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)

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)