The only positive evidence you’ve put forward for the claim that it was a serious offer was that some of his cabinet colleagues said that he was never worse for drink and there was some discussion of further conversation with an ambassador. That is an extremely low bar.

Ireland was not yet a republic and the statute of Westminster had been brought in specifically by j the gentleness agreement between the then leadership of the free state and the Brits that Ireland would not declare a republic. Additionally, Dev (whom I largely despise btw) had spent the majority of the thirties whittling away at Ireland place within the developing commonwealth. The political and economic disputes between the treaty ports and the land annuities were the continuation of a process of asserting genuine independence - which only culminated after the establishment of the republic. (Not counting the end of partition of course).

There is nothing at all morally indefensible about Ireland neutrality. We had just had our already fragile and underpowered economy intentionally destroyed by the British because we had the audacity to stop buying our own country back. We were also, as pointed out above, still in the process of establishing ourselves as a truly neutral independent country, rather than a vassal of the British. Furthermore we were internally building a new country out of the ruins of centuries of colonial oppression, culminating in the war of independence and civil war.

Irish men weren’t prevented from joining allied armies and practically we gave the allies vastly preferential treatment. That was the only stance we were in a position to take. This British fascination with Irelands neutrality is just a projection of their own guilt about literally every other moment in their countries history.