Sir, - Churchill's offer to "work for an end to partition in exchange for the ending of Irish neutrality in the War" (by which he means Ireland entering the war on the British side) represented" writes Dr Geoffrey Roberts (February 20th), "a unique opportunity to initiate a process leading to all-Ireland unity. De Valera's rejection of this offer was a historic turning point - one that led to a hardening of division and partition of the country."The views of the Northern administration on such an offer apart, this nonsense shows little regard for fact. Neutrality was the will of the people. Moreover, de Valera well understood the reliance that might be placed on un-chartered offers from the prime minister of a British government whose own interests were its only object.Dr Roberts, who is English, is a lecturer in history in UCC. It is not the first time that he has denounced wartime Irish neutrality. In 1994 (June 11th to be exact), he wrote: "Surely Ireland could have done more than just stand on the sidelines and offer a bit of secret aid here and there" while "in London my family was living through the Blitz?" He concluded that Irish neutrality was "narrow, self-interested and self-serving".Distorting fact in pursuit of historical reconstruction does not contribute to the study of history, whatever it might do for unedifying debate.The fact is that when Churchill made this Gilbertian suggestion, de Valera recalled similar promises about ending or reducing partition made by him (and other members of the British cabinet) during the Treaty negotiations in 1920, and again during those on the Irish Free State constitution in 1921, when it suited British interests to make them. He also recalled how worthless those promises were.And if Dr Roberts wishes to know how I know what de Valera thought, it is because he told me. - Yours, etc.,Eoin Neeson, Blackrock, Co Dublin.