Eamon de Valera seems to have been talking about more than one threat in his response to Churchill's persistence. On the surface, he is saying that Ireland will fight against invading forces...in other words, if Japan or Germany invaded Ireland in earnest, it is clear by de Valera's words that he intends England to hold no concern that Ireland would not be victorious against them. But a more careful reading of de Valera's words paints England, and Churchill, as just as much of a threat. While not suggesting that either are a physical danger, he suggests that both are endangering Ireland's rights and autonomy, and therefore, according to de Valera, granting rights to Ireland's ports would be nothing short of abandoning the independence that was so recently won (twenty years earlier). Propaganda in all nations was the order of the day -- it is very likely that both de Valera and Churchill engaged in propaganda campaigns intent on either pursuing access to the ports or refusing said access. Either way, can it still be said, after examination of the discourse between the two nations, that Ireland was, in fact, neutral? While, as a nation, it may not have officially sided with either the axis or the allied forces, its actions affected the course of the war and the manner in which the allies were forced to consider defense of Great Britain. Though de Valera likely saw Churchill's attempts to secure port access as shrouded attempts to once more subjugate Ireland, and thus believed his refusal both honorable and necessary, the fact remains that though he protested that Ireland was a neutral nation in the course of the second world war, it did, in fact, stray from that central point.

Of course, it is entirely possible that a new, and more limited treaty may have solved the issues held by both Ireland and England. If Churchill had requested and been granted a temporary treaty allowing access to the ports, under the guidance and command of Ireland, it may be...

After the air raid in Dublin it could hardly be suggested that Ireland, as a nation, secretly harbored a preference for advancement of the axis nations. However, it could be that the language of the Treaty of 1921 was perhaps too much of a commitment for Ireland to take on so soon after its independence. One cannot help but wonder what time may have been saved, and what security granted, had a compromise been reached in a timely manner. Ireland may have had the chance in 1941 to further secure and demonstrate its independence without having to insist on being a neutral entity. Did de Valera's pride in himself and in Ireland prevent the nation from reacting to the air raid in Dublin? Or was it the nation's true wish to remain neutral?
Given that so many Irish soldiers enlisted in British forces, it can hardly be presumed that the people of Ireland wished to remain neutral in the war. On the other hand, can Ireland as a nation be heavily criticized for wishing to maintain and shape its independence? Each nation, in its formative years, must guard against attempts to be brought back under the umbrella of the nation which previously reigned. But in times of war, particularly a war such as World War II, should nations forgo such aspirations in light of the greater good? Had de Valera listen to his people, who sent a clear message by deserting the Irish forces to fight with Britain, might he have made a different decision regarding his withdrawal from the Treaty of 1921? Whether or not he would have becomes a moot point in light of the fact that his actions are weighed now against the grander scale of the war.

Works Cited

Althoz, Josef L.. Selected documents in Irish history . Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. Print.

Churchill, Winston, and Martin Gilbert. The Churchill war papers . New York: W.W. Norton, 1995. Print.

History of World War II . New York: Marshall Cavendish…