# How was Irish neutrality justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781 "2003-11-23T02:39:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781/61 "2003-12-11T17:45:38Z")
Digging through the Irish Independent’s archives looking for something completely unrelated (natch), I found [this article](http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=578155&issue_id=5848) which, unfortunately, you’ll have to register to read in full. In summary: > [@](#): > > "IRISH neutrality in the Second World War ``was of more value to the British war effort than Eire [sic] belligerent would have been,’’ according to newly released MI5 archives. Reasons given for this are: [ul] [1] De Valera “would not have survived politically” (presumably he would have been replaced by someone far more hostile to Britain and its war effort) [2] The opposition of the IRA [3] The loss of the Irish labour pool, which Britain relied upon [4] The Irish Army would have fallen to invading Germans within 7-10 days [/ul] The article also states that > [@](#): > > Ireland, under Eamon de Valera, went to extraordinary lengths to supply Britain with information about German activities far beyond anything revealed publicly in the past. Apologies from certain posters to this thread (you know who you are) accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781/62 "2003-12-12T03:34:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > \*\*[4] The Irish Army would have fallen to invading Germans within 7-10 days > \*\* Okay, (i) the OP’s position is stupid; (ii) I agree with most of the rest of your points; and (iii), if anything, I have a pro-Irish bias (my mother’s a Dubliner, Rathmines is swarming with my cousins, and my deceased grandmother hated Brits to the point that she refused to allow a pair of Brittania jeans {hey, it was the '70s} in her house), but this is nonsense. How do you suggest that the German army would have gotten to Eire? (Although if it magically had, 7-10 days is probably an overestimate.) ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781/63 "2003-12-12T06:16:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Random \* > **How do you suggest that the German army would have gotten to Eire?** I’m not sure what this has to do with anything, or why it’s nonsense. In any case it’s MI5’s analysis, not mine. Take it up with them. ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781/64 "2003-12-13T23:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > > \*\*[1] De Valera “would not have survived politically” (presumably he would have been replaced by someone far more hostile to Britain and its war effort) > [2] The opposition of the IRA > > \*\* Yeah, I just saw the documentary on TG4 about TinTown, the Curragh internment capms during the '40s. So Dev feared IRA opposition so much he had them all interned, without a trial? A bit of a Kildare Guantanamo Bay, if you ask me. And when both Luftwaffe and RAF planes starting dropping like flies over Ireland, why only imprison the Germans? If ireland had been _really_ neutral, he would’ve imprisoned the British aswell. So he was just as neutral as the current FF government is (although Bertie and Cowen now apparantly insist the Irish government was against the war. Yes, ofcourse they were, as long as it didn’t hurt them financially) What I don’t understand, and maybe you can shed some light on this, is why Dev was so opposed to the IRA, being a republican himself? Was it because he had formed FF, and they were elected to governement, so the IRA was actually a thorn in his eye (this makes him seem power hungry, though)? And why oh why oh why did he allow the Church so much power? He’s got a lot to answer for. He could’ve done so much better for this country. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781/65 "2003-12-14T02:22:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfje \* > **What I don’t understand, and maybe you can shed some light on this, is why Dev was so opposed to the IRA, being a republican himself? Was it because he had formed FF, and they were elected to governement, so the IRA was actually a thorn in his eye (this makes him seem power hungry, though)?** Well, he was certainly that. It’s a little more complicated than that but you’re pretty close to the truth. Dev had formed FF in 1926 because he had decided it was time to abandon abstentionism and couldn’t convince Sinn Féin to go along. Many in the IRA remained loyal to him and helped to put FF in power in 1932. However they made it clear that they would still work to their own agenda rather than his and it only took a few years (and a number of failed attempts of his to win them over) for the relationship to deteriorate completely. At that point they _were_ a thorn in his side. This is why I get irritated with current FF politicians who get on a moral high horse with SF about the fact that _they_ (FF) renounced the IRA. They didn’t do it on principle, they did it because FF and the IRA were working at cross-purposes. > [@](#): > > And why oh why oh why did he allow the Church so much power? Believe it or not, the Church was unhappy with his constitution because they didn’t think it gave them _enough_ power. I’m not defending him mind you, merely pointing this out. > [@](#): > > He’s got a lot to answer for. He could’ve done so much better for this country. Agreed, although that goes for a lot of others too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-irish-neutrality-justified/214781.md?page=3)