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

Being led out the door Aikens again raised the UK, to which Roosevelt said "Nonsense, you don't fear an attack from England. England is not going to attack you."

Neither did England attack us in the war. It was Germany that attacked us, from the air (with loss of life) and at sea, sinking our merchant ships we leased, with loss of life.

So that was when FDR started to get mad. What happened next?

Neither did England attack us in the war. It was Germany that attacked us, from the air (with loss of life) and at sea, sinking our merchant ships we leased, with loss of life.

That is your words which I didn't ask for only facts!

Lots of things not mentioned before, for example the Germans bombing the Jewish synagogue in Dublin.

Only one of lots of bomb attacks on Ireland by the Germans.

Of course Hempel, even though he was a Nazi party member, had nothing to do with it. In any of the 7 neutral countries Germany invaded, no Nazis ever did anything wrong.

Here we go with the whole "Ireland's the most antisemtic country in Europe" trope again.

I never once mentioned Ireland was the most antisemetic country in Europe. Stop diverting. This thread is about the WW2 war years in Ireland and our neutrality.

You mentioned Boy George on the Late Late Show the other night, as if that’s relevant.

You previously mentioned, Iran, Gaza and Hamas, were they relevant? You Consistently divert from questions posed to you, parrot the same few lines post after post, page after page. Take any opportunity possible to denigrate Ireland and even managed to throw in your pension.

So not sure where you’re going with this all high and mighty attitude.

I mentioned Boy George's comments ( I wrote about how he asked the LLS audience if any of them ever met a Jew or knew a Jew, and there was a deadly embarasing silence and nobody put their hands up) to put in context the chances of a German bomb hitting a Synagogue first go in Ireland.

I do not recall mentioning Gaza or Hamas on this thread. I do not denigrate Ireland. I praised some things about that turbulent period in Ireland, the war years. I criticised Dev and his side kick Aiken, but is that not allowed? I only mentioned that I was born and raised here, worked here and get an Irish pension here in reply to someone on this thread who made a personal attack on me and accused me of not being Irish.

I think if anyone has a "high and mighty attitude" it is some of Dev's supporters here, who think he is above criticism, and that you are anti-Irish if you dare question anything about our neutrality - or Devs condolences - even in the last few weeks of the war.

To answer the original question in the thread - is Ireland unfairly criticised, yes from some quarters who want to apply contemporary thinking to the 1940's.

At the outbreak of WW2 Ireland was only 17 or 18 years post it's civil war and partition and 19 or 20 years post independence struggle with it's neighbour.

No country was going to be throwing itself in to a war easily with such a neighbour and in any case we were very limited in military capability and so did not have much to offer while making ourselves vulnerable to attack from Germany.

The cost benefit analysis didn't stack up to officially join the allies. Even after Churchhill's drunken offer of the north it still didn't add up.

There is also the elephant in the room in that there was a period of time in the war where it looked like Germany was going to win so it was a very difficult situation for the Irish and safer to take a neutral position despite a lot of prodding although we all know what the Nazis thought of other neutral countries in Europe. They had no qualms whatsoever invading four of them.

It was also the state's first real opportunity to assert independence in foreign policy which of course they were eager to take.

Ireland's position was no more moral or immoral than any other country in WW2 in reality. It was self interest.

Actually, Germany invaded 7 neutral countries in WW2, not 4 as you claim.

April 1940: Denmark and Norway.

• May 1940: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

• April 1941: Yugoslavia.

• June 1941: The Soviet Union (Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, breaking their non-aggression pact). [1, 2, 3, 4]

No doubt it would have invaded more in time but for the walloping it got after invading Russia.

Re the contribution we could have made: the Allies thought we could have made an enormous contribution simply by offering them the treaty ports, or allowing an airfield or two. We could also have accommodated Axis prisoners of war - safer than moving them across the Atlantic during the war, as many were.

Not so sure about your conclusion of a cost / benefit analysis of joining the Allies in the last year or two or the war, as some other countries did.

No proof Churchill was drunken - or had more alcohol in his blood stream than he usually did - when he offered us a U.I. in return for the treaty ports that Britain had given us in 1938. If Dev played his cards right he could have got that guaranteed by the Americans, plus defence agreed with the Americans.

Not so sure was it much safer for us to take a neutral position : in the last year of the war the Germans had other things to do than risk sending planes to bomb us. We got bombed anyway lots of times by the Germans, and merchant ships we leased got sunk by the Germans. Some things brushed under the carpet.

As regards your second last point about morality - seriously, do you think it was moral to to what he did on April 2nd 1945 re the most evil man in the history of the world?

Regarding your last point, it was in our self interest - as another poster said early, standing at the bar getting free drink is in a persons self interest, but is it the right thing to do? Being a freeloader is never a nice thing.

Yugoslavia was not neutral at the time of invasion which was after the pro allied coup. Russia was not a neutral country either even if it had the Ribbentrop pact with Germany. If you are being generous you could say it was neutral with Germany but it was not an officially neutral country.

There was four officially neutral countries at the time of their invasion - Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway.

Churchill - When someone sends a telegram reciting "A Nation Once Again" in the early hours of the morning I'll go with "he was probably drunk".

On self interest the priority was "don't get bombed". There were a couple of incidents including the east wall but that is generally put down to mistake by German pilots. By and large the policy succeeded, the country escaped the widespread destruction of other countries in Europe including Britain.

On the "condolences" in diplomatic terms De Velera was correct in that if you espouse unimpeachable neutrality then that is a natural action toward all belligerents no matter who they are or represent. Nobody defends it on moral grounds of course.

I don't think there was a serious prospect of a British invasion of Ireland. Firstly the ports were not up to standard and would have required major work. Secondly the time they may have been somewhat useful in extending operational range had passed by 1943. Thirdly the Irish diaspora in America was a different beast to what it is today and Roosevelt was trying to carefully steer the US away from neutrality and I don't think Britain would have helped it's own case trying desperately to get the US to enter the war doing that.

There were more than 4 neutral countries as you claim (Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium) invaded by Germany. Luxembourg was also neutral and Germany invaded it. The Soviet Union (often referred to as Russia) was technically in a state of neutrality with Germany when it was invaded on June 22, 1941. I think most if not all historians would accept that fact. That is 6 countries. I'll give you the 7th, Yugoslavia, you are technically right on it in fairness, as even though it was axis aligned up to a week or so before it was invaded, there was of course a pro-allied military coup just before it was invaded by Germany.

Churchill was famous for taking a nap for one and a half hours in the afternoon but then working in the early hours. His usual schedule for his "second shift" as it was called was "Beginning around 11:00 PM or midnight, he would dictate speeches, books, articles, and government memos to his secretaries, often working until 2:00 AM or 3:00 AM". You are basing your assumption that he was drunk on the timing of the text. That is very lazy. Thatcher was also known to work the early hours, in fact she was at a desk in her room doing work when the Brighton bomb exploded at 2.54 am - yet you would not say she was drinking? You invent an assumption Churchill was drunk because that will suit your story.

Incidentally Churchill offered a U.I. to Dev in return for the treaty ports. He also invited Dev to London for talks about same. Dev of course infamously refused to even go for talks about the offer of a U.I.

Regarding German bombs, there were more than "a couple of incidents inc the east wall", as you claim.

The Germans dropped an estimated 30 to 50 individual bombs across the territory of neutral Ireland in about 16 separate incidents. Incidentally the bombing during the May 1941 North Strand raid on Dublin occurred just about 400 to 800 metres away, depending on the exact point of impact—from Amiens Street (now called Connolly) Railway Station. Some think it was hit in retaliation / as a warning for our fire engines going up and helping in the Belfast Blitz fires not long before. Lord Haw Haw told us before from Germany we would be hit.

Do not forget our Irish flagged ships sunk by the Germans in the Atlantic, again with loss of life. What would the sailors lost there, in the cold lonely Atlantic, think of Dev doing what he did on the death of Hitler? Did Hempel the Nazi go to Dev and express his condolences for them? I personally would have a lot more respect for those poor sailors lost than for Hitler.

The thing about Lord Haw Haw ( an Irishman, paid by the Nazis, in Germany propogating on radio to these islands) is that he did say Dublin was going to be bombed, and shortly after it was. We have no official records or official estimates though of what altitude the German plane that bombed the Jewish Quarter in Dublin was at. The Synagogue was bombed in the first 24 hours of bombing in Dublin, and was the first public building hit. I know Dun Laoghaire was hit a month or whatever previously but Dun Laoghaire was a fair bit out from Dublin itself in those days. Bit of a coincidence for the germans to have hit and structurally damaged the Synagogue first go.

Of course censorship did not report that too much. Most Irish people would not have known that, probably still do not know it. Probably would not be able to find a Jew in Ireland, never mind a Synagogue. But the Nazis did.

Of course censorship did not report that too much. Most Irish people would not have known that, probably still do not know it. Probably would not be able to find a Jew in Ireland, never mind a Synagogue. But the Nazis did

Wrong, here's the front page of the Irish Independent Jan 3rd 1941

https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000250942

You keep spaming that link even though you were told it was incorrect.

Still waiting on the link to Aikens meeting to FDR that proves you weren't lying!

Me a disregard for the truth? You are the one to publish a list of German bombings in Ireland from WW2 ( see above) but you cleverly omit the German bombing of the Jewish Synagogue in Dublin. Omitted from history. Even though it was pointed out to you. It was reported that Dev complained to the Germans about it, and there is plenty of proof it happened, but you brush it out of history, like so many other things.

Despicable.

If there was a Nazi invasion of Ireland ( they invaded many other neutral countries in Europe) do you think the Jews and the handicapped and the gypsies and the communists would have been omitted from living here too?

I didn't omit it. It's from the Wikipedia link.

You were the one who omits and brushes out. I have asked you several time but you refuse to answer correctly, I'll ask again

Using the link YOU provided how did the meeting between FDR and Aiken end?