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

Hindsight again.

We are not Portugal and if you think decisions are as simple as that I’m glad you are not running the country

You were wrong. The President has the power to pardon. De Valera did not have the power to pardon. It is right there in what you quoted. The government makes recommendations but it is the President who has the power to pardon.

Wouldn't be surprised if on some Spanish version of Boards there was a discussion about Spanish neutrality being flooded with claims about why Franco was a very bad man because Spain didn't join the Axis powers.

Ireland was neutral in WW2. That is the historical reality. Did the policy save Ireland from greater harm? Yes.

The Germans had rolled over most of Europe in a matter of months. It forced the British Expeditionary Force out of mainland Europe in a matter of weeks. There was a strong element in UK politics that considered an armistice a better option than fighting on. There was no guarantee at that stage that the Allies would win without the direct involvement of the US. There was a strong isolationist element in US politics that did not want to get involved in a war in Europe.

Ireland was also in no condition militarily to fight a war. The Irish electorate approved of the neutrality policy. The government's first duty was to the Irish people. Ireland was lucky to avoid the devastation that happened in mainland Europe and the destruction and loss of lives that hapened in the UK. Over 35,000 Irish soldiers were killed in WW1. That may have influenced public sentiment against involvement in another war. Even so, apparently there was a substantial number of Irish men serving in Allied forces.

The thread topic is about whether Ireland's neutrality in WW2 is unfairly criticised. The thread seems to have degenerated into a "Get de Valera" tirade. It is all very easy to point out what the government should have done with the benefit of hindsight over 80 years later. The government took the decisions that it thought were in the best interests of the Irish people based on the information available to it at the time. The rest is History.

It was explained to you the other day. Government policy at the time was that NOBODY was allowed into the country who couldn't support themselves. This was policy since 1925.

The country wasn't able to support its own people, we had 70,000 unemployed and double that expected to arrive back into the country at wars end. Most of the country had no running water or electricity, how would we care for them? We did send £3,000,000 in aid.

This was already explained to you with links.

As others have said, set up an anti-Dev thread if you want as you've dragged this one off topic with your bias and lies!

I never said decisions are simple. I an others in the thread did point out that Portugal, a neutral country ,did give a base - the Azores - to help the Allies in the battle against Nazism. That was the moral thing to do, when so many were dying in the battle of the Atlantic and the Allies needed a base further west than they had already. Portugal was not attacked by Germany, unlike us ( about 50 bombs were dropped on us by Germany).

Most of what you say above is rubbish. One thing you say we were lucky to avoid the devastation that affected much of Europe - that is true. We were lucky that we could literally shelter behind Britain.

I asked questions which you and FrancieBrady refuse to answer.

Did the government here ever ask Hempel, the Nazi party rep about the Irish merchant sailors who died in the slave concentration camps?

What was the point of being neutral if Germany bombed us ( about 50 bombs ), destroyed a higher % of the merchant fleet than the Allies merchant fleet, and thought so little of captured neutral Irish seamen that they separared Irish from British and sent the Irish to Nazi slave labour concentration camps?

Note I did not use Devs name in the questions. Set up another thread on him if you want. We are talking about Irelands neutrality stance in WW2.

Stop talking about Dev and the treaty of Versailles etc. This thread is about neutrality and WW2. Incidentally I think Dev had good points as well as bad points, as do and did most people. He was right to execute some IRA men during the war - not sure what you think about that, as being a devoted Sinn Fein supporter you seemed to defend Sean Russel, IRA collaborator with the Nazis earlier.

Anyway, back to the topic. It is not anti Irish to criticise the government of the time, anymore than it is anti American to criticise the US govt now or anti German to criticise the Nazi government during WW2.

Rubbish The UK acted before it was attacked. It along with France declared war on Germany immediately after the invasion of Poland. Britain had been gearing up for war since 1938, nobody wanted war after the devastating losses in WW1, but someone had to stop Hitler. You are using hindsight to say what people should or should not have done at the treaty of Versailles etc.

Your figures are wrong.

But it has nothing to do with our neutrality does it!

The UK acted when it suited them to act, they watched Germany re-arm, signed the Anglo German Naval Treaty despite huge objections from France and others who knew what would happen. The AGNT effectively shattered Part v of the Treaty of Versailles which would, had it been enforced, totally prevented a war.

Part V of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles had imposed severe restrictions on the size and capacities of Germany's armed forces. Germany was allowed no submarines, no naval aviation, and only six obsolete pre-dreadnought battleships; the total naval forces allowed to the Germans were six armoured vessels of no more than 10,000 tons displacement, six light cruisers of no more than 6,000 tons displacement, twelve destroyers of no more than 800 tonnes displacement, and twelve torpedo boats

Set up a separate thread on the treaty of Versailles if you want. The UK was not ready to go to war in 1938, its air forece was hopelessly outdated etc. It spent 1938 and 1939 preparing. Same was USA did in 1940, 41.

You missed the post number 2016. You defended Sean Russell before, I suppose you will ignore him now.

It is of course known that communications to German ( regarding Allied activity in N. Ireland etc) was not just sent from Hempel and his team during the war.

For example, this is about Jim O'Donovan friend of Sean Russell and head of explosives in the IRA:

Quote:

"Yet despite all this, Jim O'Donovan was falling under Hitler's spell. In fact, during the early years of the war, he became increasingly interested in Nazi ideology and visited Germany three times.

Speaking for the first time about his father's work with the Nazis, Gerard O'Donovan - who was a young boy during the conflict - told me how he still remembers one regular wartime visitor to their home in Dublin:

"There was a room off the dining room where there was a radio transmitter. A man used to come every Saturday and send messages to Germany on that radio… and we children used to call (him) Mr Saturday Night."

Jim O'Donovan died in 1979 without, according to those who knew him, any regrets about his involvement with the Nazis."

Sean Russell of course died on a Nazi submarine which was supposed to drop him off the coast of Ireland. How many trips did that submarine make, if any?

How many times does it have to be pointed out? Read something that doesn't confirm your simplistic bias:

The Jewish Refugee Crisis and How the World Responded

Jewish refugees from German-occupied Europe in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

God knows there is enough material out there to realise it was more complex than your kneejerk cod-analysis

Set up a separate thread on the treaty of Versailles if you want. 

The ignoring of the ToV was why we had to be neutral in the first place, of course it is relevant.

We did not "have" to be neutral. Most of the world was not neutral. How many grey coloured countries do you se on the map below? Thanks for proving my point about censorship, indoctrination and propaganda by the way.

How are your answers to the following questions coming on?

Why did our government allow Hempel the Nazi here to live here in 1945, 1946, 1947 , while not allowing any Jewish refugees in, or any in any numbers at least?

Was Hempel asked about Hitler's Irish Slaves?

Why were returning Irish people from the war shunned? I suppose if the story of how Irish people were made work to death in Hitler's slave labour Concentration camps, people would have questioned Irelands neutrality in the war more. Some Irish people found it difficult to believe Hitler would do that anyway, . After all, during the war the media here was not allowed use the word Nazi even, in case it would offend the poor dears.

Why were we not made aware Nazi Germany did not respect Irish neutrality, and indeed Nazis did not think much of us as a race ?