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

😁😁 use of the Azores didn’t make much difference to the people of Coventry or London or Pearl Harbour.

An awful lot of lives and crucial battles would have been lost without access to our weather reports.

We were neutral what we could do’ like Portugal, was limited.

There were ships relatively close to Belmullet and all over the place giving weather reports. Portugal giving the use of the Azores made a big difference in that part of the Atlantic.

Good for them.

If your knowledge deficit includes not knowing how vital the weather reports where to Eisenhower and the Allies I wouldn’t be at all suprised. But I reckon you know only too well and will now try and obfuscate and spun again.

It’s ineffably sad to see someone so full of self loathing that you feel the need to go on a crusade like this.

It was published as a comment on the the US leaks about the Germans in Dublin. It wasn't know at the time that it was an MI5 operation feeding false info. Here is different account.

When MI5 explained the situation, OSS leaders realised the Irish security situation was even better than they “had previously thought”. MI5, which was effectively using the German diplomats in Dublin as double agents, had serious reservations about the Americans demanding the expulsion of Axis diplomats from Dublin.
If the German diplomats were expelled, MI5 warned that this would possibly endanger Allied security, because the Germans might infiltrate a useful spy. As it was, the British had broken the German codes and were reading all the messages from the legation in Dublin.
The OSS knew Gray’s proposal was just a political ruse, so it did not involve itself in the American Note, which was delivered to de Valera on February 21, 1944. News of the note and de Valera’s refusal broke on March 10.
As this was the week leading up to St Patrick’s Day, the news ignited a firestorm of criticism in the American press. Ireland was denounced as indifferent to the lives of American soldiers, even Irish-American boys. Some American journalists contended that the Irish should realise that diplomats were often used as spies.
The press campaign against Ireland turned so nasty the Irish feared the Americans might even divulge how the Irish diplomats were being used on the continent.
Carter Nicholas noted: “Walshe was very anxious about the point, particularly as the Irish could not publicly admit to having engaged in so unneutral an act as supplying us with anti-Axis intelligence.”

Here is what the OSS actually thought

All three OSS agents had been withdrawn from Ireland, but now, at the suggestion of the Irish, the OSS decided to station Ed Lawler in Dublin for the rest of the war. “The co-operation and information we received from the Irish was every bit as extensive and helpful as it would have been if Ireland had been a full partner with us in the war effort,” Lawler wrote.

The Americans were leaking info to the press to pressure Dev. The head of the OSS himself Bill Donovan had to step in and warn FDR off.

I wonder was any other country in the world as heavily censored as Ireland? The state and media were even required to use the term "The Emergency" rather than "war". People were not allowed use the term " Nazi", and were not told anything of Axis atrocities.  Information about "the Nazis" was with held to such a degree people could not make an informed, educated opinion about neutrality, which suited Dev fine.

Extreme hyperbole to suggest we were the most heavily censored country during a war involving the Soviet Union and nazi Germany. Very embarrassing to even suggest that.

Those countries could at least call it a war. We could not. It was only an Emergency

Other countries could refer to "the Nazis". We could not.

Most other countries around the world got to hear of Axis atrocities. We did not.

I just answered your question that would take a second of thought. Obviously those two countries were more heavily censored than us. Ridiculous your hatred for ireland.

What did I say? There'd be spin and obfuscation.
I did'nt predict that the word 'best' would be put in my mouth though. 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

Not interested in discussing this with you, who cares at this stage what you believe.

If using quotes I generally give the link so people can read the quote in context should they wish to do so. I do not edit quotes.

As regards censorship, the population of Ireland was kept more in the dark about the holocaust in April 1945 than even the German civilian population were. For example, British forces liberated the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in mid-April 1945. Graphic newsreel footage and press coverage began to emerge internationally, and German civilians were brought to the camps to see what had happened. Here within Ireland, the state censor suppressed and heavily downplayed the reports of the Nazi camps as "anti-national propaganda".

No wonder Dev went and expressed his condolences on May 2nd. The rest of the world, those who had access to media, was generally much better informed.

Do you not know anything about the war period?

2 seconds on google and I was able to verify that

"The statement is historically accurate. Garda Commissioner Michael Carroll issued a directive that members of An Garda Síochána were forbidden from providing references for local applicants attempting to join the British Forces. [1]"

Also, the Irish Times in those days was a lot different to the Irish Times since the 1980s. Google will tell you "The Irish Times reporting of the Allied cause in WWII reflected a delicate balancing act due to the Irish State's official policy of neutrality. Despite wartime censorship, the paper published extensive, sympathetic coverage of Allied operations, highlighted the bravery of tens of thousands of Irish volunteers". Journalists were prohibited from saying too much, taking sides, or printing death notices of Irish citizens serving in the British forces,

No mention could be made in the press of the hundreds of thousands of Irish who helped the Allied war effort.

Wrong, mention could be made but were limited. It wasn't called 'censorship' for nothing!

Censorship was prevalent everywhere during the war and the Emergency here.

Censorship was everywhere to a degree, even films are still censored now. However, my point was the population of Ireland was kept more in the dark about the holocaust in April 1945 than even the German civilian population were. For example, British forces liberated the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in mid-April 1945. Graphic newsreel footage and press coverage began to emerge internationally, and German civilians were brought to the camps to see what had happened. Here within Ireland, the state censor suppressed and heavily downplayed the reports of the Nazi camps as "anti-national propaganda".

Not in those exact words but read the report in full and look at the reasons Aiken failed in his mission to get weapons and arms. Roosevelt was afraid they may be used against Britain. Nothing to do with Aiken "apparently involved in the reprisal killing of six people in his home area of Co Armagh in 1922."

Aiken the gunman had the decency to be ashamed of the dirty stuff

Quote from the meeting between Roosevelt and Aiken.

"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'. Mr. Aiken said he had said nothing of the kind, and I backed him up in this, and further said that we had seen no report alleging any such statement.

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. "

Because Roosevelt did not know how any weapons they would give to Ireland would be used, and because they did not give any to Aiken, that means they did not trust him.