Talk:Irish neutrality

casualties

I believe the statement on Ireland suffering more casualties than any other country in the UK in this article is factually incorrect. According to statistics available on the web, Scotland suffered more fatalities (147,609) than the total number of Irishmen who volunteered from August 1914 to the end of the war (134,202).

This article, which is entirely the work of User:66.185.84.208, needs substantial work. It is full of inaccuracy - for example, there was no conscription in Ireland during World War I! User_talk:66.185.84.208 seems to have a history of vandalism, although it is a shared IP and the article does have *some* valid material amid the inaccuracy. Blorg 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having read through it, I think it is likely to have been a school project that was donated to Wikipedia; I don't think there was an intention to defraud and the inaccuracies are probably due to inadequate research. I've fixed some of the problems but it still needs attention from someone more knowledgeable about Irish history. Blorg 17:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've copy-edited and added sections and links etc. to the article, hopefully without significantly altering the meaning of the contents which I'm not knowledgable enough to re-write. On this basis, I've removed the 'clean-up' template and replaced it with 'disputed' as I consider this now more accurately reflects what still needs to be addressed in this article. I toyed with an 'attention' marker, but as other editors have commented on inaccuracy I settled on 'disputed' Valiantis 19:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current policy section seems rather politically motivated "Today, unlike Sweden, Switzerland and Japan, the Republic of Ireland is not officially a neutral country and could join any war it pleases." This is untrue, as for Ireland to participate in any UN missions it must have a UN Mandate from the Security Council (so this could technically allow Ireland to go to war, as the Korean war was technically speaking, a "UN War"), as well as approval from both houses of the Irish parliament.

Also, the mission in Liberia is a UN sanctioned peace enforcement mission. Whatever the political views one may take, Ireland is not in a position to unilaterally enter into any conflict (let alone humanitarian mission, with the "Triple Lock" in place).

Also, the section on the First World War is irrelevant, as the Irish state did not exist in 1914. I say both these sections should be removed, as both seem highly politically motivated.

I expanded this article, it was not a school project, nor did I at any stage say there was conscription in WWI that must have been added by someone else, when I started my changes WWI was already there, I agree it is not important.

I am not a member of any political party nor was my contribution politically motivated.

There is no law or declaration anywhere that says Ireland is a neutral state, and most neutral states do not allow other military forces to use their soil, Ireland does. Ireland also can support a war with UN approval, other neutral states are neutral in all circumstances.

Ireland does have the so called triple lock, this can be removed by law at any time, the constitution only requires the approval of Dail Eireann for war.

It's very important to note there is a substantial diffrence of opinion about Irish neutrality.

There are many political parties in Ireland who want the country to be neutral, they all have a diffrent idea of it.

I am about to make more changes.

I attempted some further edits, I hope they don't conflict. I do not consider the article remotely neutral yet. It is important that the article examine the nature of Irish neutrality, but also recognises that the matter is one for debate (the issue is suitably ambiguous on a number of points). The article should recognise that as far as official policy goes, Ireland is neutral. Even if the situation on the ground runs contrary to some common neutrality principles. zoney ♣ talk 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe much of the confusion about this entry (and the debate in Ireland over "Irish neutrality") comes from bundling being neutral with being non-aligned. Neutrality is something that only happens during a time of war, and it simply means that you're not a party to the conflict. You don't have to be non-aligned to be neutral in a given war. Example: Slovenia, a full member of NATO, was a neutral power during the recent Iraq war. It was a neutral power because it conformed more or less to the minimum international standards set out for non-participants (neutral powers) during a time of war in the Hague Convention (V) 1907 (they didn't allow US military overflights or refueling). Same for Turkey, another full member of NATO. Indeed, every state in the world is a "neutral" visavie every ongoing conflict to which it is not a party (attacking or being attacked). Some states have laws binding them to that posture (non-participation, neutrality) visavie particular conflicts or states (like Austria), and some have laws even binding them permanantly that way (like Switzerland or Turkmenistan). Ireland hasn't had any laws binding us to that posture since the Spanish Civil War (Non-intervention) Act 1937. Indeed, two recent Judicial Reviews (Horgan v Ireland 2003 and Dubsky v Ireland 2005) have confirmed the opposite: Ireland is not (ever!) obliged to conform to customary international law, and the minimum international standards of neutrality in particular. --Slackr 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I added

1. that German sailors were also interned
2. ‘guests of the nation’
3. no declaration of war – unlike most of South America
4. the shipping paragraph – I must do a separate article on this
5. Belfast bombing
6. Donegal corridor and Shannon

I removed

1. ‘failed’ from the League of Nations, as that was not deV’s opinion.
2. Franco and the book of condolence, as its not relevant
3. Grey and his Derry question

I modified

1. positions of German submarines were regularly reported to the Royal Navy through secret messages – there was no actual ‘reporting or ‘secret messages’ They just reported back to their base. The British could hear. They knew that the British were listening. But the strict letter of neutrality was not broken

Need to add some material on deV and the League of Nations and how that shaped neutrality. --ClemMcGann 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dongeal corridor

As I said in an earlier version that got edited out, the Dongeal corridor was used by the RAF prior to the US entering the war, it was used by the recce plane that spotted the Bismarck. It must have been fairly common knowledge that they were overflying Donegal since it did not make sense to have a flying boat base on Lough Erne otherwise. PatGallacher 08:33, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

why was it removed? --194.125.111.194 10:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

"The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, although most of the population were against it"

This is almost certainly true but there are no official statistics or sources cited to back it up. Perhaps it should be changed to "...although a majority of the population appeared to oppose it". It's a bit cumbersome but it's important to maintain the article as NPOV.Dmitry 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Insertions of "seemed/appeared", like the Passive of Non-Attribution, do not create neutrality in contexts where it does not already exist. If the remark were about public treatment in the press, however, it would gain some authenticity. --Wetman 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Events and meaning of "war"

I've removed the following statement from the Current Events section because it's unclear or untrue:

Today, in theory, Ireland could join any war it pleases, through an Act of the Oireachtas.

What does the author mean by "join any war"? Does "join" mean to send Irish troops? Does "any war" mean even a conflict which was not on all fours with the UN Charter and International Law (e.g. Iraq War)? Does "war" mean an armed conflict? Slackr 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Overriding McGann

Sorry I overrode User:Clem McGann but I was responding to my (and other editor's) work being overriden for no valid reason by User:Ali-oops. The fact is that there are varying and disputed estimates of Irish volunteers (from 50,000 to 300,000 that I have seen on the 'Net) and that must be borne in mind in any encyclopaedia. I deleted a reference to Irish Americans bringing America into the war in the event of another German attack on Belfast (or the Free State -- although the bombings in Dublin and Carlow which killed roughly 40 people have not been included in the article) as it is hypothetical and not entirely convincing since most of the supporters of American neutrality publicly rested their case against entering the war on the claim that there was no threat to American interests. I do not know if Irish Americans (despite their admitted clout and prodigious lobbying skills) could have done what was claimed so I deleted it.

Marylou 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let the edit history for this article tell its own tale [1]. Please stop removing content without first discussing here. For example, why did you remove this line;

"But neither could the government of Taoiseach Éamon de Valera bring itself to support [[Nazi Germany]"

The version you are reverting to contains a lot of POV. It's already been discussed on this talk page. If you don't know if a group of people did or didn't do something, it's probably best not to simply delete it but try to verify first. Furthermore, another editor has provided a reference which you saw fit to revert over. Why?

Nice to see, however, that you've discovered that talk pages are for more than complaining about editors! - Ali-oops^✍ 23:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"However many Irish ships were attacked by belligerents on both sides." Could we have more details or a reference for this? While I can see it would be easy for attacks to occur by accident, and I can even see the point of German U-boats attacking Irish boats (which could easily be bringing supplies to Britain) and then denying it, I can see absolutely no point for the Allies to deliberately attack Irish ships. I could be wrong of course. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes they did! I'm not saying that either side was instructed to attack neutral shipping, but individuals did. For example, consider the Kerlogue with a cargo of coal bound for Cork. 1pm on 23rd October 1943 an RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) flying boat circled overhead and departed. t 4pm two unidentified planes, without warning, dived out of the sun, firing cannon. The attack continued for twenty minutes. At 6pm the RAAF flying boat returned. The Kerlogue signalled by lamp requesting medical assistance and escort; her lifeboats had been destroyed; she was taking on water; her radio and compass were destroyed. The request was refused. The RAAF did even pass on an SOS. Through extradionary good fortune she made the 130 miles to Cork. Britian denied any responsibility - until her cargo of coal was discharged, canon shell fragments were found. They were of British manufacture. ClemMcGann 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If I keep going, This will be an article. ClemMcGann 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dev's reply to Churchill

User 81.170.13.118 has mentioned Churchill's tirade against deV and deV's reply, referencing another wiki. The other wiki gives a short quote from deV's speech and incorrectly claim it to be complete. Quotations from Eamon deValera by Proinsias MacAonghusa isbn 08853426848 has a much longer extract. ClemMcGann 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish neutrality - sub heading Recent Conflicts

In the referenced sub heading (pasted below)the following statement is made: <As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland voted yes to Resolution 1441>. As far as I have been able to determine, Ireland is not a member of the UN or a member of the UN Security Council. So I think this statement is erroneous. I will leave it up to someone else to correct this. teekey 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent conflicts Ireland supported the campaign known as Operation Allied Force, part of the Kosovo War, and the invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks known as Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, although most of the population were against it, and USAF planes were allowed to refuel at Shannon Airport even if they were on their way to Iraq. As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland voted yes to Resolution 1441 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teekey (talk • contribs)

• Ireland was a member of the UN Security Council between 2001 and 2002 (List of elected members of the United Nations Security Council) and has been a member of the United Nations itself since 1955 (United Nations member states). Demiurge 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

references

This article, although generally true, is badly under referenced. Sources that are reliable need to be found - www.reform.org is not such a source becuase it is a partisan organization and violates policy on using online sources. Of particular concern are the assertions in the section Current policy - most of the points made are, I think, generally accepted by Irish people but there is no proof cited to back-up these claims. Can anyone help this page by referencing it?--Cailil 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wherever it ends up, the World War II section of this article should be merged with any useful additions from User:Sony-youth's essay. The way, the truth, and the light 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WWII Anti Semitic Apology ?

What a ridiculous piece of political correctness, What possible influence could Eire have made in the 1940's. The Irish State in the Emergency had no policy and no intent, either by design or accident that influenced the fate of the Jewish People in Germany, it seems en vogue these days for Governments around the world to apologise for something that they never did. What Rubbish, over 3000 + FULLY INTEGRATED Irish Jews lived in and around Dublin during the war and none of these people were ever at the receiving end of any specific Irish Government Policy pertaining to their beliefs. in Fact they remain to this day Irish first and Jewish Second.

Utter tosh, remove please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.108 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Objectively and in reply to the above I disagree. Had the Irish state allowed the allied nations the use of airstrips and ports then conceivably the Atlantic air gap COULD have be filled earlier and the transfer of men and materials across the Atlantic COULD have been faster and therefore France COULD have been invaded earlier. Each day of 1944 and 1945 was measured in tens of thousands of people killed and gassed . One could understand if the Jewish people held a grudge against any nation that did not actively help end the holocaust. After 1943-44 Ireland was in little risk from German invasion and therefore allowing the allies to use ports and airstrips for the protection of Atlantic convoys would have been a low risk move and COULD I stress could have helped the invasion of France to happen earlier. Therefore your question “What possible influence could Eire have made in the 1940's” I think Eire could have helped influence the situation. Sams37 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What utter crap. No one knew the holocaust was happening during the second world war apart from the Nazis themselves, so to say Ireland should have helped stop it is utter revisionist bullshit. You are looking from hindsight with all the known facts and applying your moral judgments when, for Ireland at the time, such moral judgments could not have been made. Also the "air gap" was extended by no more than a couple of hundred miles out of more than three thousand miles by Ireland's neutrality, so again nil points. There was no moral obligation on Ireland to take take any side during WW2, as far as the Irish were concerned it was just the big powers slugging it out and they were going to try and keep out of the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.39.0 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited the WWII section of the Irish Neutrality article to add citations for some of the several sources easily located with a Google search referencing Michael McDowell's speech at the first Holocaust Memorial Day in Jaunary 2003 where he "apologised publicly for Ireland's acts of omission and commission at the time of the Holocaust." Lex20735 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Independent. London (UK): Dec 17, 1999. pg. 2

"the severe mid- April 1941 raids on Belfast, which so taxed the Northern fire brigades that they perforce asked help from Dublin. Dublin sent up their resources to Belfast, breaking neutrality - the only instant in the War," -- 172.173.17.25 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete the article?

The Article is so bad (full of inaccuracies and primary-school type commentary) that I think it shoule be deleted. Any support for this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not from me, though I agree it could co with improvement. Perhaps you can get a hold of the recent book That Neutral Island by Clare Wills, which has quite a lot of good info which I feel could help. I just don't have any time for this right now myself. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with the despair. However that is not a reason to give up. I'm reading "Guarding Neutral Ireland" by Michael Kennedy (he gave an excellent talk "U-boats in the Irish Sea", a month ago) ClemMcGann (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also try Censorship in Ireland, 1939-1945 by Donal Ó Drisceoil. I have this and must review it again to see if it is of use to us. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands it is so inaccurate that it is positively misleading. However, good luck with trying to improve it ClemMcGann. When you have done some work on it, I will no doubt come back and have another look....One thing I would mention for starters is that the opening line is most likely....Did the Irish Free State always have a neutral policy...I do not think so!....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't volunteering. Its not top of my list. I agree with you, neutrality started late in 1939. deV as president of the League of Nations offered Irish troops to take on the Italians in Abyssinia. Another issue - the North Strand bombings - the Germans were just lost - the dumped their bombs to gain height to escape our anti-aircraft fire. In the meantime in Dublin on Sunday 23rd and in Cork on the 30th remember those who died on Irish Ships during the Emergency. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill later conceded that the raids might have been the result of a British invention which distorted Luftwaffe radio guidance beams.--Wgh001 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

USSR/UN

"Ireland applied to join the United Nations in 1945, but this was blocked by the Soviet Union until 1955 because of the wartime policy of neutrality." If this is so, could some explanation be added as to why neutral Sweden joined the UN in 1946? 86.176.184.100 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged that claim with citation needed. I'll add a dubious too. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

afaik, Ireland was initially blocked because of neutrality - by UK & US. Later Ireland was blocked by USSR because they considered that Ireland would vote with the west. cite required ClemMcGann (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an "everybody knows". I've just been through a search of the National Archives for the Department of the Taoiseach (search term: 'United Nations'. Also 'United Nations, Organisation, Membership' in the full archive) and there is no reference to it. Unfortunately, the records are not in date order so the task is fairly painful. If you think a search of the Dept of Foreign Affairs is worthwhile, then go ahead. In the meantime, the conspiracy theory remains dubious. --Red King (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Until the mid-1950s. Ireland was excluded from the League's effective successor, the UN. because of a Soviet veto." - page 156 - Irish politics today - Neil Collins & Terry Cradden - Manchester University Press, 2001 - isbn 9780719061745 ClemMcGann (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Another: http://books.google.com/books?id=3bmvc0t_ODoC&pg=PA14 ClemMcGann (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From the UN Security Council's 186 Meeting, 18th November 1947, page 2041:

"APPLICATION OF IRELAND

Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : In considering an application to admit a particular country to membership in the United Nations we must, of course, take into account the way that country behaved before, or especially during, the war ,years. In considering the behaviour of Ireland during the war years, we cannot fail to observe the following: As we all know, Ireland was on very good terms with the Axis Powers and gave no assistance whatever to the Allied nations in their struggle against the fascist States. Apart from this,Ireland has not and has never had normal relations with 'the USSR, whose part in the war against the aggressor States and in gaining victory over them is well known. For. these reasons the USSR delegation feels unable, again this year, to support the proposal that Ireland be admitted to the United Nations.

Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : My comment on that is exactly the same as the comment I made on the application of the Mongolian People's Republic. The arguments used by the representative of the USSR are not new; they have been rebutted already. Neither of his principal arguments is really relevant because those are not the criteria in the Charter for the admission of a State to the United Nations."

Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, United , States of America. Vote against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstention: Poland.

Found at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.186202.248.41.90 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

NATO non-membership: dubious claim

I have tagged as dubious the claim that Ireland did not join NATO because the UK was a member and its dispute over the status of NI. This reads like somebody made it up. Non-membership of NATO was entirely consistent with the neutrality policy. Sweden took the same view. Unless somebody produces a citation very soon, I shall delete it. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

i agree ClemMcGann (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

lolza ya didn't delete it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.224.244 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Added a citation re: the Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 114 No. 3, 23 February 1949, about membership in the Atlantic Pact (NATO). The Irish Minister for External Affairs stated, in part, ″Partition is naturally and bitterly resented by the people of this country as a violation of Ireland's territorial integrity and as a denial in her case of the elementary democratic right of national self determination. As long as Partition lasts, any military alliance or commitment involving joint military action with the State responsible for Partition must be quite out of the question so far as Ireland is concerned. Any such commitment, if undertaken, would involve the prospect of civil conflict in this country in the event of a crisis.″ Lex20735 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Day

Started moved section At ceremonies for the first Holocaust Memorial Day in Ireland, 26 January 2003, Justice Minister Michael McDowell openly apologised for an Irish wartime policy that was inspired by "a culture of muted anti-semitism in Ireland," which discouraged the immigration of thousands of Europe's threatened Jews. He said that "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews".

End moved section

To facilitate the discussion I have moved the entire section out of the article to this talk page. I noticed today that an editor claimed that (s)he had checked the sources and that there was nothing dubious about this section. But I disagree with this. To my opinion this is a typical storm in a glass water, giving undue weight this subject. Most clear point is that it is based on sources unfit for this purpose, like an facebook page and an op-ed. And sorry, I can not find "TotallyJewish.com" in this case sufficiently independent.

i like to hear other opinions about this section. The Banner talk 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Lugnad (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish neutrality. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609131240/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0149/D.0149.195503290016.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0149/D.0149.195503290016.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118211933/http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=1099 to http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=1099

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

Y 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) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Concept section

"Adducing"? really? this is why there are less and less new editors, because of the unnecesary ever-increasing complexity of the language in articles. 66.81.170.3 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)