What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

Nicaragua declared war on the Axis in December '41, Turkey considered joining as the war progressed in favour of the Allies and eventually joined, rather opportunistically in 1945. Portugal allowed the use of the Azores so effectively ended its strict neutrality.

No I don't agree, the war had become a world war in 1942 whereas in 1939 it was another European war of conquest, the situation had changed dramatically with the involvement of Italy (mid-1940), Soviet Union (June '41), Japan & USA (December '41) and the Chinese-Japanese conflict became part of the wider war at this time. Lots of other minor players like Finland also joined the war as it progressed. Italy even changed sides in 1943.

I don't see how Ireland could have joined the Allies without previously having purchased / or been provided with adequate modern military weapons, particularly anti aircraft batteries & aircraft, adequate naval ships & anti invasion equipment upgrades for the Army. There was no serious attempts made to upgrade militarily in the years leading up to war, nor proper funding available & by the time conflict had started in Europe Ireland was last on the list for modern military hardware which the United States was sending to other nations. Some attempts were made but little equipment was supplied.

Britain didn't have the spare resources to defend Ireland, although she could easily have invaded with outdated forces anyway. Luftwaffe bombing raids on Ireland would have been disastrous without adequate air defences.

As for the treaty ports, these had not been moderised properly since WWI & air defences were totally outdated, Britain spent massive amounts on defensive preparations on naval defences around it's empire, particularly Singapore & didn't have the spare funds available. The treaty ports had negligible airfield provision nearby & it would have taken a while to put these in place.

We read historical accounts of Britain & later on America trying to persuade Ireland to join the war, but we hear little of how they were going to defend Ireland from German military actions / nor how Ireland's military forces was going to be given adequate modern military upgrades to fight in this war.

Senior Irish military staff were present at many British GHQ military meetings up until 1945, yet we don't hear of any plans for military aid to help Ireland play it's part in a modern destructive war.

IF the Germans had invaded southern England & gained a foothold, it's likely that Britain would have put massive pressure on Ireland to allow military forces & bases to be established as a defensive redoubt to fallback in case of further German advances in England.

Like what happened in Iceland in May 1940 British forces would possibly have initially established bases in Ireland with Canada providing military assistance, & later on as in Iceland in June 1941 (way before Pearl Harbor & Hitler's declaration of war) the USA would have taken over responsibility for military defences.

It would have been up to De Valera & the Irish government what role they would have played in such a scenario, would they have played their part in an Allied victory or carried on pretending to be neutral like Denmark did under Nazi occupation?

Ok I see that now.

Ja das ist wahr.

Much of what you say I agree with, indeed I've said much of it myself already in this thread. However, if we are discussing the historical hypothesis of Éire's entry into the war, at whatever point, the issue of censorship as applied by the FF government is an issue worth examining particularly as it relates to public opinion.

The country already had a tradition of censorship 'to maintain moral standards' so there was little questioning of it initially but as the war progressed and it became a tool of FF/Dev policy supressing even criticism of the government the voices challenging its application increased. In his public pronouncements de Valera often identified Irish neutrality as being divinely inspired and it's in this context the exceptional nature (even among neutral states) of censorship in Éire at the time should be viewed. Censorship and neutrality were a virtuous circle, neutrality equalled our interest ipso facto anything that endangered it needed to be suppressed.

"In 1942 the details of what the Nazis were doing in Poland and the occupied parts of the Soviet Union were not really known, either in neutral or allied countries."

The telling word in that sentence is 'really'. What does it mean, can it mean different things at different times during the war? If we are talking about a recognition of Nazi aggression and a dismissal of German propaganda surrounding its invasion yes I think this was widely known. If we are talking about Germany's annexation of part of Poland (General Government} under Hans Frank the Nazis never made any secret of this. If we are talking about what Germany called 'extraordinary suppression measures' namely summary executions of civilians regardless of whether they were Jewish the information was certainly available and not just from Polish exiles.

Regarding the Holocaust and when people knew or wanted to know, Deborah Lipstadt wrote an interesting book 'Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945' (1985) where if I remember right she puts the date where FDR privately acknowledged the Nazi's extermination of the Jews as sometime in early 1942. Anyway this is a whole different subject.

To summarise, I contend that our neutrality was popular domestically but due to the extraordinary level of censorship was artificially maintained and promoted by the FF government.

They weren't in the Free State (FS) Army they were in the Irish Army. The Free State didn't exist during WW2 having ended with the 1937 constitution after which the official name was Ireland/Éire.

You are right that normally someone who deserts to join the enemy forces would normally, at least in time of war, expect to be executed but the fact remains that we weren't at war with Britain.

It's my understanding that British newspapers published Irish editions here and that these were censored.

I found this useful article from History Ireland which explains the unique policy that the FF government operated.

"The Irish authorities refused to allow the war to be placed in a moral framework. Neither side was any better or worse than the other; this was a conflict between powers pursuing their own materialist interests, an ‘ungodly struggle’ which traditionally ‘spiritual’ Ireland would stand not only outside of but above. Unlike other neutrals, a sense of moral superiority became attached to the Irish policy and this demanded that both sides be morally equated, that information revealing one side to be more cruel, inhuman, etc. than the other be kept from the Irish public’s view. Besides, how could anyone, even the Nazis or the Japanese, behave more immorally than perfidious Albion or Godless Russia? (Even the term ‘Nazi’ itself was banned, as the official position of the German legation was that its use outside Germany had an adverse connotation!)."

Of course the censor couldn't cover every base and people with radios could listen to British or German radio broadcasts.

"The censors claimed that the Irish people had been kept ‘fully informed’ of atrocities by means of belligerent broadcasts, the English press and the Letter from America, the bulletin distributed by the US legation in Dublin. These media, however, reached a limited audience, preached largely to the converted and carried the stamp of ‘propaganda’. For the majority such stories would have lacked credibility until carried in the neutral press or on neutral radio. Frank Aiken and his censors ensured that this did not happen in the dubious belief that ignorance was the best policy when it came to maintaining a neutral world-view, if such a thing can be said to exist."

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/moral-neutrality-censorship-in-emergency-ireland/

No it's not my contention that 'atrocity stories' would have caused us to want to join the allied cause but it's notable that the Irish authorities went to such unique lengths among the neutral democracies to keep their people uninformed.

My argument wasn't about Marshall Plan aid which if you look back in this thread you will see where I corrected one poster who was suggesting we missed out on it.

No my argument is that we could have used the inevitable inflow of economic investment and particularly infrastructural development over the final three years of the war in Europe to our advantage. We could have strengthened our ties to continental Europe and the United States, maybe even have joined the EC prior to British entry. Instead we chose as a nation, though many individuals took a different track, to stay in a peculiarly Irish lofty isolation.

On the economic war in the 30s, you present this as something Dev sought but it wasn't, it was his side in fact that tried to end it. He tried to ignore and amend the provisions of the Treaty which he had opposed from 1921 and this, particularly the land annuities, that prompted Britain to impose tariffs and that then led to counter tariffs on British imports.

Yes I'm taking what some might call a cynical look back but others chose what I would call a rose-tinted spectacle view of Irish neutrality. I'm trying bring a bit of balance to this discussion.

It's all good provided it doesn't descend into personal attacks which I think neither of us has done or is inclined towards. :-)