Talk:Irish neutrality during World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viscount Cranbarre[edit]

I can't find a record of that title. Who was he? Tuba mirum 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. That document used to be on the internet but doesn't seem to be anymore. Best I can say is check the reference if you have access to an academic library: Fanning, R., 1983, Independent Ireland, Dublin: Helicon, Ltd.., pp 124-5
Sorry. --sony-youthtalk 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's supposed to be Viscount Cranborne. He sat in the British cabinet during the period in question...Tuba mirum 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Sorry, typo. The same source is cited here (search for "Viscount", footnote 29). --sony-youthtalk 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hah, that explains it! Thanks very much for tracking that down. Tuba mirum 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This doesn't seem very NPOV - especially the first paragraph, revision needed 203.97.49.94 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, its a copy and paste of one of my college essays. The content is fair NPOV, but they argumentation style (by definition) certainly is not. The first paragraph, in fact the whole lede, has to be reworded for WP. --sony-youthpléigh 10:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality long before Sept 1939[edit]

The general view is that neutrality was declared in Sept. 1939. The neutrality doctrine of 1920 was hypothetical at the time. I've added in a ref. showing that it was publicly-stated policy months before WW2. No surprises.Red Hurley 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis[edit]

This page was created by an Irish kid from a college thesis (who misspells the word "vandalism" on his own talkpage). It remains massively subjective and non-encyclopaedic. 216.194.0.76 11:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Calm down. First the article was created from an essay and of course in that context it is not as NPOV as would be expected from Wikipedia. I made that clear above. I posted it because I saw others discussing a lack of treatment of the subject elsewhere. This encyclopedia is an open and collaborative effort, I "dared" to post it here because I thought it would be a useful starting point for us all to begin working on.
As for "vandalism/vandalsim", please see the difference between a typo and a misspelling. As for "Irish" and "kid": please don't presume the age of any of your fellow editors or judge their contributions based on that presumption, or their nationality. That would be truly "obnoxious." --sony-youthpléigh 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly concur with the specific points made by Sony-youth and compliment him on the restraint he has shown in responding to comments made with a very negative and unfriendly tone.
I think it would have been better to discuss the sort of massive excisions made by anonymous User:216.194.0.76 before they were made. I think there is a difference between being bold and being reckless of the work of others and their feelings to the extent that good and productive editors leave. Please adopt a more collegial and co-operative tone User:216.194.0.76 W. Frank ✉ 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected[edit]

To avoid an AfD debate, I redirected to Irish neutrality which already covers this. I would suggest that Sony-youth (or whoever) merge any useful information to there. The way, the truth, and the light 17:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? One editor, a sock puppeteer, who was banned for life for racist attacks on Irish editors, complained that it was POV? I think I'd prefer AfD, thank you very much. The Irish neutrality article contains the same information in summary form. Merging is, quite frankly, ridiculous since it means either leaving that section as it is or doubling its size (its already quite lengthy and deserves a separate article). --sony-youthpléigh 19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Only saw discussion on AN/I after posting the above.) --sony-youthpléigh 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, more than just the alleged sockpuppet thought it was POV. He simply brought it to wider attention by posting on ANI. The Irish neutrality article is only 20K, so it doesn't need to be split simply because of length. The way, the truth, and the light 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on AN/I. (A rather ridiculous place to discuss an articles tone it don't you think?) --sony-youthpléigh 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long and convoluted phraseology, citations needed[edit]

I'm afraid I really got bogged down in the phrasing of this. Some of the sentences are so long that it seems that the author lost track of what he was trying to say, let alone the reader. It really does need some serious copy editing. I've tried but in at least one case I was defeated! (and other cases, my punctution may have changed the intended meaning!). There are quite a few statements that fail WP:NOR. The more controversial ones need citations. Also, all the citations seem to be from English writers: balancing citations from Irish sources are needed. As it stands, it reads quite POV, which I'm sure owes more to the sources than to the intent of SonyYouth. --Red King 23:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the incomprehensible one, I hope has been made comprehensible now. Broke down some other ones. Still long and convoluted parts though. Took out some commentary. (Anois - mo leaba!) --sony-youthpléigh 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cranborne report[edit]

(Article improving by the day!). Can we supply a date for the Cranborne report? --Red King 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags Crowding out the Intro[edit]

Can we remove the tag about the neutrality of the article on neutrality at this stage? I've removed any non-neutrality I could find. (Sarah777 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As no-one has objected to Sarah's proposal, I agree and will do so. --Red King 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's comments[edit]

I feel that Churchill's comments should be put into the context of De Valera's visit to the German legation to offer condolences upon Hitler's death. This action, not surprisingly, caused outrage amongst the Allies especially as De Valera had done no usch visit when Roosevelt died and that the full horror of Nazi Germany was being revealed. This is fully discussed in Clair Wills book : That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland During the Second World War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk • contribs) (04:54, August 7, 2007)

Sounds good. Add it, with references. --John 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. With refs. I recommend Clair Wills's book as well
Removed the spurious "context"; it amounts to a semi-endorsement of Churchill's remarks. Not appropriate as there is no evidence of a connection. (Sarah777 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Restored. Stop pushing your PoV. I, for one, was aware Dev had paid his respects to the Germans after Hitler's death - I wasn't aware he hadn't done the same after Roosevelts. Good to know. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Bastun. It appears (yet again) that it wasn't me was "pushing POV". An apology will do fine. I believe what you did is called "original research". According to Arb.com that is a Very Serious offence - could get you a years ban. (Sarah777 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Muddy waters. Parliament was closed and flags were flown at half mast on Roosevelt's death. Of course no such thing for Hitler, but that a courtesy visit wasn't paid to the American embassey, with which Ireland had bad personal relations with the ambasador, as at Hitler's death, where Ireland had good personal relations with the German ambasador, is what is remembered and what was commented on as being bizarre, as equally at home as abroad, at the time.
As for Churchill comments, I've never heard them being put in that context. Britain had invasion plans for Ireland drawn up very early in the war and on several occassion were close to carrying them out. If it "should" be put in the context of Hitlers death then we need a reference for it, as it sounds quite bizarre at the moment. A more obvious "context" to put it in is the treaty ports, which having given away just before the war, were a constant thorn in the side of the British. --sony-youthpléigh 12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another remark: Churchill's remarks could have come at anytime - the ammount of bitterness and sense of betrayal in Britain, throughout the Empire and in America at Ireland neutrality should never be underestimated. I was assumed that Ireland as a the closes part of the Empire and only just recently seceeded from Britain itself, would naturally row in behind the British war effort. Add to this the sense that in any case Britain was doing "Ireland's dirty work" by defending itself and Ireland (as a German conquest of Britain would lead to an enivitable conquest of Ireland) and the "hard-nosed" attitude of Irish delegations during war-time negeotiations and you can start to understand Chrurchill remarks a little better than a momentary spat at Dev visiting the German embassey. --sony-youthpléigh 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wills states that there "could" have been a link between the visit of de Valera to the German legation (which in all probability was to help the Ambassador Hempel rather than to give any moral support for Hitler)and Churchill's speech. I quote "[following the visit] Predictably, British public opinion allowed itself free rein in the first weeks after VE day, fulminating against an Irish neutrality which was portrayed as tantamount to support for Germany. Churchill himself seemed to give sanction to these attacks by his criticism of de Valera's stance, broadcast on British radio on 13 May. He pulled few punches ...." (Wills P 391) Given that I feel that the use of the word "context" is perfectly fair. I did not imply a direct link but rather that Churchill could have been influenced by the visit.
I don't see any mention in the quote you provided about the visit. What were the lines previous that you added "[following the visit]" or is that just a chronological note? If so "[following the VE day]" would be a more accurate summation, no? --sony-youthpléigh 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long section discussing the de Valera's visit and British reaction in Wills's book and rather than quote long paragraphs I felt it was easier to use "[following the visit]" as a simple introduction.
No, prob. --sony-youthpléigh 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) There was on very big difference between the German and American representatives in Ireland during this time. The US snubbed Ireland and had neither an embassy nor an ambassador in Ireland. David Gray was the US "diplomatic representative in Ireland" had a legation, a lower level of country representation that than an embassy. Because there was no US ambassador in Ireland may have been the reason for de Valera not going to offer his condolences upon the death of Roosevelt. The German embassy was fully fledged with an ambassador and diplomatic protocol usually required this action. ww2censor 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the pages in Wills and don't see anywhere that she that Churchill's comments "should be seen in the context of De Valera's visit to the German delegation" or any other such thing. The sections immediately before refers to a relief of tension after VE day in both Britain and Ireland, citing the Trinity riot and other incidents in Ireland and Churchill's remarks as an example of apparent official sanction for the free expression of anti-Irish opinion in Britain. There is nothing said, or implied, about these feeling being new, but just that the end of the war "lifted the lid" of them in Ireland and allowed them "free rein" in Britain. --sony-youthpléigh 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was a while back, but the following might be interesting. I don't know much about diplomatic protocol, but I assume that the US State Department do, and did in 1945. The following quote reflects their opinion of the relative merits of Ireland's official reaction to Roosevelt's and Hitler's deaths.

the personal calls made ... were "most unfortunate even though greater courtesies were shown at time of President Roosevelt's death, namely adjournment of Dail and resolutions of condolence passed by Dail and Seanad". (my underlining)

See the document at http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/AAE/Article.pdf - it's on the page numbered 86. There's also a wealth of additional information about the event at http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/AAE/commentary.htm.

As well as the Dail adjournment, flags were flown at half mast throughout the country. Somewhere else, I read that the Irish Government proposed holding a memorial service for Roosevelt in the Catholic cathedral in Dublin. This offer was rejected by the US Envoy, Gray, who replied that it should be held in a Protestant church, and the matter was dropped.

Good for a laugh (if the whole subject wasn't so embarrasing and sad) is the letter from the British Union of Facists to the Irish government - it's on the second page following the above extract (page numbered 88) in the pdf. Seems some people in Britain were pleased with de Valera! Scartboy (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Review[edit]

Right, as this reads through like a college essay (I believe from the comments above it is actually a copy and paste essay) I have made some changes to wikify it. These are generally for NPOV reasons or for better wording (some of the word orders were a little unusual). As a general review of the article I thought i'd leave a few comments here such as; for an essay a lot of quotes are good, but wikipedia isn't a journal of essays, its a database of articles forming an encylopedia and so excessive and lenghty quotations are discouraged in favour of simply referencing the material. When someone is referenced or especially when they are directly quoted in an article, what qualifies them to be noteable on the subject should be justified in the text, otherwise it just reads like some random persons opinion on the matter. A few more picturs wouldn't hurt the article if they can be found. And finally one has to be careful talking about majorities, minorities etc. Unless you have statistics which prove a minority its best to gloss over whether or not they were or werent a minority. Especially in this case because its hard to say who actually supported what exactly and its possible that over time ideas changes (e.g. many supported Germany at the outbreak of war as a British defeat looked more likely but by the end of the war an allied victory was all but inevitable, certainly there was no chance of an invasion of ireland. It might just be me but the article also read as being a little bit republican, and at times seemed to favour (now aswell as then) a united ireland although I've endeavoured to reword it to make it more neutral, i dont think this was intentional by the writter, perhaps just the way it read.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good clean up - but there was no such place as the "Republic of Ireland" during WW2! (Sarah777 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Apologies, it was a typo as I had just been reading RoI related articles. Despite my cleanup much of it has been reverted or edited back to a fairly POV article. It also reads as fairly anti-British in my opinion. I'm cautious to edit it again as I feel its likely we are going to get into sticky debates and revert wars for example over calling the British 'occupiers'. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Volunteers[edit]

There seems to be little comment on the tens of thousands of Irish people who signed up to the British Army during WWII. Can anyone find some sources and add some in depth information to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.41.128 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The common figure is 50,000 Irish served in British Forces (including those from Northern Ireland). One source (a British Regimental yarn) says that in September 1939 7,000 men in the Irish Army deserted their posts to join Irish Regiments in the British Army, other sources suggest about 3,000. Probably the difference was that any Irishman joining the British Army would state his military experience ("I was a Sergeant in the Irish Army") without explaining that he had been discharged some years earlier (De Valera reduced the size of the Army when he came to power, as he had inherited the Free State Army). I like the quote of an Irish crewmember on an RAF bomber over Germany, "Oh but at least De Valera kept us out of this".
How about more about the status of foreign personnel (British and German) interned in Eire? In the early part of the war many British, mostly airmen and some sailors who landed in Ireland were interned in a camp near Dublin. This was the correct procedure as a neutral state cannot allow military personnel to cross its territory.
After the US entered the war, Roosevelt put some pressure on De Valera so that no American airmen were interred. He reminded De Valera the great Irish patriot, that he was born a US citizen and on more than one occasion that saved his life. (In 1916 his mother found his US birth certificate to show the British, otherwise he would have been shot) Dev said that he made a distinction between US airmen who had to cross the Atlantic to get to Britain, so they were exempt from internment. Germany did not like it, but could not hope for a better deal. Churchill then demanded the same for British personnel, so that no more were interned. A number already detained remained interned for a period, frustrated that they could not take part in the war effect. Eventually they were just loaded on a truck and driven to the north and told to get out. --Noel Ellis (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody AfD this[edit]

This article is awful, and 1/2 of it is nothing more than quotations. It should be redirected to the real article, The Emergency (Ireland). Would someone with an account please AfD this article. --207.206.137.242 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong because The Emergency (Ireland) covers a lot more than just the neutrality covered by this one. Quite a distinctly different article, so I doubt you will get any takers. ww2censor (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should be merged; take out the quotes and you have 2 sections that can be merged easily into a section or two on The Emergency (Ireland). I will tag the articles accordingly. --207.206.137.242 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Warnock[edit]

The link was misleading (leading to a page on a different William Warnock). I have taken the liberty of amending it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.25.194.76 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion date(s)[edit]

"On the day following the Russian and German invasion of Poland...". What date? There were two separate invasions. GrahamBould (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Germany attacked Poland on September 1st, USSR - on 16-th of September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.80.44 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency v Neutrality[edit]

It has previously been noted that these two articles address similar issues. To avoid duplication, it was proposed that The Emergency (Ireland) should concentrate on internal matters while Irish neutrality during World War II concentrate on external relations. Now we have the Memorandum by Mr R. G. Menzies being added to both with identical text. I will delete it from The Emergency (Ireland). Perhaps others might similarly prune both articles. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the article on the Emergency - if you removed all the sections dealing with neutrality from that article, there wouldn't be much left. Scartboy (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on United Nations membership[edit]

Given that the quote in the footnote specifically contradicts the statement in this section that Ireland's neutrality delayed it's membership of the United Nations, and the fact that there was a lot of conflict between the West and the Soviets over the composition of the United Nations, which supports the thesis that it was a political tactic to keep down the number of Western countries in the UN, shouldn't this section simply be removed?

An alternative would be to rephrase the text to state that the Soviets used the fact of Irish neutrality as a pretence/excuse/rationale for delaying Ireland's membership. Scartboy (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the real reason, the given reason was Ireland's neutrality. As a permanent Security Council member the USSR had a veto which it exercised until late 1955. It surprises me that they continued the veto after Ireland decided not to join NATO in 1949.Red Hurley (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply of U-boats[edit]

"(In the west of Ireland there are persistent local rumours of U-Boats being resupplied secretly with fuel and provisions by the IRA.)"

I question this; how on earth would anyone supply a type-7 u-boat with tens of tons of diesel at a time, when fuel was tightly rationed, and in a very poor part of Ireland where refuelling infrastructure was rare. It just doesn't seem feasible, beyond someone handing over the odd basket of eggs.Red Hurley (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and there wasn't even the eggs. There were allegations, not in Ireland, but in some of the wartime uk media - ClemMcGann (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I'll remove it unless someone publishes some actual research on this. I recall from Das Boot (if I was still awake), that crew was supplied out of Vigo by an interned merchant ship.Red Hurley (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foynes[edit]

Not mentioned in the Cranbourne report, Foynes was used by senior allied personnel for transatlantic flights all through the war, provided they were out of uniform when they landed.Red Hurley (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and there was a Brit plane stationed in Foynes. - Dwyer, (2009). Behind the Green Curtain, page 337. - ClemMcGann (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler condolences[edit]

This issue has come up time and time again. DeV did sign the book. In protocol it was the correct thing to do, or as the British minister said "mathematically correct". He knew he would be criticised. As he said himself, "I could have had a diplomatic illness... " but he did not approve of such carry-on. One problem we have is that Hemple was a diplomat who always behaved correctly while Grey was a family appointee who didn't preferring to follow the dictates of a clairvoyant. When Roosevelt died, deV intended to sign, but Gray said that he could nor receive him. DeV did more than he needed to do, he adjourned the Dail, he had flags flown at half mast, a day of mourning, He planned a remberance mass in the proCathedral but had to cancel that when Gray - true to form - said that neither he nor any of his staff could attend. Later Gray said that he would organise a service in St Patricks, which also fell through. We try to maintain this as an article which would be respected by historians. I would rather we didn't introduce uninformed opinion. Mary Kenny is a modern journalist. She is not an historian. I am reversing what I regard as uninfomed opinion. - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's keep out Mary Kenny's opinion. However I found a source (this time a reputable historian) citing that no one representing president Douglas Hyde visited the US legation on the death of FDR] (i.e. Roosevelt). Looking at your addition, we can't keep what looks like your original research (see Wikipedia:No original research):
"At the time the Third Reich was about to surrender unconditionally. The reasoning at international law was that the embassies represented at least the German and Japanese peoples, even as their governments were collapsing. This was not unique; Germany's ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsäcker, had remained a member of the diplomatic corps for months after Germany's surrender. In contrast, the equally-neutral Switzerland and Sweden rounded up German embassy officials and expelled them, on the narrower basis that they no longer represented a functioning state." Not to mention that it has little to do with the topic of the article, if anything. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my addition. you deleted it substituting the Mary Kenny piece. I restored it. and yes it should have a reference. Gray was not in a position to receive visitors on FDRs death. Condolences were sent and Gray said that he was moved by them.. Your new addition, is misleading.
The reasoning at international law and the comparative reactions of other neutral states should be there, even if questionable / wrong / misguided, because otherwise it could appear that Dev was personally fond of Hitler, which he wasn't, and that Ireland was the only state to keep a German legation open. Franquist Spain ended its recognition of the German embassy in Madrid on 10 May, after a number of Spaniards signed its book of condolences. The Irish ambassador in Madrid, Leopold Kerney also signed, but in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the state.Red Hurley (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GETTING DE VALERA ON THE RECORD By one of the ironies of history Roosevelt did not live to see the victory of which he was the principal architect, and died of a brain haemorrhage on April 1945. De Valera immediately sent a message of sympathy to President Truman, saying: 'America has lost a great man and a noble leader. Despite all that had passed between Roosevelt and himself during war de Valera had his biographers say for the record that 'he had held Roosevelt in great esteem'. And in the Dail he paid tribute to the fallen titan in a speech whose priorities showed what he believed a politician's greatest attribute to be - winning: 'President Roosevelt will go down to history as one of the greatest of a long line of American Presidents with the unparalleled distinction of having been elected four times as head of the United States. That was the greatest tribute that could be paid to any man. It is also a measure of his loss. Personally, I regard his death as a loss to the world ....” He went on to say that Roosevelt could have been relied upon to throw his great powers into the creation of a new world order which would possibly save mankind from 'recurring calamities' like the present war. Gray was moved by his oratory and wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt next day 'This is indeed a strange country. All this afternoon members of the Government, their wives and leaders of the opposition have been coming in a stream to pay their respects. Mr. de Valera made a very moving tribute to the President in the Dail this morning and moved an adjournment till tomorrow. I thought I knew this country and its people but this was something new. There was a great deal of genuine feeling.' (Long Fellow, Long Shadow –Tim Pat Coogan page 609) ClemMcGann (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this section is made neutral by reflecting the actuality of what happened on the death of Roosevelt, I will be removing the offending addition. O Fenian (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - added Dev's eulogy in the Dáil to FDR.Red Hurley (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 'diplomatic protocol' that required the Irish head of government to attend the German embassy and offer condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler. Heads of government do not do that, particularly when the foreign government in question is in a state of dissolution for military reasons and will shortly cease to exist. De Valera, therefore, did it because he wanted to. Hyde, the supposed ceremonial head of state (the actual head of state was George VI until the formation of the republic in 1948), also paid a condolence call on the German ambassador, but this was kept a state secret for many years after the war and was therefore nothing to do with public protocol and everything to do with private sympathy -- not sympathy with the ambassador, who had suffered no private bereavement at all, but sympathy with the dictator that the ambassador represented: Adolf Hitler. Anti-Semitism and Anglophobia were not exactly unknown in the Irish nationalist tradition, and this article, and the article on the IRA's collaboration with the Nazis, appear to have been manipulated to disguise the reality. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could edit this article accordingly, in order to improve it, making sure to give quality citations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Wikipedia is 'The Encyclopedia That Nobody Can Edit.' If you try, the article's OWNER, who OWNS it, will descend on you out of the West like a thundercloud and insta-revert you and threaten you with a ban. Irish history articles, in particular, are OWNED by a species of doctrinnaire republicans, so, for instance, if you look at Wikipedia to find out how and why Michael Collins died, you're not told. Anyway, on de Valera's inexcusable condolences for Hitler, and the anti-Semitism and Anglophobia of Irish nationalism, there's this, from the Irish Times, regarding de Valera's envoy to Nazi Germany:- https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/ireland-and-the-nazis-a-troubled-history-1.3076579

"A phantom hangs over Ireland’s relations with Hitler’s Germany. Since Eamon de Valera’s visit to the Third Reich’s minister to Ireland on 2 May 1945, the spectre of pro-Nazism has dogged Ireland’s reputation. De Valera’s condolences on the suicide of the German head of state, Adolf Hitler, spawned immediate international condemnation. He gifted his critics all the ammunition that they desired to stigmatise Ireland. The notorious character and conduct of Charles Bewley, the Irish minister to Germany in the 1930s, would appear to substantiate this unkind depiction. Arriving in Berlin in July 1933 after Hitler’s seizure of power, he betrayed a lack of professionalism time after time. Disturbing signs of his anti-Semitism, dogmatic Anglophobia and insolence are clear throughout his career from the early 1920s. After 1933 he engaged in an unashamed charm offensive to curry favour with the Nazi regime. During his accreditation ceremony with President von Hindenburg, Bewley referred to the “national rebirth of Germany” in an unconcealed endorsement of Nazism. During his tenure, he recurrently endorsed Nazism as a safeguard against the expansion of Soviet Communism. He downplayed or apologised for the reprehensible Nazi regime’s negative features such as the persecution of Jews, the suppression of Christianity and its aggressive expansionism."

Then there's this, from de Valera's most recent biographer, again in the Irish Times, referring to what he euphemistically calls 'de Valera's pedantically grotesque error of judgement' in offering condolences on the death of Hitler. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/ronan-fanning-why-is-%C3%A9amon-de-valera-so-unpopular-on-both-sides-of-the-irish-sea-1.2441872

And there's the 2005 revelation of Hyde's secret visit to commiserate with the German ambassador. There was self-evidently no diplomatic need for either de Valera or Hyde to offer these courtesies to a defunct regime, and Hyde's visit was concealed from the public.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hyde-and-de-valera-offered-condolences-on-hitlers-death-25954338.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence anywhere of any such book ever existing. As Karen Devine forcefully argues, the entire story of a book came about from anti-neutrality academics, politicians and journalists, such as Salmon, FitzGerald, Roberts, Girvin and Collins. Sadly De Valera would not make any public comment on the visit. So it was never explained https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec31/0c8476758276f051693aa4f35eef576760af.pdf?_ga=2.267628750.11918920.1661529061-1892960635.1661529061

Aerchasúr (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification in return for joining the war[edit]

It is claimed in the article that "Britain offered to end the Partition of Ireland quickly if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and join the war against Germany and Italy". The ref is Longford and TP O'Neill pp 365-368. No such claim is made in the book. What the source actually says is that on 12 June, 1940, Chamberlain wrote to De Valera with an invitation to discuss the matter, including with Craigavon. De Valera felt that such a venture (trip to London to 'negotiate') would be incompatible with neutrality. "de Valera ...looked upon the offer as largely illusory...The offer, (which) he knew came from Churchill... Ireland would be involved in the war and the ending of partition would be no more than a half promise over which Belfast would have the full right of veto." Someone has been playing fast and loose in interpreting this source. I've tagged it as 'failed verification' in the article, and intend to remove it unless a reliable source can unequivocally back up this overblown claim. RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was Churchill. I'm not surprised, he offered to arm the Bolsheviks in 1917-1918 if they kept Russia in World War I. (92.7.21.19 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If the offer wasn't genuine, why bother to keep it secret? (92.20.35.73 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The source may be incomplete on this (I'll check my copy), but in ordinary language it is true to say that "Britain offered to end the Partition of Ireland quickly if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and join the war against Germany and Italy". The offer (a "solemn undertaking") was revised and rejected in the course of June 1940. See this article, a much better source.Red Hurley (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the editions (Hutchinson 1970; Arrow paperback 1974) Arrow pp.365-368) it does mention the offer in some detail at pp 365-368 in the paperback Arrow 1974 edition. It looks as if the citation lists two editions. The authors preface their comment with "The proposals .. have never before been published", i.e. before the Hutchinson 1970 edition. Can anyone cite an earlier publication? Having his doubts about the initial draft declaration of clause 1 (Arrow, 1974, p. 365), Dev wanted a stronger clause 1 to guarantee a United Ireland - "This declaration would take the form of a solemn undertaking that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there is no turning back" (page 367). On 29 June clause 1 was amended by Chamberlain to - "A declaration to be made by the United Kingdom government forthwith accepting the principle of a United Ireland. This declaration would take the form of a solemn undertaking that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back." This can also be seen in notes of Dev's cabinet minutes, but the cabinet never voted on the offer. So, not only was the offer cited as it was, but Dev's revised wording on reunification was accepted verbatim by Chamberlain.Red Hurley (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rashers, your link above is to the Random House edition, the cite in the article quotes 2 different editions, maybe that's the reason?Red Hurley (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on United Nations membership section[edit]

The section Effect on United Nations membership is confusing because it doesn't state why their neutrality policy affected their application to UN membership. Game over man, game over! (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to the first sentence of the section clearly states the reasons. ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Most people won't read the citation though. Can I add whole quote into the article or do I need to cut it down? Game over man, game over! (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can precis it quite well. It's not that important to warrant a long quote. ww2censor (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic consequences of neutrality[edit]

Just added in a bit more to get a neutral point of view on the consequences of neutrality, very true that technological advances had reduced the importance of the Treaty Ports (U-boats now had longer range and could operate further into the Atlantic etc) but that still has to be balanced against the negative consequences it did have. Shamrockawakening (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this story is completely irrelevant regarding the Irish neutrality. The Banner talk 23:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to be sorry, we all have a right to edit if we think it's appropriate but you've got to explain exactly WHY to me, surely in an article dedicated to Irish neutrality needs a few lines to explain its' consequences? Now if you don't think it belongs in a separate section of the page, perhaps 'Consequences of neutrality' we could do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences are only relevant as it are consequences for Ireland. What you describe are the effects on the warring countries Great-Britain and Germany. The Banner talk 10:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland's neutrality had an impact outside of Ireland. The page title doesn't limit the scope to the country. Just imagine what would've happened if Ireland had backed Germany. Why not have a seperate section about the international impact of Ireland's neutrality? Bevo74 (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deserted to join the allied forces[edit]

The numbers given are those who deserted. They did not all desert to join the allied forces. There is no source that tells us how many deserters joined the allied forces. I'm sorry that I am no good at Wikipedia editing but this figure is not the number of those who joined the allied forces. No such figure is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.150.118 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Irish neutrality during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish neutrality during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish neutrality during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Irish neutrality during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NI Troops?[edit]

Did Northern Irish fight in Europe or elsewhere in WW2? (for the British). Or conscripted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II&oldid=1203000448"