Policy of Irish Ireland: World

¶ … Policy of Irish

Ireland: World War II Neutral?

The subject of Ireland's neutrality during the second world war is a multifaceted one. In an attempt to prove its independence from Great Britain, Ireland officially took a neutral position in the face of the war. Was this solely to demonstrate its independence? Or were there other reasons for this supposed state of non-involvement? For that matter, can it be said that Ireland was indeed neutral in light of its actions during the course of the war and the events leading up to it (mainly the discourse regarding use of its ports and the number of Irish soldiers who enlisted on the side of Britain)? A number of texts and papers about and from that time in Ireland's and England's history shed light on the matter. This discussion explores the facts and situations that both led to Ireland's decisions during the second world war and also the effects those decisions had on the nation and its allies.

One cannot discount, of course, the natural fear in the face of aggression on the part of the axis nations, predominantly Germany, in the years leading up to and during the war. An air raid on Dublin in 1941 did not coax Ireland to officially join the fight, though it may be speculated that this was due to a fear of further retribution on the part of Germany (Cavendish 610). As it was, though the nation remained neutral from a political standpoint, it did not stop Irish soldiers enlisting to aid Britain against the German threat (Althoz 130).

The larger action (or perhaps it may be viewed as inaction) came by way of the removal of a treaty that granted Britain use of Ireland's ports. "The Irish government, which protested vigorously but impotently against Allied military activity in Northern Ireland […] denied the British government its treaty rights to the use of Irish ports which were badly needed..." (Cavendish 609). In so doing, Ireland not only prevented Britain from making use of said ports, which, as suggested by Cavendish, may have greatly aided against both the German and Japanese threats. This open opposition of Northern Ireland may have greatly hindered England's ability to defend and oppose axis nations during the course of the war. Such opposition can hardly be thought of as neutral. Perhaps, had the treaty not existed in the first place, and Ireland simply refused to agree to it, the nation could hold to some form of neutrality. However, by rescinding the treaty that already existed, Ireland was indeed affecting the course of the war and Great Britain's position in said conflict.

Was it the nation's pride that led Ireland to repeal the treaty? Two sources take different stands. The first is a letter from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in which he writes, "That bad man may as you say try Ireland and the mad policy of de Valera makes it difficult to ward off the first lodgement" (Churchill, Gilbert 73). Churchill references "that bad man," clearly meaning Adolf Hitler. The other mentioned name, "de Valera," was, at the time, the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs in Ireland. Churchill is, indeed, speaking of de Valera's rescinding the Treaty of 1921 which would have granted Great Britain the use of Ireland's ports. Churchill's letter (written to the Earl of Selborne in 1941) condemns de Valera's repeal of the treaty as "mad," and continues to assure the Earl that despite de Valera's actions, Britain is doing all that it can to avoid invasion via Ireland.

According to Eamon de Valera, his refusal to grant Britain use of Ireland's ports was indeed a measure of maintaining independence. Despite his determination that Ireland should seem neutral, his own words in reply to Churchill's repeated attempts to secure access to the ports suggests that if the time came for it, Ireland would fight in its own right against any invading threat. As de Valera is quoted in Josef Althoz's text, Selected Documents in Irish History, "certainly, as long as this Government remains in office, we shall defend our rights in regard to these ports against whoever shall attack them, as we shall defend our rights in regard to every other part of our territory" (133). Eamon de Valera seems to have been talking about more than one threat in his response to Churchill's persistence. On the surface, he is saying that Ireland will fight against invading forces...in other words, if Japan or Germany invaded Ireland in earnest, it is clear by de Valera's words that he intends England to hold no concern that Ireland would not be victorious against them. But a more careful reading of de Valera's words paints England, and Churchill, as just as much of a threat. While not suggesting that either are a physical danger, he suggests that both are endangering Ireland's rights and autonomy, and therefore, according to de Valera, granting rights to Ireland's ports would be nothing short of abandoning the independence that was so recently won (twenty years earlier).

Propaganda in all nations was the order of the day -- it is very likely that both de Valera and Churchill engaged in propaganda campaigns intent on either pursuing access to the ports or refusing said access. Either way, can it still be said, after examination of the discourse between the two nations, that Ireland was, in fact, neutral? While, as a nation, it may not have officially sided with either the axis or the allied forces, its actions affected the course of the war and the manner in which the allies were forced to consider defense of Great Britain. Though de Valera likely saw Churchill's attempts to secure port access as shrouded attempts to once more subjugate Ireland, and thus believed his refusal both honorable and necessary, the fact remains that though he protested that Ireland was a neutral nation in the course of the second world war, it did, in fact, stray from that central point.