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

As I posted previously I have read the book, some years ago mind, and have no recollection of Ireland being mentioned. I have it here, I've gone through the detailed 20 page index, not a mention of anything in relation to Ireland or any of the ports. I re read the pages that deal specifically about the Atlantic Gap and again nothing. AI slop will churn out anything you want. I'm open to correction if you can point me to a page that contradicts this.

There are different versions of the book, eg paperback, hardback etc, and some copies approx 530 pages, other 560 pages, other 590 pages etc. If you go to Chapter 6 ("Churchill declares 'the Battle of the Atlantic'"), there are numerous references to Ireland. This chapter deals with the critical political and strategic crisis surrounding the Treaty Ports in southern Ireland (Éire). It details Churchill's deep frustration over Irish neutrality, his desperate desire to regain naval bases like Berehaven and Queenstown (Cobh) to protect merchant shipping etc. It also goes in to the vital role played by airbases in N.Ireland (such as RAF Castle Archdale) in closing the mid-Atlantic. Of course Castle Archdale and the Donegal corriodor was not opened until 1941, by which time the Allies had lost over 1000 ships in the Altantic. Better late than never I suppose.

The trouble with your posts is you just use A1, with a few personalised insults at the start and finish to try to make it look authentic. You talk about Enigma etc, but you did not also know the Germans were able to decipher British Navy signals. The German signals intelligence agency, the B-Dienst (Beobachtungsdienst), successfully broke several key Royal Navy and Allied merchant navy codes, and that had a big impact on the Battle of the Atlantic too. It was not all one sided.

Of course, convoys did not wish to be detected so generally maintained radio silence where possible, using light signals and signal flags etc.

You say you know more about the Battle of the Atlantic than Churchill did, even though that was his job and he was constantly advised by the experts on the Allied side at the time. Says it all.

What is interesting is the Admiralty saying that 5070 British sailors lives lost as the result of our neutrality.

As with many other things, when it comes to cryptography, you are clueless. I was the one who first mentioned the compromise of the British crypto by the Germans and its effect on Allied shipping losses. (I think it was a reply to Flinty999.)

Unlike you, I've had an interest in cryptography for decades and have probably read most of the major published works on cryptography in WW2 and other times. That knowledge gives me a greater appreciation of the work done by all sides and their achievements in WW2. Simply cutting and pasting from Google searches is no substitute for knowledge.

Based on your posts, their shallow level suggests that you have not read many of the books you cite and do not have any real understanding of events in WW2. Your posting history here has but one aim: "Get de Valera".

As for Churchill, people today have one major advantage and that is over eighty years of hindsight and actual knowledge of the outcome of the battle.

At the time, this hindsight was not available to Churchill and both sides had to make their decisions based on information available at the time.

Churchill, when writing about the Battle Of The Atlantic and WW2 could not mention that Enigma had been compromised amd he was getting a box of Enigma decrypts each day. It was easier to divert to the issue of the Irish Treaty Ports.

It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that details of how Enigma was compromised emerged. This meant that a lot of the books on WW2 prior to these disclosures had to be reevaluated along with the reputations of various Allied commanders and their decisions. Max Hastings in a foreword to a book on Ultra intelligence said that he could not initially believe the disclosures when they happened. The extent to which Enigma and Lorenz (Tunny) were compromised cast new light on Allied victories and also on the Battle Of The Atlantic.

The same lack of hindsight condition applied to de Valera and the Irish government and they opted for the policy of neutrality and that was in the interests of the Irish people. That was their first duty. What you, a revisionist with a simplistic (and that is being generous) grasp of historical events waffling away over eighty years later, think is irrelevant to those historical events. All made their decisions and they are now history.

Francis a 'quote' is usually the thing in a body of text in inverted commas'. In the post I wrote what is the 'quote' referred to? The bits in inverted commas of course.

Despite Winston Churchill’s insistence that he quaked at the prospect of the submarine war strangulating Britain, “his impetuous nature led him to embrace a false dichotomy” whereby “he invariably favored the ‘offensive’ initiatives hatched in the Air Ministry over the ‘defensive’ role assigned to the Admiralty” guarding and protecting convoys.

In bold above if you are still struggling.

And you should look up the difference between using AI and using Google and properly attributing where you got your quotes/info from. In the case of my post…linked to at the end, I post it here at the end of this post too, in case you are still struggling:

The Battle of the Atlantic

Now can you tell us what you think of Dimbelby's damning assessment and further, do you think Chuchill has any culpability for those lives lost by needlessly extending the bloodbath at sea because of his 'impetuous nature'?

You are using an American's review, in an American publican of Someone elses book written over 70 years after the event.

😁😁😁 Sorry, I didn't know the Francis rule applied to me - only look at pro British commentary.

He quotes directly from the book, surely if you had actually read the book you'd know this.

“his impetuous nature led him to embrace a false dichotomy” whereby “he invariably favored the ‘offensive’ initiatives hatched in the Air Ministry over the ‘defensive’ role assigned to the Admiralty”

How many lives did this cost?

How many lives did the 'failure' he alludes to here cost?

The book and the American review, over 70 years after the event, is the point of view of one or two individuals. It is a democracy : many other people would be of the view the air war in Europe was worth it to cripple Germany's war industries etc, to help Russia in its hour of need etc.

In any case, the debate about the merits of allocating resources to the air war / bombing campaign in Europe ( which damaged severely Germanys war machine) versus allocating more planes to try to protect convoys in the Atlantic has nothing to do with the thread about Irish neutrality in WW2.

I recommend you read the book, it is a very interesting book. Especially Chapter 6 ("Churchill declares 'the Battle of the Atlantic'"), where there are numerous references to Ireland.

Looks like the Copypasta Kid strikes again.

"In any case, the debate about the merits of allocating resources to the
air war / bombing campaign in Europe ( which damaged severely Germanys
war machine) versus allocating more planes to try to protect convoys in
the Atlantic has nothing to do with the thread about Irish neutrality in
WW2. "

Bear in mind that the importance of the Irish Treaty Ports and their unavailability due to Irish neutrality had been a major part of the thread.

Your 2 questions are silly questions nobody could ever know the answer to. It is a silly argument you have to say the Allies should had devoted all their resources in to trying to defend the Atlantic convoys instead on going on the offensive to cripple Germany's war industries and liberate Europe. Just shows your lack of understanding of WW2. It also has nothing to do with our neutrality. Lives would still have been lost in the Atlantic if all of the RAF was there in the last number of years of the war.

As it was, thousands of Allied airplanes were used throughout the nearly six-year campaign of the Battle of the Atlantic. It is just a pity they had not a base, even just for seaplanes if nothing else, in the west of Ireland. As the Admiraly said, Irish neutrality cost 5070 British lives alone, plus thousands of other Allied eg American, Canadian.

The most intense period of German U-boat attacks during WW2 occurred between mid-1940 and late 1943.

The most intense period of Allied bombing occurred between late 1944 and the spring of 1945.

You have so much to learn, I urge you and jmcc to read a few books and study the subject.

Your 2 questions are silly questions nobody could ever know the answer to.

But…. but Francis how can you know then how many lives neutrality cost?

Do you ever engage critical thinking at all?

You have made a complete fool of yourself again.

Don’t pretend to have read stuff you patently haven’t read?

BTW I didn’t make any claims here, I quoted Dimbleby’s claims and asked questions based on them

Probably just scribbled Irelands fault at the top and published that!

Seriously? Cover up?

Not a cover-up as much as an analysis of what went wrong but with, potentially, information that was considered top secret. Remember that the Enigma attacks were not revealed for decades after the war and the attacks on Lorenz/Tunny took even longer to be disclosed. When it comes to crypto, some material might not be disclosed for decades and possibly when many of those in the decision making process had died. Had thi information been made available at the time of the report, it would have caused very serious political problems. Few people had any idea about ciphers but many would have lost family and friends in this battle. Compared to the scale and duration of this compromise, the unavailability of the Irish Treaty Ports was quite trivial.

The numbers of lives lost due to neutrality was guessed at
We can also, sadly, only guess what cock ups blunders and arrogance cost in human lives. We know Churchill had a track record in this regard.
Potential losses all had to be set against potential losses if we joined the war.

Not something anyone would relish - brave men and women.