Alan Shatter Minister of Defence : Irish WW2 Neutrality 'Morally Bankrupt'

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Morlar wrote: »

First of all let's recap - You are asking me to disprove something which has not been established to begin with.

I would point to his abysmal record on Ireland. His personal role in the lead up to the Irish Civil War as referenced above can not be ignored.

In addition to that :

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/britains-greatest-was-our-worst-enemy-when-the-chips-were-down-134908.html




Even before the above points his earlier role as architect of Gallipoli (as first lord of the admiralty) which led to the pointless deaths of at least 4,000 Irishmen would also be a consideration :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1115/1224283324914.html

Churchill on the Irish : "The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable." -- Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

Morlar

Other - please explain

More on Churchill's attitude to Ireland from Sir. Henry Wilson (later assasinated by the IRA)

http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/retribut.html

September 23, 1920. Sir Henry Wilson, C.I.G.S., recorded in his diary, "Tudor made it very clear that the Police and the Black and Tans and the 100 Intelligence officers are all carrying out reprisal murders. … At Balbriggan, Thurles and Galway yesterday, the local Police marked down certain SFs (Sinn Feiners) as in their opinion the actual murderers or instigators and then coolly went and shot them without question or trial. Winston saw very little harm in this but it horrifies me." (Wilson's Diary, 23rd September 1920)

More on Churchills record in Ireland:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/9/1/Ainsworth_Black_conf.PDF

But London and the Secretary of State for War, Sir Winston Churchill, in particular, were clearly responsible for a further initiative in the process of militarizing the RIC, namely the creation of the Auxiliary Division. Churchill planted the seed of an idea in this regard at a conference of ministers in London on 11 May 1920 when, in proposing an alternative
to substantial reinforcements for the Army in Ireland, he suggested raising a special force of 8,000 ex-soldiers to reinforce the RIC instead.9 Furthermore, he persisted with his proposal for ‘the prompt raising of a special Corps of Gendarmerie ... in aid of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the emergency period’ despite the clear opposition of a military committee of review appointed by Cabinet and chaired by the new GOC in Ireland, General Sir Nevil Macready, which rejected the idea as ‘not feasible’.10 Established in
July with an initial intake of 500 men known simply as ‘temporary cadets’, the Auxiliary Division, RIC, comprising ex-officers rather than ex-soldiers as originally proposed by Churchill, would never number more than about 1,500 men overall. But they did exceed their more numerous Black and Tan brothers in other respects for, in addition to being paid twice the ten shillings per day received by the latter for service in Ireland, the Auxiliaries were considered by Irish adversaries who knew them well to be more ruthless, more dangerous ‘and far more intelligent than the Tans.’

Tony EH

Other - please explain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Despite Churchill not because of...

...and by and large for monetary reasons, not moralistic.

My own father being one of them.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Tony EH wrote: »

...and by and large for monetary reasons, not moralistic.

My own father being one of them.

Or like my great-grand uncle - still alive, still active even at 93, who joined the RAF straight out of Secondary School. I rang him and asked why he joined up and his opinion of Churchill. He joined up because he 'always wanted to fly, didn't like the way the Free State was turning out and thought it would all be a bit of an adventure. Plus, did you every meet my mother? No? Blooming awful woman, couldn't wait to get away from her!'
His description of Churchill was 'an odious, braying, bully. A toad of a man who would sacrifice chaps to advance his career without hesitation. Thought that then and nothing in the intervening decades have given me cause to change my mind.' I laughingly asked who was worse - his mother or Churchill. He thought about it and said 'Dear Ol Mama was strictly small scale, personal terror. She never sent me out to bomb and kill thousand of civies in Cologne in the name of freedom and democracy. If she had, she would have at least been honest about it.'

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

First of all let's recap - You are asking me to disprove something which has not been established to begin with.

I would point to his abysmal record on Ireland. His personal role in the lead up to the Irish Civil War as referenced above can not be ignored.

In addition to that :

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/britains-greatest-was-our-worst-enemy-when-the-chips-were-down-134908.html




Even before the above points his earlier role as architect of Gallipoli (as first lord of the admiralty) which led to the pointless deaths of at least 4,000 Irishmen would also be a consideration :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1115/1224283324914.html

How is that any different to what I posted by Mary Kenny? That is simply an opinion but because it backs up Your opinion, it is the truth?

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is that any different to what I posted by Mary Kenny? That is simply an opinion but because it backs up Your opinion, it is the truth?

I posted facts including firsthand quotes. Here is a comparison :

Mary Kenny

And there are so many different kinds of approaches to Churchilliania, now, exploring many different facets to his character.

It is fascinating to see that a current aspect of Winston Churchill much in vogue is that of Churchill as...

Morlar wrote: »

[]http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/retribut.html

September 23, 1920. Sir Henry Wilson, C.I.G.S., recorded in his diary, "Tudor made it very clear that the Police and the Black and Tans and the 100 Intelligence officers are all carrying out reprisal murders. … At Balbriggan, Thurles and Galway yesterday, the local Police marked down certain SFs (Sinn Feiners) as in their opinion the actual murderers or instigators and then coolly went and shot them without question or trial. Winston saw very little harm in this but it horrifies me." (Wilson's Diary, 23rd September 1920)

Mary Kenny

At the end of that war, Winston became Colonial Secretary in Lloyd George’s Coalition, so he was to play a key role in the turbulent years that followed. And here, again, his reputation remains controversial. Tim Pat Coogan, biographer of De Valera and Collins, still refers to Winston Churchill as “the man who sent the Black and Tans to Ireland.” When I suggested to Tim Pat that that these forces – who had such a reputation for drunken atrocities - were despatched by Sir Hamer Greenwood, the Canadian-born Chief Secretary for Ireland, he insisted it was Churchill who was behind the idea. Though I feel sure the effect would not have been Winston’s intention.

Morlar wrote: »

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/9/1/Ainsworth_Black_conf.PDF

But London and the Secretary of State for War, Sir Winston Churchill, in particular, were clearly responsible for a further initiative in the process of militarizing the RIC, namely the creation of the Auxiliary Division. Churchill planted the seed of an idea in this regard at a conference of ministers in London on 11 May 1920 when, in proposing an alternative
to substantial reinforcements for the Army in Ireland, he suggested raising a special force of 8,000 ex-soldiers to reinforce the RIC instead.9 Furthermore, he persisted with his proposal for ‘the prompt raising of a special Corps of Gendarmerie ... in aid of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the emergency period’ despite the clear opposition of a military committee of review appointed by Cabinet and chaired by the new GOC in Ireland, General Sir Nevil Macready, which rejected the idea as ‘not feasible’.10 Established in
July with an initial intake of 500 men known simply as ‘temporary cadets’, the Auxiliary Division, RIC, comprising ex-officers rather than ex-soldiers as originally proposed by Churchill, would never number more than about 1,500 men overall. But they did exceed their more numerous Black and Tan brothers in other respects for, in addition to being paid twice the ten shillings per day received by the latter for service in Ireland, the Auxiliaries were considered by Irish adversaries who knew them well to be more ruthless, more dangerous ‘and far more intelligent than the Tans.’

Mary Kenny

On the other hand, there is little doubt that Winston’s crucial support of the fledgling Irish Free State – and his continuing trust of Michael Collins personally after they had signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty together – made him, to a very considerable degree the midwife to an independent Ireland, initially a Dominion with the same status as Canada and Australia.

Winston could never accept the idea of an Irish Republic because he felt it would be in essence hostile to Britain – and Irish Republicans certainly were good at giving that impression. But the more moderate Free State, drawn up in 1922, which accepted the Crown and had an Oath of Allegiance to the King was, to Winston Churchill, a legitimate state worth supporting, and in the civil war that ensued between Irish Free Staters and Irish Republicans, Winston did everything in his power to back the Free State.

Morlar wrote: »

Morlar

Other - please explain

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post

[]http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/retribut.html

September 23, 1920. Sir Henry Wilson, C.I.G.S., recorded in his diary, "Tudor made it very clear that the Police and the Black and Tans and the 100 Intelligence officers are all carrying out reprisal murders. … At Balbriggan, Thurles and Galway yesterday, the local Police marked down certain SFs (Sinn Feiners) as in their opinion the actual murderers or instigators and then coolly went and shot them without question or trial. Winston saw very little harm in this but it horrifies me." (Wilson's Diary, 23rd September 1920)

Just so we are clear about what is being discussed, here is one single example from October 1920 :

On the murders of Frank and Edward O'Dwyer by the British Army. 'My two boys who worked our farm are gone without reason or cause. They were shot down practically before my eyes. But let it be so. We will bear it all for Ireland'. Edward O'Dwyer who had been imprisoned under the DORA (Defence of the Realm Act) along with Frank were killed by black and tans Tipperary 1920, one brother survived and two were in America having fought with the American Army in France. At the military inquiry 'The military inquired for a description of the men who did the deed, even to the extent of asking if cap badges were recognised, but beyond the fact that they men wore Khaki uniform the family was able to give no further information. .. When Mrs Dwyer signed her deposition in Irish the military officer requested her signature in English, but she replied that she had affixed her name'. Second article relating to Message from DeValera and the Irish mission in the USA to Ireland on the death of Lord Mayor Terence MacSwiney.

It goes without saying that the British military court (under H.Greenwood) found no proof of involvement by British army personnel.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I posted facts including firsthand quotes. Here is a comparison :

Mary Kenny




Mary Kenny




Mary Kenny

It is 20% and 80% random opinion.

Are you seriously claiming that Ireland was used by Churchill to distract from tragedies like the Royal Oak or the sinking of a convoy?

neilled

Other - please explain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or like my great-grand uncle - still alive, still active even at 93, who joined the RAF straight out of Secondary School. I rang him and asked why he joined up and his opinion of Churchill. He joined up because he 'always wanted to fly, didn't like the way the Free State was turning out and thought it would all be a bit of an adventure. Plus, did you every meet my mother? No? Blooming awful woman, couldn't wait to get away from her!'
His description of Churchill was 'an odious, braying, bully. A toad of a man who would sacrifice chaps to advance his career without hesitation. Thought that then and nothing in the intervening decades have given me cause to change my mind.' I laughingly asked who was worse - his mother or Churchill. He thought about it and said 'Dear Ol Mama was strictly small scale, personal terror. She never sent me out to bomb and kill thousand of civies in Cologne in the name of freedom and democracy. If she had, she would have at least been honest about it.'

Your great uncle has some way with words. Legendary quotes!

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

neilled wrote: »

Your great uncle has some way with words. Legendary quotes!

His description of the Battle of Italy is 'Sticky.' He is a very funny man. Sharp and dry - like a good martini.

Fratton Fred

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Churchill on the Irish : "The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable." -- Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

That is an interesting quote. Do you know in what context it was made?

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is an interesting quote. Do you know in what context it was made?

His reflections on the War of Independence.

Fratton Fred

Bannasidhe wrote: »

His reflections on the War of Independence.

The quote is incomplete by the way, it should read"..these were the only alternative, and though each had it's advocates, most people were unprepared for either..".

It was on the Irish Spectre as well, not the Irish.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The quote is incomplete by the way, it should read"..these were the only alternative, and though each had it's advocates, most people were unprepared for either..".

It was on the Irish Spectre as well, not the Irish.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.

And what exactly is the Irish 'spectre'?

It seems to me that Churchill with his 'fight them on the beaches' when it came to the UK retaining its independence was being hypocritical when he failed to understand that the Irish wanted exactly the same thing - independence from foreign interference in how their country was run.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The quote is incomplete by the way, it should read"..these were the only alternative, and though each had it's advocates, most people were unprepared for either..".

It was on the Irish Spectre as well, not the Irish.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.

That really depends on what precisely is meant by "crush them with vain and unstinted force"

Given what is known about his support for murder gangs operating in the dead of night against unarmed Irish citizens it could be taken to mean unrestrained force against an unarmed, civilian population. If that is the case then I would clearly not be a reasonable observation. As it stands it is vague but definitely has a trace of the sinister about it in my view, (given what we know of his general record in Ireland).

Fratton Fred

The situation in Ireland, the one he stood up in Parliament and spoke about consuming so much of Britain's time.

He is simply stating that there was a significant situation and there were two alternatives. Where does he say which one he preferred?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

That really depends on what precisely is meant by "crush them with vain and unstinted force"

Given what is known about his support for murder gangs operating in the dead of night against unarmed Irish citizens it could be taken to mean unrestrained force against an unarmed, civilian population. If that is the case then I would clearly not be a reasonable observation. As it stands it is vague but definitely has a trace of the sinister about it in my view, (given what we know of his general record in Ireland).

It could.

Then again, he could be talking about the 1916 uprising.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The situation in Ireland, the one he stood up in Parliament and spoke about consuming so much of Britain's time.

He is simply stating that there was a significant situation and there were two alternatives. Where does he say which one he preferred?

Fred, with respect, you just don't seem to get it. Ireland was invaded, It was conquered using a combination of terror tactics, dodgy legislation and the destruction of its culture as a matter of crown and government policy. It's land was seized and much of the native population reduced to the status of tenants in their own country.
At no point did the Irish people ever stop attempting to regain self-determination. Yet, here we have this man issuing bellicose statements re British determination to repel the invader with all the resources available not just from the UK but also from Nazi occupied European States who had himself used terror tactics - not least the creation of the Tans and Auxies - to prevent Ireland from gaining the precise thing he was advocating for Poland - freedom from invaders.

The Irish had as much right to fight against a foreign state which sought to control it as Britain had - Churchill just could not accept this because in the case of Ireland Britain was the aggressor.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fred, with respect, you just don't seem to get it. Ireland was invaded, It was conquered using a combination of terror tactics, dodgy legislation and the destruction of its culture as a matter of crown and government policy. It's land was seized and much of the native population reduced to the status of tenants in their own country.
At no point did the Irish people ever stop attempting to regain self-determination. Yet, here we have this man issuing bellicose statements re British determination to repel the invader with all the resources available not just from the UK but also from Nazi occupied European States who had himself used terror tactics - not least the creation of the Tans and Auxies - to prevent Ireland from gaining the precise thing he was advocating for Poland - freedom from invaders.

The Irish had as much right to fight against a foreign state which sought to control it as Britain had - Churchill just could not accept this because in the case of Ireland Britain was the aggressor.

If you couple all of the above with the fact that some of the most prominent WW2 era british personalities (e.g. Churchill and Montgomery) had a personal record in the then recent history of Ireland this to me, tends to support the notion that many of those who decided to join the B.A. did so Despite of and not Because of Churchill.

Fratton Fred

The good old 800 years defence.

I'm surprised at you.

Tony EH

Other - please explain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or like my great-grand uncle - still alive, still active even at 93, who joined the RAF straight out of Secondary School. I rang him and asked why he joined up and his opinion of Churchill. He joined up because he 'always wanted to fly, didn't like the way the Free State was turning out and thought it would all be a bit of an adventure. Plus, did you every meet my mother? No? Blooming awful woman, couldn't wait to get away from her!'
His description of Churchill was 'an odious, braying, bully. A toad of a man who would sacrifice chaps to advance his career without hesitation. Thought that then and nothing in the intervening decades have given me cause to change my mind.' I laughingly asked who was worse - his mother or Churchill. He thought about it and said 'Dear Ol Mama was strictly small scale, personal terror. She never sent me out to bomb and kill thousand of civies in Cologne in the name of freedom and democracy. If she had, she would have at least been honest about it.'

Ha ha...nice to see his still has his sense of humour. Fair play to him.

Morlar

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The good old 800 years defence.

I'm surprised at you.

Dismiss it if you will, I am sure Shatter would agree with you on that. The relative history of both countries & the fundamental difference in the perception of the 'shared history' is a factor in the general discussion.

Similarly in WWI the British missed the point with their 'Freedom for small nations/Freedom for little Catholic Belgium' propaganda targetted irony-free at an Irish audience many of whom were not impressed (many also joined in vast numbers despite such inept propaganda).

Given that the events we are discussing here fall within the period of the aftermath of Irish Independence, & given that some of the main British players had form in Ireland, I think that there is a relevance there.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The good old 800 years defence.

I'm surprised at you.

Surprise at whom?
If it's me I am not using the 800 years 'defence' at you call it I am pointing out historical fact.
From at least 1543 when Henry VIII (having lost the so-called legitimacy granted by the Papacy for the English crown to 'rule' Ireland and, in contravention of numerous treaties), declared himself king of all Ireland - even those areas which had never been under English control- it was crown policy to destroy Gaelic Ireland and Anglicise the population - to turn them English in effect. Although Gaelic Ireland was destroyed - the Irish were never made English and continued to strive for self-determination.

Churchill was one of those on whose watch Ireland finally succeeded in gaining independence for 26 of its counties. The Unionists having been whipped into a frenzy of anti-Home rule by, among others, Lord Randolph Churchill, ensured the remaining 6 counties remained in the Union.
He was an Imperialist to the core and hated the idea that his beloved British Empire was beginning to fracture - led by those pesky Irish who simply refused to be British.
He loved his country - I get that. Sadly, he failed to realise that the Irish loved their country just as much as he loved his - and it was a different country to his - no matter what he wanted. And no matter how many troops were sent in, no matter how many died, it would always be a different country.
Really - what is so hard to understand about that?

Manach

Other - please explain

I've read a number of biographies of Mr. Churchill. I've always been impressed by the full life he lead and harbour an admiration for the man.
As Bannasidhe stated he was an old school belivier in the Empire and that Ireland having hived away from it was something he never would have forgotten or forgiven. However, I reckon at a personal level, Churchill would not have felt an animousity to the Irish, but he had a ruthless streak and if Ireland had threaten Imperial interests, he would have acted.

BlaasForRafa

Manach wrote: »

I've read a number of biographies of Mr. Churchill. I've always been impressed by the full life he lead and harbour an admiration for the man.
As Bannasidhe stated he was an old school belivier in the Empire and that Ireland having hived away from it was something he never would have forgotten or forgiven. However, I reckon at a personal level, Churchill would not have felt an animousity to the Irish, but he had a ruthless streak and if Ireland had threaten Imperial interests, he would have acted.

Given the situation in 1940 then for Britain all options would have had to be on the table, whether unpalatable or not. I doubt that anyone wanted to shell the french fleet at Oran and Mers-el-Kebir but they did it to stop the Germans getting a hold of a number of important ships.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Interesting letter in today's Irish Times

Sir, – Two points must be addressed before dealing with the main question of desertion.

Neutrality was the only realistic policy for Ireland. In 1939 just Great Britain and France of all the countries in Europe went to war with Germany. Others became involved only after they were invaded or were coerced into joining the Axis powers. In the uncertain state of affairs it was necessary to maintain the Army at as full a strength as possible until the cessation of hostilities in Europe, not least because of Éamon de Valera’s guarantee, repeated more than once, that in no circumstances would Ireland be used as a base for hostile action against Great Britain.

Desertion is a grave offence. On attestation, a recruit takes an oath to serve his country, the full implications of this having been explained to him by the attesting officer. The punishment for desertion, following a guilty verdict by a court-martial, is imprisonment. The dismissive statement in your Editorial (January 26th)describing as “codology” the assertion that desertion is always wrong is not merely offensive: it is foolish. Deserters are not schoolboys playing truant. No crime, however lightly it may be punished, can be air-brushed away as if it never happened.

More alarming, however, is the statement of the Minister for Defence (Home News, January 25th). He said: “Some of those [ie, Irish who fought in British uniforms] included members of our Defence Forces who left this island that time to fight for freedom.”

Left this island when we were on a war footing, as if they were free to come and go at will! The Minister for Defence has a leading role in the upholding of the Defence Acts. Is this his view of desertion?

Given that this was said by the Minister, could one see it being advanced as a defence in a future court-martial trial for desertion?

His further statement that “. . . in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy” is quite appalling. Is he saying that at the time that the horrors were emerging in 1945 we should not have been neutral? If so, should we have been in the war from the outset; or should we have joined in at some later date?

How does he envisage that such involvement might have come about? Of course, this controversy would not have occurred if the 5,000, like the rest of the 45,450 men and women from the then 26 counties that departed to serve in Britain without hindrance from the Irish government, had gone straight into the British forces rather than join the Irish Army and then desert.

I can accept the granting of pardons if doing so brings comfort to elderly men in their declining years, but this must not involve the condoning of their desertion. – Yours, etc,

DONAL O’CARROLL,
Col (Retd),
Moorefield Drive,
Newbridge,
Co Kildare.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224311249439

Sums up my view perfectly.

CDfm

Other - please explain

This bit is really succinct

His further statement that “. . . in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy” is quite appalling. Is he saying that at the time that the horrors were emerging in 1945 we should not have been neutral? If so, should we have been in the war from the outset; or should we have joined in at some later date?

I really would like to know .

Maoltuile

Other - please explain

CDfm wrote: »

I really would like to know .

I'd really like to know as well Minister Shatter's opinions on whether membership of the "Coalition of the Willing" (which apparently included us in some fashion, IIRC) in 2002/2003 was equally moral bankruptcy, seeing as though we now know that the Americans and Brits were lying through their teeth about the WMD justification.

Bannasidhe

Other - please explain

Diarmaid Ferriter also seems unimpressed with our Minister for Defence's comments

OPINION: Minister’s comments on Irish position reflect his own preferences and belie intricacy of period

DURING THE second World War, novelist Elizabeth Bowen travelled between Britain and Ireland and provided reports on Irish attitudes to neutrality and the British war effort to the dominions office and the ministry of information in London.

In November 1940, she offered the following assessment: “It may be felt in England that Éire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But this assertion of her neutrality is Éire’s first free self-assertion: as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Éire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative.”

This depiction of Irish neutrality, as seen through contemporary eyes, is clearly not shared by Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter, who has chosen recently to present it primarily as “a principle of moral bankruptcy” in the context of the Holocaust.

In doing so, he has underlined the dangers of reading history backwards, which has also been a feature of some of the commentary on the controversy over the actions of the 5,000 members of the Irish Army who deserted to fight with the Allies.

Both of these issues have raised a question that arose in 2005 at the time of the 60th anniversary of the end of the war, when some demanded that president Mary McAleese apologise for de Valera’s visit to the German ambassador, Edouard Hempel, to express condolences on behalf of the Irish people following the suicide of Hitler.

Such a demand posed a dilemma, now repeating itself: should contemporary politicians have to apologise for the perceived sins of their political ancestors, or is it the case that those passing judgment are simplifying the past to satisfy present-day political sensibilities or to pursue their contemporary political agendas?

The danger of framing these issues as morally black or white is that such an approach presents an analysis of historical events and experiences that is unhistorical and devoid of nuance or context. Defining Irish attitudes to the war and its attendant horrors is not well served by simplifying and distorting them into simple choices.

The complexities of the political and social attitudes of that era, wonderfully described by Clair Wills in her 2007 book That Neutral Island, were manifold. The difficulty of defining loyalty in Ireland in the 1940s, particularly during periods when invasion was a distinct possibility and when a genuine fear existed that Britain might seek to undo the Irish independence so far achieved, was compounded by many factors.

While there is little doubt that neutrality involved self-interest and managing apparent contradictions – de Valera mixed his public stubbornness with an informal pragmatism in relation to assisting the Allies – there was

the wider question of what neutrality represented at that stage in the State’s existence and the extent to which it marked the successful culmination of a foreign policy process of the 1920s and 1930s to maximise sovereignty.

It was something around which there was a high degree of political consensus in a State that was seeking to cement independence in the shadow of the devastating divisions of the early 1920s that had led to civil war. To maintain neutrality in the face of British and, after it entered the war, US opposition, took nerve and it represented a significant achievement, as well as generating pride in an infant state. This was later reflected in the positive public reaction to de Valera’s dignified response to Winston Churchill’s intemperate attack on Irish neutrality during his victory speech in May 1945.

While Shatter’s speech acknowledged briefly the concern for stability and protecting the achievement of independence, he was selective in the evidence he presented to justify the claim of moral bankruptcy. He cites the opposition of Charles Bewley, the pro-Nazi Irish ambassador in Berlin to the State accepting Jewish refugees, while failing to acknowledge Bewley was not representative of Irish diplomatic, political or public opinion; he was sidelined and unpopular with colleagues in the department of external affairs.

His attempt to reorientate Irish policy towards Germany according to his own preferences led to a falling out with Joseph Walshe, secretary of the department. In 2006, Cormac Ó Gráda pointed out in his book Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce : “Irish anti- Semitism existed and traces doubtless still persist, but it was of a relatively mild variety.”

Shatter’s pronouncements also underestimate contemporary confusion, uncertainties, scepticism about perceived propaganda, the influence of censorship and lack of access to concrete information.

As Clair Wills has observed: “the crucial factor which lamed the humanitarian response was the inability to contemplate, let alone comprehend, the true meaning and scale of the Jewish persecution until it was far too late . . . a reporting of the war denuded of all commentary, stripped of all specific reference to atrocity, produced its own kind of falsehood.”

Those who deserted from the Irish Army – and they deserted for reasons not just to do with opposition to Nazism – were dealt with harshly, and given the social and economic difficulties subsequently experienced by the deserters and their families, it can be convincingly argued that the price paid by them was unbearably high.

The case made by the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign is that a military tribunal rather than the government should have dealt with deserters, but they have also accepted unequivocally that desertion was and is a serious offence. Again, it can be seen that the issue was not and is not black or white.

The attempts by Shatter to paint Irish neutrality as dishonourable and amoral also conveniently overlook the wider cost of neutrality: it further entrenched partition, damaged relations with Britain and the US, and, as much of Europe rebuilt and prospered in the 1950s under the aegis of reconstruction, the Irish economy floundered and emigration soared. Such was partly the price of the State’s “first free self-assertion”.

Most disappointingly, the latter part of Shatter’s recent speech reveals his true agenda. He conveniently, due to his own preferences, insists that what he regards as the tarnished legacy of neutrality “delimits Ireland’s moral authority” to be critical of contemporary Israel.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0204/1224311248693.html

Maoltuile

Other - please explain

Whatever about the silence to date, someone like Ferriter making that last statement means that there'll surely be a response on this in the next few days. Should be interesting.