Talk:The Emergency (Ireland)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Arbitrary break - "morality"

This is a difficult and subtle question. In many ways Irish government and society reflected all the other European sates before the start of the war with elements in society that were strongly anti-semitic and official reluctance to admit Jewish refugees in large numbers . I have seen nothing that suggests deValera was at all anti-semitic or that the Eire government was systematically anti-semitic, but it may be possible to make a case that other members of the government might not be and this was manifest in some policies. What is different is the reluctance to shift that position once the extent of The Holocaust was revealed. All the way through the Eire government refused to recognise that the war was anything but a squabble between the Great Powers and that it had a moral purpose. It also heavily censored the reports from Belsen and elsewhere so Irish society was ignorant of the true extent what had been going on. It would be nice if people added to the material in the article so that this complexity can be properly reflected rather than messing around with what is there. MAG1 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd resist any attempt to introduce the pov that the war had any "moral" purpose - any good was purely accidental. Remember these great battlers for democracy still maintained empires of subject peoples across the globe which they continued to put down with brutal violence until (in the case of France and Britain) they became too weak to maintain their empires. It is ultra-racist to imagine that a Pole under German occupation was a "moral" cause while at the same time maintaining dozens of subject peoples across the globe oneself! And restricting information that might inflame the population is Standard Operating Procedure across the globe; during The Troubles the Government controlled the media here played down the ravages of the British/Loyalist forces in NI because they feared the population being whipped into a Nationalist frenzy demanding we "do something" to support our people across the border. Restricting news of anti-Jewish horrors in the middle of WW2 doesn't imply anti-Semitism; in fact it implies that if the people really knew what was happening they might have wanted Ireland to get involved to help the Jews. (Very probably wrong, btw, as we were very aware of the possible consequences!)Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic but .... My first standpoint is that war is not "moral" - entering into violence is amoral. However, sometimes it's worse to stand by and not oppose by force. British institutions and colonialism of the day are certainly open to criticism, but just read Richard Evans' "The Third Reich in Power" or visit Sachsenhausen and read the commentaries. Whatever else was going on, I'm relieved that many Brits (and Irish, French, Poles, Aussies, Kiwis, canadians, Americans, and others) felt motivated to oppose the Fascists. There were good, practical and political reasons for Ireland to stay neutral - a friendly neutral - but to say it was a purely moral decision (if that's the proposition) lacks credibility for me. BTW Churchill's speech was crass and unnecessary & Dev's answer wass fair. Anyway, end of rant. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - but to clarify: I'm not saying that Ireland's decision to stay out of the war was a moral decision (or immoral!) - I'm saying that Britain's decision to get involved had nothing to do with "morality". And no, I do not accept that Germany was any more evil than other European Empires; that is a different debate - but relevant to the way Ireland is characterised here. I believe that concern for European victims of German Imperialism from Imperial countries like Britain and France was hypocritical - and that the dismissal of that equation is based on embedded European racism; a racism shared by many Jews, just like all other Europeans and Americans. Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What would have happened if...

I do not see why I am getting told off for stating the obvious. The strategic situation is important, as I will explain below:

Britain would have had the military capability to suppress the Irish military. This is a simple result of the larger size of the British Army, especially with full mobilization (I'm sorry if this offends any nationalist beliefs). However, The British did not have the military capability to suppress the Irish people (or if you like, the will of the Irish people, or the Roman Catholic Church). The Irish people therefore respond by allying themselves for convenience with the Germans and conducting guerilla warfare. This ties down British resources needed elsewhere which more than negates any advantage from new airfields and ports. Irish agricultural production is also reduced. Politically it results in a loss of sympathy in the United States, and quite frankly, is a bit of a disaster. This is why there was no British invasion -- British planners would have realised this. Swithlander (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that all material is subject to verification on request, unverified material maybe removed at any time - original research is not permitted. I am not too sure why you find it neccessary, above, to mention the Germans and Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps you have a point to make (and a drum to beat), but maybe not here (i.e. Wikipedia)? Djegan (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

From reading Garvin's book, there were only really two issues that drove even the consideration of a UK invasion: a) to prevent a German invasion, and b) to base forces in the pursuance of the Battle of the Atlantic. In the case of a) there were concerns that a militarily weak Ireland could fall to a German invasion, itself providing a springboard for attacks on or invasion of the UK. In the early war years there was increasing exasperation in London at Ireland's continued demands that Britain supply her with arms for her own defence against Germany, yet resisting any pre-emptive basing of British forces that could more effectively deal with an invasion. For example, the Irish government insisted that its forces would and could hold up any such invasion long enough for British reinforcements to arrive, initially in the form RAF support from air bases in Britain, but they would not accept any basing of British aircraft at Irish airfields beforehand. While there was little British doubt that a German invasion could be countered, it would be unnecessarily costly under these conditions, but not so much that forcing Ireland to accept pre-emptive basing was preferable.

As regards b), countering the U-boat threat was far more substantive, but what Ireland could be used for was limited. The use of the former Royal Navy base at Cobh would have plugged a clear gap in defence of the whole British Isles (we should not forget that British and Commonwealth Merchant seaman were as much dying to feed Irish mouth as British ones), as would air bases in the south-west of Ireland, but again what was needed was so restricted that it was not worth trying to occupy the whole country for.

As to the attitude of America, once she had entered the War, sympathies for Ireland plummeted in the face of the latter's intransigence to repeated requests for increased co-operation with the Allied war effort as a whole. In a historical context, one can entirely understand Ireland's resistance to allying itself with the UK in the early stages of the War, but a general failure to look at the wider global perspective cost her dear in the long-run. Requests for a seat at the post-War negotiation table were flatly dismissed, while her entry to the United Nations was long vetoed by the USSR precisely because of her wartime stance. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll find very few in Ireland who'd agree that failure to cooperate with "the allies" cost anything that wasn't well worth paying. As for "we should not forget that British and Commonwealth Merchant seaman were as much dying to feed Irish mouth as British ones" - Ireland was self-sufficient in food and a net exporter to Britain during WW2; just as it was during the Great Genocide (aka the Famine). Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The case could be made that Irish food exports saved Britain from surrender by starvation. However the official statistics are misleading. As part of the settlement of the 'economic war' Irish cattle exports and some others went to a centralized buying agency at a fixed price. That price was fixed before the war. With the war-time inflation particularly of animal feeds that price became uneconomic. So there was widespread smuggling to the North. According to the stats NI's agricultural production increased seven-fold!! This subject is worthy of further research ClemMcGann (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be ironic if research were to show Ireland saved Britain from starvation during WW2!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don'tcha think? 80.7.235.36 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

T K Whitaker did some work in 1948 reviewing the Balance of Payments which he adjusted for balances unaccounted for. His adjusted figures were:

1933-1938: outflow 13 million £

1940-1945: inflow 137 million £

1946-1047: outflow 10 million £

It's complex and needs more work. ClemMcGann (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of food is complicated. Ireland (like Britain) was self-sufficient in some foodstuffs, but not others: in all cases food prices rose markedly and among other things there were shortages in staples such as cereals, bread, sugar, fruit, and tea. There was also a division between town and country in this, with country people being able to access basic foods more readily. There are other important supplies than food which were scarce, especially fuel, industrial raw materials, and tobacco. Restrictions in supplies from Britain during the Battle of the Atlantic were sufficient for the Irish government to complain vigorously that they were being "blockaded". The export from Ireland that made the biggest difference to Britain during the war was labour for factories.

Irish reactions to the Emergency are complex: very few would deny that neutrality was the right policy (some thought, such as Girvin's father, that the wrong side had won), but the notion that the poisoning of relations with the USA, the subsequent lack of access to aid and economic migration of Irish people in the fifties is also unlikely to be thought of as inevitable or desirable. MAG1 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"the poisoning of relations with the USA" might not have been desirable, but that very temporary phenomenon was a tiny price to pay for staying out of the war. As for food, the products not available in Ireland were 'luxuries' (like tea and tomatoes!), not any threat to survival. The UK would have starved without Irish food. Big difference. Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think bread and heating 'luxeries', then you lead a very ascetic life. In fact, despite shortages neither Britain nor Ireland came close to starvation. However, stuff like petrol and industrial supplies came through transatlantic convoys. As to neutrality, no one challenged Irish neutrality; however, crises such as that which followed the American note were avoidable, and the actions of de Valera's government unnecessarily damaged Ireland's interests for no tangible result. MAG1 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about petrol. The first Irish-flagged ship lost was the Inverliffey, see [1]. Inver tankers of Dublin had 7 modern tankers, each 500 ft long each capable of carrying 9,000 tons of oil. She was flying the tri-colour and was stopped by U-38. Inver tankers transferred their fleet from Dublin to London. Be it for Lloyd's insurance reasons, protection of the Royal Navy or just the whim of the owners. Within two years all seven had been sunk ClemMcGann (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

re <The UK would have starved without Irish food>. Possibly, but we cannot say so. the area needs further research. The UK were very tight on food. The differences in children's weight has been noted. Research is needed into the miraculous seven-fold increase of food production in Northern Ireland. We know that there was widespread smuggling. The first Irish ship lost (if you exclude the Inverliffey) was the B+I Munster. It hit a mine. 500 cattle were drowned. It was going from Belfast to Liverpool ClemMcGann (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Britain wouldn't have starved - they would have made up the shortfall from somewhere else, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, etc., they would have just re-allocated shipping space for more food/less armaments. People who are desperate for food generally get food from wherever they can, and if it's a matter of life or death they will steal it. Britain was well armed and could have, if absolutely necessary, resorted to just taking it from wherever they could, and if it had come to it, I suspect Churchill was the sort of leader who would have done just that.

People who are starving have the niceties of law well down on their list of priorities, and if family, friends or government don't help them, they'll generally just take what they need to survive - that's why levels of violence are so high and police are armed in 'poor' areas and countries.

Bearing all this in mind illustrates some of the problems facing the Irish Government during WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.115.48 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

U-boats in the Irish Sea

Those of you in Dublin may be interested in a lecture U Boats in the Irish Sea - Final Months of World War Two by Dr Michael Kennedy of the Royal Irish Academy hosted by the Maritime Institute of Ireland at 8pm on Thursday 18 September 2008 in Stella Maris Seafarers' Club, (betwixt busarus, custom house & Irish Life) voluntary contributions to aid the National Maritime Museum, Dun Laoghaire ClemMcGann (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish Shipping

Surely there should be some mention of the formation of Irish Shipping Limited in here. But where? In Ports and trade? Would that section need renaming then? Any suggestions? The ISL article says:

Ireland had declared its neutrality when hostilities broke out and in the early years of the war much of its food needs were carried on board allied vessels. The Irish government realised that they needed to be more independent and self-sufficient. In February 1941, Seán Lemass, the Minister for Supplies stated that The creation of an Irish mercantile marine was necessary, as it was as important for the national safety as the Army. On March 21, 1941, Irish Shipping Limited was formed as a company wholly owned by the state. It had representatives on its board from the three main Irish shipping companies, Wexford Steamship Company, Limerick Steamship Company and Palgrave Murphy Limited. Unfortunately the new company had a major problem in that it had no ships and needed to acquire some.

Something similar would be appropriate, yes? Crispness (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Actually the subject deserves an article to itself. A lot of "Irish" ships choose to register in Britain because Lloyds insurance would not otherwise cover them. Some so registered at the whim of their owners. Such as the tanker fleet of Inver Tankers. Within two years their fleet was lost. I have put up a few articles, such as Irish Oak and MV Kerlogue. Help is needed at wp:imar

Irish Shipping's first ship was the Irish Popular Poplar, it had been abandoned and salvaged in Spain, so Ireland purchased it. A crew was sent out. When they were en-route, one of the crew, Des Brannigan, was declared 'persona non grata', as he had shipped guns to the government side during the Spanish civil war. They had to wait in Lisbon which a Spanish crew was engaged to sail her to Lisbon. She took a cargo of wheat. They arrived in Dublin to be greeted by deV and most of the cabinet. There was only five days supply of wheat left in the country! Although we had food in abundance, there were particular shortages - such as wheat for white bread ClemMcGann (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clem, don't you mean "Irish Poplar"? I recall that all Irish Shipping ships were named after trees endemic to Ireland. Unfortunately I don't remember much about the company even though my uncle was the company secretary for many years. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course!! thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Emergency v Neutrality

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)

Don't see the need for two articles - I propose we merge than. Sarah777 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It has only been 10 months since the last merge proposal. The Emergency, which is essentially an internal relations article, covers many more topics than just neutrality which is essentially a foreign relations article and, as I mentioned during the last proposal, merging Irish neutrality during World War II will overwhelm this article completely making it a predominantly neutrality article. If the neutrality article was short I would agree but not now, it is too long for that. Ideally this article should be cleaned up so that the neutrality topic is consolidated into one main section, if possible, with a section hatnote to the main neutrality article Irish neutrality during World War II. Duplicate info can of course be deleted but a hatnote would likely direct editors to the appropriate article. ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you seem to have changed, or reverted, your view since the debate that was closed last September (it's on this page). What factors persuaded you? Folks at 137 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also wonderingClemMcGann (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationality discontinuity! I withdraw my daft proposal :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Glimmer Man

Interesting point raised on that talk page - did the Glimmer Man actually exist was was he just a threat?? Any takers?? ClemMcGann (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it is WP:OR, a mortal sin, but my grandmother who lived through "the Emergency" recalled that said Glimmer Person was indeed real. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did she see one? ClemMcGann (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points that have come up is that whilst there are quite a few memoirs (oral histories etc) where people admit to using the glimmer no one actually says they were caught and there are none that I have found where someone admits that they were a glimmer man or that one of the relatives was. In the early 70s One of the first things my ex mammy-in-law (who was about 15 or 16 when the war in Europe ended) told me about life in Dublin was the glimmer man and the glimmer and how they kept it going because it kept the kitchen warm. But she did not say that they were ever caught or even got their door knocked. Any help you guys can give would be good. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro Allied bias/nonsense

Clearly an article written by a West-brit, an attempt to side the Country with the Allies more than justified. Allied relations are positive, German relations are negative. How selective and convenient. Meanwhile, as is typical of a Westbrit, the role of the IRA is turned into that of cartoon villainry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.56.183 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose and other un-referenced material

There is a strange mention of an alledged messgae from DeValera to Bose but no reference is given. This is the same for other allegations concerning German agents not being sent back to Germany etc, yet again no referencing.

We are not here to make up history as we go along. This article is of great importance since it concerns a very important period in the development of the modern Irish state and Ireland (Eire)'s unique experience. Some people have been very decent in adding to this article and removing spurious and questionable material.

Can people please, please, please stop adding their own material without referencing. I am going to remove un-referenced matertial in a few days and I am also going to contact a moderator to help resolve the problem with people trying to re-write history..............it needs to be objective as possible with referenced sourced material.

There is a lot of work to be done to help bring this article up to a state that would be expected considering the availability of very good books on Ireland and World War Two etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsulHibernia (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NO EUPHEMISM

The Emergency in Ireland was no euphemism. It referred to the emergency declared by the government, giving them powers which otherwise would have been unconstitutional. People in Ireland did not refer to the war as "the emergency", they referred to it as "the war". The war caused the Irish government to declare a state of emergency; this does not mean there is anything euphemistic about the word. In fact, it is entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.254.54 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Current list-based sections "The Allies and neutrality" and "The Axis and neutrality"

These sections are rather better referenced than much of the rest of the article. However, they would be better presented in prose rather than list form. Some of their content could also be merged into the preceding and following sections.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish neutrality

In 1939, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. The countries of their respective Empires supported them. So far as I am aware, every other country in the world was either neutral or allied to the Germans. The vast majority of countries which ended up at war with with Germany did so after either having being attacked by her, or through a last minute desire to be on the winning side. No country cited Germany's treatment of the Jews as a causus belli, nor was this argument urged on Ireland. Ireland's position was only unique in that while officially a British Dominion, she did not support the "mother" country. This is what enraged Churchill; by his reasoning, he may have had a arguable point, but I fail to see the logic of American, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish, Russian, etc. critics. Perhaps they should read a litle history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.136.80 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 September 2006

IIRC, Churchill was pissed-off with the Irish Government because they wouldn't allow Britain the use of Irish ports such as Cobh (formerly Queenstown) to base RN ships in order to combat the U-Boat menace. Also, use of airfields inside Eire would have reduced the size of the North Atlantic that RAF Coastal Command's aircraft could not cover, due to limited range. Within this area the U-Boats were having a field day sinking ships without any air cover.

From the Irish POV this was entirely unreasonable as it would have violated their neutrality in a way that would have been un-ignorable by Germany.

Unfortunately, it is arguable that Churchill never really progressed far beyond around 1918 in his world-view. If he had, he might have realised that for a newly-independent country such as Eire then was, he was probably asking way too much. And for any Irish Government to have acquiesced to this would have almost certainly have been political suicide, possibly leading to a resumption of Civil War.

As for any Irish contribution to the Allies during WW II it should be remembered that a considerable number if Irishmen crossed the border into Northern Ireland and joined the British Army to fight Hitler and Nazism, whatever the politics of the two countries may have been, and whatever the past/present divided loyalties of the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

4,983 of 'the thousands' who deserted to join British army unfairly punished

This article appears to claim that 4,983 of the 'thousands' who deserted the Irish army to join the British army were unfairly blacklisted for state employment after the war. Spitting on a soldier's grave is given as a reliable source for this information. I can find no such claim in this highly questionable source. There is no specific figure in this book for the number of Irish army soldiers who deserted to subsequently join the British army. Nor can I locate any academic (peer) review of this work. The figures claimed here and the editorial stance of the source are open to question, to say the least. RashersTierney (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Spitting on a Soldier's Grave is self-published.--MFIreland • ^Talk 10:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa; I ran across a couple of newspaper reviews, one of which quoted that specific figure, and was far too eager to run and plug in this (apparently) intriguing information. It would probably best to take out any mention of deserters being blacklisted for the time being, or at least until a mention appears in a more reputa####ble source. Salmanazar (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

it happened, having said that - was it "unfair"? The americans only forgave their deserters after a plea from churchill and then made a point that it was a big gesture. - ClemMcGann (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there is more than a grain of truth to many of the issues raised in the book, which is why I picked it up. However, it suffers greatly from a lack of a critical editor, a dearth of footnotes, no index and an undisguised hostility to Irish government policy, during and after the war. That said, there are some gems alluded to, such as the Irish Navy MTB that participated (albeit 'unofficially') in the Dunkirk evacuation. Perhaps the author will yet complete his post-grad studies, and a more 'usuable' source will result. RashersTierney (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I recall some mention that other UK people thought that the FF in their hat badge meant Free French!! ClemMcGann (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the lighter moments, and no less interesting for that. Like I said, the author has raised some important issues. I'm just not sure how we can incorporate them uncritically into articles. Section 13 of the relevant Defence Act caused a bit of a stir in the Dáil, but the presentation in the book of 'the List' as Stalinist, and the uncertainty about how many deserters joined the British Army as opposed to leaving for other 'work' in Britain poses a problem with respect to use here. RashersTierney (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As a presumably more usable source, Girvin states (p. 257-258:

"It was estimated that some 4,800 members of the Irish armed forces had deserted, most of whom them joined the British."

This is in the chapter that deals with volunteers in the British armed forces from the whole of Ireland. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on referencing in the article - does 'Girvin' imply Brian Girvin, 'De Valera's Diplomatic Neutrality', History Today, or are there other relevant sources by this author? This is not an area I've particularly looked at before, so trying to get up to speed. RashersTierney (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked this figure out as soon as I read it, and found in Ireland During the Second World War, by Ian S. Wood (not, IMHO, very objective, and which has no references, footnotes or index at all in the book) "G2 was aware of the problem and in 1945 drew up its own estimates of of those who had left during the previous five years: 'There are at present almost 5,000 non-commissioned officers and men of the Defence Forces in a state of desertion or absence without leave'." (page 92) Hohenloh ⁺ 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the same source (Wood), G2 (the Irish army's intelligence service) stated: "There is little doubt the majority of them are or have been serving in the British forces or are in civilian employment in Great Britain or Northern Ireland". Hohenloh ⁺ 04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This source gives a figure of 4,000 and a more nuanced appraisal of de Valera's stance regarding Irish enlistment. RashersTierney (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

excellent cite - it makes a valid point - use it - ClemMcGann (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The rather sweeping "other neutral countries..." claim is a bit suspect when one looks at what the other "neutral" European nations actually did during the War. In the case of Spain, while Hitler's old ally Franco was wise or pragmatic enough not to throw his lot in with the rest of the pre-war Axis, he did permit Spanish citizens to volunteer to fight with the German army on the Eastern Front. Portugal allowed Allied military use of the Azores. Sweden was officially "non-belligerent," but still aided Finland during the concurrent Winter War. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it fairly represents the reference on the specific issue of formal legal practice elsewhere. If the source is incorrect on this specific point, in that generally neutrals did not have such bans, that is something we can discuss. RashersTierney (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue citizens volunteering or enlisted soldiers deserting? I could be wrong but as I understand it Franco did not condone desertion from his forces and expected the nazis to reject them. He did facilitate german recruiting in spain and it was an option open to those who just completed officer taining. ClemMcGann (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case its the wider question of Irish citizens enlisting who were free to do so, but it bears directly on the issue of enlistment by soldiers, who were clearly not free to legally leave the state with the intention of not returning. These are two separate issues, which I've attempted to disentangle in the article in as neutral a manner as possible. RashersTierney (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It refers to Girvin's The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939–45, already widely referenced on the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Its just that Brian Garvin has written extensively on the subject, and a number of his works are referenced in the article (I've recently added another). Perhaps the source in question should be specifically named Girvin:The Emergency at footnotes, for clarity? RashersTierney (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across a minor correction between the 2009 & 2006 editions, can't recall, however I suggest adding the year. - ClemMcGann (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally

There are edits being changed over the word "finally" from "An amnesty was finally enacted in". While I appreciate the sentiment - it was a long time to wait - "finally" in this instance seems rather POV, sensationalist or red-top. Let us drop "finally" Lugnad (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It has an editorial ring to it - people can read the sentence and see the delay for themselves. DBaK (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral. The word is not necessary but to call it POV is a bit over the top. The Banner talk 10:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ther is no need for "finally" though some link to any story about the delay would be good. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'finally' as it is not mentioned in the RTE news item. POV. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "Emergency"

As preceding commenters in 2008 and 2010 have said, the war (or the War) was not the same as the emergency (or the Emergency). The UK etc were in a state of war; Ireland was not, it was in a state of emergency. No doubt many in the 1940s and since have derided the use of phrases like "the present emergency" in official discourse; it is a piece of fussy intrusive jargon, but only a satirist could claim that the government's aim was to pretend there was no war. jnestorius^(talk) 16:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Emigration to the UK

The article mentions that steps were taken to allow Irish immigration into the UK during the war. I thought that Irish people had freedom of movement to the UK and were effectively treated fully the same as UK citizens from independence right up to the present day. I believe what's written. After all, it is referenced. So I'm not disputing it. More than anything, I'd really like if someone could shed more light on this. I was never aware there was a period where Irish immigration to the UK was restriced. Number10a (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is within living memory. There were all sorts of restrictions on going - and rules on visits back to Ireland - and imo insulting - requirement for a certificate that you were deloused. Have a chat with your older relatives. Lugnad (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The position of Ireland was unique amongst neutrals in that many Irish nationals were present in the UK and due to the IRA having relations with Nazi Germany, Irish nationals sympathetic to Germany were seen as a means by which the Abwehr could inject agents into the UK more easily than from other neutrals.

As it happened, almost all of the German agents attempting to operate in the UK were caught, but that was not known at the time, and was only confirmed after the war.

I suspect that the 'de-loused' certificate was a normal wartime requirement for all non-British nationals entering the UK at the time. People were entering the UK (albeit in small numbers) from all over Occupied Europe, some from as far away as North Africa, with warmer rural areas with endemic diseases, such as malaria, typhus - the latter being spread by lice. Ireland was a neutral third party and Britain had no control over who the Irish immigration authorities allowed in to Eire, nor what public health measures the Irish authorities had instigated for them. Britain did however have control over who entered the UK, and what public health measure were to be applied to them. Britain was at war and public health took priority over whether anyone found the measures necessary to ensure public health insulting or not. BTW, escaped British and other Allied prisoners of war were also required to undergo a medical examination on return to the UK for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Emergency (Ireland). 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/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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)