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

You claimed officials in America did not use the Nazi word, I show full the full transcript of one of Roosevelt's speeches - one of his most famous ones - littered with the Nazi word, and that was well before the USA joined the war.

You claimed the cine-reel was shown in Irish cinemas in May 1945 but your links did not ever suggest or ever mention that.

Aiken was monitored by United States federal intelligence and state departments—common diplomatic protocol for foreign ministers during WW2. What do you think he told his American-Irish friends - that the British would win - or that if the Germans won "we" would get Irish unity?

I did not say ALL officials I said officials and backed it up showing official documents ( created by officials) that didn’t use the word Nazi.

Yes the link to the irish times said they were shown from May-June. You lied AGAIN

Now because you are desperate to divert away from your spurious claim I can assume you were lying about the FBI.

Spin after spin, lie after lie, deflection after deflection

Liar. You said officials in neutral America did not use the Nazi word. I showed you Roosevelt did, quite a bit. As well as everyone else.

Your link did NOT show it was being shown in May. You lied.

Roosevelt did not lie about what he said to Aiken. It was in state papers. Any yes, Aiken was monitored by United States federal intelligence and state departments—common diplomatic protocol for foreign ministers during WW2. Especially someone like Aiken, from a place like Ireland, in a strategic position during the then raging battle of the Atlantic. Do not be stupid if you think not.

I'm going to love showing you the link after you show me yours. Because I already answered all of your questions, but you often do not answer mine eg do you (as a SF supporter) think Sean Russell was right for collaborating with Nazi Germany?

This is bullshit. I posted a link to an Irish Times article.

At the time you were claiming it wasn’t shown for ‘months’ after. You haven’t yet said how many months and how you know this.

And I did not say ALL Officials and never denied FDR used it. Nor did I say it was covered by a censorship act as it’s use was here.

No more lies Francis.

Do you have a link to your claim about tge FBI investigating Aiken?

Stop trying to claim you meant something else. You made a specific claim.

You don’t want to do it, we will know it is another lie in a long list of them here

You asked me for no links. You are making excuses for not showing your work.

Did the FBI monitor Aiken, probably, but you said you had proof and they reported to Roosevelt about Aiken being pro German.

You said you had links to Aikens speeches in NY and San Francisco. You haven't provided any!

Again if you think myself and Francie are the same person I would suggest you notify a Mod straight away as that's a Site ban!

You said ( post no. 2078 )

" The US (while neutral) Switzerland, Spain and other neutrals avoided the use of 'Nazi' in official language, observing the protocols of neutrality."

I showed you it was commonplace in America - even the President there used it before entering the war - and in Switzerland by most people there.

It was avoided in official documents, and that was shown.

I did not say it was avoided by all officials.

You want to be dense about that, that’s on you.

You are after all insisting on being dense about the fact the censorship operating here restricted the use of words and phrases about all the belligerents.

"pro-german" now is it? What Roosevelt said was it was reported Aiken had said Ireland had nothing to fear from a German victory, or words to that effect.

"On the 21st March I was interviewed by representatives of the various papers and news services in Washington and was pretty fairly reported in the newspapers. I also saw several Senators and Congressmen and representatives. We made particular efforts to see the leading Congressmen and Senators who had voted for the Lease-Lend Bill and tried to get their co-operation in securing arms and ships. A dinner was given in my honour by Representative McGrennory2, who is a thick and thin supporter of the President. At this dinner there were about 37 Congressmen and Senators, mostly in favour of Lease-Lend, and Congressman McCormack3 – Majority Leader in the House – expressed himself in favour of our getting arms and ships, and his speech was well received by all present.

At a luncheon given in my honour by the head of a labour paper, supporting the President, I also met about 15 Congressmen and Senators and explained the situation to them at length.

Mr. Brennan and I also spent a great deal of time in the lobbies of the Congress and Senate and met a large number of Congressmen.

On March 25th Congressman Healy4 and Representative Connery5 and Majority House Leader John McCormack spoke in the Senate and said they considered that it was important for the national defence of America that the things Ireland needed in food and armaments should be sold or given to the people of that country as quickly as possible."

Happy digging. I do not want to make it too easy for you. ;)

It was not avoided in all official documents until the US joined the war.

I already read that. Where did he say that Ireland had nothing to fear from a German victory?

You have no evidence of it despite being asked.

FDR saying "it has been reported" is not proof of anything!

No link to any speeches in NY or SF despite being asked

No proof of any FBI reports despite being asked

And if you read down your own link you can see the dates of those speeches are after his meeting with FDR so the content of those speeches weren't known beforehand.

What did he say in NY or SF that proves your point?

To answer the original question posed, yes, Ireland is unfairly criticised. We were under no particular obligation to ally with the UK in WWII. Far from it.

This thread is about WW2 and our neutrality then. Nothing to do with neutrality since ww2 or nowadays, that is a different topic.

Whether neutrality in WW2 was morally justifiable or not is one of the most debated questions in modern history. Most countries the the world were not neutral. Most were on the Allied side after Pearl Harbour. The conflict is often framed as an absolute battle between good and evil, making neutrality appear to many as a failure to protect human rights. If anyone ever saw how the Axis powers treated their prisoners you would be left in no doubt. Plus of course, it was the Axis powers who invaded.

The rest of the world could not have been neutral against the Axis Powers. We saw neutral powers picked off one by one by the Axis and invaded. Choosing not to act against the undeniable evils of the Axis makes the neutral observer complicit in the crimes. The defence of democracy and human freedom superseded traditional, selfish state interests and every country could have played a part. We could have helped the forces of democracy and human freedom by allowing our ports be used to save lives in the Atlantic, same as Portugal did lending use of the Azores.

• The Irish sailors captured and mistreated by the Nazis in slave labour Concentration camps, 44% of whom died, knew neutrality was selfish and does not work. They among Irish people had the most real experience of the Nazis. Those Irish people who survived the Nazis concentration camps were liberated by British soldiers, not by neutrality loving politicians.

There wasn't even a blip in diplomatic relations worth talking about as a result of neutrality. No trade embargoes or blockades etc. Ireland and the US were even able to negotiate (1944) and agree (1945) the US-Ireland Bilateral Air Transport Agreement. And as you say, our application to the UN approved by both the US and Britain.

We were not allowed join because the Allies split and the Cold War developed from that split. An actual breakdown of diplomacy. Two of the major Allied countries UK and US backed our application. Our neutrality had no lasting effect with them. We continued on with normal diplomatic ties, no breakdown. Signing a bilateral agreement EVEN as WW2 continued.