Talk:Irish neutrality during World War II

message: This doesn't seem very NPOV - especially the first paragraph, revision needed 203.97.49.94 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality long before Sept 1939

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (Only saw discussion on AN/I after posting the above.) --sony-youthpléigh 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redirected

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Long and convoluted phraseology, citations needed 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: As no-one has objected to Sarah's proposal, I agree and will do so. --Red King 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags Crowding out the Intro

message: 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)
replies: text: Good clean up - but there was no such place as the "Republic of Ireland" during WW2! (Sarah777 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  General Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Discussion initiated at Talk:The Emergency (Ireland)#Merger proposal. --207.206.137.242 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody AfD this 

message: 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)
thread_title:  William Warnock 

message: "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)
thread_title: Invasion date(s)

message: 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)
thread_title: Emergency v Neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect on United Nations membership 

message: "(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Supply of U-boats

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Foynes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reunification in return for joining the war

message: 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)
replies: text: The citation to the first sentence of the section clearly states the reasons. ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect on United Nations membership section 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Strategic consequences of neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deserted to join the allied forces 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Irish neutrality during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050829221740/http://www.ucc.ie:80/icms/irishmigrationpolicy/Judaism%20The%20Jews%20of%20Ireland.htm to http://www.ucc.ie/icms/irishmigrationpolicy/Judaism%20The%20Jews%20of%20Ireland.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604071129/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/ireland.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/ireland.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029204209/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0091/D.0091.194307090010.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0091/D.0091.194307090010.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615134455/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0153/D.0153.195512150080.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0153/D.0153.195512150080.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130049/http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/G2-and-the-coastwatching-service.pdf to http://www.mariner.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/G2-and-the-coastwatching-service.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930085129/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200305/ai_n9263899/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200305/ai_n9263899
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319181421/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/855-churchill-had-plan-to-invade-nazi-ireland to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/855-churchill-had-plan-to-invade-nazi-ireland
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703212616/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship
*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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NI Troops?