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

You have to ask, if the Jewish Museum can fairly report history, why can't @Francis McM, why would you have to spin, omit and slant?

There's only one answer jumping out at me.

or implied the words were theirs.

They are'theirs' though, you cut and pasted them directly from the www.jewishmuseum.ie site. Then you ommited the qualifying reasonable bit you didn't like. Own it and put the shovel down.

Want to talk about what Churchill was 'historically' involved in?

Starvation of Bengali's?
War Crimes?

Deployment of the Black & Tans?

Chemical Warfare against Arabs and Kurds in the 20's?

Overt racism?

Or do you just want to be selective/exceptionalist AGAIN?

Set us a thread on the man who saved Europe from Nazism if you want. That is not what this thread is about. At leasr Churchuill had an Irish Catholic as his right hand man and Jewish ministers.

Not like our Prime Minister at the time whose right hand man was commander of the IRA unit which killed 6 innocent protestant civilians and burnt out many more. Could you see Dev having an Englishman as his right hand man?

I know you will not answer or divert, so we'll take it the answer is no.

So you just want to rant about the Irish side. No surprise again.

You are a parody of yourself now.

The Irish government behaved in the same way as other countries did.

We have covered all this already.

Delegates of 32 countries assembled at the Royal Hotel in Evian, France, from July 6 to 15, 1938, to discuss the problem of Jewish refugees. The refugees were desperate to flee Nazi persecution in Germany, but could not leave without having permission to settle in other countries. The Evian Conference resulted in almost no change in the immigration policies of most of the attending nations. The major powers--the United States, Great Britain, and France--opposed unrestricted immigration, making it clear that they intended to take no official action to alleviate the German-Jewish refugee problem.

Emigration and the Evian Conference | Holocaust Encyclopedia

Not surprised you hold in high esteem the man who most historians agree was the commander of the IRA unit involved in the ethnic cleansing involving the murder of 6 totally innocent protestant civilians and burning out of many more in 1922.

Says it all.

I did not put a pro-unionist slant on Aiken. I was replying to the previous poster who wrote "Frank Aiken was an honourable man, a patriot who did what was necessary to rid Ireland of the scourge of British terror and tyranny."

I commented "Not surprised you hold in high esteem the man who most historians agree was the commander of the IRA unit involved in the ethnic cleansing involving the murder of 6 totally innocent protestant civilians and burning out of many more in 1922."

I did not attempt to excuse him for that atrocity. You did.

I said "Not surprised you hold in high esteem the man who most historians agree was the commander of the IRA unit involved in the ethnic cleansing involving the murder of 6 totally innocent protestant civilians and burning out of many more in 1922."

It is accepted that given his position as IRA divisional commander, he would had to have given his approval for the Altnaveigh attack.

Working my way through this, very interesting POV with detail, such as the British chief of staff's reply below, that I didn't know.

In January 1938 one of the questions put to the British chief of staff’s sub-committees
included a question as to whether the importance of the Irish ports was so great as to warrant
military operations to regain possession of them. The reply indicated that this would require a
campaign of Gallipoli proportions if it were carried out in the face of opposition.

Duggan recalls de Valera’s contingency plans in 1938 that if Britain were to be an aggressor,
“Ireland would make such aggression as costly as possible for Britain”.59 O’Halpin also admits that
‘the evident determination of the Irish to resist any invader, however briefly, undoubtedly had some
influence on British thinking’.60 He argues, ‘it can also fairly be said that, by as early as the spring of
1941, the defence forces were sufficiently well organised to provide sustained resistance to British
action’.61 On 14 December 1941 Hempel confirmed de Valera’s reiterated determination to defend
Irish neutrality....‘not an inch’ of Irish territory was for sale.62 It is worth noting that the strategy of
other neutral states, such as Austria, was also based on the strategy of “the highest possible price of
entry”, with relatively low levels of defence expenditure.63 Thus, de Valera had shown comparatively
sufficient due diligence and defence resource preparations to make the perceived costs of occupation
too high for belligerents, an achievement he shared with the other neutral states.

Microsoft Word - Karen Devine Critique of the Unneutral practice of Irish neutrality ISIA 2008

Recent experiences influencing the thinking of both the Irish and the British?

Such rubbish. Thee poor lads hadn't a clue. You quote:

"On 14 December 1941 Hempel confirmed de Valera’s reiterated determination to defend
Irish neutrality....‘not an inch’ of Irish territory was for sale.62 It is worth noting that the strategy of other neutral states, such as Austria, was also …"

If you knew anything about WW2 you would know Austria was not neutral in World War 2. Hitler himself was Austrian, they spoke the same language and Austria was formally annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938—an event known as the Anschluss. Austrian territory was absorbed into the German Reich, and hundreds of thousands of Austrians fought in the German military. Austria was part of the Axis you could say. It was a willing Axis country.

This thread is about WW2 and the other references in that text are to 1938, 1941 etc. If you want to divert the thread talking about mordern day neutrality, then set up another thread.