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

Story changes again.

So you have dropped the claim he told Aiken he didn't trust him.


Incorrigible, disingenuous debating throughout, spin, bluster, pivot, when caught out, shamelessly deny and pivot spin again.

Told you already about the meeting and how it ended. The mod warned you to set up a another thread on the meeting rather than for you to keep asking the same question.

"Aiken did not get the arms he sought, which was the purpose of his trip to America.

Roosevelt even said to Aiken" that means you have not convinced the State Department that this material would not be used to attack England'."

Aiken (or Dev back in Ireland) got no arms or material support from America.

Roosevelt's trust that Aiken would even take a hint that the meeting was over was misplaced.

"During the interview, General Watson 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 even ended up having a fit at Aiken and throwing knives and cutlery in the air!

Link was provided.

You're omitting the end again on purpose. Why did the knives go flying if they were only being put on the table after the meeting and what were FDR's final words to Aiken? You're contradicting yourself here, you have the links, use them!

What I said was consistent. Roosevelt did not trust Aiken or he would have given him the arms he sought. And the meeting would not have been a disaster, with knives flying etc.

And this is nothing but spin. And you refuse point blank to accept facts and have avoided questions on it as recently as a few posts ago.

Expect another pivot here.
The poster has no intention of answering a straight question.

No links prove me wrong. Here is just one one the 3 links, which is consistent with the others:

"David Gray, the US minister to Ireland, urged the state department to ensure Aiken returned home thoroughly chastened, as Gray believed Aiken was pro-German. In a private letter to President Franklin D Roosevelt, Gray reported that James Dillon, the deputy leader of the Fine Gael described Aiken as having “a mind, halfway between that of a child and an ape”.

Aiken arrived in Washington on Mar 18, 1941, but was kept waiting for almost three full weeks before he got to meet the president, who treated him dismissively. He accused Aiken of being anti-British.

Shortly after the meeting began an aide entered the Oval Office and put a tablecloth and arranged cutlery on the president’s desk, but Aiken refused to take the none-too-subtle hint to leave. He had come too far and waited too long to be brushed off that easily. Aiken denied he was pro-Nazi, and the president suddenly jerked the tablecloth from the desk, sending the cutlery flying, and ending the meeting."

You may not think a meeting which end with Aiken not getting his objective - arms - and which ended with knives etc flying was not a disaster, but everyone else does. Hence why google said

The April 1941 White House meeting between Irish Minister Frank Aiken and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was widely considered a disaster. Intended to secure American arms, ships, and food for Ireland, the stormy diplomatic encounter quickly devolved into a heated row over Ireland’s neutrality and deep-seated animosity toward Britain.

If you think Aiken had not animosity towards Britain why did he involved in the sectarian killing of 6 innocent protestant civilians in N.I. a few decades previously?

Open a separate thread on 'Was animosity towards the British among those who fought them in the WoI and lived under their rule in pre independent Ireland unfair?
The Americans didn't trust the British motives FFS.

Do you ever research a topic fully? There has never been a time when information was so easy to find yet you depend on tropes, stereotypes, cartoons and having to spin and ignore facts.

You obviously did not read the link.

Quote"The President said 'Nonsense, you don't fear an attack from England. England is not going to attack you. It's a preposterous suggestion.'"

Now you are claiming the Americans did not trust the British motives when it came to Ireland.

"FFS", as you would say yourself.

Roosevelt was proved right. The UK did not attack us during the war, it was the Germans who bombed us and our ships.

Frank Aiken was commander of the IRA's Fourth Northern Division, which operated in Armagh, south Down and north Louth.

The Altnaveigh Massacre was an infamous attack, killing 6 innocent protestant civilians and leaving more injured and homeless. The fact that the attackers had been totally indiscriminate in their actions against a vulnerable and isolated target left many Protestants extremely fearful, particularly along the border.

The Americans trusted the British enough to patrol their coast out to 300 miles to help protect British merchant ships. Roosevelt want us to patrol out to 50 miles but Aiken refused.

"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. He had been told before taking certain of these measures that the Germans would use it as a pretext, but he judged differently. Mr. Aiken pointed out the difference of Ireland's position which would be right under the guns. The President repeated that a formula might be found. For instance, he said, in the patrolling of the area over here they were watching out for German submarine activities or surface craft. Why could you not institute an air patrol service extending, say, 50 miles off the Irish coast to spot these engines of destruction which are preying on your ships. Mr. Aiken said that any endeavour to get us committed would be turned down by the Irish Government"

The Americans trusted the British would not invade us.

" The President said 'Nonsense, you don't fear an attack from England. England is not going to attack you. It's a preposterous suggestion.' "

The Americans did not trust us when it came to arms:

"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."

It is all in the link, wish you would read it and learn a bit about the war ( sorry "the emergency" as Dev called it; it was not a war, according to him, and he did not allow the media or anyone to us the term "Nazis" either, so some Irish people during the war were unaware of Nazis, never mind their atrocities)

The Americans mistrusted British motives especially early in the war.

WHY do you deny facts Francis??

It completely debases your credibility.

If you weren't on an all out unfair spree of criticism and bile you could say,

'the US didn't fully trust Aiken and Ireland but they still gave them ships, grain and access to grain supplies, trade concessions and offered to seek reassurance from an invader Ireland feared - Britain, even though they (US) didn't share those fears, they accepted that Irish fears were legitimate just as FDR accepted Irish neutrality and saw it as an obstacle to get around rather than push Ireland away'

But nah, the spree has to continue, no surrender to facts and nuance.

😁😁😂fook me!