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

Still on ignore.

Yes, you ignore all of the websites showing that there were many shipping losses by the Allies which could have been prevented by the Allies having air or sea bases on our west or s.west coast.

I did not lie or edit quotes. It was you who lied. I gave links to back up whatever I said. The links are are very relevant to WW2 and what effect our neutrality had on the war. You may think our neutrality had no effect but it had. Our stance was even criticised by Irish America, who was Dev's closest friend in the world after Hempel the Nazi party member and diplomat here.

I was replying to the fact you lied about me. If you do not want to read the websites and learn about WW2 that is fine, as all your arguments were demolished anyway. Goodbye.

I did not use AI in creating the map. The map was from a detailed website that has thousands of WW2 facts.

Nobody would know for certain exactly how much less Allied losses would have been, had they had bases on our west + s. west coasts. But they would have been less, would have saved much supplies and lives, and possibly shortened the war and even mean Allied forces could have advanced further east before meeting Russian forces, therefore saving some countries from communism post war.

Despite technological advances by the Allies, the U boats still sank approx. 2,800 merchant ships and 175 warships during the war, making a total of over 14 million gross registered tons.

U boats greatest success was inflicting severe logistical damage, which almost cost the U.K. and western Europe the war as the U.K. was very dependent on food and military supplies, oil and much more.

 But they would have been less, would have saved much supplies and lives, and possibly shortened the war and even mean Allied forces could have advanced further east before meeting Russian forces, therefore saving some countries from communism post war.

And without the benefit of hindsight the Irish government had to set that against getting the island destroyed or invaded.

The 'adults' had to look at it in the round with all the info they had and make a decision and they did.

You've been linked to books and opinions before and ignored them.

Churchill's overblown strategic prowess is very much a myth - his mistakes and arrogance (Gallipoli & Norway are entirely relevant) cost many lives in both world wars - the Irish government and indeed the US would have known this, and Singapore, Italy Greece would have proved them correct to distrust his strategic thinking, entirely relevant to mention, even if it hurts your sycophantic misplaced pride.

And we revert to childish attempts to flame and troll. Quelle suprise

If we all stuck them on ignore they could rant away to themselves!

When even Paul Bew tells you you're wrong it might be time to rethink the argument 😁

Yes and in fact I see a sort of indirect connection between the fall of Singapore and the Treaty Ports debate, at least in terms of Churchill's thinking.

When Churchill overruled the Admiralty to send two ships to defend Singapore and deter the Japanese in 1941, they were famously sunk. (Later Singapore fell and it was the largest surrender in British history and effectively brought the British Empire to an end.)

Churchill sent these ships without air cover and both ships were sunk by air-launched torpedoes.

Now what I think is interesting is that if Churchill had listened to the Admiralty he would not have sent ships on a mission to Singapore without air cover.

In parallel to that, if he had been listening to others in the British high command he would have understood for the exact same reason that the Treaty ports could not have been decisive in the Battle of the Atlantic - because ships need sufficient air cover basically and the treaty ports were not suitable to provide land-based air cover.

Churchill told the House of Commons: "In my whole experience I do not remember any naval blow so heavy or so painful as the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse."

The biggest naval failure of Churchill's life was caused by this failure to grasp the changes in naval warfare after WWI.

You claimed (post 2859) that there were many books that argue the opposite of "that there were many shipping losses by the Allies which could have been prevented by the Allies having air or sea bases on our west or s.west coast."

Now you are rowing back because you cannot. You lied yet again. Of course the Allies wanted bases in Ireland. It would have made strategic sense.

So you told a lie, you have no books claiming the opposite of "there were many shipping losses by the Allies which could have been prevented by the Allies having air or sea bases on our west or s.west coast."

Both the Americans and British wanted bases in Ireland to help close the mid Atlantic gap and make defending their (and Canadian etc) shipping easier. Regaining control of the deep-water Treaty ports would have allowed the Royal Navy and RAF to extend their convoy escorts further west.

Rubbish. Nobody would have expected the extended naval and air cover from Ireland to completely prevent losses in the battle of the Atlantic, but everyone is agreed it would have helped prevent some losses.

Do not forget the U boats sank almost 3,000 ships and their cargoes during the war, making a total loss of over 14 million gross registered tons. Even if 5 or 10% of those had been prevented it would have helped a lot.

Still waiting on your books you claimed to have saying the Allies having treaty ports or bases in Ireland would not have helped. You lied again, it seems. If not, show us the books.