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

Churchill obviously never got over the fact that the British empire lost in Ireland. Ireland was invaded and the only reason that the British had the Treaty Port was because of that invasion of Ireland. The UK had been invaded multiple times and its king replaced by a Dutchman backed by the Pope. It even had its royal family replaced by Germans. Your posting history suggests that you wish that Ireland joined the Allies despite the Irish people being overwhelmingly in favour of neutrality. That's democracy.

Ireland had fought a War of Independence against the British empire less than twenty years before the outbreak of WW2.Over 35,000 Irish men were killed in WW1 and for what? The grandparents of some of those Irish people would have lived through the Famine. Do you think that Irish Independence was wrong? If Ireland had been part of the UK then tens of thousands more Irish people would have died so that people could get a letter from his majesty signed with his own rubber stamp. (Roger Waters/Pink Floyd reference)

Ireland's neutrality policy saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of Irish lives. And despite all your bluster about "morality", the first duty of de Valera and the Irish government of the time was to the Irish people and not to you some eighty years later trying to rewrite history.

Without the hindsight that plagues certain opinions here, it is easily understandable that Ireland was suspicious of Britain's intentions. Even the US was suspicious of the UK's intentions re: maintaining Empire.

If you read about the disputes over the Atlantic Charter and the US briefing they were universal ideals and Churchill insisting they didn't apply to Empire it is clear that Churchill was still a dyed in the wool classic imperialist.

His implications before the war that strategic necessity 'might' over-ride autonomy would have carried a real foreboding threat for Dublin and the Irish people.

FDR won the argument despite Churchill insisting on his interpretation of the Charter in the UK parliament. It sparked off the final push for Indian independence too.

On the matter of colonialism and imperialism FDR and Dev were closer in attitudes than FDR and Churchill were. Possibly explains why he understood our fear of invasion and agreed to seek assurances.

Churchill could not have been that anti-irish when his right hand man was an Irishman.

It is unthinkable that Dev would have had an Englishman as his right hand man. Instead he had Aiken, who was head of the IRA unit that murdered 6 innocenent protestants a few decades earlier.

You may not like Churchill, but remember it was his forces that eventually liberated the surviving Irish seamen from Hitler's slave labout Nazi concentration camps. Don't believe me? Read the books.

Oh, and Churchill did not offer condolences on Hitler's death. And Dev did not offer condolences on the death of the Irishmen in Hitler's death camps.

So not as black and whit as you think.

As usual, when you lose the argument, you go for the man, not the ball.

And you just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore all facts pointed out to you!

You edited quotes and were debunked using your own links. You tend to focus on headlines and dive straight in without reading the whole thing.

I never edited quotes. You are thinking of one post I made where I had a phrase in italics - you call it a quote - but if you look closely I never gave a link to that particular phrase in italics or said who it was from. So you are totally wrong as usual. And in all the thousands of facts I have given, I have not been debunked. If you look at todays posts for example, you will see I gave links to back up the facts I said. You do not.

Rubbish. The second "quote" if you really want to call it a quote was in a different post much later with no reference as to who it was from. Pathetic if that is all you can complain about, words in italics from no known speaker or source in the post.

And he gave speeches about the virtues of imperialism, constantly changed his early life story and pretended he had an English elite education.

All the symptoms of somebody with an unhealthy inferiority complex. A complex that turns people into sycophants of the class they wish to belong to.
It still affects Irish people to this day.

You have your opinion of him. It’s not the only one.

He spent the early part of his life in Ireland, Australia and England, and did go to a 400 year old public school for some time in England, so if that confuses you that says more about you than him. He had some success in both business and politics. He was a minister in Britain's wartime government, and treated the media there a lot better than the media here were treated. The fact he was an Irish Catholic made no difference. Good to see Irish people doing well abroad for themselves, I do not begrudge him his success. And fair play to Churchill for having an Irish Catholic as his right hand man. There were also some Jews of course who served as Ministers in Churchill's government during the war.

As noted already, it is unthinkable that Dev would have had an Englishman as his right hand man. Instead he had Aiken, who was head of the IRA unit that murdered 6 innocent protestant civilians, and burnt out many more, a few decades earlier.

A person similarly afflicted by inferiority and so ashamed of their upbringing that they kept changing the details would always be useful to a colonist or imperialist. Plenty were available sadly around the world.

The likes of Churchill would be actively looking for someone like that, he had others he kept close because they were useful.

So no great surprise.

Not interested in any more of you singing his praises, so don't bother with the hagiography. .

Some would say the fact that you twisted the words of the Irish Holocaust museum to suit your agenda could be Anti-semitic.

We can all see what you did, you mightn't want to admit it but we see you.