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

As did everyone else. Britain only got involve when the power in Europe looked liked shifting against then and the US only when they were attacked. Pollsnd and small nations my Monaghan ass.

We had just lost millions in a WW about maintaining empires as well.

My point wasn’t about the Axis.

Thought more of you Flinty.

This thread is about ww2 and Irish neutrality.

WW1 is a different subject, but you say it was about maintaining Empire. When ( relatively small, Catholic) Belgium was invaded by Germany, I do not think Belgium's colonies such as Congo and Ruanda-Urundi had much to do with it? Or when Britain went to defend Belgium, it was not to do with Belgium's empire? You seem to have a real problem, blaming Britain and colonisation for everything.

This also makes no sense. England was involved long before before the war started. They got involved long before there was any risk to Britain or the Empire from Germany.

That's entirely different to US who didn't do anything until attacked. It's a false equivalence.

WW2 didn't maintain any empire it destroyed them or set independence in motion that did the same. The war bankrupted Britain, and it never recovered it's economic power. It never recovered its military position as global super power either.

Trying to invent a narrative that US and UK entered WW2 in Europe to build an European empire has no basis in reality.

You mention "the 2 main belligerents and the wars they have been in since", by whom I assume you mean the UK and US. On numerous occasions you have said WW2 was their fault, never Germanys of course, because they did not stop Germany in time. I pointed out hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they had the great depression and other matters to worry about, and France was stronger than Germany on paper. I pointed out the world had learnt a lesson - not to be cowardly and selfish in the face of an aggressor - and assembled a 35 strong coalition to liberate little Kuwait from Iraq after it was invaded. Your hypocracy is exposed because you say the UK/US did not do enough after the treaty of Versailles but did too much in more recent conflicts etc.

WW2 was a world war, there were 8 Axis countries, you think it was morally ok to ignore all the atrocities carried out by the Axis because of the war of independence etc. Sean Russell is relevant because he was an IRA collaborator with the Nazis in WW2, and your defence of him / admiration of him in another thread shows the extremity of your views.

Spinning the point that 'those who signed the ToV and who stood by and watched Germany re-arm, knowingly' as being the same as 'starting the war' is just a stupid interpretation of the point.
Germany started the war when they re-armed adequately.

If you actually read anything about the war you will read that within Germany Hitler was criticised because some thought Germany was not yet ready for war - i.e. not re-armed enough.

I never used the War of Independence, Sean Russell or Kuwait in a point either, so why the hell are they being mentioned? Because you are desperate,

We weren’t looking for allies, not belligerent ones anyhow. We stood alone under extreme duress and prevailed and have since used that to build a reputation as seasoned peacekeepers. A necessary job.

Stalin sacrificed huge numbers for geo-political gains. Whatever other failings Dev had and he certainly had them, his motive here and the motive of almost the entire Dåil was protection

The ‘freedom of small nations’ stuff is for the simple or those who consume WW2 according to Hollywood or Pinewood studios output.

All the belligerents were gameplaying their own strategic interests when they could.

Ironic when you consider that accidentially surrendering at Singapore prematurely led to the freedom of India after the war.

Protection? Dev did not protect any refugees fleeing Germany or do anything to help liberate the Nazi death camps. If Dev knew what the Nazi had planned and were doing in Europe ( from his good friend and Nazi Part diplomat and Hitlers's representative, Hempel ), then he kept very quiet about it. And did not openly admit it or say anything or even let the rest of the Irish public know about it as the Nazi death camps were being liberated.

Bit like if a Bully in the school playground ( in this case Germany inc Austria which it absorbed) starts attacking others, and attracts other Axis like Italy and Japan, we will not lift a finger to help others oppose the bullies. We sheltered behind Britain hoping it would not fall, imported oil and coal from it during the war, but would not help it in its hour of need by allowing access to its treaty ports.

Not saying they could'nt or should'nt have done more, but there were about 70,000 Jewish refugees who were accepted into Britain by the start of WW2, and an additional 10,000 people who made it to Britain during the war. We let in extremely few, even though we had plenty of space and were an agricultural country capable of growing food.

WW2 is a bit like the analogy of an attacker in a school playground and being unwilling to help anyone challenge the attacker - but instead sheltered behind others. Watched the aggressor attacking others and looked away.

If a Bully in the school playground ( in this case Germany inc Austria which it absorbed) starts attacking others, and attracts other Axis like Italy and Japan, we will not lift a finger to help others oppose the bullies. We sheltered behind Britain hoping it would not fall, imported oil and coal from it during the war, but would not help it in its hour of need by allowing access to its treaty ports.

We gave a weather forecast from Belmullet? - even though the Allies had ships over the horizon collecting the same information.

We interned Allied aircrew and did not allow the Donegal corridor in the first few years of the war.

Not a cheap retort, just the facts. If you really think we helped the defeat of Nazism as much as we could or should have, why did the Admiralty say our neutrality cost the deaths of 5070 British seamen? And why did it say in the book on the war as discussed the other day, "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.”