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

It was only resting in my account levels of deflection!

I didn't edit it, I just left a bit out 😁😁 Might give that a go.

Germany did* win the war.

the bit I forgot to include/left out is below for you to read yourself. 😁😁

*not

What it did do was use the carrot, not the stick, and it offered us a U.I. if we lent them back the treaty ports they had built.

The loyal Unionists thrown under the bus by Churchill the immoral thug and bully.
Luckily we had somebody leading us responsible enough to know that taking such an offer would have resulted in a bloodbath, with the still heavily armed UVF to the fore.

Pivot incoming.

Being willfully ignorant of the consequences of Churchill shafting Unionists is on you. A UI in this way was never going to be accepted by a responsible adult.

So which do you think Unionists would have feared more, a British Isles under Hitler or a U.I. under a government that had a suspected sectarian ex-IRA man like Aiken involved? He was referred by some as the Butcher of Altnaveigh. 

You were awful worried about the unionists post no 1177 when you wrote about them there.

I do not speak for unionists either but I would imagine if given the choice, they and the rest of the UK would have preferred live in a UI friendly towards the UK ( and co-operating in the fight against Hitler) than live under the Nazi Jackboot if Hitler controlled these islands.

Nazi Germany had already occupied Denmark (with which Iceland was in a personal union), and Iceland lacked a military and could not defend itself. The Icelandic government ultimately accepted the presence of British troops as an unavoidable reality. It offered no resistance when the British arrived.

The British in Iceland were relatively well received, spent money and did not ship some people there off to extermination camps, like the Germans did in Denmark.

The British would not have arrived in the 26 counties for numerous reasons, for example (a) because it would have hugely alienated America, which it was dependant on supplies from (b) encountered a fierce guerila resistance, (C) was tied up on plenty of other fronts

Now, will you or the other poster who has the same style/opinions as you please answer the questions about would you have welcomed a German Victory in "the Emergency"?

This is ALL conjecture. Despite the fact a lot of it is hindsight, the FACT is Ireland feared a British and German invasion. Neutrality and the restrictions and censorship were designed because of those very real and present dangers.
A danger felt from Britain that FDR accepted was real(while not agreeing with it) and sought reassures from Britain.
You reassuring them from 2026 is futile nonsense.

I am not going down one of your site familiar rabbit holes.

The question of what anyone would have preferred has nothing to do with a discussion of what happened in Ireland and the world in the 1940's.

NONE of us were alive.

Roosevelt completely dismissed any possibility of a British invasion. You never told me before you thought Dev was paranoid. As explained to you already, a British invasion in to Ireland would have alienated support from the USA, on which Britain depended. The British were very weak and had not much army equipment after Dunkirk. The British also would not have had the resources or will to fight against a guerilla warfare campaign which would inevitably result. It had plenty of other fronts to fight on during the war.

We had a lot more to fear from a German victory / invasion. Roosevelt was proved correct. The Germans did bomb us and our ships, the British did not.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you!

Dev and Aiken wanted assurances from FDR because Britain had already invaded Iceland.

How did Iceland react to invasion?

In May 1940 British troops landed in Iceland to forestall a feared German invasion. In July of that year Iceland’s representative in the U.S., Vilhjalmur Thor, asked the State Department whether Iceland could be placed under U.S. protection in accordance with the “Monroe Doctrine” (a long-standing U.S. policy asserting a U.S. role in protecting the Western Hemisphere from aggression). Icelandic Foreign Minister Stefan Stefansson approached Kuniholm with a similar inquiry, which he characterized as “unofficial,” in December 1940.

The U.S. was initially cool to the idea of including Iceland within its security sphere. Finally in July 1941, at British urging and following an exchange of messages between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Hermann Jónasson confirming the arrangement, American troops arrived in Iceland to reinforce and eventually to replace the British military.

They asked FDR for help. Just like Aiken did. And you seem to keep forgetting to include FDR's full response.

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.'

Edit: adding source

Dev would not even tell the Irish population about the Nazis: he forbit the media to use the word. Never mind allow people to be made aware of Nazi atrocities.

North Korea may fear an invasion by the South Africans and people from Mars and Japanese in 2026 but that is no reason to keep a population in extreme censorship.

You said yesterday Germany did not respect neutrality anyway so what was the point of being neutral when we could have helped the Allies and shortened the war, like the Portugese did by allowing the Allies to use the Azores.

Love that this thread is now arguing as proof of the risk of invasion, that Irish Ports and strategic London were just as important as Iceland. When earlier they argued they were irrelevant to the battle of the Atlantic.

Same with Irelands now in a par with Norway in terms of strategic importance and resources. When Ireland had zero resources.

All hail Dev for saving Ireland non existent resources from being robbed.

I love the idea of appealing to the US to protect the western hemisphere from aggression. Consider how the us sat on its hands as the war in the west (and east) started.

Nobody said (that I know of) "Irish Ports and strategic London were just as important as Iceland".

When earlier they argued they were irrelevant to the battle of the Atlantic. - I did not say that, none of the Allied countries either and they would know.

Who mentioned Ireland resources? Churchill offered us a U.I. for the use of the treaty Ports they built to help defend the Atlantic, that is all.

I agree the US was late to the war, same as in WW1. All they did before Pearl harbour was send a few Eagle squadrons to Britain to be based there to fight the Germans, which they did.

And while neutral, before Pearl Harbour and joining the war, they patrolled the Atlantic out to 300 miles off their coasts to help protect Allied shipping from U boat attacks. Roosevelt wanted us to do that out to only 50 miles but Dev would not even do that.

No wonder the New York Herald accused us of being more Axis leaning than Allied in our neutrality. As confirmed when Dev expressed condolences on Hitler's death.