Talk:The Emergency (Ireland)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old edits

I've rearranged stuff, put a shape onto it, and added some new material. It is taken from a short article in the recent issue of 'History Today' (March 2006) by Brian Girvin. He is a serious person, Professor of Politics at the University of Glasgow and, for those of you who might be bothered by such things, his degrees come from the University of Cork (which is also the source of the attitudes of Irish volunteers), and so is probably Irish. MAG1 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My concern here is that it may not be obvious to some readers that Belfast was not in Eire. The para describes Eire's response to an event in a neighbouring (belligerent) country. Too much detail might obscure this fact. Of course, one might argue it provides an informative contrast for the relative extent of suffering in the two regions. I just want to flag the possible need for some judicious copyediting. More generally, the article could do with more info on North-South relations during the war, and the awkwardness of reconciling the theory of an all-Ireland state with the reality of one part being at war and the other not. Joestynes 00:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done.

Neutrality

This article could do with an explanation for the decision to remain neutral in the war against fascism, becuase this is very difficult for other countries to understand or accept. Such a paragraph would have to be based on factual evidence from the State Papers of 1939. "Everybody knows" that it was because most of the government were veterans of the Anglo-Irish War and could not bring themselves to side with their recent enemy. Everybody also knows that there was a fear that Civil War would break out again: each side in the Spanish Civil War had an Irish Brigade. Another view was that, if Britain were to be defeated, De Valera could secure a United Ireland. Joining the Axis would be wildly unrealistic, so this was the next best thing. Certainly, Winston Churchill was most agrieved at Irelands refusal of his 'right' to the "Treaty Ports" (Cobh and "Kingstown" (Dun Laoghaire).

I think you have articulated several good points - please feel free to contribute yourself - wikipedia is not intended to be a discussion forum - as long as you do not make outlandish or mistaken claims then their is no reason why you should not contribute to the article itself. Djegan 18:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is quite a good discussion in the article on de Valera, so I'll create a link to that as s stub. I really don't _know_ the facts on this and it is important enough to be founded in proper study.

Irish neutrality could well have been to the advantage of the allies. If it was not for Irish food exports, Britain would have starved. --ClemMcGann 13:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belfast blitz

"Not sure why information was removed from this para"

In Belfast, some 1,100 died during Luftwaffe bombing between April and May 1941. Some 53% of the city's housing stock (some 56,000 houses) were damaged and around 100,000 became temporarily homeless. After bombing on 15 April Fire tenders from Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk crossed the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues.

versus

After Luftwaffe bombing of Belfast on 15 April Fire tenders from Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk crossed the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. (Some 1,100 were killed in Belfast between April and May 1941).

Apologies for having combined this with an unrelated change in a single edit. My concern here is that it may not be obvious to some readers that Belfast was not in Éire. The para describes Éire's response to an event in a neighbouring (belligerent) country. Too much detail might obscure this fact. Of course, one might argue it provides an informative contrast for the relative extent of suffering in the two regions. I just want to flag the possible need for some judicious copyediting. More generally, the article could do with more info on North-South relations during the war, and the awkwardness of reconciling the theory of an all-Ireland state with the reality of one part being at war and the other not. Joestynes 00:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A story related by a retired Dun Laoghaire fire man. At the time he was based in Tara Street. When they arrived in Belfast they were advised that the population was told that if they couldn't get to a bomb shelter to go helow their stairs. This would give some protection from falling masonry. So they went to bombed houses, identified where the stair well would have been, dug down and rescued many. In one instance, they heard calls for help as they dug and they replied. Eventually they could see the family sheltering below. The man had heard the strange accents and then saw the strange uniform and helmets. He asked "who are you?". "We are the Dublin Fire Brigade". "That must have been a mighty bomb!". --ClemMcGann 23:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Another consequence of the Belfast Blitz, and if it is added, it would have to be carefully worded, in the effect of the vacuum produced when the gas works exploded. When the gas works exploded, a temporary vacuum was produced. This affected houses nearby. All fires were extinguished. Slates were ripped off roofs. Windows and the lighter contents of rooms were sucked out. That included curtains and bed coverings. According to retired members of the Dublin fire service they were confronted with horrific scenes. People lying in bed, eyes wide open, mouths wide open. Dead. Without any injury. Often naked. Because of the temporary vacuum there was no air to breath, so they suffocated.--ClemMcGann 16:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Belfast Blitz piece is now too large, in the sense that it is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Perhaps it deserves an aricle in its own right and a link from here to it? --ClemMcGann 11:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may deserve an ariticle as well, but it is critical in The Emergency - a valuable contribution. Conversely, I can't see how you could have an article about the Belfast Blitz without including most of what is in the Emergency article as context.

Someone is going to demand a source for the statement that Brookeborough requested assistance because there is certainly a view that it was unilateral. --Red King 11:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If that someone wants an on-line reference try the BBC: [1] has a time line:

• 4.15: John McDermott phones Sir Basil Brooke to ask permission to request fire engines from Eire
• 4.35am: De Valera agrees to send fire tenders to North
• 6.45: 70 men + 13 fire engines from Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Drogheda and Dundalk speed Northwards --ClemMcGann 13:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Éire

I have removed the inappropriate and repeated use of Éire as the states name as this - contray to popular opinion - has never been the states name in the English language, their is an encylopedia at ga.wikipedia.org for Irish usage. Moreover its use, as such in English, is something more appropriate to the 1940's and not a modern article, historic or otherwise. Djegan 21:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The constitution states "The name of the country is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland", a word-for-word translation of the Irish version which leaves open as a possible interpretation that Éire is valid in either language (while Ireland is only valid in English). It would better have said "The name of the country is Éire in Irish, and Ireland in English". Which still leaves the problem of having to resort to unwieldy circumlocutions to steer between an ambiguous Ireland and an inaccurate Éire. (I know you know all this, Djegan; I'm talking to the room)Joestynes 12:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The English version of Bunreacht na hÉireann has no legal force. The authoritative version in Irish unambiguously states that the name of the country, in English, is Ireland. However due to its reflexive nature, it can't be unambiguously translated into English. The safest naming that can be used in English is Republic of Ireland. The use of Éire is also ambiguous as it's the name of the whole island in Gaelic. --Kgaughan 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"English version...no legal force" - thats a new concept, please introduce that concept at Constitution of Ireland - dont be surprised if it gets reverted. Djegan 19:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that a bit later when I have a chance to do a proper edit. --Kgaughan 15:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cancel that. I just checked the Bunreacht na hÉireann article, and it already mentions the necessary articles in question, along with stating the legal primacy of the text in Irish. Here's a sample from article 25.5.4: In case of conflict between the texts of any copy of this Constitution enrolled under this section, the text in the national language shall prevail. --Kgaughan 15:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Their is a very big difference between "in case of conflict" and "no legal force", I suggest your read this and if this is accurate then have no doubt about the states name in English been "Ireland". Djegan 15:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I ought to have qualified "no legal force" with "in essence", since it is not considered under law to be the definitive form. This leaves it with, in essence, no legal force. It only has legal force where there is no ambiguity between the two text, but even then the legal touchstone is the version as Gaeilge. In this case, the difference between "in case of conflict" and "no legal force" is minimal. I took a read of the Supreme Court opinion you pointed to, and it's saying pretty much what I was trying to get across. I think we're in violent agreement here. --Kgaughan 17:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I support what Djegan has done on this one. There was just one line which really jarred because of its prominence:

• • Ireland was however the only Commonwealth dominion to have an official policy of neutrality.

I've changed it to the rather unwieldy "The Irish state was however..." because the collision of geography with politics here is too strong. Better suggestions welcome. (I've also added a line to say that NI was formally in the war.) --Red King 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

2 cents worth- I've worked on the period of IRA activity spanning 1936 - 1940 in S-Plan and 1942 - 1944 in Northern Campaign (IRA). The rule of thumb i've applied is Eire when referring to the government, authority (political/legal), and geographical territory, but prefacing it sometimes with "(the state formerly known as the Irish Free State)" or if the other way around the Irish Free State (which later became the territory of Éire). Northern Ireland had a government at the time.

I did this because you dont know who will come along and add something prior to 1938. Also, the IRA in the period had the policy of not permitting "active operations" in Éire under standing order eight. For IRA articles the use of the term is important because its all tied up with partition. Saying "Ireland" and linking to Ireland implies the entire geographical region which usually POVs an article as much as the use of the terms "six counties" and "twenty-six counties", Irish Republic (over Republic of Ireland etc.

Some of the Abwehr & Luftwaffe missions i've looked at were distinctly ordered not to infringe into Éire airspace whilst some were. Éire being a term both british and germans used at the time. Being as specific as possible about where they landed and ended up is tricky without using Éire/Northern Ireland over 'Ireland'. If the article is something to do with military manuevers like in Operation Green (Ireland) I try and use the catch all term "island of Ireland". Fluffy999 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed instances of "Éire" to "Éire/Ireland" as whilst understanding that Éire was the name generally attributed to the Republic of Ireland at the time none-the-less this is simply an Irish language word that means "Ireland" and is not the states name in English. Its probably the best compromise on negative cognitations on Éire, whilst not using Ireland alone; see Names of the Irish state. Djegan 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I left a comment on your talk page before I noticed your comment here. Please disregard.

I used the word Éire deliberately. I know its literal meaning, but it has a number of conotations, including political ones just like the word 'Ireland'. I disagree with the change as I believe

• it adds complexity to an already complicated article,
• it will mean further complexity when information about Unionists and their reaction to "The Emergency" is added and,
• it places this article about the time period out of step with all the others which use the term Éire when "Éire" is meant

Its not worth fighting over really, just dont see the point. Fluffy999 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment and its not worth fighting over. Forget I mentioned it Fluffy999 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but when discussing the geographical area (as when referring to invasions, for example) controlled by the Irish state (not the government or state), could we not refer to it as southern Ireland (note capitalisation)? I think that may be clearest to the casual reader.MAG1 20:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Éire (again)

The Constitution of Ireland makes it quite clear the English name, of the state, is "Ireland" whilst the Irish name is "Éire" - it really does not matter which version you read. The constitution does not pertain to change the laws of language. Djegan 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've replaced "translation" with "version". But the article definitely needs to distinguish between the state and the island, hence the Éire/Ireland device that I've added. It's only a device. --Red King 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clarification of the state vs. the island is an issue. I think a footnote style reference such as how County Londonderry/Derry are referenced in Northern Ireland could be the way forward for Éire in articles when required. Djegan 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Belfast Blitz (again)

(ClemMcGann wrote this as a comment on my last at Éire above, but the indents are getting too difficult. So time to start a subtopic. --Red King 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A few points on the Belfast Blitz. Belfast was important for many reasons other than H&W. Aircraft were made there as were tanks. The records for Belfast Port are now in the MII library in Dun Laoghaire [2]. I was surprised when reading the source documents to see just how many tanks and other armaments were shipped through Belfast. Next issue. It was after the raid that Dev made his “they are our people” speech, and he protested to Berlin. In papers found after the war, Goobles told his radio not to mention the Belfast raid, that Hitler was concerned that it might cause Ireland to enter the war and that that would influence Irish-American politicians. (At that time Germany sought to keep America neutral). Another point. I read recently that the North Strand bombing was a result of British Intelligence ‘bending the waves’. German Bombers took their bearings from directional signals. The British broadcast false imitation signals. --ClemMcGann 14:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The first two points are certainly worth adding. The original version gave no clue as to why the Luftwaffe should want to bomb any part of Ireland (island), so I've started it off. So yes, please add.

Assuming the target was Liverpool, the angle of error is still very severe, so I think this claim is very speculative indeed. My reading (if I can ever find it again) was that the bending might cause the bombers to miss their target by a few miles, not by 75 miles. Any vaguely compenent navigator would detect that with a compass. --Red King 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

1 of the pilots supposedly apologised already in 1999. 'Heinrich' said the target was Belfast here. From the article:

"In fact, the British could not "bend" the beams, which were sent out from occupied France and Norway. But they could interfere with the radio signals and force aircraft to lose their way. An intriguing series of reports from the once secret intelligence files of the Irish army suggest that this had already happened on 28 May 1941 - two days before the Dublin bombing - when large numbers of aircraft, almost certainly German, flew up the Irish coast and then became confused when they reached the Irish capital. Many of them were then heard to drop their bombs over the sea after presumably realising they were not over a UK target."

According to Tim Pat Coogan’s de Valera ‘long fellow, short shadow’ page 585 Winston Churchill, of all people, later suggested that the raids might have been the result of a British invention which distorted Luftwaffe radio guidance beams so as to throw their planes off course A similar claim is in Joseph T Carroll “Ireland in the War Years” page 109.--ClemMcGann 16:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Shipping

At some stage I hope to do a few lines on those who lost their lives on Irish Ships. see [3] If it wasn't for Irish food exports, Britian would have starved --ClemMcGann 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Weather Reports

The article said that weather reports were broadcast on Irish radio. The opposite was the case. There was a total ban on any such reports, which made commentaries on football matches difficult. However they were sent on a telephone link, which was a radio-telephone. As for RAF pilots being returned. It wasn't always as automatic as the article says. and there was the case of an Eagle pilot who was returned --ClemMcGann 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported edits

User:Toya has made some additions which are quite new and really do need to be sourced if they are to remain. For the moment, they are just quoted out.

I've completely removed There was a corridor near Donegal which British aircraft could use when flying from bases in Northern Ireland out over the Atlantic, which was used by, for example, the reconnaissance aircraft which spotted the German battleship Bismarck heading for France in 1941. since this seems to show the author knows nothing about the geography of border betweeen Éire and Northern Ireland. The border goes midway up the Foyle and then out more or less due north to the 12 mile (20km) limit. So there was no issue. But if the author meant to say that the RAF could fly through Irish airspace (due west from Derry), then again that needs sources. --Red King 11:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of the geography of the border. My authority is partly Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck", the flying boat which spotted the Bismarck flew from Lower Lough Erne, out across Achill Island. You only need to look at the map to see that there was no point having a flying boat base on Lower Lough Erne unless they had the ability to cross Eire airspace. I have also read about the corridor near Donegal, but I don't have the authority to hand. PatGallacher 13:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It would not have been credible to keep it on Lough Erne if it was going to go out over the Foyle anyway. But it could fly up the Erne to Belleek, County Fermanagh, which is just a few miles from the sea at Ballyshannon, County Donegal. See map [4]. It's credible, but you still really need to find the source becuase it is quite a critical point. --Red King 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated a version of this, with citations, there are others. It's an interesting incident, as one of the pilots was a serviceman from the then-neutral US. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dev supported the Axis?

Does anyone have any authority for [this] paragraph, added by an anonymous user. If not, I will revert. PatGallacher 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon editor writes

• There was substantial indirect evidence that De Valera collaborated with the Germans against the Alies in minor ways during the war for example in relation to the security of Allied shipping but this was always denied.

We need a lot more that wild assertion. Please cite your sources. This claim is at odds with all the other documented evidence, so cannot be allowed to stay without evidence. --Red King 01:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Thanks for citing the De Valera holocaust thing. I'm just wondering if his knowledge of the holocaust either way is relevant. As a bald statement out there it just seems POV.

"Elements of Irish public opinion were slow to accept the nature of the Nazi regime. The films of concentration camps were denounced as propaganda, and there was official indifference to the fate of the Jews during and after the war, even though de Valera knew of the atrocities as early as 1943"

Implying he knew of "atrocities" then letting the reader fill in that blank with images from footage of the "atrocities" which we have all grown up with might be a little POV. Can't this be fleshed out a little- what did he know? who told him? did he trust the source? was there a reason why it was denounced as propaganda? was it in the press? etc.

I know there was official indifference, for example in not accepting jewish migrants after ww2 but happily accepting German kids, but for a subject that can cause so much argument and offense it seems to have been skated over a little bit. Fluffy999 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is all I've got, though it is unequivocally stated and Brian Girvin is a serious scholar [5]. If you are really keen, you could buy his book [6](no, I don't get a cut). Don't really get your POV point. It has to be said that the pictures from Belsen would have been widely seen in early 1945, and even so there was the failure to accept Jewish migrants after the war and opposition to the Nuremberg trials, so there is no obvious reason for rejecting the statement. While not noble behaviour, I don't think this makes anyone particularly bad- everyone all but ignored the plight of German Jews before the war, and we all sat round, twiddling our thumbs while the Rwanda genocide went on.

On a related side issue, I tell you what, if you have the resources, it would be interesting to hear what Irish diplomats were sending from occupied Europe or Berlin, if any were there.

By the way, really like your edits, but you may like to put in some citations yourself to discourage people from messing around with them. You may also like to join the discussion above on what to call in English the Irish state at that time- it's something some people seem to get excited about. MAG1 22:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK no problems, will check it out. Dont really think it should be rejected, and im not rejecting your sources :)

Im working on the entire suite of Ireland - IRA - German intelligence, didnt appear to be much on wikipedia about it. Few more articles to go. Hope to have all the documented stuff mapped out with citations in those articles soon enough. If I come across any diplomatic stuff I will let you know, have only diplomat Leopold Kearny mentioned so far but he was in Madrid- mentioned in the Frank Ryan article. Thanks. Fluffy999 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I added some things which give some context to the holocuast thing- I dont know what de Valera knew in 1943 but will look for that book to find out. The antisemitism thing probably belongs in an article on its own because the Nazi radio broadcasts played on it North & South of the border.

Also there is some room in the article for dealings with Northern Ireland in the article as it was a feature of de Valera's manuverings in "the Emergency" although I will try to cover the guts of this in the Plan W article. There are also some details about relations with the fear of the USSR that can be included to- this ties into the whole "Allies are as bad as the Axis" worldview and can perhaps go some way to contributing to the current summing up on de Valera's Neutrality policy. Thanks for the tip on the book. Fluffy999 11:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Found part of the answer. De Valera was in correspondence with a rabbi called Herzog who had been Chief Rabbi of Ireland and was now in Jerusalem. He had been making increasingly desperate statements about the fate of Jewry in continental Europe. In 1943 he explicitly stated that he expected the death of two million Jews. There may have been other sources as well (definitely before the end of the war), and I will put something in when I have the details. MAG1 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work :) I added some images, and put some over on Plan W where the majority of information on the Irish military of the time period is too. I'd like the NI stuff to be beefed up too but I dont know that much about it. The only articles I will be writing on the period now are one for the LSF (Irish home guard forces) and the NI home guard. Most of the IRA nazi stuff is now done, so just need to write an envelope explaining Irish government policy regarding executions and internment- that can probably be referred to in this article. Fluffy999 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth recalling that the Israeli government planted a forest named after De Valera in 1967 just north-east of Nazareth. Why would they do that if they were worried in any way about his attitude to the Holocaust?Red Hurley (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The official attitude of both Ireland and the UK Governments to the 'Holocaust' during the war was complicated by the pressure from Jewish Zionist groups for the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine. Amongst many people there was a disbelief that a 'civilised' country such as Germany would be capable of such atrocities, and that the 'evidence' leaking out of occupied Europe was suspected of being faked, or at least greatly exaggerated, by the Zionist cause to increase sympathy for them. Therefore, the reports about the concentration and death camps were not altogether believed, and it was only the liberation of camps such as Belsen where physical first-hand and unbiased evidence was obtained, that the reality was confirmed. At one point, the Jewish Council of Britain asked for the RAF to bomb the camps so as to slow down the killing of inmates, but the RAF refused, as apart from the inevitable appalling publicity that would have ensued, a German propagandist's dream, the reports about the camps were not entirely trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.115.48 (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Green / Fall Grün

I have re-written the article about the German plan to invade Ireland in ww2, Operation Green (Ireland). Please have a look and see if you can add anything- some detail on Irish defenses if possible.

The article on Plan Kathleen (recently renamed from Operation Artur) will be re-written soon. The original Operation Artur article, as well as being wrongly titled, wasn't accurate, so please check the details if you have referred to it, or sampled information from it. Fluffy999 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SS Kyleclare

I deleted the note "was attacked by Ju 88's off Brownstown Head, County Waterford as well and". This did happen, but later in Feb 23 1943 it was torpedoed by U-456 and 18 died. ClemMcGann 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of this article (to be an FAC)

It seems to me that this article is an FAC, but the name is going to be a problem. There are lots of "states of national emergency" around the world - the one in India is already listed. Is there a case for moving it to Emergency (Ireland)? --Red King 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The name is not a problem because even though there were lots of "states of national emergency" around the world, the period 1939-1945 in Ireland was officially known as "The Emergency". If any others were known by the same name, but I don't think there are any, there might be a case for suggesting The Emergency (Ireland) but I would not support any change without very good reason. ww2censor 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would leave it for now unless their is a real and substantial need for moving. Djegan 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, it would be biased to allow The Blitz but not The Emergency. On the other hand, Ireland during World War II would line up nicer in Category:World War II national military histories. On the other other hand, Ireland is, as we know, a problematic word in this context. jnestorius^(talk) 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to concentrate on the article in hand: the name of the Blitz is neither here or there. I'd leave it alone unless someone complains, and then your suggestion would be fine, though I'd keep the definite article. Ireland during World War II would not be helpful as the experiences north and south of the border were distinct. MAG1 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about the Blitz is that "there were blitzes in places other than London" just as "there were emergencies in places other than Ireland". Regarding Ireland: my point precisely. "Irish Free State" and "Republic of Ireland" are anachronistic and hence unavailable. jnestorius^(talk) 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least we've discussed it and the consensus seems to be "no change". So we can pre-empt the question if it arises at FAC consideration stage. --Red King 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The title is a problem. For instance if you look up the category World War II national military histories you will see a list of article titles linking to the histories of individual countries during World War II by country but the link to this item is simply The Emergency without specifying a country. All very well for those of us in Ireland who know what the term refers to but given that Wikipedia is an international resource there is surely a need to clarify the article by changing the title to something like "The Emergency - WWII in Ireland" or "The Emergency - WWII in Neutral Ireland". Coolavokig 06:03, 14 October 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)

Irish volunteers in the British military

I was hoping there would be more on this. The end of the article neatly summarizes the reception these vols received upon returning to the republic, but it seems like a disembodied point: nowhere in the article is there a definitive statement of the number of citizens of the republic who fought in the british military, let alone their experience, the attitude of both govts, their achievements, etc.

I've been searching all over WP for detailed info on this topic to no avail.Armandtanzarian 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not there because it's a complicated and fraught topic. The statistics were very hard to collect accurately, and the whole issue was clouded because the Irish government discouraged volunteers (to the extent of censoring and then banning death notices), but later on exaggerated volunteer numbers to use them as a stick with which to beat Northern Ireland (where there was no conscription either, but where it was claimed that it was an integral part of the UK). There is long section in Girvin about this, but for him the most reliable analysis estimates 49 302 volunteers from Northern Ireland and 50 644 from Eire for the army alone. Another analysis Girvin thinks is reasonable gives for all three services 78 826 from Eire and 52 174 from Northern Ireland. Both of these rely on extrapolation from casualty lists. Girvin's best guess is about 70 000 from Eire and 60 000 from Northern Ireland. In addition, perhaps 170 000 people from Eire went to Britain to work in the war industries. MAG1 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly many more men joined the British Army than supported the IRA's efforts during the war. Shouldn't there also be a section on the expanded Irish army and Local Defence Force in 1939-45, and on its anti-invasion plans etc.? They had a medal. I don't know enough to write it up properly.86.42.213.159 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Douglas Hyde, Ireland's president, also sent condolences,[36] an action which enraged the United States minister as no similar action had taken place on the death of the United States President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.[37][38] Yet all flags in Dublin were lowered to half-mast out of respect.[39]

Were the flags lowered for Franklin or Hitler? I assume Franklin. Please confirm and disambiguate. Thanks. njaard 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Éire - yet again!

We really need to dump "Éire" - that term might of been popularly used in the 1940s but in the modern era it is defunct, "Éire" is simply the Irish for "Ireland" and nothing else. As has been stated previously on this talk page it is entirely inappropriate to use, Ireland or Irish should be used as appropriate, and indeed in addition "southern" (lowercase) could be appropriate in the few instances in which their is genuine need for clarity. Djegan 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your point, and I'd not use it for contemporary articles; however for historical articles, is there not a good argument for using contemporary descriptions. The real problem here is that for this topic the distinction between the two political identities and the island itself is important (in fact, is one of the main themes through the events). The use of southern Ireland quite clearly doesn't work- it cannot include Donegal, for example. I don't really see the objection to Éire: as far as I can see it was commonly used in English both in Ireland and Great Britain at that time. MAG1 08:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. First, I see no reason not to use Eire- which was (and I believe still remains) the official de jure name for the country and is widely recognised. Secondly, "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic" or "Eire" are probably better and more specific disambiguators than "southern Ireland" in my view. Badgerpatrol 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Read article four of the Constitution of Ireland (enacted 1937), it states that the English name of the state is "Ireland". Djegan 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That as may be, but it was a name deliberately chosen to conflate the state with the island. This may have been good politics, but in the reality of partition (and the hardening of partition is one of the really interesting aspects of the Emergency), it's not a useful approach when trying to distinguish between the state and the island; hence, the contemporary use of Eire, even in English. MAG1 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "Ireland" obviously doesn't clearly disambiguate the Republic, and "southern Ireland" is not ideal either. "Eire" is widely recognisable to English readers (although there are multiple disambiguators for the Republic of Ireland). Badgerpatrol 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever about using Éire for the name of the country, the phrase "the Éire government" really grates. Anyone mind if I change those to "the Irish government"? There shouldn't be ambiguity, as only the country has a government, not the island. md 84.203.35.148 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of the name has also come up at Neville Chamberlain#Relations with Ireland. I've just amended it to remove the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" in a pre 1948 context but it's difficult to write just "Ireland" in the context and "the Irish state", whilst technically correct, feels awkward. Can someone take a look at that section and have a go at making it read better? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maffey

Wouldn't Maffey have been High Commissioner? Jooler 07:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh this - explains it. Ireland could accept an Australian High Commissioner, but not a British one. Jooler 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Done The Emergency moved to The Emergency (Ireland). A disambiguation page will be created at The Emergency. The consensus for the move is clear, and based in sound reasoning, with only one objector making a weak case. Neıl ☎ 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

There are 1.6 million Google hits for "The Emergency"+India; 1.1 million for "The Emergency"+Ireland. The Emergency declared in India between 1975 and 1977 was a landmark event in Indian history, and is never referred to as anything but "the emergency." For someone searching for that phrase, we need some sort of disambiguation page here; this can perhaps be moved to "Irish Emergency" in line with the other examples. Relata refero 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The proper disambiguation would be The Emergency (Ireland), as it is usual for disambiguation to follow in parenthesis rather than lead creating a "new" term. If their is no dissenting opinion then move it. The alternatives involving "Irish Emergency" would not be acceptable, not least because it is not used, but also because their is only 1,960 hits. Djegan 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no move unless there is consensus. The Emergency in Ireland happened long before that of India, so for that reason alone it should retain the original title. Besides which, 1.6 millions hits for a topic of a country with a 200+ million population compared to 1.1 million for a country with 4+ million seems like Ireland wins hands down in terms of importance alone. India would need to have 50+ million hits to get on par. My 2c worth - leave it alone - there is already a decent disambiguation page here so why do we need another one for The Emergency, it is unnecessary. Relata refero seems to want to promote a pro-Indian agenda here but maybe that is because he is quite new here - less than a month and 200 plus edits. Cheers ww2censor 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rot. (a) Wikipedia does not operate in per capita terms, so your argument is a little absurd (b) The emergency dab page you link to is pretty useless, as it lists all sorts of articles, and we need a link for 'the emergency', which is substantively different (c) Prior in terms of dating has nothing to do with what people will search for, which is our concern and (d) don't go around telling people that they have agendas. On a related note, I've been around since 2004. I change usernames periodically because I don't like getting bogged down. And that's not the point. Do not comment on the contributor, and do not do it in an incivil manner, especially when you don't have other valid arguments. Relata refero 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Support move to The Emergency (Ireland) and The Emergency (India), assuming you're correct that the latter is a widely recognised event. I do not support a move to "The Irish Emergency" or a similarly misleading neology. Badgerpatrol 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets take each article individually, if people want to move the Indian Emergency article then its talk page is the place to discuss and it is not dependent on any decision here. Djegan 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with moving that article. I did not wish to move this one unilaterally. Relata refero 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Emergency is quite fine as it is, but if you feel that the Indian Emergency needs a name change please promote it there not here. A possible solution for your concerns might be to put another link at the top of the page along with the one already there directing readers to the Indian Emergency. So Relata refero, let's address the other issues you mention. You can change you name if you want but that effectively gives the impression you are a new editor - what else does one think when seeing 200 edits for a 3 week registered editor, and as a new user you may not be familiar with the issues. I am rather curious what you mean by I don't like getting bogged down, it seems a strange thing to write because while I have only been here since 2006 with 11,000 edits, I am proud of my track record and show it rather than abandon it - it just seems strange to me but not important here. That aside, as you say And that's not the point; however you did bring up the Google hit results and all I was doing was putting them into a population/country perspective - relevant or not, you told us how many hits there were. Did you see how many hits the "Indian Emergency" gets? Only 740 Google hits, so it seems less popular and this does seems to be a concern you have. As to an agenda that you might have, if any, read what I wrote; I suggested that you seem to want to promote a pro-Indian agenda - I did not say you were promoting it and btw I think you might have meant that I was uncivil; no I was not uncivil to you in any way. ww2censor 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have several times 11000 edits, not that it matters. I ideally prefer to edit as an IP, but an increasing number of ill-informed editors tend to assume an IP doesn't know what its talking about, so I use different accounts. (Its even worse when editors make an effort to be informed by checking contributions lists in order to make unnecessary assumptions about the other person's knowledge of policy. Do not do that again.) Further, "Indian Emergency" is not the term used; I started by saying that it is known as "The Emergency." Do try to read comments. Finally, "Seem to want to promote" is even more incivil (which is a word) than "are promoting", as the former implies not only that you do not think I'm here to write a neutral encyclopaedia, but that I'm going about it incompetently. Henceforth do not make assumptions of this nature.

To repeat, "The Emergency"+India gets substantially more Google hits - and remember, English language internet penetration in India isn't exactly high. It has been nearly universally described as India's "greatest political crisis." When people search for the term, they don't get the WP article. That is what disambiguations are for.Relata refero 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the Indian and Irish cases are prominent events commonly called "The Emergency", so it's a clear case for disambiguation. No national pride is sacrificed by having parentheses, so let's chill out. Decisions are not made based on the seniority or number of contributors, but on the quality of arguments. And the fact that the Irish event happened first is a poor argument.

• As ww2censor points out, there is no need for The Emergency to be a new disambiguation page; it should redirect to Emergency (disambiguation) cf. Double disambiguation is rare. I've just removed a lot of the dross from Emergency (disambiguation), and both the relevant articles are already there.
• Relatedly, I think the Irish article should be at Emergency (Ireland) rather than The Emergency (Ireland). The policy on including "The" in article names says to do so only if "The" is usually capitalised in running-text references to the entity: checking for the Irish one in a few books on Google, the Emergency is more common than The Emergency ; and the "emergency" turns up as well. jnestorius^(talk) 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, though a long contributor with an Irish perspective, I have to concede that Relata refero has a valid argument and agree the articles should be disambiguated equally. If the current "The Emergency" article referred to an event in the US or the UK, we would be livid about the neo-colonialistic attitude. Sauce for the goose and all that. --Red King 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think both Relata refero and Jnestorius have got it wrong and maybe Red King will see it likewise too. The Emergency in Ireland is known as The Emergency and nothing else, certainly not as the Emergency. If seniority bears no weight with you then consider that The Emergency was the cornerstone of Irish neutrality during World War II and lasted for a much longer time, from Sept. 1939-June 1945, than the state of emergency for only 21 months in India, rather than the almost six years for The Emergency in Ireland. Besides, the reason for The Emergency in Ireland was due to the international conflict while the Indian state of emergency was an internally generated situation; another reason why this article is correctly named as it is because of its world perspective. In fact the Indian Emergency was only a declaration of a state of emergency by the government, while The Emergency was the official title given to this period by the Irish government during which several pieces of emergency legislation (nine acts of parliament and numerous statutory instruments in 1939, 1940 and1941) were enacted during. I don' see anything similar in the Indian situation. While we also know that Wikipedia uses title case for the first word of article names, giving the Irish article its due, it is correctly titled now and does not need to be changed. The Indian article should certainly not end up getting a The added to its name when the is proper with or without a country identifier, when, it is really an Emergency. ww2censor 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statutory instrument examples are spurious, as they relate to the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932 which produced 407 orders between 1932 and 1957. The word "emergency" (let alone "the") is not capitalised within the text of the 1939 act except in section titles. In the subsequent continuance acts, Emergency only appears in the names of the Act. There is no evidence for your claim that "The Emergency" is the official title of the period. The Oireachtas debate transcripts consistently refers to it in lowercase:

• [7] Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan): The necessity to amend the legislation here again arises out of the emergency.
• [8] General Mulcahy: ... We want to be very clear as to what elements of emergency exist which need to be dealt with by emergency powers in the hands of the Government. A very serious responsibility rests on the Government to help the House to understand what those elements of emergency are, and what powers of an emergency kind they require in order to deal with them. The House has been generous to the Government in an extraordinary degree since the very beginning of the emergency in giving it any powers that it suggested it wanted in any possible way.
• [9] Mr. Sweetman: ... I can give the Minister an exact case of hardship. This is where five people were carrying on a certain service and, due to the exigencies of the emergency, and particularly due to the transport difficulties arising from the emergency, .... They formed the company merely for the purpose of keeping on that particular service during the period of the emergency, ...
• [10] Professor Magennis: May I ask the Senator whether any body of public opinion has questioned the rectitude of the Oireachtas in so expressing confidence in the Government as to give them these powers for the emergency?
• [11] Mr. M. Hayes: ... The policy that has been pursued since the beginning of the emergency has not varied.

jnestorius^(talk) 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its "The Emergency" and not dumbed-down as "the Emergency". Djegan 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources, please. Here's my google books results:

• "The Emergency"

1. blurb for The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939-45 by Brian Girvin "Tells the story of what is known as 'The Emergency' in Ireland, but elsewhere as the Second World War."

• "the Emergency"

1. p132 Defending Ireland: The Irish State and Its Enemies Since 1922 By Eunan O' Halpin p.153 "Defence policy during the Emergency—as the war years later became known although the declaration of a state of emergency came only in June 1940"
2. p75 German-Speaking Exiles in Ireland 1933-1945 By Gisela M. B. Holfter "This enabled the Irish government at the outbreak of World War II, or 'the Emergency' as it was called, as per the Emergency Powers Order of 1939"
3. preface Propaganda, Censorship and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War By Robert Cole "'the Emergency', as it was designated in Ireland "
4. p14 Irish Defence Forces Since 1922 by Donald MacCarron At the outbreak of World War II — which was officially known in Ireland as ‘the Emergency'
5. p269 Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society By Joseph Lee "Viewed from this perspective, the Emergency takes its place in the mainstream of Irish history,"
6. p227 The Making of Fianna Fáil Power in Ireland, 1923-1948 By Richard Dunphy "the policy-making apparatus during the life of the Emergency"
7. p58 Irish Travellers: Racism and the Politics of Culture By Jane Helleiner "known as the Emergency in neutral Ireland"
8. p423 A Military History of Ireland By Thomas Bartlett, Keith Jeffery "During the period of the Emergency there were over 160 forced landings and crashes"

• "the emergency"

1. p211 The Irish Experience: A Concise History By Thomas E. Hachey, Joseph M. Hernon, Lawrence John McCaffrey "what the Irish referred to rather quaintly as 'the emergency'"
2. p377 The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present By James F. Lydon "next day Ireland entered a period which was graphically described as 'the emergency'"
3. p113 Nationalism and Socialism in Twentieth-century Ireland By Erhard Rumpf, Anthony C. Hepburn "War, even though for Ireland it was just an 'emergency'"

jnestorius^(talk) 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very rare to capitalise "the" mid sentence, even when the definitive article is always used. "The City", "The Blitz", "The Holocaust", "The Ashes" and others are usually written with "the" mid sentence but the use of the definitive article sets them apart from the generic use of "city", "blitz", "holocaust" and "ashes". If there is a rule to use "The", it's so obscure as to be swept aside in more generic use, but it doesn't mean that you would remove it from the descriptive form. Timrollpickering 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which side of the debate you're on, but I remind everyone of the guideline for pagenames:

If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.

(WP:THE#Rule of thumb) jnestorius^(talk) 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets get a reality check here folks, lets not dumb-down by removing the leading "the" or "The". Guidelines are exactly that, something to guide us, they are not a hard and fast rule that is absolute. Djegan 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a wander round other articles and I see that a lot of them are taking the "guidelines are just guidelines" view; Holocaust was moved to The Holocaust 2 years ago (obviously I haven't visited that page in a while!) though Admiralty and All Blacks remain article-free. It looks like the guidline needs an update to reflect current practice. Therefore I'm not going to press this point, although the description "dumbing down" strikes me as bizarre: a thing can be inaccurate without being dumb.

As regards the Indian question, I found the attempts to show the Irish emergency is more significant/noteworthy than the Indian one were obviously partisan. Disambiguation does not require articles to be of exactly the same importance, only that they are in the same ballpark.

However, I do agree that moving the Indian page needs to be discussed there rather than here. If and when that is moved from Indian Emergency (1975–1977) to The Emergency (India) or Emergency (India), then I support moving this page to The Emergency (Ireland) or Emergency (Ireland), and making The Emergency redirect to Emergency (disambiguation). jnestorius^(talk) 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I see that Relata refero has just moved Indian Emergency (1975–1977) to The Emergency (India) which, in the middle of a discussion, is a bit out of order. I also see, more relevantly, that there is no discussion at talk:The Emergency (India) that would suggest that there is any interest among Indian editors in general about such a move, this seems to be one person's hobby horse. Unfortunately and much as it pains me to say this, I still believe he is right in requesting a disambiguation page. --Red King 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think its out of order. As I explained above, moving that page would not be a problem as the incident in question is generally known as the Emergency. Note that the page was originally created as Indian Emergency, which User:Bhadani was forced to do as there was already a page here. The point is that that move will generally go uncontested. Also, there has been no discussion there, no. That doesn't mean, as you admit, that I am wrong. Relata refero 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness that move does not really affect us here right now but, I think, it was a completely improper move, deciding that the 21 month state of emergency should be given the title of The Emergency (India) when there are two other periods of emergency, one of which, the 1962-1968 emergency is, I believe, of more significance than the Indian Emergency (1975–1977). In this case the proper thing to do is to make The Emergency (India) redirect to State of Emergency in India even though there is no article right now for the 1962-1968 emergency. I would support that on the appropriate pages where there has been absolutely no discussion nor consensus, just a move decision made arbitrarily by Relata refero without seeking any input from other editors. I am sorry to see quite such a bold move being made; some might even consider it reckless. ww2censor 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Seriously, most people in India aren't even aware that the constitutional provisions invoked to deal with the 1962 China war stayed active for that long. Everyone knows about the Emergency however, and they know that it started in 1975. As I have said before, it is generally acknowledged as the greatest political crisis in independent Indian history. To return to what is relevant for this page: a disambiguation page continues to be necessary. Relata refero 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ww2censor: If you're going to criticize someone for being bold, don't to link to a guideline that says "be bold". I've quite often renamed articles without discussing it on Talk: pages, if I'm sure it's not going to be controversial. I can't speak for you, but personally I have far too little knowledge of Indian political history to to form an opinion of the correct name for the Indian article; I'm prepared to trust Relata, and if those in the know disagree with the move, it will soon provoke complaints at Talk:The Emergency (India) (apart from yours, I mean, which is procedural rather than factual). Assuming the move isn't reverted in the next couple of days, I stand over my support for moving this article and redirecting the ambiguous name to the disambig page. Incidentally, as you know, there were also 2 states of emergency in Ireland, one 1939-76, and the other 1976-95. jnestorius^(talk) 13:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that topic has died down and The Emergency is still not a disambig page. If no one objects in two days, I am redirecting this page to the The Emergency (Ireland). Let commonsense prevail! C'mon Irish.. for once.. --Jai Dixit 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not without a consensus and there is no consensus. I object to any action to move this page to a different name. There is no need - it is totally unnecessary. This article's title is fine as it is just as it has been for the last month since no consensus was reached for any move. Please don't start this again. ww2censor 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Please don't start this again."? I was never a part of it. I read through the entire argument above and your comments weren't convincing at all. I just don't understand why are you making such a fuss about the whole the disambig thing. It's plain and simple: since major several political events in India and Ireland are known as The (or the) Emergency, The Emergency should be a disambig page. It is as plain as simple. And your that "1.1 million hits for a country of 1 billion people" argument was totally pointless. Many people, including me, associate "The Emergency" with the State of Emergency in India imposed during the rule of Indira Gandhi.

My argument lies in the fact that the period between 1972 and 1975 is widely known as the Emergency by Indian media and populace, and there are several sources to back that. Other periods of emergencies in India were imposed during wartime and hence the center-point was the corresponding war and not the emergency. When you say "the Emergency", Indians would associate it with 72 - 75 period and not with 62 - 68 period, or the 71 period. BTW, there were also 2 states of emergency in Ireland, one 1939-76, and the other 1976-95. Cheers --Jai Dixit 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ww2censor: as far as I can make out from the preceding discussions, the only user opposed to the move is you, so the lack of consensus is debatable. And, since some contributors specifically said not to advance this discussion till the move at the Indian article had taken place, it was entirely appropriate that it should be set aside and then resumed; so your "not again" point is invalid. I suggest that this article be listed at requested moves and at the Ireland, India, and Politics Wikiprojects, in case a wider circle of users may wish to contribute. As for me, I (still) endorse the proposed move. jnestorius^(talk) 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DAB Move - Relinking

Now that the DAB move has been made, are there any automated toolsets that can be employed to help with the relinking of the 150+ links? Which need to be changed to point to The Emergency (Ireland)? Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:WWII history by nation was a source of many of the links - I have updated it and a few of the more high-profile articles, but someone using AWB could fix the rest of the incoming links a lot quicker. Neıl ☎ 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

no consensus to merge, but agree to refactor data in Irish neutrality (general article), The Emergency (Ireland) (mainly internal situation), and Irish neutrality during World War II (mainly external relations)

---

So as to avoid AfDing the article titled Irish neutrality during World War II, I would like to propose merging that article with this one. Remove all of the quotes and the redundancy with this article, and you have one maybe two sections to add to this article. As a stand-alone article, that article is merely an essay of this article. Please provide support/oppose feedback. --4x+2 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is also considerable overlap with Irish neutrality#World War II. jnestorius^(talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree; all part of the same topic. Sarah777 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree: they are both about the same event, the INdWW2 should always and only have been a redirect to this article. Looks like it was an unconscious fork.--Red King (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree: Redking7 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree to removing referenced quotes on wikipedia; Agree otherwise, if all the complex nuances and grey areas around neutrality in WW2 can be properly edited.Red Hurley (talk)

10:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Irish neutrality during World War II is a quite lengthy article and the topic merits its own article in any case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: If this is merged, then Irish neutrality during World War II will overwhelm The Emergency article. Irish neutrality during World War II covers one distinct cornerstone of the 1939–1945 period while The Emergency is an article with much wider coverage and should stay as such, rather then turn into an article mainly about Ireland's neutrality, which is what will happen if properly merged. ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: However we need distinguish between the international aspects and the local events to avoid duplication ClemMcGann (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Although the Emergency and Ireland's WWII experience are interwoven, the Emergency deserves a separate article, dealing with the internal political, social and economic impacts. Ireland's wider relationship with the war and the belligerents belongs elsewhere. There are aspects of the Emergency article that, IMO, belong in the other one, eg, the bombings and the reaction to events in Northern Ireland. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Although the articles certainly have similarities, they aren't the same. We don't want to confuse matters by meerging them. And besides looking at it from the perspective of the casual, reference reader, the articles are too long already to be merged, without looking pretty bad/formidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logonberry (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Good point Folks, you have changed my mind somewhat. Sarah777 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This debate seems to have died. Either we publicise it to a wider audience or a decision should be declared and we remove the flags on the articles. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to change so, I will close this in about 24 hours unless there is any further constructive discussion. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The division of material among Irish neutrality, The Emergency (Ireland), and Irish neutrality during World War II is a mess. There is duplication and overlapping and it's not easy for readers to navigate between the articles. Some refactoring is needed, though exactly what I'm not sure. jnestorius^(talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. Irish neutrality during World War II should concentrate on international aspects, while The Emergency (Ireland) should document internal issues. Can we agree that & put a fixed comment to that effect in both talk pages? ClemMcGann (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Refactoring is needed in all three. Who will step up and do what? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Reasonable working basis. Don't feel I have the expertise or background to do it, however. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irish anti-semitism

Sarah777, why are you trying to remove or nullify all references to anti-semitism in Ireland during this period? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If there are verifiable examples then that is fine; the quotes included so far don't even come close; apart from the one about the Dept saying that admitting too many Jews would trigger anti-Semitism; which only "comes close". (An irony here btw in that modern Israel uses the exact same religious reasoning to exclude people born in Israel!) Sarah777 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh - so that I don't have to spell it out for you later

• Supporting Germany in WW2
• Opposing Britain in WW2
• Staying neutral in WW2
• Putting limits on immigration numbers

- these are all things you may or may not find objectionable; they are NOT anti-Semitic. Sarah777 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At least you are cleaning up the "Éire" nonsense - that was what I was going to do next. Sarah777 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea how the first three bullet points relate to my point. I'm talking about this and this. Girvan is one of the main sources for the article, and the general reluctance of Ireland to accept Jewish refugees is well known. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you can sustain the claim that there was a "general reluctance". There was particular and effective opposition from individuals, such as Charles Bewley ClemMcGann (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"In 1942 Rabbi Herzog warned de Valera that Jews were being systematically exterminated in German prison camps. The Taoiseach and his government made efforts to rescue various groups, especially groups including children, and bring them to Ireland. These included a large group of German Jews held at Vittel in Vichy France, who already possessed visas for various South American countries. De Valera, together with the Irish ministers in Berlin, Vichy, and at the Vatican worked to rescue the Vittel Jews, and later groups of Italian, Dutch, Hungarian, and Slovakian Jews, but without success. In no case were the Nazis willing to let such groups depart for Ireland or leave Europe under Irish auspices. There was also a mistaken belief that Jews with Irish visas might be imprisoned, but would not be sent to the death camps, a belief the Vittel episode destroyed." from Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, Summer, 1999, The Jews of Ireland. Robert Tracy

There is a similar account on page 395 of That Neutral Island isbn 978-0-572-22105-9

Peter Ellis says that some Vittel Jews went to South America on Irish passports ClemMcGann (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastun - firstly what has the pointless reference to people "coming to terms with the changed world" got to do with anything? - it's pure waffle. As regards the alleged "anti-Semitism" I am asking for referenced examples; not the opinions of some guy of unknown reliability who wrote a book. Is he interpreting neutrality as anti-Semitism? For example: "official indifference from the political establishment" to the plight of the victims of the Nazis is not anti-anything; it is indifference - a totally different concept. Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"...some guy of unknown reliability who wrote a book." Oo So... let's remove all the book references from WP, then, shall we? After all, they're jusy the opinions of some guys and girls who wrote books. Now, admittedly Robert Fisk's doctorates are only honourary, but he is a pretty well respected author and journalist all the same. Brian Girvan, on the other hand, is a professor of politics and a well respected author and historian. So let's be clear - you don't remove referenced material just because you don't like it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear - I remove inadequately referenced material. There is no in-line references to the the specific claims made; one reference was actually a dud - cite chapter and verse (or page) if you are going to use books as references. And I see you restored the cretinous waffle about "changed world" - why? Because you like it?. Try inserting a "US massacre" into "list of massacres" based only on a reference in a Robert Fisk book! You really need to develop a bit of intellectual rigor Bastun...it might help you find a way through the jungle of verifiability. You need a bit more experience of the concept of Wiki-verifiability outside the parochial Irish context too; to help calibrate your judgement. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Red King - you beat me to it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I note you still fail to grasp the fact that "indifference" (official or otherwise) does not equate to anti-Semitism. Very important fact in this discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree

It is still an awkward read. We know Charles Bewley blocked Jewish immigration. We now know that Joesph Walsh (external affairs) didn't help. Ben Briscoe said that he was glad that his father Robert Briscoe (politician) had died before the state papers were released. Walsh used to visit them regularly assuring them that everything possible was being done to rescue Jews. Yet his (then) secret instructions and papers said otherwise.

Dev wrote a letter to Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog saying he would do al he could to help Jews, (I just cannot locate a reference right now). ClemMcGann (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally the Catholic Church has been vehemently and often violently anti-Semitic, it was only the realisation of the horrors of the Holocaust that saw them take a step back, and re-think at least their public stance a little. Given the power of Rome in Ireland at the time, anti-Semitism is hardly surprising. For someone to deny this on nationalist grounds that is also not surprising. Swithlander (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To say the RC Church was "anti-Semitic" and therefore Ireland surely must have been in WW2 is WP:OR at its worst. Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the equation Catholic=anti-semitic. There are documented incidents of Catholic people, clergy & institutions acting to frustrate the Holocaust, at great risk. Anti-semitism is cultural, not denominational.Religion was often used as a prop for other motivations. Italy, for example did not participate in the anti Jewish actions until the Germans took control after Mussolini was deposed. Fascist Hungary was also unwilling to participate. On the other hand, alone among western states, Ireland accepted no Jewish refugees prior to the war (Never Again, Martin Gilbert, p39). Even Japan accepted 300 and Italy, 5,000. This doesn't prove anti-semitism (and I haven't witnessed any in visits to Ireland) but, with the "Limerick pogrom" in the background, at a time when there were frantic efforts to relocate Jews out of Nazi Germany, it does raise questions of those in power at the time. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd need rather more in the way of "verifiable sources" to build that feeling into a statement of Irish anti-Semitism (official or general) during WW2. I'm fairly sure you'll find anti-Semites everywhere on Earth (including England and America), just as you'll find anti-black racists in every "white" country on Earth. (And probably anti-White ones in every black country). It's all relative if you want to characterise a prejudice as being a major factor in a country's beheaviour and there is nothing even remotely near any evidence that Ireland's policy was any more influenced by anti-Semitism that modern America's. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)