How was Irish neutrality justified?

Digging through the Irish Independent’s archives looking for something completely unrelated (natch), I found this article which, unfortunately, you’ll have to register to read in full.

In summary:

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[1] De Valera “would not have survived politically” (presumably he would have been replaced by someone far more hostile to Britain and its war effort)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

Apologies from certain posters to this thread (you know who you are) accepted.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed, although that goes for a lot of others too.