What if Ireland had not been neutral during WW2?

To arm a citizenry costs money and the truth is Ireland between Independence and 1939 had very little to spare. These armed civilians (reserve troops) would have needed to have been trained and organised, more expenditure of resources that we hadn't got.

Yes there was always an element of moral hypocrisy in our self-view but you could say that also about many other countries, that's not to excuse it.

You've summarized my argument pretty well.

On whether we would have been in a position to join the EC ahead of Britain that would depend on our own efforts to modernise, diversify and develop new markets. It would have helped if someone like Sean Lemass had been in charge from earlier. Dev having two turns in office in the 50s before the Park (1959) didn't help.

The USSR was never really neutral and the U.S. became progressively less and less neutral.

"In fact, if we entered the war in 1942, as you suggest we should have, it would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US. While we had not entered in 1939 when France needed help. Surely it is at least as likely that , when we applied to join, we would have been perceived by De Gaulle as a US actor and we would risk being vetoed in our own right."

Yes it probably would have been seen as getting involved on the coat tails of the US in 1942, better that, from a domestic political view than getting involved on the coat tails of Britain in 1939.

France didn't need us in 1939, it had the largest army in Europe and fully expected to defeat Germany. They were wrong but that doesn't change what their attitude was then. However Britain certainly did need us after the fall of France in 1940 and they needed the U.S. infinitely more. After the U.S. entered our neutrality was a declining issue for both Britain and the U.S., from then on it was more an issue that was important for domestic political reasons in America than from any particular military view point.

No any residual perception of Ireland as a U.S. proxy would have been mitigated by our diminutive size and influence. This is not a credible point.

 "And yet we have people suggesting that Ireland, a small , powerless nation, who still had problems having its' own sovereignty accepted, should throw caution to the wind and declare war on Germany?"

Yes it was never on the cards and I've argued this earlier in the thread but this is a 'what if?' thread so I'm arguing the most credible scenario and that while many think we were right to stay out I'm pointing to some advantages we missed by doing so.

"While Ireland remained neutral for the duration of the war, we were "neutral on the allied side". That was well understood and appreciated by the allies."

It became more so as the war progressed but certainly the perception among the allies (British Empire and official America pre-Dec '41) wasn't quite so sanguine from the fall of France to December 1941.

We would have been integrated into the war economy and have had a role in the opening of the Second Front. To exploit our geographical location improvements in ports, roads, railways, medical facilities, etc. would have been necessary and financial aid of one kind or another required.

I've already covered this in #104.

We sought accession in 1961 but our isolated sheltered economy and protectionist policies was the main stumbling block. It was in 1963 that De Gaulle first announced his principled objection to British entry. De Gaulle was succeeded by Pompidou in the late '60s which removed that block. Our dependence on Britain with it's 'cheap food policy' was the main selling point in the referendum campaign leading up to our entry in 1973, especially to rural voters. My argument is that if we had taken a less isolationist stance during the war and developed a more open economy less dependent on the UK post-war we might (I never said it was a certainty) have been able to join before we actually did thus demonstrating our true independence from Britain.

Blame De Valera not De Gaulle.

I won't bother going through all your claims when your first is so obviously incorrect. Britain did recognise the 26-county state and negotiated with it the 1937 Anglo-Irish Agreement which saw the return of the Treaty Ports that were within its jurisdiction. The 1937 constitution retained Éire's position within the Commonwealth, Dev chose not to break the link as he saw it as a possible road to future national unity. Significantly it wasn't FF who broke that link and declared a republic.

You seem to be confusing Churchill and his occasional outbursts with official British policy. You should examine the FACTS rather than rely on your own bias. Merely asserting something doesn't make it a fact.

This presumes that unionism held a veto at a time when Britain needed all the help it could get. MacDonald was someone who had played a part in the pre-war appeasement policy and was generally sympathetic to Irish nationalism but given the perilous state of Britain's position in July, August and September 1940, the tenuous offer was unlikely to be accepted and the British cabinet realised this from the start.

Dev was quite sympathetic to the British position and from the recorded conversations, he had realised, after Germany violated the neutrality of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, that a German victory would have been disastrous but other diehards like Aiken were so instinctively anti-British that they couldn't see beyond their narrow focus of partition.

The level of assistance actually provided to Britain and her allies varied according to the fortunes of war. In the dark days of 1940 it was minimal but then as things improved, from an allied perspective, cooperation increased. Éire was almost totally dependent on Britain, and given this fact it's reasonable to ask 'how independent were we'? IMO we were as independent as Britain allowed taking into account Irish-American opinion and the availability of Northern Ireland.

My position is that we could have entered the war in early 1942 when the threat of air attack was minimal and the benefits of American war investment, in an isolated economy dependent on its nearest neighbour, so beneficial. Instead the old question of partition was brought to the fore and a population that had been fed a diet of heavily censored war news never seriously questioned this approach.

If such a course had been taken we would have been post-war in a better position to diversify our economy and markets as well as less isolated from modern European influences. Instead we continued for a couple of decades to delude ourselves about our inherent moral superiority while bleating on about the 'terrible injustice' of partition.

"Churchill never gave a guarantee of a UI to Dev."

No he didn't, Éire turned down the offer from his cabinet to back Irish unity in return for its entry into the war on Britain's side. An involvement that wouldn't have required it to provide troops for overseas duty.

"Investment is a different topic entirely and didn't depend on a position taken during WII." 

Well if you're considering 'what if' which is the topic of this thread then 'investment' as well as other economic factors are relevant. If we had entered in 1942 as I suggest, instead of being isolated and dependant on Britain we would have benefited from investment in our port and marine communications, areas largely neglected by the FF governments of the 1930s. Inward investment in the then ROI didn't really take off till Dev was gone in the late 1960s twenty years after the end of WWII. At least Lemass tried to build bridges with Northern Unionists unlike his predecessors who saw partition as a purely British imposition that needed to be rectified by the UK government in London.

"Did any neutral country declare war on Germany during the war without being attacked?" 

Firstly, we were attacked, both by the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine as well as the Abwher trying to infiltrate fifth columnists and its general meddling in our domestic politics with its IRA contacts.

Secondly, yes other neutrals did declare war on Germany without being attacked, most of Latin America did at one stage or another following the U.S. entry in December 1941. Brazil even had troops fighting against Germany in Italy.

Unfortunately it seems the neutrality narrative fostered by Aiken's extraordinary regime of censorship lives on in the half-truths still commonly trotted out in modern-day Ireland.

So because they sought legal advice, something governments do regularly, this somehow proves something their (in)actions contradict?

Yes they saw Éire as different to the USA and the USA didn't see Canada as some fourth green field.

No I think if you read Fisk's book you will see that, if anything, it was sought to counter the wild outbursts of Churchill, something that happened regularly throughout the war where cooler heads, both military and civilian, prevailed. Churchill was a great war leader but Britain wasn't a dictatorship.

"But their action/inaction did not contradict it, it furthers it. Montgomery was tasked with developing plans for the invasion of Ireland. Even he, in his memoirs, found it strange to devote almost all available army resources to such an invasion."

The Éire government and military had plans for the British 'invasion' if Germany landed troops here. These plans were worked out in consultation with the British. They were even prepared to countenance a pre-emptive 'invasion' but thought this inadvisable as the Irish population 'was so ill informed as to the true danger' (Dev's view) that it would be better to actually wait till German forces had landed, so as to demonstrate to this uninformed public the necessity of British military intervention.

"But the whole point is , that relations between UK and Ireland were not normal and they were not normal because of the UK view that Ireland was either legally ( Churchilll et all) or morally (rest of UK government) at war with Germany ."

Sorry, neither the UK government, nor Churchill had the view that Éire was 'at war with Germany'.

"It is doubtful that we would have contributed toe the BEF in France, but after the fall of France, it is possible that we would have provided support to RAF fighter squadrons recuperating during Battle of Britain, perhaps also training bases. . Royal navy might have begun to use the Cork and Cobh posts but these had little air defences and may not have been as useful as Churchill believed. American troops may have been stationed here and RAF Coastal Command would definitely operate from Irelands west coast. All of these of course would make us targets for German raids. Outr posts would be attacked by submarines of destroyers, ( as UK ports were) , our cities might be bombed. This could speed up development of more long range bombers in Germany."

The main contribution was to be the provision of naval and air bases around the south coast to provide extended anti-submarine cover. The transhipment of goods coming from North America would also have been a role for Irish ports.

Sure, if we weren't neutral we would have been a target for German attacks.

U.S. troops would have been stationed here as they were in NI from early 1942.

"On the deficit side, Irish troops might have seen action in Africa and Italy and then Normandy through to Germany. There would have been considerable casualties amongst them. The British military did not have a good reputation in protecting such troops."

Irish troops did see action in North Africa and Italy where the Royal Irish Brigade saw action from late-1942 till Germany surrendered. This was a brigade that drew its personnel from the entire island, a fitting example IMO of Irish unity. BTW it was called 'Irish' at the insistence of Churchill and against the wishes of the NI PM who saw it as obscuring the fact of Éire's neutrality.

"When the war was over, we would have a large foreign army on our shores and no possibility of removing them. Our hard won independence , only 20 years old would have evaporated. We might have a united Ireland , but it would be part of the UK."

Unlikely, most foreign troops would be in Germany. There would have been no willingness on the part of either the U.S. or Britain to remain, effectively in occupation of the territory of an ally, against the wishes of that country.

Éire was the official name of the country, in the 'first official language' following the 1937 constitution.

Churchill said lots of things.

Every major power 'plans' for things they never do, it's called contingency-planning.

"I cannot understand your insistence on arguing every point and your continuing expressing such anti Irish sentiment . Perhaps you can explain?"

None of my opinions are anti-Irish, although they may not be sufficiently anti-British for you.

England did not need Ireland on its side, Ireland's neutrality which denied Germany the use of Irish ports or airfields was good enough. What Britain did need was food and that flowed without hindrance between Ireland and Britain. Britain sunk all 36 of Ireland's ocean going ships. Who do you think that made us wholly dependent on for tobacco, razor blades and many other things. The excuse was that German submarines were hiding under the Irish ships. Many small countries continue to exist because they have nothing of value that makes them attractive targets. I would put Ireland, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Norway and Portugal on that list. It might be of interest to know that GB is only 60% food self sufficient. Now that they are out of the EU and quite weak militarily the day could come when they need the cabbage and potato patch next door. The unified EU military force is probably a good idea for all the small EU member countries.

"There is an English name for the country in official and popular use, also established by the 1937 constitution; why not use it?"

because I'm Irish and have lived in Ireland all my life and because I generally type my posts on a keyboard and because I want to and because it's accurate and because I'm posting about post-1937 where people still sometimes in 'popular culture' refer to it as the 'Free State' which was quite common usage in NI and also in towns like Dundalk up to recent years. It also is clear when I use it that I'm referring to the neutral part of the island (1939-45).

A couple of people here have highlighted my use of it and it makes me wonder what's their problem?

Why do you ask?