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

The key issue is when the Allies became aware that the BAMS ciphers were compromised. I think that they were only replaced around mid 1943. How the Allies became aware of the compromise is important and it may have been referenced in that report. The difference between this and hypothetical discussion about the Irish Treaty Ports is that this intellgence blunder cost lives and ships. Replacing a manual book cipher was far more difficult than the U-boats adding a fourth rotor to their Enigma machine. That simply inolved sending a message to add the rotor which the U-boats already carried. Replacing a book cipher meant, theoretically, distributing a new code book to every ship.

Read it again because the book is about the battle of the Atlantic. See the bit for example about Castle Archdale in Co. Fermanagh, how it came about and why. Also the mention of the Donegal corridor and the need for it because Ireland was neutral. Not sure which version of the book you have, and there were a number of versions, but no wonder your knowledge of the Battle of the Atlantic is so lacking.

In May 1941 the German Battleship Bismarck was found during a routine patrol by a Catalina flying out of the relatively new Castle Archdale boat base in Co Fermanagh, and using the Donegal corridor. The importance of flights from Ireland was mentioned more than once. At its peak, up to 1900 personnel were stationed there.

The importance of Ireland even got a mention in Churchill's VE day speech, he said that without N. Ireland's loyalty, Britain "should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera". He also accused the Irish government of being free to "frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives" while Britain was fighting for its life.

.

So Francis McM finds a book in a Google search, cites the book to support his "Get Dev" obsession, does not read book and then claims that it said something it did not say? There seems to be a bit of a pattern there. When questioned by someone who read the book, he still claims that it said what the AI slop said. Cutting and pasting from AI summaries and Google search results is not the same as actual knowledge.

The problem with the claims about the Irish Treaty Ports is this: British BAMS ciphers were compromised from the beginning of the war to around 1943.

The Germans were able to read messages to convoys concerning their routes and diversions. This meant that the U-boats could target convoys and sink ships. With that level of intelligence, the U-boats could select their targets. Luckily for the Allies, the Germans could not exploit all of the decrypts. Otherwise things would have gone very badly wrong for the Allies in Europe.

Having access to the Irish Treaty Ports would not have made much difference to those people who lost their lives and the ships that were sunk. It was mid 1943 before the compromised ciphers were replaced. Had it not been for Enigma and possibly Lorenz decrypts by BP, the Allies might well have been unaware that the BAMS ciphers were compromised.

That 1941 map shows Allied ships that were sunk while the Germans were able to read British ciphers. Dimbleby's assessment of the seriousness of this breach is correct.

Compared to the scale and the effect of this breach, access to the Irish Treaty Ports and Irish neutrality were almost irrelevant. Apart from attack and evasion, finding the convoys was difficult for the U-boats. Due to the decrypts of convoy routing messages, they had the details of the routes of some of the convoys and their positions.

The Germans did not decrypt all traffic in time for it to be used. Had they been more organised, the losses would have been higher. Using information from the BAMS decrypts, the U-boats were able to find convoys and sink ships. Unlike the hypothetical questions about how many lives could have been saved had the Allies access to the Irish Treaty Ports, these were the lives of people lost because the BAMS ciphers were compromised for years.

It does provide a convenient distraction from the various blunders that resulted in unnecessary losses. It also appeals to revisionists. To an imperialist like Churchill, the result of the Irish WoI was a diaster in that a small country defied the British Empire. What was more, Churchill was part of the British negotiating team for the Treaty. De Valera did not engage directly. Churchill was a very good self-publicist. He was also limited in what he could say about events in WW2 especially on the Enigma/Lorenz issues. He may well have been aware of the Germans being able to decrypt the BAMS messages and that would have been a major poltical problem had it emerged just after the war. He was helped by the fact that others who knew about Allied cryptographic successes and disasters were also restricted by the Official Secrets Act.

I have the Penguin 2015 edition 560 pages and I am fully aware that its about the Battle of the Atlantic, the clue is in the title. You quoted text from Chapter 6 that doesn't exist so where are you getting that from if not AI?

Im happy to look for the part about the Donegal corridor's role in the Bismarck sinking if you can point me to it.

Your first post showing the Atlantic map has text around the treaty ports which is what I was referring to as AI slop.

I did not misquote anything.

You wrote "We were as a people determined to remain neutral as was most of the world." You imply most of the world was neutral.

Most of the world was not neutral throughout the war like Ireland. Here is a map - the grey coloured countries were the neutral ones.

More copypasta from Google search results about a book you have not read?

In this immensely long, but extremely readable, history of the second world war, Max Hastings wonders if there might have been something innately disciplined and darkly perfectionist in the German psyche. The Wehrmacht displayed an efficiency and Ordnungsliebe (passion for order) largely absent from the allied armies, he argues. Had Hitler not invaded Russia and stumbled fatally at Stalingrad, Germany would have won the war and all Europe would now be a vast German colony.

Hastings, a conservative historian and former newspaper editor, is drawn to British acts of decency, with a faint antipathy towards foreigners,

So doesn't like foreigners and Britain only won because Germany invaded Russia. Nothing to do with the treaty ports then!

We can also read reviews of the books you claim to have read. This is a take down of that exact passage from one such reviewer:

Another brief point. Hastings suggests Ireland should have helped Britain in its struggle for survival against the U-Boat. Aside from the fact that Ireland did plenty, Hastings himself in the same book expands at length how over-estimated the U-Boat threat was to Britain, especially by 1942. He cannot do so, and than change his mind when he needs a stick to beat Ireland with.

Seems the bould Max is as contradictory, agenda driven and as all over the place as you are.

“Suicidal Obstinacy”: Max Hastings And Irish Neutrality In The Second World War | Never Felt Better

The passage in his book reads "

“Ireland had gained self-governing Dominion status only in 1922…as the former mother-nation began its struggle for survival against the U-Boat, Winston Churchill was tempted by the notion of reinforcing his country’s claims upon these naval bases and air bases…The Atlantic “air gap” was significantly widened, and many lives and much tonnage lost in consequence of the fanatical loathing of Irish Prime Minister Eamon De Valera for his British neighbours. The crews of almost every warship and merchantman that sailed past the Irish coastline in the war years felt a surge of bitterness towards the country which relied on Britain for most of its vital commodities, and all of its fuel, but would not lift a finger to help in its hour of need.”

As someone else said, it may not be quite true that the Irish Free State “didn’t lift a finger” to help Britain, but I think it’s fair to say that the country did very little in the early years of the war. It interned RAF airmen in the early years of the war, allowed ( well they flew overhead whither we liked it or not) German Condor aircraft fly overhead etc.

The airbase on Lough Erne did not come in to use until 1941. In 1940 alone the Allies lost 1000 ships in the Atlantic. Before that, the Luftwaffe frequently flew their Focke Wolf Condors over "Eire" (see “Scourge of the Atlantic” by Kenneth Poolman) and the only opposition they met was the occasional letter of protest.

Another good book is “That Neutral Island” by Clair Wills. Even though the author is evidently pro-Irish, the actions of our Free State do not come across in a very favourable light there either.

Taking you off ignore to reply that you're editing again.

Ireland had gained self-governing dominion status only in 1922, although until 1938 Britain retained control of four strategically important ‘treaty ports’ on its coastline. In 1939–40, as the former mother nation began its struggle for survival against the U-boat, Winston Churchill was tempted by the notion of reasserting by force his country’s claims upon these naval and air bases. He was dissuaded only by fear of the impact on opinion in the United States, where there was a strong Irish lobby.

The Atlantic ‘air gap’ was significantly widened, and many lives and much tonnage lost, in consequence of the fanatical loathing of Irish prime minister Éamon de Valera for his British neighbours. The crews of almost every warship and merchantman that sailed past the Irish coastline in the war years felt a surge of bitterness towards the country which relied on Britain for most of its vital commodities and all its fuel, but would not lift a finger to help in its hour of need.

If you are going to use quotes from a book don't edit them.

Back onto ignore with your bullshit!