone who was trying to kill him didn't appreciate the person who was standing aside saying I am friendly to you but I am friendly to the other fellow also, and was proceeding to argue further against our neutrality. Again I told him that we had argued this matter with each other many times and that there was no point in going over it again. He was clearly pressing in this direction in the hope of getting me to say something which he might use in reporting our conversation. I said I was very glad to know that the war was now coming to an end. He pressed for an early reply, which I said I would give him.

Gray had a habit of making illegal demands of DEV so he could leak to the press that Ireland was being unreasonable!

Lots of reasons. Roosevelt had made Aiken wait (unexpectantly to Aiken) for a couple of weeks in America before they could meet.  They knew that Aiken would have welcomed a German victory. The FBI observed him and listened to his speeches during the couple of weeks they made him wait. No surprise Roosevelt made an accusation to Aiken. The meeting dragged on and Aiken also could not take the hint and leave the meeting. Roosevelt would not give him arms, which was the main purpose of Aikens trip. It was all in the links I gave you. Do try to keep up.

No that's not why.

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.

I have asked several times for these FBI reports saying as such, none forthcoming. I did show you the meeting of Aiken and Head of the OSS in London before he left for America in which he was asked that very question.

Roosevelt had made Aiken wait (unexpectantly to Aiken) for a couple of weeks in America before they could meet.

FDR made a habit of this.

For six weeks after France’s fall, Churchill sent only one message to Roosevelt, and a trivial one at that. Roosevelt similarly waited to contact Churchill directly

Roosevelt was never known to keep Churchill waiting. Roosevelt actually had a lot of respect for the British. Imagine if Roosevelt kept Churchill waiting for 2 weeks like he did Aiken. Even though America was not in the war yet, it is clear who Roosevelt wanted to win. That did not go down well with Aiken, when they eventually met, after the FBI had observed Aiken at speeches etc during the 2 weeks.

"The President interrupted to say that he believed in being perfectly frank. He said 'you are reported as having said that the Irish had nothing to fear from a German victory'"

Roosevelt had to point out to Aiken what the consequences of a German victory would be. Roosevelt also want Ireland to patrol its waters out to 50 miles etc, to spot German submarines or vessels etc.

Actually, as president, Roosevelt was known to run a highly coordinated schedule to manage the massive workload of wartime meetings. While his meetings occasionally ran long because he loved to talk, as we saw in the link with Aiken his staff actively managed his calendar to ensure diplomats, cabinet members, and citizens were not left waiting in the corridors.

"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, and a couple of other Secretaries had come in as well as a half a dozen negro waiters who prepared to serve the President's lunch." Roosevelt so so impatient with Aiken even cutlery and knives went flying at Aikens comments and questions as he was made lave the room.

These quotes (in italics) are even from an Irish perspective of what happened.

If you see the posts above you will see the answers. As explained to you earlier, of course Atkins denied he said the " Irish had nothing to fear from a German victory'"

Aiken was there to buy arms of course. Of course Roosevelt saw through him and refused to sell him arms. Quote "The President said 'that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'."

I told you how it ended, and backed it up with quotes from a link. The link which gave the Irish point of view. An American one is behind a paywall unfortunately.

In any case the meeting was not a great success for Aikens. Roosevelt kept him unexpectantly waiting for 2 weeks after Aikens arrived in America and met someone else first. When Roosevelt did met him, Roosevelt lost his temper with him and Aikens overstayed his welcome by all accounts.

"Aiken was there to buy arms of course. Of course Roosevelt saw through him and refused to sell him arms. Quote "The President said 'that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'."

That is how it ended.

Obviously, the historical facts disagree with your attempts at pushing a narrative. The Irish Examiner op-ed was from the 2000s. The RTE documentary on Hayes and his work was from 2017. Codebreaking and the intelligence derived from it tends to be closely held and distributed only to those with a need to know. Even FDR was, for a time, removed from a distribution list after a crumpled document on such intelligence was found in the waste paper bin of his office. Without checking, I think that the source on that was Budiansky's book "A Battle Of Wits" which dealt with codebreaking and intelligence in WW2.

As for Gray and those claims about "keys", the Allies had compromised the main eletro-mechanical encryption systems used by the Germans in WW2 and he may not have been briefed on these developments. Tens of thousands of Irish men were serving in the Allied forces and many more Irish men and Irish women were helping with the Allied war effort.

While Ireland was officially neutral, there does seem to have been a lot of cooperation with the Allies which you ignore in your attempt to push a simplistic narrative on Irish neutrality in WW2.

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, and a couple of other Secretaries had come in as well as a half a dozen negro waiters who prepared to serve the President's lunch." Roosevelt so so impatient with Aiken even cutlery and knives went flying at Aikens comments and questions as he was made lave the room.

Do not forget (quote) Roosevelt pointed out "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."

"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."

Aiken refused to co-operate against the German threat.

Will you answer the question what was Aikens there for? Did he get the arms or not?