Sir, – Irish wartime neutrality during “the Emergency”, that ridiculous euphemism, was “pragmatic” and the expression of nascent sovereignty in an infant State, according to Prof Ferriter (Opinion & Analysis, February 4th). In reality, it was a “proxy neutrality”, as Great Britain was the only available guarantor or defender of Irish neutrality, and all that stood in the way of invasion from the likeliest quarter, Nazi Germany.
Had Britain been defeated or capitulated, which was a very close call indeed and something few Irish commentators, including Prof Ferriter, it appears, fully appreciate even today, it is scarcely short of a certainty that Irish neutrality would have been immediately violated by an invading German war machine for access to Irish ports and airspace controlling the entire north Atlantic approaches. A token Irish Army would have been completely helpless to intervene. Indeed, Churchill could and did feel justifiable pride over defeating Germany without violating one square inch of Irish sovereign territory.
Instead of an iota of gratitude from de Valera, however, what followed were a number of gestures, gratuitous in the extreme; his thankless attitude to Great Britain for protecting Irish neutrality against German violation; his condolences to the German ambassador on Hitler’s death, a leader who had violated sovereignties up and down Europe, unlike Churchill, who de Valera saw fit to impugn for his would-be aggressive designs; his sentimental, special pleading over Churchill’s mild rebuke of Irish neutrality by asserting that Great Britain’s necessity to survive – “a deadly moment in our life” – was somehow morally equivalent to Ireland’s, under no threat as long as Great Britain stood firm; and the pinnacle of ingratitude, his odious and spiteful treatment of Irish Army “deserters” to more credible British forces where they could and did do much more good, bravely defending the very neutrality de Valera cherished. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (Opinion & Analysis, February 8th) mentions how many citizens of the State from 1939 to 1945 viewed neutrality as “morally superior” to the position of belligerents. It is worth noting some possible reasons for such a proud sentiment. The neutral policy inspired a national consensus and gained all-party support. It thus helped heal and bind the State together. As well, it kept the country safe and free. Having no enemies, “a small nation stood alone”. – Yours, etc,