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

The world changed a lot in the time between the Anglo Irish Treaty negotiations and 1940. In 1940 alone, the Germans sunk over 1100 ships, and their contents, in the Atlantic.

I said that Dev had offered a U.I. to Dev and the Irish government on condition Ireland gives back the use of the Treaty ports. Dev was invited to London for talks a number of times but declined. I gave numerous links, Irish Times, RTE, Government papers etc. Take it up with them if you do not believe me. Or failing that look up AI.

Now you say "It is most unlikely that Churchill was in favour of a free and United Ireland." You really should do your research more. And realise a U.I. would have been the lesser of 2 evils : a U.I. or there islands invaded by Germany.

If Dev had bothered going to the talks and negotiations, he could have insisted the Canadians for example would defend and man the Treaty ports. Would have been in their interest too, their young men were being lost in the mid Atlantic gap too.

Britain pulled out and left unionists abandoned here on this island once ; they cold have done it again.

Of course Dev rejected the talks about a U,I, and enforced extremely strict censorship here. The bombing of Dresden was mentioned but no news of Nazi concentration camps - the media here were not even allowed to use the word Nazi. Dev even irritated all the Allies by complaining about US troops in N. Ireland. Well done Dev!

North south relations got worse and worse as more good men were lost in the Atlantic. And Dev's commiserations over Hitler, who bombed Belfast killing 1000 and destroying half the houses there, put the final nail in the coffin of a U.I for a very long time.

That was all gone in to earlier in the thread, several times. Portugal gave the Azores to the Allies and neither it or Portugal were ever bombed or attacked. From say 1943 on the Germans had other things to be worried about and our geographical position would have meant it would have been unlikely we would have been bombed from then on, had we changed to the Allies then or in 1944 as some other countries did. There were over 100,000 American troops in N.I. and they were not bombed?

Ireland depended on shipping for a lot of critical imports and exports. Had Ireland not been neutral, the Germans would have sunk a lot of that shipping. You still have not said if you would have preferred Home Rule in Ireland, Ireland being part of the UK and Ireland not being neutral in WW2.

The IT needed a headline, when you read the detail there was no actual offer. Shows the paucity of critical thinking.

The Irish government did not have the benefit of hindsight and were not stupid enough to make decisions based on, 'shure the Germans didn't bomb Portugal, they won't bomb us'.
According to one poster here they had already maliciously bombed us with almost pinpoint precision. Wonder what poster that was?

They did have the benefit of very recent history and key to every decision they made was distrust and suspicion of perfidious Albion Britain.

Let's use Google AI to clear a few things up.

Times says

The British plan, drawn up in June 1940, envisaged an immediate declaration accepting "the principle" of a united Ireland,

Google says

Acceptance of a principle means agreeing with a core idea or fundamental rule without committing to every detail or implementation method.

Times says

But MacDonald countered by claiming that while London "would be glad if a united Ireland could come into being at once", there were practical difficulties that made such a proposal impossible

Google ssys

The phrase means that the plan, idea, or offer could not be successfully executed in the real world because of physical, financial, logistical, or operational roadblocks—not because the core idea was bad, but because it couldn't actually be done.

Times says

MacDonald told de Valera London would not "coerce" Northern Ireland into an agreement and "would not and could not march troops into the six counties to force a policy upon their government"

Google says

Britain was willing to encourage an agreement, but they would not use military force ("coerce") to strip Unionist Northern Ireland of its devolved government or force them into an all-island state against their will

On a point you brought up on a different post

Dev was invited to London for talks a number of times but declined.

Yes, Dev declined traveling to London to meet Viscount Cranborne, he invited him to travel to Dublin instead.

I have just left Mr. de Valera who gave me the following personal and private message for the Prime Minister. Begins.

Thanks for your message. Perhaps a visit from Lord Cranborne would be the best way towards a fuller understanding of our position here. Details of the visit could be arranged through our High Commissioner or your Representative here. Ends.

Mr. de Valera said that it would be best to give as little publicity to any such visit as possible

Cranborne never visited Dublin so just goes to show how serious they were about the "Deal"

I took the opportunity of referring to the Prime Minister 's message and was able to make it clear that it did not suggest any deal over partition. There is now no question of misunderstanding.

"One unionist was very upset when told of the plan", you say. When, at least there was an acceptance that there was a proposed plan and offer, as the Irish Times, RTE, government papers and everyone else confirmed. You are just arguing about the details and implications.

If a neighbour with who I have a contested land dispute contacted me 3 times over 3 different years and tells me in principle he is happy to give me the disputed land, for a small price ( in this case co-operation against Hitler, the most evil man in the world ), and he invites me to a meeting about same, I could not say he did not offer me the disputed land.

Even though we were an agricultural country, yes we still had to import some food. The Germans did sink a lot of our shipping. You say they could have : THEY DID. Just because Dev kept a lot of information censored did not mean our ships were not attacked.

Twenty percent of seamen serving in Irish ships perished. Some other Irish seamen were captured by the Germans and ended up in a Nazi concentration camp. Any allied ship that tried to pick up survivors was a dead sitting duck in the water and torpedoed itself by a u-boat if they could. Any Irish survivors picked by by allied shipping were allowed return home.

If you read back, you will see where I did say, more than once, what I thought we should have done in WW2.

And ending neutrality would have increased rather than decreased those attacks,

Now we are all the same poster? That the insinuation?

😁😁

jmcc instanced 'one' Unionist's objection, there were others,
Unionism always gets it's knickers in a twist when mention of the principle of UI is mentioned.

You should read Gray's book. Some very interesting insights in to what the American ambassador in Ireland during the war thought of Ireland. Dev was a bit rude replying to his speech in Irish when Gray, like most people, could not speak Irish.

"Why Mr de Valera replied to my English speech in Irish was a question not difficult to answer. Both languages are sanctioned by the new Constitution, but Mr de Valera and his Separatist group were anxious to impress on the outside world that English is only an unfortunate and temporary makeshift and that Irish is the true and natural tongue of the nation, though today only one person in six speaks it. Very few Irish politicians speak Irish except as American High School students learn to ‘speak’ French, but they usually begin their speeches with a paragraph in Irish, which they have memorised, and then continue in English. It is the badge of being ‘Irish’ Irish, like the Gaelicisation of proper names.
1916 leaders turned out in tails and white tiesThe official dinner in the state apartments of the Castle that evening was as elaborate and well done as the ceremony in the morning. Food, wines, service, cigars, all were unexceptionable. The de Valera revolution had been to a large extent a ‘social movement’. It appealed to the ‘common man’ and repudiated the symbols of privilege. Mr de Valera banned the ‘topper’ and wore the black ‘cowboy’ hat. He and his Cabinet constituted the surviving nucleus of ‘The Sixteen’ and the left-wing IRA faction that had staged the Civil War. Almost every man present had been condemned to death or jail either by the British government or by the Free State government, yet only eight years after coming to power this new aristocracy had all turned out in tails and white ties in the best London tradition, I had never sat down to dine with so many people who had been ‘martyred’ and thrown into prison, nor with so many politicians, who after having been down and out had ‘come back in’ and stayed ‘in’. It had its embarrassing side. It was like dining in a house in which there has been a highly publicised domestic difficulty."

A mod before confirmed you had 2 other user names, and you admitted it yourself.

Insinuating like you are doing is against the charter. It also shows how desperate your 'argument' crusade is becoming.

Wow the head of the Irish government spoke Irish and dressed up for a state dinner!

Did you read the book? Or did you just look up snippets online?

And who edited this book? Why if it isn't Paul Bew!

What is really interesting are all the facts in the book from the period, and why the American ambassador and others in his office in Dublin were all of the same opinion that the Irish government was hoping for a Nazi victory.