Irish Neutrality in World War Two January 25, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History.trackback
I’ve a post already done up on the issue of pardons for Irish soldiers who deserted from the Defence Forces during the second World War which I’ll put up tomorrow morning, but I couldn’t help noticing the following intervention from Alan Shatter.
In a significant speech on Monday night at the opening of The Shoah in Europe exhibition at the Department of Justice Mr Shatter said it was of vital importance that this and future generations remembered and learned from the horrors of the past.
He added that in the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities.
“This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy.
The problem with this statement is that it elides a number of distinctly different issues. There’s little question that the state was hugely remiss in its human and other obligations to Jewish refugees from continental Europe both before, during and after the war – Dermot Keogh’s Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland is a fine text on the area and is extremely sobering.
But the link with ‘neutrality’ is hard to make – for precisely that reason, the lack of any significant efforts to relieve the situation of Jewish refugees was characteristic of the state well before war was declared – Keogh quotes Robert Briscoe in communications with the Dept. of Justice in 1937/38, then an FF TD, making the extremely valid point that the states attitude to refugees from Germany was in stark contrast to the fact that the Instructor of Music in the Army, the Director of the National Museum and various other worthies [many/most who had Nazi links, though he did not state this] were admitted to the state and allowed to stay here. There’s no doubt at all that this was a national disgrace.
But to then try to contextualise it or neutrality with the Holocaust is ahistorical.
As easily argue that US neutrality between 1939 and 1941, or the Soviet pact with Nazi Germany were moral bankruptcy. And neither state entered the war due to the Holocaust. Precisely the same can be said about the United Kingdom whose entry to the war bore no relation to it at all, and proceeded with little or no relation to it either.
The Atlantic Charter which was agreed between the UK and the US in 1942 is probably the clearest expression of war aims, and it makes no direct reference to issues pertaining to the Holocaust. Moreover information about the Holocaust was broadly speaking suppressed by both the UK and the US during much of the course of the war for fear of it being seen as a “Jewish war”.
The first significant change in this was the publication of the Vrba-Wetzler report, written by two Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, both Jewish inmates of Auschwitz who managed to escape, in June/July 1944. This revealed the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz but what’s telling is how that was downplayed by those who appealed on behalf of those being sent there [for more see the response from Vatican]. There is more, the prosecution of the war subsequently in respect to efforts to save those in the concentration and death camps indicates how they were of a secondary or even tertiary concern in military terms.
In other words no state emerges from the Second World War with an untarnished record, and to ask the Éire, impoverished, with few resources and isolated by dint of geography, should assume a greater degree of responsibility than others who were in a better position to deal with these matters, and evidence no lesser culpability in the broader historical sweep, is unreasonable.
That this neutrality was oriented entirely towards British interests is of course unspoken by Shatter, though more on that tomorrow. But in general terms I’d argue that Irish neutrality was, given the context the only rational course to pursue. It wasn’t heroic, and perhaps more importantly in the global scheme of things it had little impact [although I’d suggest that it was actually hugely beneficial to the UK and UK interests], but it was a matter of cementing the prospects of national survival.
Funny how no one talks about the IRA men who joined HM Forces in 1939, on explicilty anti-fascist grounds.
For a state to be morally bankrupt, also, it has to have some sort of moral capital – which is hard to see in the case of the Free State.
As for Alan Shatter, he’s probably the only Irish conservative who wouldn’t have been sympathetic to Herr Hitler had he been around in the 1930s.
Also, if Ireland had been indispensable to the allied war effort, it would have been occupied as Iceland and northern Iran were occupied.
That’s a very good point re Iceland, and it’s almost practically unknown.
I actually don’t think De Valera was sympathetic to Hitler. A lot of the books on the period paint him as actually much more sympathetic to the British than the general perception. There were some in FF who were far from antagonistic to Germany, but the generality of them seem to have been largely pro-British albeit unstated. That’s certainly my sense from reading a number of works recently on the Emergency period.
The occupation of northern Iran was also the only time the British and Red Armies mounted joint operations.
As for signing the book of condolences for the housepainter, it was outweighed (in my view) by having the Dail adjourn for a day as a mark of respect when FDR died.
Funny how that one isn’t any where as widely publicised.
On a slight tangent apparently De Valera and Churchill met in the early 1950s, De Valera had lunch or dinner with him in England and got on rather better than either of them had expected.
I’d be surprised if Churchill and de Valera hadn’t already met before – both were involved in the Anglo-Irish negotiations in London that ended the Irish war of Independence, after all (old adversaries, a grudge that Churchill certainly wanted to resolve in blood during WWII).
Given the vogue for Churchill bios, someone could
really write an interesting one about Churchill and
De Valera
I dont think devalera was in the London negotiations. I thought a key issue was Collins went and he stayed. Apologies if that is wrong.
I downloaded an rte podcast on churchill and Ireland the other day. Apparently Churchill’s earliest memories were if Irelad (Phoenix park in particular) and he was a big fan of home rule for a lot of his life.
He did apparently quite like Dev when he met him. Although apparently he liked Griffiths and Collins when he met them too v
No, I think that’s right, Ramzi, about Dev staying away from the London talks. He would later be accused of staying away so that he could keep his hands clean, and land Collins with all the blame for the outcome of the negotiations.
Dev was at the earlier round of London negotiations.
This led to Lloyd George’s famous remark about dealing with Dev being like trying to “pick up mercury with a fork” (to which Dev’s equally-famous response was to suggest he “try a spoon).”
Ah ok. I remember the quote, couldn’t remember the context.
It seems to me to be odd not to regard desertion as just that – desertion. That they deserted to join forces which were, more or less, on the side of the angels between 1939 and 1945 is an irrelevance: what if they had deserted, say, to work as missionaries or to devote their lives to prayer?
In any case I am sure that economic factors and the desire to advance a military career were factors in the decision as well as wanting to fight Fascism. It’s the British government that should be making a fuss of these soldiers, not the Irish government.
Well I’d hardly be jumping the gun to say that that’s more or less my sense of it too.
There was at least one study done which established that the economic factor was the primary one (I think I saw it quoted on Boards).
Shatter is a thundering disgrace as a Minister of Defence. First came his trawl for any old records of UNIFIL taking casualties from the Arab side in Lebanon (of course pushed in the media), then this.
Hijacking the issue of Irish Army deserters to gallop his Zionist hobbyhorse around the media a few times is particularly class. The Government should be asked if Shatter’s opinions on on Irish neutrality during the Emergency being immoral (because of Jewish persecution) is one that the Irish state now subscribes to.
Given Irelands lack of resources and, crucially, air force, it would have been suicidal to enter the war in 39-40.
However it could have entered the war in 44 I would have thought, and tried to gather what benefit it could from the fact – like the Turks. Sounds cynical, but thats realpolitick.
The not-letting in Jewish refugees is an absolute disgrace, but nothing to do with neutrality.
By the way, isnt there some kind of forest dedicated to Dev in Jerusalem, sponsored by Irish Jews – does anyone know what its for?
(I reckon Mr Hanley could help us all here)
I’ll do my best….there is a de Valera forest in Israel, near Nazareth. It was planted by Israelis of Irish-birth or descent in the mid 1960s. De Valera had visited Israel during 1950 and had long-standing good relations with a number of Irish Jews, and a strong friendship with Robert Briscoe the Fianna Fáil TD. (Briscoe had been a supporter of the most extreme wing of the Zionist movement in the 1940s).
A few things might be considered here. One, lots of Irish nationalists and republicans were all in favour of the Jewish resistance to Britain in Palestine and they loved all the stuff about groups like the Irgun being influenced by the IRA.
Secondly Israel was generally a lot more popular in the 1960s than it is now. (Whisper it quietly now but the Soviet Union supported setting it up you know).
Thirdly de Valera had been conscious of Irish Jews as part of the Irish nation- hence their mention in his 1937 constitution. Blatant anti-Semitism tended to be employed more by pro-Treatyites/Fine Gaelers in the 1920s and 1930s, often against Dev himself ‘the bastard son of a Spanish Jew’ etc (the British far-right thought this too).
The question of the war, refugees etc is too complicated to be used as a cheap debating trick, but that won’t stop anyone so here goes… The Free State’s refugee policy was broadly in line with everyone else’s: keep most foreigners out, especially the poor ones, Jews are trouble, if they are being persecuted it must be their fault etc. The US State Department said much the same thing.
(By the way, there are Irish Times editorials from the 30s that say all sorts of interesting things about Jews in Germany, I wonder if they’ll reprint any of them?)
Good work- I knew you wouldn’t disappoint!
Interesting on refugees, I seem to recall that nowhere was take in many of them. I presume at that point da Brits had restricted immigration to Palestine.
On the point about israel’s relative popularity I think I read something on slugger about a load of ex-Irgun guys coming to Ireland as late as the 70s and received a very positive welcome.
… From a particularly republican audience I meant to add.
heard a story of Irish – Jewish people or people sympathetic to Israel training with arms at the carlise ground of the kimmage road in the early 60′s. don’t know if they ever went over. but public sympaties was with the Israelis back then.
as if it could be an insult, but was dev ‘accused’ of being jewish by his opponents? his constitution was the first written constitution to recognise the jewish churches. i think thats noticable concidering how other states in europe where at the time. maybe getting the forrest named after him was just a matter of respect.
A case could be made that the participation of the Irish Free State in the Allied war effort would have been more detrimental to the Allies than to the Axis; (firstly) given that Britain would have had to take over the defence of the 26 counties – a waste of manpower, and (secondly) there would have been potential for guerrilla attacks on British forces in the 26 counties – with a further waste of manpower guarding against this.
Dispassionately the neutral but pro-Allied stance of the Free State govt. was of more benefit to the Allied war effort than would actual active participation in the war have been.
The issue of Jewish refugees before, during, and after the war, is a separate one – they faced similar treatment from states which were part of the Allies.
The Second World War wasn’t even over before the British state was right back into colonial wars and into a confrontation with the Soviet Union which threatened to take many many more lives than any atrocity of W.W. 2.
It would be pertinent to remember both the victims of those colonial wars (see for instance http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/25/malaysia-military) and those soldiers who refused to fight in them (http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001591/angels5.html – see ‘The Cairo Mutiny’).
An old republican friend of mine (interned in WW2) was part of a goup which was going to mPalestine in the late 40s to fight for Israel. This was arranged by a Jewish person in Belfast. He ended up supporting the Palesinians.
The most anti-semetic person in the Dail was Oliver J. Flanagan.
On pardons. Will this apply to those who fought Germany only or to those who repressed the Indians or others in the Empire as well.Will we have a retrospective award for the general who organised the massacre at Amiritsar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Was there not a famine in Bengal where the British allowed millions to starve. The people were kept down by, I would guess, some Irish deserters
And Flanagan was a TD (and minister) for Fine Gael. . . just like Deputy Shatter.
How’s that for Moral Bankruptcy?
Flanagan was a Monetary Reform TD (and very close to Ailtirí na hAiséirghe) when he made his various anti-Semitic speeches in the Dail. (He didn’t join FG until the 50′s I think). The context of his speeches was important too- he was complaining about de Valera’s clampdown on the IRA and asking why laws being enacted against Irishmen were not being enacted against Jews. He would have been seen as one of the few TDs who opposed internment and executions in the war years.
But there was plenty of anti-Semitic stuff from Fine Gael in the 30s.
On the issue of pardons, weren’t there two British soldiers who deserted in Belfast in the 70′s and were sheltered by the Officials (I think there was reference to that in ‘The Lost Revolution’)? I think there was a documentary on them and both of them got pretty severe sentences; 7+ years.
I’m nauseated by the hypocrisy on this issue. These men voluntarily signed up for the defense forces; 70,000+ from the Republic voluntarily signed up for the British forces in WW11. These guys made a poor choice but desertion from any army under any circumstances will result in serious consequences; they were lucky there weren’t born in the Soviet Union where, I think, almost half a million members of the Red Army were executed for desertion or ‘cowardice’.
Yes, they’re treatment was harsh and vindictive; but the Irish state of the time was a harsh and vindictive state – they should have known they were making a very serious decision when they deserted.
And there are good points about what roles the British forces in WW11 played outside of Europe and the Western Front. For instance, the massacre of Greek left wingers in December 1944 in Athens, when the KKE (or its predecessor) refused to follow a British order to disarm (40+ dead). Strangely, we haven’t seen many movies on the BBC about that incident! Nor are we like to see too many movies about British conduct in Malaysia (Scots Guards beheading communists) nor Kenya (mass torture and murder).
So maybe WW2 wasn’t a crusade against fascism after all then but a continuation of WW1? Few see WW1 as a crusade for democracy.
All this reeks of hypocrisy.
Anyway Feargal Keane had series on Irish history on UK TV recently and he talked about the many ways Ireland helped the allies (the UK mostly) during the war. There might even be an argument that Ireland wasn’t really neutral.
As far as I can make out Belgium, Holland etc were neutral at teh outbreak of WW2 and hoped to stay out of it. Why don’t they get flack for that? Somehow some people expect Ireland to come to Britain’s aide as a duty.
Oh, it was a crusade against fascism, it just wasn’t only that.
And don’t forget the Allied invasions of Russia (and other places) in the aftermath of WWI. This somehow usually gets left out of the glowing annglophone accounts of the period that we’ve been treated to by the British media (and increasingly in recent years the Irish one, as well).
I think the current line of mainstream historians on that one is that the intervention forces in the Russian civil war played a very minor role.
I’m also sure I read a Churchill quote from 1921 to the effect that if the Russians wanted Bolshevism they should have it.
Yes, both soldiers (Colin Demet and Michael Hawkins of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment) returned to England and received harsh sentences. The family of one of them was also victimized. Demet wrote a book ‘Desertion:Bloody Sunday’.
That was in reply to CMK (above)
Cheers. The guy who featured in the documentary seemed permanently damaged by his experience.
“Oh, it was a crusade against fascism, it just wasn’t only that” – Dr X. I disagree, many who fought in it may have thought so, but it was a war of imperialist rivalry. “Fascist” Spain and Portugal were left untouched and their regimes were to last another 30 years after the war.
“I’m also sure I read a Churchill quote from 1921 to the effect that if the Russians wanted Bolshevism they should have it.” he may have done, sounds like a dismissive “if those stupid Russkies want it they can have it” comment, but he was very much anti-communist and welcomed fascism in Italy as a bulwark against its spread. Labour MPs gave him mock fascist salutes when he returned after a trip to Italy before the war. What turned him against Mussonlini was his realisation that he could be a threat to the British Empire. At the same time Churchill wasn’t a fascist himself. Not appropriate for the Brits!
“Not appropriate for the Brits!”
Well, recall Stanley Baldwin’s line on Mosley: “He is a cad and a bounder and they will find him out” (“they” being the voters).
Can I add that thsi is helping create an athmospher that allows the government to deepen its involvement in thinly disguised NATO adventures. We have troops in Kabul. The antiwar movement needs all the help it can get. Bit by bit, our neutrality is being eroded.
That’s the crucial point, isn’t it? Shatter is not making these comments in any old context – it comes just a few days after Ireland voted to support the EU oil embargo on Iran. He’s trying to cynically misappropriate the Holocaust to blackmail opponents of the war drive against Iran – you can just imagine the lines he’ll come out with if anyone calls for Ireland to stay out of the war coalition, ‘just as Ireland abandoned the Jews in their hour of need in WWII, now, too, the advocates of neutrality would have us turn a blind eye to a fascist genocidal regime that threatens world peace’.
Right on, Ed! Right on, Jim!
Shatter is threatening Irish military neutrality (we’ve little of any other kind left)
If we meet people infected by his arguments, we should stress what has been remarked: that we were not alone in the gentile world in blocking Jewish entries to our country. Britain did so and the USA (‘Give me your huddled masses yearning to be free,’ anyone? There was, I seem to remember, a film about that in the ’70s), and the Irish could have argued that their economy would have been rather less able to handle any influx. What does Shatter think Ireland could have contributed to licking Hitler, anyway? Admittedly, though WW2 was indeed an imperialist war, of course, it had dimensions that did not exist in the first; it was indeed against Fascism, albeit, as has been remarked, partially and within the guidelines of the interests of the imperialist victors. This fact did mean that for perhaps a third of a century following, humanity was able to get a better deal (Democracy, de-colonisation, welfare state, etc) that would not have been possible had the Axis pulled off a win.
Two other points. Firstly, there was a lot of anti-semitism in Ireland and in Irish political life at the time, stretching from sections of the IRA to leading members of Fine Gael (OJ Flanagan had yet to join: but as the Dail’s resident Anti-semite he had been preceded by Paddy Belton senr.). On the whole Fianna Fail (the Briscoe connection, perhaps) and Labour were relatively untouched.
Finally, as far as knowledge of atrocities is concerned, I remember my father, who was an RAF surgeon during the conflict telling me that when news of the death camps were published, he just could not believe them until people he knew he could trust confirmed the matter. I suspect the incredulity factor was greater amongst the Irish.
Keogh’s book s very good on antismitism, mind you so is the recent book by Douglas on Altrisighe.
My gran had a neighbour in Bandon who, on hearing the Dimbleby broadcast of the liberation of Belsen, unplugged her radio from the wall, carried it out to the back yard and put it in the bin.
Mind you the Bandon valley may have been peculiar. In addition to having staunch republicans, it also had Lord Bandon, who was something high up in the RAF. At least one RAF type retired there after the war: I’m told he used to come and hide in my gran’s kitchen when his wife was after him.
[...] Irish Neutrality in World War Two (cedarlounge.wordpress.com) [...]