Sir, – Reading Brian M Walker’s excellent letter (February 10th) on the high politics of Irish unity and neutrality in the second World War prompts a reflection on how the reluctant citizens of independent Ireland – the southern loyalists – viewed the conflict. These were people who had joined up in 1914 to fight on behalf of the British Empire.
But they were more ambivalent in 1939.
A debate in the Senate at the outbreak of war is prototypical. Of the southern Protestant senators who spoke James Douglas, Robert Rowlette, and EH Alton favoured neutrality from a practical viewpoint, while only Sir John Keane spoke against. Southern Protestants who went and fought in the British military reflected this balance between practicality and idealism. Brian Bolingbroke thought that “Generally I had no objection to Ireland being neutral and thought it was the right thing to do... Neutrality was a good thing. It saved this country the appalling devastation I saw in Britain. Frank McLoughlin thought that “We were better off out of it.” John Jacob’s view was that “Neutrality only possible thing – we were a young state.”
The volunteers went because, in my uncle Michael d’Alton’s words, “that that bloody little monster from Germany had to be stopped”; Ireland would inevitably be next on Hitler’s hitlist. Nevertheless, he thoroughly agreed with the State’s neutrality. If Ireland had joined the war “. . . it would have been counter-productive and would have enabled Germany to invade from the west without international condemnation . . . We’d be more of a liability than an asset. Far more forces would have had to be devoted to our protection that were needed elsewhere”. John Jermyn was convinced that the German juggernaut would, if not halted, overwhelm Ireland; Hitler only had to send “a platoon of girl guides to take Ireland”. Perhaps all this subtlety is best summed up in the joke about the two Irishmen in the British army cowering in a foxhole in north Africa, under intense mortar and machine-gun fire, and they’re arguing politics, of course, as Irishmen do anywhere, and one shouts to the other, “Well, you can say what you like about de Valera, but at least he’s kept us out of this war”. – Yours, etc,
Have your say: Has Holyhead Port disruption impacted your Christmas present parcels?
‘She’s a broken woman’: Homeowner paid €9,000 to liquidated Dublin windows firm
Stephen Collins: Despite the rhetoric from Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin was the big election loser
Radio Review: At Newstalk, Ciara Kelly gets righteously annoyed
IAN D’ALTON,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Prof Brian M Walker cites Prof Paul Bew for the claim that on “June 28th, 1940, the British prime minister Neville Chamberlain conveyed to de Valera an offer of Irish political unity in return for full military co-operation” (Letters, February 10th). This is not possible since Chamberlain had resigned as prime minister on May 10th, 1940. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Sir, – When it came to Irish unity perhaps de Valera, unlike many more recent unionist politicians, had more sense than to believe a British prime minister making promises he had no intention of keeping, and in any case couldn’t.
“Ulster” wouldn’t have gone quietly, and as Prof Walker makes clear, still had influence at the heart of the British establishment. – Yours, etc,
EOIN DILLON,
Dublin 8.